THREADED BARREL

[Turbinator]

If it's legal to own, let him enjoy having his threaded barrel. No reason why he couldn't drive or fly to another state where there are no restrictions, and enjoy using it in that state.

Turby

[CifaldiPrecision]

[RickD427]

I think the moral of Nguyen is if you’re standing over a pile of parts talking to the police, don’t tell them you were just about to build an assault weapon before they so rudely interrupted you.

Slight tangent question, for Rick or a lawyer type, in California law can you technically be prosecuted for “attempted x” where “x” is the set of all illegal activities, or is there a hard limit to that beyond the practical one (I get that something like “attempted speeding” (but for driving a POS?) might be a tricky case to bring... but could the state try?)

The state could always try. Whether they would win is another story. As an LEO, I would not present a case for filing unless I could show that all of the required elements were present, but that was just to guard against a 995 motion at prelim. Those can be really embarrassing to the LEO that filed the case.

But there is some case law supporting the proposition that an "Attempt" conviction can still be obtained, even if there was no possibility of the attempted crime actually being committed. The question was addressed by the California Court of Appeal in their 2004 decision in People v Superior Court (Ronald Decker (RPI)). Mr. Decker wanted to have his sister killed and he sought a "Hitman" to perform the killing. He went to his local gun store for advice (seriously, it really happened that way) and was referred to what he believed to be a qualified "Hitman." He retained the "Hitman's" services and contracted for the killing to take place. But the "Hitman" turned out to be an undercover sheriff's deputy who took Decker's money, but never delivered the service. Decker was subsequently charged with attempted murder.

Decker's attorney won a 995 motion at prelim, the judge holding that since the crime could not have been completed, there was no "attempt" under the law. The prosecutor successfully appealed. The court focused on the state of the defendant's mind. The defendant did everything (except for hiring an honest hitman) that would have, in his mind, have resulted in the killing taking place. That satisfied the definition of an "attempt."

Two "Take Aways" from this:

1) Don't go to your local gun store for advice.

2) Don't hire a deputy sheriff to kill your sister.

[RickD427]

Brett,

IANAL, but speaking as a LEO who has done this for a long time, I would not see any issue with a gunsmith possessing a threaded barrel.

There is no "Constructive Possession" language in the AW statute. There is no strict criminal liability resulting from the possession.

The potential problem comes from the Nguyen decision. In simple terms, under Nguyen, possession of the parts plus a showing of intent to assemble them into an Assault Weapon is sufficient for a conviction.

In Nguyen, the intent was shown by admissions made by Nguyen. But that is not the only method by which intent can be shown. Intent can also be shown by the absence of alternative reasons for the conduct. If I find a suspect with a legally configured Beretta 92 in their gun safe, and a threaded barrel for that weapon also in the safe, the prosecutor can argue that there is no other reason for having the barrel, except to install it on the weapon. That argument, if accepted, is sufficient for conviction. Of course, the defense is free to present evidence that would lead the court not to accept that argument. The barrel may have been held for investment and future sale, in anticipation of a move to a different state, or in anticipation of a change in the law. But the risk to defendant is that the court may favor the the prosecution argument, and then the defendant goes to prison.

In the case of the gunsmith possessing a threaded barrel, there are multiple alternative reasons for the possession. The threaded barrel could be modified, by having the threads turned off, for legal installation, or the barrel could be pinned and welded as you point out.

You're still at risk of an over-zealous prosecutor arguing that your intent was to assemble an Assault Weapon, but the relative credibility of your argument is a lot higher than in the Beretta example.

Life is full of risks.

[CifaldiPrecision]

Brett,

IANAL, but speaking as a LEO who has done this for a long time, I would not see any issue with a gunsmith possessing a threaded barrel.

There is no "Constructive Possession" language in the AW statute. There is no strict criminal liability resulting from the possession.

The potential problem comes from the Nguyen decision. In simple terms, under Nguyen, possession of the parts plus a showing of intent to assemble them into an Assault Weapon is sufficient for a conviction.

In Nguyen, the intent was shown by admissions made by Nguyen. But that is not the only method by which intent can be shown. Intent can also be shown by the absence of alternative reasons for the conduct. If I find a suspect with a legally configured Beretta 92 in their gun safe, and a threaded barrel for that weapon also in the safe, the prosecutor can argue that there is no other reason for having the barrel, except to install it on the weapon. That argument, if accepted, is sufficient for conviction. Of course, the defense is free to present evidence that would lead the court not to accept that argument. The barrel may have been held for investment and future sale, in anticipation of a move to a different state, or in anticipation of a change in the law. But the risk to defendant is that the court may favor the the prosecution argument, and then the defendant goes to prison.

In the case of the gunsmith possessing a threaded barrel, there are multiple alternative reasons for the possession. The threaded barrel could be modified, by having the threads turned off, for legal installation, or the barrel could be pinned and welded as you point out.

You're still at risk of an over-zealous prosecutor arguing that your intent was to assemble an Assault Weapon, but the relative credibility of your argument is a lot higher than in the Beretta example.

Life is full of risks.

Interesting. Because as one would expect before the new AW laws came out a normal process of our work would be to build guns with compensators for competition guns or now the ever popular carry comp 1911s. Pretty much just stopped doing that due to what I posted above.

But it does still leave the question of what is considered properly pinned by legal standards. We always preferred a chemical pinning or silver solder which was never an issue prior to the law change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

Interesting. Because as one would expect before the new AW laws came out a normal process of our work would be to build guns with compensators for competition guns or now the ever popular carry comp 1911s. Pretty much just stopped doing that due to what I posted above.

But it does still leave the question of what is considered properly pinned by legal standards. We always preferred a chemical pinning or silver solder which was never an issue prior to the law change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I haven't seen California address the issue. The real question is what has to be done to make the threads "go away." If they're welded to the extent that the base metals are mixed, then there are clearly no more threads. Silver solder leaves the threads intact, but pretty much useless, so that they serve no function as threads. There may be some legal difference there.

I have seen BATF guidance where threaded fittings are used to lengthen a barrel to meet the 16" requirement, but California is not required to accept BATF guidance, and even if it was, the statutes are different.

[Quiet]

Semi-auto pistols with an attached threaded barrel have been considered assault weapons in CA, since 01-01-2000. [PC 30515(a)(4)(A)]

Starting 07-31-2017, "lugs" on the barrel were added as a type of a threaded barrel. [11 CCR 5471(rr)]

It is currently...
~ It is CA legal to own/possess an unattached threaded barrel.
~ It is CA legal to own/possess a semi-auto pistol and an unattached threaded barel.
^ However, it is recommended that the threaded barrel is stored/transported seperately from the semi-auto pistol.
~ It is CA illegal to own/possess a semi-auto pistol that does not have a fixed magazine with an attached threaded barrel. [PC 30515(a)(4)(A)]
~ It is CA legal to own/possess a semi-auto pistol that has a fixed 10 round magazine with an attached threaded barrel.
~ It is CA legal to own/possess a manually operated (bolt-action, lever-action, pump-action) repeating pistol with an attached threaded barrel.
~ It is CA legal to own/possess a single-shot pistol with an attached threaded barrel.
~ It is CA legal to own/possess a revolver with an attached threaded barrel.

Removing the threads on the threaded barrel or permanently attaching a muzzle device (cap, compensator, etc) have been CA legal methods of making a threaded barrel into a non-threaded barrel.

CA DOJ BOF has not clarified what permananetly attached means for threaded barrels in regards to semi-auto pistols, but CA regulations [11 CCR 5471(d)] do state "Permanent methods of attachment include full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding, high-temperature (1100o F) silver soldering, or blind pinning with the pin head welded over". So, CA LE agencies and/or any of the 58 DA's Offices may utilize that to determine if a muzzle device is permanently attached on a threaded barrel, so that it is no longer considered a threaded barrel.

[CifaldiPrecision]

Semi-auto pistols with an attached threaded barrel have been considered assault weapons in CA, since 01-01-2000. [PC 30515(a)(4)(A)]

Starting 07-31-2017, "lugs" on the barrel were added as a type of a threaded barrel. [11 CCR 5471(rr)]

It is currently...
~ It is CA legal to own/possess an unattached threaded barrel.
~ It is CA legal to own/possess a semi-auto pistol and an unattached threaded barel.
^ However, it is recommended that the threaded barrel is stored/transported seperately from the semi-auto pistol.
~ It is CA illegal to own/possess a semi-auto pistol that does not have a fixed magazine with an attached threaded barrel. [PC 30515(a)(4)(A)]
~ It is CA legal to own/possess a semi-auto pistol that has a fixed 10 round magazine with an attached threaded barrel.
~ It is CA legal to own/possess a manually operated (bolt-action, lever-action, pump-action) repeating pistol with an attached threaded barrel.
~ It is CA legal to own/possess a single-shot pistol with an attached threaded barrel.
~ It is CA legal to own/possess a revolver with an attached threaded barrel.

Removing the threads on the threaded barrel or permanently attaching a muzzle device (cap, compensator, etc) have been CA legal methods of making a threaded barrel into a non-threaded barrel.

CA DOJ BOF has not clarified what permananetly attached means for threaded barrels in regards to semi-auto pistols, but CA regulations [11 CCR 5471(d)] do state "Permanent methods of attachment include full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding, high-temperature (1100o F) silver soldering, or blind pinning with the pin head welded over". So, CA LE agencies and/or any of the 58 DA's Offices may utilize that to determine if a muzzle device is permanently attached on a threaded barrel, so that it is no longer considered a threaded barrel.

Cool. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk