PDA

View Full Version : New Revelations in 2007 for California Firearms Owners! Updated 1/28/07


xenophobe
01-02-2007, 9:40 AM
We have a new bullet tip mag release that allows for attachable mag off-list builds:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=46802
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45321

Detachable magazine Simonov rifles:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45331

.50 BMG options that aren't banned by California:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45332

Loopholes that may allow ownership of previously banned Roberti-Roos firearms:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45333
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45779

A way to build a SB-15 exempt assault-style pistol:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45419

A list of AR/AK series firearms that can be made into non-Assault Weapons:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=34397

A Summary of AB-2728 and what it does and does not accomplish:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45170

Category 1 Assault Weapons modified to non-semiautomatic CA legal status
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45779

Want a SB-15 banned "unsafe" double action revolver? Diamondbacks and Cobras and Pythons, Oh My!
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45558NEW!

U-15 California Legal Stock Alternative:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=42322

New MonsterMan Grip:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45370

Also look forward to:

Hunt v. Brown, a case that is fighting the Attorney General on the grounds that the Assault Weapons laws are a mess and can't be easily enforced.

Parker v. District of Columbia, a case that could affect 2nd Amendment rights in the whole nation.


Individually, they might just bring a yawn to some. In the larger picture, they pretty much destroy what is left of the AW laws in California which may send shock waves throughout the whole nation. Thanks to the NRA, all of our members here, and an indecisive California Department of Justice, without whom most of this would not be feasible. And, thank you for AB-2728.

I honestly believe all the hard work, debate and 'out of the box thinking' here is directly responsible for a majority of what has happened in California in 2006, and 2007 looks to be even more promising!

Unsub
01-02-2007, 9:52 AM
Thanks for this. It would be nice for every "New for 2007" thread to be posted in here, without clutter or debate (I will delete this post, or a mod can, in order to unclutter it).

ivanimal
01-02-2007, 9:53 AM
Good post Xeno stuck as requested.

xenophobe
01-02-2007, 9:55 AM
Thanks Ivan!

Thanks for this. It would be nice for every "New for 2007" thread to be posted in here, without clutter or debate (I will delete this post, or a mod can, in order to unclutter it).

That is my intent for creating this thread. Kind of a one stop view to see what's new. I will edit it as per request, or when I see new threads that should be posted here.

guimus
01-02-2007, 11:15 AM
I would love to have a little microphone in the CA DOJ firearms division office this morning as everyone is getting back to work and reading what all those crazy calgunners have been up to over the weekend...

xenophobe
01-02-2007, 12:17 PM
Does this mean my Yugo 56/44 or whatever the hell it's called I got from Turner's can now legally have a detach mag system on it?

Yes. The link is in the first post of this thread, in case you missed it.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45331

383green
01-02-2007, 12:17 PM
I would love to have a little microphone in the CA DOJ firearms division office this morning as everyone is getting back to work and reading what all those crazy calgunners have been up to over the weekend...

First outrage, then denial, then desperate scrambling, and then (hopefully) some involuntary career changes. :cool:

Stanze
01-02-2007, 12:17 PM
Good post, but no mention of DAs now have the option of charging a so-called AW violation as a infraction beginning 1/1/07.

xenophobe
01-02-2007, 12:28 PM
Good post, but no mention of DAs now have the option of charging a so-called AW violation as a infraction beginning 1/1/07.

If and when someone makes an in-depth analysis of exactly what AB2728 does, I'll add it to the post. If there is already a thread that does this, post or PM me the link.

From what I've seen so far, this hasn't been done recently.

hoffmang
01-02-2007, 2:01 PM
My post here does an ok job of summarizing AB-2728:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45170

-Gene

Builder
01-02-2007, 5:33 PM
To All,
Please help me edit this letter. Thanks.

Dear "Out of State FFL or Distributor",
In 2006, gun owners in California were able to win back some freedoms which have gone into effect on January 1st, 2007. Here's the generalized synopsis: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=45423
Over 50,000 AR-15 receivers have legally entered the state within the last year. AR-15 and AK-47 firearms are legal in CA as long as they don't have any prohibited features and have a detachable magazine OR they have prohibited features and have a Fixed 10 round magazine. We don't get both (prohibited features and detachable magazine). Since our assault weapon laws are written for centerfire firearms, they do not apply to rimfire. Rimfires can have detachable magazines AND evil features. There are still named assault weapons so the manufacturer and model must be on the banned list to be illegal. If it isn't listed, then it is legal, or as we call them, Off-List Lowers or Off-List Receivers. Any off-list firearm must still follow the rules of evil features with a 10 round fixed magazine OR no evil features and detachable magazine. As an example, the AK-47 simply needs to have the pistol grip and flash hider removed for it to be legal in CA, assuming of course that it isn't a named banned manufacturer. Since the list was created in 1989, most of the new AK manufacturers are not on the banned list. None of the Romanian AK's are listed; they just can't have any evil features and the detachable magazine, to be imported legally. Simply removing the evil features meets the letter of the law. The list of banned (illegal) assault weapons is listed at: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php?PHPSESSID=bf731757e870dcc0711b121ac95b00 45 under section 12276.
The evil features are listed in section 12276.1(a).
Section 12276.5 has been removed by the new law AB2728 which went into effect on 1/1/2007.
One final note, the way that the assault weapons law is written, it only applies to persons WITHIN THE STATE who are legally responsible, not persons outside of the state. As written, "12280. (a)(1) Any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon........."
Check with your firearms attorney and you'll see that this is true. This means that you and your company aren't responsible for mistakes in violating California law. It is only us residents who are responsible.
Thanks very much,
Builder

grammaton76
01-02-2007, 5:40 PM
To All,
Please help me edit this letter. Thanks.

Dear "Out of State FFL or Distributor",
In 2006, gun owners in California were able to win back some freedoms which have gone into effect on January 1st, 2007. Here's the generalized symopsis:

"Synopsis", not "symopsis". I wouldn't point this out, but you did ask for help editting.

I would also replace the word "evil" with "prohibited" when talking about evil features. While it's common in CA jargon, "evil" would sound to an out-of-stater kind of crackpot-ish.

Builder
01-02-2007, 5:48 PM
Thank you grammaton! Your changes have been added!
Yeah, 6172, breaking them up looks better.

6172crew
01-02-2007, 6:09 PM
To All,
Please help me edit this letter. Thanks.

Dear "Out of State FFL or Distributor",

In 2006, gun owners in California were able to win back some freedoms which have gone into effect on January 1st, 2007. Here's the generalized synopsis: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=45423

Over 50,000 AR-15 receivers have legally entered the state within the last year. AR-15 and AK-47 firearms are legal in CA as long as they don't have any prohibited features and have a detachable magazine OR they have prohibited features and have a Fixed 10 round magazine. We don't get both (prohibited features and detachable magazine). Since our assault weapon laws are written for centerfire firearms, they do not apply to rimfire, rimfires can have detachable magazines AND evil features.

There are still named assault weapons so the manufacturer and model must be on the banned list to be illegal. If it isn't listed, then it is legal, or as we call them, Off-List Lowers or Off-List Receivers. Any off-list firearm must still follow the rules of evil features with a 10 round fixed magazine OR no evil features and detachable magazine. As an example, the AK-47 simply needs to have the pistol grip and flash hider removed for it to be legal in CA, assuming of course that it isn't a named banned manufacturer.

Since the list was created in 1989, most of the new AK manufacturers are not on the banned list. None of the Romanian AK's are listed; they just can't have any evil features and the detachable magazine, to be imported legally. Simply removing the evil features meets the letter of the law. The list of banned (illegal) assault weapons is listed at: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275...121ac95b00 45 under section 12276.
The evil features are listed in section 12276.1(a).
Section 12276.5 has been removed by the new law AB2728 which went into effect on 1/1/2007.

One final note, the way that the assault weapons law is written, it only applies to persons WITHIN THE STATE who are legally responsible, not persons outside of the state. As written, "12280. (a)(1) Any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon........."

Please check with your firearms attorney and you'll see that this is true. This means that you and your company aren't responsible for mistakes in violating California law. It is only us residents who are responsible.


Thanks very much,
Builder


I just broke it up alittle which makes it easier fo me to read, not sure if you want that done or not. If this is cluttering up this post I can remove them and we can start a new one...just let me know.

midnitereaper
01-02-2007, 9:32 PM
Hunt v. Brown, a case that is fighting the Attorney General on the grounds that the Assault Weapons laws are a mess and can't be easily enforced.

Parker v. District of Columbia, a case that could affect 2nd Amendment rights in the whole nation.

Any links to more information on these cases?

Scarecrow Repair
01-03-2007, 11:01 AM
Any links to more information on these cases?
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/search.php

Jarhead4
01-03-2007, 10:45 PM
Hunt v. Brown, a case that is fighting the Attorney General on the grounds that the Assault Weapons laws are a mess and can't be easily enforced.

Parker v. District of Columbia, a case that could affect 2nd Amendment rights in the whole nation.


I can't wait for these two to be settled!!!:D

Ford8N
01-04-2007, 4:47 AM
See suggestion in blue.

Great work!

The Colt SP1 is not on the list.

It says: (5) Colt AR-15 series

I think the recent court ruling struck the "series" stuff.

The Roberti/Roos list has some problems now. It should be an interesting year.;)

And now the DOJ can't add anymore weapons to the 'list".:p

DIG
01-05-2007, 12:27 PM
First outrage, then denial, then desperate scrambling, and then (hopefully) some involuntary career changes. :cool:

I think that is what everyone (and myself included) is hoping for but sadly, not reality. Despite the numerous victories for CA gun owners in 2006, the battle goes on. Unfortunately, the baby-steps we make to get our God-given rights back, may not be enough. The wheels of the machine are turning and we will never have the upper-hand but we must keep motivated to press on.

xenophobe
01-06-2007, 10:12 AM
The wheels of the machine are turning and we will never have the upper-hand but we must keep motivated to press on.

That is the whole point of this particular thread, not to show what we have accomplished, but where we go from Jan 1, 2007 and on...

All I have to do is look at the first post, and all the information that it is host to and I get a good feeling. It's been over half a decade since I've felt like this in California. Things are looking brighter.

Rich S.J.
01-06-2007, 10:29 AM
So I hear word on the street is our new AG is making plans and has written a rough draft of a bill to declare any semi auto rifle with a detachable magazine, an "assult weapon" and therefore illegal as banned.

hoffmang
01-06-2007, 10:40 AM
That rumor is composed of facts that don't actually lead to the result it implies.

Lockyer's staff did try to introduce a new Rulemaking to stem the tide of AR and AK style rifles. That Rulemaking is likely to fail due to internal inconsistencies. Also, I suggest you read the summary I wrote on AB-2728 at the top of this thread. This was legislation that Lockyer's team begged to pass.

Brown has stated both "no new laws" and "focus on real criminals."

I think that bodes well for us.

-Gene

bwiese
01-06-2007, 11:48 AM
So I hear word on the street is our new AG is making plans and has written a rough draft of a bill to declare any semi auto rifle with a detachable magazine, an "assult weapon" and therefore illegal as banned.

That rumor is more likely due to gunshop legend, self-magnified over time, than any DOJ activity. Someone read the last proposed rulemaking and thought it applied to every semiauto rifle.

Some gun folks just can't read.

luvtolean
01-08-2007, 9:02 AM
And some are desparate to prove they were right that Brown would "ruin" us. :rolleyes:

jnojr
01-08-2007, 10:58 AM
So I hear word on the street is our new AG is making plans and has written a rough draft of a bill to declare any semi auto rifle with a detachable magazine, an "assult weapon" and therefore illegal as banned.

Even if this is currently a rumor, it's also nearly inevitably the way they're going to go. The Socialists cannot and will not accept a dismantling of the creaky gun-control machine they've built in California. Other states look to CA and say "Hmmm, they have an 'assault weapon' ban, we can too!" If CA were to reverse position and let these laws become unenforceable, that could lead to a shock wave of damage to gun control across the nation, and that just will not be permitted.

I'm going to get myself an M1A sooner rather than later, and hopefully an M1 Carbine. I have some magazines stashed away somewhere for them. They might not be banned this year, but I wouldn't count on having a whole lot of time. I made the mistake of being lulled into complacency once... never again.

chris
02-05-2007, 2:19 PM
keep us updated. we here at calguns will do it for those who are too busy to help out.

ajl2121
02-08-2007, 6:46 PM
Out of curiousity...Where in CA do you reside xenophobe? Most places in CA must be hard to live in for someone who is scared of different races.

royta
02-08-2007, 8:52 PM
Out of curiousity...Where in CA do you reside xenophobe? Most places in CA must be hard to live in for someone who is scared of different races.

Are you back on the marijuana? There's more than one meaning to xenophobe.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/47/X0004700.html

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/xenophobe

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?xenophobe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia - pay particular attention to this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobe_(video_game)

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/xenophobe.htm

xenophobe
02-08-2007, 10:39 PM
Out of curiousity...Where in CA do you reside xenophobe? Most places in CA must be hard to live in for someone who is scared of different races.

It's a screen name. Not to be confused with reality or any deeper meaning than a name to equate to my posts. Nothing more...

Coincidentally, I am a hardline conservative who believes our borders should be shut, our military and foreign aide should be removed, and trade embargoes be placed against any products made internationally, as well as closing all but the most simple diplomatic communications between the rest of the world, and protect our borders with the same fervor we have had in policing the world as a whole. After this has been completed, the threat of military force against any nation who owes us money (most namely Europe, Asia and South America) and consider all our debts to other nations, including the UN to be null and void.

I figure there would be a decade or two of recession, depression or just plain havoc. Afterwards, we can again be a self-sufficient country, much like we were before the 50's.... a Capitalistic, industrial nation which exports products, but refuses or severely limits imports...

Of course, I just picked the nickname "xenophobe" because it was cool and different and because I'm registered on a dozen or two message boards under the same user name and just want to keep things consistent. :p

And, what do you mean where do I live? It's clearly written in my profile here, you can see it if you look under my name, "xenophobe", and the little avatar picture. It's there. Really. It is.

ajl2121
02-09-2007, 10:55 AM
No worries man!
I'm not hating on you or anything...BUT you do bring up an interesting topic relating to politics and law...The US is currently the biggest debtor nation in the world...Quite opposite from the earlier half of the 20th century when we were the largest creditor nation (largely due to WWII and the Marshall plan to aid the allied nations). So, if all debts were to be paid, we would owe much more than we are owed. I, too, agree that illegal immigration is a rampant problem that must be curtailed. However, one must realize that the US government undeniably possesses the resources to do so, but would be economically unfavorable. As for being a nation in autarky, that would be diametrically opposed to your goal of capitalism. The best example of a state that is the closest resemblance of complete autarky is N. Korea. One can hardly say that they are capitalist. The standard of living that Americans enjoy are greatly at the expense of other nations. For us to sever ties with trading partners, military alliances, foreing relations, etc. would be devastating. A country that only exports without importing (or ideally strives for net exports) was a common economic theory that has been disproved. Imagine how much oil would cost for consumers of the US w/o imports?

Fjold
02-09-2007, 11:24 AM
I'm xenophobic.

I don't trust any of those green aliens from outer space (as opposed to green aliens from inner space)

hoffmang
02-09-2007, 12:20 PM
No worries man!
I'm not hating on you or anything...BUT you do bring up an interesting topic relating to politics and law...The US is currently the biggest debtor nation in the world...

That is a misleading statement to the point of being wrong. The US is not the largest nation with a government debt as a percentage of GDP. Also, the majority of the US government debt is owned by US citizens or the Government itself. Just because our economy is HUGE doesn't mean we have some debt problem. People whose incomes are $1M a year can afford mortgages of $1M dollars in a way that people who make $100K a year can not.

Also, foreign capital flows into the US from outside. It goes to buy Stocks and non Government bonds and that's why it isn't counted when you're talking about Federal Government debt.

http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/05/pie_chart_of_wh.html

-Gene

bwiese
02-09-2007, 12:30 PM
That is a misleading statement to the point of being wrong. The US is not the largest nation with a government debt as a percentage of GDP. Also, the majority of the US government debt is owned by US citizens or the Government itself. Just because our economy is HUGE doesn't mean we have some debt problem. People whose incomes are $1M a year can afford mortgages of $1M dollars in a way that people who make $100K a year can not.

Also, foreign capital flows into the US from outside. It goes to buy Stocks and non Government bonds and that's why it isn't counted when you're talking about Federal Government debt.

http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/05/pie_chart_of_wh.html


Yep, and I think a lot of the metrics used to measure our economy, etc. are insufficient and don't cover all the bases. The purported 'savings rate' we measure doesn't even cover 401(k), employee stock plans (ESOPs), deferred compensation, pensions which have an insurance component (TIAA/CREF stuff), etc. - all huge portions of the economy. It basically measures passbook savings which is really a glorified checking account and that most people roll into their checking.

Yep, and the US exports two of the most valuable 'products'/commodities in the world: the US dollar, and access to the US customer base.

DrjonesUSA
02-09-2007, 12:34 PM
Coincidentally, I am a hardline conservative who believes our borders should be shut, our military and foreign aide should be removed, and trade embargoes be placed against any products made internationally, as well as closing all but the most simple diplomatic communications between the rest of the world, and protect our borders with the same fervor we have had in policing the world as a whole. After this has been completed, the threat of military force against any nation who owes us money (most namely Europe, Asia and South America) and consider all our debts to other nations, including the UN to be null and void.

I figure there would be a decade or two of recession, depression or just plain havoc. Afterwards, we can again be a self-sufficient country, much like we were before the 50's.... a Capitalistic, industrial nation which exports products, but refuses or severely limits imports...



Ah, a man after my own heart!!

ajl2121
02-09-2007, 12:52 PM
See, being the largest debtor nation does not imply any negative connotations. Conversly, it signifies economic strength and the financial leverage that our country posseses. For example, why would the US Treasury Bill be used to calculate the risk free rate of return if investors had the slightest doubt that the US gov. could not repay those bills. My original point was that globalization is a reality, and if a country wants to raise per capita GDP (thus increase living standards) they must follow the bandwagon.

xenophobe
02-09-2007, 6:08 PM
A country that only exports without importing (or ideally strives for net exports) was a common economic theory that has been disproved. Imagine how much oil would cost for consumers of the US w/o imports?

I would say that all you need to do is look at China. They would not be where they are today without MFN or relaxed trade regulations... If we levied all goods made in China by 100%, they would suffer severe economic depression. And of course, we would face shortages in almost every facet of industry.

All the post WW2 love and appreciation has put us where we are today, IMO.

babydoll
02-10-2007, 3:28 PM
Not to sound stupid or anything but on DOJ's website there is a link to 2007 Dangeroous Weapons Control Law, how does that play into this. Specifically section 12276.1.?:confused:

C.G.
02-10-2007, 4:05 PM
Not to sound stupid or anything but on DOJ's website there is a link to 2007 Dangeroous Weapons Control Law, how does that play into this. Specifically section 12276.1.?:confused:

Not bad for a tenth post and I do mean that in a good way.:)

Wonderer
02-10-2007, 8:30 PM
To All,
Please help me edit this letter. Thanks.

Dear "Out of State FFL or Distributor",

In 2006, gun owners in California were able to win back some freedoms which have gone into effect on January 1st, 2007. Here's the generalized synopsis: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=45423

Over 50,000 AR-15 receivers have legally entered the state within the last year. AR-15 and AK-47 firearms are legal in CA as long as they don't have any prohibited features and have a detachable magazine OR they have prohibited features and have a Fixed 10 round magazine. We don't get both (prohibited features and detachable magazine). Since our assault weapon laws are written for centerfire firearms, they do not apply to rimfire, rimfires can have detachable magazines AND evil features.

There are still named assault weapons so the manufacturer and model must be on the banned list to be illegal. If it isn't listed, then it is legal, or as we call them, Off-List Lowers or Off-List Receivers. Any off-list firearm must still follow the rules of evil features with a 10 round fixed magazine OR no evil features and detachable magazine. As an example, the AK-47 simply needs to have the pistol grip and flash hider removed for it to be legal in CA, assuming of course that it isn't a named banned manufacturer.

Since the list was created in 1989, most of the new AK manufacturers are not on the banned list. None of the Romanian AK's are listed; they just can't have any evil features and the detachable magazine, to be imported legally. Simply removing the evil features meets the letter of the law. The list of banned (illegal) assault weapons is listed at: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275...121ac95b00 45 under section 12276.
The evil features are listed in section 12276.1(a).
Section 12276.5 has been removed by the new law AB2728 which went into effect on 1/1/2007.

One final note, the way that the assault weapons law is written, it only applies to persons WITHIN THE STATE who are legally responsible, not persons outside of the state. As written, "12280. (a)(1) Any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon........."

Please check with your firearms attorney and you'll see that this is true. This means that you and your company aren't responsible for mistakes in violating California law. It is only us residents who are responsible.


Thanks very much,
Builder





Builder,

One quick question and a suggestion.

Is the reference number of "over 50,000 AR-15 receivers" a generalization or is there a source for this number?

You might consider including in your letter a mention that there are products now available that Californians can install on their semi-auto rifles that modify a removable magazine system into a fixed magazine system. As a noob to the OLL scene I found this to be new information and very meaningful in the scheme of things. Actually, it would be great if out of state manufacturers just started installing these devices as an option, before shipping their products into the state, no?

Kind Regards,
Noob.

hoffmang
02-10-2007, 9:32 PM
Wonderer:

The ballpark number of OLL's is based on a variety of group buys. I personally think 50K is high, but 25K+ is probably real.

babydoll,
12276.1 is really the only thing that matters these days. If you look around you will find a whole lot of analysis of the options remaining to comply with 12276.1 which is also known as SB-23.

-Gene

bwiese
02-12-2007, 10:31 AM
Is the reference number of "over 50,000 AR-15 receivers" a generalization or is there a source for this number?

I met a person toward end of March '06 who had various business with DOJ Firearms Division.

His contact there at DOJ said in mid-March they were quite busy w/AR stuff and that analysis seem to show somewhere around 30K off-list receivers were sold by then.

Most of these were probably ARs, but there were probably a few percent off-list AK receivers (which really hadn't gotten traction yet for several reasons) as well as some FAL and HK clone receivers.

I believe the DOJ could figure this estimates by accounting for DROS number increases over prior month's sales, and prior month of prior year. Rifle sales in general are fairly slow and predictable and this would be readily discernable.

End of Dec '05 and first month or two of 2006 also had DOJ conducting raid-like 'audits' of FFLs selling off-list receivers. So between these characterizations I'd bet that 30K number is reasonably close - plus or minus 10% (resulting in 27K-33K by end of March).

I was personally estimating 12K by then, but I didn't realize that there were HUGE sales in SoCal area and group buys we didn't hear of on Calguns, etc.

There was a HUGE surge of buying after the Feb 4 "Category 4" memo where DOJ had promised they were gonna list.

So if we have around 30K in March '05, with continued interest fanned by various subsequent DOJ memos, and continuing interest exhibited here on Calguns and AR15.COM, along with shops carrying OLLs as standard-stocked items (San Jose's Alamden Gun Exchange appears to be the first!), it would be absolutely reasonable to predict somewhere around 50K-ish at end of 2006.

Again that 50K number of off-list receivers is gonna have a smidgen of AK, FAL, HK clone receiver sales mixed in..

Wonderer
02-12-2007, 1:17 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful response regarding estimate of OLL numbers.

xenophobe
02-16-2007, 1:31 AM
Again that 50K number of off-list receivers is gonna have a smidgen of AK, FAL, HK clone receiver sales mixed in..

I can evey say I've talked to a number of people who've had 10 or more off list rifles or receivers of their own, and these are people I know or have talked to in person.

So I figure at least 10-15k Off List receivers/rifles are owned by several hundred people. If you believe the results of this internet message forum poll from May of last year is somewhat accurate, it's not hard to believe...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=32189

csoukoulis
02-19-2007, 11:05 AM
thank you, that is great info!!

basing110
03-15-2007, 6:37 PM
so would a 50 beowulf be legal in ca as long as it needs a tool to remove the mag? it is a 50 cal pistol round so it should not pose as a problem in the 50bmg ban. also would i be able to run a 10 rd beowulf mag even though it looks like a 30 rounder?

Surveyor
03-16-2007, 1:32 PM
so would a 50 beowulf be legal in ca as long as it needs a tool to remove the mag? it is a 50 cal pistol round so it should not pose as a problem in the 50bmg ban. also would i be able to run a 10 rd beowulf mag even though it looks like a 30 rounder?

Welcome to Calguns. 50 Beowulf is not prohibited in Ca, so that would be fine.

If what you're saying about the mag is that it holds 30 .223 rounds, but only

10 of the 50 Beo rounds, I think you're probably ok. Provided that you

have the 50 Beowulf upper on. If you disconnect the upper however, you

have a problem.

mark3lb
03-20-2007, 2:12 PM
Wonderer, great letter

Archenemy550
03-20-2007, 11:45 PM
If the .50 BEO mag was marketed as a .50 BEO 10 round magazine, then it is a 10 round magazine, not a 30 round 5.56 magazine.

grammaton76
03-21-2007, 3:35 PM
Gah, too bad I can't go back and change my vote on that poll. I have 30+ off-list receivers now. 9 AR, 19 AK/RPK, 2 MGI, 2 Cobb.

xenophobe
03-21-2007, 11:49 PM
Gah, too bad I can't go back and change my vote on that poll. I have 30+ off-list receivers now. 9 AR, 19 AK/RPK, 2 MGI, 2 Cobb.

30? :eek:

Wow... you've been really busy.

thefinger
03-22-2007, 12:07 AM
Gah, too bad I can't go back and change my vote on that poll. I have 30+ off-list receivers now. 9 AR, 19 AK/RPK, 2 MGI, 2 Cobb.

.... and the rich get richer. :p

grammaton76
03-22-2007, 3:28 PM
.... and the rich get richer. :p

Why do you think I started working weekends for CWS at gun shows? I'd be broke otherwise! :)

grammaton76
03-22-2007, 3:29 PM
30? :eek:

Wow... you've been really busy.

Just a little... if you think that's bad, my total number of gun purchases last year was 45, although 5 of those don't count too much because they were a group buy of Mosin M44's with other C&R guys, subsequently transferred off to the other licensees.

I actually did buy one more off-list receiver than is on those totals - gave my mom an M4gery for home defense.

Surveyor
03-22-2007, 3:37 PM
I actually did buy one more off-list receiver than is on those totals - gave my mom an M4gery for home defense.


Ahh the family transfer "loophole". I know it well.


PS. Do you think if she ever had to use it, the guy would think "Of all the old ladies in all of the world, I pick the one with an "M-16" !!!!!"
The look on his face would be priceless!:D

photog
04-18-2007, 10:37 AM
Ahh the family transfer "loophole". I know it well.




Its not a loophole, it's written into the code. OLL's are loopholes.

C.G.
04-18-2007, 11:42 AM
Its not a loophole, it's written into the code. OLL's are loopholes.

Wrong, get your facts straight. OLLs are not a loophole, they are perfectly legal and there are a lot of letters from the DOJ, oops BOF, that say so.

Surveyor
04-18-2007, 2:40 PM
Its not a loophole, it's written into the code. OLL's are loopholes.

Did you fail to see the quotation marks?
That indicates that I am being facetious.

OLL's are not loopholes, they are a perfect example of following an absurd law to the letter.

The Tick
04-25-2007, 5:10 PM
Great thread. Thank you. Have have used this site for about 1 year and with all of your help built 4 ARs and 1 FAL. AK coming.

Thanks

wheelgunner
04-25-2007, 7:39 PM
Just a little... if you think that's bad, my total number of gun purchases last year was 45...

Man I tried to abide by the laws recomendations of buying at least one gun a month but I couldn't afford it. ;)

Share the secret brother. :D

Please don't tell me you married a rich woman that believes that her husband should have alot of toys.:eek:

grammaton76
04-26-2007, 11:35 AM
Man I tried to abide by the laws recomendations of buying at least one gun a month but I couldn't afford it. ;)

Share the secret brother. :D

Please don't tell me you married a rich woman that believes that her husband should have alot of toys.:eek:

Buy lots of cheap guns... i.e. receivers. Buy enough that, when the ban comes, you'll have enough to keep you puttering away into your 60's. That's what I was shooting for, although I probably should have more AK receivers in order to achieve that goal.

Also, be really frugal with your credit card for many years, until the OLL thing hits. Then, spend the next few years paying it off. :eek: