PDA

View Full Version : What Happens If the Government Bans SSE Route to Obtain Non Roster Guns ??


ZOOMST15
07-17-2012, 2:25 PM
Hello everyone,

I'm new to the forum and have been reading a lot of useful info on the forum for several months now.

I'm very interested in purchasing either a Glock 19 Gen 4 or XDM 3.8 compact (still can't decide :D).

My concern is that while the SSE process has worked so far, it is relatively untested. What happens if the DOJ or another agency catches on and takes action? Do they have to power to confiscate the gun from it's owners? That would be about $700 down the drain and probably on the DOJ's blacklist.

I've research for a while now and can't really find any case that can answer my question. Hope someone on here can.

thanks!

DVSmith
07-17-2012, 2:31 PM
Although I have questions about some of the fine points relating to how SSE is done, as far as anyone I have spoken with can tell, the FFL is the only one at any risk here. It isn't illegal to own an off roster non "AW" (in California terms) firearm, so it would seem a pretty hard stretch for your properly transferred under CA laws firearm to be confiscated.

Having said all that, I am not a lawyer.

unusedusername
07-17-2012, 2:35 PM
SSE is currently legal. I have been present at a gun dealer while a DOJ inspector was watching many SSE transactions take place.

If they ban SSE then it depends on what the legislation says as to what would happen. I do not care to speculate on legislation until it has been written.

If you would like to buy a handgun through SSE then go for it.

speedrrracer
07-17-2012, 2:35 PM
worrying about nothing, imo

email
07-17-2012, 2:36 PM
Shh...Don't tell Yee!


My advice:


Buy whatever you legally can (SSE or otherwise).

Donate as you can to worthy pro-2a organizations.

Worry about "possible" gun legislation later.

NotEnufGarage
07-17-2012, 2:44 PM
SSE is not a loophole or a specific documented process from DOJ. It is the letter of the law being used to facilitate a legal handgun transfer.

There has not yet, nor is there currently any legislation pending that changes the applicable statutes in the PC, so OP is worrying about nothing.

wildhawker
07-17-2012, 2:54 PM
No basis for concern.

-Brandon

wash
07-17-2012, 2:54 PM
We'll see what kind of loophole it is when the Peņa case is decided.

I see SSE as being akin to UOC, it might be used as an excuse for why California can ban some quite normal and safe handguns from sale in CA, just like the courts pointed to UOC as justification for allowing counties to abuse their discretion in issuing carry permits.

Removing the dimensionally compliant single shot exemption will just serve to make the second amendment challenge to the handgun ban that much stronger.

ZOOMST15
07-17-2012, 3:58 PM
SSE is currently legal. I have been present at a gun dealer while a DOJ inspector was watching many SSE transactions take place.

If they ban SSE then it depends on what the legislation says as to what would happen. I do not care to speculate on legislation until it has been written.

If you would like to buy a handgun through SSE then go for it.



Thats good to know. And if it is legal now, I would assume that any law change later would allow the previous purchases to be grandfathered.

ZOOMST15
07-17-2012, 3:58 PM
Thanks for all the response guys!!

Maybe my worries is stem from no fully understanding the basis of the SSE.

I thought that the SSE is for guns that are made in single shot form from the original manufacturer that is not on the roster.

So if that is the case, then converting a non single shot gun into SS so that it can go through the SSE seems like a loophole.

Again, I may be completely wrong.

OlderThanDirt
07-17-2012, 4:04 PM
SSE is not a loophole or a specific documented process from DOJ. It is the letter of the law being used to facilitate a legal handgun transfer.

There has not yet, nor is there currently any legislation pending that changes the applicable statutes in the PC, so OP is worrying about nothing.

Well, SSE was intended to exempt single shot handguns that were widely available at the time, like a Thompson Contender. Like the SKS "a bullet is a tool" approach, SSE has been taken to a level never envisioned by the Legislature. I won't be surprised when some yeehole or feuerhole proposes to get rid of the SSE. Until then, I will faithfully follow the SSE to obtain unsafe handguns that become safe it you are LE or PPT from LE (California logic hurts my head).

Librarian
07-17-2012, 4:13 PM
Thanks for all the response guys!!

Maybe my worries is stem from no fully understanding the basis of the SSE.

I thought that the SSE is for guns that are made in single shot form from the original manufacturer that is not on the roster.

So if that is the case, then converting a non single shot gun into SS so that it can go through the SSE seems like a loophole.

Again, I may be completely wrong.

You do need to read the SSE thread in the handguns forum, and then the underlying PC - 32100 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/32100.html)(b) (b) Article 4 (commencing with Section 31900 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/31900.html)) and
Article 5 (commencing with Section 32000 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/32000.html)) shall not apply
to a single-shot pistol
with a barrel length of not less than six inches and
that has an overall length of at least 10 1/2 inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel are assembled.

31900 is 'drop test', 32000 is 'cannot sell, etc, unsafe handguns'.

Not a loophole. Following the PC as written.

No possibility that guns that guns not on the Roster could be at risk short of a complete, statewide handgun confiscation.

ZOOMST15
07-17-2012, 4:17 PM
You do need to read the SSE thread in the handguns forum, and then the underlying PC - 32100 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/32100.html)(b)

31900 is 'drop test', 32000 is 'cannot sell, etc, unsafe handguns'.

Not a loophole. Following the PC as written.

No possibility that guns that guns not on the Roster could be at risk short of a complete, statewide handgun confiscation.



Thanks for the response. I did read the SSE thread. But the wording in the PC you listed does not state whether that applies only to SS guns that are in that form from the manufacturer or it includes guns that are later converted into SS form though.

CBruce
07-17-2012, 4:19 PM
SSE is not a loophole or a specific documented process from DOJ. It is the letter of the law being used to facilitate a legal handgun transfer.

There has not yet, nor is there currently any legislation pending that changes the applicable statutes in the PC, so OP is worrying about nothing.

Sorry, but it's the very definition of a loophole. We wouldn't have a "safe roster" if the state didn't care about what handguns you bought from a dealer. SSE is a legal way of circumventing that restriction and evading the very clear intent of the CA handgun laws.

A loophole isn't a loophole if it's not legal. It's just a crime.

ZOOMST15
07-17-2012, 4:33 PM
Well, SSE was intended to exempt single shot handguns that were widely available at the time, like a Thompson Contender. Like the SKS "a bullet is a tool" approach, SSE has been taken to a level never envisioned by the Legislature. I won't be surprised when some yeehole or feuerhole proposes to get rid of the SSE. Until then, I will faithfully follow the SSE to obtain unsafe handguns that become safe it you are LE or PPT from LE (California logic hurts my head).




That is what I was thinking. And the fact that Cali gun laws has always been so ridiculously strict comparing to other states, I wouldn't be surprised if they did something about it later.

My main concern though is that for the people that purchase the guns through the SSE process prior to any changes, can the state confiscate or do anything about it or will they just simply let it slide and allow it as being grandfathered in. I know its impossible to know what they will do, but just want to see what the veteran gun owners here think.

OleCuss
07-17-2012, 4:36 PM
Hmm. . . So if you drive at less than the speed limit you are taking advantage of a loophole? If you pay your taxes on time you are using a loophole? If you avoid murdering people you are using a loophole?

The laws are written. They effectively define licit and illicit behavior.

The concept of a loophole makes no sense to me unless it is carved out for a very special interest group.

Those who are supposed to be able to bear arms are the entirety of the non-felonious population. Allowing them a route to purchase a normal firearm just doesn't feel like a loophole to me. It seems like a feature written into the law to allow the purchase of normal firearms.

If it is a loophole then it is because the legislators didn't understand the law they were writing.

If the legislators didn't understand the law they were writing, then they are idiots and the whole law is likely an idiocy and should be discarded.

But for now, the law is the law and must be presumed to mean what it says. It says you can buy non-rostered single-shot handguns. That means you can buy single-shot handguns because the legislators wanted you to be able to do that. No reason not to do it.

Let's go back and look at micro-stamping for a moment? The legislators specifically wrote into the legislation that the requirement for the tech could not come into play until the tech was unencumbered. The tech is still encumbered so micro-stamping is not a requirement.

Call it a loophole that we don't have micro-stamping? The law was specifically written that way for a reason. You may disagree with the reason, but the consequence was intended.

Same thing for SSE. The exemption was written into the legislation for a reason. That reason is beneficial. The fact that it is beneficial doesn't make it a "loophole".

OleCuss
07-17-2012, 4:49 PM
.
.
.
My main concern though is that for the people that purchase the guns through the SSE process prior to any changes, can the state confiscate or do anything about it or will they just simply let it slide and allow it as being grandfathered in. I know its impossible to know what they will do, but just want to see what the veteran gun owners here think.

There would be extremely practical problems trying to confiscate all those SSE firearms.

1. They were legally purchased and are legally owned and are not substantially different from other legally purchased and owned firearms. So what would be the basis for confiscation?

2. Olympic and similar sports are still somewhat sacrosanct. So you are going to tell Olympic shooting competitors that they can no longer purchase or keep their single-shot firearms?

3. If you are trying to confiscate those SSE's which have been upgraded after purchase, how would you propose to do that? Let's say I bought a Gen 4 Glock through SSE.

So how would they know I'd upgraded it? If they don't know I upgraded it, how are they going to be able to search my house in order to ascertain the facts? After all, having bought a Gen 4 Glock under SSE likely doesn't constitute PC for a search.

4. Are they going to have to pay for all those firearms? And since those firearms are a little more difficult to obtain, will they have to pay twice as much for my Gen 4 Glock as they would have to pay for my Gen 3 Glock? Maybe 5 times as much? And how are they going to do the valuation for each of the thousands (or tens of thousands?) of SSE firearms which have been upgraded? How many lawsuits will there be over the valuation of the firearms? How many union workers' votes could they buy for the cost of buying all those firearms?

5. Since those firearms are actually "in common use", exactly how are they going to skate through the requests for preliminary injunction which just might go all the way up to SCOTUS? Could the courts end up throwing out the whole roster if Pena hasn't already arranged for that?

6. What's to prevent me from converting my Gen 4 Glock (I don't actually own an SSE, BTW) back to single shot? And what's to prevent me from then upgrading it again to semi-auto? How are they going to write the code so that it is clear and not unconstitutionally vague?


Upshot is that trying to confiscate all those SSE firearms could prove nightmarish and I don't think they'll try to do that.

curtisfong
07-17-2012, 4:51 PM
Still, none of this prevents some misguided moron (like Yee) from introducing legislation that makes it impossible to transfer an unrostered, non-SSE pistol into the state using an SSE exemption.

wash
07-17-2012, 4:54 PM
There is no chance that anyone buying a dimensionally compliant single shot handgun will risk confiscation if SSE is banned at some later date.

Almost every handgun sold before the "roster of not unsafe handguns" went in to effect would be considered an "unsafe handgun", they will never be able to pass a ban that is so sweeping.

SSE has been tested and is 100% legal, CA DOJ officers see it every day when they look at the books of CA FFLs. If there was something wrong or even questionable, FFLs would have been shut down.

Any problem only exists in your imagination and paranoia.

OleCuss
07-17-2012, 5:01 PM
Still, none of this prevents some misguided moron (like Yee) from introducing legislation that makes it impossible to transfer an unrostered, non-SSE pistol into the state using an SSE exemption.

It would not surprise me if Yee tried something like that. I'm really not so sure the attempt could be successful.

I suspect there would be a bunch of definitional issues which would cause it to die the ignoble death it would richly deserve.

I mean, there almost has to be a SSE. So how do you prevent the changing of barrels, the upgrading of a firearm, etc.?

I'm not an expert on the drafting of legislation, but when my little non-lawyer pea-brain contemplates how they could do that I just see a whole lot of problems which would result in either a veto or a successful preliminary injunction (which would become permanent).

In any case, Yee and his ilk have bigger fish to fry.

foxtrotuniformlima
07-17-2012, 5:04 PM
I'm pretty sure it was included as part of the legislation because it is pretty hard to perform all the required tests on a gun that only holds one round at a time. Not sure who got it included but they clearly knew about handguns other than semi-auto and DA revolvers. It is too specifically written in both functionality and dimensions to be an accident which is generally what most people consider to be a loop hole in legislation.

RMP91
07-17-2012, 5:06 PM
On one hand, do you really think criminals, deadbeats, undesirables, and those up to no good would bother getting a certain gun through SSE?

No, they'll just buy one off the black market on the corner or break into somebody's house and steal one, let the owner take the fall for it.

Also, shh.... Don't give Yee any more ideas! :pinch:

Librarian
07-17-2012, 5:11 PM
Sorry, but it's the very definition of a loophole. We wouldn't have a "safe roster" if the state didn't care about what handguns you bought from a dealer. SSE is a legal way of circumventing that restriction and evading the very clear intent of the CA handgun laws.

A loophole isn't a loophole if it's not legal. It's just a crime.

I strongly disagree with your usage of "loophole".

Unloaded open carry WAS a loophole.

Without LTC ...
1) Loaded carry in public was (and is) illegal.
2) Concealed carry in public was (and is) illegal.

The idea that one would carry NOT concealed and NOT loaded simply was not addressed before a certain bill last year.

Following the provisions of the PC cannot be a "loophole"; to argue that is to argue that the PC is nothing BUT loopholes.

The current usage of SSE, however, probably doesn't meet the expectations of the writers of the law... :43:

As to this, But the wording in the PC you listed does not state whether that applies only to SS guns that are in that form from the manufacturer or it includes guns that are later converted into SS form though. if the legislature wants to cover certain things, they know how to write laws to accomplish what they think is important. If they don't write it that way, that's not what they meant. Look up 'rules of statutory construction (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction/)' - principally, most weight is given to the actual language enacted.

wash
07-17-2012, 5:18 PM
I also think that last quote is creating a distinction where none exists.

A gun is either in a California legal configuration and can be transferred to a firearm eligible resident or else it's not. California law does not specify how a firearm must get there.

SilverTauron
07-17-2012, 5:24 PM
I also think that last quote is creating a distinction where none exists.

A gun is either in a California legal configuration and can be transferred to a firearm eligible resident or else it's not. California law does not specify how a firearm must get there.

YET.

Just let Channel 5 news and the California urban soccer mom find out you can bypass the "Child-Saving Safe Handgun Roster". I can see the news headlines now : "Gun lobby smuggling in unsafe guns despite strong gun laws, more at 11 from our investigative reporter....."

jdberger
07-17-2012, 5:32 PM
Hmm. . . So if you drive at less than the speed limit you are taking advantage of a loophole? If you pay your taxes on time you are using a loophole? If you avoid murdering people you are using a loophole?

The laws are written. They effectively define licit and illicit behavior.

The concept of a loophole makes no sense to me unless it is carved out for a very special interest group.

Those who are supposed to be able to bear arms are the entirety of the non-felonious population. Allowing them a route to purchase a normal firearm just doesn't feel like a loophole to me. It seems like a feature written into the law to allow the purchase of normal firearms.

If it is a loophole then it is because the legislators didn't understand the law they were writing.

If the legislators didn't understand the law they were writing, then they are idiots and the whole law is likely an idiocy and should be discarded.

But for now, the law is the law and must be presumed to mean what it says. It says you can buy non-rostered single-shot handguns. That means you can buy single-shot handguns because the legislators wanted you to be able to do that. No reason not to do it.

Let's go back and look at micro-stamping for a moment? The legislators specifically wrote into the legislation that the requirement for the tech could not come into play until the tech was unencumbered. The tech is still encumbered so micro-stamping is not a requirement.

Call it a loophole that we don't have micro-stamping? The law was specifically written that way for a reason. You may disagree with the reason, but the consequence was intended.

Same thing for SSE. The exemption was written into the legislation for a reason. That reason is beneficial. The fact that it is beneficial doesn't make it a "loophole".


Nailed it.

It's not our fault Sacramento insists on writing laws on subjects they don't understand.

ZOOMST15
07-17-2012, 5:35 PM
Feeling positive with all the good feedback. I'm leaning towards pulling the trigger to order one tomorrow. Just need to sleep on it for between the Gen 4 & XDM.

Is there a statistic of how many SSE guns are out there?

strongpoint
07-17-2012, 6:13 PM
librarian addresses this in slightly more legalistic terms above, but what it boils down to is that this:

the wording in the PC you listed does not state whether that applies only to SS guns that are in that form from the manufacturer or it includes guns that are later converted into SS form though.

... means it doesn't matter one way or the other. the statute doesn't make a distinction, so (barring the existence of regulation or case law to say otherwise) the difference is legally irrelevant.


if the legislature wants to cover certain things, they know how to write laws to accomplish what they think is important. If they don't write it that way, that's not what they meant. Look up 'rules of statutory construction (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction/)' - principally, most weight is given to the actual language enacted.

boy, i wish there was more understanding of this over in the SB 249 megathread.

Capybara
07-17-2012, 7:05 PM
The fact that we even have to do SSE, yet LEOs can buy the exact same guns is ridiculous, elitist and hypocritical. Fulfills all three criteria for a typical California gun law. Don't forget, Yee and his buddies don't want any of us to own ANY firearms under any circumstances, that is their ultimate goal. You cannot negotiate, use logic or common sense against thinking like that. Know your enemy and react, donate to CGF and get the word out and vote correctly, that's about all we can do. We are in a war and just like the war on terrorism, it will never end in California at least.

OlderThanDirt
07-18-2012, 10:47 AM
That is what I was thinking. And the fact that Cali gun laws has always been so ridiculously strict comparing to other states, I wouldn't be surprised if they did something about it later.

My main concern though is that for the people that purchase the guns through the SSE process prior to any changes, can the state confiscate or do anything about it or will they just simply let it slide and allow it as being grandfathered in. I know its impossible to know what they will do, but just want to see what the veteran gun owners here think.

The state isn't going to confiscate anything. First, they clearly realize that SSE is legal of they would not allow you to take possession of the firearm after the 10-day waiting period. Second, PPT and LE purchase is legal for the same non-roster firearms. Third, they don't have any money. The Legislature will be content just closing what they view as a loophole.

It would be funny to see the state justify why my SS P226 is OK, but my SS P226 Scorpion is not. It the color unsafe? Are they protecting me from potential harm to my eyes of sensitivities? Is the Scorpion too ugly and offensive? This would be fun in court, even with lawyers present.

NotEnufGarage
07-18-2012, 11:00 AM
All of you who claim SSE is a loophole, please stop doing the Anti's work for them.

It is an exemption, not a loophole. There is no prerequisite as to how the handgun came to be SSE, only that it be SS and dimensionally correct.

yakmon
07-18-2012, 11:53 AM
cbssf is going to do a story on SSE, Yee's head explodes in a shower of rage at the audacity of gun owners, who failed to buy a "not unsafe" handgun.

Dreaded Claymore
07-18-2012, 2:16 PM
If they try to pass a bill that removes that exemption (not "loophole"), then the cowboy action shooters will storm the Capitol. :cowboy:

formula502
07-18-2012, 3:51 PM
Is there a statistic of how many SSE guns are out there?

I was thinking I smelled a troll... then I got to this and knew for sure.

NotEnufGarage
07-18-2012, 4:23 PM
I'm shocked this thread hasn't been deleted yet, and the other one about registration..

Two moronic threads that made it all the way through a full day.. Is Kes sleeping or something?

Librarian
07-18-2012, 4:25 PM
Is there a statistic of how many SSE guns are out there?

How could there be? It's just another handgun sale.

CrazyPhuD
07-18-2012, 5:20 PM
Sorry, but it's the very definition of a loophole. We wouldn't have a "safe roster" if the state didn't care about what handguns you bought from a dealer. SSE is a legal way of circumventing that restriction and evading the very clear intent of the CA handgun laws.

A loophole isn't a loophole if it's not legal. It's just a crime.

The intent of the roster is clear, it is to ban all handgun sales to non-LEO's in the state of CA. That is what the authors would prefer everyone do. But legally they can't say that, so they create a justification to restrict sales by requiring handguns to be 'safe'. Handgun safety is the justification that is used to restrict sales but it is most certainly not the intent.

If one were to use intent of a law a metric to define a loophole then if you buy even a rostered handgun in california you are exercising a loophole.

OleCuss
07-18-2012, 5:52 PM
I actually don't think the intent of the law is exactly what you describe.

IIRC, my Glocks don't meet the current definition for inclusion in the roster. Yet they are grandfathered into the roster as long as Glock pays their fees.

One would think that if they were just trying to ban handguns that they would not have grandfathered the firearms. So an outright ban doesn't seem all that likely.

The safety test was apparently passed (IIRC) by most of the Saturday Night Specials which they purportedly intended to make go away. It also doesn't appear to have increased the general safety of handguns so the idea that the roster is related to safety hasn't really worked out too well.

My honest opinion is that the legislature wanted to collect fees so that they could spend money on stuff.

I also believe that those who pushed this law into force were truly believing that if they could get cheap handguns off the market that they would accomplish two goals:
1. They would reduce the availability of firearms to the lower class since they honestly believe that those in the minority classes and those with lower incomes are stupid and should not be allowed anything not approved by the state.
2. There really is a streak in these legislator's brain that makes them think that the handgun itself is responsible for the violence. So if the firearm is "safer" in some sense and is approved by the state, then it just won't go off as often and kill people. Especially since they occasionally hear about NDs and figure that it was a firearm defect rather than a human defect that caused it - it's for the children.

Never underestimate the California Politician's capacity for stupidity, cupidity, and tendency to appeal to emotions rather than intellect.

IOW, they really wanted to make money and to protect their moronic citizenry from unsafe firearms. However stupid it may be. . .

Oh, and that is consistent with the idea of the SSE. The SSE's tend to be high-end (especially the ones for Olympic competition). So an SSE is/was viewed as highly likely to be safe and unlikely to be abused. As it turns out, the SSE use really is quite safe - tend to be quality firearms. So the SSE intent (as I understand it) is being fulfilled.