2017 AR pistol thread (master)

[Nor*Cal]

for sale

I will quote a post that was just made today in another thread discussing this subject. It's from someone much more knowledgeable than I am.

There's now (thanks to AB 857) two different "flavors" to the argument held by many LEAs that it is illegal to turn an SSE handgun into a semi auto:

1) The classic argument, that preceded AB 857, was that when one built a single-shot pistol and then turned the single shot pistol into a semi-auto is that the "manufacturing" process started with the raw materials and ended with the semi-auto pistol. The momentary status as a single shot didn't change anything. If the court buys this argument PC 32000 is violated. The counter argument was that a the "manufacturing" ended with the functional single shot and that no law prohibited the "conversion" of the single-shot to semi-auto. If the court buys this argument, there is no violation. There was never a published case finding for either theory. It was never settled law that it was legal to convert a single-shot.

2) The new argument is based on the definition of "manufacturing" contained in AB 857, which appears to have been taken from the Fourth Circuit's decision in Broughman v Carver. That case tested the argument that once a firearm was manufactured, that subsequent changes to it could not be construed as "manufacturing." This case was highly analogous to the single-shot "conversion is OK" argument discussed above. Broughman held that subsequent changes did amount to "manufacturing" and it's language was adopted into AB 857. The new theory is that when you change the single-shot into a semi-auto is that you have now "manufactured a "new" semi-auto pistol from the "old" single-shot pistol. AB 857 did include a provision limiting the new definition of "manufacturing" to the part of the Penal Code concerning serial numbers. That Penal Code does not strictly apply that definition to PC 32000 regarding the manufacture of unsafe handguns. But the term "manufacture" as used in PC 32000 is undefined in statute, and when that is the case, courts are free to look for sources of definition and often draw upon other statutory uses of the same term.

[snip]

[igs]

I’ll make this easy for you to understand.

1. Off roster handgun assembled for sale = illegal
2. Off roster handgun assembled but not for sale = legal
AB857. Handguns in category 2 now need serial numbers

[mrvash]

For those people that had completed their AR pistol, from an 80% lower, way back from 2014 and now has converted it from a BB into a fixed magazine using a Franklin Armory DFM magazine, can they still own it moving forward?

[zeroman03]

For those people that had completed their AR pistol, from an 80% lower, way back from 2014 and now has converted it from a BB into a fixed magazine using a Franklin Armory DFM magazine, can they still own it moving forward?

Well I think you have met the requirement to not have to register your pistol as an AW by the deadline, so long as you never close the upper and lower receivers without the DFM installed. However, now you have to satisfy the requirements of AB 857, which requires all completed firearms to have a serial number applied by Jan. 1, 2019.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[MolonLabe1]

2017 AR pistol thread (master)

Well I think you have met the requirement to not have to register your pistol as an AW by the deadline, so long as you never close the upper and lower receivers without the DFM installed. However, now you have to satisfy the requirements of AB 857, which requires all completed firearms to have a serial number applied by Jan. 1, 2019.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[jlist]

This is correct, but the smart person engraves it prior to 7-1-18 to avoid having to get their serial number from the CDOJ.

Between (1) engraving your name, city and a self-assigned serial number then volreg it with DOJ, and (2) getting a serial number from DOJ, are you saying the first option is better? If yes, may I ask why? With either option your 80% builds are registered with DOJ. The second option might be better because your firearms won't have to have your name on it?

[zeroman03]

Between (1) putting on your name, city and a self-assigned serial number then volreg it with DOJ, and (2) getting a serial number from DOJ, are you saying the first option is better? If yes, may I ask why? With both options your 80% build are registered with DOJ. The second option might be better because your firearms won't have to have your name on it?

I have not seen the form to request a SN from DOJ myself, but the YOUR NAME, the MAKE (U S), CALIBER, MODEL (if any) of the firearm may be required. It's required for a VolReg so I can't help but say it would also be required for a DOJ SN request.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[MolonLabe1]

I shoulda also included make sure to install a fixed mag device on it like the ARMaglock which then disqualifies the pistol as an assault weapon. Then you DO NOT have to register said weapon with the CDOJ as long as you have it engraved prior to 7-1-18.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jlist]

I shoulda also included make sure to install a fixed mag device on it like the ARMaglock which then disqualifies the pistol as an assault weapon. Then you DO NOT have to register said weapon with the CDOJ as long as you have it engraved prior to 7-1-18.

That's the impression we got from reading the text of the bill but unfortunately that's not the case in the regulations. With AR Maglock you won't have to register it as AW. You will still need to register it as a firearm. See this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1421339

[MolonLabe1]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB857

All ca 80%r guns must have a serial number by 1-1-19. Those built before 7-1-18 can have a personal made up serial number on the lower; those built after must obtain the number from the DOJ which is also registration.

Those who engrave their lower prior to 7-1-18 do not have to register the firearm but then it can not ever be sold or transferred.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jlist]

The thread is incorrect or being interpreted incorrectly.

Agree with you about what the law says. That thread is not trying to interpret the law (some earlier threads did that.) It's trying to interpret the DOJ regulations. I'm pretty ignorant in this area so I am not sure how legally significant the regulations are but I suspect the if DOJ files a case or if a state LE officer takes an action, it'll be based on DOJ regulations. You can argue in court that the regulations are overstepping and therefore illegal. You may win (or may not, we are in CA). Most people choose to be compliant with the regulations so that they won't have to go to the court. My understanding might be missing it by a mile - do let me know if this is the case.

[ajb78]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB857

All ca 80%r guns must have a serial number by 1-1-19. Those built before 7-1-18 can have a personal made up serial number on the lower; those built after must obtain the number from the DOJ which is also registration.

Those who engrave their lower prior to 7-1-18 do not have to register the firearm but then it can not ever be sold or transferred.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please explain which exception in PC 29181 exempts your build from PC29180? If this is wrong, or if you know something I don't, please share with the group, as we have all been looking for it. I would LOVE to be proven wrong on this.

Section 29180 does not apply to or affect any of the following:
(a) A firearm that has a serial number assigned to it pursuant to either Section 23910 or Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

PC23910 is a CA DOJ assigned serial number18 U.S. Code Chapter 44 - FIREARMS-applies to licensed manufacturers and importers, see 27 CFR Part 478 - COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION for the "regulations issued pursuant thereto"portion

Scope of regulations.
(a) General. The regulations contained in this part relate to commerce in firearms and ammunition and are promulgated to implement Title I, State Firearms Control Assistance (18 U.S.C. Chapter 44), of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1213) as amended by Pub. L. 99-308 (100 Stat. 449), Pub. L. 99-360 (100 Stat. 766), Pub. L. 99-408 (100 Stat. 920), Pub. L. 103-159 (107 Stat. 1536), Pub. L. 103-322 (108 Stat. 1796), Pub. L. 104-208 (110 Stat. 3009), and Pub. L. 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681).

(b) A firearm made or assembled prior to December 16, 1968, that is not a handgun.

What 80% build falls into this category? If a pistol, this exepmtion would not apply anyway.

(c) A firearm which was entered into the centralized registry set forth in Section 11106 prior to July 1, 2018, as being owned by a specific individual or entity if that firearm has assigned to it a distinguishing number or mark of
identification because the department accepted entry of that firearm into the centralized registry.

Voluntary registration via BOF4542A or the online CRIS/CFARS system will allow you to claim this exemption to PC 29180, your firearm will be registered, but will not require a CA DOJ issued serial number.

(d) A firearm that has a serial number assigned to it pursuant to Chapter 53 of Title 26 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

26 U.S. Code Chapter 53 - MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS-NFA items, most likely not applicable to your 80% build, see definition of "firearm" pertaining to this sectionNOTE:
there is a member here considering going the AOW route, but it sounds like the approval time for this is long, and has not been done yet.

(e) A firearm that is a curio or relic, or an antique firearm, as those terms are defined in Section 479.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Not Applicable-as your 80% build is not a C&R item, nor an antique

[jlist]

Please explain which exception in PC 29181 exempts your build from PC29180? If this is wrong, or if you know something I don't, please share with the group, as we have all been looking for it. I would LOVE to be proven wrong on this.

About 29180(c):

(c) By January 1, 2019, any person who, as of July 1, 2018, owns a firearm that does not bear a serial number assigned to it pursuant to either Section 23910 or pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall do all of the following:...

I think the confusing part is there are two interpretations of Chapter 44:
1. earlier on many people understood it as that as long as the self-assigned s/n meets the specification of the identifying marks, i.e. content, font size, depth, described in Section 921, the s/n will be a qualified s/n.
2. the more recently understanding is it does not only talk about the specs of the engraving, but also talks about who did the engraving and it has to be a licensed manufacturer.

#2 seems to be a more strict interpretation. However, if you go back to the beginning of the law text:

The bill would, by January 1, 2019, and subject to exceptions, require any person who, as of July 1, 2018, owns a firearm that does not bear a serial number to likewise apply to the department for a unique serial number or other mark of identification.

This seems to suggest that only firearms w/o a serial number are affected, which makes people think oh my firearm already has a self-assigned s/n and it meets the Fed's standard so I'm OK. I think this is where the confusion comes from. I don't think there is a "correct" one. It's more which side the prosecutor is going to stand.

[ajb78]

About 29180(c):

(c) By January 1, 2019, any person who, as of July 1, 2018, owns a firearm that does not bear a serial number assigned to it pursuant to either Section 23910 or pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall do all of the following:...

I think the confusing part is there are two interpretations of Chapter 44:
1. earlier on many people understood it as that as long as the self-assigned s/n meets the specification of the identifying marks, i.e. content, font size, depth, described in Section 921, the s/n will be a qualified s/n.
2. the more recently understanding is it does not only talk about the specs of the engraving, but also talks about who did the engraving and it has to be a licensed manufacturer.

Not sure how you can have two interpretations of the law

If anything, I would venture a guess that people were relying on the guidelines for marking self manufactured firearms set out by the BATFE; unfortunately, that is not what the PC calls out.

#2 seems to be a more strict interpretation. However, if you go back to the beginning of the law text:

The bill would, by January 1, 2019, and subject to exceptions, require any person who, as of July 1, 2018, owns a firearm that does not bear a serial number to likewise apply to the department for a unique serial number or other mark of identification.

This seems to suggest that only firearms w/o a serial number are affected, which makes people think oh my firearm already has a self-assigned s/n and it meets the Fed's standard so I'm OK. I think this is where the confusion comes from. I don't think there is a "correct" one. It's more which side the prosecutor is going to stand.

That is the text from AB 857, NOT the penal code as added by AB 857.

[jlist]

If anything, I would venture a guess that people were relying on the guidelines for marking self manufactured firearms set out by the BATFE; unfortunately, that is not what the PC calls out.

From the looks of it I think you are right. They never run out of ways to screw the law abiding gun owners over.