Why such panic on stripped lowers?

[elSquid]

That's where the system fails since one could at any time create a no-marking post-ban lower which would be presumed pre-ban.

You're assuming that the system needs to be complete and handle all edge conditions.

My guess is that it would be much like the '94 ban: the goal would be to basically choke off retail supply. Marginalization, not registration.

It's true that somebody could build an unmarked lower "post ban", but the reality is that there would be millions of pre-ban ARs out and about in the secondary market. New unmarked post ban lowers would be a drop in the bucket, and they wouldn't be created by manufacturers, but by lone individuals. Again, since the goal would be marginalization and "weaning" the public off of EBRs, a small leak wouldn't be a big deal.

Now that's the "soft" way of dealing with EBRs federally, following the same pattern as the '94 ban.

The rigorous way would be to add EBRs to the NFA regulations and require tax stamps.

-- Michael

[geoint]

It's not only a Kalistan phenomenon. It's nationwide. The pre-election rush is in full swing just like it was the last 2 Obama elections. With Hillary in power the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment are history. The recent rash of mass shootings are compounding the rush. The rest of the nation also took note of Brown passing all the anti-gun laws and they figure the same thing is headed their way. So goes Califronia, so goes the nation.

Even if you're looking only at Kalistan, it makes sense. If you own 4 pre-2014 lowers, it would be smart to buy 4 more lowers today. Turn the pre-2014 lowers into featureless rifles to keep them off the books. Take the 4 new lowers and register them as AW's. They're basically throwaways. When confiscation comes, you turn-in the 4 new ones and you'll still have the 4 old ones that are off the books.

At least that's what seems to be going on IMHO.

Anyone who would just meekly surrender their RAWs when confiscation comes doesn't deserve their featureless rifles either.

[Brush Guard]

There are plenty of AR rifles priced between $600-$1000.

Only a complete rifle will be eligible for registration, and it will need, if it's a build, to be completely assembled by end of 2016, to be in full legal compliance. Build with a BB after 1/1/2017 and you are committing a felony manufacturing an assault weapon, though it might be hard to prove. But if the stripped lower used is DROS on or after 1/1/2017, you are fried.

Think only featureless or rimfire or some type of magblock (that in fact actually conforms to the new law) if a stripped lower is DROS on or after 1/1/2017.

So, if one builds, and wants to build a featured weapon with BB, one can only do so legally by the end of the year. So, better buy stripped lowers NOW and certainly before 12/20/2016 and have assembled the rifle with BB by 12/31/2016.

The foregoing has been pointed out by others here and I happen to agree with the above strictly looking at the recently enacted laws.

Good night, all.

Only a complete rifle will be eligible for registration?
Can you share the actual verbiage from the law?

[Cokebottle]

Only a complete rifle will be eligible for registration?
Can you share the actual verbiage from the law?

30680.
Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if all of the following are applicable:
(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person would have been eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.

(b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017.

A bare lower is neither centerfire nor semiautomatic, thus, a bare lower is by definition NOT an AW.


Now, the interesting thing is....
By strict reading of this statute, it does actually appear to open a new window to register AW that were not registered in 2000.

(B) states "The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to Jan 1 2017"
"Lawfully possessed prior to" includes dates prior to Jan 1 2000.
A listed AW is not CURRENTLY lawfully possessed, but it could indeed have been lawfully possessed in 1989 or 1999.

[dadler]

They do not, under the Commerce Clause, have the authority to regulate the transfer of private property between two residents of the same state.

Oh, they sure think they do have the authority:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana and the federal government may thus regulate and prohibit such consumption.

If consuming your own, personally grown Cannabis is regulated federally under the commerce clause -- don't you think that transfer of property between persons, with exchange of currency, *certainly* would fall under the commerce clause by the same argument?

They argue that anything that even remotely affects commerce, even if incredibly indirectly, is under their purview.

It's a ridiculous argument, but the Feds and courts will go to great lengths to magically "interpret" a way to regulate things that they desire to.

[Brush Guard]

30680.
Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if all of the following are applicable:
(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person would have been eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.

(b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017.

A bare lower is neither centerfire nor semiautomatic, thus, a bare lower is by definition NOT an AW.


Now, the interesting thing is....
By strict reading of this statute, it does actually appear to open a new window to register AW that were not registered in 2000.

(B) states "The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to Jan 1 2017"
"Lawfully possessed prior to" includes dates prior to Jan 1 2000.
A listed AW is not CURRENTLY lawfully possessed, but it could indeed have been lawfully possessed in 1989 or 1999.

[ifilef]

Only a complete rifle will be eligible for registration?
Can you share the actual verbiage from the law?

In order to be registered as an AW, it must be defined as such.

Just go to PC 30510 for the list of RIFLES deemed AW, and new PC 30515 for definitions of what other RIFLES, pistols and shotguns by feature constitute an AW- and new 30680 as cited by CokeBottle for entitlement to register and new 30900(b)(1) for the designated time periods in which possessed with registration deadline.

An assembled lower is not a rifle nor is it a weapon without an upper receiver and barrel. Hence, it can not be an 'assault weapon'.

If my citations and/or reasoning are incorrect please let me know.

For convenience sake, pertinent part of 30515 as it pertains to rifles, and entirety of 30680 is herein set forth:

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 30515 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches....
...

SEC. 2. Section 30680 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
30680. Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if all of the following are applicable:
(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person was eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.
(b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017.
(c) The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 30900.
...

[9mmContagion]

In the state of CA all stripped receivers are entered in to DROS as a rifle. Therefore, they can be registered as an AW. Unless there is some other verbiage stating otherwise. This doesn't necessarily mean you MUST register since you can configure the rifle in several different ways to avoid AW status.

[Brush Guard]

In the state of CA all stripped receivers are entered in to DROS as a rifle. Therefore, they can be registered as an AW. Unless there is some other verbiage stating otherwise. This doesn't necessarily mean you MUST register since you can configure the rifle in several different ways to avoid AW status.

This seems to make more sense.

[ifilef]

In the state of CA all stripped receivers are entered in to DROS as a rifle. Therefore, they can be registered as an AW. Unless there is some other verbiage stating otherwise. This doesn't necessarily mean you MUST register since you can configure the rifle in several different ways to avoid AW status.

Interesting to see how this plays out and I do understand your post.

A stripped lower entered in the DROS as a rifle- if this is true and correct, that does not mean it fits the definition of an AW pursuant to the statutory language of 30515, other statutes I reference, and the legislative intent. So, and with a stripped lower DROS before end of this year, one can make the rifle featureless at any time and most likely not have to register it, so basically in agreement with your statement.

However, I would stick with my statement that it'd better be fully assembled with a BB and upper by 12/31/2016 to fully comply with the statutory language of at least 30680, if one wants to register it as an AW with impunity. For after 1/1/2017 you can't even add a BB to a stripped lower because assembly of BB are banned effective that date. (Yes, I know there's a proof problem there as to stripped lowers purchased before the end of this year and that one need not register until the end of 2017).

Thanks.

[9mmContagion]

No need for an upper. In your reference, all that would be needed is installation of bullet button. And even at that, we still don't know whether the bullet button will just be an added feature to form an assault weapon or whether the bullet button can be removed and replaced with a regular mag release upon registration. Therefore, still leaving the option to register a stripped lower as an AW. Even if you remove your mag release and LPK from your currently registered AW, it's still an AW since the lower has been registered...

In other words, one can purchase a stripped lower with full intent to complete as an AW. Or with full intent to complete as Featureless. If you register as AW, it is all on the owner to comply with the law.

[ifilef]

In other words, one can purchase a stripped lower with full intent to complete as an AW. Or with full intent to complete as Featureless. If you register as AW, it is all on the owner to comply with the law.

I'd add to that first sentence 'provided it is completed as AW by 12/31/2016' to be in agreement with you because it is mandated by a strict reading of the statutes effective 1/1/2017.

That naturally raises the argument one should not have to do an act now that is mandated by a later statute not yet in effect. But there are probably many laws that require changes to be made to products prior to effective date of those statutes. They have 'retroactive effect', but I am no expert.

If you don't build, and buy retail or through PPT before end of this year it's easier to decide whether to register, or not.

And I'd agree that it is all on the owner to comply with the law.

Cheers,

[9mmContagion]

I'd add to that first sentence 'provided it is completed as AW by 12/31/2016' to be in agreement with you because it is mandated by a strict reading of the statutes effective 1/1/2017.

But that naturally raises the argument that one should not have to do an act now mandated by a later statute.

And I'd agree that it is all on the owner to comply with the law.

Cheers,

Can you highlight where exactly your statements are backed? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't read anywhere stating that the firearm must be completed by 1/1/2017. The only portion of the firearm that is registered is the lower receiver in its stripped form. The only thing that goes on the DROS is the lowers receiver info. This is why in CA a lower is classified as a rifle. If your understanding of the law were true, this would technically mean, you could never separate the lower from the upper..

[ifilef]

Can you highlight where exactly your statements are backed? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't read anywhere stating that the firearm must be completed by 1/1/2017. The only portion of the firearm that is registered is the lower receiver in its stripped form. The only thing that goes on the DROS is the lowers receiver info. This is why in CA a lower is classified as a rifle. If your understanding of the law were true, this would technically mean, you could never separate the lower from the upper..

I wouldn't want to assume a correlation between DROS registration characterizations, classifications, definitions, requirements and those of the same relating to AW registration. 'Apples n oranges'.

How could a stripped lower be characterized as an assault weapon under these laws:
Would refer you to NEW PC 30680, 30515, 30900 eff. 1/1/2017. I don't believe it possible nor should it be.

The effect is that it gives builder the choice to assemble and comply with RAW requirements by 12/31/2016 or just go featureless with no completion date required. I see no other choices to be compliant concerning the issue of stripped lowers this year.

[AceGirlsHusband]

1. They probably don't understand the new law. Average joe doesn't know what featureless is.

2. They know and want to register it as a AW next year so they can build something with features at a later date.

Can one pre-register something that doesn't exist, then build it and bring it into existence after it is prohibited by law?