Ledesma Arms Featureless California Compliance Conversion Kit

[L.A. Saiga]

The market is being flooded with "CA compliance parts" that are not CA compliant. Arrests and convictions will happen to poor bastards who thought they did the right thing.

YUP! Scary.

[neouser]

What we need on this is Court Law. Someone will eventually get pinched with a MMG or HH or even this new Ledesma, and it will go to trail where hopefully one of the previous DOJ experts and or your guy will testify that "in my opinion the "insert name" grip is NOT infact a grip as defined by the law and as such Jim's rifle is perfectly legal"

Unfortunately, that doesn't work in our favor. Honest citizens who take these things to the range DON'T usually get "pinched." The people who DO get "pinched" are criminals who are committing real violations. In those cases, the ruling will almost always be against the legality of the device in order for the prosecutor to tack on additional charges. Then it sets a precedence under the worst possible circumstances and could also create negative press.

Compliance devices need a ruling before someone gets "pinched." (And yes, I know that isn't likely to happen. I'm just making a rhetorical statement.)

[nctransplant]

forgive me if this has already been addressed, this is a longish thread so far, i may have missed it.

Wouldn't it be true, that if a manufacturer sold a part(s) or sold a build with parts under the premise that it was California compliant, and then, during a trial a defendant accused of possessing a rifle that was being deemed non-compliant, facing that conviction for that rifle, or one fitted with those was parts, that was otherwise interpreted as compliant, wouldn't that circumstance be legally considerable by the judge as a factor in handing down the conviction?

wouldn't the manufacturer of the now-to-be-dubbed non compliant part(s) or complete gun build, be somehow liable as well? ignorance of the law by the individual is one thing, but fraud by a company misleading you, and causing damages to you as a result, is another.

it is difficult for me to see how, given the lack of specificity and clarity in any of the laws, that ignorance of them could be invoked, (thus saying ignorance is no excuse). ignorance is different than being the victim of fraud. It seems more likely that the company who sold it to you under the premise of compliance is more culpable.

can a company advertise that it is California compliant with out some proof or certification? and if no certification exists, then saying its compliant is a lie.

[Cokebottle]

Criminally?
No.
Guilty or not guilty. The judge may grant some leniency, but given that being a non-violent crime, the sentence will likely be time served and probation (the loss of gun rights is the ultimate goal of the state and these laws anyways, they can't and won't incarcerate all of us)

The convicted person could certainly file civil action against the manufacturer. The problem is, given that the DOJ neither approves nor denies approval for compliance items, lacking case law, there would be nothing for the plaintiff to hang his hat on.
Provided the manufacturer at that point issues a simple public statement that his device is NOT legal on featured builds within a reasonable time frame post-conviction, there's really no civil case.
Even if the convicted person were to prevail, they are still a convicted felon, and the statute, not being a wobbler, would not be eligible for reduction to misdemeanor followed by expungment... gun rights are still lost in all 50 states, will never be able to travel to Canada or many other countries, and loss of voting rights in most states.


"We" could proactively file civil action against a manufacturer making claims that we believe to be false, but again, without the support of an opinion from the DOJ or from case law, it would boil down to "our" attorney saying "Is not legal" vs their attorney saying "Is so legal" and neither would have any legal support. And being a "cease and desist" type situation, there would be no monetary award potential, so "we" would be doing it at our own expense, with no legally binding improvement in the overall 2A situation for California.

[Jimi Jah]

A machinist needs to design a quick mount screw for the AR grips. That way I can swap them out quickly when out of state.

Now I have them all mounted with hex screws and keep the grips and tool in the range bag.

[varanidguy]

I don't think there would be any legal recourse against this particular dealer in this case because of how they have it worded. I'm still not convinced it would 100% count as a feature or featureless grip, however it's definitely not worth the risk because it's damn near close.

I've since decided to give Resurgent Arms a bit of support. Pre-ordered one grip and they're sending me a prototype to try with the 308 AR.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[nctransplant]

I like the resurgent arms design. But IMHO, it suffers from the same feature abiguity (damn near close) issue, that the Ledesma does.

when these folks say they have a featureless grip design...
what are they really basing this on?

The webbing of the thumb-hand junction being above the trigger.. please forgive me if ive misssed it, but from where does this originate?
conspicuous protrusion below the action, thumb capable of being wrapped around the grip..
how are these qualifications as a "feature" negated by the webbing being above the line of the triggers base?

Has there been a clear explanation of the regulations in one of these threads that i have missed?,
an explanation that shows how conspicuous protrusion and thumb wrap are ok, as long as the webbing is above trigger line...

[nctransplant]

on the Ledesma site FAQ under "what is legal".. is the following:

A: We are not lawyers, nor can we be expected to know the legalities of each and every state and municipality. All the parts that we sell are legal under federal law, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that they are legal in your area. Do yourself a favor and be absolutely sure that whatever you are doing is legal. Contact the BATFE or your local Department of Justice (DOJ) office with any specific questions that you may have.

The advice of contact your local DOJ is valid i guess.
Has anyone yet contacted CA DOJ specifically about this (or any specific) featureless grip (or feature), and would that ever amount to anything meaningful?

If i were a designer/business person of these things, claiming california featureless compliant, i would just not make the claim to begin with unless i had somthing substantial to base that claim on. a bad reputation in the gun parts industry is a very bad thing to have.

[varanidguy]

I like the resurgent arms design. But IMHO, it suffers from the same feature abiguity (damn near close) issue, that the Ledesma does.

when these folks say they have a featureless grip design...
what are they really basing this on?

The webbing of the thumb-hand junction being above the trigger.. please forgive me if ive misssed it, but from where does this originate?
conspicuous protrusion below the action, thumb capable of being wrapped around the grip..
how are these qualifications as a "feature" negated by the webbing being above the line of the triggers base?

Has there been a clear explanation of the regulations in one of these threads that i have missed?,
an explanation that shows how conspicuous protrusion and thumb wrap are ok, as long as the webbing is above trigger line...

(d) "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means a grip that
allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index
finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing. [https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a.../chapter39.pdf]

Featureless section cites sworn testimony from a DOJ agent confirming that the grips that do not allow the webbing to go below the top exposed line of the trigger do not count as features. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15s_in_California]

Now, with any of these new grips that were not cited in the court case are technically up in the air, but it seems to be the opinion of many that if you follow the same guidelines of those grips, you are safe as a featureless grip.

Conspicuous is pretty broad and vague, basically all it means is noticeable, so that's pretty subjective. Anything can be noticeable to anybody. What seems to be the major no-no is the webbing between the thumb and index finger being below the trigger line. Theoretically, if the grip prevents that from happening, it's good to go. Theoretically.

[varanidguy]

on the Ledesma site FAQ under "what is legal".. is the following:

A: We are not lawyers, nor can we be expected to know the legalities of each and every state and municipality. All the parts that we sell are legal under federal law, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that they are legal in your area. Do yourself a favor and be absolutely sure that whatever you are doing is legal. Contact the BATFE or your local Department of Justice (DOJ) office with any specific questions that you may have.

The advice of contact your local DOJ is valid i guess.
Has anyone yet contacted CA DOJ specifically about this (or any specific) featureless grip (or feature), and would that ever amount to anything meaningful?

If i were a designer/business person of these things, claiming california featureless compliant, i would just not make the claim to begin with unless i had somthing substantial to base that claim on. a bad reputation in the gun parts industry is a very bad thing to have.

I contacted the DOJ about the Ledesma grip and got a generic response of "We can't yet give any specifics regarding the new assault weapon registration regulations."

Pretty disappointing.

[numpty]

I wish there was some ballsy guy who would configure every conceivable configuration of rifle and turn himself in to get a ruling on all of these configurations. Then we would know. Until then it's try your damnedest to comply.

If you intend to follow the law you should be okay though. We learned that from Comey's investigation into Hillary. Clearly she broke the law, but she didn't intend to.

[varanidguy]

I wish there was some ballsy guy who would configure every conceivable configuration of rifle and turn himself in to get a ruling on all of these configurations. Then we would know. Until then it's try your damnedest to comply.

If you intend to follow the law you should be okay though. We learned that from Comey's investigation into Hillary. Clearly she broke the law, but she didn't intend to.

The problem is...the charges are felonies. It's not just a financial risk, it could literally ruin your entire life. That's the point. These Marxists are wanting to turn us into criminals so they can use the power of the state to get rid of us without having to get their hands dirty, so to speak.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[thmpr]

Appears to be the same angle as the Thorsden grip. I do not have either but reviewing both design on the web, it appears so.

[LEAD LAUNCHER]

I wish there was some ballsy guy who would configure every conceivable configuration of rifle and turn himself in to get a ruling on all of these configurations. Then we would know. .....

That would not be smart but...


I could be wrong but ...I wonder if this would get you a solid answer.
Without getting you in trouble.

If you or a friend lets say were going to register with the state one of your rifles anyway.

Submit to the state the pics of your otherwise completely featureless rifle (with the required BB on it)but make sure you attach the grip or whatever device you are trying to ascertain is compliant.

DOJ has said they will refuse to register featureless rifles so if they kick it back for being featureless(with whatever compliance doodad you were testing on it) you would have it in writing that that rifle is featureless in that configuration.

If they just register it then your doodad is obviously a feature.

I mean a rifle only has to have ONE evil feature on it to make it not featureless-right?

On the other hand-I suppose this may too sketchy-up to the personal interpretation of the "tech" who is looking at your pictures perhaps...

Just an idea.


.....

[varanidguy]

That would not be smart but...





I could be wrong but ...I wonder if this would get you a solid answer.

Without getting you in trouble.



If you or a friend lets say were going to register with the state one of your rifles anyway.



Submit to the state the pics of your otherwise completely featureless rifle (with the required BB on it)but make sure you attach the grip or whatever device you are trying to ascertain is compliant.



DOJ has said they will refuse to register featureless rifles so if they kick it back for being featureless(with whatever compliance doodad you were testing on it) you would have it in writing that that rifle is featureless in that configuration.



If they just register it then your doodad is obviously a feature.



I mean a rifle only has to have ONE evil feature on it to make it not featureless-right?



On the other hand-I suppose this may too sketchy-up to the personal interpretation of the "tech" who is looking at your pictures perhaps...



Just an idea.





.....

I think you're on to something though. That hypothetical "tech" is a representative of the DOJ and supposedly enough of an expert to tell the difference between featureless and "evil." Top it off with you'd have it in writing...