Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/7/2003 12:12:47 AM EDT
Time to pick the legal eagle brain again.
Will it be legal to complete an 80% lower with post ban features, put it with a 22LR post ban upper and then use it with detachable 22LR mags ?
Rimfires are Kaliban free, right ?
Link Posted: 9/7/2003 5:20:07 AM EDT
Yep,your good to go!
Link Posted: 9/7/2003 11:02:35 AM EDT
CA DOJ may want to see some type of perminent mod so it can't be readily changed to accept anything other than 22 lr.
Link Posted: 9/7/2003 5:00:11 PM EDT
a few questions:

first off i have read a few web pages about this and i was curious if you still have to register an 80% lower that you complete, considering you are building it yourself.

the next question is, i'm guessing it is still illegal to build a "normal" 80% lower? (by normal i mean typical .223 detachable mag ar style rifle)

and the last question is regarding loop holes to LEAGALLY purchase/own an ar-15 in CA. i have seen the fab10 which doesn't sound all that exciting, cracking the beast apart each time you want to reload. then i heard about the (forgive me if i get the name wrong) dmps panther with is a pump ar that takes detachable mags at the low cost of like $1600. and the .22 assembly loop hole is a new one to me. does anyone know of any other loop holes to get an ar-15 in the great state of CA?????

-dan
Link Posted: 9/7/2003 5:53:03 PM EDT
Its really not legal to put an 80% lower to build an AR in this great state.The fab-10 lower is probably the closest you will get to an actual AR set up.The DPMS pump is way overpriced and you will get laughed at when you take it to the range.I made a mistake of buying an AK pump for shits and giggles and I get it everytime when I pull it out at the range.Its like having a AK with no balls!If you got to really have a .223 charmer then I would buy the Robinson Arms M96 Recon.Out of the box its more accurate and is built like a tank and accept AR mags or drums.But as far as loop holes is concerned there are none.Good luck!
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 10:33:42 AM EDT
You can not manufacture a rifle that you may not purchase in any state - let alone here.

If you were to modify the lower so that it could not possibly accept a normal magazine it would be permitted. I know that someone was working on a cast lower with a solid magazine well. If you were to mill out a tunnel that would only except some .22 LR magazine you'd be good to go.

You could manufacture an AR with a fixed magazine like the Go-Go-Gadgets one.
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 11:02:51 AM EDT
I'm not certain the current law for personal manufacturer of a Caliban legal firearm. There was a time when this was allowed, and I believe it still is. Since the "series" portion of the AR/AK ban was struck down in court, importation of receivers not listed are legal. Problem is finding an FFL willing to process the paper work.

If the personal manufacturer of an AR receiver is legal, then you could attach a 10rd mag in the mag well. The affixing method requires removal of a mag with a tool. You could attach the mag with a set screw, requiring a screwdriver for removal.

This method has been done by Entreprise and other FAL manufacturers. They ship complete rifles, including a pistol grip, with the 10rd mag affixed with a set screw.
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 11:25:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chaingun:
Since the "series" portion of the AR/AK ban was struck down in court, importation of receivers not listed are legal.



Are you saying there are regular AR receivers that are importable into the PRK? If so, which ones?
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 11:26:37 AM EDT
It's not a tumor..... er, loophole! It's complying with the law.
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 2:28:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M4-guy:

Originally Posted By Chaingun:
Since the "series" portion of the AR/AK ban was struck down in court, importation of receivers not listed are legal.



Are you saying there are regular AR receivers that are importable into the PRK? If so, which ones?



Calvary Arms for starters. The vendor visits this board. Let me know if you find an FFL willing to process the transfer. Any new manufacturer after 2000 is legal.
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 2:48:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chaingun:
Calvary Arms for starters. The vendor visits this board. Let me know if you find an FFL willing to process the transfer. Any new manufacturer after 2000 is legal.



No, they will not sell to CA due to the lame liability law. However, if you do find an FFL who would do the transfer there are other manuf. who might.
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 2:50:58 PM EDT


Link Posted: 9/9/2003 4:09:48 PM EDT
where can i get one of these legal lowers that takes mags? give me some links yall!!!
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 5:48:42 PM EDT
Ok, the "series" language that was stuck down was in SB23. It was upheld in Robert Roos..

Dont forget were dealing with more than one ban. We have a federal and two state bans.
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 8:57:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ProfessorEvil:





When they talk AR/AK is this for Robert Roos series? Any receiver/manufacture not specifically listed is legal for import, but falls under SB23. Using a legal receiver, convert to .22lr, and it's maybe okay.
Link Posted: 9/9/2003 9:13:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Chaingun:
When they talk AR/AK is this for Robert Roos series? Any receiver/manufacture not specifically listed is legal for import, but falls under SB23. Using a legal receiver, convert to .22lr, and it's maybe okay.



that's how I read it.
Link Posted: 9/11/2003 12:36:13 AM EDT
So I guess you could purchase a CaliBan legal lower, like the Cav Arms, then get a 22 conversion that uses 22 mags, not the insert type. Then machine a hole through the mag well that only the small 22 mag fits through.

Better find those hi-caps you threw in the closet though because with this scenario a 10 rounder probably won't be long enough to stick out the mag well.

WAIT! An ADAPTOR! yes! Make................
Link Posted: 9/11/2003 6:12:16 AM EDT
Heres the problem I see. It has to be converted to .22lr or .22mag and be aproved before it can be imported.

Per the first paragraph, "and is not an AK or AR series weapon".
Link Posted: 9/11/2003 9:28:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BigMac:
Heres the problem I see. It has to be converted to .22lr or .22mag and be aproved before it can be imported.

Per the first paragraph, "and is not an AK or AR series weapon".



The "series" requirement is no longer a legal statement, changed at the end of 2002(?). It was only used in SB23. The letter was written before the term was removed.

Any non-listed receiver is technically legal to own, following SB23 law. Converting to .22 is legal under SB23, allowing for the addition of a pistol grip.
Link Posted: 9/11/2003 11:16:53 PM EDT
Based on all the feedback from above, here is what I have in mind :
a) complete an 80% lower
b) weld a bar across the top of the lower so that the mag in 22LR conversion kit will pass but regular NATO mags or 9mm kits won't
c) Put on a dedicated 22 upper and weld the front take down pin to the lower on the side
d) Weld the barrel nut to the upper so that the barrel can not be swap out

Will this be close enough ? I will try to submit this proposal to CA DOJ and see what they say.
Link Posted: 9/21/2003 6:42:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/21/2003 6:43:50 AM EDT by stator]
The legal definition of manufacture is creating product with the intent to sale. Courts, through the times, have set a precedence of tests to determine who is/is not a manufacturer.

The anti-gun legislators purposefully choose the word "manufacture" because they were not willing take the 2nd amendment head-on. CA guns laws are legal (not my view however) because these are rooted in public safety and intra-state commerce of which do not conflict outright with any constitutional rights.

If you finish an 80% for personal consumption, you are not legally a manufacturer. You would fail all the tests... no employees, no revenue stream, no manufacturer's license, not operating illegally because you don't have such license, no commercial presence as in no shop, no material purchase contracts, no depreciation of capital assets, and no tax filings as a manufacturer (and legally too).

Of course, our state government wanted to ban building of personal firearms. They didn't want to handicap themselves in a court fight so they did it these way. They know over time, the public and the courts would accept their definition of manufacterer... incrementalism.

It works on us, so it should work the on the public at large.
Link Posted: 9/21/2003 12:51:52 PM EDT
Didn't Armscorp make a M-16 .22LR to match the AK they make?
Link Posted: 9/21/2003 1:43:00 PM EDT
Yes they did.I saw the ARMSCOR AR 22 at a gunshow and it looks like it fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.Yuk!However there AK 22 is a real gem.The quality of the wood and the action rivals a real AK.I don't know why they were out to lunch when they designed the AR 22.I think the Mitchell 22 is the closest copy or a real AR 22.I just wish I wouldn't have sold mine at a gunshow for $200 back in the day....
Link Posted: 9/21/2003 5:25:16 PM EDT
The Italian made Jager AP-74 is a decent AR-15 .22 clone, but they can be expensive.

I found one on gunbroker.
www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=11992067

I'd like to find a way to complete an 80% lower and use it with a dedicated .22 upper with an Air Force .22 conversion kit. I think if it were stamped ".22LR rimfire" it might be beneficial in the legal dept.

I also think getting CA DOJ to give you a definitive opinion is a longshot. They're not like BATF, who are usually very specific. CA DOJ is vague and you can't get them to tell you much beyond what's already written in the laws.
Link Posted: 9/21/2003 6:12:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Big_Bear:
I'd like to find a way to complete an 80% lower and use it with a dedicated .22 upper with an Air Force .22 conversion kit. I think if it were stamped ".22LR rimfire" it might be beneficial in the legal dept.



Complete it and mark it 22lr. Mount a 22lr upper on it. Viola, a semi auto mag fed 22lr that complies with CA law.

the 22lr mags fit like regular 223 mags, so blocking the mag well isn't much of an option. Personally, if you only use it for 22lr and mark it as such, that is sufficient to meet the letter and intent of the law.

Once across the border, though, it could be legal to swap other caliber uppers, including centerfire ones, onto the lower.
Link Posted: 9/21/2003 11:12:23 PM EDT
I know you guys aren't legal experts but I have another question.

Let's say I finish an 80% lower. What kind of barrel should I use with my marked ".22LR rimfire" lower, a .223 barrel with a .22 conversion kit, or a .22LR barrel with a specially modified .22 conversion kit?

I know a .22 barrel would be ideal but what possible legal issues might arise using a .223 barreled upper with a .22 conversion kit and the lower marked ".22LR rimfire"?
Link Posted: 9/21/2003 11:19:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Big_Bear:
Let's say I finish an 80% lower. What kind of barrel ....and the lower marked ".22LR rimfire"?



barrel? Is that part of the lower?
Link Posted: 9/22/2003 12:06:34 AM EDT
There's no DOJ ruling on this so I'm just posing hypotheticals.
Top Top