So, you want to build an AR-15 from an 80% lower?

[C.G.]

Few months back there was a thread about building an AR from an 80% receiver. Bill Wiese warned against doing this from legal point of view and cost over a 100% stripped lower. He also pointed out that if you are going to build one at least do so on the FAB-10 80% lower. At the time I was interested in building one, especially since the sites selling 80% lowers pretty much claim that one can do that anywhere in the U.S. However, I decided to write to DOJ before commiting to anything. Here is the DOJ's answer:
[img]http:\\www.sailmontereybay.com\Photos\AR80letter.j pg[/img]

It turns out that Bill was 100% correct (not that I was really doubting him, only wanted to see it in writing). So, you may want to think twice before ordering an 80% lower or risk a felony.

Moderators, if you would like to pin the DOJ letter or this post, you are welcome to do so.

[Mr331]

That does not make much sense. At 80% it is not able to fire or be put together. If 80% is not legal, what percentage is?

NEWS FLASH

Chunks of aluminum are now illegal. Will it ever end?

What part is illegal? The name? Call it the "Wizz Bang-15". Is the chunk of metal legal then? Once again California is snubbing it's nose at Federal law.

[colossians323]

Also like Bill has said many times,(paraphrased) Don"t just take any of the doj lackies advice, they are wrong more than they are right.

[50 Freak]

Yeah, I tend to think the DOJ think anything that fires projectiles and does not use a Y shaped piece of wood, a leather patch tied together by strings of rubber are ILLEGAL.

[Rascal]

cg, your picture no worky worky.

[C.G.]

Originally posted by Rascal:
cg, your picture no worky worky.

It works, but my server may be busy; just give it time or re-fresh the page.

[6172crew]

Doesnt the DOJ give instuction the local LEO etc? I mean whos in charge anyways.

[LongBch_SigP226]

Pic doesn't load for me too.

[s281c]

Hmm, doesn't this set an interesting precedent? How far is it a reach for the DOJ or the courts to say that a 80% frame of any type is a firearm, and cannot be transfered with out a FFL involved?

[C.G.]

Originally posted by S281c:
Hmm, doesn't this set an interesting precedent? How far is it a reach for the DOJ or the courts to say that a 80% frame of any type is a firearm, and cannot be transfered with out a FFL involved?

Unfortunately, I think you've hit the nail on the head!

For those that can't see the letter: direct link AR 80% lower DOJ letter

[imported_MaxQ]

The DOJ is contradicting itself. I've seen a copy of a letter from the DOJ confirming the response to question #28 on the .50 BMG FAQ, which states that the DOJ does NOT recognize incomplete receivers to be receivers:

Q: #28. Does the California Department of Justice recognize percentages of completion of unfinished receivers as receivers?

A: Only a fully functional, serialized receiver is considered a receiver for the purpose of California firearms laws.

Therefore, anything less than a 100% complete receiver isn't a receiver and can't be registered. This isn't specific to .50 BMG related receivers, either.

I guess it's time for more letter writing. cg, would you mind if I referenced your letter or included a copy of the .jpg image with my correspondence to the DOJ? Thanks.

[bwiese]

The letter to CG about FAB10 was written by a "Field Representative".

This is just a letter, not law, and was not written by a lawyer. The 'Field Rep' may not even be a sworn LEO, just a glorfied clerk/bureaucrat.

I think he was confused about what an "80% receiver" is in that letter. A CA assault weapon first has to be a gun before it's an AW, and an unserialized 80% AR lower is not even a gun by BATF standards, which I believe California also goes by.

In addition, this does not reflect Harrot v. Kings County which essentially says AR receivers have to be declared on the DOJ Roster of AR15 and AK-series Weapons to be banned as such.

Harrott has not really been tested, but
Homemade AR receivers are NOT on this list - though you could get entangled about 'legislative intent'. I would not rely on Harrot to keep me out of jail but it might be a defense.

The DOJ Q&A about "fully functional serialized receiver" in MadMex's post is just a Q&A answer, not real law. The area between 80% - 100% receiver might have to be determined in court by a judge, with expert testimony on both sides.

Again, I don't know why y'all are so concerned with this stuff. These lines are very gray with shadows around them and you could be risking felony charges if something's not done just right.

I will push limits and not let bureucrats make their own law but some of these cases are ill-defined and will eventually be determined in case law.

Some of you gunnies are just, plain & simple, cheap bastards that end up doing $250 of work to save $75 on a part - and risking $10K of legal fees and possible lifetime firearms ownership ban....



Bill Wiese
San Jose

[C.G.]

Originally posted by MaxQ:
The DOJ is contradicting itself. I've seen a copy of a letter from the DOJ confirming the response to question #28 on the .50 BMG FAQ, which states that the DOJ does NOT recognize incomplete receivers to be receivers:

Q: #28. Does the California Department of Justice recognize percentages of completion of unfinished receivers as receivers?

A: Only a fully functional, serialized receiver is considered a receiver for the purpose of California firearms laws.

Therefore, anything less than a 100% complete receiver isn't a receiver and can't be registered. This isn't specific to .50 BMG related receivers, either.

I guess it's time for more letter writing. cg, would you mind if I referenced your letter or included a copy of the .jpg image with my correspondence to the DOJ? Thanks.

You are welcome to do so, let me know, please, if your endeavors result in a different answer or clarification.

[delloro]

a 1% AR receiver will be illegal as soon as you make it into a AR-type gun.

there is no contradiction. CA DOJ only cares about 100% fully functional receivers. a 99% AR receiver is not illegal, because it is not complete. of course, it's not interesting either because it doesn't work.

if you complete an AR series receiver, that's illegal.

if you complete a FAB series receiver, that's not illegal.

yes that is simple semantics, but it's just as simple to avoid. no AR series weapons. so just build a FAB series instead. how hard is that?

there is no precedent here, and the concerns of declaring 90%, 85%, 81%, or 80% receivers illegal is backwards. CA DOJ does not care about them. they only care about 100% receivers. the 80% is an ATF thing.

[C.G.]

Originally posted by bwiese
Some of you gunnies are just, plain & simple, cheap bastards that end up doing $250 of work to save $75 on a part - and risking $10K of legal fees and possible lifetime firearms ownership ban....Bill Wiese
San Jose

Bill, in my case, it is not about being cheap, but rather would like to finish it as I like (FAB-10 is OK but not ideal and Vulcan finish I don't like) and making sure that pins line up like they should (they don't on the Vulcan). However, I am not going to risk anything illegal, which is why I wrote to the DOJ in the first place, hoping to get a procedure for completing a Vulcan type CA legal receiver. As you pointed out, they misunderstood the intent of the letter (if they bothered to read it completely through at all) and at this point, it isn't worthwhile to pursue that project.

Originally posted by Delloro
. . . there is no contradiction. CA DOJ only cares about 100% fully functional receivers. a 99% AR receiver is not illegal, because it is not complete. of course, it's not interesting either because it doesn't work.

if you complete an AR series receiver, that's illegal.

if you complete a FAB series receiver, that's not illegal.

yes that is simple semantics, but it's just as simple to avoid. no AR series weapons. so just build a FAB series instead. how hard is that?

there is no precedent here, and the concerns of declaring 90%, 85%, 81%, or 80% receivers illegal is backwards. CA DOJ does not care about them. they only care about 100% receivers. the 80% is an ATF thing.

Now, that is the kind of an answer I actually expected to receive in lieu of what I got.