Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Some AR recievers temporarily legal? CA

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ddj8052, Dec 29, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ddj8052

    ddj8052 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    331
    Location:
    Nipomo, CA
    Mods please move if in the wrong forum.

    I just recieved a call from a friend of mine that has a FFL and he is telling me that there was a Lawsuit against the state regarding the legality of certian AR recievers. According to my friend he is stating that the person bring the suit actually one. The court has ruled that unless every AR reciever is named by make and model on the DOJ list than it would no be illegal. In other words every reciever that is listed by name ie: Colt, Armalite, Bushmaster etc. are still illegal. But the small no name companies not listed by name are currently legal. This creates a loop hole. So once listed on the DOJ list then if you possed one of these recievers you would again be able to register it as an assult wepon and build it as you would like. :)

    So I am trying to find out if this is in fact true. Has anyone heard anything about this? I sure would like to get one if this is true. My FFL is supposed to post links to this information for further review. As soon as I get them I will post. Juan
     
  2. UberPhLuBB

    UberPhLuBB Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Oregon
  3. odysseus

    odysseus Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    946
    Location:
    US Citizen
    Now THAT would be interesting news.
     
  4. artherd

    artherd member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,518
    Location:
    An Elevated Position in the Bay Area, PRK
    Summary: You are basically Correct! The lawsuit you mention was the 2001 decision in Harrott v County of Kings
    For more information please see this very fine FAQ on the matter: http://www.calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm

    The upshot is: guns not listed HERE are legal, and the DOJ knows it and has agreed in wirting: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/aw.htm

    I've already got SIX! We are putting together a group-buy on some more; http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=26150

    Here's my CA-legal (WITH PINNED/BOLTED 10ROUND MAG ONLY!!) CTR:
    [​IMG]



     
  5. mfree

    mfree Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,079
    Location:
    Knoxville, TN
    Wouldn't that mean that even after the lists are complete, you could make your own reciever and it's not on the list?
     
  6. roscoe

    roscoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,271
    Location:
    NV
    That blotted-out face is a little freaky looking.
     
  7. artherd

    artherd member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,518
    Location:
    An Elevated Position in the Bay Area, PRK
    Absolutely not. If you read the entire Harrott decision, it was based on the ease by which the DOJ *MIGHT* regulate generally available commercial guns.

    80% would not have Harrott protection, so don't even think about it. You'll LOOSE in the Supreme court, and probally undo Harrott entirely.
     
  8. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,214
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    Leave Cali now -let all the LIEberals and anti's move there to thier supposed "heavan" and seal the border.
     
  9. bg

    bg Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    When you find out, let me know..
    I'm dumb as a rock looks like..If the mag is pinned and bolted
    how do you load it up ? Open the upper and feed the rounds into
    the mag and then close it ?
     
  10. Justang

    Justang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Location:
    So Cal
    This does make it hard to keep all the lower recievers out of California. I don't think they'll ever be able keep up with new companies making new lowers. Unless they come out with some new law, but if you read Harrott v Kings County, they stated the law was not to be self executing. The AG had to add each Make and Model to the list. This doesn't stop the AG from saying "Rock River (all)." Then that company is toast in Cali. But if a new company comes along we may have limited time to buy up the lowers. Atleast, this is the way I see it. If this sounds off to you, post your thoughts. I just think with the new laws according to Harrott V Kings Co, it makes it almost impossible to stop all the companies.

    From what I read on Calguns, and here, and all the DOJ notes, it looks like they're going to ammending the law soon. I think we got lucky with the time we have because of the holidays. Merry Christmas California. :p

    I read the entire Harrott v Kings Co and then the law, and the FAQ at Calguns. Seems like a pretty nice loophole for now. I can't believe this was ruled on in '01 and were just getting around to it now. Anybody know why? Maybe just fear of the DOJ filing charges?
     
  11. larry_minn

    larry_minn Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,455
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Don't know about his. But one Kalif legal AR I saw you had to push rear pin and (break) rifle (like for cleaning) to load rds. :(
     
  12. Harry Tuttle

    Harry Tuttle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    3,093
  13. Justang

    Justang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Location:
    So Cal
    That's the FAB10.

    You can buy these stripped lowers, then put it together. If you get a "Fixed Magazine Kit" and fix the magazine, you will have a completely Cali legal AR15. But if they put the lower on the banned list, you'll have to register it as an AW with Cali.

    If you don't put that Fixed Mag Kit on, and you attach the pistol grip... you have yourself an "Assault Weapon" and are guilty of a felony.
     
  14. Rem700SD

    Rem700SD Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    541
    Location:
    South of Houston, TX
    I'm still a little fuzzy on this. Does this mean there's a new/special market for an AR-15 receiver not on the list, such as a PWC(IIRC, mine) ?

    Edit: oops, saw mine in the second list, sry
     
  15. Justang

    Justang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Location:
    So Cal
  16. Justang

    Justang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Location:
    So Cal
    FFL AUDITS

    Looks like the DOJ is now paying some visits to the FFL's that are selling these "off list" lowers. Apparently the field agents are just collecting California Drivers License information on all the people that bought the lowers. Technically they can't press charges, there are many letters saying it's ok to own and purchase them. On top of that Harrott protects us. The going theory is they are collecting the data to either; 1.Send out registration cards to the buyers so they are registered AW's. or 2. They are checking the background of all purchasers to make sure they are legal to buy. or 3. they want an accurate number of lowers let into the state.

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=26338
     
  17. 30Cal

    30Cal Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,282
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    Where can I get a Fixed Mag Kit (or does it consist of a 10rd magazine and a buddy with a TiG welder)?

    Nevermind. (google'd "ar fixed magazine kit" and found what I need)

    I'm DROS'ing for a Fulton lower on Monday.
    Ty
     
  18. CentralTexas

    CentralTexas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    Austin Texas
    Dude, it's not blotted....:neener:
    CT
     
  19. MarshallDodge

    MarshallDodge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,287
    Location:
    Utah, USA
    I have a EA arms (not Eagle) complete lower with collapsable stock. Since this is not on the list, would it be legal to own in CA?

    I would be willing to "help" out the California guys if it is.
     
  20. Justang

    Justang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Location:
    So Cal
    Do you have somebody that will do it Monday? The DOJ is having meeting tomorrow (Friday) about these lowers.
     
  21. Justang

    Justang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    387
    Location:
    So Cal
    Yes, but it'd have to be superfast. Looks like the ball is rolling to get these banned. :(
     
  22. MarshallDodge

    MarshallDodge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    2,287
    Location:
    Utah, USA
    Anyone that is interested PM me.
     
  23. FreshTapCoke

    FreshTapCoke Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    13
    Guys like you are awesome in my book!
     
  24. UberPhLuBB

    UberPhLuBB Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Oregon
    Please take off the pistol grip and collapsible stock if you send it to California! People's lives will end if you don't (yours included)! :uhoh:

    You can send them with the receiver, but they cannot be attached in any way (even taped to the side).
     
  25. dolanp

    dolanp Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Texas
    I don't get what this changes. Won't it become an 'assault weapon' like any other AR as soon as they close the loophole and won't they make you register it?

    Krazy Kommiefornia.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page