PDA

View Full Version : Military Exemption For Aw!!!!


shonc99
08-08-2006, 9:06 AM
EDITED 9-25-07.

After renewing my initial permit and sending a letter with questions for clarification, here is the most comprehensive info I have.

Military Assault Weapons Permit (MAWP)

Active duty, non-CA resident military members may apply for this permit. You must call the CA Division of Firearms to get the permit application.

The permit application consists of 2 FBI fingerprint cards (same type of cards for security clearance applications), an application form and a listing of the pertinent statutes relating to the application and the permit. It currently costs $78 for the permit and there is no renewal fee provided that the renewal form is returned on time. You have to mail everything above back as well as a copy of your orders.

Notes:
1. This is a permit for what you already have, not a license to purchase other AW's after you get it. (that would be a AW license which is something different)
It does NOT state that you had to own the particular AW's BEFORE being stationed here in CA.
-I had been here in CA for 10 years when I got the permit and I didn't get into guns until 2 years ago-
SO- what this means is that you need to make sure you own every AW you would want before you return the registration form.

2. If you have something that would be banned if you added evil features (SB23 law) then you should register them even if you don't think you would want the features later. (It's always better to have the ability to add the "evil" features if you want to.)
-Things like a M-14 SOCOM or Ruger Mini-14 are sometimes nicer with a pistol grip/ folding stock. There are other things like a pistol with a threaded barrel which would apply here as well.

3. There is nothing indicated on the form as to a limit to how many firearms you may register. The application form I got was a copy of a copy which struck me as odd, but the form states, "use additonal sheets as necessary" right under the three initial lines for firearms info. I initially (Note A.) registered 5 firearms. More on that below.

4. On the registration form it states make, model, serial number and caliber. If you are registering an AR or other multi-caliber firearm, list all the possible calibers. For my AR's I put .223, .224, 50BEO (Beowulf), 9mm, 7.62X39, 22LR- etc.
-When the permit (a letter actually) comes back it will list "multi" under the caliber. What this means is that if you have an AR type of firearm, you could put ANY caliber upper- including a 50BMG. But, this is actually a moot point as you can also register a Barrett 50 cal as it is also an AW.

5. It currently costs $78 for the permit and is free to renew. It has to be renewed yearly and they send the renewal out 2 months before the expiration. They want it back before 30 days out. If it is returned within 30 days of the expiration you have to pay something like $25 and if it doesn't get back before the expiration date, you have to pay $78 before they will send out the renewed permit.

6. If you get out or retire, the firearms have to go. Reserves are not eligible, Active duty only. Also, while I do not have a CA drivers license, having own doesn't seem to disqualify. It is wherever you pay state taxes to, IE your home or record. Also, there isn't anything that states you can't change your residency before applying, nor how much time you would have to wait before applying. The issue here is changing your state of residency through the Military.

7. If you are transferred out of CA, you need to let Yolanda know so she can remove you from the permit list. If you get transferred back at a later date you will have to re-apply for a new permit for the firearms you own at THAT point (at least the ones you want to register) In a letter I wrote, the response back did not indicate how long you had to be stationed OUT of CA before re-applying for a new permit. If I am not mistaken, the ATF requires you to live the preceeding 30 days in the respective state before you are considered a resident. (I do not know how the military TAD/TDY affects this)

(Note A.) When I got the renewal I called Yolanda to ask if I should renew because I thought I might be transferred within the next year. I also asked her if I should renew since there were firearms that I didn't register because I didn't think I would want them here. Her reply was that I could add them- even though the form and asssociated paperwork seemed to state otherwise. She refered to the fact that I had to have owned them before getting the initial permit and sice I did, I could add them. Without saying so, it seemed as if you could change what you had on the permit so long as you owned the firearms before getting the first initial permit. This would allow you to rotate the weapons that you again- already owned and not have to keep them here at all times. But, just because you have them on the form doesn't mean that you can't store them out of state. This is the better option as you don't have to worry about making changes every year which the DOJ might question.

So, before you turn the form in, make sure you own everything you would want. Also, it doesn't matter if you are registering a complete firearm or bare receiver. If you can't afford a complete particular firearm, just get the bare receiver.

I do not know about home-made firearms, but if they have a serial number and the mfg (you) then you might be good to go. The DOJ would be better able to answer that.

Also, Class II firearms, such as supressors, SBR's, DD's and AOW's are NOT covered under this permit.

Read and re-read this a few times and then ask questions if you have them.

ohsmily
08-08-2006, 9:11 AM
I might be missing something, but....

There are no "OLLs" outside of a CA. A Lauer is the same as a Colt lower in another state. This doesn't change anything. I think are you confused.

In all three of the situations above, the person could buy any AR-15 they want and seek an AW exemption for active duty military, regardless of whether it is Colt or Stag. This is old news.

shonc99
08-08-2006, 9:25 AM
I haven't found the other thread with the AR-15 link but I thought this was something that others did not know about. Yes, OLL is something that applies to this state only. I stated someone buying an OLL outside CA to avoid confusion about military members not being able to register an OLL as an AW. I believed that most military people thought that they could only register a listed lower.

ohsmily
08-08-2006, 9:28 AM
I haven't found the other thread with the AR-15 link but I thought this was something that others did not know about. Yes, OLL is something that applies to this state only. I stated someone buying an OLL outside CA to avoid confusion about military members not being able to register an OLL as an AW. I believed that most military people thought that they could only register a listed lower.

Ah, I see what you are saying, now. However, I think people udnerstood that they could get their special registration for any firearm designated as an AW by CA law, by feature, or by list.

It is important to note that this stuff only applies to active duty military who are stationed here who are not residents of CA (or weren't before the deployment order to CA anyway).

metalhead357
08-08-2006, 11:51 AM
AND you might want to DOUBLE CHECK that bit about Hi-cap mags; there's NO importation to the state~ I could be wrong but I thought the military AW exemption did NOT cover that............:cool:

2Trips
08-08-2006, 11:57 AM
AND you might want to DOUBLE CHECK that bit about Hi-cap mags; there's NO importation to the state~ I could be wrong but I thought the military AW exemption did NOT cover that............:cool:
That shouldn't be a problem. You should have several M-16 mags anyway. :D

shonc99
08-08-2006, 12:02 PM
What I meant was that if you already owned hi-cap mags that you could use them in a registered AW. Basically, that having the Military AW permit allows for a full "featured" AR or anything else that would be an AW by California standards.

As a military member, if I go out of this state and back to my state of residence, I can purchase something there (following their respective laws) and then apply for a permit before bringing it into this state. I cannot sell, trade, loan etc. it here but can do whatever with it once I am over the state line.

blkA4alb
08-08-2006, 12:02 PM
That shouldn't be a problem. You should have several M-16 mags anyway. :D
If he never lived in California before the ban than it is impossible for him to have had them in the state then. So no, nice first post advocating something illegal as well :rolleyes: .

Welcome..

blkA4alb
08-08-2006, 12:04 PM
What I meant was that if you already owned hi-cap mags that you could use them in a registered AW.
If he is in the Military from out of California he could not have had the hi caps in the state before the ban. He would have had to have lived here since before the ban, i.e. 2000.

2Trips
08-08-2006, 12:04 PM
If he never lived in california before the ban than it is impossible for him to have had them in the state then. So no, nice first post advocating something illegal as well :rolleyes: .

Welcome..
I have six M-16 magazines that I acquired last year. They were issued to me by the Marine Corps. They are in my house right now. We are talking about a military exemption, right? Military members have high-cap mags.

blkA4alb
08-08-2006, 12:08 PM
I have six M-16 magazines that I acquired last year. They were issued to me by the Marine Corps. They are in my house right now. We are talking about a military exemption, right? Military members have high-cap mags.
The question is whether there is a military exemption for importing hi cap magazines and I don't believe there is one. There is nothing in the law that states that it is ok for with a military AW permit to import hi cap magazines. If you can show me somewhere that there is an exemption please do.

metalhead357
08-08-2006, 12:09 PM
The question is whether there is a military exemption for importing hi cap magazines and I don't believe there is one. There is nothing in the law that states that it is ok for with a military AW permit to import hi cap magazines. If you can show me somewhere that there is an exemption please do.

that is/was my take on it too.

As for the Marine Corp's property~ I didnt think you were allowed to take them home or use for 'personal' use:confused:

blkA4alb
08-08-2006, 12:13 PM
that is/was my take on it too.

As for the Marine Corp's property~ I didnt think you were allowed to take them home or use for 'personal' use:confused:
Exactily, I had written but deleted that the military is allowed to use hi caps on the base and for training etc. But not to issue to take home for personal use or anything of that matter. The law says that you had to have owned them before the ban. And even if the corps gave them to him it says in the law that hi caps cannot be gifted or loaned.

metalhead357
08-08-2006, 12:15 PM
The *only* exemption to that/mags~ if indeed one can take them home~ would be if he lived ON base.....Think that'd still fall under full federal authority and not state.......

Hmmmm, interesting thread:)

blkA4alb
08-08-2006, 12:18 PM
The *only* exemption to that/mags~ if indeed one can take them home~ would be if he lived ON base.....Think that'd still fall under full federal authority and not state.......

Hmmmm, interesting thread:)
Interesting yes, but it seems settled. And yes I'm sure hi caps are fine on the base as it is federally owned. I'd like to see a LEO try and take a Marines magazine on the base :eek: .

2Trips
08-08-2006, 12:50 PM
that is/was my take on it too.

As for the Marine Corp's property~ I didnt think you were allowed to take them home or use for 'personal' use:confused:
I keep them with my flak, kevlar, etc wrapped up in a waterproof sleeping bag, all of it government property, all of it my responsibility, and it is fine to have it in my house.
I never said "import into california", I said "have." It would not be okay to take them to the range, but for home defense I don't see any reason not to use them.

2Trips
08-08-2006, 12:52 PM
Take LEO's and hi-caps for example. My father is an LEO. He carries a SIG P226 in .40 SW with hi-caps. He takes it home with him. It is not his property, but it lives in his safe, and if his life was threatened, he would defend his home with it, regardless of whether it is government property. Same thing with me and my M-16 30 rounders.

blkA4alb
08-08-2006, 1:05 PM
Are you trying to say that because someone else does it besides you that it is legal? :rolleyes: Also, I believe that police are allowed (or maybe required) to keep their patrol weapon with them at the house, do you take your select fire M16 home with you?

blkA4alb
08-08-2006, 1:08 PM
...I never said "import into california", I said "have." ...
I was using the term import loosely. It is still illegal to come into personal possession of a high capacity magazine after the ban. Whether you imported it or it was given to you or loaned to you. It all falls under the same category.

grammaton76
08-08-2006, 1:16 PM
Are you trying to say that because someone else does it besides you that it is legal? :rolleyes: Also, I believe that police are allowed (or maybe required) to keep their patrol weapon with them at the house, do you take your select fire M16 home with you?

Dude, we're talking about magazines, not weapons. All the branches are pretty tight with their select fire goodies. However, at least in the Marines, mags are issued with the rest of their gear and tend to follow the marine around - I know because I've had a number of Marine friends over the years. None of them have even mentioned this being so much as frowned upon.

Just because it's illegal for US as civilians, does not mean that it applies to the military folks who're issued their gear and expected to keep it with them. Where do you THINK they're supposed to be keeping their issued gear if they live off base?

Once they out-process, they're not supposed to hold onto those mags. On the other hand, so far everyone I know who's been in Iraq has been issued mags that were never requested back.

2Trips
08-08-2006, 1:19 PM
Are you trying to say that because someone else does it besides you that it is legal? :rolleyes: Also, I believe that police are allowed (or maybe required) to keep their patrol weapon with them at the house, do you take your select fire M16 home with you?
No, but I am required to have the mags at my house with my other 782 gear.
If my weapon was an M9 I would have several high-cap berreta mags in my house. If I also owned a 92FS, I don't see any reason not to utilize them for home defense.

2Trips
08-08-2006, 1:20 PM
I was using the term import loosely. It is still illegal to come into personal possession of a high capacity magazine after the ban. Whether you imported it or it was given to you or loaned to you. It all falls under the same category.
LOL okay dude, tell that to the Marine Corps. I'll mention that next time. "Don't you know those weapons are illegal?"

metalhead357
08-08-2006, 1:22 PM
Interesting take folks; I knew 'gear' could go home as in clothes and web gear- but never thought much about the accoutriments such as mags before now.

I too was using the term "import" loosely.........

koiloco
08-08-2006, 1:52 PM
Ah, I see what you are saying, now. However, I think people udnerstood that they could get their special registration for any firearm designated as an AW by CA law, by feature, or by list.

It is important to note that this stuff only applies to active duty military who are stationed here who are not residents of CA (or weren't before the deployment order to CA anyway).

I would never think of this day but :)))) it happened

I think it's "UNDERSTOOD" not UDNERSTOOD :D

shonc99
08-08-2006, 2:13 PM
As far as magazines go, I do not know about Marines using hi-cap mags for personal use as I am Navy. I did not mean to imply that someone could import hi-cap mags as well as an AW. Basically if you didn't own the hi-cap mag before 2000, then tough. I was more excited to find out that the military exemption was true and just how easy it appears to be.

ohsmily
08-08-2006, 2:53 PM
I would never think of this day but :)))) it happened

I think it's "UNDERSTOOD" not UDNERSTOOD :D

Really? You mean, it's not spelled "udnerstood"? Wow, amazing! Thank you for educating me on the proper way to spell it. I ALWAYS spell it "udnerstood"; good thing you set me straight. :rolleyes:


(NOTE: First of all, I don't correct people anymore (with few exceptions). Second, even when I did, I did not correct simple typos or the transposition of 2 letters. Big difference between spelling "definitely" like this: "defenataly" compared to this: "definiteyl". In the former, someone clearly can't spell and intended to spell the word as such; in the latter, they inadvertantly missed the key. You may find plenty of typos of kind in the latter example in my posts. I don't scour my posts looking for errors nor do I run a spell check. I just know how to spell but have the occasional missed key like anyone else. Good day.)...

xLusi0n
08-08-2006, 5:03 PM
This permit is nothing new. Any one PCSing to CA can bring their "AW" and get a permit. However, once you leave or retire, you can no longer own it in CA.


There is another permit for military/LE that allows you to get a permit for AW/MG/SBRs, but that one is pretty hard to get unless you department supports it and you can justify that you have a need (trainer, special ops, etc...)

Paul1960
08-08-2006, 5:25 PM
This permit is nothing new. Any one PCSing to CA can bring their "AW" and get a permit. However, once you leave or retire, you can no longer own it in CA.

This is true. You have a period upon retirement to notify the CA DOJ and to remove the weapons. I fell into a catch 22 where I lived in California pre-ban, was out of California when the registration came down, and moved (PCS'ed) back following the ban. I brought my magazines down prior to the ban and wasn't allowed to register my weapons as a non-resident "just visiting". So that meant my magazines were left behind and my rifles were brough down under the MAWP.

My permit number has a very very low number on it so not many are taking advantage of this permit. My standing is that if the military citizens are allowed personnally owned assualt weapons that the non-military citizens are allowed personally owned assault weapons. There aren't two citizen classes set up any where in the Consitution that I can find.

Slavery was over thrown +140 years ago ... yet our progressive masters in Sacramento tell us which American rights apply inside of California's borders in violation of the ten amendment to the United States Constituion.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Librarian
08-08-2006, 5:37 PM
I was using the term import loosely. It is still illegal to come into personal possession of a high capacity magazine after the ban. Whether you imported it or it was given to you or loaned to you. It all falls under the same category.Just to support this: If Uncle Sam issues you standard-caps, and it's OK to take them home, off base, with your other issue gear, then everything ought to be cool.

The CA law at PC 12020 says12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:

...

(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity
magazine.The law allows exceptions - see 12020 (a)(19)-(32) - 19 (19) The sale of, giving of, lending of, importation into this
state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any
federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is
charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees
in the discharge of their official duties whether on or off duty, and
where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course
and scope of their duties. - looks like it covers the issue-to-active-duty situation, but I can't find one that covers military AW licensees and their private weapons and magazines.

QuickOnTheDraw
08-08-2006, 5:40 PM
[QUOTE=ohsmily]Really? You mean, it's not spelled "udnerstood"? Wow, amazing! Thank you for educating me on the proper way to spell it. I ALWAYS spell it "udnerstood"; good thing you set me straight. :rolleyes:
ohsmiley quote
NOTE: First of all, I don't correct people anymore (with few exceptions). Second, even when I did, I did not correct simple typos or the transposition of 2 letters. Big difference between spelling "definitely" like this: "defenataly" compared to this: "definiteyl". In the former, someone clearly can't spell and intended to spell the word as such; in the latter, they inadvertantly missed the key. You may find plenty of typos of kind in the latter example in my posts. I don't scour my posts looking for errors nor do I run a spell check. I just know how to spell but have the occasional missed key like anyone else. Good day.)...[/


(NOTE: First of all, I don't correct people anymore (with few exceptions). Second, even when I did, I did not correct simple typos or the transposition of 2 letters. Big difference between spelling "definitely" like this: "defenataly" compared to this: "definiteyl". In the former, someone clearly can't spell and intended to spell the word as such; in the latter, they inadvertantly missed the key. You may find plenty of typos of kind in the latter example in my posts. I don't scour my posts looking for errors nor do I run a spell check. I just know how to spell but have the occasional missed key like anyone else. Good day.)...[/QUOTE
This is really funny, especially after reading all of your corrections of people's grammer, sentence structure, etc, over the past few months. Due to your constant corrections you built a reputation for yourself, and now people are waiting to correct you. No big deal though, when did you decide to not correct people anymore? Now that I know I'll quit looking to correct you!

6172crew
08-08-2006, 5:46 PM
This is true. You have a period upon retirement to notify the CA DOJ and to remove the weapons. I fell into a catch 22 where I lived in California pre-ban, was out of California when the registration came down, and moved (PCS'ed) back following the ban. I brought my magazines down prior to the ban and wasn't allowed to register my weapons as a non-resident "just visiting". So that meant my magazines were left behind and my rifles were brough down under the MAWP.

My permit number has a very very low number on it so not many are taking advantage of this permit. My standing is that if the military citizens are allowed personnally owned assualt weapons that the non-military citizens are allowed personally owned assault weapons. There aren't two citizen classes set up any where in the Consitution that I can find.

Slavery was over thrown +140 years ago ... yet our progressive masters in Sacramento tell us which American rights apply inside of California's borders in violation of the ten amendment to the United States Constituion.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Good point Paul, even as a former .mil type Im not sure I can get behind the whole different set of rules and when you think about how many DD214 holders get the shaft after they left and made CA home it makes me a little mad.

shonc99
08-08-2006, 8:10 PM
My permit number has a very very low number on it so not many are taking advantage of this permit. My standing is that if the military citizens are allowed personnally owned assualt weapons that the non-military citizens are allowed personally owned assault weapons. There aren't two citizen classes set up any where in the Consitution that I can find.

Slavery was over thrown +140 years ago ... yet our progressive masters in Sacramento tell us which American rights apply inside of California's borders in violation of the ten amendment to the United States Constituion.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I agree that there should NOT be two different set of rules for military and civillian. (You should see some of the f_ckups that get into the service) Perhaps someone will challenge it's constitutionality and use it as leverage in repealing the AW ban altogether (hopefully not the MAWP). While I will use the MAWP to my advantage I do not think I am anymore special than the average joe.:cool:

M. Sage
08-08-2006, 10:12 PM
As far as magazines go, I do not know about Marines using hi-cap mags for personal use as I am Navy. I did not mean to imply that someone could import hi-cap mags as well as an AW. Basically if you didn't own the hi-cap mag before 2000, then tough. I was more excited to find out that the military exemption was true and just how easy it appears to be.

You had to own it pre-2000, and had to be a CA resident, too. Those of us who moved in more recent times are shafted on our standard caps.

If you were a resident of other than CA between then and now, then you're SOL, also.

blkA4alb
08-08-2006, 11:55 PM
You had to own it pre-2000, and had to be a CA resident, too. Those of us who moved in more recent times are shafted on our standard caps.

If you were a resident of other than CA between then and now, then you're SOL, also.
That was my point, that if he didn't live here before the ban it is IMPOSSIBLE to have had the mags here legally. Besides a high cap magazine permit.. :rolleyes:

kantstudien
08-09-2006, 2:20 AM
This is really funny, especially after reading all of your corrections of people's grammer, sentence structure, etc, over the past few months.

It's "grammar" dude. :D

striker3
08-09-2006, 12:12 PM
I first posted about this subject almost 3 years ago, from the reactions, not many people were familiar with it. The one thing that I thought about being onerous was that the registration had to be renewed each year at a price of something like $75. I am not positive about the price, but I think I still have scans of the application if anyone is interested.

Along the lines of hicap mags, they are considered part of a Marine's personal issue and are kept with the rest of their gear, at home.

I was a victim of a burglary offbase in which, among other things, some of my issued mags were stolen. I reported it to the police, they didn't question why I had hicaps at home, they even commented that those were stolen from miltary personnel quite often. My chain of command did not care either, as long as I was able to provide a police report detailing what had been stolen.

shonc99
08-09-2006, 12:54 PM
From my phone call yesterday the price went up three dollars to $78. :eek: It is a one time fee as the renewal is only an update if there are changes to your address, phone number etc. Registration of an AW sucks in all respects but if it means I can convert my OLL's and bring in other Aw's then so be it. I won't be in CA forever and will jump for joy when I leave to retire elsewhere. F'U Kalifornia Gov't; nothing left but the crimminals and thugs you inadvertanly helped with your ridiculus gun laws and liberal policies.

I can't decide if the 50 states were people, would Kalifornia be the prom queen or angry lesbian? :confused:

grammaton76
08-09-2006, 1:09 PM
I can't decide if the 50 states were people, would Kalifornia be the prom queen or angry lesbian? :confused:

Neither - it'd be an angry liberal hippie tinfoil hat wearer. LIBERAL tinfoil, not the conservative tinfoil we see around here. The kind that insists the US government invented AIDS because it hates black people, etc.

I say "it" because it would be impossible to tell whether it's male or female due to "shame" that it started life as a male. It would also speak in sign language because it's embarrassed that it can't speak English, Spanish, and a few dozen other languages at the same time to avoid offending anyone.

striker3
08-09-2006, 5:32 PM
Just got home and looked up the scans I have of the application I recieved. Mine are dated Feburary 2001 and DO require that the permit is renewed annually.

It also says that there can be a fee for the renewal that cannot exceed the cost to the DOJ to process the app. It states the same thing in regards to the initial application. There must be an updated one though, as the cost was $73 on my app, not the $78 you were quoted.

If anyone is interested, I can post the scans of my application.

I ended up just selling my rifle to fund some other purchases, never did pursue the permit, if anyone was wondering.

shonc99
08-16-2006, 1:13 PM
I recieved my paperwork on monday, a day short of a week. It is a one time deal though so I can't add more AW after I turn it in. The fee is $78 and while the registration must be updated annually, it doesn't specify if the fee will also be charged again each successive year. I can also post the forms and provide more info for those interested.

stator
08-16-2006, 7:09 PM
This permit is nothing new. Any one PCSing to CA can bring their "AW" and get a permit. However, once you leave or retire, you can no longer own it in CA.


... or declare you are a resident of CA.

shonc99
08-16-2006, 7:22 PM
Yet another twist:

What if (no hisses please;) ) you get transfered out of CA then after a tour somewhere else get transfered back? Is your registration re-activated as you are supposed to notify the DOJ when you leave (or retire). If you have to start the process over, could you then add other AW's that you obtained while out of CA?

Also, FYI you do not have to be PCS'ing (transferring) into CA as I asked Yolanda at the AW permit branch about my orders. Since they are included in the application, I was worried as my last set of orders is from a ship in CA to a base in CA. She stated that it was fine. They just needed to see that I have orders to CA just as the dealers need it to qualify you as a "resident" for the purposes of purchasing a firearm.

shonc99
09-16-2006, 8:35 PM
I'm updating this as I just recieved my permit today and took out some of my evil rifles (including the recently aquired Bobcat BW-5) knowing that I'm covered. My permit number is very low and that shows that there aren't many of these out there only because military people think they can't get one

The permit is for personally owned AW's and is used for 'practice' as explained by the DOJ. They said that there isn't much info about the military permit and most people think the LEO version is what DOJ goes by for military.

If anyone is interested I can scan my copy of the permit (just a basic 'ol' letter) and the information that came with the application. Overall, it takes about three weeks from the first call to apply, to getting the application back. Not too shabby

There are alot of grey issues and I plan to write a letter to the DOJ for some clarification.

Some of the basic questions I have are:

What qualifies you as a resident of another state? (What the CD DOJ says; as they give out the permits!)

Do you have to own the firearm before coming into CA for military duty?

If you get transferred out of CA and later on back into CA, what then?

If anybody has questions of their own or whatever, PM me or post em here.

:D :D :D :D

Librarian
09-16-2006, 8:42 PM
Extremely cool - thanks for posting! Grinding through all that nonsense and actually getting to the end successfully must feel really good.

shonc99
09-16-2006, 9:28 PM
It is but it isn't. One thing about it is that you can't add other fireams later. Just today I thought of some other toys that would have been nice to add. Luckily I only have a few more years here in CA before I am due to transfer.

Anywhere but CA; here I come!

Cato
09-16-2006, 10:30 PM
So an American service member may bring an AW into California, register it and shoot 'n enjoy it. Now, we Californians may not purchase any AW and must sit and watch these soldiers at the range enjoy their arms while we fumble with pinned rifles and pre 1960 era arms. Doesn't seem right. Aren't we Americans too?

CalNRA
09-16-2006, 10:33 PM
So an American service member may bring an AW into California, register it and shoot 'n enjoy it. Now, we Californians may not purchase any AW and must sit and watch these soldiers at the range enjoy their arms while we fumble with pinned rifles and pre 1960 era arms. Doesn't seem right. Aren't we Americans too?

divide and conquer. THey figure once they give the military personels some perks they will be more likely to enforce rules made by the soviet, I mean state assembly.

Cato
09-16-2006, 11:02 PM
divide and conquer. THey figure once they give the military personels some perks they will be more likely to enforce rules made by the soviet, I mean state assembly.

Funny thing is it doesnt make me mad; instead, it makes me really, really sad. :(

shonc99
09-17-2006, 6:15 AM
divide and conquer. THey figure once they give the military personels some perks they will be more likely to enforce rules made by the soviet, I mean state assembly.

While there are earlier posts about a double standard and about how there shouldn't be caste system it is what it it is. Just because someone is military doesn't mean they are any more special and deserve to have an AW permit.

One of the possible reasons for the MAWP is to allow a resident of another state to retain his property while serving in the military. It seems like it would be unconstitutional for one state to require someone to give up property that is legal to own in that persons home state.

Anyone can apply for an AW permit, just as anyone can apply for a CCW here as well. I STILL think it sucks for everyone who can't get one, but at least you have the option of leaving CA (however impossible or ridiculious it may be) I don't have that option. Hell, I don't get to enjoy some of the other basic rights of the constitution, I just protect it and bring it to other nations. :confused:

bwiese
09-17-2006, 6:54 PM
Remember that the MAWP (Mil. Asslt Wpns Permit) is for the gun(s), and does not appear give permission for import of hicap magazines. Magazines are treated under a separate body of law.

M. Sage
09-17-2006, 7:29 PM
+1, it sounds like the mags are ok for you to "posess" in your home, but I don't think they want you out shooting with them.

Aren't we Americans too?

No, we're Kalifornians.

AF_INT1N0
09-17-2006, 8:39 PM
So an American service member may bring an AW into California, register it and shoot 'n enjoy it. Now, we Californians may not purchase any AW and must sit and watch these soldiers at the range enjoy their arms while we fumble with pinned rifles and pre 1960 era arms. Doesn't seem right. Aren't we Americans too?

Yes you are an American.. You can choose where you live, and vote for the representatives that make the rules where you live. Many of the soldiers in California are residents of Texas and Florida. They may have Florida CCW's they can't use, (Fat chance getting one of those in the Bay Area). They have no vote in this state and in many ways are second class citizens for 1 to 6 years. Also the being military isn't exactly the most popular thing to be in the Bay area. You at least have a choice to live where you wish. Hell I'll probably go either do Jersey or D.C. from here if I stay in.

Believe me Cato. I wish everyone in California could own all the Class 3 wizz bang stuff that Brady campaign Moonbats say we shouldn't. I'd a feel a whole lot better about possibly going to Iraq to build a free country if I could come back to a free country. They all get AK-47s..


Sorry for the rant..

Oh and by the way. Most of the military members in Kalifornia hate your state assembly and heckuvalot more than you do.

shonc99
09-18-2006, 5:38 AM
Oh and by the way. Most of the military members in Kalifornia hate your state assembly and heckuvalot more than you do.

For those of you who are CA residents at least you guys actually have a vote in the politicians that govern you. I pay property tax, sales tax, DMV etc but get no vote. Sounds like taxation without representation. At least my home state doesn't charge me income tax. That would be the real kick in the teeth.


Side note: I will be scanning all of my paperwork today for everyone to see and read.

shonc99
09-18-2006, 5:40 AM
+1, it sounds like the mags are ok for you to "posess" in your home, but I don't think they want you out shooting with them.

As long as the "hi-cap" mags were owned before the ban, they are legal with the assault weapons just as they are with non AW. Sure, from a legal standpoint it would seem that I can't import them but that is another question to add to my letter. Are there AW's that only have a "hi-cap" mag like the UZI and such?

guns_and_labs
09-18-2006, 10:35 AM
Just to support this: If Uncle Sam issues you standard-caps, and it's OK to take them home, off base, with your other issue gear, then everything ought to be cool.

The CA law at PC 12020 says

The law allows exceptions - see 12020 (a)(19)-(32) - 19 - looks like it covers the issue-to-active-duty situation, but I can't find one that covers military AW licensees and their private weapons and magazines.

I'm not sure I understand the subtlety, but the exception seems limited to government employees charged with law enforcement, but not general active duty military.

Sounds as if the US Marine Corps is guilty of aiding and abetting, even requiring, a felony possession of high cap mags. I suppose now that it's been outed on this site< we should expect the CAG surveillance to be shifting from the Reno gun show to the Marine bases.

shonc99
09-19-2006, 7:08 AM
I'm not sure I understand the subtlety, but the exception seems limited to government employees charged with law enforcement, but not general active duty military.

Sounds as if the US Marine Corps is guilty of aiding and abetting, even requiring, a felony possession of high cap mags. I suppose now that it's been outed on this site< we should expect the CAG surveillance to be shifting from the Reno gun show to the Marine bases.

As with any federal entity, they override state laws in many aspects. One is that military members are allowed to posess automatic firearms, high capacity magazines, destructive devices, etc. in the course of their duties. Regardless if they are infantry, MP, mechanic, whatever, if you are issued a firearm to use in your military duties you are covered by that blanket. Again, IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES and at NO OTHER TIME. When a military member is off duty, they are bound by the same laws as everyone else (with the noted previous exception-MAWP)

Military members technically aren't allowed to use hi-cap magazines (obtained from work) off duty, but since they are issued gear that is otherwise considered illegal the military would have to step in and vouch for the member if they were charged with owning a hi-cap magazine that was obtained after 2000. BUT- how in the hell do they prove that you didn't own it before that if you had stated that you personally owned it. :cool:

The line just got exponentially fuzzier :eek:

metalhead357
09-19-2006, 12:53 PM
The line just got exponentially fuzzier :eek:

And that is where they want it and will try to keep it. It allows for selective prosecutions and keeps the public always guessin' whether their actions are legal or not rather than just going about thier lives unencombered with 'dang near needing a law degree to survive in this state........................................

shonc99
09-20-2006, 6:48 AM
Any time a politician makes or leaves things fuzzy, it mitigates the original intent- whatever it might have been. I think a major part of the problem is that you have people writing laws about things that they have no clue about. Anti-gun people basically don't know S**T about firearms, especially the complex in's and out's that even some CALGUNS.NET people have a hard time grasping.

Take the 50BMG ban. All you have to do is change the dimensions and it's a different free and clear cartridge. If we were to explain this and all the other "loopholes" (personal choice for word YRMV) in detail to our opponents perhaps then they might have a clue as to how a gun works. Even then I thhink it's a stretch because you can't teach a closed mind.

I personally think the hi-cap mag issue is dead. It is un-enforceable and if anyone has read the DOJ Q&A about hi-cap magazines, you understand why.

shonc99
09-25-2007, 11:42 AM
After renewing the permit and sending a letter for clarification, here is the most comprehensive info I have.

Military Assault Weapons Permit (MAWP)

Active duty, non-CA resident military members may apply for this permit. You must call the CA Division of Firearms to get the permit application.

The permit application consists of 2 FBI fingerprint cards (same type of cards for security clearance applications), an application form and a listing of the pertinent statutes relating to the application and the permit. It currently costs $78 for the permit and there is no renewal fee provided that the renewal form is returned on time. You have to mail everything above back as well as a copy of your orders.

Notes:
1. This is a permit for what you already have, not a license to purchase other AW's after you get it. (that would be a AW license which is something different)
It does NOT state that you had to own the particular AW's BEFORE being stationed here in CA.
-I had been here in CA for 10 years when I got the permit and I didn't get into guns until 2 years ago-
SO- what this means is that you need to make sure you own every AW you would want before you return the registration form.

2. If you have something that would be banned if you added evil features (SB23 law) then you should register them even if you don't think you would want the features later. (It's always better to have the ability to add the "evil" features if you want to.)
-Things like a M-14 SOCOM or Ruger Mini-14 are sometimes nicer with a pistol grip/ folding stock. There are other things like a pistol with a threaded barrel which would apply here as well.

3. There is nothing indicated on the form as to a limit to how many firearms you may register. The application form I got was a copy of a copy which struck me as odd, but the form states, "use additonal sheets as necessary" right under the three initial lines for firearms info. I initially (Note A.) registered 5 firearms. More on that below.

4. On the registration form it states make, model, serial number and caliber. If you are registering an AR or other multi-caliber firearm, list all the possible calibers. For my AR's I put .223, .224, 50BEO (Beowulf), 9mm, 7.62X39, 22LR- etc.
-When the permit (a letter actually) comes back it will list "multi" under the caliber. What this means is that if you have an AR type of firearm, you could put ANY caliber upper- including a 50BMG. But, this is actually a moot point as you can also register a Barrett 50 cal as it is also an AW.

5. It currently costs $78 for the permit and is free to renew. It has to be renewed yearly and they send the renewal out 2 months before the expiration. They want it back before 30 days out. If it is returned within 30 days of the expiration you have to pay something like $25 and if it doesn't get back before the expiration date, you have to pay $78 before they will send out the renewed permit.

6. If you get out or retire, the firearms have to go. Reserves are not eligible, Active duty only. Also, while I do not have a CA drivers license, having own doesn't seem to disqualify. It is wherever you pay state taxes to, IE your home or record. Also, there isn't anything that states you can't change your residency before applying, nor how much time you would have to wait before applying. The issue here is changing your state of residency through the Military.

7. If you are transferred out of CA, you need to let Yolanda know so she can remove you from the permit list. If you get transferred back at a later date you will have to re-apply for a new permit for the firearms you own at THAT point (at least the ones you want to register) In a letter I wrote, the response back did not indicate how long you had to be stationed OUT of CA before re-applying for a new permit. If I am not mistaken, the ATF requires you to live the preceeding 30 days in the respective state before you are considered a resident. (I do not know how the military TAD/TDY affects this)

(Note A.) When I got the renewal I called Yolanda to ask if I should renew because I thought I might be transferred within the next year. I also asked her if I should renew since there were firearms that I didn't register because I didn't think I would want them here. Her reply was that I could add them- even though the form and asssociated paperwork seemed to state otherwise. She refered to the fact that I had to have owned them before getting the initial permit and sice I did, I could add them. Without saying so, it seemed as if you could change what you had on the permit so long as you owned the firearms before getting the first initial permit. This would allow you to rotate the weapons that you again- already owned and not have to keep them here at all times. But, just because you have them on the form doesn't mean that you can't store them out of state. This is the better option as you don't have to worry about making changes every year which the DOJ might question.

So, before you turn the form in, make sure you own everything you would want. Also, it doesn't matter if you are registering a complete firearm or bare receiver. If you can't afford a complete particular firearm, just get the bare receiver.

I do not know about home-made firearms, but if they have a serial number and the mfg (you) then you might be good to go. The DOJ would be better able to answer that.

Also, Class II firearms, such as supressors, SBR's, DD's and AOW's are NOT covered under this permit.

Read and re-read this a few times and then ask questions if you have them.

CavTrooper
09-25-2007, 1:10 PM
It is important to note that this stuff only applies to active duty military who are stationed here who are not residents of CA (or weren't before the deployment order to CA anyway).

Point of clarification. I just spoke with someone at the BOF regarding the MAWP. The information she gave me (and will be sending to me in writing) is that even though California is my HOR ( I still have my CA DL), I am still able to bring in "assault weapons" under the MAWP since they were legally accquired outside of California.

Im not sure if thats what you were trying to say, but if it is, thats the info Ive been given and will hopefully have in writing shortly. If you know where it is written otherwise, please let me know so I can adjust my plan accordingly.

Thanks!

KDOFisch
09-25-2007, 1:22 PM
Yeah I was just gonna say, I know a couple reservists who've been issued mags with their flak jackets, helmets, etc and have all of it at their residence.

shonc99
09-25-2007, 2:30 PM
The residency issue is not clear at the DOJ level. The ATF considers residency where you sleep and requires you do that for 30 days before you are a resident in that state (for eligibility to purchase firearms). The military situation is weird because the CA DOJ has to consider you to NOT be a resident before they will let you have the MAWP.....but.... the ATF requires you to be a resident of a given state in order to purchase firearms. :confused::confused:

So, as long as CA doesn't consider you a resident, you're good. And as CavTrooper points out, if you resided in another state while in the military, and were eligible to purchase in that state (ATF-30day thing) then you can bring those back as well.

Subvertz
09-28-2007, 8:40 AM
The scans...sorry about the biggness
http://www.dyematrix.com/forum/uploads/post-12-1190996357.jpg
http://www.dyematrix.com/forum/uploads/post-12-1190997038.jpg
http://www.dyematrix.com/forum/uploads/post-12-1190996655.jpg
http://www.dyematrix.com/forum/uploads/post-12-1190996720.jpg
http://www.dyematrix.com/forum/uploads/post-12-1190996779.jpg
http://www.dyematrix.com/forum/uploads/post-12-1190997016.jpg

Subvertz
09-28-2007, 8:45 AM
Fingerprint cards
http://www.dyematrix.com/forum/uploads/post-12-1190997070.jpg
http://www.dyematrix.com/forum/uploads/post-12-1190997350.jpg

bwiese
09-28-2007, 9:08 AM
Interesting.

It appears that if you have an AW *Permit* (MAWP in this case) - as opposed to a reg'd AW - that you have to inform DOJ BoF as to changes of caliber - see item 3.05 on the form. I note, however, that there is no barrel length specifier.

This is different that the situation for *registered AWs* that many have.

Subvertz
09-28-2007, 9:21 AM
I searched and couldn't find these "Business Rules" anywhere.
It says to inform of any changes to the information provided.
If I put a different cal upper on, has that changed the info?
That would only be a temporary configuration, not a change, right?
I suppose when they ask for caliber, it could mean the caliber range that my AR lower is capable of?
It would be different if I had a whole gun rebored?

bwiese
09-28-2007, 9:48 AM
It says to inform of any changes to the information provided.
If I put a different cal upper on, has that changed the info?


Yup. While this is likely to mean things like change of address or change in military status, it would include caliber of rifle too.

That would only be a temporary configuration, not a change, right?


Irrelevant. What would happen if you get in a traffic stop, your rifle is checked and found to be a different caliber? (Fairly unlikely, but AW Permits are discretionary, and that's one of the rules - inform of changes.)

I suppose when they ask for caliber, it could mean the caliber range that my AR lower is capable of? It would be different if I had a whole gun rebored?

Dude, just register your AWs with multiple calibers. I believe they'll just file it as "MULTI" or "8888" when you get your form back.

However, if you got a permit only as a 223 and mounted a 6.8SPC on you should inform DOJ.

[To those w/reg'd AWs reading this: THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO REGISTERED ASSSAULT WEAPONS, JUST PERMITTED ASSAULT WEAPONS.]

CavTrooper
09-28-2007, 10:13 AM
Received my MAWP application today as well! Started filling it out now and ran across a problem....

Do I go buy MORE "assault weapons" now? Or just be happy with the ones I have??!!:D

Forestboy
09-28-2007, 10:29 AM
Do you have a name and number for who to talk to about getting the MAWP application?

Thanks.

CavTrooper
09-28-2007, 10:35 AM
Ms Garcia 916-263-0296

Subvertz
09-28-2007, 10:48 AM
She included her email too.
yolanda.garcia@doj.ca.gov

CavTrooper
09-28-2007, 4:46 PM
Theres only 3 slots for "assault weapons" to register, but it does say you can use additional sheets. Do you think typing it up on the computer and printing would be fine or do you think I should request additional sheets from DOJ BOF?

bwiese
09-28-2007, 4:50 PM
Theres only 3 slots for "assault weapons" to register, but it does say you can use additional sheets. Do you think typing it up on the computer and printing would be fine or do you think I should request additional sheets from DOJ BOF?

I don't think they have any preprinted "Page 2" stuff with forms for more guns.

Just put the 1st three on that page, mark the form "Continued - see attached Page 2", and mark on the added page/list, "Page 2 of 2 pages".

They'll get the idea.

shonc99
09-28-2007, 5:26 PM
If you haven't already filled out the application sheet, make copies and then fill it out with each sheet containing 3 AW's that you want to register. For my initial permit I registered 5 AW's so I used 2 sheets.

For caliber, as far as AR's are concerned list a few possible calibers, such as .223,.224, 7.62X39, 6.8, 9mm and when the permit comes back, it will say "multi".

Hell, I'd call Yollanda and ask if you can just put "multi". That would simplify things.

You need to update the DOJ if your military status changes, you will be moving, etc., etc.

tenpercentfirearms
09-28-2007, 5:39 PM
I know the mag law pretty well.

(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.The sections that have been quoted so far only deal with law enforcement, not the military. The military cannot be law enforcement because they of posse comitatus (or however you spell it). Now military law enforcement is something different and I would ask for clarification.

Now this military AW exemeption thing doesn't interest me much, so I don't care, but I did find this.(32) The purchase of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 12095, 12230, 12250, 12286, or 12305, for any of the following purposes:
(A) For use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production.
(B) For export pursuant to federal regulations.
(C) For resale to law enforcement agencies, government agencies, or the military, pursuant to applicable federal regulations.If your military AW permit falls under any of those PC sections, you can purchase (purchase only and not import) high cap mags if you are going to use them as a prop, export them, or resell them to LEOs or the military.

Now the interesting thing is the section says you can purchase them, but it doesn't say you can sell them, but it says you can buy them if you are going to resell them, but you can't resell them because it only said you can purchase them.

Now I am confused!

Now someone said members of the military can possess mags, but they can't use them. What is the difference? You illegal obtained them, it wouldn't matter if you did so and use them or don't use them, you still illegally obtained them. There does not appear to be an exemption for military for high capacity magazines. The practical part is what happens on base, stays on base. However, you probably don't want to leave the base with any high caps, whether you use them or not. True no cop is going to probably bust you, but you never know.

CavTrooper
09-28-2007, 5:52 PM
I think the normal capacity magazine issue has been settled.

Those that are issued them as part of thier kit, keep them with thier kit, not for personal use.

Personal use, stick with the low capacity magazines for use with your personal, legal, registered "assault weapon(s)".

Many folks dont live on base and because of their positions may be required to kep thier bug-out kit with them at thier residence, Im sure that they are warned not to use thier issue gear for personal pleasure. If they ever got nailed by a LEO for possesing the normal cap mags while at home or in transport to or from work it wouldnt be much of an issue. Im betting JAG would step in and tell them what Soldiers, Saliors and Airman are going to do and it would be left at that. If the Military was not going to step up to defend thier own, they wouldnt allow the SM to take the mags off base.

shonc99
09-28-2007, 6:19 PM
I think the normal capacity magazine issue has been settled.

Those that are issued them as part of thier kit, keep them with thier kit, not for personal use.

Personal use, stick with the low capacity magazines for use with your personal, legal, registered "assault weapon(s)".

Many folks dont live on base and because of their positions may be required to kep thier bug-out kit with them at thier residence, Im sure that they are warned not to use thier issue gear for personal pleasure. If they ever got nailed by a LEO for possesing the normal cap mags while at home or in transport to or from work it wouldnt be much of an issue. Im betting JAG would step in and tell them what Soldiers, Saliors and Airman are going to do and it would be left at that. If the Military was not going to step up to defend thier own, they wouldnt allow the SM to take the mags off base.

You'd think the JAG would be keen on matters such as this but they are usually 23 year olds trying to pay off law school and don't know.

Even during the 94-04 federal ban, even if the average civilian had hi-cap mags, it probably didn't even so much as raise an eyebrow as there were many pre-ban made mags that were not subject to the ban anyway.

Basically, unless you have a gun that wasn't made before 2000, it is sooooo common to see someone with a hi-cap mag for it.

Yet again, another wasted law that doesn't do anything constructive
:rolleyes:

Subvertz
09-28-2007, 7:35 PM
Deer hunting at Vandenberg AFB 2 weeks ago, we found some M-16 mags that were laying aound after force protection exercises, I assume.
Had I taken them home, would there be any law about finding Hi-caps that would apply?

gazzavc
09-28-2007, 9:15 PM
I'm wondering if its a US Armed forces thing or would my semi-inactive service in the British Army qualify me?

tenpercentfirearms
09-29-2007, 7:16 AM
Deer hunting at Vandenberg AFB 2 weeks ago, we found some M-16 mags that were laying aound after force protection exercises, I assume.
Had I taken them home, would there be any law about finding Hi-caps that would apply?

Some people claim it is not illegal to "find" magazines. Talk to your lawyer for the best answer.