Interesting AW court case in CA

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Interesting AW court case in CA

Posted: 3/15/2006 9:56:16 PM EDT

Daren D. Chaker (Calif.). Police seized Mr. Chaker's FN .308 rifle. It was inoperable, by virtue of the fact that it was missing the bolt and firing pin. Police did not find the missing items in close proximity to the rifle or anywhere else. Nevertheless, they charged Mr. Chaker with possession of an assault weapon. His argument is that his rifle was permanently inoperable under California law, and thus lawful to possess. A motion to suppress was filed on July 14, 2004, and a motion to dismiss was filed on July 19, 2004.

www.nradefensefund.org/docs/litigation.html#California

I haven't see this mentioned here and didn't find anything with a quick search, so I thought I'd share.

Perhaps a definition of "inoperable" is going to become the next CA loophole?

I'm not trying to give anyone ideas, so don't post telling me what's illegal or legal, I don't care. I just thought this is a different angle that hasn't been pointed out.

Maybe store your bolt and firing pin out of state.

Posted: 3/15/2006 10:04:42 PM EDT

[#1]

the FN FAL is a NAMED receiver, so even if you neutered it, it doesn't make any bit of difference.

Now, if it were a DSA FAL you could argue inoperability..... but it'd just be easier to remove the "evil features."

Posted: 3/15/2006 10:05:20 PM EDT

[#2]

The law states specifically that you can not take a category 1 AW (banned by name) and alter it to become a non-AW.

The guy is fucked. Bad move on his part.

Posted: 3/16/2006 12:23:20 AM EDT

[#3]

But it doesn't say FAL

It says FN .308 Rifle. Does FN make any other semi-autos in .308? Yeah chances are it's a FAL, but why not just say it then?

Posted: 3/16/2006 4:33:58 AM EDT

[#4]

How is this even debatable? A listed AR lower receiver is an assault weapon, and no one will ever pretend you can take a stripped lower receiver out to a range and fire it. An unlisted lower is an assault weapon the moment you attach a pistol grip to it, no bolt, barrel, trigger or any other hardware required.

I know the case refers to FNs, but it's the same principle. Clearly there is no need for you to be in possession of a functioning firearm to be in violation of the AWB.

Edit: of course, the NRA knows that, and if they are trying to use this case to get that particular aspect of the law tossed out, I salute them, or us ("I am the NRA").

Posted: 3/16/2006 11:04:04 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
An unlisted lower is an assault weapon the moment you attach a pistol grip to it, no bolt, barrel, trigger or any other hardware required.

You really should know what you are talking about before you say shit. An unlisted lower is only an assault weapon if it has a REMOVABLE magazine and any other features listed.

Posted: 3/16/2006 1:22:30 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
You really should know what you are talking about before you say shit. An unlisted lower is only an assault weapon if it has a REMOVABLE magazine and any other features listed.

He was right. A stripped lower is an assault weapon the moment a pistol grip is attached, as a stripped lower can accept a magazine.

12276.1

(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

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

I could say something snarky here about people saying shit about people saying shit, but that would be rude.

Posted: 3/16/2006 4:11:35 PM EDT

[#7]

Haha I knew that would stir the pot.

Who here knows the DOJ's definition of inoperable?

Are non-firing lowers legal in CA?

What about milled receivers?

Posted: 3/17/2006 2:49:15 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Who here knows the DOJ's definition of inoperable?

Are non-firing lowers legal in CA?

What about milled receivers?

Operable, inoperable, there's nothing about that in the assault weapon law. It's a felony to possess a banned receiver, period.

Posted: 3/17/2006 2:17:21 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Who here knows the DOJ's definition of inoperable?

Are non-firing lowers legal in CA?

What about milled receivers?

Operable, inoperable, there's nothing about that in the assault weapon law. It's a felony to possess a banned receiver, period.

That's my understanding as well, if the receiver is named on the list it doesn't matter if it is 100% stripped, it's just as much an "assault rifle" as a full build with all "evil features".

Posted: 3/17/2006 10:32:47 PM EDT

[#10]

This was almost 2 years ago. I would think that something has happened.

I expect that if the you could drop a bolt and firing pin in it would be hard to argue it was inoperable. Now if you had taken an arc welder and gunked up the chamber and receiver so you couldn't drop the bolt in when you found it at the bottom of the lake you had your fishing accident.

Let's get real about this, if you had an AR without the bolt assembly, do you seriously think you could argue it was inoperable under a "new" loophole. OK argue successfully, yeah me neither.

Posted: 3/18/2006 12:22:22 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You really should know what you are talking about before you say shit. An unlisted lower is only an assault weapon if it has a REMOVABLE magazine and any other features listed.

He was right. A stripped lower is an assault weapon the moment a pistol grip is attached, as a stripped lower can accept a magazine.

12276.1

(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

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

I could say something snarky here about people saying shit about people saying shit, but that would be rude.

He never said it was a stripped lower, just that puting on a pistol grip made it an assault weapon,Not true as other things must apply also. I do apolagize for my rudness though

Posted: 3/18/2006 1:05:42 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Who here knows the DOJ's definition of inoperable?

Are non-firing lowers legal in CA?

What about milled receivers?

Operable, inoperable, there's nothing about that in the assault weapon law.

During the round of AW registrations under SB23 and the DOJ notification process they said one of the options was to make the rifle inoperable. I took that to mean filling the Brl with lead or cement and welding shut the firing pin channel. Not simply removing a couple parts.

As for the unlisted lower being illegal the moment you attach a pistol grip. I disagree. Absent a gas operated upper its not a semi auto rifle. Hell absent the recoil spring its not a semi automatic rifle.

Posted: 3/18/2006 4:01:26 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who here knows the DOJ's definition of inoperable?

Are non-firing lowers legal in CA?

What about milled receivers?

Operable, inoperable, there's nothing about that in the assault weapon law.

During the round of AW registrations under SB23 and the DOJ notification process they said one of the options was to make the rifle inoperable. I took that to mean filling the Brl with lead or cement and welding shut the firing pin channel. Not simply removing a couple parts.

As for the unlisted lower being illegal the moment you attach a pistol grip. I disagree. Absent a gas operated upper its not a semi auto rifle. Hell absent the recoil spring its not a semi automatic rifle.

Yeah, but who wants to be a test case for one of the 58 DAs (DumbAsses) throughout this state?

Posted: 3/19/2006 3:02:27 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
During the round of AW registrations under SB23 and the DOJ notification process they said one of the options was to make the rifle inoperable. I took that to mean filling the Brl with lead or cement and welding shut the firing pin channel. Not simply removing a couple parts.

Yes. Also known as de-milling it. If you call the BATF they will probably suggest some acceptable ways to do this. I suspect the preferred way to de-mill an AR lower would be to saw it in half. I doubt that de-milling the upper would count for much if you had a listed lower.

As for the unlisted lower being illegal the moment you attach a pistol grip. I disagree. Absent a gas operated upper its not a semi auto rifle. Hell absent the recoil spring its not a semi automatic rifle.

Well, that makes perfect sense, but as far as the authorities are concerned (state and Federal), your rifle's receiver is a firearm, as is your handgun's frame. It seems safest to me to act based on that understanding.

And for Mr Charming above, before you start talking shit about what other people post, try reading their posts first. I did mention stripped receivers.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Interesting AW court case in CA

Hometown » California

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us