PDA

View Full Version : Future AWB & Calguns...legal issues


Alphahookups
03-29-2009, 11:56 AM
Hello All,

I have been thinking about the potential for Dems to pass another AWB and though unlikely right now, it seems like every chance the Dems get they call for it(Alabama shooting, now Oakland...).

My question revolves around the wonderful work we have done here, as it relates to OLL's.

Assuming an AWB is created again, can we buy OLL's in CA and they be considered "AW's" when out of state. Now bear with me...It's hard for me to put me thoughts into words.

Ok think of it this way. I have family in PA. Now lets say the AWB is set to start in 2010. Do all my OLL's I have now and ones I buy before 2010 count for them as PreBan lowers, so they can do what they wish, even after the AWB?

This train of thought gets me thinking, if a Federal AWB is enacted, how will they differentiate OLL's from PostBan lowers? Will they need to be stamped as such...and if so...OLL's shouldn't need to be stamped period because they aren't AW's and they are still legal here.

Am I out of my mind? :TFH:

hoffmang
03-29-2009, 11:59 AM
Before anything else, a Federal AW ban that actually gets enforced is quite unlikely for a host of reasons.

Now, the reality is that OLLs will be treated exactly like other ARs possesed in any other state under Federal law. Federal law will be utterly ignorant of California law (other than it might attempt to copy it in some ways.)

Your currently possessed OLLs would be just like you owned a new pre-ban AR.

Unrelatedly, California workarounds like bullet buttons and Monsterman Grips may end up being useful nationally though.

-Gene

Alphahookups
03-29-2009, 12:08 PM
Ok, so lets say they enact a law that starts in 2010. I can buy 10 lowers here in CA, and they would be considered PreBan lowers for my parents in PA, and they can do what they like with them? I don't have to prove they were out of CA by then or anything, right?

CSACANNONEER
03-29-2009, 12:27 PM
Ok, so lets say they enact a law that starts in 2010. I can buy 10 lowers here in CA, and they would be considered PreBan lowers for my parents in PA, and they can do what they like with them? I don't have to prove they were out of CA by then or anything, right?

It would depend on how the law is written. A federal ban should have nothing to do with what state they were or are in. Now, if you are asking, if you can assemble them after a ban or not, that would depend upon how the ban was written.

yellowfin
03-29-2009, 12:34 PM
Here's a better question: will the political revolt against such law be sufficient that it will be repealed, and if so how quickly?

PolishMike
03-29-2009, 12:40 PM
Here's a better question: will the political revolt against such law be sufficient that it will be repealed, and if so how quickly?


Your ignorant if you think there will be any kind of revolt. People will live like it just like they did for ten years.

pTa
03-29-2009, 3:32 PM
Isn't the irony of buying something in CA for export to a free state remarkable?

dustoff31
03-29-2009, 3:47 PM
Your ignorant if you think there will be any kind of revolt. People will live like it just like they did for ten years.

Yep. If such a potential existed, they wouldn't even be talking about bans in the first place.

Cnynrat
03-29-2009, 3:51 PM
Unrelatedly, California workarounds like bullet buttons and Monsterman Grips may end up being useful nationally though.

-Gene

So, I worry about them trying to close down the California workarounds in a possible new Federal AWB. Learn from California's mistakes so to speak. What do you think the chances are of that happening?

Alphahookups
03-29-2009, 4:04 PM
So, I worry about them trying to close down the California workarounds in a possible new Federal AWB. Learn from California's mistakes so to speak. What do you think the chances are of that happening?

I think if that happens, then our guns would become "real" "assault weapons" because we went from a legal configuration to an illegal one. This was originally what people thought would happen when OLL's started, but wasn't the case.

hoffmang
03-29-2009, 4:22 PM
So, I worry about them trying to close down the California workarounds in a possible new Federal AWB. Learn from California's mistakes so to speak. What do you think the chances are of that happening?

A federal AW ban is not likely to survive judicial scrutiny period. An AWB that went far enough to try to make the MMG not work would really not survive judicial review.

The fight is really about two and only two items: detachable magazines and pistol grips. Everything else is theater now that the other side can't succeed at banning semiautomatics.

-Gene

radioburning
03-29-2009, 9:11 PM
Ok, so lets say they enact a law that starts in 2010. I can buy 10 lowers here in CA, and they would be considered PreBan lowers for my parents in PA, and they can do what they like with them? I don't have to prove they were out of CA by then or anything, right?



They would have to be legally transferred before the date the law takes effect. After that they would be have to be registered, and considered "assault weapons" and would be non-transferable.

Alphahookups
03-30-2009, 6:30 PM
Well the don't necessarily need to be transferred right? I could just keep them in my name out of state and everything would be ok....right?

yellowfin
03-30-2009, 6:39 PM
Yep. If such a potential existed, they wouldn't even be talking about bans in the first place. Such potential does exist, but I think it's the fact that they can't keep themselves away from the issue. It's in their nature to push anti gun crap--it's who they are. Nanny state socialists. They've managed to use other issues as tactical cover to advance their way into power, but the majority of the interior of the US---you know, the part that isn't LA, SF, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Miami, and DC, i.e. the real America--- has never liked the left and won't go along with their garbage. But that doesn't occur to Barry Sotero, Feinslime, et al. who have never had to care what the real America thinks because they get elected without them or at very least in spite of them. They'll push AWB's even if they were strapped in an electric chair with the switch rigged to a sound trigger tuned to the word AW.

Hmm...ya know that's not a bad idea now that I think about it...

But anyway, what is different now is that before they'd be able to bring up such and someone would say "Why would anyone need that?" but now it's "Hey wait a minute, that's me they're talking about!"

anthonyca
03-30-2009, 9:21 PM
A federal AW ban is not likely to survive judicial scrutiny period. An AWB that went far enough to try to make the MMG not work would really not survive judicial review.

The fight is really about two and only two items: detachable magazines and pistol grips. Everything else is theater now that the other side can't succeed at banning semiautomatics.

-Gene

Wouldn't they just include them in the 1934 GCA and make the tax stamp $20k? The $200 tax stamp was so far out of reach for most people in 1934 that it was effective in banning 99% of the people from owning a gun that required a tax stamp.

.

hoffmang
03-30-2009, 10:50 PM
Wouldn't they just include them in the 1934 GCA and make the tax stamp $20k? The $200 tax stamp was so far out of reach for most people in 1934 that it was effective in banning 99% of the people from owning a gun that required a tax stamp.


That wouldn't pass the Miller modified by Heller test which says if they are common (AR-15s) then they are "arms" in the Second Amendment.

-Gene

yellowfin
03-30-2009, 11:39 PM
Hmm, so by that standard Maloney won't be granted cert because the items in question aren't common and therefore part of the question?

joaoalegre
03-31-2009, 12:49 AM
They would have to be legally transferred before the date the law takes effect. After that they would be have to be registered, and considered "assault weapons" and would be non-transferable.

I think you've been to Kommiforniakated ... in lots of states, long-guns can be PPT without any paperwork. They sell in garage-sale for all they care, specially long-guns.

The Billy Boy's AWB Law had no provision for AW registration ... AW registration is a pure Kommifornikation.
All they did was ban sale and imports of new AW through FFL. Therefore, they were still in the market, but only the existing manufactured products.

anthonyca
03-31-2009, 11:02 PM
That wouldn't pass the Miller modified by Heller test which says if they are common (AR-15s) then they are "arms" in the Second Amendment.

-Gene

I was hoping you would say that.

swhatb
04-01-2009, 9:27 AM
Before anything else, a Federal AW ban that actually gets enforced is quite unlikely for a host of reasons.

Now, the reality is that OLLs will be treated exactly like other ARs possesed in any other state under Federal law. Federal law will be utterly ignorant of California law (other than it might attempt to copy it in some ways.)

Your currently possessed OLLs would be just like you owned a new pre-ban AR.

Unrelatedly, California workarounds like bullet buttons and Monsterman Grips may end up being useful nationally though.

-Gene

good to know!