AR15 Uppers Illegal ?

[chasem5657]

Hello This might seem like a dumb question but I am going to ask it anyway. Are some Uppers Illegal to own in CA ?

[dvs762]

not really...unless all you have are rifle lowers and no upper for them and have a pistol upper laying around..that could be a problem..uppers are just parts..you buy them and they ship to your house..explain more of your concern about owning one.

[jrpowell3]

I guess, maybe if you had an SBR upper without the appropriate NFA tax stamp(which you can't get in CA)...but I don't think the upper itself is illegal, it would just be illegal to put that upper on a compatible lower because that'd be assembling an illegal SBR.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I am pulling this out of my ***.

[chasem5657]

No Concern Just orderd one off PMSA a "PTAC 16' M4 5.56 Nitride" and was curious about the 10.5 PSA Upper

[Scratch705]

the root of this question is really

Does CA have constructive Possession law on the books?

[dvs762]

not sure if Cali has a law like that but why tempt fate. Unless your plan is to make a 16 inch out of a 10.5 with a pin and weld extension or have a 80% pistol lower , myself I wouldnt do it..even with my FFL and assorted permits..if you have a pistol lower then it should be cool..in Cali I have learned its all about CYA now with gun owners..Prosecuters just seem to bend over backwards to find a reason to mess with us..even involving the Alphabets when it suits their causes..

[chasem5657]

Has Anyone order'd a Upper from PMSA are they good and reliable ?

[BlooDSMeaR]

Has Anyone order'd a Upper from PMSA are they good and reliable ?

PSA? yes one of the best lower costing company's out there!

[dvs762]

PSA is a decent company. I am dealing with them lately. I have a couple PTAC and 10.5 uppers from them and they are good quality. Price is decent as well. the PTAC is not chrome lined I believe but are decent accuracy and I had no trouble putting the barrels on uppers. The fit was very good.

[CoopsDad]

Hello This might seem like a dumb question but I am going to ask it anyway. Are some Uppers Illegal to own in CA ?

Speaking specifically to this question- no. All AR-15 uppers are legal to own. An upper isn't a firearm- it's an unserialized component. As some have said, though, owning a short barreled upper and a rifle/carbine lower could trigger "constructive possession" of a short barreled rifle under certain (if improbable) circumstances.

[Junkie]

If the only lowers you have have stocks on them I wouldn't buy an upper without a 16" barrel (or 14.5/14.7 pinned/welded). California has interpreted disassembled rifles as AWs in the past, I imagine the same would apply to SBR.

[OlderThanDirt]

There are a lot of new uppers on the market that have integrated suppressors. No bueno in CA. Owning any upper with a barrel length less than 16 inches (counting pinned whatever) in the absence of a pistol lower might cause you a little pain with BATFE. Some manufacturers will no longer ship pistol upper receivers directly to consumers, especially in non-NFA states like California.

[stix213]

Generally no, but there are some complications.

Both federal and state law ban owning short uppers with no appropriate lowers in your possession that would build a non-SBR. So basically don't own pistol uppers without a pistol lower.

There was an Assault Weapon ruling a few years back that effectively created AW constructive possession out of thin air even though it isn't on the books. So its a bad idea to own parts that could build an AW without also having compliance parts. I'd also avoid .50BMG uppers without non-rifle lowers for the same reason.

[sigstroker]

the root of this question is really

Does CA have constructive Possession law on the books?

If you're talking about short barrels it doesn't matter because the feds are enthusiastic about prosecuting these. I'm not sure if there's even law on the books other than case law.

[Junkie]

sigstroker, I've never been able to find an example of a federal prosecution for constructive SBR (let alone a conviction). Could you link to one of them?

MG it's clearly in the text, SBR it doesn't appear to be but idk what case law says.