Least expensive way to avoid registration: DFM

[mt4design]

Franklin Armory, I'm sure you do a nice bit of business with our CalGuns community. I even purchased a 556 and a 7.62x39 version of your DFM.

Indeed, I placed my order back in July and I'm still waiting for the 7.62x39 DFM to ship.

I've been told via email several times that I should be patient.

It's now November.

I'd like Franklin Armory to refund the amount I paid for the 7.62x39, including CA State Tax and shipping, immediately.

Thank you.

[franklinarmory]

No problem. You will need to call in the morning or send an email to info@franklinarmory.com.

We are disappointed that we were not able to deliver in a timely manner on this. Our vendor promised one thing and did not deliver on the 7.62x39 configuration. Ultimately it is our responsibility, and we are happy to honor your request immediately.

[Mesa Defense]

Tag for ordering samples.

[AAShooter]

No .308 yet? DPMS standard.

[franklinarmory]

No .308 yet? DPMS standard.

It is production. NOT ready yet.

[Bogart]

So i purchased several of these. Just wondering if there is any kind of DOJ letter affirming this option as compliant. Thanks in advance for the reponse.

[phdo]

So i purchased several of these. Just wondering if there is any kind of DOJ letter affirming this option as compliant. Thanks in advance for the reponse.

This is a great idea but I don't think it's compliant. What if you take the mag DFM out? Doesn't it become a detachable mag rifle? Unless, you keep the bullet button in there so it's not detachable but isn't the bullet button banned? I think the safest way to use this is to epoxy the mag release so it's not functional.

[phdo]

So i purchased several of these. Just wondering if there is any kind of DOJ letter affirming this option as compliant. Thanks in advance for the reponse.

This is a great idea but I don't think it's compliant. What if you take the mag DFM out? Doesn't it become a detachable mag rifle? Unless, you keep the bullet button in there so it's not detachable but isn't the bullet button banned? I think the safest way to use this is to epoxy the mag release so it's not functional.

[phdo]

This is a great idea but I don't think it's compliant. What if you take the mag DFM out? Doesn't it become a detachable mag rifle? Unless, you keep the bullet button in there so it's not detachable but isn't the bullet button banned? I think the safest way to use this is to epoxy the mag release so it's not functional.

[Bogart]

So it sounds like we won't really know until court cases. This is the same for most of these compliance options.

[franklinarmory]

This has been brought up a few times. Like anything else, there is a right way and a wrong way to use it. There is nothing wrong with opening the action, removing the magazine, replacing the magazine and closing the action.

When the DFM is removed, the action must be disassembled. That complies with the law. If you were to remove the magazine, you are still fine since the action is disassembled. Closing the action without the DFM in place would be bad. Don't do that in CA!

If any of this bothers you however, just use a standard bolt catch. Then there is no way to remove the DFM with that type of configuration.

[franklinarmory]

Also, I don't think I've posted this here yet, but the 308 DFMs are in stock.

[Malthusian]

This is a great idea but I don't think it's compliant. What if you take the mag DFM out? Doesn't it become a detachable mag rifle? Unless, you keep the bullet button in there so it's not detachable but isn't the bullet button banned? I think the safest way to use this is to epoxy the mag release so it's not functional.

If you choose to not register, then you would use the DFM or go featureless

A featureless rifle could be made into a legally defined assault weapon
Removing the DFM would also meet the legal definition of an assault weapon

[franklinarmory]

If you choose to not register, then you would use the DFM or go featureless

A featureless rifle could be made into a legally defined assault weapon
Removing the DFM would also meet the legal definition of an assault weapon

I had a discussion about this very topic with certain government personnel. Both of us agreed that removing the DFM did not create an AW. However, removing the DFM AND CLOSING THE ACTION was the concern.

[GlockN'Roll]

I had a discussion about this very topic...

I had a discussion about this very topic with certain government personnel.

Both of us agreed that removing the DFM did not create an AW.

However, removing the DFM AND CLOSING THE ACTION was the concern.

Unless you hop on one leg while chanting obama's name in Swahili on the third Tuesday of months with an R in them...

What of bunch of nonsense!

Simply a recipe for wide spread non-compliance...