22LR AR-15 conversion legal w/evil features?

[B yond]

If you don't mind my asking, what made you decide to go with the Blackthorne upper?

Mostly price.

I'd asked around on other forums and although plenty of people would tell me not to get a blackthorne upper and to get a TacSol or Spikes instead, nobody could tell me what's wrong with the Blackthorne.

A member on THR who actually owns one chimed in and told me his is fine, so I went ahead and got it.

I haven't range-tested it yet, but I don't see any problems with it that should affect cycling or function. The olny problem I've found is the fit of the upper to the lower, which took quite a bit of effort the first time but is getting easier each time I do it. It's just tough getting that rear pin through.

I also own an AR-7 and a Hi-Point, and those have been good guns for me despite their reputations on internet gun forums.

I'll post a range report and full review this weekend when I have a chance to get to the range with my new AR.

[DedEye]

And just for future reference, I added this question and answer to the Wiki.

[B yond]

range report here

[pinkmist.308]

This topic is in three different forums: this one, 2a forum under "transporting an ar with a .22 conversion" and the centerfire forum under "BB ar using cmmg .22 conversion". The other two are a little old and I can only pull them up if I do a search using: ".22 conversion, no bb, legal configuration". Everyone says the configuration is legal. I have some further questions. If I get what I'm looking for in another forum, I'll post it here too.

Here is my original post in its entirety.

I have been wondering the same thing about the legal implications of using a .22 conversion unit in a .223/5.56 stamped upper. Everyone (and I have noticed it on the wiki FAQ) seems to indicate the same thing. That is, that an 223/5.56 stamped off list lower with a pistol grip, collapsing stock and no bullet button attached to a .223/5.56 stamped upper with a .22 conversion kit installed would be a legal configuration. Additionally, one could use their high capacity .22 magazines as well.

I think its worth noting that before removing the bb from a fixed magazine build with features, the upper and lower should be separated, the bb/mag lock removed and the conversion kit installed before reassembling the firearm. That being said, in a matter of seconds, one could remove the conversion kit and replace the .223/5.56 bolt and carrier thus creating an assault weapon. I think this could be “tempting bait” for law enforcement. It goes without saying that one could also manufacture an assault weapon in a fraction of a second simply by inserting a high cap mag in a bb equipped rifle.

I looked into this .22 conversion option in 1999 as a work around so I wouldn’t have to register my AR. To my understanding, it would not have worked back then because of the series wording in the law and the receiver itself was considered an assault weapon. If it looked like an AR and it quacked like an AR……it was an AR. So I registered my lower.

Now, however, the circumstances are different and this configuration, on its face, seems that it could indeed be quite legal. When I go shooting with my oll I have lots of supporting documentation: oll guide, DOJ memo/letters, penal codes, etc. If contacted by an LEO at the range I don’t plan to engage him or her in conversation. I will just produce the relevant documentation.

Can anyone direct me to penal codes, ATF/DOJ documentation & interpretations, case law, etc. I personally would not proceed with this rifle configuration without such supporting documentation to show an LEO. I’m conservative that way and don’t feel like being arrested and possibly loosing my right to own a firearm……especially when I can just use the .22 conversion with my RAW.

Documentation to consider: ATF/DOJ positions on conversion kits and the legal reclassification of a firearm, drop in auto sears and the reclassification of firearms (as a precedent for conversions), etc. Does the conversion need to be permanent or require the use of tools?

I’m sure there are many aspects to this that I have not thought of. Sorry so long. Any help I could get on building a solid foundation of documentation to persuade an LEO that my rifle is indeed configured legally with the .22 conversion unit, no bb and high cap mags in the well would be greatly appreciated. What a sad state of affairs California firearms laws are in that I even need to consider covering my butt like this.

Thanks.

[Spdjunkie]

bump

[RudyN]

I am getting ready to go with a .22 cal AR. I will either buy a S&W 15-22 or a spikes complete .22 upper or a tactical Solutions complete upper as I have two naked OLLs sitting in my closet.

[pinkmist.308]

A couple more things I’ve been thinking about.

If a person had a 40 mm grenade launcher and they inserted a 37mm adapter, do you think it would still be classified as a destructive device? I think so. How about if the 37 mm adapter was permanently welded/attached in some manner; could it be reclassified and no longer be considered a destructive device? I’m guessing yes but I really have no clue.

Same question goes for a short barreled rifle. Say an ar with a 12 inch barrel and a 4 inch, long style flash suppressor. If the flash suppressor was just screwed on, would it no longer be an sbr and hence legal? I'm not sure but I think not. If, however, the suppressor was pinned or welded on I believe that would be legal. In this instance, a permanent modification is needed to be legit I believe.

Many of us are aware of the “Important Notice” the DOJ issued stating that firearm owners must “permanently alter the firearm so that it can not accept a detachable magazine”. Due to truly remarkable work by those who fight for our RKBA here in California, that “underground regulation” has been removed from the DOJ website. Those who accomplished this are owed a debt of gratitude by all gun owners in this state in my humble opinion. I recognize, as essentially yet grudgingly does the DOJ, that a temporary modification to a firearm that prevents it from accepting a detachable magazine is sufficient under the law. So in this particular instance, a temporary modification is legit.

The Wiese Memorandum states on page three, third paragraph, “For ar type rifles – one should not attempt to use a .22 rimfire, pump-action, or bolt action upper assembly in combination with a pistol-gripped receiver with an open magazine well that can accept centerfire magazines.” It goes on to say that it is unclear if this configuration is legal and that "this is an issue that may have to wend its way through the courts”. I recognize this memo is somewhat outdated and that many are using pistol gripped lowers, no bb and .22 uppers whether dedicated or conversion units. I pose these questions: what changed that an ar lower with no bb and a .22 upper is clearly and widely accepted as legit? Was someone brought up on charges and beat them thus setting a legal precident? What was the chronology of events that established the legality of said configuration? Has this issue “wound its way through the courts yet”?

Has anyone experienced any legal trouble with either a dedicated or conversion .22 upper on a lower with no bb?

If one cites penal codes 12276 & 12276.1, then I agree that with a dedicated .22 upper you’re golden. It clearly is not an assault weapon. Though I am generally convinced a .22 conversion unit is legal with a feature build and no bb, I am specifically unconvinced solely out of fear of arrest. I am unsure that a conversion unit argument will stand legal muster in a court of law. After all, there is a machined chamber capable of accepting a .223/556 centerfire cartridge in that barrel.

Perhaps the question pivots on permanent versus temporary modification and I've answered my own question in paragraph two of my comments: temporary is sufficient. Perhaps the use of tools makes the difference in some instances.....perhaps not.

I sure would like to have some case law, pc, etc. to cite. If there is nothing in the law that makes such a conversion illegal, it is legal…..right?

Some things to think about......or am I beating a dead horse?

[bwiese]

I have been wondering the same thing about the legal implications of using a .22 conversion unit in a .223/5.56 stamped upper. Everyone (and I have noticed it on the wiki FAQ) seems to indicate the same thing. That is, that an 223/5.56 stamped off list lower with a pistol grip, collapsing stock and no bullet button attached to a .223/5.56 stamped upper with a .22 conversion kit installed would be a legal configuration. Additionally, one could use their high capacity .22 magazines as well.

Yep. (I am assuming a rifle here, not pistol.)

As long as the lower is not listed, you merely have a semiauto rimfire rifle.
Period. No law bans those.

I think its worth noting that before removing the bb from a fixed magazine build with features, the upper and lower should be separated, the bb/mag lock removed and the conversion kit installed before reassembling the firearm.

Indeed. Sequency is important. The assembled rifle should never, even for a microsecond, be in a prohibited configuration.

That being said, in a matter of seconds, one could remove the conversion kit and replace the .223/5.56 bolt and carrier thus creating an assault weapon.

'Constructive possession' does not apply to the field of assault weapons in CA law.

For deterimination of AW status of a rifle, it must be considered as exactly how it stands at the moment when it's taken from you for examination; prospective parts removals, exchanges or modifications simply aren't relevant.

I would say the 22 situation would be the least likely. They'd have to remove the bolt carrier assy and replace with a $135 centerfire bolt carrier assy.

Correct - after Aug 16, 2000, the result of Kasler effectively said "if it looks like an AR, it is an AR." But in June of 2001, Harrott said it that series terminology required formal identification by individual make/model combinations, and this is when certain types of ARs became 'off-list' (as well as newer models that couldn't possibly have been on the list.

So I registered my lower.

I presume that means you filed AW reg papers with DOJ in 2000 (actually, by Jan 23, 2001), have an acknowledgement letter from them showing AW registration w/ make/model/serial#

Now, however, the circumstances are different and this configuration, on its face, seems that it could indeed be quite legal.

Yep. And a special note: if your reg'd AW AR lower is indeed off-list (Category III; there are some, I have a couple myself) configuring it as a rimfire would remove it from AW status. (This would NOT apply to Category I and Category II make/models.) The fact it's registered as an AW would allow eventual restoration to AW status should the owner desire.

Just say, "the AW laws for rifles do not apply to rimfires, only centerfires,
per 12276.1PC." I doubt you'll have trouble.

Can anyone direct me to penal codes, ATF/DOJ documentation & interpretations, case law, etc.

ATF is irrelevant, why are you asking about them? This is CA law.

Everything the flowchart has should be sufficient. Many PDs are using the Calguns AW flowchart as a reference guide. Having a copy of the various PD memos (Sacto PD, Orange County, etc.) about BulletButton'd ARs can be helpful support too.

Your situation is quite common.

In fact, I will be acquiring some 22LR conversion units for my off-list (Category 3) registered AW ARs so I can transport them easily without the more severe 'specific destination' transport restrictions required of registered AWs.

The Calguns Foundation will back you if your rifle is configured legally should anything occur, which it most likely won't ... don't drive around in a lowered purple Honda with a cracked windshield, look like dirtbag, etc., leave it on the back seat, etc. and you'll be OK.

[bwiese]

If a person had a 40 mm grenade launcher and they inserted a 37mm adapter, do you think it would still be classified as a destructive device? I think so. How about if the 37 mm adapter was permanently welded/attached in some manner; could it be reclassified and no longer be considered a destructive device? I’m guessing yes but I really have no clue.

This is more of a Fed issue too - if you have anything close to a G/L like that you're a no-no on multiple planes.

I always tell folks to avoid the stupid drama-queen Gen-Airsoft crap like fake suppressors and G/Ls since that's just one extra piece of crap you have to explain to a cop while you're flustered in a traffic stop.

Same question goes for a short barreled rifle. Say an ar with a 12 inch barrel and a 4 inch, long style flash suppressor. If the flash suppressor was just screwed on, would it no longer be an sbr and hence legal?

NO ABSOLUTELY NOT. Muzzle devices extending barrel length to 16" have to be pinned/welded (or 1200deg silver soldered) on the barrel per ATF standards for the barrel to be regarded as 16" minimum. SBR violations are both Federal and state. Don't do it.

Don't even POSSESS a shorty upper or shorty barrel separate from a rifle or rifle lower [unless you legitimately own an AR pistol or legit AR pistol lower] ... even if that shorty upper or shorty bbl is at your vacation home in San Diego and the rifle/receiver is in San Francisco. 'Constructive possession' applies to SBR matters and just requires "ownership and control".

If, however, the suppressor was pinned or welded on I believe that would be legal. In this instance, a permanent modification is needed to be legit I believe.

Yep. Make sure the folks doing the job do it right. And given what I warned about, if you were to acquire such a device don't take possession of it, have it built by a smith elsewhere.

... the memo is somewhat outdated and that many are using pistol gripped

Yes. That was product of early hypervigilance and caution when we knew we had a narrow line to walk.


An OLL receiver with 22LR upper [regardless of style of upper] is simply NOT an AW.

CGF has handled 25+ OLL cases and they generally don't even get to the first stage now. There are no court precedents, etc. - this is plain law. Also local trial courts really don't have precedential status. But we fight every OLL AW case we've heard of.

Please relax, breathe deeply, and enjoy your 22LR rimfire non-AW.

FYI, using a regular AR barrel for 22LR use is not as good as a dedicated 22LR AR upper. These are more of a 'make-do' situation. There's ~0.001" of 'slop' using 22lR in a regular 223/5.56 AR barrel, and the twist may be too fast in some AR bbls.

[pinkmist.308]

Outstanding.

I appreciate you taking the time to put my mind at ease.

All the stuff about g/l & sbr's was for the sake of argument.

All my firearms are 100% Cali compliant: Registered assault weapons and lawfully configured off list lowers.

That being said, hopefully I'll never need legal help from CGF though it sure allows me to sleep better at night knowing they're there to back up lawful firearm owners.

Thank you bwiese.

Your response and all your hard work is very much appreciated.

[Spdjunkie]

Thank you all for the information and time, Very much Appreciated.

Have a great one,
FTK

[pinkmist.308]

Does anyone happen to know of the Orange County memo/bulletin regarding off list lowers that bwiese refers to?

Quote:
Having a copy of the various PD memos (Sacto PD, Orange County, etc.) about BulletButton'd ARs can be helpful support too.

As I said before, I have a ton of stuff in a folder on the legality of an oll. I don't recall ever seeing anything from an Orange County agency though.

That could be particularly usful to me as it is the county that I live in.