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.

  • Welcome

    Welcome to CAguns

    Join California’s gun owner community. Create a free account to join discussions and explore member features.

SSE AR Pistol to Semi

Realistically if the CADOJ stood behind that opinion then they would have arrested someone for posting about it online like Reno May has done a million times, or arrested someone for transferring an SSE as a Semi. They haven't done either of those things so I am inclined to believe they know it probably wouldn't hold up in court.
 
Do you think people are making their platypusses back to sse before reselling? Or zf5 back to 32acp sse before reselling?

Nobody seem to question those but AR pistols despite it is same language.
 
Good catch, you are right possession is not a crime under that statute. As long as your AR complies with the restrictions, is registered to you and not stolen, you should be G2G.
So assuming you never utilize the firearm for self defense, you’re not a criminal, etc you’re fine to possess it?

What’s the worst case scenario you could see being a possibility? Say you’re pulled over with the gun locked in a case, what’s the legal responsibility of the owner to allow an inspection?
 
So assuming you never utilize the firearm for self defense, you’re not a criminal, etc you’re fine to possess it?

What’s the worst case scenario you could see being a possibility? Say you’re pulled over with the gun locked in a case, what’s the legal responsibility of the owner to allow an inspection?
Please refer to the California Court of Appeals 1970 decision in People v DeLong.

The nice officer has legal standing to inspect the firearm, and to conduct a lawful search in order to locate the firearm. But note that the facts of DeLong were predicated on the firearm being located in an area where shooting is prohibited. At the same time, if the stop occurs on a roadway, the subject is in a location where shooting is prohibited (refer to Penal Code section 374c).
 
Last edited:
Please refer to the California Court of Appeals 1970 decision in People v DeLong.

The nice officer has legal standing to inspect the firearm, and to conduct a lawful search in order to locate the firearm. But note that the facts of DeLong were predicated on the firearm being located in an area where shooting is prohibited. At the same time, if the stop occurs on a roadway, the subject is in a location where shooting is prohibited (refer to Penal Code section 374c).
Very interesting…
 
Back
Top Bottom