PDA

View Full Version : Legal to leave FFL's presence with complete lower--but also sans mag lock?


froopah_loop
12-22-2009, 1:59 PM
I am new to the concept of OLL's and the surrounding intricacies. So I have a question that probably falls into "beginner category."

The scenario is assuming that an otherwise complete rifle with feature(s) is purchased out-of-state and shipped into CA in compliant condition.(Upper/lower separated and sent to an FFL in CA whom is not in possession of an AW permit.......)


Since a complete lower is not a rifle due to being separated from the upper, would it be legal to walk out of an FFL--of course, after DROS/10 day wait--with said complete lower minus mag lock?


Assuming the above hypothetical scenario is a possible one, I realize beyond that, obviously, there are not likely many FFL's with the necessary level of understanding of the Penal Code to agree to something like this.

So, if it were legal then there is still the issue of finding an FFL well versed in PC, I understand.


Then again, I do not have a strong grasp of the laws regarding the liability of such a proposition. I am assuming/have the impression that the only liability a receiving FFL is under would be:

1. Accepting a firearm in compliant condition. In this case, with the upper and lower separated.

And 2. Sending it away with the buyer also in compliant condition.

So in other words, I am also under the impression that the only issues that arise with liability is with what said buyer does once leaving the FFL's presence... Liability at that point rests solely on the buyer, not the FFL. In this case, the buyer could potentially commit a felony by "constructing" an AW by reassembling the upper/lower

But again I'm ignorant and am only assuming this is all possible/legal.

So one more time, is it legal to leave with a completed lower (or upper depending on the rifle) without pinning the magazine again assuming the rifle has feature(s) which would by default dictate pinning the magazine?


Thanks, I tried not to word all of this confusingly but I think it happened anyway. It's the best I can do to describe the concept.--And to explain myself/my intentions.

Josh3239
12-22-2009, 2:05 PM
An assault weapon (aw) firstly must be both semi automatic and centerfire. A complete lower receiver is neither semi automatic nor is it centerfire. So a complete lower receiver cannot be an AW unless the receiver itself is banned by name.

The PC doesn't tell you what is legal, rather what is legal. Google "California Senate Bill 23", it has the Penal Code on it and gives a description of an AW. Highlight the description (semi auto, centerfire rifle) and show any non-believer.

Fot
12-22-2009, 2:08 PM
If the rifle can be broken into two parts (ar -15) no reason the upper needs to go through a FFl.

A lower doesn't need a bb as it could be used with a single shot or 22 upper and be legal without a bb.

ENTHUSIAST
12-22-2009, 2:09 PM
Legal YES but I only know a few FFLs that would probably do it.

froopah_loop
12-22-2009, 2:18 PM
Maybe I don't sound as confusing as I think? Either that or you guys are good decipher'ers? :)

Wow I'm actually surprised that what I was hypothesizing is indeed legal.

And I know what you mean about the limited demographic on FFL's whom would be willing to do this.

froopah_loop
12-22-2009, 2:31 PM
Alright and maybe I should explain myself a little bit further....

The reason and the only reason I am even considering the upper/lower separated option is due to a time constraint. There is a rebate on the rifle in question and it is about to expire. If I wait to get the necessary part(s) first, send the mag lock, along with the lower to an out of state middleman, have him CA-Compliant-it, then finally ship it back out here to CA and then finally DROS it I'm thinking the rebate offer will be done by then.

If it were not for the time concern, I'd go the middleman route.

But of course, at the same time this is a more cost effective means of transferring in an otherwise non-CA-Compliant firearm.

Also though, however, I realize it is NOT cost effective let alone even remotely worth it when compared to the possibility of an AW charge if something stupid were to happen say like re-attaching the upper/lower on an OLL with feature(s) without a pinned magazine. :)

froopah_loop
12-22-2009, 2:32 PM
Lastly, thanks for responding.

lorax3
12-22-2009, 2:38 PM
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall
also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

froopah_loop
12-22-2009, 2:42 PM
And for clarification.

There is no liability on the part of the sending or receiving FFL selling/transfering a rifle in this condition? (Upper/lower separated, with feature(s) and without a pinned magazine.)

ENTHUSIAST
12-22-2009, 3:34 PM
No but to hear some FFLs tell it you would think they believe they are gonna be liabile for laws that no one has never seen or laws that don't exist...

It is just on your butt to keep it legal and not turn it into an AW.

I dont know why they get so hot and heavy about it, hell you could turn a Mini-14 into an AW just as easy but no one gives you stink eye and assumes that you MUST be more tempted to do it due to the less-than-EVIL factor. :rolleyes:

And for clarification.

There is no liability on the part of the sending or receiving FFL selling/transfering a rifle in this condition? (Upper/lower separated, with feature(s) and without a pinned magazine.)

Cokebottle
12-22-2009, 3:52 PM
And for clarification.

There is no liability on the part of the sending or receiving FFL selling/transfering a rifle in this condition? (Upper/lower separated, with feature(s) and without a pinned magazine.)
Nope.

The receiver is not in and of itself an AW until it has "evil features" installed and is in a semi-auto centerfire configuration.
The FFL has no idea (nor any business knowing) if it is going to be used for a featureless build, a rimfire configuration, or configured as a single shot.
You could build your own bolt-action upper and plant it on a mil-spec AR15 lower.

None of these configurations would require a locking magazine.

With the upper and lower separated, that doesn't mean that the buyer intends to reassemble THOSE parts.
Perhaps the buyer already has an AR15 with a 20" barrel and he wants to have a carbine option for that lower, and intends to use the new lower for another configuration.... or perhaps he found a complete AR on Gunbroker for the same price as a new upper that he wants, and intends to simply "flip" the new lower while keeping the upper?

There are more possibilities for the use of that lower that would not require a maglock than possibilities that do require it, even though the most obvious possibility is that it will be simply reassembled.


And even if it will be reassembled, if it's got an A1/A2 stock, all it needs is an MMG to make it legal without the maglock.

Cokebottle
12-22-2009, 3:55 PM
But of course, at the same time this is a more cost effective means of transferring in an otherwise non-CA-Compliant firearm.
Have the seller remove the upper from the lower.
Ship the lower to your FFL and ship the upper directly to you.

It'll cost you a little extra in shipping, but the upper can be shipped ground which is pretty cheap.

boxbro
12-22-2009, 4:28 PM
Have the seller remove the upper from the lower.
Ship the lower to your FFL and ship the upper directly to you.

It'll cost you a little extra in shipping, but the upper can be shipped ground which is pretty cheap.

:iagree:

wildhawker
12-22-2009, 4:28 PM
For clarity, note that 1) no greater than a ten-round magazine should ever be used with any OLL-based (non-RAW) maglocked rifles and 2) there is no need for a magazine to be "pinned", only that the rifle not be capable of accepting a detachable magazine.

Alright and maybe I should explain myself a little bit further....

The reason and the only reason I am even considering the upper/lower separated option is due to a time constraint. There is a rebate on the rifle in question and it is about to expire. If I wait to get the necessary part(s) first, send the mag lock, along with the lower to an out of state middleman, have him CA-Compliant-it, then finally ship it back out here to CA and then finally DROS it I'm thinking the rebate offer will be done by then.

If it were not for the time concern, I'd go the middleman route.

But of course, at the same time this is a more cost effective means of transferring in an otherwise non-CA-Compliant firearm.

Also though, however, I realize it is NOT cost effective let alone even remotely worth it when compared to the possibility of an AW charge if something stupid were to happen say like re-attaching the upper/lower on an OLL with feature(s) without a pinned magazine. :)