Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-19-2014, 1:15 PM
aiea aiea is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default LEO, 80% lower, AR Pistol question

After reading most of the AR pistol threads here, seems like here are the steps of building an AR pistol in CA with an 80% lower:

1) complete the lower
2) document the SSE step w/BB
3) convert it back to semi-auto

Although the process is not backed by the PC (please correct me if I'm wrong), would a Fed LEO have to go through the same process?

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-19-2014, 1:20 PM
Never Convicted's Avatar
Never Convicted Never Convicted is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,058
iTrader: 101 / 100%
Default

2) document the SSE step w/BB, please elaborate ?
__________________
" Let's Roll. "

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-19-2014, 1:24 PM
aiea aiea is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Never Convicted View Post
2) document the SSE step w/BB, please elaborate ?
Single Shot Excemption with Bullet Button...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-19-2014, 1:27 PM
junior40er's Avatar
junior40er junior40er is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,946
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

but once you do that and THEN remove single shot sled...how do you prove you did that first? Pics?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-19-2014, 1:37 PM
aiea aiea is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by junior40er View Post
but once you do that and THEN remove single shot sled...how do you prove you did that first? Pics?
Forum members suggested to document the process with pictures and video of the entire build, but I haven't seen it yet!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-19-2014, 2:16 PM
Turo's Avatar
Turo Turo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SLO + Tulare
Posts: 5,058
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by junior40er View Post
but once you do that and THEN remove single shot sled...how do you prove you did that first? Pics?
You don't have to prove that you did it. The burden is on the state to prove that you didn't do it.
__________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
-Thomas Jefferson

Check me out on YouTube! Shooting, Engineering, and Dogs. What's not to love?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-19-2014, 3:13 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,972
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turo View Post
You don't have to prove that you did it. The burden is on the state to prove that you didn't do it.
Turo,

The state only has to prove that you manufactured an "Unsafe Handgun" in violation of Penal Code section 32000. The state does not have to prove that you didn't go through the SSE process.

Please note that the rationale for going through the SSE process is that you "manufacture" a single-shot firearm (thereby not violating section 32000) and then you "convert" that manufactured firearm to semi-auto (the "conversion" also not violating any law). But it's important to remember this is only legal theory. There is no published case requiring a prosecutor, or a court, to accept it.

A prosecutor is free to argue that you started off with a piece a metal (the 80% lower) and started to "manufacture" a firearm, and when you were done, you had a semi-auto pistol. If the judge and jury accept that argument, you're convicted. Even if you did an outstanding job of documenting the SSE phase of the manufacture.

The prosecution carries the burden of proof in a criminal case, but they're not required to respond to defense theories regarding their criminal liability.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-20-2014, 6:25 AM
aiea aiea is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Turo,

The state only has to prove that you manufactured an "Unsafe Handgun" in violation of Penal Code section 32000. The state does not have to prove that you didn't go through the SSE process.

Please note that the rationale for going through the SSE process is that you "manufacture" a single-shot firearm (thereby not violating section 32000) and then you "convert" that manufactured firearm to semi-auto (the "conversion" also not violating any law). But it's important to remember this is only legal theory. There is no published case requiring a prosecutor, or a court, to accept it.

A prosecutor is free to argue that you started off with a piece a metal (the 80% lower) and started to "manufacture" a firearm, and when you were done, you had a semi-auto pistol. If the judge and jury accept that argument, you're convicted. Even if you did an outstanding job of documenting the SSE phase of the manufacture.

The prosecution carries the burden of proof in a criminal case, but they're not required to respond to defense theories regarding their criminal liability.
Very well explained, thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-20-2014, 10:24 AM
jay_cue jay_cue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,110
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

exempt LEO can DROS an AR lower as a pistol lower. one of the threads I've seen on this.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a.../t-791347.html
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-22-2014, 6:06 AM
Psychbiker Psychbiker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fox Hole
Posts: 1,167
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

I asked a similar question in the legal section.

Sounds like building an AR pistol from an 80 % despite being legal CAN be proved not legal. Right? Would providing pictures of the build process or having them help? I worry getting stopped after a range day or at the range. I could simply serialize the lower and register/dros it but that's not exciting.

Maybe just adding a serial number would make it look less zip gun like.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-22-2014, 11:34 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,972
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychbiker View Post
I asked a similar question in the legal section.

Sounds like building an AR pistol from an 80 % despite being legal CAN be proved not legal. Right? Would providing pictures of the build process or having them help? I worry getting stopped after a range day or at the range. I could simply serialize the lower and register/dros it but that's not exciting.

Maybe just adding a serial number would make it look less zip gun like.
Psychbiker,

Yes, it would be possible for a prosecutor to prove a violation of Penal Code section 32000 where the subject personally manufactured a semi-auto handgun. Given all of the recent hype concerning "Ghost Guns", I can see a prosecutor now making the effort.

As a practical matter, serializing it and registering it with DOJ would likely stop many LEO's from pursuing field investigations that would lead to arrest and prosecution. This should be done while the weapon is in a legal (single-shot) configuation.

As the same time, your manner of possessing the weapon also goes a long way to reduce the potential of becoming the subject of a field investigation. Contrary to what you may read in many threads, LEOs are not looking to throw folks into jail simply because of technical violations of weapons laws. We want to spend our limited time throwing those folks into jail where their activities are causing harm to others, or will likely cause harm to others. The best way for an LEO to respond to a technical and non-harmful violation of the law is to educate the violator.

But the serializing and registering process will not preclude the filing of charges. To be completely safe with regard to PC 32000, you would have to submit your personally manufactured semi-auto to a DOJ testing lab for certification.

Last edited by RickD427; 02-22-2014 at 11:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:14 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.