PDA

View Full Version : 50 BMG Upper


Lohse
08-30-2007, 7:44 PM
Is it legal to posses a 50 BMG upper for your Off List Unregsitered AR lower in California? These would never be put together to form a complete rifle while in California. I was wondering if it was possible to own the upper so when I go shoot out of state I could take the upper and lower with me and use the rifle out of state somewhere. I know constructive possesion doesn't apply to the California Assault Weapons Laws, and this seems on the same lines.

artherd
08-30-2007, 8:16 PM
DOJ has opined (prior to the .50BMG ban being signed into law however...) that Constructive Posession does not apply to AW statutes.

However, the legislature incorporated the .50BMG ban into the "Assault Weapons" section of the CPC. I would think that the exemption still applies.

Furthermore, the .50BMG statute bans .50BMG rifles, not uppers. I would tell any LEO who gave me trouble over just the upper "OK, if you can shoulder and fire my upper as it appears now<and live to tell about it>, I'll go off to jail with ya" :)

A fun prank would be to leave the muzzle brake off, I'd love to see an over-agressive LEO try to test-fire an umbraked .50!

Roo
08-30-2007, 8:18 PM
Now why couldn't you just say it was a .510 DTC? The difference is not something they can tell by eye.

ETD1010
08-30-2007, 9:51 PM
Now why couldn't you just say it was a .510 DTC? The difference is not something they can tell by eye.

couldn't that get you in trouble if they decide to test that theory? Or would they even have probable cause to? Either way, I say it's more risky to lie.

bwiese
08-30-2007, 10:39 PM
For constructive possession to exist for AW/50BMG laws (which are interrelated but separate), there would need to be specific wording akin to that in 12200 for machine guns & parts thereof, or in 12020(c)(...) for SBRs and SBSes.

The fact that these expressions of constructive possession (all with generally similar wording) are included elsewhere at multiple spots, but not in 12275PC et seq - combined with the fact that these expressed constructive possession concepts existed before SB23 and AB50 were written - meant the legislature could well have added them if they cared to. They didn't, and there's no legal way anyone can say "Oh, gee, but we really meant that..." without additional new legislation.

This is the background why Deputy AG Tim Rieger (also Asst DOJ FD Director) wrote that constructive possession didn't apply to SB23 matters.

CCWFacts
08-30-2007, 10:42 PM
Why isn't anyone making 12.7x108 rifles for Californians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12.7_x_107_mm

It's more powerful and there must be some big manufacturers of this ammo.

I'm a charitable kind of guy, so I always charitably assumed that Koretz et al banned 50 BMG because they didn't think it was powerful enough, and wanted Californians to switch to something with more oomph.

mrkubota
08-30-2007, 11:14 PM
Why isn't anyone making 12.7x108 rifles for Californians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12.7_x_107_mm

It's more powerful and there must be some big manufacturers of this ammo.

I'm a charitable kind of guy, so I always charitably assumed that Koretz et al banned 50 BMG because they didn't think it was powerful enough, and wanted Californians to switch to something with more oomph.

.50bmg is already a bit overbore and there's plenty of relatively inexpensive brass available.
The slightly shorter/fatter .50DTC is easily made from .50bmg components.

artherd
08-30-2007, 11:55 PM
Well put, the predicating factors for the conclusion remain the same.
For constructive possession to exist for AW/50BMG laws (which are interrelated but separate), there would need to be specific wording akin to that in 12200 for machine guns & parts thereof, or in 12020(c)(...) for SBRs and SBSes.

The fact that these expressions of constructive possession (all with generally similar wording) are included elsewhere at multiple spots, but not in 12275PC et seq - combined with the fact that these expressed constructive possession concepts existed before SB23 and AB50 were written - meant the legislature could well have added them if they cared to. They didn't, and there's no legal way anyone can say "Oh, gee, but we really meant that..." without additional new legislation.

This is the background why Deputy AG Tim Rieger (also Asst DOJ FD Director) wrote that constructive possession didn't apply to SB23 matters.

C.G.
08-30-2007, 11:58 PM
It's more powerful and there must be some big manufacturers of this ammo.


You have made this assumption without research, one of the reasons that people buy .50 BMG is that materials are available.

artherd
08-31-2007, 12:04 AM
.50 McMillan Fat Mac (http://ammoguide.com/?catid=445)

How does a 750GR AMAX at over 3400fps grab you? 19000lbs of muzzle energy!

...still CA legal...

C.G.
08-31-2007, 12:20 AM
.50 McMillan Fat Mac (http://ammoguide.com/?catid=445)

How does a 750GR AMAX at over 3400fps grab you? 19000lbs of muzzle energy!

...still CA legal...

Can you say "barrel burner"?:D

autodoc
08-31-2007, 7:47 AM
Why isn't anyone making 12.7x108 rifles for Californians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12.7_x_107_mm

It's more powerful and there must be some big manufacturers of this ammo.

I'm a charitable kind of guy, so I always charitably assumed that Koretz et al banned 50 BMG because they didn't think it was powerful enough, and wanted Californians to switch to something with more oomph.

I wish I could find cheap 12.7x108 ammo. Only place I've seen any is BigSkySurplus at $10/round (steel case).

anybody got a lead on these? The DShK is hungry......