Single Shot Exemption Explanation/Database Thread

[Tincon]

Nice snide comment, too bad it is false.

The part about it being bad legal info or the part about how it finally got some in trouble?

[riderr]

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)

Well, the definition is rather confusing. If assembling is manufacturing, then you break the law every time you re-assemble your perfectly legal off-roster gun bought via PPT (or just dropped off the roster over time). So, you field strip it, clean, re-assemble and go to jail. It's a little weird, but this is a logical outcome from the quotes you have posted.

So this remains, at very best, a "grey area"

It's my opinion too.

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.

Here is the interesting observation. Nobody yet has been charged. I am sure plenty of SSE converted guns were confiscated or captured by LE. The AG office is well aware of SSE conversion wave, but yet no one has been yet charged. There wasn't even any statement officially made to the public. Moreover, legislature works hard on amending the law and making this type of conversion illegal. It makes me think, this gray colored area is a light gray, not a dark gray

[Tincon]

Well, the definition is rather confusing. If assembling is manufacturing, then you break the law every time you re-assemble your perfectly legal off-roster gun bought via PPT (or just dropped off the roster over time). So, you field strip it, clean, re-assemble and go to jail. It's a little weird, but this is a logical outcome from the quotes you have posted.

Not so. Think of a large capacity magazine. It is illegal to manufacture one. But if you have one legally, is taking it apart and putting it back together manufacturing? I doubt it. Once the thing exists, I think it continues to exist as a sum of its parts. However, if you were to acquire the parts to build a new large capacity magazine, you would almost certainly have manufactured it in violation of the law. The same would be true if you took a modified 10/30 magazine and converted it to a 30 round magazine. I see no reason why unsafe handguns would be treated any differently.

Here is the interesting observation. Nobody yet has been charged. I am sure plenty of SSE converted guns were confiscated or captured by LE. The AG office is well aware of SSE conversion wave, but yet no one has been yet charged. There wasn't even any statement officially made to the public. Moreover, legislature works hard on amending the law and making this type of conversion illegal. It makes me think, this gray colored area is a light gray, not a dark gray

The AG does not generally make decisions on who gets charged with a crime. That's up the the 58 individual district attorneys. It is true I have not heard of anyone being charged, but that does not mean charges cannot be brought at any time. Just look at the tannerite situation. SSE has not really been around very long, at least in practice. Given the right set of circumstances, I could absolutely see an anti DA going after someone. After all, what have they got to lose?

[riderr]

Not so. Think of a large capacity magazine.

I see your analogy. However, the large caps are clearly grandfathered in the law. SSE legislation is rather fuzzy. Like if I fieldstrip off-roster gun and put it back, it's not manufacturing. What if I replace a worn out barrel? Still legal. What if I replace it with an aftermarket one? Is it the same gun now? No, according to the law. Does it have to go through CADOJ test? Obviously, no. Can I sell it? Hell, yeah. Is it considered manufacturing of an unsafe gun? Did I break the law? So, it comes down to the question - what is gun manufacturing and what's not.
Like I said, it's gray area, but no one was charged or tried yet, even though SSE guns are everywhere. If it was something, DA could build a case for it, they would have done it, by now. If they have enough legal grounds, out legislature wouldn't stubbornly pursue SSE ban bill for two sessions in the row

[Tincon]

If it was something, DA could build a case for it, they would have done it, by now.

I don't think that defense is going to hold up in court if you are wrong.

[Ocguy31]

Good luck and I'm sure you are with a competent attorney.

[riderr]

I don't think that defense is going to hold up in court if you are wrong.

Totally agree. That's why I also consider it a gray area.

[SNBI]

Quote:
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)


So assuming a DA somewhere decides to prosecute, who would theoretically be on the hook, the buyer or the FFL? Is there a statute that prohibits the buying of a gun that has already been imported/manufactured/kept for sale in the state? These seem to prohibit the manufacture and selling not the buying of...?

[kemasa]

The problem is that you have to follow all of the spaghetti. There are sections which say you can't do something, then other sections which say that other section does not apply. There is no forward reference, only a back reference. 32000 should reference all the exemptions, but it doesn't.

Under CA PC 32000 EVERYTHING is prohibited UNLESS it is exempt. There is an exemption for PPTs, so you can transfer the firearm which is already in CA, but you can't ship it and transfer it to another CA resident because that is not exempt.

Then there is the issue about what is considered manufacturing and there can be a difference between CA and the Feds.

The "fun" part is the "offers or exposes for sale". If you post an ad while in CA for a firearm which is not on the list, is that a violation of the law? If the transfer is done as a PPT, it would be exempt, but that is after the fact, after the offering for sale. The same is true for so-called high capacity magazines for when you will only sell them outside of CA.

[advocatusdiaboli]

If it was something, DA could build a case for it, they would have done it, by now. If they have enough legal grounds, out legislature wouldn't stubbornly pursue SSE ban bill for two sessions in the row

Or, more likely, the DOJ doesn't want any DA to pursue such a case as it could very likely end with the death of The Roster. they'd rather keep an unconstitutional law difficult to challenge than pave the way for its demise.

[advocatusdiaboli]

The problem is that you have to follow all of the spaghetti. There are sections which say you can't do something, then other sections which say that other section does not apply. There is no forward reference, only a back reference. 32000 should reference all the exemptions, but it doesn't.

This is what happens when over-zealous legislators try to compete with each other to "do good" and create labyrinthine regulations with intra- and inter-regulation conflicts. It is those very complications (usually added to muster enough parties to vote for passage) that create the mess. The SSE in the current The Roster law is a great example—the legislators shot themselves in the foot over that one though they are now attempting to correct it. One set of uniform firearms regulations (within constitutional bounds) for each state should be a federal law.

It begs the question: what happens in a firearms trial by the state where regulations conflict? That local regulations can sometimes supersede state regulations (Sunnyvale's hi-cap mag law over state law for instance). But what if the conflicting laws are both CA Penal Code? What then?

[Cyc Wid It]

Auburn Guns and Ammo has been added.

[riderr]

Or, more likely, the DOJ doesn't want any DA to pursue such a case as it could very likely end with the death of The Roster. they'd rather keep an unconstitutional law difficult to challenge than pave the way for its demise.

I doubt any judge will go explore the legality of the roster law in a criminal case, when the charges are pressed again a citizen who had "manufactured" a semi-auto from SSE

[RippSpeed]

wait wait ... so we're back to having to be an 07 FFL to do SSE

[manywelps]

wait wait ... so we're back to having to be an 07 FFL to do SSE

No.