Changes to Single Shot Exemption in California, Jan. 1st, 2015 (AR Pistol)

[softorchestra]

[content removed]

[jbjh]

With an 80% you will be creating a single shot/bolt action/break top from scratch, as opposed to reconfiguring an already existing gun from semi-auto to single shot and back again.

[softorchestra]

[content removed]

[jbjh]

@softorchestra

Right, that much I understand. How would you get around the bolt or break top action? My understanding/interpretation is that a bolt refes to a bolt action, not a bolt carrier group.

I guess I’m trying to understand as it is not clear to me and seems that nobody will be allowed to create an AR pistol after the 1st of the year. More to the point, how would you legally manufacture a firearm, as an individual, given the penal code changes below?

Here’s the verbage: (Article 4 is of concern)

-------------------- As ammended ------------------
SECTION 1.
Section 32100 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

and Article 5 (commencing with Section 32000) shall apply to a semiautomatic pistol that has been temporarily or permanently altered so that it will not fire in a semiautomatic mode.
------------------ End Of As ammended ----------------

When you make an 80% without a gas system, you are creating a single shot or bolt action in the first place, not altering an existing semi auto. Put an adjustable gas block on the barrel, close it up (without a gas tube) - manual repeater! It’s just a straight pull bolt action.

[softorchestra]

[content removed]

[quino171]

Just move.out pf the state. It is being run by communists anyway.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

[jbjh]

@softorchestra

Unfortunately I don’t think that would hold up in a court of law. In California there is what is known as a “dangerous weapon”, and in the past it was possible to get around that by creating an SSE from the start, as you mention. In fact, it was actually the only way for an individual to manufacture a pistol with the potential to become a “dangerous weapon”, otherwise an unlicensed individual couldn’t legally manufacture one for personal use (per the GCA68).

With the new changes above, this SSE must be a bolt action or break top action. That does not describe an AR, by design.

What would be your defense in a court of law if the BATFE was charging you with illegal manufacture of firearms?

Without any gas system, it’s not an AR at all. It’s a manual repeating rifle that feeds from a magazine, just like the M2010. Just because it looks similar to another firearm doesn’t mean they are the same thing. The Brits do this all the time as they are prohibited form possessing semi-autos.

I actually want to build one for my kids until they get older and then move them up to semis.

[softorchestra]

[content removed]

[Leaveammoforme]

Let me get this straight (serious questions);

You’re so set on creating a single shot AR style pistol that you are worried about laws?
Why on Earth would you want to spend money, time and thought on this?
What is the point? You just want to build a gun? Photo Opps?

Just build a replica muzzle loader kit to get your fix, if that is even legal there.

[softorchestra]

[content removed]

[Leaveammoforme]

I poorly worded my ‘worry about laws’ question. What I was getting at was why would you try to figure out where the gray area was in the law. Why risk interpreting incorrectly to own a sig braced, single shot, bullet button SBR wanna be? I get the whole different strokes thing but it seems to be a huge risk to just have a neutered gun for display.

[softorchestra]

[content removed]

[softorchestra]

[content removed]

[Leaveammoforme]

@softorchestra

…In short, by building an AR pistol I can always convert it to a rifle and back to a pistol, no problems there…

Federally speaking, no. No you can not. Once a rifle, always a rifle.
Thanks for insight on why you have to have this set up. Good luck.

[wildcard600]

@Leaveammoforme

Federally speaking, no. No you can not. Once a rifle, always a rifle.

There seems to be some disagreement on this point, including on this site. Some say that the original configuration the receiver is transferred as will dictate the legal status of the firearm. e.g. a bare lower is classified as “other” on the 4473 so it can legally be configured as a pistol then a rifle and back as long as the pistol upper is not installed at any point that the rifle components are on the lower.

Personally I don’t think I want to be a test case for the law and my pistol lowers will always stay pistol lowers. I live in a free state and a $70 lower is not worth my freedom.

YMMV

[softorchestra]

[content removed]

[jpmuscle]

All said and done moving seems like an easier option, truly.

[softorchestra]

[content removed]

[Snipe315]

@jpmuscle

All said and done moving seems like an easier option, truly.

Not so easy in reality

Unless you know of any easy to get jobs in other states that pay in the low 6 figure salary range?

[Hot_Holster]

My head spins when I try to decipher the gun laws in California. I feel for you all out there.