1919 A4 Forums banner

21 - 40 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
Grandfathered in is great for you / us, but they can only be legally transferred out of state. They can’t be sold here or inherited here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
Grandfathered in is great for you / us, but they can only be legally transferred out of state. They can’t be sold here or inherited here.
Which is going to diminish the monetary value of your firearms to a degree. Which you should be compensated for by the state! Last I could tell Cali is about broke and any big losses might just be the straw that broke the camels back.

Here in Michigan our SC voted about a week ago 7-0 that the dictators executive orders after April 30 of this year were not valid/ legal. So I am waiting for the trial lawyers to get together with affected businesses and sue the state into oblivion for all the business losses that she forced with her closure orders. We have a balanced budget amendment in our constitution so they will have to gut the budget to pay the losses. That ought to make all the lefties on the east side of the state(Detroilet) have absolute fits.

Not a lawyer, just my 2 cents.
Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,631 Posts
Which is going to diminish the monetary value of your firearms to a degree. Which you should be compensated for by the state! Last I could tell Cali is about broke and any big losses might just be the straw that broke the camels back.

Here in Michigan our SC voted about a week ago 7-0 that the dictators executive orders after April 30 of this year were not valid/ legal. So I am waiting for the trial lawyers to get together with affected businesses and sue the state into oblivion for all the business losses that she forced with her closure orders. We have a balanced budget amendment in our constitution so they will have to gut the budget to pay the losses. That ought to make all the lefties on the east side of the state(Detroilet) have absolute fits.

Not a lawyer, just my 2 cents.
Steve
Yup, luckily I can always move them out of state.
 

·
PhD in Over-Engineering
Joined
·
12,205 Posts
has anyone made a barrel support like on the M2 for the 1919 to get rid of the shroud?

then lighten the barrel to reduce the need for the booster?
Yes John Browning did with the T13 variant, just ask Russ 😉
A little historical perspective on this. The T-13 was the final development in a series of prototypes done by the U.S. Ordnance Dept about 1939-1940. It was never produced, just made in development models. I had obtained what Ordnance Dept Drawings were still available, from Gatekeeper at the Rock Island Arsenal Museum. From those drawings, Rick Shab (BMG Parts Co) and I had some development work done by our friends at Ordnance Research. They made a few sets of the front end parts- the short jacket, front bearing and reduced weight barrel- and those all went to BMG Parts Co. I never bothered to get one of those sets, and toolman got the last one Rick had available. Here is the unfinished receiver for our own prototype, done back in 2013. Since I did not keep this one, I did not get pics of it all finished and assembled, but here it is before final sandblasting. Adding also a 1940 RIA official photo, courtesy of Gatekeeper, showing one version in testing, called a 1919A4 with experimental barrel assembly.

20130128_201608 - Copy.jpg 20130121_230809-1.jpg a4lgtwtbrrl.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rory

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
That revision, part I, nails us. We’re effed as far as can see.
UNLESS the 1919a4 is a rifle. The law calls for the outlaw (and registration) of those guns which are NOT rifles, NOT pistols and NOT shotguns. So.... the question to grapple with is.. "is the 1919a4 (DROS'd as a rifle) actually a rifle?" IF so... I would posit that it is not subject to the amended law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
743 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
The wording makes beltfeds rifles now. That's why this is so bad, they created this by trying to get rid of people making their own AR's to get around the laws.

It's more than that obviously but that's the jist of SB218. One more terrible bill aimed at getting rid of all firearms in CA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
The wording makes beltfeds rifles now. That's why this is so bad, they created this by trying to get rid of people making their own AR's to get around the laws.

It's more than that obviously but that's the jist of SB218. One more terrible bill aimed at getting rid of all firearms in CA.
I don't believe the language "makes" the 1919 a rifle. As I point out, the new law is aimed as guns that are NOT rifles, pistols or shotguns. (i.e. if 1919 ARE rifles, then the new law DOESN'T apply to them)
Also as I pointed out above CA does not define what a "rifle" is (although I suspect they will use the Federal definition) and if that is the case, the 1919 and M2's will be deemed "AOW's" and thus subject to being registered and banned under the new law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
Yes, kits were made - I have one. M2 50 -like shroud and light barrel contoured like a 50 - No idea who made it, or if it was a one-off . will post pics later. I have never installed it on anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
UNLESS the 1919a4 is a rifle. The law calls for the outlaw (and registration) of those guns which are NOT rifles, NOT pistols and NOT shotguns. So.... the question to grapple with is.. "is the 1919a4 (DROS'd as a rifle) actually a rifle?" IF so... I would posit that it is not subject to the amended law.
Cali PC 17090:
"rifle" means
a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
here are some pics of the parts I got in trade - not for sale yet- I woud like to try these out some time. Barrel is pretty light for FA fire. Caliber is 30-06, Light barrel may be needed to allow function without booster. Maybe over he winter.....

Would there be much interest in someone making these if we could get it to run ?
101204
101205
101206
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
Cali PC 17090:
"rifle" means
a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
Good pull. I couldn't get my hands on that statute. So.... folks it is final. The 1919 is NOT a rifle, NOT a pistol and NOT a shotgun under CA law so..... in 2022 you WILL have to register them or otherwise modify them.
 

·
PhD in Over-Engineering
Joined
·
12,205 Posts
Cali PC 17090:
"rifle" means
a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.
Good pull. I couldn't get my hands on that statute. So.... folks it is final. The 1919 is NOT a rifle, NOT a pistol and NOT a shotgun under CA law so..... in 2022 you WILL have to register them or otherwise modify them.
I didn't look up the statute, but had ridden that horse many years ago. I was pretty sure that language was there, as I had stated above. Thanks, Bob! To borrow from W. S. Gilbert:

"Glad to have my opinion backed by a competent authority."

A conversation with another forum member on this, back in July or August, suggested that the way around this is to put an A6 stock on every Browning. I am trying to imagine a 1917 with a stock, lol. Then again, there is still that niggling little detail that the CA DROS fails to distinguish a category for this in between stuff. This will go to the courts, hopefully before it is allowed to be put in force. A great case to bring before Judge Benitez, I think!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
I didn't look up the statute, but had ridden that horse many years ago. I was pretty sure that language was there, as I had stated above. Thanks, Bob! To borrow from W. S. Gilbert:

"Glad to have my opinion backed by a competent authority."

A conversation with another forum member on this, back in July or August, suggested that the way around this is to put an A6 stock on every Browning. I am trying to imagine a 1917 with a stock, lol. Then again, there is still that niggling little detail that the CA DROS fails to distinguish a category for this in between stuff. This will go to the courts, hopefully before it is allowed to be put in force. A great case to bring before Judge Benitez, I think!
While I certainly HOPE that this newest CA AW law is challenged and that it is successful, I cannot be terribly optimistic. NONE of California's AW laws going back to 1989 have EVER been overturned (or even close to being overturned).
Courts have consistently said that states are free to enforce "reasonable restrictions" on firearms in their respective states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
Glad to see we got that straightened out. Now all we have to do is type up that legal opinion, send off the CA DOJ, and get them to incorporate it into case law. We are set. Given the track record of CA DOJ, I would expect their first persecution to start within the next 6 months under that new law. Sadly our opinion here means nothing, it is what the DA pressing the case makes it out to be. there is not a glorious history of prudent and wise legal decisions in CA regarding gun stuff. Let's hope some common sense intrudes.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
11,534 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
FWIW, this particular iteration of AW laws in CA (now the 4th for those keeping track) it really only affects AOW's. So... considering 1919's and M2's are really more "advanced" gun collecting, chances are most everyone who might be affected by this ban has already registered an AW with the State. OTOH, if you went featureless for your other AW's to get around the build, you'd be left with only one choice and that would be to add the a6 stock to convert your 1919a4 into an A6 and this a true "rifle" so as to not be included in this ban.
 

·
PhD in Over-Engineering
Joined
·
12,205 Posts
While I certainly HOPE that this newest CA AW law is challenged and that it is successful, I cannot be terribly optimistic. NONE of California's AW laws going back to 1989 have EVER been overturned (or even close to being overturned).
Courts have consistently said that states are free to enforce "reasonable restrictions" on firearms in their respective states.
All true, and the old 9th Circuit has rarely been friendly to gun issues. But the 9th is almost 50% Republican appointees now, so that gives a little more hope. It might even turn R majority appointees in a second Trump turn. My main hope, however, rests on a final, favorable outcome in the Duncan case. I believe the Constitutional and the Strict Scrutiny arguments from Judge Benitez are going to be difficult, perhaps impossible to overcome. Not a lawyer of course, but I do believe the same legal arguments would apply to (finally) have a shot at overcoming these "AW" laws, on the foundation of the Heller language: in common use. Call me Pollyanna, but I was born with the optimist gene.

Darin Prince did such a conversion too a few years ago... made them look like mini M2HBs.
Hey mrkubota, good to see you chime in. Been a while since we used to shoot together, and with Darin. Angeles, Lytle Creek, Red Mtn... long time ago. I've seen a couple of variations on this concept, and even had drawings for one that I never followed up on, but of unknown origin. The one cool thing about the T-13 is that it is an Ordnance Dept design.
 
21 - 40 of 75 Posts
Top