PDA

View Full Version : I saw three STAG Cat3-AW today..... *so sad*


Jicko
04-02-2006, 7:42 PM
I was out shooting at Jacumba/BLM designated shooting area(near the Mex border) today, and I saw a couple of young guys out there shooting their black rifles.....

I wandered over, wanting to check out if they have anything cool....

What I ended up seeing is 3 STAGs, with open mag well, pistol grips, phantom Flash Hiders, telescoping buttstocks etc...

*sign*

I didn't discuss with them any further, I just turn my back and leave....

Guys... please... understand and respect the law... and don't break it... it is not worth it...

EBWhite
04-02-2006, 7:45 PM
Well, they made a choice, if they get caught it will be their own fault. In reality, they are doing nothing wrong but to CA BS laws, they are...So if you want to risk it, go ahead, however, doing it on public property is a very stupid idea.

Sharnhorst
04-02-2006, 7:46 PM
Idiots...............:confused:

Jicko
04-02-2006, 7:48 PM
At 1 point, I thought they are shooting their registered AWs.... and they do look quite young for those.... and their rifles look too new..... then I saw the "deer head"....

That's it... I don't want to stand there for another minute more...

sactoshooter
04-02-2006, 7:50 PM
Do you think that this is not going to happen ? ? ? Not to play devils advocate here but isnt people not following the rules get AW banned in the first place. Howcome you walked away and didnt explain the legalities of their situation ? I mean i have purchased 7 lowers through 3 different ffls and only 1 of them talked about the legalities of owning/building such a rifle. If I was not a member of this site I would have done the same thing....

blacklisted
04-02-2006, 7:52 PM
Guys, we may be familiar with the law, but I suspect there are hundreds, if not thousands out there that think they can build these any way they want.

EBWhite
04-02-2006, 7:53 PM
Most likely the guys would have brushed it off since they don't care. Most gun owners do bend laws at times since the laws are rediculous, however, smart ones do it in private....These are obviously the stupid ones.

ohsmily
04-02-2006, 7:57 PM
I was out in Imperial Co. this weekend at a steel match shoot and there was a guy there who was sighting in his su-16ca into a berm a little further over. he had a flash suppressor on it and I told him it was a nice rifle but that it wasn't CA compliant. He said he knew it wasn't but didn't care. He was older and I guess figured if he ever got caught, he wouldn't get nailed too hard...but, he knew what was he doing, he made a choice.

Prospector
04-02-2006, 7:59 PM
:eek: I'd stay away from those people. Don't want to be around when the law comes by them.

chickenfried
04-02-2006, 8:17 PM
:confused: :confused:
Not to play devils advocate here but isnt people not following the rules get AW banned in the first place.

Mssr. Eleganté
04-02-2006, 8:35 PM
Not to play devils advocate here but isnt people not following the rules get AW banned in the first place.

If by "people" you mean California legislators and by "rules" you mean the Bill of Rights then yes, people not following the rules is what got AW's banned in the first place.

6172crew
04-02-2006, 8:36 PM
If the AG would have listed in that first 2 weeks the only guys who knew and bought would have reg'd them. This is the AGs fault, the longer they wait the more folks who dont care to read the laws will own a lower.:cool:

AG is a dumb@ss

MaceWindu
04-02-2006, 9:18 PM
I wandered over, wanting to check out if they have anything cool....

Just leave them alone...what they have, what they do, and the consequences they might suffer: DON'T CONCERN YOU.

I mean i have purchased 7 lowers through 3 different ffls and only 1 of them talked about the legalities of owning/building such a rifle.

FFL's are NOT LEO's and do not have an obligation to do so.

smart ones do it in private....

AAAAHHHhhhh...

Mace

Charliegone
04-02-2006, 9:50 PM
You know the thing is though...there really hasn't been an increase of criminal activities involving an "assault weapon."...:rolleyes:

blacklisted
04-02-2006, 9:59 PM
Also, a lot of airsofters are buying these. I don't know what that means, but it's true :D

sactoshooter
04-02-2006, 10:26 PM
I agree with this completely... all i know is the longer this goes on the worse it is going to get... However i do take the position of let whomever do whatever they want as long as it isnt affecting my person... In this case though the more people not following the rules the less chance the ag will allow any evil features...


If the AG would have listed in that first 2 weeks the only guys who knew and bought would have reg'd them. This is the AGs fault, the longer they wait the more folks who dont care to read the laws will own a lower.:cool:

AG is a dumb@ss

grammaton76
04-02-2006, 10:28 PM
Also, a lot of airsofters are buying these. I don't know what that means, but it's true :D

What it means is that the high-end airsofters have had AEG's which accept standard accessories for a while now. Airsoft Extreme, right down the street from me, carries some nice stocks and quad rails.

Airsofters with nice gear tend to own plenty of accessories for AR's already, which means they can have very nicely decked-out real AR's in short order. That's the draw as I understand it.

Also, not that it would make any difference, but I'm halfway of the opinion that someone should come up with a "Your AR is a felony ticket as it stands - here's how to be legal" flier to hand to folks. On the other hand, I don't think it would make much of a difference, most of them KNOW what they're doing and are just too lazy to buy a compliance kit.

50BMGBOB
04-02-2006, 10:58 PM
With the number of people I know that didn't register them the first time the odds are even if twice that % register this time there will be a lot that don't. I don't like the rules but I'm not ready to go to jail yet. I'll register them and continue to fight to get the law changed.

troyPhD
04-02-2006, 11:28 PM
If the AG would have listed in that first 2 weeks the only guys who knew and bought would have reg'd them. This is the AGs fault, the longer they wait the more folks who dont care to read the laws will own a lower.:cool:

AG is a dumb@ss

I concur. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but the DOJ's logic is completely twisted. The whole point of the Kasler list is to not even give people the option of breaking the law because they can't legally purchase a receiver in the first place. The DOJ lost half the battle already in this regard. Maybe the kids in question here wouldn't have had lowers at all had they decided to acted sooner. The situation could have very well involved only a relatively small number of lowers (maybe 200-300). It's a week's worth of research and a flick of a pen to have stopped virtually all sales of lowers. But no, they'd rather stall and look for options to get their way, 100% all the way through.

There must be some big egos at the DOJ.

Jarhead4
04-02-2006, 11:32 PM
Just think what our founding fathers were thinking when they were told to turn in their arms to the British. Not only were they considered criminals, but traitors because they did not turn in their arms. Sometimes if the law is wrong you need to beak it. Just like Rosa Parks.

colin1
04-02-2006, 11:33 PM
You would be surprised to know how many people have AW's and dont even know it, or the laws about it. At my range we have people all the time who come with ARs or AKs with no paperwork, and have no idea that they have a felony on their hands. I addition we have people with firearms that normally wouldn't fall under the catagory but add "evil features" that puts them in the AW catagory. For example I was shooting at a local range and a guy sat next to me and pulled out a SKS with an AR style pistol grip and a 30 round detachable magazine. I explained to him that he had a AW, and he was shocked, needless to say he got out of their in a hurry. I think that some people just dont care about the laws and are going to do what ever they want to, and if they get pinched for it thats their problem. But some people are just unaware and I think that the more information we put out there to inform people the better. Some of you have said that whatever people do is their business and if they get caught its their fault, is long as they dont envolve other people. But thats just the thing the more people who do this the worst off our cause is, were already in a fight lets not give anymore ammo to "them".

50BMGBOB
04-03-2006, 1:21 AM
A friend on another form made a point. If gun owners ralleied like the illegals are know. Even if we where unarmed they would call it an armed revolution. I don't encourage anyone to break the law. We still have many legal ways to fight before that would be nessiary.

colossians323
04-03-2006, 5:27 AM
With the number of people I know that didn't register them the first time the odds are even if twice that % register this time there will be a lot that don't. I don't like the rules but I'm not ready to go to jail yet. I'll register them and continue to fight to get the law changed.

I think a lot more people are open to registering this time, seeing that the weapons did not get confiscated in the last 5-6 years, and that the ones who are doing illlegal configs, don't know, or just don't care.
When they open up reg, I think the percentages will be turned around from last time.
It was estimated only about 5-7% of evil weapon holders registered last time.
This time I think it will be about 5-7% that don't.

Just think what our founding fathers were thinking when they were told to turn in their arms to the British. Not only were they considered criminals, but traitors because they did not turn in their arms. Sometimes if the law is wrong you need to beak it. Just like Rosa Parks.


Yes true, but who is bold enough to organize the revolution?
It is the me generation, and (sigh) impossible to get people on the same page.

PIRATE14
04-03-2006, 6:03 AM
REGISTRATION.........there a probably 50-60K registered weapons in CALi and over 150 that arent..........

Out of this 30, 000 or so do u think everyone will register them.........prob not.

antarius
04-03-2006, 6:12 AM
REGISTRATION.........there a probably 50-60K registered weapons in CALi and over 150 that arent..........

Out of this 30, 000 or so do u think everyone will register them.........prob not.
Probably not, but I will.

It'd be in our best interest to register the weapons. It's hard to fight a legal fight when you aren't willing to obey the legalities of the law in the first place.

Play their game, and play it better than them. Don't go out there and cheat though.

There's a time and a place to disobey authority. In my opinion, this is not the time nor place.

Clodbuster
04-03-2006, 9:11 AM
Yeah...let's blame the DOJ for this...:confused:

These individuals are adults who have decided to commit a felony, and I seriously doubt if they found out they can buy unlisted lowers and do not know that it's illegal to assemble them in that fashion.

Of course when they are caught, they will claim stupidity, blame the DOJ. If they get caught in a crime, they'll blame it on the evil black gun. Lack of personal responsibilty for one's actions is why we have the AW ban. Blame has to be put somewhere, and unlike stupid people or the DOJ, evil black guns don't speak back.

Clod

I concur. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but the DOJ's logic is completely twisted. The whole point of the Kasler list is to not even give people the option of breaking the law because they can't legally purchase a receiver in the first place. The DOJ lost half the battle already in this regard. Maybe the kids in question here wouldn't have had lowers at all had they decided to acted sooner. The situation could have very well involved only a relatively small number of lowers (maybe 200-300). It's a week's worth of research and a flick of a pen to have stopped virtually all sales of lowers. But no, they'd rather stall and look for options to get their way, 100% all the way through.

There must be some big egos at the DOJ.

Super_tactical
04-03-2006, 9:23 AM
Don't be calling these people idiots. Who's to say you're not the idiot for following idiotic/unconstitutional laws? Maybe they're the smart ones.....

Chew on that before you go name calling.

I get really pissed off when I see gun lovers calling those who are willing to take a stand and risking prison. These people most likely care more about the preservation of our constitution than their own lives. If no one registered their "AWs" in 2000, more people bought, and everyone used them publically....this AW ban may never have stood.

ohsmily
04-03-2006, 9:54 AM
Don't be calling these people idiots. Who's to say you're not the idiot for following idiotic/unconstitutional laws? Maybe they're the smart ones.....

Chew on that before you go name calling.

I get really pissed off when I see gun lovers calling those who are willing to take a stand and risking prison. These people most likely care more about the preservation of our constitution than their own lives. If no one registered their "AWs" in 2000, more people bought, and everyone used them publically....this AW ban may never have stood.

What nonsense...the people who are in violation are NOT making a statement or standing against the law. If that were the case, they would be open and obvious about it to make known their political statement. These people are either ignorant about the law, or just want a "cooler" more convenient rifle and are just banking on the hope that they don't get caught. These are the more severe equivalent of people who speed on the freeway, they aren't making a statement against speeding laws, they just want to speed for convenience or whatever other reason. BUT, speeding is only an infraction and if you get caught, you don't get a felony and ruin it for other gun owners.

So, don't get all "holier than thou" and preachy about how these people are standing against the "unconstitutional" law. They aren't. They are just speeding (with a heavy penalty waiting for them if they get "pulled over").

Clodbuster
04-03-2006, 9:55 AM
You obviously have a differeing opinion of these individuals than I do. I was not there, so I can only go by description. And my image is of a bunch of young firearms "enthusiasts" who decided to go mag-slapping happy to live their Resident Evil or CounterStrike fantasies. If you see them as freedom fighters, that's your call.


Clod

Don't be calling these people idiots. Who's to say you're not the idiot for following idiotic/unconstitutional laws? Maybe they're the smart ones.....

Chew on that before you go name calling.

I get really pissed off when I see gun lovers calling those who are willing to take a stand and risking prison. These people most likely care more about the preservation of our constitution than their own lives. If no one registered their "AWs" in 2000, more people bought, and everyone used them publically....this AW ban may never have stood.

Blue
04-03-2006, 10:06 AM
I've got no problem registering if they open it up. I wasn't old enough to buy an AR before the ban, and if registration is what it takes to get the real deal the second time around, I'm all for it. I don't care if the gov't knows I own an AW. They already know you're buying guns every time you do a DROS. And every pistol you buy is registered anyways.

CALI-gula
04-03-2006, 10:08 AM
I have, in more than a few posts (to the "pshaw" of some) cited this very problem as the reason the DOJ would list, and list in a manner that will allow "evil" features as opposed to a 4th category of registering but no "evil" features.

No matter how you look at it, or by what quantity people have bought per person, there are now 30,000 lowers and counting in CA. I have estimated it will average 10,000 per month and maybe more as word of mouth spreads to the complacent or those out-of-the-loop on CA gun laws. Awesome!

However, those in the first 3 months of the lower craze were likely to be well-informed gun owners, examining every detail here of the FAQ, hammering out their doubtful posts until all theories were exhausted, THEN purchasing a lower.

Yet, the pimply 19 year old that goes one afternoon to the gun show, having never owned so much as a Ruger 10/22, but maybe has a couple of Soft-Air toys, is now falling in line to buy an "M-16" as he might romanticize in the terminology (yes, I heard this stated just as noted, at the Glendale gun show - it was not said for the purpose of humor or irony). He then goes home after his 10 day wait and IMMEDIATELY builds it into pre-SB23 configuration, without regard, to emulate the latest thing he saw in Guns & Ammo. Goes to the range the next day. Shows off. Gets busted.

The DOJ is fully aware these are standard open-mag-well lowers. No matter what new category they create (even if they could) or newly designed legislature Bill Lockyer implores from the state Assembly and Senate, there is still the great odds that people WILL build them into standard AW configuration AND handle them loosely, by a manner in which a violent criminal could get a hold of them. This is the fear of an Anti-2nd Amendment agenda as well as the Anti-2nd Amendment Hate Groups.

But in the very least, Roberti-Roos and SB23 was also designed to get people to handle their AW rifles with a special regard, so they did NOT easily get into the hands of thieves or those not allowed to own guns. You lock them up different, you keep a closer watch on them at the range, you can't simply sell them off to anyone, others can't inherit them, etc., so you protect them better. So those with, still have, and those without, don't have, and the prevention of those items getting into the wrong hands is encouraged just by making these "special" to the very people that own them becasue you might not ever get the chance to get another one. ( Heh heh heh heh. Oh really? I just bought a few MORE various lowers! )

This whole thing with the legal-lowers is the BEST protest against Roberti-Roos and SB23 as anyone could have ever devised. It is a GREAT example of protesting the law by following the law, and wonderful placement of Civil-Disobedience, but with the safety net of not actually breaking any laws, as these lowers are NOT listed, and by the fixed-mag build most of us have noted.

Yet, a few guys like this are going to screw it up, but they may be needed to get the point across to the DOJ. I can't say I will be as bold, but their choice (or mistake) encourages the DOJ to act. The threat of thousands of unregistered AW guns existing in the state unregistered already scares the Anti-2nd Amendment legislatures and the DOJ, but to know that number is GROWING likely presents them with a perplexing problem. If those building these lowers into full AW configurations are willing to sacrifice themselves AND know the law, then they are brave souls, and I bet there are many of them. I have heard a few people, many that know better, state they would build their new lowers into AW configurations anyway, before any listing occurs. I guess I am not as brave in that respect.

The numbers entering the state will soon be too great for the DOJ to keep in check, the very reason they will wish to list these latest lowers, and likely as AW "Category 2" because the differentiation between what can and can't be an AW would be too great to determine, especially for an officer in the field that may not know all of the various brands and names on the list, banned or otherwise. A Category 4 would only create confusion. Officers in the field, and some that may not even have an interest in firearms NEED a well-defined distinction between what is an AW weapon and what is not; it is already a ridiculous task. With the national ban dead, there will be MANY new companies getting into the manufacture of lowers. It's one of America's favorite guns! So many brands, so much to check when in the field. If the AW laws in CA were already not muddy enough, the 30,000 (and counting) new lowers coming into California has turned the laws into a viscous, rotten slush. It further aggrevates the question to an officer presented with a situation, "is this or is this not an AW?" as he scratches his head because he doesn't have a library in the trunk of his patrol car.

.

PanzerAce
04-03-2006, 10:36 AM
Ok, now that I have read the article, I agree with Cali, the original people know what they can and cannot do, but the longer the DOJ waits to list, the more likely it is that it blows up in their face.

tenpercentfirearms
04-03-2006, 11:07 AM
A very nice post. Well thought out. Now when are they going to act already??? My new guess is after .50 BMG registration is over. They only have so many resources.

ohsmily
04-03-2006, 11:13 AM
A very nice post. Well thought out. Now when are they going to act already??? My new guess is after .50 BMG registration is over. They only have so many resources.

That idea about limited resources sounds good but for the fact that on ly one office staff member is handling the 50BMG registrations, not an entire work force of people.

DigglerD
04-03-2006, 11:21 AM
Don't be calling these people idiots. Who's to say you're not the idiot for following idiotic/unconstitutional laws? Maybe they're the smart ones.....

Chew on that before you go name calling.

I get really pissed off when I see gun lovers calling those who are willing to take a stand and risking prison. These people most likely care more about the preservation of our constitution than their own lives. If no one registered their "AWs" in 2000, more people bought, and everyone used them publically....this AW ban may never have stood.

Smart ones? By going to jail? ...so they could drop a magazine?

Bottom line is this. Breaking the law is not invalidation of the law. In fact the government is far less likely to listen to lawbreakers then they are law-abiding citizens. If it's taking a stand, there needs to be some legitimizing element to the message. You don't change a law by being an outlaw...
This whole thing with the legal-lowers is the BEST protest against Roberti-Roos and SB23 as anyone could have ever devised. It is a GREAT example of protesting the law by following the law, and wonderful placement of Civil-Disobedience, but with the safety net of not actually breaking any laws, as these lowers are NOT listed, and by the fixed-mag build most of us have noted.
TONS of good stuff here (I hate to truncate it).

This is an example of legitimate protest. If the government actually cared to do what they are supposed to (represent our interests), they would see that many law-abiding citizens are exploiting a loop-hole in the law and saying "look we don't want to break the law but what you are doing is wrong and I'm happy your law was poorly crafted enough to let me get one more so F you, I'm buying 20"

xenophobe
04-03-2006, 11:24 AM
The numbers entering the state will soon be too great for the DOJ to keep in check, the very reason they will wish to list these latest lowers, and likely as AW "Category 2" because the differentiation between what can and can't be an AW would be too great to determine, especially for an officer in the field that may not know all of the various brands and names on the list, banned or otherwise. A Category 4 would only create confusion. Officers in the field, and some that may not even have an interest in firearms NEED a well-defined distinction between what is an AW weapon and what is not; it is already a ridiculous task.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, but I think you completely pinned the tail on the proverbial donkey's *** with this one.

Category 4 will never survive litigation. Harrott struck down "series" wording... imagine the DOJ trying to have law enforcement officially police multiple "categories".

chickenfried
04-03-2006, 11:25 AM
Myself, I tend to avoid breaking laws that may involve booty time. But what others do is none of my business. I won't get worked up over whether others follow the law or not.

DrjonesUSA
04-03-2006, 12:09 PM
Just think what our founding fathers were thinking when they were told to turn in their arms to the British. Not only were they considered criminals, but traitors because they did not turn in their arms. Sometimes if the law is wrong you need to beak it. Just like Rosa Parks.



Wow.

The first post in this thread that's worth anything. :)

DrjonesUSA
04-03-2006, 12:16 PM
The DOJ is fully aware these are standard open-mag-well lowers. No matter what new category they create (even if they could) or newly designed legislature Bill Lockyer implores from the state Assembly and Senate, there is still the great odds that people WILL build them into standard AW configuration AND handle them loosely, by a manner in which a violent criminal could get a hold of them. This is the fear of an Anti-2nd Amendment agenda as well as the Anti-2nd Amendment Hate Groups.

But in the very least, Roberti-Roos and SB23 was also designed to get people to handle their AW rifles with a special regard, so they did NOT easily get into the hands of thieves or those not allowed to own guns. You lock them up different, you keep a closer watch on them at the range, you can't simply sell them off to anyone, others can't inherit them, etc., so you protect them better. So those with, still have, and those without, don't have, and the prevention of those items getting into the wrong hands is encouraged just by making these "special" to the very people that own them becasue you might not ever get the chance to get another one. ( Heh heh heh heh. Oh really? I just bought a few MORE various lowers! )



Pretty good post overall, however I take great issue with the two paragraphs above, in which you make it sound as if gun-control groups or the state are in any way concerned with the safety or well-being of the public.

The sole purpose of all gun control laws, especially "assault weapon" laws, is to disarm law-abiding American citizens, period, end of story.

Criminals pretty much NEVER actually use AR-15s and similar weapons in crimes and everyone (especially the anti-gunners) know this full well.

Hell, even if every single thug on the street walked around with an AR, I still would never support a law restricting them in any way, because such laws by definition apply only to myself and other law-abiding citizens.

Criminals will do what they want.

DrjonesUSA
04-03-2006, 12:19 PM
I was out shooting at Jacumba/BLM designated shooting area(near the Mex border) today, and I saw a couple of young guys out there shooting their black rifles.....

I wandered over, wanting to check out if they have anything cool....

What I ended up seeing is 3 STAGs, with open mag well, pistol grips, phantom Flash Hiders, telescoping buttstocks etc...

*sign*

I didn't discuss with them any further, I just turn my back and leave....

Guys... please... understand and respect the law... and don't break it... it is not worth it...



1) Maybe they truly, simply are not aware of the law.

2) Why didn't you politely inform them that their rifles are currently configured in an illegal fashion, and that it could very well land them in some legal trouble?

Why didn't you take the time to educate them, if you are so concerned?

RedBluff
04-03-2006, 12:43 PM
I think a lot more people are open to registering this time, seeing that the weapons did not get confiscated in the last 5-6 years, and that the ones who are doing illlegal configs, don't know, or just don't care.
When they open up reg, I think the percentages will be turned around from last time.
It was estimated only about 5-7% of evil weapon holders registered last time.
This time I think it will be about 5-7% that don't.



Yes true, but who is bold enough to organize the revolution?
It is the me generation, and (sigh) impossible to get people on the same page.

I bet somebody said the same thing in Yugoslavia about 15 years too.
Never under estimate and always be prepared for the worse.

xenophobe
04-03-2006, 12:57 PM
Get a surplus Miltary Police badge, put it in a badge wallet, and proudly proclaim "NICE RIFLE!" and flash them your badge.

See how quickly they run.

I guess you could get in trouble for impersonating an officer, but the look on their faces would be priceless.

50 Freak
04-03-2006, 1:12 PM
Get a surplus Miltary Police badge, put it in a badge wallet, and proudly proclaim "NICE RIFLE!" and flash them your badge.

See how quickly they run.

I guess you could get in trouble for impersonating an officer, but the look on their faces would be priceless.

Good way of getting shot:mad: :mad:

bwiese
04-03-2006, 1:30 PM
1) Maybe they truly, simply are not aware of the law.

2) Why didn't you politely inform them that their rifles are currently configured in an illegal fashion, and that it could very well land them in some legal trouble?

Why didn't you take the time to educate them, if you are so concerned?

I've tried this quite a few times. I've been polite, and they've been polite.

It's like talking to a wall.

Also, I believe these folks could tell I know what I'm talking about - some thought I was a friendly cop giving them a heads-up. (I tried not to take it as an insult.)

I warned them about the difference between 12280(b) unreg'd AW charges and the much more serious 12280(a) illegal transport of (unreg'd) AW charges.

Warned them several times of the consequences- mentioned "felony", "loss of gun rights", etc. - and then they just nod and turn around and continue shooting - even when I've offered a screwdriver to help fix a fixable legal issue (SKS w/added detachable mag, the guy still had the orig stock mag with him).

Some people are just too stupid to breathe but too dumb to die.

DigglerD
04-03-2006, 1:37 PM
I've tried this quite a few times. I've been polite, and they've been polite.

It's like talking to a wall.

Also, I believe these folks could tell I know what I'm talking about - some thought I was a friendly cop giving them a heads-up. (I tried not to take it as an insult.)

I warned them about the difference between 12280(b) unreg'd AW charges and the much more serious 12280(a) illegal transport of (unreg'd) AW charges.

Warned them several times of the consequences- mentioned "felony", "loss of gun rights", etc. - and then they just nod and turn around and continue shooting - even when I've offered a screwdriver to help fix a fixable legal issue (SKS w/added detachable mag, the guy still had the orig stock mag with him).

Some people are just too stupid to breathe but too dumb to die.

It's not that they don't know...

I often hear the indignant "f--k em, they don't have the right to take my guns". Problem is, they do... unless of course you don't mind prison.

Satex
04-03-2006, 1:42 PM
In the last year of getting back into shooting, I have been amazed time after time how fellow gun owners respond at shooting ranges.

I always introduce myself politely and more than happy to engage in conversation with anyone. I also lend help if needed. Heck, if someone walks up to me wanting to shoot my handgun / rifle, I always let them. Last time I was in Jacumba I let a father and son that stopped by to run 50 rounds through my SKS.

Time after time I am amazed how hostile so many people are at the ranges. I have no good explanation for it. Maybe "paranoya self destroya" is working and people think that anyone saying "hi" is LEO or undercover DOJ :eek:

I wouldn't say anything to them either as many people see any comment as "being lectured to" and then it’s down hill from there. The only time I say anything if there is a safety issue, and even then I try to present it in a super polite way so not to offend the person.



1) Maybe they truly, simply are not aware of the law.

2) Why didn't you politely inform them that their rifles are currently configured in an illegal fashion, and that it could very well land them in some legal trouble?

Why didn't you take the time to educate them, if you are so concerned?

squishy
04-03-2006, 2:36 PM
Interesting.. I've frequented an indoor range and a rifle/trap range atleast twice a week for the past 5 years and have never ran into or talked to a rude person at either range. I've always been amazed by that.

I always figured everyone was extra nice because everyone is armed :)

Super_tactical
04-03-2006, 2:37 PM
I'm glad you personally know them and their motives. I'm glad you are not "holier than thou." I'm glad you are not preachy. Gimme a break! What does it mean when I carry a concealed handgun in my car. That is illegal. Do I risk jail because I think it's cooler? No. I say it openly on here that I carry without a permit. I've posted that tons of times. It's a known thing. I do it for protection and to make a political statement. If I go to jail, I go to jail. I don't want to, but I would for the cause.

BTW Them having illegal guns doesn't make you look worse as a gun owner than you already do in the eyes of the sheeple of PRK. Building a "legal Ar15" looks just as bad. I am surprised at the number of people here that are not willing to take any stand that may harm their person or property. This is all IMO, so think what you want. I really don't care.


What nonsense...the people who are in violation are NOT making a statement or standing against the law. If that were the case, they would be open and obvious about it to make known their political statement. These people are either ignorant about the law, or just want a "cooler" more convenient rifle and are just banking on the hope that they don't get caught. These are the more severe equivalent of people who speed on the freeway, they aren't making a statement against speeding laws, they just want to speed for convenience or whatever other reason. BUT, speeding is only an infraction and if you get caught, you don't get a felony and ruin it for other gun owners.

So, don't get all "holier than thou" and preachy about how these people are standing against the "unconstitutional" law. They aren't. They are just speeding (with a heavy penalty waiting for them if they get "pulled over").

krazek
04-03-2006, 3:30 PM
Good way of getting shot:mad: :mad:

o.O

i sure hope not

CALI-gula
04-03-2006, 3:32 PM
Pretty good post overall, however I take great issue with the two paragraphs above, in which you make it sound as if gun-control groups or the state are in any way concerned with the safety or well-being of the public.... ....Criminals will do what they want.

Couldn't agree more; and you are only reiterating my past beliefs that have endured since I first became a gun owner in 1980, as well as the views shared by the majority of all gun owners. So note, these are NOT my reasons nor point of view of SB23, but an understanding of how these latest lower purchases will trip some of the intentions of SB23 that were sold to the legislature and/or public.

Like it or not, you and I know their real motives, however these ideas ARE some of the propaganda they used to sell SB23 to the Legislature; "We just want to protect people". It's a farce, designed to ban guns. So this latest lower purchase craze will set that on its end, just as exposing the futility of the Clinton 94 Crime Bill AW ban, which was allowed to die when revealed as a farce.

Think about that; Clinton 94 Crime Bill. The very nature of what I am making reference was used to pass that law, and the ridiculousness of it, when exposed, turned BACK that law. Criminals still got guns while we were prevented or hindered. It made the situation worse, and can be noted by the sudden emergence in the past 10 years of 38 states now being "Shall Issue" CCW, often in areas that had prevented concealed carry since the late 1800's. People nationally are doubting that "Crime Bills" work.

Aren't we now exposing the ridiculousness of Roberti-Roos and SB23? These too were considered "crime bills", to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

You are itemizing our shared point of view; but that does not change the fact that SB23 ALREADY exists. When they knew a total ban bill would not pass, they went for something that would seem palatable and allow them to slowly ban them; you can't sell them, you can't inherit them, you can't buy more, you must register and treat them differently than your other guns, and you are encouraged to move out of CA. I encourage our shared view be used to rescind SB23 entirely, and this latest mass lower purchasing may be the first step.

I was simply giving you some of the complexities associated with the design of SB23, in that citizens were allowed to keep AW rifles at all. Consider it ammo to use against SB23. I personally take opposition to the term "Assault Weapon" - if I assault Paul Koretz with a hammer, isn't that an Assault Weapon? Some states have called for a total ban - laws like SB23 and AB50 originally called for a total ban; no possession, no use, turn them in immediately.

And to add to some of the emphasis of my earlier statements, adding a Category 4 or new definitions will further water-down any enforcement of SB23. SB23 is already clearly ignored unless someone is doing some other crime or is blatantly stupid about their handling of what CA considers an AW (not my hammer noted above).

In 6 years of shooting my "AW" rifles under the limitations of SB23, I have NEVER been asked to show documentation or paperwork at the range or anywhere else, by anyone. It is too much confusion and hassle to enforce SB23 as it is; adding a new category will WEAKEN SB23 enforcement and the intention of its design, even if you and I well know, that design was REALLY intended to ban guns entirely.

So in the face of trying to ban AR15s entirely, 30,000 AND COUNTING!!

.

DrjonesUSA
04-03-2006, 3:36 PM
Excellent post, Cali-gula!

troyPhD
04-03-2006, 3:38 PM
I was being facetious, obviously, like the guy I was quoting.

But you do get the point about the DOJ's twisted logic, right? It's like when someone goes into the ER with a chest wound and a broken leg. The docs hurry up and take care of the chest wound immediately, THEN figure out how to deal with the leg. Otherwise, what's the point? The DOJ's position is, "let's wait and figure out the perfect plan to simultaneously take care of the chest and leg before we get started," all the while the patient is bleeding out.

Yeah...let's blame the DOJ for this...:confused:

These individuals are adults who have decided to commit a felony, and I seriously doubt if they found out they can buy unlisted lowers and do not know that it's illegal to assemble them in that fashion.

Of course when they are caught, they will claim stupidity, blame the DOJ. If they get caught in a crime, they'll blame it on the evil black gun. Lack of personal responsibilty for one's actions is why we have the AW ban. Blame has to be put somewhere, and unlike stupid people or the DOJ, evil black guns don't speak back.

Clod

Jicko
04-03-2006, 4:10 PM
I'm glad you personally know them and their motives. I'm glad you are not "holier than thou." I'm glad you are not preachy. Gimme a break! What does it mean when I carry a concealed handgun in my car. That is illegal. Do I risk jail because I think it's cooler? No. I say it openly on here that I carry without a permit. I've posted that tons of times. It's a known thing. I do it for protection and to make a political statement. If I go to jail, I go to jail. I don't want to, but I would for the cause.

BTW Them having illegal guns doesn't make you look worse as a gun owner than you already do in the eyes of the sheeple of PRK. Building a "legal Ar15" looks just as bad. I am surprised at the number of people here that are not willing to take any stand that may harm their person or property. This is all IMO, so think what you want. I really don't care.

Super_tactical: Wow..... were you one of them @ Jacumba whom I met? If you are... I'm glad that I turned my back and leave right the way....



1) Maybe they truly, simply are not aware of the law.

2) Why didn't you politely inform them that their rifles are currently configured in an illegal fashion, and that it could very well land them in some legal trouble?

Why didn't you take the time to educate them, if you are so concerned?

DrjonesUSA:
Cuz, they don't look too friendly to me.... and they are armed.... and there are 3 of them.... and I only have my 10 rounds side-arm on me (I'll take me 2.5sec to engage 3 rounds to each hostile.... and 7.5sec are eternity in a gun-fight...)

Anyways.... there will always be people that are hostile and don't like you minding their businesses, and you will never know when you will bump into one....

BTW, ignorant can be a good plead... but most of the time... it will not stand....

rushta
04-03-2006, 4:14 PM
Real funny. Just because somebody is young they are on some video game fantasy? I am 18 years old and have picked up my off list lower. I have wanted an AR since I first shot one at age 12. Yes, I have played video games, but no- owning an AR isn't a video game fantasy. I feel this attitude is inappropriate and silly. Here is a question. Which "off list lower purchaser" is worse: a young college student who finds out about off list lowers and does what he has to to borrow money/ work extra to pick up a lower, or all the people who had an opportunity to buy good stuff before the original ban but didn't? All of us should be working together on this. We have enough resistance trying to keep us "counterstrike youth" away from guns in Sacramento and across the state. I have had to argue with managers more than a few times at stores so I could buy .22 LR ammo while under the age of 21. This post really disturbed me. Yes they were breaking the law. But why can't I have detachable (or standard capacity) mags just like the older generation? I never had a chance. I am complying with the law, though it makes me sick to see my rights spit on so frequently. I don't see why youth have to take so much heat from everyone. Gun owners know what it feels like to have the public strip them of their rights and with the handgun laws youth get doubly stripped of their rights. Same with so called AWs. I am not trying to say older people shouldn't get off list lowers either, but you guys at least had a chance. This has been our only opportunity.

You obviously have a differeing opinion of these individuals than I do. I was not there, so I can only go by description. And my image is of a bunch of young firearms "enthusiasts" who decided to go mag-slapping happy to live their Resident Evil or CounterStrike fantasies. If you see them as freedom fighters, that's your call.


Clod

blacklisted
04-03-2006, 4:23 PM
I really do think that many of these people have video game fantasies, or something similar, especially the young people. I went to school with them, they would love to have an M4 to show their friends.

The fact is, these people that go out an publically break laws are stupid, and make the rest of us look bad. It doesn't matter what age they are.

Real funny. Just because somebody is young they are on some video game fantasy? I am 18 years old and have picked up my off list lower. I have wanted an AR since I first shot one at age 12. Yes, I have played video games, but no- owning an AR isn't a video game fantasy. I feel this attitude is inappropriate and silly. Here is a question. Which "off list lower purchaser" is worse: a young college student who finds out about off list lowers and does what he has to to borrow money/ work extra to pick up a lower, or all the people who had an opportunity to buy good stuff before the original ban but didn't? All of us should be working together on this. We have enough resistance trying to keep us "counterstrike youth" away from guns in Sacramento and across the state. I have had to argue with managers more than a few times at stores so I could buy .22 LR ammo while under the age of 21. This post really disturbed me. Yes they were breaking the law. But why can't I have detachable (or standard capacity) mags just like the older generation? I never had a chance. I am complying with the law, though it makes me sick to see my rights spit on so frequently. I don't see why youth have to take so much heat from everyone. Gun owners know what it feels like to have the public strip them of their rights and with the handgun laws youth get doubly stripped of their rights. Same with so called AWs. I am not trying to say older people shouldn't get off list lowers either, but you guys at least had a chance. This has been our only opportunity.

gidddy169
04-03-2006, 4:49 PM
Most dealers I have talked to don't know the law on the lowers. Many of them are selling them and not informing people of SB23 or anything else, because they called the DOJ and they said they were legal to sell so that is what they are doing. I have even gone to one of these dealers and they had a socom 2 for sale with a forward pistol grip attached to the rail. I kindly informed them that it didn't meet SB23 compliance with the forward pgrip and they told me it wasn't a pgrip and the local police have seen it. I said ok what is on the front and they said it is an attachment and there are a lot of them for this rifle. If you try to help and they just don't listen that is the way it goes, I just feel sorry for all the uniformed people that are possibly commiting felonies and not even knowing.

TheMan
04-03-2006, 5:12 PM
This post really disturbed me. Yes they were breaking the law.

This thread disturbs me because they have been tried and convicted in absentia, without all facts. Is it possible that the people in question brought the Stag ARs in using a Military Assault Weapons Permit? Stags have been sold in other states, and non CA residents that move into CA for military service could bring in rifles using that, and if they did so, they wouldn't need to have fixed mags, etc. Maybe the "kids" found some other way to get them configured that way legally? Maybe they were out of state residents who were visiting, and weren't up to speed on the laws?

Is it really any of your business? And if it was, why not ask them instead of posting here about it?

colin1
04-03-2006, 5:33 PM
WOW Super_Tactical your not going to help our cause at all. Its people like you who have no respect for the laws that make us look bad, as well as your the type of person the DOJ wants to keep AWs away from. Your just going to give "them" a reason to ban all handguns now. Trust me "they" are watching this site.

On another note I agree to a point with Rushta I am pretty young myself and didn't get the chances to buy all the firearms I would have liked to. However I'm not going to feel sorry for myself and not going to put blame on others who did have the chance to get certain firearms. But I do get somewhat offended when people talk about all these "young guys" not giving a care about the law. Being a NRA member and a club member to many shooting groups and an instructor, plus a range saftey officer I think that it is unfair for someone to say that I'm just some dumb kid who dosent know what I'm talking about. BUT latly I have seen some "younger" people who are buying offlist ARs as their first firearm who absolutly know nothng about shooting and this does scare me somewhat.

PanzerAce
04-03-2006, 5:39 PM
Hey, for those of you that seem (to me) to be blaiming the 'kids' for the illegal actions that people are taking with off list lowers, just stop. You might think that it is perfectly ok to slam us because we are the minority here (only 3 members here that I know of that are 18ish), but face it, we ARE the future gun owners in this state. While it may seem like we would be the ones to build SB23 non-compliant firearms, consider this: we have our entire lives ahead, and we dont want to screw it up by doing something really stupid. While there may be some 'kids' that are doing this, the majority of us are not.

Next time you guys start blaiming 'kids' for all of the illegal activity, you might want to think of two phrases: "The pot calling the kettle black" and "Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".

rushta
04-03-2006, 6:13 PM
I have a few things I would like to say in response.

I really do think that many of these people have video game fantasies, or something similar, especially the young people. I went to school with them, they would love to have an M4 to show their friends.

The fact is, these people that go out an publically break laws are stupid, and make the rest of us look bad. It doesn't matter what age they are.

Even if they did have these video game fantasy tendency, so what? As long as they don't commit a crime with the firearm (a crime using the firearm...not just by having it or firing it in legal shooting areas) who cares? This is a free country even though we have a repressive state. This sounds surprisingly like gun banner rhetoric to me "Why should they have a semi auto M4? What do they need it for? Just like in the killing video games!". What's next, people are not allowed to by 2 Beretta 92s because thats like Max Payne? I want to ask why you think they shouldn't other than the fact that there are ridiculous laws like SB23 out there? I agree breaking laws is stupid which is why I don't do it. But are those possesing evil non compliant ARs making us look bad? I am not so sure about that. Are they commiting crimes other than having the firearms and do they show any intent to commit a crime? These people are potentially breaking the law (Thanks for pointing that out, TheMan) but really why they want the guns shouldn't matter to us as long as they don't commit crimes with them.


On another note I agree to a point with Rushta I am pretty young myself and didn't get the chances to buy all the firearms I would have liked to. However I'm not going to feel sorry for myself and not going to put blame on others who did have the chance to get certain firearms. But I do get somewhat offended when people talk about all these "young guys" not giving a care about the law. Being a NRA member and a club member to many shooting groups and an instructor, plus a range saftey officer I think that it is unfair for someone to say that I'm just some dumb kid who dosent know what I'm talking about. BUT latly I have seen some "younger" people who are buying offlist ARs as their first firearm who absolutly know nothng about shooting and this does scare me somewhat.

I am not blaming those who did have a chance, I am only saying I think it is ridiculous for those who had a chance to be pointing fingers at youth. I too am an NRA member and a member of a local range, but more important than that is what we do about it. I take people with me to the range every week and educate them on handling and shooting firearms. I am glad they you are a safety officer and instructor because that's the right thing to do. The more people we get out to shoot, and the more we teach the more responsible citizens we will have in this state and the better our chances of freedom get.

CWM4A1
04-03-2006, 6:14 PM
Just being to range last weekend shooting my register AW, a kid with dad pop up in next couple lanes. first thing I notice is the stock on his Yugo SKS. He have change his Yugo SKS to a stock that have both pistol grip and telescoping stock. I let him shoot my AR, and explain to him what's wrong with his SKS. He's somwhat aware about the 922(r) since he have changed the piston to US made parts, but I explain to him that's not enough. Suggested him to chang it to a Dragnov style stock instead, but in reality keeping the SKS the way it comes is the best way to stay out of trouble. Both him and dad listened, but not sure if they are going to change. Well, seems to be a pretty bright kid and I would hate to see him (or dad) getting into trouble because of a stupid stock.

PanzerAce
04-03-2006, 6:27 PM
Just being to range last weekend shooting my register AW, a kid with dad pop up in next couple lanes. first thing I notice is the stock on his Yugo SKS. He have change his Yugo SKS to a stock that have both pistol grip and telescoping stock. I let him shoot my AR, and explain to him what's wrong with his SKS. He's somwhat aware about the 922(r) since he have changed the piston to US made parts, but I explain to him that's not enough. Suggested him to chang it to a Dragnov style stock instead, but in reality keeping the SKS the way it comes is the best way to stay out of trouble. Both him and dad listened, but not sure if they are going to change. Well, seems to be a pretty bright kid and I would hate to see him (or dad) getting into trouble because of a stupid stock.

what are you saying that they have to change? the collapsable stock and pistol grip is allowed IIRC so long as you play the 10 parts game and have the mag fixed...And as for a Dragunov style skeleton stock, they are no different in the eyes of the law then thumbholes or pistol grips.

CWM4A1
04-03-2006, 6:33 PM
10 parts, that's the problem. Only changing the piston to US made still does not make that SKS in compliance with 922(r). The sad reality is that there ain't enough US made parts for SKS. Come to think of it, by putting the Dragnov stock on the SKS, might be a good idea to remove the bayonet as well, since after changing the stock you can no longer call it C&R.

colin1
04-03-2006, 7:00 PM
I totally agree with you Rushta the more info we put out there and the more shooters we get together to shoot legal offlist ARs the better. We will win with the numbers of law abiding citizens shooting law abiding rifles than with people who want to "make a stand" with illegal AWs at the cost of going to jail. I dont know about everybody else but I think going to jail for a detachable mag is just stupid. But thats just me.

Racefiend
04-03-2006, 7:13 PM
10 parts, that's the problem. Only changing the piston to US made still does not make that SKS in compliance with 922(r). The sad reality is that there ain't enough US made parts for SKS. Come to think of it, by putting the Dragnov stock on the SKS, might be a good idea to remove the bayonet as well, since after changing the stock you can no longer call it C&R.

Call me dumb, but how does 922r apply to an sks? It most likely wasn't built from a parts kit.

RRangel
04-03-2006, 7:56 PM
Call me dumb, but how does 922r apply to an sks? It most likely wasn't built from a parts kit.

It's not about parts kits. Adding an adjustable stock, folding bayonet, or detachable mag(not in California) to a typical SKS would be illegal by Federal law. You have to add ten US made parts so that it is considered a non-import. Not just any parts, but certain parts that are listed by our government. Older models like the Russians can keep their folding bayonets. It sounds dumb but that's the law.

TheMan
04-03-2006, 8:12 PM
It's not about parts kits. Adding an adjustable stock, folding bayonet, or detachable mag(not in California) to a typical SKS would be illegal by Federal law. You have to add ten US made parts so that it is considered a non-import. Not just any parts, but certain parts that are listed by our government. Older models like the Russians can keep their folding bayonets. It sounds dumb but that's the law.

You sure you have to add 10 parts? I thought you just had to make sure there were no more than 10 imported parts. Here's a good description for the SKS

http://www.simonov.net/10orlessrule.htm

Racefiend
04-03-2006, 8:56 PM
It's not about parts kits. Adding an adjustable stock, folding bayonet, or detachable mag(not in California) to a typical SKS would be illegal by Federal law. You have to add ten US made parts so that it is considered a non-import. Not just any parts, but certain parts that are listed by our government. Older models like the Russians can keep their folding bayonets. It sounds dumb but that's the law.

Could you point me to some info on how this applies to an sks already imported as a C&R? Just because you modify it (which IIRC nullifies the C&R status) all of a sudden 922 applies? Then by that token, how is it that the C&R SKS rifles that have the muzzles modified for CA sale (no grenade launcher) are not considered illegal in regards to 922r? Not to mention they already have a folding bayonet when imported, so do you have to remove it? Also, above was mentioned that a telescoping stock is bad, but 922 only implies folding stock. Stuff is too damn confusing if you ask me.

I guess my main question is how is adding a stock/grip in the above scenario making that yugo illegal?

dawson8r
04-03-2006, 9:20 PM
I recently replaced a piece of turd plastic monte carlo style stock with the T6 stock sold by Tapco for my Yugo SKS. This is probably what they had. My original wood stock was pretty beat up but the bore was in good condition and the bluing was good. The T6 is WAY better and they have a model that is slotted for the Yugo blade bayonet. I have kept the fixed 10 round magazine for this rifle. Nothin' like sitting around the coffee table loading stripper clips with 7.62x39, watching tv while drinking a beer. With a little practice you can put 30 rounds down range with 2 recharges pretty damn quick. Anyway, as mentioned, the 10 parts rule applies when you want to have a detachable magazine and be federally compliant. By leaving the 10 round fixed magazine alone you can have all the other stuff. Except maybe the grenade launcher. I had to have that replaced before I could tranfer into Cali.

That being said, I also built up an off list lower and fixed the 10 round magazine in place (law abiding citizen that I am). It may take longer to load in its current configuration but it way lighter and much more accurate. Not to mention WAY better looking!

blacklisted
04-03-2006, 9:38 PM
The fact is, people that get all their gun knowledge from video games give us a bad name. People that are stupid, and don't look into the laws before jumping into something like gun ownership give us a bad name. It is up to us to educate them.

I have personally encountered such people, and I try / am trying my best to educate them and bring them away from this path.

Whether or not the laws are just, you have to understand them. If you are unwilling or incapable to understand them...

Also remember that it doesn't matter if we commit crimes with the guns or not. The media will portray us as stupid, backwards hicks, and doing something like this does not help. "I don't care about them gun laws, they are unjust, and they are too hard to read (too many words and stuff)."

We have to everything possible to EDUCATE people. Before we can work to change the laws, we need to understand them.

Oh, and one more thing. I'm 18 (soon to be 19).

I have a few things I would like to say in response.

Even if they did have these video game fantasy tendency, so what? As long as they don't commit a crime with the firearm (a crime using the firearm...not just by having it or firing it in legal shooting areas) who cares? This is a free country even though we have a repressive state. This sounds surprisingly like gun banner rhetoric to me "Why should they have a semi auto M4? What do they need it for? Just like in the killing video games!". What's next, people are not allowed to by 2 Beretta 92s because thats like Max Payne? I want to ask why you think they shouldn't other than the fact that there are ridiculous laws like SB23 out there? I agree breaking laws is stupid which is why I don't do it. But are those possesing evil non compliant ARs making us look bad? I am not so sure about that. Are they commiting crimes other than having the firearms and do they show any intent to commit a crime? These people are potentially breaking the law (Thanks for pointing that out, TheMan) but really why they want the guns shouldn't matter to us as long as they don't commit crimes with them.

artherd
04-03-2006, 10:00 PM
Since you initiated no contact, you do not know if these are LEOs who have recieved Department permission on letterhead to purchase and register an Assault Weapon.

They could also be AW Dealer Permitees. Or Sean Penn. Or CA Machine Gun Dealer Permitees. Or affiliated with the Motion Picture Industry.

I won't condenmn them on the internet just yet. I will however post a reminder than unless you're a famous hollyweird star with an AW Permit, you and me can't build OLLs up with detachable mags and pistol grips just yet.

grammaton76
04-03-2006, 10:18 PM
Or Sean Penn.

...

I will however post a reminder than unless you're a famous hollyweird star with an AW Permit

Penn has an AW permit? I thought he just had a concealed carry permit and such...

TheMan
04-03-2006, 10:20 PM
Since you initiated no contact, you do not know if these are LEOs who have recieved Department permission on letterhead to purchase and register an Assault Weapon.

They could also be AW Dealer Permitees. Or Sean Penn. Or CA Machine Gun Dealer Permitees. Or affiliated with the Motion Picture Industry.


But isn't it easier to just get on the internet, and start condemning their behaviour, as if they are the irresponsible gun owners, and must be stopped? That way everyone else who wasn't there, and knows even less about the situation can post their 2 cents about how irresponsible these miscreants were?:rolleyes:

To answer the question about 922 applying to SKS after you replace the stock, here is a link to a page with some BATF letters regarding it:

http://www.simonov.net/uberlaw.htm

Jicko
04-03-2006, 10:25 PM
Again, I am just stating what I personally saw out there.... and want to say:

I was out shooting at Jacumba/BLM designated shooting area(near the Mex border) today, and I saw a couple of young guys out there shooting their black rifles.....

I wandered over, wanting to check out if they have anything cool....

What I ended up seeing is 3 STAGs, with open mag well, pistol grips, phantom Flash Hiders, telescoping buttstocks etc...

*sign*

I didn't discuss with them any further, I just turn my back and leave....

Guys... please... understand and respect the law... and don't break it... it is not worth it...

troyPhD
04-03-2006, 10:27 PM
Penn has an AW permit? I thought he just had a concealed carry permit and such...

Art was joking. Just mocking the status quo regarding the elites of society and CA gun laws. I do believe Penn does indeed have a CCW, however.

sohijiro
04-04-2006, 11:43 AM
seriously you have no idea about who those people were with those rifles, so i would keep my big mouth shut especially online,


so what, maybe they were breaking the law, do you want a medal?

Clodbuster
04-04-2006, 11:58 AM
I know a lot of responsible young shooters. I would say that most here are.

The reality is that it takes only 1 bad seed to cause the government to lay down the hammer. There are plenty of disturbed young adults out there who have a warped sense of reality vs. video games. Take a look at the massacres that made the headlines in the past few years and tell me different. I know "old" folks who also seem to have been immersed too much in the virtual world as well. Fortunately, they are old, and don't have the more carefree attitude as some younger folks do. Really, do you think most young shooters have in the back of their mind that they'll be imprisoned for slapping a magazine in a rifle?

Just because you haven't had the opportunity to slap in a mag in a rifle, doesn't make it OK to break the existing laws to do so. I too want to have the same opportunity to fire off a 50 rd drum from a full auto Thompson SMG as the previous previous generation. But unfortunately, that is not the case. And may not be the case, ever. Right now there is a chance these off-list lowers can be built into what you want, as there is a collective group effort going on to make legal challenges to the law. You just have to be patient, and patience has never been one of my strong points when I was 18...

Clod



Real funny. Just because somebody is young they are on some video game fantasy? I am 18 years old and have picked up my off list lower. I have wanted an AR since I first shot one at age 12. Yes, I have played video games, but no- owning an AR isn't a video game fantasy. I feel this attitude is inappropriate and silly. Here is a question. Which "off list lower purchaser" is worse: a young college student who finds out about off list lowers and does what he has to to borrow money/ work extra to pick up a lower, or all the people who had an opportunity to buy good stuff before the original ban but didn't? All of us should be working together on this. We have enough resistance trying to keep us "counterstrike youth" away from guns in Sacramento and across the state. I have had to argue with managers more than a few times at stores so I could buy .22 LR ammo while under the age of 21. This post really disturbed me. Yes they were breaking the law. But why can't I have detachable (or standard capacity) mags just like the older generation? I never had a chance. I am complying with the law, though it makes me sick to see my rights spit on so frequently. I don't see why youth have to take so much heat from everyone. Gun owners know what it feels like to have the public strip them of their rights and with the handgun laws youth get doubly stripped of their rights. Same with so called AWs. I am not trying to say older people shouldn't get off list lowers either, but you guys at least had a chance. This has been our only opportunity.

Mesa Tactical
04-04-2006, 12:35 PM
Could you point me to some info on how this applies to an sks already imported as a C&R?

Read and learn: http://www.victorinc.com/SKS-FAQ.html