PDA

View Full Version : Initial Pistol Flowchart thread


redneckshootist
02-24-2009, 4:02 PM
I brought this up in another thread and got the advise to start a new thread on it.

we got a flow chart for rifles but not for handguns or shotguns and since we now have the saiga 12 and there may be other offlist semi-auto shotguns availible soon. Also with the discovery of NERFs and a few 80% builders out there that made semi-auto ak and ar pistols ect. Now it may be to early to include the nerf part of it though since we still dont know some finer details about them. Mabey we can make a flow chart for pistols dealing with AW and do nerf later.

So who can make one
Here are the AW laws for pistols and shotguns
12276(b) All of the following specified pistols:
(1) UZI.
(2) Encom MP-9 and MP-45.
(3) The following MAC types:
(A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11.
(B) SWD Incorporated M-11.
(C) Advance Armament Inc. M-11.
(D) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11.
(4) Intratec TEC-9.
(5) Sites Spectre.
(6) Sterling MK-7.
(7) Calico M-950.
(8) Bushmaster Pistol.
(c) All of the following specified shotguns:
(1) Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12.
(2) Striker 12.
(3) The Streetsweeper type S/S Inc. SS/12

12276.1 (4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor,
forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon
without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the
barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location
outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

I would do this myself but Im probally one of the most computer illiterate persons here. I still use the two finger typing system and it took me a long time to type all this out.;)

savageevo
02-24-2009, 5:37 PM
Who was the originator of the first flow chart. Maybe we can beg him to help us out. I would love to help except I have way to much on my plate to put my brain effort into it.:confused:

Wildhawk66
02-24-2009, 5:49 PM
Member "Redhorse" assembled the chart. I believe he is also workign with the calguns foundation on educational materials.

leelaw
02-24-2009, 6:32 PM
Redhorse (and myself, briefly) worked on the centerfire rifle flowchart. He's got a better program to make the actual chart than I, though.

ke6guj
02-24-2009, 6:45 PM
If you are trying to come up with an "is this handgun legal" flowchart, you don't need to worry about NeRF or other methods of acquistion. The method of acquisition does not make the underlying handgun's configuration legal or not.

just start drawing out the logic questions in the same way that the existing AW flowchart is, and once the logic is traced out, then it can be visualized in the flowchart maker.

redneckshootist
02-24-2009, 11:07 PM
If you are trying to come up with an "is this handgun legal" flowchart, you don't need to worry about NeRF or other methods of acquistion. The method of acquisition does not make the underlying handgun's configuration legal or not.

just start drawing out the logic questions in the same way that the existing AW flowchart is, and once the logic is traced out, then it can be visualized in the flowchart maker.

Im gonna open a shop in woodland and it would be nice to pass out flow charts to customers. We are planning on some cool shotguns.:D Dont really want to get into much detail on what we are building untill I get a working model but there are some members who do know.

thisismyboomstick
02-25-2009, 8:07 PM
Member "Redhorse" assembled the chart. I believe he is also workign with the calguns foundation on educational materials.

Wrong. I created the original flowchart.

Redhorse took my work, downloaded some shareware, and prettied it up.

REDHORSE
02-26-2009, 6:10 PM
This was going to be the next flowchart I was going to work on. I jotted a few things on a notepad as an outline, but haven't put anything yet into Smart Draw yet.

I figured a lot of things are about to change in this area and I didn't want to put too much time into it, when it could all change in a few months.

I guess we can start posting the brain storming now in this thread and I'll begin incorporating my notes and stuff from this thread into the CA Pistol flowchart.

I willing to help out and "prettied" it up to make it presentable.

Sam
02-26-2009, 7:13 PM
Im gonna open a shop in woodland and it would be nice to pass out flow charts to customers. We are planning on some cool shotguns.:D Dont really want to get into much detail on what we are building untill I get a working model but there are some members who do know.

I would definitely love an FFL that doesn't take 30-45 minutes to get to.

ke6guj
02-26-2009, 7:36 PM
Here's the initial logic flow I have mapped out. It should get us started. I am only mapping the legality of the actual handgun as possessed. Not including roster-questions as to how the handgun was obtained.

does the firearm have a barrel less than 16"? No, not a pistol. End.
yes, is a pistol.

Does the firearm have a smooth bore? Yes, smooth-bore handgun, illegal unless properly registered as an AOW. If registered, continue.
no. is not an AOW. Continue.

Does the firearm have a vertical forward grip? Yes, considered a AOW, illegal unless properly registered as an AOW. If regisitered, continue.
no, is not an AOW. Continue.

Does the firearm shoot a fixed-shotgun shell? Yes, considered a short-barreled shotgun. Illegal unless registered as an SBS.
no, not an SBS. Continue.

Was the firearm made from a rifle? Yes, considered a short-barreled rifle. Illegal unless registered as an SBR.
no. not an SBR. Continue.


Is the firearm registered as a pistol AW? Yes. legal. END?
no, continue.

Is the firearm listed as an AW per 12276(b)? Yes. Illegal.
no. continue.


Is the firearm a revolver, bolt-action, or lever-action or single-shot handgun? Yes. legal. End?
no, continue

Is firearm semi-automatic? NO, I don't know what other options there are. END?
yes, continue.

Does firearm have a fixed mag over 10 rounds? Yes. Illegal. END.
no, continue.

Does firearm has a detachable magazine? no. with a fixed mag, firearm is not an AW. END?
yes, continue



does the handgun have the evil features? Yes, illegal if not registered as an AW.
no. legal? END??


I have END? listed as ending points, as I think it is legal, with no other questions to ask. But if I missed something, let me know.


edit: trying to think of any "exotic firearm" questions need to included.

"handgun" should replace "firearm" for most questions.

ke6guj
02-26-2009, 7:50 PM
redneckshootist, maybe it would be wise to edit the title of this thread if we are gonna start graphing out a handgun legality flowchart in this thread.

obeygiant
03-03-2009, 10:34 AM
Here's the initial logic flow I have mapped out. It should get us started. I am only mapping the legality of the actual handgun as possessed. Not including roster-questions as to how the handgun was obtained.




I have END? listed as ending points, as I think it is legal, with no other questions to ask. But if I missed something, let me know.


edit: trying to think of any "exotic firearm" questions need to included.

"handgun" should replace "firearm" for most questions.

Since you've already done the hard part, I went ahead and put it into Visio. Once everyone agrees on the facts and flow of the chart I can clean it up to make it pretty like the polished one that we all know and love by REDHORSE or it can be sent to him to clean-up. Either way is fine with me.

It was created in Microsoft Visio 2003 so it should open fine in both Visio 2003/2007.

cedricxerxes
03-03-2009, 11:41 AM
I don't have access to Visio, so I don't know if this is already covered. It looks like y'all have this pretty well sorted, but here's a link to a similar flowchart from a Federal standpoint.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=17&t=270572

Also ke6guj, have you considered adding footnotes about general 922 compliance and/or your C&R SBS/SBR & non-pen gun AOW's info?

obeygiant
03-03-2009, 1:41 PM
here's the .jpg version. I should've included that with the visio diagram, my apologies.

ke6guj
03-03-2009, 4:00 PM
Since you've already done the hard part, I went ahead and put it into Visio. Once everyone agrees on the facts and flow of the chart I can clean it up to make it pretty like the polished one that we all know and love by REDHORSE or it can be sent to him to clean-up. Either way is fine with me. it definitely needs some clean up in the questions. I just tried to start fleshing out the logic. Basically, when I had a "continue" in an answer box, it needs to loop back into the flow. Also, some questions may be out of order, but I wanted to get the AOW and SBR/SBR questions out of the way first.

Everyone needs to start nit-picking the questions and answers like we did for the AW flowchart.

wildhawker
03-03-2009, 4:09 PM
Once the material has been developed and vetted, shoot it to me for production into large-scale posters and distribution at booths and other events.

Attached is another (fed) flowchart, in case it's helpful. 18317

obeygiant
03-03-2009, 8:17 PM
it definitely needs some clean up in the questions. I just tried to start fleshing out the logic. Basically, when I had a "continue" in an answer box, it needs to loop back into the flow. Also, some questions may be out of order, but I wanted to get the AOW and SBR/SBR questions out of the way first.

Everyone needs to start nit-picking the questions and answers like we did for the AW flowchart.

linked the "continue" answer boxes back to the flow.

ke6guj
03-04-2009, 12:22 PM
thanks. Looking at that, I see that the AOW "loop backs" need to come back into the chart below the SBS question.

I'll work a little more on the logic questions and see if I can clean it up and clarify it some.



Anybody else want to help?

cedricxerxes
03-04-2009, 5:32 PM
ke6guj et al,

You asked for nit picking... I hope I don't have to don my NOMEX. I am happy to help.

I have a few suggestions. They may be too detailed, so feel free to disregard.

(1) Review how the terms firearm, handgun, pistol are being used. Are we starting from firearm or handgun?

(2) If starting from handgun, preface the chart with the CA definition of handgun.

"A handgun is any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person that
has a barrel length of less than 16 inches. The term also applies to any device that has a barrel
length of 16 inches or more which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches.
(Penal Code § 12001(a).)"

As an aside, do you know how the short barreled shotgun (SBS) and short barreled rifle (SBR) regs, Penal Code § 12020(c)(1) & Penal Code § 12020(c)(2), relate to the handgun definition? Do they even come under the handgun definition? They are definitely firearms capable of being concealed upon the person..., however, the are defined separately. It may make sense to start with "firearm" and apply the SBS/SBR definitions first and even have a block to point to the California Center Fire, Semi-Auto Rifle Identification Flowchart before going to the handgun logic. If you can pull this off, you would have one flowchart to rule them all.


(3) I would define AOW as "Any Other Weapon" somewhere.

You might also want to mention that SBS's, SBR's, AOW's, along with machine guns, destructive devices, and suppressors are regulated by both California and Federal law. In addition to the Federal National Firearm Act requirements, CA also requires a special, virtually unobtainable DOJ permit for anything except C&R SBS/SBR's and non-pengun AOW's. As you have pointed out before, these C&R SBS/SBR's and non-pengun AOW's are still subject to CA's "assault weapon" regulations.


(4) You may want to distinguish between "registered" AOW's, i.e. on the Federal NFA registry and not necessarily requiring CA "registration" or DOJ permit, versus a "registered" Pistol AW, i.e. registered with CA DOJ.

Anyway, on to the chart...

Does the handgun have a barrel less than 16"?
NO. Not a handgun; Change from "not a pistol".
YES. Is a handgun.


Does the handgun have a smooth bore?
YES. Smooth-bore handgun; Point this to single block stating "Illegal unless properly registered as an AOW".
NO. Continue; Remove "is not AOW". According to the current logic, it could still be an AOW by virtue of a vertical forward grip.


Does the handgun have a vertical forward grip?; Change firearm to handgun to remain consistent.
YES. Considered an AOW. Point this to the same single block stating "Illegal unless properly registered as an AOW".
NO. Continue; Remove "is not AOW".


This is where I think you should move the SBS/SBR logic up the chain. If you want to leave it, I would suggest:

Does the firearm shoot a fixed-shotgun shell?; We've gone from handgun back to firearm. This is confusing to me since we started with handgun (subset of firearm).
YES. Considered Short-Barreled Shotgun. Illegal unless registered as a SBS.
NO. Continue; Remove "not an SBS"


Was the firearm made from a rifle?; We've gone from handgun back to firearm. This is confusing to me since we started with handgun (subset of firearm).
YES. Considered Short-Barreled Rifle. Illegal unless registered as a SBR.
No. Continue; Remove "not an SBR"


OK. That's it for now.

ke6guj
03-04-2009, 5:59 PM
thanks for the suggestions.

Yes the terminology needs to be cleaned up. That was just me trying to hit all the important parts in the logic.

I went ahead and installed the Visio trial so I can quickly do an update to the flowchart. I've been working on cleaning up the actual logic. Afterwards, we can populate it with all the cool info like in the AW flowchart.

goober
03-04-2009, 6:22 PM
Also the "No, continue" boxes are superfluous...If you look at a proper flow chart, each "Choice" or question box has 2 outcomes: yes and no, and the arrow for each connects to a new choice or an ultiimate outcome/end point.
There is no need for a "No, continue" box.
At the point where the single shot/bolt-action vs semi-auto choice box is, the "no" choice just needs to read "No, handgun is semi-automatic" and point to the next choice...this removes the "I dunno what other choices there are" quandary for the un-needed "Is the handgun semi-auto?" question.
just some ideas...

ke6guj
03-04-2009, 6:27 PM
goober, thanks for the input. Yes, the "No, continue" boxes are not clean, but I'm trying to just get the flow down, clean up can be later if it gets plugged into Redhorse's program.

I already did a little clean up in that area you mentioned.

But I need to confirm if there are any gotchas left if you have a non-semiauto handgun at that point in the chart. I think all the illegal configs are already covered before you get there. If we can confirm no left over gotchas, I can just change that box to "LEGAL" and be done with it.

goober
03-04-2009, 6:55 PM
goober, thanks for the input. Yes, the "No, continue" boxes are not clean, but I'm trying to just get the flow down, clean up can be later if it gets plugged into Redhorse's program.

I already did a little clean up in that area you mentioned.

But I need to confirm if there are any gotchas left if you have a non-semiauto handgun at that point in the chart. I think all the illegal configs are already covered before you get there. If we can confirm no left over gotchas, I can just change that box to "LEGAL" and be done with it.

i think you're right that the legal/illegal configs prior to that point are already covered. but i'm no expert ;)
you might change the "fixed mag over 10 rds" question to just "does handgun have a detachable mag?", outcome "no" connects to "does the handgun have a fixed mag > 10 rds?" choice w/ an illegal yes outcome or a legal "no" outcome; outcome "yes" from the "detachable mag" choice goes to your "evil features" choice...

ke6guj
03-04-2009, 7:04 PM
Does look like the chart should split at that point. run a fixed mag section and a detachable mag section.

cleaned it up some.

And all the No. Continue boxes should disappear when redone in a proper flowchart, where YES and NO can can tagged on the logic lines.

obeygiant
03-04-2009, 10:02 PM
ke6guj et al,

You asked for nit picking... I hope I don't have to don my NOMEX. I am happy to help.

.

Also the "No, continue" boxes are superfluous...If you look at a proper flow chart, each "Choice" or question box has 2 outcomes: yes and no, and the arrow for each connects to a new choice or an ultiimate outcome/end point.
There is no need for a "No, continue" box.
.

I took the above suggestions and incorporated them into the drawing. Let me know what you think.

ke6guj
03-04-2009, 10:20 PM
looks good.
Could you try and intregrate the flow of r5 into your new chart. I have a grand total of about 15 minutes of Visio time.

I think I've got the flow down correct. There are a couple weird AOW examples, but tryiing to figure out the logic is racking my brain right now, and I don't want to "NFA-ify" a handgun chart too much.

A legal AOW or SBS/SBR has to loop back into the flowchart because it still has to comply with 12276 and 12276.1.

obeygiant
03-04-2009, 10:26 PM
I'll incorporate those changes from r5 now

obeygiant
03-04-2009, 11:39 PM
Incorporated the changes from r5. Should we break out the "Does the Firearm have a fixed or detachable magazine?" into the two options and then have an arrow pointing down to the next question?

ke6guj
03-04-2009, 11:46 PM
looks good. Maybe have the fixed mag option have;

Legal if <11 rounds.
illegal if >10 rounds.

lets see if anybody has any issues with the logic.

obeygiant
03-04-2009, 11:51 PM
looks good. Maybe have the fixed mag option have;

Legal if <11 rounds.
illegal if >10 rounds.

lets see if anybody has any issues with the logic.

Here's the updated .jpg

ke6guj
03-04-2009, 11:56 PM
this is the law "(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds." 10 rounds is legal, 11 rounds is illegal.

on the legal side, I was just trying to say "less than 11 rounds". you could also do "less than or equal to 10 rounds".

Same for the illegal side, could say "more than 10 rounds" or "11+ rounds", etc.

goober
03-05-2009, 4:40 AM
nice work, it's shaping up :D

cedricxerxes
03-05-2009, 10:37 AM
Great work guys! It definitely looks like this is coming together very well.

Here are a couple of additional "nits".

(1) Does the Firearm Have a barrel <16"?; change "Have" to "have".

NO Not a Handgun, Pistol or other Concealable Firearm.; Change to "Not a Handgun".


(2) Is the Firearm Federally Registered as an AOW?
YES; Should this connect to "Does the Firearm have a stock..." or below? ke6guj, doesn't the PC 12020 section you sent me bypass this block?


(3) Does the Firearm have a smooth bore or a vertical forward grip?
YES Illegal Considered an AOW; Change to "Illegal Unregistered AOW"


The last two are more questions than suggestions:

I am sure there is already some thread that deals with this, but are fixed and non-detachable equivalent?
For example, say I have an OLL AR-15 pistol with a BB and a 10-round magazine. The magazine is attachable, but not detachable (i.e. requires a tool). Conceptually, to me fixed = Garand, non-detachable = AR-15 with BB. Do the regs treat fixed and non-detachable as being the same? I am not suggesting we change the flow chart, I'm just asking.


I know this is part of the AW definition, but are there any examples of handguns with a second hand grip that wouldn't already be classified as an AOW?

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.


.

Hopi
03-05-2009, 10:40 AM
Im gonna open a shop in woodland and it would be nice to pass out flow charts to customers. We are planning on some cool shotguns.:D Dont really want to get into much detail on what we are building untill I get a working model but there are some members who do know.

:43:

ke6guj
03-05-2009, 11:00 AM
Great work guys! It definitely looks like this is coming together very well.

Here are a couple of additional "nits".


(2) Is the Firearm Federally Registered as an AOW?
YES; Should this connect to "Does the Firearm have a stock..." or below? ke6guj, doesn't the PC 12020 section you sent me bypass this block? The AOW section is weird, and hard to track all the logic options. But, normally an AOW cannot have a shoulder stock. So, I wanted the the AOW option to loop back in before the shoulder stock question. There is an option for combo guns, that is, a firearm with both smooth and rifled barrels between 12"-18". That gun is an AOW, even though it has a shoulder stock. But other than that, AOW's can't have shoulder stocks.

So, getting all the logic loops correct in that part of the flowchart is difficult.

I was trying to show that a registered AOW that had a shoulder stock was illegal. Either as an SBS (if shoots shotgun shells) or SBR (rifle/pistol ammo).

That point needs some work to map it all out.



I know this is part of the AW definition, but are there any examples of handguns with a second hand grip that wouldn't already be classified as an AOW?

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.


.Right, but even if it is an AOW, it still has to go through this part of the flowchart. A registered AOW is not exempt from 12276.1, so the quesiton still has to be asked. Basically, CA prohibits some handgun AOWs via 12276.1, so you have to follow the chart to confirm legality. The only handguns which get to tht point of the chart are those that are are semi-auto with a detachable magazine, and aren't registered as an AW. All other options should have come to a conclusion above.

obeygiant
03-05-2009, 11:27 AM
Great work guys! It definitely looks like this is coming together very well.

Here are a couple of additional "nits".

(1) Does the Firearm Have a barrel <16"?; change "Have" to "have".

NO Not a Handgun, Pistol or other Concealable Firearm.; Change to "Not a Handgun".


(2) Is the Firearm Federally Registered as an AOW?
YES; Should this connect to "Does the Firearm have a stock..." or below? ke6guj, doesn't the PC 12020 section you sent me bypass this block?


(3) Does the Firearm have a smooth bore or a vertical forward grip?
YES Illegal Considered an AOW; Change to "Illegal Unregistered AOW"
.

Here's a copy of "Pistol-FlowChart-03-03-09-r8" I incorporated cedricxerxes' points into the chart, let me know what you think.

obeygiant
03-05-2009, 1:43 PM
A few more changes including the actual definitions of SBR,SBS,AOW. Not sure we want the definition of SBS/SBR on their but I thought i put it there for now and see what the consensus is.

ke6guj
03-05-2009, 1:49 PM
I think that pretty much covers everything I can think of. Hopefully others can chime in of stuff I missed, or rewording of questions as needed.

cedricxerxes
03-05-2009, 1:59 PM
Looks great to me.

Last suggestion would be to remove "and meets the definition of an AOW". Seems redundant to me. Wouldn't it have to meet the definition to be registered with BATF as an AOW?

Anyway, thanks for all your work on this and taking something extremely complicated and distilling it down. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


.

ke6guj
03-05-2009, 2:06 PM
Looks great to me.

Last suggestion would be to remove "and meets the definition of an AOW". Seems redundant to me. Wouldn't it have to meet the definition to be registered with BATF as an AOW?.

No, I think it needs to be that way. I could have something that is registerd as an AOW, such as a Super-shorty. But if I put a shoulder stock on it, it doesn't meet the definition of an AOW anymore. So, the answer would be no, and you'd continue down the flowchart, where you'd get nailed by the SBS question.


edit: this is the code section I'm working with:

(8) Any other weapon as defined in subsection (e) of Section 5845 of Title 26 of the United States Code and which is in the possession of a person permitted to possess the weapons pursuant to the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-618), as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto. Any person prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing these weapons who obtains title to these weapons by bequest or intestate succession may retain title for not more than one year, but actual possession of these weapons at any time is punishable pursuant to Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Within the year, the person shall transfer title to the weapons by sale, gift, or other disposition. Any person who violates this paragraph is in violation of subdivision (a). The exemption provided in this subdivision does not apply to pen guns.See, it has to meet the definition of an AOW and be in possesion of a person permitted to possess it. Has to meet both parts. Could be worded differently in the question.

obeygiant
03-05-2009, 2:24 PM
I added the "Is the Firearm a Pen Gun "? question to the flow.

cedricxerxes
03-05-2009, 3:06 PM
No, I think it needs to be that way. I could have something that is registerd as an AOW, such as a Super-shorty. But if I put a shoulder stock on it, it doesn't meet the definition of an AOW anymore. So, the answer would be no, and you'd continue down the flowchart, where you'd get nailed by the SBS question.

See, it has to meet the definition of an AOW and be in possesion of a person permitted to possess it. Has to meet both parts. Could be worded differently in the question.

Good call. Makes sense.

Final suggestion is to modify "and meet the definition of an AOW?" in (2) to something like "and does it also meet the definition of an AOW?" or "and does it comply with the definition of an AOW?".

ke6guj
03-05-2009, 5:48 PM
yup, the wording of that question, and some of the others needs work. But, I want to make sure all the variables are covered.

I'm not completely happy with the left side questions, but don't know how I want to improve them. I think the right side questions cover all the "normal" handgun stuff.

goober
03-05-2009, 6:00 PM
looking good.
is there a reason some "Illegal" outcomes are in red, while others yellow? i see that 2 of the yellow ones have possible outs, but the one @ step 4 (Unregistered AOW) is a done deal... if yellow means "maybe illegal" and red means "definitely", then perhaps the Step 4 one should be red.

obeygiant
03-05-2009, 7:35 PM
looking good.
is there a reason some "Illegal" outcomes are in red, while others yellow? i see that 2 of the yellow ones have possible outs, but the one @ step 4 (Unregistered AOW) is a done deal... if yellow means "maybe illegal" and red means "definitely", then perhaps the Step 4 one should be red.

Good catch, that one should be red as well. It seemed to make more sense that the illegal boxes that were conditional upon something being done,i.e. the weapon being registered, a different color to differentiate between the others that are just outright illegal. If everyone agrees that they should all be one color or the other just let me know and I'll change them.

The attached flow chart reflects the change mentioned above.

obeygiant
03-05-2009, 8:50 PM
Made a few cosmetic changes that were bugging me. Let me know what you think.

ke6guj
03-05-2009, 10:12 PM
at some point, the following info needs to be included.

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(b) All of the following specified pistols:
(1) UZI.
(2) Encom MP-9 and MP-45.
(3) The following MAC types:
(A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11.
(B) SWD Incorporated M-11.
(C) Advance Armament Inc. M-11.
(D) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11.
(4) Intratec TEC-9.
(5) Sites Spectre.
(6) Sterling MK-7.
(7) Calico M-950.
(8) Bushmaster Pistol.
and many of the informational boxes from the semi-auto rifle flowchart should be brought over as well.

But, I'd like to get some feedback on the logic flow of the chart from others.

gd-bh
03-06-2009, 5:52 AM
Great work for those who are doing this. While it makes sense to me, here's something you might want to consider:

Step 10, "fixed" result box. You could add another logical branch of "capacity of magazine" with "less than or equal to 10 rounds" and "11 rounds or more" being the choices, and then you could keep your "green" legal outcome, "red" illegal outcome color scheme intact.

That might help someone who was setting up an automated version, since they would have to ask the question anyway.

obeygiant
03-06-2009, 7:08 AM
Great work for those who are doing this. While it makes sense to me, here's something you might want to consider:

Step 10, "fixed" result box. You could add another logical branch of "capacity of magazine" with "less than or equal to 10 rounds" and "11 rounds or more" being the choices, and then you could keep your "green" legal outcome, "red" illegal outcome color scheme intact.

That might help someone who was setting up an automated version, since they would have to ask the question anyway.

Good idea, thank you.

cedricxerxes
03-06-2009, 7:48 AM
Great job.

The logic looks sound to me and I personally like having the color red, yellow, green coding.

Do we have an official title for this document? CA Handgun Flowchart?

PatriotnMore
03-06-2009, 8:02 AM
Outstanding, that's what I like about this site, its a forum of people who get out and do it, rather than talk about it.

obeygiant
03-06-2009, 9:06 AM
Great job.

The logic looks sound to me and I personally like having the color red, yellow, green coding.

Do we have an official title for this document? CA Handgun Flowchart?

I'll 2nd the "CA Handgun Flowchart" name.

goober
03-06-2009, 9:36 AM
Great work for those who are doing this. While it makes sense to me, here's something you might want to consider:

Step 10, "fixed" result box. You could add another logical branch of "capacity of magazine" with "less than or equal to 10 rounds" and "11 rounds or more" being the choices, and then you could keep your "green" legal outcome, "red" illegal outcome color scheme intact.

That might help someone who was setting up an automated version, since they would have to ask the question anyway.
agreed. that was sort of my suggestion in post #23.
i think the paths out of step 10 should just read "Yes" & "No", like all the other choice boxes; this will avoid ambiguity or arguments as to whether "non-detachable" really is the same as "fixed".
So the choice in step 10 is "Does the firearm have a detachable magazine?"
"Yes" answer on step 10 goes to 11a with the evil features questions
"No" on step 10 goes to 11b with "Does the firearm have a magazine that holds > 10 rounds?" with "Legal" outcome for "No" and "Illegal" for "Yes".

Sure is silly that a handgun with fixed mag is illegal if it holds over 10 rds, but one w/ a detachable mag and no evil features can have > 10... probably not the way they'd like it to be in retrospect but i guess they should be more careful when writing laws that infringe on our rights :P

ke6guj
03-06-2009, 10:16 AM
i think the paths out of step 10 should just read "Yes" & "No", like all the other choice boxes; this will avoid ambiguity or arguments as to whether "non-detachable" really is the same as "fixed".
So the choice in step 10 is "Does the firearm have a detachable magazine?"
"Yes" answer on step 10 goes to 11a with the evil features questions
"No" on step 10 goes to 11b with "Does the firearm have a magazine that holds > 10 rounds?" with "Legal" outcome for "No" and "Illegal" for "Yes".



sounds fine to me, and then #10 can have the definition of a "detachable magazine" next to it.

cedricxerxes
03-06-2009, 10:23 AM
I know ideally we'd like to keep this on a single page, but it seems to be getting crowded with definitions.

What y'all think about moving some of that to a second page like they did with the CA AWID flowchart?

Maybe move the definition of Detachable, the 2008 DWCL references, and the Title 26 AOW definition? Event the CA Handgun Definition.


.

obeygiant
03-06-2009, 10:30 AM
didn't see the additional comments until now but here is what i was working on. if everyone agrees to move the definitions and laws to the 2nd page that can easily be done. Anyway take a look at the latest one.

ke6guj
03-06-2009, 10:31 AM
I'm not too worried about the size of it yet. Have to determine the pertinant info needed, and then we can work on making it fit on one or two pages.

ke6guj
03-06-2009, 10:34 AM
didn't see the additional comments until now but here is what i was working on. if everyone agrees to move the definitions and laws to the 2nd page that can easily be done. Anyway take a look at the latest one.


looks fine. However, question #10 has two NO options. The green LEGAL option needs to be removed. And the YES and NO to #11a and #11b need to be switched.

obeygiant
03-06-2009, 10:35 AM
looks fine. However, question #10 has two NO options. The green LEGAL option needs to be removed. And the YES and NO to #11a and #11b need to be switched.

fixing it now.

"And the YES and NO to #11a and #11b need to be switched. "

Shouldn't we keep 11b the way it is?

11. (b.) Does the firearm have a magazine that holds > 10 rounds?
Yes = Illegal
No = Legal

please correct me if i'm wrong.

goober
03-06-2009, 11:00 AM
fixing it now.

"And the YES and NO to #11a and #11b need to be switched. "

Shouldn't we keep 11b the way it is?

11. (b.) Does the firearm have a magazine that holds > 10 rounds?
Yes = Illegal
No = Legal

please correct me if i'm wrong.

i suggest making the step 10 y & n outs in the same orientation as every other choice box (10 = N goes to right, to 11b, which needs a legal and illegal outcome, while 10 = Y goes down to 11a, which needs a legal "no" outcome added)
your logic quoted here for 11b is correct

ke6guj
03-06-2009, 11:16 AM
fixing it now.

"And the YES and NO to #11a and #11b need to be switched. "

Shouldn't we keep 11b the way it is?

11. (b.) Does the firearm have a magazine that holds > 10 rounds?
Yes = Illegal
No = Legal

please correct me if i'm wrong.

Sorry, what I meant was that the outputs from #10 that went to #11a-b had YES and NO swapped. You fixed it in the latest revision.

obeygiant
03-06-2009, 11:16 AM
i suggest making the step 10 y & n outs in the same orientation as every other choice box (10 = N goes to right, to 11b, which needs a legal and illegal outcome, while 10 = Y goes down to 11a, which needs a legal "no" outcome added)
your logic quoted here for 11b is correct

Good Point. Made the changes that you recommended.

cedricxerxes
03-06-2009, 11:55 AM
Looks sweet with the changes and all on one page.

Are you going to modify the language for [9. NO] or leave it as is?


.

ke6guj
03-06-2009, 12:01 PM
Looks sweet with the changes and all on one page.

Are you going to modify the language for [9. NO] or leave it as is?


.The idea is that the NO, legal answer for #9 should be just "LEGAL" if it is. I can't think of any illegalities in it, but I wasn't sure, so I worded it tht way so that people would be drawn to it.

obeygiant
03-06-2009, 12:03 PM
Looks sweet with the changes and all on one page.

Are you going to modify the language for [9. NO] or leave it as is?


.
If someone can confirm that it is legal at that point and there are no additional questions that need to be asked then we can change it.

AJAX22
03-06-2009, 12:32 PM
You did not include the AR/AK pistols which are banned by name under the appendices.... I know for a fact that Professional Ordinance Carbon 15 is on the list, as is the MARS pistol

There also should be a note that if the pistol does not specifically state the words "UZI PISTOL" on it then it is not banned by name.

The uzi pistol was a very specific type of firearm, not to be confused with the IMI uzi Model A, or IMI uzi Model B in handgun form.

cedricxerxes
03-06-2009, 12:40 PM
I totally appreciate not wanting to over "NFA" the flow chart. I do have a couple of semantics questions related to [5. YES] & [6. YES].

To me there seem to be a couple of ways to continue (i.e. not be illegal).

First, you have a C&R SBS or SBR (No CA Dangerous Weapons Permit Required) and it is registered with the BATF. [BATF Registered Only]

Second, you have a CA Dangerous Weapons Permit for your SBS or SBR (unlikely for mere mortals) and it is registered with the BATF. [BATF Registered & CA Permitted]

Third, you have a CA Dangerous Weapons Permit (again unlikely for mere mortals) for your shotgun or rifle that meets the Federal barrel and overall length requirements, but has a collapsible or quick detachable stock, that, when collapsed/removed is less than 26". I don't think this applies to many people, but does deal with the difference between how the Feds and CA measure OAL. So in this narrow case, BATF registration wouldn't be required, but a CA Dangerous Weapons Permit would be. [CA Permitted Only]

Differentiating this may become useful in the future if Mr. Hoffman is successful with the whole "good cause" issue; http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=107974

Bottom line, I am wondering if these blocks should be modified to something like:

"Illegal unless properly registered and/or permitted as a SBx. If so, continue."

.

ke6guj
03-06-2009, 1:01 PM
You did not include the AR/AK pistols which are banned by name under the appendices.... I know for a fact that Professional Ordinance Carbon 15 is on the list, as is the MARS pistoltrue, I forgot the 12276(e)listings.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter40.pdf
(b) Pistols
MARS Pistol
Professional Ordnance, Inc. Carbon 15 Pistol

There also should be a note that if the pistol does not specifically state the words "UZI PISTOL" on it then it is not banned by name.

The uzi pistol was a very specific type of firearm, not to be confused with the IMI uzi Model A, or IMI uzi Model B in handgun form.OK, that will need to be documented somehow.


I totally appreciate not wanting to over "NFA" the flow chart. I do have a couple of semantics questions related to [5. YES] & [6. YES].

To me there seem to be a couple of ways to continue (i.e. not be illegal).

<snip>

Bottom line, I am wondering if these blocks should be modified to something like:

"Illegal unless properly registered and/or permitted as a SBx. If so, continue."

.I'm liking the last version for the actual flowchart. Perhaps in a separate box, we could document the different versions, as for modern SBx and C&R SBx.


And, I just noticed that we forgot the "olympic pistol exemption" and there is an "antique firearm" exemption as well. Are there any antique AWs out there that we need to deal with. Broomhandle mausers? Looks like 1896-1898 would be exempt.


12276.1(c) "Assault weapon" does not include either of the following:
(1) Any antique firearm.
(2) Any of the following pistols, because they are consistent with the significant public purpose expressed in subdivision (b):
MANUFACTURER MODEL CALIBER
BENELLI MP90 .22LR
BENELLI MP90 .32 S&W LONG
BENELLI MP95 .22LR
BENELLI MP95 .32 S&W LONG
HAMMERLI 280 .22LR
HAMMERLI 280 .32 S&W LONG
HAMMERLI SP20 .22LR
HAMMERLI SP20 .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI GPO .22 SHORT
PARDINI GP-SCHUMANN .22 SHORT
PARDINI HP .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI MP .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI SP .22LR
PARDINI SPE .22LR
WALTHER GSP .22LR
WALTHER GSP .32 S&W LONG
WALTHER OSP .22 SHORT
WALTHER OSP-2000 .22 SHORT

So, we could add in a new #7, is the firearm an antique? Yes, Legal No, continue.
As an antique, it is exempt from 12276.1.

obeygiant
03-06-2009, 1:13 PM
should we add the following question to the top of the flow either before or after #2?

"Is the firearm an antique or olympic pistol?"

Yes, Legal (As an antique or olympic firearm it is exempt from 12276.1)
No, continue.

Also would someone, more knowledgeable than myself, be willing to split up the listed AW into pistols/rifles?

goober
03-06-2009, 1:21 PM
should we add the following question to the top of the flow either before or after #2?

"Is the firearm an antique,olympic pistol or 1896-1898 Broomhandle mauser?"

Yes, Legal (As an antique or olympic firearm it is exempt from 12276.1)
No, continue.

anything that provides an out and excludes a sample from further consideration should be inserted at the earliest possible point in the flow. the goal should be to put the object into the "legal" or "illegal" pile in the fewest steps possible.
so i think right after #2 is good.

obeygiant
03-06-2009, 1:23 PM
anything that provides an out and excludes a sample from further consideration should be inserted at the earliest possible point in the flow. the goal should be to put the object into the "legal" or "illegal" pile in the fewest steps possible.

Is everyone ok with the phrasing/wording of the question?


"Is the firearm an antique or olympic pistol?"

ke6guj
03-06-2009, 1:25 PM
well, there is an "antique firearm" definition for 12020, which is only for 1898 or earlier muzzle-loaders, and centerfire/rimfire firearms in which there is no ammo available.

(5) Any antique firearm. For purposes of this
section, "antique firearm" means any firearm not
designed or redesigned for using rimfire or
conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition
and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any
matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of
ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually
manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also
any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or
before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer
manufactured in the United States and is not readily
available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

But for 12276.1, there is a differnt definition which would include muzzle-loaders and fixed ammuntion firearms.
(3) "Antique firearm" means any firearm
manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.

So, I think it needs to be just before the AW questions, and then maybe a separate antique question to exempt the muzzle-loaders as early as we can.

obeygiant
03-06-2009, 1:33 PM
well, there is an "antique firearm" definition for 12020, which is only for 1898 or earlier muzzle-loaders, and centerfire/rimfire firearms in which there is no ammo available.



But for 12276.1, there is a different definition which would include muzzle-loaders and fixed ammuntion firearms.


So, I think it needs to be just before the AW questions, and then maybe a separate antique question to exempt the muzzle-loaders as early as we can.

This is definitely going to be a 2 page doc.;)

goober
03-06-2009, 1:40 PM
well, there is an "antique firearm" definition for 12020, which is only for 1898 or earlier muzzle-loaders, and centerfire/rimfire firearms in which there is no ammo available.



But for 12276.1, there is a differnt definition which would include muzzle-loaders and fixed ammuntion firearms.


So, I think it needs to be just before the AW questions, and then maybe a separate antique question to exempt the muzzle-loaders as early as we can.

does it matter whether the firearm is an antique under 12020 or 12276.1, for the purposes of the question? i understand that the supporting/explanatory legal text needs to accompany alongside, but the answer to "is it an antique?" will drop "yes" weapons out right there, regardless of which definition makes it so.
i also realize that the goal is to pose clear and unambiguous questions, based on legal definitions (otherwise just have one choice box: is it legal? :D ), but by that argument perhaps the pen gun choice needs more consideration.
i'm just afraid the whole thing will get too baroque if every possible permutation is addressed separately according to the clause that applies, rather than doing some lumping by legal definitions.
really just thinking out loud here, not asserting that these ideas are necessarily better than anyone else's... :p

ke6guj
03-06-2009, 1:48 PM
the reason it matters is that a person would be exempt from 12020 for an SBx if he had a SBx muzzle-loader. It could be modern, and would still be considerd an "antique". But, if it shot fixed ammo, it would not be exempt. But some SBx firearms are exempted from NFA as C&R and do not need a tax stamp.

Then, for 12276.1, the exemption applies to all pre-1899 firearms. It would not apply to 1899+ muzzleloaders, but that wouldn't be an issue with the AW regs.


As for the amount of detail we want to deal with, It all depends on what we want the flowchart to do. Do we want to be able to take any <16" barrelled firearm and confirm legality, or do we only want do determine legality of the common stuff. If so, all we need is the right side of the flowchart and call it done.

goober
03-06-2009, 2:01 PM
good points. i hadn't realized the complexity re the SBx permutations.
i'm with ya.

obeygiant
03-06-2009, 8:41 PM
the reason it matters is that a person would be exempt from 12020 for an SBx if he had a SBx muzzle-loader. It could be modern, and would still be considerd an "antique". But, if it shot fixed ammo, it would not be exempt. But some SBx firearms are exempted from NFA as C&R and do not need a tax stamp.

Then, for 12276.1, the exemption applies to all pre-1899 firearms. It would not apply to 1899+ muzzleloaders, but that wouldn't be an issue with the AW regs.


As for the amount of detail we want to deal with, It all depends on what we want the flowchart to do. Do we want to be able to take any <16" barrelled firearm and confirm legality, or do we only want do determine legality of the common stuff. If so, all we need is the right side of the flowchart and call it done.

I would suggest leaving the issue at "Is the firearm an antique or olympic pistol?" and then add an additional question along the lines of "Does the firearm shoot fixed ammunition?" Would the addition of the 2nd question ,mentioned above, resolve the legality/illegality of the other sb(x) possiblities? Anybody have any thoughts to add to this?

obeygiant
03-07-2009, 1:41 PM
Maybe this would be another possibility:

2. "Is the firearm an antique? "
Yes = Go to question 2(a)
No= Continue

2(a)."Does the firearm shoot fixed ammunition?"
Yes=Illegal
No=Continue

3. "Is the firearm an olympic pistol?
Yes=Legal
No=Continue

Some Guy
03-07-2009, 1:52 PM
Focus on banned features, this is becoming too technical. The original flowchart doesnt ask if your rifle is FA or a muzzleloader. Its focus is on features and it does a great job.

ETA : if the pistol made it through the dros process what configurations would make it illegal?

ke6guj
03-07-2009, 7:35 PM
Focus on banned features, this is becoming too technical. The original flowchart doesnt ask if your rifle is FA or a muzzleloader. Its focus is on features and it does a great job. yes it does by starting off as the "California Centerfire, Semi-Auto Rifle Identification Flowchart". It eliminates a couple questions right off the bat.

I think that handguns have more variations on what is legal and what isn't. We either make one all-inclusive handgun chart, or we have 2-3 different charts depending on the action. And, if you can deem something legal in 1 or 2 extra questions, I think it is better to be able to have one chart tht covers everything.

Just like we get rimfire rifle and shotgun questions that the existing flowchart don't cover.

ETA : if the pistol made it through the dros process what configurations would make it illegal?many. Expecially with some people DROSing stuff in Roster-Exempt configurations, and then converting them to sem-auto handguns. And the NeRF option will just add to that.

goober
03-07-2009, 7:38 PM
Focus on banned features, this is becoming too technical. The original flowchart doesnt ask if your rifle is FA or a muzzleloader. Its focus is on features and it does a great job.
?
i lean toward this sentiment... not that it wouldn't be great to have a comprehensive flow chart that deals with all contingencies, but there is some utility in simplicity... make it too convoluted and folks (civvy and LE alike) will be less likely to use it.

ke6guj
03-07-2009, 7:46 PM
i lean toward this sentiment... not that it wouldn't be great to have a comprehensive flow chart that deals with all contingencies, but there is some utility in simplicity... make it too convoluted and folks (civvy and LE alike) will be less likely to use it.

If you just want a simple chart, then just use the right side of the chart and call it done. But that ignores stuff like the Taurus Judge and other stuff that would catch people out.

And I think I have all the contingencies covered in 2 more questions.

ke6guj
03-07-2009, 7:52 PM
OK, I thought about the logic on this for a while and I think we can cover just about everything in 2 more questions.

Add in a new #2 asking if the firearm is a muzzleloader

If yes, Legal, END.

If no, continue.

I'm combining I'm assuming that there are no muzzleloader semi-automatic handguns that could be an AW. If that is the case, then we can legalize all muzzleloaders, pre-1899 and post-1899 right away. If not, then we need to link the YES option over to the AW side, which I don't want to do if we don't need to.


(5) Any antique firearm. For purposes of this
section, "antique firearm" means any firearm not
designed or redesigned for using rimfire or
conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition
and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any
matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of
ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually
manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also
any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or
before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer
manufactured in the United States and is not readily
available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade. I'm trying to just look at the bolded part as just meaning "muzzleloaders" but there are some rare breach-loading systems that don't use fixed-ammo that would technically be included. The underlined portion means that "antique firearms" include all muzzleloaders, pre-1899 and post-1899. So, you can have SBx muzzleloaders and do not violate 12020 and the NFA act either.


And for a pre-1899 firearm that used fixed ammo, but is not available anymore, I'll try to ignore that one as well. Maybe just have "muzzleloader" asterisked and include the entire PC section.







and then add in a new #9 right after asking if the firearm is an "olympic pistol" or antique made before 1899?

If yes, Legal, END.

If no, continue.

We need to ask about antiques here to cover any fixed-ammo pre-1899 AWs. But if there aren't any possible antique AWs, then we could possibly be left out.

goober
03-07-2009, 8:10 PM
well, the judge is already dealt with @ #5 (MAN i wish i could have one of those :p )
and it sounds like you're covering all the other bases with only 1 or 2 additional questions...NICE WORK!
guess maybe it can be done w/o getting too baroque to be usable.

ke6guj
03-07-2009, 8:16 PM
well, the judge is already dealt with @ #5 (MAN i wish i could have one of those :p ) yah, but it sounds like some people want a quick and easy chart that glosses over/ignores/doesn't cover the NFA/12020 stuff, and if that gets left out, then #5 doesn't get covered.

and it sounds like you're covering all the other bases with only 1 or 2 additional questions...NICE WORK!
guess maybe it can be done w/o getting too baroque to be usable.yup, I think I have just about all the possibilities covered.

Now it should be just a matter of finetuning the questions, and then maybe adding in the section number that covers it like the AW ID chart has.

obeygiant
03-07-2009, 8:40 PM
OK, I thought about the logic on this for a while and I think we can cover just about everything in 2 more questions.

Add in a new #2 asking if the firearm is a muzzleloader

If yes, Legal, END.

If no, continue.


and then add in a new #9 right after asking if the firearm is an "olympic pistol" or antique made before 1899?

If yes, Legal, END.

If no, continue.



updated the chart with the 2 items mentioned above. I'm assuming then that we are removing the "pen gun" question altogether. if not, let me know and I will add it back in.

ke6guj
03-07-2009, 8:49 PM
No, the pen gun question needs to stay, insert it between #2 and #3.


I'm hoping tht we can ignore "zip gun", cane gun, wallet gun, undetectable firearms, and "unrecognizable firearms" due to ulta rarity. But, if needed, they could be added to the existing #4 question.

obeygiant
03-07-2009, 11:55 PM
No, the pen gun question needs to stay, insert it between #2 and #3.


I'm hoping tht we can ignore "zip gun", cane gun, wallet gun, undetectable firearms, and "unrecognizable firearms" due to ulta rarity. But, if needed, they could be added to the existing #4 question.

chart fixed

obeygiant
03-09-2009, 11:31 AM
No, the pen gun question needs to stay, insert it between #2 and #3.


I'm hoping tht we can ignore "zip gun", cane gun, wallet gun, undetectable firearms, and "unrecognizable firearms" due to ulta rarity. But, if needed, they could be added to the existing #4 question.
The existing #4 question is currently:
4. Is the firearm registered with the BATF as an AOW, and meet the definition of an AOW?

Should we add them to question #3
3. Is the Firearm a
“Pen Gun”?

ke6guj
03-09-2009, 11:40 AM
nope, it needs to stay as is.

A pen gun is specifically exempted from the AOW exemption to 12020. So, a registered AOW pen gun would still violate 12020 if it fired fixed-ammo and was "any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm". Now, if you had a muzzle-loader pen gun, it should be exempt from 12020 due to the antique exemption.

cedricxerxes
03-09-2009, 12:16 PM
Now that the logic is pretty firm, what kind of feedback are you looking for? Fine tuning of wording?


.

obeygiant
03-09-2009, 12:24 PM
Now that the logic is pretty firm, what kind of feedback are you looking for? Fine tuning of wording?


.

Suggestions on layout would be nice as well. Specifically the items other than the flow chart itself that should appear on the first page and what items we would like to appear on the second page.

gunn
03-09-2009, 1:21 PM
What about
"Is the pistol home-built"
I I understand things correctly, the answers to the following must all be true for it to be legit:

* It must confirm to an existing design or its a zip gun
* It must be built in single shot form or HAVE been originally built in single shot for at some point.
* The barrel must be <16" long or be designed to accept a barrel of <16" long

You may also want to put a note that markings are NOT necesasary if the pisto was home-built.

obeygiant
03-10-2009, 8:05 AM
What about
"Is the pistol home-built"
I I understand things correctly, the answers to the following must all be true for it to be legit:

* It must confirm to an existing design or its a zip gun
* It must be built in single shot form or HAVE been originally built in single shot for at some point.
* The barrel must be <16" long or be designed to accept a barrel of <16" long

You may also want to put a note that markings are NOT necesasary if the pisto was home-built.


Anybody have anything else to contribute or something that is not addressed by the current version of the flowchart?

cedricxerxes
03-10-2009, 8:27 AM
Looks great.

I have the following suggestions:

- Modify "and meet the definition of an AOW?" in (4) to something like "and does it also meet the definition of an AOW?" or "and does it comply with the definition of an AOW?".

- Add the definition of "Detachable".

- Modify Continue blocks in (6) & (7) to "Illegal unless properly registered and/or permitted as a SBS. If so, continue." and "Illegal unless properly registered and/or permitted as a SBR. If so, continue.", respectively.


Is this going to be posted as a PDF or JPG?


.

1337vending
03-10-2009, 8:38 AM
Anybody have anything else to contribute or something that is not addressed by the current version of the flowchart?

Well, for a registered C&R SBR that uses a centerfire cartridge, the OAL has to be >= 30", because of AW laws. Other than that, looks good to me!

:thumbsup:

obeygiant
03-10-2009, 8:51 AM
Looks great.

I have the following suggestions:

- Modify "and meet the definition of an AOW?" in (4) to something like "and does it also meet the definition of an AOW?" or "and does it comply with the definition of an AOW?".

- Add the definition of "Detachable".

- Modify Continue blocks in (6) & (7) to "Illegal unless properly registered and/or permitted as a SBS. If so, continue." and "Illegal unless properly registered and/or permitted as a SBR. If so, continue.", respectively.


Is this going to be posted as a PDF or JPG?


.

Here's (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=18546&d=1236502539) a copy of the existing chart for you to look at while i make those changes.

obeygiant
03-10-2009, 9:20 AM
Here's (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=18546&d=1236502539) a copy of the existing chart for you to look at while i make those changes.

Here is the latest copy with the changes recommended by cedricxerxes included as well.

PatriotnMore
03-10-2009, 9:29 AM
can you PDF the chart, so it can be saved?

obeygiant
03-10-2009, 11:39 AM
can you PDF the chart, so it can be saved?
Sure, give me a minute and I will post it here.

ke6guj
03-10-2009, 11:41 AM
I just noticed that we lost the original #9 (semi-auto) between r8j and r8k. It needs to be added back in between the current #8 and #9

obeygiant
03-10-2009, 11:51 AM
can you PDF the chart, so it can be saved?
File size is too big to add as an attachment to the post so I emailed you a copy.

obeygiant
03-10-2009, 12:13 PM
I just noticed that we lost the original #9 (semi-auto) between r8j and r8k. It needs to be added back in between the current #8 and #9
i'll fix that now.

done, see the attached file.

goober
03-10-2009, 12:26 PM
it's trivial and purely aesthetic, but the text boxes on the left w/ all the legalese could be sized/aligned/distributed a bit more consistently.

obeygiant
03-10-2009, 12:52 PM
it's trivial and purely aesthetic, but the text boxes on the left w/ all the legalese could be sized/aligned/distributed a bit more consistently.

Does this look any better?

PatriotnMore
03-10-2009, 12:54 PM
Does this look any better?

Great job! :clap: Kudos for taking the time, and putting in the effort. Well done!

goober
03-10-2009, 1:22 PM
Does this look any better?
i was OK w/ having everything in boxes, just thought they could be arranged better.
but this is good too.
maybe someone else has a preference.
also i was just looking back at the AW flowchart, and wondering if the initial intent was to make this one like that, with the yes/no arrows flowing through boxes with specific penal codes in them, and a single legal and illegal outcome (each), or the way we have it now?
not saying one is better than the other, they are just different styles. i do think having the PCs specified where they can be is a good thing.
i know this is late in the process to suggest such a design change- i can't believe i didn't look back at the AW chart until just now, at least with the pistol chart in mind. so perhaps making the pistol chart like the AW chart was not the goal, and still isn't. but if so, there will need to be some significant layout changes (but logic will still be the same).
just throwin ideas out for consideration.

And yes, thank you guys for all the hard work. It's coming out great!

ke6guj
03-10-2009, 1:55 PM
i was OK w/ having everything in boxes, just thought they could be arranged better.
but this is good too.
maybe someone else has a preference.
also i was just looking back at the AW flowchart, and wondering if the initial intent was to make this one like that, with the yes/no arrows flowing through boxes with specific penal codes in them, and a single legal and illegal outcome (each), or the way we have it now?
not saying one is better than the other, they are just different styles. i do think having the PCs specified where they can be is a good thing.
i know this is late in the process to suggest such a design change- i can't believe i didn't look back at the AW chart until just now, at least with the pistol chart in mind. so perhaps making the pistol chart like the AW chart was not the goal, and still isn't. but if so, there will need to be some significant layout changes (but logic will still be the same).
just throwin ideas out for consideration.

And yes, thank you guys for all the hard work. It's coming out great!

My first concern was to get all the logc down first, and then to pretty up the chart later. Yes, we can add in PC-references as needed. And could maybe combine all the Legal or Illegal boxes into one of each and point to it, like the AW chart does. but there was no point in making "pretty" if you have to keep adding in new questions.

goober
03-10-2009, 2:09 PM
My first concern was to get all the logc down first, and then to pretty up the chart later. Yes, we can add in PC-references as needed. And could maybe combine all the Legal or Illegal boxes into one of each and point to it, like the AW chart does. but there was no point in making "pretty" if you have to keep adding in new questions.
understood :thumbsup:

obeygiant
03-10-2009, 2:42 PM
My first concern was to get all the logc down first, and then to pretty up the chart later. Yes, we can add in PC-references as needed. And could maybe combine all the Legal or Illegal boxes into one of each and point to it, like the AW chart does. but there was no point in making "pretty" if you have to keep adding in new questions.

I'll work on an 'assault-weaponesque' version this evening after I get the kids down for the night.

cedricxerxes
03-10-2009, 6:56 PM
Great job guys!

ke6guj
03-11-2009, 1:26 PM
We may want to add something to the chart stating that this only covers the legality of the handgun as possesed. It does not cover dealer sales and transfers of the handgun, and how Roster issues can apply.

obeygiant
03-11-2009, 9:35 PM
Well, I spent a day or so trying to figure out a way to mimic the flow of the Center Fire/Semi-Auto Flow Chart and here is what I have. Viso does not have all of the "pretty" features that eDraw is capable of so I won't be able to help much with "pretty".

I do have a question or two for those more knowledgeable than myself.

For question #5 am I correct in that it Violates

"USC TITLE 26 Subtitle E - CHAPTER 53 - Subchapter B - PART I –
§5845§ "

For question 13(a) & 13(b) did I cite the correct portion of the Penal Code?

"Violates PC §12276.1 (a)(1)(A-F)" and "Violates PC §12276.1 (a)(2)" respectively

obeygiant
03-11-2009, 9:41 PM
We may want to add something to the chart stating that this only covers the legality of the handgun as possesed. It does not cover dealer sales and transfers of the handgun, and how Roster issues can apply.

Something along the lines of ...

"This chart is intended to cover the legality of the handgun as possessed. It does not cover dealer sales/transfers or address any applicable Roster issues."

ke6guj
03-12-2009, 12:05 AM
Well, I spent a day or so trying to figure out a way to mimic the flow of the Center Fire/Semi-Auto Flow Chart and here is what I have. Viso does not have all of the "pretty" features that eDraw is capable of so I won't be able to help much with "pretty".

I do have a question or two for those more knowledgeable than myself.

For question #5 am I correct in that it Violates

"USC TITLE 26 Subtitle E - CHAPTER 53 - Subchapter B - PART I –
§5845§ "


violates 26 U.S.C. 5861 and CA 12020(a)(1)


For question 13(a) & 13(b) did I cite the correct portion of the Penal Code?

"Violates PC §12276.1 (a)(1)(A-f)" and "Violates PC §12276.1 (a)(2)" respectively
13(a) Violates PC §12276.1 (a)(4)(A-D)
13(b) Violates PC §12276.1 (a)(5)




for #3, the Yes option needs to point to ILLEGAL. Violates PC12020(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. 5861


For #6-7, the violation would be PC12020(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. 5861 if not properly possessed per 12020(b) and 26 U.S.C. 5812/5822 (not sure this is the best code section to reference).


edit: and I think that for #6, the flow from the "illegal unless properly regisitered" box need to link back into the flow between #7 and #8.

ke6guj
03-12-2009, 12:08 AM
Something along the lines of ...
"This chart is intended to cover the legality of the handgun as possessed. It does not cover dealer sales/transfers or address any applicable Roster issues."
That sounds pretty good.

obeygiant
03-12-2009, 9:30 AM
violates 26 U.S.C. 5861 and CA 12020(a)(1)



13(a) Violates PC §12276.1 (a)(4)(A-D)
13(b) Violates PC §12276.1 (a)(5)




for #3, the Yes option needs to point to ILLEGAL. Violates PC12020(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. 5861


For #6-7, the violation would be PC12020(a)(1) and 26 U.S.C. 5861 if not properly possessed per 12020(b) and 26 U.S.C. 5812/5822 (not sure this is the best code section to reference).


edit: and I think that for #6, the flow from the "illegal unless properly regisitered" box need to link back into the flow between #7 and #8.

Thank You! Too many hours of staring at this flow chart, the laws all start to blur together. :sleeping: I will make the changes you recommended and should have something up here by this evening.

In the mean-time here is the flow chart when put through e-Draw (http://www.edrawsoft.com/). As you'll notice it's a trial so that explains the obligatory watermark on the picture. Let me know what you think about the edraw version vs. the visio design that we have been using.

obeygiant
03-12-2009, 11:13 AM
Thank You! Too many hours of staring at this flow chart, the laws all start to blur together. :sleeping: I will make the changes you recommended and should have something up here by this evening.

In the mean-time here is the flow chart when put through e-Draw (http://www.edrawsoft.com/). As you'll notice it's a trial so that explains the obligatory watermark on the picture. Let me know what you think about the edraw version vs. the visio design that we have been using.
Made the changes. Is there any additional content that should be on the first page of the chart?

obeygiant
03-12-2009, 11:35 AM
made a few minor cosmetic changes. take a look and let me know what you think. What does everyone think of the color choices? Should I change those up a bit?

ke6guj
03-12-2009, 11:48 AM
looks fine to me.

Now that we have logic down, now you get to start working on the prettyness. You'll have to work on that yourself, I don't have an artistic bone in my body.

goober
03-12-2009, 1:12 PM
great job!
it's really shaping up. i'll leave the color choice and aesthetics up to everyone else, but will add that the more there is a consistent look & feel from one flowchart to the next, the more familiar and comfortable the user will be (assuming they've seen another one previously) and the easier they all will be to use.
of course that's only a good idea if the original model has a good design, and i think most would agree that the AW Chart does. so i think your adaptation to an AW-style format is a good thing.
as far as the minor tweaks, fonts, line styles, colors, etc., i think even if you stopped right now it would be great. but if you can make it even more like the AW chart then that would be great too.
once again, nice work!
(of course we will want to do a version w/ a registered copy of eDraw or whatever software to remove the watermark)

ke6guj
03-12-2009, 1:21 PM
(of course we will want to do a version w/ a registered copy of eDraw or whatever software to remove the watermark)I know that CGF paid for a licensed copy of SmartDraw for Redhorse to use to make the AW chart, and others as needed. And he has offered to take the chart that we make and render it in SmartDraw. It doesn't matter to me who turns the info presented into a nice chart. As I mentioned above, I have no artistic ability, so however obeygiant and Redhorse want to collaborate on it is fine by me.

obeygiant
03-12-2009, 3:13 PM
I know that CGF paid for a licensed copy of SmartDraw for Redhorse to use to make the AW chart, and others as needed. And he has offered to take the chart that we make and render it in SmartDraw. It doesn't matter to me who turns the info presented into a nice chart. As I mentioned above, I have no artistic ability, so however obeygiant and Redhorse want to collaborate on it is fine by me.

sorry, I was under the impression he used eDraw which is why I downloaded it and ported the drawing over from visio. I can get a trial, possibly purchase depending on licensing costs and the state of my checking account, of smart draw and try and convert it to a format that he can use.

As far as the ability to mimic the original flow chart that may be a little tricky as there are more questions than the assault weapon chart as well as a few more legal maneuverings which make it difficult to present the flow/logic without overlapping some of lines/paths. It is quite possible that once it is in the hands of RedHorse that he will be able to work some compositional magic and make it happen though.

After I get home and take care of the family I will give it another stab and see what can be done make the layout a bit closer to the original AW flowchart.

Thank you to everyone for the feedback,the guidance on the content and the patience with me as I revise them.

cedricxerxes
03-12-2009, 3:45 PM
sorry, I was under the impression he used eDraw which is why I downloaded it and ported the drawing over from visio. I can get a trial, possibly purchase depending on licensing costs and the state of my checking account, of smart draw and try and convert it to a format that he can use.
If you end up purchasing this to get it done, let me know. I can kick in some dough.

Librarian
03-12-2009, 4:21 PM
Looks good except for old eyes.

My printer renders the .jpg exactly the same size as I get it on screen in Firefox, and I can't read it without a magnifying glass.

Split the text box to a second page, and expand the chart to full page?

I do like the more linear look of the latest.

ke6guj
03-12-2009, 9:16 PM
Here, try this. I resized the original smaller.http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu212/ke6guj/Pistol-FlowChart-03-12-09-r8t2-resi.jpg

If it isn't readable, I'll host the pdfs.

Librarian
03-12-2009, 9:41 PM
Better - about 30%? bigger. Near enough a full page.

My son says he can read it OK, so it probably will be OK for most people.

ke6guj
03-12-2009, 9:48 PM
the original is 5400 pixels wide. I resized it to 1080 pixels wide, but could resize it bigger if need be. I just didn't want it so big that you had to scroll sideways to view it. Used to be 800 pixels was as wide as you wanted something online, whats the consensis now?

obeygiant
03-12-2009, 10:51 PM
Before we spend too much time with the edraw version, I'm about 75% done converting the chart to smartdraw so that RedHorse can put the final touches on it. Here's the progress so far.

obeygiant
03-13-2009, 2:04 AM
Here is Side A/B of the Flow Chart. I will work on getting Side B completed sometime tomorrow. As always, let me know what you think in terms of the layout,font size, additional content that should be on each page,etc.

cedricxerxes
03-13-2009, 5:33 AM
Did we lose the CA definition of "handgun"?

4 is missing a "YES".

What do you think of combining the outputs of 4 (YES), 6 (Continue), and 7 (Continue) to be a single return between 7 (NO) and the input of 8?

goober
03-13-2009, 7:23 AM
Did we lose the CA definition of "handgun"?

4 is missing a "YES".

What do you think of combining the outputs of 4 (YES), 6 (Continue), and 7 (Continue) to be a single return between 7 (NO) and the input of 8?

4 has a Yes on the one i looked at (image posted by k6guj in post#126)
seems like it does those things you mentioned too. either you may be looking at an older version or that image was updated to incorporate your suggestions.
BUT- 13b DOES need a label on the "No" outcome....

obeygiant
03-13-2009, 9:49 AM
4 has a Yes on the one i looked at (image posted by k6guj in post#126)
seems like it does those things you mentioned too. either you may be looking at an older version or that image was updated to incorporate your suggestions.
BUT- 13b DOES need a label on the "No" outcome....

I incorporated the changes that both of you sugested, take a look and see if there is anything that I missed.

http://dc131.4shared.com/download/92724470/79c542e3/Pistol-FlowChart-03-13-09-r8v-SideA-800x600.jpg?tsid=20090313-135723-556bf08c

goober
03-13-2009, 10:01 AM
I incorporated the changes that both of you sugested, take a look and see if there is anything that I missed.



10 = "Yes" should go to ILLEGAL not Legal

keep up the good work :)

obeygiant
03-13-2009, 10:08 AM
10 = "Yes" should go to ILLEGAL not Legal

keep up the good work :)

Good catch! I'll fix it and upload a new pic.

Done, try this one.

cedricxerxes
03-13-2009, 2:13 PM
I see the YES on 4 in Post #126, but not in #135.

I also suggest combining the SBS/SBR continue output with 4 (YES) to have one line join BELOW 7 (NO).

What about switching the order of 10 & 11? That would eliminate the dashed line. Olympic Pistols are a defined list, right? There's no overlap between listed AW's & "Olympic Pistols" or Antiques made before 1899, right?

goober
03-13-2009, 2:20 PM
I see the YES on 4 in Post #126, but not in #135.

you're right... and 2 is missing a "Yes" label also :p

I also suggest combining the SBS/SBR continue output with 4 (YES) to have one line join BELOW 7 (NO).

agreed

What about switching the order of 10 & 11? That would eliminate the dashed line. Olympic Pistols are a defined list, right? There's no overlap between listed AW's & "Olympic Pistols" or Antiques made before 1899, right?
also a good idea

cedricxerxes
03-13-2009, 2:49 PM
you're right... and 2 is missing a "Yes" label also :p

I think 2 has "Yes", it's just farther down. Moving it up is a good idea.

ke6guj
03-13-2009, 2:53 PM
I see the YES on 4 in Post #126, but not in #135.

I also suggest combining the SBS/SBR continue output with 4 (YES) to have one line join BELOW 7 (NO).

What about switching the order of 10 & 11? That would eliminate the dashed line. Olympic Pistols are a defined list, right? There's no overlap between listed AW's & "Olympic Pistols" or Antiques made before 1899, right?
sound like good ideas.

I saw that with 10 and 11 and was trying to think of any reason why the order couldn't be switched. Can't think of any.


you're right... and 2 is missing a "Yes" label also :p
Actually, its there, on the side, but poorly placed. Follow the Yes line from #2 down, and you'll see it.

goober
03-13-2009, 3:23 PM
I think 2 has "Yes", it's just farther down. Moving it up is a good idea.
d'OH...there it is. but yeah let's move it up where it belongs.

obeygiant
03-13-2009, 3:33 PM
sound like good ideas.

I saw that with 10 and 11 and was trying to think of any reason why the order couldn't be switched. Can't think of any.



Actually, its there, on the side, but poorly placed. Follow the Yes line from #2 down, and you'll see it.

Made the changes that everyone recommended and added a couple of yes & no's to clarify the long lines.

I also did a redesign on the 2nd page "Side B" for you guys to take a look at as well.

cedricxerxes
03-13-2009, 5:24 PM
Looks excellent.

Side B has the definition of "Detachable Magazine" in two spots (Harriot & Definition of Terms)

I would either combine the output of 4 (Yes) with the "SBS/SBR continue" so it's a single tie-in below 7 (No) OR move 7 (No) above both tie-ins.

Cosmetically, you might want to horizontally align the text 8 (Yes), 9 (No), 10 (Yes), and 11 (Yes).

obeygiant
03-13-2009, 7:52 PM
Looks excellent.

Side B has the definition of "Detachable Magazine" in two spots (Harriot & Definition of Terms)

I would either combine the output of 4 (Yes) with the "SBS/SBR continue" so it's a single tie-in below 7 (No) OR move 7 (No) above both tie-ins.

Cosmetically, you might want to horizontally align the text 8 (Yes), 9 (No), 10 (Yes), and 11 (Yes).

Made all of the changes per your recommendations. I do have a couple of questions for everyone involved.

For "Side A"

Do we want to keep all of the content in the text boxes on the right that is currently there?
Is there anything that has been left out that should be included?


For "Side B":

Do we want to keep all of the content that is currently there?
Is there anything that has been left out that should be included?


I'd like to say thank you to everyone that has helped edit/critique the drawings. It is very easy to miss the small details when going through so many revisions like we are, so i definately appreciate the extra sets of eyes on it.

cedricxerxes
03-15-2009, 6:00 PM
Two more cosmetic suggestions:

Move second "4 (Yes)".

Align 13 (No).

Apologies for my lame Photoshop skills.

obeygiant
03-15-2009, 7:53 PM
Two more cosmetic suggestions:

Move second "4 (Yes)".

Align 13 (No).

Apologies for my lame Photoshop skills.

Changes made, here are the new pics.

obeygiant
03-15-2009, 8:49 PM
The following question was brought up by a friend while going over the flow chart.

Specific to 13B,
there needs to be a caviat that states something along the folowing lines.
"It is legal to have a magazine greater than 10 rounds IF the +10 round magazine was owned before Jan 1 1999".

we could add another "yellow bubble" similar to the one on questions 6 & 7 that includes the "Illegal unless the >10rd magazine was owned before Jan 1, 1999. If so, continue."

what do you guys think about this?

ke6guj
03-15-2009, 9:54 PM
we could add another "yellow bubble" similar to the one on questions 6 & 7 that includes the "Illegal unless the >10rd magazine was owned before Jan 1, 1999. If so, continue."

what do you guys think about this?Nope, doesn't matter if the mag is pre-2000 or not. At that point in the chart, any semi-auto handgun that is not a registered AW, antique, or Olympic pistol would be illegal with a 11+ round fixed magazine of any vintage.

Maybe 13b could be edited to say fixed magazine, since this is the PC section we are trying to cover, (5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. .

obeygiant
03-15-2009, 10:38 PM
Nope, doesn't matter if the mag is pre-2000 or not. At that point in the chart, any semi-auto handgun that is not a registered AW, antique, or Olympic pistol would be illegal with a 11+ round fixed magazine of any vintage.

Maybe 13b could be edited to say fixed magazine, since this is the PC section we are trying to cover, (5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. .

cool, I think that is getting us closer to our end result. I'll add that to the chart and put it up here in the next few minutes. done.

REDHORSE
03-16-2009, 5:58 AM
Sorry for not being as involved as much as I would have liked. Just busy with work and home stuff.

You guys are doing great!

When you guys want me to render it in SmartDraw, just let me know.

obeygiant
03-16-2009, 7:48 AM
Sorry for not being as involved as much as I would have liked. Just busy with work and home stuff.

You guys are doing great!

When you guys want me to render it in SmartDraw, just let me know.

I recreated the chart in SmartDraw so that it would be compatible with what you already have. I will send you a copy here shortly.can you PM me the email address that you'd like me to send it to?

cedricxerxes
03-16-2009, 9:47 AM
Changes made, here are the new pics.
Looks the same to me. Did you post an older version?

obeygiant
03-16-2009, 10:14 AM
Looks the same to me. Did you post an older version?

It shows up fine for me, not sure why it isn't for you. I made the following changes:

I moved second "4 (Yes)".
Aligned 13 (No).

on CAHGID-FlowChart-03-15-09-r9.1-SideA (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=18939&d=1237175311)

I also made a minor change to question 13b so that it said "fixed magazine" instead of just "magazine" here
CAHGID-FlowChart-03-15-09-r9.2-SideA (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=18956&d=1237186067)

If you'd like I can email the exported jpegs directly if it is still not showing up properly.

obeygiant
03-20-2009, 4:26 PM
After getting in touch with RedHorse, he provided me a copy of the AW flow chart so that I could try and get this one more in line with the style of the AW Flow Chart. That way we would have some consistency and familiarity between the two. Anyway here is the last version that I put together.

As of today my trial of smartdraw is over so unless I get "creative" and find another way to do this i will be turning this over to RedHorse entirely.

redneckshootist
03-20-2009, 5:08 PM
This is all great, thanks guys.

obeygiant
03-23-2009, 11:53 PM
Trial expiration problem resolved. Back in business.

REDHORSE
03-24-2009, 5:05 AM
sweet

obeygiant
03-24-2009, 10:21 PM
Made a few minor cosmetic fixes but over all it is the same as the last chart that I posted.

what is the consensus here on the state of the flow chart? Is everyone in agreement on the content that is included on the second page? Are there any additional "informational boxes" that need to be added?

obeygiant
03-25-2009, 8:43 PM
Incorporated the cosmetic changes recommended by cedricxerxes, and the changes requested by ke6guj.

cedricxerxes
03-25-2009, 9:24 PM
Incorporated the cosmetic changes recommended by cedricxerxes, and the changes requested by ke6guj.

Looks great to me!

cedricxerxes
03-26-2009, 5:01 PM
I noticed that we are incorporating the Magazine locks "FYI" from the CA Center Fire, Semi-Auto Rifle ID Chart. Is this current language?

Do we want to edit it to reflect:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=150568


.

freonr22
03-26-2009, 5:06 PM
WOW! What a tremendously great EFFORT!! Looks Fantastic

obeygiant
03-26-2009, 8:51 PM
I noticed that we are incorporating the Magazine locks "FYI" from the CA Center Fire, Semi-Auto Rifle ID Chart. Is this current language?

Do we want to edit it to reflect:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=150568


.
I agree, I think we should edit it to reflect the most current legal opinion.

obeygiant
03-28-2009, 12:57 AM
Moved the CA law stuff to the left (had to leave the roberti-roos section to preserve layout), moved the detachable mags to the top right and federal regulations to the right side as well. I also added to the definition of terms to help clarify where all of these law citations are coming from.


CAHGID-FlowChart-03-27-09-r9.14-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/95414806/d26ebe85/CAHGID-FlowChart-03-27-09-r914-SideA-B.html)

50CalAL
03-28-2009, 1:49 AM
WOW! What a tremendously great EFFORT!! Looks Fantastic

+1 Thanks this is great!!!! Appreciate all the effort that went into this :thumbsup:

Ground Loop
03-28-2009, 12:00 PM
Awesome project.

One comment: Someone "less-informed" might conclude that a firearm that is not semi-auto (->NO) is full-auto (-> LEGAL).

Not sure how low you want to stoop to explain/clarify terms..

obeygiant
03-28-2009, 1:57 PM
Made a few minor changes, added "PC §12020(a)(1) Article 2. Unlawful Carrying And Possession Of Weapons"


CAHGID-FlowChart-03-28-09-r9.15-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/95512237/6de4d47f/CAHGID-FlowChart-03-28-09-r915-SideA-B.html)

obeygiant
03-28-2009, 8:58 PM
Awesome project.

One comment: Someone "less-informed" might conclude that a firearm that is not semi-auto (->NO) is full-auto (-> LEGAL).

Not sure how low you want to stoop to explain/clarify terms..
Evidently this same question has been asked by a couple of others as well. Anyone have any ideas on how to adjust the chart so that it is a bit more clear on question #8?
Should there be an informational box/warning box that states either:

NO------>Legal if firearm is a single shot,single action revolver,pump-action,bolt-action or lever-action

or

NO------>Legal if firearm is not fully automatic

obeygiant
03-29-2009, 8:42 PM
Evidently this same question has been asked by a couple of others as well. Anyone have any ideas on how to adjust the chart so that it is a bit more clear on question #8?
Should there be an informational box/warning box that states either:

NO------>Legal if firearm is a single shot,single action revolver,pump-action,bolt-action or lever-action

or

NO------>Legal if firearm is not fully automatic

Here is an example of what Question #8 would look like with the informational/warning box.

CAHGID-FlowChart-03-29-09-r916-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/95729358/77aa5885/CAHGID-FlowChart-03-29-09-r916-SideA-B.html)

Obviously not ideal but I think something along those lines would clarify the question so that it is not understood to mean "full-auto = legal"

Just an idea. Anyone have any thoughts on a better way to handle this or a better way of stating it?

goober
03-29-2009, 9:19 PM
Here is an example of what Question #8 would look like with the informational/warning box.

CAHGID-FlowChart-03-29-09-r916-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/95729358/77aa5885/CAHGID-FlowChart-03-29-09-r916-SideA-B.html)

Obviously not ideal but I think something along those lines would clarify the question so that it is not understood to mean "full-auto = legal"

Just an idea. Anyone have any thoughts on a better way to handle this or a better way of stating it?
works OK. alternative would be to have a FA question upstream of it to remove that possibility beforehand.

on another note, shouldn't 7 "Yes" go to the same conditionally "illegal" outcome as 5 & 6 "Yes"? since all 3 are SBS/SBR/AOW questions, "Yes" answers all should be "Illegal" if not permitted, in same way.

keep up the good work.

ke6guj
03-29-2009, 9:59 PM
works OK. alternative would be to have a FA question upstream of it to remove that possibility beforehand. we're working on that.

on another note, shouldn't 7 "Yes" go to the same conditionally "illegal" outcome as 5 & 6 "Yes"? since all 3 are SBS/SBR/AOW questions, "Yes" answers all should be "Illegal" if not permitted, in same way.No, because the legal outcome is covered in #4. A legal AOW can skip 5 & 6, but a firearm not registered as an AOW would need to go through 5 & 6, and if neither one of them caught it, then #7 could.

keep up the good work.thanks.

goober
03-30-2009, 7:47 AM
No, because the legal outcome is covered in #4. A legal AOW can skip 5 & 6, but a firearm not registered as an AOW would need to go through 5 & 6, and if neither one of them caught it, then #7 could.



ah, i see. OK. i failed to notice #4, duh.

obeygiant
03-30-2009, 8:24 PM
Our discussion of Question #8 "Is the firearm semi-auto?" led us in the direction of finding a better way to address the "full auto" issue before we actually get to #8 in the chart. This way it has already been dealt with and thus rules out the possibility of someone reading Question #8,answering "No" and then concluding that if it is not "semi-auto" it is "full-auto" and legal.

ke6guj also brought up the issue of "Destructive Devices" since we had not addressed that in the flow chart as of yet. Here are two approaches to dealing with these issues

CAHGID-FlowChart-03-30-09-r9.19-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/95918039/91a70d09/CAHGID-FlowChart-03-30-09-r919-SideA-B.html)

or

CAHGID-FlowChart-03-29-09-r9.18-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/95749629/c667c99f/CAHGID-FlowChart-03-29-09-r918-SideA-B.html)

Any thoughts on this?

goober
03-30-2009, 8:54 PM
Our discussion of Question #8 "Is the firearm semi-auto?" led us in the direction of finding a better way to address the "full auto" issue before we actually get to #8 in the chart. This way it has already been dealt with and thus rules out the possibility of someone reading Question #8,answering "No" and then concluding that if it is not "semi-auto" it is "full-auto" and legal.

ke6guj also brought up the issue of "Destructive Devices" since we had not addressed that in the flow chart as of yet. Here are two approaches to dealing with these issues

CAHGID-FlowChart-03-30-09-r9.19-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/95918039/91a70d09/CAHGID-FlowChart-03-30-09-r919-SideA-B.html)

or

CAHGID-FlowChart-03-29-09-r9.18-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/95749629/c667c99f/CAHGID-FlowChart-03-29-09-r918-SideA-B.html)

Any thoughts on this?

r918 is OK
if you go with r 919, perhaps reword #4 to say "Does the firearm have a non-smooth bore over 0.60" that is not designed for a fixed shotgun shell?"
or something like that.

regardless, we need to reverse the "greater than" symbol in #2 to read "less than" ( "<" ) so that it says "Does the firearm have a barrel < 16"?".
sorry, just caught that one. dunno how many times I've looked at this thing and missed it.



perhaps reword

obeygiant
03-30-2009, 9:10 PM
r918 is OK
if you go with r 919, perhaps reword #4 to say "Does the firearm have a non-smooth bore over 0.60" that is not designed for a fixed shotgun shell?"
or something like that.

I like your suggestion on the wording.

regardless, we need to reverse the "greater than" symbol in #2 to read "less than" ( "<" ) so that it says "Does the firearm have a barrel < 16"?".
sorry, just caught that one. dunno how many times I've looked at this thing and missed it.

I've been meaning to change that to words instead of the symbol but the chart that I'm looking at does have the correct symbol for "less than" which is "<".

"Does the firearm have a barrel < 16"?". ------------> NO--------------->Not a handgun because a firearm with a barrel of 16" or more would be a rifle.
|
|
YES------------>Meaning the barrel is within the accepted range for a handgun.

obeygiant
03-30-2009, 9:23 PM
Sorry, forgot to post this.

California Penal Code Section 12001(a) (1)
As used in this title, the terms "pistol,""revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.

I think the idea behind the wording of the question was to stay in line with wording of Penal Code.

ke6guj
03-30-2009, 9:26 PM
r918 is OK
if you go with r 919, perhaps reword #4 to say "Does the firearm have a non-smooth bore over 0.60" that is not designed for a fixed shotgun shell?"
or something like that.let me think if that catches all the DD wierdness, and also where it needs to be placed in the chart.

regardless, we need to reverse the "greater than" symbol in #2 to read "less than" ( "<" ) so that it says "Does the firearm have a barrel < 16"?".
sorry, just caught that one. dunno how many times I've looked at this thing and missed it.

the way the logic flows, it is correct. But we could change it to 'greater than 16", but we'd need to reverse the YES/NO answers if it sounds better.

obeygiant
03-30-2009, 11:20 PM
Sorry, forgot to post this.
I think the idea behind the wording of the question was to stay in line with wording of Penal Code.

After re-reading what goober_0 and discussing it with ke6guj we took the reworded destructive device question and changed it slightly and also made the change to the barrel length question so that it now reads

"2. Does the Firearm have a barrel greater than 16"?------->Yes------->Not a Handgun
|
|
No------->meaning that the barrel is 16" or less therefore a handgun, continue.

Here's the new chart with the changes.

CAHGID-FlowChart-03-30-09-r9.20-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/95937670/aa394f2d/CAHGID-FlowChart-03-30-09-r920-SideA-B.html)

obeygiant
03-31-2009, 11:18 AM
Fixed a few things:

made all the penal code citations uniform
"NO" from 15(a) now goes directly to LEGAL
Put a note near the Question #14 pointing the user to the Green info box on the right.
Re-worded Question #9


CAHGID-FlowChart-03-31-09-r9.21-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/96034148/8ed266e2/CAHGID-FlowChart-03-31-09-r921-SideA-B.html)

cedricxerxes
04-03-2009, 6:00 AM
A couple of 5˘ points...

Since this flow chart deals with Handguns, logically I would reverse (2) & (1).

I recommend replacing the NFA Section III and the Title 27 CFR Chapter II Part 479.25, 479.69, & 479.84 information with the applicable Destructive Device definitions (Title 27 CFR Chapter II Part 479.11 & 12301 (a) (3)). I believe the NFA transfer, manufacture, administration info is valuable, but distracting from the intent of the flow chart. ke6guj has already done an outstanding job analyzing NFA ownership for mere mortals in CA. My opinion is if we want to delve more deeply into NFA ownership, we should do it elsewhere. Maybe another flowchart! ;)

I would also update the Definition of Terms to reflect Destructive Devices.

[(9) Yes.] I recommend modifying this to read "if not properly possessed per 27 CFR *" with "if not properly possessed per 27 CFR Part 479".

.

obeygiant
04-03-2009, 4:01 PM
A couple of 5˘ points...

Since this flow chart deals with Handguns, logically I would reverse (2) & (1).
Done

I recommend replacing the NFA Section III and the Title 27 CFR Chapter II Part 479.25, 479.69, & 479.84 information with the applicable Destructive Device definitions (Title 27 CFR Chapter II Part 479.11 & 12301 (a) (3)). I believe the NFA transfer, manufacture, administration info is valuable, but distracting from the intent of the flow chart. ke6guj has already done an outstanding job analyzing NFA ownership for mere mortals in CA. My opinion is if we want to delve more deeply into NFA ownership, we should do it elsewhere. Maybe another flowchart! ;)
Done


I would also update the Definition of Terms to reflect Destructive Devices.
Done


[(9) Yes.] I recommend modifying this to read "if not properly possessed per 27 CFR *" with "if not properly possessed per 27 CFR Part 479".
Done

Here is the chart with revisions mentioned above.
CAHGID-FlowChart-04-03-09-r9.23-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/96626590/739e3a67/CAHGID-FlowChart-04-03-09-r923-SideA-B.html)

obeygiant
04-04-2009, 5:31 PM
Added the reference to the relevant portions of Title 27 and the first sentence of each per ke6guj

CAHGID-FlowChart-04-03-09-r9.24-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/96811052/d793f5b5/CAHGID-FlowChart-04-03-09-r924-SideA-B.html)

ke6guj
04-04-2009, 5:51 PM
looks good.

cedricxerxes
04-07-2009, 10:45 AM
Added the reference to the relevant portions of Title 27 and the first sentence of each per ke6guj

CAHGID-FlowChart-04-03-09-r9.24-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/96811052/d793f5b5/CAHGID-FlowChart-04-03-09-r924-SideA-B.html)

A few minor edits:

[2(Yes)] Replace "27CFR*" with "27 CFR Part 479"

[6(Yes)] Replace "27CFR*" with "27 CFR Part 479"

[7(Yes)] Replace "27CFR*" with "27 CFR Part 479"

[9(Yes)] Replace "27 CFR Part 479*" with "27 CFR Part 479"

I would move the DD definitions up with the Detachable Magazine definitions; i.e. move California PC 12301 and CFR 27 Part 479.11 between PC 12276.1 and the start of the NFA Administrative stuff.

.

obeygiant
04-07-2009, 7:55 PM
A few minor edits:

[2(Yes)] Replace "27CFR*" with "27 CFR Part 479"

[6(Yes)] Replace "27CFR*" with "27 CFR Part 479"

[7(Yes)] Replace "27CFR*" with "27 CFR Part 479"

[9(Yes)] Replace "27 CFR Part 479*" with "27 CFR Part 479"
.

Added the changes you recommended to Questions 2,6,7,9


I would move the DD definitions up with the Detachable Magazine definitions; i.e. move California PC 12301 and CFR 27 Part 479.11 between PC 12276.1 and the start of the NFA Administrative stuff.

The idea behind the layout of Page2 was to put the CA stuff on the left as that is where you would naturally start reading, move the items such as the detachable mags to the top as that is a hot issue for everyone and move the DD and NFA stuff towards the bottom as it is less common.


CAHGID-FlowChart-04-07-09-r925-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/97359364/eb1fc842/CAHGID-FlowChart-04-07-09-r925-SideA-B.html)

cedricxerxes
04-08-2009, 1:45 PM
The idea behind the layout of Page2 was to put the CA stuff on the left as that is where you would naturally start reading, move the items such as the detachable mags to the top as that is a hot issue for everyone and move the DD and NFA stuff towards the bottom as it is less common.


Makes sense, though for me the State and Federal DD definitions are more relevant than NFA acquisition. Not a big deal either way. Thanks for incorporating the changes.

.

hoffmang
04-08-2009, 9:36 PM
Some comments:

Red Box on the right: "This chart is intended to address the possession of handguns and omits issues relating to the sale or transfer of handguns and associated Handgun Roster issues."

We probably need the definition of "Pen Gun" somewhere.

Instead of "registered with the BATF" I think we should say "Has an NFA tax stamp been received for the firearm and does the firearm meet the definition of an AOW."

"Illegal unless ... as a SBS/SBR" should be "an SBS/SBR."

11. How about just saying is it a registered AW?

13. We should say "see list on reverse" or somesuch.

Otherwise, looking good.

-Gene

obeygiant
04-08-2009, 10:10 PM
Some comments:

Red Box on the right: "This chart is intended to address the possession of handguns and omits issues relating to the sale or transfer of handguns and associated Handgun Roster issues."

We probably need the definition of "Pen Gun" somewhere.

Instead of "registered with the BATF" I think we should say "Has an NFA tax stamp been received for the firearm and does the firearm meet the definition of an AOW."

"Illegal unless ... as a SBS/SBR" should be "an SBS/SBR."

11. How about just saying is it a registered AW?

13. We should say "see list on reverse" or somesuch.

Otherwise, looking good.

-Gene

I'll work on those changes now and should have a revised version to post up here shortly.

Would you happen to know where I could look for the definition of a pen gun? I haven't been able to find one as of yet.

Thank you for taking a look at the chart and for your recommendations.

obeygiant
04-08-2009, 10:46 PM
Some comments:

Red Box on the right: "This chart is intended to address the possession of handguns and omits issues relating to the sale or transfer of handguns and associated Handgun Roster issues."

We probably need the definition of "Pen Gun" somewhere.

Instead of "registered with the BATF" I think we should say "Has an NFA tax stamp been received for the firearm and does the firearm meet the definition of an AOW."

"Illegal unless ... as a SBS/SBR" should be "an SBS/SBR."

11. How about just saying is it a registered AW?

13. We should say "see list on reverse" or somesuch.

Otherwise, looking good.

-Gene

Made the changes you recommended except for the pen gun definition as I'm still looking for it but here's the link to the revised chart.

CAHGID-FlowChart-04-08-09-r9.26-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/97552958/c54b3660/CAHGID-FlowChart-04-08-09-r926-SideA-B.html)

obeygiant
04-09-2009, 10:53 AM
Here's the little that I was able to find on "Pen Guns".

Pen Guns Classified as Firearms (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/rr_757.txt)

The Bureau has held that a small caliber weapon ostensibly
designed to expel only tear gas, similar substances or pyrotechnic
signals by the action of an explosive, which may readily be
converted to expel a projectile by means of an explosive,
constitutes "firearm" within the purview of 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(3)(A).

The Bureau has long held that such weapons when actually
converted to fire other than the gas or pyrotechnic cartridges
originally designed for use therewith are "firearms" under Chapter
44 an the National Firearms Act, depending on the individual
characteristics of the weapon. See Revenue Ruling 56-29, supra,
and Revenue Ruling 56-597, C.B. 1956-2, p. 931 (Internal Revenue).
These determinations with respect to the converted weapon were not
altered by the amended definition of the term "firearm" now found
in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A) and the term "any other weapon" in 26
U.S.C. 5845(e). Accordingly, any such weapon which is capable of
being concealed on the person which has originally been designed or
converted to discharge a shot through the energy of an explosive
will remain subject to the provisions of the National Firearms ct
as an "any other weapon" (26 U.S.C. 5845(e)).

Such weapons manufactured within the United States on or after
June 1, 1975, re subject to all of the provisions of Chapter 44 and
26 CFR Part 178. Such weapons manufactured before June 1, 1975,
and which may still be in inventory, are exempt.

Revenue Ruling 56-29, C.B. 1956-1, p. 552 (Internal Revenue),
is hereby revoked. ATF Ruling 75-7, ATF C.B. 1975, p. 55.

Rev. Rul. 55-529 (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/rr_55529.txt), 1955-2 C.B. 482

Superseded by 56-597.

A .38 caliber "pen" gun and a 20 gauge weapon ostensibly
designed as tear gas devices, both described herein, are classified
as firearms within the purview of the National Firearms Act
(Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954).

The Internal Revenue Service has had the occasion to examine
two tear gas devices for the purpose of determining whether the are
firearms within the purview of the National Firearms Act (chapter
53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954).

Two devices ostensibly designed to expel a gas mist but
chambered to accommodate fixed shotgun shells or pistol and
revolver ammunition were examined and tested by the Internal
Revenue Service. A description of each and the results of the
tests are as follows: A 20 gauge weapon, 6 5/8 inches in overall
length with barrel length with a 1 5/8 inch tapered barrel and a
slip bolt firing pin, bearing no manufacturer's or patent
identification, was test fired using a caliber .38 special CF
cartridge with 158 gr. lead bullet of standard make. It was found
to perform satisfactorily. No structural damage to the device was
evident as a result of the test. A 20 gauge weapon, 6 5/8 inches
in overall length with barrel length of 2 3/4 inches and a slip
bolt action encased in the handgrip, was test fired using a 20
gauge 2 1/4-7/8-8 Xpert shotgun shell of standard make. It also
was found to perform satisfactorily and no structural damage to the
device was evident as a result of the test. This weapon was
accompanied by a removable 410 gauge steel insert chamber, 2 7/8
inches in length, and was also test fired utilizing the
supplemental chamber with a 410 gauge, 2 1/2 inch superseded
shotgun shell loaded with No. 4 shot of standard make. It was also
found to perform satisfactorily with no structural damage to the
device evidenced as a result of the test.

Since the devices are capable of being concealed on the
person, they are held to be firearms as defined in sections 5848(1)
and 5848(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

Rev. Rul. 55-529

us_v_rybar_brf2 (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_rybar_brf2.txt)

[FN5]. A "pen gun" is a small, single-shot pistol which resembles a fountain pen or air pressure gauge. It is classified as an "any other weapon" under the National Firearms Act because of its concealability and thus requires registration under the Act.

obeygiant
04-10-2009, 5:06 PM
Anyone have any thoughts on the "pen gun" definition? i having a difficult time finding any law that actually contains a definition. I'm especially having a lot of difficulty trying to find a definition from Ca. The definition does not appear to be in any of the case law,statutes,codes etc. that I'm able to search.

The only definition that I'm able to find is for a "fountain pen gun" that discharges tear gas cartridges,PC12401-12404. Every other reference to a "pen gun" simply states it's an AOW, considered a firearm because it can fire a fixed cartridge,is easily concealed upon a person and the only legal version is the "stinger pen gun".


PC 12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any camouflaging firearm container,



PC 12020(8) Any other weapon as defined in subsection (e) of Section 5845 of Title 26 of the United States Code and which is in the possession of a person permitted to possess the weapons pursuant to the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-618), as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto. Any person prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing these weapons who obtains title to these weapons by bequest or intestate succession may retain title for not more than one year, but actual possession of these weapons at any time is punishable pursuant to Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Within the year, the person shall transfer title to the weapons by sale, gift, or other disposition. Any person who violates this paragraph is in violation of subdivision (a). The exemption provided in this subdivision does not apply to pen guns.

obeygiant
04-13-2009, 8:58 PM
Here's the little that I was able to find on "Pen Guns".

Should we go with

us_v_rybar_brf2

[FN5]. A "pen gun" is a small, single-shot pistol which resembles a fountain pen or air pressure gauge. It is classified as an "any other weapon" under the National Firearms Act because of its concealability and thus requires registration under the Act.

with the caveat that in california it is exempt?

Or do we want to put in the whole ambiguous explanation of why it is illegal i.e.

CA specifically exempts them from the AOW exemption to 12020, specifically “any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm”

hoffmang
04-13-2009, 9:46 PM
Use the definition from Rybar. Maybe add, "Note: California Law prohibits AOW classified pen guns."

-Gene

obeygiant
04-13-2009, 10:36 PM
Use the definition from Rybar. Maybe add, "Note: California Law prohibits AOW classified pen guns."

-Gene

Thank you for the help! I've been searching all over the net and that was the most I was able to come up with.

obeygiant
04-13-2009, 11:13 PM
Should I cite that definition in the following manner?

U.S. v. Rybar,103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996)

I believe the citation above is for the original case but the definition comes from a brief by Rybar's attorney to the court. Is there a specific way to cite a Legal Brief?

Here's the original link for US v. Rybar Brief 2 (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_rybar_brf2.txt)

and the link to the original case U.S. v. Rybar (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_rybar.txt)

obeygiant
04-13-2009, 11:38 PM
Here's the revised chart with the definition of the Pen Gun included.

CAHGID-FlowChart-04-14-09-r9.27-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/98453419/5b509488/CAHGID-FlowChart-04-14-09-r927-SideA-B.html)

ke6guj
05-08-2009, 9:38 PM
bump.

Guys, take a look at the chart please. Let us know if you have any suggestions or see any errors.

obeygiant
05-09-2009, 11:35 AM
bump.

Guys, take a look at the chart please. Let us know if you have any suggestions or see any errors.

If anyone has some time to look over this chart and see if we missed anything it would be greatly appreciated. If there are no more changes that need to be made let's put this sucker to press!

cedricxerxes
05-10-2009, 1:00 PM
Looks great to me. Thanks for your hard work on this.

obeygiant
05-10-2009, 2:59 PM
latest release, consolidated some of the penal code sections and cfr sections as well.
CAHGID-FlowChart-05-10-09-r9.30-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/104571015/4f17f48/CAHGID-FlowChart-05-10-09-r930-SideA-B.html)

obeygiant
05-11-2009, 12:03 AM
Revised version.

CAHGID-FlowChart-05-11-09-r931-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/104651076/37f6a8ba/CAHGID-FlowChart-05-11-09-r931-SideA-B.html)

obeygiant
05-11-2009, 9:16 PM
Cleaned up a few items

CAHGID-FlowChart-05-11-09-r9.32-SideA-B (http://www.4shared.com/file/104852601/cae119f2/CAHGID-FlowChart-05-11-09-r933-SideA-B.html)

obeygiant
05-16-2009, 8:18 PM
The handgun flow chart is finished so now it's just a matter of making sure that everyone can read it without too much eye strain. :)

CAHGID-FlowChart-05-16-09-r9.34-SideA-B-Final (http://www.4shared.com/file/105853914/b607f7d0/CAHGID-FlowChart-05-16-09-r934-SideA-B-Final.html)

obeygiant
05-16-2009, 10:54 PM
Added the document header to each page, a page count, removed the .50BMG section from the right side of the chart and fixed an issue where the initial zoom was different on a couple of the pages.


CAHGID-FlowChart-05-16-09-r9.35-SideA-B-Final (http://www.4shared.com/file/105876196/d3ddee1e/CAHGID-FlowChart-05-16-09-r935-SideA-B-Final.html)

obeygiant
05-18-2009, 9:30 PM
As with the shotgun chart this appears to be the final revision pending any changes recommended by the legal gurus.

CAHGID-FlowChart-05-18-09-r937-SideA-B-Final (http://www.4shared.com/file/106317462/39308cb8/CAHGID-FlowChart-05-18-09-r937-SideA-B-Final.html)

Kestryll
05-18-2009, 9:54 PM
Just a heads up to you all, this weekend i was at the NRA Convention and took my netbook with me.
I have the AW ID flowchart along with jpeg beta of the Pistol and Shotgun flowcharts.

While talking with a Vendor who sells AR-type rifles and other really neat stuff about bringing them in to California in a legal form I showed him the AW ID chart.

He asked me if we had one like that for pistols since he wants to bring in some nifty .22 pistols and more.

I showed him the jpeg and told him that '..our members are working on building exactly that and here is the beta!'

Even in rough form this is a great tool!!

ke6guj
05-18-2009, 10:10 PM
sweet.

Even though this chart won't completely help him, since it is a legaliity chart and not a chart about the roster and how it relates to transfers, it is needed. And maybe I'll work on charting out the roster and roster-exemptions. But maybe Pena will go fast and a roster chart won't be neccessary.

obeygiant
05-18-2009, 10:42 PM
Just a heads up to you all, this weekend i was at the NRA Convention and took my netbook with me.
I have the AW ID flowchart along with jpeg beta of the Pistol and Shotgun flowcharts.

While talking with a Vendor who sells AR-type rifles and other really neat stuff about bringing them in to California in a legal form I showed him the AW ID chart.

He asked me if we had one like that for pistols since he wants to bring in some nifty .22 pistols and more.

I showed him the jpeg and told him that '..our members are working on building exactly that and here is the beta!'

Even in rough form this is a great tool!!

Wow! Now that's what I call being prepared. :) BTW, we will have the final copies ready for you to host after we submit them for one more round of legal scrutiny.

Gio
05-26-2009, 7:46 PM
Good stuff just forwarded this to a friend in WA, trying to get him to teach his friends about CA rules and regs as far as selling us Rifles, Pistols, Shotguns, and Magazines as well. <--- As long as they are kits as I already stated to him :D CYMA <----- :)

-Gio

obeygiant
08-15-2009, 9:37 AM
Pending some additional information regarding recent rulings on the zip gun law here is the latest version of the flow chart.

CAHGID-FlowChart-08-09-09-r938-SideA-B-Final
(http://www.4shared.com/file/124154324/ce37447d/CAHGID-FlowChart-08-09-09-r938-SideA-B-Final.html)

Greg-Dawg
08-15-2009, 9:39 AM
Cool.

obeygiant
08-15-2009, 9:49 AM
Thank you Kestryll for hosting them on Calguns. See the top of the page for pdf versions.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5258/flowcharts.jpg