PDA

View Full Version : Any "confiscations" of legal ARs?


Bishop
07-22-2006, 9:49 AM
I saw that most AW searches are carried out on domestic tips instead of from traffic stops or something.

So if you mention to Joe Neighbor that you've got a california-legal AR-type (yeah, I know, bad idea), and he secretly doesn't believe you, and reports you to the authorities, saying you have an AW, aren't they going to try to get it?

Have there been any cases where the authorities show up on a tip of AWs, see the OLL in legal configuration, tip their hats, and leave?

It seems like they should, but if they do, are we not giving them enough credit? I tried to look for some stories, but couldn't find anything with someone who was not running a shop.

tenpercentfirearms
07-22-2006, 10:05 AM
There has been one report of a OLL being confiscated. That is it. And even that one is hard to find any information about.

Bishop
07-22-2006, 10:08 AM
I just found it hard to believe that with so many CA legal ARs around, that no one got "turned in" for having an AW.

The authorities usually show up on AW tips right?

There's got to be stories...

tenpercentfirearms
07-22-2006, 10:10 AM
Apparently not. I think for the most part this whole issue is only important to us and the DOJ.

megavolt121
07-22-2006, 11:18 AM
I just found it hard to believe that with so many CA legal ARs around, that no one got "turned in" for having an AW.

The authorities usually show up on AW tips right?

There's got to be stories...


Given limited resources they'll go after a real criminal or something more serious than a possible AW. Sure they might come, when they finally have a free chance though.

midnitereaper
07-22-2006, 2:30 PM
From what I have been told on other more understanding boards is that the law and atf are not going to hunt you down for purchasing an OLL. The AW bans have been mainly put in place as a feel good for gun advocates. The bans are put to use when someone breaks another law like theft or murder. If that kind of crime was committed with an AW then the laws are in place for the local law to press even more charges.

Still take caution when at the range or transfering your AW but you really should not worry about the local leo hunting you down and arresting you for just having a OLL AW. I also suggest you check out other sites and contact your local DA and maybe even a criminal attorney for more legal information.

tenpercentfirearms
07-22-2006, 3:22 PM
From what I have been told on other more understanding boards is that the law and atf are not going to hunt you down for purchasing an OLL. The AW bans have been mainly put in place as a feel good for gun advocates. The bans are put to use when someone breaks another law like theft or murder. If that kind of crime was committed with an AW then the laws are in place for the local law to press even more charges.

Still take caution when at the range or transfering your AW but you really should not worry about the local leo hunting you down and arresting you for just having a OLL AW. I also suggest you check out other sites and contact your local DA and maybe even a criminal attorney for more legal information.
Huh? First, purchasing an OLL is completely legal so no one has a reason to hunt you down for just purchasing one.

Two, if you have an "assault weapon" then it should have been registered back in 2000. If it is not registered, then you are committing a felony and you are not bright. You can contact your local DA all you want and ask them if it is ok to have an assault weapon, the answer will always be a no.

I think you are confusing many of the issues here. OLLs are not illegal and not assault weapons. No one is hunting anyone down because no one cares what you do with your lawfully possessed firearms. There might be some credibility to the idea that no one really cares about real assault weapons because no one is really getting busted out of ignorance with a perfectly legal OLL. You would think with all of the people out running around with legally configured and illegally configured OLLs, that someone would catch a case. It has yet to happen and be published here.

ketec_owner
07-22-2006, 3:32 PM
I think i read in the contra costa times that some idiot was shooting into the air around or in benicia / martinez on July 4th and hit a car windshield about 1 mile away. The sherrif showed up and confiscated an "assault type" rifle, then searched the residence and confisicated two more assault rifles and another one with no serial number. What that constitutes is unknown.

NRAhighpowershooter
07-22-2006, 4:39 PM
ALL The news papers refeer to ANY long gun consficated as an 'assault type weapon' regardless if it is or isn't....

adamsreeftank
07-22-2006, 10:37 PM
I think i read in the contra costa times that some idiot was shooting into the air around or in benicia / martinez on July 4th and hit a car windshield about 1 mile away. The sherrif showed up and confiscated an "assault type" rifle, then searched the residence and confisicated two more assault rifles and another one with no serial number. What that constitutes is unknown.

What that constitutes is an idiot. First for keeping illegal rifles (if that is actually true) and second for shooting in the air. That alone should put you on the Darwin list.

xenophobe
07-22-2006, 10:57 PM
Just because we haven't heard of it really happening, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Still, it's too soon to tell.

Super_tactical
07-22-2006, 11:07 PM
What that constitutes is an idiot. First for keeping illegal rifles (if that is actually true) and second for shooting in the air. That alone should put you on the Darwin list.
Does keeping an illegal rifle make you an idiot? If they outlaw handguns and you choose to keep one, are you an idiot then?

WokMaster1
07-23-2006, 12:41 AM
Does keeping an illegal rifle make you an idiot? If they outlaw handguns and you choose to keep one, are you an idiot then?


No on both counts. Just a felon in training................:rolleyes:

midnitereaper
07-23-2006, 12:41 PM
You really should read more closely before bashing someones comments! Did I say the OLL was illegal? Common sense here is that if someone purchases an OLL with the attempt to commit a crime then chances are that they will not build the OLL to legal specifications. Like using a 30 round detachable instead of a fixed 10 round.

I am not confused with the difference of the OLL and AW and the legallity to own them. The OLL weapons that I have built look similar to the pictures in the SB. It is the wording of the ban that determines how we legally purchase and own one. I for one even in the freakin military never called it an assault weapon. We refered to our M-16 as a rifle. If you really think the OLL is not an AW by simple looks and functionallity then I suggest you open your eyes. Do I agree with these ban laws and no gun rights? NO! But I do have common logic to understand weapons and the illogical laws placed on them.

Huh? First, purchasing an OLL is completely legal so no one has a reason to hunt you down for just purchasing one.

Two, if you have an "assault weapon" then it should have been registered back in 2000. If it is not registered, then you are committing a felony and you are not bright. You can contact your local DA all you want and ask them if it is ok to have an assault weapon, the answer will always be a no.

I think you are confusing many of the issues here. OLLs are not illegal and not assault weapons. No one is hunting anyone down because no one cares what you do with your lawfully possessed firearms. There might be some credibility to the idea that no one really cares about real assault weapons because no one is really getting busted out of ignorance with a perfectly legal OLL. You would think with all of the people out running around with legally configured and illegally configured OLLs, that someone would catch a case. It has yet to happen and be published here.

tenpercentfirearms
07-23-2006, 1:08 PM
You really should read more closely before bashing someones comments! Did I say the OLL was illegal? Common sense here is that if someone purchases an OLL with the attempt to commit a crime then chances are that they will not build the OLL to legal specifications. Like using a 30 round detachable instead of a fixed 10 round.

I am not confused with the difference of the OLL and AW and the legallity to own them. The OLL weapons that I have built look similar to the pictures in the SB. It is the wording of the ban that determines how we legally purchase and own one. I for one even in the freakin military never called it an assault weapon. We refered to our M-16 as a rifle. If you really think the OLL is not an AW by simple looks and functionallity then I suggest you open your eyes. Do I agree with these ban laws and no gun rights? NO! But I do have common logic to understand weapons and the illogical laws placed on them.
You are not being very clear. First, in the original post you make mention of the ATF. The ATF has nothing to do with this, at all, so that makes me wonder if you know what you are talking about.

Then, "Still take caution when at the range or transfering your AW but you really should not worry about the local leo hunting you down and arresting you for just having a OLL AW." Again, I repeat myself, unless you registered your assault weapon back in 2000, you should not be transporting "AWs" around and if you are, you should have your registration paperwork. Then again you mention "OLL AW". An OLL should not be configured into an assault weapon or you are committing a felony. It is just plain OLL. That is it.

Finally, "If you really think the OLL is not an AW by simple looks and functionallity then I suggest you open your eyes." Trust me my eyes are open and the OLL is not an assault weapon unless you make it one. None of my OLLs are assault weapons. An assault weapon is illegal in this state unless you registered it before 2000 and I would recommend you not call your lawfully purchased and configured OLL an "AW" or assault weapon unless you want trouble.

This is a game of semantics, but a very important game of semantics. Do not call your rifle something it is not. Assault weapons are illegal. OLLs if configured correctly are not. As a gun dealer I have to be very clear about this and I can't just go around calling things assault weapons in order to look cool or act like I know what I am talking about when I do not.

Again, you keep calling OLLs "AW"s. They are not AWs and you are wrong. I wish I could be nice to you and say you are right, but you are not. I call a spade a spade.

Fjold
07-23-2006, 2:00 PM
I got to agree with Wes.

Midnitereaper you're using the term OLL and AW together which is exactly what the DOJ and anti's want the public to think of them. An OLL is not an AW unless someone ill informed, illegal or just plain stupid, makes it one.

midnitereaper
07-24-2006, 9:07 AM
If the OLL is not related to an AW then why does everyone here compare the OLL to the AW SB? Why are these weapons generally refered to as OLL? Do you understand what the hell is an OLL? Why are you telling me I am wrong on generalizing what I call the freakin thing? What are the cops going to think if and when they see your weapon in the trunk? Are you going to tell them "oh no officer this is a OLL"! Freakin cop is going to look at you like what the hell are you talking about. Did we EVER ever ever ever make a rule on this board that any reference you make to your legal look a like AR-15 rifle always be called an OLL? Oh and one last thing. All my parts for this weapon were originally made for the AR-15 or military M-16 rifles. Not once in my search did I ever find anyone selling OLL parts. Don't get to technical here or else people might think you work for the DOJ! The I'm right your wrong crap! Please! You could have been nice by just not responding in the first place. Instead you try and put me down and show you are some kind of superior power. All you have shown me is the lack of logical thinking you possess. What the hell did you come to this board for in the first place? To sell merch or scare the crap out of everyone trying to purchase a OLL?

You are not being very clear. First, in the original post you make mention of the ATF. The ATF has nothing to do with this, at all, so that makes me wonder if you know what you are talking about.

Then, "Still take caution when at the range or transfering your AW but you really should not worry about the local leo hunting you down and arresting you for just having a OLL AW." Again, I repeat myself, unless you registered your assault weapon back in 2000, you should not be transporting "AWs" around and if you are, you should have your registration paperwork. Then again you mention "OLL AW". An OLL should not be configured into an assault weapon or you are committing a felony. It is just plain OLL. That is it.

Finally, "If you really think the OLL is not an AW by simple looks and functionallity then I suggest you open your eyes." Trust me my eyes are open and the OLL is not an assault weapon unless you make it one. None of my OLLs are assault weapons. An assault weapon is illegal in this state unless you registered it before 2000 and I would recommend you not call your lawfully purchased and configured OLL an "AW" or assault weapon unless you want trouble.

This is a game of semantics, but a very important game of semantics. Do not call your rifle something it is not. Assault weapons are illegal. OLLs if configured correctly are not. As a gun dealer I have to be very clear about this and I can't just go around calling things assault weapons in order to look cool or act like I know what I am talking about when I do not.

Again, you keep calling OLLs "AW"s. They are not AWs and you are wrong. I wish I could be nice to you and say you are right, but you are not. I call a spade a spade.

tenpercentfirearms
07-24-2006, 10:17 AM
Midnitereaper, I am trying not to put you down, but you are clearly misunderstanding what is going on with these things. If a cop sees one of these in your trunk and you call it an assault weapon, you are going to jail.

You need to know exactly what you have and it isn't an assault weapon. An off list lower is 100%, completely legal in this state. I would highly recommend you call it an off list lower receiver or just a plain rifle. DO NOT CALL IT AN ASSAULT WEAPON. It is not an assault weapon and assault weapons are illegal in this state. Most certainly some cops in this state would take you in for it, unless you are able to clearly and articulately explain the laws to them out in the field.

I am a gun dealer and I have to be very technical in what I say. Contrary to what you believe, if I am in my shop and starting telling people to buy assault weapons and one of them happens to be an undercover agent (which I fairly certain the DOJ has bought a lower from me), it can be construed that I am attempting to sell illegal weapons. I don't want to go to jail.

I can recite all sorts of codes and definitions from memory. It isn't because I am smart and you are dumb. It is because I am a gun dealer that has to know the legalities of what I sell. If you stick around here long enough you will know them too. Ask yourself this, if you come into my gun shop and I start talking about all of the clips I got for my deuce-deuces and that I like alleysweepers for bird hunting and just continue to use all sorts of incorrect terms, what impression would you get about my operation? This is an industry that is heavily regulated by the specific definition of terms. Further it is an industry of wannabees and posers. Terminology is how you separate the serious shooters from the rest. This tends to be a place where serious shooters hang out.

And you asked, here is your link. (http://www.tenpercentfirearms.com/index.php?main_page=page_4#oll) And no I didn't put that in there to prove you wrong, it has been there for a while. :D

Just relax and understand this isn't about ego, it is about keeping you and others who read this out of jail.

adamsreeftank
07-24-2006, 5:11 PM
If the OLL is not related to an AW then why does everyone here compare the OLL to the AW SB? Why are these weapons generally refered to as OLL? Do you understand what the hell is an OLL? Why are you telling me I am wrong on generalizing what I call the freakin thing? What are the cops going to think if and when they see your weapon in the trunk? Are you going to tell them "oh no officer this is a OLL"! Freakin cop is going to look at you like what the hell are you talking about. Did we EVER ever ever ever make a rule on this board that any reference you make to your legal look a like AR-15 rifle always be called an OLL? Oh and one last thing. All my parts for this weapon were originally made for the AR-15 or military M-16 rifles. Not once in my search did I ever find anyone selling OLL parts. Don't get to technical here or else people might think you work for the DOJ! The I'm right your wrong crap! Please! You could have been nice by just not responding in the first place. Instead you try and put me down and show you are some kind of superior power. All you have shown me is the lack of logical thinking you possess. What the hell did you come to this board for in the first place? To sell merch or scare the crap out of everyone trying to purchase a OLL?


midnitereaper, I think you need to take a breath and calm down. Tenpercent is trying to help you stay out of trouble.

If I get pulled over and a cop sees my rifle, I will NOT call it an Assault Weapon, because legally IT IS NOT. I won't call it an OLL either, as most cops won't know what that means. I will call it a fixed magazine AR. Most cops know about the CA approved fixed mag AR rifles, and they are legal. If for some reason, you have decided to take your OLL receiver and build an illegal assualt weapons, then yes, that is what you should call it when you get pulled over.

Mudvayne540ld
07-24-2006, 6:27 PM
parts for this weapon were originally made for the AR-15 or military M-16 rifles.
DO NOT USE M16 PARTS IN YOUR AR! :eek:

BATFE states that the use of any M16 part in the lower receiver is an MG.... no matter if it can shoot full auto or not. Just wanted to let you know.

Fjold
07-24-2006, 6:51 PM
If the OLL is not related to an AW then why does everyone here compare the OLL to the AW SB? Why are these weapons generally refered to as OLL? Do you understand what the hell is an OLL? Why are you telling me I am wrong on generalizing what I call the freakin thing?
Because the impression you create is that you are breaking the law and to the general public, perception is reality. "Everyone"here doesn't compare the OLL to the AW SB, I have built fixed magazine, semi-automatic rifles.
What are the cops going to think if and when they see your weapon in the trunk? Are you going to tell them "oh no officer this is a OLL"! Freakin cop is going to look at you like what the hell are you talking about.
I'm going to tell the police officer if he asks "This is my fixed magazine semi-automatic rifle"
Did we EVER ever ever ever make a rule on this board that any reference you make to your legal look a like AR-15 rifle always be called an OLL? Oh and one last thing.
No rule was made but most of us who know the rules never refer to them as AW's, because they're not.
All my parts for this weapon were originally made for the AR-15 or military M-16 rifles. Not once in my search did I ever find anyone selling OLL parts.
None of the parts for my guns were made for M16s, and the trigger assembly and a number of smaller parts were bought as a "lower parts kit" or LPK

Don't get to technical here or else people might think you work for the DOJ! The I'm right your wrong crap! Please! You could have been nice by just not responding in the first place. Instead you try and put me down and show you are some kind of superior power. Being technical keeps people out of trouble and prevents misunderstandings when you communicate. No one tried to put you down.
All you have shown me is the lack of logical thinking you possess. What the hell did you come to this board for in the first place? To sell merch or scare the crap out of everyone trying to purchase a OLL?Wes was one of the first FFL's in the state to sell OLL's, it looks to me like he came here to help people. If he makes money doing it and people patronize his shop because they recognize it then more power to him.

PLINK
07-25-2006, 12:53 AM
DO NOT USE M16 PARTS IN YOUR AR! :eek:

BATFE states that the use of any M16 part in the lower receiver is an MG.... no matter if it can shoot full auto or not. Just wanted to let you know.

I could be wrong but I thought the bolt carrier was OK to use. It's not much different than a AR bolt carrier that has the enhanced features (shrouded firing pin). The M16 carrier has just a little bit more metal on the rear of full circle. Probably could not even tell them apart if you did not even know any different.

AR:

http://www.del-ton.com/detail.aspx?ID=324

M16:

http://www.del-ton.com/detail.aspx?ID=326

Forever-A-Soldier
07-25-2006, 8:06 AM
The bolt carriers on an AR and M16 are different, and though I agree many might not notice the difference, it is the M16 bolt carrier that activates the auto-sear on a full auto M16. Therefore (as is my understanding) it is illegal to use in your civilian AR.

F.A.S. Out

tenpercentfirearms
07-25-2006, 9:52 AM
The M16 parts in a AR15 has been discussed to death.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=37074

JPglee1
07-25-2006, 10:01 AM
The bolt carriers on an AR and M16 are different, and though I agree many might not notice the difference, it is the M16 bolt carrier that activates the auto-sear on a full auto M16. Therefore (as is my understanding) it is illegal to use in your civilian AR.

F.A.S. Out

Nope, wrong.

All other FCG parts are verboten, the carrier is not.

You can activate a lightning link with an AR carrier, I guess we shouldn't use those either.


J

MicronuT
07-26-2006, 9:21 PM
I think i read in the contra costa times that some idiot was shooting into the air around or in benicia / martinez on July 4th and hit a car windshield about 1 mile away. The sherrif showed up and confiscated an "assault type" rifle, then searched the residence and confisicated two more assault rifles and another one with no serial number. What that constitutes is unknown.


perfect example..

From what I have been told on other more understanding boards is that the law and atf are not going to hunt you down for purchasing an OLL. The AW bans have been mainly put in place as a feel good for gun advocates. The bans are put to use when someone breaks another law like theft or murder. If that kind of crime was committed with an AW then the laws are in place for the local law to press even more charges.

Still take caution when at the range or transfering your AW but you really should not worry about the local leo hunting you down and arresting you for just having a OLL AW. I also suggest you check out other sites and contact your local DA and maybe even a criminal attorney for more legal information.

NRAhighpowershooter
07-26-2006, 9:27 PM
Still take caution when at the range or transfering your AW but you really should not worry about the local leo hunting you down and arresting you for just having a OLL AW.


an OLL is NOT A AW!!!!! What is it going to tak e to get people to realise this?????????????????

MicronuT
07-26-2006, 9:28 PM
midnitereaper, I think you need to take a breath and calm down. Tenpercent is trying to help you stay out of trouble.

If I get pulled over and a cop sees my rifle, I will NOT call it an Assault Weapon, because legally IT IS NOT. I won't call it an OLL either, as most cops won't know what that means. I will call it a fixed magazine AR. Most cops know about the CA approved fixed mag AR rifles, and they are legal. If for some reason, you have decided to take your OLL receiver and build an illegal assualt weapons, then yes, that is what you should call it when you get pulled over.


Apr 2006.. im not sure he knows

midnitereaper
07-27-2006, 11:54 AM
It is a legal AW. I asked the local PD and they looked the weapon over. Said I was legal under the CA AW ban. OH NO I HAVE A AW IN KALIFORNIA!!!!

PanzerAce
07-27-2006, 12:54 PM
It is a legal AW. I asked the local PD and they looked the weapon over. Said I was legal under the CA AW ban. OH NO I HAVE A AW IN KALIFORNIA!!!!

IT IS NOT AN AW

Was that big enough for you to see? AWs are illegal to possess if they are not registered. Thus, the fact that 1) you have a gun, and 2) you are not in jail on charges of AW possesion, means that IT IS NOT AN AW

xenophobe
07-27-2006, 1:56 PM
Well, this won't be a popular position... and I argued briefly with Bill about it last time I saw him...

OLL refers to an Assault Weapon that is not on the 12276 or 979.11 lists. My reasoning for saying this specifically:

1) Legislative intent of Roberti-Roos Dangerous Weapon Control Law is that AR and AK series rifles are indeed Assault Weapons.
2) Text of DWCL'89 as passed and signed by the governor stated that any AR-15 and AK-47 Series weapons were Assault Weapons and were banned.
3) Kasler v. Lungren was filed, put an injunction on ban of the 'series' portion of the DWCL, and Series weapons were allowed to be sold again, temporarily.
4) Kasler v. Lockyer (same case, different AG) ruled that AR-15 and AK-47 Series weapons were indeed Assault Weapons, and prompted the AG to list, even though it was not necessary. Judge creates new procedure for the AG to list Series Assault Weapons bypassing the need to file a court 'add-on' motion to ban further series weapons. Series weapons were allowed to bypass the court add-on motion because the court recognized the fact that these were indeed assault weapons, but were not named by 12276, so the court gave the AG the power to list without the need for court hearings.
5) Harrott v. County of Kings determines that Series wording is too difficult for the layperson to understand, but recognized the fact that these weapons were identical to banned weapons. Judge states that the merit of comparison of banned v. non-banned series weapons were not a part of the case and receivers or weapons that were not named and did not fall under 12276.1 definition, are not illegal or banned. The enactment of SB-23 prior to this conclusion made the case law made the ruling a moot point, for the most part.

In the eyes of the DOJ, the Legislature and the legislative intent of Roberti-Roos as well as the Kasler ruling, unlisted AR-15 and AK-47 series weapons were indeed Assault Weapons. The ruling of Harrott did not consider these previous determinations that AR or AK series were or were not Assault Weapons, but only concluded that for any series weapon to be banned, it must be listed or fall under SB-23 definition.

FACT: The period of time between the rulings of Kasler and Harrot, AR and AK series receivers WERE banned, regardless of make and model. If you purchased a AR or AK during the time the injunction in Kasler was filed and the ruling, you were allowed to register ARs and AKs. If it were not for SB-23, there would still have been a registration period, and all AR and AKs would have been banned. That is why there is the SB-23 registration period as well as the extended Kasler registration period that is sometimes mentioned. If SB-23 did not pass, the Kasler registration period would have been the last moment you would have had to submit your AR and AK series firearms by.

The judge in the Kasler case gives the AR-15 Series and AK-47 Series firearms a different status in law than normal firearms. Unless they are listed, and do not fall under 12276.1 definition, they are not banned as per Harrott, BUT, the Attorney General may determine that they should be banned, and once listed, there is no recourse. There is no injunction. There is no comment period or ability to argue. This is different from ANY OTHER legal firearm in California.

Any other weapon may be declared an Assault Weapon with a court add-on motion with both sides representing their interests, with a judge making the final determination if a particular firearm is an assault weapon. They could make a SU-16, a M1A, any FAL or any other rifle an 'Assault Weapon' that is banned by going this route, if the judge finds in favor of the plaintiff (DOJ).

These facts make AR-15 and AK-47 series different from any other non-regulated long gun in California. Why? Because they are Assault Weapons that are not illegal, because they are not specifically named or defined, yet.

The only difference between an illegal assault weapon and a California Legal Self-Loading Rifle is an allen screw that cost ten cents. Yes, it is an Assault Weapon that does not fit under current definitions or regulations, and is legal. The DOJ does not like this one bit and are trying to correct it as we speak.
http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/2175/mp15nk0.jpg

Personally, I look at this rifle with great JOY. I get to have my cake and eat it too.

midnitereaper
07-27-2006, 4:09 PM
IT IS NOT AN AW

Was that big enough for you to see? AWs are illegal to possess if they are not registered. Thus, the fact that 1) you have a gun, and 2) you are not in jail on charges of AW possesion, means that IT IS NOT AN AW

I'm still having troubles seeing the words! Can you make them a little bigger? I still say its a CA legal AW. Common logic here. It looks like an AR and fires like an AR. An AR is called an AW. I am not in jail because my AW is built to CA legal AW laws because it is an OLL and built with a locked 10 round mag. If it was not considered an AW then I wouldn't bother making my weapon compliant with SB on AW laws. But it is an AW so I do need to read the laws and make mine legal within the law. mmmmmk! You must first admit your addiction to AWs if you are to confront the AW ban.

MicronuT
07-28-2006, 7:37 PM
(ARF)
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/7828/dscf0812qi0.jpg

bonjing
07-28-2006, 8:11 PM
:confused:

C.G.
07-28-2006, 9:31 PM
:confused:

Bon appetite!:D

6172crew
07-28-2006, 11:09 PM
Those rat bastards "gelled up" for a night out. :eek:

PanzerAce
07-29-2006, 6:33 PM
I'm still having troubles seeing the words! Can you make them a little bigger? I still say its a CA legal AW. Common logic here. It looks like an AR and fires like an AR. An AR is called an AW. I am not in jail because my AW is built to CA legal AW laws because it is an OLL and built with a locked 10 round mag. If it was not considered an AW then I wouldn't bother making my weapon compliant with SB on AW laws. But it is an AW so I do need to read the laws and make mine legal within the law. mmmmmk! You must first admit your addiction to AWs if you are to confront the AW ban.


ok, its apparent that you will not listen to what people are saying, so it looks like IL+1

Charliegone
07-29-2006, 7:29 PM
technically it is NOT, I repeat NOT an AW because

a. under California law if it were an "assault weapon" it would have to be considered one under sb23 features.
b. The doj (in the numerous letters we have received) does not consider them to be AW's.
c. also, harrot vs county of kings clearly states that the DOJ must list the receivers or weapons on the list in order for them to be considered AW's.

do you need more?

xenophobe
07-29-2006, 7:38 PM
technically it is NOT, I repeat NOT an AW because

a. under California law if it were an "assault weapon" it would have to be considered one under sb23 features.
b. The doj (in the numerous letters we have received) does not consider them to be AW's.
c. also, harrot vs county of kings clearly states that the DOJ must list the receivers or weapons on the list in order for them to be considered AW's.

do you need more?

Yes, I need more. Harrott did not say they were or were not Assault Weapons, nor that they had to list to make them assault weapons, only that to ban them they had to list. That was specifically mentioned. Kasler said they were Assault Weapons. The text of Robert-Roos said they were. Legislative intent said they were. They are not normal long arms, because the method to ban them is different any other long gun in the state.

midnitereaper
07-31-2006, 9:17 AM
technically it is NOT, I repeat NOT an AW because

a. under California law if it were an "assault weapon" it would have to be considered one under sb23 features.
b. The doj (in the numerous letters we have received) does not consider them to be AW's.
c. also, harrot vs county of kings clearly states that the DOJ must list the receivers or weapons on the list in order for them to be considered AW's.

do you need more?

Your right, they aren't AW. They are CA legal AW! If they were not considered AW then why do we have to keep refering to the SB of AW? Is it because the basic definition of a AW is centerfire, semiautomatic and has the ability to accept a detachable mag? mmmmmaybe! If it is not a AW then what is it?

tenpercentfirearms
07-31-2006, 9:29 AM
If it is not a AW then what is it?A rifle. .

TonyM
07-31-2006, 9:49 AM
Your right, they aren't AW. They are CA legal AW! If they were not considered AW then why do we have to keep refering to the SB of AW? Is it because the basic definition of a AW is centerfire, semiautomatic and has the ability to accept a detachable mag? mmmmmaybe! If it is not a AW then what is it?

Assault Weapon is a just a derogatory name given by law makers that want to strike fear in the hearts of hippies, activists, and the uninformed. I don't ever use the term myself, I usually refer to them as "the rifles assaulted by a silly ban" or something like that.

They really are just Sporting Rifles, Competition Rifles, Home Defense Rifles, plain old Rifle, or "Because I'm a law abiding American citizen and my brothers in other states have them and there's no problems there, so what gives with this place? Rifles". If you call them AW's you're just helping spread the FUD.

xenophobe
07-31-2006, 10:52 AM
A rifle. .

Sorry... It's not a regular rifle because the Attorney General can wave a magic wand and ban them at a moment's notice, and nobody can do a thing about it.

If it were just..... "A rifle." then he would not have such powers.

midnitereaper
07-31-2006, 11:23 AM
A rifle. .

If it is just a rifle, then what are the CA rifle laws? I should have to look at being compliant with CA rifle laws instead of the CA AW SB since you are telling me the OLL is a rifle and not a CA legal AW.

ivanimal
07-31-2006, 11:34 AM
If it is just a rifle, then what are the CA rifle laws? I should have to look at being compliant with CA rifle laws instead of the CA AW SB since you are telling me the OLL is a rifle and not a CA legal AW.

Do you have to register a dead horse before you beat it?

C.G.
07-31-2006, 11:37 AM
Do you have to register a dead horse before you beat it?

Seemingly.

tenpercentfirearms
07-31-2006, 5:10 PM
Sorry... It's not a regular rifle because the Attorney General can wave a magic wand and ban them at a moment's notice, and nobody can do a thing about it.

If it were just..... "A rifle." then he would not have such powers.It is a rifle just like any other rifle. Just because it can be added to a list whenever the AG wants to doesn't mean it is any less legal (and Xeno made no claim it was, I am not putting words into your mouth this time! ;) ). He can add any rifle to the list if he is willing to go through the judicial procudure, does that mean all firearms that could possibly be added to the list through the judicial procedure should be called assault weapons? This is all a semantics game. If you guys want to call it an Assault Weapon, go for it. Congratulations.

If it is just a rifle, then what are the CA rifle laws? I should have to look at being compliant with CA rifle laws instead of the CA AW SB since you are telling me the OLL is a rifle and not a CA legal AW.The same rules apply to OLLs as any other rifle. Period. That is it. You can't have any other semi-automatic rifle have a detachable magazine and any of the evil features. This is no different than a Mini-14, M1A, M1 Carbine, SU-16 or any other semi-automatic rifle. You can call it a CA legal AW if you want, but that is wrong. A CA legal AW would be an assault weapon that was lawfully purchased and registered in compliance with SB-23. You cannot build assault weapons in this state, period. That is it. Well unless you are law enforcement or have an AW license. :rolleyes:

So yes, just follow the rifle laws and you are good to go. No detachable mag and an evil feature, nothing under 16", don't go under a certain length. The AW laws are the rifle laws. They are pretty much the one and the same.

Calling it an assault weapon implies it was banned in 2000 and you are building a banned rifle in violation of CA law. If you want to call it an assault weapon, be my guest. I don't sell assault weapons and I don't own assault weapons (well maybe my .50 BMG FAB-10 is I suppose). Calling them assault weapons around people that don't know any better, especially law enforcement seems like a bad idea if you ask me. I guess it might not make you sound as cool, but hey, to each their own.

CWM4A1
07-31-2006, 6:01 PM
It's a rifle. AW law are laws that bans certain type/feature of a rifle. If an OLL is built properly it's just a rifle that does not violate AW law. You won't call a M1A AW because it lacks of offending features; OLL rifle built is like that. It may look like an AW but since it's got a fixed magazine so it's no longer an AW because AW law require the rifle to be "A semi-automatic, center-fire caliber rifle with detachable magazine and ...(features)". Get the point? A CA legal AW means:

1. You have it before they ban it and have registered the AW under your name.
2. You are LEO and your department acquire one for your duty use. The AW belong to department, not to you.
3. You are CA AW dealer so you can import dealer sample and sell the AW to LEO or other qualified person/organization. AW belongs to the company, not to you.

midnitereaper
07-31-2006, 6:54 PM
does that mean all firearms that could possibly be added to the list through the judicial procedure should be called assault weapons?


Well if the OLL make and model is updated in the CA AW SB then isn't it a AW? If the OLL make and model was listed in the CA Pistol SB then I guess it would be called a pistol. Right?

Originally I asked you what the rifle laws were and you gave me the CA AW SB. Is CA laws on rifles the same as the state AW BN? If I remember correctly the only actual rifle law I know of is something to do with illegal saw off of the buttstock. I think there might have also been one for illegal saw off of the barrel too.

Bishop
07-31-2006, 7:05 PM
:o

Can you lock a thread that you opened?

... just askin'...

CWM4A1
07-31-2006, 7:57 PM
Well if the OLL make and model is updated in the CA AW SB then isn't it a AW? If the OLL make and model was listed in the CA Pistol SB then I guess it would be called a pistol. Right?

Originally I asked you what the rifle laws were and you gave me the CA AW SB. Is CA laws on rifles the same as the state AW BN? If I remember correctly the only actual rifle law I know of is something to do with illegal saw off of the buttstock. I think there might have also been one for illegal saw off of the barrel too.

What are you trying to argue now? Does OLL have a chance to be listed in the list as AW? That's the million dollar question everyone wants to know.

Yes, if OLL made the AW list then it will be AW. FACT IS, UNTIL DOJ LISTED OLL ON THE LIST, OLL BY ITSELF IS NOT AW; OLL WHEN BUILT CORRECTLY ACCORDING TO LAW IS NOT AW. HOW HARD IS IT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT?

Tenpercent sent you the CA AW link, so you know what NOT to put on your OLL built, as uninformed people may not know what the laws are, and built an AW with the OLL which is illegal. We don't want anyone go to jail because they don't fully understand the law. Feel free to to tell LEO when you got pull over that you have a CA Legal "AW", and don't come back and complain that your gun got confiscated because you choose the wrong word.

tenpercentfirearms
07-31-2006, 8:42 PM
Well if the OLL make and model is updated in the CA AW SB then isn't it a AW? If the OLL make and model was listed in the CA Pistol SB then I guess it would be called a pistol. Right?

Originally I asked you what the rifle laws were and you gave me the CA AW SB. Is CA laws on rifles the same as the state AW BN? If I remember correctly the only actual rifle law I know of is something to do with illegal saw off of the buttstock. I think there might have also been one for illegal saw off of the barrel too.

First, you are confusing me with the terms SB and BN. I think I figured out that BN means ban, but I am not sure and I am not sure why ban's extra letter is harder to type than BN :confused:. SB might mean SB-23, again I am not sure. Can you just spell things out for us?

I think you are just going about this wrong. Think of it this way.

The law only says what you can't have. It does not say what you can have as you can have anything that is not banned. So when you ask what the laws are on rifles, what you need to look at is what you can't have, not what you can have.

You cannot have a rifle with a barrel length less than 16". Using your logic, that would imply that because all rifles are capable of being cut down less than 16" we should call all rifles SBRs (short barreled rifles). However, the law is clear. If it is over 16", then it is not an SBR, it is a regular rifle and you can possess it. So we will not call rifles over 16" CA Legal SBRs. That is just plain stupid and I think everyone will agree.

Further you cannot have fully automatic rifles. They can only be semi-automatic or bolt guns or break opens, etc. If you have a semi-automatic rifle, you would not call it a CA Legal Full-Auto. "Hey guys, check out my new CA Legal Remington 700 Full Auto! Its tiznight." This is not what you would say and is rather foolish.

The next laws you need to contend with deal with semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines. These are the assault weapons laws. If your rifle does not meet the generic definition of an assault weapon and it is not listed by make and model number, you can have it. There is no list of what you can have, only a list of what you can't have.

So if you have a semi-auto M1A with a detachable magazine, but it does not have any evil features, you do not call it a CA Legal M1A assault weapon. You simply call it a CA legal M1A or simply an M1A. Just because it can be an assault weapon does not mean you should call it an assault weapon. Referring to it as an assault weapon implies that you either A) registered the rifle you purchased before 2000 back in 2000 or B) you added evil features to it that now make it illegal.

I really don't know if I can make it any clearer for you. The rules state what you can't have. When you ask the question "What can I have", we will give you a list of what you can't have. Anything not on the list is legal. Calling rifles not on the list "assault weapons" implies you have done something illegal and 1) isn't true and 2) is wrong. Well at least it shouldn't be true, if it is, it is your felony.

Welcome to the firearms business. You don't call a magazine a clip, a flash suppressor a muzzle brake, or shells a cartridge. There is very specific terminology and it is there for a reason: 1) So people know what you are talking about and 2) because some things are legal and some things are not. You need to know what is legal and what is not and calling some items and/or rifles the wrong thing could end up getting someone in trouble and simply isn't correct. You wouldn't call a 4 a 3 or a hammer a shovel. Why call a rifle that is not an assault weapon an assault weapon? Because they look similar? So does black powder and smokeless powder. So should we call them all the same and use them interchangably? I think not.

Fjold
07-31-2006, 8:44 PM
Well if the OLL make and model is updated in the CA AW SB then isn't it a AW? If the OLL make and model was listed in the CA Pistol SB then I guess it would be called a pistol. Right?

Originally I asked you what the rifle laws were and you gave me the CA AW SB. Is CA laws on rifles the same as the state AW BN? If I remember correctly the only actual rifle law I know of is something to do with illegal saw off of the buttstock. I think there might have also been one for illegal saw off of the barrel too.


IF the OLLs are added to the AW list by the DOJ then they will become AWs, but right now they are rifles.

If the DOJ adds them to the list of approved handguns, they will be handguns but right now they are rifles.

If the DOJ lists them as fenceposts, they are still rifles under federal law.

Until the CA DOJ makes them something else, they are rifles.

I don't know how much simpler this can be explained, they are rifles.

xenophobe
07-31-2006, 11:53 PM
It is a rifle just like any other rifle. Just because it can be added to a list whenever the AG wants to doesn't mean it is any less legal (and Xeno made no claim it was, I am not putting words into your mouth this time! ;) ). He can add any rifle to the list if he is willing to go through the judicial procudure, does that mean all firearms that could possibly be added to the list through the judicial procedure should be called assault weapons? This is all a semantics game. If you guys want to call it an Assault Weapon, go for it. Congratulations.


Thank you. Yes, I agree it's just a matter of semantics, though I think I do have some really valid points. AR and AK series stuff doesn't need to go through the judicial process. It bypasses it. They are the only two rifle types in the state of California that can bypass normal steps to ban a rifle. That's because they're already banned. ;)



The same rules apply to OLLs as any other rifle. Period. That is it. You can't have any other semi-automatic rifle have a detachable magazine and any of the evil features. This is no different than a Mini-14, M1A, M1 Carbine, SU-16 or any other semi-automatic rifle. You can call it a CA legal AW if you want, but that is wrong. A CA legal AW would be an assault weapon that was lawfully purchased and registered in compliance with SB-23. You cannot build assault weapons in this state, period. That is it. Well unless you are law enforcement or have an AW license. :rolleyes:

No, different rules apply to OLLs. OLLs can be banned, bypassing all the necessary steps it would take to ban any other rifle.

You are correct, you cannot build an illegal assault weapon. If it is named by 12276 or defined by features in 12276.1 you are in violation of the law. If you build an assault weapon (generic liberal term) that is not defined by either of these, then you are in compliance with the law.

DOJ wishes to correct this.


So yes, just follow the rifle laws and you are good to go. No detachable mag and an evil feature, nothing under 16", don't go under a certain length. The AW laws are the rifle laws. They are pretty much the one and the same.

Calling it an assault weapon implies it was banned in 2000 and you are building a banned rifle in violation of CA law. If you want to call it an assault weapon, be my guest. I don't sell assault weapons and I don't own assault weapons (well maybe my .50 BMG FAB-10 is I suppose). Calling them assault weapons around people that don't know any better, especially law enforcement seems like a bad idea if you ask me. I guess it might not make you sound as cool, but hey, to each their own.

No, calling it an Assault Weapon doesn't imply it was banned. But actually, these off-list recevers WERE banned. During the period Kasler vs Lockyer came to judgement and the Harrott decision, ANY 'off-list' stripped receiver was a felony in California. PERIOD. End of Story... If Kasler had not been filed, 'off-list' stripped receivers would have been banned from June 1, 1989 until the Harrott ruling, and would have been a felony for over 12 years.

tenpercentfirearms
08-01-2006, 8:11 AM
No, calling it an Assault Weapon doesn't imply it was banned. But actually, these off-list recevers WERE banned. During the period Kasler vs Lockyer came to judgement and the Harrott decision, ANY 'off-list' stripped receiver was a felony in California. PERIOD. End of Story... If Kasler had not been filed, 'off-list' stripped receivers would have been banned from June 1, 1989 until the Harrott ruling, and would have been a felony for over 12 years.So help me out with the Kasler ruling. Initially CA wanted to say that all Colt AR15s and variants should have been banned back in 1989? Yet someone filed a suit and an injunction was in place for the 11 years between Roberti Roos in 1989 and the Kasler decision in June 2000? I read through Kasler, but all that posturing and BS made it a hard read. Or were AR15s still legal except the Colt AR15 from 1989 until 2000? Are you are saying all varients were considered illegal, but the Kasler suit allowed them to be sold until the case was finally decided in 2000? Interesting if true.

Still, I disagree that because the AR/AK series can be added without judicial process, that they should be considered "assault weapons". The attorney general can add non AR/AK series firearms to the list with judicial process, does that mean we call them assault weapons too? It is clear that assault weapons are defined as catagory 1, 2 and 3 assault weapons. If it is not a catagory 1, 2, or 3 assault weapon, then you can own and possess it in California. If it is a catagory 1, 2, or 3 assault weapon, then you cannot own it. Assault weapons are illegal in this state for us commoners. That is clear. So why would you call something that you can legally aquire an assault weapon? It makes no sense.

It isn't because it is an assault weapon. If it were an assault weapon, you couldn't buy a new one. So until it gets listed, it is legal to own and is not an assault weapon. The point it becomes an assault weapon is when the attorney general lists it. Until then it is a regular rifle that follows regular rules. When the attorney general lists it, that is where it is no longer like regular rifles. Not before. Just because he has the ability to list it does not make it an assault rifle and the current attorney general agrees. He sees no reason to expand the list. :D

midnitereaper
08-01-2006, 9:55 AM
You know ever since I started the whole research and purchase of the OLL and parts in various states, I have had to deal with stupid laws and stupid people. Well maybe not stupid people but definitly no common logic. Oh you can have this but you can't have that and you can have these together but you can't have those with this blah blah blah. And my favorite one you need to have a gun lock with your stripped down OLL purchase. hahaha uhm ya this thing might go off in the car. Now I listen to you here telling me its not a AW its a rifle but if it gets put on a list then it is a AW. So what I can't call the damn thing a AW till it gets put on a list? Then when it is on the list are you going to talk trash if I call it a rifle? OH OH its not a rifle its a AW!!! Please! Wake up people and get a hold of some logic here. A weapon is defined by make and model. It is set into a category such as pistol, full auto and so on. The state ban has defined and shown what a AW is and has broken it down into 3 categories. We are currently trying to stay legal by the description of category 3. Now me being previous military do refer my weapon as a rifle. The state refers to it as a AW. You call it whatever you want OLL, rifle or fruglbahn 5000. But stop giving me sh@# for calling a freakin AW or CA legal AW especially when you and I both know that if and when the CA DOJ puts these OLL on the AW list it will be official. Stop getting all technical with me and people on this board! You just make yourself look as stupid as the CA DOJ when they made up these dumb@$$ laws.

If you have a preban colt ar-15 then do this. Strip it down so it is a completely stripped lower. Then take a OLL completely stripped and set them side by side. Examine them as much as possible. What is the difference between the two? Manufacturer name and model number? Other than that it is the same piece of metal. Same shape and is able to accept the same parts for AR type weapons. Maybe this is something that you all should be fighting with the CA DOJ over instead of telling me what I am supposed to properly call the damn thing!

Fjold
08-01-2006, 10:40 AM
A weapon is not defined by make and model.

The CA DOJ defines assault weapons by make and model. So if it isn't that make and model it's not an assault weapon.

You can call a horse a cow but it doesn't change either animal, all it does is call into question your ability to distinguish one animal from another.

tenpercentfirearms
08-01-2006, 11:08 AM
But stop giving me sh@# for calling a freakin AW or CA legal AW especially when you and I both know that if and when the CA DOJ puts these OLL on the AW list it will be official. Stop getting all technical with me and people on this board! You just make yourself look as stupid as the CA DOJ when they made up these dumb@$$ laws.So let me get this straight. People who know the laws, know the terminology, and generally deal with this situation everyday are stupid because they use very specific legal terms to describe their products? And the new guy who has displayed a lack of understanding of the situation and is trying to learn more about it knows more than they do? Right. I guess I am stupid.

Why is it so hard to accept the proper legal terms of this situation? I think you are misunderstanding who the enemy is here. You seem to think because we use this terminology that we came up with it. To your slight credit you are trying to rationalize this in a logical manner. And that is where you are going wrong. Common sense and logic do not apply to any of these laws. It doesn't matter that common sense dictates a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or collapsible stock have little to do with the effectiveness of of a rifle. All firearms enthusiasts know this.

However, the liberal gun grabbers do not. If it looks evil, it must be evil. So they banned guns by name. That proved not very effective as manufacturers changed the names of their firearms. So they tried to ban them by features, so we removed the features. We know the real score, but currently it is their game we are playing.

So don't use logic and reasoning when thinking about this law and how it operates. It does not operate under logic and/or reasoning. So when we use the terms we use, it is for a very specific reason. It is to prevent someone from mistakenly thinking you are doing something illegal and to prevent people that don't know any better from doing something illegal.

Everything we talk about here we talk about it a certain way for a reason. For some reason you can't comprehend that and seem to think we are just trying to make you look dumb. Far from the truth. We are trying to educate you so you can avoid trouble. However it seems your ego has prevented you from learning and set you on a collision course of arguing that you seemingly know more than the experts in the industry.

I have no problems admitting I am wrong and adopting new thought processeses. Xenophobe has reminded me that all of these lowers were once banned. It is true. He has explained that these lowers do differ in that they can be added to the list at the attorney general's will. True. However, there has to be a threshhold where you go from having a legal rifle to an illegal rifle. The CA Legislature has specified that occurs at the assault weapon. Assault weapons are illegal, rifles are not. It doesn't matter that one might look and function the same or nearly the same as the other. We didn't make those rules. We just have to follow them. We didn't create the term "assault weapon", they did. Now we use it against them. Assault weapons are evil and illegal, we don't have assault weapons here, just rifles. :D

TheMan
08-01-2006, 11:15 AM
You just make yourself look as stupid as the CA DOJ when they made up these dumb@$$ laws.


There is someone that is continuing to make themselves stupid, but it isn't anyone that is arguing against you.

CA defined AW in their laws, outside of that, it is a rather meaningless term. So either it is an AW by CA legal definition, or it isn't. And these OLL aren't. It really can't get much simpler than that.

AxonGap
08-01-2006, 12:08 PM
If it walks, looks, and quacks like a duck it must be a duck right? According to California law we have taken said duck and through creative legal jargon somehow turned it into a winged horse that breathes fire. The gun fearing lawmakers have successfully taken a phrase commonly used to describe a classic military “machine gun” and twisted it around to describe any firearm that visually “resembles” a machine gun regardless of it’s true function. By labeling a firearm that was once considered a rifle into a device for no other purpose other then to “assault” another human you have effectively turned what is technically a hunting knife into a highly lethal dagger. Perhaps we should start labeling all civilian Jeep’s or Humvee’s as “assault vehicles”, or any clothing w/ a camouflage pattern “assault clothing”. They should term this kind of law making “assault legislation” for its overzealous use of dangerous words. If it walks, looks, and quacks like a duck it is up to your local DA to decide if it is!

midnitereaper
08-01-2006, 12:31 PM
So let me get this straight. People who know the laws, know the terminology, and generally deal with this situation everyday are stupid because they use very specific legal terms to describe their products? And the new guy who has displayed a lack of understanding of the situation and is trying to learn more about it knows more than they do? Right. I guess I am stupid.

Why is it so hard to accept the proper legal terms of this situation? I think you are misunderstanding who the enemy is here. You seem to think because we use this terminology that we came up with it. To your slight credit you are trying to rationalize this in a logical manner. And that is where you are going wrong. Common sense and logic do not apply to any of these laws. It doesn't matter that common sense dictates a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or collapsible stock have little to do with the effectiveness of of a rifle. All firearms enthusiasts know this.

However, the liberal gun grabbers do not. If it looks evil, it must be evil. So they banned guns by name. That proved not very effective as manufacturers changed the names of their firearms. So they tried to ban them by features, so we removed the features. We know the real score, but currently it is their game we are playing.

So don't use logic and reasoning when thinking about this law and how it operates. It does not operate under logic and/or reasoning. So when we use the terms we use, it is for a very specific reason. It is to prevent someone from mistakenly thinking you are doing something illegal and to prevent people that don't know any better from doing something illegal.

Everything we talk about here we talk about it a certain way for a reason. For some reason you can't comprehend that and seem to think we are just trying to make you look dumb. Far from the truth. We are trying to educate you so you can avoid trouble. However it seems your ego has prevented you from learning and set you on a collision course of arguing that you seemingly know more than the experts in the industry.

I have no problems admitting I am wrong and adopting new thought processeses. Xenophobe has reminded me that all of these lowers were once banned. It is true. He has explained that these lowers do differ in that they can be added to the list at the attorney general's will. True. However, there has to be a threshhold where you go from having a legal rifle to an illegal rifle. The CA Legislature has specified that occurs at the assault weapon. Assault weapons are illegal, rifles are not. It doesn't matter that one might look and function the same or nearly the same as the other. We didn't make those rules. We just have to follow them. We didn't create the term "assault weapon", they did. Now we use it against them. Assault weapons are evil and illegal, we don't have assault weapons here, just rifles. :D

I said maybe not stupid but lacking in common logic. Get off the new guy versus old guy trip. What you have is someone looking at this entire ban with fresh eyes and thinking FUBAR! There is no logic or common sence put behind this ban and this side is not helping. 2 wrongs doesn't make a right.

I understand perfectly who the enemy is here. Question is do you and the rest of the members on this board know? When you fight amongst each other over proper terminoligy it does not help the fight against the true enemy. We need to work together in showing the CA DOJ common sence and logic in these laws. We need to shove in their face what is the difference between one stripped lower and the other besides a name and model number. We need them to prove the reason of the entire ban. How will a flash hider, pistol grip or collapsable stock make a difference in someone going on a killing spree from 100 to 10. I am after all under the impression this was the reason for the ban, to stop killing.

Their game is illogical and a waist of government money! Has anyone ever shown these liberals the 2nd amendment? Has anyone ever laid out every single firearm in front of the liberal freaks and asked why do you want to ban this but not that and then refer back to the 2nd amendment? I say its time we play the American freedom game!

This site has an entire section about the law and definition of the law. This site has provided a lot of resources on the CA OLL legal issues. But we are in forums talking amongst each other about the laws, weapons and our own personal thoughts. Again you or anyone else does not need to get all huffy puffy over proper terminology in these forums. If you or anyone feels someone is misleading then point them to this sites FAQ and legal information pages.

No ego trip here! I am getting sick and tired of all the anti freedom and illogical conversations on this site and others. So when people combat me on what they feel is proper terminoligy against common logic or sence then I just keep fighting in hopes that the people will think for themselves instead of just going along with the hipe.

How the state defines, groups or describes weapons is no problem. The problem is in what laws they plan to enforce on that group of weapons. The laws need to make sence! The laws need to be compliant with our right to bear arms and freedom. These laws need to be looked at how they will be enforced and who they will punish. No firearm should be banned really, because criminals will always get their hands on any type of firearm they want. So all these bans really do is punish legal citizens trying to protect themselves.

grammaton76
08-01-2006, 1:11 PM
Midnite, you're forgetting one key component.

They don't want to ban this category or that category, they want them ALL. And if you laid them out on a counter, they'd just say, "Well, we got what we could, and we're coming back for the rest. Thanks for the show-and-tell, goodbye."

PanzerAce
08-01-2006, 1:17 PM
I said maybe not stupid but lacking in common logic. Get off the new guy versus old guy trip. What you have is someone looking at this entire ban with fresh eyes and thinking FUBAR! There is no logic or common sence put behind this ban and this side is not helping. 2 wrongs doesn't make a right.


I dont think anybody here is on old vs. new 'trip'. What 10% was pointing out is that he probably has studied the law more than you have. You are free to PROVE him wrong.

I understand perfectly who the enemy is here. Question is do you and the rest of the members on this board know?
Yes, we do. It is the feel-good liberal government that currently runs this state.
When you fight amongst each other over proper terminoligy it does not help the fight against the true enemy. We need to work together in showing the CA DOJ common sence and logic in these laws. We need to shove in their face what is the difference between one stripped lower and the other besides a name and model number. We need them to prove the reason of the entire ban. How will a flash hider, pistol grip or collapsable stock make a difference in someone going on a killing spree from 100 to 10. I am after all under the impression this was the reason for the ban, to stop killing.

Tell me, what good will it be to show the DOJ that these laws make no sense? last time I checked, they did NOT make the laws, they just enforced them. Plus, do you really think that we have not tried to show that these laws are illogical? Believe me, that track does not work right now.


Their game is illogical and a waist of government money! Has anyone ever shown these liberals the 2nd amendment? Has anyone ever laid out every single firearm in front of the liberal freaks and asked why do you want to ban this but not that and then refer back to the 2nd amendment? I say its time we play the American freedom game!

Irrelevant to this conversation. And have you ever actually talked to a grabber about this stuff? They dont care about the 2A, they say it was meant for the military and National Guard.

This site has an entire section about the law and definition of the law. This site has provided a lot of resources on the CA OLL legal issues. But we are in forums talking amongst each other about the laws, weapons and our own personal thoughts. Again you or anyone else does not need to get all huffy puffy over proper terminology in these forums. If you or anyone feels someone is misleading then point them to this sites FAQ and legal information pages.

Actually, we do need to get 'huffy puffy' about terminology, after all, it is a major reason for why alot of stuff is banned in Cali. After all, its easy to see them banning 'assault rifles' (never mind that they are not full auto), but it is hard to see them banning '7.62x51 NATO self loading shoulder fired rifles'

No ego trip here! I am getting sick and tired of all the anti freedom and illogical conversations on this site and others. So when people combat me on what they feel is proper terminoligy against common logic or sence then I just keep fighting in hopes that the people will think for themselves instead of just going along with the hipe.

Anti freedom? illogical? As if. And besides, what point did you have OTHER than terminology? Its hard to argue against a different point when there is only one that is apparent to people. And ALL of us want people to think for them selves. You probably were not on here to remember, but there have been a great deal of dissagreement on this board about how to go about the OLL/AW situation.

How the state defines, groups or describes weapons is no problem. The problem is in what laws they plan to enforce on that group of weapons. The laws need to make sence! The laws need to be compliant with our right to bear arms and freedom. These laws need to be looked at how they will be enforced and who they will punish. No firearm should be banned really, because criminals will always get their hands on any type of firearm they want. So all these bans really do is punish legal citizens trying to protect themselves.

Um, lets see, what am I looking for here?......Oh yah, I got it: Preaching to the Choir.

midnitereaper
08-01-2006, 1:31 PM
Midnite, you're forgetting one key component.

They don't want to ban this category or that category, they want them ALL. And if you laid them out on a counter, they'd just say, "Well, we got what we could, and we're coming back for the rest. Thanks for the show-and-tell, goodbye."

Well heres another way to look at it then. Don't know if you smoke but I do. First they banned smoking in public places like airports. Then office buildings and elevators. Now bars and restaurants. Oh and I think a place called carlsebad has no smoking on public sidewalks now too.

Here what was it? Fully automatic. Then the saturday night special. full auto shotguns is in there somewhere. now assault weapons or semi auto centerfire with ability to accept detachable mag.

Sure hope firearms don't head down the same path as smoking did.

PanzerAce
08-01-2006, 1:41 PM
Well heres another way to look at it then. Don't know if you smoke but I do. First they banned smoking in public places like airports. Then office buildings and elevators. Now bars and restaurants. Oh and I think a place called carlsebad has no smoking on public sidewalks now too.

Here what was it? Fully automatic. Then the saturday night special. full auto shotguns is in there somewhere. now assault weapons or semi auto centerfire with ability to accept detachable mag.

Sure hope firearms don't head down the same path as smoking did.

not a valid analogy. Smoking harms people even when the person smoking is doing nothing wrong. the Smoking laws are legit public health issues. With firearms, it is completely different.

Ten Rounder
08-01-2006, 1:42 PM
Stop getting all technical with me and people on this board! You just make yourself look as stupid as the CA DOJ when they made up these dumb@$$ laws.

If you have a preban colt ar-15 then do this. Strip it down so it is a completely stripped lower. Then take a OLL completely stripped and set them side by side. Examine them as much as possible. What is the difference between the two? Manufacturer name and model number? Other than that it is the same piece of metal. Same shape and is able to accept the same parts for AR type weapons. Maybe this is something that you all should be fighting with the CA DOJ over instead of telling me what I am supposed to properly call the damn thing!

Being technical is what will keep you out of jail. This smells of a TROLL, same DOJ narrow minded thought pattern.

PanzerAce
08-01-2006, 1:59 PM
Being technical is what will keep you out of jail. This smells of a TROLL, same DOJ narrow minded thought pattern.

now now, narrow minded != DOJ. he COULD (but I doubt it) be playing the glen game of devils advocate. But Glen atleast seemed to know what he was talking about.

tenpercentfirearms
08-01-2006, 2:52 PM
midnightreaper, you are the only guy on here doing any arguing or fighting. You used the wrong terminology. We corrected you. Rather than just let it go, you stuck with the dying horse. We are still right and you are still wrong. It really is ok to admit that. So rifles are still rifles, assault weapons are still assault weapons. So if there is any arguing going on here, it is because you will not admit you are wrong and you will not adopt industry standards. Your attempts to make us look foolish because we are "fighting" you over your improper word choice is ludicrous. Sorry, I call a spade a spade.

In your defense you are now making the claims that we should stop fighting you over your mistakes and start fighting the DOJ by showing them how wrong these laws are. PanzerAce already covered it, but lets do it again. The DOJ has very little to do with the laws. It is the legislature who makes the laws. Talking to the DOJ about the laws they don't create, but merely enforce would be a huge waste of time. Again, you don't seem very knowledgable about this whole process. We want to educate you and help you sound more like you know what you are talking about. You won't listen. You are too concerned with protecting your ego.

I am getting sick and tired of all the anti freedom and illogical conversations on this site and others. So when people combat me on what they feel is proper terminoligy against common logic or sence then I just keep fighting in hopes that the people will think for themselves instead of just going along with the hipe.LOL. Take a step back and re-evaluate who is giving in to the hype. You want to call a rifle an assault weapon. Who made the term assault weapon? Anti-gunners. You are criticizing us for trying to get you to stop calling rifles assault weapons because we are giving in to the hype? I have been refraining from calling you a troll, but your statement flies in the face of any valid credibility.

If you want to prevent firearms from going down the same path as smoking, don't call them assault weapons! The liberals created that term in order to make them seem more evil. You calling them assault weapons, when they are not, aides their cause.

Ok, I have wasted enough time on this. I should be getting some orders ready instead of talking to a DOJ agent that has all day at our tax payer's expense.

MonsterMan
08-01-2006, 5:22 PM
Remember that pretty much the rest of the states do not consider these rifles to be illegal "assault weapons". They are legal to own just like any other semi-auto rifle. Cali is one of the only states that thinks that they are "evil" and must be outlawed because Californian law abiding citizens can't control themselves from putting on evil features and killing innocent people. Hmmm, when was the last time you remember someone going on a rampage with a ar15? Movies don't count. Maybe a few gang bangers in L.A. have AK's, but I bet you they didn't buy them legally. Maybe it has happened a few times, but does it make sense to flat out ban them because of a couple of people?

Should cars that have the "ability" to "street race" be illegal. All it takes is a few extra parts to make a car go "faster". Anyone who drives a fast car must be a "street racer". I saw a movie where these people street raced in Honda Civics. Should Civics be outlawed, because they have the "capability of accepting" street racing parts? What about porches or ferrari's, corvettes, mustangs? These cars were designed to go fast. From what I have heard on the news, many people are dying & getting injured because of speeding and street racers crashing. Alot more that anyone being shot by a ak or ar. And that doesn't even count the drunk or impared people behind the wheel.

I know cars aren't designed to kill people like weapons, but the rifles in question are being used for target shooting, hunting, defense, etc. 95% recreational.

The fact is, people should be busted when they break the law. Not because they have the potential to. Don't punish everyone for the actions of a few. Sure people own rifles, that doesn't mean that they are going to go crazy and start a rampage. Just like all people who own fast cars don't go out on friday nights and street race. People enjoy having a quality item. People pay alot for a car like this. People pay alot for AR's that can shoot very accuratly compared to Mini14's. When people break the law, then bust em. Not because you think they might or they have the ability too.

Thats my 2 cents.

MM
(I know my analogy isn't perfect so don't start)

Mudvayne540ld
08-01-2006, 5:28 PM
well, I would have to agree with you. You could use almost any item tho. (ie violent movies/games)

midnitereaper
08-01-2006, 5:31 PM
not a valid analogy. Smoking harms people even when the person smoking is doing nothing wrong. the Smoking laws are legit public health issues. With firearms, it is completely different.

not valid?
cigarrett + fire + person = smoke = possible death
firearm + ammo + person = possible death

Both items can be used in life or death situations. Also this was originally not about health issues but a show of how the law slowly works its way on taking it all away in the end.

CWM4A1
08-01-2006, 5:44 PM
not valid?
cigarrett + fire + person = smoke = possible death
firearm + ammo + person = possible death

Both items can be used in life or death situations. Also this was originally not about health issues but a show of how the law slowly works its way on taking it all away in the end.

Now this really doesn't make any sense.

Smoke float any direction contain cancer causing agents, anyone around will be affected indiscriminatly. Smoker does not have to do anything special for 2nd hand smoke to affect other people who's around.

To fit your analogy, when someone shooting at a shooting range, the bullet will have to start automatically tracking every one around and hitting them without the need of that person pointing the gun at other people. That would be one heck of a bullet.

If you can't make a good analogy, please don't try. Apple is apple and orange is orange.

midnitereaper
08-01-2006, 6:03 PM
midnightreaper, you are the only guy on here doing any arguing or fighting. You used the wrong terminology. We corrected you. Rather than just let it go, you stuck with the dying horse. We are still right and you are still wrong. It really is ok to admit that. So rifles are still rifles, assault weapons are still assault weapons. So if there is any arguing going on here, it is because you will not admit you are wrong and you will not adopt industry standards. Your attempts to make us look foolish because we are "fighting" you over your improper word choice is ludicrous. Sorry, I call a spade a spade.

In your defense you are now making the claims that we should stop fighting you over your mistakes and start fighting the DOJ by showing them how wrong these laws are. PanzerAce already covered it, but lets do it again. The DOJ has very little to do with the laws. It is the legislature who makes the laws. Talking to the DOJ about the laws they don't create, but merely enforce would be a huge waste of time. Again, you don't seem very knowledgable about this whole process. We want to educate you and help you sound more like you know what you are talking about. You won't listen. You are too concerned with protecting your ego.

LOL. Take a step back and re-evaluate who is giving in to the hype. You want to call a rifle an assault weapon. Who made the term assault weapon? Anti-gunners. You are criticizing us for trying to get you to stop calling rifles assault weapons because we are giving in to the hype? I have been refraining from calling you a troll, but your statement flies in the face of any valid credibility.

If you want to prevent firearms from going down the same path as smoking, don't call them assault weapons! The liberals created that term in order to make them seem more evil. You calling them assault weapons, when they are not, aides their cause.

Ok, I have wasted enough time on this. I should be getting some orders ready instead of talking to a DOJ agent that has all day at our tax payer's expense.

You really need to think for yourself and stop going off of other peoples posts. And again with your spade a spade comment? I don't think you could really name anything on your own without someone first pointing it out to you. You want to be right? Ok here you go I am wrong! Does that make you happy now kid? I am the one giving all the hype? Who was the first one to get all technical and call me on my so called miss use of terminology? You need to understand the difference between being anal over the law and using common sence when talking with others. If you are always going to be technical on this board then you will start to drive members away which will also result in loss of business. There is no problem with what people call the weapon on here as long as they know the legal issues of the law. CA legal AW, AR, OLL, rifle all refer to the type of weapon we have and how we want to make it CA legal. I have read threads on other boards talking about the freaks on this site. I did not understand what they were talking about at first because I found this site to be very informative on the laws in my State. But running into you I can start to understand. You need to chill. You do not help us when you start correcting us on what you feel is proper terminology especially when we look at this situation in a more logical sence. You want to play the anti gun peoples game then go ahead. People like me don't and we refer to these weapons the way we see fit.

And no I am not DOJ and even if I was what difference does it make in this thread if I were to get you to admit these are CA legal AW? The law is already written and we all have obeyed it so the LEO can't take the weapons. At least not until what 90 days after ban registration.

midnitereaper
08-01-2006, 6:09 PM
Now this really doesn't make any sense.

Smoke float any direction contain cancer causing agents, anyone around will be affected indiscriminatly. Smoker does not have to do anything special for 2nd hand smoke to affect other people who's around.

To fit your analogy, when someone shooting at a shooting range, the bullet will have to start automatically tracking every one around and hitting them without the need of that person pointing the gun at other people. That would be one heck of a bullet.

If you can't make a good analogy, please don't try. Apple is apple and orange is orange.

Simple senario and you cloud it with if statements. And AGAIN not the DIRECTION I was going with this analogy! NOT HEALTH! THE SLOW REMOVAL OF FREEDOM FROM LAW TO LAW! First no smoking in airports to now no smoking in bars! FORGET THE HEALTH ISSUE! Just look at the chain of events with laws.

BPA
08-01-2006, 6:10 PM
To think I started reading this post thinking there was something relating to the original topic.. geesh :rolleyes: I started wondering if i was the one with the reading comprehension issues ..

Bishop
08-01-2006, 6:49 PM
To think I started reading this post thinking there was something relating to the original topic.. geesh :rolleyes: I started wondering if i was the one with the reading comprehension issues ..

Shhh... They keep taking the troll. It's kinda fun to watch... :rolleyes:


*AHEM* I disagree with everything everybody says here, and believe the exact opposite to my very core!!!!!!!111ELEVEN

tenpercentfirearms
08-01-2006, 10:16 PM
You really need to think for yourself and stop going off of other peoples posts. And again with your spade a spade comment? I don't think you could really name anything on your own without someone first pointing it out to you. You want to be right? Ok here you go I am wrong! Does that make you happy now kid? I am the one giving all the hype? Who was the first one to get all technical and call me on my so called miss use of terminology? You need to understand the difference between being anal over the law and using common sence when talking with others. If you are always going to be technical on this board then you will start to drive members away which will also result in loss of business. There is no problem with what people call the weapon on here as long as they know the legal issues of the law. CA legal AW, AR, OLL, rifle all refer to the type of weapon we have and how we want to make it CA legal. I have read threads on other boards talking about the freaks on this site. I did not understand what they were talking about at first because I found this site to be very informative on the laws in my State. But running into you I can start to understand. You need to chill. You do not help us when you start correcting us on what you feel is proper terminology especially when we look at this situation in a more logical sence. You want to play the anti gun peoples game then go ahead. People like me don't and we refer to these weapons the way we see fit.

And no I am not DOJ and even if I was what difference does it make in this thread if I were to get you to admit these are CA legal AW? The law is already written and we all have obeyed it so the LEO can't take the weapons. At least not until what 90 days after ban registration.Fair enough. Lets put this issue behind us. I think my track record on customer service and being part of this entire process speaks for itself. If you wish to call guns what they want and you don't care if you have a gun dealer that talks in slang and doesn't quote the laws verbatim, that is your choice. For everyone else, I will keep you out of jail.

Seriously, lets put this behind us Midnitereaper. I just want to warn you about this one thing. I had 16 lowers in my shop from Superior Arms. They marked these receivers with "auto" in order to make it have the appearance of a real M16. These legal AR15 lowers were being sold as semi-auto only and there is no difference between these lowers and any other lowers, with the exception of an external stamp.

When the DOJ came in to inspect me, guess what they did? They confiscated the lowers. They knew there was no 4th sear hole, they knew that the part where the auto sear go were still blocked off, they knew these were in no way even remotely close to be full auto. Now I have to try and fight them to get my lowers back.

Be very careful my friend, the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies do not have to follow the rules. They have funds and resources to confiscate your property and make you fight to get it back. So when you make statements like, "The law is already written and we all have obeyed it so the LEO can't take the weapons," it causes me concern. Concern for you. I know how they play the game and that is why I am anal now. If you run into a 22 year old officer straight out of the academy and he doesn't know about the Harrot decision, the Kasler list, or the specifics of PC 12276.1 nor CCR 980.20(a), he very well might take your rifle and charge you with a felony. You might win in the end, but at what legal expense? And can you counter sue the officer? No you cannot. So at the very least being anal and knowing the laws and being able to properly cite the relevant sections might cause the officer to think about it or even reference his penal code book while in the field. Just saying, "this is my CA legal assault weapon" might not cut it.

This is the crux of the issue that we want you to understand. You keep telling me to not play the anti's game. That is the kettle calling the pot black sir. The anti's came up with the word assault weapon and the anti's want to demonize these rifles. They are the ones who made certain evil classes of weapons. When you call them assault weapons, you you are playing into their game of semantics. I am calling them rifles and refuse to play their game of "evil classes" of firearms.

There is a reason for the things I do. It isn't to drive away business. And I don't dumb down my talk. I explain things and if customers use incorrect terms, I say "some people might call it that, but that is not correct." My job is not just selling things to stupid people, it is to educate them. You might have a valid point though. Maybe I should just call them assault weapons and mark them up 200% :D

PanzerAce
08-01-2006, 10:31 PM
Oh Snap! I actually got mentioned by 10% :D

and, as a final point: "Whats in a name?"

SemiAutoSam
08-01-2006, 10:33 PM
+100 to 10% Its good that you arent intimidated by those we do not speak of. and or their minions I congratulate you on your knowledge of the law

He Who Must Not Be Named will not do his job but the man who will replace him in november might do this job.

donger
08-02-2006, 6:33 AM
Will someone come and lock this thread? I'm tired and want to go back to sleep.

Fjold
08-02-2006, 6:37 AM
You talk about "common sence" (sp) and "illogical people" and you smoke?

xenophobe
08-02-2006, 10:20 AM
I know this is all a bit confusing. There are 5 key dates and events that need to be brought into perspective in this. Roberti-Roos AWB in 1989. "Series" injunction. SB-23. Kasler ruling. Harrott ruling. All are seperate, and all of them altered law in a series of events to the current situation we have now. Understanding the significance and order all of these key events that took place, and what happened after each one is of paramount importance to this discussion.

I'm not sure I have all of the facts, 100%, but they're similarly close, I believe.

So help me out with the Kasler ruling. Initially CA wanted to say that all Colt AR15s and variants should have been banned back in 1989? Yet someone filed a suit and an injunction was in place for the 11 years between Roberti Roos in 1989 and the Kasler decision in June 2000? I read through Kasler, but all that posturing and BS made it a hard read. Or were AR15s still legal except the Colt AR15 from 1989 until 2000? Are you are saying all varients were considered illegal, but the Kasler suit allowed them to be sold until the case was finally decided in 2000? Interesting if true.


Yes. The Kasler injunction kept the 'series' portion of DWCL'89 from being enforced. From the time between June 1, 1989 and the injunction in Kasler, ALL AR and AK series firearms and receivers were banned from being sold and needed to be registered. It wasn't until after this injunction unlisted AR and AK variants were again sold to the public. It was a lot like this OLL situation now. After the Kasler injunction, it took dealers a little while before they realized that AR and AKs that were not listed could be sold. Some wouldn't touch them, and others slowly started. Some wouldn't touch them even until SB-23 was enacted.


Still, I disagree that because the AR/AK series can be added without judicial process, that they should be considered "assault weapons". The attorney general can add non AR/AK series firearms to the list with judicial process, does that mean we call them assault weapons too? It is clear that assault weapons are defined as catagory 1, 2 and 3 assault weapons. If it is not a catagory 1, 2, or 3 assault weapon, then you can own and possess it in California. If it is a catagory 1, 2, or 3 assault weapon, then you cannot own it. Assault weapons are illegal in this state for us commoners. That is clear. So why would you call something that you can legally aquire an assault weapon? It makes no sense.

Kasler affirmed that unlisted AR and AK series firearms were assualt weapons. Remember, Kasler was a harsh defeat for the NRA. All AR and AKs purchased after the injunction (sometime in 92 or 93?) and before the final ruling, had to be registered by January 23, 2001. This registration would still have been in effect if SB-23 had not been passed.

If SB-23 had not passed, and Harrott never went to trial, AR and AK series firearms as a whole, listed or unlisted, would have needed to be registered by the Jan 23, 2001 Kasler extended registration period deadline. (The Kasler extended registration period was an extended Roberti-Roos/DWCL'89 registration, not SB-23.) After this point, all these OLLs would not be around, and they would be felony possession, unlisted or not.

If Kasler had not been filed, AR and AK series firearms, and their stripped receivers, would have been banned since June 1, 1989 (Jan 1, 1990 for FFLs).

It isn't because it is an assault weapon. If it were an assault weapon, you couldn't buy a new one. So until it gets listed, it is legal to own and is not an assault weapon. The point it becomes an assault weapon is when the attorney general lists it. Until then it is a regular rifle that follows regular rules. When the attorney general lists it, that is where it is no longer like regular rifles. Not before. Just because he has the ability to list it does not make it an assault rifle and the current attorney general agrees. He sees no reason to expand the list. :D

Harrott changed this. Until the Harrott ruling, AR and AK series receivers, unlisted or not, unbuilt, features or not etc... were banned AWs.

So in reality, unlisted AR and AK lowers, even in stripped form, were banned for TWO different time periods. From the time Roberti-Roos was enacted until the Kasler injunction, and between the Kasler ruling and the Harrott ruling. I don't have time to figure out the exact dates at this moment, but this is history.

I know. I was in the middle of this back then, like we are both in the middle of this now. I not only had an FFL, but I also had my SOT 63 NFA Dealer's license at that time.

midnitereaper
08-02-2006, 11:53 AM
Be very careful my friend, the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies do not have to follow the rules. They have funds and resources to confiscate your property and make you fight to get it back. So when you make statements like, "The law is already written and we all have obeyed it so the LEO can't take the weapons," it causes me concern. Concern for you. I know how they play the game and that is why I am anal now. If you run into a 22 year old officer straight out of the academy and he doesn't know about the Harrot decision, the Kasler list, or the specifics of PC 12276.1 nor CCR 980.20(a), he very well might take your rifle and charge you with a felony. You might win in the end, but at what legal expense? And can you counter sue the officer? No you cannot. So at the very least being anal and knowing the laws and being able to properly cite the relevant sections might cause the officer to think about it or even reference his penal code book while in the field. Just saying, "this is my CA legal assault weapon" might not cut it.


I know there is a chance that I might run into problems with local LEO's especially rookies with attitude. I have had problems with a young rookie in the past who thought he was hot sh!^. Thing is with me my service in the Marines and patriotic duty for this country, I will fight them all the way if they ever do mess with me. I signed that dotted line and served to protect your freedom, liberty and justice. I do not play games and do not feel any American should have to play games involving freedom for the people. The laws are set and the local law enforcement is to enforce those laws. If they are not knowledgeable of the law then they either need to learn the law or quit law enforcement. My duty was, and still is, to defend this country and we have rules to obey and enforce. If we did not know, obey or enforce those rules then we got punished not the other way around. I don't let local LEO push me around and nobody else should! Their job is to enforce the laws and that is it! I respect police officers for their sence of duty but I will not let them walk over me! Whatever I tell the local law about my weapon I will make sure that they understand that I am a law abiding citizen and I have read the laws concerned with this type of weapon and I have built this weapon to legal specifications of this State which I live in.

I have already talked with a LEO in the city of Tustin about these OLL rifles and what would he do in a situation of finding one. He said he would call in the office for guidance on this issue if he did not have proper knowledge. If that is the case then their office should have the current law and be able to determine if my weapon is legal or not.

6172crew
08-02-2006, 2:20 PM
Im not sure about Tustin PD but OCSD will take your rifle if they think it might be a AW.

Me and 4 other Marines had our stuff taken and we had to call the DOJ to get them back, they only gave the AR15 back when the DOJ told them to.

This was in 1997 or so and the AR15 was a Colt sporter which didnt say AR15 so it wasnt a AR15 so on and so on.

The Deputies ran background checks on us and were pretty rude about the whole thing, we ended up going to court for tresspassing and were let off after months of going to court in uniform with a LT acting as our lawyer.

Like others have said, be carefull the DOJ are known to hold something against folks and they do read this board.

Semper Fi.

Nick5811
08-06-2006, 1:19 PM
Devil Dog;

I think you should calm down a little bit about your willingness to defend our country and all that other 'moto' stuff...

I'm in the same boat as you my friend, and I feel it goes against everything our government, and our country was founded on for the liberal left wing hippies to be trying to disarm its own citizens. I bought my lower, and I've been waiting to build it up to spec just like all of you...I don't want to the 'test case' any more than any of you guys!

But at the same time I'm also one of the LEO's that you aren't going to let walk all over you and violate your rights and all that other happy horse-**** you were spouting off. I hear that same mindless drivel every single time I talk to some child molestor or drug addict (not saying you are mindless, a child molestor, or a drug addict, mind you).

I could go to the store and build up my AR any way I want to, pick up "hi-cap" (i.e. REGULAR CAPACITY) magazines over the counter and all that crap if I so desired...but until this whole thing is sorted out and there is no more worry about 'gray areas' I'm playing it safe and using it to hold my pens on my desk at home. (If I were to build I'd go gripless with hi-cap (er...REGULAR CAPACITY) mags and a sling so I could fire from the hip...)

Don't fail the "attitude test" when you deal with a LEO, and understand that not every single police officer you come into contact with is a member of CALGUNS or AR15, etc.

This is going to take time to be resolved, and until the HEAD LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA does what he needs to do and this is all settled, WE ALL NEED TO PLAY BY THE RULES. I don't want to shoot you because you are yelling at me angrily and holding what appears to be a 5.56mm, light-weight, magazine-fed, gas-operated, air-cooled, shoulder-fired rifle capable of firing a ball round 3,534 meters and having a maximum effective range of 800 meters on an area target and 500 meters on a point target. (In most places that would be considered a clean shoot...so lets try to keep that from happening.)

The f***ed up thing about this whole situation is the ENTIRE REASON i've always wanted one of these things was to DEFEND MY LIFE and THE LIVES OF MY FAMILY in the case of things going horribly wrong a-la Nazi Germany and the government sending agents to take my home and guns.

Now here they are trying to prevent me from being armed and unable to overthrow an oppressive and illegal government...I bet Jefferson, Franklin and the Adams boys are turning in their graves!

S/F guys, and please, calm down a little bit! When the time comes to climb on top of the roof and defend the homestead from the enemy RED DAWN style, I'll be right next to you guys...

xenophobe
08-06-2006, 1:58 PM
I could go to the store and build up my AR any way I want to, pick up "hi-cap" (i.e. REGULAR CAPACITY) magazines over the counter and all that crap if I so desired...but until this whole thing is sorted out and there is no more worry about 'gray areas' I'm playing it safe and using it to hold my pens on my desk at home. (If I were to build I'd go gripless with hi-cap (er...REGULAR CAPACITY) mags and a sling so I could fire from the hip...)


If you're lucky you can get a letter from your department stating that you're allowed to purchase your own AW, and then you can purchase and register any AR that you want, off-list or not. Many PDs won't issue them, some will on a discretionary basis, and some will just give you one if you ask.