PDA

View Full Version : Under Ca law, it legal to.....


CSACANNONEER
01-23-2011, 11:24 AM
Buy a firearm in Ca, remove it from the state, work on it and bring it back as long as it is in a Ca legal configuration?

Yea, I thought so.:D So, I spoke with ATF at SHOT. I got the answer I wanted from them. There is nothing in any federal law which would prevent me from buying a stripped receiver in Ca. (due to Ca's flawwed system, I am forced to DROS it as a long gun), remove it from the state (I don't know if this step would be needed but, I'm playing it safe) and build a handgun out of it. So far, I have not done anything that could remotely be a crime and I am now a California resident in possession of a firearm which I legally purchased in CA but, I happen to have it out of state. Now, is there any law which prevents me from bringing my legally owned/properly configured firearm back to Ca with me? I say, "NO!" I can bring in my legally owned handgun and not even have to register it with DOJ since, I already prchased and owned it in Ca.

Since I now have confirmation from ATF that I can assemble a Ca DROSed stripped lower into a handgun without violating federal law, can someone please point out a Ca law which would stop me from doing this? If I take the stripped receiver out of state, any issues with Ca DROS system wouldn't even apply when I assembled it. So, what would keep me from bringing it back into Ca? Is the DROS system really so flawed that it is easier to get a legal non-rostered and legally non registered handgun in Ca than DROSing and registering the same gun as a handgun at the initial time of purchase?

alex00
01-23-2011, 11:34 AM
While I agree with your logic, I don't think the location of assembly will change the fact that in the eyes of California, you assembled a handgun from a rifle. Nevermind the fact that the DROS only describes 'long guns', a term not found in the Penal Code. I think building a pistol off a stripped lower is perfectly legal, but I am not a lawyer, and there are plenty of people that disagree with me.

Carnivore
01-23-2011, 11:43 AM
I could be wrong (most likely am) but I thought stripped lowers in CA were DROSed as "other" not hand gun or riffle. Since it was purchased as a "other" in California you can not them make it a hand gun here. It has to start out as a hand gun. Again could have it back words and most likely do.

I mean it more as in intent thing like buying a legal hi-cap mag rebuild kit and then assembling it. It is illegal as heck and no one should ever do it but people with no regard to the law would find a way to justify it in their minds.

CSACANNONEER
01-23-2011, 11:52 AM
While I agree with your logic, I don't think the location of assembly will change the fact that in the eyes of California, you assembled a handgun from a rifle. Nevermind the fact that the DROS only describes 'long guns', a term not found in the Penal Code. I think building a pistol off a stripped lower is perfectly legal, but I am not a lawyer, and there are plenty of people that disagree with me.

But, it has never been assembled as a rifle! If Ca wants insists that DROS would make it a "rifle" then, taking it out of state and building it would mean that Ca law would not be an issue at that time. So, can I bring my perfectly legal handgun back into the state with me?

I could be wrong (most likely am) but I thought stripped lowers in CA were DROSed as "other" not hand gun or riffle. Since it was purchased as a "other" in California you can not them make it a hand gun here. It has to start out as a hand gun. Again could have it back words and most likely do.

I mean it more as in intent thing like buying a legal hi-cap mag rebuild kit and then assembling it. It is illegal as heck and no one should ever do it but people with no regard to the law would find a way to justify it in their minds.

The DROS system is flawed and does not allow for "other". The 4473, a federal form, does. I don't see the corallation with rebuild kits. I can't find anywhere in Ca law that would prohibit me from importing a firearm which I already legally own in this state.

wildhawker
01-23-2011, 12:25 PM
While I agree with your logic, I don't think the location of assembly will change the fact that in the eyes of California, you assembled a handgun from a rifle. Nevermind the fact that the DROS only describes 'long guns', a term not found in the Penal Code. I think building a pistol off a stripped lower is perfectly legal, but I am not a lawyer, and there are plenty of people that disagree with me.

Our analysis would indicate that a pistol assembled from a stripped receiver DROSed as a long gun would not be a SBR or SBS. However, I strongly urge people *do not* test this until we've settled this with ATF and DOJ.

Andy Taylor
01-23-2011, 12:30 PM
Why not just DROS it as a single shot handgun, then remove the sled?

CSACANNONEER
01-23-2011, 12:32 PM
Wildhawker,

Do you ever see DOJ making an official ruling on this? I don't. As far as ATF is concerned, the supervisor that we were speaking with made it clear to us that Ca DROS doesn't mean a thing to Federal law. So, the easy half of the battle is over. So, if I go out of state and assemble a Ca legal handgun from a stripped lower, would I have to register it as a handgun if I bring it back? I can't find any law stating that I would since, I already owned it in Ca.

xenophobe
01-23-2011, 12:34 PM
While I agree with your logic, I don't think the location of assembly will change the fact that in the eyes of California, you assembled a handgun from a rifle. Nevermind the fact that the DROS only describes 'long guns', a term not found in the Penal Code. I think building a pistol off a stripped lower is perfectly legal, but I am not a lawyer, and there are plenty of people that disagree with me.

That's a federal distinction not a state one. As the receiver was bare and was never assembled into either configuration, making it a pistol, regardless if it was DROS'd as a long gun isn't a federal concern. ATF says it is fine.

The pistol would need to be registered with the state. I believe it is a misdemeanor to have an unregistered handgun in possession. The only potential trouble here is with the DOJ.

Mssr. Eleganté
01-23-2011, 12:44 PM
...The pistol would need to be registered with the state. I believe it is a misdemeanor to have an unregistered handgun in possession.

There is no crime in possessing an unregistered handgun, unless you are doing something else illegal with the handgun.

CalDOJ could argue that you'd fit the legal definition of "personal handgun importer" and would be required to register the handgun within 60 days of "moving" to California with it.

Librarian
01-23-2011, 12:47 PM
That's a federal distinction not a state one. As the receiver was bare and was never assembled into either configuration, making it a pistol, regardless if it was DROS'd as a long gun isn't a federal concern. ATF says it is fine.

The pistol would need to be registered with the state. I believe it is a misdemeanor to have an unregistered handgun in possession. The only potential trouble here is with the DOJ.

Not in general - it is not required that a handgun be registered. That they are registered through DROS or self-reporting is a different issue. Not all handguns in CA have gone through one of those processes.

B Strong
01-23-2011, 12:48 PM
Wildhawker,

Do you ever see DOJ making an official ruling on this? I don't. As far as ATF is concerned, the supervisor that we were speaking with made it clear to us that Ca DROS doesn't mean a thing to Federal law. So, the easy half of the battle is over. So, if I go out of state and assemble a Ca legal handgun from a stripped lower, would I have to register it as a handgun if I bring it back? I can't find any law stating that I would since, I already owned it in Ca.

The problem as I see it is that the California Penal Code is the controling legal authority in this instance, not ATF.

The wise men :rolleyes: have decided we have a Safe Handgun Roster and and a set of AW laws.

The feds don't care a whit about either.

The same wise men :mad: have only two descriptive options on the DROS.

So, you buy a stripped lower. We know that the lower isn't in the system because longs aren't registered.

You remove the lower from the state, build as a pistol, properly configured.

For whatever reason, that pistol becomes an issue, and the wise men:p can't find it in the system, and from there on, it lawyers and money time.

I'm not an attorney, but I think that the gray area here is big enough for me to want to avoid it, personally.

There are enough pistol lowers available from out-of-state dealers who'll help us, all at what I view as a reasonable cost, to make me inclined to wait for the California wise men :( to get their thumbs out and decide what the law means.

xenophobe
01-23-2011, 12:53 PM
Not in general - it is not required that a handgun be registered. That they are registered through DROS or self-reporting is a different issue. Not all handguns in CA have gone through one of those processes.

There is no crime in possessing an unregistered handgun, unless you are doing something else illegal with the handgun.

Ok, then there is no real issue.


CalDOJ could argue that you'd fit the legal definition of "personal handgun importer" and would be required to register the handgun within 60 days of "moving" to California with it.

But he is already a resident so it doesn't apply. We had that discussion a few years back here, I forget the outcome of it though.

CSACANNONEER
01-23-2011, 12:56 PM
There is no crime in possessing an unregistered handgun, unless you are doing something else illegal with the handgun.

CalDOJ could argue that you'd fit the legal definition of "personal handgun importer" and would be required to register the handgun within 60 days of "moving" to California with it.

Yea, I'm torn here since, I would already legally own it in CA. But, even if I had to pay a second "tax" (not sure if this is something that Ca could legally insist that I do) to bring back a gun that I already DROSed once, it would allow me to assemble the exact handgun I wanted and not pay a few hundred dollar premium for someone else to do it for me.

wildhawker
01-23-2011, 12:58 PM
Wildhawker,

Do you ever see DOJ making an official ruling on this? I don't. As far as ATF is concerned, the supervisor that we were speaking with made it clear to us that Ca DROS doesn't mean a thing to Federal law. So, the easy half of the battle is over. So, if I go out of state and assemble a Ca legal handgun from a stripped lower, would I have to register it as a handgun if I bring it back? I can't find any law stating that I would since, I already owned it in Ca.

CSA: They are going to have to, soon.

B Strong: The only reason I mention ATF is that we're simply not absolutely sure that the state's determination has no effect-by-reverse on the firearm's federal disposition. We don't think it does, but until we can tie up both sides, there is no way to answer "absolutely not".

jtmkinsd
01-23-2011, 12:59 PM
But, it has never been assembled as a rifle!

You can prove this?

DOJ will say, "You DROSed it as a long gun."

You'll say, "Only because the DROS system doesn't give me a choice."

They'll say, "Why didn't you DROS it as a handgun?"

You'll say, "Because I'm not exempt and I cant DROS a receiver as a handgun because it would be an unsafe handgun."

They'll say, "So you manufactured an unsafe handgun while out of State and brought it back into CA?"

You'll say "I'd like to speak to my attorney now."

Totally hypothetical...but again...wanna be the test case? Be my guest.

CSACANNONEER
01-23-2011, 1:01 PM
The problem as I see it is that the California Penal Code is the controling legal authority in this instance, not ATF.



Well, ATF does have a lot of legal authority when it comes to firearms laws, even in Ca. I wanted to know if ATF saw any legal reason why a virgin stripped receiver, DROSed as a long gun, could not be assembled into a handgun or AOW. They don't recognize Ca's DROS system as a way that a virgin receiver would not be able to be assembled as a handgun, rifle, shotgun, AOW, etc.

Can you point to where in Ca PC it would indicate that what I propose is against the law? I have not been able to find anything.

Mssr. Eleganté
01-23-2011, 1:11 PM
...But he is already a resident so it doesn't apply.

The definition of "personal handgun importer" says someone who "moves into this state as a resident". We can assume that when they wrote the law they were meaning somebody who is changing their state of residency to become a California resident and "moving" their household here. But they don't define the word "move". When I drive back from Reno I am "moving" into California because it involves motion. And since I am already a California resident you could say I'm "moving into this state as a resident".


I'm just saying that if CalDOJ wanted to push the issue of him not registering the handgun after bringing it back into California this is one avenue they could try.

bwiese
01-23-2011, 1:21 PM
CSA,

Yes you're on the right track. Understand that ATF agent may not know all risks. In fact, ATF does give out incorrect advice (as frequently does Cal DOJ BoF).

There are two separate concerns here:

1.) The real worry - which the ATF agent may have not even thought of or incorrectly thinks is insignificant - is that there is a chance the CA DROS process which forces labelling the receiver as 'rifle' may 'contaminate' that gun into no longer allowing the gun to be a pistol. After all, if you turn a pistol into a rifle, that rifle can't [other than T/C Contenders, etc - ATF seems to regard the Thompson Center case as being unique to that brand] can't legally return to pistol status - "once a rifle, always a rifle."

Anyone saying they'd know the outcome of this going to trial or what the formal ATF stance is is playing guessing games - I sure as hell don't.

Until this is clarified - on paper and with the good services of gun lawyers - I think this is best avoided. Especially since we do have lawful paths to acquire such pistols (single-shot exemption, etc.) that taking a risk is insane.

2.) I am not worried about the actual CA-only matters themselves. At worst, on reentering CA just vol reg'ing the gun solves those issues. The gateway for 'unsafe handguns' is via the sales/DROS process and for in-state personal mfg. We already have BoF Dept. AG Alison Merrilees on record stating that a person is allowed to make an unsafe handgun, and allowed to send a Rostered gun to Glock to be modified into unsafe handgun status and reimported back into CA. Her info on these matters will carry some weight since she was - prior to her work as Dept AG - one of the authors of SB15 unsafe handgun laws as staffer for Sen Jack Scott.

alex00
01-23-2011, 1:41 PM
That's a federal distinction not a state one. As the receiver was bare and was never assembled into either configuration, making it a pistol, regardless if it was DROS'd as a long gun isn't a federal concern. ATF says it is fine.

The pistol would need to be registered with the state. I believe it is a misdemeanor to have an unregistered handgun in possession. The only potential trouble here is with the DOJ.

I think the issue is deeper than just an unregistered pistol. Again, to be clear, I believe the assembly of a pistol from an OLL is perfectly legal in this state. Wildhawker and others have pointed out it is basically uncharted territory and not a good idea. My concern, is that because the OLL is DROSed as a receiver, there is no clear distinction to avoid a SBR charge in California.

I say this because of the wording of 12020, that mentions not only built from a rifle but something designed to be a rifle. I think it would be a pretty easy step to go from bare receiver, to an SBS charge in California, because of the handgun roster. I think that the argument could be made that since the stripped OLL could not be sold as a handgun in CA in it's present form, the only compatible design is that of a rifle. I'm not saying I agree with this logic, but I think it is something that could get people in trouble.

I agree with others that this scenario is too risky right now. Just because we/I think it's legal doesn't mean it can't be charged. The penalty for an unlawful SBR build is way too high a price to pay right now.

But, it has never been assembled as a rifle! If Ca wants insists that DROS would make it a "rifle" then, taking it out of state and building it would mean that Ca law would not be an issue at that time. So, can I bring my perfectly legal handgun back into the state with me?


I completely agree with you, except that taking it out of state to build it won't change the fact that California may think it either started as a rifle or was originally designed as a rifle. The issue to me, isn't where the firearm is assembled into a pistol, but what the state thought it was meant to be when you bought it. The biggest hiccup is the DROS system, and how it classifies firearms.

Carnivore
01-23-2011, 1:56 PM
The DROS system is flawed and does not allow for "other". The 4473, a federal form, does. I don't see the corallation with rebuild kits. I can't find anywhere in Ca law that would prohibit me from importing a firearm which I already legally own in this state.
I was thinking I had it back words. What I meant was you are talking technicalities. The DROS labels it as a rifle, but since there is not registration for "rifles" then there is no real "proof" it was a rifle. Even though you know it was to begin with. Just like "hi-cap" magazines one would know they didn't have them to begin with but since there is no registration it is hard to prove. The burden of proof would be on the state but unfortunately you are in a round robin. If it gets to court there is no way around it was DROSed as a rifle and you modified it to be a pistol which I.E. you are now in possession of a SBR.

Do I see you getting away with it? ya but is it worth gambling your freedom and at least a load of money to save a couple hundred bucks? That can only be your call.

xenophobe
01-23-2011, 2:41 PM
You can prove this?

DOJ will say, "You DROSed it as a long gun."

You'll say, "Only because the DROS system doesn't give me a choice."

They'll say, "Why didn't you DROS it as a handgun?"

You'll say, "Because I'm not exempt and I cant DROS a receiver as a handgun because it would be an unsafe handgun."

They'll say, "So you manufactured an unsafe handgun while out of State and brought it back into CA?"

You'll say "I'd like to speak to my attorney now."

Totally hypothetical...but again...wanna be the test case? Be my guest.

Does the 4473 state it is a long gun? If it does, you're in a world of trouble.


1.) The real worry - which the ATF agent may have not even thought of or incorrectly thinks is insignificant - is that there is a chance the CA DROS process which forces labelling the receiver as 'rifle' may 'contaminate' that gun into no longer allowing the gun to be a pistol.

Anyone saying they'd know the outcome of this going to trial or what the formal ATF stance is is playing guessing games - I sure as hell don't.

Until this is clarified - on paper and with the good services of gun lawyers - I think this is best avoided. Especially since we do have lawful paths to acquire such pistols (single-shot exemption, etc.) that taking a risk is insane.

I honestly don't see how this is an issue. The fact is that the receiver has not, at the point of delivery, changed in configuration. It is still a receiver that is neither a handgun or a long gun. I've been told numerous times by ATF that state law or regulation plays no part in determinations of legality to them. But I do agree, using one of the proven methods is your safest alternative.


I think the issue is deeper than just an unregistered pistol. Again, to be clear, I believe the assembly of a pistol from an OLL is perfectly legal in this state. Wildhawker and others have pointed out it is basically uncharted territory and not a good idea. My concern, is that because the OLL is DROSed as a receiver, there is no clear distinction to avoid a SBR charge in California.

You don't dros a firearm as a receiver. It is either a long gun or a handgun to the State. The 4473 would be the proof in the pudding.

If you DROS it as a long gun and it's been converted to a pistol? Can they get you on a SBR charge? The long gun isn't registered as a long gun. That record isn't kept. Of course, they can try. Once you show the 4473 that states it was just a receiver, one that had never been assembled, the case against you would likely already be lost. There really needs to be a test case for this specific scenario.


I say this because of the wording of 12020, that mentions not only built from a rifle but something designed to be a rifle. I think it would be a pretty easy step to go from bare receiver, to an SBS charge in California, because of the handgun roster. I think that the argument could be made that since the stripped OLL could not be sold as a handgun in CA in it's present form, the only compatible design is that of a rifle. I'm not saying I agree with this logic, but I think it is something that could get people in trouble.

At worst they could get you with manufacturing an unsafe handgun if you decide on reselling it? As far as I'm aware only the manufacturing of a safe handgun not for personal use is outlawed.


I agree with others that this scenario is too risky right now. Just because we/I think it's legal doesn't mean it can't be charged. The penalty for an unlawful SBR build is way too high a price to pay right now.

I agree, it's very gray area and one that has been discussed for some time now without any real resolution.

IF you submit a voluntary registration form for it after you assemble it, I think that would go a step in your direction to prove to a court that you were at least trying to comply with a confusing set of laws in the only way you could see fit.



I completely agree with you, except that taking it out of state to build it won't change the fact that California may think it either started as a rifle or was originally designed as a rifle. The issue to me, isn't where the firearm is assembled into a pistol, but what the state thought it was meant to be when you bought it. The biggest hiccup is the DROS system, and how it classifies firearms.

I see this mostly as a non-issue. Regardless of how the CA DROS system works, would the item right after purchase fall into a definition of handgun or long gun? No, it wouldn't. Is it legally bound to remain a long gun when in fact it never was? According to the ATF, no. DOJ has no opinion of this as far as I can tell. It depends mostly if they think they can get a win. What they would actually do is beyond anyone's guess.

ke6guj
01-23-2011, 3:13 PM
Well, ATF does have a lot of legal authority when it comes to firearms laws, even in Ca. I wanted to know if ATF saw any legal reason why a virgin stripped receiver, DROSed as a long gun, could not be assembled into a handgun or AOW. They don't recognize Ca's DROS system as a way that a virgin receiver would not be able to be assembled as a handgun, rifle, shotgun, AOW, etc.

Can you point to where in Ca PC it would indicate that what I propose is against the law? I have not been able to find anything.basically, we are stuck until we get a determination somehow that CA would not consider a Long Gun DROSed stripped receiver to be a rifle, and therefore would not consider that firearm with a <16" barrel, <26" OAL to be an SBR, it isn't worth the potential drama at this time.

The fact that it was 4473'd as an "other" and is described as a stripped receiver on the 4473 protects us federally, and you could AOW it if you really wanted to build a "pistol" on it since that AOW tax stamp would exempt you from CA's SBR regs.

But if CA were to still claim that it WAS a rifle, then the rifle AW regs MIGHT still apply, even if wasn't currently in a rifle config. And then the 30" rule might matter.

CSACANNONEER
01-23-2011, 3:42 PM
But if CA were to still claim that it WAS a rifle, then the rifle AW regs MIGHT still apply, even if wasn't currently in a rifle config. And then the 30" rule might matter.

I just went out and cut some firewood for tonight. What a great way to think. Anyway, I was thinking about your thoughts on AWs and came up with:

A stripped receiver could not possibly fit CA's definition of an AW rifle since, it in not and has never been "designed to be fired from the shoulder." An AR stripped reciever is no more "designed to be fired from the shoulder" than an AR pistol, AK pistol, MAc pistol, Ruger Challenger, TC Contender/Encore or even a Remington XP-100.

alex00
01-23-2011, 3:53 PM
I just went out and cut some firewood for tonight. What a great way to think. Anyway, I was thinking about your thoughts on AWs and came up with:

A stripped receiver could not possibly fit CA's definition of an AW rifle since, it in not and has never been "designed to be fired from the shoulder." An AR stripped reciever is no more "designed to be fired from the shoulder" than an AR pistol, AK pistol, MAc pistol, Ruger Challenger, TC Contender/Encore or even a Remington XP-100.

Devils advocate for a second. Since its not possible for a non LEO to DROS a new stripped receiver in CA as a handgun, wouldn't the AR pattern receiver only be "designed to be fired from the shoulder"? Isn't the commercial design of an AR pattern, either rifle or pistol? Since we can't DROS it as a handgun, that leaves the rifle design. Just something to think about. I know we have had discussions about 'Title 1 long guns' that weren't rifles, but are there any commercially available?

ke6guj
01-23-2011, 4:11 PM
A stripped receiver could not possibly fit CA's definition of an AW rifle since, it in not and has never been "designed to be fired from the shoulder." An AR stripped reciever is no more "designed to be fired from the shoulder" than an AR pistol, AK pistol, MAc pistol, Ruger Challenger, TC Contender/Encore or even a Remington XP-100.I would agree with you.


If it isn't assembled into a rifle, with a barrel and shoulder stock attached, how it was DROSed shouldn't matter. Long gun does not have to equal Rifle. I have never seen a CA definition of long gun that says it equals rifle or shotgun.

If it was never a rifle, then then SBR rules shouldn't apply. If it was never a rifle, then the rifle AW rules shouldn't apply. My point was that if CADOJ was gonna claim that your "long gun DROS'ed" pistol was really an SBR because it "was really a rifle", then I could see them tryiing to claim that since it was a rifle, that the rifle AW rules apply. do I believe that it applies, no, just saying that they could. Just like I believe having a stripped listed lower is not a violation of the AW regs since in its current configuration, it is not a semi-automatic firearm. And I believe that a person could own a non-RAW Bushmaster XM15 pistol or DPMS Panther Arms pistol without violating the listed ban (obviously it would need to be an a legal non-AW pistol config). But, the Right People do not recommend it at this time, and I don't have the money to defend that postition.

bohoki
01-23-2011, 6:25 PM
I completely agree with you, except that taking it out of state to build it won't change the fact that California may think it either started as a rifle or was originally designed as a rifle. The issue to me, isn't where the firearm is assembled into a pistol, but what the state thought it was meant to be when you bought it. The biggest hiccup is the DROS system, and how it classifies firearms.


there are non rifles that get drosed as a long gun a long gun is not a rifle a rifle is a long gun though

my example is the semi auto belt feds they are long guns but not having buttstocks they are not "rifles"

also factory pistol grip equipped shotguns must only be sold to those 21 and over due to them not meeting the definition of a "shotgun" also stripped lowers can only be sold to those over 21 because a stripped lower is not a "rifle"

those examples along with the reciever not having a caliber or gauge leaves a pretty big hole in claiming it was a pistol built from a rifle as at the time it had 0.00" barrel length, no buttstock and no rifling

longarmshortlegs
01-23-2011, 6:32 PM
Would the trigger/gun lock being sold at the time of purchase (for handguns) have any effect on this? There may be a few ways around this, but just for the purpose of the handgun/long gun sale.

alex00
01-23-2011, 7:42 PM
there are non rifles that get drosed as a long gun a long gun is not a rifle a rifle is a long gun though

my example is the semi auto belt feds they are long guns but not having buttstocks they are not "rifles"

also factory pistol grip equipped shotguns must only be sold to those 21 and over due to them not meeting the definition of a "shotgun" also stripped lowers can only be sold to those over 21 because a stripped lower is not a "rifle"

those examples along with the reciever not having a caliber or gauge leaves a pretty big hole in claiming it was a pistol built from a rifle as at the time it had 0.00" barrel length, no buttstock and no rifling

I am aware of non-shoulder fired long guns. My point was that the AR pattern is only designed as a rifle or a pistol. I still think what CSA wants to to is legal, I just think the argument can be made by prosecutors that he created an SBR. The SBR in California includes, not only, pistols made from rifles but pistols made from something designed as a rifle. It has nothing to do with the fact that the receiver was never assembled as a rifle. My concern is the wording of California law.

ETA:
PC 12020 (20) As used in this section, a "rifle" 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 cartridge to fire only a single
projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
The bolded part is what has me concerned.

ke6guj
01-23-2011, 7:54 PM
I am aware of non-shoulder fired long guns. My point was that the AR pattern is only designed as a rifle or a pistol. .says who?

there are AR-pattern shotguns and AR-pattern firearms that are set up with spade grips. The receiver is just a building block for any number of legal firearms.

alex00
01-23-2011, 8:00 PM
says who?

there are AR-pattern shotguns and AR-pattern firearms that are set up with spade grips. The receiver is just a building block for any number of legal firearms.

Touche. If there are commercially designed AR patterned long guns like that, then my concerns are put to rest. I can't come up with a good Devils Advocate argument against the OP, other than no one wants to be the test case.

ke6guj
01-23-2011, 8:05 PM
Touche. If there are commercially designed AR patterned long guns like that, then my concerns are put to rest. I can't come up with a good Devils Advocate argument against the OP, other than no one wants to be the test case.yup, no one wants to be the test case. And I would opine that he wouldn't even need to take it out-of-state to assemble (unless he wanted to build an "unsafe handgun" without first manufacturing it as a roster-exempt handgun).

wildhawker
01-23-2011, 8:15 PM
Touche. If there are commercially designed AR patterned long guns like that, then my concerns are put to rest. I can't come up with a good Devils Advocate argument against the OP, other than no one wants to be the test case.

Says who? ;)

We're simply telling other people that unless they have the money to defend against whatever may come of it, to wait until we get the DOJ's response in writing (which becomes either a) a basis from which to call the game and open the floodgates, or b) a lawsuit.)

Nor-Cal
01-23-2011, 9:15 PM
Great idea of CSA but I wounder what DOJ response would be to this!

wildhawker
01-23-2011, 9:57 PM
Great idea of CSA but I wounder what DOJ response would be to this!

One day, we'll be able to tell you. For now, don't do it.