Possible Californian AR-15 Loophole

[Anteater1717]

I was wondering if I have found some form of a Californian AR loophole . In CA you can own a rimfire with as many evil features as you would like as long as it has a 10 round or less magazine capacity. Ok the lower receiver on an AR is classified as the actual fire arm right? What if you bought a .22 AR so it’s legally a rimfire? Then added a centerfire upper wouldn’t that just be an accessory? If so wouldn’t you still have in the eyes of the law a .22 with an accessory on top? If this is legal you would probably want the name of the rimfire caliber on the lower receiver. I haven’t tried it and you probably shouldn’t without checking the laws but I think this might be legal. if this is legal it would be reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeely cool to have a pistol grip AR in ca with detachable magazines!!!

i am not advising you to make this AR with out checking legality

 

[billwiese]

I suggest you go over to Calguns.net.

We've been running the off-list AR15 thing for over a year. As long as the receiver is not on the banned list of certain 'named' ARs you can get a receiver and build it up into a legal configuration.

You can have a rimfire AR, a manually cycled (i.e., nonsemiauto) centerfire AR, or an AR with a fixed 10rd magazine.

If you wanna use centerfire semiauto detachable mag ARs, just avoid all evil features, and use a special MonsterMan grip or U15 stock - these latter devices are not legally described by the regulatory definitions of pistol grips or thumbhole stocks and are entirely legal as they do not transition the rifle into 12276.1PC generic AW status.

Calguns.net generally has the most up-to-date authoritative discussion of California firearms legal/political matters.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

 

[crazed_ss]

Then added a centerfire upper wouldn’t that just be an accessory? If so wouldn’t you still have in the eyes of the law a .22 with an accessory on top?

lol.. wishful thinking. In the eyes of the law, you'd have an unregistered assault weapon.. which is illegal.

if this is legal it would be reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeely cool to have a pistol grip AR in ca with detachable magazines!!!

Pipe Dream. Never gonna happen.

 

[Anteater1717]

i will settle with the wierd stocks then

 

[SoCalShooter]

Build the rifle you want and put this stock on it. www.californiarifles.com

 

[Davo]

our laws here are so silly.

 

[romma]

our laws here are so silly.

Extremely silly, yet apparently deadly serious at the same time... We got ours too! I want a collapsable stock on my AR, and I can't add one!

 

[spartan55]

move

move to texas, have all the fun you want.

Well on second thought stay where you are more room for me

 

[10-Ring]

I built what I wanted - sans goofy stock and strangely, I've gotten use to top loading them Perhaps one day I can change out the mag releases so I too can drop mags like other civilized societies :banghead:

 

[madmike]

It occurs to me that pictures of these workarounds might be useful to prevent bans elsewhere.

"We'll just ignore your stupid ban and make you look stupid. And nothing will change from your POV. we'll still have eeeevull assault weapons."

Or is that too intellectual for the banners?

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

It seems to me that the non-pistol grip would make it more ergonomically comfortable to "spray from the hip" ( if any idiot wanted to do that) than the standard grip.

Oops, better not give them something else to worry about...

 

[bruss01]

Build the rifle you want and put this stock on it. www.californiarifles.com

I checked out the site... looks good but the one thing I DON'T see that would have given me warm fuzzies is a determination letter from the CA DOJ that a semi-auto, removable magazine rifle with this stock is not considered an "assault weapon" under California law.

Since this outfit is in Sacramento (my own AO) I might have to truck on over there and have a chat with them.

 

[billwiese]

Build the rifle you want and put this stock on it. www.californiarifles.com

I checked out the site... looks good but the one thing I DON'T see that would have given me warm fuzzies is a determination letter from the CA DOJ that a semi-auto, removable magazine rifle with this stock is not considered an "assault weapon" under California law.

Since this outfit is in Sacramento (my own AO) I might have to truck on over there and have a chat with them
[/quote]

I am one of the early 5 or 6 "sh*t disturbers" in the California off-list AR gig so I know some of the background here... It is unlikely that with current DOJ staffing, and the fact that the current director (in 'retirement mode' with an apparently ailing hip) is letting the antigun Deputy AG (Firearms) run the division from the Brady campaign, that anything stating "this is legal" will emerge unless/until staffing changes.

This stock is clearly legal by statutory and regulatory law (12276.1PC / 11 CCR 5469). The web of the hand cannot go below the top of the trigger no matter how fat your hands are, and it cannot be considered a thumbhole stock either.

An alternate non-pistol-grip grip device called the MonsterMan grip works with A2 stocks. This grip is not described by the 11 CCR 5469 regulatory definition of pistol grip either and thus does not trigger the definition of AW if no other evil features present. Some DOJ phone staff even are informally recommending the MonsterMan grip (not by name); I don't think they know about Grant's U15 stock yet.

Also, a letter from DOJ is useable as an element in a defense. But you should know the law as your primary basis for legality, as a DOJ letter is not necessarily a guarantee like a formal opinion letter is. The DOJ has in fact issued such letters that have backfired: in one case, they told folks with AWs that were permitted that they did not need to register them when SB23 rolled around. This person was later popped with a DOJ-permitted, but not registered, AW, and was found guilty. (Have no idea about reversal on appeal).

One famously incompetent and undersupervised CA DOJ special agent "Iggy" even accidentally approved a vendor's welded-up fixed-mag *named* assault weapons, because he did not understand what "series status" meant or how it was irrelevant to the matter at hand. There was a DOJ 4+ hr senior staff meeting regarding the cleanup of this issue. and some kinda funky permits may go out to 'fix' this situation (DOJ approval of an illegal named AW).

Understand the tech details of the law and work with that. Talk to folks who have worked these things out (and talked to lawyers etc) The best discussion on CA firearms legalities is on Calguns.net rifleman's forum and 2nd Amend/Legal/Political forum.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA