I think I have a basic understanding of the AW laws in CA and I am considering completing an 80% lower and matching it up with a Bushmaster .22 rimfire upper.  To my limited understanding, the AW laws only pertain to centerfire rifles so I think I am ok with a .22 rimfire.

Since I do not want to break the law, does anyone see a problem with build?

I do have a FAB10 which I enjoy shooting but I am looking for something my wife and son can "plink" with.  If I had the FAB10 next to the .22 could I get busted since I would, in theory, have the parts (the lower on the .22 could accept a detachable mag and the .223 LMT upper on the FAB10) available to assemble a non-registered AR.  The only thing I wouldn't have are the AR magazines, I would have the 10 round, .22 detachable mags.  

I once emailed the DOJ about something along these lines and the response I got back was basically if the receiver can be used and assembled as a centerfire rifle, then it had to follow those laws as well. So once you build up the reciever with a removable magazine well (don't need the magazine) and a pistol grip you are in hot water. Again, this was an email so it's not their official stance and could even be a flat out lie; but I like to use it as a my guide. If it can be used as a centerfire receiver as well, then you would be treading VERY close to breaking the law, if not breaking the law flat out. Now if you modified the reciver in some way so it couldn't take centerfire cartridges, then I would expect that you would be ok. This isn't legal advice though, just the way I interpret the laws myself which could easily be very wrong.

E30M3 wrote: I think I have a basic understanding of the AW laws in CA and I am considering completing an 80% lower and matching it up with a Bushmaster .22 rimfire upper.

Please read the FAQ over on Calguns.Net...
  http://www.calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm

I don't know how many times I've had to tell folks this...  there is some legal risk to 80% lower buildups.  I know there even is a DOJ letter saying it's OK, but...

But... this is one of the things where the '58 DAs'  does indeed come into play. An argument could well be made that there is no practicable way of listing homebuilt ARs/AKs by specific make and model, and thus Harrott protections might not apply to these, just lowers in general commercial circulation.  Thus, if Harrott doesn't apply, Kasler still might - making it fall back into "an AR is an AR is an AR...." territory, which really puts you in harm's way.  Not only might you get jacked for an unreg'd AW charge, you could get manufacturing charges too.

There is absolutely NO rational reason for anyone in California to build up an AR or AK frame from an 80% blank.  (The 80% isn't the problem - it's when it becomes 100%.)

To my limited understanding, the AW laws only pertain to centerfire rifles so I think I am ok with a .22 rimfire.

Yes but the primary function of that design is as a centerfire rifle.  If the upper is detached from the lower, then you're in a world of hurt if you don't have a fixed 10rd magazine - an open magwell and a pistol grip and/or telestock would make it an illegal AW.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

Hey Bill I got a question for you. *Yes I understand that this is not legal advice, nor is it legally binding or anything like that. I simply hold your OPINION of the law in higher regard than most simply because you have a better knowledge of it. I guess this is more asking if you see anything wrong with this idea, rather than is it legal*

I have an 80% receiver that I made up some time ago, maybe a year and a half ago. I made it in anticipation of the .50 ban, it's an AR by looks, but has a solid mag well (I'm sure you know the ones I am talking about). I have decided to not register it and as such I have decided to either use it for a different caliber or modify it. I was thinking of opening up the mag well on my mill, however not add the rear groove for the magazine (the one that the follower rides in) and not milling out the front inch or so the of the magazine. I could then use a Ciener kit and simply chop off the front inch from the magazine adapter. This would NOT allow any centerfire magazines or cartrdiges to be loaded via the mag well, but would allow the newly modified, and still 10 round so legal, Ciener mags to be used in their originaly position so no other alterations would need to be made to any other part of the rifle.

Do you see anything wrong with a modification like this?

Thanks for the great input, sounds like I am best sticking with a Ruger 10/22 (which is still a fun plinker).

Quoted: I have an 80% receiver that I made up some time ago, maybe a year and a half ago. I made it in anticipation of the .50 ban, it's an AR by looks, but has a solid mag well (I'm sure you know the ones I am talking about).

OK, those are fine.  Those ain't ARs.  Feel free to make a closed magwell AR-like receiver, just as long as you mark it appropriately, etc.

I was thinking of opening up the mag well on my mill, however not add the rear groove for the magazine (the one that the follower rides in) and not milling out the front inch or so the of the magazine. I could then use a Ciener kit and simply chop off the front inch from the magazine adapter. This would NOT allow any centerfire magazines or cartrdiges to be loaded via the mag well, but would allow the newly modified, and still 10 round so legal, Ciener mags to be used in their originaly position so no other alterations would need to be made to any other part of the rifle. Do you see anything wrong with a modification like this?

Are the cuts in the magwell area specific for the Ciener 22LR conversion mag?
No other centerfire caliber could fit in there? (25ACP could, perhaps, but no mags exist for that).

I belive this would get you out of the centerfire league and would be sufficiently different from "AR-land".

I would mark the receiver 22LR.

Bill W.
San Jose

That's what I was thinking. All current production mag blocks couldn't fit in it, and no AR style mags could fit in it. There might be mags that could FIT in it, but it woudl be imposible to keep them there once your hand is removed, unless you had a mag block but as I already said no mag block exists that would fit.

I think I might do that, because I would rather have another 22 than a large bore rifle.