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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 08-23-2017, 9:35 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
No one is going to get any kind of deal, lucky to get pennies on the dollar, if sell to DWP. I was talking about the usual PPT.

Stop throwing in red herrings, I thought you might be above that.
Pennies on the dollar? What are you talking about? You completely ignored my comment about selling it to a different state. You think someone will demand that you knock 50% off the selling price because they have to spend 30 seconds swapping it to a normal button when they receive it? Give me a break.

Magical catchphrases like "red herring" don't win arguments, bud. I thought you would be above trying those little tricks. I fully expect a facepalm emoji or a "straw man" comment in one of your next posts in a desperate attempt to give yourself credibility while not providing any factual commentary. You ironically tell people to educate themselves a few posts earlier, while you clearly haven't done that yourself.

When you are dead, you do not know that you are dead. It is hard only for the people around you.
It is the same if you are ignorant.


I'm going back to just helping people who actually want help. You don't want the help, even though you clearly need it, so I'm not wasting any more time on this.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.



Last edited by CandG; 08-23-2017 at 9:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 08-23-2017, 9:39 AM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You are missing the point that it's advisable, IMO, to fill out the simple form even where it's not mandatory. Ties everything up into a neat package instead of the state having you as a RAW owner, which they are mandated to delete for particular firearm after the form is submitted, don't you think?

Please read 5478 in its entirety.

Also, check prices for new rifles in free states. You are going to sell a BB rifle, frankengun, used, in a free state, and expect to make a killing, good luck to you sir!

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 9:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 08-23-2017, 9:54 AM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Posts: 4,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Pennies on the dollar? What are you talking about? You completely ignored my comment about selling it to a different state. You think someone will demand that you knock 50% off the selling price because they have to spend 30 seconds swapping it to a normal button when they receive it? Give me a break.
C&G You're right that no one would demand a 50% discount, but you probably wouldn't get much of a response selling out of state. Why would someone from out of state buy a rifle from California when they can purchase a brand new one from their own state? I agree that it wouldn't be pennies on the dollar, but you aren't going to get what you originally paid. The real sad issue with SOME rifles are you won't ever be able to replace them with the same model. One classic example is a Hungarian S85M. That is one of the most underrated rifles out there and of course the list continues with Arsenal, Polytech, the high end Norincos etc. Just saying.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 08-23-2017, 9:54 AM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This one

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...ip-09-2016.pdf

If your keeping the gun then this one too.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...rms/volreg.pdf
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:00 AM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
DOJ website not up to date. The forms above have been revised and are attached to the approved regs. The first is updated to 07/2017.

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 10:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:10 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
C&G You're right that no one would demand a 50% discount, but you probably wouldn't get much of a response selling out of state. Why would someone from out of state buy a rifle from California when they can purchase a brand new one from their own state? I agree that it wouldn't be pennies on the dollar, but you aren't going to get what you originally paid. The real sad issue with SOME rifles are you won't ever be able to replace them with the same model. One classic example is a Hungarian S85M. That is one of the most underrated rifles out there and of course the list continues with Arsenal, Polytech, the high end Norincos etc. Just saying.
That was true before though, too, even when we could sell to people in CA. SA/CF rifles, especially the common ones, always have taken a massive hit on the used market - I don't think the hit you take by selling out of state now is much different than the hit you would have taken selling it to anyone before.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:19 AM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,790
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
No one is going to get any kind of deal, lucky to get pennies on the dollar, if sell to DWP.

I was implying the usual PPT. Stop throwing in red herrings, I thought you might be above that.
Lol it wasn't a red herring. He was going by my original post where I said to walk it out of state and sell it to an FFL. Perfectly legal.
__________________
For you to believe globalization can continue, you have to believe it doesn't require increased consumption and that the Americans will continue to bleed and die so that the Chinese can access energy. - Peter Zeihan
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:26 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
C&G You're right that no one would demand a 50% discount, but you probably wouldn't get much of a response selling out of state. Why would someone from out of state buy a rifle from California when they can purchase a brand new one from their own state? I agree that it wouldn't be pennies on the dollar, but you aren't going to get what you originally paid. The real sad issue with SOME rifles are you won't ever be able to replace them with the same model. One classic example is a Hungarian S85M. That is one of the most underrated rifles out there and of course the list continues with Arsenal, Polytech, the high end Norincos etc. Just saying.
What a bunch of gobbledygook FUD as usual.

Have you heard of gunbroker? I've sold many rifle that had BB's over the years to other states and there is no reduction in value and barely any inconvenience other than letting people know they need to remove the BB which isn't a huge deal.

RAW doesn't exist outside CA and there is no special concept or procedure necessary to deal with it on anyone else's end in other states. They just ship to their FFL and get it, or if and FFL buys it directly. Only difference between selling a non-AW rifle is that it needs to go to an AW permit FFL who needs to ship it. Maybe an extra charge, who cares, not expensive. I'd be candid in the auction that it was RAW in CA.

Sure if you have some ubiquitous AR or AK it's going to be more difficult to sell, but that's largely an issue of the national rifle market now, and what is and is not available. Gun manufacturers predicted Hillary like everyone else, so there is a huge surplus now.

Rare or unique firearms are no problem to sell, ask a collector.

And apply the logic of "something being hard to sell" to the non-AW weapons market, like featureless or fixed mag. Those potentially have WAY LESS VALUE than some BB equipped rifle, especially if pinned or welded or modified in some other horrible way.

BTW Meno, on another issue, did you pin and weld all your muzzle brakes on your featureless guns yet? Because that's the new definition of 30" in the regs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:31 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
You are missing the point that it's advisable, IMO, to fill out the simple form even where it's not mandatory. Ties everything up into a neat package instead of the state having you as a RAW owner, which they are mandated to delete for particular firearm after the form is submitted, don't you think?

Please read 5478 in its entirety.

Also, check prices for new rifles in free states. You are going to sell a BB rifle, frankengun, used, in a free state, and expect to make a killing, good luck to you sir!
Dude, you are going full Meno on us. Saying crazy stuff then going back and editing your posts, come on. We don't need anymore of this.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:35 AM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Posts: 4,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
What a bunch of gobbledygook FUD as usual.

Have you heard of gunbroker? I've sold many rifle that had BB's over the years to other states and there is no reduction in value and barely any inconvenience other than letting people know they need to remove the BB which isn't a huge deal.

RAW doesn't exist outside CA and there is no special concept or procedure necessary to deal with it on anyone else's end in other states. They just ship to their FFL and get it, or if and FFL buys it directly. Only difference between selling a non-AW rifle is that it needs to go to an AW permit FFL who needs to ship it. Maybe an extra charge, who cares, not expensive. I'd be candid in the auction that it was RAW in CA.

Sure if you have some ubiquitous AR or AK it's going to be more difficult to sell, but that's largely an issue of the national rifle market now, and what is and is not available. Gun manufacturers predicted Hillary like everyone else, so there is a huge surplus now.

Rare or unique firearms are no problem to sell, ask a collector.

And apply the logic of "something being hard to sell" to the non-AW weapons market, like featureless or fixed mag. Those potentially have WAY LESS VALUE than some BB equipped rifle, especially if pinned or welded or modified in some other horrible way.

BTW Meno, on another issue, did you pin and weld all your muzzle brakes on your featureless guns yet? Because that's the new definition of 30" in the regs.
If you intend to sell, you disassemble. The insecurity in you is astounding.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:42 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
If you intend to sell, you disassemble. The insecurity in you is astounding.
More insight from the Oracle, lol. What if we want to use and shoot and enjoy our firearms freely until we sell?

Genius.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:44 AM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
What a bunch of gobbledygook FUD as usual.

BTW Meno, on another issue, did you pin and weld all your muzzle brakes on your featureless guns yet? Because that's the new definition of 30" in the regs.
Well, what if the barrel itself is 16"? And one does not measure from the muzzle device and it exceeds 30".
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:49 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
Well, what if the barrel itself is 16"? And one does not measure from the muzzle device and it exceeds 30".
It needs to be at least 30" without a permanent muzzle device, or else you got to pin and weld on ALL featureless rifles. That's according to the new definitions, and we are still trying to figure out if it applies to AW as well.

16" is a fed law compounded by CA SBR specific laws, which are separate to all AW laws.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:18 AM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
It needs to be at least 30" without a permanent muzzle device, or else you got to pin and weld on ALL featureless rifles. That's according to the new definitions, and we are still trying to figure out if it applies to AW as well.

16" is a fed law compounded by CA SBR specific laws, which are separate to all AW laws.
In any event, I don't think >26" or <30" is feasible before and after registration unless it were legal here in 2016. JMO.

It certainly does not jive with Fed law and that would be our hope. Definitely an issue. I'm curious if the 30" minimum OAL has been challenged previously here?

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 11:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:20 AM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Posts: 4,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
It needs to be at least 30" without a permanent muzzle device, or else you got to pin and weld on ALL featureless rifles. That's according to the new definitions, and we are still trying to figure out if it applies to AW as well.

16" is a fed law compounded by CA SBR specific laws, which are separate to all AW laws.
OR you can install a stock spacer. You are not limited to only pinning a muzzle brake as long as the barrel is 16 inches or longer.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:21 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
In any event, I don't think >26" or <30" is feasible after registration unless it were legal in 2016. JMO. It may not jive with Fed law and that would be our hope.
Except there is nothing in the law or regulations that says you need to retain a 30" OAL. There is the concept of the new definitions being pursuant to 30900, but even then there is a 30" OAL requirement for what? Does it mean AW or non-AW?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:22 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
OR you can install a stock spacer. You are not limited to only pinning a muzzle brake as long as the barrel is 16 inches or longer.
So what did you do on your rifles? Are you walking around with a ridiculous LOP or did you break out the drill and torch?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:24 AM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Posts: 4,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
So what did you do on your rifles? Are you walking around with a ridiculous LOP or did you break out the drill and torch?
1/2 inch difference.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:26 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
1/2 inch difference.
No one can be a real man without at least 1 bullpup.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:29 AM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Except there is nothing in the law or regulations that says you need to retain a 30" OAL. There is the concept of the new definitions being pursuant to 30900, but even then there is a 30" OAL requirement for what? Does it mean AW or non-AW?

Here's the problem: it's a banned configuration pursuant to PC 30515(a)(F)(3). Probably banned since 2000, maybe earlier.

Not legal HERE in 2016, not registrable pursuant to 30900(b)(1). Courts will have to decide.

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 11:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:33 AM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Posts: 4,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Thanks for a new signature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
No one can be a real man without at least 1 bullpup.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:40 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
Here's the problem: it's a banned configuration pursuant to PC 30515(a)(F)(3). Probably banned since 2000, maybe earlier.

Not legal in 2016, not registrable pursuant to 30900(b)(1).
Where does it say that we can't take it down to 26" based on 30515?

Remember, this is the regulation:

5471. Registration of Assault Weapons Pursuant to Penal Code Section 30900(b)(1); Explanation
of Terms Related to Assault Weapon Designation.

(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.)



Super vague as to what this means. Are they referring to this definition as the definition of an AW, or does it mean that a definition of a non-AW must adhere to this definition? 30515, which is the SB23 definitions which NO LONGER is pursuant to the SB 880 5471 definitions, says:

30515.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:47 AM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Where does it say that we can't take it down to 26" based on 30515?

Remember, this is the regulation:

5471. Registration of Assault Weapons Pursuant to Penal Code Section 30900(b)(1); Explanation
of Terms Related to Assault Weapon Designation.

(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.)



Super vague as to what this means. Are they referring to this definition as the definition of an AW, or does it mean that a definition of a non-AW must adhere to this definition? 30515, which is the SB23 definitions which NO LONGER is pursuant to the SB 880 5471 definitions, says:

30515.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
You can't ignore the Penal Code.

If your rifle is featureless, you can not ignore the Penal Code, also.

An AW is illegal. Less than 30" is unlawful AW for SACF rifles, whether featured or not. Read the code section that I cited. It is separate and apart from featured weapons and applies to all.

I haven't looked up SBR law here but guess if it exists that it's probably defined similarly to Fed except 30" as minimum OAL.

Glimmer of hope, consistent with Fed law:

"PC 17170.
As used in this part, “short-barreled rifle” means any of the following:
(a) A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.
(b) A rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) Any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.
(d) Any device that may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge which, when so restored, is a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive.
(e) Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended to convert a device into a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, or any combination of parts from which a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, may be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
(Amended by Stats. 2014, Ch. 103, Sec. 6. Effective January 1, 2015.)

End result: Not a SBR but an unlawful AW presently if OAL less than 30". Unable to register as it's unlawful configuration/not lawfully possessed in 2016, unable to possess presently or after registration. It should be added to our list along with the BB as not modifiable to less than 30" post-registration.

Similar to trying to register a semi-auto BB shotgun with both pistol grip and telescoping stock. No can do. If it does not qualify for registration you can not possess it.

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 12:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:58 AM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Posts: 4,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
It needs to be at least 30" without a permanent muzzle device, or else you got to pin and weld on ALL featureless and registered rifles. That's according to the new definitions, and we are still trying to figure out if it applies to AW as well.

16" is a fed law compounded by CA SBR specific laws, which are separate to all AW laws.

BTW. FIFY.

Why would it only apply to a non registered rifle and not a registered one?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif

Last edited by meno377; 08-23-2017 at 12:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:04 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
You can't ignore the Penal Code.

If your rifle is featureless, you can not ignore the Penal Code, also.

An AW is illegal. Less than 30" is AW for SACF rifles, whether featured or not. Read the code section that I cited. It is separate and apart from featured weapons.

I haven't looked up SBR law here but guess that it's probably defined similarly to Fed except 30" as minimum OAL..
Fed law is 26" outside of SBR. CA SBR says 26" mimmium, but CA measures minimum length, meaning the rifle has to be 26" folded or collapsed. Fed's measure differently for length, meaning unfolded or uncollapsed is fine to reach 26".

Your getting ahead of yourself, I know you are reading the law and trying to make sense of it, and this is pretty advanced stuff in terms of what the law and regs mean.

Let me explain it from a series of events:

1) The first round SB 880 regs redefined what an AW was. They said you could only register legally obtained weapons from 2001-2016. That meant that SB23 features, called out in PC 30515, said anything less than 30" was aw. You could meet 30" with a non-permanent muzzle attachment.

2) Third round SB 880 regs (and current official regs) dropped a key reference in 5471. They previously said 30900 and 30515 was pursuant to 5471, meaning the old definitions found in 30515 were updated by the new definitions in 5471.

3) That was a legal mistake, since that would have meant SB23 definitions where no longer valid for SB23 registered firearms, and that they would need to meet the new definitions in 5471. They took out in the final regs that 30515 was pursuant to 5471.

4) So the old definitions of an AW, which are referenced by SB 880 but then superseded by 5471 definitions, only apply to the new registration period, not the old one obviously.

5) Now we are all debating, what does the definition found in 5471 mean. Does it mean that all AW has to meet the new OAL definition? Does it mean that any rifle excluded by the fact that it doesn't meet the new OAL definition? Or does this only apply to non-AW, meaning it is an AW if it doesn't meet the new OAL definition?

6) I happen to believe that the new OAL definition means that any rifle that does not meet the new 5471 OAL definition MUST be registered. After that, there is no real concept in the regulations or the law that says you can't abide by the 30515 definition of an AW, which is 26" OAL minimum folded or collapsed.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:09 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Posts: 4,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post

6) I happen to believe that the new OAL definition means that any rifle that does not meet the new 5471 OAL definition MUST be registered. After that, there is no real concept in the regulations or the law that says you can't abide by the 30515 definition of an AW, which is 26" OAL minimum folded or collapsed.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:11 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
BTW. FIFY.

Why would it only apply to a non registered rifle and not a registered one?
Because the definition is saying that if a rifle does not meet this definition of OAL, it needs to be registered as AW.

If you argue otherwise, and insist that AW needs to have permanent muzzle devices to meet the OAL requirement, then the rifle would have to be modified from it's original 2001-2016 configuration to be registered. That makes no sense, is illegal regulation most likely, and would mandate that all AW rifles in CA were sold in another configuration and now need to be modified?

We will know more when regs are approved. I can't imagine, on any level, that DOJ would refuse to register rifles that were purchased in a legal config between 2001-2016, period. That would mean no bullpups could be registered for sure.

That's a huge lawsuit for them, and I think we all got duped by the idea that 5471 called out a mandate for all AW to be 30" with a permanent muzzle device. It just makes no damn sense, and if you think about it and follow it through, my interpretation makes perfect sense.

But again, perfect sense and DOJ don't go together, but we should know more soon.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:11 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think it can be boiled down rather simply: No SACF rifles less than 30" in OAL. That's it.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:13 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Because the definition is saying that if a rifle does not meet this definition of OAL, it needs to be registered as AW.
No. It has been banned since at least 2000. You are confused between the relationship of 30900 to 30515, and you've forgotten the all-important words 'lawfully possessed'.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:16 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Posts: 4,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
No. It has been banned since at least 2000. You are confused between the relationship of 30900 to 30515, and you've forgotten the all-important words 'lawfully possessed'.
Which is why I posted this on the 11th on CG's thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1&postcount=62
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:17 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
I think it can be boiled down rather simply: No SACF rifles less than 30" in OAL. That's it.
No, that makes no damn sense whatsoever. Read my posts. Your saying that tons of rifles sold between 2001-2016 including all bullpups are not legally able to register without modification?

We have been debating this for months on other threads, and I played devils advocate saying that you needed to meet the new 5471 OAL 30" definition to register. Others argued that it made no sense, and that the new definition is mandating that you have to register something that is not 30" in length without a permanent muzzle device. After debating it endlessly it seems obvious that they intended it to mean just that, because without that interpretation they would be facing a huge lawsuit from tons of owners.

The whole purpose of SB 880's registry is to provide a reg opportunity to those that legally purchased firearms between 2001-2016. If we can't register them, you got to face due compensation 5th amendment arguments.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:20 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Disco. What about 5459
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:21 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
Which is why I posted this on the 11th on CG's thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1&postcount=62
That means nothing, there is nothing in the reg process that asks you to check a box of less than 30" without a perm muzzle device. That's just asking if the OAL is less than 30" now, which we all agreed is a pitfall and never should be checked.

Don't conflate issues with the intent of spreading FUD about the reg process. People that legally acquired rifles that don't get to 30" without a permanent muzzle attachment are not barred from registering.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:22 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Disco. What about 5459
?????
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:23 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
Which is why I posted this on the 11th on CG's thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1&postcount=62
Yes, definitely a trap. Whether intentional or not I would not care to speculate.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:24 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
That means nothing, there is nothing in the reg process that asks you to check a box of less than 30" without a perm muzzle device. That's just asking if the OAL is less than 30" now, which we all agreed is a pitfall and never should be checked.

Don't conflate issues with the intent of spreading FUD about the reg process. People that legally acquired rifles that don't get to 30" without a permanent muzzle attachment are not barred from registering.
They are disqualified and not eligible to register. I think webinar pointed that out as a trap. 'Expect a knock on the door' if my recollection is correct which it may not be; it has been a while since the webinar.

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 12:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:27 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Posts: 4,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
That means nothing, there is nothing in the reg process that asks you to check a box of less than 30" without a perm muzzle device. That's just asking if the OAL is less than 30" now, which we all agreed is a pitfall and never should be checked.

Don't conflate issues with the intent of spreading FUD about the reg process. People that legally acquired rifles that don't get to 30" without a permanent muzzle attachment are not barred from registering.
So you suggest to anyone who listened to the webinar to ignore it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:31 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can't comment on bullpups-I don't know about them. What made them legal to purchase in the first place?

And what makes them legal now under the regs?

For how long the 30" min. OAL requirement in existence? Is it new with SB 880?

Do bullpups have minimum OAL of 30" under the definitions?

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 12:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:38 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Posts: 4,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
I can't comment on bullpups-I don't know about them. What made them legal to purchase in the first place?

And what makes them legal now under the regs?
Bullpups purchased before 2017 were legal if the overall length was 30" or more. It didn't require a muzzle brake to be pinned. They still don't have to be pinned if you are at 30" inches from the end of the barrel without a muzzle brake attached.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:39 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
So you suggest to anyone who listened to the webinar to ignore it.
Ignore that in the webinar? When did Michel ever say in the webinar that you need to have a permanent muzzle device if it doesn't meet 30" to register?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

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 12:35 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy