Kriss Vector II: Can I Sell It?

[Go Navy]

I want to sell my Kriss Vector II 9mm rifle. Not sure whether to post this here, or in the Calif. 2A forum.

What modifications, if any, must I do to this rifle in order to make it legal to sell, via an FFL of course, in Calif.? It is equipped with a bullet button but is otherwise totally factory stock.

[WallySparx]

Pin the stock and put on a fin grip.

[DRM6000]

You could try separating the serialized receiver from the upper half and transfer that. Compliance will be the buyer's responsibility once he takes possession.

[Quiet]

I want to sell my Kriss Vector II 9mm rifle. Not sure whether to post this here, or in the Calif. 2A forum.

What modifications, if any, must I do to this rifle in order to make it legal to sell, via an FFL of course, in Calif.? It is equipped with a bullet button but is otherwise totally factory stock.

Starting 01-01-2017, semi-auto centerfire rifle with a "bullet button" style magazine lock and restricted features is an assault weapon. [PC 30515(a)(1) & (b)]

It is illegal to import, make, advertise for sale, transfer, or possess an assault weapon in CA. [PC 30600(a) & 30605(a)]

If you legally acquired it between 2001-2016, then you are granted an exemption for possessing it until 07-01-2018. [PC 30680]
^This exemption is for possession only and does not grant an exemption for advertising it for sale or transfer.

Therefore, while in CA, in order to legally advertise it for sale and transfer it, it must be modified into one of the following configurations:

A. Semi-auto centerfire rifle with a fixed 10 round magazine.
^Permanently attach (weld/epoxy/rivet) a magazine into the firearm's magazine well.
(There is no new magazine locking device that makes the KRISS Vector compliant with the 2017 definition of a fixed magazine.)

B. Semi-auto centerfire rifle without any restricted features.
^Install a grip wrap and a fixed shoulder stock.
(This is what KRISS does to make/sell CA legal Vector rifles post-2016.)

C. Dissassembled parts.
^Disassemble the firearm into parts. The receiver is transferred through a CA FFL dealer and the rest of the parts go direct to the buyer.

[Go Navy]

Starting 01-01-2017, semi-auto centerfire rifle with a "bullet button" style magazine lock and restricted features is an assault weapon. [PC 30515(a)(1) & (b)]

It is illegal to import, make, advertise for sale, transfer, or possess an assault weapon in CA. [PC 30600(a) & 30605(a)]

If you legally acquired it between 2001-2016, then you are granted an exemption for possessing it until 07-01-2018. [PC 30680]
^This exemption is for possession only and does not grant an exemption for advertising it for sale or transfer.

Therefore, while in CA, in order to legally advertise it for sale and transfer it, it must be modified into one of the following configurations:

A. Semi-auto centerfire rifle with a fixed 10 round magazine.
^Permanently attach (weld/epoxy/rivet) a magazine into the firearm's magazine well.
(There is no new magazine locking device that makes the KRISS Vector compliant with the 2017 definition of a fixed magazine.)

B. Semi-auto centerfire rifle without any restricted features.
^Install a grip wrap and a fixed shoulder stock.
(This is what KRISS does to make/sell CA legal Vector rifles post-2016.)

C. Dissassembled parts.
^Disassemble the firearm into parts. The receiver is transferred through a CA FFL dealer and the rest of the parts go direct to the buyer.

Thanks for the excellent response. Under "B" above, which is where I'm headed, if it has a telescoping but not folding stock, and if, in its shortest telescoped position, the overall length of the firearm is still above the minimum, must I still "fix" the stock? (Note: I haven't measured so I'm just exploring options.)

[Go Navy]

Just measured the Kriss Vector Gen 2. Stock fully extended is 38.5" LOA; full telescoped into shortest position is 36.5". By comparison, my Beretta CX4 with standard fixed stock and spacers installed is 31.5" LOA.

I don't suppose this makes any difference under current Calif. law, but thought I'd check here.

[Blade Gunner]

I want to sell my Kriss Vector II 9mm rifle. Not sure whether to post this here, or in the Calif. 2A forum.



What modifications, if any, must I do to this rifle in order to make it legal to sell, via an FFL of course, in Calif.? It is equipped with a bullet button but is otherwise totally factory stock.

[Mr.patriot1776]

I would like to add to the discussion about the Kriss Vector. Regarding the pistol grip. I assert that this is not a pistol grip as defined by California law. Pistol grip has defined by California law protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the firearm. The Kriss Vector has a grip that does not protrude in any way. Also the grip is not like any other pistol grip on Earth. There isn't a pistol made that has a grip that connects at two points to the firearm like the Kriss Vector grip does. Furthermore the grip is not beneath the action of firearm it is behind and above the action of the firearm does not meeting any of the definitions of California's pistol grip.

[jimbo74]

I would like to add to the discussion about the Kriss Vector. Regarding the pistol grip. I assert that this is not a pistol grip as defined by California law. Pistol grip has defined by California law protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the firearm. The Kriss Vector has a grip that does not protrude in any way. Also the grip is not like any other pistol grip on Earth. There isn't a pistol made that has a grip that connects at two points to the firearm like the Kriss Vector grip does. Furthermore the grip is not beneath the action of firearm it is behind and above the action of the firearm does not meeting any of the definitions of California's pistol grip.

your felony dude.....

very definitely, grip, where your hand goes, is below the action.....

[Go Navy]

I did the "pin and fin" and sold it. Thanks.

[Scratch705]

your felony dude.....

very definitely, grip, where your hand goes, is below the action.....

the issue with the KRISS is that the action is actually mostly in front of the pistol grip and extends below it.

i mean i bet with the right jury and an expensive enough lawyer, it can be argued that the kriss has a hand grip that is similar but legally isn't a pistol grip as defined by the law and thus isn't constrained by the AW law in the "pistol grip" feature.

[mshill]

the issue with the KRISS is that the action is actually mostly in front of the pistol grip and extends below it.

i mean i bet with the right jury and an expensive enough lawyer, it can be argued that the kriss has a hand grip that is similar but legally isn't a pistol grip as defined by the law and thus isn't constrained by the AW law in the "pistol grip" feature.

What you describe is similar to a "Spade Grip" on a mounted rifle. Your not going to find that "right" jury in this state.

[Scratch705]

What you describe is similar to a "Spade Grip" on a mounted rifle. Your not going to find that "right" jury in this state.

well yeah, but i'm just saying. i can see how someone may argue that the KRISS doesn't have a "pistol grip" since one of the requirement is to be below the action of the gun, and in the KRISS, the action is in front and extends below the grip.

[Quiet]

the issue with the KRISS is that the action is actually mostly in front of the pistol grip and extends below it.

i mean i bet with the right jury and an expensive enough lawyer, it can be argued that the kriss has a hand grip that is similar but legally isn't a pistol grip as defined by the law and thus isn't constrained by the AW law in the "pistol grip" feature.

KRISS makes and sells their factory CA legal Vector Carbines with grip wraps.

Would be hard to argue in Courts that it is not a CA defined "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon”, when the manufacturer of the firearm and their lawyers say it does.

[Mr.patriot1776]

If you check the manufacturer's website they don't actually sell the California version. There are several FFL that do sell it and they add a wing grip as well. I assume this is for protection on their part but again I am asserting simply that it does not meet the definition! Again this is just my opinion and I was hoping to hear others opinions as well I can see there are quite a few California's who are scared to even think about using a rifle without a sportsman stock! The objective is to comply with the law not subvert it.