View Full Version : Rooney questions and legality of underfolder

06-12-2012, 9:32 AM
i have a question on the Rooney case, is there any legal ground made in the bolded statement , for the under 30 but unable to fire being legal in the flow chart

Appellant Daniel Patrick Rooney appeals from a conviction for possession of a short-barreled rifle. Appellant contends that the trial court used the wrong method to measure the rifle, and that if another method had been used, the weapon would have been over the minimum legal length.
Statement of the Case
By information filed on October 1, 1991, the Solano County District Attorney charged appellant, Daniel Patrick Rooney, with possession of a short-barreled rifle in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (c)(2)(B) (count 1) and with possession of an unregistered assault weapon under Penal Code section 12280, subdivision (b) (count 2). On November 27, 1991, the court granted the district attorney's motion to dismiss count 2, and amend the information accordingly. Both parties waived trial by jury, and a court trial was held on December 2, 1991. On December 13, 1991, the trial court found appellant guilty of possessing a short-barreled firearm, i.e., a rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence on February 14, 1992, and placed appellant on formal probation for three years, which required that appellant serve a nine-month jail term. A timely notice of appeal was filed on April 13, 1992. [17 Cal. App. 4th 1210]
Statement of Facts
On April 19, 1991, at 12:46 a.m., Deputy Francis King of the Solano County Sheriff's Department noticed an unfamiliar yellow Corvette being driven in Allendale. A little while later, Deputy King noticed that the car had stopped for no apparent reason in the middle of the road with the lights off. Deputy King asked the driver of the car, appellant Daniel Rooney, what he was doing in the area. Appellant replied that he was out to see some friends, but was unable to say what street he was on or what address he was looking for. After letting appellant drive on, Deputy King and a partner searched the area around the car, and found a black bag some 20 feet behind the car. Inside the bag Deputy King found a rifle with a folding stock, several rounds of ammunition and a telescopic sight. The bag was warm and dry, while the night was cold and wet, suggesting that the bag had only recently been placed on the ground. When appellant was arrested later that night, he did not deny that the gun had been in his possession, although he denied ownership.
The rifle in the bag was a Chinese-made AK-47 with a removable folding shoulder stock, or shoulder rest. Measured in a straight line from the end of the butt plate to the end of the flash suppressor (i.e., with the stock folded under the rifle) the rifle was 253/4 quarters inches in length. With the folding stock extended for shoulder firing, the rifle measured about 35 inches. According to testimony at the trial, the gun could be fired with the stock folded. It would, however, be dangerous to the user to fire the weapon using a telescopic sight without the stock extended.


[3] Appellant's main argument runs as follows. The rifle he possessed had an attachment for a telescopic sight (a scope); a scope was found with [17 Cal. App. 4th 1211] the rifle; therefore the rifle was intended to be fired with a scope attached. Since it would be dangerous (to the user) to fire the rifle using the scope without the stock extended, the rifle must be measured with the stock extended. This argument is fallacious. The rifle could be fired with the stock folded, and without the use of a scope. Indeed, Deputy King, who was an expert in firearms, was unable to determine how the scope found with the gun could be attached to it.
Nor is there merit to appellant's argument that the stock must be included in the measurement of the rifle's overall length because the statutory definition of rifle refers to "a weapon ... intended to be fired from the shoulder." ( 12020, subd. (c)(20).) In keeping with the statutory purpose, a weapon which need not be fired exclusively from the shoulder but which readily can be is still a rifle. (United States v. Rose (10th Cir. 1982) 695 F.2d 1356 [Uzi designed for firing from hip but fitted with collapsible stock still a rifle]; Kanarr Corporation v. United States (1969) 413 F.2d 1143 [188 Ct. Cl. 1051] [grenade launcher which could be fired from shoulder counted as a rifle]; Sipes v. United States (8th Cir. 1963) 321 F.2d 174, 178.) fn. 3

now if a underfolder in unable to fire (locked in "safe" position) at any point the stock in activated(see underfolder mod (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=569083) ) would it be legal in ca in the folded position @ 25.75 OAL unable to fire ?

figured i would ask over here in the 2A from the legal eagles here ....

06-12-2012, 9:36 PM
......this is Lawrence ,Kansas ...is anyone out there?
This is Lawrence ,Kansas ...is anyone out there ?

This is Lawrence ,Kansas ...is anyone out there ?

06-13-2012, 8:14 AM

06-13-2012, 8:14 AM
su16ca can't fire when folded legal
they make other models that can fire folded
we can't have those, unless we screw on a loooooooooooog brake,lol

06-13-2012, 8:27 AM
su16ca just in my opinion is not a folding stock its broken down ....

folding stock

folding receiver (broken down) IMO no different then a AR upper opened up just more compact ...

06-13-2012, 8:36 AM
If it can't fire with the stock folded, you're good.

If it can fire with the stock folded, you can either add a barrel extension to get the OAL with the stock folded to 30"+, or block the stock, so that it doesn't fold.

06-13-2012, 8:43 AM
Tanker Garand with folding stock is 28.5" when the stock is folded, and can be fired with the stock folded. To bring the rifle to the minimum length, a flash suppressor needs to be added. Bringing the length to about 31".
However, on this particular Tanker, the FS has been trimmed to get a length of 30.25".

Comparing the shortened FS with the standard FS(bottom gun)

06-13-2012, 8:48 AM
i understand the 30 OAL in CA and how to get to it to be legal on a weapon that fires while folded ....

i am trying to find out about the "under 30 and unable to fire" legality that from looking threw the old threads when the flow chart was being made , it seems to be based on the su16ca that is not in reality a folding stock

06-13-2012, 1:03 PM
as I mentioned before, we have used the Rooney decision and the presense of the SU-16 models in CA without arrests to extrapolate the law the best we can. In order to get more than that, you need to get the CADOJ letter that Kel-tec supposedly has, and that has supposedly been posted before on the internet. Or, get confirmation from CADOJ that what you want to do is legal.

Otherwise, asking the same question over and over without any new data is just going to get the same answer.

06-14-2012, 12:07 AM
......this is Lawrence ,Kansas ...is anyone out there?
This is Lawrence ,Kansas ...is anyone out there ?

This is Lawrence ,Kansas ...is anyone out there ?

OMG That show gave me bad dreams as a kid

06-15-2012, 10:39 PM
If a bolt action rifle has a barrel of 16" and can only fire one round when loaded it can be legal in a 26" configuration.... yes ?

If jeepers mod was able to fire with an overall length of 26.3 " but
WOULD NOT chamber another round with the stock folded ,
wouldn't it be a 'single shot' rifle and NOT a semi-auto ?
Note: the Rooney gun was under 26" ,and thus a problem right from the start . {both federally and state}
. "We may not win all the ballgames ,but we have some interesting discussions." - Charlie Brown