SSE FIREARMS

[909gunner]

Do we all need to step back in a time machine?

1. Over 10 years ago FFLs were using SSE on mass manufactured pistols to make them roster exempt.

2. They inserted SSE barrels into them after receiving them from Ruger and other major manufacturers.

3. This was called SSE 1.0.

4. The SSE 1.0 loophole was quickly plugged by statute. The State of California passed actual legislation, which the governor signed.

5. This is where SSE 2.0 was born. Pistols that start their life out as SSE at the point of manufacture are roster exempt.

6. Coordinating with major manufacturers like HK or Glock wasn't ever going to happen. Mass producers shy away from risk exposure.

7. High end, bespoke, and custom pistol manufacturers could coordinate with California FFLs and use SSE 2.0 to gain roster exemption.

8. Since no major manufacturers are using SSE 2.0, and it's mainly safe queens and competition pistols that are using SSE 2.0, it's not like your Atlas or Platypus is gonna get used in a crime. Hence, it's tolerated.

9. CALIFORNIA COULD PLUG SSE 2.0 IF THEY WANTED TO. STOP PISSING YOURSELVES.

While SSE conversion for personal use has been a gray area, recent proposals like AB 1263 aim to restrict part-swapping

 

[909gunner]

That's a good question, but the simple truth is that no one yet knows the answer.

You can get a good idea of the limits of how DOJ can broadly opine on the question by reading the text of 11CCR5477. That regulation prohibits the removal of a "Bullet Button" from a BBRAW. Interestingly, once a BBRAW was registered as an "Assault Weapon", there is nothing explicit in the statute that requires the "Bullet Button." Once the weapon is registered as an "Assault Weapon" it can lawfully be possessed with all "Assault Weapon" features. The statute doesn't treat "Bullet Button" weapons any differently. This is the first recorded instance where DOJ has taken the position that changing a weapon's configuration creates a "new" weapon from the "old" weapon. Here is the text in 11CCR5477 where they purport to do just that: "Any alteration to the release mechanism converts the assault weapon into a different weapon from the one that was registered." They resolved the "Bullet Button" disparity in the statute by taking the position that if you remove the "Bullet Button" you no longer have a "Registered" Assault Weapon, you have an "Unregistered" Assault Weapon.

If changing the magazine release (a peripheral part not affecting the fire control mechanism) can produce the "Manufacture" of a new weapon, then it's hard to argue that changing the slide and barrel (which do affect fire control) would not produce the same result.

But the key here is that DOJ cannot make law. But they they can argue what actions amount to a breach of the law. A court has to decide upon the merits of their arguments and that has not yet occurred. Until it does no one can give a meaningful answer to your question.

Exactly

 

[adrkwan]

So you're saying the Cal DoJ wouldn't provide any sort of notice, bulletin, memo, or clarification of anything SSE2 2.0 changed? I'm pretty sure they'd reach out to those FFLs that use it frequently, or just send notice to all FFLs of the policy change. There's enough commercial activity out there using SSE, that it would be necessary to do so.

I'm saying without an actual change in law, the CADOJ could start enforcement of something they now deem illegal. The "may" is permissive and purposefully gray. In my prior dealings, USDOJ cleared practices via business review letters. They later flip flopped without any material changes in law or circumstances other than new leadership being installed at the USDOJ.

 

[909gunner]

I'm saying without an actual change in law, the CADOJ could start enforcement of something they now deem illegal. The "may" is permissive and purposefully gray. In my prior dealings, USDOJ cleared practices via business review letters. They later flip flopped without any material changes in law or circumstances other than new leadership being installed at the USDOJ.

Finally someone with a brain
Me personally I don’t like playing in the gray area as your gray ass can end up in jail for words like “maybe” that means they can maybe throw your ass in jail if you like that risk go for it if not, just be smart and buy a semi

 

[gorgothmog]

While SSE conversion for personal use has been a gray area, recent proposals like AB 1263 aim to restrict part-swapping

Talk you off one cliff only to find you at the edge of another? Man, maybe you should go bird watching and take some Valium. Why don't you try reading something other than California statute before bed?

1. Additive and subtractive manufacturing refers to machining. You probably shouldn't be using a lathe or other similar tool on your gun unless you are an FFL 01/07.

2. I'm on the verge of blocking you it's so exhausting.

3. AB 1263 is sprawling in its scope, and it shifts all frictional risk to the possessor of the fIrearm. Carry on with your life. The Cal DoJ don't GAF about you. There are so many aspects of that law that are unenforceable.

4. I'm not going to say go out and break the law, but you're treating this like the Cal DoJ has a mic and camera setup near your workbench.

5. The more risk and responsibility they shift downstream without verifiable compliance safe harbors, the more enforcement becomes impossible. Say if an out of state FFL shipping triggers and other parts to homes doesn't do the mandatory ID verification, what could the Cal DoJ ACTUALLY do? Thing is, nobody wants to find out because everyone is afraid. This is where California law is most effective: living in the gray, and legislating shadows instead of solutions.

 

[Wolkenflieger]

In California, converting a Single Shot Exemption (SSE) pistol to semi-automatic may violate
California Penal Code section 32000(a) by manufacturing an "unsafe handgun". This action is considered a misdemeanor. While SSE conversion for personal use has been a gray area, recent proposals like AB 1263 aim to restrict part-swapping.

Key Legal Considerations

• Manufacturing Unsafe Handguns: The California Department of Justice (CADOJ)may interpret changing a single-shot pistol to semi-automatic as manufacturing an illegal unsafe handgun, as it alters the approved configuration.
• "Re-converting" Issues: While a registered owner may make modifications, converting a roster-exempt single-shot pistol into a semi-automatic, non-roster handgun can invite legal risk under California's strict handgun roster laws.

You should generally attribute a quote or cut-and-paste because obviously you didn't write that.

 

[909gunner]

Talk you off one cliff only to find you at the edge of another? Man, maybe you should go bird watching and take some Valium. Why don't you try reading something other than California statute before bed?

1. Additive and subtractive manufacturing refers to machining. You probably shouldn't be using a lathe or other similar tool on your gun unless you are an FFL 01/07.

2. I'm on the verge of blocking you it's so exhausting.

3. AB 1263 is sprawling in its scope, and it shifts all frictional risk to the possessor of the fIrearm. Carry on with your life. The Cal DoJ don't GAF about you. There are so many aspects of that law that are unenforceable.

4. I'm not going to say go out and break the law, but you're treating this like the Cal DoJ has a mic and camera setup near your workbench.

They don’t need a Mic and camera you already told them on paper lol dumbass

 

[gorgothmog]

They don’t need a Mic and camera you already told them on paper lol dumbass

If you think I somehow gave away a secret that the Cal DoJ isn't aware of... you've got bigger problems. AB 1263 is designed exactly the way it is on purpose. Soooooooo tired of this. I am just curious to see the next cliff you want to walk off....

 

[909gunner]

If you think I somehow gave away a secret that the Cal DoJ isn't aware of... you've got bigger problems. AB 1263 is designed exactly the way it is on purpose. Soooooooo tired of this. I am just curious to see the next cliff you want to walk off....

You are clearly walking to the edge by testing the grey murky waters
Have fun drowning

 

[michael777]

I think both sides of this argument have a valid point. But it’s definitely a grey area and with California they’re really good at setting traps. All the more reason for everyone to pack up and leave.

 

[gorgothmog]

You are clearly walking to the edge by testing the grey murky waters
Have fun drowning

No. For some strange reason you expect a black and white, clearly defined statute or regulation with borders around SSE that grants gun owners clear expectations of the law. We would all love that. We all deserve that. However, Newscum and the gun grabbers won't have that. It's too nuanced, too complicated, and you don't want the uncertainty. Fine. I can appreciate that. Just stop pushing your own distorted interpretations on what is clearly a VERY complicated issue that is taking more persuasion and logical reasoning than one would normally think necessary to convince you that you are in a gray area... and that you should just enjoy it until they decide to shut it off.

 

[gorgothmog]

I'm saying without an actual change in law, the CADOJ could start enforcement of something they now deem illegal. The "may" is permissive and purposefully gray. In my prior dealings, USDOJ cleared practices via business review letters. They later flip flopped without any material changes in law or circumstances other than new leadership being installed at the USDOJ.

I would venture to guess the US DoJ swings far more wildly than the Cal DoJ. We know where the latter stands on almost anything gun related.

 

[909gunner]

No. For some strange reason you expect a black and white, clearly defined statute or regulation with borders around SSE that grants gun owners clear expectations of the law. We would all love that. We all deserve that. However, Newscum and the gun grabbers won't have that. It's too nuanced, too complicated, and you don't want the uncertainty. Fine. I can appreciate that. Just stop pushing your own distorted interpretations on what is clearly a VERY complicated issue that is taking more persuasion and logical reasoning than one would normally think necessary to convince you that you are in a gray area... and that you should just enjoy it until they decide to shut it off.

Personally I’d rather live my life in the clear waters then the grey murky water just my decision and as stated in the beginning this is just a rant
not to be taken as legal advice on both sides
Appreciate you finally get what I was saying
I’m no lawyer and none of this is legal advise just like a call to doj wouldn’t be I was stating since you are so confident in your grey area just call and see what they say. I did it. And gave them an ear full because they didn’t give a definite fact. I’d like to hear what they tell you guys doing this.

 

[gorgothmog]

Personally I’d rather live my life in the clear waters then the grey murky water just my decision and as stated in the beginning this is just a rant
not to be taken as legal advice on both sides
Appreciate you finally get what I was saying
I’m no lawyer and none of this is legal advise just like a call to doj wouldn’t be I was stating since you are so confident in your grey area just call and see what they say. I did it. And gave them an ear full because they didn’t give a definite fact. I’d like to hear what they tell you guys doing this.

California legislates shadows, treachery, and downstream liability when it comes to gun law. Your fears aren't illogical. They are formed in logical thought, and the non-answers you got from them are the ones I would expect. However, logic and law aren't always interchangeable, especially when it comes to something as politically divisive as gun control. If you lived in Switzerland you'd find a bunch of gun laws that actually made sense. The laws are clear and easy to follow. Frictionless tiered shall-issue licensing structures. So yeah buddy, I get it.

 

[michael777]

Look at all the big corporations that have packed up and left. They are multimillionaire and billion dollar companies. They have the best minds money can buy and they all decided it was too risky and too expensive to do business in California. Wells Fargo, chevron, Charles Schwab, playboy, in n out, Hewlett Packard, Tesla, space x, twitter, blue diamond almonds, anheuser Busch, Yamaha, oracle, palantir, and the list goes on and on…

And guess what? Who does California hate the most? You. The gun owner. Just look at all these crazy laws and it’s not hard to understand. You’re not welcome here. You’re not wanted. You’re all just private individuals. If huge billion dollar corporations have left what chance do you stand?

 

[five.five-six]

If it was illegal, he would not say it “may be illegal.” He would say it is illegal.

Or It may be illegal under some conditions and legal under other conditions. What are those conditions? They are not explicitly defined. It is perfectly reasonable for some people to be hesitant about using the SSE. Even if it makes you sad or angry or click the ignore button.

 

[five.five-six]

You are clearly walking to the edge by testing the grey murky waters
Have fun drowning

Here’s the thing. I honestly hope nobody goes to jail over strictly a SSE conversion…. But we really need a test case and I’m not willing to volunteer.

 

[five.five-six]

That's a good question, but the simple truth is that no one yet knows the answer.

You can get a good idea of the limits of how DOJ can broadly opine on the question by reading the text of 11CCR5477. That regulation prohibits the removal of a "Bullet Button" from a BBRAW. Interestingly, once a BBRAW was registered as an "Assault Weapon", there is nothing explicit in the statute that requires the "Bullet Button." Once the weapon is registered as an "Assault Weapon" it can lawfully be possessed with all "Assault Weapon" features. The statute doesn't treat "Bullet Button" weapons any differently. This is the first recorded instance where DOJ has taken the position that changing a weapon's configuration creates a "new" weapon from the "old" weapon. Here is the text in 11CCR5477 where they purport to do just that: "Any alteration to the release mechanism converts the assault weapon into a different weapon from the one that was registered." They resolved the "Bullet Button" disparity in the statute by taking the position that if you remove the "Bullet Button" you no longer have a "Registered" Assault Weapon, you have an "Unregistered" Assault Weapon.

If changing the magazine release (a peripheral part not affecting the fire control mechanism) can produce the "Manufacture" of a new weapon, then it's hard to argue that changing the slide and barrel (which do affect fire control) would not produce the same result.

But the key here is that DOJ cannot make law. But they they can argue what actions amount to a breach of the law. A court has to decide upon the merits of their arguments and that has not yet occurred. Until it does no one can give a meaningful answer to your question.

Exactly. The executive does not have the power to write or modify laws, that is the domaine of the legislature. At issue it that the judiciary doesn’t always seem to understand this. Kafka’s “the trial” touches on this extensively.

I do feel fairly confident that I haven't altered the magnetic properties of the mag catch on any of my BBRAWs

 

[Hit Factor]

Remember the guys who sat back and refused to order magazines during Freedom Week because they were sure that someday the DOJ would come around and throw them in jail? I bet the OP was one of those guys.

 

[909gunner]

Exactly. The executive does not have the power to write or modify laws, that is the domaine of the legislature. At issue it that the judiciary doesn’t always seem to understand this. Kafka’s “the trial” touches on this extensively.

I do feel fairly confident that I haven't altered the magnetic properties of the mag catch on any of my BBRAWs

Federal government gave each state the power to create bans and regulations for their own state and they could put you in jail just for that it’s not the law you need to worry about it’s the states bans or regulations that’s why those are always are most of the time convicted with a misdemeanor