New AR Pistol for California, NOT A SINGLE SHOT

[igorts]

was that red warning note on DOJ site before franklin AR got on the roster? i dont recall seeing such until recently


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[morrcarr67]

was that red warning note on DOJ site before franklin AR got on the roster? i dont recall seeing such until recently


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope. It was put there to put the fear of the DOJ in you.

[igorts]

New AR Pistol for California, NOT A SINGLE SHOT

its not my point.
i have fixed mag AR. but every year they come with some sht to make us criminals


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[franklinarmory]

was that red warning note on DOJ site before franklin AR got on the roster? i dont recall seeing such until recently


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My take on it is that they plan on enforcing (to the extent that they can) the law against single shot exempt firearms. Of course, i might be biased.

[dscoduc]

From what I gathered from the various threads I am legally able to self-manufacture an off-roster pistol, but some reason I have to make the pistol a single shot instead of a semi-auto. Since I have to make it a single shot I can't ever convert said pistol into semi-auto.

Except, how does a self-manufactured straight-pull AR Pistol, with a barrel that has no gas port, and a 10 round detachable magazine plus one in the barrel (11 repeatable shots) differ in the slightest than the FA CA7 pistol? Calling it a 'repeater' doesn't magically make it different than an identically configured self-manufactured AR Pistol with the exact same config. Yes, FA CA7 is on the roster but I thought a self-manufactured pistol doesn't have to be on or comply with the roster. And, if a self-manufactured pistol doesn't have to meet roster safety requirements, why does it have to be built as a single shot instead of this magical 'repeater' name? If my self-manufactured AR Pistol matches feature for feature as the CA7 then why is mine called a single shot but the CA7 is a repeater?

Why are there still Glock and 1911 80%'ers being sold today in CA? Following your logic they would all have to be made as a single shot and could not ever legally be converted to semi-auto.

What about all those people to dros'd their pistols back in the SSE days? According to what is said here, all of those non-rostered pistols converted to semi-auto are now illegal as well... What a deep hole this is...

What is most telling to me is, aside from FA selling an AR Pistol with no gas port, that every time Franklin Armory was asked point blank if it's legal to convert their CA7 to semi-auto they either refused to respond or responded with vague comments about how it's up to you to interpret the laws. That seems extremely clear that FA has internally formed an opinion from their research and interaction with CA DOJ that providing its customers with an affirmative response is legally risky. That speaks volumes to me.

Even after all the comments in this thread these questions remain unanswered - which just goes to show how murky this whole thing is...

[franklinarmory]

From what I gathered from the various threads I am legally able to self-manufacture an off-roster pistol, but some reason I have to make the pistol a single shot instead of a semi-auto. Since I have to make it a single shot I can't ever convert said pistol into semi-auto.

Except, how does a self-manufactured straight-pull AR Pistol, with a barrel that has no gas port, and a 10 round detachable magazine plus one in the barrel (11 repeatable shots) differ in the slightest than the FA CA7 pistol? Calling it a 'repeater' doesn't magically make it different than an identically configured self-manufactured AR Pistol with the exact same config. Yes, FA CA7 is on the roster but I thought a self-manufactured pistol doesn't have to be on or comply with the roster. And, if a self-manufactured pistol doesn't have to meet roster safety requirements, why does it have to be built as a single shot instead of this magical 'repeater' name? If my self-manufactured AR Pistol matches feature for feature as the CA7 then why is mine called a single shot but the CA7 is a repeater?

Why are there still Glock and 1911 80%'ers being sold today in CA? Following your logic they would all have to be made as a single shot and could not ever legally be converted to semi-auto.

What about all those people to dros'd their pistols back in the SSE days? According to what is said here, all of those non-rostered pistols converted to semi-auto are now illegal as well... What a deep hole this is...

What is most telling to me is, aside from FA selling an AR Pistol with no gas port, that every time Franklin Armory was asked point blank if it's legal to convert their CA7 to semi-auto they either refused to respond or responded with vague comments about how it's up to you to interpret the laws. That seems extremely clear that FA has internally formed an opinion from their research and interaction with CA DOJ that providing its customers with an affirmative response is legally risky. That speaks volumes to me.

Even after all the comments in this thread these questions remain unanswered - which just goes to show how murky this whole thing is...

You miss the point entirely, and I can't tell if you're playing possum or you really can't figure this out!

Point 1 - The CA7 is on the Roster. This is unambiguous.

Point 2 - Franklin Armory is selling a product that is certified safe by the state of California. It has survived scrutiny by the lab.

Point 3 - If I recommend that you change the product, post purchase, then the state can use that against my company. That type of advice could be defined as "negligent entrustment," not because it resulted in an illegal configuration, but because it would be recommending a change of a certified safe product.

Point 4 - We previously had a different pistol approved by a state certified lab only to have the BOF deny the product's accessibility to the roster because we mentioned that out of state variants could use a detachable magazine. I could have sued the state (and probably won,) but I didn't have $50k sitting around to get that ball rolling. (I do now, and we are challenging the BOF on another matter currently.) I do not wish to provide the state any opportunity to exploit our legal commerce in firearms.

[dscoduc]

Thank you for responding.

You miss the point entirely, and I can't tell if you're playing possum or you really can't figure this out!

I am not playing possum for sure - just trying to stop the circular logic I keep reading...

Point 1 - The CA7 is on the Roster. This is unambiguous.

I am confused about why you even went through the cost/effort to put this on roster. I don't mean to come across harsh, but many other FFL manufactures are selling a near identical configuration as yours (less the missing gas port) without going through the effort to put it on roster, and I am wondering why you guys made the effort/cost. Was it to avoid having your AR Pistol classified as a single-shot rifle and be able to classify it as this 'repeater' that people keep saying?

Point 2 - Franklin Armory is selling a product that is certified safe by the state of California. It has survived scrutiny by the lab.

Can you confirm that it would have been certified and survived the scrutiny if there was a gas port on the barrel? In other words, did the certification depend on making the CA7 into a configuration that couldn't 'easily' be converted to semi-auto configuration? Or did you just choose to certify the pistol without a gas port because it was cheaper, as some have speculated/suggested?

Point 3 - If I recommend that you change the product, post purchase, then the state can use that against my company. That type of advice could be defined as "negligent entrustment," not because it resulted in an illegal configuration, but because it would be recommending a change of a certified safe product.

This confuses me a little. Many firearm companies advertise and provide legal enhancements and options for pistols that are on the roster. How would your company be at any more risk for responding to upgrade/enhancement inquiries than say Glock responding to someone looking to change their barrel to a ported or threaded barrel?

Point 4 - We previously had a different pistol approved by a state certified lab only to have the BOF deny the product's accessibility to the roster because we mentioned that out of state variants could use a detachable magazine. I could have sued the state (and probably won,) but I didn't have $50k sitting around to get that ball rolling. (I do now, and we are challenging the BOF on another matter currently.) I do not wish to provide the state any opportunity to exploit our legal commerce in firearms.

I truly appreciate the work your company does with regards to the California firearms community, and wish you great success with challenging the state. Nothing in my previous questions have been an attempt to cause harm or put your product in question. In fact, I am really tempted to buy one, partly just to support your company. I would just like to feel comfortable that any modifications to the pistol will not put me in jeopardy with the CA DOJ.

[Mistadobalina_CA]

I'm sure we have a few CA7 owners keeping an eye on this thread. Would one of you please start an owner's thread? I've been following this thread hoping to see some user reviews and gear porn. I'm not sure we're ever going to get clarity over what's being discussed here. Let's see them pistols!

PS - @FranklinArmory, please post a live fire and field strip video! I'll gladly volunteer my time to put a couple videos together if you want to send me an evaluation sample!

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[plumbum]

dscoduc - I think you are missing the big picture here. FA has produced a legal product, nothing more. But their product has also opened a legal window for us to explore - at our own peril, as it were. What you (or I for that matter) want out of the FA7 is up to us to do our homework and decide what we are comfortable with. FA has their own battles to fight.

[franklinarmory]

Thank you for responding.


I am not playing possum for sure - just trying to stop the circular logic I keep reading...



I am confused about why you even went through the cost/effort to put this on roster. I don't mean to come across harsh, but many other FFL manufactures are selling a near identical configuration as yours (less the missing gas port) without going through the effort to put it on roster, and I am wondering why you guys made the effort/cost. Was it to avoid having your AR Pistol classified as a single-shot rifle and be able to classify it as this 'repeater' that people keep saying?

Can you confirm that it would have been certified and survived the scrutiny if there was a gas port on the barrel? In other words, did the certification depend on making the CA7 into a configuration that couldn't 'easily' be converted to semi-auto configuration? Or did you just choose to certify the pistol without a gas port because it was cheaper, as some have speculated/suggested?

This confuses me a little. Many firearm companies advertise and provide legal enhancements and options for pistols that are on the roster. How would your company be at any more risk for responding to upgrade/enhancement inquiries than say Glock responding to someone looking to change their barrel to a ported or threaded barrel?



I truly appreciate the work your company does with regards to the California firearms community, and wish you great success with challenging the state. Nothing in my previous questions have been an attempt to cause harm or put your product in question. In fact, I am really tempted to buy one, partly just to support your company. I would just like to feel comfortable that any modifications to the pistol will not put me in jeopardy with the CA DOJ.

Every time CADOJ makes a response about something, one way or the other, they are binding themselves into a box that will ultimately constrain their future actions and/or it will allow a future SCOTUS to bring the whole facade down. Getting a pistol on the roster is another definitive action that allows dealers, distributors, and consumers to know with certainty what is legal. This shouldn't be too confusing.

I cannot confirm any "what ifs" with CADOJ and their approval process. You are welcome to see what they say if you submit something. I can tell you that we believed that CADOJ might not approve it if it had a gas port and that is why we went the opposite direction. It ends up we were right.

The CA7 was approved as a bolt action repeater, and we believe that that was a superior place to be in the market due to the state certification. One could possibly submit a single shot pistol for testing. While that is old news, we proved that that was a legal process with the second SE-SSP submission. However, now that CADOJ has their warning information, I would not want to invest in that strategy. As a gunny, you have to admit that a bolt action repeater is superior to a single shot pistol, right?

While many companies in the industry provide upgraded Glock parts, Glock does not provide much in the way of enhancements on their Gen 3 pistols. They may have spare magazines, but they certainly are not marketing lightened slides, super light triggers, threaded barrels, etc. to California buyers.

I apologize for not giving you the answers that you want, but I simply can't provide that advice. I am not an attorney. The closest thing I can do is look at precedence. Thousands of Californians currently possess modified pistols. These modifications could include sights, magazines, grip panels, finish treatments, scalloping, etc. Are you aware of anyone getting cited or arrested for owning a modified firearm? I am not. However, that does not mean that the state couldn't (wrongly) decide to create a new enforcement objective.

[dscoduc]

Thank you for the response, it makes sense.

[Califpatriot]

The Reformation meets CA's definition of an "unconventional pistol" [PC 17270]; which makes it illegal (felony) to make, import, transfer, or possess in CA [PC 31500].



Penal Code 17270Penal Code 31500
Except as provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any unconventional pistol is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

But Section 17710 exempts AOWs from the unconventional pistol ban, as you noted in another thread just now. So why can't you get the Reformation, as designed and marketed without further modifications, with an AOW stamp in California?

[franklinarmory]

But Section 17710 exempts AOWs from the unconventional pistol ban, as you noted in another thread just now. So why can't you get the Reformation, as designed and marketed without further modifications, with an AOW stamp in California?

An AOW would be able to use our barrels. But, you could not put a stock on it.

[Califpatriot]

Why?

[Cokebottle]

Why?

It would cease to be an AOW and would be come an SBR.
The Can Cannon would not be an SBR because it lacks a rifled barrel.