80% 1911 Frame?

[rivraton]

we are talking about 80% 1911 frames. Not stripped frames do a search function and find out.

I know the thread is about 80% frames, I will link the two scenarios.

[rivraton]

Rivraton,

Please keep in mind that IANAL, just a retired LEO.

You've got a really good question there, and one the illustrates the "hair splitting" of the law very clearly.

IMHO, if you have a commercially manufactured frame, and then add the required components to make it a functional firearm, I would not see a violation.

However, please keep in mind that had SB808 passed last year, then the fitting out of a commercially made frame would have been illegal because of the way that bill would have added a definition of "manufacturing" to the Penal Code.

The situation becomes different when your lawfully acquired 1911 receiver is one that you manufactured yourself. Many folks make the argument that you can lawfully manufacture your own 1911 receiver (I personally believe this is true, but you can also easily read the Zip Gun statute to make it a felony). Once that "manufacturing" process is done, then those same folks argue that you can lawfully complete the frame using commercially made parts. That argument relies on the "manufacturing" and "completing" activities being separate from each other. The competing argument is since you're doing all the work yourself, there is no distinction between the two. The problem is that there is no statute, or case law, that compels a court to accept the first POV. If they go with the second POV, then you're convicted.

That outcome is not possible with a commercially manufactured receiver. All of the "manufacturing" steps have been completed before you took possession.

Big difference there. It's about how you split the hair.

[jsigone]

@rickD, you got me thinking that this might not be worth the legal battle and how it may be perceived by the leading/arresting officer because of the wording of SB808. I've been toying the idea of one and how I'd build 80% 1911 but sheesh....maybe I'll just have to hot rod one w/ a SN tied to my name.

[umd]

@rickD, you got me thinking that this might not be worth the legal battle and how it may be perceived by the leading/arresting officer because of the wording of SB808. I've been toying the idea of one and how I'd build 80% 1911 but sheesh....maybe I'll just have to hot rod one w/ a SN tied to my name.

SB808 is dead. If it had been signed into law, reassembling a gun after cleaning could have been seen as manufacturing.

[Experimentalist]

Erik,

... after January 1st, such pistols now must also be either "Break Top" or "Bolt Action" in design. That new requirement really kills the 1911 platform...

... Most folks really took note of the part of AB1964 that prohibited a semi-auto from being converted to single-shot, but you've also got to deal with the other part about "Break-Top" or "Bolt Action".

I have a way to manufacture about any pistol as bolt action.

You can then convert it to semi-auto later, at your convenience.

The idea is to mount an assembly to the frame, such that a hollow tube is suspended behind the slide. Interior diameter of this tube must allow the slide to pass through. Inside this tube is a bolt, interfacing with a groove and notch milled in the wall of the tube. The bolt handle will slide back and forth in the groove, and lock into the notch, allowing the bolt to be locked into battery.

The recoil spring is deleted from the pistol, rendering it non-semiauto.

One then has a bolt action pistol. Fire it, then unlock and pull the bolt back to allow the slide to be pulled back, then remove the spent case. Manually insert a fresh round (single shot sleds will still be useful here), then close the bolt, and repeat.

Clearly the bolt needs to have a notch milled out to allow the hammer free passage when the bolt is in battery. This isn't an issue with striker fired pistols, obviously.

So, there you are. A way to build up a 1911, Glock, whatever as a bolt action pistol (as long as you're using a virgin frame. That frame can never have been a part of a semi-auto pistol, ever). After you have it in bolt action configuration I presume you're free to change configuration to suit.

[jsigone]

SB808 is dead. If it had been signed into law, reassembling a gun after cleaning could have been seen as manufacturing.

thanks for clearing it up. I'm far from well versed on what gets passed or pushed anymore. So a 80% 1911 is still 100% legal to make at home

[umd]

thanks for clearing it up. I'm far from well versed on what gets passed or pushed anymore. So a 80% 1911 is still 100% legal to make at home

See above discussion. There really is no consensus.

[Experimentalist]

See above discussion. There really is no consensus.

I agree there is no consensus.

However, I think *most* people agree that building up a pistol compliant with the new SSE laws (i.e. in either break top or bolt action configuration) is legal.

And there are ways to do that.. see above.

[umd]

However, I think *most* people agree that building up a pistol compliant with the new SSE laws (i.e. in either break top or bolt action configuration) is legal.

Sure, but I was replying to someone asking if it was 100% legal. To say yes requires more clarity.

[RickD427]

The Zip Gun statute is a little more complex than you're giving credit for. You are correct that a personal manufacturer of less than 50 firearms in a calendar year is exempt from the excise tax. However the Zip Gun statute only recognizes certain tax exemptions and the one for 50 guns/year is not one of the recognized exemptions. So the Zip Gun law remains problematic.

Please get yourself a new Penal Code, nearly all of the sections that you cited no longer exist. They went away with the re-codification. The content still remains, but with new section numbers.

You've given a good articulation to the "manufacture and then convert" theory that has been widely advocated, just please be aware that there is no requirement for a court to accept that theory. The court is free to conclude that all of your activities were "manufacturing."

[rivraton]

The Zip Gun statute is a little more complex than you're giving credit for. You are correct that a personal manufacturer of less than 50 firearms in a calendar year is exempt from the excise tax. However the Zip Gun statute only recognizes certain tax exemptions and the one for 50 guns/year is not one of the recognized exemptions. So the Zip Gun law remains problematic.

Please get yourself a new Penal Code, nearly all of the sections that you cited no longer exist. They went away with the re-codification. The content still remains, but with new section numbers.

You've given a good articulation to the "manufacture and then convert" theory that has been widely advocated, just please be aware that there is no requirement for a court to accept that theory. The court is free to conclude that all of your activities were "manufacturing."

all of the following criteria:
(A)
It was not imported as a firearm by an importer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(B)
It was not originally designed to be a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.**
The 1911 platform has been "designed and manufactured" by countless "licensed manufacturers" for over 100 years, so it could hardly be considered a "zip gun" under this statute.
(C)
No tax was paid on the weapon or device nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(D)
It is made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.


** (10) The term "manufacturer" means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term "licensed manufacturer" means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.

[morrcarr67]

all of the following criteria:
(A)
It was not imported as a firearm by an importer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(B)
It was not originally designed to be a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.**
The 1911 platform has been "designed and manufactured" by countless "licensed manufacturers" for over 100 years, so it could hardly be considered a "zip gun" under this statute.
(C)
No tax was paid on the weapon or device nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(D)
It is made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.


** (10) The term "manufacturer" means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term "licensed manufacturer" means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.

You're correct.

But, name one manufacture that has made it as a bolt action or breaktop single shot firearm.

To avoid the Zipgun laws you need to make it just like some licensed manufacturer has.

To avoid the roster you need to build it as a bolt action or breaktop single shot firearm.

[Whiskey_Tango]

Frames and jigs here:

http://www.stealtharms.net/shop/

Do they have a determination letter? That jig looks interesting.

[RickD427]

all of the following criteria:
(A)
It was not imported as a firearm by an importer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(B)
It was not originally designed to be a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.**
The 1911 platform has been "designed and manufactured" by countless "licensed manufacturers" for over 100 years, so it could hardly be considered a "zip gun" under this statute.
(C)
No tax was paid on the weapon or device nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(D)
It is made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.


** (10) The term "manufacturer" means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term "licensed manufacturer" means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.

Good, We're moving this discussion right along. We're also repeating a lot of discussion that has already been had in previous threads regarding the Zip Gun statute.

Please understand the Zip Gun statute is a real mess. It hasn't been maintained very well, and its incorporation of the Federal Excise Tax into its elements has been really problematic. As an LEO, I declined to use the Zip Gun Statute. My personal opinion is that it was so ambiguous as to make a successful prosecution impossible. The problem there is that a prosecution can still go forward based on a conservative reading of the statute. Even an unsuccessful prosecution has great consequences for the accused. This is a time where "Ghost Guns" are a hot topic, and District Attorneys are elected. Or put another way, let's visit Mr. Nguyen in prison and see just how positive he was that there was no "Constructive Possession" of an Assault Weapon in California (His conviction was technically for the attempted possession of an AW, but the prosecution theory was very much constructive possession).

Lets go back to the tax issue discussed in my last posting. If you look at subparagraph (c) of the statute, you'll see where California only recognizes certain sources of exemption from the tax. The exemption for small manufacturers is not included in the sources listed.

Subparagraph (b) provides the "Pattern Manufacture" exclusion. I personally agree with your conclusion that the 1911 is a generic pattern that has long been produced. I think that is also consistent with the intent of the law. But the same prosecutor that succeeded in convicting Mr. Nguyen, can also argue that manufactures do not produce "generic weapons." They produce very specific models of generic designs. Handguns sold in California are categorized by very specific criteria for placement on the roster. A very minor change in the weapon results in it being considered as "different" from the rostered weapon. Under this POV, a "1911" is not a pattern design. A "Kimber Stainless TLE/RL II (3200140) / Stainless Steel" is one example of a pattern design. You could lawfully make a copy of the Kimber Stainless TLE/RL II (3200140) / Stainless Steel. But if your self-made weapon were in some way different from that pattern, then you've got a Zip Gun.

When you're considering the effects of a criminal law, it's a major-league mistake to read the law, to figure out what it means, and then to conduct yourself accordingly. That approach is guaranteed to get you in trouble sooner of later. It got poor Mr. Nguyen in trouble sooner. A far better approach is to figure out what you thing the law really means (a midline reading), and then read it as liberally, and as conservatively as possible. See how much difference there is between the extremes. Then look to see if there is any existing court guidance, and then consider the agendas of the enforcement agencies. Then you're much better prepared to proceed.

As to your footnote quoting from the ATF website, please note that the "Zip Gun" statute is a California statute. I do not know of any federal law that would be violated by the personal manufacture of a legal weapon for personal use.

[Whiskey_Tango]

When you're considering the effects of a criminal law, it's a major-league mistake to read the law, to figure out what it means, and then to conduct yourself accordingly. That approach is guaranteed to get you in trouble sooner of later. It got poor Mr. Nguyen in trouble sooner. A far better approach is to figure out what you thing the law really means (a midline reading), and then read it as liberally, and as conservatively as possible. See how much difference there is between the extremes. Then look to see if there is any existing court guidance, and then consider the agendas of the enforcement agencies. Then you're much better prepared to proceed.

100% agreed. It's easy to dismiss the "spirit of the law" as FUD; but the only interpretation of the law that really matters comes from the ones who have the authority of enforcement and an agenda to push.