Complying with new California laws

Discussion in 'Legal' started by LiveLife, Dec 26, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,086
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX

    It appears those emergency regulations have been withdrawn. (The ban is still going into effect July 1. The withdrawal is of the regulations only)

    https://www.firearmspolicy.org/press-releases/breaking-calif-doj-emergency-magazine-ban-regulations-withdrawn/


    I'm willing to bet money they'll be back again.
     
  2. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    Category 3 assault weapon definition - https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2

    12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

    Just to point out how much attention to detail the CA-DOJ applies to its on-line references - the 'Dangerous Weapons' section of the Penal Code was re-organized and re-numbered effective in 2012.

    "12276"
    no longer exists; the CA 'assault weapon' law begins at Penal Code 30500
     
  3. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    25,855
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    My apologies.

    Still, the re-numbering of Penal Code section does not change the scope of this thread and the fact that there are new laws going into effect starting 1/1/17, notably the ban on bullet button.

    30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:

    (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

    (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
    (B) A thumbhole stock.
    (C) A folding or telescoping stock.
    (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
    (E) A flash suppressor.
    (F) A forward pistol grip.

    (2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

    (3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2016
  4. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    25,855
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
  5. bearcreek

    bearcreek Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,543
    Location:
    N Idaho
    There's actually quite a few that do just that. Barret and BCM are two of the more well know companies that have that policy. Unfortunately the real big companies like Glock, S&W, and Colt are not likely to do the same.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  6. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Concord, CA
  7. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    25,855
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
  8. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,288
    Which is just going to feel like a defeat to legislators with a super majority but in reality still keeps us from having firearms in a normal modern configuration. The result will be an attempt to ban that next time around. Eventually the game will leave them with having to go for semi autos in general (when those firearm registries play a bigger role), which if the nation allows sets a precedent for the whole nation on what is not protected. So the nation either has to create national protections, since the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution doesn't seem to count even after Heller and McDonald to protect the most 'in common use' firearm in the United States, or it allows a precedent that semi autos can be banned which as we see in every similar nation that has done so, it keeps going till even pump shotguns have capacity restrictions and are more restricted than doubles.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2017
  9. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,086
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX

    They could do something like MA did and target "similar" (enough) weapons instead.

    http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html
     
  10. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,288
    No because California likes a clear legal logic and we already have precedent that says AR and AK series firearms, aka things similar to but called another name, is too vague of a description. So they already did that and it didn't work out under CA decisions.
    That is why they started having the 'Attorney General' (which really means the CADOJ comes up with the list under their authority) list makes and models by name to ban those. They were adding all the guns they felt qualified to the list each year as manufacturers made new ones, but people always had a few months to buy the latest models before they got banned each year, and it was requiring them to allow legal registration in a brief window of time of those just banned, when they wanted them banned outright. So the registry was not really closed anymore, and anyone could still buy them, wait for it to get banned and register it, making them all semi legal for a few months after they came out for the indefinite future.

    Which is a catch 22 of the issue. Registration. Registered weapons have new restrictions on transport and use beyond just putting you on a later confiscation list, but they do make it still legal..for now.
    They also have a gun confiscation team that goes around and gets guns from anyone that becomes prohibited, which gets bigger and more funded each year. I would venture being a registered assault weapon owner would put you higher on their list of how quickly they come confiscate your weapons if you ever get prohibited (and the state has more ways to get prohibited than the federal restrictions.)
    They are working to expand prohibited classes too. So beyond just banning the guns they want to ban more people from having the guns that are still legal to buy. Registration is part of all that, knowing who has what that needs eventual removal from the population.

    They want to know who has what so they can exercise even more control over them later on. They got super majorities, and sadly Jerry Brown, no huge gun rights supporter but still someone of some reasonable sense, has actually vetoed many bad gun laws that have been basically passed by the legislature and just need his signature. He is not going to keep going against them, and he finally caved last June which before many were cemented in by the proposition in November was how they got on the books.

    They know what they are doing, they don't like legal modern firearms but realize they are in the United States, so they are putting everything in place to limit new guns and go after old ones. The 'approved handgun list' even passed a microstamping requirement that would basically keep all new handguns from getting approved forever.
    Other requirements in place have been keeping many new handguns, often no different than ones grandfathered on the list, from getting on. CA still has just gen 3 glocks and can never add another generation glock because glocks dont even meet the requirements to get on the list anymore.

    And all these things in spite of Heller and McDonald being allowed to happen are setting precedent for what is allowed under the 2nd Amendment at the national level. If the 2nd is an individual right incorporated against the states, and these things don't immediately and clearly violate the 2nd Amendment, then similar bans in places that previously feared lawsuits and legal battles they couldn't afford will feel free to add more and more bans. They gain additional legitimacy as they remain in place.
    We need national level protections, because state level bans now set national precedent anyways.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2017
    455h013 likes this.
  11. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,086
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    This part makes me chuckle.

    The rest of is about right in CA.
     
  12. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,304
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Folks have long ago abandoned any pretence of discussing compliance. This has turned into a stream of consciousness gripe session, and we don't do that here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice