DROS Approved Banned by Name AKs

[Fireselector]

I'm aware that the ARSENAL SLR is explicitly banned by name in California.

The Semiautoban (Assault Weapon) ID flowchart, (https://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf) also states the AK series (Appendix C) that possessing ?Arsenal SLR (all)? would be a violation of Penal Code 30510(a).

However, it seems contradictory that people have managed to receive "Approved" status for their DROS, despite owning different SLR series rifles (SLR-106F and SLR-107F).

This situation has left me perplexed since DROS approval typically indicates compliance with the regulations set by DOJ, even though the same rifles are supposedly banned by the DOJ.

[Fireselector]

I'm aware that the ARSENAL SLR is explicitly banned by name in California.

The Semiautoban (Assault Weapon) ID flowchart (https://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf) also states the AK series (Appendix C) that possessing "Arsenal SLR (all)" would be a violation of Penal Code 30510(a).

However, it seems contradictory that people have managed to receive "Approved" status for their DROS, despite owning different SLR series rifles (SLR-106F and SLR-107F).

This situation has left me perplexed since DROS approval typically indicates compliance with the regulations set by DOJ, even though the same rifles are supposedly banned by the DOJ.

[beanz2]

There was a thread, I think it was started by one of the more active FFLs on the board, sometime around 2017 when it was argued that the SLR106 and the SLR107 were not banned by name and he was able to transfer several in the state.

I’m sorry I don’t recall much more details than that.

[deckhandmike]

Just because you can dros it doesn’t mean it’s legal. Ask me how I know. They send you a nice letter via certified mail later.

I know nothing about the above AK but I can assure you stuff gets dros’ed that ain’t kosher.

[hitdank]

It has been said but not fully confirmed that a lawsuit challenging the (all) nomenclature was sucessful.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by deckhandmike

Just because you can dros it doesn?t mean it?s legal. Ask me how I know. They send you a nice letter via certified mail later.

Which probably happens shortly after they do their usual occasional perusal of Calguns, and see a thread like this.

(When they are not busy tracking down gun stores who are adding 2-Round extensions to 10-Round magazines, turning their customers into nefarious criminals of course.)

---

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by Fireselector

I'm aware that the ARSENAL SLR is explicitly banned by name in California.

The Semiautoban (Assault Weapon) ID flowchart, (https://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf) also states the AK series (Appendix C) that possessing ?Arsenal SLR (all)? would be a violation of Penal Code 30510(a).

However, it seems contradictory that people have managed to receive "Approved" status for their DROS, despite owning different SLR series rifles (SLR-106F and SLR-107F).

This situation has left me perplexed since DROS approval typically indicates compliance with the regulations set by DOJ, even though the same rifles are supposedly banned by the DOJ.

It's allowed during LBGTQXYZSLR 'Pride' Month.

---

[Quiet]

Per CA DOJ BOF...

A firearm that is transferred through a CA FFL dealer (4473, DROS, wait periods) is not an indicator that the firearm is CA legal because the DROS system only determines if the transferee is eligible to acquire a firearm and does not determine if the firearm is CA legal.

It is on the CA FFL dealer to determine if the firearm being transferred is CA legal or not, because they are the ones that physically see/inspect the firearm prior to the transfer process being started.

There have been past incidents where CA illegal firearms were transferred through a CA FFL dealer and later determined to be CA illegal by CA DOJ BOF during the dealer audit process and the possessor of that CA illegal firearm was contacted by CA DOJ for the mandatory surrender of the CA illegal firearm in lieu of criminal charges.

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by Quiet

There have been past incidents where CA illegal firearms were transferred through a CA FFL dealer and later determined to be CA illegal by CA DOJ BOF during the dealer audit process and the possessor of that CA illegal firearm was contacted by CA DOJ for the mandatory surrender of the CA illegal firearm in lieu of criminal charges.

And sometimes they even get that wrong, like when they went after Robinson Armament M96 owners over the SB23 'features' ban (long before OLL/OLR, Monster Man grips and grip-wraps) physically going to homes of owners to confiscate those rifles due to the nub that was installed in place of the grip not meeting their expectation of 'featureless' parameters (even though it did) - DOJ still under its adopted assumption they could ban a 'class' of firearms types and ignore their own definition of a pistol grip.

That backfired on them, but it was a hairy time of concern you might get a 'knock' for anyone that had an M96... like me. Mine still sport those nubs, but have thought to swap them for gripwrapped Magpuls.

---