California Alert.. SKSs now in danger...

[TooTaxed]

Now do you see the danger of not getting politically active, and continuing to support anti-gun candidates for office?

 

[Mark Whiteman]

What Sacramento needs to do is work on this several more months. It just might become as unworkable as the Canadian Registration scheme and the whole thing could die under its own weight. Never underestimate the genius of a free man struggling under restrictive laws to find a work-around solution for same.

 

[ArmedBear]

Now do you see the danger of not getting politically active, and continuing to support anti-gun candidates for office?

...or voting for anti-gun activist Democrats to punish the Republicans for not being conservative/libertarian/pro-gun enough for you?

 

[No_Brakes23]

Sounds like y'all suddenly got some bigger fish to fry with the microstamping nonsense. Good luck.

 

[gezzer]

And this is somehow a surprise to folks living in CA?

Where have you been the last 20 or so years?

 

[TooTaxed]

California's toleration of anti-gun legislators is one reason I left. Twice while I was living there just showing a gun (Santa Rosa and Fresno) saved me from physical assaults. The bad guys backed away both times and, I guess, went to prey on someone not armed.

 

[Mark Whiteman]

When I had a Chinese SKS, Type 56? you could, after unlatching the "fixed" magazine, pull the magazine from the receiver, albeit with some effort. That is how many "detachable" mags with the nose go back in place of the 10 rounder. There were a few Chinese SKS that took AK mags, but not as many as the original version. Maybe this is what got the ball rolling in the Legislature's confused little minds. It would be interesting to research Lockyer a bit to find out why he is so obsessed with SKS rifles.

 

[C1PNR]

When I accepted the job offer in 1989 in Santa Cruz County, I knew I wouldn't be making the State my permanent place of residence. Thank God I didn't. But that was a long time ago and then is was mainly because of the horrible tax laws.

As I survived there over the next 15 years the firearms laws became ever more restrictive, and when I did finally retire in 2000, my only thought was to get the h#(( out of there! My wife was still working and we did have a lot of friends there, so we stayed another 4 years. Then we left!!

The State manufactured their own power shortage problem, and then exacerbated it with what I can only call foolish decisions, all of which resulted in tremendous State debt!

We still visit our friends (those that have not yet abandoned the place) and still wish ALL of you LEGAL residents, of whatever ethnic origin, the very best of luck in retaking your State.

 

[RockOutWithYourGlockOut]

Maybe it's just me...

But I don't understand how a moderately educated, reasonable, or sane person could be against private, lawful ownership of ANY semi-automatic weapon no matter what its cosmetic features. Does the state of California expect me to believe that a cheaply built, cheaply priced WASR with a detachable magazine is more deadly than a custom built .308? I guess next they'll tell me the sky is purple.

I know I'm just a new guy to this board, and to the discussion of gun ownership rights. I didn't even own a gun until last year, when I inheirited my father-in-law's collection. Since then, I have taken 3 classes, bought several more firearms, and even got my CCW. I had to pass a background check to buy a pistol, and had to pass a federal background check and fingerprint clearance to get my CCW. Obviously, I am a law-abiding citizen who is willing to do what the law says I should do to own a firearm, so why should the type of firearm I own make any difference? I believe that California has even tougher requirements than Michigan to own a gun. If the citizens of California are willing to go through the process of background check, etc. to own a gun, why should the state be so totalitarian toward a law-abiding citizen?

And one more thing in closing...Isn't this whole thing in direct conflict with "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."? I guess if it were that easy, this board wouldn't exist.

 

[Librarian]

But I don't understand how a moderately educated, reasonable, or sane person could be against private, lawful ownership of ANY semi-automatic weapon no matter what its cosmetic features.

Yes, but we're talking about California Legislators here - there's very little intersection between those elected and what you describe.

It's not about safety here - it's about control and getting re-elected.

 

[Mr.V.]

But I don't understand how a moderately educated, reasonable, or sane person could be against private, lawful ownership of ANY semi-automatic weapon no matter what its cosmetic features.

It's easy...they've never held a gun in their life. Just go to a university here. There a tons of "well-educated" people there. Many are quite smart others...we'll just say they're also "well-educated". The fact remains, very few have ever held a gun, and therefore understand what the capabilities of firearms are and aren't. So cosmetics and fear of death/violence is everything.

 

[AJAX22]

I had my english teacher (who has a phd in somthing or other) stand in front of the class and tell us all how a shotgun just sprayed lead all over the place as a way of hunting. (he was discussing Cheney's hunting incedent) He stated that it was cruel and unsporting. but what do you expect from a New Yorker teaching liberal arts in California.

Alot of highly educated people do not even understand the basic mechanism of how a gun works.

I had a stray round of ammo in my pocket one day (after a shooting trip) and I was lectured for a long time about how dangerous it was and how it could 'Just go off on you'

As far as many people are concerned the cartridge simply spontaniously converts itself into a stream of death.

On a more relevent note, does anyone know how this process is going? Any time frame on a definite outcome? Will AK's be affected? Is there any way to sit in on the discussion? will there be any future opportunity to offer input?

 

[billwiese]

On a more relevent note, does anyone know how this process is going? Any time frame on a definite outcome? Will AK's be affected? Is there any way to sit in on the discussion? will there be any future opportunity to offer input?

I, along with 25-35 other people, as well as a very senior region NRA person (H. Paul Payne) and Chuck Michel (noted CA gunrights attorney) presented comments about the DOJ's proposed regulatory scheme. This actually was the right amount of folks - we didn't need raving loonies in camo talking about 2nd amendment rights, this was a technical/legal regulatory meeting about fine details of a regulatory definition - and their major, major side effects.

CA AW law is an odd collection of statutory laws further shaped by regulations/regulatory definitions and court decisions. They all play against each other. The Democrats in the legislature really helped us, in some ways, by leaving some of the technical handwaving to an administrative organization (the AG's office - DOJ, in its Firearms Division). The patchwork of poorly written laws - by folks with little technical knowledge other than 'do-gooderism' left an odd interface between the various sections of the law. This was best demonstrated by the easily attacked (and now moot) DOJ "Category 4" memo of Feb 3. While this was publicly rebutted (and its author, Dept AG Alison Merrilees publicly rebuked) by myself and others on Calguns point-by-point with in a day or two of its issuance, the NRA was working on this in a nonpublic way - calling DOJ FD Director Randy Rossi at his home (recovering from an operation) and telling him "this sh*t just won't fly, and you know it."

While the DOJ insists it's a 'clarification' of existing law, it's plain that it's *new* law thru regulation, unsupported by statutory law and in conflict with 6 years' of previous DOJ memos, and documents from the 2000 SB23 regulatory comment period. That is, the DOJ switched course in the middle of the stream due to the embarassing off-list AR/AK situation. Additionally, prior DOJ approvals of various semiauto rifles in CA indicates there was to be no standard of permanence of mag attachment, just that you couldn't change mag in normal course of weapon operation.

Anyway, most of the speakers/presenters brought up a ton of good points. But the paid help really came thru: Chuck Michel (and his law firm) had a ream of documents from DOJ they'd been collecting that, to my mind, really shot the hell out of any current or prospective DOJ argument.

The DOJ may issue "comments to the comments" we gave on Aug 16 (or mailed in) and then request further comments. We'll see what happens, but I believe the DOJ has a bad case of indigestion since a variety of technical and legal issues were brought up that were not even conceived of by DOJ staff.

If anything of import happens, you'll hear of it almost instantaneously on Calguns.net - about the best place to hear up-to-date accurate info on CA gun law/political issues.



Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

 

[jeepmor]

California....

I thought this term had something to do with North Hollywood's and its smut industry, not what they are doing to gun owners?

Good luck Cali gun owners, keep up the fight for your rights. Should you tire of your oppressive leftist laws, the PNW just to the North of you is quite gun friendly, come join us....but leave those ridicuolous home prices down south, please.

jeepmor

 

[glen avon]

Live Free or Die

live free and die anyways. heh.

 

[billwiese]

Hello Glen, howyadoing?

Bill Wiese
San Jose

 

[glen avon]

fine thanks, how have you been?

 

[billwiese]

Hi Glen...
Doin' good, new job, shootin' ARs. Some of us miss you on calguns

-Bill

 

[glen avon]

well, then, you will have to improve your aim

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

On no, Mini Glen Avon, time to run away!!!

 

[glen avon]

'sup dawg?

 

[DerringerUser]

One step closer to completely getting rid of guns. The thought makes me shiver.

 

[Justaman]

I live in California. I'd like to move out by I have so many family ties here. Maybe when Mexico officially takes control of CA they will get the point too.