Legal Options for Semi-Auto Shotgun with Detachable Magazine

[Denominator]

I've searched the threads for my particular issue but haven't found anything that directly addresses my question (or maybe I'm being extra paranoid). I have a semi-auto shotgun with a detachable magazine purchased in 2014. This makes it an assault weapon under the new California laws with no way to make it featureless. Just reading the name of the gun on the DROS would make it clear it's an assault weapon. I refuse to register it but want to know my legal options to avoid doing so. My questions:

1) If I store it in a Las Vegas condo I own and never bring it back to CA, can I avoid registering it as an assault weapon in 2018? Will the CA DOJ ever ask about its whereabouts if heaven forbid something happens like I become a felon and they try to confiscate my guns? I will remain a CA resident. I guess basically I'm asking if any paperwork is necessary if I just move it to Nevada.

2) Is there any way to complete a CA DOJ Notice of No Longer in Possession form to dissociate myself from the gun if I move to Nevada and never bring it back to CA? There are only a few possible options listed to complete this form and the closest match would be "'Transferred firearm out of state,' list the name and address of the person who purchased/obtained the firearm and the date of the sale or transfer." Would I be able to list myself as the person I am transferring the firearm to?

3) Does the fact that I have an assault weapon in name (by looking at my 2014 DROS) but do not have it registered (since it is out of state and will remain so) mean that I am breaking any laws? Is registration somehow required in my case?

Thanks for any help with this issue. I have several other long guns I may or may not keep in CA but will make them featureless if I keep them here so they do not have to be registered but this semi-auto shotgun with detachable magazine is a lot harder to figure out.

[ke6guj]

if you bought it in 2014 in CA, then it is not a AW. it wouldn't have a "detachable magazine" as defined by CA law. Assuming you are talking about something like a Saiga 12, then it should have a maglock making it so that it doesn't have a "detachable magazine". It is therefore not a "semi-auto shotgun with a detachable magazine"

nothing in the new 2017 AW law should change that. the new law does not touch that AW definition. A maglocked Saiga 12 will still not be a "semi-auto shotgun with a detachable magazine".

[Denominator]

Thanks for the response. It's a Barak99 with a maglock.

I read elsewhere on this site that someone mentioned that the new law also affects semi-auto shotguns with maglocks by changing the definition such that they are now considered semi-auto shotguns with detachable magazines. Looking at SB-880, a "fixed magazine" is defined in Section 1 30515 (b) as "an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action."

The "disassembly of the firearm action" is what has me worried. The section also doesn't seem to distinguish between "fixed magazines" when it comes to rifles or shotguns. Hopefully I'm wrong but I'm not sure how to get around the wording of the new law. Did I interpret the law incorrectly?

I'm just worried because this shotgun is not that popular and I'm not sure if there will be a Patriot mag release that's made for this item in time so I will have to store it out of state. Hopefully I'm wrong and the new law doesn't nullify the old definition of a AW as it pertains to this gun.

"(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action."

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB880

[ke6guj]

OK, Barak99, basically the same legaly.

the requirement to a have a "fixed magazine" only applies to rifles and handguns.

shotguns are required to not have a "detachable magazine". the definition of "detachable magazine" has not changed. the PC for shotguns was specifically not changed to say "A semiautomatic shotgun that does not have a fixed magazine". if was changed to that, then that new definition would apply, but it wasn't.


here is what the stated purpose of the bill was, note the absence of any mention about shotguns.

This bill would revise this definition of “assault weapon” to mean a semiautomatic centerfire rifle, or a semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of those specified attributes. The bill would also define “fixed magazine” to mean an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

nothing in the signed legislation should change this definition.

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 30515:
(a) “Detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

for them to try to saddle shotguns with that new restriction would likely be an underground regulation that I see would be challenged in court.

[Quiet]

OK, Barak99, basically the same legaly.

the requirement to a have a "fixed magazine" only applies to rifles and handguns.

shotguns are required to not have a "detachable magazine". the definition of "detachable magazine" has not changed. the PC for shotguns was specifically not changed to say "A semiautomatic shotgun that does not have a fixed magazine". if was changed to that, then that new definition would apply, but it wasn't.


here is what the stated purpose of the bill was, note the absence of any mention about shotguns.



nothing in the signed legislation should change this definition.


for them to try to saddle shotguns with that new restriction would likely be an underground regulation that I see would be challenged in court.

From the recent CA DOJ BOF notification to CA FFLs, there may be some underground regulations in the works pertaining to shotguns or could be CA DOJ BOF generated FUD to confuse CA FFL dealers.

[Denominator]

From the recent CA DOJ BOF notification to CA FFLs, there may be some underground regulations in the works pertaining to shotguns or could be CA DOJ BOF generated FUD to confuse CA FFL dealers.

Can you show me where I can read up more about that?

[ke6guj]

Can you show me where I can read up more about that?

see the PDF in the OP of this thread, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1271159 . that shows what CADOJ is sending to the dealers. the bit about shotguns is existing AW law that they are repeating. it doesn't neccessarily mean that any of the rules about shotguns are changing 1/1/17.

[CA_2A_fighter]

Warning - a lot of peeps here like to play lawyers. So folks, read on as entertainment. Please do not test the laws yourself. If you disagree with the laws, there are proper channels to do that.

[pluke the 2]

Warning - a lot of peeps here like to play lawyers. So folks, read on as entertainment. Please do not test the laws yourself. If you disagree with the laws, there are proper channels to do that.

Ive read alot of calgun threads and I have yet to see someone pretend they are a lawyer.

It should go without saying, but if youre getting legal advice from the interwebz ya prob don't really need it to begin with :P

[ke6guj]

Warning - a lot of peeps here like to play lawyers. So folks, read on as entertainment. Please do not test the laws yourself. If you disagree with the laws, there are proper channels to do that.

none of us claim to be lawyers. I give my opinion with info to back it up. take it for what you want. until CADOJ publishes the supporting regulations for how they interpret the new law, nobody knows for certain. we've been saying this since July.

oh, and if none of us tested the laws, we wouldn't have OLLs, SSE, SAE, AOWs, etc. pretty much every single one of those were tested by non-lawyers and they became mainstream.

[Denominator]

Warning - a lot of peeps here like to play lawyers. So folks, read on as entertainment. Please do not test the laws yourself. If you disagree with the laws, there are proper channels to do that.

I actually am a lawyer but I'll be the first to admit some of the guys on these threads seem to know a lot more than me about these gun issues. I think the problem is that law is such a broad field, like business, that you'd have to specialize in a particular field of law to really know how the laws apply for issues as complex as gun laws. Unfortunately, legal experts on California gun laws aren't very plentiful.

Some of the responses have been very helpful but I understand I'm the one who has to face the consequences of whatever I decide to do which is why I always like to ask for more information or clarification to draw my own conclusions.

[spegull03]

Goal: legally own a semi-auto shotgun with a detachable mag and no mag lock.

Since a mag locked Saiga/VEPR/UTAS/etc is not an assault weapon, you can still buy them after 1/1/17. Does the 12/31/2016 AW possession deadline prior to registration for rifles apply to shotguns as well? Could you could buy in March 2017 and still register it by 1/1/18 once things have calmed down?