PDA

View Full Version : Single Shot Transfer Law


ts
10-09-2007, 2:53 PM
Say I wanted a gun that was not on the Drop List. Could someone pick one up out of state (a semi auto) and modify it to make it single shot and then I could purchase it from them and then convert it back to semi auto? I know you can do this with revolvers.

Tony

dfletcher
10-09-2007, 3:52 PM
In theory yes, so long as you meet the OAL specifications.

A single action revolver - modifying a Smith Model 14 for example - is a pretty straight forward affair. Remove the DA sear and no matter how someone tries to manipulate it, the thing will work SA only. BTW, isn't a DA only revolver a ""single action" only? Maybe an argument with DOJ for another day.

With a semi to single action conversion, I think you'd want to ensure the conversion is complete and can with stand DOJ manipulation in the condition it would be in when imported to CA.

461
10-09-2007, 3:56 PM
Except you can't buy a handgun out of state legally.

ts
10-09-2007, 4:00 PM
Except you can't buy a handgun out of state legally.

Yes but someone else can and sell it to me legally. Please in the name of god do not say Straw Purchase. Buying a handgun for legal resale purposes is not a straw purchase.

461
10-09-2007, 4:09 PM
Absolutely you can do that. The way I read your post was that you intended to just drop into another state and "Pick one up", which would be a no go.

No straw purchase at all, nice and legal. The biggest problem I'd foresee is finding an FFL that's willing to try it. This would take things even further than 'Off List" lowers. Good luck, I truly hope it works.

AJAX22
10-09-2007, 4:29 PM
Yes you can, I currently have an AR15 pistol being built out of state in a single shot configuration.

It will be dificult to modify some types of pistols to single shot simply because of the design, but three which are easy are the AR15 type, the AK type, and the UZI type ;)

ts
10-09-2007, 4:45 PM
How would one make a MAC and Micro UZI single shot?

AJAX22
10-09-2007, 4:51 PM
With a MAC, dont bother, its not worth the hassle (shoot mine if you want)

With the UZI, you take a spare gripframe and weld a sled magazine in place.

a sled magazine is a mag that has the folower welded into it so that it cannot hold more than 1 round of ammo.

Then attach the gripframe to the gun and voila a single shot uzi.

Once its DROS'd to you, you simply remove the forward handguard, have the threads on the barrel turned down, unpin the gripframe and replace it. and you once again have a semi automatic thats drosed to you.

pretty nifty eh?

ts
10-09-2007, 4:57 PM
With a MAC, dont bother, its not worth the hassle (shoot mine if you want)

With the UZI, you take a spare gripframe and weld a sled magazine in place.

a sled magazine is a mag that has the folower welded into it so that it cannot hold more than 1 round of ammo.

Then attach the gripframe to the gun and voila a single shot uzi.

Once its DROS'd to you, you simply remove the forward handguard, have the threads on the barrel turned down, unpin the gripframe and replace it. and you once again have a semi automatic thats drosed to you.

pretty nifty eh?

I like the new MiniMac by MPA, so I care about that and no threaded barrel (less then $400 bucks).

The Micro UZI does not have a forward hand guard and no threaded barrel.

bwiese
10-09-2007, 5:19 PM
Please ensure that your 12133PC-exempt handguns are - at least for now - appropriately modified into exempt configurations before entry to California. (When things clarify more later, perhaps the CA FFL can make a change to a non-Rostered gun to make it exempt before DROSing it.)

Exempt single-shot pistols must have 6" min bbl length and 10.5" min overall length measured parallel to the bbl.

Exempt single-action revolvers must hold 5 or more rounds and have 3" min bbl length with 7.5" min overall length.

(In either case, overall length is measured parallel to the bore.)

guimus
10-09-2007, 5:34 PM
I know we've discussed this before, but I'm a little concerned that the DOJ and 58 DA's would consider a single action/single shot version of a traditionally da/semiauto handgun merely a broken da/semiauto. "breaking" a non-listed handgun, importing it, then restoring it to "non-broken" status does not pass my smell test. Then again, I've only had 2 months of law school.

GlockOn
10-09-2007, 5:55 PM
Here's the easy way to do this... Find a cop, make him your friend, convince him he needs to buy that gun.... Then why he buys it, he can decide that he doesn't like it and PPT it to you, LEGALLY!!! As long as he buys it for himself, it's not a straw purchase. He is legally allowed to sell the gun whenever he wants.

bwiese
10-09-2007, 6:22 PM
... I'm a little concerned that the DOJ and 58 DA's would consider a single action/single shot version of a traditionally da/semiauto handgun merely a broken da/semiauto. "breaking" a non-listed handgun, importing it, then restoring it to "non-broken" status does not pass my smell test. Then again, I've only had 2 months of law school.

They can assert the moon is made of green cheese too.

There is zero room in 12133PC or anywhere in 12125 et seq ("Unsafe handgun" laws) where permanence of type of action is at all stated or inferrable. There is no expression of 'original design intent' in 12125PC et seq, and it is certainly legal to modify your handguns into whatever status you choose after you've DROSed it and received it after 10 day wait (other than NFA-related tweaks or creation of 'unconventional pistol' w/smoothbore barrel, etc.)

[For them to do this would be akin to requiring welded mags on semiauto rifles and you see how far they got with that.]

A non-PPT transfer of a 1911 frame with a Springfield SASS or Pachmayr Dominator single-shot upper that fires a rifle round is perfectly legal.

And, for revolvers, consider differences between dimensionally-compliant:
(a) S&W Model 14 factory single-action revolver;
(b) S&W K38 Masterpiece revolver with DA sear removed;
(c) a Ruger Blackhawk 357 revolver;
(d) a Ruger Blackhawk 357 revolver converted to double-action.

Only (d) would not be transferrable/sellable (other than via PPT). [Yes, conversions of Ruger SA revolvers into DA guns do exist although rare; its inclusion here was more for acedemic demonstration purposes than anything.]

For DOJ/DA to say that (b) is illegal would be to disavow the legality of (a), and there's no way they can do that.

All other differences are ones of cosmetics/style. Even differences in cylinder/loading between a 'cowboy' revolver and a DA wheelgun, or matters of cylinder rotation vs hammer drop sequencing are immaterial since those are separate matters from 'single-action' criteria (in which I can fill a courtroom with experts of far greater repute than anyone the DOJ or a DA can dredge up, stating that 'single action revolver' = revolver having separate human-instigated cocking movement independent and nonoverlapping with a human-instigated firing movement.)

Furthermore, there exist no regulatory definitions of 'single action' or 'double action' terminology - and even if 'original design intent' concepts were attempted to be placed in regulations, it wouldn't fly since that's (again!) underground law - regulations broadening and not supported by statutory law.

This also brings up 'constructive possession' issues yet again. In a somewhat similar vein to AW vs. legally-configured OLL matters, for CA gov't to assert your new specialty SA wheelgun is actually a DA would require a legal 'construction', and would require a modification to get it to that status that you did not perform (at least during its importation & DROS/waiting period, the only time of relevance since already-owned guns are legal to modify). But, whoops, 'constructive possession' in CA gun laws ("DWCL") is only specifically codified in 12020(c) PC for SBRs and SBSes and 12200PC for machineguns. The fact this wording exists in these places specifically, but not elsewhere, forces CP to not existing for other realms.

Your 'broken gun' assertion could hold weight were the DA->SA rendering were flaky or the gun was just plain broken (nonoperational, nonfiring). A bare 1911 frame is essentially a 'broken gun' since it can't operate/fire and of course we know those aren't transferrable except via PPT.

guimus
10-09-2007, 6:34 PM
Thanks Bill! While I do see the legal footing, there are a whole lot of tiny jumps in there that could each be a big money suit. That said, I'll gladly be the 100,001st person to do it!

bwiese
10-09-2007, 6:38 PM
Thanks Bill! While I do see the legal footing, there are a whole lot of tiny jumps in there that could each be a big money suit. That said, I'll gladly be the 100,001st person to do it!

In that case 'll be 100,000 behind you ;)

AJAX22
10-09-2007, 9:43 PM
Bill, with regards to modifying the pistol after it has entered the state, there is a solid argument that can be made for it being compleatly legal. The FFL is not restricted as to which type of (non AW) firearms they can receive, and the firearm in questin could be sold to an officer without modification.

If the modification to single shot occured prior to the DROS being started it should be technically ok (though its right out on the ragged edge)

That being said, I'm having my AR pistol assembled out of state ;)

bwiese
10-09-2007, 11:47 PM
Bill, with regards to modifying the pistol after it has entered the state, there is a solid argument that can be made for it being compleatly legal. The FFL is not restricted as to which type of (non AW) firearms they can receive, and the firearm in questin could be sold to an officer without modification.

The wording in 12125PC introduction seems at first blush to frown on importation of non-Rostered/nonexempt handguns for resale. That could perhaps be construed as prohibiting importation, even if modified, for resale. Just because nonrostered/ nonexempt handguns can be imported for LEO sales, etc doesn't necessarily mean they could be imported for other reasons.





If the modification to single shot occured prior to the DROS being started it should be technically ok


See above, for now I recommend hyperconservatism. I belive the SA or SS conversion should occur outside CA so the FFL receives an exempt pistol.

We can relax a bit after further research, much like OLL campaign.

Calguns2000
10-10-2007, 1:52 AM
Bill, how do the SBR constructive possession provisions get implicated vis a vis an AR-15 pistol. Let's say you legally own an AR-15 pistol, do you see any risk that you could get charged with constructive possession of an SBR (assuming you owned some other AR-15 OLL rifle lowers)?

saki302
10-10-2007, 2:20 AM
SBR rules are federal as well, and the feds definitely do not allow constructive possession on those items.

SBR upper + rifle AR = BIG no-no. You'd better have a legal AR pistol to put that upper on.

-Dave

bwiese
10-10-2007, 9:16 AM
Bill, how do the SBR constructive possession provisions get implicated vis a vis an AR-15 pistol. Let's say you legally own an AR-15 pistol, do you see any risk that you could get charged with constructive possession of an SBR (assuming you owned some other AR-15 OLL rifle lowers)?

If you have an (otherwise-legal) AR pistol then you can have a shorty upper.

If you have just AR rifles, you shouldn't own *any* shorty uppers.

If you have legit AR rifle(s) and an AR pistol, then you can own regular as well as a shorty upper.

If you have 5 or 6 AR rifles and one AR pistol, I wouldn't have a whole stack of shorty uppers though - "smells bad".

Don't buy a shorty upper for your AR pistol until you actually own a legit AR pistol lower. Remember that such a lower can never have been transferred as a rifle, and it's hard to get pistol lowers in CA without someone moving to CA, or unless an exempt single-shot ("sled fed") AR pistol were made and sold in CA.