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
  #1  
Old 01-17-2016, 3:29 PM
PartyBarge PartyBarge is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default How AB1664/1663 Could Work For/Against Us

Please correct me if I'm wrong, just my thoughts on where this could go.

History:

This is an addition to the Roberti-Roos AWCA 1989. Originally we were to lose all "assault rifle weapons" because the phrase "series" in the Act, but in 2001-'s Harrott v. Kings county the California Supreme Court ruled that terminology like "AR/AK "series" was too vague. The court ruled there must be a very specific make/model list law enforcement can refer to. That prompted the "list" and the power for the DOJ to create the "add-on" clause giving them a procedure to update the AW list. This is where we get the closure of the bullet button "loophole". The DOJ can modify what they consider an AW. Also, since the list was not updated in some time, "off list" style AR's began popping up. This is an attempt to modify/update the list.

Grandfather clause - how this helps us
So why can we still have them if purchased pre-ban? San Francisco passed Prop H in 2005, banning all firearms, INCLUDING possession of, inside city limits. San Francisco's Superior Court ruled in 2006 that local law officials did not have this authority. This was upheld in 2008 and in the ruling officials were told to "tread lightly" on this matter. That's a very big slap on the wrist and a warning to future law makers.

There in lies how this could all play out.


Confiscation, very probably, won't happen - thanks in full to that ruling in the upholding on the appeal on the 2006 judicial decision. Win for us.

Because the DOJ list is "growing," our AR's will most likely be merely added to the AWB list, not a special category inside it. This means, most likely, we'll be able to remove our bullet buttons, and go back to factory configuration of standard mag release. That's a win for us.

--

Or we all just move to Arizona.

Last edited by PartyBarge; 01-17-2016 at 3:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-17-2016, 3:36 PM
LBDamned's Avatar
LBDamned LBDamned is offline
Made in the USA
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: OC - So Cal
Posts: 9,238
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1153858
__________________

Absolute power corrupts absolutely! Leadership is not about power... We have very few leaders in this country and virtually none in this state... but plenty of corruption in both.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a porcupine - I don't carry for you. http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/newsf...dont-carry-you
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-17-2016, 3:42 PM
cdtx2001's Avatar
cdtx2001 cdtx2001 is offline
Rebel Scum
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Over Here
Posts: 5,906
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyBarge View Post
Please correct me if I'm wrong, just my thoughts on where this could go.

History:

This is an addition to the Roberti-Roos AWCA 1989. Originally we were to lose all "assault rifle weapons" because the phrase "series" in the Act, but in 2001-'s Harrott v. Kings county the California Supreme Court ruled that terminology like "AR/AK "series" was too vague. The court ruled there must be a very specific make/model list law enforcement can refer to. That prompted the "list" and the power for the DOJ to create the "add-on" clause giving them a procedure to update the AW list. This is where we get the closure of the bullet button "loophole". The DOJ can modify what they consider an AW. Also, since the list was not updated in some time, "off list" style AR's began popping up. This is an attempt to modify/update the list.

Grandfather clause - how this helps us
So why can we still have them if purchased pre-ban? San Francisco passed Prop H in 2005, banning all firearms, INCLUDING possession of, inside city limits. San Francisco's Superior Court ruled in 2006 that local law officials did not have this authority. This was upheld in 2008 and in the ruling officials were told to "tread lightly" on this matter. That's a very big slap on the wrist and a warning to future law makers.

There in lies how this could all play out.


Confiscation, very probably, won't happen - thanks in full to that ruling in the upholding on the appeal on the 2006 judicial decision. Win for us.

Because the DOJ list is "growing," our AR's will most likely be merely added to the AWB list, not a special category inside it. This means, most likely, we'll be able to remove our bullet buttons, and go back to factory configuration of standard mag release. That's a win for us.

--

Or we all just move to Arizona.
That's all fine and dandy if you want:

Your name on a special list of AW owners
Your rifles listed as AWs that you can never sell or pass on to your family
Special permission and instructions from the gub'mint on how to use and transport your AW

If that's what you want, go right on ahead.

Me, I'm on too many lists as it is and I don't want any special permissions from the gub'mint to exercise a constitutional right.
__________________
WTB- A2 Flash Suppressors And Front Sight Towers
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=906994

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side kid" -Han Solo

"A dull knife is as useless as the man who would dare carry it"
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-17-2016, 3:49 PM
rromeo's Avatar
rromeo rromeo is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Radford, VA
Posts: 5,514
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Why do you think that just because your AR gets registered, that you can take your Bullet button off? You don't think they'll say "register that gun, and you never get to change it."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-17-2016, 3:52 PM
PartyBarge PartyBarge is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rromeo View Post
Why do you think that just because your AR gets registered, that you can take your Bullet button off? You don't think they'll say "register that gun, and you never get to change it."
I did read the law and it does ask for your description (gender, height, etc) and also requires a description of the weapon, but the current list also only requires the Make, Model, and Caliber of weapon. No further information is listed on the current AWB list. The law does not say anything about modification. Saying something is different than having a law to refer to.

When it came to my CCW check they said I could not modify my weapon once I had my CCW, but there isn't anything legally saying I can't. In fact, the LT that signed off on my check said they tell you to not change it because the prosecution or defense could say that I made my weapon more deadly, playing to a state of mind. Had nothing to do with a code or reg saying I couldn't modify, just "advice".

Last edited by PartyBarge; 01-17-2016 at 3:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-17-2016, 3:53 PM
radicalray radicalray is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Joaquin
Posts: 195
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Also don't give them any ideas bill not finalized yet
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-17-2016, 4:07 PM
rromeo's Avatar
rromeo rromeo is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Radford, VA
Posts: 5,514
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

The currently registered AWs were made illegal, but they allowed current owners to keep and register them. I don't see where it says that the law of the past 15 years is now void.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-17-2016, 4:09 PM
PartyBarge PartyBarge is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rromeo View Post
The currently registered AWs were made illegal, but they allowed current owners to keep and register them. I don't see where it says that the law of the past 15 years is now void.
It's not void, that's why we could be added to the list, not a new list, and the current list only asks for model, make, and caliber.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-17-2016, 4:18 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,060
iTrader: 55 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rromeo View Post
Why do you think that just because your AR gets registered, that you can take your Bullet button off? You don't think they'll say "register that gun, and you never get to change it."

They have to define an "assault weapon" to ban. If they define as assault weapon to have a removable magazine (regardless of if there is a bullet button or not), then anything with a removable magazine is as assault weapon.

They could care less if now you can use a regular mag release or not. They've accomplished the major goals of 1) Stopping future sales and 2) Denying future transfers.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-17-2016, 4:21 PM
ar15robert ar15robert is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,309
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radicalray View Post
Also don't give them any ideas bill not finalized yet
exactly the internet and gun owners are there worst enemy.
Some find that loophole and tell it to the world.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-19-2016, 11:46 AM
PartyBarge PartyBarge is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

dup post
__________________
US Navy Veteran
NRA Life Member
Springfield Armory
Smith&Wesson
Henry

Last edited by PartyBarge; 01-19-2016 at 12:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-19-2016, 11:47 AM
PartyBarge PartyBarge is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think a few people above are under the assumption I'm FOR these AB's to pass. That's simply not the case. I'm just citing the case law and court precedent that show how we really may not have much to fear.

I think many of you are missing that this is really just AG Harris's resume when Gavin takes his role as Gov. She is showing him she can be tough on guns despite NRA lobbying. I think this is in all reality a PR move with the campaigns ramping up rhetoric. She can't fight existing case law, but if she does nothing she will be shown to supporters as being soft on guns.

I just emailed the governor, all my reps, etc, my disapproval of these two AB's, and really played up my Veteran status to hopefully hit a soft nerve with someone, somewhere.

Also just joined the NRA. Throwing money at the problem, in this day and age, is really our only recourse.
__________________
US Navy Veteran
NRA Life Member
Springfield Armory
Smith&Wesson
Henry
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-19-2016, 12:07 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 88
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You have no intentions of using your personal property to commit assault.

The specific items contained in your personal property have never been used to assault anyone.

Are they attempting to define black SUVs as "assault vehicles" because the San Berdo terrorists were driving one while shooting at police?

Last edited by bootstrap; 01-19-2016 at 12:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-19-2016, 12:31 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,093
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyBarge View Post
Throwing money at the problem, in this day and age, is really our only recourse.
I don't have money to throw at problems like this.

What I do have is an attitude problem that dates back to 1775.

What the California legislature is looking to do is put an end to the gun culture in less than a generation. If no one can legally transfer a semi-auto center fire rifle capable of using a detachable magazine in the state, that dies with the last 18 year old who bought their first AR this year.

While we still need to fight these bills, telling people that the only recourse is money, is a lie.

Even if the CaLeg gets what they want, people are already sorting themselves out as to who will or wont resist.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-19-2016, 12:42 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,898
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
I don't have money to throw at problems like this.

What I do have is an attitude problem that dates back to 1775.

What the California legislature is looking to do is put an end to the gun culture in less than a generation. If no one can legally transfer a semi-auto center fire rifle capable of using a detachable magazine in the state, that dies with the last 18 year old who bought their first AR this year.

While we still need to fight these bills, telling people that the only recourse is money, is a lie.

Even if the CaLeg gets what they want, people are already sorting themselves out as to who will or wont resist.
Love it!

Needs to be on a t-shirt!
__________________
"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
  #16  
Old 01-19-2016, 1:03 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,062
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rromeo View Post
The currently registered AWs were made illegal, but they allowed current owners to keep and register them. I don't see where it says that the law of the past 15 years is now void.
The current law is that we can have a RAW, but not an AW. Going BB or featureless prevents a rifle from being an AW.

The new law would classify a bunch of non-AW rifles as AWs. To alleviate the problem of outright confiscation and ban, they will allow us to convert would-be-AWs to RAWs. Whoever registers by the deadline now has a RAW (which has always been legal.) Those who don't will either have an AW (illegal) or will have to find another way of swapping magazines (it already exists and is easy to use.)

In short, the law as written would allows us to convert current non-AW rifles into RAWs. A RAW has all the features of the AW (banned features) *except* that it is legal because of registration.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-19-2016, 1:29 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 88
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyBarge View Post
I just emailed the governor, all my reps, etc, my disapproval of these two AB's, and really played up my Veteran status to hopefully hit a soft nerve with someone, somewhere.

Also just joined the NRA. Throwing money at the problem, in this day and age, is really our only recourse.
Do not underestimate the power of what you can do to educate an ignorant, scared public. You probably wont win anyone over on the spot but plant seeds anyways.

The infringers use the term "assault weapon" because it invokes fear and provides cover for what they really intend - gun bans.

Emailing reps does very little. Perhaps calling each office you emailed and ask them if they are attempting to define black SUVs as "assault vehicles" because the San Berdo terrorists were driving one while shooting at police?

Politely point out the absurdity in their rhetoric and light up their phone lines - that starts to get their attention a lot more than emails.

Last edited by bootstrap; 01-19-2016 at 1:32 PM..
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 4:48 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.