Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 11/30/2005 6:39:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/30/2005 6:40:14 PM EDT by KillAgain]
There has been some talk about FFL's selling lower receivers that are not on the banned list. The lowers will be for use to people who want to build their CA legal AR15.

Discussion here:

www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=24996

FFL's site:

www.tenpercentfirearms.com/index.htm

What do you guys think? I think the if they pull this off the DOJ will have to update the list after the massive flood of Stag, Mega and other newer manufacturers.

If this happens, so in lies the question:
With the new manufacturers being added to the list, they'll have to allow a registration period for people who own them.

Will the newly registered manufacturers' receivers be allowed to have complete preban features now that they are registered as "assault weapons"???
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 6:41:35 PM EDT
The only way this will work is if EVERYONE gets on the band wagon and does it.
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 6:43:03 PM EDT
It's in the DOJ's best interests to keep this from taking off.
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 6:50:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By realwar:
The only way this will work is if EVERYONE gets on the band wagon and does it.



+1 I'd be down to buy five stripped lowers if the chance came by to do it legally.
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 6:55:38 PM EDT
LIFE WILL FIND A WAY![jurrassic park]
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 7:21:44 PM EDT
So what FFL holders are in at this time, and are there any in the Bay Area? I know that I'm getting at least 1.
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 7:24:43 PM EDT
I would SO just leave the pistol grip off it and bump fire it all the time....
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 7:26:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blue84S10:+1 I'd be down to buy five stripped lowers if the chance came by to do it legally.


The chance is here, now, to do it legally. The letter from the DOJ clearly states it is legal to own a lower that is NOT on the banned list.
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 7:49:14 PM EDT
I believe this thread is worthy of a Tac
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 9:09:38 PM EDT
I am so going to drive five hours to Kern County and buy 2-3 of these lowers, I think I will bring my brother and a few friends. We REALLY need to support this guy.
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 9:31:13 PM EDT
I am a bit confused after reading the links... is this for pinned mag lowers? fab-10 type lowers?
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 9:45:05 PM EDT
No, it's for real AR style lowers. Since they are not banned by name, and not assembled (or stripped) in a way that makes them an AW, then they should in theory be legal to own. So you could buy a Colt, Bushmaster, Armalite, etc lower and pin the mag yourself before assembling the full rifle. Or you could not put on a pistol grip, etc.

Not banned by name.
Not banned by feature.
Not banned to own.

I'm not saying this is 100% legal, it's just what the whole thing is being based off of.
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 9:51:59 PM EDT
This guy is only 30 minutes from my house. If this happens, I am so on it !!!!!

Steve
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 10:35:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:
No, it's for real AR style lowers. Since they are not banned by name, and not assembled (or stripped) in a way that makes them an AW, then they should in theory be legal to own. So you could buy a Colt, Bushmaster, Armalite, etc lower and pin the mag yourself before assembling the full rifle. Or you could not put on a pistol grip, etc.

Not banned by name.
Not banned by feature.
Not banned to own.

I'm not saying this is 100% legal, it's just what the whole thing is being based off of.



It's that difference between not quite 100% legal and really 100% legal you need to be concerned with. The other thing is that I would like to see is the thinking that any lower from Colt (or any other manufacturer named in the current list) wouldn't fall under the named by series rules. Now maybe a no-name clone not on the current list you might possibly argue, but a Colt?
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 10:45:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/30/2005 10:47:10 PM EDT by NeoWeird]

Originally Posted By PaDanby:

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:
No, it's for real AR style lowers. Since they are not banned by name, and not assembled (or stripped) in a way that makes them an AW, then they should in theory be legal to own. So you could buy a Colt, Bushmaster, Armalite, etc lower and pin the mag yourself before assembling the full rifle. Or you could not put on a pistol grip, etc.

Not banned by name.
Not banned by feature.
Not banned to own.

I'm not saying this is 100% legal, it's just what the whole thing is being based off of.



It's that difference between not quite 100% legal and really 100% legal you need to be concerned with. The other thing is that I would like to see is the thinking that any lower from Colt (or any other manufacturer named in the current list) wouldn't fall under the named by series rules. Now maybe a no-name clone not on the current list you might possibly argue, but a Colt?



That is exactly why I am not running off to get one right now (of course the fact that he is nearly 4 hours away also plays a role).

As for the listed receivers, while yes those are iffy, the law specifically states series and models as well as the manufacturer, so getting a Colt recever could be legal as long as it wasn't one of their AR-15 series. Yes, this is difficult/impossible in some cases but I was just putting it out there as theory, which after all is all this is right now.

ETA: If they do open up registrations again (which won't happen in my opinion) then I would rather buy a handful of 0% receivers and finish them for the cost (and probably faster than the waiting period) of one manufactured receiver. Of course that is just me and I love working with my hands and metal.
Link Posted: 11/30/2005 11:26:25 PM EDT
Don't want to be the naysayer, but I'm typing in this thread with a 20-foot pole, and that's a little close for comfort.
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 12:08:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
Don't want to be the naysayer, but I'm typing in this thread with a 20-foot pole, and that's a little close for comfort.



I'm not that paranoid, but I will say that I am not going near that dealer until the dust settles.
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 6:12:53 AM EDT
Also available are homebrew receivers.


Wonder what happens if DOJ registers Stag receivers and someone writes Stag on a homebrew with some serial # for registration?
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 9:10:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2005 10:26:58 AM EDT by Homeinvader]
Tag
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 9:20:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2005 10:26:18 AM EDT by Homeinvader]
Tag
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 9:50:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
Any letter of "Approval" to do this from CA DOJ had better mention why Kasler does not apply here. If a Roberti-Roos gun is banned by name, then it need not be a complete firearm. If Kasler applies under Roberti-Roos, which it does, then Kasler guns need not be complete either (i.e. stripped receivers).



I think the answer to that is in the Harrot vs. Kings County decision of 2001, which he mentions on his website, and is mentioned in his letter from the DOJ.


Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
This is all established, well-known stuff. VERY hard to believe there's a valid letter of approval out there to sell stripped AR lowers. If there is, it's either a pre-2000 letter or a DOJ-issued letter that is factually incorrect. If DOJ discovers this mistake, the guns are still contraband and seizable, though unprosecutable.



The date is on the letter, which is on the website. Did you check it out before posting about it?

www.tenpercentfirearms.com/calelo.htm

Just curious, why would the guns be seizable, but not prosecutable? Does the letter afford some protection? Or is it that they are stripped lowers, and not built into a functioning weapon?

Link Posted: 12/1/2005 10:00:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Homeinvader:
I knew there was a problem here and I found it....

I just read the letter of approval and what is not discussed and likely not noticed or mentioned in the original letter of request sent by the FFL is that the JP CTR-02 USES AN AR-TYPE LOWER RECEIVER. The letter does not mention "AR-type" at all because she simple doesn't notice it. It's hard to see in the web photos because their AR lowers are a bit enhanced cosmetically. He either included a photo, a catalog or referenced the Jp Rifles website. In any case, it's not obvious, either in the photographs or in the website text that this is in fact an AR-type rifle.



I think his whole basis for the legality claim rests on the decision of Harrot vs. Kings County, which states that all AR type receivers need to be listed on the DOJ list.

I'm not saying he's right, just that is what his claim is. It is that the series ban requires than all rifles in that series need to be added to a list. If its not on the list, then it is not considered an AR series weapon. The DOJ can update the list at anytime. BUT, if it does add a rifle to that list of series receivers, his argument is that then the DOJ must require a period of registration for it, thereby allowing people to register AWs.



Link Posted: 12/1/2005 12:32:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zapp:

I think his whole basis for the legality claim rests on the decision of Harrot vs. Kings County, which states that all AR type receivers need to be listed on the DOJ list.

I'm not saying he's right, just that is what his claim is. It is that the series ban requires than all rifles in that series need to be added to a list. If its not on the list, then it is not considered an AR series weapon. The DOJ can update the list at anytime. BUT, if it does add a rifle to that list of series receivers, his argument is that then the DOJ must require a period of registration for it, thereby allowing people to register AWs.




The DOJ's problem is they banned "Assault Weapons" originally by Manufacturer and Model. Then when the Industry came out with different Manufacturers and Model names they updated the list and eventually had to define "Assault Weapons" by their features.

If the Manufacturer is not on the list and the Receiver does not have "Assault Weapon" features, then why not. Look at the Vulcan Lower.

This isn't really even a Grey area. I don't see how the DOJ is going to avoid this without stepping in their own shit.
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 12:51:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
Don't want to be the naysayer, but I'm typing in this thread with a 20-foot pole, and that's a little close for comfort.



It's all fine and legal lee..

I've already told him i'm in for one..
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 1:18:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2005 1:23:07 PM EDT by TKoProductions]
Am I the only one who thinks that this doesn’t do a damn thing for us?

The JP CTR-02 isn’t listed under penal code section 12276. Therefore, it isn’t illegal by name, make, or model. Depending upon how it is configured though, it may or may not be illegal under 12276.1. If you remove the pistol grip, you can legally leave the mag-well open so that it’s able to accept detachable magazines, so long as you don’t add:


a folding or telescoping stock,
a flash suppressor,
a grenade or flare launcher,
or a forward pistol grip.



Alternatively, you could pin a 10 round magazine in place, and add all the fun accessories your desire:


a pistol grip,
a folding or telescoping stock,
a flash suppressor,
a grenade or flare launcher,
or a forward pistol grip.



Aren’t we back to the same exact place we were before?


Originally Posted By KillAgain:
Will the newly registered manufacturers' receivers be allowed to have complete preban features now that they are registered as "assault weapons"???



No. The DOJ of will NEVER permit you to purchase or configure a semiautomatic centerfire rifle with both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip.

Just as there was no loophole with the .50 BMG, there is no loophole here. Penal Codes section 12276 and 12276.1 are already on the books, it already makes it illegal for you to purchase and configure certain makes, models, and types of firearms.

A year ago with the .50 BMG ban, people thought that they could purchase a CA-legal Vulcan lower (with the pinned 10-round magazine) place a .50 BMG upper on it and then register it as an “assault weapon.” Once it was registered, they thought that they had a legally registered “assault weapon” and which point they could remove the pinned 10-round magazine (leaving it open for use of detachable magazines), and swap the .50 BMG upper for a .223 upper. They couldn’t have been more wrong. What they had was a legally registered ".50 BMG assault weapon” that must be configured in a way that complies with certain provisions already on the books (namely 12276 and 12276.1).

The DOJ doesn’t care about the JP CTR-02. So long as it isn’t named under 12276 and it isn’t configured in a way that violates section 12276.1, then it’s already legal for you to own/possess. They would have no reason for opening up a new registration period for these “types” of lower receivers. But even if I’m wrong, and they do make it mandatory for you to register the JP CTR-02 you STILL WILL NOT BE ABLE to configure it with both a pistol grip and detachable magazine (or any configuration that violates prior law: penal code section 12276.1).
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 2:02:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2005 2:09:38 PM EDT by KillAgain]
TKO:

This is different because it is a new option that hasn't been addressed yet. Since the lower receiver isn't banned then it's up to the builder to build it to legal specs.

You could have a muzzle break and no bayonet lug with a detatchable magazine if you modify the pistol grip so it doesn't fall under the features ban.

Or like you said you could do the pinned mag.

This is good because:
1. Fab-10 is junk
2. Vulcan is junk
3. Won't have to build 80% receivers to have a semi decent AR platform
(Just my Opinion on Fab-10 and Vulcan lowers, don't get your panties in a bunch)

The whole registration thing broken down is this:
If the DOJ determines the new Manufacturer to be added to the list as a banned "Assault Rifle" they will have to allow a Registration period.

So in the instance you are forced to register your newly found "Assault Rifle" what would you register it as other than an "Assault Rifle"??

Idea being, if it is banned as an Assault Weapon then you could register it with Assault Weapon features, as it would be a Registered Assault Rifle.
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 2:13:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2005 2:14:50 PM EDT by KillAgain]

Originally Posted By leelaw:
Don't want to be the naysayer, but I'm typing in this thread with a 20-foot pole, and that's a little close for comfort.



The Govt. is going to raid your house just for reading this. You'd better start flushing all your dope down the toilet now!

p4r4n0|d
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 2:46:34 PM EDT
i'm on calguns and have followed the thread closely.

I sent my own letter to the california DOJ specifying the lower receiver i wanted to purchase (off the banned list).

if/when i get my letter back. I'll be sure to be going to the closest and most reasonable FFL to purchase one.

I see no reason why if i walk in a store with a DOJ letter saying it's legal for ME (my specific name/address) to own this said specific lower that they could say no.
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 2:55:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By elmo:
I see no reason why if i walk in a store with a DOJ letter saying it's legal for ME (my specific name/address) to own this said specific lower that they could say no.



Other than the dealer having the final say in what he sells and to whom, neither do I. Most are just afraid enough to not even want to "take the risk" as I was told.

It ain't right, but it is what it is.
Link Posted: 12/1/2005 3:47:23 PM EDT
Eyes open and fingers crossed.

I "need" 5.
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 6:15:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By elmo:
i'm on calguns and have followed the thread closely.

I sent my own letter to the california DOJ specifying the lower receiver i wanted to purchase (off the banned list).

if/when i get my letter back. I'll be sure to be going to the closest and most reasonable FFL to purchase one.

I see no reason why if i walk in a store with a DOJ letter saying it's legal for ME (my specific name/address) to own this said specific lower that they could say no.



If and when you receive the DOJs letter of approval, can some of us have a copy?
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 4:26:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KillAgain:
The whole registration thing broken down is this:
If the DOJ determines the new Manufacturer to be added to the list as a banned "Assault Rifle" they will have to allow a Registration period.

So in the instance you are forced to register your newly found "Assault Rifle" what would you register it as other than an "Assault Rifle"??

Idea being, if it is banned as an Assault Weapon then you could register it with Assault Weapon features, as it would be a Registered Assault Rifle.




Yeah, because the DOJ would never say a weapon was not an Assault Weapon, change their minds after registration closed, and then confiscate the aforementioned weapon.

By the way, how are everyone's removeable mag SKSs?
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 5:21:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:

Originally Posted By KillAgain:
The whole registration thing broken down is this:
If the DOJ determines the new Manufacturer to be added to the list as a banned "Assault Rifle" they will have to allow a Registration period.

So in the instance you are forced to register your newly found "Assault Rifle" what would you register it as other than an "Assault Rifle"??

Idea being, if it is banned as an Assault Weapon then you could register it with Assault Weapon features, as it would be a Registered Assault Rifle.




Yeah, because the DOJ would never say a weapon was not an Assault Weapon, change their minds after registration closed, and then confiscate the aforementioned weapon.

By the way, how are everyone's removeable mag SKSs?



Like I said, it was an IDEA of an Issue that might arise. I was stating an instance of an idea of an issue that doesn't currently exist. I didn't say anything about the DOJ's stance on it.

I was pointing out that if they made you register a California legal configuration as an "Assault Weapon," then since it was a registered "Assault Weapon" then it would make sense that the feature law doesn't apply to it. Just like it doesn't apply to the currently Registered "Assault Weapons."
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 6:09:46 PM EDT
But like pointed out, .50BMGs are assault weapons, that doesn't mean you could turn them into any assault weapon you wanted.

I want to take a step back from where I am because I like to debate and talk things over (better than just nodding my had all the time) and I am arguing down a path that I don't fully support.

I am all for pushing the boundaries of the law, I feel it is our American duty and responsability to actively oppose all laws that impose upon us. It's why we left England. It's why we owned firearms when they told us to hand them over. It's why we fought back and won against the strongest nation in the world when all we had were "squirrel guns".

That being said, this is an idea I had been toying around with in case I could get around the series part of the law with a slightly altered 80%er.
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 6:12:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:
By the way, how are everyone's removeable mag SKSs?



I'd bet the people who have them are enjoying them. What does that have to do with this?
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 6:16:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2005 6:19:43 PM EDT by Zapp]

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:
But like pointed out, .50BMGs are assault weapons, that doesn't mean you could turn them into any assault weapon you wanted.



The .50 BMG also has a new portion of california code added dealing with its registration. What these guys are talking about would be using the preexisting section of code regarding assault weapon registration.

BTW, interesting pic. You'd need to probably tweak the grip a bit more, otherwise it will still sit too low.
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 6:34:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2005 6:35:29 PM EDT by realwar]
Yea the pistol grip has to be level or above the trigger guard.I have a letter from the DOJ stating the ZM weaponsystems thumholed grip is only legal on the Barrett 82A1 and not the AR series recievers.
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 6:46:29 PM EDT

11 CCR 978.20 (d) defines a pistol gripthat protrudes conspicuoosly beneath the action of the weapon to mean, "...a grip that allows a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and the index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.


So you cut off an inch or so of the pistol grip. Even as it is now, it still looks like the web is above the trigger.
Link Posted: 12/2/2005 7:47:32 PM EDT
Ha! Dream on, guys...
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 7:55:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zapp:

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:
By the way, how are everyone's removeable mag SKSs?



I'd bet the people who have them are enjoying them.



Doubt it. Unless they are shooting them in an underground bunker, or strictly on private property or out of state.


What does that have to do with this?


Plenty. Legally purchased SKS rifles that were later declared illegal were confiscated. You don't see a similarity?
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 10:18:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 10:18:45 AM EDT by Zapp]

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
Plenty. Legally purchased SKS rifles that were later declared illegal were confiscated. You don't see a similarity?



Good thing I don't own any of those. I know they are illegal now, but didn't the SKS with removable magazine go into the original Roberti Roos list That went into effect in 89? It wasn't allowed to register them?

Link Posted: 12/3/2005 1:24:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zapp:

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
Plenty. Legally purchased SKS rifles that were later declared illegal were confiscated. You don't see a similarity?



Good thing I don't own any of those. I know they are illegal now, but didn't the SKS with removable magazine go into the original Roberti Roos list That went into effect in 89? It wasn't allowed to register them?




No registration, none at all. The state bought them all back. Illegal to possess in CA.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 1:33:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By operatorerror:

Originally Posted By Zapp:

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
Plenty. Legally purchased SKS rifles that were later declared illegal were confiscated. You don't see a similarity?



Good thing I don't own any of those. I know they are illegal now, but didn't the SKS with removable magazine go into the original Roberti Roos list That went into effect in 89? It wasn't allowed to register them?




No registration, none at all. The state bought them all back. Illegal to possess in CA.



Not true. Those acquired and possesed prior to 1989 and registered during the Roberti-Roos registration period are legal.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 1:54:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 2:04:51 PM EDT by operatorerror]
Okay, BUT any bought legally between 1992 and 1997 were deemed illegal and were required to be turned over by 1/1/2000.

See link.

www.nramemberscouncils.com/contracosta/FaxAlerts/sksalert.shtml
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 2:06:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 2:07:24 PM EDT by Zapp]

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
Okay, BUT any bought legally between 1992 and 1997 were deemed illegal and were required to be turned over by 1/1/2000.

See link.

www.nramemberscouncils.com/contracosta/FaxAlerts/sksalert.shtml



So at what point was the SKS with detachable magazine added to the Roberti Roos list? Was it in the original when it became law in 1989? Or did it get added after? Somehow, I doubt Lundgren could actually change the wording of the law that is on the books.

Link Posted: 12/3/2005 2:26:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 2:54:37 PM EDT by TKoProductions]
The Roberti-Roos Act outlawed "assault weapons" by make/model/manufacturer not by characteristics. Originally the act was extremely specific as to which models were outlawed. The act only banned the type 54 SKS which was sold at storefronts with the detachable magazine. Those who possessed them prior to 1989 registered them. Then, sometime after 1992 people started purchasing the type 84 SKS with the fixed 10 round magazine. They removed the fixed mags, and started using detachable magazines. The Roberti-Roos Act did not specifically outlaw the type 84, nor did it outlaw "assault weapons" based on characteristics (so you could have a pistolgrip/thumbhole stock with a detachable magazine at that time as long as the model number wasn't specified in the act). Everyone thought that they had found a legitimate loophole. The DOJ thought otherwise and confiscated those detachable mag SKS's which hadn't been registered back in 1989. At that point (1996 or 1997) they changed the law to read "SKS with detachable magazines." If you owned and registered a type 54 back in 1989, it's still legal for you to own today. What's illegal are the type 84 with detachable magazines.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 2:44:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 2:44:44 PM EDT by Zapp]

So at what point did the PC 12276(a) get changed from saying type 54 SKS, to saying SKS with detachable magazines? The AG can't randomly rewrite laws, can he? It appears as though they can interpret them at their whim, but this looks as if the law was actually modified, so I am curious as to when this modification occurred?

Link Posted: 12/3/2005 2:48:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 2:49:36 PM EDT by TKoProductions]

Originally Posted By Zapp:
So at what point did the PC 12276(a) get changed from saying type 54 SKS, to saying SKS with detachable magazines? The AG can't randomly rewrite laws, can he? It appears as though they can interpret them at their whim, but this looks as if the law was actually modified, so I am curious as to when this modification occurred?




Don't know.


(We are so off topic)
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 2:52:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
Okay, BUT any bought legally between 1992 and 1997 were deemed illegal and were required to be turned over by 1/1/2000.

See link.

www.nramemberscouncils.com/contracosta/FaxAlerts/sksalert.shtml



Besides turning them over, the other option was to revert them back to the original fixed 10-round magazine. Which is how many people avoided confiscation.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 3:01:02 PM EDT
But the whole point is that even if legally obtained and configured the state can change it's friggen' mind and make your weapon illegal.
Link Posted: 12/3/2005 3:07:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/3/2005 3:08:39 PM EDT by TKoProductions]

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
But the whole point is that even if legally obtained and configured the state can change it's friggen' mind and make your weapon illegal.



Yupp, that was the original point Neo was trying to make.

Basicially what it boils down to, is that if you purchase a JP CTR-02, it will always have to be configured like the Vulcan or FAB-10.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top