Cali & pistol brace ?

[bronco1500]

Are we allowed these?

[hermosabeach]

As I understand it - no

I am not familiar with any case law nor convictions in CA for the BATFE braces.....

[hermosabeach]

As I understand it - no

I am not familiar with any case law nor convictions in CA for the BATFE braces.....

Some say you might be manufacturing an AW by adding a "second hand grip"

others have sited our obtuse SBR laws





we had a guy picked up in my neighborhood for an illegal AW but the upper was off of the lower. Not a ca resident if I recall correctly

case was dropped as it was not in AW configuration but that was after the arrest, vehicle tow and a lawyer.

[hermosabeach]

As I understand it - no

I am not familiar with any case law nor convictions in CA for the BATFE braces.....

Some say you might be manufacturing an AW by adding a "second hand grip"

others have sited our obtuse SBR laws





we had a guy picked up in my neighborhood for an illegal AW but the upper was off of the lower. Not a ca resident if I recall correctly

case was dropped as it was not in AW configuration but that was after the arrest, vehicle tow and a lawyer.

[MajorSideburns]

As I understand it - no

I am not familiar with any case law nor convictions in CA for the BATFE braces.....

Some say you might be manufacturing an AW by adding a "second hand grip"

others have sited our obtuse SBR laws





we had a guy picked up in my neighborhood for an illegal AW but the upper was off of the lower. Not a ca resident if I recall correctly

case was dropped as it was not in AW configuration but that was after the arrest, vehicle tow and a lawyer.

Can you elaborate on why the charges were dropped? You mean they did not consider it in AW configuration because the upper was separated from the lower, or because the upper and lower had no "AW features" like flash hider, collapsible stock, etc.? Why were they there to begin with? Was the guy wanted for another crime? Or did he try to register his rifle with the CA DOJ during the bullet button registration period?

[walmart_ar15]

Why we talk about Pistol brace in the rifle section of the forum is beyond me.

[mjo55]

Because California considers a "brace" on a pistol as a short barreled "rifle".

[ar15barrels]

Because California considers a "brace" on a pistol as a short barreled "rifle".

Please cite the relevant PC to support your statement.

[Capybara]

Please cite the relevant PC to support your statement.

There isn't any California PC that even defines a brace, much less equates it with a stock on an SBR/SBS

[mjo55]

So, are you saying that we can all put a brace on our legally configured AR pistol, and there will be no problems?

If California says it "may" be manufacturing a sbr, I don't think any one wants to be a test case.

[Capybara]

So, are you saying that we can all put a brace on our legally configured AR pistol, and there will be no problems?

If California says it "may" be manufacturing a sbr, I don't think any one wants to be a test case.

We all see a ton of various pistols being sold in the Marketplace with braces attached. We see AR pistols at the range with braces quite often. So there are many people in California who own braced pistols, shoot them,
take them to the range, and don't get hassled. But that doesn't mean that those people won't get stung. Its California, a state that despises guns and those who own them.
The thought is, if a cop decides your braced pistol appears to be an SBR, they arrest you. Then, the next step, does the DA want to bury you to send a message to gun owners that Commifornia won't stand for braced pistols so we are
going to convince a judge or jury that your braced pistol is designed/intended to be fired from the shoulder? That seems to be a distinct possibility.

If you go through the trouble of converting your braced pistol into an AOW by submitting an ATF E Form 1, then by the PC, your AOW is specifically exempt from California's SBS/SBRs regulations, but is not exempt from California's
Assault Weapons regulations, so read the PC carefully if you decide to do this. That said, I will reiterate, it's California. Even if you have followed the exact letter of the law, that doesn't mean that a cop won't arrest you and
that a DA won't railroad you anyway. Even if they arrest you, they will often immediately destroy your gun because it's an illegal weapon is what a knowledgable person told me. So even if the DA decides to drop the case,
you will probably be out of the cost of your pistol. Or a good gun lawyer could either get charges dropped or plea down to much less but that's going to cost you a fortune in legal fees.

California's anti gun strategy is to create confusing, labyrinth, incredibly inconsistent and badly written gun laws that engender FUD. They want gun owners to be completely unsure about what is legal or illegal, how to comply
with these insane laws. They love for us to be unsure and off balance so that we'll all just give up owning guns. Or at least that is their intent.

So do you feel lucky?

[walmart_ar15]

Even in the Fed rule, a braced pistol is considered to be a SBR if the "intent" use of the brace as a rifle stock. So any prosecution or defense would be to demonstrate/prove the user's intent. Thus, really a good idea to talk about a pistol brace in the rifle section of the forum. What would be the intended use by the OP?

We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

[Capybara]

Even in the Fed rule, a braced pistol is considered to be a SBR if the "intent" use of the brace as a rifle stock. So any prosecution or defense would be to demonstrate/prove the user's intent. Thus, really a good idea to talk about a pistol brace in the rifle section of the forum. What would be the intended use by the OP?

We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

I'd do it if I could, I lost mod settings in the server changeover. I've asked four people if they can give me my moderator authorization back and I have not heard from anyone, at all. I don't think anyone is moderating Calguns or has been for quite a while. I get all of the notices when people report stuff but I can't do anything about it.

[RickD427]

Even in the Fed rule, a braced pistol is considered to be a SBR if the "intent" use of the brace as a rifle stock. So any prosecution or defense would be to demonstrate/prove the user's intent. Thus, really a good idea to talk about a pistol brace in the rifle section of the forum. What would be the intended use by the OP?

We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

I have to respectfully point out that you may be misconstruing the "intent" element the law.

Here's how California defines a rifle (quoted in pertinent part from Penal Code section 17090):

"“Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder"

That language suggest that the "intent" can be attached to the designer, manufacturer, re-designer, or re-manufacturer of the Arm Brace/Shoulder Stock. Unless the shooter of the weapon is one of those four, the shooter's intent is irrelevant.

Please notice that I've used the "Weasel Words" of "may" and "suggest" because we lack any established case law on the issue. That point alone should create a lot of caution.

[bwiese]

[QUOTE=ar15barrels;n54662921
Please cite the relevant PC to support your statement.[/QUOTE]

There's a bit of sequential nuance here....

1. There is no definition in regulation/statute of what even a 'stock' really is.

2. A 'brace' is not separately defined and would easily be regarded as a stock by a prosecutor's 'expert' and agreed on by judge
making finding of law. The local jury, making finding of fact, would be answering the question "Did Randall have an SBR
given he has pistol with etc on it?"

3. A pistol with a stock is at least a CA SBR even though the 'brace' is now Federally drama-free.

4. NFA AOWing the gun gets out of CA SBR crime territory thru the 'AOW exemption' in 17710(a) PC;
otherwise CA SBR law easily covers crime of pistols with stocks.

5. All the dudes 5 yrs ago making YouTubes cheering on their "CA-legal SBRs" didn't help us;
all the Federal oscillation in memos over the last several years acutally HELPS make
a CA SBR case.

6. ATF memos/status do not have anything to do with even approximately parallel state law
("dual sovereignty").

7. Last paragraph of CA SBR definition codifies 'constructive possession' of separated parts.

Bill