whoa... seems we have 30,000 new off-list receivers in CA now!

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - whoa... seems we have 30,000 new off-list receivers in CA now!

Posted: 3/24/2006 1:58:58 PM EDT

{crossposted to Calguns.Net}

Okay folks.

This "2nd-hand reliable" - that is, from a smart, reliable person who has contact with mid-level DOJ Firearms staff about various other matters. I tend to believe what he says.

Apparently way more significant off-list action has been happening in SoCal than I thought.

The DOJ seems to think, from audits and other stats, that there are around new 30,000 off-list lowers (not sure how many are AKs vs ARs - or nonAK/nonAR like FAL clones, but prob a very small percentage) that have made it into CA. I'm also not sure if that number includes early stuff that didn't get listed since 2000 and not reg'd as AW (if there's a way to determine that).

Baby, that's some momentum. With numbers like that, they gotta list.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

Posted: 3/24/2006 2:31:00 PM EDT

[#1]

Nah, they'll hold off longer. That's $750,000 in DROS fees! They want more money!

Posted: 3/24/2006 3:28:24 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Nah, they'll hold off longer. That's $750,000 in DROS fees! They want more money!

Maybe we should have an off list lower telethon for them, to raise money!

Posted: 3/24/2006 4:32:10 PM EDT

[#3]

30,000 AWs registered at $25 = $750K

Given that 20K people prob bought 30K lowers, it's $500K income if they declare.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

Posted: 3/24/2006 4:49:57 PM EDT

[#4]

I don't think they're going to list them. After all, what does the AG have to lose at this point? How is 30,000 off list lowers any different than 30,000 CA legal rifles if the list isn't updated? Not to mention, a significant number of those will probably remain stripped lowers. I think he stands to lose much more political capital (from the left) if he lists them and they become AWs. How would he live that down to all the freaks in Sac; the fact that he allowed 30,000 AW into the state? Nah, he's gonna ignore us and we will be stuck building pinned-mag CA legal rifles. Then the next AG, who will probably be evan farther to the left will just try to outlaw everything (via the legislature) and we'll all be screwed.

Posted: 3/24/2006 5:26:03 PM EDT

[#5]

I know where TWO of those 30,000 lowers went...

Posted: 3/24/2006 7:04:23 PM EDT

[#6]

I was close guessing 20,000-25,000.

That's probably every 80% receiver manufactured in the last year

and more than most manufacturers complete in a year.

Posted: 3/24/2006 7:11:48 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I was close guessing 20,000-25,000.

That's probably every 80% receiver manufactured in the last year and more than most manufacturers complete in a year.

I don't know about the other 29,996, but the ones I got were more than 80%. No drilling required on mine

Posted: 3/25/2006 3:51:53 AM EDT

[#8]

Any Californian that got/completed an 80% AR lower has reduced mental capacity (saving Paul, who has a very special AW permit)...

- these will never get declared as AWs;

- there is some risk (we don't know how much) that these do not have Harrott protection and thus could fall back under Kasler - which will put you in a world of hurt.

I've warned people time after time about this and for some reason they still keep sustaining this 80% lower idiocy.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Posted: 3/25/2006 5:50:07 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
The DOJ seems to think, from audits and other stats, that there are around new 30,000 off-list lowers

Since long guns are not listed by type on the DROS, DOJ has no real idea of how many off list lowers are in the state.

Posted: 3/25/2006 6:18:40 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
- there is some risk (we don't know how much) that these do not have Harrott protection and thus could fall back under Kasler - which will put you in a world of hurt.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

In all fairness, the 80% lowers could just as well fall under SB-23 banned by features. Its easier to place them under this law than Kasler which requires specific make/model.

Posted: 3/25/2006 9:39:29 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The DOJ seems to think, from audits and other stats, that there are around new 30,000 off-list lowers

Since long guns are not listed by type on the DROS, DOJ has no real idea of how many off list lowers are in the state.

They do know how DROS numbers increase across the state - relative to Sep/Oct/Nov of 05 (recent months w/o lower sales in bulk), and from a variety of field audits w/ physical examination of DROS/4473 forms at FFL dealers they have a statistical basis for average number of lowers per DROS (which is a number greater than one but quite a bit less than two).

So do they know the exact number? Nah. Do they have a decent eyeball count? Yup. Maybe it's 27000, maybe it's 35000. But they'll get it within 10%-15%, certainly in an order-of-magnitude range.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Posted: 3/25/2006 9:44:45 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
- there is some risk (we don't know how much) that these do not have Harrott protection and thus could fall back under Kasler - which will put you in a world of hurt.

In all fairness, the 80% lowers could just as well fall under SB-23 banned by features. Its easier to place them under this law than Kasler which requires specific make/model.

'Could' is the dangerous word. That indicates there's a chance it could fall under Kasler, which means _felony_ (i.e., series member).

Kasler does not require specific make & model. Kasler just says 'copies & duplicates' belong to a 'series' and nothing else. (It is actually a side issue in the decision, which primarily discussess the constitutionality of Roberti-Roos law.) There's no standard in Kasler for if/when something is a formal series member (which is what Harrott did). If Harrott is not in force (as could be the case in lowers built up from 80% blanks) then it could indeed mean you have an AR series member.

You're 'out in the weeds' with possible legal exposure and it is absolutely sensless idiocy to have a homebuilt lower - besides the legal exposure, it will not ever have a chance of being listed & declared an AW.

[This does not apply to 80% lowers that get completed without the magwell being milled out, a la FAB10.]

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Posted: 3/25/2006 11:40:38 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Nah, they'll hold off longer. That's $750,000 in DROS fees! They want more money!

Maybe we should have an off list lower telethon for them, to raise money!

Hahaha.......

I like that Idea!!!

Long live the unlisted lowers.

Posted: 3/25/2006 1:21:32 PM EDT

[#14]

Wow. We must have broken a record with that number of lower receivers.

Posted: 3/25/2006 1:43:12 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
So do they know the exact number? Nah. Do they have a decent eyeball count? Yup. Maybe it's 27000, maybe it's 35000. But they'll get it within 10%-15%, certainly in an order-of-magnitude range.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

See, I question this part's legitimacy. If you think about it, the people audited were people with exceptionally high DROSs over a short period of time. That would give a severely unbalanced estimate if they based their estimate of the figures they acquired from such audits. If you think about, let's say of 100 stores, only 10 will transfer receivers, and only 3 of those do it in bulk to the point where they are audited then it would be silly to say that x% of new sales at all 100 shops were because of these lowers simply because 3 shops had x%.

I don't know, maybe I am wrong, but I just can't take any number estimated from the audits as a close number to what we actually brought in.

Posted: 3/25/2006 2:53:39 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So do they know the exact number? Nah. Do they have a decent eyeball count? Yup. Maybe it's 27000, maybe it's 35000. But they'll get it within 10%-15%, certainly in an order-of-magnitude range.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

See, I question this part's legitimacy. If you think about it, the people audited were people with exceptionally high DROSs over a short period of time. That would give a severely unbalanced estimate if they based their estimate of the figures they acquired from such audits. If you think about, let's say of 100 stores, only 10 will transfer receivers, and only 3 of those do it in bulk to the point where they are audited then it would be silly to say that x% of new sales at all 100 shops were because of these lowers simply because 3 shops had x%.

I don't know, maybe I am wrong, but I just can't take any number estimated from the audits as a close number to what we actually brought in.

The audits are of a variety of dealers (they haven't stopped doing that, you know) plus the bulk lower vendors. I'm sure that gives a good 'skew' as to average number of lowers per DROS.

Furthermore, they have the DROS number increment that they can run against "if lowers weren't sold, this guy's avg monthly sales are X" projections. Statewide, they know that there's an avg amount of guns sold in these last 3 months, and they have a pretty good handle on that. So when they see 30,000 extra, they found something new.

Now, what i am not sure of is if these are 30,000 new DROSes or 30K new receivers. That was unclear. If 30K DROSes for off-list lowers, there's probably 45K receivers in state!

Posted: 3/25/2006 8:11:38 PM EDT

[#17]

they are probly gonna double their money with registration fees.

Posted: 3/25/2006 11:28:05 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
they are probly gonna double their money with registration fees.

That could very well be the plan.

Posted: 3/26/2006 7:02:17 AM EDT

[#19]

what exactly does an off list receiver mean? would i be able to buy one and have it legally in CA? right now im in the military out of state and would like to bring my Ar back with me, if all i have to do is get a new receiver i would be all for it.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - whoa... seems we have 30,000 new off-list receivers in CA now!

Hometown » California

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us