Building an AR pistol

[RickD427]

What would you call an AR lower which was DROSed as a long gun and never assembled into a rifle that gets assembled the first time as a pistol?

I would call it an "Unsafe Handgun" made in violation of Penal Code section 32000.

Please note that in reaching this conclusion, I am giving a broad reading of PC 29180 and applying Broughman in the manner I would expect a California court to apply it.

OTOH, if PC 29180 were applied narrowly and Broughman disregarded, then I call it a pretty cool pistol.

Although I do not share the view, I can also see a creative prosecutor (like the one in People v Nguyen) making the argument that the AR-15 Lower is a "Rifle" by design (all of Dr. Stoner's design efforts were toward to production of a rifle even though others have later modified it) regardless of how it was DROS'd. That would support charges for making/possessing an SBR. I'm personally pleased to see Franklin Armory taking the DOJ to task for their sloppy way they match DROS language to statutory language and am following their efforts with a lot of interest.

[igs]

IGS,

Please read the statutes that you consider posting before you post them. You could save yourself some embarrassment.

California recognizes both commercial and personal manufacturers of firearms.

Where is that distinction made? You keep making that assertion but have you found it? Still waiting. You are the one that's been embarrassing yourself over and over again.

Is that like private property vs personal property? LMAO

[RickD427]

Where is that distinction made? You keep making that assertion but have you found it? Still waiting. You are the one that's been embarrassing yourself over and over again.

Is that like private property vs personal property? LMAO

We've been discussing the distinction between the two. Let me try to make it more clear:

The Penal Code that you yourself cited (PC 29010) is an excellent example of where California has considered commercial manufacturers separately from personal manufacturers. The state has imposed a licensure requirement on folks who make a lot of firearms (a hundred a year) and who are federally licensed as commercial manufacturers. Federal law (18 USC 922(a)(1)(A)) only requires a license for folks "engaged in the business..." to possess a license. There is no federal requirement for non-business folks to be licensed. Under California law, the licensure requirement is not imposed on personal manufacturers and that's the distinction right there.

On the opposite side, Penal Code section 29180 requires a person to apply for, and receive a serial number from the California DOJ within 10 days of manufacturing a firearm, but section 29181 (when you parse out its language) exempts federally licensed manufacturers from the requirement. They get to apply serial numbers of their own choice to weapons they manufacture. There's the opposite distinction right there.

[igs]

That's talking about manufacture the verb not manufacturer the noun. There's a difference remember?

Please make sure that you are not confusing the different terms of "Manufacture" (a verb) and "Manufacturer" (a noun). You will find references in statute to "Manufacturer" (the noun) with a commercial context, but so with "Manufacture" (the verb).

[RickD427]

That's talking about manufacture the verb not manufacturer the noun. There's a difference remember?

Nope, Go back and read it again. I'm always more than happy to engage in serious discussion, but only so long as its productive.

[morthrane]

Broughman was involved in the selling of firearms, and he held an FFL01 to do so, but that was not relevant to the case holding. What was relevant was that the court held the act of fitting new parts onto an existing firearm, and to the degree done by Broughman, amounted to the manufacture of a new firearm.

From what I remember about the case, he was dodging tax law according to the ATF, because he was modifying firearms that belonged to him.

If he modified the same firearms as a customer requested action on a customer owned firearm, they wouldn't be new firearms or require the excise tax and license.

Not sure I can get behind the reading on Broughman that you bring to the table.

[RickD427]

From what I remember about the case, he was dodging tax law according to the ATF, because he was modifying firearms that belonged to him.

If he modified the same firearms as a customer requested action on a customer owned firearm, they wouldn't be new firearms or require the excise tax and license.

Not sure I can get behind the reading on Broughman that you bring to the table.

Morthrane,

You're close. Broughman was an FFL01 who purchased completed firearm receivers and who then added components for sale to customers. The decision doesn't make clear if he was the owner of the firearms at the time they were modified. The decision does report that he was modifying a weapon to a customers specifications when he was cited by the ATF. The ATF's position was that he required an FFL07 (manufacturer) to engage in that business.

But the ownership of the firearms at the time they were modified isn't really relevant to the holding.

Much of the dicta of the Broughman case discusses Broughman as a commercial manufacturer of firearms (using the "noun" as I have described in some of my previous postings). The Fourth Circuit judges came to the conclusion, in dicta, that Broughman was a commercial manufacturer of firearms and as such needed to be licensed as an FFL07. That much of the decision supports your view.

But dicta only educates the case reader as to why a court came to a conclusion. The dicta is not authoritative. The Fourth Circuit upheld the District Court's grant of summary with a simple conclusion as to the meaning of the term "Manufacture" (the "Verb" as I have pointed out in my earlier postings). Here's the key text from the decision that causes me to apply Broughman more broadly: