Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > FIREARMS DISCUSSIONS > Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated Centerfire rifles, carbines and other gas operated rifles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06-28-2013, 5:30 PM
tanakasan tanakasan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,533
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by parksmart View Post
I've bought several AR pistols via PPT, and all of them went thru different LGSs. None of them mentioned or required the need for a single shot sled. The first time I PPT'ed, they checked to make sure the 30rd mag was blocked to 10 rounds. Subsequent purchases I made sure to have a 10rd mag to put it in jail with.
This only needs to be done once for the initial build. Subsequent PPT transfers are exempt.

Robert
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-28-2013, 6:22 PM
Arkangel's Avatar
Arkangel Arkangel is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 4,397
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganboy View Post
OK! So FUD here is getting thick, who exactly is working for feinswine.
It seems to happen when the topic of SSE comes up.
__________________
_██_
(ಠ_ృ) riveting tale, chap.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-28-2013, 8:22 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,594
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkangel View Post
It seems to happen when the topic of SSE comes up.
Of course if AB 169 passes, none of this will matter..................
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-28-2013, 8:37 PM
rman's Avatar
rman rman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 2,508
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Of course if AB 169 passes, none of this will matter..................
how will ab169 affect ar pistol builds?

-Armand
Sent from my Apple Galaxy Note 5
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-28-2013, 8:42 PM
MrPlink's Avatar
MrPlink MrPlink is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portland / East Bay
Posts: 12,530
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Well that's on partial FUD, so I suppose you are getting better. . .

AB169 has nothing to do with SSE, it prohibits the private party transfer of off roster handguns.

-Does not stop FFLs from making SSE firearms
-Does not stop individuals from building them
-Does suck big donkey dong
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-28-2013, 8:47 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,594
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rman View Post
how will ab169 affect ar pistol builds?

-Armand
Sent from my Apple Galaxy Note 5
RMAN,

The contentious part of this discussion is over the use of the SSE exemption to circumvent the "Safe Handgun" roster. The idea being that you can legally build a single-shot handgun without having to go through the DOJ testing process that would be required if you built a semi-auto. AB 169, if passed, would prevent folks from doing that. Here is the text of the Legislative Counsel's summary of the bill in its current form. I bolded the text of the pertinent part:
"AB 169, as amended, Dickinson. Unsafe handguns.


(1) Existing law provides for the testing of handguns and requires the Department of Justice to maintain a roster listing all handguns that are determined not to be unsafe handguns. Existing law makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, to manufacture, import into the state for sale, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give, or lend an unsafe handgun. Existing law provides that the provisions defining and governing unsafe handguns do not apply to the sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm in a transaction that requires the use of a licensed dealer or to the delivery of a firearm to a licensed dealer for purposes of a consignment sale or as collateral for a pawnbroker loan.

This bill would delete limit these exemptions to a maximum of 2 firearms per person, per calendar year, and would make the provisions defining and governing unsafe handguns inapplicable to the sale, loan, or transfer of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, conducted through a licensed dealer, that was listed on the roster of not unsafe handguns but was subsequently removed because of the failure to pay the fee necessary to keep the firearm listed on the roster. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2) Existing law makes the provisions defining and governing unsafe handguns inapplicable to a single-shot pistol, as specified.

This bill would instead make the provisions defining and governing unsafe handguns inapplicable to a single-shot pistol with a break top or bolt action. The bill would make this exemption inapplicable to a semiautomatic pistol that has been temporarily or permanently altered so that it will not fire in a semiautomatic mode. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3) Existing law exempts the purchase of a handgun from the above prohibition on manufacturing, importing, selling, giving, or lending an unsafe handgun if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties.

This bill would prohibit a person exempted under the above provision from selling or otherwise transferring the ownership of the handgun to a person who is not exempted under the same provision unless the transaction is exempt from the requirement to complete the transaction through a licensed dealer. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4) The bill would also make nonsubstantive, technical corrections.

(5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES"
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-29-2013, 5:11 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,594
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12voltguy View Post
post #30

BS
same as a hi-cap mag
they have to prove you made a hi cap, you don't have to prove you legally own one.
You're correct regarding the Large Capacity Magazine. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor and they decide how to meet that burden.

My response to Mr. Plink was that the prosecutor does not have to respond to the defense theories.

On that point he's wrong, simply wrong, the prosecutor does not need to disprove that the weapon was, at one point in time, an Single-Shot. The point of view that making the single shot back into a semi-auto is only a "conversion" and not a "manufacturing" is simply a point of view. It's worked up to this point because it's never been challenged. That probably makes is a pretty good point of view, but that's all it is. If anyone has a case citation where that has been ruled on, please provide it. I'm not aware of one.

That a home-built weapon could be considered as "Manufactured" through the final point of its change (after the SSE) is also a point of view. It has not been tested and there is no case citation either.

The "Burden of Proof" simply means its the prosecutor's job to convince the jury that the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no requirement for the prosecutor to respond to defense points of view (like the SSE is only a legal conversion). The prosecutor is free to argue that the conversion form an SSE back to semi-auto was an illegal "manufacture." In the absence of published case law on the point its an open field.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-29-2013, 6:16 AM
asm_'s Avatar
asm_ asm_ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 744
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Since we are now on to the subject of if adding a mag sled is considered as conversion or manufacturing, I offer you the following reading material from BWeise.

Now, I'm not saying what he say is gold. However for what it's worth, BWeise stated that any parts that could be switch out during the normal course of field cleaning would be ok for a 01 FFL to perform. Keep in mind that since 01 FFL is not licensed to manufacturing firearm, it would seems BWeise is implying either adding a mag sled or switching barrel would not be constitute as manufacturing a firearm.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=441766

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=442220
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-29-2013, 7:14 AM
Arkangel's Avatar
Arkangel Arkangel is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 4,397
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
You're correct regarding the Large Capacity Magazine. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor and they decide how to meet that burden.

My response to Mr. Plink was that the prosecutor does not have to respond to the defense theories.

On that point he's wrong, simply wrong, the prosecutor does not need to disprove that the weapon was, at one point in time, an Single-Shot. The point of view that making the single shot back into a semi-auto is only a "conversion" and not a "manufacturing" is simply a point of view. It's worked up to this point because it's never been challenged. That probably makes is a pretty good point of view, but that's all it is. If anyone has a case citation where that has been ruled on, please provide it. I'm not aware of one.

That a home-built weapon could be considered as "Manufactured" through the final point of its change (after the SSE) is also a point of view. It has not been tested and there is no case citation either.

The "Burden of Proof" simply means its the prosecutor's job to convince the jury that the elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no requirement for the prosecutor to respond to defense points of view (like the SSE is only a legal conversion). The prosecutor is free to argue that the conversion form an SSE back to semi-auto was an illegal "manufacture." In the absence of published case law on the point its an open field.
The problem with your point of view is the same problem you claim to have with our point of view... There is no case law. Your entire argument is nothing but speculation and conjecture.

Following your line of thought, a lot of the things we do as gun owners in order to comply with the law are actions that can lead to prosecution:

Use of/owning a 10/30 mag

Own a mag-locked rifle

Repair of old/damaged large capacity magazines

I mean, all these actions are a conversion away from a felony/wobler.... Right?

The point is, we live in a state with asinine and draconian gun laws, and advising people to err on the side of caution with such a matter-of-fact kind of tone is equivalent to spreading FUD.
__________________
_██_
(ಠ_ృ) riveting tale, chap.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-29-2013, 7:40 AM
Eljay Eljay is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,345
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

If the DOJ really thought that converting a single shot pistol to semi auto was manufacturing they would have been firing off scary letters to everybody the minute people started using the exemption to bring in off roster handguns. Some niche product like AR pistols have got to pretty much be the least of their concerns compared to the number of "regular" SSEs that happen every day now.

Anyway, the most straightforward path seems to be 80% lower, complete it, add a magazine block with a bullet button or whatever, add the lower parts, add a pistol buffer tube, photograph it from several angles just to cover your butt, only then order the upper (11.5" most reliable and decent velocity. Every inch less than that loses velocity and might have reliability issues. Also the 7" ones are crazy loud which may or may not be a plus.). Some people even take it to the range and shoot it once or twice in that configuration and photograph THAT just to add more separation between the manufacturing event and the reconfiguring event. Then drop the SLED with a tool and pop in a 10 round magazine and enjoy.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-08-2013, 2:01 AM
Stryker's Avatar
Stryker Stryker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Torrance
Posts: 195
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default Cool runnings

If going the 80% route, why would you need a mag block or a zero-round SLED?

Wouldn't using a magazine body with no spring and follower accomplish the same thing, which is to make it a single-shot only? Unless there could be some silly argument that if you flipped it upside down, it could be a "gravity fed" semi-auto???
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-08-2013, 8:23 AM
12voltguy's Avatar
12voltguy 12voltguy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: ....
Posts: 4,039
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
If going the 80% route, why would you need a mag block or a zero-round SLED?

Wouldn't using a magazine body with no spring and follower accomplish the same thing, which is to make it a single-shot only? Unless there could be some silly argument that if you flipped it upside down, it could be a "gravity fed" semi-auto???
do whatever you want
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-08-2013, 2:19 PM
asm_'s Avatar
asm_ asm_ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 744
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

You can do what ever you feel is sufficient to render your build into a single-shot firearm. Most people go with a plastic sled. If you feel a magazine without spring and follower is sufficient to keep you out of trouble, feel free to test out your theory.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-08-2013, 3:08 PM
MrPlink's Avatar
MrPlink MrPlink is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portland / East Bay
Posts: 12,530
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

to be honest that portion is kind of on the "honor system"
Because unless you 1) admit to not building initially as a single shot or 2) for some very odd reason do not build as a single shot while in front of some LEO or DOJ thug there really aren't any practical ways for the state to prove you did not SSE first. But it is so easy to do, why mess with it? Just take any mag and block it off completely and slap it in, then you can easily say with full confidence to Johnny Law (as well the courts and your legal council ) that you did it the right way
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-15-2013, 1:41 PM
ROrr ROrr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 303
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Anyone interested in a ar pistol kit?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:55 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.