PDA

View Full Version : DPMS .308 receiver...?


CalGunsNoob
03-28-2006, 12:27 PM
DPMS makes a .308 receiver.

Kasler lists 'DPMS Panther (all)"

Now, I see two ways of looking at this.

1.) All DPMS's are banned. Period.

2.) It's not labeled sufficiently to be banned. DPMS is the manufacturer. Panther refers to their complete rifles. As per the photo below the receiver model is lr-308. lr-308 isn't listed.

Is this wishful thinking on my part? Probably. Can't hurt to ask for opinions though.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/RandomDestiny/DPMSlarge.jpg

ohsmily
03-28-2006, 12:32 PM
You would probably survive a court battle...BUT, is it worth it? I think the concensus is that it is too close unless you are personally prepared to be taken to court and fight it out.

Having said that, if you are prepared...go for it! and make your case.

mrhappym1a
03-28-2006, 12:33 PM
My opinion is that it ain't gonna' fly.

Look at the current Eagle Arms/Armalite issue for more opinions.

1911_sfca
03-28-2006, 12:33 PM
Well, there are two factors here.

1. Many people on Calguns have pointed out that "DPMS Panther (all)" is not a legal listing, according to the Cal Supreme Court. The Make and Model have to be spelled out. "all" doesn't cut it.

2. Most juries, upon seeing the designation "DPMS Panther (all)", and the picture you posted, would agree that the picture fits that definition of a banned AW.

So if you found yourself in court, and point #1 was insufficient to get your case thrown out, you would be screwed by point #2. Your call.

PIRATE14
03-28-2006, 12:39 PM
Another risky lower.......

I'd feel better about the EAGLE AR-10 since EAGLE and Armalite are already listed as seperate series....

Hard to fight against the meaning of the word "ALL"......which models "ALL of them"

phish
03-28-2006, 1:23 PM
MGI

or if you're a gambling man, you can wait for the LAR-10

PanzerAce
03-28-2006, 2:06 PM
LAR-10 ftw

EBWhite
03-28-2006, 3:24 PM
older DPMS models only say "dpms a-15"...no mention of panther at all. Those are the only legal dpms lowers

California-Quigley
03-28-2006, 6:19 PM
someoe have bill take a look.... he will give you the straight answer.

Mr331
03-28-2006, 7:45 PM
I have been up this path with the DOJ for that last few months. Take a close look at my letter in the Eagle Arms thread. DPMS LR-308 was on it and DOJ says it is banned by name. Not one person, but multiple people including special agents and Alison.

Mr331
03-28-2006, 7:56 PM
Another risky lower.......

I'd feel better about the EAGLE AR-10 since EAGLE and Armalite are already listed as seperate series....

Hard to fight against the meaning of the word "ALL"......which models "ALL of them"

My argument was that the model they listed was a "Panther (all)". I don't want a "Panther". I want an LR-308 which is made by "DPMS Panther Arms". (notice the "TM" next to the name). The model is clearly indicated on the lower as "MOD. LR-308". Ah hell...what do I know..I'm not one of the state's "experts".

C.G.
03-28-2006, 8:04 PM
My argument was that the model they listed was a "Panther (all)". I don't want a "Panther". I want an LR-308 which is made by "DPMS Panther Arms". (notice the "TM" next to the name). The model is clearly indicated on the lower as "MOD. LR-308". Ah hell...what do I know..I'm not one of the state's "experts".

You should be on Allison's Christmas card mailing list by now!:D

PIRATE14
03-29-2006, 12:03 PM
My argument was that the model they listed was a "Panther (all)". I don't want a "Panther". I want an LR-308 which is made by "DPMS Panther Arms". (notice the "TM" next to the name). The model is clearly indicated on the lower as "MOD. LR-308". Ah hell...what do I know..I'm not one of the state's "experts".

I like ur position but........

I'd also like to go w/ the common man theory ie jury of your peers who knows absolutely nothin about guns........

The lower already says DPMS and Panther, they understand the word "ALL".

On the other hand for Eagle and Armalite, they are listed seperately for all to see..........and under Eagle there is clearly no AR-10.
Most of my EAGLE M-15 all say a DIV of Armalite but are registered as Eagles............which the State of CALI, agrees with..........

This is my .02........I do consider myself an "expert"........only because I am not in jail:)

Technowizard
03-29-2006, 6:16 PM
I see where you guys are coming from. This is an argument over the wording. According to the whole list thing, a firearm is required to be specifically listed by both manufacturer AND model. The make in this case is DPMS or DPMS Panther Arms. They do not list any model there, and technically, the don't properly even list the manufactuer.... the name of the company is not DPMS Panther (all)... there is no half assing it when it comes to the letter of the law, it is required to be EXTREMELY specific or is voided for vagueness. One could use the following argument:

I do not own a DPMS Panther (all), I own a DPMS Panther Arms
or
I do not own a DPMS Panther, model (all), I own a DPMS Panther model "A-15"

This complies in the EXACT same manner as ALL of the other "off-list" receivers. My two cents! Hopefully some legal beagle can get this cleared up!

Technowizard

C.G.
03-29-2006, 6:38 PM
I see where you guys are coming from. This is an argument over the wording. According to the whole list thing, a firearm is required to be specifically listed by both manufacturer AND model. The make in this case is DPMS or DPMS Panther Arms. They do not list any model there, and technically, the don't properly even list the manufactuer.... the name of the company is not DPMS Panther (all)... there is no half assing it when it comes to the letter of the law, it is required to be EXTREMELY specific or is voided for vagueness. One could use the following argument:

I do not own a DPMS Panther (all), I own a DPMS Panther Arms
or
I do not own a DPMS Panther, model (all), I own a DPMS Panther model "A-15"

This complies in the EXACT same manner as ALL of the other "off-list" receivers. My two cents! Hopefully some legal beagle can get this cleared up!

Technowizard

The problem is whether the jury would buy that argument.

Technowizard
03-29-2006, 8:16 PM
I see it as a case of law. If it is true that in order for a firearm to be banned by series, that it must be listed specificly by make and model by the DOJ... then I believe this case holds water. All is NOT specific. If it were an exceptable means, they would have put that on all of the other currently listed makes! It is not! This is an error on the side of the DOJ for improper listing of firearms. According to the whole Harrott case, the ruling was to made so there would be no confusion as to wether or not a firearm has been banned. Well it sounds to me that a whole bunch of us here are CONFUSED! Therefore by case and point I would say that the lower in question would be considered an "off-list" receiver since there is NO mention of A-15 or any other specific models for DPMS... which technically isn't even listed properly by make. "Yessss ZUG ZUG can read"... "Meeeee noooo see DPMS Panther "Arms" no where"!!! lol. "ZUG ZUG no um see model neader"!!! Sorry, had to say in such a way the DOJ could understand! LOL.

Technowizard.

speacock
05-11-2006, 12:59 PM
Actually there might be another way to argue this. The Kasler list specifically lists "AR-15 Series Weapons: DPMS Panther (all)" which is all well and good for the DOJ except for this quote:

"the original AR10 was developed BEFORE the original AR15, [...] The buffer tubes and springs are NOT the same as the AR15 on the original nor on the current AR10. The selector switch is NOT an AR15 selector switch as the reciever is wider."

Since the DOJ specifically listed the Armalite AR10 and M15 separately it should be reasonable to argue that the LR-308 does not fit into the DPMS PAnther (all) AR-15 series classification. Its physically different and most importantly not derived from the AR-15 because it was developed first.

Sean

bwiese
05-11-2006, 1:22 PM
You guys are all talking valid _defense_ points.

That's after you're busted and in court and are trying to stay out of jail and keep your gun rights.

Anything DPMS with Panther anywhere should be regarded as no-no.

There are apparently some early (likely cast) DPMS lowers, probably not in 308 though, that are marked as "A15" models and apparently do NOT have Panther marked. These would be clearly legal.

adamsreeftank
05-11-2006, 4:15 PM
If you wan't a 308, call Vulcan and see if they have anymore stripped HAR-25 receivers. Put them together with an AR-10 LPK, and AR-10 upper and a DPMS 10 round mag and do a little sanding to fit the upper and lower and you have almost the same gun with no legal grey area.

Liberty Rules
05-11-2006, 4:55 PM
Actually there might be another way to argue this. The Kasler list specifically lists "AR-15 Series Weapons: DPMS Panther (all)" which is all well and good for the DOJ except for this quote:

"the original AR10 was developed BEFORE the original AR15, [...] The buffer tubes and springs are NOT the same as the AR15 on the original nor on the current AR10. The selector switch is NOT an AR15 selector switch as the reciever is wider."

Since the DOJ specifically listed the Armalite AR10 and M15 separately it should be reasonable to argue that the LR-308 does not fit into the DPMS PAnther (all) AR-15 series classification. Its physically different and most importantly not derived from the AR-15 because it was developed first.

Sean

I also concur that DOJ's interpretation is incorrect. Their position flies in the face of the Harrott decision, which is THE binding law of this state.

Your discussion above touched on a few points that I was thinking of a few months ago. The LR-308 is not even an AR15 series weapon at its most basic level. AR15 is a designation referring to semi auto rifles conforming closely to milspec standards related to the M16. They are characterized by the interchangeability of parts, particularly the upper and lower receivers. Now, there might be a manufacturer here or there which makes crap that doesn't fit right, but you get the idea--you should be able to take any one of over a hundred different makes or models of "AR15" uppers and slap them on a Bushmaster "AR15" lower.

On the other hand, NO AR upper will fit on a DPMS LR308 lower. The dimensions are completely different. Furthermore, LR308 lowers will NOT take .308 uppers from ANY OTHER manufacturer, including AR10's. LR-308 uppers only work with LR308 lowers, nothing else. So how are they within the AR15 series other than the fact that they "look similar"? It is not simply a caliber change, like when you swap out a .223 AR15 upper for a 9mm upper--they will both mate to your AR15 lower. In sum, the AR15 generic designation refers to systems which follow the design/dimension specs of the "series" and the LR308 does not fall within the series in the first place.

Secondly, I do not believe that the LR308 existed when the list was created. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it developed only in the last few years? If that is so, then how was it listed (as required by Harrott) when it did not even exist?

This is exactly the situation which the court in Harrott warned against. The AG must list series weapons by make and model such that the public can clearly determine whether something is prohibited or permissible. In my opinion, LR308s are neither listed (as clearly explained by the CA Supreme Court in Harrott) nor are they AR15 series weapons.

The DOJ would better serve the people of California if it was populated more with hard working civil servants and less with political zealots bent on ignoring the Supreme Court. One of the first signs of unbridled zealotry is the inability to recognize or admit your mistakes. Lawyers like Alison Meriless should know better.

PIRATE14
05-11-2006, 5:03 PM
This was tired w/ the Armalite already so the same will happen here......

or worse, you'll get an FFL to bring in these lowers if they find someone to ship.......everyone runs over buys and DROS.

DOJ commandos come in and seize lowers and they are never to be seen again cause they are being evalutated......

Everyone runs around and points fingers.........

Ur out 400 per lower vs 200...........

Liberty Rules
05-11-2006, 5:26 PM
This was tired w/ the Armalite already so the same will happen here......

or worse, you'll get an FFL to bring in these lowers if they find someone to ship.......everyone runs over buys and DROS.

DOJ commandos come in and seize lowers and they are never to be seen again cause they are being evalutated......

Everyone runs around and points fingers.........

Ur out 400 per lower vs 200...........

Unless I am mistaking your point, I respectfully disagree that this is anything like the Armalite vs. Eagle Arms case. There, the make was listed as "Eagle Arms, div Armalite" and the model was designated "AR10". Since Armalite AR10 is listed, the DOJ's argument has plausability because the specific model was listed and stamped on the receiver in question; the prohibited manufacturer was also on the receiver.

If your point is that a truck load of these things could get swiped by DOJ goons before they reached your hands, then I agree. You don't need to convince me, or anyone else here, that DOJ improperly confiscates property.

I think that DOJ should reevaluate its position on DPMS rifles and admit that they are wrong.

I don't think it will happen, but it would be nice if we could all pitch in to file suits over this stuff. Every other civil rights group does it. Why shouldn't we be as litigious as the liberal groups?

adamsreeftank
05-12-2006, 12:58 AM
I
...So how are they within the AR15 series other than the fact that they "look similar"? ...

This whole crazy law is based on looks. Gun A looks evil - ban it. Gun B looks like a hunting rifle - allow it.

At the time the law was written, the M1 Garand and M14 had probably been used to take more lives than the M16, and certainly the AR15. But plastic and aluminum are just so much more evil looking than wood and steel.