Franklin Armory Title 1

[ugimports]

I'd be interested in their response. Additionally, they need a pathway to transfer Mossberg Cruisers, barreled long gun actions (e.g. 98 Mausers without a stock,) and oddities such as Uberti Buntlines which feature a revolver action and 18" barrel.

1st response:

Looking at the file link you provided of the firearm, this would be a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed stock and/or cheek pad and in the description it says it has a barrel length of 16 in. My major concern is that in the description, it says it has a standard magazine release which would technically not make that a fixed magazine. The firearm also has a flash suppressor and a forward pistol grip which are assault weapon characteristics with a detachable magazine. The top action of the firearm would need to break open in order to release the magazine to constitute as a fixed magazine. So I do not believe this firearm is California compliant.

The manufacture seems to be calling this compliant but based on the picture and description it is not. Please let us know if you have any further questions.

I responded with "It doesn't have a stock so it's technically not a rifle."

[franklinarmory]

That is really interesting. They obviously need more training. Are you willing to disclose the source? Were they replying in their official capacity or just shooting from the hip?

[ugimports]

Anyone have a good link to ATF regs that show this is a Title 1 other? The best I found was:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-rifle

Which isn't too helpful if CA DOJ considers the buffer tube a stock now.

[ugimports]

That is really interesting. They obviously need more training. Are you willing to disclose the source? Were they replying in their official capacity or just shooting from the hip?

Official capacity I assume. It's the rep assigned to the region I am in. CA DOJ has a list of all the reps, but they ask we do not disclose it to the general public. It wasn't a random DES employee/helpline interaction.

[franklinarmory]

Anyone have a good link to ATF regs that show this is a Title 1 other? The best I found was:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-rifle

Which isn't too helpful if CA DOJ considers the buffer tube a stock now.

They can't, otherwise they would be complicit in selling SBRs to the public. CA7 uses the same buffer tube and it is on the roster.

Our original XO-26 letter would clarify the issue federally. https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...d.php?t=429106 It is attached to the first post.

[ugimports]

2nd Response

Thank you for sending the information. Unfortunately, it is still not compliant and won’t be approved through DES.

Let us know if you have any further questions. J

What I send them:

To clarify, ATF doesn't define this as a rifle:

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-rifle

The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

It doesn't appear as though it was designed to be fired from the shoulder since there is no stock on it (just the buffer tube with a cheek pad).

I will follow-up asking about the CA7.

[franklinarmory]

Thanks. Good work!

...though the only reason why it does not go through DES is because they are errant in not having a class in the drop down menu. If they review the AW regulations, the state has clearly defined a rifle as having a stock.

[Milsurp1]

The California DoJ would likely be willing to take their chances in court. Their position would be stronger on a firearm where the structure behind the trigger was added only for the purpose of contacting the human body, as opposed to an AR where the purpose of the buffer tube is to house a spring and buffer.

[franklinarmory]

The California DoJ would likely be willing to take their chances in court. Their position would be stronger on a firearm where the structure behind the trigger was added only for the purpose of contacting the human body, as opposed to an AR where the purpose of the buffer tube is to house a spring and buffer.

They've called me back to say that they are working on the issue. That could be a stall tactic, but we shall see. If they force us to litigate on the issue when they are clearly in the wrong, then that is a lack of their integrity, and ultimately it will cost them.

[Milsurp1]

Hopefully the more level headed and objective people within Cal DoJ are evaluating the issue (and reading this thread).

[ugimports]

They've called me back to say that they are working on the issue. That could be a stall tactic, but we shall see. If they force us to litigate on the issue when they are clearly in the wrong, then that is a lack of their integrity, and ultimately it will cost them.

Could be why I didn't receive a reply to my follow-up asking about the CA7. I already have a customer that wants one so hopefully this gets resolved as a go for us.

[ugimports]

Seems like the person I'm emailing is a bit confused now:

Yes, that is on the roster and is till accurate. It will need to include a permanently fixed magazine because those come with large cap mags or can be switched out with a 10 round mag.

Just be careful, if any other firearms from the manufacture come through that may not technically have a fixed magazine. My concern with the previous firearm is that the description on the website states it has a standard magazine release button, and that is a red flag that it is not a fixed magazine.

Email I sent was:

Sorry, I had 1 further follow-up question. You mentioned the firearm I sent a link to had a stock on it. However, the buffer tube assembly on that is the same one no the Franklin Armory CA7 which is on the CA DOJ Roster as a pistol. Is that still accurate?

Here's info on the CA7 that is on the CA DOJ Roster:

https://franklinarmory.com/franklin-armory-ca7-california-only/

I'm assuming that can't be classified as a stock if it is on a pistol, correct?

Seems like they are saying the CA7 needs a fixed mag (which we know it doesn't). At this point I will stop asking additional questions since FA is already working with CA DOJ. Could be she is referring to the Title1 as only being legal if it was fixed mag. Which might be true if it was actually classified as a Centerfire Semi Auto Rifle, which it shouldn't be by ATF definition.

[vino68]

Ugimports, thanks for checking and keeping us up to date.

[taperxz]

ATF legality on making an AOW out of a rifle?

[EBR Works]

ATF legality on making an AOW out of a rifle?

Not legal.