DROS'ing AR Lower

[dfletcher]

Skipped work today and did some gun store visits, kind of surprised so many were closed on a weekday that alot of buyers may have off. Bought a CZ 527 American @ SJGE and a little High Standard Derringer (black, 22 mag) at the Gun Vault - talk about accuracy opposites. The new 4473s that have "other" as in stripped receiver are out and recalling the "we can get frames" thread tried to buy the stripped frame with the intent of building a semi auto AR pistol. Evidently I didn't read the thread all that well.

Good news - each store was very much on board with doing it and since the Gun Vault had lots of AR 15 lowers I did the 4473 and tried DROS. No problem on 4473, did run into a problem on DROS, couldn't get it through.

Has anyone actually used the DROS system and can provide guidance? Is the receiver DROS'd as a handgun or a frame only? The problem today was that DROS'ing as a handgun required showing it as exempt, showing it exempt then required a manufacturer name and since CMMG doesn't make handguns their name didn't show on the computer. The only AR name that showed was Olympic. I was told that if I had an Olympic stripped lower they could have gone ahead with the DROS.

[Jeff P]

The last lowers I purchased, were DROS as receivers. With no specific use noted.

[Quiet]

I believe this was address in the NRF thread...

A reciever/frame is a firearm that is neither a longarm or a handgun. That's why the new 4473 allow the choice of reciever/frame instead of longarm or handgun.

But, in CA, DROS only allows two choices longarm (rifle/shotgun) and handgun. It does not address frames/recievers.
So, AR recievers are currently being DROS'd as longarms to reflect the thought pattern that AR rifles are more common than AR pistols, so it must be a rifle and 1911 pistols are more common than 1911 rifles, so any 1911 frame must be a pistol & therefore need to be listed on or have an exemption to the "approved" list.

CA needs to change the DROS system to allow stripped recievers/frames to reflect the change in the new 4473, but who knows how long CA DOJ will get around to doing it.

[JeffM]

That is the problem with DROSing NeRFs right now.

IIRC the DROS system dosn't have an entry for a handgun frame. The issue is being worked on, so when it gets ironed out by the "right people" there should be an announcement about it.

Just a little more (two weeks?) wait.

[dfletcher]

Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure if I'd forgotten a step or if the final kinks were yet to be ironed out.

[Gio]

This better not affect my 2 stripped lowers coming in soon! Ahahaha! I think I am just going to buy another rifle from a local member and slap my upper on it and test it out. I cannot wait to have my stipped lowers come in

-Gio

[gunrun45]

CMMG pistol lowers have been DROS'ed in CA. I know because I have one and it IS registered in CA as a handgun.

[redcliff]

This better not affect my 2 stripped lowers coming in soon! Ahahaha! I think I am just going to buy another rifle from a local member and slap my upper on it and test it out. I cannot wait to have my stipped lowers come in

-Gio

I hope you're not referring to putting a pistol upper on a rifle lower and advocating it on a public forum read by government employees in the course of their employment...

[sromero]

Its not a crime to say what he said.

[Gio]

I hope you're not referring to putting a pistol upper on a rifle lower and advocating it on a public forum read by government employees in the course of their employment...

Nope I have them around strictly for building my Rifles. I think AR Pistols are LAME (Gets Flame Suit On ) I am currently building 2 AR's one is a 16" LWRC M6A2 and the other is a DPMS Panther Bull System 20" which is why I said I hope I do not get stuck with some bs 4473 form. I am over 21 and I do not plan on having 2 AR Pistols, that's why I have a Kimber Custom II, no need to build a very overpriced pistol out of rifle components. Not saying those with AR Pistols are wrong, but I do not get the point of using an AR as a pistol.

Its not a crime to say what he said. Its not even a crime to have the intent to do it. So it doesn't matter a bit that government bureaucrats read it in the "course of their employment."

Thanks,

-Gio