Home News Support FCI Legislation Litigation Resources Events About Us
Technical info and history of the .50 BMG

Compare the .50 BMG to other popular cartridges

FEDERAL


CALIFORNIA

HAWAII

ILLINOIS

MASSACHUSETTS

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK


 
 
Support Our Troops with Project Bore Snake

CALIFORNIA NEWS

FCI Opposes CA proposed "AW" regs
December 7, 2006

In response to yet another attempt by CA DOJ to change the definition of an "assault weapon", FCI acts to protect the interests of .50 BMG owners who have complied with state requirements concerning their grandfathered .50 BMG firearms. [LETTER]

LA Gun Task Force Serves another Search Warrant
September 22, 2006
The LA County Gun Task Force has served another search warrant on the home of another member of the fifty caliber community. On Monday September 18th, eighteen police cars swarmed the neighborhood where the FCSA member lives... [MORE]

LA Gun Task Force Serves another Search Warrant
September 22, 2006
The LA County Gun Task Force has served another search warrant on the home of another member of the fifty caliber community. On Monday September 18th, eighteen police cars swarmed the neighborhood where the FCSA member lives... [MORE]

Barrett Firearms Opposes CA DOJ's Proposed Definition of "Capacity to Accept Detachable Magazines"
August 25, 2006
[STORY]

California DOJ Proposal May Nullify .50 BMG Registration
August 15, 2006

The California Department of Justice is at it again! New "assault weapon" regulations may actually nullify ".50 BMG rifle" registrations for certain types of rifles.

In 2004, California passed AB50, restricting the sale and possession of ".50 BMG rifles." That bill required ".50 BMG rifles" to be registered by the end of April 2006. AB50 bill also, however, expressly excluded from its definition of ".50 BMG rifles" all firearms that would fall within California's "assault weapon" laws.

The States original definition of "assault weapons" requires that a firearm be identified by make and model on a list promulgated by the Department of Justice. It was unclear whether an identical firearm receiver (series type) that was not listed by make and model was legal until the California Supreme Court ruled in Harrott v. County of Kings that a firearm must be listed in order to be deemed a series type "assault weapon." This ruling did not cause much excitement in the firearms community until, early last year, the Department of Justice admitted that a number of firearm receivers that it had been trying to keep out of the state were actually legal to possess and sell within California.

Since then, approximately 30,000 of these firearms have been imported into the state. The only problem, they could not be assembled with all the features. The 1999 "assault weapon" law, commonly referred to as "Senate Bill 23," expanded the definition of "assault weapons" to include any semi-automatic, centerfire rifle, with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of a number of "assault weapon" features, including pistol grips, folding/collapsible stocks, thumbhole stocks, and flash suppressors.

Though the Department initially sought to deem the firearms "assault weapons," such an action would have opened up the "assault weapon" registration period again and permitted the assembly of the firearms with "assault weapon" type features. As a result, the Department of Justice did not add the firearms to the "assault weapons" list. Seeking to make use of the receivers, owners and manufacturers of these firearm receivers realized that by modifying the firearms, such as affixing the magazines pursuant to the existing regulations, the firearms could be legally assembled into non-assault weapon firearms.

In an effort to halt the modifications, the Department of Justice proposed new regulations that would expand the definition of "assault weapons" to include those firearms that were not "permanently altered" so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.

The problem, however, is that the Department has already approved reversible modifications to Barrett Firearms, Inc.'s model 82A1 as being legal, provided the magazine cannot be removed without the use of a tool. The approved modification to the 82A1 was a simple, but reversible, modification that made the "detachable magazine" a “fixed magazine.” In light of the proposed regulations, this firearm would, due to the reversibility of the modification, be deemed an "assault weapon." And, as discussed above, ".50 BMG rifles" cannot be "assault weapons."

Thus, if the proposed regulation is passed, the validity of some ".50 BMG rifle" registrations may become an issue.

It is unclear how the California Department of Justice will address this issue at this Wednesday's hearing on the proposed regulation, but the DOJ has requested that comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on August 16, 2006. FCI requests that those concerned for their rights contact the Department of Justice and voice your opposition to the proposed regulation. Information on the regulation and submitting comments can be found at: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awdefnotice0606.html

Any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Department. The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on August 16, 2006. Only comments received at the Department offices by that time will be considered.

Please submit written comments to:

Mail: Jeff Amador, Field Representative
Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200
-- or --
Email: jeff.amador@doj.ca.gov

John Burtt, Chmn
FCI

Fifty Caliber Institute (FCI) Letter to CADOJ in Opposition to Proposed Regulation
August 15, 2006

Today, the Fifty Caliber Institute (FCI) sent a letter to the California DOJ in opposition to proposed regulations re-defining the phrase "capacity to accept a detachable magazine".
[
VIEW]

LA County Gun Task Force Serving Search Warrants
July 16, 2006

Officers from the Los Angeles County Gun Task Force in CA have begun serving search warrants on residents in that county who are suspected of holding un-registered "Assault Rifles" including 50 BMG target rifles.

If you or any of your friends have not complied with the provisions of AB-50 that require you to register any 50 BMG rifles you own, you may very well expect a knock on your door at any time.

This information was received from a former ATF agent in CA:

"I have a friend who had a search warrant executed by the LA gun task force at his apartment, which is located above a home, within LA city limits a few months back. This task force is headed up by ATF, with LAPD and LASO being the primary agencies participating. Pursuant to the warrant execution, one Springfield M1A with its' original flash hider attached and numerous .50 cal incendiary type bullets (Projectiles) were seized. My friend was not arrested at the time and led to believe the case might not even be prosecuted. The task force left his entire gun collection, which is extensive, with him at his apartment. A little more info here for you to consider. My friend has no criminal record of any kind, is a decorated Vietnam vet, is gainfully employed as a carpenter, and is law abiding.

A couple of weeks ago, the task force came back to his apartment and arrested my friend and charged him with five felonies. He was taken to jail where he remained for two days until his bail was set and met. He is charged with being in possession of an unregistered assault rifle, and in possession of destructive devices, and in possession of destructive devices within so many feet of a school. Five felonies under California law in total.

Being a retired ATF special agent myself, I contacted the case agent who happens to be a LAPD detective assigned to the task force. I asked him why such a chicken ##### case was being prosecuted. Why were they ruining my friend's life after his service to our country and the fact that he has no past criminal record. I asked him what happened to law enforcement using common sense and discretion in a case like this. The detective told me they didn't make the laws, but it was their job to enforce the law and that the DA has a no tolerance policy regarding firearms.

I tried to explain to him that the M1A rifle with its' original flash hider was legally sold to 1000's of people in CA before the assault rifle law was even enacted. Many of these original owners to this day do not know they are in violation by having the flash hider on their rifle. The detective didn't care. I explained that on at least two prior occasions I had contacted DOJ myself and had been informed the explosive bullets were legal in California as they are under ATF law, as long as they were not loaded into a case and able to fire. He said that was incorrect info and that under CA law the bullets alone are destructive devices and that each individual bullet could be charged separately."

During the past several months FCI has received several inquiries from people who are possibly California residents who have been asking what they should do because they hadn't registered their firearms before the required date. We have told everyone they need to contact an attorney to find out the best possible way to deal with this situation.

FCI recommends the same to everyone. A good law firm to contact would be:

Trutanich-Michel LLP
180 E. Ocean Blvd
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 216-4444
Also be aware that I spoke to Bill Ritchie at EDM Arms, Inc. recently and he had several customers who had purchased 50 BMG target rifles on a time payment program. The customers had not picked up their rifles before the expiration of the registration period and now all the firearms have to be turned in to the Dept of Justice in CA for destruction.

This is a very serious matter for owners as well as manufacturers. It appears that LA County Gun Task Force and possibly DOJ in CA are looking for an opportunity to make an example out of an otherwise Law Abiding citizen. Don't let it be you. Seek good legal advice before you get a knock on your door when you least expect it.

John Burtt, Chmn
FCI

California Attorney General Issues Clarification Letter
April 7, 2006

Earlier this year, FCI board member and Trutanich - Michel, LLP attorney Jason Davis was informed of a letter from the California Department of Justice ("CADOJ") in response to an individual inquiry regarding multi-caliber receivers and the .50 BMG registration requirements. The CADOJ letter was dated October 15, 2004 and was signed by CADOJ Firearms Division Field Representative David Witt. The letter stated that multi-caliber registrations would not be accepted. Click below to see the CADOJ October 15, 2004 letter.

(Pg 1) http://fiftycal.org/content/DOJletter1.jpg

(Pg 2) http://fiftycal.org/content/DOJletter2.jpg

In response to the CADOJ, multiple inquiries were received from the general public. Mr. Davis then sent an inquiry to the CADOJ requesting further clarification of the .50 BMG laws on March 2, 2006. Mr. Davis' letter included requests for clarification of the CADOJ's position on various combinations of receivers and parts, and whether each combination was required to be registered under California law. The request also inquired whether a combination that was prohibited from being registered, such as the multi-caliber receiver referenced in the Witt letter, would still be a .50 BMG rifle for the purposes of prosecution.

On April 6, 2006, Mr. Davis received the CADOJ's position on the various combinations. The official position denounces the earlier Witt letter and also identifies their position on the various combinations. This letter marks a change in policy from the Witt opinion as well as identifies, in a conflicting fashion, the responsibility of .50 BMG rifle owners and multi-caliber rifle (that accept .50 BMG uppers) owners to register their firearm. Click below to see the CADOJ April 6, 2006 letter.

http://fiftycal.org/content/JD_50BMG_Letter_Registration.pdf

This latest letter demonstrates the complicated and confusing nature of the California .50 BMG law. Mr. Davis has informed FCI that he will continue to seek clarification of the matters discussed in the letter. But to ensure that there is no potential for criminal liability; FCI recommends that any person in the State of California in possession of any .50 BMG receiver or any receiver capable of accepting a .50 BMG receiver register their receiver, regardless of whether it is "fully functional."

FCI would also like to emphasize to all 50 BMG owners in CA that the deadline for registration is rapidly approaching. Don't put off the registration process any longer. The last day to register is April 30, 2006. To obtain a registration form, visit your local firearms dealer.

Please support our efforts in California and other states to protect your rights to own the .50 caliber. You can help fund this cause by visiting our web pages (below), or by phone donations to 405-769-7851, or by mail-in donations to "FCI, PO Box 1128, Choctaw, OK, 73020."

Your support is critical:
http://www.50cal.org/support.php / http://www.50cal.org/events.php

Keith Pagel
Executive Director
Fifty Caliber Institute

###

AB-50 Update
March 15, 2006

FCI has been contacted by several of our California supporters regarding a problem that is occurring to owners of 50 BMG rifles while trying to register their firearms in accordance with AB-50.

The problem it seems is when they receive their letters back from the CA Dept of Justice (DOJ) there are what appear to be inaccuracies in the document regarding the Make, Model and Serial Numbers of the firearms being registered. FCI referred the case of one supporter to a CA based law firm who has a very good record in defending the rights of fire arms owners in CA.

A letter was sent to CA DOJ requesting a clarification on this matter, as it seemed to leave the fire arms owner out on a precarious limb of liability when he was obviously just trying to comply with CA law.

Yesterday we were advised the following regarding this incident and we want to pass it on to other owners, particularly in CA just in case you have experienced similar difficulties.

This is the context of the letter of explanation received from DOJ:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) necessarily utilizes the gun make and model codes promulgated by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) of the federal Department of Justice. Doing so enables DOJ to communicate with the other states regarding gun files such as stolen weapons, etc.

NCIC itself does not presently have a literal output of E.D.M Arms or Barrett Firearms Mfg. Rather, NCIC assigns the narrative "EDML" and "Barett Firearms" for these long guns. Therefore, while the literal does not match Mr. X rifle's imprint, the code is correct and applicable to his weapon.

This letter serves as a confirmation that the literal printout of "EDML and BARETT FIREARMS" on Mr. X's .50 BMG Rifle Registration confirmation letter refers to his rifles, also serial numbers entered into the firearms database cannot lead with a zero, that is why the print only shows the serial numbers as XX and YY. Mr. X may attach this letter to his .50 BMG Rifle Registration confirmation letter and refer any and all local law enforcement questions regarding this matter to me.

If you have any additional questions, feel free to contact the Firearms Licensing and Permits Unit @ (916) 227-3268

Sincerely,

Cynthia Johnson, Supervisor
Firearms Licensing and Permits Unit

If any others are experiencing similar difficulties or have questions about their letters from DOJ, please contact DOJ at the number provided above.

FCI would also ask everyone who is experiencing problems with CA DOJ to keep us informed on the issue also. The least we can do is hold their toes to the fire.

Best Regards.
John Burtt, Chmn FCI