PDA

View Full Version : 80% 1911 frame build. Legal?


bu-bye
06-15-2005, 12:02 PM
Hi all,

I have wanted to build up a couple of 80% frames for some time now. Something about matching 1911s makes me smile. I'm a do it yourself kind of guy and not to keen on telling the Gov every thing I do and own. Building my own just seems like the best and legal option to me. Now, I have heard of a few poeple in Cali finishing 80% frames but have also read in a few places (gun forums, no official gov sites) that unless the "Firearm" is on the DOJ approved list it can not be owned in Cali. Is that true? I have always thought that only the "SALE" of a firearm from MFG to buyer had to be on the list. Making your own firearm from what I have read is legal as long as you make it with your own two hands and DO NOT sell it or give it away. It also must not brake any AW laws or others alike that view features of a firearm as bad.

Can someone lay out the truth before I buy anything?

Thanks

bwiese
06-15-2005, 2:01 PM
Lost cause, unless:

... someone brings in frame(s) from outside CA as personal guns when moving into CA & registers them to themselves. After they're a CA resident they could do an F2F PPT to you.

Otherwise no go: a CA FFL can't sell you a frame or any untested gun (w/exception of single action revolvers).

There's also the question of whether this 1911 frame build-is is considered "manufacturing" in eyes of CA DOJ - are you manufacturing an unsafe gun, or just modifying a legitimately obtained one. (Probably the latter, but not sure.)

Definitely you cannot mfgr your own pistol receiver (a la Dlask Arms, etc.) and build up a gun from that.

The only handguns you can mfgr from scratch without permissions, etc. are single action revolvers w/barrels longer than 3" and holding 5 or more rounds...

So buy a couple of base model 1911s and build up from there...


Bill Wiese
San Jose

stealthmode
06-15-2005, 3:40 PM
where does it say you cant make your own handguns, or only able to make revolvers?

bu-bye
06-15-2005, 3:54 PM
Thanks for the info.

Its my understanding that the DOJ does not consider anything 80% or below to be a firearm or frame for that matter. By their rules its just a hunk of metal. Would not make a difference if I dug my own ore to make my own block of metal and cut from there.

I just spoke with my dealer and he said 80% are OK as long as I don't sell them or manufacture them. All of the laws I read on the DOJ site speak of manufacturing firearms.

Here is what the Cali DOJ says about it:

" 12085. (a) Commencing July 1, 1999, no person, firm, or corporation licensed to manufacture firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code MAY MANUFACTURE FIREARMS within this state unless licensed pursuant to Section 12086.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a person licensed to manufacture firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code who manufactures fewer than 100 firearms in a calendar year within this state."

AND

Here is what Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code says:

" (10) The term ``manufacturer'' means any person engaged in the
business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or
distribution; and the term ``licensed manufacturer'' means any such
person licensed under the provisions of this chapter."

Because I am not doing it for "sale or distribution" I'm not classified as a manufacturer and can make firearms for myself.....right? LOL. Looks right to me

bwiese
06-15-2005, 4:28 PM
Two separate issues here. Don't rely on gun dealers for legal interpretations. Gun shop lore's prob put a few people in jail.

Many of these folks make lotsa mistakes - in either direction

I'm certainly not a lawyer but I do know when to tread lightly:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Buying a 1911 frame - You can buy one F2F PPT from another person that already has one in CA. You can't get one from an FFL; he can only sell approved 'safe guns'. So supply of bare 1911 frames is limited. A few will trickle in from people moving into CA and wanting to possibly sell them. I don't think building up an existing already-serialized 1911 frame, legitimately acquired in CA via F2F PPT, into a complete gun would be counted as manufacturing: it was already a legally unsafe gun that was legally transferred to you, and you're just modifying it.

<LI>Making a 1911 frame - 80%, from scratch, etc. is irrelevant. Once you go beyond 80% then it's a gun. If you're making a gun (other than exempt single action revolver) you're illegally doing it. Whether or not it's ever for sale, it is being manufactured.
[/list]

Relevant PC codes:
12125. (a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.

Also, this was well-discussed at a recent NRA Members Council meeting hosting Randy Rossi & Tim Riegert of Cal DOJ. Several folks were wondering about intricacies of making guns, and bottom line is it's illegal to make an unsafe gun (single action revolver exemption): no matter how words were twisted, the overall clear intent of the legislature was to not allow new 'unsafe' handguns in CA (with noted exceptions), and this would certainly be taken into account by court(s).


Bill Wiese
San Jose

bwiese
06-16-2005, 10:46 AM
DRH...

Please don't give out bad advice. Read my prior post and read PC 12125.

80%, not "offering for sale", etc. are all completely irrelevant here, and in state vs. out of state doesn't change anything either:

Originally posted by DRH:
...Take your 80% receiver out of state, complete it while out of state, import it back into the state (do not offer it for sale) and register it with the DOJ and pay the fee. This should be legal per the current laws on the books. As for intent, I do not have too much respect for the intent of the Kali legislators.

It is not. This would not pass the smell test in a court, let alone DOJ. You've clearly imported an "unsafe" gun. Law doesn't care if you've "imported" or "manufactured".

And whatever your opinion of Calif. legislators (which we all share), don't just tell BuBye to go out and commit a crime.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

bu-bye
06-16-2005, 1:06 PM
OK I e-mail the DOJ about this issue. I still feel that the word "Manufacture" only applies to those making guns for profit or to give to others. The same rule applies to the safety law. Because we are not manufactures we are not bound by anything that refures to manufactures and don't have to pay the $1800 fee to have a gun tested. I spoke with a lawyer friend of mine who specializes in contracts and finding loop holes and had her look through the laws with me. She agrees that I am not classified as a manufacturer and would win in court. I'm still waiting on hearing from the DOJ before I do anything but plan to fight with them a little on this if need be. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

s281c
06-16-2005, 1:12 PM
Originally posted by DRH:
I read 12125 and then I read it again. It does not make the hypothetical situation I suggested illegal. Please quote a section of the penal code that prohibits what I have suggested. Loopholes existing in many laws. The DOJ rep. who said individuals could not manufacturer for personal use unsafe handguns in California was correct. However the law only effects manufacturing in the state. If you will notice the four exemptions for 12125 do not list out of state residents importing personal handguns. This is because 12125 only restricts importing for sale, not personal importers. Again if the penal code does not restrict it, then it is legal whether the DOJ likes it or not and without regard to the original intent. The intent of SB23 was to ban all AWs, so taking an FAL clone pistol grip of or fixing the mag would be illegal if intent was everyhting.

I see where your going with this but the operative part of your post is "out of state resident" If he were to leave the state with the 80%, manufacture the handgun and bring it back in wouldn't he be a California resident illegally importing a unsafe handgun?

s281c
06-16-2005, 2:31 PM
But isn't it illegal for a California resident to import a "unsafe" handgun?

s281c
06-16-2005, 3:25 PM
look at the definition of a "personal handgun importer"

(n) As used in this chapter, a "personal handgun importer" means an individual who meets all of the following criteria:
(1) He or she is not a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.
(2) He or she is not a licensed manufacturer of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code.
(3) He or she is not a licensed importer of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(4) He or she is the owner of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(5) He or she acquired that pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person outside of California.
(6) He or she moves into this state on or after January 1, 1998, as a resident of this state.
(7) He or she intends to possess that pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person within this state on or after January 1, 1998.
(8) The pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person was not delivered to him or her by a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071 who delivered that firearm following the procedures set forth in Section 12071 and subdivision (c) of Section 12072.
(9) He or she, while a resident of this state, had not previously reported his or her ownership of that pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person to the Department of Justice in a manner prescribed by the department that included information concerning him or her and a description of the firearm.
(10) The pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is not a firearm that is prohibited by subdivision (a) of Section 12020.
(11) The pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is not an assault weapon, as defined in Section 12276 or 12276.1.
(12) The pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is not a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200.
(13) The person is 18 years of age or older.
(o) For purposes of paragraph (6) of subdivision (n):
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), residency shall be determined in the same manner as is the case for establishing residency pursuant to Section 12505 of the Vehicle Code.
(2) In the case of members of the Armed Forces of the United States, residency shall be deemed to be established when he or she was discharged from active service in this state.

bwiese
06-16-2005, 4:43 PM
OK, I'll address several folks here in 1 post:

DRH wrote:
I read 12125 and then I read it again. It does not make the hypothetical situation I suggested illegal.... {snip}... The DOJ rep. who said individuals could not manufacturer for personal use unsafe handguns in California was correct. However the law only effects manufacturing in the state. If you will notice the four exemptions for 12125 do not list out of state residents importing personal handguns.

Well your orig post did not say you were an out-of-state person moving in. If so that's OK, but a Californian cannot import an unsafe handgun. And that was the jist of this thread in the first place.

DRH wrote:
Take your 80% receiver out of state, complete it while out of state, import it back into the state (do not offer it for sale) and register it with the DOJ and pay the fee.

Of course out of state "personal handgun importers" are allowed to bring in 'unsafe' handguns - including frames. I treated this in my original post in this thread. As long as they're reg'd by 60 days once person has moved into CA, it's OK. Then they can be F2F PPT'd to a Californian.

"Personal handgun importers" are folks moving into the state - they are NOT CA residents coming back into CA with guns!!!

But a Californian cannot go OUTSIDE Calif, make an unsafe handgun, and then bring it back in. The only way to do this would be for Californian to become resident of another state, do his deed, and then move back into CA with gun.

bubye wrote:
OK I e-mail the DOJ about this issue. I still feel that the word "Manufacture" only applies to those making guns for profit or to give to others. The same rule applies to the safety law. Because we are not manufactures we are not bound by anything that refures to manufactures and don't have to pay the $1800 fee to have a gun tested. I spoke with a lawyer friend of mine who specializes in contracts and finding loop holes and had her look through the laws with me. She agrees that I am not classified as a manufacturer and would win in court.

That's a casual remark from the lawyer and not her professional output. If you paid her her normal $300/hr and she did some research she might agree this is very very grey area.

If you lose, your butt is in jail - not sure, but multiple offenses (more than 1 gun mfgd) could be charged as felony(ies.). Also, you can't get to court to challenge this (i..e, have "standing") unless you were charged.

Your butt, your risk, your money.

When you build up 80% frames (i.e, frames that were unserialized and are just non-firearm 'hunks of metal' when you acquired them) and then mill out the requisite holes, grooves etc and get it into a firearm 'frame', you could be considered manufacturing an unsafe gun.

This is different than having a serialize 1911 frame you had on hand before 2001, or got via legit F2F PPT, etc. and then adding slide, rail, etc. is just changing the form of a legitimately-owned unsafe gun.

You can't read the law always for exact detail. When there are small perceived loopholes, courts do hold in high regard the sense/intent of the legislation, which was - except for expressly outlined exemptions (personal handgun importers, face to face PPTs, one-offs for testing & evaluation, LEO/gov't items) - the goal to ban further introduction of unsafe handguns in CA. This is where judges end up making law when things are murky in written law + administrative regulations.

Also, remember that you are unlikely to ever be prosecuted by Cal DOJ. Most prosecutions of average schmucks like us are done by one of the 58 local county DAs. Their opinions do sometimes differ w/Cal DOJ: in fact Cal DOJ Firearms has been sued - and lost! - several times on gun issues. Generally their opinion/administration of technical standards and administrative law is held as reference but there are exceptions.

But when I hear Tim Riegert, asst head of Cal DOJ Firearms Div (a very bright well-spoken guy, and a lawyer), being directly asked about homebuilt handguns and he says it's banned, quotes 12125, mentioned issues of "legislative intent" to ban 'unsafe' guns, I'm gonna listen to him instead of a bunch armchair lawyers (myself included). Hearing it from the "horse's mouth" does count for something.

It's a moot point anyway. Why not buy some $420 Sprinfield 1911s and build them up into your fancy race gun? The value of the time you spend chasing around trying to get some $175 frames to be legal, possibly risking prosecution, etc. ain't worth it.


S281c wrote:
...the operative part of your post is "out of state resident" If he were to leave the state with the 80%, manufacture the handgun and bring it back in wouldn't he be a California resident illegally importing a unsafe handgun?

S281c wrote:
But isn't it illegal for a California resident to import a "unsafe" handgun?

Correctamundo. Really, the only way a Californian can import a gun is thru an FFL. And an FFL can't sell you an 'unsafe' gun: the only way you can get it is from another California resident who does a F2F PPT with you.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

s281c
06-16-2005, 4:57 PM
Originally posted by bwiese:
Your butt, your risk, your money.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

That pretty much sums up everything......... http://www.calguns.net/bow.gif

bu-bye
06-16-2005, 5:19 PM
What don't you guys get? M.A.N.U.F.A.C.T.U.R.E. This is the KEY word for the WHOLE thing.

The US and California definition of the word is to make with intent to sell or give. They only refure to "manufaturers" for this law not for personal use. There is NO law saying you can't make one for personal use. Safety laws only apply to manufactures.

"That's a casual remark from the lawyer and not her professional output. If you paid her her normal $300/hr and she did some research she might agree this is very very grey area."

Casual remark? I'm not asking her to write up a legal document or fight this in court. She is a friend that I asked legal advice. If I paid her $0 or $5,000 all I wanted to know was if I fall in as a manufacturer by the US and Cali law. I'm friends with doctors as well who I sometimes ask questions. Would they give me a different or uncasual answer if I paid them? She is a close friend and would not lead me in the wrong direction.

bu-bye
06-16-2005, 8:32 PM
OK guys here is what I got from the DOJ:

"Dear Eric:

California law does not address the manufacture of a personal firearm. You state you will not conflict with CA assault weapon law and that the firearm is not for resale. If manufacturing a rifle, be sure to not conflict with PC 12020 - rifle barrel at least 16 inches, overall length at least 26 inches.


Sally Carney, Field Representative
Firearms Division"

stealthmode
06-16-2005, 9:43 PM
so we can make our own handguns as long as they are not for sale or to be given away?

bwiese
06-16-2005, 11:38 PM
DRH is right.

And I'd like it actually w/a higher level signature.

Sally Carney is essentially a desk clerk. She has no legal authority and is not a lawyer. She may not even have thought about the 'safe gun' laws when replying.

Since I've heard otherwise from somebody several levels higher than her - and her boss! - with contravening information, I'll continue to believe otherwise.

Relying on DOJ or ATF information from desk clerks is a good way to go to prison.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

imported_Skammy
06-17-2005, 2:15 AM
I'm pretty sure ProfessorEvil has a letter stating the same thing.. thats its legal.. I'll send him this

bu-bye
06-17-2005, 1:56 PM
Thanks Skammy. That will save me 37 cents http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If PE has lost the letter I'll send them one.

imported_Skammy
06-20-2005, 8:32 PM
here (http://www.acmearms.com/caldoj-80letter_small.jpg)

bu-bye
06-21-2005, 1:31 AM
HAHAHAHA I love how its in a protective plastic sleeve.

"Here is my Babe Ruth baseball card, Microsoft stock cert's and my DOJ letter"

Thats great, thanks Skammy. Now I just have to find an 80% receiver that I like. Any advice? I like Tannery's stuff but they don't make 80% anymore.

BTW, I have my FAB-10 DOJ letter in a plastic sleeve too. Only in Cali, right. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

bwiese
06-21-2005, 7:12 AM
I am leery of this letter.

It was couched primarily in terms for rifles.

The person writing it (Dana McKinnon) may have not considered the legal aspects of safe gun manufacture.

Mr McKinnon is a "Field Rep". That's probably something like a clerk, maybe with a badge. He's NOT a lawyer and that letter was just general guidance.

It's about like asking a cop about the law: ask a stupid person a question, get a stupid answer.

You need to ask SOMEONE IN AUTHORITY (get Randy Rossi or Tim Riegert's sign-off) whether building a handgun from scratch is legal given PC12125 and issues surrounding 'manufacturing' an unsafe gun. I don't think you'll get the answer you want, and relying on this letter is not legal protection.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

s281c
06-21-2005, 8:56 AM
Originally posted by bu-bye:
HAHAHAHA I love how its in a protective plastic sleeve.

"Here is my Babe Ruth baseball card, Microsoft stock cert's and my DOJ letter"

Thats great, thanks Skammy. Now I just have to find an 80% receiver that I like. Any advice? I like Tannery's stuff but they don't make 80% anymore.

BTW, I have my FAB-10 DOJ letter in a plastic sleeve too. Only in Cali, right. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You know, I hope you guys are right, and I'm wrong about this.........I'm running low of my stockpile of 1911 frames that I hoarded years ago............. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.......going to have to start canabilizing some of my older project guns if I can't replenish my supply.

bwiese
06-21-2005, 10:30 AM
S281c...

Originally posted by S281c:
You know, I hope you guys are right, and I'm wrong about this.... I'm running low of my stockpile of 1911 frames that I hoarded years ago........ http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif..... going to have to start canabilizing some of my older project guns if I can't replenish my supply.

Dunno if you're joking or not, but you can:

<LI> if you _already_ have 1911 frames (i.e, bought them before 2001 safe gun law effective date) then you are OK and can build up a 1911 from frame up.

<LI> if you get a 1911 frame from someone who's moved into CA and has reg'd frame as a "personal handgun importer", he can F2F PPT the frame to you and you can build up a 1911. They can be freely built up into full guns.

<LI> if you built a 1911 frame from scratch, or milled out & serialized an 80% frame, before 2001 'safe gun' enactment, you are OK though you prob shoulda DROS/reg'd the gun to yourself w/DOJ.

But you cannot:

<LI> buy a 1911 frame from/via a CA FFL. He can't import one for you, etc. (He could sell one on 'consignment' which really means it's gonna be an F2F PPT).

<LI> make your own 1911 frame from scratch, serialize it, etc. That's mfgring an unsafe gun.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

s281c
06-21-2005, 1:28 PM
Dunno if you're joking or not

Bill Wiese
San Jose

A little serious I have a stockpile of legitimate 1911 frames.......and a little joking, about needing to replenish the supply........ http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Just a thought, if it proves that it is possible to take a 80%........I did say IF.......What about the issue of getting caught with a handgun without a serial number, eventually you might be able to prove that what you did was legal, but up until then what would the police, the DA, and the ATF have to say about it?

s281c
06-21-2005, 1:30 PM
Originally posted by S281c:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dunno if you're joking or not

Bill Wiese
San Jose

A little serious, I have a stockpile of legitimate 1911 frames, Essex, Olympic arms, some battered colts that need refinishing, AMT's etc........and a little joking, about needing to replenish the supply........ http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Just a thought, if it proves that it is possible to take a 80%........I did say IF.......What about the issue of getting caught with a handgun without a serial number, eventually you might be able to prove that what you did was legal, but up until then what would the police, the DA, and the ATF have to say about it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

bwiese
06-21-2005, 3:37 PM
Originally posted by S281c:
A little serious, I have a stockpile of legitimate 1911 frames, Essex, Olympic arms, some battered colts that need refinishing, AMT's etc..... {snip}

Just a thought, if it proves that it is possible to take a 80%..... I did say IF.... What about the issue of getting caught with a handgun without a serial number, eventually you might be able to prove that what you did was legal, but up until then what would the police, the DA, and the ATF have to say about it?

Your stockpile of frames is perfectly legit (providing you acquired 'em in a legit fashion in the first place)... so you either <UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> had frame or frames via legal paper-free transaction on or before 12/31/1990;
<LI> got frame or frames via FFL-mediated sale or transfer between 1/1/1991 and 12/31/2001;
[/list]

As far as homemade guns (receivers) go, you'd've had to have made the frame before 1/1/2002. I do
believe you really have to serialize homemade gun receivers - put some kinda unique identifier on it. "BOBJONES NO 1" would be legal for both CA and ATF.

Since you 'acquired' this handgun by making it (again, on/before 12/31/2002) I believe you'd have to DROS it to yourself via one of the forms on Cal DOJ/Firerams Div. website - kinda the same thing a person would do if he wanted to reg an unpapered gun he'd legally gotten years ago.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

s281c
06-21-2005, 3:52 PM
Originally posted by bwiese:

<LI> had frame or frames via legal paper-free transaction on or before 12/31/1990;
<LI> got frame or frames via FFL-mediated sale or transfer between 1/1/1991 and 12/31/2001;
[/LIST]
Bill Wiese
San Jose

Both actually.........I remember getting some alloy ones for $29.95, steel ones for $49.95 and some S.S. one's for $59.95.........I think I paid the most for a Safari Arms one it was all of $79.95......... http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I also remember buying some AR-15 alloy receivers when nobody wanted them for $20 ea, cause the dealer wanted to get rid of them............... http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Mike Searson
06-21-2005, 5:39 PM
If you ever want to sell any of those frames, I'd be interested in buying a few.

Especially a Safari Arms one!

imported_leelaw
06-29-2005, 9:24 PM
I'll chime in for what I've gotten via the DOJ in various phone calls, email, whatnot.

Ther interpretation of 80% handgun builds is that they are legal and it does NOT make you a "manufacturer" (unless you're making a bunch and offering them for sale) AS LONG AS the FINISHED firearm is NOT an illegal firearm (IE: Assault Weapon - the roster of certified handguns does not come into play because the gun was never sold in CA, you're finishing an 80% frame, that's it)

They want you to register the handgun using some form and it needs to be serialized and the serial "must be inspected by [the DOJ] prior to being registered in Automated Firearms System" (The Agent who sent me that in the letter said that an inspection can be arranged at a field office)

bwiese
06-30-2005, 6:26 PM
Leelaw...

The agent you spoke to may not have even thought about the 'safe gun' laws when giving you advice.

And why you would ever rely on an 'agent' or 'analyst' for legal advice, I simply don't know. The people you are asking are not offering legally binding answers, nor will they serve out your jail time.

[In a similar fashion, many folks have relied on advice from IRS help desk clerks, field agents etc and have had their arses handed to them later.]

I HEARD MY INFO DIRECTLY FROM "THE HORSE'S MOUTH" - Tim Riegert, Asst Dir. of DOJ/Firearms Div., at an NRA Members' Council meeting about 3 months ago. He's not only a big boss, but an attorney.

Agents are not attorneys: if they were smart enough, they'd've gone to law school. These 'front end' people are paid less than a lawyer for a reason: they're not as smart, knowledgable or cautious.

Unless I got a signed letter from a DOJ high-up like Rossi or Riegert telling me I in fact could, I would not. After all, the law reads pretty clearly to me that you can no longer manufacture an 'unsafe gun', and the intent of the law was in fact to not have more 'unsafe guns' in CA. "Legislative intent" goes a long way in the courts no matter what a DOJ front-desk weenie says.

Fortunately, I think it's only a misdemeanor violation.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

BoomStick82
11-07-2007, 10:40 AM
Since I am living in Missouri right now, I could buy a couple frames (I want to do his and hers 1911s for me and my girlfriend some day), and bring them in when I move there?

AD

AJAX22
11-07-2007, 10:43 AM
Since I am living in Missouri right now, I could buy a couple frames (I want to do his and hers 1911s for me and my girlfriend some day), and bring them in when I move there?

AD

If you have established Missouri residency.. yes, you fill out a personal handgun importation form when you get here and send in 19$

this is an odd thread to resurect for that particular question...

MrBurritoMan
08-23-2008, 1:46 AM
i have been bagging my head on this issue for a while with a different type of firearm.

fortunately from that experience i have some contact phone numbers that should help me in procuring a letter that will clear all this up.

i will call the DoJ on Monday and ask for clarification of the term "manufacture" and the exact legal ramifications and requirements of completing a 80% frame.

from the conversations that i have had with agents in the past few weeks all have confirmed that you can complete a firearm as long as it is 100% legal with all of the other laws on the books. thus, completing a 1911 in standard semi-automatic form, firing from a closed bolt is legal under the same regard.

as far as having that in writing on DoJ letterhead, that i will have to procure. i will post whatever they send me so you guys can read it too.

JeffM
08-23-2008, 1:51 AM
my how times have changed :D

MrBurrito, search here a bit more before going to DOJ for info, things have changed since 2005.

leelaw
08-23-2008, 1:58 AM
MrBurritoMan - building the pistol into a semi-automatic type is not legal.

You must build the 80% frame into a single-shot firearm which falls under additional single-shot-exemptions. The barrel must be at least 6", and the overall length needs to be over 1.5", IIRC.

Once it is built as a single-shot, you should register it. It will need a manufacturer name (your name and city, usually) and a serial number of your choice.

Once it is registered, or after it is built to the single-shot specifications outlined above, you may convert it to semi-automatic.

It's the same way that the AK pistols are being built up, but with the difference of the magazine being outside the pistol grip.

savs2k
08-23-2008, 5:46 AM
im still confused...can someone dumb it up for me a bit. CA laws applied

1. can we order,have shipped,and own a 1911 80%?
2. If we can obtain the 80% even as just a paperweight, the debate is is finishing it would be manufacturing or not. If it were to fall under "manufacture" then we could not go past 80% at all correct?
3. What is the difference between 80% and 60%?

leelaw
08-23-2008, 9:41 AM
im still confused...can someone dumb it up for me a bit. CA laws applied

1. can we order,have shipped,and own a 1911 80%?
2. If we can obtain the 80% even as just a paperweight, the debate is is finishing it would be manufacturing or not. If it were to fall under "manufacture" then we could not go past 80% at all correct?
3. What is the difference between 80% and 60%?

1. Yes.

2. It is not manufacturing. It does need to take into account that building it into a semi-automatic firearm is illegal, which is why a single-shot exempt configuration must be how it is buiilt as.

3. There is no real difference between the two types, aside from how much work you need to do to finish it. The ATF hasn't been clear on whether an 80% is close enough to be a firearm frame/receiver or not, so I tend ot suggest playing it safer by finishing a less-complete frame.

savs2k
08-23-2008, 2:42 PM
what would you have to do more to complete a 60% then 80%?

ke6guj
08-23-2008, 2:59 PM
uh, 20% more work :D

In actuallity, those % are not set in stone, they are used as a guide to help explain how much of the work is done. ATF does not recognize 80%, its either a firearm or not. Manufacturers can send in sample receivers into ATF to get a ruling if that receiver is complete enough to be regulated. They can take that ruling and fine tune the work and resubmit.

YOu'd have to compare the different non-firearms to see what work has been done to see what you still have to do.

MrBurritoMan
08-27-2008, 6:32 PM
just got off of the phone with a nice guy at the DoJ. he had been researching my/our question for the last two days and he has come to a conclusion.

it is 100% legal to build a semi-automatic 1911 frame as long as it conforms with other legal models (i.e. fires from a closed bolt, cannot be easily converted to full automatic, etc.). he also said that once completed the frame is yours and yours alone. it cannot be sold to anyone, ever.

he gave me an address to write to so i can get this in clear written form to store in my paperwork safe so i can cover my behind. i will post a copy of the letter once i receive it so you guys can see what they have to say instead of all this mis-information. unfortunately he said it could take a while as that is just the nature of government offices.

more in a few weeks. :)

Kruzr
08-27-2008, 7:35 PM
An 80% frame has all the holes milled but no rails milled. A 60% frame doesn't have the holes milled yet. Unless you have the jigs or have drawings and are a very good machinist, it's much easier to turn a 60% frame into a paperweight. :)

nobody_special
08-27-2008, 9:09 PM
I realize that I'm responding to an old post, but... this brings up a number of questions.

Of course out of state "personal handgun importers" are allowed to bring in 'unsafe' handguns - including frames. I treated this in my original post in this thread. As long as they're reg'd by 60 days once person has moved into CA, it's OK. Then they can be F2F PPT'd to a Californian.

IIRC, that is not correct... see 12072(f)(2)(ii). A personal handgun importer may sell an unregistered handgun within the 60 day registration window.

I note that California residents are prohibited from importing unsafe firearms. I was planning to leave my handguns out of state (to avoid registering them). Does this mean that once I move to California, leaving my handguns out of state, that I would be unable to later bring those handguns into California?

GuyW
08-27-2008, 9:19 PM
just got off of the phone with a nice guy at the DoJ. he had been researching my/our question for the last two days and he has come to a conclusion.

it is 100% legal to build a semi-automatic 1911 frame as long as it conforms with other legal models (i.e. fires from a closed bolt, cannot be easily converted to full automatic, etc.). he also said that once completed the frame is yours and yours alone. it cannot be sold to anyone, ever.

he gave me an address to write to so i can get this in clear written form to store in my paperwork safe so i can cover my behind. i will post a copy of the letter once i receive it so you guys can see what they have to say instead of all this mis-information. unfortunately he said it could take a while as that is just the nature of government offices.

more in a few weeks. :)

I call FUD.

Federally, one can certainly sell a firearm that they've made. Can't build it for the express PURPOSE of selling it, but....

I don't know any CA law that prohibits the similar sale of a homemade gun.

DOJ is infamous for spreading BS about gun laws...

GuyW
08-27-2008, 9:33 PM
More DOJ FUD

OK guys here is what I got from the DOJ:

"Dear Eric:

California law does not address the manufacture of a personal firearm. You state you will not conflict with CA assault weapon law and that the firearm is not for resale. If manufacturing a rifle, be sure to not conflict with PC 12020 - rifle barrel at least 16 inches, overall length at least 26 inches.


Sally Carney, Field Representative
Firearms Division"

CHS
08-27-2008, 10:03 PM
I call FUD.

Federally, one can certainly sell a firearm that they've made. Can't build it for the express PURPOSE of selling it, but....

I don't know any CA law that prohibits the similar sale of a homemade gun.

DOJ is infamous for spreading BS about gun laws...

Yup. What he said.

You are not allowed to make FOR SALE the gun. But in the future, should you decide that you don't like it or want it anymore, you can legally sell it. There is no state or federal law that would prevent this.

There is probably some sort of minimum standard for markings (serial number, city/state, make/model, etc) but I don't know what those are. Someone more informed can address that.

Granted, I can't think of a single reason I would ever sell a gun I personally made for myself, but it *IS* legal.

savs2k
08-28-2008, 3:43 AM
i've heard the 80% were a grey area and 60% is the safer way to do a build. can someone confirm or call fud on this? Are the 80% actually legal and safe to buy?

MrBurritoMan
08-28-2008, 3:50 AM
i've heard the 80% were a grey area and 60% is the safer way to do a build. can someone confirm or call fud on this? Are the 80% actually legal and safe to buy?

from what i have been told by the California DoJ and the ATF yes it is legal for you to purchase either one you want and finish it.

if you want to do things the cautious way you can write to this address and receive written confirmation. keep in mind it might take a while. also you might want to make sure your question is clear and concise.

California Department of Justice
Bureau of Firearms Legal Office
P.O. Box 160487
Sacramento, CA 95816

cheers and let us know how yours turns out!

MrBurritoMan
08-28-2008, 3:56 AM
I call FUD.

Federally, one can certainly sell a firearm that they've made. Can't build it for the express PURPOSE of selling it, but....

I don't know any CA law that prohibits the similar sale of a homemade gun.

DOJ is infamous for spreading BS about gun laws...

the only reason that they don't want to say you can sell it is they don't want someone to think that they can make these and sell them from their garage. they just don't want to approach it because making them for the purpose of selling them is "manufacturing" and there is a law to prohibit that if you are not licensed.

it all really hinges on "intent" and that can be interpreted any way a lawyer or judge wants. i wouldn't sell a homemade gun anyway besides who would be crazy enough to want to buy one?

leelaw
08-28-2008, 11:50 AM
You can't build it into a semi-auto. It must first be built to conform to the single=sht exemption. Once done, then you may convert it to semi-auto.

ironpete
08-28-2008, 12:41 PM
Ok, I believe I understand the manufacturing steps and the law...

...but how do create the single shot top end?

I have an automated Gunbroker search looking for the Springfield and the Pachmayr...but so far zilch.

Am I missing some other "easy" way of getting my finished receiver registered?

Could I be creative and build it up but leave off the magazine catch? Are there designs for making a single shot top-end that I could then reuse with other finished receivers?

Thanks in advance,
-pete

leelaw
08-28-2008, 12:56 PM
For the slide assembly, you'll need a long barrel (at least 6".. might as well make it longer so it will also complete the OAL requirements) and a heavy HEAVY recoil spring. Use a trainer or epoxy-filled magazine, set-screwed into the magazine well.

You need to manually cycle it each time, and the trainer/epoxy magazine prevents more than one round from being loaded into the gun at a time.

ironpete
08-28-2008, 1:18 PM
Thanks leelaw!

Now I finally have a use for my crappy Kimber mag!

The creative juices are flowing again, I knew it had to be simple.

-pete

leelaw
08-28-2008, 1:37 PM
I'd build it into that configuration and probably test fire it once, then convert. I wouldn't want to shoot it continually in single-shot, since it would likely cause damage to the internal extractor after snapping over the case rim.

GuyW
08-28-2008, 1:52 PM
I'd build it into that configuration and probably test fire it once, then convert. I wouldn't want to shoot it continually in single-shot, since it would likely cause damage to the internal extractor after snapping over the case rim.

How is one going to prove that one built the gun initially as a single shot, and then converted it?

bohoki
08-28-2008, 3:41 PM
How is one going to prove that one built the gun initially as a sigle shot, and then converted it?

how does one prove that it was made after 2001?

CHS
08-28-2008, 3:44 PM
i've heard the 80% were a grey area and 60% is the safer way to do a build. can someone confirm or call fud on this? Are the 80% actually legal and safe to buy?

You have heard wrong.

"80%" is just a term. It actually really has nothing to do with the percentage of work needed to finish the gun.

"Incomplete receiver" is probably a more accurate term. But yes, don't think of it in terms of ACTUAL percentages. An 80% receiver means a hunk of metal that the ATF does not consider a firearm, that looks similar to a real firearm receiver, but would need some level of work to be performed on it to actually be a firearm receiver.

The "80%" receivers available are approved by the ATF as not being firearms, or are copies of approved receivers.

Basically, they are either a firearm, or not a firearm. Requiring more or less work to make them into firearms doesn't make you any more or less "safe" from a legal perspective.

An 0%-80% receiver is NOT a firearm.
It is legal for you to build for your own personal use a firearm.
You can use a 0%-80% receiver to help you in your goal of building a firearm.

GuyW
08-28-2008, 3:57 PM
how does one prove that it was made after 2001?

Well, in the context of citizen prosecution/persecution, the relevant defense question is more likely,

"How does one prove that it was made before 2001" (altho I recognize the burden of proof falls on the prosecution...)

leelaw
08-28-2008, 5:57 PM
The "80%" receivers available are approved by the ATF as not being firearms, or are copies of approved receivers.

Do you have documentation for that?

All I've heard of on this issue is that several "80% frames" were deemed by ATF to be a firearm, and, in other instances, that manufacturers of 80% frames could not get a determination by ATF of it's non-firearm status.

FMJBT
08-28-2008, 6:08 PM
KT Ordnance got shut down a for over a year for producing and selling an "80%" 1911 frame without the approval of the BATF. The frames were pretty much complete aside from the rails. BATF ordered a sample and determined that they were in fact firearms. His shop was raided, property seized, etc. After a lengthy legal battle, the case was dismissed and KT is once again offering frames, although in a much less complete state, and a significant price increase. The price increase is probably in large part to help offset the cost of his legal defense. The moral of the story I guess is that the buying and selling of incomplete firearms receivers is done at your own risk. The partially complete receiver that seems like a bargain now, may end up costing you thousands of dollars down the line. For CA residents, the best option is probably just to buy a cheap RIA 1911, and strip it down to use the bare frame.

MrBurritoMan
08-28-2008, 11:10 PM
Do you have documentation for that?

All I've heard of on this issue is that several "80% frames" were deemed by ATF to be a firearm, and, in other instances, that manufacturers of 80% frames could not get a determination by ATF of it's non-firearm status.

here you go:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a6


oops that's the wrong link, it covers the completing of a firearm.

im still looking for the other link.



i found this in the same FAQ that pertains more to your question.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a5

#7 in this document defines the terms of who is manufacturing firearms and who is not.
http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/firearmstech/081508manufacturing-of-firearms.pdf

all of that should help to answer your question.

leelaw
08-28-2008, 11:13 PM
here you go:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#a6

What I asked for supporting documentation for was for this claim:



The "80%" receivers available are approved by the ATF as not being firearms, or are copies of approved receivers.

The FAQ which you linked to does not appear to be releated.

MrBurritoMan
08-28-2008, 11:28 PM
What I asked for supporting documentation for was for this claim:



The FAQ which you linked to does not appear to be releated.

see my above updated post.

also i found the definition of a fiream in the GCA.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

it is near the top @ 921.3

leelaw
08-28-2008, 11:39 PM
see my above updated post.

also i found the definition of a fiream in the GCA.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

it is near the top @ 921.3

What you've posted provides the basis that an individual may make his own firearm from an incomplete frame, which wasn't being disputed.

Another poster specifically stated that 80% frames have been certified as being non-firearms. Recalling the KT Ordnance fiasco from a little while ago, where ATF refused to certify anything as a "non-firearm" (because they only work with complete firearms/frames), and subsequently raided KT Ordnance, this stuck out to me.

I was hoping to find documentation showing that non-firearms have been certified by the ATF as non-firearms; however, I suspect that no such thing exists. The point is that "80% frame" is a made-up term, that has no legal definition, and is not truly recognized by the ATF, hence the stressing by other members to use a less-than-80% frame for kits to play it safe.

FMJBT
08-29-2008, 12:07 AM
Frank Roderus (DIYGuns.com) at one point was selling his frames with a copy of a letter from the BATF stating that they had been inspected and deemed to be a "Non-firearm". Although no copy of the letter is posted, he does state on his website that the frames are "BATFE approved as a non-firearm".
http://www.diyguns.com/product_info.php?products_id=55&ecSid=967f4ddb9fce963ec852a0140277899a

As I recall, KT Ordnance was using a copy of this same letter as well for their frames, even though they had never submitted them for inspection. The problem was that their frames were much more complete than the Roderus frames.

I've tried finding a copy of this letter online, but my Google-Fu is seriously lacking tonight :(

leelaw
08-29-2008, 12:17 AM
Frank Roderus (DIYGuns.com) at one point was selling his frames with a copy of a letter from the BATF stating that they had been inspected and deemed to be a "Non-firearm". Although no copy of the letter is posted, he does state on his website that the frames are "BATFE approved as a non-firearm".
http://www.diyguns.com/product_info.php?products_id=55&ecSid=967f4ddb9fce963ec852a0140277899a

As I recall, KT Ordnance was using a copy of this same letter as well for their frames, even though they had never submitted them for inspection. The problem was that their frames were much more complete than the Roderus frames.

I've tried finding a copy of this letter online, but my Google-Fu is seriously lacking tonight :(

A friend in Texas bought one of the KT frames a few years back. It came with no such letter.

The frame required the rails to be milled, and plunger pin hole to be drilled. It looks about the same as the one pictured on the Roderus site.

FMJBT
08-29-2008, 12:29 AM
A friend in Texas bought one of the KT frames a few years back. It came with no such letter.

The frame required the rails to be milled, and plunger pin hole to be drilled. It looks about the same as the one pictured on the Roderus site.

The Roderus frames don't come nearly as nice as the picture would have you believe, they are pretty much rough castings. I have some of the decorator frames from SARCO that are much better looking and more finished in terms of machining performed, and they are still a long way off from being finished. I'd say SARCO frames are probably around 60%, and the Roderus frames closer to 40%.

savs2k
08-29-2008, 4:54 AM
who makes a frame that would be closer to finished? I don't mind doing the rails but drilling holes correctly would be alot harder for me to do. Also where can i find the steps i need to take to build my own personal gun. ex: order of steps to take to register?

MrBurritoMan
08-29-2008, 9:50 AM
i would recommend www.diyguns.com for the frame. their poduct looks pretty good and the owner is familiar with the regulations. it is where i will be buying mine when i get the funds in order.

as far as what would need to be completed; every frame is different. i would send emails to the sellers and ask them these questions. that would not only help you determine which product is best for you but what seller would be better to work with.

GuyW
08-29-2008, 11:45 AM
I don't disgree with you at all, given the fact that BATF makes up stupid and irrational "standards" at whim, with no basis in the laws or regulations and are allowed to do so by federal judges (whom one might otherwise assume intelligent)....

But, I'd sure like to see BATF argue in front of a jury that a piece of metal that they can't assemble with other finished gun parts, on the witness stand, into an operable gun, is in fact a gun.

I think a jury would throw tomatoes...


What you've posted provides the basis that an individual may make his own firearm from an incomplete frame, which wasn't being disputed.

Another poster specifically stated that 80% frames have been certified as being non-firearms. Recalling the KT Ordnance fiasco from a little while ago, where ATF refused to certify anything as a "non-firearm" (because they only work with complete firearms/frames), and subsequently raided KT Ordnance, this stuck out to me.

I was hoping to find documentation showing that non-firearms have been certified by the ATF as non-firearms; however, I suspect that no such thing exists. The point is that "80% frame" is a made-up term, that has no legal definition, and is not truly recognized by the ATF, hence the stressing by other members to use a less-than-80% frame for kits to play it safe.

rangertmldr
09-05-2008, 5:03 PM
I know you have already covered this a few pages back, but I just spoke with sandy at the DOJ and she said it is perfectly legal to buid a pistol in california (not for sale) going straight to semi auto. She said nothing of building a single shot and converting to semi later. am I missing something or is this only for ar15 pistols?

MrBurritoMan
09-05-2008, 5:25 PM
I know you have already covered this a few pages back, but I just spoke with sandy at the DOJ and she said it is perfectly legal to buid a pistol in california (not for sale) going straight to semi auto. She said nothing of building a single shot and converting to semi later. am I missing something or is this only for ar15 pistols?

that's the same thing that i have heard from everyone at the DoJ. i don't know where some of the people in this forum get their ideas. i choose to go straight to the source.

my letter to the DoJ to obtain official proof one way or the other for this discussion is now two days out. i was told to expect it to take a month on average to receive an answer back. the waiting game continues....

bwiese
09-05-2008, 5:31 PM
I know you have already covered this a few pages back, but I just spoke with sandy at the DOJ and she said it is perfectly legal to buid a pistol in california (not for sale) going straight to semi auto. She said nothing of building a single shot and converting to semi later. am I missing something or is this only for ar15 pistols?

Seems you may not be allowed to build an 'unsafe handgun' that hasn't been drop tested/Rostered. However, DOJ Dept AG Alison Merrilees did allow that in a prior letter in late 2005/early 2006 so you do have detrimental reliance.

But building as a Roster-exempt single-shot pistol that's dimensionally compliant (as per 12133PC) eliminates all this drama. Once registered, the builder can then modify single-shot to whatever other legal status the builder wants.

GuyW
09-05-2008, 5:32 PM
i don't know where some of the people in this forum get their ideas.


From reading the laws??

i choose to go straight to the source.

CA DOJ is not the source of much of anything except FUD. They're mostly bureaucrats, and its no skin off their nose if you go to jail.

As they like to say, its up to the 58 individual District Attorneys as to whether any particular incident is charge as a crime...

MrBurritoMan
09-05-2008, 5:39 PM
Seems you may not be allowed to build an 'unsafe handgun' that hasn't been drop tested/Rostered...

where does it say that?

MrBurritoMan
09-05-2008, 5:41 PM
From reading the laws??

CA DOJ is not the source of much of anything except FUD. They're mostly bureaucrats, and its no skin off their nose if you go to jail.

As they like to say, its up to the 58 individual District Attorneys as to whether any particular incident is charge as a crime...

that is why i think people need to post links to the actual laws themselves instead of just kicking it out as fact.

not saying that this is or isn't a good idea. we have yet to find that out. posting links to the laws on their government websites gets us one step closer in determining that.

bwiese
09-05-2008, 7:23 PM
where does it say that?

Prefatory text in 12125PC.

GuyW
09-05-2008, 8:16 PM
My view on life in the current Peeples Republik is this:

If the legality of desired action "A" is unknown (especially involving guns) - assume its ILLEGAL until you can prove its legal...

bwiese
09-05-2008, 8:17 PM
So how does one go about registering a self-made single shot pistol ?

Search for the fairly recent thread started by Calgunner 'Oaklander'.

.

leelaw
09-05-2008, 8:19 PM
So how does one go about registering a self-made single shot pistol ?

The BOF seems to have removed it from their website...

ETA: Nope, they changed the title for it.

You can get a copy of the Voluntary Handgun Registration Form here:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/volreg.pdf

ke6guj
09-05-2008, 8:27 PM
The BOF seems to have removed it from their website...


looks to still be there for me, http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/ Firearm Ownership Record [PDF 53 kb / 2 pg] http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/volreg.pdf

JTROKS
09-05-2008, 8:53 PM
I just looked at Tannery Shop's website and it seems the 80% receivers are not there anymore. Anyone know where to get one or two or three???

Santa Cruz Armory
09-05-2008, 9:41 PM
Look here:

http://www.diyguns.com/html_catalog/Frames+and+Part+Kits__80_25+Castings+_2F+Forgings. html

JTROKS
09-05-2008, 10:54 PM
Thanks! You da man!

MrBurritoMan
09-06-2008, 1:06 AM
Prefatory text in 12125PC.

wait wait wait. this is what you are talking about:

12125
(a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) The manufacture in this state, or importation into this state, of any prototype pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person when the manufacture or importation is for the sole purpose of allowing an independent laboratory certified by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12130 to conduct an independent test to determine whether that pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is prohibited by this chapter, and, if not, allowing the department to add the firearm to the roster of pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person that may be sold in this state pursuant to Section 12131.
(2) The importation or lending of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person by employees or authorized agents determining whether the weapon is prohibited by this section.
(3) Firearms listed as curios or relics, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(4) The sale or purchase of any pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, if the pistol, revolver, or other firearm is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, any police department, any sheriff's official, any marshal's office, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney's office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. Nor shall anything in this section prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Violations of subdivision (a) are cumulative with respect to each handgun and shall not be construed as restricting the application of any other law. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by this section and other provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one provision, but the penalty to be imposed shall be determined as set forth in Section 654. (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12125.php)

this falls under the problem for the lack of definition of "manufacture". that's what i am trying to get from the DoJ.

i don't understand why no one has tried to obtain the definition of what "manufacture" means. from what i have read when it is clarified in other sections covering knifes and other implements it means fabrication with intent to sell.

leelaw
09-06-2008, 1:28 AM
looks to still be there for me, http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/ http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/volreg.pdf

Interesting that they changed the name for it...

Oh well, there ya go.

MrBurritoMan
09-25-2008, 2:51 PM
i got a written response yesterday and it appears that they did not understand the issue. they thought i was asking to import a finished handgun frame.

i called the lady back who wrote me the response (Administrator of Information and Compliance) and clarified my letter a bit more.

while nice and very personable i don't think she understood our question. she came back to the law mentioning that manufacturing was illegal therefore; no. i said that manufacturing means fabrication with the intent to distribute/sell, she agreed to that but then said out of nowhere that making your own firearms is completely illegal anyway. then she said that she will have to "research" this further.

it sounds like she has already made up her mind even before looking anything up. i might just keep these parts in a box and wait till i can move out of state. either way she has my cell number and said she would get back to me.

maybe i will get a response next month? :)

MrBurritoMan
10-22-2008, 12:06 AM
i have been calling and working with the DoJ to try and hammer out a final opinion however they don't want to admit that such a thing is legal. it all hinges on the definition of "manufacture" and they aren't willing to give one up.

it was annoying to call there and talk with a new person because as soon as i explained my situation the new person would say "no" before even looking anything up. it is almost like they take the position of "guilty before proven innocent" or rather "illegal before proven legal".

i was browsing around for one of my other projects and found this little letter:
http://www.acmearms.com/80percent/caldoj-80letter_small.jpg
found here: http://www.acmearms.com/80percentfaq.php#6.

it seems that this letter is rather concise and to the point, rather odd for someone in a government job. im not complaining, just prepping my mill for some "work" :).

CHS
10-30-2008, 3:42 PM
i was browsing around for one of my other projects and found this little letter:
found here: http://www.acmearms.com/80percentfaq.php#6.

it seems that this letter is rather concise and to the point, rather odd for someone in a government job. im not complaining, just prepping my mill for some "work" :).

Has anyone else gotten any other DoJ letters confirming the legality in CA of completing a firearm from parts (e.g. "80%" receivers), how it complies or conflicts with the safe handgun roster, and etc?

I'm looking to construct a CA-Legal RPB/SWD M11 clone.

leelaw
10-30-2008, 4:10 PM
it seems that this letter is rather concise and to the point, rather odd for someone in a government job. im not complaining, just prepping my mill for some "work" :).


That letter was not entirely correct.

The issue at hand was the Handgun Roster. However, since we now have a nice exemption form the Roster (single-shot exemption) there is a legal way to build up a handgun from a non-firearm receiver (ie: "80%"). It is the same manner in which AR and AK style pistols can be built: Machine, assemble to single-shot exempt specs (I don't recall at the moment, but it's something like a 6" barrel, 10" overall length), register,then convert to semi-auto, as long as it is not otherwise prohibited (AW, etc.)

bigworm
04-05-2009, 8:23 AM
Has anyone received clear yes or no letters from the DOJ on this?


You can get a copy of the Voluntary Handgun Registration Form here:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/volreg.pdf

is this implying registration is an option (voluntary) for homebuilt semi-auto handguns?