PDA

View Full Version : What am I missing with the SKS thing?


CalGunsNoob
05-10-2006, 6:24 PM
So they're attempting to say that 'capacity to accept a detachable mag' gives you a 12276.1 ding. Ok I get that as it related to other 12276.1 relevant firearms.

However, I don't see the SKS connection. SKSs have no other 12276.1 violating features. So how are they relevant to this discussion?

What am I missing?

Now concern over FALs I can see.

CowtownBallin
05-10-2006, 6:27 PM
SKS rifles with detachable magazines are assault weapons, it's on the list <edit> Not the series list, the banned list

hoffmang
05-10-2006, 6:28 PM
If an SKS has a capacity to accept and 1 other evil feature even though its pinned in the same manner as the OLL AR style rifle, then the SKS is either covered under SB23 or is a named Roberti-Roos rifle as an SKS with a detachable magazine is already a LISTED AW.

Bought mine today!

CalGunsNoob
05-10-2006, 6:44 PM
Yes, SKSs with detachable mags are banned via name.

But the memo is worded as such...

Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in 12276.1(a)(1).

Restored would seem to imply a default condition of a rifle. It seems to me that this would not apply to fixed mag SKSs.

tenpercentfirearms
05-10-2006, 6:59 PM
That is true they keep talking about meeting the 12276.1 definitions and not the 12276 specific namings. However, I am too dumb to figure it out and I think all SKSs are banned now. The DOJ needs to clarify that either 978.20(a) applies to all guns or just some guns.

hoffmang
05-10-2006, 11:47 PM
Anybody else notice that DOJ's interpretation of the law as applied seems unconstitutionally vague?

That question made me the proud new owner of a Russian SKS today. My magazine is temporarily modified to be incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines. With that change, I am now a felon in possession of a Roberti-Roos listed assault weapon as my magazine isn't fixed.

Due process anyone?

ghettoshecky
05-11-2006, 1:27 AM
Anybody else notice that DOJ's interpretation of the law as applied seems unconstitutionally vague?

That question made me the proud new owner of a Russian SKS today. My magazine is temporarily modified to be incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines. With that change, I am now a felon in possession of a Roberti-Roos listed assault weapon as my magazine isn't fixed.

Due process anyone?


yeah my question is this, are the skss they sell in cal stores with fixed 10rders now considered aw? This is pretty damn confusing, or are the ones they sell are made to be not convertible?

hoffmang
05-11-2006, 1:57 AM
Let me be very clear.

The law as it stands today says pretty clearly that SKSs as sold in stores in California today are legal. It takes a tool to remove the magazine on the SKS and therefor it is not a detachable magazine. Since its not a detachable magazine its not the "SKS with detachable magazine" that's already on the list.

The DOJ memo from Tuesday states a position on AR magazine detachability. That position is that somehow those AR's are already illegal, but just to make sure the DOJ says they will change the definition to make it so in "the future." If/when they do that it would likely have the side effect of making all SKSs in California Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons.

The DOJ is full of it, but it is inadvertently threatening SKS owners as well as AK OLL and AR OLL owners with prosecution while you aren't doing anything illegal.

vonsmith
05-11-2006, 8:47 AM
Yes, SKSs with detachable mags are banned via name.

But the memo is worded as such...

Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in 12276.1(a)(1).

Restored would seem to imply a default condition of a rifle. It seems to me that this would not apply to fixed mag SKSs.

I agree with CalGunsNoob. The key phrases are "modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachment magazines" and "restored to accommodate detachable magazines".

CA legal SKS's were never "modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachment magazines" and are not being "restored to accommodate detachable magazines". SKS's could be "modified" to accommodate detachable magazines, but that's not what the memo says.


=vonsmith=

hoffmang
05-11-2006, 10:45 AM
And my 10 round AR style fixed magazine rifle was never modified to be temporarily incapable. Parts are parts and my intent is and was to build a 10 round fixed magazine rifle.

An intent standard doesn't readily define a rifle. Trying to state that because my SKS wasn't originally modified (when? by who?) that it therefor isn't a detachable magazine, even though its less tools/work to modify to be a banned AW than an OL AR? As clear as mud... Felony rule making has a higher standard than tax code interpretation or environmental regulations...

glen avon
05-11-2006, 11:04 AM
Anybody else notice that DOJ's interpretation of the law as applied seems unconstitutionally vague?

I have not noticed that.

My [Russian SKS] magazine is temporarily modified to be incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines. With that change, I am now a felon in possession of a Roberti-Roos listed assault weapon as my magazine isn't fixed.

wow that sure is interesting! please explain how you took an ostensibly unmodified russian SKS, a rifle not designed to be equipped with nor equipped with a detachable magazine, and then RESTORED it to accomodate detachable magazines? what was the cange you performed? detail, please!!!!

Due process anyone?

sure, DOJ is doling out plenty of due process. I have yet to see a shortage.

glen avon
05-11-2006, 11:07 AM
just WTF is "felony rule making"? where are you getting this crap?

artherd
05-11-2006, 12:24 PM
Restored would seem to imply a default condition of a rifle. It seems to me that this would not apply to fixed mag SKSs.
My rifle came with no magazine retention parts.

I added them as I saw fit, which is my right so long as I do not violate law.

I happened to add fixed-magazine retention parts. Therefore my default condition is fixed, no different than an SKS, a FAL, or a fixed-mag DOJ approved Barrett (yes I have that letter too... and the Barrett...)

The idea of a "Default Configuration" is a flawed and imprecise one, not suitable for regulatory law.

the_quark
05-11-2006, 1:44 PM
Not only that, it occurred to me that, if I purchase an SKS stripped receiver to build a rifle, I need to decide - do I put a fixed mag on it, or a detachable one?

Since detachable ones are illegal in all configurations in California [Edit: By name per 12276(a)(11), "SKS with detachable magazine"], I obviously choose to put a fixed one on it. But, that's no different than the decision I have to make when I'm building an AR - fixed or detachable? The difference being, with an AR, it's legal to put a detachable mag on it in some configurations [since it's effectively not banned by name anymore, just feature].

But, an AR that I build from the ground up with a non-detachable mag is no less "originally made with a non-detachable mag" than an SKS that I do the same thing with.

I could maybe see them making an argument that, if my AR *had* a detachable magazine and I converted it, that'd be different. But, for rifles built from bare receivers, they *never* were detachable, so it's not possible for me to "restore" them to being detachable. I could *change* them to be detachable, but that's not different than being able to *change* an SKS to be detachable.

grammaton76
05-11-2006, 2:34 PM
Ok, guys, you're all forgetting the SKS-M and SKS-D models. These models were designed and built to accept standard AK-47 detachable magazines. They're a bit pricey, but they're quite nice. I believe they come from China.

Anyway, those rifles were ORIGINALY DESIGNED with a detacahble magazine. Technically speaking, we ought to be allowed to buy the -D and -M versions, because they haven't been altered to accept a detachable mag. However, it's the DOJ's opinion that SKS + detachable mag is bad, whether it's the original configuration or not.

hoffmang
05-11-2006, 5:39 PM
Glen,

What I mean by "felony rule making" is that when an administrative organization is making regulatory definitions that define a criminal felony, there is a higher standard to the clarity of those definitions if they ever want to be able to prosecute against them.

ohsmily
05-11-2006, 6:34 PM
Technically speaking, we ought to be allowed to buy the -D and -M versions, because they haven't been altered to accept a detachable mag. However, it's the DOJ's opinion that SKS + detachable mag is bad, whether it's the original configuration or not.

Wrong. It isn't the DOJ's opinion that SKS + detcahable mag is bad...SKS with detachable magazine is an assault weapon not b/c the DOJ says so, but because the LEGISLATURE banned them. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf Check it out.

hoffmang
05-11-2006, 9:03 PM
Glen,

I answered in depth in another thread also, but there is no real legal leg to stand on for DOJ to state that a rifle has "first principles" and then somehow those "first principles" are the sacrosanct return place.

All guns start as rocks. Did this chunk of aluminum ore or iron and tin begin as a detachable magazine design or a fixed magazine design?

Ohsmily: Add in a modification to my Russian SKS where I've decided to add a flash hider. That's legal today because I have a fixed magazine. However, all it takes to remove my fixed magazine is tools...

Bottom line - DOJ will be extremely hard pressed to redefine detachable magazine without sweeping a wide swath of otherwise "OK" guns in.

ohsmily
05-11-2006, 9:24 PM
The major reason I don't care for them is because of their mass production.

IE not a quality firearm.

EOR

Wait, let me get this right...Since it is mass produced, it isn't a quality firearm?

Second, you are saying the SKS isn't a quality firearm??? It certainly doesn't have a beautiful fit and finish, but it is one of the most reliable, rugged rifles ever designed. It is an AMAZING rifle. Reliable and durable as the AK and more accurate to boot. Now, of course, putting my SKSs next to my Sako TRG-22 or my custom Remington 700's or even my ar-15's, it looks ugly. However, over the course of about 15,000 rounds through my various SKSs, I have never had a malfunction. These rifles are 50 years old and I don't clean them regularly. Of course, they vary in quality based on what nation manufactured them, but all in all, they are fantastic rifles.

I can understand just plain not liking them for whatever reason (taste, preference, etc), but I don't think an objective person could honestly call them bad rifles (or low quality).

vonsmith
05-12-2006, 10:23 AM
You guys seem to be arguing the DOJ's memo in regards to SKS magazines by logic. As we all should know LAW != LOGIC. We all know how easy to is to modify an SKS to accept detachable magazines. That's not the question. In regards to the detachable mag question versus the DOJ memo. I think it's like the half glass of water question, "Is the glass half empty or half full?". Philosophically it depends on whether you are an optimist or not. However I'm an engineer, not a philosopher (except during extended beer drinking sessions). Q: Is the glass half empty or half full? A: It depends on the previous state of the glass. Was the glass empty or full to start with?

Apply this philosophic logic to the SKS magazine question. Assuming you had a CA legal SKS to start with then it follows it must of started life with a fixed magazine (The glass is half full.). Yes, I know there are a myriad of special circumstances, exceptions, odd cases, and other unusual scenarios that can be claimed. If you modify the SKS to accept detachable magazines that would obviously be illegal in CA.

Let's look at the converse. Say your SKS started life as a -D or -M (The glass is half empty.). Short of already being classified as an AW in CA, then it would be illegal in CA. Let's say in the next step the SKS is "modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachment magazines". That would be illegal in CA unless it cannot "be restored to accommodate detachable magazines". For the memo to be valid at all then the "order" of things is significant. This is assuming the DOJ has thought it through. :rolleyes:

That's just my interpretation. Is it correct, legal or otherwise? I dunno.

If you start with a stripped SKS lower and build your own, I dunno. I'm sure the DOJ didn't think that through. The law is dumb, the memo is dumber, and the DOJ is... well never mind. The "can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines" part is a slippery slope. It should be as enforceable as the hi-cap magazine restrictions. Who's to say when and where you got your magazines?

IMO, the DOJ should just state that if a person is in possession of a non-CA compliant firearm, regardless of how easy or quick it is to modify it, then they are in violation. I can think of dozens of things that can be done to or with a firearm in a few seconds to be in violation of one or more laws.

Did I remember to say I'm embarrassed to be a Kalifornian.


=vonsmith=

RaceDay
05-14-2006, 2:49 PM
Anybody else notice that DOJ's interpretation of the law as applied seems unconstitutionally vague?

Nope.

The only thing that is vague is how some people are trying to draw the fixed mag SKS into the argument to somehow imply their pinned AR-15 is legal by association. The SKS with detachable mag was already listed as an AW.

Steps to modify a SKS: remove receiver cover, recoil spring assembly, the bolt and bolt carrier, get a punch and remove the trigger assembly, then remove the magazine. Replace the mag, then do all the same stuff in reverse.

And it is questionable to me where the rifle with detachable mag could be considered non-C&R and have compliance issues with Fed 922r.

Steps to modify a pinned AR: turn a set screw.

Am I missing something here?

tenpercentfirearms
05-14-2006, 7:32 PM
Yeah, you don't have to remove the receiver cover. Just lock back the bolt, use the tool in the buttstock kit to get the trigger group out, remove magazine, replace trigger group, insert detachable magazine, release bolt, fire. When I was 18 I timed myself doing this and it was less than a minute.

What I don't understand is how you can't see that the DOJ is claiming that no matter what you do to an off-list AR, if it is not "permanenty" fixed, 978.20(a) doesn't count. By that same reasoning, then 978.20(a) does not apply to an SKS, so all SKSs in this state that are not "permanently" fixed also have a detachable magazine and not only does SB23 apply, but also 12276 which means all SKSs now have detachable magazines and are thereby assault weapons. If you have a 922r compliant rifle you are a double assault weapon violator.

The DOJ has opened a can of worms that they are probably squirming about up there about. I bet you someone didn't realize all SKSs and FALs are now assault weapons using their new memo and I bet they won't stick with this memo either. Hopefully sooner or later Lockyer will realize the easiest way to make this all go away is to just make a list and let people scramble around for the next 6 months looking for other off list lowers until the new AG gets elected and he/she inherits this mess. Or he can keep coming up with strawman memos that we will keep destroying from the comforts of our homes and offices.