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 > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-16-2019, 11:19 AM
Rough Gear Review's Avatar
Rough Gear Review Rough Gear Review is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 924
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default San Diego DOJ Office threatens man with surrender or jail for Legal AR Pistol.

One of our customers followed the law and self registered his self made 80% lower as a fixed magazine AR pistol. He did so prior to July 1st 2018.

The DOJ asked for photos of the gun and of course he complied and sent in the requested photos.

The DOJ, six of them from the San Diego office, went to his home to request to inspect the AR pistol. He was not home so his father took the business card and gave it to his son. He called and the DOJ asked if he would bring down the firearm so they could inspect it.

The next day he went to the San Diego DOJ office with his fixed mag AR pistol.He presented it with the upper and lower unattached just to be safe.

The DOJ agent informed him the gun was in violation. Giving him a paper with assault weapon regs and had highlighted the ones he was in violation of.

First: Rifle under 30" (not true since it was registered as a pistol)
Second: Handguard and flash hider on pistol (Now the agent is recognizing it as a pistol,but this doesn't apply since it's fixed mag)
Third: Fixed magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. (Okay, so now he recognizes it as a fixed magazine but this would not apply because it is a Comp Mag which only holds 10 rounds)
Lastly the DOJ agent says it is a unsafe handgun. ( Well he built it as an exempt bolt action and later converted it, DOJ would have to prove he did not.)

When none of the above works for the DOJ agent he tells my customer he is in violation because there was not a DOJ issued serial number engraved on the gun prior to January 1st 2015. 2015?

At this point my customer is worried because he has never heard anything about 2015. That's because no one has.

The San Diego DOJ agent tells him he has a choice... surrender the firearm or go to jail.

He of course is concerned,he has no idea if he has violated this mystery 2015 law and surrenders the firearm. Upper, lower, they take everything. Not to mention the firearm upper and lower were not attached and by DOJ's own rules would not have been a semi auto firearm or assault weapon.

The San Diego DOJ office used scare tactics and bullying to force my customer to surrender his legal firearm.

My customer now has an attorney and will be fighting to get his property back.
__________________
West Coast Weaponworks
Certified Cerakote & Engraving
07 FFL
4855 Ruffner St. Suite D
San Diego, CA 92111
619-251-1363
www.SanDiegoGunGraphics.com
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-16-2019, 11:36 AM
Stanze's Avatar
Stanze Stanze is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,222
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rough Gear Review View Post

My customer now has an attorney and will be fighting to get his property back.
It'd be cheaper to buy and PPT another AR pistol.

Getting an attorney also poses of the risk of charges being pressed and costing more money to fight the charge.

If the gun was legal and LEO confiscated it -- notice how they pressured owner to surrender rather than straight up confiscate it which is different, but same result.

DOJ may of been bluffing, but they have unlimited legal resources whereas the average citizen does not. Numbers game at that point. DOJ has edge for sure.

Unfortunate situation all around, however owner should be thankful to not be in jail.

It's just not worth it to spend the money on an attorney to petition a judge to release the firearm -- That's the only person with authority that can do it.

Or, to spend the money on an attorney to fight a potential charge when owner has option to steer clear of being FUBAR and losing gun rights for life.
__________________
Constitutionally, officials cannot license or register a fundamental right.

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." - Benjamin Franklin


Quote:
"Lifetime warranty and excellent customer service don't mean a thing when your gun fails during a zombie attack." -Stanze
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-16-2019, 11:43 AM
dscoduc's Avatar
dscoduc dscoduc is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 755
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Thanks for posting this information. Many people were trying to make heads or tails about this topic...
__________________
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." - Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:01 PM
truthseeker's Avatar
truthseeker truthseeker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,521
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

So I have a question.

Would your "customer" be in better, worse, or the same predicament had he called a lawyer BEFORE contacting the San Diego DOJ office?
__________________
http://calgunsfoundation.org/images/stories/CGF_gotSIGsm.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:08 PM
6TSicks's Avatar
6TSicks 6TSicks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Acton 93510
Posts: 225
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truthseeker View Post
So I have a question.

Would your "customer" be in better, worse, or the same predicament had he called a lawyer BEFORE contacting the San Diego DOJ office?
There it is
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:18 PM
phdo's Avatar
phdo phdo is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,595
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truthseeker View Post
So I have a question.

Would your "customer" be in better, worse, or the same predicament had he called a lawyer BEFORE contacting the San Diego DOJ office?


It’s quite obvious he would’ve been better off had he consulted a lawyer prior to making contact with CADOJ. Hell, I would’ve brought my lawyer to the office with me.
__________________
WTB:
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 19
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 66
4" Smith & Wesson Model 19
3.5" Smith & Wesson Model 29
Marlin 1894C
Colt Python
Colt Series 70
Sig Sauer P228
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:20 PM
Banksy Banksy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 25
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Just the NWO.

Move along citizen.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:36 PM
solidfreshdope solidfreshdope is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 641
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

That’s why I registered mine as an AW. “Let me see your gun.” “Sorry officer, I cannot transfer this to you legally.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
Welcome to the United Snakes.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:37 PM
pure3d2's Avatar
pure3d2 pure3d2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Pleasanton
Posts: 127
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Register your gun they said. It's good to be a law-abiding citizen, they said.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:47 PM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 4,502
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Best of luck to the OP's customer.

I hope this gets sorted out, firearm returned, and owner vindicated, in short order.

OP, when did this take place?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:49 PM
Scratch705's Avatar
Scratch705 Scratch705 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,901
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanze View Post

DOJ may of been bluffing, but they have unlimited legal resources whereas the average citizen does not. Numbers game at that point. DOJ has edge for sure.
they may have unlimited resources using our own tax money against us, but they have limited personnel.

they keep pushing and it won't be long before some fringe group will do some tree watering.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leelaw View Post
Because -ohmigosh- they can add their opinions, too?
Proof we can all comment on whatever we want if it's at all related to the topic at hand!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:50 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 12,199
iTrader: 135 / 100%
Default

Please keep us updated.

There is another recent thread here with a similar story http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1503302
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-16-2019, 12:54 PM
frankm's Avatar
frankm frankm is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Occupied Vespuchia
Posts: 10,257
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Obey the law, what can happen?
__________________
RKBA Clock: soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box (moved right 11/10/18, with Kavanaugh and Newsom we sit on the edge of a knife)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-16-2019, 1:17 PM
baranski's Avatar
baranski baranski is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: South Vista
Posts: 2,594
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Where the NRA now?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-16-2019, 1:20 PM
dscoduc's Avatar
dscoduc dscoduc is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 755
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rough Gear Review View Post
The San Diego DOJ office used scare tactics and bullying to force my customer to surrender his legal firearm.
Seems more like robbery than scare tactics... The guy clearly felt his freedom was at risk unless he handed over his legal property...
__________________
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." - Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-16-2019, 2:36 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,004
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Aaaaand this is why I registered my 80% stuff via snail mail in February 2018 (2 fixed mag AR Pistols, 1 featureless AR Rifle). All as semi-auto, no pictures, no feedback, just 3 letters four months later.

Seems to me if the DOJ wanted to arrest the guy on AW charges they would have had a warrant on the first visit and would have taken it then and arrested him later when he got home. They obviously weren't concerned enough about an unregistered AW being "on the streets" to get a warrant.

No warrant, no peekie.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-16-2019, 2:37 PM
Strykeback Strykeback is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,413
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've already let the wife know to not let anyone in and just pick up the business card after they leave if anyone comes sniffing for registerd 80% issues. She was not thrilled.

Hopefully some big players get involved if this guys case is all up and up before the DOJ gets even more greedy.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-16-2019, 3:16 PM
Snapplefacts Snapplefacts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: So Cal
Posts: 131
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pure3d2 View Post
Register your gun they said. It's good to be a law-abiding citizen, they said.
This. Why anyone registered anything blows my mind.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-16-2019, 3:43 PM
phdo's Avatar
phdo phdo is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,595
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapplefacts View Post
This. Why anyone registered anything blows my mind.


Because you have to register 80% per the new law. If you had DROSed regular lowers then all you had to do was make it featureless or go fixed mag. Most of us who wanted an AR pistol had to go the 80% route.
__________________
WTB:
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 19
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 66
4" Smith & Wesson Model 19
3.5" Smith & Wesson Model 29
Marlin 1894C
Colt Python
Colt Series 70
Sig Sauer P228
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-16-2019, 4:16 PM
Snapplefacts Snapplefacts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: So Cal
Posts: 131
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phdo View Post
Because you have to register 80% per the new law. If you had DROSed regular lowers then all you had to do was make it featureless or go fixed mag. Most of us who wanted an AR pistol had to go the 80% route.
I understand that, and everyone has to (and had to) make the decision for themselves what to do when it comes to "following the rules" in CA. Unfortunately, this gentleman followed those rules and still got screwed. What's worse, is that he isn't the first and will not be the last.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-16-2019, 4:20 PM
BONECUTTER BONECUTTER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,799
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rough Gear Review View Post
One of our customers followed the law and self registered his self made 80% lower as a fixed magazine AR pistol. He did so prior to July 1st 2018.
Sounds Good so far...

Quote:
The DOJ asked for photos of the gun and of course he complied and sent in the requested photos.
And then fails right here. Better response should of been no....sorry DOJ please cite the law that pictures are required for registration.

Quote:
The DOJ, six of them from the San Diego office, went to his home to request to inspect the AR pistol. He was not home so his father took the business card and gave it to his son. He called and the DOJ asked if he would bring down the firearm so they could inspect it.
Six agents don't show up to look at your firearm. That writing is clear as day on the wall. They got pictures and think there is something illegal on it.

Quote:
The next day he went to the San Diego DOJ office with his fixed mag AR pistol.He presented it with the upper and lower unattached just to be safe.
Without consulting an attorney before doing this is very questionable. I meet people everyday who's firearms are not compliant and they think they are.

Quote:
The DOJ agent informed him the gun was in violation. Giving him a paper with assault weapon regs and had highlighted the ones he was in violation of.
This is a good time to exercise that right to remain silent thing you see in movies. If someone in law enforcement is telling you they think you have an Assault Weapon...these are not petty charges.

Quote:
First: Rifle under 30" (not true since it was registered as a pistol)
Are we sure he didn't "accidentally" register it as a rifle?

Quote:
Second: Handguard and flash hider on pistol (Now the agent is recognizing it as a pistol,but this doesn't apply since it's fixed mag)
Are we sure its a fixed mag to DOJ scutiny?

Quote:
Third: Fixed magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. (Okay, so now he recognizes it as a fixed magazine but this would not apply because it is a Comp Mag which only holds 10 rounds)
We sure thats the picture he sent them or they understand its a 10 round magazine.

Quote:
Lastly the DOJ agent says it is a unsafe handgun. ( Well he built it as an exempt bolt action and later converted it, DOJ would have to prove he did not.)
DOJ has hinted that making this semi auto could be construed as manufacturing even if originally made bolt action single shot. Hard to convince a judge/jury that you followed the law and made something legal but later made it unsafe but its cool cause you had it legal for 4 seconds at one time.

Quote:
When none of the above works for the DOJ agent he tells my customer he is in violation because there was not a DOJ issued serial number engraved on the gun prior to January 1st 2015. 2015?
This is where my Lawyer who would be there with me if I was stupid enough to fall into this trap would ask for the Relevant PC code that applies.

Quote:
The San Diego DOJ agent tells him he has a choice... surrender the firearm or go to jail.
My Lawyer would not let me make such a decision.

Quote:
My customer now has an attorney and will be fighting to get his property back.
I really hope it all works out for him ....but man....so much wrong is this story..... this is hard to read.

Don't talk to the police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-16-2019, 5:31 PM
troyPhD troyPhD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 179
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Two possibilities off the top of my head:

1) No DOJ-assigned serial. Would look something like "FMBUSxxxx" which is the template DOJ uses.
2) Entered on his application that he converted the pistol to semi-auto on/after Jan 1, 2015. The single-shot exemption was eliminated under AB 1964.

https://www.guns.com/news/2014/07/19...gun-exemptions
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-16-2019, 5:51 PM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,836
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

It doesn’t matter what the law is. He’s in violation because he is. Period. Peasants don’t get to ask. Only obey.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-16-2019, 6:16 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,712
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My rebellion meter is pegged.
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-16-2019, 6:30 PM
Strykeback Strykeback is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,413
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyPhD View Post
Two possibilities off the top of my head:



1) No DOJ-assigned serial. Would look something like "FMBUSxxxx" which is the template DOJ uses.

2) Entered on his application that he converted the pistol to semi-auto on/after Jan 1, 2015. The single-shot exemption was eliminated under AB 1964.



https://www.guns.com/news/2014/07/19...gun-exemptions
I've seen people siting multiple different years for the date that conversion from single shot to semi auto so a lot of people are either confused or a lot of people are screwed.

Somewhere he posts that he brings it in 2 separate pieces. That right there means it's not a firearm perse. Or the favorite argument on here that a fixed mag not locked into the receiver at all times makes it a AW. So much **** going on here.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-16-2019, 6:40 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 12,040
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baranski View Post
Where the NRA now?

They are probably doing what they are supposed to do.
I wasn't aware that sending in $40 a year membership fee to the NRA equated to an agreement to provide a on call legal defense.
If you know of any organization that will provide you a on call legal defense for $40 a year, please post the information here. I am sure that there are lots of people that would want to sign up.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by carlosdanger aka RozaShanina View Post
Weiner is in jail for doing much less than Kavanaugh or your Dear Leader Trump have done and they are walking around free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom2a View Post
Anything to protect Cheeto. Even though he just signed basically a gun confiscation order.
ORANGE MAN BAD

NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by TRICKSTER; 01-16-2019 at 6:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-16-2019, 7:09 PM
Dirk Tungsten's Avatar
Dirk Tungsten Dirk Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the basement
Posts: 1,155
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Nevermind. Reading is fundamental.

Last edited by Dirk Tungsten; 01-16-2019 at 7:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-16-2019, 7:47 PM
dayz2men dayz2men is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 37
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I submitted a Firearms Ownership Report on an 80% firearm as a 'Frame Only' handgun previous to 7/1/18. Received an email that my 'application' was 'incomplete' with a question to 'verify if the firearm was frame only' and it included a request for pictures. I verified that the information I submitted was indeed correct the first time and asked why they are verifying this information on a report that is not subject to approval or denial. I received a snail mail approval letter a few days later.

It appears the CA DOJ officers are marking any Firearms Ownership Reports that involves an 80% handgun as 'incomplete' and sending similar emails. Are they allowed to refuse or declare incomplete a report that was submitted with all required fields completed? It is incompetence at best (do your job and file the ****ing report), and an active attempt to get pictures and possibly entrap law-abiding citizens at worst.

Last edited by dayz2men; 01-16-2019 at 7:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-16-2019, 8:13 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 721
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dayz2men View Post
an active attempt to get pictures and possibly entrap law-abiding citizens
This
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-16-2019, 8:23 PM
Springfield45's Avatar
Springfield45 Springfield45 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,265
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baranski View Post
Where the NRA now?
You do realize that the NRA is not as powerful as the media makes out? They can not just march in and solve all government oversteps in a matter of minutes. The NRA is just a shooting club with lawyers were as the DOJ can write blank checks paid for by California's tax payers.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-16-2019, 8:27 PM
sbo80's Avatar
sbo80 sbo80 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 614
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dayz2men View Post
It appears the CA DOJ officers are marking any Firearms Ownership Reports that involves an 80% handgun as 'incomplete' and sending similar emails.
my 80% AR pistol volreg application was approved with no questions and no request for pictures. Sent in last March, approved December. Of course the lesson learned here now, is don't go visit any DOJ without a lawyer present.

Last edited by sbo80; 01-16-2019 at 8:28 PM.. Reason: .
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-16-2019, 8:29 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 12,199
iTrader: 135 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbo80 View Post
my 80% AR pistol volreg application was approved with no questions and no request for pictures. Sent in last March, approved December. Of course the lesson learned here now, is don't go visit any DOJ without a lawyer present.
Did you register semi auto or single shot? Did you register by mail or online?
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-16-2019, 9:03 PM
troyPhD troyPhD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 179
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strykeback View Post
I've seen people siting multiple different years for the date that conversion from single shot to semi auto so a lot of people are either confused or a lot of people are screwed.

Somewhere he posts that he brings it in 2 separate pieces. That right there means it's not a firearm perse. Or the favorite argument on here that a fixed mag not locked into the receiver at all times makes it a AW. So much **** going on here.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Since it's unknown whether it's legal to convert a pistol to semi-auto under SSE2 (starting Jan 1, 2015), many people backdated their conversions on their BBAW applications to before that day and successfully registered.

Even if OP brought the firearm in two pieces, the photos in his BBAW application are all the evidence DOJ needs.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-16-2019, 9:11 PM
jeremiah12 jeremiah12 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,573
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Converting from single shot to semi-auto has always been a questionable practice. Under SSE 1.0, few guns were sold at first under that exemption and it took many years for for the number of FFLs willing to sell using it to reach a significant number. By then, the DOJ had waited too long to effectively challenge conversion from single shot to semi-auto.

When the law changed to SSE 2.0, the wording of the law changed enough that a reasonable argument could be made that after building as a single shot if one changed to a semi-auto the DOJ would consider that part of the manufacturing process and it would take a court case to resolve the issue.

The DOJ has been signaling their intent. One of the Franklin Armory's AR single shot pistols that the DOJ specifically ruled could not be sold in CA shipped with all the parts to make it a semi-auto minus the magazine. Five minutes of work and add a mag and it was a semi-auto.

I consulted with an attorney about doing an 80% polymer Glock build and he said to leave it as a bolt action until after a test case made it through the court system unless I had deep pockets and wanted to risk my future gun rights.

Personally, if I were registering a build, I would submit the information and then store the gun out of state until it was approved. It they wanted to see it, they can make the trip out of state to see it. That way, if there is a problem, I can fix it without them wanting to confiscate it.
__________________
Anyone can look around and see the damage to the state and country inflicted by bad politicians.

A vote is clearly much more dangerous than a gun.

Why advocate restrictions on one right (voting) without comparable restrictions on another (self defense) (or, why not say 'Be a U.S. citizen' as the requirement for CCW)?

--Librarian
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-16-2019, 9:36 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,310
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
My rebellion meter is pegged.
Lead the way!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-16-2019, 9:40 PM
21guns's Avatar
21guns 21guns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 401
iTrader: 79 / 100%
Default

Pictures were not required to self register ANY HANDGUN. That was for BBAW.
Off the unrealible second hand information I could only guess the OP’s customer attempted to register a handgun through the BBAW registration.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-16-2019, 9:42 PM
paddyraid's Avatar
paddyraid paddyraid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 157
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapplefacts View Post
This. Why anyone registered anything blows my mind.

^^^^^^^
THIS TO THE nTh POWER!!!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-16-2019, 10:11 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,004
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troyPhD View Post
Since it's unknown whether it's legal to convert a pistol to semi-auto under SSE2 (starting Jan 1, 2015), many people backdated their conversions on their BBAW applications to before that day and successfully registered.
Sorry to burst your bubble but there was never any place on the BBAW application, nor is there on the volreg application to specify a date for conversion to semi-auto. The only date that could have been entered was date of acquisition or in the case of an 80% the date of manufacture.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-16-2019, 10:33 PM
troyPhD troyPhD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 179
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
Sorry to burst your bubble but there was never any place on the BBAW application, nor is there on the volreg application to specify a date for conversion to semi-auto. The only date that could have been entered was date of acquisition or in the case of an 80% the date of manufacture.
So if the applicant manufactured a semi-auto BBAW pistol in 2016 that may have been the violation. Just speculating.

All I know is people who made BBAW pistols from 80% backdated (or legitimately did) the manufacture before 2015 and now have gotten their registration papers.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-16-2019, 10:42 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,785
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 21guns View Post
Pictures were not required to self register ANY HANDGUN. That was for BBAW.
Off the unrealible second hand information I could only guess the OP’s customer attempted to register a handgun through the BBAW registration.
Exactly this. He's screwed, not because he is a criminal, but because the contorted mess of laws are impossible for an average person to navigate. The DoJ knows this. It pleases them.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
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 1:36 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.