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
  #81  
Old 02-21-2013, 9:06 AM
someR1's Avatar
someR1 someR1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hell
Posts: 2,767
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

wow, they are going for the gold aren't they ?

F .O. L .
__________________


"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-21-2013, 9:10 AM
compulsivegunbuyer compulsivegunbuyer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,816
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renaissance Redneck View Post
Right. Fixed magazine, removable clip.
Good luck with that. It is semi auto and easy to reload.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-21-2013, 9:18 AM
PsychGuy274's Avatar
PsychGuy274 PsychGuy274 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,289
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

It's going to be interesting to see how many of you that say "molon labe" actually mean it.
__________________
I am a law enforcement officer in the state of Colorado. Nothing I post is legal advice of any kind.

CLICK HERE for a San Diego County WIN!

CLICK HERE to read my research review on the fight-or-flight response and its application to firearm training
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-21-2013, 9:55 AM
Inoxmark's Avatar
Inoxmark Inoxmark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 627
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by compulsivegunbuyer View Post
Good luck with that. It is semi auto and easy to reload.
SKS fiasko 1999 = Garand fiasco 201X (if this passes). Mark these words.
Some court somewhere will rule that using enblock clips is functionally no different than using magazines, therefore enblock clips = ammunition feeding devices and Garand = AW and must be registered. But (Ha!Ha!), the registration period is closed and nothing we can do about it so bring 'em in!

Last edited by Inoxmark; 02-21-2013 at 11:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:06 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,832
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inoxmark View Post
the registration period is closed
Not before creating 200,000+ AWs..
__________________
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
  #86  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:15 AM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

200,000 only? Yeah maybe 200,000 if you're only counting Ruger 10/22s! 1 million+ the way this law is written.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:19 AM
desertjosh's Avatar
desertjosh desertjosh is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,321
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Man I reeeeaaallly hate this state.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:20 AM
M1A Rifleman's Avatar
M1A Rifleman M1A Rifleman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,466
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I wonder if Federal Law with regards to the DCM/CMP program overrides the silliness from the States? When it was the DCM there was no State approval, waiting period, etc to obtain an M1.

Also don't forget about AB174. Register your stuff today, but 174 takes em away tomorrow....
__________________
The only thing that is worse than an idiot, is someone who argues with one.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:23 AM
socal-shooter's Avatar
socal-shooter socal-shooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,520
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Can someone pm me and tell me why this would be a good thing .

I don't get it
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:24 AM
RMP91's Avatar
RMP91 RMP91 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 3,661
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

By the time this gets to SCOTUS (if ever), Obama would probably have appointed another activist judge...

It's all over for our rights not just here in CA, but throughout the nation.

This is very urgent, if we're gonna fight this, we need to do it fast.
__________________
Do what all great men would do: Tuck your head between your legs and kiss your *** goodbye. -Jake71

There's lots of players on the team. Not everyone gets to play "Quarterback". -CEDaytonaRydr
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:27 AM
killmime1234's Avatar
killmime1234 killmime1234 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,537
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
200,000 only? Yeah maybe 200,000 if you're only counting Ruger 10/22s! 1 million+ the way this law is written.
Easily more than a million. I read an independent study that claimed there were 500,000+ ARs alone in CA. How many more semi-auto .22s are out there than ARs? I'd guess we're looking at 2 million+ guns becoming "assault weapons."

This thing is scary. The dems super-majority could push this through.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:33 AM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Personally I see a list of exempt rifles "used by legitimate hunters and sportsman" like Dianne Feinstein included prior to this passing to exempt Ruger 10/22s, Browning BAR hunting rifles, etc... But this list won't be including the M-1A or mini-14, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:35 AM
seabee1's Avatar
seabee1 seabee1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 666
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Anybody read this yet?

http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...be-short-lived
__________________
VETO THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURES GUN CONTROL MEASURES NOW
A true grassroots effort...this is the one and only referendum site... PLEASE DONATE GENEROUSLY!!!
http://www.vetogunmageddon.org/donations-options/
OFFICIAL VETO REFERENDUM THREAD
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1215302

Quote:
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. -Mohandas Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:39 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socal-shooter View Post
Can someone pm me and tell me why this would be a good thing .

I don't get it
It is a massive over-reach which simplifies a federal challenge to it immensely.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:45 AM
mt4design's Avatar
mt4design mt4design is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Bay in So Cal
Posts: 633
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

I got cold chills and then a warm feeling of exuberance in mere milliseconds.

This insanity is stealing life from me. Not sure to laugh or scream...

Quote:
Originally Posted by seabee1 View Post
Thanks seebee1. Good article. Glad Ted Leiu got a reality check too.
__________________

This is the USA. We don't elect kings, we rebel against them!

Last edited by mt4design; 02-21-2013 at 11:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:45 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 hoffmang View Post
It is a massive over-reach which simplifies a federal challenge to it immensely.

-Gene
Simplifies it, YES.

BUT, does it speed up a challenge? My fear is we'll lose one (or more!) of the "Heller 5" before a significant "assault weapon" and mag capacity case will be heard before the court.
__________________
.
.


"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
  #97  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:49 AM
RMP91's Avatar
RMP91 RMP91 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 3,661
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
It is a massive over-reach which simplifies a federal challenge to it immensely.

-Gene
That may be, but remember that unlike public opinion after a tragic mass shooting, time is not on our side when it comes to the courts, especially SCOTUS. What makes this unnerving is knowing that the highest court in America is one Obama judicial appointment away from swinging the political pendulum to the mid-hard left. That would put at least a 30 year hold on current cases if we want to avoid a botched/biased ruling.

Cases like this take quite a bit of time to build, and even more time to reach SCOTUS (if it ever gets that far). Something you're quite aware of, as are most of us here on CGN.

I don't doubt that we'll (eventually) win most if not all of the court cases that are ongoing or are in the works, I'm just disheartened and frustrated about how they can still crank out these pathetic excuses for bills faster than we can strike them down in court...

And, as I stated before, there is a rogue element in play here: time. Not trying to be the pessimist here (I'm usually an optimist...), just sharing my concerns and wondering if you could perhaps explain how this could all go down for us.
__________________
Do what all great men would do: Tuck your head between your legs and kiss your *** goodbye. -Jake71

There's lots of players on the team. Not everyone gets to play "Quarterback". -CEDaytonaRydr

Last edited by RMP91; 02-21-2013 at 11:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:53 AM
JustEd's Avatar
JustEd JustEd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,011
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

BUT, will it now be legal to shoot our double barrel shotguns in the air from our homes, like Joe Biden?
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:55 AM
TacoJockey's Avatar
TacoJockey TacoJockey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Folsom
Posts: 407
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbenson View Post
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?
The $19 fee has been around for a while, its the same as what you pay now to register a handgun if you bring it in when you move into the state and it is currently only a one time fee
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:00 PM
mt4design's Avatar
mt4design mt4design is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Bay in So Cal
Posts: 633
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustEd View Post
BUT, will it now be legal to shoot our double barrel shotguns in the air from our homes, like Joe Biden?
Sometimes Joe forgets he is in the ruling class and not like the rest of us.

He is above the law and voted himself and his friends the right to free stuff for life like heath care, private security, lavish vacations in far away lands, and committing acts of random craziness like driving a car off a bridge and killing your passenger, firing a shotgun off your balcony just because or using a cigar as an improvised sex device.

Its all part of the Ted Kennedy legacy.

ETA: Oh, does this bill mean the Winchester Model 190 I got from my dad as a kid could become an assault rifle?

This bill hasn't been voted on or signed yet right?
__________________

This is the USA. We don't elect kings, we rebel against them!

Last edited by mt4design; 02-21-2013 at 12:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:05 PM
frankm's Avatar
frankm frankm is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Occupied Vespuchia
Posts: 9,685
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

LOL, what a bunch of Maroons!
__________________
RKBA Clock: soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box (expanded right 7/1/16 because of KA laws)
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:15 PM
jrr jrr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 474
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yes, your Winchester 190 would be an assault weapon because it has a fixed (tubular) magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Standard capacity 22lr is 15, 21 rounds for 22. short.

This bill is an absolute disaster, no question about it.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:18 PM
lilro lilro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
It is a massive over-reach which simplifies a federal challenge to it immensely.

-Gene
Is that what it is? I read it completely different.
__________________
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
  #104  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:31 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,832
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killmime1234 View Post
Easily more than a million. I read an independent study that claimed there were 500,000+ ARs alone in CA. How many more semi-auto .22s are out there than ARs? I'd guess we're looking at 2 million+ guns becoming "assault weapons."
Of which (conservatively, depending on registration rate) 200,000+ will become LEGALLY papered RAWs. In CA no less.

When was the last time any firearm became a legal RAW in CA?
__________________
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
  #105  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:33 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

To me this bill indicates that someone has been doing some strategic thinking. Banning semiautomatic rifles with detachable mags without regards to cosmetic features eliminates some of the key arguments against the traditional assault weapon bans that target only rifles with certain features, e.g. pistol grips, bayonet lugs.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:36 PM
jrr jrr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 474
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yes, it does. Hopefully it will prove shortsighted in opening additional avenues of attack though. Protection of arms in common use becomes a better argument when you have 2/3 (or more) of all the rifles owned in the state falling under the new definition.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:38 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 903
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There need to be consequences for these *****s in govt.
They can enact new stupid unconstitutional laws several orders of magnitude faster than the courts can remedy them.
A class action suit against the individual law makers is what we need.

These people are in breech of their oath of office - they have no legitimacy, and therefor should have no protection.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:40 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Anyone have any idea yet if these will have the same characteristics as other RAWs or will there be "featureless RAWs" and "Bullet Button RAWs" to further confuse things? What if I want to go featureless on an AR-15 RAW that was registered as a RAW because it had a Bullet Button? How does an officer tell if it's an SB-47 RAW, an SB-374 RAW, or an SB-23 RAW? This is CONFUSING!!!
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:40 PM
SDmtnbkr SDmtnbkr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 323
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
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.
I don't think Grandpa's Marlin will be affected, the Ruger yes... the bill states

Quote:
A person who, between January 1, 2001, and prior to January 1, 2014, lawfully possessed an assault weapon...
I've had my Marlin 60 since like 1990, so the way I read that, It doesn't fall under this law. NO??
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:46 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrr View Post
Hopefully it will prove shortsighted in opening additional avenues of attack though. Protection of arms in common use becomes a better argument when you have 2/3 (or more) of all the rifles owned in the state falling under the new definition.
Common use only gets you in the door.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:52 PM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 555
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDmtnbkr View Post
I've had my Marlin 60 since like 1990, so the way I read that, It doesn't fall under this law. NO??
No, because when the law takes effect, instantly you will have lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to 1/1/14, because it will be before that date still.
-------
To everyone else:

1. The best way to neuter the effect of assault weapon categorization is to make so many firearms into assault weapons. If everything is an assault weapon, nothing is. This is another law that was written on opposite day.

2. Don't get too hung up on SCOTUS makeup changes in the next 4 years. Keep in mind the Senate has to vote to confirm and they are already obstructing Hagel, a moderate Republican. If you think a liberal supreme court justice would get through to replace a conservative, well...
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:56 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Gun Control is the new rallying cry of the Democrats especially because it takes the focus off the failed economy. I expect to see Obama pull a Hail Mary like Reagan did with Clarence Thomas: he will chose a Christian Conservative that is pro-life but is anti-2nd amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:58 PM
RonnieP's Avatar
RonnieP RonnieP is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,862
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If the State of California is so intent on making me a Criminal, guess I'll have no choice but to comply with their intent.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02-21-2013, 1:00 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,832
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
To me this bill indicates that someone has been doing some strategic thinking. Banning semiautomatic rifles with detachable mags without regards to cosmetic features eliminates some of the key arguments against the traditional assault weapon bans that target only rifles with certain features, e.g. pistol grips, bayonet lugs.
Hanlon's razor suggests otherwise.
__________________
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
  #115  
Old 02-21-2013, 2:23 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Writing the law that is so broad in its scope t turns almost any weapon into an Assault weapon including a Ruger 10/22 is not strategic it's bold. This is the end game and its going to Supreme Court this time at some point.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-21-2013, 2:27 PM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,323
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Fabs is more or less right, everyone on both sides knows this is going to end up in the courtroom... by laying claim on the largest stake prior to the divvy, the grabbers hope to consolidate as much as possible while they have the dramatic microphone. That way, when the case finally reaches the circuit and the fervor has died down, there will be more for our side to recapture.

It was probably a mistake to reach this far, though, because it substantially increases the odds of an injunction, which means that they won't actually hold terrain when the case reaches the judge... they will only claim to hold it.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02-21-2013, 2:30 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Don't wanna speculate yet

Last edited by Moonshine; 02-21-2013 at 2:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-21-2013, 2:52 PM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,529
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So you paid the DROS tax which included being registered in the database, if a handgun, when you bought the firearm and then you have to pay 19.00 again?

Give me a break.
__________________
"I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." Matthew Quigley
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02-21-2013, 3:42 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is online now
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,661
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seabee1 View Post
In what way?
edit: shortening speculation

This is a SCOTUS dare and they will take it as such. This is the long gun version of the DC/Chicago handgun bans, and could end up being just as helpful as they were.

Last edited by stix213; 02-21-2013 at 3:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 02-21-2013, 3:44 PM
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 570
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Actually, based on the proposed text, the purchase of any handgun via DROS after January 1, 1991 is exempt from this provision.

It looks like they're trying to document everything else so they have a complete list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Californio View Post
So you paid the DROS tax which included being registered in the database, if a handgun, when you bought the firearm and then you have to pay 19.00 again?

Give me a break.
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 1:54 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.