Here's an interesting email I received form DSA...

Dear Sir,
Thank you, however we have not gotten the final approval letter from the
department of justice. please try us back around the first of the year for
more information.
DSA
Mel
----- Original Message ----
From: "wsmac"
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:37 PM
Subject: California "legal" FAL info needed

> Hello, I visit AR15.com and have seen quite alot of good remarks about your FAL's...I would like to have some information concerning the legal ownership of an FAL[in California]. I have seen comments about buying a regular FAL without the pistol grip, and buying one with the stripper clip top loading modification...Any information you could provide would be great. Thank you very much.
WSmac

For those who have FAL's in California, how did you go about obtaining one, if it was after the bans. Of course, I'm not asking anyone to reveal any info they might not want to appear on a public board, just seems like there's a few CA folks who would like to make a purchase of one of these rifles. Thanks

M&N Armory in Fremont, CA sells complete FAL's without the pistol grip. They cost A LOT, but at least you get to have one. I saw a guy at the range with one. When he shot, he screwed on the pistol grip. When cease fire was called, he unscrewd the pistol grip.

As soon as you screw a pistol grip on an unregistered FAL capable of accepting a detachable high cap magazine to shoot it at a range, you are committing a felony as the attachment of the pistol grip, even temporarily, makes the FAL an SB23 assault weapon.

Embrace freedom.

MOVE.

Just wondering if anyone has bought a
legal FAL while living in California, i.e. no pistol grip or clip loading w/fixed mag, etc., and if so, who from? Thanks

Quoted: As soon as you screw a pistol grip on an unregistered FAL capable of accepting a detachable high cap magazine to shoot it at a range, you are committing a felony as the attachment of the pistol grip, even temporarily, makes the FAL an SB23 assault weapon.

At what point do gun owners decide that enough is enough, and just stop obeying the laws?

And when are we going to stop trying to pick apart our own fellow shooters by having these "holier than thou" attitudes.  It just seems like several people here seem to love pointing out stupid little illegalities as if they are the enforcement arm of the BATF.

Even innocuous questions will attract flamers with nothing better to do than put down other fellow shooters.

I bought a FAL from entreprise www.entreprise.com/ without the pistol grip AND magazine.  As to pointing out the legal aspects of these things, I think those kind folks that do simply want us to know what not to do lest we get creative and get in trouble.

Quoted: At what point do gun owners decide that enough is enough, and just stop obeying the laws? And when are we going to stop trying to pick apart our own fellow shooters by having these "holier than thou" attitudes.  It just seems like several people here seem to love pointing out stupid little illegalities as if they are the enforcement arm of the BATF. Even innocuous questions will attract flamers with nothing better to do than put down other fellow shooters.

I would rather people post what the law is so that people not aware of it will know then for people just to be ignorant.

I do not think Dave G.'s post showed any kind of 'holier than thou' attitude like you infer.

Keep the facts coming Dave.

I give a summary of Fal activity for California since not many people hear on AR15.com know much of FALs, CA, and the current situation.

First, there are two firms with designated CA models: DS Arms (DSA) and Entreprise Arms. DSA is not shipping their version yet while Entreprise has. Each has taken a different approach to be CA legal. DSA approach has to do with keeping the pistol grip but modifying the mag release to avoid the detachable mag feature of the CA AW ban. They also provide a Canadian bolt cover that can feed stripper clips into the "fixed mag". The problem with the CA DOJ is rumored to be centered around the modification to the mag release in that it doesn't fully nullify the detachable mag ban (more on this later). Entreprise Arms approach is to simply remove the pistol grip. The potential problem they have is the CA DOJ changing (once again) the definition of a pistol grip. Right now, it is defined as where the webbing of skin between your thumb and index figure is located when you grip the trigger. There are several problems with this as the NRA has pointed out and had lawyers work with the CA DOJ in '99 and '00. I won't go into it here. If you are interested post a new thread.

Second, there are three groups of CA residents who have written the CA DOJ with designs of their own asking if it meets the legal criteria. The first group is the "remove the pistol grip" just like Entreprise Arms. Early on, the CA DOJ had stated that removing the pistol grip can make it legal but has since given conflicting information (most of it involves the AR however). The second group (LA-based) is modifying the mag release button by drilling and tapping a hole for a set screw. The last update I've received is that they have not heard back from the CA DOJ. I don't like their odds simply because the set screw can be backed-out and then the mag release functions as normal, or as a detachable mag. I don't hold much hope for an affirmative letter back from the CA DOJ on this one. This is, reportively, the same problem that DSA faces. I understand that a redesigned mag release has to be done. The requirement is that the mag release either holds the mag or allows it to free fall... nothing in between. The third group is a couple of guys who are working on using a glove as a substitute for the pistol grip. Use your imagination on this one, but it seems real interesting.

I should point out that many of the FAL supporters are buy FAL lowers with the hope that the CA DOJ will put it on the Roberti-Roos ban list. Then they will have 90 days to register it and put whatever they want within the '94 Fed AW ban.

That's it in a nutshell. Hope you enjoyed it and as Drudge says.... developing.

Here's my starting points for a stock configuration to beat the Assault weapon bans.

To get around the grip below the trigger clause, I figured one way might be to attach the stock through some other means leaving the original pistol grip screw hole to be an access for a "new" trigger linkage. This linkage would allow the firing of the weapon from down on the stock, perhaps like that survival .22 with the large "bar" type trigger. This is not illustrated above though.

When one is designing something in lieu of a pistol grip, one has to account for two things. First is the actual language of a pistol grip protuding below the action in CA 12276. Second is Lockyer's very confusing rule for webbing of your hand in relationship to the exposed trigger. This is documented in one of his AW identifcation white papers on the CA DOJ website. Granted one is CA law and the other is bureacratic ruling bullfeathers, but either could be costly.

Quoted: Embrace freedom. MOVE.

I did!  I had the choice of complying with an unconstitutional law (SB23) or moving to another state and I chose the latter.  Some people do not have that option, but to those who do I highly suggest you get the hell out.

To further muddy the waters, a few district attorneys have filed suit against the DOJ and Lockyer over SB23. Something about being impossible to interpret...

I have heard of Kalistan FAL owners removing the pistol grip from the rifle and then duct taping the pistol grip to their hand.
Truth or fiction?

I like the idea of a "glove" that is rigid enough to help support the weapon during firing and allows a firm grip on the lower as well.

Just buy one without a pistol grip, buy a pistol grip, and then when you want to shoot your FAL make a weekend out of it and go to NV - Reno/Carson city and shoot at the Carson City range with the guys with machine guns That's what I do but then I'm only 45 minutes from the border.