The Firearm:

The original AK plant and the office of Kalashnikov is in the Izhmash factory in Izhevsk Russia. The Izhmash factory manufactures a sporting version of the world famous AK and they call it "SAIGA". There are some changes such as:

Hunting stock / forend

Standard capacity magazines

Wide range of calibers or gauges

Sporting sighting system

No. California "assault weapon" law is divided into three separate categories. Category 1 and 2 assault weapons must be explicitly listed in order for them to be prohibited under California law as an "assault weapon." Category 3 "assault weapons" are defined by possessing combination of features. The E.E.A. Saiga 7.62x39 is neither identified on the list, nor does it possess the features required to be a Category 3 "assault weapon."

Category 1 and 2:

On August 16, 2000, the California Supreme Court's long awaited decision in Kasler v. Lockyer (2000) 23 Cal.4th 472, a case which addresses the 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA), became final. The California Supreme Court reversed an earlier Court of Appeal decision which had determined there were constitutional infirmities in the AWCA. In Kasler, the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the AWCA in its entirety.

An integral part of the AWCA is the provision in Penal Code section 12276.5, which allows the Attorney General to add-on additional weapons which are similar to those listed in subdivisions (a), (b) and (c) of section 12276. In addition, and separate from the add-on provision, Penal Code section 12276, subdivisions (e) and (f), state that all AK "series" and AR-15 "series" weapons are controlled assault weapons even if they are "other models that are only variations, with minor differences, regardless of manufacturer." There are many copycat/clone "series" AK and AR-15 assault weapons.

The add-on provision of Penal Code section 12276.5 was a major subject of the Kasler litigation which began in 1992. During the pendency of the litigation and due to questions about the constitutionality of the AWCA, Attorney General Daniel Lungren, and later Attorney General Bill Lockyer, did not use the add-on provision to regulate other weapons, nor did the Department of Justice identify the "series" weapons listed in the separate provisions of Penal Code section 12276, subdivisions (e) and (f). "Series" weapons continued to be manufactured, imported into California, sold, purchased and possessed within California without regard to Penal Code section 12276, subdivisions (e) and (f).

In 1999 the Legislature expanded the assault weapons definition by adding Penal Code section 12276.1, which identifies assault weapons by characteristics (Category 3). The California Supreme Court held in Kasler that "concerned citizens need not struggle with the question whether, for example, a particular firearm is identical to one of the listed assault weapons except for slight modifications. The citizens may simply consult the amended list. (The availability of the amended list distinguishes the cases upon which the Court of Appeal relied in holding the AWCA unconstitutionally vague--Springfield Armory, supra, 29 F.3d 250, and Robertson v. City and County of Denver (Colo.1994) 874 P.2d 325.) Because the standard set forth in section 12276.5, subdivision (a), is to be applied by the Attorney General and the superior court, we need not and do not reach the question whether it would be unconstitutionally vague if ordinary citizens were required to apply it.

The Kasler decision has affirmed the Attorney General's authority to identify assault weapons with both the add-on provisions of Penal Code section 12276.5 and identify the "series" AK and AR-15 assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276 (e) and (f).

In Harrott v. County of King (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1138, the court held that the trial court exceeded its authority in declaring the rifle to be an AK series assault weapon under Pen. Code,