PDA

View Full Version : Just a Point I want to run by


Mudvayne540ld
07-04-2006, 6:55 PM
Just wanted to run this by, and see if this seems like a good argument to put in my letter. Sorry if this has already been posted, or thought of.

The whole point of this new definition in CCR would be to make sure no one has easy access to an "assault rifle" right? Or to make sure no one can easily modify their existing rifle into an "Assault Weapon".

How does re-defining permanent fix this at all? This does nothing to ban open mag AR's. So if I wanted, I could easily build an illegal AW, with no trouble at all.
This just further proves that the CA DOJ is attacking CA gun enthusiasts. They are doing nothing to stem assault weapons from being manufactured illegaly by forcing us to modify our rifles.

:rolleyes:

elsolo
07-04-2006, 7:20 PM
If "capacity to accept" means anything short of welding shut the magwell (ammend 978.20).
AND
They get bare (open well) receivers to be considered AW's, even if they are unassembled (AB2728here (http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2728.1)), then...

Sales of OLL's will cease and pocession of a non-welded, no-reg'd AR lower will be illegal. The streets will no longer be flooded with evil death machines and babies will be safe.

All of us that bought OLL's will have to remove them from the state, weld them shut, or turn them in. This is the DOJ's dream, whether they can achieve it is another debate. It's obvious they don't want to list, so they are trying whatever they think will work to redefine the grey area as black, always was black, you were felon this whole time and since we're so nice we'll give a little amnesty period to dispose of your contraband.

(just one opinion, I hope it doesn't work out that way, keep debating the possibilities)

grammaton76
07-05-2006, 1:07 PM
Sales of OLL's will cease and pocession of a non-welded, no-reg'd AR lower will be illegal. The streets will no longer be flooded with evil death machines and babies will be safe.

Eh, although they claim that our "purpose" is to assemble them with pistol grips and such, I haven't seen anything in proposed legislation which would prohibit them in a gripless configuration. So the real 'desired' impact seem to be that there'll be 40k or so gripless drop-mag AR's running around the state...

adamsreeftank
07-05-2006, 1:19 PM
Eh, although they claim that our "purpose" is to assemble them with pistol grips and such, I haven't seen anything in proposed legislation which would prohibit them in a gripless configuration. So the real 'desired' impact seem to be that there'll be 40k or so gripless drop-mag AR's running around the state...

Yes, they don't have a problem with rifles able to use large-cap mags. It's the anti-grip lobby running this show.

elsolo
07-05-2006, 2:05 PM
Eh, although they claim that our "purpose" is to assemble them with pistol grips and such, I haven't seen anything in proposed legislation which would prohibit them in a gripless configuration. So the real 'desired' impact seem to be that there'll be 40k or so gripless drop-mag AR's running around the state...

It seems to me their intent with AB2728 is to make unassembled, gripless AR-series receivers considered AW's. The DOJ is trying everything it can to stop OLL's from coming into the state while preventing the registration of those allready here as AW's.
(I don't really want to hash out all the ways it could or could not work out for them on this forum, we don't need to be their legal review team on this one.)

So make an unassembled AR-series lower an AW even w/o the PG, unless it has it's magazine welded up. No longer will it require features to be an AW, it is inherently an AW.

I think that's their inent and plan. I think it has some problems.

anotherone
07-05-2006, 2:54 PM
Personally I'd like to see the DOJ answer these questions in front of the media:

1) Over the past 6 years did you have the power to prevent these recievers from entering the state?

2) Will the change in CCRs prevent these recievers and the parts needed to build them into fully operational rifles from comming into the state

answers: no and no

Thus it must be concluded that the true purpose of the regulatory action is simply to up the ante with the Calguns.net online forum members.

TKo_Productions
07-05-2006, 3:39 PM
Personally I'd like to see the DOJ answer these questions in front of the media:

1) Over the past 6 years did you have the power to prevent these recievers from entering the state?

2) Will the change in CCRs prevent these recievers and the parts needed to build them into fully operational rifles from comming into the state

answers: no and no

Thus it must be concluded that the true purpose of the regulatory action is simply to up the ante with the Calguns.net online forum members.

According to the Harrott Decision, isn't the answer to the first question yes?

6172crew
07-05-2006, 4:31 PM
It seems to me their intent with AB2728 is to make unassembled, gripless AR-series receivers considered AW's. The DOJ is trying everything it can to stop OLL's from coming into the state while preventing the registration of those allready here as AW's.
(I don't really want to hash out all the ways it could or could not work out for them on this forum, we don't need to be their legal review team on this one.)

So make an unassembled AR-series lower an AW even w/o the PG, unless it has it's magazine welded up. No longer will it require features to be an AW, it is inherently an AW.

I think that's their inent and plan. I think it has some problems.

If they plan on keeping the "frame/receiver" crap in this bill then it needs to die a flaming death.

Im still reading the bill but that would pretty much kill it IMHO.:cool:

bwiese
07-05-2006, 4:45 PM
If they plan on keeping the "frame/receiver" crap in this bill then it needs to die a flaming death.

Im still reading the bill but that would pretty much kill it IMHO.:cool:

Since these frames/receivers have lawful purposes for builds into non-assault weapons, this bill re-raises elements of Harrott. There are significant due process issues with this bill - it may even be helpful in a back-asswards way. We should oppose it, but we can't fairly evaluate it yet since the devil's in the details and is subject to revision... I am sure it is not finalized..

SFV_Dealer
07-09-2006, 8:19 PM
Bill,
Is anyone asking for the media to be present at the public hearing in August ? Would that be a good idea or not to help the citizens of California ?

bwiese
07-09-2006, 11:21 PM
Bill,
Is anyone asking for the media to be present at the public hearing in August ? Would that be a good idea or not to help the citizens of California ?

It would not be understood or reported properly, and they'd prob believe the DOJ spokesman's spiel. It's not a soundbite issue.

Note this is entirely separate from AB2728