DOJ Releases AB-857 Ghost Gun Regs

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by fishgoh0nk

I've been keeping up with all the reading, but a lot of the conversation of self-manufacturer kind of tapers off. From reading AB 857 and fellow forum member's interpretations, would it be safe to say this would be the dumbed down version?

Article 3 Does not apply to:
A) manufactured firearms with serials issued by CDOJ
B) manufactured before 1968
C) vol'reged
D) serial issued by FFL
E) C&R

Someone also mentioned Sure Things should be vol'reged featureless, why? What if someone wants to volreg a fixed mag AR pistol?

Yes, that looks good. You are correct, "featureless" is often now used to describe non-AW. It's not a good catch all phrase because fixed mag and bolt action are also viable non-AW. You just can't build anything that is now AW since December 2016.

[BeAuMaN]

Originally Posted by fishgoh0nk

I've been keeping up with all the reading, but a lot of the conversation of self-manufacturer kind of tapers off. From reading AB 857 and fellow forum member's interpretations, would it be safe to say this would be the dumbed down version?

Article 3 Does not apply to:
A) manufactured firearms with serials issued by CDOJ
B) manufactured before 1968
C) vol'reged
D) serial issued by FFL
E) C&R

Someone also mentioned Sure Things should be vol'reged featureless, why? What if someone wants to volreg a fixed mag AR pistol?

If by "Article 3 Does not apply to", you mean "Article 3 Exemptions Summary", then yes, except for "A", that's incorrect. While there is doubt (on the federal level, not the state level) concerning assigning a serial number per 27 CFR § 478.92 to a self-assembled or self-manufactured firearm, that doesn't mean the opposite is true, due to definition (s). There's nothing in exemption (a) that indicates serial numbers assigned and engraved pursuant to 27 CFR § 478.92 are issued by CA DoJ. The closest thing we have right now is one of the following:
If unlicensed persons can self-assign serial numbers pursuant to 27 CFR § 478.92:
A.) A self-manufactured firearm containing a serial number pursuant to 27 CFR § 478.92.

Or...

If unlicensed persons cannot self-assign serial numbers pursuant to 27 CFR § 478.92:
A.) ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????

(Edit: And none of those options apply to AWs)

There could be other possibilities, but that's my read of it.

As for volreg being a "sure thing", via Exemption (c), I meant that it's rather the most sure option of all the exemptions to avoid going through CA DoJ's serialization process for, as Disco Godfather points out, "non-AW" firearms.

[MWPatriot]

Is CRPA going to file an injunction against CA for these confusing regulations and law seeking clarity? I also think it's an infringement of the 4th Amendment to require registration of already-owned and legal firearms.

If we don't push back on even this, we'll see additional requirements for all non-registered rifles. I would prefer the State not know about how many rifles there are, and who has them.

Side-note: I'd like to see new legal challenges to all gun laws. With new Federal Judges coming in I think this is a good time to start going on the offensive.

[troyPhD]

So if someone manufactures a PF940c Polymer80 pistol (single shot then converted to semi) prior to July 1, 2018, has it engraved properly, they must volreg it before July 1, 2018? Will that volreg require photos?

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by BeAuMaN

If by "Article 3 Does not apply to", you mean "Article 3 Exemptions Summary", then yes, except for "A", that's incorrect. While there is doubt (on the federal level, not the state level) concerning assigning a serial number per 27 CFR § 478.92 to a self-assembled or self-manufactured firearm, that doesn't mean the opposite is true, due to definition (s). There's nothing in exemption (a) that indicates serial numbers assigned and engraved pursuant to 27 CFR § 478.92 are issued by CA DoJ. The closest thing we have right now is one of the following:[snip]

You're skipping over the other part of "Exemption a)", CA penal Code 23910, which is a serial number assigned by the CA DOJ, but has no direct relation to 18 U.S. Code Part I Chapter 44 or 27 CFR § 478 (that i can tell). I think there are two reasons for including this; the first being any firearm, that in the past, managed to obtain a CA DOJ issued serial number (think stolen & recovered with a filed off serial?) and I believe this is also where the CA DOJ obtains the legal authority to issue serial numbers. The bold part below was added with AB857, the 2010 version of PC 23910 follows.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=23910.

CHAPTER 2. Obliteration of Identification Marks [23900 - 23925] ( Chapter 2 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

23910.
The Department of Justice, upon request, may assign a distinguishing number or mark of identification to any firearm whenever the firearm lacks a manufacturer’s number or other mark of identification. Whenever the manufacturer’s number or other mark of identification or a distinguishing number or mark assigned by the department has been destroyed or obliterated, the Department of Justice, upon request, shall assign a distinguishing number or mark of identification to any firearm in accordance with Section 29182.

https://law.justia.com/codes/califor...900-23925.html

23910. The Department of Justice upon request may assign a
distinguishing number or mark of identification to any firearm
whenever the firearm lacks a manufacturer's number or other mark of
identification, or whenever the manufacturer's number or other mark
of identification or a distinguishing number or mark assigned by the
department has been destroyed or obliterated.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...er=3.&article=

29181. Section 29180 does not apply to or affect any of the following:
(a) A firearm that has a serial number assigned to it pursuant to either Section 23910 or Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1523546433

§ 5508. Firearms Not Affected by This Chapter Pursuant to Penal Code Section 29181.
The following firearms are not affected by these regulations and do not have to be recorded with
the Department:
(a) A self-manufactured or self-assembled firearm containing a serial number assigned to it pursuant to Penal Code section 23910 or pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

[MWPatriot]

Originally Posted by ajb78

You're skipping over the other part of "Exemption a)", CA penal Code 23910, which is a serial number assigned by the CA DOJ, but has no direct relation to 18 U.S. Code Part I Chapter 44 or 27 CFR § 478 (that i can tell). I think there are two reasons for including this; the first being any firearm, that in the past, managed to obtain a CA DOJ issued serial number (think stolen & recovered with a filed off serial?) and I believe this is also where the CA DOJ obtains the legal authority to issue serial numbers. The bold part below was added with AB857, the 2010 version of PC 23910 follows.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=23910.

https://law.justia.com/codes/califor...900-23925.html


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...er=3.&article=

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1523546433

Wait, so maybe I'm not following here - are you saying there's still a possibility in the law that would allow for a custom serial number to be engraved on your home-built rifle, and if it doesn't have one the DOJ can choose to assign one?

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by MWPatriot

Wait, so maybe I'm not following here - are you saying there's still a possibility in the law that would allow for a custom serial number to be engraved on your home-built rifle, and if it doesn't have one the DOJ can choose to assign one?

No, what I am saying is there is the possibility that firearms that already have CA DOJ assigned serials in existence, prior to this AB857 nonsense, since these would have been recorded at the time of the serial number issuance, they are exempting them.

I'm focusing on the bold portion of the below statement, it appears BeAuMaN is conflating the separate State and Federal laws listed under this exemption; and what fishgoh0nk posted is correct in that PC 23910 is a CA DOJ assigned serial number, but has no direct connection to the 18 USC Chapter 44 portion.

Originally Posted by BeAuMaN

If by "Article 3 Does not apply to", you mean "Article 3 Exemptions Summary", then yes, except for "A", that's incorrect. While there is doubt (on the federal level, not the state level) concerning assigning a serial number per 27 CFR § 478.92 to a self-assembled or self-manufactured firearm, that doesn't mean the opposite is true, due to definition (s). There's nothing in exemption (a) that indicates serial numbers assigned and engraved pursuant to 27 CFR § 478.92 are issued by CA DoJ. The closest thing we have right now is one of the following:
If unlicensed persons can self-assign serial numbers pursuant to 27 CFR § 478.92:
A.) A self-manufactured firearm containing a serial number pursuant to 27 CFR § 478.92.

Or...

If unlicensed persons cannot self-assign serial numbers pursuant to 27 CFR § 478.92:
A.) ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????

(Edit: And none of those options apply to AWs)

There could be other possibilities, but that's my read of it.

As for volreg being a "sure thing", via Exemption (c), I meant that it's rather the most sure option of all the exemptions to avoid going through CA DoJ's serialization process for, as Disco Godfather points out, "non-AW" firearms.

[jwkincal]

You guys are not accounting for serial numbers applied by homebuilders wanting to sell them in CA via FFL prior to all of this foolishness as well... which would certainly qualify as "A self-manufactured or self-assembled firearm containing a serial number assigned to it pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto"

[MWPatriot]

Originally Posted by ajb78

No, what I am saying is there is the possibility that firearms that already have CA DOJ assigned serials in existence, prior to this AB857 nonsense, since these would have been recorded at the time of the serial number issuance, they are exempting them.

I'm focusing on the bold portion of the below statement, it appears BeAuMaN is conflating the separate State and Federal laws listed under this exemption; and what fishgoh0nk posted is correct in that PC 23910 is a CA DOJ assigned serial number, but has no direct connection to the 18 USC Chapter 44 portion.

Ahh, yep I agree. If they already have a S/N it's already registered and recorded in their massive database on your personal life. If it's already volreg'd then it's in the State's records just like any other firearm. It used to be that long guns were not registered, because of 4th Amendment combined with 2nd Amendment concerns. It's why we can and will never have a national gun registry - because the government by law cannot require you to register a firearm as a prerequisite to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.

But then again, as we all know - even though the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it isn't always adhered to and followed, especially by states like California.

[MWPatriot]

Originally Posted by jwkincal

You guys are not accounting for serial numbers applied by homebuilders wanting to sell them in CA via FFL prior to all of this foolishness as well... which would certainly qualify as "A self-manufactured or self-assembled firearm containing a serial number assigned to it pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto"

If it went through an FFL then the serial is already registered. It's covered from what I can tell, this law doesn't apply to those firearms.

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by jwkincal

You guys are not accounting for serial numbers applied by homebuilders wanting to sell them in CA via FFL prior to all of this foolishness as well... which would certainly qualify as "A self-manufactured or self-assembled firearm containing a serial number assigned to it pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto"

So what would that cover, a self-made rifle, sold through a FFL prior to long gun registration? I would still think that the "centralized database" exemption would have covered this though, because even though they didn't "register" them, wasn't there was still a DROS record of the transaction?

[BeAuMaN]

I have thoughts, but I gotta run. I'll work on a more complete response when I get back, but:

The crux of the matter is Exemption A (in both AB-857 and the regs) references assigning serial numbers pursuant to federal law. That federal law is written for licensed manufacturers or importers... and the question is: -can- that federal law apply to non-licensed-manufacturers?

Because here's the thing: CA DoJ is not a licensed manufacturer or importer afaik. While CA DoJ, for it's AB857 registration scheme, more or less duplicates the serializing and engraving process outlined in 27 CFR § 478.92, it does not derive the serializing and engraving... what would be the word... authority? From the federal law/regs. It just merely copied them in the state law.

However Exemption A is different, because it references that federal law/regs wholesale and directly, and because of that... if CA DoJ can assign serial numbers "pursuant to" federal law, even if that law is for manufacturers/importers, than I can too. So can you.

Unless, of course... while I specifically refer to 27 CFR § 478.92, there's another federal law that grants the state DoJ such authority.

That's roughly where I'm coming from the stuff you said ajb78. This is not a complete argument, but you can see my line of reasoning. Anyhow, I'll be back later .

Edit: which even if they were licensed, in the regs, definition S would exclude tgem

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by jwkincal

You guys are not accounting for serial numbers applied by homebuilders wanting to sell them in CA via FFL prior to all of this foolishness as well... which would certainly qualify as "A self-manufactured or self-assembled firearm containing a serial number assigned to it pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto"

You bring up the only new point in this thread, and the only new one on this issue in a long time. But alas, it also doesn't comes to the same conclusion if you work it through and it does NOT apply to Exemption (A), but instead applies directly to Exemption (C) again:

In this Hypothetical:

1) A person built a rifle and assigned their own serial number to it before July 1st 2018. The rifle was legal at whatever time it was built from 1968-2018.

2) In 2013, the person sold this firearm after a few years of ownership. He clearly had no intent to manufacture to then sell, and was a legit home builder who simply sold a rifle after years of legit personal use.

3) The person sold to another person and they went to an FFL to transfer and the new person was DROS'd. The FFL simply entered the manufacturer as U S and but the original builders made up serial into the system.


Now in this hypothetical, a home built gun with a self assigned serial is legal AFTER July 1st under Cooper, even if it doesn't have a DOJ serial number. This is because of Exemption (C): the firearm appears in a centralized registry.

The fact is that a transfer of a home built firearm in CA before July 1st 2018 does in fact exempt it from 857, but only because it's the exact same thing as volreging. You could look at it this way: volreging is for the builder/owner, going through the DROS is for a new buyer.

But there is another curve ball hidden there, which is the participating FFL's wiliness to transfer home built firearms. I have heard it's not so easy and many simply refuse. I did just one in my life, buying a home build from a friend. We had to go around the area and were rejected twice until I found an FFL that would do it. It's 100% totally legal, but FFL's have their own rules sometimes.

The Fed and State processes for allowing or certifying that a manufacturer serializes their firearms is a black box of the industry and it just doesn't lend itself to any legal or practical value to individuals making guns for themselves. It's a highly regulated world of business and government, and just like everything else, seeks to freeze out the small man.

I will continue to make firearms as long as I can- it's a big hobby for me. Going through their serial process after July 1st is annoying, useless, and unconstitutional. But it can be done. The stick in the eye for most home builders was that they had a half dozen home builds that already had been nicely finished with our own information, and that they now wanted us to deface that and spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars to have it re-done with their mandated information. Exemption (C) was really the only way to go.

For those still wanting to stay "off radar" I don't know what to say- I think they successfully screwed us out of another 2nd Amendment right. I really think it was the intent of this law to totally eliminate "ghost guns".

[jwkincal]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

I think they successfully screwed us out of another 2nd Amendment right. I really think it was the intent of this law to totally eliminate "ghost guns".

It was exactly that: Paper every homebuild. And it does that, effectively and accurately. There are no "areas" that are not defined or exceptions that allow you to keep your homebrew rifle out of the state rolls; they were thorough and they closed off every avenue.

Behave otherwise at your own risk.

[fishgoh0nk]

Originally Posted by BeAuMaN

I have thoughts, but I gotta run. I'll work on a more complete response when I get back, but:

The crux of the matter is Exemption A (in both AB-857 and the regs) references assigning serial numbers pursuant to federal law. That federal law is written for licensed manufacturers or importers... and the question is: -can- that federal law apply to non-licensed-manufacturers?

Because here's the thing: CA DoJ is not a licensed manufacturer or importer afaik. While CA DoJ, for it's AB857 registration scheme, more or less duplicates the serializing and engraving process outlined in 27 CFR § 478.92, it does not derive the serializing and engraving... what would be the word... authority? From the federal law/regs. It just merely copied them in the state law.

However Exemption A is different, because it references that federal law/regs wholesale and directly, and because of that... if CA DoJ can assign serial numbers "pursuant to" federal law, even if that law is for manufacturers/importers, than I can too. So can you.

Unless, of course... while I specifically refer to 27 CFR § 478.92, there's another federal law that grants the state DoJ such authority.

That's roughly where I'm coming from the stuff you said ajb78. This is not a complete argument, but you can see my line of reasoning. Anyhow, I'll be back later .

Edit: which even if they were licensed, in the regs, definition S would exclude tgem

The one in bold is my biggest question... And quite frankly, are we in a state of "I don't know" as Calgunners? Are we safe to NOT vol'reg our self built, self assigned serialed arms?

[BeAuMaN]

Yeah... I'm still working right now, so I still can't give a good write up response, but I thought that the archived web page of the ATF referencing non-licensed individuals using 27 CFR § 478.92 at the end of Disco Godfather's thread was interesting: https://web.archive.org/web/20150421...parts-assembly

Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future.

Though I want to once again get across: While Volreg -seems- to be the route to take right now, this exemption (a) has no time specifications on it. You should look at DiscoGodfather's reasoning for Volregging in his original thread as the safer option if you have an already-home-built serialized-firearm. I don't want to give the impression that what I'm suggesting with exemption (a) is in any way a -sure thing-, because it's not. It is sort-of grey, but the recent regulations remove a bit more of the fog from it.

Exemption (a) may however open up for people a way to home build without having to go mother-may-I to the CA DoJ in the future. That is why we're having this conversation and hopefully some investigation can be done into this.

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by fishgoh0nk

The one in bold is my biggest question... And quite frankly, are we in a state of "I don't know" as Calgunners? Are we safe to NOT vol'reg our self built, self assigned serialed arms?

I'd say it's miles away from safe. Misdemeanor for rifles and felony for pistols is what we are looking at as a consequence.

Beauman might be on to something for future (A) exemptions and it's all good- if there is an exemption that doesn't require CA DOJ in the process that would be awesome. But somehow I feel like their intent is the opposite and we would need some real deep analysis. Problem is it's not just the CA side, we need to understand the Fed side, which is another brand of crap sandwich altogether. Getting the Feds to say anything is almost impossible, but if an ATF letter could clarify something that would be a big thing. Again, only as collateral in court, which is were it would come in most handy and where we all would NOT like to find ourselves.

[BeAuMaN]

Alright, so...

Originally Posted by ajb78

You're skipping over the other part of "Exemption a)", CA penal Code 23910, which is a serial number assigned by the CA DOJ, but has no direct relation to 18 U.S. Code Part I Chapter 44 or 27 CFR § 478 (that i can tell). I think there are two reasons for including this; the first being any firearm, that in the past, managed to obtain a CA DOJ issued serial number (think stolen & recovered with a filed off serial?) and I believe this is also where the CA DOJ obtains the legal authority to issue serial numbers. The bold part below was added with AB857, the 2010 version of PC 23910 follows.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...ctionNum=23910.

https://law.justia.com/codes/califor...900-23925.html


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...er=3.&article=

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1523546433

So I get what you mean now. It is true I didn't cover it in my post, but... I don't think it's very important for our purposes. Yeah, it exists in exemption (a), and it's one of two legal sources within exemption (a) from which a serial number may be assigned to a self-manufactured or self-assembled firearm. While 23910 does give CA DoJ the authority to assign serial numbers, it doesn't give them any authority over "Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.", nor "27 CFR § 478.92" that is derived from the aforementioned federal law.

To me it just seems like a poor way for the CA DoJ to shoehorn in their previous legal method into one of the exemptions. Perhaps they didn't mean to write exemption (a) this way, however they've had bill revisions and regulatory revisions to correct this.

Now if it was an "and" instead of an "or", we wouldn't even be talking about exemption (a).

Originally Posted by jwkincal

You guys are not accounting for serial numbers applied by homebuilders wanting to sell them in CA via FFL prior to all of this foolishness as well... which would certainly qualify as "A self-manufactured or self-assembled firearm containing a serial number assigned to it pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto"

In which case, if home builders were allowed to assign them back then, then they are allowed to assign them now pursuant to federal law and regs. Exemption (a) has no time standard. By meeting the criteria for exemption (a) in the regulations, you are exempt from all of Chapter 41 (as well as 29180 in the bill/law itself), which covers the complete registration process as well as making you exempt from the July 1st 2018 deadline (as that deadline is within 29180 and Chapter 41, for which you are exempt).

Originally Posted by MWPatriot

Is CRPA going to file an injunction against CA for these confusing regulations and law seeking clarity?

That is a good question... So here is CRPA's letter in response to the regulations before they met final approval. I find it very interesting that while Michel & Associates talked about a great many things in the regulations, the only thing they talked about concerning our specific topic was concerning definition (s). I mean, unless we're all missing something really big here... I think it's telling that they didn't address exemption (a) at all... as if they wanted to let that dog lie.

But who knows? I'm not too sure what CRPA is going to do regarding this law, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were poking and prodding around exemption (a) to see if it works how we want it, and then if we get an undesirable result, they declare their lawsuit, as they have another claim against the registration. If CA DoJ is found to not be enforcing exemption (a) correctly, then that gives them more standing in a legal case (in theory anyway, IANAL).

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Beauman might be on to something for future (A) exemptions and it's all good- if there is an exemption that doesn't require CA DOJ in the process that would be awesome. But somehow I feel like their intent is the opposite and we would need some real deep analysis. Problem is it's not just the CA side, we need to understand the Fed side, which is another brand of crap sandwich altogether. Getting the Feds to say anything is almost impossible, but if an ATF letter could clarify something that would be a big thing. Again, only as collateral in court, which is were it would come in most handy and where we all would NOT like to find ourselves.

That about sums up our issue.

[Browneye]

Dros'd 100% lowers are about $60. That was my solution, and to convert to featureless. No AW or VOL reg's for me.

[jlist]

Have we seen any reports of volreg approvals that only a serial is engraved but not name, city/state, model, caliber? Exemption (c) only requires "a distinguishing number or mark of identification" and nothing else if firearm is registered. Is it confirmed that this is the case? The volreg form/online form is probably not asking for the additional info. My concern is that before a volreg is approved (we are seeing months of delays so they may not even be looking at volreg applications), they could come back and ask for photos or add the name, city requirement on the fly. Given how things happen in CA the possibility is there.

[BMartin1776]

I have 1911 and an AR Pistol to volreg do I indicate in CFARS how theyre configured now (semiauto) or how they were orig built (SSE) under "category"?? This matters bc being asked to input length

Is tactical machining considered a "firearms dealer" for "*Acquired From" or do I put "other" and in explain box say "self-built"? (Already checked that off in an earlier box)

Do they want the model you engraved or what the frames manufacturer "*Make" calls it? In my situation I have 2 completed Tactical Machining frames so I just assume they want what TM calls them?

[BeAuMaN]

Not sure... I don't have any experience with self-built handguns.

[Bobby Hated]

Please someone answer my question!

Can you VolReg a stripped lower using CFARS that has ATF compliant markings and was finished from an 80% prior to January 1, 2017?

[bm-bill]

Originally Posted by Bobby Hated

Please someone answer my question!

Can you VolReg a stripped lower using CFARS that has ATF compliant markings and was finished from an 80% prior to January 1, 2017?

Yes, you can. You select rife and two boxes to the right you can select receiver only.

[phdo]

Anyone have a number for me to call and talk to someone in the department? I got a kickback saying my serial number doesn’t match when it actually does match.

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by phdo

Anyone have a number for me to call and talk to someone in the department? I got a kickback saying my serial number doesn’t match when it actually does match.

Contact info:

Phone number: (916) 227-7527
Fax number: (916) 227-7480
Email: firearms.bureau@doj.ca.gov

Mail may be sent to the Bureau of Firearms at the following address:

Bureau of Firearms
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200

Express mail and common carrier shipments may be sent/shipped to the Bureau of Firearms at the following address:

Bureau of Firearms
4949 Broadway
Sacramento, CA 95820

[phdo]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Contact info:

Phone number: (916) 227-7527
Fax number: (916) 227-7480
Email: firearms.bureau@doj.ca.gov

Mail may be sent to the Bureau of Firearms at the following address:

Bureau of Firearms
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200

Express mail and common carrier shipments may be sent/shipped to the Bureau of Firearms at the following address:

Bureau of Firearms
4949 Broadway
Sacramento, CA 95820

Thank you, Disco. I remember someone posting in one of these threads that they have a direct number to a lady that is quite knowledgeable on firearms. I don't want to speak to a libtard. It's going to ruin my day.

[BMartin1776]

Originally Posted by BMartin1776

I have 1911 and an AR Pistol to volreg do I indicate in CFARS how theyre configured now (semiauto) or how they were orig built (SSE) under "category"?? This matters bc being asked to input length

Is tactical machining considered a "firearms dealer" for "*Acquired From" or do I put "other" and in explain box say "self-built"? (Already checked that off in an earlier box)

Do they want the model you engraved or what the frames manufacturer "*Make" calls it? In my situation I have 2 completed Tactical Machining frames so I just assume they want what TM calls them?

Anyone??

[MosinVirus]

Originally Posted by BMartin1776

Anyone??

I can only tell you what I did. I have no idea if it is wrong or right, simply what I submitted for my 1911 builds.

I decided it was best to register in final configuration - Semi-Auto.
I provided pictures in Semi-Auto.
I stated in the description that they were first built in Single Shot configuration (when the 80% became a Firearm)

I selected U S in the make field
I typed 1911 in the model (I dont have model engraved on any of them. They are simply all 1911s)
I typed "Self Built" in the acquired from Other field.

You still have plenty of time if you want to wait and see how my submissions go.

At the time I filled mine out I didn't know that Model needed to be whatever is engraved on the firearm. If no Model, the field apparently should have been left blank.

Tomorrow it will be 63 days since I submitted my volregs. No word.

[BMartin1776]

Originally Posted by MosinVirus

I can only tell you what I did. I have no idea if it is wrong or right, simply what I submitted for my 1911 builds.

I decided it was best to register in final configuration - Semi-Auto.
I provided pictures in Semi-Auto.
I stated in the description that they were first built in Single Shot configuration (when the 80% became a Firearm)

I selected U S in the make field
I typed 1911 in the model (I dont have model engraved on any of them. They are simply all 1911s)
I typed "Self Built" in the acquired from Other field.

You still have plenty of time if you want to wait and see how my submissions go.

At the time I filled mine out I didn't know that Model needed to be whatever is engraved on the firearm. If no Model, the field apparently should have been left blank.

Tomorrow it will be 63 days since I submitted my volregs. No word.

thanks

[BMartin1776]

"*Date Acquired" the date I got the frames or when guns were done... thats hard to nail down

"*Firearm Origin" whats better California or United States?

[Zyralius]

Date Acquired and United States of America


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BMartin1776]

the day I bought the frame or when weapon was built

Originally Posted by Zyralius

Date Acquired and United States of America


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zyralius]

Date Acquired = date you got the frame. That’s the date I used and I got my lower approval letter last week. Hope that helps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nil]

If volreging an AR pistol, built from an 80% in 2014:

firearm type: pistol
category: semi-automatic
frame only: YES or NO

It's a fully assembled 100% AR pistol now, so is it a frame only? Not sure if I should put yes or no.

[zeroman03]

Originally Posted by nil

If volreging an AR pistol, built from an 80% in 2014:

firearm type: pistol
category: semi-automatic
frame only: YES or NO

It's a fully assembled 100% AR pistol now, so is it a frame only? Not sure if I should put yes or no.

My 2 cents:
If you're saying, "It's a fully assembled 100% AR pistol now," then it would be NO, under frame only.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Commiefornia Jack]

I've sifted through most of this thread and decided I will be going the featureless route on all of my lowers. However, I still have a few questions. If someone doesn't mind helping me out I'd really appreciate it.

I ordered a set of number/letter punches that Discogodfather recommend and plan on creating my own serial numbers.

Exactly what is required of me when stamping my lower? If I simply stamp "XYZ 001" would that suffice? Is there anything else I would need to stamp on the lower?

Do I need to upload photos of the lowers I intend to register to the database?

Am I able to register an 80% lower or does it have to be at minimum stripped?

As long as I register Before July 1st, 2018 I should be fine correct? Or does registration need to fully process before the 1st?

Thanks again for any help offered.

[Discogodfather]

Originally Posted by Commiefornia Jack

Exactly what is required of me when stamping my lower? If I simply stamp "XYZ 001" would that suffice? Is there anything else I would need to stamp on the lower?

Any serial number is good, making is unique is up to you. 12345 is probably a bad choice but there are no rules against it. It's also completely elective in terms of what info you put on there, like your name or place it was made or anything else like caliber, etc. Up to you until July 1st 2018.

Originally Posted by Commiefornia Jack

Do I need to upload photos of the lowers I intend to register to the database?

They don't ask for it up front but may depending. They never asked me for any, but my last round I submitted in March has not processed yet so I don't know. Good idea is to prepare for the possibility.

Originally Posted by Commiefornia Jack

Am I able to register an 80% lower or does it have to be at minimum stripped?

It has to be a 100% finished lower, and it can be completely stripped. You cannot register an 80% because it is not a firearm.

Originally Posted by Commiefornia Jack

As long as I register Before July 1st, 2018 I should be fine correct? Or does registration need to fully process before the 1st?

It's a bit of a grey area, but definitely submit as soon as possible. My last 2 are still "processing", and when I asked them through their "report an issue" they said that they were backlogged and could not answer questions about transactions within a 90 day period:

"The Department of Justice makes every effort to process applications within a timely manner. Due to the high volume of applications, status checks for submissions that are not older than 90 days cannot be provided."

I'd say get it in before July 1st is the best we can do at this point. We're closer to 90 days to July 1st so they will not respond to any questions about the application until after.

[twowheel]

Has anyone gotten an update from Volreg?

Looking to see if anyone has gotten approval for featureless or Patriot Pin option.

[Commiefornia Jack]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Any serial number is good, making is unique is up to you. 12345 is probably a bad choice but there are no rules against it. It's also completely elective in terms of what info you put on there, like your name or place it was made or anything else like caliber, etc. Up to you until July 1st 2018.



They don't ask for it up front but may depending. They never asked me for any, but my last round I submitted in March has not processed yet so I don't know. Good idea is to prepare for the possibility.



It has to be a 100% finished lower, and it can be completely stripped. You cannot register an 80% because it is not a firearm.



It's a bit of a grey area, but definitely submit as soon as possible. My last 2 are still "processing", and when I asked them through their "report an issue" they said that they were backlogged and could not answer questions about transactions within a 90 day period:

"The Department of Justice makes every effort to process applications within a timely manner. Due to the high volume of applications, status checks for submissions that are not older than 90 days cannot be provided."

I'd say get it in before July 1st is the best we can do at this point. We're closer to 90 days to July 1st so they will not respond to any questions about the application until after.

Tyvm for the speedy and helpful response. I appreciate it.