PDA

View Full Version : Need more information on register assault riffle.


toneman
11-11-2009, 8:41 AM
Back in 2001 or 2000 we all had to register for a Assault riffle,
Friend of mind had 3 AR & 1 Fal to register at that time,
His got all three AR registered fine but on Fal DOJ send him a letter saying
it's denial due to passed registration deadline, But he register at the same time with his other riffle,
In his case, Is this a illegal weapon ?
Can he install bullet button to make it legal ?
Can he sell it out of state ?
Need help, he is good guy.

69Mach1
11-11-2009, 8:46 AM
There was also a registration period in 1989 for anything on the Rooberti/Roos AW list. The FAL was on that list. A named AW cannot be made legal.

jdberger
11-11-2009, 8:48 AM
I'm having a hard time understanding your post because it appears to have been written in shorthand. Please accept my apologies if you're not a native English speaker.

Let's see if I have this right, then we'll explore options.

Your friend attempted to register 3 AR style rifles and an FN FAL style rifle with the DOJ in 2000/2001 as Assault weapons.

DOJ accepted the registration of the AR type rifles and sent your friend the appropriate paperwork.

DOJ refused to register the FN FAL type rifle, claiming that the deadline to register it had passed.

Is this correct?

Just curious, what is the make and model of the FN FAL type rifle?

Maestro Pistolero
11-11-2009, 9:04 AM
Riffles are legal , AFAIK. As are raffles, and for that matter, Ruffles. :D

m1match
11-11-2009, 9:15 AM
The rifle is probably a FN FAL, which is too bad, because the original FN semi auto rifles are worth thousands of dollars. The FN FAL was a listed banned rifle in the 1989 California assault weapons ban. For those rifles listed in the original 1989 law, they had to be registered in 1990. The 2000 registration period was a result of the SB-23 legislation that expanded on the original 1989 ban. This one banned weapons by features like detachable mag w/pistol grip. Since the FN FAL was banned in 1989 and was not registered at that time, it is an illegal CA assault weapon and can't be registered after that original date which was around the end of 1990. The ARs that DOJ did accept the registration on must have been ARs that were not listed on the original 1989 legislation but were CA AWs under the SB-23 legislation. That FAL cannot be made a legal. It could be disposed of out of state, but there's a host of legal problems just with possessing and transporting it in the State of CA. If that rifle is in your possession, say on a traffic stop while you are driving to Nevada, and it comes to the attention of a LEO, that's a fairly serious offense. Someone in possession of a rifle like that should probably contact one of the firearms lawyers that are well known on this site like Don Kilmer, Chuck Michel, etc.

djleisure
11-11-2009, 9:16 AM
Riffles are legal , AFAIK. As are raffles, and for that matter, Ruffles. :D

What about overly-salted ruffles? ... probably still legal...

I believe 69Mach1 answered the OP's question.

bwiese
11-11-2009, 9:31 AM
Back in 2001 or 2000 we all had to register for a Assault riffle,
Friend of mind had 3 AR & 1 Fal to register at that time,
His got all three AR registered fine but on Fal DOJ send him a letter saying it's denial due to passed registration deadline, But he register
at the same time with his other riffle,
In his case, Is this a illegal weapon ?
Can he install bullet button to make it legal ?
Can he sell it out of state ?
Need help, he is good guy.

Most likely. Your friend needs an attorney, fast.

The FAL rifle was likely denied registration because it was a banned-by-name FN FAL (as opposed to clone rifles like DSA, Imbel, Entreprise, etc. that can be configured into legal forms or that could be registered as AWs in 2000.

If this is the case, the DOJ was being nice by not arresting him, since that rifle should have been registered in 1989 or a catchup late reg period in 1992? 93? This FAL rifle should not have been in California, period.

If the rifle is an FN FAL your friend has been in illegal possession of an unreg'd AW for many years. There is nothing he can do about it.

He cannot move it out of state without risking MORE trouble (transport of unreg'd AW charges are felonies, while simple possession is only a wobbler).

He needs to IMMEDIATELY strip it down to bare upper receiver, and move the parts well away from the receiver (perhaps store elsewhere).
He should IMMEDIATELY contact an attorney to arrange a surrender of the FN FAL upper receiver to LE.

Now, if the FAL rifle was not regsitered due to some other reason (i.e, wasn't FN after all, and the DOJ screwed up for some reason - perhaps insufficient information on the form) then it still can't be registered as AW - it's just way too late, by 9 years. Your friend should have responded as necessary in 2000/1 while there was time to amned the filing.

toneman
11-11-2009, 10:45 AM
Yes! you are right about me speaks English as a second language, &
Yes ! you are right about him trying register AR type riffle & Fal,
DOJ refused to register the FN FAL saying that deadline has passed.

Most likely. Your friend needs an attorney, fast.

The FAL rifle was likely denied registration because it was a banned-by-name FN FAL (as opposed to clone rifles like DSA, Imbel, Entreprise, etc. that can be configured into legal forms or that could be registered as AWs in 2000.

If this is the case, the DOJ was being nice by not arresting him, since that rifle should have been registered in 1989 or a catchup late reg period in 1992? 93? This FAL rifle should not have been in California, period.

If the rifle is an FN FAL your friend has been in illegal possession of an unreg'd AW for many years. There is nothing he can do about it.

He cannot move it out of state without risking MORE trouble (transport of unreg'd AW charges are felonies, while simple possession is only a wobbler).

He needs to IMMEDIATELY strip it down to bare upper receiver, and move the parts well away from the receiver (perhaps store elsewhere).
He should IMMEDIATELY contact an attorney to arrange a surrender of the FN FAL upper receiver to LE.

Now, if the FAL rifle was not regsitered due to some other reason (i.e, wasn't FN after all, and the DOJ screwed up for some reason - perhaps insufficient information on the form) then it still can't be registered as AW - it's just way too late, by 9 years. Your friend should have responded as necessary in 2000/1 while there was time to amned the filing.

The rifle is probably a FN FAL, which is too bad, because the original FN semi auto rifles are worth thousands of dollars. The FN FAL was a listed banned rifle in the 1989 California assault weapons ban. For those rifles listed in the original 1989 law, they had to be registered in 1990. The 2000 registration period was a result of the Roberti Roos legislation that expanded on the original 1989 ban. This one banned weapons by features like detachable mag w/pistol grip. Since the FN FAL was banned in 1989 and was not registered at that time, it is an illegal CA assault weapon and can't be registered after that original date which was around the end of 1990. The ARs that DOJ did accept the registration on must have been ARs that were not listed on the original 1989 legislation but were CA AWs under the Roberti Roos legislation. That FAL cannot be made a legal. It could be disposed of out of state, but there's a host of legal problems just with possessing and transporting it in the State of CA. If that rifle is in your possession, say on a traffic stop while you are driving to Nevada, and it comes to the attention of a LEO, that's a fairly serious offense. Someone in possession of a rifle like that should probably contact one of the firearms lawyers that are well known on this site like Don Kilmer, Chuck Michel, etc.

Oh my friend is in Big Trouble !!!
he purchased right before the Roberti Roos legislation in California at the Turners outdoorsman, So Turners sold him a illegal weapon ?:eek::eek::eek:
Then Turners in trouble too ???

Cokebottle
11-11-2009, 10:51 AM
Oh my friend is in Big Trouble !!!
he purchased right before the Roberti Roos legislation in California at the Turners outdoorsman, So Turners sold him a illegal weapon ?:eek::eek::eek:
Then Turners in trouble too ???
Roberti-Roos was the original 1989 ban, so sale "right before" would have been legal.

ke6guj
11-11-2009, 10:52 AM
Oh my friend is in Big Trouble !!!
he purchased right before the Roberti Roos legislation in California at the Turners outdoorsman, So Turners sold him a illegal weapon ?:eek::eek::eek:
Then Turners in trouble too ???If it bought before the roberti roos legislation, that was in 1989, IIRC, then Turners did nothing wrong. It was legal at the time, and would have needed to be registered back then. Waiting until 2000 to register it was your friend's mistake, not Turners.

Now, if he bought it after RR passed, and it is an off-list FAL, then he had until Dec 31, 2000 to register it along with the AR's. But the AR's had until Jan 23, 2001? to register them, so it is possible that he tried to register the FAL during the additional registration window that the AR's had. Even then, that error should have been brought to your friend's attention 8 years ago. Why did he ignore the problem for so long?

toneman
11-11-2009, 11:36 AM
If it bought before the roberti roos legislation, that was in 1989, IIRC, then Turners did nothing wrong. It was legal at the time, and would have needed to be registered back then. Waiting until 2000 to register it was your friend's mistake, not Turners.

Now, if he bought it after RR passed, and it is an off-list FAL, then he had until Dec 31, 2000 to register it along with the AR's. But the AR's had until Jan 23, 2001? to register them, so it is possible that he tried to register the FAL during the additional registration window that the AR's had. Even then, that error should have been brought to your friend's attention 8 years ago. Why did he ignore the problem for so long?

He's was thinking it is all good until we decided to go down the range together & I asked for the paper so we can transport to the range, & I found it was rejected,
I just called him now asked when he purchased, he thinks It was 2000 before the deadline at the turners.

bwiese
11-11-2009, 11:39 AM
Oh my friend is in Big Trouble !!!
he purchased right before the Roberti Roos legislation in California at the Turners outdoorsman, So Turners sold him a illegal weapon ?:eek::eek::eek:
Then Turners in trouble too ???

No, Turners most likely sold it to him in 1989 before the law passed. They may even have told him about the prospective law.

It was your buddy's duty to register it on or before Dec. 31, 1990.

There was a second "catch-up" registration window opened somewhere in 1992 or 1993 (can't remember).

He screwed up. In addition, SB23 registration was made clear to only address guns "banned by features" and that old Robert-Roos guns could NOT be registered under SB23.

He was thinking it is all good until we decided to go down the range together
& I asked for the paper so we can transport to the range, & I found it was rejected
I just called him now asked when he purchased, he thinks It was 2000 before the
deadline at the turners

I find it unlikely that Turner's would sell a true banned-by-name FN FAL.
Perhaps it was not really an FN FAL and went by another legit model number and your friend was incompetent and filled out the registration form with the wrong model. (i.e, it didn't say FN FAL on the rifle and was an FN "50-61" or whatever,
yet your friend filled out the form calling it a FAL.)

In any case, it's all over. It cannot be fixed. Your friend let this hang around for 9 or more years.

- Your friend needs to disassemble the rifle down to BARE RECEIVER, *IMMEDIATELY*

- He needs to contact a lawyer IMMEDIATELY to arrange surrender of receiver.

- He should NOT transport this gun or try to sell it to anyone or move it out of state as that can result in more trouble.

This is really the only available option that can stop trouble.

In addition, there is no privacy on the internet. You have 'outed' your friend - it would be easy to find you and then your friend.

ke6guj
11-11-2009, 12:28 PM
He's was thinking it is all good until we decided to go down the range together & I asked for the paper so we can transport to the range, & I found it was rejected,
I just called him now asked when he purchased, he thinks It was 2000 before the deadline at the turners.OK, if he bought it around 2000 from Turners, then I doubt it is a listed FN-FAL. It may be a Century L1A1 Sporter or other Off-List FAL copy.

Once you figure out exactly what he has, that will determine his options. If it is off-list, he could reconfig it into a CA-legal configuration, but if it is an FN-FAL, then he is SOL.

Also, if it is off-list, he could look into why CADOJ declined his registration on it. DId he send it in after the SB23 deadline December 31, 2000, but before the AR/AK deadline of Jan 23, 2001? If so, they rightly declined his registration, but if he sent in the registration before December 31st, perhaps a correctable error was committed. But first, you have to determine what he actually has, when he bought it, when he attempted to register it, and why the registration was declined.

bwiese
11-11-2009, 12:39 PM
but if he sent in the registration before December 31st, perhaps a correctable error was committed. But first, you have to determine what he actually has, when he bought it, when he attempted to register it, and why the registration was declined.

It is likely that it is too late for this to be corrected.
The guy screwed up 9+ yrs ago.

During reg period (or during processing time afterward), if DOJ rejected app (insufficient info, unclear, etc.) you had 15 days to respond & correct. I imagine this could run thru a cycle or two if multiple items needed clarification. It's in 11 CCR 5470.

Bottom line, 9+ years ain't 15 days.

Yes, this could well be a product of a guy calling the gun an FN FAL but it really was a Century FAL clone, etc. But too late.

ke6guj
11-11-2009, 12:51 PM
It is likely that it is too late for this to be corrected.
The guy screwed up 9+ yrs ago.yup, probably too late for him to get the app corrected and get that "FAL" registered. But I do seem to recall in the last year or two, other Calgunners that had messed up applications that were never completed due to some reason or another, and they were able to get it worked out. But that could just be a messed up memory.

But at least he should be able to set it up with a maglock or go featureless in the meantime if he wanted to and get legal.

Geo
11-11-2009, 12:57 PM
Thread of FAIL.

m1match
11-11-2009, 1:04 PM
In my 1st post, I confused Roberti Roos with the 2000 ban when it was the original 1989 ban legislation. I find it unlikely that Turners would have sold an illegal firearm. If your friend bought it from Turners before the 2000 ban, but after 1990, then it must have been an FAL clone from someone like DSA. To my knowledge, the only named FALs on the ban list are the FNs and the Springfield Armory SAR-48. Find out the manufacturer of your friend's FAL. If it's a DSA, Imbel, Enterprise, etc then it can be legally configured with a Bullet Button and 10 rd mag.

bwiese
11-11-2009, 1:11 PM
I Find out the manufacturer of your friend's FAL. If it's a DSA, Imbel, Enterprise, etc then it can be legally configured with a Bullet Button and 10 rd mag.

This will stop the ongoing crime but will not erase the prior crime.

bwiese
11-11-2009, 1:13 PM
yup, probably too late for him to get the app corrected and get that "FAL" registered. But I do seem to recall in the last year or two, other Calgunners that had messed up applications that were never completed due to some reason or another, and they were able to get it worked out. But that could just be a messed up memory.


I think those situations were folks popped for AWs which came up unreg'd and were later found to be registered because of
- poor quality of data entered into the system;
- the user didn't really write the right make/model down (used importer);
- alphabetic prefixes on serial numbers not filled out on form;
- or (in one case I know of) reg was filed but was not on system;
paper had to be found.

toneman
11-11-2009, 1:41 PM
Thank you all for your inputs,
I feel sorry for my friend......

bwiese
11-11-2009, 1:43 PM
Thank you all for your inputs,
I feel sorry for my friend......

Now you need to tell him what we've told you.

Plus there is no privacy on the net, so there is a chance he is discoverable.

He needs to act now, strip to bare receiver IMMEDIATELY and get a lawyer IMMEDIATELY.

toneman
11-11-2009, 2:13 PM
Now you need to tell him what we've told you.

Plus there is no privacy on the net, so there is a chance he is discoverable.

He needs to act now, strip to bare receiver IMMEDIATELY and get a lawyer IMMEDIATELY.

Thank you beiese,
for your concern,
I didn't want to tell him the bad news myself, so I send link of this thread to him.
I think he's thinking about become a member here too,
So let him decide what he wants to do.

bwiese
11-11-2009, 2:16 PM
Thank you beiese,
for your concern,
I didn't want to tell him the bad news myself, so I send link of this thread to him.
I think he's thinking about become a member here too,
So let him decide what he wants to do.

You need to tell him now.

You've already disclosed his illegal status, why would you hide now?

HE NEEDS TO KNOW AND ACT IMMEDIATELY WITH THE SPECIFIED INSTRUCTIONS.

Quser.619
11-11-2009, 2:23 PM
Turn in tomorrow for another episode things sane people must do to be legal in an insane state.

oaklander
11-11-2009, 2:30 PM
This thread should probably be deleted now.

bigcalidave
11-11-2009, 3:16 PM
But then the friend will never have a damn clue. F it, let him post pictures of himself with the rifle in question. Let's see if anything actually happens from it!

not really.

Is there a sticky for
"what the hell should you do if you have an unregistered AW and no clue on california laws" ??

Cokebottle
11-11-2009, 3:56 PM
Is there a sticky for
"what the hell should you do if you have an unregistered AW and no clue on california laws" ??
Excellent idea.

It's one thing to figure that you're "okay" because you've been "okay" for 10 years.

It's another to ask about it on a forum that is monitored by the BATF and DOJ, with topics that have got to have the FBI's monitoring software lighting up warnings like a Christmas tree.

DarkHorse
11-11-2009, 4:24 PM
As the old saying goes, "With friends like these..."

Cokebottle
11-11-2009, 4:37 PM
As the old saying goes, "With friends like these..."
No kidding...

Ring ring....
"Hey bud, I asked a question on Calguns and I have some bad news"
"You asked where????"
"Calguns, you know, that gun forum for California gun owners"
"Oh, what did they say... Hold on, I'll be right back, someone's at the door..."
"Hello.... GET ON THE FLOOR NOW!!!!!!!!!.....

bigcalidave
11-11-2009, 5:20 PM
I've seen enough posts of VERY illegal stuff here, and yet I have never heard of one of those people getting raided. When they do, and the PC on the warrant for search is "postings on an internet forum" THEN I'll believe it. It's good advice not to sit here and say "I don't run bullet buttons, hell I even have some MGs, who wants to go shooting yee haw!" However, I think it would only be something discovered AFTER you get arrested for it. The state is broke. Do they even have the resources to watch over us like that? If it's not breaking federal laws then the feds won't care. Is there some office at the CA DOJ where they read through the THOUSAnds of websites just like this one and the thousands of posts in thousands of forums? Then they would have to go research each of those possible crimes? Eh, maybe. But I doubt it.

Cokebottle
11-11-2009, 5:31 PM
Yup.

A buddy of mine worked vice for a local PD.
When he wasn't working the street picking up the girls and the johns, or getting paid to have a beer in a strip club, he spent his time online looking for predators and CP collectors, primarily in IRC.

The various agencies coordinate frequently. He once told me about an illegal gambling bust out in Barstow (couple of truck trailers with slot machines) that involved about 8 OC and Pomona Valley agencies.

The resources are out there, and the way budgets work is if you don't spend it, you get cut next year, so when X calls Y for assistance on an investigation, Y doesn't refuse.

GrizzlyGuy
11-11-2009, 5:40 PM
I think it's to his friend's credit that he has asked for help from the experts and is trying to do the right thing. That suggests to me that he is a good guy who already dismissed the obvious but wrong/illegal idea:

Cosmoline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmoline)
Large PVC Tube
Shovel

If the gun laws weren't as ridiculously complicated as they are, these situations where good people are in jeopardy from bad laws wouldn't happen in the first place.

ke6guj
11-11-2009, 7:37 PM
I've seen enough posts of VERY illegal stuff here, and yet I have never heard of one of those people getting raided. When they do, and the PC on the warrant for search is "postings on an internet forum" THEN I'll believe it.IIRC, BWO's warrant was based on Myspace postings.

MasterYong
11-12-2009, 5:31 AM
IIRC, BWO's warrant was based on Myspace postings.

I believe that's correct. Man that was ridiculous...

ponderosa
11-12-2009, 7:32 AM
I've seen this idea on the forum before; "chopping up the receiver into 3 pieces" instead of turning it in. Does that hold water?*


*I ask only for clarification, I do not, I repeat, I do not have any UAW, nor any RAW either. Nor any AW either. So no need to track me down big brother. ;)

jdberger
11-12-2009, 9:27 AM
IIRC, BWO's warrant was based on Myspace postings.

I think it was bumpfiring an SKS combined (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-11036200.html)with his enthusiastic 2A advocacy at school.

Beelzy
11-12-2009, 10:28 AM
Hello!

The gun was probably a STG58 and the guy incorrectly listed the gun as a
"FAL" by mistake.

That would explain the 2000 time period for the sale and why DOJ denied the
Registration.

Have the guy look at the receiver, it's probably a Hesse or Enterprise unit.
If this is the case he can contact DOJ and correct his error.

bwiese
11-12-2009, 10:53 AM
H
Have the guy look at the receiver, it's probably a Hesse or Enterprise unit.
If this is the case he can contact DOJ and correct his error.

No he can't.

He might have a defense against AW charges, but as far as 'cleaning up' that gun, the opportunity is long gone.

MasterYong
11-12-2009, 10:55 AM
I think it was bumpfiring an SKS combined (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-11036200.html)with his enthusiastic 2A advocacy at school.

Can you link to that article? I can only read the first paragraph or so without joining the site.

Is bump-firing illegal? Can't say I've ever tried it (not at today's ammo prices LOL).

Cokebottle
11-12-2009, 11:38 AM
I've seen this idea on the forum before; "chopping up the receiver into 3 pieces" instead of turning it in. Does that hold water?*


*I ask only for clarification, I do not, I repeat, I do not have any UAW, nor any RAW either. Nor any AW either. So no need to track me down big brother. ;)
Must be torch-cut, but the main issue is that it can never have been in California without having been a crime.

Can he cut it up, toss it in the trash, and not be caught? Possibly (there are facilities that sort trash for recyclables, and if it were found and the serial numbers were legible, it could possibly be traced).
Cut it up and bury it in the desert, or take it out and dump it overboard halfway to Catalina? Sure. It would not be legal, but it would prevent him from being "caught" with the gun.

If it is in fact not an FAL, then a BB would make it legal to have now, but as Bill said, it does not change the fact that he has been in possession of an illegal UAW for the last 9 years.

MasterYong
11-12-2009, 11:41 AM
Must be torch-cut, but the main issue is that it can never have been in California without having been a crime.

Can he cut it up, toss it in the trash, and not be caught? Possibly (there are facilities that sort trash for recyclables, and if it were found and the serial numbers were legible, it could possibly be traced).
Cut it up and bury it in the desert, or take it out and dump it overboard halfway to Catalina? Sure. It would not be legal, but it would prevent him from being "caught" with the gun.

If it is in fact not an FAL, then a BB would make it legal to have now, but as Bill said, it does not change the fact that he has been in possession of an illegal UAW for the last 9 years.

Also, if he cut it up, wouldn't he be guilty of destroying evidence of a felony? (I'm sure there's a more specific term for that)

Isn't destroying evidence extremely illegal?

Cokebottle
11-12-2009, 11:49 AM
Also, if he cut it up, wouldn't he be guilty of destroying evidence of a felony? (I'm sure there's a more specific term for that)

Isn't destroying evidence extremely illegal?
Yup.

The parts kits are cut up prior to importation.
Once it's here, to remain legal, it has to go through the proper channels for disposal.

RobG
11-12-2009, 11:52 AM
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u155/RobG5538/hulk-hogan.jpg

Aldemar
11-13-2009, 11:16 AM
I think he can just turn it in at one of those "cash for guns" exchanges that seem to be so popular. Aren't they a "no questions asked" deal?

What a waste of a fine weapon though.

bwiese
11-13-2009, 11:35 AM
I think he can just turn it in at one of those "cash for guns" exchanges that seem to be so popular. Aren't they a "no questions asked" deal.

IGNORE. BAD ADVICE.

What happens if the OP were popped for a bad taillight on the way there?

Transport is a separate, additional charge that is felony-only, not a wobbler.

The recipe I have written above (and in other threads) is the cleanest, safest, most risk-minimizing approach with the best likelihood of safe outcome.

People who try to recover a few hundred bucks of value in a dangerous legal situation - at risk of many thousands of dollars of legal fees to even get a chance of misdemeanor reduction - simply fail the Big IQ test. They're likly in Darwin's Waiting Room for other reasons too.