18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

  • 📢 Classifieds Update — Effective Monday, September 21

    Starting Monday, the free Classifieds ad limit will be lowered from 3 to 2 active ads.

    Verified accounts will keep their limit of 3. All other account limits stay the same.

    Existing ads are not affected and will remain up until they expire.

    Want to keep 3 listings and add features like removing comments and emojis? Upgrade/Verify your account

    More information here

Closed AMA 2A AMA - We have 2A lawyer in the space! - Ask away

No longer open for discussion or the subject timeline has ended

ikeo1

2A Developer 👨🏻‍💻
Staff member
CAguns Vendor
CAguns Prime
Messages
5,472
Classified ads
3
Updated:

I've converted this into a Q/A since it seems there's enough interest. Members can vote on the question by clicking on the ^ v characters to the side or bottom of the post.

We'll keep the questions open for a couple of days to give some time to answer them. So feel free to ask away so we can give @raellic some time to answer..

Ground Rules:
  • This is personal opinion unless you leverage professional services or unless stated so.
    • At a minimum, this will give perspective from someone with a legal background and hopefully be fun and interesting.
  • If you're not happy with an answer, consider why they are answering that way
  • Ask questions clearly when possible
  • Keep it Clean

Let the questions begin!

Original:
We're considering having an AMA with one of our vendors who is a 2A specific attorney @raellic . We're grateful to have someone in the 2A space who practices law who's up for an Ask Me Anything.

@raellic has a practice in the Bay Area at https://watters.law and is active in the 2A community. He trains and hosts classes, so we're glad to bring more people together for the community.
 
Last edited:
What is the legality of removing the magazine safety from a pistol that is used on a CCW permit?
There's no statute I'm aware of that says you can't remove the magazine disconnect safety on a pistol you own. To be safe, why not disclose to the issuing agency that you did this? They will probably agree with you that the disconnect is a dumb idea. It would be no different from a caliber conversion, which should also be allowed as long as it's disclosed. By contrast, there is a bill that actually became law to prevent interference with a microstamp device-- SB 452, signed by Lord Newsom in 2023.
 
All correct, I recall that decision-- so for now possession is contrary to law, pending a decision on whether review will be granted or the ruling stayed.
Unfortunately, there are many who buy into the "Freedom Week" possession non-loophole. There was a lengthy debate on the topic in these forums back when the decision was handed down by the Ninth Circuit. You can lead a horse to water.... but all you can do is collect your fee to defend them.
 
There's no statute I'm aware of that says you can't remove the magazine disconnect safety on a pistol you own. To be safe, why not disclose to the issuing agency that you did this? They will probably agree with you that the disconnect is a dumb idea. It would be no different from a caliber conversion, which should also be allowed as long as it's disclosed. By contrast, there is a bill that actually became law to prevent interference with a microstamp device-- SB 452, signed by Lord Newsom in 2023.
The problem with asking your IA about it, is YOU prompt them into having an opinion on something they hadn't formed. IA's need to stay away from the "what's safe and legal" business, the state is already all over that. If the state doesn't have a law against it, then no agency should wade into that pool. If an agency takes a position then something goes south and that position turns out to not be good advice- I think they expose themselves. IANAL.
 
If you're pulled over for a traffic stop i.e speeding, stop light, rolling stop etc... Do you need to disclose you have a legal firearm stored properly locked and unloaded in the trunk?
There’s an old mafia saying, “Fish get caught because they opened their mouths…so keep your mouth shut.”

Everyone has seen shows where criminals are given their Miranda rights. We learned this in high school civics class because we have the right to remain silent… in any encounter with government agents.

This lesson applies to our experiences with the police at a traffic stop.

The question I would have for the person who posted this question is, “why on earth do you want to volunteer this information to the police?”

Let’s make this legally clear, at the outset of a common traffic stop , the driver has no duty to disclose to the police, that he has any firearms in his vehicle, even if they are unloaded, locked, and in the trunk of the car.

All you have to give is your drivers license, car registration, and car insurance. If the police want to ask you questions about whether you admit you were speeding or did not stop completely at the stop sign, you can just keep your mouth shut and tell them; “can you please give me a warning and that you’ll be more careful.”

And if they won’t give you a warning, just tell them “where do I sign the notice to appear.” Your verbal actions will mentally disarm the officer. You don’t have to answer their questions, let alone make admissions or confessions to them. If you admit you were speeding or you ran the stop sign, it’s on their video camera, and they will make a written note on their copy of the traffic ticket to remind them. You confessed if it goes to trial

Traffic police are trained to be hyper vigilant, since at any moment, you will try to kill them.

When are you volunteering that you have guns in your car, you elevate their vigilance & paranoia.

What benefit do you gain by disclosing this information??? Absolutely nothing

Do you think the police will treat you better, or do you think the police will think you are a good guy because you’re being honest with them?

On a different note, if I have a CCW, and have the handgun on me or within reach in my car, and the permit issuing jurisdiction requires that I disclose this to the police upon the outset of an encounter;
Then pay attention to what I’m about to say on how to conduct yourself.

Have your permit and drivers license in your hand before they approach you, and the first things I would tell them is;

“I have a valid permit and I’m lawfully carrying, how do you want me to proceed?”
If the officer asks you, where is the firearm located, don’t take it out. Notifying them VERBALLY, as to where it’s located, and before you take any measure to physically remove it, or to exit the vehicle if you are so ordered, look to your right or over your shoulder to see if there is a partner officer, and communicate to the officer you were initially dealing with, to make sure his partner knows what you are doing.
The last thing you want is to be pulling out a gun, at the direction of this officer, without the other hidden officer knowing what you’re doing.

The last thing you want to tell the officer, when they first approached you is; “I have a gun.”
Philando Castile was a Minnesota CCW holder, who did not wisely conduct himself, and a paranoid police officer shot him… all because at the out of the stop, he told the police “I have a gun.”

If you noticed with what I put in bold above, I made no threatening verbal or physical action to an officer.
More importantly, I did not throw out “that I have a gun.”

Way too many times, that phrase was used as a threat, as a warning, and as a precursor to violence being unloaded within seconds. That is why you need to use your words wisely.
“I have a valid permit and I’m lawfully carrying, how do you want me to proceed?”

With what I put in bold above, you will notice that I used polite, legal terminology, that almost every officer will understand, that you may have a valid gun permit, and that there is a firearm located nearby.
It is very nonthreatening, it does put them on alert, it meets your obligation to disclose (if you’re permit issuing jurisdiction requires it) and ensures, at the outset that no one is going to lose their 💩 over a possible firearm being involved in the encounter.
 
Last edited:
The problem with asking your IA about it, is YOU prompt them into having an opinion on something they hadn't formed. IA's need to stay away from the "what's safe and legal" business, the state is already all over that. If the state doesn't have a law against it, then no agency should wade into that pool. If an agency takes a position then something goes south and that position turns out to not be good advice- I think they expose themselves. IANAL.
I believe they make it clear if they have that policy or at least you can find out without asking. A better question is what happens if you make a change that breaks the policy? Like there's very few circumstances where they would look at your firearm. The one time I had law enforcement contact where I disclosed I was carrying they didn't even ask to see it.
 
There's no statute I'm aware of that says you can't remove the magazine disconnect safety on a pistol you own. To be safe, why not disclose to the issuing agency that you did this? They will probably agree with you that the disconnect is a dumb idea. It would be no different from a caliber conversion, which should also be allowed as long as it's disclosed. By contrast, there is a bill that actually became law to prevent interference with a microstamp device-- SB 452, signed by Lord Newsom in 2023.
I have a similar question about the magazine disconnect safety.
It seems that removing the MD from a semiautomatic pistol that was added to the roster after July 1, 2022 would result in the manufacture, use, or possession of an “unsafe handgun” according to PC 31910(a)(2)(E).
Thus, some IAs have policies that effectively state, “Modifications that comply with State laws are authorized and permitted.”
Thus, if the MD was required for the pistol to be sold in CA lawfully, is it unlawful to remove the MD?
 
I have a similar question about the magazine disconnect safety.
It seems that removing the MD from a semiautomatic pistol that was added to the roster after July 1, 2022 would result in the manufacture, use, or possession of an “unsafe handgun” according to PC 31910(a)(2)(E).
Thus, some IAs have policies that effectively state, “Modifications that comply with State laws are authorized and permitted.”
Thus, if the MD was required for the pistol to be sold in CA lawfully, is it unlawful to remove the MD?
Under the letter of the law, PC 32000, you can only keep an unsafe handgun for yourself, and not even lend it out. Still should work for a CCW.
 
Under the letter of the law, PC 32000, you can only keep an unsafe handgun for yourself, and not even lend it out. Still should work for a CCW.
I would like to add a small revolver that has had the lock mechanism removed. Hopefully that would not render it as “unsafe”.
 
the DOJ Certificate of Eligibility unit continues to require a FFL 03 for issuance, despite not being anywhere in the laws for issuance. They only say you "need it" by rejecting any and all applications and telling you through email to add it.

Is there any avenue to get the doj to follow their own issuance law, which does not have such requirement
 
California Penal Code Sections 16930 and 32900 ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, or possession of devices that significantly increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms. How would that be affected if a manufacturer includes (i.e. stock) a Forced Reset Trigger (FRT)? At that point, assuming the firearm is featureless and you don't mind wasting ammunition, it wouldn't be increasing the rate of fire, as that's how it came from the factory. Would the law still apply?
 
California Penal Code Sections 16930 and 32900 ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, or possession of devices that significantly increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms. How would that be affected if a manufacturer includes (i.e. stock) a Forced Reset Trigger (FRT)? At that point, assuming the firearm is featureless and you don't mind wasting ammunition, it wouldn't be increasing the rate of fire, as that's how it came from the factory. Would the law still apply?
Man, you guys came with your toughest questions. I'm sure that, if DOJ is aware of the FRT, they already have regulations classifying it as an illegal trigger activator or something. I'll look at the regulations and let you know.
 
the DOJ Certificate of Eligibility unit continues to require a FFL 03 for issuance, despite not being anywhere in the laws for issuance. They only say you "need it" by rejecting any and all applications and telling you through email to add it.

Is there any avenue to get the doj to follow their own issuance law, which does not have such requirement
Well, you can either jump through their hoops or file a petition for writ of administrative mandate with the courts. Easier to jump through their hoops, to be honest. If you have a bottomless checkbook and want to create case law that benefits people in your position, that's when lawyers will be interested.
 
Frequently asked question: once a bullet-button AR-15 is legally registered under the 2017 law, can you take off the bullet button and put on a conventional magazine release? After all, it's already registered, so what is the point of restricting that change?

Answer: not under current DOJ regulations-- see 11 CA ADC § 5477 (DOJ regulations). However, if you submitted a registration request and then took off the bullet button before the regulation became effective on July 31, 2017, you have an argument that the regulation is an ex post facto law that would be unconstitutional. It also was a nasty, dirty trick they pulled to bait people into registering their bullet-button AR-15's only to pull out the rug with the "no post-registration modification" regulation. Also, the registration letter took over a year to get; if you consider the letter to be the registration, then up to the point of it being sent, modification was still possible. Finally, the DOJ regulations are administrative regulations that do not have the same force and effect as a statute in the Penal Code, and there is nothing in the statute that precludes replacing the magazine release once the AR-15 is registered. The Legislature easily could have included this in the law, but they did not do so. They only authorized the DOJ to make regulations for the processing of registrations in 30900(b)(5), not the definition of "assault weapons." And they purported to exempt the regulations from the Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, there is an additional argument that the DOJ overreached, exceeded its authority, etc., and that the Legislature did not intend to grant DOJ the authority to prevent people from doing this simple modification. I cannot advise a violation of law, but I can tell you that your chances in a test case on a bullet-button removal would be good considering all of this. That's probably why no criminal cases of that type have been in the news, as far as I know.
 
Back
Top Bottom