PDA

View Full Version : AW registration amnesty


gazzavc
02-03-2008, 9:15 AM
Do any of you legal chaps out there think that there will ever be another AW amnesty registration window opened up in the near future?

Just curious

Gaz

Quiet
02-03-2008, 9:20 AM
No.


However, I believe they did have one after the deadline, but it was only for LEOs who thought they didn't have to comply.

Ford8N
02-03-2008, 12:10 PM
Do any of you legal chaps out there think that there will ever be another AW amnesty registration window opened up in the near future?

Just curious

Gaz

stator was suppose to meet with a staffer but I don't know what happened.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=80553&highlight=registration

homerm14
02-03-2008, 12:37 PM
No.


However, I believe they did have one after the deadline, but it was only for LEOs who thought they didn't have to comply.

Many LEO's were told they would be exempt. The result of this was many LEO's (quite a few I know personally) had to turn in firearms they purchased with no compensation due to misinformation provided to them.

CALI-gula
02-03-2008, 1:40 PM
Barring any other previous apparitions of supposed amnesties...

NO.

Butmight there be new AW bans for whole new classes of firearms never thought to be AWs in the past, due to the potential outcome of the next elected Anti-2nd Amendment President? (i.e., Mini-14s, M1As, Kel-Tecs, new model ARs, other firearms feature/non-feature alike...).

YES.

Vote wisely.

.

Technowizard
02-03-2008, 1:57 PM
Do any of you legal chaps out there think that there will ever be another AW amnesty registration window opened up in the near future?

Just curious

Gaz

yeah... in TWO WEEKS!!!



sorry, I had to throw that in there! :D

mikehaas
02-03-2008, 3:22 PM
Many LEO's were told they would be exempt. The result of this was many LEO's (quite a few I know personally) had to turn in firearms they purchased with no compensation due to misinformation provided to them.
You are correct and many LEOs even today operate thinking they are exempt from CA AW laws. But iut's worse than that for them, even if they've gotten rid of it. Their personally-owned AR remains the rattlesnake in the trunk of the squad car, even if it's no longer there.

Because if they were in possession, even for one second, of an illegal AW here in CA... it doesn't matter if they got rid of it, it doesn't matter how they got rid of it, it doesn't matter who told them they were exempt - NOTHING CAN CHANGE THE FACT that they owned (and possibly still own, bought, transported, used in their official duties, etc etc etc) an illegal AW.

And if they transferred the firearm to someone (a department of the government?) to avoid prosecution, it sounds like a possible conspiracy and obstruction of justice, doesn't it?

No exemption. Just like for you and I. Imagine that. Of course, they enforce the law on citizens, but not each other. There's a word for that.

bohoki
02-03-2008, 3:37 PM
now way they are going to add any new guns to the list since they learned their lesson last time since multiple manufacturers make similar firearms they did the best they could with the features ban which is working very well keeping "high-capacity pistol gripped rifles off the streets"

bwiese
02-03-2008, 5:34 PM
... many LEOs even today operate thinking they are exempt from CA AW laws. But it's worse than that for them, even if they've gotten rid of it. Their personally-owned AR remains the rattlesnake in the trunk of the squad car, even if it's no longer there.

Because if they were in possession, even for one second, of an illegal AW here in CA... it doesn't matter if they got rid of it, it doesn't matter how they got rid of it, it doesn't matter who told them they were exempt - NOTHING CAN CHANGE THE FACT that they owned (and possibly still own, bought, transported, used in their official duties, etc etc etc) an illegal AW.

And if they transferred the firearm to someone (a department of the government?) to avoid prosecution, it sounds like a possible conspiracy and obstruction of justice, doesn't it?

And the beautiful thing of this is if we can find cops that illegally had AWs perhaps even if their cases got 2728'd out - any arrest by that cop, or trial springing therefrom, has a fair chance of being invalidated.

One can only hope we find some of these cases: these cops are most likely not Calgunners/NRA types.

gazzavc
02-03-2008, 7:37 PM
So Bill,

IYHO do you reckon an amnesty/registration window anytime soon?

G

M. Sage
02-03-2008, 9:56 PM
Come one, man. Realistically? There's zero chance of that happening. Why would you want to register it anyway?

bwiese
02-04-2008, 1:07 AM
So Bill,
IYHO do you reckon an amnesty/registration window anytime soon?


No, why would there be one?

Sacramento is crazy, there's *nothing* going on but budget matters.

And gun orgs won't support such a law since that just reemphasizes & reinforces the purported validity of existing bad law. It would be almost impossible to get thru anyway, unless other forcing issues made it desirable for the opposition because they were cornered for some reason.

Rather, intelligent efforts would be better spent dismantling the law -or parts of it - instead (like AB2728 in 2006). Progress is being made on those fronts, and this is one of the reasons I went to the SHOT Show in Vegas.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-04-2008, 6:52 AM
You are correct and many LEOs even today operate thinking they are exempt from CA AW laws. But iut's worse than that for them, even if they've gotten rid of it. Their personally-owned AR remains the rattlesnake in the trunk of the squad car, even if it's no longer there.

Because if they were in possession, even for one second, of an illegal AW here in CA... it doesn't matter if they got rid of it, it doesn't matter how they got rid of it, it doesn't matter who told them they were exempt - NOTHING CAN CHANGE THE FACT that they owned (and possibly still own, bought, transported, used in their official duties, etc etc etc) an illegal AW.

And if they transferred the firearm to someone (a department of the government?) to avoid prosecution, it sounds like a possible conspiracy and obstruction of justice, doesn't it?

No exemption. Just like for you and I. Imagine that. Of course, they enforce the law on citizens, but not each other. There's a word for that.

Assuming the officers in question at some point received correct information as in no longer in possession of an illegal AW, I would think the statute of limitations could be an issue at this stage in the game...or make it a non issue. The statute of limitations in CA does vary, depending on the charges, but from my research, assuming Felony AW possession, it would be 3 or 6 years.

gazzavc
02-04-2008, 2:20 PM
No, why would there be one?

Sacramento is crazy, there's *nothing* going on but budget matters.

And gun orgs won't support such a law since that just reemphasizes & reinforces the purported validity of existing bad law. It would be almost impossible to get thru anyway, unless other forcing issues made it desirable for the opposition because they were cornered for some reason.

Rather, intelligent efforts would be better spent dismantling the law -or parts of it - instead (like AB2728 in 2006). Progress is being made on those fronts, and this is one of the reasons I went to the SHOT Show in Vegas.

Well if anyone has a handle on this stuff its yourself or Gene.

I just like to run these questions out from time to time and hear the responses.

Gary

Sniper3142
02-05-2008, 12:30 AM
Why would you want to register it anyway?

People who want to USE their legally purchased firearms instead of burying them or hiding them... that is who.

bwiese
02-05-2008, 1:08 AM
Assuming the officers in question at some point received correct information as in no longer in possession of an illegal AW, I would think the statute of limitations could be an issue at this stage in the game...or make it a non issue. The statute of limitations in CA does vary, depending on the charges, but from my research, assuming Felony AW possession, it would be 3 or 6 years.

It might stop the cop from being prosecuted, but if sufficient evidence were shown that a cop feloniously possessed AWs during a certain time period, all his arrests/cases from time of illegal AW possession onward (at least for a significant time period) come into question.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-05-2008, 6:09 AM
It might stop the cop from being prosecuted, but if sufficient evidence were shown that a cop feloniously possessed AWs during a certain time period, all his arrests/cases from time of illegal AW possession onward (at least for a significant time period) come into question.

Absolutely. I just think its not very likely that that type of info would get out. I think it would be one of those wink wink nod nod deals...