Anybody want a free STI Spartan

Citizens of CA not eligable! Got to love the approved pistol list.

Man, I hate this state! Good luck to all who were eligible to enter.

zoogster said:

Citizens of CA not eligable! Got to love the approved pistol list.

Click to expand...

It's more than that. STI recently announced they will no longer do business in California because of that state's new chamber/firing pin microstamping law. There is a thread on it in here somewhere.

Since I now live in a "free state," let's see if I've got some business cards ...

Wait why can't people of california apply to that drawing??? to top it off why can't people from california do much anything when it comes to firearms??? What is the laws out there??? What if it uses propellant other than just a spring you can't have one??? God for real I am asking these questions please give me the answers.

Seriously what are the gun laws in cali and why can't you guys do this and that with your firearms like we can in good ol' New Hampshire

Having myself had the unfortunate experience of living in California (if you can call it living...) The peoples republic of CA requires you to do the following to buy a gun:
1. For handguns you have to a gunowners license, while the test is easy, its another hurdle to jump.
2. 10 waiting period/background check on all firearm purchases.
3. Only handguns on the "approved list" can be sold in Ca. To be on the list the gun has to meet California's safety req, loaded chamber indicator, safety issues, and must have some sort of locking system (whether built in or a separate gun lock)the gun has to be submitted to the state for their approval.

Then of course there is the California Assault Weapons Ban, No .50 caliber rifles, all gun sales (whether private or through business have to go through the state required background check) and of course no Concealed Carry Permit. Then you have some cities with their own regulations... Such as Reseda has some sort of ban on "Saturday night specials". I also believe CA has the one gun a month law...not sure though. By the way California also considers bb guns firearms and it's illegal to shot them in a residential area...I know when I was a teenager the neighbor called the sheriff on me for shooting my bb gun and the sheriffs office came out and gave my Dad a lecture and gave him paperwork showing that it is illegal to discharge a firearm within a certain distance of a house... strange I didn't know that a pneumatic powered bb gun was a "firearm"

Thankfully now I live in a Oregon and it's much more gun friendly. I personally think we ought to give California back to Mexico or create the "State of Jefferson" which would combine the more rural parts of Southern and Eastern Oregon with rural Northern California... which is a rather popular idea in some parts.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.

Nice find!

I always have room for another pistol, particularly at that price!
Though it does slightly dilute my chance (slim as it already is) of winning, I have forwarded the link to several buddies that may be interested as well, hoping they'll join up at THR.

If nothing else, I should get some junk mail I actually have an interest in.

By the way California also considers bb guns firearms and it's illegal to shot them in a residential area.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that is correct. I think most of that is in fact local ordinances, not state law. Many locations, even many rural ones prohibit discharge of a firearm within the town, city, or unincorperated area.
They may also prohibit the discharge of airguns in thier definition, and many do.
However the state of CA defines a firearm similar to federal definition, but also includes black powder weapons, and arguably anything else which burns a propellant to expel a projectile.

BB guns are mentioned in CA law numerous times and are clearly seperate from firearms under the law.
They in fact have some of thier own laws.

Then there is laws on openly displaying or exposing an imitation firearm in a public place, which a pellet gun firing a projectile over 6mm (.24 caliber) could be considered. Your yard can be considered a public place, especialy if not gated, and in clear view of the street.
A "bb device" though is given an exception to that.

A BB device is defined in penal code 12001 for the purposes of section 12551 and 12552 of the penal code as follows:
the term "BB device"
means any instrument that expels a projectile, such as a BB or a
pellet, not exceeding 6mm caliber, through the force of air pressure,
gas pressure, or spring action, or any spot marker gun.

So something over 6mm cliber is not a firearm, but it is not a "bb device" which covers bb guns and pellet guns. However the standard .177-.22 caliber pellet guns would not be considered firearms.
Numerous exceptions are made for "immitation firearms" which would include airguns over 6mm, including simply concealing it during use (ironic as that is even worse with a firearm), or for use in lawful pest control, hunting etc.

An exception to airguns not being considered firearms would be if they are used in a violent crime, especialy if used in a way to make someone believe they are actual firearms, like in a robbery for example. Then they will be treated as firearms under the law.


CA law is complex, and can be difficult to research.
However firing an airgun is in fact legal in the state most places under state law, including many where discharge of a firearm is prohibited. It however is prohibited under local laws and ordinances in many cities, towns and unincorporated areas. So in such places you need to blame the locals and not the state.

create the "State of Jefferson" which would combine the more rural parts of Southern and Eastern Oregon with rural Northern California... which is a rather popular idea in some parts.

Click to expand...

You often hear many similar arguments in jest. However they are imaginary. You would have to divide CA into some very odd shapes to create gun friendly states, chopping most of the population dense regions out, and you would in fact hurt RKBA more than help it by creating more anti gun senators.
For example every state in the nation has 2 senators. Currently those senators for CA are Feinstein and Boxer, both some of the most anti gun politicians, and sponsors, not just supporters of a lot of anti gun legislation in the US.
Currently they are both from NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.
San Francisco, Oakland, and arguably most of the Bay Area is as anti gun and in some cases more anti gun than Los Angeles and southern CA. Then Sacramento is also another major population center in Northern California that is anti gun.
San Francisco for example actualy voted, with popular vote from the people to ban handguns, and only because it was overturned by the state did it not stand. The state basicly argued it had a monopoly on some forms of gun control, and SF was essentialy exceeding its authority by infringing on thier monopoly (a pro gun victory because two anti gun forces conflicted.)
I don't recall even Los Angeles voting to ban handguns.
So if you split the state in half it is more than fair to say you would have just doubled your number of anti gun senators with the northern half keeping Feinstein and Boxer (both from there and based out of there), and Los Angeles electing two more resulting in two anti gun states instead of one.

You would have to split CA into 3 or 4 states of equal size, and would still create more anti gun states than pro gun states to create a pro gun state.

So any division of CA would in fact hurt gun owners. So while people might enjoy the belief it would create some great freedom loving place in a fantasy, the reality is different.
Also that northernmost part of CA is the way it is because a massive part of its land mass is protected state and national forests, parks etc I can assure you that if it became its own state, and had to creates its own revenue and resources much of that would change, and what makes it such a great outdoorsman place (giving it a pro gun leaning) would change.
So fantasy can be fun, but remember it is just fantasy.