Question My FFL said this is illegal

[ReaperCustom45]

I only know of one case for constructive intent and i dont know what the final stuff about it was, On August 27, 2009, Jesus Amador, Jr., was arrested by an undercover officer when he sought to sell his Heckler and Koch SP89 pistol. he was selling it with a vertical grip and a stock.

Unless those were actually installed on it, I have a feeling that didn't go anywhere. I feel like it'd be even more difficult with an AR, they can't prove you didn't buy a pistol upper with the intent to purchase a pistol lower to build it with. Lots of people will buy several uppers at a time and just build them out one by one as funds come in.

 

[KLAkale]

I have all the parts in my possession

Ooh okay my bad great…yeah that’s some bs tho
Good luck 7.5 incher I’m a 10.5

 

[ton809]

Ooh okay my bad great…yeah that’s some bs tho
Good luck 7.5 incher I’m a 10.5

King comp brings it to a 10.5

 

[S4ndman]

if you have a legit pistol lower from either a CA7 or a stripped lower that an SOT shop can turn into a pistol you haven't broken any laws. The upper itself is completely fine to own and never put on anything, so that guy was just straight up wrong.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Response to them? How about maglocked without a pistol brace; just a pistol cheek buffer tube? If he is thinking of acquiring a ar pistol through the roster, the CA7 is one of the options; but that also has a 7.5 inch barrel too; so what’s the problem?

You know this reminds me of a range that say no rifle calibers except on their 100 yard range, but no AR pistols on their 100 yard line because they say people with pistol cheek buffer tubes can’t control it. When I asked what about with a pistol brace; they called it an SBR. I respond, your SOP say nothing about no ak pistols, which means it’s allowed; they said no that’s not allowed either when their SOP’s doesn’t state that. I respond, you’re SOP doesn’t say anything about no mares leg either; they went ahead and called that an SBR too.

View attachment 195697

what would they say to someone who brought in one of their C&R allowed SBRs that are legal in california due to their age? just flat out "no" to those too?

 

[ReaperCustom45]

what would they say to someone who brought in one of their C&R allowed SBRs that are legal in california due to their age? just flat out "no" to those too?

They'd probably have a heart attack, followed by a call to the ATF to report you. Maybe even call local PD to come scoop you up before you can exercise your rights any more. Such a danger to society you are!

 

[iLuvLatinas]

Drop the FFL name. Desperate measures in riverside F'ed up a whole pistol transfer for me. Only go to 2A zone now

They also tax like crazy. Only reason to go there is for LEO case

 

[grandpapeepap]

They'd probably have a heart attack, followed by a call to the ATF to report you. Maybe even call local PD to come scoop you up before you can exercise your rights any more. Such a danger to society you are!

id hope batfe would be like "yeah so" but then they would probably notify cadoj also. Trying to explain how old guns can be legal can be fun sometimes

 

[ton809]

if you have a legit pistol lower from either a CA7 or a stripped lower that an SOT shop can turn into a pistol you haven't broken any laws. The upper itself is completely fine to own and never put on anything, so that guy was just straight up wrong.

I have a legit semi drosed lower so
I’m good but it’s just crazy to think he basically wanted to deny my upper transfer and even offered to cancel my Dros from another FFL since I still have to pickup my lower(I’m good to pickup) just lazy to drive to it lol

 

[Gawernator]

A lot of people in this thread are repeating straight FUDD. There is no statute on "constructive possession" in CA, at all. Only one person was ever convicted that way and it's because he was a criminal that literally stated his intent was to manufacture an AW.

There is no standalone Penal Code section for “constructive possession of AW parts.”

The relevant statutes are PC 30515 for the definition of an assault weapon, PC 30605 for possession of an assault weapon, PC 30600 for manufacture/transfer/import/etc., and PC 664 for attempt.

Stop listening to dumb people on the forums, it's so sad how the lies spread.

 

[grandpapeepap]

A lot of people in this thread are repeating straight FUDD. There is no statute on "constructive possession" in CA, at all. Only one person was ever convicted that way and it's because he was a criminal that literally stated his intent was to manufacture an AW.

There is no standalone Penal Code section for “constructive possession of AW parts.”

The relevant statutes are PC 30515 for the definition of an assault weapon, PC 30605 for possession of an assault weapon, PC 30600 for manufacture/transfer/import/etc., and PC 664 for attempt.

Stop listening to dumb people on the forums, it's so sad how the lies spread.

US v. Turnbough, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11886, *6. The government may establish constructive possession by demonstrating that the defendant exercised ownership, dominion or control over the premises in which the contraband is concealed

Its an unpublished opinion but theres also United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. which allows you to be legal if you have the proper lower. but then again im not a lawyer i just pretend to be one on TV

 

[Gawernator]

US v. Turnbough, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11886, *6. The government may establish constructive possession by demonstrating that the defendant exercised ownership, dominion or control over the premises in which the contraband is concealed

Its an unpublished opinion but theres also United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. which allows you to be legal if you have the proper lower. but then again im not a lawyer i just pretend to be one on TV

Federal NFA law is different and constantly misunderstood in the forum FUD:

ATF is not going to arrest you simply for owning a 7.5" upper, that isn't illegal. We were discussing CA gun law not federal.

 

[grandpapeepap]

Federal NFA law is different and constantly misunderstood in the forum FUD:

ATF is not going to arrest you simply for owning a 7.5" upper, that isn't illegal. We were discussing CA gun law not federal.

yeah thats what most of us were saying if you read through the replies and pages. He had a pistol lower he was getting he was fine regardless. I only know of the florida case that i mentioned earlier and i think he got in trouble for violating the FL law over NFA law. Could be wrong 2009 was a long time ago

 

[grandpapeepap]

people-v-sifuentes

heres a case where someone in california got popped for "constructive intent" but was able to appeal it and get it overturned cause the prosecution couldnt prove they were about to use it. Remember having a good lawyer is a godsend in this country

 

[BONECUTR]

A lot of people in this thread are repeating straight FUDD. There is no statute on "constructive possession" in CA, at all. Only one person was ever convicted that way and it's because he was a criminal that literally stated his intent was to manufacture an AW.

#1 You can't say we are talking about CA Laws when federal laws ALSO apply.
#2 People have been found guilty Federally of Constructive Possession when it comes to NFA rules federally.
#3 Even though there is no state law prohibiting it People v Nguyen (the case you are referencing) He was convicted of violating a non existant Penal Code of attempt to Manufacture an AW.

You don't think CA would also convict someone of attempt to manufacturer a SBR if you did not have a pistol registered lower?

 

[RickD427]

A lot of people in this thread are repeating straight FUDD. There is no statute on "constructive possession" in CA, at all. Only one person was ever convicted that way and it's because he was a criminal that literally stated his intent was to manufacture an AW.

There is no standalone Penal Code section for “constructive possession of AW parts.”

The relevant statutes are PC 30515 for the definition of an assault weapon, PC 30605 for possession of an assault weapon, PC 30600 for manufacture/transfer/import/etc., and PC 664 for attempt.

Stop listening to dumb people on the forums, it's so sad how the lies spread.

Not quite true and the "Constructive Possession" discussion is not complete "FUDD."

To start with, you are completely correct that California's "Assault Weapon" statute does not include a "Constructive Possession" clause. But please do not be so naive as to believe that the lack of a "Constructive Possession" clause makes such possession legal. Remember that this is California, and the prosecutorial legal shenanigans run quite deep.

Where your argument goes into the toilet is with the California Court of Appeals 2013 decision in People v Nguyen. That case started when Mr. Nguyen was caught with the unassembled component parts of an Assault Weapon. The nice Orange County District Attorney charged Mr. Nguyen with the "Attempted Possession of an Assault Weapon." The DA could not charge the primary offense because the parts were unassembled, and (as you have pointed out, the AW statute does not include a constructive possession clause), the elements of the primary offense were not present. But Penal Code section 664 makes the attempt to commit the primary offense punishable, and that's the route that the nice District Attorney took. Mr. Nguyen was convicted and sentenced to six years.

The Court of Appeal basically found that there was no innocent purpose to the possession of the component parts other than to a some future point, assemble them into an Assault Weapon, and on that basis the attempted crime was complete.

The court gave an interesting treatment to Mr. Nguyen's attempt to argue the "Rule of Lenity" in his defense. In simple terms, the "Rule of Lenity" provides that if the ambiguous facts of a case can be added up to an innocent conclusion, and also be added up to a guilty conclusion, a criminal court must add them up to the innocent conclusion. In the Nguyen decision, the court discounted the possibility that Mr. Nguyen had an innocent purpose to the possession of the AW parts - "the rule of lenity applies only if the court can do no more than guess what the legislative body intended; there must be an egregious ambiguity and uncertainty to justify invoking the rule.‟

So, at the end of the day, even though there is no "Constructive Possession" clause in California's AW statute, Mr. Nguyen went to prison for six years for what was essentially the constructive possession of an AW.

 

[ReaperCustom45]

Not quite true and the "Constructive Possession" discussion is not complete "FUDD."

To start with, you are completely correct that California's "Assault Weapon" statute does not include a "Constructive Possession" clause. But please do not be so naive as to believe that the lack of a "Constructive Possession" clause makes such possession legal. Remember that this is California, and the prosecutorial legal shenanigans run quite deep.

Where your argument goes into the toilet is with the California Court of Appeals 2013 decision in People v Nguyen. That case started when Mr. Nguyen was caught with the unassembled component parts of an Assault Weapon. The nice Orange County District Attorney charged Mr. Nguyen with the "Attempted Possession of an Assault Weapon." The DA could not charge the primary offense because the parts were unassembled, and (as you have pointed out, the AW statute does not include a constructive possession clause), the elements of the primary offense were not present. But Penal Code section 664 makes the attempt to commit the primary offense punishable, and that's the route that the nice District Attorney took. Mr. Nguyen was convicted and sentenced to six years.

The Court of Appeal basically found that there was no innocent purpose to the possession of the component parts other than to a some future point, assemble them into an Assault Weapon, and on that basis the attempted crime was complete.

The court gave an interesting treatment to Mr. Nguyen's attempt to argue the "Rule of Lenity" in his defense. In simple terms, the "Rule of Lenity" provides that if the ambiguous facts of a case can be added up to an innocent conclusion, and also be added up to a guilty conclusion, a criminal court must add them up to the innocent conclusion. In the Nguyen decision, the court discounted the possibility that Mr. Nguyen had an innocent purpose to the possession of the AW parts - "the rule of lenity applies only if the court can do no more than guess what the legislative body intended; there must be an egregious ambiguity and uncertainty to justify invoking the rule.‟

So, at the end of the day, even though there is no "Constructive Possession" clause in California's AW statute, Mr. Nguyen went to prison for six years for what was essentially the constructive possession of an AW.

Gotta love our justice system. Guilty of a crime before even committing it.

 

[Gawernator]

Not quite true and the "Constructive Possession" discussion is not complete "FUDD."

To start with, you are completely correct that California's "Assault Weapon" statute does not include a "Constructive Possession" clause. But please do not be so naive as to believe that the lack of a "Constructive Possession" clause makes such possession legal. Remember that this is California, and the prosecutorial legal shenanigans run quite deep.

Where your argument goes into the toilet is with the California Court of Appeals 2013 decision in People v Nguyen. That case started when Mr. Nguyen was caught with the unassembled component parts of an Assault Weapon. The nice Orange County District Attorney charged Mr. Nguyen with the "Attempted Possession of an Assault Weapon." The DA could not charge the primary offense because the parts were unassembled, and (as you have pointed out, the AW statute does not include a constructive possession clause), the elements of the primary offense were not present. But Penal Code section 664 makes the attempt to commit the primary offense punishable, and that's the route that the nice District Attorney took. Mr. Nguyen was convicted and sentenced to six years.

The Court of Appeal basically found that there was no innocent purpose to the possession of the component parts other than to a some future point, assemble them into an Assault Weapon, and on that basis the attempted crime was complete.

The court gave an interesting treatment to Mr. Nguyen's attempt to argue the "Rule of Lenity" in his defense. In simple terms, the "Rule of Lenity" provides that if the ambiguous facts of a case can be added up to an innocent conclusion, and also be added up to a guilty conclusion, a criminal court must add them up to the innocent conclusion. In the Nguyen decision, the court discounted the possibility that Mr. Nguyen had an innocent purpose to the possession of the AW parts - "the rule of lenity applies only if the court can do no more than guess what the legislative body intended; there must be an egregious ambiguity and uncertainty to justify invoking the rule.‟

So, at the end of the day, even though there is no "Constructive Possession" clause in California's AW statute, Mr. Nguyen went to prison for six years for what was essentially the constructive possession of an AW.

You’re conflating two different concepts.

I already acknowledged that PC 664 can support an attempt theory. Nobody is saying the absence of a constructive-possession clause gives someone immunity if the evidence shows intent plus a direct step toward manufacturing or possessing an illegal assault weapon.

But Nguyen was not a generic constructive-possession case. It was an attempt case with terrible facts. He had an AK parts kit, had taken assembly steps, and, most importantly, admitted to law enforcement that he intended to build/possess the illegal assault weapon. That admission is doing a lot of work in the case.

Attempt requires specific intent plus an act beyond mere preparation. Nguyen had both. That is very different from someone merely owning lawful feature parts that have lawful uses.

Calling Nguyen “essentially constructive possession” muddies the issue. The prosecution could not prove actual possession of a completed AW, so it proceeded under attempt. That does not create a general rule that loose parts automatically equal possession of an assault weapon.

The correct statement is narrow: parts plus admitted intent plus conduct beyond preparation can support an attempted AW theory under PC 664. The incorrect overbroad forum version is that California has a general constructive-possession doctrine for AW parts. It does not.

So yes, Nguyen is a cautionary case. No, it does not mean a pistol grip, flash hider, upper, stock, or other lawful component sitting unassembled in a parts bin is automatically criminal. The legal issue is the totality of facts showing attempted manufacture or attempted possession, not mere ownership of parts.

Also worth noting: Nguyen was not some clean-record guy who accidentally had a grip and flash hider in a parts bin. He had a prior juvenile aggravated-assault adjudication that was treated as a strike, plus the AK kit/partial assembly facts, plus statements showing intent.

That does not make the case irrelevant, but it makes it a very poor case to generalize into “loose parts = constructive possession.” Nguyen is basically the nightmare fact pattern, not the ordinary lawful-owner fact pattern.

 

[Gawernator]

Gotta love our justice system. Guilty of a crime before even committing it.

I mean, criminals are usually not smart and often admit to their crimes as well. He literally confessed lol. See above^

 

[ReaperCustom45]

I mean, criminals are usually not smart and often admit to their crimes as well. He literally confessed lol. See above^

I'm referring to constructive intent as a whole. The idea that someone can be sent to prison for "potentially" planning to commit a crime in the future is some minority report crap. Until they have actually assembled those parts into an illegal firearm, they shouldn't be able to be arrested for anything. And that's not even mentioning the fact that these gun laws are pure unconstitutional BS in the first place and we shouldn't have to worry about a rifle barrel being to short.