80% Build Out of State - Legal / Illegal?

[ugimports]

I think it's pretty clear that the legislative intent of the Zip Gun statute was to permit folks to make copies of commercially manufactured firearms. The key question is just how much deviation from the commercial design is permissible. The state would probably be on solid ground drawing an analogy to the Safe Handgun statute where even a small change in a part, or manufacturing process, is "different" enough to take a weapon off the roster.

I think if the state took this approach then they'd have to be charging people crimes for changing triggers, barrels, etc...

When you read Broughman, remember that it is a Seventh Circuit case, so it's not binding on California courts. The danger of Broughman is that it holds that significant changes made to an already manufactured firearm is still "manufacturing." California adopted the Broughman style of definition in AB 857. Although AB 857 limited that definition's scope to serialization of newly made weapons, the term is otherwise undefined in statute and a court is free to apply this same definition to other areas of the code, including section 32000 governing the manufacture of unsafe handguns. I have to think, after much observation, that a California court would do just that.

It's also worth pointing out that the Broughman decision specifically pointed out that making minor modifications to an existing weapon could not be considered as "manufacturing." When California defined the term in AB 857, it made no exclusion for minor changes.

I don't see much value to the BATF publication regarding "Drop-in Parts" for two different reasons: 1) It's California law that is controlling here, and BATF opinions are irrelevant to issues of California law. and 2) Even if the BATF position were adopted by a California court, the clause about " does not otherwise affect the manner in which the weapon expels a projectile by the action of an explosive" would prevent applying that policy to drop-in parts that change a weapon from 'Single Shot" to "Semi Auto." That's a big change in the weapon's function.

bolded - I guess that's why lawyers get involved. In my mind I think single-shot to semi auto really just changes how the firearm loads the next round. The way it expels a projectile is exactly the same.

Assuming 9mm or .25 ACP:
1) Hammer/striker hits primer
2) primer ignites powder
3) projectile travels down barrel

Whether or not the slide moves doesn't really impact how the weapon expels the projectile. At least that's how I read it, which is likely wrong since all this legal garbage can have definitions that aren't "normal" from a layperson standpoint.

The part about drop-in parts I was pointing out matters because it defines whether or not a CA dealer needs to have an FFL07 or FFL01 depending on what they do. The ATF definition of manufacturing does matter to a degree in CA.

[deephouse]

Tagged

[djbooya]

I think it's pretty clear that the legislative intent of the Zip Gun statute was to permit folks to make copies of commercially manufactured firearms. The key question is just how much deviation from the commercial design is permissible. The state would probably be on solid ground drawing an analogy to the Safe Handgun statute where even a small change in a part, or manufacturing process, is "different" enough to take a weapon off the roster.

When you read Broughman, remember that it is a Seventh Circuit case, so it's not binding on California courts. The danger of Broughman is that it holds that significant changes made to an already manufactured firearm is still "manufacturing." California adopted the Broughman style of definition in AB 857. Although AB 857 limited that definition's scope to serialization of newly made weapons, the term is otherwise undefined in statute and a court is free to apply this same definition to other areas of the code, including section 32000 governing the manufacture of unsafe handguns. I have to think, after much observation, that a California court would do just that.

It's also worth pointing out that the Broughman decision specifically pointed out that making minor modifications to an existing weapon could not be considered as "manufacturing." When California defined the term in AB 857, it made no exclusion for minor changes.

I don't see much value to the BATF publication regarding "Drop-in Parts" for two different reasons: 1) It's California law that is controlling here, and BATF opinions are irrelevant to issues of California law. and 2) Even if the BATF position were adopted by a California court, the clause about " does not otherwise affect the manner in which the weapon expels a projectile by the action of an explosive" would prevent applying that policy to drop-in parts that change a weapon from 'Single Shot" to "Semi Auto." That's a big change in the weapon's function.

I was thinking a little bit about this today. If we make the following assumptions (based on PC interpretation):
1) Assembly is the same as "manufacturing" in CA
2) You can't manufacture an off roster handgun

Given the above isn't every single aftermarket modification made to almost any pistol now manufacturing an off roster pistol?

Some examples:
Stipling glock frame
Changing anything on a glock other than the sights
Change grip panels on a 1911 to non OEM

All of those happen to be minor modifications/drop-in replacements that put the firearm in a configuration that could not be sold from a dealer as an on roster gun anymore. Couldn't anyone now get busted for manufacturing an off roster handgun after doing pretty much any anything to the gun (in your opinion)?

[Mountain Max]

I wouldn't worry about it being a zip gun, especially if you use a factory glock upper with your Inlander Kit. The factory glock upper came off a complete pistol, which undoubtedly has had all appropriate taxes paid.

Additionally, if we're talking about a Polymer80 frame, they are a licensed manufacturer that now sells completed and serialized versions of their frames.

Lastly, looking at the intent of the zip gun law when it was created, it would be quite a stretch for a prosecutor to pursue a charge in this instance. I doubt that would be the angle they would take. In a rare instance, I could picture it happening with 80% builds that don't use any parts or design elements from existing known guns. Most, if not all 80% frames, are designed to use nearly every component of a factory gun.

(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.

As far as the definition of manufacturing, this is something that's been beat to death on this forum. Some believe it was never legal to add or remove parts from a gun, some believe it only became illegal after AB857, some believe that we are free to modify our guns into any configuration we like, so long as it's a legal configuration.

Absent of any case law that indicates otherwise, I believe manufacturing is completed when first built into a functional firearm. When the 4th circuit established a definition of manufacturing in broughman v carver, they said manufacturing was to make "ready for use".

[ugimports]

I wouldn't worry about it being a zip gun, especially if you use a factory glock upper with your Inlander Kit. The factory glock upper came off a complete pistol, which undoubtedly has had all appropriate taxes paid.

Additionally, if we're talking about a Polymer80 frame, they are a licensed manufacturer that now sells completed and serialized versions of their frames.

Lastly, looking at the intent of the zip gun law when it was created, it would be quite a stretch for a prosecutor to pursue a charge in this instance. I doubt that would be the angle they would take. In a rare instance, I could picture it happening with 80% builds that don't use any parts or design elements from existing known guns. Most, if not all 80% frames, are designed to use nearly every component of a factory gun.



As far as the definition of manufacturing, this is something that's been beat to death on this forum. Some believe it was never legal to add or remove parts from a gun, some believe it only became illegal after AB857, some believe that we are free to modify our guns into any configuration we like, so long as it's a legal configuration.

Absent of any case law that indicates otherwise, I believe manufacturing is completed when first built into a functional firearm. When the 4th circuit established a definition of manufacturing in broughman v carver, they said manufacturing was to make "ready for use".

Isn't CA free to redefine anything they want though ala AWs?

[RickD427]

I wouldn't worry about it being a zip gun, especially if you use a factory glock upper with your Inlander Kit. The factory glock upper came off a complete pistol, which undoubtedly has had all appropriate taxes paid.

Additionally, if we're talking about a Polymer80 frame, they are a licensed manufacturer that now sells completed and serialized versions of their frames.

Lastly, looking at the intent of the zip gun law when it was created, it would be quite a stretch for a prosecutor to pursue a charge in this instance. I doubt that would be the angle they would take. In a rare instance, I could picture it happening with 80% builds that don't use any parts or design elements from existing known guns. Most, if not all 80% frames, are designed to use nearly every component of a factory gun.



As far as the definition of manufacturing, this is something that's been beat to death on this forum. Some believe it was never legal to add or remove parts from a gun, some believe it only became illegal after AB857, some believe that we are free to modify our guns into any configuration we like, so long as it's a legal configuration.

Absent of any case law that indicates otherwise, I believe manufacturing is completed when first built into a functional firearm. When the 4th circuit established a definition of manufacturing in broughman v carver, they said manufacturing was to make "ready for use".

Remember that Broughman is not binding on California courts. When California adopted the Broughman theory of manufacturing into Penal Code section 29180, it neglected to include any language limiting the definition to "ready for use", or excluding minor modifications.

[Mountain Max]

For this instance, I don't even think we would run into issues with the AB857 definition of manufacturing, since it would just be removing parts and not assembling parts.

Looking more specifically at the definition itself:

(a) For purposes of this chapter, “manufacturing” or “assembling” a firearm means to fabricate or construct a firearm, or to fit together the component parts of a firearm to construct a firearm.

If they had omitted "to construct a firearm" at the end of that definition, then it would have certainly been more concerning, but this in my opinion is just referring to the creation of a firearm where one didn't exist before. This would still be a definition which is consistent with the 4th circuit language.

Even if we ignore the fact that this is a definition limited to this chapter of the penal code and we take into consideration that this state has redefined or interpreted things on a whim, they still felt it was necessary to create a new law to end the original single shot exemption for FFLs. They could have just as easily reinterpreted it to be manufacturing, but decided to go to the legislature instead. They can easily outlaw modification of firearms if that was their goal.