PDA

View Full Version : re: Warning


CalGunsNoob
07-18-2006, 10:13 AM
I think California's assault weapon and firearm laws suck. Period. I think everyone one the board is probably in agreement on that.

However it's incumbent upon us to follow them. Just as we use the law build off-list compliant rifles, the DOJ and law enforcement will use the law to do their jobs.

If the story is true as written this guy had an illegal assault weapon as per Cali law. I am sorry he got busted, but it's really his fault. A silly little thing like a flashider seems foolish and how does it really make a weapon more deadly? I agree. It is stupid. But, that's the law and if you want to be a gun owner in this state you need to know and understand the rules.

12276.1 of the penal code is not hard to understand. And if you don't want to memorize that then it should be even easier to memorize the fact that flashiders are illegal (of course we know they're legal with fixed mags, but if you're going that route you need to memorize the law).

The guy had an illegally configured rifle. That's his fault. He isn't entitled to any special treatment for being a veteran. Veterans don't get special breaks that those of you who aren't veterans don't.

Ignorance of the law is also not an excuse. That doesn't just apply to firearms. It's a legal principle of American Jurisprudence.

Bottom line is this. Suck as it may if you're going to live in Cali and play with guns you need to know what's legal.

blkA4alb
07-18-2006, 11:15 AM
+1, exactily as I said in the thread. Ignorance is not an excuse. And its just stupidity if he was also told that he can't have it by his "friend".

6172crew
07-18-2006, 11:17 AM
I think California's assault weapon and firearm laws suck. Period. I think everyone one the board is probably in agreement on that.

However it's incumbent upon us to follow them. Just as we use the law build off-list compliant rifles, the DOJ and law enforcement will use the law to do their jobs.

If the story is true as written this guy had an illegal assault weapon as per Cali law. I am sorry he got busted, but it's really his fault. A silly little thing like a flashider seems foolish and how does it really make a weapon more deadly? I agree. It is stupid. But, that's the law and if you want to be a gun owner in this state you need to know and understand the rules.

12276.1 of the penal code is not hard to understand. And if you don't want to memorize that then it should be even easier to memorize the fact that flashiders are illegal (of course we know they're legal with fixed mags, but if you're going that route you need to memorize the law).

The guy had an illegally configured rifle. That's his fault. He isn't entitled to any special treatment for being a veteran. Veterans don't get special breaks that those of you who aren't veterans don't.

Ignorance of the law is also not an excuse. That doesn't just apply to firearms. It's a legal principle of American Jurisprudence.

Bottom line is this. Suck as it may if you're going to live in Cali and play with guns you need to know what's legal.

You should apply down at your local DOJ office for a job, Im sure they would love you.:rolleyes:

1. M1A can come from the factory w/ a flash hider and they can be used if you fix a magazine. Im not sure how much more confussing this law can be and now that the Fed-Ban just went away alot of guys are getting the 2 mixed up.

2. Im pretty sure you dont know all there is to know about all the gun laws in CA therefore it could be you we are talking about as someone else telling you its your fault that the lawmakers have done a poor job keeping the laws within reason and not changing them every year. Did you know white lining a motorcycle is legal and has been for aircooled vehicles for years? Did you know you can switch lanes in an intersection? What if these laws had felonies attached to them?

3. Anyone who has served this country should be given the benefit of the doubt and I think all of us who enjoy our 2nd ammendment should ask ourself if we want those who have stood in harms way to be the ones who take the bullet after he is back in his own country. The fact is if none of us step up when it gets bad then its all over with in this state and you might as well treat it like a whore that it is.

Sorry I think the last person standing in front of the man should be a vet, he has already paid his debt to us.

The Soup Nazi
07-18-2006, 11:28 AM
Vets paid their dues. I don't know how most kids these days respect served and currently serving, but I refer to them as "Sir" and I always see them as a person of high character. Do you SERIOUSLY think that a guy who put his life on the line should have his right to possess firearms taken away because of a piece of metal when the gun laws are so many and so confusing that not even police officers can completely comprehend them? Weren't laws supposed to be designed so that the AVERAGE man could understand them?

Regardless, thats just unethical and I can't believe they'd make a felon of him, but theres the Calstapo for you.

CalGunsNoob
07-18-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally Posted by 6172crew
You should apply down at your local DOJ office for a job, Im sure they would love you.

I'm not interested, but thanks for the offer.

1. M1A can come from the factory w/ a flash hider and they can be used if you fix a magazine. Im not sure how much more confussing this law can be and now that the Fed-Ban just went away alot of guys are getting the 2 mixed up.

It would be illegal to import an M1A with the flashider attached. It would need to be removed prior to having it sent here. And, I've never heard of someone fixing a mag on an M1A, seems silly when you can just use a muzzle brake.

2. Im pretty sure you dont know all there is to know about all the gun laws in CA therefore it could be you we are talking about as someone else telling you its your fault that the lawmakers have done a poor job keeping the laws within reason and not changing them every year. Did you know white lining a motorcycle is legal and has been for aircooled vehicles for years? Did you know you can switch lanes in an intersection? What if these laws had felonies attached to them?

I don't know 'everything these is to know' and some of it is a gray area. However, having a flashider on a detachable mag weapon is basic AW stuff. I said I think it's stupid, but that's the law. It's his fault and nobody else's. If you're going to own rifle in Cali it behooves you to know the law. Re: traffic If I commit a traffic violation in front of the CHP I don't expect to be 'let off' because I 'didn't know'. I doubt a cop is going to respond postively to that. And apparently this guy was told it was illegal, didn't think it was a big deal, and put it back on anyway.

3. Anyone who has served this country should be given the benefit of the doubt and I think all of us who enjoy our 2nd ammendment should ask ourself if we want those who have stood in harms way to be the ones who take the bullet after he is back in his own country. The fact is if none of us step up when it gets bad then its all over with in this state and you might as well treat it like a whore that it is.
I also served my country. I just don't make a big issue of it or expect treatment any different than anyone else.

Sorry I think the last person standing in front of the man should be a vet, he has already paid his debt to us.

6172crew
07-18-2006, 11:51 AM
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Then what was the point of your post? To let us know the laws suck and that he got busted and you think he deserved it?

Nobody is making a big deal out of being a vet but you made a point out of saying he was one and who cares. If you dont value his service then I still think you should apply for a job at your local take your guns away agency because none of the cops I know would have sent this guy up river yet you have.

50 Freak
07-18-2006, 11:54 AM
he gun laws are so many and so confusing that not even police officers can completely comprehend them? Weren't laws supposed to be designed so that the AVERAGE man could understand them?


This is the key point. We Californians have so many freaking gun laws (I think somewhere around 12,000) that not even the average Law Enforcement officer knows them.....Hell, I know of some lawyers (who are gun guys) that don't even know the gun laws....How is the average Joe expected to know that the little piece of metal at the end of his rifle (that he's had legally for many years) has made his rifle an illegal assault weapon?

Why are you guys so happy to march to the tune of "it's the law, we must follow it blindly". I hate to tell you but we the way it is now, I will bet you money that if I were to raid your house right now, I could bust everyone everyone here for some kind of gun related offense (maybe not Bill, he's too anal about that stuff).

Also, what irks me, is why is it that I cannot enjoy the same freedoms that the other guy that lives just across state lines? Aren't we all Americans? I think the US Supreme Court needs to pull their heads out of their butts and rule that gun laws should be set nation wide, not city/state wide. We have too many problems of people unknowingly breaking different laws.

CalGunsNoob
07-18-2006, 12:01 PM
Then what was the point of your post? To let us know the laws suck and that he got busted and you think he deserved it?

Nobody is making a big deal out of being a vet but you made a point out of saying he was one and who cares. If you dont value his service then I still think you should apply for a job at your local take your guns away agency because none of the cops I know would have sent this guy up river yet you have.

You've said this already. Anything new to add? Apparently you feel that someone who disagrees with you should go work for the DOJ. I already declined your offer and think it a silly argument. Time to carry on.

I value the service of any vet, but valuing service doesn't mean they (myself included) should be subject to a different application of the law.

Apparently you feel that his status as a veteran entitles him to preferential legal treatment. I disagree.

SemiAutoSam
07-18-2006, 12:20 PM
You've said this already. Anything new to add? Apparently you feel that someone who disagrees with you should go work for the DOJ. I already declined your offer and think it a silly argument. Time to carry on.

I value the service of any vet, but valuing service doesn't mean they (myself included) should be subject to a different application of the law.

Apparently you feel that his status as a veteran entitles him to preferential legal treatment. I disagree.

I don't feel he ment that at all I think what he is saying is the LEO'S should have more discretion to inforce of not to inforce some stupid law.

GMAFB


If the device at the end of the barrel has slots its ok but if it has holes and their at a 45degree angle to the bore well thats a felony.

does this sound as stupid to you as it does to me.

The Soup Nazi
07-18-2006, 12:22 PM
Except in this case, he hasn't infringed anyone's rights to happiness. That piece of metal on his rifle hasn't harmed anyone or put anyone at any inconveniance except the ATF whose objective is to ban guns. In my personal opinion, he deserves a pardon, but he wouldn't need one across state borders. Infact, any honorably discharged Veteran deserves a pardon for any minor offenses they commit, you may think they deserve no special treatment, but as my friend who was in the Navy told me, when you serve, its just like prison but you get a cooler uniform. The reason I consider this flash hider/muzzle brake crap minor is because IT HASN'T DONE ANYTHING TO ANYONE ELSE. This guy doesn't seem to want to shoot people up with his "assault weapon" which is obviously 100 times more dangerous because of that metal on it, and he has't set off any forest fires by firing those tracers at Smokey the Bear.

But we MUST follow laws because the people who made them are beyond our intelligences, because the same care they take to write gun laws are most likely applied to all other laws!

blkA4alb
07-18-2006, 12:28 PM
I agree with calgun, I value his service and your service and every other vet's. But being one does not mean that they deserve special treatment for gun laws. Its the law, and at the present time I am following it even if it inane and utterly useless. Don't view what I am saying or calgun as saying as a personal attack or a disregard of your service. That is not my intent at all, or calgun's I believe.

vonsmith
07-18-2006, 12:35 PM
+1 6172crew & 50 Freak
+1/2 CalGunsNoob

Okay so Kalifornia guns laws are kooky. I do the best to follow all of them. It's good to know that many here on the forum know the "basic AW stuff" that CalGunsNoob refers to. Too bad that the other thousands of gun owners in Kalifornia don't have this year's version of Kalifornia gun laws memorized like CalGunsNoob.

I don't have all of the gun laws memorized, nor do I have all motor vehicle laws memorized. However if I make an illegal lane change I get a ticket, a small fine, and maybe traffic school. If I mount the wrong accessory on the wrong gun then I'm a felon and get to share a free room with bad boy Bubba. All of a sudden my 50+ years of honest living, hard work, and paying taxes doesn't count for much. Maybe a soft hearted DA or compassionate jury will lean my way after hearing a convincing story from my $20,000 attorney.

I'm absolutely certain there are ten of thousands of unintentional and inadvertent technical felons in Kalifornia. It is a shame. The law is supposed to protect society from those who do harm maliciously. It bothers me when we expend critical resources punishing someone on a technical point instead of nailing another pervert or drug dealer.

BTW, I do have a soft spot for those that served this country honorably in the armed forces. They put their butts on the line. That speaks volumes about a person's character.


=vonsmith=

Food for thought...
Scenario 1: A person buys a Kalifornia legal rifle. He shoots the rifle for a while, gets bored and moves on to a new hobby. A few years later he pulls the old rifle out and decides to get back into shooting again. Unbeknownst to him Kalifornia changed some small definition in the AW law making his rifle illegal. Send him to jail?

Scenario 2: Granddad buys a rifle to add to his collection. It is a perfectly Kalifornia legal rifle since Granddad is as honest as they come. Granddad passes away, but Johnny his grandson inherits the rifle. Johnny used to go shooting with Granddad. Too bad Johnny doesn't know that the Kalifornia DOJ decided to interpret some law a little differently since Granddad bought the rifle. Should he get to spend a little time with bad boy Bubba at the local institution?

blkA4alb
07-18-2006, 12:42 PM
Except in this case, he hasn't infringed anyone's rights to happiness. That piece of metal on his rifle hasn't harmed anyone or put anyone at any inconveniance except the ATF whose objective is to ban guns. In my personal opinion, he deserves a pardon, but he wouldn't need one across state borders. Infact, any honorably discharged Veteran deserves a pardon for any minor offenses they commit, you may think they deserve no special treatment, but as my friend who was in the Navy told me, when you serve, its just like prison but you get a cooler uniform. The reason I consider this flash hider/muzzle brake crap minor is because IT HASN'T DONE ANYTHING TO ANYONE ELSE. This guy doesn't seem to want to shoot people up with his "assault weapon" which is obviously 100 times more dangerous because of that metal on it, and he has't set off any forest fires by firing those tracers at Smokey the Bear.

But we MUST follow laws because the people who made them are beyond our intelligences, because the same care they take to write gun laws are most likely applied to all other laws!
The laws that we are supposed to abide by as stupid as they are do not discriminate between persons. If someone was growing a forest of marijuana would you say its legal because they havn't hurt anyone yet? What if your speeding but don't crash? Is that ok? What if a racecar driver was going 150mph down the freeway, is that ok for him? I'm sorry but if I am going to get busted for speeding, so should anyone else (even if it is proven that freeways with higher speeds have fewer accidents and fatalities.) If I am going to get busted for an AW charge, so should anyone else.

vonsmith
07-18-2006, 12:50 PM
The laws that we are supposed to abide by as stupid as they are do not discriminate between persons. If someone was growing a forest of marijuana would you say its legal because they havn't hurt anyone yet? What if your speeding but don't crash? Is that ok? What if a racecar driver was going 150mph down the freeway, is that ok for him? I'm sorry but if I am going to get busted for speeding, so should anyone else (even if it is proven that freeways with higher speeds have fewer accidents and fatalities.) If I am going to get busted for an AW charge, so should anyone else.
Don't be silly. If anyone breaks a law they should be punished. So when you're caught speeding next time can we charge you with a felony? Oh, and you won't be able to own a car anymore, not legally anyway. And we'll take away your right to vote too for good measure.


=vonsmith=

blkA4alb
07-18-2006, 12:55 PM
Don't be silly. If anyone breaks a law they should be punished. So when you're caught speeding next time can we charge you with a felony?


=vonsmith=
No, because speeding is not a felony. AW charges generally are. I used speeding as an analogy. My point is that whatever the punishment is certain people do not deserve special treatment.

The Soup Nazi
07-18-2006, 12:58 PM
Just like how Diane Feinstein has a CCW right?

phish
07-18-2006, 1:05 PM
YAUTSBCO

:rolleyes:

blkA4alb
07-18-2006, 1:05 PM
Just like how Diane Feinstein has a CCW right?
I'm not sure what your getting at. California is a may issue state, not a non issue state. There are quite a few members on here who have CCWs. Feinstein having a CCW is not illegal, although extremely hypocritical :mad: .

vonsmith
07-18-2006, 1:07 PM
No, because speeding is not a felony. AW charges generally are. I used speeding as an analogy. My point is that whatever the punishment is certain people do not deserve special treatment.
I guess that's where our opinions differ slightly. I hope I'm not splitting hairs here, but I think everyone deserves special treatment based on their past history, lifetime contributions, and expectation of future behavior. Isn't it the communists, socialists and their ilk that claim to treat everyone the same?


=vonsmith=

6172crew
07-18-2006, 1:07 PM
You've said this already. Anything new to add? Apparently you feel that someone who disagrees with you should go work for the DOJ. I already declined your offer and think it a silly argument. Time to carry on.

I value the service of any vet, but valuing service doesn't mean they (myself included) should be subject to a different application of the law.

Apparently you feel that his status as a veteran entitles him to preferential legal treatment. I disagree.

Apparently I feel that anyone who serves up his fellow man is a rat and the guy holding the end of the stick isnt any better.

The reason I think you'd make a great brown shirt is you have helped serve him up, you dont know anything about what happened any more than I do but I (unlike you) believe veterens derserve the benefit of the doubt which you wont give him.

You never told us what the point of your post was, am I wrong saying your post is self serving and doesnt do anyone else any good?

vonsmith
07-18-2006, 1:29 PM
YAUTSBCO

:rolleyes:
We already beat it to death. Let it die a natural death. :cool:


=vonsmith=

midnitereaper
07-18-2006, 3:41 PM
I'm not gonna go through this entire post as I already think the original poster needs a little more understanding on his part but I did like what the poster said below so I just wanted to give a +1 here!

You should apply down at your local DOJ office for a job, Im sure they would love you.:rolleyes:

1. M1A can come from the factory w/ a flash hider and they can be used if you fix a magazine. Im not sure how much more confussing this law can be and now that the Fed-Ban just went away alot of guys are getting the 2 mixed up.

2. Im pretty sure you dont know all there is to know about all the gun laws in CA therefore it could be you we are talking about as someone else telling you its your fault that the lawmakers have done a poor job keeping the laws within reason and not changing them every year. Did you know white lining a motorcycle is legal and has been for aircooled vehicles for years? Did you know you can switch lanes in an intersection? What if these laws had felonies attached to them?

3. Anyone who has served this country should be given the benefit of the doubt and I think all of us who enjoy our 2nd ammendment should ask ourself if we want those who have stood in harms way to be the ones who take the bullet after he is back in his own country. The fact is if none of us step up when it gets bad then its all over with in this state and you might as well treat it like a whore that it is.

Sorry I think the last person standing in front of the man should be a vet, he has already paid his debt to us.

bwiese
07-18-2006, 4:53 PM
I'm not gonna go through this entire post as I already think the original poster needs a little more understanding on his part but I did like what the poster said below so I just wanted to give a +1 here!


You are unfamiliar with the situation. The M1A's owner apparently, in the presence of an informant, put a flash hider on. This was not the case of owner forgetting to register an old M1A.

He knew the law, and blew it off.

I don't think these laws should exist, but I give no sympathy points for stupidity: these laws were well-known, esp 5+ years later.

6172crew
07-18-2006, 5:14 PM
You are unfamiliar with the situation. The M1A's owner apparently, in the presence of an informant, put a flash hider on. This was not the case of owner forgetting to register an old M1A.

He knew the law, and blew it off.

I don't think these laws should exist, but I give no sympathy points for stupidity: these laws were well-known, esp 5+ years later.


This is the first time in the 5+ years that I have ever heard of anyone getting busted for rifle that is not a AW and for only a technical violation.

Has it happened before? Maybe but it doesnt matter we all dont know what happened and only know what we have been told but calling the guy an idiot on this board gets my goat, not because he is a vet but because its chickenshift and shows just how much some are willing to send this guy up the creek by saying our laws are easy to understand, he should have known, well what can we say, and etc. etc.

In fact the laws in this state are so vague that common since doesnt even come close to playing a role and AB2728 is proof that they are so screwed up that they have to make a law that was supposed to be taken care of 5+ years ago.

bwiese
07-18-2006, 5:23 PM
This is the first time in the 5+ years that I have ever heard of anyone getting busted for rifle that is not a AW and for only a technical violation.

It WAS an assault weapon by definition.

And we have a pretty good description of what happened that will, I believe, to turn out to be generally true.

In fact the laws in this state are so vague

12276.1 is readily understandable. That defense doesn't hold water.

It's fine if you wanna go flout the idiotic law, just don't ask for sympathy for being so stupid to do it in front of an informant (who's apparently named Paul).

6172crew
07-18-2006, 5:37 PM
It WAS an assault weapon by definition.

And we have a pretty good description of what happened that will, I believe, to turn out to be generally true.



12276.1 is readily understandable. That defense doesn't hold water.

It's fine if you wanna go flout the idiotic law, just don't ask for sympathy for being so stupid to do it in front of an informant (who's apparently named Paul).

The fact is Bill none of know if the M1a came from the factory with a FH or not, for all he knew he added back on after the fed ban.

2. 12276.1 means nothing to the majority of gun owners in CA and the DOJ has admitted as much by quoting th elow turn out for the 2000 registartion which there doesnt wseem to be a shortage folks looking to get in that line this time around I might add.

So calling the guy an idiot on this board doesnt do anyone any good unless your just saying that to make yourself feel better about the 30% or so that does keep up on the vague laws.

50 Freak
07-18-2006, 5:37 PM
I hope this guy doesn't plea bargain out but takes this to court. I'd love to see the DA trying to throw the book at an old vet for a putting on a FH instead of a MB.

I hope the jury laughs the DA out of court.

M. Sage
07-18-2006, 6:21 PM
I'm not sure what your getting at. California is a may issue state, not a non issue state. There are quite a few members on here who have CCWs. Feinstein having a CCW is not illegal, although extremely hypocritical :mad: .

Yet... where is Feinstein based? I just looked, she's got offices in SF, Fresno, LA and San Diego... In MOST of CA, it's next to impossible to get a CCW. Are any of those places among the "easy" CCW issuers?

Oh, she's got her office in DC, too, but guns are 100% illegal there, so we know they couldn't have issued it in DC (though her bodyguards still get to be armed, and since she's their boss, that means she is, too.)

Aaaanyway.

The gun laws here aren't clear. And since when do the police (the DOJ are the cops...) get to make the laws? I thought that was legislature's job - making statute, the courts were to interpret and set precedent, and the DOJ would be the enforcement... since when do they get to do the courts' job and interpret the gun laws (or any others?)

The absolute lack of clarity is why I loaned my M1 Carbine to my father when I moved here from Michigan. I loaned it for safe keeping, since, on my first 2 or 3 readings of the law, I was completely unclear on whether or not my favorite .30 plinker was a possible ticket to prison. Since I've moved here and had more time to review it, I realize that it's legal, as long as I don't bring the 15-round mag with it.

Hell, I didn't even know they MADE 10-rounders when I moved out. That 15 rd mag was the main reason I left the rifle behind.

Also: what EXACTLY is the difference, design-wise, between a flash-hider and a muzzle brake. I know what a muzzle brake does, but it just seems to me like it would have some effect in hiding muzzle flash, too? For that matter, so does an extra 2 inches of barrel.

I have no problem with punishing people for violating the law... unless the law is unjust and completely idiotic, which describes about 70% of the gun law in Kali. I'll still follow it (the best I can, who knows what trouble I'd get in if the cops knew I didn't bother putting locks on my guns when kids were in the house last week?), but I'm not going to damn anybody I see who is ignoring this flash-hider, "evil-feature overload" sillyness.

blkA4alb
07-18-2006, 7:22 PM
Yet... where is Feinstein based? I just looked, she's got offices in SF, Fresno, LA and San Diego... In MOST of CA, it's next to impossible to get a CCW. Are any of those places among the "easy" CCW issuers?

Oh, she's got her office in DC, too, but guns are 100% illegal there, so we know they couldn't have issued it in DC (though her bodyguards still get to be armed, and since she's their boss, that means she is, too.)
Ok, yeah. Its not easy for a normal citizen. She is a politician. For some reason I have this inkling that makes me think she has a much better chance of getting a CCW than one of us. Thats not that hard to understand.

Aaaanyway.

The gun laws here aren't clear. And since when do the police (the DOJ are the cops...) get to make the laws? I thought that was legislature's job - making statute, the courts were to interpret and set precedent, and the DOJ would be the enforcement... since when do they get to do the courts' job and interpret the gun laws (or any others?)
Once the legislature passes the laws the DOJ has the authority to define what that law means. That is the reason they are trying to modify the California Code and the definition of capacity to accept rather than list.

The absolute lack of clarity is why I loaned my M1 Carbine to my father when I moved here from Michigan. I loaned it for safe keeping, since, on my first 2 or 3 readings of the law, I was completely unclear on whether or not my favorite .30 plinker was a possible ticket to prison. Since I've moved here and had more time to review it, I realize that it's legal, as long as I don't bring the 15-round mag with it.

Hell, I didn't even know they MADE 10-rounders when I moved out. That 15 rd mag was the main reason I left the rifle behind.
I'm sorry you were not able to understand the laws. It seems that the majority of us can. SB23 is pretty well defined. If it is a centerfire semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine it cannot have any of the following...simple enough for me.

Also: what EXACTLY is the difference, design-wise, between a flash-hider and a muzzle brake. I know what a muzzle brake does, but it just seems to me like it would have some effect in hiding muzzle flash, too? For that matter, so does an extra 2 inches of barrel.
A flash hider will have a bigger diameter where the barrel ends to allow the burning and expansion of gases before exiting the flash hider. It is also defined as directing the flash away from the shooters eyes. A muzzle brake will have around the same diameter as the caliber of rifle and direct the gases in a way to reduce recoil.

I have no problem with punishing people for violating the law... unless the law is unjust and completely idiotic, which describes about 70% of the gun law in Kali. I'll still follow it (the best I can, who knows what trouble I'd get in if the cops knew I didn't bother putting locks on my guns when kids were in the house last week?), but I'm not going to damn anybody I see who is ignoring this flash-hider, "evil-feature overload" sillyness.
What is unjust and idiotic to us may be completely necessary in the lawmakers and the majority of the publics eyes (thats how the law was made, majority.) I do not agree with them, yet I abide by them.

6172crew
07-18-2006, 8:34 PM
I'm sorry you were not able to understand the laws. It seems that the majority of us can. SB23 is pretty well defined. If it is a centerfire semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine it cannot have any of the following...simple enough for me.


Are you speaking for all of us on Calguns when you say the majority? Id say your wrong if you were using anything other than Calguns.net and Ive already proved that most CA residents dont have a clue about gun laws including AW laws. Most CA folks think that a AW is a class3 weapon.

You also told us what you thought a Flash Hider is and Im not so sure the ATF or the CA DOJ would agree with you 100% of the time..... If you want to prove me right just call them 12 times and tell us how many answers you get.;)

M. Sage
07-18-2006, 9:23 PM
Once the legislature passes the laws the DOJ has the authority to define what that law means. That is the reason they are trying to modify the California Code and the definition of capacity to accept rather than list.

Well, I just spent some time reading the State Constitution, and since DOJ is in the executive branch, defining what is and is not an "assault weapon" doesn't fall under their powers.

The executive branch's job is to enforce the law, plain and simple. Writing the law is the job of the Legislature, interpretation (defining what the law means) is up to the Courts. The DOJ's legal job doesn't include defining what "protrudes conspicuously" means, or even what a flash hider is.

DOJ is overstepping anytime they interpret the law (which they seem to do pretty often).

Yep, I read the law, and being as I was sitting there looking at my rifle and saying "hmmm.. It's got 15 round mag, detachable mag and it's centerfire" I decided to err on caution when the law sounded like my gun was illegal and leave it with my dad. Had they just said "no 15-round mags," I would have done some research on 10-rounders and brought it with me. I'm sure that according to some other part of the law, I'm supposed to take it straight to an FFL as soon as I get it in-state (hopefully this fall) even though I already own it.

I already looked at having him ship it sans mag, and found out I'd have to get a transfer through an FFL, complete with 10-day waiting period, if I have it shipped... even though I already own the rifle. As a result, I plan on making it a road trip.

Mudvayne540ld
07-18-2006, 10:11 PM
Accoriding to the Brady Bill webpage:

ATTORNEY GENERAL REGULATIONS
May Attorney General regulate guns? No

California: State law does not clearly authorize the Attorney General to independently regulate firearms or establish gun safety standards as part of the Attorney General's responsibility to protect consumers.

... he doesnt care about the law tho.... the law is for lesser mortals and law abiding citizens

50 Freak
07-18-2006, 11:02 PM
Originally Posted by blkA4alb
I'm sorry you were not able to understand the laws. It seems that the majority of us can. SB23 is pretty well defined. If it is a centerfire semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine it cannot have any of the following...simple enough for me.

Really, I've got some atty friends that don't even know the current gun laws and these guys are high earning 6 figure Ivy Leaguers (top of the class Harvard, Yale, Stanford grads). If these guys don't even know, what chance do most average Joes know.

Now do you know because you frequent this board and are privey to the numerous discussions? or do you sit there and read up on any and all changes in California gun laws?

Other than us gun freaks, the general public do not frequent gun boards and keep abreast of all the gun laws. They are the ones that are that are ultimately breaking the laws unknowingly.

Mudvayne540ld
07-19-2006, 2:59 AM
Agree
These laws arent really broadcasted. They dont do a real good job of telling the public and clarifying. (i.e OLL Pinned Mag Issue)
I think it is sad when someone is arrested for illegal AW possesion and he doesnt even know what he did was wrong.

6172crew
07-19-2006, 7:49 AM
Well, I just spent some time reading the State Constitution, and since DOJ is in the executive branch, defining what is and is not an "assault weapon" doesn't fall under their powers.

The executive branch's job is to enforce the law, plain and simple. Writing the law is the job of the Legislature, interpretation (defining what the law means) is up to the Courts. The DOJ's legal job doesn't include defining what "protrudes conspicuously" means, or even what a flash hider is.

DOJ is overstepping anytime they interpret the law (which they seem to do pretty often).

Yep, I read the law, and being as I was sitting there looking at my rifle and saying "hmmm.. It's got 15 round mag, detachable mag and it's centerfire" I decided to err on caution when the law sounded like my gun was illegal and leave it with my dad. Had they just said "no 15-round mags," I would have done some research on 10-rounders and brought it with me. I'm sure that according to some other part of the law, I'm supposed to take it straight to an FFL as soon as I get it in-state (hopefully this fall) even though I already own it.

I already looked at having him ship it sans mag, and found out I'd have to get a transfer through an FFL, complete with 10-day waiting period, if I have it shipped... even though I already own the rifle. As a result, I plan on making it a road trip.

This part used to bother me also, how can the AG just make law? Well, the AG doesnt make law but the lawmakers (in the case of SB23) said somthing to the affect "The AG will do what is needed to enforce the law and can do what it see as needed to keep all the AWs out of CA forever"

I put it in quotes but its not quoted, the AG can change things in order for the AW ban to work but the law is the law. Now we are seeing them changing the definition of a AW by saying you have to fix the mag permantly and only a judge (or good letters from us) can stop this from going through.

Alot of folks had the $$ to throw toward a lawsuit and now is the time to throw some time, cash, etc to this problem.

1. If you havent already done so call your local NRA group and see what they need from you. The NRA will have folks there helping us out Aug 16th and Im sure they could use some help.

2. Write letters to the DOJ with concerns about the new fixed mag that they want to pass on to us. If you are like me and cant write your way out of a wet paper bag then ask for help from a board member or a freind. Id say go as far as have a lawyer help draft up a letter.

Like some of the older members have said the turnout for sb23 was weak and is the reason we have the laws today, with the exception of a few guys the nRA was one of the only groups who helped in the end with getting th eword tool put in the law we have today.

And no I didnt drink the koolaid, Im just passing along some thoughts.:)

Number 6
07-19-2006, 11:11 AM
One thing to remember is that the CA AWB teeters on being an ex post facto law. It might pass judicial scrutiny, but barely.

bwiese
07-19-2006, 11:38 AM
One thing to remember is that the CA AWB teeters on being an ex post facto law.

No it doesn't.

Roberti-Roos: you have a gun, this new law said you have time to register or dispose of it, or else. That's legit (not on 2A grounds, but we're not talkin' about that). It deals with the gun owner's current situation, and did not criminalize his prior acquisition of certain guns when they were indeed legal.

When it was enacted, Roberti-Roos also banned current and future acquisition/ transfer of certain gun types. That's legit, it's forward-looking, and in no way ex post facto.

Now, if the law said you're guilty of illegal AW possession because you owned an HK91 during 1988, and this law was passed after 1988, then THAT'S ex post facto.

Clodbuster
07-19-2006, 11:38 AM
Well, same can be said about a H&K PSG-1... When did anyone ever hear of a crime being commited with this $10K piece of metal.
Haven't heard of any violent crimes being commited with AR-15s either... just seen LE busting people who have them locked up in their homes for years and then displaying them on TV as if they've just prevented a future massacre from happening.

Clod



The reason I consider this flash hider/muzzle brake crap minor is because IT HASN'T DONE ANYTHING TO ANYONE ELSE. This guy doesn't seem to want to shoot people up with his "assault weapon" which is obviously 100 times more dangerous because of that metal on it, and he has't set off any forest fires by firing those tracers at Smokey the Bear.

But we MUST follow laws because the people who made them are beyond our intelligences, because the same care they take to write gun laws are most likely applied to all other laws!

Number 6
07-19-2006, 11:51 AM
No it doesn't.

Roberti-Roos: you have a gun, this new law said you have time to register or dispose of it, or else. That's legit (not on 2A grounds, but we're not talkin' about that). It deals with the gun owner's current situation, and did not criminalize his prior acquisition of certain guns when they were indeed legal.

When it was enacted, Roberti-Roos also banned current and future acquisition/ transfer of certain gun types. That's legit, it's forward-looking, and in no way ex post facto.

Now, if the law said you're guilty of illegal AW possession because you owned an HK91 during 1988, and this law was passed after 1988, then THAT'S ex post facto.

You are right Bill, but I was not trying to say that it is an ex post facto law, but that it is very similar and borders upon the definition of one. By requiring registration and not outright criminalizing the ownership of such a weapon they have successfully circumvented ex post facto, but it is similar. Instead of outright making what was once legal then illegal, they required registration process. For the person in question that 50 shooter posted about, he bought a weapon that was legal when he bought it, but then became illegal if he did not register it. While this is not a case of ex post facto, it is similar. Would the CA AWB pass judicial scrutiny? Most likely, but I think the law is awfully close to an ex post facto law, thus in effect it has made criminals into people that had made a purchase with good faith knowledge that their rifle is legal and would continue to be legal.

bwiese
07-19-2006, 12:09 PM
You are right Bill, but I was not trying to say that it is an ex post facto law, but that it is very similar and borders upon the definition of one. By requiring registration and not outright criminalizing the ownership of such a weapon they have successfully circumvented ex post facto, but it is similar. Instead of outright making what was once legal then illegal, they required registration process.

They kinda had to. Since ordinary rifle information is not stored, LE would have no way of determining if a gun was legally possessed or not or had been transferred down the line, something the law wanted to stop (I'm not saying it's right, OK?) - and reg was really the only way to do this and allow existing owners to keep their guns and not have a confiscation issue. (The allowance of folks to register/keep their guns was, in fact, the one thing that allowed Roberti-Roos to pass in 1989 by a few votes.)


For the person in question that 50 shooter posted about, he bought a weapon that was legal when he bought it, but then became illegal if he did not register it.

We don't know that. He may well have gotten the M1A in 2000 or later.

As the story goes, he apparently attached a flash hider to the gun in front of a witness. (i.e, how to be illegal and stupid, all in one move...) This activity was recent so apparently there's no issue of failing to register.

While this is not a case of ex post facto, it is similar.

Sorry, no similarity. An illegal act of configuration happened after it was banned in the law.


Would the CA AWB pass judicial scrutiny? Most likely,

In fact, it has. The Aug 2000 Kasler decision upheld the constitutionality of Roberti-Roos, and the AG's ability to list new assault weapons, etc.

thus in effect it has made criminals into people that had made a purchase with good faith knowledge that their rifle is legal and would continue to be legal.

There can be no assumption that something continues to be legal except for eating and breathing. Laws change. Ignorance of law is no excuse (unless law is so unclear, etc.) Publication of law in Register (and/or Code of Regulations) is legally sufficient. (This isn't just in CA, but is roughly equivalent in any state.)

Also, SB23 info was sent out with drivers' license/car registration renewals.

vonsmith
07-19-2006, 12:11 PM
Well, same can be said about a H&K PSG-1... When did anyone ever hear of a crime being commited with this $10K piece of metal.
Haven't heard of any violent crimes being commited with AR-15s either... just seen LE busting people who have them locked up in their homes for years and then displaying them on TV as if they've just prevented a future massacre from happening.

Clod
It's not about crime prevention. I don't think it ever was. It's about emotional mind-set and political ideology. Even if crime magically went away there would still be people trying to take your guns away and legislate your life.


=vonsmith=

M. Sage
07-19-2006, 4:42 PM
This part used to bother me also, how can the AG just make law? Well, the AG doesnt make law but the lawmakers (in the case of SB23) said somthing to the affect "The AG will do what is needed to enforce the law and can do what it see as needed to keep all the AWs out of CA forever"

I put it in quotes but its not quoted, the AG can change things in order for the AW ban to work but the law is the law. Now we are seeing them changing the definition of a AW by saying you have to fix the mag permantly and only a judge (or good letters from us) can stop this from going through.

Alot of folks had the $$ to throw toward a lawsuit and now is the time to throw some time, cash, etc to this problem.

1. If you havent already done so call your local NRA group and see what they need from you. The NRA will have folks there helping us out Aug 16th and Im sure they could use some help.

2. Write letters to the DOJ with concerns about the new fixed mag that they want to pass on to us. If you are like me and cant write your way out of a wet paper bag then ask for help from a board member or a freind. Id say go as far as have a lawyer help draft up a letter.

Like some of the older members have said the turnout for sb23 was weak and is the reason we have the laws today, with the exception of a few guys the nRA was one of the only groups who helped in the end with getting th eword tool put in the law we have today.

And no I didnt drink the koolaid, Im just passing along some thoughts.:)

Thanks.

I'm just getting the picture that I'm not the only one who likes guns out here (for the longest time I thought I was. :P ) I'll definitely do those things and try and help out.

One thing that bugs me is that the bit about the AG getting to define what's an AW is that constitutional laws always trump legislative laws (at least, that's what I was taught in HS.) You can't say "oh, by the way, we're letting the AG change bits of this when they need to, just this once." The State Constitution says no. They can, however say "we'll prosecute for *this* and *this*" and let the courts decide when they do.

The way it seems right now is that the courts are treating what should be AG reccomendations as set-in-stone laws, and that's so screwed up I don't know where to begin.

Guess I'll start with NRA etc like you said. :D

Clodbuster
07-20-2006, 11:56 AM
It's about the illusion of crime prevention. General public needs to know that the Government and LE are doing something to stop violent crime, even if whatever they are doing will not have much of an effect. If it sounds tangible enough, the media spinners can sell it to the public and unfortunately, most will believe. I still wonder why bayonet lugs are not banned in California... Guess you can fool the general public to believe something is dangerous only so far...


Clod



It's not about crime prevention. I don't think it ever was. It's about emotional mind-set and political ideology. Even if crime magically went away there would still be people trying to take your guns away and legislate your life.


=vonsmith=