What you can/cannot or must do with Registered Assault Weapons (RAW)

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by Flowjoe

She really likes this rifle and would like to be able to take it to the range without me, say on the way home from work.

She would not be able to legally drive to work from home with it in her vehicle.

Again, refer to the initial posts from Librarian.

RAW transportation is very similar to handgun transportation except that specific destination requirements ALWAYS apply, while specific destination requirements only apply to handguns when being transported other than in a motor vehicle i.e. carried on foot.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by vmassarano

The issue I'm most concerned about is whether I have to register my (as of now) featureless AR and AK rifles as assault weapons before 1/1/2018.

Originally Posted by Juliuscesar1212

I have an ATI Omni .22lr m4 CA complient with bullet button. The upper is 22LR rimfire and the lower is multi caliber. Do i have to register?

Featureless and rimfire rifles do not fall under AW laws, thus would not fall under registration requirements.

But keep in mind that if you do not register before 2018, you will NEVER be able to convert them to featured centerfire builds in California.


Rimfire handguns DO fall under AW laws.

[Flowjoe]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

She would not be able to legally drive to work from home with it in her vehicle.

Again, refer to the initial posts from Librarian.

RAW transportation is very similar to handgun transportation except that specific destination requirements ALWAYS apply, while specific destination requirements only apply to handguns when being transported other than in a motor vehicle i.e. carried on foot.

Good point. I read all that about specific destinations but never connected the dots as to how it impacted our future use. I was too focused on the ownership/registration issue.

Thanks!

[MotoriousRacing]

Originally Posted by bakoFarmer

second___ its the law in 18 days and no one on this website knows the the law in 18 days???? why do we pay this website?? Calguns!! Is THE BB STAYING??? or GOING?? tell us what you know

Why would we NOT assume the CA DOJ would require what is more restrictive?

[MotoriousRacing]

Originally Posted by 9mmrevolver

And 30950 is why my son who is 17 but will turn 18 on the 1-3-17 can't register
A bullet button gun even though he was givin the rifle years back. For 2 days it would be illegal for him to possess it would have to be rendered back to featureless before the 1st which then cannot be registered. Is this correct

Originally Posted by lordmorgul

Technically he could not have been given the gun since not yet 18, so no he will not be able to register it. You could, if he continues to live with you after 18 then he should be able to dual register it but you cannot ever transfer it to his ownership while registered.

lordmorgul, I believe you are incorrect. There is no age limit for owning a non-RAW long gun in CA. You must me 18 to purchase, but you can be given a non-RAW long gun by a parent or grandparent at any age.

Since the MSR isn't a RAW until 1/1/2017, 9mmrevolver's son could own the gun today. That said, I believe the problem 9mmrev's son has is that he is no longer allowed to own the firearm on 1/1/2017, and therefore cannot register, as you state.

My boys are only 10 and 8, but I've only ever bought stripped lowers. I will be building their's featureless (and mine for that matter), or with a fixed magazine, or try to find a bolt action upper.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by MotoriousRacing

lordmorgul, I believe you are incorrect. There is no age limit for owning a non-RAW long gun in CA. You must me 18 to purchase, but you can be given a non-RAW long gun by a parent or grandparent at any age.

That changed in 2015 - 18 is the minimum.

PC 27875(a)

(a) Section 27545 does not apply to the transfer of a firearm by gift, bequest, intestate succession, or other means from one individual to another, if all of the following requirements are met:

(1) The transfer is infrequent, as defined in Section 16730.

(2) The transfer is between members of the same immediate family.

(3) Within 30 days of taking possession of the firearm, the person to whom it is transferred shall submit a report to the Department of Justice, in a manner prescribed by the department, that includes information concerning the individual taking possession of the firearm, how title was obtained and from whom, and a description of the firearm in question. The reports that individuals complete pursuant to this subdivision shall be made available to them in a format prescribed by the department.

(4) Until January 1, 2015, the person taking title to the firearm shall first obtain a valid handgun safety certificate if the firearm is a handgun, and commencing January 1, 2015, a valid firearm safety certificate for any firearm, except that in the case of a handgun, a valid unexpired handgun safety certificate may be used.

(5) The person receiving the firearm is 18 years of age or older.

[lordmorgul]

Originally Posted by MotoriousRacing

lordmorgul, I believe you are incorrect.

It is actually possible he gave the firearm before 2014 and would be legally given then, since he said years ago it may be so I'd be incorrect, so I wasn't super clear and it's good you called that out.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[9mmrevolver]

It was right before the law came into effect. I do realize that since then you can't just give a kid a gun.

[joder]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Out of state is a legal place to go - and once there, CA law has no effect on what you may do with the guns - presuming no 'ordinary' criminal behavior.

Thank you for your quick response. I figured as much. I guess my thinking was bringing it to the airport despite it not being an acceptable location even though it is unloaded and locked up tight in a hard case. I wouldn't think this would be a problem but I feel like you have to question every action in this state when it comes to firearms and I would rather over ask and over communicate than get into trouble.

I can't imagine it being a problem bringing it back in either as long as it is registered, etc.

I guess we will know a lot more next year.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by joder

Thank you for your quick response. I figured as much. I guess my thinking was bringing it to the airport despite it not being an acceptable location even though it is unloaded and locked up tight in a hard case. I wouldn't think this would be a problem but I feel like you have to question every action in this state when it comes to firearms and I would rather over ask and over communicate than get into trouble.

I can't imagine it being a problem bringing it back in either as long as it is registered, etc.

I guess we will know a lot more next year.

Yes, it is touchy, as the law says "directly between"
But in this case, the airport is still a location/mode of transport and not a side-trip.

[MotoriousRacing]

Originally Posted by MotoriousRacing

lordmorgul, I believe you are incorrect. There is no age limit for owning a non-RAW long gun in CA.

Originally Posted by Librarian

That changed in 2015 - 18 is the minimum.

PC 27875(a)

So my kids are only 10 and 8, but I gave them long guns in 2013. Do they get to keep them? They include stripped AR and AK receivers. If I convert to featureless, can they keep them?

Sorry to derail. Too many laws and too many threads to find and research.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by MotoriousRacing

So my kids are only 10 and 8, but I gave them long guns in 2013. Do they get to keep them? They include stripped AR and AK receivers. If I convert to featureless, can they keep them?

Must be 18+ to be in possession of a RAW (or URAW).
Featureless and rimfire are exempt.

[MotoriousRacing]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

Must be 18+ to be in possession of a RAW (or URAW).
Featureless and rimfire are exempt.

So, per PC 27875(a), if under age 18 person possessed a long gun, prior to 1/1/2015, that was not a RAW (or URAW), they are allowed to continue to possess? This would also include pump shotguns and bolt action center fire guns I gave to my sons prior to 1/1/2014.

Again, sorry to derail but a CG search for 'PC 27875(a)' did not find anything relevent.

[bottomdweller]

Install BB or ARMAglok on my 2016 AR15 build out by Dec 31 2016, and keep all features and register in 2017?

[Stevehazard]

So stopping to refuel should be OK if it is a necessity of your direct transportation process between lawful destinations, going between LA and Tahoe for example.

But possibly not under differing circumstances in which a pit stop could of been reasonably avoided, going to a local range you could of just fueled up prior to departing, etc.

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by MotoriousRacing

So, per PC 27875(a), if under age 18 person possessed a long gun, prior to 1/1/2015, that was not a RAW (or URAW), they are allowed to continue to possess? This would also include pump shotguns and bolt action center fire guns I gave to my sons prior to 1/1/2014.

Again, sorry to derail but a CG search for 'PC 27875(a)' did not find anything relevent.

The 18 year old age requirement is for transfer, not possession.

It is still legal for a minor (person under the age of 18) to own/posses a long gun.
^Not legal for them to own/posses a handgun or a prohibited weapon (assault weapon, DD, MG, SBR, SBS).

[dingos]

I'm going out of state for Xmas. If I fly with my AR/AK to shoot with inlaws will I be returning with unregistered RAW's even if I have copies of DROS from 2013? Effing CA making my head spin. Basically, will I have issues doing the same thing I've done legally for years?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by dingos

I'm going out of state for Xmas. If I fly with my AR/AK to shoot with inlaws will I be returning with unregistered RAW's even if I have copies of DROS from 2013? Effing CA making my head spin. Basically, will I have issues doing the same thing I've done legally for years?

Flying out and back with your guns is legal.

The requirement is to register (if that's what you're going to do) by Dec 31, 2017.

Next year there will be no 'assault weapon checkpoints'.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by MotoriousRacing

So, per PC 27875(a), if under age 18 person possessed a long gun, prior to 1/1/2015, that was not a RAW (or URAW), they are allowed to continue to possess? This would also include pump shotguns and bolt action center fire guns I gave to my sons prior to 1/1/2014.

Of course.

The law (now) prohibits transfer to a minor, but does not retroactively criminalize possession if the transfer took place prior to 2014.

[MotoriousRacing]

Thanks.

[jgarden]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

Yes, it is touchy, as the law says "directly between"
But in this case, the airport is still a location/mode of transport and not a side-trip.

But is there another section which prohibits transportation of an AW into the state? (With grace period out may not apply till 2018).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by jgarden

But is there another section which prohibits transportation of an AW into the state? (With grace period out may not apply till 2018).

Actually it is potentially the opposite.

The "grace period" is only to allow for registration and seems to only provide an exemption to the "possession" statute.
Registration provides the general exemptions for possession, lending, transportation, and importation.

[hugocbr]

If I register a lower as an AW, Can I then buy an upper with a barrel shorter than 16 inches for it?

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by hugocbr

If I register a lower as an AW, Can I then buy an upper with a barrel shorter than 16 inches for it?

No.

That's Federal

[vmassarano]

A Question to the Librarian or any Calguns organizer:

Have you ever considered taking up a collection of Calguns members to pay for a legal opinion from an established CA law firm specializing in guns laws? They may already have something put together and may release it for a reasonable fee, knowing they may get future business from our individual members.

That would be expensive for an individual, but for $5 or $10 each, we could get amore definitive understanding of the current laws.

I'm not sure if Calguns even has the logistical ability to do that, but it would be worth considering. Just a thought.

[Mayor McRifle]

Originally Posted by vmassarano

Have you ever considered taking up a collection of Calguns members to pay for a legal opinion from an established CA law firm specializing in guns laws? They may already have something put together and may release it for a reasonable fee, knowing they may get future business from our individual members.

Michel & Associates is an established California law firm specializing is gun laws. They've put together a book and hosted webinars on California gun laws, including these new laws.

The 4th Edition is out, and it includes these new laws: https://www.amazon.com/California-Gu...ornia+gun+laws

And you cans still listen to the webinars on these new laws for free: http://crpa.org/webinars/

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by hugocbr

If I register a lower as an AW, Can I then buy an upper with a barrel shorter than 16 inches for it?

No.
Being a RAW does not exempt the firearm from CA SBR/SBS & MG laws and does not exempt the firearm from Federal NFA laws.

[vmassarano]

To Mayor McRifle,

Thank you for the current references. I will do just that.

Merry Christmas!

[protohyp]

Originally Posted by Quiet

No.
Being a RAW does not exempt the firearm from CA SBR/SBS & MG laws and does not exempt the firearm from Federal NFA laws.

actually isn't the answer yes? just attach/pin and weld whatever device necessary to make it 16.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by protohyp

actually isn't the answer yes? just attach/pin and weld whatever device necessary to make it 16.

But that has nothing to do with California AW laws.

16" barrel is NFA (and California) SBR
Cut a Henry down to 14" and you have an SBR, but it's not a California AW.

So roundabout way, yes, he could buy an upper with a 14" barrel, but he could not install it until it is modified.

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

But that has nothing to do with California AW laws.

16" barrel is NFA (and California) SBR
Cut a Henry down to 14" and you have an SBR, but it's not a California AW.

So roundabout way, yes, he could buy an upper with a 14" barrel, but he could not install it until it is modified.

He could buy it, but can't possess it until the barrel length is 16" or greater.
^Exemption would be not owning/possessing a rifle that could use the less than 16" barrel.

Possessing an unattached less than 16" barrel with a rifle that can use it would be "constructive possession" of a SBR. [PC 17170(e)]


Penal Code 17170
As used in this part, “short-barreled rifle” means any of the following:
(a) A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.
(b) A rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) Any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.
(d) Any device that may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge which, when so restored, is a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive.
(e) Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended to convert a device into a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, or any combination of parts from which a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

[target_shot]

Originally Posted by Quiet

He could buy it, but can't possess it until the barrel length is 16" or greater.

^Exemption would be not owning/possessing a rifle that could use the less than 16" barrel.



Possessing an unattached less than 16" barrel with a rifle that can use it would be "constructive possession" of a SBR. [PC 17170(e)]





Penal Code 17170

As used in this part, “short-barreled rifle” means any of the following:

(a) A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.

(b) A rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches.

(c) Any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.

(d) Any device that may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge which, when so restored, is a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive.

(e) Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended to convert a device into a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, or any combination of parts from which a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

So if I own an AR pistol, with 2 "NFA" uppers, and also own an AR rifle, constructive possession applies?

[NissanPreRunner]

Originally Posted by target_shot

So if I own an AR pistol, with 2 "NFA" uppers, and also own an AR rifle, constructive possession applies?

Naw you should be you should be fine, YMMV though. It's all up to interpretation of the laws and "constructive possession and/or intent"

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by target_shot

So if I own an AR pistol, with 2 "NFA" uppers, and also own an AR rifle, constructive possession applies?

No more so than if you have a bottle of bleach, peroxide, and misc plumbing parts but they are not all together on your workbench.

Showing intent is a part of making the case.

Every one of us has "bomb making materials"

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by target_shot

So if I own an AR pistol, with 2 "NFA" uppers, and also own an AR rifle, constructive possession applies?

If you store or transport the "NFA" uppers with the AR pistol, then no.

If you store or transport the "NFA" uppers with the AR rifle, then yes.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by Quiet

If you store or transport the "NFA" uppers with the AR rifle, then yes.

In the absence of the AR pistol.

Having everything together (one safe, one vehicle, one shooting area) should pose no problem.

[Mstrty]

30945.

Unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 31000, a person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a .50 BMG rifle under this article may possess it only under any of the following conditions:

(a) At that person’s residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with the owner’s express permission.

It would appear I could store my RAW at a property owned by another as long as that property owner and anyone or everyone else does NOT have access to possess said RAW owned by me. ie. locked up in my safe while on his property with his permission and no one has access to the RAW but it's registered owner.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by Mstrty

It would appear I could store my RAW at a property owned by another as long as that property owner and anyone or everyone else does NOT have access to possess said RAW owned by me. ie. locked up in my safe while on his property with his permission and no one has access to the RAW but it's registered owner.

"May possess it"

[Mstrty]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

"May possess it"

I read that as: storage is fine anywhere I have permission, while no one but me "may possess it".

[Ribkick]

I apologize if this has been asked. I read the entire thread but may have missed it.

IF you have a registered lower from, say, 2014 but haven't built it yet, can you register it as an RAW in 2017 and then build it with all the BAD features?

I have a Colts M4 upper in 5.52 (EDIT FOR TYPO 5.56), then purchased and registered a PSA lower with all the parts etc. but haven't built it yet.

To simplify the question, do I have to build the rifle lower to register it or can I register just the lower (with the ser#) as an RAW and build it with all the BAD features at a later date?

I hope that makes sense. Thank you all for your contributions of this confusing topic.