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 > California handguns
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California handguns Discuss your favorite California handgun technical and related questions here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-22-2018, 7:15 AM
hasty hasty is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Sac
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Building an AR Pistol by the Letter of the Law

I've read the sticky thread and a dozen other 80% lower threads (most before the new legislation in July) and some legalese, but I'm still left with questions.

This is my first ever build, like Legos for adults, and I'm excited. Above all else, I want to obey the law. Everything I build is after the new July 2018 legislation, but before January 2019 (if that matters).

1. I plan to request a unique serial through CFARS for an AR Pistol build in 5.56.
2. I will then order an 80% Lower with that CADOJ serial number engraved.
3. I will also order any lower kit (appears to be no regulations on this).
4. I will then order a custom 7.5" AR Pistol Upper. As I understand it,
- The barrel MUST be longer than 6"
- It must be sold as a pistol barrel (never fired from a rifle)
- It must have a brace, not a collapsible stock

My biggest questions are - does it have to be a single shot? Can I convert it later to semi auto?

Thanks - and sorry for rehashing this topic. I did my due diligence, but damned if this isn't confusing.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-22-2018, 7:38 AM
Old Marine Old Marine is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 312
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Subd
Cause inquiring minds want to know...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-22-2018, 7:57 AM
samrob77's Avatar
samrob77 samrob77 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 1,232
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-22-2018, 8:15 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,293
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

If built in california, it must first be built as a single shot pistol. Whether a single shot can be converted to semi auto, or whether you can just put a normal semi auto upper out of state where the unsafe handgun law doesn't apply and then bring it back are items of some controversy but nobody has shown how they are illegal.

Regardless, you must have a fixed mag at all times or it'll be an assault pistol, which is way more serious than violation of the unsafe handgun law.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-22-2018, 8:58 AM
KT_SF KT_SF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: between SJC and SFO
Posts: 162
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
If built in california, it must first be built as a single shot pistol. Whether a single shot can be converted to semi auto, or whether you can just put a normal semi auto upper out of state where the unsafe handgun law doesn't apply and then bring it back are items of some controversy but nobody has shown how they are illegal.

Regardless, you must have a fixed mag at all times or it'll be an assault pistol, which is way more serious than violation of the unsafe handgun law.
Yeah, AR Pistols now have to deal with at least three different CA laws, each of which can get a law-abiding gun-owner into trouble:
* the AW ban (since the AW registration window has already closed; and AR pistols cannot be made featureless);
* the unsafe handguns restrictions (made worse by the tightened definition of what constitutes "manufacturing" after 2016, which may make conversion of a single-shot AR pistol to semi-auto illegal - won't know until a test case goes before a liberal/progressive CA jury);
* and the latest laws requiring marking/registration of "homebuilt" 80% lowers (even for non-AW firearms).

That's why many folks rushed to get their AR pistols done and documented (VolReg and/or AW registration) back before 2017. IMHO, trying to make a new AR pistol isn't worth the hassle and uncertainty in 2018.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-22-2018, 9:10 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,293
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KT_SF View Post
, (made worse by the tightened definition of what constitutes "manufacturing" after 2016, which may make conversion of a single-shot AR pistol to semi-auto illegal
.
Please explain this. I recall seeing this before and that it didn't make sense in this context upon scrutiny.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-22-2018, 9:11 AM
Skip_Dog's Avatar
Skip_Dog Skip_Dog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 1,120
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

OP, I wish you luck. Unfortunately I think the above post is on point. Too much can go wrong (even if you follow the laws exactly as written). I would not want to be the test case for this one.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-22-2018, 9:56 AM
KT_SF KT_SF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: between SJC and SFO
Posts: 162
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Please explain this.
Rick would know the exact penal code(s) involved, since he posted previously on this issue; but in a nutshell, CA tightened the definition of "manufacturing" after 2016, such that conversion of an exempt SSE2 handgun (single-shot) to an "unsafe" handgun (semi-auto) could now be considered as illegal manufacturing after 2016 ... that's why Quiet's sticky now indicates that this is a legally grey-area:

"Third issue... (conversion from exempt handgun to unsafe handgun) ...

It is unknown... if this is CA DOJ allowing conversion of an exempt handgun into a non-exempt handgun configuration or if this is a trap, design to get people to incriminate themselves by providing proof of making an unsafe handgun. {lawyers need to go over this}"

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1311906
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-22-2018, 10:48 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,293
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KT_SF View Post
Rick would know the exact penal code(s) involved, since he posted previously on this issue; but in a nutshell, CA tightened the definition of "manufacturing" after 2016, such that conversion of an exempt SSE2 handgun (single-shot) to an "unsafe" handgun (semi-auto) could now be considered as illegal manufacturing after 2016 ... that's why Quiet's sticky now indicates that this is a legally grey-area:

"Third issue... (conversion from exempt handgun to unsafe handgun) ...

It is unknown... if this is CA DOJ allowing conversion of an exempt handgun into a non-exempt handgun configuration or if this is a trap, design to get people to incriminate themselves by providing proof of making an unsafe handgun. {lawyers need to go over this}"

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1311906

Quiet regularly posts something like:

Quote:
Because "manufacturing" is now legally defined as: [PC 29180(a)]
A. Fabricating or constructing a firearm.
B. Fitting together parts to construct a firearm.

It can now be argued that converting the firearm from single-shot to semi-auto, is making a new firearm.

{wait and see mode, while lawyers do battle}



Penal Code 29180
(a) For purposes of this chapter, “manufacturing” or “assembling” a firearm means to fabricate or construct a firearm, or to fit together the component parts of a firearm to construct a firearm.
With all due respect to Quiet, who has a thorough knowledge of California gun laws, this is a bizarre interpretation.

1. 29180 is the "ghost gun law" that requires you to use DOJ-provided markings on a self-built firearm.
2. Under Quiet's interpretation that adding a gas tube to an AR pistol (thereby converting it from single-shot to semi-auto) is "'Fabricating or constructing a firearm' or 'Fitting together parts to construct a firearm," then anybody who builds a normal featureless AR rifle (16" barrel, fixed stock) from a stripped, FFL-bought lower is "manufacturing" and must therefore apply for and engrave new DOJ provided markings on a rifle that has already been marked.
3. If no. 2 is indeed true (building a normal featureless AR requires going through the USNA process), then I suppose there is at least logical consistency to the notion. But I have not seen ANYBODY suggest that building a normal featureless AR rifle from a FFL-purchased stripped lower is somehow manufacturing that requires going through the USNA process.

Finally, violation of 29180 is a non-prohibiting misdemeanor, highly unlikely to be an enforcement priority, poses serious legal challenges to the prosecution due to the vagueness and mental gymnastics necessary to get to the conclusion that adding a gas tube to a registered single-shot AR pistol creates a whole new firearm, and somewhat difficult to prove factually if you exercise your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. If you look at what cases are actually brought and prosecuted in California, it's felonies like unregistered assault weapons/machine guns/SBR/SBS, felons/druggies in possession, brandishing, unlawful carry--things that are pretty black and white. This is not the kind of case that is brought.

inb4 the inevitable "you be the test case" response.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-22-2018, 10:49 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,731
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Please explain this. I recall seeing this before and that it didn't make sense in this context upon scrutiny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KT_SF View Post
Rick would know the exact penal code(s) involved, since he posted previously on this issue; but in a nutshell, CA tightened the definition of "manufacturing" after 2016, such that conversion of an exempt SSE2 handgun (single-shot) to an "unsafe" handgun (semi-auto) could now be considered as illegal manufacturing after 2016 ... that's why Quiet's sticky now indicates that this is a legally grey-area:

"Third issue... (conversion from exempt handgun to unsafe handgun) ...

It is unknown... if this is CA DOJ allowing conversion of an exempt handgun into a non-exempt handgun configuration or if this is a trap, design to get people to incriminate themselves by providing proof of making an unsafe handgun. {lawyers need to go over this}"

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1311906
Check out AB 857. That's where the issue arose.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-22-2018, 10:57 AM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 11,190
iTrader: 85 / 100%
Default

It must never have been test fired on rifle lower correct.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-22-2018, 11:11 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,293
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edgerly779 View Post
It must never have been test fired on rifle lower correct.
Correct.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:12 PM
BarrettM99's Avatar
BarrettM99 BarrettM99 is offline
Gravity Sucks
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: OnUr6
Posts: 2,181
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Too much trouble to build/assemble anymore. I love this state but hate it’s gun laws and its kumbaya attitude.
__________________

RIP SGT Mark Allen RLTW! I love you brother. ‘Til Valhall’...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-22-2018, 10:58 PM
igs igs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Quiet regularly posts something like:



With all due respect to Quiet, who has a thorough knowledge of California gun laws, this is a bizarre interpretation.

1. 29180 is the "ghost gun law" that requires you to use DOJ-provided markings on a self-built firearm.
2. Under Quiet's interpretation that adding a gas tube to an AR pistol (thereby converting it from single-shot to semi-auto) is "'Fabricating or constructing a firearm' or 'Fitting together parts to construct a firearm," then anybody who builds a normal featureless AR rifle (16" barrel, fixed stock) from a stripped, FFL-bought lower is "manufacturing" and must therefore apply for and engrave new DOJ provided markings on a rifle that has already been marked.
3. If no. 2 is indeed true (building a normal featureless AR requires going through the USNA process), then I suppose there is at least logical consistency to the notion. But I have not seen ANYBODY suggest that building a normal featureless AR rifle from a FFL-purchased stripped lower is somehow manufacturing that requires going through the USNA process.

Finally, violation of 29180 is a non-prohibiting misdemeanor, highly unlikely to be an enforcement priority, poses serious legal challenges to the prosecution due to the vagueness and mental gymnastics necessary to get to the conclusion that adding a gas tube to a registered single-shot AR pistol creates a whole new firearm, and somewhat difficult to prove factually if you exercise your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. If you look at what cases are actually brought and prosecuted in California, it's felonies like unregistered assault weapons/machine guns/SBR/SBS, felons/druggies in possession, brandishing, unlawful carry--things that are pretty black and white. This is not the kind of case that is brought.

inb4 the inevitable "you be the test case" response.
Quiet is confused. Manufacturing was not redefined, not sure how many times this fake news has been regurgitated on the internet. PC29180 adds assembling to manufacturing in its scope. Assembling only applies to PC29180. Again, only "for the purposes of this chapter".
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-22-2018, 11:46 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,731
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by igs View Post
Quiet is confused. Manufacturing was not redefined, not sure how many times this fake news has been regurgitated on the internet. PC29180 adds assembling to manufacturing in its scope. Assembling only applies to PC29180. Again, only "for the purposes of this chapter".
"Quiet" is not confused, nor is this "fake news."

You are correct that PC section 29180 does contain the specific language "for the purposes of this chapter" (where the chapter addresses the subject of initial serial number issuance by the DOJ).

What you seem to be missing is that the term "Manufacture" is not defined elsewhere in the Penal Code. The risk that many of us have cautioned against, and what you seem to be missing, is that a California court, when confronted with an undefined term, has the ability to select a definition for the term. They often do so according to the common meaning of the term, or to its use elsewhere in the code. That's the danger here. There is some precedent for the expanded view of "Manufacturing." The DOJ seems to have taken that position in the AW regs to reach the conclusion that a "Bullet Button" cannot be lawfully removed from a BBAW because that would render the weapon a different from the one that was registered. You get to that conclusion because the "New" (and unregistered AW) was "Manufactured" from the "old" (and registered AW) by virtue of removing the Bullet Button.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.

Last edited by RickD427; 10-22-2018 at 11:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-23-2018, 8:17 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 987
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

See above

Hence the need of a "test case" to define the terms.

Many are interpreting the "wordings" very very conservatively leaning towards what the worst outcome can be. It is not a bad position as the consequence is severe.

Other interpret the law more optimistically since on surface, the wording indicates less of an issue.

Some believe DA will (and likely) use the definition from other PC wording to convict, other believes "for the purpose of this chapter" will provide the defense for such strategy.

Some interpret "different" as in "new" and "manufactured" so no longer registered. Other can read it as "different" (like changing its color would make it different) but not new and still registered.

Without a court case, it is all speculations. But again for most, we'll stay on the conservative side as cost & benefit is just not there.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-23-2018, 11:10 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,731
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walmart_ar15 View Post
See above

Hence the need of a "test case" to define the terms.

Many are interpreting the "wordings" very very conservatively leaning towards what the worst outcome can be. It is not a bad position as the consequence is severe.

Other interpret the law more optimistically since on surface, the wording indicates less of an issue.

Some believe DA will (and likely) use the definition from other PC wording to convict, other believes "for the purpose of this chapter" will provide the defense for such strategy.

Some interpret "different" as in "new" and "manufactured" so no longer registered. Other can read it as "different" (like changing its color would make it different) but not new and still registered.

Without a court case, it is all speculations. But again for most, we'll stay on the conservative side as cost & benefit is just not there.
A pretty good summary above.

The only difference that I would point out is that PC 29180 tells us specifically what "manufacturing" means, but only for the purposes of initial serial number issuance. The problem is that we currently have nothing that tells us what "manufacturing" means when it comes to the crime of Manufacturing and Assault Weapon, or many of the other places where that word is used in the Penal Code. It's wide open for a court to define the term in case law, and PC 29180 would be the logical starting place.

If AB 857 were implemented in a politically neutral manner, there wouldn't be much cause for concern. But the enforcement of firearms laws, and the political agendas involved, have been influenced quite heavily by political agenda and have not been neutrally enforced. People v Nguyen relating to the constructive possession of an Assault Weapon being a good example. The exemption of the AW registration regulations from compliance with California's Administrative Procedures Act being another.

We've already seem an effort by DOJ to adopt the "mixing of parts is manufacturing a new weapon" argument within the BBAW regs. That's a first step and arguing the same in a Manufacturing of an Assault Weapon case is a logical second step.

In my response to "IGS"s posting, I commented that he correctly noted the scope limitation of PC section 29180. He very clearly saw the "tree", but was completely missed the "forest" lying just beyond it.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-23-2018, 1:44 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,293
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walmart_ar15 View Post
See above

Hence the need of a "test case" to define the terms.

Many are interpreting the "wordings" very very conservatively leaning towards what the worst outcome can be. It is not a bad position as the consequence is severe.

Other interpret the law more optimistically since on surface, the wording indicates less of an issue.

Some believe DA will (and likely) use the definition from other PC wording to convict, other believes "for the purpose of this chapter" will provide the defense for such strategy.

Some interpret "different" as in "new" and "manufactured" so no longer registered. Other can read it as "different" (like changing its color would make it different) but not new and still registered.

Without a court case, it is all speculations. But again for most, we'll stay on the conservative side as cost & benefit is just not there.
The consequences (see PC 29180) are potentially a year in jail and a $1000 fine (no firearms disqualification as it is a non-prohibiting misdemeanor.) Same with 32000(a) (the unsafe handgun law) prohibiting manufacture, if you buy RickD's theory (I know it's not his theory, but one that he is positing as a cause for concern) that the definition of manufacture in 29180 can be applied to other statutes, such as 32000(a). Of course, this is mitigated by the fact that first-offense non-violent misdemeanors are rarely punished with jail time.

(RickD is also talking about manufacturing an assault weapon. That certainly carries far more serious consequences. But a AR pistol with a fixed mag is not an assault weapon.)

What advocates of an extremely cautious conservative approach to these misdemeanor regulatory gun statutes rarely address is how often do they see generally law-abiding people get prosecuted for non-felony, non-violent gun crimes.

I've looked for news articles, appellate decisions, DA's press releases and couldn't find much. People v. Nguyen, for example, involved a felon/prohibited person, and involved (under the state's theory, which prevailed) a felony.

Is anybody, for example, aware of a person who has been prosecuted for importation or purchase of a high-cap magazine? That law has been on the book for close to two decades now--surely, we'd see some prosecutions, right? And importation/purchase is a wobbler--so more serious and presumably a higher enforcement priority than 29180.

I'm not encouraging anybody to add a gas tube to their single-shot AR pistol or not to do it. Instead, my point is three-fold: First, it would be highly unexpected if there was a prosecution for violation of 29180 for adding a gas tube to a legal and registered AR pistol, and even more unexpected if it was for a non-prohibited person. Second, it would be both a significant factual AND legal challenge for prosecutors to establish their case. Third, even if all these contingencies occur, it's a non-violent, non-prohibiting misdemeanor that is unlikely to carry any jail time.

I know RickD is in law enforcement, so I'm very interested if his experience suggests that my premises here are wrong.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-23-2018, 10:03 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,731
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
The consequences (see PC 29180) are potentially a year in jail and a $1000 fine (no firearms disqualification as it is a non-prohibiting misdemeanor.) Same with 32000(a) (the unsafe handgun law) prohibiting manufacture, if you buy RickD's theory (I know it's not his theory, but one that he is positing as a cause for concern) that the definition of manufacture in 29180 can be applied to other statutes, such as 32000(a). Of course, this is mitigated by the fact that first-offense non-violent misdemeanors are rarely punished with jail time.

(RickD is also talking about manufacturing an assault weapon. That certainly carries far more serious consequences. But a AR pistol with a fixed mag is not an assault weapon.)

What advocates of an extremely cautious conservative approach to these misdemeanor regulatory gun statutes rarely address is how often do they see generally law-abiding people get prosecuted for non-felony, non-violent gun crimes.

I've looked for news articles, appellate decisions, DA's press releases and couldn't find much. People v. Nguyen, for example, involved a felon/prohibited person, and involved (under the state's theory, which prevailed) a felony.

Is anybody, for example, aware of a person who has been prosecuted for importation or purchase of a high-cap magazine? That law has been on the book for close to two decades now--surely, we'd see some prosecutions, right? And importation/purchase is a wobbler--so more serious and presumably a higher enforcement priority than 29180.

I'm not encouraging anybody to add a gas tube to their single-shot AR pistol or not to do it. Instead, my point is three-fold: First, it would be highly unexpected if there was a prosecution for violation of 29180 for adding a gas tube to a legal and registered AR pistol, and even more unexpected if it was for a non-prohibited person. Second, it would be both a significant factual AND legal challenge for prosecutors to establish their case. Third, even if all these contingencies occur, it's a non-violent, non-prohibiting misdemeanor that is unlikely to carry any jail time.

I know RickD is in law enforcement, so I'm very interested if his experience suggests that my premises here are wrong.
I wouldn't say that your premises are definitely wrong, but I do have a different take on a lot of what you have posted.

First off, it's important to understand the perspective from which I write. I'm a retired LEO with 37 total years in. I've done time on the line, as a supervisor and in management. That causes me to take a conservative view of the law. I definitely do not subscribe to the "it's legal if you don't get caught" school of thought. At the same time, I do recognize that it's quite unlikely for a lot of folks to go to jail over the offenses that we discuss here. But some do and that makes the discussion worthwhile.

It's also important to recognize that political agendas have played a part in the shaping of firearms case law and in the enforcement practices of various LE agencies.

I don't see that there is any organized effort to arrest, or criminally prosecute folks for violation of borderline offenses. But there is an effort to shape the case law in a way the reduces the number of perceived "evil" weapons that are in circulation. There's also an effort to close various loopholes that have allowed folks to circumvent laws that were enacted to limit the number of "evil" weapons. The SSE and Bullet Button are two good examples.

In other threads, I've laid out the rationale for LE agencies to use the civil courts as their first tactic in shaping the case law. By seizing weapons and then forcing the owner to sue for their return, the agency can shift the burden of proof to the owner to prove the weapon is legal. If LE did the same in a criminal trial, the burden would be on the people, and they would have to meet a much higher evidentiary standard ("Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" instead of "Preponderance of the Evidence). The second tactic would be criminal prosecution of an appropriate test case. The idea isn't to put a bunch of folks in jail, but rather to achieve a published decision that settles currently ambiguous law. Look for the test case to be carefully selected. It only takes one.

The two avenues that seem to be getting the most attention as sources of "evil" guns on the street, at present, are the 80% builds (Ghost Guns) and "non-evil" guns that are modified into "evil" ones. We've already seen legislative action to address the 80% builds in AB 857. The Seventh Circuit, in the case of Broughman v Carver, held that the making if significant changes to an existing firearm amounted to "manufacturing." For the first time a federal court has held that you can "make" a new firearm from an existing firearm. Broughman isn't binding in California, but the legislature did adopt Broughman's view of manufacturing into PC 29180. Many folks have correctly pointed out that the new definition only applies to the initial issuance of DOJ serial numbers, but the term is undefined with regard to PC 32000 and 30600. Because of this, a court is free to define the term as a matter of case law. It's pretty much a given that a California court would embrace the 29180 definition. That would settle an area that has frustrated DOJ for some time. For that reason, I really see this being the sought-after criminal test case.

As to your other points:

1) PC 29180 and PC 32000 are both misdemeanors, as you have correctly pointed out. I don't see much interest in criminal prosecution here. There is interest in settling the issue of self-built semi autos, but it much more advantageous to simply seize them as being the product of an illegal build, and then wait for an owner to sue for the weapon's return. The "Grand Prize" would really be a test case for 30600 PC where a subject has manufactured a new Assault Weapon. Given what I read as "test language" in the regs, an ideal test case would be someone who got caught removing a bullet button.

2) The Nguyen case was prosecuted by the Orange County D.A.. I don't see it as being part of a DOJ strategy. Nguyen was a prohibited person and a general knucklehead. Both factors made it easier to prosecute him. But now that his appeal has been published, the Nguyen case now makes it possible to prosecute a squeaky clean "Eagle Scout" for the same thing.

3) There have been several arrests for large-capacity magazine. A lot have been reported on this forum. There is no information service that tracks the outcomes of trial cases. I haven't seen any of them result in published appellate decisions.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-24-2018, 7:49 AM
hasty hasty is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Sac
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can't thank you all enough for these thoughtful replies. Wow. I am reading and re-reading your comments to help inform/weigh my upcoming decision.

You guys are the best....
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-24-2018, 9:47 PM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 752
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Don’t forget about the option to PPT an AR pistol that has a post-2017 fixed magazine. Expensive but less risky.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-24-2018, 9:55 PM
alexisjohnson alexisjohnson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 629
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Step 1: Move out of California
Step 2: Build the damn thing however you like
Step 3: Go shoot it and enjoy life...


If you can't do Step 1, then:

Step 1a: Practice wearing metal bracelets...

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-25-2018, 6:58 AM
BarrettM99's Avatar
BarrettM99 BarrettM99 is offline
Gravity Sucks
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: OnUr6
Posts: 2,181
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milsurp1 View Post
Don’t forget about the option to PPT an AR pistol that has a post-2017 fixed magazine. Expensive but less risky.
This would be a good way to go if you have the coin.
__________________

RIP SGT Mark Allen RLTW! I love you brother. ‘Til Valhall’...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-25-2018, 7:54 AM
BrokerB's Avatar
BrokerB BrokerB is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Folsom , outside the walls
Posts: 3,063
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

makes me consider selling some of the ar pistols I have. Who knew how easy it was to build out a 80%. I wonder how that is going to work when majority of folks have not received their "CA 80% registration approval" before selling them.

I was never a big fan of ar's until I built my own and shot it. Love the almost SBR now. Banging steel plates past 200 yds with that little beast is sweet. Fits in a tennis racket case
__________________
Beans and Bullets

Finnish M27 - SKS matching for sale
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1483491

Ruger Mk lll 22/45 , Uberti SAA .357 , Rossi .357 for sale
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1483671
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-25-2018, 12:59 PM
igs igs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Many folks have correctly pointed out that the new definition only applies to the initial issuance of DOJ serial numbers, but the term is undefined with regard to PC 32000 and 30600. Because of this, a court is free to define the term as a matter of case law.
It is defined. Laws governing "manufacture" or "manufacturing" apply only to licensed manufacturers.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...er=1.&article=

See my previous posts on this subject:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...6#post21716876

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...0#post20983870

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...7#post20978907
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-25-2018, 1:09 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,731
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by igs View Post
It is defined. Laws governing "manufacture" or "manufacturing" apply only to licensed manufacturers.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...er=1.&article=

See my previous posts on this subject:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...6#post21716876

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...0#post20983870

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...7#post20978907
IGS,

Please check out Penal Code sections 32000 and 30600.

PC 32000 clearly contains the language "A person in this state who manufactures..." You cannot reconcile that language with your assertion that the statute only applies to licensed manufacturers.

PC 30600 clearly contains the language "Any person who, within this state, manufactures..." You also cannot reconcile this language to your assertion.

Your reference to PC 29010 isn't relevant to this discussion. It only imposes a requirement for commercial manufacturers to be licensed and exempts personal manufacturers from the license requirement. It has no bearing on the "any person" element of PC 32000 and 30600. Additionally, PC 29010 does not define the term "manufacture" or "manufacturing." It only employs those terms.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-25-2018, 1:21 PM
igs igs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Rick, I'm not sure what you mean. That definition lines up perfectly.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-25-2018, 1:45 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,293
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by igs View Post
It is defined. Laws governing "manufacture" or "manufacturing" apply only to licensed manufacturers.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...er=1.&article=

See my previous posts on this subject:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...6#post21716876

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...0#post20983870

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...7#post20978907
Huh? 29180 makes no such distinction.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-25-2018, 2:36 PM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 752
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Igs, by your logic all that someone would need to do to avoid the restrictions against manufacturing certain guns would be to surrender their license. That is not the way the statutes are written or interpreted by judges.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-25-2018, 2:38 PM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 752
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

And before any cynics interpret my sentance above to mean that judges write laws, I will clarify “written by the legislature or interpreted by judges.” And yes, many other players in the criminal system interpret laws at various steps.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-25-2018, 3:40 PM
Cdang Cdang is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Orange �� county
Posts: 37
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milsurp1 View Post
Igs, by your logic all that someone would need to do to avoid the restrictions against manufacturing certain guns would be to surrender their license. That is not the way the statutes are written or interpreted by judges.
Manufacture is defined as make for purpose of selling, correct? If we make it for self use, and do not plan to sell(nor have records of continuously selling our made item); then we are not manufacturing.

Back to your point, if one surrenders his license to produce restricted fire arms, he also surredenernthe ability to sell it. Hence that makes sense that manufacturers won’t use that loophole?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-25-2018, 5:39 PM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,792
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Building an AR pistol in California requires a few specialized parts.

cardboard boxes
packing tape



Zillow will help as well.
__________________
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
  #33  
Old 10-26-2018, 8:35 AM
IceKnight366's Avatar
IceKnight366 IceKnight366 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quiet and I have a indept philosophical conversation on the definition of "manufacture" as imployed in PC29180: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=22054004.

Quiet is not "wrong" or "mistaken". Indeed, he's not even giving his opinion. He's merely informing the public on what a most extreme interpretation of "manufacture" could mean. Our conversation is, what I consider, a philsophical critique of taking this extreme line of defining the term. It's good that Quiet got that information out so we can at least understand how one could interpretate that wording.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-27-2018, 3:38 PM
whippet's Avatar
whippet whippet is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Interesting discussion, thanks for all points made..



I am currently having a single shot AR style pistol made by a licensed manufacturer here in So Cal. It has a gas tube and mag release. BUT, it does NOT accept magazines. In the billet machined lower receiver, the mag well is partly machined out, but not completed to finished specs. Magazines cannot be inserted. As manufactured, it is a single shot, "auto-shell-ejecting" break-top pistol. The CA DOJ has examined samples of this style pistol at the manufacturing plant, and determined it does not violate legal requirements.


Some surmise that upon receiving this type pistol, the new owner could do some "gunsmithing" (NOT "manufacturing") and finish forming the magwell on their own, install fixed mag hardware, a ten round mag, and voila- AR pistol a la California.


After reading the above comments and discussion, I think I will elect NOT to make my new pistol "Mag-ready" until I see which way the wind blows Court decision wise..


None the less, I am happy to get a Legendary AR pistol (possibly the most ridiculous novelty gun evar) in this glorious new age of California Wonderfulness.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-27-2018, 3:57 PM
BrokerB's Avatar
BrokerB BrokerB is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Folsom , outside the walls
Posts: 3,063
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Being a single shot, yes it is rediculus.

Being a magazine fed short barreled rifle caliber round pistol is sweet. It is the most powerful compact reach out and touch with follow up capacity available. Best 10.5" gun I own.
__________________
Beans and Bullets

Finnish M27 - SKS matching for sale
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1483491

Ruger Mk lll 22/45 , Uberti SAA .357 , Rossi .357 for sale
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1483671
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-27-2018, 4:47 PM
whippet's Avatar
whippet whippet is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Amen brother! I was kidding a bit, I am a fan of AR pistolas.. I have a similarly configured 10.25" pistol I built 33 years ago, (now fixed mag, & SIG braced), but yes, it is an awesome little machine!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-16-2018, 3:42 PM
igs igs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cdang View Post
Manufacture is defined as make for purpose of selling, correct? If we make it for self use, and do not plan to sell(nor have records of continuously selling our made item); then we are not manufacturing.

Back to your point, if one surrenders his license to produce restricted fire arms, he also surredenernthe ability to sell it. Hence that makes sense that manufacturers won’t use that loophole?
https://www.crpa.org/wp-content/uplo...ot-Pistols.pdf

Quote:
A. “Manufacturing” Under Federal Law
Federal law defines a “manufacturer” as “any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution.” And as applied to this definition, the term “engaged in the business” is also defined as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade of business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured.”

But federal law does not specifically define the act of “manufacturing” in the context of firearms. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”), it has been ATF’s “longstanding position” that “any activities that result in the making of firearms for sale or distribution, to include installing parts in or on firearm frames and receivers, and processes that primarily enhance a firearm’s durability, constitute firearms manufacturing.” But ATF qualified this position by stating “installing ‘drop-in’ replacement parts in or on existing, fully assembled firearms does not result in any alteration to the original firearms.” Therefore, the installation of such parts does not constitute “manufacturing” for the purposes of federal law.

As noted by ATF, “drop-in” replacement parts include, but are not limited to, “barrels, triggers,
hammers, and sears . . . that can be installed in or on an existing, fully assembled firearm (not solely a frame or receiver) without drilling, cutting, or machining.” One can therefore conclude that the installation of such “drop-in” parts on a single-shot pistol almost certainly does not constitute “manufacturing” under federal law.

B. “Manufacturing” Under California Law
California has its own licensing requirements for firearm manufacturers in addition to those under federal law. But California’s licensing requirements are generally limited to those persons and businesses who are already required to possess a valid federal manufacturing license. Specifically, a California manufacturing license is required for any federally licensed manufacturers operating in this state, but only if manufacturing 100 or more firearms in a calendar year. To obtain such a license, the federally licensed manufacturer must also have a the appropriate local license (if required), a valid seller’s permit or resale certificate issued by the State Board of Equalization, and a certificate of eligibility issued by DOJ.

Like federal law, California law does not define the term “manufacturing” in the context of firearms. One possible reason for this is because a California manufacturer’s license is only required when the person or business is required to possess a valid federal manufacturing license. But unlike ATF, DOJ has not provided any official guidance on the matter, leaving California gun owners and California licensed dealers to instead rely upon ATF rulings. And as illustrated above, if one were to rely upon those rulings in the context of DOJ’s notice, the act of altering a single-shot firearm by installing “drop-in” parts (including changing upper receivers and/or connecting gas tubes) should not constitute “manufacturing” despite DOJ’s warning.
This is exactly what I've been saying.

If you are not manufacturing 100 or more firearms in a calendar year AND you are not a federally licensed manufacturer then none of it applies to you.
__________________
If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver not a handgun or long gun.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-16-2018, 3:50 PM
PoorRichRichard's Avatar
PoorRichRichard PoorRichRichard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Berdoo
Posts: 1,813
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Tag
__________________
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Anyone who Threatens it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lewdogg21 View Post
Here's my analogy that anybody on calguns can understand:
Hunters = law abiding gun owners
Poachers = school shooters
See how big the difference is?
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 12:58 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.