Arsenal SLR questions

[CArifleConversions]

Its been asked here before but the thread didn't go very far so we want to explore it again.

We have been asked to convert a few Arsenal SLRs for CA compliance. Before we send them across state lines however, can anyone direct us to something official from DOJ or anyone/anything besides forum comments that explains how/why they are legal to DROS/Possess?

(I realize the odds of DOJ giving written clarification is probably right up there with winning the lotto 2x in one day but I have to ask!)

Was it this this lawsuit that made the changes: https://law.justia.com/cases/califor...h/25/1138.html

The AK series( Appendix C) list has it listed as SLR (ALL). We have been told that since the exact make and model is not listed, the SLR 106 would be legal to import, DROS and possess in CA in a featureless configuration. Any help and guidance would be appreciated. Thanks!

[Tyke8319]

And an "Arsenal SLR" is...what?

[BONECUTTER]

Its been asked here before but the thread didn't go very far so we want to explore it again.

We have been asked to convert a few Arsenal SLRs for CA compliance. Before we send them across state lines however, can anyone direct us to something official from DOJ or anyone/anything besides forum comments that explains how/why they are legal to DROS/Possess?

(I realize the odds of DOJ giving written clarification is probably right up there with winning the lotto 2x in one day but I have to ask!)

Was it this this lawsuit that made the changes: https://law.justia.com/cases/califor...h/25/1138.html

The AK series( Appendix C) list has it listed as SLR (ALL). We have been told that since the exact make and model is not listed, the SLR 106 would be legal to import, DROS and possess in CA in a featureless configuration. Any help and guidance would be appreciated. Thanks!

CA AW ban is 3 parts

#1. Banned by make model (Arsenal SLR (all) example
#2. AR & AK series types regardless of configuration.
#3. Banned by features

Harrott v County of Kings did away with #2

I think the confusion is some dealers have talked to DOJ who might be confusing the Harrott case as removing the all from the series list and them DROSing successfully as an OK by CADOJ.

None of the dealers who are DROSing them can cite the case law that changed this.....just the obligatory "I heard its ok now because a case did away with the all" Or maybe they do know and keeping it a secret so they can own that market.

[RoundEye]

Its been asked here before but the thread didn't go very far so we want to explore it again.

We have been asked to convert a few Arsenal SLRs for CA compliance. Before we send them across state lines however, can anyone direct us to something official from DOJ or anyone/anything besides forum comments that explains how/why they are legal to DROS/Possess?

(I realize the odds of DOJ giving written clarification is probably right up there with winning the lotto 2x in one day but I have to ask!)

Was it this this lawsuit that made the changes: https://law.justia.com/cases/califor...h/25/1138.html

The AK series( Appendix C) list has it listed as SLR (ALL). We have been told that since the exact make and model is not listed, the SLR 106 would be legal to import, DROS and possess in CA in a featureless configuration. Any help and guidance would be appreciated. Thanks!

My understanding is that the case where the verbiage in the PC banning certain firearms by name (like Arsenal SLR (All)) was not valid, was a District Case. The case in question was never appealed, and thus there was no precedence. It was a ruling just that one time, for that one case, and for that one party involved, and nothing more.

I was really interested in an SLR (AK-74), and was advised that most FFLs aren't willing to take the risk and bring them in. There was one (maybe OC Armory?) that was either wiling to, or had done it in the past, but none others.

Another option would be to cut and replace the receiver (essentially using the parts as a kit to assemble a new firearm that is not named.

[OCArmory]

Not us unfortunately. I really wanted a SLR107 but as said above no one can cite where the banned by name went away. I had other FFLs try convince me to do the transfer of them but nothing in writing from the DOJ so no go here.

[RoundEye]

Not us unfortunately. I really wanted a SLR107 but as said above no one can cite where the banned by name went away. I had other FFLs try convince me to do the transfer of them but nothing in writing from the DOJ so no go here.

Yea, since it was just a District Case, I don't think it was publicized anywhere but here.

This is the best that I can find in my records, when I was look at possibly bringing one in for a customer:

The case you are asking about was back in Fresno area (approx)... maybe 2009-2011... It was a trial court case - IIRC, no appeal, no precedential status. It was a local case - DOJ agent IIRC was only called to testify about procedural matters and that was the problem.

No assumptions should be made about "getting away with it" next time, different court, etc.

I believe "xyz (all)" on Kasler list may well risk including the subset of subvariants. Harrott decision dealt with 'major entities' and a judge could easily rule "Duh, that's still the same thing". Yeah you might win on appeal after $50K but maybe not in a CA court.

[gozuki]

So, did this go anywhere?

[RoundEye]

So, did this go anywhere?

Not that I know of...

Synopsis

CA AW Law states that Arsenal SLR (All) are banned by name.

Joe Blow got busted for being in possession of an Arsenal SLR in CA in accordance with the above, and when it went to trial a District Court ruled that he was in fact not guilty of the charge because the "All" part of the law was too vague. The order was never appealed, so it was never established as precedent. So, we're essentially in the same place we were before the case even happened. There is a law on the books that bans them by name.