Warning on new products!!

[CandG]

Originally Posted by 86 5.0L

Let me fill you in on a little secret. There's going to be another session after this one, and another and another and another after that. Being quiet for a few months makes no difference, they're playing the long game.

To be fair, being quiet can at least buy us a few more months or years before implementation of new "loophole" closures.

But on the other hand, yes, it's just delaying the inevitable. Do you think if people knew in 2001 that "assault weapons" would be completely banned 16 years later, that they'd have chosen to remain silent about off-list-lowers and bullet buttons for the next 16 years? For one thing, staying silent would have resulted in an almost non-existent AR market in CA for the last 15 years, as theoretically most gun owners wouldn't even know about the "loopholes". And secondly, you can't really expect tens of thousands of gun owners to keep silent about anything for more than about 11.3 seconds, so it's an unrealistic expectation. You can keep telling people to shut their yappers about removing bullet buttons all day long, but you're never going to keep up with it enough to completely hide it from prying eyes.

So really I think both sides of that argument have valid points.

*Yes I know the above mentioned things aren't "loopholes", which is why I wrapped the word with bunny ears

[Junkie]

While staying quiet might help keep it legal longer, it also means the cops are far more likely to think it's illegal.

If open carry hadn't been popularized, the few people doing it would likely have been arrested (or at least detained in the back of a cop car) until the cop figured out it was legal. Same is true of ARs.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Junkie

While staying quiet might help keep it legal longer, it also means the cops are far more likely to think it's illegal.

If open carry hadn't been popularized, the few people doing it would likely have been arrested (or at least detained in the back of a cop car) until the cop figured out it was legal. Same is true of ARs.

And sadly both had the same fate But I don't blame the exercising of, or discussions about, our rights as the cause in either case. Simply it is/was anti-gunners doing what they do best, banning everything they can one bit at a time. They don't really need to get ideas from us to accomplish that goal, in general. Although, there are rare times where exercising and discussion of our rights is best kept as secret as possible until a specific date - such as when a particular anti-gunner regime is about to be (or has already been) voted out of office, or if there is an administrative deadline looming, after which changes can't be made anymore. Neither of those exceptions are particularly true in CA at the moment. Even the DOJ RAW registration regulations can be revised whenever they feel like it, Jan 1 isn't some magic date where they have to have their regs carved into stone. As far as I'm aware, anyways.

[fuddle]

Most lawmakers only care about getting reelected. That's their bottom line. If Newsom lived in AZ he'd be trying to legalize pot. It's like gay marriage. He doesn't give a rats, but he needed something to get his name out so he could make a run for Lt Gov. The lawmakers make anti-gun laws because they stand a better chance of getting elected. They don't care about the efficacy. They just want to put on their website, "I authored... amended, etc. these anti-gun bills.

So I really don't think they're going to try to close loopholes right now. They'll save that for the next go around. That being said, it's stupid to tell your enemy what you're going to do.

Getting back to loopholes- as one that writes rulebooks for a living, I can tell you that it's going to be very difficult for them to write anything airtight unless they just ban all semi auto, center fire rifles. Yeah, good luck with that, even in the PRK.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by fuddle

Most lawmakers only care about getting reelected. That's their bottom line. If Newsom lived in AZ he'd be trying to legalize pot.

Who do you think co-authored Prop-64?

California will get recreational pot tomorrow, and Gavin will use that as a feather in his cap in 2018.

[fuddle]

Like I said, the politicians only care about furthering their careers, with little exception. Therefore they're not going after loopholes right now, especially ones that are not in play yet.

[protohyp]

some people need to understand that California is not the only state where something like the AR Maglock is or can be used. No need to shut up about it. its already out there and is being sold by the thousands to other states.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by protohyp

some people need to understand that California is not the only state where something like the AR Maglock is or can be used. No need to shut up about it. its already out there and is being sold by the thousands to other states.

And finally we can start talking about Mag-Magnets again!

[orbust]

Considering the inventor of the BB has lengthy video's out explaining his new devices functions... this thread is hilarious. Reynolds wrap should get some advertising space here.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by orbust

Considering the inventor of the BB has lengthy video's out explaining his new devices functions... this thread is hilarious. Reynolds wrap should get some advertising space here.

Notice the date of the original posting.
AFAIK, the videos on the new products had not been released, or were released at nearly the same time.

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

To be fair, being quiet can at least buy us a few more months or years before implementation of new "loophole" closures.

But on the other hand, yes, it's just delaying the inevitable. Do you think if people knew in 2001 that "assault weapons" would be completely banned 16 years later, that they'd have chosen to remain silent about off-list-lowers and bullet buttons for the next 16 years? For one thing, staying silent would have resulted in an almost non-existent AR market in CA for the last 15 years, as theoretically most gun owners wouldn't even know about the "loopholes". And secondly, you can't really expect tens of thousands of gun owners to keep silent about anything for more than about 11.3 seconds, so it's an unrealistic expectation. You can keep telling people to shut their yappers about removing bullet buttons all day long, but you're never going to keep up with it enough to completely hide it from prying eyes.

So really I think both sides of that argument have valid points.

*Yes I know the above mentioned things aren't "loopholes", which is why I wrapped the word with bunny ears

If we could just get the tens of thousands of gun owners to go out and vote.

[EddieEd]

Yeap the word is getting out. This site even mentions Calguns.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/cal...15-compliance/

Need to do some research on Gun control or what's new, just go Calguns and get the latest. Work for both side, but at this moment in time it may only benefits one side.

[fuddle]

The article (mentioned above) has some incorrect information. Before I address that, let me say a few things. I am a CA gun dealer and pretty well versed in CA law; and I got that knowledge by reading the actual laws. That said, I could still be worng since my memory is not as good as it used to be.

I can understand Joe's attitude. Massive civil disobedience may work for some things, and it could work for these new laws. It’s a stretch, but if it works to motivate the masses into funding the right lawsuits, then awesome.

You can also look at this as a small battle won in a long protracted war (since 1989) that we have been losing. Once you reg as an AW you can toss the CA crap for good.

Now for the corrections to the articles.

It's one ~$22-ish fee to reg as many guns as you want.

Joe is not forced to register his rifles. He can simply turn them into featureless. While not exactly desirable, it's still a choice.

There is no "ban on new sales of semiautomatic rifles and pistols with detachable magazines," or mandatory registration.

Maybe I missed something but I read the new laws and see nothing about this: "Under the law, owners of assault weapons will also have to submit to periodic inspections of those firearms by law enforcement officials."

Just to clear, the mention of background checks for ammo buys- it will be one background check every four years (IIRC). While not desirable either, at least it's not a background check every time you buy ammo.

The new law is not a new law. It's a modification of the Category 3 assault weapons law, SB23 (by features) and it redefines what a fixed magazine is. That's all. So, it's not “an expansion of the 1989 (Category 1) law.”

"two men in baseball caps had just purchased two $8,800 Barrett 82A1 sniper rifles… . They are among the types of rifles retailers will be prohibited from selling in California after December 31." The sales will continue, only they will be sold in one of the new CA complaint configurations. Keep in mind that only applies to the .416 Barrett rifle as the purchase of the 50 BMG version has been outlawed since 2005, IIRC.

"starting in 2018, [no more]sales of ammunition through the mail. After that date, ammunition buyers will need to register with the state and undergo a background check at the point of purchase" Not true either. Starting in 2018 people buy/selling ammo to each other will be required to go through an ammo vendor. No background check required until 2019. Additionally, there will be no ban on internet or mail order ammo. The only catch is that it has to be delivered to an ammo vendor. Now the ammo vendor (e.g. gun store) is limited to charging the customer $10 for any one transaction. I haven't seen where this is required of the dealers; if it's not required most dealers will probably refuse shipment.

Home made guns (e.g. 80% lowers) will need to get a serial number on it by 2019. Now, starting in 2018 (IIRC) you will have to have your application for a serial number submitted before you start building it.

Just thought I would clarify some things. Every day I have customers coming with incorrect information. We need to get the word out on what's really happening and get people to stop listening to their "expert" friend. They also should be skeptical about articles like this. Additionally, many pro-gun sources put out misinformation.

If the pro-gun lobby wants to do something about this, I see one of a couple of paths. Lawsuits that can be taken to the Supreme Court after Trump appoints a new justice, or get petition(s) started now to get a referendum on the 2018 ballot. Go after the low-hanging fruit, like the new "loaning" laws. If gun owners see that we can overturn just one anti-gun law, they will be activated for the next ballot to overturn all of them going back to 1989! But the petitions have to be distributed with honest, clear, and logical information. If there's more than one petition, don't insist that place like Big Five offer all petitions or they can't offer any. Better planning, implementation, and a head start will be the keys to get this done.

[EddieEd]

I got a question is any one can clear it up. I heard (yes heard) at a gun show and at a gun store, that there are only 3 shooting ranges in Cali (south Ca at that) that let you shoot RAW. They said the ranges have to get certs and paid big bucks, that's why there aren't that many ranges that permit RAW.
I'm not sure of this, but it's was said that this is one of the down sides to getting them registered.
Anyone here got anything on this?
Looking online I cant find anything on ranges that let RAW owners shoot.

[Cheburashka]

Originally Posted by EddieEd

I got a question is any one can clear it up. I heard (yes heard) at a gun show and at a gun store, that there are only 3 shooting ranges in Cali (south Ca at that) that let you shoot RAW. They said the ranges have to get certs and paid big bucks, that's why there aren't that many ranges that permit RAW.
I'm not sure of this, but it's was said that this is one of the down sides to getting them registered.
Anyone here got anything on this?
Looking online I cant find anything on ranges that let RAW owners shoot.

WTF? Sounds like FUD to me.

The new AW laws specify that AWs can be used at any range.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Cheburashka

WTF? Sounds like FUD to me.

The new AW laws specify that AWs can be used at any range.

The new law is the old law in that regard. The new law didn't add or subtract anything about where you can or can't use a RAW. It just changed the definition of a removeable magazine, and reopened registration. That's it.

[Goldsanti]

If you buy an AR15 as a PPT from out of state and it’s without a fin and has a collapsible stock would you be able to use it legally?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Goldsanti

If you buy an AR15 as a PPT from out of state and it’s without a fin and has a collapsible stock would you be able to use it legally?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, and you can't even import it into CA in that configuration. It would need to be made CA-compliant before it can be brought into CA. Either by the seller, or by a middleman service.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Goldsanti

If you buy an AR15 as a PPT from out of state and it’s without a fin and has a collapsible stock would you be able to use it legally?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. You cannot even bring it into CA legally.

Not as described.

'Pistol grip' which is probably what you have without the fin, and 'collapsible stock' / telescoping stock are FEATURES as listed in Penal Code section 30515 -

30515.

(a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

(B) A thumbhole stock.

(C) A folding or telescoping stock.

(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

(E) A flash suppressor.

(F) A forward pistol grip.
...
(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

Your description lacks the 'fixed magazine' condition from (b).

There are several ways to implement that; it has to be done before the rifle crosses into CA.

[pauliedweasel]

Anybody order a semi auto carbine or rifle from Wilde Built Tactical a while ago that they’re still waiting for?
I ordered three guns from Wilde Built last mid December and had to wait for one that they had to order. I was then informed that two of the guns were ready for shipment but one of them, a 1927a1 Thompson carbine, was at their outfitter in AZ awaiting the parts to do the California conversion so I had them ship the other two to my dealer in Burbank and did the transfer.
I received an email from WBT back in February apologizing for the delay in delivery of the Thompson but that the manger of their AZ shop had had some medical issues and that a member of their California team was on their way to AZ to get things moving and that they were still waiting for the conversion parts to arrive. Since I already had a Solar Tactical grip wrap for the Thompson as well as the horizontal forend and screw to replace the front vertical grip from a previous gun I had sold out of state I mentioned that I would be glad to send these parts to their AZ shop to speed things along.
Now over nine months later I’m still waiting and wondering what is going on, and other than a brief email back around mid year saying that they would ship the gun when it was done I’ve received no further information and all of my email inquiries have simply received their automated response saying that they’re super busy.


Any body have any insight as to what’s going on or had a similar experience. I realize that the whole COVID-19 panic has slowed a lot of businesses down but when you don’t get any replies from a real person it does tend to make one wonder.

Update: I received an email from their sales department on September 30th that was very apologetic and expressing concern that this order had gone so wrong and stating that they were super busy with the promise to look into the situation and find out what had happened to the gun..... It’s now October 17th and just over ten months since the order was placed, no further update has been forth coming and yet I still continue to receive email blasts about the latest items they have for sale!
What’s even more annoying is that back in March I knew of at least two stores in my area that had Thompson’s for sale, they weren’t the 14.5” version with the permanently attached compensator that I had ordered, but they had them in stock... and now no body has them.
What do they think the chances are that I would place another order with them?