Any chance of a list?

[Cato]

OK, we have a little over two weeks until the year ends. Anyone still holding out hope that the DOJ will list?

[hoffmang]

I give it a 98% chance that there is no list.

-Gene

[bwiese]

Hain't gonna happen.

The one person not wanting to list, and who deferred competent (for once) staff recommendation is still there til Jan 9th.

[capitol]

two weeks :p

blaa blaa blaa, yadaa yadaa yadda, peanut butter and jelly, batman & robin, america and apple pie etc and so on...

[xenophobe]

Nope. The AW laws have been pretty much rendered useless, and trying to update the list now is a lost cause. Next year should provide some surprising results...

[Joe]

No list, for sure.

[tiki]

No list.

[AJAX22]

I'm of two minds on the subject, I'd love to build full AW's out of my lowers, and at the same time, I don't yet have enough of them to build everything I want.

They probably won't, But I won't be crying if they do.

[leelaw]

They'd better not list! I've still got the Sig and Saigas incoming... :D

[anotherone]

It simply wouldn't make any sense for them to make such a big deal out of changing regs and passing legislation removing their ability to list if they planned on listing. They won't list. They will publish the new regulations in 2007 after ther ability to list is removed. Then they will argue in court that although the regulatory change creates new "Assault Weapons" they now have no authority to list and therefore there will be no registration.

Millions of tax payer dollars and NRA dollars will be spent on this. Thousands of man hours that could be better spent prosecuting criminals will be wasted. Lobbyists at both the Brady Center and the NRA will tear out their hair and lose sleep over this. The OLL were one heck of a wild ride so far, but when they get into the court room it's just going to get more interesting.

Also never forget that the DOJ doesn't just enforce laws. They ARE the law. Due to the low amount of pressure from the public, media, and watchdog groups there is no incentive whatsoever for them not take actions outside the law as it is written. The public, media, and various watchdog groups have no sympathy for us because as far as they're concerned we're villains building "Assault Weapons" in our garage. Be careful that's all I'm saying.

[JOEKILLA]

I agree....no list :)

[CALI-gula]

No.






.

[Charliegone]

pulls cord on magic conch....the magic conch says "hell no.":D

[Dont Tread on Me]

Agreed. If they were to list something would have leaked by now. There is some infrastructure required to process registrations and somebody's uncle would work for the company who got the contract.

I'm with the NRA on this one. The market is providing workarounds to the evil feature problems and the DOJ has cut off its listing power.

[jemaddux]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN NO LIST?!?!?!? OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO LIST!!!!!!!:eek: I bet you next thing your going to try and say is there is no Easter Bunny or Santa Clause.


The really question is, we all know the chances of them listing are very very slim. What would happen tho if they try changing the regs regarding welding mags or so on. What I am asking is what do you feel would happen do people that already have these, could they make you change what you already have or would this cause a registration, whats the general feeling on all that?

[tiki]

Also never forget that the DOJ doesn't just enforce laws. They ARE the law. Due to the low amount of pressure from the public, media, and watchdog groups there is no incentive whatsoever for them not take actions outside the law as it is written.

The DOJ can't do anything it wants to anymore than the Highway Patrol can do what they want. They just enforce the laws.
They can arrest you just as any cop can arrest you, however, ultimately, its the courts that decide. When a person is arrested, the arresting officer/agency is charging you with a crime, not convicting you of it. Every day people are acquitted in court or charges are dropped. Can you be arrested for something you didn't do? Sure, it happens all the time. It may cost you some money and be a hassle, but, in the end, you will get your day in court. I know its hard to believe sometimes, but, we do still live in the United States.
If the DOJ could do anything it wanted to, the proposed regs would already be law. (OLL's would still be legal, but you would not be able to use the Prince 50). However, thats not the case. The proposed regs have to be submitted to the OAL for review. The OAL will have thier say, and, if need be, the regs can go to court for a legal challenge.

[jmlivingston]

I think they'll list. There's some people like AM who are really upset about all these OLL's here, the only way to stop them from coming in is to list. Sure, the manufacturers only have to revise their model numbers but that will take some time for them to do. In the meantime, they'll have done what they can to "stem the tide". But I could be wrong, I'm really surprised that they haven't listed already.

John

[rod]

No list. The last thing DOJ wants is 40K+ lowers being built to normal configurations. I'm sure there will be some new reg proposals coming along addressing how we build these lowers up and try to limit us in our options. The DOJ will never get what they want even with new regs. It's too little too late. I'm hoping enough people in the right places will realize how stupid and ineffective our current restrictions are and just let us enjoy our hobby. If the DOJ put as much effort in enforcing the laws concerning guns used in crimes which are already in place as they do trying to derail law abiding gun owners, there would be a lot less gun related crime. Too bad I'm over-qualified to be a politician.

[6172crew]

The real question is what are you going to purchase Jan 1st 2007?

"we are going to need a bigger boat":)

[Justang]

I heard 2 weeks. Buy your lowers while you can!!!!

:p

[PIRATE14]

I heard 2 weeks. Buy your lowers while you can!!!!

:p

That's what I heard..........

But I think some dude w/ red hair told me...:p

[hoffmang]

6172,

My boat is big enough for what I want to buy on 1/1/2007 :D

How dare the USCG outgun me :)

-Gene

[Anthonysmanifesto]

I look forward to more of these style (http://secure.netsolhost.com/575571.587307/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AOAL&Product_Code=IZ-132)of weapons being widley available due to AB 2728

there will be no list.

[Charliegone]

I guess it depends what list are you talking about? You know Santa...you are either on the naughty or nice list.:D

[Satex]

In the past folks here monitored one of the CA govt web page to see if the CA DOJ made an entry. I remember that it gets updated every Friday or so.
Who is watching that site?

[grammaton76]

I think it's safe to say there's a dozen or so of us who check that site. I personally am not one of them.

Also, I do still believe there's a 50/50 shot of a list at year's end. The only reason they WOULD list is because they know they're compelled to, though, and not because they're trying to stem any kind of tide. They're well aware that they can't slow it down for long.

I feel that if they DID list, they would only list the weapons they've issued letters for, as with those there's a well documented paper trail stating that they were aware of the receivers and considered them to be assault weapons.

It's one thing for them to be "really slow at doing their job", it's another thing for them to "not do it at all, and let the deadline lapse". I do know if they were GOING to list, the last thing they'd do is tell us about it.

[Jarhead4]

There may be another reason why they would not list. They may think that the whole AW law is going away because it is unenforceable, and they are just waiting for the courts to say it officially.

Remember, it’s Christmas, it’s the season for miracles.

[xenophobe]

I feel that if they DID list, they would only list the weapons they've issued letters for, as with those there's a well documented paper trail stating that they were aware of the receivers and considered them to be assault weapons.

If they do list, I'm more inclined to believe that they wouldn't care about stripped receivers as much as they would the complete guns that have come in, S&W M&P-15's, Barrett M468's, Colt CAR-A3's and the like.

[grammaton76]

If they do list, I'm more inclined to believe that they wouldn't care about stripped receivers as much as they would the complete guns that have come in, S&W M&P-15's, Barrett M468's, Colt CAR-A3's and the like.

Heh, that would totally suck for me if it happened that way. But, I think they may have sent out a letter about the PTR-91... :D

[MonsterMan]

After reading those emails from AM the other day, listing and allowing all of us to run around happy as little clams with all of our features is the last thing they want to have happen. It sounds like she is in pretty tight with the anti-gun people and the last thing they want is for a situation that called for a registration of these firearms. That was the whole point of taking away the power to list with AB2728. So never again would someone be able to give us the satisfaction of having our features. We will forever be faced with having CA versions of these rifles.:rolleyes:

MM

[tenpercentfirearms]

Where is your guy's optimism?

THE LIST IS COMING! THE LIST IS COMING!

[hoffmang]

Gramma,

I've got $100 against the list. What's your bet? I might even give you odds :D

Wes won't take my bet.

-Gene

[norbs007]

Two weeks :D

[tenpercentfirearms]

Gramma,

I've got $100 against the list. What's your bet? I might even give you odds :D

Wes won't take my bet.

-Gene
It is true, I won't take his bet, but I am about to take his money anyway!!! :D

By the way, I hope the check is in the mail, I would hate to mouth off and have you change you mind.

[Tzvia]

They don't want to list. They want to change the defs after Jan1, then fall back on 2728 like a crutch, and try and make the fixed mag rifles illegal with no recourse ("sorry, cant list anymore"). Could it trigger a registration period based on features, not brand/model? Any new lowers coming in would have to be rivited, welded whatever to meet the new defs (provided we don't shoot them down as I think would happen). It would also cover the 'change the name' game since it is a CAT 3 restriction, not CAT2.

[swift]

could they try to make the category 4 idea fly once they cannot list?
Also, I thought that the DOJ is losing the ability to list, but that it is going to a different division of the gov't.

[Cpl_Peters]

I think there is still a good chance for a list.

Think about it, they are putting on this dog and pony show about fixed mags "capacity to accept" and all this other mumbo jumbo about not listing in an attempt to keep us from stocking up on lowers they plan to list. The CA DOJ isnt stupid, just jerks. They know that legal AWs will not create more crime, and they will make a killing on registration fees.....plus the kicker....we can't sell them or will them to anyone.

Its all a smoke and mirrors routine. Or a "don't look at this hand" trick.

The "we are not going to list" messages we are getting may all be a clever deception for a midnight list on dec31.

You can also argue against the possible list but i think my logic makes sense here.

DONT COUNT OUT THE LIST.

Who knows though, maybe something completely awesome will happen....the way Bill is talking it makes me think they are going to get rid of the AW ban :p

[MonsterMan]

Any new lowers coming in would have to be rivited, welded whatever to meet the new defs (provided we don't shoot them down as I think would happen). It would also cover the 'change the name' game since it is a CAT 3 restriction, not CAT2.

The lowers will still come in. The lower itself has no 'evil' features. It is only when you build it up with a unapproved fixed mag kit will it then be illegal. You could still get a OLL and build it with no SB23 features and still be legal. The reg change does nothing to those builds.

As far as the name game, as long as they are using the 'list' as a AW identification guide, the industry can always change the name and there will be new OLL's available. The definition change won't effect that either. The definition change only effects how people configure a 'fixed mag' build.

I for one say the list is useless now and they should just get rid of it. It causes far more confusion than it does help now. They should go simply with the SB23 rule. That would solve a lot of grief.

MM

[MonsterMan]

I think there is still a good chance for a list.

Think about it, they are putting on this dog and pony show about fixed mags "capacity to accept" and all this other mumbo jumbo about not listing in an attempt to keep us from stocking up on lowers they plan to list. The CA DOJ isnt stupid, just jerks. They know that legal AWs will not create more crime, and they will make a killing on registration fees.....plus the kicker....we can't sell them or will them to anyone.

Its all a smoke and mirrors routine. Or a "don't look at this hand" trick.

The "we are not going to list" messages we are getting may all be a clever deception for a midnight list on dec31.

You can also argue against the possible list but i think my logic makes sense here.

DONT COUNT OUT THE LIST.

Who knows though, maybe something completely awesome will happen....the way Bill is talking it makes me think they are going to get rid of the AW ban :p


All I can say is if they were planning on listing, why in the heck would they allow a year to pass before doing it? They wanted to make sure everyone who wanted a AW had the chance to go out and buy one before they made the list? That is really nice of them. :)

I think if they were going to list, they would have done it early this year. Heck, they could have listed this summer. But now by listing, they will not stop any OLL's from coming in the state (after 1-1-07) and we all get to have our features (which they do not want us to have). At any point if they would have listed, it would have stopped all OLL sales for the rest of the year, which would have been thousand and thousands of less AW's in the state. They still could push their 'capacity to accept' reg change through for the years to come for all of those future OLL's.

The only reason I could see them doing it is to try to get these rifles out of the state when we croak. But does it really make a difference when they remove our 40k to 50k rifles from the state when their will be more OLL's in the state after that? These rifles aren't going anywhere. Unless they just flat out confiscate them from us:eek:

If I die, I will just pass along my other OLL's to my son. No biggie.

With my luck their will be a list and I will be out thousand and thousands of dollars for making these darn grips. I will be in a financial hardship for many years:( . I hope they don't list.

MM

[Ford8N]

I for one say the list is useless now and they should just get rid of it. I causes far more confusion than it does help now. They should go simply with the SB23 rule. That would solve a lot of grief.

MM

Then we can get these as long as they are SB23 correct:

(A) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S. (B) Norinco 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S. (C) Poly Technologies AKS and AK47. (D) MAADI AK47 and ARM. (2) UZI and Galil. (3) Beretta AR-70. (4) CETME Sporter. (5) Colt AR-15 series. (6) Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR110 C. (7) Fabrique Nationale FAL, LAR, FNC, 308 Match, and Sporter. (8) MAS 223. (9) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, and HK-PSG-1 (10) The following MAC types: (A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11. (B) SWD Incorporated M11. (11) SKS with detachable magazine. (12) SIG AMT, PE-57, SG 550, and SG 551. (13) Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48. (14) Sterling MK-6. (15) Steyer AUG. (16) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78S. (17) Armalite AR-180. (18) Bushmaster Assault Rifle. (19) Calico M-900. (20) J&R ENG M-68. (21) Weaver Arms Nighthawk. (b) All of the following specified pistols: (1) UZI. (2) Encom MP-9 and MP-45. (3) The following MAC types: (A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11. (B) SWD Incorporated M-11. (C) Advance Armament Inc. M-11. (D) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11. (4) Intratec TEC-9. (5) Sites Spectre. (6) Sterling MK-7. (7) Calico M-950. (8) Bushmaster Pistol. (c) All of the following specified shotguns: (1) Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12. (2) Striker 12. (3) The Streetsweeper type S/S Inc. SS/12.

Then all h&ll would break loose in the state legislature and the DOJ would be under a microscope.:D Just what they have been trying to avoid.

[James R.]

Then we can get these as long as they are SB23 correct:

(A) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S. (B) Norinco 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S. (C) Poly Technologies AKS and AK47. (D) MAADI AK47 and ARM. (2) UZI and Galil. (3) Beretta AR-70. (4) CETME Sporter. (5) Colt AR-15 series. (6) Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR110 C. (7) Fabrique Nationale FAL, LAR, FNC, 308 Match, and Sporter. (8) MAS 223. (9) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, and HK-PSG-1 (10) The following MAC types: (A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11. (B) SWD Incorporated M11. (11) SKS with detachable magazine. (12) SIG AMT, PE-57, SG 550, and SG 551. (13) Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48. (14) Sterling MK-6. (15) Steyer AUG. (16) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78S. (17) Armalite AR-180. (18) Bushmaster Assault Rifle. (19) Calico M-900. (20) J&R ENG M-68. (21) Weaver Arms Nighthawk. (b) All of the following specified pistols: (1) UZI. (2) Encom MP-9 and MP-45. (3) The following MAC types: (A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11. (B) SWD Incorporated M-11. (C) Advance Armament Inc. M-11. (D) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11. (4) Intratec TEC-9. (5) Sites Spectre. (6) Sterling MK-7. (7) Calico M-950. (8) Bushmaster Pistol. (c) All of the following specified shotguns: (1) Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12. (2) Striker 12. (3) The Streetsweeper type S/S Inc. SS/12.

Then all h&ll would break loose in the state legislature and the DOJ would be under a microscope.:D Just what they have been trying to avoid.

No you can't have any of those because they're listed assault weapons. Any of those even with fixed magazines and all evil features removed etc are still AW by make and model, no go. There are however plenty of clones of those weapons which are not named which you *can* legally posess so long as you don't build them to a point such that they violate SB23. That's the primary gist of this whole OLL thing...

Regards,

James R.

[sierratangofoxtrotunion]

6172,

My boat is big enough for what I want to buy on 1/1/2007 :D

How dare the USCG outgun me :)

-Gene

If we do a Calguns raftup, the USCG WON'T outgun us! :D :D (btw those icons are NOT big enough!) I'll tie up to your stern with my 11' lateen-rig sailboat.

[Ford8N]

No you can't have any of those because they're listed assault weapons. Any of those even with fixed magazines and all evil features removed etc are still AW by make and model, no go. There are however plenty of clones of those weapons which are not named which you *can* legally posess so long as you don't build them to a point such that they violate SB23. That's the primary gist of this whole OLL thing...

Regards,

James R.

The Monster suggested we only use SB23. If that happened, reread my post.;)

Peace
Ford

[Tzvia]

The lowers will still come in. The lower itself has no 'evil' features. It is only when you build it up with a unapproved fixed mag kit will it then be illegal. You could still get a OLL and build it with no SB23 features and still be legal. The reg change does nothing to those builds.

As far as the name game, as long as they are using the 'list' as a AW identification guide, the industry can always change the name and there will be new OLL's available. The definition change won't effect that either. The definition change only effects how people configure a 'fixed mag' build.

I for one say the list is useless now and they should just get rid of it. It causes far more confusion than it does help now. They should go simply with the SB23 rule. That would solve a lot of grief.

MM


Yes, but if they push their defs, we could not build the lowers without the rivits and welds so what good would it be? THAT is what the DOJ wants. And they want it without triggering a registration period. That means, waiting till after Jan 1. For me, a best case senario would be no listing, then shooting down the proposed definitions next year, leaving our guns legal fixed with maglocks or gripless. Like the way things are now. I don't want to deal with the extra 'care and feeding' of owning assault weapons.

[hoffmang]

10 does have my money, but I still want him to at least take my bet for store credit :P

-Gene

[MonsterMan]

Yes, but if they push their defs, we could not build the lowers without the rivits and welds so what good would it be?


The reg change only pertains to the fixed mag rifles. You could still build up your lowers to go SB23 legal.

MM

[hoffmang]

I'm pretty confident that the regs that were most recently proposed are going to be legally deficient one way or another.

I hope to put a bit more teeth behind that come 1/1/2007 :)

Off to cause some of that trouble...

-Gene

[Tzvia]

The reg change only pertains to the fixed mag rifles. You could still build up your lowers to go SB23 legal.

MM

Oh, I know, I have 2 1/2 (one is on the way) with Monstermans but I have 3 fixed mag that I don't want to change. And I am not welding, drilling, riviting anything. They are legal now, and will remain so unless there is new legislation. The proposed reg changes alter "the spirit of the law" to quote Iggi :p , as well as the very clear meaning. Just what part of "use of a tool being required" do they not understand?

[Tzvia]

Oh, and to answer the question in the title of this thread:




NO

[ghost]

why would anyone hope they would list anyways???!!!

[gose]

After reading those emails from AM the other day, listing and allowing all of us to run around happy as little clams with all of our features is the last thing they want to have happen. It sounds like she is in pretty tight with the anti-gun people and the last thing they want is for a situation that called for a registration of these firearms. That was the whole point of taking away the power to list with AB2728. So never again would someone be able to give us the satisfaction of having our features. We will forever be faced with having CA versions of these rifles.:rolleyes:
MM

Yeah, my guess is that they wanted the power to list taken away, so that they could push their "clarification" of SB23 without the risk of getting dragged to court and forced to list. If their "clarifications" end up in court in 2007 and a registration period is opened, the court can't order the DOJ to list, since that simply isn't possible. When that power is taken away, any registration process would have to happen in some other way than the DOJ listing by name. If this would be done by a court, the court and our laws would be blamed in the media and the DOJ can hide in the shadows...

Maybe someone at the DOJ thought this would cover his/her *** :)

[hoffmang]

The more likely scenario on a court challenge to the new rulemaking is just that the new rules would be tossed.

-Gene

[bwiese]

Do note that while 2728 does not allow the DOJ to list, it does not prevent them from registering guns as AWs.

If DOJ rejiggering actions result in transition of a legal gun to AW status, it could order registration of such firearms. There is far far far more support in the law for lawful guns transitioned into AW status via gov't action becoming registered, than there is any support for the DOJ having abiliyut tell you to remove features or disable, scrap or disassemble lawfully-owned, lawfully acquired guns that they rejiggered definitions of....

The whole goal of Roberti-Roos was to prevent future acquisition of AWs, allow existing legal owners of such firearms to register them, and to not have seizures of legally acquired guns.

[Tzvia]

Listing by name won't work. DOJ knows this. Names can and do change. For the DOJ, triggering a reg period (or not) based on features will cover everything, regardless of name. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's an assault weapon-weld that mag well shut or rivit it... That's what DOJ wants. Restrict cat 3. We need to watch them closely.

I am already writing my letters in anticipation of the next round.

[Cpl_Peters]

I wouldnt put it past the DOJ to list at the last second just to anger the NRA in a last act of defiance before they loose that power.

[hoffmang]

Let me clarify what Bill was referring to.

Just because the DOJ loses the ability to add guns to the AR/AK series list and via the court proceeding route, it doesn't mean DOJ loses the ability to accept registrations.

If a court were to rule that the new rulemaking is valid (which I tend to doubt on balance) it could order, and DOJ has the authority, to open a registration of guns who are modified in a way that isn't sufficient to meet the new regulations.

Bottom line - own as many Prince-50 kits as you have OLL or equivalents for other OLR.

-Gene

[mAdbRaIn]

So, what if we just have stripped OLL and they open a registration period? We won't be able to register them as a AW, because we don't have a
Prince50 kit and a locked mag in it?

[hoffmang]

If a registration window were to be opened as a side effect of the proposed rulemaking, the only weapons that would be eligible to be registered would be those that don't conform to the exclusions in the new rulemaking.

Short answer, you would only be able to register rifles that had a mag lock.

-Gene

[MonsterMan]

I don't want to have a registered rifle. It seems to me that it is a pain in the butt. All the legal hoops you have to jump through to own a registered rifle (transporting, etc). If I die I want to pass it on to my son. I can't pass along a reg'd rifle. Plus I don't want to give them another cent. If we register, we have to fork over more money to the doj. I spoke with Iggy and he said it would be much more expensive than last time. I just want it to be treated as a regular rifle. I can already drop mags. I don't need a lot of the other fancy stuff to add on to my rifle. I guess if it came down to it, I would register one of my OLL and keep the others free of registration. That way I get the best of both worlds. :)

MM

[mAdbRaIn]

So, if registration was to happen. Where would we have to register the OLL's? At a local FFL or at a Gov. Office?

[stator]

Do note that while 2728 does not allow the DOJ to list, it does not prevent them from registering guns as AWs.




This is not true. AB2728 removes the ability of the DOJ to intiation any registration period for AWs. On Jan 1, any new registration periods must come from the legislation then signed by the Gov.

The other question being would a court rule forcing the DOJ to open a registration period on/after Jan1. I doubt the court can as it cannot legislate from the bench. We've seen one corrective episode regarding AWs forced upon the DOJ (not really, Lockyer supported it) which resulted in the SKS buy back program, or what some termed "confiscation".

So, I would really doubt we will see a court order the DOJ to open a registration period.

[hoffmang]

stator,

Go look at the actual textual edits on AB2728. They don't touch the registration process in existing legislation - just the ability of DOJ to cause a registration directly.

If a court were to order a registration, there is existing law about how that occurs.

However, I do agree with your bottom line.

-Gene

[royta]

Could somebody please list the pros & cons of a list or no-list, with both detachable mag/monster man grip and a fixed mag/evil featured rifle? I had to leave my on-list AR-15 out of state when I moved here in 2002. I want to play again, and want to order an OLL tomorrow.

Thanks.

[bwiese]

stator,
Go look at the actual textual edits on AB2728. They don't touch the registration process in existing legislation - just the ability of DOJ to cause a registration directly.

Correctamundo, sir.

2728 only covers DOJ intentionally instigated transitions to AW status.

If other DOJ activity inadvertently triggers AW status - perhaps due to left hand vs. right hand not talking - then it's a whole 'nuther situation.

[grammaton76]

If we register, we have to fork over more money to the doj. I spoke with Iggy and he said it would be much more expensive than last time.

Hmm, I guess they don't have any hard-set upper boundary on what they CAN charge, do they?

They could, presumably, charge $1k/rifle to register it?

Of course, something THAT high could perhaps be overturned due to being "unreasonable".

Now, if it were simply a your-whole-collection registration fee, they'd just be encouraging us to buy MORE ASSAULT WEAPONS, wouldn't they?

I think I'd end up paying about $30/rifle to register all my off-list rifles at a $1k/collection price point. And I'd do it, as they REALLY don't want to see me using SOME of my toys in their fully evil configuration. ;)

[grammaton76]

Gramma,

I've got $100 against the list. What's your bet? I might even give you odds :D

Wes won't take my bet.

I won't either, simply because (if you review my post history) I've said from the get-go that I see it as a 50/50 shot at year's end. By no means should anyone view my posts as saying "there WILL be a list" - but I feel that the chance is significant enough that, if it's a choice between buying in Dec or buying in March... buy in Dec. Besides, I've also got religious issues with betting anyway.

[chris]

that would be cool if they did. it would show the utter failure the laws that have been enacted really are. once the press hears about it. hopefully. i'm not holding my breath but i did buy one just in case anyway. besides i can still buy stuff for it and use it.