PDA

View Full Version : Crew Served Weapon for California?


franklinarmory
03-13-2012, 9:49 PM
Back in 2010, I mentioned in a 2A thread that, the following March, Franklin Armory was going to start shipping the CSW. Well we are a year late, but here it is.

Without the pistol grip, and with a barrel over 16", Californian's are GTG! :)

http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS_CSW.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTsafEraHV4

wheels
03-13-2012, 10:45 PM
I'll need one for each roof top corner on the house. :43:

Maybe one more for the Van.

Munk
03-13-2012, 10:52 PM
It's a non-rifle long-gun, which is one of the configurations that allows you to get a .50 BMG if I remember correctly.

alfred1222
03-14-2012, 2:05 AM
Ya go for it, its legal

hammerhead_77
03-14-2012, 8:30 AM
Feinstein, Boxer and 73.6% of our state assembly will CRAP themselves if they find out this is legal!!! I say we line up a bunch of pickup trucks and OCC these babies through Sac! On Sunday! When Church is getting out! And we can tie Spongebob balloons to the bumpers and make it a parade "for the children"....

....

Ok. Took my meds. I'm better now...

This thing falls into the category of useless. Undeniably freaking cool, but useless. Can I have one?

DannyInSoCal
03-14-2012, 8:48 AM
So instead of spendng $90 on a HammerHead and muzzle brake to run a featureless AR -

You spend $649 to make it heavier, more complicated, and non-mobile...?

Kool - But useless...

dirtyJ
03-14-2012, 9:00 AM
So instead of spendng $90 on a HammerHead and muzzle brake to run a featureless AR -

You spend $649 to make it heavier, more complicated, and non-mobile...?

Kool - But useless...

This isn't a featureless AR. This is a crew served weapon. It's *never* been a rifle, which opens up interesting possibilities that a featureless AR will never, ever see. Also, non-mobile is user dependent. My M1919A4 is technically "non-mobile", but I can and have picked that pig up and run 50 rounds off the belt through it, while walking.

ptoguy2002
03-14-2012, 9:12 AM
-> General Gun Discussion Forum

IMHO, it needs a belt if you are going that route....
Now if you put a shrike upper on that thing...:-)

Barbarossa
03-14-2012, 9:26 AM
My M1919A4 is technically "non-mobile", but I can and have picked that pig up and run 50 rounds off the belt through it, while walking.

Oh! Is that right Rambo?! :)

gvbsat
03-14-2012, 9:34 AM
It's a non-rifle long-gun, which is one of the configurations that allows you to get a .50 BMG if I remember correctly.

Not that this interests me, the CSW, but the 50BMG is banned by name, and it doesnt matter what configuration you have it in, if it is 50 BMG it aint legal, unless you had one before the ban, uhh right?. Besides, I think thats set up for 223, as I dont think they had a beta mag for 50 BMG.

franklinarmory
03-14-2012, 9:37 AM
This thing falls into the category of useless. Undeniably freaking cool, but useless. Can I have one?

Kool - But useless...
I hear ya. To be honest, we can provide a thousand reasons why the XO-26 is useful. The CSW, not so much, other than the fact it is legal and fun!:43:
...of course, that's one of the reasons why we go shooting anyway, right?

We're hoping that some foreign governments that can't afford M249s might like the cost effective solution of a CSW and a full auto AR lower for checkpoint duty.

franklinarmory
03-14-2012, 9:39 AM
Not that this interests me, the CSW, but the 50BMG is banned by name, and it doesnt matter what configuration you have it in, if it is 50 BMG it aint legal, unless you had one before the ban, uhh right?. Besides, I think thats set up for 223, as I dont think they had a beta mag for 50 BMG.

Wrong. 50 BMG RIFLES are banned by name. No stock = non-rifle

gvbsat
03-14-2012, 9:42 AM
Wrong. 50 BMG RIFLES are banned by name. No stock = non-rifle

Ohhhhh. cool, thats why I asked

RugerFanRyan
03-14-2012, 9:43 AM
That thing looks pretty cool.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

Wrangler John
03-14-2012, 11:00 AM
Why do I obsess on "Sons of Guns" when reading this thread? :)

Now here is an example of gear that the immature set will find appealing. Handling such a lash up should have the effect of an acupuncture treatment designed to raise the average nerd's testosterone level 25%. It may not be a practical rifle, but I suspect its greatest effect will be to grow hairy chests on beanpole boys and men. Does it come with a G.I. Joe action figure?

The old con men were correct (who may have been referring to one of P.T. Barnum's scams); "There's a sucker born every minute."

Anyone taking bets on when the legislation will be introduced banning such configurations in California? He asks, as he rides off into the setting sun, the strains of "Do Not Flame Me O my Compatriots" playing in the background (with apology to Ned Washington and Dimitri Tiomkin). :facepalm:

TheExpertish
03-14-2012, 11:39 AM
Oh! Is that right Rambo?! :)

Did I detect a boondockish Irish accent in there, haha?

Seems cool, and no matter what I like this "thinking outside the CA laws" box.

Barbarossa
03-14-2012, 11:42 AM
Did I detect a boondockish Irish accent in there, haha?


Tis the season!

franklinarmory
03-14-2012, 12:05 PM
Does it come with a G.I. Joe action figure?
Hadn't thought of that. We'll have to see what the guys in marketing say.:1eye:

On a more serious note... Where would we be if we made every move with the fear of what the legislature might do? Guys like Gene and Wes have stood up for what was right and legal without fear of political consequence. This very forum, within this very site, is dedicated to the concept of defining what is right and acting upon it. Just because uber-liberal apparatchiks have commandeered the state house, it doesn't mean that our Bill of Rights is totally dead. Until the 9th and 10th amendments are struck down, Franklin Armory will continue to do our best to produce new firearms that fit within the legal framework. :oji:

If Franklin Armory products end up being cannon fodder for liberal legislative activities, then so be it. I'm sure they are well aware that new gun laws are not a popular idea, and any move on their part now might rock the boat and cost them votes in November. ...besides, 1919s have been on the market for a while now.

...sorry I don't mean to unload on you, but I am one that believes that the best defense is a great offense.

bubbapug1
03-14-2012, 12:22 PM
Beat you to it...but in a bigger caliber!

http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr177/bubbapug1/frontrightbohica.jpg

http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr177/bubbapug1/rightrearquarterbohica.jpg

http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr177/bubbapug1/DSC00812.jpg

http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr177/bubbapug1/DSC00892.jpg

REH
03-14-2012, 12:23 PM
Why do I obsess on "Sons of Guns" when reading this thread? :)

Now here is an example of gear that the immature set will find appealing. Handling such a lash up should have the effect of an acupuncture treatment designed to raise the average nerd's testosterone level 25%. It may not be a practical rifle, but I suspect its greatest effect will be to grow hairy chests on beanpole boys and men. Does it come with a G.I. Joe action figure?

The old con men were correct (who may have been referring to one of P.T. Barnum's scams); "There's a sucker born every minute."

Anyone taking bets on when the legislation will be introduced banning such configurations in California? He asks, as he rides off into the setting sun, the strains of "Do Not Flame Me O my Compatriots" playing in the background (with apology to Ned Washington and Dimitri Tiomkin). :facepalm:

This runs down the line of ATF thinking...................no sporting value. :facepalm:

Uxi
03-14-2012, 12:24 PM
That will be in the next legislative session. When is DeLeon termed out again?

REH
03-14-2012, 12:28 PM
Not that this interests me, the CSW, but the 50BMG is banned by name, and it doesnt matter what configuration you have it in, if it is 50 BMG it aint legal, unless you had one before the ban, uhh right?. Besides, I think thats set up for 223, as I dont think they had a beta mag for 50 BMG.

There was a member selling a CSW 50, several months ago on here, for 10,000.00. That is when I learned that CSW were not considered rifles.

franklinarmory
03-14-2012, 12:32 PM
Beat you to it...but in a bigger caliber!

Yeah, the KNS is a nice set up. We decided to take a different design approach though. We didn't want to retain the pistol grip as that could potentially trigger AW issues. ...though your cut off grip looks like a cool idea. We also wanted to have ambi triggers incorporated into each grip.

IVC
03-14-2012, 1:15 PM
The CSW, not so much, other than the fact it is legal and fun!:43:

Why so many problems with this concept? About half of my firearms are firmly in that category. What's next? Someone's going to call it a phallus enhancer?

Good for you guys for pushing the envelope.

dirtyJ
03-14-2012, 1:32 PM
Oh! Is that right Rambo?! :)

Quite, goes right next to my K-Bar and 300 feet of rope :). Seriously though, I have shot it from the hip, and it's a freakin' tank. Actually helps to walk forward with it while firing, kinda gives you a bit of stability.

NorCal MedTac
03-14-2012, 3:55 PM
Oh! Is that right Rambo?! :)

Was that a Boondock Saints quote? Strong work man!

I am so saving up some cash for this. July 4th parade in the back of my truck.

FastFinger
03-14-2012, 4:07 PM
Wow - I'm a bit amazed, and disappointed, with some of the reactions. A lot of folks spend a considerable amount of time and money on mods that are pure cosmetics - or just "fun" enhancements, even though they might have a negative effect on reliability and/or performance.

I say - bring on the bling! It's not my thing, but I'm for anything that allows folks to get more (legal) enjoyment out of owning firearms. Paint 'em, Tacti-cool 'em, make 'em look like a machine gun, whatever, just enjoy them and help the fight to enhance our 2A rights.

Do you have any photos of the receiver details? The pics are all too small, too dark, or the wrong angle.

franklinarmory
03-14-2012, 4:39 PM
Do you have any photos of the receiver details? The pics are all too small, too dark, or the wrong angle.
I'll have to work on the photos. The beauty of the CSW is that it is designed to work with industry spec forged AR lower receivers. It should work with most billet lowers as well. However, it will not work with AR lowers that have integral trigger guards. This is because the triggering mechanism travels between the ears on the lower.

The CSW kit is designed to work with your existing AR. The MSRP is $674.99. We recommend that a gunsmith install the kit, but anyone capable of building out a lower receiver should be able to handle installing a CSW on their firearm.

Complete firearms, tripods, and cases are available as well.

tenpercentfirearms
03-14-2012, 10:57 PM
Now I just need something to put on top of this.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=134311&d=1328776990

warkaj
03-14-2012, 11:10 PM
Now I just need something to put on top of this.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=134311&d=1328776990

try Arizona

sawchain
03-14-2012, 11:47 PM
Some threads serve as a litmus test of calgunners. They sort out the Rambo's from the rest. This thread, is one of those threads.

glockwise2000
03-15-2012, 12:56 AM
Not that this interests me, the CSW, but the 50BMG is banned by name, and it doesnt matter what configuration you have it in, if it is 50 BMG it aint legal, unless you had one before the ban, uhh right?. Besides, I think thats set up for 223, as I dont think they had a beta mag for 50 BMG.

Don't spread FUD. Kindly know the law before you claim anything illegal. The only one banned is a rifle configured .50BMG. Now, if you have a pistol or a revolver in that caliber, it is absolutely LEGAL. Another way is to CSW.

Wrangler John
03-15-2012, 1:35 AM
Hadn't thought of that. We'll have to see what the guys in marketing say.:1eye:

On a more serious note... Where would we be if we made every move with the fear of what the legislature might do? Guys like Gene and Wes have stood up for what was right and legal without fear of political consequence. This very forum, within this very site, is dedicated to the concept of defining what is right and acting upon it. Just because uber-liberal apparatchiks have commandeered the state house, it doesn't mean that our Bill of Rights is totally dead. Until the 9th and 10th amendments are struck down, Franklin Armory will continue to do our best to produce new firearms that fit within the legal framework. :oji:

If Franklin Armory products end up being cannon fodder for liberal legislative activities, then so be it. I'm sure they are well aware that new gun laws are not a popular idea, and any move on their part now might rock the boat and cost them votes in November. ...besides, 1919s have been on the market for a while now.

...sorry I don't mean to unload on you, but I am one that believes that the best defense is a great offense.

I don't mind being unloaded on. When I was a kid part of my job was cleaning stalls and driving the manure truck from the stable to the Filoli Estate to dump the week's accumulation for the gardener's compost stack (it was a really big stack - almost two stories). Later I was a licensed wastewater treatment plant operator and septic tank installer. So I am a expert on being dumped on - literally.

Politics being what it is, I bet that even now someone in Sacramento is looking at that CSW and salivating over low hanging fruit. Not that I want that of course, but I really don't see any fear of the "gun lobby" in Sacramento. Not yet anyway. In fact some feel the need to introduce anti-gun laws to keep their NASCAR constituents happy. (I refer to them as NASCAR constituents because they only turn to the left).

Anyway, good luck on the CSW. Keep on innovating, but my sense of humor is always out of control. Say, maybe I could get a radio talk show - ?

Wrangler John
03-15-2012, 1:39 AM
This runs down the line of ATF thinking...................no sporting value. :facepalm:

I'm thinking that Heller and McDonald will eventually refocus that sporting value discrimination. Unless we consider self defense a sport. :)

trespassingproductions
03-15-2012, 9:56 AM
wait wait wait wait...now i am extremely confused. According to this thread/the website link, crew serviced weapons are not covered under the 50 BMG law or the 10 rd mag restriction. Can I get confirmation on this? And if this is true, then why do we have to have 10 rd belts for Goryunov SG43? Please help.

GrizzlyGuy
03-15-2012, 10:12 AM
wait wait wait wait...now i am extremely confused. According to this thread/the website link, crew serviced weapons are not covered under the 50 BMG law or the 10 rd mag restriction. Can I get confirmation on this? And if this is true, then why do we have to have 10 rd belts for Goryunov SG43? Please help.

The large capacity magazine laws (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Magazine_Questions) apply at all times, regardless of the firearm they are intended for. Legal to possess and use but illegal to manufacture, import, sell, etc.

What they are saying is that if you already possess large capacity magazines, you are allowed to use them with this firearm, just as you can with an M1 carbine, featureless OLL, etc.

franklinarmory
03-15-2012, 10:15 AM
Some threads serve as a litmus test of calgunners. They sort out the Rambo's from the rest. This thread, is one of those threads.
So "Sawchain"... Which camp are you in?

CHS
03-15-2012, 12:15 PM
I really wish people would stop calling these and similar firearms "crew served weapons". There is no such legal term, period. And if you want to go into the military terms, there are REAL crew served weapons that still have shoulder stocks so they would be considered rifles by the law in semi-auto form.

These are Title 1 "Other" firearms. Since they are not rifles, pistols, or shotguns, they are not covered by the assault weapons legislation.

ptoguy2002
03-15-2012, 12:44 PM
try Arizona

Seriously, you spew out this crap at every opportunity. Its getting old.

ptoguy2002
03-15-2012, 12:45 PM
Some threads serve as a litmus test of calgunners. They sort out the Rambo's from the rest. This thread, is one of those threads.
Says the guy with a psycho chainsaw killer as his avatar.

franklinarmory
03-15-2012, 12:45 PM
Actually, CSW stands for California Semiautomatic Weapon. I guess I forgot to mention that part. This is especially true if we get a call from Mr. DeLeon's office. :whistling:

CHS
03-15-2012, 1:43 PM
This isn't a featureless AR. This is a crew served weapon.

wait wait wait wait...now i am extremely confused. According to this thread/the website link, crew serviced weapons are not covered under the 50 BMG law or the 10 rd mag restriction.

Actually, CSW stands for California Semiautomatic Weapon. I guess I forgot to mention that part. This is especially true if we get a call from Mr. DeLeon's office.

Other people are calling it a crew served weapon, the THREAD TITLE that you created calls it a crew served weapon, and it's named the "CSW" to mislead people into thinking "crew served weapon".

Again, crew served weapon does not exist as a legal term. Period. I think you're being disingenuous by saying "crew served weapon" and calling it a CSW at the same time which can get people into trouble.

Remember, a 1919A6 is a "crew served weapon" according to the military. But legally it's a rifle, and if you add any features to it like a flash hider, it becomes an illegal assault weapon in CA.

Your CSW CAN have a flash hider because it's not a rifle, not because it's a "crew served weapon".

warkaj
03-15-2012, 1:46 PM
Seriously, you spew out this crap at every opportunity. Its getting old.

Stop spreading FUD

command_liner
03-15-2012, 1:48 PM
How does this interact with the .410 shotgun upper, the one at
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=237760

I think I understand how it works with a 20" barrel. It is just a shotgun.
But what about a shorter barrel. Is it ever a shotgun, or is AOW or other?

Then comes the next logical question. Does it come in AR10 flavor so
it can run a larger shotgun upper?

CHS
03-15-2012, 1:57 PM
How does this interact with the .410 shotgun upper, the one at
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=237760

I think I understand how it works with a 20" barrel. It is just a shotgun.
But what about a shorter barrel. Is it ever a shotgun, or is AOW or other?

Then comes the next logical question. Does it come in AR10 flavor so
it can run a larger shotgun upper?

If it fires a shotshell, California defines it as a shotgun regardless. So it has to have an 18" barrel, even though it's not federally defined as a shotgun but also as a Title 1 "Other".

In states other than CA, you would legally be able to run shorter barrels than 18" without violating the NFA.

Since there is very little to no standardization in the industry when it comes to up-sized AR's, I doubt you'll find one larger to fit on any AR-308's.

franklinarmory
03-15-2012, 2:11 PM
Other people are calling it a crew served weapon, the THREAD TITLE that you created calls it a crew served weapon, and it's named the "CSW" to mislead people into thinking "crew served weapon".

Again, crew served weapon does not exist as a legal term. Period. I think you're being disingenuous by saying "crew served weapon" and calling it a CSW at the same time which can get people into trouble.

Remember, a 1919A6 is a "crew served weapon" according to the military. But legally it's a rifle, and if you add any features to it like a flash hider, it becomes an illegal assault weapon in CA.

Your CSW CAN have a flash hider because it's not a rifle, not because it's a "crew served weapon".
Ouch. That doesn't seem to be too fair of a comment. The original thread on this topic was posted by EBR Works over a year ago. It is now locked, so I recreated the title and subject matter to point out that we finally have brought it to market.

I guess you really have an affinity for the term Crew Served Weapon, and anything that might tread on that infringes on your personal viewpoint. Keep in mind that if you did hustle this over hill and dale, you would need a crew to get it there! So this is not too far off the mark (if at all.)

No we are not misleading anyone in any way, and again, that is unfair of you to claim that we have. We call it the "CSW." Feel free to define what the three letters mean to you. It could mean California Semiautomatic Weapon, or Close Support Weapon, or Crew Served Weapon, or ??? Either way, there is nothing to be concerned about. This is a non-rifle that can't be defined as an assault weapon unless you put a stock on it. This is not a 1919A6!
How does this interact with the .410 shotgun upper, the one at
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=237760

I think I understand how it works with a 20" barrel. It is just a shotgun.
But what about a shorter barrel. Is it ever a shotgun, or is AOW or other?

Then comes the next logical question. Does it come in AR10 flavor so
it can run a larger shotgun upper?
It's in the works.

franklinarmory
03-15-2012, 2:18 PM
If it fires a shotshell, California defines it as a shotgun regardless. So it has to have an 18" barrel, even though it's not federally defined as a shotgun but also as a Title 1 "Other".

In states other than CA, you would legally be able to run shorter barrels than 18" without violating the NFA.

Since there is very little to no standardization in the industry when it comes to up-sized AR's, I doubt you'll find one larger to fit on any AR-308's.
Given the size and bulk of the configuration, I'm not sure if there is a need to have a barrel less than 18". If there was, we probably would be able to register it as an AOW.

We do have an AOW 12 gauge in the works for July 1. It will be very interesting to see if it will generate more interest in AOWs when it becomes available.

I suspect you may be right re the 308 sized ARs. We're just delving into this at this point. Really, it will all come down to the consistency of the angle from the grip to the buffer tube.

Wherryj
03-16-2012, 2:01 PM
I don't understand the negativity shown by some in this thread. True, this is more of a novelty than something ground breaking. I still appreciate when companies offer fun alternatives and attempt to push the envelope.

I own a Franklin Armory HSC and can attest to the quality of their work. I don't foresee purchasing one of these myself, but it is still a neat idea.

tenpercentfirearms
03-16-2012, 2:37 PM
Other people are calling it a crew served weapon, the THREAD TITLE that you created calls it a crew served weapon, and it's named the "CSW" to mislead people into thinking "crew served weapon".

Again, crew served weapon does not exist as a legal term. Period. I think you're being disingenuous by saying "crew served weapon" and calling it a CSW at the same time which can get people into trouble.Is he selling a firearm or is he selling a legal term? How can calling it a Crew Served Weapon in anyway make it illegal. If I call my regular AR15 a machine gun, does that make it a machine gun?

Remember, a 1919A6 is a "crew served weapon" according to the military. But legally it's a rifle, and if you add any features to it like a flash hider, it becomes an illegal assault weapon in CA.Where in the penal code does it say a "crew served weapon" is a rifle?

Your CSW CAN have a flash hider because it's not a rifle, not because it's a "crew served weapon".Again, definition of a crew served weapon from the penal code please?

Sorry CHS, you are on a crazy rant and I am not sure why. Either the CSW meets the definition of an assault weapon or it doesn't. You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change the legal definition of its features or non-AW status.

Relax a little. No one cares this much about this other than you. The 58 DAs have better things to do and CGF will have no problem defending anyone with a lawfully configured CSW from the "name police".

ke6guj
03-16-2012, 3:06 PM
IRelax a little. No one cares this much about this other than you. The 58 DAs have better things to do and CGF will have no problem defending anyone with a lawfully configured CSW from the "name police".he's not the only one that cares about terminology.

I hate hearing people say "its legal because it is a crew-served weapon" when there is no legal defintion of such. and it isn't legal because it is a CSW, it legal because it doesn't fall under the defiintion of a rifle, pistol, or shotgun that would have AW features.

Excelsior
03-16-2012, 3:21 PM
Feinstein, Boxer and 73.6% of our state assembly will CRAP themselves if they find out this is legal!!! I say we line up a bunch of pickup trucks and OCC these babies through Sac!....

There ya go! Yee-haw! Rub it in their faces for a quick personal thrill just like those unloaded open carry morons did. Let's just see what happens! Yee-haw!

Excelsior
03-16-2012, 3:25 PM
Beat you to it...but in a bigger caliber!

http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr177/bubbapug1/DSC00812.jpg



This looks very clean and tasty. Does anyone offer this in a kit?

MasterYong
03-16-2012, 5:05 PM
I can't mount this to my truck... Can I?

If so... Imma be rolling down I-5 with this thing mounted to my pickup bed.

OleCuss
03-16-2012, 5:43 PM
I don't see why this would get anyone's tail in a knot. I don't see it as something I'd likely ever purchase, but it's legal and it should be a boat-load of fun (especially if you had a .50 upper on it)!

I'm glad someone is manufacturing them and I hope lots of people buy the things.

OleCuss
03-16-2012, 5:48 PM
I can't mount this to my truck... Can I?

If so... Imma be rolling down I-5 with this thing mounted to my pickup bed.

Interesting question!!! I think it'd have to be locked in a case if you didn't want to get arrested everytime you drove out of your garage.

But what if you made a clear plastic case which enclosed it and could be securely locked (including locked to the bed)?

I'll leave it to the legal experts as to whether you could legally do that - but I'll almost guarantee that you will be regularly harassed by LEO after they've gotten calls about a technical rolling through their neighborhood. . .

sfbadger
03-16-2012, 7:04 PM
I'm happy to see a company like Franklin Armory designing and manufacturing innovative arms like this for CA. May they sell well!!

Sneaky
03-16-2012, 8:14 PM
I want the CSW! looks like it could be some fun! :36:

Midtown Gunner
03-16-2012, 9:38 PM
These are Title 1 "Other" firearms. Since they are not rifles, pistols, or shotguns, they are not covered by the assault weapons legislation.

I can't find a definition of "Title 1 "Other" firearm".

CHS
03-16-2012, 10:59 PM
Where in the penal code does it say a "crew served weapon" is a rifle?

Again, definition of a crew served weapon from the penal code please?


What on earth are you talking about? My whole point was that "crew served weapon" doesn't exist in the penal code. I'll quote myself on the matter:

Again, crew served weapon does not exist as a legal term. Period. I think you're being disingenuous by saying "crew served weapon" and calling it a CSW at the same time which can get people into trouble.


Is that clear enough?


Sorry CHS, you are on a crazy rant and I am not sure why. Either the CSW meets the definition of an assault weapon or it doesn't. You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change the legal definition of its features or non-AW status.


My only point was that calling it a "crew served weapon" is disingenuous because it leads people to believing that this is some sort of legal term or firearm type that is exempt from the assault weapon ban.


and CGF will have no problem defending anyone with a lawfully configured CSW from the "name police".

Really? Are you sure about that? Are you positive that that is the case when EVERY OTHER THREAD (including one that *I* started) about this type of firearm has been deleted at the request of the CGF because it's too risky.

Why would the CGF defend these types of firearms when they have told people not to try them?

And if CGF has reversed their position on these types of firearms, where was the announcement?

What is the CGF's official position on these types of firearms, if I may ask?

CHS
03-16-2012, 11:00 PM
I can't find a definition of "Title 1 "Other" firearm".

Read your 4473.

erik
03-16-2012, 11:45 PM
Seriously, we don't need to give the Antis yet another term to fixate on.

To Joanne Average Housewife "Crew Served Weapon" is a lot like "Assault Weapon" and they'll be behind any ban 100% even while buying a pistol for self defense. It won't matter that DeLeon would have defined "Crew Served Weapon" to include anything over 15lbs loaded weight.

We already have terms with proper definitions, lets use them.

OleCuss
03-17-2012, 6:20 AM
Let's assume that they ban "Other" firearms such as the CSW. I'm trying to see where this would be much of a loss since other than a very few examples - they just don't seem to exist.

If it would have the result in the effective banning of other forms of firearms then this is a bad thing to do. Not sure I understand how it would lead to banning anything other than that particular firearm - and if we decide not to make/buy firearms because then someone might ban it, it seems to me that we have banned it ourselves for no particular benefit.

No one should expect me to buy one of these things.

Yeah, they really may be an immense amount of fun, but even at the range I'd probably be having to pull out California code and explaining how it is that the thing is completely legal. Explaining it to local cops and the DA would be nightmarish - and likely very expensive.

And expecting CGF to defend me in the matter seems to me to be foolish. They have no such commitment.

jimx
03-17-2012, 11:34 AM
Do you realize that DSA came out with this 10 years ago?


http://www.dsarms.com/AR15_M16-Spade-Grip-Kit----KNSARSG/productinfo/KNSARSG/


http://www.dsarms.com/images/KNSARSG.gif
DSA Spade Grip

Falconis
03-17-2012, 11:42 AM
I want the CSW! looks like it could be some fun! :36:

I think this about sums it up. How many times have we bought a firearm cause we "needed" it?

jimx
03-17-2012, 12:12 PM
I just noticed the price point. DSA’s is $300 cheaper.


Franklin Armory’s Spade Grip kit $749
http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr177/bubbapug1/DSC00812.jpg



DSA’s Spade Grip kit $449
http://www.dsarms.com/images/KNSARSG.gif

ivanimal
03-17-2012, 12:17 PM
Is he selling a firearm or is he selling a legal term? How can calling it a Crew Served Weapon in anyway make it illegal. If I call my regular AR15 a machine gun, does that make it a machine gun?

Yes he can but like every other term it carries weight if unchecked. It is important to use correct terms here. Does LTC not ring a bell?

Where in the penal code does it say a "crew served weapon" is a rifle?

Where does it say it is not? We can play that game all day. See above statement.

Again, definition of a crew served weapon from the penal code please?

Sorry CHS, you are on a crazy rant and I am not sure why. Either the CSW meets the definition of an assault weapon or it doesn't. You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change the legal definition of its features or non-AW status.

Please keep comment that are demeaning or otherwise hurtful to yourself Wes, you know I love ya man but you will never be above the rules. Your statement is correct just leave out the personal digs.

Relax a little. No one cares this much about this other than you. The 58 DAs have better things to do and CGF will have no problem defending anyone with a lawfully configured CSW from the "name police".


Last I heard we voted on every case we defend. When did you start speaking for all of us. I am sure it was just a nerve hit or something. Your posts are always intelligent and informative. Why change that now?

tenpercentfirearms
03-17-2012, 2:45 PM
LTC vs. CCW. Assault Weapon vs. Semi-automatic firearm. Large capacity magazine vs. standard capacity magazine. CSW???

Sorry, but when the penal code defines these things, I can't just stop using those words. It would be nice to have a single terminology, but that isn't really reality.

I must be missing some sort of previous information that has CHS so fired up about CSW and I must be out of the loop. All I can see is CSW is a brand name for this specific firearm. I do not understand the concern in calling it a CSW which might stand for crew served weapon or California Semi-Automatic Weapon.

It will either be legally configured or it won't. I do not understand CHS's concern.

Legal configurations

1) If you consider it a non-rifle: then you can have a detachable magazine and "evil features".

2)If you want to play it safe, have no evil features and retain your detachable magazine.

Sorry Ivan, but until I understand CHS's point further, it seems like he is on a crazy rant about this. It isn't personal, but I have no clue where he is coming from. Can someone make it more clear to me why calling it a Crew Served Weapon is going to make a legal issue?

It would appear I am missing a thread. Can someone link me to the threads where CGF told people not to try them? We certainly didn't vote not to defend "crew served weapons" as I don't remember that.

Also, if CGF isn't going to defend law abiding citizens with lawful weapons, I need to know about it.

Again, I get the feeling I am missing some back story, so help me out here because I am probably not the only one.

CHS
03-17-2012, 3:02 PM
Sorry, but when the penal code defines these things, I can't just stop using those words. It would be nice to have a single terminology, but that isn't really reality.


Here's what I said which you believe is a crazy rant:
I really wish people would stop calling these and similar firearms "crew served weapons". There is no such legal term, period. And if you want to go into the military terms, there are REAL crew served weapons that still have shoulder stocks so they would be considered rifles by the law in semi-auto form.

These are Title 1 "Other" firearms. Since they are not rifles, pistols, or shotguns, they are not covered by the assault weapons legislation.

I don't see what I said as being crazy, or even a rant. It was a simple wish/request that people call these by the proper legal terms instead of made-up terms like "crew served".

Hrmm.. Penal code definitions. Legal terms. Looks like we're actually on the same freaking page here, doesn't it Wes?


It would appear I am missing a thread. Can someone link me to the threads where CGF told people not to try them? We certainly didn't vote not to defend "crew served weapons" as I don't remember that.

Also, if CGF isn't going to defend law abiding citizens with lawful weapons, I need to know about it.

Again, I get the feeling I am missing some back story, so help me out here because I am probably not the only one.

Those threads were deleted at the request of CGF. I am not part of CGF, nor was I a mod at the time of deletion so I can't comment further to the "why's" of the matter since I honestly do not know.

Since YOU ARE a member of the CGF, perhaps you can find out why the request was made?

ivanimal
03-17-2012, 4:23 PM
LTC vs. CCW. Assault Weapon vs. Semi-automatic firearm. Large capacity magazine vs. standard capacity magazine. CSW???

Sorry, but when the penal code defines these things, I can't just stop using those words. It would be nice to have a single terminology, but that isn't really reality.

Here is why I am concerned.

Being the owner of a 1919 and having people at the range including a range master say "yep its legal because its crew served" drives me crazy and is going to get someone in trouble some day. There is no defense we could offer as a foundation. An illegally configured gun will be just that. The excuse that I heard it is crew served will be laughable.

I am glad we are having this discussion it raises awareness. Will it stop from people making those comments at the range? I doubt it. At least we and the people reading this thread will be able to correct them.

Munk
03-17-2012, 8:03 PM
Here is why I am concerned.

Being the owner of a 1919 and having people at the range including a range master say "yep its legal because its crew served" drives me crazy and is going to get someone in trouble some day. There is no defense we could offer as a foundation. An illegally configured gun will be just that. The excuse that I heard it is crew served will be laughable.

I am glad we are having this discussion it raises awareness. Will it stop from people making those comments at the range? I doubt it. At least we and the people reading this thread will be able to correct them.

This is why I kind of have the phrase "Non-Rifle Longgun" stuck in my head.

CHS
03-18-2012, 1:32 AM
This is why I kind of have the phrase "Non-Rifle Longgun" stuck in my head.

Well, it's not a long gun either. On the 4473 "long gun" refers strictly to rifles and shotguns, so to the feds a "non-rifle long gun" is an oxymoron.

It's certainly a non-rifle. The correct term is "Title 1 Other", or "Other" or "Pistol grip only firearm" for things like the Cruisers and 1919's.

tenpercentfirearms
03-18-2012, 7:18 AM
I don't see what I said as being crazy, or even a rant. It was a simple wish/request that people call these by the proper legal terms instead of made-up terms like "crew served".Personally I don't care. What does it matter? If calling it a "crew served weapon" sells more, then so be it. I have never been a hug fan of the word police movement around here. It is either legal or it isn't and liberals don't hate guns less because we sterilize their names.

Those threads were deleted at the request of CGF. I am not part of CGF, nor was I a mod at the time of deletion so I can't comment further to the "why's" of the matter since I honestly do not know.

Since YOU ARE a member of the CGF, perhaps you can find out why the request was made?It has never come up at a board meeting, so I am wondering if it was made at the request of CGF as you claim or someone from CGF or even CGN asked that it be removed. Who is your source that someone from CGF asked that it be removed? I mean no disrespect, but so far I do not know what you are talking about and there is no evidence. I need a little more here.

So we will just have to agree to disagree. Call it what you want, but just make sure it is legal and don't start open carrying it to Starbucks! :p


Here is why I am concerned.

Being the owner of a 1919 and having people at the range including a range master say "yep its legal because its crew served" drives me crazy and is going to get someone in trouble some day. There is no defense we could offer as a foundation. An illegally configured gun will be just that. The excuse that I heard it is crew served will be laughable.

I am glad we are having this discussion it raises awareness. Will it stop from people making those comments at the range? I doubt it. At least we and the people reading this thread will be able to correct them.I have never heard any of these comments before so this is why I am puzzled. Never has "crew served weapon" ever been mentioned at my shop and I have never even seen it enter discussion on CGN until Franklin released their CSW. Is there a large underground following of CSW shooters out there that think their gun is legal based on their name? I guess that wouldn't be any different than someone who buys a fixed magazine rifle and then throws a large capacity magazine in it. "Don't worry it is a California legal rifle."

Personally I am not going to care if my CSW is a rifle or an other, I am leaving it featureless with a Surefire muzzle brake so I can suppress it! :43:

wildhawker
03-18-2012, 9:50 AM
My only point was that calling it a "crew served weapon" is disingenuous because it leads people to believing that this is some sort of legal term or firearm type that is exempt from the assault weapon ban.

It's a term of art and industry. For those of us who geek out on the law, it's annoying. For everybody else, it's just another gun term that you may or may not use.

Really? Are you sure about that? Are you positive that that is the case when EVERY OTHER THREAD (including one that *I* started) about this type of firearm has been deleted at the request of the CGF because it's too risky.

You might be speaking to when I asked for a thread to be closed. If so, there were concerns with DOJ that could/would move on something like this were they given the opportunity. Not that it would be correct, just expensive.

Why would the CGF defend these types of firearms when they have told people not to try them?

We would very likely defend something lawfully-possessed because that's what we do. There's a big difference between discouraging a handful of homebrews at a time where we believed DOJ may not "get it" and a product that is produced by a major manufacturer located right here in California.

And if CGF has reversed their position on these types of firearms, where was the announcement?

:confused: Since when do we need to do anything for industry to take their own initiative?

What is the CGF's official position on these types of firearms, if I may ask?

I haven't polled the board but I'd imagine we'd agree that: [a] Guns are cool; [b] More guns are cooler.

This is all much adieu about nothing. Certainly not worthy of the tone the thread has taken.

-Brandon

ke6guj
03-18-2012, 10:31 AM
It has never come up at a board meeting, so I am wondering if it was made at the request of CGF as you claim or someone from CGF or even CGN asked that it be removed. Who is your source that someone from CGF asked that it be removed? I mean no disrespect, but so far I do not know what you are talking about and there is no evidence. I need a little more here.



You might be speaking to when I asked for a thread to be closed. If so, there were concerns with DOJ that could/would move on something like this were they given the opportunity. Not that it would be correct, just expensive.


I'm pretty sure that CHS is talking about the threads that talked about basically making an AR-"pistol" with a 16+" barrel and 26+" OAL. No stock, but it does have a pistol grip. As such, it is not a rifle and is not a pistol, so the AW laws should not apply to it. Same would go for a Saiga-12 18+" PG-only "cruiser" from someone like Cadiz. Without a shoulder stock, it isn't a shotgun or a pistol, so the AW shouldn't apply to it either.

As such, you would be able to run detachable magazines in both creations. Just about every thread talking about that in the past has been deleted. Who requested it, I dunno? I'm pretty sure I've seen guys like Bill and Gene post in some of those threads recommending that we not do such things at the current time, that they didn't want to see someone arrested for doing such a cutting-edge legal thing. that they didn't want to spend CGF money to defend something like that while they were working on other court cases. Usually those threads get to a page or so and then go poof. But who requested the deletion, I don't know, just that they have been deleted many times in the past.

franklinarmory
03-18-2012, 11:09 AM
Sorry I have been out of the loop lately. Our County SAR was mobilized for a missing pilot.I just noticed the price point. DSA’s is $300 ($220)cheaper.


Franklin Armory’s Spade Grip kit $749$675
http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr177/bubbapug1/DSC00812.jpg



DSA’s Spade Grip kit $449
http://www.dsarms.com/images/KNSARSG.gif

Yes. We are fully aware that KNS manufactures a spade grip firearm. This has been marketed through their own website as well as the DSA website. It is a nice product, and we highly recommend their MG42/Picatinny mount. It works great! However, our design concept took a different direction. We wanted to have a more robust presentation, we wanted the triggers to be ambidextrous and incorporated within the handles, we wanted to include a picatinny mount on the lower plate (to enhance mag changes,) and we wanted to completely eliminate the pistol grip for legal reasons in California. There is no doubt that you can save a few hundred dollars by getting the KNS version, but we had a different mindset going into it. If you comared the models side by side, I think you would find that there is a reason why ours costs more. (..and that statement is not meant to denigrate the KNS product.) BTW, the kit MSRP is $674.99, and complete firearms are availalbe too.

My only point was that calling it a "crew served weapon" is disingenuous because it leads people to believing that this is some sort of legal term or firearm type that is exempt from the assault weapon ban.

Really? Are you sure about that? Are you positive that that is the case when EVERY OTHER THREAD (including one that *I* started) about this type of firearm has been deleted at the request of the CGF because it's too risky.

It might be interesting to note that we actually thought about calling it a "T1" for "Title 1" firearm, but Zel Customs already has a T1 on the market, so that was a no-go.

Lastly, we would hope that the elimination of the pistol grip would finally grease the skids for wider acceptance of this configuration since there is no reasonable way for it to be considered an AW. If Bill or Gene have an opinion on the matter, I'd be interested in hearing about it. There are some great legal minds on this forum, and that is the main reason why I posted this.

bandook
03-18-2012, 11:17 AM
If it fires a shotshell, California defines it as a shotgun regardless...

... except for a Circuit Judge that fires .410 shotshells through a rifled barrel.

Grumpyoldretiredcop
03-18-2012, 4:25 PM
Notwithstanding the argument going on in this thread, all I can say is that looking at the CSW (whatever one decides that the acronym stands for, I don't particularly care) makes me want to put a pintle mount in the bed of my Nissan 4X4. Not to put the weapon on and drive around with (that would be a particularly silly way to get negative attention), but to drive up to Cow Mountain, back up to the firing line, have a seat on the tool box, and shoot in comfort.

Consider also the shooter who cannot physically hold a rifle, but could manipulate the CSW's triggers. I like it.

tenpercentfirearms
03-18-2012, 6:06 PM
I'm pretty sure that CHS is talking about the threads that talked about basically making an AR-"pistol" with a 16+" barrel and 26+" OAL. No stock, but it does have a pistol grip. As such, it is not a rifle and is not a pistol, so the AW laws should not apply to it. Same would go for a Saiga-12 18+" PG-only "cruiser" from someone like Cadiz. Without a shoulder stock, it isn't a shotgun or a pistol, so the AW shouldn't apply to it either.

As such, you would be able to run detachable magazines in both creations. Just about every thread talking about that in the past has been deleted. Who requested it, I dunno? I'm pretty sure I've seen guys like Bill and Gene post in some of those threads recommending that we not do such things at the current time, that they didn't want to see someone arrested for doing such a cutting-edge legal thing. that they didn't want to spend CGF money to defend something like that while they were working on other court cases. Usually those threads get to a page or so and then go poof. But who requested the deletion, I don't know, just that they have been deleted many times in the past.

Thanks. That makes more sense. That is interesting. I missed all of those threads and that explains why I didn't get it.

raiders1
03-18-2012, 6:21 PM
Call it what it is... A feature less rifle and its all good....:)

franklinarmory
03-18-2012, 6:25 PM
Call it what it is... A feature less rifle and its all good....:)
Exactly! ...and beyond legal reproach.

CHS
03-18-2012, 7:04 PM
Call it what it is... A feature less rifle and its all good....:)

Exactly! ...and beyond legal reproach.

Sooooo, now it's a rifle? Where's the buttstock?

franklinarmory
03-18-2012, 7:12 PM
...oops... You got me. :pinch:

What I meant to say was that it would be featureless (and still legal) if the DOJ somehow contorted the rules to lump this configuration in with the "rifle" definitions in the AW ban. ...That's what I was thinking anyway, I just forgot to type it. :facepalm:

glocklover
03-18-2012, 8:11 PM
i believe this debate was started last year, when a member attached his 50bmg upper to his lower, it's a few posts above. Then an FFL in socal, posted his creation a short time after, that had a regular upper and spade grips, that was considered a "featureless" build. using a beta mag.

CHS is correct. When DROSed, initally, in that config, it would NOT be a long gun, but an "other".

The real question is, if I take a stripped lower, that was DROSed as a "long gun", and build what franklin is selling. would I run into any legal issues. Running a lower that's already been drosed as a "long gun", with spade grips, and for the sake of argument, no PG, wouldn't that be considered a "featureless" build?

Has this build been given a greenlight by CGF??? Or would it not be very wise???

strange how something can be 2 different things at the same time.

i considered doing a build like bubbapig1, but, other projects got in the way. Not to mention uppers are quite costly. I wanted to do a shrike build, but better projects caught my attention.

jimx
03-19-2012, 8:01 AM
I don’t get it; why all the drama??? These have been in this state for years without any issues. Sold by CA companies without any issues. Previous threads always had a consensus of being legal.

As far as calling it a crew served weapon, who cares?? First of all it’s not a CSW. Even if it was what difference does it make? Take two real CSW’s a 1919 and M60. Semi auto versions of the 1919 are legal and a M60 is a AW. (I know that a M60 D and 1919 A1 would reverse that).

franklinarmory
03-19-2012, 10:03 AM
Given the specific wording of the AW ban, I think it would be impossible to contrive an argument that the CSW is somehow illegal. While the 1919 is obviously different, the configuration is similar enough that they would be in the same boat legally, and I would guess that there have been hundreds of these sold in the past few years.

The CSW provides an inexpensive way to have a tripod mounted firearm that you can actually afford to shoot.

Midtown Gunner
03-19-2012, 6:08 PM
So with this attachment would this item be CA-legal?

http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm

CHS
03-19-2012, 6:20 PM
So with this attachment would this item be CA-legal?

http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm

As long as that rifle is under .60cal and NOT chambered in .50bmg, then it's CA legal even with the buttstock and pistol grip.