PDA

View Full Version : Franklin Armory AR15 Pistols no longer legal under SSE?


Baboosh
07-24-2015, 3:17 PM
Everyone read the new memo?

Important Notice
Re: Franklin Armory model SE-SSP
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: The Department of Justice has determined that Franklin Armory model SE-SSP is a semi-automatic pistol that has been temporarily altered so that it will not fire in a semiautomatic mode and therefore the single-shot exemption does not apply. Accordingly, it may only be sold to specified law enforcement officers and agencies, and the military or naval forces of this state, for use in the discharge of their official duties. (See California Penal Code, Section 32000(b)(4).) The Franklin Armory model SE-SSP cannot be sold in California to members of the public.
Please ensure all staff that process DROS transactions are informed of this notice.

What if these were DROSed by an FFL?

What about other companies following the new SSE laws of bare receivers?

This could also affect home builds.

LeadFarmer74
07-24-2015, 3:23 PM
We can't have anything fun.

ke6guj
07-24-2015, 3:28 PM
:lurk5:

ASD1
07-24-2015, 3:35 PM
:grilling:

lorax3
07-24-2015, 3:43 PM
Edit: Just see here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1096668

The below is wrong and I thought it was related to something else.

Let's clarify a few things for folks who are not familiar.

This letter is about a single-shot pistol (SSE 2.0) that Franklin had the CA DOJ add to the list of "exempt" pistols because it met the PC32000 exemption. This pistol was manufactured by Franklin and was never configured as semi-auto. Franklin didn't need the CA DOJ to add it to the list of exempt pistols (it was already exempt), but they petitioned for it anyway.

Now the DOJ is saying this pistol does not meet the PC32000 exemption and therefore cannot be sold because it's an unsafe handgun.

Correct?

Baboosh
07-24-2015, 3:48 PM
Let's clarify a few things for folks who are not familiar.

This letter is about a single-shot pistol (SSE 2.0) that Franklin had the CA DOJ add to the list of "exempt" pistols because it met the PC32000 exemption. This pistol was manufactured by Franklin and was never configured as semi-auto. Franklin didn't need the CA DOJ to add it to the list of exempt pistols (it was already exempt), but they petitioned for it anyway.

Now the DOJ is saying this pistol does not meet the PC32000 exemption and therefore cannot be sold because it's an unsafe handgun.

Correct?

This is above my head, I will leave it to those with much more knowledge.

tenpercentfirearms
07-24-2015, 3:59 PM
Let's clarify a few things for folks who are not familiar.

This letter is about a single-shot pistol (SSE 2.0) that Franklin had the CA DOJ add to the list of "exempt" pistols because it met the PC32000 exemption. This pistol was manufactured by Franklin and was never configured as semi-auto. Franklin didn't need the CA DOJ to add it to the list of exempt pistols (it was already exempt), but they petitioned for it anyway.

Now the DOJ is saying this pistol does not meet the PC32000 exemption and therefore cannot be sold because it's an unsafe handgun.

Correct?

It would appear despite Franklin Armory manufacturing them as single shot pistols that require the disassembly of the action to reload, the DOJ is saying no they have only been temporarily altered. Likely FA is going to have to sue them over it.

I wish Pena would just be done with already.

ke6guj
07-24-2015, 4:03 PM
I wish Pena would just be done with already.

me too. I read the recent appeal submission and thought it well thought out, but I fear the 9th will just do this,

kD-AXgYO0lo

Baboosh
07-24-2015, 4:04 PM
It would appear despite Franklin Armory manufacturing them as single shot pistols that require the disassembly of the action to reload, the DOJ is saying no they have only been temporarily altered. Likely FA is going to have to sue them over it.

I wish Pena would just be done with already.

How about other manufacturers who made a single shot pistol from a receiver? Can this be a blanket statement or is it going to be contained only to FA?

It almost sounds like they are saying that any pistol that is built into a Single Shot but has the potential to be made into a none Single Shot is temporary and therefore not able to be sold.

CSACANNONEER
07-24-2015, 4:07 PM
The DOJ doesn't like when manufactures follow the law so, they make sheet up to stop lawful sales. Go figure.

offrdmania
07-24-2015, 4:23 PM
Dear Calguns,

I was going to be posting an announcement next week about how Franklin Armory was able to get the SE-SSP CERTIFIED by a state laboratory. Yes, that is right... Our little SE-SSP pistol passed all the drop tests and safety requirements!

Unfortunately, CAL-DOJ had informed us that they were not going to follow the law that they swore to uphold and that they were refusing to roster the SE-SSP even though they are statutorily obligated to do so. It is important to note that our pistol is still certified "Safe" under the act, and there is nothing that DOJ can do to un-ring that bell. If one reads the "Unsafe Handgun Act," you will likely find that only "unsafe" handguns may be prosecuted under the law.

You can imagine my surprise this afternoon when Cal-DOJ posted the announcement on the DES Log In! Not only is their posting libelous and inflammatory, it is demonstratively incorrect! The Franklin Armory SE-SSP sold in California has never been semiautomatic. It starts life at our factory as a single shot pistol. Consequently, it cannot be permanently or temporarily altered! If any pistol deserved to have legal clearance to transfer via SSE2, it would be our certified safe SE-SSP that was certified by the state's very own certified lab!

I want to thank Lorax3 who helped shepherd this idea into fruition. In a PM dated around early March, we decided that it would be a good idea to submit our single shot pistol for certification. In retrospect, that was a great moment promoted by the Calguns community, and I am pleased to have had an opportunity to work with Lorax on this!

I'm drawing a line in the sand. I'm tired of DOJ's tyrannical trampling of our rights. I'm no John Hancock, but at some point, patriots need to dig deep and stand up for what is right. The legal battle starts on Monday.

Should be a fun read on Monday

LeadFarmer74
07-24-2015, 4:25 PM
^ Thanks for posting that. Gives some background to OP's post.

lorax3
07-24-2015, 4:50 PM
Let's clarify a few things for folks who are not familiar.

This letter is about a single-shot pistol (SSE 2.0) that Franklin had the CA DOJ add to the list of "exempt" pistols because it met the PC32000 exemption. This pistol was manufactured by Franklin and was never configured as semi-auto. Franklin didn't need the CA DOJ to add it to the list of exempt pistols (it was already exempt), but they petitioned for it anyway.

Now the DOJ is saying this pistol does not meet the PC32000 exemption and therefore cannot be sold because it's an unsafe handgun.

Correct?

Might need to correct my original post now that news about their case is out. There are a few different things going on. I will sort out when I get home and explain.

SonofWWIIDI
07-24-2015, 5:14 PM
Saw the FA thread too. Posting here so I don't miss anything.

Good luck!

KING_PALM
07-26-2015, 11:50 AM
Read this when i logged into DROS some stuff. Sucks for FA.

kemasa
07-26-2015, 12:33 PM
Read this when i logged into DROS some stuff. Sucks for FA.

It sucks for everyone. If you make a bolt action pistol with an AR lower, they can claim it is not legal as it could be made into a semi-auto. The same is true with a frame from a handgun. The law says that it can't be converted to allow for the DROS to be submitted, now they are basically saying that if it could ever be made into a semi-auto, then it can't be transferred.

Do you really think that it is strictly limited to that one firearm?

Baboosh
07-26-2015, 12:48 PM
Nope. Given enough time and a TC can be a semi automatic.

KING_PALM
07-26-2015, 1:14 PM
It sucks for everyone. If you make a bolt action pistol with an AR lower, they can claim it is not legal as it could be made into a semi-auto. The same is true with a frame from a handgun. The law says that it can't be converted to allow for the DROS to be submitted, now they are basically saying that if it could ever be made into a semi-auto, then it can't be transferred.



Do you really think that it is strictly limited to that one firearm?


I understand everything that is in place and how certain things are effected. I should have put more than just " sucks for FA". It sucks for FA that they went through everything they did to make way for SSE2 and hoping to start the flow of AR pistols in ca again just to get shut down.


SSE is long gone and I personally don't see anymore loopholes coming to light so people can start buying off roster pistols. till then as we all know, gotta play the PPT game and pay more than you should for something you want.

kemasa
07-26-2015, 1:19 PM
SSE is long gone and I personally don't see anymore loopholes coming to light so people can start buying off roster pistols. till then as we all know, gotta play the PPT game and pay more than you should for something you want.

No more loopholes? Intrafamilar transfers from out of state. Not sure about moving into CA with firearms or dual residents.

KING_PALM
07-26-2015, 1:22 PM
No more loopholes? Intrafamilar transfers from out of state. Not sure about moving into CA with firearms or dual residents.


interfamily transfers doesn't = huge sales like SSE did. Those are small time compared to what SSE was doing for firearms sales in the state. Interfamily transfers also help fuel that $800 G43 in the market place.

kemasa
07-26-2015, 1:29 PM
It is still a loophole. Volume was not the question.

KING_PALM
07-26-2015, 2:03 PM
It is still a loophole. Volume was not the question.


my concern about this issue is that a company who is CA based is trying to abide by the law and sell firearms to the people
Who live in this state and make money at this same time. The situation sucks for everyone involved in California , the consumer and the manufacture. My next question to you is how soon till interfamily transfer gets closed because people are using it the way they are?

kemasa
07-26-2015, 3:07 PM
my concern about this issue is that a company who is CA based is trying to abide by the law and sell firearms to the people
Who live in this state and make money at this same time.


I have more concerns that just that. It is about people not being able to buy firearms which are actually legal and the reduction in what is available.


The situation sucks for everyone involved in California , the consumer and the manufacture.


Yep.


My next question to you is how soon till interfamily transfer gets closed because people are using it the way they are?

How would I know? You should ask the CA DOJ. I am not sure if they are concerned since the number of firearms is most likely not all that high. That might be a future target though.

jackw007
07-27-2015, 10:06 AM
So, does this affect new sales only? I purchased an SE-SSP from another Calgunner a couple of months ago - is it now suddenly illegal to own?

franklinarmory
07-27-2015, 10:36 AM
So, does this affect new sales only? I purchased an SE-SSP from another Calgunner a couple of months ago - is it now suddenly illegal to own?At this time, it certainly effects new sales. I don't believe that it effects PPTs, but it appears that following the written law is not a consideration for Cal-DOJ. ...so who knows what they will make up next.

Their illegal actions have attacked us on two fronts. First, with our drop tested, certified safe, pistol, and now with our SSE2 compliant pistol. Incidentally, we sent DOJ a copy of our 2015 CA manual when we initiated our process post AB1964. They refused to comment at the time.

I called into DOJ first thing today. The individuals that made the "determination" are not available to provide an explanation. Maybe they will call back. Maybe they won't.