Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3361  
Old 06-28-2017, 6:29 PM
Maximus924's Avatar
Maximus924 Maximus924 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 454
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by colossians323 View Post
? a delay of the inevitable is not a victory. Registration is registration
Its not a delay of the inevitable, it is hope for those who are choosing to register that the bullet button may not be required post-registration.

I am not registering any of my ARs, but I have a handgun that will require registration, no other reasonable choices with it - and IF it was denied due to the unreasonable BB language, and the denial leads to the an end to the "BB AW's" it would be a HUGE win when I am going to be forced to register.
  #3362  
Old 06-28-2017, 6:34 PM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post

Also echoing a bad though on the new FPC article:

4. The DOJ can (and probably will) resubmit these same or very similar regulations in a regular rulemaking action -- or possibly even "emergency regulations" -- under the Administrative Procedures Act.
It is why I asked prior that it would be useful if we know the OAL's basis for denial.

Isn't it true that DOJ as a regulating agency has the authority to write new or amend regulations to clarify not just new law but existing one as well? So it could write more regulation on AB23 to define AW further. B/c OAL just denied file and print but not disapprove any of the new regs, DOJ could just use the standard APA process, have a public comment period, disregard all comments, and resubmit to OAL.

OAL by not disapproving, could be an indication that they are just CYA for F&P procedural, thus, if APA is followed, they may just rubber stamp it.

I'm hoping OAL also felt the regs were over reaching and save DOJ from embarrassment by just deny F&P without disapproving (which basically calling DOJ lawyers incompetent) Guess we will know once DOJ takes its next step.
  #3363  
Old 06-28-2017, 6:39 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,078
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Don't miss the next episode of The Dumb and The Worthless


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
  #3364  
Old 06-28-2017, 6:40 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,782
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

A lot of us are fine with registration as long as they correctly interpret the law and PC and just open it like they did in the SB23 period in 2000. We believe that it protects gun owners from further reclassification and further restriction, which is in no way guaranteed but is supported by the last 30 years of the AWCA (no one has redefined anything in that timeframe). We then believe that a large registry builds common law arguments and feeds into the various lawsuits that challenge the validity of the ACA. In other words, a form of cooperation that ends with the destruction of the system or at least a way for some Californians to keep standard rifles.

Others say registration = confiscations, don't comply or comply in other ways that are not registration, and that through non-registration we weaken the AWCA system.

I believe we need to take some from column A and some from column B and diversify the approach. If they open the reg the way it was intended by the law, then I say it's your duty to register a few to make sure that road has some strength in numbers when it comes litigation time. Some featureless so if that road works out we have strength in numbers come litigation time.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

  #3365  
Old 06-28-2017, 6:40 PM
DBilleb's Avatar
DBilleb DBilleb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Between 95501 and 92154
Posts: 163
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
If the OAL said, "listen, we read the cover letter and do not agree the rationale is legal that a BB makes a rifle an AW", then that's one possibility. But what if they came back and said "these definitions make no sense and are not in the PC or Law, and your calling for types of weapons to be registered that are not considered AW", that's a wholly different thing. That would mean that their system of classification is precarious, and that any attempt at singling out a BB is not going to be possible because the definitions and types of guns semantics needs to be fixed first.

It's clear to me now that there could be a real problem for them now even getting to the point where they can call a BB something that defines an AW if they can't reclassify the system SB23 created to define features. They can't go back and use the SB23 system because SB880 just made a BB not meet the requirements for a fixed magazine, defacto making it no different than a standard mag release.

So they can't use the old system because it kills their ability define a BB as the feature that makes a gun an AW, and they can't go forward with a new classification or "category of AW" because the OAL is pushing back on it because its not in the PC or law. Rock meet hard place.

If that is true, which I admit is pure conjecture, then they would have to just use the SB23 system and move the hell on with their registration. They tried and failed to present a new "category" of AW because no one can find it in the PC or law.

Wishful thinking, because it could be something entirely different!
You have no idea how much I hope you are correct. Although a high probability of not being televised, I'd love to watch on the 6 o'clock news our newly appointed AG explaining to the public the outcome of his teams handy work.
  #3366  
Old 06-28-2017, 6:42 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,782
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walmart_ar15 View Post
It is why I asked prior that it would be useful if we know the OAL's basis for denial.

Isn't it true that DOJ as a regulating agency has the authority to write new or amend regulations to clarify not just new law but existing one as well? So it could write more regulation on AB23 to define AW further. B/c OAL just denied file and print but not disapprove any of the new regs, DOJ could just use the standard APA process, have a public comment period, disregard all comments, and resubmit to OAL.

OAL by not disapproving, could be an indication that they are just CYA for F&P procedural, thus, if APA is followed, they may just rubber stamp it.

I'm hoping OAL also felt the regs were over reaching and save DOJ from embarrassment by just deny F&P without disapproving (which basically calling DOJ lawyers incompetent) Guess we will know once DOJ takes its next step.
Yeah, we have no idea why they rejected. And anything is possible, so we are back to the black hole of not knowing. Every possibility is real.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

  #3367  
Old 06-28-2017, 6:47 PM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is offline
#2 guy at OCP
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,187
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Just ask yourself a serious question.

If they did the same exact thing in 2000, why did they wait 17 years to do round 2?
  #3368  
Old 06-28-2017, 6:52 PM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Yeah, we have no idea why they rejected. And anything is possible, so we are back to the black hole of not knowing. Every possibility is real.
Being optimistic, the DOJ cover letter may have been written to convince OAL, (not as an response to M&A.) By the denial, it could signal that OAL is not convinced..

Guess we can always hope
  #3369  
Old 06-28-2017, 6:53 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,782
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Just ask yourself a serious question.

If they did the same exact thing in 2000, why did they wait 17 years to do round 2?
Well, they were trying to as early as 2007, but it always got rejected, most recently by veto from Brown. There was a major hiccup with anti-gun champion Leeland Yee, the guy that coined the BB nomenclature in his bills, when he was arrested for felony weapons smuggling, lol.

The fact is that they have always been dragged kicking and screaming into any registration. They simply do not want to open any of the periods, it's their only way to get their insane bans across without violating the law and making provisions for those that bought and owned legally in the past. They made it extremely hard in 2000, I had to wait until August of that year to get a form that the DOJ claimed was readily available but didn't exist for months.

You have to realize that the last thing they want to do is have this reg period go smoothly with a big turnout, hence everything that has happened in the last year.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

  #3370  
Old 06-28-2017, 6:58 PM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Just ask yourself a serious question.

If they did the same exact thing in 2000, why did they wait 17 years to do round 2?
B/C back in 2000, it was not a walk in the park to had it done... lots of mis-steps...

These are government workers... less work is good. They know clear well that AWB does zip to crime. So unless it is forced on to them, they r not gonna act on their own. It took 17 yrs to have another bill passed. And more registeration just bring to the open how common these type of rifle are in our society, without having crime rate increase. Not so good for PR

Last edited by walmart_ar15; 06-28-2017 at 7:01 PM..
  #3371  
Old 06-28-2017, 7:04 PM
Ocguy31 Ocguy31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walmart_ar15 View Post
B/C back in 2000, it was not a walk in the park to had it done... lots of mis-steps...

These are government workers... less work is good. They know clear well that AWB does zip to crime. So unless it is forced on to them, they r not gonna act on their own. It took 17 yrs to have another bill passed. And more registeration just bring to the open how common these type of rifle are in our society, without having crime rate increase. Not so good for PR
Not quite 17 years. All SACF rifles with a detachable magazine were banned in a bill that Browne vetoed when he still had a spine.
  #3372  
Old 06-28-2017, 7:16 PM
Junkie's Avatar
Junkie Junkie is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,771
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
By a strict reading of the PC, it only says we must register XYZ weapons. It does not say anything about registering other firearms, nor does it even say the firearm has to be functioning. DOJ invented that law themselves.
Correct, but I think a regulation saying you can only register AWs would likely have been accepted, as that has to do with registration (which is what they were allowed to bypass for).
__________________
I will never buy another Spikes Tactical item, as I have a 5.45 marked barrel from them with a 5.56 bore that keyholed at 25 yards, and they wouldn't replace it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
A real live woman is more expensive than a fleshlight. Which would you rather have?
  #3373  
Old 06-28-2017, 7:35 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,151
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Just ask yourself a serious question.

If they did the same exact thing in 2000, why did they wait 17 years to do round 2?
I would put money on the San Bernardino incident. Brown folded after that incident occurred.

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman

Last edited by meno377; 06-28-2017 at 7:38 PM..
  #3374  
Old 06-28-2017, 7:57 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,447
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
I would put money on the San Bernardino incident. Brown folded after that incident occurred.

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk
I agree. They used San Bernadino to punish us nothing nothing less.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
  #3375  
Old 06-28-2017, 8:02 PM
pluke the 2 pluke the 2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: █████████
Posts: 1,939
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

This whole thing is fishy. Maybe they want to trick calguners into a mindset that after you register you'll be able to remove your bullet buttons. Then they'll come for your guns.
  #3376  
Old 06-28-2017, 8:03 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,089
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
I agree. They used San Bernadino to punish us nothing nothing less.

And in the same breath, railed against Donald Trump and his travel ban because all Muslims should be welcomed no matter what....

  #3377  
Old 06-28-2017, 9:25 PM
Ocguy31 Ocguy31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pluke the 2 View Post
This whole thing is fishy. Maybe they want to trick calguners into a mindset that after you register you'll be able to remove your bullet buttons. Then they'll come for your guns.
Don't stand too close to the microwave with that thing!
  #3378  
Old 06-28-2017, 10:25 PM
SmallShark's Avatar
SmallShark SmallShark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento 95834
Posts: 1,323
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pluke the 2 View Post
This whole thing is fishy. Maybe they want to trick calguners into a mindset that after you register you'll be able to remove your bullet buttons. Then they'll come for your guns.
then, why wouldnt they want you to register featureless?

i mean they are really trying to block featureless registration

and they allow de-registration
  #3379  
Old 06-28-2017, 11:34 PM
HiND-SIGHT HiND-SIGHT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 235
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

SB23 is the way to go. Like I said it's an existing system, just amend it to include BB as an AW feature, the whole registration infastructure already exists, just digitize it and take a week off.....
__________________
Scrödinger's Gun Case: the serial number inside is in a state of quantum flux and can appear in different random states unrelating to how a person views it.
  #3380  
Old 06-28-2017, 11:41 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,782
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiND-SIGHT View Post
SB23 is the way to go. Like I said it's an existing system, just amend it to include BB as an AW feature, the whole registration infastructure already exists, just digitize it and take a week off.....
Amen, so easy. And their pundits can spin it as a walk-off win and no one would draw any more attention to it, and the extension would simply be a scheduling error. I am sure CRPA and NRA-IL would back off, and allow the millions of guns from hundreds or thousands of users to go in.

I doubt they would even file any more lawsuits. Instead, we could all concentrate on the big one, which is to nullify at the root: the system makes no sense. An AW is in fact a standard rifle, supported by hundreds and thousands of users in CA and millions in the USA.

And if they did ever come for the registry, hundreds and thousands of people would be available for class action. It also help ensure de-registration will be allowed to happen in a timely manner if too many are having problems doing it.

It's a win-win-win and the best outcome for them and us in this mess. I would still keep a few featureless just to hedge.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

  #3381  
Old 06-29-2017, 12:30 AM
unclerandy unclerandy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 738
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

bookmark
  #3382  
Old 06-29-2017, 3:24 AM
Mr. Torgue Mr. Torgue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
I think the main problem with the whole idea of registering is the cost. One or 2 ARs, and maybe an AK is not a big deal. Even if you have to keep a bb on it, just for the sake of having something pending future litigation. What about all those oddball rifles you and others own? Scars, Aug, MPX, etc. We register those, and we are in effect stuck with them, even in cases where we may need to sell them. Selling out of state with an AW broker is a pain and a cost.

And while you have in the past promoted the idea that you can always deregister the rifle and convert it to featureless, my question to you is...after you've seen all this crap the DOJ has done so far, do you REALLY trust these people to do anything correctly or efficiently? I could convert the rifle to featureless, and they may not like the conversion and deny my deregistration, or they may just take a very long time processing it. Who knows? I'm not trusting thousands of dollars in guns to what these guys may or may not do.

So registering a handful of ars (which are built with sacrificial lowers) is one thing, and something that most people should consider, but anything more, forget it. It's just not worth it.
I'm registering my SCAR and not worried about it. If I need to sell I'll slap a fin on it and put a fixed stock on it and it's good to go. The Aug just needs a brake and grip fin and it's good. These odd ball guns aren't that hard to convert. Hell, some dude had a featureless Tavor on here.
  #3383  
Old 06-29-2017, 5:40 AM
August August is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,646
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Torgue View Post
I'm registering my SCAR and not worried about it. If I need to sell I'll slap a fin on it and put a fixed stock on it and it's good to go. The Aug just needs a brake and grip fin and it's good. These odd ball guns aren't that hard to convert. Hell, some dude had a featureless Tavor on here.
If you register as AW, you'll have to go through giant the hoops to de-register it back to non AW before you can go featureless to sell; if even possible

Last edited by August; 06-29-2017 at 5:44 AM..
  #3384  
Old 06-29-2017, 6:01 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 676
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by August View Post
If you register as AW, you'll have to go through giant the hoops to de-register it back to non AW before you can go featureless to sell; if even possible
For ARs, outside of cases where you have matched billet upper and lower receivers and want to keep them together, you can strip the lower, put everything in a bag with the upper, and sell it like that. Let the buyer figure out how they want to stay within the law (or not worry about it at all if they aren't in California.)

Most random AR-15 lower receivers just aren't that valuable, and ones that have been California RAWs are only worth anything to the person that registered them.

/edited to add: d'oh, okay read the few posts leading up to this one and I'm not saying anything anyone doesn't already know, oops.

Last edited by champu; 06-29-2017 at 6:04 AM..
  #3385  
Old 06-29-2017, 6:02 AM
AGGRO's Avatar
AGGRO AGGRO is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by August View Post
If you register as AW, you'll have to go through giant the hoops to de-register it back to non AW before you can go featureless to sell; if even possible
You can, the journey will be long and painful. Never again.
  #3386  
Old 06-29-2017, 6:05 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,165
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Amen, so easy.
But that would not execute the will of the Legislature.
  #3387  
Old 06-29-2017, 6:36 AM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,562
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Just ask yourself a serious question.

If they did the same exact thing in 2000, why did they wait 17 years to do round 2?
None of the conspiracy theorists seem to understand the real purpose of these assault weapon bans. It would be nice if you would grasp and face reality, but you are too busy getting all up in your righteous indignation. I don't mean you, LSG, but your question raises the issue nicely.

First, try to get this through your heads: They don't care about your stupid guns! The purpose of the legislation is not to disarm you or prepare the ground for communist tyranny or whatever end of world, "Wolverines!" New World Order, Come and Take Them, Out of My Cold Dead Fingers, fantasy you have going on, it's simply to get re-elected. The purpose of gun control legislation is to show the folks back in the constituencies that you are doing something.

Today with term limits in California (which by the way have made a dysfunctional Legislature even worse, ask your NRA-ILA rep what he thinks about that about that), it's not so much to get re-elected, but to secure your position in the Democratic pecking order for higher office or ever more comfortable government party sinecures. But it amounts to the same thing: it's not about guns or even crime or public safety, it's about professional advancement.

And you can also put aside your partisan umbrage: Republicans do the same thing, unless you have some other explanation for why the House voted something like 200 times to rescind Obamacare while knowing the legislation wouldn't get anywhere with a Democratic controlled Senate.

Second, they pick gun control because it's a Culture War issue, and today fighting the Culture War is more important for both parties than actually solving problems. Gun control is right up there with abortion and transgender bathrooms and gay marriage and flag burning and all the other stupid crap that doesn't really affect very many people, but which gets almost all Americans worked up beyond the limits of reason. They don't care about your guns, they care that you have them and want them and that simply makes you a social enemy. And BTW you harbor the same irrational enmity against them because of harmless choices they have made, so you know how it feels.

The architects of the assault weapon bans have no interest whatever in how many seconds it takes you to change a magazine, or in any other technical detail that so absorbs people on this forum. They are simply trying to fight the Culture War.

The Roberti-Roos ban was developed after the Stockton shooting by looking through firearms distributor catalogs and making a list of the scariest looking guns. That's it! No one was concerned with the lethality of this or that model (as we know, all are equally lethal). They banned "AR-15s" and "AK-47s" and congratulated themselves and called it a day.

Then in a few years later SB23 tried to close the loopholes Roberti-Roos left behind with a features based ban, again, not because anyone gave a **** about the guns, but because guns were in the news in the wake of the Columbine shooting and it was another opportunity for a high visibility Culture War victory. The features ban obviously wasn't concerned with safety or lethality (flash suppressors don't make rifles more lethal), they were simply put together in an attempt to define the sorts of firearms they want to add to the ban (which is why the 1994 Federal ban included bayonet lugs; only military long guns have bayonet lugs). Once again, they reckoned they did a pretty good job of banning a whole mess of firearms, patted themselves on the back and called it a day.

After the Harrot decision, however, AR-15s and other scary black rifles reappeared in California, in huge numbers. Did the Legislature care? They did not. Again, they don't care about your guns. They passed their legislation and as far as anyone knew or cared these firearms were banned in California. A visit to any gun store would prove the lie, but most voters, and most of the Press, don't visit gun stores.

But as the off list lower and 80% mania got more and more visible, ambitious politicians sensed an opportunity. Not, I hasten to emphasize, an opportunity to ban guns and make the world a safer place, but an opportunity for more grandstanding and press conferences and even national visibility. The San Bernardino shooting was the catalyst for another opportunity for Culture War victory in the Legislature as well as with the referendum process (why do you think Gavin Newsom's proposition sought to ban something the Legislature had already banned? Because he seriously didn't think the legislation went far enough? No, it was because his name wasn't on it. Again, nothing to do with guns!).

Now we are in 2017 and we are running into people who, yes, really do sorta care about your guns, but they aren't in the Legislature. They are anonymous Culture Warriors in the Harris/Becerra DoJ who sense, correctly, that implementing the 2016 legislation as written would be a Culture War victory for a large number of California gun owners who would be able to throw away their hated bullet buttons. We're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of AR-15s and other such rifles that could be freely configured in a normal free-state manner. The Legislature probably didn't understand that, and if they did they certainly wouldn't have cared. But the DoJ certainly does. And they do not want to see you win!

So this is not about guns, or safety, or paving the way for tyranny, or any of the other popular slogans. It's about Culture War. It's simply one of the issues the parties use to divide Americans and rally them to their respective flags. There is nothing "liberal" about gun control; there is nothing "conservative" about empowering the masses with free access to firearms (as several recent conversation here on Calguns have revealed: plenty of members don't really believe in a right of the people to keep an bear arms, not if the people are different from them). Essentially, gun control is an urban issue and the defenders of gun rights have more rural values, and that is how the parties are dividing the country these days.

And we can't win, not in California anyway. The reason we can't win is because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you or have a different worldview or even because they have two X chromosomes.

But you will never do that, will you? If a "libtard" comes around here you will make sure he knows he's a "libtard" and he is reviled as such and you will make sure he goes away and you will make sure gun rights in California are nothing but a happy memory.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.

Last edited by Mitch; 06-29-2017 at 6:42 AM..
  #3388  
Old 06-29-2017, 6:47 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,500
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Yes you can use your rifle with BB until 7/1/18 as long as you convert it or register it before then.

The answers to your other questions are a little murkier though...

Travel restrictions should only apply to registered AW's, and yours isn't registered, so there should be no travel restrictions (though some people are encouraging exercising caution anyways. Going to/from range with reasonable stops along the way is fine.) Transfer restrictions do apply though (can't sell a BB rifle within CA), and so might restrictions on letting a minor use it (but I'm not sure on that)
I'd like to piont out that since Jan 1 all BB equipped featured rifles are unregistered assault weapons under the new law. Registering your AW gets you permission to transport it under certin authorized limitations. The "grace period" that is talked about means they are not going to come after you for just owning one until the registration period closes. It doesn't exempt you or make you immune for doing things that are legal with a registered AW that are illegal with an unregistered AW. If you disagree then show it to me in the law the way a DA would make you show it in court... you can't, it isn't there. Show me where it's legal to transport an unregistered AW... under ANY circumstances... it's not in there. Do you think that is sloppy wording or intentional? Do you think a hostile DA would make it out as intentional in court? Do you think your public defender is slick enough to get you out of that courtroom with your gun rights intact? It's just a matter of time until someone is unlucky and gets nabbed and slammed for this.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.

Last edited by bruss01; 06-29-2017 at 6:50 AM..
  #3389  
Old 06-29-2017, 6:48 AM
Red-Osier77's Avatar
Red-Osier77 Red-Osier77 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: There
Posts: 7,643
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
None of the conspiracy theorists seem to understand the real purpose of these assault weapon bans. It would be nice if you would grasp and face reality, but you are too busy getting all up in your righteous indignation. I don't mean you, LSG, but your question raises the issue nicely.

First, try to get this through your heads: They don't care about your stupid guns! The purpose of the legislation is not to disarm you or prepare the ground for communist tyranny or whatever end of world, "Wolverines!" New World Order, Come and Take Them, Out of My Cold Dead Fingers, fantasy you have going on, it's simply to get re-elected. The purpose of gun control legislation is to show the folks back in the constituencies that you are doing something.

Today with term limits in California (which by the way have made a dysfunctional Legislature even worse, ask your NRA-ILA rep what he thinks about that about that), it's not so much to get re-elected, but to secure your position in the Democratic pecking order for higher office or ever more comfortable government party sinecures. But it amounts to the same thing: it's not about guns or even crime or public safety, it's about professional advancement.

And you can also put aside your partisan umbrage: Republicans do the same thing, unless you have some other explanation for why the House voted something like 200 times to rescind Obamacare while knowing the legislation wouldn't get anywhere with a Democratic controlled Senate.

Second, they pick gun control because it's a Culture War issue, and today fighting the Culture War is more important for both parties than actually solving problems. Gun control is right up there with abortion and transgender bathrooms and gay marriage and flag burning and all the other stupid crap that doesn't really affect very many people, but which gets almost all Americans worked up beyond the limits of reason. They don't care about your guns, they care that you have them and want them and that simply makes you a social enemy. And BTW you harbor the same irrational enmity against them because of harmless choices they have made, so you know how it feels.

The architects of the assault weapon bans have no interest whatever in how many seconds it takes you to change a magazine, or in any other technical detail that so absorbs people on this forum. They are simply trying to fight the Culture War.

The Roberti-Roos ban was developed after the Stockton shooting by looking through firearms distributor catalogs and making a list of the scariest looking guns. That's it! No one was concerned with the lethality of this or that model (as we know, all are equally lethal). They banned "AR-15s" and "AK-47s" and congratulated themselves and called it a day.

Then in a few years later SB23 tried to close the loopholes Roberti-Roos left behind with a features based ban, again, not because anyone gave a **** about the guns, but because guns were in the news in the wake of the Columbine shooting and it was another opportunity for a high visibility Culture War victory. The features ban obviously wasn't concerned with safety or lethality (flash suppressors don't make rifles more lethal), they were simply put together in an attempt to define the sorts of firearms they want to add to the ban (which is why the 1994 Federal ban included bayonet lugs; only military long guns have bayonet lugs). Once again, they reckoned they did a pretty good job of banning a whole mess of firearms, patted themselves on the back and called it a day.

After the Harrot decision, however, AR-15s and other scary black rifles reappeared in California, in huge numbers. Did the Legislature care? They did not. Again, they don't care about your guns. They passed their legislation and as far as anyone knew or cared these firearms were banned in California. A visit to any gun store would prove the lie, but most voters, and most of the Press, don't visit gun stores.

But as the off list lower and 80% mania got more and more visible, ambitious politicians sensed an opportunity. Not, I hasten to emphasize, an opportunity to ban guns and make the world a safer place, but an opportunity for more grandstanding and press conferences and even national visibility. The San Bernardino shooting was the catalyst for another opportunity for Culture War victory in the Legislature as well as with the referendum process (why do you think Gavin Newsom's proposition sought to ban something the Legislature had already banned? Because he seriously didn't think the legislation went far enough? No, it was because his name wasn't on it. Again, nothing to do with guns!).

Now we are in 2017 and we are running into people who, yes, really do sorta care about your guns, but they aren't in the Legislature. They are anonymous Culture Warriors in the Harris/Becerra DoJ who sense, correctly, that implementing the 2016 legislation as written would be a Culture War victory for a large number of California gun owners who would be able to throw away their hated bullet buttons. We're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of AR-15s and other such rifles that could be freely configured in a normal free-state manner. The Legislature probably didn't understand that, and if they did they certainly wouldn't have cared. But the DoJ certainly does. And they do not want to see you win!

So this is not about guns, or safety, or paving the way for tyranny, or any of the other popular slogans. It's about Culture War. It's simply one of the issues the parties use to divide Americans and rally them to their respective flags. There is nothing "liberal" about gun control; there is nothing "conservative" about empowering the masses with free access to firearms (as several recent conversation here on Calguns have revealed: plenty of members don't really believe in a right of the people to keep an bear arms, not if the people are different from them). Essentially, gun control is an urban issue and the defenders of gun rights have more rural values, and that is how the parties are dividing the country these days.

And we can't win, not in California anyway. The reason we can't win is because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you or have a different worldview or even because they have two X chromosomes.

But you will never do that, will you? If a "libtard" comes around here you will make sure he knows he's a "libtard" and he is reviled as such and you will make sure he goes away and you will make sure gun rights in California are nothing but a happy memory.
Spot on Mitch
__________________
  #3390  
Old 06-29-2017, 6:59 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,500
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Wow Mitch, awesome post. I have long said the best way to win the GC war in this state is not by attacking, mocking, deriding "libtards" but by making some friends on that side and introducing them to the shooting sports. It dissolves their illusions and opens their eyes. They begin to see things contrary to the standard boilerplate they've been fed all their lives and jolts many of them into starting to think for themselves on the issue.

If more of us did this maybe we wouldn't have to fight so hard 5-10 years down the line.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
  #3391  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:04 AM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,151
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post

....And we can't win, not in California anyway. The reason we can't win is because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you or have a different worldview or even because they have two X chromosomes.

But you will never do that, will you? If a "libtard" comes around here you will make sure he knows he's a "libtard" and he is reviled as such and you will make sure he goes away and you will make sure gun rights in California are nothing but a happy memory.
A very good point. Something that more of us need NOT to forget.
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
  #3392  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:13 AM
pluke the 2 pluke the 2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: █████████
Posts: 1,939
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
First, try to get this through your heads: They don't care about your stupid guns!
i agree, good post Mitch ..........................

so then why are people still going to register
  #3393  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:14 AM
Rasyad Rasyad is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Berkeley
Posts: 145
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default Best Calguns Post of All Time

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
None of the conspiracy theorists seem to understand the real purpose of these assault weapon bans. It would be nice if you would grasp and face reality, but you are too busy getting all up in your righteous indignation. I don't mean you, LSG, but your question raises the issue nicely.

First, try to get this through your heads: They don't care about your stupid guns! The purpose of the legislation is not to disarm you or prepare the ground for communist tyranny or whatever end of world, "Wolverines!" New World Order, Come and Take Them, Out of My Cold Dead Fingers, fantasy you have going on, it's simply to get re-elected. The purpose of gun control legislation is to show the folks back in the constituencies that you are doing something.

Today with term limits in California (which by the way have made a dysfunctional Legislature even worse, ask your NRA-ILA rep what he thinks about that about that), it's not so much to get re-elected, but to secure your position in the Democratic pecking order for higher office or ever more comfortable government party sinecures. But it amounts to the same thing: it's not about guns or even crime or public safety, it's about professional advancement.

And you can also put aside your partisan umbrage: Republicans do the same thing, unless you have some other explanation for why the House voted something like 200 times to rescind Obamacare while knowing the legislation wouldn't get anywhere with a Democratic controlled Senate.

Second, they pick gun control because it's a Culture War issue, and today fighting the Culture War is more important for both parties than actually solving problems. Gun control is right up there with abortion and transgender bathrooms and gay marriage and flag burning and all the other stupid crap that doesn't really affect very many people, but which gets almost all Americans worked up beyond the limits of reason. They don't care about your guns, they care that you have them and want them and that simply makes you a social enemy. And BTW you harbor the same irrational enmity against them because of harmless choices they have made, so you know how it feels.

The architects of the assault weapon bans have no interest whatever in how many seconds it takes you to change a magazine, or in any other technical detail that so absorbs people on this forum. They are simply trying to fight the Culture War.

The Roberti-Roos ban was developed after the Stockton shooting by looking through firearms distributor catalogs and making a list of the scariest looking guns. That's it! No one was concerned with the lethality of this or that model (as we know, all are equally lethal). They banned "AR-15s" and "AK-47s" and congratulated themselves and called it a day.

Then in a few years later SB23 tried to close the loopholes Roberti-Roos left behind with a features based ban, again, not because anyone gave a **** about the guns, but because guns were in the news in the wake of the Columbine shooting and it was another opportunity for a high visibility Culture War victory. The features ban obviously wasn't concerned with safety or lethality (flash suppressors don't make rifles more lethal), they were simply put together in an attempt to define the sorts of firearms they want to add to the ban (which is why the 1994 Federal ban included bayonet lugs; only military long guns have bayonet lugs). Once again, they reckoned they did a pretty good job of banning a whole mess of firearms, patted themselves on the back and called it a day.

After the Harrot decision, however, AR-15s and other scary black rifles reappeared in California, in huge numbers. Did the Legislature care? They did not. Again, they don't care about your guns. They passed their legislation and as far as anyone knew or cared these firearms were banned in California. A visit to any gun store would prove the lie, but most voters, and most of the Press, don't visit gun stores.

But as the off list lower and 80% mania got more and more visible, ambitious politicians sensed an opportunity. Not, I hasten to emphasize, an opportunity to ban guns and make the world a safer place, but an opportunity for more grandstanding and press conferences and even national visibility. The San Bernardino shooting was the catalyst for another opportunity for Culture War victory in the Legislature as well as with the referendum process (why do you think Gavin Newsom's proposition sought to ban something the Legislature had already banned? Because he seriously didn't think the legislation went far enough? No, it was because his name wasn't on it. Again, nothing to do with guns!).

Now we are in 2017 and we are running into people who, yes, really do sorta care about your guns, but they aren't in the Legislature. They are anonymous Culture Warriors in the Harris/Becerra DoJ who sense, correctly, that implementing the 2016 legislation as written would be a Culture War victory for a large number of California gun owners who would be able to throw away their hated bullet buttons. We're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of AR-15s and other such rifles that could be freely configured in a normal free-state manner. The Legislature probably didn't understand that, and if they did they certainly wouldn't have cared. But the DoJ certainly does. And they do not want to see you win!

So this is not about guns, or safety, or paving the way for tyranny, or any of the other popular slogans. It's about Culture War. It's simply one of the issues the parties use to divide Americans and rally them to their respective flags. There is nothing "liberal" about gun control; there is nothing "conservative" about empowering the masses with free access to firearms (as several recent conversation here on Calguns have revealed: plenty of members don't really believe in a right of the people to keep an bear arms, not if the people are different from them). Essentially, gun control is an urban issue and the defenders of gun rights have more rural values, and that is how the parties are dividing the country these days.

And we can't win, not in California anyway. The reason we can't win is because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you or have a different worldview or even because they have two X chromosomes.

But you will never do that, will you? If a "libtard" comes around here you will make sure he knows he's a "libtard" and he is reviled as such and you will make sure he goes away and you will make sure gun rights in California are nothing but a happy memory.
Best Calguns Post of All Time........Thank You
  #3394  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:22 AM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,151
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pluke the 2 View Post
i agree, good post Mitch ..........................

so then why are people still going to register
The $64,000.00 question....... Still waiting for the right answer.
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
  #3395  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:30 AM
mutejosh mutejosh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 540
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Thanks Mitch!
  #3396  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:38 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,416
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

California has decided to allow a large window of time so all the clever designers can manufacture work-arounds before any of those laws come into effect.
  #3397  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:39 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Mitch, that was the best-written post I've read all month, everyone here needs to read it... Twice. I'll be the first to admit that sometimes I forget what this fight is truly about. Thank you for speaking up and putting into words what I couldn't.
  #3398  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:43 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,648
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Mitch, you can call it a culture war or whatever you want. Next year you WILL either register, go featureless or risk a FELONY each and every time you take your rifle out. You make all the allusions to patriots of the past, but England was a LONG way away back then.There were no independence uprisings in England.
  #3399  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:47 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Mitch, you can call it a culture war or whatever you want. Next year you WILL either register, go featureless or risk a FELONY each and every time you take your rifle out. You make all the allusions to patriots of the past, but England was a LONG way away back then.There were no independence uprisings in England.
I'd like to point out that Mitch doesn't live in CA. As an outside perspective it's especially worth hearing, IMO. He doesn't have to register or de-feature squat, he's trying to help give US some perspective
  #3400  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:50 AM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,089
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Torgue View Post
I'm registering my SCAR and not worried about it. If I need to sell I'll slap a fin on it and put a fixed stock on it and it's good to go. The Aug just needs a brake and grip fin and it's good. These odd ball guns aren't that hard to convert. Hell, some dude had a featureless Tavor on here.

Changing the gun itself to featureless isn't a big deal. I have a featureless Scar 17 and a Sig MPX. Although the MPX was a little more expensive to change, it can be done.

The issue is, how long would it take for he doj to process the request? Also, if you had to send them pictures of the new featureless gun, what if they don't like some of the featureless options you added and deny your request? You never know with these people. And once they have your rifle in the database as a RAW, you're at their mercy.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:58 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.