Question My FFL said this is illegal

[weaverftw]

I mean when the NFA was enacted you had a bunch of gang violence. Like the tommy gun. In fact iirc the NFA was supposed to include pistols as part of it but that was later removed. US v Miller was a travesty on the american public, arguing shortbarrel shotguns didnt have militia use but since Millers lawyers werent at the supreme court only the states arguments were heard.

WOW this last bit is frustrating. NFA history is a topic I need to educate myself better on

 

[grandpapeepap]

WOW this last bit is frustrating. NFA history is a topic I need to educate myself better on

Miller himself died before the arguments were heard at the supreme court too, so his lawyer wasnt notified about it. so again the court only heard the states arguments which are lol at best

 

[weaverftw]

Why are people still arguing stuff you can easily just google

And yeah SBR way better for close quarters. That’s why it’s cool and sexy. Just not very critical to us for 99.9% of real life unless I guess you go to war against a mob invading your house

If a modern semi auto pistol with a couple freedom mags and a WML can’t take care of the situation, I’ve made some very questionable choices leading up to this hypothetical encounter

 

[ton809]

Asking the real questions. Inb4 he made up this whole fantasy story and it didn’t even happen.

Not made up, I just don’t want to put them in public, the FFL didn’t even charge me for transfer and said same thing goes for future “transfers” barrels accessories etc, still sucked he gave me a 30min session talking about illegality’s of my lower and upper …

 

[ton809]

Decided to start building it out

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

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 left out the premise to what led to the arrest of one of the most retarded CA gunowner.

A. Background

Defendant was the owner of an auto repair shop. On March 17, 2010, Police Officer Brian Chapman, on assignment as a detective with the Orange County Auto Theft Task Force, went to defendant's business premises. Chapman informed defendant that he and other detectives in attendance intended to search the premises. As a matter of standard procedure, Chapman asked defendant if he had any weapons on site. Defendant responded that he had a hunting rifle he used for shooting pigs.

Defendant led Chapman to a fully assembled .50–caliber DTC rifle. According to Chapman, the rifle was not one that would typically be used for pig hunting. Rather, he expressed the opinion that “even calling it an elephant gun would be an understatement.”

Chapman noticed that the rifle did not have a serial number or manufacturer name on it, so he asked defendant about it. Defendant explained to Chapman “that he had purchased the lower portion of the rifle that would typically have the serial numbers and manufacturing name off the Internet.” Defendant further explained that the lower portion of the rifle, or the receiver, was not completed when he purchased it. He had to “machine it” or drill holes in it in order to finish it. Defendant stated that he had completed the drilling process and put the pieces of the rifle together himself. Chapman dry fired the rifle and determined that it ought to be in good working order.

Defendant also took Chapman to some .50–caliber DTC ammunition—the ammunition that went with the rifle. In addition, he showed Chapman some .50–caliber Beowulf ammunition. Defendant explained that the .50–caliber Beowulf ammunition went with a different rifle he had rented for pig hunting.

After that, Chapman asked defendant if he had any other weapons, and defendant told him he was building an AK–47. Defendant took Chapman to a box of AK–47 parts. Again, the receiver had no serial number or manufacturer name. Defendant explained that he had purchased an AK–47 flat receiver, and he opined that when one purchases an AK–47 flat receiver that has yet to be bent into shape, one does not have to register the firearm. He pulled up the AK–Builder.com Web site on his computer and showed Chapman the AK–47 flat receivers for sale. Defendant had already bent his flat receiver into shape for assembly, by using a vise or a flat bending dye set.

Chapman asked defendant if he knew it was wrong for him to have and make his own AK–47. Defendant admitted knowing it was wrong.

Chapman said he met with Rocky Edwards, of the Santa Ana Police Department forensics services department. The two of them went through the box of parts and compared them to an AK–47 diagram and checked to make sure all the parts of an AK–47 were present, which appeared to be the case. He also met with Sergeant Greg Schuch of the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and the two of them compared the box of parts to the parts of a working AK–47. Having done so, Chapman opined that all the parts necessary to build a working AK–47 were present. Indeed, defendant himself acknowledged having all the necessary parts. It appeared to Chapman that at least one more hole needed to be drilled into the receiver before the weapon could be completed.

B. Charges
Defendant was accused of attempted unlawful assault weapon activity (§ 664, subd. (a), former § 12280, subd. (a)(1)), attempted possession of an assault weapon (§ 664, subd. (a), former § 12280, subd. (b)), possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1), repealed by Stats.2010, ch. 711, § 4, p. 4036), and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (former § 12316, subd. (b)(1), repealed by Stats.2010, ch. 711, § 4, p. 4036). It was also alleged, pursuant to section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1) and section 1170.12, subdivisions (b) and (c)(1), that defendant was previously convicted of a serious and violent felony—a violation of former section 12025, subdivisions (a)(1) and (b)(3) (repealed by Stats.2010, ch. 711, § 4, p. 4036).

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

gotta love it when stuff like this happens too

A California man sold illegal AR-15s. Feds agreed to let him go free to avoid hurting gun control efforts

A case once touted by prosecutors as a crackdown on an illicit firearms factory was suddenly seen as having the potential to pave the way to unfettered access to one of the most demonized guns in America.

www.mercurynews.com

A case once touted by prosecutors as a crackdown on an illicit firearms factory was suddenly seen as having the potential to pave the way to unfettered access to one of the most demonized guns in America.


Federal authorities preferred to let Roh go free rather than have the ruling become final and potentially create case law that could have a crippling effect on the enforcement of gun laws, several sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Each requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the case and its possible implications.

I met a Joe Roh from Calguns few years back. In SD, he was selling parts and ammo, I walked on deal, pictures showed better condition. Not sure if it was The Joe Roh though.

 

[RickD427]

You left out the premise to what led to the arrest of one of the most retarded CA gunowner.

A. Background

Defendant was the owner of an auto repair shop. On March 17, 2010, Police Officer Brian Chapman, on assignment as a detective with the Orange County Auto Theft Task Force, went to defendant's business premises. Chapman informed defendant that he and other detectives in attendance intended to search the premises. As a matter of standard procedure, Chapman asked defendant if he had any weapons on site. Defendant responded that he had a hunting rifle he used for shooting pigs.

Defendant led Chapman to a fully assembled .50–caliber DTC rifle. According to Chapman, the rifle was not one that would typically be used for pig hunting. Rather, he expressed the opinion that “even calling it an elephant gun would be an understatement.”

Chapman noticed that the rifle did not have a serial number or manufacturer name on it, so he asked defendant about it. Defendant explained to Chapman “that he had purchased the lower portion of the rifle that would typically have the serial numbers and manufacturing name off the Internet.” Defendant further explained that the lower portion of the rifle, or the receiver, was not completed when he purchased it. He had to “machine it” or drill holes in it in order to finish it. Defendant stated that he had completed the drilling process and put the pieces of the rifle together himself. Chapman dry fired the rifle and determined that it ought to be in good working order.

Defendant also took Chapman to some .50–caliber DTC ammunition—the ammunition that went with the rifle. In addition, he showed Chapman some .50–caliber Beowulf ammunition. Defendant explained that the .50–caliber Beowulf ammunition went with a different rifle he had rented for pig hunting.

After that, Chapman asked defendant if he had any other weapons, and defendant told him he was building an AK–47. Defendant took Chapman to a box of AK–47 parts. Again, the receiver had no serial number or manufacturer name. Defendant explained that he had purchased an AK–47 flat receiver, and he opined that when one purchases an AK–47 flat receiver that has yet to be bent into shape, one does not have to register the firearm. He pulled up the AK–Builder.com Web site on his computer and showed Chapman the AK–47 flat receivers for sale. Defendant had already bent his flat receiver into shape for assembly, by using a vise or a flat bending dye set.

Chapman asked defendant if he knew it was wrong for him to have and make his own AK–47. Defendant admitted knowing it was wrong.

Chapman said he met with Rocky Edwards, of the Santa Ana Police Department forensics services department. The two of them went through the box of parts and compared them to an AK–47 diagram and checked to make sure all the parts of an AK–47 were present, which appeared to be the case. He also met with Sergeant Greg Schuch of the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and the two of them compared the box of parts to the parts of a working AK–47. Having done so, Chapman opined that all the parts necessary to build a working AK–47 were present. Indeed, defendant himself acknowledged having all the necessary parts. It appeared to Chapman that at least one more hole needed to be drilled into the receiver before the weapon could be completed.

B. Charges
Defendant was accused of attempted unlawful assault weapon activity (§ 664, subd. (a), former § 12280, subd. (a)(1)), attempted possession of an assault weapon (§ 664, subd. (a), former § 12280, subd. (b)), possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1), repealed by Stats.2010, ch. 711, § 4, p. 4036), and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (former § 12316, subd. (b)(1), repealed by Stats.2010, ch. 711, § 4, p. 4036). It was also alleged, pursuant to section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1) and section 1170.12, subdivisions (b) and (c)(1), that defendant was previously convicted of a serious and violent felony—a violation of former section 12025, subdivisions (a)(1) and (b)(3) (repealed by Stats.2010, ch. 711, § 4, p. 4036).

This "left out" part isn't relevant to the point made in my posting. The decision was 28 pages long. A whole lot had to be "left out" to allow for a concise posting. Nothing in the "left out" part affects the holding of the case decision - that being that the elements the offense of "Attempted Possession of an Assault Weapon" are satisfied upon a showing that the defendant possessed the component parts of an assault weapon and an intent to assemble them at some future time.

While the passages that you cite go a long way to show Nguyen's intent to assemble the parts, please note that the court's decision found that the requisite intent could have been inferred from his lawful possession of similar weapons and ammunition fitting the weapon (refer to pages 24 and 25 of the decision).

The court's response to the defense argument of the "Rule of Lenity" is particularly troubling. That treatment prevented Mr. Nguyen from showing a lawful purpose for possessing the parts (that probably would not have worked for Mr. Nguyen given his statements that you have quoted), but the decision can now be used to prevent other defendants from arguing the same.

A lot of folks like to point out that Mr. Nguyen was an unsavory character and a general knucklehead. He certainly was. But we need to remember that the case law he created is not limited in application to unsavory characters and knuckleheads.

 

[Gawernator]

You left out the premise to what led to the arrest of one of the most retarded CA gunowner.

A. Background

Defendant was the owner of an auto repair shop. On March 17, 2010, Police Officer Brian Chapman, on assignment as a detective with the Orange County Auto Theft Task Force, went to defendant's business premises. Chapman informed defendant that he and other detectives in attendance intended to search the premises. As a matter of standard procedure, Chapman asked defendant if he had any weapons on site. Defendant responded that he had a hunting rifle he used for shooting pigs.

Defendant led Chapman to a fully assembled .50–caliber DTC rifle. According to Chapman, the rifle was not one that would typically be used for pig hunting. Rather, he expressed the opinion that “even calling it an elephant gun would be an understatement.”

Chapman noticed that the rifle did not have a serial number or manufacturer name on it, so he asked defendant about it. Defendant explained to Chapman “that he had purchased the lower portion of the rifle that would typically have the serial numbers and manufacturing name off the Internet.” Defendant further explained that the lower portion of the rifle, or the receiver, was not completed when he purchased it. He had to “machine it” or drill holes in it in order to finish it. Defendant stated that he had completed the drilling process and put the pieces of the rifle together himself. Chapman dry fired the rifle and determined that it ought to be in good working order.

Defendant also took Chapman to some .50–caliber DTC ammunition—the ammunition that went with the rifle. In addition, he showed Chapman some .50–caliber Beowulf ammunition. Defendant explained that the .50–caliber Beowulf ammunition went with a different rifle he had rented for pig hunting.

After that, Chapman asked defendant if he had any other weapons, and defendant told him he was building an AK–47. Defendant took Chapman to a box of AK–47 parts. Again, the receiver had no serial number or manufacturer name. Defendant explained that he had purchased an AK–47 flat receiver, and he opined that when one purchases an AK–47 flat receiver that has yet to be bent into shape, one does not have to register the firearm. He pulled up the AK–Builder.com Web site on his computer and showed Chapman the AK–47 flat receivers for sale. Defendant had already bent his flat receiver into shape for assembly, by using a vise or a flat bending dye set.

Chapman asked defendant if he knew it was wrong for him to have and make his own AK–47. Defendant admitted knowing it was wrong.

Chapman said he met with Rocky Edwards, of the Santa Ana Police Department forensics services department. The two of them went through the box of parts and compared them to an AK–47 diagram and checked to make sure all the parts of an AK–47 were present, which appeared to be the case. He also met with Sergeant Greg Schuch of the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and the two of them compared the box of parts to the parts of a working AK–47. Having done so, Chapman opined that all the parts necessary to build a working AK–47 were present. Indeed, defendant himself acknowledged having all the necessary parts. It appeared to Chapman that at least one more hole needed to be drilled into the receiver before the weapon could be completed.

B. Charges
Defendant was accused of attempted unlawful assault weapon activity (§ 664, subd. (a), former § 12280, subd. (a)(1)), attempted possession of an assault weapon (§ 664, subd. (a), former § 12280, subd. (b)), possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1), repealed by Stats.2010, ch. 711, § 4, p. 4036), and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (former § 12316, subd. (b)(1), repealed by Stats.2010, ch. 711, § 4, p. 4036). It was also alleged, pursuant to section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1) and section 1170.12, subdivisions (b) and (c)(1), that defendant was previously convicted of a serious and violent felony—a violation of former section 12025, subdivisions (a)(1) and (b)(3) (repealed by Stats.2010, ch. 711, § 4, p. 4036).

Man he was insanely dumb lol

 

[Gawernator]

This "left out" part isn't relevant to the point made in my posting. The decision was 28 pages long. A whole lot had to be "left out" to allow for a concise posting. Nothing in the "left out" part affects the holding of the case decision - that being that the elements the offense of "Attempted Possession of an Assault Weapon" are satisfied upon a showing that the defendant possessed the component parts of an assault weapon and an intent to assemble them at some future time.

While the passages that you cite go a long way to show Nguyen's intent to assemble the parts, please note that the court's decision found that the requisite intent could have been inferred from his lawful possession of similar weapons and ammunition fitting the weapon (refer to pages 24 and 25 of the decision).

The court's response to the defense argument of the "Rule of Lenity" is particularly troubling. That treatment prevented Mr. Nguyen from showing a lawful purpose for possessing the parts (that probably would not have worked for Mr. Nguyen given his statements that you have quoted), but the decision can now be used to prevent other defendants from arguing the same.

A lot of folks like to point out that Mr. Nguyen was an unsavory character and a general knucklehead. He certainly was. But we need to remember that the case law he created is not limited in application to unsavory characters and knuckleheads.

Knuckleheads, lol you have to be 40+ yo LE

 

[AR15barrels]

Ton809 is correct. You technically have to physically own the pistol lower in order to take possession of the 7.5” barrel. If the feds or CA wanted to press the issue they can now show a timeline based on your posts. There are NFA rules in place for this.

It's completely fine to take posession of a pistol barrel if you do not own ANY rifles that will accept it.
The constructive possession problem only happens when you only own rifles which require barrels over 16".
That's where owning an SBR or pistol that can accept the pistol barrel solves the problem.

 

[Gawernator]

Still extremely fringe likelihood, which is why there’s only been one of these cases ever it seems? Can anyone show a conviction other than the guy that admitted to the crime? lol

 

[AR15barrels]

That would be more of a California specific thing though, since federally a stripped lower is not a rifle or a pistol until it is built as one. So being in possession of a pistol upper and a stripped lower does not automatically constitute constructive intent. Now if all you have are some AR rifles and a pistol upper, that could be another story. That said, I haven't really seen anyone get arrested for simply owning a pistol upper like that, it's a weak case unless it was actually installed on a rifle lower.

A stripped receiver that was DROSed in CA is a long gun unless it was specifically DROSed as a pistol.

 

[AR15barrels]

A lot of people in this thread are repeating straight FUDD. There is no statute on "constructive possession" in CA, at all.

Are you saying that federal laws do not apply in your kitchen?

 

[grandpapeepap]

There are gun laws?

 

[ReaperCustom45]

A stripped receiver that was DROSed in CA is a long gun unless it was specifically DROSed as a pistol.

Yeah, that's why I said this is more of a California specific issue. Federally just being in possession of a pistol upper and a stripped lower means nothing, because that stripped lower could legally be built as a pistol. CA obviously has different rules when it comes to that.

 

[AR15barrels]

Yeah, that's why I said this is more of a California specific issue. Federally just being in possession of a pistol upper and a stripped lower means nothing, because that stripped lower could legally be built as a pistol. CA obviously has different rules when it comes to that.

For your assertions to be correct, the person, long gun lower and pistol barrel must not be located within california.
Since this is a California specific firearms forum, you need to be very clear when making these assertions that the activity not be condoned when done in California.

California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 17170​

Current as of January 01, 2025 | Updated by Findlaw Staff

As used in this part, “short-barreled rifle” means any of the following:

(a) A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.
(b) A rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) Any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.
(d) Any device that may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge which, when so restored, is a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive.
(e) Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended to convert a device into a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, or any combination of parts from which a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

 

[grandpapeepap]

For your assertions to be correct, the person, long gun lower and pistol barrel must not be located within california.
Since this is a California specific firearms forum, you need to be very clear when making these assertions that the activity not be condoned when done in California.

I mean just right there in his message you quoted he said federally and then said california has different rules. Yall dont need to argue D:

 

[BONECUTR]

I mean just right there in his message you quoted he said federally and then said california has different rules. Yall dont need to argue D:

Not pointing fingers at anyone specifically here as I have seen it a bunch online these days.
We are in the time where no one wants to be wrong.
Person A: The sky is Red.
Person B: Its actually Blue.
Person A: No its red cause im wearing red lense glasses so Im correct.

I have seen so many people on here and reddit and X be 1000% incorrect and they will keep arguing until the actual correct person gives up.
There is no price to be won here. Its OK to be wrong and learn.

 

[AR15barrels]

I mean just right there in his message you quoted he said federally and then said california has different rules. Yall dont need to argue D:

I an not arguing.
I listed the specific CA law which makes his assumed behavior illegal in CA.
So for him to be sitting in San Diego (I am assuming he is in the San Diego that is in CA and maybe he is in fact in the San Diego that is in Texas) and saying that having only a stripped lower that DROSed as a long gun and an AR pistol upper to not be problematic where he speaks from, PC 17170 says otherwise.