CA legal AK pistol with folding brace?

[OrangeMFdon]

Just saw this video on youtube. Seems to me his AK pistol is a SBR and he's telling people its CA legal. Thoughts?

 

[raellic]

I watched the whole video and also checked out his Instagram. I don't disagree with his citing what's in the statutes, but the critical part is that he's missing the case law and regulations that interpret those statutes and that give you deeper insight into what the law actually is. I'll tell you this: I wouldn't buy a "featureless" AK with a thin, removable plastic fin-- or an "AK pistol" at all. It's crazy to tempt fate that way. If you don't have a grandfathered AR-15, then I think your best option is getting some stripped lower receivers and waiting for the law to change. Might not be too long with the pace of current events.

 

[Serbianguy]

C’mon man, that’s your best answer? Get some stripped lower receivers and wait for the law to change?

How long should we wait, a decade? Two decades?

As long as the guns are featureless, they’re fine - otherwise they wouldn’t be sold by every gun store in the state.

And, if you can find one, and it falls within the parameters of this state’s ridiculous laws, then buy the AK pistol. It’ll be perfectly legal. But it would be somewhat foolish to add a brace in California.

If you’re a practicing attorney and offering advice on firearms, shouldn’t you know what you’re talking about?

 

[raellic]

It may be unpopular, but the assessment is valid. See PC 16530(b)-- if you add a stock to an "AK pistol," you are creating a short-barreled rifle under both California law and the current Federal statute and ATF regulations (26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11). The fixed magazine "AK pistol" with the stock that he has in the video is likely a SBR and he should not be representing it as legal in California. This is no joke and the advice is to be cautious, not reckless, in this area. I'm sorry to hear you disagree, but I'm entitled to advise people not to do things that are gray-area illegal, like putting a flimsy, removable plastic fin behind the pistol grip and calling it featureless. Folks who do that are skating on ultra-thin ice, even though they may never be caught or the law may change. With the current pace of events in the Trump administration and with the Supreme Court, you may get your wish anyway-- the most conservative approach is to have a grandfathered, registered AR-15 or some stripped lowers until the law changes. If you feel strongly about changing the law, you can donate money to 2A groups or volunteer to be part of the effort, as many people do.

 

[Dirk Tungsten]

Note that at 4:24 of the video he points out that guys have been busted for that flimsy grip fin- if you're gonna go featureless it might be worth buying one that's more substantial and doesn't look like it's deliberately made to slide off.

 

[saki302]

I've made my own fin grips. They're secured with rivets, and can't come off unless you do some drilling

 

[SteamedHams]

It may be unpopular, but the assessment is valid. See PC 16530(b)-- if you add a stock to an "AK pistol," you are creating a short-barreled rifle under both California law and the current Federal statute and ATF regulations (26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11). The fixed magazine "AK pistol" with the stock that he has in the video is likely a SBR and he should not be representing it as legal in California. This is no joke and the advice is to be cautious, not reckless, in this area. I'm sorry to hear you disagree, but I'm entitled to advise people not to do things that are gray-area illegal, like putting a flimsy, removable plastic fin behind the pistol grip and calling it featureless. Folks who do that are skating on ultra-thin ice, even though they may never be caught or the law may change. With the current pace of events in the Trump administration and with the Supreme Court, you may get your wish anyway-- the most conservative approach is to have a grandfathered, registered AR-15 or some stripped lowers until the law changes. If you feel strongly about changing the law, you can donate money to 2A groups or volunteer to be part of the effort, as many people do.

That would be true if what he had on there is a stock, but it's not a stock. It's a pistol brace. You can clearly see the velco strap that's meant to be strapped to your forearm which differentiates it from a stock. Hence, what he has still is a pistol (assuming it was DROS'd as a pistol) and not an SBR.

 

[SteamedHams]

And, if you can find one, and it falls within the parameters of this state’s ridiculous laws, then buy the AK pistol. It’ll be perfectly legal. But it would be somewhat foolish to add a brace in California.

What's foolish about adding a brace to an AK pistol? It's no different than adding a brace to an AR pistol or PDW.

 

[Dirk Tungsten]

That would be true if what he had on there is a stock, but it's not a stock. It's a pistol brace. You can clearly see the velco strap that's meant to be strapped to your forearm which differentiates it from a stock. Hence, what he has still is a pistol (assuming it was DROS'd as a pistol) and not an SBR.

While I agree with this in theory, all it takes is one aggressive DA with a novel theory that it's functionally a stock, and everything else be damned. You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride. How much can you afford to spend to defend yourself from BS prosecutions? it might be worth a little cost/benefit analysis here.

 

[Serbianguy]

I say that only because LEO’s in California have been known to be a bit undereducated about firearms and I can easily see an overly enthusiastic anti gun cop getting excited about arresting someone with what he perceives as a short barreled rifle.

What's foolish about adding a brace to an AK pistol? It's no different than adding a brace to an AR pistol or PDW.