PDA

View Full Version : OLL's to be added to CA AW List


mxpatriot51
02-11-2007, 5:47 PM
Is there a possiblity we will ever see this happen?

If it happens, I assume it would mean we could have all the features of an AW + the detachable magazine, correct?

Is there any way the DOJ could make another class of AW's that would have the features of an AW without having a detachable magazine (such as our OLL configurations)?

Just curious and just signed up for calguns. I know a lot of people here have a lot of knowledge about this.

blkA4alb
02-11-2007, 5:51 PM
The DOJ does not have the power to list anything as AWs anymore. They lost that power due to AB2728.

mxpatriot51
02-11-2007, 6:01 PM
But can they update the Kasler list?

Crazed_SS
02-11-2007, 6:04 PM
No :(

M. Sage
02-11-2007, 6:14 PM
I think you mean "no :D."

Crazed_SS
02-11-2007, 6:17 PM
I think you mean "no :D."

Yea.. I guess I should use the ":D" .. but Im selfish.. I wanted a registered AR. Oh well.:)

blacklisted
02-11-2007, 6:34 PM
But can they update the Kasler list?

Not anymore.

hoffmang
02-11-2007, 6:35 PM
AB-2728 took away the DOJ's availability to list.

-Gene

M. Sage
02-11-2007, 6:37 PM
I'm just sitting here wondering how many people saw the title of this thread and said "WTF!?!" And what their blood pressure did when that happened. :p

mxpatriot51
02-11-2007, 6:52 PM
AB-2728 took away the DOJ's availability to list.

-Gene

When did that pass?

So if I buy an OLL, is there any chance it will be declared an AW and get to have all the features + detachable magazine?

The SoCal Gunner
02-11-2007, 7:03 PM
When did that pass?

So if I buy an OLL, is there any chance it will be declared an AW and get to have all the features + detachable magazine?

Everybody already answered your question which is a big NO. They will never be declared an AW so you can have the features + detachable magazines. They may be declared an AW so that LEOs can take it away from you.

The law went into effect Jan 1st of 2007.

Mssr. Eleganté
02-11-2007, 7:07 PM
When did that pass?

It passed late last year.


So if I buy an OLL, is there any chance it will be declared an AW and get to have all the features + detachable magazine?

I guess the State Legislature could pass another law that somehow branded OLL's as "assault weapons". There's no way to tell if they will though. You could buy one now and build it up years from now if you move out of California. There might be another Federal ban by that time and you'd then have a pre(new Federal)ban rifle to use outside of California.

mxpatriot51
02-11-2007, 7:17 PM
Everybody already answered your question which is a big NO. They will never be declared an AW so you can have the features + detachable magazines. They may be declared an AW so that LEOs can take it away from you.

The law went into effect Jan 1st of 2007.

Show me a wide spread ban where weapons were confiscated instead of being registered.

Dr. Peter Venkman
02-11-2007, 7:19 PM
Show me a wide spread ban where weapons were confiscated instead of being registered.

New Orleans?

Canada?

mxpatriot51
02-11-2007, 7:39 PM
New Orleans?

Canada?

Canada doesn't count. I'm referring to within the U.S.

New Orleans was not a ban; it was an impromptu, illegal confiscation of all weapons; AW or not.

azn_wrx
02-11-2007, 7:39 PM
Rifles arent registered in CA, unless of course you had one before the ban and registered it. Im not quite sure what lil was saying in his post, but you should read the law and come up with your own conclusions as to what is legal and what is not. If you have a detachable magazine, you cannot have any evil features deemed by the CA DOJ. If you pin the magazine, you can have all the features you want.

bwiese
02-11-2007, 8:07 PM
Show me a wide spread ban where weapons were confiscated instead of being registered.

I believe the NYC AW ban did not allow registration. Folks had to move them out of the area. I think some Chicago stuff is the same way.

So yes it's possible that gun bans can result in non-registration option - and cause the gun to have to be stored so far away (i.e, outta state) that it's useless to you.

The prototype LCAV AW legislation contains 'get rid of 'em'/no registration provisions.

mxpatriot51
02-11-2007, 8:09 PM
I believe the NYC AW ban did not allow registration. Folks had to move them out of the area. I think some Chicago stuff is the same way.

So yes it's possible that gun bans can result in non-registration option - and cause the gun to have to be stored so far away (i.e, outta state) that it's useless to you.

The prototype LCAV AW legislation contains 'get rid of 'em'/no registration provisions.

Sorry to ask this, but what does "LCAV" refer to?

Kestryll
02-11-2007, 8:22 PM
Show me a wide spread ban where weapons were confiscated instead of being registered.

Weren't the SKS-D's declared illegal and confiscated?

Dr. Peter Venkman
02-11-2007, 8:34 PM
Canada doesn't count. I'm referring to within the U.S.

New Orleans was not a ban; it was an impromptu, illegal confiscation of all weapons; AW or not.

D.C.

wutzu
02-11-2007, 8:43 PM
I saw this thread title, and immediately thought "wow, did I just time-travel back a year?"

DO A SEARCH

hoffmang
02-11-2007, 9:23 PM
LCAV=Legal Community Against Violence. Its the #2 Google entry and the group is a Brady Campaign spawn.

Certain AWs here in CA that folks thought were registered were seized. Its somewhat less widespread, but seizure or "get them out of here" laws do pass from time to time. So far the CA legislature hasn't wanted to take that one on head on though.

-Gene

thefinger
02-11-2007, 9:33 PM
I'm just sitting here wondering how many people saw the title of this thread and said "WTF!?!" And what their blood pressure did when that happened. :p


I got a little dizzy and and my vision started to blur....

Josh
02-11-2007, 9:35 PM
Show me a wide spread ban where weapons were confiscated instead of being registered.

DC, here in CA, the SKS fiasco where the DOJ changed their minds, ive heard of people getting weapons confiscated if they forgot to renew their FOID card in illinois.

It happens, and just because you think it hasent happened in the US dosent mean it cant.

Registration is a BAD idea espeically in this state where so many that hold so much power have an agenda against the firearms community.

What do you gain through registration? The ability to play with your toys in a fun way, giving up privacy and a portion of your rights to be able to play. Taking an extra minute to load or having a weird looking rifle? All that just for your privacy and portions of your rights. Sounds like a great trade to me.

stator
02-12-2007, 6:49 AM
Yes, they were. Remember www.sksbuyback.com? Well, we busted the DOJ for using CHICOM programmers for that website. Actually, they used a local stateside web development company whose programmers where in mainland China.

The domain was registered in CHICOM at first. We busted them on that (even made the Geoff MetCalf show, I believe). DOJ had the stateside web development company change the registration in a hurry. Then, the DOJ obfuscated on this.

BTW, Josh, the DOJ did not change their minds. Lundgren was sued in court by Brady nuts and lost. The court ordered the buyback program.

metalhead357
02-12-2007, 9:32 AM
Show me a wide spread ban where weapons were confiscated instead of being registered.


You should read a little paul harvey....


Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?
CONSIDER THIS...
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911,

Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century.
Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars.
The results Australia-wide: Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, and Armed robberies are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.

Over the previous 25 years, figures were showing a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such a monumental effort and expense was expended in "ridding society of guns." It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.


And what's this crap about-- 'it doesnt count if its outside the US?????
You actually think that we're immune?If so then I must ask you intentions of owning a OLL and/or AW......... I mean is it a status thing? It doesnt sound like its a rights-thing:cool: I mean think about what you've alread said/asked....you WANT them to ban them so you can have a registered AW with the features:cool: ????????????

The others here have already mentioned the SKS 'buyback' and the Walther- p22 incident. Do we even need to go down the Waco and Weaver routes? BATF botched raids to wrong houses? Add in the Clinton Era "sweeps" in housing projects and if you stilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll want more proof.....then I'd be amiss to say you've come to the wrong place- we're here to talk guns and how to increase thier popularity, acceptance and legality---to PREVENT registrations and confiscations so that there NEVER IS a documented case to the extent to which you are asking 'proof' for.

I hope its not you intention- but your answers/responses to those that are trying to help are coming across in a real bhhhhhhhad way........

DOJ cant list. Period.
Read the FAQ....use the search feature...and welcome to Calguns.

xrMike
02-12-2007, 9:47 AM
I'm just sitting here wondering how many people saw the title of this thread and said "WTF!?!" And what their blood pressure did when that happened. :pAgreed, thread title on this one is very misleading. Probably intentional ==> trying to increase the number of views.