SSE FIREARMS

[AR15barrels]

Back to what I said before, how do you prove ownership? A receipt? A Dros? Those can all be scanned doctored. Even if they are not they don't prove you are the owner. They just show at one time you bought that gun or a DROS was submitted. Doesn't prove you are the current owner.

I once logged into DES at an FFL (that I do not work at) where I was a seller doing a PPT and printed out my approved op-law DROS to prove to the FFL doing the transfer that the stripped semi-auto AR-15 lower I was attempting to sell via PPT was indeed a semi-auto pistol.
Their policy is only to PPT fully assembled compliant semi-auto pistols as semi-auto pistols.
They accepted the DROS that they saw me login and print on their printer as proof to get around their policy of not doing a semi-auto pistol PPT of a stripped receiver.

 

[Deleted member 11316]

GEEEZZZZZZ... lay people should not try to figure out legal stuff.... It'll make your head hurt, and according to St. Benitez, "make an angel swear"!!

I'm guessing this was all "triggered" by the new box(es) on the 4473, which apply SPECIFICALLY to "governmental adjacent" employee purchases of off roster guns (AKA "unsafe handguns")!!!

You have to learn how to parse, reference, and cross reference paragraphs, sections, and subsections, and if you do THAT, you will discover that unless you are listed in 32000(b), especially Paragraph (6)(A-V), PC 32000 doesn't even apply to YOU, the average citizen!

Notably, for your friendly neighborhood FFL, 32000(c)(1) specifies that they:
"shall not process the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun between a person who has obtained an unsafe handgun pursuant to an exemption specified in paragraph (6) or (7) of subdivision (b) and a person who is not exempt from the requirements of this section."
In plain Engrish, if someone in that list of "special" exempt employees tries to sell to the average Joe, the FFL should process the sale or transfer...

32000 does seem to compel the DoJ to keep a list of guns sold to those ((6)(A-V)) "special" government adjacent employees who get to buy off rosters like LEO does (as specified within the code section), but are PROHIBITED from reselling said "unsafe guns" to the average citizen (unlike LEO).

I'm still unsure why any of the "special" employees would not know they can't resell these "unsafe" guns, and would admit to violating the prohibitions thereto by doing a PPT...

I'm not sure how any of this intersects with SSE, if at all... and all the FUDing seems completely unwarranted once the law is parsed and disected! I did find an interesting page with an actual legal opinion by an atty, and to me it seems to make the SSE "exemption" rather problematic with the amount of modification required to meet the requirements, or to revert such modification, but I'm sure a different attorney could come to a different conclusion for a sufficient amount of money!

Understanding California's Unsafe Handgun Act and Single-Shot Exemption - California Firearms Lawyer | The Davis Law Firm

California’s Unsafe Handgun Act, enacted in 2001, is a cornerstone of the state’s firearm regulation framework, designed to enhance public safety by

www.calgunlawyers.com

PS - If you aren't convinced that the laws are deliberately written to confuse and obfuscate things so badly that no one really knows what is going on (or worse yet to leave gaping "holes" to creatively inspire tyrants and attorneys), this oughta do it....

I don’t find it confusing at all. If it was illegal there’d be a law saying so. There isn’t, so it isn’t a restricted action or activity. Pretty black and white

 

[Kyle737s]

If that’s the case, why doesn’t a a shop who builds single shots just build it it’s already registered to their store and then they converted before sale to you. That’s because they don’t wanna risk their license.
If you wanna play with your life, trying to argue the meaning of words go ahead it’s your life not mine me personally I don’t have thousands of dollars to fight a court case so each their own I guess
I’ll just keep buying semi auto pistols with no grey area and be at peace knowing my dog nor anyone from my family will be shot in potential raid
You can also buy an oil burner once you put crack inside it is now a cracked pipe with paraphernalia where you could be charged

Brother with all due respect, please learn how stuff actually works before you try make an argument because at this point you're just spreading complete misinformation.

 

[gorgothmog]

If that’s the case, why doesn’t a a shop who builds single shots just build it it’s already registered to their store and then they converted before sale to you. That’s because they don’t wanna risk their license.
If you wanna play with your life, trying to argue the meaning of words go ahead it’s your life not mine me personally I don’t have thousands of dollars to fight a court case so each their own I guess
I’ll just keep buying semi auto pistols with no grey area and be at peace knowing my dog nor anyone from my family will be shot in potential raid
You can also buy an oil burner once you put crack inside it is now a cracked pipe with paraphernalia where you could be charged

Seriously, I'm tired of all the people that don't understand the freaking law and make everyone paranoid. Trust the FFLs, they have the lawyers that will tell everyone when things change. Until then, enjoy what they can get for you via SSE. Or go be a Fudd somewhere else.

Brother with all due respect, please learn how stuff actually works before you try make an argument because at this point you're just spreading complete misinformation.

Take it from Kyle737, aka 2A Zone, the one and only.

 

[Kyle737s]

Seriously, I'm tired of all the people that don't understand the freaking law and make everyone paranoid. Trust the FFLs, they have the lawyers that will tell everyone when things change. Until then, enjoy what they can get for you via SSE. Or go be a Fudd somewhere else.

Take it from Kyle737, aka 2A Zone, the one and only.

Well I’m gls armory but close enough haha! We have lawyers, and direct contact with the atf and doj. Obviously not every shop is going to agree on stuff but we do this stuff for a living so it’s in our best interest to know what the correct laws are!

 

[gorgothmog]

Well I’m gls armory but close enough haha! We have lawyers, and direct contact with the atf and doj. Obviously not every shop is going to agree on stuff but we do this stuff for a living so it’s in our best interest to know what the correct laws are!

Sorry about that pal! Still heard great things about you, though. Hopefully I can visit your shop, sometime.

 

[Kyle737s]

Sorry about that pal! Still heard great things about you, though. Hopefully I can visit your shop, sometime.

All good brother! Glad to hear the good words and we would love for you to visit and check us out!

 

[Zeekari]

If the cops or the doj wanted to be s they could get you on manufacturing unsafe firearms.

 

[gorgothmog]

If the cops or the doj wanted to be s they could get you on manufacturing unsafe firearms.

Have you read nothing in this whole thread? There are FFLs that have chimed in here. Read the lawyer AMA, there's a section in there, too. Literal experts have shared professional opinions in here. At this point there is enough feedback in here from credible sources, and you talking out of your depth only fuels paranoia.

 

[weaverftw]

Have you read nothing in this whole thread? There are FFLs that have chimed in here. Read the lawyer AMA, there's a section in there, too. Literal experts have shared professional opinions in here. At this point there is enough feedback in here for me to tell you to STFU because you don't know what you're talking about.

Go ahead and refinish your slide with Cerakote instead of the OEM DLC, and enjoy your prison sentence for manufacturing an unsafe handgun

 

[Hit Factor]

If the cops or the doj wanted to be s they could get you on manufacturing unsafe firearms.

You make an excellent argument here. The only thing that’s preventing you from being correct is the facts, the law, and common sense.

 

[OlderThanDirt]

It would be entertaining to watch a prosecutor argue that your SSE semiautomatic is manufacturing an unsafe handgun when the same firearm can be purchased by a LEO, purchased from a LEO via PPT or brought to California by a new resident. Don’t even need to get into SSE 1.0 and 2.0.

It gets even funnier when you look at firearms like a Sig P226 that were pre-roster, have fallen off the roster, were SSE, modified to remove some roster features, or a PPT of the same basic non-roster firearm.

 

[Zeekari]

You make an excellent argument here. The only thing that’s preventing you from being correct is the facts, the law, and common sense.

I think what a lot of people forget here is that this is California. They will prosecute and jail whoever they want. They intentionally leave the law vague so they can get away with it. If you take a firearm that is ment to shoot one bullet and need to have another inserted manually (sse) and make it magazine fed semi auto, I’m sure doj (idiot rob bonta) would consider that manufacturing. I’m not saying I agree with it. I’m just saying if they wanted to they could probably do it.

 

[adrkwan]

If the cops or the doj wanted to be s they could get you on manufacturing unsafe firearms.

If the cops or the DOJ wanted to be s, they could probably get you on a variety of charges aside from manufacturing? Seems like a lot of effort for a misdemeanor.

 

[Zeekari]

If the cops or the DOJ wanted to be s, they could probably get you on a variety of charges aside from manufacturing? Seems like a lot of effort for a misdemeanor.

True that. But doesn’t mean the doj wont slap that on. They can always add charges later.

 

[RickD427]

I think what a lot of people forget here is that this is California. They will prosecute and jail whoever they want. They intentionally leave the law vague so they can get away with it. If you take a firearm that is ment to shoot one bullet and need to have another inserted manually (sse) and make it magazine fed semi auto, I’m sure doj (idiot rob bonta) would consider that manufacturing. I’m not saying I agree with it. I’m just saying if they wanted to they could probably do it.

If the cops or the DOJ wanted to be s, they could probably get you on a variety of charges aside from manufacturing? Seems like a lot of effort for a misdemeanor.

Gents,

Several years ago the DOJ was telegraphing an intent to pursue a test case on the "Manufacturing an Unsafe Handgun" issue. That was when SSE was a big topic, and the Broughman v Carver case laid out a road map for such a test case to proceed. But since that time the Chief of the DOJ Firearms unit was reassigned the the Horse Racing Board, and the Special Agent who was her primary henchman in the effort left the DOJ and went to the San Francisco PD. The current firearms staff have their hands full with Duncan v Bonta and a number of other firearms cases.

But there are 59 charging agencies in the state and any of the County D.A.s could bring such a case without need of clearance from DOJ (actually any city prosecutor could file misdemeanor PC 32000 charges). Remember that it was the Orange County D.A. that bought us the new crime of "Attempted Possession of an Assault Weapon" in his handling of People v Nguyen.

Mr. "Adrkwan" is right on point about PC 32000 being a misdemeanor. That makes pursuing a criminal case kinda difficult for a number of procedural reasons, in addition to the lack of political capital produced from a misdemeanor conviction. But every good prosecutor knows how to turn a misdemeanor into a felony, and the practice of SSE conversions lends itself to such a felony treatment. California law has a number of "Quirks". One of these is the crime of Conspiracy. If two, or more, persons plan a crime, and one of them takes an overt step (which itself does not have to be illegal) toward the completion of the crime, then the separate crime of conspiracy is committed. Conspiracy is a felony regardless of the underlying crime. Conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony. Conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is a felony, and conspiracy to commit an infraction is a felony. You hardly ever see conspiracies to commit misdemeanors, or infractions, charged as felonies because of the unreasonableness of doing so (I learned as a young LEO that if the DDA chuckles when they review your case, you ain't getting a filing), but it has been done when a greater agenda calls for it.

It's not hard to wrap two people into an SSE "Unsafe Manufacturing" case, and that gets you a felony.

We're not going know if the SSE violates PC 32000 until there is a test case. All you're gonna have is a collection of personal opinions on the issue, and they ain't worth much. Don't look for DOJ to push the question while they're still working on Duncan and their other appellate cases.

I would remain a bit wary about the rogue county D.A. looking to make a name for themselves.

 

[gorgothmog]

Gents,

Several years ago the DOJ was telegraphing an intent to pursue a test case on the "Manufacturing an Unsafe Handgun" issue. That was when SSE was a big topic, and the Broughman v Carver case laid out a road map for such a test case to proceed. But since that time the Chief of the DOJ Firearms unit was reassigned the the Horse Racing Board, and the Special Agent who was her primary henchman in the effort left the DOJ and went to the San Francisco PD. The current firearms staff have their hands full with Duncan v Bonta and a number of other firearms cases.

But there are 59 charging agencies in the state and any of the County D.A.s could bring such a case without need of clearance from DOJ. Remember that it was the Orange County D.A. that bought us the new crime of "Attempted Possession of an Assault Weapon" in his handling of People v Nguyen.

Mr. "Adrkwan" is right on point about PC 32000 being a misdemeanor. That makes pursuing a criminal case kinda difficult for a number of procedural reasons, in addition to the lack of political capital produced from a misdemeanor conviction. But every good prosecutor knows how to turn a misdemeanor into a felony, and the practice of SSE conversions lends itself to such a felony treatment. California law has a number of "Quirks". One of these is the crime of Conspiracy. If two, or more, persons plan a crime, and one of them takes an overt step (which itself does not have to be illegal) toward the completion of the crime, then the separate crime of conspiracy is committed. Conspiracy is a felony regardless of the underlying crime. Conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony. Conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is a felony, and conspiracy to commit an infraction is a felony. You hardly ever see conspiracies to commit misdemeanors, or infractions, charged as felonies because of the unreasonableness of doing so (I learned as a young LEO that if the DDA chuckles when they review your case, you ain't getting a filing), but it has been done when a greater agenda calls for it.

It's not hard to wrap two people into an SSE "Unsafe Manufacturing" case, and that gets you a felony.

We're not going know if the SSE violates PC 32000 until there is a test case. All you're gonna have is a collection of personal opinions on the issue, and they ain't worth much. Don't look for DOJ to push the question while they're still working on Duncan and their other appellate cases.

I would remain a bit wary about the rogue county D.A. looking to make a name for themselves.

It would be an extremely shakey case, at best. On something like this, with the roster on the ropes via Boland, a court case could wind up clarifying the ambiguous laws that California relies on for its power of enforcement through fear and downstream risk. If a judge or panel of judges demands clarification from the Cal DoJ, things have a real possibility of going sideways for the gun grabbers. That's why there will never be a clean case. It will have to be prosecuted as an add-on charge.

 

[Zeekari]

Gents,

Several years ago the DOJ was telegraphing an intent to pursue a test case on the "Manufacturing an Unsafe Handgun" issue. That was when SSE was a big topic, and the Broughman v Carver case laid out a road map for such a test case to proceed. But since that time the Chief of the DOJ Firearms unit was reassigned the the Horse Racing Board, and the Special Agent who was her primary henchman in the effort left the DOJ and went to the San Francisco PD. The current firearms staff have their hands full with Duncan v Bonta and a number of other firearms cases.

But there are 59 charging agencies in the state and any of the County D.A.s could bring such a case without need of clearance from DOJ. Remember that it was the Orange County D.A. that bought us the new crime of "Attempted Possession of an Assault Weapon" in his handling of People v Nguyen.

Mr. "Adrkwan" is right on point about PC 32000 being a misdemeanor. That makes pursuing a criminal case kinda difficult for a number of procedural reasons, in addition to the lack of political capital produced from a misdemeanor conviction. But every good prosecutor knows how to turn a misdemeanor into a felony, and the practice of SSE conversions lends itself to such a felony treatment. California law has a number of "Quirks". One of these is the crime of Conspiracy. If two, or more, persons plan a crime, and one of them takes an overt step (which itself does not have to be illegal) toward the completion of the crime, then the separate crime of conspiracy is committed. Conspiracy is a felony regardless of the underlying crime. Conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony. Conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is a felony, and conspiracy to commit an infraction is a felony. You hardly ever see conspiracies to commit misdemeanors, or infractions, charged as felonies because of the unreasonableness of doing so (I learned as a young LEO that if the DDA chuckles when they review your case, you ain't getting a filing), but it has been done when a greater agenda calls for it.

It's not hard to wrap two people into an SSE "Unsafe Manufacturing" case, and that gets you a felony.

We're not going know if the SSE violates PC 32000 until there is a test case. All you're gonna have is a collection of personal opinions on the issue, and they ain't worth much. Don't look for DOJ to push the question while they're still working on Duncan and their other appellate cases.

I would remain a bit wary about the rogue county D.A. looking to make a name for themselves.

Great points. I’m not saying not to do or you will go to jail. I’m saying don’t be surprised if something changes down the road. We have to remember this is a the same state that made it illegal to carry you lawful ccw anyway on the state, cancelled their own aow rules, made it illegal to bring ammo into the state if purchased from another state, etc. they will do anything in the power to make people criminals except for the actual criminals.

 

[Hit Factor]

 

[Wolkenflieger]

There is a constellation of unreasonable "dead letter" laws in the books that will never be enforced, but are still there. A lot of these are "morality" laws, like the prohibition against spitting on the sidewalk, standing next to a lamp post past 5p, parking a hearse overnight on a residential street, etc. Oral and anal sex were only recently decriminalized not to mention recreational or even medical use of Cannabis in most states. Some states still have common-law marriage, which is pure insanity to me.

• Supreme Court Ruling: Lawrence v. Texas (2003) invalidated all state laws that criminalized consensual oral or anal sex between adults.

So if any of you engaged in "crimes against nature" before 2003, watch out!