Are we free now to make California legal AOWs?

[RustVendor]

Too much GWOT nostalgia I can’t sell it or my KAC quad rail

you could just about buy a house with all that nostalgia

 

[Voodoochile]

Ok, forgive me because I only have a tentative understanding on CA laws for AR-pistols: Does the non-enforcement of the NFA in regards to SBR's and AoW's mean that we can also put an actual stock onto a CA registered AR-pistol? I didn't see any CA law specifying the need to not have a stock in a fixed mag configuration.

 

[Gawernator]

Ok, forgive me because I only have a tentative understanding on CA laws for AR-pistols: Does the non-enforcement of the NFA in regards to SBR's and AoW's mean that we can also put an actual stock onto a CA registered AR-pistol? I didn't see any CA law specifying the need to not have a stock in a fixed mag configuration.

No that’s a felony

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Ok, forgive me because I only have a tentative understanding on CA laws for AR-pistols: Does the non-enforcement of the NFA in regards to SBR's and AoW's mean that we can also put an actual stock onto a CA registered AR-pistol? I didn't see any CA law specifying the need to not have a stock in a fixed mag configuration.

In some other states yes, but not in California. In California you can leave the brace on the ar pistol, and the fixed mag as it was, but now you can also add a vertical forward pistol grip if you want.

 

[RickD427]

Don't look for the Federal BATF policy statement ceasing enforcement actions for portions of the NFA to affect anything in California.

California law does exempt a number of weapons from California statutes that would otherwise prohibit them if they are an "Any Other Weapon" under the federal NFA and are in the possession of a person permitted to possess them under the NFA (refer to Penal Code section 11710).

But the key provision here is whether the person is "permitted to possess them under the NFA." The recent federal BATF action only ceases enforcement actions. It does not amend, or in any way change the content of, the NFA. What the NFA permits remains the same as it was before the BATF action.

The NFA statute may become infirm when there is a final decision on the case that prompted the BATF policy change, or it may be amended by Congress, but neither has occurred as of yet.

Keep in mind that the general federal Statute of Limitations for felony offenses is five years. A person who acquires an "any other weapon" in violation of the text of NFA, and upon assurance of no prosecution by the current administration, could well find themselves charged under the next administration.

 

[Gawernator]

Don't look for the Federal BATF policy statement ceasing enforcement actions for portions of the NFA to affect anything in California.

California law does exempt a number of weapons from California statutes that would otherwise prohibit them if they are an "Any Other Weapon" under the federal NFA and are in the possession of a person permitted to possess them under the NFA (refer to Penal Code section 11710).

But the key provision here is whether the person is "permitted to possess them under the NFA." The recent federal BATF action only ceases enforcement actions. It does not amend, or in any way change the content of, the NFA. What the NFA permits remains the same as it was before the BATF action.

The NFA statute may become infirm when there is a final decision on the case that prompted the BATF policy change, or it may be amended by Congress, but neither has occurred as of yet.

Keep in mind that the general federal Statute of Limitations for felony offenses is five years. A person who acquires an "any other weapon" in violation of the text of NFA, and upon assurance of no prosecution by the current administration, could well find themselves charged under the next administration.

We can pray the s don’t win the next election. On a positive note the expected SC ruling next summer could strike down the AW laws making this more moot