PDA

View Full Version : New memo from DOJ doesn't mean Squat...


Leadthrower
05-10-2006, 10:49 PM
Heck if DOJ want's to try to use the SB-23 features as a tool so can we by building 22lr's with our AR lowers! 22lr caliber rifles are exempt from AW classification even with some/all of the AW features. So I just wanted to give another outlet for your California-Legal Rifle builds, hope this helps out some waiting for the DOJ to do the right thing. If I am misinformed about this please tell me how/or why... Let's beat them at their own game!

bwiese
05-11-2006, 2:38 AM
NO NO NO NO NO!!

22LR will not exempt a lower from SB23 configuration (unless lower is specifically marked 22LR.)

The problem for ARs is that the chambering (caliber/type) and action style (semiauto or manually cycled) are separate from the serialized lower receiver. If the rimfire upper were taken off the pistol-gripped lower with open magwell, the lower would be an illegal unreg'd AW.

For unlisted AK or FAL clones other rifles whose action types are not separable from the serialized receiver, this is different than for ARs...

Leadthrower
05-11-2006, 7:31 AM
What about if the lower is marked "multi-cal"? And thanks for the clarification.

drclark
05-11-2006, 9:26 AM
My personal opinion is that .22lr upper on an off-list lower could very well be legal. I agree that it is a gray area at best and would probably need a test case.

Prior to Dec2005, the DOJ's position was that any AR pattern lower that could easily be converted to a fully featured AR was still illegal (even in stripped form). That has changed now. This latest memo (again just a memo) essentially admits that any off list lower is legal to posess in stripped form or as built to comply with SB23 features.

The argument the DOJ is still trying to make focuses on the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" and interpretation of the phrase "capacity to accept" to mean "currently able to accept or potential to be easily modified/restored to accept". I assert that logic would not fly in court since they are trying to prevent a potential "future" crime because someone might modify their pinned-mag rifle to a detachable configuration. The DOJ is relying on a relatively liberal interpretation of the word capacity.

However they are not applying that logic to any of the other features. My su16ca has a threaded barrel (which is legal). That gives it the capacity to accpet a flash hider however it is still legal to own in CA.

The mess that the DOJ got into on the Robinson M-96 was that they interpreted the exposed PG stud as a capacity to accept a pistol grip. Didn't the DOJ have to embarssingly admit they made a mistake and return the rifles they confiscated?

I don't think that the centerfire and semi-auto characteristics are any different from any of the other "evil" features. The law (and memo) states
A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any of the generic features listed in Penal Code 12276.1(a)(1) is contraband

I believe that they way semi-automatic and centerfire are stated mean the way the rifle is currently configured; it does not cover any potential future state of configuration. Those words do not have the "capacity to" modifier in front of them. In fact, since the "and any of the generic features" appears in the law after the "capacity to accept" wording, the DOJ could apply their liberal interpretation of capacity to accept to those features as well if successful in appling that interpretation to "detachable magazine".

Your reasoning that .22lr upper is not ok would also imply that disabling the gas system on an AK or FAL would also not be sufficient to remove them from AW status. It would also not be OK to build and off-list lower using a bolt-action or singe shot upper as well.

Does the fact that semi-auto conversion kits were made that converted the 1903 springfield or swiss K31 back in the day mean that if equiped with a pistolgrip or flashhider that those rifles in their bolt action form would be considered an AW?

Hypothetically, if someone were to invent a form/fit centerfire equivalent of .22lr such that a fully featured 10/22 could be easily converted to a centerfire action just by simply replacing the bolt then all 10/22's would be considered AW's if equiped with any other AW features?

I intpret the SB23 features language to mean my pistol-gripped, detachable-mag rifle is not an AW if a DOJ agent cannot chamber and fire a centerfire round in its CURRENT configuration. Just like my SU16-ca is not an AW in its CURRENT configuration without a flashhider. Rifles are re-barreled and converted to other calibers all the time. I don't think the caliber stampings on the receiver would carry much weight at all in determining AW status.

Again these are just my opinions and they carry no weight until tested in court or at the very least in a letter to the DOJ.

drc

bwiese
05-11-2006, 9:30 AM
What about if the lower is marked "multi-cal"? And thanks for the clarification.

No, just specifically "22LR". That way it's the native caliber and other calibers would be 'adaptations'.

artherd
05-11-2006, 12:38 PM
Respectfully disagree. .22lr upper "RIMFIRE RIFLE" is flat out legal. (there is no precident or regulatory theroey of law that would preclude or restrict one to a .22lr RECIEVER.)

It would become illegal if you put a CENTERFIRE upper on to make a "CENTERFIRE RIFLE"

I could write "alison & iggy special eddition" in the cailber field, and I'd still be legal. Calibre field is for identification and ammo-selection GUIDE purpose only, and is not even a required mark at all.

Leadthrower
05-11-2006, 1:23 PM
Respectfully disagree. .22lr upper "RIMFIRE RIFLE" is flat out legal. (there is no precident or regulatory theroey of law that would preclude or restrict one to a .22lr RECIEVER.)

It would become illegal if you put a CENTERFIRE upper on to make a "CENTERFIRE RIFLE"

I could write "alison & iggy special eddition" in the cailber field, and I'd still be legal. Calibre field is for identification and ammo-selection GUIDE purpose only, and is not even a required mark at all.

Thanks for bouncing this idea around with me. I figured more people would have input on this subject, but I'm glad I'm getting intelligent interpetations of others. I still believe anyone would be ok putting a 22lr upper on their rifle if chose to do so and keep the detachable mag feature. Maybe a letter or more review of this matter is in order?:confused:

xenophobe
05-11-2006, 1:44 PM
I asked the DOJ for clarification of this, they responded without answering any of my questions. I'm going to resubmit my letter, but they did not want to validate this approach to open magwell ARs.

grammaton76
05-11-2006, 2:15 PM
I'll weigh in again on the "22LR uppers which can't accept standard mags and are hard as hell to remove from the lower, shouldn't be cause for concern" side.

I've taken my rimfire to the range, at which point it raised an eyebrow or two but after it was shown to be 22LR, range employees AND LEOs were lining up to shoot the thing. Unless the DOJ comes out and flat-out says 22LR's aren't ok, I'll continue using it.

However, I will agree that the conversion kits (as opposed to dedicated uppers) are very easily a jail ticket.

...and on an unrelated note, I am typing this with a camel spider sitting next to me in a jar.

drclark
05-11-2006, 2:43 PM
Which .22lr upper are you using and how much does it cost? Any links to more info?

drc

grammaton76
05-11-2006, 3:36 PM
V-22 upper, presently available from www.militarygunsupply.com for $290.

I posted about it here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=28167