80% Glock Build Legality?

[Cheburashka]

I have searched but there seems to be no consensus. If building for personal use, does it need to be break-top/single shot first?

32000. (a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who
manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state
for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends
any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail not exceeding one year.

[edgerly779]

you cannot engrave a glock legally.

[RickD427]

There really is no consensus. Your best bet is to carefully read the statute.

One key diagnostic question before your read the statute - Are you a person? Keep your answer in mind as you read the statute.

The reason that I harp on that point is that many folks would like to remove the word "person" from PC 32000 and replace it with the word "Manufacturer" and then apply the federal definition of manufacturer. But you just can't get away with that. The law says what it says.

California law is not very friendly toward personal manufacturers.

Yes, your personally manufactured single-shot pistol must be either "Break-Top" or "Bolt Action" in design, and must meet the dimensional requirements of statute.

You may also be in violation of PC 32000 is you later make your single-shot pistol into a semi-auto. There's no binding case law one-way or the other. A recent Fourth Circuit decision, along with some language in AB 857 supports the conclusion that the making of a single-shot into a semi-auto is "manufacturing" a semi-auto.

You also need to be aware of PC 33600. If you personally manufacture a non-pattern firearm (like a single shot Glock) then you may be committing a felony. That points turns on how you interpret some rather complex provisions of the federal excise tax laws as they apply to the definition of a "Zip Gun." Please search out a number of existing threads on this issue.

[9mmContagion]

Before you waste your money, consider the following:

ALL firearms must be serialized and labeled with the correct information come the date of July 1, 2018.

Reference AB-857

Specifically:
CHAPTER 3. Assembly of Firearms
29180. (a) For purposes of this chapter, “manufacturing” or “assembling” a firearm means to fabricate or construct a firearm, or to fit together the component parts of a firearm to construct a firearm.
(b) Commencing July 1, 2018, prior to manufacturing or assembling a firearm, a person manufacturing or assembling the firearm shall do all of the following:
(1) Apply to the Department of Justice for a unique serial number or other mark of identification pursuant to Section 29182.
(2) (A) Within 10 days of manufacturing or assembling a firearm in accordance with paragraph (1), the unique serial number or other mark of identification provided by the department shall be engraved or permanently affixed to the firearm in a manner that meets or exceeds the requirements imposed on licensed importers and licensed manufacturers of firearms pursuant to subsection (i) of Section 923 of Title 18 of the United States Code and regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(B) If the firearm is manufactured or assembled from polymer plastic, 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel shall be embedded within the plastic upon fabrication or construction with the unique serial number engraved or otherwise permanently affixed in a manner that meets or exceeds the requirements imposed on licensed importers and licensed manufacturers of firearms pursuant to subsection (i) of Section 923 of Title 18 of the United States Code and regulations issued pursuant thereto.


I'd venture to say that the Polymer80 frame doesn't even weigh 3.7 ounces itself, but I could be wrong. Either way, that is a significant piece of steel to embed into one of those frames

[edgerly779]

At that point the polymers 80% builds are trash. No way to embed 3.7 ounce stainless plate with engraving. In the ar case you may embed in side and drill fcg hoes thru the plate. Pistols SOL

[9mmContagion]

If Polymer80 were really still interested in selling to CA, they would manufacture the 80s for pistols and ARs with this steel embedded, leaving the option to engrave open to the manufacturer

[edgerly779]

True there are a lot of people out there that bought the polymers and have trash now. caveat emptor. very few have the ability to embed the plate. I have warned people on here for a long time so has quiet.

[Cheburashka]

True there are a lot of people out there that bought the polymers and have trash now. caveat emptor. very few have the ability to embed the plate. I have warned people on here for a long time so has quiet.

The new polymer80 models do have the serialization plate. So that's not really an issue.

[Mountain Max]

I have searched but there seems to be no consensus. If building for personal use, does it need to be break-top/single shot first?

I've had a few paid consults with firearms attorneys on this matter.

1) you're good to go if you build a single shot bolt action with the required barrel length

2) don't build the pf940 (glock 17) frame unless you want to cut your own notch and epoxy a plate into the frame. Build the pf940c (glock 19 instead) since it has a plate in it already. The 3.7oz embedded stainless requirement will kick in next summer, so do your polymer handgUn builds now, get it engraved, and you won't have to worry about the extra weight or DOJ registration

3) it's highly unlikely the definition of manufacture in ab857 includes every time you take your gun apart to clean it. The definition was worded that way to include potential builds that didn't require fabrication such as milling. There is a case in another district that follows a more strict definition, but california law doesn't fit well in that regard. A great example of this is how you can't convert an AR rifle to AR pistol in California but you can in other states.

[edgerly779]

do the new models have a 3.7 ounce plate.

[Cheburashka]

do the new models have a 3.7 ounce plate.

Yes they do.

[Cheburashka]

I've had a few paid consults with firearms attorneys on this matter.

1) you're good to go if you build a single shot bolt action with the required barrel length

2) don't build the pf940 (glock 17) frame unless you want to cut your own notch and epoxy a plate into the frame. Build the pf940c (glock 19 instead) since it has a plate in it already. The 3.7oz embedded stainless requirement will kick in next summer, so do your polymer handgUn builds now, get it engraved, and you won't have to worry about the extra weight or DOJ registration

Obviously I don't really want to build a single shot long barrel Glock. Building or converting to semi-auto constitutes an unsafe handgun and is therefore illegal, correct?

[Cokebottle]

If Polymer80 were really still interested in selling to CA, they would manufacture the 80s for pistols and ARs with this steel embedded, leaving the option to engrave open to the manufacturer

Have you seen how big 3.7oz of type 17-4 PH stainless is?

Density is 0.28 lb/cu-in

16oz * 0.28 = 4.48 oz/cu-in

3.7/4.48 = .826

3.7oz = 0.826 cubic inches of stainless.

So make a plate that is 1/16" thick and you need that plate to be 4" x 3.4" to meet the requirement.

It is physically impossible to comply with this law on a traditional handgun frame.

Even on an AR, going to a plate that is 1/8" thick, you would need the plate to be 3" x 2.3"

And the law requires that the plate be embedded in the polymer during manufacture.



But what is not clear is if this requirement applies to lowers not already serialized prior to 1/7/2018, or if it applies retroactively to those that are currently serialized.

[Abu Riyah]

I clicked on the Inlander Arms link at the top of the page earlier today and watched their video on the bolt-action 80% G19 clone and just thought "WTF!?" the whole time. Why would anyone want to spend time and money on something like that when you can buy a real G19 for $500? 80% AR lowers...yeah, I totally get that, but 80% G-clones seem pointless.

[Cokebottle]

I clicked on the Inlander Arms link at the top of the page earlier today and watched their video on the bolt-action 80% G19 clone and just thought "WTF!?" the whole time. Why would anyone want to spend time and money on something like that when you can buy a real G19 for $500? 80% AR lowers...yeah, I totally get that, but 80% G-clones seem pointless.

In California, today, it certainly is.

80% is nice if you want to build a handgun that is "off the grid" if you live in a free state, or in California, it is a way to obtain a non-rostered handgun.

But to build a clone of a G19 that you are going to have to register anyways?
I agree.
A custom 1911 is one thing, but a homebuild clone of a Glock doesn't make sense.