PDA

View Full Version : >50 oz handgun = no-no?


swift
10-07-2007, 5:56 PM
Three FFLs told me that they thought there was a maximum weight limit of handguns and that it was around 50 ounces. I searched on the BOF site and I searched cal guns, and I can't find information on this.

Since I see people are building AK pistols (and that some AK pistols weigh 5+ pounds), I figured the 50 oz rule either has expired or was part of another law, eg, more than 50 oz and a capacity of more than ten rounds.

Would somebody please point me to the regulation that either exists or expired? If it never existed, there must be a reason that three fairly smart fellows all said '50 oz'.
Thanks.

guimus
10-07-2007, 6:29 PM
someone's pulling your leg

My Super RedHawk (without ammo or scope) is 52 oz
The 9-1/2" model is 57 oz naked.

SemiAutoSam
10-07-2007, 6:33 PM
They are thinking of the expired federal AWB.

This is what I found on Pistols in the Penal code.

This does not mean there isn't more restrictive law.



http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.htm


(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

swift
10-07-2007, 6:52 PM
I didn't think they were pulling my leg. Since I couldn't find anything on a weight restriction in the CA code, I figured the first guy was mistaken. But, when a third person (who really should know) told me this, I figured I had better check it out. now I can remind them that the 50 oz rule was in the now-expired federal ban.

Thanks for your help!

SemiAutoSam
10-07-2007, 7:05 PM
If they are suggesting its in the California Penal code ask them for a Citation as to where.

If they cant produce it ask them what they base their beliefs on.



I remember there being a 50 ounce limitation on a handgun weight but I thought it was a federal thing during the last AWB.

I didn't think they were pulling my leg. Since I couldn't find anything on a weight restriction in the CA code, I figured the first guy was mistaken. But, when a third person (who really should know) told me this, I figured I had better check it out. now I can remind them that the 50 oz rule was in the now-expired federal ban.

Thanks for your help!

CSDGuy
10-07-2007, 7:17 PM
could be based on a competition rule...

dfletcher
10-07-2007, 8:22 PM
I could be wrong, but have never heard that any handgun has ever been illegal based on weight. I suspect they're just remembering something incorrectly and reinforcing each others opinion. Not unusual.

aplinker
10-07-2007, 9:01 PM
Maybe it's the new math... 10 oz handgun + a 40oz Colt .45?

http://www.benettontalk.com/Billydeesign.jpg

Glock22Fan
10-07-2007, 9:09 PM
I could be wrong, but have never heard that any handgun has ever been illegal based on weight. I suspect they're just remembering something incorrectly and reinforcing each others opinion. Not unusual.

Yep, just look at how many people will tell you that you must not have your ammo loaded into mags while you are travelling, even though you have the gun unloaded and locked up separately.

bwiese
10-07-2007, 9:15 PM
Sam's right.

The only case where 50 ounce limit entered into consideration for handgun legality was for the now-sunset Federal AW ban.

This law spawned both the Carbon 15 AR pistols and the Oly Arms "Swiss cheese" AR pistols with holes drilled all over the receivers.

82A1CAL
10-07-2007, 9:41 PM
S&W 500 Mag are 71 ounces!
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=11101&langId=-1&productId=53934&tabselected=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=15714

yellowsulphur
10-07-2007, 10:09 PM
S&W 500 Mag are 71 ounces!
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=11101&langId=-1&productId=53934&tabselected=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=15714

Mine weighs 82 oz unloaded. Like everyone else said the 50oz limit is relegated to the history of the federal AWB. Heavy pistols are cool, which one are you looking at?

swift
10-08-2007, 4:32 AM
Mine weighs 82 oz unloaded. Like everyone else said the 50oz limit is relegated to the history of the federal AWB. Heavy pistols are cool, which one are you looking at?


an AR15 pistol.

fireblast713
10-08-2007, 6:19 AM
nice thing about heavy pistols is that once you're out of bullets you still have a pretty handy club.

Miltiades
10-08-2007, 6:57 AM
Yep, just look at how many people will tell you that you must not have your ammo loaded into mags while you are travelling, even though you have the gun unloaded and locked up separately.

One of the people who will tell you this is Jerry Brown, the CA Attorney General. On his website he shows a book called "California Firearms Laws":

CA Firearms Laws on DOJ website (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf)

And on page 31 of the book it says:

"It is unlawful to carry a loaded firearm on one’s person or in a vehicle while in any public place, on
any public street, or in any place where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm.(Penal Code §
12031(a)(1).)
A firearm is deemed loaded when there is a live cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to,
the firearm, including, but not limited to, the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to
the firearm. A muzzle-loading firearm is deemed loaded when it is capped or primed and has a
powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder. (Penal Code § 12031(g).)"

I know you will argue that the phrase "attached to the firearm" that follows "clip thereof" means that the loaded magazine must be inserted in the firearm for this law to apply. But the sentence is just ambiguous and poorly-written enough that an aggressive LEO could interpret it to mean that loaded magazines by themselves are illegal (I have actually spoken to LEOs who interpreted it that way). And the phrase "attached to the firearm" might only apply to clips and not magazines. Although you might win in court, who needs the hassle? It is not hard to load your magazine once you get where you are going and avoid the issue.

Glock22Fan
10-08-2007, 8:24 AM
One of the people who will tell you this is Jerry Brown, the CA Attorney General. On his website he shows a book called "California Firearms Laws":

CA Firearms Laws on DOJ website (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf)

And on page 31 of the book it says:

"It is unlawful to carry a loaded firearm on one’s person or in a vehicle while in any public place, on
any public street, or in any place where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm.(Penal Code §
12031(a)(1).)
A firearm is deemed loaded when there is a live cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to,
the firearm, including, but not limited to, the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to
the firearm. A muzzle-loading firearm is deemed loaded when it is capped or primed and has a
powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder. (Penal Code § 12031(g).)"

I know you will argue that the phrase "attached to the firearm" that follows "clip thereof" means that the loaded magazine must be inserted in the firearm for this law to apply. But the sentence is just ambiguous and poorly-written enough that an aggressive LEO could interpret it to mean that loaded magazines by themselves are illegal (I have actually spoken to LEOs who interpreted it that way). And the phrase "attached to the firearm" might only apply to clips and not magazines. Although you might win in court, who needs the hassle? It is not hard to load your magazine once you get where you are going and avoid the issue.


This has been discussed ad nauseum on this board. People v. Clark has ruled conclusively that a "loaded gun" means a gun that is loaded within the common sense meaning of the term, not in the somewhat strained terms of the code and the interpretation of the A.G.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/People-v-Clark-(1996).pdf

When the police seized the shotgun, it did not have a shell in the firing chamber. There were, however, three shells located in a covered compartment at the rear of the shotgun's stock. It is not possible to fire a shell from that location; a shell would have to be removed from the compartment and placed by hand in the chamber before it could be fired. A sheriff's deputy testified the shells were located in a "storage area."

...

Second, even if we were to accept the Attorney General's assertion that the definition of "loaded" contained in Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (g) applies to Health and Safety Code section 11370.1, subdivision (a), we would still conclude the shotgun here was not loaded.

Desert Rat
10-08-2007, 8:58 AM
......................... A 59 oz (unloaded) Colt Anaconda with an 8 inch barrel. When I passed it across the counter to have it added to my permit, the only comment I received was "Ooooh, a Dirty Harry Gun! Nice!"