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 02-17-2010, 3:54 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default ATF: Complete lower receivers with buttstocks can be utilized for pistol builds.

(Yes, this is a repost from the FFL forum of mine)

So this morning I had a nice long phone discussion with James at the local (OC) ATF field office about AR lower receivers. Specifically, complete lower receivers with buttstocks installed and how they must be recorded and transferred.

First off, a complete lower receiver which has a buttstock *DOES NOT* meet the definition of a rifle or a shotgun, and MUST be transferred on the 4473 as an "other firearm" of type "receiver".

Second, because complete lower receivers are not rifles or shotguns, they CAN NOT be transferred to someone under the age of 21. A buttstock does not a rifle make, and you can't just slap a buttstock onto a lower and transfer it to an 18-20 year old.

Third, because a complete lower receiver with a buttstock installed is not a rifle or a shotgun, it MAY be used in the construction of a pistol. This was the most surprising to me. Obviously, you must remove the buttstock first and replace it with something like a pistol buffer tube, or buffer tower plug. But the buttstock DOES NOT negate the possibility of building a pistol[*]

This last part was the most surprising to me, since the ATF has always held the position of anything with a buttstock cannot be made into a pistol. Ever. In truth, I was actually hoping to catch the ATF in a small hypocrisy, for if they told me you can't make a pistol from a receiver that has a buttstock, then that would mean they would maintain that the receiver with a buttstock is indeed a rifle/shotgun and so what would be their reasoning for not allowing the transfer to an 18-20yo.

So, want an LMT pistol? It can be done




[*] = PLEASE remember that due to CA's DROS system confusing the issue, it may not be legal to build a pistol on even a stripped lower receiver due to receivers being DROS'ed as "long guns", with no way to DROS them as pistols at this time.


UPDATE - 2/19/2010: My ATF agent called me back. We're getting an official letter ruling on #3.

UPDATE - 3/29/2010: The letter came! LMT defender pistols, anyone?



__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"

Last edited by CHS; 03-29-2010 at 2:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-17-2010, 3:57 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can I bring in a pistol upper and slap it on for DROS? Can "broken" pistols be DROSsed?
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-17-2010, 4:00 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Can I bring in a pistol upper and slap it on for DROS? Can "broken" pistols be DROSsed?
Only if the FFL has an 07 manufacturing license, and it's manufactured as a roster-exempt AWB-compliant single-shot pistol.

But this really isn't the right thread for that discussion. There's more to it than that. Plus, like I said in the footnote, the 3rd point doesn't really apply to CA except possibly for 07 manufacturers.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-17-2010, 4:07 PM
Hopi's Avatar
Hopi Hopi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 7,643
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

I still think this is a viable discussion, especially in light of this thread.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post

Soon it will be clearly immoral to routinely violate the bill of rights like the California courts so enjoy today.

-Gene
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-17-2010, 4:19 PM
thedrickel's Avatar
thedrickel thedrickel is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lost in the wheels of confusion
Posts: 5,336
iTrader: 126 / 100%
Default

Phone discussion? Send him an email with all of your questions listed. When you get the answers in writing they *may* hold some weight.
__________________
I hate people that are full of hate.

It's not illegal to tip for PPT!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-17-2010, 4:20 PM
lazyworm's Avatar
lazyworm lazyworm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dublin, CA
Posts: 1,402
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Would be nice if you have this in writing.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-17-2010, 4:29 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedrickel View Post
Phone discussion? Send him an email with all of your questions listed. When you get the answers in writing they *may* hold some weight.
Actually, I don't think we need to have it in writing. It's very clear that a complete lower receiver, even with a buttstock installed, DOES NOT meet the definition of either a rifle or a shotgun. It doesn't have a rifled bore, and it doesn't fire fixed shotgun ammunition.

If it can't meet the definition of a rifle, shotgun, or handgun, then it's neither and can be utilized to make any kind of Title 1 firearm you want (or Title 2 with the right paperwork and taxes).
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-17-2010, 5:00 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

What information, if any, survives with respect to the "long gun" taxonomical label for stripped lowers after the 15 day DROS holdover?

Some scenarios:

1. One purchases a stripped lower, waits 16 days, and volregs as a single shot pistol.

2. One PPTs a stripped lower to another party as a Roster-exempt pistol >15 days after purchase/transfer.

The ATF's comments indirectly implicate the application of United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (91-0164), 504 U.S. 505 (1992) to AR/AK and similarly modular designs, as discussed in previous threads (such as those regarding rifle/pistol kits), alongside their longstanding rules as to age requirements for Title 1 firearm transfers. I'd be curious to see if any 07s would be interested in offering such a kitted product; if the kit were transferred/DROSed with a complete rifle, it could then be purchased by a 18-21 year old purchaser as the packaged pistol parts do not a pistol make (and therefore not subject to the handgun purchase age restrictions).
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Last edited by wildhawker; 02-17-2010 at 5:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-17-2010, 5:23 PM
bigcalidave's Avatar
bigcalidave bigcalidave is offline
Pre-Banned
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,680
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Then by all means, GET THIS IN WRITING... Because if a lower isn't a rifle then a stripped frame isn't a HANDGUN and we can order frames for all our favorite off list pistols...

That would be great, I'll build a nice STI first. Then maybe a tac sol paclite pistol...
__________________
Contact me about Advertising on Calguns.net
Marketing Director, Calguns.net
Dave Shore
NRA Life Member


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-17-2010, 5:37 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Some interesting text from footnote 6 of US v. T/C Arms Co., supra:

Quote:
6 Thompson/Center suggests that further enquiry could be avoided when it contends that the Contender and carbine kit do not amount to a "rifle" of any kind, because, until assembled into a rifle they are not " `made' and `intended to be fired from the shoulder.' " Brief for Respondent 8. From what we have said thus far, however, it is apparent that, though disassembled, the parts included when the Contender and its carbine kit are packaged together have been "made" into a rifle. The inclusion of the rifle stock in the package brings the Contender and carbine kit within the "intended to be fired from the shoulder" language contained in the definition of rifle in the statute. See 26 U.S.C. 5845(c). The only question is whether this combination of parts constitutes a short barreled rifle. Surely Justice Scalia's argument would take us over the line between lenity and credulity when he suggests that one who makes what would otherwise be a short barreled rifle could escape liability by carving a warning into the shoulder stock. See post, at 5 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).
(emphasis added)

If a receiver is sold in a package with a buttstock and a carbine/rifle length barrel (upper) and pistol length barrel (upper), the firearm is therefore "made" into a rifle. The fact that pistol components are sold within the package is irrelevant and not controlling according to this decision.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Last edited by wildhawker; 02-17-2010 at 5:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-17-2010, 5:38 PM
B Strong B Strong is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area.
Posts: 6,361
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsmchs View Post
(Yes, this is a repost from the FFL forum of mine)

So this morning I had a nice long phone discussion with James at the local (OC) ATF field office about AR lower receivers. Specifically, complete lower receivers with buttstocks installed and how they must be recorded and transferred.

First off, a complete lower receiver which has a buttstock *DOES NOT* meet the definition of a rifle or a shotgun, and MUST be transferred on the 4473 as an "other firearm" of type "receiver".

Second, because complete lower receivers are not rifles or shotguns, they CAN NOT be transferred to someone under the age of 21. A buttstock does not a rifle make, and you can't just slap a buttstock onto a lower and transfer it to an 18-20 year old.

Third, because a complete lower receiver with a buttstock installed is not a rifle or a shotgun, it MAY be used in the construction of a pistol. This was the most surprising to me. Obviously, you must remove the buttstock first and replace it with something like a pistol buffer tube, or buffer tower plug. But the buttstock DOES NOT negate the possibility of building a pistol[*]

This last part was the most surprising to me, since the ATF has always held the position of anything with a buttstock cannot be made into a pistol. Ever. In truth, I was actually hoping to catch the ATF in a small hypocrisy, for if they told me you can't make a pistol from a receiver that has a buttstock, then that would mean they would maintain that the receiver with a buttstock is indeed a rifle/shotgun and so what would be their reasoning for not allowing the transfer to an 18-20yo.

So, want an LMT pistol? It can be done




[*] = PLEASE remember that due to CA's DROS system confusing the issue, it may not be legal to build a pistol on even a stripped lower receiver due to receivers being DROS'ed as "long guns", with no way to DROS them as pistols at this time.

Let's see how this works.

I know of two situations that ended up in court in the 1980's, both of which were prompted by ATF advice, which they later repudiated.
__________________
The way some gunshop clerks spout off, you'd think that they invented gunpowder and the repeating rifle, and sat on the Supreme Court as well.
___________________________________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Jeff Cooper

Check my current auctions on Gunbroker - user name bigbasscat - see what left California before Roberti-Roos
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-17-2010, 5:51 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigcalidave View Post
Then by all means, GET THIS IN WRITING... Because if a lower isn't a rifle then a stripped frame isn't a HANDGUN and we can order frames for all our favorite off list pistols...

That would be great, I'll build a nice STI first. Then maybe a tac sol paclite pistol...
Please pay attention to my footnote.

CA's DROS might negate virgin receiver status. CA DOJ has also already issued a letter specifically saying you CANT DROS a pistol-only frame like a 1911 frame. Now, that might not have any backing in the PC (the whole NeRF debacle), but it's a pretty scary letter nonetheless.

I'm talking about FEDERAL statutes here. Getting this in writing from the ATF means nothing, and it's already in writing anyways.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-17-2010, 5:55 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
What information, if any, survives with respect to the "long gun" taxonomical label for stripped lowers after the 15 day DROS holdover?
The DOJ won't have anything left. All that will be left will be the physical paper records at the FFL. On those records the 4473 will reflect "other firearm" of type "receiver", and a "long gun" DROS printout. Theoretically, I would imagine the 4473 would outweigh the DROS printout. But again, the Fed's wouldn't care anyways. You would be dealing with this only at the state level.

Quote:
1. One purchases a stripped lower, waits 16 days, and volregs as a single shot pistol.
I know Bill and Gene have said not to do this. But I also know that this has been done with positive results.

Quote:
2. One PPTs a stripped lower to another party as a Roster-exempt pistol >15 days after purchase/transfer.
I know Bill and Gene have said not to do this. But I also know that this has been done with positive results.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-17-2010, 6:04 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsmchs View Post
The DOJ won't have anything left. All that will be left will be the physical paper records at the FFL. On those records the 4473 will reflect "other firearm" of type "receiver", and a "long gun" DROS printout. Theoretically, I would imagine the 4473 would outweigh the DROS printout. But again, the Fed's wouldn't care anyways. You would be dealing with this only at the state level.
The paper DROS is only required to be maintained by the FFL for a period of 3 years, correct?

Quote:
I know Bill and Gene have said not to do this. But I also know that this has been done with positive results.

I know Bill and Gene have said not to do this. But I also know that this has been done with positive results.
Their positions are understandably conservative; a defense of a CA AW/SBR charge for conversion of a LG DROSed lower would likely be that the receiver was transferred in the only manner available and that an underground regulation precluded the transfer as a receiver, but the DROS does not change the taxonomical value of the firearm.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-17-2010, 6:12 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am unclear on what makes a virgin receiver made into a pistol illegal. A virgin receiver is a long gun and I don't see anything in CA PC that prevents one from making a pistol out of a long gun.

The only thing that I can find is:

12020(c)(2) As used in this section, a "short-barreled rifle" means any of the followingA) A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.(B) A rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches. (C) Any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.

Which makes no reference to longguns, only rifles and it is modeled after the same language in 26 USC 5845, so if it doesn't say long gun and ATF says the wording in the USC doesn't prohibit the building of a pistol why would the CPC be read any differently?

Admittedly I know very little about SBR issues so I wouldn't be surprised if I've merely missed something critically important.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-17-2010, 6:25 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
but the DROS does not change the taxonomical value of the firearm.
I agree with this 100%.

I also don't believe that there is anything in CA's law that would preclude anyone from actually DROS'ing any kind of frame or receiver as a "long gun" and then building a pistol from it.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-17-2010, 6:27 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
I am unclear on what makes a virgin receiver made into a pistol illegal. A virgin receiver is a long gun and I don't see anything in CA PC that prevents one from making a pistol out of a long gun.
A virgin receiver is a virgin receiver. It's not a long gun. The ATF's definition of a long gun is strictly a rifle or a shotgun. Apart from those, you've got handguns and then everything else (including Title 2's) is an "other".

A virgin frame, even with a buttstock, is an "other". Same with a pistol-grip only shotgun like the cruisers.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-17-2010, 6:47 PM
cntrolsguy's Avatar
cntrolsguy cntrolsguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Jordan, Utah
Posts: 1,429
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

So if someone moved in from out of state and had a bunch of offlist lower receiver he could potentially make them into pistols instead of rifles without any issue?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-17-2010, 6:50 PM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,320
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Let me see if I understand things properly:

1) An AR lower minus the upper receiver, with or without other lower components such as the buttstock, must be recorded as other/receiver on the 4473 per federal law, no matter what CA has to say about it.

2) CA confuses things by not permitting a type equivalent to other/receiver to be entered on the DROS form.

3) CA doesn't appear to have any laws prohibiting conversions between an ordinary rifle and an ordinary pistol, as that has traditionally been something that the feds care about.

Thus, since the feds and CA have different and largely independent laws, regulatory rules and form entry constraints, in particular for things which are not fully functional rifles, pistols or shotguns, we must enter one thing on the 4473 to satisfy the feds and a different thing on the DROS to satisfy the state. The resulting disagreement between the DROS and 4473 forms does not indicate any sort of illegal intent; rather, it just reflects the different ways that the feds and CA have decided to classify firearms for their respective regulatory purposes.

Once that receiver cools for 10 days in the safe and then goes home with its new owner, all of the transfer requirements have been satisfied, and we now enter a new phase: what can the owner do with that receiver without violating either federal or CA law?

Since the feds appear to have changed their minds again and decided that attaching a buttstock to a stripped lower doesn't make it into a rifle, it seems that federal law would permit that receiver to be built into a pistol at any time prior to it being assembled into a fully functional rifle (after which, doesn't ATF consider it to be a rifle forever?).

Since CA doesn't appear to have any laws specifically covering conversion between pistol/rifle status, it seems to me that building that receiver into a voluntarily-registered, single-shot, dimensionally-compliant, non-AW, roster-exempt pistol should be permitted under CA law.

Are there any flaws in my reasoning, given the caveats that 1) I think more careful research needs to be done, and 2) I personally wouldn't bank my freedom on the ATF agent's verbal information until it's in writing, since ATF has changed their minds before?

Would the same reasoning (assuming it's valid) apply to a virgin AK receiver, i.e. an NDS receiver, which might thus be used to build up a pistol using something like an AMD-65 parts kit (minus the stock and VFG, and with a rear trunnion that is not designed to accept a buttstock)?
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-17-2010, 7:56 PM
CSACANNONEER's Avatar
CSACANNONEER CSACANNONEER is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 39,302
iTrader: 124 / 100%
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 383green View Post
Would the same reasoning (assuming it's valid) apply to a virgin AK receiver, i.e. an NDS receiver, which might thus be used to build up a pistol using something like an AMD-65 parts kit (minus the stock and VFG, and with a rear trunnion that is not designed to accept a buttstock)?
Don't forget 10-22 or H&K type receivers!
__________________
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun and Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor
California DOJ Certified Fingerprint Roller
Ventura County approved CCW Instructor


Offering low cost private basic shooting and reloading classes for calgunners.

Last edited by CSACANNONEER; 02-17-2010 at 7:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-17-2010, 9:11 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cntrolsguy View Post
So if someone moved in from out of state and had a bunch of offlist lower receiver he could potentially make them into pistols instead of rifles without any issue?
Absolutely.

That person could also PPT those receivers as pistols to CA residents.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-17-2010, 9:27 PM
Rumpled's Avatar
Rumpled Rumpled is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: OC
Posts: 1,630
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So, if I (as an individual) have raw receivers such as an Imbel, an AR type and an AK type - I could potentially build them into pistols?
I can't verify what they were DROS'd as; don't think I got copies.
Would they have to be single shot?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-17-2010, 9:29 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsmchs View Post
A virgin receiver is a virgin receiver. It's not a long gun. The ATF's definition of a long gun is strictly a rifle or a shotgun. Apart from those, you've got handguns and then everything else (including Title 2's) is an "other".

A virgin frame, even with a buttstock, is an "other". Same with a pistol-grip only shotgun like the cruisers.
Right. And ATF has no problem with building a handgun from a receiver. What in CA law prevents one from doing so?
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-17-2010, 9:29 PM
Hopi's Avatar
Hopi Hopi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lassen County
Posts: 7,643
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpled View Post
So, if I (as an individual) have raw receivers such as an Imbel, an AR type and an AK type - I could potentially build them into pistols?
I can't verify what they were DROS'd as; don't think I got copies.
Would they have to be single shot?
The problem is that they wouldn't be registered with CA as pistols. See here for an idea on that..
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post

Soon it will be clearly immoral to routinely violate the bill of rights like the California courts so enjoy today.

-Gene
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-17-2010, 9:31 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 383green View Post
Since CA doesn't appear to have any laws specifically covering conversion between pistol/rifle status, it seems to me that building that receiver into a voluntarily-registered, single-shot, dimensionally-compliant, non-AW, roster-exempt pistol should be permitted under CA law.
that's what I was trying to ask as well. CA says any RIFLE cannot be shortened etc. but it doesn't say the same about non-rifle/non-shotgun long guns, at least not that I could find.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-17-2010, 9:40 PM
cntrolsguy's Avatar
cntrolsguy cntrolsguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Jordan, Utah
Posts: 1,429
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsmchs View Post
Absolutely.

That person could also PPT those receivers as pistols to CA residents.

Would said individual then need to submit the new resident handgun registration form to their local PD?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-17-2010, 9:50 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cntrolsguy View Post
Would said individual then need to submit the new resident handgun registration form to their local PD?
"Other" receivers are not handguns, so no, and they would register them with DOJ, not the local PD.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Last edited by wildhawker; 02-17-2010 at 9:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-17-2010, 9:59 PM
cntrolsguy's Avatar
cntrolsguy cntrolsguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Jordan, Utah
Posts: 1,429
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Receivers are not handguns, so no, and they would register them with DOJ, not the local PD.

Ok, now I got it! Make sense.

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-17-2010, 10:08 PM
GoodEyeSniper GoodEyeSniper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 812
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So, if this all works out as you seem to think it theoretically SHOULD work. How do you go about building it as a pistol? I've read a lot on the AR/AK pistol stuff, but have never wrapped my head around anything concrete in their legality.

You would purchase the lower, wait your 10 days, pick it up, then register it with the DOJ as a pistol? Before you build it as a pistol?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-17-2010, 10:12 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodEyeSniper View Post
So, if this all works out as you seem to think it theoretically SHOULD work. How do you go about building it as a pistol? I've read a lot on the AR/AK pistol stuff, but have never wrapped my head around anything concrete in their legality.

You would purchase the lower, wait your 10 days, pick it up, then register it with the DOJ as a pistol? Before you build it as a pistol?
You could VolReg the single shot and see what comes back from DOJ before assembly.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-17-2010, 11:05 PM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,320
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
CA says any RIFLE cannot be shortened
Not exactly. It would not be illegal to shorten a rifle as long as doing so does not create a gun in one of the prohibited categories (AW, SBR, etc.). For example, lopping no more than 4 inches off a 20" barrel would be OK, as long as the rifle would still be at least 30" long (otherwise, it would become an AW).

Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Penal Code 12020(a)
12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the
state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives,
lends, or possesses any [...] short-barreled rifle [...]
The PC does not say that you may not shorten a rifle; it says that you may not manufacture a short-barreled rifle. This is a subtle but important distinction. Here's the definition of "short-barreled rifle" which is applicable to this section:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Penal Code 12020(c)(2)
(2) As used in this section, a "short-barreled rifle" means any of
the following:
(A) A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in
length.
(B) A rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(C) Any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration,
modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an
overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less
than 16 inches in length.
(D) Any device which may be readily restored to fire a fixed
cartridge which, when so restored, is a device defined in
subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive.
(E) Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended to
convert a device into a device defined in subparagraphs (A) to (C),
inclusive, or any combination of parts from which a device defined in
subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, may be readily assembled if
those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same
person.
For the purposes of this discussion, PC 12020(c)(2)(C) appears to be the one we need to focus on. I was mistaken when I posted before that CA doesn't have any law restricting conversion between pistol/rifle status, because PC 12020(c)(2)(C) says that converting a rifle into a weapon which has a barrel less than 16" and/or an overall length less than 26" constitutes manufacturing a short-barreled rifle.

So, despite what the feds say, could CA argue that a stripped lower, a lower with a buttstock but no upper, a virgin receiver, etc. is considered a rifle under CA law, and thus that building a pistol out of it violates 12020? Does the DROS classification of the gun at time of transfer matter?
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-17-2010, 11:14 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 383green View Post
For the purposes of this discussion, PC 12020(c)(2)(C) appears to be the one we need to focus on. I was mistaken when I posted before that CA doesn't have any law restricting conversion between pistol/rifle status, because PC 12020(c)(2)(C) says that converting a rifle into a weapon which has a barrel less than 16" and/or an overall length less than 26" constitutes manufacturing a short-barreled rifle.

You do realize that this is the law that I cited right?


Quote:
Originally Posted by 383green View Post
So, despite what the feds say, could CA argue that a stripped lower, a lower with a buttstock but no upper, a virgin receiver, etc. is considered a rifle under CA law, and thus that building a pistol out of it violates 12020? Does the DROS classification of the gun at time of transfer matter?
No, it is not a rifle at the time of DROS, it is a non-rifle, non-shotgun long gun. This is why it can't be sold to a person under 21. So, if it can't be sold to a person under 21 because it isn't a rifle you must be able to make a pistol out of it because you are only prohibited from making "under length" guns from rifles and shotguns. In fact, I believe it was BDSM himself who posted the AR AOW thread a while back.


The only real question is if the CA DROS labeling the lower a "long gun" would impact the way the ATF views the firearm. Since most states do not have a DROS I would have to think the ATF only cares what their papers say.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-17-2010, 11:24 PM
lorax3's Avatar
lorax3 lorax3 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 4,520
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Good to see another source on this regulation. I have posted so much about this on several sites trying to get a definite answer as to wether or not there was indeed a change.

I would still like a ATF letter on this, but it does seem more legitimate at this point.

As far as the conversation at hand, the ATF is really not the issue here. It really depends on the CA DOJ's stance on things. I sent them an email several months ago asking this question, and received a call back about four weeks ago.

I was told (informally) by the CA DOJ that long gun DROS'ed receivers are no longer pistol eligible. Return phone calls do little good and hold about as much legal weight as an English Muffin, next time I will send a letter.

If anyone has any pull with the people who write the DROS software, I would really like to see an update.

Also - a Mac OS X version
__________________
You think you know, but you have no idea.

If you live in San Diego Please read this thread and apply now to obtain your San Diego License to Carry (CCW).

The information posted herein is not legal advice. If you seek legal advice contact an attorney who is familiar with all the facts of your case.

Last edited by lorax3; 02-17-2010 at 11:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-17-2010, 11:58 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
In fact, I believe it was BDSM himself who posted the AR AOW thread a while back.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=203921
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-18-2010, 12:13 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Thanks Brandon. That's right it's actually a long gun and not an AOW. So even more pertinent.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-18-2010, 1:31 AM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 22,720
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

OK, here are the two letters that I've seen on the issue:




note that they do mention that a rifle receiver that has been stocked as a rifle can't be used as a pistol. But there is that "and/or" language that needs to parsed out to determine if a shoulder stock without an upper means that it is a rifle. But, it would appear if they want to claim that a shoulder-stocked receiver is a rifle that can be an SBR, one would think that they would also need to say it is a rifle for terms of transfer to an 18-20 year-old.

also note in the 2004 letter, the only options on the 4473 was "pistol" and "long gun". A "long gun" 4473 did not equal "rifle" unless the receiver was actually described to be a rifle.
__________________
Jack
Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-18-2010, 8:32 AM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Thanks Brandon. That's right it's actually a long gun and not an AOW. So even more pertinent.
In that particular thread, you've got a pistol grip only long gun. But a stripped receiver, or a complete receiver with a buttstock IS NOT a long gun. They're receivers, and receivers only.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-18-2010, 8:34 AM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
But there is that "and/or" language that needs to parsed out to determine if a shoulder stock without an upper means that it is a rifle. But, it would appear if they want to claim that a shoulder-stocked receiver is a rifle that can be an SBR, one would think that they would also need to say it is a rifle for terms of transfer to an 18-20 year-old.
That and/or language was exactly why I asked my ATF agent about it, hoping to catch him in a catch-22. Unfortunately, he didn't fall for it and stated right out that it's ok to utilize a receiver with a buttstock to make a pistol, as long as the buttstock was removed first.

I think the language is written that way to make certain that people know you couldn't just slap a pistol upper on the frame and THEN remove the buttstock, as that would definitely be felony manufacturing of an SBR.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-18-2010, 8:35 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Having a stock doesn't mean it is "stocked as a rifle" because unless it actually receives a barrel there are many configurations the receiver could take that do not include make it a rifle. It is really almost an irrelevant distinction though as virgin receivers are so easy to come by.

It certainly seems, based on these letters and BDSMs conversation that the only potential problem is with CA DOJ and the SBR manufacturing in 12020(C)(2)(A). To me the wording it pretty clear that you are only making an SBR IF the receiver in question was ever a rifle which we KNOW a virgin receiver isn't because you cannot sell it to anyone under 21 which means it is not a rifle according to 922.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-18-2010, 8:47 AM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Having a stock doesn't mean it is "stocked as a rifle" because unless it actually receives a barrel there are many configurations the receiver could take that do not include make it a rifle. It is really almost an irrelevant distinction though as virgin receivers are so easy to come by.
Good point. The language says "and/or stocked as a rifle".

Since we have to look to the definition of a rifle for this, something with a stock but no bore is clearly NOT a rifle, so it doesn't matter at all if it's got a stock. The receiver is not and can not be a rifle unless it has at some point been manufactured into a firearm that meets the definition of a rifle, which includes designed to be fired from the shoulder and fires a projectile through a rifled bore. So "and/or stocked as a rifle" is meaningless.

So the next question is, can you legally utilize a smoothbore rifle in the construction of a pistol? Not a rifle since there is no rifled bore, and not a shotgun because it doesn't fire fixed shotgun ammunition. I'm thinking of something like the Marlin Garden Guns (smoothbore .22lr bolt-actions).
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
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 7:59 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.