|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
||||
|
||||
Tiresome??? it's driving me insane.
__________________
Quote:
|
#122
|
||||
|
||||
I quit reading anything he writes ages ago. Problem solved
__________________
__________________________________________________ _____________ “When you're taking flak you know you're over the target” |
#123
|
||||
|
||||
You are a genius, I am a moron.
__________________
Quote:
|
#125
|
||||
|
||||
I'm going to put that in my signature.
__________________
Quote:
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
So today at the gun show, a vendor was saying how if you register a AW, and then plan to move out of California , you can't leave until the weapon is deregistered or else it's a felony? Even if you moved to a free state because you haven't deregistered the weapon out of California ??
Also something about taking apart a weapon to avoid registration and then attempting to put it together later? Any knowledge of this?? |
#129
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Taking apart means you can never put it back together without committing a felony after July 1st 2018. When Aliens land and Sacto is vaporized or overrun with zombies then it's ok to reassemble.
__________________
Quote:
|
#130
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#131
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the pistol has to be registered Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#132
|
||||
|
||||
I'm not sure what you mean. If you disassemble an AW it's not an AW anymore. If you reassemble it at any time after July 1st 2018 without it being registered it's felony time.
__________________
Quote:
|
#133
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The lower is the registered AW. You can exchange any other parts on it (except, according to the DoJ, the mag release) Certainly there is nothing wrong with reassembling it after teardown for cleaning?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#134
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We can assemble and disassemble RAW at will, it's status as RAW is not dependent on it's state of assembly.
__________________
Quote:
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
I think he is inferring that if you have an AW and you choose not to register it and instead disassemble it in its AW config you can't reassemble it again after the deadline without modifying the configuration (ie removing features or using a new locking system)
__________________
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 |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
If you've registered your "RAW" you can disassemble it, clean it, spin parts on the floor, drink a six pack, then reassemble it and go shooting. If its a bullet button rifle, just be sure to put the bullet button back in it as its registered.
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Go read any of Meno377's posts. His opinions form the basis of the supreme truth of the universe. He even decides what is the "truth" of why other people make the choices that they make.
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
The "truth" is that many of us own several rifles, and are intelligent enough to understand that keeping all of our eggs in one basket is the wrong choice to make if we want to be able to still go out and train with our rifles in the future here in the state of CA.
Meno, you understand this I am sure, but your goal here is to dissuade CA gun owners from registering their rifles so that they end up getting screwed over when all semi-autos are banned which is very likely to occur in the coming years. Also, you speak as if you are not aware that bullet buttons can be removed in about 1 min and replaced with a standard magazine release if and when the time comes to do so. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1366673
__________________
Quote:
|
#140
|
||||
|
||||
Sorry for derailing things. I misunderstood.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#141
|
||||
|
||||
Bold added by me. I feel this is his position and promulgating it is extremely irresponsible.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#142
|
||||
|
||||
Not true. Please show me where I tell OTHERS what to do. Other than mentioning options? Show me where I tell others NOT to do something. Please quote me on anything that shows this?
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#143
|
||||
|
||||
This is my opinion about your goal. I could be wrong.
I will be clear: you have never stated that is your goal. It is an assumption I am making based on your posting history.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not trying to squash discussion, but I think everyone knows where everyone stands on the issue and things probably won't change/move for at least 3 - 6 months. I don't think calling out meno at this point is helpful. Let sleeping dogs lie.
__________________
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 |
#145
|
||||
|
||||
If you really care to know the truth, you would know. I have been upfront about my opinion all along. But it's your right to assume. SMH.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#146
|
||||
|
||||
I fundamentally do not trust what people say their motives are on the Internet. Based on their posts, that trust is either gained or lost.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#147
|
||||
|
||||
I do agree with you on that. I feel the same way about some here also.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#148
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Looney
__________________
|
#149
|
||||
|
||||
While it is early in the process and IMHO registering is not an option even if there is some magical breakthrough.
Even if there is a breakthrough in the courts the good old elected officials will write a new law to slow it down again. We already know all semi autos will be on the mext few rounds of bills |
#150
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Believing that you can truly "deregister" an AW, is like believing you can get angry and call your wife a "slut", and then thinking that all you have to do is apologize and she'll forever act as if it never happened. Let's be real. Let's be honest with ourselves. Once ANY data hits a government computer, nothing short of an act of God is going to get that data permanently out of that system.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member. Hunter & Target Shooter. San Diego County. Passionate supporter of RTKBA. Supporter of conceal and open-carry.[/SIZE] "It's called the Bill Of Rights. Not the Bill of Needs."[/SIZE] |
#151
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Believing that the government doesn't have information about your gun ownership (post 2014 for sure, post 2011 mostly, and earlier probably) , is like believing you can get angry and call your wife a "slut", and then thinking that all you have to do is apologize and she'll forever act as if it never happened. You're playing the information card in your argument, yet are not completely candid about what that card means against anti-reg points of view. You just said that any data that hits a government computer is not erasable. I agree, so how is it even remotely possible to assume anyone has anonymity from the state, especially in the information age? Are you really going to go into this fight armed with the vague, unconformable concept that they do not know you or what you have? After you post it on an online forum? You are concerned with anonymity? We all entered information, even pre 2011, into the DROS that California insists they did not keep records of. According to the tenets of your own argument, you cannot rely on that information NOT existing anymore. Do you see the absurdity of your point of view? Some continue to argue it's an issue of "convenience" for the government. If they ever do confiscate, they have essentially thrown out all convenience out the window. Assuming they know is the only logical avenue for reasonable people, period. Assuming anonymity is for wide eyed naive children.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Discogodfather; 08-23-2017 at 8:34 AM.. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
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 |
#153
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Doesn't work so well for other platforms, but for ARs its a very obvious answer. Solves all the concerns people have about AR confiscation, too. Turn in your RAW lower, rebuild with another lower. Voila, instant de-registration. Even if they're lying about deletion of your RAW records, who cares, it's documented that you don't have it anymore, so they're not going to waste any time or resources chasing after you for something they know you don't have anymore.
__________________
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 8:56 AM.. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You may need to submit a Notice of No Longer in Possession Form (BF 4546) for each of the above activities. Read one some time and educate yourself. Try using the newly revised version dated 07/2017, which is attached to the approved draft of the regs with the other forms. I would to cover my behind and it might be mandatory, but not sure. Would not be surprised if the police will have them if you surrender the lower to them, but some of us could never do such a thing based on principle. Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 9:12 AM.. |
#155
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If you want to de-register it because you sold it or turned it in, then yes, you need to fill out a "No longer in possession" form. However, there is absolutely no requirement that you de-register anything, ever, even if you sold it or turned it in. Honestly, I wouldn't bother. Just keep the proof of dispossession in my safe, and if someday down the road it causes any sort of problem that I am recorded as having a RAW, then I'll just show them proof I don't have it anymore. Because, again, there's no requirement to de-register anything ever. They call it "Voluntary de-registration" for a reason.
__________________
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 9:11 AM.. |
#156
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Problem is semantically people are assuming you have to de-register, and there is no mandate to do so. Only time there is a mandate to de-register is when we want to convert to featureless (or other config).
__________________
Quote:
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Read the form, it covers about every scenario imaginable.
I don't care if the form is mandatory or not. First of all, if you sell a RAW to someone you have committed a felony, but, practically, the sale will not go through and will likely display as a RAW at the PPT, even if you have converted to featureless. You need to CYA and get it de-registered. Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 9:24 AM.. |
#158
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Perfectly legal to sell it to anyone in any other state where such a rifle is legal, which is most of them.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I was implying the usual PPT. Stop throwing in red herrings, I thought you might be above that. Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 9:34 AM.. |
#160
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1) Sell it through a AW permit dealer to someone out of State, destroy it, or turn it in to LEO. 2) De-register it and convert to a non-AW configuration (after that sell it or whatever, it's a standard rifle) Number 1 requires no de-registration. No mandate whatsoever that I can find to use the no-longer in possession form. You can still do it, and most people would just to get out of the registry. Number 2 requires the no-longer in possession form plus the DOJ process and application to convert to a non-AW configuration.
__________________
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|