PDA

View Full Version : Stupid OLL question


grahlaika
04-29-2009, 3:24 PM
OK, I'm sure this has been asked and answered, but I couldn't find the answer in my searches. I was looking once again through the DOJ documentation online (the AW guide: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf), and I see the disclaimer that although they couldn't list all the existing lowers out there, the AW designation applies to all like weapons:

"The makes and models provided in this guide include those which the Department of Justice was able to
locate prior to printing this booklet. It is probable that some series weapons in circulation are unknown to
the Department of Justice. If you encounter a suspected series weapon that is not specifically named in this
booklet, please contact the Firearms Division at (916) 263-4887 for identification of that weapon.
Additional assault weapon models as they are identified will be included in future versions of this guide and
will be posted on the Firearms Division website at www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/awguide/."

So are we getting away with purchasing OLLs because they're not listed, or because we're fitting BBs and 10-round mags to make them fixed, thus to comply with 12276.1?

My question is if I have some OLLs that I'm storing for later builds, do I have to install BBs in them at a minimum to keep them stored, or can I just have them stored as stripped lowers because they're OLLs (based on 12276 (a)-(c)) even though 12276(e) lists any AR-15 or AR-10 'like' lowers as listed?

Sorry again if my question is stupid.

Jicko
04-29-2009, 3:25 PM
Follow the link in my signature.

ke6guj
04-29-2009, 3:27 PM
That AW guide does not reflect the Harrott ruling that said that "series" language was too vague, and that CADOJ had to specifically list each and every brand/model they wanted to consider an AW.

Then, after OLL's became common, CADOJ had the legislature remove DOJ's power to list new brand/models as AWs. They were afraid of a pro-gun AG listing models in a method that would have pro-gun. Such as, waiting for a brand to become commonly sold in CA, and then listing them so that we could build them up as AWs. Then, after a new model came out, waiting for enough sales to occur then listing them to "help" us.

JDay
04-29-2009, 4:10 PM
That AW guide does not reflect the Harrott ruling that said that "series" language was too vague, and that CADOJ had to specifically list each and every brand/model they wanted to consider an AW.

Then, after OLL's became common, CADOJ had the legislature remove DOJ's power to list new brand/models as AWs. They were afraid of a pro-gun AG listing models in a method that would have pro-gun. Such as, waiting for a brand to become commonly sold in CA, and then listing them so that we could build them up as AWs. Then, after a new model came out, waiting for enough sales to occur then listing them to "help" us.

This makes no sense to me. How would adding a weapon that is commonly sold in CA "help" us? It would turn people into criminals overnight.

wash
04-29-2009, 4:16 PM
No, it would have opened up a registration window for new "Assault Weapons".

Vtec44
04-29-2009, 4:17 PM
I believe it was challenged due to the fact that the DOJ is an executive branch and not legislative, therefor, has no power to make the laws but only to enforce them. Adding new names to the Kasler list would constitute making laws.

MudCamper
04-29-2009, 4:20 PM
This makes no sense to me. How would adding a weapon that is commonly sold in CA "help" us? It would turn people into criminals overnight.

The AG didn't want to list them, because to do so, they'd have to allow a 90 day registration window. As new brands and models are always being introduced, they'd have to keep listing and thereyby registering them.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Lockyer%20Letter%20-%20AB%202728.pdf

ke6guj
04-29-2009, 4:31 PM
The AG didn't want to list them, because to do so, they'd have to allow a 90 day registration window. As new brands and models are always being introduced, they'd have to keep listing and thereyby registering them.
+1. And they could do it in a manner that would be beneficial to us, if they wanted to. A pro-gun AG could let it leak which models he would be listing this month, giving people a chance to get one DROSed in time for the listing. Then, after the listing, the owner could register it as an AW, and then install all the evil features with a detachable magazine.

Next month, do the same thing with a new model. And if a company started offering lowers witha new model name or brand, the AG could wait untill there was sufficient sales to "justify" a listing.

The current CADOJ was afraid of a pro-gun AG being elected, and that scenario happing , so they had the legislature take the power of listing to prevent that from happening. When is the last time you heard of a .gov entity lobbying to have its powers eliminated voluntarily?

wash
04-29-2009, 4:57 PM
It just plain doesn't make sense.

The chances of a pro-gun AG getting elected are low enough, but what about one that would "put "Assault Weapons" on the street"? It would be political suicide in CA. It just wouldn't happen.

So they over-reacted and gave up any chance of adding any model to that list.

domokun
04-29-2009, 5:01 PM
It just plain doesn't make sense.

The chances of a pro-gun AG getting elected are low enough, but what about one that would "put "Assault Weapons" on the street"? It would be political suicide in CA. It just wouldn't happen.

So they over-reacted and gave up any chance of adding any model to that list.

When did CA politics or gun laws ever make any sense? :p

ke6guj
04-29-2009, 5:13 PM
It just plain doesn't make sense.

The chances of a pro-gun AG getting elected are low enough

there was a point in which CADOJ was afraid that Chuck Poochigian would become AG, or someone else could down the line.

, but what about one that would "put "Assault Weapons" on the street"? It would be political suicide in CA. It just wouldn't happen.
possibly, but it could be sold as "those gun nuts were evading the law by playing games with these firearms that were basically AWs and we didn't know who had them, so we listed them and now they have to register them, and can't buy and sell them anymore.

So they over-reacted and gave up any chance of adding any model to that list.possibly. It did prevent them from deciding to list stuff like the M1A, Mini-14, and other firearms that weren't listed, which many people were afraid might happen.

grahlaika
04-29-2009, 6:11 PM
Thanks all for the replies. Almost makes me think only lawyers can own guns in this state =/. So basically I don't have to install a BB on my stripped OLLs to store them, right?

Josh3239
04-29-2009, 6:24 PM
A stripped lower that is not banned by name cannot be an assault weapon.

CHS
04-29-2009, 6:39 PM
So basically I don't have to install a BB on my stripped OLLs to store them, right?

A stripped lower receiver *IS NOT* and *CAN NOT* be a "semi-automatic, centerfire rifle".

Even a fully assembled lower receiver *IS NOT* and *CAN NOT* be a "semi-automatic, centerfire rifle".

The upper receiver is what determines whether or not a lower will become a "semi-automatic, centerfire rifle".

Until an upper is installed, a lower (assembled or stripped) is just a title I firearm with a fire-control group installed and an open magazine well. A title I firearm that is not semi-automatic, and is not centerfire, does not need a bullet-button.

tombinghamthegreat
04-29-2009, 6:46 PM
Thanks all for the replies. Almost makes me think only lawyers can own guns in this state =/. So basically I don't have to install a BB on my stripped OLLs to store them, right?

Not to mention if you were to assemble lets say a normal upper for an AR you could go featureless to avoid putting a BB on....

MudCamper
04-29-2009, 9:11 PM
Thanks all for the replies. Almost makes me think only lawyers can own guns in this state =/. So basically I don't have to install a BB on my stripped OLLs to store them, right?

Since it doesn't have any banned features, and it is not listed, it is legal.

The flowchart should work on this: http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf