Kenshin
Member
What the title says.
(CA) I can get an "AW" if it is rimfire?
- Thread starter Kenshin
- Start date
- Status
CleverName
Member
Yup.
Or if it's a fixed magazine, which is what the FAB-10 and CA legal FAL are.
Or if it's a fixed magazine, which is what the FAB-10 and CA legal FAL are.
Kenshin
Member
even an AR-15?
Are you thinking about the Bushmaster 22lr?
I would love to get one. A couple years ago, I saw Carbon15 in 22lr (I think they called "Carbon22") at Target Master in Milpitas. I was too late to snap it up. Oh well.
May be you can give them a call to see if they will order you one.
-Pat
I would love to get one. A couple years ago, I saw Carbon15 in 22lr (I think they called "Carbon22") at Target Master in Milpitas. I was too late to snap it up. Oh well.
May be you can give them a call to see if they will order you one.
-Pat
railroader
Member
It can't be a detachable mag ar even if it is in .22. Ar's are mentioned by name as assault weapons in california. These .22's are legal though and use 10/22 magazines. Can you say Butler Creek? 
http://www.rhinelandarms.com/ Mark
http://www.rhinelandarms.com/ Mark
Last edited:
Guy B. Meredith
Member
Heck, Peralta even wanted to ban Olympics freestyle pistols.
Barry2
Member
Railroader,
I guess you like my photo.
Barry
I guess you like my photo.
Barry
sharpie613
Member
Wow...I'd love to have something like that. Do they have prices, or is it more than this poor heart could bear?
Barry2
Member
Sharpie613,
Yep you can have on as well.
That ones mine and I don't think your far from me.
Barry
Yep you can have on as well.
That ones mine and I don't think your far from me.
Barry
railroader
Member
Barry2 I like the photo and the rifle. How does it shoot? I just got through putting a heavy match barrel and composite stock on my ruger 10/22 but it doesn't look anything like your rifle. Mark
Barry2
Member
R22
Railroader,
I glad you like the rifle. Going to shoot it today for the first time.
Barry
Railroader,
I glad you like the rifle. Going to shoot it today for the first time.
Barry
Last edited:
Ironworker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 76
"It can't be a detachable mag ar even if it is in .22."
Well, sort of. If the weapon is built/modified so that it can fire rimfire ammo only, then yes, it can be semi-auto, detachable magazine, and have a pistol grip. One option for you is to get a 10/22 and get an aftermarket pistol-grip stock, but you're still SOL on getting (legally, at least) any of the 50-round bannanna clips. There's also the "AK-22" and "AR-22" rifles that are occassionally at some shops that I've seen. They're made by ARMSCORE (I think) and look somewhat 'scary', but are still just .22 blowbacks in different clothing.
You cannot get an AR-15, convert it to fire rimfire ammo, and be safe, if there is any reasonable chance that it coud be converted to centerfire. (Reasonable, in this event, meaning that a very competant gunsmith couln't get it converted to centerfire.)
DPMS makes, or at least used to make, a pump-action upper for the AR-15, but this was not allowed because a standard gas-operated upper could be installed in seconds. Presumably, it would be acceptable if you modified the lower and upper receivers so that a normal upper (ie: non-pump) could NEVER work. FWIW, there is little ak-style mutant, that has a pistol grip, detachable magazine, but is manually cycled like a pump-action shotgun. I see them for sale every once in a while as being "CA legal", and would seem to meet the various restrictions and still give you 2/3 of the assualt rifle experience.
Well, sort of. If the weapon is built/modified so that it can fire rimfire ammo only, then yes, it can be semi-auto, detachable magazine, and have a pistol grip. One option for you is to get a 10/22 and get an aftermarket pistol-grip stock, but you're still SOL on getting (legally, at least) any of the 50-round bannanna clips. There's also the "AK-22" and "AR-22" rifles that are occassionally at some shops that I've seen. They're made by ARMSCORE (I think) and look somewhat 'scary', but are still just .22 blowbacks in different clothing.
You cannot get an AR-15, convert it to fire rimfire ammo, and be safe, if there is any reasonable chance that it coud be converted to centerfire. (Reasonable, in this event, meaning that a very competant gunsmith couln't get it converted to centerfire.)
DPMS makes, or at least used to make, a pump-action upper for the AR-15, but this was not allowed because a standard gas-operated upper could be installed in seconds. Presumably, it would be acceptable if you modified the lower and upper receivers so that a normal upper (ie: non-pump) could NEVER work. FWIW, there is little ak-style mutant, that has a pistol grip, detachable magazine, but is manually cycled like a pump-action shotgun. I see them for sale every once in a while as being "CA legal", and would seem to meet the various restrictions and still give you 2/3 of the assualt rifle experience.
CA legal .22 AW?
A month or two ago, I tried to find out if I could purchase a Romanian AK98T .22 trainer from SOG in Ohio. SOG said that they wouldn't sell it to a CA addressed FFL because they hadn't received the go-ahead from the DOJ in CA. So, I emailed DOJ a couple of times and waited 3 weeks for a response. Never came. So I called DOJ and spoke to a very nice female agent who said that since the rifle was a .22lr with a 10rd magazine (no hicaps are avail), no bayonet lug, flash hider, or folding stock, that yes, I could purchase this rifle and have it sent to CA with no restrictions because it didn't meet any AW terms.
SOG still refused to ship the rifle to CA because now they said it was the owner's policy, not anything to do with CA law. A call to the BATF even got the ok. SOG still wouldn't budge.
Three weeks from the start of this, I get an email from the CA DOJ saying that no, this rifle can't find a home in CA because any member of the AK family is not welcome, no matter that it doesn't meet the definition of an AW.
So I guess that a rifle that is similar to a Ruger 10/22 in function, is so evil, that it must be added to the lists of other forbidden firearms, like "used" handguns from other less *progressive states*, or "blued" handguns that are somehow more deadly than stainless "approved" models.
I wish that CA would just go ahead and come out and say they are leaving the Union and forming their own country. That way, the United States could declare war on them and after crushing them in defeat over the weekend, CA could be rebuilt and join America once again. The inmates run the asylum here.
A month or two ago, I tried to find out if I could purchase a Romanian AK98T .22 trainer from SOG in Ohio. SOG said that they wouldn't sell it to a CA addressed FFL because they hadn't received the go-ahead from the DOJ in CA. So, I emailed DOJ a couple of times and waited 3 weeks for a response. Never came. So I called DOJ and spoke to a very nice female agent who said that since the rifle was a .22lr with a 10rd magazine (no hicaps are avail), no bayonet lug, flash hider, or folding stock, that yes, I could purchase this rifle and have it sent to CA with no restrictions because it didn't meet any AW terms.
SOG still refused to ship the rifle to CA because now they said it was the owner's policy, not anything to do with CA law. A call to the BATF even got the ok. SOG still wouldn't budge.
Three weeks from the start of this, I get an email from the CA DOJ saying that no, this rifle can't find a home in CA because any member of the AK family is not welcome, no matter that it doesn't meet the definition of an AW.
So I guess that a rifle that is similar to a Ruger 10/22 in function, is so evil, that it must be added to the lists of other forbidden firearms, like "used" handguns from other less *progressive states*, or "blued" handguns that are somehow more deadly than stainless "approved" models.
I wish that CA would just go ahead and come out and say they are leaving the Union and forming their own country. That way, the United States could declare war on them and after crushing them in defeat over the weekend, CA could be rebuilt and join America once again. The inmates run the asylum here.
railroader
Member
deleted
Last edited:
Here's an even simpler answer. Take your guns, your votes, and your earning power and move to a state where there's still some hope of keeping your gun rights. As long as gun owners are willing to continue living in areas where the local government has repealed their second amendment rights, we'll continue losing those rights.
CleverName
Member
What, you don't think that it'll spread? Sure, NV and AZ are pretty permissive states, so the eastern border is "safe", but CA law sets precedent by the sheer fact of its existance. CA bans something, the anti-gunners in another stated smile and go "That's a clever idea." Just look at the .50BMG ban. After CA banned the 50, you guys have to work doubly hard to stop your state-wide 50 bans. After all, nobody in CA's been killed or planes shot down w/ a 50 cal rifle since the ban started (not that anybody was killed with one before. but that's irrelevant, apparently.)
Everybody on this board seems to be advocating a sort of reverse Free State Project with California. Sure, we're not likely to create a Libertarian/Conservative paradise in CA anytime soon, but the most populous state in the union doesn't deserve abandoning either.
Everybody on this board seems to be advocating a sort of reverse Free State Project with California. Sure, we're not likely to create a Libertarian/Conservative paradise in CA anytime soon, but the most populous state in the union doesn't deserve abandoning either.
We need the rest of the free states to come to our rescue. If California was rounding up minorities or denying voting rights for asians, the Feds would step in immediately. Gun owners are outnumbered. We need reinforcements. Bomb San Francisco, not Falluja.
CA laws are so complex and numerous the state DOJ gives wrong info 90% of the time. Nobody can keep up with the volumes and volumes of infringements on our rights.
As I understand it, the CA law names specific models, ie AR15, AK47, etc. and includes any look-alikes with new names or variations. Any gun based on a named model would be banned. So if Colt made an AR15 in .22 LR, it would be a variant and banned.
I think that the ban on folding stocks and pistol grips doesn't apply to rim fire rifles, but the prohibition on large mags does. So little relief from the oppressive laws where the .22s are concerned. Very bad situation in CA. Sorry.
As I understand it, the CA law names specific models, ie AR15, AK47, etc. and includes any look-alikes with new names or variations. Any gun based on a named model would be banned. So if Colt made an AR15 in .22 LR, it would be a variant and banned.
I think that the ban on folding stocks and pistol grips doesn't apply to rim fire rifles, but the prohibition on large mags does. So little relief from the oppressive laws where the .22s are concerned. Very bad situation in CA. Sorry.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
