Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/20/2001 1:00:09 PM EST
Sorry for asking dopey questions but here it goes: In CA what is the deal with buying Assault Rifles that are not on the RR Act but are banned by SB23? I have a line into an FN/FAL kit $700 - but I am concerned about the legality. What I am being told is to buy it, not build it, when it is added to RR I can assemble and register it and I am ok. Is that true or am I getting smoke blown up my ass?
Link Posted: 7/20/2001 1:40:50 PM EST
If it's already banned by SB23, why would it also be added to RR later? I mean if it's banned under one law, would they even bother to add it to a list of another? The whole point of SB23 was as a catch-all for the guns not specifically listed on RR, which banned certain guns by name. It however technically didn't ban the same gun with a different name. SB23 closed that "loophole" and banned them by features. I seriously think smoke is being billowed here. There may be a mechanism to legally do it, but I doubt if they're going to add a gun to the RR list, when it's already banned by SB23. Ross
Link Posted: 7/20/2001 2:17:52 PM EST
Thanks...it sounded too good to be true...I should just move to a normal state.
Link Posted: 7/20/2001 2:30:16 PM EST
Loose the pistol grip. The idea is once the FAL is named by law as an Assault Weapon it will be legal to own if you register it and at that time you can add the pistol grip because it's been named. I have also heard you can have an assembled FAL and the pistol grip but it can't be attached to the gun. There is some supposition as to wether the long screw which attaches the pistol grip would be considered a "pistol grip" in itself. Check on the Entrerprise Arms web site, they are currently selling FALs sans pistol grips in CA. They might have more info. Good luck on finding an FFL who will touch it though.
Link Posted: 7/20/2001 3:07:15 PM EST
The question still stands though as to why they would bother adding it by name to RR as an assault weapon, when it's already banned by SB23? Would it be to ban the gun totally, even the sans PG ones? I mean the RR list already contains "7)FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC". It would be impractical to add every trade name to the RR list. Hence the reason for SB23. Ross
Link Posted: 7/20/2001 4:21:27 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/21/2001 3:54:14 AM EST
Then why is it not already prohibited since both the HK-91 and the FAL are on the RR list? How does that affect parts kits, or does it affect just recievers? The 89RR law already bans FALs, HKs, and a whole plethora of rifles by trade name. There is a mechanism to add guns to the list if they are similar to the ones already on the list. Has that ever happened since SB23 went into effect? I'm just trying to get those CA laws straight in my mind. They may not affect me directly, but I still have familiy on the other side of the "iron curtain". Ross
Link Posted: 7/21/2001 8:10:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/21/2001 8:08:32 AM EST by Atencio]
RR banned rifles by name. Hence in the case of FALs no Fabrique Nationale FAL, LAR, FNC, 308 Match, and Sporter. Also no springfield SAR-48s. FALs that were not listed by name, DSA, Entreprise, Imbels, Hesse, etc. remained legal. SB-23 came about as DOJ was fighting in court to be able to add names to the RR list. SB-23 identified rifles by characteristics. The end result being that if you take the pistol grip off a FAL it does not fall under SB-23. Somewhat still up in the air is how DOJ is going to add rifles to RR. The series concept was stricken down in court but like Troy said eventually all AR/AK/FAL/HK will somehow be put on the RR list.
Top Top