California: Legislature Goes for Semi-Auto Ban Trifecta

Status
Not open for further replies.
Better?

Legislation like this, if enacted, basically makes criminals out of many people who would otherwise not so much as jaywalk.

For what it's worth many laws of that type exist, whether most people realize it or not. For example, here in GA, having a knife with a blade over 2" long on a college campus or at a college sporting event (think every pocket knife every, basically) has made a whole hell of a lot of people *commit felonies* many times over...and they don't even know
 
Has anyone in the gun rights lobby out there contacted some lawyers? I guess people in CA have essentially abandoned fighting these things in court as being unconstitutional?

Opposite is true IMO.

They rely heavily on the court side because the anti politicians severely out number the pros.
 


Does this mean they can't be sold, even if the firearm goes out of state? Or can't be sold to an FFL in California? Or just can't be sold from private party to private party? I know this isn't necessarily the language of the law, but that phrase needs a lot of clarification.

They can always be sold out of state...
 
Has anyone in the gun rights lobby out there contacted some lawyers? I guess people in CA have essentially abandoned fighting these things in court as being unconstitutional?

The Calguns Foundation, the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the NRA are the leaders in fighting such legislation.
 
from post #2, my underlined...



Are you suggesting the ''powers to be'' in CA who know (fact) that the vast majority of 1989 firearms were not registered could be basis for suit, if, they attempt to formulate & enforce a new law vs. enforcement of existing law?

The existing law focused on specific brands/models. Of course Colt and company just changed some features and the model numbers...
 
Does this mean they can't be sold, even if the firearm goes out of state?

Or can't be sold to an FFL in California?

Or just can't be sold from private party to private party?

I know this isn't necessarily the language of the law, but that phrase needs a lot of clarification.
If the law remains the same on that point, one can sell them to a CA FFL with the correct 'assault weapons' permit, or take them out of state to sell at any FFL there.

Other than FFL sales, there are no in-state 'assault weapons' sales now (OK, there might be a couple to LEO with department letters, but that's really rare these days) and inheritance must go out of state.

Under current law, transporting an un-registered 'assault weapon' is a felony; that would seem to apply to the newly-defined 'assault weapons' as well, after the registration periods.
 
Has anyone in the gun rights lobby out there contacted some lawyers? I guess people in CA have essentially abandoned fighting these things in court as being unconstitutional?

Assault weapon bans have been challenged in court. They just haven't been overturned as unconstitutional. Example: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/scotus-assault-weapons-ban-216485


This is basically the bullet button work-around coming home to roost. California's assault rifle ban was intended to ban semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines. Someone came up with the bullet button and it survived legal challenge. It was only a matter of time before that work-around was eliminated. I'm surprised it took this long.
 
The bullet button wasn't a work around. It was following the letter of the law. It's a magazine that can't be removed without a tool.
 
Assault weapon bans have been challenged in court. They just haven't been overturned as unconstitutional. Example: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/scotus-assault-weapons-ban-216485


This is basically the bullet button work-around coming home to roost. California's assault rifle ban was intended to ban semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines. Someone came up with the bullet button and it survived legal challenge. It was only a matter of time before that work-around was eliminated. I'm surprised it took this long.


Not quite and if I understand right, it makes a huge difference.

This is worse than the 94 AWB.

The bullet button worked to keep center fire semi auto rifles with SCARY features like a pistol grip and a detachable mag from being considered an "assault weapon" by requiring a tool to remove the mag.

These laws to a few things that basically eliminate the scary feature requirement so that ALL center fire semi auto rifles and shotguns with detachable mag are considered assault weapons unless you have to disassemble the action to reload.


This makes a standard stock mini14 with a 5 round mag an assault weapon and would require registration similar/like CA requires with handguns.


This is like saying you cant refill gas unless you drop the tank. No more gas fill valves with locking gas caps.


If I remember correctly, they tried this originally (disassemble the action), and couldnt get it passed until they changed the wording to 'needing a tool to remove the mag'.
 
Hopefully no one will register their weapons if these laws pass. I would like to see the looks on their faces when 0 people register their so called assault rifles.

I know there will be some that will go along with this BS, hopefully most will refuse to comply. Send them the message that we don't care for their BS any longer.
 
Hopefully no one will register their weapons if these laws pass. I would like to see the looks on their faces when 0 people register their so called assault rifles.

I know there will be some that will go along with this BS, hopefully most will refuse to comply. Send them the message that we don't care for their BS any longer.

Yeah, but...even if that happened...what would that really do? The laws would still be on the books, and they could still enforce them on whoever they want whenever they want.
 
I'm sorry for those who live in California, this is pure nonsense. But after a law like this is in place, for say 5 years, I'd like an analysis of how much was spent and what the overall effect was on violent crime.

The point of this legislation is nothing more than oppression of law-abiding citizens. What will be the measurable impact of those laws on violent crime? There is no intended measurable social benefit, it is simply a show of political power by one faction, and the price is paid by the citizens of California.
 
Why do the voters keep electing these slugs to office. If you don't like what your elected officals are doing VOTE THEM OUT!!!
 
Crazy new law even affects BB and Pellet guns!!!
Where is the NRA? We.!
Californians are being legislated against because of the acts of ONE madman and for our doctor prescribed meds!
Not everyone is crazy but this is an easy gun grab!
Help PLEASE!
zvp
 
Last edited:
"Why do the voters keep electing these slugs to office. If you don't like what your elected officals are doing VOTE THEM OUT!!!"

This is laughable. Don't you think that the majority of gun owners in California have been voting against these anti-gun tyrants for their adult lifetimes? I have voted against Feinstein, Boxer and the others for decades, it does no good.

Take this from a lifelong Californian, the FACTs are that the average voter in this state has been 100% brainwashed by the MSM that guns are evil, escape from their owners and go on killing rampages by themselves. They are terrified of and despise guns and gun owners. California also is overwhelmed by a huge immigrant voter base where private gun ownership was forbidden in their home country so why would those voters want anything different here when being disarmed and at the mercy of the government is all they have ever known? We are hopelessly outnumbered here by Statists of every flavor. The bottom line is that LA and the Bay area are the largest population/voter bases, and have voted against guns for decades and will continue to. There is a healthy base of freedom loving gun owners in this state, but not enough of them to matter at the polls, even if every one of them turned out to vote, which will never happen. Apathy and selfishness is what is killing gun ownership in California.

I donate a lot of money to the Calguns Foundation, CRPA, SAF and the NRA but we have to face it that as far as gun ownership, California will be almost or totally disarmed within a decade. It will become the first state in the union to ban all private gun ownership or possibly just single shots with no ammo availability.

Rather than telling California gun owners what we should be doing when they don't understand what is actually happening here and has been happening for decades, is that gun owners in other states should be doing is spending their time, money and effort into making sure that the California scourge doesn't spread any further than it has. Personally, I think Oregon, Washington, Colorado and possibly Nevada will fall to the same disease, it will just take a little longer. Any state that has been overran by Statist Californians will fall to the same fate politically. I was in Prescott, Az over the holiday and my gun loving friends there are even scared about how the area has been overran with liberal Californians. Not sure if Arizona will ever fall to this but it is seeming like at least a possibility.

If an anti-gun President is seated in the White House this time next year, I truly fear for the nation as far as gun rights. The next president will choose a few new Supreme Court Justices, an anti-gun President will appoint anti-gun justices and then we, as a nation of gun owners will have to face some unpleasant new realities about life as we know it.
 
Hopefully no one will register their weapons if these laws pass. I would like to see the looks on their faces when 0 people register their so called assault rifles.

I know there will be some that will go along with this BS, hopefully most will refuse to comply. Send them the message that we don't care for their BS any longer.
Are the laws in CA for buying a long gun different from buying a handgun? Because for handguns we effectively have registration.
 
Why do the voters keep electing these slugs to office. If you don't like what your elected officals are doing VOTE THEM OUT!!!
I did not vote for any of the people who are behind this, or who passed the already ridiculous laws. The problem is that there are more people who vote for them than who don't.
 
Has anyone in the gun rights lobby out there contacted some lawyers? I guess people in CA have essentially abandoned fighting these things in court as being unconstitutional?
There are several legal actions on previous anti gun legislation currently moving (at a snail's pace) through the system, any of these that are passed will no doubt join them. That is of no help in the short term, legal remedy, assuming we win (not anywhere near a given in our state"s left leaning court system) is at best years in the future.
 
Not quite and if I understand right, it makes a huge difference.

This is worse than the 94 AWB.

The bullet button worked to keep center fire semi auto rifles with SCARY features like a pistol grip and a detachable mag from being considered an "assault weapon" by requiring a tool to remove the mag.

These laws to a few things that basically eliminate the scary feature requirement so that ALL center fire semi auto rifles and shotguns with detachable mag are considered assault weapons unless you have to disassemble the action to reload.


This makes a standard stock mini14 with a 5 round mag an assault weapon and would require registration similar/like CA requires with handguns.

My point is California's assault weapons ban was intended to classify any semi-automatic with a detachable magazine as an assault weapon. That was the goal. The fact that the bullet button was challenged in court speaks to that.
 
And an "assault weapon" is? Something that's been admitted to being a made-up media and political propaganda term that can arbitrarily be applied to virtually every single firearm in the country. Yeah, forgive me for not giving a rodents mule about what the government wants to classify and ban for civilian purposes. We are citizens, not subjects.
 
My point is California's assault weapons ban was intended to classify any semi-automatic with a detachable magazine as an assault weapon. That was the goal. The fact that the bullet button was challenged in court speaks to that.

That's not true.

It was intended to classify any "scary/military" looking rifle as an "assault weapon." The problem is that "scary/military" is difficult to define.

They first tried to ban rifles with certain features (pistol grips, foregrips, grenade launchers, bayonet lugs, etc.) That led to "featureless" AR builds. Then they added removable magazines which spawned the bullet buttons.

The M1 Carbine, Mini-14, Remington M8/M81, etc. were never their focus as they don't look "scary/military" to the casual observer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top