California gunowners , are you able to own

[nathan]

a preban rifle such as a Polytech Type 56 ?

Let say, in the late 80s , one bought the above rifle. With new restrictive gun laws in California today, are you able to keep them or you have to have it registered but can still keep it using only ten round mags?

Thanks

 

[highorder]

I just posted a link to the California Flowchart in another thread.

If I read it correctly, you may do as you please with a Type 56, provided it was registered in California before the 3/31/92 deadline. I'm curious as well; I'm sure someone will be along shortly to make some sense of this.

 

[nathan]

That really surprised me too because at facebook i saw one guy in California showed pics of him and his family shooting the Type 56 rifle with folding spike bayonet in the desert. He used a 20 rd mag Hungarian (maybe converted to accept only ten). So that somehow caught my curiosity.

 

[russ69]

All is GTG if registered before ban, magazines included. It's been a number of years since the ban so the guys in their twenties are left out in the cold but we have plenty to shoot.

Thanx, Russ

 

[nathan]

Oh so the ones who bought back them then are quite lucky , huh. If one decides to sell his preban, both seller and buyer has to go to an FFL dealer , right ?
ANd is there any other rules that applies to the new owner ? Can the new buyer use the hicap mags ?

 

[easy]

CA AWs are not transferable by or to "Joe Average Citizen". They must be transfered through a registered AW FFL. They can not be passed down to offspring or sold to friends.

"If" someone in CA possesses an AW that is not registered, that person is in BIG do-do. Felony. That person should be contacting a gun lawyer asap.

 

[Zoogster]

Oh so the ones who bought back them then are quite lucky , huh. If one decides to sell his preban, both seller and buyer has to go to an FFL dealer , right ?
ANd is there any other rules that applies to the new owner ? Can the new buyer use the hicap mags ?

Almost all firearm transfers in California have had to go through an FFL since 1991.
They have "closed the gunshow loophole", private transfers are illegal. You must by law use an FFL, ask government permission with a background check, and pay mandatory fees to transfer firearms in California.

A registered assault weapon can never be transferred to another regular California civilian. They are nearly worthless in California. They were grandfathered in to those who registered them during the registration window. They can not be left to family, children, grandchildren or anyone else as legal assault weapons.
When the person they belong to transfers them to someone out of state or a CA assault weapon dealer, or dies, they then cannot be owned by a regular California civilian.
They are only legal with that one registered owner, and cannot be transferred to a new Californian civilian.
The "assault weapon" registry is closed for regular civilians.


Any magazine owned in California before 2000 is not subject to capacity restrictions.
They may be used in detachable magazine firearms, including legally registered assault weapons.
They may not be used in "fixed magazine" firearms with a capacity greater than 10 as that creates a fixed magazine firearm with a capacity greater than 10, creating an unregistered "assault weapon" by California law.

 

[ChronoCube]

FYI one little-known loophole remains: rifles and shotguns at least 50 years old can be transferred between private individuals without going through a dealer. Basically CA's equivalent of C&R.

 

[nathan]

Oh Lord, it must be tough for gunowners in California not able to own what they want. And again, when the original owner of the assault weapon dies, can the next of kin owns it by default or it has to surrendered or destroyed ??

 

[9mmepiphany]

The current wisdom is to sell it out of state before death so that the estate has the money available for the heirs...in the alternative, they can be stored and used out of state, NV and AZ are popular.

There are forces in motion to lift all the bans in the state, the easier ones will fall first to restore legal ownership

 

[seed]

I never thought I would say this, but things appear as if they will get better here in the coming months and years...stay tuned.

 

[DSA_FAL]

And again, when the original owner of the assault weapon dies, can the next of kin owns it by default or it has to surrendered or destroyed ??

The estate has a short amount of time to sell the firearm or surrender it.

The 1989 Roberti-Roos AWCA is somewhat irrelevant because for every named firearm that is banned by name, there's one not banned by name. (For example Steyer AUG is banned but the Microtech STG-556 is not.) The law still sucks though.

 

[Librarian]

The 1989 Roberti-Roos AWCA is somewhat irrelevant because for every named firearm that is banned by name, there's one not banned by name. (For example Steyer AUG is banned but the Microtech STG-556 is not.)

I wish.

The 1999 SB23 also created 'by feature' California 'assault weapons'. See the Calguns Foundation Wiki article.

The law still sucks though.

Yep.