getting Krinkov kits in CA, help needed!

[bwiese]

The only way to get around the SBR/construtive possession stuff is if you had a pistol receiver and were building a pistol. That has its own separate load of grief in CA...

Not completely true....

I have never owned an AK rifle; I have no receiver 80% or otherwise.

I could order one of those kits, modify the barrel as described, pin the magazine as described, and then purchase the receiver.

Yes my phrasing is a bit casual and I wanted to just address the pistol issue in that post.

But yes, if you got the kit first and HAD NO RIFLE OR RECEIVER and made the bbl mods to get to 16" permanently, then you are OK.

[grammaton76]

Just drill it and drop a detent pin in and tack weld over it. It takes about 30 mins.

Ya know, even with the tack welding, I'm very concerned about using a BRASS (i.e. soft metal) pin in this case.

With a good strong wrench, wouldn't you be able to torque off the extension without cutting off the weld? Unless you're doing a REALLY big tack weld, that is. Basically, what I'm getting at is that I don't think the brass pin will buy you anything more than the weld does on its own. A steel pin would be a different story.

[bwiese]

Ya know, even with the tack welding, I'm very concerned about using a BRASS (i.e. soft metal) pin in this case.

With a good strong wrench, wouldn't you be able to torque off the extension without cutting off the weld? Unless you're doing a REALLY big tack weld, that is. Basically, what I'm getting at is that I don't think the brass pin will buy you anything more than the weld does on its own. A steel pin would be a different story.

Correct. ATF has a standard for pinning/welding. 1200deg silver solder is also apparently acceptable.

[shonc99]

Some of you folks are gonna go to jail, I see the noobs here going blithely along on a vast cloud of misconceptions. CA law ain't the only thing you gotta worry about - and this constructive possession concept applies at both CA and Fed level for SBRs and MGs.

One Calgunner is in trouble for an SMG - he bought an 80% receiver off EBay (and there's really no such thing as an 80% receiver!) and had a parts kit in possession. He never even began the build. While he did have intent to build a legal semiauto, and CA-legal to boot, that didn't matter.

This was my question earlier- I bought a kit from Copes Dist, and have the reciever sitting at the dealer kicking down the 10 day clock. As soon as I pick up the NDS reciever I'm in consructive posession unless I throw all the fire control parts away before picking up the reciever -RIGHT?

-BUT WAIT-

As previously posted, even if you have the evil combination seperated by a few thousand miles, it is still a voilation.

-SO-

Even though the reciever is at the dealer it belongs to me- I'm the owner. Does the constructive posession law apply?

[bwiese]

Even though the reciever is at the dealer it belongs to me- I'm the owner. Does the constructive posession law apply?

Perhaps, that's grey. At the end of the waiting period, even more so because it's essentially under your control - all you gotta do is pick up the receiver.

I'd lose the barrel.

[grammaton76]

Perhaps, that's grey. At the end of the waiting period, even more so because it's essentially under your control - all you gotta do is pick up the receiver.

I'd lose the barrel.

Wait - I think the guy's talking, not about a Krinkov, but about a standard AKM 'G' kit. You were talking about constructive MG possession, and I'm pretty sure that's what Shonc99 is talking about here as well.

I seem to recall reading that the Feds just cared, on AK's, about whether or not you had FA mods to the receiver, considering that the FCG can be used in a semi auto build?

[JHC]

Very few kits come with all of the FA parts anyway, the disconnector on Romy G's make them semi only so how would constructive posession work with that?

[grammaton76]

Found some a scan of an ATF letter which, while they don't address the precise question we're looking for ("are AK FA FCG components subject to constructive possession with a semi-only receiver?"), do make mention of only accomodating SA components.

Now, I'm not about to test fit any FA components, but I'm pretty sure that, like with H&K FCGs, they don't care about the FCG provided that the receiver's semi-only mods haven't been reversed.

http://pookieweb.dyndns.org:61129/AK/docs/legal/sellingbuilds.htm

While SBR constructive possession is absolutely an issue, I'm not convinced that MG constructive possession applies on the AK side when dealing with an ATF-approved semi-only receiver. Homebuilds could well be off in the ozone somewhere, given that if you screw up a dimension, you might not be doing whatever it takes to block FA action. I saw reference to some kind of rail configuration on one link I was reading earlier, in addition to the infamous third hole.