SSE Guns

[franklinarmory]

As long as the statute is not being violated, I fail to see how the AG can summarily create law in this regard. Please point to the specific section of the penal code or regulations that is being violated If a customer modifies their firearm after purchase.

The changes to the exemption that took effect 1/1/15 simply prohibited the modification of a firearm that was formerly semiautomatic, then SSE, then semiautomatic again. There is no stipulation in the law that an SSE that started life as an SSE could not be converted if the consumer chose to do so. Of course the additional stipulation does require that the SSE must now be bolt or break action, but that is not an issue here. ...and in the case of our state certified pistols, they are not in any way required to be held to any of the stipulations inherent in the exemption.

[Sousuke]

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.

Is "unsafe" a legal status for nonrostered handguns? I'm not sure it is. There are many ways a nonrostered handgun can be made available to sale without previously being SSE. Therefore I don't see how SSE "manufactures" an "unsafe" handgun legally speaking. There is no frame created etc. Its just a few part changes.

Also consider that in 40-50 years under current law, all previously SSE guns will be exempt anyway.

[DevilDawgJJ]

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

Camarillo Shooter Supply?

He told me once that all I needed to do for and "out of state" interfamilia transfer was fill out the DOJ Oplaw and have dad mail me the gun.

Never went back!

[RickD427]

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?

Yes, but I should also make clear that I speak for myself. I'm echoing comments that I've obtained from a number of peers, but I should allow them to speak for themselves.

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.

There is no corresponding charge filed against the possessor. The situation is very similar to the seizure of "nuisance" magazines, or the seizure of money or property under asset forfeiture laws.

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.

There is no violation of law by the FFL/Manufacturer so long as they sell the SSE2 Single-Shot to the customer. The person who changes the function of the weapon from single-shot to semi-auto would be in violation as I read the law. But I also need to point out that my opinion about the law is pretty much worthless, but it's worth just as much as those who would believe the practice to be legal. The opinion that counts is the one of an authoritative Appellate Court in a published opinion. The strategy here is to find a good case to bring forward to that court.

There are going to issues with meaning of the words "Manufacturer" and "Manufacture." Please note that these are different words and have different meanings. California does not define either as applied to firearms. Federal law defines "Manufacturer" in the context of a commercial activity. Also please note that PC 32000 addresses the "manufacture" of unsafe handguns. It contains no provisions addressing "manufacturers" of firearms. There was some very deliberate word choice in PC 32000 that has meaning. The theory held by those who believe that SSE conversion do not violate PC 32000 is that the firearm is first manufactured, and then once the manufacturing is complete, the firearm is then "converted" as a separate process into semi-auto. You'll see several postings in this forum where folks have asked how they can best prove that they "completed" the manufacturing process. There is some support for this believe in the lack of prosecution effort when the practice first came about. But then the Fourth Circuit issued a significant ruling in Broughman v Carver. In sum, Broughman was a licensed FFL Dealer. He purchased rifle receivers that were fully manufactured to the point of being firearms. He then added his customers choice of stocks and barrels and sold the product to his customers. The ATF maintained that he needed a manufacturer's FFL since his activities amounted "manufacturing" of firearms. Broughman's position was essentially the same as our SSE folks. He was only making changes to something that was already a firearm when he got it. Broughman lost the case. The significance is that "Manufacturing" doesn't have a unique completion point. "Manufacturing" can be a continuing activity and a firearm can be "manufactured" more than once. There was some limiting language in the dicta of the decision making clear that minor gunsmithing on a firearm could not be considered as "manufacturing", but there is no way to slip a major change from single-shot to semi-auto in there.

Broughman is not authoritative in California. The case came down after the SSE conversion practices were in place. It is a pretty powerful tool. If a California court were to adopt Broughman's reasoning of what "manufacturing" means, and apply that to PC 32000, then the SSE conversion practices would clearly violate the law.

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.

The stated intent of AB1964 was:

"The single shot exemption undermines the state Unsafe Handgun Law and results in an increasing number of handguns being obtained that do not meet state safety requirements. Buyers have learned that altering a semi-automatic handgun so that it becomes a single shot handgun can be easily undone, returning the weapon to its original illegal configuration."

It's clear that Assemblyman Dickinson was trying to end the practice of SSE conversion to semi-auto with the bill. He did a poor job of wording the bill and that gave rise to what we now call SSE-2. But the whole practice of SSE conversion is contrary to the stated legislative intent. But getting any bill through the entire system, and signed into law is complex process and often requires changes to the bill in order to get enough support for signature. A useful collateral tactic is to also obtain favorable judicial interpretations of existing laws (like PC 32000). You should expect government official seeking to change the law to make efforts both in Sacramento, and in the courts.

5) Statutes of limitation?

The statute of limitations applies. I don't see anything in the picture that would permit tolling. Since the offense is in the manufacture of the semi-auto, that's when the statute would start. This is one of the many practical problems that I see preventing any large scale prosecution of PC 32000 cases.

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.

I personally see no real value in the "Unsafe Handgun" law. I would much rather see our laws focus on managing bad conduct rather than on the instruments that could aid bad conduct (and also aid good conduct). But then my (and your) personal opinions are as important as described above. The opinions that matter are those that make it into law.

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.

As I pointed out above, I don't see an avenue to prosecute FFLs. Their activity is pretty much legally clear. If there are going to be criminal prosecutions, it would be on the folks actually doing the conversions. But I really don't see that happening either. To the extent my "Crystal Ball" is working, I foresee LE making an effort to generate a good test case, and then run it through the court system. The best case from LE's perspective would be a civil property case where a private person sues for the return of a weapon seized as being the product of an illegal manufacture. That places the burden of proof on the weapon's owner to show that PC 32000 was not violated, and the standard would be to a "preponderance of the evidence" level. If LE were to bring a criminal case against a person for violation of PC 32000, then the prosecutor would have the burden of proof, and it would be to the higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

[RickD427]

As long as the statute is not being violated, I fail to see how the AG can summarily create law in this regard. Please point to the specific section of the penal code or regulations that is being violated If a customer modifies their firearm after purchase.

The changes to the exemption that took effect 1/1/15 simply prohibited the modification of a firearm that was formerly semiautomatic, then SSE, then semiautomatic again. There is no stipulation in the law that an SSE that started life as an SSE could not be converted if the consumer chose to do so. Of course the additional stipulation does require that the SSE must now be bolt or break action, but that is not an issue here. ...and in the case of our state certified pistols, they are not in any way required to be held to any of the stipulations inherent in the exemption.

But, the Attorney General isn't summarily making any law.........The legislature did it, and the Governor signed it.

The law violated by the customer would be Penal Code section 32000. By changing a weapon that is Single-Shot into a Semi-Auto, without going through the DOJ testing and certification process, has "manufactured" an unsafe handgun. I'm well aware that there is both lack of consensus on that view, and a lack of published case law. I do see an agenda to bring the issue forward for a test case, especially now that the Broughman case is out.

[IVC]

Anyone else heard anything about this?

No. At least not for a few weeks...

This was a hot topic until SSE-1 went away. Part of it was spread by the FFLs who didn't want to push the limit with the SSE causing them to lose business to those who did. For example, O.C. Armory is a very small retail location that was doing massive amount of business with a lot of people like myself who didn't have a local SSE-friendly shop. My LGS had at least one or two employees who would regularly say "SSE is illegal, they'll come after you."

I am personally not bothered by the attack on SSE since it would have to rely on retroactive redefinition of "manufacture" to include types of modifications that have never been considered a manufacture. Legislature could change the law and explicitly prohibit modification that converts a single shot pistol to a semi automatic, but they haven't done so. Even with SSE-2, the ban route is based on how the pistol was built initially, not on how it's modified later.

FA (posting in this thread) is using this fact to create roster exempt AR pistols. A brilliant move considering that nothing scares antis more than an AR pistol, and it's the one that is the easiest to get compliant for SSE-2. My concern is that the legislature can start meddling with post-transfer modifications as a method to close SSE-2, which could then ensnare people making basic modifications to their firearms (of course, they could make it more specific and target only SSE guns, but why pass a good chance to stick it to the gun owners?)

Finally, if the legislature starts messing around with the existing SSE pistols, I'll make sure I transfer them as a PPT to a few friends, then transfer them back which will make them in the database PPT exempt, not SSE exempt.

[Sousuke]

Yes, but I should also make clear that I speak for myself. I'm echoing comments that I've obtained from a number of peers, but I should allow them to speak for themselves.

There is no corresponding charge filed against the possessor. The situation is very similar to the seizure of "nuisance" magazines, or the seizure of money or property under asset forfeiture laws.

There is no violation of law by the FFL/Manufacturer so long as they sell the SSE2 Single-Shot to the customer. The person who changes the function of the weapon from single-shot to semi-auto would be in violation as I read the law. But I also need to point out that my opinion about the law is pretty much worthless, but it's worth just as much as those who would believe the practice to be legal. The opinion that counts is the one of an authoritative Appellate Court in a published opinion. The strategy here is to find a good case to bring forward to that court.

There are going to issues with meaning of the words "Manufacturer" and "Manufacture." Please note that these are different words and have different meanings. California does not define either as applied to firearms. Federal law defines "Manufacturer" in the context of a commercial activity. Also please note that PC 32000 addresses the "manufacture" of unsafe handguns. It contains no provisions addressing "manufacturers" of firearms. There was some very deliberate word choice in PC 32000 that has meaning. The theory held by those who believe that SSE conversion do not violate PC 32000 is that the firearm is first manufactured, and then once the manufacturing is complete, the firearm is then "converted" as a separate process into semi-auto. You'll see several postings in this forum where folks have asked how they can best prove that they "completed" the manufacturing process. There is some support for this believe in the lack of prosecution effort when the practice first came about. But then the Fourth Circuit issued a significant ruling in Broughman v Carver. In sum, Broughman was a licensed FFL Dealer. He purchased rifle receivers that were fully manufactured to the point of being firearms. He then added his customers choice of stocks and barrels and sold the product to his customers. The ATF maintained that he needed a manufacturer's FFL since his activities amounted "manufacturing" of firearms. Broughman's position was essentially the same as our SSE folks. He was only making changes to something that was already a firearm when he got it. Broughman lost the case. The significance is that "Manufacturing" doesn't have a unique completion point. "Manufacturing" can be a continuing activity and a firearm can be "manufactured" more than once. There was some limiting language in the dicta of the decision making clear that minor gunsmithing on a firearm could not be considered as "manufacturing", but there is no way to slip a major change from single-shot to semi-auto in there.

Broughman is not authoritative in California. The case came down after the SSE conversion practices were in place. It is a pretty powerful tool. If a California court were to adopt Broughman's reasoning of what "manufacturing" means, and apply that to PC 32000, then the SSE conversion practices would clearly violate the law.

The stated intent of AB1964 was:

"The single shot exemption undermines the state Unsafe Handgun Law and results in an increasing number of handguns being obtained that do not meet state safety requirements. Buyers have learned that altering a semi-automatic handgun so that it becomes a single shot handgun can be easily undone, returning the weapon to its original illegal configuration."

It's clear that Assemblyman Dickinson was trying to end the practice of SSE conversion to semi-auto with the bill. He did a poor job of wording the bill and that gave rise to what we now call SSE-2. But the whole practice of SSE conversion is contrary to the stated legislative intent. But getting any bill through the entire system, and signed into law is complex process and often requires changes to the bill in order to get enough support for signature. A useful collateral tactic is to also obtain favorable judicial interpretations of existing laws (like PC 32000). You should expect government official seeking to change the law to make efforts both in Sacramento, and in the courts.

The statute of limitations applies. I don't see anything in the picture that would permit tolling. Since the offense is in the manufacture of the semi-auto, that's when the statute would start. This is one of the many practical problems that I see preventing any large scale prosecution of PC 32000 cases.

I personally see no real value in the "Unsafe Handgun" law. I would much rather see our laws focus on managing bad conduct rather than on the instruments that could aid bad conduct (and also aid good conduct). But then my (and your) personal opinions are as important as described above. The opinions that matter are those that make it into law.

As I pointed out above, I don't see an avenue to prosecute FFLs. Their activity is pretty much legally clear. If there are going to be criminal prosecutions, it would be on the folks actually doing the conversions. But I really don't see that happening either. To the extent my "Crystal Ball" is working, I foresee LE making an effort to generate a good test case, and then run it through the court system. The best case from LE's perspective would be a civil property case where a private person sues for the return of a weapon seized as being the product of an illegal manufacture. That places the burden of proof on the weapon's owner to show that PC 32000 was not violated, and the standard would be to a "preponderance of the evidence" level. If LE were to bring a criminal case against a person for violation of PC 32000, then the prosecutor would have the burden of proof, and it would be to the higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

[franklinarmory]

The Broughman case sounds interesting. All I know of it is what you have mentioned above. However, that sounds to me to be an issue regarding the manufacturing without a license to do so. (Dealers are welcome to gunsmith a customer's gun, but they can't prebuild a rifle in anticipation of a customer.) Anyhow, the state does regulate manufacturers. The old number was 12086. I can't remember the new number off hand. However, they do regulate, license, and define what a manufacturer is in California.

With respect to the statute, I don't see the prohibitions that you are suggesting. As we did six months ago, I suppose we need to agree to disagree.

[IVC]

The person who changes the function of the weapon from single-shot to semi-auto would be in violation as I read the law.

An interesting aspect here is that it would be hard to prove who modified the firearm.

Most modifications were done by the FFLs on the spot. Rifle Gear required me to walk out and then back in, O.C. Armory just did it. Either way, they got their "kit" back immediately and it wasn't me who was modifying the firearm.

The reasoning was that they could do this type of modification on my personal firearm because there was no law against it and it has never been considered a "manufacture." So, they considered it to be an equivalent of installing new sights. However, the different protocol by the two stores shows that they understood there was some gray area and Rifle Gear wanted to minimize their exposure by adding what amounts to an unnecessary step.

In a lawsuit it would be finger pointing and my guess is that the FFL would be on the hook. However, if SSE guns are declared a "nuisance," they can be confiscated regardless of "whoduneit" much like standard capacity magazines. That might be a problem if it happens.

But I also need to point out that my opinion about the law is pretty much worthless, but it's worth just as much as those who would believe the practice to be legal.

This is the critical point in this discussion. We DON'T KNOW because it hasn't been tested and plain reading of the statute is not the only reading of the statute. Are there alternative readings? We don't know until a DA presents one and a court rules on it.

[RickD427]

The Broughman case sounds interesting. All I know of it is what you have mentioned above. However, that sounds to me to be an issue regarding the manufacturing without a license to do so. (Dealers are welcome to gunsmith a customer's gun, but they can't prebuild a rifle in anticipation of a customer.) Anyhow, the state does regulate manufacturers. The old number was 12086. I can't remember the new number off hand. However, they do regulate, license, and define what a manufacturer is in California.

With respect to the statute, I don't see the prohibitions that you are suggesting. As we did six months ago, I suppose we need to agree to disagree.

You're correct, the state does regulate "manufacturers." I suspect that is why PC 32000 uses the specific language "any person who manufacturers" instead of "manufacturer."

You're right. I don't see that we're going to agree on the meaning of PC 32000. The statute really does call for a case decision to clarify its content, and until then there really isn't anything to compel a person to read it any differently than they choose to. As I pointed out in previous postings, I don't see any effort to undertake criminal prosecutions on any significant level until there is a good test case, and I expect to see that case framed for a civil court rather than a criminal court.

[MrOrange]

To this layman's mind, the key point in Broughman v Carter was that he was making changes in order to sell for profit. For the average home builder who is modifying SSE2 guns for his own use, I don't think it would apply.

About seizing guns, there doesn't have to be any legal reason, cops can just confiscate anything they want and it's up to you to take them to court to force them to return it.

Many years ago (before Calguns even existed) I was in a traffic accident on my way to the range, and the CHP took my pistol, ammo and mags and refused to return them. I got some legal counsel, and he told me that there was a slim chance that I'd win in court to get them returned, and did I really want to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to get my $400 worth of property back? Nope.

[Citizen_B]

There is no corresponding charge filed against the possessor. The situation is very similar to the seizure of "nuisance" magazines, or the seizure of money or property under asset forfeiture laws.

Interesting. So the scenario you see possibly playing out would be LE somehow comes into contact with an SSE converted weapon (perhaps as additive to other real charges), and confiscates it as a product of an illegal activity. Wouldn't the burden of proof have to come from LE rather than the possessor? Wouldn't DA have to prove that the illegal conversion first occurred as specified in PC32000 and within statute of limitation before making claim it's a product of illegal manufacturing? I don't know how an assumption of illegal activity can be made which therefore justifies a confiscation (of something not illegal to possess) without proof. Sure, you can look at the gun which would be in semi-auto mode and see it registered as SSE, but that nor possession is a crime by itself. This is different from say drugs etc. because manufacturing and possession are specifically illegal.

There is no violation of law by the FFL/Manufacturer so long as they sell the SSE2 Single-Shot to the customer. The person who changes the function of the weapon from single-shot to semi-auto would be in violation as I read the law.

I was actually thinking about SSE1 weapons. Not sure if there's a big distinction other than SSE1 was done when there was no law that an original semi-auto could be converted to a single-shot visa-versa. Your contention if I'm understanding correctly is you believe PC32000 is applicable to the person modifying a SSE1 back to semi-auto (again this is pre-PC 'fix'). If this is the case it gets gray who is the person doing the 'manufacturing'. All of the SSE conversions I've seen, the customer never even touches the weapon. Sometimes they walk out of the store in case and immediately return. Some do it at the counter. It's always been a gunsmithing like service. So who would be liable? The FFL/gunsmith doing the 'manufacturing' or the customer requesting the service?

I'm not familiar with the Broughman case regarding 'manufacturing'. I'll have to read up.

The stated intent of AB1964 was:

I think we're in agreement that SSE1 was to by-pass the lawmakers intent of the 'safe' handgun roster. The real issue is why would AB1964 even be necessary if everyone thought PC32000 was adequate to outlaw SSE conversions? It seems to me lawmakers recognized a flaw in their original PC and sought to rectify it.

The statute of limitations applies. I don't see anything in the picture that would permit tolling. Since the offense is in the manufacture of the semi-auto, that's when the statute would start. This is one of the many practical problems that I see preventing any large scale prosecution of PC 32000 cases.

What is the statute of limitations for a violation like this? It seems to me a lot of the clock has already ticked and the window of prosecution closing if people keep their SSE weapons out of sight.

I personally see no real value in the "Unsafe Handgun" law. I would much rather see our laws focus on managing bad conduct rather than on the instruments that could aid bad conduct (and also aid good conduct). But then my (and your) personal opinions are as important as described above. The opinions that matter are those that make it into law.

Agreed. I guess my point was if this is going to go in front of a judge, the state will have to defend their position that the SSE firearm does not meet the states safety standard and is deemed 'unsafe' yet there are many other exemptions for people in this state to have said 'unsafe' firearms, including LE. A reasonable judge is going to ask himself, if the state feels these firearms are unsafe (by their definition) why are our public servants using them? Seems like a major public safety risk. That's the smell test to me.

As I pointed out above, I don't see an avenue to prosecute FFLs. Their activity is pretty much legally clear. If there are going to be criminal prosecutions, it would be on the folks actually doing the conversions. But I really don't see that happening either. To the extent my "Crystal Ball" is working, I foresee LE making an effort to generate a good test case, and then run it through the court system. The best case from LE's perspective would be a civil property case where a private person sues for the return of a weapon seized as being the product of an illegal manufacture. That places the burden of proof on the weapon's owner to show that PC 32000 was not violated, and the standard would be to a "preponderance of the evidence" level. If LE were to bring a criminal case against a person for violation of PC 32000, then the prosecutor would have the burden of proof, and it would be to the higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

I think this is a semi-valid approach one could take. Agreed, I don't see practical criminal prosecution but didn't think about the civil side. That said it's not clear to me who is actually the manufacturer (FFL or customer).

[Citizen_B]

Many years ago (before Calguns even existed) I was in a traffic accident on my way to the range, and the CHP took my pistol, ammo and mags and refused to return them. I got some legal counsel, and he told me that there was a slim chance that I'd win in court to get them returned, and did I really want to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to get my $400 worth of property back? Nope.

If you don't mind me asking, what was the charge or reason not to return them? It seems like your lawyer thought there was some legal weight to the charge.

[RickD427]

Interesting. So the scenario you see possibly playing out would be LE somehow comes into contact with an SSE converted weapon (perhaps as additive to other real charges), and confiscates it as a product of an illegal activity. Wouldn't the burden of proof have to come from LE rather than the possessor? Wouldn't DA have to prove that the illegal conversion first occurred as specified in PC32000 and within statute of limitation before making claim it's a product of illegal manufacturing? I don't know how an assumption of illegal activity can be made which therefore justifies a confiscation (of something not illegal to possess) without proof. Sure, you can look at the gun which would be in semi-auto mode and see it registered as SSE, but that nor possession is a crime by itself. This is different from say drugs etc. because manufacturing and possession are specifically illegal.

I was actually thinking about SSE1 weapons. Not sure if there's a big distinction other than SSE1 was done when there was no law that an original semi-auto could be converted to a single-shot visa-versa. Your contention if I'm understanding correctly is you believe PC32000 is applicable to the person modifying a SSE1 back to semi-auto (again this is pre-PC 'fix'). If this is the case it gets gray who is the person doing the 'manufacturing'. All of the SSE conversions I've seen, the customer never even touches the weapon. Sometimes they walk out of the store in case and immediately return. Some do it at the counter. It's always been a gunsmithing like service. So who would be liable? The FFL/gunsmith doing the 'manufacturing' or the customer requesting the service?

I'm not familiar with the Broughman case regarding 'manufacturing'. I'll have to read up.

I think we're in agreement that SSE1 was to by-pass the lawmakers intent of the 'safe' handgun roster. The real issue is why would AB1964 even be necessary if everyone thought PC32000 was adequate to outlaw SSE conversions? It seems to me lawmakers recognized a flaw in their original PC and sought to rectify it.

What is the statute of limitations for a violation like this? It seems to me a lot of the clock has already ticked and the window of prosecution closing if people keep their SSE weapons out of sight.

Agreed. I guess my point was if this is going to go in front of a judge, the state will have to defend their position that the SSE firearm does not meet the states safety standard and is deemed 'unsafe' yet there are many other exemptions for people in this state to have said 'unsafe' firearms, including LE. A reasonable judge is going to ask himself, if the state feels these firearms are unsafe (by their definition) why are our public servants using them? Seems like a major public safety risk. That's the smell test to me.

I think this is a semi-valid approach one could take. Agreed, I don't see practical criminal prosecution but didn't think about the civil side. That said it's not clear to me who is actually the manufacturer (FFL or customer).

The best test case from the LE perspective is stay entirely on the civil side. LE officers do have the authority to seize firearms that were manufactured in violation of the law. There is no corresponding requirement to arrest, or to prosecute the violator. It may be intuitive to link the two, but there is no requirement.

In a criminal case, the prosecutor has the burden of proof.

But in a civil case, the moving party has the burden of proof. When the possessor of the firearms sues for its return, they bear the burden of showing that it was lawfully manufactured.

The burden shifting tactic involved in the civil court process is well-known to law enforcement. It's a mainstay in the "asset forfeiture" toolbox (and the root of most alleged improprieties of the asset forfeiture tactic).

When you go to civil court, there is no District Attorney anywhere in the process.

Remember that PC 32000 was in place long before Broughman. And when you do apply the reasoning of Broughman, it's only the person who manufactured the "unsafe handgun" that has criminal liability.

[RickD427]

To this layman's mind, the key point in Broughman v Carter was that he was making changes in order to sell for profit. For the average home builder who is modifying SSE2 guns for his own use, I don't think it would apply.

About seizing guns, there doesn't have to be any legal reason, cops can just confiscate anything they want and it's up to you to take them to court to force them to return it.

Many years ago (before Calguns even existed) I was in a traffic accident on my way to the range, and the CHP took my pistol, ammo and mags and refused to return them. I got some legal counsel, and he told me that there was a slim chance that I'd win in court to get them returned, and did I really want to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to get my $400 worth of property back? Nope.

You're correct that Mr. Broughman was involved in commercial activity, but that point was irrelevant to the case holding. The language of the decision makes it equally applicable to a home-builder.

I'm also curious about your CHP encounter. Had the same thing occurred involving deputy sheriff's under my supervision, your weapons would have taken into custody for safekeeping and returned to you when you were again capable of securing them (and with a LEGR after that process went into effect - Don't get me going on the LEGR. I could duplicate all functions of the LEGR process at my desk in just a few minutes).

I have to think there was more involved, or that your attorney didn't do a very good job.

We need a source of authority to retain firearms.