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 > FIREARMS DISCUSSIONS > Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated Centerfire rifles, carbines and other gas operated rifles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-19-2005, 4:43 PM
brown bear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default Ar 15 Fixed Magazine Kit

This is a good solution to the fixed magazine AR 15. I think it can be done better though.

https://www.vbd.com/noc/shop/product...&ProductID=322
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-19-2005, 4:57 PM
brown bear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

The kit above costs 29.00 dollars. Now if someone out of state took 80.00 dollars recievers and attached this to the 29.99 mag catch lock that would cost 109.99. O.K. will it pass CA DOJ fixed magazine test? Crazy glue the nut. I don't know. The VULCAN is a regular reciever with a pin and some glue.You could sell this for 200.00 dollars and make a hell of a profit. My point is that this FAB 10 / VULCAN price structure sounds a little off.

An FFL in Neveda could buy a number of stripped lowers fix the locked mag catch and glue or weld the nut closed. Then send them to California. I don't see much difference between this set up and the VULCAN.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-19-2005, 5:16 PM
brown bear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technical Ted
Not this crap again.
I am sorry, you do not have to participate in this disscussion Ted. If you have something constructive to say we are all very interested. This forum is for every one Ted, not just you.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-19-2005, 5:17 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,789
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'd RUN away from this. Someone should stop this turkey. This guy is likely also gonna get some poor slob in trouble - some CA guy who didn't register his AR and thinks this will help him 'get legal' now.

This guy thinks because CaliFALs can do this, that ARs will follow. And he's misinterpreting Vulcan's process & certification.

I don't think any sane FFL will transfer one to you.

Since August 2000 Kasler decision, any AR - even a receiver - is a member of the AR class. (Same goes for AKs.) Doesn't matter if evil features attached or not. If it takes an AR upper, has a pistol grip and an AR mag, it's likely to be considered a member of this class.

The 2001 Harrott v Kings County decision clarified this a bit and basically specified that AR rifles/lowers (and AKs) had to be specifically declared by name/mfgr. The DOJ promptly drew up a list (Roster of AR15 and AK Series Weapons) that is a pretty comprehensive list of all ARs I know of (and most AKs).

In theory if you found an AR lower that was not on the current DOJ list you could acquire/import it to CA and treat it like a FAL-clone receiver and just not put a pistol grip on it but still possess it. You probably cannot make an AR lower since that'd be an artifice since the DOJ can't specifically list a "Jim Bob #1" homebuilt lower and that flies in face of legislative intent. I would not really want to rely on Harrott.

The only way this gig could get to a Vulcan-like status is for an out of state company - or a CA company holding an AW Permit - to get/import regular AR receivers and permanently affix 10rd mags to them before selling via regular FFLs to CA end users. This will involve time and lawyers and therefore money - and appeal to a limited market of no national interest (Californians wanting crippled ARs.) Thus the FAB10 and Vulcan prices are reasonable; they are not getting rich.

The Vulcan "fixed" AR mag was done outside of CA and involves some epoxy too. It is tenuously different enough from an AR - since mag is 'permanently' affixed.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

Last edited by bwiese; 10-19-2005 at 5:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-19-2005, 5:25 PM
brown bear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

A California Legal FN FAL is legal because:

A) It does not have a pistol grip
B) It has a fixed magazine.

I have seen a number of the California FALS, and they are not glued. As a matter of fact I have not seen people submitting them to the CA DOJ for approval.

The VULCAN start out as a regular AR 15 reciever. It has a pin and expoxy. A company in Neveda could submit to the CA DOJ for their approval a sample.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-19-2005, 5:28 PM
C.G.'s Avatar
C.G. C.G. is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 6,782
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brown bear
I am sorry, you do not have to participate in this disscussion Ted. If you have something constructive to say we are all very interested. This forum is for every one Ted, not just you.
Brown Bear, this was not directed at you. This type a thread pops up every month or two and some of the older members just get tired of answering the same questions. I haven't been a member that long and I am almost getting to that point. The advantage in the old forum was that we just directed questions like yours to older threads that would answer it; it was a lot easier than having to re-write everything again.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-19-2005, 6:27 PM
brown bear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Many people have not had an oppurtunity to discuss this topic. This forum is for everyone. If an individul is not interested in a particular thread, they should just not participate in the thread. No need to insult people. It shows lack of class. I feel bad for individuals who feel that they are special, and that the forum is there own personal space. If a person is bored with a topic on a public forum, they should find a topic that stimiulates them intellectually. There is enough room on this forum for everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-19-2005, 6:32 PM
brown bear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

[QUOTE=Technical Ted]There are three categories of Assault Weapons.

Category 1 Those listed under 12276 (Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989)
Category 2 AK and AR Series Weapons (Kasler v. Lockyer)
Category 3 Assault Weapons Defined and Identified based on Generic
Characteristics (Penal Code section 12276.1)

AR's are banned by series (Category 2).

All the CA legal FAL on the market are not built on FN receivers, so they are not banned BY NAME (Category 1). As long as an Imbel receiver is used and the rifle doesn't have evil features, it's legal (Category 3).


[Category 2 AK and AR Series Weapons (Kasler v. Lockyer)

The VULCAN is an AR receiver.

Category 2 AK and AR Series Weapons

It has a roll pin and epoxy. An out of state company could not submit a competing AR reciever? What if the bolt was welded in place?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-19-2005, 6:34 PM
brown bear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technical Ted
Job well done.
I learned by example.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-19-2005, 6:38 PM
brown bear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technical Ted
Not this crap again.
There is the example.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-19-2005, 6:40 PM
PanzerAce's Avatar
PanzerAce PanzerAce is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: A wretched hive of scum and villainy
Posts: 4,156
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Holy ****, do you guys really have to snipe at each other like this? Seriously, one of the first rules about internet forums is that things like this tend to get locked VERY quickly. If you want to insult each other, just do it through PMs.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-19-2005, 6:56 PM
brown bear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

I agree Panzer Ace, people should be civil to each other on public forums.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-19-2005, 7:03 PM
brown bear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technical Ted
[cartman]Screw you guys, I'm going home[/cartman]
I can respect that-
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-19-2005, 7:29 PM
icormba's Avatar
icormba icormba is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,802
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technical Ted
[cartman]Screw you guys, I'm going home[/cartman]
haha!!

anyway... it doesn't matter what anyone here says. Ask any Judge, it's how the 2 sides present their case in court... the one who argues better and can convince the Judge to rule in their favor... WINS.

"argues" here can mean who has the most facts, evident, witnesses, previous case rulings, and whatever else can win you a case.

It's been said before... any Ca DA can choose to prosecute anyone of us for one of those fixed mag FALs if they wanted. Doesn't mean they will win... but it doesn't mean we will win either. Heck... my Imbel says FN FAL on the receiver! Some DA might think that's enough to go after me. If I end up having to get a lawyer and one that SUCKS! I could end up loosing! Which would give more ammo to the next DA to go after the next guy who builds an FAL or similar.

so as we all read the law TODAY... we can't have AR's or AK's.
__________________
Chris
http://www.m1garand.net

Last edited by icormba; 10-19-2005 at 7:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-19-2005, 8:53 PM
artherd's Avatar
artherd artherd is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,069
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese
In theory if you found an AR lower that was not on the current DOJ list you could acquire/import it to CA and treat it like a FAL-clone receiver and just not put a pistol grip on it but still possess it. I would not really want to rely on Harrott.

The Vulcan "fixed" AR mag was done outside of CA and involves some epoxy too. It is tenuously different enough from an AR - since mag is 'permanently' affixed.
Bill, are you aware for certin that the tenuously different issue is critically tied to the glue/pin? Tools remove those, and tools could remove the above as well.

Statute laws on detachable magazines are clear and published, but I will reitterate here:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...ltlgcapmag.pdf
Quote:
The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant
to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) “detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be
removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action
nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is
considered a tool.
Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked
ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load
cartridges into the magazine.

Last edited by artherd; 10-19-2005 at 8:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-19-2005, 9:30 PM
rkt88edmo's Avatar
rkt88edmo rkt88edmo is offline
Reptile&Samurai Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 9,539
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technical Ted
[cartman]Screw you guys, I'm going home[/cartman]
I'm coming over.
How is your supply of cheezy poofs?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-19-2005, 9:38 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

TED

You told me this was your Forum and I paid you $500 a year for my membership!

You mean to tell me this is a PUBLIC FORUM!

You sick sick man, you!

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-19-2005, 9:56 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,789
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=brown bear]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technical Ted
There are three categories of

[Category 2 AK and AR Series Weapons (Kasler v. Lockyer)
The VULCAN is an AR receiver.

It has a roll pin and epoxy. An out of state company could not submit a competing AR reciever? What if the bolt was welded in place?
BrownBear,

Like the FAB10, the Vulcan is NOT an AR. Nor are the welded-up GB Sales rifles. Once they are substantively and relatively permanently tweaked, they fall out of the Type II AW AR15 category.

The DOJ has approved Vulcans apparently because the changes to it are substantial enough (no detachable mag) and permanent enough (in theory requiring time + tools) that it is sufficiently different that it's no longer an AR. Perhaps they are unclear on relative ease of epoxy and roll-pin removal, but it somehow meets their standards. The same line of thinking likely applies to a FAB10 also - even a bit of work w/a milling machine or Foredom tool and it too could have a mag well and full "AR-ness". Both of these are acheiveable goals by reasonably competent folks w/slightly more than ordinary tools.

In contrast, a screw-in mag catch that retains a fixed mag - a la the CaliFALs - is apparently regarded as 'readily removable' so that the receiver is distinguished from other parts and w/commonly available tool (screwdriver) an illegal AR receiver exists on its own.

Bare FAL clones receivers (other than true FN-FALs, which are AWs even at the receiver level) do not suffer these limitations since FAL clones are Type III 'by feature' AWs.

An out of state company could indeed submit yet another glued/pinned AR lower. for approval. An in-Calif co holding an AW permit could indeed import AR receivers and glue/pin or otherwise modify ARs themselves - after all, GB Sales is importing and welding up Colts and Bushmasters.

I think this market is relatively full. This is a small market fraught with paperwork, regulatory risk, business/legal differences from most other states, etc. And not that many people want crippled ARs; those that do can pay the extra. The market is just too small. I bet there are less than 150 Cali ARs - FAB10s, Vulcans and GB Sales' - sold per month in CA, the only likely market (well, maybe NYC?) With even $100 profit on each one that's only a max of $15K/month sales - in a good month - barely enough for a real company to survive on (2 employees, some part time help, taxes, legal fees, rent, insurance, workmen's comp, pay loans/leases on machines, etc. etc.) As an offshoot of another company - like what Evan's Gunsmithing/GB Sales did - it might be an interesting line.

Bill Wiese
San Jose



BTW, BrownBear - you seem new here. This AR vs California stuff has been discussed to death over the last 2+ years. Now that the Forums are back up, you can go read some of the past discussions. I think you'll find Technical Ted's posts as well as those from others here, to be informative and thought out.

If a Cali-legal AR that wasn't too different from a regular AR was indeed possible, it'd already be on the market. Many smart folks have been thinking about these things for quite some time.

The doofus advertising these AR mag catch mods is not cognizant of CA law and is gonna get some poor guy with an unreg'd AR in trouble. He hides behind some weasel words and doesn't explain things fully (heck, he might be so dumb he doesn't know other issues exist!!!!)
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-19-2005, 10:04 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,789
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artherd
Bill, are you aware for certain that the tenuously different issue is critically tied to the glue/pin? Tools remove those, and tools could remove the above as well.
It's a time+tools issue. A 10-cent screwdriver could remove a fixed magcatch, "exposing" the full "AR-ness" of the lower receiver.

Anything can be turned into anything else, there's just a certain limit. They've decided that epoxy+blind pin makes it sufficiently different from regular AR. After all, a FAB10 could readily have its magwell opened by a big Dremel tool/grinder or milling machine.

Quote:
Statute laws on detachable magazines are clear and published, but I will reiterate here:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...ltlgcapmag.pdf

Irrelevant here. Those are standards for detachable magazines. What's under discussion here is aside from that; it's whether that lump of metal is in & of itself an AR lower receiver.



Bill Wiese
San Jose
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-19-2005, 10:15 PM
brown bear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

bwiese, this thread has a good question:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=16018
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-20-2005, 12:17 AM
C.G.'s Avatar
C.G. C.G. is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central Coast
Posts: 6,782
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brown bear
bwiese, this thread has a good question:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=16018
Brown Bear, it is not a "good" question; it is a question. It confuses assault weapons banned by series (AK-47 and AR-15) to those banned by name.
Any AR-15 is a type II assault weapon, banned by PRK. Unless made (by DOJ standards) substantially different, as in Vulcan or FAB-10, the receiver itself is an assault weapon. With type II receiver in our possesion, unless registered prior to 2000, you are commiting a felony. You will not be able to DROS an AR-15 lower that you can modify later, but you can DROS a FAL (but not an FN-FAL which is banned by name) or M1A, M14 receiver (those are not banned by series only by name or evil features), they are type III assault weapons, those you can have in your posession and only the final configuration will make legal or not. Major difference!
On the other hand, this is a somewhat free country so you can do whatever you want, and may pay the price for it, that is your choice; but please, don't try to steer other people into commiting a possible felony.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-20-2005, 6:05 AM
DV8 DV8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 527
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If you want to be the test case for this modification, go right ahead. Let us know what the court decision is afterwards.

I've seen that modification for awhile now and wouldn't trust it one bit. Until CA law is changed, there are other legally safe weapon options out there....
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-20-2005, 8:57 AM
icormba's Avatar
icormba icormba is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,802
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rkt88edmo
I'm coming over.
How is your supply of cheezy poofs?
beefcake!!
__________________
Chris
http://www.m1garand.net
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 4:49 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.