PDA

View Full Version : CA DOJ Starts Scare Tactics!


m2hbvic
04-04-2006, 12:01 PM
I just got off the phone with Eddie over at Gunsmoke Enterprises back in FL, and he said that they stopped shipping AR stripped lowers to CA because they got a call from CA DOJ telling them to stop!

It's amazing how far a reach the CA nazis have with their scare tactics (aka "threats and intimidation")! All the way to the other end of what's left of the United States.
GOD BLESS AMERICA,
Vic

GTKrockeTT
04-04-2006, 12:02 PM
I just got off the phone with Eddie over at Gunsmoke Enterprises back in FL, and he said that they stopped shipping AR stripped lowers to CA because they got a call from CA DOJ telling them to stop!

It's amazing how far a reach the CA nazis have with their scare tactics (aka "threats and intimidation")! All the way to the other end of what's left of the United States.
GOD BLESS AMERICA,
Vic

welcome to Dec 2005.

EBWhite
04-04-2006, 12:04 PM
LOL, well thats Eddie's loss. He should have told the DOJ to F-off...Since they have no hold over him.

bwiese
04-04-2006, 12:27 PM
Well, that means Gunsmokes are also going on the list ;)

Lauer ships to CA FFLs no problem - and he enjoys it.

gunshack
04-04-2006, 12:30 PM
DSArms will ship lowers directly to a CA FFL.

phish
04-04-2006, 12:41 PM
Lauer ships to CA FFLs no problem - and he enjoys it.

ha ha! :D

That's why I wrote a letter to Wisconsin's BBB office for Lauer's "superior customer service".

The BBB in Houston got a love letter from me as well. (High Standard)

bwiese
04-04-2006, 12:41 PM
DSArms will ship lowers directly to a CA FFL.

That's news! When did this start? I spoke to DSA's Dave S at SHOT Show and he was friendly but noncommittal.

rssslvr
04-04-2006, 12:45 PM
i had mine shipped direct from DSA back in december

69Mach1
04-04-2006, 1:11 PM
I just got off the phone with Armalite. The customer rep told me that the CA DOJ called them yesterday to reiterate that the Eagle Ams AR10 receivers were considered banned in the state and warned them that "they would hate to see anyone at Armalite prosecuted for selling AW in CA". She said that they contacted them because the DOJ was getting alot of inquiries from Californians about the legality of the Eagle Arms AR10 receivers.

Stanze
04-04-2006, 1:24 PM
I just got off the phone with Armalite. The customer rep told me that the CA DOJ called them yesterday to reiterate that the Eagle Ams AR10 receivers were considered banned in the state and warned them that "they would hate to see anyone at Armalite prosecuted for selling AW in CA". She said that they contacted them because the DOJ was getting alot of inquiries from Californians about the legality of the Eagle Arms AR10 receivers.

Key word being, "considered".:mad:

Gawd, you KNOW the updated list is going to include the Eagle Arms AR10!:rolleyes:

blacklisted
04-04-2006, 2:00 PM
If they don't list in a few months, maybe I'll have enough to by another receiver (it will be a Lauer).

sac7000
04-04-2006, 2:05 PM
Everyone should be aware that not *all* DOJ employees agree with DOJ policy nor recent DOJ actions. From what I have learned there is a line of division that is growing deeper from inside the Department of Justice...

bwiese
04-04-2006, 2:13 PM
Well the fact that Eagle AR10s are banned is reasonable/obvious - they are marked "Armalite" too - so no new news there.

blacklisted
04-04-2006, 2:14 PM
Everyone should be aware that not *all* DOJ employees agree with DOJ policy nor recent DOJ actions. From what I have learned there is a line of division that is growing deeper from inside the Department of Justice...

Good, maybe they'll quit their job since they don't agree with it. ;)

bwiese
04-04-2006, 2:14 PM
Everyone should be aware that not *all* DOJ employees agree with DOJ policy nor recent DOJ actions. From what I have learned there is a line of division that is growing deeper from inside the Department of Justice...

Please expand on this statement... what gives you any indication of this?

sac7000
04-04-2006, 2:17 PM
Good, maybe they'll quit their job since they don't agree with it. ;)

Can't speak here, the walls have ears but several are currently working outside jobs, some of them directly affecting the smooth flow of lowers into California.. ;) (wink wink)

sac7000
04-04-2006, 2:24 PM
Please expand on this statement... what gives you any indication of this?

PM reply sent....

PanzerAce
04-04-2006, 2:41 PM
Good, maybe they'll quit their job since they don't agree with it. ;)

NO. We need all of the help we can get in the DOJ. Hell, this might even be some of the same people that let us know it was more like 30k receivers than the 11k we thought it was.

Surveyor
04-04-2006, 4:10 PM
NO. We need all of the help we can get in the DOJ. Hell, this might even be some of the same people that let us know it was more like 30k receivers than the 11k we thought it was.


+1 on that. They're no more useful on the outside than we are. Derision at the DOJ is a good thing.

6172crew
04-04-2006, 4:19 PM
Some of those cats will try anything to stop the legal flow of quality firearms coming into my state.:cool:

gunshack
04-04-2006, 5:36 PM
That's news! When did this start? I spoke to DSA's Dave S at SHOT Show and he was friendly but noncomittal.

I got a batch in Feb. and I ordered another last week. If DSA is shy about sending receivers here they made no indication of it to me.

fguerra
04-04-2006, 5:43 PM
I called DSA about 3 weeks ago and they said once they had them back in stock they would ship to CA.

6172crew
04-04-2006, 6:32 PM
They were selling DSAs at the Vallejo gun show last weekend.:)

artherd
04-04-2006, 8:06 PM
Everyone should be aware that not *all* DOJ employees agree with DOJ policy nor recent DOJ actions. From what I have learned there is a line of division that is growing deeper from inside the Department of Justice...
Hehheh, I have personal direct knowlege of the same. There are many good people within DOJ.

artherd
04-04-2006, 8:07 PM
Did you ask the Armalite people if they demanded anything in writing? (DOJ *usually* declines to put anything obviously contradictory, malicious or illegal into writing.)


I just got off the phone with Armalite. The customer rep told me that the CA DOJ called them yesterday to reiterate that the Eagle Ams AR10 receivers were considered banned in the state and warned them that "they would hate to see anyone at Armalite prosecuted for selling AW in CA". She said that they contacted them because the DOJ was getting alot of inquiries from Californians about the legality of the Eagle Arms AR10 receivers.

x2delight
04-04-2006, 8:23 PM
i have been told by a reputable FFL that the DOJ audited him and the FFL asked him regarding this off list stuff and the DOJ agent did say there was gonna be a huge bust to see who built any guns or not. anyone who didnt build the lower would be fine but people who did build on it would be in a significant amount of trouble. iam not trying to bring back old news. but thats what i was told.

TacFan
04-04-2006, 8:34 PM
i have been told by a reputable FFL that the DOJ audited him and the FFL asked him regarding this off list stuff and the DOJ agent did say there was gonna be a huge bust to see who built any guns or not. anyone who didnt build the lower would be fine but people who did build on it would be in a significant amount of trouble. iam not trying to bring back old news. but thats what i was told.



I doubt they are going to check the house of every single person who had purchased a lower ... I call bs

blacklisted
04-04-2006, 8:38 PM
i have been told by a reputable FFL that the DOJ audited him and the FFL asked him regarding this off list stuff and the DOJ agent did say there was gonna be a huge bust to see who built any guns or not. anyone who didnt build the lower would be fine but people who did build on it would be in a significant amount of trouble. iam not trying to bring back old news. but thats what i was told.

:D ROFL :D

tenpercentfirearms
04-04-2006, 8:47 PM
i have been told by a reputable FFL that the DOJ audited him and the FFL asked him regarding this off list stuff and the DOJ agent did say there was gonna be a huge bust to see who built any guns or not. anyone who didnt build the lower would be fine but people who did build on it would be in a significant amount of trouble. iam not trying to bring back old news. but thats what i was told.Scare tactics is all they have. I have noticed that in the last month or so, the DOJ has been oddly silent. I think pretty much everyone finally realized that the DOJ was full of crap, including the DOJ and now we are back to what normal life should be like. Go buy guns. Heck they might have finally figured out they enjoyed the unusually high amounts of DROS fees and it would be foolish to keep trying to stop their cash cow. Plus when they hit us with the new registration fee of $50 on the 30K lowers, gold mine!!!

Seriously, the DOJ says numerous things during an audit. The only thing you should take seriously is if they are taking you to prison or not.

x2delight
04-04-2006, 8:56 PM
i know everyone laughed at my statement.. but iam just gonna keep mines stripped till we know for sure what the hell is going on.

kantstudien
04-04-2006, 9:11 PM
They came to my door and asked to see my stripped lower, so I took off my pants. They left.

EBWhite
04-04-2006, 9:26 PM
kant- that was too funny dude

blacklisted
04-04-2006, 9:27 PM
They came to my door and asked to see my stripped lower, so I took off my pants. They left.

I'm glad they left. My friend tried that, and they didn't leave. :eek:

You Know Who was one of the agents, and he tried to demill his lower. Thankfully the magwell was sealed, they sure left in a hurry after that.

grammaton76
04-04-2006, 10:08 PM
i have been told by a reputable FFL that the DOJ audited him and the FFL asked him regarding this off list stuff and the DOJ agent did say there was gonna be a huge bust to see who built any guns or not. anyone who didnt build the lower would be fine but people who did build on it would be in a significant amount of trouble. iam not trying to bring back old news. but thats what i was told.

I have no doubt that they told your FFL this. A while back, they told CWS that they were going to go by some shooting ranges and look for people with Sporting Conversion pinned-mag kits and arrest them. Nothing has happened, that anyone on this board has heard of, that's confirmed to have involved Sporting Conversion kits.

I believe back when they were doing their hyper-aggressive audits, DOJ also ran a deliberate campaign of disinformation to the FFLs. This was in the hopes that it'd communicate down to us and get us to not use our rifles. If we don't use our rifles, we don't spread the word, and if we're not spreading the word or using our rifles, fewer people will buy off-list lowers.

ldivinag
04-04-2006, 10:38 PM
They came to my door and asked to see my stripped lower, so I took off my pants. They left.


the winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RedBluff
04-04-2006, 10:48 PM
If they don't list in a few months, maybe I'll have enough to by another receiver (it will be a Lauer).

I was thinking the same thing.
The Superior .223 for the wife and a .308 for me.
I better get busy and sell that Jeep.
Only problem I see is getting a NORCAL FFL to receive it.
The one I had in Tehama Co told me "it's too controversial" now.

If anybody has a lead feel free to email me.
I'm going to start beating the bushes

xenophobe
04-05-2006, 12:37 AM
DSArms has been sending us very small quantities, but they have been sending for the last several months....


Scare tactics is all they have. I have noticed that in the last month or so, the DOJ has been oddly silent. I think pretty much everyone finally realized that the DOJ was full of crap, including the DOJ and now we are back to what normal life should be like. Go buy guns. Heck they might have finally figured out they enjoyed the unusually high amounts of DROS fees and it would be foolish to keep trying to stop their cash cow. Plus when they hit us with the new registration fee of $50 on the 30K lowers, gold mine!!!

Agreed on all counts!

x2delight
04-05-2006, 1:21 AM
I have no doubt that they told your FFL this. A while back, they told CWS that they were going to go by some shooting ranges and look for people with Sporting Conversion pinned-mag kits and arrest them. Nothing has happened, that anyone on this board has heard of, that's confirmed to have involved Sporting Conversion kits.

I believe back when they were doing their hyper-aggressive audits, DOJ also ran a deliberate campaign of disinformation to the FFLs. This was in the hopes that it'd communicate down to us and get us to not use our rifles. If we don't use our rifles, we don't spread the word, and if we're not spreading the word or using our rifles, fewer people will buy off-list lowers.


i agree fully with you.. but for me its kinda hard to go to shoot the gun and somehow get stopped by a cop or something and they find the gun. a whole lotta stuff to explain. and iam sure even if i explained.. still a night in jail or so to clear things up.

My local range could give a rats *** what you shoot. the only thing they care about is you cant rapid fire.

heh

hitnrun
04-05-2006, 4:26 AM
i have been told by a reputable FFL that the DOJ audited him and the FFL asked him regarding this off list stuff and the DOJ agent did say there was gonna be a huge bust to see who built any guns or not. anyone who didnt build the lower would be fine but people who did build on it would be in a significant amount of trouble. iam not trying to bring back old news. but thats what i was told.

It's amazing to think that a couple of pins and some springs are the difference between trouble or not. The LPKs aren't in question it's the RECEIVERS themselves. What difference would it make it the so-called "contraband" had a LPK or not?:rolleyes:

When they come to my house, they will just walk by because I have my gun safe wrapped in tin foil!! I was told that is the only way to stop the alien/DOJ allied assault!!:p

GTKrockeTT
04-05-2006, 9:18 AM
They came to my door and asked to see my stripped lower, so I took off my pants. They left.

they didn't haul you away for not meeting the barrel length requirement?

glen avon
04-05-2006, 9:35 AM
maybe there is an exception for single shots....

Builder
04-05-2006, 9:36 AM
Was the lower parts kit full auto or semi-automatic?

shopkeep
04-05-2006, 10:07 AM
This whole thing has snowballed way out of control at this point. I doubt the DOJ or anyone else has any clear idea about what to do now. I have a feeling that back on December 5th, 2005 Iggy and others were fairly confident they could keep the number below 100. Now it's over 30,000 :D!

Gunsrruss
04-05-2006, 10:44 AM
It's amazing to think that a couple of pins and some springs are the difference between trouble or not. The LPKs aren't in question it's the RECEIVERS themselves. What difference would it make it the so-called "contraband" had a LPK or not?:rolleyes:

When they come to my house, they will just walk by because I have my gun safe wrapped in tin foil!! I was told that is the only way to stop the alien/DOJ allied assault!!:p

I took rubber cement glue and covered my safe in tin foil. The wife took one look at that and left. That stuff really does work. Thanks guys

icormba
04-05-2006, 11:00 AM
This whole thing has snowballed way out of control at this point. I doubt the DOJ or anyone else has any clear idea about what to do now. I have a feeling that back on December 5th, 2005 Iggy and others were fairly confident they could keep the number below 100. Now it's over 30,000 :D!

They should have added them to the list... "in 2 weeks". DOH! ;)

sac7000
04-05-2006, 11:15 AM
I took rubber cement glue and covered my safe in tin foil. The wife took one look at that and left. That stuff really does work. Thanks guys

I painted my safe white and put hazardous biological medical waste signs on it. Gives me the heebee jeebees just thinking about it.....

sac7000
04-05-2006, 11:18 AM
Where does the reference to 30,000 unlisted lowers number come from? I may not be following too closely due to the S/N ratio, but I could have sworn that was an estimate that includes unreg'd lowers since 2001.

Ummm...that count may be incorrect, you should have seen the line of people at a local Sacramento FFL's office the other day waiting to either pickup or dros lowers. I'm guessing the actual count is much higher by now.

bwiese
04-05-2006, 12:03 PM
Hi Ted...

Where does the reference to 30,000 unlisted lowers number come from? I may not be following too closely due to the S/N ratio, but I could have sworn that was an estimate that includes unreg'd lowers since 2001.

A person I met 2 weeks ago at a SJ gunshop - and who makes a variety of gun-related products and 'interfaces' with CA DOJ - told me his DOJ contact told him that he'd just heard, from a staff meeting, that around 30,000 off-list receivers were sold in recent months. This guy is a sharp cookie, isn't a B.S.er, etc. - and this came up as an side matter in a conversation. What surprised me is that there is apparently a comparatively HUGE interest in lowers in SoCal.

Now, I may be misquoting either this guy (the relayer of information), or (indirectly) misquoting his DOJ source, losing something in the translation... it could have instead been slightly different: "30,000 people bought off-list lowers in CA", which might mean 36K-40K or so off-list lowers were actually sold to 30K individuals (this assumes a guesstimated 1.25 lower per purchaser average, meaning that for every 100 people, 125 lowers were sold with some folks getting multiples).

I'm not sure how accurate a handle DOJ has on this - some of this must be due to a bit of extrapolation combined with monitoring DROS counts that exceed dealers' norms for a given month. But I would expect this number to be broadly correct - maybe it's 25Km maybe it's 35K....

DOJ can probably "see" DROS counts 'above trend' over a given date range by dealer, or city and/or county via their computer system. Furthermore, they likely know the relatively small number of FFLs that are moving most of the lowers (i.e., big bulk sales). There are only 700+ FFLs in CA, and probably not more than 100 are selling lowers at all, with less than 50 doing major quantities. DOJ may not have a great handle on how many lowers are moving per DROS, but can probably do some projections based on their hand-audits of various SoCal FFLs doing bulk off-list lower sales.

Ford8N
04-05-2006, 6:44 PM
The more lowers that come in, the more it becomes an elephant in the room. Can you imagine how a LEO is going to figure out if something is a "category 4" or "3" or "2" or "1" or one of those January 2000 receivers. It's like what is the difference between a M1A with a flash hider or a muzzle brake. It's just some holes! Now how do little holes affect the crime in this state?!

troyPhD
04-05-2006, 7:03 PM
They came to my door and asked to see my stripped lower, so I took off my pants. They left.

they didn't haul you away for not meeting the barrel length requirement?

Hahahaha. Nothing personal to anyone, but that was a good one.

kantstudien
04-05-2006, 7:09 PM
they didn't haul you away for not meeting the barrel length requirement?

Yeah, I guess 15.5 inches was close enough for them! ;) :D

GTKrockeTT
04-05-2006, 8:08 PM
Yeah, I guess 15.5 inches was close enough for them! ;) :D

:D

http://www.bgassociates.com/images/GMDC%20TOUCHE.jpg

tenpercentfirearms
04-05-2006, 11:11 PM
You don't measure barrel length from the inside of your anus, around your scrotom and to the tip, otherwise the 15.5" makes sense.

kantstudien
04-05-2006, 11:29 PM
You don't measure barrel length from the inside of your anus, around your scrotom and to the tip, otherwise the 15.5" makes sense.

Length? Oh, you guys were talking about length! I was talking about girth...:p

GW
04-05-2006, 11:43 PM
Everyone should just quit on this one
kantstudien is the clear winner here


by a length:D

artherd
04-06-2006, 1:02 AM
Where does the reference to 30,000 unlisted lowers number come from? I may not be following too closely due to the S/N ratio, but I could have sworn that was an estimate that includes unreg'd lowers since 2001.
From my brief interlude into the workings of some of the buys, I would say that a 30-45,000 estimate is not unreasonable for new OLL purchases alone.

LCAZES
04-06-2006, 8:53 PM
Actually, I suspect that knowledge at the upper levels of management at the DOJ of just how big the numbers have become could actually have caused them to make a decision not to add these to the list. It is one thing to list and create a couple of hundred new "legal" assault weapons in the state, 30K new AWs is something else entirely and would be a political disaster for them. They now HAVE to fix this issue WITHOUT making them into cat 2 AWs.

TacFan
04-06-2006, 9:00 PM
Actually, I suspect that knowledge at the upper levels of management at the DOJ of just how big the numbers have become could actually have caused them to make a decision not to add these to the list. It is one thing to list and create a couple of hundred new "legal" assault weapons in the state, 30K new AWs is something else entirely and would be a political disaster for them. They now HAVE to fix this issue WITHOUT making them into cat 2 AWs.

I agree. If they would have acted in time, they would have added them to the list. They cannot have 30k+ new assault weapons in this state. They are going a different route

NRAhighpowershooter
04-06-2006, 11:23 PM
They are going a different route


Yup.. different route all right.. door to door mass consfications!! :p :D :eek:

natrab
04-06-2006, 11:39 PM
Yeah, a new catagory with pinned barrels or hammers or something rediculous. I'm getting tired of these DOJ antics. It's almost time to move. Of course, then I worry that if I ever want to move back, I won't have my legal lowers anymore. :eek:

markymark
04-06-2006, 11:52 PM
:D

[]http://www.bgassociates.com/images/GMDC%20TOUCHE.jpg[/IMG]
hahaha, damn you guys crack me up! :D

markymark
04-06-2006, 11:56 PM
Actually, I suspect that knowledge at the upper levels of management at the DOJ of just how big the numbers have become could actually have caused them to make a decision not to add these to the list. It is one thing to list and create a couple of hundred new "legal" assault weapons in the state, 30K new AWs is something else entirely and would be a political disaster for them. They now HAVE to fix this issue WITHOUT making them into cat 2 AWs.
I'd say it's a bigger political disaster if they drag their feet and thus allow the criminals a chance at building up (or acquiring) illegal AW's.

LCAZES
04-09-2006, 7:53 AM
I'd say it's a bigger political disaster if they drag their feet and thus allow the criminals a chance at building up (or acquiring) illegal AW's.

HAHAHA! You sound like a democrat! :)

6172crew
04-09-2006, 8:09 AM
Actually, I suspect that knowledge at the upper levels of management at the DOJ of just how big the numbers have become could actually have caused them to make a decision not to add these to the list. It is one thing to list and create a couple of hundred new "legal" assault weapons in the state, 30K new AWs is something else entirely and would be a political disaster for them. They now HAVE to fix this issue WITHOUT making them into cat 2 AWs.

Where have you been? They knew about these lowers the same week we dros'd them and at that time maybe 200 made it in.:rolleyes:

The DOJ told us the list would be out in 2 weeks and it never happened because 1 guy in the dept said "I wouldnt do anything, because they cant build them if we dont list them".

Now that we have at least 10k in state they are again trying to come up with another crack pot idea. There are a few azzclowns in Sac who think we shouldnt have the right to own any firearms and that guy is why we are still selling the receivers and why AW laws dont work.

See this guy in the DOJ has a firm belief that you must have permission from him to build any rifle and that unless we get his OK we cant use these like FAB10s/Vulcans...the problem with that is the other folks in the DOJ have been telling us that we can build them up as long as we follow the laws.

Had they wanted to they could have stopped the AR count at 500 IMHO but the guy in the DOJ helped us out by being a moron.

xenophobe
04-09-2006, 2:28 PM
Think of the DOJ as what they are. Paid state employees who work at their own pace 9am-5pm. Take an hour lunch, two 15-30 minute breaks, screw off at the break room, at the coffee maker and at the water machine, throw in the occassional bathroom breaks, and all the little stops at the cubilcles and offices on the way back to their work area.

There are a LOT of other things to take into consideration as well.

Factor in, they need to gather a list of all the receivers. Sure, us being in the know, we have a much better grasp than they do. Then they need to aquire right to a photograph, and possibly acquire a sample of their own to inspect for legality, and then photograph, and then arrainged into some sort of order so that they can edit and revise the AW Identification guide for publication (it is like a book, and you don't just take notes to kinkos and have them make a book for you... publication can take months).

Factor in, they have to find someone to design print posters, fliers, pamphlets... then they have to have them approved by some internal comittee most likely, then they send to the printers, receive proof samples back to show the lawyers to make sure everything is correct, then off to the printers for mass production.

And if you think they're going to start one registration period while another different one is coming to conclusion, I think you're sadly mistaken. I'm sure they expect a lot of last minute 50 BMG registrations, and probably want all that mess cleared up before they start the AR registration, which they know is going to innundate their office with many thousands of new applications, all of which need to be entered manually. They may even need to hire /reallocate new staff to take care of this huge influx of to-be registrations.

They will list. That's their job. They're not waiting for new legislation. They're an office of the Executive branch, who does not have some magic red phone they can pick up and instantly have new law passed.

There are SO many things to consider about all this, most people are glazing over the fact... "oh, it's simple to list, and since they haven't done it, they're not going to do it." I call BS on that line of thought.

GW
04-09-2006, 10:57 PM
And lets not forget that even if they list these receivers and we can make detachable mag rifles... There is still a ban on new magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
Now, I have no idea whatsoever as to how they could enforce this ban, except if you are under a certain age , you had better not be handling a 20 or 30 round mag.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-09-2006, 11:38 PM
And lets not forget that even if they list these receivers and we can make detachable mag rifles... There is still a ban on new magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
Now, I have no idea whatsoever as to how they could enforce this ban, except if you are under a certain age , you had better not be handling a 20 or 30 round mag.

Lucky for me I purhcased 15 hi cap 30 rd. mags before the ban.....;)

I'm not sure how I got so lucky....the mags I have are brand new and are pre-ban......:D

I bet you have some around the house you forgot about....you just need to know where to look....:)

Jarhead4
04-10-2006, 12:37 AM
And lets not forget that even if they list these receivers and we can make detachable mag rifles... There is still a ban on new magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
Now, I have no idea whatsoever as to how they could enforce this ban, except if you are under a certain age , you had better not be handling a 20 or 30 round mag.

It would not be illegal if they find the magazines. It is basically an unenforceable law.

PanzerAce
04-10-2006, 12:57 AM
this topic was beaten to death re: magazines.

But yah, its illegal to buy or manufacture new mags, so dont.

GW
04-10-2006, 1:19 AM
this topic was beaten to death re: magazines.

But yah, its illegal to buy or manufacture new mags, so dont.
Sorry, I didn't make my point clea,r That is that even though California shooters may get detachable mag AR's they will still only be 10 round detachable mags for many of the new/younger buyers.
My aging memory has me recalling that you had to be 18 to buy magazines/gun parts prior to 1999. Unfortunately I cannot find that in my latest How to Own Guns and Stay Out Of Jail In California book So, if my memory is correct, you need to be at least 24 to own standard mags. If thats not correct then no big deal. At any rate, this law needs to be overturned.

xenophobe
04-10-2006, 1:32 AM
Also, DOJ needs to compile an off-list AK receiver list as well. This is going to be so much more difficult than the ARs... imagine how many different off-lists have been made. Yikes!

Jarhead4
04-10-2006, 1:39 AM
Also, DOJ needs to compile an off-list AK receiver list as well. This is going to be so much more difficult than the ARs... imagine how many different off-lists have been made. Yikes!


Not to mention that AK Receivers so easy to make, and the blanks are dirt cheap. But then again, that was why the AK was so popular. They will never be able to stop the AK's from coming in.

PanzerAce
04-10-2006, 8:31 AM
Sorry, I didn't make my point clea,r That is that even though California shooters may get detachable mag AR's they will still only be 10 round detachable mags for many of the new/younger buyers.
My aging memory has me recalling that you had to be 18 to buy magazines/gun parts prior to 1999. Unfortunately I cannot find that in my latest How to Own Guns and Stay Out Of Jail In California book So, if my memory is correct, you need to be at least 24 to own standard mags. If thats not correct then no big deal. At any rate, this law needs to be overturned.

ah, misread it or something. :D

as for the age limit for parts, I bought a bunch of AR mags back in the day at a flea market, so I hope there was not an age limit.