Posted: 11/7/2004 8:42:28 AM EDT
|
If I were to purchase an 80% lower and finish it in a manner compliant with CA law, how do I go about putting a manufacturer, make, model, and serial number on it? 1. Do I make these up myself? 2. Can I just stamp them on the receiver myself? 3. Do I have to take it to a government official to have it approved? |
| Actually IIRC you are able to sell or give away the gun according to federal law. You can't be in the business of manufacturing rifles without serial numbers to which everyone has always taken your advice and not sold or given away one of their self-manufactured weapons. Sort of like a child, I wouldn't want to give any of mine away. |
+1 I've been tempted to try one of these for the last two years. |
| I saw a kit that came with all the tools to finish it along with a jig, and it was done by hand. I thought that would be cool if only I could find out how to do it legally. I am tired of asking stores if they will order Fab-10s only to have them look at me like I'm retarded for not knowing AR-15's are illegal even after I explain that it is california legal. |
"cool gun, did you make it?" |
"looks like we've got a stolen gun here, and he's taken off the serial numbers. You're under arrest..." Not all cops know that people can legally build their own firearms. Barely anyone knows that unserialized firearms are legal, too. |
DOJ - Firearms Division P.O. Box 820200 Sacramento, CA 94203-0200 |
|
|
call Larry at L&G weaponry I believe he has some Fab10's in stock. He works out of hunington beach CA. Here's his site www.faxworldcom.com/lg and his number is: L&G Weaponry (714)840-3772. -William |
I tried that link, and it forwarded me to http://www.faxworldcom.com/lgweap\, which was a bad link. I tried the link without the \ at the end, and it worked, //www.faxworldcom.com/lgweap Weird. Anyhow, they listed the FAB10 at $295 for the stripped receiver. Thanks for posting that link. |
That's weird cuz if I click the link (the original one) it works for me. Oh well hopefully you get a lower in time. -William |
You can not make a firearm you can't own legally. I "made" mine in North Carolina and imported legally on my MAWP. If you made a fixed magazine or no magazine rifle you do not have to register it. No serial numbers nothing on paper. I would like to see how Shoeless is doing them. I've seen some pictures but I'm a hands on engineer  . As long as the thing was really difficult - say mig welded or even JB welded into place I would be happy. I suppose a pin cut into the rear of the mag well slicing through the aft end of the magazine and then have the hole with the pin spot welded would work.Screw 'em is what I say. I'm not going to paint my ass red to go out in public because it's the law and then worry that it's the wrong color red. It's a stupid ass violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. |
My first one took like 6-8 hours a bit of work at a time. The second one took much less. This might be a link to my 80% project: photos.ar15.com/WS_Content/ImageGallery/ThumbnailView.asp?iGalleryUnq=369 I am an electrician (broadcast television engineer) and a shade tree gunsmith. The link above shows all the tools and most of the major steps. None of this is rocket science and about the only tool that is difficult is the big ass 1 3/8" tapper. The link above has the sources that I used. |
|
|
So ehh, what are you making? Are you essentially making a lower that accepts 10 rd detachable mags? Doesn't that make it illegal if you put it on an AR-15 upper?? Sorry, i feel like i'm missing some unspoken part of the conversation that's being kept hush hush. |
So it basically says that it's not legal because its an AR15 receiver right? 
 I think we need to write them a more specific letter saying we're going to base it off of a Fab10 receiver. |
It's not bypassing the law if it is an AR15 type receiver... until the DOJ says otherwise. Yea, jump on my ass about how the "series" part was thrown out, but YOU go ahead and become the test case for the DOJ to assrape. |
|
In theory I believe it may be legal to complete a AR lower with all the features and open mag welll so long as the 10 round mag is fixed into the receiver with something that requires a tool to remove. CA has to specify name and model bans as well as generic features according to the SB-23. www.hicapmagparts.com/ca15.htm But, yeah I wouldn't want to be the first test case. |
|
Just curious how you all would rate this...I know how I would... Find yourself either a completely unmachined receiver blank or an '80%' with only the magwell and maybe the buffer tube hole milled out. The first step is to only have the magwell opened while this block of aluminum is still not considered a firearm (80%, not able to fire a round, whatever). The next step is to fix a 10-round mag in place so it meets California's laws concerning removeable mags. Third, continue to mill out the rest of the needed areas to obtain a finished, working receiver. So, you took a block of aluminum that was NEVER a firearm LET ALONE an AR/AssaultWeapon, you attached a 10-round magazine in place so it met California's law concerning firearms with fixed mags that are not 'removeable without use of a tool...', and you finished this receiver to become a working semi-automatic, center-fire, rifle with a fixed 10-round magazine. It's not on the list of specified banned firearms, and it was never an AR series firearm nor is it because it has a fixed magazine and was not manufactured by anyone who has manufactured or still does manufacture AR series firearms. Have at it!  one more thing... you have documented the steps you took from block to firearm and posted it on the internet, time-dated photos, witnesses, etc. |
We are looking for ways to be Caliban legal, yet take it out of state for real boom boom action. As I understand it the Kesler decision is not recognized by the DOJ, but they allow import of a SAR1 AK receiver, which is technically banned, so in a way they do. Talk about technical legal issues, wonder how this argument would hold up in court. 10 DOJ lawyers threatening the jury, against you. 
|
A FAB-10 is a AR-15 series type firearm. CA-DOJ did not agree on the FAB-10 until after Harrott vs. Kings County ruling came out from the CA Supreme Court. It must have read hurt Paul to dispose or move his homebrew AR-15 out of state when he retired from the Military. That would suck. |
|
Now I am really confused.. If "Harrott vs. Kings County" from the CA Supreme Court invalidate the "series" clause, then what is preventing purchased of stripped lower or rifles without the pistol grip as long as it is not on the manufacturer list? Like RA-M96, or FAL receivers? If it does not have a "protruding pistol grip beneath..." it is not part of the 12276.1 rule... Right?  
|
Me too, I've heard the Kesler decision which I believe is this ruling, is only a county decision. But reading the article it's a CA SC decision. Why doesn't DOJ recognize this. Here's some links www.armed-citizens.com/news/armdcitz_news.php?doit=yes&newsid=609 |
|
DISCLAIMER: READ AND FOLLOW THE BELOW LEGAL ADVICE AT YOUR OWN RISK. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTIONS YOU TAKE BASED ON THE INFORMATION BELOW So i did some legal research for you guys and here is what I found... The law, Section 12276.5 of Cal.Pen.Code. which essentially bans a 80% AR-15 receiver from being MADE legal is below. Below an explanation of the law is a case brief on the state supreme court decision of Harrott v. Kings County which everyone brings up. Section 12276.5: If a weapon is not specified or listed under the general requirements as being an assault weapon (ie, more than two dangerous features, etc) OR is not listed under the series ban, then the attorney general at a local municipality level has on his cognition the ability to ban a weapon if it is: 1). SIMILAR to another weapon on the Roberti-Roos list by being similar Section 12276.5 states that a weapon must be "(1) Another model by the same manufacturer or a copy by another manufacturer of an assault weapon listed in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 12276 which is identical to one of the assault weapons listed in those subdivisions except for slight modifications or enhancements including, but not limited to: a folding or retractable stock; adjustable sight; case deflector for left-handed shooters; shorter barrel; wooden, plastic or metal stock; larger magazine size; different caliber provided that the caliber exceeds .22 rimfire; or bayonet mount." Now, the attorney general must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the weapon that is in question is indeed similar except for minor modifications to a series-banned weapon already. AFTER the attorney general has proven this then he must prepare for ID purposes a description of the weapon to be distributed to LEO who can then enforce that this "new weapon" is indeed an illegal weapon. NOW why the Supreme Court decision DOESNT apply to us, keeping the above rule in mind: HARROTT v. KINGS COUNTY: FACTS: In this case, a plaintifff (attorney) was paid in weapons for a case he did. However, the weapons were under storage at the local sherriffs office. The sherriffs office refused to deliver one of the weapons to the attorney because the sherriff declared it an "Assault weapon". It was an AK-47 type weapon. RULING: The attorney was given the weapon because it was NOT an assault weapon due to a some loopholes described below Kings County tried to apply rule 12276.5 to declare that the AK-47 type weapon that the Plaintiff was suing to get was one which was similar to a series-banned weapon but was changed only minimally. Under rule 12276.5 (see above) the attorney general can essentially make any weapon a banned weapon if he can show by preponderance of the evidence that the weapon in question is essentially just a slightly modified version of an already series-banned weapon. HOWEVER in this case the Plaintiff got around this rule because: Section 12276.5 applies ONLY to counties with a population of over 1,000,000 people. Kings County happened to have a population under 1,000,000 people. Therefore, the attorney general could not use Section 12276.5 to ban out the AK-47 which was under question. Furthermore, the plaintiff pointed out that the attorney general which had originally tried to have the weapon remain in confiscation did not show that the weapon was indeed on the list of assault-weapons under section 12276. SO, what do we get out of all of this? The Supreme Court has said that because there are criminal liabilities for violation of these statutes, it is not for the regular citizen to determine whether or not a weapon has a "slight modification" or "redesign" of a series-banned weapon. However, this is merely dicta, so you may still end up in court if a LEO decides that your weapon is a little too "mean" looking, and the attorney general decides to press charges and then tries to declare your 80% lower a "redesign" or a series-banned weapon. However, you would have a defense by referring to the above case, but you would endure lengthy legal trials. Hope that answers some questions. |
|
It is just for academic discussion now. My limited understanding of Code 12276.5 states that the Att Gen needs to file a petition with a superior court with population more than 1 million to temporary suspend an alleged AW type firearm. Once the petition is filed, all AW ban rules apply. Then the court has 30days to decide if the alleged firearm is indeed an AW (the burden of proof lies with the Att Gen). If it is, then the ban list will be amended with the say firearm. So before the petition is filed, the new firearm is not considered as AW??? Also the petition can be filed with two specific circumstances, first is for a copy cat of an existing AW on the 12276 list, and 2nd sounded just like first but I guess is for AW first manufactured or sold after 1989. (what ever that means) Both are for manufacturer and sales, not home built? So in theory, the Att Gen cannot file a petition against home build. Since home is not licensed as manufacturer and no sale can ever happen (that would be breaking Fed laws). Nevertheless, the home build still have to comply with code 12276.1 As for the King County case, I don't think it won because the county has less than 1 million population. The rule require the Att Gen file with any superior court with population more than 1 million, if is is filed anywhere, it is law for the entire CA. There are also bunch publications Att Gen is required to publish to notify folks the petition is in effect. I believe King County was won because the firearm was just not on the list and no specific petition was in to ban it. To petition then would just be after the fact (I am sure it is there now) The result is that the CA Surpreme Court rules that "series" goes with the "list" So back to my orginal question, if not on the 12276 list (based on manufacturer and name) and no 12276.1 feature, why we cannot buy it?  Since we are on the topic, I thought the US Constitution specifically prevent the States from regulating its imports and exports between State or Foreign county. This function is reserved for the Fed Gov... Now how is it that CA can ban "Importation" of AW? Natually, it is a moot point as possession of AW is a crime, but it does put the code 12276 at odds with the Fed Law. Since the Constitution trumps State law, doesn't it nullify code 12276?? (Wishfull thinking) Anyways, it is interesting academic discussion... |
Send me an email and I'd be happy to help you get a FAB 10. [email protected] |