Constructive Possession

[Quiet]

Could it not be argued John was attempting to construct a firearm by simply having the components laying around (minus the BCG)? Since a BCG requires no paperwork to purchase, John was in the process of assembling an illegal firearm. Which would take us back to Constructive Possession, just in a different way (since John is not allowed to own any firearm, legally).

From previous CA court cases that resulted in convictions for felony possession...

A. John was in "possession of a broken assault weapon".
B. John was in "attempted manufacturing and possession of an assault weapon".

[Dvrjon]

Could it not be argued John was attempting to construct a firearm by simply having the components laying around (minus the BCG)? Since a BCG requires no paperwork to purchase, John was in the process of assembling an illegal firearm. Which would take us back to Constructive Possession, just in a different way (since John is not allowed to own any firearm, legally).

You can argue whatever you want. But, the scenario says the rifle was in possession and the BCG was stowed...which indicates possession. If all necessary components were present, the regulation doesn't help John.

Constructive possession has nothing to do with it.

[NorCalRefuge]

The statement was more along the lines of John not currently possessing a BCG, but has everything else.

[Supersapper]

It states what it states simply because the legislature chose the words of the statute, the Governor signed the bill, and the SOS chaptered it.

There is no requirement that a statute "make sense", or that it be reconciled to other statutes. There is a lot of "Stupid Stuff" contained in currently existing statutes. But for more on the point of the separated receiver, please see my point in the next section.

But it seems that it's more than just "stupid stuff". It's contradictory. I know people smarter than I am have probably already considered all that, but can you elaborate for the benefit of all 6 of my brain cells how more people don't get off because of the confusion?

On this one, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment. A completed AR weapon would have to fall into one of your three categories, but an incomplete AR weapon does not. The incomplete weapon can exist simply as a firearm that is not "Single-Shot", "Semi-Auto", or "Full-Auto." The incomplete weapon has the potential to eventually become any of the three once it is finished, but it ain't there yet.

But that was the crux of my point. If the firearm is NOT semiauto in it's function by the statute (regarding separation) how can it be semiauto or even a firearm, as outlined in the posting below by Dvrjohn (#29). In the case of separating the upper and lower, it isn't just one piece you're missing, but a group of them, namely the upper assembly or the lower assembly. The incomplete firearm, is just that and it shouldn't matter which of the three it could be because it can't be any of them without parts.

What a headache...

I would agree that what you say is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the regulation, but I would also observe that one could also make the counter-argument that since the wording of the regulation is specific to "Semi-Autos" that it doesn't cover "Full-Auto" weapons. The problem with making common-sense interpretations of statutes and regulations is that folks are not obligated to share your views, and that some of the disagreeing folks have the ability to file charges.

On the last point, we agree for sure.

[Dvrjon]

The statement was more along the lines of John not currently possessing a BCG, but has everything else.

[Dvrjon]

From previous CA court cases that resulted in convictions for felony possession...

A. John was in "possession of a broken assault weapon".
B. John was in "attempted manufacturing and possession of an assault weapon".

[Quiet]

The CA conviction for a "broken assault weapon" involved an assembled semi-auto centerfire rifle with restricted features (detachable magazines, pistol grip, flash suppressor) and the bolt-carrier group removed but stored nearby the firearm.

The defendant did not possess any parts to make the firearm into a CA legal firearm and there was evidence (witness statements, photo evidence) that the defendant made the firearm functional on various occasions.

That case was one the reasons why FPC/CGF and CRPA/NRA lawyers advised to not store or transport parts that could be utilized to make an assault weapon together.

The CA assault weapons regulations state the firearm is not semi-auto when the semi-auto parts are removed from the firearm, but those regulations do not clarify if the parts that were removed can be readily available for reassembly.

Which is why if the parts are stored or transported with the firearm, then the possessor can still be arrested for possessing a "broken assault weapon".

In order to be 100% CA legal, the firearm should not be stored or transported with parts that can be installed to make the firearm into an assault weapon.

[NorCalRefuge]

The CA conviction for a "broken assault weapon" involved an assembled semi-auto centerfire rifle with restricted features (detachable magazines, pistol grip, flash suppressor) and the bolt-carrier group removed but stored nearby the firearm.

The defendant did not possess any parts to make the firearm into a CA legal firearm and there was evidence (witness statements, photo evidence) that the defendant made the firearm functional on various occasions.

That case was one the reasons why FPC/CGF and CRPA/NRA lawyers advised to not store or transport parts that could be utilized to make an assault weapon together.

The CA assault weapons regulations state the firearm is not semi-auto when the semi-auto parts are removed from the firearm, but those regulations do not clarify if the parts that were removed can be readily available for reassembly.

Which is why if the parts are stored or transported with the firearm, then the possessor can still be arrested for possessing a "broken assault weapon".

In order to be 100% CA legal, the firearm should not be stored or transported with parts that can be installed to make the firearm into an assault weapon.

Woah, that's crazy.

So if an individual possessed a functioning "featureless" AR, and purchased the components to convert said AR into a "featured" and "magazine locked" AR, simply having the featured components in the same house as the featureless AR is enough to spend some quality time in prison? That does seem way over the top... but it is California.

I would guess the common theme here for all these cited cases was the individual was already in trouble with law enforcement for other reasons, which led to their home being raided in the first place. The firearms charges were probably just icing on the cake... So, lesson to learn here - don't get in trouble with the law if you own firearms

[Supersapper]

Woah, that's crazy.

So if an individual possessed a functioning "featureless" AR, and purchased the components to convert said AR into a "featured" and "magazine locked" AR, simply having the featured components in the same house as the featureless AR is enough to spend some quality time in prison? That does seem way over the top... but it is California.

I would guess the common theme here for all these cited cases was the individual was already in trouble with law enforcement for other reasons, which led to their home being raided in the first place. The firearms charges were probably just icing on the cake... So, lesson to learn here - don't get in trouble with the law if you own firearms

But even a traffic ticket in this state can cause you an issue these days.

[TheGood]

Woah, that's crazy.

So if an individual possessed a functioning "featureless" AR, and purchased the components to convert said AR into a "featured" and "magazine locked" AR, simply having the featured components in the same house as the featureless AR is enough to spend some quality time in prison? That does seem way over the top... but it is California.

I would guess the common theme here for all these cited cases was the individual was already in trouble with law enforcement for other reasons, which led to their home being raided in the first place. The firearms charges were probably just icing on the cake... So, lesson to learn here - don't get in trouble with the law if you own firearms

That's ridiculous. It's not illegal to own BOTH a featured and a maglocked AR, so it can't be considered 'constructive posession' if you own extra 'scary parts' if you legally own both, or have stripped lowers and other components that would allow you to build a 'featured' weapon. We can paint ourselves into a corner or we can say 'enough' when it comes to this stuff. You can't build an AR without putting it together from parts, and one of those parts is a pistol grip. Are you willing to let yourself believe that before you put the grip fin on the pistol grip you are in possession of an un-assembled and then briefly assembled AW? Or, was it just a bunch of parts you bought and built into a compliant firearm?


This is becoming the self induced cancel culture of AR building if we let this kind of mentality continue.