California's assault-weapon ban has many "loopholes"


PDA






CountGlockula
July 5, 2009, 01:33 PM
Please enjoy this little tid bit on CA law on "Assault Weapons": (And please...don't bash CA, we're in the same team.)

Link. (http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2000792.html)

California's assault-weapon ban has many loopholes
By Stan Oklobdzija
stano@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Jul. 5, 2009 - 12:00 am

If you can't tell the difference between an AK-47, explicitly banned as an assault weapon in California since 1989, and the Russian American Armory Co.'s Saiga, available for purchase at several gun stores locally, you'd be in good company.

Neither can Sgt. Steve Harding, the Sacramento County Sheriff Department's rangemaster and in-house firearms expert.

"The round (it fires) is the same and the mechanism is the same," he said. "It's basically the same thing."

Since the passage of the 1989 Roberti-Roos Act, the Golden State has been home to the nation's toughest gun laws, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Yet weapons can be legally purchased in Sacramento area gun stores that are functionally the same as some of the most famous military rifles in history, such as the AR-15 and the AK-47.

"California coined the term assault weapon," said Sam Paredes, executive director of the California Gun Owners Association. "There is no real definition other than what California defines it as."

A spokeswoman for Jerry Brown, the state attorney general and whose office is charged with enforcing the assault weapons law, declined comment.

In California, assault weapons are either defined by manufacturer and model or by a set of defining characteristics, such as a pistol grip, a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds or a flash suppressor, among others.

Assault weapons, as defined by California law, refer to semi-automatic guns – ones that fire one round per trigger pull. Fully automatic ones fire multiple rounds per trigger pull, and are banned by federal law except for those holding special permits.

Dr. Garen Wintemute, an emergency physician and violence expert at UC Davis, said this practice created a massive loophole for gun manufacturers.

"If you ban the Uzi by name, they'll call it the 'Ozzie' and bring it back," he said.

For example, the Colt AR-15, which the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department carries a variant of, is illegal for the public to purchase under California law.

However, the Bushmaster Carbon 15 Top-Loader, which is structurally the exact same rifle, according to several firearms experts, is legal for sale and possession in California.

Bushmaster's variant of the AR-15 features a fixed magazine, which unlike the normal rifle cannot be taken out with the push of a button. In the case of the Carbon 15 Top-Loader, a shooter must first open the rifle, using the same mechanism one would use to clean it, before loading the California-maximum of 10 rounds into the magazine.

Another loophole being exploited is the provision of the law that says the assault weapons ban only applies to those semi-automatic rifles with magazines one can remove with a push of a button. Rifles requiring a "tool" to remove the magazine are exempt from the ban.

A device known as a "bullet button" allows use of the tip of a bullet or a similar small object to press a button that releases the magazine, making the weapon legal, and it's only slightly more difficult to swap magazines.

The time difference between swapping a magazine with the bullet-button and the traditional finger-operated magazine release is "three-quarters of a second," Paredes said.

Another way to beat California's assault weapon laws is to simply build your own.

According to Sgt. Harding, anyone can obtain what's basically the same AR-15 that his department carries a variant of if he just buys the gun in parts.

You can buy what's known as a "lower receiver," or the part that contains the trigger and the magazine attachment, that hasn't been banned by name and attach the rest of the rifle's components to it, Harding said.

The result, he said, is "you have a legal gun."

It's this arbitrary nature of the law that upsets Paredes and his organization's supporters.

"The Legislature and the proponents of this ban never really intended to do anything than cause a pain in the butt to legal gun owners," he said. "For all the bluff and bluster on what the assault weapons ban has done, if you look at the hard cold facts, it's done nothing."

If you enjoyed reading about "California's assault-weapon ban has many "loopholes"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
July 5, 2009, 01:34 PM
"If you ban the Uzi by name, they'll call it the 'Ozzie' and bring it back," he said.

Or, rephrased, which makes him sound like a real moron, would be:

"If you change the law, they will find a way to obey it".

Mags
July 5, 2009, 01:49 PM
"For all the bluff and bluster on what the assault weapons ban has done, if you look at the hard cold facts, it's done nothing."
The only statement that makes sense.

Mongoose
July 5, 2009, 02:28 PM
Actually ********** calls the Uzi "Israeli SMG":scrutiny:

tju1973
July 5, 2009, 02:31 PM
I love California-- and I feel for their citizens for being held to stupid laws-- I find www.calguns.net pretty interesting-- especialy for the wierd things gunowners have to do to just own a new AR or AK...

B yond
July 5, 2009, 02:35 PM
http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/Hello-Kitty-AR-15-Rifle.jpg

Evil ain't it?

B yond
July 5, 2009, 02:37 PM
For example, the Colt AR-15, which the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department carries a variant of, is illegal for the public to purchase under California law.
:scrutiny:
Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry. Thomas Jefferson

:cuss:

ArmedBear
July 5, 2009, 02:48 PM
God forbid that the general public can have a rifle that the sheriff's department "uses a variant of".

In other shocking news, duck hunters along the Sacramento River Delta are using shotguns that are just like the ones that the sheriff's department has.

Match shooters around California are using much better pistols than the cops carry.

And the military issues AR-15s? When exactly did that start?

This article contains flat-out lies.

The Carbon 15 Top-Loader is the same, except that one "must first open the rifle, using the same mechanism one would use to clean it, before loading the California-maximum of 10 rounds into the magazine."

This article actually openly advocates banning guns because they look like "evil" guns. That demonstrates that a major criticism of such bans is 100% accurate.

Uh, so a sedan is the same as a pickup truck, except that one must first open the trunk to put the groceries in it, and the trunk is a good deal smaller than a truck bed.

jerkface11
July 5, 2009, 03:05 PM
Good thing no one told them about the bullet button.

fal 4 me
July 5, 2009, 03:48 PM
They mentioned the bullet button in the article

A device known as a "bullet button" allows use of the tip of a bullet or a similar small object to press a button that releases the magazine, making the weapon legal, and it's only slightly more difficult to swap magazines.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 5, 2009, 04:05 PM
It's this arbitrary nature of the law that upsets Paredes and his organization's supporters.

No it's the idiocy of the legislators and their staffers who drafted it, ALONG WITH other idiots like YOU Mr. Paredes, who supported the law that was poorly drafted and nonsensical from the get go (not to mention does nothing to affect crime rates in either its present form or in Paredes' ideal of a "loophole-less" form.)

harmonic
July 5, 2009, 04:42 PM
The irony is that other semi autos such as the mini 14/30 are still available w/detachable mags and are completely legal. Those idiot kalifornistan politicians accomplished absolutely nothing. That's what they're known for. Now they're bankrupt. Because they're idiots.

DRYHUMOR
July 5, 2009, 04:43 PM
"For all the bluff and bluster on what the assault weapons ban has done, if you look at the hard cold facts, it's done nothing."

Like most things, it's all about the money.

If they address the bullet button next time, the manufacturers will just make it a rotary switch, like a rate of fire selector.

chuwee81
July 5, 2009, 08:23 PM
i don't understand the logic of 10 day waiting period as well. if tx can do a background check in 30-40 minutes, why can't Cali do it ?

dogtown tom
July 5, 2009, 08:34 PM
chuwee81: i don't understand the logic of 10 day waiting period as well. if tx can do a background check in 30-40 minutes, why can't Cali do it ?

Actually it's about two minutes. And the best part is it's free.

And not just Texas, any state that uses the FBI NICS toll free phone number for the Brady check gets that check done in a couple of minutes. About one out of ten checks will take a little longer while I get bumped up to a NICS examiner (never longer than four minutes).

Hands down the most efficient, polite and professional government employees I've ever dealt with are those that answer the phones at the NICS call center.

The Lone Haranguer
July 5, 2009, 08:43 PM
"The round (it fires) is the same and the mechanism is the same," he said. "It's basically the same thing."
Well, DUH!! :rolleyes:

(I know, very insightful. :neener: )

The irony is that other semi autos such as the mini 14/30 are still available w/detachable mags and are completely legal.
How did this get by?

danprkr
July 5, 2009, 09:19 PM
"They're just complying with the law to circumvent it!"

I actually heard that one in a city zoning meeting once when a guy wanted to open a video store, and a church didn't like that he'd complied with all the rules to be able to carry adult titles without having to move to a different zoning area.

Sounds like you out there in the Peeples Repbulik of ********** should be horse whipped for doing the same thing.

flynlr
July 5, 2009, 10:43 PM
i don't understand the logic of 10 day waiting period as well. if tx can do a background check in 30-40 minutes, why can't Cali do it ?

is this true even if you have a safe full of firearms at home?. if so
the crazy folks are running the place. :banghead:

TheFallGuy
July 5, 2009, 11:04 PM
I happen to love the state of California. Many of the people there are good people. It has some of the most beautiful country any where. Lots of history and lots of diversity. That being said, I HATE it's government and it's laws. Last winter I turned down a job offer out there because I would have to get rid of half my guns... This is just a case of sensationalized media trying to legislate which has worked in the past out there. Sorry to THR members who live there.

Smith
July 5, 2009, 11:54 PM
i don't understand the logic of 10 day waiting period as well. if tx can do a background check in 30-40 minutes, why can't Cali do it ?
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that the ten day waiting period was in place to prevent a person from getting into an argument, becoming very angry, rashly buying a gun, and shooting the person they were arguing with. Who knows. There's no understanding the laws of California.

is this true even if you have a safe full of firearms at home?. if so
the crazy folks are running the place.
Yes and yes. I also find it humorous that I can carry a 6" folding knife in my front pocket, but I can't carry a 1" punch dagger in a neck sheath, but that's a whole other issue...

B yond
July 6, 2009, 01:06 AM
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that the ten day waiting period was in place to prevent a person from getting into an argument, becoming very angry, rashly buying a gun, and shooting the person they were arguing with. Who knows. There's no understanding the laws of California.


I can understand the waiting period for the first gun (not that it's constitutional or that I agree with it at all, just that I can what they thought it would accomplish), but if I already have a safe full of guns at home, why should I have to wait 10 days to get another?:confused:

Furthermore, *** is up with this you-can-only-get-one-handgun-every-30-days BS? Why is CA rationing the pistols out like government cheese?

TimRB
July 6, 2009, 01:42 AM
"... but if I already have a safe full of guns at home, why should I have to wait 10 days to get another?"

It's because while the reason given for the 10-day wait is as Smith described, the actual reason is that the legislature wants to put as many roadblocks as possible in the path of lawful gun buyers. Same thing for one-gun-a-month laws.

Tim

harmonic
July 6, 2009, 02:22 AM
is up with this you-can-only-get-one-handgun-every-30-days

As of three years ago (that's when I moved) that rule only applied to handguns you purchased from the dealer. You could buy as many consignment/private party handguns you wanted.

docfubar
July 6, 2009, 10:25 AM
California's gun laws, politicians, and liberals, are the 3 reasons I moved out of that state.

TimRB
July 6, 2009, 11:58 AM
" Are california gun owners taking advantage of the huge deficit to demand reductions in costly gun control? "

The deficit is helping, although actual *reductions* in gun control are still seemingly a political impossibility. The deficit helps because many gun control measures require additional law enforcement, databases, bureaucracy, etc., all of which cost money, so the bills typically don't make it out of the financial comittees.

Tim

Zoogster
July 7, 2009, 01:25 PM
" Are california gun owners taking advantage of the huge deficit to demand reductions in costly gun control? "

The deficit is helping, although actual *reductions* in gun control are still seemingly a political impossibility. The deficit helps because many gun control measures require additional law enforcement, databases, bureaucracy, etc., all of which cost money, so the bills typically don't make it out of the financial comittees.

Tim

Somewhat. Being held to an actual budget is causing some legislators to prioritize. However government employees refuse to allow any form of government shrinking which is the majority of California's budget. For example the teachers union makes it seem all about "the children" even though they use the vhast majority of the CA budget. Executives cut or threaten to cut low level employees paid 1/3 the wages if cuts are forced, when they have entire office buildings full of administrators that are not even part of schools.
Its all a big game, and they ususaly cut the people that will cause the most outrage and panic in the population so they will regain any budget. If a city has to cut something, they cut fire or police, use the resulting panic to make residents feel unsafe, and then through the scare tactics recieve more money. All while they had hundreds of other projects totaling many times the fiscal amount to cut, projects that wouldn't have enabled the same scare tactic though.

A bad result of the budget is most government agencies and employees are clawing out thier existence any way possible, absolutely refusing to shrink. So new laws and taxes, doubling of registration fees etc are being done. The way the Democrats are trying to balance the budget is raising taxes across the board on every thing they possibly can. Some of the Republicans (and many CA Republicans would be moderate Democrats in other states) are saying "The citizens voted against all of the special election measures to increase taxes, they want cuts not taxes". As a result they have a deadlock.
No democract wants to cut any union jobs and deal with the backlash, which are where most of the budget goes.
They want to tax everything much more! Green taxes, automobile, alcohol, tobacco, doubling previous fees, registration, etc They have fines now for watering during the day, watering on the wrong day of the week, etc etc
Fines for talking on a phone. Fines for new things pop up every other day.
All while the majority of the Democrat legislator wants to balance the budget not by actualy shrinking, even as the largest state government in the nation, but by taxing everything more.
Some areas have over 10% sales tax now. There is high state level income tax, property taxes, and various taxes many states don't have.

I don't see why any business would move to California, and plenty of reasons why any business would be packing up as soon as possible. The onslaught of taxes/fees/fines in addition to tougher restrictions is far from business friendly. The rate they think them up has increased dramaticly with the budget crisis.

ArmedBear
July 7, 2009, 01:28 PM
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that the ten day waiting period was in place to prevent a person from getting into an argument, becoming very angry, rashly buying a gun, and shooting the person they were arguing with. Who knows. There's no understanding the laws of California

The waiting period is completely arbitrary. I bought a gun at a store with a range in California. They let me shoot it right away, as much as I wanted, as long as I didn't leave with it. I'd already passed the BG check; it was my gun.

They just couldn't let me leave with it for 10 days.

It's not a matter of technology. The law is, again, completely arbitrary.

When I was a kid, it was 15 days, believe it or not.

Eightball
July 7, 2009, 01:42 PM
So, that guy is complaining that "Gun manufacturers are following the exact letter of the law! How dare them!"

Wow.

If you enjoyed reading about "California's assault-weapon ban has many "loopholes"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!