New AR Pistol for California, NOT A SINGLE SHOT

[Powder_Keg]

He could have put a rifle butt stock on it too (SBR). Not enough info to say what exactly he did.

[RickD427]

Officers do not have to follow unsafe handgun laws as they are exempt. Assault weapons are completely different game though, they absolutely have to follow those

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

So odd why a deputy that is exempt from the roster will go the route of a ca7 to acquire an AR pistol. Being exempt why not purchase a lower receiver and dros as a handgun? It would be cheaper that way. Understood he still needs to follow AW laws and it would have to be fixed mag.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So then the single shot to semi auto conversion can't be the issue.

Gents,

I agree that there are too many unknowns in this case to make a good assessment of what happened. But I would like to set the records straight on a couple of points where there isn't doubt:

1) With regard to the "Safe Handgun" law, LEO are exempt from the safe handgun roster when purchasing off roster (unsafe) handguns. The law does not allow an LEO to personally manufacture an unsafe handgun. Please refer to Penal Code section 32000(a)(4). It is incorrect to state that LEOs are exempt from the safe handgun law. They're only exempt with regard to purchase.

2) With regard to the "Assault Weapon" law, it is true that a fixed magazine of ten rounds or less would defeat the application of the law to the weapon. But there is nothing in the publicly reported information showing that the magazine was fixed.

3) As a LEO he could lawfully purchase and possess, but not personally manufacture, an "Assault Weapon" with the written authorization of his agency head. Given that he worked for SFSO, I don't see that ever happening. Please refer to Penal Code section 30630(b)(1).

4) As an LEO, he could lawfully purchase, and possess, a completed semi-automatic AR-15, without his agency's approval, that was not on the roster. That's what he shoulda done.

5) As an LEO, he also could have lawfully purchased, and possessed, an off-roster AR-15 lower. Under a traditional view of the law, he could have completed it into semi-auto pistol. Under some new interpretations of the DOJ, he may have criminal liability for making an "Unsafe Handgun" if he did so. The new DOJ position is currently untested in court. He peace officer status doesn't help him on this charge. He shoulda bought a completed off-roster pistol.

As to earlier comments that this may also be the work of an over-zealous District Attorney, that's probably the understatement of the year. The D.A., Chesa Boudin's parents were members of the Weather Underground. Both were sentenced to long prison terms after killing two police officers and a security guard during a bank robbery. He was raised by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who were also members of the Weather Underground. Dohrn spent several years on the FBI's "10 Most Wanted List." That's your new D.A. for San Francisco.

[Nimbalo]

Gents,

I agree that there are too many unknowns in this case to make a good assessment of what happened. But I would like to set the records straight on a couple of points where there isn't doubt:

1) With regard to the "Safe Handgun" law, LEO are exempt from the safe handgun roster when purchasing off roster (unsafe) handguns. The law does not allow an LEO to personally manufacture an unsafe handgun. Please refer to Penal Code section 32000(a)(4). It is incorrect to state that LEOs are exempt from the safe handgun law. They're only exempt with regard to purchase.

2) With regard to the "Assault Weapon" law, it is true that a fixed magazine of ten rounds or less would defeat the application of the law to the weapon. But there is nothing in the publicly reported information showing that the magazine was fixed.

3) As a LEO he could lawfully purchase and possess, but not personally manufacture, an "Assault Weapon" with the written authorization of his agency head. Given that he worked for SFSO, I don't see that ever happening. Please refer to Penal Code section 30630(b)(1).

4) As an LEO, he could lawfully purchase, and possess, a completed semi-automatic AR-15, without his agency's approval, that was not on the roster. That's what he shoulda done.

5) As an LEO, he also could have lawfully purchased, and possessed, an off-roster AR-15 lower. Under a traditional view of the law, he could have completed it into semi-auto pistol. Under some new interpretations of the DOJ, he may have criminal liability for making an "Unsafe Handgun" if he did so. The new DOJ position is currently untested in court. He peace officer status doesn't help him on this charge. He shoulda bought a completed off-roster pistol.

This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun.
:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...g%20one%20year.
Am I misreading this? Seems to say the opposite of your first point.

[RickD427]

Honesty, my only concern is how this will effect the legal status of guns like the CA7 when converted to semi auto. So far everything I have seen has ruled out "manufacturing an unsafe handgun" as the culprit, which is good news. If he did not have it maglocked, had a 30 round magazine, foregrip, whatever that's his mistake and on him.

There's a big open question on the legal status of converting a CA7 to semi-auto. It's the same one I pointed out above.

A traditional view of the law holds that a person can make legal alterations to a firearm that they own. Under that view a person could purchase a CA7 and then convert it, provided that they didn't build it into an illegal configuration.

DOJ has recently departed from the traditional view, and now seems to be asserting that when changes are made to a firearm (and they're not clear about the degree), that one makes a "new" firearm from the "old" firearm. They placed this new view into the regulations concerning Bullet Button Assault Weapons and have also placed in on the web concerning unsafe handguns. The position is currently untested in court and we don't yet know if it's gonna fly. If it does, you will not be able to convert a CA7 to semi-auto.

This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun.
:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...g%20one%20year.
Am I misreading this? Seems to say the opposite of your first point.

I have to think that you are misreading the section that you'e quoted. Start with subparagraph (a) - it provides that anyone who does the listed stuff, including the sale of an unsafe handgun, and the manufacture of an unsafe handgun, commits a misdemeanor.

Then go to subparagraph (b)(4) - It provides an exception for the sale of unsafe handguns to members of the listed agencies (LEOs). Please note that it does not provide any exception for the manufacture of an unsafe handgun. More specifically, it does not provide an exception to all of PC 32000. It only does so for the sale or purchase.

[Nimbalo]

There's a big open question on the legal status of converting a CA7 to semi-auto. It's the same one I pointed out above.

I'm almost annoyed that this case looks like it won't address any of the legal definitions for "manufacturing an unsafe handgun" so this discussion could finally be laid to rest.

I have to think that you are misreading the section that you'e quoted. Start with subparagraph (a) - it provides that anyone who does the listed stuff, including the sale of an unsafe handgun, and the manufacture of an unsafe handgun, commits a misdemeanor.

Then go to subparagraph (b)(4) - It provides an exception for the sale of unsafe handguns to members of the listed agencies (LEOs). Please note that it does not provide any exception for the manufacture of an unsafe handgun. More specifically, it does not provide an exception to all of PC 32000. It only does so for the sale or purchase.

32000. (a) A 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 an unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:

Seems pretty clear to me.


Neither of us are lawyers and no one knows the details of the case yet, but if it ends with semi auto ar pistol conversions being decidedly illegal I will eat my hat. Chances are it will end with an AW charge for the officer and we can go back to debating on whether or not converted CA7s are grey areas for the next 20 years.

[franklinarmory]

There's a big open question on the legal status of converting a CA7 to semi-auto. It's the same one I pointed out above.

A traditional view of the law holds that a person can make legal alterations to a firearm that they own. Under that view a person could purchase a CA7 and then convert it, provided that they didn't build it into an illegal configuration.

DOJ has recently departed from the traditional view, and now seems to be asserting that when changes are made to a firearm (and they're not clear about the degree), that one makes a "new" firearm from the "old" firearm. They placed this new view into the regulations concerning Bullet Button Assault Weapons and have also placed in on the web concerning unsafe handguns. The position is currently untested in court and we don't yet know if it's gonna fly. If it does, you will not be able to convert a CA7 to semi-auto.

Point of order..... The notice on the CADOJ website is for "unsafe handguns" that are single shot exempt. The CA7 is a lab certified "not unsafe handgun." (A.K.A "safe handgun.") Consequently, there is no current notice of CADOJ's intent to regulate otherwise legal consumer changes to CA7. Until they specifically articulate an applicable argument, I would ask that you refrain from that canard. ...unless you are saying that they are so incompetent that CADOJ doesn't know the difference between a lab tested, bolt action, repeater versus an untested single shot.

I doubt CADOJ will be that bold since I'm guessing they won't want to be on the losing of yet another lawsuit. Of course they can always try to rewrite the law.

[RickD427]

Point of order..... The notice on the CADOJ website is for "unsafe handguns" that are single shot exempt. The CA7 is a lab certified "not unsafe handgun." (A.K.A "safe handgun.") Consequently, there is no current notice of CADOJ's intent to regulate otherwise legal consumer changes to CA7. Until they specifically articulate an applicable argument, I would ask that you refrain from that canard. ...unless you are saying that they are so incompetent that CADOJ doesn't know the difference between a lab tested, bolt action, repeater versus an untested single shot.

I doubt CADOJ will be that bold since I'm guessing they won't want to be on the losing of yet another lawsuit. Of course they can always try to rewrite the law.

DOJ has been trying to do that for years. That's probably why they are receiving so many lawsuits. Unfortunately, they don't lose enough of them, and they gain a lot of free political capital so long as the lawsuits go on.

I write my postings very conservatively because I don't want to see good folks get into trouble.

At this point, we don't know the basis for the deputy's criminal charges, specifically if they're related to the Unsafe Handgun law, or the Assault Weapon Law. We really need to wait and see how this case develops.

[jimbo74]

So I took my pistol buffer tube off with a shop rag and channel locks

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[dilznik]

So I took my pistol buffer tube off with a shop rag and channel locks

I used a strap wrench, vice, wife's hair dryer, a beer, and oomph.

[jimbo74]

I used a strap wrench, vice, wife's hair dryer, a beer, and oomph.

I know I mention it all the time in here. Just trying to get back on the topic how tons of people freak out about how they can't take it off. Maybe I am just a beast.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Nimbalo]

I write my postings very conservatively because I don't want to see good folks get into trouble.

What you actually end up doing is muddying the waters with unfounded speculation on how the laws could theoretically be read and enforced, while scaring off the people who see "grey area" and give up on getting the guns they want in this state.

[RickD427]

What you actually end up doing is muddying the waters with unfounded speculation on how the laws could theoretically be read and enforced, while scaring off the people who see "grey area" and give up on getting the guns they want in this state.

Except that there isn't speculation. We've already seen DOJ venture down that road. Please note the following language from 11 CCR 5477(a) where the DOJ is asserting that the post registration removal of the bullet button creates a different weapon:

"Any alteration to the release mechanism converts the assault weapon into a different weapon from the one that was registered."

If the argument succeeds on something as minor as a magazine ejection component, then how could not it not succeed on something much more major, like a change in function from a bolt-action repeater to semi-auto?

[newbieLA]

I used a strap wrench, vice, wife's hair dryer, a beer, and oomph.

Bingo!

[franklinarmory]

Except that there isn't speculation. We've already seen DOJ venture down that road. Please note the following language from 11 CCR 5477(a) where the DOJ is asserting that the post registration removal of the bullet button creates a different weapon:

"Any alteration to the release mechanism converts the assault weapon into a different weapon from the one that was registered."

If the argument succeeds on something as minor as a magazine ejection component, then how could not it not succeed on something much more major, like a change in function from a bolt-action repeater to semi-auto?

Your speculation is that they will apply the same lack of logic to this issue as they did to the bullet button, and in truth, that would not be out of character for CADOJ. However, they have not opined as much. Until they do, your comments are mere assumptions that they will overreach again.

CADOJ reads this thread and many others. Surely they could take the time to provide a formal response if they believed such an act was a public crime. It is part of their duty to inform the public after all. Ultimately you will hear crickets because they know their challenge would be very risky, and hereto now, they have not been penalized for not responding.

[enorbit3]