AW Manufacture...

[DigglerD]

Gone off topic from another thread and am wondering what people here think about this situation...

No, what I am saying is that if you have an OLL... and an officer can remove the mag without use of a tool then he manufactured nothing and you are in deep poo for having an AW. I don't think it matters if you are damaging the weapon so long as you are doing it with your hands (not considered tools). That's where the Elmers glue came into play... If you glue the mag in and never pull it out... that doesn't mean that a LEO is manufacturing an AW when he breaks your Elmers glue to pull the mag out. Same with a BB if it gave while an officer was tugging on it with his hands.

True...If the officer can push the mag release and the mag drops then it's on the rifle owner, however, if the officer with a tool or his hands removes or damages the mag lock causing the magazine to fall out and the rifle still has all the evil features then the officer has created the illegal configuration not the owner and that was topic of the debate, not if he can walk up and just push the mag release and the mag pops out.

If a component was defective and broke under non normal rigors of use, IMHO, I would believe it would be up to the officer to prove it wasn't defective. The officer was banging that piece of equipment which caused undo stress on that piece of equipment causing it to break, which in turn cause the mag locking mechanism to fall out or fail to lock the magazine, therefore creating an illegal configuration. The owner didn't do it, the officer did.

Same here... I may be wrong but I know that people pin and weld their muzzle breaks on 14.5" barrels as opposed to hand tightening them with anti seize... as I think the latter would be on you if a LEO took the rifle and simply twisted the muzzle break off.

I am sure someone on here would be able to answer that but my first thought would be that my comments above still apply. If the muzzle break stays on the weapon through normal use and then an officer walks up and begins twisting the muzzle break and it then comes off, who created the illegal configuration? It was on and legal while the owner was firing it and then officer blue walked up and took the muzzle flash off creating the illegal configuration. I also wouldn't accept the weapon back in that illegal configuration either.

[lrdchivalry]

Gone off topic from another thread and am wondering what people here think about this situation...

Taken from Bill Weise's memo in the defense attorney section.


"Was a fixed 10-rd magazine removed or disturbed?

This could occur if a semiautomatic rifle with

pistol grip and fixed magazine was held in evidence. “Safe storage” practices of some PD storage
facilities may conceivably mandate removal of fixed magazines, again leaving rifles’ owners
associated with unregistered assault weapons. (Note that police employees/officers are not immune
from PC 12280(a) “illegal assault weapon manufacturing” charges!) If fixed magazine capacity
appears to be an issue, remember that the 10 round capacity must be measured using the ammunition
caliber/size for which the rifle is chambered – as ammunition of many different calibers and sizes can

readily be misapplied in any gun’s fixed or detachable magazines."

[JagerTroop]

Originally Posted by DigglerD
Same here... I may be wrong but I know that people pin and weld their muzzle breaks on 14.5" barrels as opposed to hand tightening them with anti seize... as I think the latter would be on you if a LEO took the rifle and simply twisted the muzzle break off.

True. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me. It you install a FH to achieve a 16 inch barrel, it must be pinned/welded(perm. attached) to be legal. If you have a 16" barrel (without muzzle device) you do not have to perm. attach it.

[NeoWeird]

The bad logic you have is that barrels are welded/soldiered/pinned so that removal of attachment will destroy the barrel. The muzzle attachment may still be useable, and the barrel can be recut and useable to a certain length, but it would require severe damage to the barrel to remove it. AR15Barrels had a good picture that showed the damage done to these barrels when the attachment is removed. This also applies to some semi-auto MG designs, such as the 1919 which requires parts to be welded together and parts changed to prevent FA MG parts from being used. The idea being that in order to convert the firearm to an illegal configuration would require severe damage to a part of the firearm rendering it useless; and in theory making it an incomplete firearm. This is federal law, not state law, but I like to believe that unless otherwise stated or noted that similar governement agencies think and act alike.

Using that logic, I'd say if the officer removes the magazine it doesn't automatically make it an AW. If the officer simply jars the rifle hard enough and tugs on the magazine and it removes, then you are at fault for having an ill equiped rifle. If the officer has to take a mallet to you mag release to break the Prince50 lock then it's on them because they had to destroy a part to convert it. It would be the same as an officer taking your PTR-91 and using channel locks to rip the semi-auto shelf off the receiver then arresting you for owning a FA HK receiver. If a part is damaged or destroyed, then it is the person doing said action that converts the firearm. I personally dislike the BB design for this reason.

If it leaves your hands in legal configuration, and they alter it or break a part to make it an AW, then they did and you have done nothing wrong (doesn't mean you won't have to fight it though). Now if there is some 'trick' to your AR that you think makes it clever because you can remove the magazine by putting upward pressure on the magazine, then pressing on the BB a little bit, then yanking on the magazine; it doesn't matter - it's an AW even though the magazine is "locked". A tool is a tool and if it doesn't need one then it's removable.

[lrdchivalry]

The debate is in regards to manufacturing an AW. If a police officer removes a piece of equipment or broken a piece of equipment on a legally configured rifle thus causing it to become illegal, has he manufactured an AW.

[DigglerD]

Taken from Bill Weise's memo in the defense attorney section.


"Was a fixed 10-rd magazine removed or disturbed?

This could occur if a semiautomatic rifle with

associated with unregistered assault weapons. (Note that police employees/officers are not immune
If fixed magazine capacity
appears to be an issue, remember that the 10 round capacity must be measured using the ammunition

Keep in mind that Bill's memo is a lay evaluation of the grey areas of OLL law, key words like "could" and "conceivably" indicate suggestive rather than authoritative status.

In addition, a rifle modified for storage would likely be stripped and made safe via tools at the station... this is a different argument. I am talking about a LEO generating an AW using his bare hands at the site... not a desk officer pulling out a *tool* kit and re-assembling the rifle in a different form.

[hoffmang]

There is no exception in state law that would allow a law enforcement officer to remove a screwed in prince-50 and not have broken the law. As a practical matter it is unlikely he'd be prosecuted however.

-Gene

[bwiese]

In addition, a rifle modified for storage would likely be stripped and made safe via tools at the station... this is a different argument. I am talking about a LEO generating an AW using his bare hands at the site... not a desk officer pulling out a *tool* kit and re-assembling the rifle in a different form.

The attempted removal of a fixed magazine with a 'tool' (a sledgehammer) was a key to dropping of charges against Calgunner 'swimmingpoolguy'. I believe his lawyer (not a gun lawyer, but we got her up to speed) started making some noises about that.

[lrdchivalry]

Keep in mind that Bill's memo is a lay evaluation of the grey areas of OLL law, key words like "could" and "conceivably" indicate suggestive rather than authoritative status.

In addition, a rifle modified for storage would likely be stripped and made safe via tools at the station... this is a different argument. I am talking about a LEO generating an AW using his bare hands at the site... not a desk officer pulling out a *tool* kit and re-assembling the rifle in a different form.

It is a felony for any person to manufacture, distribute, transport, import into California,
or keep or offer for sale, or give or lend, an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle. (Penal

12280 states any person... I did not see any exemption for field officers using their hands or officers at the station using tools. That's pretty authoritative to me. I didn't see any grey areas when it comes to manufacturing an AW so I think Bill has a great grasp on what he wrote.

[lrdchivalry]

Thanks guys for chiming in!

[lrdchivalry]

There is no exception in state law that would allow a law enforcement officer to remove a screwed in prince-50 and not have broken the law. As a practical matter it is unlikely he'd be prosecuted however.

-Gene

I agree..I also agree that it's highly doubtful that the officer would be prosecuted.

[DigglerD]

It is a felony for any person to manufacture, distribute, transport, import into California,
or keep or offer for sale, or give or lend, an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle. (Penal

12280 states any person... I did not see any exemption for field officers using their hands or officers at the station using tools. That's pretty authoritative to me. I didn't see any grey areas when it comes to manufacturing an AW so I think Bill has a great grasp on what he wrote.

I understand this... you are missing the point and arguing something that is not in contention. I'm not saying LEOs are exempt from AW manufacturing statutes. I am saying that removing a mag from a rifle without the use of a tool is not manufacturing an AW it's either (A) breaking a rifle and rendering it unusable or (B) uncloaking the fact that the OLL in question is indeed an AW.

My discussion is focused on (B) where if a LEO were to somehow remove the mag from a OLL lower without the use of a tool, this would mean trouble for the owner... not the LEO as has been suggested.

[lrdchivalry]

I understand this... you are missing the point and arguing something that is not in contention. I'm not saying LEOs are exempt from AW manufacturing statutes. I am saying that removing a mag from a rifle without the use of a tool is not manufacturing an AW it's either (A) breaking a rifle and rendering it unusable or (B) uncloaking the fact that the OLL in question is indeed an AW.

My discussion is focused on (B) where if a LEO were to somehow remove the mag from a OLL lower without the use of a tool, this would mean trouble for the owner... not the LEO as has been suggested.

No..I think your missing the point...We all know if the leo walks up and presses the mag release and the mag pops out the owner of the rifle is in hot water, we know in that case the rifle was illegal, however, that was not the topic of the original debate in regards to manufacturing that you decided to participate in, what was the topic was an leo changing a lawfully configured rifle into an illegal configuration and being subject to arrest for manufacturing...If said officer removes the mag lock with a tool or his bare hands (if possible), again not referring to normal operation of the mag release, therfore, creating the situation where the weapon is now capable of accepting a detachable mag it's manufacturing. The officer has now turned a lawful configuration into an illegal one, thus manufacturing an AW.

[JeffM]

...an leo changing a lawfully configured rifle into an illegal configuration and being subject to arrest for manufacturing...If said officer removes the mag lock with a tool or his bare hands (if possible), again not referring to normal operation of the mag release, therfore, creating the situation where the weapon is now capable of accepting a detachable mag it's manufacturing. The officer has now turned a lawful configuration into an illegal one, thus manufacturing an AW.

If a LEO can remove the magazine with bare hands, I'm not sure it matters that the mag release was used or not. If you have a rifle in which the magazine can be removed without a tool, and has other evil features, then it is illegally configured as an AW. It doesn't matter that it is an LEO who pulls out the mag. If he uses tools on the other hand, he has manufactured an AW.

[Ford8N]

I agree..I also agree that it's highly doubtful that the officer would be prosecuted.

The whole point of this discussion is moot.

No cop is going to be busted for making an AW.

That's just the way it is in this state.