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
  #41  
Old 08-15-2017, 8:29 PM
superhondaz50's Avatar
superhondaz50 superhondaz50 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: TACO BELL
Posts: 2,247
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-forceJunkie View Post
So, factory firearms that came without serial numbers, like say a 1937 Remington Scoremaster .22lr rifle. Manditory to apply for, and mark with an DOJ serial number? How about pre 1900 firearms, that are only considered "firearms" some of the time?
No, C&R's are exempt, exemption (e).
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-15-2017, 8:31 PM
superhondaz50's Avatar
superhondaz50 superhondaz50 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: TACO BELL
Posts: 2,247
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
Is it really worth it to be treated like a criminal and fear The Man in California, to exercise your Second Amendment Rights?
Yes and no, it sucks.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-15-2017, 8:44 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-forceJunkie View Post
So, factory firearms that came without serial numbers, like say a 1937 Remington Scoremaster .22lr rifle. Manditory to apply for, and mark with an DOJ serial number? How about pre 1900 firearms, that are only considered "firearms" some of the time?
No pre 1968 is exempt.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-15-2017, 8:48 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think including section 29180 in the first post would be helpful, OP.

Oh, I see, just click on the 'AB 857 Law' link. Got it.

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-15-2017 at 8:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-15-2017, 8:51 PM
Victor Cachat's Avatar
Victor Cachat Victor Cachat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,560
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So, you follow the rules from a few years back and serialize your own and now you have to redo it, or register?
They just want to make them illegal or too expensive.
__________________
Democrats>Socialists>Communists - Same goals, different speeds.

The most effective and pervasive enemy of American freedoms today is the Legacy Media. Defeat them first.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-15-2017, 8:53 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 5,630
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thinking about it, if my name, my town and my serial number is marked on my rifle along with them running me if I'm checked with it isn't good enough for me to stay out of trouble without registering it. This registration has to be about future confistication plans.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-15-2017, 8:58 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,210
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMB 1 View Post
Thinking about it, if my name, my town and my serial number is marked on my rifle along with them running me if I'm checked with it isn't good enough for me to stay out of trouble without registering it. This registration has to be about future confistication plans.
It scares them (unreasonably) that people can make their own guns without a background check. This is their way of attempting to solve that. It's a feel good bill... Criminals will continue to just make them anyways, and not register them, like they always have. But a bill being pointless has never stopped them before.

Our handguns are registered and those haven't been confiscated yet. Do they want to confiscate? Probably. Can they? No chance.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-15-2017, 9:00 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,210
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

If they could figure out a way to confiscate registered guns, they'd have done it already...

If it was as easy as:
1) force registration
2) ???
3) confiscate!

Then what do you think they're waiting for?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-15-2017, 9:06 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 5,630
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
If they could figure out a way to confiscate registered guns, they'd have done it already...

If it was as easy as:
1) force registration
2) ???
3) confiscate!

Then what do you think they're waiting for?
Maybe for the democrats to gain control at federal level again.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-15-2017, 9:18 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Another ramification of 857 is that we can never sell or transfer home built guns. We are allowed to continue to home build, as non-AW, but they have to be registered and we have to keep them forever.

For these reasons, I want to get them into the AW registry for legally built rifles made between 2001-2016. Hopefully option #2 bears fruit. Otherwise it's featureless for me and volreg.

I can respect that some people still think exemption A applies, but to me we have been called "unlicensed subjects" too many times by the state to believe that they think we fall into the category of "licensed manufacturers".

Personally, I don't want to risk being the test case. They know I have so many rifles, no point in trying to hide these home builds.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-15-2017, 9:26 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 5,630
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Another ramification of 857 is that we can never sell or transfer home built guns. We are allowed to continue to home build, as non-AW, but they have to be registered and we have to keep them forever.

For these reasons, I want to get them into the AW registry for legally built rifles made between 2001-2016. Hopefully option #2 bears fruit. Otherwise it's featureless for me and volreg.

I can respect that some people still think exemption A applies, but to me we have been called "unlicensed subjects" too many times by the state to believe that they think we fall into the category of "licensed manufacturers".

Personally, I don't want to risk being the test case. They know I have so many rifles, no point in trying to hide these home builds.
I wouldn't either especially with all the corrupt judges. What are you suppose to do with polymer, destroy it?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-15-2017, 9:33 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMB 1 View Post
I wouldn't either especially with all the corrupt judges. What are you suppose to do with polymer, destroy it?
I would engrave it as close to fed standards as possible, then volreg it. Remember, volreg (CFARS Firearm Ownership Report) doesn't have strict standards for marking the firearm like the DOJ assigned process does.

For me, on all of this, it's a no-brainer to do the volreg. If you can't get it into the AW registry then that's a shame, but I am going featureless if that's the case. The last thing I want to do is have to do the DOJ assigned serial process. It makes no sense, is probably going to be impossible for me to do or afford, and it's just plain tyrannical.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-15-2017, 9:37 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 5,630
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
I would engrave it as close to fed standards as possible, then volreg it. Remember, volreg (CFARS Firearm Ownership Report) doesn't have strict standards for marking the firearm like the DOJ assigned process does.

For me, on all of this, it's a no-brainer to do the volreg. If you can't get it into the AW registry then that's a shame, but I am going featureless if that's the case. The last thing I want to do is have to do the DOJ assigned serial process. It makes no sense, is probably going to be impossible for me to do or afford, and it's just plain tyrannical.
Oh ok, I thought it had to have info engraved on metal embedded in it that couldn't be removed without destroying the receiver.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-15-2017, 9:40 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
I think including section 29180 in the first post would be helpful, OP.

Oh, I see, just click on the 'AB 857 Law' link. Got it.
added it into the OP
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:06 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So, if you are not a licensed manufacturer, no 80% home build may be sold via PPT as of a date certain?

So, if you are not a licensed manufacturer, a home built firearm from a stripped lower that would have to be DROS may continue to be sold via PPT? Assume not in the business of selling home builds- occasional transfer(s).

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-15-2017 at 10:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:09 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
So, if you are not a licensed manufacturer, no home build may be sold via PPT as of a date certain?
It's a gray area. Obviously people have bought home builds legally post 2014 and there was no law that it could not occur. Now there is a law that will commence on July 1st 2018 that will make it illegal to sell or transfer a home build.

No one really knows, and when I call the DOJ and ask I get gibberish or call back we don't know yet.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:11 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've revised my post to include a second question.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:15 PM
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Yeah, it's a gray area to me. I would like to think it does, but this is a federal law and it's unclear to me if a home build meets the criteria of it. I would love to think it does. But the language clearly says "licensed manufacturer". Are we that?
I gamed out AB 857 a long time ago on a thread in another forum, though I'm not a lawyer. Exemption A and/or D makes the rest of AB 857 more of a suggestion than anything... based on current ATF regs and Federal Codes, mainly through a lot of grasping and google (though naturally relying on federal regulation tends to be fleeting, as it can change at any time). I could expand on this more if you want, but....

Question: Are the AB 857 regs out yet? Are we past the point of "Don't give the sacramento people any ideas" yet?

Though based on the AW regs, they'll ignore exemptions A and D anyway.

I will say that when I was trying to find the answer that I did (which could totally be wrong) is probably why the ATF White Paper called for a central database on ATF rulings and stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:15 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
So, if you are not a licensed manufacturer, no 80% home build may be sold via PPT as of a date certain?

So, if you are not a licensed manufacturer, a home built firearm from a stripped lower that would have to be DROS may continue to be sold via PPT? Assume not in the business of selling home builds- occasional transfer(s).
You can sell any home build legally as long as it's not AW until July 1st 2018. It's not limited to PPT, but many FFL's frown and refuse to transfer home builds. Again, if you made the firearm to be sold (intended to be sold) it's illegal even now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:18 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
I gamed out AB 857 a long time ago on a thread in another forum, though I'm not a lawyer. Exemption A and/or D makes the rest of AB 857 more of a suggestion than anything... based on current ATF regs and Federal Codes, mainly through a lot of grasping and google (though naturally relying on federal regulation tends to be fleeting, as it can change at any time). I could expand on this more if you want, but....

Question: Are the AB 857 regs out yet? Are we past the point of "Don't give the sacramento people any ideas" yet?

Though based on the AW regs, they'll ignore exemptions A and D anyway.

I will say that when I was trying to find the answer that I did (which could totally be wrong) is probably why the ATF White Paper called for a central database on ATF rulings and stuff.
I doubt there will be any regs, the law does not call for them. A law must call for regs to be enacted or there is no mandate for DOJ to do anything.

Would you say that exemptions A and D make it so you can disregard 857's mandated marking requirements? When I call them they can't answer. This sends up red flags to me.

Edit: No wait, I am wrong. The law does call for regulations to be adopted! Section 29182 calls for regulations to implement this chapter:

29182. (a) (1) The Department of Justice shall accept applications from, and shall grant applications in the form of serial numbers pursuant to Section 23910 to, persons who wish to manufacture or assemble firearms pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 29180.
(2) The Department of Justice shall accept applications from, and shall grant applications in the form of serial numbers pursuant to Section 23910 to, persons who wish to own a firearm described in subdivision (c) of Section 29180.
(b) An application made pursuant to subdivision (a) shall only be granted by the department if the applicant does all of the following:
(1) For each transaction, completes a personal firearms eligibility check, demonstrating that the applicant is not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm.
(2) Presents proof of age and identity as specified in Section 16400. The applicant shall be 18 years of age or older to obtain a unique serial number or mark of identification for a firearm that is not a handgun, and shall be 21 years of age or older to obtain a unique serial number or mark of identification for a handgun.
(3) Provides a description of the firearm that he or she owns or intends to manufacture or assemble, in a manner prescribed by the department.
(4) Has a valid firearm safety certificate or handgun safety certificate.
(c) The department shall inform applicants who are denied an application of the reasons for the denial in writing.
(d) All applications shall be granted or denied within 15 calendar days of the receipt of the application by the department.
(e) This chapter does not authorize a person to manufacture, assemble, or possess a weapon prohibited under Section 16590, an assault weapon as defined in Section 30510 or 30515, a machinegun as defined in Section 16880, a .50 BMG rifle as defined in Section 30530, or a destructive device as defined in Section 16460.
(f) The department shall adopt regulations to administer this chapter.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez


Last edited by Discogodfather; 08-15-2017 at 10:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:31 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
You can sell any home build legally as long as it's not AW until July 1st 2018. It's not limited to PPT, but many FFL's frown and refuse to transfer home builds. Again, if you made the firearm to be sold (intended to be sold) it's illegal even now.
Thank you for your comment in reply.

Bold portion- frown in respect to PPT or shipping to an FFL for transfer, or both?

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-15-2017 at 10:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:33 PM
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'll send you a PM then, you figure out what to do with it. But basically... ATF has stated that home builders are to use regulations that are assigned to manufacturers in serializing their home builds. In my limited understanding of this crap, those regulations are derived from the code sections referenced.

Therefore, if the ATF is telling you, the homebuilder, that you must serialize your lowers like a manufacturer, then you should be meeting the exemption standards.

And again, usual disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer. And CA DoJ will probably ignore the exemptions when they write the regs anyway.

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 08-15-2017 at 10:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:40 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
I'll send you a PM then, you figure out what to do with it. But basically... ATF has stated that home builders are to use regulations that are assigned to manufacturers in serializing their home builds. In my limited understanding of this crap, those regulations are derived from the code sections referenced.

Therefore, if the ATF is telling you, the homebuilder, that you must serialize your lowers like a manufacturer, then you should be meeting the exemption standards.

And again, usual disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer. And CA DoJ will probably ignore the exemptions when they write the regs anyway.
That might blow that vol-reg and then register as AW out of the water ?!?

Sorry, I don't build even from a stripped lower. Leaving the thread.

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-15-2017 at 10:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:49 PM
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
That might blow that vol-reg and then register as AW out of the water ?!?

Sorry, I don't build even from a stripped lower. Leaving the thread.
Meh. Remember what happened so far with the AW regs. I'm not -that- hopeful. It will simply be another legal case for the CRPA to pursue. Exemptions A and/or D are "hyuuuuuge" exemptions though, as written in the law. They basically say to ignore the whole law if you follow the federal one. It seems they didn't want to step on federal toes for some reason.

As usual Californians have to scrape and fight for even the smallest pieces of our rights, even if the reading (at least as one of the unwashed masses to myself) reads pretty clearly.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:53 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
I'll send you a PM then, you figure out what to do with it. But basically... ATF has stated that home builders are to use regulations that are assigned to manufacturers in serializing their home builds. In my limited understanding of this crap, those regulations are derived from the code sections referenced.

Therefore, if the ATF is telling you, the homebuilder, that you must serialize your lowers like a manufacturer, then you should be meeting the exemption standards.

And again, usual disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer. And CA DoJ will probably ignore the exemptions when they write the regs anyway.
It's a great writeup and thread, and I agree with you it's solid reasoning. My problem is two issues:

1) Any overzealous DA in CA will make the argument exemptions A and D don't cover "unlicensed subjects" and therefore does not apply. Counting on ATF to come in clarify could be really problematic.

2) Even if we do take that reasoning into account, it still mandates a rigid set of information and marking style outlined in Fed law. Again, Fed law suggests that we all mark if we intend to sell at some point (of course we can't build the firearm for sale intentional). If we use the volreg process in CA, we don't have to meet the Fed criteria for marking. We could use other means including serial # only and not have it meet the depth and size requirements.

At least that's the way I understand it. I have some home builds that used stamp punches and the quality doesn't meet the fed standard. Others electro-penciled serials and info, so that would not meet the requirements either. If we could get the DOJ to accept those types of engraving (at least for 857 purposes) then it would give us some extra breathing room.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:56 PM
1bulletBarney's Avatar
1bulletBarney 1bulletBarney is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: West of Mayberry (209)
Posts: 1,655
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

I thought a home built 80% lower with a ATF formatted engraving would be good enough to fly under the radar, looks like I was wrong...

Here is my question...

Can a person volreg a ATF formatted engraved home built 80% AR with this form https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...rms/volreg.pdf ???

or...

Does one need to create a CFARS account and use the CFARS Firearms Ownership Report (volreg) ???

Is the CFARS volreg form and the BOF 4542A volreg the same form???
__________________
NRA Member
NRA-ILA Contributor
CGN Contributor

36 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A of treachery...
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-15-2017, 11:01 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1bulletBarney View Post
I thought a home built 80% lower with a ATF formatted engraving would be good enough to fly under the radar, looks like I was wrong...

Here is my question...

Can a person volreg a ATF formatted engraved home built 80% AR with this form https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...rms/volreg.pdf ???

or...

Does one need to create a CFARS account and use the CFARS Firearms Ownership Report (volreg) ???

Is the CFARS volreg form and the BOF 4542A volreg the same form???
Yes you can use the paper form. I will put a link to it in the OP, some people might consider that an advantage because of computer issues. Unless anything has changed that mandates electronic only, I don't think that's the case.

It's not true that we know for certain if the A and D exemptions will not work, all we do know is that they will have some regulations regarding it. No idea when they will have those out, could be in April 2018 the way the DOJ works.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-16-2017, 9:04 AM
SUBSONIC SUBSONIC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 81
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What if a citizen built their own firearm in the past and legally registered it as an AW with the State of CA, a long, long, time ago, using their own information on it, serial number, etc, etc ?

So now what, California is going to say no you have to have their assigned serial number, wouldn't that void the existing AW registration of a legally owned and registered AW ? I think so, what's your best guess ?

Also, Thanks for this whole thread, looking at the complete picture scares me, I see only one place all this is all heading.
__________________
SUBSONIC
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-16-2017, 9:07 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SUBSONIC View Post
What if a citizen built their own firearm in the past and legally registered it as an AW with the State of CA, a long, long, time ago, using their own information on it, serial number, etc, etc ?

So now what, California is going to say no you have to have their assigned serial number, wouldn't that void the existing AW registration of a legally owned and registered AW ? I think so, what's your best guess ?

Also, Thanks for this whole thread, looking at the complete picture scares me, I see only one place all this is all heading.
You don't have to do anything if the weapon is already a registered AW from other past periods. If you volreg'd it in the past it's also GTG for 857 requirements, but make sure it is featureless if you don't want to register it as an AW.

Still waiting to see if Option #2 (registering an AW with a volreg approved serial) works.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-16-2017, 10:47 AM
17+1's Avatar
17+1 17+1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,950
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Ok so all that aside, what are the penalties if we are caught in non compliance?

IE on the way home from the range, 5-0 tosses the car and finds an unmarked 80 percent AR that is configured to be featureless?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 08-16-2017, 11:03 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,210
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 17+1 View Post
Ok so all that aside, what are the penalties if we are caught in non compliance?

IE on the way home from the range, 5-0 tosses the car and finds an unmarked 80 percent AR that is configured to be featureless?
Misdemeanor, so a fine and possible county jail time.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-16-2017, 11:24 AM
17+1's Avatar
17+1 17+1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,950
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Misdemeanor, so a fine and possible county jail time.
And confiscation also I'm guessing?
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-16-2017, 12:01 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,210
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 17+1 View Post
And confiscation also I'm guessing?
Of that gun, probably. But I'm not sure if a violation could trigger prohibited-person status, I don't think it would.

You'd also probably lose your CCW permit if you have one.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-16-2017, 12:12 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,703
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Of that gun, probably. But I'm not sure if a violation could trigger prohibited-person status, I don't think it would.
This is important to know.

Quote:

You'd also probably lose your CCW permit if you have one.
Another misdemeanor if you carry one that is registered to you.
__________________
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
  #75  
Old 08-16-2017, 12:14 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,210
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
Another misdemeanor if you carry one that is registered to you.
You mean if you keep carrying concealed without a permit? Yep, misdemeanor is correct - also probably another gun confiscated haha
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 08-16-2017, 12:19 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,210
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I browsed the Penal Code briefly, and it *appears* that misdemeanor firearm violations only trigger a prohibition status if it was a violent crime. So in this case a violation probably would just result in confiscation of that gun and a misdemeanor penalty of some sort (fine and/or jail/probation, but I don't know how much of either)
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-16-2017, 12:36 PM
M1NM's Avatar
M1NM M1NM is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 5,791
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

I have rifles (and handguns) purchased FTF before they had to go through the DROS process. Why are they any different than an 80% I built and serialized? Both are guns, both conform to ATF rules, both are unknown to the DOJ, both could be described as AW (but are converted to featureless), ????
Lastly how does my 8 year old grandson register his 80% he machined and has properly marked?
__________________

Last edited by M1NM; 08-16-2017 at 12:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 08-16-2017, 9:04 PM
AragornElessar86's Avatar
AragornElessar86 AragornElessar86 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: N. SD Co.
Posts: 1,625
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So I've been researching and consulting folks who know this stuff all day, and here's what I've gotten this far on volreg under 857:

Quote:
29181.

*Section 29180 does not apply to or affect any of the following:

(d)*A firearm that has a serial number assigned to it pursuant to Chapter 53 of Title 26 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
The regs issued per 26 USC 53 include 27 CFR 479.

Quote:
479.102***How must firearms be identified?

(a) You, as a manufacturer, importer, or maker of a firearm, must legibly identify the firearm as follows:

(1) By engraving, casting, stamping (impressing), or otherwise conspicuously placing or causing to be engraved, cast, stamped (impressed) or placed on the frame or receiver thereof an individual serial number. The serial number must be placed in a manner not susceptible of being readily obliterated, altered, or removed, and must not duplicate any serial number placed by you on any other firearm. For firearms manufactured, imported, or made on and after January 30, 2002, the engraving, casting, or stamping (impressing) of the serial number must be to a minimum depth of .003 inch and in a print size no smaller than*1⁄16*inch; and

(2) By engraving, casting, stamping (impressing), or otherwise conspicuously placing or causing to be engraved, cast, stamped (impressed), or placed on the frame, receiver, or barrel thereof certain additional information. This information must be placed in a manner not susceptible of being readily obliterated, altered or removed. For firearms manufactured, imported, or made on and after January 30, 2002, the engraving, casting, or stamping (impressing) of this information must be to a minimum depth of .003 inch. The additional information includes:

(i) The model, if such designation has been made;

(ii) The caliber or gauge;

(iii) Your name (or recognized abbreviation) and also, when applicable, the name of the foreign manufacturer or maker;

(iv) In the case of a domestically made firearm, the city and State (or recognized abbreviation thereof) where you as the manufacturer maintain your place of business, or where you, as the maker, made the firearm; and

(e) A firearm frame or receiver that is not a component part of a complete weapon at the time it is sold, shipped, or otherwise disposed of by you must be identified as required by this section.
Private use firearms are exempted from the licensing requirements by 27 CFR 478's wording that licenses are required by those "engaged in the business of" manufacture or importation.

TLR

If you self serialize by July 1, 2018, no registration is required if you choose to go featureless.
__________________
Quote:
Wish I was rich instead of so damn good looking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213
I'll worry about Hannibal Lecter having too many rights when the rest of us get ours in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Dave View Post
Any American who isn't on a government watch list should be ashamed of themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 08-16-2017, 9:36 PM
familyfarm's Avatar
familyfarm familyfarm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 280
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wish that 26 USC 53 helped us out of 857 requirements, but it is a chapter about machine guns and you have simply picked out the part about how to mark a machine gun.

In context, here is the Intro to that section you quoted above:

"This part contains the procedural and substantive requirements relative to the importation, manufacture, making, exportation, identification and registration of, and the dealing in, machine guns, destructive devices and certain other firearms under the provisions of the National Firearms Act ( 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53)."

Sadly, this is not helpful to our cause.

Last edited by familyfarm; 08-16-2017 at 9:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 08-16-2017, 9:37 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,070
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AragornElessar86 View Post
So I've been researching and consulting folks who know this stuff all day, and here's what I've gotten this far on volreg under 857:

The regs issued per 26 USC 53 include 27 CFR 479.

Private use firearms are exempted from the licensing requirements by 27 CFR 478's wording that licenses are required by those "engaged in the business of" manufacture or importation.

TLR

If you self serialize by July 1, 2018, no registration is required if you choose to go featureless.
We covered this earlier, and BeAuMaN did a much more in depth writeup of the Fed laws in another thread on another forum. I can ask him to PM the text.

Unfortunately, your version of the 27 CFR 478.92 leaves out a critical word, which is present in all the versions I have read:

" 478.92 How must licensed manufacturers and licensed importers identify firearms, armor piercing ammunition, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices?"

If you go to this legal website it has a hyperlink definition of what a "licensed manufacturer" means:

"Licensed manufacturer. A manufacturer licensed under the provisions of this part. "

So this does not sound like a home builder. I fear that over Zealous DA's would not blink at that exemption, knowing that getting ATF in to clarify is going to be very difficult.

The issue about 478.92 is that it is telling people who want to manufacture and sell their firearms what the marking requirements are. There is no requirement, just as there was no requirement in CA law before AB 857, to mark anything for personal use. It has only been suggested that IF you want to eventually (and not intentional related to it's manufacture) sell a firearm you made it's a "good idea" to get it marked. I forget where this was said by ATF but it has been, I will try to find it.

So does this apply to home builders? For me it is way too much of a gray area, especially in CA.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

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 11:00 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.