PDA

View Full Version : Bullet Buttons Still Bothering BoF and They're Still Spreading BS


tango-52
08-10-2010, 11:38 PM
Today, August 10, 2010, the National Shooting Sports Foundation hosted a presentation to firearms dealers on various regulations. Presenters were from the BATFE and the CA BoF. The announcement and the agenda are attached below. Look at the third item under the presentation by the BoF (second page). The current and future legality of the bullet button (BB) was presented to the crowd. Unfortunately, there were no representatives of BoF from Sacramento present at this meeting. They sent two Field Agents in from Riverside, who had only found out about the meeting yesterday. It appears that, even though Alison Merrilees is no longer in their Bureau, the FUD is still flowing. They made the bold statement to the crowd that the legality of BBs was undetermined but that next year, with a new Attorney General coming in, they were going to get an opinion that would state that BBs were not legal and, consequently, all such rifles would be illegal. Now, that is a pretty bold statement for them to make in front of a crowd of over a hundred firearms dealers, even at the behest of their puppet masters in Sacto. Nice of them to make that declaration on behalf of an AG who hasnít even been voted on yet. And why didnít they have that written opinion already in hand from the current AG? Because Jerry Brown was too pro-gun to give it to them. Now, a lot of this could be pure FUD being passed out by the Field Reps. But clearly BBs are a thorn in their side and we need to be vigilant and watch their actions in the coming year.

WokMaster1
08-10-2010, 11:42 PM
The power of Gene is strong, have no fear.

Maybe CGF can file a letter of complaint against these 2 BOFfers for making their own policies.

383green
08-10-2010, 11:56 PM
Somebody PM Gene... I have a feeling that these BOFers are about to learn what it feels like to have the Eye of Sauron turned upon them.

wildhawker
08-10-2010, 11:57 PM
Field agents very recently attempted to strongarm me with a threat of a warrant over one ongoing project. I'm still waiting. :gene:

Much of the BOF's operational BS is simply residual kinetic energy. It's fading fast.

We're more than happy to correct them at any time. That they feel they have to wait until the "next AG" tells us something about the merits of their argument, not to mention the wisdom of the AG.

383green
08-11-2010, 12:01 AM
"Next AG" must be the new version of "Two Weeks". :whistling:

rp55
08-11-2010, 12:03 AM
That they feel they have to wait until the "next AG" tells us something about the merits of their argument, not to mention the wisdom of the AG.

OTOH, if the next AG is Kamala Harris they may be spot on.

faterikcartman
08-11-2010, 12:04 AM
"Next AG" must be the new version of "Two Weeks". :whistling:

The "two weeks" thing never gets old for me. Once in a while my wife will impatiently ask when something will happen and I'll respond with a chuckle and "two weeks" and she stares at me blankly.

wildhawker
08-11-2010, 12:04 AM
OTOH, if the next AG is Kamala Harris they may be spot on.

She's perfect to create a target-rich environment. :43:

stitchnicklas
08-11-2010, 12:19 AM
get'em gene...

turn those memo's sideways and shove them.......well you get the idea,darn fud-tardos

POLICESTATE
08-11-2010, 12:27 AM
One has to wonder, how many BB equipped and featureless rifles are in California now? Thousands I'm sure, I bet the drones in Sacramento have worried themselves into an ulcer just thinking about it.

And that makes me :D

69Mach1
08-11-2010, 12:39 AM
Hundreds of thousands.

bwiese
08-11-2010, 12:43 AM
A higher-level conversation can solve this.

abusalim81
08-11-2010, 12:48 AM
F...EM ALL! They can go F... THEMSELVES.

thayne
08-11-2010, 12:54 AM
i cant wait to see the AW ban go down in flames. Ill mail my BB to the AG

Mssr. Elegantť
08-11-2010, 1:14 AM
I tried to talk to those to BOF guys after their presentation, but they just hid behind the chalkboard. The blonde guy said "You just wait 'til the new Attermy General gets here. He'll show you!" Then the other guy says, "Yeah, he's not afraid of Gene Hoffman! He knows karate and stuff!"

http://www.type03.net/novelty-pics/bof-presentation.jpg

I had my mom call their moms when I got home, so hopefully things will work out.

DisgruntledReaper
08-11-2010, 1:24 AM
'They made the bold statement to the crowd that the legality of BBs was undetermined but that next year, with a new Attorney General coming in, they were going to get an opinion that would state that BBs were not legal and, consequently, all such rifles would be illegal.'

WOW--I guess they know something we dont or they have a judge on the payroll ,to make a bold statement like that......kind of like '...I willl tell you right now that I am going to make love to your wife while you are gone even though I have never met her'---douchebags..

PsychGuy274
08-11-2010, 1:28 AM
Dude... ^THAT^ is funny

PsychGuy274
08-11-2010, 1:29 AM
http://www.type03.net/novelty-pics/bof-presentation.jpg

I had my mom call their moms when I got home, so hopefully things will work out.

Dude, ^THAT^ is funny.

thedrickel
08-11-2010, 2:22 AM
It's still funny the Boffercrats seem totally oblivious to the existence and merits of featureless builds.

nick
08-11-2010, 3:32 AM
It's still funny the Boffercrats seem totally oblivious to the existence and merits of featureless builds.

Rifles with the evil features look scarier. That's what all this BS is about - looks.

RRangel
08-11-2010, 5:16 AM
Wow. Such a fine example of professional knowledge in action. It appears more like biased opinion spread for a purpose that undermines our rights. Note that it has been a few years since the off list lowers started to sell in mass and these people are still behaving as if they're clueless. Most anyone with common reasoning ability can deduce the legality of bullet buttons especially in light of actual attempts at prosecution that can be searched for and read on this forum.

The problem is that these actions help to keep dealers misinformed across California. It's obvious that certain elements within said agency don't mind if that's the case. You'd have to believe these individuals are so totally ignorant as to be inept. Or more likely that this sort of action is the result of agenda driven bias within the agency itself.

tango-52
08-11-2010, 6:22 AM
I believe that these two field agents were just thrown under the bus for the sake of BoF. Sacramento knew well in advance about this event and could have made a cogent presentation that actually cleared up the issues. Instead, they sent two ill-prepared field enforcement agents to be crucified. This was totally unprofessional, but it is what we have come to expect from the BoF. :cool:

vantec08
08-11-2010, 6:31 AM
For the first time in many years, these bureaucrats are SCARED that their precious authority is being threatened and jeopardized. They can be given a clear message "HANDS OFF SUCH AND SUCH" and they will find a way to tinker with it to enhance their authority. Its just in the nature of government bureaucracies. You are right, they will sacrifice each other to hold onto the authority and pension.

tenpercentfirearms
08-11-2010, 6:34 AM
Ooops. I think I have sold a few Bullet Buttons in my time. I hope I don't go to jail.

Paper Boy
08-11-2010, 7:05 AM
i cant wait to see the AW ban go down in flames. Ill mail my BB to the AG

Not a bad idea.... Even better if everyone sent theirs on the same day so they all got there around the same time...

TKM
08-11-2010, 7:15 AM
'They made the bold statement to the crowd that the legality of BBs was undetermined but that next year, with a new Attorney General coming in, they were going to get an opinion that would state that BBs were not legal and, consequently, all such rifles would be illegal.'

WOW--I guess they know something we dont or they have a judge on the payroll ,to make a bold statement like that......kind of like '...I willl tell you right now that I am going to make love to your wife while you are gone even though I have never met her'---douchebags..


GEORGE: Yeah? Well, I had sex with your wife.

George looks round, smiling arrogantly, expecting laughter. But there is a
deep, uncomfortable, silence. Reilly, looks stony-faced. McAdam stands and
leans over to speak in George's ear.

MCADAM: His wife is in a coma.

cdtx2001
08-11-2010, 8:06 AM
So does that mean that if they deem BBs to be illegal, everyone with a BB equipped rifle is gonna have to register them as an AW???? Sounds like there will be an open period for registering again, blah blah blah....

I don't think even Kamalah Harris would want to be known as the "AG who put hundreds of thousands more assault weapons on the street"

Swiss
08-11-2010, 8:10 AM
As someone else already requested, please raise the level of discourse. You're acting like 10 year olds and it reflects poorly on all of us.

ironpegasus
08-11-2010, 8:29 AM
So does that mean that if they deem BBs to be illegal, everyone with a BB equipped rifle is gonna have to register them as an AW???? Sounds like there will be an open period for registering again, blah blah blah....

I don't think even Kamalah Harris would want to be known as the "AG who put hundreds of thousands more assault weapons on the street"

^THIS^ would be the one of the greatest gifts I could ever hope for from an Attorney General. Since they can't overturn laws and they can't do away with them but they would likely have to allow for registration because the legally owned firearms were perfectly legal before such an administrative ruling, I'd go out and buy a bunch of OLLs and button them so that they could be registered as AWs and then as an AW, I could unbutton them. But wouldn't it take a change in the law to do this? Or is the bullet button one of those things that is squishy and the AG can issue an opinion on that has the force of binding law like the current "good cause"/CCW mess?

wash
08-11-2010, 9:03 AM
This wouldn't open an "assault weapon" registration period.

What it would do is lead to a case attacking their determination that the Bullet Button is illegal and the "assault weapon" ban itself.

So the gift could be the whole ban gets flushed down the toilet.

I can't tell you what case it was, but the standard SKS was determined to have a fixed magazine. That magazine can be removed with a bullet tip but not by a finger. Does that sound like a Bullet Button to you?

The Bullet Button is functionally identical to a fixed magazine SKS and totally defendable with that precedent in court. It would make for a lot of laughs if the new AG did write a letter like that.

At the same time, I'll take the uppers off all of my Bullet Button OLL's if this does go down. We don't need 50 identical cases to defend at the same time, one is good enough.

Wherryj
08-11-2010, 9:16 AM
"Next AG" must be the new version of "Two Weeks". :whistling:

Sony once had a FAQ page item that discussed the term "Soon". It essentially was a holder for something that may or may not ever happen in the future.

I found it funny that a corporation would allow a sense of humor about such things. "Next AG" is CA's version of Sony's "Soon"?

Wherryj
08-11-2010, 9:41 AM
IF for some reason they aren't just threatening, and bullet buttons are deemed to circumvent the law illegally, how much difficulty would current owners have in registering the weapons?

Is it similar to trying to register for an assault weapon one intends to purchase (meaning impossible) or more a formality of having the DoJ thoroughly inspect your information, fingerprints and every inch of your colon?

383green
08-11-2010, 9:46 AM
There will not be a new registration window. That only happens when additional guns are newly declared to be AWs, something that DOJ no longer has authority to do. If DOJ takes the position that bullet buttons don't create fixed-magazine rifles, then they would in effect be claiming that bullet-buttoned rifles have been illegal AWs all along.

Such a claim would not survive a legal challenge, but even if it did, it would not open up a new registration window.

jb7706
08-11-2010, 9:55 AM
I say good, let them ban the Bullet Button. The damn thing should have never been invented in the first place. I say force everyone to turn in their nasty "mag locks" and replace them with the old, mundane magazine release the rifle was designed with 40+ years ago. :D

trashman
08-11-2010, 9:58 AM
OTOH, if the next AG is Kamala Harris they may be spot on.

We should be so lucky...;)

--Neill

PsychGuy274
08-11-2010, 10:00 AM
Things like this make me feel a little less angry at gun store owners for spreading FUD.

mdhpper
08-11-2010, 10:06 AM
Things like this make me feel a little less angry at gun store owners for spreading FUD.

:iagree:

N6ATF
08-11-2010, 10:21 AM
They'll stop spreading FUD when every last one of them is in federal prison for contempt and/or treason, and whoever tries to resurrect BoF (the very existence of which is to wage war on law-abiding citizens) suffers the same fate.

POLICESTATE
08-11-2010, 10:34 AM
What do we need a Bureau of Firearms for anyway? How much money can we save if we just shut down the whole thing?

N6ATF
08-11-2010, 10:40 AM
The government's goal is to waste as much money and innocent lives as possible. That is the wrong question to ask.

383green
08-11-2010, 10:43 AM
The government's goal is to waste as much money and innocent lives as possible. That is the wrong question to ask.

The government's goal is to wield power and control. The waste of money and innocent lives is just the operating cost of their exercise of that power and control.

Bugei
08-11-2010, 11:18 AM
The government's goal is to wield power and control. The waste of money and innocent lives is just the operating cost of their exercise of that power and control.
Yet another opinion: The government's goal is to wield power and control. The waste of innocent lives allows them to ask for a bigger operating budget because crime is running rampant. It's for the children.

TimRB
08-11-2010, 12:05 PM
Since the subject has come up, has anyone to date ever been prosecuted (successfully or not) for having a BB-equipped rifle? I have searched for this and not been able to find anything definite. I did find one case (an aquittal) where I was not certain exactly what the prosecution was about, but it seemed to involve a BB rifle.

Tim

wash
08-11-2010, 12:48 PM
I know that CGF has sucessfully defended several Bullet Button rifles against "assault weapon" charges.

I do not know if any have lost a similar case on their own.

When CGF gets involved with that issue, it usually doesn't make it to court, that charge gets dropped and unless there was some other problem, the owner gets his guns back.

CHS
08-11-2010, 1:22 PM
It's funny really.

The DOJ will make some memo claiming that the Bullet button is illegal. Then someone (the CGF?) will quote them the law and force them to see how and why the bullet button complies with the law in its entirety. They'll also show them the OC Sheriff's memo's on the subject as well as the Sac PD memo and ask the DOJ how such huge law enforcement departments weren't able to correctly determine what the law actually said.

Then, no more AWB :)

javalos
08-11-2010, 1:24 PM
So does that mean that if they deem BBs to be illegal, everyone with a BB equipped rifle is gonna have to register them as an AW???? Sounds like there will be an open period for registering again, blah blah blah....

I don't think even Kamalah Harris would want to be known as the "AG who put hundreds of thousands more assault weapons on the street"

This whole registration thing is in limbo and will stay in limbo, plus it creates a bewildering legal nightmare. Sending ignorant field agents to meetings like that and saying things like that only creates FUD, those guy do not have the authority to speak for the government and shouldn't of been brought in to say anything period.

I was under the impression due to the September 1, 2006 letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that the AG has given up the authority to create a new list when AB-2728 was signed into law.

wash
08-11-2010, 1:49 PM
It's funny really.

The DOJ will make some memo claiming that the Bullet button is illegal. Then someone (the CGF?) will quote them the law and force them to see how and why the bullet button complies with the law in its entirety. They'll also show them the OC Sheriff's memo's on the subject as well as the Sac PD memo and ask the DOJ how such huge law enforcement departments weren't able to correctly determine what the law actually said.

Then, no more AWB :)
I think for this to work it's way in to killing the AWB, the AG is going to have to produce that memo, then CGF will tell them that they are wrong, then the AG will ignore that and try to prosecute someone and then we use a second amendment defense along with a functionally equivalent to a fixed magazine SKS defense.

Even then, a judge might be able to rule that a Bullet Button OLL rifle is not an "assault weapon" and ignore the second amendment portion. If you only argued the second amendment part, thats performing without a net and I don't think CGF wants to start trying that until they have a lot of precedents on their side.

I think that more than likely this will just result in a lot of laughs, nobody will try to prosecute a "Bullet Button OLL rifle is an AW" case and the AWB challenge will wait a bit longer.

I will still be ready to take the uppers off my Bullet Button OLL's and go featureless for a while.

wildhawker
08-11-2010, 1:54 PM
Direct communication with DOJ on this issue has been established. Updates to follow; in the meantime, everyone can exhale. The sky is not falling.

thayne
08-11-2010, 2:15 PM
Direct communication with DOJ on this issue has been established. Updates to follow; in the meantime, everyone can exhale. The sky is not falling.

2 weeks? :43:

tango-52
08-11-2010, 2:28 PM
Direct communication with DOJ on this issue has been established. Updates to follow; in the meantime, everyone can exhale. The sky is not falling.

Thanks. Bright light is the best cure for these cockroaches. :43:

jdberger
08-11-2010, 2:48 PM
Direct communication with DOJ on this issue has been established. Updates to follow; in the meantime, everyone can exhale. The sky is not falling.

Sometimes it's the "sky falling" is a good thing.

Lawyers need rain, too.

:gura:

curtisfong
08-11-2010, 2:54 PM
Sky falling? I can see no possible result other than good for us here.

ETD1010
08-11-2010, 3:00 PM
I was at that seminar.. They said nothing of that sort.. They said The BoE does NOT have an official stance and is leaving it up to the DAs to decide. We've always known this. They did, however, mention that an unscrewed princ50 or a magnet attached will get you in heaps of trouble, but we knew that too.


I was hoping for more info on the CFLC compliance, but the field agents didn't know about that.

Soldier415
08-11-2010, 3:07 PM
This thread is relevant to my interests...

IGOTDIRT4U
08-11-2010, 3:21 PM
Thanks. Bright light is the best cure for these cockroaches. :43:

lol.

CSACANNONEER
08-11-2010, 3:27 PM
OK, we will wait until they get a new boss. They don't even know who their new boss will be but, they are sure that they know what their new boss will think????? Although I prefer featureless builds, BB are sort of needed for all the pistols with mags outside of PGs. Maybe, they will open up AW registration for these. Yea, right.

Fate
08-11-2010, 3:57 PM
I was at that seminar.. They said nothing of that sort.. They said The BoE does NOT have an official stance and is leaving it up to the DAs to decide. We've always known this. They did, however, mention that an unscrewed princ50 or a magnet attached will get you in heaps of trouble, but we knew that too.

Hahaha...what? The OP's story is bogus?!? Scuttle the failboats!

Soldier415
08-11-2010, 4:28 PM
Hahaha...what? The OP's story is bogus?!? Scuttle the failboats!
http://www.rotskyinstitute.com/rotsky/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/failboat2.jpg

POLICESTATE
08-11-2010, 4:53 PM
What? This whole report is BS?

http://strang.newtomorrow.org/CGN/fail.jpg

tango-52
08-11-2010, 5:18 PM
No, the comments made regarding the need for a decision from the next AG were made to a smaller group, not on the loudspeaker. These guys thought they were speaking to "friends" and could speak their minds. Others were present and I will be getting further information to Wildhawker.

trashman
08-11-2010, 7:36 PM
No, the comments made regarding the need for a decision from the next AG were made to a smaller group, not on the loudspeaker. These guys thought they were speaking to "friends" and could speak their minds.

Good work laying low to get the information! -- this is the kind of stuff that I imagine will reverberate in a good way for us over time.

--Neill

wildhawker
08-11-2010, 7:42 PM
Good work laying low to get the information! -- this is the kind of stuff that I imagine will reverberate in a good way for us over time.

--Neill

Indeed; data gathering to create positive outcomes globally is far more helpful than attempting to persuade people who do not matter.

Fot
08-11-2010, 7:57 PM
Today, August 10, 2010, the National Shooting Sports Foundation hosted a presentation to firearms dealers on various regulations. Presenters were from the BATFE and the CA BoF. The announcement and the agenda are attached below. Look at the third item under the presentation by the BoF (second page). The current and future legality of the bullet button (BB) was presented to the crowd. Unfortunately, there were no representatives of BoF from Sacramento present at this meeting. They sent two Field Agents in from Riverside, who had only found out about the meeting yesterday. It appears that, even though Alison Merrilees is no longer in their Bureau, the FUD is still flowing. They made the bold statement to the crowd that the legality of BBs was undetermined but that next year, with a new Attorney General coming in, they were going to get an opinion that would state that BBs were not legal and, consequently, all such rifles would be illegal. Now, that is a pretty bold statement for them to make in front of a crowd of over a hundred firearms dealers, even at the behest of their puppet masters in Sacto. Nice of them to make that declaration on behalf of an AG who hasnít even been voted on yet. And why didnít they have that written opinion already in hand from the current AG? Because Jerry Brown was too pro-gun to give it to them. Now, a lot of this could be pure FUD being passed out by the Field Reps. But clearly BBs are a thorn in their side and we need to be vigilant and watch their actions in the coming year.

Wait, I though Jerry Brown was a gun grabbing Democrat?:rolleyes:

Silverlake223
08-11-2010, 8:07 PM
I have been wondering about this also. With possibly 100,000 or more BB AR's in the state (and more selling every day) why would they not just have us register them as registered AW's like back in 1999? And if the DOJ does not have the authority, who does? What would door #2 be to have us sell them? They are flying off the shelves, and tax bucks are rolling in to be squandered! I paid $127 dollars in tax for mine is this dead broke state. Not to mention the rounds, range time, blah blah blah which is all taxed! Has there ever been a fiscal analysis done on the money this hobby generates in Cal? How about the infinitesimal amount of crimes committed with Black Rifles? Anyone EVER look into that? :confused:

rkt88edmo
08-11-2010, 8:12 PM
Wow, wonder what the actual firearm enthusiasts from the NSSF thought about the presentation.

65015

Cokebottle
08-11-2010, 8:17 PM
No, the comments made regarding the need for a decision from the next AG were made to a smaller group, not on the loudspeaker. These guys thought they were speaking to "friends" and could speak their minds. Others were present and I will be getting further information to Wildhawker.
Jeez...

I really wish I had the time and money to devote to working as an "infiltrator".... with my last name, everyone seems to think that I'm related to our former AG.

hoffmang
08-11-2010, 8:22 PM
Since the subject has come up, has anyone to date ever been prosecuted (successfully or not) for having a BB-equipped rifle? I have searched for this and not been able to find anything definite. I did find one case (an aquittal) where I was not certain exactly what the prosecution was about, but it seemed to involve a BB rifle.

We know of no one who has been successfully prosecuted with a BB rifle. We've even had charges dismissed and a finding of factual innocence for a BB rifle with an open magwell at seizure.
I was at that seminar.. They said nothing of that sort.. They said The BoE does NOT have an official stance and is leaving it up to the DAs to decide. We've always known this. They did, however, mention that an unscrewed princ50 or a magnet attached will get you in heaps of trouble, but we knew that too.

This apparently happened at a breakout session... I can't even begin to get into how amusing this entire situation is.
Wait, I though Jerry Brown was a gun grabbing Democrat?:rolleyes:
And everyone who just knows that JB is bad for us will have about 0 ability to understand and read between the lines of this incident..
I have been wondering about this also. With possibly 100,000 or more BB AR's in the state (and more selling every day) why would they not just have us register them as registered AW's like back in 1999?

There are only two entities that can force registration - the legislature and the courts. Trying to ex-post-facto declare that BB rifles are illegal would be so wonderful.

1. The state would be required to compensate every single BB rifle owner for taking his constitutionally protected property - thar be dragons for the state.

2. Less gnarly - but equally hilarious - we'd simply make the argument that if the DOJ BoF can't figure out what is and what isn't an AW then that means that SB-23 is unconstitutionally vague.

-Gene

javalos
08-11-2010, 8:29 PM
There are only two entities that can force registration - the legislature and the courts. Trying to ex-post-facto declare that BB rifles are illegal would be so wonderful.

1. The state would be required to compensate every single BB rifle owner for taking his constitutionally protected property - thar be dragons for the state.

2. Less gnarly - but equally hilarious - we'd simply make the argument that if the DOJ BoF can't figure out what is and what isn't an AW then that means that SB-23 is unconstitutionally vague.

-Gene

Hey Gene, I understand that initially only the AG could promulgate a new AWB list, didn't former AG Lockyer given up the AG's authority to do that?

hoffmang
08-11-2010, 8:37 PM
Hey Gene, I understand that initially only the AG could promulgate a new AWB list, didn't former AG Lockyer given up the AG's authority to do that?

A poorly advised AG could try to change the California Code of Regulations to redefine certain terms from the "by features"/SB-23 ban. That would lead to the hilarity I was talking about above...

No AG has the power to define new AWs and list them after the passage of AB-2728.

-Gene

thayne
08-11-2010, 8:45 PM
A poorly advised AG could try to change the California Code of Regulations to redefine certain terms from the "by features"/SB-23 ban. That would lead to the hilarity I was talking about above...

No AG has the power to define new AWs and list them after the passage of AB-2728.

-Gene
So, if SB-23 got shot down would that make all oll's non-assault weapons regardless of features? :43:

leelaw
08-11-2010, 8:48 PM
So, if SB-23 got shot down would that make all oll's non-assault weapons regardless of features? :43:

If SB23 was challenged and ruled unconstitutional, or voided for vaugeness, or any other attack resulting in it going away, then any non-banned-by-name assault weapons (from the 1989 ban) could be built with all the "evil features" that you want, lawfully.

thayne
08-11-2010, 8:55 PM
If SB23 was challenged and ruled unconstitutional, or voided for vaugeness, or any other attack resulting in it going away, then any non-banned-by-name assault weapons (from the 1989 ban) could be built with all the "evil features" that you want, lawfully.

Nice. That would be awesome!

advocatusdiaboli
08-11-2010, 9:00 PM
Rifles with the evil features look scarier. That's what all this BS is about - looks.


While that's a bit of it it is really about job security and power--McDonald has them frightened and they are probably worried about layoffs if all of CA's special rules get canned. I can imagine the next governor telling them to cut staff in half now that the 10-day wait, 30-day single pistol limit, SW ban, Roster, and high-cap ban are gone. But we'll be throwing a party.

leelaw
08-11-2010, 9:03 PM
Nice. That would be awesome!

I look forward to the day when the "evil features" list from the then-expired SB23 becomes a shopping list, instead of a prohibition.

dieselpower
08-11-2010, 9:25 PM
The writting is on the wall and they know it. This is a death rattle from a dieing department.

blackberg
08-11-2010, 9:27 PM
I look forward to the day when the "evil features" list from the then-expired SB23 becomes a shopping list, instead of a prohibition.

ditto! :D
-bb

bwiese
08-11-2010, 9:38 PM
The writting is on the wall and they know it. This is a death rattle from a dieing department.

Not quite.

The DOJ Firearms Bureau will continue to be around. It will continue to run DROSes, investigate felons/prohibited persons from buying guns, etc. That will not change regardless of how well we do in court, and we have little reason to quibble with those aspects.

The current Very Senior Staff in DOJ Firearms Bureau are rational nonpolitical professional administrators without political baggage. Outreach has occurred, they know we're not nuts, etc. When things 'break' there is a communications path, and they won't break like they did in Alison's days.

You can safely assume no redefinition to kill BulletButton will occur and there will be no DOJ-sponsored bills trying to redefine things.

As Gene pointed out, the situation is so complex that even if they wanted to they're (which includes legislature to some extent) cornered into either buybacks , AW registration or AW laws voided due to nonclarity.

jdberger
08-11-2010, 9:45 PM
While that's a bit of it it is really about job security and power--McDonald has them frightened and they are probably worried about layoffs if all of CA's special rules get canned. I can imagine the next governor telling them to cut staff in half now that the 10-day wait, 30-day single pistol limit, SW ban, Roster, and high-cap ban are gone. But we'll be throwing a party.

We'll hire them. We can use caterers for the party.

:D

chris
08-11-2010, 9:59 PM
One has to wonder, how many BB equipped and featureless rifles are in California now? Thousands I'm sure, I bet the drones in Sacramento have worried themselves into an ulcer just thinking about it.

And that makes me :D

don't forget to mention the wet pants they have to be changing because of this.

Ford8N
08-11-2010, 9:59 PM
As Gene pointed out, the situation is so complex that even if they wanted to they're (which includes legislature to some extent) cornered into either buybacks , AW registration or AW laws voided due to nonclarity.



:party:

This is what I was hoping for when the original poster said they would make current BB illegal.

SJgunguy24
08-11-2010, 10:22 PM
OTOH, if the next AG is Kamala Harris they may be spot on.

If I was a LEO for the State of CA this would scare the hell out of me. The last thing I want hanging over my head is the thought, if I get murdered on the job, my killer won't pay with his life. He'll sit in prison talking sh*t about how he killed a cop


This thread is relevant to my interests...

This is relevant to all of our interests, you working for Bill puts you on the front line.

trashman
08-11-2010, 11:56 PM
While that's a bit of it it is really about job security and power--McDonald has them frightened and they are probably worried about layoffs if all of CA's special rules get canned.

I don't think that's it - they're not worried about job security per se; they're worried the "important" or "special" part of their jobs (i.e., the non-bureaucratic part that requires their 'expertise') will become obsolete in a post-Mcdonald world.

It's worth recognizing that if you grow up and have an LE career within a legal framework that treats standard-cap magazines, or black rifles, as immoral or unethical unless owned by LEOs, you will be conditioned to treat black rifles and standard cap mag owners that way. You will also start to assume that as an LEO you have an "important" or "special" reason to have those things for non-duty use just 'cause the law says so. That's what happened in California.

It's been a powerful reality-distortion field for a long time -- can't expect these guys to believe the freight train headed their way is real until it hits 'em.

--Neill

Ford8N
08-12-2010, 5:18 AM
It's worth recognizing that if you grow up and have an LE career within a legal framework that treats standard-cap magazines, or black rifles, as immoral or unethical unless owned by LEOs, you will be conditioned to treat black rifles and standard cap mag owners that way. You will also start to assume that as an LEO you have an "important" or "special" reason to have those things for non-duty use just 'cause the law says so. That's what happened in California.

It's been a powerful reality-distortion field for a long time -- can't expect these guys to believe the freight train headed their way is real until it hits 'em.

--Neill

Spot on and very well said. In my other state the attitude towards firearms is totally different. My observation of the LEO's back there is guns are no big deal, because EVERYONE has one and in reality there are no gun laws, mostly federal law. And it's interesting there is very very little crime per capita compared to this s**thole state we live in. The Brady's hate the state too.:43:

cdtx2001
08-12-2010, 7:31 AM
As Gene pointed out, the situation is so complex that even if they wanted to they're (which includes legislature to some extent) cornered into either buybacks , AW registration or AW laws voided due to nonclarity.

I kinda figured they would be forced to do one of those, and there is no way they would want to end up with that. It's nice to know the law works both ways.

Vox
08-12-2010, 7:39 AM
If I was a LEO for the State of CA this would scare the hell out of me. The last thing I want hanging over my head is the thought, if I get murdered on the job, my killer won't pay with his life. He'll sit in prison talking sh*t about how he killed a cop.

I don't think retribution is something that enters a cop's mind.

spiderpigs
08-12-2010, 7:53 AM
I don't think retribution is something that enters a cop's mind.

I cant tell if your serious

Vox
08-12-2010, 7:56 AM
How about this. Retribution isn't something that *should* enter a cops mind. They needn't be thinking of a possible death penalty, their job doesn't involve sentencing. They should be thinking about doing their job to the best of their ability.

gunsmith
08-12-2010, 8:17 AM
OTOH, if the next AG is Kamala Harris they may be spot on.

Kamala Harris as AG? rank and file law enforcement hate her for not seeking the death penalty
when a dirtbag killed a SF Police Officer, I doubt she'll get much further in her career outside of SF.

spiderpigs
08-12-2010, 8:29 AM
How about this. Retribution isn't something that *should* enter a cops mind. They needn't be thinking of a possible death penalty, their job doesn't involve sentencing. They should be thinking about doing their job to the best of their ability.

I would agree with that

IGOTDIRT4U
08-12-2010, 11:16 AM
No, the comments made regarding the need for a decision from the next AG were made to a smaller group, not on the loudspeaker. These guys thought they were speaking to "friends" and could speak their minds. Others were present and I will be getting further information to Wildhawker.

Tango-52 is a friend of mine and has never been a person whom I doubted his word. Now, with this clarification, let's get to the real work rather than worry about what "story" was told. It looks like there was a "public" one and also a "only for your ears" one. Let's leave it at that.

A contact has been made to the CGN connections at the DOJ, so this should be a non-issue shortly. If not, this is water under the bridge as this legal scenario has been hashed out over the past 4-5 years. For this battle, we are more than ready.

Wherryj
08-12-2010, 11:23 AM
Rifles with the evil features look scarier. That's what all this BS is about - looks.

Obviously it's the looks of the weapon that matter. After all, "If you scare me, your rights don't matter."

Wherryj
08-12-2010, 11:25 AM
There will not be a new registration window. That only happens when additional guns are newly declared to be AWs, something that DOJ no longer has authority to do. If DOJ takes the position that bullet buttons don't create fixed-magazine rifles, then they would in effect be claiming that bullet-buttoned rifles have been illegal AWs all along.

Such a claim would not survive a legal challenge, but even if it did, it would not open up a new registration window.

So if they tried it it would be the RAW option-with the fringe benefits of opening the floodgates against their own AW ban being unconstitutionally vague?

Win-win? Nice.

wash
08-12-2010, 11:30 AM
If the deterrents used to prevent police officer injury are insufficient, I don't blame any officer for being bothered by that. I think an eye for an eye policy is entirely justified for people who commit violence against on duty police officers.

Any way, I like the possible outcome of declaring the "assault weapon" ban unconstitutionally vague. I just doubt we'll get that far over this BoF FUD.

I wait anxiously to see what happens.

wkd4496
08-12-2010, 12:37 PM
if they make bb's illegal, does that mean we have to register our rifles as assault weapons? if so can't we then we can remove the bb, have all the 'evil' features, and +10 mags??

dieselpower
08-12-2010, 12:48 PM
Not quite.

The DOJ Firearms Bureau will continue to be around. It will continue to run DROSes, investigate felons/prohibited persons from buying guns, etc. That will not change regardless of how well we do in court, and we have little reason to quibble with those aspects.

The current Very Senior Staff in DOJ Firearms Bureau are rational nonpolitical professional administrators without political baggage. Outreach has occurred, they know we're not nuts, etc. When things 'break' there is a communications path, and they won't break like they did in Alison's days.

You can safely assume no redefinition to kill BulletButton will occur and there will be no DOJ-sponsored bills trying to redefine things.

As Gene pointed out, the situation is so complex that even if they wanted to they're (which includes legislature to some extent) cornered into either buybacks , AW registration or AW laws voided due to nonclarity.

I mis-spoke. I should have said, "The writing is on the wall and they know it. This is a death rattle from a dieing department old-school field agents.

You will also find old-school LEO who privately comment wanting to arrest on AW charges for any EBR, or UOC, or hi-cap possession. They are a dieing bred. As long as we keep up the education of the younger LEO, this will go away. Of course we would also hope the laws go away.

Wherryj
08-12-2010, 12:54 PM
How about this. Retribution isn't something that *should* enter a cops mind. They needn't be thinking of a possible death penalty, their job doesn't involve sentencing. They should be thinking about doing their job to the best of their ability.

LEOs are people too. I don't see why an officer is expected to "turn the other cheek". Perhaps you meant a Catholic Priest shouldn't think of retribution?

Wherryj
08-12-2010, 12:56 PM
If the deterrents used to prevent police officer injury are insufficient, I don't blame any officer for being bothered by that. I think an eye for an eye policy is entirely justified for people who commit violence against on duty police officers.

Any way, I like the possible outcome of declaring the "assault weapon" ban unconstitutionally vague. I just doubt we'll get that far over this BoF FUD.

I wait anxiously to see what happens.

It isn't just the officer that is served by severe penalties for those who'd attack an officer. Someone who has decided to attack an officer, with the well-known aspect of facing more severe penalties than the same crime against a regular citizen, wouldn't hesitate to attack or kill anyone else.

They are like a grizzly with the taste for human flesh.

Spitfire75
08-12-2010, 5:55 PM
One has to wonder, how many BB equipped and featureless rifles are in California now? Thousands I'm sure, I bet the drones in Sacramento have worried themselves into an ulcer just thinking about it.

And that makes me :D

Heck, there are five BB-equipped OLLs within 10 feet of me right now. I gotta tell ya...I LOVE that about me. :D

Spitfire75
08-12-2010, 6:01 PM
If SB23 was challenged and ruled unconstitutional, or voided for vaugeness, or any other attack resulting in it going away, then any non-banned-by-name assault weapons (from the 1989 ban) could be built with all the "evil features" that you want, lawfully.

This particular statement makes me all tingly inside.

curtisfong
08-12-2010, 6:29 PM
As Gene pointed out, the situation is so complex that even if they wanted to they're (which includes legislature to some extent) cornered into either buybacks , AW registration or AW laws voided due to nonclarity.

Isn't there a way to trick Kamela into this? At some point, wouldn't it be wonderful if there was a breakdown in communication with the DOJ such that some useful idiot could be convinced it would be a good idea to make a move that would result in exactly this?

Or is speaking of such things here far too risky?

RRangel
08-12-2010, 6:33 PM
I don't think retribution is something that enters a cop's mind.

It's probably more complicated than simple "retribution" in a cop's mind. Through political correct policies Kamala Harris is far from an ideal attorney general. She's not the person that criminals would mind holding that office especially when she refuses to meet out justice.

dantodd
08-12-2010, 6:34 PM
some useful idiot could be convinced it would be a good idea to make a move that would result in exactly this?


Sadly she's now a legislative aide.

tango-52
08-12-2010, 7:04 PM
Sadly she's now a legislative aide.

Is that where Alison went? :eek:

oddjob
08-12-2010, 8:22 PM
BOF and the field agents will probably never go away. They are not general fund positions. They are special fund positions that are paid by us gun owners. Every time we DROS we give some money to BOF.

They will not give out opinions like they used to do (years ago). They just tell you to talk to the local D.A.

ldivinag
08-12-2010, 9:16 PM
Hundreds of thousands.

hundreds of thousands?!?

the streets of kalifornia must be flooded by the blood from all the deaths occuring...

oh my...

[/sarcasm]

jdberger
08-12-2010, 9:25 PM
Isn't there a way to trick Kamela into this? At some point, wouldn't it be wonderful if there was a breakdown in communication with the DOJ such that some useful idiot could be convinced it would be a good idea to make a move that would result in exactly this?

Or is speaking of such things here far too risky?

Risky?!

That's our reason d'Ítre at Calguns.

KylaGWolf
08-12-2010, 11:02 PM
Even IF the new AG were to give an opinion it has no legal standing the idiots. I am betting they were reading a script given to them by some supervisor.

motorhead
08-13-2010, 10:26 AM
now i may be delusional, but this appears to be a covert attempt to spread more "gunshop FUD" in the FFL community. or to frighten dealers away from OLL's. i can almost hear the dealer,"DOJ/BOF told us, at the last conference..."
hopefully the agents involved have been shipped to a suitable reeducation camp. they should at least be PUBLICLY diciplined.

nick
08-13-2010, 11:45 AM
Spot on and very well said. In my other state the attitude towards firearms is totally different. My observation of the LEO's back there is guns are no big deal, because EVERYONE has one and in reality there are no gun laws, mostly federal law. And it's interesting there is very very little crime per capita compared to this s**thole state we live in. The Brady's hate the state too.:43:

Is that Utah or Arizona?

1911_sfca
08-13-2010, 12:26 PM
She's perfect to create a target-rich environment. :43:

On one hand KH could be painful for gun owners. On the other hand, she may create a regime that is so target rich that in the long run it is very, very good for gun rights in CA.

RomanDad
08-13-2010, 1:47 PM
On one hand KH could be painful for gun owners. On the other hand, she may create a regime that is so target rich that in the long run it is very, very good for gun rights in CA.

Ive heard the "they'll screw it up so bad, that the world will see the light" argument with regards to political opponents my whole life.... Ive never seen it work yet....

We need to keep her away from ANY statewide office.

BigDogatPlay
08-13-2010, 2:54 PM
Ive heard the "they'll screw it up so bad, that the world will see the light" argument with regards to political opponents my whole life.... Ive never seen it work yet....

We need to keep her away from ANY statewide office.

I've been watching politics in general and California politics in particular for close to 40 years. I've never seen that argument become reality a single time.

The ONLY solution to keep statist, gun grabbing, criminal hugging loons like Kamala Harris out of higher office is to oppose them at the ballot box and beat them like rented mules in the arena of ideas.

jdberger
08-13-2010, 2:59 PM
I've been watching politics in general and California politics in particular for close to 40 years. I've never seen that argument become reality a single time.

The ONLY solution to keep statist, gun grabbing, criminal hugging loons like Kamala Harris out of higher office is to oppose them at the ballot box and beat them like rented mules in the arena of ideas.

Actually, twice.

If you have an OLL, you're a beneficiary of the second time. ;)

Grakken
08-13-2010, 3:42 PM
Hahaha...what? The OP's story is bogus?!? Scuttle the failboats!


hahahahaha

wildhawker
08-13-2010, 3:55 PM
Folks, the OP and others are helping us identify the issues here so we can take appropriate action. No need to be snarky; for obvious reasons most of this will be handled offline.

Cokebottle
08-13-2010, 5:04 PM
Ive heard the "they'll screw it up so bad, that the world will see the light" argument with regards to political opponents my whole life.... Ive never seen it work yet....

We need to keep her away from ANY statewide office.
Just wait until November.

Around 2005 or 2006, Barbara had a moment when she actually spoke from her little empty head, rather than parroting what had just been whispered into her ear.

This was when Congress and the Senate were being warned by Republicans and economists that we were heading for BIG trouble, and credit policies needed to be adjusted quickly.

Her comment was that it was okay, because "they" were going to ALLOW the economy to drop into the toilet, then the voters would throw out the Republicans and the Democrats would take credit for the recovery.

Problem for her.... their recovery program hasn't worked after nearly 2 years of BO, and 4 years of Dem control of both houses.

Sgt Raven
08-13-2010, 6:02 PM
Just wait until November.

Around 2005 or 2006, Barbara had a moment when she actually spoke from her little empty head, rather than parroting what had just been whispered into her ear.

This was when Congress and the Senate were being warned by Republicans and economists that we were heading for BIG trouble, and credit policies needed to be adjusted quickly.

Her comment was that it was okay, because "they" were going to ALLOW the economy to drop into the toilet, then the voters would throw out the Republicans and the Democrats would take credit for the recovery.

Problem for her.... their recovery program hasn't worked after nearly 2 years of BO, and 4 years of Dem control of both houses.

And it's possible that check bouncing Babs may just get thrown out instead. :eek: :D :43:

nick
08-13-2010, 8:11 PM
Just wait until November.

Around 2005 or 2006, Barbara had a moment when she actually spoke from her little empty head, rather than parroting what had just been whispered into her ear.

This was when Congress and the Senate were being warned by Republicans and economists that we were heading for BIG trouble, and credit policies needed to be adjusted quickly.

Her comment was that it was okay, because "they" were going to ALLOW the economy to drop into the toilet, then the voters would throw out the Republicans and the Democrats would take credit for the recovery.

Problem for her.... their recovery program hasn't worked after nearly 2 years of BO, and 4 years of Dem control of both houses.

Was there ever a video of that? Would make a good promo on Youtube.

diginit
08-13-2010, 9:09 PM
I'm sure that LEO's think of retrabution. Most have families and I'm sure the thought of a released or escaped con harming them or their arresting officer has crossed their mind.
If a friend of mine was shot and killed, I doubt I would have an issue putting the assailant out forever. I wouldn't blame a LEO if he did either.
Some people just don't deserve to live on death row until they die a natural death.

Cokebottle
08-13-2010, 9:13 PM
Was there ever a video of that? Would make a good promo on Youtube.
I didn't personally year it... my wife did, but she can't remember where.

Cokebottle
08-13-2010, 9:15 PM
I'm sure that LEO's think of retrabution. Most have families and I'm sure the thought of a released or escaped con harming them or their arresting officer has crossed their mind.
If a friend of mine was shot and killed, I doubt I would have an issue putting the assailant out forever. I wouldn't blame a LEO if he did either.
Some people just don't deserve to live on death row until they die a natural death.
Uhh.... I think you posted this to the wrong thread.

diginit
08-13-2010, 9:18 PM
I was referring to post #85. Guess I should have quoted....


I don't think retribution is something that enters a cop's mind.

ja308
08-13-2010, 9:20 PM
anyone recall the case of SKS sporter?
Came with a letter from AG dan Lungren stating rifle is legal.
Court overuled AG + owners were ordered to turn them in ---or get out of state as I recall.
ja308

dieselpower
08-13-2010, 10:02 PM
anyone recall the case of SKS sporter?
Came with a letter from AG dan Lungren stating rifle is legal.
Court overuled AG + owners were ordered to turn them in ---or get out of state as I recall.
ja308

The letters were included with every sks sold at Turners. I do remember that. I didnt know the owners were forced to give them up.

1911_sfca
08-13-2010, 11:57 PM
I've been watching politics in general and California politics in particular for close to 40 years. I've never seen that argument become reality a single time.

The ONLY solution to keep statist, gun grabbing, criminal hugging loons like Kamala Harris out of higher office is to oppose them at the ballot box and beat them like rented mules in the arena of ideas.

Happens all the time when those elected to office enact and enforce draconian laws and/or regulations that go too far against our rights. As I said, although it's painful, the judicial relief resulting from these situations can be very powerful and long lasting. If you don't believe me, look up Kasler and Harrot, then go to a gun store and see all the AR15-like rifles sitting there. Then read Heller, and then read McDonald. These are watershed cases. Do you think that SCOTUS would have affirmed your individual right to keep and bear arms if there weren't boneheads running DC and Chicago? The answer is no.

Meplat
08-14-2010, 1:07 AM
Maybe not, if the present AG is governor! Meg is not our friend!

OTOH, if the next AG is Kamala Harris they may be spot on.

Blackhawk556
08-14-2010, 1:21 AM
Has plenty of damage been done with this already?? I mean just think what the dealers will do since they were told "next year" OLL with bb will be illegal. They will probably be too scared to sell OLL and tell friends/customes that OLL are illegal.

The agents probably told a few people but word spreads quickly.

How does that saying go "a lie goes half way around the world before the truth has a chance to put it's pants on" (or something like that)

Meplat
08-14-2010, 1:23 AM
Weeeeeeeeeeell...........

Not quite. Once released the SKS mag is not an operational loadable magazine. It will not retain cartridges. And it does not actually detach from the gun.

Just sayin.:rolleyes:




The Bullet Button is functionally identical to a fixed magazine SKS and totally defendable with that precedent in court. .

CalNRA
08-14-2010, 2:11 AM
Ooops. I think I have sold a few Bullet Buttons in my time. I hope I don't go to jail.

pfft, the # of BBs you sold is gonna get you a one way ticket to a Turkish Prison.

jigenax
08-14-2010, 2:59 AM
(snip) hopefully the agents involved have been shipped to a suitable reeducation camp. they should at least be PUBLICLY diciplined.

Heh, nope that's never gonna happen. Most likely they'll get a promotion and transferred to another department.

Marsoc1
08-14-2010, 3:23 AM
after reading all this i say we embed a CGF memeber as AG and have them declare BB illegal so we can start the process to have SB23 voided :) damn wishful thinkin :D

nick
08-14-2010, 9:54 AM
after reading all this i say we embed a CGF memeber as AG and have them declare BB illegal so we can start the process to have SB23 voided :) damn wishful thinkin :D

For that you'd have to vote for me despite my otherwise liberal policies that I'm about to announce :)

dieselpower
08-14-2010, 10:24 AM
after reading all this i say we embed a CGF memeber as AG and have them declare BB illegal so we can start the process to have SB23 voided :) damn wishful thinkin :D


we do have friends. do not believe that its CGN/CGF alone against the DoJ/BoF. In fact there is a network allowing communication. Both sides are trying to do what the voters ordered CA to do. There are ofcourse rogue elements on both sides undermining that.

Everytime one of us shows up at a range with a 30rd magazine in a BB/AR15, it doesnt help us.

Everytime some "officer" spreads FUD, it hurts the DoJs ability to enforce the valid laws.

hoffmang
08-14-2010, 10:59 AM
we do have friends. do not believe that its CGN/CGF alone against the DoJ/BoF. In fact there is a network allowing communication. Both sides are trying to do what the voters ordered CA to do. There are ofcourse rogue elements on both sides undermining that.

Everytime one of us shows up at a range with a 30rd magazine in a BB/AR15, it doesnt help us.

Everytime some "officer" spreads FUD, it hurts the DoJs ability to enforce the valid laws.

Everyone will need to trust CGF and the right people that the BB is not going away (unless SB-23 is found unconstitutional...) and will remain a legal and valid way to comply with the law when properly installed and used.

-Gene

Roadrunner
08-14-2010, 12:31 PM
Everyone will need to trust CGF and the right people that the BB is not going away (unless SB-23 is found unconstitutional...) and will remain a legal and valid way to comply with the law when properly installed and used.

-Gene

I don't like bullet buttons, so I have no firearms that require one. Having said that, when are you and CGF going to make the AWB go away ?

MikeR
08-14-2010, 1:37 PM
I don't like bullet buttons, so I have no firearms that require one. Having said that, when are you and CGF going to make the AWB go away ?

"2 weeks"

What? Some had to say it. :)

wildhawker
08-14-2010, 2:34 PM
I don't like bullet buttons, so I have no firearms that require one. Having said that, when are you and CGF going to make the AWB go away ?

Can we agree that answering that more directly than the obligatory "2 weeks" would be imprudent?

hoffmang
08-14-2010, 4:10 PM
Can we agree that answering that more directly than the obligatory "2 weeks" would be imprudent?

Two weeks!

-Gene

wildhawker
08-14-2010, 4:54 PM
:43: ...and there you have it!

thayne
08-14-2010, 5:03 PM
I don't like bullet buttons, so I have no firearms that require one. Having said that, when are you and CGF going to make the AWB go away ?

I dont like BB either, but I love my evil AR so I have one. For 2 weeks anyway :43:

Roadrunner
08-14-2010, 6:37 PM
Two weeks!

-Gene

Which means no one knows until it actually happens. Okay, no problem. Until then, I'll just stick with my mini 14 ranch rifle.

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg

kimo308
08-14-2010, 11:32 PM
After the two ignorant agents made their remark, I want to know the reaction from the crowd. I hope everybody made those two agents feel 2 inch small. Send them back to bof scratching their heads and crying. They basically slapped Jerry Brown on the face with their remark as if the current AG is not doing his job by not doing anything about the BB issue. Very intelligent agents alright.:rolleyes:

hoffmang
08-14-2010, 11:54 PM
Which means no one knows until it actually happens. Okay, no problem. Until then, I'll just stick with my mini 14 ranch rifle.

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg

Don't be a sheep. Heck, even the sheep own OLLs these days. As long as you configure your OLL legally, CGF will defend you.

-Gene

383green
08-14-2010, 11:57 PM
Heck, even the sheep own OLLs these days.

It's how they contest the vote over what to have for dinner.

citystar
08-17-2010, 5:37 PM
Somebody PM Gene... I have a feeling that these BOFers are about to learn what it feels like to have the Eye of Sauron turned upon them.

I LOL'ED

citystar
08-17-2010, 5:37 PM
I tried to talk to those to BOF guys after their presentation, but they just hid behind the chalkboard. The blonde guy said "You just wait 'til the new Attermy General gets here. He'll show you!" Then the other guy says, "Yeah, he's not afraid of Gene Hoffman! He knows karate and stuff!"

http://www.type03.net/novelty-pics/bof-presentation.jpg

I had my mom call their moms when I got home, so hopefully things will work out.

i LOL'ed

citystar
08-17-2010, 5:39 PM
Heck, there are five BB-equipped OLLs within 10 feet of me right now. I gotta tell ya...I LOVE that about me. :D

I'd say overkill but then I would only be lying saying I wasn't jealous. ;)

dantodd
08-17-2010, 5:43 PM
It's how they contest the vote over what to have for dinner.

well played.

MasterYong
08-17-2010, 9:50 PM
:popcorn:

Roadrunner
08-17-2010, 10:15 PM
Don't be a sheep. Heck, even the sheep own OLLs these days. As long as you configure your OLL legally, CGF will defend you.

-Gene

It's .223, and it shoots as well as an AR. If I throw a scope on it, I can hold my own against any AR. Of course then there's the fact that I can do a detachable magazine, so I'm good for now. I just hate the fact that the anti's are stepping on everyone's Constitutional rights.

Man, that feels good saying that. :D

cybordolphin
08-17-2010, 11:38 PM
Seriously though.... does not this post perpetuate FUD in and of itself?

This was hearsay no?

I almost did not have a chance to read the whole post.....

misterjake
08-17-2010, 11:51 PM
Which means no one knows until it actually happens. Okay, no problem. Until then, I'll just stick with my mini 14 ranch rifle.

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg

They should just rename them "M1a'Jr.'s"

mini 14 if they were select fire :)

Roadrunner
08-18-2010, 12:01 AM
They should just rename them "M1a'Jr.'s"

mini 14 if they were select fire :)

I knew someone who legally had access to a mini 14 with 3 round burst. Kind of fun really. That's kind of what convinced me to go with the ranch rifle.

tango-52
08-18-2010, 6:28 AM
Seriously though.... does not this post perpetuate FUD in and of itself?

This was hearsay no?

I almost did not have a chance to read the whole post.....

No. Read Post #60. The agents were caught red-handed in their comments.

MasterYong
08-18-2010, 6:43 AM
It's .223, and it shoots as well as an AR. If I throw a scope on it, I can hold my own against any AR. Of course then there's the fact that I can do a detachable magazine, so I'm good for now. I just hate the fact that the anti's are stepping on everyone's Constitutional rights.

Man, that feels good saying that. :D

:rofl2:

Mini-14s are good truck guns, don't get me wrong, but let's not kid ourselves here.... I've never seen a stock mini shoot sub moa groups.

CSACANNONEER
08-18-2010, 6:59 AM
It's .223, and it shoots as well as an AR. If I throw a scope on it, I can hold my own against any AR. Of course then there's the fact that I can do a detachable magazine, so I'm good for now. I just hate the fact that the anti's are stepping on everyone's Constitutional rights.

Man, that feels good saying that. :D

:rofl2:When and where?

trashman
08-18-2010, 8:44 AM
:rofl2:When and where?
I assume he meant against some leftover Model 1 ARs or something. :28:

It's also possible that he mistook MOA for "Minute Of Acre"

--Neill

Roadrunner
08-18-2010, 9:18 AM
:rofl2:When and where?

I don't know what you're laughing about, I did pretty well at 100 yds with my mini 14. That's all I need.

MasterYong
08-18-2010, 11:04 AM
I don't know what you're laughing about, I did pretty well at 100 yds with my mini 14. That's all I need.

And I don't think anyone would argue with that. What you said that elicited the above reactions was "I can hold my own against an AR" and that "it shoots as well as an AR"

...we both know that's just not true. Mini's are good guns, and for your purposes they may be good enough, but they're not on-par with even a low-end AR.

BigDogatPlay
08-18-2010, 12:56 PM
Next time BoF wants to FUD, just show the agent the ad that's linked here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=333225).

We're winning.... and we have CGF and The Right People in our corner.

Bray556
08-18-2010, 3:37 PM
Speaking of Bullet Buttons, where can I get one online or in Orange County for a reasonable price?

Roadrunner
08-18-2010, 4:57 PM
And I don't think anyone would argue with that. What you said that elicited the above reactions was "I can hold my own against an AR" and that "it shoots as well as an AR"

...we both know that's just not true. Mini's are good guns, and for your purposes they may be good enough, but they're not on-par with even a low-end AR.

Can you honestly say that you can consistently hit the center of a target with an AR at 200 yds ? How about 300 yds ? My problem is, I've never been able to shoot beyond 100 yds, so I don't know how well I'd do with a scope dialed in at those distances.

Cokebottle
08-18-2010, 6:07 PM
Speaking of Bullet Buttons, where can I get one online or in Orange County for a reasonable price?
Riflegear, about $25.

BigDogatPlay
08-18-2010, 6:32 PM
Brownell's, see the link in the thread I linked to at the bottom of page 4. $17 and change, IIRC.

Soldier415
08-18-2010, 6:52 PM
Can you honestly say that you can consistently hit the center of a target with an AR at 200 yds ? How about 300 yds ? My problem is, I've never been able to shoot beyond 100 yds, so I don't know how well I'd do with a scope dialed in at those distances.
Who said anything about a scope?

I shoot iron sights.

:D

MasterYong
08-18-2010, 7:50 PM
Can you honestly say that you can consistently hit the center of a target with an AR at 200 yds ? How about 300 yds ? My problem is, I've never been able to shoot beyond 100 yds, so I don't know how well I'd do with a scope dialed in at those distances.

Now I'm not sure I even know what you're talking about. You said your mini can shoot in par with an ar. It can't, not at 100, 200, or 300 yards. It doesn't matter if the guns have a scope or not.

The point you attempted to make in your original comment was that you shouldn't need an ar because a mini is just as good.

Well, it isn't.

Even better, if you had an ar it wouldn't have to be neutered by a bullet button. Featureless ftw.

CSACANNONEER
08-18-2010, 8:42 PM
Can you honestly say that you can consistently hit the center of a target with an AR at 200 yds ? How about 300 yds ? My problem is, I've never been able to shoot beyond 100 yds, so I don't know how well I'd do with a scope dialed in at those distances.

I shoot irons out to 400 yards. After that, my accuracy goes to hell due to my eyesight. As far as shooting with optics go, yea, I've done a little 1000 yard stuff (not with an AR or mini though). Anyway, we all know that a decent Mini is about a 2moa gun at best. Yet, many ARs are now capable of .5moa precision or better. If Minis were as good or better than ARs, you would think that the top shooters would be using them. Guess what, serious competitors are not using Minis. Sure, there's the ocasional person who dumps $2K or more into their mini and it shoots as well as a $1000 AR but, even that's rare. Now, for plinking, general range ninja combat shooting or playing A-Team, a mini is OK. But, they do not compare with ARs.

Roadrunner
08-18-2010, 8:55 PM
I shoot irons out to 400 yards. After that, my accuracy goes to hell due to my eyesight. As far as shooting with optics go, yea, I've done a little 1000 yard stuff (not with an AR or mini though). Anyway, we all know that a decent Mini is about a 2moa gun at best. Yet, many ARs are now capable of .5moa precision or better. If Minis were as good or better than ARs, you would think that the top shooters would be using them. Guess what, serious competitors are not using Minis. Sure, there's the ocasional person who dumps $2K or more into their mini and it shoots as well as a $1000 AR but, even that's rare. Now, for plinking, general range ninja combat shooting or playing A-Team, a mini is OK. But, they do not compare with ARs.

Okay, well, since I haven't fired an M-16 since basic training, I'll differ to your opinion. But I have fired my ranch rifle with scope accurately up to 100 yards. I don't use iron sights because my eyesight sucks and I would have a hard time hitting anything even at 75 yrds. However, I am not going to simply give up and I will make it a point to see if I can change that. I love a good challenge.

greasemonkey
08-18-2010, 10:50 PM
I use my right eye for rifle and my left eye is only good for CQB 12-gauge stuff :)

Okay, well, since I haven't fired an M-16 since basic training, I'll differ to your opinion. But I have fired my ranch rifle with scope accurately up to 100 yards. I don't use iron sights because my eyesight sucks and I would have a hard time hitting anything even at 75 yrds. However, I am not going to simply give up and I will make it a point to see if I can change that. I love a good challenge.

Sgt Raven
08-19-2010, 3:48 PM
And I don't think anyone would argue with that. What you said that elicited the above reactions was "I can hold my own against an AR" and that "it shoots as well as an AR"

...we both know that's just not true. Mini's are good guns, and for your purposes they may be good enough, but they're not on-par with even a low-end AR.

Worse, he said he could "hold his own against ANY AR".

Sgt Raven
08-19-2010, 3:51 PM
It's .223, and it shoots as well as an AR. If I throw a scope on it, I can hold my own against any AR. Of course then there's the fact that I can do a detachable magazine, so I'm good for now. I just hate the fact that the anti's are stepping on everyone's Constitutional rights.

Man, that feels good saying that. :D

Quoted for posterity. :TFH:

winchking
08-19-2010, 11:06 PM
So does that mean that if they deem BBs to be illegal, everyone with a BB equipped rifle is gonna have to register them as an AW???? Sounds like there will be an open period for registering again, blah blah blah....

I don't think even Kamalah Harris would want to be known as the "AG who put hundreds of thousands more assault weapons on the street"

Dont forget that these are military style semi-automatic rifles, regardless of configuration....not ASSAULT WEAPONS. Only this commie state we live in labels them as such...Assault weapons by definition are capable of select fire....Lets not perpetuate this evil political term :)

Sgt Raven
08-20-2010, 6:18 PM
Dont forget that these are military style semi-automatic rifles, regardless of configuration....not ASSAULT WEAPONS. Only this commie state we live in labels them as such...Assault weapons by definition are capable of select fire....Lets not perpetuate this evil political term :)

No, you're wrong. A ASSAULT RIFLE is a select fire weapon. A ASSAULT WEAPON is a semi-auto military style firearm.

N6ATF
08-21-2010, 12:30 AM
A "assault weapon" is every tool of self-defense in existence to victim disarmers, who ban them to keep criminals safe.

ErikTheRed
08-21-2010, 2:58 AM
Do you have a apple for lunch? Do you drive a automobile? Did you take a airplane to your vacation destination? "An", guys...... its an assault weapon. Sheesh.

joedogboy
08-21-2010, 4:07 AM
Do you have a apple for lunch? Do you drive a automobile? Did you take a airplane to your vacation destination? "An", guys...... its an assault weapon. Sheesh.

Not exactly. I ate a orange for breakfast, rode to work on a omnibus, and traveled on a elephant when on my vacation. But some days I eat a orange for lunch, to. ;)

I are seeing what you am doing there.

Roadrunner
08-21-2010, 10:14 AM
Well it would seem that I'm not the only one that thinks a mini 14 could stand against an AR-15. I would simply have to tweak it a bit.

Taken from Perfect Union forums (http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/showthread.php?t=69753)

Gearhead,

That was a great, non-scientific side by side test. It's consistent with my personal experience with the 580 Mini's and that of some others I've read. My personal experience is as follows: 4 years US Army (82nd Airborne, 2 ID) 13 years law enforcement. I currently carry an issued Colt M4 with a Leupold CQT optic, plus each patrol car has a Colt commando with an 11.5 barrel. Additionally, I have two of my own AR15's (Bushmaster 16" and Armalite 20") I have three 580 series Mini 14's (one NRA addition I have yet to fire).

I enjoy the comparison that we make between the two rifles. My take on them is this: The newest, 580 series Mini14's are as accurate as a standard, out of the box , no frills AR15. Having said that, if I were headed to Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi or Kabul, I would take the AR15/M16/M4. The reason? The mini needs a few improvements which could easily be made before it is ready for COMBAT. WAR. In other words, EXTENDED firefights in extreme conditions under long periods of time (months).

Firstly, it needs M1 Garand/M14/AR15 type ADJUSTABLE rear sights, for windage and elevation. Secondly, it needs a heavier barrel, to withstand whip and heat better. The new 580 series barrels are heavier and better, but not quite enough to carry into war. Thirdly, it needs to have an integral rail system, preferably 4 sided, for the different and obvious attachments. You can make all these improvements to the Mini via aftermarket improvements or gunsmiths, but Ruger should do this on their own, in order to make it a viable COMBAT rifle.

Having said all this, I think the Mini-14 does make a very good police/patrol rifle, as even the longest police firefights in the US (North Hollywood comes to mind) don't usually last more than about 30 minutes. Easily enough for a Mini to handle. If I were on the receiving end of a Mini-14, I would be very worried indeed. I love the Mini, and if it's all you can get (California residents), you're still doing good. With some tweaks, the Mini could go to war...but not yet.

ErikTheRed
08-21-2010, 4:36 PM
Not exactly. I ate a orange for breakfast, rode to work on a omnibus, and traveled on a elephant when on my vacation. But some days I eat a orange for lunch, to. ;)

I are seeing what you am doing there.

Thats funny. ;)

joedogboy
08-21-2010, 4:53 PM
If I were in an extended firefight, I would probably rather have my mini 14 - with it's ability to rapidly change between my 30 and 20 round pre-ban mags, rather than my bullet button AR, with it's 10 round mags (I can't use my pre-ban 30 round AR mags in a rifle with a bullet button, and certainly won't do a featureless build until u-15 stocks are available again).
Your situation may differ, but the magazine capacity and lack of BB requirement for the mini give it a huge edge here in CA.

winchking
08-22-2010, 2:41 AM
No, you're wrong. A ASSAULT RIFLE is a select fire weapon. A ASSAULT WEAPON is a semi-auto military style firearm.

YOU ARE TECHNICALLY CORRECT IF YOU BELIEVE IN THE POLITICAL DEFINITION OF SUCH ARMS.....IF YOU DO, I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU. SEE BELOW

Advocates for the right to keep and bear arms (which you are claiming to be), commonly referred to as gun rights supporters, generally consider the use of the phrase "assault weapon" to be pejorative and politically-motivated when used to describe civilian firearms.

I guess you do not believe in the life member NRA flag you fly.

Sgt Raven
08-22-2010, 9:06 AM
YOU ARE TECHNICALLY CORRECT IF YOU BELIEVE IN THE POLITICAL DEFINITION OF SUCH ARMS.....IF YOU DO, I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU. SEE BELOW

Advocates for the right to keep and bear arms (which you are claiming to be), commonly referred to as gun rights supporters, generally consider the use of the phrase "assault weapon" to be pejorative and politically-motivated when used to describe civilian firearms.

I guess you do not believe in the life member NRA flag you fly.

The term Assault Weapon was made by gun owners as a generic term to describe a semi auto rifle that looked like its Military counterpart. Just because the anti's used our works doesn't make the words bad.

I can't help that you don't know the history of the term Assault Weapon and weren't reading Gun Magazines in the late '70s early '80s. I refuse to be ashamed of words that we invented.

If you're trying to throw out fighting words, you can try and kick my azz, but you better bring your lunch too. :TFH:

winchking
08-22-2010, 11:36 AM
The term Assault Weapon was made by gun owners as a generic term to describe a semi auto rifle that looked like its Military counterpart. Just because the anti's used our works doesn't make the words bad.

I can't help that you don't know the history of the term Assault Weapon and weren't reading Gun Magazines in the late '70s early '80s. I refuse to be ashamed of words that we invented.

If you're trying to throw out fighting words, you can try and kick my azz, but you better bring your lunch too. :TFH:

I was not aware that the word was created by gun owners so if it was, I accept my defeat in this argument :) HOWEVER......these gun banning bastards like to use it so I despise the term. Also, I was reading firearms mags in the early 80's but I do not recall this term ever being discussed....it may have been, but I dont remember..oh well, thats what age does to ya
A citation for this claim or other information source would be appreciated.

Scott Connors
08-22-2010, 1:25 PM
I was not aware that the word was created by gun owners so if it was, I accept my defeat in this argument :) HOWEVER......these gun banning bastards like to use it so I despise the term. Also, I was reading firearms mags in the early 80's but I do not recall this term ever being discussed....it may have been, but I dont remember..oh well, thats what age does to ya
A citation for this claim or other information source would be appreciated.

I definitely remember seeing the term "Assault Weapon" used by the gun press in the early 1980s, which is when I began shooting. Harris Publications used to publish an annual "Book of the Assault Rifle" that was not limited to the military select-fire versions, and there was a rag, put out by the people who published "Gung Ho," a Soldier of Fortune wannabe :rolleyes: , that used the actual term "Assault Weapons" in its title. :eek: IIRC, it discussed a wide-variety of goodies, ranging from the AR and AK to the awful Leader T-2 and the M-1 carbine and Winchester 1897 trench gun! So yeah, the terms originated with us, but it was sloppy usage that's come back and bitten us on the butt, and we should not accept its continued use by the Brady Bunch :TFH:.