Legal Stripped Lowers in CA>?| - Page 3

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Legal Stripped Lowers in CA>?| (Page 3 of 3)

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:30:17 AM EDT

[#1]

As I understand it, as long as it's paid for, the ten day wait is the dealer holding on to it for you, but it is yours. So as long as you start the dros, you should be ok. But ask your ffl to make sure thats how he sees it. And don't mention a new list while you pick up the gun.

Posted: 1/5/2006 11:15:42 AM EDT

[#2]

Thanks! Now I just need to find a receiver or two and a cooperative FFL. Since I haven't gotten any leads from my requests here, I guess I'll just need to find an out-of-state source for the receiver, and call gun shops in my area to ask them if they'll do the transfer.

Do any of y'all have any suggestions about how I should word things when I talk to prospective FFLs?

I'd hate to say the wrong thing, spook an FFL who might have been cooperative otherwise, and possibly eliminate a transfer opportunity not only for myself but also for anybody else who might want to transfer an off-list receiver through that FFL later. I gather from other posts that folks are treating this issue with great caution, and an FFL might just say "no" if the person doing the asking sounded at all fishy (i.e., like they're either a dumb@$$ who planned to do something illegal, or an undercover agent trying to catch the FFL doing something wrong).

Posted: 1/5/2006 12:12:29 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Thanks! Now I just need to find a receiver or two and a cooperative FFL. Since I haven't gotten any leads from my requests here, I guess I'll just need to find an out-of-state source for the receiver, and call gun shops in my area to ask them if they'll do the transfer.

Do any of y'all have any suggestions about how I should word things when I talk to prospective FFLs?

I'd hate to say the wrong thing, spook an FFL who might have been cooperative otherwise, and possibly eliminate a transfer opportunity not only for myself but also for anybody else who might want to transfer an off-list receiver through that FFL later. I gather from other posts that folks are treating this issue with great caution, and an FFL might just say "no" if the person doing the asking sounded at all fishy (i.e., like they're either a dumb@$$ who planned to do something illegal, or an undercover agent trying to catch the FFL doing something wrong).

The DOJ has a meeting tomorrow, it might be the end of fun for now.

I would suggest making a purchase today.

Posted: 1/5/2006 12:55:39 PM EDT

[#4]

The DOJ has a meeting tomorrow, it might be the end of fun for now.
I would suggest making a purchase today.

Well, since I have located neither a confirmed-available off-list lower nor a nearby FFL who will do the transfer yet, I guess I'm TSOL. he
So, if anybody can point me to a cooperative FFL with a legal, stripped, off-list AR lower or two in stock and available for sale to me TODAY not too far from Riverside or Orange County, I got money burnin' a hole in my pocket! hen
I did get one IM about a potential lower supplier (thanks!), but I don't think that will help me unless it looks like no list-updating would happen until after the receiver arrived at the local FFL and I started the paperwork. Since there's rumblings about something maybe happening tomorrow, I don't think I'd try ordering something until after we see what (if anything) happens tomorrow. What do y'all think about that?

Posted: 1/5/2006 1:23:37 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
The DOJ has a meeting tomorrow, it might be the end of fun for now.
I would suggest making a purchase today.

Well, since I have located neither a confirmed-available off-list lower nor a nearby FFL who will do the transfer yet, I guess I'm TSOL.

As I see it, the only way I could buy one today under the assumption that tommorow would be too late would be if I found an FFL who was near enough who already had at least one off-list receiver in stock that they would sell to me. As I understand things, if I were to order a receiver (or any other gun, for that matter) to be received by and processed through a local FFL, the DROS period can't start until the receiver/gun/whatever is physically in the FFL's possession, and I show up in person to do the paperwork and pay my money. Thus, ordering a receiver from some remote supplier would not be an option if I was constrained to get the transfer started today.

So, if anybody can point me to a cooperative FFL with a legal, stripped, off-list AR lower or two in stock and available for sale to me TODAY not too far from Riverside or Orange County, I got money burnin' a hole in my pocket!

If not, then I guess I'll find out in a day or three whether I missed the boat or not.

I did get one IM about a potential lower supplier (thanks!), but I don't think that will help me unless it looks like no list-updating would happen until after the receiver arrived at the local FFL and I started the paperwork. Since there's rumblings about something maybe happening tomorrow, I don't think I'd try ordering something until after we see what (if anything) happens tomorrow. What do y'all think about that?

Have you been here, your last chance.

Cal-Guns

Posted: 1/5/2006 1:47:31 PM EDT

[#6]

Have you been here, your last chance.

Cal-Guns

ARRRGH! I quickly read through that thread, and it looks like I missed the cut-off by a couple of hours!! Well, I emailed my info anyway to see if I can squeeze in at the last second. Crossing my fingers..... Whether I get in on that group buy or not, thanks for the information!

Posted: 1/5/2006 3:16:48 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I know of two people who were busted leaving Burrow Canyon. It turns out the San Bernardino DA is perfectly willing to prosecute people for simple possession of Hicap mags in the person in possession of them cannit prove they bought them prior to the ban. Anyone that can read know the penal code doesnt even allow arrest for simple possession of hicaps. But that hasnt stoped the DA there of using a constructive possession like arguement, of he had the mags, he cant prove he had them prior to 2000, so he must have bought them after the ban in violation of the law.

Why would the San Bernadino DA be involved if they were busted leaving Burro Canyon, which is well inside LA County?

arrested on the way home from BC, not at BC.

Posted: 1/5/2006 3:26:41 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

I know of two people who were busted leaving Burrow Canyon. It turns out the San Bernardino DA is perfectly willing to prosecute people for simple possession of Hicap mags in the person in possession of them cannit prove they bought them prior to the ban. Anyone that can read know the penal code doesnt even allow arrest for simple possession of hicaps. But that hasnt stoped the DA there of using a constructive possession like arguement, of he had the mags, he cant prove he had them prior to 2000, so he must have bought them after the ban in violation of the law.

Why would the San Bernadino DA be involved if they were busted leaving Burro Canyon, which is well inside LA County?

arrested on the way home from BC, not at BC.

They weren't popped right as they left Burro, but rather several miles away.So the cops didn't actually see them with those dangerous hi cap mags before they pulled them over. Were the cops doing a hi cap mag checkpoint, or were they pulled over for something else? Sounds like there is more to the story.

Posted: 1/5/2006 5:38:28 PM EDT

[#9]

I sent mine to him too, crap, first I saw of that buy and the first I heard of the "meeting"

Hopefully I can still drive to him...

Quoted:
Have you been here, your last chance.

Cal-Guns

ARRRGH! I quickly read through that thread, and it looks like I missed the cut-off by a couple of hours!! he

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:17:43 PM EDT

[#10]

DROS'ed 1 reciever today, and I'm kicking myself cause I should have got twoAnywho, I pm'ed a couple guys from this board as to the calguns gorup buy, and noticed that at least one of the guys here made it in on time.

Posted: 1/5/2006 8:35:17 PM EDT

[#11]

If I could turn back time, if I could find a way....

Posted: 1/5/2006 9:12:41 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I know of two people who were busted leaving Burrow Canyon. It turns out the San Bernardino DA is perfectly willing to prosecute people for simple possession of Hicap mags in the person in possession of them cannit prove they bought them prior to the ban. Anyone that can read know the penal code doesnt even allow arrest for simple possession of hicaps. But that hasnt stoped the DA there of using a constructive possession like arguement, of he had the mags, he cant prove he had them prior to 2000, so he must have bought them after the ban in violation of the law.

Sorry, but I have to throw a flag on that one. There is no penalty set forth for possession of non-LEO marked hi cap mags. Where did the San Bernardino DA find the charge for the pink sheet for a "crime" committed 30 miles outside his jurisdiction (in LA County); 'cause it ain't in the Penal Code. Not to mention the fact that no judge in the country would allow that case beyond prelim. No Prime Facia case.

Posted: 1/5/2006 9:52:48 PM EDT

[#13]

but there wasnt proof that he "did" purchase them after the ban either right? none for even before?

Posted: 1/6/2006 12:19:48 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
I know of two people who were busted leaving Burrow Canyon. It turns out the San Bernardino DA is perfectly willing to prosecute people for simple possession of Hicap mags in the person in possession of them cannit prove they bought them prior to the ban. Anyone that can read know the penal code doesnt even allow arrest for simple possession of hicaps. But that hasnt stoped the DA there of using a constructive possession like arguement, of he had the mags, he cant prove he had them prior to 2000, so he must have bought them after the ban in violation of the law.

That throws jurisprudence on its head. Isn't the burden of proof on the prosecutor? Innocent until proven guilty, or the other way around? Otherwise, they could throw just about anything at you and require that you prove you didn't do it.

Hi-cap mags... jeez, thousands have been legally sold at gun shows and gun stores over the years. How the hell could they expect someone who bought a hi-cap mag at Turner's in 1993 to keep his receipt all these years?

Posted: 1/6/2006 6:30:20 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I know of two people who were busted leaving Burrow Canyon. It turns out the San Bernardino DA is perfectly willing to prosecute people for simple possession of Hicap mags in the person in possession of them cannit prove they bought them prior to the ban. Anyone that can read know the penal code doesnt even allow arrest for simple possession of hicaps. But that hasnt stoped the DA there of using a constructive possession like arguement, of he had the mags, he cant prove he had them prior to 2000, so he must have bought them after the ban in violation of the law.

That throws jurisprudence on its head. Isn't the burden of proof on the prosecutor? Innocent until proven guilty, or the other way around? Otherwise, they could throw just about anything at you and require that you prove you didn't do it.

Hi-cap mags... jeez, thousands have been legally sold at gun shows and gun stores over the years. How the hell could they expect someone who bought a hi-cap mag at Turner's in 1993 to keep his receipt all these years?

The most likely scenarios are:
1. Suspect was not old enough to have legally aguired the mags prior to the ban.
2. The mags or packaging were marked with a date after the ban.
3. The mags were a make or model not sdold before the ban.
4. The mags were a production generation not produced before the ban.

Posted: 1/6/2006 7:22:37 AM EDT

[#16]

2. The mags or packaging were marked with a date after the ban.
3. The mags were a make or model not sdold before the ban.
4. The mags were a production generation not produced before the ban.

These fall under replacement parts which are specified in the law and legal to own. Again it is legal to replace a worn mag body with a new one, so long as at least one part is from the original mag.

I tend to think #1 is the only way to catch someone but this is many years down the road. A father could have legally purchased 30-rd mags for a newborn in 2000.

Posted: 1/6/2006 7:49:36 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

The most likely scenarios are:
1. Suspect was not old enough to have legally aguired the mags prior to the ban.

So then it's not as simple as the DA being willing to prosecute if the person can't prove they bought them before the ban, but there would have to be other factors involved. This ISN'T what your initial claim was.

Quoted:
It turns out the San Bernardino DA is perfectly willing to prosecute people for simple possession of Hicap mags in the person in possession of them cannit prove they bought them prior to the ban.

It seems like you are trying to make a big deal out of something that(even if it did happen) was a case where there was evidence that the person did not possess them before the ban, and that the burden of proof didn't shift to the defendant.

Why post this if you don't know the details? Do you also go into crowded theaters and yell FIRE for fun?

Posted: 1/6/2006 9:59:25 AM EDT

[#18]

if someone knows pirate14's (on calguns.net) place of business please contact me i would like to go their and get a lower receiver today. i've tried to contact him by e-mail but i realize he is very busy right now. i work in san bernardino and am very close to his place of buisiness, hopefully i can stop by their after work.

thank you, realmccoy

Posted: 1/6/2006 10:06:35 AM EDT

[#19]

Chaingun: you do you know the DOJ was having a meeting today?

Posted: 1/6/2006 10:45:27 AM EDT

[#20]

+1 except I'm gonna drive an hour...

Quoted:
if someone knows pirate14's (on calguns.net) place of business please contact me i would like to go their and get a lower receiver today. i've tried to contact him by e-mail but i realize he is very busy right now. i work in san bernardino and am very close to his place of buisiness, hopefully i can stop by their after work.

thank you, realmccoy

Posted: 1/6/2006 11:05:14 AM EDT

[#21]

0311-M249 so does this mean you know where he is located or are you referring to a different ffl?

Posted: 1/6/2006 11:26:30 AM EDT

[#22]

im sent...

Posted: 1/6/2006 11:30:50 AM EDT

[#23]

i just got of the phone with my FFL and he said that the window of oportunity would most likely be open 30-60 days from now even if they decide to ban the lowers today.

Posted: 1/6/2006 11:46:47 AM EDT

[#24]

I very much hope he is right, but I don't like to take risks with this, I fubar'd the first one due to my tin foil being wrapped too tight, Not gonna do that twice.

Posted: 1/6/2006 11:55:14 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

I know of two people who were busted leaving Burrow Canyon. It turns out the San Bernardino DA is perfectly willing to prosecute people for simple possession of Hicap mags in the person in possession of them cannit prove they bought them prior to the ban. Anyone that can read know the penal code doesnt even allow arrest for simple possession of hicaps. But that hasnt stoped the DA there of using a constructive possession like arguement, of he had the mags, he cant prove he had them prior to 2000, so he must have bought them after the ban in violation of the law.

I would sue the DA in civil court for every dime the scumbag is worth and then add the county too. There is nothing in the law nor penal code that requires "proof of ownership" prior the the law's passage. None. It is impossible for anyone to prove that they're magazines are pre-ban - they are not serial numbered, nor are they required to be. I promise you there would be a line of lawyers waiting to take this case and 40% of whatever the DA has earned in his career.

That guy needs some education at the cost of his life savings.

Posted: 1/6/2006 11:59:13 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The most likely scenarios are:
1. Suspect was not old enough to have legally aguired the mags prior to the ban.

I keep forgetting, what is the legal age for possession of a magazine? If the kid that got caught with the magazine was like 6 years old then the DA has a case.

Personally I bought plenty of magazines for my rifles and didn't keep a single receipt. I also purchased magazines for weapons that I didn't own then and do now. How would the DA, who even in America still has the burden of proof, show that magazines weren't six years old now?

2-4 are possible.

Posted: 1/6/2006 1:35:04 PM EDT

[#27]

I'm confused, were the mags attached to a califonia legal stripped lower? Because I keep checking this thread for cali legal reciever news, and read about an unconfirmed report out of burrow canyon. I'm new to this board, but this is a little off topic.

Posted: 1/6/2006 2:09:22 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
I'm confused, were the mags attached to a califonia legal stripped lower? Because I keep checking this thread for cali legal reciever news, and read about an unconfirmed report out of burrow canyon. I'm new to this board, but this is a little off topic.

Totally different issue. That issue is about over zealous cops and DAs and has nothing to do with lowers except to say that we should be ultra careful since they can apparently do whatever they please.

Posted: 1/6/2006 2:12:20 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
I keep forgetting, what is the legal age for possession of a magazine? If the kid that got caught with the magazine was like 6 years old then the DA has a case. hr

I bought some mags at Turners and at another local gun shop when I was 17. I was not carded at either shop.

So i'm going to assume that there is no legal age since I dont think its really a controlled item. Its like going in and buying a buttstock or a handguard.

Posted: 1/6/2006 5:15:03 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
A father could have legally purchased 30-rd mags for a newborn in 2000.

Nope. You had to be 18 ast the date of enactment to legally possess the mags. anyone who turned 18 after the ban cannot legally possess hicaps.

Posted: 1/6/2006 5:18:55 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

The most likely scenarios are:
1. Suspect was not old enough to have legally aguired the mags prior to the ban.

I keep forgetting, what is the legal age for possession of a magazine?

18.

Plus the mag had to legally aquired prior to the ban, which makes the defacto age 22/23 Anyone under that age in possession of hicap mags aquired them after the ban.

Posted: 1/6/2006 5:28:58 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I keep forgetting, what is the legal age for possession of a magazine? If the kid that got caught with the magazine was like 6 years old then the DA has a case.

I bought some mags at Turners and at another local gun shop when I was 17. I was not carded at either shop.

So i'm going to assume that there is no legal age since I dont think its really a controlled item. Its like going in and buying a buttstock or a handguard.

Until Jan 1, 2000 there was no age limit. effective Jan 1, 2000 it became illegal for someone under 18yo to possess a hicap mag in cali.

If you were not 18yo on Jan 1, 2000 any hicap mag you are in possession of was aquired illegaly under CPC 12020(a)(2).

Posted: 1/6/2006 6:07:12 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I keep forgetting, what is the legal age for possession of a magazine? If the kid that got caught with the magazine was like 6 years old then the DA has a case.

I bought some mags at Turners and at another local gun shop when I was 17. I was not carded at either shop.

So i'm going to assume that there is no legal age since I dont think its really a controlled item. Its like going in and buying a buttstock or a handguard.

Until Jan 1, 2000 there was no age limit. effective Jan 1, 2000 it became illegal for someone under 18yo to possess a hicap mag in cali.

If you were not 18yo on Jan 1, 2000 any hicap mag you are in possession of was aquired illegaly under CPC 12020(a)(2).

Illegal to buy or possess as of 1/1/00? What if the person bought them b/4 2000 and they were under 18 when legally purchased? Grandfather clause?

Roy

Posted: 1/6/2006 6:14:29 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I keep forgetting, what is the legal age for possession of a magazine? If the kid that got caught with the magazine was like 6 years old then the DA has a case.

I bought some mags at Turners and at another local gun shop when I was 17. I was not carded at either shop.

So i'm going to assume that there is no legal age since I dont think its really a controlled item. Its like going in and buying a buttstock or a handguard.

Until Jan 1, 2000 there was no age limit. effective Jan 1, 2000 it became illegal for someone under 18yo to possess a hicap mag in cali.

If you were not 18yo on Jan 1, 2000 any hicap mag you are in possession of was aquired illegaly under CPC 12020(a)(2).

Illegal to buy or possess as of 1/1/00? What if the person bought them b/4 2000 and they were under 18 when legally purchased? Grandfather clause?

Roy

Good question. Was wondering that myself.

Posted: 1/6/2006 6:57:32 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I keep forgetting, what is the legal age for possession of a magazine? If the kid that got caught with the magazine was like 6 years old then the DA has a case.

I bought some mags at Turners and at another local gun shop when I was 17. I was not carded at either shop.

So i'm going to assume that there is no legal age since I dont think its really a controlled item. Its like going in and buying a buttstock or a handguard.

Until Jan 1, 2000 there was no age limit. effective Jan 1, 2000 it became illegal for someone under 18yo to possess a hicap mag in cali.

If you were not 18yo on Jan 1, 2000 any hicap mag you are in possession of was aquired illegaly under CPC 12020(a)(2).

Illegal to buy or possess as of 1/1/00?

Ilegal to sell or offer for sale. The buyer is a co-conspirator with the seller, there is no direct prohibition on buying hicaps in CPC 12020(a)(2) and the related sections.

What if the person bought them b/4 2000 and they were under 18 when legally purchased?

Then on Jan 1, 2000 you became a juvenile in possession of a high capacity ammunition feeding device.

Grandfather clause?

Only items which were lawfully possessed on Jan 1, 2000 are grandfathered.

Roy

Posted: 1/6/2006 7:44:10 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Roy

Your name is Roy? I think tonight is the first time I've ever seen you use your name.

Nice to meet ya!

Posted: 1/6/2006 7:46:36 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Until Jan 1, 2000 there was no age limit. effective Jan 1, 2000 it became illegal for someone under 18yo to possess a hicap mag in cali.

If you were not 18yo on Jan 1, 2000 any hicap mag you are in possession of was aquired illegaly under CPC 12020(a)(2).

I'm a little confused on this one. I am reading PC 12020(a)(2) on the state's website and do not see an age limit. Unless elsewhere in the Penal Code they define the word PERSON as an adult vs a juvenile. I tried doing a search on the state's website and came up empty on this one. I'm not concerned as I am a ripe old 41 years old but am interested in knowing for sure.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Legal Stripped Lowers in CA>?| (Page 3 of 3)

Hometown » California

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us