SSE Question

[Camaro3lcapitan]

Semi auto upper on SSE lower with fin grip, brace and mag lock.
Thoughts?

[naz]

Semi auto upper on SSE lower with fin grip, brace and mag lock.
Thoughts?

[morrcarr67]

Semi auto upper on SSE lower with fin grip, brace and mag lock.
Thoughts?

No need for a fin grip on a pistol. The only way to make a semi auto pistol with the magazine well outside of the pistol grip is to use one of the new fixed magazine solutions.

Hi SkyHawk...

Very open question/defendable especially if the gun transitioned thru single-shot status to semiauto and was 'virgin nonsemaiuto' to begin with.

AB1964 legislation changed wording only in minor ways, effectively restricting the single shot exemption to "guns that were never semiauto".
This does not mean various unused design features but only if actual semiauto status (incl factory testing) existed.

Note that SSE transition to semiauto was done all the way up to 2014.

The process was even inspected by DOJ, field agents are available for testimony as such, and shop inventory was approved for sale. Boatloads of SSE transactions went on in front of DOJ's noses (ie. sales during inspections/audits) for several years.

It was so legal that they changed the law. And only slightly.

They were thinking of blocking all the Sig and 1911 off-Roster variants. They really weren't thinking of virgin receiver buildups.

THE LAW DID NOT CHANGE IN THIS RESPECT (single shot/bolt action etc to semiauto). It only addded, essentially, the "virgin nonsemiauto" status requirement.

Additionally, DOJ writings from a Deputy AG indicated it was quite legal to buy a Rostered Glock and send it to Smyrna to put a left handed safety on it. That itself alone transitions the gun outside of Rostered status, just like using aftermarket magazines (say, CMC) in your Rostered Springfield 1911. [I specifically note that guns are tested/rostered with supplied magazines as exemplar, not "any magazine that fits". Changing parts in a magazines actually should make a gun fall off the Roster now with DOJ's new interpretation of "minor changes = new gun to certify with microstamping."]

The DOJ has a terrible burden because they do not have a 'priority list' of substitutable [or not] parts. For them to hold a position that a gun cannot be modified to another legally possessable state, this would preclude (1) generic replacement/repair parts, (2) generic magazines. The law has no exclusion for these.

Additionally, the single shot exclusion in PC 32100b - only slightly tweaked by AB1964 - still has the "32000PC shall not apply to...".

[When I posted the 'recipe' in summer of 2011 here on CGN, it was read by various parties, including ATF legal. Word got back to me thru 'a person in the room' that ATF - who actually does understand CA law - even praised the accuracy.]

I submit that DOJ will not bust somebody with the above for at best a misdemeanor Roster violation esp given the murkiness. AW violations? sure. All busts of stuff involving AR pistols seem to involve AW issues only.

This otherwise has the potential to get into "OK so that violates the Roster, you mean we can't use ordinary generic replacement wear & tear parts or generic magazines?" Hello Magnusson-Moss warranty act, etc. [Do you lose your GMC warranty and & emissions compliance for using a Fram oil filter or generic battery terminal? - rough equivalent]

So no, you can't SSE a gun that was already a semiauto (like we did 2007-2013 or whenever AB1964 kicked in.

But if you build up a gun, in non-AW form, from a virgin frame into a true single shot configuration - and do the serialization drama etc. - then convert to semiauto nonAW form you've moved thru a neutral zone to legal possession.