Posted: 6/7/2001 8:30:10 PM EDT
| Has anybody tried one of the GoGoGadgets.com FAB-10 "California Legal" AR lowers? I'd like to know if any Californian FFL's are willing to handle these things. I'm on my way down to the People's Rubublik next month and want something to attach all the uppers I'm bringing down to so I can keep in practice (10 shots at a time). |
|
It's actually [url]www.gogogadgets.net[/url], not .com, in case you were looking for it. And it is NOT "Kalifornia Legal", as it has not received any approval from the PRK DOJ. BATF approval means nothing in the PRK; the DOJ is the final authority with regards to either SB23 or RR89-related firearms. And as an AR-style lower, it falls under RR89, not SB23 as the web page claims, and RR89 bans things by name, and, theoretically, covers all "clones". If RR89 applies to your gun, then the features of the gun make no difference. The way it is written, they could make a Daisy Red Rider BB-Gun a banned assault weapon under RR89 simply by adding it to the list. Unless the DOJ backs off from that position, which I submit is highly unlikely, don't expect to legally buy any AR15-style lowers in the PRK. -Troy |
|
That's sort of what I'd thought so I asked. I figured someone behind enemy lines might know better. GoGo claims "California Legal" but until dealers sell them I wouldn't import one. I've checked on all my pistols and they've made the list so I'll drop the $14 each to register them. I have to get an opinion on whether a screw is a pistol grip. My FAL is legal as long as I remove the pistol grip. But when that's done there is a long inch and a half or so mounting screw left behind. I suppose I have to figure out how to remove it too. Is is just me or does this not suck? I can work around nuclear missiles, carry weapon's launch codes but not a rifle with a pistol grip. |
|
Well this (the gogo design) is exactly what I and others have been talking about last year on the old forum, and in the "build it yourself" forum just recently. Troy, in my opinion an AR "clone" is just that, a nearly exact copy of a Colt AR, with only minor differences. Colt's AR, and all the banned clones accept detachable magazines. I don't think it is the "look" of an AR that is banned, but the general design which includes the evil detachable magazine. It this weren't the case, how does DPMS get away with selling their single shot AR "look alike"? |
|
Yes, but don't forget that it is the PRK DOJ's opinion that counts, not yours or mine. And to date, their opinion is "all clones and similar models". Note that they consider AR10s and SR25s as "clones" of the AR15. They also have not allowed the DPMS Panther Pump model, as they consider this an AR15. Remember, I hate this crap more than any of you (believe me!), and it's only because of that that I have taken all of the time to learn how the laws could potentially be applied to me. -Troy |
|
It's going to be interesting to see the outcome of the first few SB23 violation cases that make it to court. The appeals court already threw out SB23, only to be reversed by the prk supremes. And local DA's still have to get past all 12 jurist's. All we need is one pro-gun jurist with common sense sitting on each trial! I can see DOJ's point on including AR10's and SR25's, as they are just upscaled AR15's. The DPMS pump is just a standard lower (now banned), with a pump upper, right? No doubt that's why DOJ won't allow that either, as it will accept a gas upper and be illegal. We'll just have to wait and see if GoGo gets it in writing. I think they should, based upon SB23's "features" requirements. Here's another option posted by ARs4Ever: [url]http://www.usit.com/ares/[/url] Wonder if this would be legal on a DPMS single shot lower with no more than 10 round belts!!! |
|
On 6/13/01 I recieved an e-mail from GoGoGadgets in response to my inquiry, that stated: " I just recieved the approval letter from California DOJ. This whole thing has been quite a lengthy process. I am in the process of machining the recievers at this time. After they are finished being machined, they have to be hard coated. I am extremely picky and will not ship recievers until they are exactly the quality that I expect them to be. The major hurdles are over and I really hope to be shipping recievers in July. I will let you know when I am ready to recieve orders. Thank you for your patience." Maybe this will pan out after all! |
|
Just looked at the link for the "Shrike" from Aries. It wouldn't be legal in CA. Here's why: "This allows the weapon to fire with either linked-ammunition or magazines, and it is designed to fit ALL AR-15 and M-16 type lower receivers." So it accepts a detachable mag. An evil feature. A no-no in CA. Just re-read the question, isn't the DPMS single shot basically a different upper? |
|
Quoted: Just looked at the link for the "Shrike" from Aries. It wouldn't be legal in CA. Here's why: "This allows the weapon to fire with either linked-ammunition or magazines, and it is designed to fit ALL AR-15 and M-16 type lower receivers." So it accepts a detachable mag. An evil feature. A no-no in CA. So are belt fed now illegal in CA? The gun show in San Jose last weekend had several belt fed semi auto .30 and .50 caliber weapons for sale. If belt fed is still legal, a Shrike upper on a FAB-10 lower will be legal as long as it does not have a flash hider, bayonet lug, etc. Or am I overlooking something glaringly obvious? |
|
Belt fed is still (for the moment) legal in California. Belts are considered the same as high capacity magazines, so it's illegal to link more than ten rounds together unless the links are pre-ban, or in the case of cloth belts, if the belt is pre-ban. Similarly, it's illegal now to buy, sell or import high-capacity belts or pre-ban links into cali, so if you're not already belted or linked up, you've got no legal way to get some in cali. The legality bit was that AR-15's are on the RR89 list, so can't be brought into Cali regardless of features, and must have been owned before the registration deadline, and registered to be legal for use there. If the FAB-10 is a 'california legal design' meaning it has been made not to take detachable magazines, then adding a shrike upper to it would probably not be allowed. Those with existing, registered "assault weapons" AR-15's would be able to mount the shrike on their lower, though. Unless, of course, the ATF decides that the shrike upper is a firearm all by itself (like they did with brpguns' XMG-99 beltfed upper for the AR-15). Then, it would probably quickly be added to the RR list all by itself. |