Wrong.  If it's a registered AW, whether originally or after this Harrot mess, it is an AW REGARDLESS of any features.  You cannot be in violation of SB23 because it's ALEADY an AW.  You can weld the magwell shut and destroy the pistol grip attachment point so that a pistol grip can never be added and it will still be an AW.  SB23 does not apply.  Now whether DOJ will actually add these lowers to the banned list or not is another matter.  If they never add it, then you have to make sure you never violate SB23.

Quoted: Wrong.  If it's a registered AW, whether originally or after this Harrot mess, it is an AW REGARDLESS of any features.  You cannot be in violation of SB23 because it's ALEADY an AW.  You can weld the magwell shut and destroy the pistol grip attachment point so that a pistol grip can never be added and it will still be an AW.  SB23 does not apply.  Now whether DOJ will actually add these lowers to the banned list or not is another matter.  If they never add it, then you have to make sure you never violate SB23.

Ed Zachary!  If they name them we can build it, if they call it somthing else we have to fix the mag or remove the evilness.

OK, I'll try explaining this again.

Wow. This is pretty naive. All AWs are not the same in CA.

Yes, today they ARE all the same. Sure, the methods which resulted in their being declared an AW varies (this is the 3 catagory concept you are mentioning), but their legal status is the same. An assault weapon is an assault weapon is an assault weapon. They are all governed by the same section of the penal code, they are all restricted in the same way, they are all registered in the same database. BTW, the whole point of the Harrott ruling was that there is no longer any such thing as a "catagory 2" assault weapon, there is only the original definition (you call it catagory 1) and the evil features definition (you call this catagory 3).

Just because you have a registered AW under Roberti-Roos DOES NOT clear you under SB23. It just doesn't work that way.

Ummm, actually, the law specifically says that it does, you cannot be charged for an assault weapons possession violation if you have legally registered said weapon with the DOJ. I'm afraid it is you who are being naive no. This is why I'm writing letters to the DOJ, getting results, and you're just sitting on the sidelines playing the naysayer.

Registering an AR receiver under Harrott is fine

NO! You fail to understand again, the whole point of Harrott is that there are certain AR receivers that you can purchase now that DON'T HAVE TO BE REGISTERED. READ the letter!

add even a pistol grip and you are in violation of SB23.

If you added a pistol grip now, you would be in violation since you would be CREATING an assault weapon. If the DOJ takes it upon themselves to make your legally owned DSA receiver an AW, you have the right to register it, at which point it becomes.... wait for it.... a LEGALLY POSSESSED ASSAULT WEAPON. DO YOU GET ME NOW?

You can't be found in violation of SB23 for possessing a unregistered AW if the DOJ forces you to register it.

Then why would they do it when maintaining the status quo, adding nothing to the list prevents ANY and all new SB23 AWs?

There going to do it because the alternative, (not banning the guns) is even worse from their point of view, since everyone can just keep buying pistol grip free AR forever.

SB23 DID NOT allow for the registration of weapons that should have been registered under Roberti-Roos.

Of course it didn't, because all of those weapons would have been illegally possessed for several years. Why grant amnesty? The whole point of this "loophole" is that it is not illegal to buy and own a DSA ZM4 receiver... until they ban them, which they have said they will. And once they are banned, they basically follow the same path that a Bushmaster XM-15E2S followed at the end of 1999 (the enactment of SB23).  

So where do you get the notion that a Herrott-registered AW will be an exception

Once again (and for the last time) no gun is or ever will be registered under Harrott. The DOJ is taking it upon themselves (as misguided and counterproductive as it is to their intentions) to declare a class of legally owned rifles AW's, forcing the people who own them to register themselves as possessors of CA AW's.

nor is it legal to create an SB23-violating .50 BMG AFTER registration

Now you are comparing apples and oranges. The .50 BMG rifles were never registered as AW's, never labelled AW's; they were registered as a distincly different class of weapons called ".50 BMG rifles".

So basicly all stripped lowers would be legal except the COLT AR-15 lower right?

So basicly all stripped lowers would be legal except the COLT AR-15 lower right?

NO. All stripped lowers are legal except those specifically mentioned on the list. There's an assload more "AR-series" lowers on the list than the Colt, including every Bushmaster, DPMS, Armalite, Les Baer, Olyarms... it goes on for quite a while. Read the list, but know that the DSA ZM4 is NOT on the list (yet). The DOJ has specifically said they intend to add it (and the Stag-15, and the JP-02) to the list in 2-3 weeks. They are on the move, so if you want in, you better move fast.

Quoted: OK, I'll try explaining this again. Wow. This is pretty naive. All AWs are not the same in CA. Yes, today they ARE all the same. Sure, the methods which resulted in their being declared an AW varies (this is the 3 catagory concept you are mentioning), but their legal status is the same. An assault weapon is an assault weapon is an assault weapon. They are all governed by the same section of the penal code, they are all restricted in the same way, they are all registered in the same database. BTW, the whole point of the Harrott ruling was that there is no longer any such thing as a "catagory 2" assault weapon, there is only the original definition (you call it catagory 1) and the evil features definition (you call this catagory 3).

 I'm no legal expert, but I did read the relevant laws. And from what I can see, blackrazor interpretation of this is spot on. There are 3 seperate ways that the term "assault weapon" is defined, all of them in PC 12276. The 3rd and final way added, the one that definies it by characteristics, starts off with this sentence:

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

Looking at this part of the code, the also indicates that the "assault weapon" definition is being added to, so that the characteristics are in addition to the other definition. It doesn't mention that it is a separate category of "assault weapon". So if the DOJ adds a receiver to the AR series ban, then it looks as if there will be a grace period for those receivers to be registered. And once they are registered, they should be able to be modified with pistol grips, detachable magazines, bayonet lugs, and all the other AW characteristics.

Quoted: if im reading that right..it says that they will be required to be registered eventually.. So does that mean at that point you can put all the evil features on it ??

Nope.  At best you could keep your stripped DSA  and it would be registred as an AW. But assembling it into a working AR pattern rifle, even after registering, it would be a violation of CPC 1280(a)(1).  All it would take is your completed rifle and CC receipts for the component parts to get a slam dunk conviction.

So what is CPC 1280 say?

From what I am reading it ether is or is not.

When we buy them it isn't.
When they put it on the list it is.

There is no "degree" of assualt weapon, thus it would be like putting a new upper on a pre-ban lower, your not building a new one just replacing some parts.

Nope. At best you could keep your stripped DSA and it would be registred as an AW. But assembling it into a working AR pattern rifle, even after registering, it would be a violation of CPC 1280(a)(1).

Sorry dude, but this is 100% typical, uninformed pessimistic bullshit. There isn't even one ounce of truth to anything you said, I've laid it all out too many times to repeat If you don't want to read what I've written, and you can't understand the legal statues we're dealing with, PLEASE, at the very least, just keep your mouth shut. Just where do you people pull stuff like this from anyway? Any why do you bother?

There is no "degree" of assualt weapon, thus it would be like putting a new upper on a pre-ban lower, your not building a new one just replacing some parts.

Good effort, but really, don't waste your time Gameover, it's already been said so many times, some people cannot be helped. They're just going to believe whatever they want to believe, and there's no amount of common sense or logic that will help.

Quoted: Quoted: if im reading that right..it says that they will be required to be registered eventually.. So does that mean at that point you can put all the evil features on it ?? Nope.  At best you could keep your stripped DSA  and it would be registred as an AW. But assembling it into a working AR pattern rifle, even after registering, it would be a violation of CPC 1280(a)(1).  All it would take is your completed rifle and CC receipts for the component parts to get a slam dunk conviction.

12280. (a)(1) Any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon or any .50 BMG rifle, except as provided by this chapter, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for four, six, or eight years.


How is that applicable, if you build it within the laws(fixed mag or whatever), then register it as an AW when required? Am I missing the part where it says you can't do any modifications to registered AWs?

Quoted: Nope. At best you could keep your stripped DSA and it would be registred as an AW. But assembling it into a working AR pattern rifle, even after registering, it would be a violation of CPC 1280(a)(1). Sorry dude, but this is 100% typical, uninformed pessimistic bullshit. There isn't even one ounce of truth to anything you said, I've laid it all out too many times to repeat If you don't want to read what I've written, and you can't understand the legal statues we're dealing with, PLEASE, at the very least, just keep your mouth shut. Just where do you people pull stuff like this from anyway?

14 years of applying the penal code on the street and in court.

Am I missing the part where it says you can't do any modifications to registered AWs?

No, you're not missing anything... there is no part of the regulations which says you cannot modify AWs. People who say otherwise are just uninformed bullshit artists or have some misguided agenda. I say ignore them.

14 years of applying the penal code on the street and in court.

Hmmm... from the astoundingly arrogant ignorance of your posts, I believe you meant to say MISapplying the penal code. I suggest a new line of work. (and leave the subtle details of interpreting the law to prefessionals i.e. lawyers)

Nevermind

Quoted: OK, I'll try explaining this again. Wow. This is pretty naive. All AWs are not the same in CA. Yes, today they ARE all the same. Sure, the methods which resulted in their being declared an AW varies (this is the 3 catagory concept you are mentioning), but their legal status is the same. An assault weapon is an assault weapon is an assault weapon. They are all governed by the same section of the penal code, they are all restricted in the same way, they are all registered in the same database. BTW, the whole point of the Harrott ruling was that there is no longer any such thing as a "catagory 2" assault weapon, there is only the original definition (you call it catagory 1) and the evil features definition (you call this catagory 3). Just because you have a registered AW under Roberti-Roos DOES NOT clear you under SB23. It just doesn't work that way. Ummm, actually, the law specifically says that it does, you cannot be charged for an assault weapons possession violation if you have legally registered said weapon with the DOJ. I'm afraid it is you who are being naive no. This is why I'm writing letters to the DOJ, getting results, and you're just sitting on the sidelines playing the naysayer. Registering an AR receiver under Harrott is fine NO! You fail to understand again, the whole point of Harrott is that there are certain AR receivers that you can purchase now that DON'T HAVE TO BE REGISTERED. READ the letter! add even a pistol grip and you are in violation of SB23. If you added a pistol grip now, you would be in violation since you would be CREATING an assault weapon. If the DOJ takes it upon themselves to make your legally owned DSA receiver an AW, you have the right to register it, at which point it becomes.... wait for it.... a LEGALLY POSSESSED ASSAULT WEAPON. DO YOU GET ME NOW? You can't be found in violation of SB23 for possessing a unregistered AW if the DOJ forces you to register it. Then why would they do it when maintaining the status quo, adding nothing to the list prevents ANY and all new SB23 AWs? There going to do it because the alternative, (not banning the guns) is even worse from their point of view, since everyone can just keep buying pistol grip free AR forever. SB23 DID NOT allow for the registration of weapons that should have been registered under Roberti-Roos. Of course it didn't, because all of those weapons would have been illegally possessed for several years. Why grant amnesty? The whole point of this "loophole" is that it is not illegal to buy and own a DSA ZM4 receiver... until they ban them, which they have said they will. And once they are banned, they basically follow the same path that a Bushmaster XM-15E2S followed at the end of 1999 (the enactment of SB23).   So where do you get the notion that a Herrott-registered AW will be an exception Once again (and for the last time) no gun is or ever will be registered under Harrott. The DOJ is taking it upon themselves (as misguided and counterproductive as it is to their intentions) to declare a class of legally owned rifles AW's, forcing the people who own them to register themselves as possessors of CA AW's. nor is it legal to create an SB23-violating .50 BMG AFTER registration Now you are comparing apples and oranges. The .50 BMG rifles were never registered as AW's, never labelled AW's; they were registered as a distincly different class of weapons called ".50 BMG rifles".

+1

I never understood why California residents bother to argue with non California residents about the legalities of doing anything in California. Ok, we posted it is a possibility, some people who don't live here disagree. That is fine. I would recommend sticking to calguns.net for receiving any information of value as listening to armchair quarterbacks from out of state is a big waste of time.

Two things.  In reading the sellers website, it appears they've done their homework and the hangup to the CA law is that if the lower isn't on an existing list, it is okay to purchase.  Once it is added to the list, you have to do secondary AW registration.  Not a big deal, it's $20, and a thumb print.  I did this a while ago for 6 AR's that I have.  

This sounds like a great opportunity.  I have a friend at CA-DOJ and will call him to find out what the options are.  The good news is that it is 12 DEC 05, giving folks at least another 19 days to do something.  Remember, you can do transfers with just the serial number.  You do not have to have the firearm in hand for your FFL to do the paperwork.  The rub is always finding a dealer to do the transfer for you.

I'll report what they tell me.

SPC Richard A. White, Senior Medic
249th MP Detachment (EACF)
Camp Humphreys, ROK

So here's what we have so far.  I'll learn more when my buddy gets to the office and talks with the Firearms Division guys.

1 - If it's true that you can buy an "Self Loading .223 Caliber Lower Receiver" because it is not on the Kasler List, you can do so and register it is a semi-automatic, rifle (not a big deal...see Ruger Mini-14).  You cannot though build it into a complete AR such that it contains the physical characteristics found in PC 12276.1.

2 - Once that particular manufacturer, that is now not listed (Cavalry Arms, LMT, Mega, Sun Devil, DSA, eg. al.) is listed on the Kasler list as a manufacturer of an "AR Variant" assault weapon, there will be a period of time for the consumer to either remove the firearm from the state, or declare it to the state as an assault weapon.  

Now the whole crux of this is whether or not it is legal to purchase a receiver that is not currently listed on the Kasler List.  This though appears to be the whole point of the letter written to Mr. Cannon by Deputy AG Merrilees, regarding the JP CTR-02 rifle.  What's not mentioned in these discussions though is that the JP CTR-02 does conform to PC 12276.1 as a physical definition of an assault weapon, in my opinion making it illegal.

However, here's the upside, and where I think Californians stand with being able to own "new" AR's.  You can either buy a stripped receiver from a non-listed manufacturer, or a complete rifle, less a FULLY assembled lower receiver.  What we would do is buy them, store them until ironically they become listed as assault weapon, requiring registration of the firearms as such.  Once fully registered as an assault weapon, PC 12276 no longer matters and you can do what you want with it.

Does this sound logical to my fellow Californians?

Like I said, when my buddy comes in, he'll be talking to the folks upstairs to get a clarification.  If it goes our way, rest assured y'all we be the first to know (well...after me).  And...Daddy will be taking some leave and coming home and adding some kids to the family!!!!  HOOAH!!!

Take care and let's hope for good luck on this!

SPC Richard A. White, Senior Medic
249th MP Detachment (EACF)
Camp Humphreys, ROK

This puzzles me. Has the AG added any receivers to the list since the inception of the law?

On falfiles.com I read that while technically it was possible that DSA (and Imbel, Hesse, Entreprise, etc) FAL receivers could have been added to the list anytime in the last 5 years they have not attempted to do so. The reason is because the AG does not want the exact scenario mentioned in this thread- that everyone with one will suddenly have no restrictions on how to build the rifle you already own.

Currently everyone wanting a FAL in CA has to either forgo the pistol grip or they are building them with fixed 10 round stripper loaded mags. The rifle was designed from the get go to be top loaded with strippers, (the T48 and C1A1 variants had appropriate top covers) and most CA owners are happy enough with the arrangement.

That letter was dated August 4th, and says it will "soon be added". What makes people think it will be Dec 31st? I have heard nothing. It might be added in 2007 too.

madkiwi

I bet that there not going to do anything, just let us buy them up.  Becouse they know we can't do anything to them without bracking the law.

That being said, I have two on order.

If they are truly worried about "AR-15's getting on the streets" then they will ban them. Why? Because if they don't, then we can just keep on buying AR type rifle receivers left and right until everyone has one. The only significant difference between what we're buying and the real thing is that we can't put the pistol grip on. However, putting on the pistol grip is about as difficult as putting in the magazine. Therefore, unless they ban them, in their eyes, "those redneck gunnuts" (us) can keep stockpiling AR-15's LEGALLY as long as we want. Then, if someone wanted to commit a Stockton style massacre (which is what they say they are afraid of) all they would have to do is throw on the pistol grip, put in the magazine, and you would be ready to go.

Furthermore, if the FAB10 grip is legal to use (which it most likely is), then the difference between what we can buy today and a real AR is practically zero (it's about the same difference as we had during the Clinton ban).

On the other hand, if they ban them now, no one will be able to buy new receivers, which will be worth the effort even though it means everyone who bought one can now store their rifles with their pistol grips attached.

I don't know about you guys, but I can put the pistol grip on in about the same amount of time it takes me to open my gunsafe... and I can certainly do it faster than I can load a 30 round magazine. So you tell me why the DOJ should be unconcerned with letting people buy AR receivers with seperately bagged pistol grips.

Lastly, when HCI, VPC, etc. hear about this, they're going to demand that the DOJ do something, and the only thing they can do is add models to the list. If they do nothing, it will look really bad for them politically, which in the end is what this is all about.

As far as the DOJ's action, one of our guys met with one of them yesterday, and after looking at the long line of people at the San Jose gunshow who were buying lowers, he said that his attempts to add the new models to the list would be put into overdrive, possible happening in 2 weeks. So we'll see how that turns out.

I was wondering....

Can a Kali resident buy a long gun such as a 10/22 out of state and bring it back to Kali or do yall have  some sort of registration?

If not, buy a lower not on the list, leave it in NV or wherever until it is banned by name.  Then you should have your 90 days to register it with Kali.gov.

In this case, you have NOT brought it into the state so you have broken no Kali law and you don't have to find an in state FFL willing to do the transfer.

Good luck to yall....

Well - I found a willing Northern California FFL, but the bad news came from 10 Percent Firearms, where I was trying to buy a couple of Fulton Armory or DSA "self-loading .223 caliber lower receivers".


"At this time we have stopped all sales of California legal lowers. Fulton has canceled its scheduled shipment of 100 lowers. For those of you who have paid, I will be attempting to get you Sun Devil replacements. We will be accepting no new sales at this time. We have began talking to an attorney and we will be in communication with the DOJ. Until a few issues are resolved, we will not be taking any new orders. We will make every attempt to sell lowers to those who have already placed an order and have paid. If that is not possible, you will be fully refunded and in 99% of all cases, no credit card accounts have been charged.

Additionally the prices of these lowers is in serious question due to Fulton canceling an order and possible attorney fees. My commitment to not price gouge is still firm and I will stick by it. There most certainly might be a $20 attorney surcharge per lower and I will determine who will be charged for that soon. Again, I want to be a fair businessman and I will not try to rob you. Please understand the extreme stress this is causing and the amount of effort I am spending on it.

Those of you who have ordered lowers already, in all liklihood you will receive them. I ask for your patience. Thank you.

Wes Morris

Ten Percent Firearms
[email protected]"


I didn't get my order in...so it looks bleak.


Are there any other shops out there selling these lowers to CA FFL's??

so.who sells strip lower in SoCAL??
i bet dealers are selling strip lower for above the retail price

Looks like the state maybe throwing a broomstick in our spokes over this.

Yep, got the same e-mail too.  Looks like it's back to vulcan and bushmaster for now

I checked all over San Diego today, and no one would do it.  But if anyone finds someone in SoCal let us know! FMJ's

Beautiful Dreamers!

Look I wish this would work but it aint going to.

I have a post-ban M-14...if I put a flash hider or pistol grip on it, I have manufactured an assault rifle, PERIOD! Read the laws!

Yes your right that is an assault weapon and no one (I hope) is saying otherwise. But that is also the whole point... when CA rules that these receivers are assault rifles, then you register it as such and can then add a pistol grip.  Regardless of weather the loophole works I don’t think it’s THAT complex, I don't know how many times this has to be explained. But anyways I don’t think its going to work anyway, because no one is selling the receivers. FMJ's

AyeGuy, that's irrelevant to what's going on here, sorry.  Once a weapon is named as an Assault Weapon by the DOJ, it needs to get registered or taken out of state.  If your postban M-14 was suddenly named an AW (improbable if not technically impossible as a non-AR/AK) you'd be in the same boat.  What people are saying here, in essence, is you go and get a gun w/out the features, or a stripped receiver.  It gets named as an AW, and then you configure as you like since it's already a legally registered AW.

Reading through the other websites, it seems that CA DOJ called Fulton and told them they'd be liable for any misuse of the receivers.  I'm paraphrasing, but that seems kind of crappy.  There also seem to be hints that the DOJ has contacted FFLs listed on these boards to tell them it's not a good idea to take up this business.

We'll see, I hope I can find an FFL.

tag for followup

Since these are rifle receivers, you can have anybody you know from out of state buy them, and then turn around and sell them to your local FFL who is willing to do the transfer. The FFL will then sell them to you. No problem, but if you want one, I suggest getting your buddy (family friend, or whatever) to get in gear and buy them now, and ship it overnight to you, before the DOJ closes all of these loopholes.

I gave my letter detailing the legal status of the ZM4 receiver to several people in August, and by now they have all managed to get dozens of the things. If you are willing to go through the hoops, you can do it.

so does any body have a list of the receivers that are not currently on the ban list? this would make it much easier for the people who want to have a out of state family member or friend buy one to send to a California transfer dealer. i know the Fulton armory receivers are not listed but there must be others. i even heard that the Stag receivers are not listed yet but i dont know if that is true are not.

So let me see if I got the gist if this thread: California still sucks?



Just checking because last week it didn't suck less than the week before.




LET THEM SWIM!!!!

Good luck guys. I hope this works out for you.

I would check out Ameetec Arms I have several of their lowers and have been very pleased with their quality. They might be willing to ship to Cali.

There are those of us who are sentenced assigned here through work and have no choice being here.  Fortunately, we're able to register AWs prior to moving here in the military, but you can never have enough so this is worth pursuing.

Do we have confirmation that DSA would sell to CA?

Fortunately, we're able to register AWs prior to moving here in the military, but you can never have enough so this is worth pursuing.

Actually, the DOJ has registered AW's for lots of people who have moved to Cali, it doesn't matter if you're with the military or not. There is no special exception in the law for the military (unless you are using AW's in the line of duty, i.e. they are issued to you). Anyone who moves to CA and goes through enough hurdles can bring as many AW's with them as they want (but they can't transfer them when they get here).

So let me see if I got the gist if this thread: California still sucks?

Actually, no, it's great here. I've got all the guns I could ever want, and everyone else is buying them like mad right now. Salaries are higher here than anywhere else in the country, my house is worth several times what I paid for it, we have the most beautiful women, beaches, and weather in the country. Life is good, I have everything a man could want, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. Although, I guess if I lived somewhere else, I'd be desperately trying to convince myself that CA sucks too...

Quoted: Actually, no, it's great here. I've got all the guns I could ever want, and everyone else is buying them like mad right now. Salaries are higher here than anywhere else in the country, my house is worth several times what I paid for it, we have the most beautiful women, beaches, and weather in the country. Life is good, I have everything a man could want, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. Although, I guess if I lived somewhere else, I'd be desperately trying to convince myself that CA sucks too...

Stop it, you're killing me. Seriously. Quit. I've been to CA many times.

You have all the guns you could ever want? Really? What's this thread about then?

Salaries are higher? Of course they are. The std. of living is outrageous out there.

Your house has gone up in value? No shit. So has mine, and everyone else's unless they live in a swamp or in a slum.

You have the most beautiful women? Yeah, so do I. Porn is free on the net.

Beaches? I've been to your beaches. Crowded, trashed, or off-limits. Ever been to the Caymans? Those are beaches.

Weather, ok ya got me there.

But, I have a whole safe full of shit you can't own. Gotcha.

So no new word yet.  He's discussing it with the higher ups, and frankly the time difference is kicking our ass for me being able to talk directly to the Firearms division guys.  The field agents in the Sacramento office are actually pretty nice guys.  They're shooters, and while they don't like the restrictions, also give interpretations that favor the shooter (and yes they put it in writing).  

The two big hurdles for this are, 1) Can you buy a lower receiver, simply because it is not listed?  If Yes, no problemo.  If no, then there's no need to proceed.  2) (and more difficult) Can you find a dealer in the state that is willing to potentially lose his FFL if Item # 1, isn't crystal clear?  

I'm talking with my buddy tomorrow, and hopefully will have something more concrete for y'all.  Oh and as for the 'it'll be illegal in 2 weeks', DOJ still has a process to follow, and won't just make something illegal.  It needs to go through a due process, and the citizens of the state have time time react.  This then leaves through the end of the year, which if they're going to anything is more realistic.  However, my hunch is that DOJ will not do a thing, which calls into question the validity of Item # 1 above.

As for California being a great state...I was born here, and don't think that Ohio is all that great, but no one is writing a personal thesis on why it sucks.  Rather, we're trying to contribute opinions, conjecture and suggestions on trying to get more firearms into the hands of our fellow shooters (Translation:  Trying to be constructive rather than just sh*tting on someone else's Cheerios).  For the record though my house has quadrupled in value from when I bought it (of course it is in the SF Bay Area).  My salary was really high, but then, I owned my own architecture firm before I joined the Army.  I don't need to look on the world wide web to porn star quality women....they're all around us here to see and touch and frankly I'd rather have someone get me off than do it myself.  As for beaches, Mavericks is second to none and as for the Caymans....one word = Mexico.  Weather....eh....it's alright.  As for what's available in your safe, versus what's in ours...who cares.  If we've got what we want, does it matter what you have?  Again, let's try and be constructive.

SPC Richard A. White, Senior Medic
249th MP Detachment (EACF)
Camp Humphreys, ROK

Hey USC maybe you can find out who the asshole is that threatened Fulton Armory, they just crawfished on the deal.

Wes @ Tenpercent just got a letter from Fulton telling him he would call the DOJ if he sold any of his lowers.

Quoted: Quoted: Nope. At best you could keep your stripped DSA and it would be registred as an AW. But assembling it into a working AR pattern rifle, even after registering, it would be a violation of CPC 1280(a)(1). Sorry dude, but this is 100% typical, uninformed pessimistic bullshit. There isn't even one ounce of truth to anything you said, I've laid it all out too many times to repeat If you don't want to read what I've written, and you can't understand the legal statues we're dealing with, PLEASE, at the very least, just keep your mouth shut. Just where do you people pull stuff like this from anyway? 14 years of applying the penal code on the street and in court.

One only has to read what you post here regularly, to realize that you are consistantly wrong. Why should this example be any different.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nope. At best you could keep your stripped DSA and it would be registred as an AW. But assembling it into a working AR pattern rifle, even after registering, it would be a violation of CPC 1280(a)(1). Sorry dude, but this is 100% typical, uninformed pessimistic bullshit. There isn't even one ounce of truth to anything you said, I've laid it all out too many times to repeat If you don't want to read what I've written, and you can't understand the legal statues we're dealing with, PLEASE, at the very least, just keep your mouth shut. Just where do you people pull stuff like this from anyway? 14 years of applying the penal code on the street and in court. One only has to read what you post here regularly, to realize that you are consistantly wrong. Why should this example be any different.

LOL

Hey guys, whatever you want to believe, I just bought a bunch or ZM4 receivers, you can sit on the sidelines and do nothing and let opportunity pass you by. Not my problem. I have an ink signed letter from the DOJ specifically stating that buying the ZM4 is legal but hey, you can believe whatever BS you want. Similarly, you are free to believe that living in OH is nicer than living here in Malibu... but I have more AR's than I know what to do with, a sports car I can drive in the "winter", and I have a nice view of the Pacific ocean overlooking Catalina as I write this.

Yep, it sure sucks living in CA.

Quoted: Hey guys, whatever you want to believe, I just bought a bunch or ZM4 receivers, you can sit on the sidelines and do nothing and let opportunity pass you by. Not my problem. I have an ink signed letter from the DOJ specifically stating that buying the ZM4 is legal but hey, you can believe whatever BS you want. Similarly, you are free to believe that living in OH is nicer than living here in Malibu... but I have more AR's than I know what to do with, a sports car I can drive in the "winter", and I have a nice view of the Pacific ocean overlooking Catalina as I write this. Yep, it sure sucks living in CA.

Could you PM to your contact for DSA receivers?  I have 2 folks that didnt make the cut at 10%
Chris

The DSA receivers are now out of stock... somebody has bought them all (when I checked last week there were still 50 available). I don't know who has them, but my outside contact can't help if the manufacturer is sold out. If I hear otherwise I'll keep you posted. HOWEVER, I have an idea.

We need to enlist the help of our great savior, Ronnie Barrett. He's just the kind of guy that we need right now. He loves this sort of stuff, and I know he would stand up to the DOJ and help us out. Barrett manufacturs their own, non CA banned Ar-style lower receiver, the M468. This rifle is NOT on the CA list, and is legal for sale right now! Someone needs to get ahold of Mr. Barrett and relate everything that's being going down ASAP. I tried calling this morning, and I just wound up talking to some secretary who probably didn't have the faintest clue what I was talking about. If anyone has ANY method of getting ahold of Ronnie, do it now.

Quoted: The DSA receivers are now out of stock... somebody has bought them all (when I checked last week there were still 50 available). I don't know who has them, but my outside contact can't help if the manufacturer is sold out. If I hear otherwise I'll keep you posted. HOWEVER, I have an idea. We need to enlist the help of our great savior, Ronnie Barrett. He's just the kind of guy that we need right now. He loves this sort of stuff, and I know he would stand up to the DOJ and help us out. Barrett manufacturs their own, non CA banned Ar-style lower receiver, the M468. This rifle is NOT on the CA list, and is legal for sale right now! Someone needs to get ahold of Mr. Barrett and relate everything that's being going down ASAP. I tried calling this morning, and I just wound up talking to some secretary who probably didn't have the faintest clue what I was talking about. If anyone has ANY method of getting ahold of Ronnie, do it now.

I emailed them @ 7:00 am this morning.  I will post his reply here.

Just a heads up, it looks like the DOJ is doing a pretty good job of lying to the dealers as well as the FFL holders.  Good job if your out there.  It's funny how in writting it's another story.

If you have freinds that are making this happen, don't post there info, word of mouth only and trusted emails.

What did the DOJ email say? (FFLs)

Quoted: What did the DOJ email say? (FFLs)

Assholes aren't going to use email or anything that will document their unethical intimidation practices.  They are probably telling the manufacturers over the phone that, sure, it's legal, but it doesn't mean some DA somewhere won't still go after you.  This won't be the first time the CA DOJ has resorted to dishonest practices.

Looking for FFL's willing in NorCal, anyone have one in mind?  PM me.

I think I may be interested in doing this, as I'll be in California until August, and even though I've got an M1A on the way, I already know I love the AR platform.  I'm staying in Sonora, so I'll hunt around to see if any FFLs in the area would be willing to do this.  If anybody already knows of such a place within a couple of hours of Sonora, I'd appreciate hearing about it.