Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   CA Compliance Rate... (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1701854)

Hayduke 03-12-2021 8:21 AM

CA Compliance Rate...
 
Howdy,

With CA style gun laws trying to get enacted nationwide I'm curious if there are any reports on surmised compliance with CA's law about AR and >10rnd mags.

More interested in official numbers if any. CA can be secretive about numbers based on other hot button issues they refuse to disclose numbers on.

EVERYONE I know in CA that has any such firearms has done nothing aside not taking to the range. Heck since there is ongoing litigation WHY would you surrender $100's of magazines or other components?

I know you can work around AR's by simply disassembling them so there would be no number on those...

Trying to get a bearing on what the reactions would be nation wide.

Thanks!

Hayduke!

sdsu 03-12-2021 8:24 AM

>10 round mags are legal

everyone has their own risk tolerance for the law.

Corbin Dallas 03-12-2021 8:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke (Post 25545863)
Howdy,

With CA style gun laws trying to get enacted nationwide I'm curious if there are any reports on surmised compliance with CA's law about AR and >10rnd mags.

More interested in official numbers if any. CA can be secretive about numbers based on other hot button issues they refuse to disclose numbers on.

EVERYONE I know in CA that has any such firearms has done nothing aside not taking to the range. Heck since there is ongoing litigation WHY would you surrender $100's of magazines or other components?

I know you can work around AR's by simply disassembling them so there would be no number on those...

Trying to get a bearing on what the reactions would be nation wide.

Thanks!

Hayduke!


$100's ???

That's laughable.


Let's put this in a perspective everyone can understand.

The state of CA performed 1.6M background checks in 2020.

That's ~438 a day, every day for a year.

What do you think the average cost of a firearm might be? $700? $1000?

Let's go with $750 shall we?

1.6M * $750 = $1,200,000,000

At an average of 8% sales tax, this state took in $96M

This doesn't account for private sales (non-reported sales tax) or the sales of firearm parts or ammunition.

If you think the gun owners of CA are going to give up as you said $100's of legally owned anything, you're not seeing the big picture.

Featureless 03-12-2021 8:47 AM

The more onerous the law the lower the rate of compliance. It's axiomatic.

Hayduke 03-12-2021 9:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corbin Dallas (Post 25545958)
$100's ???

That's laughable.


I meant $100's in magazines. :D

Which could be several $1000 but not $1000's of magazine for average gun owner.

Much of everything else remained "legal" if disassembled etc... but you can't legally make a 30 round Magpul Gen2 legal... I don't think there's a kit to glue a block in to reduce capacity...but maybe....

I was just thinking this about the tax dollars and the impending recession due to C19. States like CA are going to desperately need more cash and to lop off such a cash cow doesn't fit the true model of the left....

jwkincal 03-12-2021 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke (Post 25546139)
I meant $100's in magazines. :D

Which could be several $1000 but not $1000's of magazine for average gun owner.

Much of everything else remained "legal" if disassembled etc... but you can't legally make a 30 round Magpul Gen2 legal... I don't think there's a kit to glue a block in to reduce capacity...but maybe....

I was just thinking this about the tax dollars and the impending recession due to C19. States like CA are going to desperately need more cash and to lop off such a cash cow doesn't fit the true model of the left....

CA has a budget surplus this year... the tech industry is very remote-work friendly and has not been substantially impacted by the lockdowns. In fact, the need to support many Covid-related initiatives has made technology even more profitable.

So... not hurting for money. In truth, the "magazine windfall" doesn't represent much in the grand scale of budget calculus. None of the actual Penal Code does. Everything in that space, from a political perspective, is a publicity stunt designed to garner attention and therefore votes. As long as the electoral base in CA "believes" in gun control, politicians will keep creating more of it.

As you've said, the most important event in the "large capacity magazine" realm in CA is the Duncan case, which we won, then won on appeal, and has been appealed again to an En Banc session of the 9th Circuit (where we have only about a 15% chance of winning). That's the magazine story, everything else is props and scenery.

Right now the law allowing confiscation and ticketing for magazines is enjoined (cannot be enforced) due to the Duncan case, so questions about compliance are effectively meaningless.

If one examines the AW registration compliance, one might get a better idea of what would happen in a nationwide scenario of similar character; one could also look at Canada, where a national registry was tried and it failed for multiple reasons, only one of which was very low compliance.

TL;DR: compliance would/will be/is VERY LOW; somewhere in the mid-high teens as a percentage.

Corbin Dallas 03-12-2021 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke (Post 25546139)
I meant $100's in magazines. :D

Which could be several $1000 but not $1000's of magazine for average gun owner.

$100 in Glock magazines is 3.

$100 in AR15 magazines is around 5.

How many magazines do you think the average gun owner owns where the capacity is over 10 rounds?

Dgr1dman 03-12-2021 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corbin Dallas (Post 25545958)

.... snip....

The state of CA performed 1.6M background checks in 2020.

That's ~438 a day, every day for a year.

....Snip....

I think you slipped a decimal. 1,600,000 / 365 = 4380+/-

At that rate, even the relatively small dros fees add up quickly!

Cheers,
Digger1

RSSmith 03-12-2021 8:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corbin Dallas (Post 25546717)
$100 in Glock magazines is 3.

$100 in AR15 magazines is around 5.

How many magazines do you think the average gun owner owns where the capacity is over 10 rounds?

I remember going to gun shows in 1994 and venders were getting about $100 each for Glock magazines and they were sold out after a couple hours.

Mendo223 03-12-2021 9:11 PM

I think NY is a better case study i believe their compliance rates on the 7round mags was very very low

NATO762 03-13-2021 6:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke (Post 25546139)
Much of everything else remained "legal" if disassembled etc... but you can't legally make a 30 round Magpul Gen2 legal... I don't think there's a kit to glue a block in to reduce capacity...but maybe....

One 15Ę rivet in the right location turns any magpul into a 10 rounder. There are several companies that sell these into CA today.

timdps 03-14-2021 7:08 PM

Compliance rate for the recent round of AW registration laws was around 5% in each of the states that passed these laws. CA registered 64K new AWs of an expected 1.5 million.

T

OlderThanDirt 03-15-2021 9:49 AM

Calculating a compliance rate is impossible. For AWs there are multiple ways to comply with the law besides registration; featureless, fixed magazine, disassembly. The same for magazines where people are likely to do their own conversions. There simply is no data to estimate compliance rates. CA doesn’t even know how many ARs or magazines are owned in CA beyond an order of magnitude estimate.

kcheung2 03-16-2021 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke (Post 25546139)
I meant $100's in magazines. :D

Which could be several $1000 but not $1000's of magazine for average gun owner.

Much of everything else remained "legal" if disassembled etc... but you can't legally make a 30 round Magpul Gen2 legal... I don't think there's a kit to glue a block in to reduce capacity...but maybe....

I was just thinking this about the tax dollars and the impending recession due to C19. States like CA are going to desperately need more cash and to lop off such a cash cow doesn't fit the true model of the left....

First off there’s many ways to compliance besides your method, but even assuming that’s the only method...glue + block = compliance. Why does anyone need a kit for those 2 items?

frankm 03-16-2021 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timdps (Post 25555049)
Compliance rate for the recent round of AW registration laws was around 5% in each of the states that passed these laws. CA registered 64K new AWs of an expected 1.5 million.

T

Compliance rates for other states will be much lower. Maybe you'll get 2 registered in Texas.

Garand Hunter 03-16-2021 11:32 AM

Take out the centerfire Bolt Carrier, set it aside under lock and key, put in a CMMG 22lr conversion Bolt Carrier, get a Black Dog 10rnd 22lr mag. DONE.
If the green weenie hits the propeller, switcharoo the Bolt Carriers and the mags, light 'em up and smoke 'em. IF you had the foresight to put the evil horrible nasty Standard capacity mag away in a unseen place. But alas, all of the .300 Blackout rigs and other calibers take a bit for effort.

Psalm 1

bronco75a 04-09-2021 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankm (Post 25560885)
Compliance rates for other states will be much lower. Maybe you'll get 2 registered in Texas.

And Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke will be the one registering his two AR-15s for the attention and considering he's a felon and not allowed to own firearms I hope the state of Texas arrests him and points out that some guy who said AR-15s are bad owned two of them.

Citadelgrad87 04-09-2021 11:51 AM

I remember WAY back when CA enacted its original ban/registration for AWs, i.e. Roberti Roos, before anyone had heard of OLL or featureless, etc, the compliance rate for that mandatory registration was very low, I think I saw 10% of what they were expecting.

I can't find numbers right now.

Librarian 04-09-2021 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 (Post 25645025)
I remember WAY back when CA enacted its original ban/registration for AWs, i.e. Roberti Roos, before anyone had heard of OLL or featureless, etc, the compliance rate for that mandatory registration was very low, I think I saw 10% of what they were expecting.

I can't find numbers right now.

That number, or one close to 10%, was in commentary on a subsequent AW bill; found it once, not interested in chasing it down again.

Johnny Lightning 04-09-2021 12:35 PM

10% "compliance" was the number. The other 90% misplaced their firearms and couldn't find them. Then they had those inane commercials, "Ya's register ya's truck don't ya's?", "Son!, it's not worth it!". I'm still shaking from fear.

TruOil 04-09-2021 1:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mendo223 (Post 25548828)
I think NY is a better case study i believe their compliance rates on the 7round mags was very very low

That part was held to be unconstitutional. The part about registering ARs was upheld. All reported compliance rates are no better than estimates in any state, since there is an unknown number of such weapons in circulation. California DROS did not require an identification of a rifle transfer as a semiauto rifle until 2000, I think, so the true number, not including ghost guns, is just an estimate. As to registration as "assault weapons," I imagine that there are tens of thousands of people who were blissfully unaware of the law, and others who converted their rifles to a "nonassault weapon" configuration to avoid registration. Thus, the number of unregistered "assault weapons" is anybody's guess.

jwkincal 04-09-2021 2:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruOil (Post 25645405)
California DROS did not require an identification of a rifle transfer as a semiauto rifle until 2000

2014. An untold number of BB semi-auto rifles, and stripped and/or complete lowers, were sold as generic "long guns" prior to that.

Compliance is dismally low. But the people who made the law knew that was what would happen. They registration system they built couldn't even handle the fractional volume of registrations, so there is no way it had any chance of surviving the entire list of these firearms in circulation... and I don't believe that the people running the show didn't know that. On the other hand, if they didn't, that tells you that you don't have much to worry about because it means they're monumentally stupid.

Tankhatch 04-09-2021 3:36 PM

AW ban / registration laws............
Law abiding gun owners, rumored registration rate, is greater than 10%.
Criminal gun owners, rumored registration rate, is less than .001%.

JTROKS 04-09-2021 3:54 PM

It’s really sad how this administration think they can turn this great nation similar to China, so they can reign forever. Total disregard for the Constitution and Amendments clearly shows these are the tyrants the 2A is all about.

-hanko 04-09-2021 5:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tankhatch (Post 25645711)
AW ban / registration laws............
Law abiding gun owners, rumored registration rate, is greater than 10%.
Criminal gun owners, rumored registration rate, is less than .001%.

Not sure what you mean by "rumored" registration rate.

DOJ noted less than 10% of AW's were registered in the last 2 formal registration periods. Most folks say 5-8% but who knows.

I forgot to register, but I am aware that registration lists turn into kiss it g'by lists.

chihuahuasniper 04-21-2021 6:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke (Post 25546139)
I meant $100's in magazines. :D

Which could be several $1000 but not $1000's of magazine for average gun owner.

Much of everything else remained "legal" if disassembled etc... but you can't legally make a 30 round Magpul Gen2 legal... I don't think there's a kit to glue a block in to reduce capacity...but maybe....

I was just thinking this about the tax dollars and the impending recession due to C19. States like CA are going to desperately need more cash and to lop off such a cash cow doesn't fit the true model of the left....

Thousands of paper magazines :D

TrappedinCalifornia 04-21-2021 7:49 AM

As has been indicated, it is virtually impossible to ascertain a 'true' compliance rate with the firearms themselves and such 'magazines,' particularly given the lack of 'paperwork' involved in their attainment would be even more 'impossible.' With that said, as the others have already alluded to, the estimated compliance rate insofar as firearms might provide a rough (very rough) guideline.

In July of 2018, The Washington Free Beacon reported... Gun Group: Only 3 Percent of Californians With Assault Weapons Registered Them After Latest Gun Law

Quote:

...The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) said the likely registration rate of "bullet-button assault weapons" was only about 3 percent of the total number of firearms in California that fall under the state's latest expansion of its "assault weapons" ban. State documents obtained by the group through freedom of information requests show the Department of Justice approved 6,213 individuals to register 12,519 firearms under the new law by the end of June. It rejected a further 1,373 registration attempts. As of June 30, 2018, 52,443 applications for registration were pending.

The 66,335 applications for registration pale in comparison, FPC said, to the number of firearms sold between January 2000 and December 2017, which the state said must be registered by June 30, 2018. Using data on gun sales from state records and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the group estimated there were 1.3 million firearms sold in California that would fall under the registration requirements. They estimated an additional half-million home-built firearms fall in the same category.

That would put the number of attempted registrations at about 3.6 percent of the total number of firearms required to be registered...
Now, add "Freedom Week," the uncertainty associated with pending litigation over the decision by Judge Benitez, along with various other factors and I suspect that the compliance rate regarding magazines is even lower than that associated with the guesstimates on firearms. But, once again, that's why there are no "official numbers" to reference; just 'estimates,' even on the firearms.

Nationwide? The same issues present themselves.

From July 2016... Massive noncompliance with SAFE Act

Quote:

...Cuomo administration officials first ignored, then denied Robinson’s Freedom of Information Act request. But, on June 22, following two years of litigation, state police released the information based on a court decision which found that while the law forbade the disclosure of the actual registration forms, nothing precluded the release of aggregate data.

That data shows massive noncompliance with the assault weapon registration requirement. Based on an estimate from the National Shooting Sports Federation, about 1 million firearms in New York State meet the law’s assault-weapon criteria, but just 44,000 have been registered. That’s a compliance rate of about 4 percent. Capanna said that the high rate of noncompliance with the law could only be interpreted as a large-scale civil disobedience, given the high level of interest and concern about the law on the part of gun owners.

“It’s not that they aren’t aware of the law,” said Capanna. “The lack of registration is a massive act of civil disobedience by gun owners statewide.”...
When Romney signed the permanent assault weapons ban in Massachusetts, the ban had already been in place nationwide for 10 years and the State's ban had been there for 6 years. Yet, they are still trying to estimate not only 'compliance' with regard to firearms sales, they are now attempting to ban 'manufacture' of so-called "assault weapons" within the State. The most 'recent' numbers I can find at the moment come from a 2021 piece, but even that focuses on 'firearms sales' and not on 'ownership/possession.' Still...

Quote:

...We can speculate about explanations for the widespread noncompliance with the Enforcement Notice. One is civil disobedience: it is possible that many firearm sellers and purchasers knew about the EN and deliberately disregarded it. Another is ignorance. Some market participants simply may not know what actions are legal or not legal; for example, they may not know how to properly apply the Interchangeability Test or Similarity Test. It is relevant to consider that the data we observe was reported by sellers to the state through legal channels; some dealers might prefer to avoid knowingly informing the state about illegal weapon sales. Third, as the AGO made clear, the AGO relied on dealers’ voluntary compliance with the law. Such compliance may have been difficult or unprofitable. Finally, we have found no evidence that assault weapons ban enforcement efforts increased concurrently with the EN. In fact, the AGO publicly requested voluntary compliance, and its communications suggested that some dealers were known to be out of compliance. It may be that increased enforcement is required to gain a higher level of compliance in the marketplace...
So, even if we go by 'official estimates' related to firearms compliance rates, the number is... shall we say... estimably LOW in terms of compliance. Remember also, even using the "1.3 million firearms sold in California that would fall under the registration requirements" from the 2018 piece and multiplying that by a minimum number of 3 magazines per firearm at an estimated cost of $12 - $20 per magazine (where the mean is $16; 1,300,000 x 3 x $16), that's $62.4 million dollars worth of magazines without accounting for how many 'standard capacity' magazines were owned prior to the 2016 ban itself and how many may have been 'obtained' since.

OlderThanDirt 04-21-2021 9:30 AM

The above discussion is thorough, but needs to acknowledge the difference between compliance and registration without intermixing the terms. While registration rates are very low, I believe that the compliance rate is very high. Converting a potential featured AW to either fixed magazine or featureless is compliance with the law. Iím sure sales figures of the latest generation of fixed magazine and featureless devices would support a very high compliance rate.

Magazines, on the other hand...waiting for the legal process to conclude.

SharedShots 04-21-2021 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShotgunPreacher (Post 25645243)
You are correct sir. Back when CA banned "evil features" and hi cap mags, they had like only 10% compliance, so they extended the deadline 6 months under amnesty. Less than 1% more took advantage.

Considering the enemy is in the gate, has been given the keys to the country and high treason is abound just about everywhere, I think the wisest thing gun-owners should do is contact our local, state & federal representatives first, and mass non-cooperation second. 3rd will determine how far they push the treason...

This isn't checkers, it's chess!

.

"evil features", another gun owner community made up term because none of the gun control organizations or advocates of gun control use that term. The media doesn't use it, politicians don't use it, gun control groups don't use it, no one on the side of gun control uses it. Who uses it? Gun owners.

We gave them "Assault Weapon/Rifle" (there is proof enough right on this forum)and now we're hell bent on just paving the way for another one.

It isn't checkers nor chess if all that is accomplished is giving the opponents everything they need to win the game.

How many gun owners have to use the term "Evil Features" before that is also shoved down our throats. Sure it used sarcastically but go tell the general public that as you pound this term into their heads every time you say something.

California didn't ban "evil features", they banned parts and designs and guess who came along to help them and coin the term evil features? Gun owners. Call something "evil" enough times and everyone else will believe it. Just which side are you (plural) on? You don't hear them using any terms other than those like "safety" do you? Yet here we come bouncing along all fat and happy telling the whole world about "Evil Features".

Go on and ask anyone who talks about "evil features" and the answer is gun owners. We can do better. All the "features" that are banned play a role in safely operating firearms, all of them. Replace "evil features" with "banned safety features" and if someone asks what that is, use the example of a barrel shroud which is designed to prevent the gun owner from burning their hands - how can a typical person say that isn't a dumb part of a law/regulation?

People read what gun owners write and why we think in the face just to spite anyone by using terms like "evil features" helps anything is beyond comprehension.:confused:

Citadelgrad87 04-21-2021 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharedShots (Post 25686789)
"evil features", another gun owner community made up term because none of the gun control organizations or advocates of gun control use that term. The media doesn't use it, politicians don't use it, gun control groups don't use it, no one on the side of gun control uses it. Who uses it? Gun owners.

We gave them "Assault Weapon/Rifle" (there is proof enough right on this forum)and now we're hell bent on just paving the way for another one.

It isn't checkers nor chess if all that is accomplished is giving the opponents everything they need to win the game.

How many gun owners have to use the term "Evil Features" before that is also shoved down our throats. Sure it used sarcastically but go tell the general public that as you pound this term into their heads every time you say something.

California didn't ban "evil features", they banned parts and designs and guess who came along to help them and coin the term evil features? Gun owners. Call something "evil" enough times and everyone else will believe it. Just which side are you (plural) on? You don't hear them using any terms other than those like "safety" do you? Yet here we come bouncing along all fat and happy telling the whole world about "Evil Features".

Go on and ask anyone who talks about "evil features" and the answer is gun owners. We can do better. All the "features" that are banned play a role in safely operating firearms, all of them. Replace "evil features" with "banned safety features" and if someone asks what that is, use the example of a barrel shroud which is designed to prevent the gun owner from burning their hands - how can a typical person say that isn't a dumb part of a law/regulation?

People read what gun owners write and why we think in the face just to spite anyone by using terms like "evil features" helps anything is beyond comprehension.:confused:

With all due respect, BS.

If we all agreed that from this day forward we would refer to all firearms as fuzzy bunnies, is it your position that the gun control freaks would just find another hobby?

We didn't "give" them anything. Running around screeching "that's not an assault weapon, an assault weapon is a select fire "(yawn) You just lost that debate. EVERY TIME. People aren't convinced that firearms arent the problem by having some "gun guy" ridicule their misuse of terms.

SharedShots 04-21-2021 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 (Post 25686811)
With all due respect, BS.

If we all agreed that from this day forward we would refer to all firearms as fuzzy bunnies, is it your position that the gun control freaks would just find another hobby?

We didn't "give" them anything. Running around screeching "that's not an assault weapon, an assault weapon is a select fire "(yawn) You just lost that debate. EVERY TIME. People aren't convinced that firearms arent the problem by having some "gun guy" ridicule their misuse of terms.

You haven't been reading. Gun magazines of the late 70 and early 80s blasted the term "Assault Weapon" and "Assault Rifle" to everyone that would read it. You can try technicalities all day long, there is a ban on them isn't there? In your world things like that don't matter? Go ask anyone on the street to describe an assault rifle and listen to what they say.

Tell me of all issues which other group denigrates their own interests except gun owners? Do you hear racing fans espouse how their engines create more pollution than other cars? No. Not even cigarette or alcohol beverage companies talk bad about their products or the people that use them but we sure do. We can't wait to use the air quotes and talk about evil features.

Go into any sporting goods store and some gun owner will be throwing up both hands and using their fingers to make air quotes and talk about evil features.

So you tell me, where did "evil features" come from and who are the only people using that term in descriptions.

You are actually arguing that using the term "evil features" has any benefit?

Citadelgrad87 04-21-2021 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharedShots (Post 25686886)
You haven't been reading. Gun magazines of the late 70 and early 80s blasted the term "Assault Weapon" and "Assault Rifle" to everyone that would read it. You can try technicalities all day long, there is a ban on them isn't there? In your world things like that don't matter? Go ask anyone on the street to describe an assault rifle and listen to what they say.

Tell me of all issues which other group denigrates their own interests except gun owners? Do you hear racing fans espouse how their engines create more pollution than other cars? No. Not even cigarette or alcohol beverage companies talk bad about their products or the people that use them but we sure do. We can't wait to use the air quotes and talk about evil features.

Go into any sporting goods store and some gun owner will be throwing up both hands and using their fingers to make air quotes and talk about evil features.

So you tell me, where did "evil features" come from and who are the only people using that term in descriptions.

You are actually arguing that using the term "evil features" has any benefit?

For someone advocating reading more carefully, you sure live in a glass house.

I am advocating, quite clearly, that knee jerk claims, like yours, that "we" are the problem are silly.

Nothing at all came from the decision to start using the term "evil features". DO you want to know why? It's because the ONLY reason anyone is discussing features AT ALL is because a law listing those features was passed and affects the owner's ability to have a firearm with those features. Before ANYONE said "evil features", they were regulated. It's NOT from guys in gun stores using air quotes.

Call them jelly beans or baby killers, it does not matter because the reason we call them anything is because a law has already been passed that lists them.

SharedShots 04-21-2021 11:05 AM

Oh, I forgot, there is one other group that creates terms just to show spite and that are diesel truck owners. Who invented the term "coal roll". Hint, it wasn't anyone seeking to ban diesel engines, it was some diesel truck driver.

So stick the chest out, take the defiant position and keep using terms that degrade cast shadow on gun ownership. How has that been working out for us in Ca?

Citadelgrad87 04-21-2021 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharedShots (Post 25686914)
Oh, I forgot, there is one other group that creates terms just to show spite and that are diesel truck owners. Who invented the term "coal roll". Hint, it wasn't anyone seeking to ban diesel engines, it was some diesel truck driver.

So stick the chest out, take the defiant position and keep using terms that degrade cast shadow on gun ownership. How has that been working out for us in Ca?

Translation: Holy crap, he's absolutely correct. Better take an example from a totally unrelated area and hope he doesn't notice.

And your last sentence reveals an amazing lack of understanding of demographics. The idea that the current antigun climate in California is a product of gun owners saying things like "evil features" instead of the democrat supermajority is astounding.

SharedShots 04-21-2021 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 (Post 25686909)
For someone advocating reading more carefully, you sure live in a glass house.

I am advocating, quite clearly, that knee jerk claims, like yours, that "we" are the problem are silly.

Nothing at all came from the decision to start using the term "evil features". DO you want to know why? It's because the ONLY reason anyone is discussing features AT ALL is because a law listing those features was passed and affects the owner's ability to have a firearm with those features. Before ANYONE said "evil features", they were regulated. It's NOT from guys in gun stores using air quotes.

Call them jelly beans or baby killers, it does not matter because the reason we call them anything is because a law has already been passed that lists them.

I never said we were the problem, I did say in other words that we don't do yourselves any favors by coinging terms that do nothing to help. How exactly doesn't "evil features" help anyone? A guy might have a wife that isn't the prettiest on the planet, only a fool would call their wife ugly. Words focus ideas and words reinforce them.

Phrases and terms become part of the vernacular used by society. In case you haven't noticed, none of the laws banning anything existed before someone created them. What term did they use? Assault weapon? Were they worried about technical descriptions? No, they went for the ambiguous and purposefully so.

Go ahead, keep reinforcing the term "evil features", see how much that helps. If it doesn't help, why continue to say it, just 'cause?

Citadelgrad87 04-21-2021 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SharedShots (Post 25686941)
I never said we were the problem, I did say in other words that we don't do yourselves any favors by coinging terms that do nothing to help. How exactly doesn't "evil features" help anyone? A guy might have a wife that isn't the prettiest on the planet, only a fool would call their wife ugly. Words focus ideas and words reinforce them.

Phrases and terms become part of the vernacular used by society. In case you haven't noticed, none of the laws banning anything existed before someone created them. What term did they use? Assault weapon? Were they worried about technical descriptions? No, they went for the ambiguous and purposefully so.

Go ahead, keep reinforcing the term "evil features", see how much that helps. If it doesn't help, why continue to say it, just 'cause?

What?

The only reason ANYONE cares or discusses "features" in any context is because CA has a law that controls which can be on a firearm. The ship has sailed. What we call "features" has no bearing on their legality, and we likely arent discussing them with anyone who isnt already a gun person.

I reject your proclamation that the term MUST either help or it's bad. It doesn't hurt, is the point.

SharedShots 04-21-2021 1:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 (Post 25687093)
What?

The only reason ANYONE cares or discusses "features" in any context is because CA has a law that controls which can be on a firearm. The ship has sailed. What we call "features" has no bearing on their legality, and we likely arent discussing them with anyone who isnt already a gun person.

I reject your proclamation that the term MUST either help or it's bad. It doesn't hurt, is the point.

Who is we? A lot of gun owners use the term and some of them when in the public arena. Maybe the we is your circle of friends or acquaintances only?

It doesn't hurt. And you know this for a fact right because every gun law in Ca approved by the voters was so because words and perceptions didn't matter?

I say that using the term is at least harmful because it creates a bad perception, can be heard or read in public forums of all types and you argue that lets just keep doing what we've been doing because we are winning so often, is that right?

TanGoBooty 04-21-2021 1:58 PM

well from some local officers that I know, about 98%+ of the firearms taken in crime scenes from criminals are illegal... that includes "AW's", stolen firearms with serials scratched off, p80s etc... As for compliance of actual "law abiding citizens", or those who intend only to defend life with their arms... when I go to the range, I'm not seeing too many complying with the ridiculous AWB and I applaud that tbh.

CAL.BAR 04-21-2021 2:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Featureless (Post 25545976)
The more onerous the law the lower the rate of compliance. It's axiomatic.

Not quite sure of that. How many people do you know who are smuggling Uzi's or HK94"s into the state (or the country for that matter).

Most ńW's"were banned 30 years ago in CA and they have NOT come back. Other than legally registered AW's from decades ago, how many other "Ôllegal"weapons do we see? Not too many. I think the vast majority comply and more importantly FFLS importers and businesses COMPLY.

How often to you hear full auto gunfire out on the street? Never. Why - FA's were banned in 1934 for the most part.

Sure, you see a few float to the surface in raids etc. but not like before. I grew up in the great 80's when EVERYONE had Mac 10's or Uzi's. Every gang was doing drive bys with AK47's and AR-15's. Every night on the news were stories of gun caches like you'd see on Miami Vice. Not anymore. Sure, we see the odd 80%er or AR style rifle, but not like before.

Yes, laws DO work. They just time time to matriculate through the culture.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.