Changing calibers in pistol

[bczrx]

I am no expert, and easily confused. I see the reference to AB857, but am not sure if that applies to changing a barrel from .40 to 9mm on a Glock, for example. Or running an AA .22lr conversion on a Glock/XD/1911.

I see how this applies to ghost guns, and true make it for the fun of it type firearms.


From what I am reading, if the firearm was registered prior to 2018 [section 29181] with a serial number [which is automatically true for any Glock owner with a stock G22, for example], then part 29180 doesn't apply [29180 is the part defining manufacturing a firearm].

Thus, if you have a registered firearm, you can't be accused of manufacturing it after the middle of this year- as it was already registered.

Where does the concern about changing a barrel pop up in AB857 when it is for an already registered firearm- especially for those that were never 80% or ghost guns?

[OlderThanDirt]

[champu]

I am no expert, and easily confused. I see the reference to AB857, but am not sure if that applies to changing a barrel from .40 to 9mm on a Glock, for example. Or running an AA .22lr conversion on a Glock/XD/1911.

I see how this applies to ghost guns, and true make it for the fun of it type firearms.


From what I am reading, if the firearm was registered prior to 2018 [section 29181] with a serial number [which is automatically true for any Glock owner with a stock G22, for example], then part 29180 doesn't apply [29180 is the part defining manufacturing a firearm].

Thus, if you have a registered firearm, you can't be accused of manufacturing it after the middle of this year- as it was already registered.

Where does the concern about changing a barrel pop up in AB857 when it is for an already registered firearm- especially for those that were never 80% or ghost guns?

[RickD427]

You're right about the underground regulation issue. But keep in mind that California's Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was written to prevent agencies from adopting deeply underground regulations. AB 857 specifically excluded the RAW Regs from having to comply with the APA. Can you guess why they did that?

You're also correct that Broughman involved a gent who was involved in commercial enterprise. But you're quite incorrect that the decision is limited to commercial ventures. The holding in Broughman applies every bit as much to individual persons as it does to businesses. There is nothing in the decision limiting its application as you would suggest.

The issue here is "manufacturing" (a verb). You seem to be confusing it with a "manufacturer" (a noun). The law, as well as the English language, draws a distinction between a noun and a verb. That prevents you from arguing that you cannot "manufacture" something if you are not a "manufacturer." California goes one step further to preserve this distinction. In both PC section 30600 (Manufacturing an Assault Weapon) and in 32000 (Manufacturing an Unsafe Handgun), the statutes include language incorporating individuals under the scope of the law, rather than "manufacturers."

The specific law that you missed was PC 29180. It was part of AB 857. It did not "redefine" the term "manufacturing." That term was never previously defined, with regard to firearms, in the Penal Code. PC 29180 defined the term for the first time. But it defined the term for the purpose of the initial application of a serial number. The problem here is that the term remains undefined with regard to PC 30600 and 32000. When a term is undefined in statute, a trial court is free to choose it's definition of a term. Courts look to the common meaning of a term, and to it's use in other related statutes when doing this. That's the real threat here. Should a court adopt PC 29180's definition of manufacturing as controlling in PC 30600. Then if you change the bolt, or stock, or some other part in your RAW, you have now "manufactured" a new AW from the old RAW. DOJ has already laid the foundation for this argument in the RAW regs (and remember, these were exempted from the APA). They maintain that removing the "Bullet Button" from a RAW constitutes the manufacture of a different weapon from the one registered. That nicely frames a test case. How do you think a California court (and expect DOJ to choose a test case in L.A County or the Bay Area) will rule?