Unassembled lowes and registration

[POLICESTATE]

What's the deal with currently owned, unassembled off-list lowers and registration if the current laws related to bb-equipped "assault weapons" passes?

[Cnynrat]

The way the current version of the law reads the requirements for registration are:

1. Center fire
2. Rifle
3. Semiautomatic
4. Magazine removable without disassembly of the action

Seems to me that there are a number of ways a stripped lower could be built that don't meet one or more of those requirements.

[glock_this]

Yeah, we can go back to the dreadful days of 2004 and 2005 when you had to have your mag pinned into the magwell (or epoxy) and had to top load. Ugh.

It would seem to me, any AR lower would have to be registered - built up or not - if not registered as a pistol lower. Becuase if it is not a pistol lower, it is 1, 2, 3, and 4 even just sitting there.

[jdouglas]

I could be entirely wrong, but I don't think a stripped AR lower is centerfire. It isn't a rifle either, and it certainly isn't semi automatic.

That said, they will probably ban hunks of metal anyway.

[Dutch3]

If I DROS'ed a stripped lower at the LGS, it would be written up as a "long gun" without any caliber, barrel length, etc....because it is just a lower.

How would this be registered? It might have a rimfire upper at this point, be a single-shot or not even be assembled. Would I be in trouble for not registering it, as it is an "evil black rifle" - even if not functional?

[jcwatchdog]

Originally Posted by glock_this

Yeah, we can go back to the dreadful days of 2004 and 2005 when you had to have your mag pinned into the magwell (or epoxy) and had to top load. Ugh.

It would seem to me, any AR lower would have to be registered - built up or not - if not registered as a pistol lower. Becuase if it is not a pistol lower, it is 1, 2, 3, and 4 even just sitting there.

Something is on it's way :-) it won't be that bad.I'm more worried about aks.

[cjc16]

I refuse to register anything so it wont matter to me. When I bought my guns I did it the perfectly legal way. I'll do nothing more.

[deebix]

Same here man. I laugh at all of these people worrying about registering anything. Am I condoning breaking the law? No one is forcing anybody to keep their guns here so technically speaking no im not condoning breaking of the law.

[Dutch3]

Originally Posted by deebix

Same here man. I laugh at all of these people worrying about registering anything.

Some people are asking hypothetical questions.

Do not confuse that with "worry".

[DFence]

Originally Posted by Dutch3

If I DROS'ed a stripped lower at the LGS, it would be written up as a "long gun" without any caliber, barrel length, etc....because it is just a lower.

How would this be registered? It might have a rimfire upper at this point, be a single-shot or not even be assembled. Would I be in trouble for not registering it, as it is an "evil black rifle" - even if not functional?

Currently, a stripped lower is sold as "other" not a long gun.

[2nd4ever]

Jcwatchdog, if you have a technology that's better than the abomination that's the AR-MR2 maglock, make every buyer sign a non-disclosure :-) Widely making it public just opens up the doors for revised legislation in 2014 :-)

[totus44]

Originally Posted by 2nd4ever

Jcwatchdog, if you have a technology that's better than the abomination that's the AR-MR2 maglock, make every buyer sign a non-disclosure :-) Widely making it public just opens up the doors for revised legislation in 2014 :-)

^^^^^This! Absolutely, NDA as a pre-condition to sale.

[POLICESTATE]

The reason I ask is a friend of mine has a stripped lower and was asking me what my opinion on it was. My stripped lower was built up a long time ago into a centerfire rifle with a bullet button.


They are concerned that the government may decide to close registration for BB-equipped centerfire rifles at some point. Kind of like how they are trying to cornhole us on our so-called high cap magazines now, or the 10/30 conversions for instance.

Of course I think they could always build a featureless but they may or may not want that. Who knows these days? Or in the days to come?

[Max Power!]

Unassembled lowes are tere hanges

[M. D. Van Norman]

I may buy a stripped lower in two weeks …



… assuming any are available by then.

[totus44]

Stripped AR15 and LR308, both serialized and 80% versions. Lots of building while the courts do their thing.

[Beelzy]

They will simply make it a felony to possess it and a felony if you build it into a firearm...give it time.

[SemperFi1775]

Originally Posted by POLICESTATE

What's the deal with currently owned, unassembled off-list lowers and registration if the current laws related to bb-equipped "assault weapons" passes?

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

The way the current version of the law reads the requirements for registration are:

1. Center fire
2. Rifle
3. Semiautomatic
4. Magazine removable without disassembly of the action

Seems to me that there are a number of ways a stripped lower could be built that don't meet one or more of those requirements.

does a completed or stripped lower by itself meets these new restrictions? NO

what's ATF definition of a rifle? The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/i...gca-rifle.html

[Anonymous Coward]

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

The way the current version of the law reads the requirements for registration are:

1. Center fire
2. Rifle
3. Semiautomatic
4. Magazine removable without disassembly of the action

Seems to me that there are a number of ways a stripped lower could be built that don't meet one or more of those requirements.

It all depends on how the registration is implemented this time around. See Bill Wiese's post how it was handled in the past: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...61&postcount=4

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward

It all depends on how the registration is implemented this time around. See Bill Wiese's post how it was handled in the past: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...61&postcount=4

Looking at Bill's post it seems there is a slightly different slant there, which is can you register an XYZ. I think you will be able to register a stripped lower, which should allow you to build it into a rifle that meets the new definition of an AW. OTOH, if you don't register the lower it seems it would limit your options for how you build it in the future.

That may make sense for some folks. For example, someone who plans to leave the state soon may have the option to keep a lower unregistered and unbuilt until they move.

[SemperFi1775]

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

Looking at Bill's post it seems there is a slightly different slant there, which is can you register an XYZ. I think you will be able to register a stripped lower, which should allow you to build it into a rifle that meets the new definition of an AW. OTOH, if you don't register the lower it seems it would limit your options for how you build it in the future.

That may make sense for some folks. For example, someone who plans to leave the state soon may have the option to keep a lower unregistered and unbuilt until they move.

where in the bill that references a lower as an aw???

are you encouraging people to manufacture aw after 12/31/13 if this bill passed?

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by SemperFi1775

where in the bill that references a lower as an aw???

I don't think I ever said it did, in fact:

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

The way the current version of the law reads the requirements for registration are:

1. Center fire
2. Rifle
3. Semiautomatic
4. Magazine removable without disassembly of the action

Seems to me that there are a number of ways a stripped lower could be built that don't meet one or more of those requirements.

Originally Posted by SemperFi1775

are you encouraging people to manufacture aw after 12/31/13 if this bill passed?

I'm not sure where you got that idea. See the bolded section of my quote below.

What I am suggesting is if you don't register a stripped lower you would not be able to build it into a firearm that had any of the characteristics of the new AW definition. So, you could build it into a rimfire for example, or a non-semiautomatic centerfire, but not into anything that met the new definition of an AW.

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

Looking at Bill's post it seems there is a slightly different slant there, which is can you register an XYZ. I think you will be able to register a stripped lower, which should allow you to build it into a rifle that meets the new definition of an AW. OTOH, if you don't register the lower it seems it would limit your options for how you build it in the future.

That may make sense for some folks. For example, someone who plans to leave the state soon may have the option to keep a lower unregistered and unbuilt until they move.

[SemperFi1775]

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

I don't think I ever said it did, in fact:

I'm not sure where you got that idea. See the bolded section of my quote below.

What I am suggesting is if you don't register a stripped lower you would not be able to build it into a firearm that had any of the characteristics of the new AW definition. So, you could build it into a rimfire for example, or a non-semiautomatic centerfire, but not into anything that met the new definition of an AW.

here's what s****berg defined as aw (rifle) in his bill:

SECTION 1. Section 30515 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, "assault weapon" also
means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed
magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length
of less than 30 inches.

and here's what he says about possession of such aw:

30902. (a) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31,
2013, inclusive, lawfully acquired an assault weapon that does not
have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, and including
those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed
readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, and who, on or after
January 1, 2014, lawfully possesses that firearm, shall register the
firearm by July 1, 2015, with the department pursuant to procedures
determined by the department.

how can someone register aw as defined on 1/1/14 if they didn't legally acquire it by 12/31/13??


let's not try to sugar coat or suggest workarounds, especially when it's not final....

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by SemperFi1775

how can someone register aw as defined on 1/1/14 if they didn't legally acquire it by 12/31/13??


let's not try to sugar coat or suggest workarounds, especially when it's not final....

Don't think I'm sugar coating or suggesting a work around. The reality is if the bill passes as written the only way to legally possess an AW per the new definition is to have bought it and registered it as such prior to the applicable deadlines.

IMO we're past the time when they can make changes to these bills since they're coming up against the deadline and the final versions need to get thru both houses.

[Germz]

"when the owl is out, field mice lay low"

put a nice silicone sock over your babies and have patiences. I'll be working on my handgun shooting until I PCS out of here.

[glock_this]

Originally Posted by jdouglas

I could be entirely wrong, but I don't think a stripped AR lower is centerfire. It isn't a rifle either, and it certainly isn't semi automatic.

That said, they will probably ban hunks of metal anyway.

If an AR lower is not registered as a pistol like I said, how could it not be a rifle? If it is not 1 it is the other and was registered is a long gun - a rifle.

And by default a CA legal AR is semiautomatic. Or are you trying to imply you "could" build it as a single shot & that is a loophole? Nevertheless it is a semiautomatic lower no?

And an AR lower is centerfire by default. Or are you saying you "could" build it up with a 22lr conversion and that is a loophole? Nevertheless it is a centerfire lower no?

[ke6guj]

Originally Posted by glock_this

If an AR lower is not registered as a pistol like I said, how could it not be a rifle? If it is not 1 it is the other and was registered is a long gun - a rifle.

when I have bought stripped lowers, they were never registered as a rifle. My 4473 states that it was an "other" and it is DROSed as a long gun. I see nothing in the PC or CCR that says that long gun equals rifle in the law.

If I buy a M2HB or M1919a4 and it is 4473'd as an other and DROSed as a long gun, it is not a rifle.

And by default a CA legal AR is semiautomatic. Or are you trying to imply you "could" build it as a single shot & that is a loophole? Nevertheless it is a semiautomatic lower no?

where is this "default" defined? It is a receiver, nothing more, nothing less, until it is assembled into a complete firearm.

And an AR lower is centerfire by default. Or are you saying you "could" build it up with a 22lr conversion and that is a loophole? Nevertheless it is a centerfire lower no?

again, where is this "default" defined? It is a receiver, nothing more, nothing less, until it is assembled into a complete firearm.

[RRangel]

Originally Posted by jdouglas

I could be entirely wrong, but I don't think a stripped AR lower is centerfire. It isn't a rifle either, and it certainly isn't semi automatic.

That said, they will probably ban hunks of metal anyway.

The Harrott v. County of Kings ruling seems to say otherwise. The very reason we can have lowers. Before this case in 2001 you couldn't transfer or posses even a stripped AR/AK lower. Today what's illegal has to be specific, as to make and model, features, etc.

[glock_this]

Originally Posted by ke6guj

when I have bought stripped lowers, they were never registered as a rifle. My 4473 states that it was an "other" and it is DROSed as a long gun. I see nothing in the PC or CCR that says that long gun equals rifle in the law.

If I buy a M2HB or M1919a4 and it is 4473'd as an other and DROSed as a long gun, it is not a rifle.


where is this "default" defined? It is a receiver, nothing more, nothing less, until it is assembled into a complete firearm.

again, where is this "default" defined? It is a receiver, nothing more, nothing less, until it is assembled into a complete firearm.

I guess it just seems to me your playing word games.

For the sake of argument, if your lower is stamped .223/5.56 and it is not registered as a pistol, what is it? That stamp alone says it is a centerfire intended receiver. That stamp alone says it is an intended rifle (since it was not registered as a pistol). And if it was sold in CA it would be a semiautomatic.

I think "default" in my posts becomes obvious what I mean and it becomes obvious what that receiver is. It is not an AR pistol so.... what else would/could it be built up into or its intended remaining purpose but an AR15 "rifle" ,223/5.56 stamp and thus "centerfire" and thus a semiautomatic?

Oh & I fully understand your "until assembled" comments BUT again in this clear example if it us not a pistol what more could it be "finally assembled" into but.... a centerfire semiautomatic rifle.

I'd say they ate going to need to be registered - sadly.

[Cnynrat]

Originally Posted by glock_this

For the sake of argument, if your lower is stamped .223/5.56 and it is not registered as a pistol, what is it? That stamp alone says it is a centerfire intended receiver. That stamp alone says it is an intended rifle (since it was not registered as a pistol). And if it was sold in CA it would be a semiautomatic.

I think "default" in my posts becomes obvious what I mean and it becomes obvious what that receiver is. It is not an AR pistol so.... what else would/could it be built up into or its intended remaining purpose but an AR15 "rifle" ,223/5.56 stamp and thus "centerfire" and thus a semiautomatic?

1. Many lowers are stamped "Multi-Cal." About 1/3 of my AR's/AR lowers are marked that way.

2. There is nothing to stop someone from putting a .22 cal upper on a lower stamped .223/5.56

3. There is nothing to stop someone from building a rifle that is not semi-automatic on a lower that is stamped .223/5.56.

[eville]

They have ARs at Lowes? I gotta stop wasting time at Home Depot.

[CSACANNONEER]

Originally Posted by glock_this

I guess it just seems to me your playing word games.

For the sake of argument, if your lower is stamped .223/5.56 and it is not registered as a pistol, what is it? That stamp alone says it is a centerfire intended receiver. That stamp alone says it is an intended rifle (since it was not registered as a pistol). And if it was sold in CA it would be a semiautomatic.

I think "default" in my posts becomes obvious what I mean and it becomes obvious what that receiver is. It is not an AR pistol so.... what else would/could it be built up into or its intended remaining purpose but an AR15 "rifle" ,223/5.56 stamp and thus "centerfire" and thus a semiautomatic?

Oh & I fully understand your "until assembled" comments BUT again in this clear example if it us not a pistol what more could it be "finally assembled" into but.... a centerfire semiautomatic rifle.

I'd say they ate going to need to be registered - sadly.

Who says a virgin lower stamped .223/5.56 was purchased with the intentions of using it as a .223/5.56 chambered semi auto rifle? I've bought lowers with the intention of making dedicated .22lr rifles and non semi auto centerfire rifles. The markings and this notion that "intent" are irrelevant. The law is pretty clear defining what is an AW.

[glock_this]

Originally Posted by Cnynrat

1. Many lowers are stamped "Multi-Cal." About 1/3 of my AR's/AR lowers are marked that way.

2. There is nothing to stop someone from putting a .22 cal upper on a lower stamped .223/5.56

3. There is nothing to stop someone from building a rifle that is not semi-automatic on a lower that is stamped .223/5.56.

1. We all know - and I presume the gov does as well - that "multi-cal" was just a sales tool & still implies a rifle & mostly centerfire unless you do the 22lr method. But also consider the 22lr method is still a drop in conversion of a semiautomatic centerfire lower.

2. Ahhh so you plan to play the loophole? Ok. Even if you put a 22lr on it it is a rifle & semiautomatic. Plus it is just a drop in conversion not an actual true 22lr lower.

3. What are you building a .223/5.56 AR lower that is not a semiautomatic? A single shot?

I see what the game is here but you willing to risk it on semantics & word games?

[glock_this]

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER

Who says a virgin lower stamped .223/5.56 was purchased with the intentions of using it as a .223/5.56 chambered semi auto rifle? I've bought lowers with the intention of making dedicated .22lr rifles and non semi auto centerfire rifles. The markings and this notion that "intent" are irrelevant. The law is pretty clear defining what is an AW.

But to make your 22lr out of said AR 223/556 lower all you did was convert it (magwell adaptor & drop in conversion in the upper or a 22lr upper) BUT is it still not, at its lowest common denominator an AR lower (not reg as a pistol)?

If your "intent" to make a 22lr is acceptable than how can the same "intent" not work in converse and your intentions are to make an AR centerfire semiautomatic rifle? Because ypu "said" you were not intending to? Think that would hold up in a legal fight?

Just playing devils advocate because the question was asked. This is how I see it but not trying to be confrontational and if I read something that converts me I'll gladly change my position.

[Lone_Gunman]

Originally Posted by glock_this

But to make your 22lr out of said AR 223/556 lower all you did was convert it (magwell adaptor & drop in conversion in the upper or a 22lr upper) BUT is it still not, at its lowest common denominator an AR lower (not reg as a pistol)?

If your "intent" to make a 22lr is acceptable than how can the same "intent" not work in converse and your intentions are to make an AR centerfire semiautomatic rifle? Because ypu "said" you were not intending to? Think that would hold up in a legal fight?

WTF are you trying to say? If I build a dedicated .22 AR it's exempt since its rimfire. It's not a "conversion" it's a freaking rimfire rifle. ARs are modular, they can be built into many many many configurations, including bolt actions.

[totus44]

Apparently someone hasn't seen BA uppers, they are very popular in the UK and other gun grabber Utopian states.

[BumBum]

Instead of talking about whether we would need to register it, I think the conversation, rather, should be that registering it would preserve your ability to keep the receiver in a AW configuration. But perhaps this should take place when, and if, the bills become law.

[M. D. Van Norman]

Precisely.

[ke6guj]

Originally Posted by glock_this

I guess it just seems to me your playing word games.

For the sake of argument, if your lower is stamped .223/5.56 and it is not registered as a pistol, what is it? That stamp alone says it is a centerfire intended receiver. That stamp alone says it is an intended rifle (since it was not registered as a pistol). And if it was sold in CA it would be a semiautomatic.

a manufacturer's markings on a lower that doesn't have a chamber regarding caliber don't "intend" anything as far as I am concerned. there are probably 50 different calibers that I could intend to build up that upper with, all the way from .17 rimfire to .510DTC,

I think "default" in my posts becomes obvious what I mean and it becomes obvious what that receiver is. It is not an AR pistol so.... what else would/could it be built up into or its intended remaining purpose but an AR15 "rifle" ,223/5.56 stamp and thus "centerfire" and thus a semiautomatic?

umm, there are single-shot uppers that one could intend to use on that lower, from blackpowder uppers, self-extracting single-shot .308 uppers, bolt-action .338 Lapua or .50BMG/DTC, and others.

here are even non-rifle uppers like .410 shotgun uppers or crossbow uppers.

Oh & I fully understand your "until assembled" comments BUT again in this clear example if it us not a pistol what more could it be "finally assembled" into but.... a centerfire semiautomatic rifle.

just because the majority of people might intend to use that lower to make a centerfire semiautomatic rifle that is subject to a ban doesn't mean that everyone is.

I'd say they ate going to need to be registered - sadly.

and you might be right about that, but we dont' know that at this time.

[OlderThanDirt]

Originally Posted by Lone_Gunman

WTF are you trying to say? If I build a dedicated .22 AR it's exempt since its rimfire. It's not a "conversion" it's a freaking rimfire rifle. ARs are modular, they can be built into many many many configurations, including bolt actions.

+1

I have numerous lowers that I have built into non-AW configurations ranging from .22LR semiautomatic to .416 Barrett bolt action. Given the modular characteristics of ARs, I've be marking each upper and lower to distinguish between AW and non-AW service. Also, for my .22LR rifles, I went with a purpose-built .22LR upper, so there is no "conversion" involved. Just slap the upper on and go.