PDA

View Full Version : A guy at the gun store told me...


Chosen_1
02-17-2012, 1:05 PM
...that I have to be 21 to buy a complete AR 15 lower receiver, even though it has a stock, thus making it a rifle. I did a search, but could find nothing. Truth or FUD?

Us3rName
02-17-2012, 1:06 PM
true

I forgot the exact reasons and I'm sure someone will chime in.

Something to do with the way they are dros'd.

I had a few dros'd as rifles and some as pistols and many as others. It really depends

Rifles = 18+ (complete rifle)

pistols & aow = 21+

paul0660
02-17-2012, 1:07 PM
Beats me. Shouldn't he have chapter and verse ready?

Chosen_1
02-17-2012, 1:08 PM
Beats me. Shouldn't he have chapter and verse ready?

Because gun store employees always know the law perfectly :rolleyes:.

stix213
02-17-2012, 1:08 PM
In what way is an AR complete lower a rifle? Rifles usually have actual rifled barrels. AR's can have shotgun uppers, or even a crossbow upper.


(7) The term "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 an explosive
to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each
single pull of the trigger.


Where is your rifled bore on that lower? Doesn't seem to meet the federal definition of a rifle without one.

CHS
02-17-2012, 1:10 PM
...that I have to be 21 to buy a complete AR 15 lower receiver, even though it has a stock, thus making it a rifle. I did a search, but could find nothing. Truth or FUD?

Truth.

The stock is meaningless. Federally, you can build a pistol out of that receiver as long as you took the stock off first.

A receiver, complete or stripped, is not a rifle or shotgun, which are the only firearms exempt from the 21yo age limit for firearms purchases.

CHS
02-17-2012, 1:11 PM
true

I forgot the exact reasons and I'm sure someone will chime in.

Something to do with the way they are dros'd.


DROS is a California thing. What he's talking about is Federal. DROS has nothing to do with the reason whatsoever.

CSACANNONEER
02-17-2012, 1:12 PM
He's correct and you are wrong. ATF has ruled that a lower is not a rifle until it has a stock and an upper on it. You might want to go back and apologize if you were a knowitall dick kid.

Chosen_1
02-17-2012, 1:17 PM
He's correct and you are wrong. ATF has ruled that a lower is not a rifle until it has a stock and an upper on it. You might want to go back and apologize if you were a knowitall dick kid.

Thanks for the input. I told him "Oh, OK," then thought to myself, "I will consult Calguns just in case he's wrong." Only one knowitall dick in this thread...

SanPedroShooter
02-17-2012, 1:19 PM
Only one knowitall dick in this thread...



Ha ha, busted CSACANNONEER! ;)

stix213
02-17-2012, 1:20 PM
Thanks for the input. I told him "Oh, OK," then thought to myself, "I will consult Calguns just in case he's wrong." Only one knowitall dick in this thread...

Don't be too hard on CSA.... most of the threads like this also involve someone yelling at the FFL that they are wrong when they are actually correct. Glad not this time ;)

Dr Rockso
02-17-2012, 1:20 PM
I'm not sure if there's a consensus yet about that. The current revision of ATF form 4473 gives three options, long gun, handgun, and other. In this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=201696) thread Wes said that his ATF contact told him to submit complete receivers with buttstocks as long guns. I know other FFLs require that it be a functional firearm (with complete upper) before they'll list it as as a long gun.

stix213
02-17-2012, 1:22 PM
You might want to see if this FFL will do some kind of upper buy back. Maybe he has a crap upper he can sell to you, and buy back after you get the one you want.

edit: sorry forget this, probably not legal depending on the licenses the FFL has

paul0660
02-17-2012, 1:23 PM
Because gun store employees always know the law perfectly :rolleyes:.

They also have computers. I don't let anything slide anymore.

stix213
02-17-2012, 1:23 PM
I'm not sure if there's a consensus yet about that. The current revision of ATF form 4473 gives three options, long gun, handgun, and other. In this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=201696) thread Wes said that his ATF contact told him to submit complete receivers with buttstocks as long guns. I know other FFLs require that it be a functional firearm (with complete upper) before they'll list it as as a long gun.

Only rifles and shotguns can be sold to those under 21. Not all long guns.

winnre
02-17-2012, 1:24 PM
In what way is an AR complete lower a rifle? Rifles usually have actual rifled barrels. AR's can have shotgun uppers, or even a crossbow upper.



PLEASE find me a crossbow upper!!!!

CHS
02-17-2012, 1:25 PM
I'm not sure if there's a consensus yet about that. The current revision of ATF form 4473 gives three options, long gun, handgun, and other. In this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=201696) thread Wes said that his ATF contact told him to submit complete receivers with buttstocks as long guns. I know other FFLs require that it be a functional firearm (with complete upper) before they'll list it as as a long gun.

It's pretty easy to confirm. Just look at federal law. A "Rifle" is defined as a firearm that is designed to be fired from the shoulder and has a rifled bore.

A receiver without an upper has no rifled bore and therefore CAN NOT be a rifle.

You might want to see if this FFL will do some kind of upper buy back. Maybe he has a crap upper he can sell to you, and buy back after you get the one you want.

That would likely be illegal as the FFL is then manufacturing rifles without a manufacturing license.

stix213
02-17-2012, 1:25 PM
PLEASE find me a crossbow upper!!!!

http://www.huntersfriend.com/products/archery/crossbows/pse_tac_15_crossbow.html

http://www.huntersfriend.com/products/archery/crossbows/images/pse_tac_15_440.jpg


That would likely be illegal as the FFL is then manufacturing rifles without a manufacturing license.

Ahh good to know, scratch that

CHS
02-17-2012, 1:28 PM
As far as the receiver not being a rifle, this ATF letter sums it up nicely:

http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m446/bdsmchs/ARpistolreceiverletter-page1-web.jpg

http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m446/bdsmchs/ARpistolreceiverletter-page2-web.jpg

Sanman023
02-17-2012, 1:31 PM
http://www.huntersfriend.com/products/archery/crossbows/pse_tac_15_crossbow.html

http://www.huntersfriend.com/products/archery/crossbows/images/pse_tac_15_440.jpg



Ahh good to know, scratch that

beat me to it....i remember seeing it in a movie...red

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Red_%282010%29

Dr Rockso
02-17-2012, 1:32 PM
Only rifles and shotguns can be sold to those under 21. Not all long guns.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. We're not talking about a weird title 1 'other' XO-26 looking thing here, we're talking about a complete lower with a buttstock. If you read the other thread Wes is pretty clear about what his ATF contact told him regarding complete lowers being 4473'd the same as rifles, and the context of that thread was selling a complete lower to someone under 21. Unless a consensus has materialized since then I don't think it's clear whether ATF is considering complete lowers as 'others'.

stix213
02-17-2012, 1:40 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. We're not talking about a weird title 1 'other' XO-26 looking thing here, we're talking about a complete lower with a buttstock. If you read the other thread Wes is pretty clear about what his ATF contact told him regarding complete lowers being 4473'd the same as rifles, and the context of that thread was selling a complete lower to someone under 21. Unless a consensus has materialized since then I don't think it's clear whether ATF is considering complete lowers as 'others'.

He said the ATF told him not to mark it as a receiver. I don't see how that means it is a rifle. Maybe I'm just not understanding the point. But Wes's ATF agent also didn't put anything in writing either (well except for an e-mail that was never posted).

CHS
02-17-2012, 1:43 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. We're not talking about a weird title 1 'other' XO-26 looking thing here, we're talking about a complete lower with a buttstock. If you read the other thread Wes is pretty clear about what his ATF contact told him regarding complete lowers being 4473'd the same as rifles, and the context of that thread was selling a complete lower to someone under 21. Unless a consensus has materialized since then I don't think it's clear whether ATF is considering complete lowers as 'others'.

You need to read the ATF letter I posted.

What the guy told Wes is one field agents opinion.

My letter quotes FEDERAL LAW.

FEDERAL LAW says you must be 21 to purchase firearms. It then exempts the sale of RIFLES and SHOTGUNS only to those who are 18yo.

Handguns aren't the only firearms that aren't rifles or shotguns.

Receivers (of any kind) that have buttstocks or not, are firearms other than rifles and shotguns and handguns, and can only be transferred to 21yo's from dealers.

Firearms such as 1919's and M2's do not have buttstocks and are not designed to be fired from the shoulder. They are also not handguns. They are just another Title 1 "other", and you must be 21yo or older to purchase these as well.

A complete lower with a buttstock left the factory as a receiver, and FET was never paid against its manufacture. That makes it a receiver only and it's not a rifle until a rifled bore is attached to it via a rifle upper. Until then, the buttstock is meaningless, and could even be removed to build an AR pistol, or a tripod-mounted AR with spade grips like a 1919. But it's not a rifle. And as long as it's not a rifle (or shotgun) you have to be 21yo to purchase it.

CHS
02-17-2012, 1:45 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. We're not talking about a weird title 1 'other' XO-26 looking thing here, we're talking about a complete lower with a buttstock. If you read the other thread Wes is pretty clear about what his ATF contact told him regarding complete lowers being 4473'd the same as rifles, and the context of that thread was selling a complete lower to someone under 21. Unless a consensus has materialized since then I don't think it's clear whether ATF is considering complete lowers as 'others'.

First off, that thread is 2 and a half years old.

Second, Wes offers no proof whatsoever that a receiver with a buttstock is a rifle. He just says "well that's what my agent told me".

That thread has zero accurate information regarding a receiver with a buttstock and is simply hearsay.

ke6guj
02-17-2012, 1:48 PM
As far as the receiver not being a rifle, this ATF letter sums it up nicely:

http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m446/bdsmchs/ARpistolreceiverletter-page1-web.jpg

http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m446/bdsmchs/ARpistolreceiverletter-page2-web.jpgto further expand on that, ATF has said that even if you DROS that stripped receiver (or a complete lower) as a Long GUn, that it doesn't taint the receiver as a rifle in ATF's eyes.

Chosen_1
02-17-2012, 1:50 PM
OK, so now that's answered, if my dad buys the lower, is it considered a "possible" pistol and registered to him by CA?

jonc
02-17-2012, 1:54 PM
i learned something today..

thanks calguns

ke6guj
02-17-2012, 1:59 PM
OK, so now that's answered, if my dad buys the lower, is it considered a "possible" pistol and registered to him by CA?No. CADOJ considers the lower to be a "long gun" and it is DROS as such. It is not registered to him as a "possible" pistol.

On the 4473, it will be marked as an "other" and on the DROS it will be marked as a long gun.

Dr Rockso
02-17-2012, 2:00 PM
First off, that thread is 2 and a half years old.

Second, Wes offers no proof whatsoever that a receiver with a buttstock is a rifle. He just says "well that's what my agent told me".

That thread has zero accurate information regarding a receiver with a buttstock and is simply hearsay.

I hadn't seen that March 2010 letter before. That reasoning is more internally consistent than I expected to see out of ATF, especially he fact that they're willing to concede that a buttstock doesn't doom a receiver to perpetual rifledom.

CHS
02-17-2012, 2:10 PM
I hadn't seen that March 2010 letter before. That reasoning is more internally consistent than I expected to see out of ATF, especially he fact that they're willing to concede that a buttstock doesn't doom a receiver to perpetual rifledom.

You just need to read the section of Federal law that deals with this. It's pretty explicit.

Sitting down with a complete receiver (with a buttstock) and reading the Federal law, you cannot come to a rational conclusion that what's in front of you is a rifle.

CHS
02-17-2012, 2:11 PM
to further expand on that, ATF has said that even if you DROS that stripped receiver (or a complete lower) as a Long GUn, that it doesn't taint the receiver as a rifle in ATF's eyes.

Do we have anything in writing on that one?

Dr Rockso
02-17-2012, 2:15 PM
Sitting down with a complete receiver (with a buttstock) and reading the Federal law, you cannot come to a rational conclusion that what's in front of you is a rifle.
Is the goal to come to a rational conclusion, or is it to come to the same conclusion as the ATF? Seems like those are often orthogonal to one another.

ke6guj
02-17-2012, 2:20 PM
Do we have anything in writing on that one?
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu212/ke6guj/NFAstuff/longgunDROSdoesnotfederallytaintreceiver-resized.jpg

IrishPirate
02-17-2012, 2:21 PM
the confusion comes in that CADOJ considers them rifles, unless otherwise DROSed, and the ATF consideres them "firearms" which can only be sold to 21+. So you wouldn't be breaking CA laws, but federal ones, which is kind of a big deal (not that CA laws are any less of a big deal).

If your dad bought it, he could gift it to you since it would be DROSed as a long gun and father-son transfers of long guns don't require registration or an FFL. But if you build a pistol out of it, you'd have to have it registered...so don't do that unless you like opening pandora's box

tenpercentfirearms
02-17-2012, 2:26 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. We're not talking about a weird title 1 'other' XO-26 looking thing here, we're talking about a complete lower with a buttstock. If you read the other thread Wes is pretty clear about what his ATF contact told him regarding complete lowers being 4473'd the same as rifles, and the context of that thread was selling a complete lower to someone under 21. Unless a consensus has materialized since then I don't think it's clear whether ATF is considering complete lowers as 'others'.

That is old information. The ATF has published letters since then that are clear that it has to have a rifled barrel to be a rifle, so a complete lower is still a lower and still not for sale to people under 21.

CSACANNONEER
02-17-2012, 3:07 PM
Thanks for the input. I told him "Oh, OK," then thought to myself, "I will consult Calguns just in case he's wrong." Only one knowitall dick in this thread...

I used the word "if" because, I
Did not know the answer.

the confusion comes in that CADOJ considers them rifles, unless otherwise DROSed, and the ATF consideres them "firearms" which can only be sold to 21+. So you wouldn't be breaking CA laws, but federal ones, which is kind of a big deal (not that CA laws are any less of a big deal).

If your dad bought it, he could gift it to you since it would be DROSed as a long gun and father-son transfers of long guns don't require registration or an FFL. But if you build a pistol out of it, you'd have to have it registered...so don't do that unless you like opening pandora's box

Please explain why you think building a handgun from a legally owned receiver would need to be registered.

Wherryj
02-17-2012, 4:13 PM
PLEASE find me a crossbow upper!!!!

I need one too. My build is ALMOST finished.
http://i759.photobucket.com/albums/xx238/wherryj/swiss_army_assault_rifle.jpg

IrishPirate
02-17-2012, 4:37 PM
Please explain why you think building a handgun from a legally owned receiver would need to be registered.

well considering you can't get the parts to build an AR pistol without having an AR lower registered as a pistol in your name.....i'm pretty sure you'd have to register that lower as a pistol lower. Can you explain how to get around this? because i'm pretty sure AR owners would LOVE to find out how to buy a 10" barrel without buying an AR pistol lower.

if you put AR pistol parts on an non registered lower, I'm pretty sure you'll trip the AW laws. But hey, if you're advocating ignoring the current AW laws, that's your business.

only way i know of to get around it is to build from an 80% lower, though how to avoid tripping constructive possession laws that way is still a bit foggy to me...

CSACANNONEER
02-17-2012, 4:49 PM
well considering you can't get the parts to build an AR pistol without having an AR lower registered as a pistol in your name.....i'm pretty sure you'd have to register that lower as a pistol lower. Can you explain how to get around this? because i'm pretty sure AR owners would LOVE to find out how to buy a 10" barrel without buying an AR pistol lower.

WTF are you talking about? Anyone can order AR pistol parts with or without owning any lower. There is zero requirement to register a gun which is already legally yours (AWs and 50BMGs aside). So, I'm not sure why you would think you would or even could register a Rifle DROSed lower as a handgun. I'm confused about your last question. There is no "getting around" anything. If you want a 10" upper, just order it. Now, be very careful. If you have an AR rifle and no AR lower which can be legally assembled into a handgun, the ownership or possession of a 10" upper or even a barrel, would be considered "constructive possession" of a SBR.

Please read Jack's letter again and note that we are talking about this being legal on a federal level. The state of Ca has yet to weigh in on this (and won't until there is a test case). The facts are that there is no law against me taking my legally purchased (in CA) and owned lower to Iowa (or any other state where it would be legal) and assembling it as a handgun. It is not illegal for me to bring firearms which I legally purchased in Ca back to Ca. There is no legal requirement to register and non AW/50BMG rifles in Ca. So................??????????????


Disclaimer:

While I truely believe this to be legal, IANAL and with the ease of aquiring and low cost of a pistol lower, why risk the cost of defending yourself? So, don't do it.

ke6guj
02-17-2012, 5:02 PM
well considering you can't get the parts to build an AR pistol without having an AR lower registered as a pistol in your name.....i'm pretty sure you'd have to register that lower as a pistol lower. Can you explain how to get around this? because i'm pretty sure AR owners would LOVE to find out how to buy a 10" barrel without buying an AR pistol lower.
I don't need anything "registered" as a pistol in order to get pistol parts, I just need to make sure I have a legal use for the parts I buy, so as to not trigger constructive SBR possession laws.

if you put AR pistol parts on an non registered lower, I'm pretty sure you'll trip the AW laws. But hey, if you're advocating ignoring the current AW laws, that's your business.

only way i know of to get around it is to build from an 80% lower, though how to avoid tripping constructive possession laws that way is still a bit foggy to me...
exactly. build up an 80% lower as a pistol lower and you have a legal use for those AR pistol parts you can now order. you don't have to "register" that finished 80% lower as pistol first, or at all.

CSACANNONEER
02-17-2012, 5:06 PM
if you put AR pistol parts on an non registered lower, I'm pretty sure you'll trip the AW laws. But hey, if you're advocating ignoring the current AW laws, that's your business.


That's a good one. Please show exactly how or where the AW laws would be "tripped". I'll make it interesting, if you can shoe me actual text or case law, I'll give you one of my extra lowers. You'll just have to pay the PPT fees. OK?

ke6guj
02-17-2012, 5:16 PM
The facts are that there is no law against me taking my legally purchased (in CA) and owned lower to Iowa (or any other state where it would be legal) and assembling it as a handgun.
true

It is not illegal for me to bring firearms which I legally purchased in Ca back to Ca. There is no legal requirement to register and non AW/50BMG rifles in Ca. So................?????????????? true, but if CA "knows" that that lower was DROSed as a long gun and wants to call it an SBR, then it doesn't matter that the "manufacture" happened out of state. They would be able to prosecute for possession of an SBR in CA. it is both illegal to manufacture and possess an unregistered SBR in CA.


Disclaimer:

While I truely believe this to be legal, IANAL and with the ease of aquiring and low cost of a pistol lower, why risk the cost of defending yourself? So, don't do it.and that is the important thing right here.

At no point did I say that a person should use a long gun DROSed receiver to make a pistol in CA. the conversation was about why a person couldn't buy a stripped receiver until he was 21. It was stated that that is because a stripped receiver isn't a rifle, so you have to be 21 to purchase it. but even though it isn't a rifle, it isn't a pistol and it isn't registered as a pistol or "possible" pistol.

the point of the two letters is to show that what CA does regarding its DROS paperwork does not affect the federal classification of the receiver, and what the federal paperwork says does not affect the CA classification of the receiver.

CHS
02-17-2012, 5:17 PM
well considering you can't get the parts to build an AR pistol without having an AR lower registered as a pistol in your name.....i'm pretty sure you'd have to register that lower as a pistol lower. Can you explain how to get around this? because i'm pretty sure AR owners would LOVE to find out how to buy a 10" barrel without buying an AR pistol lower.

if you put AR pistol parts on an non registered lower, I'm pretty sure you'll trip the AW laws. But hey, if you're advocating ignoring the current AW laws, that's your business.

only way i know of to get around it is to build from an 80% lower, though how to avoid tripping constructive possession laws that way is still a bit foggy to me...

I don't think you understand California or Federal law at all.

Pretty much everything you've said is completely wrong.

IrishPirate
02-17-2012, 5:52 PM
sorry, "get" was the wrong term, "have" was what i was trying to get across. If your AR pistol isn't done on a lower that's registered as a pistol lower, it's a SBR in CA. Yeah you can order the parts, but if you get caught with a 10" barrel and no registered pistol lower, that's constructive possession.

if you think going out of CA gets you around that, then go ahead and be the test case.

CHS
02-17-2012, 5:58 PM
sorry, "get" was the wrong term, "have" was what i was trying to get across. If your AR pistol isn't done on a lower that's registered as a pistol lower, it's a SBR in CA.

That is mere speculation, not law.

Yeah you can order the parts, but if you get caught with a 10" barrel and no registered pistol lower, that's constructive possession.


That's just plain wrong.

IrishPirate
02-17-2012, 6:54 PM
That is mere speculation, not law.



That's just plain wrong.

If you know something i clearly don't then please enlighten me. Or you guys could just continue being elitist and hording all the info yourself. I thought calguns was meant to help dispel FUD, not scoff at the misinformed...we've all been wrong in our lives. Show me exactly how i'm wrong and i'll join the dark side.

CHS
02-17-2012, 7:20 PM
If you know something i clearly don't then please enlighten me. Or you guys could just continue being elitist and hording all the info yourself. I thought calguns was meant to help dispel FUD, not scoff at the misinformed...we've all been wrong in our lives. Show me exactly how i'm wrong and i'll join the dark side.

The law doesn't work like that. The law says what's illegal, anything not covered is defacto legal.

sorry, "get" was the wrong term, "have" was what i was trying to get across. If your AR pistol isn't done on a lower that's registered as a pistol lower, it's a SBR in CA. Yeah you can order the parts, but if you get caught with a 10" barrel and no registered pistol lower, that's constructive possession.


To be an SBR in California you must meet the minimum requirements for constructive possession.

A stripped AR lower is not a rifle or a pistol. If you have one, and you have a short upper, there is no federal constructive possession. For there to be California constructive possession, we don't know what the minimum requirements are because it's all speculation. There is no law specifically that says "stripped receiver + short upper = constructive possession". And California law generally doesn't talk about receivers or how to handle them.

Now, California law mandates that dealers use the DROS system, and when you go into the DROS software you can only do a "handgun" or "long gun" transfer. Since California law mandates that ALL firearms go through DROS, you have to erroneously choose one or the other when selling a receiver. Most dealers choose the "long gun" option because to choose handgun would register the receiver to you and force roster compliance.

"Long gun" DROS information is supposed to be kept by the FFL for I believe 3 years. It's kept by the DOJ for no more than 30 days (by law).

So after 3 years, you could have a stripped lower receiver who's only existing record shows it as being a title 1 other "receiver" on the 4473 (which the FFL must keep on file for 20 years).

Given all that, there's still no law requiring that handguns you own are registered. And there's definitely no law requiring that any handgun "frames or receivers" be registered before you build them into a handgun.

You can also manufacture a handgun frame/receiver by scratch for yourself and there is no law requiring that you register it.

So you could have a home-built stripped AR15 receiver with no serial number or any other markings, not registered to you, AND a short-barreled upper, and you're still legal.

You could also go to the gun store, purchase a stripped lower receiver which is 4473'ed as a title 1 "other" and described as a "receiver", DROS'ed as a "long gun", and slap a short upper on it and build an AR pistol. This would be 100% legal at the federal level. It is believed to be legal at the CA level as no laws in the PC really touch on this particular scenario, but some people believe that CA would believe the DROS and consider it a rifle (even though DROS covers "long guns" which only includes rifles and shotguns, but doesn't inherently imply rifles or shotguns) and urge caution in doing this.

To say it's outright illegal though is again, pure speculation.


if you think going out of CA gets you around that, then go ahead and be the test case.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this.

Say I live in Arizona. I go to the gun store, buy some stripped receivers, they do the instant background check (there is no DROS in AZ) and I walk out with my receivers. The only documents at the FFL will be a 4473, where it will show the transfer of several title 1 "other firearm"'s described as "receivers".

Then I move to California with those receivers. Those are still virgin receivers in the eyes of federal law. California can try calling them whatever they want, but the California law describing rifles still doesn't cover a stripped receiver.

California law does require new handgun owners who move into the state to register their handguns. Stripped receivers are not handguns so I never register them.

A year later, I buy some short-barreled uppers. There is zero constructive possession here. California law doesn't consider the receivers rifles, and there are no buttstocks around to show intent to build short-barreled rifles.

Later on, I assemble the uppers and receivers into CA-AWB-compliant AR pistols.

Now, I've got unregistered pistols LAWFULLY inside the state of CA. No laws have been broken. Nothing trips the AWB as long as I use 10rd mags and bullet buttons on the completed pistols.

IrishPirate
02-17-2012, 7:52 PM
But if you have an AR long gun and completed AR pistols that aren't registered in CA, wouldn't that still trip the AW constructive possession? I can see the point you're trying to make, but it seems like a narrow margin to play with in the hopes that the attorney general isn't going to disagree with you....

and yes, i know you can build from 80% lowers but as stated in my first post, that seems foggy to me on how it doesn't trip constructive possession. Since the DOJ says (AFAIK) you have to have an AR pistol receiver registered in your name to have SBR components if you have anything that would also construct a rifle....

CHS
02-17-2012, 7:55 PM
And just because it's "speculation" means that the DOJ isn't going to bring the hammer down. Do you really believe the wont prosecute someone for having a "rifle" lower and a "pistol" upper??? Sorry but if the CGN legal guys suggest staying away from this sort of thing, i'm gonna listen.

if you're going to call someone out as wrong, you might want to lead with this kind of info so we understand why. And you might want to make sure that you're actually right since i'm not the only one speculating on this one...

You said that if you have a short upper and a receiver that wasn't registered as a pistol, you'll be looking at constructive possession. That's just false.

There are many ways of getting receivers that aren't tainted by a "long gun" DROS and aren't registered pistols.

Getting them from another state, having them 3 years after DROS records are gone (or 30 days), building from an 80%, are all examples.

CSACANNONEER
02-17-2012, 7:57 PM
There is no law against possessing a 10" upper. Now, if you only have a complete AR rifle and a 10" upper, there's a good arguement for constructive possession on both a state and federal level. However, if you do not possess any lower at all, the upper would be fine to own. If you possess a virgin lower, the upper would be legal to own. There is no mandatory requirement to register a handgun and it is actually not even legally possible to register a virgin lower as a handgun (except by those who are roster exempt). One could SSE a complete gun and then remove the upper though. One can not legally register a home build until it is built into a complete SSE handgun. But, one needs to purchase and "have" a short barrelled upper to do this.

CSACANNONEER
02-17-2012, 8:02 PM
But if you have an AR long gun and completed AR pistols that aren't registered in CA, wouldn't that still trip the AW constructive possession? I can see the point you're trying to make, but it seems like a narrow margin to play with in the hopes that the attorney general isn't going to disagree with you....

Hey, my offer to GIVE you a lower is real. I suggest going back and reading all the Ca AW laws a few times before you post about breaking non existent AW laws again. Ca AW laws do NOT have a constructive possession clause in them. CA SBR laws do but, they are not AW laws. Also, there is no law against possessing unregistered handguns so, possessing an unregistered legal handgun in CA is LEGAL and does not trip any laws.

CHS
02-17-2012, 8:07 PM
CA PC regarding "rifle":
17090. As used in Sections 16530, 16640, 16650, 16660, 16870, and
17170, Sections 17720 to 17730, inclusive, Section 17740, subdivision
(f) of Section 27555, Article 2 (commencing with Section 30300) of
Chapter 1 of Division 10 of Title 4, and Article 1 (commencing with
Section 33210) of Chapter 8 of Division 10 of Title 4, "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.

According to CA law, a stripped receiver is not a rifle.

IrishPirate
02-17-2012, 8:21 PM
You said that if you have a short upper and a receiver that wasn't registered as a pistol, you'll be looking at constructive possession. That's just false.

There are many ways of getting receivers that aren't tainted by a "long gun" DROS and aren't registered pistols.

Getting them from another state, having them 3 years after DROS records are gone (or 30 days), building from an 80%, are all examples.

deleted that one after i posted it because what you said clicked. I understand getting them, i understand not having to register them....what i'm lost on is the line which divides constructive possession, SBR's, and the AWB, and how the OP could get a lower, buy AR pistol parts, and not have to worry about that landing him in trouble. I'm not saying i haven't been mislead and that i'm not wrong, but it's a complicated issue that even the big legal minds advise staying away from so....

There is no law against possessing a 10" upper. Now, if you only have a complete AR rifle and a 10" upper, there's a good arguement for constructive possession on both a state and federal level. However, if you do not possess any lower at all, the upper would be fine to own. If you possess a virgin lower, the upper would be legal to own. There is no mandatory requirement to register a handgun and it is actually not even legally possible to register a virgin lower as a handgun (except by those who are roster exempt). One could SSE a complete gun and then remove the upper though. One can not legally register a home build until it is built into a complete SSE handgun. But, one needs to purchase and "have" a short barrelled upper to do this.

BOLD: this was what my OP was getting at...clearly it missed the mark. But to be told i was flat out wrong?......not very helpful. I understand that he would have to jump through hoops with a home build, but that wasn't my point. I was talking about buying a lower and building a pistol onto it. Aside from him being under 21 and likely not being able to find a dealer to sell them to him, how does it fall under the same lines as building from an 80% if the lower had to be DROSed and wasn't DROSed as a pistol???

If he didn't have to DROS it, i would understand, but since it wasn't on the 4473 as a pistol, wouldn't that be a bad idea???

Hey, my offer to GIVE you a lower is real. I suggest going back and reading all the Ca AW laws a few times before you post about breaking non existent AW laws again. Ca AW laws do NOT have a constructive possession clause in them. CA SBR laws do but, they are not AW laws. Also, there is no law against possessing unregistered handguns so, possessing an unregistered legal handgun in CA is LEGAL and does not trip any laws.

yeah, i get ATF and DOJ regs confused sometime, i admit that. Not the first person to get spun around by convoluted gun laws though. But just because CA doesn't have a constructive possession clause doesn't mean he wouldn't trip the federal one, and i'm still lost on how a lower not 4473'd as a pistol can be turned into a pistol when it's illegal to turn a rifle into a pistol?...

or perhaps i've been lied to......i'm happy to unlearn all the FUD possible. It's much nicer than only getting half the facts per post like it's some kind of pissing competition.

IrishPirate
02-17-2012, 8:29 PM
CA PC regarding "rifle":


According to CA law, a stripped receiver is not a rifle.

that was news to me, but it still confuses me because i thought only things registered as pistols could ever be pistols....if they weren't on home built receivers. perhaps it's a federal thing???

since you know, pistols are super evil...

not defending it, just saying that's what i've been told since i got into guns, and by more than one person on this forum...:shrug:

CHS
02-17-2012, 8:33 PM
that was news to me, but it still confuses me because i thought only things registered as pistols could ever be pistols....if they weren't on home built receivers. perhaps it's a federal thing???


There is no such law like that, especially at the Federal level.

You're probably getting confused by the language that does not allow for a rifle to be converted to a pistol.

CSACANNONEER
02-17-2012, 9:16 PM
BOLD: yeah, i get ATF and DOJ regs confused sometime, i admit that. Not the first person to get spun around by convoluted gun laws though. But just because CA doesn't have a constructive possession clause doesn't mean he wouldn't trip the federal one, and i'm still lost on how a lower not 4473'd as a pistol can be turned into a pistol when it's illegal to turn a rifle into a pistol?...


Just because a lower is DROSed as an "18" pink dildo", it doesn't make it one. Just because you buy a Ford and register it ar DMV as a Vespa, it doesn't make it one. See where I'm going?

The simple facts are that on a federal level, the ATF and 49 states do not give a rat's azz about California's DROS system. So, it is perfectly legal (again, on a federal level) to build any virgin receiver into a handgun. There is no law preventing a California resident from going out of state and building a handgun on a virgin receiver DROSed as a long gun. There is no law preventing a California resident from returning to California with a firearm which he/she legally purchased in California.

Again, IANAL and do not suggest that anyone attempt this at this time. It simply is not worth the possible legal fight. There are more important 2A battles right now.

IrishPirate
02-18-2012, 10:26 AM
Again, IANAL and do not suggest that anyone attempt this at this time. It simply is not worth the possible legal fight. There are more important 2A battles right now.

so after all that you concede that CA could still screw someone with the thinking that i mentioned before....:facepalm:

thanks for clearing up the actuality of the federal vs state laws, I understand the grey area better now. But until there's a concrete ruling about constructive possession and SBR's that clears up the confusion in CA....i'm going to stay away from building an AR pistol on a lower not DROS'd as a pistol in CA...like i suggested to the OP before we completely thread jacked him (sorry OP)

goodlookin1
02-18-2012, 11:59 AM
Quick question regarding the OP: Say an 18yo already has a complete upper. If they hand over the upper to the FFL, could the FFL then attach the upper to the complete lower that said 18yo wants to buy, and then complete the sale as a rifle?

I dont see any reason why that would not be okay, but I have no clue....could this run afoul of some "straw purchase"/"bypassing the law" rule?

Kid at my work wants another AR and he could take the upper off of his current AR and put that on the new complete lower he wants, but he's only 19.

ke6guj
02-18-2012, 12:15 PM
Quick question regarding the OP: Say an 18yo already has a complete upper. If they hand over the upper to the FFL, could the FFL then attach the upper to the complete lower that said 18yo wants to buy, and then complete the sale as a rifle?

I dont see any reason why that would not be okay, but I have no clue....could this run afoul of some "straw purchase"/"bypassing the law" rule?

Kid at my work wants another AR and he could take the upper off of his current AR and put that on the new complete lower he wants, but he's only 19.

the common consensus is that since the FFL would be assembling/manufacturing rifle by doing so, tht they have to be an 07FFL manufacturer, not a 01FFL dealer, in order to do what you propose.

CHS
02-18-2012, 12:21 PM
the common consensus is that since the FFL would be assembling/manufacturing rifle by doing so, tht they have to be an 07FFL manufacturer, not a 01FFL dealer, in order to do what you propose.

And the ATF themselves agrees with this.

Receivers are exempt from the FET. Rifles are not. So once an upper is attached to a receiver, it becomes a rifle and FET is owed. You also could not 4473 it as a receiver anymore, so the records would show a receiver coming into the books, and a rifle leaving the books. Clear proof of manufacturing. If you tried to flub the paperwork, then you'd have clear proof of selling a receiver to someone not yet 21.

It's pretty stupid with the popularity of an AR. Two push-pins make something into something else. But it's the law.

Now, the ATF has said that it's ok for 01 FFL's to do this once or twice, but if they are making a business out of it they must be an 07 manufacturer.

bigcalidave
02-18-2012, 1:01 PM
How is there any way that with the letter from ke6guj, you could be prosecuted for building an SBR from a new purchased AR stripper lower? Step by step, how would the process go? I'm seeing,
You're at the range, shooting your AR pistol. For some reason, you are harassed about it, they take it and run the serial to see if it is registered to you. You say nothing, or that it's homebuilt. Nothing comes back from the serial, including no stolen gun report. No crime, no further harassment, right?
Maybe they are in a bad mood, take you in, and tell their DA that you have a handgun which isn't registered, but you built yourself. What could they charge you with? Can't charge you with SBR because it meets none of the rifle definitions. Feds are the ones who didn't want you switching between handgun and rifle, not the state, and with that letter the feds say its ok to build it once as a handgun from a virgin receiver.

What else could happen?

MindBuilder
02-18-2012, 2:15 PM
Edit: I now think I may be completely wrong about the folowing. I thought the DROS had a spot for "rifle" but it is for "long gun":

I think the confusion here is that on the California DROS form, "rifle" doesn't mean "rifle", it means something like "rifle(or other or undecided)". You just have to use a microscope to see the part in parenthesis on the DROS form :) So a lower is not actually DROSed as a rifle in California, even though the rifle check box is selected. Since it has NOT been DROSed as a rifle (even though the rifle box was checked) it can be made into a handgun. Nobody can plausibly argue that the "rifle" box on the form really means "rifle", because many guns that are indisputably not rifles, are routinely DROSed with the rifle box checked. The law seems quite clear on this issue. But of course prosecutors and judges have in many instances enforced absurd interpretations of firearms laws.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I really don't even know these laws all that well, so don't take any of what I've said as legal advice.

CHS
02-18-2012, 2:22 PM
I think the confusion here is that on the California DROS form, "rifle" doesn't mean "rifle", it means something like "rifle(or other or undecided)". You just have to use a microscope to see the part in parenthesis on the DROS form :) So a lower is not actually DROSed as a rifle in California, even though the rifle check box is selected. Since it has NOT been DROSed as a rifle (even though the rifle box was checked) it can be made into a handgun. Nobody can plausibly argue that the "rifle" box on the form really means "rifle", because many guns that are indisputably not rifles, are routinely DROSed with the rifle box checked. The law seems quite clear on this issue. But of course prosecutors and judges have in many instances enforced absurd interpretations of firearms laws.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and I really don't even know these laws all that well, so don't take any of what I've said as legal advice.

There is no mention of "rifle" anywhere on any DROS form.

There are, however, mentions of "long gun" which is a generic term not defined in CA law (as far as I can find) that's generally used to refer to rifles and shotguns.

CSACANNONEER
02-18-2012, 2:50 PM
so after all that you concede that CA could still screw someone with the thinking that i mentioned before....:facepalm:

thanks for clearing up the actuality of the federal vs state laws, I understand the grey area better now. But until there's a concrete ruling about constructive possession and SBR's that clears up the confusion in CA....i'm going to stay away from building an AR pistol on a lower not DROS'd as a pistol in CA...like i suggested to the OP before we completely thread jacked him (sorry OP)

I've constantly stated that this should not be tried at this time. So, actually it wasn't "after all that". It was "before this thread even started" and I've said the same thing for well over a year now, ever since speaking directly to an ATF supervisor about this at SHOT. BTW, Jack was standing right next to me when I asked. Anyway, yea, DO NOT try this at home. California DAs can and will hold people in jail for months even though no crime has been committed. Do you remember the BWO case?

Some legal things are just not worth doing until after a surveyor has mapped the lay of the land, an engineer has designed a road, a grader has graded a road and then a paver has paved it. Buying and using OLLs is now the same as going down a paved road. But, building a handgun from a receiver DROSed as a long gun shouldn't be considered until the road is, at least, engineered. Only then, should a few can break new ground and see how long and difficult it will be to get a smooth paved road going.

MindBuilder
02-18-2012, 3:52 PM
When CHS wrote
"Now, California law mandates that dealers use the DROS system, and when you go into the DROS software you can only do a "handgun" or "long gun" transfer. Since California law mandates that ALL firearms go through DROS, you have to erroneously choose one or the other when selling a receiver. Most dealers choose the "long gun" option because to choose handgun would register the receiver to you and force roster compliance."
I misread "long gun" as "rifle". So maybe I'm completely wrong.
So would my post above be correct if everywhere I wrote "rife" was replaced with "long gun"? Perhaps not, because "handgun" and "long gun" could exhaustively cover all firearms, whereas "handgun" and "rifle" clearly do not cover all. But if "long gun" was undefined in California law, then again it could be effectively the miscelaneous option on the DROS and it would maybe be as I suggested, that "long gun" doesn't mean "long gun", but rather "long gun(or undecided)".

CSACANNONEER
02-18-2012, 4:03 PM
When CHS wrote

I misread "long gun" as "rifle". So maybe I'm completely wrong.
So would my post above be correct if everywhere I wrote "rife" was replaced with "long gun"? Perhaps not, because "handgun" and "long gun" could exhaustively cover all firearms, whereas "handgun" and "rifle" clearly do not cover all. But if "long gun" was undefined in California law, then again it could be effectively the miscelaneous option on the DROS and it would maybe be as I suggested, that "long gun" doesn't mean "long gun", but rather "long gun(or undecided)".

This is where the DROS system is flawed. handgun and long gun do not cover all firearms by a longshot. Stripped receivers are firearms which are neither handguns nor long guns. AOWs are firearms which do not meet either definition and there is a separate legal NFA catagory for them.

CHS
02-18-2012, 6:01 PM
This is where the DROS system is flawed. handgun and long gun do not cover all firearms by a longshot. Stripped receivers are firearms which are neither handguns nor long guns. AOWs are firearms which do not meet either definition and there is a separate legal NFA catagory for them.

In CA, most AOW's are actually considered handguns and defined that way in CA's law.

The ONLY place where "long gun" is in the PC accompanied by a definition is in the definition for "long-gun safe", where a "long-gun safe" is defined as a safe that is designed for rifles and shotguns.

This definition, however, does NOT define "long-gun".

CSACANNONEER
02-18-2012, 6:10 PM
In CA, most AOW's are actually considered handguns and defined that way in CA's law.

The ONLY place where "long gun" is in the PC accompanied by a definition is in the definition for "long-gun safe", where a "long-gun safe" is defined as a safe that is designed for rifles and shotguns.

This definition, however, does NOT define "long-gun".

Yep but, the key word here is "most".

Kid Stanislaus
02-18-2012, 6:15 PM
Thanks for the input. I told him "Oh, OK," then thought to myself, "I will consult Calguns just in case he's wrong." Only one knowitall dick in this thread...


TOUCHE'!!!;)

Kid Stanislaus
02-18-2012, 6:18 PM
They also have computers. I don't let anything slide anymore.

Well hell, if they work in a gunstore and have computers too!!!:rolleyes: