Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/28/2005 8:27:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2005 5:28:39 PM EDT by KillAgain]
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/9819/calstock37ju.png

It doesn't have a Pistol Grip or Thumbhole stock. The buffer tube is exposed. You could use a regular stubby stock buffer tube with a cheek piece for aiming comfort. As far as the law goes it lists the features and the DOJ leaves it up to you to determine it's legallity. Looks legal to me.
What say You?

Kill
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 8:58:24 PM EDT
Unsure about that grip... They could say it is still a thumbhole stock, as the thumb and rest of the fingers can grip something below the action of the weapon..

I'd try one, if it was sturdy enough and approved.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 10:39:30 PM EDT
I think it was Z-Weaponsystems that tried a small Cali grip for the AR's and it was denied by DOJ.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 10:45:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2005 10:46:53 PM EDT by Mike_Mills]
Guys, if that is an AR receiver, it will be banned as an assault weapon due to the AR series provision of the law.

Is that a FAB-10 receiver or does it take detachable magazines?
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 1:45:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 1:52:55 AM EDT by Skammy]

Originally Posted By realwar:
I think it was Z-Weaponsystems that tried a small Cali grip for the AR's and it was denied by DOJ.



I don't think it was.. we will see once I get my letter back though.. (Check Rob-Arms site under the CA guns.. they have two letters one has a portion that seems to be talking about the ZM grip)

and the grip above would allow the web of the hand to go below the top exposed portion of the trigger so I think it would be no-go.. ("pistol grip")


Originally Posted By Mike_Mills:
Guys, if that is an AR receiver, it will be banned as an assault weapon due to the AR series provision of the law.

Is that a FAB-10 receiver or does it take detachable magazines?



I sent out a letter about Harrott vs. Kings..


Originally Posted By leelaw:
Unsure about that grip... They could say it is still a thumbhole stock, as the thumb and rest of the fingers can grip something below the action of the weapon..

I'd try one, if it was sturdy enough and approved.



I don't think it would fall under thumbhole since there isn't really a hole poking threw anything
i'm not at home so I don't have the definition to look at
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 3:47:30 AM EDT
It would not qualify as thumbhole , But might qualify as a pistol grip, as the web of the hand would still be even with the trigger, if there was a little more meat on the back portion behind the trigger, I think we have a winner here.
What was the reward for beating the DOJ at their own game.
Is this an actual rifle, or is this just your concept drawing?
Also, to get rid of this buffer you could go with the olympic arms pistol design which gets rid of the buffer all together with some sort of other patented recoil system.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 6:14:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 6:17:04 AM EDT by Chaingun]

Originally Posted By Mike_Mills:
Guys, if that is an AR receiver, it will be banned as an assault weapon due to the AR series provision of the law.

Is that a FAB-10 receiver or does it take detachable magazines?



That's the DOJ quagmire, what does DOJ consider banned and not banned. Based on the "series" law even FAB10 is an AR, but DOJ sorta says it's okay BUT check local DAs.

Likewise when does the AR no longer have a pistol grip and is this it?

I'm thinking DOJ will say "too easy to modify back", but maybe not

For legality, the hand lies above the imaginary receiver line, so it technically would be fine.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 1:05:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chaingun:

Originally Posted By Mike_Mills:
Guys, if that is an AR receiver, it will be banned as an assault weapon due to the AR series provision of the law.

Is that a FAB-10 receiver or does it take detachable magazines?



That's the DOJ quagmire, what does DOJ consider banned and not banned. Based on the "series" law even FAB10 is an AR, but DOJ sorta says it's okay BUT check local DAs.



DOJ Logic - the FAB-10 is modified enough to no longer be an AR-15 series.

Same with the Vulcan/Hesse
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 7:43:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By colossians323:
Is this an actual rifle, or is this just your concept drawing?
Also, to get rid of this buffer you could go with the olympic arms pistol design which gets rid of the buffer all together with some sort of other patented recoil system.hr


It is a concept drawing of a Stock I designed awhile ago. I've heard bad things about the Olympic arms buffer.

If having a grip below the action of a semi auto makes it a pistol grip then this wouldn't be legal(which it is):
http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/8450/sopcom28ou.th.jpg
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 7:49:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mike_Mills:
Guys, if that is an AR receiver, it will be banned as an assault weapon due to the AR series provision of the law.

Is that a FAB-10 receiver or does it take detachable magazines?



It has a standard AR15 reciever. You can build your own 80% recievers here legally as long as you abide by the state firearm laws. Nothing on this weapon is violating any of these laws.


Originally Posted By Chaingun:

I'm thinking DOJ will say "too easy to modify back", but maybe not.



If it is Permenantly attached they have nothing on it.

Anyone interested yet?
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 10:19:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KillAgain:

If having a grip below the action of a semi auto makes it a pistol grip then this wouldn't be legal(which it is):
img390.imageshack.us/img390/8450/sopcom28ou.th.jpg



Excuse my questioning, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but who said that stock is legal?
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 4:18:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KillAgain:

Originally Posted By colossians323:
Is this an actual rifle, or is this just your concept drawing?
Also, to get rid of this buffer you could go with the olympic arms pistol design which gets rid of the buffer all together with some sort of other patented recoil system.



It is a concept drawing of a Stock I designed awhile ago. I've heard bad things about the Olympic arms buffer.

If having a grip below the action of a semi auto makes it a pistol grip then this wouldn't be legal(which it is):
img390.imageshack.us/img390/8450/sopcom28ou.th.jpg



If the web of your hand goes below the action, then it is considered a pistol grip, After a second good hard look, it appears that it doesn't go below the grip
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 7:50:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KillAgain:

Originally Posted By Mike_Mills:
Guys, if that is an AR receiver, it will be banned as an assault weapon due to the AR series provision of the law.

Is that a FAB-10 receiver or does it take detachable magazines?



It has a standard AR15 reciever. You can build your own 80% recievers here legally as long as you abide by the state firearm laws. Nothing on this weapon is violating any of these laws.


Originally Posted By Chaingun:

I'm thinking DOJ will say "too easy to modify back", but maybe not.



If it is Permenantly attached they have nothing on it.

Anyone interested yet?



I tend to think we all are.

Have you submitted the proposed design to the DOJ and have received a letter of approval?

When you have the letter I'll get one.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 5:25:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chaingun:

I tend to think we all are.

Have you submitted the proposed design to the DOJ and have received a letter of approval?

When you have the letter I'll get one.



I am in the process of scaling a prototype. I am going to make one out of wood first then one out of Aluminum. The length is going to be the same as it would be on a A2 stock. I'll attach it to a non firing lower and send pics along with some specs to the DOJ and see what they say.
If they allow it I'll sell the prototype to chaingun for $1000. Californian discount of course.
Link Posted: 8/30/2005 6:20:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KillAgain:
I am in the process of scaling a prototype. I am going to make one out of wood first then one out of Aluminum. The length is going to be the same as it would be on a A2 stock. I'll attach it to a non firing lower and send pics along with some specs to the DOJ and see what they say.
If they allow it I'll sell the prototype to chaingun for $1000. Californian discount of course.



As someone who is in the process of getting an AR-15(ish) rifle plan approved in CA, I strongly suggest sending in a prototype, not just pictures. I've talked to a couple people up there (and am still waiting to hear back from their special agent in charge) and they all say to send in something physical, not just pictures.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 5:31:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
As someone who is in the process of getting an AR-15(ish) rifle plan approved in CA, I strongly suggest sending in a prototype, not just pictures. I've talked to a couple people up there (and am still waiting to hear back from their special agent in charge) and they all say to send in something physical, not just pictures.



I've contacted the Firearms Department of the DOJ. I'm basically waiting for them to send me a letter allowing me to make a prototype.
Mind sharing your AR15 plan? If you're afraid to show it because you're scared of people stealing your idea it's fine.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 6:36:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 6:36:58 PM EDT by leelaw]

Originally Posted By KillAgain:

Originally Posted By leelaw:
As someone who is in the process of getting an AR-15(ish) rifle plan approved in CA, I strongly suggest sending in a prototype, not just pictures. I've talked to a couple people up there (and am still waiting to hear back from their special agent in charge) and they all say to send in something physical, not just pictures.



I've contacted the Firearms Department of the DOJ. I'm basically waiting for them to send me a letter allowing me to make a prototype.
Mind sharing your AR15 plan? If you're afraid to show it because you're scared of people stealing your idea it's fine.



I'm not going to share it just yet, but only because I don't want to give out ideas on a plan that is not given the DOJ-OK, which some zealous person might turn into a finished firearm and end up getting in trouble.

Once I get the OK (if) I'm hoping to contact a couple manufacturers and seeing if they would be interested in adopting the design to import into California, and if not, then posting the DOJ letter and design pictures/schematics/whatever online with a suggestion to donate to help recoop the cost of design.

Not intended to offend anyone, just keep those who may take interest in the safe before they get themselves in trouble.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 8:42:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 9:02:40 PM EDT by hycheng]
See the red line above your trigger. The lowest point of the top your stock grip dropped below that red line. You grip is consider a pistol grip now.



The example stock you quoted does not. That's the difference.



From CA DOJ

caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/pistolgrip.htm

Link Posted: 9/1/2005 6:50:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2005 6:52:23 AM EDT by Chaingun]
How about this addition green section to keep some of the hand above the red line? I don't think it's too much grip for a small hand?
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 11:57:23 AM EDT
I would fill up all the white area below the red line just to make sure.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 5:27:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2005 5:29:38 PM EDT by KillAgain]
My email:

I have an idea for a stock design for an Ar15 style lower reciever
that would make it more like conventional rifles. With the new stock design the
rifle would no longer have a pistol grip so it should be legal under California
law. As long as it doesn't have a flash suppressor or a bayonet lug on the
upper reciever assembly. Here is a link to a concept drawing:
http://img356.imageshack.us/my.php?image=calstock34qm.png
Let me know what you think.
Thank you,
XXXXX XXXXXXX

DOJ Response:

Dear XXXXX:

In response to your correspondence, the Dangerous Weapons Control Laws do not
specifically regulate the design/manufacture of rifle stocks. With that said,
your idea to design a stock similiar to the concept drawing you referenced in
your correspondence would appear to be one that could be installed on a semi
automatic centerfire rifle receiver with a detachable magazine without
classifying the firearm as a "characteristics assault weapon" (Penal Code
section 12276.1).

Sincerely,
Mr. Dana McKinnon
Field Representative
Firearms Division
(916) 263-4881

Fast reply! That was one buisness day. I'm not sure but I take his reply as a gohis
I seriously don't see how anyone could call my stock/grip a "pistol grip". I'm going to make one out of a slab of oak because I am more of a wood worker. I'll give updates and pics when I get going on it. I've been too busy with work to start it immediately.

I'm open for suggestions. I have about 5 different mods for this stock but they are all basically functionally similiar but different shapes.

Kill
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 5:34:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KillAgain:
[stuff]



Now comes the part where you need to submit that in writing, requesting a written response.

Then you need to ask two questions; 1) Is this stock considered a "pistol-gripped" or "thumbhole" stock? 2) If permanently installed to an AR-15 style receiver completed from an 80% receiver, is it considered an AR-15 "series" rifle?

You might want to go into detail about how it owuld be "permanently" attached. Might I suggest having it held on with the grip screw, then tap it in place as follows: install grip, drill hole through one side of the grip, through the receiver, through the pistol grip bolt, through the receiver, but refrain from drilling through the other side of the stock. Insert a roll pin into the hole. It now fixes the bolt in place, and since it can't just be punched out (if you drill all the way through) it can not be readily modified back to normal.

Suggest that the design makes it "modified enough" to no longer accept all AR-15 parts, and therefore not an AR-15 series firearm.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 6:08:15 PM EDT
I am still under the impression that it is the features of the rifle that make it an assault rifle not the type. The rifle isn't going to be 100% AR15 and it doesn't have any illegal features.

Like the man said, "your idea to design a stock similiar to the concept drawing you referenced in
your correspondence would appear to be one that could be installed on a semi
automatic centerfire rifle receiver with a detachable magazine without
classifying the firearm as a "characteristics assault weapon" (Penal Code
section 12276.1). "

If that's not good enough to build one then I won't even bother.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 7:20:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2005 7:22:12 PM EDT by leelaw]

Originally Posted By KillAgain:
I am still under the impression that it is the features of the rifle that make it an assault rifle not the type. The rifle isn't going to be 100% AR15 and it doesn't have any illegal features.



WRONG! Dear God don't base that as your reasoning for following through with this project! It can be an AW by feature, AND by series (for AR and AK)

For all you know, all this covers is features, and then answer you have does NOT cover the series ban.

Like the man said, "your idea to design a stock similiar to the concept drawing you referenced in
your correspondence would appear to be one that could be installed on a semi
automatic centerfire rifle receiver with a detachable magazine without
classifying the firearm as a "characteristics assault weapon" (Penal Code
section 12276.1). "

If that's not good enough to build one then I won't even bother.


You want it in writing from the DOJ, emails are worthless.

You also need to have the question answered about if installing it will make it a non-AR-15 series rifle.

Seriously, you're on your way to having one base covered, but your second on eisn't touched.

I strongly recommend getting better answers before you build a rifle with that stock.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 7:44:05 PM EDT
if you don't get a letter from the doj to go with your rifle it is not legal. the fab10 and the vulcan come with that letter. get the letter and i will buy one. i am sure many others would also.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 8:36:14 PM EDT
Even though I don't agree with their interpretation, in the DOJ's eyes that receiver is going to violate the AWB not by feature but by name:

CHAPTER 2.3. ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS CONTROL ACT OF 1989

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:

(5) Colt AR-15 series.

Even though it's not a "Colt" and even though its not an "AR-15", the DOJ still (illegally) classifies it as such. Regardless of whether or not the DOJ considers the stock to be a protruding pistol grip or thumbhole stock, unless that lower receiver is modified to a certain extent (an extent of which has not been decided upon) it is still an AR15 receiver.

The reason that the DOJ does not consider the FAB-10 and Vulcan to be an AR-15 receiver is because they have fixed 10 round magazines. It is the DOJ's interpretation that this modification alters the state of the lower receiver enough to no longer be considered an AR-15 series.

Now, if you get written approval from the DOJ (an actual physical letter, and not just an email) which states that the stock is not considered a protruding pistol grip or thumbhole stock, thats great. The rifle is not considered an assault weapon by feature. It will still be considered an assault weapon by virtue of its series classification.

Simply put, the lower receive cannot be left in the state it is in, for it to be considered legal in CA.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 9:47:59 PM EDT
I'm sure if he has a standard name brand receiver he wouldn't need to be making a new type of stock. Currently his only legal option would be to build one from an 80% receiver. I'm not sure if the stock has to be permanent, but it would help in getting it passed. Lee keep us posted on the status of your design, and good luck to the both of you.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 9:51:55 PM EDT
There's a "loophole" big enough to drive a truck through in the difference between "would appear" in an E-mail and "is".

Get it in writing definitely that it does not meet the characteristics test of the law.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 11:14:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KillAgain:
I am still under the impression that it is the features of the rifle that make it an assault rifle not the type. The rifle isn't going to be 100% AR15 and it doesn't have any illegal features.

Like the man said, "your idea to design a stock similiar to the concept drawing you referenced in
your correspondence would appear to be one that could be installed on a semi
automatic centerfire rifle receiver with a detachable magazine without
classifying the firearm as a "characteristics assault weapon" (Penal Code
section 12276.1). "

If that's not good enough to build one then I won't even bother.



?! How long ago did you send that!? my responses take forever and probably only 1/4th get returned!
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 11:31:53 PM EDT
Do you have a registered lower you can install this buttstock design on so you can submit it to the technicians at the CA DOJ firearms department to analyze? (With the possibility that it won't be returned?).

A letter from a DOJ bureaucrat sitting at a desk can't be considered legal approval. They've been known to give faulty information.

The design still has to pass a technical and legal review.
Link Posted: 9/2/2005 7:07:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:

Originally Posted By KillAgain:
I am still under the impression that it is the features of the rifle that make it an assault rifle not the type. The rifle isn't going to be 100% AR15 and it doesn't have any illegal features.



WRONG! Dear God don't base that as your reasoning for following through with this project! It can be an AW by feature, AND by series (for AR and AK)

For all you know, all this covers is features, and then answer you have does NOT cover the series ban.

Like the man said, "your idea to design a stock similiar to the concept drawing you referenced in
your correspondence would appear to be one that could be installed on a semi
automatic centerfire rifle receiver with a detachable magazine without
classifying the firearm as a "characteristics assault weapon" (Penal Code
section 12276.1). "

If that's not good enough to build one then I won't even bother.


You want it in writing from the DOJ, emails are worthless.

You also need to have the question answered about if installing it will make it a non-AR-15 series rifle.

Seriously, you're on your way to having one base covered, but your second on eisn't touched.

I strongly recommend getting better answers before you build a rifle with that stock.




killagain

Take leelaw's advice, this must be in writing or it's useless.

AR and AK "series" is still an issue. When is a receiver no longer considered a "series" receiver.

Hope you can get this to fly.
Link Posted: 9/3/2005 1:12:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mike_Mills:
Guys, if that is an AR receiver, it will be banned as an assault weapon due to the AR series provision of the law.




correct.
Link Posted: 9/3/2005 9:16:31 PM EDT
Well if it is that deadly of an issue with the state then I'll wait to get written approval before I install it on a lower reciever without a fixed magazine.

I was under the impression that the 80% recievers were ok to build as long as you build them to legal specifications(ie. fixed mag). I remember seeing a letter from the DOJ posted on this site and it basically said that the builder determines whether it is legal according to state laws.

Did anyone else see it or who posted it? It was at least a year ago.

All my intention was to create an alternative to having a fixed magazine. But if it is legal to build an 80% lower legally if you make it without "assault weapon" features without written consent from the DOJ. I don't see why you couldn't lose other features to have a detatchable magazine.

Link Posted: 9/3/2005 10:40:49 PM EDT
A very wise man used to tell me, "you may very well have a case in the court of law but do you really want to be the test case in the court of law ?"
Link Posted: 9/3/2005 11:46:05 PM EDT
Best quote about law I ever heard was just a short while ago and it was something like

"Too bad we now have a legal system instead of a justice system like the founding father's planned."
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 6:31:42 PM EDT
I just finished building another rifle were I fixed a Bushmaster 10rnd mag in the well of an 80% receiver. It's just like the Vulcan Arms were the pin is in the mag catch. Yes it's legal, but I don't have a DOJ letter for it. Pictures upon request.
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 7:23:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2005 7:24:05 PM EDT by DLoken]
Since the CA AWB doesn't cover rimfire rifles why does someone not make an AR15 with a custom magwell that only accepts a .22 caliber magazine and a .22LR upper? It could be a fun little rifle. Or brin g back large caliber rimfire rounds.

I'm thankfully not a resident of California but this issue has interested me for a long time.
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 8:28:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DLoken:
Since the CA AWB doesn't cover rimfire rifles why does someone not make an AR15 with a custom magwell that only accepts a .22 caliber magazine and a .22LR upper? It could be a fun little rifle. Or brin g back large caliber rimfire rounds.

I'm thankfully not a resident of California but this issue has interested me for a long time.



It's in the works.
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 10:24:42 PM EDT
I thought the series ban was struck down in court....
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 10:55:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 12:25:29 PM EDT by leelaw]

Originally Posted By Darkest2000:
I thought the series ban was struck down in court....



Only in one county in southern California. The DOJ didn't appeal the decision because if the same was decided at the state level, then the caselaw would nullify the series ban. Since then, the DOJ has disregarded the court decision.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:33:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 2:40:01 PM EDT by Chaingun]
This looks similar and is not DOJ approved. Maybe find out from DOJ how much of a hand must be above the imaginary line, and do fingers count. GGM what we go through!



Link Posted: 9/6/2005 9:19:35 PM EDT
Will someone please show me where it says what constitutes as a pistol grip.

I am very familiar with California guns laws and I have never read anything that determined whether or not a rifles stock design constitutes as a pistol grip.]

I just figured that my design would automatically be considered a rifle stock because it is in no way a pistol grip.

What I don't understand about the whole, imaginary reciever line grip thing is this: Where is the correlation between the hand placement and the trigger?

I honestly don't see it.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 9:26:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KillAgain:
Will someone please show me where it says what constitutes as a pistol grip.

I am very familiar with California guns laws and I have never read anything that determined whether or not a rifles stock design constitutes as a pistol grip.]

I just figured that my design would automatically be considered a rifle stock because it is in no way a pistol grip.

What I don't understand about the whole, imaginary reciever line grip thing is this: Where is the correlation between the hand placement and the trigger?

I honestly don't see it.



We never said the guys in Sacramento made sense
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 11:32:19 PM EDT
The inherit design of the AR lower and the buffer tube makes it very difficult to get around the pistol grip design according to CA DOJ. Either stick with a fixed mag AR or change your shooting platform.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:48:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KillAgain:
Will someone please show me where it says what constitutes as a pistol grip.



It doesn't.

We have our own definition. It's not a legal definition, but it seems to fit the legal rulings (eg, thumbhole stocks banned same as pistol grip stocks).

In our definition, it's down to where your thumb is: if your thumb is above the trigger, you have a nice, dolphin-safe traditonal stock. If your thumb is below the trigger, it's an evil baby-killing pistol grip stock.

According to our definition, your stock would qualify as dolphin-safe.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 11:04:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mesa_Tactical:

Originally Posted By KillAgain:
Will someone please show me where it says what constitutes as a pistol grip.



It doesn't.

We have our own definition. It's not a legal definition, but it seems to fit the legal rulings (eg, thumbhole stocks banned same as pistol grip stocks).

In our definition, it's down to where your thumb is: if your thumb is above the trigger, you have a nice, dolphin-safe traditonal stock. If your thumb is below the trigger, it's an evil baby-killing pistol grip stock.

According to our definition, your stock would qualify as dolphin-safe.



Excerpted from Department of Justice Regulations for Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines, section II, sec. 978.20(d)

"pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon”
means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger
hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the
exposed portion of the trigger while firing.


In my opinion, your design for a bolt-on stock to a standard AR15 receiver is not going to be legal in California because, (1) it is being attached to a AR15 series receiver, which is banned, (2) the web of the trigger hand is not clearly above the exposed top portion of the trigger.

If your proposed a new receiver design with an integral stock that relocated the trigger to a new position below the grip area, you would be legal -- in my opinion.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 1:42:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 1:43:24 PM EDT by KillAgain]

Originally Posted By fun2none:
"pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon”
means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger
hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the
exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

In my opinion, your design for a bolt-on stock to a standard AR15 receiver is not going to be legal in California because, (1) it is being attached to a AR15 series receiver, which is banned, (2) the web of the trigger hand is not clearly above the exposed top portion of the trigger.

If your proposed a new receiver design with an integral stock that relocated the trigger to a new position below the grip area, you would be legal -- in my opinion.



You can legally build 80% finished recievers for your own use in California as long as they're not being sold and don't have "Assault Rifle" features.
So if a conspicuous protrusion beneath the action actually does mean the placement of the web of your hand..

Easy fix:
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 8:58:45 PM EDT
The latest revision is spot on. I would suggest making the stock integral to the receiver to ensure that a pistol grip (AW evil feature) cannot be used.

What use is an 80% receiver ? A 100% functioning receiver is needed to make a working rifle. Building an AR15 receiver that can accept all the standard parts is too risky. The final design should follow the established precedent set by the FAB10, where the receiver precludes the use of an evil feature or capability, like accepting a detachable magazine. In this case, the receiver can only be used with the horizontal-hand-above-trigger stock, thereby eliminating a feature that (1) classifies the rifle as an AR15 series, and (2) is prohibited by the statutes.

I would suggest making a non-functional mockup of the stock & receiver for proof of concept testing. Use wood for your first pattern.
Link Posted: 9/8/2005 11:26:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2005 11:30:42 PM EDT by Skammy]
Here is something I put in a letter I sent the DOJ :

As the specified rifle is only a centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine,
the horizontal grip does not qualify as a pistol grip per your letter to C.D. Micheal Attorney at Law of
December 17, 2003 which can be found at http://www.robarm.com/DOJ%20Answers%208Jan04.pdf.
The letter states the following :

"11 CCR 978.20 (d) defines a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the
weapon to mean, "...a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand
(between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the
trigger while firing."

A "pistol style grasp" allows the fingers to wrap firmly around the grip. The alternative
Barrett 82A1 "thumb hold" exemplar cannot be considered an assault weapon pistol grip
because the device allows only for the thumb and not all fingers, to grasp the device."
The pictured grip only allows for the thumb and not all fingers to grasp it.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 1:22:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Skammy:
Here is something I put in a letter I sent the DOJ :

As the specified rifle is only a centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine,
the horizontal grip does not qualify as a pistol grip per your letter to C.D. Micheal Attorney at Law of
December 17, 2003 which can be found at http://www.robarm.com/DOJ%20Answers%208Jan04.pdf.
The letter states the following :

"11 CCR 978.20 (d) defines a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the
weapon to mean, "...a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand
(between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the
trigger while firing."

A "pistol style grasp" allows the fingers to wrap firmly around the grip. The alternative
Barrett 82A1 "thumb hold" exemplar cannot be considered an assault weapon pistol grip
because the device allows only for the thumb and not all fingers, to grasp the device."
The pictured grip only allows for the thumb and not all fingers to grasp it.



You won't get a response; they fear intellectuals and laws that are constitutional.
Link Posted: 9/9/2005 2:17:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2005 2:19:41 AM EDT by Skammy]
Still waiting sent out like 6 letters Aug 14th
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top