Legal to manufacture a revolver in california for personal use?

[D.R.E.]

As I understand it, BATF allows manufacturing of "normal" firearms w/o a license as long as you are not doing so for purposes of resale.

Are there any CA restrictions on doing so? In particular I'm interested if it's *clearly* legal to make your own double action revolver w/o a manufacturing FFL.

[obeygiant]

It has to follow a design that has already been manufactured, IIRC.

[D.R.E.]

It has to follow a design that has already been manufactured, IIRC.

Follow = identical? Or just similar? This is to avoid being classified as a zip gun?

[ke6guj]

right now, the thought is that when you make a handgun, you must initially make it in a roster-exempt configuration to comply with CA laws about making an unsafe handgun. Once the handgun is made, there appears to be no law prohibiting you from converting it to another configuration.

So, it should be legal to make a single-action revolver that meets the dimensional requirements, which is roster exempt, and then later convert it to a double-action revolver. But initially making a double-action revolver would violate the law.

And you have to comply with the zip-gun laws, as obeygiant mentioned.

12020(c)(10) As used in this section, a "zip gun" means any weapon or device which meets all of the following criteria:
(A) It was not imported as a firearm by an importer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(B) It was not originally designed to be a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(C) No tax was paid on the weapon or device nor was an exemption from paying tax on that weapon or device granted under Section 4181 and Subchapters F (commencing with Section 4216) and G (commencing with Section 4221) of Chapter 32 of Title 26 of the United States Code, as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(D) It is made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.

[obeygiant]

To add to what ke6guj already said, From the CGF Wiki

It is legal to make your own firearm for your own use, provided the one you build is legal for you to own in your state/municipality.

No license is required, either Federal or California.

There is no legal requirement for serialization or registration as long as you build a non-NFA firearm.

You may not make a firearm with the intent to sell it, unless you possess a valid manufacturer's license

BATFE Reference1, BATFE Reference2 (PDF)

[dantodd]

Follow = identical? Or just similar? This is to avoid being classified as a zip gun?

yes, to avoid being a zip gun. How close is open to interpretation, there is no case law specifically defining how close AFAIK.

[Grumpyoldretiredcop]

It has to follow a design that has already been manufactured, IIRC.

I'd be interested to see the body of law that comes from. The Penal Code and DOJ regs are silent on the subject. Same for BATFE.

[obeygiant]

I'd be interested to see the body of law that comes from. The Penal Code and DOJ regs are silent on the subject. Same for BATFE.

See post #4.

[dantodd]

According to 12020(c)(10)(C)

Could you just send in an excise tax payment and then not worry about the design of the gun since you wouldn't meet ALL the criteria of being a zip gun?

[jazman]

Follow = identical? Or just similar? This is to avoid being classified as a zip gun?

Hmmm. So a Python action (I know what you are thinking!) with an antenna from a '63 Buick for a barrel is, me thinks, not the way to go here...

[dantodd]

According to 12020(c)(10)(C)

Could you just send in an excise tax payment and then not worry about the design of the gun since you wouldn't meet ALL the criteria of being a zip gun?

Actually, upon closer reading there really is no need to base a homebuilt gun on a previous design.

if you read 12020(c)(10) any gun that is granted an exemption from taxation in Section 4181 Chapter 32 of Title 26 is not considered a zip gun.

Here this is section 4182 which lists exemptions to taxation under 4181:

It would seem that section 4182(c)(1) would exempt anyone making fewer than 50 firearms a year from excise tax. This exemption would appear to keep any gun manufactured by an individual fitting this section exempt from California's zip gun laws.

Anyone see how I am incorrect here?

[ke6guj]

According to 12020(c)(10)(C)

Could you just send in an excise tax payment and then not worry about the design of the gun since you wouldn't meet ALL the criteria of being a zip gun?

12020(c)(10)(C) is where the entire zip gun law may be void on its face. Private citizens are exempt from needing to pay an excise tax on a home-built firearm. I do not know if the exemption mentioned in (C) covers the exemption that private citizens fall under.

I don't believe that a private party could even send in an excise tax payment if they wanted to.


I do know that a CG'er was arrested on zip gun charges for homebuilt firearms, by the LA gun unit IIRC, and that the charges were recently dismissed.

edit: yup, dantodd nailed it.

edit 2: And if you really want to get sneaky with it, build up that firearm as an AOW (with an approved Form 1 beforehand, of course), and then your 12020(b)(8) exemption exempts from the zip gun regs even without having to try to fall under one of the 12020(c)(10) exemptions.

[dantodd]

edit 2: And if you really want to get sneaky with it, build up that firearm as an AOW (with an approved Form 1 beforehand, of course), and then your 12020(b)(8) exemption exempts from the zip gun regs even without having to try to fall under one of the 12020(c)(10) exemptions.

Building something that would require an NFA tax stamp was my first idea too.

[obeygiant]

Actually, upon closer reading there really is no need to base a homebuilt gun on a previous design.

if you read 12020(c)(10) any gun that is granted an exemption from taxation in Section 4181 Chapter 32 of Title 26 is not considered a zip gun.

Here this is section 4182 which lists exemptions to taxation under 4181:



It would seem that section 4182(c)(1) would exempt anyone making fewer than 50 firearms a year from excise tax. This exemption would appear to keep any gun manufactured by an individual fitting this section exempt from California's zip gun laws.

Anyone see how I am incorrect here?

I stand corrected. Nice Catch!

[D.R.E.]

right now, the thought is that when you make a handgun, you must initially make it in a roster-exempt configuration to comply with CA laws about making an unsafe handgun. Once the handgun is made, there appears to be no law prohibiting you from converting it to another configuration.

So, it should be legal to make a single-action revolver that meets the dimensional requirements, which is roster exempt, and then later convert it to a double-action revolver. But initially making a double-action revolver would violate the law.

Ah. So: if the revolver I imitate is traditionally a DA one, but I remove the hammer strut, so it's SA only is that clearly legal? Or is that a grey area? I'm more interested in making guns than in making precedent, so would prefer to stay within the "clearly OK" part of things.

After it's made, do I register it w/ the DOJ?