Shipping a Rifle upper to California question?

[itgoesboom]

Is there any legality issues with selling/shipping a AR-15 rifle upper to California?

Thanks in advance.

 

[ke6guj]

Its perfectly legal to ship an upper to CA. Possession of an upper is not a crime. It could be used on a registered AR or an off-list lower in a legal configuration.

The only time I'd be concerned is if you were shipping a pistol-length upper. SBR issues could pop up if they buyer did not have a legal pistol lower.

 

[Bullitt196]

Heads up on the threaded barrel issue as well, I think it's the person who receives the upper's problem though, not yours.

 

[ArmedBear]

Heads up on the threaded barrel issue as well

Threaded barrels on long guns are not restricted at all in California. They are restricted on pistols.

Any non-NFA barreled carbine/rifle upper is legal to ship to California. Lowers are more complicated, but uppers are not firearms.

Because of other restrictions in California, it would probably not be a good idea to ship a pistol upper -- it would probably add up to an NFA violation one way or another, even if the barrel isn't threaded. California doesn't have a "constructive possession" doctrine, but of course BATFE does.

Cheaper Than Dirt and others refuse to send any AR parts to California. If they don't want to sell to a huge and hungry market, that's their right. However, there is no basis for it in California law. They could be shipping almost everything they sell here, legally.

See http://www.calguns.net for the best info.

Unfortunately, while I've gotten great info from THR regarding all things gun, THR is not the best place for these questions. A lot of people seem to chime in when they have no clue what they're talking about, whenever the word "California" shows up in the thread title.

 

[billwiese]

California doesn't have a "constructive possession"
doctrine, but of course BATFE does.

Whooooaaa. Wrong, due to incompleteness. Let's be careful....

True, "constructive possession" does not apply to the field of CA-defined AWs because there is no phrasing to support it. Also, we have a letter from DOJ Dept AG Tim Rieger to NRA lawyers saying that 'constructive possession' of features-based AWs doesn't apply. (This factored into all the DOJ OLL drama about 'detachable magazines' that could be removed, etc.)

[Constructive possession for AWs in CA doesn't exist because there are multiple incidences of phrasing elsewhere codifying it for other (non-AW-related) firearm entities. Broadly speaking, standard rules of construction disallow inferring a concept in one area of law missing a given word or phrase when a similar area of law, similarly constructed, does contain the given word or phrase express that concept: they can't "copy downward" a phrase, so to speak, and say "well, it should be there" - its absence is indeed legislative intent because they could've put it there esp as law for other entities already contained that preexisting C.P. phrasing.]

HOWEVER.... CA does have its own constructive possession laws codified in 12020(c) PC definitions of SBR and SBS guns, and in 12200PC definitions of 'machinegun', as well as in 12300 or 12301 (IIRC) definitions of a 'destructive device'. These laws generally duplicate the overall function of Federal concepts for such items (but emphases & exact details may differ).

'Constructive possession' is not really a doctrine, but just a way the law was written - to ban not only the entity, but its separated readily (re)assembleable componentry under the ownership/control of a given individual even if separated.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA