PDA

View Full Version : is this AK California Legal?


Air
05-20-2005, 7:50 AM
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=28842748

certainly interesting.

got this off a surplus rifle thread...here is the link:

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/surplusrifle/vpost?id=311619

trempel_ry@yahoo.com
05-20-2005, 8:30 AM
I would have to say NO.

05-20-2005, 8:56 AM
Originally posted by air1070:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=28842748

certainly interesting.

got this off a surplus rifle thread...here is the link:

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/surplusrifle/vpost?id=311619

It is interesting, but I would have to agree with Trempel.

bwiese
05-20-2005, 9:49 AM
I can't see the original link now since I'm at work now, but this appears to be a regular AK now with a thumbhole stock and a fixed 5rnd mag that's not readily detachable.

Unfortunately ARs and AKs of just about any mfgr were, in California, folded into banned "AR class" and "AK class" by the August 2000 Kasler decision - no matter whether there are, or not, any banned mix of 'evil features' like pistol grips, flash hiders, etc. Thus the bare receivers themselves are inherently assault weapons like any other of the specifically-named original 50+ 'Roberti-Roos' guns.

[Specialty California AR and AK variants like the FAB10, the Vulcan AR, the welded-up Bushmasters from GB Sales, and the CA-legal pump action AKs all have special clearance by mfgr/model from Calif. DOJ. These have specifically been determined by DOJ to be 'far enough' away from a regular AR or AK that they are no longer an AR or AK even though various parts still fit.]

The DOJ has thus published the "Roster of AK and AR15 Series Weapons" (also known as the 'Kasler list') at
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf

There could be some leeway with the later Harrott v. Kings County decision, which in essence says that determination of membership in these groups can be difficult and the DOJ must promulgate which guns (model, mfgr, etc.) are ARs and AKs. So if your gun is not on this DOJ Roster there could be 'wiggle room'. But this list is pretty complete and seems to have just about every AR variant and I'd bet most all AK variants. I'm betting this AK's receiver is actually on this roster.

But I wouldn't count on 'wiggle room' from Harrott and would still be leery. As far as I know Harrott hasn't ever been tested further in court and is more recent than Kasler. I really wouldn't wanna push it even if this AK were not on the Roster. Could get into court, risk of felony charge, etc. and big $$$ to defend against charges: remember, prosecutions are done 99% of time by local DA in county court. DOJ rarely prosecutes directly except for big-name megabuck cases - industrial polluters, etc.

If this gun were not an AK or AR, it'd be legal as long as a 10rd or less locap mag was pinned in (not detachable without tools+time) - kinda like the 'CaliFAL' FAL clones. The thumbhole stock counts just like a pistol grip.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

Leo762
05-20-2005, 2:19 PM
someone whould start making veprs in .308 and x39 like the fab 10s- except they can be fed from the top. i would buy one!

LongBch_SigP226
05-20-2005, 6:06 PM
There is a switch in front of the trigger guard.
My guess is, by pushing or pulling on this switch, magazine flips down from the receiver. With that setup, you can bring the attached magazine down and put the high cap in its place. So my guess is that it's not legal here. That mag needs to be fixed to the receiver so that you need some kind of tool to remove.

Leo762
05-20-2005, 6:33 PM
Originally posted by DingChavez:
There is a switch in front of the trigger guard.
My guess is, by pushing or pulling on this switch, magazine flips down from the receiver. With that setup, you can bring the attached magazine down and put the high cap in its place. So my guess is that it's not legal here. That mag needs to be fixed to the receiver so that you need some kind of tool to remove.

its still be illegal because AKs and ARs unless completely modded lik fab-10s will be illegal even if you take mag catch of, cant do it like a cali FAL set up.

schizrade
05-20-2005, 8:20 PM
AK reciever=BAD in cali. Forget the rest of the gun mag or no mag. The reciever is enough to get you whacked here.

Sydwaiz
05-20-2005, 9:44 PM
Looks legal to me. It's not named and has a non detachable mag. I think to have the mag be able to swing like that, enough clearance would have to be cut into the reciever for the hinged plate thus preventing a "normal" mag from latching in the front.

Mugwump
05-20-2005, 10:49 PM
ARs and AKs are banned by configuration and name, right? Well then, why are Bushmasters and Vulcans starting to be re-introduced in CA in neutered configurations, and why would an AK be any different? There was mention that it would have to be a pinned mag if it was, but what about the Barrett M82A1, it has a magazine that swings out. I don't see how, legally, that it could be prevented from being sold in CA, if you were to follow the logic of the examples I just mentioned.

Mugwump
05-20-2005, 11:42 PM
"As a 50 BMG, the Barret can no longer be sold in California."

Not the point I was trying to make, I know that. I was trying to present an example of how a rifle that was previously banned (M82A1), was able to be sold in CA using a mag with a hinge, just like the AK example.

1919_4_ME
05-21-2005, 8:06 AM
The Barrett 82A1 was never banned at all as it was never "listed" on the list.However it had the feature of a detachable mag so that alone made it too "evil" to buy in Cali.
As far as that AK with the pinned swing down mag it would be legal in Cali cause its the direct opposite as the Romanian Pump AK that you can still buy in Cali.Even the reciever is listed as "series" but DOJ approved it for sale anyways? http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Turbinator
05-21-2005, 8:34 AM
Folks, keep in mind that PUMP ACTION AK's are legal in CA, and I believe they use the same receiver as a semi auto AK.

http://www.gunsnet.net/Linx310/model2.htm

Scroll down and feast your eyes on those two uglies.

Turby

Mugwump
05-21-2005, 5:27 PM
"The Barrett 82A1 was never banned"...Okay it wasn't banned by name, you just couldn't purchase it here because no one was willing to take the risk to import a version sans pistol grip. Doesn't seem very different to me, you still couldn't have it until they put the hinge on.

The point I've been try to get across is that if the AR Series was banned and now is being allowed in a diminished capacity (FAB, Vulcan, Bushmaster) then the AK Series (whether it is a pump, or hinged magazine) should be allowed too. Yes? I would think that if a company played by the rules and produced a version with a hinged mag, and wasn't able to sell it here, then they would have a pretty good lawsuit. But, then I would wake up and realize I don't live in America.

railroader
05-21-2005, 9:28 PM
How about this one, its a pistol and legal everywhere else? http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif We can dream can't we? Mark


http://www.militarygunsupply.com/IMAGES/FIREARMS/AKPISTOL.jpg

Turbinator
05-21-2005, 11:37 PM
That pistol won't fly because the mag well is outside of the pistol grip.. ergo it's an "AW".

Turby

1919_4_ME
05-22-2005, 9:57 AM
Looks like a Cali resident bought it anyways...... http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

05-22-2005, 2:39 PM
Originally posted by Technical Ted:

The point I'm trying to make is that the manufacturer, importer or distributor of the modified AK style rifle has to take the initiative and submit samples of the the rifle to the CA DOJ for examination and approval.

Once they have a letter from the CA DOJ similar to those held by CMS, Shoeless Ventures, Vulcan and GB Sales stating that the rifle in question does not constitute an assault weapon under CA law, then they can use that as marketing collateral to sway CA FFLs to accept the idea that their product is safe to sell in California.

True, although all of those steps technically aren't actually necessary IMO since it is covered here (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs.htm#8) with obvious clarity.

In a way, I believe that these companies are setting a bad precedent by engaging in "ask permission" tactics in this manner, however, I guess it is understandable from a liability point of view.
...and seeing how the "*********" factor plays into this, I would venture to guess that most FFLs would not want to bother with selling questionably legal firearms until such guarantees by the CADOJ were in writing.

Back to the original point of the topic-

The problem, as I see it, is that the Kasler decision really is quite vague and creates even more gray area than existed before it's ruling.

As was pointed out, a pump AK --which I believe it has been established befor, use a regular AK receiver-- is legal in the opinion of CADOJ, yet an AR clone in similar configuration is not, IIRC.
Further, although I understand that Kasler states that even by removal of SB23 features, any rifle on the amended list is still a category 1 AW, and thus must be registered, it leaves a murky area for SB23-featureless homebuilt receivers (AR or AK), does it not? Since an unnamed 80% build would not be listed under the Kasler additions, it becomes a gray area as to whether or not they would be legal to possess. Or perhaps I'm missing something here.

In particular (and since the original topic was about the AK in question), in the case of an AK receiver, since it would be legal to possess one (in the form of one of those atrocious pump versions), why would building a stripped 80% AK receiver be any different? -and thus, why would building that stripped receiver into a SB23 feature-free AK rifle (say, sans a pistol grip) be illegal?