PDA

View Full Version : Just curious were California gun owners forced to neuter their rifles?


vincnet11
07-14-2011, 1:02 AM
I saw a few people in this forum with high-cap mags on their AR-15s but have featureless rifles, obviously they owned rifles before the assault weapons ban were they forced to neuter their rifles to featureless or a bullet button?

Pardon me but I wasn't here back then.

InGrAM
07-14-2011, 1:13 AM
You can own magazines without owning the rifle or pistol that the magazine goes to. People hoarded them when clinton was president and did before california's law went into effect in 2000.

There were no "featureless" or BB's when the assault weapons ban went into effect. So people either registered there "assault weapons" or took them out of state. (the listed ones, that is)

vincnet11
07-14-2011, 1:46 AM
You can own magazines without owning the rifle or pistol that the magazine goes to. People hoarded them when clinton was president and did before california's law went into effect in 2000.

There were no "featureless" or BB's when the assault weapons ban went into effect. So people either registered there "assault weapons" or took them out of state. (the listed ones, that is)So they were forced to register their existing "assault rifles" they already legally owned? That doesn't sound very constitutional. :eek:

Kharn
07-14-2011, 1:54 AM
If you want a real Constitutional question, check out all the shenanigans with SKSs. IIRC the state extended the registration deadline due to confusion over those rifles, then someone sued them and they cancelled the registrations from the extended period and demanded the guns be turned in or moved out of state immediately.

timdps
07-14-2011, 8:52 AM
I saw a few people in this forum with high-cap mags on their AR-15s but have featureless rifles, obviously they owned rifles before the assault weapons ban were they forced to neuter their rifles to featureless or a bullet button?

These would probably be people who owned high cap magazines before the high cap ban and then eventually built featureless OLLs to go with the mags.

I have been collecting MG related stuff since the '80s, including lots of various belts, drums and magazines. When people started building semi-auto versions of these MGs and the CalGuns OLL movement started, I was very happy because I could use my pre ban belts, drums and magazines in featureless version of these guns.

As others have said, the featureless or bullet button OLL options did not start until 2005-2006, so there were only two options in 2000, register the rifle or send/sell it out of state.

bwiese
07-14-2011, 9:01 AM
I saw a few people in this forum with high-cap mags on their AR-15s but have featureless rifles, obviously they owned rifles before the assault weapons ban were they forced to neuter their rifles to featureless or a bullet button?

No. These rifles 99.999% were new acquisitions way after the ban (2005 and up).

The magazines were (I'd hope) retained/acquired before 2000.

Some few people may have taken contraband out of storage and converted it to 'legal status", but that act is questionable (can't really unring a bell).

bwiese
07-14-2011, 9:03 AM
So they were forced to register their existing "assault rifles" they already legally owned? That doesn't sound very constitutional. :eek:

Registration may well be found to be constitutional.

Depriving someone of the ability to register thus denying rights to acquire guns is far more problematic.

Write Winger
07-14-2011, 9:05 AM
A lot of ppl kept their mags and sold/moved their rifles. They're nice to use again going featureless. Also, some ppl seem to think that you can/should only go featureless if you have preban 30rd mags... you can still go featureless and shoot new 10rd mags too.

ojisan
07-14-2011, 9:20 AM
Some few people may have taken contraband out of storage and converted it to 'legal status", but that act is questionable (can't really unring a bell).

I believe you mean "AW"s that were not registered or moved out of CA in compliance with the law.

If the "AW" was moved out of state, then reconfigured to legal status before it was returned to CA, or stripped of CA legal parts and the illegal parts left out of state, there should be no problem.

In this case, the OP is somewhat correct in that "AW" owners did have to neuter their guns of illegal features....use a OLL (AR) or off name receiver (AK), pin collapsable or folding stocks open, replace flash hiders with muzzle breaks, use MMGs or grip wraps, add a BB, etc.

bwiese
07-14-2011, 10:21 AM
I believe you mean "AW"s that were not registered or moved out of CA in compliance with the law.

If the "AW" was moved out of state, then reconfigured to legal status before it was returned to CA, or stripped of CA legal parts and the illegal parts left out of state, there should be no problem.

Correct about out of state movement. I'm talking about ones 'resurrected' after hiding in the basement.

However, ANY AR/AK existing in CA without AW reg being filed - in the first half of 2001 (Jan 23 2001 til Jun 28 2001) would be contraband. Possibly stripped lowers would be defendable (edge condition), or nonsemiauto off-list ARs might have some leeway. But these latter setups were rara avis.

I believe the rumor mill has only partially reached some of these folks, and they may still be BB'ing "listed" guns. (Just like some haven't gotten the message and are using hicaps in BB'd guns.)

We saw something similar awhile back with the Thirty Caliber Idiots who were panicking about their flash hiders on their M1As - they thought they could slide because nobody'd go after 'wood guns'. All of a sudden there were some busts and these Bright Boys (totally isolated from the gun rights movement) decided to maglock their 20 rd magazines.


In this case, the OP is somewhat correct in that "AW" owners did have to neuter their guns of illegal features....use a OLL (AR) or off name receiver (AK), pin collapsable or folding stocks open, replace flash hiders with muzzle breaks, use MMGs or grip wraps, add a BB, etc.There were very few off-list ARs or AKs in CA in 2000; the Kasler list was reasonably well-formulated to address the bulk of the market even though the force of law banned all ARs/AKs at the time. They did skip a few (and I indeed have two offlist ARs reg'd as Cat3 AWs). The Kasler list's failing was its complete lack of updating from fall 2000 until late 2005, and then 2006 when AB2728 came about.