Video on California’s “Assault Weapon” Ban: “A Legacy of Injustice”


PDA






SBrady@Michel&Associates
March 11, 2011, 03:26 PM
ALARMING VIDEO RELEASED ABOUT CALIFORNIA’S INDECIPHERABLE LAW BANNING CERTAIN MODERN

Matt Corwin is a former military police officer who was attending Los Angeles City College while on injured reserve leave from the Army before being reactivated. He was active in conservative politics on campus. On April 23, 2007, someone from his school called the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and told Detectives about Matt’s MySpace webpage, which depicted numerous legal firearms, as well as videos of Mr. Corwin shooting at a range.

From there, Matt’s horror story began. Now, the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) Foundation, in cooperation with National Rifle Association (NRA) News, has released a video documenting Matt’s experience, and the outlandishness of California’s law banning certain semi-automatic sporting firearms. Twenty years after it’s passage, the law has only a legacy of injustice. The compelling video, “A Legacy of Injustice,” is posted at http://www.youtube.com/MichelLawyers.

California law essentially bans the possession of certain firearms designated as “assault weapons.” But the term “assault weapon” has no meaning in technical firearm parlance. It is a purely legal term, arbitrarily defined by statute and administrative regulations and contrary to common sense. As a result, there is a tremendous amount of confusion about what constitutes an “assault weapon.” (To read about these laws please visit the Reference Materials section of our website at: Michellawyers.com.)

Private citizens are not alone in their confusion over what is regulated by California’s “assault weapon” control law. Police, prosecutors, and judges are equally confused. Many of these leaders are interviewed in the video.

Watch “A Legacy of Injustice” and consider how easy it could be for you or your family to become an accidental felon under California’s vague gun laws.

This video is the product of coordinated efforts between the NRA and CRPA Foundation as part of their Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. If you like the video, spread the word and get the viewership count up so the NRA feels it is worthwhile to continue making these types of documentaries.

Also, to see a partial list of LAP’s recent accomplishments (as well as those of LOP -- NRA & CRPA's "Local Ordinance Project"), or to support these types of pro-Second Amendment projects, including litigation, visit www.nraila.com and www.crpafoundation.org .

If you enjoyed reading about "Video on California’s “Assault Weapon” Ban: “A Legacy of Injustice”" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CoRoMo
March 11, 2011, 04:06 PM
Good luck in the fight. That was a powerful video. I sincerely hope that things drastically change in California.

psyshack
March 11, 2011, 07:59 PM
People have to get out of cali. I left in the late 70's and thank god everyday I no longer live in that nut infested place.

Manco
March 12, 2011, 09:34 AM
Sounds like mission accomplished for California's lawmakers to me. :fire:

Good luck in the fight. That was a powerful video. I sincerely hope that things drastically change in California.

Thanks, me too. But there will be no positive change whatsoever in the legislature at the state level. We'll have to do it through the Supreme Court at the federal level, which will also have positive benefits for other states, hopefully. California's legislature will then fight back hard, I'm sure, with more laws that we can't even imagine now and greater complexity (asking for simplicity would only result in broader bans), and elements of the federal government will be watching closely with a desire to ape them.

xcgates
March 12, 2011, 11:46 AM
I like the part where two different people showed how cosmetic parts can mean the difference between legal and illegal.

Putting it clearly as cosmetic changes shows just how bizarre the thought process behind it all is.

::EDIT:: Also a good reason for some method of the wrongly arrested/accused to get compensation, if for nothing else than the money they are forced to spend.

Owen Sparks
March 12, 2011, 11:51 AM
Cosmetic changes can make all the difference to the liberal mind as liberalism is based in emotion and "scary looking" is sometimes all it takes for these people.

xfyrfiter
March 12, 2011, 02:29 PM
Now that is a scary video. Absolutely no truth as far as the anti's are concerned.

Zoogster
March 12, 2011, 03:39 PM
California laws are bad, but what many don't understand is a lot of these weird cosmetic examples were in fact pro-gun victories through innovation and manufacturers and legal minds teaming up together.


Law is really all opinions, and court decisions set new overriding opinions.
There is sometimes a little discretionary area and until that is resolved it is up in the air whether it will fall pro or anti-gun in the court case that resolves the gray area.
It becomes a victory when it is decided that some minor innovative cosmetic design complies with the law, and it takes people putting themselves on the legal frontlines to accomplish it. Simply asking if it is allowed doesn't work, and in fact tends to get it outlawed initially before it gains pro-gun legal backing.

For example the monster man grip in the video. Or the now widely used "bullet button".
Someone read the law, determined such a device should technically comply with it. Yet the product must become more widely used before it has a normalcy that will result in a positive interpretation.
Those fist few thousand people using a "bullet button" were on the front lines, legal minds technically said it is legal, but anything only use by a minority can easily result in an unfavorable ruling by some precedent setting court, without significant pro-gun legal minds in court to show it is in fact in compliance with the law and legal.


It takes legal maneuvering to get to that point. Declarations that something that takes a "tool" to remove a magazine results in it legally being a fixed magazine as covered by statute, and that virtually anything besides a body part is acknowledged as a tool.
Then someone taking it a step further and making the determination that an illegal gun by features is entirely legal because even though it has a 'detachable magazine' and a mag release button, but it simply cannot be pressed by a finger but can be by anything from a pen, stick, bullet tip, and numerous other objects is entirely compliant.
It legally has a 'fixed magazine' because it takes something besides a body part to operate.
It took some people with serious balls to be the legal pioneers to walk around with what would have been illegal guns subjecting someone to 10 years in prison and declare it was legal as a result.
Then it becomes normal and common, and the legality of it is cemented in the normalcy of the item. But make no mistake, it takes legal minds, money ready for legal defense, and some balls to be the initial pioneers of such things that result in significant pro-gun victories.



Another pro-gun victory was the determination that the legislation banning all guns similar to a model was excessively vague (which is was, leaving what was legal up to interpretation of individual prosecutors.)
This in turn led to a requirement to individually name specific makes and models as outlawed "assault weapons".
Yet had a brief window of registration available that would grandfather them in to those already in possession that registered them.

This had the effect of removing the assault weapon legislation because they would constantly create a new model, and people would specifically rush out to purchase the guns they felt would be declared assault weapons. Because then a window of registration would open, and once someone has it registered it is already an "assault weapon" and cannot violate any feature restrictions.
The result was essentially an indefinite ability to register weapons even though the registry closed years before, allowing anyone to bypass the assault weapon feature restrictions by purchasing the latest weapon to be banned and becoming grandfathered in.

This resulted in the attorney general/CADOJ ceasing to add new assault weapons to the list because they didn't want everyone to just be able to legally ignore the feature bans.
That ended the ability of everyone to buy the latest to be banned weapon and then ignore all features by registering in the brief temporary window, but is itself a victory. The victory being no new assault weapons added to the list, so no new gun since that time is arbitrarily declared an illegal assault weapon. It can only be illegal by feature if manufactured after that date.




There is many similar victories, and they are all victories because the intent of the legislator was in fact to ban all of certain types of guns. The lawmakers wanted all AR type and AK type, and detachable magazine semi-autos banned. All models based on military designs banned. That was their intent, their desire, and they had the means and the power and the representation to do it. They passed legislation to do it.
Yet they didn't succeed, that is a victory.

Just as they legally passed legislation requiring mandatory microstamping, yet it is not implemented, that is a victory.

The only reason you see these silly feature examples is because of the tenacity and adaption of the pro-gun groups to still exercise some freedoms.
Which results in funky features and innovative designs to technically be in compliance by picking apart every single word in the legislation and finding where there is room to adapt.



But many of the anti leadership and their representation is smarter now partially because people point out how silly the features are and how to get around them.
They just have far fewer supporters to get things done as rapidly as in the 90s, and pro-gun groups are more organized as opposition.
But now they know about action types, and how to better describe what they really wanted to ban all along. No longer do they talk about pistol grips, and shoulder things that go up, today they talk about semi-auto, and detachable magazines. They have learned, and their biggest teachers are the pro-gun crowd making fun of them pointing it out.
They are a lot smarter than they were in the 90s and they still have strong representation to pass legislation in some states, like California. Throwing the silliness and ability to bypass their intent to ban things in their face is just as likely to result in more comprehensive and thought out bans.
It may be funny, it may be a good way to point out the stupidity to the naive new to gun politics, but it can also backfire.
Most of the crazy features on California guns today are actually pro-gun victories that bypassed the intent of the legislators, which wanted the type of gun they are on banned altogether. So be careful viewing them merely as anti-gun requirements.


The antis didn't really want guns banned by silly features, they wanted certain guns banned period, but knew naming models just results in new model designations for almost the same gun designs and tried the feature approach. They had partial success, but the gun market adapted and limited that success.
Antis don't really want them banned by such silly features, they wanted the guns banned period and saw it as a means to do so.
Today they are more educated in exactly how to create legislation to accomplish the type of ban they wanted before, and if they get a new chance don't expect the same old thing.
(For example a lot of the federally introduced AWB renewals actually add a small section that lets the "attorney general" ban anything, meaning the ATF could ban what they wanted. Or allowed any gun ever used by LEO or military, or a similar gun to be declared automatically unsporting unless given exemption. On the surface the bulk of the legislation looked just like the old AWB, but it isn't. they have learned.)

MovedWest
March 12, 2011, 04:21 PM
There is one bit of misinformation regarding the piece about the monsterman grip. The lower still has a 30rd magazine. Anything over 10 rounds is illegal unless it was purchased before 1999. Would've been better illustrated if he'd used a 10rd mag IMO.

Aside from that, it's well made and pretty darn sad what the liberal agenda has in store for us.

-MW

Tommygunn
March 12, 2011, 11:16 PM
California laws are bad, but what many don't understand is a lot of these weird cosmetic examples were in fact pro-gun victories through innovation and manufacturers and legal minds teaming up together.

Those weird cosmetic features might exist because of "progun victories" by one interpretation, but they are in reality compromises and only exist because there are antigunners that whine and screetch and force the issue. In that sense they are actually a pro2A loss.
Just my two cents ... ... ... ...

SBrady@Michel&Associates
March 13, 2011, 12:53 AM
There is one bit of misinformation regarding the piece about the monsterman grip. The lower still has a 30rd magazine. Anything over 10 rounds is illegal unless it was purchased before 1999. Would've been better illustrated if he'd used a 10rd mag IMO.

Aside from that, it's well made and pretty darn sad what the liberal agenda has in store for us.

-MW
Actually, possession of a 30-round magazine is not illegal in California (only the transfer of one is), and it is legal to use one with an AR-15 that has a Monster Man grip. It would not be an "assault weapon" in that configuration.

Ironically, a 30-round magazine in an AR-15 with a pistol grip that has a bullet button on it -- which it must if the person does not have the gun properly registered (which is impossible to do now) or a special permit (which is almost impossible to obtain) or the person is law enforcement -- is an "assault weapon" under California law, and is illegal for most people.

lowracer
March 13, 2011, 10:22 AM
Those weird cosmetic features might exist because of "progun victories" by one interpretation, but they are in reality compromises and only exist because there are antigunners that whine and screetch and force the issue. In that sense they are actually a pro2A loss.

Anything that helps get more guns into the hands of CA shooters is a victory. Post Heller, guns that are in common use are legally more difficult for the anti-gunners to ban. By putting more AR-15s in use (albeit cosmetically altered ones), they become more common, harder to ban, hence a pro-gun victory.

BTW just adding a non-pistol-grip to the centerfire rifle does not magically make it legal to use a 30 rounder. The rifle has to have none of the features listed in CA PC 12276.1(a)(1)(A-F)

* Pistol Grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
* Thumbhole Stock.
* Folding or Telescoping Stock.
* Grenade Launcher or Flare Launcher.
* Flash Suppressor.
* Forward Pistol Grip.

The movie mentioned the Monsterman Grip but there are a few other products on the market to replace the pistol grip. For instance there's the U-15 stock, Kydex grip wraps, and the Hammerhead grip/Stock Adapter. In a bad situation it's good to have choices.

AR-15 with Hammerhead stock adapter:
http://www.exilemachine.com/images/IMG_9812_C.JPG
(Type I configuration)

http://www.exilemachine.com/images/IMG_0374_640.JPG
(Type III configuration with a pinned stock.)

Disclaimer: I'm the inventor of the Hammerhead grip and the president of the company that manufactures them.

armoredman
March 13, 2011, 12:03 PM
Egad. I am sooo glad I live in Arizona.
Californians, I hope you can use Heller, McDonald and any other tool to eliminate your onorous and insane laws. Good luck.

Tommygunn
March 13, 2011, 12:12 PM
Those weird cosmetic features might exist because of "progun victories" by one interpretation, but they are in reality compromises and only exist because there are antigunners that whine and screetch and force the issue. In that sense they are actually a pro2A loss.

Anything that helps get more guns into the hands of CA shooters is a victory. Post Heller, guns that are in common use are legally more difficult for the anti-gunners to ban. By putting more AR-15s in use (albeit cosmetically altered ones), they become more common, harder to ban, hence a pro-gun victory.


Well, that would be another interpretation.;) I don't disagree with you in that it is a GOOD thing when Californians (or anyone else for that matter) can obtain firearms.
I tend to look at things a certain way: Originally, when we were a free country, we had full use of our rights. Earlier in American history you could walk into a hardware store and buy a gun, even if you were sixteen years old. All that was required was that you had the $$ and could pay for it. At one point you could walk in and buy a Thompson if you wanted it. Of course, depending on the model it would cost $180 or $200 dollars and back then, that was serious $$$$ for a firearm, but if you wanted it, you could get it.
Then we started to get statist. These guns were registered & taxed $200 a unit, effectively DOUBLING the price, and we almost lost handguns to this infernal system as well.
Over the decades more silly laws were passed. Some of them were idiotic. The '94 AWB did not really prevent you from buying the AR, it just outlawed cosmetic stuff -- as has been said. In fact while "high cap" mags were "outlawed" I never once had any problem getting 15 round or 30 round magazines for my M-1 Carbine.
So my "default" position ....if you will ..... is F-R-E-E-D-O-M. Everything less than that, cosmetic or otherwise, is less than what we, as (formerly) "free" citizens, deserve. Plus, if we keep letting the petty tyrants in DC take whacks at cosmetic stuff, pretty soon by accident they may actually hit on something serious, given their "encyclopedic knowledge" about firearms, which include bannable devices such as "the thing that goes up." :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Just my two cents on the subject. ;)

thorn726
March 13, 2011, 09:21 PM
would you believe in Berkeley of all places i am so fortunate that one of my best friends has numerous pre ban, completely legit weapons.....i keep hearing of the "ban" but it has no effect on me personally as i dont need to buy things my friend has 5 of..judging by the things we see out at the informal ranges in the woods, we're not alone either. Just shows how ridiculously stupid the bans are in the first place. We have a 13 rd mag, but you have 10 because you got here later.. Makes it harder to find things yes, but one side benefit- the gun community communicates more, people share more...in the end the militia exists in a tighter form than it would if we could all buy our own. kinda funny if you think about it/ not that i wouldnt rather see the ban completely gone, but interesting backfire i think


Of course full auto is out, but the police train with them all the time we can hear it from the junkyard- full auto in a tight urban environment? That is all for fun, not reality. But we cant'

xcgates
March 13, 2011, 09:25 PM
Berkeley? That is a hoot!

Glad to see some sensible people live there. I've got one or two sensible family members there, and maybe one or two in NY, but I'm sorry to say, I'm not going to take you up on your signature, unless forced to move. Way too many other places I haven't lived yet!

*There, as in they live in CA, not Berkeley specifically

SBrady@Michel&Associates
March 14, 2011, 01:55 AM
BTW just adding a non-pistol-grip to the centerfire rifle does not magically make it legal to use a 30 rounder. The rifle has to have none of the features listed in CA PC 12276.1(a)(1)(A-F)

* Pistol Grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
* Thumbhole Stock.
* Folding or Telescoping Stock.
* Grenade Launcher or Flare Launcher.
* Flash Suppressor.
* Forward Pistol Grip.


Yes, you are correct, and thank you for clarifying that. I was just addressing the specific scenario he raised, but I should have been more careful and given the full explanation that you gave for those who are not as familiar with CA "assault weapon" law.

Big_E
March 14, 2011, 04:19 AM
Great video. It was cool to see Ed Jagels (I know him personally) and another DA from Kern County in the video. California is ridiculous, which is one reason I left that state.

If this video made it to the general public there, it may help change the views from some people. However, most of the people in that state are so wacky or scared of guns that it is nearly impossible to fix these laws. Not to mention that the politicians are so anti-gun and corrupt that it is absurd.

Even though it is good to see the CRPA/CalGuns/NRA helping to fight for Californian's rights, I don't see the gun laws becoming much more relaxed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Video on California’s “Assault Weapon” Ban: “A Legacy of Injustice”" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!