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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-04-2014, 10:35 AM
Proteus_'s Avatar
Proteus_ Proteus_ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 3D Printing Guns and the Zip gun Law

So, I've always avoided printing out 3d printed firearms because I was under the impression that they would be considered zipguns because no FFL made them (I am NOT talking about the Liberator. I am referring to other designs.). However, I have heard some people saying that Title I firearms are exempt from tax and therefore do not meet the zipgun specifications.

What do you guys think?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-04-2014, 10:37 AM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I think if you are making a gun that isn't based on an existing design by a licensed manufacturer then you have made a zip gun.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-04-2014, 10:37 AM
Yugo's Avatar
Yugo Yugo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 8,318
iTrader: 51 / 98%
Default

__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by WAMO556 View Post
Voting for Donald Trump is the protest vote against: Keynesian economics, Neocon wars, exporting jobs, open borders, Washington criminal cartel, too big to fail banks and too big to jail pols and banksters.

Cutting off foreign aid to EVERY country and dismantling the police/surveillance state!

Umm yeah!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanimal View Post
I think this thread needs a rest…..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-04-2014, 10:38 AM
Proteus_'s Avatar
Proteus_ Proteus_ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I think if you are making a gun that isn't based on an existing design by a licensed manufacturer then you have made a zip gun.
That's what I originally thought, but the other specification for being a zipgun is that there can be no tax paid OR exemption, and it appears that Title I firearms are exempt from taxes by the ATF?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-04-2014, 10:57 AM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proteus_ View Post
That's what I originally thought, but the other specification for being a zipgun is that there can be no tax paid OR exemption, and it appears that Title I firearms are exempt from taxes by the ATF?
The two tax exemptions mentioned are:

Section 4181 and Subchapter F (commencing with Section 4216). The applicable part states:

In case any person acquires from the manufacturer, producer, or importer of an article, by operation of law or as a result of any transaction not taxable under this chapter, the right to sell such article, the sale of such article by such person shall be taxable under this chapter as if made by the manufacturer, producer, or importer, and such person shall be liable for the tax.

The does not apply to home built guns because there is no transfer by operation of law nor is there a transaction.

The other is Subchapter G (commencing with Section 4221). This one is a bit more complicated.

The first relevant portion is all this:

(a) General rule
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, no tax shall be imposed under this chapter (other than under section 4121 or 4081) on the sale by the manufacturer (or under subchapter A or C of chapter 31 on the first retail sale) of an article—
(1) for use by the purchaser for further manufacture, or for resale by the purchaser to a second purchaser for use by such second purchaser in further manufacture,
(2) for export, or for resale by the purchaser to a second purchaser for export,
(3) for use by the purchaser as supplies for vessels or aircraft,
(4) to a State or local government for the exclusive use of a State or local government,
(5) to a nonprofit educational organization for its exclusive use, or
(6) to a qualified blood collector organization (as defined in section 7701 (a)(49)) for such organization’s exclusive use in the collection, storage, or transportation of blood,
but only if such exportation or use is to occur before any other use. Paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) shall not apply to the tax imposed by section 4064. In the case of taxes imposed by section 4051, [1] or 4071, paragraphs (4) and (5) shall not apply on and after October 1, 2016. In the case of the tax imposed by section 4131, paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) shall not apply and paragraph (2) shall apply only if the use of the exported vaccine meets such requirements as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. In the case of taxes imposed by subchapter A of chapter 31, paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (5) shall not apply. In the case of taxes imposed by subchapter C or D, paragraph (6) shall not apply. In the case of the tax imposed by section 4191, paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) shall not apply.
(b) Proof of resale for further manufacture; proof of export
Where an article has been sold free of tax under subsection (a)—
(1) for resale by the purchaser to a second purchaser for use by such second purchaser in further manufacture, or
(2) for export, or for resale by the purchaser to a second purchaser for export,
subsection (a) shall cease to apply in respect of such sale of such article unless, within the 6-month period which begins on the date of the sale by the manufacturer (or, if earlier, on the date of shipment by the manufacturer), the manufacturer receives proof that the article has been exported or resold for use in further manufacture.
(c) Manufacturer relieved from liability in certain cases
In the case of any article sold free of tax under this section (other than a sale to which subsection (b) applies), and in the case of any article sold free of tax under section 4001 (c), 4001 (d), or 4053 (6), if the manufacturer in good faith accepts a certification by the purchaser that the article will be used in accordance with the applicable provisions of law, no tax shall thereafter be imposed under this chapter in respect of such sale by such manufacturer.
(d) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) Manufacturer
The term “manufacturer” includes a producer or importer of an article, and, in the case of taxes imposed by subchapter A or C of chapter 31, includes the retailer with respect to the first retail sale.
(2) Export
The term “export” includes shipment to a possession of the United States; and the term “exported” includes shipped to a possession of the United States.
(3) Supplies for vessels or aircraft
The term “supplies for vessels or aircraft” means fuel supplies, ships’ stores, sea stores, or legitimate equipment on vessels of war of the United States or of any foreign nation, vessels employed in the fisheries or in the whaling business, or vessels actually engaged in foreign trade or trade between the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the United States or between the United States and any of its possessions. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term “vessels” includes civil aircraft employed in foreign trade or trade between the United States and any of its possessions, and the term “vessels of war of the United States or of any foreign nation” includes aircraft owned by the United States or by any foreign nation and constituting a part of the armed forces thereof.
(4) State or local government
The term “State or local government” means any State, any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia.
(5) Nonprofit educational organization
The term “nonprofit educational organization” means an educational organization described in section 170 (b)(1)(A)(ii) which is exempt from income tax under section 501 (a). The term also includes a school operated as an activity of an organization described in section 501 (c)(3) which is exempt from income tax under section 501 (a), if such school normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on.
(6) Use in further manufacture
An article shall be treated as sold for use in further manufacture if—
(A) such article is sold for use by the purchaser as material in the manufacture or production of, or as a component part of, another article taxable under this chapter to be manufactured or produced by him; or
(B) in the case of gasoline taxable under section 4081, such gasoline is sold for use by the purchaser, for nonfuel purposes, as a material in the manufacture or production of another article to be manufactured or produced by him.
(7) Qualified bus
(A) In general
The term “qualified bus” means—
(i) an intercity or local bus, and
(ii) a school bus.
(B) Intercity or local bus
The term “intercity or local bus” means any automobile bus which is used predominantly in furnishing (for compensation) passenger land transportation available to the general public if—
(i) such transportation is scheduled and along regular routes, or
(ii) the seating capacity of such bus is at least 20 adults (not including the driver).
(C) School bus
The term “school bus” means any automobile bus substantially all the use of which is in transporting students and employees of schools. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term “school” means an educational organization which normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are carried on.
(e) Special rules
(1) Reciprocity required in case of civil aircraft
In the case of articles sold for use as supplies for aircraft, the privileges granted under subsection (a)(3) in respect of civil aircraft employed in foreign trade or trade between the United States and any of its possessions, in respect of aircraft registered in a foreign country, shall be allowed only if the Secretary of the Treasury has been advised by the Secretary of Commerce that he has found that such foreign country allows, or will allow, substantially reciprocal privileges in respect of aircraft registered in the United States. If the Secretary of the Treasury is advised by the Secretary of Commerce that he has found that a foreign country has discontinued or will discontinue the allowance of such privileges, the privileges granted under subsection (a)(3) shall not apply thereafter in respect of civil aircraft registered in that foreign country and employed in foreign trade or trade between the United States and any of its possessions.
(2) Tires
(A) Tax-free sales
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, no tax shall be imposed under section 4071 on the sale by the manufacturer of a tire if—
(i) such tire is sold for use by the purchaser for sale on or in connection with the sale of another article manufactured or produced by such purchaser; and
(ii) such other article is to be sold by such purchaser in a sale which either will satisfy the requirements of paragraph (2), (3), (4), or (5) of subsection (a) for a tax-free sale, or would satisfy such requirements but for the fact that such other article is not subject to tax under this chapter.
(B) Proof
Where a tire has been sold free of tax under this paragraph, this paragraph shall cease to apply unless, within the 6-moth period which begins on the date of the sale by him (or, if earlier on the date of the shipment by him), the manufacturer of such tire receives proof that the other article referred to in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) has been sold in a manner which satisfies the requirements of such clause (ii) (including in the case of a sale for export, proof of export of such other article).
(C) Subsection (a)(1) does not apply
Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to the tax imposed under section 4071 on the sale of a tire.
(3) Tires used on intercity, local, and school buses
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the tax imposed by section 4071 shall not apply in the case of tires sold for use by the purchaser on or in connection with a qualified bus.


I see all sorts of things in there from human blood collection to intercity bus tires, but nothing that would apply to homebuilt guns. But I'm open to arguments.

The second portion is:

No tax shall be imposed under this chapter on any article of native Indian handicraft manufactured or produced by Indians on Indian reservations, or in Indian schools, or by Indians under the jurisdiction of the United States Government in Alaska.

Which is interesting, but probably does not apply to most (maybe all) home builds.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-04-2014, 11:07 AM
Proteus_'s Avatar
Proteus_ Proteus_ is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I found this: http://calgunlaws.com/wp-content/upl...fornia-Law.pdf which would make the LIBERATOR not a zipgun.

It implies that there is a possibility that any printed gun would be exempt, but says that the difference is between implied or explicitly granted. Kind of vague.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-04-2014, 11:18 AM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proteus_ View Post
I found this: http://calgunlaws.com/wp-content/upl...fornia-Law.pdf which would make the LIBERATOR not a zipgun.

It implies that there is a possibility that any printed gun would be exempt, but says that the difference is between implied or explicitly granted. Kind of vague.
I had not seen that paper, bu the key part is this:

Quote:
Defense Distributed has a federal firearms license to manufacture firearms, and the 3Dprinted firearm was designed by the manufacturer, in this case Defense Distributed, to be a firearm (according to reports, Defense Distributed possesses a federal firearm license to manufacture firearms). Therefore, subsection (b) has not been met, and the 3D-firearm cannot be considered a “zip gun.”
There is no express grant in the Code sections mentioned by PC 17630. I think the implied grant argument falls short as well, but I'm going to refrain from posting why as to avoid giving ammo to any CA prosecutors. It is a potential defense, but I think it would be foolish to count on it working.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-04-2014, 12:00 PM
dave86's Avatar
dave86 dave86 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 52
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default I have wondered about this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I think if you are making a gun that isn't based on an existing design by a licensed manufacturer then you have made a zip gun.
My reading on the Zip gun law leads me to wonder it can apply to guns built from 80% frames.

A certain Don Anderson was charged with Zip gun manufacturer for having semi-auto beltfeds that he had made using parts kits with new sideplates.

Is there a Kalifornia law that states it is okay to make a gun based on an existing design?
__________________
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

Margaret Thatcher
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-04-2014, 12:06 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave86 View Post
My reading on the Zip gun law leads me to wonder it can apply to guns built from 80% frames.

A certain Don Anderson was charged with Zip gun manufacturer for having semi-auto beltfeds that he had made using parts kits with new sideplates.

Is there a Kalifornia law that states it is okay to make a gun based on an existing design?
The zip gun law does not apply to guns based on an existing design by a licensed manufacturer. See the M&A letter above.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-04-2014, 12:11 PM
ChrisC's Avatar
ChrisC ChrisC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Smartest thing to do would be to contact a lawyer that is specifically involved in firearms and pay them the money to get real answers. No reason not to spend a little money now then potentially a lot down the road if the information you are given by non lawyers if incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-04-2014, 3:59 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 95401
Posts: 20,647
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

seems the only zipguns would be smoothbore pistols aka pipe guns
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-04-2014, 4:19 PM
Germz's Avatar
Germz Germz is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Stafford, Virginia
Posts: 4,691
iTrader: 108 / 100%
Default

__________________
Retired Account
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-04-2014, 4:24 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bohoki View Post
seems the only zipguns would be smoothbore pistols aka pipe guns
No, it is this:

Quote:
(A) It was not imported as a firearm by an importer licensed
pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of
the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(B) It was not originally designed to be a firearm by a
manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section
921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations
issued pursuant thereto.
(C) No tax was paid on the weapon or device nor was an exemption
from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181
and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing
with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States
Code, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(D) It is made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an
explosion or other form of combustion.
I'm not sure why you think only smoothbore pistols meet that definition.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-04-2014, 5:46 PM
Peter.Steele's Avatar
Peter.Steele Peter.Steele is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: .
Posts: 7,351
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I think if you are making a gun that isn't based on an existing design by a licensed manufacturer then you have made a zip gun.


Dude, this is SUCH complete FUD.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
The two tax exemptions mentioned are:

Section 4181 and Subchapter F (commencing with Section 4216). The applicable part states:

In case any person acquires from the manufacturer, producer, or importer of an article, by operation of law or as a result of any transaction not taxable under this chapter, the right to sell such article, the sale of such article by such person shall be taxable under this chapter as if made by the manufacturer, producer, or importer, and such person shall be liable for the tax.

The does not apply to home built guns because there is no transfer by operation of law nor is there a transaction.

The other is Subchapter G (commencing with Section 4221). This one is a bit more complicated.

The first relevant portion is all this:

[snip-edit] There's nothing relevant here [/snip-edit]


I see all sorts of things in there from human blood collection to intercity bus tires, but nothing that would apply to homebuilt guns. But I'm open to arguments.

The second portion is:

[snip-edit] There's nothing relevant here [/snip-edit]

Which is interesting, but probably does not apply to most (maybe all) home builds.


Look at 4182(c)(1). Hard to be specifically exempted from something you're not required to pay in the first place.
__________________
NRA Life Member

No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic68220_5.gif
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-04-2014, 6:12 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 95401
Posts: 20,647
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
No, it is this:



I'm not sure why you think only smoothbore pistols meet that definition.
because C would be satisfied with rifling

a zipgun must meet all those criterera and a smoothbore pistol requires additional taxes to be paid
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-04-2014, 6:16 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter.Steele View Post
Look at 4182(c)(1). Hard to be specifically exempted from something you're not required to pay in the first place.
That's subchapter D. The exemptions in subchapter D do not exclude guns from being "zip guns" because subchapter D is NOT one of the two subchapters mentioned in 17630(c).

Let's break it down. There is a two prong test here. The gun is a zip gun if it meets the other requirements of 17630, and "[n]o tax was paid on the weapon or device nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States."

So the first prong is "[n]o tax was paid."

Well no tax is paid on home built guns, thanks to subchapter D, so the first prong is satisfied.

The second is:

"nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States."

Note the conspicuous absence of D. And no exemption for home built guns in F or G. The one in D is irrelevant.

So the second prong is met, because there is no applicable "exemption from paying tax."

So no, this is not "FUD" at all, it is fact. If you didn't pay tax on it, and there is no exemption in F or G, then it is a zip gun (where the other requirements are met).
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-04-2014, 6:18 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bohoki View Post
because C would be satisfied with rifling

a zipgun must meet all those criterera and a smoothbore pistol requires additional taxes to be paid
If you did pay a tax on it, then it would not be a zip gun. That's the opposite of what you said.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-05-2014, 6:43 AM
Peter.Steele's Avatar
Peter.Steele Peter.Steele is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: .
Posts: 7,351
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
That's subchapter D. The exemptions in subchapter D do not exclude guns from being "zip guns" because subchapter D is NOT one of the two subchapters mentioned in 17630(c).

Let's break it down. There is a two prong test here. The gun is a zip gun if it meets the other requirements of 17630, and "[n]o tax was paid on the weapon or device nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States."

So the first prong is "[n]o tax was paid."

Well no tax is paid on home built guns, thanks to subchapter D, so the first prong is satisfied.

The second is:

"nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States."

Note the conspicuous absence of D. And no exemption for home built guns in F or G. The one in D is irrelevant.

So the second prong is met, because there is no applicable "exemption from paying tax."

So no, this is not "FUD" at all, it is fact. If you didn't pay tax on it, and there is no exemption in F or G, then it is a zip gun (where the other requirements are met).


Okay, you've got some points.

Thing is, though, the exemptions from the other sections are irrelevant to this instance, because 4181 itself doesn't actually apply to the home builder who is not building (a) >49/year or (b) NFA stuff. True, this particular bit of applicability information is not contained within one of the paragraphs or sections listed in the CA statute ... but there's a lot of other information that's not contained in the CA statute or the paragraphs listed concerning that tax, either. Like how much it is. Where and how to pay it. Other details. 4181 is not a complete package of information on the tax that it imposes, and you have to look at the rest of the applicable sections. 4181 establishes a tax ... 4182 (and a bunch of other sections) provide amplifying information for 4181. The other sections mentioned by the CA statute are general exemptions to paying sales taxes in general.
__________________
NRA Life Member

No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic68220_5.gif
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-05-2014, 7:44 AM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter.Steele View Post
Okay, you've got some points.

Thing is, though, the exemptions from the other sections are irrelevant to this instance, because 4181 itself doesn't actually apply to the home builder who is not building (a) >49/year or (b) NFA stuff. True, this particular bit of applicability information is not contained within one of the paragraphs or sections listed in the CA statute ... but there's a lot of other information that's not contained in the CA statute or the paragraphs listed concerning that tax, either. Like how much it is. Where and how to pay it. Other details. 4181 is not a complete package of information on the tax that it imposes, and you have to look at the rest of the applicable sections. 4181 establishes a tax ... 4182 (and a bunch of other sections) provide amplifying information for 4181. The other sections mentioned by the CA statute are general exemptions to paying sales taxes in general.
What you have to realize is that these gun laws were not made for our convenience, not are they required to be practical (or even make much sense). If there is no tax paid and no exemption listed in one of the two subchapters provided in the statute, then it can be a zip gun. The intent of the legislature was arguably (and probably was in fact) to ban homemade firearms that were not based on conventional designs. Your interpretation (besides being unsupported by the text of the statute itself) would make the law essentially pointless, a court is very unlikely to see it that way.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-05-2014, 9:43 AM
Peter.Steele's Avatar
Peter.Steele Peter.Steele is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: .
Posts: 7,351
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
What you have to realize is that these gun laws were not made for our convenience, not are they required to be practical (or even make much sense). If there is no tax paid and no exemption listed in one of the two subchapters provided in the statute, then it can be a zip gun. The intent of the legislature was arguably (and probably was in fact) to ban homemade firearms that were not based on conventional designs. Your interpretation (besides being unsupported by the text of the statute itself) would make the law essentially pointless, a court is very unlikely to see it that way.


No, it doesn't make it pointless at all. There's all sorts of things that it applies to. NFA items still require a tax to be paid, regardless of how few someone makes per year. Arguably, the zip gun law was made to restrict pen guns, home-brew machine guns, things that don't otherwise look like firearms, that sort of thing.

How do you pay a tax that is specifically not applicable to you? That's a legal impossibility.
__________________
NRA Life Member

No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic68220_5.gif
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-05-2014, 10:06 AM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter.Steele View Post
No, it doesn't make it pointless at all. There's all sorts of things that it applies to. NFA items still require a tax to be paid, regardless of how few someone makes per year. Arguably, the zip gun law was made to restrict pen guns, home-brew machine guns, things that don't otherwise look like firearms, that sort of thing.
And all of of those things already have other laws against them. So again, pointless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter.Steele View Post
How do you pay a tax that is specifically not applicable to you? That's a legal impossibility.
You don't. Which is why such homebuilt guns are zip guns, and illegal. That is exactly how they are defined. You are reading word into the statute that just are not there. Wishful thinking.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-05-2014, 3:57 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
The intent of the legislature was arguably (and probably was in fact) to ban homemade firearms that were not based on conventional designs.
What exactly does it mean for a homemade firearm to be "based on" a conventional design here?

I have to presume, because the intent of the legislature is apparently to prevent any R&D of firearms by average individuals (i.e., those without an FFL), that "based on" takes on its most restrictive possible meaning, and thus means "does not deviate in any way from".
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-05-2014, 4:11 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
What exactly does it mean for a homemade firearm to be "based on" a conventional design here?

I have to presume, because the intent of the legislature is apparently to prevent any R&D of firearms by average individuals (i.e., those without an FFL), that "based on" takes on its most restrictive possible meaning, and thus means "does not deviate in any way from".
"Based on" is my wording. The actual code says: "originally designed to be a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44...."

The "originally" seems to help a bit. Something "based on" an original design might be ok, even if modified somewhat. But who knows. If they are looking to make an example of someone, any homebuilt gun could be a zip gun, the more variation from the original design, the higher the risk.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.

Last edited by Tincon; 04-05-2014 at 4:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-05-2014, 4:37 PM
Peter.Steele's Avatar
Peter.Steele Peter.Steele is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: .
Posts: 7,351
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
"Based on" is my wording. The actual code says: "originally designed to be a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44...."

The "originally" seems to help a bit. Something "based on" an original design might be ok, even if modified somewhat. But who knows. If they are looking to make an example of someone, any homebuilt gun could be a zip gun, the more variation from the original design, the higher the risk.


The "originally designed by" is also where your logic breaks down.

By your reading, 1911's are zip guns, because Johnny Browning didn't have an FFL. Neither did Garand. Trapdoor Springfields? Krags? Colt SAA's? All "originally designed" prior to "licensing pursuant to Chapter 44." What about M1 Carbines? Ol' Dave Williams was a convicted murderer, so even if Chapter 44 had existed then he wouldn't have been able to hold a license, so M1 Carbines are zip guns. These were all made before the 4181 tax, and unless they were re-imported from somewhere they meet that criteria as well.
__________________
NRA Life Member

No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic68220_5.gif
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-05-2014, 4:40 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
"Based on" is my wording. The actual code says: "originally designed to be a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44...."

The "originally" seems to help a bit. Something "based on" an original design might be ok, even if modified somewhat. But who knows. If they are looking to make an example of someone, any homebuilt gun could be a zip gun, the more variation from the original design, the higher the risk.
A strict reading of that definition of a "zip gun" would certainly yield the interpretation I suggested, since the design of something includes all specifications of that something, including materials used, construction processes used, etc. Hence, since no homemade gun is made using the exact methodology of the original manufacturer, it follows that all homemade guns must pass the "not originally designed" test.

It is therefore only through the mercy of the court that someone is going to avoid being convicted of manufacture of a zip gun if they are charged with that.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 04-05-2014 at 4:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-05-2014, 4:41 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter.Steele View Post
The "originally designed by" is also where your logic breaks down.

By your reading, 1911's are zip guns, because Johnny Browning didn't have an FFL. Neither did Garand. Trapdoor Springfields? Krags? Colt SAA's? All "originally designed" prior to "licensing pursuant to Chapter 44." What about M1 Carbines? Ol' Dave Williams was a convicted murderer, so even if Chapter 44 had existed then he wouldn't have been able to hold a license, so M1 Carbines are zip guns. These were all made before the 4181 tax, and unless they were re-imported from somewhere they meet that criteria as well.
I don't think the "logic" breaks down there, and I had some other ideas about AKs etc which I didn't post either because I have some discretion... Because the law sucks and bans homebuilt guns that don't follow specific criteria doesn't mean that's not the law. Hell, the zip gun law is almost as stupid as one making an otherwise legal gun a felony to possess if it has a plastic grip which protrudes below the action. But CA would never have a law as dumb as that right?
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-05-2014, 4:44 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
A strict reading of that definition of a "zip gun" would certainly yield the interpretation I suggested, since the design of something includes all specifications of that something, including materials used, construction processes used, etc. Hence, since no homemade gun is made using the exact methodology of the original manufacturer, it follows that all homemade guns must pass the "not originally designed" test.
It is one possible interpretation. The M&A letter implies something different, and they are the actual experts. But I do think that, as I said, the more variation from the original design, the higher the risk.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-05-2014, 4:46 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
It is one possible interpretation.
If it is possible ("possible" here meaning "valid in a legal sense") to interpret it that way, then it follows that it is only through the mercy of the court that the interpretation in question isn't used by it.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-05-2014, 4:55 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
If it is possible ("possible" here meaning "valid in a legal sense") to interpret it that way, then it follows that it is only through the mercy of the court that the interpretation in question isn't used by it.
And the cops/DA, but otherwise yes.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-05-2014, 5:16 PM
Peter.Steele's Avatar
Peter.Steele Peter.Steele is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: .
Posts: 7,351
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I don't think the "logic" breaks down there, and I had some other ideas about AKs etc which I didn't post either because I have some discretion... Because the law sucks and bans homebuilt guns that don't follow specific criteria doesn't mean that's not the law. Hell, the zip gun law is almost as stupid as one making an otherwise legal gun a felony to possess if it has a plastic grip which protrudes below the action. But CA would never have a law as dumb as that right?


Yes, it does break down here. It's absolutely ludicrous to try and maintain that interpretation. By that logic, virtually every single traditional black powder gun sold is a zip gun, because no FFL is needed to manufacture them and the 4181 tax doesn't apply. Every single Brown Bess? Zip gun! Every single Harper's Ferry musket? Zip gun! Hell, every gun made domestically prior to the GCA becomes a zip gun, and every gun brought in prior to the establishment of licensing for importers as well!

This is an absolutely ludicrous interpretation ... but it's what your reading of this law leads straight to.
__________________
NRA Life Member

No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic68220_5.gif
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-05-2014, 5:35 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter.Steele View Post
Yes, it does break down here. It's absolutely ludicrous to try and maintain that interpretation. By that logic, virtually every single traditional black powder gun sold is a zip gun, because no FFL is needed to manufacture them and the 4181 tax doesn't apply. Every single Brown Bess? Zip gun! Every single Harper's Ferry musket? Zip gun!

This is an absolutely ludicrous interpretation ... but it's what your reading of this law leads straight to.
Actually no, it isn't. Those black powder guns are specifically exempted by PENAL CODE SECTION 17700.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-05-2014, 8:10 PM
J.Galt's Avatar
J.Galt J.Galt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A rifled bore excludes a revolver or pistol from being an "AOW" (any other weapon). However I'm not sure if something like the liberator counts as either.

And my preferred reason for concluding that a 3D printed gun is not a zip gun is as follows:

California PC 17360 describes a "Zip Gun" as:

"17360. As used in this part, "zip gun" means any weapon or device
that meets all of the following criteria:
(a) It was not imported as a firearm by an importer licensed
pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of
the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(b) It was not originally designed to be a firearm by a
manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section
921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations
issued pursuant thereto.
(c) No tax was paid on the weapon or device nor was an exemption
from paying tax on that weapon or device granted
under Section 4181
and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing
with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States
Code, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(d) It is made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an
explosion or other form of combustion."

Chapter 32 of Title 26 USC, 4182, (c):

"(c) Small manufacturers, etc.
(1) In general
The tax imposed by section 4181 shall not apply to any pistol, revolver, or firearm described in such section if manufactured, produced, or imported by a person who manufactures, produces, and imports less than an aggregate of 50 of such articles during the calendar year.
"

That reads to me as "an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted" as described in Cali. zip gun law above.

However, this "exemption" in section 4182 does not seem to be directly mentioned in the zip gun law.

"No tax was paid on the weapon or device nor was an exemption
from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181
and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing
with Section 4221).


So what does that mean? Well I think its okay. Nope I dont have any further argument to that point.

But anyways, my argument is that the tax exemption is given and therefore the subsection (c) of the Cali. zip gun law is not met and since all subsections must be met for it to be a zip gun, it is not one.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-05-2014, 8:20 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Galt View Post
However, this "exemption" in section 4182 does not seem to be directly mentioned in the zip gun law.
Doesn't "seem to be directly mentioned?" It's not there at all! You can't just leave out the words you don't like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Galt View Post
So what does that mean? Well I think its okay. Nope I dont have any further argument to that point.
Right, just wishful thinking. That and $2 will buy you a coke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Galt View Post
But anyways, my argument is that the tax exemption is given and therefore the subsection (c) of the Cali. zip gun law is not met and since all subsections must be met for it to be a zip gun, it is not one.
Except of course, that there is no such exemption mentioned in subchapter F or G, and therefore subsection (c) IS met.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.

Last edited by Tincon; 04-05-2014 at 8:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-05-2014, 8:27 PM
J.Galt's Avatar
J.Galt J.Galt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Doesn't "seem to be directly mentioned?" It's not there at all! You can't just leave out the words you don't like.



Right, just wishful thinking. That and $2 will buy you a coke.



Except of course, that there is no such exemption mentioned in subchapter F or G, and therefore subsection (c) IS met.
mmmm..im not so sure.

Section 4181 doesnt have ANY exemptions in it..heck its title is "imposition of tax". So it doesn't really make sense to mention it at all in Cali PC 17360:

"26 U.S. Code § 4181 - Imposition of tax
There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:
Pistols.
Revolvers.
Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
Shells, and cartridges."

And there are only two sections in Part III of Subchapter D, which is where 4181 is. 4181, and 4182. 4182 being "Exemptions".

I'm not saying I like it, but I think the intent of the Cali PC 17360 language is to include 4182. Thats my unofficial, unlegal, amateur opinion and I'm stickin' to it.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-05-2014, 8:46 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Galt View Post
mmmm..im not so sure.

Section 4181 doesnt have ANY exemptions in it..heck its title is "imposition of tax". So it doesn't really make sense to mention it at all in Cali PC 17360:
Sure it does. Section 4181 describes the tax to be paid. Subchapters F and G list several exemptions to that tax. It would be more odd if there was no mention of which tax was to be paid, in which case you could argue that the sales tax on the raw materials counted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Galt View Post
I'm not saying I like it, but I think the intent of the Cali PC 17360 language is to include 4182. Thats my unofficial, unlegal, amateur opinion and I'm stickin' to it.
If it was more legal and less amateur you would understand that intent only enters into the analysis where there is ambiguity. And in not even then can you just insert new code section references based what you personally think the intent is. But even if you could, that would be an unproven argument, and committing what could well be a felony based on an unproven argument is a very bad idea.

and for what? A weird way to couple magazines together? Is it really worth it?
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-05-2014, 9:00 PM
J.Galt's Avatar
J.Galt J.Galt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Sure it does. Section 4181 describes the tax to be paid. Subchapters F and G list several exemptions to that tax. It would be more odd if there was no mention of which tax was to be paid, in which case you could argue that the sales tax on the raw materials counted.
Yeah but Cali PC says that 4181 is one of the places where the exemption is found, not the tax.

"nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181"

Its not like it says "no exemption found in 4181 from the tax imposed in 4181".
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-05-2014, 9:09 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,062
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Galt View Post
Yeah but Cali PC says that 4181 is one of the places where the exemption is found, not the tax.

"nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181"

Its not like it says "no exemption found in 4181 from the tax imposed in 4181".
Yep, like lots of CA code it is badly constructed. But that doesn't help us here because it does not say 4182.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
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 7:27 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy