User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 12:44:48 AM EDT
Well, you can't. But you can do the next best thing, you can buy the DSA "ZM4" receiver! The ZM4 receiver will accept AR-style magazines... as a matter of fact it is compatible with ALL AR-style parts, including upper receivers, trigger groups, etc. According to the CA DOJ, since it's not specifically banned on the assault weapon list, it's legal to buy a *stripped* DSA ZM4 receiver. NOTE: It is NOT legal to attach a pistol grip or any other banned feature to a rifle you might build on this receiver (no flash supressors, collapsible stocks, etc).
This is all legal thanks to a supreme court decision, "Harrott v Kings County" in which the court declared that the DOJ's banning of the "AR-15 series" was too vague; only guns specifically identified by name or containing one of the evil features (e.g. pistol grip) are now banned. I have contacted the DOJ personally to confirm that this is the case, and have posted their response below. Note that they plan on banning all DSA receivers soon, so if you want one you better get it quickly! Feel free to PM me if you need more information.   oh, and in case you are wondering exactly what the DSA ZM4 receiver looks like, check out their own link:  Now, I know what you're thinking: that's great, but if I can't put a pistol grip on it, how can I shoot it? Well, aside from sawing off the pistol grip yourself, you might want to look into the ATF-approved "non-pistol" grip for the AR-15, manufactured by the same guy who brought us the FAB-10: .jpg) I don't know if the CA DOJ would consider this a pistol grip. However, the ATF didn't think it counted as a "conspicously potruding pistol grip" when they considered its legality during the federal AWB. Enjoy! __________________ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 1:25:00 AM EDT
[#1]
So is it just a matter of the DSA receiver having not made the list yet and it is otherwise an AR receiver (i.e. detachable magazine, semi-automatic, pistol grip, et. al.)? Just curious, and great digging and inquiry.
I got the okey dokey just over a year ago to buy an AR-10 receiver and register it as a single shot rifle as I built a low budget version of the Tubb 2000. Thing is a tack driver too! Nonetheless, great work and hope folks jump on it! Any word on if the grip is alright that you've pictured (i.e. in combination with a semi-auto rifle)? The only other trick will be finding dealers that will DROS it for you. Many are terrified of stepping on the AR line. SPC Richard A. White, Senior Medic 249th MP Detachment (EACF) Camp Humphreys, ROK |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 1:32:07 AM EDT
[#2]
how about those thumbhole stocks ? will that work ?
I smell a goup buy on the ZM4 ...   |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 2:17:53 AM EDT
[#3]
exocet:
According to the DOJ, "thumbhole stocks" are one of the evil features, and their use on a DSA ZM4 receiver would constitute the unlawful assembly of an "assault weapon". HOWEVER, the details on what exactly constitutes a thumbhole stock are sketchy at best, and the idea isn't clearly defined in the law. Keep up the good work guys, we need to put all of our heads together on this one! The knowledge we need to defeat the CA AWB has not been found yet, BUT... I'm sure that if we work together we can discover the secret! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 2:18:49 AM EDT
[#4]
if im reading that right..it says that they will be required to be registered eventually.. So does that mean at that point you can put all the evil features on it ??,since it would then be a cali registered AW.??
Hmmm is there a loophole here..?? All DSA receivers that means the FAl receivers as well..time to stock up.!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 2:23:29 AM EDT
[#5]
I'm not lawyer, but YES, that is my understanding. The DOJ's in kind a tough spot right now; if they don't ban the DSA receiver, people are just going to keep buying it forever, effectively wiping out the CA AWB. If they do ban the DSA receiver, then everyone who bought them gets to "upgrade" with all the evil features they want. After all, according to the CA AWB law, every AW is illegal to possess UNLESS it has been lawfully registered with the DOJ. Either way, it seems to be a win-win situation for us!
Yep. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 2:26:11 AM EDT
[#6]
okay BUT...there are dozens of new manufactured AR type receivers on the market that "arent on the list" wouldnt these be legal as well.???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 2:48:55 AM EDT
[#7]
 Nice to see the anti-gunners choke on their own legal bullshit!Buy 'em while you can, guys. I hope it works out that you can add "evil" features to them too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 2:50:51 AM EDT
[#8]
Yes, anything not on the list should be legal, it's just nice that this letter specifically states that the DSA ZM4 IS LEGAL. It would be pretty hard to argue against something that solid and clear cut. Also, the DSA has the added advantage of being on the DOJ's hitlist, i.e. it will be banned in the near future... which means that all their owners will |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 2:59:25 AM EDT
[#9]
Yes, my friend bought two Fulton Armory receivers today at the San Jose gun show. they also had another brand but i dont remember the name. the guy selling them also has a local transfer dealer who will do the transfer for you. i have used this transfer dealer many times and he is good people. i believe the guy had already sold about 250 receivers since wendsday. many people are buying here in hopes of being able to register them later and then build into complete rifles. it sounds like it might work. either way my friend will have two new receivers by christmas. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 3:36:05 AM EDT
[#10]
This hsould be made into a HUGE effort to get receivers into CA, much like the 50 cal discounts on receivers...... IS this up in teh hometown forum? Do teh local RKBA organizations know about this? This is potentially huge? no?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 5:22:03 AM EDT
[#11]
Tell me what I don't know here! How can the DOJ just ban them if they are not on the current list? Doesn't the legislature have to pass a new law/bill to do this? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 9:28:57 AM EDT
[#12]
OK, here's how it works. The AG's office at the DOJ puts together a list of what they believe are all the new AR (and AK) series "copycat" receivers, and submits the list to the court for approval. If the court agrees that the receivers in question are indeed the same as currently banned weapons except for "minor cosmetic differences" (e.g. name), then the weapons are added to the current roster, at which time the current owners have 90 days to register their weapons with the DOJ. After the registration is complete, the owners will now be in legal possession of their registered assault weapons.
BTW guys, I think it would be in all of our best interests if we could get a letter off to the DOJ asking them to confirm that the grip pictured above is NOT considered a pistol grip, as defined by CA law. If we had that in writing, we would be truly set... at least as set as we're going to be until they actually try to ban the things. I would write this myself, but I think I've worn out my welcome over there getting this letter; I had to call and write them several times before they would actually send this to me (the first time they wrote me back they dodged the question so I hammered at them again until I got this response). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 10:42:33 AM EDT
[#13]
taggage
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 10:59:44 AM EDT
[#14]
A great way of giving it to the man.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:06:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Every ManJack of you Kali guys who doesnt have a Kali " AW" should buy a
receiver - register it when the time comes , and build it up EVIlly
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:12:11 AM EDT
[#16]
not a bad deal.
however, the "LOOPHOLE" BS is sure to follow. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:17:10 AM EDT
[#17]
What "Loophole" BS?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:21:52 AM EDT
[#18]
While it is not a loophole. the people that are hell bent getting AR's and any other firearm out of CA are going to scream "loophole" on this. From there the original text will most likely re-written or simply updated with the new names on lower recievers. Im just being a pessimist. Don't mind me 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:27:07 AM EDT
[#19]
now, who sells DSA lowers in Cali ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:30:25 AM EDT
[#20]
It would be easier to move and experience true freedom. I did.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:34:35 AM EDT
[#21]
Good news for
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:40:59 AM EDT
[#22]
Now the CA Atty Gen will take his list to a AWB friendly court to get his ruling. Why can an end around be done and try to take the fact that you can buy the DSA or similiar and get a Gun Friendly court to toss the AWB list. Don't know if you could but it is a thought.
Alan "CA Native that left in 1996" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:44:13 AM EDT
[#23]
And when he does, he will be falling into our trap, since that's just what everyone who bought a DSA ZM4 will be waiting for! BWA HA HA HA!!! Everything is proceeding as I have forseen it! There will be no one to stop us this time! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:58:11 AM EDT
[#24]
I just purchased 2 "un named" lowers, I would have bought more but the manufacturs arent willing to send to my FFL.
So far the Fulton guys and Stag are game along with SunDevil. I guess Chris at POF and DSA are not helping us out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 12:32:02 PM EDT
[#25]
When I first contacted DSA about this months ago, their CEO didn't seem overly enthusiastic, because he said it was not in his best "financial interest" to sell stripped AR-style lowers to CA. He said his profit margin was too small to make up for all the legal checking and other BS he would have to deal with... but I have heard he has since changed his tune.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 12:39:28 PM EDT
[#26]
WHERE can I get one?!? ETA:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 12:44:25 PM EDT
[#27]
Weird, it seems to me like it'd be easier to just drive to the nearest FFL that is willing to do this, and buy a receiver. But then again, I have a lot of stuff to move, and a good job in CA. For a jobless person living in a cardboard box though, I'd agree with you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 12:44:28 PM EDT
[#28]
today at the san jose gun show. if you are not able to make it send me an IM and i will get the contact info from my friend and get it to you. hope this helps. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 1:07:34 PM EDT
[#29]
You guys are dreaming...
DREAMING! No way is this going to work. Don't you remember the deal with the detachable-magazine SKS's? They were declared illegal and seized. That's right Mr. and Mrs. America, hand them in! It will be the same story with THESE. This issue has alreay been hashed out in the Hometown CA forum. I hunger for an AR-10 but I just won't delude myself into ever thinking it will happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 1:17:09 PM EDT
[#30]
I don't live in California, but here is my take on the situation:
The letter in the first post states:
Well, PC section 12276.1 states: Section 12276.1 Those terms are defined as follows: A detachable magazine means any magazine that can be readily removed without the use of tools. A flash suppressor means any device that reduces or conceals the visible light or flash created when a firearm is fired. This definition includes flash hiders, but does not include compensators and muzzle brakes (devices attached to or integral with the muzzle barrel to utilize propelling gasses for counter-recoil). A forward pistol grip means any protrusion in front of the trigger that is designed or intended to grasp and control the firearm. A permanently altered means any irreversible change or modification. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon@ means any component that allows for the grasp, control, and fire of the firearm where the portion grasped is located beneath an imaginary line drawn parallel to the barrel that runs through the top of the exposed trigger. Pistol Grip Examples A thumbhole stock means any stock with any opening that enables the firearm to be grasped, controlled, and fired with one hand. These DSA lowers accept a detachable mag, which is in violation of PC section 12276.1, which is proven to be illegal in the above quoted letter from the first post. How can this be construed as a loophole? As much as I'd like for it to be legal for you California guys, I don't see how it is possible. Or have I overlooked something? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 1:19:12 PM EDT
[#31]
But what is not readily clear is what happens when DOJ adds the DSA receiver to the list and issues the 90 day warning for registration. Because these "Herrott guns" would be registered pursuant to Roberti-Roos (banned by make and model), it would still be illegal to add features banned under SB23. The registration would not grandfather these guns passed and through SB23. These guns would be category 2 AWs, guns banned post-Roberti-Roos court litigation (Kasler and now Herrott decisions). Category 3 guns are guns banned by physical features under SB23 and any registration under Herrott would not effect it's status under SB23, the physical features are still banned.
Sure, buy a DSA receiver and register it when the time comes, but adding banned features under SB23 is still going to be illegal. The same thing happened with the .50 Ban. These were added to the AW database, but registering your .50 did not and still does not allow you to violate SB23 by adding pistol grips, detachable mags, folding stocks, etc. This will be no different as SB23 is a separate piece of legislation than Roberti-Roos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 1:53:29 PM EDT
[#32]
Try reading the actual section that specifies WHAT is illegal, not just the defined terms. Detachable magazine = OK Detachable magazine PLUS pistol grip = NO GO Reading comprehension is key, otherwise how do you explain how M1As are legal here? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 1:57:41 PM EDT
[#33]
If it is added to the Roberti-Roos list than it is an AW and SB23 does not apply. You can't make it any MORE of an AW by added certain features just as you can't make it any LESS of an AW by taking features away. Whether they'll open up registration or just declared them illegal and ask you to turn them in is another matter. Harrot seems to suggest the form.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 2:11:02 PM EDT
[#34]
I was under the assumption that any one feature made it an AW in california. Shows what I know. So, unlike the former federal AW ban which allowed one "evil" feature, California allows none? This being that the detachable mag feature in and of itself is not a banned feature? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 2:31:15 PM EDT
[#35]
....and you still won't have a real gun. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 3:00:56 PM EDT
[#36]
Hows that? The DOJ calls them AW's and then 90 days later and after submitting paperwork you can build it into anything you wish. Further discussion at THR and Calguns.net including the DOJ showing up at the last show saying they will be on the list in 2 weeks.  Better hurry fellas.
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 4:03:07 PM EDT
[#37]
then you won't mind standing in front of it while I pull the trigger, since it isn't real?  |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 5:29:51 PM EDT
[#38]
HOLY CRAP! This is good news!
On a side note, I just spoke to my dealer this week about ordering a DSA FAL receiver, and he's familiar with them and has done it before. I wonder if I should go ahead and have him order me one for grins? BTW, I'm going to call them Tuesday, when the manager is back in the office, and see if he will give DSA a call. I'm unclear, is DSA now on board w/selling these receivers, and is there a point of contact at DSA to talk to? Let's face it, if you go and buy a receiver, you're putting out maybe $150 or so, right? Worst case scenario, i.e. the detachable mag SKS scenario, you sell the receiver out of state to someone on the board through an FFL and you might lose $50-100. Best case scenario, you have a registered AW. Giddy up, let's hope! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 5:32:25 PM EDT
[#39]
Sorry, I was wrong. DSA will send. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 5:32:47 PM EDT
[#40]
YES
The detachable magazine makes a semi-automatic rifle *eligible* to have features. Without a detachable magazine, you could have all the evil points you want. With a detachable magazine, you can't have any evil features. This is why "California legal" M1As are sold all the time... without flash suppressors. This is why the FAB-10 (which has a pinned magazine) is often sold with a flash suppressor, pistol grip, and collapsible stock. BTW, all this BS about which law was written first, when the gun was banned, etc. is irrelevent to the legal status of any rifle in CA. It is actually quite simple: either your gun is an assault weapon, or it isn't. That's it, end of story. You can own assault weapons in CA, but there is only one way: they have to be registered with the DOJ. There are not varying levels or grades of assault weapons or whatever it is you are referring to. Either your rifle is an assault weapon or it isn't. Adding a flash suppressor to an assault weapon doesn't change its legal status, just as adding a pistol grip and/or collapsible stock doesn't change the legal status of a lawfully registered assault weapon. An assault weapon with no evil features is an assault weapon... add/subtract as many evil features as you want and it's still an assault weapon. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 5:39:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Who's team are you on anyway? Geeez. Besides, the SKS debacle is completely different from this, those guns were never legal, that's how they got away with confiscating them. The SKS situation is more closely related to the lastest issue of the recall on the threaded barrel Walther .22's. If they wanted to be real jerks, they could have just arrested everyone instead of asking them to surrender them. This is an entirely different situation, mainly because the DOJ's backing down on this issue is the direct result of a SUPREME COURT DECISION. Go ahead DOJ, defy the supreme court, I DARE YOU. Do you know what kind of a massive shitstorm the DOJ would find themselves in if they blatently defied the supreme court?! Can you imagine the fallout after I called the court clerk and told them that the DOJ was disregarding their decision?! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 5:41:28 PM EDT
[#42]
So let me get this straight:
1. Manufacture changes name on stripped lower receiver. Let's call it the Stag Arms December Special. 2. People in Kali order the "December Special" for a month or two. 3. Stag Arms submits paperwork to California attorney general in January 4. "December Special" gets put on the magic list, everyone who purchased a December Special gets an AW 5. Stag Arms shifts production to the "January Special" Repeat steps 2-4 Is this correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 5:44:57 PM EDT
[#43]
YES. However, I can't imagine this cycle going on forever, after a few rounds, the DOJ's going to get REALLY pissed, stop altogether, and force the legislature to change the law. And you just know that the next revision of the ban is going to end the loophole once and forever by banning all detachable magazine rifles... I guarantee it. You heard it hear first, it's going to happen, so just be ready. BTW, what this also means is that anyone at any time can make their own AR-style lower from one of those 80% forgings, so long as you don't actually give it a name that's on the list. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 5:50:40 PM EDT
[#44]
<-- "CA Native that left in 2005" Two of my friends back in California just purchased stripped lowers from Vulcan Armament. LiNKY It's probably your best bet, even superior to that of the FAB10. Add high quality parts to finish the build and you have yourself a fine rifle. $0.02 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 6:04:16 PM EDT
[#45]
Before we get into a big discussion...
TELL US HOW OR WERE TO GET THEM!!! We can talk about later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 6:11:48 PM EDT
[#46]
You have three choices. You have a friend/FFL/whatever buy them out of state where no one will question it, and have them shipped to your local FFL, give him a copy of the letter so he knows everything's legal, and do the transfer. Or... You can contact this guy, "Wes", try his website: http://www.tenpercentfirearms.com/ Finally, you can make your own by machining an 80% forging. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 6:29:27 PM EDT
[#47]
Funny thing is some of the listed lowers have model and make, some say "PWA, all models" Im not sure if they did that because PWA no longer makes a lower or what but Id think they would just say "all models" and be done with it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 6:48:06 PM EDT
[#48]
WWW.TENPERCENTFIREARMS.COM is the guy that was selling them at the San Jose show. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 7:04:54 PM EDT
[#49]
Wow. This is pretty naive. All AWs are not the same in CA. There are two separate pieces of legislation defining AWs in CA and 2 additional court rulings that further define them. This is why there are legally 3 categories of AWs in CA, not a single "AW" definition. Check the regs. Registering an AR receiver under Harrott is fine, you are complying with Roberti-Roos, but add even a pistol grip and you are in violation of SB23. Just because you have a registered AW under Roberti-Roos DOES NOT clear you under SB23. It just doesn't work that way. To look at this through the other end, why would DOJ add ANY receivers to the Roberti-Roos list if what you all are saying is true? The way things are now is much better at maintaining minimal AW numbers in CA. Right now, an AR receiver cannot be built up without violating SB23 at the very least. Sure one could add the ridiculous "grip-thing" that is not considered a pistol grip, but no one does that because it's a very unpopular workaround as it is. Adding a receiver to the Roberti-Roos list, according to you, allows the receiver to be built into a complete military-dress AW. Then why would they do it when maintaining the status quo, adding nothing to the list prevents ANY and all new SB23 AWs? What you are suggesting is a huge assumption which makes no sense, legal, common or otherwise. People are going to buy up lots of AR receivers only to have them banned, then registered only to find they are exactly where they started, but now have to contned with a ton of new possession, transport and transfer regs. And they'll be able to do exactly what they can already do now, which is any build-up they wish that does not violate SB23. Crazy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2005 7:21:49 PM EDT
[#50]
To add a quick thought:
SB23 DID NOT allow for the registration of weapons that should have been registered under Roberti-Roos. The .50 Ban does not allow for the registration of SB23-violating .50 BMG weapons, nor is it legal to create an SB23-violating .50 BMG AFTER registration. So where do you get the notion that a Herrott-registered AW will be an exception? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
