PDA

View Full Version : CA Semiauto Ban (AW) chart Appendices A&B


ifilef
10-28-2013, 8:46 PM
I am trying to better understand the AWCA.

I’ve seen a recent ad for the offer here by a local retailer for a Bushmaster 15 ORC , and a Colt M4 carbine.

How are they not assault weapons under the Act? I'd like comments in respect to the lists as depicted in the rifle chart in the title of this thread, particularly Appendices A & B.

'School me', please. Is it that quote in the chart from the Harrott case that 'saves'?

Maybe Librarian can join in.

Update: Is Appendix B taken from the Kasler v. Lockyer Assault Weapon List from 2000 promulgated by the AG?

Is it because that is the last list concerning ARs, and the Bush 15 ORC and Colt M4 are not specifically listed, appeared post-list, and thus are governed by the bullet button/max 10rd standard only? For instance, and this is probably a better source, again from the chart, Title 11 sec. 5499, all Bush XM15 are considered assault weapons, and nothing else Bushmaster offers, at least concerning Appendix B. With Appendix A, a Bushmaster known as the 'Bushmaster Assault Rifle' has to be specifically called that, and then the only criteria would be the BB/10 rd fixed mag issue?

Stewdabaker23
10-28-2013, 9:20 PM
Because they have a bullet button which allows the rifle to have evil features.

ifilef
10-28-2013, 9:26 PM
There's a Wikipedia article on 'Gun Laws in California'. It has a pretty good discussion on the AWB..I guess that I have answered my own question. It appears unless the make and model of the weapon is specifically listed by the AG, then go by the BB/10 or less fixed mag criteria. So Bush or Colt could theroretically make the current rifle identical to the banned one, call it a different name, give it a fixed magazine (BB), and sell with 10-rd max mag, and make it legal. Makes sense to me, and I think Harrott tried to resolve the ambiguities inherent in 'series' ARs and AKs, so that criminals would not be made of innocent gun owners.

Frankly, I had not purchased any firearms for quite some time, and when I went into a gun store a few years ago I was amazed that we could purchase these firearms. They looked so 'evil' and looked like military firearms. But what makes them more of a sporting firearm that happens to just really be a semi-automatic rifle is that BB and the 10-rd limit. That, and the inability to select fire, are what distinguishes, and I'm all for it. It's not the looks that are the problem and that is why I am so glad that Feinstein's proposed new federal ban got nowhere, and that Gov. Brown recently vetoed the state legislation. I believe that the bullet-button serves a useful purpose in allowing us to keep and own these rifles. And they were trying to ban it, and then make practically every 'evil-looking' rifle be deemed an assault one.

However, I don't think that the 10-rd mag limits are all that much of a burden and may even save some lives.

I know all the arguments about the criminals. I agree with the court's reasoning in Heller, though.

I don't think that any of us should have a right to buy a 100-rd magazine, especially if it works. Sorry, and forget all those arguments about protecting us from the government-they have bombs and missiles and drones and nuclear bombs. I think that it would be a reasonable restriction to ban those mags. I know, I know, the criminals will use them anyway. blah, blah. But it just so happens that many of those criminals are mentally deranged who obtained these things legally-like at Virginia Tech. Yeah, I am all for 'reasonable' restrictions on dangerous weapons. That is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.

General
10-28-2013, 9:48 PM
Really? 10 round mag limits will save lives.

You gotta be kiddin'. :rofl:

jonc
10-28-2013, 9:52 PM
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

ifilef
10-28-2013, 10:00 PM
It ain't gonna change, and you should be happy that it's not less. I am.

LoneYote
10-28-2013, 10:23 PM
They looked so 'evil' and looked like military firearms.

You pretty much lost everyone right there. Personal opinion followed by a vague association presented as evidence of something amiss. Don't bother mentioning the strength of the US military considering every citizen is a walking bio weapons factory, every house is filled with chemical weapons, and drones first need a target to strike.

Super Chicken
11-06-2013, 6:04 PM
Dam what a lame thread OP, sigh....but please tell me more about how giving up rights will save lives.

cr250chevy
11-06-2013, 6:43 PM
Everyone deserves their own "opinion.". OP just realize that your opinion is emotional based and carries NO proven validity behind it. For example watch this "high capacity" mag demonstration proving you are incorrect.
http://youtu.be/MjnsBH9jGxc
Sure 100 round mags *might* allow for a VERY little more lead to be thrown down range per minute, but any increase is not substantial otherwise your USMC/ARMY/ETC would be equipped with 100 round drums over 30 round mags.
Also OP how many "AWs" are possed by law abiding citizens for legitimate sporting purposes? Hundreds of thousands? Maybe even millions...
Taking away their rights to these guns because of a handful of criminals would be the equivalent of banning cars because drunks may drive them....
The Navy yard shooter used an "AR 15 Shotgun" oops I mean PUMP shotgun, should we ban that too?
Columbine shooters used a pump too, and VP Bidens favorite, double barrel shotgun, should we ban those?

ifilef
11-06-2013, 7:50 PM
I have my opinions about possibilities for more carnage, you do as well. I saw the subject video months ago. I just think that common sense dictates less of a possibility for destruction/carnage if a shooter has to delay and switch magazines, and I think the burden on the 2nd Am. right is minimal. Anyway, I did offer my opinion, and that was outside the original subject matter of my own thread, My 'bad', I guess. And if the military limits are 30-rds, why would we citizens 'need' 100-rd mags? Anyway, it is not all that important to me, and might be to you. I can respect that.

fizux
11-07-2013, 5:48 AM
There is no "military limit," the mags are based upon what is practical for the least common denominator of aircrews, infantrymen walking 30 miles with 100 lb rucks, etc. The military buys stuff to issue to everybody using an inefficient procurement process. Civilian use has wildly different requirements, and civilians are typically making their own equipment choices for themselves.

The most common ammunition feeding device that the military buys is not 30-round magazines -- it is a "disintegrating link" that holds one round. 90% of an infantry squad's firepower comes from the two SAWs; when I was 19, I carried 8x 200-round drums of linked ammo, which just wasn't enough. So, if "military suitability" is the standard, then I'd like my full auto back, please.

Self-defense is unique because that person is trying to accomplish something else and gets surprised by a criminal who is focused on the altercation. Criminals pick the time and place of their altercation, and they prepare for that specific event. The rest of us may be able to plan generally, but have no idea when or where an altercation may occur.

Bad guys get to load up with as many weapons and magazines as they want, so 10-round mags aren't the slightest impediment (assuming, of course, that they follow the mag restriction). Mass murderers are limited by weight, not magazine capacity, so they just stick more mags in their duffle bag, and carry the same amount of ammo regardless of mag restrictions.

The rest of us don't want to take 3 long guns and 15 magazines to the grocery store, to run errands, to go to our speedo modeling jobs, or figure out where to responsibly store those items discreetly when we wander within 1000' of a school or other "gun free zone."

For instance, outside CA, I carry a FsN (made by the same folks as the SAW). A normal mag is 20 rounds, so if I can't carry extra mags, I have 21 rounds in free states vs. the 11 that I would have in CA (except my county doesn't issue, so I actually have zero). That almost cuts my supply in half.

But wait, let's suppose it is winter, I have a jacket, and it can comfortably carry 2 extra mags. Since they aren't sticking out of the bottom of a (hopefully) concealed pistol, the spare mags that I typically carry (outside CA) for the FsN are 30-rounds, bringing my free state count to 81 and my California count to 31. Gee, that's an even bigger disparity for me, while the bad guys are unaffected.

Honestly, I hope to never again find myself in a situation where my life depends upon having a firearm for self defense; however, I resent other people betting my life on it.

cr250chevy
11-07-2013, 8:32 AM
I have my opinions about possibilities for more carnage, you do as well. I saw the subject video months ago. I just think that common sense dictates less of a possibility for destruction/carnage if a shooter has to delay and switch magazines, and I think the burden on the 2nd Am. right is minimal. Anyway, I did offer my opinion, and that was outside the original subject matter of my own thread, My 'bad', I guess. And if the military limits are 30-rds, why would we citizens 'need' 100-rd mags? Anyway, it is not all that important to me and might be to you. I can respect that.

This is why America is great, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Please realize I, and others, use this forum as a debate tool.
With that, if you say why do we need 100 nags/drums, then why do we need cars that go over 100 MPH? Again this argument is always shrugged off as Being "different" or I'm missing the point, but no I'm dead on. Motor vehicles cause WAY MORE carnage than the handful of people killed by semi auto rifles. And besides this is America. If you want a 30 round mag then buy a 30 round mag.
I understand your view that having to switch mags may allow more to live. The video proves this incorrect but it is still a viable argument :rolleyes:
How about my rights as a law abiding citizen to own a 30 round mag for competition shooting courses, and self defense? My rights should be removed just because of a handful of crazies who should have been prohibited buyers in the first place? How about the government bans your car? I'm sure it goes over the legal speed limit yet you keep that? Speed kills more than the scary looking 30 mags...
This is the most important and valid argument of this victim disarmament campaign;
Honestly, I hope to never again find myself in a situation where my life depends upon having a firearm for self defense; however, I resent other people betting my life on it.

Our nation has grown weak, we no longer support and strive for the right thing. We are either cowards, unwilling, afraid, don't want to recognize the truth that danger is real, or lack common sense to stand up and defend ourselves. We want "security" and "safety" but these cannot be obtained through laws. So we ban 30 round mags, these shooting will continue, people will die. Then what? Out of more fear create more laws?

ifilef
11-07-2013, 10:57 AM
You are entitled to your opinions. I just think there is an overabundance of paranoia and irrational fear concerning the magazine limit infringing on our 'so-called' freedom or ability to protect ourselves from 'zombie' attack. What's the big deal? Unfortunately, every time there is a headline-making mass shooting, like Giffords, and where a large capacity magazine was used, the non-gun public will be more focused on the REAL problem-HANDGUNS, and a movement may evolve not only to ban large capacity magazines, but handguns as well, and an eventual modification or repeal of the 2nd Amendment. That is what I fear. I know-'slippery slope' but I can tell you that the public is getting fed up and a more moderate position I think will do us good.

Livetoride33
11-07-2013, 11:11 AM
...I just think there is an overabundance of paranoia and irrational fear ...

Indeed. :rolleyes:

You know...like how 10 rounds is so much safer than 12, or 15, or 20, or for heavens sake...GASP 30!

Why not 7?

Why not 3?

ifilef
11-07-2013, 11:17 AM
I had heard that the average Israeli citizen, who may have more to fear than we do-given the climate there-is given a limit of 50 rounds per year, and that's assuming they are granted a gun permit in the first place. Do you want that to happen here?

I think 10 round mag limit is a decent compromise for political purposes as well as the insanely remote chance you will ever have to fire your weapon in anger. Then go out and reload those 10,000 rounds or factory-bought ammo and have fun and be grateful and focus more on really important issues.

ifilef
11-07-2013, 11:38 AM
Indeed. :rolleyes:

You know...like how 10 rounds is so much safer than 12, or 15, or 20, or for heavens sake...GASP 30!

Why not 7?

Why not 3?

I guess that I was under the mistaken impression that most civilian gunfights involved firing less than 3 rounds, in 3 seconds, from a very close distance.

cr250chevy
11-07-2013, 12:22 PM
Today it's 10 round mags, then the shootings continue. Then it's 5 round mags. Shootings continue, then it's shotguns. It will continue.
Don't think for one second that giving in will stop the antis eagerness to ban guns outright. We have more than compromised already.

ifilef
11-07-2013, 12:32 PM
No, I agree we have given in enough. I just don't think energies, from a political perspective, should focus so much on the 'right' to 30 or 40 or 100 rd mags, or to try to defeat pre-existing law re the 10-rd limit.

And from a legal standpoint, reasonable restrictions are given the state to limit to 10-rd mags, like it or not.

Remember, the facts in Heller, which went to the 'core' of 2nd Am. protections, differ greatly from the 10-rd mag limits here..just think that it's a loser....

I'm out of here. Thanks all for your comments!

cr250chevy
11-07-2013, 12:34 PM
I had heard that the average Israeli citizen, who may have more to fear than we do-given the climate there-is given a limit of 50 rounds per year, and that's assuming they are granted a gun permit in the first place. Do you want that to happen here?

I think 10 round mag limit is a decent compromise for political purposes as well as the insanely remote chance you will ever have to fire your weapon in anger. Then go out and reload those 10,000 rounds or factory-bought ammo and have fun and be grateful and focus more on really important issues.

And fire my weapon in Anger? You have lost me as a rational person now. This is not a debate. You have clearly been swayed by the media and the anti's. Your reason for kneeling to the political pressure is absurd. If you care so little for your freedoms perhaps you should give them all up. I am ALL for reasonable 2A restrictions which are backed up by studies and facts, but I am 100% against 2A restrictions based off emotion, scary looking things, and "politics."

stix213
11-07-2013, 1:55 PM
Crazies who buy this firearm can still mod it to illegal aw status like any gun. Heck they could switch it to belt fed with a 1000 belt feeding from a backpack and drop in a lightning link. The only people complying with the 10 round limit are the law abiding who when some crazy goes crazy would be better off for all of us if they were the ones who had more than 10 rounds on tap. 10 round limit helps no one.

Kauf
11-08-2013, 9:06 AM
There's a Wikipedia article on 'Gun Laws in California'. It has a pretty good discussion on the AWB..I guess that I have answered my own question. It appears unless the make and model of the weapon is specifically listed by the AG, then go by the BB/10 or less fixed mag criteria. So Bush or Colt could theroretically make the current rifle identical to the banned one, call it a different name, give it a fixed magazine (BB), and sell with 10-rd max mag, and make it legal. Makes sense to me, and I think Harrott tried to resolve the ambiguities inherent in 'series' ARs and AKs, so that criminals would not be made of innocent gun owners.

Frankly, I had not purchased any firearms for quite some time, and when I went into a gun store a few years ago I was amazed that we could purchase these firearms. They looked so 'evil' and looked like military firearms. But what makes them more of a sporting firearm that happens to just really be a semi-automatic rifle is that BB and the 10-rd limit. That, and the inability to select fire, are what distinguishes, and I'm all for it. It's not the looks that are the problem and that is why I am so glad that Feinstein's proposed new federal ban got nowhere, and that Gov. Brown recently vetoed the state legislation. I believe that the bullet-button serves a useful purpose in allowing us to keep and own these rifles. And they were trying to ban it, and then make practically every 'evil-looking' rifle be deemed an assault one.

However, I don't think that the 10-rd mag limits are all that much of a burden and may even save some lives.

I know all the arguments about the criminals. I agree with the court's reasoning in Heller, though.

I don't think that any of us should have a right to buy a 100-rd magazine, especially if it works. Sorry, and forget all those arguments about protecting us from the government-they have bombs and missiles and drones and nuclear bombs. I think that it would be a reasonable restriction to ban those mags. I know, I know, the criminals will use them anyway. blah, blah. But it just so happens that many of those criminals are mentally deranged who obtained these things legally-like at Virginia Tech. Yeah, I am all for 'reasonable' restrictions on dangerous weapons. That is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the government had bombs, missiles, drones, and nuclear bombs in Vietnam, yet the citizens there won. They had all those technologies in Iraq and Afghanistan as well, yet they proved to be not that effective. So to you I say you are utterly misguided if you think that just because the government has bombs and drones that we should all throw our hands up in defeat and give in to the demands of the government. I'm not advocating armed rebellion, but nor am I advocating that we neglect our part in the checks and balances system on the government. The consent of the governed is a very real thing, but without a credible threat to the government our check on their power is useless. Yes you have your opinion, its just too bad I can't force you to have the right one :D

fizux
11-08-2013, 10:34 AM
I guess that I was under the mistaken impression that most civilian gunfights involved firing less than 3 rounds, in 3 seconds, from a very close distance.
If we make laws around "most" situations, why not focus on the fact that most civilians do not go nuts and engage in mass shootings? There, problem solved.

There is absolutely no evidence that mag cap makes any difference whatsoever to a mass shooter. In fact, the evidence from the Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and VT shootings is quite the opposite: in Tucson and Aurora, the perpetrators used low quality mega-capacity aftermarket mags that jammed; at Sandy Hook, the perp did tactical reloads, leaving mags with 15+ rounds left on the floor; at Virginia Tech, the shooter used 10-round mags (with some 15's mixed in), and shot an average of 1 round every 2 minutes -- VT could have been accomplished with two SSE guns, 5 pieces of brass, a Lee hand press, and he had time to case gauge every round.

Now, as far as defensive shootings, are you willing to bet someone's life that no law abiding person will ever need more than 10 rounds?
Check this story out:
http://m.policemag.com/news/7584/nypd-cops-fire-84-rounds-at-murder-suspect
(Note that the murderer survived -- imagine if it had been 3-4 bad guys!)

m03
11-08-2013, 10:46 AM
Frankly, I had not purchased any firearms for quite some time, and when I went into a gun store a few years ago I was amazed that we could purchase these firearms. They looked so 'evil' and looked like military firearms. But what makes them more of a sporting firearm that happens to just really be a semi-automatic rifle is that BB and the 10-rd limit. That, and the inability to select fire, are what distinguishes, and I'm all for it.

Sporting arms are not protected by the 2A. Only arms suitable for military service are protected, according to US v. Miller:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller


I had heard that the average Israeli citizen, who may have more to fear than we do-given the climate there-is given a limit of 50 rounds per year, and that's assuming they are granted a gun permit in the first place. Do you want that to happen here?


The laws of other countries are irrelevant, and assuming that everyone continues to retain their spine, it will not happen here.

Sorry, and forget all those arguments about protecting us from the government-they have bombs and missiles and drones and nuclear bombs.

Using nuclear bombs to attack it's own people would be a suicidal move, which will never happen. Missiles, drones, tanks, etc can all be captured by a properly armed and determined populace (see Afghanistan circa 1980s, Libya, etc).

cr250chevy
11-08-2013, 10:49 AM
It's crazy looking back, I too used to be brainwashed into *some* of the antis "reasoning*. This site has been instrumental in helping me realize just how ineffective gun control, and it's arguments, really are. Since this realization I became a contributor and spend more time both on this site and educating family/friends/co-workers. I hope more people like the OP stay engaged and OPEN to the responses from those on this site. After some critical thinking it can be very enlightening.