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
  #1  
Old 12-08-2012, 5:31 PM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default Norinco MAK 90 vs. MAK 90 Sporter Legality

Is there a difference between the MAK 90 and MAK 90 Sporter versions as far as California legality goes?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-08-2012, 5:41 PM
Mstnpete Mstnpete is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Orange County, Kalifornia-the anti-gun state
Posts: 3,912
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

On the list as banned. Unless was registered as RAW before the ban.

Norinco: AK-47 (all)
Norinco: Hunter Rifle
Norinco: MAK 90
Norinco: NHM 90, 90-2, 91 Sport
Norinco: RPK Rifle
Ohio Ordnance Works: AK-74
Ohio Ordnance Works: ROMAK 991
__________________

Last edited by Mstnpete; 12-08-2012 at 5:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-08-2012, 6:37 PM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

As I understand that there may be a small loophole here as mine is marked "MAK 90Sporter".

I just cannot understand how a LEGALLY purchased pre-ban gun can just be declared as illegal without notifying legal owners of such a ruling by mail. If I get a speeding ticket, I have to sign a ticket promising that I will appear in court. Why dont I, as a legal gun owner get the same from my states government?

Last edited by Darryl Licht; 12-08-2012 at 7:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-08-2012, 6:39 PM
Chameleon Loco Chameleon Loco is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,113
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Because the state you live in does not want you to own firearms.
__________________
Want to Buy: Ruger PC9 Magazine Buttstock Pouch
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-08-2012, 6:59 PM
K9paulc's Avatar
K9paulc K9paulc is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tracy Ca
Posts: 357
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

It's banned. This state does not care if you understand or not. Been banned for a long time now.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:01 PM
fourtraxmc fourtraxmc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 386
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Dude, don't wheelie over about it, You can't change the past. There is no difference just a differnet name really. If for some reason someone owns a mak90 and did not register it , IT IS NOW ILLEGAL IN CA! If I happened to own such rifle , I would never admit it and let it go.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:04 PM
Jeepers's Avatar
Jeepers Jeepers is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: beautiful trinity county
Posts: 3,303
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

lol how many threads are you going to start before the hammer comes pounding down

same thing happened to a guy i know , he had a cheap arse cobray 410/45 derringer he bought here in CA in the 80's, did not make it legal now it sucks buts it the way its always been changing laws and making honest folks instant felons ...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan View Post
Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:05 PM
Jeepers's Avatar
Jeepers Jeepers is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: beautiful trinity county
Posts: 3,303
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

lol how many threads are you going to start before the hammer comes pounding down

same thing happened to a guy i know , he had a cheap arse cobray 410/45 derringer he bought here in CA in the 80's, did not make it legal now it sucks buts it the way its always been changing laws and making honest folks instant felons ...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan View Post
Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:05 PM
7 Sprig's Avatar
7 Sprig 7 Sprig is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 19.5985 N, 155.5186 W
Posts: 579
iTrader: 246 / 100%
Default

no matter how many accounts you make , no matter how many question you ask , your gun is named on the list and you need to turn it in to your local pd if it is in CA .

if it is not in CA , dont bring it in .
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:18 PM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeepers View Post
...same thing happened to a guy i know , he had a cheap arse cobray 410/45 derringer he bought here in CA in the 80's, did not make it legal now it sucks buts it the way its always been changing laws and making honest folks instant felons ...
So then a Taurus Judge is also illegal in CA? A buddy in AZ just got one and while it is a novelty gun, it's pretty cool to shoot! Is it illegal here because of no rifling in barrel and thus considered a short barrel shotgun?

Our lawmakers here in Kaliforniastan are surely not gun owners and major panoches!

And the feds dropped the AWB, so why cant Cali somewhere in the future? Maybe our states lawmakers will get some freaking common sense before I die!

Last edited by Darryl Licht; 12-08-2012 at 7:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:22 PM
Jeepers's Avatar
Jeepers Jeepers is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: beautiful trinity county
Posts: 3,303
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Licht View Post
So then a Taurus Judge is also illegal in CA? A buddy in AZ just got one and while it is a novelty gun, it's pretty cool to shoot! Is it illegal here because of no rifling in barrel and thus considered a short barrel shotgun?

Our lawmakers here in Kaliforniastan are surely not gun owners and major panoches!
yes the Judge is not legal stock in CA,but they can be had in CA with a few jumps threw the hoops as in making it a AOW and do a trust and $5 federal tax stamp, but then you are stuck with a stupid fwd grip on it ..lol

sounds like you got a decade or so of Ca gun laws to wade threw ....lol
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan View Post
Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:28 PM
Jeepers's Avatar
Jeepers Jeepers is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: beautiful trinity county
Posts: 3,303
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

and BTW here ya go here is the AD CA used to tell you your gun is no longer legal ....

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan View Post
Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:28 PM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeepers View Post
yes the Judge is not legal stock in CA,but they can be had in CA with a few jumps threw the hoops as in making it a AOW and do a trust and $5 federal tax stamp, but then you are stuck with a stupid fwd grip on it ..lol

sounds like you got a decade or so of Ca gun laws to wade threw ....lol
Yes, I have about 10 years of gun laws to sort through... Didnt know when I became a legal gun owner that I should also have to become an attorney in order to understand all this freaking legal mumbo jumbo!!!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:34 PM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeepers View Post
and BTW here ya go here is the AD CA used to tell you your gun is no longer legal ....

That ad wouldnt apply to anyone who purchased after that March 1991 date, right? This legal crap is confusing!

Lets say if a MAK90 Sporter was legally purchased in 1994 or 1995, it would have to have been registered prior to finalizing the sale... right or wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:34 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is online now
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 18,483
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Licht View Post
So then a Taurus Judge is also illegal in CA? A buddy in AZ just got one and while it is a novelty gun, it's pretty cool to shoot! Is it illegal here because of no rifling in barrel and thus considered a short barrel shotgun?
The Taurus Judge has a rifled barrel, which is why under Federal laws it is a Title 1 handgun.

The Taurus Judge is considered a SBS under CA laws (making it illegal in CA), because it has a less than 18" barrel and a less than 26" overall length and it can shoot a shotgun shell. [PC 17180(a) & (b)]

CA laws also allows handguns to be classified as SBR/SBS. [PC 16640(b)]




Penal Code 16640
(a) As used in this part, "handgun" means any pistol, revolver, or firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(b) Nothing shall prevent a device defined as a "handgun" from also being found to be a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun.

Penal Code 17180
As used in Sections 16530 and 16640, Sections 17720 to 17730, inclusive, Section 17740, Article 1 (commencing with Section 27500) of Chapter 4 of Division 6 of Title 4, and Article 1 (commencing with Section 33210) of Chapter 8 of Division 10 of Title 4, "short-barreled shotgun" means any of the following:
(a) A firearm that is designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell and has a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length.
(b) A firearm that has an overall length of less than 26 inches and that is designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell.
(c) Any weapon made from a shotgun (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 18 inches in length.
(d) Any device that may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell 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, can be readily assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:38 PM
Jeepers's Avatar
Jeepers Jeepers is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: beautiful trinity county
Posts: 3,303
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Licht View Post
That ad wouldnt apply to anyone who purchased after that March 1991 date, right? This legal crap is confusing!

Lets say if a MAK90 Sporter was legally purchased in 1994 or 1995, it would have to have been registered prior to finalizing the sale... right or wrong?
doh your right i grabbed the old old old vid...


here is the one from the 2000 ban ....lol

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan View Post
Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:39 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is online now
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 18,483
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Licht View Post
That ad wouldnt apply to anyone who purchased after that March 1991 date, right? This legal crap is confusing!

Lets say if a MAK90 Sporter was legally purchased in 1994 or 1995, it would have to have been registered prior to finalizing the sale... right or wrong?
They were legal until 12-31-1999.
They needed to be registered with CA DOJ by 12-31-2000.
Registration was accomplished by mailing in a form with payment to CA DOJ.

If it was not registered with CA DOJ, then it is illegal.
If you did not send in the form, then it is not registered and it is illegal.

The paperwork (4473/DROS) you did when you acquired it from a CA FFL dealer, did not register it with CA DOJ.
You had to send in a form to register it.
If you did not send in the form, then it is not registered and illegal.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

Last edited by Quiet; 12-08-2012 at 7:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:42 PM
Mossy Man's Avatar
Mossy Man Mossy Man is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 7,493
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeepers View Post
and BTW here ya go here is the AD CA used to tell you your gun is no longer legal ....

I find the catch phrase "Why make a legal gun illegal?" ironic

When that's EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE DOING

rofl
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:50 PM
BBB114 BBB114 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 190
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Mak 90

We all know it sucks, so follow the guidelines as before. Please keep yourself legal, as we all suffer if one of us has legal troubles.

Remember, you can get an Off List AK type receiver from NDS or blank flat, use parts from the another source, add a magazine lock, attend a "build Party" and voila, a functional AK platform that is legal.

I am willing to bet, many law abiding citizens did not know they had to register their rifles in 2000 and got caught blind sided. I am sure some still dont know.

Boyan
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:55 PM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
They were legal until 12-31-1999.
They needed to be registered with CA DOJ by 12-31-2000.
Registration was accomplished by mailing in a form with payment to CA DOJ.

If it was not registered with CA DOJ, then it is illegal.
If you did not send in the form, then it is not registered and it is illegal.

The paperwork (4473/DROS) you did when you acquired it from a CA FFL dealer, did not register it with CA DOJ.
You had to send in a form to register it.
If you did not send in the form, then it is not registered and illegal.
How can that not be an infringment of our constitutional right to legally own and bear arms???

So anyone who legally purchased any listed gun after 1991 still had to perform this registration to remain legal? And how in gods name did they do this without notifying all legal owners of such guns? <-- HOW IS THAT LEGAL???
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:59 PM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBB114 View Post
We all know it sucks, so follow the guidelines as before. Please keep yourself legal, as we all suffer if one of us has legal troubles.

Remember, you can get an Off List AK type receiver from NDS or blank flat, use parts from the another source, add a magazine lock, attend a "build Party" and voila, a functional AK platform that is legal.

I am willing to bet, many law abiding citizens did not know they had to register their rifles in 2000 and got caught blind sided. I am sure some still dont know.

Boyan
Is there a lilst here of these off list AK platforms? Ironic that any AK is an AK... but if it wasnt listed it is OK to own and even build one!

Proof our lawmakers are ivy league educated MORONS!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-08-2012, 8:06 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is online now
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 18,483
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Licht View Post
How can that not be an infringment of our constitutional right to legally own and bear arms???

So anyone who legally purchased any listed gun after 1991 still had to perform this registration to remain legal? And how in gods name did they do this without notifying all legal owners of such guns? <-- HOW IS THAT LEGAL???
Because, the CA state constitution does not have a "right to bear arms".

And at the times the laws were passed, it was not decided yet on if the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was an individual right or a state right and if it only applied to the Federal government or both the Federal government & local (state/county/city/etc) governments.

SCOTUS finally ruled that the Second Amendment was an individual right in 2007.
SCOTUS then ruled that the Second Amendment applied to both Federal and local governements in 2010.

So, CA finally got a "right to bear arms" in 2010.

This is why all those gun laws were deemed legal when they were made into law.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-08-2012, 8:10 PM
baddos's Avatar
baddos baddos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 275
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hah, what makes you think the legislature in sacramento is ivy league educated or even community college.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-08-2012, 8:26 PM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baddos View Post
Hah, what makes you think the legislature in sacramento is ivy league educated or even community college.
Good one... hell maybe not even finished 7th grade, as they OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BALANCE A FREAKIN CHECKBOOK!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-08-2012, 9:14 PM
klewan klewan is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,044
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Bottom line, you have to have the ability to go up against the state of California. From the Calguns flowchart, you don't have a named gun; a MAK90 Sport isn't listed. A MAK90 is. You have to ask yourself is this worth more than $600? That's what your gun is worth.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-08-2012, 10:03 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,137
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Licht View Post
How can that not be an infringment of our constitutional right to legally own and bear arms???

So anyone who legally purchased any listed gun after 1991 still had to perform this registration to remain legal? And how in gods name did they do this without notifying all legal owners of such guns? <-- HOW IS THAT LEGAL???
2 points:
(1) all registration periods are closed - and those allowed registering guns already owned when the law passed - one could not find out about the law, decide to buy one, and register it. Currently PC 30900
Quote:
(a) Any person who, prior to June 1, 1989, lawfully
possessed an assault weapon, as defined in former Section 12276, as
added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989, shall
register the firearm by January 1, 1991
Unless you are LEO with a letter from your Chief, cannot buy and register anything CA calls an 'assault weapon' today

(2) look at the information sent to the state via DROS when you buy a rifle: it doesn't have make/model/caliber information. The state plain does not know who owns or bought things it calls 'assault weapons', because that info is never reported to them. (That will change in January, 2014.)

The state was required to do 'public education' -
Quote:
(a) The Department of Justice shall conduct a public
education and notification program regarding the registration of
assault weapons and the definition of the weapons set forth in
Section 30515 and former Section 12276.1, as it read at any time from
when it was added by Section 7 of Chapter 129 of the Statutes of
1999 to when it was repealed by the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act
of 2010.
(b) The public education and notification program shall include
outreach to local law enforcement agencies and utilization of public
service announcements in a variety of media approaches, to ensure
maximum publicity of the limited forgiveness period of the
registration requirement specified in subdivision (f) of former
Section 12285, as that subdivision read in Section 5 of Chapter 954
of the Statutes of 1991, and the consequences of nonregistration. The
department shall develop posters describing gunowners'
responsibilities under former Chapter 2.3 (commencing with Section
12275) of Title 2 of Part 4, as that chapter read when the
forgiveness period commenced on January 1, 1992, which shall be
posted in a conspicuous place in every licensed gun store in the
state during the forgiveness period.
You apparently are a direct witness on how effective the education effort may have been.

Kindly read the wiki article on this silly law -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Hi...Weapon%27_laws
and then read the laws themselves, via this other wiki article -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Pe...Caliber_rifles
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-08-2012, 10:10 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Ignore user 'klewan'; a MAK90 Sport should be regarded as listed/banned by name.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-08-2012, 10:17 PM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Are there any members here that are pro gun attorneys????
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-08-2012, 10:49 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,137
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Licht View Post
Are there any members here that are pro gun attorneys????
Several.

I recommend you dismiss any thoughts of suing over the Roberti-Roos and related 'assault weapon' laws, for at least a year or so.

See down in my .sig? We just barely got 'second amendment applies to more than the Federal government' with McDonald.

Before McDonald, four major suits were brought against Roberti-Roos, and both Federal cases lost badly - because the 9th Circuit believed that individuals did not have standing to sue over 2A - and both state cases were just as bad.

There are several Federal lawsuits expected to hit the Supreme Court this 2013 session, and perhaps more in 2014. We need the SCOTUS 'big club' to wave at California courts before there will be a chance to make the 'aw' law go away.

Please read the wiki. Your current apparent reaction is stuck in 1989.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-08-2012, 10:49 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This state gets more confusing by the day.

A Norinco MAK90 Sport (banned by name) that has a rollmark that says "MAK90 SportER is illegal, yet a Colt LE6920 (banned by name) that has a rollmark that says "M4 Carbine" is legal. This makes zero sense to me. Sport and Sporter are not the same word.
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:42 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,137
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
This state gets more confusing by the day.

A Norinco MAK90 Sport (banned by name) that has a rollmark that says "MAK90 SportER is illegal, yet a Colt LE6920 (banned by name) that has a rollmark that says "M4 Carbine" is legal. This makes zero sense to me. Sport and Sporter are not the same word.
For your sanity, it is extremely important that you do not try to make technical sense out of gun laws.

That's not the purpose of such laws.

Somehow, large numbers of voters, at least voters who make campaign contributions and/or call or write legislators, hold the opinion that guns are a 'problem'.

Legislators, wishing to get re-elected, must be seen to be 'doing something' about problems. Note that that is not 'doing something useful' - the illusion of motion is sufficient. In fact, doing nothing useful about the 'gun problem' is a benefit - it means the 'problem' will persist, and the legislators may make a career of seeming to 'do something' year after year. (Under that motivation, it is sensible to continue to affirm to the public that the 'problem' exists, via speeches and newspapers - see 'somehow' at the beginning of the previous paragraph.)

Legislators, despite other evidence to the contrary, are not stupid. They're simply operating under different rules and for different motivations than 'regular people'. Being told the technically correct information on the content of their bills simply does not matter in their world; they can know the information, but it need not inform their actions or speech, because correct information doesn't matter in getting the bills passed.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 12-08-2012 at 11:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:44 PM
klewan klewan is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,044
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Duplicate

Last edited by klewan; 12-08-2012 at 11:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:49 PM
klewan klewan is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,044
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Ignore user 'klewan'; a MAK90 Sport should be regarded as listed/banned by name.
Do you care to explain why a MAK90 Sport is banned when it's not listed? If the state wanted to ban ALL the MAK90's, all it had to do was list BANNED: MAK90 (all). Regardless of whatever suffix or prefix they stuck on it to get around the current California laws. I don't remember what court decision found that it was ridiculous for the general population and police to know exactly which named gun was illegal and which was legal, but you probably do. Went up to the flow chart, it was Harrot that did the deed about nomenclature.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:51 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,137
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klewan View Post
Do you care to explain why a MAK90 Sport is banned when it's not listed? If the state wanted to ban ALL the MAK90's, all it had to do was list BANNED: ALL MAK90. Regardless of whatever suffix or prefix they stuck on it to get around the current California laws. I don't remember what court decision found that it was ridiculous for the general population and police to know exactly which named gun was illegal and which was legal, but you probably do.
Kasler v Lockyer.

The problem is defending the Sport when it's marked MAK90. The cost in legal fees and annoyance to win that - and it's likely, but not certain, that one would win - would far exceed the value of the gun.

If one has several 10's of thousands of dollars to invest in proving a point, there are probably better places to invest than in this little corner of California law.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:56 PM
klewan klewan is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,044
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Kasler v Lockyer.

The problem is defending the Sport when it's marked MAK90. The cost in legal fees and annoyance to win that - and it's likely, but not certain, that one would win - would far exceed the value of the gun.

If one has several 10's of thousands of dollars to invest in proving a point, there are probably better places to invest than in this little corner of California law.
Are you sure? Seemed like Harrot was the one. But I pointed out in a prior post that it was going to cost a hell of a lot more than a $600 gun was worth to fight against the state. Maintaining a low profile is probably the best.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-09-2012, 12:10 AM
Saym14 Saym14 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: So Cal
Posts: 6,066
iTrader: 121 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mstnpete View Post
http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

On the list as banned. Unless was registered as RAW before the ban.

Norinco: AK-47 (all)
Norinco: Hunter Rifle
Norinco: MAK 90
Norinco: NHM 90, 90-2, 91 Sport
Norinco: RPK Rifle
Ohio Ordnance Works: AK-74
Ohio Ordnance Works: ROMAK 991
or takenout of state ( hint hint)

de je vu ???
__________________
For sale RARE OFF ROSTER HK USP45 Combat Competition TAN FRAME, Walther PPQ9 First Edition -SG Valley
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1186451
FOR SALE - once fired BRASS *** *** San Gabriel Valley
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=849402
SHTF , TEOTWAWKI, Prepper Survival Novels /Books FS http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...7#post18420527
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-09-2012, 12:16 AM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
For your sanity, it is extremely important that you do not try to make technical sense out of gun laws.

That's not the purpose of such laws.

Somehow, large numbers of voters, at least voters who make campaign contributions and/or call or write legislators, hold the opinion that guns are a 'problem'.

Legislators, wishing to get re-elected, must be seen to be 'doing something' about problems. Note that that is not 'doing something useful' - the illusion of motion is sufficient. In fact, doing nothing useful about the 'gun problem' is a benefit - it means the 'problem' will persist, and the legislators may make a career of seeming to 'do something' year after year. (Under that motivation, it is sensible to continue to affirm to the public that the 'problem' exists, via speeches and newspapers - see 'somehow' at the beginning of the previous paragraph.)

Legislators, despite other evidence to the contrary, are not stupid. They're simply operating under different rules and for different motivations than 'regular people'. Being told the technically correct information on the content of their bills simply does not matter in their world; they can know the information, but it need not inform their actions or speech, because correct information doesn't matter in getting the bills passed.
Yeah I always come here first when it comes to CA gun laws. Never rely on my sense alone. But this one is confusing.

If I had a RRA that was stamped "Car A2.5", would it be legal?

How was Colt able to keep the same model number, and put a different rollmark, and somehow be legal? But Norinco cannot do the same thing?
__________________
There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve...Unless...the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-09-2012, 12:26 AM
Spiggy's Avatar
Spiggy Spiggy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Land of Irv
Posts: 8,717
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilro View Post
Yeah I always come here first when it comes to CA gun laws. Never rely on my sense alone. But this one is confusing.

If I had a RRA that was stamped "Car A2.5", would it be legal?

How was Colt able to keep the same model number, and put a different rollmark, and somehow be legal? But Norinco cannot do the same thing?
Norinco was also cut from importation, so no real effort was given to reintroduce product to the market.

Added to the nature of the "Sport/Sporter" question. If the gun is in factory configuration it still has the thumbhole stock which is banned by feature.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
Anti gun BS...

Finger print recognition is one more thing that keeps your killamajig from performing its killimafunction
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-09-2012, 9:36 AM
Marcus von W.'s Avatar
Marcus von W. Marcus von W. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Temecula, Southwest Riverside County
Posts: 1,461
iTrader: 55 / 100%
Default

Everything you need to know about understanding California laws:

1. Dick is good.

2. Guns are bad.

3. Gibber, gibber, shriek, howl, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, ha, ha, ha, hee, hee, hee. Hee haw, hee haw, blub, blub, blub. Wak, wak, wak. Gibber, gibber, gibber! Weeee, weeee, weee!

4. Para assistencia en Espanol, marke el nummero uno.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-09-2012, 9:56 AM
Darryl Licht's Avatar
Darryl Licht Darryl Licht is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Inland Empire between the mountains, the desert, and the beach
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
Because, the CA state constitution does not have a "right to bear arms".

And at the times the laws were passed, it was not decided yet on if the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was an individual right or a state right and if it only applied to the Federal government or both the Federal government & local (state/county/city/etc) governments.

SCOTUS finally ruled that the Second Amendment was an individual right in 2007.
SCOTUS then ruled that the Second Amendment applied to both Federal and local governements in 2010.

So, CA finally got a "right to bear arms" in 2010.

This is why all those gun laws were deemed legal when they were made into law.
Doesn't federal law supercede state law? How can a state take away our U.S. constitutional rights???

e.g.- Marijuana is "legal" now in CO and WA... but feds can, and are still still going after growers and sellers... ???
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 7:00 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.