over 30,000 'off-list' AR/AK lowers now in CA since Dec 05!

[billwiese]

Okay folks....

This may only be of interest to Californians (given our screwed up laws and screwed up legislators...)

Some of you may be aware that AR/AK fever has taken off in California, since unlisted receivers (those not banned on a special list) can be built up into fixed-mag or pistol-grip-free rifles. (There is hope they get declared as assault weapons and then evil features can be attached after registration. This is the one and only time where registration is useful.)

This "2nd-hand reliable" - that is, from a smart, reliable person who has contact with mid-level DOJ Firearms staff about various other matters.

Apparently way more significant off-list action has been happening in SoCal than I thought.

The DOJ seems to think, from audits and other stats, that there are around new 30,000 off-list lowers (not sure how many are AKs vs ARs - or nonAK/nonAR like FAL clones, but prob a very small percentage) that have made it into CA. I'm also not sure if that number includes early stuff that didn't get listed since 2000 and not reg'd as AW (if there's a way to determine that).

Baby, that's some momentum. With numbers like that, they gotta list.



____________
Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

 

[Crab Man]

30,000 middle fingers to the nanny state.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

Is there a dealer anywhere in SoCal who will do a transfer of an off-list AK receiver for me? I'm in LA and there are only a handful of dealers here and I don't know of any who will do transfers. Please let me know. I'll drive anywhere in Southern California, I just don't want to deal with a dealer who accuses me of trying to break the law. Clearly I need an FFL who understands this situation and knows that it's legal, albeit under a lot of DoJ scrutiny.

Thanks. Either post or contact by PM.

Oh yeah and I'm glad to hear about all these receivers coming in! The more people own them, the more of a constituency we have. That's the problem with MGs on the federal level: there are only about 100k owners, so that's not enough of a constituency to make any real difference. Well, in CA we need as many "black rifle" owners as we can get.

Also if/when the DoJ lists these things, it may open them up to further court cases, like equal protection and fairness issues. Cool!

 

[imas]

Registration is NEVER useful. Fix the broken laws that cause this to be desirable.

 

[billwiese]

ElTacoGrande...

Go over to Calguns.Net and ask around on the gun rights/legal forum. Someone will PM you.

...and/or call Cold War Shooters in Highland (http://www.coldwarshooters.com) and ask for Hector (tell him Bill Wiese from CalGuns referred you) - someone at Quantico Arms in Oceanside may be able to point you to someone too.

When this hulaballoo started in early/mid December '05, I drove from San Jose to Bakersfield (well, Taft, actually) to get my Stags. Worth it for two reasons - got my lowers when we really didn't know how much time we had before the hammer falls, and because I could stop at Harris Ranch on the way back

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

 

[billwiese]

imas wrote:
registration is NEVER useful. Fix the broken laws that cause this to be desirable

Sounds like you're a naive out-of-stater. Pipe down if you don't know our political situation or how our laws are structured.

What you say is politically impossible unless a statewide RKBA passes. Too many of the wrong people are breeding and voting for free cookies. And most gunowners don't get off their ass, frankly ("I don't wanna be on a list"), which is why a recent RKBA petition drive failed.

CA AW registration is useful in this particular situation because of the way the laws work. Sucks, but it's the only way a favorable outcome toward a useful rifle will occur.

[And for the reg paranoids out there, they already know you have guns - stop living in delusion-land. In CA, if you've bought a handgun at a dealer in the last 20-30 years, you're on file. And even if you bought a long gun that supposedly isn't tracked, there will be audit trails/activity logs on the computer from which one could well infer some sort of long gun purchasing activity - maybe they don't know how many but they know 'something happened', which is good enough - they don't have to know make & model.]


Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

 

[imas]

Now thats no way to talk to someone. I think you should reconsider your attitude it may fly on other gun boards but its not fitting of thehighroad at all. I'm not an ignorant out-of-stater, I have CHOSEN not to live in California. I have found some good job opportunities in the golden state but I would never live there because of the laws.

So yes I say gun registration is absolutely out of the question. I think the idea of it sounding appealing is insane.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

Imas, you're not understanding what is going on.

These receivers are not categorized as "assault weapons". If the DoJ puts them on the list, then we have the opportunity to register them as "assault weapons". This is GOOD because it then lets us build them into an "assault weapon" configuration (pistol grip, etc).

Yes we could just buy them and build them into non-legal non-registered AWs and feel good about not having them registered, but then every trip to the range because a scary opportunity for a long and painful interaction with the justice system. That is bad. We want to be able to own AWs LEGALLY.

Sorry, most of us are too cowardly to openly defy the CA AWB. It just isn't worth it. So instead we have found a way to get these receivers and make it LEGAL so we can enjoy it.

Let's put it this way: I bet you believe you have a right to own an MG. I feel the same way actually. But are you brave / foolish enough to exercise your right, knowing that it could land you in the slammer? I thought not.

Imagine if some loophole were found that would let you legally enter new MG registrations into the transferable MG database. Would you scoff at it and say, "no, I'll never register my MG!" Or would you say, "hey, that's clever, I'll register this thing and I'll be able to blaze away without worrying about it"? I bet you would choose to register.

For us here in CA, an AR-15 with a detachable mag is like an MG at the federal level. The ownership of these things was FROZEN in 2000. If you ya didn't own it and register it before the cut-off, you can never own it.

Now a court case has given us a path to owning new ones, after the cut off. Of course a lot of people are excited about it and want to take advantage of this opportunity to own AR-15s LEGALLY.

 

[imas]

Ok I'm sorry I misunderstood whats going on in this case.

But...I am not suggesting that anyone should do anything illegal. (if national registration is implemented then we'll talk) I'm very supportive of your battle just to hold the ground you're standing on. It just blows my mind. I really like California so it's really a shame. I will never live there. Even if it means lower pay.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

Well, a lot of us California gun owners DO routinely violate CA's CCW laws. It's just a different analysis. With the CA AWB, there's no real "need" for an AW. You can defend your home about as effectively with a shotgun or an SKS or an M1A as you could with an AR-15. It doesn't matter from a safety point of view. And at the same time, the risk is high, because if you take it out to the range, someone might ask about the reg status. I've heard that this happens.

But CCW is something different. There is a need for that, so a lot of CA shooters assess the risks and benefits and go ahead and cary. And most of us (non-blacks) go our whole lives without ever being searched by a LEO so there's not much risk. Remember, if you're non-black, you have to DO something to get the officer's attention and get searched. It's easy to avoid if you keep cool and don't drive too fast. And even if it is found, it's only a misdemeanor, and it's at the LEO's discretion how he handles it, which depends on many factors, including the circumstances, the LEO, the customs in the region, etc. So there are many Californians who pack, despite what the law says. On the race issue, I'm sure blacks are much more likely to be searched and much less likely to get the benefit of an officer's discretion, so we do have a Jim Crow type of situation here.

In fact, Seecamp, makers of the most concealable pistol available, have a California model. Now why, in a state that only has about 50k permits, would Seecamp make such an undetectable little pistol?

So we're not all cowards, we're just choosy about it.