PDA

View Full Version : Still Get Lowers


Tommy_J_Trainer
03-03-2006, 11:20 AM
I hate to sound redundant, but I've been reading a lot of different threads and I can't seem to find some closure on the issue. Apparently, as of December, someone discovered a loophole in the law which would make it easier for us law abiding citizens to obtain and register "AR style" lower recievers. Then, we could build them withing state specifications not having more than two evil features. From what I gathered, there would be a window in which we could get them. Is this true? If it is, when will the window be closed. Basically, I would like to know if is okay for me to buy an "AR Style" lower and build my own legal gun. Sorry if I'm beating this horse until it's marinated, but I'm new to this board. By the way you guys seem like a really cool bunch and I'm glad to have found a group of like thinking Americans.

sv_sniper
03-03-2006, 11:23 AM
Welcome aboard!!!

The window is still open, isn't it?:)

bwiese
03-03-2006, 11:36 AM
There's a FAQ in red at top of the the page on menu bar about legalities.

Yes, as of now, you can still get "off-list lowers". If they are not on the Kasler list (Calif Code of Regs sec 979.11) you can get them. If you go to a dealer handling these or join a group buy here, you'll get the right (legal) one. Don't hold out for a specific brand, all of these off-list lowers are about the same and all will serve to build an accurate, 100% functional rifle.

Check on the '223 Legal Self-Loading Rifle' forum, inside the 'Gun Rights Legal Political' forum, for more info.

shopkeep
03-03-2006, 11:38 AM
Click this link http://www.calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm to read the FAQ. If you can't understand the FAQ or "don't get it" then DO NOT purchase an off-list lower. Remember, if you don't know what you're doing you'll be committing a felony and ignorance is not a defense!!!

Therefore the best thing to do is read the FAQ and become familiar with the law before venturing in to off-list country. Now that I've given you the obligatory new guy warning, welcome to the forum :).

Diabolus
03-06-2006, 4:28 PM
The DOJ does not get it, so don't feel to bad if you don't get it either!

PanzerAce
03-06-2006, 5:47 PM
The DOJ does not get it, so don't feel to bad if you don't get it either!

dont feel bad if you dont get it, BUT DONT BUY ONE EITHER. The last thing we need is someone who didnt understand the laws building an AW.

kemasa
03-06-2006, 6:07 PM
FYI:

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/ar15notice.pdf

Specifically at the bottom of page one:

Newly identified "series" weapons cannot legally have the features listed in PC section 12276.1 when they are registered. Those features cannot legally be added after the firearms are registered as assault weapons. The PC section 12276.1 features have been banned since January 1, 2000, when Senate Bill 23 went into effect. The public was notified of the prohibition on the specified features many years ago.

Also, read the second page which goes into it further, plus the DOJ is threatening those who misinform the public:

Firearm manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers who misinform the public about the ability to legally add prohibited features to these newly listed firearms risk criminal prosecution. They could also face civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation under the state's Unfair Practices Act (California Business & Professions Code section 17000 et seq.).

dhl
03-06-2006, 6:21 PM
Hello,

I may be wrong but, to all of you that jump on the new guys with their confused questions and you tell them they don't deserve to get an AR because they don't get the laws on them - may I please remind you that it took several years before someone DID GET IT and took the lead with selling the off-list lowers here in California and it wasn't you high-school bully tempered know it alls. If you're not going to help educate new people don't insult them and turn them away from our chosen sport.

Happy shooting,

Joe

C.G.
03-06-2006, 6:37 PM
Hello,

I may be wrong but, to all of you that jump on the new guys with their confused questions and you tell them they don't deserve to get an AR because they don't get the laws on them - may I please remind you that it took several years before someone DID GET IT and took the lead with selling the off-list lowers here in California and it wasn't you high-school bully tempered know it alls. If you're not going to help educate new people don't insult them and turn them away from our chosen sport.

Happy shooting,

Joe

I think you misunderstood a warning, better not having one than ending up on a felony charge because of lack of understanding in how this works. And for your information, it was a member of Cal-Guns that started this all.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-06-2006, 6:40 PM
FYI:

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/ar15notice.pdf

Specifically at the bottom of page one:

Newly identified "series" weapons cannot legally have the features listed in PC section 12276.1 when they are registered. Those features cannot legally be added after the firearms are registered as assault weapons. The PC section 12276.1 features have been banned since January 1, 2000, when Senate Bill 23 went into effect. The public was notified of the prohibition on the specified features many years ago.

Also, read the second page which goes into it further, plus the DOJ is threatening those who misinform the public:

Firearm manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers who misinform the public about the ability to legally add prohibited features to these newly listed firearms risk criminal prosecution. They could also face civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation under the state's Unfair Practices Act (California Business & Professions Code section 17000 et seq.).


Please point me to the CA criminal and civil code which states what you claim in your initial paragraph. What you have done is link to a DOJ memo. You have not linked to the law. The DOJ has their opinion...and clearly some here have a different opinion of what the law actually is. I suggest you read more of the info here and you will see why many of us think this DOJ memo you linked to is inaccurate.

I see you are new to the boards here, welcome.

kemasa
03-06-2006, 6:50 PM
Please point me to the CA criminal and civil code which states what you claim in your initial paragraph. What you have done is link to a DOJ memo. You have not linked to the law. The DOJ has their opinion...and clearly some here have a different opinion of what the law actually is. I suggest you read more of the info here and you will see why many of us think this DOJ memo you linked to is inaccurate.

I see you are new to the boards here, welcome.

I forwarded the CA DOJ response, which I think people need to read and contrary to your claim, I did not claim anything other than the DOJ is threatening people. My initial paragraph is "FYI".

Regardless of how it turns out, it can be expensive to defend yourself.

Also, if the CA DOJ was smart, it would do nothing since it does not have to and that would prevent anyone from doing much with them. The lowers are not semi-auto and could be built up as a bolt action or pump action, which then would not apply to the a-salt weapon. While I agree that the lowers are legal (since it has none of the banned features), I do not think that you will be able to build them up.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-06-2006, 7:22 PM
I forwarded the CA DOJ response, which I think people need to read and contrary to your claim, I did not claim anything other than the DOJ is threatening people. My initial paragraph is "FYI".

Regardless of how it turns out, it can be expensive to defend yourself.

Also, if the CA DOJ was smart, it would do nothing since it does not have to and that would prevent anyone from doing much with them. The lowers are not semi-auto and could be built up as a bolt action or pump action, which then would not apply to the a-salt weapon. While I agree that the lowers are legal (since it has none of the banned features), I do not think that you will be able to build them up.

Excuse me, but I dont think your initial post could be taken any other way than as I did. "People" here have read that memo over and over.

In regards to what you think the DOJ should or shouldn't do....again, it is obvious that you are, in some fashion, against what the majority of members here are doing with their off-list AR lowers. We are not building bolt action rifles....we are not building pump rifles....we are building CA legal .223 rifles with magazines that are attached according to the law. These are NOT AW's....at least NOT until the DOJ adds these new lowers to the list....and we have 90 days to register them.;)

How can you say you dont think we will be able to built them up? People already have...the DOJ has approved different designs that follow the law....not sure where you are getting your information from, but it obviously is incomplete. Again, I suggest you read the boards here more to get a better understanding of the legal aspects of this issue. Clearly you haven't even read the law as it currently stands.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 12:07 PM
Excuse me, but I dont think your initial post could be taken any other way than as I did. "People" here have read that memo over and over.

In regards to what you think the DOJ should or shouldn't do....again, it is obvious that you are, in some fashion, against what the majority of members here are doing with their off-list AR lowers. We are not building bolt action rifles....we are not building pump rifles....we are building CA legal .223 rifles with magazines that are attached according to the law. These are NOT AW's....at least NOT until the DOJ adds these new lowers to the list....and we have 90 days to register them.;)

How can you say you dont think we will be able to built them up? People already have...the DOJ has approved different designs that follow the law....not sure where you are getting your information from, but it obviously is incomplete. Again, I suggest you read the boards here more to get a better understanding of the legal aspects of this issue. Clearly you haven't even read the law as it currently stands.


I am glad to know that you are the complete judge of how to view what I said.

I am against the current a-salt weapon laws. I know what you are trying to do, but one question is for those who are selling the lower is whether they will be willing to return the profits if the people can do what it suggested that can with them.

What you are building can not have the banned features and you are assuming that you will be able to add banned features once you get it added to the list, yet there is a second law which is not about banning by name.

Ok, please tell me of one person who has legally built up a rifle with any of the banned features. While you can build a semi-auto rifle, unless it has a fixed magazine you are limited in what can have on it.

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 12:42 PM
Make sure you understand that "banned features" means a detachable magazine and any one of the following features. It does not mean that the features are banned by themselves, they must have a detachable magazine to go along with them. So you can stick a 10 round fixed magazine in the lower and build it up all you want. It isn't a real AR per se, but the court still hasn't ruled if the DOJ has the authority to make a category 4 class yet.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 12:50 PM
Make sure you understand that "banned features" means a detachable magazine and any one of the following features. It does not mean that the features are banned by themselves, they must have a detachable magazine to go along with them. So you can stick a 10 round fixed magazine in the lower and build it up all you want. It isn't a real AR per se, but the court still hasn't ruled if the DOJ has the authority to make a category 4 class yet.

Quite true, but then you can buy such a lower with the fixed magazine for less than what I have heard some people are selling the AR lowers for.

It is also not the same thing as what is being attempted.

JWC6
03-07-2006, 2:06 PM
I'm sorry, you've lost me on that one... Are you talking about Fab10 lowers, california bushmasters modified by Evans, the Bushmaster Carbon 15 sealed magwell models, or the Vulcan epoxied 10 round lowers?


Quite true, but then you can buy such a lower with the fixed magazine for less than what I have heard some people are selling the AR lowers for.

It is also not the same thing as what is being attempted.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 2:16 PM
I'm sorry, you've lost me on that one... Are you talking about Fab10 lowers, california bushmasters modified by Evans, the Bushmaster Carbon 15 sealed magwell models, or the Vulcan epoxied 10 round lowers?

Are those lower in price?

I think it is the Vulcan which is quite a bit lower in price than what some people are selling the lowers without the fixed magazine for.

Again, who has built up an AR without a fixed magazine and with banned features?

buckallred
03-07-2006, 2:21 PM
Make sure you understand that "banned features" means a detachable magazine and any one of the following features. It does not mean that the features are banned by themselves, they must have a detachable magazine to go along with them. So you can stick a 10 round fixed magazine in the lower and build it up all you want. It isn't a real AR per se, but the court still hasn't ruled if the DOJ has the authority to make a category 4 class yet.


Then, it follows that I could build a rifle from an "off-list" receiver that DOES have a detachable mag, AS LONG AS there is NO pistol grip, NO thumbhole, NO flash suppressor, etc.

Correct?

Thanks.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 2:31 PM
Then, it follows that I could build a rifle from an "off-list" receiver that DOES have a detachable mag, AS LONG AS there is NO pistol grip, NO thumbhole, NO flash suppressor, etc.

Correct?

Thanks.

Correct, as long as it does not have the banned features and is not on the named list, it would be acceptable. As if the pistol grip and other things on it make it a more dangerous firearm :-(.

An AR lower is nothing really until you build it up into something and as long as you avoid what is banned.

JWC6
03-07-2006, 2:58 PM
I know for certain that a stripped lower is less expensive than the california bushmaster ($1500) even if you do take in the expense of the assembled bushy upper and lower parts kit. Same goes with the sealed mag carbon 15s marketed directly by bushmaster ($900). Concerning the fab10, maybe the price is lower now, and the epoxied vulcans', my question is WHY WOULD SOMEONE ACTUALLY BUY one now, after the stripped lowers have become available. There has been enough evidence from other boards that the vulcan/hesse product is of questionable quality.

Concerning your second comment, this is a felony and NOT advocated by ANYONE here or elsewhere.



Are those lower in price?

I think it is the Vulcan which is quite a bit lower in price than what some people are selling the lowers without the fixed magazine for.

Again, who has built up an AR without a fixed magazine and with banned features?

kemasa
03-07-2006, 3:09 PM
Concerning your second comment, this is a felony and NOT advocated by ANYONE here or elsewhere.

Really? What is being attempted is that if you buy a non-listed lower, then you will have to register it when it gets on the list and it is claimed that once it is on the list then you can add all the banned features. That, to me, suggests that is exactly what is being advocated as a means of thinking that there is a loophole in the law.

It was said that people had built up firearms from the lowers and it was implied that it was of the type like other firearms which are banned, which tends to suggest that this is a bit deceptive.

I am not sure how well you could shoot an AR style rifle without the pistol grip, but as long as it does not have any other banned feature it should be legal.

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 3:12 PM
Kemesa, I don't think you are well informed on FAB-10, Vulcan, or Carbon-15 prices. My out the door price on a stripped FAB-10 back in 2002 was $323. I just sold a stripped Superior for $207.33 out the door. Many guys paid less than that.

Now, if you want to buy a FAB-10 today, you could probably get it for much less. I actually know this because since all of this started, I have bought six FAB-10s to use as floor models in my store and I have paid anywhere from $95 to no more than $125 each and that is my out the door price. Keep in mind I am a FFL so I don't have to pay the $25 for DROS though to get them in my name.

There is no point in having a FAB-10 anymore unless you want something that won't ever be an assault weapon and have to transport it by assault weapon rules. That is assuming the FAB-10 doesn't get listed as well. There is nothing prohibiting the DOJ from listing it.

"Building up a lower" means adding a 10 round fixed magazine to the stripped lower. Once a 10 round fixed magazine is added, then the prohibition in PC 12276.1 do not apply. When it says in the DOJ memo you cannot add the banned features, they do not you cannot add a pistol grip or a flash supressor. That is not what the law says is banned. What the law says is banned is a centerfire detachable magazine and any one of the following... So when I say I am going to build up one of my lowers, that means I am going to stick a 10 round fixed magazine on it and shoot it with the evil features. I personally have no desire to buy a post-ban upper and shoot it on a pistol gripless fixed stock AR. I could buy a mini-14 or I could have kept my SU-16 if I wanted to do that.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 3:25 PM
Kemesa, I don't think you are well informed on FAB-10, Vulcan, or Carbon-15 prices.


Really?

I know the dealer price of the Vulcan, do you?

Perhaps I am better informed than you think and perhaps than you are. You should be careful before you go making claims about others.

The bottom line is that unless people can build up the firearm with all the banned features, they are being sold a bill of goods. I have talked to several people who think that they will be able to have a firearm with all the banned features by getting the item listed on the banned list, register it within 90 days, then add anything that they want. I seriously doubt that this will happen, at least not without years of legal fighting and a lot of money.

grammaton76
03-07-2006, 3:25 PM
It was said that people had built up firearms from the lowers and it was implied that it was of the type like other firearms which are banned, which tends to suggest that this is a bit deceptive.

Actually, this is true. People from (not IN) California have, legally, built up these lowers with detachable mags, pistol grips, and other features. They just didn't have them configured that way in California.

Bear in mind, lots of folks have family, friends, etc out of state. When they go visit them, it's nice to have a proper AR-15 to use, and it's only a minute or two to change a fixed-mag AR over to a detachable-mag AR.

So, yes, they're just like the other firearms which have been banned, except that in order to stay legal you need to leave them in a different configuration while they're in CA. Whenever you're OUTSIDE CA, you can configure them in any way that's legal in the state you're in. Just make sure you CA-convert them before you cross the state line, and you're ok.

I think this is perhaps where you were getting hung up on the detachable mag thing.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 3:32 PM
[QUOTE=grammaton76]Actually, this is true. People from (not IN) California have, legally, built up these lowers with detachable mags, pistol grips, and other features. They just didn't have them configured that way in California.
/QUOTE]

Sigh ... We are talking about CA, not other states. You can legally own a fully automatic firearm in others states too. Since the a-salt weapons ban expired, the limits don't apply to other states so that you can buy what you want, if you live there or you can buy a lower here and build it up and make something that is not legal in CA in another state.

I am not hung up on the detachable magazine at all. I thought that we were talking about firearms that were legal to have in CA, not other states.

phish
03-07-2006, 3:44 PM
Really?

I know the dealer price of the Vulcan, do you?

Perhaps I am better informed than you think and perhaps than you are. You should be careful before you go making claims about others.


back up there Turbo, in case you haven't noticed, %10 is a class 01 FFL :rolleyes:

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 3:55 PM
Really?

I know the dealer price of the Vulcan, do you?

Perhaps I am better informed than you think and perhaps than you are. You should be careful before you go making claims about others.What kind of reply is that? Here are your own words below."Quite true, but then you can buy such a lower with the fixed magazine for less than what I have heard some people are selling the AR lowers for.""Are those lower in price? I think it is the Vulcan which is quite a bit lower in price than what some people are selling the lowers without the fixed magazine for."You do not seem to be very sure of fixed magazine lower prices by your own words. Then when I state the prices of fixed magazine lowers you proceed to chide me and your rational for your arrogant attitude is you know the owner of Vulcan. Sorry, on the play ground that might have worked, you have yet to prove you know the selling price of fixed magazine lowers. MSRP on a FAB-10 is $249 (they removed the price from their website) and the Vulcan's MSRP is $269 (http://www.vulcanarmament.com/cgistore/store.cgi?page=/new/product.html&setup=1&ida=224&idp=1&his=0|1&cart_id=6532592.1456). Tell me which one of the major stripped lower receiver dealers are selling stripped off-list lowers for anything over $249?

I don't give a crap who you know. You don't know fixed magazine lower receiver prices in California or you would know that getting a stripped, off-list lower is a much better deal even if it has to retain the 10 round fixed magazine as long as it is in state. I would have been content just letting you know this, but you obviously think you know everything even though your words tell a different tale. You might want to talk to your buddy at Vulcan again and ask him what his MSRP is and how many he has sold since December. :rolleyes:

Hey I don't want to hold a grudge, the ball is now in your court. I used real world examples of prices, feel free to prove me wrong with a means other than you know some guy.

And you are correct, if a dealer is claiming after these items get listed you will be able to build them up, that is not certain. You are correct it will probably be some time before we know what exactly is going to happen. Every week that goes by and the DOJ doesn't do its job and list these guns, the more convinced I am legislation is going to solve this problem once and for all. Things do not appear to be going as smoothly as when this thing first started, but that was only three months ago.

bwiese
03-07-2006, 4:09 PM
Kemasa:

People are buying these things to build better-than-FAB10 fixed-mag lowers.
There is the additional hope/chance that if/when these get declared, they can be full-fledged AWs. Everyone knows this is a gamble in that regard, esp as it's a race between listing vs. legislation.

In addition, for those that frequently travel outside CA, this allows them even now to run them as "free state" guns in non-CA areas.

While the DOJ has issued that funky Feb. 1 memo, there are grave questions by serious gun lawyers whom I've spoken with about DOJ's overassertion of regulatory authority, along with their creating a 2nd tier of registered AWs, and the fact that there is no law banning adding/changing features on a reg'd AW - and 12280(a) and (b) are the laws you get busted with.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 4:33 PM
back up there Turbo, in case you haven't noticed, %10 is a class 01 FFL :rolleyes:

So what? Are you trying to say that because he is a Class 01 FFL that he knows more than others? More than me? So if I told you that I also have a Class 01 FFL, that would mean something? Well, I do.

I love it when people try to impress people with paper!!!

kemasa
03-07-2006, 4:41 PM
What kind of reply is that? Here are your own words below.You do not seem to be very sure of fixed magazine lower prices by your own words. Then when I state the prices of fixed magazine lowers you proceed to chide me and your rational for your arrogant attitude is you know the owner of Vulcan. Sorry, on the play ground that might have worked, you have yet to prove you know the selling price of fixed magazine lowers. MSRP on a FAB-10 is $249 (they removed the price from their website) and the Vulcan's MSRP is $269 (http://www.vulcanarmament.com/cgistore/store.cgi?page=/new/product.html&setup=1&ida=224&idp=1&his=0|1&cart_id=6532592.1456). Tell me which one of the major stripped lower receiver dealers are selling stripped off-list lowers for anything over $249?

I don't give a crap who you know. You don't know fixed magazine lower receiver prices in California or you would know that getting a stripped, off-list lower is a much better deal even if it has to retain the 10 round fixed magazine as long as it is in state. I would have been content just letting you know this, but you obviously think you know everything even though your words tell a different tale. You might want to talk to your buddy at Vulcan again and ask him what his MSRP is and how many he has sold since December. :rolleyes:

Hey I don't want to hold a grudge, the ball is now in your court. I used real world examples of prices, feel free to prove me wrong with a means other than you know some guy.

And you are correct, if a dealer is claiming after these items get listed you will be able to build them up, that is not certain. You are correct it will probably be some time before we know what exactly is going to happen. Every week that goes by and the DOJ doesn't do its job and list these guns, the more convinced I am legislation is going to solve this problem once and for all. Things do not appear to be going as smoothly as when this thing first started, but that was only three months ago.

Sorry, but you don't get it. Sometimes you ask a question for other than just an answer to the specific question.

You are also offbase since I never said that I knew the owner of Vulcan and I challenge you to show me where I did. I said that I know the dealer cost, as any dealer can know that and you should know that. Why do you just quote the MSRP for Vulcan, rather than the dealer cost, you do know the dealer cost, don't you?

Perhaps you should read messages better since for some strange reason you respond with strange things, like I am trying to claim that I know someone when that is completely false. If you can't get that straight, why should I trust you on anything else?

I don't have any "buddy" at Vulcan nor have I ever claimed to know anyone there. Any FFL can get the dealer prices, but it is clear that you have not and instead you just want to attack using arguments completely without merit. Why is that?

grammaton76
03-07-2006, 4:45 PM
Sigh ... We are talking about CA, not other states. You can legally own a fully automatic firearm in others states too. Since the a-salt weapons ban expired, the limits don't apply to other states so that you can buy what you want, if you live there or you can buy a lower here and build it up and make something that is not legal in CA in another state.

I am not hung up on the detachable magazine at all. I thought that we were talking about firearms that were legal to have in CA, not other states.

Well, we are talking about CA-legal firearms. The point is that having something CA-legal which hasn't been perm. altered to prevent it from being more, is of value.

Having a weapon you can't alter legally while within the state is nothing new here. Don't put detachable mags on your SKS, don't stick a flash hider on your SU-16, etc. What's new with the off-list lowers that isn't presented by, say, the FAB-10 is that the choice isn't pre-made.

If that's not what you're all hung up on when you're asking if FFL's will refund peoples' money if they don't get drop-mag AW's, I'm not sure what is.

I'm not trying to be a turkey here, I'm just not understanding what it is that's getting you bent out of shape about the off-list lowers.

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 4:46 PM
Generally when you are a Class 01 FFL dealer that sells guns for a living, that is a pretty good indicator they know what they are talking about when it comes to gun prices. I understand that might be a big stretch in logic for you to make, but I think some people might safely come to that conclusion.

Kemasa said, "I love it when people try to impress people with paper!!!" How does that compare to try to impress people with people? Remember, you know more than me because you know the owner of Vulcan. Nevermind the fact that I sell guns for a living that I might know what I am talking about.

I am trying to take you serious and not label you a troll, but man you make it hard.

PanzerAce
03-07-2006, 4:46 PM
kemasa, I am going to let you in on a little something: a great deal of people here on CGN owe the fact that they even have lowers to 10%. Further, the rest of us accord him a great deal of respect because he was one of the FFLs that had the balls to do this for California. So by insulting him in the way that you are, you are NOT making any friends on this board.

And as for your post, maybe you should go out and find out what sarcasm and humor are. We here on the internet tend to use a great deal of both.

blacklisted
03-07-2006, 4:52 PM
Most people neglect a certain little fact regarding these pinned magged ARs.

This is not a permanent modification, it can be reversed.

Many (including myself) are not just getting these firearms for fun, they are also for defense. I don't mean home defense, I mean defense in case of some kind of disaster / breakdown of civil order. They will be used of course mainly for recreation, but this purpose must not be forgotten. I think far too many people are just pissed because they can't show off their uber tactical l337 AR-15 off at the range. Well, the range isn't everything. You have to look at the big picture.

IF there is an event that results in the breakdown of civil order or if you have to defend yourself for some reason with the AR, the magazine can be unpinned pretty damn quickly. Can't say the same for the pinned/glued mag POS vulcan. You can also use this out of state in the proper configuration.

Just something to think about.

I would not get a rip-off pinned mag Vulcan for $250-300. I spent that much on 2 high quality lower receivers instead.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 4:53 PM
Generally when you are a Class 01 FFL dealer that sells guns for a living, that is a pretty good indicator they know what they are talking about when it comes to gun prices. I understand that might be a big stretch in logic for you to make, but I think some people might safely come to that conclusion.

Kemasa said, "I love it when people try to impress people with paper!!!" How does that compare to try to impress people with people? Remember, you know more than me because you know the owner of Vulcan. Nevermind the fact that I sell guns for a living that I might know what I am talking about.

I am trying to take you serious and not label you a troll, but man you make it hard.

It is VERY hard to take you seriously when it seems obvious that you can not read at all.

Please point to the message where I claimed to know the owner of Vulcan or anyone else at Vulcan. When you fail to do that, perhaps you should apologize because you are completely wrong and offbase with your comments. Again, the question, have you bothered to get the dealer prices for Vulcan? I should check my records and see if you are the same person who had not done that and did not think to do that, even though you could easily have done so. It seems clear that you don't want to answer this simple question or that you just can't read.

You can label me any way that you want, but it will not make it right. So far you have made completely false claims and my posts and your responses prove it. Based on that, I would not trust anything you say since it is clear you are willing to invent things in order to make yourself look good.

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 4:53 PM
LOL, my apologies! I completely screwed up. I don't know why but I read "I know the dealer" when it says, "I know the dealer price". LOL. I am sorry. I have been humbled and made an error. If that costs a customer, oh well. There will be more (of my errors and customers). And note I will not go back and edit out my mistake, I have nothing to hide, I simply misread. I find myself doing that on these discussion boards sometimes. So you were right, I was inventing all of that. Sorry.

For those of you defending me when I was wrong, I am sorry. I did indeed misread and I wish I could call it sarcasm. It was plain and simple reading something that wasn't there.

Ok, dealer price is one thing. Hell dealer price on a lot of these lowers is $80. I wouldn't sell one right now for less than $150. Dealer price and market price are two different things. This has been hashed out before here. Dealers are not in this business to give guns away. Dealers often mark up to 40%. Again, unless you are a dealer, dealer price is irrellevant. What is the market price? The market price for stripped off-list lowers is decidingly better than fixed mag lowers. Not only that, many would argue on here that not only is the price better, but the quality is better.

So now that we have all of that out of the way and I ate crow, what is your point? A fixed mag Vulcan isn't that expensive dealer price, but you aren't buying lowers for dealer price, you are buying them for market price. How would buying an inferior Vulcan fixed mag rifle be a better deal than buying a stripped off list lower? The simple answer is it isn't.

Now you could claim that the market price of FAB-10s and Vulcans has decreased. That it has. As I have stated many times here that I have bought six FAB-10s in the last month and I didn't pay over $125 for them. I am also an FFL who doesn't have to do DROS either and I usually trade those things for off list lowers or parts.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 4:57 PM
If that's not what you're all hung up on when you're asking if FFL's will refund peoples' money if they don't get drop-mag AW's, I'm not sure what is.

I'm not trying to be a turkey here, I'm just not understanding what it is that's getting you bent out of shape about the off-list lowers.

There are FFLs who are trying to convince people to buy the lowers by convincing them that they will be able to put on all the banned items once it gets on the banned list. These FFLs are making a profit on these people, but you can bet that if it does not work out those FFLs will not issue a refund for one single penny.

I have talked to many people who have been convinced that it is a done deal, just a matter of time until they can put all the banned things on the firearm.

blacklisted
03-07-2006, 5:01 PM
There are FFLs who are trying to convince people to buy the lowers by convincing them that they will be able to put on all the banned items once it gets on the banned list. These FFLs are making a profit on these people, but you can bet that if it does not work out those FFLs will not issue a refund for one single penny.

I have talked to many people who have been convinced that it is a done deal, just a matter of time until they can put all the banned things on the firearm.

You wont find any of those dealers here, Mr. Sandberg. Tenpercent even made people sign a disclaimer if they bought from him and had materials on all relevant laws.

Can't we all agree that these are better than the Vulcans?

GTKrockeTT
03-07-2006, 5:02 PM
There are FFLs who are trying to convince people to buy the lowers by convincing them that they will be able to put on all the banned items once it gets on the banned list. These FFLs are making a profit on these people, but you can bet that if it does not work out those FFLs will not issue a refund for one single penny.

I have talked to many people who have been convinced that it is a done deal, just a matter of time until they can put all the banned things on the firearm.

well the people you've talked to are uninformed. the vast majority of calgunners are in the know and understand that there is a chance that these fixed mag lowers will be nothing more than fixed mag lowers, but we bought in numbers regardless. i'll take this option anyday over what we had previously.

and...FFLs making a profit. GOD FORBID they sell to us at monetary gain. we should all expect them to do charity work and sell at a loss while risking their business and their freedom.:rolleyes:

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 5:03 PM
There are FFLs who are trying to convince people to buy the lowers by convincing them that they will be able to put on all the banned items once it gets on the banned list. These FFLs are making a profit on these people, but you can bet that if it does not work out those FFLs will not issue a refund for one single penny.

I have talked to many people who have been convinced that it is a done deal, just a matter of time until they can put all the banned things on the firearm.Don't do business with those FFLs. I will admit that was my interpretation at the beginning, but I was always careful to say "in theory" and everyone signed an agreement with me that said I made no claims about these rifles other than they are fixed magazine rifles (thanks Blacklisted for stating that as I was typing). Now I tell everyone don't plan on ever doing anything with these things for several months if ever. I do point out that a off-list lower that can be converted back is ten times better than a FAB-10 that never will. That is a fact. Well not really, but it should be.

Also if anyone runs into someone who thinks their gun will be an AR someday no problem, let them know the issue is far from over.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 5:08 PM
LOL, my apologies! I completely screwed up. I don't know why but I read "I know the dealer" when it says, "I know the dealer price". LOL. I am sorry. I have been humbled and made an error. If that costs a customer, oh well. There will be more (of my errors and customers). And note I will not go back and edit out my mistake, I have nothing to hide, I simply misread. I find myself doing that on these discussion boards sometimes. So you were right, I was inventing all of that. Sorry.

Ok, dealer price is one thing. Hell dealer price on a lot of these lowers is $80. I wouldn't sell one right now for less than $150. Dealer price and market price are two different things. This has been hashed out before here. Dealers are not in this business to give guns away. Dealers often mark up to 40%. Again, unless you are a dealer, dealer price is irrellevant. What is the market price? The market price for stripped off-list lowers is decidingly better than fixed mag lowers. Not only that, many would argue on here that not only is the price better, but the quality is better.

So now that we have all of that out of the way and I ate crow, what is your point? A fixed mag Vulcan isn't that expensive dealer price, but you aren't buying lowers for dealer price, you are buying them for market price. How would buying an inferior Vulcan fixed mag rifle be a better deal than buying a stripped off list lower? The simple answer is it isn't.
...



How about that, you did manage to read it correctly now. You might also want to think about my comment about impressing people with paper and your next mistake. You incorrectly claim that I am not buying lowers for dealer price, care to figure out why that is incorrect?

Personally, I would be very careful in what I say about the lowers and what you can do with it since the DOJ can be quite nasty. Even if you win in court, you still lose. In the two times I have had to use the legal system I have won, but there is a large price to pay and I am not talking about just money, time and stress are involved.

How do you think the people who buy the lowers will feel if it ends up they can not do much with it? How do you think they will feel about the profit you made on it?

blacklisted
03-07-2006, 5:11 PM
How about that, you did manage to read it correctly now. You might also want to think about my comment about impressing people with paper and your next mistake. You incorrectly claim that I am not buying lowers for dealer price, care to figure out why that is incorrect?

Personally, I would be very careful in what I say about the lowers and what you can do with it since the DOJ can be quite nasty. Even if you win in court, you still lose. In the two times I have had to use the legal system I have won, but there is a large price to pay and I am not talking about just money, time and stress are involved.

How do you think the people who buy the lowers will feel if it ends up they can not do much with it? How do you think they will feel about the profit you made on it?

I don't know why you have to be so insulting about it. You have an FFL in Simi Valley, right? I did a little research.

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 5:12 PM
You might also want to think about my comment about impressing people with paper and your next mistake.Now you have made my mistake! I was not the person who brought up I have a Class 01 FFL, one of my customers did. I simply asked you if you knew what the price for these lowers were. Then phish said I had a Class 01 FFL. You said paper doesn't impress you. I said it isn't the paper that should impress, it is the firearms I sell. You must not have looked at the handle very well and thought I said it. Now we are even! ;)

So you get dealer price? Then what is the problem? Go buy some lowers and don't worry about what other people are paying.

I bet you get them from your buddy at Vulcan. ;)

How do you think the people who buy the lowers will feel if it ends up they can not do much with it? How do you think they will feel about the profit you made on it?Everyone who bought a lower from me knew they were buying a fixed magazine lower. Plain and simple. I didn't decieve anyone. The only guys who will get pissed about buying one is going to be the cops I sold them to because most of them don't think the law applies to them anyway (and it doesn't). And when it comes down to it they are going to get department letters and build them up anyway. And for the rest of us non-cops, the statements remain, we all feel better off than we did before. We will have lowers capable of being real ARs, something a lot of us never had before this thing started. So customers of mine who feel ripped off, step on out and give a shout out!

So again, if you are going to go off on an "assumptions" kick, make sure you are pure as snow first.

GTKrockeTT
03-07-2006, 5:13 PM
How about that, you did manage to read it correctly now. You might also want to think about my comment about impressing people with paper and your next mistake. You incorrectly claim that I am not buying lowers for dealer price, care to figure out why that is incorrect?

Personally, I would be very careful in what I say about the lowers and what you can do with it since the DOJ can be quite nasty. Even if you win in court, you still lose. In the two times I have had to use the legal system I have won, but there is a large price to pay and I am not talking about just money, time and stress are involved.

How do you think the people who buy the lowers will feel if it ends up they can not do much with it? How do you think they will feel about the profit you made on it?

jesus, anyone who can buy these lowers are adults, if they can't make their own informed decision, they should cry to their mommy, not to a FFL dealer.

and, what do you mean "can't do much with it?" are they not fully functional rifles?

GTKrockeTT
03-07-2006, 5:14 PM
I don't know why you have to be so insulting about it. You have an FFL in Simi Valley, right? I did a little research.

that would make sense since he's missing out on the lowers profit, and is now sour grapes.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 5:16 PM
Now you have made my mistake! I was not the person who brought up I have a Class 01 FFL, one of my customers did. I simply asked you if you knew what the price for these lowers were. Then phish said I had a Class 01 FFL. You said paper doesn't impress you. I said it isn't the paper that should impress, it is the firearms I sell. You must not have looked at the handle very well and thought I said it. Now we are even! ;)

So you get dealer price? Then what is the problem? Go buy some lowers and don't worry about what other people are paying.

I bet you get them from your buddy at Vulcan. ;)

Funny, you still continue in your made up world. I thought that you had admitted your mistake. Again, please point to where I said that I knew anyone at Vulcan and when you can't, admit your mistake again.

Sorry, we are not "even" since that was not the mistake I was talking about. Try reading what I said again.

blacklisted
03-07-2006, 5:17 PM
Funny, you still continue in your made up world. I thought that you had admitted your mistake. Again, please point to where I said that I knew anyone at Vulcan and when you can't, admit your mistake again.

Sorry, we are not "even" since that was not the mistake I was talking about. Try reading what I said again.

Sarcasm.

.

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 5:18 PM
The winky thing means I am kidding and that I was making a play on my own mistake. Relax a little. We are even, you are making assumptions too. The only thing is I didn't make an assumption, I straight made a bone head mistake.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 5:18 PM
that would make sense since he's missing out on the lowers profit, and is now sour grapes.

Funny, but completely false. Why is it that you choose to attack and make claims like that with no facts? If I wanted to make a profit by selling AR lowers, I would, but I would rather be honest and say that I doubt that you will be able to do much with them, unless you fix the magazine, than to give people what I think will be a false impression of what will happen.

blacklisted
03-07-2006, 5:19 PM
The winky thing means I am kidding and that I was making a play on my own mistake. Relax a little. You need to go buy some more lowers with your dealer price or something.

He wants you to admit that he is an FFL.

blacklisted
03-07-2006, 5:20 PM
Funny, but completely false. Why is it that you choose to attack and make claims like that with no facts? If I wanted to make a profit by selling AR lowers, I would, but I would rather be honest and say that I doubt that you will be able to do much with them, unless you fix the magazine, than to give people what I think will be a false impression of what will happen.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of people willing to buy these even considering that they might not be able to be used without a fixed mag, me being one of them.

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 5:24 PM
If I wanted to make a profit by selling AR lowers, I would, but I would rather be honest and say that I doubt that you will be able to do much with them, unless you fix the magazine, than to give people what I think will be a false impression of what will happen.Maybe it is best if you don't sell AR lowers. You should not be telling people you doubt you will be able to do anything with them unless you fix the magazine, you should be telling them YOU WILL BE A FELON IF YOU DON'T FIRST FIX THE MAGAZINE. I have been very clear about that myself. All of my customers understand this and what do you know, they still buy them!

Hell this is the time to be a FFL in this business. Dumb butts like myself stuck our neck out in the beginning and paved the way to show this was all legit. Now the clean up FFLs who didn't want to take the risk can make all of the real money now that the DOJ has admitted this is legit and now that more people see they can get something better than a FAB-10. All you have to do is be honest and reap the rewards. There are so many dealers out there doing it now the DOJ isn't out to get you unless you taunt them about it or sell millions of them.

And I think that is what a lot of people dislike about FFLs. They tell you what they want. They don't let the customer make up their own minds. If you want to buy a FAB-10 and I have one for sale, take it. Nevermind it will never be anything more than a FAB-10, it costs more, and I have off list lowers in stock. If you want to buy an off list lower from me and I tell you that it might never be able to be configured in violation of 12276.1, go for it. It is your money and I will be happy to take it off your hands.

That is the thing about the gun business. We are all different. If you want a pink gun, I will happily sell it to you. I won't try to hide it is a pink gun or decieve you, but I will happily take your money.

Now there comes a point when you just get tired and don't want to sell things anymore. I am at that stage. There was a lot of stress and drama involved in starting this lower business and I am ready for a break. Nothing illegal, just stress. Now is the best time to get involved for you FFLs that have been sitting on the bench. And trust me, it hurts me to tell you that because you can make a lot of money off of my stress and anguish. I can't change that though, so I am happy with the money and I made and what it did for my business. That is all I can do.

GTKrockeTT
03-07-2006, 5:28 PM
Funny, but completely false. Why is it that you choose to attack and make claims like that with no facts? If I wanted to make a profit by selling AR lowers, I would, but I would rather be honest and say that I doubt that you will be able to do much with them, unless you fix the magazine, than to give people what I think will be a false impression of what will happen.

Tell me where I made claims? I just said it would make sense...this is an opinion, and not based on fact.

And, you're missing the point on what other members have already mentioned. Worst case scenario, these lowers can still be fixed mag rifles, and will still go bang when you pull the trigger. This is no different than a FAL or a FAB10 or any other CA legal .223 variant. Once again, MOST people here understand this. If they don't, it's their bad for not following up on the law themselves and allowing information to be spoon fed to them.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 5:34 PM
Tell me where I made claims? I just said it would make sense...this is an opinion, and not based on fact.

And, you're missing the point on what other members have already mentioned. Worst case scenario, these lowers can still be fixed mag rifles, and will still go bang when you pull the trigger. This is no different than a FAL or a FAB10 or any other CA legal .223 variant. Once again, MOST people here understand this. If they don't, it's their bad for not following up on the law themselves and allowing information to be spoon fed to them.

You said "that would make sense since he's missing out on the lowers profit, and is now sour grapes."

It is claim when you mention "sour grapes". It is also incorrect to claim that I am "missing out", because I am not "missing" anything, I choose to not try to make a profit on something. In the end the customer makes the decision, but the ones I have talked to have what I think is a false impression of what will happen.

If the person will be happy with a fixed magazine firearm, that is fine, but that is not what most seem to be expecting.

Apeman88
03-07-2006, 5:35 PM
Wow... better-than-TV Soap!! hehe :D

Ken

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 5:38 PM
Tell them it is still very much up in the air, but if you want a chance, take it now. Worst case scenario you have to register a fixed magazine rifle that you can take out of state with you and shoot high power or waste a whole magazine through. Best case scenario the courts find the DOJ does not have the authority to do what it says it does just like in the Harrot decision and you might some day win. You can also tell them the DOJ is claiming that as a result of all of this hoopla that they might try and close the "loop hole" by banning all semi-autos. There you can really get your sales up and you haven't lied not once. Best of all, you get all of this free of charge without hassle or risk like I had. Get some!

Tell your customers the truth and sell the hell out of them.

JWC6
03-07-2006, 5:43 PM
So, what are we arguing about?

Is there a legal question here?

Ford8N
03-07-2006, 5:51 PM
You said "that would make sense since he's missing out on the lowers profit, and is now sour grapes."

It is claim when you mention "sour grapes". It is also incorrect to claim that I am "missing out", because I am not "missing" anything, I choose to not try to make a profit on something. In the end the customer makes the decision, but the ones I have talked to have what I think is a false impression of what will happen.

If the person will be happy with a fixed magazine firearm, that is fine, but that is not what most seem to be expecting.

Would/do you sell "off list" receivers?

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 5:52 PM
Say yes! It is easy money. If not, drive to Taft, I have a few left.

kemasa
03-07-2006, 5:54 PM
Would/do you sell "off list" receivers?

As long as it is legal. I have sold lowers with the fixed magazine. I would need to draft a waiver if it does not have the fixed magazine and do some checking, but I have nothing against it if you understand the risks and limitations.

grammaton76
03-07-2006, 5:58 PM
There are FFLs who are trying to convince people to buy the lowers by convincing them that they will be able to put on all the banned items once it gets on the banned list. These FFLs are making a profit on these people, but you can bet that if it does not work out those FFLs will not issue a refund for one single penny.

I have talked to many people who have been convinced that it is a done deal, just a matter of time until they can put all the banned things on the firearm.

Ah. Eh, I'm pretty sure that whatever FFL's are telling people that, aren't on here. Either that, or the customers THINKING that are like the one guy I saw over at CWS on one of my pickup days. I watched Pirate14 tell him at least three times when he was picking up his lower, that to be legal, he'd have to pin the mag and that there weren't any iron-clad guarantees that it'd get listed. The guy just plainly was not getting it, even though he was told in plain English several times. I'd bet $20 that his AR is in an illegal configuration right now, simply because the guy pointedly had his ears closed, even though I ALSO watched him sign the "you will not violate the AWB" sheet for his pickup.

I've also seen a dealer (Socal Guns in Clairemont Mesa, specifically) who DOESN'T deal in lowers, telling people all manner of crapola. Mostly while telling them about how unacceptable it was, and how they'd be going to jail, but that right now it's legal. Boneheads tend not to "hear" anything but "but right now it's legal".

The moral of the story is, I'm not so sure that people being convinced it's a done deal were necessarily told so by their FFL's. There may be a few bad FFLs out there (I doubt any of them are on here), but listening to some boneheaded friend of theirs is a more likely scenario for why they're convinced. If I were relying on second or third hand info like some of these guys, I'd probably believe crap like that myself. Heck, anyone who listened to MY friend's friend's friend probably believe that, unless they did some online reading themselves!

Anyway, if you'd like to do California a favor, whenever you hear these guys coming in with bad info, ask them what dealer told 'em that particular bit of lunacy. I imagine that in most cases it'll boil down to either some FFL who isn't selling lowers, or some friend who's "almost an FFL, 'cause he gots so many guns!". If you find out some FFL's doing that, post their contact info on here and maybe a few dozen members can call to correct their interpretation of the lower situation. :)

kemasa
03-07-2006, 6:02 PM
Maybe it is best if you don't sell AR lowers. You should not be telling people you doubt you will be able to do anything with them unless you fix the magazine, you should be telling them YOU WILL BE A FELON IF YOU DON'T FIRST FIX THE MAGAZINE. I have been very clear about that myself. All of my customers understand this and what do you know, they still buy them!


You need not fix the magazine unless you create a semi-auto firearm. If you create a bolt action, pump action or some other action other than semi-auto then it need not have a fixed magazine.

As it is, the AR lower is nothing until you change it into something. It is the upper which makes it a semi-auto. Of course, as has happen, if you have all the items to make an illegal firearm the government may charge you (one case made it to the Supreme Court and made the BATF look like fools, which was regarding the ability to make a short barreled single shot rifle).

xenophobe
03-07-2006, 6:46 PM
My reasons for buying the lowers that I have... I bought an LMT so I may have a complete LMT rifle with LMT MRP upper. I'd rather not have a parts gun. In fact, I'd like my rifle to be mainly one manufacturer. I bought my POF receiver because I just might want to build a POF gas piston rifle... I bought my High Standard, just cause HS rules, and they've been busting their asses in getting us some nice stuff... I bought my Mega, well cause it's neat, and a few other receivers just because I want.

Most of this 'neat' stuff like POF gas piston uppers, LMT MRPs, and SOPMOD AR stuff is new to us, since the last time we could legally buy this stuff was 6 years ago. I don't need you telling me what I can or can't do with them. I already know. I'm only going to build up 2 of them, and yes they'll be fixed magazine guns. Maybe they'll be something else later in life, but for now, whatever.

Kemasa, not a single person that I've sold a receiver doesn't know they can only have a 10 round fixed magazine, or a semi-auto configured in a specific way. This is probably the last place you should have to worry... everyone here knows what you can and can't do right now.

As to what happens after models are listed, nobody is exactly sure, but everyone who buys a reciever, especially here, understands this.

bwiese
03-07-2006, 6:58 PM
You need not fix the magazine unless you create a semi-auto firearm. If you create a bolt action, pump action or some other action other than semi-auto then it need not have a fixed magazine.

As it is, the AR lower is nothing until you change it into something. It is the upper which makes it a semi-auto. Of course, as has happen, if you have all the items to make an illegal firearm the government may charge you (one case made it to the Supreme Court and made the BATF look like fools, which was regarding the ability to make a short barreled single shot rifle).

A bare off-list AR lower w/open magwell with pistol grip and/or telestock is likely to be considered an assault weapon whether an upper is attached or not.

PIRATE14
03-07-2006, 8:55 PM
Why do you guys argue w/ guys like this..........

Some people just won't listen.......what we have here is a failure to communicate.

You buy black gold at the market price and hope it goes up......sometimes it goes down or it's just a piece a metal......what u make of it is up to you.

AAAAHHHH a small piece of freedom in the PRK........some people get it others never will.....

FreedomIsNotFree
03-08-2006, 1:58 AM
I'm currently content with my fixed mag AR. If I never have the opportunity to legally remove the clip that is fine....I know it will only take me 60 seconds to convert to normal use if the SHTF. Until then...I still have my Mini-14..etc..etc..to keep the zombies back.

This guy obviously does not get it....he would rather argue with others than just take a moment and READ. Oh well.....you can lead a horse to water...but....

tenpercentfirearms
03-08-2006, 6:24 AM
I talked to him on the phone. He is a pretty up to date guy, he simply just doesn't know why guys want to risk a rifle that won't be able to be used like a real AR. That is understandable. I said to forget the reasons why, just do the transfers for them! I have no problems with Kemasa, he seems like a good guy. Most of our differences stemmed from my failure to properly read English.

xrMike
03-08-2006, 10:39 AM
he simply just doesn't know why guys want to risk a rifle that won't be able to be used like a real AR.

But it's not up to him, as a businessman, to question (or agree with) his customer's needs!

His only job is to fulfill that need! ;)

tenpercentfirearms
03-08-2006, 11:07 AM
The key is a good businessman doesn't. I could care less what you want as long as you pay. However, it is reality that sometimes people don't just want to make money, they do things based off of their beliefs and feelings. That is fine too, you just don't have to do business with them.

kemasa
03-08-2006, 2:43 PM
One thing to consider is that the FFL is at some risk with transactions like this, so it is not just a matter of doing what the customer wants. It does not matter if it is legal either since if you annoy the powers that be you can end up with a lot of stress and hassles. It is easy for a non-FFL to say to just do it since they are not at risk.

It is good that the Federal law passed to help with some of this, but it is still not perfect.

artherd
03-09-2006, 2:53 AM
may I please remind you that it took several years before someone DID GET IT and took the lead with selling the off-list lowers here in California and it wasn't you high-school bully tempered know it alls.
Heh, it was ONE of us high-school bully tempered know it alls ;D

IN all seriousness, the posters above are really just stressing that this still is very much a legal edge condition here.

Here's how close to jail this really is: If a couple of parts were to FALL OFF a .223 legal lower-based gun, then it would be an AW. Yes you can actually and quite literally "TRIP AND FALL AND MAKE AN ASSAULT WEAPON."

We don't want to see any good people going to jail for something they just needed to research online a little more, so we're stressing the point. Lots of excellent information including the FAQ by our own Bwisse abound.

You know what though? in the end you're absolutely right. For the better part of 5 years we all thought this was a dead-nuts felony (or at least an un-applyable pie in the sky maybe decion that probally didn't apply.) Then I and one other member here kicked a legal door down and there it went.

artherd
03-09-2006, 3:10 AM
kemasa, please keep your tone in check and show some respect for the members here, or I will delete this thread.

You seem to have some issues regarding a situation you have jumped into at the last moment.

BOTTOM LINE: You and your kind belived that off-list lowers didn't even exist before I went out and busted the legal doors nessecary to wake DOJ up.

You still don't 'belive' these lowers will ever be anything more than higher quality vulcans/fab-10s at a lower price.

While I would not advocate in conflict with the current memo for other people's advice (infact I have voulenteered to print up copies to keep at various FFLs, since the situation changes so fast it is crucial that everyone stay informed.)

I personally, for myself, have reason to belive that, while DOJ has taken the position stated in their 'memo', that that position lacks legal standing and will ultimately be reversed. (that is a fancy way of saying DOJ's position is illegal.)

Some of the excellent minds here have partnered with, well ALL OF the leading firearms attorneys in the state, and we are going to force DOJ to obey the law.

PS: I've got a pretty good track record for ennacting my beliefs so far.

One thing to consider is that the FFL is at some risk with transactions like this, so it is not just a matter of doing what the customer wants. It does not matter if it is legal either since if you annoy the powers that be you can end up with a lot of stress and hassles. It is easy for a non-FFL to say to just do it since they are not at risk.

It is good that the Federal law passed to help with some of this, but it is still not perfect.

artherd
03-09-2006, 3:12 AM
A bare off-list AR lower w/open magwell with pistol grip and/or telestock is likely to be considered an assault weapon whether an upper is attached or not.
Probally enough to get you into court, but not enough to convict. No statute law construes recievers to be full firearms for AW purposes under 12276. And I know of no applicable case law doing so either. (but I am not an attorney and do not know all case law.)

kemasa
03-09-2006, 11:49 AM
kemasa, please keep your tone in check and show some respect for the members here, or I will delete this thread.
...
BOTTOM LINE: You and your kind belived that off-list lowers didn't even exist before I went out and busted the legal doors nessecary to wake DOJ up.

You still don't 'belive' these lowers will ever be anything more than higher quality vulcans/fab-10s at a lower price.

While I would not advocate in conflict with the current memo for other people's advice (infact I have voulenteered to print up copies to keep at various FFLs, since the situation changes so fast it is crucial that everyone stay informed.)

I personally, for myself, have reason to belive that, while DOJ has taken the position stated in their 'memo', that that position lacks legal standing and will ultimately be reversed. (that is a fancy way of saying DOJ's position is illegal.)

Some of the excellent minds here have partnered with, well ALL OF the leading firearms attorneys in the state, and we are going to force DOJ to obey the law.

PS: I've got a pretty good track record for ennacting my beliefs so far.


Sorry, but my "tone" is in check and I personally don't care if you choose to delete the thread or not. It will say something if you do in that you don't want to hear anything other than one side. You might want to get some of the people here to show respect too, including yourself.

I find you attitude offensive since you have no idea of what you are talking about when you make the false claim that I did not believe that off-list lowers didn't even exist. That is a completely baseless statement with absolutely no facts to back it up. Add to that you addition of "your kind", shows that your "tone" needs to be improved, to say the least. Your choice of words shows a complete lack of respect and a very poor attitude, but I doubt that you will admit that.

You are correct in that I don't think that the lower will be able to be built up with a detachable magazine and other banned features, but this used to be a free country where people can express and hold opinions which conflict with others. Currently that IS the way it is and unless the CA DOJ is completely stupid and adds the lowers to the list, when the lowers are not semi-auto or anything else, then nothing will change in this respect.

The a-salt weapons ban is unConstitutional and is therefore illegal, yet it exists, so why not force the DOJ to obey the Constitution, which is supposed to be the law of the land. I do find the position the CA DOJ has put itself in to be quite humorous and wish that people would see how funny it is that the DOJ is threatening to call a piece of metal to be an a-salt weapon without any ability to shoot or any features, including a trigger. Imagine building AR lowers as a bolt or pump gun and then selling them in CA. I suspect that the DOJ would freak out since you could change the upper and then it would become an illegal weapon, but until then how could they legally claim that the rifle was unacceptable?

The fact is that even if you "win" and force the DOJ to follow the law, in the mean time FFLs can go out of business and people can have serious legal problems. I am reminded of a case years ago where a woman was charged with illegally having an a-salt weapon, a SKS, and while the SKS was perfectly legal, she had been fighting it for over a year. I never heard the outcome, but the legal expenses were not cheap. The DA was also trying to get her to plea to a lesser charge to get it to end (extortion really), so that she could not sue them.
~

PanzerAce
03-09-2006, 12:03 PM
I vote that this thread get locked. Its going nowhere and has become a flame fest, and I though ALL of us were better than that, but it appears not (and yes, I am guilty as well).

xenophobe
03-09-2006, 12:15 PM
The a-salt weapons ban is unConstitutional and is therefore illegal, yet it exists, so why not force the DOJ to obey the Constitution, which is supposed to be the law of the land.

As much as I hate to admit, and from my own interpretation of how government works, the assault weapons ban is not unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights protects government from oppressing the states. In rare circumstances involving individuals, it will protect you on a case by case basis, or in Federal court, but that is neither here nor there. The 14th Amendment makes the AW Ban legal, as we have no State Right to Keep and Bear Arms clause in the California Constitution, and due process was followed to restrict the people of California from owning these weapons. Federal court will uphold the CA bans because of this, for the most part.

We do build up firearms, and have sold California compliant FALs and ARs since their detachable mag versions were banned in 2000. We will continue to do so as long as we do it within the unquestionable scope of undisputable law. If you want to buy a receiver, have a 10 round magazine affixed/pinned in a way it is not easily removable (NOT the Sporting Conversions Kit), and add all the features you want, we will help you build a completely legal CA compliant rifle.

kemasa
03-09-2006, 3:08 PM
As much as I hate to admit, and from my own interpretation of how government works, the assault weapons ban is not unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights protects government from oppressing the states. In rare circumstances involving individuals, it will protect you on a case by case basis, or in Federal court, but that is neither here nor there. The 14th Amendment makes the AW Ban legal, as we have no State Right to Keep and Bear Arms clause in the California Constitution, and due process was followed to restrict the people of California from owning these weapons. Federal court will uphold the CA bans because of this, for the most part.


From what I have learned, the orginal Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government, but it was later changed so that the states also must follow the limits, which if you look you will see that cases involving the restrictions in the Bill of Rights involving the states.

If this was not the case, then there would be no freedom of speech, religion, or anything else with respect to the states.

xenophobe
03-09-2006, 6:52 PM
From what I have learned, the orginal Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government, but it was later changed so that the states also must follow the limits, which if you look you will see that cases involving the restrictions in the Bill of Rights involving the states.

You're stating that a bit wrong. The Bill of Rights was designed to limit what the government could or could not do in regards to limiting states. The United States of America could NOT tell a state that they couldn't say what they wanted, could not house troops in times of peace, etc... or deny a state to keep or bear arms (although not inclusively an individual right, the way the USCode and Bill of Rights was designed not to limit what you or I could or could not do), but to limit what Federal government could or could not do, and if you look at state-by-state laws regarding ownership of Destructive Devices, Machine Guns and Silencers, you will see exactly this, that the Federal Government does not deny you these freedoms from any State, it is the State that either allows or denys it's citizens from the ability to own such devices.


If this was not the case, then there would be no freedom of speech, religion, or anything else with respect to the states.

Wrong. Each state has their own Constiution which protects individual rights from State abuse.

Before the 14th Amendment, each State could ignore the Bill of Rights completely. The 14th Amendment requires them to abide by them, only giving them persmission to deny these rights when they have been eliminated by due process.

artherd
03-09-2006, 6:54 PM
You are correct in that I don't think that the lower will be able to be built up with a detachable magazine and other banned features, but this used to be a free country where people can express and hold opinions which conflict with others.
Right, I belive you are wrong. So far I belive I have a better track record than you regarding AW related beliefs.

PS: If you thought off-list lowers were a reality, why were you not importing them yourself since 2001?

Why would you rather sit here and pee in my cornflakes, than do something constructive? For instance, what are YOU doing to force CA DOJ to recind their illegal opinion re; "category4" aws?

kemasa
03-10-2006, 2:32 PM
Right, I belive you are wrong. So far I belive I have a better track record than you regarding AW related beliefs.

PS: If you thought off-list lowers were a reality, why were you not importing them yourself since 2001?

Why would you rather sit here and pee in my cornflakes, than do something constructive? For instance, what are YOU doing to force CA DOJ to recind their illegal opinion re; "category4" aws?

You are free to believe that I am wrong and only time will tell who is correct. Currently it is a matter of opinion and based on what I have seen with the CA DOJ, I would suspect it would not turn out as you hope. It would be nice if it did, but need I remind you of the legally sold firearms, a variant on the SKS, which then was decided to be illegal and the people who had legally purchased them and filled out the paperwork were forced to turn them in or get them out of the state. What do you have to say about that? I did not see that overturned.

I do find your logic about my not importing off list AR lowers interesting. If I thought it was a reality, then I should have imported them and if I did not then I did not think that it existed. Quite a leap of logic!!! As I have been told, the DOJ is not really happy with the dealers who are doing the transfers and this can create a bit of stress and hassle. Right there is a good reason to not deal with it. As I have said, the AR lower is not a semi-auto rifle, it all depends on the upper. Due to that, without the upper it should be completely legal, yet it can be expensive in both time and money to push your position. In other words, your argument is completely bogus.

I don't have the legal resources or money to force the DOJ to follow the law, nor do I have the resources to force the BATF to follow the law. Also, there is the term "tilting at windmills". While you might succeed, which I doubt, it is also possible that you will make things far worse.

kemasa
03-10-2006, 2:35 PM
...
Before the 14th Amendment, each State could ignore the Bill of Rights completely. The 14th Amendment requires them to abide by them, only giving them persmission to deny these rights when they have been eliminated by due process.

Really? Perhaps it depends on what you mean by due process with respect to denying the rights. What seems funny to me is that you state that I am wrong, then say that now the states have to abide by the Bill of Rights.

xenophobe
03-10-2006, 3:50 PM
Did you not read the first portion of my response to you? It explains everything quite clearly....

artherd
03-10-2006, 3:50 PM
You are free to believe that I am wrong and only time will tell who is correct. Currently it is a matter of opinion and based on what I have seen with the CA DOJ, I would suspect it would not turn out as you hope. It would be nice if it did, but need I remind you of the legally sold firearms, a variant on the SKS, which then was decided to be illegal and the people who had legally purchased them and filled out the paperwork were forced to turn them in or get them out of the state. What do you have to say about that? I did not see that overturned.

I'm glad you brought up the SKS issue, because the precident there is the same one we will be using to again force DOJ from making law.

A DOJ ruleing was in-fact overturned, that was the basis for the entire event.

SKS ISSUE:

1) DOJ made a blanket opinion, in a legal vacumm without any case or statute law to support it, that SKS Sporters were infact legal and did not require registration. They were found to be wrong in a court of law.

2) DOJ then tried to ennact a 'makeup' registration period due to their mistake. They were again found to be exceeding their delegated legislative authority in a court of law. (this is important, so pay attention.)

3) DOJ was forced by the courts to buy-back the subject guns as the only recourse within the scope of their powers.

LEGAL AR-15 ISSUE:

1) Harrott v County of Kings made off-list ARs legal in the year 2001. This was a Supreme Court decision, which enjoys status of CASE LAW. (as opposed to a DOJ opinion, which enjoys the status of a piece of paper.)

2) DOJ writes me a letter agreeing with the Harrott decision. This is worth what it's printed on, but is enough to convince a local FFL that he probally won't even get arreasted. It's a nice feel good. I felt good enough to be the first (second?) to get one.

3) DOJ issues a memo saying they intend to create a 4th of assault weapons, and to do so by illegally invalidating good Assault Weapon registrations as the only means of enforcement (since they have no direct PC with which to do so.)

4) Courts will slap DOJ back down, or DOJ will outright back down from it's illegal position again, just like they were forced to do regarding the SKS issue.

Thanks for playing.

I do find your logic about my not importing off list AR lowers interesting. If I thought it was a reality, then I should have imported them and if I did not then I did not think that it existed. Quite a leap of logic!!!
No, standard plain 'old regular logic.

As I have been told, the DOJ is not really happy with the dealers who are doing the transfers and this can create a bit of stress and hassle.

Grow a pair. If DOJ tells you to sit, do you? If DOJ tells you to go rob a bank would you? If you think DOJ is happy with you just selling Berettas then you're in for quite an awakening.

As I have said, the AR lower is not a semi-auto rifle, it all depends on the upper. Due to that, without the upper it should be completely legal, yet it can be expensive in both time and money to push your position. In other words, your argument is completely bogus.
You should retain a lawyer to give you proper legal advice, you really do not understand the law well at all. There are potentially other factors than semi-automatic based "features" that make an AW an AW. Namely, CPC 12276.

I don't have the legal resources or money to force the DOJ to follow the law, nor do I have the resources to force the BATF to follow the law. Also, there is the term "tilting at windmills". While you might succeed, which I doubt, it is also possible that you will make things far worse.
Well, I have already suceeded. You still sound like the nay-sayers of '05, I think I'm done with the likes of you.

kemasa
03-10-2006, 4:28 PM
Did you not read the first portion of my response to you? It explains everything quite clearly....

Yes, I did. What don't you get?

kemasa
03-10-2006, 4:40 PM
...
3) DOJ was forced by the courts to buy-back the subject guns as the only recourse within the scope of their powers.
...

No, standard plain 'old regular logic.

Grow a pair. If DOJ tells you to sit, do you? If DOJ tells you to go rob a bank would you? If you think DOJ is happy with you just selling Berettas then you're in for quite an awakening.

You should retain a lawyer to give you proper legal advice, you really do not understand the law well at all. There are potentially other factors than semi-automatic based "features" that make an AW an AW. Namely, CPC 12276.


Except that firearms legally sold could no longer be allowed in CA, so why you say it was overturned, the fact is that people who bought those firearms had them taken away and not paid the full amount or have to take them out of CA.

Sorry, your plain old logic is bogus. There is NO logic to it since you are assuming facts not in evidence.

You bank statement is funny, although not haha funny.

I find it amusing that you claim to know what I understand. I understand the law, perhaps more than you seem to. In the case of the AR lower, it is not a semi-auto until and unless you put an upper on it. I am fully aware of the issues with the named list and the features list and that BOTH apply, not just the one that you want to apply.

Perhaps instead of being insulting and attacking, you would better serve the cause to try to keep everyone together, rather than trying to divide, a prime example of "the likes of you". It is clear that you can not accept an opinion that differs with your own and will attack those who don't agree with you and try to claim that they are stupid or something. The thing is that when you do that, and I don't mean you personally, I mean all of those that do that, only shoot themselves in the foot. There is only one firearms store in my area and I have talked to people who refuse to set foot in there. At one point they said that they no longer would do Internet transfers, although a person told me that they do, at a cost of $150. I do transfers, but there are some people on this forum that I would not do a thing for based on their actions/comments.

If you don't want to agree, then fine, but be civil about it.

Jarhead4
03-10-2006, 4:55 PM
1) Harrott v County of Kings made off-list ARs legal in the year 2001. This was a Supreme Court decision, which enjoys status of CASE LAW. (as opposed to a DOJ opinion, which enjoys the status of a piece of paper.)

.

Also, from Harrott vs. County of Kings, that Judge stated that the law was too confusing for the everyday citizen. This will be ammo for fighting any new legislation that they will try to pass. Because it is "CASE LAW".

Jarhead4
03-10-2006, 5:07 PM
I find it amusing that you claim to know what I understand. I understand the law, perhaps more than you seem to. In the case of the AR lower, it is not a semi-auto until and unless you put an upper on it. I am fully aware of the issues with the named list and the features list and that BOTH apply, not just the one that you want to apply.


Not true. By following your logic, if you took a receiver from the ban list and put on a bolt-action upper receiver, it would no longer be an Assault rifle. That is not true. Because it is on the list it is an Assault Weapon. The basic properties of an AR rifle are that it is a Magazine feed, Gas operated, air-cooled, semi-automatic rifle.

Flash back to boot camp!!!

bwiese
03-10-2006, 5:31 PM
An off-list AR lower with empty magwell and with pistol grip and/or telestock is likely to be regarded as an AW even if no upper of any type is present.

You might be able to assert that it is not a semiauto, but this will be a court fight. If the bolt/pumpaction upper were affixed to the lower and never separated, you might have a chance. It's just too risky.

Even if the DOJ wrote you a letter that said it was OK to have a pumpaction AR, I would not trust the letter unless it were a formal ruling letter ("opinion letter") signed by AG. There's too much chance one of the the 58 DAs could mess with you, expensively, otherwise.

By contrast, the bare off-list lower situation itself is clearly protected by Harrott decision. And the fixed lo-cap mag vs. detachable mag issue is clearly outlined in plain English by the definition in CCR sec 978.20 and one of the alternate 12276.1 definitions of AW. Also, the lack of a pistol grip making something not an AW (with no other evil features) is also clearly derived from the 12276.1 definition.

All these situations in the last paragraph are legally "clean": even if you have an arrest you've got a lot of stuff in your court. By contrast, a lower being semiauto or not when no upper is present, or even being considered semiauto even if a boltaction upper is affixed, may be quite risky.

xenophobe
03-10-2006, 6:13 PM
Yes, I did. What don't you get?

You were the one who didn't get it. I was merely pointing out to you that I had already explained that States do not need to abide by the Bill of Rights if they can successfully legislate it away, and I did so in detail, and before that they didn't need to even acknowledge the BOR at all.

xenophobe
03-10-2006, 6:15 PM
SKS ISSUE:
<snip>


Interesting reading. I wasn't completely aware that was what happened. Thanks for the brief run-through.


LEGAL AR-15 ISSUE:

1) Harrott v County of Kings made off-list ARs legal in the year 2001. This was a Supreme Court decision, which enjoys status of CASE LAW. (as opposed to a DOJ opinion, which enjoys the status of a piece of paper.)


Hahaha!! Thanks Ben, that truth gave me a good laugh!

artherd
03-11-2006, 12:21 AM
Except that firearms legally sold could no longer be allowed in CA, so why you say it was overturned, the fact is that people who bought those firearms had them taken away and not paid the full amount or have to take them out of CA.
Could you rephrase that in English?
You bank statement is funny, although not haha funny.
Who are you Amex?
I find it amusing that you claim to know what I understand.
I base my 'claims' only upon what you've posted, which is factually false.

I understand the law, perhaps more than you seem to. In the case of the AR lower, it is not a semi-auto until and unless you put an upper on it. I am fully aware of the issues with the named list and the features list and that BOTH apply, not just the one that you want to apply.

Semi-automatic functionality is not nessecarily a required component of an Assault Weapon under CA law. I've already told you why. (for clarity's, we're talking about a bare "BUSHMASTER XM-15" here. You telling me that's legal?)

Perhaps instead of being insulting and attacking, you would better serve the cause to try to keep everyone together, rather than trying to divide, a prime example of "the likes of you". It is clear that you can not accept an opinion that differs with your own and will attack those who don't agree with you and try to claim that they are stupid or something.
Your opinion is objectively stupid for the following reasons:
1) it is defeatist, and very likely self-fufilling. If nobody stands up to DOJ they will simply continue to hold an illegal position.

2) it is factually flawed. The simple and bare facts are on our side.

I do transfers, but there are some people on this forum that I would not do a thing for based on their actions/comments.
Ok, wow, that's great, are you saying you won't do a transfer for me, fantastical. I am going to go cry into my cheerios now.

If you don't want to agree, then fine, but be civil about it.
I think this is something we can agree on. I'd happily sell you a house or host your website btw. Hell, you can even feel free to transfer some off-list lowers that I was partially responsible for enabling the climate nessecary to bring in-state.

You're welcome.

artherd
03-11-2006, 12:22 AM
Hahaha!! Thanks Ben, that truth gave me a good laugh!
Heh, glad somebody else thought that was funny too. It'd be funnier (or not?) if it weren't true :P

kemasa
03-11-2006, 1:49 PM
Not true. By following your logic, if you took a receiver from the ban list and put on a bolt-action upper receiver, it would no longer be an Assault rifle. That is not true. Because it is on the list it is an Assault Weapon. The basic properties of an AR rifle are that it is a Magazine feed, Gas operated, air-cooled, semi-automatic rifle.

Flash back to boot camp!!!

Sorry, but you are making a mistake. First off, none of the rifles banned are assault rifles, never have been, but instead are considered "assault weapons". An assault rifle is a select fire weapon, which is something completely different.

Second, there is the ban list by name and that does not matter what it is, as long as the name is on the list it is banned and it does not matter whether it is a semi-auto or not and that was not what I was talking about.

There are two aspect to the bans, by name and by feature.

kemasa
03-11-2006, 1:54 PM
You were the one who didn't get it. I was merely pointing out to you that I had already explained that States do not need to abide by the Bill of Rights if they can successfully legislate it away, and I did so in detail, and before that they didn't need to even acknowledge the BOR at all.

Very funny. Didn't I say that originally the states did not have to follow the BOR? I guess you did not read that or perhaps you choose to not want to understand as it does not help your position.

Ok, so tell me how the state can "legislate" it away. So, according to you the states can legislate away everything in the BOR and not follow it, correct?

Since it is clear that some people just don't get it: while it is possible to create unConstitutional laws, just like people can be given unlawful orders in the military, these laws should be found to be unConstitutional by a court and revoked. The only way to change the BOR is to add an amendment or a Constitutional Convention. If you think that you can legislate the BOR away, then under the same concept the DOJ can create rules which don't follow the law and enforce them and nothing can be done about it. The Constitution is the law of the land and if a law is found to violate that it can be tossed out, so in the long term you just can not legislate the BOR away. It does take time to correct this though.

kemasa
03-11-2006, 2:00 PM
...
Semi-automatic functionality is not nessecarily a required component of an Assault Weapon under CA law. I've already told you why. (for clarity's, we're talking about a bare "BUSHMASTER XM-15" here. You telling me that's legal?)


Under the feature based law it is a required component. You seem to focus on only the aspects which help your case and ignore everything else which shows that you are wrong.

You are correct in that the ban by name nothing matters other than the name. That is quite clear and obvious, but it is also not what was being talked about. In the case of banned by features, if it is not semi-auto, then it the law does not apply to it and while it is true that you might have a fight, it is not semi-auto unless there is an upper on it which operates in that manner.

I find many of your other statement quite funny, but childish. It seems obvious to me that anyone who does not agree with you must be stupid or something and that you can not handle any differences of opinion.

phish
03-11-2006, 5:11 PM
http://www.ctgilles.net/images/pictars/trolls.gif

D.T. Rouland
03-11-2006, 5:23 PM
**insert LMAOing smiley here**