PDA

View Full Version : DOJ Letter regarding FA Bolt Carriers in CA?


BlackReef
04-20-2009, 12:57 PM
Maybe my searching skills suck today, but I can't find the letter from the DOJ that was scanned, regarding the legality of FA Bolt Carriers in our Semi-Auto AR-15's....claiming they were legal. I have a buddy that wants a FA BCG but wants to see the letter first.

Thanks!

yellowfin
04-20-2009, 1:08 PM
The bolt carrier by itself does NOTHING. It's the selector, sear, and disconnect that do the F/A work.

BlackReef
04-20-2009, 1:08 PM
I know, I understand. Im trying to find the actual DOJ letter though that was posted on here some time ago

bwiese
04-20-2009, 1:18 PM
I'm sure there was no DOJ letter. There was a BATF letter instead.

I also suspect nobody at DOJ BoF wouldn't be able to know the difference.

Please believe me that an M16 bolt carrier is legal in an otherwise-legal AR.
Many AR vendors, including Colt's, sold ARs with M16 bolt carriers. Quite a few of these are in reg'd AWs in CA and if DOJ could make a ruckus of it they woulda tried already in the 1990s or early '00s.

For the record, I own several ARs with M16 bolt carriers and have absolutely zero worries.

Just make sure you have legit, quality semiauto hammer/trigger/disco parts.

BlackReef
04-20-2009, 1:24 PM
It may have easily been a BATF Letter, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Regardless, I do know that FA Bolt Carriers are legal. I have a friend that lives out of state that wants to ship his uppers into the State of CA, but they have FA Carriers.

He is uncomfortable with shipping them into the state, regardless of me telling them they are legal. I told him I seen an official letter (I told him DOJ, not realizing it was a BATF letter). Anyways, he said he would like to see the letter, but I can't seem to find it.

Any help would be appreciated

Thanks


I'm sure there was no DOJ letter. There was a BATF letter instead.

I also suspect nobody at DOJ BoF wouldn't be able to know the difference.

Please believe me that an M16 bolt carrier is legal in an otherwise-legal AR.
Many AR vendors, including Colt's, sold ARs with M16 bolt carriers. Quite a few of these are in reg'd AWs in CA and if DOJ could make a ruckus of it they woulda tried already in the 1990s or early '00s.

For the record, I own several ARs with M16 bolt carriers and have absolutely zero worries.

Just make sure you have legit, quality semiauto hammer/trigger/disco parts.

ohsmily
04-20-2009, 1:33 PM
It may have easily been a BATF Letter, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Regardless, I do know that FA Bolt Carriers are legal. I have a friend that lives out of state that wants to ship his uppers into the State of CA, but they have FA Carriers.

He is uncomfortable with shipping them into the state, regardless of me telling them they are legal. I told him I seen an official letter (I told him DOJ, not realizing it was a BATF letter). Anyways, he said he would like to see the letter, but I can't seem to find it.

Any help would be appreciated

Thanks

The letter you are going to show him has nothing to do with CA. It is a letter from a federal agency about federal law concerning FA bolt carriers. How would this letter have any effect on whether he will send to CA or not?

BlackReef
04-20-2009, 1:51 PM
Is there any documentation that outlines that a FA BCG does NOT make your rifle a MG in CA?

Monte
04-20-2009, 2:08 PM
You may have been thinking of this letter from the ATF to G&R Tactical, posted by uclaplinker:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1655000&postcount=5
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/ATF%20M16%20Letter.pdf

bwiese
04-20-2009, 2:28 PM
Is there any documentation that outlines that a FA BCG does NOT make your rifle a MG in CA?

The fact that Colt and other mfgrs have sold FA bolt carriers into CA over the last 2 decades should be good enough.

The change in bolt carrier is not a determiner of MG status.

You can't really 'prove a negative' like this. The FA bolt carrier will not make a properly configured rifle go full auto. The semauto bolt carriers were more a preventive meausure than anything concrete.

If your vendor won't ship an upper with that bolt carrier, just get it somewhere else from someone more rational.

BlackReef
04-20-2009, 3:19 PM
Alright, thanks for the help Bill

BlackReef
04-20-2009, 3:21 PM
You may have been thinking of this letter from the ATF to G&R Tactical, posted by uclaplinker:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1655000&postcount=5
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/ATF%20M16%20Letter.pdf


Yes, that was the letter I was thinking about. For some reason I thought it was a CA-Specific letter :( Oh well, doesn't change the fact that it is still legal. Just trying to find some 'proof' for this vendor