Legal question on AR-15 configuration going from AZ to CA

[Robidouxs]

So I am in Arizona and someone in CA wants to buy a complete lower which has a collapsible stock, pistol grip, and standard magazine release.

-Can the lower be sent to the FFL as is, no bullet button installed?

-If a bullet button is required, can I remove the collapsible stock, pistol grip, and magazine release and then ship the lower to the FFL?

[Teohenwhy]

So I am in Arizona and someone in CA wants to buy a complete lower which has a collapsible stock, pistol grip, and standard magazine release.

-Can the lower be sent to the FFL as is, no bullet button installed?

-If a bullet button is required, can I remove the collapsible stock, pistol grip, and magazine release and then ship the lower to the FFL?

I bought mine with no bullet button. It is up to the new owner to make is Ca legal.

[Robidouxs]

I bought mine with no bullet button. It is up to the new owner to make is Ca legal.

But isn't the original configuration I describe an assault weapon under CA law?


Capacity to accept a detachable magazine with a collapsible stock and pistol grip that protrudes below the action

[Tincon]

First off, it it prohibited by name?

Second, you should review this case and the comments in the thread.

http://mobile.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=683199

[Robidouxs]

No, it is not prohibited by name. It is AM-15, Anderson Manufacturing.

[Teohenwhy]

I forgot to add that I only bought the lower receiver and not the whole gun so my case might be different than yours.

[mud99]

It is perfectly legal. Someone can put a rimfire or single shot upper on it without modification.

However, some FFL's might prefer it to be a bare frame. If you have the tools, remove the buffer tube, pistol grip, and mag release, that will remove any doubt.

[aklover_91]

I'd install a bullet button before it was shipped, just to stay safe.

In point of legal fact though, if it doesn't have an upper, it's not semiautomatic, center fire rifle, is it?

[Tincon]

It probably is not an assault weapon. However, the implications of People v. Nguyen still apply.

It is perfectly legal. Someone can put a rimfire or single shot upper on it without modification.

Please explain the difference between legal and "perfectly legal" and why the latter applies here.

I'd install a bullet button before it was shipped, just to stay safe.

In point of legal fact though, if it doesn't have an upper, it's not semiautomatic, center fire rifle, is it?

I agree, on both counts. The danger is in the intent, and the potential liability for attempt.

[Quiet]

But isn't the original configuration I describe an assault weapon under CA law?


Capacity to accept a detachable magazine with a collapsible stock and pistol grip that protrudes below the action

No.
Because a receiver is not a semi-auto centerfire rifle.
It needs a rifled barrel, in order to be considered a rifle.
Since, it is not a semi-auto centerfire rifle, CA's assault weapons laws for rifles does not apply to it.

Legally, a complete AR lower receiver does not need a maglock.

However, some CA FFL dealers require it for their store policy on transfers.