Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/8/2005 1:33:28 PM EDT


Dear Mr. ******,

Thank you for your inquiry.

California law prohibits a person from building his or her own handgun for personal use pursuant to Penal Code section 12125. However, one can build a long gun as long as it is not an assault weapon under California law. Additionally, long guns must have a serial number assigned to them.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Firearms Division at 916-263-4887.

Sincerely,



Lisa Strange, Analyst
Firearms Division
(916) 263-4882
Lisa.Strange@doj.ca.gov




So basically we can't make our own handguns because they didn't pass the handgun safety test. So I guess if you wanted to make one, you would need to get a manufacturers license, build several, give them away for free (uppers too I would assume), and then wait for approval.

W. T. F.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 1:46:11 PM EDT
Wasn't there someone on this board (I wont mention a name) that built his own 1911?

As I recall, it was built off one of these:

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 2:04:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 4:48:40 PM EDT by NeoWeird]
I wonder if they built it before 2001 when the law went into effect.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 2:49:08 PM EDT
Many of us on this board have crafted homebuilt 1911 pistols.

Of course all of us did so, or at least brought the frame to 100% status, before 2001.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 3:27:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
Many of us on this board have crafted homebuilt 1911 pistols.

Of course all of us did so, or at least brought the frame to 100% status, before 2001.



Sé que hice. Tres de ellos.

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:21:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
Many of us on this board have crafted homebuilt 1911 pistols.

Of course all of us did so, or at least brought the frame to 100% status, before 2001.



What's 2001 have to do with anything? I thought that you could make them as long as it was for personal use and not a buisness venture.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:51:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blue84S10:

Originally Posted By California_Kid:
Many of us on this board have crafted homebuilt 1911 pistols.

Of course all of us did so, or at least brought the frame to 100% status, before 2001.



What's 2001 have to do with anything? I thought that you could make them as long as it was for personal use and not a buisness venture.



That only applys to long guns which are not defined as assault weapons.

According to Penal Code Section 12125-12127 you can not manufacture any "unsafe" handgun. To be considered "safe" you have to manufacture and supply three identical handguns in order to be certified (don't ever expect to see those 3 handguns again as they're destroyed). The handguns have to pass various tests inorder to meet the firing requirements (a drop safety requirement, safety device requirement, etc.) Many of these requirments are outside the realm of what an ordinary private citizen could comply with.

The only loophole is if you had manufactured the handgun subsequent to the laws passing, which was 2001.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:55:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 7:55:55 PM EDT by leelaw]
I think the term "manufacture" is up for debate. An agent I contacted at the DOJ said that for personal use never to be resold is not technically "manufacturing"

...but they're from the DOJ so they could be crazy, so who knows.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:56:29 PM EDT


12125. (a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.




That is the opening part of the Penal Code in question. The only exception is when the sole purpose of the manufacture, importation, etc is to do the safety test. In order to do that though, you would need to be the manufacturer, and I would imagine they would require you be a certified manufacturer. So spend $3,000 on the guns alone, the time and money to get the license, the money for the test (it must be independant after all), and THEN if everything goes perfect, THEN you can have the ability to make another one to keep for yourself.

No thanks. I wonder if I can get a Vulcan registered a pistol lower....
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:57:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I think the term "manufacture" is up for debate. An agent I contacted at the DOJ said that for personal use never to be resold is not technically "manufacturing"

...but they're from the DOJ so they could be crazy, so who knows.



But that response that I posted was also from the DOJ.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:12:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:

Originally Posted By leelaw:
I think the term "manufacture" is up for debate. An agent I contacted at the DOJ said that for personal use never to be resold is not technically "manufacturing"

...but they're from the DOJ so they could be crazy, so who knows.



But that response that I posted was also from the DOJ.



Exactly!! LOL

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 8:16:39 PM EDT
As far as the Vulcan pistol goes, I belive that Vulcan itself would have to manufacture it as a handgun and not a rifle. The only other way to do it would be to register the weapon as a SBR and shorten the barrel. Which obviously wouldn't work considering CA and NFA weapons.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 4:18:24 AM EDT
I was under the impression that as long as a rifle stock has never touched the receiver, it can be assembled as a pistol, but the second a rifle stock touches it, it is a rifle, and if it has a pistol length barrel it becomes an SBR. And since the receiver would be manufactured and shipped alone, it could be registered as a pistol, but the transfer and DROS would have to be for a pistol and it would need to be registered and I would have to have my HGSC, etc.

Or am I wrong?
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:06:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:
I was under the impression that as long as a rifle stock has never touched the receiver, it can be assembled as a pistol, but the second a rifle stock touches it, it is a rifle, and if it has a pistol length barrel it becomes an SBR. And since the receiver would be manufactured and shipped alone, it could be registered as a pistol, but the transfer and DROS would have to be for a pistol and it would need to be registered and I would have to have my HGSC, etc.

Or am I wrong?



That is all moot since the Vulcan lower is not on the safety tested pistol list.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:34:54 AM EDT
i vaguely remember someone talking about this before, but if long guns require serial numbers, how does one go about getting one for a rifle that was built of like an 80% kit?
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:49:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By prisner4jc:
i vaguely remember someone talking about this before, but if long guns require serial numbers, how does one go about getting one for a rifle that was built of like an 80% kit?



You just make up your own. Some people use their initials followed by '001' for the first, etc.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 2:24:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:
I was under the impression that as long as a rifle stock has never touched the receiver, it can be assembled as a pistol, but the second a rifle stock touches it, it is a rifle, and if it has a pistol length barrel it becomes an SBR. And since the receiver would be manufactured and shipped alone, it could be registered as a pistol, but the transfer and DROS would have to be for a pistol and it would need to be registered and I would have to have my HGSC, etc.

Or am I wrong?



I actually have no clue about the whole rifle stock never touching the receiver thing.

But as Zapp pointed out, it's not on California's Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, so I don't see how you could even get it transfered in.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 5:21:51 PM EDT
I just got a follow up email to that response and the guy said that AR-15's, whether 80% or not, are assault weapons and illegal to import or manufacture. Can anyone say "bullshit, you don't know what you are talking about"?

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:47:28 PM EDT
The Vulcan idea for a pistol won't work. It's got a mag that doesn't go into the pistol grip and it'd be deemed as a forward pistol grip throwing it into the AW category.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:47:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 8:48:41 PM EDT by Skammy]

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:
I just got a follow up email to that response and the guy said that AR-15's, whether 80% or not, are assault weapons and illegal to import or manufacture. Can anyone say "bullshit, you don't know what you are talking about"?




I think I can:

The specified rifle is not listed by name under 12276(a).
The specified rifle is also not named under the Kasler vs. Lockyer assault weapons list as an
"AR-15 series weapon" and cannot be considered "AR-15 series weapon" per Harrott V. County
of Kings.

Harrott V. County of Kings: "Our decision today—upholding the Attorney General’s
authority to identify series assault weapons pursuant to section 12276, subdivision (e),
but holding that a trial court may not find a semiautomatic firearm a series assault
weapon under section 12276, subdivision (e), unless the firearm has first been included
in the list of series assault weapons promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to
section 12276.5, subdivision (h)—is compelled by our examination of the legislative
history of the AWCA.

Section 12276.5, subdivision (h):
h) The Attorney General shall promulgate a list that specifies all firearms designated as assault weapons in Section 12276 or declared to be assault weapons pursuant to this section. The Attorney General shall file that list with the Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of Regulations. Any declaration that a specified firearm is an assault weapon shall be implemented by the Attorney General who, within 90 days, shall promulgate an amended list which shall include the specified firearm declared to be an assault weapon. The Attorney General shall file the amended list with the Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, pertaining to the adoption of rules and regulations, shall not apply to any list of assault weapons promulgated pursuant to this section.

Per Harrott V. County of Kings a rifle must be listed by name under the Kasler vs. Lockyer
assault weapon list by name or it cannot be considered a AR-15 or AK series weapon.




Originally Posted By Blue84S10:
The Vulcan idea for a pistol won't work. It's got a mag that doesn't go into the pistol grip and it'd be deemed as a forward pistol grip throwing it into the AW category.



Fixed mag so it doesn't qualify
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:58:36 PM EDT
Why would you want a fixed/mag AR15 pistol? They're a bitch to reload, especially with the funky bolt/buffer setup
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 12:10:56 AM EDT
I have seen people use the buffer tube on the stubby car stock as a pistol buffer. It's a little shorter than the carbine buffer tube (as I understand it) but still functions the same. So loading would be the same as a Vulcan or Fab-10, but would allow for it in a smaller package that can be one handed.

I want to make some of the guns that I would like to own outside California, so if I ever move I just remove the tension pin and I have like the original. Figured a pistol would be fun, but I guess I am SOL.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 6:13:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Blue84S10:
The Vulcan idea for a pistol won't work. It's got a mag that doesn't go into the pistol grip and it'd be deemed as a forward pistol grip throwing it into the AW category.



It will work. The mag is NOT detachable so all other points are moot. It can't be an AW without a detachable mag.

80% + CAR buffer + 7.5" upper + nondetachable mag = legal fun!
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 8:28:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 8:28:39 AM EDT by 1911greg]
thank goodness i dated all mine!
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 4:37:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sydwaiz:

Originally Posted By Blue84S10:
The Vulcan idea for a pistol won't work. It's got a mag that doesn't go into the pistol grip and it'd be deemed as a forward pistol grip throwing it into the AW category.



It will work. The mag is NOT detachable so all other points are moot. It can't be an AW without a detachable mag.

80% + CAR buffer + 7.5" upper + nondetachable mag = legal fun!



Even with a verticle foregrip?
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:52:53 PM EDT
Look at an old broomhandle Mauser. Same idea.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 5:53:21 PM EDT
Nah it would be an AOW then wouldn't it?
Link Posted: 8/11/2005 5:26:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blue84S10:

Originally Posted By Sydwaiz:

Originally Posted By Blue84S10:
The Vulcan idea for a pistol won't work. It's got a mag that doesn't go into the pistol grip and it'd be deemed as a forward pistol grip throwing it into the AW category.



It will work. The mag is NOT detachable so all other points are moot. It can't be an AW without a detachable mag.

80% + CAR buffer + 7.5" upper + nondetachable mag = legal fun!



Even with a verticle foregrip?



No, a vertical foregrip would be an NFA violation. A very good example of this is the HK SP89. It's illegal to put the MP5 "K"-style foregrip on as it constitues an NFA violation.
Top Top