any Info or insite on the zipgun laws

[Mikeb]

A zip gun means a weapon or device made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an
explosion or other form of combustion which was not imported by a person licensed pursuant to
federal law, not designed as a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to federal law and on
which no federal tax was paid nor exemption from federal tax granted. (Penal Code § 12020(c)(10).)

Does this mean I can't make a long gun or pistol of my own design. I'm part way though a 38-55 falling block that has some resemblence to JMB's 1885 highwall. I once got to fondle Merryweather Lewis' hiden trigger flintlock pocket gun, I'd like to make something like that. I'd like to make a big bore falling block handgun, maybe a new 1911, a flintlock pirate pistol would be fun. At the federal level front stuffers aren't even firearms. I'm not so sure about CA. It sorta sounds like "hairspray spud guns " are zipguns.
I try to do my homework before I ask these questions... but after 3-4 hours of reading CA gun laws this grey goo starts dripping out of my ears and I get a bad headache.
thanks for any help... did I say this is a great and much needed site
Mike

[ke6guj]

Here is the entire PC for zip guns, not a condensed FAQ:
12020(c)(10) As used in this section, a "zip gun" means any weapon or device which meets all of the following criteria:
(A) It was not imported as a firearm by an importer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(B) It was not originally designed to be a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(C) No tax was paid on the weapon or device nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(D) It is made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.

Current thought is that any homebuilt firearms must be built in an already "manufacturer designed" configuration. However, I think that part C may give us an exemption because of no need to pay the excise tax on a homebuild. In fact, even 07 manufacturers are exempt from paying the tax if they make less than 50 firearms per year. So, if we are exempt from paying the tax, does part C still apply? And if it doesn't, then we don't meet ALL of the following sections and there is no zipgun violation.

Basically, I think we need to further research the referenced sections pertaining to that tax exemption.

[bwiese]

Here is the entire PC for zip guns, not a condensed FAQ:


Current thought is that any homebuilt firearms must be built in an already "manufacturer designed" configuration. However, I think that part C may give us an exemption because of no need to pay the excise tax on a homebuild. In fact, even 07 manufacturers are exempt from paying the tax if they make less than 50 firearms per year. So, if we are exempt from paying the tax, does part C still apply? And if it doesn't, then we don't meet ALL of the following sections and there is no zipgun violation.

Basically, I think we need to further research the referenced sections pertaining to that tax exemption.


My thinking: zip gun issues may well be avoidable if the designs are truly recognizable as firearms and not as another object, and use conventional ammunition, and have a rifled barrel. Having sights and a safety and some practical accuracy at a distance also would help - to contrast it from contact or ultra-short-range devices related to 'bang sticks'.

[Mikeb]

Thanks Ke6guj, I've never thought I was breaking the law. But shouldn't there be a law that sayes that law should be written in a way that a resonable person could understand it. I wrote to the DOJ last week to ask about this...but that was after I read something here that said the DOJ told someone they should make a pistol out of a rifle... which is forbidden by federal law. ...then I read 30 pages about the milpitas recievers. I don't get it... do any of these agencies know what the law is... if they don't... how should I? I have some assumptions about what the law might be, but they are based on understandings from folk that live in other states.
any way thanks for your reply I wondered about that , and I'm not a manufacturer...I'm making one that can't be transfered... maybe willed in my estate, but there should be no tax issues at stake.
thanks
Mikeb

[ke6guj]

My thinking: zip gun issues may well be avoidable if the designs are truly recognizable as firearms and not as another object, and use conventional ammunition, and have a rifled barrel. Having sights and a safety and some practical accuracy at a distance also would help - to contrast it from contact or ultra-short-range devices related to 'bang sticks'.
That would be nice if it was that simple. I know that they are trying to deal with those cobbled together true zip guns that use stuff like car antennas for barrels, or those Luty gun designs that use plumbing parts. Stuff that blows up after 1 or 2 shots.

The question then becomes, at what point does someone cross the line in creating their own firearm? Assume that it is meets all federal and state laws in design, ie: not a AW/MG/SBS/SBR/AOW/DD.

[Mikeb]

"My thinking: zip gun issues may well be avoidable if the designs are truly recognizable as firearms and not as another object, and use conventional ammunition, and have a rifled barrel. Having sights and a safety and some practical accuracy at a distance also would help - to contrast it from contact or ultra-short-range devices related to 'bang sticks'."

Ya know that's what I thought.... A zip gun is something you fashioned out of a 22 cartridge someone smuggled you and you make a gun with a pen and a bar of soap and rubberband. then you bust out of the slammer.

I think that is the federal definition ... the CA def. is different,at least according to the DOJ

"A zip gun means a weapon or device made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an
explosion or other form of combustion which was not imported by a person licensed pursuant to
federal law, not designed as a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to federal law and on
which no federal tax was paid nor exemption from federal tax granted. (Penal Code § 12020(c)(10).)"

but then ke6gut inserted the real code
"12020(c)(10) As used in this section, a "zip gun" means any weapon or device which meets all of the following criteria:
(A) It was not imported as a firearm by an importer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(B) It was not originally designed to be a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(C) No tax was paid on the weapon or device nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(D) It is made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion."

this one ... the real law has that law way of saying: if it is not forbiden it is allowed. And it makes me more confident. The Doj stuff seems to sound like " if we didn't say you can do it: you can't... hmm
good night
Mike
__________________
-----------------------

[hoffmang]

This is the section to hang your hat on until we do a bit more research into (C) No tax was paid nor was an exemption from paying tax on the weapon or device granted...

(B) It was not originally designed to be a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
An AR or AK pistol or a 1911 was certainly originally designed by a or built buy a licensee.

-Gene

[wilit]

The April 20, 2008 edition of Shotgun News has an article detailing building a rifle from scratch (They call it the SGN-9) which is not based on any current or past rifles. No where in the article does it really mention anything about legality other than to make sure you build a semi-auto and follow your local laws.

[ke6guj]

The April 20, 2008 edition of Shotgun News has an article detailing building a rifle from scratch (They call it the SGN-9) which is not based on any current or past rifles.
Shotgun News is actually sponsoring scratch-build contests at www.weaponeer.net right now.

[Mikeb]

You might like to check out
http://www.homegunsmith.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi
As a quest you can see the Hall of Freedom which is a gallery of homemade firearms.
My interest in gun building involves exspensive pieces of obduate metal and a whole bunch of head scratching.
The other question I will ask is : what about black powder front stuffers. By federal law they aren't firearms at all, and can be traded without atf license. Maybe if ya stick close to the patent drawings. I'd like a remington like rolling block cartridge pistol. Would that be a consealable zip gun? Would I have to file a form?

thanks
Mikeb
To all those who have responded, I've looked around here and know you as real heros in this trial of 2nd amendment rights. Thank you

I feel like a kid at Christmas waiting for Heller...

[RomanDad]

Yet another unintelligible law apparently inspired by West Side Story. Are "Zip guns" REALLY a problem anywhere except San Quentin? Seriously? Has anybody outside the Department of Corrections ever actually SEEN a Zip Gun? And if somebody used a zipgun in a CRIME, arent there lots of OTHER crimes they can be charged with other than the specific crime of "possession of a zipgun"? (whatever the hell that means, because I sure cant tell from that definition.)

If I was king, every law would have a 25 year sunset clause on it.... So when silly things get passed in the heat of hysteria, you can re-visit them after a time and ask "Was this REALLY necessary????"

The laws in this state need a good spring-cleaning, complete with a garage sale and trip to the dump for all those laws that are piling up in the closet under the stairs....

Wipe the slate clean and start again and this time ask "I know it seemed like a good idea at the time, but do we REALLY NEED THIS?"

Not only might it insure a leaner, meaner, more enforceable set of statutes that the citizenry could follow without a fortune teller and secret decoder ring, but it would keep the legislature too busy to sit around all day dreaming up MORE OF THIS SILLY CRAP to justify their salaries!

[AJAX22]

If a firearm is made for personal use it is automaticaly exempted from federal taxation unless it is an NFA item. (ask the ATF they'll tell ya ;))

Therefore, unless you are building guns with the intent of selling them (making them eligable for taxation), they can't be a zipgun in CA.

at least thats how I read it.

[hoffmang]

If a firearm is made for personal use it is automaticaly exempted from federal taxation unless it is an NFA item. (ask the ATF they'll tell ya ;))

Therefore, unless you are building guns with the intent of selling them (making them eligable for taxation), they can't be a zipgun in CA.

at least thats how I read it.

Having not yet done the heavy cross referencing to fully agree with you, that seems correct. However - what the heck does that section prohibit then? If someone makes a car antenna into a .22lr firing thingy that we've all known as a zip gun - well - it's not a zipgun because by federal law he didn't have to pay tax on it...

-Gene

[ke6guj]

found this website regarding homebuilt firearms in CA. Guy goes into some detail trying to parse the code regarding zip guns. http://www.savvysurvivor.com/law_research_on_home_built_firea.htm

The part to examine here is under section C. While you do not pay a tax on the weapon or device under federal law due to not being a licensed manufacturer. CPC 12020 10 (c) recognizes the federal regulation in regard to the legality of firearms built lawfully under current federal regulations and deferring to amendments under title 18 chapter 44 of the United states code. If we consider the term manufacturer, as it is stated in USC 18 chapter 44 , 921, a manufacturer is"(10) The term ''manufacturer'' means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term ''licensed manufacturer'' means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter. First, we have to consider who is exempt from the tax under 4181 ATF has held that the tax is paid when the item enters commerce. If you manufacture the gun yourself and are not a licensed manufacturer, there is the implied exemption from the excise tax as is common ATF practice. Part of this is the confusion in determining the trade value of an item that is not intended to enter into commerce and thus under section 4216, a price cannot be determined if the item is not offered for sale. Reference 4216 (B)1(a) "the item is sold at retail". The rest of 4216 relates to terms and conditions at which a price is determined for basing the excise tax. All of these terms and conditions are hinged on the gun entering commerce. The traditional tax being 10% to 11% of the wholesale trade price of the item that the manufacturer charges to a buyer which is usually the dealer or distributor. Note that this is not fixed as a percentage of a manufacturer's suggested retail price. Section 4221 is referenced in the text of the law and deals specifically to tax exempt sales and we can see the logic in how this would apply to a firearm that is not normally taxed by BATF.

Having not yet done the heavy cross referencing to fully agree with you, that seems correct. However - what the heck does that section prohibit then? very well may not prohibit anything. Woudn't be the first time a law was writen that didn't do what the lawmaker wanted. For instance, the entire 922(o) deal basically restated what existing NFA law was. However, the ATF decided to interpret the law as how Hughes intended the law to be. And the courts backed up the ATF on its interpretation.

If someone makes a car antenna into a .22lr firing thingy that we've all known as a zip gun - well - it's not a zipgun because by federal law he didn't have to pay tax on it...
it may not be a zip gun, but he'd still be nailed on the other 12020 and NFA violations.

[Mikeb]

Thanks Ke6guj I looked at savvy survivor. It was helpful but left some of the same questions. One big question that he wasn't able to shed much light on is muzzle loading replicas. The ATF defines them as non-firearms. You can make short barreled muzzle loading shotguns. Pistols with unrifled barrels...a blunderbuss... all legal and unrestricted. Both Dixie Gun Works and Track of the Wolf sell kits, parts and complete guns with no ffl required. I will continue to try to find more information. It may be time for a registered letter to DOJ asking for a ruling. THough after hearing that they told someone to turn a rifle into a pistol I have some doubt that even they know what the law is.
thanks
Mike

[GuyW]

wipe the slate clean....but it would keep the legislature too busy to sit around all day dreaming up MORE OF THIS SILLY CRAP to justify their salaries!

Or (without a clean slate) we could try to get them to justify their salaries by holding hearings on getting rid of specific laws...