Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Just curious were California gun owners forced to neuter their rifles?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • vincnet11
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2010
    • 505

    Just curious were California gun owners forced to neuter their rifles?

    I saw a few people in this forum with high-cap mags on their AR-15s but have featureless rifles, obviously they owned rifles before the assault weapons ban were they forced to neuter their rifles to featureless or a bullet button?

    Pardon me but I wasn't here back then.
  • #2
    InGrAM
    Veteran Member
    • Dec 2010
    • 3699

    You can own magazines without owning the rifle or pistol that the magazine goes to. People hoarded them when clinton was president and did before california's law went into effect in 2000.

    There were no "featureless" or BB's when the assault weapons ban went into effect. So people either registered there "assault weapons" or took them out of state. (the listed ones, that is)

    Comment

    • #3
      vincnet11
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2010
      • 505

      Originally posted by InGrAM
      You can own magazines without owning the rifle or pistol that the magazine goes to. People hoarded them when clinton was president and did before california's law went into effect in 2000.

      There were no "featureless" or BB's when the assault weapons ban went into effect. So people either registered there "assault weapons" or took them out of state. (the listed ones, that is)
      So they were forced to register their existing "assault rifles" they already legally owned? That doesn't sound very constitutional.

      Comment

      • #4
        Kharn
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2009
        • 1219

        If you want a real Constitutional question, check out all the shenanigans with SKSs. IIRC the state extended the registration deadline due to confusion over those rifles, then someone sued them and they cancelled the registrations from the extended period and demanded the guns be turned in or moved out of state immediately.

        Comment

        • #5
          timdps
          CGN/CGSSA Contributor
          CGN Contributor
          • Feb 2007
          • 3437

          Originally posted by vincnet11
          I saw a few people in this forum with high-cap mags on their AR-15s but have featureless rifles, obviously they owned rifles before the assault weapons ban were they forced to neuter their rifles to featureless or a bullet button?
          These would probably be people who owned high cap magazines before the high cap ban and then eventually built featureless OLLs to go with the mags.

          I have been collecting MG related stuff since the '80s, including lots of various belts, drums and magazines. When people started building semi-auto versions of these MGs and the CalGuns OLL movement started, I was very happy because I could use my pre ban belts, drums and magazines in featureless version of these guns.

          As others have said, the featureless or bullet button OLL options did not start until 2005-2006, so there were only two options in 2000, register the rifle or send/sell it out of state.

          Comment

          • #6
            bwiese
            I need a LIFE!!
            • Oct 2005
            • 27610

            Originally posted by vincnet11
            I saw a few people in this forum with high-cap mags on their AR-15s but have featureless rifles, obviously they owned rifles before the assault weapons ban were they forced to neuter their rifles to featureless or a bullet button?
            No. These rifles 99.999% were new acquisitions way after the ban (2005 and up).

            The magazines were (I'd hope) retained/acquired before 2000.

            Some few people may have taken contraband out of storage and converted it to 'legal status", but that act is questionable (can't really unring a bell).

            Bill Wiese
            San Jose, CA

            CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
            sigpic
            No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
            to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
            ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
            employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
            legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

            Comment

            • #7
              bwiese
              I need a LIFE!!
              • Oct 2005
              • 27610

              Originally posted by vincnet11
              So they were forced to register their existing "assault rifles" they already legally owned? That doesn't sound very constitutional.
              Registration may well be found to be constitutional.

              Depriving someone of the ability to register thus denying rights to acquire guns is far more problematic.

              Bill Wiese
              San Jose, CA

              CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
              sigpic
              No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
              to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
              ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
              employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
              legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

              Comment

              • #8
                Write Winger
                Banned
                • Oct 2009
                • 6136

                A lot of ppl kept their mags and sold/moved their rifles. They're nice to use again going featureless. Also, some ppl seem to think that you can/should only go featureless if you have preban 30rd mags... you can still go featureless and shoot new 10rd mags too.

                Comment

                • #9
                  ojisan
                  Agent 86
                  CGN Contributor
                  • Apr 2008
                  • 11734

                  Originally posted by bwiese
                  Some few people may have taken contraband out of storage and converted it to 'legal status", but that act is questionable (can't really unring a bell).
                  I believe you mean "AW"s that were not registered or moved out of CA in compliance with the law.

                  If the "AW" was moved out of state, then reconfigured to legal status before it was returned to CA, or stripped of CA legal parts and the illegal parts left out of state, there should be no problem.

                  In this case, the OP is somewhat correct in that "AW" owners did have to neuter their guns of illegal features....use a OLL (AR) or off name receiver (AK), pin collapsable or folding stocks open, replace flash hiders with muzzle breaks, use MMGs or grip wraps, add a BB, etc.

                  Originally posted by Citadelgrad87
                  I don't really care, I just like to argue.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    bwiese
                    I need a LIFE!!
                    • Oct 2005
                    • 27610

                    Originally posted by ojisan
                    I believe you mean "AW"s that were not registered or moved out of CA in compliance with the law.

                    If the "AW" was moved out of state, then reconfigured to legal status before it was returned to CA, or stripped of CA legal parts and the illegal parts left out of state, there should be no problem.
                    Correct about out of state movement. I'm talking about ones 'resurrected' after hiding in the basement.

                    However, ANY AR/AK existing in CA without AW reg being filed - in the first half of 2001 (Jan 23 2001 til Jun 28 2001) would be contraband. Possibly stripped lowers would be defendable (edge condition), or nonsemiauto off-list ARs might have some leeway. But these latter setups were rara avis.

                    I believe the rumor mill has only partially reached some of these folks, and they may still be BB'ing "listed" guns. (Just like some haven't gotten the message and are using hicaps in BB'd guns.)

                    We saw something similar awhile back with the Thirty Caliber Idiots who were panicking about their flash hiders on their M1As - they thought they could slide because nobody'd go after 'wood guns'. All of a sudden there were some busts and these Bright Boys (totally isolated from the gun rights movement) decided to maglock their 20 rd magazines.

                    In this case, the OP is somewhat correct in that "AW" owners did have to neuter their guns of illegal features....use a OLL (AR) or off name receiver (AK), pin collapsable or folding stocks open, replace flash hiders with muzzle breaks, use MMGs or grip wraps, add a BB, etc.
                    There were very few off-list ARs or AKs in CA in 2000; the Kasler list was reasonably well-formulated to address the bulk of the market even though the force of law banned all ARs/AKs at the time. They did skip a few (and I indeed have two offlist ARs reg'd as Cat3 AWs). The Kasler list's failing was its complete lack of updating from fall 2000 until late 2005, and then 2006 when AB2728 came about.
                    Last edited by bwiese; 07-14-2011, 11:24 AM.

                    Bill Wiese
                    San Jose, CA

                    CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
                    sigpic
                    No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
                    to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
                    ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
                    employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
                    legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    UA-8071174-1