PDA

View Full Version : Can a LEO legally transfer me his " CA pre-ban" Taurus Judge?


762.DEFENSE
09-01-2010, 11:41 AM
I have a LEO friend who owns a brand new in box (impulse buy on his behalf) Taurus Judge. I'm just curious with the law as stated can he legally transfer it to me? He's going to sell it to me for $200 (which is a STEAL!) And I wanted to know is this legal?
Thanks in advanced!

Rivers
09-01-2010, 11:43 AM
If it was simply an off-roster handgun, yes. But the Taurus Judge is also a short-barreled shotgun (SBR) and that's a no-go in CA.

liketoshoot
09-01-2010, 11:44 AM
NO!
And he should not have it either as it is a SB shotgun and is not allowed in Ca.

jtmkinsd
09-01-2010, 11:46 AM
simple answer...no...short barrel shotgun...unless you fall into the category below.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:
(1) The sale to, purchase by, or possession of short-barreled
shotguns or short-barreled rifles by police departments, sheriffs'
offices, marshals' offices, the California Highway Patrol, the
Department of Justice, the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, or the military or naval forces of this state or of
the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties
or the possession of short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled
rifles by peace officer members of a police department, sheriff's
office, marshal's office, the California Highway Patrol, the
Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, when on duty and the use is authorized by the agency
and is within the course and scope of their duties and the peace
officer has completed a training course in the use of these weapons
certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

Joe
09-01-2010, 11:49 AM
No he cannot transfer it to you. It is also illegal for him to own. I'm assuming its his personal weapon and not the departments since hes trying to sell it.

CSACANNONEER
09-01-2010, 11:53 AM
Wait, are you are asking if your friend can sell you a gun which is not legal for ANYONE to have in California? You better tell your friend that he needs to contact an attorney ASAP! He is comitting a felony by having it in California and would be comitting more felonies if he tried to transport it out of state. Seriously, have him contact a lawyer to assist him with stopping his illegal activities. There is no exemption for LEOs when it comes to SBS and there is no grace period for turning them in.

bjl333
09-01-2010, 11:54 AM
Your LEO friend has to get it gone quick before he gets into trouble too, unless he lives out of state. If the Taurus is Dept own, which he can't sell. Either way you can't buy it !!!

dfletcher
09-01-2010, 11:55 AM
Regarding the "it must be illegal" for the current LE to own. I'd guess that's the case - can his LE boss do the letterhead OK on an SBS or no? I know a few LE Chiefs who are fairly liberal when it comes to scratching their name on department letterhead, to include federal, OK'ing AWs, is it the same for SBS? Some of the federal folks couldn't care less re CA AW laws and willingly sign away.

But of course if (re the SBS and the AW) this in no way imparts on the rest of us the ability to have such items legally PPT'd.

CSACANNONEER
09-01-2010, 11:56 AM
Your LEO friend has to get it gone quick before he gets into trouble too. Unless the Taurus is Dept own, which he can't sell. Either way you can't buy it !!!

Making it disapear does not negate the fact that he has already comitted a felony. Also, getting rid of it the wrong way might get him a few more charges. Unfortunately, there is no "right way" to turn it in without admitting that he is a criminal. That is why I strongly suggest that he contact an attorney ASAP!

Dan_K
09-01-2010, 11:58 AM
What Judge? http://forum.e46fanatics.com/images/smilies/icon9.gif

jtmkinsd
09-01-2010, 11:58 AM
Wait, are you are asking if your friend can sell you a gun which is not legal for ANYONE to have in California? You better tell your friend that he needs to contact an attorney ASAP! He is comitting a felony by having it in California and would be comitting more felonies if he tried to transport it out of state. Seriously, have him contact a lawyer to assist him with stopping his illegal activities. There is no exemption for LEOs when it comes to SBS and there is no grace period for turning them in.

Um...law enforcement + letter from department = exemption for short barrel shotgun.

CSACANNONEER
09-01-2010, 11:58 AM
Regarding the "it must be illegal" for the current LE to own. I'd guess that's the case but wouldn't bet the farm, I know a few LE Chiefs who are fairly liberal when it comes to scratching their name on department letterhead to include federal. Some of the federal folks couldn't care less re CA AW laws and willingly sign away.

But of course this in no way imparts on the rest of us the ability to have such items legally PPT'd.

It's not an AW it's also a SBS in California and there is no exeption for LEOs twhich allows them to own SBSs. It does not matter what their CO or Cheif puts in writting on dept. letterhead. It is still an illegal weapon for a LEO to own.

Um...law enforcement + letter from department = exemption for short barrel shotgun.

Nope! Unless you know something that I don't. If so, please post the PC regarding this. Depatment OWNED guns are different. If this LEO is trying to sell a dept. owned gun then we will be seeing him on the news soon.

jtmkinsd
09-01-2010, 12:09 PM
If he/she has a letter from their department stating make, model, serial number and it is to be used in the course and scope of their duties then he gets it. Law enforcement has ultimate leeway given to them when going through their department.

or the possession of short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled
rifles by peace officer members of a police department, sheriff's
office, marshal's office, the California Highway Patrol, the
Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, when on duty and the use is authorized by the agency
and is within the course and scope of their duties and the peace
officer has completed a training course in the use of these weapons
certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

CSACANNONEER
09-01-2010, 12:13 PM
If he/she has a letter from their department stating make, model, serial number and it is to be used in the course and scope of their duties then he gets it. Law enforcement has ultimate leeway given to them when going through their department.

or the possession of short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled
rifles by peace officer members of a police department, sheriff's
office, marshal's office, the California Highway Patrol, the
Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, when on duty and the use is authorized by the agency
and is within the course and scope of their duties and the peace
officer has completed a training course in the use of these weapons
certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

Sure, they can POSSESS a dept issued one. However, even LEOs can not OWN a non-C&R SBS in California.

jtmkinsd
09-01-2010, 12:16 PM
Granted...yes...technically they cannot "own" one...but in a lot of cases the LE comes to FFL to act as "agent" of department when picking up service weaponry.

And unless he went across state lines to purchase the gun and brought it back to CA (a major felony), I'm assuming he went through an FFL to purchase in the first place.

Cyc Wid It
09-01-2010, 12:32 PM
I really don't understand the obsessions with these things... oh well, some good advice in this thread for the OP.

jtmkinsd
09-01-2010, 12:42 PM
I really don't understand the obsessions with these things... oh well, some good advice in this thread for the OP.

The obsession comes from the fact the state says you can't have it...lol

Oldnoob
09-01-2010, 12:48 PM
The obsession comes from the fact the state says you can't have it...lol

Very true. Same apply to Glock 18.

PolishMike
09-01-2010, 12:51 PM
NO!!!!

Letterhead is NOT sufficient for a Judge.

He would need a SBS permit from the DOJ. Not going to happen.

Mike

dfletcher
09-01-2010, 12:52 PM
If he/she has a letter from their department stating make, model, serial number and it is to be used in the course and scope of their duties then he gets it. Law enforcement has ultimate leeway given to them when going through their department.

or the possession of short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled
rifles by peace officer members of a police department, sheriff's
office, marshal's office, the California Highway Patrol, the
Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, when on duty and the use is authorized by the agency
and is within the course and scope of their duties and the peace
officer has completed a training course in the use of these weapons
certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

This seems to grant as little or as much ability to possess as one's LE boss would admit to, I think. If the agency has the right to "authorize" I presume that means "Chief, sign here - OK?"

jtmkinsd
09-01-2010, 1:33 PM
Most departments designate one individual who writes all the letterhead for that department...Now, they are accountable for what they write and most have a list of authorized service weapons and would not sign off on a Judge for you to carry off duty...but yes they have great discretion when dealing with service weaponry. Otherwise every LE would have to get a permit to carry the AW or SBS/SBR in their trunk? And while they are "Department issued" weapons, some departments go through specific retailers/maufacturers and FFL's and the LE picks up the weapon themselves.

(f) (1) Subdivisions (b) and (c) shall not prohibit the possession
or use of assault weapons or a .50 BMG rifle by sworn peace officer
members of those agencies specified in subdivision (e) for law
enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty.
(2) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not prohibit the
delivery, transfer, or sale of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle
to, or the possession of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle by, a
sworn peace officer member of an agency specified in subdivision (e)
if the peace officer is authorized by his or her employer to possess
or receive the assault weapon or the .50 BMG rifle. Required
authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the
head of the agency, identifying the recipient or possessor of the
assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to
receive or possess the specific assault weapon.

and again for SBR/SBS

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:
(1) The sale to, purchase by, or possession of short-barreled
shotguns or short-barreled rifles by police departments, sheriffs'
offices, marshals' offices, the California Highway Patrol, the
Department of Justice, the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, or the military or naval forces of this state or of
the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties
or the possession of short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled
rifles by peace officer members of a police department, sheriff's
office, marshal's office, the California Highway Patrol, the
Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, when on duty and the use is authorized by the agency
and is within the course and scope of their duties and the peace
officer has completed a training course in the use of these weapons
certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

leelaw
09-01-2010, 2:10 PM
No, he may not sell it to you.

Additionally, he is in felony possession of a short barreled shotgun.

He should contact an attorney to arrange the surrender of the SBS to a LEA.

ke6guj
09-01-2010, 2:10 PM
Most departments designate one individual who writes all the letterhead for that department...Now, they are accountable for what they write and most have a list of authorized service weapons and would not sign off on a Judge for you to carry off duty...but yes they have great discretion when dealing with service weaponry. Otherwise every LE would have to get a permit to carry the AW or SBS/SBR in their trunk? And while they are "Department issued" weapons, some departments go through specific retailers/maufacturers and FFL's and the LE picks up the weapon themselves.

note teh differences between the AW and SBS regs.

here they allow the possession of an AW by an LEO on or off duty.
(f) (1) Subdivisions (b) and (c) shall not prohibit the possession
or use of assault weapons or a .50 BMG rifle by sworn peace officer
members of those agencies specified in subdivision (e) for law
enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty.


here they allow the sale of an AW to a LEO if he is authorized by the LEA to possess it.
(2) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) shall not prohibit the
delivery, transfer, or sale of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle
to, or the possession of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle by, a
sworn peace officer member of an agency specified in subdivision (e)
if the peace officer is authorized by his or her employer to possess
or receive the assault weapon or the .50 BMG rifle. Required
authorization is defined as verifiable written certification from the
head of the agency, identifying the recipient or possessor of the
assault weapon as a peace officer and authorizing him or her to
receive or possess the specific assault weapon.


with regards to SBS, here they allow the sale to the LEA, but do not mention anything about the individual officer.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:
(1) The sale to, purchase by, or possession of short-barreled
shotguns or short-barreled rifles by police departments, sheriffs'
offices, marshals' offices, the California Highway Patrol, the
Department of Justice, the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, or the military or naval forces of this state or of
the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties


here they allow the possession of the SBS by the LEO WHEN ON DUTY. No mention of sale to the LEO or exempted possession when off duty.

or the possession of short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled
rifles by peace officer members of a police department, sheriff's
office, marshal's office, the California Highway Patrol, the
Department of Justice, or the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, when on duty and the use is authorized by the agency
and is within the course and scope of their duties and the peace
officer has completed a training course in the use of these weapons
certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

DannyInSoCal
09-01-2010, 2:30 PM
I thought the only people who owned Judges were my Sicilian cousins back in Chicago...

Thanx, D

Rob454
09-01-2010, 2:39 PM
Granted...yes...technically they cannot "own" one...but in a lot of cases the LE comes to FFL to act as "agent" of department when picking up service weaponry.

And unless he went across state lines to purchase the gun and brought it back to CA (a major felony), I'm assuming he went through an FFL to purchase in the first place.

Technically or not he either legally owns it or he doesnt. In Cali since its illegal to own he most likely doesn't. If it belongs to the department he works for he does NOT own that gun which means he cannot sell it. he may be able to USE it while in the course of his duties but he does not own that gun
There is nothign technical about it. its pretty black and white.

ke6guj
09-01-2010, 3:03 PM
they were never "deemed illegal by the DOJ" because they were never legal for an LEO to personally own an SBS in CA without a CADOJ SBS permit in the first place.

Greg-Dawg
09-01-2010, 3:08 PM
Buy his other guns.

CSACANNONEER
09-01-2010, 3:35 PM
He's on swat, has it authorized by his department on official letterhead by the chief. But I will forward him the information. I suppose thats why he wants to get rid of it, since its a hassle to have in CA. What happend to all the citizens who bought them legally before they were deemed illegal by the DOJ?

So he's a SWAT officer who is comitting a felony by owning this? I guess it really doesn't make a difference since his cheif obviously supports his officers owning illegal weapons. You see, his chief does not how the the power to authorize his officers to privately own these. So, what dept. is this? I would really hope that most LEOs are a little smarter than this. Their income, pensions and FREEDOM can be taken from them for doing things like this.

chiefnpd
09-01-2010, 3:50 PM
I am a retired police chief. The answer has been stated many times. No he may not posess or sell that weapon. Police chiefs do not own their dept. weapons.
I had a sbs and it had to be registered with ATF. not by me but thru the department I worked for. There is no way aroundthis law, no matter how many what if's are thrown around. No means no

maddoggie13
09-01-2010, 3:58 PM
No...

raw24
09-01-2010, 4:04 PM
I assume that this is a CA LEO we are talking about.
Is so, When, Where and How was the Judge purchased?

My guess is, from out of state and then imported in during a move?

Does anyone know of somebody that did this and then tried to register it as a personal handgun importer? Curious to know what the outcome was.

It seems the Judge comes up in this forum ever month or two with a similar question. With them being perfectly legal in surrounding states, Im sure some one has moved into CA and never had a second thought about it being a SBS by definition.

Search returned no results

ke6guj
09-01-2010, 4:09 PM
there are some CA FFLs that would sell Judges to LEOs. They would just enter it in as a roster-exempt transfer. I don't know exactly what they entered into the computer for specs, maybe just .45LC as the caliber. Just because they did it, and CADOJ did not deny the DROS doesn't mean its legal. Some people opined that CADOJ was letting them go through so that they could nail the FFL later on for the illegal transfer.

Two Shots
09-01-2010, 4:12 PM
I have a LEO friend who owns a brand new in box (impulse buy on his behalf) Taurus Judge. He's been a friend of mine for almost 20 years. Im just curious with the law as stated can he legally transfer it to me? He's going to sell it to me for $200 (which is a STEAL!) And I wanted to know is this legal?
Thanks in advanced!

This guy is just messing with everyone, $200 for a NIB Judge, I see this as a gotcha post. :rofl2:

olhunter
09-01-2010, 4:21 PM
Let's recap and see what we got here.

1) No, you can't buy it. I wouldn't even touch it.
2) There is no 'pre-ban' because it's never been legal in the first place.
3) Your LEO friend can't possess/own it in Ca. either. Doesn't matter what 'letter' his chief gave him.
4) If his Dept owned it, they could authorize him to carry and use it on-duty.
5) If his Dept owned it, he can't sell it. Duh.

Anything else?

So someone better get his ducks-in-a-row quick-like.

raw24
09-01-2010, 4:26 PM
there are some CA FFLs that would sell Judges to LEOs. They would just enter it in as a roster-exempt transfer. I don't know exactly what they entered into the computer for specs, maybe just .45LC as the caliber. Just because they did it, and CADOJ did not deny the DROS doesn't mean its legal. Some people opined that CADOJ was letting them go through so that they could nail the FFL later on for the illegal transfer.

Any know reports of a 'NEW RESIDENT HANDGUN OWNERSHIP REPORT" that was approved, and had a confirmation notice of the Handgun Ownership Report?

Wouldn't this mean you were good to go?

ke6guj
09-01-2010, 4:32 PM
Any know reports of a 'NEW RESIDENT HANDGUN OWNERSHIP REPORT" that was approved, and had a confirmation notice of the Handgun Ownership Report?haven't heard about any.

Wouldn't this mean you were good to go?

maybe not "good to go", but if something happened later on, the fact that they approved it should be usable in a defense.

olhunter
09-01-2010, 5:15 PM
You know it's a felony, right?








Sorry, couldn't resist.:rolleyes:

ke6guj
09-01-2010, 5:15 PM
For everyone freaking out, yes he DOES have it registered with the ATF as a SBS. And in regards to me purchasing it I completely understand, the many barrages of "it's a felony" being repeated over and over aren't necessary.

Thanks for the information.

ATF or CADOJ?

A stock Judge is not a federally defined SBS, so I don't know why it woudlbe registered as such with them.

CA law does consider it an SBS, so he would need to have a CADOJ SBS Dangerrous Weapon permit, which must be renewed yearly. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12095.php . And even if he, as a member of swat has a CADOJ SBS permit, the chances of you being able to get one are practically nil.

just4fun63
09-01-2010, 5:26 PM
Why is everyone assuming that a Cal LEA can understand Cal gun laws! Remember the Fresno Co. DA sued the DOJ because they couldn't figure out what the law says! Trust me they don't get any training from DOJ

CrippledPidgeon
09-01-2010, 6:17 PM
If I were Taurus, I'd make a new revolver that's exactly the same as the Judge, just marked .45 Colt on the barrel, and called the "Jury."

olhunter
09-01-2010, 6:29 PM
If I were Taurus, I'd make a new revolver that's exactly the same as the Judge, just marked .45 Colt on the barrel, and called the "Jury."

Sounds good, but a no-go. The Judge was clearly 'designed' to fire a fixed shotgun shell. No other reason for that giant, 3" cylinder.

12020 (c)(1) PC -

As used in this section, a "short-barreled shotgun" means any of the following:

(A)A firearm which is designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell and having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length.

I like the name though. I bet they already have that in the works. Maybe when they make a 20 ga revolver! And the 12 ga will be "The Executioner". That hurts just thinking about it.

butch952
09-01-2010, 7:04 PM
This whole thing smells fishy to me, there are no "pre CA ban" taurus judge's. No matter how you look at it it is a SBS in CA and cannot be personally owned by an officer.That being said no you cannot own, posses or transfer this handgun in CA.

cmth
09-01-2010, 8:09 PM
The only possible way to own a Judge would be to import one that has been registered as an AOW. Apparently there is a scheme being figured out to do just that. It would involve putting a VFG on the gun and blocking the cylinder for a single shot to be roster exempt. After the registration and transfer is complete, it could be restored to full capacity. It would transfer to the buyer on a $5 stamp. I don't expect many of these to be sold, but there may be some legally-owned Judges in CA in the near future.

sevensix2x51
09-01-2010, 8:24 PM
the glock 18 would be way cooler than a judge. you should buy one of those.

olhunter
09-01-2010, 8:37 PM
The only possible way to own a Judge would be to import one that has been registered as an AOW. Apparently there is a scheme being figured out to do just that. It would involve putting a VFG on the gun and blocking the cylinder for a single shot to be roster exempt. After the registration and transfer is complete, it could be restored to full capacity. It would transfer to the buyer on a $5 stamp. I don't expect many of these to be sold, but there may be some legally-owned Judges in CA in the near future.

I don't see how. It doesn't matter if it's AOW registered, single-shot, off-roster, on-roster, whatever. It's going to be an SBS in Ca. It was designed to fire a shotgun shell and there's no getting around 12020PC (Ok, there is, but not for the usual suspects). Unless you weld a 18" barrel on it and somehow make it 26" overall. Then maybe.

the glock 18 would be way cooler than a judge. you should buy one of those.

What he said.

BigDogatPlay
09-01-2010, 10:41 PM
Um...law enforcement + letter from department = exemption for short barrel shotgun.

No... the department has to own and issue any SBS or SBR. They can not be personally purchased / owned by LEOs, even with the department letterhead.

LEO personally owning a Taurus Judge in CA = felony.

Anchors
09-01-2010, 11:06 PM
^I lol'd. But any firearm "designed to fire a fixed shell cartridge" or whatever it says, under 18" is an SBS.
That's why many people say some .45 can fire .410, so the Judge is fine, but the fact that it was intended to be used as a "shotgun" means it isn't fine.

Ugly, stupid gun IMO anyway.
And I agree, the more they tell you you can't have it, the more you want it out of spite.

ke6guj
09-01-2010, 11:40 PM
I don't see how. It doesn't matter if it's AOW registered, single-shot, off-roster, on-roster, whatever. It's going to be an SBS in Ca. It was designed to fire a shotgun shell and there's no getting around 12020PC (Ok, there is, but not for the usual suspects). Unless you weld a 18" barrel on it and somehow make it 26" overall. Then maybe.
If it is a properly registered AOW, it is exempt from CA's SBS law.

12020. (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:

(8) Any other weapon as defined in subsection (e) of Section 5845 of Title 26 of the United States Code and which is in the possession of a person permitted to possess the weapons pursuant to the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-618), as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto. Any person prohibited by Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code from possessing these weapons who obtains title to these weapons by bequest or intestate succession may retain title for not more than one year, but actual possession of these weapons at any time is punishable pursuant to Section 12021, 12021.1, or 12101 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Within the year, the person shall transfer title to the weapons by sale, gift, or other disposition. Any person who violates this paragraph is in violation of subdivision (a). The exemption provided in this subdivision does not apply to pen guns.

That is the reason why CA residents can, and do, own Serbu Super Shorties and Witness Protection 870s. Look here, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=293919

cmth
09-01-2010, 11:50 PM
I don't see how. It doesn't matter if it's AOW registered, single-shot, off-roster, on-roster, whatever. It's going to be an SBS in Ca. It was designed to fire a shotgun shell and there's no getting around 12020PC (Ok, there is, but not for the usual suspects). Unless you weld a 18" barrel on it and somehow make it 26" overall. Then maybe.

AOWs other than pen guns are legal in CA. While CA does have their own definition of an SBS, which the Judge meets, as an AOW it would be exempt from that law. There is a huge thread in the 2A forum on why AOWs are legal, and why AOWs that would otherwise be SBSes are also legal. OC Armory is currently selling Serbu Super Shorties in CA, and they aren't breaking any law by doing so. AOW Judges would also be legal. They will probably be selling them before the end of the year.

leelaw
09-02-2010, 1:15 AM
If it is a properly registered AOW, it is exempt from CA's SBS law.



That is the reason why CA residents can, and do, own Serbu Super Shorties and Witness Protection 870s. Look here, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=293919

You are confusing AOWs with SBSs.

According to CA penal code, the Judge is an SBS. According to the Feds, the Judge is a handgun.

There is no protection for Judge owners, since there is no federal SBS registration for it.

Additionally, SBS, AOW, and other similar title guns require that they be inherently legal in the locality that they are registered, which is partly the reason for the CLEO signoff. In order for an SBS to be legal in CA, the registree needs to possess an SBR permit. Unless the officer and OP have an SBR permit, then the OP can not come to possess the Judge lawfully in California. Additionally, if the officer personally owns the Judge, and it is not a Department-owned gun for duty use, he is in unlawful possession of an SBS.

TangoCharlie
09-02-2010, 1:19 AM
Does the Judge have a smooth or rifled bore?

If rifled then it cannot be an AOW based on the "Smooth Bore Pistol" definition as it applies to Serbus and other shotgun-based AOWs.

A Judge with a vertical foregrip might be an AOW since it's no longer a "handgun" designed to be fired with one hand.

ke6guj
09-02-2010, 1:28 AM
You are confusing AOWs with SBSs.
umm, no, I'm not.

According to CA penal code, the Judge is an SBS. According to the Feds, the Judge is a handgun.Correct, CA says the Judge is an SBS and the feds say that a stock Judge is merely a handgun.

There is no protection for Judge owners, since there is no federal SBS registration for it.[for a stock Judge, yes, not legal in CA. But my comments were regarding a modified Judge, one that was turned into an AOW by way of installation of a VFG. Or have the barrel replaced with a smooth bore barrel. Either method turns the Judge into a federally-defined AOW, and if properly registered with the feds, it is legal in CA.

Additionally, SBS, AOW, and other similar title guns require that they be inherently legal in the locality that they are registered, which is partly the reason for the CLEO signoff. In order for an SBS to be legal in CA, the registree needs to possess an SBR permit. Unless the officer and OP have an SBR permit, then the OP can not come to possess the Judge lawfully in California. Additionally, if the officer personally owns the Judge, and it is not a Department-owned gun for duty use, he is in unlawful possession of an SBS.correct, in order to own an CA-defined SBS in CA, you must have a CA SBS permit, or fall under another exemption to 12020. An AOW that is properly registered is exempt from CA's SBS law. Or, if you find a C&R SBS, it is exempt from CA's SBS law as well, provided you have the tax stamp for it.

ke6guj
09-02-2010, 1:31 AM
Does the Judge have a smooth or rifled bore?

If rifled then it cannot be an AOW based on the "Smooth Bore Pistol" definition as it applies to Serbus and other shotgun-based AOWs.

A Judge with a vertical foregrip might be an AOW since it's no longer a "handgun" designed to be fired with one hand.A stock judge has a rifled barrel. If it had a smoothbore barrel, yes, it would be an AOW and Taurus could not sell them the way they do. So, they rifle the barrel to keep it from being considered an AOW.

Regarding getting Judges into CA, the two options are to either swap out the barrel for a smoothbore barrel, or having a VFG installed onto it. It appears that OCarmory is working on getting some Judges made more evil so that the feds consider them to be AOWs, and therefore they would be CA-legal.

CSACANNONEER
09-02-2010, 8:02 AM
So, if a Judge was remanufactured into an AOW, one would not have to worry about the "revolving cylinder" Ca AW thing, right?

cmth
09-02-2010, 8:17 AM
So, if a Judge was remanufactured into an AOW, one would not have to worry about the "revolving cylinder" Ca AW thing, right?

That only applies to "shotguns with revolving cylinders". AOWs are not shotguns because they are not designed to be fired from the shoulder. PC 12020:

(21) As used in this section, a "shotgun" means a weapon designed
or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the
shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the
energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a
smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single
projectile for each pull of the trigger.

What's funny about CA's laws is that the firearm does not need to be shoulder fired to be considered a short-barreled shotgun (legally distinct from a shotgun), which is why the Judge is a short-barreled shotgun but not a shotgun. Once the gun is converted to an AOW, it can no longer be an SBS.

762.DEFENSE
09-02-2010, 10:08 AM
So then a Serbu Super Shorty or Keg 12; as sold by OC Armory in Laguna Hills would be time/money well spent rather than dealing with a Judge. Sounds good to me, plus the Serbu's are wayyyy nicer by far.

ke6guj
09-02-2010, 12:08 PM
So, if a Judge was remanufactured into an AOW, one would not have to worry about the "revolving cylinder" Ca AW thing, right?

correct. A Judge without a shoulder stock, either in stock configuration, or AOW'ed, does not meet the definition of a shotgun (even though it meets the CA defintion of an SBS), so it should not fall under the AW regs that prohibit a "shotgun with a revolving cylinder".

Roccobro
09-02-2010, 2:05 PM
I can sense the jealousy in half the "it's a felony" posts. :p

Justin

CSACANNONEER
09-02-2010, 2:33 PM
I can sense the jealousy in half the "it's a felony" posts. :p

Justin

I own 5 .410s but, I would never pay a nickel for a Judge. They are just another tacticool gun which doesn't serve any real purpose. For snakes, I already custom load my own shotshells in several calibers and they work fine. A Judge would be close to last on my list for a SD gun. Except for the mall ninja crowd, no one is jealous. Besides, who in their right mind would be jealous of a felon?

Roccobro
09-02-2010, 8:15 PM
I own 5 .410s but, I would never pay a nickel for a Judge. They are just another tacticool gun which doesn't serve any real purpose. For snakes, I already custom load my own shotshells in several calibers and they work fine. A Judge would be close to last on my list for a SD gun. Except for the mall ninja crowd, no one is jealous. Besides, who in their right mind would be jealous of a felon?

Just because you can rationalize it doesn't mean other still don't want it. ;)

FACT: people are looking for ways to get (more) of them into CA legally. Must be because nobody wants them, huh?

Justin

BigDogatPlay
09-02-2010, 8:54 PM
I can sense the jealousy in half the "it's a felony" posts. :p

Justin

No jealousy at all.... it's a solution in search of a problem. There are far better tools in the shed than the Judge.

Roccobro
09-02-2010, 10:15 PM
No jealousy at all.... it's a solution in search of a problem. There are far better tools in the shed than the Judge.

Agreed. But people STILL want them.

You can say YOU aren't jealous, but with people talking and acting on how to get them in, somebody sure wants them!

Justin

Cyc Wid It
09-02-2010, 10:19 PM
I have 0 motivation at all to even shoot one much less own one.

CalNRA
09-02-2010, 10:37 PM
I'm curious how this supposedly real life person even managed to DROS a judge in the first place....

BigDogatPlay
09-03-2010, 6:49 AM
Agreed. But some people STILL want them.

Fixed it for you... :)

For those that jones after them, there is (certainly) some manner of cool factor that they, personally, have attached to them. Then, of course, there is the fact that the Judge is made of unobtainium..... some people just have to lust after what they can't have. In California anyway.

But for people who really know guns and look at them as tools to do a job, the Judge is little more than either a novelty or firearm that fills a very tiny niche. And concealed carry / personal defense doesn't fit into that niche, IMO. That Taurus has marketed it brilliantly goes without saying.

CSACANNONEER
09-03-2010, 7:08 AM
Agreed. But people STILL want them.

You can say YOU aren't jealous, but with people talking and acting on how to get them in, somebody sure wants them!

Justin

I'm sure you are right. There are a lot of mall ninjas around.

turbosbox
09-03-2010, 7:52 AM
correct. A Judge without a shoulder stock, either in stock configuration, or AOW'ed, does not meet the definition of a shotgun (even though it meets the CA defintion of an SBS), so it should not fall under the AW regs that prohibit a "shotgun with a revolving cylinder".
Agree:
IIRC from reading it never had a stock and was never a conventional shotgun, so not a shotgun or short barrel shotgun. The same way a revolver is not a short barrel rifle. So it would be an AOW if not for the rifled bore. I think I read CA specifically mentions the judge as a no go. Maybe they do call it a SBS but in common definitions it would be an AOW if smoothbore, not short barrel shotgun.

I am in the popular opinion here of him getting it turned in or to a state where it is legally owned right away.

Quiet
09-03-2010, 8:05 AM
Agree:
IIRC from reading it never had a stock and was never a conventional shotgun, so not a shotgun or short barrel shotgun. The same way a revolver is not a short barrel rifle. So it would be an AOW if not for the rifled bore. I think I read CA specifically mentions the judge as a no go. Maybe they do call it a SBS but in common definitions it would be an AOW if smoothbore, not short barrel shotgun.

I am in the popular opinion here of him getting it turned in or to a state where it is legally owned right away.

CA's definition of a SBS does not require it to also meet the definition of a shotgun. So, a firearm can be classified as a SBS, but not as a shotgun.

CA law also allows handguns to be classified as a SBS or SBR.


The Taurus Judge meets the definition of a SBS under PC 12020(c)(1)(A) and the definition under PC 12020(c)(1)(B). In addition, PC 12001(f) states that even though the Taurus Judge is a handgun, it can also be classified as a SBS/SBR.


Penal Code 12001
(f) Nothing shall prevent a device defined as a "handgun," "pistol," "revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" from also being found to be a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled rifle, as defined in Section 12020.

Penal Code 12020
(c)(1) As used in this section, a "short-barreled shotgun" means any of the following:
(A) A firearm which is designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell and having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length.
(B) A firearm which has an overall length of less than 26 inches and which is designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell.
(C) Any weapon made from a shotgun (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length.
(D) Any device which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell which, when so restored, is a device defined in subparagraphs (A) to (C) inclusive.
(E) Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended to convert a device into a device defined in subparagraphs (A) to (C) inclusive, or any combination of parts from which a device defined in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, can be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

Roccobro
09-03-2010, 12:58 PM
Agreed. But people STILL want them.


Fixed it for you... :)

Thanks! That is truly what I meant. They are like the vocal very minority, but they are here.

Justin

Malthusian
09-03-2010, 1:21 PM
Troll


The OP is Trolling


I have an LEO that wants to transfer his pre ban fully automatic 50 cal machine gun to me for $50




duh

dfletcher
09-03-2010, 1:43 PM
The premise of that statement is already incorrect. The rim on a 410 shell is larger than the rim on a .45LC case (and that includes the .454 Casull and the .460 S&W, which are all lengthened .45LC rounds). A "sensibly" chambered .45LC will not be able to accept a .410 shell, because the rim won't fit into the rebate.

Now, someone *could theoretically* take a .410 chamber reamer, shorten it, and ream out the rim rebate on a .45/.454/.460 chamber. If someone did that, one could argue that they have just converted a .45LC (or .454 or .460) gun into one intended to fire .410 shells, and manufactured a California SBS.

Even that reasoning is, however, incorrect: the shortest .410 shells that are available (either pre-made commercially, or hand-loaded using commercially available crimping dies) are 2 1/2" long, and there is no .45/... round that is that long. So even changing the rim rebate doesn't allow a .45/.454/.460 revolver to accept .410 shotgun shells.

Obviously, someone could hand-load ultra-short (1 1/4") .410 shotgun shells. But that would be silly - at that point, you might as well load up .45LC shells with the same shot load, and not get into the whole "fixed shotgun shell" debate.

Warning: The 45-70 rifle round is a different kettle of fish: a gun chambered for 45-70 rounds can also accept unmodified commercial .410 shotgun shells. For that reason, one should *not* have a 45-70 capable handgun or a rifle with a barrel shorter than 18" in California; even though they are not intended for .410 shells, nor stamped in that caliber on the barrel, an eager deputy or DA might make trouble.

I haven't tested the whether a 410 will fit, I suppose anything is possible and as a new angle it is interesting. I think "no 45/70 handguns" for fear of CA SBS laws is a stretch and I've heard of no DA making that leap. No, I don't want to be the first .... :( T/C barrels (and BFR) are rifled & stamped caliber specific. Again, I'm not saying that sort of thing is impossible, some folks take the approach that any device on a muzzle "could be" construed as an FH or suppressor and have nothing. I guess we make our choices.

I suppose if one had only a T/C handgun in 45/70 and only 410 shotgun shells then interest could be raised, or a Marlin Camp Gun/NEF with a 16" bbl and 410 shells only.

A touch disappointing that we have to constantly think along these lines in CA.

ke6guj
09-03-2010, 2:19 PM
I haven't tested the whether a 410 will fit, I suppose anything is possible and as a new angle it is interesting. I think "no 45/70 handguns" for fear of CA SBS laws is a stretch and I've heard of no DA making that leap. No, I don't want to be the first .... :( T/C barrels (and BFR) are rifled & stamped caliber specific. Again, I'm not saying that sort of thing is impossible, some folks take the approach that any device on a muzzle "could be" construed as an FH or suppressor and have nothing. I guess we make our choices.

I suppose if one had only a T/C handgun in 45/70 and only 410 shotgun shells then interest could be raised, or a Marlin Camp Gun/NEF with a 16" bbl and 410 shells only.

A touch disappointing that we have to constantly think along these lines in CA.The law says that the firearm must be "designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell" which should hopefully exempt a 45/70 chambered <18" barreled firearm from the SBS regs. Just like a fiream with a .45LC-only chambered firearm would be exempt from the regs. It is only those firearms that are chambered with the hybrid .45LC/410 chambers that should fall under the regs. But, if you were found using 410 shells with that 45/70 firearm, I could see a potential SBS charge.

the "designed or redesigned" language in the SBS ban is different than that of the .50BMG rifle ban, which just says "a center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge ". The rifle doesn't have to designed to fire the .50BMG round, just that it can. That is why we had to go with the .510DTC round instead of the .50Russian round. IIRC, a .50BMG round will fire in a .50Russian chamber, but not recommended. Similar to how a .308 round can be fired in a .30-06 chamber, doable, but not recommended.