PDA

View Full Version : Legality of AR15 lower receivers with "auto/burst" marking in CA


MountainMan2000
03-06-2007, 5:04 PM
Hello,

I'm trying to buy a POF billet AR15 lower receiver. They make two mil-spec models which are identical except the P-415 has no auto marking and the P416 has the auto marking. Having trouble getting either, especially the 415.

The auto marking is a little red diagram with an open box and two bullets coming out. It does not say auto.

I've heard from some that this mark may cause a legal problem in CA. Is this true?

If so, what is the situation?

Is it actually explicitly illegal (ie there is a law or official court ruling interpreting a law) to have an auto marked lower in CA even if it does not have an auto trigger group inside?

Or has there been some written ruling (from DOJ for example) saying its very naughty but there isn't an actual law or ruling against it?

Or are people just being cautious in an attempt to avoid trouble in gun-unfriendly CA?

Thanks a lot!

p.s. - Anyone own that POF lower? How is it? Ever used it with a LaRue stealth upper?

PIRATE14
03-06-2007, 5:10 PM
We have the 415 in stock and sell and ship into the state of CALI.....everyday.

While in all legal matters, the 416 is good to go as well but you run into problems were xfer dealers don't want to see......

The DOJ has a few Superior lowers that were AUTO marked in their collection.......having said that there are people that have them in CALI as well as the 416 models:D

The BATF approves the manufactures to make these but even the BATF in CALI had a little tizzy when they saw them but they are legal......

I am sure others will chime in w/ their stories.....

POF lowers are some of the best billet rcvrs on the market....the GEN II look great....they work as good as they look...

bwiese
03-06-2007, 5:13 PM
There is nothing illegal about markings as long as the receiver does not accept 'fun parts' and does not have a 'happy hole'.

A dozen - maybe even 20? - or so receivers were seized by DOJ's Iggy from Ten Percent Firearms last December, at the onset of the OLL drive.

These receivers had the markings but clearly the selector lever could not be used to go to that position, etc. - that is, any one more that a tad knowledgable about ARs would know it was for decorative purposes. [And we know Iggy knows about full-auto M4s - that's apparently what he shot up a desk/table/bench etc. with some time ago - Iggy's famous negligent discharge, "I'm the only one professional enough here to have an M4..."]

The vendor was nice enough to replace Wes' receivers, and I don't think Wes has the seized receivers back, either.

I do question the wisdom of owning one marked as such as most cops won't know what is or isn't FA (should there be a question in, say, a traffic stop) - and could seize, or worse. It's already an OLL, so we don't need one more aggravating factor.

This is kinda my feeling on things like fake suppressors (silencers) etc. too.

MountainMan2000
03-06-2007, 7:44 PM
Thanks to both of you for the helpful information.

Pirate, I'll probably be placing an order for some AR-15 parts shortly, most likely including a POF 415 milspec lower. Could you please confirm you have the mil-spec one without the integrated trigger guard? Or that you can get it? Also, what CMMG lowers do you have in stock? How do these two compare?

Bill, you are definitely the CA gun law master! I read your online faq previously and learned a lot from it. I agree with you. Not worth adding a non-functional "decorative" auto marking to the list of potential controversy even if it is legal.

But I'm confused about the typical off list lowers and their "mil-spec + RDIAS/RLL compatibility", which is what the manufacturers claim. I would think and holes, dimensions, etc. are all in the mil-spec so a lower that is missing holes or anything else is not mil-spec. And I though RDIAS/RLL compatible was some acronym (not sure what) for compatibility with the auto or burst trigger mechanisms.

So how can all these lowers be RDIAS/RLL compatible and mil-spec but be missing holes, incompatible with an auto trigger, etc?

I've been reading the forums but I must have misunderstood. Please enlighten me as to the true differences between the commercial for-sale lowers and their military variants and also what RDIAS/RLL really means.

I'm not trying to build an auto AR15 but I'd really like to understand all the terminology and how they work (engineer).

Thanks a lot,
Dan

xenophobe
03-06-2007, 7:50 PM
RDIAS = Registered Drop In Auto Sear
RLL = Registered Lightning Link

Both are drop in items that will make a semi automatic ARs fully automatic. A receiver and compatiblity or lack of compatibility with these items have nothing to do with any military specification.

A semi-automatic receiver can either be designed to be compatible with these items or not. In California, it doesn't matter because unless you're one of the very lucky few here, you'll never own one in this state.

bwiese
03-06-2007, 8:20 PM
But I'm confused about the typical off list lowers and their "mil-spec + RDIAS/RLL compatibility", which is what the manufacturers claim. I would think and holes, dimensions, etc. are all in the mil-spec so a lower that is missing holes or anything else is not mil-spec. And I though RDIAS/RLL compatible was some acronym (not sure what) for compatibility with the auto or burst trigger mechanisms.

Dan,

The RDIAS/RLL etc stuff is not the standard milspec M16 FA/3rd burst fire control parts set and is a different way of going about it.

The RDIAS/RLL will work in most but not all AR receivers - without any M16 "happy hole" being drilled. It's an 'alternate' way to full auto. Don't muck with it or you'll go to jail for a long time.

Our AR15-type receivers are not truly milspec, since the only true "milspec" receivers out there are M16/M4 receivers that you & I can't get. We use the term 'milspec' a bit casually in this case, just meaning that they're forged, from the same alloy, and use the same coatings as M16 receivers.

SemiAutoSam
03-06-2007, 8:27 PM
Bill are you loseing it ? if someone has the DOJ permit and the tax stamp and the $$$$$ to afford the RDIAS it would be legal.

The last one I sold went for a cool 15K.

Maybe you forgot the R in front of DIAS?

Dan,

The RDIAS/RLL etc stuff is not the standard milspec M16 FA/3rd burst fire control parts set and is a different way of going about it.

The RDIAS/RLL will work in most but not all AR receivers - without any M16 "happy hole" being drilled. It's an 'alternate' way to full auto. Don't muck with it or you'll go to jail for a long time.

Our AR15-type receivers are not truly milspec, since the only true "milspec" receivers out there are M16/M4 receivers that you & I can't get. We use the term 'milspec' a bit casually in this case, just meaning that they're forged, from the same alloy, and use the same coatings as M16 receivers.

bwiese
03-06-2007, 8:39 PM
Bill are you loseing it ? if someone has the DOJ permit and the tax stamp and the $$$$$ to afford the RDIAS it would be legal.

The last one I sold went for a cool 15K.

Maybe you forgot the R in front of DIAS?

I am not losing it.

I don't think anyone can get a RDIAS in CA. CA DOJ won't give permits - that's a machinegun equivalent, essentially nonexistent. (Even movie people don't get MG permits anymore. Hell I don't think people get new SBRs here at all either. Remember, some DOJ staff didn't like the way some affixed a 10rd fixed magazine - you think they're gonna hand out MG permits?)

ATF won't give permission (tax stamp) til state does.

And it's not a matter of price - pocket money like that walks around here in Silly Valley daily, that's just the price of a couple of decent Rolexes. If it were achievable, it'd've been done by now, there's lotsa monied gunnies here.

There could be some grandfathered stuff owned before state tightened up but that's it.

RDIASes also have to be pre-May 1986 - that's why they're $15K (I remember when they were $7K). If there were no May 86 cutoff they'd be worth $201 ($200 xfer tax + $1 of metal).

SemiAutoSam
03-06-2007, 8:50 PM
Pre may would not cut it and it (read the one I sold) was a transferable not a pre May 19 1986 sample. But maybe you knew that the transferable MG's (Yes you are correct it is considered a MG) would be worth a hell of a lot more than a pre sample. 15-20K at present time for a Transferable and only 5K or up to around 7 for a PRE MAY Sample. Did you know NFA had a hand in helping the 1986 NFA Law become law?


OK fine at the present time your not losing it

I am not losing it.

I don't think anyone can get a RDIAS in CA. CA DOJ won't give permits - that's a machinegun equivalent, essentially nonexistent. (Even movie people don't get MG permits anymore. Hell I don't think people get new SBRs here at all either. Remember, some DOJ staff didn't like the way some affixed a 10rd fixed magazine - you think they're gonna hand out MG permits?)

ATF won't give permission (tax stamp) til state does.

And it's not a matter of price - pocket money like that walks around here in Silly Valley daily, that's just the price of a couple of decent Rolexes. If it were achievable, it'd've been done by now, there's lotsa monied gunnies here.

There could be some grandfathered stuff owned before state tightened up but that's it.

RDIASes also have to be pre-May 1986 - that's why they're $15K (I remember when they were $7K). If there were no May 86 cutoff they'd be worth $201 ($200 xfer tax + $1 of metal).

five.five-six
03-06-2007, 9:00 PM
does not accept 'fun parts' and does not have a 'happy hole'.



LMAO

hoffmang
03-06-2007, 9:38 PM
Hey Bill - I resemble that remark. Sam - If I could get one I'd happily pay $15K for a legal DIAS.

-Gene

AJAX22
03-06-2007, 9:38 PM
Pre may would not cut it and it (read the one I sold) was a transferable not a pre May 19 1986 sample. But maybe you knew that the transferable MG's (Yes you are correct it is considered a MG) would be worth a hell of a lot more than a pre sample. 15-20K at present time for a Transferable and only 5K or up to around 7 for a PRE MAY Sample. Did you know NFA had a hand in helping the 1986 NFA Law become law?


OK fine at the present time your not losing it

I think bill is refering to the 1986 cutoff date for the nfa registry not the 1981 (ish?) ATF decision to regulate the DIAS as a machine gun, and not the dealer sample DIAS.

And for the record I'm officially envious that you actually had a transferable one. Us youngins won't get to experiance the joy of legal ownership in this state unless a few laws get changed.

SemiAutoSam
03-06-2007, 9:47 PM
I still have a few transferable HK sears if your interested in one of those I think they were registered by Fleming in around 1985.

I sell them for 20K and no I don't claim a Capital Gains tax on them. LOL Where were you when I stopped doing NFA business You could have bought alot cheap I sold a M2HB50 for 10K and a Maremont M60 for 15K.




Hey Bill - I resemble that remark. Sam - If I could get one I'd happily pay $15K for a legal DIAS.

-Gene

I'm very familiar with the May 19 1986 law and know the difference between a PRE 1981 made sear and a Transferable and pre May sample. In my previous incarnation I was a 01 FFL and 03 SOT in a free state.

FYI there are 3 levels of NFA demand and registration in order of cost More to less. Transferable , Pre 86 sample and Post 86 sample. SOT's can keep both the Pre samples and transferable after they stop doing business.

FYI I wasnt speaking of the 1981 DIAS mfg date.



I think bill is referring to the 1986 cutoff date for the nfa registry not the 1981 (ish?) ATF decision to regulate the DIAS as a machine gun, and not the dealer sample DIAS.

And for the record I'm officially envious that you actually had a transferable one. Us youngins won't get to experience the joy of legal ownership in this state unless a few laws get changed.

AJAX22
03-06-2007, 9:57 PM
I didn't know that there was a difference between pre 86 samples and post 86 samples. I learned something new today, thanks.