Springfield XDm and California

[bottom shelf]

Why to U.S. citizens choose to remain a resident of California, then complain about it?

Are there really very many people who can just pick what state they want to live in based on gun laws? I'd love to live in Texas, but my employment, family, and everything else is in NC. Mostly my employment keeps me here. If I just moved, I'd prolly starve to death pretty quickly.

 

[bondmid003]

bottom shelf, NC is a pretty good state to live in gun wise compared to CA.

I'm from NC myself, just happen to be stationed in CA

 

[KenW.]

Are there really very many people who can just pick what state they want to live in based on gun laws? I'd love to live in Texas, but my employment, family, and everything else is in NC. Mostly my employment keeps me here. If I just moved, I'd prolly starve to death pretty quickly.

There are jobs in every state. Those who choose to reside in a place they don't like can either leave, suffer, or try tro make things better.
They can stop voting for the status quo liberals.

 

[cali_joker]

can this be a possible loophole???

I'm in the process of ordering an XDm from gunbroker, and I spoke to the seller (shop in idaho) this morning and they told me they can sell me the weapon but they will not include the mags. That it can be legally sent and be transferred to me via an FFL here in CA but keep in mind NO MAGS ! Lol what do u guys think, I need opinions asap , thanks for ur replies.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm in the process of ordering an XDm from gunbroker, and I spoke to the seller (shop in idaho) this morning and they told me they can sell me the weapon but they will not include the mags. That it can be legally sent and be transferred to me via an FFL here in CA but keep in mind NO MAGS ! Lol what do u guys think, I need opinions asap , thanks for ur replies.

Won't work.

Doesn't matter if there are mags or not. If it's not on the list you can't transfer it through a California FFL.

If you buy it the Idaho FFL will ship it to a California FFL, who will have to send it back unless the purchaser is LE.

California law says:

Effective January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns, certain single-action revolvers, and pawn/consignment returns are exempt from this requiremen

Unless it's on the approved list you simply can't buy it from a California FFL. No "loopholes". Even without mags it still lacks a magazine disconnect, which is now required.

That's why the XDm isn't on the list, and Springfield Armory has been quoted as saying they have no plans to make/import a CA legal version.

You will hear all kinds of stories about the XDm failing the state tests, or someone "knows a guy" that had one, but that's all BS.

SA didn't even submit the thing to CA DOJ testing since it lacks the mag disconnect.

 

[cali_joker]

Thanks texas, u just burst my bubble lol jk . Probably the shop is just trying to sell me the gun then lol I guess ill go for the xd 40 in a tactical version. Thanks for the valuable info and hopefully I can get my deposit back lol

 

[Zoogster]

No "loopholes". Even without mags it still lacks a magazine disconnect, which is now required.

Actually there is a couple loopholes. One requires a family transfer from parent or grandparent (and the reverse) from out of state. That is exempt from the approved list.
The other is that only semi-auto firearms are covered.
Single shot pistols and revolvers are not. There is a few single shot slides that can be fitted on the rails. Some in rifle calibers or other calibers that could not be fired through a traditional mag.
If you purchase one of those slides and have the firearm equipped with it then it is a single shot firearm, immune to the approved list.

The approved list only applies to import for sale for an FFL. Which means while it may need to be a single shot to legally be imported and sold, once owned by the purchaser it does not legally need to remain a single shot.


The gray area is then what to do with the stock slide. It would be perfectly fine to ship or sell it in a separate purchase. Selling it along with the single shot firearm though ...


Which means if a seller is willing to attach a single shot slide to a semi-auto firearm, ship it to buyers in California through an FFL, and then also have the original slides available for sale in later purchases, that is legal.
A friend out of state could make it easier. Avoid straw purchases though.
Don't engage is such activities for profit without an FFL.


Just as it is legal for someone to take an off-list (2 lists) AR, acquire a 10 round magazine, install a bullet button, and ship it to someone in California (through an FFL) as it is not an "assault weapon" and is perfectly legal.
It then has a fixed magazine, and if off-list no longer meets the definition of an assault weapon. Just like the ones people build in state.

The problem is the laws are complicated and out of state people are justifiably afraid to deal with something they do not know.
Most FFL dealers in California are not even completely up to date on the exemptions and how to make things work.

The firearm is whatever action is installed. If it has a full-auto slide it is a machinegun. If it has a semi-auto slide it is a semi-automatic. If it has a single shot upper, it is a single shot.

So if you have enough money to go buying extra single shot slides each time, and someone willing to work with you out of state, and a local in state FFL dealer that understands the law, you can get pretty much anything.
Simply having a parent or grandparent, or child or grandchild out of state makes it even easier. Those transfers are immune from the list.

 

[bondmid003]

cali joker, even if the CA FFL were to transfer the gun to you, with no mags it would be useless.

I say this because regular XD mags do not work in the XDM and Springfield does not make 10 rd mags for the XDM yet. You would have been buying effectively a single shot pistol my friend.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Note that the single shot pistol exemption applies only to pistols with a barrel length of at least 6 inches and an overall length of not less than 10.5 inches (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/infobuls/2006FD-06.pdf)

 

[Zoogster]

Note that the single shot pistol exemption applies only to pistols with a barrel length of at least 6 inches and an overall length of not less than 10.5 inches (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/infobuls/2006FD-06.pdf)

Plenty of barrels that extend far behind the slide. In fact people hunt with such barrels to gain extra velocity all the time.
So you just need a long enough barrel in your single shot upper (is it still a slide if it doesn't move?)

A 6" barrel will make most handguns at least 10.5 inches.

Once again it is just how much money you have. Someone willing to pay for all that extra to get the gun can do so.

regular XD mags do not work in the XDM and Springfield does not make 10 rd mags for the XDM

Good point. A way around that of course is to install a legal "permanent" block that will not allow more than 10 rounds to be loaded in the factory magazines. Could certainly solder something in place. The problem is it needs to be done before sold to the customer, or in some cases even imported. I don't think I would want random Joe in another state altering my magazines and possibly ruining them. Especially since you would have to go out of state to purchase replacements (and then modify those to comply before returning to California.)

Yet once again, if you have enough money you could have an out of state gunsmith with a good reputation tackle the job for you.
So it really is all just about money.

 

[jakemccoy]

Why to U.S. citizens choose to remain a resident of California, then complain about it?

I didn't see too much complaining before your Post #18. What I saw mostly was useful legal information. Perhaps you intended to be in the General Discussions room, rather than Legal.

 

[cali_joker]

You're right on that bond, it is useless w/out the mags, but I was hoping I couild pick the mags up at a local shop that sells high caps to LEO and to "us" meaning the ARMORED CAR PERSONNEL, giving the dangerous job we have. I know a shop in brea, CA that might be willing to but then its just a lot of stress to go with for that one weapon. I already called the shop in idaho and advised them of the issue with the xdM and they said they were unaware that the xd> was not on the approved list lol so I'm getting the XD 40mm in the tactical version after all )

 

[bondmid003]

You made a good choice, I have an XDM in .40 and I think its a great gun but the potential hassle you almost put yourself in unintentionally isn't worth it.

 

[bondmid003]

If the gun is on the DOJ list its no problem, the problem occurs when a buyer hasn't checked the list and tries to order from out of state

I agree though, it can be a headache for an uninformed person

 

[FMFDevildoc]

California Attorney General website is the ANSWER!!

Traveling to California? (god forbid)
Moving to the peoples republic of California? (god forbid)
Thinking of buying, selling or importing firearms to California? (god help you)
Wondering another hypothetical situation*
(*EG: "If I go to California, and it is Summertime, during the vernal equinox phase, on Sunday, with 80% RH, after 5 pm but before 10pm - at Starbucks, on Main Street can I carry my 1911 - I heard that in California you cant ________ you fill in the blank?)[/B]

The answers to ALL questions regarding ANY firearms issues can be answered here:

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/

I lived in the state for several years, was also stationed there when I was with the Marines. I voted the "RIGHT" way, campaigned with the NRA and did all I could - I left. I left and wont go back, I live in free America now (New Mexico).

However - comma, I digress - One CAN own firearms; and many of them in California..... Just follow the laws, frequent the Attorney General website and stay informed!!!

In closing - there any many, many of us on THR that are very well informed, intelligent, responsible, mature gunowners. But assuredly, none of us are the California Attorney General. So in my opinion, UNLESS it comes directly from the Californa Attorney general - you may (or may not) be doing one of a few things:

A) Inadvertently violating the law
B) Becoming a criminan unintentionally; which is exactly what the commie, liberal, leftist, Feinstein-Boxer-Reid-Pelosi crowd wants: Responsible gun owners made to look like blood thirsty criminals.
C) Most importantly - supporting, perpetuating and spreading 'common knowledge' in other words, anecdotal BS that means absolutely nothing and breeds ignorance.

This is a very strong conviction of my own experiences in the state of California - as a gun owner, who now lives in free America.

Again: http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/

 

[Zoogster]

The answers to ALL questions regarding ANY firearms issues can be answered here:
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/

Wrong.
Try researching how to build an offlist AR type rifle on there.
You will find the lists by name. You will even find the laws. You will find the list of features.
Yet you certainly won't find information that would lead you to believe it was even possible.
For that you need to find the law, and then the case law. Learn the definition in California law of "permanent magazine". Learn that "permanent" in California law has come to mean it "requires a tool".
You would never be led to believe a "bullet button" could be affixed to your standard offlist AR to go from evil and illegal "assault weapon" to regular fixed magazine semi-auto from the AG website.

Most would never realize that a firearm setup with an action that is a single shot is exempt from the import legislation.
Etc etc etc
Both the firearms laws and case law that defines them, and firearm legal uses and methods of transport leave out as much as they mention on the website.


That site gives just the basics. Most exemptions in law are intentionally left out to keep it from being excessively confusing.
Yet those exemptions, and relevant case law, are many times more important than the statute itself.
In some statutes everything is illegal, and then it follows with exemptions that the statute does not apply. So the exemptions are in fact the law more than the statute itself.
PC12025 (illegal concealment of a handgun) and PC12026 (extended exemptions) is a great example. Concealing a handgun would always be illegal, even in a locked box, unloaded. Yet such a method of transport meets one of a long list of exemptions to the blatant complete outlawing of concealed handguns. But it is only one of a long list.
So the exemptions themselves are actually the law more than the statute that bans all concealment period.
There is many similar instances in California law were something is technically illegal reading one statute, but then meets an exemption in another, or later in the same statute, or case law defines the actual meaning very differently than it sounds in the statute itself.
So a brief summary of the law as a result is almost always incomplete, and the summarizer must lean towards more restrictive than reality to keep from confusing the reader and resulting in illegal behavior.


The Attorney General site is as a result more restrictive in general than the law is in reality. They leave out most exemptions, they also leave out things they don't want to encourage, even if legal. They give a simple overview that is as a result more restrictive, but if someone follows certainly won't break the law because it is more restrictive than the actual laws of California.

 

[eJack]

A few thoughts / clarifications:
One loophole not mentioned yet for off list handgun transfers in CA is having an LEO purchase the gun and then transfer it used.

Magazine disconnects are only a requirement for new handgun roster applications. They are not a legal requirement, and there is no law to prevent taking the mag disconnect bar out after purchase.

Bagging on CA gun owners for staying in CA is one of the tackiest lamest most petty things that people can do on forums. As goes CA so goes the nation. Do people really want all the responsible gun owners in the state to leave things to the leftist nuts? Just be happy that other people have decided to stay (for whatever motives) and are supporting the second amendment in the nation's most politically powerful state. CA is one of the few states that has incorporated the heller decision at the state level. Do you think that would have happened if every gun owner tucked tail and ran?

 

[Librarian]

CA is one of the few states that has incorporated the heller decision at the state level.

Gosh, I wish that were true.

That was Nordyke, a Federal case, and it's April opinion is voided because the 9th Circuit voted to reconsider it en banc.

We won't know how that turns out until late September at the earliest.

 

[Zoogster]

One loophole not mentioned yet for off list handgun transfers in CA is having an LEO purchase the gun and then transfer it used.

That sounds too close to a straw purchase. Someone purchasing a new firearm simply to transfer it to someone else in order to bypass a law. Even though the transfer would be legal and done through an FFl...

Now if a LEO purchases such a firearm and THEN decides to sell it after already having purchased it the situation is different. It is all in the intent at the time of purchase. If the original intent is to purchase it to transfer to someone else...
Is that changed because it is going to be transferred through an FFL rather than private party? I don't recall seeing that in the federal statute.
It could be a gray area or it could be illegal.

 

[eJack]

Gosh, I wish that were true.

That was Nordyke, a Federal case, and it's April opinion is voided because the 9th Circuit voted to reconsider it en banc.

We won't know how that turns out until late September at the earliest.

Thanks for the clarification. My point was that it happened.

 

[eJack]

That sounds too close to a straw purchase. Someone purchasing a new firearm simply to transfer it to someone else in order to bypass a law. Even though the transfer would be legal and done through an FFl...

Now if a LEO purchases such a firearm and THEN decides to sell it after already having purchased it the situation is different. It is all in the intent at the time of purchase. If the original intent is to purchase it to transfer to someone else...
Is that changed because it is going to be transferred through an FFL rather than private party? I don't recall seeing that in the federal statute.
It could be a gray area or it could be illegal.

The laws for straw purchases are pretty clear. It requires a person to purchase and register a gun in their name as a proxy for another person who can't legally purchase it themselves. By doing both transfers, all forms and procedures are followed and everything is legal.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/What_is_a_STRAW_PURCHASE%3F

 

[zx1421]

If calif law says you must have a mag disconnect why does my glock not have it?
PS. I just removed it from my M&P

 

[Zoogster]

If calif law says you must have a mag disconnect why does my glock not have it?

It says it must have a mag disconnect to be added to the approved handguns list. The law is relatively new and guns already on the list remain on the list, unless they fail to pay their yearly extortion fee and fall from the list.

Glocks would be illegal to sell from an FFL in California if not already on the list due to the lack of a magazine disconnect.

The approved list also only applies to FFLs and importation of new firearms (which must go through an FFL). Private guns already owned may be transferred to new owners without being on the approved guns list.

PS. I just removed it from my M&P

No law on keeping one, and I certainly think firearms are better without one. Who wants a gun that wont fire if the magazine is dropped during a struggle for your life, or somehow the button was lightly pressed while in a concealed carry rig all day before you pull it out and the magazine is slightly unseated.
(Although the opposite is true if you drop the magazine on a gun you carry before a bad guy gets it, which for LEO can be a thought.)

However a hotshot lawyer will use that against you if you ever have a negligent discharge with a firearm you have modified to remove such a "safety feature" and the result puts you in court.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I just removed it from my M&P

As a lawyer, I think it's a lousy idea to disable a safety device on a gun intended for self defense use. If you don't like a magazine disconnect, use a gun that comes from the factory without it.

But this isn't the place to discuss this subject, and it has been discussed at length already. See --

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=466935