PDA

View Full Version : Only 35,788 Cali Assault Weapons of the estimated 300,000-500,000 registered in 1992?


Steyr_223
04-04-2007, 3:23 PM
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9403.htm

Ok, which ones are yah??

chris
04-04-2007, 3:30 PM
well that is no surprise. i knew that the registration would be total failure. also the ban increased the sale of these rifles quite a bit. since it's verboten to buy a new in so called AW config.


i registered mine because i want to use it and not have LEO take it home for his personal collection.

EDIT here my statement is not about all LEO. just the ones that are not honest. they are there just not many.

50 Freak
04-04-2007, 3:40 PM
I admit it, I registered mine. I planned to used my AW's and hence wanted them all legal.

Many out there who did not want to register theirs moved them out of state.

TKo_Productions
04-04-2007, 3:46 PM
1992? That would have been for Roberti-Roos. AW exploded in CA after that (no surprise considering all the publicity and prosperity of the 90's) until they passed SB23 in 1999.

Pvt. Cowboy
04-04-2007, 4:09 PM
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9403.htm

Ok, which ones are yah??

I seem to recall the figure was about twice that... Some 70,000 CA assault weapons registered in the first 1992 reg period was the last figure I heard, but I won't contest their numbers.

I registered all of mine over two of the three seperate registration periods (1992 and 2000) and they cause commotion every time I bring them out at the range. We had 90 days to register after January 1st, and April Fool's Day 1992 was the drop dead date. Some never see sunlight because they're unfired in the original boxes and only gather dust in the safe.

Sometimes I can't believe where the years went. I registered my oldest ones coming up on 15 years ago with the docs signed by Atty. General Dan Lungren and the newer ones were registered under Lockyer. Couple more years and those guns will be old enough to vote.

Like I've said before, every time I bring out the old ones at the range, someone will certainly make a comment about their legality. I have never been asked by a cop for AWB paperwork, but ordinary civilians sure seem to ask pointed questions.

DrjonesUSA
04-04-2007, 4:10 PM
Interesting to see a citation for that statistic.

Cheers to everyone who DID NOT register!!!!

Astig Boy
04-04-2007, 4:10 PM
Not only that, but "Machine Guns" were legal to purchase in California from the 50s up until the 80s. Thats +30 years. I wonder how many of those firearms are registered. :rolleyes:

grammaton76
04-04-2007, 4:21 PM
Like I've said before, every time I bring out the old ones at the range, someone will certainly make a comment about their legality. I have never been asked by a cop for AWB paperwork, but ordinary civilians sure seem to ask pointed questions.

That's why you bring along the papers and show 'em. Not so much because you should be nice to jerks, but because it'll reduce public sensitivity. There's a public image that all AW's are illegal, and I imagine that the vast majority of turkeys giving you grief over them, won't hassle anyone else once they see it's actually not illegal in all cases.

aileron
04-04-2007, 4:23 PM
This is disturbing...


The Bureau of Land Management Officer involved in Smith's arrest took an interest in his Springfield SAR-48 rifle. Under a new California law, the rifle in question had to be registered. He called in the make, model and serial number of the rifle.

It turned out that the rifle was not registered. But the police had on file who the rifle was sold to, when it was sold, and from what store it was sold. Evidently, the BATF had illegally transferred to the police already illegally obtained data from California gun stores. Gun Owners Legal Assistance Program is aware that BATF has attempted to compile a list of names of those who have purchased firearms covered by the state's new gun law.

BATF has gone to individual gun stores and copied the names and addresses of those who bought "assault rifles." This "forward tracing" is illegal under federal law.

CalNRA
04-04-2007, 4:25 PM
and you wonder why the NRA coined the nice phrase "JBT" for these people.

grammaton76
04-04-2007, 4:29 PM
and you wonder why the NRA coined the nice phrase "JBT" for these people.

I thought JBT dated back to WW2 and the nazis?

AfricanHunter
04-04-2007, 4:32 PM
I thought JBT dated back to WW2 and the nazis?

That was my impression as well

CalNRA
04-04-2007, 4:32 PM
I thought JBT dated back to WW2 and the nazis?

I didn't mean to say coined, I meant called.

my bad. but hey, now that you brought it up....the parallel is undeniable

HowardW56
04-04-2007, 4:32 PM
That was my impression as well
That makes 3 of us

grammaton76
04-04-2007, 4:50 PM
I didn't mean to say coined, I meant called.

my bad. but hey, now that you brought it up....the parallel is undeniable

By Godwin's Law, NOW YOU LOSE!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law :)

Although, I may have lost first, since I mentioned that I thought JBT was related to nazis. However, I didn't apply it to the discussion... I may have a loophole. Possibly.

Pvt. Cowboy
04-04-2007, 4:54 PM
That's why you bring along the papers and show 'em. Not so much because you should be nice to jerks, but because it'll reduce public sensitivity.

It depends on the person. When I first went to Chabot, the range officer only asked if the guns were registered. I offered to show him paperwork, but he only wanted my word for it. I will have no problem showing a range employee my papers. Lately, I've been in the mindset to tell interlopers to make like a banana and split.

Last time we went (and a couple who read Calguns that were with me that day may be lurking right now) to a Peninsula range that shall not be named, some rotund ponytailed fellow shooting a 10/22 with his kids came stomping over and stood behind me until I noticed him. I turned around and he asked if he was looking at what he was thinking it was. Yes, I said. It's a 'xxx'. "Is that supposed to be registered in California?!" I said "Yes, it is." "How long ago?!" "Back in 1992, on this one." He was in the middle of making a spectacle of himself that I didn't hear very well because of the shooting going on nearby, but I thought I could defuse whatever he was up to by asking him if he wanted to shoot it. He reacted as if he was a straightlaced schoolboy and just I offered him a cigarette laced with PCP. "No no, no, that's OK. No thank you." "Come on, take a few shots." "NO... no, no. Gotta go away now...".

During a ceasefire I went downrange to get the targets and the guy I was with said that he was going on and on about my 'xxx' gun with some bystanders he wasn't there shooting with. I came walking back noticing that he was making a spectacle of himself and gathering a crowd and commented later to my shooting pals that guys like him are the reason that I used to place black electrical tape over my serial numbers and model numbers at the range. I think I am going to start doing that again, actually.

There have been numerous instances like the one I mentioned above, and that event occurred just the last time I went shooting. Maybe I should get an OLL like everyone else has on the line these days so I don't get hassled anymore.

In short, I want to conclude that it's not typically the cops or CA DOJ I've worried about over the last 15+ years with my reg'd assault weapons, it's Joe Goofball civilian from over on shooting lane three who is either starstruck by seeing his favorite unobtainable assault weapon live and in person, or is some grizzly old 'wood-n-iron' shooter who don't cotton to no assault weapons, no suh!

CalNRA
04-04-2007, 5:07 PM
By Godwin's Law, NOW YOU LOSE!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law :)

Although, I may have lost first, since I mentioned that I thought JBT was related to nazis. However, I didn't apply it to the discussion... I may have a loophole. Possibly.

hey, I never said the N-word....:p

m1aowner
04-04-2007, 5:24 PM
I wouldn't bother with tape if it were my rifle, keep shooting, your gear is legal. That douche of a man can go stuff himself and them some. It'd be hard to refrain oneself from not going off on jack holes like that, but being just as smug in response to the tool man, can be very effective and fun.

It depends on the person. When I first went to Chabot, the range officer only asked if the guns were registered. I offered to show him paperwork, but he only wanted my word for it. I will have no problem showing a range employee my papers. Lately, I've been in the mindset to tell interlopers to make like a banana and split.

Last time we went (and a couple who read Calguns that were with me that day may be lurking right now) to a Peninsula range that shall not be named, some rotund ponytailed fellow shooting a 10/22 with his kids came stomping over and stood behind me until I noticed him. I turned around and he asked if he was looking at what he was thinking it was. Yes, I said. It's a 'xxx'. "Is that supposed to be registered in California?!" I said "Yes, it is." "How long ago?!" "Back in 1992, on this one." He was in the middle of making a spectacle of himself that I didn't hear very well because of the shooting going on nearby, but I thought I could defuse whatever he was up to by asking him if he wanted to shoot it. He reacted as if he was a straightlaced schoolboy and just I offered him a cigarette laced with PCP. "No no, no, that's OK. No thank you." "Come on, take a few shots." "NO... no, no. Gotta go away now...".

During a ceasefire I went downrange to get the targets and the guy I was with said that he was going on and on about my 'xxx' gun with some bystanders he wasn't there shooting with. I came walking back noticing that he was making a spectacle of himself and gathering a crowd and commented later to my shooting pals that guys like him are the reason that I used to place black electrical tape over my serial numbers and model numbers at the range. I think I am going to start doing that again, actually.

There have been numerous instances like the one I mentioned above, and that event occurred just the last time I went shooting. Maybe I should get an OLL like everyone else has on the line these days so I don't get hassled anymore.

In short, I want to conclude that it's not typically the cops or CA DOJ I've worried about over the last 15+ years with my reg'd assault weapons, it's Joe Goofball civilian from over on shooting lane three who is either starstruck by seeing his favorite unobtainable assault weapon live and in person, or is some grizzly old 'wood-n-iron' shooter who don't cotton to no assault weapons, no suh!

Gringo Bandito
04-04-2007, 5:39 PM
That number is very low. There 46K in LA alone per the DOJ website.

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

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWregstats.pdf

xenophobe
04-04-2007, 5:46 PM
This is disturbing...
BATF has gone to individual gun stores and copied the names and addresses of those who bought "assault rifles." This "forward tracing" is illegal under federal law.

It's also BS.

Forward tracing is the principal method of tracing a firearm. A firearm is taken from a crime scene, the manufacturer/importer is contacted to find out where it was shipped to, then the distributor or FFL is called to find out who the firearm was sold to. If it's really necessary, then the owner is contacted to find out where it went.

Reverse tracing is when a firearm is recovered, the owner is asked whom he bought it from, and so on, as far as they can go back to the original purchaser.

A trace audit is performed on a dealer by taking all of their records, and comparing them against records of people they have done dealings with, looking for missing guns.

All three are perfectly legal if there is a legitimate reason to initiate such a trace, like a recovered firearm from a crime scene where the local jurisdiction requests that it be traced....

Hope that helps.

6172crew
04-04-2007, 6:58 PM
It's also BS.

Forward tracing is the principal method of tracing a firearm. A firearm is taken from a crime scene, the manufacturer/importer is contacted to find out where it was shipped to, then the distributor or FFL is called to find out who the firearm was sold to. If it's really necessary, then the owner is contacted to find out where it went.

Reverse tracing is when a firearm is recovered, the owner is asked whom he bought it from, and so on, as far as they can go back to the original purchaser.

A trace audit is performed on a dealer by taking all of their records, and comparing them against records of people they have done dealings with, looking for missing guns.

All three are perfectly legal if there is a legitimate reason to initiate such a trace, like a recovered firearm from a crime scene where the local jurisdiction requests that it be traced....

Hope that helps.

When 10% was goose stepped in the first day of the OLL ordeal he told us Iggster was looking to copy all the info out of the books so he could "notify us" when it came time to register them. Is that legal?:confused:

Glasshat
04-04-2007, 7:28 PM
When 10% was goose stepped in the first day of the OLL ordeal he told us Iggster was looking to copy all the info out of the books so he could "notify us" when it came time to register them. Is that legal?:confused:

We all need to know this. It sure doesn't fit into any of the situations listed by Xenophobe.

Didn't 10% lose a bunch of OLL's because of aggressive harrassment by the DOJ at about the same time?

Steyr_223
04-05-2007, 9:39 AM
"Didn't 10% lose a bunch of OLL's because of aggressive harrassment by the DOJ at about the same time?"

Yes, that plus the Milpitas group buy in early 2006.