PDA

View Full Version : Shooting registered AW


idk
10-06-2007, 10:03 PM
I was in a gun store a few days ago in the area that I just moved to and was told that it was illegal to shoot my registered AW's anywhere but a range or my own property is this true ? The people at the gun store were very nice I had no problems I just didn't know that I was illegal to shoot them on public lands or out in the dessert. I've mostly shoot a ranges I've only shoot in the dessert a couple of times. I don't want to do anything that would get my AW's taken away.
Roger

-aK-
10-06-2007, 10:14 PM
Ok, I retract my statement.

You do have to have express permission on public lands. ****ing crazy.....

bwiese
10-06-2007, 10:37 PM
Please disregard AK's answer above.

AWs require specific express permission to be used and there are specific destination requirements for transportation. (Can't just 'drive around' with an AW as a 'truck gun' - gotta be going to/from your home, out of state, gun range, gunshop, etc.) However I do note that a gun lawyer I recently spoke to has never heard of a reg'd AW transportation charge from, say, a traffic stop (i.e, reg'd AW but still charged w/illegal transportation) - but that does not mean it can't happen in the future - and use/shooting of it in unauthorized areas brings attention that simple locked transportation doesn't.

Generally, rifle ranges and your own property (providing shooting's legal there at all!) are good.

Public lands, esp. California-managed ones, generally prohibit AWs for shooting or hunting even where shooting/hunting allowed. There is a chance that some areas do give permission for such. BLM lands in CA do expressly allow it as long as the gun is legal/registered AW.

Furthermore, even *possession* of a reg'd AW on someone's property requires the owner's permission. If you wanna show off your reg'd AW to your buddy but he lives in a rented property, it appears you need not only his permission but the landlord's permission as well.

-aK-
10-06-2007, 11:13 PM
Oh, and thanks for correcting me, sheesh, last thing I want is to spread bad intel.

sunborder
10-07-2007, 10:36 AM
Furthermore, even *possession* of a reg'd AW on someone's property requires that person's permission. If you wanna show off your reg'd AW to your buddy but he lives in a rented property, it appears you need not only his permission but the landlord's permission as well. [This does not apply to businesses, where you'd just need the proprietor's permission.]

I'd ask a lawyer first, but I believe that a renter can give permission for damn near anything not expressly forbidden by a rental agreement. Otherwise landlords could refuse permission for a renter's guest to open or concealed carry on the rental property, or refuse to allow a renter to keep guns in the first place. Rental properties are considered "your home" for the duration of the rental, including hotel rooms, folks. Cops can't barge in uninvited w/o a warrant, and you may keep and carry arms in "your home", rental or no. Unless there is a special provision in the AW law that specifically states owner of rental property, or some such, you should be ok. Again, consult a lawyer first.

bwiese
10-07-2007, 12:48 PM
I'd ask a lawyer first, but I believe that a renter can give permission for damn near anything not expressly forbidden by a rental agreement. .... Rental properties are considered "your home" for the duration of the rental, including hotel rooms, folks. .... Cops can't barge in uninvited w/o a warrant, and you may keep and carry arms in "your home", rental or no.

Sunboarder, you're discussing grounds for entry/search - and perhaps this is valid for defense - but it's not what the AW laws say.

Yes, there could be other elements used in defense but the most immediate problem is in CA AW laws. The laws weren't probably intentionally written this way but just ended up hashed out this way in a legislative rush to write up the authorized places for AWs - and the 12280(a) violations cover everything, "... except as provided for in this chapter."


PC 12285(c) A person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a 50BMG rifle under this section may possess it only under any of the following conditions unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 12286:
(1) At that person's residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with the owner's express permission.
.
.
.

SemiAutoSam
10-07-2007, 12:52 PM
This looks a bit restrictive of our 2nd Amendment rights does it not ?

I really hope the DC case has a negative effect on California AW Laws and firearms laws in general.

Every time I realise that another liberty has been violated by government I grow more enraged.

Sunboarder, you are discussing grounds for entry, not what the AW laws say.
Yes, there could be other elements used in defense but the most immediate problem is in CA AW laws. The laws weren't probably intentionally written this way but just ended up hashed out this way in a legislative rush to write up the authorized places for AWs - and the 12280(a) violation covers everything "... except as provided for in this chapter."


PC 12285(c) A person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a 50BMG rifle under this section may possess it only under any of the following conditions unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 12286:
(1) At that person's residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with the owner's express permission.
.
.
.

bwiese
10-07-2007, 1:17 PM
This looks a bit restrictive of our 2nd Amendment rights does it not ?

I really hope the DC case has a negative effect on California AW Laws and firearms laws in general.

The DC Parker/Heller case is a help and a start, but it is not the summit.

Also, CA AW laws have enough structural defects that they can be challenged without reference to 2nd Amendment.

M1A Rifleman
10-08-2007, 11:10 AM
[QUOTE=bwiese;782332]Public lands, esp. California-managed ones, generally prohibit AWs for shooting or hunting even where shooting/hunting allowed. There is a chance that some areas do give permission for such. BLM lands in CA do expressly allow it as long as the gun is legal/registered AW.
QUOTE]


Last I checked, most Public Lands in CA do allow use of legal AW's. The best way to determine if the Public Land you plan to attend allows "legal" meaning a registered Aw is to visit the webpage. The National Forest in CA does allow the use of AW's, and last I checked most of the BLM does also. Check the pages, and copy the page that states they are allowed. Keep this with you along with your registration paperwork should you attend one of these areas and you should be fine. Another option that I usede years ago was to contact the area you wish to shoot and speak with the LEO, and better would be to send a letter requesting permision, which also worked for me.

bwiese
10-08-2007, 11:21 AM
Public lands, esp. California-managed ones, generally prohibit AWs for shooting or hunting even where shooting/hunting allowed. There is a chance that some areas do give permission for such. BLM lands in CA do expressly allow it as long as the gun is legal/registered AW.



Last I checked, most Public Lands in CA do allow use of legal AW's.

It had better be "express" permission and not just asking a local ranger or LEO.

M1A Rifleman
10-08-2007, 11:51 AM
It had better be "express" permission and not just asking a local ranger or LEO.

In checking with DOJ - for what information from them is worth, they confirmed with me having the name of the LEO contact with the copies from the webpage aloowing the use as meeting the std for express permission. I also have a copy of the BLM letter that is floating around this site regarding the state policy on AW use - I think it came from teh 50 BMG site.

bwiese
10-08-2007, 1:14 PM
In checking with DOJ - for what information from them is worth, they confirmed with me having the name of the LEO contact with the copies from the webpage aloowing the use as meeting the std for express permission. I also have a copy of the BLM letter that is floating around this site regarding the state policy on AW use - I think it came from teh 50 BMG site.

LEOs/rangers do not set land use policy. They may or may not know about AW matters. You likely got DOJ 'desk clerk' info. Even Iggy approved illegal AWs.

This is roughly akin to calling the IRS and asking the girl on the other end of the line, "Hey, do I have to pay taxes this year?" Even if she says 'yes', whatever she says should not be relied upon.

BLM land is Federal land so that's a somewhat a separate matter.

But on state-owned/state-administered lands you want express permission from management level person. (Some land actually BLM-owned is apparently operated by *state* agencies, and the state sets policy/rules there, and I am not sure if the Region 5 memo applies to those lands.)

Remember that regardless of the fact that your AW is reg'd, usage where nonauthorized can be a 12280(a) felony.

M1A Rifleman
10-08-2007, 3:14 PM
LEOs/rangers do not set land use policy. They may or may not know about AW matters. You likely got DOJ 'desk clerk' info. Even Iggy approved illegal AWs.

This is roughly akin to calling the IRS and asking the girl on the other end of the line, "Hey, do I have to pay taxes this year?" Even if she says 'yes', whatever she says should not be relied upon.

BLM land is Federal land so that's a somewhat a separate matter.

But on state-owned/state-administered lands you want express permission from management level person. (Some land actually BLM-owned is apparently operated by *state* agencies, and the state sets policy/rules there, and I am not sure if the Region 5 memo applies to those lands.)

Remember that regardless of the fact that your AW is reg'd, usage where nonauthorized can be a 12280(a) felony.

As for State owned lands - I would agree, however, I am not familier with any State lands except parks, and firearms are not allowed within them anyway.

My response is with respect to Federal Lands - National Forest and BLM as this is where I am familiesr with shooting AW's and they do allow legal AW's in most of these areas as this "permission" is posted on the pages for most of the NF and BLM areas. Checking the webpage or with the LEO of these lands first is sound advice in my opinion.

carsonwales
10-08-2007, 4:20 PM
LEOs/rangers do not set land use policy. They may or may not know about AW matters. You likely got DOJ 'desk clerk' info. Even Iggy approved illegal AWs.

This is roughly akin to calling the IRS and asking the girl on the other end of the line, "Hey, do I have to pay taxes this year?" Even if she says 'yes', whatever she says should not be relied upon.

BLM land is Federal land so that's a somewhat a separate matter.

But on state-owned/state-administered lands you want express permission from management level person. (Some land actually BLM-owned is apparently operated by *state* agencies, and the state sets policy/rules there, and I am not sure if the Region 5 memo applies to those lands.)

Remember that regardless of the fact that your AW is reg'd, usage where nonauthorized can be a 12280(a) felony.

Here is a BLM PDF memo from 2002 concerning assault weapons:

https://doi1.ios.doi.gov/blm/cdirectives.nsf/d7833bf90eb1da67882569340079a8a1/b830d48e5689e6a188256c45005375bc/$FILE/CAIM2003-001.pdf

Here is a snippet from a BLM webpage:

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/recreation/hunting.html

Persons have the permission of the Bureau of Land Management to possess and use firearms, including lawfully registered assault weapons, on BLM-administered public lands, except when prohibited by other applicable laws and regulations.

carsonwales
10-08-2007, 4:24 PM
Here is the memo-letter from BLM to print and carry with you when shooting your AW on BLM land....

https://doi1.ios.doi.gov/blm/cdirectives.nsf/d7833bf90eb1da67882569340079a8a1/180c6147510e288588256d640057f876/$FILE/CAIM2003-049.pdf