Setting the Record Straight on Gun Control in California

I can assure you, my "paperweight" is a functioning, real firearm. Completely legal and not an "assault weapon"

To those who believe that they can "build up", Penal Code section 12020 has strict prohibitions on making frames or receivers into functioning weapons - the violation of which carry felony sanctions. I trust that all of the legal requirements were met.

To those who believe that they can "build up", Penal Code section 12020 has strict prohibitions on making frames or receivers into functioning weapons - the violation of which carry felony sanctions. I trust that all of the legal requirements were met.

Interesting, if incorrect, assertions.

Per SB23 itself as codified in the penal code, you can build one of these lowers into a functional rifle if:

1) The magazine is attached in such a manner that a
tool is required for its removal AND the magazine
holds, at most, 10 rounds, or

2) The rifle lacks a forbidden feature, most
commonly a "pistol" grip.

What Ed describe is a custom made gun made by a LICENSED gunsmith (whose special status was created by legislation authored by Steve Peace and followed up with by new State Senator Darrell Steinberg) that is a fixed magazine (aka load from the top) rifle that does not have any legal features that bring it within SB 23.

Given that this individual spent a lot of money to acquire and make a hunting-sporting rifle, thats fine with me.

I used to vote Democratic.
The assault on my rights have moved me into
the Republican party.
I also used to be a resident of CA.
The AR15 hanging on my wall has never assaulted
anyone.
I would like to be able to vote Democrat again, but their addiction to control issues prevents this.
California's gun laws are clearly unconstitutional
and have turned many long time Democrats into Republicans.

The 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from tyrannical
anal retentive, fastidious control freaks whose joy
is imprisoning people for their inalienable rights.

It has very little to do with hunting.

Quote: "What Ed describe (sic) is a custom made gun made by a LICENSED gunsmith..."

What?! This is a truly ignorant statement

No licensed gunsmith is required to build a CA-compliant AR-15 rifle.

Not only is a license not required, anyone with even a little dexterity can easily assemble one in an hour with basic hand tools.

Methinks Mr. Nowick knows better.

Remember people, gun control is *not* about safety.

It is about control.

I have a permit to carry my firearm and do so at all times. I am not a "nut" but I do believe I have the right to protect myself and my family.

Just look at the crime rates in places such as New York City and Washington DC. Why are they so high? Simple. The "bad guys" KNOW citizens are defenseless because of draconian laws that prohibit possession of firearms.
http://www.beast-enterprises.com/kleck.html

The following link tells a story of how a lack of a firearm put a family through grief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A59368-2000May12¬Found=true

It's also important to remember why the 2ed Amendment to the Constitution was created. It's NOT in place for people to hunt and target shoot. It IS in place to keep government in check. If government officials know that should something go seriously wrong with our Republic style system that armed citizens are in place. The 2ed Amendment is the "reset" button to the Constitution.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

and there is this report: http://www.revolutionearthpress.com/hatch_2ndamend.html

Also if you do not subscribe to the 2ed Amendment take a look at
Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution:“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

I remember when the Second Amendment was drafted and passed by the states. Folks were really concerned about their assault rifles. Oh, and that provision about militias was just put in to make it more popular and gain support.

California Gun Laws are so stupid, sorry I have no better term for them. Let us take the "Assult Weapons Ban" into retrospect. If the Rifle has an Evil Pistol Grip you have to have a 10 round fixed magazine, but if the Evil Rifle doesn't have a pistol Grip the Rifle can have a Removeable Magazine. So what I'm understanding is that Pistol Grips are Evil, not the Magazine.

Why do I have to wait 10 days after the purchase of a double barrel shotgun to take it home; when I have several semi-auto pistols and licenced semi-auto rifles at home... you think I'm really going to by-pass my handguns and assult rifles to go commit a crime with a shotgun that is only designed to fire bird shot?

What about the ban on the .50 BMG? What was it 2 days after the law was passed a company came out with a .50 DTC, a round that is almost identical to the BMG round, but legal, because it falls just short of the out lines of the law.

What California needs is more armed citizens, ever watch the news? This place is a haven for Terror. I'd rather live in Iraq some days, at least there you can legally have an AK-47 and defend your self against attack with out being persecuted for defending your self against an attacker.

You know... all these politicians know is what the lobbiest tell them, they probly don't know the difference between a Winchester 37 Single shot and an AR-15.

CA PC 12020 doesn't even contain words "frame" or "receiver". Among other things, it bans manufacturing of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles, which is not applicable to these rifles.
BTW, it would be a huge stretch to call assembly or "build-up" of the rifle "manufacturing" because the receiver is THE firearm, it was made and sold as one, has the serial number, the buyer has been through all appropriate background checks and waiting periods, etc. Regardless, manufacturing of legal firearms is absolutely legal without gunsmith licence as long as it's for own use only, not as a business.

Mr. Norwick what you are doing in the name of public safety is simply harassing California's law abiding shooting community. Then you leave it up to Law Enforcement to try to interpret and enforce your poorly conceived and, confusing laws.

I have a legally purchased AR15 lower, the rifle has no flash hider, no collapsable stock no pistol grip and I posesss no high capacity magazines. I complied with all laws and picked this type of firearm because it is very accurate, easy to service and ammunition is affordable.
I hunt small to medium game and enjoy target shooting with this rifle. The rifle is also ideal for the defense of my family and property, which is my primary purpose for owning it.

If you people were genuinly interested in public safety rather than just gutting the 2nd Amendment and outlawing guns, you would work with people that actually know a bit about firearms and the United States Constitution to come up with common sense regulations that work and are easy to enforce.

Mr Irwin,

I dont think you understand the deal with these "Lowers". They can be built into fixed-magazine, SB-23 compliant rifles by a person sitting in their living room. No licensed gunsmith is needed.

Bushmaster even makes a fixed-mag rifle for those of us who are too lazy to build our own. http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/Carbon15/azc-c15rm4ft.asp

Why is it anti-gun people never understand the guns they are arguing against?

One: I note that no one has disputed what I said about the 1988 campaign, the DC lawsuits or the other comments save on what AB 2728 was all about.

Two: On AB 2728 and "build ups", in order to avoid the zip gun 12020 coverage they would have to be safely built up by a licensed gunsmith. If the gun so made has been done by a licensed gunsmith and has a fixed magazine and it cannot contain more than 10 rounds, it’s probably legal absent something else.

I also believe that using professional gunsmiths - persons who were assisted by legislation carried by Syteve Peace and Darrell Steinberg as part of larger agreements- is a very smart thing to do. Persons without training who play with guns are likely to injure themselves. There are - incidentally - several excellent gunsmiths in the Sacramento area. I from time to time use a guy up in Woodland.

The point is that a large number of persons had purchased these lowers in the expectation that they would be listed and they would then be registered and could then build them up into SB 23 defined assault weapons. That strategy will not happen now because of 2728.

In terms of what folks do with these items now, they have a couple of options: (i) keep them as is; (ii) dispose of them to the local law enforcement agency or (iii) have them professionally built up into fixed magazine weapons.

If they do that, that will means parts such as expensive barrels, trigger mechanisms, and the like will be ordered as separate items which will result in California likely collecting sales and use taxes. Economic activity that assists the General Fund is good. I am very pro-retail.

Mr. Irwin.
I've heard some malarkey before, but have to admit
yours takes the cake..Dis information will get you
no where. Gun owners are smarter than this. If not
so, how did all these OLL's end up coming here to
Corruptfornia legally ?

I can assure you Californias draconian gun laws do nothing to protect the people but do make the state a safer place for criminals. Californias ban on "assault weapons" and .50BMG rifles is nothing more than feel good legislation pased by politicians either too lazy or inept to actually take on the real causes and solutions to Californias crime problems. Can any California law maker tell me when a fifty caliber rifle has been used in the comission of a crime? How about the percentage of so called "assault weapons" used in crime compared to any other type of firearm. Heres a hint never and low. California democrats like Pelosi, and Feinstien are the reason I vote republican. Even though I reside in another state I wont vote for a party that empowers the likes of these control freaks.

Irwin,

Off list lowers/AW's etc:
While I do not disagree , in concept, with your concern for gun owners/possesors safety, I do find that the tone of your writing is at least, in part, to belittle or discourage ownership/possesion and the "build-up" of lawfully owned/possesed lowers.

I believe that with your background and expertise, you are aware that these firearms are lawful and gun owners are trying their best to comply with the law.The DOJ is obligated to produce cleary defined regulations on these laws, but many would argue have failed to do so.

regarding the personal hang ups and historiography of decades past...old hat.

Mr. Nowick,

While I appreciate your concern for public safety and your willingness to clearly explain your position in writing, I have to take issue with the vagueness about the legality of unlisted lower receivers near the end of your article.

I have carefully reviewed the 2006 California Gun Handbook and the SB-23 itself. Please correct what you believe to be the mistake all of the respondents on this site are making. SB-23 defines an assault weapon as having a detachable magazine and one of several features, including a pistol grip. Thus, if the weapon does not have one of these several features, such as a pistol grip, than the weapon is not an assault weapon.

As far as a licensed gunsmith being required to attach professionally manufactured, bulk "units" together, this is news to me. I hope you will clearly explain why you believe this. Simply ordering these bulk "units", such as a lower receiver, upper half, and a stock, is certainly not the same as actually designing, manufacturing, and assembling a custom designed gun.

It appears that the "Assembly's resident genius" doesn't even know how to interpret law. Funny, but not.

In regards to those individuals who think they know better, I was in fact told today that I believe that is relevant.

Apparently, the Stanislaus County District Attorney has filed criminal charges against an individual who was a state licensed gun dealer who tried to build up a lower receiver into a “legal” SB 23 rifle but did not in fact have a true fixed magazine and as such now finds himself with an AW problem.. In addition, customers who asked that this be done were also filed on as well. AW possession is a felony and anything beyond that carries 8 years in prison for each gun. In sum, they face substantial legal jeopardy.

People who engage in this activity assume the risk of liability. I believe I am correctly paraphrasing Justice Frankfurter when he stated that when individuals by their conduct seek to go up to the limits of legality by their actions find that they have in fact crossed the line, they are not in a sympathetic position to complain.

Moreover, people who are not licensed and hence professionally trained playing with complicated items which guns can be is not real smart.

But, to quote my late mother, its your life.

Mr. Norwick,

I find your response all very reasonable and well advised, but dodging the question of actual compliance with SB-23. No doubt, the gun laws in California are currently in rapid flux. However, I believe the gentleman you are referring to did not properly affix his magazine, and then added banned features. Yes, this is dangerously close to an assault weapon.

However, if the gun totally lacks any of the banned items set forth in SB-23, and perhaps even has a properly fixed magazine, I don't see how it could possibly be interpreted as an assault weapon.

Irwin,

I believe you are misinformed. A licensed gunsmith is no more required to build an AR-15 style lower receiver into a gun than is required to replace a spring or barrel. It is quite easy. As a matter of fact, you can purchase the entire upper receiver assembly (the part with the barrel, just making sure you are keeping up with me) and have it shipped straight to your door. To install it requires that you place it in position and slide into place a single pin. These things go together like legos. And would you care to clarify what a "true fixed magazine" is? All we have to go on is SB 23 and according to that a simple screw that prevents the magazine from being removed is all that is required. As long as we are following the letter of the law I don't see how you can say that we are pushing our luck by going up to the limit of the law. If the speed limit is 55 then I can drive 55 and still be within the law.

And to clarify, the way I read SB-23 is that if the magazine is detachable (and I too see no reason why a simple pin or level would fail to make it "detachable"), then it cannot have any banned features, such as a pistol grip.

Thus, unless the magazine is truly welded in place, there can be no prohibited items, as listed in SB-23, such as a flash hider.

Is this not correct?

And to clarify, the way I read SB-23 is that if the magazine is detachable (and I too see no reason why a simple pin or lever would fail to make it "detachable"), then it cannot have any banned features, such as a pistol grip.

Thus, unless the magazine is truly welded in place, there can be no prohibited items, as listed in SB-23, such as a flash hider.

Is this not correct?

Mr. Norwick,

Another point of clarification about your assertion that these off-list receiver transactions are readily traceable by the DOJ: The Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) system does not collect any information pertaining to the make or model, style or type of Long Gun being sold. To the DOJ, a legally purchased off-list lower appears only as a "long gun" of unspecified characteristics, and no more.

Anybody who wishes to see for them self may read the actual DROS manual at: https://dros.vansis.wcom.com/wpsd/manual.pdf

I have yet to hear anyone say I am wrong that as a matter of safety its best to have competent people do this to and to avoid legal issues. A regular gun dealer has less competency in this matter than a gunsmith. Nor, has anyone disputed what I said about the Stanislaus filing. I do agree with John Doe is that only way to avoid the problem is to weld the magazine shut.

In terms of tracing, its easier than you think and it’s a mandate of state law now thanks to Speaker Bob Hertzberg and followup legislation by Senator perata and former Assemblywoman Carol Liu. In that regard, the federal bound book information is considered a State form and is subject to inspection as a condition of state dealer licensure and that has all the relevant information. Anyone who thinks these lowers – which bear serial numbers –are untraceable should think again. And, does anyone doubt that a “built up” lower found in someone’s possession will not be traced? But, then again, to quote Roslyn Nowick (my late Mother), “It’s your life”.

Mr. Nowick,

Thank you for your feedback, as it is interesting to hear your perspective on the issue. Again, my question is, SB-23 states that one can have a detachable magazine rifle with a lower receiver which is not listed so long as it does not have any of the prohibited features, does it not?

"Apparently, the Stanislaus County District Attorney has filed criminal charges against an individual who was a state licensed gun dealer who tried to build up a lower receiver into a “legal” SB 23 rifle but did not in fact have a true fixed magazine and as such now finds himself with an AW problem.. In addition, customers who asked that this be done were also filed on as well." --Irwin Nowick

Mr. Nowick,

You claim that it is best to have a licensed gunsmith build up the lower receiver to avoid legal problems. However, earlier you cite an incident where customers who had a licensed gunsmith build up their "legal" (your quotes) receiver were specifically filed against--but not those who did built up the gun them self. This suggests that it is best to build up the lower receiver yourself to avoid legal problems.

The following is an official letter from the CA DOJ:

Dear :
This correspondence is in response to your letter of May 13th, 2005, you posed three questions regarding Harrott v. County of Kings and "series" assault weapons.
Your first question was about the effect of the Harrott decision on California assault weapons law. In Harrott the California Supreme Court upheld the Attorney General's authority to identify series assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code (PC) section 12276(e), but held that such firearms must first be included in the list of series assault weapons promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to section 12276.5(h), before they are considered "assault weapons" under California law. Since the Harrott decision, the Attorney General's Office has carried out its legal authority by identifying assault weapons and periodically publishing the "Assault Weapons Identification Guide."
Your second question was whether the receiver of a semiautomatic rifle could be an "assault weapon" if it does not have any of the characteristics specified in PC section 12276.1 and it is not listed in PC section 12276. The answer is "yes". As affirmed in Harrott, the receiver of a semiautomatic rifle would be considered an "assault weapon" if it were specifically listed by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), as authorized under PC 12276.5(h).
Your final question was whether it is lawful under California law to purchase a stripped [brand] [model] receiver. The [brand] [model] is not listed in PC Section 12276 nor is it listed in CCR Section 979.11 (Title 11, Division 1, Chapter 12.9). Therefore, assuming it does not meet the characteristics criteria specified in PC section 12276.1 (such as a "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon"), it could lawfully be purchased or possessed in California. If it did meet the characteristics criteria, it would be a prohibited assault weapon per PC section 12276.1(a)(1).
You should be aware that all [brand] receivers, including the [model], will soon be added to the list of weapons that are considered "assault weapons" under California law. After the list is published, owners will have 90 days to registered their firearms, pursuant to PC 12285.
If you have any additional questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me at (916) 263-xxxx.
Sincerely,
Alison Merrilees
Deputy Attorney General
Firearms Division
For: Bill Lockyer
Attorney General

Another letter from the CA DOJ:

Dear :
I am writing in response to your letter to Tim Rieger dated September 20, 2005. You asked about the legality of purchasing and possessing a JP Rifles CTR-02 in California. As you pointed out in your letter, that particular make and model is not listed as an assault weapon in the list promulgated by the Department, and may be considered an assault weapon in the near future.
As long as the rifle does not have the characteristics listed in Penal Code section 12276.1(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3), it is legal to purchase and possess in California. You should be aware, however, that the JP Rifles CTR-02 is virtually identical to rifles that are now listed as assault weapons by the Department, and may be considered an assault weapon in the near future.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Alison Merrilees
Deputy Attorney General
Firearms Division
For: Bill Lockyer
Attorney General

Irwin, as a self-proclaimed "genius", can you explain why the best law school you could get into was USD? Not even a UC school or an Ivy League.... please.

It is my opinion that all of the "assault weapon" legislation in the State of California has been a failure and should in the interests of liberty be repealed or reformed someday. It has failed to prevent crimes and mass shootings. It unjustly denies lawful and responsible citizens from owning the semi-automatic firearms and magazines of their choice, as allowed in other more progressive states. Note I use the term progressive in its original, classic liberal sense and not the post-modern mockery the word means now. I was born and raised in California but do not reside there now. I will never lose my right to responsibly own and operate my favorite semiautomatic firearms, or possess magazines with over 10 rounds of capacity. I have served in the military, I have worked in the armored car business and been entrusted with large sums of money and the obligation to deliver it safely and in balance. I would still live in California if I could have the freedom to own the guns already have. I do not understand how such a violation of the Constitution, both in letter and spirit, can happen in America. Perhaps all this is not entirely germane to the current discussion, but I had to take this opportunity to express my thoughts. Assault is a behavior, not a device. I have fired many, many thousands of rounds of live ammo in my life and have harmed no one, nor damaged another's property or quiet enjoyment. I shoot upon my own land. As a responsible, reasonable and ethical citizen who happens to have great interest in firearms and the shooting disciplines I have every right to own a gun that may look military in appearence. That may have a bayonet lug or flash suppressor. That can have standard capacity magazines unfettered by legal decree. Using ignorance of firearms to scare the public, and then revoke rights and freedom of choice from a body of citizens that are least likely to abuse said freedoms, or threaten others, well it seems very unlike the America I believe in. Thanks for your time and consideration.

One: Willie Brown referred to me as a genius and who am I to argue with Speaker Brown. Our present Governor thinks so highly of him that he requested he MC his inauguration.

Two: The reason I went to University of San Diego School of Law was threefold. A, it was strongly urged on me by a school guidance counselor; B, while I had great grades, I barely missed the cut on LSAT to go UCLA School of Law (non resident); and (c) I was really tired of the very hot-very cold weather in the North East where I grew up.

Two: In terms of USD, as of today its one of top 20% law schools in the US. In fact, my evidence professor at USD is now considered the leading evidence professor in the USA. And, he went to University of San Francisco (where the woman in my life graduated from).

Three: Based on what I was told, the “build up” in Stanislaus County was done not by a licensed gun smith but a retail dealer. There has never been much discussion of this distinction but it is crucial. There are under the federal Gun Control Act four categories of FFL’s: (i) licensed importer; (ii) licensed manufacturer; (iii) licensed collector; and licensed dealer.

The licensed dealer category includes: (i) pawnbroker; (ii) retail or wholesale dealer; and (iii) gunsmith. State law treats pawnbrokers and retail dealers as “12071 licensees” under California law. Gunsmiths and wholesalers are their own category under California law. Because gunsmiths have their own duties and prerogatives under California law and to a lesser extent federal law, they tend to be experts in their areas and are much more knowledgeable about what they can and cannot do than regular retail dealers. That is why you will see in a number of the ads that gun dealer place in the Yellow pages “gunsmith on premises”. It may come as a shock – but it was noted in Capitol Weekly that I own guns. Approximately 15 years ago I acquired via DROS a Ruger Vaquero.

The rotary cylinder on the gun was very tight and it did not allow for the easy removal of the same for cleaning. In those pre true Internet Days I took it to a gunsmith on site in Sacramento and he fixed the problem. I would never dream of taking that to a regular retailer. In 2000 I won an 11-87 at a California Waterfowl Assn event and had problems with the auto-loading action. Fixing it required having the gun shipped back to the manufacturer. The dealer at that time properly indicated that he was not competent to fix the issue. In 2005 I won a Ruger 22 semiauto and the cleaning rod broke in the barrel. In that case, I took it to a gunsmith up in Yolo County. The point is that from a legal and a safety aspect, its best to have the work done by those who know what they are doing. This is particularly true with semiautos which work on certain scientific principles not applicable to other guns.

Yes, and I'm sure your USD law degree qualifies you to lecture us on the scientific principles which govern semiautomatic rifles and not bolt action rifles.... Let me see, last time I checked, Newton's laws and statistical mechanics did not distinguish between the type of rifle, or perhaps I should see if there is a rifle type clause in my graduate physics books.

And also, the speaker is surely qualified to ordain people as geniuses....I think anybody would put more stock in the LSAT's opinion of your genius than some speaker of a state congress.

To All,

Personality politics may be obscuring the real issue.

Engaging Irwin personally does not serve the discussion.

the reality is, the real reason that the "assault weapons" laws need to be discussed by persons such as Irwin is due to the fact that they are confusing and are often subjective.

I admit its no small task, being as they truly only exist in California. Being as firearms technology hasnt changed in a century, its hard to carve out a new category, despite the infinite wisdom of our state legislature weighing in.

While the DOJ has been tasked with regulating this market both in the Constitution and in statute, many in the hobby and in law enforcement have found them to be remiss is that duty.

the years of conflicting memos, public statements, plotting with anti-gun groups, official positions, un-offical positions, regulatory snafus,and opinions du jour have led to nearly endless court cases, debate, and "clean-up " legislation.

while the personal agendas of some temporary personalities in the firearms division at DOJ, or even Irwin, may earn the ire of many hobbyists and sportsmen, it only adds to cumulative material that for years has befudled local law enforcment, prosecutors, defenders,legislators, policy wonks, regulators and of course the millions of gun owners who desperately CRAVE guidelines that are understandable and enforceable.

If user friendly , or even law enforcement friendly guidelines and opinions could be issued by the DOJ, rather than the hundreds,if not,thousands of often usless , contradictory opinions and non-binding memoes du jour, let alone the almost copy and paste statemnts that follow every opinion,I will sumarize "...the 58 District attorneys may have another opinion...", then maybe the so called "assault weapons " issue could be enforced, regulated and laid to rest .

for 16 years, the assault weapons issue has been tossed around when politicians think it gets good ink, but the DOJ, the OAL, and even the LAO cant seem to find any purpose in it or any rational obective way of regulating them.

meanwhile, millions of gun owners ask... how do I comply?

I ask you Irwin, and DOJ, other than this blog from Irwin, which I will not allow to distract from the pressing issues going on in the firearms division, how do I comply?

what are the rules today?

can I count on them tommorrow?

who is coming up with these opinions, memos and rules, and have they have handled one of these weapons? Who is advising the Members of the Legislature or the Attorney General, or the District Attorneys?

Who is adivsing me? how can the average joe comply with rules that all of the attorneys cant seem to agree on? by the way Irwin, I find alumni form USD to be quite capable...

who I ask is in charge? who serves the average joe who shoots on the weekend and has no other criminal background nor intent?

and the LEO on the street? how is he trained in this? whois advising him? Not POST! and the deputy D.A. that has to prosecute? what is your final decision?

if you make a bad call, how do you rectify it?

we seek only the guidance that is required by law and frankly, respect for your fellow citizens.

to some its a game. its a debate.

to some its their business, their livelihood, their life, their spotless record.

to some its their god given rights.

to some... its for keeps.

When you are reduced to ad hominum arguments that attack Mr. Nowick's School of Law, then it is obvious he has you on the run.

I hope all of you who disagree with his analysis have retained expensive criminal defense attorneys.

I've long admired those with the courage to stand as test cases...

The name of your article is as misleading as most of the gunlaws in CA.

Hers a fact you cannot deny: The AR15 receivers you are talking about can be built up into a legal semi-auto rifles in the state of California.

As always its easier for those who know nothing about the AR15 to try and confuse the people trying to comply with the laws so that is why we have stopped calling the clowns at the DOJ and started a website that will keep you out of trouble with the gun laws in CA.

Hmmm I havent heard of one member on www.Calguns.net getting in trouble with the law and the guy who is in trouble tried the call the DOJ to ask guidence and was later arrested by the DOJ.

See you after 1 Jan 2007 when I get my new toys.

Semper "I" as in I got mine!

Can an AR 15 lower be built into a legal gun? Yes BUT with a great deal of difficlulty AND with a lot of skill. Gret thee to a gunsmith who is properly licensed. Otherwise, as Dr, Cavala notes, be a test case.

Both you and your Dr freind are not AR15 owners so why do you think anyone should take your word on how hard it is to put together a AR15?

Its harder to build a childs Xmas gift and requires mores tools than it would to build a AR15, any owner knows this but you dont own one and are telling us how hard it is and how it takes a smith to do it.

Would you care to respond to the comments I made about the DOJ arresting the man who called to ask if the DOJ could help him stay within the legal mess the AG has made of the gun laws here? I heard they threatened to take his kids away, is that true?, If so you wont catch me calling the DOJ and asking whats legal and whats not.

BTW he is the same guy you are talking about when you refer to a test case.

"Progressive" means throwing productive
citizens in jail for technicalities?

Using legalistic pedantry to defend the felonizing of citizens whose "crime" is having some bits of metal that are in the wrong shape strikes me as a clear and blatant example of justice and law diverging.

That you engage in it so gleefully is patently offensive.

Irwin,
Without getting into the ability of the average person to turn a screwdriver, I am fascinated by your application of PC12020.

The relevant section being:
"(B) It was not originally designed to be a firearm by a manufacturer licensed pursuant to Chapter 44---"

As the common "zip gun" used the tube of an antenna or the like it is reasonably clear that the intent was to prevent such alterations from original use. Still, prosecutorial abuse of the law is nothing new, so we will simply take the law at face value. What this law requires is that the item be DESIGNED as a firearm... had the Legislature wished the item to be MANUFACTURED , much less ASSEMBLED pursuant to this regulation they were perfectly capable of stating that. They did not.
There is little doubt that the item in question was designed to be a firearm, and witness the serial number carried was manufactured with the same intent.

We are left then with an item that may be assembled into a legal, or illegal, firearm depending upon its configuration. In comparison, it would take only minutes to convert your 11-87 into a firearm illegal not only in CA but Federally as well.

The part that I find disingenuous on your part (and this appears to be Official policy) is the attempt to turn vagaries to your advantage or as in the case of the "true fixed magazine" to go one iteration back and actually attempt to create vagueness where none existed.

Your advice to seek expert assistance is, of course, apt, whether the subject is a firearm or plumbing repairs. It does not however appear to be the matter of law that you present.

In all, your posts here show not so much genius and expertise as proof of the admonition about "a little knowledge..." That you have both the ear and the support of those in the Legislature and Judiciary that know even less than you is more than a little frightening.

While building an AR15 type lower into a functioning rifle is harder than lacing your shoelaces or operating a microwave, it can be accomplished in 1-5 hours by an average adult with no firearms experience.

I bought my HSA-15 lower and the gunsmith at the shop installed a CA legal fixed 10 round magazine. I have no pistol grip on the rifle.

So there, Irwin, I went to a licensed gunsmith. All good.

Folks should look at the "readily restored" federal case law which applies to California and then proceed at their own risk. Again, I would make reference to Justice Frankfurter.

Once again you are misleading folks here, you are refering to class 3 firearms not California legal semi-auto firearms.

Maybe thats why you are against Americans owning firearms, you dont seem understand them at all.

Now would you mind responding to my last request?

I want to know if you think shopping for a judge in a certain county and waiting for a citizen to call in to the DOJ and ask for guidence and then kicking in his door and threating his family so you can have your test case what the state of California had in mind when you guys wrote these laws.

Its important that your readers know where you are coming from and Id like you to clear the air about your test case.

Irwin, this is disappointing. The bulk of "readily restored" case law deals with full auto, and your vague references to Felix Frankfurter are not worthy of a treatise to grade schoolers. More on point, you should perhaps reread UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS CO., 504 U.S. 505 (1992)

Also on point, it will be interesting to see how the "permanence" of a "true fixed magazine" compares to the already DOJ "blessed" SKS fixed ten rounder.

The sole redemption for the razzle dazzle word games you're attempting is that in short order the courts, and certainly juries, will begin demanding less in the way of hardware and more in the way of criminal intent. That can not come to soon.

Folks should look at the "readily restored" federal case law which applies to California and then proceed at their own risk. Again, I would make reference to Justice Frankfurter.

Couple of things.
You seem to be a firearms owner. Are you a member of any organization that seeks to preserve the the second ammendment from further erosion under the auspices of 'safety' or some such other reason? Do you believe that the second ammendment is about hunting or sporting and not about preservation from a tyranical government?

Forgive us for not really having much faith in a state legislature that has trodden upon our rights that we hold so dear. I cannot own a .50 caliber rifle because they are too dangerous for civilian use. We all know what a crock that is!

You seem to think that assembling a legal firearm from parts requires a gunsmith. I thought a gunsmith was someone who altered or manufactured parts to create a firearm. Merely purchasing parts needed to build an OLL might get us into trouble and you advise against it. Really, most simpletons could do it with an instruction manual and a screw driver. I'm glad you set that record straight.
You seem to think that building your own might be dangerous to the builder. Is it the state's concern that we might blow ourselves up by mis-assembling such a weapon?
Safety is such a huge concern for the state when it comes to gun owners. Every five years I must take a test(HSC) a moron could pass(and pay my fees) to insure that I know which way the barrel must point. The fact that I've possessed a hunting permit for the last twenty years and have passed a DFG hunter safety course is immaterial. There are handguns I cannot buy because some manufacturers cannot afford to pay the assorted fees to have their wares tested by a state lab and then maintained on an approved list. Lord knows we wouldn't want a person to drop a handgun and have it go off. Too bad Single Action revolvers are exempt from that requirement. I find that rather laughable, because the Colt SAA and it's numerous clones is the only handgun known to be unsafe and almost sure to fail that mandated safety test. Good law. Nice to know the state is protecting us.
My thoughts on proper and good law is who it affects the most and who it exempts. I've noticed that Law Enforcement Agencies can purchase any firearm they want. Listed or not. Somehow these dangerous guns are rendered 'safe' when purchased by the same government that deems them unsafe for the common folk. You can call it what you like, but the Handgun Safety Certification is a shakedown of lawful businesses and an offense to the people of this state.

The whole OLL controversy has been amusing, despite the fact that some poor shmuck will end up being a test case because he dared to cross the line and slap the wrong part into his legally purchased receiver. Who knows, he might even have done it on purpose.
The job or our legislature is to give us good, consistant, easy to understand law. Something they have refused to do when it comes to firearms owners. Law Enforcement Officers have virtually no clue as to what the laws are pertaining to 'Assault Rifles'. That may be the only good thing that has come out of this. Lord knows, the general public and even our lawmakers find the whole situation just as confusing. Only it's not the cops or our lawmakers that will end up going to jail over this confusion.

You think the DOJ has done a pretty good job of handling the whole affair. Memo's that appear and then disappear off the DOJ website, Failure to maintain a current list of lower receivers, etc. etc. I guess we all have different standards when it comes to competance.

Forgive us if we cringe whenever we here "I'm from the Government and I'm here to protect you!"

Irwin, a quote from your Justice Frankfurter and an insight into his views: "Litigation is the pursuit of practical ends, not a game of chess. "

I don't believe your current course would play well in his Courtroom.

Irwin, instead of citizens being required to search for arcane trivia, perhaps politicians should try looking at the Bill Of Rights, you know, "The People".
It is abundantly clear what "The People" mean.
I left California because of your cruel tyranny.
I pray the sunlight of Gods love penetrates your soul, because you are such an evil, vile creature, it is the only solution I can hope for.
I thank God everyday I no longer live under your foul dominion, you evil, wretched scoundrel.

I cant claim to be a legislative genius, but I do know how to use google and I'm inclined to play a legislative genius on the internet on this occasion. In my exhaustive research I cant see where such a thing as a "Licensed Gunsmith, "Professional Gunsmith", "Registered Gunsmith", or any other variation on the State blessing someone's work as being sufficiently competent to meet State standards (chortle). I'm sure you can get a Business License for a Gunsmithing enterprise but business licenses have more to do with taxing the producers in society than establishing their competency. It seems kind of unlikely that the law would require the services of someone who doesnt exist....unless of course its an attempt at a backdoor prohibition.

Irwin....with all due respect, cause I really am interested to know....why do liberals (progressives....whatever) insist on legislating from the heart rather than the head? Why do they throw valuable time and enegry against a problem like the "scarry looking" features of certian rifles when there are real problems in this state and the world. People suffering, huge financial waste and fraud in the States finances, ineffective punishment of criminals, tax rates driving out business, and none of it caused by the fact that the web of a shooters hand is below the exposed portion of a guns trigger.

I dont know about you but I would hate to come to the end of my life and have it written on my head stone that I save the people of California from the evils of a muzzle devices with slots instead of holes and pistol grips that protrude conspicuously.

How about you and the other geniuses at the Capitol make a New Years resolution to focus your efforts exclusively on making life hard for real criminals, not the decent law abiding citizens of this State who's tastes in firearms differ from yours.

Wulf, I like that idea. If they want to make a new gun then how about tax breaks for those who buy safes to keep the firearms from the would be theives, that would stop alot of legal guns from ending up in the hands of criminals. A suggestion would be to work with the CA NRA if you really want your gun laws to work to combat crime.

Opps, I was thinking with my head and not my heart.

Forget the nonsense about needing a gunsmith to complete a rifle from a lower receiver. The military employs armorers with a high school diploma, using manuals written at an 8th-grade level, and tools designed by grade-school dropouts, and they can be pieced together from parts in about an hour.

Simple question, Mr. Nowick:

If a person has a currently legal lower receiver, how does it become illegal after Jan. 1, 2007, if the amendment doesn't allow for its registration (and thus full build-up) once it magically becomes ILLEGAL on 1/1/07 or thereabouts, which runs afoul of the long-standing prohibition/unconstitutionality of exactly such ex post facto laws?

It seems clear on even a cursory glance that either CA is going to have bite the bullet, and open the door this one last time to allow all the newly added lowers to become registered (and thus eligible for addition of all those evil accoutrements), or else they're going to get handed their heads on a platter in court, and the entire amended law will go down in flames, probably at the first challenge. Or, at a minimum, provide adequate compensation to the owners of all those lowers.

You can point to Frankfurter all you want, but the precept you ought to be bearing in mind is that you can't have your Cake and eat it too.

i guess you can call me an average joe, and i can honestly say that after about an hour worth of reading on this site, i still have no idea what the intent of the new law is. am i going to be able to buy an ar-15 after 1/1/07 or not?

i graduated from college with a 3.8gpa, dual major, and one year faster than normal. there is no reason to doubt my reading comprehension skills. please someone explain to me how i can get a fun rifle i hope to never kill a living creature (human or not) with ?

i'd also like to know why we prosecute people for owning guns instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt, and sticking to prosecuting those who have committed crimes with their guns.

seems like a lot of useless legislation to accomplish a simple purpose - killing is illegal already.

I find it amusing that the title of this thread is, "Setting the Record Straight on Gun Control in California" when in reality, I am more confused after reading this than when I first started to.

Someone please clarify!!

Oh, and not a gun control nut!

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants

I don't think many of you "gun nuts" are giving Mr. Nowick the credit he is due. He is in fact a genius. How else can you explain his ability to incrementally disarm the law abiding citizens of this state, with barely a whimper? Mr. Nowick will dazzle us with his enlighted theory of the 2nd Amendment. Let me see..Although the other 9 amendments protect individual rights, the 2nd only protects the right of state governments to form National Guards. Of course. Man, I should have attended public school so I could have received that version of the Bill of Rights.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. Nowick, et al have no concern whatever about increased crime resulting from citizen disarmament. You can read the disdain and arrogance Mr. Nowick displays towards ordinary citizens in his above posts. It is not the criminals he wants disarmed. That is a red herring you have all bought into.

It will be much easier to implement their real agenda once the great unwashed masses have no means of defense.

To Mr. Nowick I say Molon Labe! - From my cold dead hands!

Irwin "the Genius" Norwick: "Can an AR 15 lower be built into a legal gun? Yes BUT with a great deal of difficlulty AND with a lot of skill. Gret thee to a gunsmith who is properly licensed. Otherwise, as Dr, Cavala notes, be a test case."

Ah, so it is legal :). Almost had me tricked there.

**WARNING** to all you considering building an AR-15 lower, keep in mind that the ONLY reason Irwin wants you to take it to a gunsmith is because the gunsmith is required to keep records that Irwin will later use to prosecute you. You are much better off building it yourself.

Irwin,

I don't have a college degree and I never owned a gun before, but I built my off-list AR in a couple hours and it shoots perfectly. The instructions on www.ar15.com are very easy to follow. Also, many of the parts cannot be assembled incorrectly because they are designed to fit together only one way.

The Bushmaster manual only says a couple of things about exploding rifles: 1. don't use too much oil in the bore 2. make sure you have the bolt cam pin installed.

It doesn't take a gunsmith to do that.

You "need" a gunsmith to assemble an AR like you "need" a mechanic to put air in you tires. AR style rifles are designed to be simple. Ask a soldier. If you were in combat and had a problem, would you tell the enemy, "Wait a sec! My rifle isn't working and I need to take it to a licensed gunsmith for repairs!" I assembled my first lower with my Leathermen multi-tool. I guarantee that it functions as well as any 'smith assembled AR!

It's certain that law makers and their supporters like you believe that it is better to disarm law abiding citizens with their rights to have firearms and to protect themselves and keep criminals more armed to commit crimes and leave the law abiding citizens defenseless.

It's certain that law makers and their supporters like you believe that it is better to disarm law abiding citizens with their rights to have firearms and to protect themselves and keep criminals more armed to commit crimes and leave the law abiding citizens defenseless.

Actually, building up these OLLs into perfectly functioning, safely operating, useable rifles is so easy that even a lawyer can do it. Perfectly legal, too.

California makes me sick. I am an active duty Naval Officer and I refuse to get stationed in California. I was stationed there back in 1999 when the "Assault Weapons" ban began. I find it disgusting that I risk my life for this nation by serving in the ARMED forces, yet a government like California's doesn't trust me to defend myself. California will never get my money from tourism or travel as long as these ignorant laws are in effect.

California makes me sick. I am an active duty Naval Officer and I refuse to get stationed in California. I was stationed there back in 1999 when the "Assault Weapons" ban began. I find it disgusting that I risk my life for this nation by serving in the ARMED forces, yet a government like California's doesn't trust me to defend myself. California will never get my money from tourism or travel as long as these ignorant laws are in effect.

Mr. Nowick,

Apparently the Stanislaw case was dropped.

Not exactly a test case, but there's another county where prosecutors will no longer believe the BOF when it comes to laws pertaining to "off list" lower recievers.

I don't care what the California gun laws are. I will not follow them, they are unconstitutional.

Irwin Nowick,

Thanks for taking the time to write the article. Certainly, many do appreciate the clarification.

Obviously many disagree with you, the state legislature, and others who wish to remove 'certain weapons' from the state. I'm one of them but am pragmatic as well.

Too bad CA has no second amendment. Too bad the supreme court allows the state to regulate its own militia. And too bad Miller didn't show up to defend his case in the 1930's.

At some point, the supremes may wrap the 2nd into the 14th amendment. (Upcoming DC case?) Perhaps due process will change the way CA does business.

While I own a Bushmaster myself, I store it out of state to remain compliant. At FrontSight.com.

I had not considered gun shop paperwork as a trail back to myself. Thanks for mentioning it.

I'm happy to allow others to be test cases for this law.

PS - I thought records for gun sales were destroyed after so many days. Do you know if that's true? And if so, how long that would be?

Dear Mr. Nodick,

I appreciate you being concerned about my safety regarding home-assembled AR-15s. However, my mother is still alive and that job is taken. I will assume, and fight to protect, my obligation to be personally responsible for my safety. No legislation needed. You obviously never served in the military or you would know that every recruit receives training in the complete disassembly and assembly of an M-16. Eugene Stoner made it simple, stupid.

Post a comment