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

 

[BeAuMaN]

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.

On the other hand, being part of the parties in the Silencer Shop Final Judgement (via membership in the GOA) is likely to affect California for AOWs, no?

I know at least 2AZone is going with that interpretation, given there's an actual injunction as opposed to mere non-enforcement. It just so happens that non-enforcement also benefits parties protected by that injunction.

 

[RickD427]

On the other hand, being part of the parties in the Silencer Shop Final Judgement (via membership in the GOA) is likely to affect California for AOWs, no?

I know at least 2AZone is going with that interpretation, given there's an actual injunction as opposed to mere non-enforcement. It just so happens that non-enforcement also benefits parties protected by that injunction.

I don't see any effect in California, at least from California state enforcement of California statutes. The judgement is directed only to federal officials, and references only federal statutes.

 

[TheRatDragon]

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.

This is the wording of California Firearms Penal Code 17710. (a) The provisions listed in Section 16590 do not apply to “any other weapon” as defined in subsection (e) of Section 5845 of Title 26 of the United States Code, which is in the possession of a person permitted to possess the weapons under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-618), as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

Notice how it says "which is in the possession of a person permitted to possess the weapons under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-618), as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto." So two things. In the Possession of a Person Permitted to possess the weapons under the GCA, not the NFA. That means that if you or I or anyone here owns Title 1 Firearms, we may be able to own them. It is not under the NFA, it is under the GCA. The NFA gives definition to the meaning of Any Other Weapon which can be found in Section 5845 and the GCA further defined it in 1968. I get what you are trying to say about BATFE policy possibly changing depending on the politics of the administration its under and there is a serious possibility that if the Democratic Party were to win the 2028 election, BATFE would go back to a policy of enforcement and try and bring tax stamps back with the monetary requirements reflecting the change in inflation since 1934. So yes, I wouldn't buy one of these PTR Jacks OR build a AOW right now AT ALL unless you are a GOA member. The act of being a GOA member gives you that protection even if enforcement comes back.

The second thing is in the second part of that sentence, "the regulations issued pursuant thereto". Before that meant in both state and federal terms and definitions, file Form1/Form 4, do it with an FFL/SOT if it was a Form 4, wait for approval, once approval is received, if a Form 1, engrave AOW's receiver and assemble the AOW and you have your AOW exemption, if a Form 4, DROS the firearm with FFL/SOT, wait ten days, pick up, take home, AOW is done. Getting the tax stamp and BATFE approval was the regulations issued pursuant thereto. Now that they are not enforcing the NFA not just for GOA members but everyone, the regulations issued pursuant thereto are go to FFL/SOT, DROS AOW, wait ten days, pick up after ten days and boom you're done. That is the new version of Form 4s. The new version of Form 1s is take an already possessed pistol like an AR pistol, put parts together in an AOW configuration, DO NOT put a stock, put a brace on it, put a vertical foregrip, boom done. You don't even have to engrave. Point is the regulations changed and as long as you are a person permitted to own firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968, you're fine. As long as it's a federally defined Any Other Weapon, if you're like me and you're one of the old guard with a red AOW tax stamp, you're okay. You're better than okay. If you have the new zero dollar tax stamp, you're okay. If you're a GOA member and you either buy an AOW through a 4473 or you assembled your own AOW, as long as you're a GOA member, you should be okay. If none of those scenarios apply to you, do NOT buy an AOW through a 4473 as a non GOA member or assemble your own AOW. Most likely anyone who isn't a GOA member will have problems if the next administration decides to start enforcing NFA rules again and you aren't a GOA member or have a tax stamp but yet have a federally defined AOW that isn't NFA registered. Then your status as a person permitted to possess firearms under the GCA will definitely change lol. But yeah, FOR NOW as long as you are a permitted individual and own a federally defined AOW, the exemption applies to you.

Sorry for the long explanation and feel free to let me know if I'm wrong in some way, shape, or form, but I'm pretty sure this is the current situation.

 

[RickD427]

This is the wording of California Firearms Penal Code 17710. (a) The provisions listed in Section 16590 do not apply to “any other weapon” as defined in subsection (e) of Section 5845 of Title 26 of the United States Code, which is in the possession of a person permitted to possess the weapons under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-618), as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

Notice how it says "which is in the possession of a person permitted to possess the weapons under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-618), as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto." So two things. In the Possession of a Person Permitted to possess the weapons under the GCA, not the NFA. That means that if you or I or anyone here owns Title 1 Firearms, we may be able to own them. It is not under the NFA, it is under the GCA. The NFA gives definition to the meaning of Any Other Weapon which can be found in Section 5845 and the GCA further defined it in 1968. I get what you are trying to say about BATFE policy possibly changing depending on the politics of the administration its under and there is a serious possibility that if the Democratic Party were to win the 2028 election, BATFE would go back to a policy of enforcement and try and bring tax stamps back with the monetary requirements reflecting the change in inflation since 1934. So yes, I wouldn't buy one of these PTR Jacks OR build a AOW right now AT ALL unless you are a GOA member. The act of being a GOA member gives you that protection even if enforcement comes back.

The second thing is in the second part of that sentence, "the regulations issued pursuant thereto". Before that meant in both state and federal terms and definitions, file Form1/Form 4, do it with an FFL/SOT if it was a Form 4, wait for approval, once approval is received, if a Form 1, engrave AOW's receiver and assemble the AOW and you have your AOW exemption, if a Form 4, DROS the firearm with FFL/SOT, wait ten days, pick up, take home, AOW is done. Getting the tax stamp and BATFE approval was the regulations issued pursuant thereto. Now that they are not enforcing the NFA not just for GOA members but everyone, the regulations issued pursuant thereto are go to FFL/SOT, DROS AOW, wait ten days, pick up after ten days and boom you're done. That is the new version of Form 4s. The new version of Form 1s is take an already possessed pistol like an AR pistol, put parts together in an AOW configuration, DO NOT put a stock, put a brace on it, put a vertical foregrip, boom done. You don't even have to engrave. Point is the regulations changed and as long as you are a person permitted to own firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968, you're fine. As long as it's a federally defined Any Other Weapon, if you're like me and you're one of the old guard with a red AOW tax stamp, you're okay. You're better than okay. If you have the new zero dollar tax stamp, you're okay. If you're a GOA member and you either buy an AOW through a 4473 or you assembled your own AOW, as long as you're a GOA member, you should be okay. If none of those scenarios apply to you, do NOT buy an AOW through a 4473 as a non GOA member or assemble your own AOW. Most likely anyone who isn't a GOA member will have problems if the next administration decides to start enforcing NFA rules again and you aren't a GOA member or have a tax stamp but yet have a federally defined AOW that isn't NFA registered. Then your status as a person permitted to possess firearms under the GCA will definitely change lol. But yeah, FOR NOW as long as you are a permitted individual and own a federally defined AOW, the exemption applies to you.

Sorry for the long explanation and feel free to let me know if I'm wrong in some way, shape, or form, but I'm pretty sure this is the current situation.

I think that there is one problem with your analysis (although I like the way that you laid your argument out). Keep in mind that my background leads me to a very cautious view of these things.

The problem is with your handling of the term "... and the regulations issued pursuant to." Federal regulations have to comport with the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, and they are codified within the Code of Federal Regulations. A procedural change by the BATF, or a decision to cease enforcement actions, does not create any change in the regulations.

 

[BeAuMaN]

Going to link to the text of CA PC 17700:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=17710.

What RatDragon said in their post is what I was getting at, though one thing I disagree with (generally)

The second thing is in the second part of that sentence, "the regulations issued pursuant thereto". Before that meant in both state and federal terms and definitions, file Form1/Form 4, do it with an FFL/SOT if it was a Form 4, wait for approval, once approval is received, if a Form 1, engrave AOW's receiver and assemble the AOW and you have your AOW exemption, if a Form 4, DROS the firearm with FFL/SOT, wait ten days, pick up, take home, AOW is done. Getting the tax stamp and BATFE approval was the regulations issued pursuant thereto. Now that they are not enforcing the NFA not just for GOA members but everyone, the regulations issued pursuant thereto are go to FFL/SOT, DROS AOW, wait ten days, pick up after ten days and boom you're done. That is the new version of Form 4s. The new version of Form 1s is take an already possessed pistol like an AR pistol, put parts together in an AOW configuration, DO NOT put a stock, put a brace on it, put a vertical foregrip, boom done. You don't even have to engrave. Point is the regulations changed and as long as you are a person permitted to own firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968, you're fine.

Neither the new advisory in non-enforcement letter nor the Silencer Shop injunction are "regulations issued pursuant thereto". ATF has indicated that they're planning to pass regulations, but that's a process through the US APA. Though effectively what you're saying I think is true...

The text of CA PC 17700(a) says

17710. (a) The provisions listed in Section 16590 do not apply to “any other weapon” as defined in subsection (e) of Section 5845 of Title 26 of the United States Code, which is in the possession of a person permitted to possess the weapons under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-618), as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

Rather than the regulations changing, it's that the California statute indicates an "any other weapon" as defined specifically by a particular federal law, and then in possession by a person permitted to possess said weapon under a law, as amended and its regulations pursuant thereto. The state statute doesn't specify a particular version of the law, allowing for future amendments and regulations; a person permitted to possess is in present tense. All of this seems to indicate that as long as the weapon meets the specific definition cited, and as long as the person is allowed to possess it under the law, as cited, that they're allowed to possess the weapon, no matter how that law works.

The injunction in no way stopped the law from working wholesale; rather, it merely functions differently. Because the CA statute doesn't specify a particular function (like registration, like other state laws, or tax stamps), and because it's written in present tense, and because it written to allow the law wholesale with admendments and regulations, there's nothing there to indicate that this goes against the intent of the law either, since the law was written so as to allow an evolving GCA. The GCA has evolved, and so as long as the weapon meets the definition, and the person in question is permitted to possess the weapon under the GCA, then they meet the requirement in CA PC 17700(a).

Edit:
Seperately, from a state enforcement perspective... I feel like CA DOJ, unless they issue some sort of advisory, would be kind of in a tough position if they were to charge someone over this tomorrow if the person they charged was otherwise a member of a protected class in the injunction, and otherwise met all the requirements of the statute.

 

[TheRatDragon]

Going to link to the text of CA PC 17700:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=17710.

What RatDragon said in their post is what I was getting at, though one thing I disagree with (generally)



Neither the new advisory in non-enforcement letter nor the Silencer Shop injunction are "regulations issued pursuant thereto". ATF has indicated that they're planning to pass regulations, but that's a process through the US APA. Though effectively what you're saying I think is true...

The text of CA PC 17700(a) says

Rather than the regulations changing, it's that the California statute indicates an "any other weapon" as defined specifically by a particular federal law, and then in possession by a person permitted to possess said weapon under a law, as amended and its regulations pursuant thereto. The state statute doesn't specify a particular version of the law, allowing for future amendments and regulations; a person permitted to possess is in present tense. All of this seems to indicate that as long as the weapon meets the specific definition cited, and as long as the person is allowed to possess it under the law, as cited, that they're allowed to possess the weapon, no matter how that law works.

The injunction in no way stopped the law from working wholesale; rather, it merely functions differently. Because the CA statute doesn't specify a particular function (like registration, like other state laws, or tax stamps), and because it's written in present tense, and because it written to allow the law wholesale with admendments and regulations, there's nothing there to indicate that this goes against the intent of the law either, since the law was written so as to allow an evolving GCA. The GCA has evolved, and so as long as the weapon meets the definition, and the person in question is permitted to possess the weapon under the GCA, then they meet the requirement in CA PC 17700(a).

Edit:
Seperately, from a state enforcement perspective... I feel like CA DOJ, unless they issue some sort of advisory, would be kind of in a tough position if they were to charge someone over this tomorrow if the person they charged was otherwise a member of a protected class in the injunction, and otherwise met all the requirements of the statute.

Actually what you were getting at was what I was trying to say and you said it way better and more clearly than I ever could at 11pm at night lol. Yeah that's what I was trying to say and I completely agree.

 

[Gawernator]

Actually what you were getting at was what I was trying to say and you said it way better and more clearly than I ever could at 11pm at night lol. Yeah that's what I was trying to say and I completely agree.

Playing too much Wardogs

 

[TheRatDragon]

Playing too much Wardogs

Haha, I wish. No, I'm stuck trying to study for an upcoming test in class later this week.

 

[Gawernator]

Haha, I wish. No, I'm stuck trying to study for an upcoming test in class later this week.

 

[TheRatDragon]

Oh tell me about it, I want to sleep so bad right now. In fact, I shouldn't even be talking about AOWs but whenever the topic comes up, I feel I must contribute to the discussion because of my experience lol.