Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Single Shot Exemption Explanation/Database Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Cyc Wid It
    Veteran Member
    • Mar 2009
    • 4485

    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.
    Last edited by Cyc Wid It; 06-04-2014, 10:14 PM.
    WTS all BNIB: Colt S70 Repro, HK45c, Gen4 G19

    Comment

    • Scar13
      Member
      • Nov 2012
      • 233

      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.

      Comment

      • morrcarr67
        I need a LIFE!!
        • Jul 2010
        • 15030

        Originally posted by 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.
        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
        Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

        Originally posted by Erion929

        Comment

        • jimmyjjohn
          Junior Member
          • Jan 2014
          • 14

          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
          Governance and Management Services Australia , 3D Rendering Services in United States , Cab to San Diego Airport , Tea Party Rentals , Native American Jobs , Video Production Company Sydney

          Comment

          • keenkeen
            Calguns Addict
            • May 2011
            • 6782

            Originally posted by 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
            OK then:

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

            "But far more numerous was the herd of such, Who think too little and who talk too much." -John Dryden

            Comment

            • ron1117
              Junior Member
              • Jun 2014
              • 7

              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
              Last edited by ron1117; 06-14-2014, 7:30 AM. Reason: typos

              Comment

              • norcalcyclist
                CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
                CGN Contributor - Lifetime
                • Apr 2012
                • 290

                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

                Comment

                • EBR Works
                  Vendor/Retailer
                  • Dec 2007
                  • 10492

                  Originally posted by 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
                  CGF is looking into this to try to find a solution.


                  Check out our e-commerce site here:

                  www.ebrworks.com

                  Serving you from Prescott, AZ

                  Comment

                  • advocatusdiaboli
                    Calguns Addict
                    • Sep 2009
                    • 5521

                    Originally posted by ron1117
                    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.
                    Last edited by advocatusdiaboli; 06-14-2014, 9:59 AM.
                    Benefactor Life Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran, Black Ribbon in Memoriam for the deceased 2nd Amendment
                    sigpic

                    Comment

                    • LBDamned
                      I need a LIFE!!
                      • Feb 2011
                      • 19040

                      Originally posted by advocatusdiaboli
                      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.
                      Last edited by LBDamned; 06-14-2014, 10:24 AM.
                      "Kamala is a radical leftist lunatic" ~ Donald J. Trump

                      Comment

                      • morrcarr67
                        I need a LIFE!!
                        • Jul 2010
                        • 15030

                        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
                        Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

                        Originally posted by Erion929

                        Comment

                        • LBDamned
                          I need a LIFE!!
                          • Feb 2011
                          • 19040

                          Originally posted by 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
                          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.
                          "Kamala is a radical leftist lunatic" ~ Donald J. Trump

                          Comment

                          • advocatusdiaboli
                            Calguns Addict
                            • Sep 2009
                            • 5521

                            Originally posted by LBDamned
                            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.
                            Last edited by advocatusdiaboli; 06-14-2014, 1:04 PM.
                            Benefactor Life Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran, Black Ribbon in Memoriam for the deceased 2nd Amendment
                            sigpic

                            Comment

                            • advocatusdiaboli
                              Calguns Addict
                              • Sep 2009
                              • 5521

                              Originally posted by LBDamned
                              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.
                              Last edited by advocatusdiaboli; 06-14-2014, 1:35 PM.
                              Benefactor Life Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran, Black Ribbon in Memoriam for the deceased 2nd Amendment
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              • LBDamned
                                I need a LIFE!!
                                • Feb 2011
                                • 19040

                                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.
                                "Kamala is a radical leftist lunatic" ~ Donald J. Trump

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                UA-8071174-1