Enterprising Gun Makers Create Workarounds To California’s New Assault Weapon Ban

by Abigail Sterling and Allen Martin

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) — California’s new assault weapons ban will require tens of thousands of gun owners in the state to register their ARs as assault weapons by the end of the year. But enterprising gun makers have already come out with workarounds to avoid it.

One of them is the so-called ‘Drop in Fixed Magazine’ or DFM, made by Franklin Armory.

Franklin Armory owner Jay Jacobson demonstrated his patented new device to KPIX. It’s designed to get around the state’s new assault weapons law.

The new law clamps down on a previous device known as a bullet button, a workaround for an earlier ban on rifles with detachable and quickly reloadable ammunition magazines.

Part 1: Expanded California Assault Weapon Ban Leaves Thousands Of Gun Owners In Limbo 

Under the revised rules, bullet button guns with certain other features are now considered assault weapons that will have to be registered by the end of the year.

But many gun owners don’t want to do that, hence the DFM.

The magazine is fixed from the bottom is the law requires. But it can come out the top, technically legal because it involves partially disassembling the gun. It’s a workaround that still allows shooters to quickly reload with very little delay.

“Basically if it’s not written that you can’t do it, it should be good to go. So it’s not a loophole, it’s just the legislature hasn’t covered that yet,” said Jacobson.

The DFM is not the only “workaround” product on the market. We found half a dozen online, like the AR Maglock, the Patriot Mag Release the MA Loader, or the Bear Flag Defense. They are all designed to allow bullet button gun owners to avoid registering, yet still have fast re-loading weapons.

The Department of Justice won’t say whether any of these devices are legal until after it issues formal regulations on how to implement the new assault weapons ban, a process that is six months behind schedule. But advocates for stricter gun laws are already crying foul.

“It’s a game of whackamole,” said Ari Freilich with the Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Freilich helped lawmakers in Sacramento craft the new gun law.

“You don’t need to slaughter a herd of deer when you are hunting, that is what they are saying these are for. These are weapons of war. If we can add an additional second of reload we can save lives. A classroom of children escaped the Sandy Hook massacre while the shooter stopped to reload,” he said.

But it’s an argument Jacobson and many gun owners will never buy.

“Criminals don’t care. So the only people that are affected by this are law abiding Californians that are trying to do the right thing. The legislature has tried several times to basically find ways to prevent the AR-15 from entering California. And the reality is that whether it’s Franklin Armory or my peers in the industry, there’s always going to be a way to make the firearm legal in California, and they are just grasping at straws,” said Jacobson.

According to the DOJ’s website regulations governing the new assault weapons law are still pending, but should be effective in the very near future.

Comments

One Comment

  1. 1. The Second Amendment was not created for the purpose of hunting. It was created for national defense and as a means to prevent and fight back against a tyrannical government.

    2. All guns were considered weapons of war at some point. A pump-action shotgun was and still is used in war. In the Marines we used the Mossberg 590A1 and still do. Bolt action rifles were used as primary infantry weapons for almost a century. A bow and arrow was a weapon of war at some point so drop the whole “get these weapons of war off the streets” argument because it’s complete and utter nonsense. Just another slogan to push for the deterioration of constitutional rights.

    3.The AR series of rifles started with the AR-10 in the late 1950’s which was produced solely for the civilian market so yes it was originally designed as a sporting rifle. The military M-16 and the civilian AR-15 ( which has never been issued as a weapon of war) version came later.

  2. Mark Farris says:

    Which proves the point more than ever that an “assault weapon” is a derogatory political term not a type of weapons system. You can’t ban a type of round which many guns use the 5.56 AR round and even if you did then they’ll just use a handgun or more powerful round or even a battle rifle which is an actual weapons category.

  3. Gerry Nance says:

    Proof the Communist-Democrat tyrants in government lack firearms knowledge or experience needed. They feel it is their job to protect our safety but ignore their duty to guarantee our freedom.

  4. Ben Miles says:

    THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GUN SAFETY OR REDUCING CRIME! THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF ALL GUN CONTROL ACTIONS IS TO DISARM THE UNORGANIZED MILITIAS IN THE UNITED STATES. IF GUNS ARE DENIED THAT OPERATE AS INTENDED BY THE DESIGNERS AND MANUFACTURERS, THE MILITIA’S WILL NOT BE ABLE TO OPERATE AS THE SECOND AMENDMENT INTENDED!

    THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING!

    IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH NATIONAL SECURITY AND PRESERVING THE REPUBLIC!

  5. David Poole says:

    It’s obvious Freilich has absolutely zero understanding of the Second Amendment. If he were to take a look at the Supreme Court decision on U.S. vs. Miller (1939) – it was deemed sawed-off shotguns were not covered under the Second Amendment due to the fact they were NOT used as a weapon of war in the military at the time – and that ONLY weapons of war were covered by the Second Amendment.

    The Second Amendment is precisely about private citizens in possession of arms deemed necessary to protect the liberties of the people. In other words; civilians have a RIGHT to possess weapons of war.

    Now, I completely disagree that the AR-15 is a “weapon of war” being that it doesn’t meet the currently military requirements (select fire capability). But to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights by declaring that contrary to U.S. v Miller weapons of war are not allowed in civilian hands and thus California is requiring that semi-automatic weapons be hampered; that is an infringement on our rights that are protected by the Constitution.

    Law makers in California should be tried for treason.

    1. Henry Bowman says:

      “U.S. vs. Miller (1939) – it was deemed sawed-off shotguns were not covered under the Second Amendment”

      Enemies of the Second Amendment prefer you to think the Court upheld this ban, but in fact they never did. See analysis of the decision at https://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=5103#comment-331252

  6. “These are weapons of war.”

    The irony of this is, of course, that weapons of war are the quintessential arms protected by the Second Amendment.

  7. Pretty clear that ole Ari doesn’t know anything about the guns he’s helping to resign restrictions for.

    Same kind of clown that claims the First Amendment doesn’t protect speech his finds offensive.

  8. Henry Bowman says:

    “It’s a game of whackamole,” said Ari Freilich with the Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

    And, like many carnival games, only total suckers think they are going to win this one.

    If legal gun manufacturers, who care VERY MUCH about staying within the confines of the law, can so effortlessly finesse “the legislature’s finest” every time they pass a new, stupid, meaningless restriction on firearms, how much more ineffective must these stupid laws be against lawless people who don’t care at all about what is or isn’t prohibited?

    The nation as a whole learned the lesson that PROHIBITION NEVER WORKS back in 1933. Except for progressive loons, who have become our new national Puritan class.

  9. The second amendment says ‘shall not be infringed’ – how is this not infringement?

  10. If the state reduces the speed limit on a particular highway from 70 mph to 65 mph and I therefore reduce my speed to 65 mph, is that a “workaround” to the law, or am I “complying” with the law, because I’m a little confused. Also, what kind of reckless journalism is it when you describe devices and firearms that have a much slower and difficult reloading process than many common bolt-action rifles as allowing “quickly reload with very little delay”? This is the equivalent of saying that putting a trigger-lock on your pistol makes it much more dangerous around kids. Is it opposite day at CBS?

  11. Alan Ridge says:

    Haynes v. United States: “felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

More From CBS San Francisco

Get The New CBS SF Bay Area Local App
Got Our Weather App?
Listen to Radio.com Anywhere, Anytime!

Watch & Listen LIVE