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 > FIREARMS DISCUSSIONS > Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated Centerfire rifles, carbines and other gas operated rifles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-11-2016, 7:12 AM
Sigbird Sigbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,245
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor McRifle View Post
The law allows you until December 31, 2017 to register your featured rifle as an "assault weapon." Because the law grants you all of 2017 to register and remain legal, to prevent the legal use of your rifle prior to that time would be an unlawful "taking." But assault weapon transport laws will apply, because in 2017 your bullet buttoned, featured rifle will statutorily become an assault weapon whether registered or not. The transfer and importation ban will be enforced on 1/1/17. The possession ban of a nonregistered featured rifle legally possessed prior to 1/1/17 will be enforced on 1/1/18.
Is it legal to transport the rifle broken in half? If the law states that a rifle needs to be built before 2017 to be legally registered as a AW in 2017, it must not be an AW if broken in half.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-11-2016, 7:20 AM
Guns and guitars Guns and guitars is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern Idaho
Posts: 1,558
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Until its registered as a AW then its not. And they can't enforce that until 1-1-18.

Some of you saying you need to be "legally conservative" and start treating your weapon as if they are already registered are hilarious.
You can take it out of the safe, you can shoot it, your kids can shoot it, you can loan it to a legal person, but after the 1st 2018, it better be registered, featureless, or out of the state.

Stop being scared of your shadows.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-11-2016, 7:26 AM
Sigbird Sigbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,245
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

Bob said yes and John said no. No wonder 50 threads of the same topic are started every day on Cal Guns.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-11-2016, 7:28 AM
phase1's Avatar
phase1 phase1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 1,727
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigbird View Post
Bob said yes and John said no. No wonder 50 threads of the same topic are started every day on Cal Guns.
this^
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intimid8tor View Post
I don't need one but I might need one.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-11-2016, 7:50 AM
Dano3467 Dano3467 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: 85 mi south of Oregon
Posts: 6,610
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

All this political crap to call a sporting rifle an AW is so F,ed-up.

My question is, will LEO rifle's configured this way still be called a PATROL RIFLE w/standard (high capacity magazines)

This has to be the stupidest politically run state in the union, (or very close to it)
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-11-2016, 9:54 AM
951temec 951temec is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 449
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
So you didn't actually read the law before you posted, you can't own up to it and admit that you were wrong, so you'll toss up a bunch of stuff to attempt to hide that fact?

Legitimate differences in interpretation are one thing, this is something else entirely.

-- Michael

I don't understand what is so difficult here.

1: Does your rifle meet the revised description of an assault weapon in SB880 taking effect on 1/1/17?

Yes

2: Is it registered as an assault weapon with CA DOJ on 1/1/17?

No ( not possible)


So you own an unregistered assault weapon on 1/1/17...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:01 AM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default unregistered AW that need not be registered until 12/31/2017

Quote:
Originally Posted by 951temec View Post
I don't understand what is so difficult here.

1: Does your rifle meet the revised description of an assault weapon in SB880 taking effect on 1/1/17?

Yes

2: Is it registered as an assault weapon with CA DOJ on 1/1/17?

No ( not possible)


So you own an unregistered assault weapon on 1/1/17...
So what? One does not have to register it until 12/31/2017 so one is shielded by amended PC 30900(b)(1) and new PC 30680.

One can not be arrested for possession of an unregistered AW in 2017 if they shoot or transport featured with BB for a 'deemed' AW for registration purposes, that one does not have to register as such until end of next year. That's the way I see it.

Also, what if the registration process is not available until months after 1/1/2017? Do you honestly believe anything will happen to anyone who shoots with BB on 1/1/2017? Come now...GGGeeeesssshhh.

Even if registration is available on 1/1/2017 I see no downside registering as late as Dec 2017 unless there's an upside to it (need not mention the obvious).

Last edited by ifilef; 12-11-2016 at 10:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:06 AM
EVB EVB is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Калифорния
Posts: 45
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

These laws are HORRIBLE. Unbelievable that it has come to this. They want everything under the sun registered/restricted. These need to be overturned or it's time to move.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:08 AM
951temec 951temec is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 449
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifilef View Post
So what? One does not have to register it until 12/31/2017 so one is shielded by amended PC 30900(b)(1) and new PC 30680.

One can not be arrested for possession of an unregistered AW in 2017 if they shoot or transport featured with BB for a 'deemed' AW for registration purposes, that one does not have to register as such until end of next year. That's the way I see it.

Also, what if the registration process is not available until months after 1/1/2017? Do you honestly believe anything will happen to anyone who shoots with BB? Come now...GGGeeeesssshhh

In order to exempt from being prosecuted for having an unregistered assault rifle, you have to meet 3 clear criteria. The last step involves 2 things you must do...you cannot do those things yet as the system in place that has you do those things is not up yet.


So by definition nobody is exempt. Intent to comply with the law is not complying with the law as written.

It's up to each individual law enforcement officer and each individual District Attorney to arrest and/or push the case
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:15 AM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 951temec View Post
In order to exempt from being prosecuted for having an unregistered assault rifle, you have to meet 3 clear criteria. The last step involves 2 things you must do...you cannot do those things yet as the system in place that has you do those things is not up yet.


So by definition nobody is exempt. Intent to comply with the law is not complying with the law as written.

It's up to each individual law enforcement officer and each individual District Attorney to arrest and/or push the case
No probable cause to arrest. If so, it will result in tons of cases for civil rights violations, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, emotional distress, etc.

951temec- Try READING amended PC 30900(b)(1).

Last edited by ifilef; 12-11-2016 at 10:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:19 AM
951temec 951temec is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 449
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So? The cops don't care as there is no recourse on their part. They're doing a job.


You're talking about taking an assault weapon prior to registration process being put into place into a place filled with cops.

Put the ar-15 up for a few weeks and shoot something else.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:23 AM
-aK-'s Avatar
-aK- -aK- is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Livermore, Kali
Posts: 759
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

The following quote is taken from here, the text of sb880.

Emphasis mine, obviously.

Quote:
This bill would exempt from punishment under that provision a person who possessed an assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if specified requirements are met.
(3) Existing law requires that, with specified exceptions, any person who, prior to January 1, 2001, lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon, and which was not specified as an assault weapon at the time of lawful possession, register the firearm with the Department of Justice. Existing law permits the Department of Justice to charge a fee for registration of up to $20 per person but not to exceed the actual processing costs of the department. Existing law, after the department establishes fees sufficient to reimburse the department for processing costs, requires fees charged to increase at a rate not to exceed the legislatively approved annual cost-of-living adjustment for the department’s budget or as otherwise increased through the Budget Act. Existing law requires those fees to be deposited into the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account. Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, establishes the requirements for the adoption, publication, review, and implementation of regulations by state agencies.
This bill would require that 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, and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, register the firearm with the Department of Justice before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of specified regulations. The bill would permit the department to increase the $20 registration fee as long as it does not exceed the reasonable processing costs of the department. The bill would also require registrations to be submitted electronically via the Internet utilizing a public-facing application made available by the department. The bill would require the registration to contain specified information, including, but not limited to, a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely and specified information about the registrant. The bill would permit the department to charge a fee of up to $15 per person for registration through the Internet, not to exceed the reasonable processing costs of the department to be paid and deposited, as specified, for purposes of the registration program. The bill would require the department to adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing those provisions and would exempt those regulations from the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would also make technical and conforming changes.
__________________
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." —Thomas Jefferson (1823)

308 Rifle for sale
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:24 AM
-aK-'s Avatar
-aK- -aK- is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Livermore, Kali
Posts: 759
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

To be more clear about where that link goes to.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201520160SB880
__________________
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." —Thomas Jefferson (1823)

308 Rifle for sale
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:28 AM
gwgn02 gwgn02 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,409
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EVB View Post
These laws are HORRIBLE. Unbelievable that it has come to this. They want everything under the sun registered/restricted. These need to be overturned or it's time to move.
The gun grabbing left controls the language, hence forth... "assault weapon" is a made up term to infringe on 2A and as long as they keep making **** up and the dumbed down peons in CA keep accepting it, they will eventually just ban guns altogether. Your grandpa's 30.06 bolt gun will be an assault sniper weapon...and on and on.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:28 AM
951temec 951temec is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 449
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You highlighted a subsection of one of the 3 specified requirements.

You MUST MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS.

You can't do what you're doing scan the law for something you meet the criteria of and then assume you're safe.


Go back to the Ferrari example. Your red Ferrari is not a black Ferrari simply because you intend to buy paint.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:55 AM
-aK-'s Avatar
-aK- -aK- is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Livermore, Kali
Posts: 759
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 951temec View Post
You highlighted a subsection of one of the 3 specified requirements.

You MUST MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS.

You can't do what you're doing scan the law for something you meet the criteria of and then assume you're safe.


Go back to the Ferrari example. Your red Ferrari is not a black Ferrari simply because you intend to buy paint.
Wrong. Actually the (3) is not part of "3" requirements, its the third subsection that includes the two paragraphs that I quoted.

Here is a quote of the amended full text of the law after sb880 passed. From the same link, same text, but further down.

THIS PART lists the "3 requirements"

Quote:
SEC. 2. Section 30680 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
30680. Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if all of the following are applicable:
(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person was eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.
(b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017.
(c) The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 30900.
Also, I have no idea what your ferrari reference is.
__________________
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." —Thomas Jefferson (1823)

308 Rifle for sale
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-11-2016, 11:28 AM
Angrysnarf's Avatar
Angrysnarf Angrysnarf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Fresno
Posts: 2,282
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

2018 hopefully that's time enough for trump to save us lol
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-11-2016, 11:41 AM
Full Clip's Avatar
Full Clip Full Clip is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Playa Vista, CA
Posts: 9,894
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBUNM View Post
Wow! Makes your head spin. We're expected to follow the law that even the lawmakers/enforcers don't fully understand.
Exactly their plan.
Confuse the public with moronic, illogical laws and make them afraid that they will be arrested for not understanding them.
__________________
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” — Robert A. Heinlein

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds” — Samuel Adams
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-11-2016, 11:48 AM
Full Clip's Avatar
Full Clip Full Clip is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Playa Vista, CA
Posts: 9,894
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifilef View Post
No probable cause to arrest. If so, it will result in tons of cases for civil rights violations, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, emotional distress, etc.
Too true, but good luck ever getting your property back.
__________________
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” — Robert A. Heinlein

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds” — Samuel Adams
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-11-2016, 12:57 PM
9mmContagion's Avatar
9mmContagion 9mmContagion is offline
👀They’re Watching 👀
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Riv. County
Posts: 3,722
iTrader: 145 / 99%
Default

I can't wait to see the lib-tards faces when they see all of these non bullet button legally registered AWs in the hands of the public. As much as I hate it, and refuse to register, they don't realize what they've done in giving everyone the pass to a mag release. "Wait! You mean those scary rifles have magazine releases?!" Yep, nobody to thank but yourselves!
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-11-2016, 3:34 PM
myk's Avatar
myk myk is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sun Diego
Posts: 5,955
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Libtards wouldn't know what a magazine release was if it fell on their heads. All they care about is evil black rifles...
__________________


I don't always save the world, but when I do, it's in 24 hours or less...
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-11-2016, 4:22 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,185
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldarshay View Post
I can't wait to see the lib-tards faces when they see all of these non bullet button legally registered AWs in the hands of the public. As much as I hate it, and refuse to register, they don't realize what they've done in giving everyone the pass to a mag release. "Wait! You mean those scary rifles have magazine releases?!" Yep, nobody to thank but yourselves!
^^^^this, and if enough people register and shoot their RAWs then they will be commonplace and the "do not comply" crowd would be able to shoot without getting hassled. The transport and domestic LEO encounters will still pose a significant risk.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-11-2016, 4:43 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifilef View Post
If there's up to a one-year grace period to register as an AW, it is by definition not a RAW until so registered. Once a RAW, the RAW rules apply.
Wrong.

As of the 1st, it becomes an AW. Possession, transport, storage, and lending laws that currently apply to RAW will apply to 2016-legal builds.
The grace period merely provides an exemption from prosecution during 2017, treating the gun as if it were registered.

Registration simply provides an exemption from prosecution under AW possession laws.
Whether or not a gun is registered does not change the fact that it is, or in 2017, will be considered an assault weapon.

January 1, registered or not, allowing your 17 year old child to shoot your featured build will be a felony.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-11-2016, 6:43 PM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

No, you are wrong. It is deemed an AW for registration purposes but it does not become a RAW and subject to such rules until it is registered as an AW.

And stop giving DOJ ideas.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-11-2016, 6:46 PM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Clip View Post
Too true, but good luck ever getting your property back.
That would be insignificant compared to legal recovery.

Last edited by ifilef; 12-11-2016 at 6:48 PM.. Reason: Out of here.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-11-2016, 6:48 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,499
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifilef View Post
And stop giving DOJ ideas.

Look who's talking
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-11-2016, 7:04 PM
djhall djhall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 308
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifilef View Post
So what? One does not have to register it until 12/31/2017 so one is shielded by amended PC 30900(b)(1) and new PC 30680.

One can not be arrested for possession of an unregistered AW in 2017 if they shoot or transport featured with BB for a 'deemed' AW for registration purposes, that one does not have to register as such until end of next year. That's the way I see it.

Also, what if the registration process is not available until months after 1/1/2017? Do you honestly believe anything will happen to anyone who shoots with BB on 1/1/2017? Come now...GGGeeeesssshhh.

Even if registration is available on 1/1/2017 I see no downside registering as late as Dec 2017 unless there's an upside to it (need not mention the obvious).
I'm not saying it is likely, but I suppose it is technically possible that your posession of the weapon could be documented by a LEO and the serial number recorded. On Jan 1, 2018 they could check the registration database to see if you followed through with registering the weapon as required for the exemption to prosecution for possession in 2017. If you didn't register I don't see why they couldn't get a warrant for your arrest and prosecute you. Unlikely, but I suppose technically possible if you pissed off a LEO and a DA somehow.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-11-2016, 8:19 PM
Justinoff's Avatar
Justinoff Justinoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NationsMostWanted View Post
When we register, what actually changes from today other than they know we have it. I'm so confused on it all


It's such an easy thing to explain and understand however I've yet to read consistent description about compliance by 1/1/17. Almost as though the ATF/DOJ/CA is being ambiguous on purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-11-2016, 8:26 PM
Justinoff's Avatar
Justinoff Justinoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oc plumber View Post
Bro there are hundreds of these posts use the search , hunker down for hours and read read read , or drive down to your local sheriffs office and ask them

Your not gonna get a %100 factual answer here until the law is placed into effect


I asked my local PD and they didn't know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-11-2016, 8:30 PM
battleship battleship is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: pleasant hill
Posts: 4,884
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Tagged
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-11-2016, 8:34 PM
Justinoff's Avatar
Justinoff Justinoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigbird View Post
Your simple question that has been asked 50 times will continue to get 3 different answers. I plan on going to the range until I decide what to do. I will just try and not break as many laws as I normally break while driving to the range. Most logical answer is be careful and do at your own risk.


I love you man


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-11-2016, 8:58 PM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,927
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifilef View Post
No, you are wrong. It is deemed an AW for registration purposes but it does not become a RAW and subject to such rules until it is registered as an AW.

And stop giving DOJ ideas.
Actually, YOU are wrong and Cokebottle is right; because other than being stated within the law, there is precedence for exactly how he described it as to how it will be enforced which was similarly applied to Roberti-Roos, SB23 Features, and AB50 for shoulder-fired rifles chambered in .50BMG.

They were to be treated as AW, but the actual registration documentation was not required until the year after.

Why? Because to not take that track, for lack of there being a utility to actually register, an injunction could be filed by any number of individuals, the members of CRPA or NRA, from enforcing the law anyway. You can bet they would, to avoid gun owners from becoming criminals for lack of any informative campaigns by the government while at the SAME time, not making any method to vet registration available. (You can bet that registration method will not be ready until around March at the earliest).

Without the government providing to tools to register, the enforcement of registration is null-and-void: HOWEVER... the firearm still meets the definitions of an AW to be treated like one; only the registration component is given a pass.

Once again you haven't a clue as to what your stating as supposedly fact.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-11-2016, 9:51 PM
phase1's Avatar
phase1 phase1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 1,727
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I was at an outdoor shooting range a few days ago and I over heard one of the range officers saying that he knows for a fact that LEOs will be making random visit to the range to check that weapons are compliant under new laws & he said if anyone brings a rifle that isn't featureless or have paperwork (raw paperwork) he'll send them away. So I'm very confused now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intimid8tor View Post
I don't need one but I might need one.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:42 PM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gleam View Post
HOWEVER... the firearm still meets the definitions of an AW to be treated like one; only the registration component is given a pass.
So assuming that you are correct, I don't think there will be any enforcement until 2018 due to the confusion concerning these laws as featured with BB is legal to shoot next year without registration until the very end of the year; therefore, without adequate notice, most of the public will just assume the same as this year. In fact, most of the public who shoot have no idea what these laws contain and though ignorance of the law is no excuse, the registration scheme is confusing enough so that many will falter concerning nuances re transportation, storage, lending laws as not being applicable until they register.

You are a very rude person just because you believe that I was wrong. I don't call people or personally insult them here and there are many who are misinformed or pass on FUD all the time. I don't single them out with insults, you apparently do so.

We shall wait and see if DOJ makes a directive, advisory or regulation concerning possession of featured with BB next year as requiring observance of those transport, lending, storage rules.

Has 30945 been amended? I am new to this because I haven't any RAWs.

Moreover, 30945 does not seem to support your position.

Present 30945.
Unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 31000, a person WHO HAS REGISTERED AN ASSAULT WEAPON or registered a .50 BMG rifle under this article may possess it only under any of the following conditions:
(a) At that person’s residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with the owner’s express permission.
(b) While on the premises of a target range of a public or private club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets.
(c) While on a target range that holds a regulatory or business license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range.
(d) While on the premises of a shooting club that is licensed pursuant to the Fish and Game Code.
(e) While attending any exhibition, display, or educational project that is about firearms and that is sponsored by, conducted under the auspices of, or approved by a law enforcement agency or a nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or promotes education about, firearms.
(f) While on publicly owned land, if the possession and use of a firearm described in Section 30510, 30515, 30520, or 30530, is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land.
(g) While transporting the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle between any of the places mentioned in this section, or to any licensed gun dealer, for servicing or repair pursuant to Section 31050, if the assault weapon is transported as required by Sections 16850 and 25610.
-------------------------------

Here is current statute re minors. Where does it state that you can not let your minor son shoot your AW in your presence? Please direct me to applicable case or other law.

30950.
No person who is under the age of 18 years, and no person who is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm, may register or possess an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle.

Based on this statute, it coud be argued that son is not a possessor of the rifle in context of the statute if he merely shoots it in your presence.Without more, seems like it would be legal. Have to check the new lending rules recently passed. Son is in your line-one might think it permissible.
(Added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. Effective January 1, 2011. Operative January 1, 2012, by Sec. 10 of Ch.

I'm just trying to find authority for your statement and only came up with this statute during a cursory search so help me out here..

Last edited by ifilef; 12-11-2016 at 11:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-11-2016, 10:58 PM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djhall View Post
I'm not saying it is likely, but I suppose it is technically possible that your posession of the weapon could be documented by a LEO and the serial number recorded. On Jan 1, 2018 they could check the registration database to see if you followed through with registering the weapon as required for the exemption to prosecution for possession in 2017. If you didn't register I don't see why they couldn't get a warrant for your arrest and prosecute you. Unlikely, but I suppose technically possible if you pissed off a LEO and a DA somehow.
Where would LE have the right to inspect a featured BB weapon next year? Where is the probable cause to do a search? Where is any reasonable suspicion to inspect a weapon and copy down the serial number for a weapon that does not have to be registered until the end of 2017?

I don't see that happening and moreover, I doubt if they will care to do anything until 2018. At that time, they might see you shooting featured with BB in plain sight and might investigate lawfully to determine if it's a RAW.

Last edited by ifilef; 12-11-2016 at 11:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-12-2016, 12:05 AM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phase1 View Post
I was at an outdoor shooting range a few days ago and I over heard one of the range officers saying that he knows for a fact that LEOs will be making random visit to the range to check that weapons are compliant under new laws & he said if anyone brings a rifle that isn't featureless or have paperwork (raw paperwork) he'll send them away. So I'm very confused now.
Is the range officer a legal scholar? If not, educate him by stating BB rifes are legal to possess and shoot in 2017 without registration as AW. Show him the text of amended 30900(b)(1) as necessary. Deadline to register is 12/31/2017 to possess and lawfully shoot featured with BB in 2018. That's the law.

Last edited by ifilef; 12-12-2016 at 12:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-12-2016, 12:38 AM
pluke the 2 pluke the 2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: █████████
Posts: 1,942
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

How would an unregisteted aw rifle be legal to shoot Jan 1st 2017? That is FUD.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-12-2016, 1:11 AM
djhall djhall is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 308
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifilef View Post
Where would LE have the right to inspect a featured BB weapon next year? Where is the probable cause to do a search? Where is any reasonable suspicion to inspect a weapon and copy down the serial number for a weapon that does not have to be registered until the end of 2017?
I suppose the same way they usually do. They pull you over for a traffic violation, see a gun case in the backseat, and invoke their right to inspect the firearm to make sure it is unloaded. Or they get called to your house for a disturbance, ask if there are any firearms in the house, and your wife says yes. A LEO sees you shooting a 10/30 and thinks he heard more than 10 shots. Typical civilian encounters with LEOs.

As I said, it would be a real unusual situation for something like that to happen and for the LEO to document it in 2017, wait until January 1, 2018, and then run the serial number to see if you followed through with registering and qualify for the exemption from prosecution.

Last edited by djhall; 12-12-2016 at 1:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-12-2016, 1:33 AM
ifilef ifilef is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North County San Diego
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pluke the 2 View Post
How would an unregisteted aw rifle be legal to shoot Jan 1st 2017? That is FUD.
You can continue to shoot it with features and BB because the registration statute provides for it. Registration window closes 12/31/2017, So long as you are registered as AW by 12/31/2017 you can then keep it that way and shoot it into 2018.

In other words, you can maintain the status quo with your featured AR with BB next year. You can't be arrested for unregistered AW in 2017 due to the time in which window given in which to register- a full year until that December date.

Weapon is basically grandfathered in and if you register it they can't prosecute you in 2018 for possession of an unregistered AW.

Last edited by ifilef; 12-12-2016 at 1:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-12-2016, 6:00 AM
Drew Eckhardt Drew Eckhardt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,831
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
They are AWs as of the first, the grace period in 30680 is technically only for folks registering their guns, and 30680 is a possession-only exemption.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201520160SB880
Right, and that really concerned me until some one pointed out PC 30675(b)(1) exempts people complying with 30900 (registration including grace period) from 30600 (transport, import, lending)

Quote:
30675. (a) Sections 30605 and 30610 shall not apply to any of the
following persons:
(1) A person acting in accordance with Section 31000 or 31005.
(2) A person who has a permit to possess an assault weapon or a .
50 BMG rifle issued pursuant to Section 31000 or 31005 when that
person is acting in accordance with Section 31000 or 31005 or Article
5 (commencing with Section 30900).
(b) Sections 30600, 30605, and 30610 shall not apply to any of the
following persons:
(1) A person acting in accordance with Article 5 (commencing with
Section 30900).

(2) A person acting in accordance with Section 31000, 31005,
31050, or 31055.
(c) Sections 30605 and 30610 shall not apply to the registered
owner of an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle possessing that firearm
in accordance with Section 30945.
where 30900 was updated to cover SB-880

Quote:
30900. (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).
The transport restrictions also should not apply until the gun is registered
Quote:
30945. Unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 31000, a person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a .50 BMG rifle under this article may possess it only under any of the following conditions
Obviously prudence is more restrictive than the law.

I wouldn't bet paying bail and having an irreplaceable gun confiscated doing something 30945 wouldn't let me do with a registered gun because LEOs can usually reasonably assume assault weapons are illegal outside its constraints.

I'd probably shoot one of several grandfathered but unregistered AR15s where registered assault weapons are allowed and customarily shot.

Last edited by Drew Eckhardt; 12-12-2016 at 2:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 1:40 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.