I am considering buying an FAL and have been nosing around researching the variations.  One of the sites, Entreprise arms, mentioned a CA legal FAL.  The differences were not made too clear.  Can anyone elaborate?  I have an M1A, and know about the flash hider/muzzlebrake silliness, and that I can only have 10 round magazines.  Is it similar with an  FAL?

My wife is keeping on and on with wanting to move to CA.  I'm trying to avoid it but....

On another note.  I saw an Entreprise receiver based (at least that's what the guy said) FAL here in FL at a gunshow  - an STG58 was what the card said, and he claimed he built it up himself from the receiver, Austrian barrel, etc. Looking at the selector lever and the markings, they had the S , another letter (I forgot) just below, and then after a long swing a marking that looked more like a Russian D than anything else.  Is the selector suppoed even to go over that far?

Sure, permanently mount your mag and you're good to go(using a stripper clip dust cover allows you to load).  Several vendors offer aftermarket parts to do this.  DSA and Arizona Response Systems both make a CA legal build as well.

The selector goes that far because he's using an original lower, and they all have the full auto setting.  Some are blocked via semi selectors, many are not.  In its current configuration, it'll work as safe, semi, and single shot.  

Thanks.  So it's not such an "absolute" problem with an  FAL.  For clarification, do the modifications do anything permanent?  I had a quick look at a few sites I found via search engine.  It looked like one modified the magazine release by replacing the standrd one with one that required an Allen wrench to release.  They made the point that the law said (paraphrasing)  "...not able to open without using a tool, etc."  If I interpret all this correctly, it would indicate I would have to modify by means of some parts; that such modification would be reversible (that is, if I moved or the law changed, I could simply remove the "new" parts and reinstall the originals).  Am I understanding this correctly?

Thanks for the info on the selector.  I guess it isn't blocked, or the selector could not go to that position, so it must be internal. I was concerned something was "busticated." (Sorry, I don'[t yet know enough about the FAL mechanics to make a lot of sense yet.)

You've got it right on the CA mods.  They are reversible and fairly easily.  You could also just remove the pistol grip and be legal, but that makes for a very uncomforable shooting rifle.

There are a few things you can do with the selector.  It doesn't hurt to leave it, but if you try to fire it in the "auto" position, the hammer follows the bolt and doesn't fire the next shot.  You can buy a DSA selector for $25 or buy a pistol grip that prevents it from moving past the fire position.

Here's my project that I milled out myself using the old dremel tool .

Thanks for those excellent photos.  It certainly looks simple enough.  And, it would seem that all I would need to do is put in a standard mag release when out of CA and the rifle would be back to normal.  When I first heard about it, before finding out the details, I was afraid there was welding involved, or some abortion likt the one made for AR-15 (forgot the name but it's something - 10).  This one sounds good.  Now to find the right FAL.  This all may woo me out of M1a.  (well, that may take a bit of doing to make FAL my sole system, but I do like to keep things simple.).

What vendors have the parts to convert a fal to make it leagal in the commie state of CA.

What vendors have the parts to convert a fal to make it leagal in the commie state of CA

check out dsa  and Entreprise arms.

Once my permit was appoved I returned the rifle back to stock configuration. There are two cuts in the top rail at teh very back of the receiver but they do no harm.

Shooting prone it's actually easier to use stripper clips rather than tipping the rifle on its side to swap magazines.

My suggestion...ditch the wife, keep your guns/freedom.

Please dont take me seriously, just a joke.  I just can't believe you'd consider going from FL to CA.  Big big change...Can't compromise moving to a state that borders CA thats a bit more leniant on firearms?

Not a bad idea.  It may come to that anyway, perhaps not beacuse of CA, as such, but the attitude behind it.  A house she would not look at in FL - too small, she'd say - would be perfectly acceptable for $100,000 + more in California, just because it's CA.  The extra costs and taxes fall on deaf ears and elicit only a blank look, and probable disbelief.  

We looked at areas in TX, which would have been my second choice after certain areas in FL.  TX at least has reasonable prices and no state income tax.  I know the real estate tax is high (were looking at waterfront in the Corpus Christi area),  but it ends at that:  I wouldn't have an increasing income tax as or if I earned more.  JOb isn't an issue, I'm retired and derive income from investments.

May look into AZ as it is on the way, possibly the Flagstaff area, or a bit south.  I'm hoiping the home prices will be in her mind when we get to CA to look around.  I have to research taxes in AZ, too.

Thanks for the comments.

I just bought a house in Chandler AZ, I cant wait to get out of Cali. Dont expect to get a house in a good neighborhood for under 400.000

Hey,Paul,how do Kalibans apply for this permit?Details!!!Please!!

tag

In Shotgun News someone in California is selling Imbel receivers, claiming it's legal.  I think as long as you don't put the pistol grip on, you are okay.  TECHNICALLY it's not a FN/FAL but an Imbel.

Quoted: In Shotgun News someone in California is selling Imbel receivers, claiming it's legal.  I think as long as you don't put the pistol grip on, you are okay.  TECHNICALLY it's not a FN/FAL but an Imbel.

In Kali, all FAL receivers except FN, are legal provided the rifle is assembled in a "non-AW" configuration.

Quoted: Hey,Paul,how do Kalibans apply for this permit?Details!!!Please!!

First you join the military ...

do I need to continue?

Military members stationed in California on active duty are exempt from the 2000 assualt weapons ban.

Paul,

Quoted: Military members stationed in California on active duty are exempt from the 2000 assualt weapons ban.

I think is this great.

But, does anyone have a link to the "justification" that lawmakers used for enacting this law??  I'm not looking  for a hypothosesis, looking for facts.  Just curious; I wonder what they were thinking.