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
  #121  
Old 02-21-2013, 5:03 PM
01trubluecobra 01trubluecobra is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This bill would require, on and after July 1, 2014, 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 and assault weapons registered with the department. The bill would authorize the department to charge a fee of up to $19 per transaction for the submission of the Firearm Ownership Record.

So does this mean I would have to register my Mossberg 500? Also what about my Handguns? They are already registered with the DOJ when I bought it.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 02-21-2013, 5:10 PM
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 570
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here are the exemptions in the original text of the bill:

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 01trubluecobra View Post
This bill would require, on and after July 1, 2014, 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 and assault weapons registered with the department. The bill would authorize the department to charge a fee of up to $19 per transaction for the submission of the Firearm Ownership Record.

So does this mean I would have to register my Mossberg 500? Also what about my Handguns? They are already registered with the DOJ when I bought it.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 02-21-2013, 5:11 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

No your mossberg 500 if purchased prior to 1/1/14 does not require registration, this applies to semi auto rifles that can accept a non-fixed magazine
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 02-21-2013, 6:02 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

There will millions and millions of AWs in this state if this passes.

We all get to keep our stuff and do whatever we want with it. ANYTHING!

The bad: Sales will no longer be available, for the children (literally)
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 02-21-2013, 6:12 PM
Gavelek's Avatar
Gavelek Gavelek is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,095
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

Hypothetically.. I don't own any guns, if you don't register how they going to find out that you have an assault weapon, will they be checking dros records?
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 02-21-2013, 6:14 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gavelek View Post
Hypothetically.. I don't own any guns, if you don't register how they going to find out that you have an assault weapon, will they be checking dros records?
They will check records and if its not registered you will be arrested
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 02-21-2013, 6:15 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

This is actually a pretty cool bill! It allows for millions to have AW's and prohibits many others for the ability to own weapons in common use. (nation wide common use)

My attorney went to school with Steinberg and was good friends with him. Looking forward to me talking to my lawyer about what is "friend" is doing. LOL Political suicide!
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 02-21-2013, 6:26 PM
Anchors's Avatar
Anchors Anchors is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 5,927
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

OpSec.

Even publicly stating you think this bill is a good thing is bad.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 02-21-2013, 6:29 PM
m03's Avatar
m03 m03 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,915
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanAnchors View Post
OpSec.

Even publicly stating you think this bill is a good thing is bad.
This.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 02-21-2013, 6:31 PM
Anschiss's Avatar
Anschiss Anschiss is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 254
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Where do felons shop for clothes? I need a costume for an upcoming role..
__________________
I am a professional. I always aim true whether firing single rounds or full automatic. I know neither fatigue nor failure. I would take pride in my work but for one thing, I do not know my target. I am not the one that kills. That distinction belongs to the man who pulls my trigger. I am an assault rifle. My name is Kalashnikov.

DANGEROUS FREEDOM > PEACEFUL SLAVERY
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 02-21-2013, 6:34 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanAnchors View Post
OpSec.

Even publicly stating you think this bill is a good thing is bad.
I think its a great thing! Will Steinberg listen to me? NO! Will his staff read what i i posted? Maybe! How do they know where i stand or if i even know what i'm talking about? They don't!

Its a good bill! OR maybe its a bad bill! Who am i to say? I'm nobody.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 02-21-2013, 6:36 PM
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 taperxz View Post
I think its a great thing! Will Steinberg listen to me? NO! Will his staff read what i i posted? Maybe! How do they know where i stand or if i even know what i'm talking about? They don't!

Its a good bill! OR maybe its a bad bill! Who am i to say? I'm nobody.
__________________
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
  #133  
Old 02-21-2013, 6:37 PM
JonL87's Avatar
JonL87 JonL87 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SSF
Posts: 125
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

FML and this state
__________________
Glock 17*Glock 21 SF*Ruger GP100 3inch SS*Stag Arms AR15*Ruger 10/22*Remington 870 Express Tactical*Remington Versamax*Remington 700 VTR*Springfield Armory Socom 16*Spikes Tactical AR15*LWRC M6IC SPR*Sig P226 scorpion Elite*Nighthawk GRP Recon*
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 02-21-2013, 6:44 PM
mosinnagantm9130's Avatar
mosinnagantm9130 mosinnagantm9130 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Places
Posts: 8,284
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

With any luck the courts would destroy this
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodEyeSniper View Post
My neighbors think I'm a construction worker named Bruce.

Little do they know that's just my stripper outfit and name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopperX View Post
I am currently cleaning it and I noticed when I squeeze the snake this white paste like substance comes out. What the heck is this crap?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff L View Post
Don't D&T a virgin milsurp rifle. You'll burn in collector hell.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 02-21-2013, 6:46 PM
ambis ambis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 120
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The more 'Assault Weapons' owners in California, the better, right? Meaning that if this bill passes, there are now millions of AW owners....and so it is now 'common' to possess an 'AW' for lawful purposes, making it more likely the Ban will be struck down?
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:16 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

At least this ban actually makes sense compared to previous bills. it's easy to tell what an Assault Weapon is now: it's any semi-automatic rifle bought in California before January 1, 2014!
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 02-21-2013, 8:47 PM
deebix deebix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 588
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

My answer: No.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 02-21-2013, 9:03 PM
killmime1234's Avatar
killmime1234 killmime1234 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,537
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

What are the odds of a preliminary injunction?
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 02-21-2013, 9:35 PM
01trubluecobra 01trubluecobra is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So if you register it as an Assault weapon, but move out of the state, do you have to let the State know or not. I am active duty military and as soon as my orders are up I am moving back to Virginia.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 02-21-2013, 9:54 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So long as the Ruger 10/22 and other common models are included in a ban the probability of a preliminary injunction is high in my opinion. This is based upon language already out there that the intent is to ban Assault Weapons yet new laws expand to encompass all semi-autos as Assault Weapons including those used for hunting such as the Browning BAR and those used for target shooting such as the Ruger 10/22.

It is my opinion that a challenge will be pre-empted by borrowing from Feinstein and creating an exempt list of sporting and hunting rifles like her bill does. We're seeing the first draft of the bill right now and it's easier to maintain a list of what is allowed than what isn't. Clearly the reason for including rimfire I the ban is to prevent 5.56mm lowers with rimfire adaptor blocks and uppers from being sold because they can be converted back to 5.56mm with a different upper.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 02-22-2013, 8:09 AM
dmckean44 dmckean44 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Even if the 10/22's aren't included in the ban it's still a LOT of weapons that fall under it.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 02-22-2013, 8:33 AM
oldyeller oldyeller is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,404
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

If this bill goes through, I will have to register my pig hunting gun as an assault weapon- it holds 4 rounds of 44 mag. No other mags available for it at all.
__________________
Wanted- Dillon XL650 blue press parts/conversions
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 02-22-2013, 8:34 AM
Diablohtr Diablohtr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 162
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I can't wait to assault paper with my 10/22 Assault Plinker!
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 02-22-2013, 8:40 AM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

To those of you wondering why they're going after .22 rimfire: its not about banning Ruger 10/22s and stuff like the M&P-1522. It's about preventing manufacuters from bringing in stripped lowers with a .22lr roll mark and selling AR-15s as .22s with conversion kits installed that allow them to be converted back to 5.56mm by buying an upper online.

As written this law forever prevents stripped lowers from comming back into the state because even stripped they can accept a detachable magazine.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 02-22-2013, 8:58 AM
jrr jrr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 470
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Actually, I suspect they havent thought that far ahead. IMHO the fact that they are going after .22 is a consequence of the .22lr AW look-alikes; the GSG series, the Colt and HK 22s, etc. Its the same mentality behind the desire to ban 10 rd mags that look like 30 rd mags.

They a. cant stand the sight of them and b. dont want people to have guns that look "cool", no matter their actual performance. It goes to the heart of the new Anti gun philosophy of making guns socially unacceptable. I think the fact that 10-22s, and a whole host of others are now AW is just a byproduct.

And, yes this is a first draft. Many changes could occur. I will say that the problem with Feinstein's bill (or one of the problems anyways) is that by calling out certain guns as "sporting" and exempt, you have created an arbitrary and capricious standard. If a Browning BAR is exempted, but a Binelli R1 is not, where is the distinction? I can't see this bill getting any better than hers was. The whole thing is just a constitutional nightmare. Our problem is that until we get up to the Supreme court we are unlikely to get a favorable ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:01 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 jrr View Post
Actually, I suspect they havent thought that far ahead. IMHO the fact that they are going after .22 is a consequence of the .22lr AW look-alikes; the GSG series, the Colt and HK 22s, etc. Its the same mentality behind the desire to ban 10 rd mags that look like 30 rd mags.

They a. cant stand the sight of them and b. dont want people to have guns that look "cool", no matter their actual performance. It goes to the heart of the new Anti gun philosophy of making guns socially unacceptable. I think the fact that 10-22s, and a whole host of others are now AW is just a byproduct.
Agree. Hanlon's razor, as usual. They're as dumb as a box of hair.
__________________
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
  #147  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:38 AM
george223 george223 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 283
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is this really the best way to use our resources? To make non-violent law abiding citizens into criminals. Today, violent criminals are being let out of prison due to overcrowding and they want to put more non-violent criminals into prison?

They took the word "illegal" out of "illegal immigrant" and want to add the word "illegal" to "legal gun owner".

Even Canada came to their senses when they determined that registration was very costly with very little benefit.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:11 AM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
To those of you wondering why they're going after .22 rimfire: its not about banning Ruger 10/22s and stuff like the M&P-1522. It's about preventing manufacuters from bringing in stripped lowers with a .22lr roll mark and selling AR-15s as .22s with conversion kits installed that allow them to be converted back to 5.56mm by buying an upper online.

As written this law forever prevents stripped lowers from comming back into the state because even stripped they can accept a detachable magazine.
not really, a stripped lower doesnt "accept" a detachable magazine any more so than a rectangular cardboard box accepts a detachable magazine. cant possibly be considered "accepting" if the mag just slides right through and has no way to catch in the receiver.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:14 AM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Personally I take more offense to this than SB-47. At least there was some shread of logic in SB-47 in that the intent of SB-23 was to ban AR, AK, FAL series, etc and not semi-auto "sporting arms". Banning a Ruger 10/22 youth rifle as an assault weapon has NO logic whatsoever. How do you explain to your son or daughter his/her rifle is now an assault weapon and since they're under 18 they can't register it and therefore may never own it.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:42 AM
CBruce's Avatar
CBruce CBruce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,995
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
Personally I take more offense to this than SB-47. At least there was some shread of logic in SB-47 in that the intent of SB-23 was to ban AR, AK, FAL series, etc and not semi-auto "sporting arms". Banning a Ruger 10/22 youth rifle as an assault weapon has NO logic whatsoever. How do you explain to your son or daughter his/her rifle is now an assault weapon and since they're under 18 they can't register it and therefore may never own it.
It's much easier for me to understand you'd want to ban a gun that fires 'too fast', holds 'too much' ammo, or cna be reloaded 'too quickly'. Makes more sense to me to target all semi-autos and/or detachable magazines across the board rather than try and justify why a magazine-fed, semi-automatic .22 that looks like an M16 is bad, but a magazine-fed, semi-automatic .22 that doesn't is ok.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:19 AM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,519
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I looked at my purchases in the early 1980's, even thou I filled out that CA Index Card sized 4 or 5 part form, the one that required you to press with all your might to imprint on the last copy, it appears I did not pay a separate fee on the invoice and have no idea if that was supposed to be registration or if the FFL had to pay a fee.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Markinsac View Post
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.
__________________
"I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." Matthew Quigley

Last edited by Californio; 02-22-2013 at 11:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:01 PM
dmckean44 dmckean44 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBruce View Post
It's much easier for me to understand you'd want to ban a gun that fires 'too fast', holds 'too much' ammo, or cna be reloaded 'too quickly'. Makes more sense to me to target all semi-autos and/or detachable magazines across the board rather than try and justify why a magazine-fed, semi-automatic .22 that looks like an M16 is bad, but a magazine-fed, semi-automatic .22 that doesn't is ok.
But what is the fear of a detachable magazine lever or bolt gun?
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:07 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmckean44 View Post
But what is the fear of a detachable magazine lever or bolt gun?
This whole shebang has nothing to do with fear or crime.

The antis are thinking 10 plus years in advance with these proposals.They want everything which can launch a bullet in CA documented in some fashion.Tube,lever,bolt,semi auto, and probably Airsoft at this rate.

I'll let you figure out why they'd want that.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:15 PM
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 dmckean44 View Post
But what is the fear of a detachable magazine lever or bolt gun?
Does the proposed bill apply to non-semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines?
__________________
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
  #155  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:19 PM
dmckean44 dmckean44 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pMcW View Post
Does the proposed bill apply to non-semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines?
They way I read it, it does.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:29 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,571
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldyeller View Post
If this bill goes through, I will have to register my pig hunting gun as an assault weapon- it holds 4 rounds of 44 mag. No other mags available for it at all.
I'm sure it will also be a crime to not be vegan soon, so you won't "need" such an assault rifle to kill pigs anyway. And what's with that high powered sniper scope on top?
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:32 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The law applies to any semi-automatic centerfire or rimfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine.

Sadly this means the Browning BAR hunting rifle and Benelli R-1. Both of these are beautiful modern hunting rifles that should never be considered "Assault Weapons". Heck they don't even make magazines bigger than 5 rounds for them!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:59 PM
autoduel's Avatar
autoduel autoduel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Irvine
Posts: 933
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
To those of you wondering why they're going after .22 rimfire: its not about banning Ruger 10/22s and stuff like the M&P-1522. It's about preventing manufacuters from bringing in stripped lowers with a .22lr roll mark and selling AR-15s as .22s with conversion kits installed that allow them to be converted back to 5.56mm by buying an upper online.

As written this law forever prevents stripped lowers from comming back into the state because even stripped they can accept a detachable magazine.
We can only speculate what they are thinking.... And in the process unknowingly provide them with more ideas. "we didn't think of that, but its a good approach, maybe we can apply it to xxxx or revise xxx bill to include this"
OPSEC!!
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 02-22-2013, 1:22 PM
RMP91's Avatar
RMP91 RMP91 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 3,661
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So, according to this new bill,

since my old Springfield-Stevens Model 87-A with a tube-fed magazine which can accept up to 15 (Pre-ban BTW) rounds of .22 LR, .22 Short and .22 Long is an "assault weapon"...
__________________
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
  #160  
Old 02-22-2013, 1:37 PM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

this bill is the whole pie, dont get too distracted with this one and forget to fight back against the others as well
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 11:08 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.