Closed AMA AMA is Live — Matthew Cubeiro, Partner at Michel & Associates / CRPA | California 2A Law & Litigation

[Matt Cubeiro]

Hi Mr. Cubeiro,

I would be interested on your take with the future of the radian ramjet. It's perhaps one of the most popular CA compliant compensator/barrel options for us, and I've been hearing concerns it might be banned if they release their lineup of compatible suppressors.

If they were to be banned, what would that mean for current ramjet owners/users, and would it actually have any means of enforcement if there's a grandfather clause.

Thank you for volunteering your time and sharing your expertise with us!

The product in and of itself isnt really an issue. The issue is when installed, does that make it an "assault weapon" under CA law. Here is the relevant DOJ regulation-

(rr) “Threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer” means a threaded barrel able to accept a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer, and includes a threaded barrel with any one of those features already mounted on it. Some firearms have “lugs” in lieu of threads on the end of the barrel. These lugs are used to attach some versions of silencers. For purposes of this definition a lugged barrel is the same as a threaded barrel.

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 5471

 

[Matt Cubeiro]

I would like to know how the CADOJ can limit the amount of guns you legally purchased from being legally sold if you never make a profit.

Technically the legislator is responsible here. CA DOJ is merely the enforcer.

(a) As used in Section 31815 and in Division 6 (commencing with Section 26500) of Title 4, “infrequent” means both of the following are true:
(1) The person conducts less than six transactions per calendar year.
(2) The person sells, leases, or transfers no more than 50 total firearms per calendar year.
(b) As used in this section, “transaction” means a single sale, lease, or transfer of any number of firearms.
Cal. Penal Code § 16730

 

[Matt Cubeiro]

Hello Mr. Cubeiro,

Are there still push back from big gun companies to challenge or remove the safe handgun roster system? I feel like they're the only ones with the highest chance to change the status quo on this particular law. If they give up on this issue, the safe handgun roster is most likely here to stay...

Several manufacturers and retailers have participated and/or supported our Boland v. Bonta lawsuit, which has resulted in many recent additions to the roster.

I expect that when the new microstamping requirements take effect, we will see a similar push. But that is not directly tied to the roster itself any longer.

 

[johnbravo35]

Several manufacturers and retailers have participated and/or supported our Boland v. Bonta lawsuit, which has resulted in many recent additions to the roster.

I expect that when the new microstamping requirements take effect, we will see a similar push. But that is not directly tied to the roster itself any longer.

The beatings will continue regardless of whether morale improves or not.
Thank you for the informative reply.

 

[Matt Cubeiro]

do you think gun laws will relax in California within the next 10 years?

We are more likely to see the legislature relax in their annual attempts at creating new gun laws before we see the actual laws get walked back. We are already seeing this to some extent due to the budget issues.

I work with the CRPA lobbyist and are looking at ways to at least clarify issues for purposes of both understanding and enforcement. As I tell law enforcement when I teach them about California gun laws, setting aside the policy issues of whether you are pro-2A or anti-2A, I think we can all at least agree that the laws should be capable of being understood by civilians and law enforcement alike. Haven't seen anyone on either side (including within CA DOJ) disagree on that.

 

[2muchsoysauce4allthisrice]

Herro Good Afternoon Mr. Cubeiro,

Hope your day is going well. Glad to have you with us here.

1. For individual issuing agencies ccw policies, is it true that any restrictions must be publicly stated in writing in the policy which would be available to the public such as online? Not, not listed, but when asked what’s not listed, they verbally say “no”; which would mean they would be making new rules up at that point or just sharing an opinion since it technically wasn’t listed as restricted/prohibited, no? What’s not listed is allowed? If not listed, we are not required to ask for permission; correct? Agencies don’t need to write that something is allowed to be allowed; yes?

2. For penal code 25640, hunter/angler with a valid hunting license on an active expedition; concealed carried loaded to and from. The letter is written quite vague and not narrow and specific; which means broad and open, no?

“ 25640. Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, licensed hunters or fishermen carrying pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person while engaged in hunting or fishing, or transporting those firearms unloaded when going to or returning from the hunting or fishing expedition.”

When speaking to older game wardens with more years under their duty belt, or old timers getting close to collecting that pension; to and from can technically also mean from front door to car, while driving 2-3 hours away to the backcountry, to that quiet rural trailhead with no signal, where the discharge of firearms are allowed on public land, in a county with an active meth problem.

When speaking with younger game wardens from the suburban area; seems like it’s the other way around similar to calling CHP office. They think it’s after parking at the actual expedition site.

Since it’s written so broad and open; couldn’t to a from, on an active expedition mean to and from the front door of home to expedition site?

Fanks,
2 much soy sauce in your rice makes it 2 salty

 

[Matt Cubeiro]

Hi, thank you for doing this, informative discussion! 2 questions and 1 comment/request...

• Will the 3-in-30 be challenged?
• What about Los Angeles' 1-in-30 (1 background per 30 days) which is still standing?
• Appreciate the CRPA's "one click politics", however I often wish the body is editable to soften some template statements like "I'm watching your vote".

Thank you!

Nguyen v. Bonta (which challenged the prior 1-in-30 restriction) was an FPC/SAF sponsored case. I would imagine they at some point will do the same here, but to my knowledge they have not yet.

As for LA's restriction, that is indeed subject to challenge under the same rationale in Nguyen. Help us fund a lawsuit and we would be happy to pursue that. But in the interim, you could always buy outside LA City limits.

I will relay the point about the CRPA one click politics to the appropriate persons at CRPA. A good point.

 

[ShootFirstFirster]

The beatings will continue regardless of whether morale improves or not.
Thank you for the informative reply.

Technically the legislator is responsible here. CA DOJ is merely the enforcer.

(a) As used in Section 31815 and in Division 6 (commencing with Section 26500) of Title 4, “infrequent” means both of the following are true:
(1) The person conducts less than six transactions per calendar year.
(2) The person sells, leases, or transfers no more than 50 total firearms per calendar year.
(b) As used in this section, “transaction” means a single sale, lease, or transfer of any number of firearms.
Cal. Penal Code § 16730

I guess my question should have been, has anyone attempted to to challenge this and how could it be enforced if an individual loses money on what is aimed at skirting a dealer license. I mean realistically 10 transactions of lets say a total of 15 guns would be way below the 50 over 5 threshold.

 

[2muchsoysauce4allthisrice]

Mr. Cubeiro,

I’m reading through court documents with Michel and associates, working with Franklin armory in the lawsuit regarding the title 1 other firearm, the “other” option became available; but CA DOj only made it available in the new dealer inventory long gun section of the DES system. Has the case stopped? What happened? How come they didn’t do a new dealer inventory handgun other?

So, a stripped receiver that is dros as new dealer inventory long gun “other”, which is not considered long gun rifle; what are the options when it comes to builds besides crew serve? On the 4473 with the feds, an other is considered a receiver only; a virgin which can go both ways, pistol or rifle. Only with California, is it filed as a long gun other; long gun other being it hasn’t even been built into a rifle yet.

New dealer inventory long gun Rifle can not be built into pistol because that would be California’s version of an SBR; but what about other? If a new dealer inventory long gun other was built into pistol; would that be considered a California version of an SBR? Can we build the AOW route from new dealer inventory long gun other; after filing for the AOW paperwork with the Feds?

 

[Matt Cubeiro]

Can you tell us the rules on hand guns, having to have a lock on a private party transfer? most gun shops will allow you to use the affidavit form which you fill out stating which California approved safe you have. Turner’s will not allow this. Who is right? What is the ruling on it?. and Turner’s claim if you come in with your own lock you have to have a receipt within 30 days of its purchase. please advise.

Turner's is correct here, as CA DOJ is the one enforcing this requirement on PPTs and will cite dealers for violations. See https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdfaqs#4

 

[Matt Cubeiro]

Good evening and thank you for answering our questions here!

I have a a question around county specific CCW restrictions:

1. Counties/cities that ban the use of red dots on carry guns. These typically seem to be unilateral decisions by the top LEO official, based on their own opinions - even adjacent cities and counties have no restrictions on them.

Let’s say someone decided run a red dot anyway. They felt that faster target acquisition and being target focused gave them the best defensive advantage while providing the best opportunity to keep bystanders safe.

Could that potentially increase the chances of criminal or civil liability even if they might have otherwise have been determined to have justifiably acted in self-defense?

What’s the worst case scenario and/or is it something they’d likely win if it came to a legal fight? Legal liability or loss of CCW privileges?

(b) In addition to the restrictions and conditions listed in subdivision (a), a license issued pursuant to this chapter may also include any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the licensing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which a licensee may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.
Cal. Penal Code § 26200 (West)

Do with this information as you may.

 

[Matt Cubeiro]

What should CA CCW holders look out for in terms of things that could be misconstrued or used against them by an overzealous prosecutor/DA after a legitimate self defense shooting? I’m thinking of things like what ammo to use (should it be what local LEO uses, or could that be used to say “guy thinks he’s a cop”, could a history of training or shooting competition be used to frame someone as “trigger happy” etc? Modifications to guns?

What specific equipment you use should have no legal bearing on whether you were justified in using deadly force or not. That said, I still make it a point to try and avoid this issue by sticking to vanilla flavors and not something like "Ultrakill Death Dealer Penetrator White Phosphorus" what have you. Ask your agency if they have specific ammo they themselves carry or would recommend or suggest.

Modifications fall under the same category. A starting point would be to ask what the modifications are for. A good defense attorney could then argue something like "[insert modification] was done with the express purpose of increasing the Defendant's accuracy and to avoid harming innocent bystanders to the extent possible," thereby deflating any such argument. A better attorney would object to any such argument the DA would make at the onset as its irrelevant to the question in the first place.

 

[weaverftw]

.
(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued.
Cal. Penal Code § 26200 (West)

Do with this information as you may.

does the bold above mean if it’s not ON the license but they put some kind of press release out with additional restrictions, those additional restrictions are not enforceable?

Example, my IA says no carrying if a business has a “no firearms” sign, but that isn’t in the PC and isn’t on the permit:



Or is there a circular thing going on here - since they reference the PC that gives them authority to add other restrictions, is that good enough for then to say “it’s on the permit” even if the restriction itself isn’t spelled out?

Good lord it’s crazy we have to ask these kinds of questions, THANK YOU for being here

 

[RickD427]

Matt,

Thank you very much for joining us on this forum. Thanks for all of the good work that you and your colleagues do for the community.

Nothing to ask at the moment, but will be following the discussions.

 

[Matt Cubeiro]

Herro Good Afternoon Mr. Cubeiro,

Hope your day is going well. Glad to have you with us here.

1. For individual issuing agencies ccw policies, is it true that any restrictions must be publicly stated in writing in the policy which would be available to the public such as online? Not, not listed, but when asked what’s not listed, they verbally say “no”; which would mean they would be making new rules up at that point or just sharing an opinion since it technically wasn’t listed as restricted/prohibited, no? What’s not listed is allowed? If not listed, we are not required to ask for permission; correct? Agencies don’t need to write that something is allowed to be allowed; yes?

2. For penal code 25640, hunter/angler with a valid hunting license on an active expedition; concealed carried loaded to and from. The letter is written quite vague and not narrow and specific; which means broad and open, no?

“ 25640. Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, licensed hunters or fishermen carrying pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person while engaged in hunting or fishing, or transporting those firearms unloaded when going to or returning from the hunting or fishing expedition.”

When speaking to older game wardens with more years under their duty belt, or old timers getting close to collecting that pension; to and from can technically also mean from front door to car, while driving 2-3 hours away to the backcountry, to that quiet rural trailhead with no signal, where the discharge of firearms are allowed on public land, in a county with an active meth problem.

When speaking with younger game wardens from the suburban area; seems like it’s the other way around similar to calling CHP office. They think it’s after parking at the actual expedition site.

Since it’s written so broad and open; couldn’t to a from, on an active expedition mean to and from the front door of home to expedition site?

Fanks,
2 much soy sauce in your rice makes it 2 salty

1. Yes, issuing agencies must make available a written policy pursuant to PC 26160. And any restrictions/conditions placed on a license outside of those listed in PC 26200 must be written on the CCW license itself pursuant to PC 26200(b-c).

2. If I am being purely technical, there are also concerns outside California's PC that apply here. A good example would be a school zone, in which federal law also applies and doesn't expressly exempt one here. That being said, PC 25640 has no express limitation other than the person be transporting to or from while unloaded. I am unaware of a case going into this specific issue otherwise.

 

[Librarian]

There is a lot to unpack here as to how this works. In general, every time you attempt a purchase, your info gets sent to random DOJ background check person #2447. These individuals are not lawyers, and don't fully comprehend what is reflected in a persons Report of Arrests and Prosecutions (RAP) sheet. If there is a question as to the impact of a particular entry on a RAP, they will place the attempted purchase on delay and refer to their supervisor.

Most all delay/undetermined issues I see are because a person was arrested/detained/cited for something but there is no disposition from the court or agency as to what happened as a result. So DOJ personnel attempt (allegedly) to request that information. Except they never follow up or get any kind of response. So after 30 days the attempted purchase is marked "undetermined," which means the dealer has the final say on whether to release or not. Rinse and repeat with a new purchase being reviewed by DOJ background check person #3589 this time.

Most dealers in CA will not release on an undetermined, and that is in part due to fear of civil liability and potential threat/ire of DOJ inspectors. Its all generally bull.

I can help clients by updating their RAP sheets with the missing information. But that requires an official record of disposition from the court or agency. Otherwise, we have to file an administrative challenge that forces CA DOJ to update the client's RAP sheet (expensive and time consuming but doable). Most clients in the latter situation instead opt to find a local dealer willing to release on an undetermined as they cant afford or don't want to bother filing an administrative challenge.

And, there are continuing efforts to add older records to the searchable databases, creating more opportunities for mistaken identities as well as more places for lack-of-disposition. So a buyer who passed on Jan 20 might have new info pop up in May and get delayed.

 

[Matt Cubeiro]

does the bold above mean if it’s not ON the license but they put some kind of press release out with additional restrictions, those additional restrictions are not enforceable?

Example, my IA says no carrying if a business has a “no firearms” sign, but that isn’t in the PC and isn’t on the permit:

View attachment 176643

Or is there a circular thing going on here - since they reference the PC that gives them authority to add other restrictions, is that good enough for then to say “it’s on the permit” even if the restriction itself isn’t spelled out?

Good lord it’s crazy we have to ask these kinds of questions, THANK YOU for being here

Your license doesn't state that. It states your permit may be revoked for violations of Section 26230 (the list of prohibited places). But portions of that list are enjoined as a result of our May v. Bonta lawsuit. CA DOJ recently issued a bulletin to all issuing agencies on this - https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2025-dle-06.pdf

So you cant be held to violate a provision that is current enjoined (and they are on notice of this given the bulletin they should have received).

The other stuff is basically a restatement of laws that are otherwise enforceable. So much of this is redundant from my perspective.

 

[Librarian]

Turner's is correct here, as CA DOJ is the one enforcing this requirement on PPTs and will cite dealers for violations. See https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdfaqs#4

AND it's Federal law - 18 USC 922 (z) - that requires an FFL to demand a 'safety device' for handguns. BATF will not accept the CA Affidavit for that requirement, though it should be fine all over CA for long guns.

 

[1911-CV]

Though owning a safe would meet the requirement without purchasing a lock every 30 days...

Are there any exceptions to the Firearm Safety Device (FSD) requirement?

• Yes. The FSD requirement does not apply to the following:
• Transfers of firearms to persons who demonstrate ownership of a qualifying gun safe. Ownership may be demonstrated by displaying to the firearms dealer: 1) a receipt indicating purchase of, or an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, stating that the purchaser owns a gun safe; and 2) an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury, stating the gun safe meets the standards set forth in DOJ regulations. (Pen. Code, §§ 23635-23690.)

DOJ Link

 

[ikeo1]

I want to thank @Matt Cubeiro for joining us and spending the time to answer some questions. We're just about wrapping this up 24 hours for the AMA!

We had a lot of good questions and answers. .

I hope everyone enjoyed this session. Perhaps Matt will do another closing round of questions but that's typically how we do it and wrap up after 24 hours.

Thank you everyone for supporting CAguns.net and please check out the CRPA.org to support Matt and his team there to fight for the California 2A community... I hope we have have him back periodically when there are updates.

CRPA - California Rifle & Pistol Association

Support Your Second Amendment Rights. The California Rifle & Pistol Association, founded in 1875, provides training in the safe, responsible, and enjoyable use of firearms; sanctions competitive shooting state championships; and fights for the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for those...

crpa.org

It's a pleasure having you here and we've achieved a big milestone of 40,000 members in just over 2 years of being around. Please feel free to reach out to the CAguns community whenever you need some eyes and ears on an initiative.