Why such panic on stripped lowers?

[IVC]

The bullet button itself is not and will not become a "feature"

More importantly, even if it *did* become a feature (which clearly it didn't) it would be irrelevant for those who go the RAW route - a RAW is an AW precisely because it contains features, and it's legal because it's registered.

If you buy a stripped lower and complete the build after Jan 1, you have illegally manufactured an AW.

Only if you build with features. Building a featureless is still good to go since it's not an AW.

There already exists at least one solution for changing magazines that requires pulling the rear pin and pivoting the upper around the forward pin. (I saw a preview years ago when similar law was passed, then vetoed.)

Having a RAW is no picnic.
Transportation/destination/storage requirements (does your adult son have the combination to your safe?), restrictions on where you can shoot.

This is the primary issue of contention and there is no "right" answer. Some people will welcome the silver lining of having a RAW, some will go featureless.

No question these types of laws are bad for 2A and that we would all want to have a choice of how we configure our rifles, but looking only within the reality of the recently passed laws the choice is binary: RAW or featureless.

[IVC]

No need for an upper.

Most likely true, since uppers are not registered and registering a lower as an AW creates a RAW.

The details will depend on the registration form itself - if it asks for caliber or stipulates that an upper must be attached, you might have to attach a temporary upper while registering (honor system only - the state doesn't know what's attached).

In your reference, all that would be needed is installation of bullet button.

Not true. Bullet button has been completely irrelevant from the time the law passed. Today, bullet button is considered a standard release and there is absolutely no difference between the two - both result in "detachable magazine."

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.

Not true. BB is not only not a feature, it is now equivalent to the regular magazine release.

Remember, both RAWs and featureless can have detachable magazines (for different reasons, though) and since BB doesn't create a fixed magazine, having BB next year will be self-inflicted masochism. *ALL* BBs can come off no matter what route you choose.

Therefore, still leaving the option to register a stripped lower as an AW.

Yes, but not for the reasons you state.

A lower is most likely to be eligible (not compulsory) to be registered as a RAW. Even if it isn't, you'll be able to put a temporary upper to create a rifle, then register the serialized part - the lower. The law doesn't mention anything about trying to register uppers or have them as part of RAW registry, so chances are we'll be able to swap uppers. This will depend on how DOJ implements the law.

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...

Correct. Once registered, it remains registered. The previous registry had a mechanism for deregistering. The new law doesn't talk about it, so it will be a matter of implementation by the DOJ.

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.

With a caveat that if the intent is to build an AW it must be prior to registration window closing and it must be registered. Once the registration ends, the only option is to go featureless.

[ifilef]

The new statute, e.g., PC 30900(b)(3), states what shall be provided when registering online:

"(3) The registration shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the date the firearm was acquired, the name and address of the individual from whom, or business from which, the firearm was acquired, as well as the registrant’s full name, address, telephone number, date of birth, sex, height, weight, eye color, hair color, and California driver’s license number or California identification card number."

I do think the above is VAGUE/AMBIGUOUS in part thereof.


Without specifically commenting on post #92 statements, which I don't have time in which to explain how I dispute, and I do respectfully differ with some of them, what really caught my eye is the last paragraph of IVC's post #92, above.

It should be corrected or clarified that AW build (featured w/BB) must (technically) be completed by end of THIS YEAR, not the end of the registration window; as I interpret, it would be manufacturing an unlawful AW if built featured w/BB in 2017. BB is banned on or after 1/1/2017 for firearms so manufactured or sold and they would not be registrable.

I do not comment about workarounds which may be unlawful; only giving my take on the law as I see it.

[Sizzlechest]

Are stripped lower becoming Illegal come 01/2017?

[GM4spd]

Are stripped lower becoming Illegal come 01/2017?

No,but their usefulness may be limited.

[ifilef]

'Head-spinning' what is a firearm?

The new statute, e.g., PC 30900(b)(3), states what shall be provided when registering online:

"(3) The registration shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the date the firearm was acquired, the name and address of the individual from whom, or business from which, the firearm was acquired, as well as the registrant’s full name, address, telephone number, date of birth, sex, height, weight, eye color, hair color, and California driver’s license number or California identification card number."

Have 'fun' with this one, fellas!
PC 16520.
(a) As used in this part, ”firearm" means a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.
(b) As used in the following provisions, “firearm” includes the frame or receiver of the weapon:
(1) Section 16550.
(2) Section 16730.
(3) Section 16960.
(4) Section 16990.
(5) Section 17070.
(6) Section 17310.
(7) Sections 26500 to 26588, inclusive.
(8) Sections 26600 to 27140, inclusive.
(9) Sections 27400 to 28000, inclusive.
(10) Section 28100.
(11) Sections 28400 to 28415, inclusive.
(12) Sections 29010 to 29150, inclusive.
(13) Sections 29610 to 29750, inclusive.
(14) Sections 29800 to 29905, inclusive.
(15) Sections 30150 to 30165, inclusive.
(16) Section 31615.
(17) Sections 31705 to 31830, inclusive.
(18) Sections 34355 to 34370, inclusive.
(19) Sections 8100, 8101, and 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(c) As used in the following provisions, “firearm” also includes a rocket, rocket propelled projectile launcher, or similar device containing an explosive or incendiary material, whether or not the device is designed for emergency or distress signaling purposes:
(1) Section 16750.
(2) Subdivision (b) of Section 16840.
(3) Section 25400.
(4) Sections 25850 to 26025, inclusive.
(5) Subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of Section 26030.
(6) Sections 26035 to 26055, inclusive.
(d) As used in the following provisions, “firearm” does not include an unloaded antique firearm:
(1) Subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 16730.
(2) Section 16550.
(3) Section 16960.
(4) Section 17310.
(5) Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 26350) of Division 5 of Title 4.
(6) Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 26400) of Division 5 of Title 4.
(7) Sections 26500 to 26588, inclusive.
(8) Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive.
(9) Section 27510.
(10) Section 27530.
(11) Section 27540.
(12) Section 27545.
(13) Sections 27555 to 27585, inclusive.
(14) Sections 29010 to 29150, inclusive.
(15) Section 25135.
(e) As used in Sections 34005 and 34010, “firearm” does not include a destructive device.
(f) As used in Sections 17280 and 24680, “firearm” has the same meaning as in Section 922 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
(g) As used in Sections 29010 to 29150, inclusive, “firearm” includes the unfinished frame or receiver of a weapon that can be readily converted to the functional condition of a finished frame or receiver.
(Amended by Stats. 2014, Ch. 878, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2015.)

[IVC]

It should be corrected or clarified that AW build (featured w/BB) must (technically) be completed by end of THIS YEAR, not the end of the registration window; as I interpret, it would be manufacturing an unlawful AW if built featured w/BB in 2017. BB is banned on or after 1/1/2017 for firearms so manufactured or sold and they would not be registrable.

I do not comment about workarounds which may be unlawful; only giving my take on the law as I see it.

You are technically correct (including disagreeing with my longer post) if you both concentrate on the transition period and don't allow workarounds. Actually, I should have labeled much more clearly which parts of my post are "by the book" and which are "pushing the limit."

For example, you are correct that the *build* must be completed by 1/1/17, but the law doesn't require the lower to be completed (it's registered whether stripped or not) and the law doesn't require the rifle to remain in the AW configuration during the transition period of 2017. The trick is to be able to claim/show that the (stripped) lower was configured as an AW per new definition at *some* point before 1/1/2017 and that the configuration was still legal per old definition at the time. The "per new law" part satisfies the wording of the law (possession prior to 1/1/2017) and the "per old law" part ensures one doesn't commit a crime while configuring the rifle.

With that in mind, putting a temporary BB at *some point* prior to 2017 and putting a stock and an upper is "technically a must" - BB to keep it legal per current law and the rest to make it a rifle that is an AW per the new law. However, having put it together this way, one can take it apart again. The condition of "having possessed the (new definition) AW prior to 1/1/2017" is met.

Another point is that post 1/1/2017, the BB is useless (not banned, just useless). Putting a BB at that point is equivalent to having a standard release and any added feature will make it an AW per then-current (new) law.

Now, getting back to "pushing the limit," doing the dance of assembling then disassembling a rifle is something that is in the same category as doing the dance during 80% AR pistol home builds in order to avoid roster, or having some FFLs convert an SSE to semi-auto on the spot, while others requiring you to walk out and back in to "demonstrate it's a separate transaction." It's all nonsense that takes care of technicalities and which is completely unenforceable.

What really matters in the long run is understanding what has happened in CA with the new ban. In simple terms, if you register you have a RAW, if you don't you go featureless. That's about it.

[ifilef]

..
What really matters in the long run is understanding what has happened in CA with the new ban. In simple terms, if you register you have a RAW, if you don't you go featureless. That's about it.

You don't understand what has happened with the new registration law in light of your statement, above. It's not so simply stated.

IMO, amend statement above to 'In simple terms, if you register you have a RAW, if you don't YOU GO TO JAIL.'
(GO TO JAIL in 2018 if you had possessed it with a bullet button any time 2001-2016 and continue to possess the firearm through 2017 without registering it as AW).

Best 'wishes',

p.s. I make my statements to help others avoid the serious consequences of failing to register when mandated to do so. So, don't bash me personally and think that I have any ulterior motives. My only motive in posting my honest view of the new laws is not to help the State but to help us avoid trouble in the future. And, no, I don't work for the State of California or law enforcement.

[Cokebottle]

IMO, amend statement above to 'In simple terms, if you register you have a RAW, if you don't YOU GO TO JAIL.'
(GO TO JAIL in 2018 if you had possessed it with a bullet button any time 2001-2016 and continue to possess the firearm through 2017 without registering it as AW).

There are several dozen legal minds on Calguns that know and understand the law better than you or I.
There is a reason that you are the only person on this forum driving this empty bandwagon.

The wording of the law is to prohibit a new registration of a gun that SHOULD have been registered (banned by name) in 1990 or 2000, and to prohibit the completion of a registerable build in 2017 or later.
Converting to (the 2017 definition of) fixed magazine or going featureless negates the AW status of the weapon, and thus, eliminates the requirement to register.

[ifilef]

There are several dozen legal minds on Calguns that know and understand the law better than you or I.

There is a reason that you are the only person on this forum driving this empty bandwagon.

The wording of the law is to prohibit a new registration of a gun that SHOULD have been registered (banned by name) in 1990 or 2000, and to prohibit the completion of a registerable build in 2017 or later.

Converting to (the 2017 definition of) fixed magazine or going featureless negates the AW status of the weapon, and thus, eliminates the requirement to register.

You don't know that. And you don't understand the new registration law, either.

Moreover, I suggest that you strongly pay attention to the postings of a new calgunner here- 'rumrunner102'. He has very low post count, but do not discount what he has to say here in a subtle manner which most, if not all with the contrary view, 'glossed over' as it is somewhat esoteric:

post #198 - http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...7#post18738207

Do note the statutes cited by rum. In particular:

PC 30605 is the penalty statute and it's been in existence for some years.

And, NEW

"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 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.
(c) The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 30900."featured BB weapon that you possessed prior to 1/1/2017. Having a BB made it a lawfully possessed AW for registration purposes and one SHALL REGISTER it or suffer the penalties of PC 30605.

Maybe he was just afraid of being 'flamed' as a new calgunner and did not state it more directly. I think he ended up being flamed anyway, but in spite of such flaming, I hope he continues to contribute to the forum, though I would not blame him if he did not.

'CrazedSS' seems to agree also in post #196 based on his reading of the statute NEW PC30900(b)(1). So that's at least three of us who have the cajones to call it as we see it.

And it's apparent to me that rumrunner has some kind of background in the law.

I hope that you all come around and see the light because it is pretty clear what one must do to comply with the law. And converting to featureless or what you believe to be 2017 mag compliant before the end of the year just doesn't relieve one of the mandatory duty to register it as an AW.

*Disclaimer: My comments are not to be relied upon as legal advice. They are just my general interpretation of the laws as presently available to us. See an attorney and pay for his/her advice for your specific fact situation.

[xrMike]

If you buy a stripped lower and complete the build after Jan 1 (2017), you have illegally manufactured an AW.

I understand this and always condone lawful behavior of course...

But I can't think of any way that authorities could determine or prove that you built up your lower into a finished rifle anytime during the year of 2017, before the registration deadline kicks in...

Can you? (or anybody)

How would they know?

[CandG]

I understand this and always condone lawful behavior of course...

But I can't think of any way that authorities could determine or prove that you built up your lower into a finished rifle anytime during the year of 2017, before the registration deadline kicks in...

Can you? (or anybody)

How would they know?

Don't put it past the DOJ to require a LEO to inspect it and sign off on the registration form. Yes, that's unlikely, but... welcome to California.

[Cokebottle]

I understand this and always condone lawful behavior of course...

But I can't think of any way that authorities could determine or prove that you built up your lower into a finished rifle anytime during the year of 2017, before the registration deadline kicks in...

Can you? (or anybody)

How would they know?

Paper trail from online purchases.

Assuming you've done something to draw attention to yourself... like registering five in January, then suddenly coming up with another five 4 months later... search incident to arrest (you, roomie, etc...)


I agree... the probability of getting caught for MOST firearms violations is somewhere between zero and none for the majority of otherwise law-abiding citizens. FTF paperless transfers have always been and always will be routine.
The simple fact is that the majority of California gun owners are simply unaware of the laws that they may be violating.

[DrjonesUSA]

Don't put it past the DOJ to require a LEO to inspect it and sign off on the registration form. Yes, that's unlikely, but... welcome to California.

Hmmm....yeah, in light of all that's been happening, let's pass a law *requiring* people to approach LEOs with guns in hand.....great idea!

[ifilef]

Don't put it past the DOJ to require a LEO to inspect it and sign off on the registration form. Yes, that's unlikely, but... welcome to California.

I will refrain from characterizing your post as the three letter word so commonly used and present here.

DOJ can not go beyond a reasonable interpretation of the new laws via regulation.

Besides, registration is online. How would LEO sign off on it?

That requirement would be beyond the statute and would be impossible to achieve. LEO have better things to do and it would not only be impracticable, unlawful and costly, but unnecessary.