George Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 It is legal as described and especially if the "Brake" is called a Brake by the Mfgr AND it is pinned in place. The bad list here are three specific items (pick any two) and consists of "Pistol Grip", "Detachable Magazine" and Flash Suppressor/Hider. Two of these bad boys, or more and your rifle is personnae non-gratae' (custom spelling) in CA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgnoyes Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Okay, thanks for the clarification! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbs007 Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Well check this out California, I think this will be the ticket. The U-15 Stock I'm not saying its pretty, but its better than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 The grip angle may be odd, but I am sure it can be acclimated to. Beats the frick outa' castle-nutting a 10 round mag in place, or wrestling with a mini ;-) Looks like we might just have a real winner in the California legal AR race. It also looks like it will be 100% competitive once the right mags are in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overkill Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Yeah, that stock looks like a real winner. Even the monster man grip is usable for 3-gun. As long as you dont go with too heavy a barrel you can still hold the gun with one hand while you swap mags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Religious Shooter Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Did "Jerry Brown" approve that stock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overkill Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 You know what's funny is the U-15 stock looks more "EBR" than the grip on a standard AR. And cosmetics are what got that gun in trouble to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gose Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 The U15 stocks looks promising, the only problem now is that it looks like the manufacturer submitted an early prototype to DOJ and they said it was still a thumbhole stock. I don't agree with that and the 58 DAs in CA might not agree either, but it is a slight turn-off for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overkill Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 The U15 stocks looks promising, the only problem now is that it looks like the manufacturer submitted an early prototype to DOJ and they said it was still a thumbhole stock.I don't agree with that and the 58 DAs in CA might not agree either, but it is a slight turn-off for me. Dont hold your breath waiting for the DOJ to bless something thats functional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gose Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 The U15 stocks looks promising, the only problem now is that it looks like the manufacturer submitted an early prototype to DOJ and they said it was still a thumbhole stock. I don't agree with that and the 58 DAs in CA might not agree either, but it is a slight turn-off for me. Dont hold your breath waiting for the DOJ to bless something thats functional. The problem isn't that I'm waiting for them to bless it, the problem is that they have already said that it is a thumbhole stock and therefor illegal to have on a rifle with a detachable magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipscbob Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 One of the best firearms attorneys in this area suggested publicly that we keep away from this whole offlist AR thing and specifically stay clear of ANY alternate stock/grip solutions with removable mags. I don't think it's worth being the test case in my county.....YMMV. At least speak to an attorney who has expertise in this area before jumping in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Another thought on CA legal rifle loophole maneuvering. What if bringing all this to the attention of the CA DOJ office winds up motivating them to do something stupid like rescind the existing AW registrations and retroactively ban them 100% outright in CA. That would be a real bummer! Remember, once the camels nose is under the tent, the camel is IN the tent. This maxim cuts both ways ;-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overkill Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 The U15 stocks looks promising, the only problem now is that it looks like the manufacturer submitted an early prototype to DOJ and they said it was still a thumbhole stock. I don't agree with that and the 58 DAs in CA might not agree either, but it is a slight turn-off for me. Dont hold your breath waiting for the DOJ to bless something thats functional. The problem isn't that I'm waiting for them to bless it, the problem is that they have already said that it is a thumbhole stock and therefor illegal to have on a rifle with a detachable magazine. They may have opined that in unofficial and semi-official communications, but the fact that they havent issued a ruling and distributed a bulletin to the 58 DA's saying "prosecute away" should tell you all you need to know about how they percieve their ability to make the case that its a thumbhole. When you compare the trigger/hand geometry of the U15 to the DOJ published picture of aceptible stocks its pretty obvious that its not "conspicously protruding", and when you compare the U15 to real thumb hole stocks its clear that the U15 distinctly lacks a "hole"...thumb or otherwise. People, even the one's too dumb to escape jury duty (perhaps especially the ones too dumb to escape jury duty) are pretty clear on what's a hole and what's not. And if an firearms expert explained to a Jury the function of a buffer tube and further explained that if you want the call the U15 a thumbhole then the buffer tube has to be a stock and that if its a stock you run afoul AFT rulings re: AR Pistols that dont consider the tube a stock cause if they did all the AR pistols would be short barreled rifles. At the end of the case I think the only "hole" in evidence would be the DA and the anti's at DOJ that set him up. Now, nobody wants to be the legal test pilot that breaks ground on this, but the fear of being that person is the tool the DOJ is counting on to advance their anti-gun agenda in the absence of a proper legal basis. Personally, I'd have no problem shooting a U15 build, but I sure as heck wouldent take it to a match in the Bay Area, Jurisdiction is everything in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gose Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 (edited) The U15 stocks looks promising, the only problem now is that it looks like the manufacturer submitted an early prototype to DOJ and they said it was still a thumbhole stock. I don't agree with that and the 58 DAs in CA might not agree either, but it is a slight turn-off for me. Dont hold your breath waiting for the DOJ to bless something thats functional. The problem isn't that I'm waiting for them to bless it, the problem is that they have already said that it is a thumbhole stock and therefor illegal to have on a rifle with a detachable magazine. They may have opined that in unofficial and semi-official communications, but the fact that they havent issued a ruling and distributed a bulletin to the 58 DA's saying "prosecute away" should tell you all you need to know about how they percieve their ability to make the case that its a thumbhole. When you compare the trigger/hand geometry of the U15 to the DOJ published picture of aceptible stocks its pretty obvious that its not "conspicously protruding", and when you compare the U15 to real thumb hole stocks its clear that the U15 distinctly lacks a "hole"...thumb or otherwise. People, even the one's too dumb to escape jury duty (perhaps especially the ones too dumb to escape jury duty) are pretty clear on what's a hole and what's not. And if an firearms expert explained to a Jury the function of a buffer tube and further explained that if you want the call the U15 a thumbhole then the buffer tube has to be a stock and that if its a stock you run afoul AFT rulings re: AR Pistols that dont consider the tube a stock cause if they did all the AR pistols would be short barreled rifles. At the end of the case I think the only "hole" in evidence would be the DA and the anti's at DOJ that set him up. Now, nobody wants to be the legal test pilot that breaks ground on this, but the fear of being that person is the tool the DOJ is counting on to advance their anti-gun agenda in the absence of a proper legal basis. Personally, I'd have no problem shooting a U15 build, but I sure as heck wouldent take it to a match in the Bay Area, Jurisdiction is everything in this case. AFAIK, the manufacturer sent a prototype to the DOJ and received a written mail back stating that they considered it to be a thumb hole stock, so I would call that pretty official. I don't agree with them, but the fact that a prosecuting DA would have that letter to wave in front of a jury will make me stay way clear of that stock. YMMV. And the DOJ has no power to "outright ban everything". They could add to the AW list, but that would open up a registration period, which they will never do, since that would mean that another 75000 ARs and AKs would get registered. We will know more in one month, it might end up being a very interesting Christmas Edited November 30, 2006 by gose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 And the DOJ has no power to "outright ban everything" They don't have to ban anything, they only have to make waves to the politicos until one of them picks up the banner and runs with it. Then something would happen that can't be predicted, but most certainly won't be fun, or in our best interests :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speculatorking Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) Can anyone tell me which if any of the AR-15 style rifles are legal in Calif? I was thinking about one of the new M&P-15 rifles. Thanks Edited November 12, 2008 by speculatorking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Start here: http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf The law is pretty ambiguous/messed up... for AR lowers, you may be able to buy any that aren't on this list.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chendersby Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Short answer is none of them are legal with a pistol grip and detachable magazine. You can buy an M&P stripped lower in Calif but if you put it together it becomes illegal. I suggest going to calguns forums and search off-list lowers. There are people who claim they have a way around the ban but be aware it is real gray area stuff and Calif DOJ has not approved any of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trail3 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 For all information on Ca legal AR's go to www.calguns.net. The forums section can give you information on which lowers are legal and availabe, and what configurations are legal, they even have a flow chart you can download as to what is legal and not, along with a list of dealers selling them. There are many more dealers now that are selling them all over the state. But the availablity of the lowers is limited due to the election and the price has increased. I went with Stag 3 years ago when we only had "2 weeks". About 6 months ago I got a Spikes lower that is marked 22LR to go with my 22 upper, my favorite gun now. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbs007 Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Buy an Off-List Lower (OLL), put all the evil features you want (semi-auto only) and install a bullet-button with a 10 round magazine and go out shooting. Most, not all but most of LE in California are aware of what is legal now. Like they said, www.calguns.net will set you straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grywlfbg Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 (edited) There's an interactive tool here: http://calnra.com/cgi-bin/flowchart.cgi But yeah, hang out on calguns.net for awhile - we'll tell you everything you need to know As an example, here's my cali-legal competition rifle: Edited November 15, 2008 by grywlfbg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now