PDA

View Full Version : new case (SKS) in North NorCal


bwiese
05-08-2007, 9:36 AM
New case in Northern 1/3rd of Norcal.....

Details sketchy, and this is the only public (well, disclosed to me/disclosable/etc) info. Further speculation unwarranted/unwise.

Dude has a stripped down nonoperation "SKS", apparently barreled action. (Note the quotes, time will tell.) Dude also has a variety of separated/ disassembled parts for the SKS, stored elsewhere, locked away - some of which may be folder stock, grip, etc. (unsure of exact details). The rifle itself was legally purchased from a dealer way more than a decade ago.

Somehow cops are on the scene, and the *cops* actually fit the parts to the gun and dude gets popped for an AW!!!

I think this one will be fun on a variety of different levels :)

Be interesting to see the AW manufacturing permit of the PD/SO in question ;)


Should be in touch w/lawyer soon.

6172crew
05-08-2007, 9:49 AM
Bill am I hearing you right that the COPs built a AW and are charging the owner of SKS parts?

There is no construtive possesion for AWs in this state, which you and I both know.:D This guy should sue that PD asap!

bwiese
05-08-2007, 10:04 AM
Bill am I hearing you right that the COPs built a AW and are charging the owner of SKS parts?

There is no construtive possesion for AWs in this state, which you and I both know.:D This guy should sue that PD asap!

Yeah, I gotta get his lawyer squared away. I think she's crim attorney usually accustomed to dealing w/typical North-Norcal methheads and I need to get her up to speed fast (and/or chat with The Right People as well).

This could get intersting esp if we can put a cop on the ropes for an AW violation.

gn3hz3ku1*
05-08-2007, 11:00 AM
how do you hear about these things bill? poor guy...

69Mach1
05-08-2007, 12:38 PM
Thanks for the info. Bill. I'm assuming the LEO's put it together as a detachable magazine SKS. Or did they just decide it was an "assault weapon"?

bwiese
05-08-2007, 12:45 PM
how do you hear about these things bill?

I do think we're starting to get to the point - and it'll take another half year or so to emerge further - where any legit semiauto firearms beef by a noncriminal will be run thru Calguns.

In such situations, no matter whom is approached for questions, we should not strive to ask 'too many questions' as we have no privilege right. Conversations should revolve around answering general questions about, say, generic rifle configurations: those who contact us should be told not to give out any info except what's in the arrest report and/or what's in evidence locker.

I don't expect to hear of LA gangbangers w/FA AKs contacting us, but I wouldn't put it past some of their attorneys.

Anytime the DOJ refuses to talk to a news reporter unless they promise *not* to mention Calguns, that means there's some measure of traction.

bwiese
05-08-2007, 12:46 PM
Thanks for the info. Bill. I'm assuming the LEO's put it together as a detachable magazine SKS.

Could be, there could be other issues too. Hell, they could think it's an AK!

pepsi2451
05-08-2007, 3:27 PM
Anymore info on where this happened? I'm way up here in Del Norte county.

bwiese
05-08-2007, 3:35 PM
Anymore info on where this happened? I'm way up here in Del Norte county.

For a variety of reasons I'm gonna be refraining from posting exact city/county further on unless conditions warrant.

It's on 299, all I'll say.

rkt88edmo
05-08-2007, 3:38 PM
I think she's crim attorney usually accustomed to dealing w/typical North-Norcal methheads and I need to get her up to speed

L O L

6172crew
05-08-2007, 4:12 PM
A few weeks ago
I went to a friends ranch in Redding and a Deputy showed up with a mini14 and a bucket of ammo, he got to bump fire one of the OLLs there and didnt seem to give a rats arse about the config of the rifles. I talked with him a little about the prince50 kits and such but never got the feeling he would try to do anything like what happened to this guy. I think if he had a few bucks I could have sold him one but he wasnt rolling in $$.:cool:

The Soup Nazi
05-08-2007, 4:15 PM
Unfortuantely SKSs are still an easy target because of their evil appearance. As of now I'm not surprised to have people ask me at the range or in a gun store whether my/the store's SKSs are legal and why they are.

bwiese
05-08-2007, 4:25 PM
As of now I'm not surprised to have people ask me at the range or in a gun store whether my/the store's SKSs are legal and why they are.

Put on your Ushanka and tell 'em to f**k off :)

pnkssbtz
05-08-2007, 6:01 PM
Anytime the DOJ refuses to talk to a news reporter unless they promise *not* to mention Calguns, that means there's some measure of traction.

So, I am inferring from this sentence that the DoJ refused to talk to reporters about this case unless they promise not to mention calguns.net?

That sounds like a BIG WIN if so. That means they fear the truth.

Charliegone
05-08-2007, 6:13 PM
Put on your Ushanka and tell 'em to f**k off :)

Correction put on the Ushanka and say this

привинчьте вас! :D

bwiese
05-08-2007, 6:17 PM
So, I am inferring from this sentence that the DoJ refused to talk to reporters about this case unless they promise not to mention calguns.net?

That sounds like a BIG WIN if so. That means they fear the truth.

Yes; the situation I refer to is the recent two-part article on AW laws in Capitol Weekly.

Whatever info DOJ gave out was only if author would not mention Calguns (thus the mention of "online" or "internet") in print. Otherwise it'd've been "no comment".

The author didn't get a ton of stuff right (partly due to DOJ slant, partly just due to lack of "gunniness") but he was amazed that only 25 or so people in the largest state in the Union really understood an issue that led to 50,000 such purchases and that it never got any press traction at all....

Inoxmark
05-08-2007, 6:29 PM
Correction put on the Ushanka and say this

привинчьте вас! :D Online translator, eh? ;) Sorry this only makes sense in English.:D

mblat
05-08-2007, 7:20 PM
Originally Posted by Charliegone View Post
Correction put on the Ushanka and say this

привинчьте вас!
Online translator, eh? Sorry this only makes sense in English.

actually makes no sense in any language. Correct spelling :-)would be

пошёл на хуй!

poshol na hui - I am sure that Russian speaking members of the board will correct me on transliteration. :-)

pullnshoot25
05-08-2007, 7:43 PM
My brother was watching a cop show once and a cop pulled over some guy and there was an SKS in the trunk or backseat, at which point the cop said "Yeah, this is an AK-type machine gun"

When I heard that, I nearly crapped myself from laughing.

gidddy169
05-08-2007, 7:45 PM
Sounds like this is in my neck of the woods I am defiently interested to see how this plays out.

Charliegone
05-08-2007, 9:41 PM
actually makes no sense in any language. Correct spelling :-)would be

пошёл на хуй!

poshol na hui - I am sure that Russian speaking members of the board will correct me on transliteration. :-)

I try.:D

spgk380
05-09-2007, 1:31 PM
Bill,

So you honestly believe that the police searched this guy's house, found AW parts, and stuck them on the SKS and then charged him? I guess its possible, but I have to believe that the police generally have a little more integrity than that.

Seems more likely that either (1) the guy is lying (OJ Simpson defence), or (2) he is being charged with constructive possession, which isn't actually a crime.

But on the bright side of things, if the police actually DID do that, then it shows that they were fully aware that mere possession of an unlisted SKS-like clone is not a crime, so long as it follows SB23.

Scarecrow Repair
05-09-2007, 1:56 PM
So you honestly believe that the police searched this guy's house, found AW parts, and stuck them on the SKS and then charged him?

Simple incompetence is possible, and without knowing any more, I'd say more likely. They saw unassembled parts and put them together in ways the owner never would have, not out of malice, just because it seemed like the natural thing to do ... "Hey look, he's got an unassembed assault weapon ... What do you mean? ... Look, put these together, what do you have? ... Say, looks like he's trying to disguise it by keeping it unassembled."

It's just an idea. I have no info beyond what I have read here. Bill says they DID put an AW together, and he usually knows what he is talking about ... say, it wasn't a Toyota gun, was it?

:-) :-) :-)

spgk380
05-09-2007, 2:04 PM
Simple incompetence is possible, and without knowing any more, I'd say more likely. They saw unassembled parts and put them together in ways the owner never would have, not out of malice, just because it seemed like the natural thing to do ... "Hey look, he's got an unassembed assault weapon ... What do you mean? ... Look, put these together, what do you have? ... Say, looks like he's trying to disguise it by keeping it unassembled."

It's just an idea. I have no info beyond what I have read here. Bill says they DID put an AW together, and he usually knows what he is talking about ... say, it wasn't a Toyota gun, was it?

:-) :-) :-)


Haha, then I can just imagine this gun after the cops put it together "in ways never intended": its got a folding stock mounted on the bayonet lug, a flash hider where the pistol grip goes, a hi cap mag shoved in the ejection port and the muzzle crammed down the pistol grip: Hey guys, look! Its an assault weapon!

bwiese
05-09-2007, 3:15 PM
Do you mean the agreement is the reporter must not
mention CalGuns.net in the story before the DOJ will talk to the
reporter in these cases?


Exactamundo.

DOJ BoF staff refused to talk to reporter unless Calguns were specifically NOT mentioned. One of these people was likely Aaron McGuire (spelling?), their legislative liason (read: lobbyist).

If the reporter had used quotes from DOJ and violated this agreement by mentioning Calguns, his name would be repertorial mud and he'd never get another quote from DOJ/AG, and prob other gov't agencies, on anything ever again. Given that he writes for Capitol Weekly he will toe the line.

bwiese
05-09-2007, 3:16 PM
Bill,
So you honestly believe that the police searched this guy's house, found AW parts, and stuck them on the SKS and then charged him? I guess its possible, but I have to believe that the police generally have a little more integrity than that.

This has far less to do with integrity than a simple redneck mountain cop lack of knowledge of constructive possession.

pnkssbtz
05-09-2007, 4:39 PM
Bill, So you honestly believe that the police searched this guy's house, found AW parts, and stuck them on the SKS and then charged him? I guess its possible, but I have to believe that the police generally have a little more integrity than that.

I don't think you are aware of this, so I will point it out.

There was an AW case where the police arrested someone for having an OLL with a Mag Lock.

The police used a MALLET to smash the allen screw that locks the magazine release so that the magazine could drop out, then they charged him with having an assault weapon.

So yes, this is totally believable by un-educated police.


(Another example is BWO's current situation.)

Scarecrow Repair
05-09-2007, 4:47 PM
Haha, then I can just imagine this gun after the cops put it together "in ways never intended": its got a folding stock mounted on the bayonet lug, a flash hider where the pistol grip goes, a hi cap mag shoved in the ejection port and the muzzle crammed down the pistol grip: Hey guys, look! Its an assault weapon!

Yeh, see, it's an assault on the senses, specifically common sense :-)

Ford8N
05-09-2007, 4:59 PM
Exactamundo.

DOJ BoF staff refused to talk to reporter unless Calguns were specifically NOT mentioned. One of these people was likely Aaron McGuire (spelling?), their legislative liason (read: lobbyist).

If the reporter had used quotes from DOJ and violated this agreement by mentioning Calguns, his name would be repertorial mud and he'd never get another quote from DOJ/AG, and prob other gov't agencies, on anything ever again. Given that he writes for Capitol Weekly he will toe the line.

If the reporter had a pair, I would think the bigger story would be why is the BOF so afraid of Calguns.:eek: Freedom of speech, open dialog, sources of info and all that stuff.

bwiese
05-09-2007, 5:14 PM
If the reporter had a pair, I would think the bigger story would be why is the BOF so afraid of Calguns.:eek: Freedom of speech, open dialog, sources of info and all that stuff.

He was really interested in why no one had heard of the 50K+ receivers/guns, that there were only 10- 20 folks with the complete history/background of what went on, etc.

He had a deadline, an editor, and a wordcount. Article wouldn't have passed muster if all he could get was gunnies and "no comment" out of DOJ.

Wulf
05-09-2007, 6:31 PM
He had a deadline, an editor, and a wordcount. Article wouldn't have passed muster if all he could get was gunnies and "no comment" out of DOJ.

That's sad really, cause the "bureaucratic malfeasance" story here is much more coherent and engaging, than the pack of 1/2 true assault weapon law trivia, and disjointed statements regarding "what happened" that he got from DOJ and Nowick and cobbled into an unmemorable waste of ink.

artherd
05-09-2007, 10:09 PM
I think DOJ collusion with Brady Center is one of the biggest stories of the year. Imagine what else goes un-covered that we are not by chance intimately familiar with?

artherd
05-09-2007, 10:17 PM
So, I am inferring from this sentence that the DoJ refused to talk to reporters about this case unless they promise not to mention calguns.net?

That sounds like a BIG WIN if so. That means they fear the truth.
You said it right!

BLKTALN
05-10-2007, 7:16 AM
Exactamundo.

DOJ BoF staff refused to talk to reporter unless Calguns were specifically NOT mentioned. One of these people was likely Aaron McGuire (spelling?), their legislative liason (read: lobbyist).

If the reporter had used quotes from DOJ and violated this agreement by mentioning Calguns, his name would be repertorial mud and he'd never get another quote from DOJ/AG, and prob other gov't agencies, on anything ever again. Given that he writes for Capitol Weekly he will toe the line.

i think DOJ manipulation/influence of media direction deserves public attention... in the papers... about the truth... funded by us...

Phil Bole
05-10-2007, 7:34 AM
I would think the bigger story would be why is the BOF so afraid of Calguns

So you honestly believe that they are afraid of Calguns.net???

paradox
05-10-2007, 8:01 AM
So you honestly believe that they are afraid of Calguns.net???

Nothing strikes fear into the heart of government like politically active normal folks who demand their “public servants” behave like servants and not like masters.

Clodbuster
05-10-2007, 11:46 AM
Well, I'm sure the driver of the car wasn't laughing.

If it was some Saturday Night Live skit, it would be a joke, and we'd all have a good laugh. Not when it's a real cop.

Clod

My brother was watching a cop show once and a cop pulled over some guy and there was an SKS in the trunk or backseat, at which point the cop said "Yeah, this is an AK-type machine gun"

When I heard that, I nearly crapped myself from laughing.

M. Sage
05-10-2007, 5:13 PM
Nothing strikes fear into the heart of government like politically active normal folks who demand their “public servants” behave like servants and not like masters.

+1.

I can hear it in my head... "Accountability? And we'll have to be honest or get called on it!? OMG, noooooooooo!!!!!!!!"

bob bomb
05-10-2007, 5:38 PM
Back to the SKS case, would it not be possible for the SKS to be completely assembled , with the fixed mag removed, and it be considered to take detachable magazines? When you think about it, the duck bill mags fit into the SKS after the fixed 10 round mag is removed. I think this could be an area of confusion.

Missing one peice(fixed 10 round mag)=Assault weapon(SKS that takes detachable magazines.

hoffmang
05-10-2007, 9:44 PM
Bob,

There have been some nasty interpretations of "SKS with Detachable Magazine" in CA courts in the past. The good news is that those interpretations were before Harrot. Harrot forces some guidance on the interpretation of all assault weapons laws in California.

-Gene

bwiese
05-11-2007, 8:38 AM
Bob,

A disassembled rifle - that is, a barreled action - can't be regarded as a complete rifle.

Furthermore the fact that one specific type of rifle couldn't be disassembled & cleaned is wildly out of whack. There's no way that law could be rationally asserted in that sense: no where can that sentiment be found, and lack of cleaning weapons is dangerous - there are no state-mandated minimum levels of "weapons hazardness" :)

simonov
05-11-2007, 9:22 AM
Bob,
A disassembled rifle - that is, a barreled action - can't be regarded as a complete rifle.

I'm not so sure about that. I have always assumed that if I attached a pistol grip to my bare AR-15 lower receiver, I would be committing a felony, no?

hoffmang
05-11-2007, 11:12 AM
siminov,

There is a strong argument that the answer is actually no, attaching a pistol grip to a bare AR-15 lower is not a felony. The issue is that you can next attach a bolt action centerfire upper or a non centerfire upper and create a legal configuration from there.

The law says a "semi automatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and..." A lower with a pistol grip isn't a semi automatic centerfire rifle yet.

However, safety implies that you shouldn't leave lowers with pistol grips and nothing else laying around.

-Gene

bwiese
05-11-2007, 11:16 AM
I'm not so sure about that. I have always assumed that if I attached a pistol
grip to my bare AR-15 lower receiver, I would be committing a felony, no?

Let's qualify that statment and say "bare off-list AR-style receiver".

My original warnings about that in late 2005/early in 2006 when OLL stuff started were a product of hyperconservatism.

An off-list AR-type lower with a pistol grip and/or telestock is simply not a semiauto centerfire rifle with detachable magazine.

This lower configuration would be entirely legal with a bolt-action upper or a rimfire upper.

It also appears from legislative analysis & discussion of AB2728 - when "receiver" language was proposed in summer 2006, then completely scuttled - that possession of a *listed* bare lower receiver (likely extendable to anything that is not a rifle) may well not be covered by Roberti-Roos and is defendable (but certainly not recommended safe behavior).

tgriffin
05-24-2007, 9:53 AM
Update?

bwiese
05-24-2007, 10:13 AM
Will know more in awhile. There is apparently at least some fair measure of truth that the cops built an AW from a nonAW, but details are sketchy. (Paperwork not in.)

Not a perfect gun case, however, as there may be another coloring issue or two, which I won't go into.

KenpoProfessor
05-24-2007, 11:57 AM
Let's qualify that statment and say "bare off-list AR-style receiver".

My original warnings about that in late 2005/early in 2006 when OLL stuff started were a product of hyperconservatism.

An off-list AR-type lower with a pistol grip and/or telestock is simply not a semiauto centerfire rifle with detachable magazine.

This lower configuration would be entirely legal with a bolt-action upper or a rimfire upper.

It also appears from legislative analysis & discussion of AB2728 - when "receiver" language was proposed in summer 2006, then completely scuttled - that possession of a *listed* bare lower receiver (likely extendable to anything that is not a rifle) may well not be covered by Roberti-Roos and is defendable (but certainly not recommended safe behavior).


So what you're saying (though on the edges of legality) is even if you have a pistol gripped or telestocked Listed receiver, until it's put together as a complete gun, the AW status can't take effect? Question is, is it the detachable magazine or the semi-auto that would make it an AW in CA according to features?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

bwiese
05-24-2007, 12:17 PM
Clyde,

So what you're saying (though on the edges of legality) is even if you have a
pistol gripped or telestocked Listed receiver, until it's put together as a complete
gun, the AW status can't take effect?

Correctamundo. The law says, semiauto centerfire rifle...

A receiver with a few parts hanging off it is not a semiauto or centerfire rifle, as the semiauto & centerfire attributes are associated with attached upper, and it ain't a complete rifle. It can't be intended to fire from the shoulder, as it can't fire :) (The 12020 definition of rifle or shotgun carries down, and is why 1919A1s are not AWs- since they are not rifles, even though they are semiauto centerfire with a detachable magazine (belt) and have a pistol grip. [The DOJ says the 1919A1's pistol grip isn't a pistol grip, since it protrudes from the 1919's rear: really, these concerns are irrelevant, since the 1919A1 is not a rifle in the first place, just like how semiauto 50BMG Ma Deuces aren't a rifle either - and thus are not banned 50BMGs.]

An off-list AR-type receiver with a bolt/manual cycled upper or a rimfire upper, and in combination with a pistol grip + telestock, etc. is simply NOT a 12276.1 PC-defined AW. In fact there is no reason these could not be sold off the shelf at gunshops and I'd expect to see one or the other variant fairly soon :)

Same logic extends to 'named' receivers as well. Legislative analysis during the course of AB2728's creation last year, along with the actual text of the law that we kinda ignored for awhile due to wise paranoia indicates it's highly likely even *named* receivers (say, "Colt AR15") are actually legal to possess as they aren't "semiautomatic firearms":

12276 PC: As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following
designated semiautomatic firearms: ... <<list of names>>"


Discussion with Very Wise People indicates that if one were to, for some reason, find oneself to be in possession of a listed AW, the first thing that should be done is to strip it down to receiver. This should not, of course, be construed as any recommendation whatsoever to acquire or retain bare listed-by-name receivers.

This is why DOJ/Alison/Klehs were trying to introduce 'receiver language' into 2728 - because receivers are not rifles/AWs, and this was the way to ban receiver sales. That attempt failed miserably, of course.

Question is, is it the detachable magazine or the semi-auto that would make it an AW in CA according to features?

Not quite. Remember, a Ruger Mini14, an M1A or a Keltec SU16 is legal in CA: these are all semiauto centerfire rifles with detachable mags.

Only once you have this combination (for rifles) do you then start worrying about inclusion of "evil features" (the legal term is 'characteristic features'). It's a two-step process.

formerTexan
05-24-2007, 12:19 PM
So what you're saying (though on the edges of legality) is even if you have a pistol gripped or telestocked Listed receiver, until it's put together as a complete gun, the AW status can't take effect? Question is, is it the detachable magazine or the semi-auto that would make it an AW in CA according to features?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

I think you need three, semi-automatic, center-fire rifle, and a detachable magazine, plus one of the evil features before you have an AW rifle.

hoffmang
05-24-2007, 12:25 PM
FT,

That's correct for unlisted receivers. Bill's point that he's bringing up again is that a listed receiver isn't a rifle if its not built up.

That said, don't buy a listed receiver and only use that advice if you already have one and want some affirmative defenses.

-Gene

KenpoProfessor
05-24-2007, 12:47 PM
Gotcha,:D

This should help with some of those questions like the one that popped up the other day:eek:.

Have another question then, wouldn't installing a Mag lock or BB device eliminate it from listed AW status as well if it's JUST the receiver?



Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

hoffmang
05-24-2007, 12:52 PM
Kenpo,

The short answer is no. There is no way to build up a listed receiver and have it not be an AW using the usual methods of mag fix or featurlesness. You might be able to build a bolt action Colt Sporter though.

I DO NOT RECOMMEND YOU DO THAT HOWEVER.

-Gene

KenpoProfessor
05-24-2007, 12:54 PM
Kenpo,

The short answer is no. There is no way to build up a listed receiver and have it not be an AW using the usual methods of mag fix or featurlesness. You might be able to build a bolt action Colt Sporter though.

I DO NOT RECOMMEND YOU DO THAT HOWEVER.

-Gene


That's why I put JUST the receiver. The receiver is innocuous at best because it has no capability of being singlefire, rimfire, or semi-auto center fire. You guys are too much and I love it;)

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

bwiese
05-24-2007, 4:27 PM
Gotcha,:D
This should help with some of those questions like the one that popped up the other day:eek:.

Have another question then, wouldn't installing a Mag lock or BB device eliminate it from listed AW status as well if it's JUST the receiver?


Listed AW status is independent of detachable mag, mag attachment method or attached characteristic features (pistol grip, flash hider, folding stock, etc.).

Putting a BB or maglock on a listed receiver changes nothing. Even though listed, it's not a semiauto rifle.

Because of the wording of prefatory text in 12276PC, there is fair chance (i.e., a valid defense) that a listed receiver built into a working nonsemiauto rifle would not be an AW.

12276: As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following
designated semiautomatic firearms: ... <<list of names>>"

Again, this is highly highly highly not recommended and is mostly useful as a prospective defense.

Anonymous Coward
05-24-2007, 9:28 PM
... why 1919A1s are not AWs- since they are not rifles, even though they are semiauto centerfire with a detachable magazine (belt) and have a pistol grip. [The DOJ says the 1919A1's pistol grip isn't a pistol grip, since it protrudes from the 1919's rear: really, these concerns are irrelevant, since the 1919A1 is not a rifle in the first place, just like how semiauto 50BMG Ma Deuces aren't a rifle either - and thus are not banned 50BMGs.]


So what class of firearms are 1919s? This would mean that any (non-concealable) semiauto firearm (without a stock) that you mount to a tripod could have a flash hider, pistol grip and a detachable magazine - even 50BMGs?

hoffmang
05-24-2007, 9:35 PM
The are firearms. At best they are "crew served arms." The are not a pistol or handgun or firearm concealable on the person and they are not rifles as they can not be shot from the shoulder.

Also, the pistol grip is not an SB-23 feature as it does not protrude conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

-Gene

Anonymous Coward
05-24-2007, 9:39 PM
Also, the pistol grip is not an SB-23 feature as it does not protrude conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.


Yes, but what I was getting at is that somebody could get a detachable-mag Barret without a stock and put it on a tripod (with pistol grip and FH).

bwiese
05-24-2007, 9:41 PM
So what class of firearms are 1919s? This would mean that any (non-concealable) semiauto firearm (without a stock) that you mount to a tripod could have a flash hider, pistol grip and a detachable magazine - even 50BMGs?

*Specifically* 50BMGs!

The AB50 50BMG ban only bans 50BMG *rifles*. A semiauto MaDeuce 50BMG pintle- or tripod mounted is not a shoulder fired weapon.

DOJ's Iggy Chinn has even been heard in conversation acknowledging this.

The 1919A1 is also not a shoulder-fired firearm, so it is not a rifle.

Similarly, the common garden variety pistol-gripped Mossberg 500 'Cruiser' is not defined as a shotgun. There is also BATF paperwork on this as well relating to GCA '68 definition of shotgun. (If you cut the barrel down to below 18" and/or overall length below 26", it does transition into a short-barrel shotgun even though it didn't start out as a shotgun!)

Simply stated, when you take a stock off a long gun and adapt it to another use, it no longer is "intended to be fired from the shoulder". I would add a caveat that something likely perceived as 'missing a stock' may be different than something intentionally modified to not be conformant with the definition below. Activity such as intentionally putting an end cap where stock normally joins rear of a receiver would indicate an intention to not have a 'broken rifle' or 'broken shotgun', but instead to have a non-rifle firearm with a unique mode of operation/deployment.

Caution in such exercises should be maintained to keep firearm/bbl lengths out of NFA territory.

12020(c) PC:
(20) As used in this section, a "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.

(21) As used in this section, a "shotgun" 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 shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of
projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.

Note both of these definitions underlined phrases are prefixed with 'and' meaning that condition must be fulfilled for that definition to be active.

The phrase 'as used in this section...' also carries outward from 12020 since rifle and shotgun are not defined elsewhere. They could well have been redefined to have another meaning in other section (like AW laws) if the writers of Roberti-Roos and SB23 had intended to do so (but as they did not).

dvader
05-24-2007, 9:55 PM
Bill, I think you ment 1919A4 when you wrote "1919A1." What about a 1919A6, it has a shoulder stock?

bwiese
05-24-2007, 11:39 PM
Bill, I think you ment 1919A4 when you wrote "1919A1." What about a 1919A6, it has a shoulder stock?

Probably so.

What I meant was the semiauto 1919 belt-fed tripod/pintle-mounted firearm that has either spade grips or the pistol grip coming off the back (and that the DOJ says is not a pistol grip).

A 1919A6 having a shoulder stock would be a rifle. I am unclear how the grip setup is on this variant. If it were the same grip (?) as on the approved non-rifle it is a pistol grip that is not a pistol grip for 12276.1PC standards.

CSACANNONEER
05-25-2007, 5:38 AM
Probably so.

What I meant was the semiauto 1919 belt-fed tripod/pintle-mounted firearm that has either spade grips or the pistol grip coming off the back (and that the DOJ says is not a pistol grip).

A 1919A6 having a shoulder stock would be a rifle. I am unclear how the grip setup is on this variant. If it were the same grip (?) as on the approved non-rifle it is a pistol grip that is not a pistol grip for 12276.1PC standards.

Bill,

You are correct. The 1919A6 shoulder stock attaches dirrectly to the standard rear mounted (non) pistol grip.

vikingshelmut
05-25-2007, 6:45 AM
Bill,

Is this the Capitol Weekly article you were referring to?
http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=1423

bwiese
05-25-2007, 8:38 AM
Bill,
Is this the Capitol Weekly article you were referring to?
http://www.capitolweekly.net/news/article.html?article_id=1423

Yes. It was a two-part 'series'.

From what I have heard, the DOJ/BoF would not talk to the author on/off the record unless he promised not to mention Calguns.net in print.

Mesa Tactical
05-25-2007, 9:09 AM
Yes. It was a two-part 'series'.

From what I have heard, the DOJ/BoF would not talk to the author on/off the record unless he promised not to mention Calguns.net in print.

This is priceless:

Klehs was chosen as the author, Nowick said, because he was one of the few legislators who was knowledgeable about guns.

So the gun law consultant to the biggest gun grabber in the Legislature admits that "few legislators [are] knowledgeable about guns." Presumably, including his boss Perata.

BTW, that article sucked and got a lot wrong. The best article I have seen about the idiotic and convoluted California assault weapon ban is this one: http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/osamas-gun/26167/

The reporter in that article actually purchased an AK receiver and documented all the nonsense involved with legally building it up. He consulted the DoJ and the NRA, as well as (probably) more than one Calgunner, and actually got almost all the facts right. A first, as far as I'm concerned.

hoffmang
05-25-2007, 12:34 PM
Looking at the A6, I don't think it fits the definition of an AW as long as its not chambered in .50BMG. The pistol grip and stock are both behind the action and not below the action.

-Gene

Stressfracture
05-25-2007, 3:07 PM
what about something like this what does the law define it as.

http://gatlingguns.com/indexframeset.html

bwiese
05-25-2007, 3:11 PM
what about something like this what does the law define it as.

http://gatlingguns.com/indexframeset.html

Well, as discussed above, this is not a rifle. It is not full-auto, either.

It's CA legal.

PanzerAce
05-25-2007, 3:31 PM
I thought I remembered part of the law that outlawed this kind of setup :shrug:
Well, as discussed above, this is not a rifle. It is not full-auto, either.

It's CA legal.

bwiese
05-25-2007, 3:34 PM
I thought I remembered part of the law that outlawed this kind of setup :shrug:

Pray tell?

It's not a rifle - as it's not intended for shoulder firing.

There's nothing NFA about it, and it stays away from CA AW territory.

courteousgavin
05-25-2007, 4:15 PM
Pray tell?

It's not a rifle - as it's not intended for shoulder firing.

There's nothing NFA about it, and it stays away from CA AW territory.

Isn't there some kind of "trigger activator" law in California? You know, the one that bans the crankable adaptors for the 10/22? Does that gun linked above have a crankable trigger?

Stressfracture
05-25-2007, 4:20 PM
i found this...

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the
state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives,
lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable
firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a
firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which
contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or
carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst
trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any
short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any
leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol,
any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge
knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice
handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon
of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy,
sandclub, sap, or sandbag.


(23) As used in this section, a "multiburst trigger activator"
means one of the following devices:
(A) A device designed or redesigned to be attached to a
semiautomatic firearm which allows the firearm to discharge two or
more shots in a burst by activating the device.
(B) A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed
and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it
increases the rate of fire of that firearm.


Well im not sure if "A" applies or not. I would argue that "B" cannot apply to a semi auto because you can't increase the design rate of fire not matter what they think they meant by this. It fires one round every time the trigger is activated.

bwiese
05-25-2007, 4:41 PM
The CA-illegal multiburst trigger activators just allow (supposedly) a faster trigger time cycle and maybe some kinda bounce-back second return. (From what I've heard, they're all crap.)

In crank-driving a la Gatling, firing still involves a substantial manual motion for each round fired.
If you stop cranking you stop firing. In fact, the motion/traversal required appears well be *more* than if the normal trigger were to be operated manually. This then becomes a matter of style and ergonomics, and not one of reduced trigger travel time...

Stressfracture
05-25-2007, 4:45 PM
So you think the crank would be legal?

After reading there definitions it makes me think they tried to outlaws attaching my finger to the trigger. After all its a manual device that allows me to increase the rate of fire of the firearm from not shooting to dumping 10 rds in 2 seconds. :)

chiefcrash
07-03-2007, 11:44 AM
Will know more in awhile. There is apparently at least some fair measure of truth that the cops built an AW from a nonAW, but details are sketchy. (Paperwork not in.)

Not a perfect gun case, however, as there may be another coloring issue or two, which I won't go into.

any update on this one?

bwiese
07-03-2007, 11:46 AM
any update on this one?

Not yet. This element of the case, or the whole case, may go by the wayside. It may have been a 'tack-on' charge.

carsonwales
07-18-2007, 3:46 PM
God I love this site....

I just read this thread from start to finish and it occurred to me that listed receivers are never AW's. I had forever thought that receivers were banned from sale if on the list...and this appears to have been a false assumption.

An AW must be semi auto....period.

12276 PC: As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following
designated semiautomatic firearms: ... <<list of names>>"

A receiver whose make/model is the same as one of the listed 'semiautomatic firearms' is totally irrelevant...its not an AW without the rest of the parts.

And if I understand correctly, 'constructive possession' means just because you have the parts that if assembled correctly would form a listed AW, it is not an AW until that 'manufacturing' process is completed.

It would then logically follow, that OLL's are even more exempt from consideration as being AW's. Is this a correct assumption?

Further, I have read the law as of late over and over again, and I know that manufacturing, or causing the manufacturer of an AW is illegal....why aren't the cops in this SKS case being charged with manufacturing assault weapons?

ONE MORE THING:

Can someone point me at the Cal DOJ/BOF law/rule/definition of the term 'firearm'.

Correct me if I am wrong...the learning curve is steep on these confusing and crummy laws.

SW

rkt88edmo
07-18-2007, 4:09 PM
NO!

Listed receivers are AW by fiat. If they are listed, they are AWs.
(now I am less sure about this part-->Except when a listed gun is somehow finagled into a DOJ approved non-assault weapon (bushmaster) and there seems to be some indication that the list itself might be vulnerable to attack, from what I gather from reading threads

God I love this site....

I just read this thread from start to finish and it occurred to me that listed receivers are never AW's. I had forever thought that receivers were banned from sale if on the list...and this appears to have been a false assumption.

An AW must be semi auto....period.

12276 PC: As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following
designated semiautomatic firearms: ... <<list of names>>"

A receiver whose make/model is the same as one of the listed 'semiautomatic firearms' is totally irrelevant...its not an AW without the rest of the parts.

And if I understand correctly, 'constructive possession' means just because you have the parts that if assembled correctly would form a listed AW, it is not an AW until that 'manufacturing' process is completed.

It would then logically follow, that OLL's are even more exempt from consideration as being AW's. Is this a correct assumption?

Further, I have read the law as of late over and over again, and I know that manufacturing, or causing the manufacturer of an AW is illegal....why aren't the cops in this SKS case being charged with manufacturing assault weapons?

ONE MORE THING:

Can someone point me at the Cal DOJ/BOF law/rule/definition of the term 'firearm'.

Correct me if I am wrong...the learning curve is steep on these confusing and crummy laws.

SW

bwiese
07-18-2007, 4:43 PM
NO!
Listed receivers are AW by fiat.

Um, not quite.

.... but the Roberti-Roos law in 12276PC bans "semiautomatic rifles" that are named by make and model, and even a listed stripped receiver is not a semiautomatic rifle.

And even though the DOJ may even say otherwise, Really Smart People say the contrary - and this was also even brought up in the legislative analysis in AB2728 when 'receiver language' was still being hammered out before it was eliminated.

Nevertheless, it's unwise to retain/possess/acquire a receiver for a listed AW.
What I have just argued is a defense against AW possession charges only, and is in no way a recommendation.

If they are listed, they are AWs.
(now I am less sure about this part-->Except when a listed gun is somehow finagled into a DOJ approved non-assault weapon (bushmaster) and there seems to be some indication that the list itself might be vulnerable to attack, from what I gather from reading threads

Well yes, the whole Iggy + Evan's/GBSales thing has really screwed things up, quite helpfully...

NoTime2Shoot
07-18-2007, 7:12 PM
Well yes, the whole Iggy + Evan's/GBSales thing has really screwed things up, quite helpfully...


I know nobody wants to get Evans in trouble, BUT I would still like to know if they had an ATF manufacturing permit PRIOR to the "substantive changes" they made to their receivers; (especially if teh iggster said they didn't need one).

Then again, I'm a bitter old curmudgeon.

hoffmang
07-18-2007, 8:03 PM
Is Iggy's letter an Underground Regulation?

:)

-Gene

TreeServ
01-21-2008, 9:28 PM
New case in Northern 1/3rd of Norcal.....


So, with this case being heard this week, is there anything new?

Soldier415
01-21-2008, 9:35 PM
Exactamundo.

DOJ BoF staff refused to talk to reporter unless Calguns were specifically NOT mentioned. One of these people was likely Aaron McGuire (spelling?), their legislative liason (read: lobbyist).

If the reporter had used quotes from DOJ and violated this agreement by mentioning Calguns, his name would be repertorial mud and he'd never get another quote from DOJ/AG, and prob other gov't agencies, on anything ever again. Given that he writes for Capitol Weekly he will toe the line.

Is there a link available to this capitol weekly article?

rue
01-28-2008, 9:27 AM
What's the latest on this one?

bwiese
01-28-2008, 9:30 AM
No news. Lost contact. I expect the case either resolved postively (likely) or negatively for the individual on non-gun matters. I believe the attorney would've delved in further with me if gun matters had become a real issue.

SecondAmendmentgirl
01-29-2008, 2:50 AM
Wow, we are talking about a WWII-Korean war era designed weapon that's well past it's prime and was never more than a Soviet C unit issue to reservists for the most of the cold war. I love the weapon but the reality is, that it's far from a sniper's dream weapon or Spetnaz AR of choice after, especially 1960.

Unfortuantely SKSs are still an easy target because of their evil appearance. As of now I'm not surprised to have people ask me at the range or in a gun store whether my/the store's SKSs are legal and why they are.

drclark
01-30-2008, 7:31 AM
I don't think its the fact that they look "evil". They really don't look much different than an M1 garand in terms of "evilness". I think the real issue with SKS's is the fact that they are available for a very in-expensive price. What other effective semi-auto rifle can you buy for less than $200?

drc

RRangel
01-30-2008, 7:42 AM
I don't think its the fact that they look "evil". They really don't look much different than an M1 garand in terms of "evilness". I think the real issue with SKS's is the fact that they are available for a very in-expensive price. What other effective semi-auto rifle can you buy for less than $200?

drc

Good ones are getting pretty hard to find for $200.

Soldier415
01-30-2008, 7:43 AM
Sks do not look evil. In fact...they are some of the ugliest rifles around.

That being said...anyone have one for sale?

Solidmch
02-02-2008, 2:40 PM
Wow, we are talking about a WWII-Korean war era designed weapon that's well past it's prime and was never more than a Soviet C unit issue to reservists for the most of the cold war. I love the weapon but the reality is, that it's far from a sniper's dream weapon or Spetnaz AR of choice after, especially 1960.


another Don Perada ban...:rolleyes: He thought by doing this it would solve all of Oaklands problems.

Otherguy Overby
02-03-2008, 1:53 PM
Sks do not look evil. In fact...they are some of the ugliest rifles around.

That being said...anyone have one for sale?

Yeppers, I have a "D" model, a really nice one, too. It's just not legal in CA though.

rue
02-07-2008, 8:28 AM
I love my Russian, good luck finding one for $200 though. Those days are long gone. Last one I saw for sale was $450 in CA.

duenor
02-07-2008, 9:01 AM
I like the SKS's lines.
It's pretty in its own right.

triaged
02-08-2008, 8:34 AM
I love my Russian, good luck finding one for $200 though. Those days are long gone. Last one I saw for sale was $450 in CA.Turners in Norwalk has one on consignment for $600. Makes me feel good about my laminated stock Russian for $120:p

radioburning
06-08-2008, 10:14 AM
I got my yugo at Martin Retting in Culver City for $269.00, in unfired condition. Last time I was there they still had 3 or 4 left...

P.S. The SKS is ugly in a good way. Simple, rugged, and fun as hell to shoot=beautiful.

wilit
06-08-2008, 10:59 AM
No news. Lost contact. I expect the case either resolved postively (likely) or negatively for the individual on non-gun matters. I believe the attorney would've delved in further with me if gun matters had become a real issue.

Still no update on the resolution to this?

bwiese
06-08-2008, 4:20 PM
Still no update on the resolution to this?

The dance continues. We'll see, don't have much more info. Clowns all around.

Sam1
06-09-2008, 7:47 PM
I got my yugo at Martin Retting in Culver City for $269.00, in unfired condition. Last time I was there they still had 3 or 4 left...
shoot=beautiful.

I paid over 400 with dros+tax etc for a norinco there!!!!!!! I only got it because I was desperate haha but I got ripped off they had a russian with no bayo fired for like 420 + tax + dros fees but hey I think I got a year warranty haha

DSA_FAL
06-09-2008, 10:45 PM
:83: Zombie (thread) Invasion!

N_S
08-17-2008, 10:38 PM
Sounds like someone is going to lose his badge :D