PDA

View Full Version : Barrett 82A1-CA with MM grip convert to detachable mag?


Sam Hainn
02-18-2007, 1:43 PM
I did a search of stuff on 50BMG but didn't see this for a question/answer.

I have a legally owned Barrett 82A1 CA version registered under AB50. It's got the swing out mag like an SKS. The Barrett 82A1 is not on the AW ID guide list. If I were to use the Monster Man grip on my Barrett 82A1 California version could I legally convert it back to detachable mag? I know it must remain registered for AB50 being 50BMG but why couldn't it be MM grip and detachable mag? It has no other SB23 features. I'm not looking at it right now but I think it uses an AR grip.

No need to take a crap here about registering my 82A1CA because of AB50. I know it sucks but existing <handgun> Dros or going to jail are reasons that defeat that criticism. I hope to get CA people answers here I might not get on AR15.com.

Pulsar
02-18-2007, 2:05 PM
I don't know if it's different for AB50, but I think since it's registered it can have any evil features you want and you don't even need to worry about using a monsterman if you want detachable.

I wouldn't swear to it though, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone corrected me.

Sam Hainn
02-18-2007, 2:11 PM
I don't know if it's different for AB50, but I think since it's registered it can have any evil features you want and you don't even need to worry about using a monsterman if you want detachable. I wouldn't swear to it though, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone corrected me.


No, AB50 does not really fall under AW issues and still includes SB23 features. Also, it went into effect after SB23 and designated outside of that. It banned by caliber not by feature, thus the reason a bolt-action in .50BMG is banned too but neither considered to be AW though it fall close to that part in the law. Stuff under AB50 must still follow AW feature laws.

James R.
02-18-2007, 2:14 PM
I did a search of stuff on 50BMG but didn't see this for a question/answer.

I have a legally owned Barrett 82A1 CA version registered under AB50. It's got the swing out mag like an SKS. The Barrett 82A1 is not on the AW ID guide list. If I were to use the Monster Man grip on my Barrett 82A1 California version could I legally convert it back to detachable mag? I know it must remain registered for AB50 being 50BMG but why couldn't it be MM grip and detachable mag? It has no other SB23 features. I'm not looking at it right now but I think it uses an AR grip.

No need to take a crap here about registering my 82A1CA because of AB50. I know it sucks but existing Dros and going to jail defeat that criticism. I hope to get CA people answers here I might not get on AR15.com.

Should be fine, the whole reason they made the M82A1CA was in response to the fact that a normal M82A1 was an assault weapon per SB-23. I don't see why if you were to give up your pistol grip you wouldn't be able to have detachable mags. In fact I think Barrett make a non pistol grip type thing which bolts where the AR style grip would normally go. However I don't suggest this grip because it has been suggested that it is in essence a thumbhole grip.

Not sure I follow your little blurb about registration. I have a 50 BMG and registered it as required by law. The fact that there was as you call it, "existing dros" is totally meaningless as information is not retained on long guns. Have you ever actually looked at the print out of what goes into the system? No description of the rifle, no serial number on the rifle...nothing, it just says how many and, "long gun". The only way you'd get nailed is if you a.) got caught with one in the field and someone questioned its legality or b.) your FFL goes out of business and hands over his records at which point some sort of audit is performed and they go serial number by serial number checking to see if they're registered. Even that's not reliable as someone could have moved out of state with the rifle thus resulting in SN's which are legally owned but not registered because the rifle was removed from the state prior to the ban being put in force.

Regards,

James R.

Sam Hainn
02-18-2007, 2:48 PM
Not sure I follow your little blurb about registration. I have a 50 BMG and registered it as required by law. The fact that there was as you call it, "existing dros" is totally meaningless as information is not retained on long guns. Regards, James R.

No, no, I didn't mean regarding long guns. I didn't want to do details needing a whole other thread. I meant it towards argument always brought up on registering under CA law / we are law-abiding right? / and CA people who arrogantly say they would never register anything then later admit to owning more than one handgun that's been dros'ed. I'm very aware of the limited info of long gun dros. ;)

wutzu
02-18-2007, 3:13 PM
Do it. Some days, I love that we're able to give this state a big middle finger by following the law to the letter.

bwiese
02-18-2007, 4:15 PM
The DOJ's approval of the Barrett M82CA (as well as a couple of other guns) as having a fixed magazine is one key reason the Aug 16 'detachable magazine' redefinitions could not be completed without having 'underground law' side effects which the DOJ would not address.

Yes, if you get rid of the pistol grip and used a MonsterMan-like grip that does is not described by the 11 CCR 5469(d) definition of a pistol grip, you could then have the M82CA use a detachable magazine (i.e, removing the tilt-down bail assembly).

[Of course, such a rifle should not have a muzzle device that could be regarded as a flash hider, nor should it have any folder/collapsing stock.]

I see from a few posts above that some folks still think 50BMGs are AWs, and they are not - just because they are registerable and legally treated in similar fashions does not mean they are in the same classification. A 50BMG that was not registered as an AW but registered by April 2006 as a 50BMG cannot have any suite of AW evil features combination. However, an AW that was registered (either Roberti-Roos or via SB23) can have a 50BMG attribute without 50BMG registration, since that is specifically exempted in the law (they apparently figured there was no need to have additional control on an item already controlled anyway).