PDA

View Full Version : Possible Centerfire Rifle Ban


stag1500
04-06-2006, 9:38 PM
Several gun store owners have hinted that Sen. Don Perata plans to ban all centerfire rifles that are capable of holding more than 1 round. It is even possible that Attorney General Lockyer might add these center fire rifles to the "assault weapons" ban list at the same time the newly identified AR/AK rifles are added. As I'm sure you all know, there have been nearly 30,000 of these new recievers that have flooded into California in the last few months. It seems like the DOJ is out to punish us for that by banning all centerfire rifles capable of holding more than 1 round.

If this should come to pass, it will bring us one step closer to Communism and the end of what is left of our liberties. Just look at what happened in Great Britain and Australia. We need to fight back now! It is always harder get back a right once it's lost than it is to fight to keep it. We must never lose our right to own a gun regardless of what cosmetic features it has or how many rounds it can hold. Our safety and our liberty depends on it.

blacklisted
04-06-2006, 9:42 PM
That's 100% bull****. If you mean semi-automatic centerfire detachable mag, then yes, they WANT to do that. The law doesn't work that way though.

At this time they can only add AR/AK to the list, a special court decision is necessary to add others. They could add semi-automatic centerfire rifles, if that were to happen, but it's not likely.

I personally don't think they would even try this (new legislation would be necessary in order to be effective, and it might even fail here in CA). This is because we already have the so-called "features ban" which already takes care of the "problem" in their mind.

SkyStorm82
04-06-2006, 9:44 PM
I don't think it would be possible for them to add all the centerfire's on the list when/if they do the lowers.

There's no doubt in my mind that is what they want though.

Mssr. Eleganté
04-06-2006, 9:46 PM
Several gun store owners have hinted that Sen. Don Perata plans to ban all centerfire rifles that are capable of holding more than 1 round. It is even possible that Attorney General Lockyer might add these center fire rifles to the "assault weapons" ban list at the same time the newly identified AR/AK rifles are added.

I think Lockyer would have a hard time making the case that "all centerfire rifles that are capable of holding more than 1 round" are somehow AR/AK series rifles. He can only add AR/AK series rifles to the A/W list.

And Don Perata can only ban guns in California after he becomes State Emperor. Until then he will need the help of some other legislators and the governator.

stag1500
04-06-2006, 10:00 PM
Don't forget the Attorney General reserves the right to declare any semiautomatic rifle an "assault rifle". All he has to do is identify the rifle or rifles and submit the list to the Secretary of State. It doesn't have to be voted on.

blacklisted
04-06-2006, 10:01 PM
That's not true, there is a special add-on procedure that must take place.

C.G.
04-06-2006, 10:13 PM
Don't forget the Attorney General reserves the right to declare any semiautomatic rifle an "assault rifle". All he has to do is identify the rifle or rifles and submit the list to the Secretary of State. It doesn't have to be voted on.

You might want to start reading some threads here before posting half-truths or incomplete info.

blacklisted
04-06-2006, 10:15 PM
Gun shop rumors have been crazy in the last few months. Some still think we're criminals and are going to jail for buying lowers.

Justang
04-06-2006, 10:37 PM
Don't forget the Attorney General reserves the right to declare any semiautomatic rifle an "assault rifle". All he has to do is identify the rifle or rifles and submit the list to the Secretary of State. It doesn't have to be voted on.

Wow, that's so far from the truth.

blacklisted
04-06-2006, 10:38 PM
Wow, that's so far from the truth.

If it was true, all semi-automatic centerfire rifles would have been banned years ago.

Justang
04-06-2006, 10:39 PM
Gun shop rumors have been crazy in the last few months. Some still think we're criminals and are going to jail for buying lowers.

No doubt. I was told by a guy at Turners that the AR's will be illegal. I told him we'd be able to register, and he said that wasn't true. Then a customer and I started talking about the PTR91, this guy was retarded. He said they were illegal no matter what. I tried to explain SB23, and that it was a clone, but all he could think was HK=illegal. He then told me if I was gonna do something illegal, I might as well make in full auto. wtf. some people...

shopkeep
04-06-2006, 11:03 PM
Never gonna happen. The gun bans right now are at just about the absolute limit that they will be tolerated by the gun owning masses. In fact, even gun owners at some of the ranges I go to who thought AR/AK rifles were "evil" and should be banned have now changed their mind due to sufficient oppression. I think the offlist situation is the beginning of something much larger.

Justang
04-06-2006, 11:06 PM
I used to think the AK's should be banned. I was under the impression that they could easily be made into full auto. I was misinformed. I now own AK's.

kick Z tail out
04-06-2006, 11:16 PM
The fact that they will eventually make that a reality is so lame. As much as stupid gun laws in California do not surprise me... I have to wonder... Is anyone going to do something about the constant errosion of our constitutional rights? What the hell country is California part of, anyway? It's only a matter of time before they ban sticks and stones because of the danger they pose to bones.

WhiteSands
04-06-2006, 11:22 PM
Sooner or later...people, en masse, will just stop listening to their banter and do as they please. This is America...you cannot disarm America...not even California. ;)


One of the arguments against prosecuting the estimated 11 million Illegals in the US is that it would over burden the courts systems.

We need to just "run the border" so to speak and make ‘em anyway!

Rivet
04-07-2006, 12:20 AM
It's only a matter of time before they ban sticks and stones because of the danger they pose to bones.

That's sig worthy!

TrailerparkTrash
04-07-2006, 1:37 AM
This same topic is listed under the rifle forum. I just copied what I posted there:

I doubt that ALL rifles except for single shots will be banned by Lockyer or Don Perata. I believe that if they were to ban more guns, it would probably start with semi-auto handguns, then all other type of handguns years later. The bottom line is, nobody really knows.

I'm sick and tired of listening to "gun store counter lawyers." Many of them are good decent honest people. But the rest are full of *****. I love going into a gun store, knowing exactly what the current law states, what state bill's are being considered and just asking the clerks simple gun law questions to which I already know the answer to. Only do I soon discover that most but not all of the clerks don't know what the frick their talking about.

I usually do these "test" questions to see what kind of salesman I'm dealing with. Is it one that's going to lie to me just to make a sale, or tell me the customer what I want to hear? If I get an honest answer from the guy, I can pretty much assume that when I ask him a real question about a specific product I'm interested in, he'll probably be straight up with me. (Hopefully).

I still can't believe that last week I walked into a Turner's in Orange and asked the clerk if I could hunt deer in CA with a .223 bolt action rifle. I already knew the answer but the idiot said, "Nope, no .22 caliber centerfire arms are allowed on CA deer."

Well, needless to say, he is flat out WRONG. That's just one example.

Bottom line is this: Anytime a gun store clerk (read: "SALESMAN") tells you something that sounds shocking, be polite but research it yourself. If a clerk told me that the state is now going to ban all rifles, I'd challenge him on that and ask him; "what bill are you refering to? What senator did you hear make that statement? When did he make that statement? What is the CRPA and/or NRA officially saying about the claim you're making? What news source did you specifically read/hear that from and when?"

If it's a GOOD gun store clerk, they will be able to answer most of the above follow up questions. They better, it's they're business and they should be considered almost "experts" in the field of firearms and firearm sales. Period.

Make them back up what they tell you.

bwiese
04-07-2006, 8:51 AM
I've been hearing inklings of this even from a noted gun lawyer.

Not sure if it's Perata though - but there is desire to further ban semiautos.

However, no proposed legislation is in place nor has it made it out of committeee. It could be being drafted in some legislator's office and he's consulting with his like-minded buddies on how to get it to see light of day.

This is one reason why I continue to not worry about "kicking the dog". The idea that if we hold back on attacking Lockyer, legislators will be nice to us - Hah.

Major Miner II
04-07-2006, 9:20 AM
If it was true, all semi-automatic centerfire rifles would have been banned years ago.
I don't agree.

There are far more people out there that would be upset with that ban, and we're talking a number that could actually effect change in the gun laws in the state, as opposed to the people who get upset over the AW ban.

Rumpled
04-07-2006, 9:42 AM
During the AW ban debates, it became important to not tick off grandad and his Garand. That and not ban hunting rifles. The bans went for black guns and let M1A's also survive.
The every day grandad with his war relic (M1 or M1A) is too big of a block to go against.
I believe that even if Perata or others try to further restrict semi's; this is the problem they will run into. An attempt at this, might turn the tide further against them.
From the point of banning, detachable mag would be the easiest to get rolling, but you can't take grandad's M1A.
For the anti's, I don't see a workable solution to restrict more rifles.

kantstudien
04-07-2006, 9:46 AM
Sweet! I can have a full-auto bolt action like I always wanted after I register it! :rolleyes:

It has a dreaded detachable magazine! :eek:

grammaton76
04-07-2006, 9:51 AM
From the point of banning, detachable mag would be the easiest to get rolling, but you can't take grandad's M1A.
For the anti's, I don't see a workable solution to restrict more rifles.

Very simple, my good friend. Remember, the anti's make us look like short sighted kids in their plans. Their plan is just to wait for granddad to die of old age or otherwise get out of the voting pool. In 20 or so years, when not that many granddads are around with their M1A's and the only people with M1As are the looked-down-upon "Tackleberry mall-ninjas", it'll be time to quietly start chipping away again. Each generation accepts just that one bit of compromise, until ultimately it's all gone.

Federally speaking, we're talking:
1934. NFA
1968. I remember this was an important year, but not why.
1986. Something about machine guns, I believe...
2010. Guessing when Fed AWB 2.0 will come.

2010 is a shot in the dark here, but I figure if we get a Democrat in the presidency and the anti's make sizeable inroads into the House and Senate, we're likely to see Fed AWB 2.0 come into place, stronger than ever, with no sunset provisions.

Anyway, they just get a ban in place, wait for a generation to grow up under it - then get them to believe, "It was always this way, but it's a little too dangerous, so we should compromise just this once". Then they lie down and bide their time, until the next generation gets in place and it's time to convince them that the Second Amendment has been getting out of control lately...

kantstudien
04-07-2006, 9:57 AM
I still can't believe that last week I walked into a Turner's in Orange and asked the clerk if I could hunt deer in CA with a .223 bolt action rifle. I already knew the answer but the idiot said, "Nope, no .22 caliber centerfire arms are allowed on CA deer."

Well, needless to say, he is flat out WRONG.

If you knew the answer then why did you ask the question?

Smokeybehr
04-07-2006, 9:59 AM
If you knew the answer then why did you ask the question?

He's thinking like a good lawyer: Don't ask a question of your client that you don't know the answer to. Plus, he wanted to see how much of a moron the guy was.

Rumpled
04-07-2006, 10:14 AM
Grammaton,
So, you're the Demo strategist on this, eh?
Don't give them a gameplan.

Yes, you are correct in your assessment of creeping incrementalism at work.
It also works on individual pieces of legislation.
Banner says "Ban all semi's"
Progun says "What about gramp's M1"
Banner says "Ok, gramps is a good guy, we'll compromise"

Progun thinsk "Compromise my rear, I just lost"

grammaton76
04-07-2006, 10:29 AM
Grammaton,
So, you're the Demo strategist on this, eh?
Don't give them a gameplan.

Heh, I'm not giving 'em anything... this is what they've been patiently doing for the last 70 or so years. :(

Yes, you are correct in your assessment of creeping incrementalism at work.
It also works on individual pieces of legislation.
Banner says "Ban all semi's"
Progun says "What about gramp's M1"
Banner says "Ok, gramps is a good guy, we'll compromise"

Progun thinsk "Compromise my rear, I just lost"

That last line is true for some parts of the pro-gun camp - unfortunately, the Field and Stream folks usually don't think that. They claps each other on the back, call it a victory for "true sporting firearms", and (to paraphrase Bill Ruger), say "Ah, we managed to save our little gun!"

Cdog
04-07-2006, 10:40 AM
If they were to pass something like this my wife and I will take our taxable incomes somewhere else. Seriously. How much more can us gun owners put up with?

ajwells
04-07-2006, 10:44 AM
I'm sure this won't be happening any time soon.

the only thing that scares me about it happening is that when people vote for gun bans of any type, they seem to always vote the same, if someone voted for a specific type of gun to be banned than they'll vote for any proposed gun ban. You won't find me or anyone else here voting for ANY type of ban on guns. The gun banning laws always have a certain number of guarenteed votes.

I hope I'm wrong about that and that there are people who although would vote for the assault weapons to be banned, would not vote for a certerfire rifle ban.

ajwells
04-07-2006, 10:50 AM
Anyway, they just get a ban in place, wait for a generation to grow up under it - then get them to believe, "It was always this way, but it's a little too dangerous, so we should compromise just this once". Then they lie down and bide their time, until the next generation gets in place and it's time to convince them that the Second Amendment has been getting out of control lately...

I agree completely.

The flaw in there way of thinking is that now only the criminals have efective guns. The good guys are all stuck with single shot, unloaded, .22LR that have to have a trigger lock on them up until the moment you are about to fire. And it has to be registered under your name, finger print and you can't buy more than 20rounds of ammo with out proof that it is needed.

45Auto
04-07-2006, 11:02 AM
The Roberti-Roos AW ban was fueled by the hysteria produced by the Stockton school yard shooting. Without that, the ban would never have been written nor passed let alone been signed by the Republican governor at the time (Wilson). A bill to ban ALL centerfire semi auto rifles has no basis in fact in California or anywhere else in the country. True, there are anti gun legislators who would gladly ban ALL guns if they could (Feinstein), but it is not currently a possibility given the fact that the US has more legally armed citizens than anywhere else in the world. The sunsetting of the federal AW ban was the beginning of the end for all practical purposes of state AW bans (California and New Jersey). The only reasonable thing for the Cal legislature to do would be to revise the current total ban by allowing citizens to purchase AR's etc and then register them as per SB23. Hell, law enforcement and former law enforcement) currently has that right. Will they do it? Probably not, because such a move implies that they are capable of "reason". Still, the surge in AR and related parts manufacturing resulting from the demise of the hated federal ban will ultimately make California's ban moot.

45Auto
04-07-2006, 11:24 AM
The anti-gunners operate from a position of irrationality. They need an "event" to whip up a frenzy in the public mind using their sycophantic allies in the left-wing press. The recent multiple murders of hunters in Wisconsin did not result in pressure to ban all hunting rifles. The gun used was an SKS so-called "assault weapon" which was merely another semi auto centerfire rifle. The VPC tried in vain to whip up public hysteria over this. The AW ban had sunsetted two months earlier in 2004. No federal action was taken as a result and no Wisconsin state legislation was forthcoming. The VPC even toned down their usual screeching insanity by calling only for the President to ban (by executive order no less) the importation of the SKS (and related arms); they did not call for a total ban on all semi auto hunting rifles. Even they understood the futility of trying to ban dad's Remington 740.

bwiese
04-07-2006, 11:42 AM
The Roberti-Roos AW ban was fueled by the hysteria produced by the Stockton school yard shooting. Without that, the ban would never have been written nor passed let alone been signed by the Republican governor at the time (Wilson).

Bzzzz, wrong. Get your facts straight.

Wilson wasn't even Governor yet- Roberti-Roos was signed by Gov. George Deukmejian as a compromise, as he was uneasy with a features-based ban.

By contrast, Pete Wilson vetoed the 1st cut in 1998 of the by features assault weapon ban.

How do I remember this? Because I FedEx'd detailed letters to Gov's office, his spokesman's office, etc. in summer of 1998. When September bill-signing season rolled around I heard his spokesman (was it Dan Schnur? - can't recall) using the very words from my letter near-verbatim.


A bill to ban ALL centerfire semi auto rifles has no basis in fact in California or anywhere else in the country.

Um, then how come SKSes with detachable magazines, and Springfield's Beretta BM59 rifles are on the original Roberti-Roos list?

They're certainly thinking of it.

And the legislature can add items to the Roberti-Roos list - it would be structurally easy to add "Mini 14 series", "SU16 series", "M1A/M14 series" to this list as an easy 1st cut.

The sunsetting of the federal AW ban was the beginning of the end for all practical purposes of state AW bans (California and New Jersey).

Naive. It just changed the nature of the fight from a national basis to a piecemeal state-by-state basis.

The only reasonable thing for the Cal legislature to do would be to revise the current total ban by allowing citizens to purchase AR's etc and then register them as per SB23.

Nope. You expect reason from these folks?? I've got a bridge to sell you.

These guys WILL pass new tighter laws and more semiauto restrictions are on their minds.

Hell, law enforcement and former law enforcement) currently has that right.

Yes, the police state always has special privileges. Nice to have those AWs, on top of their retire-at-55 @ 90% pensions (adjusted for COLA/inflation).

45Auto
04-07-2006, 12:17 PM
Bill,
I forgot that it was the "Deuk" that signed Roberti-Roos. Still, I don't think I am entirely wrong in that the damn Cal AW ban would never have been passed had it not been for the "event" at Stockton (and the other one with the lunatic shooting up the law offices in San Francisco a little later). Even though the Cal legislature is currently firmly populated by aging anti gun Marxists, I don't see the same kind of public hysteria (flames fanned by the rotten media) that preceeded both Roberti-Roos and the subsequernt federal ban in 1994. It is "wishful thinking" on my part that the AW ban in Cal would be lifted and supplanted by a "mere" registration. That would be too logical. And I am not so naive to think the Cal legislature will suddenly stop with the anti gun bills. However, I do think they might have a more difficult time getting some of these actually signed into law (not that the Governator is pro RKBA). Does current law (SB 23) give the AG the authority to merely list other guns (like the Mini 14/30)? If so, he could also list (and therefore ban) things like the Remington 740/7400 series. If he wants to be governor down the road, that might not be a good move.

snobordr
04-07-2006, 12:26 PM
Don't forget the Attorney General reserves the right to declare any semiautomatic rifle an "assault rifle". All he has to do is identify the rifle or rifles and submit the list to the Secretary of State. It doesn't have to be voted on.

Wow, three posts and you are already posting info that is contrary to information in the big red "READ ME" faq at the top of the page not to mention inaccurate.

Good job.

EFC (Edited for clarity)

45Auto
04-07-2006, 12:29 PM
Well, why not just have them deleted then?

grammaton76
04-07-2006, 12:33 PM
Well, why not just have them deleted then?

Because forums where people just go and delete/edit each others' comments all day long, aren't forums - they're wikis. :)

45Auto
04-07-2006, 12:48 PM
Sorry. I guess I'm a little testy today. I do appreciate the information that is posted here; also I learn a lot from the opinions of other RKBA advocates. My memory is not what it used to be; Bill's analysis of Cal AW laws is impeccable. Thanks to him and some others on this forum, the whole "off list lowers" adventure became a big reality. No matter what happens in this saga, it sure is a wake-up call for California politicians. It is a solid demonstration that things are not always as simple as the politicos would like us to believe.

bwiese
04-07-2006, 1:35 PM
Does current law (SB 23) give the AG the authority to merely list other guns (like the Mini 14/30)? If so, he could also list (and therefore ban) things like the Remington 740/7400 series. If he wants to be governor down the road, that might not be a good move.

Well our subject at hand is less SB23 than (IIRC) an early 1990s update to Roberti-Roos - SB23 really just patched in the generic definition of AW and the reg period for it.

The AG, confirmed by Kasler and reaffirmed by Harrott decisions, has the authority to identify new series members - for now, this is just restricted to AR and AK series unless new series are created (more about that later). The concept is the gun is banned, and the AG's office (DOJ) has enough technical ability to determine series membership. Note that this is not considered declaration.

If the DOJ strays too far from the reservation (i.e., trying to push something thru as a series member even though it's distinctly different from AR or AK series) that is eminently challengeable, and Harrott in fact brings this up.

Any other non-series member must have the AG/DOJ file a petition in a superior court (in county w/over 1Mil population) for a temporary, then permanent, declaration of assault weapons status. (This is called a 12276.5 'add on' petition.) While the burden of proof is supposedly on the AG to show something is especially deadly and courts must 'strictly construe' this statute, and show a 'preponderance of evidence' that something should be banned. This in fact will likely be relatively easy to do - especially for 'copies and duplicates (FAL clones, Uzi clones, HK clones, etc.) There is a reasonably high bound such that a court would not add conventionally- stocked Mini 14s, Garands, etc. to the list.

In fact, the AG could execute a 12276.5 add-on petition for various FAL clones and ask for FAL clones to be a "series". Thus they'd then only need one exemplar of the new clone rifle and could do later 12276.5(h) list updates by make/model as they please since they created a new series.

[Legislation could be attempted to add items to the 12276 named gun list, too. Conceviably these wouldn't have to be 'ugly' EBRs - after all, the SKS w/detachable magazine is banned.]

In my brief re-read of this, it appears that, for new 'add-on' guns, there may be a nearly double 90-day period. The first 0-90 days after declaration is for the DOJ to officially list them and send out public info, etc., after which the mandatory 90 day registration period begins.

Scope
04-07-2006, 4:31 PM
This rumor seems to be in the character of our legislature, and state government overall. I think they will try to create a more encompassing ban, instead of trying to update lists as new companies pop up. I do not think they would be (are) worried about long-term voter disapproval due to enlarging the AWB, but short term disapproval might prevent them from trying to expand it prior to the 2006 elections.

If they were going to expand the AWB, would they try before elections in November?

icormba
04-07-2006, 4:56 PM
Sometimes "rumors" are used or even started to generate money.

Wild Bill
04-07-2006, 5:52 PM
You might want to start reading some threads here before posting half-truths or incomplete info.
I fully agree with you. Be sure you have all the info before you go off half cocked!:(

jnojr
04-09-2006, 11:20 AM
Never gonna happen. The gun bans right now are at just about the absolute limit that they will be tolerated by the gun owning masses.

No, they aren't, and it's dangerous to think or say that.

As long as the temperature of the water isn't turned up too fast, the frog won't complain until it's too late. The only way that California gun owners are going to jump up is if they tried to pass an outright ban immediately. As long as they keep nickle-and-diming us, we'll continue to take it until we wake up one day and realize it's far, far too late.

Gregas
04-09-2006, 11:45 AM
Try this one on for size: A national version of SB23.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.645:

Actully, it looks even worse than SB23 (if that's even possible). Instead of flash hiders it prohibits threaded barrels. Goodbye M1A, Keltec SU-16CA. It also bans "barrel shrouds", ie. your ARs handguards! We all know how dangerous handguards make a rifle!

Ford8N
04-09-2006, 11:46 AM
No, they aren't, and it's dangerous to think or say that.

As long as the temperature of the water isn't turned up too fast, the frog won't complain until it's too late. The only way that California gun owners are going to jump up is if they tried to pass an outright ban immediately. As long as they keep nickle-and-diming us, we'll continue to take it until we wake up one day and realize it's far, far too late.


+1

As long as the rulers don't piss off "Elmer Fudd" and we keep on accepting "reasonable gun control", they will win. It's called negotiation and compromise the other guy until you get what you want. It works quite well.

phish
04-09-2006, 12:42 PM
I don't like the "us and them" mentality of the indifferent hunters who think "they won't touch mine". They're falling for the anti's divide and conquer strategy hook, line and sinker.

As much as I detest any type of gun ban, maybe an attempt at a centerfire ban will finally wake them up.

PLINK
04-09-2006, 10:52 PM
Try this one on for size: A national version of SB23.

Fortunately it's been languishing--if it hasn't died.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.645:

I see that M1 Carbine (.30?) and Ruger Mini 14 is on there list. That sucks.

bwiese
04-10-2006, 10:16 AM
I see that M1 Carbine (.30?) and Ruger Mini 14 is on there list. That sucks.

Yep. And the SF-based LCAV (Legal Coalition Against Violence) has a model assault weapon ordinance/law that includes pump guns as well.

sac7000
04-10-2006, 12:15 PM
Sometimes "rumors" are used or even started to generate money.

If you look back at history, "rumors" have been the building blocks of huge financial fortunes. Taking advantage of a situation where you have inside information can be very profitable. Allowing "rumors" to dictate how you run your business could also affect your bottom line. To all the FFL's out there who want to put their feet in the water but are afraid, it's only a memo.....

artherd
04-10-2006, 10:24 PM
Don't forget the Attorney General reserves the right to declare any semiautomatic rifle an "assault rifle". All he has to do is identify the rifle or rifles and submit the list to the Secretary of State. It doesn't have to be voted on.
WRONG WRONG WRONG!

A Supior Court can, at the AG's request, EXAMINE and rule on the issue that a gun may be a "copy, replica, or identical to" a currently banned AW. Ie the COURT could declare DSA FALs to be identical to "FN FAL" (currently banned by name.)

But that's it.

They need a Category 1 or 2 banned-by-name 'catalyst' to do anything to non-ar/ak-series guns, and ONLY A SUPIOR COURT can do it.