SSE FIREARMS

[five.five-six]

Wait doesn’t this read to say that it’s illegal to sell an off roster gun you lawfully own? Or did you leave out the exception for PPTs?

Does section a(1) of PC32000 mean it’s illegal to remove a LCI or mag disconnect safety from an on-roster gun since that would be “manufacturing” an “unsafe” handgun?

This is so confusing where is Calguns when you need it

No, that is not manufacturing. Technically to the letter of the law it’s a pretty good argument that it’s completely legal to do this. The problem is DOJ has issued opinion saying that it is illegal to convert a SSE.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

No, that is not manufacturing. Technically to the letter of the law it’s a pretty good argument that it’s completely legal to do this. The problem is DOJ has issued opinion saying that it is illegal to convert a SSE.

Again...like I asked OP...can you back this up with proof?

 

[five.five-six]

That's correct. But this thread is about guns that are born SSE and then converted to semi, not ones that went semi to SSE to semi.

OP has still yet to back up his claim that the CADOJ has said doing this is a misdemeanor or provided any example of someone being prosecuted for converting an SSE to semi.

This might help you out. It’s clear as mud.

Handguns Certified for Sale

oag.ca.gov

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

This might help you out. It’s clear as mud.

Handguns Certified for Sale

oag.ca.gov

One of the foundational things we're taught in law school is that words have meanings. The DOJ is staffed by lawyers who know exactly what they're doing, and very specifically chose their words in this advisory.

The use of the word "may" is their attempt to muddy the waters and get people who don't know how to read or don't understand the basic meanings of words to believe that converting an SSE to semi-auto is illegal. It is not. In order for it to be illegal, the legislature would have to say so by statute.

This is exactly why nobody has ever been prosecuted for converting an SSE to semi-auto and then transferring it via PPT. The CADOJ has the records of every time that has been done, and if it were actually a crime, they would have gone after every single gun owner in California who has done it. This is California. There's 0% chance they would let this keep happening if they had the legal ability to stop it.

 

[adrkwan]

One of the foundational things we're taught in law school is that words have meanings. The DOJ is staffed by lawyers who know exactly what they're doing, and very specifically chose their words in this advisory.

The use of the word "may" is their attempt to muddy the waters and get people who don't know how to read or don't understand the basic meanings of words to believe that converting an SSE to semi-auto is illegal. It is not. In order for it to be illegal, the legislature would have to say so by statute.

This is exactly why nobody has ever been prosecuted for converting an SSE to semi-auto and then transferring it via PPT. The CADOJ has the records of every time that has been done, and if it were actually a crime, they would have gone after every single gun owner in California who has done it. This is California. There's 0% chance they would let this keep happening if they had the legal ability to stop it.

Agreed. "May" is permissive. "Shall" would be clear.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

Agreed. "May" is permissive. "Shall" would be clear.

In the drafting or interpretation of a statute, you are 100% correct. But this is an advisory opinion written by the CADOJ. If it was actually a crime, the advisory would have used "is" instead of "may be," "constitutes" instead of "may constitute," and "is also" instead of "may also be."

 

[five.five-six]

One of the foundational things we're taught in law school is that words have meanings. The DOJ is staffed by lawyers who know exactly what they're doing, and very specifically chose their words in this advisory.

The use of the word "may" is their attempt to muddy the waters and get people who don't know how to read or don't understand the basic meanings of words to believe that converting an SSE to semi-auto is illegal. It is not. In order for it to be illegal, the legislature would have to say so by statute.

This is exactly why nobody has ever been prosecuted for converting an SSE to semi-auto and then transferring it via PPT. The CADOJ has the records of every time that has been done, and if it were actually a crime, they would have gone after every single gun owner in California who has done it. This is California. There's 0% chance they would let this keep happening if they had the legal ability to stop it.

Thank you for your legal opinion. Sounds like you’re ready to volunteer to be the test case. Godspeed, my good man. Tally ho!

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

Thank you for your legal opinion. Sounds like you’re ready to volunteer to be the test case. Godspeed, my good man. Tally ho!

You're the second person to say this and it makes 0 sense. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of SSEs converted to semi-auto transferred in California. The CADOJ has not prosecuted any of them.

How exactly would one "volunteer" to be the test case?

 

[Jimi Jah]

Agreed. "May" is permissive. "Shall" would be clear.

Not really. "Shall not be infringed" is treated as a "may".

 

[five.five-six]

You're the second person to say this and it makes 0 sense. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of SSEs converted to semi-auto transferred in California. The CADOJ has not prosecuted any of them.

How exactly would one "volunteer" to be the test case?

Well, you could just walk into the DOJ office with one in your hand and say “hey look here what I got” “made it myself.”

You could use the Rosa Parks tactic and bring the press with you to video the whole thing.

 

[RickD427]

No, that is not manufacturing. Technically to the letter of the law it’s a pretty good argument that it’s completely legal to do this. The problem is DOJ has issued opinion saying that it is illegal to convert a SSE.

You don't know if that is, or is not, an act of "Manufacturing." The reason is that California has not defined the term "Manufacturing" except for the pre-building phase of a firearm for which a DOJ Serial Number has not been issued. Please refer to Penal Code section 29180(a). Here is the definition:

"For purposes of this chapter, “manufacturing” or “assembling” a firearm means to fabricate or construct a firearm, or to fit together the component parts of a firearm to construct a firearm."

When you perform an SSE conversion, you do it by fitting the component parts of the firearm.

The key point about section 29180 is that its application is limited only to its chapter in the Penal Code. It remains undefined for other purposes in California law.

Your certainly are free to use the term "Manufacturing" in any way that you see fit, but if you chose to apply your concept of the term to California law, you're likely to be disappointed with the result.

When courts are faced with making a decision about the meanings of words, they tend to look at uses of the word in statute, and then adopt such uses, not as binding definitions, but as interpretations of their meaning. A California court looking to define "Manufacturing" for the purposes of PC 32000 would not likely query Mr. "Five.Five-Six" as to the meaning, but would more likely adopt the meaning given in PC 291890(a).

I'm not aware of any such criminal cases proceeding on those lines. IMHO, California DOJ has their hands full of cases being litigated and are not looking to add to the list.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

You don't know if that is, or is not, an act of "Manufacturing." The reason is that California has not defined the term "Manufacturing" except for the pre-building phase of a firearm for which a DOJ Serial Number has not been issued. Please refer to Penal Code section 29180(a). Here is the definition:

"For purposes of this chapter, “manufacturing” or “assembling” a firearm means to fabricate or construct a firearm, or to fit together the component parts of a firearm to construct a firearm."

When you perform an SSE conversion, you do it by fitting the component parts of the firearm.

The key point about section 29180 is that its application is limited only to its chapter in the Penal Code. It remains undefined for other purposes in California law.

Your certainly are free to use the term "Manufacturing" in any way that you see fit, but if you chose to apply your concept of the term to California law, you're likely to be disappointed with the result.

When courts are faced with making a decision about the meanings of words, they tend to look at uses of the word in statute, and then adopt such uses, not as binding definitions, but as interpretations of their meaning. A California court looking to define "Manufacturing" for the purposes of PC 32000 would not likely query Mr. "Five.Five-Six" as to the meaning, but would more likely adopt the meaning given in PC 291890(a).

I'm not aware of any such criminal cases proceeding on those lines. IMHO, California DOJ has their hands full of cases being litigated and are not looking to add to the list.

"Manufacturing" isn't going to be the issue, "assault weapon" and "unsafe handgun" will be. If a semi-auto AR/AK pistol, or any other handgun converted from SSE to semi-auto, were either an assault weapon or unsafe handgun, then the state would have to outlaw the sale of those models that are brought into the state already in a semi-auto configuration by new residents or obtained by roster exempt folks.

Remember there is no AW exemption for LEOs and their personally owned weapons, so if a LEO can buy a lower DROSed as semi-auto and then sell it to Joe Q. Public, the semi-auto pistol made from that lower cannot be an assault weapon as long as it is built within the laws for a pistol. If this is true, then a pistol converted from SSE to semi-auto that follows the same laws cannot be an assault weapon.

And if every gun that isn't listed on the roster is an "unsafe handgun," then the state would not allow people to bring them here when they move and then sell them to non-roster exempt people.

 

[JackRydden224]

In order to charge (I meant to say convict here) someone for violating PC 32000(a) the prosecution would have to prove at least 2 things

1. Swapping parts at home constitutes manufacturing
2. The idea of an unsafe handgun (aka anything outside of the roster stands)

I personally think these are high hurdles for any prosecutor to cross for what is a misdemeanor and up to 1 yr of imprisonment so on a practical level it probably isn't worth it to charge someone with just that. It's most likely an add on charge for someone who has committed other felonies to say 1 yr for each unsafe handgun manufactured so you are looking at a decade now.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Or wait until June-ish since Sig announced the P365-380 on-roster version

Wait what?

 

[JackRydden224]

Wait what?

It's believed that P365 in .380 and The P211 GT5 and GT4 are coming to the roster in June or July (summer time give or take)

Completely reasonable (logical as well)

The P365 is already on roster. The P211's are basically Series 80 2011/1911's like the Staccato HD's that are on the roster.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

In order to charge (I meant to say convict here) someone for violating PC 32000(a) the prosecution would have to prove at least 2 things

1. Swapping parts at home constitutes manufacturing
2. The idea of an unsafe handgun (aka anything outside of the roster stands)

I personally think these are high hurdles for any prosecutor to cross for what is a misdemeanor and up to 1 yr of imprisonment so on a practical level it probably isn't worth it to charge someone with just that. It's most likely an add on charge for someone who has committed other felonies to say 1 yr for each unsafe handgun manufactured so you are looking at a decade now.

I think the argument for point 1 will be that the swapping of parts switched the manner in which the gun operates. You disassembled an SSE and then "manufactured" a semi-auto by swapping parts.

I don't think it's necessarily a good argument, but I think that's the one that would be made.

 

[five.five-six]

Completely reasonable (logical as well)

I think I see the cognitive disconnect here. It’s completely understandable.

 

[RickD427]

"Manufacturing" isn't going to be the issue, "assault weapon" and "unsafe handgun" will be. If a semi-auto AR/AK pistol, or any other handgun converted from SSE to semi-auto, were either an assault weapon or unsafe handgun, then the state would have to outlaw the sale of those models that are brought into the state already in a semi-auto configuration by new residents or obtained by roster exempt folks.

Remember there is no AW exemption for LEOs and their personally owned weapons, so if a LEO can buy a lower DROSed as semi-auto and then sell it to Joe Q. Public, the semi-auto pistol made from that lower cannot be an assault weapon as long as it is built within the laws for a pistol. If this is true, then a pistol converted from SSE to semi-auto that follows the same laws cannot be an assault weapon.

And if every gun that isn't listed on the roster is an "unsafe handgun," then the state would not allow people to bring them here when they move and then sell them to non-roster exempt people.

I beg to differ. The concept of "Manufacturing" is how you get to an unsafe handgun, or assault weapon.

 

[RickD427]

In order to charge (I meant to say convict here) someone for violating PC 32000(a) the prosecution would have to prove at least 2 things

1. Swapping parts at home constitutes manufacturing
2. The idea of an unsafe handgun (aka anything outside of the roster stands)

I personally think these are high hurdles for any prosecutor to cross for what is a misdemeanor and up to 1 yr of imprisonment so on a practical level it probably isn't worth it to charge someone with just that. It's most likely an add on charge for someone who has committed other felonies to say 1 yr for each unsafe handgun manufactured so you are looking at a decade now.

You're half right.

A prosecutor would have to show that the swapping of parts constitutes "Manufacturing." That would be pretty easy to do since PC 29180 pretty much says so. It's irrelevant where the swapping occurs. Although the Broughman case is not binding on California courts, remember that the Fourth Circuit held that merely swapping parts on rifles that an FFL purchased for sale, and customized for his clients, was "manufacturing".

A prosecutor does not have to defend the legitimacy of the roster.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

I beg to differ. The concept of "Manufacturing" is how you get to an unsafe handgun, or assault weapon.

Your post that I replied to laid out how the state, and likely the courts, will address the manufacturing question.