PDA

View Full Version : California Legal AK Receivers?


Addax
08-25-2006, 9:28 PM
Hello,

I am trying to find a list or if anyone knows which AK receivers are California legal.

I appreciate any input.

Regards,
Chris

blkA4alb
08-25-2006, 9:31 PM
This is the Kasler list, any receiver not on here is legal.

caag.state.ca.us/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf

I personally own a NDS-3 receiver.

grammaton76
08-27-2006, 1:57 PM
Hello,

I am trying to find a list or if anyone knows which AK receivers are California legal.

I appreciate any input.

Regards,
Chris

By no means a conclusive list, but check the top table in this page:

http://www.thegunwiki.com/view/Gunwiki/BuildAkChooseParts

Addax
09-04-2006, 1:50 PM
Thank you guys.

Are there any restrictions in purchasing/registering, and bringing in from out of state a complete rifle that is not on the "evil" list and that does not have a "protruding pistol grip" and "high capacity mags"?

i.e. Arsenal SA M5 RPK or Arsenal SA M5 rifle?

stag1500
09-04-2006, 2:58 PM
As long as SB23 features are absent from the rifle (assuming it has a detachable magazine) you can definitely import it into the state.

69Mach1
09-04-2006, 3:30 PM
To import a complete rifle:
1. Make sure it's not on the DOJ list, or 50 BMG caliber.
2. Make sure you will receive it so that it's SB23 compliant.
3. If you modify it, make sure it's 922r compliant (Federal).

Boomer1961
09-04-2006, 3:58 PM
.....and.....

Does anyone know yet (not conjecture-just facts or knowledge of DOJ-legislature-politicians-courts action/meetings/memos)....

When the OLL's will be added to the banned list?

Also the official position of once made an AW will there be a "sub class" of AW's called revision 3.0 that can not have the evil features of the 89 revision 1.0 or the 99 revision 2.0 features?

Addax
09-04-2006, 4:22 PM
Thank you again for putting the facts together.

To Summarize:

As long as the firearm in question is not listed by mfg and model on the CA DOJ AW list and it has the required US Compliant parts (Federal) and it comes into the state of CA already compliant (without protruding pistol grip and high cap magazine) then this is what is allowed or is considered legal to purchase register and own/shoot in California, correct?

69Mach1, I sent you a PM.

Thanks again everyone!

bwiese
09-04-2006, 4:53 PM
Does anyone know yet (not conjecture-just facts or knowledge of DOJ-legislature-politicians-courts action/meetings/memos).... When the OLL's will be added to the banned list?

Who knows? The DOJ doesn't wanna do it, but they have created some advers conditions for themselves by promising to list, in multiple public documents signed by a Deputy AG, back in earlier part of the year.

Also the official position of once made an AW will there be a "sub class" of AW's called revision 3.0 that can not have the evil features of the 89 revision 1.0 or the 99 revision 2.0 features?

The DOJ attempted to try this with the infamous "Category 4" memo of Feb 3. It was shot down publicly by me and others here in this forum, as well as privately by NRA lawyers. In fact, in their responses to the proposed DOJ regulatory definition update, they included their nonpublic response to that "Cat 4 memo".

There are simply no degrees, shades, tiers or levels of assault weapons status possible. The term "Category N" (n={1,2,3}) merely refers to history of when it became an AW, and is not a term of law, but just a convenient catchphrase or term of reference. Once something is a legal reg'd AW, there are no restrictions to features allowed to be added (as long as not SBR, full auto, etc.) 12280 is the section that controls AWs, and there are simply no criminal charges possible for adding, changing or deleting characteristic features from reg'd AWs. The DOJ does not have the power to create variations or restrictions on AWs or restrictions on registration, either.

That Cat 4 memo also dug DOJ further in the hole because (1) it asserted that there will be a reg period and update of the list, triggering massive sales of OLLs - probably at least an extra 20,000 on this alone - and (2) asserted that such Cat 4 AWs would have to have fixed nondetachable magazines - specifically contravening their newly attempted regulatory stance to invoke an undefined level of permanence.

Frankly, we really should appreciate the DOJ staff for the amount of useful paper trails they leave.