Armalite M15 Lower usable in CA in any form?

[calidefector]

Scenario: Person is living out of state and has a Armalite M15 and has a CalGuns.Net family member who is helping them turn said listed "rifle" into a CA rifle by helping them obtain an OLL and a bullet button.

So, when they change the lower out and have the Armalite M15 lower left over, is there any hope for using the lower in any form?

I looked at the CA AG FAQ and found the following in relation to registered weapons:

If I registered my SB 23 assault weapon and now I remove the characteristic(s) that make it an assault weapon, can I cancel the registration?
Yes. If the defining characteristics establishing a firearm as an SB 23 assault weapon are removed, it is no longer an assault weapon and the registration may be canceled. However, once the registration is canceled, you can never replace the characteristic(s) that make it an assault weapon, or you will be in possession of an illegal weapon.

THIS APPLIES ONLY TO FIREARMS DEFINED AS ASSAULT WEAPONS BY CHARACTERISTICS (Penal Code section 12276.1, SB 23). THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ORIGINAL ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS OR AK and AR-15 SERIES WEAPONS IN THAT REMOVAL OF THEIR CHARACTERISTICS DOES NOT NEGATE THE REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER THE ASSAULT WEAPON

This would make me think that this lower is totally useless, even with no "features" since it is a listed "AR-15 series weapon", and in which case he would be better off to sell the lower before moving to CA. Is this correct?

[Some Guy]

Yeah that sums it up, leave it out of state.
ETA: Flowchart

[B Strong]

Sorry, the Armalite stuff is listed, you'll need to get a OLL to rebuild the rifle for legal CA. use.

[Blacktail 8541]

Simple answer is NO, you can not use it in any form in CA unless it was registered during the AW registation period.

[supersonic]

ArmaLite M-15 lower + California = Felony. Sh**ty, I know, but this is Kommiefornia, after all!!!!

[AKman]

I think you can have it cut in half and use it as a paper weight. It could also be melted down and imported as a lump of aluminum.

[calidefector]

At least on the bright side, by helping him source an OLL and a BB, the whole thing isn't a waste. $200 lost to keep the same gun for all intents and purposes, with less functionality (tool for detachable lower capacity mags.) But, it beats totally getting rid of the gun before coming into occupied territory (or getting in trouble for owning the gun in occupied territory.)

Thanks for confirming what I suspected!

[thedrickel]

AFAIK it is not illegal to possess a listed receiver . . . it is illegal to possess a listed rifle.

[Seesm]

AFAIK it is not illegal to possess a listed receiver . . . it is illegal to possess a listed rifle.

ahhhh?

[supersonic]

AFAIK it is not illegal to possess a listed receiver . . . it is illegal to possess a listed rifle.

On AR-style weapons, that is why we have to DROS just the bare receiver. It itself is considered a long gun. Owning an unregistered M-15 lower receiver = owning an M-15 rifle = owning an AW.

[pira114]

Could probably sell the lower and recover most of what he paid to get a new one and the bullet button.

[ohsmily]

AFAIK it is not illegal to possess a listed receiver . . . it is illegal to possess a listed rifle.

ahhhh?

On AR-style weapons, that is why we have to DROS just the bare receiver. It itself is considered a long gun. Owning an unregistered M-15 lower receiver = owning an M-15 rifle = owning an AW.

Drickel is just stirring the pot. He is right that arguably, only a complete rifle with a listed receiver is prohibited whereas the bare/stripped listed receiver is not prohibited by the letter of the law. However, why would anyone want to fight that battle?

[calidefector]

Drickel is just stirring the pot. He is right that arguably, only a complete rifle with a listed receiver is prohibited whereas the bare/stripped listed receiver is not prohibited by the letter of the law. However, why would anyone want to fight that battle?

I figured that since we DROS the lower, that is in a sense "the gun", therefore if we use that to our advantage (say for example, like myself purchasing a couple OLL for the sake of grandfathering them), we can't turn around at the same time and expect the lower not to be treated as "the gun" when it doesn't suit us.

I did get what I needed out of the thread, which was confirmation that there is no (legal) use for the listed lower which will remain after he makes a California compliant rifle and that even retaining the lower when moving to CA may be more of a headache than anything.

Granted, if he kept it and used it as a paperweight in CA, he may never have any problems *but* there is always the possibility that it could create complications somewhere on down the line. Better to just not have it in CA, and only bring in the parts that will go with the OLL.

Thanks for all the input, folks!

[bwiese]

In addition to the listed stripped lower situation as defendable, I believe a defendable edge condition for a *listed* manually-cycled nonsemiauto or single-shot rifle could be asserted.

But it's best left for a defense. Lowers are $150, it's not friggin' worth the grief.

Do assume that if you have a listed receiver you could get into some grief for it. I continue to assert it's cheapest/best to dispose thru prearranged surrender w/an attorney.

[bombadillo]

Unfortunately a no-no