PDA

View Full Version : Regardless of what DOJ says, our PG'less OLL are legal?


Neil McCauley
08-18-2006, 10:26 AM
I'm concerned with whats been going on lately and the part I'm most concerned with is the open magwell that we have on our off listed lowers that are deficient the pistol grip, collapsable bs and flash hider. My question is no matter what the DOJ decides, our SB23 compliant rifles will always be legal correct? Sorry if this has been covered in another thread but I think a lot of us are clueless on how the new re-wording will affect our detachable mag biulds.

MonsterMan
08-18-2006, 10:52 AM
If you build a OLL into a gripless build and no banned SB23 features, the changes in the regs should not touch them.

MM

Hunter
08-18-2006, 10:57 AM
I'm concerned with whats been going on lately and the part I'm most concerned with is the open magwell that we have on our off listed lowers that are deficient the pistol grip, collapsable bs and flash hider. My question is no matter what the DOJ decides, our SB23 compliant rifles will always be legal correct? Sorry if this has been covered in another thread but I think a lot of us are clueless on how the new re-wording will affect our detachable mag biulds.


You are correct and that is one of the points that was presented to the DOJ at the meeting.

The whole purpose of this action by the DOJ is to prevent any further OLL from being sold in this state. However, it will do no such thing as one only has too run gripless, or with any of the non-PG grips on the market. This was stated to the DOJ very clearly.

I guess the next DOJ approach will be if a rifle has "the capacity to accept a ____" ........ insert Pistol Grip or a Flash Hider, or .....

CALI-gula
08-18-2006, 11:00 AM
For the closest comparison, with no pistol grip and no other SB23 features (inlcuding non-collapsing stock) they are no more AW than a Robinson Armament M96 or a Kel-Tec SU16 that also take AR magazines. And as is well-known, and I have posted the details often, the DOJ field officers got in trouble with the M96 trying to enforce the concept of "capacity to accept a pistol grip" in the past, where they actually confiscated rifles, then were told to return them by top DOJ brass as the M96 was not considered an AW by SB23 definitions.

They are not "named" or listed in Roberti-Roos and don't have SB23 features. Just like the above, as well as Springfield M1As, Ruger Mini-14s, M1 Carbines, and a whole gaggle of other firearms.

.

gose
08-18-2006, 11:02 AM
You are correct and that is one of the points that was presented to the DOJ at the meeting.

The whole purpose of this action by the DOJ is to prevent any further OLL from being sold in this state. However, it will do no such thing as one only has too run gripless, or with any of the non-PG grips on the market. This was stated to the DOJ very clearly.

I guess the next DOJ approach will be if a rifle has "the capacity to accept a ____" ........ insert Pistol Grip or a Flash Hider, or .....

The only way they can ban all OLLs without SB23 features is to ban all semi-auto rifles, or list them by name. The likelihood of either happening is on par with the chance of the 49ers winning the superbowl ;)

Hunter
08-18-2006, 11:20 AM
The only way they can ban all OLLs without SB23 features is to ban all semi-auto rifles, or list them by name. The likelihood of either happening is on par with the chance of the 49ers winning the superbowl ;)


This is exactly where some would love to take it....and I don't mean the part about the 49ers.

TenKen714
08-18-2006, 11:37 PM
Would a vendor be allowed to ship a OLL with LPK installed, but with PG removed(but still in same package) to a Californian FFL?

blacklisted
08-18-2006, 11:38 PM
Sure, but not in the same package. Although legal, it is not a good idea.

CalNRA
08-19-2006, 2:06 AM
The only way they can ban all OLLs without SB23 features is to ban all semi-auto rifles, or list them by name. The likelihood of either happening is on par with the chance of the 49ers winning the superbowl ;)

wasn't that what the people said about SB23 in the first place before it got passed? it can't happen here...:rolleyes:

chris
08-19-2006, 3:47 AM
well duh? it did happen here and we are paying for our inaction back then. we can fix it slowly like they did to us. i do believe the lawsuit from DA Hunt will proceed early next year. we'll wait and see. we have a bigger fight now
the november elections.

railfan
08-19-2006, 8:44 PM
The only way they can ban all OLLs without SB23 features is to ban all semi-auto rifles, or list them by name. The likelihood of either happening is on par with the chance of the 49ers winning the superbowl ;)

Bear in mind -- the 49ers HAVE won the Superbowl. And the lefties WILL take away ALL our guns, if there is any way they can do it. The price of liberty IS eternal vigilance.

xenophobe
08-19-2006, 9:24 PM
Featureless open magwell rifles are legal. Plain and simple.

Also... it would appear that weapons that would be subject to SB-23 and are mag-locked are not prosecutable by DOJ. At the SJ gun show today, one certain DOJ official observed and ignored OLL builds with locked mags that had 'banned features' that were displayed on our tables.

PIRATE14
08-19-2006, 11:13 PM
Featureless open magwell rifles are legal. Plain and simple.

Also... it would appear that weapons that would be subject to SB-23 and are mag-locked are not prosecutable by DOJ. At the SJ gun show today, one certain DOJ official observed and ignored OLL builds with locked mags that had 'banned features' that were displayed on our tables.

That's cause they comply w/ by the letter of law and current regs.....:D

Now remember it's the local DA that prosecute a case that is submitted by the DOJ.