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 > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-25-2018, 4:18 PM
Elite Armory's Avatar
Elite Armory Elite Armory is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Castro Valley, CA
Posts: 398
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Browning 1919 Legality

Is the Browning 1919 legal with the new AW Laws in place? I did a search but didn't come up with anything. Anyone know the answer to this?
__________________
Elite Armory
3636 Castro Valley Blvd #1
Castro Valley, CA 94546
(510) 538-1686

Hours:
Tues-Sat: 11:00am-6:30pm

Elite Armory Plus
7601 W 11th Street
Tracy, CA 95304
(209) 362-2010

Hours:
Tues-Fri: 11:00am - 7:00pm
Sat-Sun: 10:00am - 8:00pm

*Follow us on Twitter and/or FaceBook for updates on what we have coming into the shop.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-25-2018, 4:32 PM
Experimentalist's Avatar
Experimentalist Experimentalist is offline
Banned in Amsterdam
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 953
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Depends on the varietal of Model 1919.

The A4 variant is fired from a tripod. There is no stock, hence it does not meet the definition of a rifle (an arm that is fired from the shoulder). Hence the A4 variant does not fit the definition of an assault rifle.

The A6 variant does have a stock, and hence meets the legal definition of rifle. The A6 version *could* meet the AW criteria if it also has an evil feature (e.g. flash hider, pistol grip, etc.) Most, if not all, A6 variants do in fact have a pistol grip.

Hope this is helpful.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it" - Col. Jeff Cooper

"Shot placement trumps all."

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-25-2018, 4:41 PM
Bigtwin's Avatar
Bigtwin Bigtwin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: N. Cal
Posts: 2,184
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow, I have only ever seen the A4 version. That gun weighs 30 lb, I couldn't imagine trying to shoulder fire that pig.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-25-2018, 5:57 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,724
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

1919a4(and a6) is PERFECTLY legal because there is no pistol grip. (at least not the kind prohibited by law). The trigger is BEHIND the action (rather than below like most rifles) so as long as it's semi auto, and you only use 10 round belts, you are fine.

Now, you can ARGUE that the mere possession of more than 10 disintegrating links is possession of a "hi cap mag kit" and thus illegal, but so far, we aren't aware of any prosecutions on that front. I do know of a few out of state retailers who WILL NOT ship ANY links into CA (presumably on that theory)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-25-2018, 6:58 PM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West LA
Posts: 3,075
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
What is considered an “assault weapon”?

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1135 (Stats. 2016, ch. 40) and Senate Bill 880 (Stats. 2016, ch. 48) effective January 1, 2017, the definition of “assault weapon” is revised to mean the following:

RIFLES

A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
A thumbhole stock.
A folding or telescoping stock.
A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
A flash suppressor.
A forward pistol grip.
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
Emphasis on "protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the firearm" - the 1919's pistol grip is behind the receiver and thus should not meet the legal definition of "pistol grip" under CA law. General wisdom from what I've seen is that plenty of people have 1919s that are not modified to be CA legal other than semi-auto-only as it does not meet AW definition.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-25-2018, 7:05 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 11,417
iTrader: 130 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtwin View Post
Wow, I have only ever seen the A4 version. That gun weighs 30 lb, I couldn't imagine trying to shoulder fire that pig.
It is normally fired off a bipod. But yeah, humping it around would be a real bummer.

__________________
.



"Texans always move them!"
General Robert E. Lee, May 6, 1864 - Battle of the Wilderness
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-25-2018, 9:11 PM
neffect neffect is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

100% a 1919 is legal with no stock just like a M2HB. You just cant run belts over 10 rounds unless owned before high cap ban.

That being said why wouldn't this be legal? (See attached)

- Registered long gun receiver, never had a stock (Not a rifle)
- No stock (Not a rifle)
- 16 inch barrel (Not a pistol)

https://ibb.co/caoG7U
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-26-2018, 7:51 AM
Jester3's Avatar
Jester3 Jester3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Not so close to other homes
Posts: 1,159
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neffect View Post
100% a 1919 is legal with no stock just like a M2HB. You just cant run belts over 10 rounds unless owned before high cap ban.

That being said why wouldn't this be legal? (See attached)

- Registered long gun receiver, never had a stock (Not a rifle)
- No stock (Not a rifle)
- 16 inch barrel (Not a pistol)

https://ibb.co/caoG7U
Gun grabber response:
ILLEGAL!
Because it looks SCARY!

Seriously tho, awesome looking weapon.
Wish it was in my budget.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-06-2018, 9:30 AM
madjack956's Avatar
madjack956 madjack956 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ORANGE COUNTY
Posts: 2,519
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester3 View Post
Gun grabber response:
ILLEGAL!
Because it looks SCARY!

Seriously tho, awesome looking weapon.
Wish it was in my budget.
As an owner of a 1919a4, the budget for the firearm is not necessarily the budget you need to worry about, unless you plan on just admiring it.

These things have big appetites. And everyone around you wants to shoot it when they see it.

Its worth seeing the smile on their faces.
__________________
Paralyzed Veterans of America www.pva.org
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-07-2018, 10:11 PM
caliguy93's Avatar
caliguy93 caliguy93 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: North Koreafornia
Posts: 1,082
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Here’s mine



I admire it everyday. Taking it to the range is an event. From loading it up to setting it up at the firing lane, to dealing with all the attention.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-08-2018, 7:29 AM
Xerxes Xerxes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,597
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

There has been a rash of armed robberies of banks, mini-marts, and drug dealers by haordes of gang members carrying 1919's. They hide them in jacket pocket then POW! suddenly surprise you when its pointing at you.

Since it now seems to be the weapon of choice by the armed gangs roaming Oakland and Richmond and Beverly Hills I think there ought to be a law against owing these.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-08-2018, 7:59 AM
eviioiive's Avatar
eviioiive eviioiive is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,406
iTrader: 64 / 99%
Default

Perfectly leguell

ETA: ok the rifle is legal, not necessarily/ always the 200 something round belt....

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Your name has been publicly printed in newspapers and on the web, your expectation of privacy is flat gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUNS.NET
You have been banned for the following reason: posting other member's personal info without permission. I don't care what your reasoning is that is not allowed.

Last edited by eviioiive; 10-08-2018 at 7:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-08-2018, 8:17 AM
CSACANNONEER's Avatar
CSACANNONEER CSACANNONEER is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 43,013
iTrader: 130 / 100%
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neffect View Post
100% a 1919 is legal with no stock just like a M2HB. You just cant run belts over 10 rounds unless owned before high cap ban.

That being said why wouldn't this be legal? (See attached)

- Registered long gun receiver, never had a stock (Not a rifle)
- No stock (Not a rifle)
- 16 inch barrel (Not a pistol)

https://ibb.co/caoG7U
It's even legal with a stock as long as it doesn't have any other evil features. The pistol grip on a 1919 is not an evil feature. The A6 FH is though.
__________________
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun and Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor
California DOJ Certified Fingerprint Roller
Ventura County approved CCW Instructor
Utah CCW Instructor


Offering low cost multi state CCW, private basic shooting and reloading classes for calgunners.

CCW SAFE MEMBERSHIPS HERE
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-08-2018, 8:29 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,629
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eviioiive View Post
Perfectly leguell

Nope, what you have there is illegal.

You're in compliance with the Assault Weapon laws. Since the weapon in the photo is not a "Rifle" and is not a "Pistol" as defined in the Penal Code, it is out of the scope of the AW statute.

But the "gotcha" is with the feeding device. There are more than ten rounds visible on the belt loaded into that weapon. It's important to note that the Large Capacity Magazine statute proscribes feeding devices with the capacity to accept more than 10 live rounds. It doesn't matter if there are actually less than ten rounds in the device. Nor would it matter if the rounds shown in the photo are dummy rounds. So long as the belt has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, you're in violation. Please refer to Penal Code section 32310.

Enforcement, by specified officials, of the possession clause of section 32310 is currently is currently enjoined by federal court order, but the action still remains illegal.

The Large Capacity Magazine statute doesn't lend itself very well to belt feeding devices. It's pretty clear that the legislature didn't consider them when drafting the statute, but they do fall under the statute and there's no good way around that. One of the problems with belts is the "capacity to accept" more than 10 rounds (refer to PC 16740). You can't make a belt legal simply by making it up with only 10 links. So long as the capacity exists to add an eleventh link, it's illegal.

There's also an ambiguity, currently unresolved, as to the "manufacture" of a new feeding device. The point is significant because "manufacture" is a felony. The law defines manufacture as the assembly of parts. This becomes problematic in the case of a disintegrating belt. The belt is reduced to component parts by virtue of firing. The belt is then reconstructed by assembling those parts into a new belt. Given the trend of California courts, I wouldn't want to be the test case.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.

Last edited by RickD427; 10-08-2018 at 8:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-08-2018, 9:15 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,724
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Nope, what you have there is illegal.

You're in compliance with the Assault Weapon laws. Since the weapon in the photo is not a "Rifle" and is not a "Pistol" as defined in the Penal Code, it is out of the scope of the AW statute.

But the "gotcha" is with the feeding device. There are more than ten rounds visible on the belt loaded into that weapon. It's important to note that the Large Capacity Magazine statute proscribes feeding devices with the capacity to accept more than 10 live rounds. It doesn't matter if there are actually less than ten rounds in the device. Nor would it matter if the rounds shown in the photo are dummy rounds. So long as the belt has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, you're in violation. Please refer to Penal Code section 32310.

Enforcement, by specified officials, of the possession clause of section 32310 is currently is currently enjoined by federal court order, but the action still remains illegal.

The Large Capacity Magazine statute doesn't lend itself very well to belt feeding devices. It's pretty clear that the legislature didn't consider them when drafting the statute, but they do fall under the statute and there's no good way around that. One of the problems with belts is the "capacity to accept" more than 10 rounds (refer to PC 16740). You can't make a belt legal simply by making it up with only 10 links. So long as the capacity exists to add an eleventh link, it's illegal.

There's also an ambiguity, currently unresolved, as to the "manufacture" of a new feeding device. The point is significant be "manufacture" is a felony. The law defines manufacture as the assembly of parts. This becomes problematic in the case of a disintegrating belt. The belt is reduced to component parts by virtue of firing. The belt is then reconstructed by assembling those parts into a new belt. Given the trend of California courts, I wouldn't want to be the test case.
As you point out, the law banning the possession of hi cap feeding devices is on hold. Furthermore, even IF the law were to go into effect, it only makes the possession of the feeding devices an infraction. Same effect as speeding on the way to the range.

They way I handle my hi cap belts is to have the first ten glued in the links (and in a different caliber than my 1919 is chambered for) so that I CANNOT shoot down below ten links. This way I am NOT manufacturing hi cap feeding devices each time.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-08-2018, 12:11 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,629
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
As you point out, the law banning the possession of hi cap feeding devices is on hold. Furthermore, even IF the law were to go into effect, it only makes the possession of the feeding devices an infraction. Same effect as speeding on the way to the range.

They way I handle my hi cap belts is to have the first ten glued in the links (and in a different caliber than my 1919 is chambered for) so that I CANNOT shoot down below ten links. This way I am NOT manufacturing hi cap feeding devices each time.
CAL.BAR,

The law banning possession is not "on hold." Only the enforcement of that law, by specific officials, is on hold. It's a significant distinction. It is possible, albeit very unlikely, that an official who was not specified in the order would prosecute a violation. It is also possible (and IMHO equally unlikely) that, if the law is upheld, and the injunction lifted, that folks who possessed during the period of the injunction could be prosecuted.

You are quite incorrect in your assertion that violation of the possession clause is only an infraction. It is actually a misdemeanor. Here is the actual text of the pertinent part of the statute:

"Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment."

Please note that this wording allows the prosecutor, at their discretion, to charge the offense as either an infraction or misdemeanor.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-08-2018, 12:53 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,724
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
CAL.BAR,

The law banning possession is not "on hold." Only the enforcement of that law, by specific officials, is on hold. It's a significant distinction. It is possible, albeit very unlikely, that an official who was not specified in the order would prosecute a violation. It is also possible (and IMHO equally unlikely) that, if the law is upheld, and the injunction lifted, that folks who possessed during the period of the injunction could be prosecuted.

You are quite incorrect in your assertion that violation of the possession clause is only an infraction. It is actually a misdemeanor. Here is the actual text of the pertinent part of the statute:

"Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per large-capacity magazine, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment."

Please note that this wording allows the prosecutor, at their discretion, to charge the offense as either an infraction or misdemeanor.
Yes.... it's an INFRACTION which might also be filed as a misdemeanor. On a first offense with NO other crimes involved which do you think will be charged?

And as for your argument that the law isn't effectively on "hold" pending the court decision... well, even YOU know you are STRETCHING it to try and win a point. But if you are aware of ANY MISDEMEANOR charges being brought against anyone in CA while the court decision is pending, please let us know.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-08-2018, 8:03 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,629
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Yes.... it's an INFRACTION which might also be filed as a misdemeanor. On a first offense with NO other crimes involved which do you think will be charged?

And as for your argument that the law isn't effectively on "hold" pending the court decision... well, even YOU know you are STRETCHING it to try and win a point. But if you are aware of ANY MISDEMEANOR charges being brought against anyone in CA while the court decision is pending, please let us know.
CAL.BAR,

Offense levels are determined by the most serious charge possible. That would make the crime a MISDEMEANOR that could alternatively be charged as an infraction.

To directly answer your question about filing, I would expect DDAs in the rural counties would file a first offense as an infraction. At the same time, I would expect DDAs in the urban counties to file a first offense as a misdemeanor. I filed my cases with the Los Angeles DA. During my time, they filed all firearms cases at the highest charge level possible.

As to the possession clause of PC 32310 being on hold, I'm not aware of any case filings. If such a case were filed, I'm confident that the filing prosecutor would be served with the injunction and the case dropped. No prosecutor is going to bring such a case on the merits while the injunction is in place. That's not where the problem lies. This is California and non-meritorious criminal cases have been filed that serve no real purpose other than to give the District Attorney media attention (remember, they're elected).
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-08-2018, 8:38 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,724
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
CAL.BAR,

Offense levels are determined by the most serious charge possible. That would make the crime a MISDEMEANOR that could alternatively be charged as an infraction.

To directly answer your question about filing, I would expect DDAs in the rural counties would file a first offense as an infraction. At the same time, I would expect DDAs in the urban counties to file a first offense as a misdemeanor. I filed my cases with the Los Angeles DA. During my time, they filed all firearms cases at the highest charge level possible.

As to the possession clause of PC 32310 being on hold, I'm not aware of any case filings. If such a case were filed, I'm confident that the filing prosecutor would be served with the injunction and the case dropped. No prosecutor is going to bring such a case on the merits while the injunction is in place. That's not where the problem lies. This is California and non-meritorious criminal cases have been filed that serve no real purpose other than to give the District Attorney media attention (remember, they're elected).
Fair points of course. I think the OP's biggest "problem" will be both in getting links in the fist place (as many retailers won't ship them to CA) and shooting a 1919 (in any configuration) with only 10 round belts is just a PITA.
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 8:51 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.