Posted: 6/24/2008 11:27:12 PM EDT
| Can you put together an OLL yet keep the upper and lower detached? |
My understanding is that there is no constructive posession law in CA so a seperated lower could have a normal magazine release. Would it be wise to do so and possibly incur arrest and the legal fees associated to prove the point? Probably not. However, people with .22 lr upper receivers on their OLL lowers don't need a bullet button since AW laws don't apply to rimfire. It might be wise to keep the rifle assembled as a .22 and have the centerfire upper seperate for TEOTWAWKI if one is so inclined. |
|
Redcliff, above, said it well. Since summer 2006, we knew an AR lower itself is neither semiauto, nor centerfire, nor a rifle - regardless of features attached (PG, telestock, etc. ) as long as no centerfire upper w/gas system is attached. As Redcliff pointed out, there are folks with 22LR OLL ARs that have all evi features (except grenade launcher). Since they're rimfire, they're exempt. Other folks have made OLL AR "bolt guns" - i.e, nonsemiauto, manually-cycled rifles. Their uppers have gas tube removed and gas port blocked (i.e, with a 1/2" stub of gas tube pined upside down in the FS/GB) and maybe buffer/spring removed too. These can also have all SB23 evil features (except grenade launcher) since they're not semiauto so they're exempt too. Bill Wiese San Jose CA |
What if the lower is marked ",223?" |
Lower markings do not a semiautomatic centerfire rifle make. You could put an upper on that lower that had the gas tube removed making it a non semi auto and therefor not a by features AW. -Gene |
I get hung up on the part about it not being considered a rifle. When the receiver is transfered, the DROS/4473/Dealer's Bound Book are all going to have it listed as a rifle. Unless the receiver left the manufacturer as a pistol, it would be illegal for you to configure it as such, so even without an upper attached the lower receiver is still a rifle. Can you help me understand what you mean when you say it's not a rifle? |
Hey Gene! Nice to see you over here!  Has Cal DOJ put that one to a test yet? I guess that makes sense, if it is not SA then... wow... didnt even think of that one. |
|
DrFridge, The fact that a receiver is not semiauto, nor centerfire nor rifle without an upper attached (or being assembled in some other fashion appropriate to the rifle architecture) was addressed in the legislative analysis (supplied by DOJ) in 2006 for AB2728. In fact, that logic combined with the prefatory wording in 12276PC (Roberti-Roos, not SB23 12276.1) even makes the possession of a *listed* receiver a defendable case (but unwise situation). Bill Wiese San Jose CA |