I’ll admit it, I was wrong…

A few weeks ago, I posted this update about AB 1673 before the amended text was actually published. In it, I implied that the latest, amended version of the bill would require gun parts such as buffer springs to be serialized and treated like fully functional firearms. This is incorrect. The amended bill has finally been posted and, as currently written, AB 1673 reads:

As used in the following provisions, “firearm” includes the finished frame or receiver of the weapon, or the unfinished frame or receiver of a weapon that can be readily converted to the functional condition of a finished frame or receiver: weapon, or a frame or receiver blank, casting, or machined body, that is designed and clearly identifiable as a component of a functional weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.

Here is the bill’s text without the potentially confusing formatting:

As used in the following provisions, “firearm” includes the frame or receiver of the weapon, or a frame or receiver blank, casting, or machined body, that is designed and clearly identifiable as a component of a functional weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.

As you can clearly see, I erred when I implied that components made using wireform processes were covered by the bill. They are not. But then again, wireforms are just about the only manufacturing process that’s not covered by the bill. Anything “clearly identifiable as a component of a functional weapon” made using casting or machining processes would have to be serialized and treated like a fully functional firearm.

Now you might argue that I’m being obtuse in this interpretation. “Obviously, the intent of this bill is to regulate so-called 80% receivers. See? It says ‘frame or receiver’ in the text.” Then why is the word “component” in the text? If this really is about 80% receivers, then the text should read:

As used in the following provisions, “firearm” includes the frame or receiver of the weapon, or a frame or receiver blank, casting, or machined body, that is designed and clearly identifiable as a component frame or receiver of a functional weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.

And since the “80% receiver” concept has its origins in Federal law, why not quote the relevant sections of the US Code? Either Mr. Gipson is truly ignorant when it comes to firearms technology or he really does intend to regulate everything in a firearm that isn’t made using wireform processes. If the former is true, then why on Earth is he being allowed to write gun laws?! If the latter is true, then he clearly holds contemptuous view of the People of California.

But as a general rule, when one can explain another’s actions as being the result of either stupidity or malice, it’s best to assume that stupidity is to blame. So until he says otherwise, we’ll have to assume that Mr. Gipson is acting out of mere intellectual impairment.