Calguns.net  

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-12-2021, 8:21 AM
Hayduke's Avatar
Hayduke Hayduke is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 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!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-12-2021, 8:24 AM
sdsu sdsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 228
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

>10 round mags are legal

everyone has their own risk tolerance for the law.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-12-2021, 8:43 AM
Corbin Dallas's Avatar
Corbin Dallas Corbin Dallas is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SD
Posts: 4,856
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayduke View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-12-2021, 8:47 AM
Featureless Featureless is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: SLO County
Posts: 1,553
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The more onerous the law the lower the rate of compliance. It's axiomatic.
__________________
California Native
Lifelong Gun Owner
NRA Member
CRPA Member

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed"
~ Barry Goldwater 1964
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-12-2021, 9:23 AM
Hayduke's Avatar
Hayduke Hayduke is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 62
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corbin Dallas View Post
$100's ???

That's laughable.

I meant $100's in magazines.

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....

Last edited by Hayduke; 03-12-2021 at 9:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-12-2021, 10:02 AM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Different grid square
Posts: 1,531
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayduke View Post
I meant $100's in magazines.

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.
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-12-2021, 12:01 PM
Corbin Dallas's Avatar
Corbin Dallas Corbin Dallas is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SD
Posts: 4,856
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayduke View Post
I meant $100's in magazines.

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?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-12-2021, 12:14 PM
Dgr1dman Dgr1dman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Sacramento delta
Posts: 78
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corbin Dallas View Post

.... 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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-12-2021, 8:17 PM
RSSmith RSSmith is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 47
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corbin Dallas View Post
$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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-12-2021, 9:11 PM
Mendo223's Avatar
Mendo223 Mendo223 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,504
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I think NY is a better case study i believe their compliance rates on the 7round mags was very very low
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-13-2021, 6:03 AM
NATO762's Avatar
NATO762 NATO762 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: SF Bay-ish Area
Posts: 305
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayduke View Post
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 15¢ rivet in the right location turns any magpul into a 10 rounder. There are several companies that sell these into CA today.
__________________
"Never! Jesus Christ, what don’t you understand about never?"

-Sen. Joe Manchin on eliminating the filibuster
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-14-2021, 7:08 PM
timdps timdps is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,297
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

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
__________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies." - George Washington, 1790
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-15-2021, 9:49 AM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dumbfookistan
Posts: 4,020
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-16-2021, 10:53 AM
kcheung2's Avatar
kcheung2 kcheung2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,945
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayduke View Post
I meant $100's in magazines.

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?
__________________
---------------------
"There is no "best." If there was, everyone here would own that one, and no other." - DSB
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-16-2021, 11:01 AM
frankm's Avatar
frankm frankm is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Occupied Vespuchia
Posts: 10,491
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timdps View Post
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.
__________________
RKBA Clock: soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box (midnight - it appears we've reached an impasse)
Free Vespuchia!
The future is dystopian
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-16-2021, 11:32 AM
Garand Hunter Garand Hunter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,655
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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

Last edited by Garand Hunter; 03-16-2021 at 11:33 AM.. Reason: sentence structure
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-09-2021, 11:29 AM
bronco75a's Avatar
bronco75a bronco75a is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 643
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankm View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-09-2021, 11:51 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
Enemy of Antivaxxers
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,986
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony270 View Post
It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. J Beezy View Post
Unfortunately for you, I have the truth on my side and... I’m definitely better than you at what you make a living from.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-09-2021, 12:31 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 41,510
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
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.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Consider Samizdat; consider some reading material, such as this and that.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-09-2021, 12:35 PM
Johnny Lightning Johnny Lightning is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 244
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-09-2021, 1:51 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 988
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendo223 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-09-2021, 2:04 PM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Different grid square
Posts: 1,531
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
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.
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-09-2021, 3:36 PM
Tankhatch Tankhatch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 276
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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%.
__________________
*
NRA Life Member since 1978
CRPA Life Member since 1978
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-09-2021, 3:54 PM
JTROKS's Avatar
JTROKS JTROKS is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NorCal - Bay Area
Posts: 12,353
iTrader: 134 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
The wise man said just find your place
In the eye of the storm
Seek the roses along the way
Just beware of the thorns...
K. Meine
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-09-2021, 5:10 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 13,042
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tankhatch View Post
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.
__________________
True wealth is time. Time to enjoy life.

Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-21-2021, 6:41 AM
chihuahuasniper's Avatar
chihuahuasniper chihuahuasniper is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 48
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayduke View Post
I meant $100's in magazines.

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
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-21-2021, 7:49 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,627
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-21-2021 at 8:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-21-2021, 9:30 AM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dumbfookistan
Posts: 4,020
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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. I’m 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.
__________________
Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-21-2021, 10:35 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunPreacher View Post
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.
__________________
Happiness is a warm barrel.

]A SILENT MAJORITY will become a silent minority when those who have something to lose fear those who have something to gain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.

You don't get beaten by the opposition you get beaten by those who run away.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-21-2021, 10:42 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
Enemy of Antivaxxers
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,986
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
"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.
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony270 View Post
It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. J Beezy View Post
Unfortunately for you, I have the truth on my side and... I’m definitely better than you at what you make a living from.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-21-2021, 10:59 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
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?
__________________
Happiness is a warm barrel.

]A SILENT MAJORITY will become a silent minority when those who have something to lose fear those who have something to gain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.

You don't get beaten by the opposition you get beaten by those who run away.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-21-2021, 11:04 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
Enemy of Antivaxxers
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,986
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony270 View Post
It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. J Beezy View Post
Unfortunately for you, I have the truth on my side and... I’m definitely better than you at what you make a living from.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-21-2021, 11:05 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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?
__________________
Happiness is a warm barrel.

]A SILENT MAJORITY will become a silent minority when those who have something to lose fear those who have something to gain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.

You don't get beaten by the opposition you get beaten by those who run away.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-21-2021, 11:12 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
Enemy of Antivaxxers
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,986
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony270 View Post
It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. J Beezy View Post
Unfortunately for you, I have the truth on my side and... I’m definitely better than you at what you make a living from.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-21-2021, 11:12 AM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
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?
__________________
Happiness is a warm barrel.

]A SILENT MAJORITY will become a silent minority when those who have something to lose fear those who have something to gain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.

You don't get beaten by the opposition you get beaten by those who run away.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-21-2021, 11:54 AM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is online now
Enemy of Antivaxxers
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,986
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SharedShots View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony270 View Post
It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. J Beezy View Post
Unfortunately for you, I have the truth on my side and... I’m definitely better than you at what you make a living from.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-21-2021, 1:39 PM
SharedShots SharedShots is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
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?
__________________
Happiness is a warm barrel.

]A SILENT MAJORITY will become a silent minority when those who have something to lose fear those who have something to gain. Defense is a losing proposition when time is on the side of the opponent.

You don't get beaten by the opposition you get beaten by those who run away.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-21-2021, 1:58 PM
TanGoBooty's Avatar
TanGoBooty TanGoBooty is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: calaveras
Posts: 18
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-21-2021, 2:03 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,387
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featureless View Post
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 ÄW'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 "ïllegal"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.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-21-2021, 5:26 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,627
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderThanDirt View Post
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. I’m 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.
I would remind you that "compliance" is a bit of a fungible term, as it is used, depending on individual, agency, context, etc. Your post is evidence of that. You define it this way (emphasis mine)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderThanDirt View Post
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.
I define it consistent with the law in terms of what is defined as so-called "assault weapons." If you go featureless, fixed magazine, or disassembly, according to the laws, as they are currently written, the firearm is NO LONGER designated as a so-called "assault weapon" by the State? As such, it would be in compliance with... what? A legal firearm which is not a so-called "assault weapon?"

The ONLY method of compliance (in this State and, presumably, in others) which allows one the ability to legally retain possession of a so-called "assault weapon" is registration. Otherwise, all you have is a rifle and, in some cases, not even a semi-automatic one; whether that be via disassembly or conversion to single shot or 'bolt action.'

In short, while part of our argument against so-called "assault weapon" bans is that such rifles are no different than many others in function, just appearance, if we now begin referring to certain firearms as "assault weapons" which do not meet the definition as codified by law, isn't that 'poking the bear' in terms of virtually inviting them to add them to the list of so defined "assault weapons?" After all... "If gun owners think of them as 'assault weapons,' then, perhaps..."

Admittedly, part of this comes down to how one thinks about so-called "assault weapons." It's part of the legerdemain that the anti-civil rights forces have employed and why I use "so-called" in conjunction with "assault weapons." For me, however, it's not about the language so much as it is about a caveat; an indication that there's more to what's going on than a tangible, fixed definition of a specific weapon type.

If we were to accept the premise of "military-like" or "military-style" or "used by the military" or "weapons of war," then virtually EVERY firearm type would or could be classified as a so-called "assault weapon" in that the military has used and virtually every type of firearm (and 'arm') has been utilized in "war."

If we push the premise that what is being legislated as so-called "assault weapons" is a gradual expansion from actual "military issued" to virtually every firearm, I would think that helps our cause. Thus, if we argue that what they propose banning is simply a type of firearm commonly used for lawful purposes, that such common use includes (but is not limited to) self-defense, that it is not unusual and dangerous (a conjunctive test as held by Alito in his concurring opinion in Caetano*), and that, functionally, it is little or no different than myriad other firearms, I suspect we'd be far better off, legally and PR wise, than arguing...

We have so-called "assault weapons," even if some of them are 'featureless' (they don't appear to be "military-style") or fixed magazine (which for a great many is unacceptable, for various reasons) or is simply disassembled (but could be 'reassembled' in a matter of seconds).

Remember, Biden has posited the idea that so-called "assault weapons" be designated NFA items; with registration and all that entails being the only legal way to retain them as such. In California, that would effectively mean no one could be in legal compliance while still retaining possession of a so-called "assault weapon" or in possession of such parts that one could be assembled. Thus, it would become a 'battle' to get the permissible parts designated as substantively different; i.e., for all practical purposes, it would no longer be about assembling a "machine gun" and would, instead, be about assembling a semi-automatic firearm.


____________

* As Justice Alito wrote in a concurring opinion to Caetano, one which Justice Thomas joined...

Quote:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a stun gun “is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.” ... This reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as “bordering on the frivolous” the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.” ...

The Supreme Judicial Court’s holding that stun guns may be banned as “dangerous and unusual weapons” fares no better. As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. Because the Court rejects the lower court’s conclusion that stun guns are “unusual,” it does not need to consider the lower court’s conclusion that they are also “dangerous.”...

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” ... the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes... If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous...

As the foregoing makes clear, the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether stun guns are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today... The more relevant statistic is that “[h]undreds of thousands of Tasers and stun guns have been sold to private citizens,” who it appears may lawfully possess them in 45 States... While less popular than handguns, stun guns are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country. Massachusetts’ categorical ban of such weapons therefore violates the Second Amendment.

The lower court’s ill treatment of Heller cannot stand... “Self-defense,” however, “is a basic right.”... I am not prepared to say that a State may force an individual to choose between exercising that right and following her conscience, at least where both can be accommodated by a weapon already in widespread use across the Nation... If the fundamental right of self defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.
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 10:29 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical