Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
9/1/2006 4:42:03 PM EDT
I am in search of California Legal lower receivers. I have two AR's but can't legally shoot them in my current state. All of the information that I have been able to find out thus far is that I must purchase an entire rifle assembly in order to obtain one. I do want to keep my other lowers intact, so you can see my predicament here.

Can a manufacturer(s) be recommended that produce California Legal lowers?

I do understand that I have to purchase one through my FFL dealer, which isn't the problem... I just need to purchase one. But, Bushmaster doesn't sell the Carbon 15 lowers by themselves and I haven't even been able to find a California Legal rifle from DPMS or RRA.

Thanks in advance for any help, suggestions, or just plain advice.
9/1/2006 4:13:31 PM EDT
[#1]
Go to the CA Hometown forum.

Try Calguns.net

Now, about those two AR's that you own but are unable to shoot here. Unregistered?

They are stored outside of CA, right? Because that is the only correct answer.

ETA yes, you acn buy stripped lowers in CA. See the HTF and Calguns for further info.
9/1/2006 4:20:56 PM EDT
[#2]
Actually, they aren't stored outside of California... my mother-in-law works for a county sherrifs office and they are stored in their facility. I'm not allowed to take them out because they are both class III weapons. But yes, they are both registered and purchased legally when I lived in the state of Nevada (Henderson to be more precise).
9/1/2006 4:25:42 PM EDT
[#3]

Quoted:
Actually, they aren't stored outside of California... my mother-in-law works for a county sherrifs office and they are stored in their facility. I'm not allowed to take them out because they are both class III weapons. But yes, they are both registered and purchased legally when I lived in the state of Nevada (Henderson to be more precise).


Oh, well, hmmmm, how the heck, you have C3 and now that you live in CA you are allowed to own them if stored at the station and you have no access to them?
9/1/2006 4:32:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Here, here and here.
9/1/2006 4:40:24 PM EDT
[#5]

Quoted:
Actually, they aren't stored outside of California... my mother-in-law works for a county sherrifs office and they are stored in their facility. I'm not allowed to take them out because they are both class III weapons. But yes, they are both registered and purchased legally when I lived in the state of Nevada (Henderson to be more precise).


Actually these NFA weapons are totally illegal in California unless you have a California machine gun permit.  Unfortunately they don't issue them anymore.

Probably the only legal way for the Sheriff's Department to have tme is as evidence after your arrest.

A smart person would immediately remove them to Nevada and secure the lowers in a safe deposit box.  Of course, you can't legally do that, because to do that they'd have to be in your possesion in the state of California, which they can't legally be.

Wow.  I think you just kissed two NFA firearms away.
9/1/2006 4:41:19 PM EDT
[#6]
Mother-In-Law perk, I guess. When we moved here, she was checking out my safe and said, "Uh-OH! You can't bring these here to California... You had better let me have them stored for you... So, I figured that would be okay because my California Transfer was supposed to be for a short time... meanwhile, 6 years later, I still haven't seen them. Plus, I was told that they would have to be shipped out of state (if legal in that state) when I move. I still have a few uppers that I like to use and used to swap out, but I need lowers for them.

I'm finding that I don't like California that much. In Nevada, if you already own a handgun, you don't have to wait. Show the dealer your "blue card" (gun registration card) and no waiting period. You still have to pass Brady though. Besides, the waiting period is only 3 days. I'm also considering Arizona because the law on rifles (including ar-15s) is still cash and carry from what I understand.

9/1/2006 4:45:34 PM EDT
[#7]
At this point, that might be totally true... I'm seeing my mom-in-law tomorrow, I'll have to pose the question. I haven't seen them in six years and she may have just "turned them in" for me. Trying to keep me out of trouble. Hmmmm... now I really wonder.

Now I'm getting depressed.
9/1/2006 4:52:06 PM EDT
[#8]

Quoted:
I'm not allowed to take them out because they are both class III weapons. But yes, they are both registered and purchased legally when I lived in the state of Nevada (Henderson to be more precise).


"Class III"?  What do you consider "Class III"?  Are they machine guns?  Short Barreled Rifles?  AOWs?  Are they on the NFA Registry?

Are you sure they aren't just AR-15 lowers you bought in Nevada and are calling them "Class III" because they are illegal in California?  You mentioned you registered them in Nevada.  Nevada doesn't require registration of long guns.

I think we need a little more info here.
9/1/2006 4:55:52 PM EDT
[#9]

Quoted:
I haven't seen them in six years and she may have just "turned them in" for me.


Well, if they were legal "Class III" transferable machine gun lowers, your mother in law just cost you $20-30,000
9/1/2006 6:36:16 PM EDT
[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I haven't seen them in six years and she may have just "turned them in" for me.


Well, if they were legal "Class III" transferable machine gun lowers, your mother in law just cost you $20-30,000


that is one perk i don't want.
9/1/2006 8:59:08 PM EDT
[#11]
Wouldn't mother-in-law also be guilty of the felony knowingly storing the illegal weapons - even police are covered by the laws still ... arn't they?

Now if monther-in-law was US Military and the weapons were stored in an armory on a federal base they'd be safe. On base there are only two people we're "afraid" of - the local fire marshall and the EPA. The police and sherrifs are allowed on base only by invitation ... which they are normally granted but federal laws still apply.
9/1/2006 9:22:27 PM EDT
[#12]

Quoted:
Wouldn't mother-in-law also be guilty of the felony knowingly storing the illegal weapons - even police are covered by the laws still ... arn't they?

Now if monther-in-law was US Military and the weapons were stored in an armory on a federal base they'd be safe. On base there are only two people we're "afraid" of - the local fire marshall and the EPA. The police and sherrifs are allowed on base only by invitation ... which they are normally granted but federal laws still apply.


Ah yes I remember the local P.D. getting into trouble for serving a warrant on-base without PMO's permission.
9/3/2006 4:52:56 AM EDT
[#13]

Quoted:
Wouldn't mother-in-law also be guilty of the felony knowingly storing the illegal weapons - even police are covered by the laws still ... arn't they?

Now if monther-in-law was US Military and the weapons were stored in an armory on a federal base they'd be safe. On base there are only two people we're "afraid" of - the local fire marshall and the EPA. The police and sherrifs are allowed on base only by invitation ... which they are normally granted but federal laws still apply.


Based upon some current research I've been doing for work, that may not be entirely true.

In California, California cedes state sovereignty only on "Federal enclaves" and what Washington DC thinks is a "Federal enclave" and what Sacramento thinks are "Federal enclaves" are two different lists.

And its almost impossible to get a straight answer from Sacramento on the subject as they want to have the ability to change their list at any time.
9/3/2006 10:50:25 AM EDT
[#14]

I'm also considering Arizona because the law on rifles (including ar-15s) is still cash and carry from what I understand.


Yes, AZ.  Open carry & easy to acquire CCW.  

I.D. card + $$ + instant check= same day gun pick-up.  

It's called freedom.  Long forgotten here in CA.
9/3/2006 8:11:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Where in CA are you?  I just completed my RRA project & shot it this morning.  I bought my stuff at GunRunners in Duarte CA...626.358.7711
9/3/2006 8:30:25 PM EDT
[#16]
What gives your mother in law/sheriff's dept the right to create 'protection' for multiple felony violations?  Jeezus.  Someone's not too bright here.

The very *best* that can happen is they are contraband, with no prosecution.

If they're truly what you call Class III guns (really meaning registered NFA full-auto, suppressed, SBS, SBR, AOW, etc.) they'd be very valuable and you'd have paperwork for them and wouldn't've brought them into CA because you (1) need to give notice to move them state to state and (2) no way you'd move an NFA gun into CA given that even ordinary semiauto rifles are termed assault weapons and are banned...

If they're NFA (what you call "Class III") guns not registered w/BATF and are also defined as assault weapons in CA you've got a variety of trouble with a variety of agencies.  Pick who you want to start out first for your blanket party...

If they're just AWs in CA but not NFA ("Class III") you still can't possess or reacquire an unregistered assault weapon in CA.  

Since it appears from your recounting that your mo-in-law and her sheriff's dept seems to be running a trend with aiding and abetting multiple felonies, it wouldn't be much more risk for her to take a Sawzall to your guns and dump the scrap metal, since no other outcome is legal.  (And the sheriff's dept would have to send the AWs to an out-of-state FFL via a CA FFL dealer that also holds an AW permit, unless the guns were off-list and had certain features removed, yadayadayada...)

I am sure there are some inaccuracies in recounting the story, but there's enough here to indicate that multiple people have failed the Big IQ test here.


Bill W.
San Jose, CA