PDA

View Full Version : SBR Constructive Possession / Unsafe Handgun Issues Relating to AK/AR Pistols in CA?


Calguns2000
10-16-2007, 3:51 PM
Is there case law (or some other CA statutory law provision) that protects people from clause (E) of PC Section 12020(c)?

12020. (c)
(2) As used in this section, a "short-barreled rifle" means any of
the following:
(A) A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in
length.
(B) A rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(C) Any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration,
modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an
overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less
than 16 inches in length.
(D) Any device which may be readily restored to fire a fixed
cartridge which, when so restored, is a device defined in
subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive.
(E) Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended to
convert a device into a device defined in subparagraphs (A) to (C),
inclusive, or any combination of parts from which a device defined in
subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, may be readily assembled
if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same
person.

bwiese
10-16-2007, 4:13 PM
Let's ignore CA AW laws and safe handgun Roster laws for a second.

If you have a legit AR pistol and an AR rifle (let's say you owned a registered Rocky Mountain Arms Patriot pistol and a Colt rifle) they ain't gonna say you constructively possess an SBR. Each has a legit use in its own channel. CA law echoes fed law and there's the whole Thompson Center SBR stuff relating to that to help us.

Now if you just had that Colt AR but had that pistol upper hanging around, then that's a no-no.

The folks building OLL non-AW pistols on various platforms have receivers that were 'virgin' bare receivers and 4473d in their life as pistols - and were legally brought into CA by someone moving in, or were legally brought in as single-shot pistols. Folks doing such work should not accumulate upper or barrel parts beforehand until the pistol receiver is in their possession (or complete pistol arrives).

Calguns2000
10-16-2007, 4:27 PM
Also, how are the 80% pistol homebuilders exempt from the flat prohibition on manufacturing an unsafe handgun (note that the words "for sale" do not modify the "manufactures or cause to be manufactured" provision, (let's assume the exemption in clause (b)(1) isn't going to fly):

12125. (a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who
manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state
for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends
any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail not exceeding one year.
(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) The manufacture in this state, or importation into this state,
of any prototype pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person when the manufacture or importation is for
the sole purpose of allowing an independent laboratory certified by
the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12130 to conduct an
independent test to determine whether that pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is prohibited by
this chapter, and, if not, allowing the department to add the firearm
to the roster of pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of
being concealed upon the person that may be sold in this state
pursuant to Section 12131.

aplinker
10-16-2007, 4:45 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/Spikespigiel/dojletter.jpg

AJAX22
10-16-2007, 4:50 PM
And there you have it. (thanks UCLA, I never have the letter at the computer I'm on when people ask this question)

Build whatever you want... Just dont build it for sale.

I would also like to point out, that while they make a big deal about applying for a serial number (you don't actually have to apply for it, just stamp whatever you feel like on it, pistols in CA need to have serial numbers) they make NO mention of any requirement to register the gun :D

Rock on with your bad self.

aplinker
10-16-2007, 4:51 PM
And there you have it. (thanks UCLA, I never have the letter at the computer I'm on when people ask this question)

Build whatever you want... Just dont build it for sale.

I stole it from your old post ;)

Calguns2000
10-16-2007, 5:13 PM
And there you have it. (thanks UCLA, I never have the letter at the computer I'm on when people ask this question)

Build whatever you want... Just dont build it for sale.

I would also like to point out, that while they make a big deal about applying for a serial number (you don't actually have to apply for it, just stamp whatever you feel like on it, pistols in CA need to have serial numbers) they make NO mention of any requirement to register the gun :D

Rock on with your bad self.The letter from the DOJ asserts legality without citing the legal basis. Does anyone know where in CA law the exemption for home manufactuers is actually set forth? I.e., is there an actual statutory provision or case law that provides that home builders are exempt from the provisions of Penal Code Section 12125(a).

bwiese
10-16-2007, 5:41 PM
Let's back off from 80% stuff for a second and deal with commercial items.

If you have a pistol receiver, that is already 'manufactured'.

Calguns2000
10-16-2007, 5:46 PM
Let's back off from 80% stuff for a second and deal with commercial items.

If you have a pistol receiver, that is already 'manufactured'.Assuming that is the case, it is helpful for the "personal firearm importer / commercial single shot importer"--but what about the 80% pistol builder? I'm raising this because I am seeing quite a few threads regarding actual/proposed 80% builds.

bwiese
10-16-2007, 5:49 PM
Assuming that is the case, it is helpful for the "personal firearm importer / commercial single shot importer"--but what about the 80% pistol builder?


0% stuff - starting from a plain ol' ingot - is a different thing.

But I think 80% stuff is avoidable nonsense. People are getting in trouble w/ATF for illegal firearms transfers because one man's 60% is another man's 80% which in turn is someone who's very skilled 90+%.

adamsreeftank
10-17-2007, 12:29 AM
I have been wondering the same things.

If you had some retail NDS AK receivers and some unbuilt parts kits, and you wanted to bend a flat and do a home built AK pistol, what would be a safe sequence of events to do that.

Should you build the NDS receivers first before ordering a Krink or AMD65 kit for the pistol? Should you bend the flat and build the AK pistol receiver before ordering the short barrel kit? Is it even safe to have a Krink kit if you already have a built AK?

I'm also interested in the 12125 question Calguns2000 is asking.

artherd
10-17-2007, 10:24 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/Spikespigiel/dojletter.jpg

If anyone needs proof of DOJ knowingly denying Harrott, just look at the DATES on these letters:

http://cdglobal.net/gun/CTR-02-DOJ-legal.jpg

adamsreeftank
10-18-2007, 2:00 AM
OK Ben,

I understand the problem is not really with the DOJ on this question. But at the federal level, what is the risk to having a Krink kit in order to build an AK pistol from a flat. Would constructive posession be an issue if one had an unbuilt retail AK receiver? Likewise, would it be safer to build and label the home-build AK pistol receiver before purchasing a Krink parts kit.

bwiese
10-18-2007, 9:52 AM
'Constructive possession' for SBR, etc. applies both at Fed NFA level and in CA.

If you have a shorty (< 16") bbl/upper, you should have a pistol or SBR lower.

Given SBRs are unobtanium in CA, that essentially means you need a real pistol receiver - virgin, never 4473d as rifle nor ever having buttstock attached, in order to legitimately have and/or attach a shorty upper.

It could be rational to a have a couple of shorty bbls/uppers if you had one matching pistol receiver, regardless of the number of other similar rifles/receivers possessed that could not be married to the shorty bbl/upper.

While you have possibility of bad combo, you also have possibility of legit combo so there are significant lenity issues supporting you. Having replacement parts would be a valid argument for more than one shorty upper for just one pistol lower. (Plus the Federal Thompson Center case is most helpful.)

However I don't think it'd be wise to push boundaries and have one pistol receiver, and a whole ton of duplicate pistol uppers/bbls, and a bunch of non-pistol receivers (as opposed to complete rifles).

swift
10-18-2007, 6:33 PM
I was under the impression that you would be OK with building a standard rifle with a 16" or longer barrel on a pistol lower as long as you did not leave the stock on when you removed the 16" minimum-length upper. Am I wrong?