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
  #81  
Old 02-02-2018, 12:45 PM
Mountain Max's Avatar
Mountain Max Mountain Max is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 561
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From the ATF website:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearm...ation-overview

Quote:
Q: How must firearms be identified?
You, as a manufacturer, importer, or maker of a firearm, must legibly identify the firearm as follows:
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

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:

The model, if such designation has been made;

The caliber or gauge;

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

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

In the case of an imported firearm, the name of the country in which it was manufactured and the city and State (or recognized abbreviation thereof) where you as the importer maintain your place of business. For additional requirements relating to imported firearms, see Customs regulations at 19 CFR part 134.
This seems to give credence to the assertion that persons building and engraving prior to July 1, 2018 are exempt from registration. AB 857 reads:
Quote:
29181. Section 29180 does not apply to or affect any of the following:
(a) A firearm that has a serial number assigned to it pursuant to either Section 23910 or pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
The ATF has very clear regulations in regards to homebuilders that have been in effect for a long time, I can't see how serializing prior to July 1, 2018 would be a problem.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-02-2018, 12:52 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 885
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMartin1776 View Post
This is next step to confiscation, MARK MY WORDS. God forbid CA has its own version of Las Vegas attack or Pulse Nite Club every single weapon will be confiscated bc they'll have all your info, and pics(?) if I read it right

I WILL NOT COMPLY

These laws are violation of the Second as well as the Fourth Amendments
I agree, the bolded part below is really all they're after, they just put the other words in the sentence because they couldn't just come and outright say all they want to do is to seize your firearms.

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS Page 1 of 17
Quote:
Furthermore, these regulations benefit the state because they enable the Department to seize an unreported self-manufactured or self-assembled firearm that has no engraved serial number, once the period to engrave a unique serial number and record the ownership of a self-manufactured or self-assembled firearm has expired.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-02-2018, 12:55 PM
cr250chevy cr250chevy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 868
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Does anyone know the REASON for DOJ refusing to accept 80% self assigned serial numbers for AW registration? Especially when the rifle had already been VolReg.
The only reason I can think of is 1) they want to prevent people from registering, 2) it is purely PUNITIVE (my belief), 3)they didn’t properly make their AW database so it can’t accept non-common manufactures info (doubtful due to the high number of various manufacturers, so their database must able to accept manual entries).
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-02-2018, 12:55 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 330
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Max View Post
That is true, but DOJ will likely not process the registration if you do not provide pictures of it built single shot. I believe people have tried to challenge this with DOJ (by saying "trust me I built it single shot") but I'm not aware of anyone being successful with that path.
What about all the people that were single shot long ago, then later modified? They can't demand pictures from the past, aren't we protected from expofacto law?

The whole proving and enforcement part is hard for me to understand. Suppose hypothetically a lower is properly marked but not registered? How could the state prove it wasn't registered at best they could say they have no record. So if the state fails on their record keeping they create criminals?

I'm not suggesting anyone break the law. I'm just trying to understand how this will all work. Are these new regulations suggesting there are record keeping requirements for any gun owner? Then what happens should those be lost, like in a fire.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-02-2018, 1:11 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 885
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Max View Post
From the ATF website:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearm...ation-overview

Quote:
Q: How must firearms be identified?
You, as a manufacturer, importer, or maker of a firearm, must legibly identify the firearm as follows:
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

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:

The model, if such designation has been made;

The caliber or gauge;

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

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

In the case of an imported firearm, the name of the country in which it was manufactured and the city and State (or recognized abbreviation thereof) where you as the importer maintain your place of business. For additional requirements relating to imported firearms, see Customs regulations at 19 CFR part 134.
This seems to give credence to the assertion that persons building and engraving prior to July 1, 2018 are exempt from registration. AB 857 reads:
Quote:
29181. Section 29180 does not apply to or affect any of the following:
(a) A firearm that has a serial number assigned to it pursuant to either Section 23910 or pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
The ATF has very clear regulations in regards to homebuilders that have been in effect for a long time, I can't see how serializing prior to July 1, 2018 would be a problem.
Sadly, that page you linked is not the actual regulations, although there is a link to the regulations, in your link.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...se27.3.478_192

CFR §478.92 clearly refers to licensed manufacturers, this is why PC29181(a) does us no good. Unless of course you happen to already have a DOJ assigned number pursuant to PC 23910, which in that case you wouldn't be in here worried about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by §478.92
How must licensed manufacturers and licensed importers identify firearms, armor piercing ammunition, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices?
(a)(1) Firearms. You, as a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer of firearms, must legibly identify each firearm manufactured or imported as follows:
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-02-2018, 1:13 PM
Mountain Max's Avatar
Mountain Max Mountain Max is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 561
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
What about all the people that were single shot long ago, then later modified? They can't demand pictures from the past, aren't we protected from expofacto law?
The folks that purchased a single shot handgun from a dealer are in the system as owning a single shot. When they converted to semi-auto, they did so at their own risk (although I'm not aware of any of the thousands of single shot handguns converted to semi-auto causing legal problems)
The DOJ would regularly audit FFLs doing these single shot transfers (inspecting them during the 10 day wait). The DOJ approved these single shot transactions so they would have no need to go back and challenge that they were legal (because they already audited the FFL and made sure)

A homebuilder is having a first point of contact (instead of an FFL) therefore they are not going to approve a registration without knowing it was built single shot.

Quote:
The whole proving and enforcement part is hard for me to understand. Suppose hypothetically a lower is properly marked but not registered? How could the state prove it wasn't registered at best they could say they have no record. So if the state fails on their record keeping they create criminals?
This is true, the database has many flaws and causes many issues for people who are trying to do the right thing. As with dealing with any govt bureaucracy: "oops we goofed, now the burden is on you to deal with it"

I could see a DA prosecuting homebuilders who possess unregistered 80% builds that were not available before July, 1 2018... for example if Polymer 80 develops a new model in December.. that's pretty strong evidence that the gun was built illegally.

Quote:
I'm not suggesting anyone break the law. I'm just trying to understand how this will all work. Are these new regulations suggesting there are record keeping requirements for any gun owner? Then what happens should those be lost, like in a fire.
There are new laws in regards to reporting lost or stolen firearms. As always, you aren't require to keep record or "proof" that you are doing things legally, but it will certainly help you save on defense attorney fees!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-02-2018, 1:28 PM
Mountain Max's Avatar
Mountain Max Mountain Max is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 561
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
Sadly, that page you linked is not the actual regulations, although there is a link to the regulations, in your link.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...se27.3.478_192

CFR §478.92 clearly refers to licensed manufacturers, this is why PC29181(a) does us no good. Unless of course you happen to already have a DOJ assigned number pursuant to PC 23910, which in that case you wouldn't be in here worried about this.
That's actually a link for regulations in the answered question above the question we are discussing. Here's the officially published regulation they are referring to:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id..._1102&rgn=div8

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

(v) In the case of an imported firearm, the name of the country in which it was manufactured and the city and State (or recognized abbreviation thereof) where you as the importer maintain your place of business. For additional requirements relating to imported firearms, see Customs regulations at 19 CFR part 134.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-02-2018, 1:32 PM
Paul223's Avatar
Paul223 Paul223 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Kern County
Posts: 180
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Max View Post
From the ATF website:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearm...ation-overview



This seems to give credence to the assertion that persons building and engraving prior to July 1, 2018 are exempt from registration. AB 857 reads:

The ATF has very clear regulations in regards to homebuilders that have been in effect for a long time, I can't see how serializing prior to July 1, 2018 would be a problem.
You're citing Federal firearm law. The CA DOJ has added their own language to their own law. There's no Supremacy Clause.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-02-2018, 1:40 PM
Mountain Max's Avatar
Mountain Max Mountain Max is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 561
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul223 View Post
You're citing Federal firearm law. The CA DOJ has added their own language to their own law. There's no Supremacy Clause.
In which case, I will point you to the beginning of the DOJ regulation that was published that the OP is talking about:

Quote:
These regulations do not apply to a firearm
that satisfies one or more criterion of Penal Code section 29181.
29181.
Section 29180 does not apply to or affect any of the following:

(a) A firearm that has a serial number assigned to it pursuant to either Section 23910 or Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
__________________

Last edited by Mountain Max; 02-02-2018 at 1:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-02-2018, 1:41 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 885
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Max View Post
That's actually a link for regulations in the answered question above the question we are discussing. Here's the officially published regulation they are referring to:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id..._1102&rgn=div8
I don't see the definition of "Firearm" for §479.102 fitting most peoples 80% builds

PART 479—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retriev...L#sp27.3.479.b

Quote:
Firearm. (a) A shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (b) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (c) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (d) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (e) any other weapon, as defined in this subpart; (f) a machine gun; (g) a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and (h) a destructive device. The term shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machine gun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Director finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon. For purposes of this definition, the length of the barrel having an integral chamber(s) on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or breech block when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked. The overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 02-02-2018, 1:47 PM
Mountain Max's Avatar
Mountain Max Mountain Max is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 561
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
I don't see the definition of "Firearm" for §479.102 fitting most peoples 80% builds
Scroll down further!
Quote:
Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-02-2018, 1:49 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 885
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Max View Post
Scroll down further!
§479.102 doesn't say pistol or rifle though, it says firearm.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-02-2018, 1:50 PM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,228
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default




__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-02-2018, 2:08 PM
Mountain Max's Avatar
Mountain Max Mountain Max is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 561
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
§479.102 doesn't say pistol or rifle though, it says firearm.
I think you might be right. ATF website Q&A omitted that distinction, but the published regulations specifically say for NFA firearms.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-02-2018, 2:12 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,881
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
The whole proving and enforcement part is hard for me to understand. Suppose hypothetically a lower is properly marked but not registered? How could the state prove it wasn't registered at best they could say they have no record. So if the state fails on their record keeping they create criminals?

I'm not suggesting anyone break the law. I'm just trying to understand how this will all work. Are these new regulations suggesting there are record keeping requirements for any gun owner? Then what happens should those be lost, like in a fire.
I have been trying to figure this out myself... for instance:

Rifle A is built on a stripped receiver purchased by me at an FFL and DROSd before 2014.

Rifle B is built on an 80% receiver that was manufactured and engraved (per ATF requirements) by me prior to 2014.

At no time was I a prohibited person nor am I now and I hold a valid CA LTC.

Neither rifle A nor rifle B are in the AFS or registered with the CA DOJ.
Neither rifle A nor rifle B are classified as AWs (featureless, fixed magazine, whatever).
Both rifles have markings required by the ATF and prior to 7/1/2018 could be legally transferred at any CA FFL.

After 7/1/2018, if I have contact (not doing anything illegal) with a LEO and for some reason, he runs the serial numbers of my rifles... neither of which shows up as stolen nor is there any AFS record of either.

This seems to create a couple of problems for enforcement and a nightmare for prosecution.
__________________
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
  #96  
Old 02-02-2018, 2:13 PM
dsmoot dsmoot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 175
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Compete the gun or complete milling the lower?
The whole gun. They say they want pictures from above that show the full barrel and everything, along with a picture of the engraved SN.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-02-2018, 2:13 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 885
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Max View Post
I think you might be right. ATF website Q&A omitted that distinction, but the published regulations specifically say for NFA firearms.
I wish that wasn't the case, believe me. I have been asking everyone who has been saying that exemption applied to us to show exactly how it did so, without an actual answer.

When I asked the people saying that exemption didn't apply to us, they were able to point things like this out.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-02-2018, 2:16 PM
Paul223's Avatar
Paul223 Paul223 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Kern County
Posts: 180
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default California Code of Regulations Title 11, Division 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Max View Post
In which case, I will point you to the beginning of the DOJ regulation that was published that the OP is talking about:



29181.
Section 29180 does not apply to or affect any of the following:

(a) A firearm that has a serial number assigned to it pursuant to either Section 23910 or Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
Here's a link to the verbage I'm referring to.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ce-Package.pdf

Last edited by Paul223; 02-02-2018 at 3:50 PM.. Reason: Wrong link
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-02-2018, 2:16 PM
Mountain Max's Avatar
Mountain Max Mountain Max is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 561
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
I wish that wasn't the case, believe me. I have been asking everyone who has been saying that exemption applied to us to show exactly how it did so, without an actual answer.

When I asked the people saying that exemption didn't apply to us, they were able to point things like this out.
We just need the ATF to revise the regulations and we're good to go!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-02-2018, 2:34 PM
jlist jlist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 513
iTrader: 94 / 100%
Default

Feels like this is DOJ doing it all over again - putting things in the regs that are never in the laws. What are the odds that it'll stand in court?

Last edited by jlist; 02-02-2018 at 2:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 02-02-2018, 2:51 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 330
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsmoot View Post
The whole gun. They say they want pictures from above that show the full barrel and everything, along with a picture of the engraved SN.
That can't be correct. What about someone that has finished a lower but not completed the gun. Is that lower in some sort of limbo where it is a both a gun and not a gun at the same time?
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-02-2018, 2:56 PM
wpod's Avatar
wpod wpod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,825
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlist View Post
Feels like this is DOJ doing it all over again - putting things in the regs that are never in the laws. What are the odds that it'll stand in court?
In CA? 100%

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-02-2018, 3:13 PM
Mountain Max's Avatar
Mountain Max Mountain Max is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 561
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What do you guys think about:
Quote:
§926. Rules and regulations
(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter
If there is no code or regulation that specifically requires any rules in regards to serializing a home built firearm (including applying one at all), wouldn't an unlicensed home builder be serializing pursuant to the code and regulations?

Example:
John Smith serializes a firearm. Did he break any federal laws or regulations pursuant to Chapter 44? Then he serialized the firearm pursuant to Chapter 44. While John Smith was not required to serialize the firearm, he did so in a manner not restricted by any federal laws or regulations. Perhaps John did it because he was bored with that particular gun and was looking to sell it, so he serialized it according to the requirements his local FFL would need to satisfy. He later then realized he liked the gun after all and wanted to keep it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-02-2018, 3:44 PM
Mountain Max's Avatar
Mountain Max Mountain Max is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 561
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Another scenario I'm thinking of:

Say you trust the Federal Gov with registration more than California Gov, could you build an AOW and do an NFA registration without being in any CA database?

I'm thinking of a Polymer80 pistol with an Inlander Arms single shot kit, 10 inch barrel insert without rifling on it (AOW)

Would you be restricted from converting it after its registered an AOW?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-02-2018, 5:24 PM
FUCA2AFTW FUCA2AFTW is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
That can't be correct. What about someone that has finished a lower but not completed the gun. Is that lower in some sort of limbo where it is a both a gun and not a gun at the same time?
^^^^ This
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-02-2018, 9:39 PM
dsmoot dsmoot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 175
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
That can't be correct. What about someone that has finished a lower but not completed the gun. Is that lower in some sort of limbo where it is a both a gun and not a gun at the same time?
That's my point. Maybe I'm reading the regs wrong... But I doubt it knowing CA.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-02-2018, 10:06 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,274
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Max View Post
What do you guys think about:

If there is no code or regulation that specifically requires any rules in regards to serializing a home built firearm (including applying one at all), wouldn't an unlicensed home builder be serializing pursuant to the code and regulations?

Example:
John Smith serializes a firearm. Did he break any federal laws or regulations pursuant to Chapter 44? Then he serialized the firearm pursuant to Chapter 44. While John Smith was not required to serialize the firearm, he did so in a manner not restricted by any federal laws or regulations. Perhaps John did it because he was bored with that particular gun and was looking to sell it, so he serialized it according to the requirements his local FFL would need to satisfy. He later then realized he liked the gun after all and wanted to keep it.
It's been postulated many times before, again no one really knows. It was a grey area for years essentially operating off the honors system. I choose to base what I do off conservative measures and ideas, so when I am in a bad situation I can at least wave a piece of paper at them. It's just an interpretation, but volreg seems to be a small road into legitimacy and being able to transfer in the future, unlike Cooper 857 which is a dead end that requires you to do it their way.
__________________
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
  #108  
Old 02-02-2018, 10:46 PM
ImpliedConsent ImpliedConsent is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Seems like there's got to be a protection against this. Since when can the State - state or federal - force a citizen to take positive action (not to mention spend money!) to avoid becoming a criminal for something that's not already a crime? This is a direct 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment violation, as well as being a retroactively applied law.

Whether or not any one of us falls under the new regulation, this blatant disregard for property rights and civil rights can't be allowed to stand - today it's guns, which is bad enough, but what's next on the list to retroactively criminalize?

As a (potentially realistic) example: what if they decided having a fireplace in your house was no longer permissible because of the air pollution they cause, in addition to banning the building of new ones? Or not being able to sell your house until such was removed? At your expense?

This is outrageous.

Last edited by ImpliedConsent; 02-02-2018 at 10:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-02-2018, 10:57 PM
BMartin1776's Avatar
BMartin1776 BMartin1776 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Shaking my head... do you all understand that this is abt a RULE CHANGE, that does not require legislative approval that registers ALL weapons including home built?

I see folks going back and forth whether or not and how to serialize... the issue is IT HAS TO BE SERIALIZED AND HAS TO BE REGISTERED.

They used AB857 to open the door so the CA DOJ/ATF can make a simple rule change to get back door registration!

We're having the same issue at the federal level with the ATF over bump stocks. Theres a rule change proposed, now under review after comments period has closed. Problem is ATF fmr Exec says in vid here theyre expanding it to include devices that alter rate of fire... meaning EVERYTHING!!

This is not good and I have no faith any organization is going to stop it in the courts. We're screwed like I said above if something bad happens.
__________________
SavingtheRepublic Through The Art of Political Guerrilla Warfare
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-02-2018, 11:02 PM
BMartin1776's Avatar
BMartin1776 BMartin1776 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpliedConsent View Post
Seems like there's got to be a protection against this. Since when can the State - state or federal - force a citizen to take positive action (not to mention spend money!) to avoid becoming a criminal for something that's not already a crime? This is a direct 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment violation, as well as being a retroactively applied law.

Whether or not any one of us falls under the new regulation, this blatant disregard for property rights and civil rights can't be allowed to stand - today it's guns, which is bad enough, but what's next on the list to retroactively criminalize?

As a (potentially realistic) example: what if they decided having a fireplace in your house was no longer permissible because of the air pollution they cause, in addition to banning the building of new ones? Or not being able to sell your house until such was removed? At your expense?

This is outrageous.
Yep and no one gives a damn about that injustice being committed against us. Living in this state, we're behind enemy lines. NO ONE is going to come and help us.

If you have the means to get out of CA I suggest you do so. Ppl like myself, broke and unemployed, are not as fortunate.
__________________
SavingtheRepublic Through The Art of Political Guerrilla Warfare
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 02-03-2018, 6:43 AM
Whiskey_Tango's Avatar
Whiskey_Tango Whiskey_Tango is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: PRK
Posts: 1,270
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
That can't be correct. What about someone that has finished a lower but not completed the gun. Is that lower in some sort of limbo where it is a both a gun and not a gun at the same time?
Shcrodinger's gun.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-03-2018, 8:09 AM
NorcalGSG NorcalGSG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 848
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpliedConsent View Post
Seems like there's got to be a protection against this. Since when can the State - state or federal - force a citizen to take positive action (not to mention spend money!) to avoid becoming a criminal for something that's not already a crime? This is a direct 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment violation, as well as being a retroactively applied law.

Whether or not any one of us falls under the new regulation, this blatant disregard for property rights and civil rights can't be allowed to stand - today it's guns, which is bad enough, but what's next on the list to retroactively criminalize?

As a (potentially realistic) example: what if they decided having a fireplace in your house was no longer permissible because of the air pollution they cause, in addition to banning the building of new ones? Or not being able to sell your house until such was removed? At your expense?

This is outrageous.
We as a state already let this happen from Schwarzenegger's global warming bill bs. All the legally purchased diesel trucks and equipment, bought in good faith, was later deemed illegal to use and essentially worthless. It's happening as we speak. You and everyone else should have stopped it years ago, before the precedence was set essentially green lighting this type of crap.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-03-2018, 8:12 AM
familyfarm's Avatar
familyfarm familyfarm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 299
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think that many of us here have partially built firearms using legal 80% lowers as a start. If we are indeed being forced by these new regs to buy more parts and complete a firearm and register it by 2019 or be felons, then it seems to me that a class action against DOJ/CA on behalf of all these folks might have some merit. But I am not a lawyer - just throwing our ideas.

The economic damages of each of us spending hundreds ($500+) per firearm to complete thousands of guns is significant. Best I can tell, if I let a fully built 80% lower sit there I become a felon. Worse, I cannot register a lower even if I comply by requesting a serial and self-engraving. They are requiring fully built firearms to VolReg, and have previously defined a finished lower as a firearm, right?

Has anyone found an legal way to not complete and register a built-out 80% lower? Shouldn't there be one?
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02-03-2018, 8:31 AM
CSACANNONEER's Avatar
CSACANNONEER CSACANNONEER is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 43,060
iTrader: 130 / 100%
Blog Entries: 4
Default

What about homebuilds that have been properly marked and later sold prior to 2014? They have gone through the DROS process but, not make, model or SN has been recorded. Will they be required to be "registered"?
__________________
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

KM6WLV
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 02-03-2018, 11:46 AM
DisgruntledReaper's Avatar
DisgruntledReaper DisgruntledReaper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,726
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

This all such bs, it all comes down to being an ex post facto issue in which everything you have done in years past..all the way to 1968(really ,you efinin pos doj and pos legislature traitors?!) Is now going to be illegal if not registered and all of us will be potential criminals...IF THIS DOES NOT DEFINE AN EXPOSTFACTO INCIDENT I DONT KNOW WHAT DOES.
There should be a class action suit and IF we could get 500000 or 1000000 gun owners to donate $50-100 i think we could hammer these mother effers,would have a real nice legal fund to attack them with, bring ACTUAL INTELLIGENT STATS AND DISCUSSION TO COURT, HAVE CLEAR CONCRETE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES PRESENTED,not some rushed for time due to money constraints crap.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-03-2018, 1:00 PM
BMartin1776's Avatar
BMartin1776 BMartin1776 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledReaper View Post
This all such bs, it all comes down to being an ex post facto issue in which everything you have done in years past..all the way to 1968(really ,you efinin pos doj and pos legislature traitors?!) Is now going to be illegal if not registered and all of us will be potential criminals...IF THIS DOES NOT DEFINE AN EXPOSTFACTO INCIDENT I DONT KNOW WHAT DOES.
There should be a class action suit and IF we could get 500000 or 1000000 gun owners to donate $50-100 i think we could hammer these mother effers,would have a real nice legal fund to attack them with, bring ACTUAL INTELLIGENT STATS AND DISCUSSION TO COURT, HAVE CLEAR CONCRETE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES PRESENTED,not some rushed for time due to money constraints crap.
That won't happen bc said CA gun owners couldnt even muster up enough signatures to stop gunmageddon.

The legislators need to be run out of office permanently and the only way that happens is if someone with the deepest of pockets steps in to bankroll the dirtiest of dirty campaigns against each and everyone of them..... GOP, NRA etc like their money, they're not willing to spend it in this state bc liberals outnumber conservs probably 3:1. As Ive said repeatedly to those of you who are fortunate and have the means to move you should do so. The nice weather and "family" excuse doesnt fly when youre facing highest taxes, most restrictive abusive gun laws, socialist/ communist policies w/regards to fake climate change, immigration etc. Hell they make you pay 10cents for a lousy plastic bag at the super market! Dana Loesch said this a while ago on her show, when is it enough, the weather aint worth it. If you have a job youre already ahead of losers like myself. Start applying in other states, bank your money. If you can pick up and go, then do it, let your wife and kids cry now, they'll be thanking you down the road. CA is lost, its done. This nanny state will collapse on itself, and when all those ppl who like getting free stuff put their hand out and nothing is put in it bc state is broke all hell will... WILL break loose.
__________________
SavingtheRepublic Through The Art of Political Guerrilla Warfare
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02-03-2018, 3:26 PM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 856
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMartin1776 View Post
That won't happen bc said CA gun owners couldnt even muster up enough signatures to stop gunmageddon.

The legislators need to be run out of office permanently and the only way that happens is if someone with the deepest of pockets steps in to bankroll the dirtiest of dirty campaigns against each and everyone of them..... GOP, NRA etc like their money, they're not willing to spend it in this state bc liberals outnumber conservs probably 3:1. As Ive said repeatedly to those of you who are fortunate and have the means to move you should do so. The nice weather and "family" excuse doesnt fly when youre facing highest taxes, most restrictive abusive gun laws, socialist/ communist policies w/regards to fake climate change, immigration etc. Hell they make you pay 10cents for a lousy plastic bag at the super market! Dana Loesch said this a while ago on her show, when is it enough, the weather aint worth it. If you have a job youre already ahead of losers like myself. Start applying in other states, bank your money. If you can pick up and go, then do it, let your wife and kids cry now, they'll be thanking you down the road. CA is lost, its done. This nanny state will collapse on itself, and when all those ppl who like getting free stuff put their hand out and nothing is put in it bc state is broke all hell will... WILL break loose.
The NRA-ILA spends every dollar donated from Californians In CA. And they spend additional money from out of state on top of that, so many people in free states are actually funding the fight here. These are facts.

They are just up against a very tough political reality here, so you may not like the results produced, but they’re doing what they can and treating Californians more than fairly.
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-03-2018, 4:39 PM
DisgruntledReaper's Avatar
DisgruntledReaper DisgruntledReaper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,726
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMartin1776 View Post
That won't happen bc said CA gun owners couldnt even muster up enough signatures to stop gunmageddon.

The legislators need to be run out of office permanently and the only way that happens is if someone with the deepest of pockets steps in to bankroll the dirtiest of dirty campaigns against each and everyone of them..... GOP, NRA etc like their money, they're not willing to spend it in this state bc liberals outnumber conservs probably 3:1. As Ive said repeatedly to those of you who are fortunate and have the means to move you should do so. The nice weather and "family" excuse doesnt fly when youre facing highest taxes, most restrictive abusive gun laws, socialist/ communist policies w/regards to fake climate change, immigration etc. Hell they make you pay 10cents for a lousy plastic bag at the super market! Dana Loesch said this a while ago on her show, when is it enough, the weather aint worth it. If you have a job youre already ahead of losers like myself. Start applying in other states, bank your money. If you can pick up and go, then do it, let your wife and kids cry now, they'll be thanking you down the road. CA is lost, its done. This nanny state will collapse on itself, and when all those ppl who like getting free stuff put their hand out and nothing is put in it bc state is broke all hell will... WILL break loose.
EVERY one of the Legishiiiiiters in the state need to be dragged from their offices and punched in the throat until they resign and sign a paper that bans them from ANY public office PERIOD...

Honestly I feel that the ATF regs over ride the state in this matter BECAUSE the ATF SETS the NATIONAL standard on the markings that are to be 'universally' applied across all current firearms as well as the exclusion of having to mark a home made firearm for ones personal use if it is not to be sold.

The current mumbo jumbo going on with all these clips quotes and snippets creates such an air of lunatic confusion that it is wise to follow WHAT WE KNOW ,and that is the specifics the ATF has regarding the marking of home made firearms... YOU built it,YOU ARE the manufacturer, You mark in accordance with the ATF guidelines, not the contradictory,vague,confusing and moronic filth that the CADOJ and Legishiiiiters are doing... you must reg,but you cant if.... even if you... we wont reg it because... we wont have the guidelines in place by such date... but you only have til 'THIS' date to reg... so sorry you are effe now......

Screw all this.....
__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.'

'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood'

"They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem"

[SIGPIC]http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic27069_2.gif[/SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02-03-2018, 4:48 PM
Flintlock Tom's Avatar
Flintlock Tom Flintlock Tom is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Posts: 3,045
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMartin1776 View Post
Yep and no one gives a damn about that injustice being committed against us. Living in this state, we're behind enemy lines. NO ONE is going to come and help us.

If you have the means to get out of CA I suggest you do so. Ppl like myself, broke and unemployed, are not as fortunate.

Why not be "broke and unemployed" in Arizona??
__________________
"Everyone must determine for themselves what level of tyranny they are willing to tolerate.
I let my 03 FFL expire in 2013 and my CA residency in 2015."
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 02-03-2018, 5:29 PM
BMartin1776's Avatar
BMartin1776 BMartin1776 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledReaper View Post
EVERY one of the Legishiiiiiters in the state need to be dragged from their offices and punched in the throat until they resign and sign a paper that bans them from ANY public office PERIOD...

Honestly I feel that the ATF regs over ride the state in this matter BECAUSE the ATF SETS the NATIONAL standard on the markings that are to be 'universally' applied across all current firearms as well as the exclusion of having to mark a home made firearm for ones personal use if it is not to be sold.

The current mumbo jumbo going on with all these clips quotes and snippets creates such an air of lunatic confusion that it is wise to follow WHAT WE KNOW ,and that is the specifics the ATF has regarding the marking of home made firearms... YOU built it,YOU ARE the manufacturer, You mark in accordance with the ATF guidelines, not the contradictory,vague,confusing and moronic filth that the CADOJ and Legishiiiiters are doing... you must reg,but you cant if.... even if you... we wont reg it because... we wont have the guidelines in place by such date... but you only have til 'THIS' date to reg... so sorry you are effe now......

Screw all this.....
NO thats not how it works. As it was explained to me the state can make more regs over an existing federal reg, they just cant lesson a federal reg. So thats how CA scumbags in Sacramento(&other states)get away with it. Under federal ATF regs private citizens DO NOT have to serialize let alone register home build
__________________
SavingtheRepublic Through The Art of Political Guerrilla Warfare
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 2:53 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.