PDA

View Full Version : OLL storage w/out BB question


bmaksdad
04-28-2008, 9:56 AM
I am going tor order 2 OLL's with parts kits installed from Lanworld for future builds and have a question. Are they considered an illegal AW if the pistol grip is installed w/out the BB installed while stored in my safe? I would assume that it wouldn't be if the upper is not attached but I don't want to assume.

Thanks,
Mike

Rhys898
04-28-2008, 10:07 AM
don't attach the pistol grip until the bullet button is installed. the lower is the rifle and having a pistol grip with a open magwell "ready to accept detachable mags" is bad juju.

Jer

bwiese
04-28-2008, 10:11 AM
Ignore the above advice....

Original caution in 2006 (reflected in orig FAQ) was hyperconservative and (justifiably at the time) paranoid.

An AR lower alone with no upper attached is NOT a rifle - nor is it semiautomatic nor centerfire. Therefore attached evil features on the lower alone are irrelevant.

Jicko
04-28-2008, 10:17 AM
What biwese said is probably right. And you probably would have a good case if in court that you will come out fine.

But why would you want to do that?

BB is cheap, or P50 is even cheaper; why don't you just stay in the safe side?

docsmileyface
04-28-2008, 10:26 AM
So if a built AR lower is not a rifle, how come we can't order complete lowers?

....or can we?

Jicko
04-28-2008, 10:34 AM
So if a built AR lower is not a rifle, how come we can't order complete lowers?

....or can we?

Altho theoretically, it is correct.....

Yet since there are no documented test cases, and ruling..... it is quite an "high risk" taking, which most, if not all, FFLs are not willing to go thru with...

Just like, it took QUITE SOME TIME, to get FFLs to be willing to do DROS on plain OLL AR lower receivers!!!

bwiese
04-28-2008, 10:46 AM
This is not really 'theory' - it was even discussed in the legislative analysis, concerning receivers, for AB2728 in summer of 2006.

Jicko
04-28-2008, 10:51 AM
This is not really 'theory' - it was even discussed in the legislative analysis, concerning receivers, for AB2728 in summer of 2006.

I heard you, and understood. But, without a DOJ letter, a court ruling, a clarification in the law.... it would be HARD to convince a FFL to be willing to do a "completed free world" lower DROS....

And in a LEO encounter, it is MUCH easier to convince a LEO of a "no evil feature" or "fixed magazine" OL-Lower Assembly with our current limited "documentations", right?

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 11:01 AM
This is not really 'theory' - it was even discussed in the legislative analysis, concerning receivers, for AB2728 in summer of 2006.

If the lower were stored with a standard upper it could be argued that the rifle is complete... simply apart.

Now if there were no upper, or an upper that were legal with that lower (.22LR) then I could see it.

I certainly would not want to do it.

bmaksdad
04-28-2008, 11:10 AM
Thanks for the replies. I will be using a BB on both of the lowers, I just wanted to know if I had to install the BB right away or if I could wait until I start building them. I wasn't sure if Chris at Lanworld will install the BB prior to shipping so I thought I would ask.

Toolbox X
04-28-2008, 11:32 AM
If the lower were stored with a standard upper it could be argued that the rifle is complete... simply apart.

Now if there were no upper, or an upper that were legal with that lower (.22LR) then I could see it.

I certainly would not want to do it.

What you are talking about is called 'contructive possession'. It does not apply to CA AW laws. It only applies to NFA weapons, such as machineguns, supressors, and SBR's.

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 11:37 AM
What you are talking about is called 'contructive possession'. It does not apply to CA AW laws. It only applies to NFA weapons, such as machineguns, supressors, and SBR's.

No, I am not talking about constructive possession. I know what that is.

Constructive possession would be if I have an AR-15 style rifle as well as an M-16 auto sear. If I had all of the parts needed to make my AR full auto in my possession but they were not assembled into a rifle that is still constructive possession.

This is a fully operational, constructed rifle. It only takes 15 seconds to put the upper on. All I am saying is it is way too close to the line for me. It is so close to the line that a DA would not have any trouble taking it to a jury and that would get expensive.

Python2
04-28-2008, 12:00 PM
Thanks for the replies. I will be using a BB on both of the lowers, I just wanted to know if I had to install the BB right away or if I could wait until I start building them. I wasn't sure if Chris at Lanworld will install the BB prior to shipping so I thought I would ask.

You talking about finish lower with LPK installed? or bare lower? With finish lower with LPK installed, just remove the pistol grip if installed and dont install the BB. You can decide later if you want to install the BB or simply use a Monstergrip. Bare lower, no issue. IMHO

aplinker
04-28-2008, 12:05 PM
I can't believe the level of bizarre paranoia in this thread.

Without an upper how in the hell can you prove it's a semi-automatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine? It could just as easily be 22lr, bolt action, single shot, etc. etc.

It's ridiculous to argue otherwise at this point.

OP, you're safe. An FFL may want it in another configuration and you should comply with their wishes.

Hopi
04-28-2008, 12:18 PM
If you are in the position of explaining any of this to LEOs, you probably have bigger problems on your hands.

Considering that somehow, LEOs were 'searching' your property, and/or taking possession of it, I would be worried more about how the rifles/parts were documented as being found. Eg. some young upstart sees the upper and lower assembly sitting next to each other in the safe, and in ignorance of the legal subtleties, slaps that upper on the lower to transport it into evidence.....I've seen those post-bust photos displaying the contraband weapons for the shock factor, you know that upper sure does make that lower look super evil.....

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 12:24 PM
I can't believe the level of bizarre paranoia in this thread.

Without an upper how in the hell can you prove it's a semi-automatic center fire rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine? It could just as easily be 22lr, bolt action, single shot, etc. etc.

It's ridiculous to argue otherwise at this point.

OP, you're safe. An FFL may want it in another configuration and you should comply with their wishes.

Have you ever been through it? Don't profess to be the "gun law god" and when you say is fact.

Talk to someone who has been arrested for something that was legal at the time. Talk to someone who has paid THOUSANDS in attorney fees because he was arrested for manufacturing assault weapons when in fact they were lawfully configured OLL rifles. Talk to an FFL that still to this day has all his demo guns built on FAB-10s fearing that the DOJ will come in and confiscate all of his rifles.

The paranoia is justified.

Why tempt fait? put the BB on for transport... it takes all of 20 seconds to do it. It is not paranoia... it is prudence.

GSequoia
04-28-2008, 12:30 PM
So if a built AR lower is not a rifle, how come we can't order complete lowers?

....or can we?

No.

A lower is a legally defined firearm in both the California DOJ's eyes and BATFE.

A lower is not a centerfire (no firing pin, no chamber) semi-automatic (no gas system, op rod, etc) rifle (no stock, no barrel), which named / listed receivers aside, is the only way you can have a California defined assault weapon.

Hopi
04-28-2008, 12:34 PM
No.

A lower is a legally defined firearm in both the California DOJ's eyes and BATFE.

A lower is not a centerfire (no firing pin, no chamber) semi-automatic (no gas system, op rod, etc) rifle (no stock, no barrel), which named / listed receivers aside, is the only way you can have a California defined assault weapon.

I believe that the answer to his question, "or can we?" is Yes. You can order complete lowers if your FFL is comfortable with that.

GSequoia
04-28-2008, 12:35 PM
I believe that answer to his question "or can we?" is Yes. You can order complete lowers if your FFL is comfortable with that.

I assumed by "can we order" he was talking about door to door service like an upper, parts kit, etc.

aplinker
04-28-2008, 12:44 PM
How can you profess that ignorance of the law is the key to the state trampling your rights, but then come back and say that it's insufficient to comply with the law?

Why do you need to respond as though this is about ego? I follow traffic laws, especially when I'm transporting firearms, so I don't have negative LEO incidents. I've had numerous interactions in gun stores and ranges, in full view of uniformed LEOs, where I've shown and discussed exactly what I have. So, before you decide to pass judgment on someone, you might want to consider you have no idea what you're talking about.

The OP asked about storage in his safe, not transport.

I was making a summary about what's clear in the law. He's been told what the hyperconservative position is, but he should know what is the full extent of what's legal. If you don't agree, you're free to say so (as you already have) and to not do so yourself.

There are dealers who don't deal in OLLs at all by the same logic of paranoia. It's interesting to me that so many are so quick to judge their choice, but then won't act on something that's legal when it comes to their liability.

Everyone has their own tolerance for risk. Each person needs to make informed choices. It's possible to be arrested for anything, no matter how well you comply. You're tempting fate getting out of bed each and every day.


Have you ever been through it? Don't profess to be the "gun law god" and when you say is fact.

Talk to someone who has been arrested for something that was legal at the time. Talk to someone who has paid THOUSANDS in attorney fees because he was arrested for manufacturing assault weapons when in fact they were lawfully configured OLL rifles. Talk to an FFL that still to this day has all his demo guns built on FAB-10s fearing that the DOJ will come in and confiscate all of his rifles.

The paranoia is justified.

Why tempt fait? put the BB on for transport... it takes all of 20 seconds to do it. It is not paranoia... it is prudence.

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 12:52 PM
The OP asked about storage in his safe, not transport.

I was making a summary about what's clear in the law. He's been told what the hyperconservative position is, but he should know what is the full extent of what's legal. If you don't agree, you're free to say so (as you already have) and to not do so yourself.

There are dealers who don't deal in OLLs at all by the same logic of paranoia. It's interesting to me that so many are so quick to judge their choice, but then won't act on something that's legal when it comes to their liability.

Everyone has their own tolerance for risk. Each person needs to make informed choices. It's possible to be arrested for anything, no matter how well you comply. You're tempting fate getting out of bed each and every day.

One is not related to the other. Not dealing in OLL rifles is paranoia. Building an assault weapon in violation of California law and then storing it in two pieces because it is "technically legal" is another.

I got the feeling from the post that this person is debating putting the pistol grip on his otherwise legal OLL but storing it in a legal fashion. My post is aimed at deterring this. As far as judgmental posts you judged me when you claimed my "paranoia" as "ridiculous".

As far as the traffic laws are concerned, that is a WHOLE other argument. The entire system is unconstitutional and until they bring back a trial by peers in traffic manners no one will ever find justice in that circus court bent on extorting money from the populous. I digress.

hoffmang
04-28-2008, 2:10 PM
There is no good reason (other than an abundance of caution) for an FFL to not be willing to sell and transfer to a CA FFL a fully built unlisted AR lower with no upper attached.

The only issues with that configuration once transferred correctly via DROS is that it would be all too easy for an overzealous crime lab to themselves assemble an AW in their storage locker that looks bad for you. If you don't have uppers around, fully built lowers w/o Californication are no big deal. If you do have uppers around you may want to have some sort of "don't accidentally build me bro" protection. The silly gun locks we've all been forced to buy through the open magwell work perfectly for that.

But to say it again, an unlisted AR lower (and maybe even a listed lower) is not an AW if it doesn't have an upper.

-Gene

Python2
04-28-2008, 3:02 PM
. If you don't have uppers around, fully built lowers w/o Californication are no big deal. If you do have uppers around you may want to have some sort of "don't accidentally build me bro" protection. The silly gun locks we've all been forced to buy through the open magwell work perfectly for that.

-Gene

You mean to say if I have a complete build AR with BB and a second not californicated complete lowers w/out uppers, I have to put that silly gun lock in the magwell of the second lower? just to make sure I dont easily remove the upper from my first lower, look for the key and put it in the second which obviously become AW?

shark92651
04-28-2008, 3:09 PM
You mean to say if I have a complete build AR with BB and a second not californicated complete lowers w/out uppers, I have to put that silly gun lock in the magwell of the second lower? just to make sure I dont easily remove the upper from my first lower, look for the key and put it in the second which obviously become AW?

I believe Gene was referring to the cops possibly putting the two pieces together should they come into possesion of them, not you.

Toolbox X
04-28-2008, 3:22 PM
Building an assault weapon in violation of California law and then storing it in two pieces because it is "technically legal" is another.

I think this is where your line of thinking is causing the conflict. No one is manufacturing illegal AW's and then separating the upper from the lower.

It is 100% legal to build a complete lower and a complete upper. It is only illegal to put them together, but no one is putting them together so no laws are being broken.

The paranoia part comes from your fear that you will be raided by some form of law enforcement and they will get into your safe where they will find a complete upper and lower sitting next to one another. Someone from the raiding party will then secretly connect the upper to the lower, thus creating an illegal AW, and when the case is presented to a judge and/or jury no one will believe you that you really had the upper and lower separated but someone from the raid put them together.

Python2
04-28-2008, 3:29 PM
I believe Gene was referring to the cops possibly putting the two pieces together should they come into possesion of them, not you.

Ah! now that make sence. Did'nt think it that way:sleeping:

hoffmang
04-28-2008, 4:29 PM
The paranoia part comes from your fear that you will be raided by some form of law enforcement and they will get into your safe where they will find a complete upper and lower sitting next to one another. Someone from the raiding party will then secretly connect the upper to the lower, thus creating an illegal AW, and when the case is presented to a judge and/or jury no one will believe you that you really had the upper and lower separated but someone from the raid put them together.

First let me agree with the statement that it is unlikely that anyone is going to get raided anyway. That said, there is some precedent for crime labs doing silly things to non AWs. It's more due to blind policy following but there are cases where the crime lab noted in the case file "used hammer to remove magazine" which was in reference to an old fashioned Prince-50 AR. Now that worked out very well for the person I'm referring to (see, it required a tool to remove!) but it is the only exposure one really has with fully built unlisted and un-californicated lowers.

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 8:35 PM
I think this is where your line of thinking is causing the conflict. No one is manufacturing illegal AW's and then separating the upper from the lower.

It is 100% legal to build a complete lower and a complete upper. It is only illegal to put them together, but no one is putting them together so no laws are being broken.

The paranoia part comes from your fear that you will be raided by some form of law enforcement and they will get into your safe where they will find a complete upper and lower sitting next to one another. Someone from the raiding party will then secretly connect the upper to the lower, thus creating an illegal AW, and when the case is presented to a judge and/or jury no one will believe you that you really had the upper and lower separated but someone from the raid put them together.

One does not have to be raided for it to be an issue.

I had 4 days worth of newspapers on my front lawn and the police used that as PC to enter the back door and search the house.

If you are EVER in a fight with the old lady the cops will ask if there are guns in the house and ask to remove them. If the lady is mad she can allow them to search.

There are many many ways that the PD can gain access to search. Ask Wes why he builds all of his demo rifles on FAB-10 rifles. The government can cease first, ask later and it can cause lots of money in attorney fees.

All of this can be avoided by spending the 30 seconds to put a BB on... thats all I am saying.

RomanDad
04-28-2008, 9:07 PM
I had 4 days worth of newspapers on my front lawn and the police used that as PC to enter the back door and search the house..

Ummmm... OK.... This is perhaps the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.... And I've heard a lot of bizarre things in my life.... It seems the cops have a particular interest in you, because the only people who care about newspapers on my driveway are potential burglars and maybe my HOA....

Im not even going to ask why the local constabulary have such an apparent H-O for you....

Regardless, if the cops come into your home under such a pretense, NOTHING THEY FIND THAT COULDNT BE CLEARLY SEEN WHEN THEY LOOK THROUGH YOUR WINDOWS COULD BE USED TO PROSECUTE YOU FOR A CRIME.

It would be a "welfare" search I presume? And that would give them authority to poke their heads in and look for (/smell for) your dead or dying body.... Anything they find in an area too small to fit your rotting corpse would constitute an ILLEGAL SEARCH.

Seriously- You need to move.

marklbucla
04-29-2008, 7:56 PM
The government can cease first, ask later and it can cause lots of money in attorney fees.

All of this can be avoided by spending the 30 seconds to put a BB on... thats all I am saying.

At this point, does it even matter if a BB is on it? Isn't it a BIG assumption that the average LEO will know the difference?

jamesob
04-29-2008, 8:09 PM
the lower itself does not make it a semi auto. the upper receiver determines wether its a semi, bolt or a pump action. its just some folks are worried that its illegal. its not, but some would say that it is.

Grimjack
04-30-2008, 1:05 PM
At this point, does it even matter if a BB is on it? Isn't it a BIG assumption that the average LEO will know the difference?


I'm a noob on the board, but I can't agree with this enough. I would venture to guess that 99% of LEO's have never heard of a BB, more importantly they wouldn't even think to check for it. If it looks like an evil AW confiscate it now, let the DA figure it out later...

Mitch
04-30-2008, 2:23 PM
I can't believe the level of bizarre paranoia in this thread.

But it's a bizarre question.

If you have any concern at all, why install the pistol grip? Either you have a bare lower, in which case it doesn't matter what you do; or you have a built up lower, in which case the bullet button should have been the very first thing you installed. Usually when I build a lower I put the grip on next to last, just before the stock or receiver extension. Doesn't everyone?

Under what circumstances would the OP ever have a built-up lower without a bullet button?

Toolbox X
04-30-2008, 2:53 PM
But it's a bizarre question.

If you have any concern at all, why install the pistol grip? Either you have a bare lower, in which case it doesn't matter what you do; or you have a built up lower, in which case the bullet button should have been the very first thing you installed. Usually when I build a lower I put the grip on next to last, just before the stock or receiver extension. Doesn't everyone?

Under what circumstances would the OP ever have a built-up lower without a bullet button?

My guess is the peace of mind that comes from knowing if EOTW happened right in front of your house, you could slap the upper and lower together and quickly be ready to go with a full functioning AR.

The much better solution is to install a Prince50 mag button. It takes a simple 3 turns of the allen wrench to make the AR function normal if you bring the rifle out of state or SHTF. This is actually faster than putting the upper and lower together. Additionally, the rifle is fully assembled, which takes up less safe space. For you paranoid people, even if someone at the police armory secretly removed the hex screw, the hole in the Prince50 show the rifle was at least configured with a fixed mag device.

ohsmily
04-30-2008, 3:13 PM
The government can cease first, ask later and it can cause lots of money in attorney fees.


The government can "stop" first, ask later and it can "cause" lots of money in attorney fees?

Is that supposed to say "seize" (and "cost")?

Seize and Cease are two VERY different things.

Hopi
04-30-2008, 3:14 PM
The government can "stop" first, ask later and it can "cause" lots of money in attorney fees?

Is that supposed to say "seize" (and "cost")?

Oh ohsmily, w/out our stellar education system, how would you ever keep yourself occupied?

Ironchef
04-30-2008, 4:01 PM
Regardless, if the cops come into your home under such a pretense, NOTHING THEY FIND THAT COULDNT BE CLEARLY SEEN WHEN THEY LOOK THROUGH YOUR WINDOWS COULD BE USED TO PROSECUTE YOU FOR A CRIME.

Actually, didn't the SCOTUS just make a decision making unrelated evidence fair game? If they search your car after a traffic stop brings you to jail, and they find drugs, you can now legally be convicted (last week or so this was ruled). So entering your home for a welfare search, and finding unrelated evidence to nail you for should be ok for such lucky cops and prosecutors. Or am I mistaken.

RomanDad
04-30-2008, 4:45 PM
Actually, didn't the SCOTUS just make a decision making unrelated evidence fair game? If they search your car after a traffic stop brings you to jail, and they find drugs, you can now legally be convicted (last week or so this was ruled). So entering your home for a welfare search, and finding unrelated evidence to nail you for should be ok for such lucky cops and prosecutors. Or am I mistaken.

Yes.... You are mistaken.

The first is a search incident to a lawful arrest, which has been OK for decades now. All Virginia v. Moore did was maintain that evidence discovered of additional crimes may be introduced, despite the initial crime being of the type that the police normally issue citations for, rather than normally resulting in the defendant being taken into custody.

The second is a warrantless search initiated for the limited purpose of determining the welfare of the occupants therein. Anything discovered that is NOT in plain view from outside the premises would be subject to the exclusionary rule.

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2008, 6:53 PM
The government can "stop" first, ask later and it can "cause" lots of money in attorney fees?

Is that supposed to say "seize" (and "cost")?

Seize and Cease are two VERY different things.

Thank you sir Nazi. You knew what I meant.

hoffmang
04-30-2008, 7:00 PM
Thank you sir Nazi. You knew what I meant.

EPU, this is beautiful just for old times sake!

-Gene

aplinker
04-30-2008, 7:49 PM
Ask Wes why he builds all of his demo rifles on FAB-10 rifles. The government can cease first, ask later and it can cause lots of money in attorney fees.


He doesn't anymore. He has other builds on his wall now.

Sawdust
05-01-2008, 7:44 AM
Thank you sir Nazi. You knew what I meant.

Godwin's Law invoked.

End of thread.

Sawdust

E Pluribus Unum
05-01-2008, 9:51 AM
EPU, this is beautiful just for old times sake!

-Gene

Ahhh... Nestowlja

Godwin's Law invoked.

End of thread.

Sawdust

Godwin's law does not apply. I am not calling him a Nazi though it may sound that way. He is a Spelling Nazi of the first order.. therefore I call him "Sir Nazi".

Mitch
05-01-2008, 10:04 AM
My guess is the peace of mind that comes from knowing if EOTW happened right in front of your house, you could slap the upper and lower together and quickly be ready to go with a full functioning AR.

This thread is getting more bizarre with every post.