|
California handguns Discuss your favorite California handgun technical and related questions here. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Yes, the law states that if you have a featured rifle with a bullet button, that rifle is now an AW that must be registered. However, if you change it to featureless and remove the bullet button, then it is no longer a featured rifle with a bullet button (regardless of year acquired). Where does it say that I can't change the configuration to meet the new legal requirements? If your contention is that the law prevents modification to comply with the new requirements, that's fine, but show me where it says this. Last edited by jcwatchdog; 08-22-2016 at 4:35 PM.. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
One more thing people have been overlooking. You can always remove the gas system and make it a straight pull AR15. They are popular in other places in the world that civilians can't own semi-auto firearms like in the UK. I know this half defeats the purpose of the AR since the semi-auto is part of the enjoyment of shooting the gun, but you would make the rifle legal without needing to be registered and the gun would fall under the same restrictions as any other bolt action rifle. I am going to register mine. I don't care that the Government know I have firearms.
__________________
-Gunner Last edited by GunnerMichael; 08-22-2016 at 3:56 PM.. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Please tell me they have a fun switch.
__________________
-Gunner |
#44
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Yes, but everything on dros for the identifying info is stamped on the receiver, including model, but not the box the gun came in. If it's a "CA edition", all that means is a 10 round mag and bullet button (and pinned stock etc if necessary). You see the same thing with handguns. They have CA editions (like a CZ SP-01). All that means is a CA compliant lock, 10 round mags and a sticker on the box saying 10 round mag. The serial number and model stamped on the gun is the same as the high capacity mag version. I bought 1 Spike's tactical lower 2 weeks ago, listed on the Dros that I have right here MAKE: Spikes Tactical MODEL: STLS015 Caliber: 0000 Serial Number NLS01XXXXX Type: Rifle Category: Semi-Automatic. Frame or receiver is marked because it is a stripper lower, but as you can see, no mention of California for a stripped lower. Or if I bought a bullet button or plan to make it featureless. Here is another full rifle from 2016: MAKE: Spikes Tactical MODEL: ST15 CALIBER: 556 Serial Number XXXXXX The only difference between the models is that the STLS is the punisher logo. Quote:
You're adding an awful lot that isn't written. Like the part that says I can't reconfigure my gun to be compliant with the new laws. You're just assuming that on your own as I don't see that written anywhere at all. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you just take out a certain section, you're not giving a clear picture of what is being said. (b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5). All this section is doing is identifying what rifles need to be registered and giving the dates. But now, that rifle that I own that has an ammunition feeding device that can be removed with a tool, no longer has feeding device that needs to be removed with a tool. The rifle is now featureless and becomes a whole different animal (no longer in an AW config) and this section doesn't apply. Just because it possibly HAD a bullet button and features at one time, that doesn't really mean much of anything. How would they even know that the gun had a bullet button on it or not when it was purchased? If I bought a stripped lower, maybe I built the gun with a bullet button and then later took it off and made it featureless. Or maybe I made it featureless from the start. Do you really think they care to track this? And that implied part? Yeah, that won't fly. I'm not sure how you think something like that can just be implied without actually being written out in the law. Last edited by jcwatchdog; 08-22-2016 at 4:39 PM.. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
The new law angers me because it requires registration as an AW what is not an AW presently. But it is a registration law only.
What evil there really is lies in 1446- what essentially amounts to confiscation of previously and lawfully owned LCM. It is extremely important that California gun owners do NOT surrender these pre-ban previously 'grandfathered' magazines to the authorities. That is the worst that could happen and would be a 'heads up' to the antis to try to confiscate our RAWs and other weapons in the future, unconstitutional as it is. Come up with other alternatives listed in the new statute. Here are the listed lawful alternatives: (1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state. (2) Prior to July 1, 2017, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer. NO! THE SECOND WORST ALTERNATIVE (3) Destroy the large-capacity magazine. or, BLOCK to 10 rounds consistent with PC 16740 (doing so does not make it subject to the new law because it will no longer be characterized as a LCM); or, Of course, and contrary to the statute, there will be those who simply will not comply because they are of the opinion the law is on many grounds unconstitutional, and unjust. The downside is that it's unlawful, and many will choose not to shoot in public with them but relegate them as the new 'safe queens', only to be visible to the owner at home or other secure places, on and after 7/1/2017. Last edited by ifilef; 08-22-2016 at 5:36 PM.. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Do you think that a leopard can change its spots or rocks are not hard?. I can't help you any further. I already told you that you can do whatever you want to make featureless, whatever. That does NOT make you in compliance with the new REGISTRATION law. If it were it would be listed as an exception from the duty to register as an AW. Do you see any exceptions to the mandatory duty to register in the law? I see one- that if it never had a BB while in your possession. No others. If the legislature wanted to exempt conversions from featured with BB to featureless or 2017 mag compliant they would have so stated in 30900. They could have used language similar to: "Weapons that are featured with BB will not be subject to mandatory registration if converted to featureless by March 31, 2017" or "if converted they comply with the provisions of new PC 30515 so as not to constitute an assault weapon by March 31, 2017". And if some guy in another state does a conversion for you and sends to your FFL as featureless and you take POSSESSION of it without a BB you do not have to register it. That is different than possessing it with a BB and then converting it to featurelss. And making a featured BB weapon compliant does not make it compliant with registration, it may make it compliant with NEW PC 30515. It's apples and oranges. I hope that you understand the distinction between making a SACF featured weapon compliant in 2017 but how you can't legally skirt around the registration requirement because at one time you possessed it with a BB. Don't let your 'wishful thinking' interfere with a plain reading of the new statute PC 30900(b)(1). The legislature is not as stupid as you might think. They want to know for sure who now has, or had had SACF featured weapons with newly defined detachable magazines so they can use it for investigative purposes, and for other reasons that have been cited by the anti-gun legislature. But behind it all is mostly politics. Last edited by ifilef; 08-22-2016 at 7:28 PM.. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Jan 1 they become AW, there is a 1 year grace period for registration.
__________________
- Rich |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If it is not an AW it is not an AW. Just because it WAS an AW at one time, even if in violation of the 2000-2016 law, does not mean that continued possession in a compliant form prior to the end of this year is a violation. If it is in a compliant form today, it is not an AW, with or without a bullet button. If it is not an AW, it can be converted to a different form TODAY that is still not an AW (fixed magazine other than BB or featureless), and won't BE an AW in 2017, and next year, will not require registration because it's NOT AN AW. Applying the 2017 standards to a rifle possessed in 2016 AND requiring registration as an AW, regardless of what form it is modified to PRIOR TO Jan 1 2017 would be the exact definition of ex-post-facto. The wording of the law is to LIMIT registration to those that were possessed between 2000 and 2017. They don't want to reopen the registry to those that SHOULD have registered prior to 2001. The law states that if you LAWFULLY POSSESSED it... meaning that something that should have been registered prior to 2001 (or 50BMG) would not be eligible for registration in 2017. Basically what you are saying, with your "plain reading" is that if I owned a BB'd AR in 2009 and sold it in 2010, I would be required to register it next year. After all, I POSSESSED it in 2009.
__________________
- Rich |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
- Rich |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So expect to see the shelves devoid of featured BB weapons for sale after 12/21/2016, the latest. |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
SSE expiration ran right up to Dec 31, and some shops remained open until midnight... though with the DROS system being more finicky than the Star Trek Transporter, anyone wanting to buy under SSE and waiting until 10pm Dec 31 was pushing their luck.
__________________
- Rich |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I don't see ex post facto at all, after careful consideration. Basically, they are passing a registration law. They are saying, we KNOW that your current weapon is not an AW. But when this new law is effective we are going to say that it is a newly defined AW for registration purposes only. So, guys and gals, you need to register it in 2017, that is all you need to do. And we, as the legislature, have the power to redefine AW at any time. We know that we can't prosecute you for any alleged acts in 2016. But if you don't register it in 2017, we can prosecute you for failing to register it in 2017. Charges will be brought in 2018 for possession of an unregistered AW, not for anything you did or did not do in 2016, but for your failure to register it, which is mandatory under the new law. Coke- I will try to address some of your other comments as I have time. Last edited by ifilef; 08-22-2016 at 7:43 PM.. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Legislature and AG would argue it is an AW for the limited purpose of registration of it in 2017. It's constitutional provided it is registered and one can keep it. Old AWCA BANNED future sales of certain weapons. Hasn't it been held constitutional in this State? And people got to keep their newly defined AW provided they registered them under old law. No harm, no foul, you can keep it in present configuration (or perhaps better) so long as you register it by end of 2017.
Quote:
Doesn't matter if one strictly construes language of the statute. No exceptions are provided. They don't care. As I have stated in another post: "Do you see any exceptions to the mandatory duty to register in the law? I see one- that if it never had a BB while in your possession. No others. If the legislature wanted to exempt conversions from featured with BB to featureless or 2017 mag compliant they would have so stated in 30900. They could have used language similar to: "Weapons that are featured with BB will not be subject to mandatory registration if converted to featureless by March 31, 2017" or "No registration shall be required if converted to comply with the provisions of (new) PC 30515 so as not to constitute an assault weapon by March 31, 2017". If it had a BB in your possession you need to register it. Otherwise, everyone would just say they converted it so 'bug off'..I ain't registering it. I don't believe that will fly at all unless the regulations address the issue according to your view. Quote:
Register it and you get to keep it in current configuration with BB. Don't register it and that's a new crime or crimes, arrest and charges would be brought on or after 1/1/2018 for failure to register it in 2017. The statute is worded so that if it HAD a BB while in your possession you 'shall register the firearm' (which assumes that it is still in your possession). Unfortunately, that is pretty straightforward. They are saying if it had that BB in your possession the die has been cast, we don't care what you do with the weapon but you must register it in 2017. If you don't want to bother with all of this just sell it featured with BB before the end of this year and your buyer will have to register it, you won't and shouldn't. After all it was a legal transfer and sale and it is out of your hands, and now in the buyer's. Duty to register it passes to him as he is now the possessor. But you don't possess it now so no duty to register it because as I have stated elsewhere they don't want multiple owners with different addresses registering a AW. They only want the current possessor to register if he/she possessed it with a BB. Anything else would be chaos. You are reading too much into the statute. Following that reasoning, a person who does not possess an unregistered AW could be charged with unlawful possession of an unregistered AW. Doesn't make any sense. You can't be charged with the mandatory duty of registration unless you keep it through 2017. Sell it featureless in 2017 or mag compliant (the only permissible ways to sell in 2017) and neither you nor buyer need register it, but CYA. Nevertheless, NO FFL in his right mind would permit a transfer of anything other than featureless or 2017 mag compliant next year. All (meaning seller, buyer, and FFL) could be arrested for a felony. Last edited by ifilef; 08-24-2016 at 11:12 AM.. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As things stand, the prudent course is to buy or sell featured with BB with DROS commencing no later than 12/20/2016, unless your FFL remains open on New Year's Eve and you don't fall too ill to pick up. |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
And if I remove the BB and convert to a 2017-compliant format, then I no longer possess what WILL BE considered an AW.
Then there's the issue that the state has to prove their case. Even images posted online, the state can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those images are of a centerfire, semiautomatic rifle. You've referred to original configuration... the originally-DROSed configuration of all 3 of my rifles was bare lower. Even for complete assemblies, DOJ has no records dating back prior to 2014. There's not an AG in this state that is going to put that in front of a jury.
__________________
- Rich |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I will leave it to each person as to what course to take in their situations. I don't want to waste time trying to argue proof, but the State will hire a firearm's expert and said expert will testify that it was a SACF featured weapon. The court will take judicial notice of how such firearms are obtained new from retailer- with a BB attached. The judicial notice taken may even go so far as to state as fact that ALL new 'CA COMPLIANT' SACF featured weapons had to be sold at retail with a BB in, for instance, 2016. Evidence will be provided showing how S&W shipped the firearm in that configuration and a presumption will arise that it had a BB when you picked it up- the time you picked it up gave rise to the duty to register it in 2017. Frankly, I'd like to shoot in public in 2018 without looking over my shoulder. That's just the way I am. The State already knows who lawfully has what handguns and that people have long guns and some readily id'd since 2014. If there were ever a confiscation, which I sincerely doubt would ever occur, unless the 2nd were repealed (ain't going to happen), they'd want them all. No sense in worrying. The way I look at it, they already have your number up, especially if you purchased featured with BB from retailer new after 1/1/2014. Good luck. Last edited by ifilef; 08-22-2016 at 10:26 PM.. |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Sorry.
Not an AW = Not an AW = No requirement to register The wording of the law is to prohibit registration of a gun that was not registered prior to 2001, or assembled/acquired after 2016.
__________________
- Rich |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Okay, good conversing. Not an AW=AW if legislature deems it so later on. That is what happened long ago.
I do agree that a by-product of the law is as you stated in your last sentence. i don't know about guns that were classified as AW before 2001 except to state that registration for those I believe expired long ago. I also agree the new law bans future sales or manufacturing of BB featured weapons after 12/31/2016. Cheers, Last edited by ifilef; 08-22-2016 at 10:37 PM.. |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This law does not do that. It does not redefine what an AW is, it simply redefines what constitutes a fixed magazine, which results in a 2016-compliant featured build becoming an AW as of 2017. It will not be an AW on Dec 31, and converting it to a form that is compliant in 2017 will continue the non-AW status. Not an AW in 2017 = Not an AW in 2016
__________________
- Rich |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5). They're saying that your featured BB or other qualifying weapon any time during the period 2001-2016 is a lawfully possessed AW as newly defined. Since it was lawfully possessed then it can now (1/1/2017) only be lawfully possessed if registered by the end of 2017 under the new legislation. Last edited by ifilef; 08-23-2016 at 9:47 AM.. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
IF (and this is a big IF) the definition of an AW strictly construed for purposes of mandatory registration includes those AR's at any point in time that were previously equipped with a bb and at least one evil feature (no matter its current configuration), and the owner wants to go featureless and not register, buy a stripped lower and transfer every part over to the new receiver, sans the evil features.
Sell the old AR stripped receiver. You now possess an AR that is not an AW under the new definition, which ostensibly includes previously bb'd AR's. If one does not want to DROS the receiver, buy an 80% receiver and assemble it using the old parts. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
However, I've read that some FFL or FFLs have hassled people wishing to PPT their stripped lowers. One guy here on calguns said they had to put together a rifle in order to complete the transaction. Post #23 here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1222724 Any comments? Last edited by ifilef; 08-23-2016 at 10:19 AM.. |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Kindly provide a link to it. Does one have to be a member of CRPA to gain access to the CRPA link? Is there also a link to it on a Michel site? Thanks. Last edited by ifilef; 08-23-2016 at 11:44 AM.. |
#65
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
- Rich |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So I will digress from the main reason for this post and try to break it down with one of many possible hypos so that you understand my take on the statute: Same possessor throughout, purchased/possessed new featured AR with BB in 2010, converted it to featureless in 2016. Mandatory duty to register it as AW by the deadline if retain possession through 2017. The 'die was cast' in 2010 when possessor received the weapon with the BB, continued to possess weapon through 2017. Irrelevant for registration purposes if he converted it to featureless in 2016, or at any time 2010-2016. As of 1/1/2017 it will be deemed a legally possessed AW when purchased/possessed in 2010 with a BB, but can't be legally possessed AW after 2017 unless registered as AW in 2017. If it had a BB attached to a featured SACF weapon that you POSSESSED you SHALL REGISTER it according to the statute, strictly construed, assuming it remains in your possession. By using such language a significantly larger number of possessors will HAVE TO register than if they let people slip by/skirt around by 'claiming' they converted it to featureless or 2017 mag compliant. And as I stated, if the intent was to allow your and many other posters 'workaround' the statute would have provided that one could do so and be exempted from registration. Exemptions abound in the Penal Code. I see no such language in the new laws. They don't care if you comply with the 2017 fixed mag or go featureless purported workarounds if your weapon was possessed by you prior to December 31, 2016 with a BB and remains possessed by you no matter the present configuration. By registering the firearm it ENTITLES one to retain possession of it merely by doing the act of registering it, because such weapons are otherwise banned if purchased or manufactured on or after 1/1/2017. Therefore, it constitutes grandfathering of those firearms if they are timely registered, no matter the current configuration. And I see no reason to make featureless or 2017 mag complaint unless you intend to part ways with it in 2017. If not registered, and caught with it in 2018 or thereafter, and they check the serial number and realize it is not registered or they just do a comparative search of DROS vs. RAW and you are flagged, you may be subject to felony arrest, may be convicted of a misdemeanor first time out, you will have to pay a fine and weapon will be destroyed. So, best advise I can give is REGISTER, then DEREGISTER it (if you can and you want to sell or bequeath it featureless or mag compliant), if the weapon was possessed by you with a BB on or before 12/31/2016. ================ Lookit, that guy Blade Gunner hasn't even provided a link to the claimed opinion attributed to Michel & Associates as represented in the first quote, above. Why am I not surprised by such hearsay (upon hearsay, possibly) statements contained in posts here? Blade Gunner- you should not be making such statements without supporting proof. It reflects poorly on you. You should have provided the requested links as a courtesy and without someone having to request them in the first place. I spent about an hour trying to locate the links on crpa and one of the michel sites and other searches and did not find anything. Thanks for nothing! I do hope that Blade Gunner's remarks are based on a legal memorandum or statement of opinion by Michel & Associates, and I do hope he (Blade Gunner) is correct. But I take his post, without more, with a grain of salt. His failure to provide links to the claimed presentation statements are irresponsible, in my opinion, and may not be fair to Michel & Associates if such opinions were not actually given by them, and if given, were made with due respect to the law(s) passed and later signed by the Governor on July 1, if they would bear any relevance to said purported opinion. So, before one asks the question posed by CokeBottle we should not rely at all on Mr. Blade Gunner's remarks, unless proven otherwise. Most posters here believe that we must wait and see if the regs or directives of the DOJ address the subject matter in the first post quoted, above. Now this poster, Blade Gunner, says otherwise based on what he reports that a respected law firm has opined. As I said in the second post, quoted above, that is really 'encouraging' but requested, and did not receive in the past 14 or so hours, a link substantiating the Blade Gunner comments. There it is... Last edited by ifilef; 08-24-2016 at 10:57 AM.. |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
I made the effort to listen to the webinar by Michel and Associates on August 19 at noon. I did not record expectecting any gun owner that has been paying attention would also participate. Several thousands of people were in attendance. Evidently very few people on this board attended, including the some of above commentators, (but Id guess at least a few CADOJ employee where listening). Michel indicated the webinar would be posted on the CRPA website. Perhaps there is some time lag. If you read in great detail, as Mitchel and Associates, the legislation and read every single cross reference, you may come to the same opinion. As far as legal memorandum or legal opinions, Law firms get paid big bucks for these. Don't expect a free ride. Stop attacking the messenger. I'll post links to register for the next webinars (if commentators herein can refrain from counter productive personal attacks).
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And I have seen plenty of opinion letters from Michel and Associates on the web and Michel websites, so don't try to weasel out that they cost big bucks because those opinion letters or memoranda were free to the public, though I am sure they were compensated handsomely for such letters by various clients to whom I and others have donated money. Where did the several thousands of people attend? Did they pay to attend? Was the webinar free or you had to pay? What do you mean you made the effort to listen. Did you listen to the webinar in the entirety? Are you basing your comment on your recollection only? Did you take notes on the webinar? I just don't understand you. And this is an important issue for many in determining whether to register early 2017 or wait until the end of next year. Last edited by ifilef; 08-24-2016 at 11:30 AM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|