PDA

View Full Version : Borrowing a pre-ban


SuaSponte
06-01-2012, 11:49 AM
My father has a ton of pre-bans and was wondering if I am allowed to borrow it. It has a no maglock and all the evil features. Also am I allowed to borrow the hicap mags too?

littlejake
06-01-2012, 11:57 AM
I assume you are referring to RAWs. My understanding is you may fire his RAWs with him present. No, you may never borrow a hi-cap. The language specifically includes the word lend.

69Mach1
06-01-2012, 12:00 PM
"Pre-Ban" has no meaning here when it comes to rifles.

If any of the rifles are not registered assault weapons, then they are in violation.

No, you can't borrow high caps.

G-forceJunkie
06-01-2012, 12:36 PM
Assuming they are RAW's, No, but you can shoot them when he is at the range with you.

stix213
06-01-2012, 1:26 PM
If your father didn't register them as RAWs, which he would have had to do on his own during the registration window and was not something done at the gun store, then even he can't have them legally. If he did register them properly, then you can only borrow them in his presence.

CaliforniaLiberal
06-01-2012, 6:44 PM
As has been said already "Pre-Ban" has no meaning in California. It sounds like you're describing "Assault Weapons" by California definition. If that is what they are then there was a brief window after the law was passed to legally register them as "Assault Weapons" with the State. The window of opportunity closed long ago (Jan 1, 2001).

If we have understood you correctly it is not legal for your father to possess them much less lend them out. In that case stop posting in public online and you need a lawyer right now.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Possession_of_UNregistered_California_%22assault_w eapons%22

And check out the "Flowcharts" buttons at the top of the CalGuns page.

SuaSponte
06-02-2012, 4:50 PM
They are Registered Assault Weapons

bwiese
06-02-2012, 4:56 PM
They are Registered Assault Weapons

OK, thanks for clarification.

RAWs cannot be 'lent'/'borrowed' like ordinary firearms in CA - those terms in AW territory specifically refer to the registered RAW owner standing next to you at the range (as opposed to you taking it on a trip for under 30 days for a hunt etc.)

Also, because of wording of AW laws, those under 18 cannot shoot RAWs (or hell, even illegal AWs) even in presence of owner. Kiddies have to be over 18 to shoot their dads' RAWs at CA ranges.

Similarly, Hicap mags can't be borrowed/lent in CA except in context of being used directly in presence of owner.

RAWs have more restrictive transport requirements too: they must move locked/unloaded in CA with their owner, and between specific authorized destinations - no cruising around with a RAW as a 'truck gun'.

Fate
06-03-2012, 8:51 PM
RAWs cannot be 'lent'/'borrowed' like ordinary firearms in CA...

Also, because of wording of AW laws, those under 18 cannot shoot RAWs (or hell, even illegal AWs) even in presence of owner. Kiddies have to be over 18 to shoot their dads' RAWs at CA ranges.

RAWs have more restrictive transport requirements too: they must move locked/unloaded in CA with their owner, and between specific authorized destinations - no cruising around with a RAW as a 'truck gun'.
And the above is partially why I moved mine out of state instead of registering them back in the day. (Then there was that SKS mess). I've never understood why some were so eager for CADOJ to reopen AW registration.

Turbinator
06-04-2012, 12:03 AM
And the above is partially why I moved mine out of state instead of registering them back in the day. (Then there was that SKS mess). I've never understood why some were so eager for CADOJ to reopen AW registration.

People keep touting "registration = confiscation", yet I haven't heard any reports of people's registered AR's or registered AK's being taken.

Here's an article about the SKS incident that happened back in the late 90's -

http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3745/

Yes, I agree for that particular case, registration ended up in confiscation. Wouldn't one expect that 12 years after the "AW" ban in CA was enacted, we would have already seen similar action being taken?

Turby

bwiese
06-04-2012, 9:20 AM
People keep touting "registration = confiscation", yet I haven't heard any reports of people's registered AR's or registered AK's being taken.

Here's an article about the SKS incident that happened back in the late 90's -

http://www.wnd.com/1999/07/3745/

Yes, I agree for that particular case, registration ended up in confiscation. Wouldn't one expect that 12 years after the "AW" ban in CA was enacted, we would have already seen similar action being taken?

Turby


Those that had "SKSes with detachable magazines" and registered them as AWs in 1989-90 time frame [or catchup period in '92] did not have problems.