Featureless Build Information
On January 1, 2017, the definition of an “assault weapon” (“AW”) under California law was changed to include firearms which were required to be equipped with a “bullet button” or similar magazine locking device. Prominent 2A law firm Michel & Associates prepared a newer "Assault Weapons" Quick Reference Guide with flow chart for the California Rifle & Pistol Association and the NRA. This guide addresses the new classification of "Bullet Button Assault Weapons", and more importantly, details five options on how to stay out of trouble if you own a newly defined "assault weapon". One of those options they address is "Featureless Build", which we prefer with our CRG-15 Compliant Rifle Grip. This download is here with permission from Michel & Associates, P.C.
You can download the PDF Quick Reference Guide by clicking the image below.
Due to the recent ruling (March 29th, 2019) in Duncan v Becerra concerning magazine capacity, we have added these next two graphics to clarify some questions that we've been receiving.
CRPA ALERT: Moving Forward with “Large Capacity” Magazine Court Ordered Stay
Click the image below for an unedited PDF version for download and easy printing (in case you would like to keep this with you and your firearms/magazines).
Here is the link to the original Information Bulletin from the California Rifle and Pistol Association about the current situation concerning legalities of standard capacity magazines.
CRPA Magazine Capacity Bulletin
Letter from DOJ to all CA law enforcement that it is legal to possess these magazines
Print out this PDF and toss in your range bag.
Letter from DOJ to all CA law enforcement
“Large Capacity” Magazine Update
Gun owners in CA recently had a win back in August of 2020 when the 9th Circuit 3 judge panel agreed with Judge Benitez's ruling on magazine capacity limits being unconstitutional. BUT, on March 10th 2021, the 9th Circuit vacated that ruling from the 3 judge panel and decided to hear the Duncan v. Becerra case en banc.
Definition: en banc
(on bonk) French for "in the bench," it signifies a decision by the full court of all the appeals judges in jurisdictions where there is more than one three- or four-judge panel. For the 9th Circuit, it means a full 12 judge panel.
The case is now referred to as Duncan v. Bonta (Rob Bonta was chosen to become the new attorney general after Becerra moved to secretary of health and human services under the Biden administration). Arguments were heard before the en banc panel June 22, 2021. The en banc court finally filed their ruling November 30, 2021 and it did not go in our favor (which is what we expected).
The 9th Circuit could have mandated Judge Benitez to issue a ruling in favor of the state. If that would have happened, it would be illegal to possess and use "large capacity" magazines (even the ones legally purchased during "freedom week"). But, on 12-14-21 The Duncan side requested that the 9th partially stay their mandate, and also said they planned to ask that the Supreme Court hear the case. The good news is that the state did not oppose this request, and the better news is that on 12/20/21 the 9th granted this partial stay of mandate for 150 days when they sent it back to Judge Benitez, thus allowing continued possession and use of legally acquired magazines for now.
After the big win in the win NYSRPA v. Bruen on June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court has sent (vacated and remanded) the Duncan case back down to the 9th Circuit on June 30th, 2022. BUT, the 9th will have to re-hear the case and rule based on Text, History, and Tradition adopted in Bruen instead of Intermediate Scrutiny that they have used too often to justify the restriction of gun rights. There is too much to unpack here, but we are confident in positive future results from this.
On 9/23/22 the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the lawsuit, which means it will now go back to the district court to be heard again. It may take some months, but we already know how Judge Benitez will rule. This left possession of "freedom week" mags in limbo. BUT, on 9/26/22 Judge Benitez issued an order continuing the stay of enforcement. (Stay of enforcement means police can't enforce this part of the law prohibiting the possession of these magazines.)
One year later on 9/22/23, Judge Benitez ruled that magazine capacity limits are unconstitutional like we expected. He also told law enforcement that they can not enforce PC 32310, but he also put a 10 day stay on this order at the request of the state to Bonta time to appeal (and they did apeal). Which means that in 10 days it could be legal to once again purchase normal capacity magazines if the 9th Circuit refuses the case. The 9th Circuit already heard this case in the past and sent it back down to Benitez. That was before the Bruen case in NY. So, it is possible the 9th Circuit will decide not to hear it even if the state appeals. So hopefully in 10 days from now we win.
On page 70 of his order on 9/22/23, Judge Benitez wrote... "The adoption of the Second Amendment was a freedom calculus decided long ago by our first citizens who cherished individual freedom with its risks more than the subservient security of a British ruler or the smothering safety of domestic lawmakers. The freedom they fought for was worth fighting for then, and that freedom is entitled to be preserved still."
This long battle is like a marathon and we should never give up when things get difficult.
In the mean time, it is still legal to posses and use legally obtained normal capacity magazines (in featureless rifles and handguns*). Local municipalities in CA may have stricter ordinances to check with first.
*handguns, not AR/AK pistols etc. which would be considered an "AW" because of other features like the magazine being located outside the grip, threaded barrels, etc.
Here is the link to the court updates on this case... CourtListener Duncan v. Becerra
- We are currently working on some helpful information concerning building featureless rifles and hope to have that here soon.
In the mean time, here are some web links that may be helpful.
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson