80% AR-15 lowers in California


PDA






jnojr
October 1, 2004, 11:48 PM
The hot idea du jour seems to be to get an 80% lower, register it as an "assault weapon", then finish the magwell and assemble a complete rifle. Seems solid to me... California law doesn't make any determination between a .50 caliber "assault weapon" and a has-a-pistol-grip-and-detachable-magazine "assault weapon.

Thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "80% AR-15 lowers in California" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
deej
October 2, 2004, 12:30 AM
Any AR-pattern weapon is verboten under SB23, regardless of brand (or lack thereof). See Kasler v. Lockyer and page 55 of the DOJ's "Assault Weapons Identification Guide."

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf

On a similar note, has anyone seen the registration forms for AB50? I wonder if they have the caliber space pre-filled.

jnojr
October 2, 2004, 12:58 AM
Any AR-pattern weapon is verboten under SB23, regardless of brand

Yabbut, and 80% receiver isn't an "AR series", since the magwell isn't finished.

deej
October 2, 2004, 01:22 AM
Right, but by opening up the magwell you are making it into an AR-series weapon, which had to be registered on or before January 23, 2001.

I think before we can know whether or not this is something we can get away with, we need to wait for DOJ to release the instructions for registering AB50 weapons. If the form has ".50 BMG" prefilled, it's pretty much a moot point.

ShadowOne
October 2, 2004, 04:13 AM
Right, but by opening up the magwell you are making it into an AR-series weapon, which had to be registered on or before January 23, 2001.

I thought the CA DOJ does continue to issue assault weapons permits, but only to military personnel and the movie industry? So it's not exactly true you CAN'T legally manufacture or acquire an assault weapon after XX-XX-XXXX date, you just need a permit to do so.

If the form has ".50 BMG" prefilled, it's pretty much a moot point.

It can't be because some 50 BMG rifles use a .223 receiver, and the receiver is the firearm. If the .223 receiver can't be registered the CA DOJ is gonna have to pay the owner for loss of property.

I'm no lawyer, of course. But even a lawyer can't give you sound advice until there's a case law on the books.

dave3006
October 2, 2004, 09:25 AM
How would you register an 80% lower if it does not have a serial number?

FNFiveSeven
October 3, 2004, 09:35 PM
You would put a serial number in it. Easy. No one says you can't put a serial number into some random piece of metal... at least not yet. Also, the law technically does not state that you had to have the AR series gun registered before any specific date, it just says that you have to have it registered to be in possession of it. I have a brand new Bushmaster AR that was just registered in August 2004 :D

deej
October 3, 2004, 11:12 PM
I have a brand new Bushmaster AR that was just registered in August 2004



How did you manage that?

schizrade
October 3, 2004, 11:21 PM
blackrazor, please explain in detail.

FNFiveSeven
October 3, 2004, 11:55 PM
I got a new AR because my old one blew up during a Ka-boom incident... had a case split on me and blow out my lower. So after a boat load of calls between Bushmaster, the DOJ, and my local FFL, I finally arranged for the importation and possession of a new assault weapon, at least, that's how the DOJ said it went. Of course, it's actually just a replacement lower receiver for my old one, but it did have a new serial number so they actually redid my entire AW form and issued me a new "permit" dated in 2004. Don't know if the legal types around here can turn this into a way to get new AW's, but that's what I did.

stv
October 3, 2004, 11:58 PM
edit: Ah yes, the replacement clause. Never mind then.

schizrade
October 4, 2004, 12:01 AM
Got my hopes up you bastage..... ;)

on topic, I saw the guy selling these 80% lowers at the Cow Palace and he has people believing that making a 100% lower from his kit is legal.

FNFiveSeven
October 4, 2004, 12:58 AM
It is legal... if you do it more than 3 miles off the coast or in another state. :D

PromptCritical
October 4, 2004, 01:36 AM
The guy at Del Mar who was peddling these things said as long as a ten round mag was inserted and held in in such a way that it could not be removed it would be ok. I'm sure he was as FOS as the guys who said body armor would soom be illegal.

PromptCritical
October 4, 2004, 01:38 AM
Oh, and I only have a few days left in this communist hellhole.

Telperion
October 4, 2004, 11:06 AM
Has anyone confirmed with a lawyer whether this is or isn't legit? Since the law doesn't distinguish between one type of "assault weapon" and another, once the 80% lower is registered as an "assault weapon", it should be able to legally take on any and all characteristics of one. You just happened to put .223 upper on it today for cheap practice...

FNFiveSeven
October 4, 2004, 03:37 PM
The problem is that when you register the AR lower as a 50 BMG (which is what I think you are proposing) they are not going to register it as an Assault Weapon, it will be registered as a "50 BMG rifle". If you convert it to an assault weapon, you will still be in possession of an assault weapons without a permit to possess said assault weapon. You cannot register new assault weapons in California, unless they are for repair of broken previously registered AW receivers, or if you are Dianne Feinstein or one of her bodyguards.

ShadowOne
October 4, 2004, 04:44 PM
Of course nothing is set in stone yet. But there's a good thread over at Calguns.net that explains there may be two lists of registered assault weapons. One for 50 BMG rifles and the other for SB23 assault weapons. In order to legally convert a 50 BMG rifle into a fully functional semi-auto AR15 with detachable mag, you're gonna need that one receiver to be on the SB23 registration list. But if it's one list then you have an opening.

They're aware of not allowing de facto open registration of new assault weapons. Just 50 BMG rifles that are in compliance with all existing assault weapons laws.

jnojr
October 5, 2004, 10:05 PM
The problem is that when you register the AR lower as a 50 BMG

California doesn't have a special ".50 BMG" classification. .50s must be registered as "assault weapons". There is no legal distinction (that I'm aware of) between one type or another. Especially if you can get the "8888" for caliber instead of having one caliber hard-coded.

artherd
October 6, 2004, 01:17 AM
You can finish the reciver, and buy any non "AR and AK Series" reciver for that matter, and build it into a full gun.

You just can't attach a pistol grip if you have a detachable magazine, like any other rifle.

Now, a list of "AR and AK Series" recivers DOES exist! But it is not what you and I would define an 'AR series'. Rather, the list is a list of EXACT STAMPINGS of lowers! Eg: "Bushmaster XM-15", "Wilson Combat AR-15" and the like.

So, one could order say a "JP Rifles CTR-02" (which did not make the DOJ's "AR AND AK SERIES" list.) and build a gun withought the pistol grip, right now, and perfectly legally.

Booyeah.

Duke of Lawnchair
October 6, 2004, 01:49 AM
So, one could order say a "JP Rifles CTR-02" (which did not make the DOJ's "AR AND AK SERIES" list.) and build a gun withought the pistol grip, right now, and perfectly legally.

Unfortunately, that's a no-no.

AR15 and Kalashinikov rifles are taboo in California, period.


Read 'em and weep. (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/infobuls/200004.pdf)

Definately no "booyeah" for CA. :fire:

-Jim

FNFiveSeven
October 6, 2004, 11:39 AM
jnojr, that is not true. Just because 50 cal rifles are being added to the same law that outlaws AW's, does not mean they are simply being added to the list of AW guns. They are being added to their own special catagory of restricted weapons labelled "50 BMG rifles". The state law will make it a crime to possess any unregistered "Assault Weapon" OR "50 BMG rifle". One does not equal the other.

artherd
October 8, 2004, 02:17 AM
Sorry Duke of Lawnchair, but you are infact wrong here. Read that brief, read it with a legal mind, not a 'practical' one.

All that happened in 2000 was that the DOJ published a *NEW AND UPDATED LIST OF EXACT STAMPINGS* that was to consitute the "AR and AK series."

Infact, here are the weapons added to that SERIES list:

AR “SERIES” ASSAULT WEAPONS - RECENTLY IDENTIFIED
THESE ASSAULT WEAPONS MUST BE REGISTERED BY DECEMBER 31, 2000.
American Spirit
USA Model
Armalite
AR 10 (all)
M15 (all)
Golden Eagle
Bushmaster
Bushmaster XM15 (all)
Colt
Sporter (all)
Match Target (all)
Law Enforcement (6920)
Dalphon
B.F.D.
DPMS
Panther (all)
Eagle Arms
M15 (all)
EA-15 A2 H-BAR
EA-15 E1
Frankford Arsenal
AR 15
Hesse Arms
HAR 15A2 (all)
Knights
SR-15 (all)
SR-25 (all)
RAS (all)
Les Baer
Ultimate AR (all)
Olympic Arms
AR-15
Car-97
PCR (all)
Ordnance, Inc.
AR -15
Professional Ordnance, Inc.
Carbon 15 Rifle
Carbon 15 Pistol
Palmetto
SGA (all)
PWA
All Models
Rock River Arms, Inc.
Standard A-2
Car A2
Standard A-4 Flattop
Car A4 Flattop
NM A2 - DCM Legal
LE Tactical Carbine
Wilson Combat
AR-15


NOW, THE DOJ CAN AT ANY TIME DECIDE TO FURTHER AMMEND THIS LIST, TO INCLUDE FOR INSTANCE THAT "JP CTR-02" RIFLE I MENTIONED ABOVE. HOWEVER, SINCE BY DOING SO THEY OPEN UP ANOTHER WINDOW IN WHICH ***ALL SB23 ARMS COULD BE PURCHASED AND REGISTERED AGAIN***, I DOUBT IT WILL BE HAPPENING ANY TIME SOON.


IN ORDER TO BAN IT BY NAME, THEY MUST LIST IT'S STAMPED NAME THAT APPEARS ON THE LOWER!!!.

deej
October 8, 2004, 09:18 AM
The Kasler decision says that ANY AR and AK series weapons - regardless of manufacturer, model, or SB23 characteristics - are assault weapons and had to be legally possessed and registered by a certain date (January 23, 2001 comes to mind.)

FNFiveSeven
October 8, 2004, 12:07 PM
so really, then, the list mean ABSOLUTELY nothing, since guns are banned that aren't on the list if they are "AR" series. What's the point of listling out all the different types of "copycat" AR's, when the ones that aren't listed are still banned because they are "AR pattern"?

artherd
October 8, 2004, 06:40 PM
The Kasler decision says that ANY AR and AK series weapons - regardless of manufacturer, model, or SB23 characteristics - are assault weapons and had to be legally possessed and registered by a certain date (January 23, 2001 comes to mind.)

That's correct, exactly what I said.

THEY MUST DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT CONSTITUTES THIS 'SERIES', and were ordered by the court to do so. You have the definition infront of you.

The crux of this issue is that a JP CTR-02 IS NOT AN AR OR AK SERIES WEAPON AS DEFINED ABOVE! Just because it can take some Armalite parts does NOT make it an AR in the eyes of the law!

FNFiveSeven
October 8, 2004, 06:50 PM
well, there may be some truth to what you say, artherd. I don't know. The fact is, that without a signed in ink letter from the DOJ, it's going to be hard to keep yourself out of jail if you're running around with a pistol grip-less JP CTR-02. Here's what we need to do:

buy and assemble some nice rifles on the JP receiver, w/o the pistol grip of course. Then wail to the AG that he's letting in all these AW loophole AR death guns. He'll add them to the list, and once you register them, you can add the pistol grip since it's been declared an AW. What do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about "80% AR-15 lowers in California" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!