ar pistol registration

[RickD427]

Oh, yes, but let's play for a moment.

32005 obligates licensed manufacturers to "certify ... [a] revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person that the person manufactures is not an unsafe handgun".

What means is available to certify? Wouldn't the 32010 testing process be the expected way? For purposes of Division 10, Chapter 4, Article 5, wouldn't the description of 'manufacturer' in 32005(a) be what the Legislature meant in 1999?

Librarian,

OK, I'm playing. Here's my read on the interplay of the PC sections on unsafe handguns.

Section 32000 provides that "any person" who manufactures an "Unsafe Handgun" has committed a crime. Notice the provision for "any person." This would include personal manufacturers. The net effect of this requirement is that personal manufacturers must submit their weapons for the DOJ testing process under section 32010.

Section 32005 requires a licensed manufacturer to certify that their firearms are not "Unsafe Handguns." This section allows licensed manufactures to certify that production guns are not "Unsafe Handguns" based on the testing of an identical (except as allowed by section 32030) handgun. This allows commercial manufactures to sell their product without testing each gun that comes off the assembly line.

The Penal Code isn't using the term "manufacturer" the same in both sections. In section 32000 the term is "any person in the state who manufactures." In section 32005 the term is "licensed as a manufacturer." Those terms are not synonymous.

Just my two cents...............

[Librarian]

Librarian,

OK, I'm playing. Here's my read on the interplay of the PC sections on unsafe handguns.

Section 32000 provides that "any person" who manufactures an "Unsafe Handgun" has committed a crime. Notice the provision for "any person." This would include personal manufacturers. The net effect of this requirement is that personal manufacturers must submit their weapons for the DOJ testing process under section 32010.

Section 32005 requires a licensed manufacturer to certify that their firearms are not "Unsafe Handguns." This section allows licensed manufactures to certify that production guns are not "Unsafe Handguns" based on the testing of an identical (except as allowed by section 32030) handgun. This allows commercial manufactures to sell their product without testing each gun that comes off the assembly line.

The Penal Code isn't using the term "manufacturer" the same in both sections. In section 32000 the term is "any person in the state who manufactures." In section 32005 the term is "licensed as a manufacturer." Those terms are not synonymous.

Just my two cents...............

Your two cents is worth at least a nickel.

The Penal Code isn't using the term "manufacturer" the same in both sections.

Still playing here.

Let's look at how the term 'manufacturer' is used in PC.

These sections use the 'Federal license' language for 'manufacturer' -- licensed manufacturer of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code. --

17000, 17340, 17360, 23640 (at least, refers to 'licensed'), 23645, 26535, 26550, 26905, 27005, 27550, 27815, 27935, 28100, 28450, 28465, 29142, 31805

These sections do not use the 'Federal license' language

11106, 16780, 18900, (20150 uses 'manufacturer', but imitation firearms do not need a Federal license; similarly stun guns and tear gas), 23635, 23655, 23900-23920, 26175, 26555, 27530, 30510, 31905

(I quit; too much work to be exhaustive, so I'll settle for illustrative.)

I think most of the sections that do not use the license language should be inferred to mean to include it.

I think we shouldn't pick and choose, without further guidance; the 'inferred inclusion' is there everywhere 'manufacturer' (of firearms) is mentioned.

So, why is it, again, that we think the term 'manufacturer' means different things in consecutively numbered sections of the PC in the same Division and Chapter and Article?

Not at all saying this is right or conclusive.

[RickD427]

Your two cents is worth at least a nickel.



Still playing here.

Let's look at how the term 'manufacturer' is used in PC.

These sections use the 'Federal license' language for 'manufacturer' -- licensed manufacturer of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code. --

17000, 17340, 17360, 23640 (at least, refers to 'licensed'), 23645, 26535, 26550, 26905, 27005, 27550, 27815, 27935, 28100, 28450, 28465, 29142, 31805

These sections do not use the 'Federal license' language

11106, 16780, 18900, (20150 uses 'manufacturer', but imitation firearms do not need a Federal license; similarly stun guns and tear gas), 23635, 23655, 23900-23920, 26175, 26555, 27530, 30510, 31905

(I quit; too much work to be exhaustive, so I'll settle for illustrative.)

I think most of the sections that do not use the license language should be inferred to mean to include it.

I think we shouldn't pick and choose, without further guidance; the 'implied inclusion' is there everywhere 'manufacturer' (of firearms) is mentioned.

So, why is it, again, that we think the term 'manufacturer' means different things in consecutively numbered sections of the PC in the same Division and Chapter and Article?

Not at all saying this is right or conclusive.

Librarian,

OK, still playing, but only at the two cents level.

I can see the appeal of your "implied inclusion" argument. It would have the effect a simplifying the code. But I think the bolded part of your post is contrary to principles of statutory interpretation. Please refer to Connecticut National Bank v. Germain (112 S.Ct. 1146). The idea is that when the words of a statute are clear, that is the meaning of the statute. The case also communicates that differences in wording between statutes (as we have in this case) should be given meaning.

I would also point out that the word "Manufacturer" is never used in section 32000. But even it it were, and we applied your "implied inclusion" concept to mean that it only applied to commercial manufacturers, then that interpretation would squarely collide with the "any person" language contained in the section. Under Connecticut National Bank, we really need to take the words of the statute at their expressed meaning. The section applies to "any person." The section is clearly worded, even if it doesn't elegantly match up with other sections of the code.

[Librarian]

Librarian,

OK, still playing, but only at the two cents level.

I can see the appeal of your "implied inclusion" argument. It would have the effect a simplifying the code. But I think the bolded part of your post is contrary to principles of statutory interpretation. Please refer to Connecticut National Bank v. Germain (112 S.Ct. 1146). The idea is that when the words of a statute are clear, that is the meaning of the statute. The case also communicates that differences in wording between statutes (as we have in this case) should be given meaning.

I would also point out that the word "Manufacturer" is never used in section 32000. But even it it were, and we applied your "implied inclusion" concept to mean that it only applied to commercial manufacturers, then that interpretation would squarely collide with the "any person" language contained in the section. Under Connecticut National Bank, we really need to take the words of the statute at their expressed meaning. The section applies to "any person." The section is clearly worded, even if it doesn't elegantly match up with other sections of the code.

Seems we get a similar theme from People v Clark (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1147 , 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 -

Significantly, the Legislature has not amended the common definition of "loaded" as used in section 12031 nor elected to provide a specialized definition of "loaded" for Health and Safety Code section 11370.1.

Roughly, 'if the legislature intends to mean something particular, it knows how to do that; since they did not do that, that's not what they meant.'

Ah, well. Lose.

[RickD427]

Librarian,

Nobody loses. A good debate keeps everybody's mind sharp. Besides, you got me good the other day on the RAW registration question...............

[freonr22]

Calguns is full of brainiacs. Wow

[tba02]

Some really good stuff here, I wish you guys would keep at it!

So, I have a question ..... based upon.

The Con-SSE argument is that, since you're doing the manufacturing, you're not done manufacturing until you've got the semi-auto. At that point, you've got an illegal weapon.

If one goes from 80% to 100%, and creates a SSE compliant AR pistol. They then, in that current SSE configuration, fire a single cartridge. At this point can one consider the manufacturing process complete?

[Quiet]

If one goes from 80% to 100%, and creates a SSE compliant AR pistol. They then, in that current SSE configuration, fire a single cartridge. At this point can one consider the manufacturing process complete?

Yes.

[tba02]

..at which point, any additional modifications would be just that, modifications (not manufacturing). Alternatively, there would be no additional modifications to (or manufacturing of) the physical components that constitute the "firearm", simply a change in the method of feeding ammunition.

My one cent, and a titch of curiosity.

[bohoki]

it is funny how they make you register one if you move in with it but not if you make

making your own seems to have become more popular in the last few years

back in the day i knew one guy who made a 1911 but it cost him as much as buying 3 of them