California Penal Code section 30605 prohibits possession of an assault weapon as defined by California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA, PC 30500 and following). The statute is among the most technically complex firearms charges in California because the definition of “assault weapon” depends on a constellation of features under PC 30515 and on regulatory determinations by the Department of Justice. Recent federal court decisions have cast significant doubt on the constitutional viability of California’s assault weapons ban, and any current PC 30605 prosecution should be evaluated against the latest decisional landscape.
What counts as an “assault weapon” under California law
California uses two main definitional pathways:
Listed make-and-model. PC 30510 lists specific named firearms (AK rifles, AR rifles in specified configurations, certain SKS variants, and others) that are categorically assault weapons regardless of feature configuration.
Feature-based definition. PC 30515 defines “assault weapon” by a combination of action type (semiautomatic) and prohibited features. For semiautomatic centerfire rifles with detachable magazines, the prohibited features include a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a folding or telescoping stock, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, or a forward pistol grip. For pistols and shotguns, separate feature lists apply.
The interaction of make-and-model and feature-based pathways is the source of most factual disputes in PC 30605 cases. Modifications, post-purchase changes, and “featureless” build configurations are common defense areas.
The grandfather and registration framework
California’s AWCA allows pre-ban registered owners to retain their assault weapons subject to specific conditions. A defendant charged with PC 30605 should be evaluated for whether the firearm was lawfully registered under prior California DOJ registration windows (the original 1989 window, the subsequent SKS registration windows, and the 2017-2018 “bullet button” registration period). Lawful registration is a complete defense to possession by the registered owner.
Current constitutional challenges
California’s Assault Weapons Control Act has been the subject of significant federal litigation, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1, which established the text-and-history framework for Second Amendment analysis. Miller v. Bonta in the Southern District of California struck down California’s AWB on Second Amendment grounds (the decision is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit; status varies by date). Rupp v. Bonta involves a similar challenge.
Defendants charged with PC 30605 should evaluate the current decisional status. In some courts, motions challenging the constitutional viability of the underlying statute have produced traction or appellate posture preservation, even if the trial court ultimately denies the motion. The constitutional defense layer is rapidly evolving.
Common PC 30605 defenses
Featureless configuration. A semiautomatic rifle that does not have any of the PC 30515 prohibited features (pistol grip, thumbhole stock, etc.) and is configured as a “featureless” rifle is not an assault weapon by the feature-based definition. This is a major factual area for defense in modified-rifle cases.
Registered pre-ban. If the firearm was lawfully registered under any of California’s prior registration windows, possession by the registered owner is lawful.
Fixed magazine configuration. The “bullet button” and “fixed magazine” markets developed in response to the AWCA. A rifle with a fixed magazine that does not allow detachment without disassembly may fall outside the assault weapon definition depending on the timing of the conduct and the current regulatory state.
Constitutional challenge. As discussed above, the constitutionality of the AWCA is actively litigated post-Bruen. Motion practice preserving the constitutional issue is important even where trial court relief is unlikely.
Knowledge defenses. The prosecution must prove the defendant knew or had reason to know the firearm met the assault weapon definition. Possession of an inherited firearm or a recently acquired firearm with unknown feature history can support a knowledge defense.
Sentencing
PC 30605 is generally a wobbler. As a misdemeanor, maximum is one year in county jail. As a felony, exposure is 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years under PC 1170(h). The collateral firearm consequences are severe and largely cannot be restored without complete vacatur of the conviction.
Related pages
- Weapons Charges Defense Overview
- PC § 25400 CCW Defense
- PC § 29800 Felon in Possession of a Firearm
- Expungement and Record Sealing
The Law Office of Zak Fisher is a Los Angeles criminal defense practice. This page is general legal information about California Penal Code § 30605, not legal advice for any specific matter. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in your case. No attorney-client relationship is formed without a signed engagement letter. Attorney Advertising. Zak Fisher, Esq., California Bar No. 332712.
Skip to content