Help me win an argument

[rsrocket1]

Another California law that turns you into a criminal for doing nothing. One year you can have your home made gun, the next year you are breaking the law.

[JamesCC]

Agree/ it?s against the law here to think with common sense

[IVC]

Just make sure it does not count as an AW.

While we do not know if he volreg'd or not, if he did, it is 100% legal.

Since it's an AR pistol, he must be in the clear not only with the serial number (which seems he isn't), but also with the AW laws (which I would guess he almost certainly isn't). But the OP seems to be asking only about the serial number issue, and not whether the gun is legal overall.

Based on the wording of the OP, I would say the OP wins - the question is only about the S/N and there is no mention of volreg.

[CSACANNONEER]

Since it's an AR pistol, he must be in the clear not only with the serial number (which seems he isn't), but also with the AW laws (which I would guess he almost certainly isn't). But the OP seems to be asking only about the serial number issue, and not whether the gun is legal overall.

Based on the wording of the OP, I would say the OP wins - the question is only about the S/N and there is no mention of volreg.

I have a friend (truly) that made an 80% AR pistol back in 2016. He had his name and serial number and place made engraved on it. I told him that with today's new rules he is supposed to have a serial number that the DOJ provides. Are these laws grandfathered? Meaning he made his pistol awhile ago does he need to meet todays new laws or is he right and it's legal as is which was legal when he made it.

There is $20 dollars and a case of Bud Light (hahaha) on the line. Thanks all.

Nope, the OP looses based on the information he presented. The OP claims that it NEEDS a DOJ assigned SN. The fact is, if it was vol reg'd with the original SN, it does NOT need a DOJ assigned SN. The fact that it is or isn't currently registered with the original SN doesn't even come into play for this argument. The fact that the OP is claiming a DOJ assigned SN is the ONLY way it can be legal is the issue. The OP is clearly wrong about that. The AW thing is a moot point for this argument since, the OP didn't make any claims about it being an AW or not. Yes, you are correct that it must comply with today's AW laws to be legal but, that has nothing to do with the OP's questioning the SN.