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
  #201  
Old 12-26-2016, 6:04 PM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

What is 5.52?

You can't lawfully build it in 2017 because it would be deemed manufacturing an AW, a felony, with quite severe state prison term. You would need to build it featured with a BB before the end of 2016 to be within the laws, then register it in 2017. The last statement presumes that builds can be registered as an AW. That is not entirely clear to me in light of amd. PC 30900(b)(3):

"The registration shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the date the firearm was acquired, the name and address of the individual from whom, or business from which, the firearm was acquired, as well as the registrant’s full name, address, telephone number, date of birth, sex, height, weight, eye color, hair color, and California driver’s license number or California identification card number."

Nevertheless, I would try to register it; it must be a fully assembled rifle this year in order to register as AW next year.

Perhaps others will politely chime in if their opinion differs.

Last edited by ifilef; 12-26-2016 at 6:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 12-26-2016, 6:19 PM
Ribkick's Avatar
Ribkick Ribkick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Santa Cruz County
Posts: 702
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifilef View Post
What is 5.52?

You can't lawfully build it in 2017 because it would be deemed manufacturing an AW, a felony, with quite severe state prison term. You would need to build it featured with a BB before the end of 2016 to be within the laws, then register it in 2017. The last statement presumes that builds can be registered as an AW. That is not entirely clear to me in light of amd. PC 30900(b)(3):

"The registration shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the date the firearm was acquired, the name and address of the individual from whom, or business from which, the firearm was acquired, as well as the registrant’s full name, address, telephone number, date of birth, sex, height, weight, eye color, hair color, and California driver’s license number or California identification card number."

Nevertheless, I would try to register it; it must be a fully assembled rifle this year (or during 2017 and registered as AW prior to 12/31/17?) in order to register as AW next year.

Perhaps others will politely chime in if their opinion differs.
Sorry, typo. 5.56

ETA, your response makes no sense to me. With a registered lower that was bought and ser# registered as a legal lower rifle, 1, 2, 3, 4, or more years ago, how would anyone know when the rifle was built and put into service? It could have been year 1 or 2017 after purchase prior to 2016. Please educate me.
__________________


NoSTAZ

Last edited by Ribkick; 12-26-2016 at 6:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 12-26-2016, 7:01 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ribkick View Post
ETA, your response makes no sense to me. With a registered lower that was bought and ser# registered as a legal lower rifle, 1, 2, 3, 4, or more years ago, how would anyone know when the rifle was built and put into service? It could have been year 1 or 2017 after purchase prior to 2016. Please educate me.
The law states that the "AW" (2017 definition) must have been lawfully possessed from 2001 to 2016 inclusive.

It does not state "The firearm" (which WOULD include the lower), it states "AW"

A bare lower is by definition not an AW because it is not:
(A semiautomatic pistol) or ((A centerfire) AND semiautomatic) rifle
with SB23 features and a non-fixed magazine.

Even a completed lower without an upper attached is neither centerfire nor semiautomatic.
The wording of the law is clear that at some point prior to 1/1/2017 the gun must have been in a configuration that was legal from 2001-2016 but also illegal beginning 1/1/2017.

The 2017 registration period ONLY provides for an exemption for possession, not an exemption for importation and manufacture.


It is up to you to decide "what they know about" and "what you can get away with"... but keep in mind that these DOJ forms all have above the signature line "I certify under penalty of perjury...."
The purpose of this forum is to discuss the law and legalities and how they apply... not to discuss "what we can get away with". That is an individual decision and risk that everyone needs to think through.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 12-26-2016, 7:09 PM
ACfixer's Avatar
ACfixer ACfixer is offline
Global Warming Enthusiast
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: KAPV-L35 SoCal
Posts: 2,347
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
The purpose of this forum is to discuss the law and legalities and how they apply... not to discuss "what we can get away with". That is an individual decision and risk that everyone needs to think through.
Well said.
__________________


Buy made in USA whenever possible.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 12-26-2016, 7:13 PM
Ribkick's Avatar
Ribkick Ribkick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Santa Cruz County
Posts: 702
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
The law states that the "AW" (2017 definition) must have been lawfully possessed from 2001 to 2016 inclusive.

It does not state "The firearm" (which WOULD include the lower), it states "AW"

A bare lower is by definition not an AW because it is not:
(A semiautomatic pistol) or ((A centerfire) AND semiautomatic) rifle
with SB23 features and a non-fixed magazine.

Even a completed lower without an upper attached is neither centerfire nor semiautomatic.
The wording of the law is clear that at some point prior to 1/1/2017 the gun must have been in a configuration that was legal from 2001-2016 but also illegal beginning 1/1/2017.

The 2017 registration period ONLY provides for an exemption for possession, not an exemption for importation and manufacture.


It is up to you to decide "what they know about" and "what you can get away with"... but keep in mind that these DOJ forms all have above the signature line "I certify under penalty of perjury...."
The purpose of this forum is to discuss the law and legalities and how they apply... not to discuss "what we can get away with". That is an individual decision and risk that everyone needs to think through.
Thank you, Cokebottle. That clarifies it for me. It was built w/BB prior to 12/31/2016 so it will qualify to register as an AW in 2017. My concern was it was purchased and then sat on a shelf for a long time prior to building.
__________________


NoSTAZ
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 12-26-2016, 8:34 PM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ribkick View Post
Sorry, typo. 5.56

ETA, your response makes no sense to me. With a registered lower that was bought and ser# registered as a legal lower rifle, 1, 2, 3, 4, or more years ago, how would anyone know when the rifle was built and put into service? It could have been year 1 or 2017 after purchase prior to 2016. Please educate me.
You are willfully misquoting me in the portion above in red, earlier post.

You can't build it featured with BB in 2017 and then register in 2017 if you want to follow the law. Don't build it in 2017 as featured with BB- it would constitute manufacturing an AW, as I already mentioned to you before.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 12-26-2016, 8:37 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifilef View Post
You are willfully misquoting me in the portion above in red, earlier post.

You can't build it featured with BB in 2017 and then register in 2017 if you want to follow the law. Don't build it in 2017 as featured with BB- it would constitute manufacturing an AW, as I already mentioned to you before.
I think the red was a question, not misquote
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 12-26-2016, 8:41 PM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Oh, I do now see the question mark which indicates that he doesn't understand the difference between building featured wih BB in 2017 (illegal) and building featured with BB in 2016 (legal) nor does he apparently understand that a weapon that is featured with BB can legally be converted to featureless in 2016 or 2017.

Last edited by ifilef; 12-26-2016 at 8:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 12-26-2016, 8:43 PM
ninja750r's Avatar
ninja750r ninja750r is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 220
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Can I transport let's say two or more lowers that registered as RAWs in a locked case without uppers attached?

Example: I'd like to transport both my ARs in a single case. I would remove the uppers and set them on the back seat of my truck. The lowers would be locked away in a fully enclosed hard case. Is this legal?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 12-26-2016, 8:46 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifilef View Post
nor does he apparently understand that a weapon that is featured with BB can legally be converted to featureless in 2016 or 2017.

Are you conceding that based on the DOJ memo to the FFLs, or still maintaining that it must be registered but may then be de-registered?
Or are you not commenting to the registration issue at all and merely legality.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 12-26-2016, 8:46 PM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja750r View Post
Can I transport let's say two or more lowers that registered as RAWs in a locked case without uppers attached?

Example: I'd like to transport both my ARs in a single case. I would remove the uppers and set them on the back seat of my truck. The lowers would be locked away in a fully enclosed hard case. Is this legal?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
You need to review PC 30945(g) and the statutes contained therein. Go from there.

Last edited by ifilef; 12-26-2016 at 9:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 12-26-2016, 8:52 PM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post

Are you conceding that based on the DOJ memo to the FFLs, or still maintaining that it must be registered but may then be de-registered?
Or are you not commenting to the registration issue at all and merely legality.
My earlier comments were not directed at the particular duty to register as AW.

I've never read the memo to FFLs and I don't give a hoot what FFL can do or DOJ says they can do in order to save their inventory. It's apples n oranges when it comes to the registration statute. I haven't even kept up with what they may do.

Permitting FFL to convert (without registering as AW) is not relevant for our purposes. Moreover, DOJ may give FFL some slack because they are FFL.

What is relevant for our purposes is possession of a featured SACF with BB prior to 1/1/2017- mandatory duty to register as AW.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, 'BagelBites' claims to have what amounts to inside information that DOJ will indeed excuse failure to register as AW those who convert to featureless/mag compliant prior to 12/31/2017. If true and correct, that would be a good thing but I don't see it as conforming to 30680 and 30900(b)(1) requisites.

Then again, I don't like to look 'gift horses' in the mouth.

Last edited by ifilef; 12-26-2016 at 9:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 12-26-2016, 8:53 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja750r View Post
Can I transport let's say two or more lowers that registered as RAWs in a locked case without uppers attached?

Example: I'd like to transport both my ARs in a single case. I would remove the uppers and set them on the back seat of my truck. The lowers would be locked away in a fully enclosed hard case. Is this legal?
Bill Weise addressed this in his thread that went into much detail.

Registration provides an exemption from prosecution for possession, transport, importation, and lending of (the registered) AW, provided that specific provisions are met.

IF the AW features are not present, the firearm itself is not an AW, and thus is not subject to the restrictions specified by the law.
This precedence goes back to the original SB23 Category 3 AW (features) statute.
The firearm does not have to be de-registered to be temporarily removed from AW status and thus not subject to AW laws.

BUT...

Care must be taken to avoid culpability as having a "broken" AW, specifically, case law in a situation where the owner removed the bolt from a rifle and claimed it was not a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle.
Simply removing the upper and transporting it in the same vehicle would most likely not provide an exemption.
Installation of a dedicated 22lr upper without a centerfire upper in the vehicle most likely would.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.

Last edited by Cokebottle; 12-26-2016 at 8:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 12-26-2016, 8:57 PM
ninja750r's Avatar
ninja750r ninja750r is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 220
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
Bill Weise addressed this in his thread that went into much detail.

Registration provides an exemption from prosecution for possession, transport, importation, and lending of (the registered) AW, provided that specific provisions are met.

IF the AW features are not present, the firearm itself is not an AW, and thus is not subject to the restrictions specified by the law.
This precedence goes back to the original SB23 Category 3 AW (features) statute.
The firearm does not have to be de-registered to be temporarily removed from AW status and thus not subject to AW laws.

BUT...

Care must be taken to avoid culpability as having a "broken" AW, specifically, case law in a situation where the owner removed the bolt from a rifle and claimed it was not a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle.
Simply removing the upper and transporting it in the same vehicle would not provide an exemption.
I'm not so much trying to skirt the law.

It's more I'm cheap and don't want to buy more cases. See what I'm trying to say?



Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 12-26-2016, 9:16 PM
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca's Avatar
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,753
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja750r View Post
Can I transport let's say two or more lowers that registered as RAWs in a locked case without uppers attached?

Example: I'd like to transport both my ARs in a single case. I would remove the uppers and set them on the back seat of my truck. The lowers would be locked away in a fully enclosed hard case. Is this legal?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
I don't see why not. I'm planning on doing the same thing. I can fit 3 lowers in my rifle case.

Ask yourself this. If you were transporting 3 full uppers in unlocked cases with no lowers present what crime are you commiting.

Last edited by StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca; 12-26-2016 at 9:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 12-26-2016, 9:22 PM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

I think it better not to speculate re ninja's question. Read PC 30945(g) and go to the statutes referenced in that subsection. After all, we are dealing with the subject of assault weapons and special rules apply, if they have been registered as AW. And ninja's question deals with RAWs and not ordinary long guns.

Last edited by ifilef; 12-26-2016 at 9:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 12-26-2016, 9:48 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja750r View Post
I'm not so much trying to skirt the law.

It's more I'm cheap and don't want to buy more cases. See what I'm trying to say?
I hear you.
And for that purpose, I would play it safe.

But keep in mind that the RAW transport laws are basically the same as handgun.
There is nothing that requires them to be stored or transported in an SKB or Pelican. Any "secure locking container" is good.
A quality soft bag with a lock meets the requirements.

Pretty much what we should already be using

I also apologize for not completely reading your original post... I stopped at "stripped lowers" (which would not by definition be AW even if registered).
There is nothing in the law that I see that precludes multiple RAW from being transported together.
Likewise, nothing that would prevent you from removing the uppers and transporting the assembled lowers in a common case.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.

Last edited by Cokebottle; 12-26-2016 at 9:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 12-27-2016, 8:38 AM
yth yth is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Please pardon me if this question has been asked. I searched the forums but was unable to find an answer. (Also, this is my first post on these forums).

I will be registering my rifle come the new year with the upper it came with.
My question is, I have a second upper of the SAME caliber: will I legally be able to put this second upper on the rifle and use it?

Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 12-27-2016, 9:03 AM
vmassarano's Avatar
vmassarano vmassarano is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Los Angeles Area
Posts: 74
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good question yth.

As I understand it, it's the lower receiver that has the serial number and is registered thru the FFL/DROS process. Uppers are not registered (I got two delivered via UPS), and they are interchangeable on a registered lower.

But keep in mind, if you're goal is to be "featureless", be sure both uppers comply with the evil-feature rules (i.e., no forward handgrip, no flash hider, etc.).
__________________
"How long would the Nazi’s have kept it up, General, if every Jew they came after had met them with a gun in his hand?”

- - Walter Matthau as Dr. Groeteschele in "Fail Safe" (1964)

Last edited by vmassarano; 12-27-2016 at 9:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 12-27-2016, 10:14 AM
yth yth is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you for the reply!
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 12-28-2016, 10:55 AM
iano1 iano1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 716
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

My memory leaves me after reading this thread multiple times and debating what I'm going to do myself.
I just hope that there ends up being an option to "de-register" at some point. There are some guns I like to shoot as they were intended- but when I become an old man (God willing) I'd like to de-register, convert to featureless and give to my sons.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 12-28-2016, 11:00 AM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iano1 View Post
My memory leaves me after reading this thread multiple times and debating what I'm going to do myself.
I just hope that there ends up being an option to "de-register" at some point. There are some guns I like to shoot as they were intended- but when I become an old man (God willing) I'd like to de-register, convert to featureless and give to my sons.
Current regulation:

11 CCR § 5473
§ 5473. Voluntary Cancellations.

(a) The DOJ will accept voluntary cancellations for assault weapons that are no longer possessed by the registrant. Cancellations will also be accepted for assault weapons, defined and registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30515, that have been modified or reconfigured to no longer meet the assault weapon definition. [Emphasis added]. Cancellation requests must be signed, dated, and provide the following information:

(1) Registrant's full name, telephone number, and current address; make, model, and serial number of the assault weapon; and the DOJ assault weapon registration number (as indicated on the registration confirmation letter provided to the registrant at the time of registration). If the DOJ assault weapon registration number is unknown, the request must be notarized.

(b) After confirmation of the information provided on the cancellation request, the DOJ will permanently delete the registration for the specified assault weapon(s). If there are no remaining assault weapons registered to the individual, all personal information regarding the registrant will also be deleted from the assault weapon data base. The DOJ will mail confirmation of the cancellation to the address provided on the request.
Note: Authority cited: Section 30520, Penal Code. Reference: Sections 30900, 30905, 30910, 30915, 30920, 30925, 30930, 30935, 30940, 30945, 30950, 30955, 30960 and 30965, Penal Code.

HISTORY
1. Change without regulatory effect renumbering section 978.33 to section 5473 filed 6-28-2006 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2006, No. 26).
2. Change without regulatory effect amending section and Note filed 12-27-2011 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2011, No. 52).
This database is current through 12/2/16 Register 2016, No. 49
11 CCR § 5473, 11 CA ADC § 5473
END OF DOCUMENT © 2016 Thomson Reuters

-----------------------------------------------------------------

There's a designated BOF form that can be used in lieu of calling DOJ. I'd use the form. It's 'No longer in possession' form. Don't let the title of the form throw you. Section 'C' provides for so-called 'de-registration' of a RAW.

Hope this helps.

Last edited by ifilef; 12-28-2016 at 11:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 12-28-2016, 6:05 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifilef View Post
There's a designated BOF form that can be used in lieu of calling DOJ. I'd use the form. It's 'No longer in possession' form. Don't let the title of the form throw you. Section 'C' provides for so-called 'de-registration' of a RAW.

Hope this helps.
While the law and procedure is in place, according to a couple of Calgunners who are attempting to do this with their 2000 SB23 off-list builds, the actual approval seems to be a bit of a unicorn.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 12-28-2016, 6:18 PM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
While the law and procedure is in place, according to a couple of Calgunners who are attempting to do this with their 2000 SB23 off-list builds, the actual approval seems to be a bit of a unicorn.
That's why I suggested just using the form in lieu of calling DOJ. And none of the posters gave any specific details of which they complain.

Moreover, I don't see in reading the form that DOJ can require any proof of conversion to featureless other than a declaration under penalty of perjury contained in the form.

It's part 'C' of the form, not Part 'D', which requires in many instances independent verification.

Here is the form:

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...46NLIP0209.pdf

Last edited by ifilef; 12-28-2016 at 6:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 12-28-2016, 6:20 PM
jgstorm's Avatar
jgstorm jgstorm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The OC
Posts: 474
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Thank you very much Librarian!
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 12-28-2016, 6:35 PM
iano1 iano1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 716
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Thank you. That seems reasonable considering. Hopefully we'll find out whether registering means we can ditch BB before 2018

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifilef View Post
Current regulation:

11 CCR § 5473
§ 5473. Voluntary Cancellations.

(a) The DOJ will accept voluntary cancellations for assault weapons that are no longer possessed by the registrant. Cancellations will also be accepted for assault weapons, defined and registered pursuant to Penal Code section 30515, that have been modified or reconfigured to no longer meet the assault weapon definition. [Emphasis added]. Cancellation requests must be signed, dated, and provide the following information:

(1) Registrant's full name, telephone number, and current address; make, model, and serial number of the assault weapon; and the DOJ assault weapon registration number (as indicated on the registration confirmation letter provided to the registrant at the time of registration). If the DOJ assault weapon registration number is unknown, the request must be notarized.

(b) After confirmation of the information provided on the cancellation request, the DOJ will permanently delete the registration for the specified assault weapon(s). If there are no remaining assault weapons registered to the individual, all personal information regarding the registrant will also be deleted from the assault weapon data base. The DOJ will mail confirmation of the cancellation to the address provided on the request.
Note: Authority cited: Section 30520, Penal Code. Reference: Sections 30900, 30905, 30910, 30915, 30920, 30925, 30930, 30935, 30940, 30945, 30950, 30955, 30960 and 30965, Penal Code.

HISTORY
1. Change without regulatory effect renumbering section 978.33 to section 5473 filed 6-28-2006 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2006, No. 26).
2. Change without regulatory effect amending section and Note filed 12-27-2011 pursuant to section 100, title 1, California Code of Regulations (Register 2011, No. 52).
This database is current through 12/2/16 Register 2016, No. 49
11 CCR § 5473, 11 CA ADC § 5473
END OF DOCUMENT © 2016 Thomson Reuters

-----------------------------------------------------------------

There's a designated BOF form that can be used in lieu of calling DOJ. I'd use the form. It's 'No longer in possession' form. Don't let the title of the form throw you. Section 'C' provides for so-called 'de-registration' of a RAW.

Hope this helps.
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 12-31-2016, 12:48 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,598
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abishai View Post
How is this? I thought the DROSS simply records "long gun"? How recently did they start recording "non-AW AR"?

Please explain.
That was 2013 and earlier; the law changed for 2014.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 12-31-2016, 12:53 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,598
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Folks, discussion of how to register or avoid registration are off-topic for this thread.

This one is for what you can do with a REGISTERED 'assault weapon'.

Threads over in http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...splay.php?f=71 for the new regulations.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 01-01-2017, 9:09 PM
oleg114208 oleg114208 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 33
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

can I legally install regular mag button on lower with out mag inserted or upper on it?

I'm asking caz of this.

https://www.franklinarmory.com/collections/dfm
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 01-01-2017, 9:13 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oleg114208 View Post
can I legally install regular mag button on lower with out mag inserted or upper on it?

I'm asking caz of this.

https://www.franklinarmory.com/collections/dfm
The law allows for removal of the magazine with the upper pivoted forward.
The DFM requires that the upper be pivoted forward to be removed, regardless of the type of magazine release.

Do not under any circumstances close the upper with the DFM removed.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 01-01-2017, 9:26 PM
oleg114208 oleg114208 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 33
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

so you can have regular mag button installed if you don't have upper on it?
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 01-01-2017, 9:30 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oleg114208 View Post
so you can have regular mag button installed if you don't have upper on it?
With the upper removed, the lower is defined in the new regs as "not a semiautomatic centerfire firearm"
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 01-01-2017, 9:32 PM
oleg114208 oleg114208 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 33
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
With the upper removed, the lower is defined in the new regs as "not a semiautomatic centerfire firearm"
got it thanks. caz u didn't need bullet button for rim fired.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 01-01-2017, 10:16 PM
Chuck S Chuck S is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
It's a real question, and nobody who knows what the regulations will be is saying yet.

This is probably the most frequent of the FAQs; nobody want to accept that the answer is not yet known.

Let us not speculate on that in this thread; there are other threads, but that is off topic for this one.
There doesn't seem to be much speculation if you read the regulations that DOJ sent to the Office of Administrative Law for approval. Registration of AW's, if the regulations are approved as written, will require 4 digital photographs although no with all the other registration information. One of those photos is to be specifically of the installed bullet button. Which means you are registering it with the bullet button and any modification to change to a standard mag release would render your AW registration void.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 01-02-2017, 12:37 AM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 416
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
Bill Weise addressed this in his thread that went into much detail.

Registration provides an exemption from prosecution for possession, transport, importation, and lending of (the registered) AW, provided that specific provisions are met.

IF the AW features are not present, the firearm itself is not an AW, and thus is not subject to the restrictions specified by the law.
This precedence goes back to the original SB23 Category 3 AW (features) statute.
The firearm does not have to be de-registered to be temporarily removed from AW status and thus not subject to AW laws.

BUT...

Care must be taken to avoid culpability as having a "broken" AW, specifically, case law in a situation where the owner removed the bolt from a rifle and claimed it was not a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle.
Simply removing the upper and transporting it in the same vehicle would most likely not provide an exemption.
Installation of a dedicated 22lr upper without a centerfire upper in the vehicle most likely would.
Bringing this thread back onto topic of RAW's and what may be done with them....

The new DOJ AW regs state that AR15 style weapons with the upper and lower separated do not meet the definition of a semiautomatic weapon. They go on to state that a weapon missing a crucial component to it's semiautomaitc functionality is no longer a semiautomatic weapon. Reference CCR 5471 (hh)(1-4)

In light of these clarifications by the DOJ, how does that change your perspective on RAW transportation requirements?? Is it still a RAW if a semiautomatic weapon is not present?
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 01-02-2017, 1:08 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,598
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck S View Post
There doesn't seem to be much speculation if you read the regulations that DOJ sent to the Office of Administrative Law for approval. Registration of AW's, if the regulations are approved as written, will require 4 digital photographs although no with all the other registration information. One of those photos is to be specifically of the installed bullet button. Which means you are registering it with the bullet button and any modification to change to a standard mag release would render your AW registration void.
Since the post you quote is from October, I hope you can forgive that it did not include knowledge made available at the end of December ...
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 01-02-2017, 4:41 AM
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 6,139
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck S View Post
There doesn't seem to be much speculation if you read the regulations that DOJ sent to the Office of Administrative Law for approval. Registration of AW's, if the regulations are approved as written, will require 4 digital photographs although no with all the other registration information. One of those photos is to be specifically of the installed bullet button. Which means you are registering it with the bullet button and any modification to change to a standard mag release would render your AW registration void.
I see what you are saying but that is not what was passed in the legislature. There is a huge disconnect which I think will either be need to be a test case or just a ruling by a judge. I hope the test case doesn't involve other issues that "color" the AW part. Example...some druggy, wife beater or illegal alien child molester caught with an add on AW charge... I hate that these Public Defenders always involve our firearms rights in their court cases defending people who I would never associate with and 100% agree should be in prison for life or executed..
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:12 AM
pacrimguru's Avatar
pacrimguru pacrimguru is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 3,574
iTrader: 184 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
Bringing this thread back onto topic of RAW's and what may be done with them....

The new DOJ AW regs state that AR15 style weapons with the upper and lower separated do not meet the definition of a semiautomatic weapon. They go on to state that a weapon missing a crucial component to it's semiautomaitc functionality is no longer a semiautomatic weapon. Reference CCR 5471 (hh)(1-4)

In light of these clarifications by the DOJ, how does that change your perspective on RAW transportation requirements?? Is it still a RAW if a semiautomatic weapon is not present?
Please see: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...78&postcount=9
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 01-02-2017, 10:20 PM
Mandalorian Mandalorian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 359
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Tagged😢
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 01-03-2017, 11:15 AM
dwightlooi dwightlooi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 453
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A few things before everyone goes totally bonkers....

(1) EVERYTHING said and argued about on this thread thus far is based on PROPOSED REGUALTIONS submitted by the DOJ.

(2) Proposed Regulations may or may not be accepted as drafted and are often withdrawn due to legal challenges by affected parties.

(3) LAW and REGULATIONS are not one and the same. Laws authorizes agencies to regulate in accordance to the law. Regulations must comply with the law and cannot exceed the authority granted by the law.

(4) You can be 100% certain the current DRAFT will be challenged.

(5) The requirement that the Bullet Button not be changed is not depicted in the legislation or authorized by it. As such it will be challenged and it stands on thin ice.

(6) The legislation (law) specifically changes the definition of a detachable magazine to include magazines that can be released with a tool (ie. bullet button). The legislation requires firearms with a detachable magazine, which meets the definitions of an assault weapons by features, be registered and empowers the DOJ to conduct such a registration within a certain time window (Jan 2017 thru Dec 31st 2017).

(7) The legislation (law) did not authorize the DOJ to create two classes of "detachable" magazine assault weapons or empower it to regulate how different styles of magazine releases must be maintained with registered assault weapons. As such, it is highly likely that the DOJ decision to do so will be ruled to be exceeding its authority under the law.


That's all. Have a happy new year.
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 5:04 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.