Complying with new California laws

Status
Not open for further replies.

LiveLife

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
33,328
Location
Northwest Coast
With new California laws going into effect starting 1/1/17, there seems to be some confusion as to how to best comply with them and I thought this consolidation thread would help California THR members stay on the right side of the laws.


Large Capacity Magazine - Senate Bill 1446 goes into effect on 7/1/17 which bans "large-capacity" magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and owners can:

- Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state
- Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer
- Destroy the large-capacity magazine
- Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction

Owners can also sell or give large capacity magazine to current/honorably retired sworn peace officers, law enforcement agencies, gunsmiths, historical society/museums, armored vehicle companies - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ith-new-california-laws.815370/#post-10443221

On 12/16/16, California DOJ proposed "Emergency" regulations to provide one more option - https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...e-than-10-rounds-but-none-for-assault-weapons

According to the proposal, owners could permanently modify magazines to hold 10 rounds or less - http://www.guns.com/2016/12/19/california-doj-proposes-emergency-regs-on-magazines/
  • For box magazines, use of block and rivet/epoxy/weld and make floor plate non-removable
  • Drum magazines would be loaded with epoxied dummy rounds and sealed permanently
  • Tubular magazines (excluding lever action/.22 caliber) be plugged with dummy rounds riveted in place
  • Shotguns to base capacity on 2.75" shells but Kel Tec KSG and SRM Arms Model 1216 are exempted
Manufacturing includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate.

The manufacturing, importation into the state, offering for sale, keeping for sale, exposing for sale, giving, and lending of a large capacity magazine is controlled. No person may participate in these activities without a permit issued by the Department of Justice. For exceptions, see Penal Code §§12020(b)(19)-(32).


Featureless firearm - Making a firearm "featureless" means to not have the "features" that make a firearm "assault weapon" under California law. If the magazine fed firearm does not have qualifying "features" listed under 12276.1 (a), it is not an assault weapon but a California legal firearm.

Currently, use of "bullet button" makes firearms with qualifying features as firearms with fixed magazine but starting 1/1/2017, they will become assault weapons and owners have until 12/31/2017 to make firearms featureless or register them as assault weapons.

For ARs, removing pistol grip/flash suppressor and keeping the length longer than 30 inches will make the firearm "featureless" and there are stocks on the market that do not meet the definition of "pistol grip".

Here are CA DOJ definitions:

Flash suppressor - Any device designed, intended, or that functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter’s field of vision.

Pistol Grip, conspicuously protruding - A grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

Category 1-3 assault weapon definitions and listing - https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf?

From FAQ page - https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#14

"14. If the characteristics that make my firearm a category 3 assault weapon are removed, can I cancel the registration? Can I sell it as regular (non-assault weapon) firearm?

Yes. If the defining characteristics establishing a firearm as a category 3 assault weapon are removed, it is no longer an assault weapon and the registration may be canceled. However, once the registration is canceled, you can never replace the characteristic(s) that make it an assault weapon, or you will be in possession of an illegal weapon. To cancel an assault weapon registration, contact DOJ at (916) 227-2153. Once the registration has been canceled, the firearm can be sold or transferred like any other firearm (non-assault weapon)."

Category 3 assault weapon definition - https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
  1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
    • A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
    • A thumbhole stock.
    • A folding or telescoping stock.
    • A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
    • A flash suppressor.
    • A forward pistol grip.
  2. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  3. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
  4. A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
    • A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
    • A second handgrip.
    • A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
    • The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
  5. A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
 
Last edited:
In a land-use case in one of the Carolinas, a building permit was denied. SCOTUS held that this was a taking and that either the permitting agency had to repay the purchase cost of the property or to issue the permit for the intended use of the private property.

So: Is not this California law a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment?
 
In a land-use case in one of the Carolinas, a building permit was denied. SCOTUS held that this was a taking and that either the permitting agency had to repay the purchase cost of the property or to issue the permit for the intended use of the private property.

So: Is not this California law a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment?

For the guns or the mags or both?


For the rifles, they have to be registered, or converted to 'featureless', or sell them out of state.

For the mags, you have the option to covert them to 10 rounds, sell them to a properly licensed FFL that can accept them. Sell them to a LEO. Turn them in. destroy them. Again, no taking.


I had never heard of that land use case and don't know the details so its hard to compare the two actions. Was the land bought as commercial property and they denied him a building permit for a mini-mart? Or was it bought as farm land that he wanted to have crops and a produce store?

But I see the sticky points....

CA is going with the concept that the gun owners are still able to use the rifles, as-is, if they are registered. However, they cannot be given to survivors in a Will unless they are converted to 'featureless'. With the mags, they can still be used for the intended purpose of holding ammo and feeding it into the gun.... just with a reduced capacity.


So I guess the question is, how far can you restrict the functionality and transfer of ownership before it becomes not allowing them to be used as intended?


ETA: The gun/mag owner has the option to sell and that is, probably, also how CA is getting around the 'taking' issue.

I am not a lawyer!


Re-ETA: I think youre referring to this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_v._South_Carolina_Coastal_Council

IMO, I don't think its a good comparison. The plaintiff ultimately won because SCOTUS agree that being denied the building permit resulted in "Deprivation of all economically beneficial use". I don't see how the CA situation could be substantially argued the same way.
 
Last edited:
In a land-use case in one of the Carolinas, a building permit was denied. SCOTUS held that this was a taking and that either the permitting agency had to repay the purchase cost of the property or to issue the permit for the intended use of the private property.

So: Is not this California law a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment?
No, I'm afraid it's not.

When one reads the opinion in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992) it is apparent the the holding is applicable (1) only to real property; and (2) in unique situations.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court described the factual setting for the case as follows (505 U. S. 1003, at 1006-1007):
In 1986, petitioner David H. Lucas paid $975,000 for two residential lots on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, South Carolina, on which he intended to build single-family homes. In 1988, however, the South Carolina Legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act, S.C.Code Ann. § 48–39–250 et seq. (Supp.1990), which had the direct effect of barring petitioner from erecting any permanent habitable structures on his two parcels. See § 48–39–290(A). A state trial court found that this prohibition rendered Lucas's parcels “valueless.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 37. This case requires us to decide whether the Act's dramatic effect on the economic value of Lucas's lots accomplished a taking of private property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments requiring the payment of “just compensation.” U.S. Const., Amdt. 5.....

In laying the foundation for its ruling in Lucas, the Court notes that there has been some movement away from the more narrow, traditional view that a Fifth Amendment taking is limited to physical appropriation of property for public use and could include under some circumstances regulation of a property right (Lucas, at 1014):
...Prior to Justice Holmes's exposition in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.Ct. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922), it was generally thought that the Takings Clause reached only a “direct appropriation” of property, Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 551, 20 L.Ed. 287 (1871), or the functional equivalent of a “practical ouster of [the owner's] possession,” Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 642, 25 L.Ed. 336 (1879). See also Gibson v. United States,166 U.S. 269, 275–276, 17 S.Ct. 578, 580, 41 L.Ed. 996 (1897). Justice Holmes recognized in Mahon, however, that if the protection against physical appropriations of private property was to be meaningfully enforced, the government's power to redefine the range of interests included in the ownership of property was necessarily constrained by constitutional limits. 260 U.S., at 414–415, 43 S.Ct., at 160. If, instead, the uses of private property were subject to unbridled, uncompensated qualification under the police power, “the natural tendency of human nature [would be] to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappear[ed].” Id., at 415, 43 S.Ct., at 160. These considerations gave birth in that case to the oft-cited maxim that, “while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” Ibid.

However, the circumstances under which a regulation of a property right becomes a Fifth Amendment taking remains unclear (Lucas, at 1015):
....Nevertheless, our decision in Mahon offered little insight into when, and under what circumstances, a given regulation would be seen as going “too far” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. In 70–odd years of succeeding “regulatory takings” jurisprudence, we have generally eschewed any “ ‘set formula’ ” for determining how far is too far, preferring to “engag [e] in ... essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries.” Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124, 98 S.Ct. 2646 2659, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978) (quoting Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594, 82 S.Ct. 987, 990, 8 L.Ed.2d 130 (1962)). See Epstein, Takings: Descent and Resurrection, 1987 S.Ct. Rev. 1, 4.....

But the Court did note two circumstances under which a regulatory diminution of a property owner's interest in his property would be a Fifth Amendment taking (Lucas, at 1015-1016, footnotes omitted, italicized emphasis in original, bolded emphasis added):
... We have, however, described at least two discrete categories of regulatory action as compensable without case-specific inquiry into the public interest advanced in support of the restraint. The first encompasses regulations that compel the property owner to suffer a physical “invasion” of his property. In general (at least with regard to permanent invasions), no matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it, we have required compensation. For example, in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982), we determined that New York's law requiring landlords to allow television cable companies to emplace cable facilities in their apartment buildings constituted a taking, id., at 435–440, 102 S.Ct., at 3175–3178, even though the facilities occupied at most only 1 1/2 cubic feet of the landlords' property, see id., at 438, n. 16, 102 S.Ct., at 3177. See also United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 265, and n. 10, 66 S.Ct. 1062, 1067, and n. 10, 90 L.Ed. 1206 (1946) (physical invasions of airspace); cf. Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S.Ct. 383, 62 L.Ed.2d 332 (1979) (imposition of navigational servitude upon private marina).

The second situation in which we have found categorical treatment appropriate is where regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land. See Agins, 447 U.S., at 260, 100 S.Ct., at 2141; see also Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 834, 107 S.Ct. 3141 3147, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987); Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 495, 107 S.Ct. 1232 1247, 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987); Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 295–296, 101 S.Ct. 2352 2370, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981). As we have said on numerous occasions, the Fifth Amendment is violated when land-use regulation “does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.” Agins, supra, 447 U.S., at 260, 100 S.Ct., at 2141 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). ...

And that is the principle upon which Lucas is based: a land use regulation denying a landowner economically viable use of land. I've not seen this principle applied to personal property. If anyone is aware of a case in which it has been, I'd appreciate a citation.

By the way, the SCOTUS did not order the permit issued or that Lucas be compensated. Rather it reversed the judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court and remanded the case (Lucas, at 1032):
...for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
I haven't looked into what the South Carolina Supreme Court did.

 
Last edited:
As a guess, and a layic one at that, we will not see any court cases for "taking' for some time.

Probably be an issue if one of the prohibited weapons is found in the estate of some decedent.

Now, did I read it correctly, that the banned "assalt weapons' would be no longer legal to be sold anywhere in CA after 07/01/17? That they have to be made featureless by that date to be something that could be sold, is that correct?

I'm certainly glad I'm not in temporary possession of weapons owned bey those deployed who will not return until after the date certain. But, even if I don't have a dog in this hunt, it's pretty good odds I'm going to know at least one such story out of WesPac.
 
As a guess, and a layic one at that, we will not see any court cases for "taking' for some time.

Probably be an issue if one of the prohibited weapons is found in the estate of some decedent.

Now, did I read it correctly, that the banned "assalt weapons' would be no longer legal to be sold anywhere in CA after 07/01/17? That they have to be made featureless by that date to be something that could be sold, is that correct?

I'm certainly glad I'm not in temporary possession of weapons owned bey those deployed who will not return until after the date certain. But, even if I don't have a dog in this hunt, it's pretty good odds I'm going to know at least one such story out of WesPac.

7/1/17 is the date for 11+ mags that were previously grandfathered to be disowned.

1/1/18 is the date that applies to the recently redefined assault rifles.
 
Now, did I read it correctly, that the banned "assault weapons' would be no longer legal to be sold anywhere in CA after 07/01/17? That they have to be made featureless by that date to be something that could be sold, is that correct?
Best that I could tell starting 1/1/17, bullet button is banned so centerfire rifles that can accept detachable magazine with qualifying features of section 12276.1 (a) would need to be made featureless by removing pistol grip/flash suppressor with a fixed stock overall length longer than 30 inches before being sold. Featureless rifles are CA legal firearms and do not need to be registered as "category 3 assault weapon" by 1/1/18.
12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
  1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
    • A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
    • A thumbhole stock.
    • A folding or telescoping stock.
    • A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
    • A flash suppressor.
    • A forward pistol grip.
  2. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  3. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
If owners of centerfire rifles with qualifying features of section 12276.1 (a) do not want to make their rifles featureless, they can register them as "category 3 assault weapon" and can sell or give to family when they make their rifles featureless, cancel the registration and sell as CA legal firearm as indicated on the FAQ page of the Office of Attorney General - https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#14
14. If the characteristics that make my firearm a category 3 assault weapon are removed, can I cancel the registration? Can I sell it as regular (non-assault weapon) firearm?

Yes. If the defining characteristics establishing a firearm as a category 3 assault weapon are removed, it is no longer an assault weapon and the registration may be canceled. However, once the registration is canceled, you can never replace the characteristic(s) that make it an assault weapon, or you will be in possession of an illegal weapon. To cancel an assault weapon registration, contact DOJ at (916) 227-2153. Once the registration has been canceled, the firearm can be sold or transferred like any other firearm (non-assault weapon).
 
Last edited:
With new California laws going into effect starting 1/1/17, there seems to be some confusion as to how to best comply with them and I thought this consolidation thread would help California THR members stay on the right side of the laws.


Large Capacity Magazine - Senate Bill 1446 goes into effect on 7/1/17 which bans "large-capacity" magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and owners can:

- Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state
- Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer
- Destroy the large-capacity magazine
- Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction

(snip)


I think its important to include the exception that allows the sale of said mags to LEO. (feel free to include it in the OP)


32400.
Section 32310 does not apply to the sale of, giving of, lending of, possession of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties, whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.
 
I think its important to include the exception that allows the sale of said mags to LEO.
Good point. I added the exceptions that allow sales and giving of large capacity magazines to current/honorably retired sworn peace officers, law enforcement agencies, gunsmiths, historical society/museums, armored vehicle companies to OP - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1446

SB 1446, Hancock. Firearms: magazine capacity.
(1) Existing law prohibits the sale, gift, and loan of a large-capacity magazine. A violation of this prohibition is punishable as a misdemeanor with specified penalties or as a felony.

32310.
(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2017, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) upon the first offense, by a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) upon the second offense, and by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) upon the third or subsequent offense.
(c) A person who, prior to July 1, 2017, legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means:
(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state.
(2) Prior to July 1, 2017, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer.
(3) Destroy the large-capacity magazine.
(4) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.
(d) For purposes of this section, “manufacturing” includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.
(e) The provisions of this section are cumulative and shall not be construed as restricting the application of any other law. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code shall not be punished under more than one provision.

32400.
Section 32310 does not apply to the sale of, giving of, lending of, possession of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine to or by any federal, state, county, city and county, or city agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for use by agency employees in the discharge of their official duties, whether on or off duty, and where the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of their duties.

32405.
Section 32310 does not apply to the sale to, lending to, transfer to, purchase by, receipt of, possession of, or importation into this state of, a large-capacity magazine by a sworn peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or a sworn federal law enforcement officer who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of that officer’s duties.

32406.
Subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 32310 do not apply to the following:
(a) An individual who honorably retired from being a sworn peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, or an individual who honorably retired from being a sworn federal law enforcement officer, who was authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of that officer’s duties. For purposes of this section, “honorably retired” has the same meaning as provided in Section 16690.
(b) A federal, state, or local historical society, museum or institutional society, or museum or institutional collection, that is open to the public, provided that the large-capacity magazine is unloaded, properly housed within secured premises, and secured from unauthorized handling.
(c) A person who finds a large-capacity magazine, if the person is not prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition, and possessed it no longer than necessary to deliver or transport it to the nearest law enforcement agency.
(d) A forensic laboratory, or an authorized agent or employee thereof in the course and scope of his or her authorized activities.
(e) The receipt or disposition of a large-capacity magazine by a trustee of a trust, or an executor or administrator of an estate, including an estate that is subject to probate, that includes a large-capacity magazine.
(f) A person lawfully in possession of a firearm that the person obtained prior to January 1, 2000, if no magazine that holds 10 or fewer rounds of ammunition is compatible with that firearm and the person possesses the large-capacity magazine solely for use with that firearm.

32435.
Section 32310 does not apply to any of the following:
(a) The sale of, giving of, lending of, possession of, importation into this state of, or purchase of, any large-capacity magazine, to or by any entity that operates an armored vehicle business pursuant to the laws of this state.
(b) The lending of large-capacity magazines by an entity specified in subdivision (a) to its authorized employees, and the possession of those large-capacity magazines by those authorized employees, while in the course and scope of employment for purposes that pertain to the entity’s armored vehicle business.
(c) The return of those large-capacity magazines to the entity specified in subdivision (a) by those employees specified in subdivision (b).

32450.
Section 32310 does not apply to the purchase or possession of a large-capacity magazine by the holder of a special weapons permit issued pursuant to Section 31000, 32650, or 33300, or pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 18900) of Chapter 1 of Division 5 of Title 2, or pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 32700) of Chapter 6 of this division, for any of the following purposes:
(a) For use solely as a prop for a motion picture, television, or video production.
(b) For export pursuant to federal regulations.
(c) For resale to law enforcement agencies, government agencies, or the military, pursuant to applicable federal regulations.
 
Last edited:
Are centerfire leverguns affected?
For sake of argument, seems like a 10rd .357 Mag tube could hold several more .38 Long Colts or .38 Short Colt rounds, thus breaking the law.
 
Last edited:
No. Lever action and 22 caliber firearms are not affected, only centerfire "semiauto" firearms.

Tube magazines are affected for shotguns.
 
Interesting. Looks like a Mini 14 ranch will pass ? http://monstermangrip.com/legal-info/
Yes along with EM Hammerhead without flash suppressor as long as they are longer than 30 inches. It's good that both products received DOJ-BOF testimony:
California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms attests that Hammerhead is not one of the features listed in CA PC 30515(a)(1)(A-F).(Sworn testimony of Frank Navarro, CA DOJ Bureau of Firearms Special Agent, in the case of People vs. Haack and Haack, California County of Tulare Superior Court, 3 November 2010.)
California DOJ-BOF Special Agent Firearms Division Frank Navarro attests by *sworn testimony that the MonsterMan Grip is not a pistol grip under CA law. (In the case of People vs. Haack and Haack, CA County of Tulare Superior Court, 3 November 2010, sworn testimony of DOJ-BOF agent Frank Navarro.)

There have been stocks complying with CA laws and new stocks coming to market that will allow owners comply with featureless firearms.

And as far as I know, 10 round .458 SOCOM magazines will continue to comply.
 
Last edited:
Seems like CA has their own "unsafe" act to deal with. Welcome to our world. Although compliance has been less than ideal. People I know have complied all sorts of ways. One put a bolt through the mag well on his rifle and then welded the nut on. Others have just removed the stock and pistol grips and store the upper and lower separately. Others got that funky weird NY Compliant stock.

Me, I purchased a DPMS single shot lower to go with my Rock River Heavy Barrel Upper. I didn't shoot it but one round at a time anyhow.
 
Single shot is not practical for me so I will be going featureless by removing flash suppressor/pistol grip and installing new stock.

I thought about registering some of my firearms as category 3 assault weapon but for now, I am planning to go featureless for all of them.
 
New products like Thordsen FRS-15 stock and S&B Products AR15-Spur may help with CA law compliance.

FRS-15 stock $140 (Not compatible with A2 buffer) - http://ddsranch.com/thordsen-customs-frs-15-ar-15-enhanced-stock-assembly-black/

4001qb.jpg


AR15 Spur $25 - http://ddsranch.com/ar-15-receiver-spur-black/

006.png


007.png


003.png
 
Last edited:
So if I remove offending features, I can have AR with a 10 round removable mag (no bullet button) without it being an AW?


The 'no bulet button' has been up for debate.

All I can say is that CA AW definitions dont make any distinction for with or without them so it appears that they aren't needed if registered as so called AW.


ETA: DISREGARD THIS POST. THIS HAS CHANGED ON 12/30/2016
 
Last edited:
Bullet button is banned after 1/1/17.
So if I remove offending features, I can have AR with a 10 round removable mag (no bullet button) without it being an AW?
Yes, you would have a CA legal firearm.

The new Keltec RDB-C bullpup carbine with 20" barrel is CA legal as it lacks pistol grip/flash suppressor/collapsible stock and is 30" in length - https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/kel-tec-shot-show-2016/

rdb-c-2.jpg

rdb-c.jpg


Along with Kel-Tec SU16 - http://www.impactguns.com/kel-tec-s...olive-drab-green-stock-10rd-640832004007.aspx

kel-tec-su16ca-tactical-rifles.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well, since "featureless" is still legal I guess that's what I would get if I get one, provided I could change it around if I move to another state.
 
In a land-use case in one of the Carolinas, a building permit was denied. SCOTUS held that this was a taking and that either the permitting agency had to repay the purchase cost of the property or to issue the permit for the intended use of the private property.

So: Is not this California law a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment?

The authors of the legislation are pushing the envelope of the Fifth Amendment's "Takings" clause, but unfortunately, they may have a leg to stand on.

The Fifth Amendment does not require compensation in all cases where private property is taken by the government. Here is the exact text of the clause:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
The clause only requires compensation when the property is "taken for public use." Those four words appear in the clause, and they have meaning. In California, the now-prohibited magazines are not being put to any public use. They're either removed from the state, altered to legal-standard (10 rounds or less) capacity, or destroyed.

It's a fair question if the public safety benefit that was argued when the law was created is a "Public Use", but that's going to take some case law to establish and that hasn't happened yet.
 
Sheesh...

All this BS makes me REALLY wish all the firearms and after-market companies would take a stand and refuse to sell ANTHING to California that doesn't meet the state laws, including to state agencies. And any servicing of any weapons or accessories would result in modifications to make them California compliant.

Figure the odds, though. I guessone can dream.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top