I am bored and my allergies are killing me so riddle me this if you will.

[cslinger]

I don't live in occupied territory but I was reading the thread about the FAB-10 Cali. legal AR-15.

It is legal because the magwell is sealed and only accepts 10 rounds of ammo via stripper clips etc.

So basically you can't have your evil firearm able to accept a detachable magazine correct???

In the AR-15 series the "firearm" is the lower reciever correct?

Why not design an upper designed to feed from a box magazine from the top or side, ala Bren, Sterling, Sten etc.?

Therefore you buy your perfectly legal firearm, the FAB10 lower and you simply add the magazine fed upper to it. (9mm,.223 etc.) Make it so it takes common magazines (Sten, AR15 etc.)

You end up with a funky AR-15 but one that in theory looses very little functionality vs. a "real" AR-15.

Ok I know cost is an issue and getting it to work etc. But would it be a legal work around?

Just zoning out thinking.

Chris

 

[Jim Watson]

It would take a careful reading of the law to tell if that were a feasible loophole. I THINK California law pretty much bans gunsmithing to that extent.

At any rate, if some cop didn't like its looks, you would get to pay the lawyer to read the law and argure if for you. About $350 an hour, isn't it?

 

[repsychler]

I don't think that would work. For example, during the AWB you could have a post-ban AR15 lower. It is, according to the ATF, a firearm. You'd be fine sticking an upper on it without any banned features, but if you dared do something as crazy as have a bayonet lug, you'd be making a (then) banned AW.

I would assume the same applies here, just because a FAB-10 receiver is legal in cali, it doesn't mean you can't add to it to make it illegal. Guess it depends on how the cali law is written.

 

[Nick1911]

Guess it depends on how the cali law is written.

They are written in such a way that the individual (us) always loses <-- my take on laws anyway. Ie: if you found a workaround and you’re doing something that they don’t like, you’ll still end up in jail.

Very interesting idea though.

Nick

 

[Jim K]

It is a neat argument, but since it is based on the definition of a firearm in one area of federal law (not in all areas), I think there would be a blizzard in the Mojave before you could get a CA judge to accept it.

Jim

 

[deej]

A workaround would be to take a FAB-10 or DPMS single-shot lower and remove the pistol grip before installing an upper with its own feeding mechanism (mag or, dare I say, belt.)

Prior to the Kasler decision, there were some interesting looking CA-legal pistol grip replacements. If there's an appropriate upper out there, this SHOULD be workable.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

by modding the upper to that degree, it is not an ar15 any more
but it fails the evil feature count test

 

[carebear]

Anyone remember the Shrike ?

Belt-fed upper, apparently on the Duke Nukem 3 production schedule tho.

 

[cslinger]

The Shrike exists I have people in my family who have had the opportunity to fire one. Not sure if it exists for general sale though, may still be in the testing/prototype phase.

Chris