True Tales Of The FFL: Gunbroker...

[SteyrAUG]

I can understand how some people might not be current about this or that regarding the myriad gun laws. For example it wouldn't be the first time somebody thought the 89 import ban also expired in 2004 and wanted to order a foreign exotic now that the ban is gone and they are cheap again.

And ever now and then I get somebody who really did believe that Ken Jenne commerical and wants a full auto UZI since they are legal again.

But you would think some folks in some states would know about the stuff everyone should know. For example in California pretty much everything beyond black power and bolt actions is illegal.

But it never fails, and about every 4 months I get an email such as this one:

I want to order a CAR A2. How do we do that and
> how
> > do we ship it to
> > California????

To which I replied:

Well first you have to sell your house and move to a state that allows you to own such things.

Sad to say AR-15 type rifles are not legal in your state.


I can't believe there are still people who don't know this.

 

[nplant]

Ah, but depending on the maker and how it is shipped, it's perfectly legal. Off List Lowers are acceptable, so long as there is no pistol grip conspicuously protruding from the bottom of the action. There are lots of "if" statements, though, so I can understand why many FFLs just don't bother finding out all the facts.

Nevertheless, it's legal to own an AR-style weapon, as long as it's not on the named-list, and as long as it is NEVER configured to meet the requirements of the features ban. CA DOJ hates the fact that it's legal, and even though I don't really want a neutered AR, I love the fact that DOJ hates it.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Where's it say all that in the Second Amendment?

 

[silverlance]

For example in California pretty much everything beyond black power and bolt actions is illegal.

Oh bugger. Looks like we're going to have to take all those FAL rifles apart and sell them for scrap.

Actually, quite a bit can be done in CA. The limits are there - however, lawsuits have required the limits to be so well defined that it is now possible to wiggle around them - to a certain degree.

It is sad that I can buy a 1919A4 - with my C&R license, even - but not be able to buy what I really want, a Hi-Point 9mm Carbine.

Like everyone, the Californian shooter would do well to know the laws of his state implicitly.

 

[HuntAndFish]

Well, they see all the low lifes in the movies running full auto and all of the hype about gun violence in the media. It gives the impression that anything is available to anyone. The facts of life in California don't get in the way inside the movie studio...because the law has exemptions for them.

It's ironic in a way, that the very people who would regulate our rights are exempted from the laws regulating those rights.

 

[walking arsenal]

For example in California pretty much everything beyond black power and bolt actions is illegal.

I'm Pretty sure that black power has been illegal since 1863.

 

[meef]

I'm Pretty sure that black power has been illegal since 1863.

Hmmph!

You wouldn't have said that to the Panthers in the sixties.

 

[Tyris]

Where's it say all that in the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment has no teeth, else we would not be having this discussion.

There are no penalties for passing laws counter acting the Second Amendment, so law makers do so from east to west, from north to south with reckless abandon. Been that way for centuries.

Perhaps if the supreme court upholds Heller vs DC, the Second Amendment might have some nibble, but I'm guessing they'll deny cert or if granted the ruling will be so narrow and so open to "reasonable regulation" as to continue to be useless.


-T

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

AR-15 rifles are not illegal in California. This is a common misconception.

Listed AR-15 receivers (such as certain Bushmaster and DPS models) are indeed illegal. On top of this, assault weapon characteristics as defined by SB-23 here in the PRK are also illegal unless registered.

HOWEVER, it is possible to own a pistol-grip AR-15 in California as long as the receiver is NOT listed as being banned and it complies with SB-23 regulations.

 

[Telperion]

I can understand how some people might not be current about this or that regarding the myriad gun laws.

...

Sad to say AR-15 type rifles are not legal in your state.

This thread wins the irony award.

 

[SilentArmy]

Those Neutered california lowers look great on an AR-50! I can't imagine having to feed my baby one round at a time though! Think of how many guns you could afford if you sold that overpriced piece of real estate and moved to the United States of America! I won't even travel to the Peoples republic to see Mickey Mouse!

 

[SteyrAUG]

nplant


Ah, but depending on the maker and how it is shipped, it's perfectly legal. Off List Lowers are acceptable, so long as there is no pistol grip conspicuously protruding from the bottom of the action. There are lots of "if" statements, though, so I can understand why many FFLs just don't bother finding out all the facts.

Nevertheless, it's legal to own an AR-style weapon, as long as it's not on the named-list, and as long as it is NEVER configured to meet the requirements of the features ban. CA DOJ hates the fact that it's legal, and even though I don't really want a neutered AR, I love the fact that DOJ hates it.

We aren't talking about a OLL, but a complete rifle in preban config.

 

[SteyrAUG]

Telperion
Senior Member



This thread wins the irony award.

Yeah...once again. Not talking about receivers, but complete rifles in preban config, which are most certainly not legal in Cali.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Well, he did ask how it might be done. Since you seem to understand the situation, you could have educated him.

Most firearms enthusiasts don’t fully understand all of the laws. The general public knows nothing on this subject. How could they know the truth in the face of the constant disinformation campaign the prohibitionists run?

~G. Fink

 

[SteyrAUG]

Gordon Fink

Well, he did ask how it might be done. Since you seem to understand the situation, you could have educated him.

Most firearms enthusiasts don’t fully understand all of the laws. The general public knows nothing on this subject. How could they know the truth in the face of the constant disinformation campaign the prohibitionists run?

As I understand it, since I am selling complete factory rifles and not receivers, it cannot be done and that is what I told him. I'm not selling builds or cali compliant conversions.

I have no problem selling legal stuff to California, I was the guy who did the Barrett Group Buy and almost half of those went to California before the ban went into effect. But if I were a shooter who lived in Cali, I'd make sure I knew the laws, especially when they are so limiting.

Now if there is a way to legally ship a factory rifle with a high capacity magazine and preban features to California I'd love to hear about it, because that is what I am selling. And I'd love to sell something like that legally to California shooters.

But from everything I can find, it simply isn't legal.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

If the AR-15's receiver is not listed as being banned from this list:

ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf

It can be shipped into the state minus any SB-23 features without changing how the magazine can be removed. SB-23 is as follows:

ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/9906.pdf

1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and
any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) 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) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or
silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) 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.
(D) 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.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,
thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable mag

In order to remain as a detachable magazine get up, it can't have any of the above evil features. The 30 magazine can be "imported" only in seperate parts (not assembled) to replace other worn out magazines. I would forgo that completely since the guy would have to get ten-rounders anyways unless he has some before the ban.

In a nutshell, if the AR-15 is not listed, and for instance has a flash suppressor and a pistol grip, you can take the suppressor and grip off and send it to him.

 

[Soybomb]

To some extent I actually like to see people surprised to find out what dumb laws are in place because guns are so scary. If they're gun owners its a bit disappointing that they didn't already know, but I like imagining that some people still think guns are just another piece of property to be bought and sold like a book or laptop.

 

[SteyrAUG]

Dr. Peter Venkman

In a nutshell, if the AR-15 is not listed, and for instance has a flash suppressor and a pistol grip, you can take the suppressor and grip off and send it to him.

Isn't the threaded barrel gonna be a problem?

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

I was just giving an example, I didn't know the specifics.

The threaded barrel would indeed be a no-no.

 

[waterhouse]

I get an email about once every two months asking if I can sell a handgun to CA via an FFL but ship the >10 round mags directly to their house.

People write things like "I've got an FFL to handle the transfer of the gun but he doesn't like magazines that hold a lot of rounds so can you ship the magazines directly to me?" or even some that blatantly say what they want me to do is illegal, like "CA doesn't allow hi-cap magazines, and since I can't get them in state I'd like to buy them from you."

 

[LeoC]

Isn't the threaded barrel gonna be a problem?

Threaded barrels are OK for RIFLES in CA. Threaded barrels on rifles do not count as an AW feature. But you must only use it for compensators/muzzle brake, no sound or flash suppressors. Sound suppressors are illegal in CA, and flash suppressors count as an AW feature. If questioned about the barrel threads, you must say it's for attachment of a recoil compensator/muzzle brake "that does not noticably decrease the muzzle flash"

Threaded barrels are a definite no-no for handguns, though.

 

[cyclist]

the very people who would regulate our rights are exempted from the laws regulating those rights

I've been saying this for years.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Threaded barrels are OK for RIFLES in CA. Threaded barrels on rifles do not count as an AW feature. But you must only use it for compensators/muzzle brake, no sound or flash suppressors. Sound suppressors are illegal in CA, and flash suppressors count as an AW feature. If questioned about the barrel threads, you must say it's for attachment of a recoil compensator/muzzle brake "that does not noticably decrease the muzzle flash"

Threaded barrels are a definite no-no for handguns, though.

I was under the impression that if the threaded barrel as the capacity to accept an SB-23 feature (such as a flash suppressor), it is indeed a no-no unless the "detachable mag" issue has been fixed or it is registered.