Typo or Unlisted guns?

[AJAX22]

Does A typo create an OLL?

The Ingram M-11 made by Military armermants corp is actually stamped

M11 not M-11 as it appears in the legal code

(D) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11.


http://san1.atlanta.gbhinc.com/GB/099292000/99292115/pix2408866578.jpg

Does this mean the real guns are technically not an Assult weapons?

This could apply to a number of guns that are improperly refered to.

There is no SPAS12, however there IS a S.P.A.S. 12

(1) Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12.

If it is not listed by make/model through a typo does that mean we can have it if properly modified to remove features?

[Spyder]

I bet that would fall under some sort of "harmless error" clause or something and it'd stay illegal. Not something I'd want to test.

[AJAX22]

I really don't think there is any provision under the law for 'harmless error' it is either listed by make and model EXACTLY or it is legal.

As my 5th grade teacher used to say... Punctuation counts.

Another make/model that may be legal is the Uzi.

We are all agreed that the Group Industries guns are 100% legal.

However There is no mention of the IMI UZI model A or the IMI UZI model B

the only gun listed as being banned is the UZI, which (as near as I can tell) does not specify a manufacturer and does not specify any sort of model.

(1) UZI.

Look at it.... is UZI the make or model? if it is the make, then all IMI guns are legal (same reason that the Saiga 12's are legal), if it is the model then all Uzi model A and Uzi Model B guns are legal.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, they screwed up on this one.


Oh, and the Intratec KG99 open bolt semi auto pistol is also legal... (if you pin a 10 round mag in place) so is the Intratec AB9 and the Intratec DC10

[LECTRIKHED]

I don't think that logic would fly in a courtroom, or jury.

[LAK Supply]

How about typo and unlisted guns? :)

What's a listed gun BTW? :p

[ohsmily]

Just remember that one of the motivations behind the holding in Harrott was to allow a reasonably prudent gun owner to know whether a particular gun is prohibited or not. Thus, the striking of the AR15 (all) and AK-47 (all) provisions. I would imagine that the question of minor "typos" or de minimis mistakes in listing would be answered harshly by a judge in court. The average person or reasonable gun owner would certainly know that an Ingram M-11 is banned just as much as an Ingram M11. It is NOT a fight I would want to make. the chance of success is not good. Your logic runs counter to the rationale of Harrott.

[Big O]

It would be a sweet thang if it worked, which I highly doubt. It'd be nice to give the nanny state a taste of it's own medicine. How come the roster for "safe" handguns has to have every single detail such as finish or you can't buy it but this doesn't.

[Blue]

How come the roster for "safe" handguns has to have every single detail such as finish or you can't buy it but this doesn't.

THAT bugs the CRAP out of me. It's nothing but to waste gun company money and hassle them. Color doesn't matter :mad:

[LAK Supply]

THAT bugs the CRAP out of me. It's nothing but to waste gun company money and hassle them. Color doesn't matter :mad:

"Safe" handgun "roster?" WTF? :confused:

[thedrickel]

"Safe" handgun "roster?" WTF? :confused:

We get it, you don't live in the PRK any more. Thanks for the heads up. Now enough with the useless snide comments.

[LAK Supply]

We get it, you don't live in the PRK any more. Thanks for the heads up. Now enough with the useless snide comments.

Wow.... didn't need to be angry about it did we? I can have a little fun once in a while.... I rarely do it. I guess one useless snide comment deserves another though, right? :rolleyes:

[thedrickel]

How about typo and unlisted guns? :)

What's a listed gun BTW? :p

"Safe" handgun "roster?" WTF? :confused:


Twice in one thread is rare?

[LAK Supply]

Twice in one thread is rare?

As I said... I rarely mention it other than some pics of some scenery and a comment once in a while. It was completely harmless and there's no need to get bowed up over it... more important things to be angry about if that's what you need to do.


Edit: I just noticed the A's logo..... now I know why you're on edge. You need to move your loyalty to the NL on the other side of the bay..... you'll be a much happier person.

[JeffM]

Edit: I just noticed the A's logo..... now I know why you're on edge. You need to move your loyalty to the ****NL on the other side of the bay*****..... you'll be a much happier person.

...*****but would loose all self respect and dignity that a baseball fan could muster (which I admit is not much to begin with)*****

*****I haven't followed baseball more than casually since the '94 world series.*****

PS Tagged

[Technowizard]

Easy on the thread jacking fellas!

Back on subject, I would agree that the typo is TOO minor a technicality. The most important values/characters are there... M11... and - is a space filler. Any reasonable person of average intelligence could come to the conclusion that the weapon in question is banned, and I believe a court would find it that way as well.

A good example in my opinion of an incorrectly listed firearm would be the DPMS Panther. DPMS Panther is the make, and model listed is (all) (which isn't specific as Harrott requires), yet there are some DPMS firearms that are cali legal. Now thats confusion!

[AJAX22]

so what about the uzi?

[Bill_in_SD]

Or the HK 911

The 1 was added after modifying the stock to avoid the Federal AW Ban. Or something like that, an import issue anyhow.

[Hunter]

Or the HK 911

The 1 was added after modifying the stock to avoid the Federal AW Ban. Or something like that, an import issue anyhow.



This is different as the HK-911 is technically and legally a different rifle from the HK-91 model both on HK-USA books and with the ATF. Also this was done in 1990, more than enough time for the CA-DOJ to have added it originally if they wanted to.


Edit to add: A M-11 and M11 are the exact same gun where the HK-91 and HK-911 are visually different.

[Bill_in_SD]

Thanks for the information Hunter. I am sure it may still be a challenge to explain to local LE, though. Not much is out there regarding the HK-911, I guess there were not that many.

[redcliff]

Heres another:

RPB sM10 is listed

RPB sapM10 OLL?

[bwiese]

It is NOT a fight I would want to make. the chance of success is not good. Your logic runs counter to the rationale of Harrott.

Correct. I've written repeatedly about not playing trivial punctuation-based 'name games' involving hyphens or periods - and which would conceptually include things like missing or added suffixed to the mfgr like ", Inc." "Co.", or even "Company".

[CaliforniaCarry]

Correct. I've written repeatedly about not playing trivial punctuation-based 'name games' involving hyphens or periods - and which would conceptually include things like missing or added suffixed to the mfgr like ", Inc." "Co.", or even "Company".

That still doesn't answer any questions about the UZI. The manufacturer isn't even listed, period.

[bwiese]

That still doesn't answer any questions about the UZI. The manufacturer isn't even listed, period.

If it says "Uzi" on it then I'd avoid it.

Go for a Group Industries variant instead.

[AJAX22]

Why is a group industries receiver based Vector arms 'uzi' any different than an IMI Uzi model A or Uzi model B? or for that matter what about the Action Arms Uzi's? or the chinese knockoff uzi's, or the Lyttleton Engineering Works Uzi's, or the FN Hertzal Uzi's?

Heck even most of the real IMI guns were actually made by the Magen Company

Thats like calling all squared off guns ingrams

[redcliff]

Heres another:

RPB sM10 is listed

RPB sapM10 OLL?

In this example I've quoted, the RPB sapM10 is an open bolt model that was discontinued by 1982. I believe the sM10 is the closed bolt model, which is clearly a different model.

Just curious because I have a friend with one who tried to register it in 1989 and was told by the DOJ it wasn't on the list and couldn't be registerred. He's since removed the threads to be compliant.

[cbn620]

I don't think it would hold up in court, and that's what it comes down to. We don't get to decide what constitutes legality. A big overpaid fat man in a robe with a ridiculously expensive hammer and 100% legal immunity decides the law. And that's just the "judge"! Then there's the "jury", 12 randomly selected people who are not being paid, are forced to be there. 12 people who would most certainly rather be somewhere--anywhere else than sitting in a smelly courtroom.

The system is designed to be corrupt and bogus. Sadly it doesn't really matter what's right or wrong until some office of bureaucrats puts it into writing and it's heard in some "court".

[ohsmily]

The system is designed to be corrupt and bogus. Sadly it doesn't really matter what's right or wrong until some office of bureaucrats puts it into writing and it's heard in some "court".

What do you mean? How so? The same system gave us Harrott.