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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #481  
Old 02-12-2020, 6:48 AM
pratchett pratchett is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 469
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Since we are all speculating what will happen, my speculation is:

1. The evil features will be ruled unconstitutional.
2. The registration requirements will be ruled unconstitutional.
3. The above two rulings will be stayed during the appeal of the rulings.
4. Those who have firearms that were subject to 1. and 2. above will get to remove the features (e.g. bullet buttons, fins, etc.) that made the firearms compliant with 1. and 2. above, but only if they do it during the period from when the ruling issues to before the stay becomes effective.

IOW, stock up on conversion kits.
How does this jive with the complainant’s statements that he would acquire a new non-compliant weapon if not for blah blah blah? Am I thinking of the wrong case?
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 02-12-2020, 10:14 AM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 47,496
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
How does this jive with the complainant’s statements that he would acquire a new non-compliant weapon if not for blah blah blah? Am I thinking of the wrong case?
The case is going after AW definitions.
There is no registration requirement.

There have been registration opportunities in the past but those are all closed so there is currently no ability to register even if you wanted to.
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 02-12-2020, 12:43 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
How does this jive with the complainant’s statements that he would acquire a new non-compliant weapon if not for blah blah blah? Am I thinking of the wrong case?
I am speculating as to Judge Benitez' ruling at the conclusion of the case. As ar15barrels posts, there are no mechanisms presently available for the non-exempt to register an AW in CA.
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 02-12-2020, 12:50 PM
pratchett pratchett is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 469
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
The case is going after AW definitions.
There is no registration requirement.

There have been registration opportunities in the past but those are all closed so there is currently no ability to register even if you wanted to.
I guess my question to you would be:

If the complaint states “I would buy a brand new AR in free-state configuration but for fear of imprisonment,” I’m not understanding how that immediately applies to the AW registration but perhaps not to new purchases. Not arguing, just hoping for clarification.
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 02-12-2020, 1:05 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 47,496
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
I guess my question to you would be:

If the complaint states “I would buy a brand new AR in free-state configuration but for fear of imprisonment,” I’m not understanding how that immediately applies to the AW registration but perhaps not to new purchases. Not arguing, just hoping for clarification.
That statement does NOT immediately apply to registered assault weapons because there is no fear of imprisonment for legally registered assault weapons.
That statement only refers to new purchases as assault weapon registration is closed so you can not purchase an assault weapon and register it to make it a legal assault weapon.
The state knows that registration makes them legal so they do not keep registration open because people could simply register them to make them legal.
That would eliminate the state's ability to stop people from getting new ones.
That's why I referenced registration as an "opportunity" earlier.
People that registered assault weapons during previous registration periods are exempted of all the feature and length restrictions on their registered assault weapons.

Manufacturing, importing, transporting or possessing an illegal assault weapon are all arrestable offenses.
Arrests usually lead to imprisonment.

Registered assault weapons are legal because they are exempted from the same laws that make unregistered assault weapons illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 02-12-2020, 11:06 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
That statement does NOT immediately apply to registered assault weapons because there is no fear of imprisonment for legally registered assault weapons.
That statement only refers to new purchases as assault weapon registration is closed so you can not purchase an assault weapon and register it to make it a legal assault weapon.
The state knows that registration makes them legal so they do not keep registration open because people could simply register them to make them legal.
That would eliminate the state's ability to stop people from getting new ones.
That's why I referenced registration as an "opportunity" earlier.
People that registered assault weapons during previous registration periods are exempted of all the feature and length restrictions on their registered assault weapons.

Manufacturing, importing, transporting or possessing an illegal assault weapon are all arrestable offenses.
Arrests usually lead to imprisonment.

Registered assault weapons are legal because they are exempted from the same laws that make unregistered assault weapons illegal.
Huh? My understanding is that you can not remove the bullet button from registered BBAWs. 2000 RAWs didn't have a bullet button, so no issue.
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 02-12-2020, 11:30 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 47,496
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Huh? My understanding is that you can not remove the bullet button from registered BBAWs. 2000 RAWs didn't have a bullet button, so no issue.
There is no LAW requiring bullet buttons.
There is no LAW requiring or limiting what configuration an AW can be.
There is no LAW against changing the configuration of an AW.

There is no LAW to support your misunderstanding of BBRAWs.
There is only REGULATIONS which only apply to the registration process.
Once the registration process is complete, a BBRAW is identical to a RAW.
There is just one registry that both types occupy.
There is no way to differentiate them in the registry at the law enforcement officer level when they query a serial number.
You can't break a LAW by removing a bullet button from a registered assault weapon because a registered assault weapon is exempt of the assault weapon laws.
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 02-12-2020, 11:43 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,468
iTrader: 93 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
There is no LAW requiring bullet buttons.
There is no LAW requiring or limiting what configuration an AW can be.
There is no LAW against changing the configuration of an AW.

There is no LAW to support your misunderstanding of BBRAWs.
There is only REGULATIONS which only apply to the registration process.
Once the registration process is complete, a BBRAW is identical to a RAW.
There is just one registry that both types occupy.
There is no way to differentiate them in the registry at the law enforcement officer level when they query a serial number.
You can't break a LAW by removing a bullet button from a registered assault weapon because a registered assault weapon is exempt of the assault weapon laws.


I always wondered about this, and from all the people who insisted you couldn’t remove the bulletin button, no one ever was able to tell me what law I was breaking and what the penalty would be if I removed the bulletin button. Some would say “manufacture of an illegal aw different from what was registered”, but we all know that’s a bunch of garbage.
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 02-12-2020, 11:45 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
There is no LAW requiring bullet buttons.
There is no LAW requiring or limiting what configuration an AW can be.
There is no LAW against changing the configuration of an AW.

There is no LAW to support your misunderstanding of BBRAWs.
There is only REGULATIONS which only apply to the registration process.
Once the registration process is complete, a BBRAW is identical to a RAW.
There is just one registry that both types occupy.
There is no way to differentiate them in the registry at the law enforcement officer level when they query a serial number.
You can't break a LAW by removing a bullet button from a registered assault weapon because a registered assault weapon is exempt of the assault weapon laws.
Who cares about the law. The question is will a DA charge you? Then stack up the charges. Only give you a choice. Fight and lose your house or plead and lose your rights.
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:38 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 6,493
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
I always wondered about this, and from all the people who insisted you couldn’t remove the bulletin button, no one ever was able to tell me what law I was breaking and what the penalty would be if I removed the bulletin button. Some would say “manufacture of an illegal aw different from what was registered”, but we all know that’s a bunch of garbage.
It's important to remember that regulations interpret law, in the view of the regulation author. Randall, in his above post, correctly points out that regulations themselves are not law.

Until a regulation is tested in court, it is not possible to conclusively state that the regulation has correctly interpreted the law. That is the case here. But also keep in mind that the defendant in the test case is the one who will serve time if the court concludes that the regulation did correctly interpret the statute.

11 CCR 5477(a) clearly points out DOJ interpretation that the removal of a bullet button renders the new "buttonless" AW different from the weapon that was registered as an AW.

Consistent with that interpretation, a person arrested with a weapon that registered as a BBAW, and from which the bullet button was removed would be charged with a violation of Penal Code section 30605 (Possession of an unregistered assault weapon). The maximum penalty for that violation is three years. If there were evidence that the person caught with the weapon was the same person who performed the bullet button removal, then the charge would be Penal Code section 30600 with a maximum penalty of eight years.

Randall is correct that there is only one classification of "Assault Weapon" in the DOJ Registry, but BBAWs can be easily distinguished from other AW's by the date of the registration.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 02-13-2020, 6:03 AM
Mr.patriot1776 Mr.patriot1776 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 56
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
There is no LAW requiring bullet buttons.
There is no LAW requiring or limiting what configuration an AW can be.
There is no LAW against changing the configuration of an AW.

There is no LAW to support your misunderstanding of BBRAWs.
There is only REGULATIONS which only apply to the registration process.
Once the registration process is complete, a BBRAW is identical to a RAW.
There is just one registry that both types occupy.
There is no way to differentiate them in the registry at the law enforcement officer level when they query a serial number.
You can't break a LAW by removing a bullet button from a registered assault weapon because a registered assault weapon is exempt of the assault weapon laws.

Randall is correct that there is only one classification of "Assault Weapon" in the DOJ Registry, but BBAWs can be easily distinguished from other AW's by the date of the registration.
^^^^^ this and the photos and description on the registration

Last edited by Mr.patriot1776; 02-13-2020 at 6:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 02-13-2020, 10:23 AM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 47,496
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.patriot1776 View Post
Randall is correct that there is only one classification of "Assault Weapon" in the DOJ Registry, but BBAWs can be easily distinguished from other AW's by the date of the registration.
^^^^^ this and the photos and description on the registration
It's interesting that there are photos when there is no law against reconfiguring the gun after registration.
Perhaps the photos would be used by the DOJ to determine if you removed the bullet button?
That won't be very helpful in the case of raddlocks because you leave the raddlock in place and simply readjust it.
The photos don't show how the raddlock was adjusted because the photos are 2D and I took them from straight above the raddlocks specifically so they can't see if the raddlocks are sticking up.
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 02-13-2020, 2:26 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
It's important to remember that regulations interpret law, in the view of the regulation author. Randall, in his above post, correctly points out that regulations themselves are not law.

Until a regulation is tested in court, it is not possible to conclusively state that the regulation has correctly interpreted the law. That is the case here. But also keep in mind that the defendant in the test case is the one who will serve time if the court concludes that the regulation did correctly interpret the statute.

11 CCR 5477(a) clearly points out DOJ interpretation that the removal of a bullet button renders the new "buttonless" AW different from the weapon that was registered as an AW.

Consistent with that interpretation, a person arrested with a weapon that registered as a BBAW, and from which the bullet button was removed would be charged with a violation of Penal Code section 30605 (Possession of an unregistered assault weapon). The maximum penalty for that violation is three years. If there were evidence that the person caught with the weapon was the same person who performed the bullet button removal, then the charge would be Penal Code section 30600 with a maximum penalty of eight years.

Randall is correct that there is only one classification of "Assault Weapon" in the DOJ Registry, but BBAWs can be easily distinguished from other AW's by the date of the registration.
Don't forget the pics that were required to be submitted with the registration application. The close-up of the lower receiver clearly shows the BB.

Personally, I will wait for a BB Freedom week that hopefully will result from a ruling by Judge Benitez.
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 02-13-2020, 2:32 PM
Mr.patriot1776 Mr.patriot1776 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 56
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well, I wholeheartedly agree with this interpretation. I do believe it is DOJs practice to enforce it As two separate registration periods with two different configurations.
However I dont Agree that reconfiguring the ca7 constitutes manufacturing an unsafe handgun. It's my understanding that it's a pretty common practice to Take a single action exempt revolver And make it double action. But I'm not sure this is the right forum that discussion.
On another note please correct me if I'm wrong that if The assault weapons ban is struck down 50 BMG would be available? Are there any other restrictions to 50 BMG besides the assault weapon ban?
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 02-13-2020, 2:36 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.patriot1776 View Post
Well, I wholeheartedly agree with this interpretation. I do believe it is DOJs practice to enforce it As two separate registration periods with two different configurations.
However I dont Agree that reconfiguring the ca7 constitutes manufacturing an unsafe handgun. It's my understanding that it's a pretty common practice to Take a single action exempt revolver And make it double action. But I'm not sure this is the right forum that discussion.
On another note please correct me if I'm wrong that if The assault weapons ban is struck down 50 BMG would be available? Are there any other restrictions to 50 BMG besides the assault weapon ban?
The cartridge that is fired by the firearm?

Quote:
A .50 BMG rifle is defined as a centerfire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not already an assault weapon pursuant to Penal Code sections 12276, 12276.1, or 12276.5 PC, or a machinegun as defined by Penal Code section 12200. These sections of law may be accessed on this website’s on-line Dangerous Weapons Control Laws.
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 02-13-2020, 3:33 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 47,496
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.patriot1776 View Post
However I dont Agree that reconfiguring the ca7 constitutes manufacturing an unsafe handgun.
It's my understanding that it's a pretty common practice to Take a single action exempt revolver And make it double action. But I'm not sure this is the right forum that discussion.
There is no law against converting single actions to double actions.
There is a specific law against converting a semi-automatic designed pistol to a non-semi-auto for transfer purposes and then converting back to a semi-auto.

Quote:
32100.
(b) Article 4 (commencing with Section 31900) and Article 5 (commencing with Section 32000) shall not apply to a single-shot pistol with a break top or bolt action and a barrel length of not less than six inches and that has an overall length of at least 10½ inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel are assembled. However, Article 4 (commencing with Section 31900) and Article 5 (commencing with Section 32000) shall apply to a semiautomatic pistol that has been temporarily or permanently altered so that it will not fire in a semiautomatic mode.
The CA7 is clearly a semi-auto pistol that has been converted to a non-semi-auto in order to get added to the roster with only the drop tests.
In order to justify the CA7 NOT being of a semi-auto design, you would have to prove that the CA7's receiver design is NOT primarily used to build semi-autos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.patriot1776 View Post
On another note please correct me if I'm wrong that if The assault weapons ban is struck down 50 BMG would be available? Are there any other restrictions to 50 BMG besides the assault weapon ban?
There is no ban on 50BMG ammo.
There is no ban on 50BMG handguns.
There is no ban on 50BMG firearms.

The ban is only on 50BMG rifles.
If that portion of the AW laws is struck down as well as the associated codes for sales, possession, transport etc... then it would be fine to buy one.
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 02-13-2020, 4:12 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
snip...

There is no ban on 50BMG ammo.
There is no ban on 50BMG handguns.
There is no ban on 50BMG firearms.

The ban is only on 50BMG rifles.
If that portion of the AW laws is struck down as well as the associated codes for sales, possession, transport etc... then it would be fine to buy one.
PC Section 12278:
Quote:
12278. (a) As used in this chapter, a “.50 BMG rifle” means a center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or 12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200.
(b) As used in this chapter, a “.50 BMG cartridge” means a cartridge that is designed and intended to be fired from a center fire rifle and that meets all of the following criteria:
(1) It has an overall length of 5.54 inches from the base to the tip of the bullet.
(2) The bullet diameter for the cartridge is from .510 to, and including, .511 inch.
(3) The case base diameter for the cartridge is from .800 inch to, and including, .804 inch.
(4) The cartridge case length is 3.91 inches.
(c) A “.50 BMG rifle” does not include any “antique firearm,” nor any curio or relic as defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(d) As used in this section, “antique firearm” means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.
Subsection (b)(1) - (4) sure sound like the dimensions of a .50 BMG cartridge.

Further, Barrett introduced the .416 Barrett cartridge ( https://barrett.net/products/accesso...on/416barrett/ ) in response to CA PC 12278. It would seem that Barrett believes PC 12278 is targeted at the .50 BMG cartridge.
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 02-13-2020, 4:20 PM
OCArmory's Avatar
OCArmory OCArmory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,152
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
PC Section 12278:

Subsection (b)(1) - (4) sure sound like the dimensions of a .50 BMG cartridge.

Further, Barrett introduced the .416 Barrett cartridge ( https://barrett.net/products/accesso...on/416barrett/ ) in response to CA PC 12278. It would seem that Barrett believes PC 12278 is targeted at the .50 BMG cartridge.
They are using the dimensions to define what a 50 BMG rifle is. The cartridge is not banned just a rifle chambered in 50BMG meeting those dimensions.
__________________
OC Armory
23012 Del Lago Dr.
Suite B
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
(949)768-5189
www.ocarmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 02-13-2020, 4:31 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCArmory View Post
They are using the dimensions to define what a 50 BMG rifle is. The cartridge is not banned just a rifle chambered in 50BMG meeting those dimensions.
Fair enough. However, the original question posed by Mr.patriot1776 that I was responding to was (paraphrasing) if the AWB PC sections are ruled to be unconstitutional, would there be any other PC restrictions. I think PC 12278 is a separate restriction that would have to be ruled unconstitutional in order for non-exempt persons to be able to own a rifle capable of firing the .50 BMG cartridge.
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 02-13-2020, 7:22 PM
timdps timdps is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,238
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
T

There is no ban on 50BMG ammo.
There is no ban on 50BMG handguns.
There is no ban on 50BMG firearms.

The ban is only on 50BMG rifles.
This ^. Semi-auto M2HB in .50BMG is perfectly legal in CA because it is not a rifle.

T
__________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require, that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies." - George Washington, 1790
Reply With Quote
  #501  
Old 02-13-2020, 7:30 PM
pratchett pratchett is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 469
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Just remember, before you pull off those bullet buttons: there is a thing called "prosecution as punishment." They can know from the beginning they won't win, and still charge you anyway to make a point. And after a year in jail awaiting trial because excessive bail is a legal fiction... the entire time surrounded by violent convicted felons because they've dumped them from prisons into jails... you've lost your job, career, and pension... you've hired attorneys by maxing out your credit cards, taking out personal loans, emptying your savings and retirement accounts, taken out a second mortgage, and then going bankrupt and losing your home and your car...

Then, moments before you go to trial, they drop the case and open the jail door and say "Meh. Never mind. We were wrong." And there isn't one thing in the world you can ever do about it.

So, the advice in this thread is likely absolutely right. And being right in the face of state agents with absolute power and zero legal accountability isn't a game I'm going to play.
Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 02-13-2020, 8:31 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 47,496
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
PC Section 12278:

Subsection (b)(1) - (4) sure sound like the dimensions of a .50 BMG cartridge.

Further, Barrett introduced the .416 Barrett cartridge ( https://barrett.net/products/accesso...on/416barrett/ ) in response to CA PC 12278. It would seem that Barrett believes PC 12278 is targeted at the .50 BMG cartridge.
Like I already stated, 50BMG RIFLES are banned.
Ammo is not.
Firearms are not.
Handguns are not.

They created the 416 so they could sell RIFLES it in CA of the same design as a 50BMG which do NOT ACCEPT 50BMG cartridges.

You can buy 50BMG ammo in CA.
My local range has it on the shelf for sale.
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 02-13-2020, 8:39 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timdps View Post
This ^. Semi-auto M2HB in .50BMG is perfectly legal in CA because it is not a rifle.



T
Wait, so a 50bmg bolt action pistol is California legal. Not a rifle and roster exempt as bolt action? What FFL will ship a Barrett Model 99 with a "brace" to California?
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 02-13-2020, 9:08 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 47,496
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Wait, so a 50bmg bolt action pistol is California legal.
Not a rifle and roster exempt as bolt action?
Yes.
Single shot 50BMG pistols would also be legal.
Semi-auto crew served 50bmg firearms are also legal as long as they do not have a stock for firing from the shoulder.
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:21 AM
morthrane morthrane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 856
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Wait, so a 50bmg bolt action pistol is California legal. Not a rifle and roster exempt as bolt action? What FFL will ship a Barrett Model 99 with a "brace" to California?
That's a rifle, and AFAIK its a grey area in CA to turn a rifle into an Other. And until the CADOJ finally allows the transfer of Other firearms instead of just Rifles and Shotguns, ain't happening...
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 02-14-2020, 5:35 AM
Mr.patriot1776 Mr.patriot1776 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 56
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
Just remember, before you pull off those bullet buttons: there is a thing called "prosecution as punishment." They can know from the beginning they won't win, and still charge you anyway to make a point. And after a year in jail awaiting trial because excessive bail is a legal fiction... the entire time surrounded by violent convicted felons because they've dumped them from prisons into jails... you've lost your job, career, and pension... you've hired attorneys by maxing out your credit cards, taking out personal loans, emptying your savings and retirement accounts, taken out a second mortgage, and then going bankrupt and losing your home and your car...

Then, moments before you go to trial, they drop the case and open the jail door and say "Meh. Never mind. We were wrong." And there isn't one thing in the world you can ever do about it.

So, the advice in this thread is likely absolutely right. And being right in the face of state agents with absolute power and zero legal accountability isn't a game I'm going to play.
Uh! Wrongful arrest and vindictive prosecution are also defenses and reasons to sue.
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 02-14-2020, 5:41 AM
Mr.patriot1776 Mr.patriot1776 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 56
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
Like I already stated, 50BMG RIFLES are banned.
Ammo is not.
Firearms are not.
Handguns are not.

They created the 416 so they could sell RIFLES it in CA of the same design as a 50BMG which do NOT ACCEPT 50BMG cartridges.

You can buy 50BMG ammo in CA.
My local range has it on the shelf for sale.
So 416 was not created just for California. Because of the year of design a lot of people get this confused. In 2005 It was designed in response to a request for a medium/heavy rifle cartridge combination that was issued from Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division in late 2004. It was designed to shoot farther than 50 BMG. However, it was not designed for us in California.
The 50 DTC Was designed in Europe to get around 50 caliber. BMG ban out there and also fits for our same ban here.
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 02-14-2020, 6:32 AM
Mr.patriot1776 Mr.patriot1776 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 56
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
There is no law against converting single actions to double actions.
There is a specific law against converting a semi-automatic designed pistol to a non-semi-auto for transfer purposes and then converting back to a semi-auto.



The CA7 is clearly a semi-auto pistol that has been converted to a non-semi-auto in order to get added to the roster with only the drop tests.
In order to justify the CA7 NOT being of a semi-auto design, you would have to prove that the CA7's receiver design is NOT primarily used to build semi-autos.



There is no ban on 50BMG ammo.
There is no ban on 50BMG handguns.
There is no ban on 50BMG firearms.

The ban is only on 50BMG rifles.
If that portion of the AW laws is struck down as well as the associated codes for sales, possession, transport etc... then it would be fine to buy one.
Barrels I have for sure heard both sides of the argument I personally Happen to agree, Jay and Franklin Armory. The gun is sold as a bolt-action repeater. Not a single action not a single shot. For example single shot guns have a mag block or bullet sled and have gas system. The ca7 has a detachable magazine. It's on the roster and has been drop tested. As far as I know where no one has been prosecuted and Franklin has further backed up the ca7 by stating that their attorney would be happy to take on these cases. (I guessing not for free). It seems to be the dojs opinion that if you made the gun yourself and then made it semi auto or detachable mags. You would be required to follow all of the roster requirements. Sse1.0 and sse2.0. But I dont think this is the right forum for the ca7 discussion. You and I could go back and forth on this all day. You and I and and hole lot of other folks dont 100% agree on this and that's ok. This is America and we dont have to agree. We are allowed to have opinions and Express them. If you want let's get on the ca7 forum and type till we are blue in the face? Btw I enjoy reading your posts and your opinions.


I don't mean to be insulting or rude in any way, but I have worked as an activist in other industries (nunya). As 2A activists it's our duty to take it right up to the legal limit not to cry about possible prosecution! Prosecution is not a punishment but an opportunity to set precedent not a reason to cower away. It would be sad if the doj wins just by making us afraid. Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed not from the fear.
our forefathers Committed treason against the crown to achieve the rights we have. Not suggesting anyone does that. Just that's its important to remember.

I'm stoked at the possibility of 50bmg rifles...

Last edited by Mr.patriot1776; 02-14-2020 at 6:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 02-17-2020, 8:15 PM
vesper11111 vesper11111 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Must revive this thread. Is there any news about this?
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 02-17-2020, 8:35 PM
p7m8jg's Avatar
p7m8jg p7m8jg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Modesto
Posts: 1,538
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

No new news. Only in our dreams.
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 12:38 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical