PDA

View Full Version : if less then 30inches , can the rifle be fired in its shortest configuration ?


Jeepers
05-11-2012, 7:50 AM
is the rifles OAL under 30 ? if less then 30, can the rifle be fired in its shortest configuration?can anyone point me to where this wording comes from ?

i can not find the wording "if less then 30, can the rifle be fired in its shortest configuration " anyplace other then on the flow chart

thanks :D

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=149333&stc=1&d=1336748567

Hanniballs
05-11-2012, 8:25 AM
Sure.. if the rifle is operational... doesn't make it legal though.

Jeepers
05-11-2012, 8:52 AM
Sure.. if the rifle is operational... doesn't make it legal though.
huh ?

according to the wording the the chart its not illegal, just looking for what part of the law it is referencing , or why that wording is there ....

bussda
05-11-2012, 9:24 AM
People v. Rooney; Summary at http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/CaseRefCARooney

Jeepers
05-11-2012, 9:40 AM
People v. Rooney; Summary at http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/CaseRefCARooney


People v. Rooney, 17 Cal.App.4th 1207 (1 Dist. 1993)
In this case the California court of appeals decides that for purposes of California law, a rifle with a folding stock is measured with the stock folded, for purposes of whether it is a short barreled rifle. Thus the defendant was properly convicted of possessing a short rifle when his Chinese AK type gun with an under folding stock measured 25 3/4" inches folded, even though it was well over 26", the legal length, when unfolded. While the court calls the stock "removable" as well as foldable, it does not appear the stock actually easily came off the gun, but rather that it folded underneath, so as to not contribute to the length of the gun. Under federal law the length is measured with the stock extended, not folded, unless the stock comess off the gun with a minimum of hassle. So a gun that is not a short rifle under federal law can be one under some state's laws.still dont see the wording about able to fire under 30 ....

Bhobbs
05-11-2012, 9:52 AM
still dont see the wording about able to fire under 30 ....

Penal Code 12276.1 PC lists an additional dozen or so of other semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are also considered assault weapons. These include (but are not limited to):

semiautomatic, centerfire rifles that have a fixed magazine that have the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,


semiautomatic, centerfire rifles that have an overall length of less than 30 inches, and

It would be an assault weapon.

Jeepers
05-11-2012, 10:00 AM
Penal Code 12276.1 PC lists an additional dozen or so of other semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are also considered assault weapons. These include (but are not limited to):

semiautomatic, centerfire rifles that have a fixed magazine that have the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,


semiautomatic, centerfire rifles that have an overall length of less than 30 inches, and

It would be an assault weapon.I understand that

this is why i am asking why that wording is in the flow charts , i cant find anything anywhere what the "under 30 and able to fire" is referencing in the chart ....

is the flow charts incorrect , or is there a court case somewhere that sets the <30 and able to fire?

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

njineermike
05-11-2012, 10:10 AM
Overall length would indicate extended not retracted. This makes no sense. Then again, we're discussing the DOJ interpretation of firearms rules, so making sense is out the window.

bussda
05-11-2012, 10:22 AM
Overall length is measured when the weapon is capable of firing ammunition. Otherwise an AR lower could be considered a short barrel rifle.
The PC states semiautomatic rifles less then 30 inches are assault weapons.
Rooney states you measure with the stock folded or retracted.

Jeepers
05-11-2012, 10:25 AM
Overall length is measured when the weapon is capable of firing ammunition. Otherwise an AR lower could be considered a short barrel rifle.
The PC states semiautomatic rifles less then 30 inches are assault weapons.
Rooney states you measure with the stock folded or retracted.
can you provide anything to back that up other then logic say a court case or legal definition ?

while i agree with you , as we know CADOJ doesn't have anything to do with logic...lol

E Pluribus Unum
05-11-2012, 10:29 AM
The words from the chart don't have to be stated "verbatim". The purpose of a flow chart is to make sense of all the complicated crap the "verbatim" words say. Rest assured, the flow chart was looked over by the nation's best firearms attornies; if it's on there, it's legit.



Look at the SU16. It is a semi-auto rifle that folds in half, making it's OAL around 24-28 inches... but when it's folded in half, the rifle does not function because the receiver breaks in half to fold.... so therefore it's NOT an AW.

Look at an M14 SOCOM. It's a short rifle anyway... if you put a collapsible stock on it, it would bring the OAL less than 30", but the rifle still functions with the stock collapsed. That would make it an AW.

bussda
05-11-2012, 11:11 AM
can you provide anything to back that up other then logic say a court case or legal definition ?

while i agree with you , as we know CADOJ doesn't have anything to do with logic...lol

Per 18 USC § 921:

(a)
...
(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; ...

and

(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.

(8) The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.


So, if it can be fired, it is a rifle. If it can't, it is a firearm.

There exists an ATF letter on measurement on the overall length measurement, but I do not know where to find it.

Jeepers
05-11-2012, 11:13 AM
The words from the chart don't have to be stated "verbatim". The purpose of a flow chart is to make sense of all the complicated crap the "verbatim" words say. Rest assured, the flow chart was looked over by the nation's best firearms attornies; if it's on there, it's legit.



Look at the SU16. It is a semi-auto rifle that folds in half, making it's OAL around 24-28 inches... but when it's folded in half, the rifle does not function because the receiver breaks in half to fold.... so therefore it's NOT an AW.

Look at an M14 SOCOM. It's a short rifle anyway... if you put a collapsible stock on it, it would bring the OAL less than 30", but the rifle still functions with the stock collapsed. That would make it an AW.and why i posted this question what is it referencing in the law ?

"the complicated crap" is what i am looking for as it all that matters if charged with a crime, not the flow chart and those lawyers are not going to represent anyone for free if the chart is not correct

reason for asking all these questions is i have pm'ed Bill aand a few other about my underfolder mod (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=569083) that follows the chart to a "T" but have recieved no comment , but worries me a lil about legality in CA as i cant find the legal answer to why the su16ca is legal, is it do to not able to fire (my mod also mimics with safety blocker bars ), or is it that the hammer and FCG is relocated out of the firing position ?

i have no issues being told my mod is legal or not, but do care if folks are using it under the impression that the chart says its ok but cant find the legal reasoning to why its legal or not

Bhobbs
05-11-2012, 11:18 AM
can you provide anything to back that up other then logic say a court case or legal definition ?

while i agree with you , as we know CADOJ doesn't have anything to do with logic...lol

I don't understand where a confusion is. If the rifle is semi auto, centerfire and under 30 inches, it is an AW. What other definitions do you need?

CrazyPhuD
05-11-2012, 11:24 AM
can you provide anything to back that up other then logic say a court case or legal definition ?

while i agree with you , as we know CADOJ doesn't have anything to do with logic...lol

If in light of what people have shown you, you still really doubt this, there is one surefire way for you to know for certain. Get your rifle that is < 30inches folded and go down to your local PD/sheriff and ask them them there.....

Jeepers
05-11-2012, 11:24 AM
I don't understand where a confusion is. If the rifle is semi auto, centerfire and under 30 inches, it is an AW. What other definitions do you need?

that is NOT what the flow chart says

the flow chart says
is the rifles overall length under 30 inches ? if less then 30 inches ,can the rifle be fired from its shortest configuration
and thats where the confusion is coming from

Bhobbs
05-11-2012, 11:27 AM
that is NOT what the flow chart says

the flow chart says

and thats where the confusion is coming from

The flow chart is asking you if the rifle can fire in the shortest configuration. If yes, you follow the yes line. If no, you follow the no line.

CrazyPhuD
05-11-2012, 11:32 AM
that is NOT what the flow chart says

the flow chart says

and thats where the confusion is coming from

No offense but this is an extraordinary simple point there actually is no ambiguity.

The courts have ruled that, when in california, you measure minimum length in the shortest possible condition that fires(not longest like federal).

The CA AW ban says minimum length is 30 inches.

That's it....it's that simple....

Now if you want to make the foolish argument that 'shortest operable length' isn't written in the law and therefor it doesn't count then good luck with that. The system works by having the courts determine what the law is to mean. If you don't like that fine, but you should also then destroy any ARs or AKs you have that aren't RAWs, because is IS written into the law ANY AR-15 type or ANY AK-47 type is an AW. Fortunately for, us the courts have determined that they must name specific models and not generic names.

phamkl
05-11-2012, 11:34 AM
I think the question is, "where in the PC does it state the if the rifle cannot be fired whilst folded it's legal"

And I believe the answer is that, if the rifle cannot fire, it is not a firearm, or not considered one with regards to the AW laws. I think it's similar to the bullet button, where an extra step was added to make it comply with CA law. I hope someone else who knows more for certain, comes by and clarifies but I don't think searching for the PC that makes it legal will work - it's making sure that the PC that makes it illegal isn't in existence.

Edit: buuuut it seems to exist in court rulings that the measurement for OAL is when the firearm can fire.

Burbur
05-11-2012, 11:57 AM
Confucius say: If a rifle cannot be fire at all, is it really semi-automatic?

stix213
05-11-2012, 11:59 AM
If folded in a manner in which the rifle can't be fired could still violate the OAL requirement, then a lot of Kel-Tec su-16ca owners would be in jail and the FFLs that sold them would be in hot water for selling a 24.9" OAL centerfire semi-auto rifle. The DOJ is obviously interpreting OAL in the same manner as the flowchart, or these sales would have been stopped by now. It doesn't need to have been already spelled out in previous case law or signed by the governor to be the correct legal interpretation.

Same goes for every break action shotgun or rifle ever sold in California. It appears to be pretty established that a break action is not violating OAL.
IANAL

winnre
05-11-2012, 12:04 PM
How about when the stock is folded the firing mechanism is disabled. Now it's legal under 30".

morthrane
05-11-2012, 12:32 PM
Anyone who thinks this is an extremely simple, black and white question obviously hasn't dealt with lawyers much.

I think the question is, "where in the PC does it state the if the rifle cannot be fired whilst folded it's legal"

And I believe the answer is that, if the rifle cannot fire, it is not a firearm, or not considered one with regards to the AW laws. I think it's similar to the bullet button, where an extra step was added to make it comply with CA law. I hope someone else who knows more for certain, comes by and clarifies but I don't think searching for the PC that makes it legal will work - it's making sure that the PC that makes it illegal isn't in existence.

I've been curious for a while myself on the exact PC and case law that determines whether a given rifle is AW or not based on firing length-- I even spent a couple hours doing searches in this forum on the subject but didn't come up with much.

The "cannot fire" provision is the crux of the issue IMHO. Think about it this way: if the powers that be can rule that a semi-auto slamfire malfunction constitutes a machine-gun felony, what will they say if your under 30" OAL rifle with a floating firing pin is dropped a couple feet onto concrete as a "test" and discharges, even though it is in a configuration where it could not otherwise fire via trigger? Absurd, yes... but ignorance is no defense when it comes to the law, and I get the impression that an unethical DA would have no problem with abusing such an absurdity if the end result is a conviction.

Carnivore
05-11-2012, 9:26 PM
How I take it isn't a matter of law but is the rifle working. If it is missing the bolt and under 30" technically it isn't an assault weapon. If the stock swings to the side and some how disengages the firing pin or some how when the rife is in it's shortest configuration it can't fire then it isn't an assault weapon.

To me this is ridiculously easy to figure out and I think you are over thinking it. Doesn't mean you can't or won't be arrested just more of a rule of thumb less a law or legal definition. Like the bullet button needs a "tool" to drop the mag doesn't mean you can't be or won't be arrested by some LEO wanting to push things.

ke6guj
05-11-2012, 10:42 PM
the basis behind the question is the case law from Rooney that says that you measure the OAL while it is folded. EVen though Rooney was dealing with the 26" SBR law, and not the 30" AW law, it is assumed that it would be persuasive in an AW case.

Now, the issue with a folded rifle that is under 30" folded being legal if it can't be fired while it is folded is using the fact that CADOJ allows the SU16-CA to be sold in CA without it being considered an AW or SBR. Because they have allowed them to be sold for many years without any arrests, it should be able to be assumed that that same "unable to fire while folded" scenario should be legal for other rifles.

Jeepers
05-12-2012, 12:31 AM
the basis behind the question is the case law from Rooney that says that you measure the OAL while it is folded. EVen though Rooney was dealing with the 26" SBR law, and not the 30" AW law, it is assumed that it would be persuasive in an AW case.

Now, the issue with a folded rifle that is under 30" folded being legal if it can't be fired while it is folded is using the fact that CADOJ allows the SU16-CA to be sold in CA without it being considered an AW or SBR. Because they have allowed them to be sold for many years without any arrests, it should be able to be assumed that that same "unable to fire while folded" scenario should be legal for other rifles.

i found where that wording came from in the old flow chart thread and it did have to do with the su16ca, but is the su16ca really a "folding stock" personally i dont see it that way, i see it broke down just like any AR, it breaks the trigger and hammer completely away from the bolt, so i am hopping that the su16ca is not the basis for this wording is in the flow chart... or if it is i am thinking that wording may need to be changed ...

ke6guj
05-12-2012, 12:43 AM
i found where that wording came from in the old flow chart thread and it did have to do with the su16ca, but is the su16ca really a "folding stock" personally i dont see it that way, i see it broke down just like any AR, it breaks the trigger and hammer completely away from the bolt, so i am hopping that the su16ca is not the basis for this wording is in the flow chart... or if it is i am thinking that wording may need to be changed ...

not really sure what you are trying to say here, but I would re-write question #9 as such, "Is the rifle less than 30" in overall length in its shortest fireable configuration?". That would follow the Rooney case law and cover the AW 30" rule. For question #1, the question would be "Does the rifle have a barrel less that 16", or is the rifle's overall length in its shortest fireable configuration less that 26"?"

nicoroshi
05-12-2012, 10:50 PM
I am glad Jeepers decided to pose this question here and people like you (ke6guj) have decided to answer.
responses regarding Jeepers mod idea
not really sure what you are trying to say here, but I would re-write question #9 as such, "Is the rifle less than 30" in overall length in its shortest fireable configuration?". No That would follow the Rooney case law and cover the AW 30" rule. For question #1, the question would be "Does the rifle have a barrel less that 16", or is the rifle's overall length in its shortest fireable configuration less that 26"?"
No again.

In fact with this mod the button for the stock cannot even be depressed unless the FCG is disabled by the selector being in the safe position.
It then at no time can be taken off 'safe' until the stock is back in the locked opened position using this mod.

My thoughts (please correct me if I am wrong in any way)

To my understanding this would cease to be a semi auto rifle during the time the stock was unlocked from the locked open position since it would be unable to fire during that time.
To my understanding it also wouldn't matter that the rifle is aprox 25.5" in length when folded since again it can't be considered a functional firearm if it cannot fire in that configuration.

My major concern was the wording on the 26" federal SBR designation and per Rooney it's implications in CA where measured distance is with stock folded.

If the UF is no longer considered a functional firearm when it is unable to fire than this concern is moot.

I have been doing a bunch of research on this, and could not find any laws or case law to support my thinking

I guess what I am really looking for is educated opinions on if this mod is defensible in a court of law as complying with all federal, and state regulations.

tonelar
05-12-2012, 11:04 PM
I owned a carbine that I bought legally when CA law mirrored federal laws re oal (ie measured with stock extended) that was over 26".
When CA changed their method of measuring (stock folded), I swapped my barrel for a longer one.

I think the wording is meant to exclude take-down or camping style rifles that can be collapsed to under 30" but in doing so, cannot be fired at all.

bplvr
05-13-2012, 12:04 AM
in a nut shell what Jeeper's question really is:

Can a semi-auto firearm that cannot fire when the overall length is 26.2",
but is able to fire when it is 34.1" in overall length be legal in Ca. ?
{how it got from 26.2" to 34" is immaterial,and it cannot fire anywhere along this transition.}

Please site the case law that backs up this inference.

socal2310
05-13-2012, 9:06 AM
in a nut shell what Jeeper's question really is:

Can a semi-auto firearm that cannot fire when the overall length is 26.2",
but is able to fire when it is 34.1" in overall length be legal in Ca. ?
{how it got from 26.2" to 34" is immaterial,and it cannot fire anywhere along this transition.}

Please site the case law that backs up this inference.

They can't. You have to ask the question, "Does the law apply to a weapon in a short configuration that is not capable of firing?" If it doesn't then "that which is not forbidden is permissible." A basic tenet of English common law jurisprudence which hasn't yet been jettisoned.

Ryan

nicoroshi
05-13-2012, 9:23 AM
They can't. You have to ask the question, "Does the law apply to a weapon in a short configuration that is not capable of firing?" If it doesn't then "that which is not forbidden is permissible." A basic tenet of English common law jurisprudence which hasn't yet been jettisoned.

Ryan

My question exactly but more importantly is it even 'a rifle' if unable to discharge a round?
Anyone have an answer to this?

bplvr
05-13-2012, 12:44 PM
My question exactly but more importantly is it even 'a rifle' if unable to discharge a round?
Anyone have an answer to this?

I'd say yes it is. If there is no round in the chamber it can't fire,
but is still a rifle. If the "Jeepers U/F Mod" is used and there is a live round in the chamber ,
the safety is 'up' and the stock is folded ,it would still be considered a loaded rifle. {but unable to fire in it's current state}

morthrane
05-13-2012, 12:57 PM
They can't. You have to ask the question, "Does the law apply to a weapon in a short configuration that is not capable of firing?" If it doesn't then "that which is not forbidden is permissible." A basic tenet of English common law jurisprudence which hasn't yet been jettisoned.

Ryan

So perhaps a better question to ask: where in PC/case law is "capable of firing" defined?

ke6guj
05-13-2012, 1:01 PM
in a nut shell what Jeeper's question really is:

Can a semi-auto firearm that cannot fire when the overall length is 26.2",
but is able to fire when it is 34.1" in overall length be legal in Ca. ?
{how it got from 26.2" to 34" is immaterial,and it cannot fire anywhere along this transition.}

Please site the case law that backs up this inference.I do not have any case law that backs this up, just actual firearms that are sold in CA today without being considered an SBR or AW.

The Kel-tec SU-16A is 26" folded and is not considered an AW.
The Kel-tec SU-16B and CA are 25" folded and are not considered SBRs or AWs.

I seem to recall a CADOJ letter confirming that since the firearm was unable to be fired while folded, that that was not the pertinant measurement. But in any case, after 10+ years of them being sold in CA without issue, at some point the fact that just about every gunshop in CA has been audited without the CADOJ inspectors bringing charges for them having AWs and/or SBRs should mean something.


In addition, I can point to Phil Dominguez's case in LA where they charged him with having an AW (an SU-16 with a "flash hider") and nothing was mentioned about it being less than 30".

nicoroshi
05-13-2012, 1:02 PM
I'd say yes it is. If there is no round in the chamber it can't fire,
but is still a rifle. If the "Jeepers U/F Mod" is used and there is a live round in the chamber ,
the safety is 'up' and the stock is folded ,it would still be considered a loaded rifle. {but unable to fire in it's current state}

Alright.
Hence the confusion on this, and need of clarification on the 'unable to fire'
thing.
Rifles are measured with stocks folded in CA according PC 12276.1 (and the Rooney decision)

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

You say it is still a rifle with stock folded, and unable to fire but my question is can it reasonably be considered a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle if unable to fire even one round in that configuration (regardless of if there is a round in the chamber or not).

Semi-automatic rifle:
A semi-automatic, or self-loading firearm is a weapon which performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing—assuming cartridges remain in the weapon's feed device or magazine. Typically, this includes extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the weapon's firing chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber.

I don't think it can be considered 'semi-auto' if unable to fire, extract, eject or load the next round.

So the question remains: If it is considered a 'rifle' that the point it is folded, and unable to fire would it be subject to OAL requirements of both Federal, and CA (per Rooney) interpretations?

AlexDD
05-13-2012, 7:49 PM
I copied this off The Firearm Blog and thought it would be pertinent to this OP

"Just a thought: in Russia, gun laws forbidsl ong firearms of under certain overall lenght, so the Saiga 12-K for that market, equipped with AK-style plastic furniture and side-folding stock, has an internal mechanism that prevents it from firing with it’s stock folded.

http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/saiga12.shtml
"

http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/saiga12.shtml

So my question is if Arsenal did the same thing for its AKs, assume the rifle, not the shotgun for clarity here with the OP, would the DOJ still give a free pass like it does for the SU 16s?

Ps this quote came off a blog post for the new adapter for the AR that allows it to fold with a buffer tube but warns not to fire with folded.

What if they come up with fire lock mechanism too?

AlexDD
05-13-2012, 7:52 PM
Off the Saiga Website

"The "Saiga-12S" differs from the "Saiga-12" in the availability of a special folded butt and an operating handle. The folded butt makes carrying and storing the shotgun more comfortable. The "Saiga-12K" has a short barrel and a trigger/firing mechanism locking device to prevent the shotgun from firing when the butt is folded. Being an export version of the "Saiga-12K", the "Saiga-12S ЕХР-01" is not equipped with a trigger/firing mechanism locking device. Atop the receiver is a rail for the optical-sight mount accommodation."

Jeepers
05-13-2012, 7:58 PM
Off the Saiga Website

"The "Saiga-12S" differs from the "Saiga-12" in the availability of a special folded butt and an operating handle. The folded butt makes carrying and storing the shotgun more comfortable. The "Saiga-12K" has a short barrel and a trigger/firing mechanism locking device to prevent the shotgun from firing when the butt is folded. Being an export version of the "Saiga-12K", the "Saiga-12S ЕХР-01" is not equipped with a trigger/firing mechanism locking device. Atop the receiver is a rail for the optical-sight mount accommodation."

but are the Saiga-12S imported into the states and/or has the CADOJ ok them
(the locking method)for import into Ca ?

we are the only state i know of that has the stupid OAL of 30 , so not sure if there way of locking the gun up will fly here ....

its the same basic idea as my mod for the underfolder, in that it does the same function to lock the gun on safe ....

nicoroshi
05-13-2012, 9:01 PM
Giving this more thought.

Don't believe we reasonably have to worry about P.C. 12276.1 (a)(3) since it cannot possibly be construed as being 'semi-automatic' when unable to fire a single round, extract, eject or load the next round (safety would block the charging handle from going back, and you would be unable to move the safety until the stock was back in the locked open position where the gun is over the 30" minimum requirement).

I also believe it could be reasonably argued that since the Kel-Tec CA 16 is legally sold in CA, and 25" folded (but unable to fire in that configuration) that Jeeper's mod essentially makes the underfolder design AK pattern rifle " folded for storage or transport only" since it is unable to function in any way like a rifle, and especially since it is unable to fire just like the Kel-Tec CA 16 when folded.
(man I wish someone knew where that memo on the Kel-Tec was so we could read it's wording!)

My humble opinion is this configuration is legal in CA for these reasons.

I really wish to hear what everyone else thinks, and if there is flaws in my thinking on this.
I know CA laws are screwy but this appears to meet the requirements for legality even in this state.

bplvr
05-13-2012, 10:10 PM
There is a Wiki on the Kel-Tec by one of our own CGN mods. ;) see Google

To try to set this matter to rest I am volunteering to call Kel-Tec tomorrow and see if they will send me a copy of anything that they got from DOJ. on their SU Folder.

When I spoke with Armalite at SHOT in January I asked them about their new Ca. AR15 model. They said that they sent one to DOJ for approval.
DOJ replied that they did not approve rifles, but didn't see anything illegal with their Ca. model . {10 rnd & B/B} Sort of a non-approval-approval by default. Same as the B/B.

I'm taking a class on convoluted logic to understand these idiot laws.

:nuts::willy_nilly::banghead:

bplvr
05-14-2012, 11:38 AM
I just spoke with Kel-Tec and they will be e-mailing me the DOJ approval letter on their SU16-C by the end of the week.

PLEASE DO NOT call them and muddy the waters . They we VERY helpful and understanding ,and they really like to help us here behind the lines.

PS : They have a letter on the KSG 8+1 /8+1 shotgun also. They are shipping 500 units /week.

Jeepers
05-14-2012, 11:42 AM
I just spoke with Kel-Tec and they will be e-mailing me the DOJ approval letter on their SU16-C by the end of the week.

PLEASE DO NOT call them and muddy the waters . They we VERY helpful and understanding ,and they really like to help us here behind the lines.

PS : They have a letter on the KSG 8+1 /8+1 shotgun also. They are shipping 500 units /week.

awesome i would like to see that letter :thumbsup:

thanks

lorax3
05-14-2012, 11:24 PM
I just spoke with Kel-Tec and they will be e-mailing me the DOJ approval letter on their SU16-C by the end of the week

Nice job.

Jeepers
05-22-2012, 4:15 PM
I just spoke with Kel-Tec and they will be e-mailing me the DOJ approval letter on their SU16-C by the end of the week.

PLEASE DO NOT call them and muddy the waters . They we VERY helpful and understanding ,and they really like to help us here behind the lines.

PS : They have a letter on the KSG 8+1 /8+1 shotgun also. They are shipping 500 units /week.

any word or email from them?

ke6guj
05-29-2012, 8:40 PM
I just spoke with Kel-Tec and they will be e-mailing me the DOJ approval letter on their SU16-C by the end of the week.


any update on this?

stix213
05-29-2012, 9:54 PM
I just spoke with Kel-Tec and they will be e-mailing me the DOJ approval letter on their SU16-C by the end of the week.

PLEASE DO NOT call them and muddy the waters . They we VERY helpful and understanding ,and they really like to help us here behind the lines.

PS : They have a letter on the KSG 8+1 /8+1 shotgun also. They are shipping 500 units /week.

I seriously doubt this is true. The rep you talked to probably assumed they had to have approval letters to sell them here when that is not the case. The CA DOJ doesn't like to give approval letters.

Also, the SU-16C is the version that can be fired with the stock folded at 26" OAL, so they certainly didn't get an approval letter for that one. Versions A, B, & CA are the ones legal here, not C.

ke6guj
05-29-2012, 10:08 PM
I seriously doubt this is true. The rep you talked to probably assumed they had to have approval letters to sell them here when that is not the case. The CA DOJ doesn't like to give approval letters.remember that the SU-16 has been sold in CA for years, and could have an approval letter when CADOJ was willing to give them out, before we started using them against them.


Also, the SU-16C is the version that can be fired with the stock folded at 26" OAL, so they certainly didn't get an approval letter for that one. Versions A, B, & CA are the ones legal here, not C.I assume that that was a typo, but I will wait to see what the letter says, if anything.

stix213
05-29-2012, 10:26 PM
remember that the SU-16 has been sold in CA for years, and could have an approval letter when CADOJ was willing to give them out, before we started using them against them.


Supposedly the rep also told bplvr they had a KSG approval letter, which would almost certainly not be true (brand new gun), hence my skepticism.


I assume that that was a typo, but I will wait to see what the letter says, if anything.

Quite possible. And obviously I'm just speculating, with bplvr being MIA from this thread for 2 weeks.

bplvr
05-29-2012, 10:55 PM
Now that I have been called a liar about what I was told ,I am indeed sorry that I ever got involved with this at all.

Now you can do the calling and legwork .

I'm out, and thank you for your support and gratitude.

stix213
05-29-2012, 11:27 PM
Now that I have been called a liar about what I was told ,I am indeed sorry that I ever got involved with this at all.

Now you can do the calling and legwork .

I'm out, and thank you for your support and gratitude.

oh dude, I didn't call you a liar. I said the rep you spoke to probably misunderstood out of their own ignorance. Big difference

Jeepers
05-29-2012, 11:30 PM
Now that I have been called a liar about what I was told ,I am indeed sorry that I ever got involved with this at all.

Now you can do the calling and legwork .

I'm out, and thank you for your support and gratitude.ummm ok not sure what happen here ....:shrug:


but thanks for the help ...

nicoroshi
05-30-2012, 4:24 AM
Now that I have been called a liar about what I was told ,I am indeed sorry that I ever got involved with this at all.

Now you can do the calling and legwork .

I'm out, and thank you for your support and gratitude.

There once was a time that I almost gave up coming to this site because of somthing that someone said to me here.
I realized that I was the only one that would lose if I took that action.
Your efforts are not unappreciated, and any continued help you chose to give on this matter would benefit many.
Please don't let the few deter you from a good cause because of nothing more than 'words' or 'opinions'