Is the flowchart up to date?

[iosonolobo]

I'm looking at the Interactive California Centerfire, Semi-Auto Rifle Identification Flowchart and also the Original CA AW ID Flowchart in pdf. I'm assuming they are supposed to be the same. But I look at the date on the pdf version and it says it's version 1.1 dated 02/05/2011.

This chart is awesome for its succinct way of determining legality.

Are they up to date with the current laws? If not, is there a sticky somewhere that shows what corrections we should be aware of?

I'm not clear on some subjects, whether they became law or just were in the consideration stages. So I'm confused about some points. For example:

1) Do muzzle brakes have to be pinned?
2) Status of constructive possession with ARs?
2a) Is a standard mag release allowed if the lower assembly is not attached to any upper assembly? (Local stores sell trigger kits with standard mag releases!)

I have C D Michel's "California Gun Laws - A Guide to State and Federal Firearm Regulations" (published November 1, 2012), but I'm not sure where it's out of date.

[Librarian]

Aside from code sections - they were re-numbered for 2012, and only the right software can make the fixes - there have been no changes in the law, nor any clarifications.

1) I dunno
2) One case suggests this is possible; it was a felon in possession arrest, where he confessed to planning to build an aw, IIRC.
2a) (should be '3') Technically, yes - without an upper it is neither centerfire nor semiautomatic. That's not a good way to bet.

[ke6guj]

the PDF flowchart is still accurate even though it hasn't been updated since 2011. no new laws have been added to affect it even though the PC code #'s have changed.

The Interactive flowchart is accurate in the questions it asks but it is not as complete as the PDF version.

1. only if you need the length of the muzzle device to make the 16" barrel minimum.
2. no statutory Constructive Possesion law for AWs, but there was a recent court case where a felon was convicted of having an AW by having the parts neccessary to build one.
3. based on exact reading of the PC, it should be allowed, but there is no case law or supporting regulations that state it otherwise.

edit: too slow