I had the same question.
Anyone?

The last I heard about this lower was that he had gotten verbal approval from the CADOJ and was waiting for a written approval. I got this straight from the manufacturer about a month ago.

sounds like the ideal lower for a Watsons Weopons 50 cal. I hate the way they lok with an empty mag well.

Well this (the gogo design) is exactly what I and others have been talking about last year on the old forum, and in the "build it yourself" forum just recently.

Troy, in my opinion an AR "clone" is just that, a nearly exact copy of a Colt AR, with only minor differences. Colt's AR, and all the banned clones accept detachable magazines. I don't think it is the "look" of an AR that is banned, but the general design which includes the evil detachable magazine. It this weren't the case, how does DPMS get away with selling their single shot AR "look alike"?

It's going to be interesting to see the outcome of the first few SB23 violation cases that make it to court. The appeals court already threw out SB23, only to be reversed by the prk supremes. And local DA's still have to get past all 12 jurist's. All we need is one pro-gun jurist with common sense sitting on each trial!

I can see DOJ's point on including AR10's and SR25's, as they are just upscaled AR15's. The DPMS pump is just a standard lower (now banned), with a pump upper, right? No doubt that's why DOJ won't allow that either, as it will accept a  gas upper and be illegal.

We'll just have to wait and see if GoGo gets it in writing. I think they should, based upon SB23's "features" requirements.

Here's another option posted by ARs4Ever: [url]http://www.usit.com/ares/[/url] Wonder if this would be legal on a DPMS single shot lower with no more than 10 round belts!!!

On 6/13/01 I recieved an e-mail from GoGoGadgets in response to my inquiry, that stated:
   
  " I just recieved the approval letter from California DOJ. This whole thing has been quite a lengthy process. I am in the process of machining the recievers at this time. After they are finished being machined, they have to be hard coated. I am extremely picky and will not ship recievers until they are exactly the quality that I expect them to be. The major hurdles are over and I really hope to be shipping recievers in July. I will let you know when I am ready to recieve orders. Thank you for your patience."

Maybe this will pan out after all!

                   

Sounds Great!!! I'd request a copy of the prk DOJ letter with the lower just to carry with it, in case LEO doesn't believe it.

Just looked at the link for the "Shrike" from Aries. It wouldn't be legal in CA. Here's why:
"This allows the weapon to fire with either linked-ammunition or magazines, and it is designed to fit ALL AR-15 and M-16 type lower receivers."

So it accepts a detachable mag. An evil feature. A no-no in CA.

Just re-read the question, isn't the DPMS single shot basically a different upper?

So are belt fed now illegal in CA?

The gun show in San Jose last weekend had several belt fed semi auto .30 and .50 caliber weapons for sale.

If belt fed is still legal, a Shrike upper on a FAB-10 lower will be legal as long as it does not have a flash hider, bayonet lug, etc.

Or am I overlooking something glaringly obvious?

Belt fed is still (for the moment) legal in California.  Belts are considered the same as high capacity magazines, so it's illegal to link more than ten rounds together unless the links are pre-ban, or in the case of cloth belts, if the belt is pre-ban.

Similarly, it's illegal now to buy, sell or import high-capacity belts or pre-ban links into cali, so if you're not already belted or linked up, you've got no legal way to get some in cali.

The legality bit was that AR-15's are on the RR89 list, so can't be brought into Cali regardless of features, and must have been owned before the registration deadline, and registered to be legal for use there.  If the FAB-10 is a 'california legal design' meaning it has been made not to take detachable magazines, then adding a shrike upper to it would probably not be allowed.  Those with existing, registered "assault weapons" AR-15's would be able to mount the shrike on their lower, though.

Unless, of course, the ATF decides that the shrike upper is a firearm all by itself (like they did with brpguns' XMG-99 beltfed upper for the AR-15).  Then, it would probably quickly be added to the RR list all by itself.