PDA

View Full Version : Can I register My AR And lose The BB?


diginit
10-06-2009, 6:12 PM
This may be a stupid question, But I know that I will at least get some sort of answer here. I know that all AW's were required to be registered before March 31st 1992. Thanks to the Roberti-Roos Idiotic AW Control Act of 1989. I have heard that the AW ban has expired. Can I now register my OLL with the DOJ and remove the BB? If not, Please tell me what the definition of expired and it's meaning as per section PC whatever....

tankerman
10-06-2009, 6:13 PM
No.

Turbinator
10-06-2009, 6:15 PM
Eh? You're a pretty smart guy, are you serious? :)

No, the year 2000-2001 ban here in CA dictated that you must have reg'ed prior to the cutoff, which has long since passed. You would have had to have reg'ed your OLL prior to this cutoff as a CA AW. Since your OLL was most likely made recently in the past few years, and there is no reg window right now, it is impossible for you to reg your item at this point. I am assuming you are not eligible for any special exemptions.

Turby

9mmlaw
10-06-2009, 6:17 PM
The national assault weapons ban expired in 2004 not California's.

Saigon1965
10-06-2009, 6:20 PM
I know what you mean - The laws are confusing as hell - Meanwhile - Add a monsterman grip or similar and go to town with those grandfathered mags you have -

jaymz
10-06-2009, 6:20 PM
Nope.

diginit
10-06-2009, 6:27 PM
I knew Ca. law would be the deciding factor. Just couldn't find the details and got tired of reading the PC. I think I now know sec. 12020 thru 12088.9 by heart.

BroncoBob
10-06-2009, 6:30 PM
Sorry James, maybe next year.

E Pluribus Unum
10-06-2009, 8:28 PM
The answer is YES!!!


You can spend thousands in attorney fees to structure a request for an assault weapons permit.


After you are denied, you can say you tried to get one. :)

Suvorov
10-06-2009, 8:50 PM
The answer is YES!!!


You can spend thousands in attorney fees to structure a request for an assault weapons permit.


After you are denied, you can say you tried to get one. :)

Yep, someone has to be the first guy out of the Higgins Boat :eek:

Of course, most would argue that the beach has not been prepped sufficiently yet to attempt the landing.

wilit
10-06-2009, 8:53 PM
Ask again in two weeks. :D

bwiese
10-06-2009, 9:35 PM
This may be a stupid question, But I know that I will at least get some sort of answer here. I know that all AW's were required to be registered before March 31st 1992. Thanks to the Roberti-Roos Idiotic AW Control Act of 1989. I have heard that the AW ban has expired. Can I now register my OLL with the DOJ and remove the BB? If not, Please tell me what the definition of expired and it's meaning as per section PC whatever....

I dunno where your information comes from, it's a bit twisted.

There were two AW bans in CA. Neither have expired and both are in full force and you can be busted. There is no place I can point you to tell you it's not expired because the law is still on the books.

[Note the 1994 *FEDERAL* AW ban sunset in 2004 and was not reenacted. This is a quite different law than CA's, had different features compositions, and was more relaxed than CA law during its period of validity - and just because it expired and "sunset" in no way relaxes any CA strictures.]

The first CA ban was the Roberti-Roos ban of 1989 whose AW reg period ended in 12/31/1990. (There was a subsequent 'catch up' registration period a year or two later, perhaps that's where a 1992 date comes from.) This law banned AWs by specific make/model regardless of features and the law was understood to ban only Colt AR15s and not clones thereof despite word 'series' and 'copies & duplicates' language in law. (Similar for FALs: FN FALs were banned but Imbel FALs etc. were not - etc.)

SB23 was passed in 1999 and defined "generic" AWs. An AW reg period for guns that fell into these categories was opened from 1/1/2000 thru 12/31/2001. In August of 2000 the Kasler v. Lockyer decision was handed down by CA Supreme Ct. which allowed the Attorney General to list guns via add-on, so "Colt AR15 series" and "AK47 series" in Roberti-Roos became "anything AR" and "anything AK". A list of example AR and AK items formed the "Kasler list" in fall of 2000 but any AR or AK pattern could be considered a member and thus registerable. This separate 90 day Kasler registration period overlapped the tail-end of the SB23 registration period and due to a printing mistake in the Sec. of State's office, extended the AR and AK reg period until Jan 23, 2001.

If you didn't register your AW during one of these periods, you were SOL and you had to surrender the gun to LEOs, move it outta state during the reg window, destroy it, etc. SB23 features guns could have features removed (gripless Imbel FALs, for example) to get out of AW status, however.

In June 2001, the Harrott v Kings County decision was handed down by the CA Supremes and it established the vagueness of "series" and that exact make & model is required to be listed to be considered banned. Thus, guns/receivers not listed were "off-list" and thus not banned by name and could be acquired and retained if the configured features suite did not violate SB23 features ban.

In Jan of 2007 (law passed in 2006) AB2728 became active and "froze" the list of banned AWs. This protected various guns (SKS, Mini14, Garand, etc.) from becomong banned AWs by court petition, and stopped the AR/AK Kasler list from growing [gave the DOJ and Billy Lockyer some cover].

The DOJ is not accepting new registrations nor permits for any AWs (except from LEOs with letters signed by chief) - [even though the separate AW *permit* (not registration) is actually shall-issue.]

For now and until the CA AW ban(s) are repealed or found unconstitutional
for various & sundry reasons (there are many non-RKBA problems with their structure as well!), you need to have your AR or other military-style rifle either equipped with no features + Monsterman grip + detachable magazine - or you must use a 10rd or less magazine locked down with a BulletButton-style maglock device. Period.

E Pluribus Unum
10-06-2009, 9:58 PM
I dunno where your information comes from, it's a bit twisted.

There were two AW bans in CA. Neither have expired and both are in full force and you can be busted. There is no place I can point you to tell you it's not expired because the law is still on the books.

[Note the 1994 *FEDERAL* AW ban sunset in 2004 and was not reenacted. This is a quite different law than CA's, had different features compositions, and was more relaxed than CA law during its period of validity - and just because it expired and "sunset" in no way relaxes any CA strictures.]

The first CA ban was the Roberti-Roos ban of 1989 whose AW reg period ended in 12/31/1990. (There was a subsequent 'catch up' registration period a year or two later, perhaps that's where a 1992 date comes from.) This law banned AWs by specific make/model regardless of features and the law was understood to ban only Colt AR15s and not clones thereof despite word 'series' and 'copies & duplicates' language in law. (Similar for FALs: FN FALs were banned but Imbel FALs etc. were not - etc.)

SB23 was passed in 1999 and defined "generic" AWs. An AW reg period for guns that fell into these categories was opened from 1/1/2000 thru 12/31/2001. In August of 2000 the Kasler v. Lockyer decision was handed down by CA Supreme Ct. which allowed the Attorney General to list guns via add-on, so "Colt AR15 series" and "AK47 series" in Roberti-Roos became "anything AR" and "anything AK". A list of example AR and AK items formed the "Kasler list" in fall of 2000 but any AR or AK pattern could be considered a member and thus registerable. This separate 90 day Kasler registration period overlapped the tail-end of the SB23 registration period and due to a printing mistake in the Sec. of State's office, extended the AR and AK reg period until Jan 23, 2001.

If you didn't register your AW during one of these periods, you were SOL and you had to surrender the gun to LEOs, move it outta state during the reg window, destroy it, etc. SB23 features guns could have features removed (gripless Imbel FALs, for example) to get out of AW status, however.

In June 2001, the Harrott v Kings County decision was handed down by the CA Supremes and it established the vagueness of "series" and that exact make & model is required to be listed to be considered banned. Thus, guns/receivers not listed were "off-list" and thus not banned by name and could be acquired and retained if the configured features suite did not violate SB23 features ban.

In Jan of 2007 (law passed in 2006) AB2728 became active and "froze" the list of banned AWs. This protected various guns (SKS, Mini14, Garand, etc.) from becomong banned AWs by court petition, and stopped the AR/AK Kasler list from growing [gave the DOJ and Billy Lockyer some cover].

The DOJ is not accepting new registrations nor permits for any AWs (except from LEOs with letters signed by chief) - [even though the separate AW *permit* (not registration) is actually shall-issue.]

For now and until the CA AW ban(s) are repealed or found unconstitutional
for various & sundry reasons (there are many non-RKBA problems with their structure as well!), you need to have your AR or other military-style rifle either equipped with no features + Monsterman grip + detachable magazine - or you must use a 10rd or less magazine locked down with a BulletButton-style maglock device. Period.

Excellent post....


You did however forget to mention that the statute DOES allow the DOJ to issue permits. Even now, it is technically possible for a private citizen to obtain a permit to manufacture an assault weapon, and upon receipt, rip off his monster man, or BB, and construct a real AR.

This may be "pie in the sky" now, but can you imagine if the second were incorporated and the AW permit became "shall issue for non felons"?

It could happen... ;)

Librarian
10-06-2009, 10:00 PM
Just to supplement Bill's post, there is also a brief history (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/History_of_%27Assault_Weapon%27_laws) at the Calguns Foundation Wiki.

dantodd
10-06-2009, 10:05 PM
This may be "pie in the sky" now, but can you imagine if the second were incorporated and the AW permit became "shall issue for non felons"?


I doubt that will ever happen. Which doesn't mean I don't see a day when the BBs can come off, just that it won't be through "shall issue."

E Pluribus Unum
10-06-2009, 10:50 PM
I doubt that will ever happen. Which doesn't mean I don't see a day when the BBs can come off, just that it won't be through "shall issue."

You never know what they will try.

Did you watch the oral arguments for Nordyke? They tried to argue that the Nordykes did not submit a plan to have a gun show and that a gun show could occur without the actual showing of guns.

I could easily see California attornies arguing that the AWB is constitutional because there is a permit process. They then may be faced with a choice: 1) Repeal the AWB 2)Change the permit process to shall issue

Given those choices, they may choose the latter.

bigcalidave
10-07-2009, 12:03 AM
Wow bill. Great summary post ! I was just going to write
"hee hee. Really ? "

bigcalidave
10-07-2009, 12:08 AM
Can't edit from my storm. Forgot to add. Why the hell would you want to register it ! At least you can throw your oll ar on the backseat and go use the damn thing. Maybe even stop for lunch! Some of us with RAWs don't even bother because they have to be locked up. You can only go to and from the range. And you can't let it out of your sight !

B Strong
10-07-2009, 7:49 AM
This may be a stupid question, But I know that I will at least get some sort of answer here. I know that all AW's were required to be registered before March 31st 1992. Thanks to the Roberti-Roos Idiotic AW Control Act of 1989. I have heard that the AW ban has expired. Can I now register my OLL with the DOJ and remove the BB? If not, Please tell me what the definition of expired and it's meaning as per section PC whatever....


You're confusing the Fed. AW law with the California state AW laws.

The fed ban went out through the sunset clause in 2004. The state Roberti-Roos law went in and isn't exactly going to be leaving anytime soon.

Stand by for future developments...

edit: Bill beat me to it.

bwiese
10-07-2009, 8:55 AM
Excellent post....

You did however forget to mention that the statute DOES allow the DOJ to issue permits. Even now, it is technically possible for a private citizen to obtain a permit to manufacture an assault weapon, and upon receipt, rip off his monster man, or BB, and construct a real AR.

I did mention it somewhat in the next-to-last paragraph in my post, and diving into further details would not prob be helpful to the OP.


This may be "pie in the sky" now, but can you imagine if the second were incorporated and the AW permit became "shall issue for non felons"?

It could happen... ;)

Yes it could, as an alternate/secondary path. More likely the whole AW ban falls, esp SB23- because presence or absence of certain features does not make the rifle any more deadly - esp as full-house AWs are not "dangerous *and* unusual": they have same firepower as a conventional Mini14s or M1A, and they are not unusual because tons of them are sold nationally.

Maestro Pistolero
10-07-2009, 10:32 AM
Yes. In Nevada. Oh wait, there is no rifle registration in Nevada, unless it's an assaualt weo . . . nope not that either.

jamesob
10-07-2009, 11:44 AM
as e said in a earlier post, yes you can. spend your money on fees and lawyers and pray to almighty god for a permit. your odds of getting a permit is compared to a snowflake lasting longer than a minute on the surface of the sun.

Shane916
10-07-2009, 12:43 PM
lol is it April 1st already?!?

loather
10-08-2009, 8:37 AM
... full-house AWs are not "dangerous *and* unusual": they have same firepower as a conventional Mini14s or M1A, and they are not unusual because tons of them are sold nationally.

I'd wager they're neither dangerous or unusual. Commonality is established above by you; thousands are sold nationally (and even a great deal of them inside California -- soon you'll be able to add my name to the list). And, a gun is only as dangerous as its owner: if someone has proved not to be a danger when possessing other guns, why should that be any different if their gun happens to be "evil and black?"