View Full Version : FAL legal when separated into two halves?

08-01-2008, 4:15 PM
Hey all,

My other post about this rifle has gotten a bit jumbled up, I've gotten most of my answers but still have one important one that nobody has touched. So, I'm starting over with a new thread. Please bear with me, I'm trying to pool this information quickly so I can make a decision about buying this rifle.

On an FAL style rifle the upper receiver is considered the firearm, by removing the lower receiver (with its naughty, naughty pistol grip) that should make the rifle a non-AW immediately, correct? (Barrelled upper has no other evil features, ie: no flash hider, forward pistol grip, etc) I believe on this rifle you cannot remove just the pistol grip from the lower, it'll leave a mounting plate or stud that could still be considered a pistol grip, hence the separation of the upper from the lower.

My question stems from any grey areas of the law that covers whether or not you'd have to physically transfer and/or store the two halves in separate containers, or at separate locations. I know the assembled lower should be just considered parts (rememer, FAL) and I seem to recall that "constructive possession" isn't part of (California?) law. So simply put, just how far apart should the naughty lower be kept away from the benign upper? Then, beyond simple transportation, what about while the two halves are in your possession during storage?

Please note we've already discussed other methods of making this rifle legal in the previous post. I know I can mail the lower separately, etc, what concerns me is what happens when both halves are finally in my direct possession or ownership. All I'm interested in now is the answer to the above question.



08-01-2008, 6:37 PM
no f/h or foward grip your o.k. you could even have a threaded barrel and still be o.k. just to be safe i would still take the grip off of the lower. its easy to do and it would be just a little bit more cautious.

08-02-2008, 1:38 AM
Isn't an actual FN FAL named?

If you have a non-named gun, then what you describe definitely makes it legal. DOJ has put in writing that constructive possession does not apply to AWs.

If it is named, then we get dicy. It's not capable of discharging a cartridge (and therefore not a named RIFLE) and constructive possession is still not supposed to apply.

But it's perilous. very perilous.

08-02-2008, 6:26 AM
Isn't an actual FN FAL named?

I believe it is, yes. The particular rifle in question isn't an FN, its actually a Century R1A1, an FAL style rifle.

So if the two halves are sitting together (but not touching!) on a table, that should be legal?

I know its kind of a moot point argument, doing something like that would be a little dumb even if it were legal.



08-02-2008, 7:33 AM
Lets use the Sig 556 as an example. If you just separate the two halves, there is still a flash hider on the upper half, which is considered a firearm. Since the upper half is definitely centerfire and I am not sure if the lower end can be modified to make it a single shot, I would think a DA might have a chance of arguing your separated Sig 556 with a flash hider is still a semi-automatic, centerfire, detachable magazine rifle. Someone might get on here and argue its not and that is fine. The question is do you want to be a test case and help us get it resolved once and for all in a court of law? Personally, when you can put a magazine lock on the rifle and not worry about it, the risk to rewards ratio is not one I would want to take on.

Since a FAL style rifle is similar to the Sig 556 as far as upper vs. lowers, I would say it is in the same catagory for me. If you don't have a flash hider on it, you might be fine. If it does, leave it together with a mag lock.

Again, this is all theory and hypothetical and anyone can argue this one either way. The question is, is it worth it to you be the test case?

08-02-2008, 7:57 AM
On the Sig556 or the FAL, take out the gas piston and it now becomes a single shot. Problem solved...