PDA

View Full Version : Acceptible AW Regulations


Toolbox X
07-13-2006, 3:07 PM
We live in a communist state. There is no getting around that.

Pretend we could write a bill that would eliminate the AW bans in CA, but would create strict requirements for AW ownership. What requirements would you be okay with?

Personally, I would be okay with these requirements:
AW owners must have their COE.
AW buyers must provide a copy of their COE with their DROS and FFL's are required to verify the COE with the DOJ when they submit the DROS.
AW owners must register each AW.
AW owners must own a real gun safe, with a minimum weight requirement (IE. 400 pounds) and state certification, and secure the safe to the floor or other structural surface from inside the safe.
AW buyers must update their safe registration and place of residence with the DOJ each year, and receive a gun safe registration card that must be verified by the FFL during the DROS.
AW owners must store all AW's in a locked (state certifed) gun safe.
AW owners must report stolen or missing AW's within 24 hours of discovery.
AW buyers are required to ace (no incorrect answers) a written Assault Weapon test each year that goes over all the important laws regarding AW transportation, storage, access to children, overall rifle length, barrel length, lending of AW's, selling, gifting, reporting if stolen, AW characteristics, threaded rifle and pistol barrels, etc.

I know these requirements are costly, tedious, time consuming, and sorta crazy. I'm not saying I WANT all of these things to happen. I also understand that not everyone can meet these requirements.

However, if someone wrote a bill that would allow me to buy and own AW's, so long as I met the above requirements, I would support it and hope it passed.

I also think a great many moderate anti-gun people would support such a bill, and a rather strong argument could be made that most areas of concern for anti-gun people would be addressed.

What do you guys think?
What else would you add?
What would you remove?
Or are you so hell bent on complete freedom, you would not support any requirements?

The Soup Nazi
07-13-2006, 3:14 PM
Unacceptable. People shouldn't have to deal with crap the ATF doesn't need to deal with to get the weapons they use to raid your house/place of buisness.

Mute
07-13-2006, 3:14 PM
The problem is that every gun law in this state is seen as just another stepping-stone to the anti-gunners ultimate goal - a complete ban on all guns. Going along with them may encourage them to push along further.

Snuffalofogus
07-13-2006, 3:16 PM
Unacceptable.


Agree 100%

Toolbox X
07-13-2006, 3:26 PM
Keep in mind, this would not be a step backward. It would be a step forward.

Today we can't buy or own AW's at all.

If a bill like that passed we could buy and own as many AW's as we want.

SemiAutoSam
07-13-2006, 3:26 PM
Or are you so hell bent on complete freedom, you would not support any requirements?

Yep thats me...

REPEAT THESE WORDS.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

What part of this do you not understand.

Ive read that Ben franklin said this
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

Toolbox X
07-13-2006, 3:37 PM
I understand that we can't own AW's in CA.

That's what I understand.

I'm trying to find a compromise that gets us what we want, to own AW's, and gives some of the hippies and liberals who run the state what they want, piece of mind that evil black rifles will not be falling into the hands of criminals who will commit heinous crimes.

Believe me, I'm all about the 2nd Amendment and I think all small arms gun bans are unconstitutional. But here in reality the 2nd Amendment is being ignored, we can't own AW's here, and that probably isn't going to change.

My question is what regulations would you be willing to accept in order to make AW's legal in CA?

For example, given the choice, would it be okay with you if AW's were legal but you had to register them? Or would you rather keep the AW ban as it is where we can't own anything?

Stanze
07-13-2006, 3:42 PM
We'd be no better than Ruger, Smith and Wesson(under old management) and several others if we negotiated with gun grabbers.

xenophobe
07-13-2006, 3:44 PM
DWCL'89 legislative intent was to provide for permitting some AW ownership for collectors or those that would otherwise want to own one.

DOJ regulatory action made the permits nearly unobtainable.

More restrictions to owning will not solve this. The AW laws need to be repealed.

Toolbox X
07-13-2006, 4:05 PM
Exactly. Repeal the AW bans.

What regulations would you be willing to put up with if they would repeal the AW bans?

Registraion?
Safe Requirement?
COE?

Charliegone
07-13-2006, 4:14 PM
We live in a communist state. There is no getting around that.

Pretend we could write a bill that would eliminate the AW bans in CA, but would create strict requirements for AW ownership. What requirements would you be okay with?

Personally, I would be okay with these requirements:
AW owners must have their COE.
AW buyers must provide a copy of their COE with their DROS and FFL's are required to verify the COE with the DOJ when they submit the DROS.
AW owners must register each AW.
AW owners must own a real gun safe, with a minimum weight requirement (IE. 400 pounds) and state certification, and secure the safe to the floor or other structural surface from inside the safe.
AW buyers must update their safe registration and place of residence with the DOJ each year, and receive a gun safe registration card that must be verified by the FFL during the DROS.
AW owners must store all AW's in a locked (state certifed) gun safe.
AW owners must report stolen or missing AW's within 24 hours of discovery.
AW buyers are required to ace (no incorrect answers) a written Assault Weapon test each year that goes over all the important laws regarding AW transportation, storage, access to children, overall rifle length, barrel length, lending of AW's, selling, gifting, reporting if stolen, AW characteristics, threaded rifle and pistol barrels, etc.



I must say don't like those ideas...but...in this state this might be the only way. I would rather take something than nothing. What we should really be doing is educating the masses on guns and gun safety rather than calling them "libertards" or something of that nature. What we want(and need) is support and to get it we need the public on our side.

SemiAutoSam
07-13-2006, 4:16 PM
Exactly. Repeal the AW bans.

What regulations would you be willing to put up with if they would repeal the AW bans?

Registraion?
Safe Requirement?
COE?


Why should we have more regulations in exchange for the repealing of a stoooopid law.

where is the sense in that ? Are you one of the antis ?

Charliegone
07-13-2006, 4:21 PM
Why should we have more regulations in exchange for the repealing of a stoooopid law.

where is the sense in that ? Are you one of the antis ?

He's not saying that. What he is saying considering the political status in this state, there will have to be some kind of regulation. They won't just say "ok repeal all gun laws we have no problem with that" will they? We all want to own AW's don't we? I'm guessing the best way is to use the Germany example (but not so difficult as it is there.)

grammaton76
07-13-2006, 4:30 PM
I'll take a shot here. The annual "must-ace" test is a total no-go.

For one thing, they can deceptively word questions or whatnot. Or even if they decide that you must mark red as blue, and call that the right answer, you could lose all of your weapons. That's way too silly. And of course they would go for that right off the bat.

COE wouldn't be an issue to me - just gives me a reason to go get one.

However, Xeno brings up a very good point - it was originally intended that people can get AW's, at a fairly steep price. The problem is that the DOJ was given as much discretion as San Francisco PD gets for CCW.

I believe there was a law that got shot down early this legislative session, to move AW importation/registration to a "shall-issue" type of system. I wouldn't object to having to pay the fee (I think it's $300 per weapon) to get the permit to import each AW I wanted, then register it, etc.

The point is, the DOJ has acted in poor faith with already-existing law. They will not act in good faith with new laws, either. If they were to act in good faith with regards to the intent of the laws which are ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, basically anyone could have AW ownership if they were willing to pay the price.

SemiAutoSam
07-13-2006, 4:32 PM
If your speaking of an AR15 or a FN FAL or any other semi auto rifle YES

Assault weapon is a name the FED and or PRC gave the weapons long before the FED and state gave these weapons this name the term assault weapon had a meaning that was totally different as an assault weapon ment a select fire rifle type machine gun this business of calling a semi auto center fire rifle a assault rifle is a total political misnomer. and back in the day when the so called 1994 AWB was written into law no respectable firearms dealer would use that term, at least not in the circles I traveled in.

Ive never been confortable using this term as i know better the only assault weapon that I have owned was a select fire Belgian made FN FAL Paratrooper rifle that I paid a 200.00 tax stamp for to the US Treasury dept

Toolbox X
07-13-2006, 5:10 PM
I too HATE how the hippies took the term "Assault Rifle" and redefined it from select fire military rifle to civilian semi-auto. That is why I refuse to use the term "Assault Rifle" and instead use the term "Assault Weapon" which unfortunately has a legal definition in CA.

I put the test in there because it pisses me off how uneducated everyone is when it comes to AW laws and gun laws in general. How often do you see people saying threaded rifle barrels are illegal? Do you know that transporting an AW is a felony if you are not going to or from your shooting destination? When you transport an AW or a pistol the gun must be in a locked CONTAINER, and a gunlock through the action doesn't count, it must be a locked container The trunk of a car counts so long as there aren't any trunk access points from the interior of the car. Also, it is illegal to have ammo inside the locked container with the pistol or AW, so if you are using your trunk as your locked container make sure you have your ammo inside the cabin with you. And 90% of gun owners don't know how to sell or transfer a gun to someone else. I thought it would be a good idea to create a test that forced AW owners to prove they actually know the laws that pertain to their weapons. Such a test would be powerful when demonstrating how safe it is to allow people to own AW's because they would have to prove they knew the laws.

I think the test along with the other regs would make straw purchases MUCH harder. Joe gang member couldn't just send his 21 year-old girlfriend with a clean record into a gunshop with $30,000 and tell her to buy 50 Glock 17's (which is where the 1 pistol per month law came from).

I know we can't trust the DOJ or the liberals, but what else can we do? Right now we have almost nothing. We could make it worse somehow I suppose, but if we don't try we're going to be stuck with what we've got, banned AW's. Baring a Federal repeal of all state gun laws and a single set of Federal laws, which isn't going to happen, compromise is the only choice we have if we ever want to own AW's again.

And that's my question. What compromises would you be willing to make in order to repeal the AW bans?

Ever since I got my COE I've thought the COE is a great solution/compromise. It costs $60-$70 to get your COE, so the liberals get to gun tax us which makes them happy. The COE is also a time tax in that it takes some effort to figure out where and how to do it. Getting you COE means you are fingerprinted like crazy using their scanner computer system, and your prints are input into the DOJ and FBI systems. Hippies must drool at the thought of an evil gun owner having his (or her) prints put into the system like that. And like I said before, a COE requirement would really discourage a lot of gun buyers in general as well as straw purchases.

We're only going to get somewhere if we can appease the liberals in exchange for what we want.

What do you guys think about a COE req for AW ownership in CA?

Ford8N
07-13-2006, 5:11 PM
I think an Assemblyman or Senator in Sac already tried something like that already and it got shot down in flames. I know what Toolbox X is saying and I would be cool with any "hoop" I would have to jump thru, because you are not going to get one any other way if you live here.

Law Enforcement and urban rulers of this state are absolutely against any pistol grips on semiauto rifles for the serfs. Something about "spray fire from the hip" and "...more deadly." :rolleyes:

Cato
07-13-2006, 5:17 PM
What's with all the regs? No matter what anyone says, gun ownership is a RIGHT; not a privilege. That's why it's Number 2 in Bill of RIGHTS. It should be like the old days when you could pick up a machine gun at the local hardware store. Cash and carry! It would be acceptable to prove citizenship before purchase (passport will do).

If Sacramento decides that slavery is legal does does that void Amendment 13 of the US constitution? No way.

Toolbox X
07-13-2006, 5:21 PM
...back in the real world....

Gun regulation is legal, and personally I don't think it is a good idea for liquor stores to sell select fire M16's over the counter to any felon who wants one. Call me crazy!

grammaton76
07-13-2006, 6:11 PM
I'll state again: I don't see problems with CoE, but the primary issue is that the DOJ will refuse to act in good faith with ANY kind of appeasement you try to give them. They've already demonstrated it for the past six years.

SemiAutoSam
07-13-2006, 6:34 PM
...back in the real world....

Gun regulation is legal, and personally I don't think it is a good idea for liquor stores to sell select fire M16's over the counter to any felon who wants one. Call me crazy!


No thats not crazy I dont want felons to own any dangerous weapon I didnt mean 1800's gun regulation.

Ive never felt comfortable with loonys or dangerous persons having possesion of weapons.


But because of a small percentage of loonys and criminals that have abused the laws they take the guns that look like military weapons away from all of us.

Thats just wrong period. To them its just another small step toward total firearms confiscation.

They dont care if we are law abiding citizens IMO they just want to take our guns and another way to accomplish that goal is to outlaw this and that and make the BS list of so called safe handguns.

The way I see it If we dont have a criminal record we should be able to own just about any firearm including machine guns, short barreled rifles, SB shotguns suppressors, destructive device, ect

And think about this you already own long guns and handguns and you want to buy another of either you go through another background check and wait another 10 days wait for what so they can do a check on you that they could instantaniously thru the NICS nationwide program. or even the NCIC check. some say this is a cooling off period so you wont just go buy the gun and blow someones head off or hurt someone that your pissed off at ?

this may be ok for first time gun buyers but where is the logic if you already have possesion of firearms?

EOR

Cato
07-13-2006, 7:15 PM
...back in the real world....

Gun regulation is legal, and personally I don't think it is a good idea for liquor stores to sell select fire M16's over the counter to any felon who wants one. Call me crazy!


Liquor stores dont carry many products in the $750-1500 range. I think just simple cost would keep the weapons out of the hands of most bad guys. Mobsters and the like already have fully auto weapons and just about anything else they want. It's only we, the law abiding middle class, who has one hand tied behind our back being by being denied certain firearms and magazines.

SemiAutoSam
07-13-2006, 7:41 PM
I think the test along with the other regs would make straw purchases MUCH harder. Joe gang member couldn't just send his 21 year-old girlfriend with a clean record into a gunshop with $30,000 and tell her to buy 50 Glock 17's (which is where the 1 pistol per month law came from).

Correction: This form isnt designed to catch straw purchases just multiple handgun sales.

The federal law already has a system in place to catch buyers like this its called the multiple handgun sales form

http://www.atf.gov/forms/pdfs/f33104.pdf

http://www.nrapublications.org/archives/fabric.asp

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Mags/Treasury-versus-Chicago.pdf

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0405/background.htm

383green
07-13-2006, 8:24 PM
We live in a communist state. There is no getting around that.

Agreed.

Pretend we could write a bill that would eliminate the AW bans in CA, but would create strict requirements for AW ownership. What requirements would you be okay with?
No requirements which infringe my right to keep and bear arms are acceptable.

Toolbox X
07-13-2006, 10:00 PM
Correction: This form isn't designed to catch straw purchases just multiple handgun sales.

The federal law already has a system in place to catch buyers like this its called the multiple handgun sales form.

Those forms don't work. They don't prevents the guns from ever getting to the street. All the BATFE MHSF does is collect information that could be used to find suspects after a crime has been committed. From what I understand this was a big problem in SoCal.

Also, anyone who has both their C&R FFL and their COE is exempt from the one handgun per 30 day restriction.

Personally I would support a good number of firearm restrictions, so long as very reasonable and very clearly designed exceptions were available.

Class 3 NFA weapons are a perfect example of that. 2 crimes in the past 80 years with NFA weapons is a pretty good track record.

No requirements which infringe my right to keep and bear arms are acceptable.

This is what is freaking me out right now. How far down in the sand is your head buried? That is about the stupidest statement I have seen on this forum.

NEWS FLASH!!! In this state there are about 10,000 laws that infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms. And some of them are a good thing! I don't want felons or 9 year olds to be able to buy guns. I want their rights to be infringed. I'll be you do too.

But that is irrelevant to this post because what I am suggesting doesn't infringe anything. It does the opposite in fact. It would make it possible for you to own guns that are now currently banned.

Obviously the greatest danger with doing anything is having whatever you do turned against you. For instance if my requirements were enacted but the AW part was dropped and then replaced with "pistols" or "any rifle that accepts a magazine", etc.

However, that should not be a problem because whatever assembly-person or senator submits the bill should be able to pull it if it was amended in such a way that its purpose was defeated.

Creativity of working within the system is what got us our OLL's in the first place. Creativity is what it will take to get any pro-gun changes passed in this state.

Sure it would be harder to buy and AW with some requirements like your COE and a registered gun safe, but wouldn't it be better than it is now, not being able to own an AW at all?

SemiAutoSam
07-13-2006, 10:04 PM
Working within the system my BUTT that was a damm loophole plain and simple

383green
07-13-2006, 10:32 PM
No requirements which infringe my right to keep and bear arms are acceptable.
This is what is freaking me out right now. How far down in the sand is your head buried? That is about the stupidest statement I have seen on this forum.
That's funny, I was thinking the very same thing about you. However, despite my strong disagreement with your opinion on this matter I will attempt to debate the topic in a civil and intelligent manner, rather than publicly calling your statements stupid (whether I privately feel that way or not).


NEWS FLASH!!! In this state there are about 10,000 laws that infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms. And some of them are a good thing! I don't want felons or 9 year olds to be able to buy guns. I want their rights to be infringed. I'll be you do too.
Felons don't have the same rights that you and I do. They do not have the right to keep and bear arms under our legal system, and thus they have no right to be infringed in that area. Legal hurdles that require the arbitrary expenditure of time, effort and money by law-abiding citizens only infringe their rights, not any imaginary rights of convicted felons.

Murder is illegal, yet violent criminals still murder other people. Why would putting any legal roadblocks in the way of buying guns keep those same violent criminals from obtaining guns illegally? Those laws only restrict the law-abiding folks.

I am not willing to support laws which infringe my most basic rights in a vain attempt to keep a small minority of people who do not care about those laws or my rights from doing bad things.

But that is irrelevant to this post because what I am suggesting doesn't infringe anything. It does the opposite in fact. It would make it possible for you to own guns that are now currently banned.
What you suggest replaces one set of convoluted, arbitrary, unconstitutional and unacceptable laws with a different one. That doesn't help me or anybody else. One of the most compelling arguments against the so-called assault weapon laws (aside from their simple and obvious unconstitutionality) is that they restrict ownership of a certain class of weapons based only on meaningless cosmetic differences. How does changing the way those restrictions are implemented improve things?

Our efforts should all be focused on correcting the real problem, namely the blatant unconstitutionality of nearly all of the firearms regulations in our country. We aren't helping ourselves by wasting time and money to create a situation where we could then jump through hoops and give yet more of our hard-earned money to a bloated, ineffective, parasitic government in order to be permitted to do some small thing that is supposed to be one of our most basic rights.

It is quite clear that you and I don't see eye to eye on this matter. It's a free country, and you're welcome to believe anything you want, but I think that you'll find a lot of folks on this particular forum don't take too kindly to the particular opinions you've expressed in this thread. I don't think that I'm any more likely to change your mind on this topic that you are to change mind, so I doubt that I'll have anything more to add to this thread.

Mute
07-13-2006, 10:34 PM
I don't see it as an improvement at all. If your proposals were to take effect, as gunowners we'd be saying that we'll accept registration and jumping through more and more legal hoops just to get a scrap from the table. It may seem like an improvement in the short term, but in the long term it's just another degree up in the water for the boiling frog.

SemiAutoSam
07-13-2006, 10:37 PM
383green


SLAM DUNK

SemiAutoSam
07-13-2006, 10:44 PM
Those forms don't work. They don't prevents the guns from ever getting to the street. All the BATFE MHSF does is collect information that could be used to find suspects after a crime has been committed. From what I understand this was a big problem in SoCal.

Also, anyone who has both their C&R FFL and their COE is exempt from the one handgun per 30 day restriction.

Personally I would support a good number of firearm restrictions, so long as very reasonable and very clearly designed exceptions were available.

Class 3 NFA weapons are a perfect example of that. 2 crimes in the past 80 years with NFA weapons is a pretty good track record.



This is what is freaking me out right now. How far down in the sand is your head buried? That is about the stupidest statement I have seen on this forum.

NEWS FLASH!!! In this state there are about 10,000 laws that infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms. And some of them are a good thing! I don't want felons or 9 year olds to be able to buy guns. I want their rights to be infringed. I'll be you do too.

But that is irrelevant to this post because what I am suggesting doesn't infringe anything. It does the opposite in fact. It would make it possible for you to own guns that are now currently banned.

Obviously the greatest danger with doing anything is having whatever you do turned against you. For instance if my requirements were enacted but the AW part was dropped and then replaced with "pistols" or "any rifle that accepts a magazine", etc.

However, that should not be a problem because whatever assembly-person or senator submits the bill should be able to pull it if it was amended in such a way that its purpose was defeated.

Creativity of working within the system is what got us our OLL's in the first place. Creativity is what it will take to get any pro-gun changes passed in this state.

Sure it would be harder to buy and AW with some requirements like your COE and a registered gun safe, but wouldn't it be better than it is now, not being able to own an AW at all?

I have only one thing to say to all of your modified HOOPS

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Benjamin Franklin

socalguns
07-13-2006, 10:54 PM
That's a bad idea.
See what's going to happen now, is Dianne and her retards are going to take that proposal, modify it so it covers any and all firearms,
and then make getting a COE impossible ... firearms ownership completely outlawed in california.

383green
07-13-2006, 11:07 PM
we have all heard the cliche , you cant yell fire in a crowded theater.

but they don't put duct tape over your mouth to prevent it.
+1 Insightful

Oops, this isn't slashdot. :o

why the hell would a guy who has a gun collection need to be presumed to need to cool off on his umpteenth gun purchase?
It's like you're reading my mind! What's the point in a waiting period for some hypothetical person who already has a stupid COE and C&R FFL, and has a Diane Feinstein ArsenalTM out in the gun safe? If this hypothetical person decides to run amok, are they gonna think to themself, "self, I need to go buy a different gun for my killing spree!" :mad:

The whole background check, "cooling off period", etc. is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to reprogram people to not think of their most basic rights as being basic rights.

vonsmith
07-13-2006, 11:41 PM
If you start negotiating with the Devil you're gonna lose.

Decades ago I thought that logical people could find some middle ground, a compromise. Now I'm older and wiser and have come to realize that the anti's will always keep pushing towards confiscation. :mad:


=vonsmith=

383green
07-14-2006, 12:03 AM
I even go further: I think that the second amendment is a bad foundation to base gun rights on; the second amendment has become irrelevant, it has been gutted by nearly a century of gun regulation that already violates it in spirit.
Them's fightin' words, son...

Other than that, I would not be unhappy if the rules would be made significantly tougher. For example, I night imagine some further tightening along the following lines:
[whole bunch of gymnastics to buy so-called assault weapons]This only serves to legitimize the antis' claim that the so-called assault weapons are somehow substantially different from other guns. It only supports absurd claims like "pistol grips allow the bad guys to spray bullets and make Baby Jesus cry".

Folks who don't know about guns don't have any background to filter out such ridiculous statements... my dad's a very smart guy (PhD and all), and yet he once repeated that handle-spraying mumbo jumbo to me (minus the Baby Jesus part), and I had to explain the bogosity of that to him. He just hasn't touched a gun since mandatory ROTC crap back in the 60's, and didn't know any better.

So, if we gun owners concede that the so-called assault weapons actually are different and some sort of tax-paying, pencil-pushing, butt-kissing ritual should be required before buying them, then how are we helping our cause at all?!

I apologize ahead of time, as I'm completely sure that a large fraction of the people on this forum will get incredibly upset at my suggestions, and will think that I'm the devil incarnate.
You are the devil incarnate. Go say 223 Hail Stoners and make a sacrifice of jacketed lead at the 200 yd. shrine, and mend your evil ways.

Toolbox X
07-14-2006, 12:38 AM
If you start negotiating with the Devil you're gonna lose.
=vonsmith=

Wrong. We didn't negotiate last time, and they banned all of our guns. That's the problem.

If want to get our guns back we are going to need to negotiate with the Devil (liberals).

You guys keep preaching to the choir about 2nd Amendment this, and how stupid that law is, etc. We know. 99% of gun laws are stupid. AW's are rarely used in crime. Most gun laws are unconstitutional. Waiting periods are retarded. We know all this.

I'm trying to find a way to make AW's legal again, and most of you guys just want to scream the same things you've been screaming for years and years about how stupid the laws are. How you hate Feinstein. How it's one step closer to confiscation and complete bans.

Well, complaining to the people on this forum about stupid gun laws doesn't accomplish anything.

Treelogger brought up some good ideas to think about.
Personally I would prefer an approach that focused more on background checks, secure storage, education, and inconveniences rather than taxing AW owners through up front and annual fees. But that is good brainstorming!

I like the idea of AW permits, though I think the COE might be a better version of the same thing because it is a system that is already in place and requires serious fingerprinting.

Also, what is neat about the COE is it might be a tool we could use to get around the current laws without replacing them. An exception. After all, the C&R FFL and COE create an exception to the 1 pistol per 30-days regulation.

Under 12072
(9)(A) No person shall make an application to purchase more than one pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person within any 30-day period.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any of the following:
(ix) Any person who is licensed as a collector pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued to him or her by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12071.

In theory it might be possible to get a bill passed that would amend the current laws that ban AW's, to put in an exception for people that have their COE.

The COE code was written correctly. It doesn't give the DOJ or local governments the power to deny people their COE.
Under 12071
(4) A person may request a certificate of eligibility from the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice shall issue a certificate to an applicant if the department's records indicate that the applicant is not a person who is prohibited from possessing firearms.

This might be a sneaky move we could slip through the assembly, as most legislators don't have a clue as to what a COE is.

adamsreeftank
07-14-2006, 12:43 AM
In theory, if I could choose the current state of affairs or some hypothetical situation where I could own AWs under some restrictions, I would choose the second.

But let's not forget, in most of this country, you can walk into a store and walk out with a drop mag, pistol grip, full capacity magazine shooting rifle and no one will look at you funny for buying it. More importantly, if you pay the $200+ stamp tax and can afford it, you can buy a fully automatic, short barrelled, supressed machine gun. To me, that is what "the right shall not be infringed" is all about.

383green
07-14-2006, 12:46 AM
Admitted, this is a serious flaw in the proposed scheme. Maybe the following would be more acceptable: we have a very simple series of tests for a certain class of guns (for example rimfire rifles), followed by a tougher series of tests for slightly more dangerous guns (for example hunting-style centerfire rifles and rimfire handguns), followed by a quite tough series of tests for guns that are getting to be threatening (like centerfire handguns), and finally a very very tough series of tests for AWs and CCWs? Ideally, SBRs and machine guns could be handled in the same theoretical framework.
How about this idea: I walk into the gun store, plop down my wad of cash, present my valid state driver's license or ID card which is marked with neither "Under 18 until 2xxx" nor "FELON", and then I go home with my nice, new M1911A1, AR15, M16A2, M1919A4, Sten, M2HB, etc.? Maybe if I'm in a compromisin' mood, I'll even let the clerk to verify validity of the ID first, so long as there's a strict limit on the time required (say, 30 minutes while I visit the Starbuck's next door), and I'm presumed good to go if a technical glitch prevents a go/no-go answer within the time limit. And I don't fill out any damn registration or paperwork in any case.

This is similar to how driver's licenses are handled: first you get your learner's permit, then kids between 16 and 18 have very serious restrictions on whom/where they can drive, and to get the toughest licenses (the ones for heavy trucks, and for driving with lights and sirens) there are further age and experience limits and tests.
I have a class A CDL with endorsements for air brakes, doubles/triples and tankers, so I'm pretty familiar with that particular set of bureaucratic gymnastics. However, I don't recall which constitutional amendment states that my right to drive a Peterbilt or M35A2 shall not be infringed. Guns and vehicles are not in the same legal class in the U.S., and trying to draw parallels between them is a straw-man argument at best.

Whether the proposed series of regulations are too tough or too lax for AWs is a matter of great debate;
Assault Weapons aren't any different than non-Assault Weapons. The whole concept was created by the antis to try and make incremental gains in their campaign to disarm all of us subjects. As long as you keep expounding proposals for convoluted ways to be able to buy one kind of gun vs. another, you're playing right into their hands.

the important part I'm trying to get across is to look at all gun control laws in a different light: it's about verifying beforehand that the proposed owner can be trusted enough for this particular class of guns, and then licensing people found to be trustworthy.
How can a license be required for a basic right?


Is this sufficient for absolution of the sin I have committed, which is being a gun owner and shooter who is trying to think outside the box?
The caliber and range aren't the important part; absolution really only hinges on mending your evil ways. I contend that you are not thinking outside of the box at all; you're thinking inside the exact box that the antis want you to.

Yes, I know that trying to think is a grave sin (maybe even a mortal sin); instead as a good brainwashed gun owner I'm just supposed to recite the 2nd amendment all the time, and tithe 10% of my income to the NRA
If anybody has brainwashed you, it's the folks who have trained you to think that you should not be able to exercise your basic rights until you have received their permission in the form of a license. Licenses aren't needed for rights; by definition, they confer privileges.

I may recite the 2nd all the time, but I don't tithe any of my income to the NRA. They strike me too much as being collaborators, and I kept expecting to see Ed McMahon's face on the weekly envelope, so I let my membership lapse. I don't think they're on target any more, and other groups like GOA seem like better places for me to send my extra bucks.

chris
07-14-2006, 2:35 AM
Or are you so hell bent on complete freedom, you would not support any requirements?

Yep thats me...

REPEAT THESE WORDS.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

What part of this do you not understand.

Ive read that Ben franklin said this
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

I SAY AGAIN WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BRE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND.

i would take this as enableing these politicians that we want our rights chipped away a little more. too much blood has been spillerd for these rights that politicians piss on a regular basis. i would not accept those regulations or anything like them.

grammaton76
07-14-2006, 1:07 PM
It's all ok, Treelogger just thinks he's in Europe. :)

Seriously though, the point is that you're not going to get ANYTHING just by going "well, we'll jump through this and that and this and that and require insurance, etc etc etc". Remember, to an anti, insurance doesn't matter! In an anti's head, YOU ARE EVIL! If you own a gun, you are evil! If you want a scary gun, you are the devil, and that ISN'T going to change! The ONLY way an anti will ever think you have business owning a gun, is if you happen to be wearing a uniform.

Now, if they were to come up with a snazzy "assault weapon owner" uniform, and require that you wear it at all times when you're taking your assault weapon anywhere... well, I'd be amused but I'd probably be ok with wearing it as long as it isn't pink or anything like that.

383green
07-14-2006, 1:16 PM
The ONLY way an anti will ever think you have business owning a gun, is if you happen to be wearing a uniform.

Now, if they were to come up with a snazzy "assault weapon owner" uniform, and require that you wear it at all times when you're taking your assault weapon anywhere... well, I'd be amused but I'd probably be ok with wearing it as long as it isn't pink or anything like that.
I propose that the official AW uniform be a birthday suit. Nothing says "don't mess with this guy" like a naked middle-aged overweight guy carrying a rifle. Well, maybe scuba fins and Bootsie Collins style sunglasses would add to the effect.

:D

grammaton76
07-14-2006, 2:50 PM
I propose that the official AW uniform be a birthday suit. Nothing says "don't mess with this guy" like a naked middle-aged overweight guy carrying a rifle. Well, maybe scuba fins and Bootsie Collins style sunglasses would add to the effect.

If that were to occur, you would see a lot of cute girls being offered free AW's... :)

383green
07-14-2006, 2:52 PM
If that were to occur, you would see a lot of cute girls being offered free AW's... :)

Not to mention scuba fins and Bootsie Collins style sunglasses... :)

Pokey
07-14-2006, 3:20 PM
Or are you so hell bent on complete freedom, you would not support any requirements?

Yep thats me...

REPEAT THESE WORDS.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

What part of this do you not understand.

Ive read that Ben franklin said this
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!

Why should the freedoms of the law abiding be dictated by the whims and actions of the lawless.

As to the hoops, look at 1938 Germany.
"We are only registering"
"They are only permits"
"We are sorry your permit is denied/revoked"
"We understand you had a permit at one time, please come with us"

No thank you!:mad:

Toolbox X
07-14-2006, 7:06 PM
Can you guys please clarify what our plan should be to try to get our gun rights restored?

icormba
07-14-2006, 8:19 PM
You forgot to add...
"AW owners must provide, to the DOJ, copies of keys and or combinations to your safe(s)." ;) :)

We live in a communist state. There is no getting around that.

Pretend we could write a bill that would eliminate the AW bans in CA, but would create strict requirements for AW ownership. What requirements would you be okay with?

Personally, I would be okay with these requirements:
AW owners must have their COE.
AW buyers must provide a copy of their COE with their DROS and FFL's are required to verify the COE with the DOJ when they submit the DROS.
AW owners must register each AW.
AW owners must own a real gun safe, with a minimum weight requirement (IE. 400 pounds) and state certification, and secure the safe to the floor or other structural surface from inside the safe.
AW buyers must update their safe registration and place of residence with the DOJ each year, and receive a gun safe registration card that must be verified by the FFL during the DROS.
AW owners must store all AW's in a locked (state certifed) gun safe.
AW owners must report stolen or missing AW's within 24 hours of discovery.
AW buyers are required to ace (no incorrect answers) a written Assault Weapon test each year that goes over all the important laws regarding AW transportation, storage, access to children, overall rifle length, barrel length, lending of AW's, selling, gifting, reporting if stolen, AW characteristics, threaded rifle and pistol barrels, etc.

I know these requirements are costly, tedious, time consuming, and sorta crazy. I'm not saying I WANT all of these things to happen. I also understand that not everyone can meet these requirements.

However, if someone wrote a bill that would allow me to buy and own AW's, so long as I met the above requirements, I would support it and hope it passed.

I also think a great many moderate anti-gun people would support such a bill, and a rather strong argument could be made that most areas of concern for anti-gun people would be addressed.

What do you guys think?
What else would you add?
What would you remove?
Or are you so hell bent on complete freedom, you would not support any requirements?

383green
07-14-2006, 9:06 PM
After reading the vast majority of comments in this and in similar threads, I have decided to no longer discuss the politics of gun control, and the legal theory behind gun control, in a setting such as this forum.
Thank you. After reading what you've posted here, as well as over in the Common sense gun laws needed... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=35894) thread, I can't distinguish between the legal restrictions that you advocate, and the ones that the gun control folks advocate. I consider you to be an "anti", even if you are a gun owner. Hmm, isn't Dianne Feinstein rumored to be a gun owner, too?

SemiAutoSam
07-14-2006, 9:13 PM
Thank you. After reading what you've posted here, as well as over in the Common sense gun laws needed... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=35894) thread, I can't distinguish between the legal restrictions that you advocate, and the ones that the gun control folks advocate. I consider you to be an "anti", even if you are a gun owner. Hmm, isn't Dianne Feinstein rumored to be a gun owner, too?


I dont mean to gang up but from the views he has talked about I also consider him to be an ANTI

There are several others here that seem to be either on the fence or totally fallen to the left side.

Wild Bill
07-14-2006, 9:22 PM
If you give the "Anti's" any thing, they will take it all!!! Meaning total confiscation and you will not be able to even own a bb-gun.:mad:
WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND !!!

tankerman
07-14-2006, 9:59 PM
Or...the state of California could simply roll back it's 'assault weapon' laws to the federal standard since there hasn't been a glut of 'assault weapon' crimes, nor has there been blood running in the streets.

Why are you so hell bent for leather to be chained by inane government restrictions? Some of you folks are waaaaaaaay to eager to drop trou and voluntarily give up your rights.
I agree, but that would require several things that are not likely to occur, such as; the government admitting it is wrong, the public learning to think for themselves and last, 99.99% of the U.S. would need to grow a spine and start walking erect. You can only wish.

383green
07-14-2006, 10:01 PM
99.99% of the U.S. would need to grow a spine and start walking erect
51% should be adequate, as long as they vote. ;)

chris
07-15-2006, 12:15 AM
hey toolbox relax. we know the problem and by you freaking out has no business here. we are here to try and fix the problem. i'll tell you who the problem is. Gun Owners are. we don't vote we don't write our elected officials and so. this is not a statement to the people here who slam the politicians for doing this. we cannot let them think we will give in to them.

they want all our guns and i mean all of them get it. we have to work on getting them back. it's easy to take our rights away but it will be tougher to get them back.

i cannot in good faith follow your idea of letting us buy new so called AW's ok. a right is a right. to ask for permission to exercise it is just frickin wrong.

there are alot of very well informed people on the forum and to come in and say how ignorant people are is not a solution. if you know something that people don't. don't slam them they don't know and they want to know. this is our problem too we are divided and the anti-gunners know this and it is their strategy not a hard one to figure out.

i'm not here to slam you but slamming people here is not the right way to go.

i for one will not give my rights without a fight. bending over and taking it in the a#$ is not the way to go.

Toolbox X
07-15-2006, 6:38 PM
hey toolbox relax. we know the problem and by you freaking out has no business here. we are here to try and fix the problem. i'll tell you who the problem is. Gun Owners are. we don't vote we don't write our elected officials and so. this is not a statement to the people here who slam the politicians for doing this. we cannot let them think we will give in to them.

they want all our guns and i mean all of them get it. we have to work on getting them back. it's easy to take our rights away but it will be tougher to get them back.

i cannot in good faith follow your idea of letting us buy new so called AW's ok. a right is a right. to ask for permission to exercise it is just frickin wrong.

there are alot of very well informed people on the forum and to come in and say how ignorant people are is not a solution. if you know something that people don't. don't slam them they don't know and they want to know. this is our problem too we are divided and the anti-gunners know this and it is their strategy not a hard one to figure out.

i'm not here to slam you but slamming people here is not the right way to go.

i for one will not give my rights without a fight. bending over and taking it in the a#$ is not the way to go.

Hey Chris relax.
You don't know the problem.
You aren't doing anything to fix it.
You don't know what is going on.
You can't even grammatically write sentences that make sense.

No ***** the hippies want all of out guns. Feinstein came out and said her goal is to ban all firearms. That isn't new.

We do vote. We do write our legislators. You don't, but people like me and most of the other intelligent people on this forum, people who actually try to fix things, we do. Stop assuming we don't.

we cannot let them think we will give in to them.
What? Are you in the 4th grade?

Give in? You're saying that getting our AW rights back is giving in? Dude, you need to get off your self-righteous soap box and take a look around at what is really going on. By that I mean you need to stop screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" for a second and look at how the system really works.

Gun control is part of the laws we all have to live with. You can either accept that, and try to create a set of laws you are at least somewhat happy with, or you can keep screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and go pout in a corner while your guns are taken away from you.

This is a political battle. You must get that through your head. The majority of people in this state don't care about guns, and the overwhelming majority really don't care for or support Assault Weapons. The only thing that keeps our tiny group afloat is the 2nd Amendment, but it's not enough. The Anti's are tricky little bastards and they keep finding ways to chip away little parts of our gun freedom one at a time. And the Anti's have the majority of the population (I didn't say voters) that support them. Standing around all day and screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" to a tiny community of pro-AW people does nothing. Playing the political game is what does something. Trying to get our own legislation passed is what does something.

In California you are never going to be able to walk into a gun store, hand the clerk your ID and credit card, and walk out with an Uzi. Never! I'm sorry this bother you but you need to get over it! If we're going to fight the Anti's we need to fight battles we can actually win. Making some compromises in exchange for getting our gun rights back seems like a pretty good idea to me.

My list of requirements was just brainstorming. I'm not standing on top of a milk crate on the steps of the Capital with a megaphone screaming that those requirements should be put in place. I posted them on this forum to get people thinking and brainstorming ideas about what we can do to get our rights back.

Unfortunately people like yourself never allowed anything constructive to happen. You guys spammed this post with all your "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" chants, and attacked any ideas that were brought up.

The sad realization for me is how many pro-gun people out there are so totally and completely closed-minded. Don't bother you with the facts or suggestions. Any kind of compromise is completely out of the question, even before you've heard what the compromise is. It's your way or the highway, and that's that. Meanwhile you actually do nothing and the Anti's keep chipping more and more of our rights away. Wait, I take that back. You do do something. You impede the attempts by the other pro-gun people who actually try to get our gun freedoms back. You attack their suggestions and kill their brainstorming sessions. Way to go. Thanks.

i'm not here to slam you but slamming people here is not the right way to go.

I still can't completely figure out what this means, but I think I understand enough.
I don't want to go off on you. I've now spent 30 minutes writing this stupid post. Those are 30 minutes that could have been spent working on ideas to get our freedoms back. And I'm sure you're mad now, probably with your head spinning, full of ideas on how to flame me. It's a giant waste. We've done nothing.

Maybe you are just really young and haven't learned how to be constructive yet. I know it is a lot easier to complain about things or tell someone their ideas just suck. But that doesn't do anyone any good. No one benefits.

If you guys didn't like my ideas you can just say so, nicely even. You don't have to scream at me and call me an Anti. Or you can just not post all. Or better yet, post some of your own ideas. Maybe you hate registration but you would support a $300 tax stamp per AW. Maybe you hate the idea of a COE, registration, and 400+ lb. gun safe requirement, but you would support them if we used a trick from the liberal handbook and after they were passed we would try to later get them removed while still keeping our restored AW rights.

Please, just chill out and start helping us instead of complaining so much. We might be able to figure out a good plan to get our AW rights back if we stop wasting our time fighting amongst ourselves.

-Tool

thedrickel
07-16-2006, 1:10 AM
I agree with the 2A guys, I'd like to own a suppressed FA SBR by paying the 200$ tax stamp. And also with the guy that quoted Sartre. . . I have every right to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. And vice versa.

PS. JOIN THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY

SemiAutoSam
07-16-2006, 12:13 PM
I agree with the 2A guys, I'd like to own a suppressed FA SBR by paying the 200$ tax stamp. And also with the guy that quoted Sartre. . . I have every right to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. And vice versa.


TO do this would take alot more than even making the so called AW law go away

There arent enough people within this state that would demand this right and since the lame ****** legslators took this right away from all the people of the state not just the felons everyone this is one that isnt coming back to california.

Look at what the federal gov did in may 19 1986 this was the start of the end in the NFA weapon department ( at least when it comes to MG'S) there are other NFA weapons as well like SBR (short barrled Rifles, SBS short barreled shotguns, Destructive devices, supressors, AOW any other weapon,) ect

They are very slowly taking away our right to bear arms all arms.

those that are behind doing this are the one worlders and the international bankers.

After they have taken all of our weapons away then they will forclose on the so called national debt.

are you all hearing what im saying.

After we use the ballot box and it does not work do you know which box we use next while we still have them to use ?

Look at GCA 68 and compare it to hitlers gun control LAW GCA68 is a clone of hitlers Gun control LAW.

I dont mean to rant like this Im just mad. We have been telling people what is happening and they just keep their head in the sand thinking everything is ok well its not ok and making concessions to the antis isnt going to help anything.

EOR