The extent of the bill is quite dramatic.
The 5 round limit on fixed magazine shotguns, and complete ban on those that accept detachable magazines (no other features required) for example is not something that would go unnoticed.
Extended magazine tube semi auto shotguns are banned.
Even those with under a 5 round capacity cannot have a tactical stock/vertical grip or become assault weapons, and those are some of the more common configurations now.
It also turns a pistol with a threaded barrel into an assault weapon.
I imagine that would have some impact on many people. That would for the most part end pistols coming threaded from the factory, and reduce how many such barrels were available.
It would also make it more difficult on those that wanted a sound suppressor and went through the NFA process where available.
Those people wanting to purchase one or a couple they can swap between a larger number of guns would have it difficult. Every pistol with a threaded barrel would be an assault weapon, and threading a barrel or adding a threaded barrel to make use of the suppressor on another firearm would constitute manufacture of an assault weapon.
The implications on the Sound Suppressor market are quite large, especially if the public can no longer purchase or manufacture new assault weapons and as a result cannot purchase new pistols with threaded barrels nor thread thier own without illegal manufacture to use thier legal NFA device.
Sound suppressors would become much less versatile and be limited to pre-ban pistols which already had threaded barrels and were considered grandfathered assault weapons.
More banned by name firearms, including many currently legal in the proper configuration.
5 round capacity limit on semi auto shotguns, in CA it is 10.
As well as the fact that things like bullet buttons, odd pistol grip modifications, etc came about through interpretations of CA law that had various precedents that legitimized them at the state level.
Bullet buttons for example legal at the state level because a fixed magazine was defined as requiring a tool to remove, and then the state government further defining a tool to mean just about anything.
This combination is what allowed bullet buttoned firearms to be considered fixed magazine firearms, as long as it takes something other than a finger it takes a tool as defined by the state government.
Definitions that do not exist at the federal level.
So whether such work arounds would even be feasible or would be specifically prohibited legislatively or ruled not to comply by a federal court and unavailable is unknown.
If unavailable the national restrictions would as a result be much more severe in reducing what firearm models are available than the CA state restrictions now.
It is a misleading assumption that such things would be deemed legal nationally, they are unique to CA law at this point.
Additionally if they were not legal work arounds nationally it could actually make those currently held firearms in CA that are not Assault Weapons at the state level Assault Weapons at the national level. So some firearms in non Assault Weapon CA configurations may still be defined as federal Assault Weapons, grandfathered for those who have them federally, and legal at the state level if they remain in the proper configuration as non-state Assault Weapons, but no longer available new in configurations that can comply with state law because federally they couldn't sell something new deemed a federal Assault Weapon even if it wasn't considered an assault weapon by CA law.
The 5 round limit on fixed magazine shotguns, and complete ban on those that accept detachable magazines (no other features required) for example is not something that would go unnoticed.
Extended magazine tube semi auto shotguns are banned.
Even those with under a 5 round capacity cannot have a tactical stock/vertical grip or become assault weapons, and those are some of the more common configurations now.
It also turns a pistol with a threaded barrel into an assault weapon.
I imagine that would have some impact on many people. That would for the most part end pistols coming threaded from the factory, and reduce how many such barrels were available.
It would also make it more difficult on those that wanted a sound suppressor and went through the NFA process where available.
Those people wanting to purchase one or a couple they can swap between a larger number of guns would have it difficult. Every pistol with a threaded barrel would be an assault weapon, and threading a barrel or adding a threaded barrel to make use of the suppressor on another firearm would constitute manufacture of an assault weapon.
The implications on the Sound Suppressor market are quite large, especially if the public can no longer purchase or manufacture new assault weapons and as a result cannot purchase new pistols with threaded barrels nor thread thier own without illegal manufacture to use thier legal NFA device.
Sound suppressors would become much less versatile and be limited to pre-ban pistols which already had threaded barrels and were considered grandfathered assault weapons.
No it is much worse actually. In a few ways including but not limited to:
More banned by name firearms, including many currently legal in the proper configuration.
5 round capacity limit on semi auto shotguns, in CA it is 10.
As well as the fact that things like bullet buttons, odd pistol grip modifications, etc came about through interpretations of CA law that had various precedents that legitimized them at the state level.
Bullet buttons for example legal at the state level because a fixed magazine was defined as requiring a tool to remove, and then the state government further defining a tool to mean just about anything.
This combination is what allowed bullet buttoned firearms to be considered fixed magazine firearms, as long as it takes something other than a finger it takes a tool as defined by the state government.
Definitions that do not exist at the federal level.
So whether such work arounds would even be feasible or would be specifically prohibited legislatively or ruled not to comply by a federal court and unavailable is unknown.
If unavailable the national restrictions would as a result be much more severe in reducing what firearm models are available than the CA state restrictions now.
It is a misleading assumption that such things would be deemed legal nationally, they are unique to CA law at this point.
Additionally if they were not legal work arounds nationally it could actually make those currently held firearms in CA that are not Assault Weapons at the state level Assault Weapons at the national level. So some firearms in non Assault Weapon CA configurations may still be defined as federal Assault Weapons, grandfathered for those who have them federally, and legal at the state level if they remain in the proper configuration as non-state Assault Weapons, but no longer available new in configurations that can comply with state law because federally they couldn't sell something new deemed a federal Assault Weapon even if it wasn't considered an assault weapon by CA law.
Last edited:
