PDA

View Full Version : Gene and CGF In The News - Again!


oaklander
07-15-2009, 10:53 PM
EDIT: LET'S KEEP THIS THREAD CIVIL

Pretty good article out of SLO Town:

http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/2922/what-assault-weapons-ban/

Here's part of it:

What assault weapons ban?
Loopholes have weakened the law
BY PATRICK HOWE

[pic]

THE GUN

This part of the gun is called the receiver. By federal definitions this part, and only this part, is a firearm.

On paper, California has among the strictest prohibitions of assault weapon-style guns in the nation. First passed in 1989 in response to a mass murder of elementary school children involving an AK-47, the state law bans the sale of weapons with certain militaristic features and bans other weapons and parts specifically by name.

The law has been vilified by gun enthusiasts and heralded as an example to the nation by gun opponents.

But does the law still have teeth?

Following a recent sheriff’s news conference during which deputies displayed an arsenal of apparently illegal weapons as they announced the arrests of two individuals on related charges, New Times reporters focused on the state of the law. What’s legal? Can a person own a weapon that looks and fires like an AK-47? In other words, despite the name of the law, is there really an assault-weapons ban in effect in California?

We found that gaps in the original law, combined with successful legal challenges and the ingenuity of manufacturers, render the original law ineffectual if not obsolete.

It’s not that anything goes in California. As in the rest of the nation, it’s illegal to traffic in machine guns—weapons that, when their triggers are pulled and held, fire repeatedly.

But when it comes to assault weapons, a term many gun enthusiasts reject as vague and biased, the spirit of the original law was clearly to ban the sort of weapons that look like those from a Rambo movie: semi-automatics with pistol grips and detachable magazines, which can fire as fast as a person can pull the trigger.

And that spirit appears to be full of so many holes it has little meaning.

“We feel like we’ve made very large progress in allowing Californians to own really any firearm they want to own,” boasts Gene Hoffman Jr., an entrepreneur and chairman of the Calguns Foundation, which has led several challenges to the original state law.

If you doubt him, take the case of the AK-47, that iconic Cold War weapon developed by Mikhail Kalashnikov. It was the clearest target of the original ban and is specifically banned by name.

Despite the law, Hoffman asserts, people in California are free these days to purchase, from a variety of federally licensed gun dealers, a weapon that would look and perform essentially the same as an AK.

Because it’s listed by name on the state’s ban, a person can’t own an AK-47 per se. But in 2007 the law was changed so the state no longer updates the list of banned weapons.

New parts have since been manufactured under serial numbers and names that are not on the list. Thus, the person who wants an AK-47-like weapon that is legal in California would only have to make one choice: Do they want a “pistol grip”—that handle-style grip near the trigger that allows the gun to be held and fired from the hip? If so, then they can’t have a “detachable magazine.”

The detachable magazine is that clip of ammunition that can be quickly taken out so a new one can be put in its place. (In either case, the magazine can hold only 10 rounds in California.) Under the state law, if you want a pistol grip, the magazine must be “fixed.” Theoretically, that would preclude someone from quickly changing out one magazine for another, since they’d need a screwdriver to remove the magazine.

Yet there is an option. Hoffman notes there are manufacturers who sell what’s called a “bullet button.” This is a magazine that can be removed with the press of a bullet, but theoretically not with one’s finger. Since it needs a “tool” to be removed, it’s legal, Hoffman insists. (In fact, gun enthusiast websites include discussions of triggering the bullet buttons by wrapping a finger with a paper clip.)

[pic]

THE GRIP

A key focus of California’s so-called assault weapons ban is the pistol grip. If a semi-automatic weapon has one, it can’t legally have a quick-release magazine—although clever part manufacturers offer ways to get around this stipulation.

If the person does not want a pistol grip, the decision is even easier: They can have a gun that acts exactly like an AK-47, with a detachable magazine, but simply has a grip that would make it look more like a sporting rifle than an assault rifle.

And even here clever manufacturers are offering grips that, while not proper pistol grips, look like a hybrid between the stock of a traditional rifle and the pistol grip. One of these is called a MonsterMan grip. The maker of the grip boasts that “thousands of MMGs have been sold in California” and quotes verbatim from the law.

Do the grips definitely make the guns legal? That’s ultimately for the buyer to decide, according to the company, which says on its website that the grip has neither been approved nor disapproved by the state Department of Justice.

To Hoffman, it’s clearly legal—if barely. But that’s good enough for him.

“One way we like to say it is we walk right up to the line, but not past it,” he said.

Irwin Nowick is a senior consultant to the California Senate Rules Committee and someone who has been involved with making state gun laws for two decades.

He cautioned that Hoffman’s line-walking approach could get him in trouble.

“If he wants to go up to the line, he assumes the risk he’s going to cross it,” Nowick said. “These guys think they’re being cutesy but they’re going to find themselves in a lot of trouble.”

One of the things that has pushed the issue to the fore is the weapons have become so easy to build through parts ordered via the Internet.

Take this example: A recent issue of Guns & Ammo magazine—a special issue devoted entirely to the AK 47, “The world’s most popular battle rifle”—features an in-depth article on how to build an AK-47, from items easily obtained at gun shows or the Internet.

The article wouldn’t shock gun enthusiasts much. The same information is easily available from many websites, but it does concisely describe what is needed to purchase and build an AK-47 from parts.

Essentially, a person needs three things:

First, they need a “parts kit.” Despite the innocuous-sounding name, these kits are in many cases full semi-automatic imports of foreign assault rifles with one small exception: One part called the “receiver”—the part the trigger would hang from—has been cut in two with a blow torch, making it unusable. Under federal law, this means it’s not a firearm. A receiver is the firearm—the rest is just parts.

Second, obviously, they need another receiver. These can be purchased on the same sites—or in the same gun shows—as the parts kits. If they buy a receiver that can be used immediately, they would have to ship the part to a federally licensed firearms dealer, where they would have to go through a background check.

But if a person is willing to do some work themselves, they could purchase a plate with holes predrilled and broached that is nearly a receiver, without going through a dealer. They would simply buy the flat plate and do the bending themselves to form it as a working receiver.

The Guns & Ammo magazine article offers two pictures of receiver parts: one is bent and one is flat. The caption reads, “The top one is a firearm. The flat steel plate isn’t, yet.” The article goes on to state that, if you bend the plate yourself, you don’t even need a federal firearms license, although in that case the owner would never be able to legally sell it.

The third thing a person would need is a bag of U.S.-made parts. In order to comply with U.S. import law, a certain number of parts on the gun have to be U.S.-made rather than imported. This can simply apply to rivets, the trigger system, and the receiver.

Why would someone want to build their own AK-47 if they could buy one very similar through a gun dealer?

“It’s really no different than someone who wants to knit their own sweater,” Hoffman insists. After all, sweaters can be bought at the store. He notes that car guys also like to build their own cars from kits.

There is, however, another aspect to consider. If someone were to build their own AK-47, they wouldn’t have to go through a federal firearms dealer, wouldn’t have to wait 10 days, and wouldn’t have to go through a background check.

Nowick, though, scoffed when told about the “sweater” analogy.

[pic]

THE MAGAZINE

California’s law only allows 10-round magazines, not larger ones such as this one.

“When you make your own sweater, the likelihood of you dying is not so great,” he said. “When you fire one of these homemade things, they may well blow up on you.”

So what’s the state of the law? Nowick acknowledges that gun enthusiasts have been working diligently against the law, but he insists that anyone who builds up their own assault weapon-style gun, from parts, is still running afoul of the law.

He notes that under former Attorney General Bill Lockyer in 2006, the law was amended at the same time the decision was made to stop updating the list, to allow DAs to seek civil injunctions against weapons holders that would have their weapons declared nuisances, in which case they would lose the weapons and possibly be vulnerable to felony prosecution.

Hoffman countered that under Attorney General Jerry Brown there doesn’t seem to be much interest in aggressively prosecuting those who purchase parts to make their own kit guns. Nowick acknowledges that that is how Brown has been perceived, but he believes that, if push came to shove, Brown would enforce the law. Brown’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment. ∆

[more]

professorhard
07-15-2009, 10:58 PM
hahahahah Hoffmang FTW!

technique
07-15-2009, 11:00 PM
they said "clip"

gcvt
07-15-2009, 11:03 PM
I love it :clap::clap:

Saigon1965
07-15-2009, 11:03 PM
What loopholes - We're following it to the letter of the law -

Blue
07-15-2009, 11:05 PM
What loopholes - We're following it to the letter of the law -

Yea!

elSquid
07-15-2009, 11:06 PM
Oh noes... a LOOPHOLE!!!!

:willy_nilly::willy_nilly::willy_nilly:

-- Michael

oaklander
07-15-2009, 11:06 PM
Just so you guys know - the weird parts of California gun law are actually called "Irwinisms."

gcvt
07-15-2009, 11:09 PM
What loopholes - We're following it to the letter of the law -

Of course. But if you can do it, and they don't like it, you're exploiting a 'loophole'...perhaps like being able to buy a car which can exceed speeds of 70 mph. Oh noes :eek:

Glock22Fan
07-15-2009, 11:09 PM
Oh, Gene is "cutesy" but is going to find himself in a lot of trouble is he? I bet you're losing a lot of sleep over that, Gene! :D

bwiese
07-15-2009, 11:09 PM
Irwin, take your medicine.

And wash your jogging suit.

You're trying to conflate issues of 'zip guns' with actual production-design firearms.

Everything is perfectly legal.

leelaw
07-15-2009, 11:16 PM
Watch your posts. Some people here are gonna find themslves striking out of forum access if they continue.

MonsterMan
07-15-2009, 11:17 PM
“These guys think they’re being cutesy but they’re going to find themselves in a lot of trouble.”

How are we going to find ourselves in trouble? Are we not following the law they set out for us to follow? :rolleyes:

Jpach
07-15-2009, 11:18 PM
Gene spanks em again! So who else is going to dress up as Gene on Halloween?

Sobriquet
07-15-2009, 11:24 PM
Gene, I don't think Irwin is going to send you a holiday card this year.

Anyone else love the deliciousness that the guy is named Nowick? How much flak you think he took in high school?

jdberger
07-15-2009, 11:40 PM
Well, lots of incorrect data in the article - but I doubt the author is a "gunnie".

But honestly, like Saigon said, "what 'loophole'?".

It's against the law to drive on a public street talking on a cell phone and without a seatbelt. I'm not exploiting a "loophole" if I wear a belt and use an earpiece.

All this whining about "loopholes" simply illustrates that laws have limits. They have to make sense and there has to be a way to comply with them. Ole Irwin can't play God-King-Ruler of the Universe and capriciously decide what's legal.

grammaton76
07-15-2009, 11:45 PM
Article makes one total screwup point:

The third thing a person would need is a bag of U.S.-made parts. In order to comply with U.S. import law, a certain number of parts on the gun have to be U.S.-made rather than imported. This can simply apply to rivets, the trigger system, and the receiver.

This could lead people to believe that rivets are counted 922(r) parts...

nick
07-15-2009, 11:50 PM
Just another article that doesn't even bother to hide its bias, is all.

artherd
07-16-2009, 12:02 AM
An astoundingly well written article about a technical matter of law, in mainstream media.

Fat_Rat
07-16-2009, 12:08 AM
Good read. But I was suprised the article did not blame Calguns for smugling weapons into Mexico. :p

pullnshoot25
07-16-2009, 1:03 AM
Wow... Hoffman, you SPANKED that guy! RIGHT ON!

Oh NOwick, thou art NO match for the NOtorious Hoffmang!

FreedomIsNotFree
07-16-2009, 1:04 AM
Irwin had this to say...

He notes that under former Attorney General Bill Lockyer in 2006, the law was amended at the same time the decision was made to stop updating the list, to allow DAs to seek civil injunctions against weapons holders that would have their weapons declared nuisances, in which case they would lose the weapons and possibly be vulnerable to felony prosecution.

Back when AB2728 was passed I started a thread discussing my concerns and was basically flamed by a few here. Seems Irwin has just validated those concerns...the intent of the legislature was to make confiscation much easier. Thankfully the government's plan didn't come to fruition.

If anyone is interested in reading the thread, here you go...
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45344&highlight=2728

navyinrwanda
07-16-2009, 1:52 AM
Irwin Nowick is well-known in Sacramento as a savant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome) on budget and gun issues. In many cases, he personally writes the statues.

Maybe that's why California's gun laws and budget are in such a mess?

odysseus
07-16-2009, 2:19 AM
Irwin Nowick is a senior consultant to the California Senate Rules Committee and someone who has been involved with making state gun laws for two decades.

He cautioned that Hoffman’s line-walking approach could get him in trouble.

“If he wants to go up to the line, he assumes the risk he’s going to cross it,” Nowick said. “These guys think they’re being cutesy but they’re going to find themselves in a lot of trouble.”


Oh really, and what trouble exactly is that Mr. Irwin? Is "being cutesy" your way of saying people are following the law?

On another note, they keep waving this 58 DA stuff around, and I am curious as to the methodology Irwin ascribes they could declare these as "nuisances", opening us up to felony "nuisances"? This sounds like major FUD.
.

artherd
07-16-2009, 2:20 AM
the intent of the legislature was to make confiscation much easier.

Uh. no.

technique
07-16-2009, 2:53 AM
Irwin had this to say...



Back when AB2728 was passed I started a thread discussing my concerns and was basically flamed by a few here. Seems Irwin has just validated those concerns...the intent of the legislature was to make confiscation much easier. Thankfully the government's plan didn't come to fruition.

If anyone is interested in reading the thread, here you go...
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45344&highlight=2728

Irwin has a bunch of other nonsense to say along with that. I don't buy into the scare tactic.

I read some of the thread you provided, the first 80 or so posts. I have to say I agree with most most folks...OLLs are legal weapons by definition. I don't see any grounds for anyone to consider a legally obtained and legally configured rifle a "public nuisance" and go through with a confiscation. I just don't see it happening this far along.

AJAX22
07-16-2009, 4:34 AM
Heh, so... how do we go about getting that Irwin guy ****-canned?

dude aint no friend to the 2A... and he's clearly a d-bag

artherd
07-16-2009, 4:54 AM
I like him. He keeps writing bad laws I can drive a freight train through!

hoffmang
07-16-2009, 8:12 AM
Heh, so... how do we go about getting that Irwin guy ****-canned?

dude aint no friend to the 2A... and he's clearly a d-bag

Irwin doesn't really have a job...

-Gene

WokMaster1
07-16-2009, 8:12 AM
Irwin is making up new laws, his own as the interview progresses. Facepalm!

bwiese
07-16-2009, 8:19 AM
Irwin had this to say...

Back when AB2728 was passed I started a thread discussing my concerns and was basically flamed by a few here. Seems Irwin has just validated those concerns...the intent of the legislature was to make confiscation much easier. Thankfully the government's plan didn't come to fruition.

If anyone is interested in reading the thread, here you go...
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45344&highlight=2728
[/quote]

Freedom,

That's the public spin by the other side. The NRA's Size 12 Wide bootprints are all over this bill. This is not about purity, it's about practicality.

Firstly, the gun normally would have to be found as an AW. Not an AW? Not a nuisance. Before 2728 there was no wiggle area - fight to the death over the felony charge. Now, at least the option exists.

On a practical side, though, if someone had a borderline item that the DA really wants to waste time on, it's better to give up (say) a crap $500 AK and rinse/lather/repeat than spend $$$ on continuing the defense. DA can portray it as a win ('we got a gun off the street") and $300 nuisance fee income instead of an eventual loss.

It allows an easy 'out' for us and has not compromised CGF BB/MMG cases etc. - folks get the rifles back without 2728.

GP3
07-16-2009, 8:37 AM
Cutesy?

5150Marcelo
07-16-2009, 8:59 AM
Walking up the line line, but not crossing it. EXACTLY!

Its legal!!!

tiki
07-16-2009, 9:06 AM
Can someone tell me which issue of G&A had the AK-47 article?

6172crew
07-16-2009, 10:23 AM
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/03/backup_for_cava.html
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/06/noted_californi.html
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2006/12/background_and.html

The last one is the guy is talking about AB2728

bsim
07-16-2009, 11:07 AM
Overall not bad, but I don't like how it switches from OLL-type builds to full-auto conversions without mentioning (again) the the legal ones we do AREN'T machine guns.

dfletcher
07-16-2009, 11:35 AM
A loophole speaks to the legislature making a mistake - being hoodwinked and of course that's not the case. A deliberative body through research and compromise made an informed and sound judgement at that time.

And the business of building an AK from a flat, predrilled sheet of steel? I can do alot of work on guns including building ARs and 1911s, strip Garands and M1s and Smitha and Colts to all their bare parts, but I can't build an AK from a flat and I suspect 90% of gun owners can not either. The article's author makes it seem easy and readily "doable" when in fact for most it is not.

bwiese
07-16-2009, 11:51 AM
And the business of building an AK from a flat, predrilled sheet of steel? I can do alot of work on guns including building ARs and 1911s, strip Garands and M1s and Smitha and Colts to all their bare parts, but I can't build an AK from a flat and I suspect 90% of gun owners can not either. The article's author makes it seem easy and readily "doable" when in fact for most it is not.

Presses are cheap from Harbor Freight. There have been quite a few 'build parties'.

MasterYong
07-16-2009, 12:06 PM
Overall not bad, but I don't like how it switches from OLL-type builds to full-auto conversions without mentioning (again) the the legal ones we do AREN'T machine guns.

That's the part that bothered me the most, too.

This is standard in scare-tactic journalism, though.

Talk about one group as though what they're doing MAY be OK. Then, immediately shift to another group without ever making it clear that you're no longer referring to the first group. To me, this article sounds like Gene is helping people learn how to build machine guns, and that anyone that listens to him will get arrested!

Some people. I had a buddy tell me the other day that I was going to be "in trouble" or at least heavily scrutinized because the DOJ is doing FFL audits this week and when the auditor realizes I bought 5 OLLs this year I'll be toast. LOL. I haven't broken any laws, and only two of the OLLs are even built into rifles (one is featureless, MMG, A2 stock, no FH- the other is BB-equipped typical A2 upper.)

I love the quotes from Gene, though- I just wish it were more clear that Gene isn't connected to some sort of "machine gun school" :eek:

7x57
07-16-2009, 12:12 PM
I just wish it were more clear that Gene isn't connected to some sort of "machine gun school" :eek:

Still, knowing Gene, how sure are you that he isn't? :43:

7x57

MasterYong
07-16-2009, 12:41 PM
Still, knowing Gene, how sure are you that he isn't? :43:

7x57

Well, I guess I don't really know the guy at all, haven't even so much as met him.

I admire what he's done and what he helps others to do, however, for law-abiding citizens in this state (and other states as well, as they often follow suit with CA).

motorhead
07-16-2009, 12:53 PM
machine gun school??? are we saying that the function of f/a weapons is forbidden knowlege? most boards limit discussion for obvious reasons but the info is out there nonetheless. i understand the function of most fire control systems, i must be the friggin anti-christ. and worse yet, i explain them to others, spreading the evil shamelessly to any who listen.

BTW, gene, when the interview with this guy was done did you have to go outside and wipe his drool off? obviously written for the "thing that goes up" crowd! he even tries to make his discriptions of parts sound inflammatory.

ldivinag
07-16-2009, 1:02 PM
i'm sick and tired of that hoffman person rable rousing...

think of all the children...

















;)

7x57
07-16-2009, 1:15 PM
i'm sick and tired of that hoffman person rable rousing...

think of all the children...


Obviously Gene does think of the children--otherwise he wouldn't have the machine-gun school.

Clearly there is an inherent right to be educated in fully automatic weapons usage at government expense. :43:

7x57

oaklander
07-16-2009, 1:28 PM
Machine gun camp! FTW!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xtc1MG9bDrg&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xtc1MG9bDrg&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Vtec44
07-16-2009, 1:30 PM
I love it even when you follow the laws, they still think that it's illegal. I guess "the spirit of the laws" really mean you cannot have any of these weapons at all. Why would anyone need these "assault weapon"? Yeah, tell that to people that survived (barely) the 1992 LA riot.

7x57
07-16-2009, 1:51 PM
Machine gun camp! FTW!


It's all about the experience, and it's what you take home with you that really matters. :thumbsup:

7x57

hoffmang
07-16-2009, 2:09 PM
I love the quotes from Gene, though- I just wish it were more clear that Gene isn't connected to some sort of "machine gun school" :eek:

I spend plenty of time making sure everyone is building legal semi-autos. When we're further down the legal trail, I look forward to getting some tax stamps however... Semi for now. Wallet busting later...

-Gene

nukechaser
07-16-2009, 2:43 PM
“If he wants to go up to the line, he assumes the risk he’s going to cross it,” Nowick said. “These guys think they’re being cutesy but they’re going to find themselves in a lot of trouble.”

So I guess that whole 65 MPH thing on the freeway means I should go nowhere near the limit, 'cuz it is too much of a risk of being crossed? Just how is staying within the law (laws that this guy helped write) going to get anyone in trouble?

Also, the "clearly legal—if barely" swipe shows the bias. Gee, officer, today is her 18th birthday, so yes, she's legal, if barely. (now THAT is being cutesy)

I'm grateful for the coverage, espcially from a locale such as SLO, but WOW, so many in the media just don't get it.

I'd give the author a C+ for descriptive accuracy (parts and what they are, laws, history, etc.) but a D in the unbiased journalism department. I guess it is exposure for the cause.

Well done, Gene!

Bowser
07-16-2009, 2:52 PM
Machine gun camp! FTW!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xtc1MG9bDrg&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xtc1MG9bDrg&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

No safety glasses! But at least they were wearing plugs!

Addax
07-16-2009, 3:02 PM
Great Work Gene, and CGF.

7x57
07-16-2009, 3:04 PM
I spend plenty of time making sure everyone is building legal semi-autos. When we're further down the legal trail, I look forward to getting some tax stamps however... Semi for now. Wallet busting later...


But at what point will you be tackling the far more important job of starting the summer camp for gunnie children?

Of course, I'm sure the dads will have to volunteer to "help." Dibs on assisting on the full-auto range....

7x57

Amacias805
07-16-2009, 3:11 PM
wow this article is very very very very very very very very slanted! so slanted its sideways! :turned:

bigcalidave
07-16-2009, 4:59 PM
Gene is being cutesy? Lol. Wow there are a lot of inaccuracies in that article and the guns and ammo one !

7x57
07-16-2009, 5:02 PM
Gene is being cutesy?

They probably meant Bill Weise and his fetching unitard. :p

7x57

sierratangofoxtrotunion
07-16-2009, 5:44 PM
OOO fresh sig material!

ColdDeadHands1
07-16-2009, 5:45 PM
Wow, cover story of New Times... Just so you know, New Times is the hippy, stoner free rag in SLO. Thus the "anti" point of view in the article.

M. Sage
07-16-2009, 5:52 PM
Article makes one total screwup point:



This could lead people to believe that rivets are counted 922(r) parts...

Oh, there are other issues than that (like the magazine capacity thing). But overall a decent article. The workings of CA's AW law are so screwed up I'd be shocked if any article got 'em right.

I loved Nowick's assertion that "home-built" AKs could blow up in your face.

Umm.. Mr. Nowick? The AK's bolt locks to the trunnion, which is attached firmly to the barrel. I'd be surprised if you needed the receiver to safely fire a round. The bolt group would go flying, though... (unless you used a Yugo with the "grenade" gas system cutoff.)

bwiese
07-16-2009, 6:28 PM
They probably meant Bill Weise and his fetching unitard. :p

Hey,.my unitard does not fetch.
That's below its dignity.

galekowitz
07-16-2009, 6:38 PM
SLO finaly gets some attention. Too bad they included a picture of the anit-aircraft gun the sheriffs confiscated in Arroyo Grande on the last page of the article. It looks like desperation on the New Times' part when they would add a photo of a weapon the sheriff's department cant even get ammo for to test fire.

7x57
07-16-2009, 6:42 PM
Hey,.my unitard does not fetch.
That's below its dignity.

Unitards have dignity? :eek:

7x57

trashman
07-16-2009, 6:48 PM
They probably meant Bill Weise and his fetching unitard. :p


Hmmm...and all this talk (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=202801) from Bill about an event on the USS Hornet....

"Is that you, USN Chief? Is this me?"

--Neill

PS but seriously, great news on the coverage guys!

KrizB
07-16-2009, 6:50 PM
The CGF needs to do a Christmas card with members wearing tacky sweaters, standing by a show car, and holding various OLL rifles.
:yes:

N6ATF
07-16-2009, 6:56 PM
BTW, gene, when the interview with this guy was done did you have to go outside and wipe his drool off? obviously written for the "thing that goes up" crowd!

I swear, that's the first time I read "thing that goes up" and thought male reproductive organ instead of barrel shroud. Removing "shoulder" made all the difference!

radioburning
07-16-2009, 8:59 PM
FUD, FUD, FUD.

FreedomIsNotFree
07-17-2009, 2:25 AM
Uh. no.

Yeah, you are right...the CA legislature was actually trying to help RKBA with SB2728. The fact that they were outwitted doesn't negate their intent.

FreedomIsNotFree
07-17-2009, 2:46 AM
Irwin has a bunch of other nonsense to say along with that. I don't buy into the scare tactic.

I read some of the thread you provided, the first 80 or so posts. I have to say I agree with most most folks...OLLs are legal weapons by definition. I don't see any grounds for anyone to consider a legally obtained and legally configured rifle a "public nuisance" and go through with a confiscation. I just don't see it happening this far along.

The issue is who makes the determination and what burden of proof is used. Granted, we are clearly "out of the woods", but when 2728 first dropped, there was less clarity on how things were to pan out. Heck, an overly hostile DA could still ruin your day with 2728.

IGOTDIRT4U
07-17-2009, 9:40 AM
Irwin Nowick is a senior consultant to the California Senate Rules Committee and someone who has been involved with making state gun laws for two decades.

He cautioned that Hoffman’s line-walking approach could get him in trouble.

“If he wants to go up to the line, he assumes the risk he’s going to cross it,” Nowick said. “These guys think they’re being cutesy but they’re going to find themselves in a lot of trouble.”


Really? And what exactly has the DOJ been doing? Nowick must know something the DOJ and CGF doesn't know, because I've never heard of him, nor this pending "they’re going to find themselves in a lot of trouble.”.

IGOTDIRT4U
07-17-2009, 9:43 AM
“When you make your own sweater, the likelihood of you dying is not so great,” he said. “When you fire one of these homemade things, they may well blow up on you.”

Idiot!

motorhead
07-17-2009, 10:21 AM
yeah, with the growth and popularity of the oll movement the hospital er's should be clogged to capacity with victims of builds gone horribly wrong, right?
as far as this being a "decent" article, i suppose. as hippie/lib trash journalism goes. much like the "decent" bowel movement i had this morning.
BTW- it is funnier when you leave out the "shoulder".

p.s.-let me know when mg camp jumps off, i'll be sending all the grandkids.

MasterYong
07-17-2009, 10:50 AM
“When you make your own sweater, the likelihood of you dying is not so great,” he said. “When you fire one of these homemade things, they may well blow up on you.”


He obviously isn't familiar with the whole Robin Williams bit about TSA and knitting needles. Apparently pens, pencils, and other sharp cylindrical but otherwise benign objects are OK, but knitting needles are prohibited because you could easily knit an Afghan mid-flight! :p

Knitting can kill, kids. In fact, if you knit, you are supporting terrorism. :rolleyes:

CSACANNONEER
07-17-2009, 11:19 AM
Quote:
The third thing a person would need is a bag of U.S.-made parts. In order to comply with U.S. import law, a certain number of parts on the gun have to be U.S.-made rather than imported. This can simply apply to rivets, the trigger system, and the receiver.

This could lead people to believe that rivets are counted 922(r) parts...

The statement is false period! There is no law stating that you need to have ANY US made parts! The law reads that you may only have 10 foreign made parts. Homebuilt handguns can be made entirely from foreign parts and don't have to comply with 922(r). A few other facts missing from this article: Homebuilt guns can be sold even if the builder does not have a FFL. They just can not be built to be sold! It's not illegal to own or use +10 round mags.

As far as build parties go, I plead the Shultz.......I know nooooothing, I see noooooothing....... Now that my wife is back, maybe I'll have a knitting party. Who wants a sweater?

7x57
07-17-2009, 11:31 AM
Now that my wife is back, maybe I'll have a knitting party. Who wants a sweater?

Um, wait...wife back? I missed a BP or two and now you're domesticated again? Crap. :chris:

Of course, if you're not happy about your current domestic arrangements, I am pretty sure that "have a build party weekend at your house" is one of the "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover" that Paul Simon didn't actually mention in the song. :43:

7x57

SJgunguy24
07-17-2009, 11:42 AM
I wonder if these are the same people who would protest,to "Question authority" and "challange the system". Of course those actions are all protected by the first amendment and they'll tell you about it.
Now if you want to the very same thing in the name of personal freedoms it's OK if you wanna get high, but a gun:eek:...............OH HELL NAW, those thing kill puppies:rolleyes:

bomb_on_bus
07-17-2009, 11:52 AM
LOL from reading this article WE the Calgunners must be the ones responsible for the North Hollywood shootout and every other gun related crime in California. Its not the fault of the rogue criminal or gang but the fault of all the law abiding citizens!

Thank you Patrick Howe for reminding me that being having freedom in the state of California is a CRIME!

In his mind taking all guns off the streets would end gang violence etc. I wonder how many people are bludgeoned, stabbed, beaten, hacked, burned, torn, smashed, etc by everyday household items.

So whats next after BIG EVIL guns are banned. Are they going to ban baseball bats? What about kitchen knives? Golf clubs? Tire irons? Glass bottles? These are all things that can be used to kill someone.

Oh wait heres an idea Why don't the judges actually enforce the LAW and prosecute the criminals to the full extent of the law? Instead of giving someone 15 years to life in prison for rape and murder, why not make the punishment fit the crime? It doesn't matter that a criminal uses a firearm or a club to kill or mame someone what SHOULD matter is the crime that was commited.

For all the movies that glorify "assault rifles" there are just as many movies that glorify knives or the like. For evey Arnald Macho Machinegun movie theres a Friday the 13th slasher. So would kitchen knives be banned because I need to know if my wife who is a chef needs to register her knives and all other cutlery she uses to do her job.

Im just glad that the movies and the liberal media have such an influence on state laws and legislature.

And before anyone says off-topic!

EDR
07-17-2009, 3:57 PM
But when it comes to assault weapons, a term many gun enthusiasts reject as vague and biased, the spirit of the original law was clearly to ban the sort of weapons that look like those from a Rambo movie: semi-automatics with pistol grips and detachable magazines, which can fire as fast as a person can pull the trigger.

Man, I wish I had one of them "assault weapons". My gun has a waiting period of ten days between each trigger pull.

technique
07-17-2009, 5:49 PM
The issue is who makes the determination and what burden of proof is used. Granted, we are clearly "out of the woods", but when 2728 first dropped, there was less clarity on how things were to pan out. Heck, an overly hostile DA could still ruin your day with 2728.

I believe you and agree on the statement in bold. All together my main squeeze AR is built up to a total of roughly $3,000. Thats a good chunk of change to loose, but less than a lawyer to defend myself and get it back. Its the risk we all run, its the risk we all knew about before we dove in. I feel though even if I did loose my rifle by not hiring a lawyer..I would still walk away with out facing any criminal charges or loosing my right to own firearms.

That to me is wrong.(to loose a rifle like that) But I am willing to do so. I am even willing to hire a lawyer just to be a Richard.;)

Again, I feel this is far fetched and the likelihood of it happening to myself or others is slim to none. You have to have been doing something else criminal for a DA to want to go through with all that. just my $0.02

jamesob
07-17-2009, 6:06 PM
a pistol grip will let you fire from the hip? really? i have fired from the hip with my mini14 but havn't tried it with an ar15.

hoffmang
07-17-2009, 6:30 PM
Again, I feel this is far fetched and the likelihood of it happening to myself or others is slim to none. You have to have been doing something else criminal for a DA to want to go through with all that. just my $0.02

If the situation is otherwise Kosher, CGF exists in part to keep you from losing said $3K rifle. Now I wouldn't put it past our lawyers to work out a deal where you 2728 the lower and get all the rest of the firearm back to just make it cheaper/easier.

I do know of at least one guy that had some minor side issues that negotiated return of his upper and optics in a 2728 situation. 2728 got him completely out of his other trouble too and he's really only out $350 for his lower, LPK, and nice stock.

-Gene

GaryV
07-17-2009, 6:34 PM
a pistol grip will let you fire from the hip? really? i have fired from the hip with my mini14 but havn't tried it with an ar15.

This is just part of the original FUD when they first started attacking "assault rifles", like the "barrel shroud" BS. When challenged on why a pistol grip is evil, not having a real answer (since there isn't one) some a__wipe came up with the "shoot from the hip" BS. It is apparently still the conventional wisdom among the anti crowd. After all, that's the way Rambo does it. Never mind that a pistol grip puts your wrist at a much worse angle when holding a rifle at waist level than a standard rifle stock does, or that firing from the hip is a pretty stupid and ineffective way of shooting in the first place, assuming you actually want to hit something.

7x57
07-17-2009, 6:49 PM
Never mind that a pistol grip puts your wrist at a much worse angle when holding a rifle at waist level than a standard rifle stock does

Finally, someone said it. If *I* said it, people would just assume it was because I like a conventional stock and don't care for pistol grips anyway.

7x57

GaryV
07-17-2009, 7:18 PM
Finally, someone said it. If *I* said it, people would just assume it was because I like a conventional stock and don't care for pistol grips anyway.

7x57

I don't mind pistol grips, but mostly just because I like the evil black rifle look. Generally they are an inferior design compared to conventional stocks. They reinforce bad shooting habits.

jjperl
07-17-2009, 7:50 PM
Pretty cool article. Hopefully that article will educate some of the unsympathetic gun dealers in CA.

tpf68
07-17-2009, 7:53 PM
If you follow the link from the op, there is a weekly poll in the top of the column on the left side asking if the state should "patch the loopholes" of the assault weapons ban. Only 25 votes have been cast as of yet, 72% responded no. Think we could help the cause any more?

artherd
07-17-2009, 9:46 PM
The issue is who makes the determination and what burden of proof is used. Granted, we are clearly "out of the woods", but when 2728 first dropped, there was less clarity on how things were to pan out. Heck, an overly hostile DA could still ruin your day with 2728.

There's a forrest beyond all those trees...

In reality we had 2728 already, with DA plea offers of droping gun charges in exchange for destruction of the property.

Now we have a clear statutory path to avoid the felony charges in the first place.

It is a much more emboldening position to be defending against an infraction than a felony!

FreedomIsNotFree
07-17-2009, 10:29 PM
There's a forrest beyond all those trees...

In reality we had 2728 already, with DA plea offers of droping gun charges in exchange for destruction of the property.

Now we have a clear statutory path to avoid the felony charges in the first place.

It is a much more emboldening position to be defending against an infraction than a felony!

There is nothing in 2728 that keeps a DA from seeking a felony conviction, merely an alternative path when they clearly can't gain a felony conviction. That is what worried me.

The real question is whether or not a DA would use 2728 in lieu of a felony charge when dealing with a firearm that is clearly illegal. I have yet to see that occur, but I'm not privy to the majority of cases where 2728 has been utilized.

To Bill's point, sure, simply giving up a $2000 rifle and paying the $300 fine is better than spending $10K-$20K defending yourself. It hasn't come to pass where DA's/LEO's have gone looking for OLL's, seeking to declare them nuisances. That's good.

Sorry to have taken this a bit off topic. Congrats to the entire CGF team!

hoffmang
07-18-2009, 9:48 AM
It hasn't come to pass where DA's/LEO's have gone looking for OLL's, seeking to declare them nuisances.

The most common thing we're seeing is that the LEO's have a confused debate with each other about whether configuration X is legal and sometimes toss their hands up and arrest. A hint for them on Fourth Amendment issues is that if you aren't sure its a crime, you probably don't have PC for an arrest but I digress. DA's quickly figure out there is no case and then the only hold up is the LEGR process due to slow processing times at DOJ.

-Gene

Roadrunner
07-18-2009, 10:25 AM
The most common thing we're seeing is that the LEO's have a confused debate with each other about whether configuration X is legal and sometimes toss their hands up and arrest. A hint for them on Fourth Amendment issues is that if you aren't sure its a crime, you probably don't have PC for an arrest but I digress. DA's quickly figure out there is no case and then the only hold up is the LEGR process due to slow processing times at DOJ.

-Gene

So, in the event "LEO's" choose not to err on the side of caution, would it be prudent to make a violation of civil rights complaint to the feds for making our lives miserable?

Swatter911
07-18-2009, 10:36 AM
Poll hit.

hoffmang
07-18-2009, 12:31 PM
So, in the event "LEO's" choose not to err on the side of caution, would it be prudent to make a violation of civil rights complaint to the feds for making our lives miserable?

Could be.... :43:

-Gene

sierratangofoxtrotunion
07-22-2009, 9:51 AM
Why would someone want to build their own AK-47 if they could buy one very similar through a gun dealer?

“It’s really no different than someone who wants to knit their own sweater,” Hoffman insists. After all, sweaters can be bought at the store. He notes that car guys also like to build their own cars from kits.

Nowick, though, scoffed when told about the “sweater” analogy.

“When you make your own sweater, the likelihood of you dying is not so great,” he said. “When you fire one of these homemade things, they may well blow up on you.”

I can't get over Irwin's statement on this.

Assembling a rifle - - - - - changing the oil on my car.

All. The. Time. You hear about some guy wrenching under his car and the jack slips and the car falls on him and crushes him.

If somebody's assembling a rifle, it's probably not their first rodeo, they probably know what they're doing, at least to the degree that the gun won't "blow up" on him. And Bill's right, Irwin's trying to conflate assembling a legitimate rifle, that's been done before, that however can successfully be done by peoples still fairly literally in the stone age, that has swathes of information in books and the internet and especially videos, with making a zip gun out of parts from the hardware store. It's inaccurate at best.

Liberty1
07-22-2009, 10:17 AM
So, in the event "LEO's" choose not to err on the side of caution, would it be prudent to make a violation of civil rights complaint to the feds for making our lives miserable?

Even if the decision is to not sue under 1983 for now, one should ALWAYs make a complaint to the department for ALL 4th A., and policy violations such as rudeness (have your encounter on tape and for example read pullnshoot25 's complaints on his blog). But first FOIA/PRA all data on the incident from the dept.

And feel free to make an FBI civil rights complaint too (those DO add up over time) even though you're likely to NOT perceive any action by them (most complaintants don't have much evidence whereas our people tend to have recordings;)).

bomb_on_bus
07-22-2009, 10:33 AM
IMO a sweater if used the right way can kill just as many people as a AK used in similar fashion:willy_nilly:

GuyW
07-22-2009, 1:17 PM
Doesn't this publicity mean that the anti-self defense nuts in the legislature could think they need a new remedial bill to outlaw OLLs?

.

Rascal
07-22-2009, 3:28 PM
Let them try, that will only help our side more.

Hunter4life1990
07-22-2009, 4:20 PM
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb274/OD1911/clipmag1.jpg


they said CLIP, get it right jack###

bwiese
07-22-2009, 5:41 PM
Doesn't this publicity mean that the anti-self defense nuts in the legislature could think they need a new remedial bill to outlaw OLLs?

The problem is they'd end up banning 'regular non-evil rifles'. Even CA legislators are smart enough not to try that - you can see what they were thinking even back in Roberti-Roos days.

They also don't understand the details of the laws and regulations. They may well be worried they may end up legalizing AWs if they screwed up things more - plus they already knew they went thru drama on AB2728. So they'd also have to screw around with a law they said would 'fix things'.

retired
07-22-2009, 6:00 PM
If you follow the link from the op, there is a weekly poll in the top of the column on the left side asking if the state should "patch the loopholes" of the assault weapons ban. Only 25 votes have been cast as of yet, 72% responded no. Think we could help the cause any more?

I just voted. It has gone down to 67% from 72%.

anthonyca
07-23-2009, 5:01 PM
So, in the event "LEO's" choose not to err on the side of caution, would it be prudent to make a violation of civil rights complaint to the feds for making our lives miserable?

This is no joke. More and more employers do background checks and an arrest with no conviction will show up on extensive checks. Police departments, 1934 SEC act, badging for the Fed Reserve building in SF, badging for the FDIC ect.

I see it at work more often then most would think. There is a way to get your arrest sealed if there were no charges filed but you would be amazed at what pops up and in that time you could be going through badging and loose your chance to ever gain clearance for the building.

KylaGWolf
07-23-2009, 6:48 PM
Just so you guys know - the weird parts of California gun law are actually called "Irwinisms."

Wouldn't that make almost all of California's laws Iriwinisms?

KylaGWolf
07-23-2009, 7:07 PM
He obviously isn't familiar with the whole Robin Williams bit about TSA and knitting needles. Apparently pens, pencils, and other sharp cylindrical but otherwise benign objects are OK, but knitting needles are prohibited because you could easily knit an Afghan mid-flight! :p

Knitting can kill, kids. In fact, if you knit, you are supporting terrorism. :rolleyes:

SSHHHHH they may hear you. And damn then I am definitely a terrorist. I am a gun owner AND a knitter. :rofl:

chico.cm
07-23-2009, 10:21 PM
What I found amusing is that the author, in referring to the North H'wood shooting, pointed out that the two BG's took drugs (phenobarbital) to calm their nerves for the fire fight.
I guess it scares the liberal media too much to think about it otherwise...?

tube_ee
07-24-2009, 1:30 PM
Wow, cover story of New Times... Just so you know, New Times is the hippy, stoner free rag in SLO. Thus the "anti" point of view in the article.

Most of the hippy stoners I know love guns. In fact, my #1 shootin' bro is a short fat dude with hair down to his waist, loves Tull, the Doobies, and the Dead, smokes like a freight train, and never saw a gun he didn't like.

Plus, one of the easiest places in the state to get a CCW is...

Eureka.

Watch them stereotypes...

I think it's much more the upper-middle class suburbanites (many of whom were hippies, lo, these many years ago) that are anti-gun. I haven't met anyone my age or younger (I'm 35) that is a virulent anti, unless there's a personal reason behind it.

--Shannon

Whiskey_Sauer
07-24-2009, 1:38 PM
“When you make your own sweater, the likelihood of you dying is not so great,” he said. “When you fire one of these homemade things, they may well blow up on you.”

LOL. Calguns is just replete with stories about OLLs mysteriously "blowing up" on us, isn't it?

7x57
07-24-2009, 1:44 PM
Most of the hippy stoners I know love guns.

Now if only we could get them to quit voting *against* them....

7x57

bwiese
07-24-2009, 1:45 PM
Now if only we could get them to quit voting *against* them....

7x57

Or getting busted with them!

7x57
07-24-2009, 1:48 PM
Or getting busted with them!

Yeah. Keep the "stoner" and the "gunnie" parts of your life well, well separated for optimal health.

Or figure out how to replace your chemical addition with a firearms one. Bill, do you think the media would portray us as sensitive, caring heroes if we started a charity to get people off of drugs with lots and lots of guns? :chris:

It would be "for the children...."

7x57

HondaMasterTech
07-24-2009, 8:52 PM
A poor grasp of reality causes most of the gun hatred.

GoodEyeSniper
07-24-2009, 9:36 PM
I think it's much more the upper-middle class suburbanites (many of whom were hippies, lo, these many years ago) that are anti-gun. I haven't met anyone my age or younger (I'm 35) that is a virulent anti, unless there's a personal reason behind it.

--Shannon

I don't know if I'd say virulent, but I know plenty of people around my age who can be pretty anti firearms. It's not like they have a vendetta or something, but there have been times when permits to carry have come up and they immediately get disgusted, and immediately vilify anyone who would choose to carry a weapon on them.

However, my age is Senior year in college age. And I find most people like this I've known can be at least dropped down to neutral with a few carefully placed comments; ie the number of people who use firearms in self defense, carry laws only benefit criminals, etc...