I am a frustrated CA resident and was wondering if anyone knew the answers to these questions I have…
* 80% AR15 castings – legal for a person to make an AR15 lower receiver?  Even in CA?
* Are AR15's that are made by people other than ones specified in the “Identifying Assault weapons guide – section AR-15” legal to buy in CA as long as they are not configured as an assault weapon as described in SB23?
* Dose SB23 replace BATF guide for Assault weapon characteristic?

* AW Permits for Class III weapons in CA.  If you apply for the permit and get it, then you buy your weapons and when it comes time to renew and you chose not to – do you have to sell/surrender your class III weapons?

Thanks

I'm not a lawyer.

Some of your questions are open to interpretation.  I'll give you the conservative ("safe") answers based on my understanding of the law, and a few alternative viewpoints.

Because the 80% castings have a magazine well, there is no way to complete one into a CA-legal lower receiver.  (The only AR-type lowers that can be imported into, manufactured in, or transferred within CA are the few that do not accept detachable mags.)

Alternative interpretation:  Since the Kassler v. Lockyer decision last year, an AR-type lower receiver that isn't specifically on the list of banned makes and models might be legal to import or manufacture.  I haven't heard of anyone growing enough of a pair to test this theory.

However, assembling ANY AR-type lower (that takes detachable mags) into a complete rifle with a pistol grip would meet the "features" provisions of SB23.

The Caliban DoJ AW identification guidebook supports the regulations written by the DoJ in their interpretation of both SB23 and the earlier law, called the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, or something like that.

Permits for "Assault Weapons" and machineguns don't expire.  If you are blessed by the Caliban with permission to own such items, you get to keep them for life.  But they are issued only very, VERY rarely.  Armored car companies and firms that provide props for the entertainment industry are about the only people who stand much of a chance of getting a permit.

Ok I managed to talk to a DOJ rep.
* 80% receives MIGHT be legal, but I would have to send a picture to them and a description of what I want to do.
* AR Frames that are not described in the “Assault Weapons Identification Guide” fall under the same bit as the 80% receiver.  Send them a picture and let them decide if it’s legal.
* Permits are lifetime and do not need to be renewed.  Although getting the permits are a little more difficult than one might think.

Thanks for the info, sulaco.

I have a policy of not calling the DoJ with firearm questions.  If you need their approval for something, get it in writing.

But beware.  The opinion of a DoJ employee is just an opinion and may not be enough to keep you out of jail if a prosecutor and a judge interpret the law differently.

The other problem I have with DoJ opinions is that they tend to be more conservative than I'd like.  I once asked about the legality of a Bushmaster 37 mm flare launcher that is designed to attach to an AR-15.  It's a clone of the M203 40 mm grenade launcher, but because it is 37 mm it qualifies under FEDERAL law as a signaling device, which makes it exempt from classification as a destructive device (unless you put a 37 mm explosive round in it).

You CAN buy 37 mm flare launchers in Californistan, but the DoJ considers the Bushmaster launcher to be illegal because it is designed to be attached to a firearm.  (A "grenade or flare launcher" is a Caliban AW stigma.)

There is NOTHING in the law that says a 37 mm flare launcher designed to be attached to a firearm is illegal, but the DoJ says it is illegal.

The Caliban DoJ has an exaggerated sense of its latitude in interpreting law.  In my opinion they are over the line and are MAKING law, which is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the state government.  They have a tough job to do - Enforcing laws that are often bizarre and poorly written.

But that's just my opinion, and I am not a lawyer.

Your mileage may vary or do so at your own risk, whatever. Look at the Caliban definition of a detachable mag:

SENATE BILL (SB) 23
Chapter 12.8
Department of Justice Regulations for Assault Weapons and Large
Capacity Magazines
 Article 1. General
978.10 Title and Scope

This chapter shall be known as the "Department of Justice Regulations
for Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines," may be cited as
such and are referred to herein as "these regulations." The
provisions of these regulations shall apply to assault weapons as
defined in Penal Code section 12276.1 and as specified pursuant to
Penal Code section 12276.5, and large capacity magazines as defined
in Penal Code section 12020(c)(25). These regulations do not apply to
assault weapons as defined in Penal Code section 12276.  
NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 12079, 12276.5(i) and 12285, Penal
Code. Reference: Sections 12020, 12079, 12276.1, 12276.5, and 12285,
Penal Code.

Article 2. Definitions of Terms Used to Identify Assault Weapons

978.20 Definitions

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification
of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device
that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly
of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or
ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device
includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips,
en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the
magazine.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 12276.5(i), Penal Code. Reference:
Sections 12276.1, 12280, and 12285, Penal Code.



So if you modify the mag release and use a 10 round or less mag you no longer have an AW. But then this is not legal advise and I'm not a lawyer.

The court case is Harrott vs Kings County where CASC ruled that the series definition was un-enforcable since too much burden would be placed upon the owner to know firearms and the history of such. This ruling was issued sometime this past summer. This was a stinger for people who sneer at the 2nd amendment but a real victory for us here in CA for a change.

I believe the Kassler vs California (Lundgren was the AG when filed) challenged the ability of the AG to amend the banned list of AW (from the Roberti-Roos bill). Kassler contended that the AG was constitutionally prohibited from legislating and was doing so when amending the list. He lost.

Sulaco, you should not finish your lower then send pictures of it to the CA-DOJ. If they don't like it, they will compel you to surrender it. It is best to submit drawings and go from there. That's my two cents.

Stator,
 Haven’t made or bought anything yet, just doing my homework before I do anything.  I am going to try to get a permit for owning an AR15 or M16 first – if that fails then I’ll look into making an AR receiver.  I’ll make some pictures and diagrams and send that to the CA DOJ and wait for there written approval first.  If that fails then I’ll get the FAB10.  If at this time the FAB10 is no longer available then I guess I’ll get a Ruger mini14 :(
 I would prefer to own the full-auto M16 because I want to model it’s physics into a game engine I am working on.  That data is important for making high quality first person shooters and action adventure games.  If they deny me the permit then I’ll see if they can at least provide me with an alternate to owning a permit + assault weapons.  
- Sulaco