Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/4/2004 7:36:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/4/2004 7:37:37 AM EST by stator]
This was the original whitepaper that was circulated under the table here on AR15.com back in the days of AB2222. It may still be applicable.

Here it is:



Everyone,

First, you should know that I'm not condoning illegal activity including any activity that involves illegally registering AWs in California. I'm only interested in legally registering AWs. Nothing more. I'm not a lawyer and nor am I giving out legal advice. Any action you take is entirely your decision. If you are uncertain of the legality of your actions, you should consult an attorney.

The event that I vaguely referred to is the introduction of Assembly bill 2222 (AB2222). You probably have heard about this. This is the ban of falsely-claimed 50bmg sniper rifles that, as once claimed, can destroy a tank at a distance of a mile. AB2222 has been introduced in the CA Assembly and has already gone through one revision in committee. The NRA, including the CA chapter- CALNRA, has been stating that this bill puts 50bmg rifles in the same classification as machine guns. While this may be literally accurate, it is not exactly right. AB2222, as I read it, clearly requires the CA DOJ to extend the AW registration databse to include any firearm that shoots the 50bmg cartridge or any cartridge with similar dimensions as defined in the bill. It also requires that the CA DOJ allow CA residents a registration period as originally defined by SB23. In this case, the registration period is to be the first 90 days of calendar 2003. Lawful possession within the state must be no later than December 31st of 2002.

I have always felt that the weak part of the AW ban is when the CA DOJ opens registration again. Either through bills such as AB2222 or by the AG ammending the ban list. This is because, in order to allow registration, there has to be the condition that it was legal prior to the 90 day registration period. Otherwise, HCI will sue again and most likely win again. There appears to be exceptions to watch out for like the recent peace officer grace period for SB23 AWs.

By this time, you are probably wondering where's the loophole. It appears that the loophole in AB2222 will allow residents to register an unfinished AR lower receiver to where it is not functional as an AR series rifle, but is functional as a receiver for a 50bmg upper kit. This means no completed magazine well thus not allowing the rifle to function as a semi-auto which is a key criteria of both Roberti-Roos and SB23 but not AB2222. AB2222 requires all 50bmg whether bolt-action, single-shoot, or semi-auto to be registered as AWs. I'm guessing that Perata and Koretz... these are the main authors) don't realize that the Maadi-Griffen products spawned a 50bmg kit industry that uses an AR-style lower. Otherwise, I believe they would write specific language disqualifying any AR-style lower from being registered as a 50bmg rifle (this should mean that anyone with a ferret 50 or other competitive product would not be allowed to register or keep it... which probably would be a problem with the US and State constitution which requires the state to re-imburse the owner).

Once a resident registers their 50bmg rifle based upon an AR-style receiver and is accepted by the CA DOJ, then he/she should be able to complete the magwell and interchange calibers as he/she has a registered AW. I can't see how he/she could be prosecuted for having unregistered AW when it is already registered as such. It will probably depend upon the exact text of AB2222 when it is chaptered (on its way to be signed by the Gov) and how the AG chooses the registration process for 50bmg AWs. Also, the Gov has to sign it which I believe that he would sign it and use it as a wedge issue against his Republican opponent, Bill Simon.

So here's what may be legal and can be done:

1- Get a unfinished AR-style lower. Do not finish the mag-well so that the rifle would not be capable of semi-auto fire. Just finish the takedown pin, pivot pin, and fire control area (maybe the buffer tube area if the 50bmg kit requires it). Someone pointed out that the Tannery 80% lowers have the mag-well and mag-catch already done. Mine from Tannery don't have any milling for the mag-catch as these are the forged 80% lowers not the cast ones. So perhaps the best route is to use the 0% forgings and leave the mag-well solid. This will reduce the amount of residents that can do this because it would definitely require a mill... no muhajdeen AR jobs here. The important point is always stay legal. This will be the receiver for the 50bmg upper kit.

2- Once the registration period opens, the resident should register it. He/she should not lie on the registration form... self-manufactured receiver, etc.

3- Once it is registered as an AW, finish the mag-well and convert to an AR if legal. If not, well then the resident has a registered 50bmg should he/she desire to shoot this caliber for sporting purposes later.

I don't think it would be possible to register a manufactured AR lower like Armalite or Bushmaster per CA DOJ website. So, it seems that an unfinished lower is the only possibility. That is, of course, if no language giving everyone else instead of just peace officers an amnesty period ever makes it into AB2222.

Let me know what you think. Tear it apart, critize it, anything is good feedback compared to nothing. Keep in mind that AB2222 is not chaptered yet so it is very easy for our state politicans to change the language at this point. I don't expect anyone to keep this a secret as this would be humanly impractical. I do ask that you refrain from public posting of this at this time.

Finally, once again, I'm not a lawyer or giving legal advice. I'm only exercising my 1st amendment rights of free speech and writing opinions. Far fetched as these may seem. I'm only interested in legal registration of AWs and suggest that everyone else do the same.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 5:49:38 PM EST
This sounds like an interesting idea - one I might be willing to entertain. A couple of questions come to mind:

To those of you that own registered assault weapons -

1. Does your paperwork give any indication of the date the weapon was registered?
2. What information does it contain, exactly? Is it just the make/model/serial number?

It seems to me that if one were to register a BMG, and the paperwork indicated that it was a .50 cal BMG, this would pose a problem. Any law enforcement officer would surely note that the weapon in question is not a .50 cal BMG, but looks an awful lot like an AR series weapon, depsite the make/model/serial number matching. If the only information provided was the builder created make/model/serial, then you'd be OK.

Unless...

...the date of registration was noted. The registration period for AR15 series rifles ended in 2000. A LEO might be curious as to how you registered an AR in 2005.

I guess the question comes down to this: Once you own a registered assault weapon in California, just how much can you alter it? Let's say that for the sake of argument, through some magical God-like machining abilities you turned your registered AR into the functional and visual equivalent of an AK. Would this be legal? You only altered the existing weapon, and the serial number is the same. This is why I'm curious as to what EXACT information is recorded upon registration.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 6:29:02 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 6:49:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
I like the way you think!

I have a military assualt weapons permit on which I ATTEMPTED to register a TanneryShop lower. The CA DOJ called me and said they needed a model number and serial number. So I said "Shade Tree Armory" and serial PC01 (politically correct 1). She said that she didn't ahve a code for Shade Tree Armory. I explained that I built the lower and that it was functionally identical to an Armalite or Bushmaster ... oh an Armalite? What's the serial number...

So I engraved my lower Armalight PCO1

hr


I appreciate the compliment hat
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 7:40:36 PM EST
my registration has the date (june ** 2001), name, address, record #, serial #, make (i.e. bushmaster), model (xm15), type (rifle), caliber (223). i don't know if your plan will work (i doubt it), but good luck.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 9:49:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By occaar:
my registration has the date (june ** 2001), name, address, record #, serial #, make (i.e. bushmaster), model (xm15), type (rifle), caliber (223). i don't know if your plan will work (i doubt it), but good luck.



This is the info I needed. I now (unfortunately) have reason to believe it won't work. The newly milled lower and AR upper won't fit the description (wrong caliber). In addition, one would clearly be in possesion of an AR that was supposedly registered in 2005, which is impossible for us civilians. If the permit didn't list the caliber or date, it would've worked.

If someone can prove that changing the caliber of a registered assault weapon is legal (could you chamber yours in .308 for example?) then there would be a glimmer of hope. I know this has never been tested in court, so it's probably all going to be academic anyway. I for one need REALLY solid proof that the law allows for such a radical change in a registered assault weapon before becoming a test case.

I almost thought we had a loophole. Oh well.
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:39:57 PM EST
Why won't it work? I have several registered AR series rifles, all in .223. As far as I know there is not law that would not allow me to buy a 9mm upper and install it, is there? What is the difference? Does that mean once a rifle has been registered in a certain caliber, it has to remain in that caliber? Does anybody know how they are going to classify .50 caliber rifles? If they just call them an assault rifle, then why not?

I think I am going to ask the DOJ if I can change the caliber on my already registered assault rifles and see what they say.

Steve
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 10:46:24 PM EST
It won't work, and further, you guys with the nutered FAB's, pump AR15's, single shot AR15's, blocked 10 round lower AR15's are screwed.

SEC. 7. Section 12278 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12278. (a) As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG rifle" means a
center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not
already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or
12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200.


I can see California saying that a lower that can accept a 50 cal upper is a .50BMG rifle.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_50_bill_20040825_enrolled.html
Link Posted: 9/14/2004 11:05:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/14/2004 11:06:25 PM EST by SubnetMask]

Originally Posted By KA3B:
It won't work, and further, you guys with the nutered FAB's, pump AR15's, single shot AR15's, blocked 10 round lower AR15's are screwed.

SEC. 7. Section 12278 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12278. (a) As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG rifle" means a
center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not
already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or
12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200.



I see what you're getting at, but I respecfully disagree. None of the lawfully owned and neutered AR-15's you mentioned are capable of firing a .50 BMG cartridge in their current configuration, nor are they assault weapons pursuant to any relevant section.


I can see California saying that a lower that can accept a 50 cal upper is a .50BMG rifle.


I wouldn't be suprised if somebody suggested it. If that were the case, I'd be more than happy to decline registration, bear the legal costs and fight it in court, becasue the suggestion that an otherwise legal lower is banned simply because it's capable of accepting illegal parts is absurd. Even without the .50 BMG ban, my FAB 10 is capable of having a grenade launcher, a barrel under 16" or a silencer. The thing is, it doesn't have any of these, whch is why it's still legal.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 4:01:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 4:05:51 PM EST by Atencio]
On the flip side. Suppose you want to buy a .50 rifle but can't afford it by the end of the year. You could always buy the Fab lower now and register it as a .50 rifle.


Back to the original question. If it would be possible for you to register a gun as one caliber and hence forth have it be considered an assault rifle then why could you not register a FAL upper with a blocked mag well and state that it is a .50 caliber rifle and later convert it back to normal? I know the experimental .50FAL sounds silly but it is basically along the same lines as having a blocked mag well AR.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 2:18:24 AM EST
Heck, then you should be able to buy any AR15 lower and not just the nutered ones as long as you register is as a .50cal BMG.


Originally Posted By Atencio:
On the flip side. Suppose you want to buy a .50 rifle but can't afford it by the end of the year. You could always buy the Fab lower now and register it as a .50 rifle.


Back to the original question. If it would be possible for you to register a gun as one caliber and hence forth have it be considered an assault rifle then why could you not register a FAL upper with a blocked mag well and state that it is a .50 caliber rifle and later convert it back to normal? I know the experimental .50FAL sounds silly but it is basically along the same lines as having a blocked mag well AR.

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:42:34 AM EST
So, just for discussion, what if I buy a .50BMG upper that fits on my already registered AR-15. Do I have to register again? I think not but any comments are welcome.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:53:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
So, just for discussion, what if I buy a .50BMG upper that fits on my already registered AR-15. Do I have to register again? I think not but any comments are welcome.



I'd love to have an answer to that. If you could change the caliber of an existing registered assault weapon without any grief, that would surely make my day. Perhaps a call/email/letter to the CA DOJ is in order.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 11:12:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
So, just for discussion, what if I buy a .50BMG upper that fits on my already registered AR-15. Do I have to register again? I think not but any comments are welcome.



DITO

Would like to know if I could register one or more of my registered AR15s as a .50 BMG rifle. Even though I don't have a .50 BMG, yet....
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 11:20:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
So, just for discussion, what if I buy a .50BMG upper that fits on my already registered AR-15. Do I have to register again? I think not but any comments are welcome.



A .50 BMG upper is just parts. It's not even a firearm. They'll still be available after the .50 BMG ban goes into effect.

IMO if you already own a registered AR-15 you don't have to register it again. If you put a .50 upper on it you are just reconfiguring your existing, legal AW, not creating an ADDITIONAL one. The serial number is on the lower.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 1:18:10 PM EST

A .50 BMG upper is just parts. It's not even a firearm. They'll still be available after the .50 BMG ban goes into effect.

IMO if you already own a registered AR-15 you don't have to register it again. If you put a .50 upper on it you are just reconfiguring your existing, legal AW, not creating an ADDITIONAL one. The serial number is on the lower.



It's my understanding (been a few days since I read the newly signed bill) that .50 BMG ammo will be restricted to those who own registered .50 BMG rifles.

I would really LOVE to verify that one can change the upper on a registered AW, legally. If this is the case then it may be possible to register an 80% lower as a .50 BMG, finish the mag well, and slap an AR upper on it. It's a clear attempt at subverting the law (hopefully legally), so I don't know how well this will hold up if an issue was ever made out of it. I mean, imagine an officer looking at what is most certainly an AR-15, yet your paperwork states it's a .50 BMG.

If they REALLY literally mean that the lower is the firearm legaly speaking, than we're in good shape. If not, how well does anybody think it would stand up in court?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 1:30:39 PM EST
We'll, from what I hear, when the first AW ban went into play, it banned the AR-15 by name, so changing the name was fine supposedly. They didn't confiscate weapons, they merely added verbage to the law. From history, we can see that when people find loopholes, it doesn't seem to get them in trouble personally, just the laws change to cover the hole. Now having an AR-15 with a registration date of 2005 although legal, is about as close to illegal as you can get. They might decide that you've lied on you application registering a .50 with no intention of keeping it that way(there's no way to prove that, but it IS the CA DOJ after all) and that could get you in trouble I'd guess.

Basically, I'd say it's legal, but if the CA DOJ wants to prosecute you anyhow, they will, and you'll likely lose unless you have a good lawyer.

At this point, I've probably said too much. Has anyone written the DOJ yet? see what they say?

Rayn
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:19:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 9:22:05 PM EST by hycheng]
Sorry wrong thread
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:29:45 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:19:15 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 5:26:12 AM EST by California_Kid]

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:
...
It's my understanding (been a few days since I read the newly signed bill) that .50 BMG ammo will be restricted to those who own registered .50 BMG rifles....



That provision was removed from the bill. .50 BMG ammo will still be unregulated here.

www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_50_bill_20040913_chaptered.html
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 5:25:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 5:51:36 AM EST by California_Kid]

Originally Posted By KA3B:
...
I can see California saying that a lower that can accept a 50 cal upper is a .50BMG rifle.
...



That's a very interesting comment, KA3B. In a worst-case scenario every FAB-10, pump, and single-shot lower becomes an AW. It would mean that if you want one you have to buy it by the end of the year. Or 10 days before that.

Someone should get a written ruling, but I hate to ask because it could put the idea in the heads of the DoJ.

On edit: Let me throw out an edumacated guess.

The situation is analogous to owning a normal AR-15, and an upper receiver assembly with an 11.5-inch barrel (and no weird long flash suppressor to make it over 16 inches). I see M4 uppers for sale at gun shows all the time, and I believe Bushmaster and others will cheerfully sell you one by mail order. By itself it's just a part, but if you also have an AR-15 it's at least theoretically possible for the feds to bust you for intent to make an unregistered SBR.

Once the law goes into effect in Cali, if you get caught with a single-shot or FAB-10 lower and a Ferret 50 or other .50 BMG upper it could be seen as constructive intent to build an unregistered AW.

But I'm not a lawyer and nobody can predict what the DoJ will say.

I plan to mill and drill (less magazine well) one or two single-shot lowers from 0% forgings before the end of the year.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 6:39:23 AM EST
Yet another DOJ question.

If you register an AR receiver that was already registered under SB-23, and AB-50 says it can only be used for a .50, then this will null and void the previous registration. I'm not certain if the AB-50 wording says either, that it is or isn't okay to swap uppers.

I'm guessing DOJ would say it's okay to swap uppers. Does this now mean a registered 80% lower can also swap uppers? The law should have been better written and more understanding, leaving loopholes.

How can we be responsible for a poorly written, ambiguous, and hard to understand law?
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:20:35 PM EST
I just sent off an e-mail to the DOJ today. I will let you know what they say.

Steve
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 8:04:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By HK94dude:
I just sent off an e-mail to the DOJ today. I will let you know what they say.

Steve



Not sure what you were asking. But if you bring it up on the radar pertaining to any of the above you know they're probably gonna say no.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 3:45:36 PM EST
I LOVE this thread!
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 5:04:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chaingun:
Yet another DOJ question.
.
.
How can we be responsible for a poorly written, ambiguous, and hard to understand law?


Like everything else from CALDoJ, they makeup the rules as they go along. And people wonder why Kali-fornia govt is in such a financial bind.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 8:03:08 PM EST
Isn't it an interesting point about the caliber of the "registered assault weapon". I believe the laws are entirely MUTE on the subject of caliber and caliber changes.

If I register a 50 BMG AW, there is nothing in the laws which requires me to keep it in 50 BMG. I can switch it to 223 Rem any time I want.

Likewise, I can change calibers on my 223 AR-15 any time I want, even make it a 50 BMG. When it was registered, it was in 223 Rem but there's nothing which says it has to stay in that caliber.

That sounds like a tiny glimmer of good news.

80%, single shot lower, here I come.
Link Posted: 9/23/2004 10:26:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By occaar:
my registration has the date (june ** 2001), name, address, record #, serial #, make (i.e. bushmaster), model (xm15), type (rifle), caliber (223). i don't know if your plan will work (i doubt it), but good luck.




I registered a lower for SB-23. I talked to the Ca DOJ and asked about caliber, etc. (the other stuff on the form), and they said it didn't matter, they knew people were registering lowers. Mine was also Bushmaster.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 6:47:26 AM EST
you know i REALY hate to brag but...CA sucks! i live in the other bad gun state, NY, and i have a 1991 Mfg. Orignal Colt AR-15, with 16" barrel, flash hider Bayonet lug, Ect...i have a CAR stock, but dont use it much, plus, two .50 cal kits, one ferret .50 BMG upper and a A.A. .50 Beowolf semi auto....looking to get a 7.62 Russian upper too, but my 5.56mm upper does fine for now.
aint nothin quite like firing a 40 round clip of .223's, and in 2 minuts having a .50 Bmg scoped Bolt action singing your song. once you get a hang of that big gun....oh boy! i love mine!
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 11:31:32 AM EST
I know people out here who legally own similar set ups. It's not that's California sucks, California is a great state. You wouldn't believe how many former New Yorkers choose to live out here.

What we are discussing here is a legal way to obtain exactly that set up, and doing so in full compliance with the law. It is to be done by working within the constraints and allowances of the law.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 1:51:29 PM EST
ok so hypothetically speaking if one were to make a .50bmg and register as such before the ban(the upcoming ban that is), and later change it to a .233, would you then be able to put evil features on it as well????
-dan
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 2:42:44 PM EST
Yes.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 2:44:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dusty45:
you know i REALY hate to brag but...CA sucks! i live in the other bad gun state, NY, and i have a 1991 Mfg. Orignal Colt AR-15, with 16" barrel, flash hider Bayonet lug, Ect...i have a CAR stock, but dont use it much, plus, two .50 cal kits, one ferret .50 BMG upper and a A.A. .50 Beowolf semi auto....looking to get a 7.62 Russian upper too, but my 5.56mm upper does fine for now.
aint nothin quite like firing a 40 round clip of .223's, and in 2 minuts having a .50 Bmg scoped Bolt action singing your song. once you get a hang of that big gun....oh boy! i love mine!



Dusty45,

I used to live in New York. Where in New York do you live, what city?
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 8:22:04 PM EST
I've actually called and talked to the DOJ about this, 2 times in the past 4 weeks. Once while the bill was going to arnolds desk and once again after it had been signed.


Sounds like they are only just now considering all the ramifications of this.


I probably spent the better part of an hour and a half talking with a person up there the first time about all of this.

Specifically I asked if the DOJ approval of FAB-10 and single shot DPMS lowers would change and have to be registered because of the fact that they will be able to accept a 50BMG upper assembly, simply stated they didn't know.


I asked if those of us who currently own AR15's that are already registered as "assault weapons" within the state of Ca. would have to re-register the things as 50BMG rifles in the event that we owned such an upper assembly, it sounds like a "no" because the rifles are already registered.

This is from a preliminary reading of this clause,

SEC. 7. Section 12278 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12278. (a) As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG rifle" means a
center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not
already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or
12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200.



If the gun is already registered as an "assault weapon" no need to register it again as a 50BMG.



My take on this is thus,

So my 3 AR15s that are registered with the Ca. DOJ will not have to be registered as 50BMG rifles simply because I own a 50BMG upper assembly.

However, the one single shot DPMS lower I have which is not considered an AW and is the lower receiver that I have mated with the single shot 50BMG upper, that is the gun that will be registered as a 50BMG rifle. Regardless of if it actually needs to be registered as a 50BMG rifle as far as this law is concerned, the thing IS going to get registered so that in the event I am driving from point A to point B and I am stopped by an officer, if for whatever reason he does a check on the gun he will have something that comes back as a registered 50BMG rifle.

And the highlight is even if the 50BMG upper was on one of my 3 registered AR15s, the thing will still show up as a registered rifle.


Here's a thread at TheHighroad where I started delving into this line of thought and tried to hash out my thoughts before calling the DOJ.

www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98357


Part of me wants to believe that if we owned a FAB-10 currently and were to attach a 50BMG upper on it, register it under this law to legally keep it as a 50BMG. The law would look at it as an Assault Weapon in the same class as the other AR15s out there and wouldn't give a flying crap about whether or not the FAB-10 lower receiver was milled out to accept a detachable magazine.

part of me wants to believe that the other part of me is skeptical as hell that we could actually get away with it.



In speaking with the DOJ I was very careful in how I approached this type of stuff but also tried to fully explore all approaches to this. The last thing I want to see as a Californian is a rehash or redux or the whole SKS Sporter debacle that took place back around 1998-1999.

The DOJ needs to be aware of these upper assemblies and aware that the FAB-10s and DPMS single shot lowers may begin being registered as 50BMG rifles, in essence becoming "assault weapons" and that raises the question of whether or not owners of said rifles could legally have their FAB-10 modified to have a detachable magazine.

It's a careful mine field to try to navigate through, some room to be optomistic but at the same time it's somewhat scarey putting into question the future of such lower assemblies as well as the 50BMG upper assemblies themselves.

If a 50BMG upper assembly can be ordered off through the mail and slapped on any 'ol AR15 lower receiver, as well as Ca. DOJ approved limited capacity lowers, should it be the 50BMG upper assembly that becomes the Ca. registered part in a fashion similar to how the Fed/ATF registers and tracks the DIAS and Lightning Links under the NFA?


It's gonna take AR enthusiasts as well as knowledgable lawyer types to carefully navigate and fully explore the possibilities here. We need a grass roots or NRA type meeting with the DOJ to hash this out as well so the whole SKS Sporter thing is avoided at some point down the road.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 8:32:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:

Originally Posted By occaar:
my registration has the date (june ** 2001), name, address, record #, serial #, make (i.e. bushmaster), model (xm15), type (rifle), caliber (223). i don't know if your plan will work (i doubt it), but good luck.



This is the info I needed. I now (unfortunately) have reason to believe it won't work. The newly milled lower and AR upper won't fit the description (wrong caliber). In addition, one would clearly be in possesion of an AR that was supposedly registered in 2005, which is impossible for us civilians. If the permit didn't list the caliber or date, it would've worked.




I disagree...

It's not that it's illegal for a person to register an "assault weapon" with the DOJ after the ban went into effect. It's just that the law states a person must show good cause to the DOJ for wanting to own an "assault weapon" and they must apply to have one registered if purchased after the date the law went into effect. And ofcourse we all know that it is the standard operating procedure for the DOJ to deny those requests as it is apparent that ordinary civilians are not intitled to excercise their rights/freedoms.

We won't be applying for a permit to own an "assault weapon" in as much as we are registering a newly produced/purchased AR15 lower receiver. Instead, we will be registering a 50BMG rifle that is now govered under a set of rules/laws that seems to consider it the same as the "assault weapons."

It's just that our FAB-10s or our partially milled Tannery Shop lowers, rather 50BMG rifles, also can have additional function as an "assault weapon" by swapping uppers. If the Ca. DOJ accepts registration of the thing as a 50BMG "assault weapon" rifle, what the hell is the difference if the lower gets milled out so that it can accept a detachable magazine and wind up being covered under the same damn law? And coincidently registered by the requirements of the law in a legal fashion...

If this law permits registration of the things, "assault weapon, is an assault weapon, is an assault weapon" if registered in accordance with this law.

But what do I know? This is where the DOJ had better get a stance on the issue otherwise it's gonna be a 100% grade A cluster fuck royale`.

It's gonna take somebody much more legally minded than myself to attack this and figure things out but I'd rather it be a gun enthusiast who's arguing with the DOJ than some anti-gun schmuck.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 9:40:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/24/2004 9:50:53 PM EST by hycheng]
Uglygun,

If you are from AZ, why would you like to stir the pot with CADOJ now? Especially before the registration time where DOJ now can change its mind and forbid FAB-10 or single shot lowers from registering because you WARN them about the consequencies ? Why can't you let people register their FAB10 and single shots on Jan 05 and then let DOJ sort things out later ?

When I was in junior high, one of our teacher always forgot to collect our homeworks. Kids were watching the clock praying the bell rings and we can get away with it. And there was always this nerdy kid that will raise his hand right before the teacher leave and said "but Mrs. Smith, you forgot to take our homework..." and the whole class would like to beat the crap out of him.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 9:46:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/24/2004 9:55:17 PM EST by uglygun]
not in Arizona

I'm a Bakersfield resident, born and raised. I had other motives for having an AZ tag(going back a year or more ago) and that is over and done with, now I'll switch it back to simply showing nothing at all. At the time I believe there wasn't an option to choose not to show what state you are from.


As for stirring the pot, take it how you want. The DOJ isn't that damn stupid and better for us to find out now what part to register and as what then bring it up after the fact.

I remember back to the August before the registration period closed on the 99 AW ban crap and the DOJ suddenly flipped on the AR15/AK47 receivers and decided to cover them under a provision of the 89 R/R ban. If it hadn't been a couple members of this forum staying on top of things and going to the DOJ hearings it could have gotten really fouled up as they tried to implement that stuff.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 9:56:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/24/2004 10:00:50 PM EST by Mike_Mills]
Here's the catch as I see it. When you mill out the magazine well you are manufacturing an AR-15 receiver. The registered AW was a 50BMG upper on a FAB-10 lower but when you mill out the magazine well you are manufacturing an AR-15 lower. The manufacture of AR-15's is prohibited by the AW law. It is that provision you'd be violating - not the possession or registration provisions.

You can buy a FAB-10 lower receiver and use it to make a 50BMG AW. You must register it as an AW. It will show up as an internal magazine, 10 round FAB-10 lower receiver. But when that lower shows up able to accept detachable magazines, you could be charged under the "shall not manufacture" provision.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 10:08:32 PM EST
Below is the mythical Shrike belt fed. I don't see any magwell opening in the lower. And if the belt is 10 round or less and the lower remains as fab10 or single shot lower, how are you manufacturing an AR-15 ?




Of course the mythical Shrike has to exit in the first place.
Link Posted: 9/24/2004 10:10:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/24/2004 10:19:11 PM EST by uglygun]
Mike_Mills

That would have to be a return to the "series" clause or interpretation of the 1989 R/R ban then I suppose. Getting so hard to track through that stuff it's hard to figure out.

I see what you are saying about manufacturing a lower or receiver.

Hard not to want to be optomistic though in being able to get a FAB-10 registered as an AW then hopefully being able to make the lower fully functional because of it's status as a registered AW.

As far as the registration goes, the serial number should identify it as the assault weapon. But the whole "series" crapola with respect to the lower receiver itself being considered the assault weapon for AR15s, that's a tough one in the case of a FAB-10.

Register it as a 50BMG and it's considered an "assault weapon" by the definition of this law? If so then what?


Remember with the guns such as the FAL clones or M1A rifles, they could choose not to register them as "assault weapons" with the Ca. DOJ provided they brought it into a compliant configuration? If they removed the parts to avoid registration it meant they couldn't put those parts on at some point in the future. But registering them as an AW reserved their right to return to the configuration at a future date, it's an "assault weapon" and that means being legally allowed to be built into a certain configuration.

If suddenly a FAB-10 with 50BMG upper is considered an "assault weapon" and is registered as such, why shouldn't it be allowed to be configured as such in the various configurations. Legally registered ofcourse through what is possibly a loophole.

It would be an interesting process. Take FAB-10 lower receiver, install 50BMG upper, register it as an "assault weapon." Now the rifle has the registered AW status, milling out the magazine well should not change it's status as an "assault weapon" within the eyes of this law from what I can see.
But milling out the mag well would make it so that the FAB-10 receiver itself is now the "assault weapon", still registered, but now it's no longer dependant on a specific configuration of parts such as how the FAL or M14 clones can skirt the AW definition.

The milled out FAB-10 lower would be considered the AW all by itself but only after first getting registered as an AW in conjunction with the 50BMG upper, then once knighted as an AW it's being intitled to certain configurations is fully explored by milling out the magazine well.

Would definitely have to be optomistic that this could be pulled off. Would be nice to know in advance so it would give fair warning to all of those would like to try to pull off such a scheme.

Link Posted: 9/24/2004 10:17:53 PM EST
Hehe....why not mill out the lower receiver to accept a magazine, AND THEN....grind down the magazine release so that you need to use a "tool", such as a screwdriver, or bullet tip, to remove the magazine.

It then voids the "readily detachable magazine" clause, as I read in another post.

Then you're completely Kosher, and within the state guidelines.......

I'm still fortunate enough to have registered a few semi-autos of mine back in the first 89 ban to keep in the PRK, and my regular good 'ol toys here in NV.

Anyhow, just thought that would help out those legal eagles, who like to stick to the letter of the law.


Originally Posted By Mike_Mills:
Here's the catch as I see it. When you mill out the magazine well you are manufacturing an AR-15 receiver. The registered AW was a 50BMG upper on a FAB-10 lower but when you mill out the magazine well you are manufacturing an AR-15 lower. The manufacture of AR-15's is prohibited by the AW law. It is that provision you'd be violating - not the possession or registration provisions.

You can buy a FAB-10 lower receiver and use it to make a 50BMG AW. You must register it as an AW. It will show up as an internal magazine, 10 round FAB-10 lower receiver. But when that lower shows up able to accept detachable magazines, you could be charged under the "shall not manufacture" provision.

Link Posted: 9/24/2004 11:07:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By hycheng:
Uglygun,

If you are from AZ, why would you like to stir the pot with CADOJ now? Especially before the registration time where DOJ now can change its mind and forbid FAB-10 or single shot lowers from registering because you WARN them about the consequencies ? Why can't you let people register their FAB10 and single shots on Jan 05 and then let DOJ sort things out later ?






Regardless of the "stirring the pot" concern, the DOJ must already deal with the fact that people already legally own complete 50 BMG rifles using the single shot lower and other compliant receivers. As stated in the first post, these people must be allowed to register and keep them and cannot be forced to give up possession less the DOJ is ready to face legal appeals that they will lose. I'm no lawyer, but in such a case as the latter I can see this law easily being torn to shreds in court. Grandfather clauses seem to help gun laws withstand legal scrutiny, as it avoids any complications of retroactive applicability.

If the DOJ decides on saying you can't add more assault features to what is already considered an assault weapon, that would seem to stand on pretty flimsy legal ground too. Can't explain legal specifics, but for instance current legal assault weapon owners would also be prevented from adding additional features to their firearms and could probably appeal too. Or how would the law pertain to assault weapons receivers owned by dealers that have not been built up into complete firearms yet?

The legiscritters made the mistake by not distinguishing the 50 BMG as its own unique banned class of weapons, but instead lumped it together with existing assault weapons. I've read AB50, and the language is clear in that it extends existing provisions pertaining to assault weapons.

The DOJ can cut their losses by allowing open registration of any legally owned 50 BMG rifle (or receiver) without complicated restrictions until whenever the registration period ends. Otherwise, it would seem they are risking having the entire law struck down. They can take it as it is even with its imperfections while taking solice in the fact that no new 50 BMG rifles can be sold by the end of this year.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 9:33:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/25/2004 9:40:46 AM EST by colossians323]

Hehe....why not mill out the lower receiver to accept a magazine, AND THEN....grind down the magazine release so that you need to use a "tool", such as a screwdriver, or bullet tip, to remove the magazine.

It then voids the "readily detachable magazine" clause, as I read in another post.



Yes, why the fab-10 receiver?
Couldnt the 80% with your own magwell block, or ufinished well, with a .50bmg upper, and possibly no pistol grip qualify as a fifty BMG without being an "ar series"?
Hence buy several 80% lowers, serialize, and stamp .50BMG on them, and complete them after they are registered as an alrewady existing aw?
Lets get this straightend out fast, so we have time to be honest Kalifornia citezens.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 9:34:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/25/2004 9:35:05 AM EST by Mike_Mills]
Uglygun,

In reading your post, I came to the conclusion that you misunderstand me. If you convert a FAB-10 into an AR-series lower you are liable to be charged under the section which prohibits manufacture of AR lowers - NOT the possession and registration provisions of the law.

It would be a violation to do the milling operations because you would be manufacturing an AR-series rifle. It wouldn't matter if you started with aluminum billet, a forged "80%" lower or a FAB-10. When you were done, you would have manufactured an AR-series rifle.

Am I wrong, people? Where is the allowance for these operations in the law?
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 9:44:23 AM EST

It would be a violation to do the milling operations because you would be manufacturing an AR-series rifle. It wouldn't matter if you started with aluminum billet, a forged "80%" lower or a FAB-10. When you were done, you would have manufactured an AR-series rifle.

Mike,
I think what people are getting at is that it well be a registered assault rifle, so other than making it full automatic, you can mill the mag well since it falls under the same categories as the other registered aw's
I am not sure, and hope we can get some clarification on this, but if it falls under the same provisions of the aw law, good bet is that you can mill it out.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 10:55:54 AM EST
guys just a quick note.
the .50bmg is an evil feature, just like a flashhider or a collapsible stock.

In this case, the .50bmg is the only required feature to make an AW. So once u have an assault weapon registered, u can technically have whatever evil features you want on it. THat includes the detachable mag. If the lower is registered as an AW, how could u be charged with manufacturing an AW when ur just actually modifying an already registered lower.

On a side note, tehres a thread going on in calguns discussing possible reciprocity. A member had a discussion with a representative from the DOJ, asking if his registered ar would need additional registration to put a .50 on. THe rep said no.
If put on paper/letter, this could possibly work the other way. a registered .50 would not need additional registration to use other calibers...
Once again as noted, the .50bmg is an evil feature, and not a complete separate category of firearms.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 11:16:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By gunsmithdude:
guys just a quick note.
the .50bmg is an evil feature, just like a flashhider or a collapsible stock.

In this case, the .50bmg is the only required feature to make an AW. So once u have an assault weapon registered, u can technically have whatever evil features you want on it. THat includes the detachable mag. If the lower is registered as an AW, how could u be charged with manufacturing an AW when ur just actually modifying an already registered lower.

On a side note, tehres a thread going on in calguns discussing possible reciprocity. A member had a discussion with a representative from the DOJ, asking if his registered ar would need additional registration to put a .50 on. THe rep said no.
If put on paper/letter, this could possibly work the other way. a registered .50 would not need additional registration to use other calibers...
Once again as noted, the .50bmg is an evil feature, and not a complete separate category of firearms.




That pretty much sums up what a lot of us are thinking and what I was trying to express in my posts.


The 50BMG upper on a FAB-10 lower is enough to classify it as an Assault Weapon, once registered as such how is it any different than an ordinary AR15 lower receiver that is also registered as an assault weapon. The assault weapon status of the registered FAB-10 lower, thanks to being joined with a 50BMG upper, should now make it fully capable of being able to be configured into other assault weapon configurations such as having it's magazine well milled out to accept detachable magazines.


It's an optomistic take, probably stands a flying monkey's chance in hell of us getting away with it, but one can always hope.


Worst case scenario would be the Ca. DOJ re-evaluates whether or not they think that the FAB-10 or DPMS single shot lowers should be permitted because they can be assembled into a 50BMG rifle with a mail order part. That's the pesimistic side of me rearing it's ugly head.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 12:48:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/25/2004 12:50:00 PM EST by Mike_Mills]
You continue to miss my point, or at least you don't want to agree with my point.

Registering it as an AW is necessary because of the 50 BMG upper, not the lower. You would not have had to register the FAB-10 as an AW if detatched from the 50BMG upper.

Opening up the mag well in that FAB-10 lower is the same as manufacturing an AR-15 receiver. Once you open up the mag well you have manufactured an AR-15, which is not allowed. It's as simple as that.

It's clear enough to me to know it's nothing I would want to risk my marriage and livelihood over. I'll let one of you be the guinea pig for the test case in court. If, and I think it's a long shot, it is resolved favorably, I will then open up my mag well - not before.

The thing is, you need to register the rifle before 1/1/05 to preserve this option.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 1:20:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/25/2004 1:59:31 PM EST by uglygun]
I'm not gonna be the one to be the one to test this out either because I already have registered AR15s.


And based upon something said in another thread, it may be questionable that a CA approved lower may be registered as a 50BMG upper due to the fact that many are marked "223 Remington".


I understand perfectly fine and well that the FAB-10 lower itself is not required to be registered should it never be mated to a 50BMG upper, but the question is whether or not it becomes an AW the moment a 50BMG upper is attached.

What is the difference in the eyes of the AW law if the FAB-10 becomes an "assault weapon" by way of having a 50BMG upper attached versus having the magazine well milled out? If allowed to register the thing as a 50BMG, does it's registered status as an AW change depending on if you remove the upper assembly? I say no, or atleast it reserves that firearms ability to be so configured in the future.


Yes, I know that if I took a FAB-10 right now and milled out the lower receiver I would be making a the dreaded prohibited AR15 receiver. One not registered and likely to snatch my ass in a bear trap if I admitted to such while trying to register it with the Ca DOJ.

The question is whether or not the few that get registered as AW because of the 50BMG upper, is enough for them to be configured into other AW configurations meaning milling out the magazine well.


I hear what you are saying and you are thinking it's an absolute "no". I don't know what to think, it's merely a devil's advocate thing for both sides of the argument. I can see both sides of this and just want to know how the coin toss is going to turn out.


I don't neccesarily think that the lowers will have to be registered by 1/01/05 to be able to be legally configured, rather a person will need to have the lowers by 1/01/05 inorder to register(if even allowed to) the lowers during the grace period as 50BMG rifles.


Regardless of what our own personal hopes and beliefs of what will happen are, the DOJ had better get off it's ass and figure this crap out. One way or another there is a class of 50BMG rifles out there that they had no knowledge of or atleast the stupid legislators didn't. And it is going to effect those of us who own the stupid things and are looking for a way to legally keep them.

I don't want to modify crap, I own a single shot DPMS lower that I simply want to register as a 50BMG rifle and continue to enjoy. But there are others here who I can see their side of the argument and I can't help but wonder if there is a loophole if suddenly their FAB-10 is allowed to be registered as an "assault weapon", that serial number in the registration books designating it as an AW should be enough to make it the equivalent of one of my AR15 lower receivers that was registered back in 2000.


Lastly, I suppose I should have said it this way.

Why is it that "manufacture of an AR15 lower receiver" is prohibited?

Probably because it is considered manufacture of an "assault weapon", same as if somebody were to put additional features on something like an FAL sold post-2000 without a pistol grip or a flash suppressor on an M1A sold post-2000. All 3 acts would be considered manufacturing a Ca. assault weapon after the legislation went into effect prohibiting manufacture or transfer.

The point we all agree on is that it is rather apparent to us that if a 50BMG assembly is placed on a FAB-10 lower, in that configuration it appears to become an assault weapon.

It is questionable as to whether we can get away with even registering it in such a configuration at this point based upon things going on in another thread. However if the FAB-10 is allowed to be registered as an "assault weapon" and that is now it's new legal definition as registered, how is it any different than an AR15 lower receiver as far as the "AW" status goes.

We're at a disagreement on whether the magazine well could be milled out, that's fine. I do see your point but I still question the various options out there or possibilities available.



Link Posted: 9/25/2004 2:07:17 PM EST
Is there an online source for the actual texts of teh AW law and the new 50BMG law?
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 2:15:25 PM EST
Check the Ca. DOJ site, I used to have the link but have lost it.

I don't know if the actual verbage of the 50BMG ban is live yet within the texts of the AW law on the DOJ site. Others here have links to it though I'm sure so it would have to be referenced as reading through AW ban.

Now that all this is popping up once again I suppose it's time to start reading through it again. Last time I put so much effort into trying to understand the stupid AW ban was 4 years ago.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top