Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 01-02-2017, 8:44 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smedkcuf View Post
The grace period is only for those who legally had the featured rifle prior to 2017 but in this case that wouldn't apply.
I legally owned the rifle prior to 2017, why doesn't it apply?

Quote:
But since the regulations technically are not active yet maybe nobody has broken the law as of now. I don't think it would be ex post facto because they released the regulations in 2016 and they become active in 2017 so there is time to comply with the changes, and they are not retroactively making it illegal, they are making it illegal going forward.
What?

That isn't how this works...

Besides, the new OAL methodology was submitted by the DOJ 12/29/16 and became active 1/1/17. No public comment period given, no time provided to 'comply'. Hence the need for a grace period.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 01-02-2017, 8:50 PM
Smedkcuf Smedkcuf is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 325
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
I legally owned the rifle prior to 2017, why doesn't it apply?



What?

That isn't how this works...

Besides, the new OAL methodology was submitted by the DOJ 12/29/16 and became active 1/1/17. No public comment period given, no time provided to 'comply'. Hence the need for a grace period.
You legally owned it in a featureless configuration, which means you wouldn't be eligible to register it in 2017.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 01-02-2017, 8:55 PM
thedonger's Avatar
thedonger thedonger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The OC
Posts: 1,049
iTrader: 33 / 95%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
I'll probably be right there with you. Fully expecting them to find a way to weasel out of it however...

If there is no comment section of the registration form I might just add signage and a tape measure in the photos illustrating exactly why a featureless X95 needs to be registered.
I'm in this same boat. Will wait and see how it works out.
__________________


Front Sight Ambassador Member
Email me for Memberships or Certificates

TheDonger.CalGuns@gmail.com
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 01-02-2017, 8:57 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smedkcuf View Post
You legally owned it in a featureless configuration, which means you wouldn't be eligible to register it in 2017.
I lawfully possessed the weapon in 2016. According to PC 30515 I now have to register it, and must do so before Jan. 1, 2018
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:01 PM
Smedkcuf Smedkcuf is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 325
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
I lawfully possessed the weapon in 2016. According to PC 30515 I now have to register it, and must do so before Jan. 1, 2018
PC 30515 isn't the only PC that applies, that only defines what an assault weapon is, not who is eligible to register.

Quote:
30680. Section 30605 does not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a person who has possessed the assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if all of the following are applicable:
(a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person was eligible to register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30900.
(b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017.
(c) The person registers the assault weapon by January 1, 2018, in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 30900.

Quote:
30900.
(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph
If it was not in an assault weapon configuration prior to 2017, you are not eligible to register it.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:05 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,174
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

It's nuts, but I see this being the only real avenue for some bullpups:

(1) Rifles that do not make 30" without a permanent muzzle need to be made permanent in order to register
(2) Featureless bullpups is a complete atrocity and in some cases would cost prohibitive amounts of time and money. That PS90 someone showed earlier looks like a $500 conversion, and it's the ugliest and silliest rifle in existance
(3) After reg you can go down to 26", but you still need the muzzle to be permanent if it doesn't make 26" without it.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:06 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Was your legally owned BB AR15 in Assault Weapon configuration in 2016??
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:08 PM
Smedkcuf Smedkcuf is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 325
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
Was your legally owned BB AR15 in Assault Weapon configuration in 2016??
According to the new definition of assault weapon as amended in 30515, yes. That's what it's saying is required to be eligible to register.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:21 PM
novelty novelty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Yes, it's a big big deal. No one on this silly forum seems to be interested in it yet, but this might be the biggest legal challenge that can be won yet. All the teenage lawyers on the other thread are foaming at the mouth on the BB but this issue is much lower lying fruit.
This sounds like a low hanging fruit
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:23 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
& 5471. Registration of Assault Weapons Pursuant to Penal -Code Section 30900(b)(1); Explanation of Terms Related to Assault Weapon Designation• For purposes of Penal Code section 30515 and this Chapter the following definitions shall apply:

{x) "Overall length of less than 30 inches" with respect to a centerfire rifle means the rifle has been measured in the shortest possible configuration that the weapon will function/fire and the measurement is less than 30 inches. Folding and telescoping stocks shall be collapsed prior to measurement. The approved method for measuring the length of the rifle is to measure the firearm from the end of the barrel, or permanently, attached muzzle device, if so equipped to that part of the stock that is furthest from the end of.the barrel, or permanently attached muzzle device. (Prior to taking a measurement - the owner must. also check any muzzle devices for how they are attached to the barrel.
Since the DOJ changed the definition of OAL as it pertains to 30515, a featureless Tavor now needs to be registered since it falls under it's purview. They must accept registration of this newly defined AW or it becomes an ex post facto concern.

The very first section of the Assault Weapons Registration section:

Quote:
Any person who, from January 1, 2001. to December 31, 2016, inclusive. lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine as defined in Penal Code section 30515 including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool (commonly referred to as a bullet button weapon) must register the firearm before January 1, 2018.
The key word here is including. This registration period is not exclusive to BB weapons.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:26 PM
Smedkcuf Smedkcuf is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 325
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
The key word here is including. This registration period is not exclusive to BB weapons.
From your same quote, it must be an assault weapon:

Quote:
Any person who, from January 1, 2001. to December 31, 2016, inclusive. lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine as defined in Penal Code section 30515 including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool (commonly referred to as a bullet button weapon) must register the firearm before January 1, 2018.
A featureless rifle isn't an assault weapon. Why do you think it says this in the regulations?

Quote:
(c) The Department will not register a firearm as an assault weapon if the firearm is featureless.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:31 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smedkcuf View Post
From your same quote, it must be an assault weapon:



A featureless rifle isn't an assault weapon. Why do you think it says this in the regulations?
Dude, If I take a picture of a 2016 featureless Tavor and send to the DOJ tomorrow; Are they going to tell me it's featureless or not?? Yes or No?

It has features now.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:33 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,174
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
Dude, If I take a picture of a 2016 featureless Tavor and send to the DOJ tomorrow; Are they going to tell me it's featureless or not?? Yes or No?

It has features now.
It's not limited to bullpups, there are plenty of other examples. Regular rifles not making 30" with no muzzle device. Hint: SIG 55x series.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:36 PM
Smedkcuf Smedkcuf is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 325
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
Dude, If I take a picture of a 2016 featureless Tavor and send to the DOJ tomorrow; Are they going to tell me it's featureless or not?? Yes or No?

It has features now.
They are going to have a lot of trouble trying to analyze thousands of pictures of different compliance devices, so that will probably blow up in their face regardless
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:41 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,174
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smedkcuf View Post
They are going to have a lot of trouble trying to analyze thousands of pictures of different compliance devices, so that will probably blow up in their face regardless
I totally agree, it's crazy the implications of having a few analysts there trying to process hundreds of thousands of pictures of rifles they have never seen before and BB configs that are not easily identifiable. I have made several of my own BB's for obscure rifles. Even an expert would need to take awhile to ascertain if it was ok. Remember, they made the photos the backbone of their system and if they say "ok" and agree to register the rifle and it doesn't have a BB on it then they are completely out of luck.

Another issue since they seemed to think of nothing other than AR's, how can you tell an AR has a BB from a photo? It's really hard.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:43 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

---
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 01-02-2017, 9:46 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,174
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
What would your answer be then?

According to their own rules, it's now an assault weapon.
Not really, they say that the rifle has to be in a legal config at the time of registration (actually a 2001-2016 legal config). The only thing that is verifiable by them is from a photo supposedly. If they get it wrong, they are responsible, not you.

When they say your illegal you show them the photo they used to approve and say "why did you register my rifle then?".

All kinds of Achilles heels in their own mess.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 01-02-2017, 10:33 PM
somefred somefred is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 118
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Sorry if I've missed it: can someone link me to the pre-2017 definition of overall length/measurement method? Or was it undefined, and the new regulations are 'clarifying' it, not necessarily 'redefining'?

In particular, could it be argued that they actually weren't a 2001-2016 legal config?
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 01-02-2017, 10:35 PM
Tacticaldad's Avatar
Tacticaldad Tacticaldad is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 237
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

What about a ksg?
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 01-02-2017, 10:37 PM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 8,256
iTrader: 73 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyralius View Post
Wait what? You registered yours already? Let me know. I am undecided because I only considered registering my Tavor if I can remove the 5" brake and have a regular mag release.
You can't have that standard mag release on a Registered BBAW.. sorry
__________________
"Unless we keep the barbarian virtues, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail. Oversentimentality, oversoftness, washiness, and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people." Theodore Roosevelt

Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA, Guardian Front Sight
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 01-02-2017, 10:40 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,174
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by somefred View Post
Sorry if I've missed it: can someone link me to the pre-2017 definition of overall length/measurement method? Or was it undefined, and the new regulations are 'clarifying' it, not necessarily 'redefining'?

In particular, could it be argued that they actually weren't a 2001-2016 legal config?
Before 2017 anything below 30" at it's shortest was an Assault Weapon. You did not need a perm muzzle device to achieve this measurement.

In 2017 they changed to perm muzzle device necessary. It's an underground reg that it going to make tens or hundreds of thousands of rifles felony level assault weapons. Calguns hasn't woken up to this, despite myself and others posting and starting threads about it. Legal eagles and the legal wanabees are going nuts over BB nonsense, but can't find the time to even basically chime in on this. The usual joke I guess. At some point they will figure it out, hopefully.

I can throw up the text difference when I get a chance. The BB is not nearly as important an issue as the OAL issue in my opinion. Crying about not being able to drop BB seems to be the only thing anyone cares about.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-02-2017, 10:47 PM
somefred somefred is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 118
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
You did not need a perm muzzle device to achieve this measurement.

In 2017 they changed to perm muzzle device necessary.
This is what I'm looking for a reference for: the entire first sentence that I've quoted, and that it truly is 'changed to', not 'clarified that'. I'm aware that this was the general consensus; I'm just worried if someone measures a rifle by the new method, and puts < 30" on the registration form: will the DOJ consider that to be admitting to a felony and providing evidence against themselves?
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-03-2017, 1:12 AM
Zyralius Zyralius is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Good ole California
Posts: 454
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacticaldad View Post
What about a ksg?


I'm sure this is only for semi auto centerfire


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-03-2017, 5:31 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 22,868
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyralius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacticaldad View Post
What about a ksg?
I'm sure this is only for semi auto centerfire
Minimum overall length requirements:
any action shotgun = 26" [PC 17180(b)]
any action rimfire rifle = 26" [PC 17170(b)]
manually operated (bolt/lever/pump) centerfire rifle = 26" [PC 17170(b)]
single-shot centerfire rifle = 26" [PC 17170(b)]
semi-auto centerfire rifle = 30" [PC 30515(a)(3)]
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-03-2017, 11:02 AM
Rukus's Avatar
Rukus Rukus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,301
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

So this should apply to the SCAR, AK's with folding stocks and AR's with folding stocks as well?
__________________
MY AR Profile #1
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 01-03-2017, 11:12 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 22,868
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rukus View Post
So this should apply to the SCAR, AK's with folding stocks and AR's with folding stocks as well?
It applies to all semi-auto centerfire rifles.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-03-2017, 11:24 AM
joefrank64k's Avatar
joefrank64k joefrank64k is offline
@ the Dark End of the Bar
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 9,108
iTrader: 227 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Before 2017 anything below 30" at it's shortest was an Assault Weapon. You did not need a perm muzzle device to achieve this measurement.

In 2017 they changed to perm muzzle device necessary. It's an underground reg that it going to make tens or hundreds of thousands of rifles felony level assault weapons. Calguns hasn't woken up to this, despite myself and others posting and starting threads about it. Legal eagles and the legal wanabees are going nuts over BB nonsense, but can't find the time to even basically chime in on this. The usual joke I guess. At some point they will figure it out, hopefully.

I can throw up the text difference when I get a chance. The BB is not nearly as important an issue as the OAL issue in my opinion. Crying about not being able to drop BB seems to be the only thing anyone cares about.
I agree...
__________________
You will never, in your life, have a chance like this again.
If I were you, I would not pass this up. I would not let this go by...this is rare.
Come on...what harm??
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-03-2017, 3:25 PM
ti83ray ti83ray is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 18
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can anyone provide link or reference that it's not require to permanent muzzle brake on 2016?
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-03-2017, 4:00 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,558
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ti83ray View Post
Can anyone provide link or reference that it's not require to permanent muzzle brake on 2016?
It's only required to be permanent if the firearm doesn't make min length without it.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-03-2017, 4:11 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
It's only required to be permanent if the firearm doesn't make min length without it.
That is the 2017 requirement for OAL

For both 2016 and 2017, if your barrel length is <16" then it needs a permanent muzzle device that brings it up to 16" or it is subject to SBR criteria.

In 2016 CA didn't care if it was permanent so long as it met the 30" OAL requirement. That has changed.

Quiet has posted the PC that illustrates the 2016 requirements. A simple google search can verify this.

Last edited by nicky c; 01-03-2017 at 4:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 01-03-2017, 4:15 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,558
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
That is the 2017 requirement for OAL
I intentionally omitted barrel or overall.

It is my understanding that if your firearm needs the device to make ANY length spec, the device must be permanent now.

In the past the 30" CA thing was an odd outlier AFAICT, maybe also the 26" CA method thing.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-03-2017, 4:52 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
I intentionally omitted barrel or overall.

It is my understanding that if your firearm needs the device to make ANY length spec, the device must be permanent now.

In the past the 30" CA thing was an odd outlier AFAICT, maybe also the 26" CA method thing.
He was asking about 2016 regs.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 01-03-2017, 5:52 PM
Smedkcuf Smedkcuf is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 325
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
I intentionally omitted barrel or overall.

It is my understanding that if your firearm needs the device to make ANY length spec, the device must be permanent now.

In the past the 30" CA thing was an odd outlier AFAICT, maybe also the 26" CA method thing.
Is it confirmed anywhere that this new measurement requirement also applies to the 26" length requirement? In the new regulations this measurement requirement is under "Overall length of less than 30 inches".
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 01-03-2017, 5:56 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,558
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smedkcuf View Post
Is it confirmed anywhere that this new measurement requirement also applies to the 26" length requirement? In the new regulations this measurement requirement is under "Overall length of less than 30 inches".
I'm not sure, I read conflicting info on the internet, and it can't all be true. Doesn't apply to me so I didn't look into it.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 01-03-2017, 8:20 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,754
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Since these regs only apply to AW registration I would assume that it does not apply to the CA SBR requirements and certainly does not apply to federal SBR requirements.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 01-04-2017, 5:21 PM
leftyloo leftyloo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 208
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Anyone know if the Tavors being sold in CA over the last several months have the muzzle break pinned vs. screwed on? Looks like this:

__________________
“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 01-04-2017, 6:43 PM
Brian7581 Brian7581 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 126
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

The muzzle brake on my X95 is screwed on.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 01-04-2017, 6:46 PM
Zyralius Zyralius is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Good ole California
Posts: 454
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

My Tavor came with that same brake and it was screwed on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 01-04-2017, 7:09 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,174
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian7581 View Post
The muzzle brake on my X95 is screwed on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyralius View Post
My Tavor came with that same brake and it was screwed on.
You are now in possession of an illegal AW that has a less than 30" OAL. This is worse than being in possession of a BBAW, which supposedly is protected from prosecution until Jan 1st 2018. You might not be able to register unless the muzzle device is made permanent, but after registration you can remove the permanent muzzle device.

You could be arrested now is my point.

Welcome to California logic.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 01-04-2017, 11:14 PM
andyrew andyrew is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 19
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
You are now in possession of an illegal AW that has a less than 30" OAL. This is worse than being in possession of a BBAW, which supposedly is protected from prosecution until Jan 1st 2018. You might not be able to register unless the muzzle device is made permanent, but after registration you can remove the permanent muzzle device.

You could be arrested now is my point.

Welcome to California logic.
Unless your interpretation is credible and your words are legally binding, I think you should stop self-guessing / fear mongering other people.

Yes, the DOJ published a document stating the regulations, but plenty of aspects have yet to be clarified; such as... you guessed it - what options bullpup owners will have going forward in terms of registering, how to proceed with / without extending muzzle devices, etc.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:21 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.