Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-04-2005, 1:19 PM
Aming Aming is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have already read all of the Frequently Asked Questions on DOJ website, but there is, on my opinions, something illogical, such as:

Penal Code section 12278 states a .50 BMG rifle cannot already be an assault weapon or a machine gun. Therefore, no registered .50 BMG receiver can ever be configured as an assault weapon or a machine gun.

Surely " Penal Code section 12278 states a .50 BMG rifle cannot already be an assault weapon or a machine gun" is the law, but " Therefore, no registered .50 BMG receiver can ever be configured as an assault weapon or a machine gun." is illogical to interpret the law. The reason is: before a .50 BMG rifle is registered, it is treated as a regular long gun, such as it can be inherited and it can be pawned, but after it is registered, its character will be thoroughly changed, such as it can not be inherited and it can not be pawned. So, before a 50 BMG rifle is register, the assault weapon characteristics can not be put on it and make it become an assault weapon, but after a 50 BMG is registered, it should BECOME an assault weapon and could be put all of the assault weapon characteristics on.

The word "while a .50 BMG rifle already registered as an assault weapon meets the requirements for .50 BMG rifle registration, a .50 BMG rifle registration alone does not meet the assault weapon registration requirements." means that you are no need to register a .50 BMG rifle which was already registered as an assault weapon and you can not register a .50 BMG rifle which is already an assault weapon. All these are the things before the 50 BMG rifle is registered. After a 50 BMG is registered, it should BECOME an assault weapon and could be put all of the assault weapon characteristics on.

Please tell me what do you think.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-15-2005, 4:09 PM
Mike Searson's Avatar
Mike Searson Mike Searson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 451
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bwiese:

Aside from quality issues, that's why I'd never buy from Oly. Some of these AR companies are nicknamed "bottom feeders" for a reason.

Bill Wiese
San Jose </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prior to that conversation...I built somewhere between 20 and 30 rifles using Oly arms parts.

After that conversation and the following ban on importation of Milsurp steel core 7.62X39 I never bought another thing made by their company.

If California law was changed tomorrow and they said: You can buy all the AR15's you want but only if they're made by Olympic Arms...I'd still tell them to go pound sand!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-14-2005, 11:04 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bwiese:
Aming...

[QUOTE] ...after a 50 BMG is registered, it should BECOME an assault weapon and could be put all of the assault weapon characteristics on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, maybe it should but it doesn't, unfortunately

There's nothing in the law that says the 50BMG feature trumps already-in-place by-features ban of SB23 (2000). And nowhere in the law does it say that a requirement to register a certain type of gun makes it an assault weapon.

Let's not confuse the legislative requirment to register a specified gun w/DOJ (in this case, 50BMGs) as equivalent to being considered an AW. For example, let's say a new law mandated special DOJ registration of 454Casull revolvers (oh no!): it'd likely largely be structured like the 50BMG ban and would require similar behaviors of the owners of these revolvers as of assault weapon owners. (Scary, but that way legislation is just easier to write.) But that wouldn't make these 454 revolvers assault weapons: it just said they had to be specially registered, and that some of the restrictive use/possession/transport conditions were similar to/same as those of AWs.

Generally, 50BMGs are (or will be) somewhat regarded as by-feature AWs in CA - in many aspects. In other aspects, however, there are distinctions. The 50BMG ban and AW ban laws were structured similarly and integrated where possible, but - esp. because of differences in implementation dates - the 50BMG does not counteract any part of the 2000 Perata SB23 ban or the earlier Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 ("AWCA '89").

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ...a 50BMG rifle cannot already be an assault weapon or a machine gun. Therefore, no registered 50BMG receiver can ever be configured as an assault weapon or a machine gun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. Really, this is merely redundant and is just for emphasis.

It merely reiterates you can't go violating the 2000 AW ban ("SB23") due to the separate, previously-legal 50BMG attribute being banned + registered later.

If this were not the case, a whole new class of AWs could in theory be made after 1/1/2001 - besides the 50BMG attribute, a semiauto w/previously-banned pistol-grip, etc. could be legal. So this is where 50BMGs and AWs are treated differently.

Simply stated, the 50BMG ban does not trump the AW ban.

If, say, you had a semiauto 50BMG w/AW features like pistol grip + detachable mag, etc. and registered it as an assault weapon on or before 31 Dec 2000, than the above is moot: the gun is ALREADY an AW and registered and is allowed to have a '50BMG' feature. Or, let's say you've put a 50BMG upper on an existing reg'd AW. In either case, as already-existing AWs, the 50BMG attribute is essentially just another 'evil feature': if you have a firearm that's already reg'd (as an AW), you are indeed allowed put a 50BMG barrel & upper on it without ANY further paperwork.

(Thus, if you have a reg'd AR15 you can drop a Ferret 50 or Watson's 50BMG upper on it, retain it, use it, etc. without any additional paperwork. It's still an AW.)

But if you had, say, a semiauto 50BMG rifle that was currently legal as an 'ordinary rifle' last year, you cannot add evil AW features to it before or after registration. Why not? It's just a 50BMG rifle, not an AW, and you can't make AWs anymore.

Other general similarities: 50BMG guns, like AWs, must be transported unloaded, in locked cases, between specified destinations - you can't just continually drive around with it in your truck, unlike a regular rifle or shotgun. Can't be inherited or transferred within state, etc. just like AWs.

So, let's summarize:

<LI> a 50BMG rifle is not an assault weapon, even after registration. It is just another type of gun requiring registration by a given date.

<LI> various restrictions on legal 50BMGs, though, are roughly the same as those of legal AWs; 50BMGs generally treated like AWs for inheritance, transfer, service and transport restrictions.

<LI> legal "assault weapon" status due to existing registration in CA automatically gives 50BMG legality;

<LI> 50BMG legality (that is, legally owned last year & reg'd before cutoff date) does NOT imply any allowance for creation of a new legal assault weapon;

<LI> reg'd AWs can be chambered in 50BMGs without any more paperwork or additional registration;

<LI> 50BMG rifles not reg'd as AWs by SB23's 12/31/00 reg cutoff date, or the 12/31/90 Roberti-Roos cutoff date, cannot be made into AWs (that is, semiauto w/pistol grip + detach mag, etc., etc.). This 50BMG registration only allows 50BMG attribute, and does not let you make it into an AW.



I think that might help sort things out...

Bill Wiese
San Jose
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-15-2005, 4:20 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

My problem w/Oly, besides what I've mentioned, is that their fit & finish isn't too good.

And when I enquired about availability of chrome-lined barrels, I was told that I didn't really want one

Seals the deal for me.

Bill Wiese
San Jose
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-14-2005, 10:34 PM
Mike Searson's Avatar
Mike Searson Mike Searson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 451
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bill...the only problem with that is a 50 BMG in a handgun is considered a destructive device or AOW by BATFE.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-15-2005, 11:23 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">50BMG AP and ball ammo is still legal because no one has built a commercial offered 50 bmg handgun. The few pistols made have been registered as short barrel rifles or AOWS. Lets not build one to test the ATFs resolve on the AP handgun ammo issue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, Olympic Arms screwed the pooch on 7.62x39 AP ammo when they introduced their OA-9X pistol in that chambering. I've heard that several people had specifically warned them of the damage relasing that gun would do.

Bill W
San Jose
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-15-2005, 2:42 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mike Searson:
His exact words to me were: "Mike, I'm in the gun business...not the ammunition importing business." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup!! Let's screw over our customers and set national policy for sales of a small-volume product.

Aside from quality issues, that's why I'd never buy from Oly. Some of these AR companies are nicknamed "bottom feeders" for a reason.

Bill Wiese
San Jose
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-14-2005, 6:00 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Cool.

Which brings this refreshing loophole re: 50BMGs.. <UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> it's now illegal for average Joe to homebuild most handguns in CA (due to safety/drop cert test) unless you get special one-off permission from DOJ for certification-related activities;

<LI> you CAN legally build single-action revolvers that hold 5 or more rounds and have at least a 3" barrel length;

<LI> the 50BMG law bans only 50BMG rifles (see 50BMG definition, CPC 12280(a)(1)).[/list]
What does that give us?

A legal 50BMG HANDGUN that can be homebuilt or sold commercially in CA without DOJ approval....

The 50BMG Five- Shooter!<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> single-action revolver (handgun!);
<LI> barrel length just under 16";
<LI> 5 round "oil can" cylinder;
<LI> front handguard/stock (not pistol grip)
is legal[/list]
This short-barrel setup may actually be useful given that longer bbls (26+") can be less accurate than 18"-20" bbls due to resonances.

Bill Wiese
San jose
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-14-2005, 5:21 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Hi Delloro..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Delloro wrote:
If I don't now own, and never have owned, a .50 BMG upper, then I am not now in possession, even constructively, of a .50 BMG. 12285(a)(2) does not help me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you buy a 50BMG upper for an AR lower that's reg'd as an AW, you have NOT assembled a 50BMG rifle!! See the definition of 50BMG rifle here (italics in quoted law are mine):

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
CPC 12278.(a) As used in this chapter, a ".50BMG rifle" means a centerfire rifle that can fire a .50BMG cartridge and is not already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or 12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus, a .50BMG assault weapon is not a 50BMG rifle!

And, refreshing:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">CPC 12285(a)(2): Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 12280, any person who lawfully possesses any .50BMG rifle prior to January 1, 2005, that is not specified as an assault weapon under Section 12276 or 12276.5 or defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.1, shall register the .50BMG rifle with the department no later than April 30, 2006..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus, by 1st definition above, if you put a 50BMG upper on a lower that's already an assault weapon, you are NOT creating a legally defined 50BMG rifle - instead, it's an assault weapon that just happens to have the 50BMG caliber attribute as well.

So if you do this, you are NOT making a "50BMG rifle". You can get a 50BMG upper and put it on your registered AR lower, and do this even now, and it's still legal.

And of course the second section I quoted states that as long as this is a registered AW, it needs no further registration if it also had, say, a 50BMG attribute.

(Also note that this bans 50BMG _rifles_. Apparently 50BMG _handguns_ are legal Whee.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Delloro wrote:
This whole thing has "SKS Sporter" written all over it. DOJ said it was legal at the time, then changed their minds </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I dimly recall, much of the SKS + detachable magazine fiasco resulted from folks failing to register them at the specified time after it was declared as an AW. When AG Lungren + DOJ extended reg period, he was sued by Brady (?) gang and court ruled extended reg as illegal since AG was giving himself legislative powers, in offering extended catch-up reg period beyond what was mandated in law. So folks who'd reg'd their SKS+ detach mag as AWs were able to keep them, while the noncompliant weren't. These details may have some minor details incorrect, but DOJ was forced to do this by court ruling I believe.


Bill Wiese
San Jose
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-15-2005, 2:07 PM
Mike Searson's Avatar
Mike Searson Mike Searson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 451
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bwiese:
Yeah, Olympic Arms screwed the pooch on 7.62x39 AP ammo when they introduced their OA-9X pistol in that chambering. I've heard that several people had specifically warned them of the damage relasing that gun would do.

Bill W
San Jose </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was one of them...it was at SHOT in 1993 or 1994.
I felt like I was the lone voice crying out in the wilderness. I knew it would be the end of all the cheap surplus steel ammo. I got to meet the president of the company and told him my thoughts (keep in mind this was the early days of the Clintonista administration!)

His exact words to me were:
"Mike, I'm in the gun business...not the ammunition importing business."
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-14-2005, 12:24 PM
delloro delloro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the Inland Empire
Posts: 549
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

well, I do not interpret it that way.

HOWEVER, always a believer in leaving such matters to the experts and getting things from the horse's mouth, etc., I called DOJ and asked. And they agreed with you.

So, good news!
__________________
.
click HERE to see scantily-clad women with guns
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-14-2005, 1:18 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by delloro:
well, I do not interpret it that way.

HOWEVER, always a believer in leaving such matters to the experts and getting things from the horse's mouth, etc., I called DOJ and asked. And they agreed with you.
So, good news! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why don't/didn't you interpret it that way?
It's pretty clear - it's directly stated in CPC 12285(a)2.

(And I did quote the DOJ 50BMG FAQ webpage.)

All they're really saying is that once a given S/N is specially registered (i.e., for AW purposes), that registration also serves for 50BMG.

Bill Wiese
San Jose
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-14-2005, 4:26 PM
delloro delloro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the Inland Empire
Posts: 549
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I expect(ed) that putting a .50 BMG upper mon a lower would be "manufacturing" or "assembling" a prohibited .50 BMG.

PC12285(a)(2) states in pertinent part: "(2) Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 12280, any person who lawfully possesses any .50 BMG prior to January 1, 2005,..."

If I don't now own, and never have owned, a .50 BMG upper, then I am not now in possession, even constructively, of a .50 BMG. 12285(a)(2) does not help me.

This whole thing has "SKS Sporter" written all over it. DOJ said it was legal at the time, then changed their minds.
__________________
.
click HERE to see scantily-clad women with guns
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-14-2005, 12:55 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Too bad I sold my Tec 9.

I think it would've been a great platform on which to build a .50 BMG.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-04-2005, 1:19 PM
Aming Aming is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have already read all of the Frequently Asked Questions on DOJ website, but there is, on my opinions, something illogical, such as:

Penal Code section 12278 states a .50 BMG rifle cannot already be an assault weapon or a machine gun. Therefore, no registered .50 BMG receiver can ever be configured as an assault weapon or a machine gun.

Surely " Penal Code section 12278 states a .50 BMG rifle cannot already be an assault weapon or a machine gun" is the law, but " Therefore, no registered .50 BMG receiver can ever be configured as an assault weapon or a machine gun." is illogical to interpret the law. The reason is: before a .50 BMG rifle is registered, it is treated as a regular long gun, such as it can be inherited and it can be pawned, but after it is registered, its character will be thoroughly changed, such as it can not be inherited and it can not be pawned. So, before a 50 BMG rifle is register, the assault weapon characteristics can not be put on it and make it become an assault weapon, but after a 50 BMG is registered, it should BECOME an assault weapon and could be put all of the assault weapon characteristics on.

The word "while a .50 BMG rifle already registered as an assault weapon meets the requirements for .50 BMG rifle registration, a .50 BMG rifle registration alone does not meet the assault weapon registration requirements." means that you are no need to register a .50 BMG rifle which was already registered as an assault weapon and you can not register a .50 BMG rifle which is already an assault weapon. All these are the things before the 50 BMG rifle is registered. After a 50 BMG is registered, it should BECOME an assault weapon and could be put all of the assault weapon characteristics on.

Please tell me what do you think.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-14-2005, 11:42 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by delloro:
do I understand you correctly that a person who registered their AR as a 5.56mm AW in CA in 2000 may slap a .50 BMG upper on it today, and no registration is needed, and that is not a violation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correctmundo, sir.... if it's already registered as AW, it can also have a 50BMG 'evil feature'.

Cal DOJ has a FAQ page on 50BMGs...http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/50bmgfaqs.htm

In it, they say <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">:
Q8. If a .50 BMG rifle is already registered as an assault weapon, does it need to be registered under the provisions of the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004?

Answer: .50BMG rifles already registered as assault weapons pursuant to the assault weapons laws in effect prior to 1 Jan 2005 DO NOT need to be registered again to satisfy the requirements of the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004.[/B]

Q9. Can assault weapon characteristics, such as a pistol grip, be placed on a registered semi-auto centerfire .50 BMG rifle that has a detachable magazine?

Answer: No. The law provides that a .50BMG rifle cannot be an assault weapon nor a machine gun. Therefore, while a .50BMG rifle already registered as an assault weapon meets the requirements for .50BMG rifle registration, a .50BMG rifle registration alone does not meet the assault weapon registration requirements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, an additional note: your AR15-style AW was registered as an AW, and you filled out the reg form with make, model, etc. as well as caliber, barrel length and other info.

This 'other info' (incl. caliber/barrel length) is merely requested and may be used for data integrity checking, etc. But there is NO provision in CA's AW law banning caliber changes or barrel length, etc. changes on CA AWs. If you reg'd your AR as 5.56mm w/20" barrel there's nothing stopping you converting it to 9mm or 7.62x39 w/a 16" barrel. There is, in fact, no provision that you have to notify DOJ with these changes either. As long as Serial # and make/model were filed with your best efforts, your registration is OK.

Now, some of us were worried about this before the 2000 reg process was settled - reg forms weren't ready, etc. So many of us reg'd our ARs in multiple calibers - just in case. All my ARs are all in caliber "8888" on my reg form which means "unspecified/multiple calibers".

I did this special "8888"-caliber AW reg biz because even though this was clarified as legal etc., you might be pulled over by a cop sometime - and if he runs your AW reg# and finds a different caliber than what's on the receiver, he might get a bit apprehensive and want to hold your gun for "further inspection". This just possibly saves a bit of trouble in those circumstance. But it is not required.

As long as your AR is reg'd in CA, go change your AR's caliber to ANYTHING, including 50BMG. No further paperwork required.


Bill Wiese
San Jose
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-14-2005, 11:30 AM
delloro delloro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the Inland Empire
Posts: 549
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bwiese:

* * *
<LI> reg'd AWs can be chambered in 50BMGs without any more paperwork or additional registration;...

Bill Wiese

San Jose </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, do I understand you correctly that a person who registered their AR as a 5.56mm AW in CA in 2000 may slap a .50 BMG upper on it today, and no registration is needed, and that is not a violation?
__________________
.
click HERE to see scantily-clad women with guns
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-14-2005, 5:49 PM
delloro delloro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the Inland Empire
Posts: 549
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bwiese:
CPC 12278.(a) As used in this chapter, a ".50BMG rifle" means a centerfire rifle that can fire a .50BMG cartridge and is not already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or 12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That will do it. Ecxellent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Delloro wrote:
This whole thing has "SKS Sporter" written all over it. DOJ said it was legal at the time, then changed their minds </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I dimly recall, the SKS + detachable magazine fiasco resulted from folks failing to register them at the specified time after it was declared as an AW. When AG Lungren + DOJ extended reg period, he was sued by Brady (?) gang and court ruled extended reg as illegal since AG was giving himself legislative powers, in offering extended catch-up reg period beyond what was mandated in law. So folks who'd reg'd their SKS+ detach mag as AWs were able to keep them, while the noncompliant weren't. These details may have some minor details incorrect, but DOJ was forced to do this by court ruling I believe.


Bill Wiese
San Jose[/QUOTE]

The SKS fiasco I am thinking of is when they were reimported with a different name, in '95 or so, and DOJ said they were OK, but then they reversed their position. I suspected it was too good to be true then and did not buy one.

but the definition above does appear to make a difference.

Thanks!
__________________
.
click HERE to see scantily-clad women with guns
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 1:13 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.