FRS-15 Ban States "Featureless" AR

[wesser1]

I may be pulling this out of my ass, but I thought that there was a certain threshold on parts commonality. You'd be removing two parts entirely (buffer tube, end plate) and you'd have to rework the rear takedown pin detent spring (which is normally held in by the end plate).

Is this in SB281? I'm curious if there is wording that dictates when something is no longer a "copycat." From what I understood, this term is so vaguely used that no one has any idea what law enforcement would determine to be a copycat. I expect it is whatever looks scary.

 

[gmkoh]

Is this in SB281? I'm curious if there is wording that dictates when something is no longer a "copycat." From what I understood, this term is so vaguely used that no one has any idea what law enforcement would determine to be a copycat. I expect it is whatever looks scary.

Copycat is well defined but has nothing to do with being an actual copy of anything. They used the term purely for politics.

A copycat firearm is any centerfire semi auto accepting a detachable mag and has two of the following 3 features: Folding stock (collapsible is OK), flash suppressor (muzzle brake is OK) and a grenade or flare launcher.

That's it. period

now the definition of "copy" (which I think you meant) is vague and is vaguely defined in the AG's opinion form 2010. A copy is a "sort of replica" of a named banned firearm (the list of 45). But according to the AG the cosmetics are not the only part of being a copy- a largely similar function is included. So presumably it doesn't have to look exactly like a firearm on the list if it functions the same. It can even be a different caliber, if I remember right. Now, since there are only basically 3 or so different ways a semi auto works, and there is a type of each on the banned list- what does that mean?
More confusing- a colt sporter HBar is exempted- not even regulated- but it looks and operates exactly like an AR-15 ("cause it is one- only with a heavy barrel) The mini 14 is exempted unless it was the folding stock model- but the mini operates almost exactly like a banned M-14/MIA. So there can be a huge problem with interpretation- and the AG's memo was just an opinion, not a law, nor as far as I know tested in court.

Makes my head hurt....

 

[gmkoh]

SMDUB: I've always wondered how exactly 'pistol grip' is defined by CA and others. If its a separate projection from the stock or is it defined by angle? Easy to build a stock w/o a separate projection just connect the buttstock to the bottom of the grip - sort of like the add on stocks to old lugers and browning hipowers (or the above listed fwb modification.)

Calif defines a pistol grip as any grip which projects below the trigger such that the web between the trigger finger and the index finger is below the trigger- or something very close to that.

 

[Brooklyn]

I may be pulling this out of my ass, but I thought that there was a certain threshold on parts commonality. You'd be removing two parts entirely (buffer tube, end plate) and you'd have to rework the rear takedown pin detent spring (which is normally held in by the end plate).

Could be.

But if we had a lower which could not mate within ar upper then it could never be an ar lower could it? It could take ar mags as they are standardized under NATO and still be not an ar.

We may be able to do as you suggest. But it would seem that we must be able to make another nodular platform since modular is not a banned feature. Now I realize that not taking at uppers is a bad thing. But .... Well how much rework would it take to make very similar uppers and lower sets that are not in many way shape form ar copies.

I hope this is not necessary of course...

 

[Pilot7576]

is this considered a "normal" long arm in md after oct 1?...ie cash and carry?

Pilot7576

 

[Echo]

Am I the only one who thinks it looks cool....? :\

 

[Hopalong]

Is this in SB281? I'm curious if there is wording that dictates when something is no longer a "copycat." From what I understood, this term is so vaguely used that no one has any idea what law enforcement would determine to be a copycat. I expect it is whatever looks scary.

This was nothing to do with SB281 "copycat" language directly. I was talking about a way to make an AR-like lower that didn't qualify as a copy of an AR-15, as defined in the regulated guns section. In essence, making a non-regulated AR-like lower.

 

[Ab_Normal]

Some of the answers you all seek are in the 'SB281 and beltfeds' thread.

 

[Ab_Normal]

Already out there The guy's name is Alan Zitta He started making AR pistols back in the late 80's Sold the right to some company Can't remember the name Now they make side folding AR'S GOOGLE IT He was featured in an AR book I had years ago

Alan Zitta actually was using somebody else's design for his ZM line of rifles. Para Ordnance is now the one making those models.

 

[frogman68]

Am I the only one who thinks it looks cool....? :\

nope I like it

sending a email to see if any are available

 

[Vile Shadow]

Gun Manufacturers are going to come up with something. Why not. If it works make it happen.

That thing is uglier than sin. Thankfully unlike Kalifornia pistol grips aren't verboten here.

 

[Boom Boom]

Am I the only one who thinks it looks cool....? :\

Nope. I like it. Only obvious improvement I would want is a much better cheek rest.

 

[Markp]

You do know that the AR-15 platform is specifically banned by name under SB281, right? So there won't be a workaround to the law come Oct 1 as long as the lower is an AR-15 lower.

No the platform is NOT banned, ONLY semi-automatic AR-15 rifles and carbines are banned. If it's not a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle/carbine, it's NOT banned. The law does not say the platform is banned at all. Where do you get that from? It's very clear, it applies only to rifles/carbines. If it's not a rifle or a carbine, it's not banned.

So, yes, there will be a work around, and that's just too damn bad ain't it.

You can build a firearm other than a rifle, to include a pistol, AOW, SBR, and a non-handgun/non-rifle long arm. They might not like it, but that's how they wrote the law. It's very narrow. Also for those people with the cash, F/A lowers will not be banned either.

Mark

 

[SWO Daddy]

I was wondering how long it would take to do exactly this. Looking at an older model FWB2602 thumbhole stock its seemed so simple. On that version the stock is carried by the grip. There is a little arm & bolt that attach it to the back of the receiver to make it a thumbhole but that could be done away with. (FWIW, later versions went to true pistol grips to make the grip more adjustable for angle and such.)

I've always wondered how exactly 'pistol grip' is defined by CA and others. If its a separate projection from the stock or is it defined by angle? Easy to build a stock w/o a separate projection just connect the buttstock to the bottom of the grip - sort of like the add on stocks to old lugers and browning hipowers (or the above listed fwb modification.)

Two words: bore axis. On the gun in the picture the bore almost sits on top of the hand Grip whereas it's a couple inches higher on an AR.

 

[OldLawman]

All of that for an inferior operating system ? In a state that will have a 10-rd mag capacity limit ? What's the point ? Sorry, but while I own two AR-platforms, the .223 I would grab is either one of my Sig 556 rifles, one of my Steyr AUGs, or move up to a real rifle and one of my .308s. All this racing around for ARs makes me laugh. Since no more AR receivers after Oct. 1, I suggest start looking for different rifles.

Or build a real rifle that fits within the new law as written now - a Tanker Garand. Comfortably below the capacity limit, no detachable magazine, much more effective caliber(s).

Obviously IMHO.

 

[zoostation]

Meh, I'll take an HBAR instead and deal with a few more ounces of barrel weight.

 

[Vile Shadow]

Meh, I'll take an HBAR instead and deal with a few more ounces of barrel weight.

Me too. And those should still be legal in 6 months.

 

[jcbvh]

Am I the only one who thinks it looks cool....? :\

No!