Featureless OLL build question

[Gio]

I don't want to push too hard on the PRC (Peoples Republic of California) laws, but what if a PRC compliant solution could be had here? I wouldn't mind a non-folding stock that could be shortened or bent with the use of a tool.

-TG

As far as I know and can see that is not going to be acceptable here. I mean you could make it that way, but as soon as you do it that way on a fully assembled Featureless Build thenthat is where you draw the line Sucks, but you have to be ready to accept the consequences there.

-Gio

[that guy]

Aw shucks

Maybe the A2 will have to do for now, but I hope not. As much as I'd prefer a collapsible stock, a featureless build without a BB is better for me.

I'm still hoping that I get some traction with this, but it's not worth getting on the wrong side of the law to avoid the A2.

By the way Gio, how did you make that non-pistol grip?

-TG

[lawaia]

The fail is as follows:

The law specifically states that a tool (bullet) may be used to remove a magazine.

The law regarding a collapsible stock does not allow latitude in any way. Nowhere is it stated that a stock can be adjustable "as long as a tool is required to do so." It is pretty absolute that a collapsible stock is a no-no.

My .02

[that guy]

I may be dense, but I still don't follow

The fail is as follows:

The law specifically states that a tool (bullet) may be used to remove a magazine.

The law regarding a collapsible stock does not allow latitude in any way. Nowhere is it stated that a stock can be adjustable "as long as a tool is required to do so." It is pretty absolute that a collapsible stock is a no-no.

This is what I'm trying to understand here. I keep hearing "the law says...". But I can't find any mention of tool making a magazine non-detachable. I know there is nothing explicitly saying that a tool makes a stock non-collapsible/ non-folding.

I am arguing by analogy that if a tool makes a magazine legally non-detachable, then can't a tool make a stock legally non-collapsible? I don't see the language in the law that I am being told is there, namely that magazines are explicitly mentioned, and stocks are excluded.

Help me out here.

The law states :

"A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine ..."

Which has been interpreted by the courts (or the attorney general?) to mean not a centerfire rifle that requires a tool to remove the magazine. There is no mention in "the law" of a tool or bullet button.

Can any of you Cal-gunners point this discussion in the direction of the court case that determined that the BB is ok? Maybe I would understand this concept better if I read that case.

Thanks- TG

[lawaia]

See items in bold type.


The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a)
"detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.


12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(b) The Legislature finds a significant public purpose in exempting pistols that are designed expressly for use in Olympic target shooting events. Therefore, those pistols that are sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee and by USA Shooting, the national governing body for international shooting competition in the United States, and that are used for Olympic target shooting purposes at the time the act adding this subdivision is enacted, and that would otherwise fall within the definition of "assault weapon" pursuant to this section are exempt, as provided in subdivision (c).
(c) "Assault weapon" does not include either of the following:
(1) Any antique firearm.
(2) Any of the following pistols, because they are consistent with the significant public purpose expressed in subdivision (b):
MANUFACTURER MODEL CALIBER
BENELLI MP90 .22LR
BENELLI MP90 .32 S&W LONG
BENELLI MP95 .22LR
BENELLI MP95 .32 S&W LONG
HAMMERLI 280 .22LR
HAMMERLI 280 .32 S&W LONG
HAMMERLI SP20 .22LR
HAMMERLI SP20 .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI GPO .22 SHORT
PARDINI GP-SCHUMANN .22 SHORT
PARDINI HP .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI MP .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI SP .22LR
PARDINI SPE .22LR
WALTHER GSP .22LR
WALTHER GSP .32 S&W LONG
WALTHER OSP .22 SHORT
WALTHER OSP-2000 .22 SHORT

(3) The Department of Justice shall create a program that is consistent with the purposes stated in subdivision (b) to exempt new models of competitive pistols that would otherwise fall within the definition of "assault weapon" pursuant to this section from being classified as an assault weapon. The exempt competitive pistols may be based on recommendations by USA Shooting consistent with the regulations contained in the USA Shooting Official Rules or may be based on the recommendation or rules of any other organization that the department deems relevant.
(d) The following definitions shall apply under this section:
(1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(3) "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.
(e) This section shall become operative January 1, 2000.

[that guy]

What we have here is a failure to communicate...

See items in bold type.


...
"detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.
...
(C) A folding or telescoping stock. ...

[MikeR]

The pictured AR15 in this thread IMHO is an AW. It has a telescoping stock and a detachable magazine..period

How can it be a telescoping stock if it doesn't move?

If Chewbacca lives on Endor you mush acquit.

[Gio]

Thanks MikeR

-Gio

[5hundo]

Yes, anything that meets the legal definition of a collapsible / folding stock is a violation of the law. Got it. The question of I'm trying to ask, it seems quite ineptly, is whether a stock that requires a tool to function is collapsible/folding in a legal sense.

Go ahead and chance it, if you feel like it.

If it were me, I wouldn't...

I would either pin it in place, or use a fixed position stock, like an A2.

[dieselpower]

Not to be rude, but I don't see the fail here.

The law regarding bullet buttons refers to "detachable magazines", not bullet buttons per se. The need to use a tool is what makes a magazine that does in fact detach from the rifle a non-detachable magazine in a legal sense.

Similarly, a stock that requires a tool to make longer or shorter may be, or may not be, a collapsible / folding stock in a legal sense. Wouldn't it be nice to have a featureless build that uses a standard 4 or 6 position stock? I like the A2 as much as the next cal-gunner, but I'd like to be able to use my old 4-position stocks, w/out a BB.

It may very well be true that it is in fact a feature, but the wording of the law referring to collapsible/folding stocks does not seem to create a fail, anymore than the law referring to detachable magazines leaves us with break-open AR-15s.

Maybe there is nothing to this. But give me more than a law referring to collapsible/folding to show a fail.

As to risk with a LEO under-education with OLLs, how comfortable are you with that bullet button or solar grip? At some point, these were risky ideas. In fact, they still might be. Should we stop trying to move the Evil Black Rifle laws forward? Raise your hand if you want to go back to the pre-bullet button California Compliant AR.

I don't want to push too hard on the PRC (Peoples Republic of California) laws, but what if a PRC compliant solution could be had here? I wouldn't mind a non-folding stock that could be shortened or bent with the use of a tool.

-TG

The "fail" I am reading and referring to, (and I could be wrong in how I am reading) is people seem to think because there is a stipulation stating a if a tool is used then a magazine is not detachable and thinking that if they use a tool to adjust their stock, then its a fixed stock.

The "tool" stipulation only refers to how a magazine is removed from a firearm. It doesn't give you free reign to simply use a tool to bypass any law.

You are assuming since it takes tools to pound out a pinned stock in order to return it to adjust it that means you simply make it easier to use the tool and you are fine. That's a big fail...there is no law on using tools to adjust a stock means it's still a fixed stock.

As the law is right now, the AG can say a stock is still collapsible if it has the capacity to be adjusted AFTER you pound the pin out.

The reason I said the AR15 pictured was an AW is my failure to read what you said. I thought the stock was simply stopped from collapsing by the fin grip. There was a guy I met at a range who put a piece of PVC tubing over the buffer tube. It stopped the stock from collapsing since it was in the way. My question to him was do you think the law is referring to an action or a thing? At best you have a 50/50 chance not to be convicted.


EDIT-------------I talked to some folks on the this and the general opinion was the law is referring to a THING. Unless otherwise defined by PC or CCR the listed feature is a THING not what it does. This is one reason why a A2 stock which can be adjusted for cheek weld is not a folding or Collapsible stock. The 601 stock looks like a short A2 stock, but is in fact a collapsible stock, since that's what it is. I was told if a normally collapsible stock was pinned, but still maintained all the mechanisms needed to collapse it would still be treated as a fixed stock...UNLESS other factors where present. Just like a 5 shot 12gauge or a 10rd fixed magazine firearm is said to have a high capacity magazine under certain situations in the law. A DA would decide what charges to file.

[WeThePeople]

EDIT-------------I talked to some folks on the this and the general opinion was the law is referring to a THING. Unless otherwise defined by PC or CCR the listed feature is a THING not what it does. This is one reason why a A2 stock which can be adjusted for cheek weld is not a folding or Collapsible stock. The 601 stock looks like a short A2 stock, but is in fact a collapsible stock, since that's what it is. I was told if a normally collapsible stock was pinned, but still maintained all the mechanisms needed to collapse it would still be treated as a fixed stock...UNLESS other factors where present. Just like a 5 shot 12gauge or a 10rd fixed magazine firearm is said to have a high capacity magazine under certain situations in the law. A DA would decide what charges to file.

Is this the final word on Calguns? A telescoping or folding stock is considered fixed if it can't temporarily move?

Is a bolt & nut good enough?

Gene? Bill? Anyone?

A real conclusion should be a sticky, especially since there are so many permutations of the word "collapsible".

Thanks.

[rklute]

If you are building a featureless OLL, which is what I recently did, my interpretation of the law is that if it lacks all the features listed in 1A - 1F, then your better off not using a bullet button, or any other device that fixes the magazine. Since, if you ever put a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds in it, it becomes illegal because (2).

If you include any of the features listed in 1A - 1F, you better use a 'fixed magazine' like the bullet button provides, because of (2), that magazine better be 10 round or less and, because of (3) make sure the minimum overall length is at least 30 inches.


(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

[kf6tac]

The question of I'm trying to ask, it seems quite ineptly, is whether a stock that requires a tool to function is collapsible/folding in a legal sense.

The answer is: Nobody knows. Nobody has pushed this boundary in court yet. And when they do, the DA involved is likely to argue that clearly the lawmakers know what language to use if they want to make something okay as long as it requires the use of a tool (after all, they did it with detachable magazines), so the fact that they did NOT use such language in discussing telescoping stocks implies that they did not want it to be okay.

Most of the other evil features have definitions, in the statue or the case law. What about here? How and where did the tool language get into the statute? Was it in response to case law, if so which case?

If I'm not mistaken, it was worked into the law through behind-the-scenes efforts in the legislative process.