Single Shot Exemption Explanation/Database Thread

[Cal Liberty]

No you do not. Just make sure they mail it back to you and not a FFL. You should discuss this with Vector before sending it.

I didn't even think about that. I'll call to double check they will be sending it back to me, I just assumed they would send it back to me and not an FFL but you know what they say about assumptions...

The SSE is only needed to DROS the firearm when the transfer is not exempt, such as a PPT. After that you can do what you want, as long as it is not considered a so-called a-salt weapon.

It can be sent in for repairs as long as it is CA legal.

Wow thanks for the quick reply, that should work. Now I just need to get home from work in time to call them before they close.

[anoldguy]

I know for certain that you can send in a firearm directly to some manufacturers for repairs via UPS or FedEX, and they will send it directly back to you, 'signature required' for obvious reasons. You can't use USPS though in either direction from what I understand. An FFL might be able to, but why would you want to go through one when you can ship direct?
Just my 2 cents worth.
M

[Cal Liberty]

I know for certain that you can send in a firearm directly to some manufacturers for repairs via UPS or FedEX, and they will send it directly back to you, 'signature required' for obvious reasons. You can't use USPS
M

Ya I've used FedEx. They are easy to work with. Had to send a Ruger Revolver in some time back and everything went very well (By the way Ruger was amazing in how they handled it). This will be my first time having to send in a SSE item so didn't want to step into something I might have missed. But it a sounds like I should be good. Thanks Calguns this forum is amazing!


Guns are like chips, you can't stop at just one!

[stilly]

I am a little irritated now.

I just received a phone call from the DOJ - well, it was a MESSAGE that she left, but she said that Unless I am a PEACE officer, I can not build my own pistol in California. Then she started to say that the reason is because there is testing and so forth that guns have to go through in order to be sold in CA. Now, I know what SSE is, but she acted like she did not know what SSE was and I THINK she quoted some senate bill in the recording she left. WTF? I know I acted ignorant when I left the message with the DOJ, but I did not mean to sound STUPID ignorant.

She asked for me to call her back. BTW, I sent an e-mail to the DOJ telling them that my friends had made their own pistols and they told me that I should make my own also and as long as I made it as an SSE pistol that it was legal.

SSE is exempt from the roster yes? So then what is the difference between manufacturing an SSE and purchasing an SSE? SSE trumps the roster completely I thought. Is this crap clearly defined or won through case law somewhere? I need some talking points to point out please when I call back...

[Cyc Wid It]

Why would they even have called you? I'm confused. Need more info.

Anyway, sorry I'm a little behind on my checking up on things, but I'll make a note of the changes when they're done.

[kemasa]

Why would they even have called you? I'm confused. Need more info.

See the OP:

BTW, I sent an e-mail to the DOJ telling them ...

[tonelar]

I am a little irritated now.

I just received a phone call from the DOJ - well, it was a MESSAGE that she left, but she said that Unless I am a PEACE officer, I can not build my own pistol in California. Then she started to say that the reason is because there is testing and so forth that guns have to go through in order to be sold in CA. Now, I know what SSE is, but she acted like she did not know what SSE was and I THINK she quoted some senate bill in the recording she left. WTF? I know I acted ignorant when I left the message with the DOJ, but I did not mean to sound STUPID ignorant.

She asked for me to call her back. BTW, I sent an e-mail to the DOJ telling them that my friends had made their own pistols and they told me that I should make my own also and as long as I made it as an SSE pistol that it was legal.

SSE is exempt from the roster yes? So then what is the difference between manufacturing an SSE and purchasing an SSE? SSE trumps the roster completely I thought. Is this crap clearly defined or won through case law somewhere? I need some talking points to point out please when I call back...

Who does this?!

[Lead Waster]

I'm sorry Stilly, but what does "building a firearm for personal use" have to do with the Single Shot Exemption of the roster law?

I thought the roster is for guns to be sold by an FFL to the public. SSE and building an 80% finished slab of metal into a firearm don't seem to be relevant to each other.

[advocatusdiaboli]

I'm sorry Stilly, but what does "building a firearm for personal use" have to do with the Single Shot Exemption of the roster law?

I thought the roster is for guns to be sold by an FFL to the public. SSE and building an 80% finished slab of metal into a firearm don't seem to be relevant to each other.

I am with you on this...and further, I'd like to know why they even knew to call him???

[kemasa]

There is a CA issue in that if you build your own firearm, that it has to be exempt (ie. SSE) or you have violated the law in regards to the certified list. In reading the CA PC, you need to make it in an exempt configuration, then you can convert it.

If you intend to build a firearm yourself, you need to be aware of the CA PC. Ignorance of the law is only an excuse for the government.

BTW, if you read the OP, you would know exactly why they knew to call him.

[Tincon]

There is a CA issue in that if you build your own firearm, that it has to be exempt (ie. SSE) or you have violated the law in regards to the certified list. In reading the CA PC, you need to make it in an exempt configuration, then you can convert it.

The bad legal advice comes home to roost, and yet you are still giving it. Amazing.


Manufacturing "unsafe handguns" IS illegal. (See Note 1) You have a case where not only is the court telling you how words in general are defined absent a statutory definition, but specifically defining "manufacturing." (See Note 2) You have legislative history recognized by case law which clearly shows that the legislative intent is to reduce the proliferation of so-called "unsafe handguns." (See Note 3). You have an enacted provision of statute which includes the category exemptions you are trying to apply which expressly states that the exemptions are only intended for "Olympic-style shooting, without affecting other pistols regulated under existing law." (See Note 4.)

So this remains, at very best, a "grey area" until someone is charged and convicted and the conviction is reviewed by an appellate court. So when someone says something like "it's perfectly legal to do it," they are absolutely wrong.

Note 1:

Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who
manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state
for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends
any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail not exceeding one year. PC 32000(a)

Note 2:

Legislature in other contexts has defined manufacturing to mean making, preparing or processing. (citations omitted) People v. Jackson, 218 Cal. App. 3d 1493, 1503, 267 Cal. Rptr. 841, 847 (Ct. App. 1990).

and

[T]he words "manufactures," "produces" and "processes" do not have separate technical meanings apart from those attributed to them in general usage. (See People v. Combs (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 422, 427 [211 Cal.Rptr. 617].) Both the dictionary definition and the commonsense, everyday usage of these terms entail notions of the ongoing and progressive making, assembly or creation of an item by hand or machine. (Ibid.; People v. Tierce, supra, 165 Cal. App. 3d at p. 266.). Jackson at 1503.

Note 3:
Note 4:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this bill to simplify the application of its provisions by the Department of Justice and to ensure that these provisions only have the effect of allowing access to, and use of, pistols for Olympic-style shooting, without affecting other pistols regulated under existing law.

Assembly Bill No. 2351 (emphasis added)

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=14014299&postcount=16

[Tincon]

I'm sorry Stilly, but what does "building a firearm for personal use" have to do with the Single Shot Exemption of the roster law?

I thought the roster is for guns to be sold by an FFL to the public. SSE and building an 80% finished slab of metal into a firearm don't seem to be relevant to each other.

They are related because manufacturing an unsafe handgun is illegal. This applies to private persons building pistols from "80% receivers".

[furyous68]

Tincon... Isn't Note 1 in reference to SELLING "unsafe" handguns?

Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who
manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state
for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends
any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail not exceeding one year. PC 32000(a)

In Stilly's case, this is a personal firearm not being manufactured for sale, but for his own private use. Which brings up a different question: How can you purchase an off-roster handgun from an LEO via PPT if it is illegal to sell, give, or lend an "unsafe" handgun?

[kemasa]

The bad legal advice comes home to roost, and yet you are still giving it. Amazing.

Nice snide comment, too bad it is false.

[Tincon]

Tincon... Isn't Note 1 in reference to SELLING "unsafe" handguns?

No. The prohibition on manufacture is separate and in addition to the prohibition on sale.

How can you purchase an off-roster handgun from an LEO via PPT if it is illegal to sell, give, or lend an "unsafe" handgun?

The penal code contains an exemption for all PPT sales. Which is why you can sell a gun that you owned before the roster, or which has fallen off of it.