PDA

View Full Version : AWB strengthening.


dantodd
08-26-2009, 10:58 AM
Is there any portion of the Harrot decision that would prevent the legislature from removing the distinction between detachable and non-detachable magazines in 12276?

Essentially changing 12276.1(a)(1) from

A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:


to:

12276.1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

IGOTDIRT4U
08-26-2009, 11:09 AM
A few hundred thousands OLL's?

sorensen440
08-26-2009, 11:09 AM
not going to happen

bwiese
08-26-2009, 11:10 AM
Harrott really only deals with due process matters due to listing criteria, and the vagueness of 'series' - thus generally requiring make/model specificity. It really doesn't deal with AWs themselves other than that's the subject of discussion.

[My bet is that Harrott likely also carries over to the handgun Roster given the poor quality of entries, and confusion over what's Rostered vs what's not.]

In general, the Legislature can make any other patches to gun laws to change their effects.

The problem with the 'patch' you described is that it would create a whole fleet of new AWs 2X - 4X larger than the existing fleet of reg'd CA AWs - at least 300,000 and maybe many more. They would have to open a registration period since they can't seize them. The patch would also cover Garands, etc. It would also turn somewhere around 150K SKSes into AWs, so tons of folks would convert them into AK-style guns once they became AWs.

There is opposition, even now, in legislature to banning "sport" (i.e, "real wood") guns and this change would interplay with that concern.

Also this would require an expenditure for new reg period, advertising, etc. We know one of the faults/challengeable issues on CA AW laws is the lack of promulgation about distinction btwn "you must register your AW" vs. "what IS an AW?" - esp as features weren't defined in regulatory law until after 3/4 of the way thru the year 2000 registration period. Public announcment of AW registration &registration period was minimal even though it was legally codified that DOJ/AG *must* do an extensive 'education outreach' - and a few 30sec ads on the Midnight Mexican Midget Wrestling channel on UHF TV, plus a few pamphlets at gun shops, does not suffice for that requirement.

dantodd
08-26-2009, 11:14 AM
A few hundred thousands OLL's?

I understand this. but if the legislature made the change and didn't allow transfer then it would be no different than when the law first went into effect. There'd be a whole bunch of new registrations and then ARs and AKs would once again become unobtainium. Bill answered the question, nothing to prevent them from doing it and it would be completely legal until incorporation is settled. And even then it would have to be fought.

bwiese
08-26-2009, 11:18 AM
I understand this. but if the legislature made the change and didn't allow transfer then it would be no different than when the law first went into effect. There'd be a whole bunch of new registrations and then ARs and AKs would once again become unobtainium. Bill answered the question, nothing to prevent them from doing it and it would be completely legal until incorporation is settled. And even then it would have to be fought.

The leg isn't gonna do this. They've already done AB2728 to try to extricate themselves. The involved anti Powers that Be don't wanna embarass themselves further.

lioneaglegriffin
08-26-2009, 11:28 AM
Harrott really only deals with due process matters due to listing criteria, and the vagueness of 'series' - thus generally requiring make/model specificity. It really doesn't deal with AWs themselves other than that's the subject of discussion.

[My bet is that Harrott likely also carries over to the handgun Roster given the poor quality of entries, and confusion over what's Rostered vs what's not.]

In general, the Legislature can make any other patches to gun laws to change their effects.

The problem with the 'patch' you described is that it would create a whole fleet of new AWs 2X - 4X larger than the existing fleet of reg'd CA AWs - at least 300,000 and maybe many more. They would have to open a registration period since they can't seize them. The patch would also cover Garands, etc. It would also turn somewhere around 150K SKSes into AWs, so tons of folks would convert them into AK-style guns once they became AWs.

There is opposition, even now, in legislature to banning "sport" (i.e, "real wood") guns and this change would interplay with that concern.

Also this would require an expenditure for new reg period, advertising, etc. We know one of the faults/challengeable issues on CA AW laws is the lack of promulgation about distinction btwn "you must register your AW" vs. "what IS an AW?" - esp as features weren't defined in regulatory law until after 3/4 of the way thru the year 2000 registration period. Public announcment of AW registration &registration period was minimal even though it was legally codified that DOJ/AG *must* do an extensive 'education outreach' - and a few 30sec ads on the Midnight Mexican Midget Wrestling channel on UHF TV, plus a few pamphlets at gun shops, does not suffice for that requirement.

that actually sounds cool (put the torches away)

my M1A becomes a RAW then i can put the EBR stock on it, then when the NRA, CGF take them to court and win i get a RAW, you get a RAW, EVERYBODY gets a RAW! then all the other poor schmucks who get a semi-auto after the temporary loss of rights only get a "normal rifle.

the ultimate downside besides the temporary loss of rights is the registration, and know how you guys don't like registration.

Edit:whoops forgot SAF

IGOTDIRT4U
08-26-2009, 11:37 AM
I understand this. but if the legislature made the change and didn't allow transfer then it would be no different than when the law first went into effect. There'd be a whole bunch of new registrations and then ARs and AKs would once again become unobtainium. Bill answered the question, nothing to prevent them from doing it and it would be completely legal until incorporation is settled. And even then it would have to be fought.

My answer was the short answer version of Bill's.

This has been discussed before. A ban can be legally started anytime by a simple twist of the existing code. But the downside for CA legislature is that if they wanted to do that, it should have been before 2005. Now the cat is out of the bag. CGN's did their work and forced along an issue that has now resulted in several hundred thousand OLL's and potentially other AW's. Kudos to those that took the initatiative and started the importation of OLL's. If only shall issue CCW was that easy. (and OLL was not that easy)

Plus, it may not even be expeditious considering the cases that are now moving to the SCOTUS. If (more like 'when') Heller gets incorporated to the states, the challenges to unreasonable legislation and existing codes in CA will be like a landslide.

SJgunguy24
08-26-2009, 11:53 AM
I'm getting tired of all this crap. The mass media fed slack jawed Johnny Dogooder isn't gonna wake up untill they have to register their T.V. remote control, or their favorite soda pop is banned. Control is control, peroid.

Gun ownership is about personal freedom, security, and ensuring the survival of my family.(at least on my watch) To control that I.M.O. goes against everything American.

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-26-2009, 11:57 AM
I'm getting tired of all this crap. The mass media fed slack jawed Johnny Dogooder isn't gonna wake up untill they have to register their T.V. remote control, or their favorite soda pop is banned. Control is control, peroid.

Gun ownership is about personal freedom, security, and ensuring the survival of my family.(at least on my watch) To control that I.M.O. goes against everything American.

Sadly there are not enough Americans living in America.

lioneaglegriffin
08-26-2009, 12:00 PM
Sadly there are not enough Americans living in America.

melting pot remember?

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-26-2009, 12:04 PM
melting pot remember?

Nothing wrong with being diverse as long as the number is the same. There are many ways to get to seven, such as a five and a two, or a six and a one, just as there are many ways to have a freedom loving republic. The consortium and backgrounds of the population is not what is important, but the binding threads of principles that are supposed to be upheld. Diversity is not the enemy, apathy is.

CalNRA
08-26-2009, 12:06 PM
I can't imagine any member of the legislature wanting to be "that guy who increased evil AW in CA by 2 million", counting all the OLLs, all the M1As, all the Garands, all the SKSs, heck all those Ruger Mini 14, etc.

lioneaglegriffin
08-26-2009, 12:15 PM
ammo restrictions seem to be the flavor of the month these days anyway

soopafly
08-26-2009, 3:10 PM
melting pot remember?
Nice...thank you for the insight on how you really feel about people like myself.


Diversity is not the enemy, apathy is.QFT...Thank you, good doctor.

bsim
08-26-2009, 3:38 PM
(sigh)

fuegoslow
08-26-2009, 4:00 PM
melting pot remember?
uh... how bout salad bowl? :patriot:

lioneaglegriffin
08-26-2009, 4:09 PM
Nice...thank you for the insight on how you really feel about people like myself.
.

what are you? :confused:

CAL.BAR
08-26-2009, 4:23 PM
Legally, there is NOTHING stopping the legislature from doing just that. The fact that there a few hundred thousand more OLL's out there is no more important than the few hundred thousand AW's in existence in 1988. You may have given Deleon the idea (maybe he just hasn't thought of it yet. God know he proposes every other sort of ban on a yearly basis.

Frankly we have the budget mess more than anything else to thank for non economic bills like gun bans from being voted on. I believe that after the stupid microstamping bill, the democrats could push through just about anything in the way of a ban. (Let's face it, there isn't much popular support for "evil assault style weapons" out there in the general public. (You know the vast number of Californians who don't have guns and generally don't want us to have them either)

7x57
08-26-2009, 4:27 PM
....a few 30sec ads on the Midnight Mexican Midget Wrestling channel on UHF TV....

There's a Midnight Mexican Midget Wrestling channel? :eek: How come I miss all the good TV? :D

7x57

IGOTDIRT4U
08-26-2009, 4:50 PM
Legally, there is NOTHING stopping the legislature from doing just that. The fact that there a few hundred thousand more OLL's out there is no more important than the few hundred thousand AW's in existence in 1988. You may have given Deleon the idea (maybe he just hasn't thought of it yet. God know he proposes every other sort of ban on a yearly basis.

Frankly we have the budget mess more than anything else to thank for non economic bills like gun bans from being voted on. I believe that after the stupid microstamping bill, the democrats could push through just about anything in the way of a ban. (Let's face it, there isn't much popular support for "evil assault style weapons" out there in the general public. (You know the vast number of Californians who don't have guns and generally don't want us to have them either)

I think you are missing or leaving out the whole history of the OLL movement and it's effects through the DOJ (Allison and her frat boys). To say a few hundred thousand is no more important belies the reality of what has happened. And as to what makes it unlikely to change.

I do agree that budget concerns keeps the legislature at bay, currently. But, as you pointout, they can slip into their usual silly bad habits at the drop of a hat.

soopafly
08-26-2009, 7:21 PM
Is there any portion of the Harrot decision that would prevent the legislature from removing the distinction between detachable and non-detachable magazines in 12276?

Essentially changing 12276.1(a)(1) from

A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:


to:

12276.1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
The above scenario is not likely to happen because it would create a regulatory nightmare.




what are you? :confused:
As observed by one of my female friends, I'm:



half poet...



...half gunslinger...



...100% McLovin'

haiedras
08-26-2009, 7:42 PM
That's what I was thinking...all these late nights with my newborn son and all I watch is NCIS re-runs and GGW ads... Midget Lucha Libre would be So much better! :p

There's a Midnight Mexican Midget Wrestling channel? :eek: How come I miss all the good TV? :D

7x57

lioneaglegriffin
08-26-2009, 8:08 PM
As observed by one of my female friends, I'm:



half poet...



...half gunslinger...



...100% McLovin'

and how do i feel about poets again?

anthonyca
08-27-2009, 7:48 PM
Sadly there are not enough Americans living in America.

Some of us are even ridiculed for being an American. I am told that this is not the 1700s or the wild west often.

If they only understood what CGF was accomplishing.:D One day I may be able to ride my motorcycle down the road with an AR attached to the bike and a 1911 in my holster.

artherd
08-28-2009, 1:47 AM
Yes. This will criminalize the M1a and the Garand.

They lack the pull to do so, and they know it.

In this case, Harrot does not protect us. Political reality protects us.


Is there any portion of the Harrot decision that would prevent the legislature from removing the distinction between detachable and non-detachable magazines in 12276?

Essentially changing 12276.1(a)(1) from

A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:


to:

12276.1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

Librarian
08-28-2009, 11:37 AM
Yes. This will criminalize the M1a and the Garand.

They lack the pull to do so, and they know it.

In this case, Harrot does not protect us. Political reality protects us.

Even in 1989, they didn't think they could ban those:
* It was agreed that certain weapons probably had too large constituency to ever be worth the risk of including, i.e., Ruger Mini 14, MI Carbine, MI Garand, etc.

See History of Assault Weapon Laws (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/History_of_%27Assault_Weapon%27_laws) and follow "Helsley's memoire ".

dantodd
08-28-2009, 1:31 PM
Just as they did with pistols they could exclude specific models.