Remember, "Category I, II, II" are really merely terms of reference by DOJ - how the AW came into being.  These terms are not really coded into law other than different guns are banned different ways at different times -  they all end up as AWs.

Whatever the firearm's path to its current (or prospective future) AW status - by feature set or by naming - is separate from its existence as an AW.   The categories themselves would have to be coded into the law as separate classes (as  opposed to just the 'triggering event' date/circumstances).

Once it's an AW it's an AW.

The laws quoted in posts above are just when the reg periods are triggered by date/ features/ naming, and include a clarification section so as not to create multiple registrations for a given gun.  

If this were not the case, we'd likely see busts and legal issues for people with legal registered postban CA AWs that put telestocks and flash hiders on after the 9/2004 Fed AWB sunset. The DOJ has even been saying this is legal for the last 1.5 years (not that you should rely on phone contact to them....)

Let's look at "path to charges":

When you are busted for illegal AW stuff, you've done one of the following -
(1)  illegal possession of an unregistered AW;
(2)  illegal transport of an AW  (doesn't matter if it's reg'd, but if it ain't, that's when trouble starts);
(3)  illegal acquisition/mfgr of an AW (illegal transfer of named gun, adding SB23 features combo to a legal gun);
(4)  other stuff: illegal sale, sale to minor, use in a crime, etc etc

There is not any "path-to-AW" dependency on these charges.  How it got to be an AW is irrelevant if it's registered.

Having a registered AW defeats charges of #1 above.  The examination of said gun, should it come into question ever, is merely whether or not it's registered.

If you are transporting your registered AW locked up & unloaded btwn specific authorized destinations, you aren't illegally transporting it and #2 above is not an issue.  If you do the same with an unreg'd AW you could be popped for illegally transporting an AW (it's gotta be reg'd to start out with!)  

Busts for illegal transport are likely only for gross storage/transport violations and seem only to be filed for unreg'd AWs (but don't let that stop you from maximum compliance with storage & destination requirements for your reg'd AW).   Do note that the illegal transport of AW violation has far more severe penalties than that of unregistered possession.  (So driving out of state with an AW someone forgot to register is digging the AW's owner further in the hole than just keeping stored at home.  Ideally, in such situations it should be chopped up or surrendered by prearrangment.)

Busts for #3 - illegal acquisition/transfer (i.e., paperless PPT of an AW inside CA, or acquiring one outside CA and bringing it into CA) are also possible (and common - i.e., Reno gunshow violations).  

Busts for #4 go without saying.
Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

Quoted: Once it's an AW it's an AW. Let's look at "path to charges": When you are busted for illegal AW stuff, you've done one of the following - (1)  illegal possession of an unregistered AW; (2)  illegal transport of an AW  (doesn't matter if it's reg'd, but if it ain't, that's when trouble starts); (3)  illegal acquisition/mfgr of an AW (illegal transfer of named gun, adding SB23 features combo to a legal gun); (4)  other stuff: illegal sale, sale to minor, use in a crime, etc etc There is not any "path-to-AW" dependency on these charges.  How it got to be an AW is irrelevant if it's registered. Bill Wiese San Jose, CA

Fixed it for you Bill, you listed #4 as a 2nd (3).

Quoted: Bill - Do you think a 4th category is not going to happen in Calif?  It seems like the state legislature and even the governor will gladly support just about any gun restriction espically one like this.

Could happen legislatively. Nothing on calendar now, but existing bill for anything could go thru 'gut and amend' process.

This will take months though.

Bill W.
San Jose CA

Quoted: Quoted: Do you work for the firearms div. of DOJ?  If this is their idea it will just end up back in court again. No, I just think that in this frenzy of "off-list" lower purchases that there needs to be a reality check.  I'm somewhat conflicted, I don't want to see it turn out this way, but I think people should be careful.  I don't want to give away anything to the DOJ (not that they couldn't come up with this idea themselves) so I'm happy to delete my previous posts if folks think that would be prudent.

a sabotour

I think it would be rediculous to think with the way things are in Cali that they would take a do-nothing approach to the situation.

If they do nothing, then thousands more lowers will flood into the state and will be visually identical to weapons already banned as assault rifles with the only difference being an $.08 nylock nut and nylon washer.

I can only begin to guess the number of people who have already assembled their legal lowers into a banned configuration...

Do you really think that if they allow this to go on for too much longer that the story wont get out to the press and there would be a shitstorm in the media about how there are assault weapons flooding the streets and killing babies and nuns?  Noone, including gun owners and the DOJ wants to see that happen, it won't be good for either side.

Quoted: Remember, "Category I, II, II" are really merely terms of reference by DOJ - how the AW came into being.  These terms are not really coded into law other than different guns are banned different ways at different times -  they all end up as AWs. This is precisely the weakness in your theory, the loose and imprecise clumping together of distinct categories of assault weapons, each of which has distinct registration requirements including express registration deadlines.  Of course the terms "Category 1, II, III" are not coded into law, but the the AW statute does respect the distinct definitions of assault weapon (i.e, (1) listed in PC 12276, (2) AR Series/AK Series/add-on, (3) SB 23) and it does allude to the requirement to "re-register" an AW if it is configured with SB 23 features and is thereby "defined as an assault weapon under PC 12276.1" Whatever the firearm's path to its current (or prospective future) AW status - by feature set or by naming - is separate from its existence as an AW.   The categories themselves would have to be coded into the law as separate classes (as  opposed to just the 'triggering event' date/circumstances). The categories already are coded into the law as separate classes.  And the law already says that an AW can be in more than one class.  The registration requirements for each class are not merely alternative ways of getting to the same place.  You must comply with each registration deadline for each class that your AW may happen to fall under in order to lawfully posssess the assault weapon. Once it's an AW it's an AW. I think more precision is required: A Category 1 AW (PC 12276) is a Category 1 AW A Category 1 AW may also be a Category 3 AW (SB 23) A Category 2 AW (AR Series/AK Series/add-on) is a Category 2 AW   A Category 2 AW may also become a Category 3 AW A Category 3 AW is a Category 3 AW Where exactly is the textual support, in Harrott or the AW statute, that "an assault weapon is an assault weapon" regardless how it got there? The laws quoted in posts above are just when the reg periods are triggered by date/ features/ naming, and include a clarification section so as not to create multiple registrations for a given gun. The intent of the legislature in enacting SB 23 was stated as follows:   SEC. 12.  It was the original intent of the Legislature in enacting Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989 to ban all assault weapons, regardless of their name, model number, or manufacture.  It is the purpose of this act to effectively achieve the Legislature's intent to prohibit all assault weapons. The Legislature intended to comprehensively ban assault weapons once and for all by its features (as opposed to simply listing AWs by make and models).  This means a ban on assault weapons configured with SB 23 features unless these assault weapons were lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2000, and registered within one year of that date. This registration deadline is the very essence of the ban: however you may acquire a Category 3 assault weapon after January 1, 2000, you cannot possibly comply with the Category 3 registration requirements and therefore can never be in lawful possession of the AW (unless you have a permit).  This is exactly how the legislature banned Category 3 assault weapons that were not lawfully possessed before January 1, 2000. As far as the "multiple registration" issue is concerned, the legislature probably recognized that re-registration of a Category 1 assault weapon as a Category 3 assault weapon if it already had SB 23 features would serve no useful purpose.  Would re-registration of Category 3 assault weapons that were built onto newly-listed and registered Category 2 assault weapons serve any useful purpose?  I suspect the Legislature would think it would, especially if the result is that the new Category 3 assault weapon cannot be legally registered or lawfully possessed. You have to ask wonder, did the Legislature really pass a law full of "loopholes" or was its registration scheme for Category 3 assault weapons actually a stroke of genius?  Which way do you think a judge or appellate court is going to try to interpret the AW legislation in a test case, in a manner which carries out the legislature's intent or undermines it?  I don't have the definitive answers answers to these questions, and frankly, I do not think the legislature envisioned the exact situation were are in now post-Harrott.  But that is not to say that the position I am articulating is not fully supported by the text as well as the intent of SB 23.  All I know is that the assumption that it would not be necessary to comply with each registration deadline for each class/category of AW is a risky one. If this were not the case, we'd likely see busts and legal issues for people with legal registered postban CA AWs that put telestocks and flash hiders on after the 9/2004 Fed AWB sunset. The DOJ has even been saying this is legal for the last 1.5 years (not that you should rely on phone contact to them....) I agree with this result, but I do not agree that it is because "an assault weapon is an assault weapon."  Rather, I agree with the result because "a Category 3 assault weapon is a Category 3 assault weapon."  If a registered, post ban assault weapon was already a Category 3 assault weapon (for instance because it had the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and a pistol grip), adding another SB 23 feature like a telescoping stock or a flash hider, once they became legal under federal law, would not make the firearm any more of a Category 3 assault weapon.  Nothing would trigger re-registration under PC 12285. On the other hand, adding SB 23 features to a Category 2 assault weapon that was not already configured that way puts the assault weapon into an entirely new category (Category 3 in addition to Category 2), and the registration requirements -- which can no longer be met at this point in time -- are triggered. Let's look at "path to charges": When you are busted for illegal AW stuff, you've done one of the following - (1)  illegal possession of an unregistered AW; (2)  illegal transport of an AW  (doesn't matter if it's reg'd, but if it ain't, that's when trouble starts); (3)  illegal acquisition/mfgr of an AW (illegal transfer of named gun, adding SB23 features combo to a legal gun); (3)  other stuff: illegal sale, sale to minor, use in a crime, etc etc There is not any "path-to-AW" dependency on these charges.  How it got to be an AW is irrelevant if it's registered. Again, you are assuming that registration as a Category 2 assault weapon somehow excuses compliance with the registration requirements for Category 3 assault weapons if SB features are added; in other words, "one registration is enough."  That is a risky assumption with no textual support in Harrott or the AW statute, which in my mind fairly clearly suggests that "one registration may not be enough."  You can be busted under #1 for having a Category 3 assault weapon built on to a registered Category 2 assault weapon because you cannot possibly comply with registration deadline for Category 3 AWs set forth in PC 12285(a). Having a registered AW defeats charges of #1 above.  The examination of said gun, should it come into question ever, is merely whether or not it's registered. No, it is not "merely whether or not it's registered."  This is what the examination of said gun would entail: Were you in possession of an assault weapon? Is it a Category 2 assault weapon, and if so was it lawfully possessed prior to the date it was listed by the DOJ as an assault weapon, and timely registered within 90 days after being listed?   Is the assault weapon also a Category 3 assault weapon and if so, was it lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2000, and timely registered within one year after that date? This final question can never be answered affirmatively, and it is here that criminal liability for unlawful possession would attach. If you are transporting your registered AW locked up & unloaded btwn specific authorized destinations, you aren't illegally transporting it and #2 above is not an issue.  If you do the same with an unreg'd AW you could be popped for illegally transporting an AW (it's gotta be reg'd to start out with!)   Busts for illegal transport are likely only for gross storage/transport violations and seem only to be filed for unreg'd AWs (but don't let that stop you from maximum compliance with storage & destination requirements for your reg'd AW).   Do note that the illegal transport of AW violation has far more severe penalties than that of unregistered possession.  (So driving out of state with an AW someone forgot to register is digging the AW's owner further in the hole than just keeping stored at home.  Ideally, in such situations it should be chopped up or surrendered by prearrangment.) Busts for #3 - illegal acquisition/transfer (i.e., paperless PPT of an AW inside CA, or acquiring one outside CA and bringing it into CA) are also possible (and common - i.e., Reno gunshow violations).   Busts for #4 go without saying. No disagreement with this stuff except to the extent it might be inconsistent with my observations above (not saying it is, I was more focused on "Busts for #1" than the others and didn't look at those too carefully). Bill Wiese San Jose, CA

I think I've done what I came here to do, it would be counter-productive to debate this any further I think.  I will freely admit there are "weak links" in this analysis as well.  And no, I'm not a saboteur, I'm a realist.  The courts will need to decide these issues and everyone can place their own bets how it will end up.  In the meantime be careful what you do with your new lower.

Doj hack?

This is just ridiculous.  Did you really read Harrot?  Please if you don't know what you're talking about refrain from posting.

Quoted: Here are the implications for the proposed strategy of registering a newly-listed AR Series lower receiver and then building it with SB 23 features: A Category 2 AR Series lower receiver must be registered within 90 days after it is added to the list, whether it remains a stripped lower or whether it is configured "California legal" with a fixed magazine.  However, once configured with SB 23 features and a detachable magazine, the weapon becomes a "dual category" assault weapon, as it would then be "defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.1" (Category 3) in addition to being listed as an AR Series (Category 2) assault weapon by the DOJ .  The Category 3 assault weapon registration requirements set forth at PC 12285(a) would apply-- including the time limit for registration as well as the requirement of lawful possession prior to January 1, 2000. At this point in time it is impossible to comply with either of these requirements, meaning that Category 3 assault weapons built from newly-listed Category 2 AR series lowers cannot legally be (re)registered under PC 12285(a) and therefore may not be possessed under any of the conditions permitted by PC 12285(c).  Possession of lawfully registered Category 2 assault weapons is permitted by PC 12285(c), in a stripped lower or California legal configuration, but not in an SB 23 configuration. Was it not the Legislature’s intent to ban Category 3 assault weapons that were not lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2000?  And has it not already achieved its intent with this statutory registration scheme? I'm not expecting to convince anybody here or change anyone's mind.  Sometimes, though, you have to look at the issue from a contrary perspective and try to poke holes in your assumptions.

IMO, this is not about  Harrot, it is about AW statute law.  Spahn_Ranch does bring up good points, many of which I have already considered and  many of which worry me.  Even if they are "wrong", this is a posisble interpretation the DoJ might make.  We are going to have to wait and see; some people already plan on getting a ruling letter from the DoJ on this matter once these are listed and subsequently registered as Assault Weapons.   If the ruling does not go our way, then it will be up to the courts to decide.  Either way, we win.

Well, I can't say I'm feeling any better about all of this now, but I do see a little more ambiguity in the assault weapon statute than Spahn_Ranch:

"A person who has registered an assault weapon under this section may possess it only under any of the following conditions unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 12286:..."  Penal Code 12285 (c).

Does "registered an assault weapon under this section" mean timely registered either as a Category 1, Category 2, or Category 3 assault weapon under section 12285(a), it doesn't matter which?  So long as it's registered properly as an AW under any of the statutory deadlines, then arguably you can build up a registered AR Series receiver in an SB 23 configuration.  Under this reading "a registered assault weapon is a registered assault weapon" however it got there and you'd be o.k.

There is ambiguity, though, in that "registered an assault weapon under this section" could also mean timely registered under each deadline for each category/definition/designation (I, II, or III) that might apply to your particular firearm (i.e., what Spahn_Ranch is saying).  If that's the case, you can't build up a new SB 23 AW using an AR Series receiver.  I keep going back and forth on this; I think both arguments are plausible.

My main concern at this point is, how do you challenge the law?  What if the DOJ issues unfavorable opinion letters, based solely on the text of the existing AW law, concerning the legality of building SB 23 type AW's onto properly registered AR Series lowers?  Can you go into court at that point for some kind of declaratory judgment or will there need to be a "test case" where someone actually has to get prosecuted for unlawful possession?  If it's the latter there's going to be a dark cloud over everything until someone gets busted and the appellate courts sort it out.

Quoted: My main concern at this point is, how do you challenge the law?  What if the DOJ issues unfavorable opinion letters, based solely on the text of the existing AW law, concerning the legality of building SB 23 type AW's onto properly registered AR Series lowers?  Can you go into court at that point for some kind of declaratory judgment or will there need to be a "test case" where someone actually has to get prosecuted for unlawful possession?  If it's the latter there's going to be a dark cloud over everything until someone gets busted and the appellate courts sort it out.

Well it depends on 'standing', I'd think.  Sometimes you have to be busted for something to have standing - you just can't go challenging laws in court without really having a reason, apparently.

However, the act of forced registration could poss be regarded as introducing some standing here - once you're reg'd w/a declared AW there are very specific and significant limitations as to your use, transport, possession of said AW... so perhaps there's some 'continuity of control' where you could argue that standing exists...

My read is that the law expresses 'paths' to AW status; once they cross that boundary no reversibility can happen so features combination irrelevant after reg filed/received.

We'll see what the ruling letter says when we acquire it.


Bill W.
San Jose CA

Quoted: 1.  The do nothing approach. Noban lowers remain for sale.  Becomming commonly availble in every guns hotp. Prices dfall and you are limited to making a FABforgery out of it. 2. DOJ adds the lowers to the list and you can assemble them into AW's after registration. 2a. DOJ adds the lowers to the list and claims assembling them is "manufacturing" an AW. 3.  SKS-D like buy back. 4.  New class of AW's limited to FAB10 type rifles. 5.  New sweeping ban on all magazine fed detachable mag semi autos. 1 or 2, followed later by #5, are most likely IMO.

Looks like 2a & 4 are the correct answer.

Quoted: ...it seems to me that the AG could make a plausible argument for a regulation prohibiting the addition of SB23 features to AR15 lowers added to the AW list.

so sayeth the Prophet eje.


www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=11&t=222532

Quoted: Quoted: 2a. DOJ adds the lowers to the list and claims assembling them is "manufacturing" an AW. I personally heard DOJ agents state to a FFL this weekend they would be making arrests  for  manufacturing  a AW,  on  off list lowers registered after listing and subsequently changed to detachable magazine  configuration.

Based upon the newest infomation they were not blowing smoke up your ass. They had some early indication of DOJs response.

Quoted: so sayeth the Prophet eje.

And Spahn_Ranch.  Those two nailed it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 2a. DOJ adds the lowers to the list and claims assembling them is "manufacturing" an AW. I personally heard DOJ agents state to a FFL this weekend they would be making arrests  for  manufacturing  a AW,  on  off list lowers registered after listing and subsequently changed to detachable magazine  configuration. This will put the issue back  on the Court’s Out. 2011BLDR If it's registered as an AW how can you be charged later with manufacturing it?

Because even the OJ jurers could understand the difference between a stripped lower and ther act of assembling it into a functional firearm.

Doj cannot legally create a new class of assault weapon, as it is already defined in the law by the characteristics.
A fixed ten round gun by characteristics is not an AW by law.
What are you registering, a fab 10?
I love it, a fixed ten round mag is now an AW, and a M-14 type rifle isn't
The humor of this is well worth the price of admission.