Those of you who would like some brain teasers, consider this years CA Supreme Court ruling, Harrot vs County of Kings,:



And this dug up by USNvet:


So it seems clear to me that either the Fulton FAR-15 or the Tannery striped lowers are legal in CA as long as it doesn't meet the SB23 definition of a AW. This should be easily done by shortening and rethreading the mag release lever so that the button is recessed. Thus, a bullet tip or other tool is needed to release the mag.

The CA supreme court clearly states that the AG must submit specific models of AW to include in the ban list to a superior court within CA with a population of 1 million or more. Without this, there is no due process that the US constitution requires. Thus, the series amendment is struck down. Even though the Bushmaster XM15 is on the list, this means that the series definition cannot be applicable to the FAR-15 until the AG submit a list with the FAR-15 on it.

So, why are we not seeing AR lowers for sale in CA yet? Either I'm wrong because I don't have Perata's convoluted logic or FFL's in CA are too nervous. [b]What do you think?[/b]

Here's a link to the full text of the ruling:
[url]http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/harrott_v_kings.txt[/url]

Sounds right to me.

Paul, law did end that hole until the CA supreme court struck down a key component as unconstitutional. This key component is the language of the law where it states firearms with similar features regardless of model and manufacturer is also considered a banned AW. The supremem court found this part failing due process and states that only firearms specifically identifed in section 12276 are banned.

So this means that we are back to earlier '90 with regards to the '89 AW ban. The AG must specifically list the make and model. When he/she does so, owners have 90 days to register. The annoyance is SB23 which restricts features. However, I believe that because of section 978.20 of the code, it is easy to avoid SB23.

To conclude, we are right back to where we started with all of this mess. Perata didn't really do a darn thing. We just have to buy a AR-type lower which is not specifically listed in section 122276 and build it as to avoid the definitions of SB23. If/when Lockyer puts that specific make and model on the list within 122276, we can register it and put all the features we want on it that is allowed by the federal '94 crime bill.

It would appear that the Tannery Shop or any other 80% lowers are not legal in California.  They would be considered "zip guns" under California law.

Then there's this:

12276.1.  (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the [b]capacity[/b] 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.
[b](2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.[/b]

The "capacity" to accept a detachable magazine would include the FAR-15 unless it was permanently modified to prohibit the installation of a standard AR15/M16 magazine.  Simply changing the magazine catch parts on a rifle only makes it harder to remove the magazine.  

You would have to permanently alter the standard 10 round magazine in such a way that it couldn't be used in a standard AR15-type rifle.  The definition quoted in "Section 978.20" applies to the magazine, not the rifle.  All a prosecutor would have to do is insert the magazine removed from your rifle with a tool into an unmodified AR15, then push the mag release button.  Oops.  Still a detachable magazine and your modified rifle has the capacity to accept it.

Dave_G, yes I thought of that. However, check out DS Arms CA version of the FAL which has DOJ approval. [url]http://www.dsarms.com/SA58_T48_Replica.htm[/url]

Also, one can remove the pistol grip instead.

As to a Tannery lower being a zip gun, I don't understand how it could be so. Can you explain your thoughts on this?

stator,

I have no interest in the DSA replica FAL and try to find a dealer who will sell you a rifle or receiver.

Do your own research on what qualifies as a zip gun in California.  It's easy and it is very clear as to what a zip gun is.  [url]www.leginfo.ca.gov[/url]

Gee David, bad turkey day? You were the one who brought up that a Tannery lower appears to be a zip gun in CA. Here's the zip gun code from SB23:


Very confusing. However, we can rule out the intention of the manufacturer because with a Tannery 80% lower, you would be the manufacturer and the intent is solely yours. Also, if Tannery lowers are zip guns then so would all ARs for that matter. However, these are not as you wouldn't be able to register and keep them as zip guns are outlawed. Furthermore, the American Heritage Dictionary defines a zip gun as:



There is nothing crude about a Tannery lower from the pictures of folks who've completed them that I can tell.

I pointed out the DSA FAL because it falls under the same classification you stated for the AR with a modified mag release. If want you say is true, then the question arises of how did DSA get this FAL approved?

Finally, as to your reference about dealers, I've noticed several dealers selling FALs and G3 clones without the pistol grip in the Crossroads SF show this month. So there are some dealers.  

BTW, Springfield CA legal replacements for the flash hidder is legal in DCM competition. I also suspect that the 20-round mag ruling will eventually be changed as well. If CMP and the NRA do not change their rules to reflect gun laws, then they will slowly obsolete their competition programs.

stator,

It's California Penal Code Section 12020(a)(1), not Sb23.  There is nothing confusing about it.  Tannery Shop 80% lowers, once completed as firearms, meet all of the criteria listed and qualify as zip guns under California law, your dictionary definition notwithstanding.

As for all AR15s being zip guns under 12020(a)(1) PC, those from licensed manufactures do not meet either two or three of the criteria listed under the defining section.  To be a zip gun, they must meet all four.

In regard to finding a dealer, what I meant to say was "I have no interest in the DSA replica FAL and try to find a dealer who will sell you a[blue]true AR15-type[/b] rifle or receiver."  I still have no interest in a FAL or HK91-type rifle.

Gee David, you've got it all wrong. First, english language definitions are very relevant to laws because of "due process". When I quoted the dictionary, I had a hunch you would fall for that.

In addition, SB23 is very important because this was the only bill to pass that revises the zip gun code you are referring to which is:

If you read the code further down to section 10, you will find the SB23 provisions. Again, these are:


Notice, David, that it says a zip gun must meet all of the following. First, a tannery lower is not imported. Second, you'r the manufacturer so if your intent is to finish it into a rifle, then it is NOT A ZIP GUN. Plus, self manufactured is exempt from taxes. Again, a tannery lower is NOT A ZIP GUN. I don't know how you can read these four criterias as applicable to 80% receivers.

I've noticed that your replies to my posts are usually negative, short on though and logic, designed to end discussions, and done with ardor. Either you are not that bright, or you have a problem with posts authored by stator. I think it is the later. Therefore, you can kiss my Navy arse.

I brought up this discussion over the CAV-15 which is also not listed.  We can debate this issue until blue in the face, but the bottom line is DOJ approval for import.  All dealers require this before importing.  Last I heard the CAV-15 was submitted, BUT the DOJ sits on making a decision.  Must obvious reason is not ruffling the feathers of our fearless Caliban rulers.

Their obvious purpose at Caliban headquarters is to wait on new submissions for import until the AG can add the new model to the list.

Then they'll have legal cause to reject it, as a named assault weapon.

stator, I agree with your opening post logic. Must be a Navy thing as others don't seem to agree. I've read through that zip gun definition before. My thoughts are:

A Tannery_Shop or other 80% lower, completed by a build-it-yourselfer, even without the pistol grip attached, is obviously a copy of a firearm "[b]originally designed[/b]... by [b]a[/b] manufacturer licensed... (Gene Stoner - Armalite/Colt)"


Aren't home builders exempt from paying the excise tax, and that's why home builts cannot be offered for sale?

Troy, that 978.20(a) definition of detachable magazine came from the DOJ site. A bullet is very clearly a tool in the eyes of DOJ, or am I missing your point?


Circuits, hopefully the Northern, Central, and Southern PRK voters Alliance will run Osama bin Lockyer out of Caliban headquarters and into his cave next election!

stator,

SB23 didn't alter the definition of a zip gun.  All it did was alter 12020(a) into sub-paragraph (1) or 12020(a).

A Tannery 80% lower was not imported as a firearm; 12020(c)(10)(A) CPC

A Tannery 80% lower was designed to be an 80% complete component part that could be finished as an Ar15-type lower receiver, and as such, a non-firearm; 12020(c)(10)(B) CPC.  If it was designed to be a copy of a Colt AR15 or another weapon identified as an assault weapon under the 12276 CPC or 12276.1 CPC, with the appropriate evil feature(s), then you have created another problem for yourself by manufacturing an illegal assault weapon.    

A Tannery 80% lower, when finished as a complete firearm, is made or altered to expel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.  12020(c)(10)(D) CPC

There remains only one question;  Does the manufacture of one or more Tannery 80% lowers into firearms for the personal use of the manufacturer, not incidental to any other manufacturing activity involving Tannery 80% lowers, fall under the provisions of 27 CFR 53.112, and offer a grant of an exemption from paying the tax?  Or did I miss a more appropriate 27 CFR section?  That is a question for lawyers and judges, not someone with a copy of the American Heritage Dictionary.

Any alteration of the FAR-15 rifle with modified magazine catch parts that would make it necessary to use a tool to remove a magazine, and not allow the activation of the recessed button with a smaller-than-mine little finger, would have to be done by the manufacturer or distributer while the rifle was out of state.  Further, to prevent the use of standard 20 and 30 round magazines, the DOJ would probably require that the receiver accept only the proprietary 10 round magazine.  At any rate, the rifle could not be imported into California without the altered magazine retention parts.

(Edited to correct omissions pointed out by Troy.)

Troy's right.  As written, the lower could be complete without an upper receiver being installed.  I probably should have said something like, "completed as a working firearm."  About the "series" issue, in that case, I meant "copy of a Colt AR15" to mean "with the evil feature(s)."  I should have been clearer.  

Dave, that FAL you have no desire to own? You can purchase one at Entreprise Arms, in Irwindale, CA.

I think DSA, Entreprise Arms and ARS (Arizona Response Systems) have researched the laws enough, gotten DOJ approval to convince me one doesn't have to modify your lower not to accept larger than 10 round mags.

To me it seems it's like the SKS and full auto on a AR, the SKS is easily converted to a detachable mag and ARs are easily converted to full auto, yet one doesn't have to convert the firearm not to accept those parts.

Those Tannery 80% make cool looking paperweights!