PDA

View Full Version : Understanding Assault Weapons


Jonathan Doe
10-28-2010, 9:49 PM
Recently, I worked on an assault weapon case. The rifle I examined was an OLL lower with a regular magazine release, "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", with a pistol grip and retractable stock and flash suppressor in M4 confuguration. However, the magazine was C-Mag 10/30.

I wonder if the owner/builder of the rifle thought that if he has a 10 round mag, it would be okay, which is not okay in that configuration. I would like to believe he didn't understand the law correctly. However, ignorance is not an excuse.

Just throwing out to let the members know these things happen. I'd like to let you know from the real life cases, so people can see what is happening. To this date, I only saw one OLL with Bullet Button come through my office. And, that rifle was confiscated with many other actual assault weapons from one person. I sorted out and returned that rifle to the detective. I believe vast majority of LEO's have beter understanding on the assault weapons and OLL rifles.

The shooters/owners have responsibility to keep the rifles in legal configuration until we change the law.

October
10-28-2010, 9:51 PM
???? So if his config had a bullet button, he would have been fine. Right? (assuming the retract stock at its shortest also equaled 30 inches total length)

armygunsmith
10-28-2010, 10:00 PM
Thanks for posting your experiences. I wonder if some people are genuinely ignorant of the law or are just playing the odds thinking that they'll never get caught.

Cyc Wid It
10-28-2010, 10:02 PM
Interesting, let's reconcile this thread with that other thread about "what to do when you see someone with an illegal configuration."

robairto
10-28-2010, 10:07 PM
Recently, I worked on an assault weapon case. The rifle I examined was an OLL lower with a regular magazine release, "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", with a pistol grip and retractable stock and flash suppressor in M4 confuguration. However, the magazine was C-Mag 10/30.

=I sorted out and returned that rifle to the detective. I believe vast majority of LEO's have beter understanding on the assault weapons and OLL rifles.

The shooters/owners have responsibility to keep the rifles in legal configuration until we change the law.

What if the individual had the lower without the upper attached and no mag inserted? What would the reaction have been? Would he have been safe? How about legal?

KaTooM
10-28-2010, 10:07 PM
My guess would be he was uninformed. He probably got his info from his friends. I held out until a reputable arms dealer in socal sold me one off the shelf(OLL with bb) Happened to be Rifle gear(DDM4V1)

Thanks for the reminder Topgun.

Jonathan Doe
10-28-2010, 10:21 PM
???? So if his config had a bullet button, he would have been fine. Right? (assuming the retract stock at its shortest also equaled 30 inches total length)

The OLL with the bullet button was a different incident than the one I recently examined.


Thanks for posting your experiences. I wonder if some people are genuinely ignorant of the law or are just playing the odds thinking that they'll never get caught.

I see many OLL rifles with Prince 50 device that had the set screw missing, making it "removable magazine". Also see a lot of OLL rifles with regular magazine releases. I don't know what they were thinking. Many guns were taken from serving search warrants.

lazyworm
10-28-2010, 10:26 PM
Are the owner of these rifles being prosecuted for having unregistered AWs?

9-12
10-28-2010, 10:30 PM
It's not an "assault weapon", as cool as that sounds. An assault rifle has a selector switch.
I'm just sayin.
Recently, I worked on an assault weapon case. The rifle I examined was an OLL lower with a regular magazine release, "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", with a pistol grip and retractable stock and flash suppressor in M4 confuguration. However, the magazine was C-Mag 10/30.

I wonder if the owner/builder of the rifle thought that if he has a 10 round mag, it would be okay, which is not okay in that configuration. I would like to believe he didn't understand the law correctly. However, ignorance is not an excuse.

Just throwing out to let the members know these things happen. I'd like to let you know from the real life cases, so people can see what is happening. To this date, I only saw one OLL with Bullet Button come through my office. And, that rifle was confiscated with many other actual assault weapons from one person. I sorted out and returned that rifle to the detective. I believe vast majority of LEO's have beter understanding on the assault weapons and OLL rifles.

The shooters/owners have responsibility to keep the rifles in legal configuration until we change the law.

Omega13device
10-28-2010, 10:40 PM
It's not an "assault weapon", as cool as that sounds. An assault rifle has a selector switch.
I'm just sayin.
No you're just wishin. It's an assault weapon because that's what the law calls it.

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms...

Jonathan Doe
10-28-2010, 10:51 PM
Are the owner of these rifles being prosecuted for having unregistered AWs?

I believe he will be in this case. You can find out about it in CA Penal Code section 12280(b).

Librarian
10-28-2010, 10:53 PM
It's not an "assault weapon", as cool as that sounds. An assault rifle has a selector switch.
I'm just sayin.

No you're just wishin. It's an assault weapon because that's what the law calls it.

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms...


But of course, that's one aspect that shows how silly the law (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/History_of_%27Assault_Weapon%27_laws) is.

donking
10-28-2010, 11:33 PM
Whenever I take a buddy out to shoot who is new to ARs, I show them how the bullet button works and explain that this is why it is legal.

Colt-45
10-28-2010, 11:40 PM
However, ignorance is not an excuse.


You're correct, however, as much as I respect LEOs, "I didn't know" is an excuse for LEOs and not for civilians.:mad:

???? So if his config had a bullet button, he would have been fine. Right? (assuming the retract stock at its shortest also equaled 30 inches total length)

Had that person at least kept the AR in two pieces he wouldn't of been in trouble right now.

I don't know what they were thinking. Many guns were taken from serving search warrants.

So, the people that were caught with assault weapons had warrants in place for other crimes? I rest my case. They probably didn't care at all.

bwiese
10-28-2010, 11:42 PM
What if the individual had the lower without the upper attached and no mag inserted? What would the reaction have been? Would he have been safe? How about legal?

That's a defendable case. Barring other coloring issues, we at CGF would be interested in ones like that.

Mac
10-28-2010, 11:43 PM
Well what can you say?
Just plain stupid. Darwin strikes again.

give us a profile on this guy.

1. Gun Enthusiast (regular John Q. citizen)
2. Gang Member
3 Scofflaw

NationsMostWanted
10-28-2010, 11:47 PM
isnt there a law about it being at least 30 inches?

robairto
10-29-2010, 12:21 AM
That's a defendable case. Barring other coloring issues, we at CGF would be interested in ones like that.

I don't bother with bullet buttons for my OLL's. I also don't use them in this state ( I have RAWs for that). I do however travel to NV to shoot regularly with OLL's that have no bullet buttons/magazines inserted/uppers attached...
BTW, you need to head over the hill and enjoy shooting in the openess with some of us. ;)

Cyc Wid It
10-29-2010, 1:38 AM
isnt there a law about it being at least 30 inches?

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

SJgunguy24
10-29-2010, 7:22 AM
Thanks topgun7.
When people ask me how the EBR's are legal I stress that they must have a good working knowledge of CA AW lawsand that they should be able to convey that to any LEO's they may encounter.
If a LEO has a hard on for you he'll run you in for made up BS. If you are able to explain yourself to his boss and cite PC, you stand a better chance of going home and maybe with your gun.
I say it like this, You have 4 cops hitting you with questions, all rapid fire. Can you deal with that and can you explain the law and where they can look to make sure your not FOS?
Keep it legal, know the laws, know the LEO's tactics, and your gonna be fine.

Army
10-29-2010, 8:53 AM
A lower assembly without an upper is a "firearm". A lower assembly with upper attached, is a "rifle" (or pistol if so legally configured). Either without a magazine lock...is illegal.

Far too many people think that just using a 10 round magazine makes it legal, and unfortuantely far too many people get this information from gun store employees.

Omega13device
10-29-2010, 8:59 AM
A lower assembly without an upper is a "firearm". A lower assembly with upper attached, is a "rifle" (or pistol if so legally configured). Either without a magazine lock...is illegal.
Army...a complete lower without an upper attached is indeed a rifle but to be considered an AW it has to be semiautomatic and centerfire, and it's neither without an upper.

SJgunguy24
10-29-2010, 10:08 AM
A lower assembly without an upper is a "firearm". A lower assembly with upper attached, is a "rifle" (or pistol if so legally configured). Either without a magazine lock...is illegal.

Far too many people think that just using a 10 round magazine makes it legal, and unfortuantely far too many people get this information from gun store employees.

I don't have a mag lock on my AR. It's an OLL but has no features. If you had a complete lower with no lock that is still legal. It only becomes illegal if attached to an upper that makes it functional semi auto centerfire rifle that has SB23 features. That same lower can be attached to 22lr upper and is not and AW, even if that complete lower is equipped with a pistol grip.
Any semi auto pistol that loads outside of the grip is an AW unless equipped with a mag locking device.

robairto
10-29-2010, 10:11 AM
Army...a complete lower without an upper attached is indeed a rifle but to be considered an AW it has to be semiautomatic and centerfire, and it's neither without an upper.

Correct... The lower left unattached to an upper changes everything. It's no different than a stripped lower ready for resale.

rrr70
10-29-2010, 10:12 AM
You're correct, however, as much as I respect LEOs, "I didn't know" is an excuse for LEOs and not for civilians.:mad:





Sad but true.

Wherryj
10-29-2010, 10:18 AM
But of course, that's one aspect that shows how silly the law (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/History_of_%27Assault_Weapon%27_laws) is.

The other aspect of how silly the law is: The one legally configured OLL was confiscated by LEOs who apparently didn't know the law. That is considered ok by the state as no LEO could be expected to be knowledgeable about ALL laws.

The guys with the illegally configured "assault weapons" however ARE expected by the state to be knowledgeable about ALL laws. "Ignorance is no excuse" as the OP stated.

That really strikes me as absurd.

rrr70
10-29-2010, 10:27 AM
Stop LEO bashing.

phamkl
10-29-2010, 10:28 AM
Bot to side against the. Civilian and all but we're expected to know he legality of the activities that we do while cops are expected to know the legality of the activities that ALL of us do. That makes for a huge pile of laws.

Omega13device
10-29-2010, 11:02 AM
The OP was trying to start a helpful discussion about keeping your rifles legally configured. Please take the off-topic discussions elsewhere. There are plenty of other threads where you can vent about the laws being silly.

Wherryj
10-29-2010, 11:04 AM
Oh, and you can purchase one ready made here for only 16k. I would say that the price is probably not the only impediment to your purchase here in CA.

http://firearmdeals.com/machineguns

9-12
10-29-2010, 11:10 AM
No you're just wishin. It's an assault weapon because that's what the law calls it.

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms...

The "law" would call it a nuclear weapon if they thought it would serve their purpose. Because they call it one, doesn't make it one. Calling these semi- auto rifles by any other name than what they really are is only playing into the government's hands and perpetuating their BS.

goodlookin1
10-29-2010, 11:12 AM
Stop LEO bashing.

This isn't LEO bashing. This is bashing the establishment and laws that empower the LEO's to be above the law they're to serve and protect.

EDIT: I just found out rrr70 was joking.....stupid me :chris:

Omega13device
10-29-2010, 11:19 AM
The "law" would call it a nuclear weapon if they thought it would serve their purpose. Because they call it one, doesn't make it one. Calling these semi- auto rifles by any other name than what they really are is only playing into the government's hands and perpetuating their BS.
Topgun7 works in law enforcement so for him it's a technical term. Same as "large-capacity magazines" -- when we talk about legal issues we use the legal terminology in order to be precise. Do I like that term? No. But we're stuck with it.

Can we get back on topic now?

9-12
10-29-2010, 11:20 AM
I don't have a mag lock on my AR. It's an OLL but has no features. If you had a complete lower with no lock that is still legal. It only becomes illegal if attached to an upper that makes it functional semi auto centerfire rifle that has SB23 features. That same lower can be attached to 22lr upper and is not and AW, even if that complete lower is equipped with a pistol grip.
Any semi auto pistol that loads outside of the grip is an AW unless equipped with a mag locking device.Not true. as far as I know. If you have a lower with a pistol grip it better have a mag lock. The fact that it is attached to the .22 upper further dedefines the weapon, but the lower by itself is not defined as such, but is a firearm, and must meet CA laws to be legal.

9-12
10-29-2010, 11:23 AM
Topgun7 works in law enforcement so for him it's a technical term. Same as "large-capacity magazines" -- when we talk about legal issues we use the legal terminology in order to be precise. Do I like that term? No. But we're stuck with it.

Can we get back on topic now?Well it is on topic if the guy doing the "lecturing" can't even use---or isn't willing to distinguish--- the proper terminology. It's all just part of the same gov't BS trying to get our weapons out of our hands...or at least make it impossible for us to use them.
These are NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS. The government gave them that term to make them seem dangerous and evil to the ignorant. Don't perpetuate that.

SJgunguy24
10-29-2010, 11:25 AM
Not true. as far as I know. If you have a lower with a pistol grip it better have a mag lock. The fact that it is attached to the .22 upper further dedefines the weapon, but the lower by itself is not defined as such, but is a firearm, and must meet CA laws to be legal.

Yes true, 100% true. That lower is not a functioning rifle, that is exactly why some people have reversible mag locks so they can run 22lr upper without a mag lock but the lock gets activated for use with a centerfire upper.
I only own 1 mag lock and that's on a demo gun at the shop I work at. My AR is legally configured with a standard mag button but has zero SB23 features besides the detachable mags.

civilsnake
10-29-2010, 11:41 AM
Well it is on topic if the guy doing the "lecturing" can't even use---or isn't willing to distinguish--- the proper terminology. It's all just part of the same gov't BS trying to get our weapons out of our hands...or at least make it impossible for us to use them.
These are NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS. The government gave them that term to make them seem dangerous and evil to the ignorant. Don't perpetuate that.

A. No one granted you authority to decide on proper terminology, so you calling anyone factually wrong is baseless

B. When describing something for sake of illustrating which law was broken, it's a lot easier to simply use the terminology of that law. In Nevada we wouldn't be calling the rifle in question an assault weapon. Here we do because it's easier than citing the law it violates. We commonly say things like "DUI" for the same reason.

C. It definitely COULD be an assault weapon if the person assaulted someone with it.

Librarian
10-29-2010, 11:58 AM
Well it is on topic if the guy doing the "lecturing" can't even use---or isn't willing to distinguish--- the proper terminology. It's all just part of the same gov't BS trying to get our weapons out of our hands...or at least make it impossible for us to use them.
These are NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS. The government gave them that term to make them seem dangerous and evil to the ignorant. Don't perpetuate that.

They are 'assault weapons'. There is an operating definition and implementing law - it's fully stupid and technically-outside-of-legal-circles incorrect, but it's real and there are real penalties for violating the law.

This complaint predates 1994 when the Federal AWB finally passed. We lost the semantic argument then; it's time to move on, until the last vestiges of the mindset that created those laws are on the 'dustbin of history'.

SuperSet
10-29-2010, 12:38 PM
Topgun,
Just off the top of your head, what's the breakdown that you've seen come across your desk? RAWs (registered and other), Featureless and BB?
Thanks for your post. You're performing a service for the CalGuns community. :thumbsup:

PEBKAC
10-29-2010, 12:52 PM
Well it is on topic if the guy doing the "lecturing" can't even use---or isn't willing to distinguish--- the proper terminology. It's all just part of the same gov't BS trying to get our weapons out of our hands...or at least make it impossible for us to use them.
These are NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS. The government gave them that term to make them seem dangerous and evil to the ignorant. Don't perpetuate that.
Unfortunately it is defined as such in the law. And what the law says, the law says regardless of whether what it says makes any sense at all. I seem to recall this exchange regarding the term "high-capacity magazine" from a while back and it spells out the point perfectly:

Poster 1: "If they codified salty as a term for describing the flavor of root beer or contained an illustration of a species of pig covered in feathers, would it be valid?"

Poster 2: "In a court of law, yes."

leelaw
10-29-2010, 1:10 PM
It's not an "assault weapon", as cool as that sounds. An assault rifle has a selector switch.
I'm just sayin.

You are confusing two distinctly different terms.

"assault weapon" is a legislatively defined term which varies from state to state, and in some localities.

"assault rifle" is a defined term pertaining to an intermediately powered rifle with selectfire (FA or burst) capabilities (not just a "selector"

leelaw
10-29-2010, 1:11 PM
Recently, I worked on an assault weapon case. The rifle I examined was an OLL lower with a regular magazine release, "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", with a pistol grip and retractable stock and flash

Did it fire in a semi-automatic function, or was the gas system disabled?

Omega13device
10-29-2010, 1:42 PM
A stripped off-list lower is a firearm but not a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle, therefore it is not an AW.

9-12
10-29-2010, 1:54 PM
You are confusing two distinctly different terms.

"assault weapon" is a legislatively defined term which varies from state to state, and in some localities.

"assault rifle" is a defined term pertaining to an intermediately powered rifle with selectfire (FA or burst) capabilities (not just a "selector"...and you're confusing the point. Neither "weapon" nor "rifle" in anything semi automatic is "assault" anything. The word "assault" should never even be in these conversations except that's what the government anti gun Nazis have drummed into every one's thinking and you're just perpetuating the fallacy and their agenda. You're giving their lie the credibility they're hoping for.
What do you think a "selector" is? If it's not a selector, it's a safety.

leelaw
10-29-2010, 2:04 PM
...and you're confusing the point. Neither "weapon" nor "rifle" in anything semi automatic is "assault" anything. The word "assault" should never even be in these conversations except that's what the government anti gun Nazis have drummed into every one's thinking and you're just perpetuating the fallacy and their agenda. You're giving their lie the credibility they're hoping for.
What do you think a "selector" is? If it's not a selector, it's a safety.

No, I've got "the point." Your "the point" is that you'd rather confound the issue by changing definitions to suit yourself. Do you also call them "standard capacity" or "full capacity" magazines, too? It's a tactic to cause confusion by changing the knowledge base to fit a personal stance.

We'll have to agree to disagree. You'd rather define based on your personal emotional reaction to a term, and I'd rather use legal definitions because when it comes to talking to officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law, using tangible definitions is actually productive, while a personally-defined meaning is not.

ZX-10R
10-29-2010, 2:23 PM
Thanks for posting your experiences. I wonder if some people are genuinely ignorant of the law or are just playing the odds thinking that they'll never get caught.

Is it the people or are the laws ignorant?

F8ality
10-29-2010, 2:29 PM
A stripped lower is a firearm but not a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle, therefore it is not an AW.

So what about a listed lower? Not an OLL?
Such as Colt, dpms, or KAC? Can you buy them and have them shipped into Cali stripped with a bulletbutton and leave them in your safe as long as you never configure it with an upper, are you legal?

Noonanda
10-29-2010, 2:34 PM
Is it the people or are the laws ignorant?

The laws are ignorant but until we get them overturned, you roll the dice you pay the price. I'll pass info to people, they make their own choices after that. thats on them

"They dont send you to blue collar conjugal visits prison for a Felony firearms offenses. They send you to Hard Core Pound you in the A** Prison".

ZX-10R
10-29-2010, 2:37 PM
That is my point there are so many laws that are so vague and confusing that if it were not sites like this, it would still be a cluster...I sold my WASR for $300 before I moved back here from WA because the laws were just a bit to confusing to risk anything.

Cyc Wid It
10-29-2010, 2:40 PM
So what about a listed lower? Not an OLL?
Such as Colt, dpms, or KAC? Can you buy them and have them shipped into Cali stripped with a bulletbutton and leave them in your safe as long as you never configure it with an upper, are you legal?

No.

Jonathan Doe
10-29-2010, 2:50 PM
Topgun,
Just off the top of your head, what's the breakdown that you've seen come across your desk? RAWs (registered and other), Featureless and BB?
Thanks for your post. You're performing a service for the CalGuns community. :thumbsup:

From my experience, majority of them were rifles with OLL receivers with regular magazine releases with all the AW features. Then some Prince-50 with no lock screws, and some unregistered Category 1 named assault weapons. I think some people still think it is okay to have the unregistered AW as long as they are not get caught.

Did it fire in a semi-automatic function, or was the gas system disabled?

It was fully functional as a semiautomatic rifle with detachable magazine and all the features, pistol grip, flash suppressor and retractable stock. Once in a while, I see OLL rifles with full auto M-16 fire control system installed.

leelaw
10-29-2010, 2:52 PM
Is it the people or are the laws ignorant?

The laws are the laws, whether the intent behind them was ignorant, malicious or otherwise. Some people are ignorant.

leelaw
10-29-2010, 2:53 PM
It was fully functional as a semiautomatic rifle with detachable magazine and all the features, pistol grip, flash suppressor and retractable stock. Once in a while, I see OLL rifles with full auto M-16 fire control system installed.

I ask only since it's a requirement to kick in AW-by-feature laws, and it wasn't stated in the OP.

Did you test fire it?

Omega13device
10-29-2010, 2:56 PM
So what about a listed lower? Not an OLL?
Such as Colt, dpms, or KAC? Can you buy them and have them shipped into Cali stripped with a bulletbutton and leave them in your safe as long as you never configure it with an upper, are you legal?
I clarified my earlier post to make it clear that it applied to only off-list lowers. Sorry about that.

Jonathan Doe
10-29-2010, 3:05 PM
I ask only since it's a requirement to kick in AW-by-feature laws, and it wasn't stated in the OP.

Did you test fire it?

All guns I receive for a case work are test fired, after all the facts about the gun are documented first.

9-12
10-29-2010, 6:02 PM
No, I've got "the point." Your "the point" is that you'd rather confound the issue by changing definitions to suit yourself. Do you also call them "standard capacity" or "full capacity" magazines, too? It's a tactic to cause confusion by changing the knowledge base to fit a personal stance.

We'll have to agree to disagree. You'd rather define based on your personal emotional reaction to a term, and I'd rather use legal definitions because when it comes to talking to officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law, using tangible definitions is actually productive, while a personally-defined meaning is not.Listen bud, don't tell me we'll just have to agree to disagree, and then tell me why I say what I say. You couldn't be more wrong...about a few things here. First, I'm not changing any definition to suit anything. Jeez...are you intentionally being obtuse? The term "assault weapon" was improperly and inappropriately assigned to these weapons in the first place, to cause the "confusion" and garner the emotional support of their demise from those who don't know any better. The stroke of the brush, so to speak, to paint these specific rifles as "evil" and somehow more dangerous and lethal because of these features, and because they "look" like real assault weapons and to create fear.
Second, my reaction is not to the term, it's to the stupid lemmings who are more worried about their own comfy places in life and don't want to "rock the boat" among their peers, rather than challenge them with the truth. Wouldn't want to jeopardize that career. My guess is (they) would rather use inappropriate terms when it comes to talking to officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law because you're more worried about kissing their *** than defending the truth. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

"using tangible definitions is actually productive, while a personally-defined meaning is not"

Yes, I agree, and calling one of these rifles an "assault weapon" is a lie, and definitely a "personally defined meaning" (by the anti gun establishment), so what's your point?

Clearly you're the one who's confused.
At least that's my opinion...that is, if I'm still allowed to voice it...:confused:
Now we can agree to disagree.

Cyc Wid It
10-29-2010, 6:17 PM
Listen bud, don't tell me we'll just have to agree to disagree, and then tell me why I say what I say. You couldn't be more wrong...about a few things here. First, I'm not changing any definition to suit anything. Jeez...are you intentionally being obtuse? The term "assault weapon" was improperly and inappropriately assigned to these weapons in the first place, to cause the "confusion" and garner the emotional support of their demise from those who don't know any better. The stroke of the brush, so to speak, to paint these specific rifles as "evil" and somehow more dangerous and lethal because of these features, and because they "look" like real assault weapons and to create fear.
Second, my reaction is not to the term, it's to the stupid lemmings who are more worried about their own comfy places in life and don't want to "rock the boat" among their peers, rather than challenge them with the truth. Wouldn't want to jeopardize that career. My guess is (they) would rather use inappropriate terms when it comes to talking to officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law because you're more worried about kissing their *** than defending the truth. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

"using tangible definitions is actually productive, while a personally-defined meaning is not"

Yes, I agree, and calling one of these rifles an "assault weapon" is a lie, and definitely a "personally defined meaning" (by the anti gun establishment), so what's your point?

Clearly you're the one who's confused.
At least that's my opinion...that is, if I'm still allowed to voice it...:confused:
Now we can agree to disagree.

So you're ready to put your freedom on the line to prove a point/rock the boat (while using the "correct" terminology)?

9-12
10-29-2010, 6:33 PM
So you're ready to put your freedom on the line to prove a point/rock the boat (while using the "correct" terminology)?Well if my "freedom" is at risk for speaking my mind, wouldn't that just be grand. I made a very simple point in the beginning. I didn't intend to start an arguement.

Omega13device
10-29-2010, 7:21 PM
I don't hear too many anti-gunners crowing about how they got us all to use their terminology. Their agenda isn't exactly making a lot of headway.

Kerplow
10-29-2010, 7:22 PM
Listen bud, don't tell me we'll just have to agree to disagree, and then tell me why I say what I say. You couldn't be more wrong...about a few things here. First, I'm not changing any definition to suit anything. Jeez...are you intentionally being obtuse? The term "assault weapon" was improperly and inappropriately assigned to these weapons in the first place, to cause the "confusion" and garner the emotional support of their demise from those who don't know any better. The stroke of the brush, so to speak, to paint these specific rifles as "evil" and somehow more dangerous and lethal because of these features, and because they "look" like real assault weapons and to create fear.
Second, my reaction is not to the term, it's to the stupid lemmings who are more worried about their own comfy places in life and don't want to "rock the boat" among their peers, rather than challenge them with the truth. Wouldn't want to jeopardize that career. My guess is (they) would rather use inappropriate terms when it comes to talking to officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law because you're more worried about kissing their *** than defending the truth. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

"using tangible definitions is actually productive, while a personally-defined meaning is not"

Yes, I agree, and calling one of these rifles an "assault weapon" is a lie, and definitely a "personally defined meaning" (by the anti gun establishment), so what's your point?

Clearly you're the one who's confused.
At least that's my opinion...that is, if I'm still allowed to voice it...:confused:
Now we can agree to disagree.

seems to me you are taking things way out of context. the context is "assault weapons" as far as the law is concerned. you are arguing semantics and really just muddling up the thread.

NationsMostWanted
10-29-2010, 7:26 PM
12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

hmm so that means? is has to be 30 inches and cant have a folding stock

Librarian
10-29-2010, 7:33 PM
hmm so that means? is has to be 30 inches and cant have a folding stock

That's 2 separate issues.

You CAN have a folding stock IF the gun does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, i.e. ordinarily has a bullet button or equivalent.

No matter what, can't be shorter than 30 inches - but I can't remember how that's measured with folding stocks.

Librarian
10-29-2010, 7:38 PM
My guess is (they) would rather use inappropriate terms when it comes to talking to officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law because you're more worried about kissing their *** than defending the truth. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Language is a set of agreed-upon symbols.

In the context of "officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law " the agreed-upon symbols are set forth in the text of the laws.

Legislators are generally highly uninformed about technical bits, and usually refuse to be educated for political reasons.

If you want to tilt at windmills, so be it, but it just isn't going to take us anywhere.

9-12
10-29-2010, 7:44 PM
seems to me you are taking things way out of context. the context is "assault weapons" as far as the law is concerned. you are arguing semantics and really just muddling up the thread. Maybe semantics to you...
If you want to tilt at windmills, so be it, but it just isn't going to take us anywhere.


Fair enough to all...I'll let it be. We all have our "pet peeves" and this whole "assault rifle/weapon" thing just irks me.
Sorry for the distraction and no disrespect intended.

9-12
10-29-2010, 7:48 PM
Language is a set of agreed-upon symbols.

In the context of "officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law " the agreed-upon symbols are set forth in the text of the laws.

Legislators are generally highly uninformed about technical bits, and usually refuse to be educated for political reasons.

If you want to tilt at windmills, so be it, but it just isn't going to take us anywhere.To the above...I agree, and I'll only add this in closing and to my point...it's the people who "agreed" to this mis-use of terminology to promote an agenda that are the problem. Again, not the term itself. ;)

bondmid003
10-29-2010, 11:12 PM
9-12 I think your time would be better spent correcting anti-gunners and the misinformed than arguing with us. Remember we're on your side.

-hanko
10-29-2010, 11:58 PM
No matter what, can't be shorter than 30 inches - but I can't remember how that's measured with folding stocks.
CA law requires the weapon to be measured with the folding stock folded...different than federal law which measures with the folding stock unfolded.

-hanko

IsaacGlass
10-30-2010, 1:17 AM
Listen bud, don't tell me we'll just have to agree to disagree, and then tell me why I say what I say. You couldn't be more wrong...about a few things here. First, I'm not changing any definition to suit anything. Jeez...are you intentionally being obtuse? The term "assault weapon" was improperly and inappropriately assigned to these weapons in the first place, to cause the "confusion" and garner the emotional support of their demise from those who don't know any better. The stroke of the brush, so to speak, to paint these specific rifles as "evil" and somehow more dangerous and lethal because of these features, and because they "look" like real assault weapons and to create fear.
Second, my reaction is not to the term, it's to the stupid lemmings who are more worried about their own comfy places in life and don't want to "rock the boat" among their peers, rather than challenge them with the truth. Wouldn't want to jeopardize that career. My guess is (they) would rather use inappropriate terms when it comes to talking to officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law because you're more worried about kissing their *** than defending the truth. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

"using tangible definitions is actually productive, while a personally-defined meaning is not"

Yes, I agree, and calling one of these rifles an "assault weapon" is a lie, and definitely a "personally defined meaning" (by the anti gun establishment), so what's your point?

Clearly you're the one who's confused.
At least that's my opinion...that is, if I'm still allowed to voice it...:confused:
Now we can agree to disagree.

Man, oh man. Someone done you wrong. Then again, internet forums is much cheaper than therapy sessions.

Jonathan Doe
10-30-2010, 10:10 AM
I do not interprete the law and its language. When I examine a firearm, I go by what the law says in the penal code. If a firearm meets the criteria of an assault weapon, it is an assault weapon. It is simple as that unless someone change the terms in the penal code.

I don't agree with the assault weapon/ saturday night special stuff. But, the law is there and we will have to follow it. Whether one thinks it is a bad law or not, whether they agree or not is not an issue, I guess.

Let's go out and vote, so we can change it.

Predator
10-30-2010, 11:35 AM
Agreed,

The laws may not make sense, but we are legally obligated to follow them.

If you don't agree with something you still have to follow the rules, otherwise work on getting the laws changed.

Mute
10-30-2010, 12:09 PM
Sticking our fingers in our ears and saying, "la la la la la la la la..." isn't going to change the fact that the term "assault weapons" exist under the law. As long as that's the case we'll have to address it as defined by law so we can bring clarity to what are some very idiotic and ambiguous legislation, not only so we can properly attack it, but also to help gun owners stay out of trouble when they make purchases.

I and most of members here understand that there "assault weapons" only exist as defined by anti-gunners, but unfortunately they are written into law here in CA. If we're going to talk about them under the context of what and what isn't legal, we need to use the terminology as they are applied regardless of how we feel about these terms.

ke6guj
10-30-2010, 12:17 PM
So what about a listed lower? Not an OLL?
Such as Colt, dpms, or KAC? Can you buy them and have them shipped into Cali stripped with a bulletbutton and leave them in your safe as long as you never configure it with an upper, are you legal?

maybe. The CGF guys have said that it would be defendable in court since a stripped lower is not a semi-automatic rifle, so even if it is on the list, it should be legal. But it is not recommended that you test out this theory.

9-12
10-30-2010, 1:45 PM
Sticking our fingers in our ears and saying, "la la la la la la la la..." isn't going to change the fact that the term "assault weapons" exist under the law. As long as that's the case we'll have to address it as defined by law so we can bring clarity to what are some very idiotic and ambiguous legislation, not only so we can properly attack it, but also to help gun owners stay out of trouble when they make purchases.

I and most of members here understand that there "assault weapons" only exist as defined by anti-gunners, but unfortunately they are written into law here in CA. If we're going to talk about them under the context of what and what isn't legal, we need to use the terminology as they are applied regardless of how we feel about these terms.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, and I know the law is the law and we have to use the terminology when discussing the law...I understand that, but there's just something that really bothers me about using the term, especially in the title of a thread like this, with no distinction anywhere, and it's important enough to me, to take the time here to respond, with all due respect.

Kafka
10-30-2010, 5:02 PM
Man, I'm glad I live in Texas.

Jonathan Doe
11-06-2010, 4:15 PM
Man, I'm glad I live in Texas.

Lucky you. Someone still has to hold the ground in California. :79:

uns0b1ll
11-08-2010, 4:27 PM
topgun7
is there drawn proposition that can address our state AW definition problems ready for next regular Session ?
or perhaps movement to repeal current bill ?

thank you

bwiese
11-08-2010, 4:42 PM
So what about a listed lower? Not an OLL? Such as Colt, dpms, or
KAC? Can you buy them and have them shipped into Cali stripped with a bulletbutton and
leave them in your safe as long as you never configure it with an upper, are you legal?

1.) A 'named' lower by itself is defendably not an AW. Even a freestanding 'named' AR lower
with a pistol grip/telestock is still not an AW - not semiautomatic, not centerfire, and not a rifle.

2.) A 'named' non-semiautomatic rifle - i.e, "Colt AR15" but WITHOUT a gas system installed (i.e.,
gas port blocked for safety, and gas tube removed) is also NOT a semiautomatic rifle and is
manually cycled (kinda a bolt action). The prefatory wording for 12276PC Roberti-Roos listing
states, "As used in this chapter, 'assault weapon' shall mean the following
designated semiautomatic firearms: semiautomatic firearms...."and which also carries over to Kasler-listed AR/AK "series" items.

This legal stance is also reinforced by phrasings in the legislative analysis for AB2728 back in 2006.

But it's unwise to cause yourself trouble. Especially since just about all AR lowers are about the same and off-list ones are only $100ish... so why the hell intentionally buy yourself grief??

You are also mistaken that "leaving them in your safe" (or just keeping them in your house) will isolate you from law enforcement contact. Never rely on that. Don Kilmer told some of us that 70+% of AW cases he handled were *domestic* (meaning not transport - does not mean domestic violence). LE can be in your house for any of a variety of even innocuous reasons.

ke6guj
11-08-2010, 4:42 PM
topgun7
is there drawn proposition that can address our state AW definition problems ready for next regular Session ?


not sure what you are asking him here. topgun7 is an LEO whois job is that as a firearms examiner (not sure of his exact title), he does not deal with getting laws passed.

Hump0311
11-08-2010, 6:13 PM
I've been trying to learn all California laws regarding firearms lately. I downloaded a free Constitution app on my phone and have been stuck on the 2nd Amendment. The history of the laws and changes made to them can be found on the app.

OP thank you for the heads up. I'm making sure to stay compliant with all laws regarding my rifle build. I have noticed that a lot of the laws and regulations are hard to read.

Wherryj
11-08-2010, 6:25 PM
Stop LEO bashing.

If that was directed towards me, it isn't LEO bashing, it is politician bashing. Why is a layman with respect to laws (a citizen) expected to know more about laws than a profession with respect to laws (a LEO)?

I am a physician. I am expected to know more about medicine than my patients. A laywer is expected to know more about law than a client. Should it be any other way?

Sniper3142
11-08-2010, 6:43 PM
If that was directed towards me, it isn't LEO bashing, it is politician bashing. Why is a layman with respect to laws (a citizen) expected to know more about laws than a profession with respect to laws (a LEO)?

I am a physician. I am expected to know more about medicine than my patients. A laywer is expected to know more about law than a client. Should it be any other way?


+100

:D

uns0b1ll
11-08-2010, 10:23 PM
not sure what you are asking him here. topgun7 is an LEO whois job is that as a firearms examiner (not sure of his exact title), he does not deal with getting laws passed.

Every Citizen has right to fight for getting laws passed or appealed.
I wasn't aware topgun7 was LEO, for some reason i assumed he was lawyer. :)

Lc17smp
11-09-2010, 5:57 PM
"But, the law is there and we will have to follow it. Whether one thinks it is a bad law or not, whether they agree or not is not an issue, I guess."


I wish this was the case. I can think of a few laws in CA. I would like to have inforced but they aren't politically expediant.

Omega13device
11-09-2010, 8:03 PM
If that was directed towards me, it isn't LEO bashing, it is politician bashing. Why is a layman with respect to laws (a citizen) expected to know more about laws than a profession with respect to laws (a LEO)?

I am a physician. I am expected to know more about medicine than my patients. A laywer is expected to know more about law than a client. Should it be any other way?
Doctors and lawyers typically specialize and are not expected to be experts on everything.

LEOs have to know a lot of different areas of the code...traffic, drugs, domestic issues, robbery, firearms, and more. Most are not specialists. We've studied this one area and gotten to know it well because it applies to us, but it's an area that has little application in LEOs' day-to-day lives. It's a little ridiculous to expect every LEO to know this stuff backwards and forwards.

Anchors
11-09-2010, 11:46 PM
A lower assembly without an upper is a "firearm". A lower assembly with upper attached, is a "rifle" (or pistol if so legally configured). Either without a magazine lock...is illegal.

Fud.

It only becomes illegal if attached to an upper that makes it functional semi auto centerfire rifle that has SB23 features.

This.

Army...a complete lower without an upper attached is indeed a rifle but to be considered an AW it has to be semiautomatic and centerfire, and it's neither without an upper.

This.


This is why I always laugh when people are like "YOU HAVE TO PUT THE BULLET BUTTON ON FIRST, BEFORE THE LPK. IF YOU DON'T YOUR HOUSE WILL EXPLODE AND YOUR DOG WILL DIE."

As long as there isn't an upper on it, as stated above, it isn't a rifle or semi-automatic. Semi-automatic being the important part.

Anchors
11-09-2010, 11:53 PM
...and you're confusing the point. Neither "weapon" nor "rifle" in anything semi automatic is "assault" anything. The word "assault" should never even be in these conversations except that's what the government anti gun Nazis have drummed into every one's thinking and you're just perpetuating the fallacy and their agenda. You're giving their lie the credibility they're hoping for.
What do you think a "selector" is? If it's not a selector, it's a safety.

Dude, since you're off on a rant.
Why even give them the credit of calling a select-fire weapon an "assault rifle".
In my mind, names should be derived from the real use of something, not the perceived use.
As long as you aren't assaulting someone, you could argue that full-autos aren't assault rifles. I mean, they're really not more dangerous anyway. They seem like they would suck if you were actually trying to assault someone.

My point is. You give use to the term "assault rifle" for full-auto guns, but get bent out of shape about "assault weapon" for CA AW's. By your arguement, neither one is more correct than the other.
I'm inclined to agree, but as stated above, "assault weapon" is a term in the PC. Just like "freeway" actually means any public street in California. It's disagreeable, but it's the law.

arsilva32
11-10-2010, 1:22 AM
I don't hear too many anti-gunners crowing about how they got us all to use their terminology. Their agenda isn't exactly making a lot of headway.


wow! i don't know where you live but to me it looks like they have made a great deal of headway. ridiculous headway as bullet buttons , 10 round max mags , so called features that are um evil ,and on and on chipping away the rights of responsible gun owners.



as i am one who never wants to break the law even the ones i don't agree with, i appreciate the op's information on staying legal, and respect his expertise on the subject.

Omega13device
11-10-2010, 9:39 AM
wow! i don't know where you live but to me it looks like they have made a great deal of headway. ridiculous headway as bullet buttons , 10 round max mags , so called features that are um evil ,and on and on chipping away the rights of responsible gun owners.
You're way off. We are far better off today than we were five years ago.

At the end of 2005 very few people even knew what an off-list rifle was. Today there are hundreds of thousands of them in CA. That is progress. If you don't like bullet buttons and featureless rifles then go buy a welded-magwell lower or old-style mag lock and have fun top-loading it. That was what we had in 2005.

On the national level we've had Heller and McDonald. Maybe you've heard of those decisions.

I don't know where you're getting your information but if you think the anti-gunners have made any headway whatsoever in recent years, you're badly misinformed.