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 11-01-2018, 12:33 PM
jakepro716 jakepro716 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 61
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default 80% Handgun Information from DOJ

So I submitted a request for a serial number to the DOJ and this came attached to the email that said they would be granting me a serial number. So looks like the only legal way to build a 80% handgun is as a single shot and has to stay a single shot.

Information Concerning Self-Manufactured Pistols.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-01-2018, 1:01 PM
jager56 jager56 is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Tacticalifornia has a new video regarding the same info
https://youtu.be/v2oiDgG2Cms
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-01-2018, 1:24 PM
emgee00's Avatar
emgee00 emgee00 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Simi Valley
Posts: 2,707
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

That is crazy!!!!!! Kalifornia gun control at its finest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
WTB: Taurus Tracker in .17 HMR

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-01-2018, 9:12 PM
G-forceJunkie's Avatar
G-forceJunkie G-forceJunkie is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SCV, So. Cal
Posts: 4,442
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Been this way since 2014.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-01-2018, 9:49 PM
Oc plumber Oc plumber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: OC
Posts: 266
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Been out of the loop for a while now , if someone owns a 80% ar pistol and put ar maglock on it , what further requirements are Needed?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-01-2018, 10:40 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 23,289
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oc plumber View Post
Been out of the loop for a while now , if someone owns a 80% ar pistol and put ar maglock on it , what further requirements are Needed?
Was it self-marked and voluntarily registered with CA DOJ before 07-01-2018?

If not, then the owner needs to submit a USNA to CA DOJ and complete the mandatory marking requirements before 01-01-2019. [PC 29180(c)]

Starting 01-01-2019, possession of an self-made (80%) firearm that is not registered with CA DOJ can be used as evidence of violating CA self-made/assembled firearm laws.
^Firearm would be subject to confiscation.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-01-2018, 10:50 PM
jager56 jager56 is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Submitted photos for a single shot build in sept still says “images in review” on USNA transactions
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-02-2018, 10:39 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 987
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
To allow certification of a single-shot pistol, the manufacturer must complete the following requirements:
• Attach a positive manually operated safety device, as determined by standards relating to
imported guns promulgated by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(see Pen. Code, § 31910, subd. (b)(1));
• Meet the State’s firing requirements for handguns (see Pen. Code, §§ 31905; 31910,
subd. (b)(2)); and
• Meet the State’s drop safety requirements for handguns (see Pen. Code, §§ 31900; 31910,
subd. (b)(3)).)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that meeting the State’s firing and drop safety requirements requires
the submission of three sample firearms to a Department of Justice Approved Laboratory for
testing and approval. If the engraving and testing requirements are not met within the limitations
imposed for validation of a Department of Justice issued serial number under California Code of
Regulations, Title 11, section 5518 (30 days if the handgun has not yet been manufactured; 10
days if the handgun was manufactured prior to requesting a serial number) the serial number will
become invalid.
Wait, we have to send in 3 samples of the self build firearm to be approved?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-02-2018, 10:41 AM
jager56 jager56 is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That’s for semi auto. The single shot is exempt.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-02-2018, 10:43 AM
IceKnight366's Avatar
IceKnight366 IceKnight366 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"So looks like the only legal way to build a 80% handgun is as a single shot and has to stay a single shot."

Can you show me where in the file they sent you where this is confirmed? Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything that says it needs to "stay a single shot".
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-02-2018, 10:44 AM
jager56 jager56 is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That’s what I was thinking it says you can’t convert semi to single but does not say anything about single shot to semi.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-04-2018, 11:58 AM
jakepro716 jakepro716 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 61
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IceKnight366 View Post
"So looks like the only legal way to build a 80% handgun is as a single shot and has to stay a single shot."

Can you show me where in the file they sent you where this is confirmed? Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything that says it needs to "stay a single shot".
It doesn't specifically say that but when it says
"In all other circumstances, however, including when the handgun was initially designed as a semiautomatic pistol, and then altered for single-shot firing, the firearm is still subject to further clearance to ensure that is not “unsafe.” (Pen. Code, § 32100, subd. (b).) To allow certification of a single-shot pistol, the manufacturer must complete the following requirements...."

I would count that as "all other circumstances" and since polymer80s and p320 inserts are initially designed as a semiautomatic pistol I would assume they are trying to include that. But I am not a lawyer and I do not want to be a test case.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-05-2018, 7:07 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 987
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakepro716 View Post

I would count that as "all other circumstances" and since polymer80s and p320 inserts are initially designed as a semiautomatic pistol I would assume they are trying to include that. But I am not a lawyer and I do not want to be a test case.
Plymer80s, and p320 inserts are designed as pieces of plastic and stamped metal that is NOT a firearm let alone a semiauto pistol. One can choose to make a lamp out of them.

You kind of missed the point of the whole "80%" concept.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-05-2018, 8:07 AM
IceKnight366's Avatar
IceKnight366 IceKnight366 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakepro716 View Post
It doesn't specifically say that but when it says
"In all other circumstances, however, including when the handgun was initially designed as a semiautomatic pistol, and then altered for single-shot firing, the firearm is still subject to further clearance to ensure that is not “unsafe.” (Pen. Code, § 32100, subd. (b).) To allow certification of a single-shot pistol, the manufacturer must complete the following requirements...."

I would count that as "all other circumstances" and since polymer80s and p320 inserts are initially designed as a semiautomatic pistol I would assume they are trying to include that. But I am not a lawyer and I do not want to be a test case.
That's strange because starting off as a semi is either illegal in the first place (if you really want something except, i.e. isn't already on the roster) or perfectly fine if it is one roster. So I'm not sure how that sentence relates at all to making SA after manufacture. Thanks for replying what your reasoning is for thinking that though.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-05-2018, 8:40 AM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,089
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IceKnight366 View Post
That's strange because starting off as a semi is either illegal in the first place (if you really want something except, i.e. isn't already on the roster) or perfectly fine if it is one roster. So I'm not sure how that sentence relates at all to making SA after manufacture. Thanks for replying what your reasoning is for thinking that though.
Dont forget that Manufacture was defined by CA recently, probably to specifically coincide with the changes we see now.
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-05-2018, 2:34 PM
jwb28 jwb28 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: butte co
Posts: 389
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

How does CA get to define what manufacture mean. Can they also define a rock as an airplane and subject them to FAA rules?
Ya, I know it's CA and we just make stuff up.

Last edited by jwb28; 11-05-2018 at 2:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-05-2018, 2:58 PM
igs igs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb28 View Post
How does CA get to define what manufacture mean. Can they also define a rock as an airplane and subject them to FAA rules?
Ya, I know it's CA and we just make stuff up.
CA manufacturing laws only apply to manufacturing done by manufacturers as defined in the penal code as federally licensed manufacturers. If you are not federally licensed then the manufacturing laws don't apply to you regardless if you are CA licensed or not.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-05-2018, 3:04 PM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,089
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb28 View Post
How does CA get to define what manufacture mean. Can they also define a rock as an airplane and subject them to FAA rules?
Ya, I know it's CA and we just make stuff up.
What is a CA assault weapon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by igs View Post
CA manufacturing laws only apply to manufacturing done by manufacturers as defined in the penal code as federally licensed manufacturers. If you are not federally licensed then the manufacturing laws don't apply to you regardless if you are CA licensed or not.
That is what I thought. Look it up.
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-16-2018, 3:49 PM
igs igs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MosinVirus View Post
That is what I thought. Look it up.

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
  #20  
Old 11-16-2018, 4:50 PM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,089
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by igs View Post
https://www.crpa.org/wp-content/uplo...ot-Pistols.pdf



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.
Take a look here where you self-manufacture or self-assemble: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...adopt-regs.pdf

Then take a look at the text at the bottom here: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/certguns?make=All

Where it says in the important information:
Alterations of a single shot pistol (i.e. changing upper receivers, connecting gas tubes) may also be considered manufacturing an unsafe handgun. See California Penal Code sections 31900-31910 for the definition of unsafe handguns and 32000(a) for more information on illegal acts involving unsafe handguns.


Also, here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...8cg-yZocq4utYA

Basically you request a SN for a frame. All good.
Then you have to report any modifications, like building it up. O-oh. May be (and probably will be) seen as manufacturing an unsafe handgun
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...

Last edited by MosinVirus; 11-16-2018 at 5:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-16-2018, 5:33 PM
igs igs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MosinVirus View Post
O-oh. May be (and probably will be) seen as manufacturing an unsafe handgun
If you are manufacturing 100 or more firearms in a calendar year AND you are a federally licensed manufacturer AND you are selling said firearms. If.
__________________
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
  #22  
Old 11-16-2018, 5:52 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,736
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by igs View Post
https://www.crpa.org/wp-content/uplo...ot-Pistols.pdf



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.
You are confusing the meaning of "Manufacturing" (a verb) and "Manufacturer" (a noun). They are very different words and have different meanings.

The CRPA document only discusses the law as it applies to "Manufacturers" (using the noun) and only in the context of the requirements to be licensed as such.

None of the content of that document address the meaning of "Manufacturing" (the verb) within the context of Penal Code sections 32000 and 30600. But even then, there really isn't any room for debate, because neither section is written to address "manufacturers". Both section explicitly are directed to "a person" (in PC 32000) and to "any person" in 30600 who manufactures a prohibited weapon. The use of "person" as opposed to a "manufacturer" has very specific purpose.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-16-2018, 6:18 PM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,089
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
You are confusing the meaning of "Manufacturing" (a verb) and "Manufacturer" (a noun). They are very different words and have different meanings.

The CRPA document only discusses the law as it applies to "Manufacturers" (using the noun) and only in the context of the requirements to be licensed as such.

None of the content of that document address the meaning of "Manufacturing" (the verb) within the context of Penal Code sections 32000 and 30600. But even then, there really isn't any room for debate, because neither section is written to address "manufacturers". Both section explicitly are directed to "a person" (in PC 32000) and to "any person" in 30600 who manufactures a prohibited weapon. The use of "person" as opposed to a "manufacturer" has very specific purpose.
I think we are dealing with a different issue.

I remember specifically seeing somewhere that they defined manufacturing to include fitting of parts or assembling parts together. I cant find it though I didnt look really hard for it. But I remember seeing posts from people saying jokingly that reassembling the gun after thoroughly cleaning it would meet the definition.

We all know they have 80% in their sights and they are trying to erase the line between building for personal use and manufacturing. And they are trying to make it impossible to convert from single shot to semi-auto.

I have yet to see anyone post a success or tragedy story about requesting a serial number as Frame Only, then building it up into Single Shot (which must be reported within 30 days) and then to Semi-auto (which must be reported within the same 30 days) or straight to semi-auto (again reported within the 30 days).

I have made the same argument before about what I believe manufacturing is and how it is different from building for personal use.
Then seeing the definition change and the letters people get as a "reminder" make me feel they (DOJ) will see an act of building a semi-auto handgun as manufacturing an unsafe handgun


Again, I am patiently waiting for someone to go through the process - USNA for frame to Legal Semi-Auto. If it is possible, I will be building more.
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-16-2018, 6:25 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 23,289
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MosinVirus View Post
I remember specifically seeing somewhere that they defined manufacturing to include fitting of parts or assembling parts together. I cant find it though I didnt look really hard for it. But I remember seeing posts from people saying jokingly that reassembling the gun after thoroughly cleaning it would meet the definition.
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.

California Code of Regulations Title 11 Division 5 Chapter 41 Article 2 Section 5507
(s) “Self-assembled or “self-manufactured” firearm means a firearm fabricated or constructed, including firearm constructed using a 3D printer or any other technology, by a person, or a firearm the component parts which were fit together by a person to construct a firearm, but does not include:
(1) A firearm assembled or manufactured by a firearms manufacturer licensed by the State of California and/or the Federal Government, or
(2) A firearm with a serialized receiver purchased from a California gun store and later assembled it into a functional firearm. In this case, a licensed Federal Firearms Licensee is the manufacturer of the firearm and has applied its own serial number to the firearm.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

Last edited by Quiet; 11-16-2018 at 6:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-16-2018, 6:31 PM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,089
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
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.

California Code of Regulations Title 11 Division 5 Chapter 41 Article 2 Section 5507
(s) “Self-assembled or “self-manufactured” firearm means a firearm fabricated or constructed, including firearm constructed using a 3D printer or any other technology, by a person, or a firearm the component parts which were fit together by a person to construct a firearm, but does not include:
(1) A firearm assembled or manufactured by a firearms manufacturer licensed by the State of California and/or the Federal Government, or
(2) A firearm with a serialized receiver purchased from a California gun store and later assembled it into a functional firearm. In this case, a licensed Federal Firearms Licensee is the manufacturer of the firearm and has applied its own serial number to the firearm.
Yup. I don't remember seeing that before when I was building. And clearly I wouldn't have been able to register my builds if that definition was there. Of if it was applicable.
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...

Last edited by MosinVirus; 11-16-2018 at 6:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-16-2018, 6:34 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,736
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MosinVirus View Post
I think we are dealing with a different issue.

I remember specifically seeing somewhere that they defined manufacturing to include fitting of parts or assembling parts together. I cant find it though I didnt look really hard for it. But I remember seeing posts from people saying jokingly that reassembling the gun after thoroughly cleaning it would meet the definition.

We all know they have 80% in their sights and they are trying to erase the line between building for personal use and manufacturing. And they are trying to make it impossible to convert from single shot to semi-auto.

I have yet to see anyone post a success or tragedy story about requesting a serial number as Frame Only, then building it up into Single Shot (which must be reported within 30 days) and then to Semi-auto (which must be reported within the same 30 days) or straight to semi-auto (again reported within the 30 days).

I have made the same argument before about what I believe manufacturing is and how it is different from building for personal use.
Then seeing the definition change and the letters people get as a "reminder" make me feel they (DOJ) will see an act of building a semi-auto handgun as manufacturing an unsafe handgun


Again, I am patiently waiting for someone to go through the process - USNA for frame to Legal Semi-Auto. If it is possible, I will be building more.

Check Penal Code section 29180 for that new definition. Here is the text:

"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."

It's important to note that definition is limited "For purposes of this chapter." The PC chapter relates to the initial assignment of a serial number.

The concern is that the Penal Code does not define "manufacturing" for the purposes of PC 30600 (Manufacturing an Assault Rifle) and for PC 32000 (Manufacturing an Unsafe Handgun). The concern is that were a term is undefined, courts will often look to other usage in the code, and that would likely lead them to adopt the PC 29180 definition.

DOJ laid the foundation when they adopted that approach in the RAW regulations and they also appear to have done the same in a recent correspondence on handgun construction. The handgun notice contained a lot of "weasel words" in applying that new definition. All of that taken as a whole suggests that DOJ is looking for a suitable test case to clarify the law in their favor. I would not look for DOJ to be making arrests at this point. The ideal test case is going to be in the civil court arena and not the criminal courts.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-16-2018, 6:47 PM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5,089
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Check Penal Code section 29180 for that new definition. Here is the text:

"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."

It's important to note that definition is limited "For purposes of this chapter." The PC chapter relates to the initial assignment of a serial number.

The concern is that the Penal Code does not define "manufacturing" for the purposes of PC 30600 (Manufacturing an Assault Rifle) and for PC 32000 (Manufacturing an Unsafe Handgun). The concern is that were a term is undefined, courts will often look to other usage in the code, and that would likely lead them to adopt the PC 29180 definition.

DOJ laid the foundation when they adopted that approach in the RAW regulations and they also appear to have done the same in a recent correspondence on handgun construction. The handgun notice contained a lot of "weasel words" in applying that new definition. All of that taken as a whole suggests that DOJ is looking for a suitable test case to clarify the law in their favor. I would not look for DOJ to be making arrests at this point. The ideal test case is going to be in the civil court arena and not the criminal courts.
All I am saying is that I remember something changed recently that made me feel/believe I could no longer build a Single Shot pistol and then convert it to Semi-Auto. That is after the 07/01/18 date. And I successfully registered ones I built before.

I am too buried with work so I cannot keep all that stuff in my head anymore. I just remember thinking that was it - no more semi-auto pistol builds. If I am wrong, and one of these guys do prove that it is legal to build a semi-auto pistol for personal use, I am going to start building again.
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-17-2018, 7:47 AM
Calciferr Calciferr is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 50
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Just FYI I register a P320, frame only, semi-auto after 7/1/18.

Images still in review since end of 9/18

I probably won’t ever finish it to be safe but if approved wouldn’t manufacturing process be over at that point when approved then can put it together “gun smithing” however?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 11:37 AM.




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.