Please explain the California AR15 law

[bushmaster1313]

What makes an AR-15 type gun legal or illegal in California?
(serious question, not looking for railing against odd laws)

In addition:

If it does not have a removable magazine can it have a folding stock and a pistol grip?

If it has a removable magazine is it legal if it has none of the other "bad" features (like a Mini-14)

I do not live in California but I am concerned that what they have there may spread.

(in New Jersey, the removable magazine is not the problem, so long as it is not more than 15 rounds. The problem in NJ is a semi-auto with any two of the evil attributes. Flash hider plus bayonet lug and you are toast)

 

[ChaoSS]

If it does not have a removable magazine can it have a folding stock and a pistol grip?

Yes, I believe so, the pistol grip I know, the folding stock I believe so.

If it has a removable magazine is it legal if it has none of the other "bad" features (like a Mini-14)

Yes, but don't forget that a pistol grip is considered an evil feature.

 

[ChaoSS]

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

 

[Librarian]

The flowchart really is the best summary.

But in general - there were several weapons NAMED as 'assault weapons' in the 1989 law. Nothing one can do about those - that's the 'list'.

A follow on law defined 'assault weapons' ALSO as a combination of features - centerfire, semi-auto, removable magazine is the big combination.

 

[LiveLife]

Fortunately, Ruger Mini-14, Mini-30 weren't banned even though they are centerfire, semi-auto, removable magazine.

 

[14427H]

You just have to look at that chart and it speaks for itself. Watch for the CA pointy stick ban.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Fortunately, Ruger Mini-14, Mini-30 weren't banned even though they are centerfire, semi-auto, removable magazine.

Ditto... thats what I picked up to replace my AK when I moved here. Aside from the lousy cost/availability of mags for the mini, it makes a perfectly suitable substitute. Don't tell the local libs though... they think it is "safer" based on its humble appearance.

 

[627PCFan]

As a California outsider the fact that there has to be a flowchart for the issue is so obsurd, Ill never visit.

 

[Zoogster]

California has had some victories, which is why there is state legal AR's at all.
California banned all AR and AK style firearms period.

Then after a judgment it was essentially declared that the blanket ban was too open to interpretation. That firearms must be specifically named to be banned.
So what did the state start doing? Naming rifle after rifle to the banned list.
Normally the legal "assault weapon" registration is closed, but a ban by name temporarily opens a window. So you can only register it as an "assault weapon" and become immune to the feature restrictions if they "ban" your firearm now.
So people realized that under state law if they purchased a rifle before it was banned the state was required to open a short registration window, they could then register and be grandfathered in. Once grandfathered in they were free from all of the feature restrictions.

The state eventually caught on, or more specifically the attorney general and CADOJ.
So the state promptly stopped adding new weapons to the "assault weapon" list.
Leaving California where it is at now. With a growing number of firearms not on the banned "assault weapon" list, and the state unwilling to add more because that allows people to register and become free of the feature limitations.

As a result most new AR and AK firearm models that have entered the market in the last few years remain unbanned by name, and so only must comply with the feature restrictions.
So the only thing the firearm industry must do to remain ahead of the curve is come out with a new model name or slightly different firearm for the California market each time a previous one is banned specifically by name.

 

[Art Eatman]

Closed per OP request.

I happened to notice an excessive amount of childishness...