Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 8/21/2004 3:33:26 PM EST
hey everyone,

while at the gun show (costa mesa) today i saw a guy selling 80% complete lowers and the jig to make ar-15s. i talked to a gun lawyer at the gun show about it and he pretty much confirmed what i had suspected that this was pretty much illegal. my question is if it is illegal to make your own assuault weapon why would doj allow sales of an 80% complete lower in ca? i don't really know what else you could make it into? i suppose that in theory you could change it so that the magazine is not detachtable, but then it would still be considered part of the "ar series," which i guess under technical terms isn't the Fab 10 technically an ar series lower?

just curious about this stuff. it is tough being 21 years old and missing out on "the good years" of the prk. maybe someday they will return...

-dan
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 4:49:18 PM EST
I thought this was illegal too. I saw that guy this morning. But I also remember someone saying it's legal to manufacture an AR lower from an 80% casting/forging as long as you do not intend to sell it. But who knows, because our laws are absolutely retarded.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 5:54:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By prisner4jc:
my question is if it is illegal to make your own assuault weapon why would doj allow sales of an 80% complete lower in ca?



Because technically an 80% lower is NOT a firearm, just as a lump of aluminum is not a receiver . However, once you drill one hole into it and it's now 81%, it would be.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:23:32 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:31:51 PM EST
I called the DOJ about this last year and was told you can not finish the lower. Now if you made it with a fixed mag like the FAB-10 I guess it would be ok..
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 7:15:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 8:19:46 PM EST
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV...but...

I don't think it's illegal for him to sell the jig...What he is selling is a jig and a blob of aluminum. For all anyone knows, you could be a collector of aluminum blobs, as well as an avid admirer and collector of drilling jigs...that would not be illegal. But it will be illegal for you to make your own gun with the jig.

Once you DECIDE to purchase AND MAKE the purchase of the jig, what you do with it is YOUR BUSINESS...But if you were caught with a finished receiver and then the local LEO visits your garage with a warrant and finds the jig, I believe any decent prosecutor can make a case of "intent" when you were to purchase the jig.

When you start-a-drillin ..and your shiny new lower gets more than 81% completed, well, then there is the act.

What the guy is doingis NOT ILLEGAL, IMHO...but if you use his products for it's intent...
But, check your local ordinances.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 8:27:42 PM EST
I think it's legal to make these if you can make it a dedicated rimfire lower. I've seen it done - someone used a .22 magazine and put a block on the magwell and it was DOJ-approved. Bushmaster has the .22 uppers available, but I dont have the specifics on making a blocked .22 lower.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 9:18:29 PM EST
here is the guys official website www.hicapmagparts.com. he is based out of irvine(runs the buisness out of his house). the guy seemed to be a little bit wierd, and i called him out on the legailty of the products we was selling. i asked about making his product into an AR and he basically told me that your average citizen wouldn't be held to the same standards as a dealer/manufacturer and that it really wasn't that different from say pinning a 10 rd. mag into an FAL. i understand that he is allowed to sell the chunks of aluminum and the other stuff, but it just seems very strange. it would be like selling marajuana seeds. you could in essence have them but not grow anything thing b/c that would be illegal.

there was a slight glimer in my eye when i saw his booth and i thought for a second i might have found a loophole in the doj legal papertrail mess to get an AR, but now i'm fairly certain it wouldn't work. when i was talking to the gun attorney (fyi here is his website www.gunlaw.com nice guy who seemed like he knew his stuff) he said that even if one were to complete an 80% lower and the doj came after you they would charge w/ some kind of felony REGARDLESS of the complete legality (ie some kind of loop hole in the law, say the detachable mag thing for instance, like having to use a "tool/bullet" so that it is not at AW). he then proceed to tell me how being CHARGED with a felony is a really crappy thing in that you have to put on job applications (insurance and a bunch of other crap) that you were CHARGED in some type felony case. so yea that would haunt for years even if you were to get out of the case.

but i guess the crux of the matter still comes in trying to beat the system to get an AR. i'm not yet ready to give up and get the FAB 10. it looks pretty kewl and but i really hate settling for anying.... anywho, if yall have any other suggestions on how to get around the system in the wonderful PRK let me know.

-dan
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 2:21:33 AM EST
I have to cry WTF are his legal qualifications? He apparently knows jaack zip about job applications. There isn't a company in the country that asks or should be asking about charges of any kind. Convictions yes but not simply charges. That has been verboten* in the real world for close to 30 years now.

If you really want to know about 80% lowers go to some of the reputable gunsmithing forums and ask there for the straight skinny and not wannaabe guess work. It's been a while, and I am not a "gun lawyer" (I do have about 25 years of HR and especially Employment experience in CA though), the impression I had was that if you complete them into a FAB-10 or similar receiver that does not contravene the CA AW statues, you're OK. Single shots, "pump" actions, unable to accept a 10 round or highe feeding device, etc. However, if you do in fact complete them in a configuration that allows magazines, or greater than 10 round feeding devices and semi-automaatic, then YES you have clanged the magic clanger.

* As a result of a heck of a lot of folks being charged with felonies in the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements, and charges being dropped or greatly reduced, etc,
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 7:20:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By Slv2fun:
what you do with it is YOUR BUSINESS




These are for keeping in a safe place for the far future. Totally clean and untraceable. No one buys these as a project to save money, submit paperwork, or have fun "building it yourself".

In PRK, you'd probably be in more trouble trying to finish one of those than just plain possessing an unregistered Colt or Bushmaster.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 12:43:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 3:50:28 PM EST
I went back there today and the question was put to the seller "is this legal in California?"

The short and sweet skinny was "NO"

He was adamantly pronouncing that you cannot finish the 80% AR in California. He said "IT IS NOT LEGAL TO BUILD YOUR OWN AR IN CALIFORNIA. I GIVE YOU ALL THE ROPE YOU NEED TO HANG YOURSELF. WHAT YOU DO WITH IT AFTER YOU BUY IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS"

There you have it!
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 6:38:38 PM EST
well all of that is kind of disheartening. along the lines of making your own firearm, what process must one take to make sure it is legal. say one is to construct a pisol. i was looking through some catalog and i saw that there was a small blackpowder pistol that could be converted to .22 caliber by changing the barrel (here is the catalog info www.gunsnstuff.net/FAC/012.asp). it was being advertised that you did not need an FFL to purchase, b/c it was a)blackpowder and b) you were constructing the actual weapon. so to make this (or any other non AW) do you need to write doj and tell them you made a weapon? i also heard something about the weapon possesing a unique serial number. i'm assuming that is something you just make up and the keep on file at doj?
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 7:58:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
Damn, how much did he want for the 80%? Did you get a good look at them?

Cast or forged?

Quality?

photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=4203



Paul,

How did you complete the threads for the butt stock? It looks like "Genesis" is missing the threads. I have the tap, what do I use for the handle?
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 8:02:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By Slv2fun:
I went back there today and the question was put to the seller "is this legal in California?"

The short and sweet skinny was "NO"

He was adamantly pronouncing that you cannot finish the 80% AR in California. He said "IT IS NOT LEGAL TO BUILD YOUR OWN AR IN CALIFORNIA. I GIVE YOU ALL THE ROPE YOU NEED TO HANG YOURSELF. WHAT YOU DO WITH IT AFTER YOU BUY IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS"

There you have it!



I still believe it's legal, BUT the DOJ intreprets the law as they see fit and can prosecute anyone for any reason. It's legal since the Fab-10 is legal.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 8:11:42 PM EST
www.acearms.com has a good how-to, for those that wish to complete these.

If you guys have a Harbor Freight in your state, you can buy everything you need to finish one, or just keep a handy paperweight.......

I"m sure you'll be wanting something more, if the PRK ever falls into the ocean......:)

Just hope any of that trouble doesn't spill over here....but for the most part, we'd be okay.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 9:03:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By Chaingun:

Originally Posted By Slv2fun:
I went back there today and the question was put to the seller "is this legal in California?"

The short and sweet skinny was "NO"

He was adamantly pronouncing that you cannot finish the 80% AR in California. He said "IT IS NOT LEGAL TO BUILD YOUR OWN AR IN CALIFORNIA. I GIVE YOU ALL THE ROPE YOU NEED TO HANG YOURSELF. WHAT YOU DO WITH IT AFTER YOU BUY IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS"

There you have it!



I still believe it's legal, BUT the DOJ intreprets the law as they see fit and can prosecute anyone for any reason. It's legal since the Fab-10 is legal.



Chaingun,

You are absolutely right...in the end, the DOJ lawyers will argue and sashay their way in court and it could go one way or another. I certainly am not the last word on the legality of the parts in question and neither is the guy selling.

I think we can all agree that this is an issue that has no definitive answer so I refer back to my previous statement several posts back...check with local ordinances....and get it in writing to CYA!
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 11:55:16 PM EST
He is correct in that it is illegal to build an AR. But if it isn't an AR, such as single-shot, not detachable mag and under 10 rds capacity, one of the pump variants it isn't an AR or AW and not illegal. Now if you make it so all you have to do it use a nail file to change an "blocked" mag-well, then you probably are on the wrong side of what is going to happen if you get caught.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 12:50:14 PM EST
I understand it this way,

In CA we are allowed to manufacture guns if two criteria are met:
1. Never sell or transfer it to anyone.
2. We must be legally allowed to possess it.

Number 2 above is where our AR rock doesn't float so well. We can't make one, because we can't possess it. It's an assault weapon. Building a FAB-10 receiver or single shot seems fine.

That's how I see the law. Again CA screws the laws so that no one really can see 100% clearly. Hope this helps.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 3:05:54 PM EST
I only have one AR but wish I bought more before the ban. What if , hypothetically, I was to buy some of these, buld them up, and stamp the brand and serial number of my one registered AR on the side. I know this wouldn't be legal but just seems like a way to never get caught and have as many ARs in different configurations as I want. Just a thought.
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 4:43:12 PM EST
No one's the wiser with that idea.......but just make sure you don't take all your identical rifles out together, or do something that will bring the police to your door.

Just hope no DOJ agents are monitoring this site........as some are known to have caught one fellow on FalFiles a while back, and they also frequent gun shows here in NV.

Link Posted: 8/23/2004 5:15:07 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 5:19:11 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 5:20:45 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/23/2004 6:50:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By MisterSuzuki:
No one's the wiser with that idea.......but just make sure you don't take all your identical rifles out together, or do something that will bring the police to your door.

Just hope no DOJ agents are monitoring this site........as some are known to have caught one fellow on FalFiles a while back, and they also frequent gun shows here in NV.




Having been in certain sensitive lines of work in the past, I've always found it safer to assume that people are always llistenting to what you say or reading what you write. Even if they aren't it does avoid the foot in mouth disease faux pas or worse.


I'll bet Paul agrees, if it was a Combat Systems pub of some kind it went in the burn bag.
Link Posted: 8/24/2004 8:37:18 AM EST
Someone is ALWAYS listening, namely, us.

DOJ may have listening agents on this site, but it may well have been one of us mentioning a conversation we had on arfcom in the presence of said agents, who were interested enough to come in and look around.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 9:15:41 AM EST
Its is perfectly LEGAL to make your onw firearm in KALI

if you want to complete a 80% receiver into a rifle it must be designed to include a permanetly affixed 10-round magazined only. (same as the Kali-FALs)...

However... to CYA... I do suggest that you obtain a personal letter of approval from California DOJ before you proceed.


Good Luck-80% are great fun!!!
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 10:21:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 10:24:13 AM EST by Lon_Moer]
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 2:00:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
Yupp, or a single shot lower for a .50 BMG.



Or DPMS break action flare launcher. Or dedicate .22LR upper.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 8:39:24 PM EST
37mm would be kewl. did some research on it in the past and found that it was somewhat difficult to find ammo. i found a few websites that sold it but it was like $6 per round yikes!
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 5:40:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/29/2004 5:41:19 PM EST by ShadowOne]
caag.state.ca.us/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf

Interesting. Vulcan Arms is not on there, nor is DSA, Stag, and others. If the "series ban" was indeed struck down, then it should indeed be legal to sell AR lowers if it's made by a company not on this list. You'd just need to build of the rifle to comply with the "features ban." The main problem -- and the most important of course -- is finding an FFL with enough cajones to make the sale to you.
Link Posted: 8/29/2004 8:30:21 PM EST
it's all in the fine print...

from the doj website:

"The term 'series' includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer."

there's got a be a way somehow....
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 10:45:36 PM EST
I thought the language of the AW Ban law said it was illegal to MANUFACTURE, import, sell or otherwise transfer... an assault weapon. The AR-15 series of rifles are banned, no matter who makes them. There is a list of known banned models but it is not complete.

Anyone know if you can buy the DPMS pump action rimfire rifles here in California? They are manually operated, rimfire rifles.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:25:52 PM EST
So who makes a single shot .50BMG upper that will work on a magwell-less AR? I wouldn't mind building a 80% for that purpose...
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:51:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By prisner4jc:
it's all in the fine print...

from the doj website:

"The term 'series' includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer."

there's got a be a way somehow....



The term "series" was striken from the bill, by court. I believe DOJ still considers "series" applicable, which is illegal.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 9:02:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By 9mmDOE:
Its is perfectly LEGAL to make your onw firearm in KALI

if you want to complete a 80% receiver into a rifle it must be designed to include a permanetly affixed 10-round magazined only. (same as the Kali-FALs)...

However... to CYA... I do suggest that you obtain a personal letter of approval from California DOJ before you proceed.


Good Luck-80% are great fun!!!



Not permanently affixed, Non-detatchable. Non-detatchable is defined as having to use a tool to remove and a bullet can be considered a tool.

It is important to note, as has been mentioned, no matter if it is legal or not it is wise to consider what is the chance of being charged? If the DOJ decides to charge you your life will be changed, it's up to each of us to draw his own line. Personally I'm not worried if I completed an 80% upper with my idea of what a "non-detachable" solution is that I would have to worry about being charged. That is IMHO.

Link Posted: 9/6/2004 11:01:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/7/2004 2:30:58 AM EST by gs430]
Let me tell you something about the CA DOJ...they think they are above the law in every respect. A friend of mine who happens to be Mexican was pulled over and had his car impounded and then the ENTIRE CAR was STRIPPED and searched. They found nothing and they gave him his car back AS IS. Completely stripped with all the parts just thrown inside the car. They're attitude was basically, "sue us".

Another friend of mine who was a FFL was raided...they found nothing...he had to go through lawyers to get his stuff back. Cost an arm and a leg and basically ruined him. He had to sell off what he could salvage. He had MINT condition collectable rifles (pre-bans and whatnot) and they were all just tossed into a crate....various things were missing, certain guns were taken apart and the parts were just tossed into the crate....

They don't give a fuck about you because they know that 99.99% of the people can't do shit about it. So even if they find nothing wrong with your items, they will turn your life upside down. It also looks really cool when they come into your work and haul you off...then all of sudden all that "gun talk" you did at work becomes VERY suspicious....

80% lowers can NOT be regulated because it s a PIECE OF METAL. So there are NO LAWS in CA to stop you from buying and selling them. They are NOT firearms. The same laws apply to that 80% lower as a hunk of aluminum you bought at some industrial metal shop.

I still question the stripped lowers (normal ones) being illegal in CA because it is VERY possible to build a gun that does NOT break the law. If you don't install a pistol grip, it's not an assault weapon but being how the Liberal Nazis run CA, it doesn't surprise me that the DOJ is flexing its muscles....

80% lowers or 100% lowers, all I know is I'm not finding out what the CA DOJ thinks. I am trying to move out of this fucked up state as fast as I can...anyone know a good place that has CA style weather but Texas style gun laws and mentality? I was planning on moving to AZ but it looks like that state has too many liberals invading and too many illegal aliens...I'm kind done with all that. Nevada is just too frickin' hot and humid (at times) like Arizona (which is just mostly too damn hot)....if someone has a good location, I'm all ears.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 11:32:36 PM EST
N. Nevada's not too bad....but not a lot of jobs around here.

Try Texas, towards the gulf.....then there's Florida.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:40:22 PM EST
I must be confused. It doesn't seem to me that it would be illegal for you to purchase the 80% lower and the jig and manufacture the rifle.

SB23 made it illegal to own/posses:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

If you manufactured a 100% lower from the 80% lower, and left off ALL of the A-F characteristics, you wouldn't be violating any laws.

Aren't we talking about the same technicality that makes the M96 legal?

Just don't put a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a folding or telescoping stock, a grenade launcher or flare launcher, a flash suppressor, or a forward pistol grip, on your newly manufactured 100% lower and you'll be perfectly legal. Or am I wrong?
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 11:13:53 PM EST
Now that is the $64,000 question...I called the DOJ not to long ago [tinfoil] from a payphone [/tinfoil] and asked them if I could buy AR lowers (100% ones but stripped) and they said NO. I also called two different gun stores and they also said NO.

So I don't understand how this bullshit works. Why would one NOT be able to buy a stripped lower in CA since it can be build to follow the letter of the law. I wanted to really get into with the DOJ person but then I heard sirens coming so I bolted...

Bottom line: CA is what happens when you let liberals run the place. Arizona, take notice. It seems that there are few too many liberals popping up there in the recent years...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:11:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By gs430:
Why would one NOT be able to buy a stripped lower in CA since it can be build to follow the letter of the law. .



Because most stripped lowers are named in one law already.

It is permissible to complete an 80% frame into a firearm. It is NOT permissible to construct an all new "assault weapon" so that's where you'd get in trouble. Of course as CA defines an AW as a Centerfire firearm, a dedicated 22lr only lower would be legal.

So it is, per the letter of the law, possible to make one of those and complete it.

I'm not a lawyer blah blah blah. etc.

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 3:29:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 3:43:00 AM EST by gs430]
Professor Evil - There are VERY FEW AR lowers that are "named" in any CA law. I think you are talking about the Roberti-Roos (1989) law which named certain guns (like "Colt AR-15"). There are PLENTY of lowers that are not on that list...LMT, Lauder, DSA, RAA, Stag, Mega, LAR, etc., etc...

The 2000 CA ban was based on features. If it was a semi-auto that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine AND one of the following features:

A) Pistol grip that protudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
B) Thumbhole stock
C) A folding or telescoping stock
D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher
E) A flash supressor (I'm actually surprise they didn't say "flash HIDER")
F) A forward pistol grip.

So based on that, how is a stripped lower in violation of that ban? Other than the ability to accept detachable magazines and being a semi-auto gun, it does not have any of the A through F features on it which does make it an "assault weapon" by CA stupid definition.

Even if it's assembled...A2 stock, Post-Ban upper, NO PISTOL GRIP...this configuration is not in violation of the law.

Also, you can not push a law based on 'potential' (although liberals seem to think it is)...I mean it's 'possible' for some to drive a brand new F-150 into a crowd a people (but it would probably break down before they got there!). It's 'possible' for someone to buy a copper pipe at Home Depot and beat someone to death. It's 'possible' for someone to take their bare hands and strangle someone to death. It's possible that someone takes a common kitchen knife and go and stab someone to death...if laws were based on potential, EVERYTHING would be banned.

I wish there was a lawyer that was willing to challenge the DOJ on this as they are CLEARLY abusing their powers by not allowing people to buy stripped lowers...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 7:34:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By gs430:
The 2000 CA ban was based on features. If it was a semi-auto that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine AND one of the following features:



You missed one very important point (snipped from www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=74797422124+7+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve:


(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:





So based on that, how is a stripped lower in violation of that ban? Other than the ability to accept detachable magazines and being a semi-auto gun, it does not have any of the A through F features on it which does make it an "assault weapon" by CA stupid definition.



Take it up with your local FFL and see if one will transfer a lower for you.



Also, you can not push a law based on 'potential' (although liberals seem to think it is)...I mean it's 'possible' for some to drive a brand new F-150 into a crowd a people (but it would probably break down before they got there!). It's 'possible' for someone to buy a copper pipe at Home Depot and beat someone to death. It's 'possible' for someone to take their bare hands and strangle someone to death. It's possible that someone takes a common kitchen knife and go and stab someone to death...if laws were based on potential, EVERYTHING would be banned.



Blah blah blah. Sure. It's entirely possible to do illegal things. Sorry you didn't appreciate my language, I'm not a lawyer so KMA. In this case it's entirely possible to LEGAL things, too. Not Illegal == legal.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 4:56:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 4:58:24 PM EST by gs430]
I don't understand the first quote....I said the same thing as law...

I DO understand that a FFL will not transfer a lower to me (but that's due to DOJ pressure)....what I'm questioning is whether or not the DOJ is acting within the law by not allowing stripped AR lowers to be transfered...to me, it seems that they are stepping over the law by now allowing stripped lowers because they are *not* "assault weapons" in stripped form...and so long as you don't put a pistol grip on it, it's not an AW....in other words, it's a LEGAL firearm by CA laws.

Bottom line: There is NOTHING in the lawbooks that makes a stripped AR an "assault weapon"...

Of course, the last thing I would want to do is to 'test' this in course...hmmm, I think I'm going to call the DOJ and see if they can give me a good reason why you can't own a stripped AR lower.

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 5:06:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By gs430:
I don't understand the first quote....I said the same thing as law...



Not quite, you missed the word "Centerfire"
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 10:51:44 AM EST
gs430,

If you get a straight answer out of them, please keep us posted. My opinion over the whole matter is identical to yours, and I'm interested in knowing what their response is.
Top Top