Franklin CA7

[ClayBreaker]

I was at Turners yesterday and asked the clerk's opinion on converting the CA7 to semi auto with a maglock and 10 round mags. The guy told me it would be illegal, but the was he answered had me wondering if he actually knew. With the ATF on their high horse again what is the consensus on converting one of these over with a lock?

[12pewpew]

Search function is your friend. This subject has been talked to death on here.

[sfvshooter]

What?

Actually do some work?

People want you to tell them the answer.

Actually, they keep asking the same question over and over again until they get the answer they want.

For example, how many times has someone asked if they can buy a pistol out of state and then bring it into CA? 5? 10? 164,613,131?

[ClayBreaker]

The last posting on this specific subject is a few months old. Like it says in my original post the ATF has been on a good one regarding braces and AR pistols. That being said we in California have our own laws to deal with aside from the federal level. Keeping BOTH what the ATF is doing AND California law in mind would there be an issue is my question? Prior to the ATF over stepping once again the answer was obvious. So thank you for being helpful you bunch of degenerates.

[Capybara]

The last posting on this specific subject is a few months old. Like it says in my original post the ATF has been on a good one regarding braces and AR pistols. That being said we in California have our own laws to deal with aside from the federal level. Keeping BOTH what the ATF is doing AND California law in mind would there be an issue is my question? Prior to the ATF over stepping once again the answer was obvious. So thank you for being helpful you bunch of degenerates.

From my understanding of reading some of those threads, the issue ties almost exclusively back to the CADOJ. I don't think the ATF considers it manufacturing an approved single shot compliant gun into a not not unsafe semi automatic handgun, the CADOJ does. ATFs concern is about 80%ers and pistol braces.

Lots of people have done it. That certainly doesn't make it legal but it all depends on your tolerance for risk like anything else having to do with owning a gun in California. Like everything else in this workers paradise, the DOJ likes keeping things as vague as possible so they can choose to slam dunk any gun owner for whatever vague charges they can conjure up, anytime they want. Constructing a not not unsafe handgun that is not on the "roster" is one of them. For me, I wouldn't take the risk. For you, YMMV. To me AR pistols are merely range toys, fun but ultimately, a novelty. Would I risk jail time to own a semi auto one that I manufactured in California? No. There are plenty of legal AR semi-auto pistols in the Marketplace every day. Why not buy one of those and not have to worry about if you broke one of the CADOJ's arbitrary, meaningless and capricious rules?

[Quiet]

From my understanding of reading some of those threads, the issue ties almost exclusively back to the CADOJ. I don't think the ATF considers it manufacturing an approved single shot compliant gun into a not not unsafe semi automatic handgun, the CADOJ does. ATFs concern is about 80%ers and pistol braces.

Lots of people have done it. That certainly doesn't make it legal but it all depends on your tolerance for risk like anything else having to do with owning a gun in California. Like everything else in this workers paradise, the DOJ likes keeping things as vague as possible so they can choose to slam dunk any gun owner for whatever vague charges they can conjure up, anytime they want. Constructing a not not unsafe handgun that is not on the "roster" is one of them. For me, I wouldn't take the risk. For you, YMMV. To me AR pistols are merely range toys, fun but ultimately, a novelty. Would I risk jail time to own a semi auto one that I manufactured in California? No. There are plenty of legal AR semi-auto pistols in the Marketplace every day. Why not buy one of those and not have to worry about if you broke one of the CADOJ's arbitrary, meaningless and capricious rules?

Also...

The CA DOJ BOF notice is on dimensionally compliant bolt-action/break-open single-shot pistols.

The Franklin Armory CA7 is an on-Roster bolt-action repeating pistol.

So, the CA DOJ BOF notice does not apply to the Franklin Armory CA7 because it is not a dimensionally compliant bolt-action/break-open single-shot pistol.
^Franklin Armory CA7 = bolt-action repeating pistol.

There are no CA laws/regulations or CA DOJ notices that prohibits an on-Roster handgun from being modified into another type of CA legal handgun, even though do so makes the resulting handgun into an off-Roster handgun.
There are no CA laws/regulations or CA DOJ notices that prohibits an off-Roster revolver, off-Roster semi-auto pistol, off-Roster bolt-action repeating pistol, off-Roster lever-action repeating pistol, or off-Roster pump-action repeating pistol from being modified into another type of CA legal handgun.

CA legal handgun meaning a handgun that does not violate CA generally prohibited weapons laws or CA assault weapons laws.

[Capybara]

Also...

The CA DOJ BOF notice is on dimensionally compliant bolt-action/break-open single-shot pistols.

The Franklin Armory CA7 is an on-Roster bolt-action repeating pistol.

So, the CA DOJ BOF notice does not apply to the Franklin Armory CA7 because it is not a dimensionally compliant bolt-action/break-open single-shot pistol.
^Franklin Armory CA7 = bolt-action repeating pistol.

There are no CA laws/regulations or CA DOJ notices that prohibits an on-Roster handgun from being modified into another type of CA legal handgun, even though do so makes the resulting handgun into an off-Roster handgun.
There are no CA laws/regulations or CA DOJ notices that prohibits an off-Roster revolver, off-Roster semi-auto pistol, off-Roster bolt-action repeating pistol, off-Roster lever-action repeating pistol, or off-Roster pump-action repeating pistol from being modified into another type of CA legal handgun.

CA legal handgun meaning a handgun that does not violate CA generally prohibited weapons laws or CA assault weapons laws.

Thank you Quiet, good to know. So one could divine that there is no specific PC (yet) that would prohibit someone from turning a CA7 into a semi-automatic pistol?
Like many Calgunners have told me over the years, if there is no law/PC specifically forbidding something, then it is legal.

[ClayBreaker]

Also...

The CA DOJ BOF notice is on dimensionally compliant bolt-action/break-open single-shot pistols.

The Franklin Armory CA7 is an on-Roster bolt-action repeating pistol.

So, the CA DOJ BOF notice does not apply to the Franklin Armory CA7 because it is not a dimensionally compliant bolt-action/break-open single-shot pistol.
^Franklin Armory CA7 = bolt-action repeating pistol.

There are no CA laws/regulations or CA DOJ notices that prohibits an on-Roster handgun from being modified into another type of CA legal handgun, even though do so makes the resulting handgun into an off-Roster handgun.
There are no CA laws/regulations or CA DOJ notices that prohibits an off-Roster revolver, off-Roster semi-auto pistol, off-Roster bolt-action repeating pistol, off-Roster lever-action repeating pistol, or off-Roster pump-action repeating pistol from being modified into another type of CA legal handgun.

CA legal handgun meaning a handgun that does not violate CA generally prohibited weapons laws or CA assault weapons laws.

Thank you sir. I was a bit worried, because the guy at Turners was telling me the new ATF brace stuff effects it. I suppose he is not a lawyer.

[Peahi2]

Thank you sir. I was a bit worried, because the guy at Turners was telling me the new ATF brace stuff effects it. I suppose he is not a lawyer.

He is not paid to provide legal advice or predict legal trends.. He is about as knowledgeable in law as a refi broker is predicting where interest rates are gonna go. If the refi guy had a crystal ball on interest rates, he would be a portfolio manager on Wall Street, not selling loan refi's on the retail level.

[ivanimal]

The last posting on this specific subject is a few months old. Like it says in my original post the ATF has been on a good one regarding braces and AR pistols. That being said we in California have our own laws to deal with aside from the federal level. Keeping BOTH what the ATF is doing AND California law in mind would there be an issue is my question? Prior to the ATF over stepping once again the answer was obvious. So thank you for being helpful you bunch of degenerates.

You are welcome enjoy some time off from the forum.

[Scratch705]

i feel like the first two posters that OP was responding to deserved to be called like.

if all they wanted to do was just go "use the search function durrrr" when the OP specifically said if there has been anything new due to the ever changing gun laws we have.

i mean the rifle flowchart linked in the top bar still says bullet buttons is legal to use.

[nickrdz]

i feel like the first two posters that OP was responding to deserved to be called like.

if all they wanted to do was just go "use the search function durrrr" when the OP specifically said if there has been anything new due to the ever changing gun laws we have.

i mean the rifle flowchart linked in the top bar still says bullet buttons is legal to use.

I agree. If someone was just trying to find the right answer to comply with the law, than we as a community need to help each other take appropriate steps. I thought this was Calguns where we cherish our constitutional rights, worked as a community of information, and obeyed the law.

[saudadeii]

Maglatch even offers a conversion service.

https://maglatchusa.com/franklin-armory-ca7-conversion-service/

[Capybara]

Maglatch even offers a conversion service.

https://maglatchusa.com/franklin-arm...rsion-service/

Wow, interesting! That's pretty cool that they offer this. Love Franklin Armory, they've always been at the forefront of challenging the stupidity of this state.

[jimbo74]

do not take the opinion of anyone that works at Turner's lol