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 > FIREARMS DISCUSSIONS > Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated Centerfire rifles, carbines and other gas operated rifles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 11-07-2016, 1:08 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,242
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 86 5.0L View Post
Let me fill you in on a little secret. There's going to be another session after this one, and another and another and another after that. Being quiet for a few months makes no difference, they're playing the long game.
To be fair, being quiet can at least buy us a few more months or years before implementation of new "loophole" closures.

But on the other hand, yes, it's just delaying the inevitable. Do you think if people knew in 2001 that "assault weapons" would be completely banned 16 years later, that they'd have chosen to remain silent about off-list-lowers and bullet buttons for the next 16 years? For one thing, staying silent would have resulted in an almost non-existent AR market in CA for the last 15 years, as theoretically most gun owners wouldn't even know about the "loopholes". And secondly, you can't really expect tens of thousands of gun owners to keep silent about anything for more than about 11.3 seconds, so it's an unrealistic expectation. You can keep telling people to shut their yappers about removing bullet buttons all day long, but you're never going to keep up with it enough to completely hide it from prying eyes.

So really I think both sides of that argument have valid points.

*Yes I know the above mentioned things aren't "loopholes", which is why I wrapped the word with bunny ears
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11-07-2016, 1:14 PM
Junkie's Avatar
Junkie Junkie is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,710
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

While staying quiet might help keep it legal longer, it also means the cops are far more likely to think it's illegal.

If open carry hadn't been popularized, the few people doing it would likely have been arrested (or at least detained in the back of a cop car) until the cop figured out it was legal. Same is true of ARs.
__________________
I will never buy another Spikes Tactical item, as I have a 5.45 marked barrel from them with a 5.56 bore that keyholed at 25 yards, and they wouldn't replace it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
A real live woman is more expensive than a fleshlight. Which would you rather have?
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 11-07-2016, 1:44 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,242
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkie View Post
While staying quiet might help keep it legal longer, it also means the cops are far more likely to think it's illegal.

If open carry hadn't been popularized, the few people doing it would likely have been arrested (or at least detained in the back of a cop car) until the cop figured out it was legal. Same is true of ARs.
And sadly both had the same fate But I don't blame the exercising of, or discussions about, our rights as the cause in either case. Simply it is/was anti-gunners doing what they do best, banning everything they can one bit at a time. They don't really need to get ideas from us to accomplish that goal, in general. Although, there are rare times where exercising and discussion of our rights is best kept as secret as possible until a specific date - such as when a particular anti-gunner regime is about to be (or has already been) voted out of office, or if there is an administrative deadline looming, after which changes can't be made anymore. Neither of those exceptions are particularly true in CA at the moment. Even the DOJ RAW registration regulations can be revised whenever they feel like it, Jan 1 isn't some magic date where they have to have their regs carved into stone. As far as I'm aware, anyways.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 11-07-2016, 5:06 PM
fuddle fuddle is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 79
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Most lawmakers only care about getting reelected. That's their bottom line. If Newsom lived in AZ he'd be trying to legalize pot. It's like gay marriage. He doesn't give a rats, but he needed something to get his name out so he could make a run for Lt Gov. The lawmakers make anti-gun laws because they stand a better chance of getting elected. They don't care about the efficacy. They just want to put on their website, "I authored... amended, etc. these anti-gun bills.

So I really don't think they're going to try to close loopholes right now. They'll save that for the next go around. That being said, it's stupid to tell your enemy what you're going to do.

Getting back to loopholes- as one that writes rulebooks for a living, I can tell you that it's going to be very difficult for them to write anything airtight unless they just ban all semi auto, center fire rifles. Yeah, good luck with that, even in the PRK.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 11-07-2016, 7:03 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 29,259
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fuddle View Post
Most lawmakers only care about getting reelected. That's their bottom line. If Newsom lived in AZ he'd be trying to legalize pot.
Who do you think co-authored Prop-64?

California will get recreational pot tomorrow, and Gavin will use that as a feather in his cap in 2018.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 11-07-2016, 7:34 PM
fuddle fuddle is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 79
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Like I said, the politicians only care about furthering their careers, with little exception. Therefore they're not going after loopholes right now, especially ones that are not in play yet.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 11-11-2016, 1:44 PM
protohyp's Avatar
protohyp protohyp is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,441
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

some people need to understand that California is not the only state where something like the AR Maglock is or can be used. No need to shut up about it. its already out there and is being sold by the thousands to other states.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 11-11-2016, 2:15 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,242
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by protohyp View Post
some people need to understand that California is not the only state where something like the AR Maglock is or can be used. No need to shut up about it. its already out there and is being sold by the thousands to other states.
And finally we can start talking about Mag-Magnets again!
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-03-2016, 10:22 AM
orbust orbust is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Considering the inventor of the BB has lengthy video's out explaining his new devices functions... this thread is hilarious. Reynolds wrap should get some advertising space here.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 12-03-2016, 2:41 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 29,259
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orbust View Post
Considering the inventor of the BB has lengthy video's out explaining his new devices functions... this thread is hilarious. Reynolds wrap should get some advertising space here.
Notice the date of the original posting.
AFAIK, the videos on the new products had not been released, or were released at nearly the same time.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 12-03-2016, 2:47 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,121
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
To be fair, being quiet can at least buy us a few more months or years before implementation of new "loophole" closures.

But on the other hand, yes, it's just delaying the inevitable. Do you think if people knew in 2001 that "assault weapons" would be completely banned 16 years later, that they'd have chosen to remain silent about off-list-lowers and bullet buttons for the next 16 years? For one thing, staying silent would have resulted in an almost non-existent AR market in CA for the last 15 years, as theoretically most gun owners wouldn't even know about the "loopholes". And secondly, you can't really expect tens of thousands of gun owners to keep silent about anything for more than about 11.3 seconds, so it's an unrealistic expectation. You can keep telling people to shut their yappers about removing bullet buttons all day long, but you're never going to keep up with it enough to completely hide it from prying eyes.

So really I think both sides of that argument have valid points.

*Yes I know the above mentioned things aren't "loopholes", which is why I wrapped the word with bunny ears
If we could just get the tens of thousands of gun owners to go out and vote.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-11-2016, 11:48 PM
EddieEd EddieEd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 300
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yeap the word is getting out. This site even mentions Calguns.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/cal...15-compliance/

Need to do some research on Gun control or what's new, just go Calguns and get the latest. Work for both side, but at this moment in time it may only benefits one side.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-12-2016, 1:49 PM
fuddle fuddle is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 79
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The article (mentioned above) has some incorrect information. Before I address that, let me say a few things. I am a CA gun dealer and pretty well versed in CA law; and I got that knowledge by reading the actual laws. That said, I could still be worng since my memory is not as good as it used to be.

I can understand Joe's attitude. Massive civil disobedience may work for some things, and it could work for these new laws. It’s a stretch, but if it works to motivate the masses into funding the right lawsuits, then awesome.

You can also look at this as a small battle won in a long protracted war (since 1989) that we have been losing. Once you reg as an AW you can toss the CA crap for good.

Now for the corrections to the articles.

It's one ~$22-ish fee to reg as many guns as you want.

Joe is not forced to register his rifles. He can simply turn them into featureless. While not exactly desirable, it's still a choice.

There is no "ban on new sales of semiautomatic rifles and pistols with detachable magazines," or mandatory registration.

Maybe I missed something but I read the new laws and see nothing about this: "Under the law, owners of assault weapons will also have to submit to periodic inspections of those firearms by law enforcement officials."

Just to clear, the mention of background checks for ammo buys- it will be one background check every four years (IIRC). While not desirable either, at least it's not a background check every time you buy ammo.

The new law is not a new law. It's a modification of the Category 3 assault weapons law, SB23 (by features) and it redefines what a fixed magazine is. That's all. So, it's not “an expansion of the 1989 (Category 1) law.”

"two men in baseball caps had just purchased two $8,800 Barrett 82A1 sniper rifles… . They are among the types of rifles retailers will be prohibited from selling in California after December 31." The sales will continue, only they will be sold in one of the new CA complaint configurations. Keep in mind that only applies to the .416 Barrett rifle as the purchase of the 50 BMG version has been outlawed since 2005, IIRC.

"starting in 2018, [no more]sales of ammunition through the mail. After that date, ammunition buyers will need to register with the state and undergo a background check at the point of purchase" Not true either. Starting in 2018 people buy/selling ammo to each other will be required to go through an ammo vendor. No background check required until 2019. Additionally, there will be no ban on internet or mail order ammo. The only catch is that it has to be delivered to an ammo vendor. Now the ammo vendor (e.g. gun store) is limited to charging the customer $10 for any one transaction. I haven't seen where this is required of the dealers; if it's not required most dealers will probably refuse shipment.

Home made guns (e.g. 80% lowers) will need to get a serial number on it by 2019. Now, starting in 2018 (IIRC) you will have to have your application for a serial number submitted before you start building it.

Just thought I would clarify some things. Every day I have customers coming with incorrect information. We need to get the word out on what's really happening and get people to stop listening to their "expert" friend. They also should be skeptical about articles like this. Additionally, many pro-gun sources put out misinformation.

If the pro-gun lobby wants to do something about this, I see one of a couple of paths. Lawsuits that can be taken to the Supreme Court after Trump appoints a new justice, or get petition(s) started now to get a referendum on the 2018 ballot. Go after the low-hanging fruit, like the new "loaning" laws. If gun owners see that we can overturn just one anti-gun law, they will be activated for the next ballot to overturn all of them going back to 1989! But the petitions have to be distributed with honest, clear, and logical information. If there's more than one petition, don't insist that place like Big Five offer all petitions or they can't offer any. Better planning, implementation, and a head start will be the keys to get this done.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-13-2016, 10:03 AM
EddieEd EddieEd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 300
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I got a question is any one can clear it up. I heard (yes heard) at a gun show and at a gun store, that there are only 3 shooting ranges in Cali (south Ca at that) that let you shoot RAW. They said the ranges have to get certs and paid big bucks, that's why there aren't that many ranges that permit RAW.
I'm not sure of this, but it's was said that this is one of the down sides to getting them registered.
Anyone here got anything on this?
Looking online I cant find anything on ranges that let RAW owners shoot.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-13-2016, 10:32 AM
Cheburashka Cheburashka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 188
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieEd View Post
I got a question is any one can clear it up. I heard (yes heard) at a gun show and at a gun store, that there are only 3 shooting ranges in Cali (south Ca at that) that let you shoot RAW. They said the ranges have to get certs and paid big bucks, that's why there aren't that many ranges that permit RAW.
I'm not sure of this, but it's was said that this is one of the down sides to getting them registered.
Anyone here got anything on this?
Looking online I cant find anything on ranges that let RAW owners shoot.
WTF? Sounds like FUD to me.

The new AW laws specify that AWs can be used at any range.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-13-2016, 2:33 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,242
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheburashka View Post
WTF? Sounds like FUD to me.

The new AW laws specify that AWs can be used at any range.
The new law is the old law in that regard. The new law didn't add or subtract anything about where you can or can't use a RAW. It just changed the definition of a removeable magazine, and reopened registration. That's it.
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 6:38 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.