Manufacturing an unsafe handgun.

[Leon DeGamme]

Would removing a LCI from a handgun in order to mill it for an optic or replacing the slide with one that doesnt have a LCI be considered “manufacturing or causing to be manufactured an unsafe handgun per PC 32000? I did a search and there was a topic on this in 2019 but… I don’t see how that flies in regards to PC 32000 “manufacturing”

[foothillman]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I vote no.
Change what you want.
California forces gun manufacturers to add more mechanical parts.
In my opinion the more parts the higher the probability of a malfunction.
This is my definition of "unsafe"

Sorry but CADOJ does not even know.
"The conversion of a single shot pistol to a semi-automatic pistol may constitute the manufacturing of an unsafe handgun, in violation of California Penal Code section 32000 (a), a misdemeanor."

No definition for "manufacturing"
Is removing/adding/replacing manufacturing?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=2.&ti tle=1.&part=6.&chapter=&article=

[Rumblemonkey]

If one had an off roster without the mag DO and LCI, it most certainly would NOT be considered dangerous legally.(IMO) Following this logic, changing the mag dropout or slide feature would NOT make it dangerous?

[abinsinia]

Here's a data point for ya.

20 Q. And have you ever tried to remove a magazine disconnect
21 mechanism from a firearm?
22A. I have not.
23Q. And would removing a magazine disconnect mechanism from a
24 roster handgun--would that be a violation of the Unsafe
25 Handgun Act?

1 A. Technically, if you consider the manufacturer, it would be
2 3200--Penal Code Violation 32000,32,000.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.858747/gov.uscourts.cacd.858747.54.0.pdf

The quote is from page 196 and page 197. It from testimony of Salvador Gonzales Special Agent Supervisor.

[P5Ret]

Am I missing where the OP says anything about a mag disconnect? Just answer the damn question asked, without bringing irrelevant information to the discussion.

OP in my opinion, either purchasing a new slide or having one cut for an optic that requires the LCI to be removed is not manufacturing, it's modifying. I'll let you look up the definition of each to make your own decision.

[enorbit3]

I dont think so. but im not a lawyer. I replaced the slide on my CA Shield9 for an optic ready one. There is no LCI on it. It is on my CCW permit.

[RickD427]

All,

This issue has its roots in the Fourth Circuit's decision in Brougman v Carver, coupled with California's new definition of "Manufacturing" contained in PC section 29180.

In sum, the Broughman case held that you can "Manufacture" a new firearm from an old firearm. Prior to Broughman, the common belief was that once a firearm was "Manufactured" any changes made to it were simply alterations made to an existing firearm. There no longer is a clear distinction between "Manufacturing" and "Modifying". It's important to realize that Broughman was a Fourth Circuit case and is not binding on California courts.

However, in 2022, California created a new definition of "Manufacturing" that incorporated the Broughman view in Penal Code section 29180. PC 29180 is binding on California courts.

SAS Gonzalez' testimony in the Boland case reflected the Broughman/PC 29180 understanding of the term "Manufacturing". Although he considered the example of a Magazine Disconnect device, the same analysis would apply to a LCI or Slide Exchange.

The Broughman decision clearly pointed out that very minor changes to a firearm could not be considered as "Manufacturing", but it is important to note that PC section 29180 did not incorporate the same limiting language.

[naz]

Would removing a LCI from a handgun in order to mill it for an optic or replacing the slide with one that doesnt have a LCI be considered “manufacturing or causing to be manufactured an unsafe handgun per PC 32000? I did a search and there was a topic on this in 2019 but… I don’t see how that flies in regards to PC 32000 “manufacturing”

consider finding a ca 2A knowledge attorney and consult with them. They will be the one defending you in court , god forbid, so get their opinion on whether they thing the mods you have in mind will hurt your case or not.

[Leon DeGamme]

Damn….not worth the headache. It was just an option I was considering but not looking to have to hire an attorney just to switch slides.

[Citadelgrad87]

All,

This issue has its roots in the Fourth Circuit's decision in Brougman v Carver, coupled with California's new definition of "Manufacturing" contained in PC section 29180.

In sum, the Broughman case held that you can "Manufacture" a new firearm from an old firearm. Prior to Broughman, the common belief was that once a firearm was "Manufactured" any changes made to it were simply alterations made to an existing firearm. There no longer is a clear distinction between "Manufacturing" and "Modifying". It's important to realize that Broughman was a Fourth Circuit case and is not binding on California courts.

However, in 2022, California created a new definition of "Manufacturing" that incorporated the Broughman view in Penal Code section 29180. PC 29180 is binding on California courts.

SAS Gonzalez' testimony in the Boland case reflected the /PC 29180 understanding of the term "Manufacturing". Although he considered the example of a Magazine Disconnect device, the same analysis would apply to a LCI or Slide Exchange.

The Broughman decision clearly pointed out that very minor changes to a firearm could not be considered as "Manufacturing", but it is important to note that PC section 29180 did not incorporate the same limiting language.

I don't disagree, but there is an excellent argument that the off roster scheme makes is perfectly legal to buy, for example, a Sig 365 off roster handgun. This version has no external safety, no LCI, and no mag disconnect, and not even a trigger safety like a glock. IF this is "unsafe", why can it be purchased legally?

I see that argument that a mag disconnect or an LCI makes a gun "less" safe, but don't see how it can be deemed "UNsafe", since the law lets the same owner but one, legally, without those...features.


I am not volunteering to be the test case, but this seems like it would be pretty tough for a prosecutor to explain.

[ar15barrels]

there is an excellent argument that the off roster scheme makes is perfectly legal to buy, for example, a Sig 365 off roster handgun. This version has no external safety, no LCI, and no mag disconnect, and not even a trigger safety like a glock. IF this is "unsafe", why can it be purchased legally?

The difference is that when you purchase that off-roster handgun and leave it as the manufacturer made it, it's a "safe" firearm according to the manufacturer.
When you purchase a CA compliant handgun and defeat any functions/features of it, the manufacturer is going to say it's now unsafe because you have changed it.
This has nothing to do with the CA definition of unsafe, but everything to do with the fact that the gun is not in the configuration it was originally manufactured.
The actual presence of features or lack of features does not matter as much as the fact that a gun was modified after it left the manufacturer or left exactly as the manufacturer made it.
So if you buy an off-roster with the exact features you want and leave it stock, you are in a better legal position than if you buy an on-roster and modify it to be just like an off-roster or any different than how the manufacturer made it.

If the OP wants to be 100% certain his gun is not an unsafe handgun, he is best served by purchasing an off-roster in the exact factory configuration he is looking for.
Such gun will likely pass muster with any issuing agency.

[Citadelgrad87]

The difference is that when you purchase that off-roster handgun and leave it as the manufacturer made it, it's a "safe" firearm according to the manufacturer.
When you purchase a CA compliant handgun and defeat any functions/features of it, the manufacturer is going to say it's now unsafe because you have changed it.
This has nothing to do with the CA definition of unsafe, but everything to do with the fact that the gun is not in the configuration it was originally manufactured.
The actual presence of features or lack of features does not matter as much as the fact that a gun was modified after it left the manufacturer or left exactly as the manufacturer made it.
So if you buy an off-roster with the exact features you want and leave it stock, you are in a better legal position than if you buy an on-roster and modify it to be just like an off-roster or any different than how the manufacturer made it.

If the OP wants to be 100% certain his gun is not an unsafe handgun, he is best served by purchasing an off-roster in the exact factory configuration he is looking for.
Such gun will likely pass muster with any issuing agency.

Cali is effed, i’ll give you that.

but, A manufacturer who makes a gun with and without an lci is NOT going to take the position that changing one to make it exactly like another gun they sell isnt safe. They cant do that, or they would be opening themselves up to lawsuits alleging they are selling unsafe guns.

again, i dont want to be the test case, but ive argued my share of liability cases to a jury, and the fact that a mfr makes and sells, and Ca permits us to buy, a gun without that lci would make prosecution difficult.


I do completely agree, though, that the safest bet is to buy an off roster model without the feature(s).

[abinsinia]

It seems to me that it might be illegal to use an after market magazine because the drop testing was done with the factory magazine.

[Rumblemonkey]

Jeez, don't change the sights, or trigger pull, or grip, or anything! This arguement is similar to the "hollow points or personal protection ammo makes the weapon deadlier" bs. Next would be sig saying only use sig ammo or it is dangerous! Ford says only use ford gasoline! No dice.

[igs]

Would removing a LCI from a handgun in order to mill it for an optic or replacing the slide with one that doesnt have a LCI be considered “manufacturing or causing to be manufactured an unsafe handgun per PC 32000? I did a search and there was a topic on this in 2019 but… I don’t see how that flies in regards to PC 32000 “manufacturing”

Manufacturing = "devoting time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms or ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms or ammunition manufactured."