Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:01 AM
Bolt_Action Bolt_Action is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 233
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

This bill makes it very clear that a rifle which has a "fixed magazine" is not a rifle with a bullet button magazine, yes? If that's true, then why is it that we are limited to using 10 round magazines (or less) in bullet button builds? I thought the law said that a rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity >10 rounds was an assault weapon. But if I'm reading this right, a rifle with a bullet button doesn't have a fixed magazine (and we already know it doesn't have a detachable magazine or it wouldn't be exempt from the ban).
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:07 AM
pMcW's Avatar
pMcW pMcW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Morgan Hill
Posts: 530
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolt_Action View Post
This bill makes it very clear that a rifle which has a "fixed magazine" is not a rifle with a bullet button magazine, yes? If that's true, then why is it that we are limited to using 10 round magazines (or less) in bullet button builds? I thought the law said that a rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity >10 rounds was an assault weapon. But if I'm reading this right, a rifle with a bullet button doesn't have a fixed magazine (and we already know it doesn't have a detachable magazine or it wouldn't be exempt from the ban).
This bill has nothing to do with bullet buttons. Yee's SB-47 is the one that would change anything about bullet buttons. And neither of these bills are laws yet.
__________________
Questions about new laws? Seek answers here first: Assault weapons law? | Ammunition law? | Magazine law?

M1A, Mini-14, M1 Carbine, Garand? Not banned.

Remove BB or similar device after AW reg? We don't know.
Quote:
(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). SB 880 | AB 1135
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:10 AM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,141
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Everyone really needs to get hot on this and get ready to take political action. This is a ban on ALL detachable magazine rifles. Darrel Steinberg wants to turn all of us into felons for daring to exercise fundamental rights.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:12 AM
Inoxmark's Avatar
Inoxmark Inoxmark is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 627
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Briar Patch!

-Gene
Aside from the facts that
a. One will not be able to get another rifle,
b. Won't be able to sell, gift, will or otherwise transfer them in state, immediate family included,
c. Draconian storage and transportation requirements,
d. Step to the right, step to the left is a felony,
e. No kid will be able to start off a shooting hobby with a 10/22 or Marlin "assault rifles",
yes, it's a briar patch.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:19 AM
tenpercentfirearms's Avatar
tenpercentfirearms tenpercentfirearms is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Taft, CA
Posts: 12,837
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inoxmark View Post
Aside from the facts that
a. One will not be able to get another rifle,
b. Won't be able to sell, gift, will or otherwise transfer them in state, immediate family included,
c. Draconian storage and transportation requirements,
d. Step to the right, step to the left is a felony,
e. No kid will be able to start off a shooting hobby with a 10/22 or Marlin "assault rifles",
yes, it's a briar patch.
Man I like this article even more now. Scalia is ready to decide this issue for us and I think I am going to like the result.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/antoni...rticle/2521413
__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:20 AM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The Ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon? This is going to court heh! On a side note I was planning on spending some money to convert my AR-15s to featureless so I didn't have to register under SB-47. Now ill just buy more lowers instead !!!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:26 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,326
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
I was wondering when the penny would drop ...

And this is good - Register every gun you have.
Quote:
a Firearm Ownership Record to be submitted, as specified, to the Department of Justice for every firearm an individual owns, with prescribed exceptions, including firearms purchased from a licensed firearms dealer and documented by a Dealers’ Record of Sale transaction
So is this saying that for example longguns purchsed via DROS from a dealer would not need to be re-registered? Is that because they are basically admitting that they're using the DROS as a defacto registration system already?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:28 AM
Renaissance Redneck's Avatar
Renaissance Redneck Renaissance Redneck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 638
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
So is this saying that for example longguns purchsed via DROS from a dealer would not need to be re-registered? Is that because they are basically admitting that they're using the DROS as a defacto registration system already?
I think you're misreading it. I think it says even those purchased with a DROS indeed MUST be re-registered.

EDIT: I see the confusion now; the language can be interpreted in two different ways. As I mentioned in a post above, there is some vagueness in the language of this bill.
__________________
.
.


"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

"It's a TRAP!" - Admiral Ackbar, Rebel Alliance

Last edited by Renaissance Redneck; 02-21-2013 at 7:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:28 AM
Diablohtr Diablohtr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 162
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
So is this saying that for example longguns purchsed via DROS from a dealer would not need to be re-registered? Is that because they are basically admitting that they're using the DROS as a defacto registration system already?
Long gun registration will already be active by that date, so no need to "double dip".
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:28 AM
pMcW's Avatar
pMcW pMcW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Morgan Hill
Posts: 530
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdtx2001 View Post
Goodbye M1 Garand
Why do you say that? Eight-round fixed magazine...
__________________
Questions about new laws? Seek answers here first: Assault weapons law? | Ammunition law? | Magazine law?

M1A, Mini-14, M1 Carbine, Garand? Not banned.

Remove BB or similar device after AW reg? We don't know.
Quote:
(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). SB 880 | AB 1135
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:28 AM
Inoxmark's Avatar
Inoxmark Inoxmark is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 627
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Also, the way the bill is written right now, it requires registering all currently owned bolt action rifles with detachable magazines. That would include CZ rimfires and centerfires, milsurp Swiss K31 and K1911, some Remingtons, Winchesters, etc.
Not as assault rifles, just registering with DOJ.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:37 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,326
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renaissance Redneck View Post
I think you're misreading it. I think it says even those purchased with a DROS indeed MUST be re-registered.

EDIT: I see the confusion now; the language can be interpreted in two different ways. As I mentioned in a post above, there is some vagueness in the language of this bill.
I was reading that to say that a longgun purchased from a dealer was a prescribed exception. Maybe that's because when the longgun registration kicks in next year any new longgun will automatically be registered via the DROS just like handguns have been.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:42 AM
Renaissance Redneck's Avatar
Renaissance Redneck Renaissance Redneck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 638
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
I was reading that to say that a longgun purchased from a dealer was a prescribed exception. Maybe that's because when the longgun registration kicks in next year any new longgun will automatically be registered via the DROS just like handguns have been.
(note: I said re-registered, when I should have said registered). My interpretation is that long-guns purchased even before the new registration law kicks in would have to be retroactively registered. For example, the AR lower and Mini-14 I bought last year would have to be registered. But I do see what you're saying too.

I guess we shouldn't be too quick to quibble about it yet; it's just a bill at this point, subject to amendment and clarification. But, we certainly DO need to mobilize to fight it.
__________________
.
.


"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

"It's a TRAP!" - Admiral Ackbar, Rebel Alliance
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:45 AM
NorCalMik's Avatar
NorCalMik NorCalMik is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 138
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I'm curious why the fee doesn't trigger the 2/3rds requirement from prop 26.

Edit: This legislation amends an existing fee authority which is why it does not trigger prop 26.
__________________
"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race." Calvin Coolidge

Last edited by NorCalMik; 02-21-2013 at 8:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:49 AM
Inoxmark's Avatar
Inoxmark Inoxmark is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 627
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
I was reading that to say that a longgun purchased from a dealer was a prescribed exception. Maybe that's because when the longgun registration kicks in next year any new longgun will automatically be registered via the DROS just like handguns have been.
Can't you guys read the actual bill instead of the summary. It's pretty clear what's to be registered and what's exempted. All pre-91 unregistered handguns and all detachable magazine rifles and shotguns are subject to registration. Also the newly-minted "assault weapons" but it's a different registration:
Quote:
27566. (a) On and after July 1, 2014, a Firearm Ownership Record shall be submitted by prepaid mail or delivered in person to the Department of Justice for every firearm an individual owns or possesses.
(b) The following firearms are exempt from subdivision (a):
(1) Handguns purchased from a licensed firearms dealer and documented by a Dealers’ Record of Sale (DROS) transaction on and after January 1, 1991.
(2) Rifles without detachable magazines and shotguns purchased prior to January 1, 2014.
(3) Assault weapons registered with the department pursuant to Section 30900.
(4) Firearms for which a Firearm Ownership Record has been previously filed by the current owner.
(c) The department may charge a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the department for the reasonable costs of maintaining the Firearm Ownership Record program, but in no case more than nineteen dollars ($19) per transaction to process the Firearm Ownership Record. After the department establishes the fee amount, the department may adjust the fee amount annually as necessary to cover the reasonable costs of administering the program. The fees shall be deposited into the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-21-2013, 7:56 AM
tuolumnejim's Avatar
tuolumnejim tuolumnejim is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Stagecoach, Nv.
Posts: 9,981
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inoxmark View Post
Can't you guys read the actual bill instead of the summary. It's pretty clear what's to be registered and what's exempted. All pre-91 unregistered handguns and all detachable magazine rifles and shotguns are subject to registration. Also the newly-minted "assault weapons" but it's a different registration:
Sorry I don't read liar er lawyer.
__________________
There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.
Charles de Montesquieu

“In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.”
Publius Cornelius Scipio

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem
"I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery"
Count Palatine of Posen
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:04 AM
Renaissance Redneck's Avatar
Renaissance Redneck Renaissance Redneck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 638
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inoxmark View Post
Can't you guys read the actual bill . . .
I can (I think ). The bill says we must register "every firearm an individual owns or possesses", with the list of limited exceptions.

Unless there's something later in the bill that I missed, or unless I'm misreading it (certainly possible), EVERY SINGLE RIFLE with a detachable magazine (semiautomatic, bolt action, lever action, pump action, doesn't matter) purchased prior to 2014 MUST be registered. The firearm may not be classified as an "assault weapon", but you certainly MUST retroactively register it. Hunters BEWARE!!! M1 Carbine owners BEWARE!!! Winchester Model 88 lever action owners BEWARE!!! Ruger 10/22 etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah BEWARE!!!

Am I wrong?
__________________
.
.


"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

"It's a TRAP!" - Admiral Ackbar, Rebel Alliance

Last edited by Renaissance Redneck; 02-21-2013 at 8:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:07 AM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'm not an attorney but let me clarify a few things:

1. Rifles will not have to be "re-registered" because when long gun registration kicks in detachable magazine semi-autos and bullet button semi-autos will NOT be long guns, they will be Assault Weapons and require registration as Assault Weapons.

2. Get a serial added to any AR or AK you built from 80% because they will require registration.

3. A 2/3rds majority vote is not required because WE will be paying the costs for the new registration period.

4. MILLIONS of California gun owners are about to become felons. Even grandpas Marlin is going to be an Assault Weapon and so will junior's Ruger 10/22. Previous bans made it obvious that if it looked "military" it was probably an Assault Weapon, this time around its much more vague and many Californians will likely not realize they have to register.

5. This bill is the perfect vehicle for a SCOTUS challenge... It appears to be the long gun equivalent of Heller and McDonald.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:13 AM
Renaissance Redneck's Avatar
Renaissance Redneck Renaissance Redneck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 638
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
I'm not an attorney but let me clarify a few things:

1. Rifles will not have to be "re-registered" because when long gun registration kicks in detachable magazine semi-autos and bullet button semi-autos will NOT be long guns, they will be Assault Weapons and require registration as Assault Weapons.
.
Yeah, but firearms that were NEVER registered before, but have a detachable magazine, regardless of action type, and purchased before 2014, WILL HAVE TO BE REGISTERED!!! NO EXCEPTIONS!!! That's what I read. Again, am I wrong?
__________________
.
.


"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

"It's a TRAP!" - Admiral Ackbar, Rebel Alliance
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:14 AM
eric_650 eric_650 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 278
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanPedroShooter View Post

Think of all the felons! Think of all the prisons we'll need to build, the taxpayers we'll need to arrest, round up and confine! It makes the mind boggle....
fema camps finally come into play? /tinfoilhat
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:17 AM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 8,874
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdtx2001 View Post
Goodbye M1 Garand
You mean M1 carbine. The Garand does not have a detachable magazine.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:20 AM
Renaissance Redneck's Avatar
Renaissance Redneck Renaissance Redneck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 638
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
You mean M1 carbine. The Garand does not have a detachable magazine.
Right. Fixed magazine, removable clip.
__________________
.
.


"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

"It's a TRAP!" - Admiral Ackbar, Rebel Alliance
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:20 AM
HBrebel's Avatar
HBrebel HBrebel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: HB
Posts: 543
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyB View Post
Why 80% lowers? This will ban everything from AKs and ARs to 10/22s as assault weapons.

Negating the law by refusal is better that complying when the law is this broad. Any semi-rifle that accepts a magazine will be labeled this way and as such will be subject to the laws and regulations of RAWs that are owned by people now.

Its unreasonable and unethical for any 2A supporter to comply with this law if it is passed.
You said pretty much all that needs to be said on the subject
"Its unreasonable and unethical for any 2A supporter to comply with this law if it is passed."
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:23 AM
HBrebel's Avatar
HBrebel HBrebel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: HB
Posts: 543
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IPSICK View Post
Is that where I register and turn in all my guns that I lost in the boating accident?
Or a voting accident yuk yuk yuk
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:29 AM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

My reading is this: someone had a C&R M-1 Garand prior to long gun registration and no Form 4473 was required when the C&R rifle was bought back in the 90s. No registration required January 1, 2014.

Someone had an M-1 Carbine bought as a C&R rifle back in the 1990s with no Form 4473, no registration as a long gun required but because it is a semi-auto with a detachable magazine it is now an "Assault Weapon" and therefore must be registered as a RAW.

Last edited by Moonshine; 02-21-2013 at 2:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:34 AM
hatidua's Avatar
hatidua hatidua is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 710
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
5. This bill is the perfect vehicle for a SCOTUS challenge... It appears to be the long gun equivalent of Heller and McDonald.
Yep, I wonder how many long years from now that will occur and what judges will be on that court then...
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:34 AM
Write Winger's Avatar
Write Winger Write Winger is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,087
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Let CGF do their thing. They have a strategy; we're just loose lips sinking ships. Ask questions IF or AFTER a law gets passed, not before.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:36 AM
rsacks rsacks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Ok, so I have a bolt action Savage 30-06 with a 4 round detachable magazine. I bought it about 6 years ago from Big 5, so it had the ten day wait and the attendant background check and paperwork, so I assume it does not need to be done again. Right?

On the other hand, the bill says the exemption for previous DROS is only handguns, so WTF am I supposed to do? If this passes of course...
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:36 AM
WiKDMoNKY's Avatar
WiKDMoNKY WiKDMoNKY is offline
Guns, Jeeps and Drones
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Orange
Posts: 508
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

AMEN!!!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Write Winger View Post
Let CGF do their thing. They have a strategy; we're just loose lips sinking ships. Ask questions IF or AFTER a law gets passed, not before.


Sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk 2
__________________
NRA, SAF, GOA GET INVOLVED NOW OR DON'T COMPLAIN LATER!

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin 1818

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington 1790
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:42 AM
Renaissance Redneck's Avatar
Renaissance Redneck Renaissance Redneck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 638
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsacks View Post
Ok, so I have a bolt action Savage 30-06 with a 4 round detachable magazine. I bought it about 6 years ago from Big 5, so it had the ten day wait and the attendant background check and paperwork, so I assume it does not need to be done again. Right?

.
Wrong. It was DROS'd, but not registered. If this bill were to become law (as written) you would have to file a "Firearm Ownership Record", which was not filed for the rifle previously. As written, the law is retroactive.
__________________
.
.


"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

"It's a TRAP!" - Admiral Ackbar, Rebel Alliance
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:42 AM
ekraft ekraft is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 28
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

keep calm and get ready
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:43 AM
senorpeligro's Avatar
senorpeligro senorpeligro is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 510
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Write Winger View Post
Let CGF do their thing. They have a strategy; we're just loose lips sinking ships. Ask questions IF or AFTER a law gets passed, not before.

Seconded. They love it when we fix their bills.
__________________
“Whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is a usurper and a tyrant: I declare him my enemy.”
--Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

"To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury."
--Benjamin Tucker
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:43 AM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Btw does this mean the Browning BAR hunting rifle is now going to be an Assault Weapon and so is the Benelli R-1? Auto-Loading hunting rifles are NOT cheap!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:48 AM
SparkYZ SparkYZ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SFV
Posts: 615
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Will you guys shut up? Stop telling these retards how to rewrite their bill. It's PERFECT THE WAY IT IS.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:50 AM
rsacks rsacks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

At least my tank is exempt (no detachable magazine)...until DMV gets wind of it.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:51 AM
Lone_Gunman Lone_Gunman is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In the wind
Posts: 8,412
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Well, this is an interesting turn of events...
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:51 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,803
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkYZ View Post
Will you guys shut up? Stop telling these retards how to rewrite their bill. It's PERFECT THE WAY IT IS.
Yup.

Suffice it to say you should oppose it anyway ...
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:59 AM
kbenson's Avatar
kbenson kbenson is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 416
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Seems the "gov" is just looking for ways to price us out of ownership.

They tried this with tobacco tax + restrictions, and it really took a toll on the smokers (although many people still smoke-not as much as pretax/restrictions)

Already discussion of gun insurance and now these extra fees

I found this piece interesting-

(c) The department may charge a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the department for the reasonable costs of maintaining the Firearm Ownership Record program, but in no case more than nineteen dollars ($19) per transaction to process the Firearm Ownership Record. After the department establishes the fee amount, the department may adjust the fee amount annually as necessary to cover the reasonable costs of administering the program. The fees shall be deposited into the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account.

Does that say the registration fee will be due annually?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 02-21-2013, 9:01 AM
sseric75 sseric75 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: South Orange County
Posts: 768
iTrader: 113 / 100%
Default

Can Everyone just STFU. Don't give these Idiots any more ammynition then we need to. Donate to Calguns and let them figure it out. Geez.
__________________

NRA and DOJ Certified Firearms Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 02-21-2013, 9:04 AM
jrr jrr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wish I shared the optimism of some that this is going to be an easy win in court. You realize that a preliminary injunction will require an immediate harm in order to be granted. So what is the immediate harm? Registration? Good luck getting a CA court to agree that registration is a bad thing. Inability to transfer or sell is probably the closest thing, but we'd better not get caught with our pants down on the counter argument that adding one more gun to a collection is not an immediate harm.

All I'm saying is, this is REALLY bad. Do NOT underestimate these people just because they make grammatical errors on the first draft. Do not think that this will result in an immediate decision on the protected nature of semi autos. They are not banning them, they are registering them, and thats a much harder fight. And besides that, we have enough fights on our hands, this will back-burner carry cases and magazines, roster, etc.

Call, email, fax. Do what you have to do to get the word out. I know that this will get a lot of fence sitters off their butts, but only if WE get the word out. The legislature sure as he11 wont do it for us, they want this to go in under the radar.

I hope you are right in your optimism Gene. The one thing I can say is that this at least accelerates the battle. If we do manage to win this one, it could be very big.
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 4:58 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.