View Single Post
Old February 19, 2018, 19:13   #26
FALaholic #: 45299
Join Date: May 2009
Location: California
Posts: 1,594
Originally Posted by Meataxe556 View Post
Not sure I like the name of the "COC-Block" thing, but it sounds interesting. Do you have a link? Maybe they'd sell more if they called it the "Freedom Penetrator" or something...

My son is going to school in CA, so we're trying to figure out what semi-auto rifles he could bring out and still be in compliance with Commiefornia. Like the Vz58 "Liberty," a top-loading FAL would be a possibility if we could fix the magazine without drilling into the receiver, ejector block, etc. and still maintain a pistol grip configuration.

Not sure what the actual legal definition of "disassembly of the action" is in CA to make these legal. Does it mean removing the bolt carrier / bolt from the receiver (as in the Vz58 Liberty) or can you get away with just separating the upper and lower receivers, which would be easy on a FAL?
Macho Hambre came up with an amusing name for each of the three components of the system. That's the name for the piece that attaches to the magazine shown above. There is no website associated with this at the moment. This is just barely being debuted via pictures and videos of prototype versions here and on Calguns. Work is ongoing towards the final version of each component of the system.

As far as disassembly of the action goes, it's basically any disassembly of the firearm action which makes it so that it can no longer fire or function. With designs with separate halves like the FAL and AR, with the bolt group and barrel on one, and the FCG on the other, simply pivoting the halves apart causes the FCG and recoil systems to disengage from the rifle, preventing it from functioning in any meaningful way (I suppose someone could use a hammer to fire the upper group by itself, but the bolt group is going to fly out to the rear), and as I recall the DOJ has even clarified that this qualifies as disassembly per their regulations. Removal of the bolt group would count as well, as would removing key FCG components or the FCG entirely.

Also, removing or replacing parts such that the rifle cannot function as a semi-auto as configured also makes it not considered a semi-auto for purposes of assessing AW compliance. For the FAL, removing the piston and spring and putting the gas plug on grenade setting would make it compliant. The regulations also clarified that there is no constructive possession, so having the piston in your possession would not make it as if you had an AW, and having a separate upper and lower that when put together would make a non-compliant weapon does not constitute possession of an AW, as in either case the rifle is not considered an AW. The rifle has to be complete and capable of functioning as a semi-auto while also having a detachable magazine under the new standard and having banned features, or a fixed hi-cap mag, or be under 30" in length.

One thing that might hurt Para FAL owners right now is that despite the law not changing, the DOJ used the opportunity to state that OAL is going to now be measured with the muzzle device removed, whereas this is not how the law was written. This would cause those who have an 18" barreled Para FAL with the stock actually capable of folding to be in possession of assault weapons.

Anyhow, this system is designed specifically to be CA compliant just like the Vz-58's "Liberty" system (really ironic name). It is tailored to the FAL design to be as close to "drop-in" as possible. Not sure of the Vz-58s uses the existing receiver design, or requires a modified receiver for it to work. The majority of the AR locks are also designed to work without the AR itself being modified.
bigstick61 is online now   Reply With Quote