PDA

View Full Version : Bare receiver, and re-DROS'ing as pistol ??


ptoguy2002
07-10-2012, 12:14 PM
So I have a virgin stripped receiver that was transferred to me as such.
If I send it out of state to an 07 FFL builder, who builds it into an SSE pistol, can he send it back to my FFL and have it re-transferred to me as an SSE pistol?
Or in short, have the same firearm transferred to me twice. The second one should make it a legit SSE pistol.
Kosher?

wildhawker
07-10-2012, 12:52 PM
How was it transferred to you in CA as a receiver, or was it not?

-Brandon

ptoguy2002
07-10-2012, 1:06 PM
How was it transferred to you in CA as a receiver, or was it not?

-Brandon

Yes, transferred to me as a stripped receiver in CA.
My understand though, is that in the DROS system these are considered to be long guns in the DROS system. But since it doesn't retain the information on long guns, if I send it out to get it built as an SSE pistol and re-DROS it as a pistol, I should be good?
Don't want to have any issues with either a double transfer or SBR stuff.

It's one of these:
http://cdn.armslist.com/images/posts/634668265017374889sovhfqb2.jpg

wildhawker
07-10-2012, 1:55 PM
Since we are talking state issues anyway, why would sending the receiver to an out of state FFL change the material facts?

Kharn
07-10-2012, 2:16 PM
Yes, transferred to me as a stripped receiver in CA.
My understand though, is that in the DROS system these are considered to be long guns in the DROS system. But since it doesn't retain the information on long guns, if I send it out to get it built as an SSE pistol and re-DROS it as a pistol, I should be good?
Don't want to have any issues with either a double transfer or SBR stuff.

It's one of these:
http://cdn.armslist.com/images/posts/634668265017374889sovhfqb2.jpg

It would still be listed in the dealer's bound book as having transferred to you as a rifle. Once it transfers as a rifle, it can only become an SBR.

ptoguy2002
07-10-2012, 2:21 PM
Since we are talking state issues anyway, why would sending the receiver to an out of state FFL change the material facts?

Because the out of state 07 FFL would turn it into a pistol (from a bare receiver).

ptoguy2002
07-10-2012, 2:23 PM
It would still be listed in the dealer's bound book as having transferred to you as a rifle. Once it transfers as a rifle, it can only become an SBR.

No, the bound book should reflect what the 4473 says, which is just "receiver."
The California system is where the bare receiver becomes a long gun.

CSACANNONEER
07-10-2012, 2:34 PM
It would still be listed in the dealer's bound book as having transferred to you as a rifle. Once it transfers as a rifle, it can only become an SBR.

It would/should not be listed as a "rifle". A "long gun" sure but, it has never been a "rifle" or a "shotgun". Also, does how a receiver is DROSed hold any legal meaning? On a federal level it doesn't. So, it is legal for me to DROS a virgin receiver in CA, take it out of state and build a pistol with it. The only question is: What will CA call it if I bring it back into the state? The answer is that no one knows yet.

wildhawker
07-10-2012, 3:36 PM
It would still be listed in the dealer's bound book as having transferred to you as a rifle. Once it transfers as a rifle, it can only become an SBR.

No, it shouldn't be listed in the A&D as a rifle unless the FFL made a mistake.

-Brandon

wildhawker
07-10-2012, 3:39 PM
Because the out of state 07 FFL would turn it into a pistol (from a bare receiver).

You're missing my point. The 07 doesn't matter to you (unless you want one to build it vs homebuild+SSE), nor does shipping it out/back.

The subject receiver was DROSed in California as a 'long gun'. No amount of border crossing will ever change the one material fact in the analysis.

-Brandon

bwiese
07-10-2012, 3:41 PM
What will CA call it if I bring it back into the state? The answer is that no one knows yet.

Yes, but the constructive possession phrasing in California SBR definition is broad enough to worry about.

CA could regard it still as a long gun, a court could muddle in long gun vs rifle, and then see its current pistol status, and you're Mr. Rooney No. 2.

CSACANNONEER
07-10-2012, 4:17 PM
Yes, but the constructive possession phrasing in California SBR definition is broad enough to worry about.

CA could regard it still as a long gun, a court could muddle in long gun vs rifle, and then see its current pistol status, and you're Mr. Rooney No. 2.




Agreed. The key here is "could regard". There is no PC stating that a stripped receiver which is DROSed as a long gun is legally a long gun in CA. There is no case law to support either side of the arguement. The ONLY documentation that I've seen is Jack's ATF opinion letter stating that it is legal on a federal level.

Is it worth doing this? I say "not at this time". Right now, there are much more important legal matters which we need to address and most pistol lowers are cheap enough!

CrazyPhuD
07-10-2012, 6:20 PM
Agreed. The key here is "could regard". There is no PC stating that a stripped receiver which is DROSed as a long gun is legally a long gun in CA. There is no case law to support either side of the arguement. The ONLY documentation that I've seen is Jack's ATF opinion letter stating that it is legal on a federal level.

Is it worth doing this? I say "not at this time". Right now, there are much more important legal matters which we need to address and most pistol lowers are cheap enough!

But the reality is, so long as it's legal at the federal level(which I believe was one of the concerns about it originally), the state issues should be less of a concern because they revolve around the definition of a 'rifle'.

The unregistered 50BMG weapons that have no shoulder stock attached revolve around the same concerns. Except the 50BMG arguments are even weaker because the definition of 'rifle' isn't explicit, people are applying the definition of 'rifle' from the CA SBR code.

Is every 50BMG weapon being made from 80%(including having made it into an SSE compliant build, >6 inches < 16inches) or pistol drosed lowers? If any of the 50BMG builds are being made with long gun DROSed receivers then they would subject to the same exact potential legal jeopardy.

If the M2HB(without a stock) transferred as 'long guns' are legal, then pistols built on stripped receivers also have to be since either both are tainted by 'long gun' transfers or neither are.

wildhawker
07-11-2012, 1:51 AM
But the reality is, so long as it's legal at the federal level (which I believe was one of the concerns about it originally), the state issues should be less of a concern because they revolve around the definition of a 'rifle'.

The unregistered 50BMG weapons that have no shoulder stock attached revolve around the same concerns. Except the 50BMG arguments are even weaker because the definition of 'rifle' isn't explicit, people are applying the definition of 'rifle' from the CA SBR code.

Is every 50BMG weapon being made from 80%(including having made it into an SSE compliant build, >6 inches < 16inches) or pistol drosed lowers? If any of the 50BMG builds are being made with long gun DROSed receivers then they would subject to the same exact potential legal jeopardy.

If the M2HB(without a stock) transferred as 'long guns' are legal, then pistols built on stripped receivers also have to be since either both are tainted by 'long gun' transfers or neither are.

So your argument is that logic is optional for this analysis?

-Brandon

dantodd
07-11-2012, 6:03 AM
You're missing my point. The 07 doesn't matter to you (unless you want one to build it vs homebuild+SSE), nor does shipping it out/back.

The subject receiver was DROSed in California as a 'long gun'. No amount of border crossing will ever change the one material fact in the analysis.

-Brandon

I believe he does, in fact, want the FFL to mfg. the pistol using the receiver sent from CA. It would seem that such manufacturing would allow the 07 to re-mark the weapon and should alleviate concerns of an SBR charge in CA.

CSACANNONEER
07-11-2012, 6:15 AM
I believe he does, in fact, want the FFL to mfg. the pistol using the receiver sent from CA. It would seem that such manufacturing would allow the 07 to re-mark the weapon and should alleviate concerns of an SBR charge in CA.

Even an 07 can't make a legal handgun from an existing long gun. IF Ca law supports that once a receiver is DROSed as a long gun, it is a long gun then, it would always be a long gun or a SBR/SBS. However, Ca does define a "rifle" as being designed to be fired from the shoulder. There is also a federal definition of "shotgun" which basically says close to the same thing. So, since a virgin stripped receiver has never been manufactured or designed to be fired from the shoulder, is it really a "rifle" or "shotgun" under Ca law?

dantodd
07-11-2012, 7:14 AM
So, since a virgin stripped receiver has never been manufactured or designed to be fired from the shoulder, is it really a "rifle" or "shotgun" under Ca law?

No, of course it isn't. There is nothing in the CA penal code that prevents one from making a handgun out of a long gun anyway. it is just that the DoJ has refused to VolReg *some* handguns made from bare receivers. If a firearm is DROSed as a handgun (even if previously transfered as a "long gun") I would have no qualms about possessing it personally.

ptoguy2002
07-11-2012, 8:05 AM
I believe he does, in fact, want the FFL to mfg. the pistol using the receiver sent from CA. It would seem that such manufacturing would allow the 07 to re-mark the weapon and should alleviate concerns of an SBR charge in CA.

Correct. Weld in trunnion, tube, press/pin barrel. Some actual manufacturing.


The subject receiver was DROSed in California as a 'long gun'. No amount of border crossing will ever change the one material fact in the analysis.


But I see this point. You'd never have an issue, as the serial number wasn't ever recorded on the first DROS, but it sounds kinda like the "dead hooker in the trunk" scenario.