AR Pistol Conversion Question

[Victor346]

After building a dimensionally compliant AR pistol from an 80% lower receiver that has never existed as a semi auto and is break top/open single action with a fixed 0 round sled, are there any laws that impede converting that same newly manufactured break top/open single shot AR pistol into a semiautomatic configuration?

[Strykeback]

I see what ya did there.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Victor346]

I see what ya did there.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Gotta cover all the bases. lol I've looked/searched Calguns, Reddit, etc and have only found partial answers to related questions but nothing concrete.

Haven't received a response so I'm assuming this answer isn't readily available. Looks like it's time to do some more digging into the good book; the CA Penal Code.

I'm just trying not to go to jail. lol

[target_shot]

After building a dimensionally compliant AR pistol from an 80% lower receiver that has never existed as a semi auto and is break top/open single action with a fixed 0 round sled, are there any laws that impede converting that same newly manufactured break top/open single shot AR pistol into a semiautomatic configuration?

No one knows. The PC can be read both ways.

I read it in a way that allows for the conversion, so that's what I did.

[RickD427]

Gotta cover all the bases. lol I've looked/searched Calguns, Reddit, etc and have only found partial answers to related questions but nothing concrete.

Haven't received a response so I'm assuming this answer isn't readily available. Looks like it's time to do some more digging into the good book; the CA Penal Code.

I'm just trying not to go to jail. lol

Victor,

I doubt that you're going to get a really clear answer.

At the moment, there are two different schools of thought on the legality of the conversion:

One school holds that once the firearm is legally "Manufactured" as a dimensionally and design compliant single shot, that it can then be "Converted" to semi-auto. As of today, California has no statute defining the word "Manufacturing" (not to be confused with "Manufacturer"). So long as the act of "Converting" is not "Manufacturing" the conversion is legal. A common understanding of "Manufacturing" a firearm is to create the receiver part of the firearm, to which the operating parts are added.

The other school of thought holds that that all long as you're working on the chunk of metal that eventually becomes the firearm, you're "Manufacturing." Under this school of thought the "Conversion" is indistinguishable from the other steps of the manufacturing process. This school of thought would hold the practice to be illegal. Since "Manufacturing" is not currently defined in law, a court is free to apply its own definition. The Seventh Circuit recently did so in the case of Broughman v Carver. That case is not binding on California courts. It held that the swapping of parts on an already manufactured receiver was an act of manufacturing (and it was also careful to clarify that the changing of minor parts was not manufacturing).

These two schools of though pretty much go out the window in just a couple of days. Beginning on January 1st, California will have a definition of "Manufacturing" in statute thanks to AB 857. New Penal Code section 29180(a) will define it as:

or to fit together the component parts of a firearm to construct a firearm."

This definition mimics that of the Broughman decision, and without the exclusion of minor alterations.

Beginning January 1, the idea of "Converting" a single shot to semi auto will be illegal if you do not comply with the DOJ testing process (refer to PC 32010).

[Victor346]

Victor,

I doubt that you're going to get a really clear answer.

At the moment, there are two different schools of thought on the legality of the conversion:

One school holds that once the firearm is legally "Manufactured" as a dimensionally and design compliant single shot, that it can then be "Converted" to semi-auto. As of today, California has no statute defining the word "Manufacturing" (not to be confused with "Manufacturer"). So long as the act of "Converting" is not "Manufacturing" the conversion is legal. A common understanding of "Manufacturing" a firearm is to create the receiver part of the firearm, to which the operating parts are added.

The other school of thought holds that that all long as you're working on the chunk of metal that eventually becomes the firearm, you're "Manufacturing." Under this school of thought the "Conversion" is indistinguishable from the other steps of the manufacturing process. This school of thought would hold the practice to be illegal. Since "Manufacturing" is not currently defined in law, a court is free to apply its own definition. The Seventh Circuit recently did so in the case of Broughman v Carver. That case is not binding on California courts. It held that the swapping of parts on an already manufactured receiver was an act of manufacturing (and it was also careful to clarify that the changing of minor parts was not manufacturing).

These two schools of though pretty much go out the window in just a couple of days. Beginning on January 1st, California will have a definition of "Manufacturing" in statute thanks to AB 857. New Penal Code section 29180(a) will define it as:

or to fit together the component parts of a firearm to construct a firearm."

This definition mimics that of the Broughman decision, and without the exclusion of minor alterations.

Beginning January 1, the idea of "Converting" a single shot to semi auto will be illegal if you do not comply with the DOJ testing process (refer to PC 32010).

Thanks for the thorough response, Rick. This is exactly the kind of insight I was hoping to get from asking this question on this forum and exactly the kind of thinking we need to make informed decisions.

I sure hope that things don't move and stay where we have to submit a pistol to the CA DOJ for testing. I can't imagine how difficult it may be to comply with all the safety features that are required to be present before testing.

It is interesting though, PC 32010 states:

"(a) Any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person manufactured in this state..."

Maybe someone would make the argument that something as big and bulky as an AR pistol can't be reasonably concealed upon a person and therefore doesn't have to go through the CA DOJ testing process. This is probably wishful thinking but one can dream about the possibilities.

[calibased]

When the registry opens up i plan on registering my AR pistol as an AW. i know people who have documented each phase of the manufacturing process to show that it was done "by the book". I wonder if this is even necessary after January 1st considering an AW is an AW.

[Quiet]

It is interesting though, PC 32010 states:
"(a) Any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person manufactured in this state..."

Maybe someone would make the argument that something as big and bulky as an AR pistol can't be reasonably concealed upon a person and therefore doesn't have to go through the CA DOJ testing process. This is probably wishful thinking but one can dream about the possibilities.

Under CA laws...
A "pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" is legally defined as any firearm with a barrel length of less than 16". [PC 16530(a)]

Currently, there are two AR style pistols listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.
^Two variants of the Franklin Armory SE-SSP.


Penal Code 16530
(a) As used in this part, the terms “firearm capable of being concealed upon the person,” “pistol,” and “revolver” apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
(b) Nothing shall prevent a device defined as a “firearm capable of being concealed upon the person,” “pistol,” or “revolver” from also being found to be a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun.

[Victor346]

Thanks, all, for your responses and providing clarity. I'll be making sure that I'm complying with the law moving forward now into 2017.

[RickD427]

Maybe someone would make the argument that something as big and bulky as an AR pistol can't be reasonably concealed upon a person and therefore doesn't have to go through the CA DOJ testing process. This is probably wishful thinking but one can dream about the possibilities.

Please check out Quiet's post above. He hit the proverbial nail on the head. So long as the barrel is under 16", you're argument isn't going to work.

But you also have to be careful what you ask for. If you were able to succeed in the argument that the sub-16" barrel firearm was not a "pistol, revolver, or firearm capable of being concealed on the person", then it would likely fall under the definition of an "AOW" and that would invite your arresting officer to inquire if you had taken all of the legal steps required to lawfully possess an AOW.

It's also important to note how the "capable of being concealed" language is written in statute. The law uses inclusive terminology when describing the 16" barrel. That is significant. If the barrel is less that 16" it's included. But the law does not exclude a weapon having a longer barrel from also being considered as "capable of being concealed on the person." Many years ago, I approved a booking for carrying a concealed weapon where gang deputies had arrested a gentleman who had successfully concealed a full size AR-15 (with a fixed stock and 20" barrel) under a black nylon "Stadium Coat" was popular gang attire at the time. There was some debate over whether the elements of then-PC section 12025 were satisfied since the weapon involved was clearly a rifle. The DDA reviewing the case for filing was persuaded by the use of inclusive, rather than exclusive, language in the statute, and the case was filed. A conviction was obtained at trial and was upheld on an unpublished appeal decision.