Sig Sauer FCU

[Brother_Hesekiel]

The way I understand it, one cannot DROS a Sig Sauer FCU as a gun in California. The FCU would have to be inside a gun. If so, I wonder if said gun would have an identity assigned to it at that point, such as "P320" which cannot be easily changed. Would converting a P320 into, say a P365 have legal implications?

[GlockN'Roll]

The way I understand it, one cannot DROS a Sig Sauer FCU as a gun in California. The FCU would have to be inside a gun. If so, I wonder if said gun would have an identity assigned to it at that point, such as "P320" which cannot be easily changed.

Would converting a P320 into, say a P365 have legal implications?

Can't be done. The 320 and 365 FCU's are completely different.

[Paperchasin]

You can definitely DROS an FCU alone, as long as it's via PPT. But you cannot walk into a store and purchase one, unless you are Roster exempt.

[Uncivil Engineer]

If you really want one talk to 2a zone. I think they are manufacturing p320 single shots they you can buy new. Then modify yourself. Some consider that a grey area. I haven't heard of anyone getting jammed up for a pistol that isn't a AW or sbr so there doesn't seem to be much evidence to support the must remain single shot folks.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Quiet]

The way I understand it, one cannot DROS a Sig Sauer FCU as a gun in California.

You can definitely DROS an FCU alone, as long as it's via PPT. But you cannot walk into a store and purchase one, unless you are Roster exempt.

Unless an exemption is utilized, the SIG P320 FCU can only be DROS'd as a "long gun, other, receiver" or as a "long gun, rifle, receiver".

With use of a qualifying exemption, the SIG P320 FCU can be DROS'd as a "handgun, pistol, receiver" or as a "handgun, pistol, semi-auto, receiver".

A CA 07-FFL manufacturer can take a SIG FCU and make it into a dimensionally compliant bolt-action/break-open single-shot pistol, which will allow the firearm to be legally DROS'd as a "handgun, pistol, single-shot".
^However, CA DOJ is adamant about these types of pistols remaining configured as such, while in CA, in order to remain CA legal.

How the firearm is DROS'd will determine how the SIG FCU can be legally utilized to make a firearm in CA.

[Quiet]

Can't be done. The 320 and 365 FCU's are completely different.

This is true.

[hitmissone]

FCU's are done all the time. In the form it's noted as a trigger. Not a frame or a gun. I've done a couple

[morrcarr67]

Unless an exemption is utilized, the SIG P320 FCU can only be DROS'd as a "long gun, other, receiver" or as a "long gun, rifle, receiver".

With use of a qualifying exemption, the SIG P320 FCU can be DROS'd as a "handgun, pistol, receiver" or as a "handgun, pistol, semi-auto, receiver".

A CA 07-FFL manufacturer can take a SIG FCU and make it into a dimensionally compliant bolt-action/break-open single-shot pistol, which will allow the firearm to be legally DROS'd as a "handgun, pistol, single-shot".
^However, CA DOJ is adamant about these types of pistols remaining configured as such, while in CA, in order to remain CA legal.

How the firearm is DROS'd will determine how the SIG FCU can be legally utilized to make a firearm in CA.

It would look like Bill is again saying otherwise.

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecalguns%2Enet%2Fcalgunforum%2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D1771067&share_tid=1771067&share_fid=17954&share_type=t&link_source=app

Sent from my Amazon Fire Tablet using Tapatalk

[Quiet]

It would look like Bill is again saying otherwise.

Bill is saying what CA DOJ is adamant about has no legal standing.

A CA 07-FFL manufacturer can take a SIG FCU and make it into a dimensionally compliant bolt-action/break-open single-shot pistol, which will allow the firearm to be legally DROS'd as a "handgun, pistol, single-shot".
^However, CA DOJ is adamant about these types of pistols remaining configured as such, while in CA, in order to remain CA legal.

Bill has issues with what CA DOJ is saying.
^IMO, everyone should have issues with what CA DOJ is saying on this issue.

But, we really need a test case to take to the Courts, so that the issue can be resolved once and for all.

Unless an exemption is utilized, the SIG P320 FCU can only be DROS'd as a "long gun, other, receiver" or as a "long gun, rifle, receiver".

With use of a qualifying exemption, the SIG P320 FCU can be DROS'd as a "handgun, pistol, receiver" or as a "handgun, pistol, semi-auto, receiver".

How the firearm is DROS'd will determine how the SIG FCU can be legally utilized to make a firearm in CA.

Bill has no issues with this part.

[neouser]

It would look like Bill is again saying otherwise.

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecalguns%2Enet%2Fcalgunforum%2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D1771067&share_tid=1771067&share_fid=17954&share_type=t&link_source=app

Sent from my Amazon Fire Tablet using Tapatalk

I tend to agree with Bill's assessment. I see people make references to PC 32000 in their interpretations of the bill, but that section only applies when coupled with qualifiers.

"However, Article 4 (commencing with Section 31900) and Article 5 (commencing with Section 32000) shall apply to a semiautomatic pistol that has been temporarily or permanently altered so that it will not fire in a semiautomatic mode."

The important part is italicized. Section 32000 applies under the condition that a semiautomatic pistol has been altered to be single shot. If a pistol was originally manufactured as a single shot and not temporarily or permanently altered into an single shot pistol, Section 32000 does not apply.

This is a link to AB 1964 (Dickinson, as Chaptered July 18, 2014) on Leginfo:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1964

"This bill would instead make the provisions defining and governing unsafe handguns inapplicable to a single-shot pistol with a break top or bolt action. The bill would make this exemption inapplicable to a semiautomatic pistol that has been temporarily or permanently altered so that it will not fire in a semiautomatic mode."

If the intent was to disallow a single shot pistol to be converted to semi-automatic, the language of the bill would have been explicit about it. This is directly targeting the exemption as it applies to modification of pistols manufactured as semi-automatic.

[morrcarr67]

Bill is saying what CA DOJ is adamant about has no legal standing.

What the CA DOJ is saying also has no legal standing either.

And, unless I'm wrong the CA DOJ isn't saying what you're saying they are saying.

They are say "that if YOU manufacture a single shot roster exempt pistol and YOU modify it, that YOU MAY have continued the manufacturing process and manufactured an off roster pistol".

Do you have something saying differently?

[CHEONG_FUN]

Just started a Dros for a p320 fcu via ppt. I am a normal citizen with no exemptions. Would this fcu be able to be put on CCW permit one day?