Single Shot Exemption Explanation/Database Thread

[Cyc Wid It]

07 is not required for "standard" conversions.
A functional conversion IS required. Jamming in an insert haphazardly a conversion does not make.

Anyway, more shop additions incoming.

Some logistical changes: the Socal shops have been bumped down to post 2, the content of post 2 has been bumped to post 3 due to character limits.

[Scar13]

Does anyone know of a So Cal FFL that will SSE the Walther PK380? I picked some FNX's from Entreprise a few months ago, working on a CZP01 with Parallax, but am interested in the PK380.

[morrcarr67]

Does anyone know of a So Cal FFL that will SSE the Walther PK380? I picked some FNX's from Entreprise a few months ago, working on a CZP01 with Parallax, but am interested in the PK380.

Talk to Baboosh. He's an 07 out of Alta Loma. He's a member here.

Here's his for sale thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=904714

[jimmyjjohn]

I am waiting for an actual confirmation from them, rather than "Should be no problem".

A few guys still think it is 'illegal' to convert a single shot to semi auto (XDm, Glock, Draco, AR, etc). Im hoping to get an XDm soon through them, otherwise, it will be bright spot or Rifle Gear.
Reply With Quote

[keenkeen]

I am waiting for an actual confirmation from them, rather than "Should be no problem".

A few guys still think it is 'illegal' to convert a single shot to semi auto (XDm, Glock, Draco, AR, etc). Im hoping to get an XDm soon through them, otherwise, it will be bright spot or Rifle Gear.
Reply With Quote

OK then:

"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." -Miles Kington

[ron1117]

In the original post under FAQ, it states SSE guns are ok for CCW. I just had my "interview" in Ventura County and the officer asked me "are any of the Glocks on my application Gen4 bought through SSE", I told them one of them was. He said they will not be permitted on a CCW unless in the single shot mode, and since no one will carry them with a10 inch barrel, the are just excluding them. With out arguing, I asked for more explanation on why and was told that SSE is exploiting a loophole in the law, and there is to much liability if it was ever used in a self defense shooting why you went around the law.

Posted both to share before someone might invest in a SSE firearm for CCW in Ventura and also for any advise on "fighting" this.

Thanks

[norcalcyclist]

FWIW - I just renewed as well and had a P938 I was adding...got "the look" and was asked about it by the volunteer at the desk...then the actual Sheriff walked by and chuckled, saying "Looks like someone else figured out a way around the stupid roster, good for you...."

So, at least in Shasta Co, SSE weapons are still approved and accepted. Besides, there are several other ways to obtain the weapon besides SSE (intra-family transfer, PPT, moving here from a "free State" with said weapon, etc...

I'd consider arguing the issue...it's a legally owned weapon. That would be like refusing a DROS for an AR or other EBR based on a bullet button as a work-around the law.

Just my $0.02

[EBR Works]

In the original post under FAQ, it states SSE guns are ok for CCW. I just had my "interview" in Ventura County and the officer asked me "are any of the Glocks on my application Gen4 bought through SSE", I told them one of them was. He said they will not be permitted on a CCW unless in the single shot mode, and since no one will carry them with a10 inch barrel, the are just excluding them. With out arguing, I asked for more explanation on why and was told that SSE is exploiting a loophole in the law, and there is to much liability if it was ever used in a self defense shooting why you went around the law.

Posted both to share before someone might invest in a SSE firearm for CCW in Ventura and also for any advise on "fighting" this.

Thanks

CGF is looking into this to try to find a solution.

[advocatusdiaboli]

was told that SSE is exploiting a loophole in the law, and there is to much liability if it was ever used in a self defense shooting why you went around the law.

I am so sick of this total horse manure.

First, you obtained that firearm legally: 100%. A loop hole is still legal. ALWAYS.

Second, think this through: what if you bought it used from an LEO via PPT legally (a legal exemption from The Roster)? Are you liable then for legally buying and using a legal gun? Of course not! It is still PERFECTLY LEGAL to own and use. The fpisotl isn't unsafe and you bought it legally. I have older Sigs that have fallen off the Roster. Are they illegal now? NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

POSSESSION OF AN OFF-ROSTER FIREARM IS NOT ILLEGAL. Purchasing it not through an exception including SSE if you are not an exempt person is illegal. Owning it no matter how you legally bought it is not. Same with standard capacity magazines (until they outlaw them like in Sunnyvale).

There is no legal liability since the very same pistol can be bought legally many ways including the SSE. The court would laugh if the Plaintiff said the pistol is only unsafe if you buy it in a certain way, otherwise it is perfectly safe. what a sham.

This FUD needs to stop.

[LBDamned]

I am so sick of this total horse manure.

First, you obtained that firearm legally: 100%. A loop hole is still legal. ALWAYS.

Second, think this through: what if you bought it used from an LEO via PPT legally (a legal exemption from The Roster)? Are you liable then for legally buying and using a legal gun? Of course not! It is still PERFECTLY LEGAL to own and use. The fpisotl isn't unsafe and you bought it legally. I have older Sigs that have fallen off the Roster. Are they illegal now? NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

POSSESSION OF AN OFF-ROSTER FIREARM IS NOT ILLEGAL. Purchasing it not through an exception including SSE if you are not an exempt person is illegal. Owning it no matter how you legally bought it is not. Same with standard capacity magazines (until they outlaw them like in Sunnyvale).

There is no legal liability since the very same pistol can be bought legally many ways including the SSE. The court would laugh if the Plaintiff said the pistol is only unsafe if you buy it in a certain way, otherwise it is perfectly safe. what a sham.

This FUD needs to stop.

except that some CCW IA are now even stating it and denying on CCW... did you read the post a few above yours? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...postcount=1343

Remember, this is an SSE issue, not "Off Roster" issue... we all understand there is no difference in the safety, function, use, etc whether purchased as SSE or PPT, etc... but this is CA and the law here isn't about logic (as you know). The gun is registered as a single shot pistol with a 6" barrel... when you shoot someone with a multi shot shorter barrel pistol, it's likely that a prosecutor will try to exploit that (again, don't get confused by logic vs CA anti 2A law).

whether its an issue or not is certainly not 100% determined... so as much as the FUD needs to stop, the idea that its a non-issue needs to stop as well... it's a grey area and thats undeniable.

Having that been said, I'm a proponent of SSE (even on CCW) - I have three SSE pistols... so I'm not trying to imply anyone should refrain... however, it's important to be aware that it may be an issue at some point.

ETA: I didn't realize the post your quoted was taken out of context to the entire point... it's not FUD when the issuing agency of your CCW is denying you the ability to list the weapon on your permit. At that point it's fact.

[morrcarr67]

I had a dealer once tell me that you had to send in the VolReg form on a SSE gun you had converted to semiauto. While I know this is not true I wonder if it would make a difference to those agencies not allowing SSE pistols on LTC's?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[LBDamned]

I had a dealer once tell me that you had to send in the VolReg form on a SSE gun you had converted to semiauto. While I know this is not true I wonder if it would make a difference to those agencies not allowing SSE pistols on LTC's?

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

some have suggested PPT to and from (to cleanse the SSE)... I'm not sure if VolReg would create conflict if the weapon already shows registered to you... if for some reason it did not show up (several CCW reports that their weapons aren't listed), VolReg would be a great option to cover all bases.

Maybe those more knowledgeable can chime in...

Having registration records showing something other than SSE would cover all bases it seems.

[advocatusdiaboli]

except that some CCW IA are now even stating it and denying on CCW... did you read the post a few above yours? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...postcount=1343

Remember, this is an SSE issue, not "Off Roster" issue...

Not it is not, it's a some people misinterpreting the SSE issue. There is no law on the books that prohibits converting an SSE pistol to semi-auto. None. If I am wrong, please provide the PC section and quote it for me and I'll stand corrected. even if you call it 'manufacturing', then recall that the FFL that issues an SSE has to be a Class 07 FFL which is allowed to manufacture. There is no problem. Only ignorance. Anti-gun bias looking for a last resort excuse.

I agree it is legal threat, powered only by their ignorance, but I don't believe it will end up begin valid once tested in the courts. It is typical of CA that someone can infringe on your right through their own ignorance and you have to fight in the courts to educate them. It's the state in which we live.

If you mod the trigger, grips, finish, sights, etc., etc. on your On-Roster gun (which would make it Non-Roster, it is now illegal for CCW? That's what they are saying. What if you put in a standard-cap mag you legally own? Is that now an Off-Roster illegal pistol? That's what they are saying.

LEOs are still wrong about the very legal bullet button for the same reason: complex contradictory laws that confuse them. That doesn't mean they are right though it will eventually mean a court test if they persist in it.

The very fact the LEO said 'loophole' indicates his FUD because loopholes are legal ways around a law—emphasis on 'legal'. The Leo needs to lookup the definition of loophole. And I meant FUD on the part of the LEO not the person posting here. They are Fearful, Uncertain, and in Doubt because they don't really understand the SSE.

[advocatusdiaboli]

Having registration records showing something other than SSE would cover all bases it seems.

It doesn't matter. You are allowed, i.e. it is perfectly legal, for you to return the full function of your semi-auto pistol. You have committed no crime and your pistol is 100% legal to own and operate. Read the FAQ on SSE please and stop spreading FUD.

Use of drop-in parts to modify a handgun does not require an 07 FFL (i.e., a “manufacturing FFL”). Also, while 12125PC has murky wording related to importing “unsafe handguns” for sale, California FFLs are allowed to freely import non-Rostered handguns for prospective LEO sales - and handguns rendered into Roster-exempt status are legal for resale to ordinary Californians too. Note the 12133PC exemptions includes the controlling phrase, “The provisions of this chapter do not apply…”.


Modifying a handgun into another legal handgun configuration is legal.

There are no laws restricting an individual or gunsmith from changing an owner’s handgun in one legal configuration to any other legal configuration. (Regardless of its Roster status or Roster exemption: the Roster is really just a gating function to resale.)

Changes to caliber, barrel length can be made, along with rimfire / centerfire changeovers, conversion between single- & double-action status, and conversion between single-shot vs. repeater status, etc. [However, conversion to any of various prohibited firearm categories such as 12276/12276.1PC 'assault weapon', or short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, unconventional pistol, etc. must all be avoided! Both Federal and CA laws must be observed.]

LEOs are often wrong about firearms law: they are law enforcers, not law interpreters. And many don't want the little people armed like they are armed. Ask the people who went to court over their bullet buttons but had their cases dismissed. Don't forget, many of these are the same people who wouldn't follow the letter of the law on CCW and created a 'may issue' rather than a 'shall issue' regime. And it took lawsuits or threats of one to stop their nonsense. Same in this case.

I agree it is a legal threat, just like disbelief in the bullet button was, but it is a threat due to ignorance, not any viable regulation or doctrine of law nor any court decision.

[LBDamned]

I was referring specifically to SSE for CCW... which is what the post you quoted was regarding (but you left that part out when you commented)...

some issuing agencies are in fact denying SSE on CCW... it's fact. ron1117 stated his experience as such, as have others in this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=933277

Having a non-roster pistol on your CCW is not the issue... having an SSE (single shot, 6" barrel) pistol on your SSE and using something other than that may be an issue (and clearly is with some issuing agencies).

I'm not saying it's right. But its happening... and as I've stated before, to think a prosecutor for plaintiff (in the event of shooting) won't go there, you're kidding yourself... but Ive also stated I don't necessarily believe it will result in conviction... it's just wise for people to know that it can happen. *note, I've said over and over, "may" happen, "can" happen... For you to insist it won't happen is simply irresponsible.