PDA

View Full Version : 2007 A Real Loophole: Roberti-Roos/Kasler + Evans, Iggy & Proposed Regs


xenophobe
01-01-2007, 5:40 AM
The FIRST real potential loophole yet to be exploited.

Ever want a Colt AR-15, Norinco AK-47 or Heckler & Koch HK-91? In a fixed magazine configuration you are fine. Gripless builds do not apply to what follows.

Take any Roberti-Roos or Kasler named firearm. Change the magazine to a fixed 10 round (or less) configuration. You are now legal, thanks to Evan's, Ig Chin, and the proposed regulations (even if they're not adopted) for stating that sealing the mag well is not the only way to accomplish this. How does this work? Read on...

Even though new proposed regulations do not apply to PC 12276 interpretation, the wording specifically stated in proposed reg CCR 5469 (f)(3)(A-D) are only implied examples of what is not a detachable magazine and are not limited to those specifically mentioned. If the proposed regulations are not adopted, it still provides solid proof of what configurations are considered to be examples of what does not constitute a 'detachable magazine'.

Even if the proposed regulations are adopted, the fact that a bullet being required to remove a magazine still exempts it from being detachable. CCR 5469 (a) "Detachable Magazine" definition is still in effect and has not changed.

The proposed regulations, if enacted, will further undermine the CA DOJ's attempt at regulating Assault Weapons, and semi-automatic rifles that are not Assault Weapons but may be with the proper parts, time and labor. Regardless of the new "capacity to accept" language, all one must do is comply with CCR 5469 (f)(3)(A-D), and either remove the mag well, weld a magazine in place, use an unremovable rivet with epoxy, or, the biggest mistake of their own wording (f)(3) "A firearm is not readily modifiable to receive a detachable magazine, if for example: (D) the modification requires disassembly of the action"...

This is where DOJ has cut off their own proverbial foot. There is now a method to fasten a magazine with a modified receiver that prevents the actuation of a standard magazine release without disassembling the rifle, not that this would currently matter. Until the proposed regulation is actually adopted, current methods to remove the detachability of any particular magazine will suffice just fine.

Also, even if the proposed regulations are not adopted, they are a official demonstration of what methods of magazine attachment are clearly considered allowable by the Department of Justice.

But wait, there's more...

Evans Gunsmithing has been selling Colt AR-15, Law Enforcement, Match Target and Bushmaster XM15 rifles legally in California with a welded sealed magazine well with the blessing of the DOJ on behalf of the Iggster.

The fact that they had welded and sealed internal magazines instead of a mag lock kit or other such device is irrelevant, especially when you take into account the relevance of fixed vs detachable magazine configuration determination based on this new regulatory update.

If Evans can sell Colt AR-15 and Bushmaster XM15E2 marked Assault Weapons by modification of the firearm so it cannot take detachable magazines, the method of affixing the magazine so it is not removable has absolutely no bearing on the fact that these "named" firearms are no longer semi-automatic Assault Weapons, and DOJ opinion and enforcement has noted that these are no longer Assault Weapons by their very nature.

All of the permissible methods described that remove the detachability of a magazine listed by these new regulations have to be viewed as equally acceptable, meaning that one of these opined standards is no more valid than the other.

Of course, there is the issue of reversibility and the new term 'device' included in the proposed regulations that would seem to limit what you may actually do. There is nothing within the law that supports this theory. Constructive possession is not applicable to semi-automatic firearms which have been deemed Assault Weapons and this is documented fact. The current state of configuration of semi-automatic firearms that are not assault weapons is what is important, as the ability to alter a currently legal configuration into an illegal Assault Weapon is not defined by the Penal Code, and any attempt at changing this through regulation would not be upheld by the courts. So if the newly proposed regulations are adopted or not, it would change nothing.

There is no such thing as permanent when applying these laws to semi-automatic firearms and Assault Weapons. Evans, Vulcan and Barrett all agree their approved firearms are modifiable to original Assault Weapon configuration, yet have the blessing by the DOJ.

Also please note...

Colt uses model numbers to identify their rifles. 6600, 6920, etc... Just as Springfield uses model nomenclature such as PX9130L, and Ruger use KSP-821X (neither of which appear anywhere on the firearm itself) and are accepted as these models by the Department of Justice, some uniformity must be applied to the fact that a Springfield 1911 is not a "model 1911" to the Department of Justice, but a model "PX9130L" or whatever.

With this as fact, Colt has also done this with their rifles to the same extent that Springfield and Ruger have with their firearms. Just stating that it's a Springfield 1911 does not cut the DOJ mustard, nor does identifying a Ruger as Mark III. Also applying these generic terms to Colt AR series rifles, some of which were not offered for sale or even in production at the time of the Kasler list, and the fact that Colt has not changed their model nomenclature designation since before Roberti Roos was originally passed makes the generic AR-15 (or other name for a Colt) another "series" interpretation. The fact that a Colt marked AR-15 does not reflect which model it actually is, and since the actual model is not listed, cannot be a banned firearm, especially when that particular model did not exist at the time of the original listing.

Any NEW Colt AR series rifle only produced after August 16, 2000 cannot be a listed firearm, regardless of make and model imprinted on the receiver. Any time a new model is identified, the DOJ were compelled by Kasler to list. Any new AR-15/Match Target/Law Enforcement/Sporter/etc... marked rifle that was not manufactured or offered for in a specific configuration for sale prior to August 16, 2000 is not a listed firearm.

How can a firearm be a listed make and model, when the particular model did not exist at the time of listing? Although this does not really apply to what I am stating here, and is a completely different topic of discussion regarding off-list Colts, it does further aide the fact that if you want one of these Colts, it may indeed be legal, regardless of what is mentioned on the receiver, and may also play into a court determination if a rifle is in fact a Category 1/2 firearm at all in the first place.

With all of this in mind...

If you have deep pockets, or can afford a lawyer for the potential of being charged with an unregistered Assault Weapon feel free to use this opportunity. Any named Roberti-Roos or Kasler Listed firearm is now open for play so long as you affix a magazine that holds no more than 10 rounds.

In any circumstance, there is enough information, DOJ opinion letters and the recently decriminalized possession of an unregistered Assault Weapon that any attempt for a prosecution based on a modified verison of any named and listed Assualt Weapon would either be thrown out of court, or plea bargained to the newly enacted infraction.

Of course, you would not own an identical model that is banned, but a model that has been modified to change the configuration so that it is no longer identical to the banned model.

Yes, this is pushing the boundaries, and you may not wish to believe this, but I cannot see this as anything but the truth. However, I must caution that this information is not for those that would have trouble affording proper legal representation, but for those willing to break new ground, a new path has been shown.

Anyways, that's my .02c. And I'm tired of writing, so my apologies if some of my points are a bit confusing. I'll redraft this sometime tonight or on the 2nd to add additional information and to structure it a little better. ;)

Stanze
01-01-2007, 6:14 AM
Happy New Years! Nice post! So, all one needs to do in theory with a listed lower is fix a 10 round mag to it? Yes or no? I just woke up myself and I think that's what I gathered from Xeno's post.

tankerman
01-01-2007, 6:20 AM
I don't understand why companies with listed names don't bring suit based on the fact that their products and business are being harmed through prejudice. When cosmetically and mechanically they are indentical to their competitors products other than in name, which are being sold in our state . It seems to me the DOJ would have a difficult time explaining the difference when none exsist. That pretty much defines prejudice. This holds true if the current forms of attaching a mag with a kit are deemed legal, as all of the listed names are capable of accepting something similar to restrain the magazine. So I see no reason for them to play the rename game. I also don't see why any single person with deep pockets would want to test the proposed reg. when then manufacture could do a much better job at showing bias without the treat of jail and loss firearm ownership rights.
Need more coffee.

Ford8N
01-01-2007, 6:24 AM
Now if you could just get that on a DOJ letter head. Then maybe more FFL's would start importing RR guns with mags that require disassemmbly of the action. But I've noticed that the DOJ is doing anything to stall the import of OLL and spread fear to the majority of FFL's.

6172crew
01-01-2007, 7:18 AM
Was the Eagle Arms AR10 even made when the list was published?:)

Id think the 2 letters from the DOJ would make a perfect lawsuit.

tenpercentfirearms
01-01-2007, 8:04 AM
So are you saying that until or if the regulatory change takes place, that since the DOJ approved Evans to convert listed weapons into fixed mag builds that someone else that is set up with an AW license or out of state can take an AR10 and do the same thing? Even riskier, they could do it with a Prince50 until the new regulation takes effect, if it ever does?\

Again, someone else is going to have to run with this one, I already did my balls out stupid move for the decade.

Hopi
01-01-2007, 8:13 AM
So are you saying that until or if the regulatory change takes place, that since the DOJ approved Evans to convert listed weapons into fixed mag builds that someone else that is set up with an AW license or out of state can take an AR10 and do the same thing? Even riskier, they could do it with a Prince50 until the new regulation takes effect, if it ever does?\

Again, someone else is going to have to run with this one, I already did my balls out stupid move for the decade.

There is no provision for the DOJ to "approve" rifles that enter the state. My interpretation is that they merely did not "disapprove" of the Evans rifles. As the DOJ does not have the power to limit lawful commerce to one manufacturer, any out of state builder, seller, or private party could convert to this configuration and would fall under the same type of defacto approval. Yes, according to this precedence in DOJ opinion, a maglock, by the letter of the law, would be a sufficient alteration/conversion to any banned gun.

grywlfbg
01-01-2007, 8:17 AM
So are you saying that until or if the regulatory change takes place, that since the DOJ approved Evans to convert listed weapons into fixed mag builds that someone else that is set up with an AW license or out of state can take an AR10 and do the same thing? Even riskier, they could do it with a Prince50 until the new regulation takes effect, if it ever does?

Yep. That's what I gather. Anyone know a cheap and trustworthy FFL across the border in Nevada? :D

tenpercentfirearms
01-01-2007, 8:19 AM
Yep. That's what I gather. Anyone know a cheap and trustworthy FFL across the border in Nevada? :D
No, but I think we all know of one in Texas.

Richie Rich
01-01-2007, 8:36 AM
Hmmmm, I wonder if this would allow me to find a way to legally import a Saiga 12 into this wonderfull state.

Saiga 12+ 10 round mag + bullet tip mag release = 1 happy Californian..

Hopi
01-01-2007, 8:49 AM
Hmmmm, I wonder if this would allow me to find a way to legally import a Saiga 12 into this wonderfull state.

Saiga 12+ 10 round mag + bullet tip mag release = 1 happy Californian..


That, my friend, is exactly what I was thinking.....what is the capactiy limit for shotguns?

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 8:52 AM
To make it simple:

Take a Roberti-Roos \ Kasler listed Assault Weapon. Evan's modifies mag-well and seals it. Now it's no longer an Assault Weapon, per IC DOJ stamp of approval.

Proposed Regulations show that the method of magazine modification is not important. So any of the methods used to affix a magazine to a named AW will make it a non-AW.

So this opens up Roberti-Roos and Kasler list to compliance. Addition of a fixed 10 round magazine can revert a named AW into non-AW status...


My apologies for not being able to say this simply...



So are you saying that until or if the regulatory change takes place, that since the DOJ approved Evans to convert listed weapons into fixed mag builds that someone else that is set up with an AW license or out of state can take an AR10 and do the same thing? Even riskier, they could do it with a Prince50 until the new regulation takes effect, if it ever does?

Yes. Regulatory change does not alter this fact, it only changes the way a magazine must be affixed. A brave FFL is needed at this point.

Also, if the proposed regulations are adopted, it further shows that the difference between the welded mag well of an Evan's Colt AR-15 and an identical Colt AR-15 with a correctly pinned 10-rounder as being inconsequential... in other words, as long as the magazine is affixed, it doesn't matter which way.


There is no provision for the DOJ to "approve" rifles that enter the state. My interpretation is that they merely did not "disapprove" of the Evans rifles.

Evan's submitted an exemplar to the DOJ which received approval. It was a Bushmaster XM15E2, which is a named AW. The modifications Evans performed removed it from AW status, as per IC. Since that is the case, any named series firearm, or any named Assault Weapon that has a similar procedure performed would not be subject to AW classification.

The proposed regulations state that sealing the mag well is only one way to affix a magazine. If the regs are not adopted, they can be used as DOJ opinion and as a guideline. If the regs are adopted, full authority of the law would state that a Colt AR-15 with a sealed mag well would be no different than a Colt AR-15 having a properly pinned magazine.

Either way, they have shown to us that a named firearm with a fixed magazine of 10 rounds or less is not an Assault Weapon, contrary to what the PC actually says. And whether or not the proposed regulation is adopted or not, it can still be used in court to prove a point.

Omega13device
01-01-2007, 10:10 AM
It sounds like this all depends on the letter from IC...and yet we all know that a letter from the DOJ is neither law nor regulation (same with memos). So how do you see this holding together in court?

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 10:25 AM
It sounds like this all depends on the letter from IC...and yet we all know that a letter from the DOJ is neither law nor regulation (same with memos). So how do you see this holding together in court?

Official DOJ opinion in letter to Evan's regarding a modified listed Assault Weapon being deemed 'not an Assault Weapon' and allowed to be sold over the past several years is precedence enough to argue legality in court.

Even though this is not supported in law or regulation, the fact that the regulatory agency that oversees Assault Weapons Laws and Firearms in the State of California either gave their approval, or allowed the sales to continue is the key point here.

The DOJ cannot claim incompetence here. Nor can they suddenly change their mind without some sort of new law or court ruling. DOJ opinion letters hold much more weight than any 'memo'. In this circumstance the DOJ examined Evan's exemplar and opined that it was 'not an assault weapon'.

EDIT: And yes, I am aware this is fully pushing the boundary over the known legal line. That is why I state that any attempts at pulling this off are done by people who can afford the legal representation.

pacificcoast
01-01-2007, 10:30 AM
It sounds like this all depends on the letter from IC...and yet we all know that a letter from the DOJ is neither law nor regulation (same with memos). So how do you see this holding together in court?

+1 if you open these flood gates, the DOJ will just denounce a prior agents actions. identically to how they handled the Eagle Arms AR10 letter written by Kathy Quinn.

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 10:34 AM
+1 if you open these flood gates, the DOJ will just denounce a prior agents actions. identically to how they handled the Eagle Arms AR10 letter written by Kathy Quinn.

Unlike the Eagle Arms AR-10 letter, Evan's submitted an exemplar to DOJ, which was approved. This is substantially different. The DOJ approved of a named AW being modified to a non-AW status after examination of the very product that has been sold for the past several years. This is a completely different situation from the AR-10 debacle.

Thrillbilly
01-01-2007, 10:36 AM
Am I reading this right or am I just too hung over. So I can get a SR-25 now as long as it has a pinned mag???

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 10:47 AM
Am I reading this right or am I just too hung over. So I can get a SR-25 now as long as it has a pinned mag???

If you are willing to face the risk of being prosecuted for illegal possession of an unregistered Assault Weapon, then yes. In my opinion, there is enough ambiguity created by the DOJ to fight the charges in court to either reduce the charges to an infraction or thrown out completely. A willing test case is what would be needed at this point.

All you need to do is determine if this argument is sufficient enough to give you the confidence to make this happen. And you would also need to find a FFL who buys this arguement as presented as well and is willing to do a transfer.


EDIT: Is this all some gimmick? For the most part, YES. A very risky one at that.

This is a true 'loophole' ready for the making. It won't come cheap, or without cost, just with any real legal loophole, but currently the means to use it exists.

Gunfighter01
01-01-2007, 10:52 AM
I would like to mention a conversation that i had with DOJ, not that just a conversation matters, but it bothered me. I asked the question, " if i installed a 22 cal convesion kit to an AR , would this render it a non Assault Rifle"? the answer i got was a big NO! That any rifle listed as an AW can never be changed back to a non AW, no matter what the modifications were, as it is listed as an Assault Rifle. A second thing i'm kinda wondering about is, in the new proposed regulations its states" a firearm is readily modifiable to recieve a detachable magazine if it has a device that prevents the magazine from being released but allows the firearms to accpet a detachable magazine when the device is removed, reveresed, or dissengaged without alterations to the magazine well. wouldnt this excerpt alone present a problem with removing the magazine with a tool? Personally for me, i would have to see this stuff in a penal code section before i would trust it.

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 11:00 AM
I would like to mention a conversation that i had with DOJ, not that just a conversation matters, but it bothered me. I asked the question, " if i installed a 22 cal convesion kit to an AR , would this render it a non Assault Rifle"? the answer i got was a big NO!

If it is a firearm that falls under 12276.1 definition (SB-23 features) and was registered, indeed installing a .22 caliber conversion or removing offending features would remove it's AW status.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs.php#13

If it is a Roberti-Roos or Kasler listed Assault Weapon, then, no, removing features or converting it so that it does not fire a centerfire cartridge does not change it's status.


That any rifle listed as an AW can never be changed back to a non AW, no matter what the modifications were, as it is listed as an Assault Rifle.

That is correct. At least until Evan's submitted a listed AW that was modified, and the DOJ gave the opinion that it was not an AW and continues to allow these listed firearms to be sold in a modified state.

This is where the potential loophole may be created.



A second thing i'm kinda wondering about is, in the new proposed regulations its states" a firearm is readily modifiable to recieve a detachable magazine if it has a device that prevents the magazine from being released but allows the firearms to accpet a detachable magazine when the device is removed, reveresed, or dissengaged without alterations to the magazine well. wouldnt this excerpt alone present a problem with removing the magazine with a tool? Personally for me, i would have to see this stuff in a penal code section before i would trust it.

Inconsistent with the definition of a 'detachable magazine'. Read my initial post again where I comment on this.

Thrillbilly
01-01-2007, 11:02 AM
If you are willing to face the risk of being prosecuted for illegal possession of an unregistered Assault Weapon, then yes. In my opinion, there is enough ambiguity created by the DOJ to fight the charges in court to either reduce the charges to an infraction or thrown out completely. A willing test case is what would be needed at this point.

All you need to do is determine if this argument is sufficient enough to give you the confidence to make this happen. And you would also need to find a FFL who buys this arguement as presented as well and is willing to do a transfer.


EDIT: Is this all some gimmick? For the most part, YES. A very risky one at that.

This is a true 'loophole' ready for the making. It won't come cheap, or without cost, just with any real legal loophole, but currently the means to use it exists.

Hmmm now all I need to do is find a FFL :eek:

E Pluribus Unum
01-01-2007, 11:05 AM
All this to have a reciever that says "Colt" on the side? I am content with my CMMG.. ;)

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 11:08 AM
All this to have a reciever that says "Colt" on the side? I am content with my CMMG.. ;)

No, not just Colt. Galil, Uzi, FN-FAL or *insert your favorite Roberti-Roos/Kasler listed firearm here*.

It's not a legal grey area, it's not in the PC, it is a potential exploit of current law, interpretation and DOJ enforcement.

It is a loophole in the making. A real loophole to the definition of the word. Using the ambiguity of the law to break it without repercussion. To get away with doing something that is illegal because the illegality of it is so confusing and contradictory...

You could get convicted of a felony. You would most likely be convicted of an infraction, or the case might be thrown out completely once all the facts are presented.

All is not 'cut and dried' anymore. The current state of Assault Weapons laws in California is crumbling and in disarray. The DOJ, by not listing, has proven that 12276 listing is out of date and useless, and that SB-23 'is the vehicle' that must be enforced. There is opportunity RIGHT NOW. It is not without risk, and it may not be cheap. But it is there and could prove to be successful.

csarel
01-01-2007, 11:17 AM
So I can bring back my MAK-90 from AZ as long I lock the 10 rounder in, huh?
I think I'll lay low with that untill we get some feedback.

hoffmang
01-01-2007, 11:26 AM
Here is the letter in question:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Evans-Gun-Smithing-2004-11-19.pdf

Also note that if you were to be charged and DOJ tried to "go back" on its earlier interpretation, then DOJ would have to reverse a long line of convictions for violating Roberti-Roos or Kasler, or jail Evans and all of his customers.

There really isn't a third way for them...

-Gene

Gunfighter01
01-01-2007, 11:43 AM
This may be a dumb question, as i am not an attorney or anthing but, is there any possibility that there is a new list of AW's and it just hasnt been released or posted yet. Could there actually be a list with a pre jan. 1st, 2007 date that just hasnt been released? Could they actually wait and see what was posted in these calif gun forums before deciding to release the new list?,,,,just a thought that probably has no legal basis, i was just curious.

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 11:43 AM
Gunfighter, no. There is not new list, and there never will be. The DOJ does not have this power any more.

Here is the letter in question:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Evans-Gun-Smithing-2004-11-19.pdf

Also note that if you were to be charged and DOJ tried to "go back" on its earlier interpretation, then DOJ would have to reverse a long line of convictions for violating Roberti-Roos or Kasler, or jail Evans and all of his customers.

There really isn't a third way for them...

-Gene

A third option would be for a judge/jury to decide that a modified Roberti-Roos or Kasler listed weapon weren't Assault Weapons because of the modifications that DOJ approved. With that in mind, proposed regulations list the specific modification exemption that Evan's used as well as listed several other ways to create fixed magazines. Since the proposed legislation lists this particular modification as well as others, and all of them being equally satisfactory for determination of fixed magazine status, that any attempt to follow these guidelines would also remove a listed AW from it's AW status.

As far as I know, the legality of named a Category 1 or 2 Assault Weapon that has been modified so that it does not meet Category 3 definition has never been tested in the courts. Until this letter surfaced, in conjunction with proposed regulations by the DOJ, the easy answer would be that it isn't possible. This letter and DOJ approval of a modified listed exemplar removing it from Category 1/2 status is how this all comes together and puts it into play, in my opinion.

E Pluribus Unum
01-01-2007, 11:47 AM
At the very least it means that if you are storing an illegal assault weapon in your home, remove the evil features and there is nothing they can do. Even if they find an illegal assault weapon it is likely nothing more will happen to you than loss of the firearm.

I for one am not interested in going to court and losing thousands in a legal battle. I will stay completely legal and shoot my CMMG OLL. :)

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 11:54 AM
At the very least it means that if you are storing an illegal assault weapon in your home, remove the evil features and there is nothing they can do. Even if they find an illegal assault weapon it is likely nothing more will happen to you than loss of the firearm.

No, that would be incorrect. A Category 1/2 Assault Weapon are AWs even down to the bare receiver. However, the DOJ has opined that if specific modifications were made, that it may remove the firearm in question from Category 1/2 status.

This is much different in that there would actually have to be modifications made to the existing Category 1/2 firearm to change the function of the firearm.

The question becomes, if sealing the mag well is acceptable to the DOJ, and this method is listed in proposed regulations with other acceptable methods, that any one of those methods can be used to remove Category 1/2 status from any particular firearm.

hoffmang
01-01-2007, 11:59 AM
You are actually quite safe if you weld up the magazine well just like Evans is doing. Xeno is likely correct in saying that that stands for the general proposition that you can make a modification that will not allow a magazine to be placed into the mag well of a Cat 1/2 rifle and it would be legal.

Its a funny distinction, but a Prince-50 would be a better choice for modifying a Cat 1/2 weapon as it is more parallel to the welded magazine well in Evans' exemplar. OLL's are only regulated by SB-23, so they can use my mag lock.

-Gene

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 12:06 PM
You are actually quite safe if you weld up the magazine well just like Evans is doing. Xeno is likely correct in saying that that stands for the general proposition that you can make a modification that will not allow a magazine to be placed into the mag well of a Cat 1/2 rifle and it would be legal.

I am not stating that this is legal by any means. I am stating that several events have come into play that create a potential loophole that may not be prosecutable.

Matt C
01-01-2007, 12:29 PM
But what CA FFL will be willing to take the risk and do a transfer? I'm not rich but I will stand up for my rights, I'll order a AR-10A4 right now. Will the Prince-50 work on an AR-10?

"All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land."

NoTime2Shoot
01-01-2007, 12:30 PM
Doesn't the mag need to be fixed by the out of state FFL before the lower is shipped here?

Matt C
01-01-2007, 12:34 PM
Doesn't the mag need to be fixed by the out of state FFL before the lower is shipped here?

Yes, that's correct, unless the FFL had an AW permit.

E Pluribus Unum
01-01-2007, 12:35 PM
Doesn't the mag need to be fixed by the out of state FFL before the lower is shipped here?

If I am reading the laws correctly, only on items that are specifically listed. If its an Off List Lower it is only subject to SB-23 and in stripped form it is not in violation.

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 12:35 PM
The listed firearm would need to be modified before it was transferred into the state.

But what CA FFL will be willing to take the risk and do a transfer?

That I do not know. A year ago, what CA FFL would transfer off-list lowers?

Yes, the Prince-50 kit will work on an AR-10.

hoffmang
01-01-2007, 12:35 PM
E. is correct. Only Category 1/2 AWs require an AW permitee or out of state modification.

Xeno: I do think one shouldn't be in possession of a Bushmaster XM-15E2 in bare receiver state. That's an illegal AW. Once modified... Its not :D

-Gene

NoTime2Shoot
01-01-2007, 12:39 PM
If I am reading the laws correctly, only on items that are specifically listed. If its an Off List Lower it is only subject to SB-23 and in stripped form it is not in violation.


Yes. I was refering to something named.

OTOH, this would mean I could, in theory, purchase an AR-10 to keep at my house in Nevada. I could then lock the mag in compliance with the rewording the DOJ gave us, then legally bring it to California.

Wow. Hey, thanks Evan!!!

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 12:45 PM
Xeno: I do think one shouldn't be in possession of a Bushmaster XM-15E2 in bare receiver state. That's an illegal AW. Once modified... Its not :D

Absolutely. An unmodified Category 1/2 stripped receiver is definitely an illegal AW. Once it is modified, legal status becomes very blurry, to the point that you can prove to the courts that the DOJ has specifically exempted them in spite of the law, with pending regulation that also supports the DOJ's exemption of such firearms.

This is a classic example of what a real loophole is, and why I have scolded people who have used the term lightly in regards to OLLs in the past.

JWC6
01-01-2007, 12:56 PM
What if the bushmaster XM-15 is modified with a mm grip and a muzzle brake but with an open mag well?

NoTime2Shoot
01-01-2007, 1:00 PM
What if the bushmaster XM-15 is modified with a mm grip and a muzzle brake but with an open mag well?

I don't think the precedent set by the Evans letter & approval works like that. I believe the Mag would need to be "permanently" fixed. That removes it from the list.

JWC6
01-01-2007, 1:11 PM
Sorry, I was just playing semantics... Since OLL's are not AW's because OLLs are configured with no AW features, such as either non detachable magazine OR no pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc AND Evans has had tacit authorization to modifed "listed" firearms to have no features consistent with AW's, then what is the real difference with a non detachable magazine version of a "listed" AW vs one with no pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc?


Oops got to watch the game....

NoTime2Shoot
01-01-2007, 1:13 PM
Sorry, I was just playing semantics... Since OLL's are not AW's because OLLs are configured with no AW features, such as either non detachable magazine OR no pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc AND Evans has had tacit authorization to modifed "listed" firearms to have no features consistent with AW's, then what is the real difference with a non detachable magazine version of a "listed" AW vs one with no pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc?


Oops got to watch the game....

I see what you are saying. That slope is way to slippery for me to even think about.

Thrillbilly
01-01-2007, 1:22 PM
Yea I really think I want to find a FFL who would be willing to do a SR-25. Actually Im wondering what other fun things to get if I can find one....AUG maybe

hoffmang
01-01-2007, 1:27 PM
One important point about the Evans loop hole.

The opinions one would be relying on have a different set of characteristics than plain vanilla SB-23. The modifications that DOJ has approved for Evans' Colts and Bushmasters do limit both the attachability and detachability of a magazine. Though my bullet tip magazine release works for normal OLL, it would be getting much closer to over the line on these. However, a Prince-50 style kit does have the effective of limiting the ability to attach a magazine since there is already one fixed in there.

-Gene

brighamr
01-01-2007, 1:41 PM
With all the people on here who ask 'where's a willing FFL'? I would say, why not become one yourself? It's not that hard to do, a few hundred in licensing and you're good to go. Another thought is that if someone were willing to become an FFL purely for the reason of importing OLLs and the newly legal Pinned Mag Named AWs, (someone with a good, friendly lawyer) I would send him/her $100 to help in gaining their licenses..... It's worth it to me to have someone I know I can goto for all my needs. Anybody else willing to chip in to have a reliable, no-nonsense FFL? (Also, if you charge $25 per DROS, and all these people go to you for their FFL business, you can bet you'd make your money back and then some :D )

Matt C
01-01-2007, 1:50 PM
With all the people on here who ask 'where's a willing FFL'? I would say, why not become one yourself? It's not that hard to do, a few hundred in licensing and you're good to go. Another thought is that if someone were willing to become an FFL purely for the reason of importing OLLs and the newly legal Pinned Mag Named AWs, (someone with a good, friendly lawyer) I would send him/her $100 to help in gaining their licenses..... It's worth it to me to have someone I know I can goto for all my needs. Anybody else willing to chip in to have a reliable, no-nonsense FFL? (Also, if you charge $25 per DROS, and all these people go to you for their FFL business, you can bet you'd make your money back and then some :D )

Hmmm, that's not a bad idea. I'm seriously considering it.

brighamr
01-01-2007, 1:53 PM
seriously, anyone who is willing to become an FFL to support our rights in legally owning the guns we want, I got $100 to get you started and will point you in the direction of the forms you need. (I really want to do it myself, but I am actually moving in about 6 months to AZ, where I will probably setup shop to do the pinning and transferring to CA :D

kantstudien
01-01-2007, 1:59 PM
Xenophobe, how would someone go about cleaning their RR/Kasler gun with mag-lock? Even if they removed the evil features (grip, stock, FH), once the gun is disassembled it would be a felonious AW despite it being a bare receiver, correct? So the only way to clean would be a bore-snake through the action, or out of state? I am specifically thinking of an HK-91 rifle here, where once the upper and lower are separated the mag lock will simply drop out, creating a AW.

Matt C
01-01-2007, 2:02 PM
seriously, anyone who is willing to become an FFL to support our rights in legally owning the guns we want, I got $100 to get you started and will point you in the direction of the forms you need. (I really want to do it myself, but I am actually moving in about 6 months to AZ, where I will probably setup shop to do the pinning and transferring to CA :D

No promises yet, but if can do it I will.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=448183#post448183

12voltguy
01-01-2007, 2:04 PM
correct me if I have this wrong.

There can no longer be a list update, so our OLL can never have a AW statue.

So we can't have all the evil features that we could have had if they had been listed & then we registered them?

Is this correct?

So we are stuck with no grips or fixed mags?


So we can maybe buy listed AW if we neuter them?

:rolleyes: Great:rolleyes:

I would rather have a Mini 14 or keltec SU then a neutered AR:D

CALI-gula
01-01-2007, 2:32 PM
I would rather have a Mini 14 or keltec SU then a neutered AR:D

Yes - those are both nice rifles and you should probably stick with them. Avoid any of the OLLs at all costs; they are not worth your time.

Your Mini-14 and KelTec SU-16 A,B, or CA models are worry free. They are not required for registration either, nor are they allowed to have SB23 banned features - just like a detachable mag Stoner-influenced rifle utilizing the MM grip.

Stick with the Mini-14 and KelTec SU-16 A,B, or CA models, and you'll never have to worry about such problems.

You're actually quite lucky, and I envy your enlightenment. With such resolution, you will have peace of mind, and you'll never have to waste your time reading another thread on the OLL issue on Calguns.net ever again. ;)

.

E Pluribus Unum
01-01-2007, 2:36 PM
correct me if I have this wrong.

There can no longer be a list update, so our OLL can never have a AW statue.

So we can't have all the evil features that we could have had if they had been listed & then we registered them?

Is this correct?

So we are stuck with no grips or fixed mags?


So we can maybe buy listed AW if we neuter them?

:rolleyes: Great:rolleyes:

I would rather have a Mini 14 or keltec SU then a neutered AR:D

No, our weapons can be added to the list via a court ruling. Now instead of being an arbitrary addition by a single man it is a court process. In actuality they wont bother with this but there still is a process for listing. If they ever do list an OLL that you already own a registration period will re-open and you can register it as an AW. After that happens you can add all the evil features you want!

Have you ever tried a Monster Man or MU-15??? It is a darn good compromise!

12voltguy
01-01-2007, 2:46 PM
No, our weapons can be added to the list via a court ruling. Now instead of being an arbitrary addition by a single man it is a court process. In actuality they wont bother with this but there still is a process for listing. If they ever do list an OLL that you already own a registration period will re-open and you can register it as an AW. After that happens you can add all the evil features you want!

Have you ever tried a Monster Man or MU-15??? It is a darn good compromise!

I have an OLL, everything but a lower parts kit & stock.

Was waiting for the list:D

that is why I asked my question, as it sounded like there will never be a list.

other guy that replied, sorry ya got all "butt hurt" over my polite question:p try not to lose any sleep over a Witty reply:eek:

E Pluribus Unum, thank you for your answer:) I don't want a mini or keltec, I want my OLL listed so it can be a std AR with any features I want, likely what the rest of us want too.

E Pluribus Unum
01-01-2007, 2:50 PM
I have an OLL, everything but a lower parts kit & stock.

Was waiting for the list:D

that is why I asaked my question, as it sounded like there will never be a list.

other guy that replied, sorry ya got all "butt hurt" over my polite question:p try not to lose any sleep over a whitty reply:eek:

E Pluribus Unum, thank you for your answer:) I don'y want a mini or keltec, I want my OLL listed so it can be a std ar with any features I want, likely what the rest of us want too.

Because they have to list every make and model I want them to list my CMMG MOD4SA. That would give me the option to register it as an AW and attach features. I am sure that CMMG would release the MOD4SB soon after which would be "off list" and legal to purchase!

hoffmang
01-01-2007, 2:57 PM
No, our weapons can be added to the list via a court ruling. Now instead of being an arbitrary addition by a single man it is a court process. In actuality they wont bother with this but there still is a process for listing. If they ever do list an OLL that you already own a registration period will re-open and you can register it as an AW. After that happens you can add all the evil features you want!
compromise!

No.

After both Harrot and AB-2728, no AG or Court can declare a rifle an Assault Weapon. Only the legislature now has that ability and would take an entirely new law.

-Gene

CALI-gula
01-01-2007, 3:03 PM
I don't want a mini or keltec, I want my OLL listed so it can be a std AR with any features I want, likely what the rest of us want too.

That was why I included the embedded answer in my reply: - just like a detachable mag Stoner-influenced rifle utilizing the MM grip.

.

Thrillbilly
01-01-2007, 3:09 PM
With all the people on here who ask 'where's a willing FFL'? I would say, why not become one yourself? It's not that hard to do, a few hundred in licensing and you're good to go. Another thought is that if someone were willing to become an FFL purely for the reason of importing OLLs and the newly legal Pinned Mag Named AWs, (someone with a good, friendly lawyer) I would send him/her $100 to help in gaining their licenses..... It's worth it to me to have someone I know I can goto for all my needs. Anybody else willing to chip in to have a reliable, no-nonsense FFL? (Also, if you charge $25 per DROS, and all these people go to you for their FFL business, you can bet you'd make your money back and then some :D )

You know you have a point. If anyone here has info on what obtaining a FFL would entail please PM me as I am seriously contemplating this idea. No promises though :)

hoffmang
01-01-2007, 3:24 PM
Becoming an FFL has just gotten better fyi - New federal laws are going into place to curb some of the FFL's losing their license over nit picking.

-Gene

wilit
01-01-2007, 4:24 PM
I think this is an exciting turn of events if in fact we can get a test case to rule in our favor to solidify the position. Another thing this opens up that hasn't been mentioned is the passing on of AW weapons to sons and grandsons. Dad installs a sporting conversions mag lock on his Colt Sportster and can now legally pass it on to his son.

12voltguy
01-01-2007, 4:51 PM
Really, try the MM grip with detachable mag.
.

I might try one. but I really want to try bumpfiring:D :D :D

and without a pistol grip & foward grip, I'm not sure it can be done:p

10TH AMENDMENT
01-01-2007, 4:56 PM
Originally Posted by 12voltguy
I would rather have a Mini 14 or keltec SU then a neutered AR
Yes - those are both nice rifles and you should probably stick with them. Avoid any of the OLLs at all costs; they are not worth your time.

Your Mini-14 and KelTec SU-16 A,B, or CA models are worry free. They are not required for registration either, nor are they allowed to have SB23 banned features - just like a detachable mag Stoner-influenced rifle utilizing the MM grip.

Stick with the Mini-14 and KelTec SU-16 A,B, or CA models, and you'll never have to worry about such problems.

You're actually quite lucky, and I envy your enlightenment. With such resolution, you will have peace of mind, and you'll never have to waste your time reading another thread on the OLL issue on Calguns.net ever again. ;)



.

CALI:

You are the master of sardonicism. That one almost made me cry! :D:D:D

10TH AMENDMENT
01-01-2007, 5:02 PM
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum
No, our weapons can be added to the list via a court ruling. Now instead of being an arbitrary addition by a single man it is a court process. In actuality they wont bother with this but there still is a process for listing. If they ever do list an OLL that you already own a registration period will re-open and you can register it as an AW. After that happens you can add all the evil features you want!
compromise!

No.

After both Harrot and AB-2728, no AG or Court can declare a rifle an Assault Weapon. Only the legislature now has that ability and would take an entirely new law.

-Gene

That is not quite correct, Gene. There is still a statutory mechanism wherein a firearm can be declared an AW by the court after the AG motions for it to be.

blkA4alb
01-01-2007, 5:03 PM
I might try one. but I really want to try bumpfiring:D :D :D

and without a pistol grip & foward grip, I'm not sure it can be done:p
Oh yes it can, trust me.

In Nevada, even with the pistol grip on you don't hold it. Left hand on the handguard pulling forward against your right hand finger.

lazuris
01-01-2007, 5:07 PM
I think we should all send Even's a big thankyou. Here is the link..

http://www.proflowers.com/thank-you-flowers-THK?ref=SplitAHomeNoRef&pagesplit=SplitA

hoffmang
01-01-2007, 5:08 PM
10th,

No - 2728 struck that mechanism also.

12276.5 used to read:

12276.5. (a) Upon request by the Attorney General filed in a
verified petition in a superior court of a county with a population
of more than 1,000,000, the superior court shall issue a declaration
of temporary suspension of the manufacture, sale, distribution,
transportation, or importation into the state, or the giving or
lending of a firearm alleged to be an assault weapon within the
meaning of Section 12276 because the firearm is either of the
following:
(1) Another model by the same manufacturer or a copy by another
manufacturer of an assault weapon listed in subdivision (a), (b), or
(c) of Section 12276 which is identical to one of the assault weapons
listed in those subdivisions except for slight modifications or
enhancements including, but not limited to: a folding or retractable
stock; adjustable sight; case deflector for left-handed shooters;
shorter barrel; wooden, plastic or metal stock; larger magazine size;
different caliber provided that the caliber exceeds .22 rimfire; or
bayonet mount. The court shall strictly construe this paragraph so
that a firearm which is merely similar in appearance but not a
prototype or copy cannot be found to be within the meaning of this
paragraph.
(2) A firearm first manufactured or sold to the general public in
California after June 1, 1989, which has been redesigned, renamed, or
renumbered from one of the firearms listed in subdivision (a), (b),
or (c) of Section 12276, or which is manufactured or sold by another
company under a licensing agreement to manufacture or sell one of the
firearms listed in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 12276,
regardless of the company of production or distribution, or the
country of origin. [and more edited out about how the process works]


2728 ammended 12276.5 to read:

(a) The Attorney General shall prepare a description for
identification purposes, including a picture or diagram, of each assault
weapon listed in Section 12276, and any firearm declared to be an assault
weapon pursuant to this section, and shall distribute the description to all
law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcement of this chapter.
Those law enforcement agencies shall make the description available to all
agency personnel.

(b) (1) Until January 1, 2007, the Attorney General shall promulgate a
list that specifies all firearms designated as assault weapons in Section
12276 or declared to be assault weapons pursuant to this section. The
Attorney General shall file that list with the Secretary of State for
publication in the California Code of Regulations. Any declaration that a
specified firearm is an assault weapon shall be implemented by the
Attorney General who, within 90 days, shall promulgate an amended list
which shall include the specified firearm declared to be an assault weapon.
The Attorney General shall file the amended list with the Secretary of
State for publication in the California Code of Regulations. Any firearm
declared to be an assault weapon prior to January 1, 2007, shall remain on
the list filed with the Secretary of State.

(2) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of
Title 2 of the Government Code, pertaining to the adoption of rules and
regulations, shall not apply to any list of assault weapons promulgated
pursuant to this section.

(c) The Attorney General shall adopt those rules and regulations that
may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent of this
chapter.


No one but the legislature (by passing a new law) can newly deem any rifle an assault weapon.

-Gene

12voltguy
01-01-2007, 5:15 PM
Oh yes it can, trust me.

In Nevada, even with the pistol grip on you don't hold it. Left hand on the handguard pulling forward against your right hand finger.


sweet:)

I've seen the videos and read the technic, thought you had to lightly grip the pistole grip:o

10TH AMENDMENT
01-01-2007, 5:23 PM
10th,

No - 2728 struck that mechanism also.

12276.5 used to read:


2728 ammended 12276.5 to read:


No one but the legislature (by passing a new law) can newly deem any rifle an assault weapon.

-Gene

That is news to me then...DUH!:o

I am speaking from my initial reading of the proposed Penal Code amendment that AB2728 would have established. I distinctly remember making a mental note to myself how foolish it was to eliminate the DOJ's authority to list AR/AK "Series" weapons while at the same time maintaining his ability to petition the court via the "add on" process which is much more onerous.

I guess that just proves the value of "Shephardizing" your brain before engaging the mouth. :D ;)

10TH AMENDMENT
01-01-2007, 5:32 PM
There, that's better! Thanks for the correction, Gene.

Cal Pen Code § 12276.5

Practitioner's Toolbox

History

Notes

Notes of Decisions

Deering's California Codes Annotated
Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
a member of the LexisNexis Group.


*** THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2007 SUPPLEMENT ***
(ALL 2006 LEGISLATION)

PENAL CODE
Part 4. Prevention of Crimes and Apprehension of Criminals
Title 2. Control of Deadly Weapons
Chapter 2.3. Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989
Article 1. General Provisions

GO TO CALIFORNIA CODES ARCHIVE DIRECTORY

Cal Pen Code § 12276.5 (2006)

§ 12276.5. Description of assault weapons for identification purposes; Promulgation of list

(a) The Attorney General shall prepare a description for identification purposes, including a picture or diagram, of each assault weapon listed in Section 12276, and any firearm declared to be an assault weapon pursuant to this section, and shall distribute the description to all law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcement of this chapter. Those law enforcement agencies shall make the description available to all agency personnel.

(b)

(1) Until January 1, 2007, the Attorney General shall promulgate a list that specifies all firearms designated as assault weapons in Section 12276 or declared to be assault weapons pursuant to this section. The Attorney General shall file that list with the Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of Regulations. Any declaration that a specified firearm is an assault weapon shall be implemented by the Attorney General who, within 90 days, shall promulgate an amended list which shall include the specified firearm declared to be an assault weapon. The Attorney General shall file the amended list with the Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of Regulations. Any firearm declared to be an assault weapon prior to January 1, 2007, shall remain on the list filed with the Secretary of State.

(2) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, pertaining to the adoption of rules and regulations, shall not apply to any list of assault weapons promulgated pursuant to this section.

(c) The Attorney General shall adopt those rules and regulations that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent of this chapter.


History:

Added Stats 1989 ch 19 § 3. Amended Stats 1990 ch 874 § 1 (SB 2444); Stats 1991 ch 954 § 3 (SB 263); Stats 2006 ch 793 § 1 (AB 2728), effective January 1, 2007.


Notes:

Amendments:
1990 Amendment
1991 Amendment
2006 Amendment

1990 Amendment:

(1) Amended the second sentence of subd (d) by (a) substituting "the notice" for "same"; and (b) adding "which is the"; (2) added the comma before "it shall" in the second sentence of subd (f); and (3) added subd (g).

1991 Amendment:

Added subds (h) and (i).

2006 Amendment

(1) Deleted former subds (a)-(f) which read:

"(a)(1) Another model by the same manufacturer or a copy by another manufacturer of an assault weapon listed in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 12276 which is identical to one of the assault weapons listed in those subdivisions except for slight modifications or enhancements including, but not limited to: a folding or retractable stock; adjustable sight; case deflector for left-handed shooters; shorter barrel; wooden, plastic or metal stock; larger magazine size; different caliber provided that the caliber exceeds .22 rimfire; or bayonet mount. The court shall strictly construe this paragraph so that a firearm which is merely similar in appearance but not a prototype or copy cannot be found to be within the meaning of this paragraph.

"(2) A firearm first manufactured or sold to the general public in California after June 1, 1989, which has been redesigned, renamed, or renumbered from one of the firearms listed in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 12276, or which is manufactured or sold by another company under a licensing agreement to manufacture or sell one of the firearms listed in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 12276, regardless of the company of production or distribution, or the country of origin.

"(b) Upon the issuance of a declaration of temporary suspension by the superior court and after the Attorney General has completed the notice requirements of subdivisions (c) and (d), the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 12280 shall apply with respect to those weapons.

"(c) Upon declaration of temporary suspension, the Attorney General shall immediately notify all police, sheriffs, district attorneys, and those requesting notice pursuant to subdivision (d), shall notify industry and association publications for those who manufacture, sell, or use firearms, and shall publish notice in not less than 10 newspapers of general circulation in geographically diverse sections of the state of the fact that the declaration has been issued.

"(d) The Attorney General shall maintain a list of any persons who request to receive notice of any declaration of temporary suspension and shall furnish notice under subdivision (c) to all these persons immediately upon a superior court declaration. Notice shall also be furnished by the Attorney General by certified mail, return receipt requested (or substantial equivalent if the person who is to receive the notice resides outside the United States), to any known manufacturer and California distributor of the weapon which is the subject of the temporary suspension order or their California statutory agent for service. The notice shall be deemed effective upon mailing.

"(e) After issuing a declaration of temporary suspension under this section, the superior court shall set a date for hearing on a permanent declaration that the weapon is an assault weapon. The hearing shall be set no later than 30 days from the date of issuance of the declaration of temporary suspension. The hearing may be continued for good cause thereafter. Any manufacturer or California distributor of the weapon which is the subject of the temporary suspension order has the right, within 20 days of notification of the issuance of the order, to intervene in the action. Any manufacturer or California distributor who fails to timely exercise its right of intervention, or any other person who manufactures, sells, or owns the assault weapon may, in the court's discretion, thereafter join the action as amicus curiae.

"(f) At the hearing, the burden of proof is upon the Attorney General to show by a preponderance of evidence that the weapon which is the subject of the declaration of temporary suspension is an assault weapon. If the court finds the weapon to be an assault weapon, it shall issue a declaration that it is an assault weapon under Section 12276. Any party to the matter may appeal the court's decision. A declaration that the weapon is an assault weapon shall remain in effect during the pendency of the appeal unless ordered otherwise by the appellate court."; (2) redesignated former subds (g) and (h) to be subds (a) and (b); (3) added subdivision designations (b)(1) and (b)(2); (4) amended subd (b)(1) by adding (a) "Until January 1, 2007," at the beginning of the first sentence; and (b) the last sentence; and (5) redesignated former subd (i) to be subd (c).

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 9:53 PM
This is NOT SB-23 compliance modification. This is a completely different matter. Gripless builds of any sort on an unmodified Category 1/2 receiver would never be legal using this loophole. In almost any sense of this word, an actual modification to the receiver, no matter how small or invasive, would need to be performed. Without the proposed regulation in effect, how this is done is not limited, but the proposed regulations play a BIG role in making all this legal.

If the proposed regulations had never been issued, this loophole would not exist.


What if the bushmaster XM-15 is modified with a mm grip and a muzzle brake but with an open mag well?

Please re-read my initial post. The Bushmaster XM15E2 that was removed from Series AW classification was done by modification of the receiver to remove the detacability of magazines.

Open magwell featureless builds of named Category 1/2 Assault Weapons would be still be very illegal.


One important point about the Evans loop hole.

The opinions one would be relying on have a different set of characteristics than plain vanilla SB-23. The modifications that DOJ has approved for Evans' Colts and Bushmasters do limit both the attachability and detachability of a magazine. Though my bullet tip magazine release works for normal OLL, it would be getting much closer to over the line on these. However, a Prince-50 style kit does have the effective of limiting the ability to attach a magazine since there is already one fixed in there.

Yes, and since the proposed regulations are not actually in effect, the legality of a Prince-50, SAS or Hoffman mag lock are stretching this exploit a bit farther than I would consider safe.

The loophole I am showing provides for the Evan's modification, or any of the modifications suggested by the DOJ in proposed CCR 5469 (f)(3). Going outside of these suggestions may not exempt a Category 1/2 firearm from AW status.

This is a whole different game than SB-23 featureless builds, since it deals with named Assault Weapons, and featureless builds of Category 1/2 firearms would still be deemed illegal AWs.


Xenophobe, how would someone go about cleaning their RR/Kasler gun with mag-lock? Even if they removed the evil features (grip, stock, FH), once the gun is disassembled it would be a felonious AW despite it being a bare receiver, correct? So the only way to clean would be a bore-snake through the action, or out of state? I am specifically thinking of an HK-91 rifle here, where once the upper and lower are separated the mag lock will simply drop out, creating a AW.

This modification may not make a named HK-91 exempt from Category 1 status. Actual modification of the receiver must be done.

Using a mag-lock like the Prince-50, SAS or Hoffman will probably not be enough to avoid Category 1/2 exemption. If the proposed regulations are adopted, then they certainly will not.

The benefit of proposed regulation passing would mean that any of the mentioned ways to lock a magazine described by the DOJ are used, then Category 1/2 status may be removed...

hoffmang
01-01-2007, 10:09 PM
tree,

You are skipping over one important issue. Selective prosecution can give rise to an as enforced constitutional challenge. That is a challenge that is likely to prevail in this case. The speeding ticket is a bad analogy. A much better analogy is anti-sodomy laws. These are often thrown out because of lack of enforcement or selective enforcement.

-Gene

xenophobe
01-01-2007, 10:22 PM
Treelogger, this is actually really simple. It is completely different than the off list situation. It is a loophole created by DOJ approval, DOJ proposed regulation and application of DOJ approval and proposed regulation to an existing Category 1/2 Assault Weapon in a similar fashion as to also remove it from Category or Series status.

1) Evans modifies listed AW, DOJ says it is no longer a Series AW.
2) DOJ proposed regs, lists several ways to alter, including the exempted Evans
3) Using one of the approved methods to fix a magazine, Category 1/2 and Series status should be removed.

I say again, there is no law, no court precedence or other legal means to accomplish this. This is not even grey area. It is using the ambiguity in the Penal Code, Code of Regulations, and prior DOJ approval of Series exemption and expanding on it.

This is much different from the SB-23 compliant alternatives in that gripless or fixed magazine builds are completely legal. Using this new loophole is not legal, however the questions it brings up shows that the legality of modifying a Category 1 or Category 2 Series firearm HAS been done in the past, and that you are using prior DOJ approval, new DOJ proposed regulation as a guideline to apply this same regulatory agency's allowances to do something that should not be legal, but offering proof to the courts that it may indeed be legal.

383green
01-01-2007, 10:35 PM
A much better analogy is anti-sodomy laws.
That is a perfect analogy, except for one thing: In this case, it's the victims who get prosecuted. :eek:

bwiese
01-02-2007, 12:49 AM
What this also brings up is the issue that "Colt AR15" may not actually be a listed gun.

"AR15" terms refers to a variety of Colt guns of varying model numbers - R6000, R6400, etc.

These were never listed in Kasler list. We may well have a 'series' without any exemplar.

Ford8N
01-02-2007, 5:38 AM
What this also brings up is the issue that "Colt AR15" may not actually be a listed gun.

"AR15" terms refers to a variety of Colt guns of varying model numbers - R6000, R6400, etc.

These were never listed in Kasler list. We may well have a 'series' without any exemplar.

Excellent point

The Colt is marked in large letters Colt AR 15 then lower down in small letters it's marked cal. .223 MODEL SP1. The model is a SP1! Now, who is gonna take this to court?:D

It sure was a good thing when the anti-gunners who wrote this law used a copy of Shotgun News to make the Roberti/Roos list.

JALLEN
01-02-2007, 7:15 AM
tree,

You are skipping over one important issue. Selective prosecution can give rise to an as enforced constitutional challenge. That is a challenge that is likely to prevail in this case. The speeding ticket is a bad analogy. A much better analogy is anti-sodomy laws. These are often thrown out because of lack of enforcement or selective enforcement.

-Gene

The anti sodomy laws are a poor example because those were being thrown out only by liberal judges put on the federal bench by Carter and BJ pandering to the gay/lesbian votes. Despite being a relatively small minority, the G/Ls have become highly organized and caught the attention and support of the ACLU and similar nutcases.

Speeding is not prosecuted more aggressively because just about everyone does it, except for a handful of good citizens in front of me on the highway, and to begin strict enforcement would create a political fire storm. The same considerations apply to DUI. Everyone agrees that DUI is a terrible problem, ought to be dealt with harshly, but when penalties are increased, for example, mandatory jail time, juries won't convict, or are less likely to convict, which kicks the legs out of plea bargaining, which leads to more trials, fewer convictions, etc. The people don't truly support tough DUI laws here in PRC.

All of these are poor analogies because gunners are a tiny, tiny minority and other than the NRA, disorganized, and therefore far easier to push around without consequence.

There is a concept known as prosecutorial discretion; the prosecutors don't have to charge EVERYONE who is guilty in order to prosecute successfully anyone. Some activities are going to be prosecutred every time... bank robbers, murder, etc. Some crimes are going to be prosecuted or not depending on the victim, as in real estate fraud, embezzling from a Little League, etc. Some will be prosecuted only when the public makes a stink about it, political crimes, etc.

But the same rules ought to apply, and be applied the same way, before, during and after the game. There was an interesting post here a while back about "underground regulations", which I had never heard of, and it made very interesting reading.

One aspect of this entire muddled mess is that with so much confusion about exactly what is legal and what is not, it is perilously close to denying equal protection and due process if a man can't determine what conduct is lawful and what is not... Harrott all over again. The more distinctions that are drawn, this is OK, that is not, he's too close to "the line" but that fellow is all right, etc. and pretty soon nobody can successfully prosecute anyone for anything, because even the prosecutors can't say what conduct is lawful or not. Not to say they won't try, and bluff their way through, though.

hoffmang
01-02-2007, 8:22 AM
Those liberal judges - like the current SCOTUS in Lawrence v. Texas.

Back on topic, there is a detrimental reliance case for Evans and the folks who bought from him. The Evans issue isn't over by a long shot, and it is going to make for interesting new administrative precedent.

-Gene

xenophobe
01-02-2007, 8:28 AM
What this also brings up is the issue that "Colt AR15" may not actually be a listed gun.

"AR15" terms refers to a variety of Colt guns of varying model numbers - R6000, R6400, etc.

These were never listed in Kasler list. We may well have a 'series' without any exemplar.

This is quite correct. Also, any NEW Colt model, the Colt LE1020 (gas piston system) is absolutely a new model. Regardless if the receiver has changed or not, this model was not offered before August 16, 2000, and thus would be off list, regardless if it's a M4 Law Enforcement, or Match Target, or AR-15 marked firearm.

The proof lies in the fact that DOJ accepts manufacturer model numbers that are not marked on hanguns, and does not rely on what the model marked ont he firearm actually is. Look at Ruger and Springfield Armory on the Handgun Roster for example.

Anyways, I did briefly touch on this subject, and it's worthy of it's own post. Feel free to create one detailing this if you would like, but I felt this loophole was more potentially damaging to current AW laws, and had to be released now that possession has been partially decriminalized.



One aspect of this entire muddled mess is that with so much confusion about exactly what is legal and what is not, it is perilously close to denying equal protection and due process if a man can't determine what conduct is lawful and what is not... Harrott all over again. The more distinctions that are drawn, this is OK, that is not, he's too close to "the line" but that fellow is all right, etc. and pretty soon nobody can successfully prosecute anyone for anything, because even the prosecutors can't say what conduct is lawful or not. Not to say they won't try, and bluff their way through, though.

Yes, and what I stated in my first post shows an avenue of conduct that cannot be misconstrued as completely illegal actions, as applying prior DOJ involvement along with allowed commerical practice to other similar products that were put under the same classification at the same time. The fact that AB2728 further decriminalizes illegal possession would possibly make it an infraction if a judge or jury do not see these facts applying equally.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the PC or CCR that states the DOJ may do what they did, although seeing how they are the regulating body in charge of this mess, they have allowed such conduct officially, so one must assume that since one company out of the whole state who is allowed to conduct this business, that other individuals or companies could do the same, using different approved methods of affixing a mag so as to no longer be detachable.

I'm sure there are a number of consumer protection, commercial interest, and other fairness codes that would be violated if they did not allow this either, but that is not anything I am familiar with, so I have focused primarily on what I know.

xenophobe
01-02-2007, 8:38 AM
Those liberal judges - like the current SCOTUS in Lawrence v. Texas.

Back on topic, there is a detrimental reliance case for Evans and the folks who bought from him. The Evans issue isn't over by a long shot, and it is going to make for interesting new administrative precedent.

-Gene

Yes, and that means instead of the two options that you listed, or the third that I listed, there may very well be a fourth of which we have not thought of yet.

The first two that you mention would be very messy. Unraveling all prior Roberti-Roos convictions... they won't do that. Arresting all of Evan's customers is not an option, as that would leave the state open to all kinds of suits.

The third option of letting the courts decide if modifying a Category 1/2 firearm so it does not meet the definitions of Category 3 would be legal. The DOJ has already done in the case of Evan's, so if this is allowable, other examples of this should be. Seeing how DOJ has pretty much admitted, at least privately through email communications, as well as allowing AB2728 to pass, that Roberti-Roos is now considered obsolete, that there is a big window of opportunity to let this happen.

The fourth could be that by the time any serious thought or action is decided upon, that Hunt v. Brown returns a very favorable decision that tries to make the laws a little easier to understand.

hoffmang
01-02-2007, 8:50 AM
Xeno,

Reading DOJ email, they aren't even sure that a Robert-Roos listed receiver is regulated in bare form...

-Gene

xenophobe
01-02-2007, 9:01 AM
Xeno,

Reading DOJ email, they aren't even sure that a Robert-Roos listed receiver is regulated in bare form...

-Gene

Yes, I know. lmao 2007 looks to be very promising. :D

rorschach
01-02-2007, 10:59 AM
Thank you Evans. You still suck anyway.

::saving pennies for HK94, Colt LE6920, AR180, SR25, etc etc::

xenophobe
01-02-2007, 11:26 AM
Thank you Evans. You still suck anyway.

Heh... yeah, it's an interesting twist, eh? ;)

tygerpaw
01-02-2007, 11:36 AM
What about the Chinese SKS Sporters with AK mags & evil thumbholes? If you fixed a 10 rd AK mag with a release that requires a tool to get the mag out, that should be ok too, right? I know they confiscated these in '99 or '00, but you see them on Gunbroker sometimes.

artherd
01-02-2007, 1:10 PM
Absolutely. An unmodified Category 1/2 stripped receiver is definitely an illegal AW. Once it is modified, legal status becomes very blurry, to the point that you can prove to the courts that the DOJ has specifically exempted them in spite of the law, with pending regulation that also supports the DOJ's exemption of such firearms.

This is a classic example of what a real loophole is, and why I have scolded people who have used the term lightly in regards to OLLs in the past.

Actually I am going to disagree with you guys on this. Bushmaster XM-15 RIFLE is banned, and said rifle is merely identified by the reciever stampings.

The fact alone that DOJ *attempted and then withdrew* formally defining a named assualt weapon as the reciever instead of RIFLE, should go far enough in a court. (thank you NRA and DOJ.)

All that said, frankly I do recommend pinning in a mag (and infact building the whole gun up legally) out of state before sending it in. That's what I did with my regular OLL just to be extra safe.

xenophobe
01-02-2007, 1:22 PM
Actually I am going to disagree with you guys on this. Bushmaster XM-15 RIFLE is banned, and said rifle is merely identified by the reciever stampings.

The fact alone that DOJ *attempted and then withdrew* formally defining a named assualt weapon as the reciever instead of RIFLE, should go far enough in a court. (thank you NRA and DOJ.)

That is actually news for me. Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding. This is definitely a bonus into helping anyone who may choose to go this route. :)

grammaton76
01-02-2007, 2:22 PM
One other option for Evans' customers, is that the DOJ could attempt a buyback.

"We're sorry, but you can't have this rifle anymore. We're going to buy this back from you, or else. But we're only going to buy the receiver, and as such the fair market value for the stripped receiver is at most $150."

Man, that'd suck for anyone who paid the Evans Price (tm) for their modded receiver...

rorschach
01-13-2007, 7:11 PM
Bumpity

Anyone had any luck with this??

thmpr
01-13-2007, 7:55 PM
After reading the entire thread, I dont think its worth buying any .223 listed lowers since there are many OLL available. But for the .308 caliber, thats a diff story. If you have the funds, go for it and good luck!!!

rorschach
01-13-2007, 11:20 PM
After reading the entire thread, I dont think its worth buying any .223 listed lowers since there are many OLL available. But for the .308 caliber, thats a diff story. If you have the funds, go for it and good luck!!!

I think it would totally be worth it to be able to own an early Colt SP1.

xenophobe
01-14-2007, 12:47 PM
It's not really the thought of owning a particular generic Colt marked rifle that is so interesting, but if you want a Sig AMT or 550, or a IMI UZI or Galil, or Belgium FN/FAL or other $$$$ gun that you can't really have now unless you go with a clone...

I don't have the disposable income to do anything at the moment, otherwise I would.

rorschach
01-14-2007, 2:05 PM
Dont forget the FN FAL 50.63 its not on the RR list. Just use a pinned 10 round mag and your golden.

But the general idea is that we would be able to legally aquire and own RR and Kasler listed rifles, provided they have a permanently attached 10 round mag. No gripless builds here, gotta have a locked 10 round.

xenophobe
01-14-2007, 3:33 PM
But the general idea is that we would be able to legally aquire and own RR and Kasler listed rifles, provided they have a permanently attached 10 round mag. No gripless builds here, gotta have a locked 10 round.

That's exactly the point.

All the years I've wanted a PE57, AMT or 550...