AR Lower sold as "long gun" built into "pistol"
Long story short, I have a few AR lowers that were DROS'd as "long guns" since the state refuses to DROS any stripped receiver as a pistol or frame, even though those are options. I understand why it cannot be DROS'd as a pistol since it doesn't comply with the pistol requirements. However, it can, and should be sold as a frame. The 4473 has these marked as "other" and not as a long gun since they are just that, an "other".
My question... Does anyone know of case law supporting or against building an AR pistol from a stripped receiver that was DROS'd as a "long gun"? It looks like the state is getting away this crap because of this: 16865. As used in Section 26860, "long gun" means any firearm that is not a handgun or a machine-gun. Obviously it's not a handgun or machine-gun, since it's just a receiver. So under law, it's automatically classified as a "long gun". Any because it's now a "long gun" all SBR laws would apply to it. I really do hate this state more and more as time goes on. |
This topic has been beaten to death but check out this thread here, it's dated back to 2012 so I don't if it's any different now. 80% seems to be the easy answer.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=593810 |
Yeah, I'm just trying to find a way to build one of my lowers as a pistol.
Since this is entirely a state paper issue, I won't if I could vol reg one of my lowers as a pistol. :) |
I dont think there is case law yet. But you also need to comply with all the handgun roster laws. A combination of all these laws is what's preventing a clear path to lawfully do what you propose. Only case law would settle this with certainty.
|
Quote:
|
Federally you can build a stripped lower into a pistol provided the lower has never been barreled as a long gun.
CA, as stated as above, there's no case law but since the lower was DROS'd as a long gun they have a very simple argument that you illegally manufactured a pistol from a long gun. Search the forms many people have claimed to have done this exact thing along with submitting a vol reg. I'm sure those people are perfectly fine until they/the gun gets into trouble and an overly excited DA starts researching the history and source of the gun. It could be many many hands and years later that something happens but that could back to bite these people. Just my $0.02 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Anyone knows if I can purchase this spikes complete pistol lower in California , is it legal?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
A few manufactures had factory built single shot AR pistols (SSE 2.0) for sale as new mid last year. I know the DOJ said the Franklin Armory ones were not allowed to be DROS'd and Franklin was suing. I don't know about the others or the current status.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...t-1096655.html Maybe the DOJ has backed off of Franklin?? http://www.franklinarmory.com/LEGAL.html |
TRAP did at least one run of them too.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here is OP's question Quote:
In January 2015 so dip**** committing a burglary put a pistol brace onto a rifle lower and got caught. He was charged with violating SBR laws. California's broad SBR laws most certainly me they will be prosecuted. Here is the CA penal code: Quote:
Quote:
|
Lets say somebody has a bunch of stripped lowers which they purchased before the long gun registration started. They build one of those lowers as a pistol and sell it to an unsuspecting buying as a PPT.
Would the transfer go through and the gun be registered as a pistol? The lower wouldn't have previously been in the database, right? As DJFLASH commented, there are probably cases where this has happened and there may be people out there who think they legitimately own AR pistols they bought from sellers who originally DROSed them as long guns. |
Quote:
BTW, ATF has opined several times in writing that a virgin receiver DROSed in Ca as a long gun or rifle can be built into a handgun (assuming that it has never been assembled as a "rifle") without violating any Federal law. |
Owner has a stripped virgin lower DROSsed prior to long gun registration (no serial numbers or descriptions ever submitted to CADOJ). At the time I believe DOJ was prohibited from retaining any record of the transaction longer than two weeks. ATF OK with building this into a pistol. Owner takes the virgin lower over the border into Nevada, builds it as a compliant single-shot/bolt-action/break-open/whatever pistol, returns to CA and (optionally) VOLREGs it as a pistol.
Where did he violate any law? Quote:
|
these two letters will answer your question...
https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download http://s24.postimg.org/4zxphuwqd/image.jpg |
The problem isn't federal, it is state.
When the FLL DROS's you the lower he HAS/HAD to choose rifle or pistol. "Other" only exists on the federal form. Take these receivers out of CA and you can assemble them as pistols. In CA, they are already long guns. Arguing semantics with regard to converting a long gun into a pistol is just silly. Nobody in this thread is on the verge of some legal breakthrough here. |
Quote:
Also, wireless claimed that it is illegal per ATF (Federal). So, some of us are showing him the error of his ways. |
To confusing for me for follow right now. Comment edited.
|
ATF's determination letter states that once the lower has been configured as a rifle, or has been marked as a rifle on the 4473, it can never be a pistol....
now assuming the 4473 form is checked as a receiver, federally the burden is on the feds to prove that it has been previously configured as a rifle. if it has been configured as a rifle, according to the ATF, it can never be a pistol and manufacturing it into a pistol will actually make it an SBR... As far as DROS.. ATF has also ruled that CA DROS has no effect on what the ATF defines each firearm. so theoretically, if you 4473 a receiver as a receiver (other)... and never build it... then move out of California, you could then build it as a pistol. |
Quote:
It does not say "Multi-use receiver" or "you choose and let us know" Is that not clear enough? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
let me be clear - No matter what the DROS says... a receiver is only a receiver until it is built in the eyes of the ATF. whatever it is built as, will be what it is for the remainder of the guns existence. if built into a pistol, the gun will always be a pistol, - however, it can be in a temporary rifle configuration and be converted back to pistol configuration. if built into a rifle, it will always be a rifle and can never be converted into a pistol if left as a receiver, and in CA dressed as a long gun, it is still a receiver in the eyes of the ATF and can be built into a pistol in a different state. if the receiver is built into a long gun, and drosd as a long gun, it can never be a pistol in any state! get it? |
Quote:
Quote:
I think we all need to be careful. All it takes is one gangbanger to make an AR pistol and commit a crime with it and the DA makes an example out of them or the person before them that made the pistol and there's the case law. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
So what was the purpose of this exercise? |
What I have read on this subject, despite the legal definitions is, the boys and girls in blue are afraid of a .223/556 handgun that "penetrates" their vests and the concealability. Yet, what is the difference between a handgun in .223 or a rifle? Or at that any rifle caliber would penetrate the vests in a normal issue vest to law enforcement. Can you conceal an AR15 rifle? Sure you can. The AR15 is light, and can with a 16" barrel is concealable; quite easily.
Which bring me now to the various laws. Sounds like there is an equal protection issue when it comes to not allowing an AR15 "pistol" but allowing and AR15 Rifle both being in .223/556. Venue wise, California wouldn't be a good place to litigate this, because of the general nature of the courts though. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am not unwilling to prove that I'm correct. I just don't have any need to and I don't think the risk and costs of possible prosecution (even if found innocent) is worth it for me. I own a mill. However, anyone who says that it is illegal should be able to prove their case since, laws generally don't regulate what is legal just what is illegal. |
The problem is this is not some new discussion or some new idea. It's been hashed out long before 80s, SSE1 and SSE2. Was their a new development besides posts like these from second responders that reopened the door for this re-hashing?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
I've always thought what if you built a "long gun" from a new receiver. 16 inch barrel and pistol buffer tube. Not a rifle (no stock) so no bullet button needed, you can use pistol grip as normal and keep your magazines detachable. Not a pistol (16 inch barrel) so no worries there. I've thrown this out there a few times but nobody wants to try it. Others have built AR type long guns using spade grips and kept mag release detachable because it wasn't a rifle. They had pistol grips too. Thought this seemed like a neat idea.
|
Quote:
all ar pistols need BB due to the magweel being outside the pistol grip all rifles need a BB if it has either a telescoping stock, a pistol grip, or a flash hider while putting a 16" barrel on a pistol lower is legal, u are utilizing your pistol on long gun configuration which would make you applicable to all long gun laws... no matter what you need a BB unless you go featureless rifle your contending because it doesn't have a stock it is not a rifle since it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder... good luck making your case to a judge who has no idea what your talking about.. let alone 6 jurors... but i see what you are saying... my 1919 has a pistol grip with no stock.. yet it doesn't have a bullet button... |
Quote:
On the original question, my biggest concern is the wording of CA's SBR law if the lower were possibly considered to at some point be a rifle. . Quote:
|
Quote:
according to the ATF, once a pistol, always a pistol. however, a pistol can be made into a rifle configuration but it is still a pistol. there is a lengthy ATF letter on it https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download so if we present that to a judge that says were not converting from a rifle, we are converting from a pistol that was configured into rifle specs back to pistol configuration.. it seems like ATF distinguishes type of firearms and configurations example: registered pistol in pistol configuration = pistol registered pistol in rifle configuration = Pistol Registered rifle in Pistol configuration = SBR registered pistol in pistol configuration, then switched to rifle configuration then switched back to pistol configuration = pistol the entire time. make sense? |
Quote:
This is not a rifle so it's not covered in the assault weapon definition so no bullet button is needed. It is not a pistol so the mag being outside the grip is not applicable to needing a bullet button. It is legally covered the same way your 1919 is legally speaking. If you are up to defending your 1919 why not this? Just because nobody has tried it doesn't mean that it isn't legal. All of these "Off List" rifles are here because of people reading the law and doing what was at first thought of as crazy, and do so at your own risk, but now it is mainstream. I'm just asking those smarter than I if this is legal or not and putting it out there for people to discuss. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.