DPMS Lowers on OLL?

[Scouter]

Are 308 dpms lowers on the OLL?

[Rhys898]

they should be Off List since I dont think they were around when the awb was written.

Jer

[XDshooter]

they should be Off List since I dont think they were around when the awb was written.

Jer


WHAT? The DPMS Panther is listed.


If it doesn't say "Panther" (which is unlikely) then it is not listed.

[Rhys898]

WHAT? The DPMS Panther is listed.


If it doesn't say "Panther" (which is unlikely) then it is listed.

I think you meant not listed.

And the name panther wouldn't matter anyway as far as I know. It would be the model number, in this case LR-308.

Jer

[Skammy]

Not good advice..
Don't do it..

The receivers are marked as so :
http://i13.tinypic.com/66elvkm.jpg

Sure the model name isn't panther for the .308, it says LR-308 but it's a really bad idea still..

[Jicko]

Short answer is NO.

On the list:
DPMS Panther (all)

SB23 Cat 2 is ban by MAKE and MODEL, the make is DPMS, the model is "Panther (all)", ie. Panther ANYTHING.

DPMS's 308 lower receivers does say "Panther" on them. And DPMS publishes them everywhere as "DPMS Panther LR-308"; so, "DPMS Panther (all)" would covers it.

You *may*(probably NOT tho) have a case if you are prosecuted, but your case would be pretty *weak*.

So..... you decide..... (also, it would be pretty hard to get a FFL to sign up to do a DROS for you on a DPMS Panther ANYTHING...)

[bwiese]

Sorry, folks, walk away. No go.

If they get rid of the "Panther" terminology then they're legit.

[Skammy]

Get a Fulton..

[adamsreeftank]

they should be Off List since I dont think they were around when the awb was written.

Jer

Before you give advice, you might want to check your facts.

[Rhys898]

Maybe we should set up a group buy with DPMS where they remove all the panther stuff and put the line art pic of IC and call it the Igster LR-308.

btw, shouldn't DPMS be able to bring a case against the State on a commerce basis?

Jer

PS apparently some of you didn't notice I said SHOULD. I was not sure, so I qualified it.

[Toolbox X]

Get a Fulton..

Yup, get a Fulton.

[Fjold]

Yup, get a Fulton.


And support a lying, coward of an owner who doesn't support Californians.

[Toolbox X]

And support a lying, coward of an owner who doesn't support Californians.

If you are goingto boycott manufacturers, retailers, companies, groups, and individuals who don't want to get directly involved in our gun law battles, you pretty much can't buy anything gun related at all.

Pick your battles. Fighting a gun mfg isn't a good one.
You are much better off directing your energy and efforts elsewhere.

[DIG]

Are 308 dpms lowers on the OLL?

Here's my experience and 2 cents on the subject. Take it as you will.
About 6months ago I made several inquiries about the DPMS 308 and was informed that the DPMS 308 was good to go. DPMS 223/556 was a definate no-no. Information came from several FFL's from Sac-town to SF Bay Area and SJ. The Sac-town FFL said it was not listed but wouldn't touch it due to their close relationship with certain somebodies at doj (I don't know the situation, don't really care much either..) but other FFL's will dros it for you. Just call around.

[PIRATE14]

Are 308 dpms lowers on the OLL?

Well if you can get a FFL to DROS it for you, more power to you but the lawyers that handle most of this stuff......advise against it.......if you've got $$$ to burn, cause you'll end up in court over this one......is it really worth a couple hundred bucks......only you and your FFL can decide:chris:

And no DPMS will not change their model designation just so you can get a rifle...........;)

There are DPMS lowers w/o the Panther designation but these are hard to find and are of a older generation of DPMS lowers.

[Fjold]

If you are goingto boycott manufacturers, retailers, companies, groups, and individuals who don't want to get directly involved in our gun law battles, you pretty much can't buy anything gun related at all.

Pick your battles. Fighting a gun mfg isn't a good one.
You are much better off directing your energy and efforts elsewhere.


I have no problems with companies that don't support what I believe in whole-heartedly.

What I have a problem with is the owner of Fulton Armory selling receivers here in California and then getting scared about it and telling the customer if he didn't return the receivers (that the customer already paid for) immediately that he would report them stolen to the CA DOJ.

That kind of cowardice and lying I will not support!

[Scouter]

I found an ffl here in redondo beach that said it won't be a problem for them to dros....

[bwiese]

Here's my experience and 2 cents on the subject. Take it as you will.
About 6months ago I made several inquiries about the DPMS 308 and was informed that the DPMS 308 was good to go. DPMS 223/556 was a definate no-no. Information came from several FFL's from Sac-town to SF Bay Area and SJ.

Well, that's just plain wrong.

Kasler list says, "DPMS Panther (all)". Caliber is irrelevant. One could argue that it's too vague, but why fight Harrott all over agin?

The Sac-town FFL said it was not listed but wouldn't touch it due to their close relationship with certain somebodies at doj (I don't know the situation, don't really care much either..)

Ah, Old Sacramento Armory.... as one FFL says, "they suck Iggy's c*ck".


but other FFL's will dros it for you. Just call around.

No one smart that wants to stay in business and outta jail.

[bwiese]

I found an ffl here in redondo beach that said it won't be a problem for them to dros....

Jeezus H. Keerist.....

...WHAT PART OF THE KASLER LIST DON'T YOU FRIGGIN' UNDERSTAND???

"DPMS Panther (all)" can readily encompass "DPMS Panther LR-308".

[DIG]

Well, that's just plain wrong.

No Bill, actually it's not. That information is based on 5 phone calls to separate FFL's. Is it information you agree with? Obviously not. Is it information that everyone should live by? I think not. I don't. I was relaying the information as it was given to me so others can make their own decision.

Kasler list says, "DPMS Panther (all)". Caliber is irrelevant. One could argue that it's too vague, but why fight Harrott all over agin?

Agreed. Again, take the information and do as you will. I'm certainly not your parent.

Ah, Old Sacramento Armory.... as one FFL says, "they suck Iggy's c*ck".

Don't know. Don't care. Never going there anyhow. That quote brings forth a disturbing visual :(

No one smart that wants to stay in business and outta jail.

You don't get out much. I know of 2 in the Bay area. I will not call them out on the forum though.

[PIRATE14]

No Bill, actually it's not. That information is based on 5 phone calls to separate FFL's. Is it information you agree with? Obviously not. Is it information that everyone should live by? I think not. I don't. I was relaying the information as it was given to me so others can make their own decision.



Agreed. Again, take the information and do as you will. I'm certainly not your parent.



Don't know. Don't care. Never going there anyhow. That quote brings forth a disturbing visual :(



You don't get out much. I know of 2 in the Bay area. I will not call them out on the forum though.

Will these same FFLs take the EAGLE Arms rifles and lowers in as well cause it would be the same logic?????:confused:

[kantstudien]

That information is based on 5 phone calls to separate FFL's.

Well, hell. That's settles it then. Why you gotta play a trump card like that? :rolleyes:

[C.G.]

I know of 2 in the Bay area. I will not call them out on the forum though.
Don't forget to post a pic when you get it.

[WokMaster1]

No Bill, actually it's not. That information is based on 5 phone calls to separate FFL's. Is it information you agree with? Obviously not. Is it information that everyone should live by? I think not. I don't. I was relaying the information as it was given to me so others can make their own decision.

Agreed. Again, take the information and do as you will. I'm certainly not your parent.

Don't know. Don't care. Never going there anyhow. That quote brings forth a disturbing visual :(


You don't get out much. I know of 2 in the Bay area. I will not call them out on the forum though.

DIG, one question, would you buy it for yourself if your 5 FFLs are willing to DROS it? Why won't you tell us who the 2 Bay area FFLs are? It's legal right? They should have nothing to hide.

[adamsreeftank]

First, the Old Sac Armory has as much credibility on OLLs as the DOJ does. The tool that runs that place would probably love to burn another FFL and give an easy conviction to his buddy the Iggster.

Second, every OLL has some inherant risk, but to mess with something ON THE LIST because some FFLs don't know the laws is like avoiding a crosswalk and walking across a busy highway because a vagrant said you could probably make it.

[simonov]

And no DPMS will not change their model designation just so you can get a rifle...........;)

I wonder why not? Seriously, California is after all the largest firearms market in the state.

[DIG]

Will these same FFLs take the EAGLE Arms rifles and lowers in as well cause it would be the same logic?????:confused:

Common sense would dictate that if the FFL is not privy to CA state law and doesn't follow them, that's their bad don't you think?

[grammaton76]

Probably won't change it for the same reason Armalite is loathe to change their rollmarks: patent concerns. Some of Armalite's patent protection would be jeopardized if they changed their rollmarks. Bet DPMS is in the same boat.

[DIG]

DIG, one question, would you buy it for yourself if your 5 FFLs are willing to DROS it?
First off, just because a FFL might Dros something, doesn't make illegal guns legal. I never said all 5 would dros it. I checked with 5. I only know 2 that would.

Why won't you tell us who the 2 Bay area FFLs are? It's legal right? They should have nothing to hide.
I just said I wouldn't post it on the forum. You want to know? PM me.
If word gets out, it's on you WokMaster1. Is it worth it? Probably not.

A while back I had the same question that this threads originator had. Yesterday I shared the unbiased results of my brief investigation into this matter. Response = I get flamed. Nice work.:D

[DIG]

Don't forget to post a pic when you get it.

Get what? I never said I was buying?
A while back I had the same question that this threads originator had. Yesterday I shared the unbiased results of my brief investigation into this matter.

[Scouter]

Thank you DIG for the unbiased information, I was just looking for information, but seems like alot of people wanted to throw their opinions and start flaming and such, what a shame.

Thanks again DIG for the info and keeping it on the level.

[PIRATE14]

I wonder why not? Seriously, California is after all the largest firearms market in the state.

Nobody wants to look like they are trying to sidestep state laws, eventhough they did the same thing for the federal ban........

Lawsuits from states.......

[PIRATE14]

Common sense would dictate that if the FFL is not privy to CA state law and doesn't follow them, that's their bad don't you think?

From a personal stand point I don't really give a ****.......

But why hand the otherside some fuel/ammo for another shot at the legal standing of the these items.......plus it might give them a small victory, like other things they have confiscated in the past....



Everyone runs their business differently.....;)

[Scouter]

Why is DPMS LR-308 listed on this CALGUNS link of Off List Lowers then?

DPMS
SINGLE SHOT
LR-308
A-15

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=34397

[Tweak338]

the older receivers just said
LR-308 and A-15.
They did not have the "panther" marked on them at all

heres a Gunbroker auction of a plain A-15, its an OLL

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=76305134

The banned version
http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=76254253

[xenophobe]

Why is DPMS LR-308 listed on this CALGUNS link of Off List Lowers then?

If you can manage to find that very rare and very old cast receiver, than you're very lucky... well, maybe not they're cast.

[Scouter]

Thanks tweak, thanks xenophobe for the info.

[BigMac]

just so there is no confusion... Irvington Arms will not transfer a DPMS.

[DIG]

[QUOTE=Tweak338;686127]the older receivers just said
LR-308 and A-15.
They did not have the "panther" marked on them at all
QUOTE]

Thanks Tweak. I believe that is just the case for the 223/556 recievers. The LR-308 reciever has been manufactured for about 4yrs now and all have DPMS Panther Arms on them. There are zero DPMS 308 recievers without the "panther" stamp. For further info, call Bob in manufacturing @ DPMS.

Since this is true, then the LR-308 should be considered an erroneous entry and taken off the OLL list as it will (currently:p) cause confusion. I'm following up with the FFL's to tighten things up.

Xenophobe, thanks for your work on the OLL list and if you could make this quick change, we'd all appreciate it.

[Technowizard]

Ok I guess I'll take the plunge and open up a whole can of worms! Remember, I'm no lawyer, and until this is cleared up in a court of law... the DPMS receivers will remain in the gray. Also we've had many a thread concerning this in the past... take a look around.

According to the 2001 Harrott decision, banned weapons in AR/AK “series” must be specifically banned by make and model. Panther appears to me as part of the make, "DPMS Panther Arms". It is not a model type / number. The listed "All" is not adhering to the Supreme Court's decision of specifically listing models. Therefore as a common man reading and understanding our laws, the DPMS receivers are not properly listed and the .308 LR-308 as well as the .223 A-15 are technically OLL.

Again, its a super gray area that local DA's will most likely not share the same view with you. Is it worth it? No not really since equally priced / quality receivers that there is no gray area are actually more readily available. My 2 cents so don't flame.

Technowizard.

[Rhys898]

What other equally priced / quality .308 receivers are available???

Jer

[grammaton76]

What other equally priced / quality .308 receivers are available???

Fulton 308's... they're the same dimensions as DPMS.

Just buy one from the CWS website... try calling, I think they might still have some all-DPMS-but-the-receiver rifles lying around from the last gun show.

[xenophobe]

According to the 2001 Harrott decision, banned weapons in AR/AK “series” must be specifically banned by make and model. Panther appears to me as part of the make, "DPMS Panther Arms". It is not a model type / number. The listed "All" is not adhering to the Supreme Court's decision of specifically listing models. Therefore as a common man reading and understanding our laws, the DPMS receivers are not properly listed and the .308 LR-308 as well as the .223 A-15 are technically OLL.

Sorry, your reasoning is flawed...

The Harrott ruling did not address the (all) nomenclature at all. It only specifically addressed the "series" language. It would take another court case to clear this mess up.

[Yankee Clipper]

I wonder why not? Seriously, California is after all the largest firearms market in the state.
Did you mean to say: "California is after all the largest firearms market in the country"???

[PIRATE14]

just so there is no confusion... Irvington Arms will not transfer a DPMS.

I was gearing up already...............just kiddin:chris:

We do sell a lot of DPMS 308s here in Texas.......;)

[DIG]

The Harrott ruling did not address the (all) nomenclature at all. It only specifically addressed the "series" language. It would take another court case to clear this mess up.

hi Xenophobe, hopefully we can draw a conclusion here soon. The LR-308 is on the OLL list, then it's okay to buy in CA. But there are no LR-308 recievers without the Panther Arms stamp (only some of the old 223/556 receivers don't have a stamp). I'm confused now.
thanks again for your help!:)

[xenophobe]

there are no LR-308 recievers without the Panther Arms stamp (only some of the old 223/556 receivers don't have a stamp).

Are you sure about that?

I had it on good word there was.... *shrug*

The off-list is out of date... I may update it at some time... It's much easier to refer to the Roberti-Roos and Kasler lists...

[Liberty Rules]

Sorry, your reasoning is flawed...

The Harrott ruling did not address the (all) nomenclature at all. It only specifically addressed the "series" language. It would take another court case to clear this mess up.

Xeno, his reasoning was spot on. The reasoning of the CA Supreme Court in Harrott was that a specific listing of both make and model would allow the average citizen to know whether his planned purchase (or possession) was legal, or not. It was an issue of clarity and certainty for members of the public. When the supremes say that a rifle must be specifcally listed by make and model to provide notice to the public, it means just that. When a person is forced to guess and could be a felon depending on the whim of the jurisdiction they drive through, that was not ok per the CA supremes.

By your reasoning, the Kasler list would still only have to state something generic like AR15 (ALL) and it would provide notice because Harrott never mentioned the word "all". That is the antithesis of the reasoning in Harrott. The entire point of Harrott was that thee public must be provided with specific notice of prohibition. If the generic reference to "series" was constitutionally defective notice, how would reference to "all" be an adequate notice that a specific riffle was prohibited?

In addition, DPMS could make all manner of rifles under the DPMS Panther Arms name plate. So would a DPMS Panther Arms bolt action .22 be banned because of the "all" designation? Of course not.

Further, given the fact that the LR308 did not exist at the time the Kasler list was created/published, it could not have been listed by make and model. DPMS Panther Arms is the name of the company on those receivers. LR308 is the model.

With as much as it gets tossed around here, folks should read the entire Harrott decision. It is an interesting case and worthy of more than just "sound bites".

With all of the above said, I think it is too risky at this time to get involved with one of these. That conclusion comes not from the standpoint of legality, but from a vast distrust of California's public servants to follow the law and exhibit any shred of integrity. Buy a Fulton Titan; they're the same. All DPMS .308 uppers and other parts will, of course, fit on the Titan.

[xenophobe]

Xeno, his reasoning was spot on. The reasoning of the CA Supreme Court in Harrott was that a specific listing of both make and model would allow the average citizen to know whether his planned purchase (or possession) was legal, or not. It was an issue of clarity and certainty for members of the public. When the supremes say that a rifle must be specifcally listed by make and model to provide notice to the public, it means just that. When a person is forced to guess and could be a felon depending on the whim of the jurisdiction they drive through, that was not ok per the CA supremes.

By your reasoning, the Kasler list would still only have to state something generic like AR15 (ALL) and it would provide notice because Harrott never mentioned the word "all". That is the antithesis of the reasoning in Harrott. The entire point of Harrott was that thee public must be provided with specific notice of prohibition. If the generic reference to "series" was constitutionally defective notice, how would reference to "all" be an adequate notice that a specific riffle was prohibited?

I completely disagree with you.

Have you even looked at the Kasler list? (all) is also used, and those models that are marked (all) have not been in dispute as being listed assault weapons, by anyone really.

...(all) is pretty easy to distinguish. That's like banning Chevy, Camaro (all) whereas all would be RS, SS, Z-28, etc... I don't think it takes a degree in theoretical physics to see that a Camaro SS, or RS would be banned, cause the Make is a Chevy and Model is a Camaro.

Please re-read Harrott. It specifically addresses 'series' language, but makes no mention of (all).

By your very interpretation, all Uzis and Galils would be legal, since the Make and Model are not specified. With Galils, they could be marked Magnum Research, Action Arms, or be Model 329, Model 386, etc...


In addition, DPMS could make all manner of rifles under the DPMS Panther Arms name plate. So would a DPMS Panther Arms bolt action .22 be banned because of the "all" designation? Of course not.

Further, given the fact that the LR308 did not exist at the time the Kasler list was created/published, it could not have been listed by make and model. DPMS Panther Arms is the name of the company on those receivers. LR308 is the model.

And I agree, in theory you are correct. However, in practice, I'm sure you would need to take that to at least the California Superior Court of Appeals, costing you many tens of thousands of dollars.



With as much as it gets tossed around here, folks should read the entire Harrott decision. It is an interesting case and worthy of more than just "sound bites".

Yes, I have. End to end. Several times. Thanks for the implication that I haven't. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should read Kasler v. Lockyer all the way through, then you would have a better understanding of these issues.

[supersonic]

Did you mean to say: "California is after all the largest firearms market in the country"???

No, he was merely stating that California is an anomaly: a state within a state!!:rofl2:
S.S.

[supersonic]

Mr. Xenophobe,
Sorry, but I have to do this, because I'm a Chevy Die-Hard......It's CAMARO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: Analogy: Armilight AR-16.....:p
S.S.

[bwiese]

Yes, Harrott specifies 'make and model'. It's an open question if '(all)' is sufficiently specific enough. It could go either way, depending on $$$$$ spent on lawyering.

Cases with peoples' names on them usu means someone's been arrested/charged, etc. Harrott was one of the few that didn't go thru this cycle since it was a lawyer doing property reclamation for payment.

We don't need Calgunners to go thru this grief when there are plenty of other vendors/brands/models that are clearly off list.

[thedrickel]

Well, if I was a lawyer and my client was a moron who bought a DPMS Panther LR-308 and got popped for it being on the Kasler list, my defense would be that "DPMS Panther Arms" is the make and "LR-308" is the model. Nowhere do the words "LR-308" appear on the Kasler list. "ALL" is not a model.

[bwiese]

Well, if I was a lawyer and my client was a moron who bought a DPMS Panther LR-308 and got popped for it being on the Kasler list, my defense would be that "DPMS Panther Arms" is the make and "LR-308" is the model. Nowhere do the words "LR-308" appear on the Kasler list. "ALL" is not a model.

True, but that could be readily interpreted to mean each and every model under a given make.

There is indeed room for defense argument on this issue but expect a fight.

A likely better defense is that, regardless of being named, a bare receiver is simply not a semiautomatic rifle - and those are the ones named on the lists. That actually is a more defendable position, in the opinion of a variety of smart people.

[xenophobe]

True, but that could be readily interpreted to mean each and every model under a given make.

There is indeed room for defense argument on this issue but expect a fight.

A likely better defense is that, regardless of being named, a bare receiver is simply not a semiautomatic rifle - and those are the ones named on the lists. That actually is a more defendable position, in the opinion of a variety of smart people.

That's a last straw defense for someone who should have known better in the first place.

With enough money the case could probably be won. The operative phrase would be "with enough money"....

...with enough money, OJ beat a double murder rap.

[bwiese]

That's a last straw defense for someone who should have known better in the first place.

Bingo.

[DIG]

Are you sure about that?

I had it on good word there was.... *shrug*

The off-list is out of date... I may update it at some time... It's much easier to refer to the Roberti-Roos and Kasler lists...

I know it's not word from God himself but I spoke to Bob in manufacturing @ DPMS. I explained the "panther arms" stamp situation to him and he assured me that there were no unmarked LR-308 recievers (as with the old A-15 recievers). I hope this information helps.

[DIG]

...(all) is pretty easy to distinguish. That's like banning Chevy, Camaro (all) whereas all would be RS, SS, Z-28, etc... I don't think it takes a degree in theoretical physics to see that a Camaro SS, or RS would be banned, cause the Make is a Chevy and Model is a Camaro.

I'm just throwing this out there, but wouldn't this also imply that any pre-awb manufacturers who are making post-awb models would not legally make the OLL list? (entries taken from the OLL list).

-BARRETT
M468

-BUSHMASTER
CARBON 15
J-15
BAR-10

-COLT
CAR-A3 H-BAR ELITE
CARBINE

-DPMS
SINGLE SHOT
LR-308
A-15

By banning DPMS Panther Arms (all), wouldn't that be the same as banning Bushmaster (all), Barrett (all), Colt (all), etc... :confused:

[PIRATE14]

By banning DPMS Panther Arms (all), wouldn't that be the same as banning Bushmaster (all), Barrett (all), Colt (all), etc... :confused:

Well luckily they didn't put the word (all) after a lot of the Makers.....;)

The list is wierd....looks like they got a lot of different sources/inputs....

They didn't make the Eagle Arms AR-10 back in 2000 as well but......not worth it IMHO.....

[Technowizard]

Its kinda funny how we all sorta think alike... as I sat here initially reading this thread and thinking of a way to respond, I actually thought of examples such as a DPMS bolt action rifle or using the Chevy Camaro RS/Z28/SS for my point. Funny... :p

Well for the sake of arguement, lets look at how DPMS is listed:

DPMS Panther (all)

The term (all) is used throughout the list, however with every other appearance, it is following some sort of MODEL type. It is used to include the different variants of that model... ex. Olympic Arms PCR (all) is used to cover PCR-2, PCR-3, etc. type rifles. DPMS has no model type listed, unless the included word "Panther" was intended as their model, in which case it is listed incorrectly since there is no such thing as a "Panther" model! It is a fragment of the make, which again is "DPMS Panther Arms". If this obvious human error is accepted, this would ban every product by DPMS Panther Arms... they couldn't even so much as design, make, or sell a BB Gun in California short of changing their company name! The fact you could be a felon if you were to ever purchase this theoretical BB Gun because it fell under the classification of an Assault Rifle in California due to this Assault Rifle's generic and unspecific listing is why such Supreme Court rulings requiring laws be specific exist in the first place!!!

Ok.... I'm done ranting for now! :D

Technowizard