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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1801  
Old 05-23-2017, 1:41 PM
LowThudd's Avatar
LowThudd LowThudd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sherman Oaks
Posts: 3,608
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
So true. But then there is the Thordsen FRS-15, which looks ridiculous and the LOP is a tad too long for me... but I've had it since they first came out (2013?) and it is totally controllable. It will likely survive the next round of grip wrap AWs until they go for all SACFs.
There is also the Exile Head Butt adapter to install a Mossberg stock. Also, ridiculous looking, but some are saying they like it. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1119832
  #1802  
Old 05-23-2017, 1:50 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 LowThudd View Post
There is also the Exile Head Butt adapter to install a Mossberg stock. Also, ridiculous looking, but some are saying they like it. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1119832
The only thing about that is you will now ride the shoulder stock in a lower position than you are used to. Training will take care of that. To some it won't be an issue, but I typically ride the stock pretty high up my shoulder.
__________________
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
  #1803  
Old 05-23-2017, 1:52 PM
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 baseballdad View Post
What if you want to change the barrel, hand guard, color, etc., post-registration? Are those modifications permissible? Must new photographs be submitted?
The proposed regulations don't say that anything has to remain the same, except for the identifying marks on the receiver and the magazine release. The rest can apparently be changed to (virtually) whatever, whenever. Also doesn't say anything about submitting new photos when something changes.

Apparently they can easily identify a rifle that's got a completely new upper and furniture and painted a different color, but as soon as you change the magazine release it's impossible tell it's the same rifle still. Yes they are that stupid.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.



Last edited by CandG; 05-23-2017 at 1:57 PM..
  #1804  
Old 05-23-2017, 1:53 PM
Tacticaldad's Avatar
Tacticaldad Tacticaldad is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 240
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Not a lawyer but it would be nice if an argumanet could be made that featureless is actually not in public saftey interest as it is dangerous for the public... because someone is going to eventually die as a result
  #1805  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:00 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

Another grip option for featureless:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfjJNZx_cyI
__________________
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
  #1806  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:01 PM
LowThudd's Avatar
LowThudd LowThudd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sherman Oaks
Posts: 3,608
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
The only thing about that is you will now ride the shoulder stock in a lower position than you are used to. Training will take care of that. To some it won't be an issue, but I typically ride the stock pretty high up my shoulder.
True, but with a Magpul stock, it will be higher. I actually thought about using a steel plate on a magpul butt pad to offset the recoil pad up. Therefore it would be closer to an Thordson.
  #1807  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:03 PM
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 Tacticaldad View Post
Not a lawyer but it would be nice if an argumanet could be made that featureless is actually not in public saftey interest as it is dangerous for the public... because someone is going to eventually die as a result
Ya, we've gone over that though... the problem with that argument is that nobody is making anyone convert their rifles to featureless - they provided several other ways to comply, and in fact never (as far as I've seen) encouraged people to go featureless or fixed magazine - those are methods invented by us to avoid having to do the other things they suggested.

Now, if someone got killed while fiddling with the bullet button DOJ told them they had to keep using, THEN we'd have a good lawsuit argument.

Also, I don't think the DOJ, legislature, nor courts really care if anyone dies at a shooting range.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.



Last edited by CandG; 05-23-2017 at 2:09 PM..
  #1808  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:06 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 LowThudd View Post
True, but with a Magpul stock, it will be higher. I actually thought about using a steel plate on a magpul butt pad to offset the recoil pad up. Therefore it would be closer to an Thordson.
Good point.
__________________
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
  #1809  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:18 PM
Holeshotz Holeshotz is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 58
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The proposed regulations don't say that anything has to remain the same, except for the identifying marks on the receiver and the magazine release. The rest can apparently be changed to (virtually) whatever, whenever. Also doesn't say anything about submitting new photos when something changes.

Apparently they can easily identify a rifle that's got a completely new upper and furniture and painted a different color, but as soon as you change the magazine release it's impossible tell it's the same rifle still. Yes they are that stupid.
straight from the horses mouth..albeit 2001.

Caliber has no bearing on a weapon’s status as a series weapon and should be disregarded when making an identification. For example, upper receiver conversion kits are available to convert almost any AR series weapon into .45 ACP, .40 S&W, 7.62 X 39 mm, 9 mm, 10 mm, or .223 caliber.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf awguide.pdf (2.54 MB, 17 views)
  #1810  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:20 PM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,556
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holeshotz View Post
straight from the horses mouth..albeit 2001.

Caliber has no bearing on a weapon’s status as a series weapon and should be disregarded when making an identification. For example, upper receiver conversion kits are available to convert almost any AR series weapon into .45 ACP, .40 S&W, 7.62 X 39 mm, 9 mm, 10 mm, or .223 caliber.
Yeah, and bullet buttons used to be fine too.
Was even written down and described as such in the regs, right?

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
Seven. The answer is always seven.
  #1811  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:29 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 cockedandglocked View Post

Apparently they can easily identify a rifle that's got a completely new upper and furniture and painted a different color, but as soon as you change the magazine release it's impossible tell it's the same rifle still. Yes they are that stupid.
Yeah, that's the crux of the issue- how do you defend against a circular argument that the BB makes the rifle an AW and without it, LEO will not be able to tell if it is a BBAW? LEO has to run serials to verify if it's indeed AW from any period in order to be sure, and AFS will have all the info and date. But that system is not always available, they will argue, and LEO has to make a decision.

So the BB is actually a way for LEO to tell, and without it they need the terminal to check. They could even argue that this will save money, time, and potentially confiscation situations or the dreaded "take down to the station for further analysis".

How do we recover from this mess of half truths and reverse logic?
__________________
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

  #1812  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:39 PM
LowThudd's Avatar
LowThudd LowThudd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sherman Oaks
Posts: 3,608
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Yeah, that's the crux of the issue- how do you defend against a circular argument that the BB makes the rifle an AW and without it, LEO will not be able to tell if it is a BBAW? LEO has to run serials to verify if it's indeed AW from any period in order to be sure, and AFS will have all the info and date. But that system is not always available, they will argue, and LEO has to make a decision.

So the BB is actually a way for LEO to tell, and without it they need the terminal to check. They could even argue that this will save money, time, and potentially confiscation situations or the dreaded "take down to the station for further analysis".

How do we recover from this mess of half truths and reverse logic?
Simple, the fact that there were OLLs registered <2000 with no BB. So how does the LEO know with the existing <2000 RAWs? Same difference
  #1813  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:42 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 LowThudd View Post
Simple, the fact that there were OLLs registered <2000 with no BB. So how does the LEO know with the existing <2000 RAWs? Same difference
Because they have a standard mag release. Lol.

There are only 150k of them, and they are pretty damn rare. They are expecting 1.5 million new BBAW, much more common.
__________________
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

  #1814  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:52 PM
LowThudd's Avatar
LowThudd LowThudd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sherman Oaks
Posts: 3,608
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Because they have a standard mag release. Lol.

There are only 150k of them, and they are pretty damn rare. They are expecting 1.5 million new BBAW, much more common.
True, but if it's a RAW, and the owner was smart enough to keep paperwork with the rifle, even if AFS is down, it shouldn't need a BB to identify it as a 2001-2016 RAW. We both know this is just DOJ BS.

My point is that an OLL from the late 90s could either be a <2000 RAW, or it could have been assembled 2001-2016 with a BB. The point is that having NO BB doesn't identify it as being a <2000 RAW or an unregistered AW, or a <2017 RAW. And neither does having a BB. It is just BS.
  #1815  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:54 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,655
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacticaldad View Post
Not a lawyer but it would be nice if an argumanet could be made that featureless is actually not in public saftey interest as it is dangerous for the public... because someone is going to eventually die as a result
Featureless has been around some time, and I have never heard a featureless configuration contribute to any type of accident.

Now with the new fixed mags where you have to pivot the upper, those haven't been around long enough to tell one way or another. I don't like the idea of trying to clear a jam by pivoting the upper with a live round in the chamber. Maybe nothing will ever happen, but if I had to put down money, I would expect something bad to happen eventually.
  #1816  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:55 PM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,556
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
I don't like the idea of trying to clear a jam by pivoting the upper with a live round in the chamber.
Tell me how you are going to clear a jam by pivoting the upper, with the BCG likely partially in the receiver extension?

ETA - This condition as a means of moving forward with an AR type rifle is mandated and specified by the state, and will lead to issues.
I still say its a factor that can used against them, as it creates a hazardous situation in using the rifle improperly in an unsafe manner.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
Seven. The answer is always seven.

Last edited by Wiz-of-Awd; 05-23-2017 at 2:57 PM..
  #1817  
Old 05-23-2017, 2:57 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,655
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
Tell me how you are going to clear a jam by pivoting the upper, with the BCG likely partially in the receiver extension?

A.W.D.


You have to take the whole upper off I guess. Eventually something bad will happen.
  #1818  
Old 05-23-2017, 3:01 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 jcwatchdog View Post
Featureless has been around some time, and I have never heard a featureless configuration contribute to any type of accident.

Now with the new fixed mags where you have to pivot the upper, those haven't been around long enough to tell one way or another. I don't like the idea of trying to clear a jam by pivoting the upper with a live round in the chamber. Maybe nothing will ever happen, but if I had to put down money, I would expect something bad to happen eventually.
Fab 10 Lowers.

__________________
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
  #1819  
Old 05-23-2017, 3:02 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 jcwatchdog View Post
You have to take the whole upper off I guess. Eventually something bad will happen.
Or take off the buffer tube.
__________________
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
  #1820  
Old 05-23-2017, 3:05 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,655
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
Fab 10 Lowers.


I seriously doubt that there were that many of those floating around to be an honest sample size. Even the old welded mag top loaders weren't anymore than an oddity.
  #1821  
Old 05-23-2017, 3:42 PM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,712
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
I seriously doubt that there were that many of those floating around to be an honest sample size. Even the old welded mag top loaders weren't anymore than an oddity.
Haha, got one of those... bought it for a R50BMG.

And removing the upper to clear a jam may not be possible if the BCG is in the buffer tube. Not enough clearance. Try it. Put a stubby pencil between the bolt and the chamber to simulate a case jam. Now try to remove the upper

Most folks that had a FAB ten switched to a standard OLL and gone BB or featureless.
  #1822  
Old 05-23-2017, 3:53 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 19,393
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The proposed regulations don't say that anything has to remain the same, except for the identifying marks on the receiver and the magazine release. The rest can apparently be changed to (virtually) whatever, whenever. Also doesn't say anything about submitting new photos when something changes.

Apparently they can easily identify a rifle that's got a completely new upper and furniture and painted a different color, but as soon as you change the magazine release it's impossible tell it's the same rifle still. Yes they are that stupid.
I cannot wait to see the argument that they use in court to support that reasoning.
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
  #1823  
Old 05-23-2017, 3:57 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 19,393
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Because they have a standard mag release. Lol.

There are only 150k of them, and they are pretty damn rare. They are expecting 1.5 million new BBAW, much more common.
Show me where in the law a BBAW "bullet button assault weapon" is defined. The DOJ does not have legislative power to arbitrarily create a new class of assault weapon.
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
  #1824  
Old 05-23-2017, 3:59 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 19,393
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
Tell me how you are going to clear a jam by pivoting the upper, with the BCG likely partially in the receiver extension?

ETA - This condition as a means of moving forward with an AR type rifle is mandated and specified by the state, and will lead to issues.
I still say its a factor that can used against them, as it creates a hazardous situation in using the rifle improperly in an unsafe manner.

A.W.D.
And now you've given them a reason to ban those too.
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
  #1825  
Old 05-23-2017, 4:07 PM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,556
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDay View Post
And now you've given them a reason to ban those too.
JFC - yes, you need to get a life.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
Seven. The answer is always seven.
  #1826  
Old 05-23-2017, 4:19 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDay View Post
Show me where in the law a BBAW "bullet button assault weapon" is defined. The DOJ does not have legislative power to arbitrarily create a new class of assault weapon.
I suspect you would be directed to the newly-amended (SB 880) Penal Code 30900(b)(1)(https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=30900).
Quote:
(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 (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5).
The former regulations on AWs (CCR 5459; (https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a.../chapter39.pdf) identified the bullet or cartridge as a "tool".
Quote:
The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool.
  #1827  
Old 05-23-2017, 4:27 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 19,401
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDay View Post
Show me where in the law a BBAW "bullet button assault weapon" is defined. The DOJ does not have legislative power to arbitrarily create a new class of assault weapon.
yet here we are and they are doing what the gun banners want while sitting right next to them as the regs were typed up.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
  #1828  
Old 05-23-2017, 4:48 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,655
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
yet here we are and they are doing what the gun banners want while sitting right next to them as the regs were typed up.
I'm still trying to find out what the penalty is for removing the bullet button. The law says nothing and the regulations say nothing. It's basically saying "you better not do this OR ELSE!" But then, the or else never comes...There are some that speculate that you are now in possession of an unregistered AW, however if that was the case, shouldn't that be spelled out in the law? There is NOT ONE THING in the law that says you can't modify a registered AW. And the law doesn't create a BBAW. There is just AW definitions only.
  #1829  
Old 05-23-2017, 5:06 PM
Mr. Torgue Mr. Torgue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredAFcop View Post
I am not a lawyer, but am a reasonably well educated and literate person - in short the kind of person who should be able to clearly and easily understand any legitimate law or regulation.


I found the memo https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Letter%20.pdf
to be interesting, because it seems to be self-contradicting in many areas.



For example:
The new law classifies BB rifles as "assault weapons", yet then tries to make the claim that they need to retain the BB after registration, because removing it would reclassify them.

If they are classified as "Assault Weapons", with or without the BB, it should make no difference whether they have the BB or not. Removal of the BB doesn't make them an "Assaultier Weapon".

The memo claims that the new registration needs to conform to the process set up with the previous registration scheme - a process that didn't require "digital photographs", and that allowed all of your "Assault Weapons" to be registered for a single $25 fee.

If these things have changed, then this isn't an expansion of "Assault Weapons" definitions, covered under the old ban/registration scheme, but an entirely new scheme, and must be treated as such - including invalidating the whole law if it was passed as being an extension of the existing program, rather than an entirely new program.
The state already classifies several versions of assault weapons. There's named, standard mag release, 50 BMG, and now BBAW. In the states opinion, which I agree is tenuous in a legal sense, is that removing the BB does make them more of an AW as its less of an impediment to reloading.

As for the difference in photos and allowing registration, I don't think that has any legal issue to prevent it.
  #1830  
Old 05-23-2017, 5:07 PM
Mr. Torgue Mr. Torgue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bazineta View Post
We have single-party rule, that party has a voting bloc that makes them unbeatable, new laws that actually prevent non-party members from running against them, and they are now at the point where they have so vanquished all enemies that they can only fight themselves.

Hopefully that makes things abundantly clear in terms of your question.
Got a link to the law that prevents non party members from running against them?
  #1831  
Old 05-23-2017, 5:19 PM
Mr. Torgue Mr. Torgue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tacticaldad View Post
Jeeze these grip wraps make any kind of shooting and moving so dangerous! Seeing carbine classes with 10 guys all fumbling loaded rifles and trying to relearn ambi ar-15 safteys is terrifying... I featurlessed my aks as it's actually not a huge deal if your right handed and can learn a right handed ak mag change.. but I gotta say... it's going to take someone accidentally fumbling a featureless ar and neg discharging it into someone before people see that featureless makes the firearm WAY more dangerous!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
I agree.
Having to grip a rifle like a monkey without an opposable thumb is against the design and in my opinion, dangerous.

The featureless crowd is fine to love it all they want, but I say "no thank you."

A.W.D.
I agree and it's why I won't go featureless on any gun not designed as such. If I want an regular mag release I'll just go M1 Garand/M1A. As for if they're more dangerous for the operator to handle, I believe the state doesn't give a rats *** and is part of their end goal.
  #1832  
Old 05-23-2017, 5:36 PM
Mr. Torgue Mr. Torgue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
Fab 10 Lowers.

Ive been reading about those for a bit and still can't figure out how they're supposed to work. I get that it uses stripper clips and is fixed to the lower but how exactly does this help with the issue of jams and unable to separate the receiver?
  #1833  
Old 05-23-2017, 5:38 PM
Mr. Torgue Mr. Torgue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
Or take off the buffer tube.
That could be a pain in the *** and equally dangerous to do with a jam or malfunction, especially if it's staked.
  #1834  
Old 05-23-2017, 5:42 PM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Different grid square
Posts: 1,568
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
I'm still trying to find out what the penalty is for removing the bullet button. The law says nothing and the regulations say nothing. It's basically saying "you better not do this OR ELSE!" But then, the or else never comes...There are some that speculate that you are now in possession of an unregistered AW, however if that was the case, shouldn't that be spelled out in the law? There is NOT ONE THING in the law that says you can't modify a registered AW. And the law doesn't create a BBAW. There is just AW definitions only.
The DOJ is actually trying to say that modifying the registered BBAW will nullify the registration. Thus allowing you to be charged with possessing an unregistered AW. It's patently ludicrous on its face, which is why so many folks here feel that it is a huge administrative overreach. It is also such a naked show of disdain towards our community that it should serve to completely erase any expectation of justice or impartiality on the part of the State of California in any question of firearms or weapons law for the forseeable future.
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
  #1835  
Old 05-23-2017, 5:43 PM
Mr. Torgue Mr. Torgue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
I'm still trying to find out what the penalty is for removing the bullet button. The law says nothing and the regulations say nothing. It's basically saying "you better not do this OR ELSE!" But then, the or else never comes...There are some that speculate that you are now in possession of an unregistered AW, however if that was the case, shouldn't that be spelled out in the law? There is NOT ONE THING in the law that says you can't modify a registered AW. And the law doesn't create a BBAW. There is just AW definitions only.
The law does state you cannot modify the mag release. Says it pretty clearly too.
  #1836  
Old 05-23-2017, 5:58 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,655
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Torgue View Post
The law does state you cannot modify the mag release. Says it pretty clearly too.
No, the law says nothing of the kind. The regulations say it, and it's not backed by any penalty that is outlined in the law since the law doesn't say anything about removing the bullet button.
  #1837  
Old 05-23-2017, 5:58 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,655
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwkincal View Post
The DOJ is actually trying to say that modifying the registered BBAW will nullify the registration. Thus allowing you to be charged with possessing an unregistered AW. It's patently ludicrous on its face, which is why so many folks here feel that it is a huge administrative overreach. It is also such a naked show of disdain towards our community that it should serve to completely erase any expectation of justice or impartiality on the part of the State of California in any question of firearms or weapons law for the forseeable future.
Please quote where they are stating or even insinuating that the registration will be nullified.
  #1838  
Old 05-23-2017, 6:11 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 jcwatchdog View Post
Please quote where they are stating or even insinuating that the registration will be nullified.
The wording is ambiguous. No longer eligible?

Quote:
a) The release mechanism for an ammunition feeding device on an assault weapon registered pursuant to PenalCode section 30900 subdivision(b)(1}shall not be changed after the assault weapon A weapons’s eligibility for registration pursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision b 1 depends, in part, on it release mechanism. Any alteration to the release mechanism converts the assault weapon into a different weapon from the one that was registered.
__________________
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; 05-23-2017 at 6:14 PM..
  #1839  
Old 05-23-2017, 6:14 PM
thmpr's Avatar
thmpr thmpr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 3,786
iTrader: 83 / 100%
Default

Does this mean registration period is extended until mid 2018?
__________________
NRA Life Member
  #1840  
Old 05-23-2017, 6:24 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,655
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
The wording is ambiguous. No longer eligible?

That references the ability to register, nothing mentioned after registration. They say it's now a different weapon, but don't mention what type of different weapon it is. Maybe because it's still a registered AW, no matter how much double speak they try.
Closed Thread

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 5:27 PM.




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