PDA

View Full Version : unsure need help on 2 rifles are legal


Chuck P
06-21-2010, 9:20 AM
Hi all

I have 2 rifles that I was left in an estate that I want to bring into the state. I wanted to know if it is legal. I have been calling a few gun stores and doing as much reading on here as I can. Honestly the gun stores I talked to called it a gray area and wouldn't commit to one way or another CYA I am sure. Reading the laws online is confusing as hell they seem to contradict what I know is legal for sale Ect.....

The two rifles in question are the

Rock River arms LAR-8

Century GP WASP-10/63

I understand these if they are legal to be here would have to be configured before they entered the state with mag locks and ditch the hi-cap mags.

Chuck

69Mach1
06-21-2010, 9:25 AM
Both fine, once they're in the proper CA legal configuration.

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

Cali-V
06-21-2010, 9:35 AM
Chuck
You don't have to ditch the mags... simply take them apart(drop the floor plates, springs, and followers)... You can convert them to 10 rounders, or keep them as parts. And you can also reassemble them for use when out of state....

Chuck P
06-21-2010, 10:51 AM
This California Supreme Court decision took effect on August 16, 2000. Under this decision, any firearm of
minor variation of the AK or AR-15 type (i.e., series weapon), regardless of the manufacturer, is a Category 2
(Kasler v. Lockyer) assault weapon under the original Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989.

This is the one that got me confused. Have they clarified this which i would assume were the OLL lowers came from?

Category 2 assault weapons may be of any caliber, including .22 caliber rimfire.

I think I understand why rimfire is exempt. Its because rimfire fall into cat 3 not into the weapons listed in cat 2 correct?

Note: Bayonets and bayonet lugs are not assault weapon characteristics under California law.

Now see I thought Bayonets or lugs were a no no is that not the case?

IrishPirate
06-21-2010, 11:01 AM
trust the flow chart (http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf)

bwiese
06-21-2010, 11:07 AM
This is the one that got me confused. Have they clarified this which i would assume were the OLL lowers came from?


Dude, the June 2001 Harrott . Kings County decision overrides the text you've quoted (from the Kasler decision in Aug 2000).

Aside from SB23 configured features suites, guns "banned by name" must generally be banned by specific make/model combinations. So a gun that's not banned by make/model on either the Roberti-Roos or Kasler lists is indeed "off-list" - that's where the term comes from.


I think I understand why rimfire is exempt. Its because rimfire fall into cat 3 not into the weapons listed in cat 2 correct?

Rimfire status will not remove AW status from a Cat 1 or Cat 2 named gun.

However, a gun otherwise a Cat 3 AW but having rimfire status is not a Cat 3 AW. ("Semiautomatic centerfire rifles...")


Now see I thought Bayonets or lugs were a no no is
that not the case?

Why would you think that?
The Federal AW ban is long gone.

And 12276.1PC (SB23) has no control/sensitivity to bayonet lugs.

Please consult the Calguns AW flowchart. I think it's quite clear.

Chuck P
06-21-2010, 11:58 AM
Thanks Bill I understand it must get annoying dealing with ignorant people, well that is the way it came across. I can understand that for sure. For whatever reason I was miss informed or got the wrong impression or just didn't understand. I will surely use the flow chart and had seen that already, but I missed the whole 2nd page there so that would have cleared it up right there. Maybe I should have asked for the series of law and court cases that lead to the laws we currently have. Look I don't mean or want to be "that guy" I am just trying to be informed and learns so as to not make a decision that lands me in jail and the members of this forum dealing with the consequences of an ignorant persons actions down the road. That totally clear up any questions I think I had on the issues so thanks for that, and once again sorry.:o

Chuck

bballwizard05
06-21-2010, 12:06 PM
btw welcome to calguns. and congrats on your two newest editions to the collection!

Librarian
06-21-2010, 5:48 PM
Thanks Bill I understand it must get annoying dealing with ignorant people, well that is the way it came across. I can understand that for sure. For whatever reason I was miss informed or got the wrong impression or just didn't understand. I will surely use the flow chart and had seen that already, but I missed the whole 2nd page there so that would have cleared it up right there. Maybe I should have asked for the series of law and court cases that lead to the laws we currently have. Look I don't mean or want to be "that guy" I am just trying to be informed and learns so as to not make a decision that lands me in jail and the members of this forum dealing with the consequences of an ignorant persons actions down the road. That totally clear up any questions I think I had on the issues so thanks for that, and once again sorry.:o

Chuck

Welcome to CalGuns, and no need to be sorry for trying to Do Things Right!

CA firearms law is a snakepit, and 'assault weapon' law is no exception. For amusement, since you already have the answers to your specific question, try reading the assault weapon article (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/History_of_%27Assault_Weapon%27_laws) at the Calguns Foundation Wiki.

Chuck P
06-21-2010, 8:20 PM
Thanks, that was a good read.

Chuck

thayne
06-21-2010, 8:36 PM
Dude, the June 2001 Harrott . Kings County decision overrides the text you've quoted (from the Kasler decision in Aug 2000).

Aside from SB23 configured features suites, guns "banned by name" must generally be banned by specific make/model combinations. So a gun that's not banned by make/model on either the Roberti-Roos or Kasler lists is indeed "off-list" - that's where the term comes from..

Its funny how the DOJ leaves that on their web site. Obviously to confuse people. What a crock.