State of California AR ban???

[Archangel14]

I am a resident of California. I've considered purchasing an AR before California puts a ban in place. It's my understanding that California may not ban the AR outright, but will ban enough features so as to make legally obtaining any AR impossible.

Here's my question: does anyone have any insight as to where the California legislature is concerning any ban? Am I too late in obtaining an AR, or are my concerns moot in that it looks like California is not going to ban anything?

I'd greatly appreciate responses from people who have actual personal knowledge on these points. I hope to avoid speculation of any sort or replies based upon unfounded information. Like "my cousin lives in California an he says..." type of stuff. Thanks so much!

 

[firesky101]

I live here and they have already banned AR's specifically. Then a judge told them no. They are trying to make the assault weapon ban they put in place far more restrictive, and if they pass everything that they said they want to then AR's will be pretty impossible to keep compliant. Check out calguns for up to date info on what bills are out there and how to get involved. BTW if they pass what they said they want then more than half of my (already nuetered) collection will become banned assault weapons. Its not just AR's they are after. They want to make the SAFE act look like freedom.

 

[bigdaa]

All I can say, "Love My State, but hate the politicians"

 

[willymc]

Hi, Go to Calguns.net. Lots of good info there about current and proposed California gun laws.

 

[Librarian]

Please do visit Calguns.net - we make a point of keeping up with current legislation.

See, for example, this index to the current CA bills -- http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=653087; in particular, you may be concerned by SB 47, though there are others.

NO BILLS HAVE YET PASSED; all are still in their houses of origin.

 

[bainter1212]

+1 on Calguns. The number one best place to get educated about CA gun laws, even the pending ones. And also, be sure to donate whatever you can to the Calguns Foundation. I give $10 a month. They are the single most effective entity fighting against bad gun laws in CA. And they will stick up for YOU as an individual, if your situation warrants it. Great people.

 

[denton]

Not a direct answer to the OP's question, but cause for hope:

All the proposed and existing state AWBs will probably be held to be unconstitutional, as will all laws banning cosmetic features. It will take some time, but that is by far the most likely outcome.

Heller and McDonald do not say what the banners represent them as saying. They are not simple bans on laws that prohibit handguns in the home. They go far beyond that.

First, Scalia answered the question of whether 2A protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. He starts the answer to that question with "We hold that...", meaning that we have a ruling that it does protect the individual right. It's not just dicta. It's the ruling.

Second, he addresses the question of which firearms are covered. He answers that by citing Miller, and says, "We read Miller...", meaning that the Court is officially interpreting the Miller case. He states that 2A covers the types of firearms that people commonly hold for lawful purposes.

Having recorded those two decisions, he then turns to the question of handguns in the home and overturned the DC law.

We hear a lot about it being a 5-4 decision, and in peril if we get one more liberal Justice. Baloney. I certainly don't want one more liberal Justice, but the Supreme Court is about the most precedent bound institution you will ever find. They will only revisit a decision if it is glaringly wrong. We will probably never get reconsideration of Roe v. Wade, even though some Justices have publicly said it is bad law. The theory is that it is better to have a stable legal landscape than to be constantly changing the basics, even if they are a little wrong. Heller was brilliantly written, it is now settled law, and the chances of it being overturned are so slim as to be negligible.

So be of good cheer, exercise, eat a good diet, and wear your seatbelt. Live long enough to see the CA legislature get soundly whacked over the head with a 2x4.

 

[mike.h]

Once again major population centers, L.A. & S.F., in this case, overwhelm the rest of the state.

Ding, ding, ding, truer words have never been spoken....so sad

 

[Archangel14]

We hear a lot about it being a 5-4 decision, and in peril if we get one more liberal Justice. Baloney. I certainly don't want one more liberal Justice, but the Supreme Court is about the most precedent bound institution you will ever find.

The Court is "precedent bound", far more than the other branches. But they often revisit rulings. And we're talking about hard core liberals here. Justice Kagan has publicly declared that her "hero" is one Israeli Justice Barak, who's judicial philosophy was to rule in a way that "serves the public interest". Essentially, he took it upon himself to decide what HE thought was right for the general public. The law be damned. That is the prominent judicial philosophy of 4/9th's of the court, presently. I just want to get up, worship, work and enjoy a peaceable life. They, on the other hand, want to exert authority. And you gun tottin' psychos out there need to be reeled in! You bet I'm concerned. That's way I stay vigilant!

 

[hso]

Calguns is the place to keep abreast of California legislative issues.

This one's closed because that's the best answer and because some folks so rude they'd rather slam on the OP's state than try to answer the OP's question.