SSE Guns

[Tallship]

Heard a rumor that the DOJ was going after SSE guns that had been converted back to semi-auto. Anyone else heard anything about this?

[rbetts]

Crickets . . . . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[razr]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=533671

[Condorguns]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=533671

That thread is from 2012.

To answer the question I have seen nothing to make me believe DOJ is targeting SSE guns. The only issue I have run across in regards to SSE is some people having issues adding them to a CCW because of incorrect caliber information.

[Baboosh]

We alone did THOUSANDS of them, I have not heard one thing from anyone.

[franklinarmory]

CADOJ is currently breaking the law regarding SSE, however, the written law has never hindered depatment aparatchiks. We have an upcoming legal proceeding against the department, and I can't wait to depose SAS Blake Graham. It will be interesting to hear how substantiates his actions.

[emtmark]

Go get em FA!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RickD427]

I have not seen any evidence of any such targeted enforcement.

There has been a lot of lively discussion about whether the practice of converting an SSE weapon to semi-auto violates Penal Code section 32000.

The balance of law enforcement thought seems to be that such a "conversion" does violate the law. There is a Federal Appellate decision out of the Fourth Circuit that supports that view.

I doubt that you're going to see dedicated enforcement efforts on a large scale for this. The offense itself is a misdemeanor. The max that an offender can get is one year in jail, the expected sentence for a first offender is much less, and shorter terms can be served quite quickly. The last time I did the math, you could serve a 90 day jail sentence in L.A. County in just a few hours. The A.G. simply isn't going to get any good press out of the effort.

The second reason is that elements of the offense are rather difficult to prove. It is not a crime to "possess" an unsafe handgun (one converted from SSE). The crime is in the making or transferring of the unsafe handgun. That translates into a lot of investigative effort for a minor charge.

At the same time the "Ghost Gun" thing is starting to get a lot of traction in Sacramento, and there is a lot of press opportunity for legislators and prosecutors to latch onto (and who has seen any of them pass up such an opportunity?).

I'd keep a close watch for new legislation addressing "Ghost Guns" and potentially raising the penalty to a felony, and incorporating possession as an offense. That would open the door for effective criminal prosecution.

For the short term, I'd look for LE agencies to utilize the existing law to remove weapons from the street, rather than prosecuting the possessors of those weapons. That's a lot more easily done. As the law currently stands, LE can seize converted SSE weapons as contraband (the theory being that they were the product of an illegal manufacture under PC 32000). There is no requirement for the collateral criminal prosecution of the possessor. At that point the ball shifts to the owner. They would have to file a lawsuit for the return of their weapon. They then bear the burden of proof to show that the weapon was lawfully manufactured. If the owner allows 180 days to pass without taking the legal steps to regain their weapon, then it goes to destruction under PC 34000.

You may very well see criminal prosecution of individuals in carefully selected cases, but I just don't see the resources being made available to do it in large degree.

I often argue in threads on this topic against the "conversion" of a SSE weapon to semi-auto based on the law involved, but I don't see mass prosecution as the result. I think that LE learned a lot from the SSE-1 conversion practices (basically the law being poorly drafted coupled with the SSE-1 conversion practice growing to a critical mass before the AG realized what was going on) and they're not going to repeat the same mistake again.

[Tallship]

What I had heard was that DOJ was going to go after the FFLs that originally sold them. That's why I posted in the FFL forum. Obviously, just a rumor.

[franklinarmory]

RickD427, are you advocating the seisure of guns legally owned by Californians? I call FUD.

While I agree that any non exempt person that buys a nonrostered semiautomatic under current law, converts it to SSE for transfer and reconverts it to semiauto has committed a crime, and the fruit of that crime could be subject to seisure. However, no one that I'm aware of is doing that.

It is settled law that a virgin frame by itself is not a semiautomatic until or unless it is built as such. If it is built SSE2 by the MFG, then it is still not a semiautomatic, and I fail to see where law enforcement has the authority to confiscate the firearm whence it is in civilian hands.

By your logic, any change to a rostered gun would create an "unsafe" firearm. I hope you don't use aftermarket magazines or aftermarket night sights. There is no law against gunsmithing. ....yet!

[Never Convicted]

"...Anyone else heard anything about this?"

Nope.

[Oldmandan]

An FFL in Ventura County who did not do SSE, had once told me the same thing...

[Doheny]

Heard a rumor that the DOJ was going after SSE guns that had been converted back to semi-auto. Anyone else heard anything about this?

You heard this from whom?

[Citizen_B]

Rick, thanks for providing another side to this discussion. I don't think it's going to be very popular with this audience but I think it's an important aspect to the debate. I didn't participate in the original SSE debates years ago. Here's PC32000 for reference:

32000. (a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who
manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state
for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends
any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county
jail not exceeding one year.
(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) The manufacture in this state, or importation into this state,
of a prototype handgun when the manufacture or importation is for
the sole purpose of allowing an independent laboratory certified by
the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 32010 to conduct an
independent test to determine whether that handgun is prohibited by
Sections 31900 to 32110, inclusive, and, if not, allowing the
department to add the firearm to the roster of handguns that may be
sold in this state pursuant to Section 32015.
(2) The importation or lending of a handgun by employees or
authorized agents of entities determining whether the weapon is
prohibited by this section.
(3) Firearms listed as curios or relics, as defined in Section
478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(4) The sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to,
or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a
sheriff's official, a marshal's office, the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation, the California Highway Patrol, any district
attorney's office, any federal law enforcement agency, or the
military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for
use in the discharge of their official duties. This section does not
prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies
of a handgun.
(c) Violations of subdivision (a) are cumulative with respect to
each handgun and shall not be construed as restricting the
application of any other law. However, an act or omission punishable
in different ways by this section and other provisions of law shall
not be punished under more than one provision, but the penalty to be
imposed shall be determined as set forth in Section 654.

For the short term, I'd look for LE agencies to utilize the existing law to remove weapons from the street, rather than prosecuting the possessors of those weapons. That's a lot more easily done. As the law currently stands, LE can seize converted SSE weapons as contraband (the theory being that they were the product of an illegal manufacture under PC 32000). There is no requirement for the collateral criminal prosecution of the possessor. At that point the ball shifts to the owner. They would have to file a lawsuit for the return of their weapon. They then bear the burden of proof to show that the weapon was lawfully manufactured. If the owner allows 180 days to pass without taking the legal steps to regain their weapon, then it goes to destruction under PC 34000.

You may very well see criminal prosecution of individuals in carefully selected cases, but I just don't see the resources being made available to do it in large degree.

I often argue in threads on this topic against the "conversion" of a SSE weapon to semi-auto based on the law involved, but I don't see mass prosecution as the result. I think that LE learned a lot from the SSE-1 conversion practices (basically the law being poorly drafted coupled with the SSE-1 conversion practice growing to a critical mass before the AG realized what was going on) and they're not going to repeat the same mistake again.

1) So your belief (or assumption of LE broadly) is SSE weapons can be currently seized as a product of PC32000 violation but enforcement isn't widespread because of practicality?

2) As you pointed out, the PC calls the manufacture/importation/etc as a violation, not the possession. What charge is filed to justify confiscation? This would be similar to pre-ban stand cap mags.

3) Who do you see as the actual violator of the PC, the FFL or customer? If you think customer, I see a wider problem with the definition of manufacturer as Franklin Armory pointed out.

4) The state later made specific adds to the PC to 'fix' the SSE from semi-auto situation. Why would they do this if it was already assumed not to be a problem with existing law/legal definitions? It appears the state recognized they poorly worded 32000 to accomplish what was really wanted.

5) Statutes of limitation?

6) In my opinion, the confiscation/persecution of a PC32000 violation doesn't pass the smell test. Everyone with half a brain knowledgable in firearms know that converted SSE weapons are not actually "unsafe" by normal human definition. The spirit of the law may have been passed over, but what is the actual negative impact to public safety? To me, this is an important aspect one has to ask themselves.

7) If FFLs are chosen to be the AG's example case, what would be the point? The conversion were already done and the law has already been 'fixed'. If SSE customers are chosen to have confiscation begin, it's extremely likley it's going to turn into a legal battle. Is this the can of worms the AG is going to want to open as she aspires for higher office? The legal pursuance will show admittance that they and law makers messed up the first time, fixed it, and now are trying to fix the mess they created. Not the most stellar reflection of competence and certainly ammo for a pro-gun office contender.

Just some thoughts I had - I'd like to hear what you think about them.

[RickD427]

RickD427, are you advocating the seisure of guns legally owned by Californians? I call FUD.

While I agree that any non exempt person that buys a nonrostered semiautomatic under current law, converts it to SSE for transfer and reconverts it to semiauto has committed a crime, and the fruit of that crime could be subject to seisure. However, no one that I'm aware of is doing that.

It is settled law that a virgin frame by itself is not a semiautomatic until or unless it is built as such. If it is built SSE2 by the MFG, then it is still not a semiautomatic, and I fail to see where law enforcement has the authority to confiscate the firearm whence it is in civilian hands.

By your logic, any change to a rostered gun would create an "unsafe" firearm. I hope you don't use aftermarket magazines or aftermarket night sights. There is no law against gunsmithing. ....yet!

Your first sentence significantly misstates my position. I am not advocating the seizure of weapons lawfully possessed by Californians. I am recognizing the authority of the state to seize weapons that are the product of illegal manufacture, even if the possessor has committed no crime. There's plenty of legal precedent for this. Please check out the existing case law under "asset forfeiture."

You're correct about the SSE2 firearm. If you (as an FFL07) build a single shot firearm from receiver that has never been a semi-auto, that's all legal and good.

If your customer later makes changes to the weapon that produces a semi-auto, now we're stepping out of the "legal and good" arena and into untested waters. A lot of folks like to maintain that once the firearm has been manufactured, the customer can do what they want with it. That may, or may not, be true. We haven't had a test case yet. There has been a test case in the Federal Fourth Circuit, and it went the other way. That case isn't binding in California, but it would be persuasive to a California court, and it provides officers with a basis for officers to conclude (in the absence of California case law) that such actions are illegal. That's a nice set-up for a California case.

Changing of the sights is an entirely different issue. It's quite common for folks like yourself to take a case position to an extreme point to diminish the value of its holding. The authors of the Fourth Circuit case anticipated that. The dicta of that case makes clear that the holding was not intended to apply to small changes.