PDA

View Full Version : How Many Non-Registered Assault Weapons in CA?


Excelsior
07-10-2011, 1:31 PM
Seems to me that many years ago the CA Gov't guesstimated what percentage of all assault weapons actually got registered and it was ridiculously low. Can anyone here point to a source with those statistics? Thanks.

Ding126
07-10-2011, 1:48 PM
I believe what ever the numbers is of registered weapons...there's that many if not double the figure on non registered, non compliance weapons. ( illegal weapons )

galekowitz
07-10-2011, 1:49 PM
Perhaps maybe more.

only10x
07-10-2011, 1:49 PM
No idea, but I wish I had bough and registered one back then :(

luckystrike
07-10-2011, 1:50 PM
my guess would be 3 or 4 for every one that was registered.

Andy Taylor
07-10-2011, 2:05 PM
There is really no way to know. Many things could have happened over the years.
First they never really knew for certain how many legal "assault weapons" were in the state before the ban.

1.When the time limit was up, a percentage of those had been registered. What percentage, we do not know.

2.Another percentage was taken out of state by the owner and sold, or stored with a friend, relative etc in that other state. This was also perfectly legal. Again, we do not know how many guns, or what percentage of the total number this represents.

3.Another percentage was destroyed by the owners. They felt felt they would rather destroy the weapon than register it. I suspect this was a very small percentage.

4.And lastly some were kept, but not registered, either by owners who did not know that were susposed to, or by owners who knowingly broke the law.

I am sure that some started out as #4 but as time went on these owners became nervous and switched to either a #2 or #3.

Possibly the owner passed away and when their heirs discovered the guns and the status of the guns they did #2, 3, or 4, because #1 was no longer an option.

Anyone who says they know how many of these guns are in the state either is lying, or really knows nothing about what they are talking about.

Oceanbob
07-10-2011, 3:04 PM
I only know that I spent good money registering my 11 Assault Weapons and I can't give them to my adult son. :(

About 20 grand worth.

frankm
07-10-2011, 3:14 PM
Seems to me that many years ago the CA Gov't guesstimated what percentage of all assault weapons actually got registered and it was ridiculously low. Can anyone here point to a source with those statistics? Thanks.

I don't have a source, but I remember reading two different numbers. There was an estimated one million assault rifles in KA at the time. I read that it was only 10% or 20% that were ultimately registered. I'm sure there are tens of thousands hidden away in case of an abusive government.

Turo
07-10-2011, 3:44 PM
my guess would be 3 or 4 for every one that was registered.

That, or even higher, would be my guess. Considering most (I'd guess 50% or more) gun owners didn't even know/care about the ban, and coupling that with my experience of people bragging about their illegally configured "assault rifles." I would say there are a LOT of these guns out there.

jamesob
07-10-2011, 3:49 PM
I would bet about 10% got registered.

stag1500
07-10-2011, 3:50 PM
I only know that I spent good money registering my 11 Assault Weapons and I can't give them to my adult son. :(

For the time being. ;)

SanPedroShooter
07-10-2011, 4:18 PM
I thought I read some where that only about 10 to 20% actually got registered. I have heard about people that thought their DROS counted as registration or people that didnt even know about the law and a few that just didnt care.

I occasionally run into older guys that bought guns back in the nineties and just couldnt be bothered after that. Of course none of them own unreg'd AW's, but I could see how it could happen.

donw
07-10-2011, 4:23 PM
actually, it's probably a good thing that they're not "registered"; when, and IF, the need arises, the owners will be able to come forth and use them in a just cause.

hoffmang
07-10-2011, 4:24 PM
A number was officially created. Having that number would be very beneficial.

-Gene

uzigalil
07-10-2011, 4:25 PM
An amnesty type registration would raise much needed cash for the state, of course overturning the Aw Ban would be better.

veeklog
07-10-2011, 4:39 PM
I found out the AW registration when I went into Turner's in Kearney Mesa to buy cleaning equipment, and although I was totally against it, I ultimately buckled and registered my AR.

But even though it is nice to have a regular AR that I can use my 30 round magazines and magazine release, I barely shoot it because it is a huge PITA. Why, you ask? Well, for one thing the restrictions on where to shoot and how to transport it really sucks; I like to shoot in the desert with close friends that have OLL's, so I shoot my off-list rifles with mag lock and 10 round magazines. The second reason is if I need to conduct maintanence to the lower I have to take it apart, and ship it out from out of State or find an armorer with an AW license, another PITA.

I really hate California when it comes to it's *** backwards laws concerning firearms.

Fjold
07-10-2011, 5:04 PM
6 or maybe 7

Librarian
07-10-2011, 5:48 PM
I don't have a source, but I remember reading two different numbers. There was an estimated one million assault rifles in KA at the time. I read that it was only 10% or 20% that were ultimately registered. I'm sure there are tens of thousands hidden away in case of an abusive government.

I would bet about 10% got registered.

I thought I read some where that only about 10 to 20% actually got registered. I have heard about people that thought their DROS counted as registration or people that didnt even know about the law and a few that just didnt care.


Don't recall a source, but 10% is the number that sticks in my head.

Now we learn that out of California’s population of 35 million people, only 27,000 "assault weapons" have been registered, even though it is estimated that there are 500,000 to 1 million legally owned assault weapons in California.http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1952 (2001, related to SB 23 registration; Peltz does not cite his number. See also another copy http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NON+COMPLIANCE+WHY+HAVEN%27T+CALIFORNIANS+REGISTER ED+ALL+THEIR+ASSAULT...-a083498405)

Ah - some sources:
http://tuccille.com/disloyal/2010/07/15/court-decision-aside-scofflaws-have-long-made-gun-control-unenforceable/
about 10% of “assault weapon” owners obeyed California’s registration law, says David B. Kopel, research director for Colorado’s Independence Institute
...
That one-in-ten estimate may have been generous. As the registration period came to a close in 1990, The New York Times reported “only about 7,000 weapons of an estimated 300,000 in private hands in the state have been registered.”

NYT link : http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/24/us/california-gun-control-law-runs-into-rebellion.html
As a one-year registration period draws toward an end on Dec. 31, only about 7,000 weapons of an estimated 300,000 in private hands in the state have been registered. This non-compliance has virtually nullified the first step of a March 1989 law that set the pattern for similar attempts to limit ownership of assault rifles in other states and in Washington.

[/URL] says An additional problem with registration is non-compliance. When California and New Jersey prospectively banned so-called ―assault weapons,‖ requiring those already owned to be registered, the number registered amounted to only about 10% of those estimated to be privately owned in the two states.
And a Kopel article (www.saf.org/journal/13/PolicyResearchandPolicyInitiatives.pdf) saysThere has also been substantial resistance to laws that require registration of so-called assault weapons. California was the first state to pass a ban on military-style semiautomatics.[115] The California law requires (p.459)mandatory registration of all such weapons owned prior to the enactment of the ban.[116] A group called Gun Owners React openly called for those who owned such arms to disobey the registration requirement.[117] Nearly 90% of the approximately 300,000 assault weapon owners in California refused to register their weapons.[118] That footnote 118 refers back to 13, which cites "[13] See David B. Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? 20-23 (1992) (discussing gun possession and gun-related crime in Japan)." So, off to the bookshelf; 118 refers to p 231, FN 210, but the source for the '300,000' estimate is not given there. (The chapter is about compliance rates in Australia.)

It's starting to look like Kopel's book is the source. He's on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Kopel/123811877632848), but I'm not.

Someone want to ask him the origin of the number in "Of the [U]300,000 "assault weapon" owners in California" from footnote 210 on p 231 of "The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy"?

Saigon1965
07-10-2011, 6:30 PM
LOL - Nice numbers -

6 or maybe 7

Chosen_1
07-10-2011, 6:52 PM
I heard from an LEO that for every legal gun in CA, there are 3 illegal. Whether or not this includes AWs, I'm not sure.

The Shadow
07-10-2011, 7:25 PM
So if a person owns an AW, can't they just throw a BB on it and call it good ?

ar15robert
07-10-2011, 8:37 PM
So if a person owns an AW, can't they just throw a BB on it and call it good ?
Because they are banned by name and model of gun not overall description.

I have an armalite m15 a2 its on the list of banned guns no matter what.I did register it in the last month of the registration process.Guys i shot with at the time also did the same.

Anchors
07-10-2011, 8:42 PM
Are we just talking about would-be legal owners or are we including the gang-banger's and drug lord's blinged out AKs?

If we're counting drug/gang guns, I'll bet there's still 1 million + illegal rifles in California.


6 or maybe 7

:rofl2: Sounds about right.

WDE91
07-10-2011, 8:43 PM
So if a person owns an AW, can't they just throw a BB on it and call it good ?

nope never
if its got the name that name cannot be removed
though you could strip every single part off the gun but the serial number portion and do an OLL

DSeifert
07-10-2011, 8:55 PM
I heard that they were ALL lost in boating accidents .... what a shame!

The Shadow
07-10-2011, 8:58 PM
Because they are banned by name and model of gun not overall description.

I have an armalite m15 a2 its on the list of banned guns no matter what.I did register it in the last month of the registration process.Guys i shot with at the time also did the same.

Ah yes, I forgot, the evil name makes the rifle much more dangerous. :rolleyes:

FastFinger
07-10-2011, 9:06 PM
There is really no way to know. Many things could have happened over the years.
First they never really knew for certain how many legal "assault weapons" were in the state before the ban.

1.When the time limit was up, a percentage of those had been registered. What percentage, we do not know.

2.Another percentage was taken out of state by the owner and sold, or stored with a friend, relative etc in that other state. This was also perfectly legal. Again, we do not know how many guns, or what percentage of the total number this represents.

3.Another percentage was destroyed by the owners. They felt felt they would rather destroy the weapon than register it. I suspect this was a very small percentage.

4.And lastly some were kept, but not registered, either by owners who did not know that were susposed to, or by owners who knowingly broke the law.

I am sure that some started out as #4 but as time went on these owners became nervous and switched to either a #2 or #3.

Possibly the owner passed away and when their heirs discovered the guns and the status of the guns they did #2, 3, or 4, because #1 was no longer an option.

Anyone who says they know how many of these guns are in the state either is lying, or really knows nothing about what they are talking about.

Or...

Nobody really knows.

comblock
07-10-2011, 9:58 PM
6 or maybe 7

Yup. that sounds about right. The other 999,994 should all be down in mexico right now.

Excelsior
07-10-2011, 9:58 PM
I only know that I spent good money registering my 11 Assault Weapons and I can't give them to my adult son. :(

About 20 grand worth.

When you pass once day, is there any gov't mechanism in place to go "looking" for those registered arms?

hoffmang
07-10-2011, 10:00 PM
He's on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dave-Kopel/123811877632848), but I'm not.

On it and thanks for the triangulation!

-Gene

Excelsior
07-10-2011, 10:12 PM
There is really no way to know. Many things could have happened over the years.
First they never really knew for certain how many legal "assault weapons" were in the state before the ban.

1.When the time limit was up, a percentage of those had been registered. What percentage, we do not know.

2.Another percentage was taken out of state by the owner and sold, or stored with a friend, relative etc in that other state. This was also perfectly legal. Again, we do not know how many guns, or what percentage of the total number this represents.

3.Another percentage was destroyed by the owners. They felt felt they would rather destroy the weapon than register it. I suspect this was a very small percentage.

4.And lastly some were kept, but not registered, either by owners who did not know that were susposed to, or by owners who knowingly broke the law.

I am sure that some started out as #4 but as time went on these owners became nervous and switched to either a #2 or #3.

Possibly the owner passed away and when their heirs discovered the guns and the status of the guns they did #2, 3, or 4, because #1 was no longer an option.

Anyone who says they know how many of these guns are in the state either is lying, or really knows nothing about what they are talking about.

There are certainly other options.

Some disassembled their weapons with the hopes of re-assembling them one day.

Some made their guns legal -- they plugged thumbholes and replaced ONll with OFFll, etc.

Some still have no freaking clue the guns in their closets (or "safes") or they ones they took out shooting today are illegal.

I think if the gov't had the authority and was willing to invest the resources it could drill down fairly close to the number of AR-based firearms in CA. There just weren't that many manufacturers of them back in the day. I would start with their records -- not that it would be legal of course.

Even easier with arms like an H&K 91 or a semi-auto Galil. FAR, FAR more difficult with most AK-based firearms. Probably "impossible" as you suggest.

If the government had the authority to confiscate records of all FFL holders given that they already have the record books of the FFL holders they have closed, that too would be a good basis to begin some deep research. Thank goodness they are precluded from doing so.

Maestro Pistolero
07-10-2011, 10:46 PM
There are certainly other options.
Some disassembled their weapons with the hopes of re-assembling them one day.Does not make them compliant if it's a named lower.

bwiese
07-10-2011, 10:52 PM
There are on the order of 150,000 registered AWs in CA:



Roberti-Roos guns registered in 1990
Roberti-Roos guns registered in 'catch-up' reg in 1992(?) period.
Judge-ordered AW registration in 1990s as part of case resolution (w/ small fine)
SB23 'generic' AW registration period in 2000
extension of SB23-overlapping "Kasler" registration period from 1/1/01 to 1/23/01 for AR/AK "series" guns only
those troublesome LEO AW registrations

Estimates of unreg'd AWs are somewhat unknowable, esp after SB23.

Many semiauto handguns out there may have internal threaded barrels, for example.
Some semiauto rifles have muzzle brakes that may really be flash hiders.
Ton of SKSes with detachable magzines - and these folks may not even know they are illegal due to 'normal' topology.
A buncha M1A guys with flash hiders may think they're immune due to "American" and "wood stock" mentality.
And Mini14 guys seem to like thumbhole stock conversions.

Librarian
07-10-2011, 11:16 PM
State has a registration distribution by county here - http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWregstats.pdf

Includes LEO registrations.

77K people, 166K guns registered, Jan 1990 - July 2006

The compliance numbers/estimates seem all to have come from the original R/R registration period.

SanPedroShooter
07-10-2011, 11:27 PM
Could someone register a named lower during the SB23 registration period?

Also on a slightly unrelated point, I am working on a retro "Project Agile" Colt 601. Some guys get thier Nodak recievers custom engraved. If I were to get the Colt logo engraved on my lower, would it be considered "named" or "on list", even if I "named" it myself?

Krak
07-10-2011, 11:30 PM
No idea, but I wish I had bough and registered one back then :(

Careful what you wish for. First comes registration, then comes confiscation.

johnthomas
07-10-2011, 11:37 PM
6 or maybe 7
I was thinking along the same lines, only I know that everyone that owned them and wanted to keep them, registered them and turned all the rest in to LE.
Why do the Anti's work for them and give them any numbers at all?

5thgen4runner
07-10-2011, 11:42 PM
I'm glad that a large amount of people didn't register them.

Excelsior
07-11-2011, 12:13 AM
Does not make them compliant if it's a named lower.
That's correct. But to my knowledge no one is going to go to jail for having a stripped lower in a coffee can in their pantry.

Librarian
07-11-2011, 12:38 AM
Allow me to do some very sloppy inferences.

This is not The Truth.

This is not even 'back of the envelope'.

The following contains a bunch of assumptions, whose justification is feeble at best.

Since almost all 'assault weapons' are rifles, I will ignore shotguns and handguns that bother CA.

Suppose, for discussion, that Californians bought rifles-CA-thinks-are-'assault weapons' in a number proportional to the share of the US population. Since this is just a WAG, might as well use the current value: 37 million of 310 million, 12%. There's no reason to believe this is true - CA gun owners may actually buy more or fewer, and the distribution of the kinds they buy may be different from other states or the national average. And the year-to-year proportions may be very different. (I can easily get the CA/US proportion for all the years, but with such poor guesses, there's no value to being more precise.)

And suppose the bulk of those were purchased between 1970 and 2000, when SB 23 did the 'ban by feature'. I picked 1970 because the M16 went into service in 1963, so maybe 1970, just post-Vietnam for a lot of servicemen, would be a good place to start. Years that end in '0' attract the eye.

I cannot easily find import numbers just now, so I'll ignore them; they're no doubt significant with AKs and FALs and HKs and such.
ETA perhaps Bloomberg is not entirely useless. There is a document giving some info on imported rifles here: www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/.../Commerce_in_Firearms_2000.pdf, "Commerce in Firearms in the United States". Imported rifles total a bit under 10 million 1970 - 1999. I suspect I could eventually get the export data by country, but I won't bother.

ATF has the US manufacturing reports on line here: http://www.atf.gov/statistics/afmer/. For each of 1998, 1999, and 2000 the manufactured number of rifles was about 1.5 million. Total long guns includes shotguns, and that adds about a million a year, so about 60% of long guns are rifles in those 3 years.

Kleck has numbers from the same source; the 'net addition to stock' for long guns is about 2.5 million per year, 1980-1994, so again, it is not entirely unreasonable to guess that about 40% of those were shotguns. 1970-1979, the numbers were over 3 million per year

So, for 31 years 1970-2000, something like 77 million rifles were manufactured in the US. (Some were exported - let's ignore that detail, too.)

Using that 12% proportion, around 9 million of those might have gone to CA.

But, what proportion of those rifles were not lever actions and bolt actions and semi-autos that did not meet 'aw' standards?

I'm going to make a further WAG by using the 1998 AFMER data. Toss out Winchester and Remington and Marlin and Weatherby and Ruger - but not Colt, oh, no! - and guess that most of the rest could have been 'aw' types, and take that proportion. Very shaky, but anyway...

Throwing out those big non-AR-type manufacturers covers about 900K - ~60% of the 1.4 million in 1998. Let's use the remaining 40% as the maximum possible proportion of the US production of rifles that might be 'aw' types. That's surely too high a proportion, but for a WAG it's a nice even number. (Again, numbers that end in '0'.) (I could look at more AFMER reports, but the recent proportion of 'aw' types seems to me to be increasing, so the more recent data would seem to skew the results even more than I am certain they are already.)

Now, guess how many were 'assault weapons' if California definitions might be applied -- 40% of 9 million rifles in CA is 3.6 million. 166K are known to be registered.

Around 4.5% actually registered might be a supportable number.

ETA 10 million total imports, 12% for CA is 1.2 million. 40% of those as 'assault weapons' (Too high? Too low? No information!) is 480K. 166/4,180 is still ~4% registered.

locosway
07-11-2011, 4:43 AM
I know a lot of people were caught off guard by the AW registration. What sucks is there's no way for these people to correct the issue. Becoming a felon over night because of the name on your gun is ridiculous.

Write Winger
07-11-2011, 9:11 AM
Librarian, that was priceless!

And I would venture to guess that CA gun owners buy more guns now than ever... I use myself as an example. As soon as I was told I "couldn't do something", I went out and did it 10 times as much.

But great WAG statistics :D

bwiese
07-11-2011, 9:11 AM
So if a person owns an AW, can't they just throw a BB on it and call it good ?

1.) Listed guns - i.e., banned by specific make/model - cannot generally
be reconfigured to be non-AWs.

2.) A gun that was an illegal AW in theory cannot be OLL'd with a BB maglock: the gun during its illegal status is contraband and stays in
that state (Whether or not you get caught, etc. is a separate issue.)

Write Winger
07-11-2011, 9:13 AM
I do like the question whether you took an 80% build and put listed marking on it... room to fight it on the absurdity of what's written or not written on a piece of metal makes it an evil illegal assault weapon....

tuolumnejim
07-11-2011, 9:15 AM
I would bet about 10% got registered.

Thats my estimate also.

bwiese
07-11-2011, 9:17 AM
Could someone register a named lower during the SB23 registration period?

Maybe, maybe not - that's a function of the computer and data entry system.

I do know one individual here registered his SKS as an assault weapon and they really double checked with him to ensure it wasn't an "SKS with detachable magazine".


Also on a slightly unrelated point, I am working on a retro "Project Agile" Colt 601. Some guys get thier Nodak recievers custom engraved. If I were to get the Colt logo engraved on my lower, would it be considered "named" or "on list", even if I "named" it myself?

You're playing with fire even if ultimately right. I'm surprised you'd want to elevate your risk at a traffic stop by trying to be a listed gun esp for such a trivially useless pursuit. If you did that, I'd sure as hell fill in the Nodak text with red/white paint so someone 'gets it' that it's Nodak.

bwiese
07-11-2011, 9:19 AM
I do like the question whether you took an 80% build and put listed marking on it... room to fight it on the absurdity of what's written or not written on a piece of metal makes it an evil illegal assault weapon....

Not recommended at all except for people wanting to verify they have low IQ.

There are (and will be) better ways of fighting AW laws. Uninformed people should not come up with 'magic' ideas to 'save' us because of assumed validity.

Uxi
07-11-2011, 9:40 AM
I only know that I spent good money registering my 11 Assault Weapons and I can't give them to my adult son. :(


Even out side of the RTKBA, this seems so wrong and a violation of basic property rights. While I detest the AWB in general, there definitely should at least be a legal transfer mechanism to pass on to heirs.

Excelsior
07-11-2011, 2:34 PM
Allow me to do some very sloppy inferences.

This is not The Truth.

This is not even 'back of the envelope'.

The following contains a bunch of assumptions, whose justification is feeble at best.

Since almost all 'assault weapons' are rifles, I will ignore shotguns and handguns that bother CA.

Suppose, for discussion, that Californians bought rifles-CA-thinks-are-'assault weapons' in a number proportional to the share of the US population. Since this is just a WAG, might as well use the current value: 37 million of 310 million, 12%. There's no reason to believe this is true - CA gun owners may actually buy more or fewer, and the distribution of the kinds they buy may be different from other states or the national average. And the year-to-year proportions may be very different. (I can easily get the CA/US proportion for all the years, but with such poor guesses, there's no value to being more precise.)

And suppose the bulk of those were purchased between 1970 and 2000, when SB 23 did the 'ban by feature'. I picked 1970 because the M16 went into service in 1963, so maybe 1970, just post-Vietnam for a lot of servicemen, would be a good place to start. Years that end in '0' attract the eye.

I cannot easily find import numbers just now, so I'll ignore them; they're no doubt significant with AKs and FALs and HKs and such.
ETA perhaps Bloomberg is not entirely useless. There is a document giving some info on imported rifles here: www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/.../Commerce_in_Firearms_2000.pdf, "Commerce in Firearms in the United States". Imported rifles total a bit under 10 million 1970 - 1999. I suspect I could eventually get the export data by country, but I won't bother.

ATF has the US manufacturing reports on line here: http://www.atf.gov/statistics/afmer/. For each of 1998, 1999, and 2000 the manufactured number of rifles was about 1.5 million. Total long guns includes shotguns, and that adds about a million a year, so about 60% of long guns are rifles in those 3 years.

Kleck has numbers from the same source; the 'net addition to stock' for long guns is about 2.5 million per year, 1980-1994, so again, it is not entirely unreasonable to guess that about 40% of those were shotguns. 1970-1979, the numbers were over 3 million per year

So, for 31 years 1970-2000, something like 77 million rifles were manufactured in the US. (Some were exported - let's ignore that detail, too.)

Using that 12% proportion, around 9 million of those might have gone to CA.

But, what proportion of those rifles were not lever actions and bolt actions and semi-autos that did not meet 'aw' standards?

I'm going to make a further WAG by using the 1998 AFMER data. Toss out Winchester and Remington and Marlin and Weatherby and Ruger - but not Colt, oh, no! - and guess that most of the rest could have been 'aw' types, and take that proportion. Very shaky, but anyway...

Throwing out those big non-AR-type manufacturers covers about 900K - ~60% of the 1.4 million in 1998. Let's use the remaining 40% as the maximum possible proportion of the US production of rifles that might be 'aw' types. That's surely too high a proportion, but for a WAG it's a nice even number. (Again, numbers that end in '0'.) (I could look at more AFMER reports, but the recent proportion of 'aw' types seems to me to be increasing, so the more recent data would seem to skew the results even more than I am certain they are already.)

Now, guess how many were 'assault weapons' if California definitions might be applied -- 40% of 9 million rifles in CA is 3.6 million. 166K are known to be registered.

Around 4.5% actually registered might be a supportable number.

ETA 10 million total imports, 12% for CA is 1.2 million. 40% of those as 'assault weapons' (Too high? Too low? No information!) is 480K. 166/4,180 is still ~4% registered.

Nice...

If I take your 4% number and express it as an interval with a ton more slop added -- say 3-10%, the probability of it being accurate goes through the roof while doing very little to show that it's still a stunningly low number...

cmaynes
07-11-2011, 3:23 PM
it sure seems to me that a $200 dollar tax stamp for registering or buying new "assault" weapons would be a pretty good way to raise some revenue....

I know I would pay it....

Bhobbs
07-11-2011, 3:26 PM
it sure seems to me that a $200 dollar tax stamp for registering or buying new "assault" weapons would be a pretty good way to raise some revenue....

I know I would pay it....

It would bring in even more revenue if they made it $2,000.

I wouldn't pay it. I would rather give the money to bring the AW ban down.

Wherryj
07-11-2011, 3:28 PM
I do like the question whether you took an 80% build and put listed marking on it... room to fight it on the absurdity of what's written or not written on a piece of metal makes it an evil illegal assault weapon....

I believe that this is ALREADY the problem that most people have with the law. I don't see a huge difference when it comes to precisely who put the marking on the lower, it still makes no sense.

Uxi
07-11-2011, 3:33 PM
It would bring in even more revenue if they made it $2,000.

I doubt it. There's a point of diminishing returns. Couple hundred bucks would be reasonable, but couple thousand would weed out a great very many.


I wouldn't pay it. I would rather give the money to bring the AW ban down.

Right, I would rather pay to have it brought down, but as a practical matter I would probably roll my eyes, grumble about and then get over it. Especially if it opened up BATFE form 1 / tax stamps/etc.

But it's all or nothing to idiots like DeLeon.

Bhobbs
07-11-2011, 3:46 PM
I doubt it. There's a point of diminishing returns. Couple hundred bucks would be reasonable, but couple thousand would weed out a great very many.



Right, I would rather pay to have it brought down, but as a practical matter I would probably roll my eyes, grumble about and then get over it. Especially if it opened up BATFE form 1 / tax stamps/etc.

But it's all or nothing to idiots like DeLeon.

I was mainly being sarcastic about the $2K part but I can imagine the mouth watering that would happen if they got a chance to charge a fee like that.

$200 back in 1934 was a lot of money. They made the stamp 200 so it would be prohibative to people.

Uxi
07-11-2011, 4:03 PM
Indeed. $200 in 1934 dollars is something like $3300 in 2011 dollars.

SanPedroShooter
07-11-2011, 5:23 PM
Maybe, maybe not - that's a function of the computer and data entry system.

I do know one individual here registered his SKS as an assault weapon and they really double checked with him to ensure it wasn't an "SKS with detachable magazine".



You're playing with fire even if ultimately right. I'm surprised you'd want to elevate your risk at a traffic stop by trying to be a listed gun esp for such a trivially useless pursuit. If you did that, I'd sure as hell fill in the Nodak text with red/white paint so someone 'gets it' that it's Nodak.


Thank you for your insight. I always like hearing specific storys about our AW laws.
I didnt say I would do it. I know better than that. I was just wondering how far this "named" nonsense goes. What if I wrote COLT in magic marker on my lower?

And I dont think custom engraving on on retro build is a trivially useless pursuit. It seems to be the thing to do on free state retro builds.

Liberty1
07-11-2011, 5:38 PM
Why, when one can have a fully functional unregistered off list featureless rifle with NONE of the transport/possession restrictions of a RAW? Even those with RAWs risk felonies for possession at the 'wrong' place.


No idea, but I wish I had bough and registered one back then :(

JagerTroop
07-11-2011, 5:48 PM
it sure seems to me that a $200 dollar tax stamp for registering or buying new "assault" weapons would be a pretty good way to raise some revenue....

I know I would pay it....

It would bring in even more revenue if they made it $2,000.

I wouldn't pay it. I would rather give the money to bring the AW ban down.

$200 is still too much. What was it in 2000, something like $20?
Even THAT is pushing it. Some people would go bankrupt trying to register all of their rifles.

Featureless is the next best thing... until I can get out, or hell freezes over and the BS comes to an end here in the PRK.

Liberty1
07-11-2011, 6:06 PM
it sure seems to me that a $200 dollar tax stamp for registering or buying new "assault" weapons would be a pretty good way to raise some revenue....

I know I would pay it....

Millions for CGF, but not one cent in tribute! Good day sir!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Goodloe_Harper

supersonic
07-11-2011, 6:45 PM
Not recommended at all except for people wanting to verify they have low IQ.

I have verified the comedic effect of this post.:p

chris
07-11-2011, 7:25 PM
A number was officially created. Having that number would be very beneficial.

-Gene

but would it be released to the public and be able to verified for accuracy and not some made up percentage.

Bhobbs
07-11-2011, 8:26 PM
$200 is still too much. What was it in 2000, something like $20?
Even THAT is pushing it. Some people would go bankrupt trying to register all of their rifles.

Featureless is the next best thing... until I can get out, or hell freezes over and the BS comes to an end here in the PRK.

I don't know what the fee was back then. I was referring to the tax stamp to register NFA firearms.

Excelsior
07-12-2011, 2:59 AM
$200 is still too much. What was it in 2000, something like $20?
Even THAT is pushing it. Some people would go bankrupt trying to register all of their rifles.

Featureless is the next best thing... until I can get out, or hell freezes over and the BS comes to an end here in the PRK.
No. Let's say someone owned 50 firearms that required registering. At $20/gun that's a grand. No one who owns 50 firearms is going to be wiped-out by a thousand dollars.

locosway
07-12-2011, 3:01 AM
No. Let's say someone owned 50 firearms that required registering. At $20/gun that's a grand. No one who owns 50 firearms is going to be wiped-out by a thousand dollars.

Because no one has ever inherited firearms or lost their job before, right?

Librarian
07-12-2011, 3:41 AM
So, now let me take just one assumption apart, highlighting the uncertainties.


Suppose, for discussion, that Californians bought rifles-CA-thinks-are-'assault weapons' in a number proportional to the share of the US population. Since this is just a WAG, might as well use the current value: 37 million of 310 million, 12%. There's no reason to believe this is true - CA gun owners may actually buy more or fewer, and the distribution of the kinds they buy may be different from other states or the national average. And the year-to-year proportions may be very different.
This is really very weak.

Worse, there's contradictory data from the state.

DOJ Firearms has a doc (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/droschart2010.pdf) that gives DROS numbers by year. It doesn't include long guns until 1991, but the average number of long guns DROSd from 1991-2000 is ~180,000 - for all shotguns and rifles.

Let's pick 2000. CADOJ says 184,345 long gun DROS for that calendar year.

BATFE manufacturing info (2000 (http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2000-firearms-manufacturers-export-report.pdf)) says 1,583,042 rifles, 898,442 shotguns, 2,482,484 total (64% rifles).

If California DROS numbers reflect that 64% distribution, that would be 117,601 rifles; that might be true. But the rifle/shotgun ratio might not be about 6/4.

Are those guns, whatever the correct numbers, 'new'? We know that is NOT true, but not by how much, because DROS data also includes PPT - the same gun stays in-state but with a new owner; there is no net growth.

12% (CA POP vs US POP) of 1,583,042 rifles is 189,965. The Commerce in Firearms doc records 198,000 in 1999, so guess about that for 2000. 12% of that is 24,000, so add that to the 12% of manufacture.

CA Reports a larger than possible number of perhaps 117,601 rifles DROSd - just 55% of the 'expected' value, if rifle purchases are approximately evenly distributed by population.

So, where's the discrepancy?

Does CA really buy just 6.6% of the rifles manufactured and imported? Maybe - what if one or several large ethnic populations, not so large in other states, generally do not buy rifles via FFLs or at all?

What if CA residents buy essentially only imports, ignoring domestic manufacture? No data to really argue, though that doesn't seem correct.

Are BATFE manufacturing stats wrong?

Are CA's DROS stats wrong? Could there be a political reason that incorrect data might be published?

Are guns being purchased without 'benefit of DROS'?

How many rifles are being moved here? - one need not tell the State about those.

How many rifles moved out of state in 2000?

17+1
07-12-2011, 7:42 AM
I don't have a source, but I remember reading two different numbers. There was an estimated one million assault rifles in KA at the time. I read that it was only 10% or 20% that were ultimately registered. I'm sure there are tens of thousands hidden away in case of an abusive government.

That sounds about right...seems a lot of people that were old enough (I am not) to buy/register didn't want the state to know about them.

JagerTroop
07-15-2011, 12:49 AM
No. Let's say someone owned 50 firearms that required registering. At $20/gun that's a grand. No one who owns 50 firearms is going to be wiped-out by a thousand dollars.

You're assuming it's only 50.

Burbur
07-15-2011, 9:39 AM
All i know is, I have run across VERY few people who have registered AWs, but have told MANY people all about the CA AW ban (for the first time) and how it may apply to their guns. Most of the just shrug it off, like they don't give a damn.

OleCuss
07-15-2011, 10:23 AM
I think most people shrug it off because they know that if they're otherwise clean-living, most cops won't care in the slightest as to whether their rifle is an unregistered AW.

It's probably different in some larger cities and the like - but most cops I've known don't want to enforce unreasonable gun laws unless you are a miscreant.

That said, my AW is registered. Still bone-stock as well.

Hilldweller
07-15-2011, 11:42 AM
nope never
if its got the name that name cannot be removed
though you could strip every single part off the gun but the serial number portion and do an OLL
So you're saying that all the parts (complete upper, lower internals, stock, etc) are legal to have? And you could use those parts to make a CA legal gun?

2.) A gun that was an illegal AW in theory cannot be OLL'd with a BB maglock: the gun during its illegal status is contraband and stays in
that state (Whether or not you get caught, etc. is a separate issue.)
You seem to be saying that "once illegal, always illegal"? So you can't use the above mentioned parts with an OLL to make a legal CA weapon?

Am I reading this wrong or do these seem to conflict with each other?

akjunkie
07-15-2011, 11:46 AM
Considering AW type firearms were sold since the Early 20th Century in California vs how many were Registered.

I would say for every 1 registered there is probably 20 that aren't.

Librarian
07-15-2011, 11:59 AM
So you're saying that all the parts (complete upper, lower internals, stock, etc) are legal to have? And you could use those parts to make a CA legal gun?


You seem to be saying that "once illegal, always illegal"? So you can't use the above mentioned parts with an OLL to make a legal CA weapon?

Am I reading this wrong or do these seem to conflict with each other?

The named bare lower is arguably* banned forever. You cannot put on a 'bullet button' and cure its 'banned by name' status. Everything else is just parts.


*There's also an argument that a bare lower is neither a rifle nor semi-automatic nor centerfire, but it likely would cost you around $100,000 to get a court opinion agreeing (or, about equally likely IMO, disagreeing), which seems a bit much for a $200 part.

Davidwhitewolf
07-15-2011, 3:35 PM
I believe what ever the numbers is of registered weapons...there's that many if not double the figure on non registered, non compliance weapons. ( illegal weapons )

When in law school, I started noticing a similar pattern: out of roughly every two gun enthusiasts I befriended, usually one would eventually admit (proudly!) to owning an unregistered SKS or the like. That pattern's continued in the years since then.

timdps
07-15-2011, 3:43 PM
When in law school, I started noticing a similar pattern: out of roughly every two gun enthusiasts I befriended, usually one would eventually admit (proudly!) to owning an unregistered SKS or the like. That pattern's continued in the years since then.

Ummm... SKSs did not not to be registered....

Excelsior
07-15-2011, 4:23 PM
Because no one has ever inherited firearms or lost their job before, right?
What?

What does it matter if the firearms are purchased or inherited in this case?

If there really was a $20 registration/gun (something I would not support of course) and someone inherited 50 guns, at the very worst they could sell one or more to raise the funds if they "lost their job."

Excelsior
07-15-2011, 4:25 PM
Ummm... SKSs did not not to be registered....
Some SKS's (Zastava SKS Carbines 59/66) require permits in CA:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/zastava.php

Excelsior
07-15-2011, 4:28 PM
Considering AW type firearms were sold since the Early 20th Century in California vs how many were Registered.

I would say for every 1 registered there is probably 20 that aren't.

Except perhaps in some fairly limited situations that's not really true.

Excelsior
07-15-2011, 4:47 PM
All i know is, I have run across VERY few people who have registered AWs, but have told MANY people all about the CA AW ban (for the first time) and how it may apply to their guns. Most of the just shrug it off, like they don't give a damn.
You raise an interesting question. Of that HUGE number of unregistered CA AW's (something like what, 85-95% of all CA AW's) what are their disposition? More specifically what percentage of those are owned by people who have no idea they are illegal or really don't care? Has to be huge is my guess.

I think the two extremes of thought -- "take that unregistered AW out to shoot and you WILL be arrested and it WILL cost you $100K in legal fees! or 40 years in jail" OR "there is NO way I will get in trouble for a roll-stamp" are both fairly unrealistic in a practical sense. I think there is some truth to what someone else said:

I think most people shrug it off because they know that if they're otherwise clean-living, most cops won't care in the slightest as to whether their rifle is an unregistered AW...

I have never heard of an upright citizen being arrested for shooting/owning an unregistered AW, yet I cannot believe that MANY have not been approached by LEO's while shooting them. Seems to me the only time I hear about them is when some reprobate is arrested, their pad is tossed and the cops find an assortment of illegal firearms.

If a decent citizen actually was arrested for an unregistered AW I think the devil would be in the details. Was it a firearm they legally purchased before the ban and never registered. Ignorance or apathy is no excuse but that's a far cry from someone who bought an unregistered AW from someone under the table, after the ban for instance.

SanPedroShooter
07-15-2011, 5:37 PM
Could you try and make the DOJ prove you didnt register it? Wasnt there some talk about their files being so screwed up that it could be used as a defense against charges of non registration/compliance?

Librarian
07-15-2011, 6:47 PM
Could you try and make the DOJ prove you didnt register it? Wasnt there some talk about their files being so screwed up that it could be used as a defense against charges of non registration/compliance?

I think to make that work you would need evidence that you had sent in the registration paperwork, and then argue that the receiver's mishandling or loss of that paperwork is hardly your fault.

But without such evidence, you are reduced to 'the dog ate my homework'.

SanPedroShooter
07-15-2011, 6:53 PM
Hey, it worked in elementary school. Oh wait, no it didnt...

hoffmang
07-15-2011, 9:17 PM
Ummm... SKSs did not not to be registered....

"SKS with detachable magazine" did have to be registered.

-Gene

hoffmang
07-15-2011, 9:20 PM
Kopels "The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy" is available on Kindle. I'll run down the cite in a couple of minutes...

-Gene

Excelsior
07-15-2011, 11:15 PM
Could you try and make the DOJ prove you didnt register it? Wasnt there some talk about their files being so screwed up that it could be used as a defense against charges of non registration/compliance?
I know a guy that deal with Class III weapons. The BATFE's files ARE messed up. However unless YOU have a copy of the documentation (which they then use to correct their records) it's going to be an upstream swim.

Uxi
07-16-2011, 8:00 AM
"SKS with detachable magazine" did have to be registered.


Isn't that the sort of arbitrary uselessness that you said would be an avenue of attack on the AWB? Show two SKS, one with detachable mag and one without and ask why one is deadlier than the other...

locosway
07-16-2011, 8:02 AM
Yeah, I was one of those people with an sks that was supposed to be registered and I didn't know.. ended up selling it to a pawn shop. So stupid back then...

hoffmang
07-16-2011, 10:07 AM
Unfortunately, Dave Kopel's actual reference is un-cited.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/photos/kopel-s-m-c-pg231.png

-Gene

timdps
07-16-2011, 11:01 AM
I think we were talking about AW registration in this thread, not Destructive Devices. An unmodified 59/66 would require a Dangerous Weapons permit and would not have been able to be registered as an AW (assuming that the GL was determined to be a DD in CA before the AW reg started - the link does not give a date for implementation).

Lots of 59/66s in CA now after the GL have been removed or modified. No AW permit required.

Tim

Some SKS's (Zastava SKS Carbines 59/66) require permits in CA:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/zastava.php

robertkjjj
08-16-2013, 12:55 AM
I only know that I spent good money registering my 11 Assault Weapons and I can't give them to my adult son. :(

About 20 grand worth.
Look into something called a "gun trust" on the Internet. There are a few select attorneys who may be able to help you pass those guns along when you pass away.