Minors (under 18) making 80% AR pistols?

[lorax3]

Federal Law does not talk about ownership or manufacture by minors, however it does prohibit possession of handguns by people under 18. There are several exemptions however they all require that the loan or use by the juvenile be temporary. If the quotes are hard to follow because I cannot indent here, you can also read them here.

I suppose you could argue that the juvenile has permission from his parents, but since the manufacturer of the pistol is the person who made it I don't think his possession would fall under temporary.

18 USC 922 (x)(2)
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

18 USC 922(x)(5)
(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term “juvenile” means a person who is less than 18 years of age.

They are lots of exceptions including temporary transfer or posssesion under specific circumstances.

18 USC 922 (x)(3)
(3) This subsection does not apply to—

(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile—

(i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching or farming related to activities at the residence of the juvenile (or on property used for ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun;
(ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile’s parent or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm, except—
(I) during transportation by the juvenile of an unloaded handgun in a locked container directly from the place of transfer to a place at which an activity described in clause (i) is to take place and transportation by the juvenile of that handgun, unloaded and in a locked container, directly from the place at which such an activity took place to the transferor; or
(II) with respect to ranching or farming activities as described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess and use a handgun or ammunition with the prior written approval of the juvenile’s parent or legal guardian and at the direction of an adult who is not prohibited by Federal, State or local law from possessing a firearm;
(iii) the juvenile has the prior written consent in the juvenile’s possession at all times when a handgun is in the possession of the juvenile; and
(iv) in accordance with State and local law;
(B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard who possesses or is armed with a handgun in the line of duty;
(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not possession) of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile; or
(D) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile taken in defense of the juvenile or other persons against an intruder into the residence of the juvenile or a residence in which the juvenile is an invited guest.

You might argue it does not talk about ownership, but look at the last bolded paragraph which says that they can legally own the handgun by transfer of inheritance of title, but it specially notes that does not preclude the prohibition against possession.

RickD posted the relevant state law.

[heidad01]

"However, if a minor were to manufacture a pistol, revolver, or firearm capable of being concealed on the person, then they would be in violation of Penal Code section 29610 (Possession of a Handgun by Minor) the moment the object became a firearm, unless one of the specified exemptions applied."

^^ this. No hand guns if you are under 21.
You can shoot your dad's hand gun when he is present but can not own one or borrow one.

[gun toting monkeyboy]

Then it's very confusing how you came to your very wrong and incorrect conclusion, especially since you have apparently been reading about this for "years".

More sarcasm, and yet you still haven't got a clue. These AR pistols, provided they are built before the end of the year, and manufactured as single-shot pistols, are NOT covered by the unsafe handgun law. They are quite specifically exempt. And there is NO law that says converting them to a semi-automatic handgun is illegal. After January 1st, it may be an issue. But currently it is a non-issue. Provided the AWB laws are followed, this is no different than changing out any other part on any other pistol that meets the qualifications of the law here in California. Does changing the grip, or swapping slides on a pistol change whether or not it is considered to be a "safe" handgun? No, of course not. So changing out a 0-shot magazine for a 10-round magazine is highly unlikely to do so. Unless the actual letter of the law is violated, there isn't anything that they can do about it. The state, and DAs, don't get to add more into the law than is actually there.

-Mb

[lorax3]

You do realize that we have long ago established that it is perfectly legal to make 80% lowers into handguns, right?

Uhh, No we never have established that...................

This is way off-topic, but I agree with RickD. I am not saying it is illegal, but I would disagree with your statement that is is "perfectly legal". There are several threads on why even "SSE" in the manner it happened should not have been viewed as legal. However like large-capacity magazine repair kits there is a new law in place and I would not worry too much about prosecution at this stage.

Otherwise they would have simply started prosecuting years ago.

The City of San Francisco settled a lawsuit (in their favor, $14,000 per Defendant among other confidential things) of manufacturers who were importing and selling repair kits in the state. This was before the ban on importation of repair kits. If repair kits were legal, then how did that happen?

There are some good threads out there from Tincon and Fabio re: the incorrect assumption about the manufacture of unsafe handguns using SSE and large-capacity magazines. I would recommend reading them, no need to rehash their arguments here.

[.45 ACP]

More sarcasm, and yet you still haven't got a clue. These AR pistols, provided they are built before the end of the year, and manufactured as single-shot pistols, are NOT covered by the unsafe handgun law. They are quite specifically exempt.

-Mb

So you plan to keep it and register it as a single shot weapon? For how long? When are you going to convert it to semi-auto? How will you prove to a DA and jury that you weren't planning all along to manufacture a semi-auto AR pistol for your high school aged kid?

Regardless, you have a lot of reading to do. I'm not going to argue with you tit for tat about legality, but it's obvious you have some very strange notions of what is legal in CA, and people in this thread (not just me) are pointing out how wrong and incorrect your assumptions are. You can respect that people are trying to help you NOT get into legal trouble, or you can continue being pig headed and possibly land you, or your son, into some deep **** because you're too pig headed to admit you don't know as much as you think you do. Not my choice or my life. This is the last time I'll comment on it in this thread.

[RickD427]

Ah, THAT is what I was looking for. So they can't be in possession of it because of state law. What about if I am in possession of it until they turn 18? Would they still be able to maintain ownership of it, without being in possession? Is ownership actually effected by possession? I know that they can use a pistol under adult supervision. Is it simply a matter of who maintains control of it until they reach 18? My main concern here is the closing of the SSE loophole. I want them to be able to own their own AR pistols someday.

-Mb

I'll defer the status of ownership questions to the JD's on the forum. I write only from the perspective of a retired LEO.

As an LEO, I'm not able to arrest a minor for possession where the possession is supervised by a parent. That's one of the exemptions.

But as to your stated goal, you are aware that the "SSE Loophole" that is closing on January 1 primarily affects weapons that were commercially made as semi-autos, right? It doesn't eliminate SSE. You will still be able to lawfully self-build SSE weapons, meeting dimensional requirements, and that are "Break-Top" or "Bolt Action" design. The AR platform lends itself to both of those design forms.

[JDay]

SSE will still be possible with an 80% next year.

[JDay]

This has been covered by at least half a dozen threads in the past month alone, surprised none of them came up by you know... searching or something. The below applies to everyone in CA, regardless of age.

Short answer: By the letter of the law, no, you cannot legally manufacture an AR Pistol with an 80% lower because it qualifies as an unsafe handgun (not on roster or has not gone through roster safe testing).

Read this thread carefully: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=984946

RickD's post is particularly interesting:



Will you get busted out in the open by some over zealous LEO? Who knows? That risk assessment is personal to you and your friend. Sorry if that complicated your situation.

It's perfectly legal to SSE an AR pistol from an 80% lower.

[JDay]

Has it? You willing to bet your entire life savings and freedom on it? Ok.

Not trying to be sanctimonious or anything, hate to see a young kid get into trouble so early in life.

Do you know what SSE is and why it is roster exempt?

[Ragnarok043]

not sure if this contributes to the discussion or what merit it has pertaining to California or current Federal laws, but Arne Bobergs story comes to mind. he designed and built his own pistol at 14, heres a video of him discussing it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jIEutsX8Bk