CA320; A Franklin Armory / SIG CA Compliant 320 pistol

[HCM]

To our friends in the occupied zone:

Franklin Armory showed off a Cali Compliant CA320 at SHOT Show 2023.

Basically a SIG 320 FCU and slide which Franklin gets directly from SIG as a virgin receiver so it has never legally been a semi auto pistol. Franklin then adds their grip shell which makes it a single shot pistol. Similar to how starting with a virgin receiver allows creation of Shockwave /tac 14 “Firearms” because the receiver has never been a shotgun.

Here’s where it gets interesting. They are not using the prior “single shot exemption.” Instead Franklin has gotten their single shot CA320 on the roster as a single shot pistol.

Of course it’s modular like any other 320 so after a CA subject buys their single shot CA320 there is nothing stopping them from removing the Franklin single shot grip and replacing it with a SIG or aftermarket 320 grip and appropriate CA legal (10 round) magazine.

[Mark D]

I'm intrigued. I'm curious what the CA DOJ will think of it. And I really wish Franklin had chosen the 365 module instead of the 320.

[HCM]

I'm intrigued. I'm curious what the CA DOJ will think of it. And I really wish Franklin had chosen the 365 module instead of the 320.

CA DOJ has already put it on their (unconstitutional) CA DOJ handgun roster. Beyond that who cares what they think of it.

I’m not aware of any reason Franklin couldn’t do this with a 365 series pistol.

[Mark D]

CA DOJ has already put it on their (unconstitutional) CA DOJ handgun roster. Beyond that who cares what they think of it.

I should have been more specific. To rephrase, I wonder what the CA DOJ will think of folks removing the fire control unit from the single shot grip module and putting it in a semi-auto grip module.

Sometimes CA DOJ can be...zealous in their enforcement of CA firearms laws.

[vandal]

They would probably say that results in the illegal manufacture of an unsafe handgun. IE one they have not tested and determined to be not unsafe.

Some IAs have refused to issue CCWs for guns that are registered as single shots. There are paperwork ways of changing the registered designation but that would not change the DOJs view of the transformation.

Is anybody going to be caught and charged? Probably not.

[HCM]

I should have been more specific. To rephrase, I wonder what the CA DOJ will think of folks removing the fire control unit from the single shot grip module and putting it in a semi-auto grip module.

Sometimes CA DOJ can be...zealous in their enforcement of CA firearms laws.

I’m aware, but there is no statute saying you can’t modify a gun after you buy it in “California compliant” configuration.

Worst case they pull them off the roster which would trigger a lawsuit.

[HCM]

They would probably say that results in the illegal manufacture of an unsafe handgun. IE one they have not tested and determined to be not unsafe.

Some IAs have refused to issue CCWs for guns that are registered as single shots. There are paperwork ways of changing the registered designation but that would not change the DOJs view of the transformation.

Is anybody going to be caught and charged? Probably not.

If that were true then anyone who modified a roster gun after purchase would be doing so.

Things like refinishing, optics, cuts, stippling, grip chops. CA considers any variation to be a different and “unsafe” gun for list purposes.

This is really only practical with modular handguns like the Sig, the Styer the Beretta APX.

[WobblyPossum]

I love it. It sounds like there’s no reason they can’t do this with every one of the other modular fire control group pistols too.

[vandal]

If that were true then anyone who modified a roster gun after purchase would be doing so.

Things like refinishing, optics, cuts, stippling, grip chops. CA considers any variation to be a different and “unsafe” gun for list purposes.

This is really only practical with modular handguns like the Sig, the Styer the Beretta APX.

Yeah it makes zero sense but a DOJ guy recently presented that logic in an interview.

[HCM]

Yeah it makes zero sense but a DOJ guy recently presented that logic in an interview.

But there’s no statute for them to pursue violation of.