CA AB50 legal opinion thread

[artherd]

I realize they were merged, but there is a very specific question I need answered here.

Under AB50, (text here: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_50_bill_20021202_introduced.html ) .50BMG rifles are being controled and called for registration.

Can I purchase a Barrett M82A1 *withought* the pistol grip, then proceed to register it as a legal .50BMG rifle, and then in early 2005, after the registration deadline is past, add the pistol grip back on?

Statutory definition of a .50BMG rifle would still fit, and the gun would have met the requirement of being legally posessed in the sate prior to the enaction of the ban.

There is nothing in the law about taking a registered .50BMG rifle, and adding features onto it that might also classify it as an assault weapon. Infact, the exact classification of that hypothetical weapon remains somewhat of a grey area.

Can we get these bastards with a grey area?

 

[El Rojo]

I was thinking the Barrett M82A1 might have been banned by name by the AG when the legislature gave him the power to add guns as he wishes to SB-23. I did not find the Barrett M82A1 listed in Penal Code Section 12276. It does say in part 12276.5 that the AG should put any of his newly banned guns in the "California Code
of Regulations", but I don't have time to find it this morning.

So initially, it looks like maybe you can bring in a pistol gripless M82A1 that has been certified not to have a "flash suppressor", register it, and then someday put the pistol grip back on. I would check with the CA DOJ first before attempting such a scheme.

 

[strambo]

Can we get these bastards with a grey area?

No, not if SA Schmuckatelli is at your door. They make all the rules and have the people on the payroll to interpret them too (cops, DA's, judges, would you trust a CA jury?)

I wouldn't contact the CA DOJ either...great way to pop up on the radar. If it is a grey area now, they'll change it next year, then get a warrant.

 

[50 Shooter]

Just as predicted, Arnie the RINO signed AB50!!! What a POS! THANKS to all the dip dunks that voted for him!

Oh well, lawsuit is in the making.

 

[artherd]

M82A1 is not banned by reciver stamping (there are infact several PG-less M82A1s in the state, and I have a letter from the DOJ describing that they are legal in that PG-less configuration.)

The question would be, hyopthetically, after the .50BMG ban goes into full effect, would adding a pistol grip to a registered .50BMG rifle automatically re-classify it to be an "assault weapon"?

Due to the specific language used in AB50, it would appear not to. (many uses of the term "OR" but not "AND/OR".)

The DOJ already knows enough about me, one more letter wouldn't hurt

 

[Subliminal One]

I wouldn't contact the CA DOJ either...great way to pop up on the radar. If it is a grey area now, they'll change it next year, then get a warrant.

I was wondering about writing a letter too. But if the letter isn't written properly and has any hint of blatantly trying to circumvent the spirit of existing AW laws then the CA DOJ will predictably make their own opinion and say "NO" if there is any doubt. I highly suggest that anyone who writes a letter to the DOJ draft it extremely carefully. Better yet, just don't write one.

The weakness of AB50 is that it is not a stand alone bill, apparently. It specifically refers to existing AW laws and associated registration programs. The 50 cal ban explicitly says that existing law will EXTEND those provisions to include any rifle that fires the 50. In other words, 50 BMG rifles are now classified as AWs and require registration as far as I understand. I think they did it this way because existing state AW laws have withstood all legal appeals thus far. Therefore, why write a new bill when you can extend a successful one that is already on the books?

You can see how this leaves a loophole to sneak in registration of AWs in general. You're obtaining what may be an AW permit (still not sure if it'll be an AW permit or a separate one) for your 50 BMG rifle that was not previously classified as an AW based on features. Once obtaining that AW permit you then convert it to another class of AWs -- semi-auto with detachable mag, etc etc. Now things get complex.

 

[riverdog]

Don't ask questions if you don't want to hear the answer.

 

[FNFiveSeven]

artherd,

I've already had the same idea, and I gave up on it because they do not wind up classifying 50 BMG rifles as "assault weapons." They remain in their own class of banned guns called "50 BMG rifles" and to add a pistol grip to a 82A1 would be to construct a new "assault weapon" regardless of the fact that it might have been a legally registered "50 BMG rifle". Of course, I'm interested to hear if there is an exception or misunderstanding, but that's how I interpreted things. Wish I had better news for you.

riverdog: It's not that he doesn't want to hear the answer, he just wants to be sure it's right. This guy is trying to find a way around a bad law, your comments aren't helping.

 

[Jim March]

A guy name of Marcel Burlet just posted the following to the CA-Firearms mailing list.

Can anybody confirm?

----------------

Folks:

Reading the chaptered PDF:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_50_bill_20040913_chaptered.pdf

we find
------------
12278 (a) As used in this chapter, a ...50 BMG rifle.. means a center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or 12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200.

(b) As used in this chapter, a ...50 BMG cartridge.. means a cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center fire rifle and that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the tip of the bullet.

(2) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and including, .511 inch.

(3) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to, and including, .804 inch.

(4) The cartridge case length is 3.91 inches.
----------

Hmm, most of the reloading data I see says that the Max Overall Length for 50 BMG is 5.45 inches, and the cartridge case length is 3.90. AB-50 banned a rifle that chambers a round 0.09 inches longer than a standard 50 BMG (almost a one tenth of an inch).

Does this mean that the "California 50 BMG" is a non-existent creature?

Marcel

 

[50 Shooter]

Here's my take on it Jim.

It says .50 BMG cartridge and then they throw out what is suppose to be the spec's for it. They also say .50 BMG rifle which would mean ANY rifle capable of chambering it or stamped .50 BMG. To me this means ALL forms of .50 BMG are banned if your using a .50 BMG case or rifle that was originally produced to fire it.

Others tend to think that by changing something like the OAL of the case or the OAL of the loaded round or making the bullet smaller will get you around the law. I think this would put you in a grey area and possibly cost you alot of money trying to defend yourself in court. Might be hard trying to convince a judge over a few thousands of an inch.

Yes, the OAL is 5.45" for a Mil spec round but I would hate to see someone get busted by loading their ammo to say 5.50" or a match round out to 6.00". After all they are still using a .50 BMG case to load it in. This is Kali and you have to remember that as a gun owner your GUILTY until you can prove your innocent.

 

[Jim March]

Except that this "redefinition of a standard term" happens ALL THE TIME in California law. Esp. weapons law.

Example:

Under PC12020, you cannot conceal a "dirk or dagger". Felony city if you do.

But what if you conceal a Khukuri? Or a Gladius? Or any number of pointy sharp implements that aren't "dirks or daggers" under the strict definition of same?

Solution: they re-defined "dirk or dagger" as "a readily available stabbing implement".

Now it covers anything carried as a stabbing weapon: screwdrivers, wood chisels, etc. Sharpened screwdrivers became an "issue" after the Bernie Goetz thing in NYC, and in San Francisco right before this new definition was done in California, somebody got geeked with a 1.5" wide blade wood chisel to the chest .

Or take another example: the California Fish and Game commission and department cannot regulate domestic mammals. They're limited to "wild and feral mammals only" in jurisdiction. So they crammed through a state law that redefined "wild mammal" as "anything the commission says isn't commonly domestic in California. Zoologically speaking, ferrets are domestic animals. By the idiotic "hacked definition" in the state Fish And Game Code, they're not.

So "overriding plain English" happens ALL THE TIME in California law.

In this case, plain English "50BMG" (a technical term) gets re-written by this code itself.

And they appear to have done a typo booboo .

 

[deej]

This page from Hodgdon shows the OAL being 5.450".

AB50 is so tightly written, if a rifle doesn't chamber a round that's 5.540" long, IT IS NOT A .50 BMG RIFLE as far as the state of California is concerned. It can be stamped .50 BMG on the receiver and have ".50 BMG" in big yellow letters on the barrel; it ain't a fifty.

So...can anyone with a .50 BMG and a press see if a 5.540" round will chamber?

 

[50 Shooter]

I can handload ammo with an OAL of 6.00" and it will chamber in my rifle.

Look at it like this if it will make it clearer for you. The courts get to "interpret" the "meaning" of the law, "interpret" the "intent" of the legislature in passing that law.

If you have a rifle, and the bore diameter is approx .50, with a case that's even remotely similar to .50 BMG, the court will determine you're in violation, because the obvious "intent" of the law was to ban .50 caliber.

Doesn't matter if you use a .505 bullet, or change the shoulder angle of the case a few degrees, trim the length back a couple mm, move the shoulder back, etc.

They'll just call up someone from LC or WCC to testify. Ask him what caliber the case is that came from your gun, he'll say it was a .50 caliber made by us in 19xx and you'll be headed down state in shackles before you can open your brief case.

I'm not a lawyer, but all you have to do is look at the newspapers to see what's what.

 

[The_Antibubba]

Any word on the other Bills?

Jim,

What's going on with the ammo tax/registration and such?

 

[artherd]

I've already had the same idea, and I gave up on it because they do not wind up classifying 50 BMG rifles as "assault weapons." They remain in their own class of banned guns called "50 BMG rifles" and to add a pistol grip to a 82A1 would be to construct a new "assault weapon" regardless of the fact that it might have been a legally registered "50 BMG rifle".

The question still remains, are the two classifications ".50BMG rifle" and "Assault Weapon" mutually exclusive after enaction?




Jim is most certinly right, the law RE-DEFINES '.50BMG!!!'. Despite their wishes, the CA DOJ can not write laws that are flexible and open to a wild degree of interpretation. ".50BMG rifle" means exactly what was hammered out in AB50 (ie, case dimentions and OAL.)

Any half-decent lawyer would make MINCEMEAT of a case brought against someone with a .499Fienstien type gun. He would simply bring in a dummy round, loaded by an expert whitness to the exact specifications in AB50, attempt to chamber it in the accused's gun, and as they say;

IF THE ROUND DOES NOT FIT, YOU MUST AQUIT!

There is ample case law in this matter, see Kelesyer v Lockyear for a determination that the 'AR and AK series' MUST be defined as a list of stamped serialised recivers, and CANNOT exist as an 'open ban' on 'anything kind of like it, ish'.

Common sense does not apply to law.

 

[Jim March]

Ammo TAX is dead, long ago. Conclusively enough that I don't think they'll try again.

Handgun ammo registration - SB1152: on Arnold's desk. Your guess is as good as mine. If he vetoes it, expect another try next year...in which case I'll be ready.

The other bad one is SB1140, a "child access to guns" bill that confuses that issue yet more and muddies the waters as to what's a "loaded gun" (unloaded gun, in closet, ammo "nearby", it's "loaded"). Not as bad as in it's original form, as it does allow loaded guns inside of a small bedside safe, large safe or a cable-locked long gun. In other words, use any reasonable security/child access prevension system and a loaded home defense gun is legal. Small "bolt to the bed frame" safes with electronic fast-access keypads are the way to go if there's kids around anyways.

So we still want SB1140 dead, but it doesn't prevent in-home defense if there's kids in the house. That was Sen. Scott's original plan and that went down in crashing flames.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

That's risky, Art.

Gun store in Modesto had inventory of assault rifles when CA outlawed future sales of such.

He cut off pistol grips and flash suppressors and continued to market them.

CA DOJ confiscated them.

He sued.

Never got the guns back. Went bankrupt. Store closed down.

He should have just sold them in Nevada and not tried to box with the JBT's.

 

[dw33b]

I suppose this is the best thread to post this question in.

I am a California resident and I plan on getting a .50bmg rifle as fast as humanly possible to beat the ban. However I don't have all that much money to spare so one of the more known rifles are pretty much out of the question but I found something that may work. Are single shot bolt action .50bmg rifles with pistol grips currently legal? The Cal AWB mentions nothing about bolt actions. So I think that they are, does anyone else know for sure?

What I am planning on doing iis grabbing a California legal single shot AR15 lower receiver (not capable of accepting magazines for it has no mag well) and attaching a 50cal AR15 upper receiver. The whole setup shouldn't cost me more than $1,700 or so. Now as far as I know this is legal before the January 1st deadline, is there anyway I can find out for sure?

 

[Subliminal One]

dw33b, only the receiver is considered the firearm. Therefore, all you'd need is to possess a serialized lower.

 

[FNFiveSeven]

so.... you could just go out and buy a dozen FAB-10 lowers, register them all as 50 BMG rifles, and build them up later?

 

[El Rojo]

In my quest to develop the .50 FUCA, I ran across this company: Serbu Arms. Basically they are taking $1000 down and then as they tool up to meet their new huge demand, they will eventually finish your rifle. This was you can register it and have it finished later. They also state they are willing to work out a payment plan. Go check out their website and also note their special message to PRK politicians.

 

[50 Shooter]

Blackrazor,
Yes, you could register as many FAB10 lowers as you want as .50 BMG's and then build them up later.

You could probably do it with the 80% lowers that are out there also.

 

[Shalako]

But what about ammo? Will you still be able to find ammo after the ban?

 

[Librarian]

.50 BMG ammo is not restricted by AB 50. Whether CA sources will stock it is a business decision I cannot predict.

There was such a restriction when the bill was introduced, but it seems to have been amended out in July, and I don't see it in the Chaptered version (Chaptered == now law, or law as of effeective date in the bill).

 

[Jim March]

blackrazor: what you're talking about is legal. AR pattern rifles can have pistol grips so long as they can't take a detachable magazine. So the fixed-10-round or single shot lowers can both take pistol grips.