SSE FIREARMS

[909gunner]

You want one of us to call the DOJ and ask them if something they have never said is illegal is illegal?

For real this time. I’m done engaging. You are beyond hope.

Then call them and ask since they make the “rules” they should give you a definitive answer

 

[909gunner]

Remember, pistol, braces were once legal. Then they tried to ban them because people were shoulder them. Then they said we can have them and shoulder intermediately and they recently came out saying they’re still charging people for shoulder brace as it violates nfa sbr regardless of the last argument. With that being said go ahead and test it.
They can still arrest you on bs just have to figure it out in court

 

[five.five-six]

I think you speak nonsense have nothing to contribute to this thread.

No. Applying logic or reason to California gun laws is nonsense and contributes nothing to this thread.


In your defense, it’s an easy trap to fall into. I’ve done it myself several times.

 

[five.five-six]

You want one of us to call the DOJ and ask them if something they have never said is illegal is illegal?

For real this time. I’m done engaging. You are beyond hope.

California State Attorney General Rob Banta has published official state documents which conflict with your post.

 

[909gunner]

California State Attorney General Rob Banta has published official state documents which conflict with your post.

Post it

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

California State Attorney General Rob Banta has published official state documents which conflict with your post.

Again, as I have asked multiple times in this thread…prove it. Show us the documents where the AG says that conversion of an SSE to semi-auto is definitively a crime.

 

[five.five-six]

This thread is the exact reason why there’s ambiguity

Post it

I already did. Back like on page 3

The conflict is you stated it’s legal and bonta says it may not be legal. Those are not the same. that is a conflict.


I think you need to take a step back. The laws are written like garbage. They are all impossible to understand so don’t be getting upset that people have different understandings of them than you do.

It’s perfectly reasonable, at this point, question wether or not SSE conversions could cause a person legal trouble.

I think it’s unreasonable to state categorically It cannot cause legal trouble. I think we really need a test case and I’m not willing to volunteer.

 

[gorgothmog]

• 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.

This means you have created a gun that is not approved on their handgun roster
Also, because they approved their single shot exemption. The only thing you are avoiding is an assault charge. Not the manufacturing charge.

Man, you are soooo exhausting. My first post, which was numbered, addresses just about every paranoid thing you've said. I will add the following:

1. Everything in there is "may" interpret.

2. The intentions of those words carry a lot of weight in courtrooms. They are vague and make paranoid schizos out of law abiding gun owners.

3. Cal DoJ effectively controls the spigot for SSE. They issue guidance through legal memos to FFLs.

4. If they are changing the status of SSE pistols, how or if they are sold, they will need to issue new guidance to FFLs into the form of memos and bulletins.

5. Judges do not take kindly to arbitrary and capricious enforcement. Due process and notice must be given.

6. If and when it changes, places like 2nd Amendment Zone will likely sound the alarm bells. I would expect that they have some sort of standing on that end, and might be able to sue.

7. Once again, the gray area is where California gets its power. By providing no safe harbors in regulation or statute they keep you guessing.

8. The Cal DoJ will send out a memo if they want to explicitly change the process.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

This thread is the exact reason why there’s ambiguity

I already did. Back like on page 3

The conflict is you stated it’s legal and bonta says it may not be legal. Those are not the same. that is a conflict.


I think you need to take a step back. The laws are written like garbage. They are all impossible to understand so don’t be getting upset that people have different understandings of them than you do.

It’s perfectly reasonable, at this point, question wether or not SSE conversions could cause a person legal trouble.

I think it’s unreasonable to state categorically It cannot cause legal trouble. I think we really need a test case and I’m not willing to volunteer.

Jesus Christ. This was addressed 3 pages ago. Words have meanings, even if you’re too thick to understand them.

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

How are at least 2 of you too stupid to understand that?

I agree with the other dude. You have nothing of value to contribute to this discussion.

I’m putting you on ignore, as well.

 

[paintballdad]

Serious question, really. Since some of the comments on this thread state that removing the sled and replacing the barrel on a SSE2 pistol constitutes "manufacturing an unsafe handgun", would a roster compliant pistol that has the MDM removed, slide & barrel replaced with a non CLI version also constitute manufacturing an unsafe handgun? Would everyone that has modified their CA compliant pistol subject to possible prosecution?

 

[RickD427]

Since all you guys are so confident, I urge any of one of your pussies call the DOJ and ask them yourself in a way that you were thinking about doing this. See what they say if it’s legal or if you have bigger balls, just say you already did it since it’s legal in your head.
Don’t be a motherless
I did this exact thing when the pistol brace bull first started and I argued with them over the phone doj and atf
Since they couldn’t give me a definitive answer, I was under the impression that they themselves don’t even know the bs they are trying to pass so if so facto bet NON of you will do this
Since you are all caguns lawyer you should ban together and call them

Don't waste your time. You will not get a meaningful answer from DOJ. They're not in the business of providing free legal counsel. You may get an answer from a low-level employee trying to be helpful, but any such answer is not going to have any binding effect on the DOJ's conduct.

 

[adrkwan]

Serious question, really. Since some of the comments on this thread state that removing the sled and replacing the barrel on a SSE2 pistol constitutes "manufacturing an unsafe handgun", would a roster compliant pistol that has the MDM removed, slide & barrel replaced with a non CLI version also constitute manufacturing an unsafe handgun? Would everyone that has modified their CA compliant pistol subject to possible prosecution?

It may be illegal depending on your reading of the other portions of the statute.

31910. (a) As used in this part, “unsafe handgun” means any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:

(2) For a pistol:

[...]

(D) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all centerfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a chamber load indicator.

(E) Commencing July 1, 2022, for all centerfire or rimfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a magazine disconnect mechanism if it has a detachable magazine.

 

[adrkwan]

Don't waste your time. You will not get a meaningful answer from DOJ. They're not in the business of providing free legal counsel. You may get an answer from a low-level employee trying to be helpful, but any such answer is not going to have any binding effect on the DOJ's conduct.

Yup. Even if you get an advisory opinion, it would be of limited use. Courts are not bound by them. Even the agency itself could flip its position with little or no notice.

 

[weaverftw]

Serious question, really. Since some of the comments on this thread state that removing the sled and replacing the barrel on a SSE2 pistol constitutes "manufacturing an unsafe handgun", would a roster compliant pistol that has the MDM removed, slide & barrel replaced with a non CLI version also constitute manufacturing an unsafe handgun? Would everyone that has modified their CA compliant pistol subject to possible prosecution?

That’s what I asked and I think because it does NOT that also lends credence to the other side of the argument. Also they appear to be making more logical arguments and thought out rebuttals. The “may” language sells it for me; they wouldn’t use that word if they really thought it was illegal, and they would be prosecuting people.

Hope a few of you put down the whiskey (or if sober, pick it up and pour a few fingers), take a deep breath, and try to remember most of us are on the same side here, just trying to understand the clusterF- of laws/regs we live with amongst an environment that is admittedly and intentionally confusing.

 

[gorgothmog]

Yup. Even if you get an advisory opinion, it would be of limited use. Courts are not bound by them. Even the agency itself could flip its position with little or no notice.

I disagree with this. Due notice would need to be afforded here. It would otherwise weaken any litigation or prosecution substantially.

 

[gorgothmog]

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.

 

[909gunner]

This thread is the exact reason why there’s ambiguity

I already did. Back like on page 3

The conflict is you stated it’s legal and bonta says it may not be legal. Those are not the same. that is a conflict.


I think you need to take a step back. The laws are written like garbage. They are all impossible to understand so don’t be getting upset that people have different understandings of them than you do.

It’s perfectly reasonable, at this point, question wether or not SSE conversions could cause a person legal trouble.

I think it’s unreasonable to state categorically It cannot cause legal trouble. I think we really need a test case and I’m not willing to volunteer.

That’s exactly what I’m saying in a nutshell
nd fyi I started this saying it was not legal

 

[adrkwan]

I disagree with this. Due notice would need to be afforded here. It would otherwise weaken any litigation or prosecution substantially.

Having been through this a few times with the antitrust division at USDOJ, it won't help you with litigation.

 

[RickD427]

Serious question, really. Since some of the comments on this thread state that removing the sled and replacing the barrel on a SSE2 pistol constitutes "manufacturing an unsafe handgun", would a roster compliant pistol that has the MDM removed, slide & barrel replaced with a non CLI version also constitute manufacturing an unsafe handgun? Would everyone that has modified their CA compliant pistol subject to possible prosecution?

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.

 

[gorgothmog]

Having been through this a few times with the antitrust division at USDOJ, it won't help you with litigation.

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.