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 > GENERAL DISCUSSION > General gun discussions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

General gun discussions This is a place to lounge and discuss firearm related topics with other forum members.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 05-26-2018, 6:00 PM
Deedle Deedle is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 1,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadchucker View Post
Maybe he was thinking he was a free man exercising his liberties in the Land of the Free.
He knew he was living in CA right?
__________________
"No personal computer will ever have gigabytes of RAM" - Scott Nudds
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 05-26-2018, 6:35 PM
tommyboy1966 tommyboy1966 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oakdale CA
Posts: 419
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone living in california in possession of suppressers [ with tax stamp or not]. No body will convince me he didn't know he was in jeopardy.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 05-26-2018, 7:14 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,095
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strykeback View Post
Seriously. Having to walk this tight rope of playing keep up with whatever the doj currently "interrupt or means" to be gospel is sickening. In the majority of the free states there isnt a single thing wrong here.
There are some Benedict Arnolds on CG who would call you a "snowflake" and liken you to the loons who melted down when Trump won.

Un-effing-real.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:44 AM
Smedkcuf Smedkcuf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 385
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmer46 View Post
This story and several similar ones prompted me to inventory my safe. I found a couple of things in there that I had forgotten about that were totally legal when I put them in there, but are no longer compliant.

I've become more paranoid than ever and I am changing my storage system. The only things in my safe now are things there is no question about.
This made me think, would there be any issue if they found standard mag releases in your possession but they aren't installed?
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 05-27-2018, 3:43 AM
fishgoh0nk fishgoh0nk is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 79
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Yes. Not sure if it holds up, but definitely a strong argument.

Assuming all 9 charged AWs were possessed prior to 2017
No, because:

Quote:
11. They had telescoping stocks, standard mag releases, pistol grips. No mention is made on whether they had the dreaded flash hiders. 8 such ARs were identified.
BB before 2017 OK, no BB anytime NOT OK.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 05-27-2018, 4:18 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smedkcuf View Post
This made me think, would there be any issue if they found standard mag releases in your possession but they aren't installed?
No issue
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 05-27-2018, 4:24 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishgoh0nk View Post
No, because:



BB before 2017 OK, no BB anytime NOT OK.
According to DOJ. As has been discussed countless times, there's no statutory authority saying that you must have a bullet button post-2016, just unlawful, underground DOJ regulations. An AW is an AW under the statute, regardless of the mag release mechanism. And possession of a previously lawfully possessed bullet button rifle with the bullet button removed in April 2018 is not a crime under the grace period. Now, DOJ disagrees, but I would bet that they have no desire to have their interpretation tested by a court.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 05-27-2018, 4:40 AM
kenl's Avatar
kenl kenl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: back home
Posts: 1,190
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishgoh0nk View Post
No, because:

"11. They had telescoping stocks, standard mag releases, pistol grips. No mention is made on whether they had the dreaded flash hiders. 8 such ARs were identified. "

BB before 2017 OK, no BB anytime NOT OK.
Reading the actions of the DOJ agent with the original pistol, he said that he made an unregistered AW by opening up the action to remove the mag, then closing it. IIRC he said that the pistol, with the mag removed, was then in an illegal condition because it could accept a mag.

This makes me wonder if the other 8 ARs had similar maglock devices, and the DOJ agents removed them "to clear the weapons", then calling the results an illegal configuration.
__________________


California, the once-great first world state striving to become a third world socialist cesspool.

For information on the State of Jefferson movement go to http://www.soj51.net/

Last edited by kenl; 05-28-2018 at 9:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 05-27-2018, 5:57 AM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 19,445
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
No issue
Other than confiscation
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 05-27-2018, 7:42 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,108
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
According to DOJ. As has been discussed countless times, there's no statutory authority saying that you must have a bullet button post-2016, just unlawful, underground DOJ regulations. An AW is an AW under the statute, regardless of the mag release mechanism. And possession of a previously lawfully possessed bullet button rifle with the bullet button removed in April 2018 is not a crime under the grace period. Now, DOJ disagrees, but I would bet that they have no desire to have their interpretation tested by a court.
Not even that. There is no underground regulation preventing the removal of the B.B. before registeration. DOJ will NOT register non-B.B. weapon and regulation indicating removal of B.B. makes the registered weapon a different weapon ( what ever that means). It is just interpreted that removal of B.B. is not kosher before registeration during the grace period b/c it turns it into a previously regulated AW with the current AW

DOJ was silent on this subject until now. It will be up to the courts to decide. Hence, this would be a good test case if wasn’t for the cans.
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 05-27-2018, 10:31 AM
Gare du Nord Gare du Nord is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 10
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyxcom View Post
The receiver was DROS'd as a frame. There are no circumstances in California that would allow that frame to be assembled into a pistol. (maybe if you were exempt from the roster)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyxcom View Post
That lower was originally dros'd as a frame. Which means it can never be a pistol in CA.
There's a provision for LEO to DROS pistol frames, off-roster or not.

If you purchase a legally-dros'd off-roster pistol frame like Glock Gen5 frame from an exempt person thru PPT, you CAN assemble that frame into a complete Glock pistol later on.

Same logic applies. If you purchase a legally-dros'd AR pistol frame from an exempt person thru PPT, you CAN assemble that AR pistol frame into a complete AR pistol, provided assembled is not in AW configuration.

Last edited by Gare du Nord; 05-27-2018 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 05-27-2018, 11:04 AM
madjack956's Avatar
madjack956 madjack956 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The mountains of Arizona
Posts: 2,526
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Mufflers on autos, spark arresters on dirt vehicles, everything in society toned down to curb noise pollution except firearms.

You got to love the powers that be.

With all the gunshot locator technology that's being implemented in cities, I doubt anyone is going to change their minds soon on suppressors.
__________________
Paralyzed Veterans of America www.pva.org
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:20 PM
fishgoh0nk fishgoh0nk is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 79
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
According to DOJ. As has been discussed countless times, there's no statutory authority saying that you must have a bullet button post-2016, just unlawful, underground DOJ regulations. An AW is an AW under the statute, regardless of the mag release mechanism. And possession of a previously lawfully possessed bullet button rifle with the bullet button removed in April 2018 is not a crime under the grace period. Now, DOJ disagrees, but I would bet that they have no desire to have their interpretation tested by a court.
That's only if you assume that the 9 other ARs had been "bullet buttoned" at some time prior. But given that he has elements from out of state (NFA + free state ARs), it is likely those never had bullet buttons on them to begin with, which was illegal to have in California since 2001 as they are not "fixed mags".

As of the legislation being 'underground', I would contest that since the legal definition of 'fixed mag' has changed entirely as a result of SB 880.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs#33b
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 05-27-2018, 12:46 PM
caliguy93's Avatar
caliguy93 caliguy93 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: North Koreafornia
Posts: 1,331
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Could it be possible (because in a thread by the arrested farmer stating his old pre-2001 RAW was I the same list as his BBAW registration letter) that he felt it was safe to remove the BB and put a regular mag release thinking that is legitimate proof law enforcement cannot tell the difference between a pre-2001 raw letter and a BBAW raw letter?
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 05-27-2018, 2:03 PM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,606
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliguy93 View Post
Could it be possible (because in a thread by the arrested farmer stating his old pre-2001 RAW was I the same list as his BBAW registration letter) that he felt it was safe to remove the BB and put a regular mag release thinking that is legitimate proof law enforcement cannot tell the difference between a pre-2001 raw letter and a BBAW raw letter?
This is one of those arguments I feel the DOJ loses there "Can't remove the BB Post registration regulation. If they think it should stay on to fit the "category" profile for "this" registration, than fine. But "post" registration, I don't think so.

The argument & intent of these bills from the legislators was "BB's are just as fast as regular mags releases". So why do they need to be kept on "post" registration? What's the difference (per the legislators)?

Nor do I find any legislation to make a new category of AW Post registration.

Pre-2001 RAW's are listed with the 2001-2016 RAW's as if they're the same. I guess they are a "different category of weapon" only when the DOJ seems fit.

You're allowed to go under 30" inches after registration. Wouldn't this be another characteristic that would make it "unique" from pre-2001 registrations? Yet they don't prohibit you from going down to 26" OAL like pre-2001 RAW's.

You can also use 10+ round mags (if you've got them), as this is considered a detachable mag AW now. Another "unique" characteristic that wasn't allowed before, but now is in common with pre-2001 RAWs. Yet the DOJ hasn't tried to prohibit it in their Regs.

Hopefully this was all argued last Friday (Villanueva v. Becerra) & we'll get a positive outcome (but I'm not holding my breath).
__________________
Watch & Pray
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 05-27-2018, 6:58 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,961
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
According to DOJ. As has been discussed countless times, there's no statutory authority saying that you must have a bullet button post-2016, just unlawful, underground DOJ regulations. An AW is an AW under the statute, regardless of the mag release mechanism. And possession of a previously lawfully possessed bullet button rifle with the bullet button removed in April 2018 is not a crime under the grace period.
That is your belief, which is "debatable" at the least.

Quote:
Now, DOJ disagrees, but I would bet that they have no desire to have their interpretation tested by a court.
I bet they have zero qualms whatsoever about going to court. Do us a favor, since you are so cock sure, and remove your BB and post it here with a pic.

Put up or shut up. You are leading others into poor decision-making but you are apparently reluctant to take your own advice.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 05-27-2018, 8:02 PM
csshih's Avatar
csshih csshih is offline
Casual Plinker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 668
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Penal code wise there is nothing saying no, DOJ regulation says yes.

The state of California has a lot of money to burn on making gun owners suffer.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1911 View Post
No matter how desperate you are for money, you don’t sell guns. Give blood. Work the night shift. Do gay porn. Do not sell guns.

Secondly, guns are simply metal objects.
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 05-27-2018, 8:18 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
That is your belief, which is "debatable" at the least.



I bet they have zero qualms whatsoever about going to court. Do us a favor, since you are so cock sure, and remove your BB and post it here with a pic.

Put up or shut up. You are leading others into poor decision-making but you are apparently reluctant to take your own advice.
Everybody is responsible for their own decision-making. Haven't told anybody what to do. If you want advice, go hire Chuck Michel. My view is what I said above, and it's shared by most knowledgeable people here (i.e. there's no statutory basis for prohibiting the removal of the BB.)
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 05-28-2018, 7:20 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,961
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Everybody is responsible for their own decision-making. Haven't told anybody what to do. If you want advice, go hire Chuck Michel. My view is what I said above, and it's shared by most knowledgeable people here (i.e. there's no statutory basis for prohibiting the removal of the BB.)
Why would I hire Michel? Did you? Has he opined that BBs may be removed?

You stated that you "would bet that they have no desire to have their interpretation tested by a court."

So get to betting! If you are so sure, please lead the way. Pics please.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 05-28-2018, 7:23 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,961
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by csshih View Post
The state of California has a lot of money to burn on making gun owners suffer.
They have the will and the means.
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 05-28-2018, 7:37 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Why would I hire Michel? Did you? Has he opined that BBs may be removed?

You stated that you "would bet that they have no desire to have their interpretation tested by a court."

So get to betting! If you are so sure, please lead the way. Pics please.

I went featureless. Have no desire to register. You want to register? Rely on your own interpretation or hire a lawyer.

And if you want to put a hundred on what I said, let's do it.
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 05-28-2018, 7:40 AM
zhyla's Avatar
zhyla zhyla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,718
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AreWeFree View Post
Since he was charged prior to 06/01/18 on the "assault weapons," does he have a defense because of the registration window?
Anything that had a standard BB installed prior to 2017 or would not be an issue. The firearm that the police reassembled minus the mag and then (technically correctly) deemed an AW isn’t his fault, that should go away. Some of these charges may be dropped once the police sort out what’s actually compliant.

The silencers aren’t any kind of gray area. Straight up illegal, and not in the “oops I misconfigured my rifle” sort of way. He probably went to some trouble to acquire them illegally. I doubt that’s going to get talked down to a misdemeanor.

Call it “eating our own” but this guy has made some poor life choices and unfortunately what could have been a great 2A challenge instead is tainted by his clearly intentional crimes related to the suppressors. Great catch by the officer who spotted the carbon buildup clue. Stupid law, but that guy has a sharp eye.
__________________
compromise•conformity•assimilation•submission•igno rance•hypocrisy•brutality•the elite
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 05-28-2018, 8:33 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,961
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
I went featureless.
Of course you did.

Quote:
And if you want to put a hundred on what I said, let's do it.
Ok. If the 1) new AW statute and regs promulgated thereunder 2) are finally determined not in dicta by an appellate or higher court (CA or 9th Cir.) 3) to allow BB removal post-registration because PC 30515 does not differentiate between AWs and BBAWs, then I will donate $100 to either the pro-2A organization of your choice, a mutually acceptable charity, or failing any agreement on the above two choices, the NRA-ILA.

Last edited by God Bless America; 05-28-2018 at 8:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 05-28-2018, 9:09 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Of course you did.



Ok. If the 1) new AW statute and regs promulgated thereunder 2) are finally determined not in dicta by an appellate or higher court (CA or 9th Cir.) 3) to allow BB removal post-registration because PC 30515 does not differentiate between AWs and BBAWs, then I will donate $100 to either the pro-2A organization of your choice, a mutually acceptable charity, or failing any agreement on the above two choices, the NRA-ILA.
How's this?

If the 1) new AW statute and regs promulgated thereunder 2) are finally determined not in dicta by an appellate or higher court (CA or 9th Cir.) 3) to allow BB removal post-registration or pre-registration during the grace period of 1/1/17-6/30-18 because PC 30515 does not differentiate between AWs and BBAWs then GBA will donate $100 to the CRPA.

If the 1) new AW statute and regs promulgated thereunder 2) are finally determined, within 5 years of today, not in dicta by an appellate or higher court (CA or 9th Cir.), or by a Superior Court of California in an on-point trial court order where this issue was adversarially contested 3) to criminalize BB removal post-registration, then CP will donate $100 to either the pro-2A organization of GBA's choice, a mutually acceptable charity, or failing any agreement on the above two choices, the NRA-ILA.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 05-28-2018, 9:14 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,961
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
How's this?

If the 1) new AW statute and regs promulgated thereunder 2) are finally determined not in dicta by an appellate or higher court (CA or 9th Cir.) 3) to allow BB removal post-registration or pre-registration during the grace period of 1/1/17-6/30-18 because PC 30515 does not differentiate between AWs and BBAWs then GBA will donate $100 to the CRPA.

If the 1) new AW statute and regs promulgated thereunder 2) are finally determined, within 5 years of today, not in dicta by an appellate or higher court (CA or 9th Cir.), or by a Superior Court of California in an on-point trial court order where this issue was adversarially contested 3) to criminalize BB removal post-registration, then CP will donate $100 to either the pro-2A organization of GBA's choice, a mutually acceptable charity, or failing any agreement on the above two choices, the NRA-ILA.
No sir, you posted that "there's no statutory authority saying that you must have a bullet button post-2016, just unlawful, underground DOJ regulations. An AW is an AW under the statute, regardless of the mag release mechanism" and asked to put $100 on it. My offer reflects just that.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 05-28-2018, 11:40 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

That's not what I offered to bet on. That being said, your formulation is incomplete. Specifies what causes you to lose, but not me to lose. What would be the trigger for me losing the bet?You don't specify.
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 05-28-2018, 12:24 PM
jgarden's Avatar
jgarden jgarden is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 585
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
How's this?

If the 1) new AW statute and regs promulgated thereunder 2) are finally determined not in dicta by an appellate or higher court (CA or 9th Cir.) 3) to allow BB removal post-registration or pre-registration during the grace period of 1/1/17-6/30-18 because PC 30515 does not differentiate between AWs and BBAWs then GBA will donate $100 to the CRPA.

If the 1) new AW statute and regs promulgated thereunder 2) are finally determined, within 5 years of today, not in dicta by an appellate or higher court (CA or 9th Cir.), or by a Superior Court of California in an on-point trial court order where this issue was adversarially contested 3) to criminalize BB removal post-registration, then CP will donate $100 to either the pro-2A organization of GBA's choice, a mutually acceptable charity, or failing any agreement on the above two choices, the NRA-ILA.

Is this some form of illegal gambling under California Law?

How about under DOJ regulations?

Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 05-28-2018, 12:34 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,696
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgarden View Post
Is this some form of illegal gambling under California Law?

How about under DOJ regulations?

I was about to make a similar joke, but afaik it's legal when the loser donates, instead of paying the winner.

While I agree that it should be legal, I'm certainly not going to advocate that anyone try it, and further, I certainly won't be trying it myself unless we get new/better information in the future. The fact is, DOJ seems to be prosecuting people for violations of their illegal underground regulations, so whether or not you're right isn't as relevant as whether or not you lose your 2a rights and/or freedom.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 05-28-2018, 5:41 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,961
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
That's not what I offered to bet on. That being said, your formulation is incomplete. Specifies what causes you to lose, but not me to lose. What would be the trigger for me losing the bet?You don't specify.
OK lemme think about this
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 05-28-2018, 5:42 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4,961
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
legal when the loser donates, instead of paying the winner.
I'm counting on that.
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 05-28-2018, 6:06 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Is there a law in California against betting on outcomes of various non-athletic events? I know some states ban betting on outcome of elections, although I don't believe California has such a ban. Could be wrong...
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 05-28-2018, 6:08 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,523
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootstrap View Post
There are some Benedict Arnolds on CG who would call you a "snowflake" and liken you to the loons who melted down when Trump won.

Un-effing-real.
LOL... Yes.... LOL..

There are some who are "snowflakes"... Like those who gripe and moan because they are confronted with reality...

Deal with reality....

And you are still melting down...
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 05-28-2018, 6:54 PM
Strykeback Strykeback is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,523
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
LOL... Yes.... LOL..

There are some who are "snowflakes"... Like those who gripe and moan because they are confronted with reality...

Deal with reality....

And you are still melting down...
I originally thought he was being sarcastic in quoting one of my posts but not sure how anything ive ever said could be seen as snowflakish or anti trump.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 05-28-2018, 7:17 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,523
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strykeback View Post
I originally thought he was being sarcastic in quoting one of my posts but not sure how anything ive ever said could be seen as snowflakish or anti trump.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Not you...
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 05-28-2018, 7:21 PM
leadchucker leadchucker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 622
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strykeback View Post
I originally thought he was being sarcastic in quoting one of my posts but not sure how anything ive ever said could be seen as snowflakish or anti trump.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Nah. He was just bringing his temper tantrum over to this thread from another thread (post #187)...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1449880&page=5

Possibly ADD.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 05-28-2018, 7:33 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,523
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadchucker View Post
Nah. He was just bringing his temper tantrum over to this thread from another thread (post #187)...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1449880&page=5

Possibly ADD.
Triggered? LOL
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 05-28-2018, 10:54 PM
paddyraid's Avatar
paddyraid paddyraid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 436
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Here's the problem: what's the explanation for the silencers, slidefire, and non-BB non-featureless, non-fixed mag ARs?

LMAO! excellent point.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 05-28-2018, 11:07 PM
paddyraid's Avatar
paddyraid paddyraid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 436
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophil2 View Post
All i see is the cops went to his house to get a descriptikn of his gun. then they came back the next day with a warrant. scott had a full night to make his house legal and he failed. was it because he thought all his stuff including suppressors with atf approvals were legal or was he just a bad guy with no brains?

he has the money to minimize the issue.

maybe he just didn't know. maybe he isn't a member of calguns. maybe he isn't as gun law savvy as many of you. maybe all the california laws simply confuse him. maybe he's really a good guy that just wasn't aware that our laws are so complicated. maybe he's kinda slow upstairs and not a real sharp guy. maybe he really thought he was doing whatever he had to do to stay on the right side of the law. i feel bad for the guy if any of what i've said applies. his life is about to get really bad.

since so many of you are so eager to see a "test case" why don't we create a go fund me to help him with his attorney. 20 bucks from each of us would certainly help him out with his "test case", don't you think? i'd chip in $20.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 05-28-2018, 11:44 PM
Strykeback Strykeback is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,523
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddyraid View Post
maybe he just didn't know. maybe he isn't a member of calguns. maybe he isn't as gun law savvy as many of you. maybe all the california laws simply confuse him. maybe he's really a good guy that just wasn't aware that our laws are so complicated. maybe he's kinda slow upstairs and not a real sharp guy. maybe he really thought he was doing whatever he had to do to stay on the right side of the law. i feel bad for the guy if any of what i've said applies. his life is about to get really bad.

since so many of you are so eager to see a "test case" why don't we create a go fund me to help him with his attorney. 20 bucks from each of us would certainly help him out with his "test case", don't you think? i'd chip in $20.
This. I have dozens of coworkers that built ARs 5 or 6 years ago, and only once last week asked me so dude is there somethjng new we have to do with our ARs to take them to the range? The DOJ doesnt run adds or commercials letting citizens know that life as they know it could be changed purely because they changsd their mind on a device or that morons in sacramento go squirly with laws they know nothing about.

The everyday gun owner doesn't know this forum exists.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 05-28-2018, 11:54 PM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: backing up into Nevada
Posts: 1,517
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Stryeback is right and while we all debate something we can't control no organization is organizing a public ad campaign to tell people exactly how bad it is for gun owners now and how bad it will get in the future for everyone to the point no one will be able to legally own a gun. I see all sorts of organizations whining about the state we are in but not one is doing any advertising on the airways. Yet it is all supposed to be about the court cases that are going against us, due to in my personal opinion, the unfair courts and attorneys who more interested in their fees than in helping us. start a revolution or is that what the establishment on both sides of this fight are afraid of. that if the public gets fighting mad then there will be blood shed when they realize how betrayed they have been by both sides. where are the radio, television, and internet campaigns by the NRA, CRPA, and others? All i hear is whining on this site.

Last edited by warbird; 05-29-2018 at 12:21 AM..
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 3:16 AM.




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.