is selling as "single shot" a loophole?

[JagerTroop]

Sigh. Missing the concept...

And you are buckling under the iron fist of this unconstitutional administration. *sigh*

So I would be correct in assuming that you believe both fixed mag and featureless AR, AK, and HK style rifles are exploiting loopholes as well? I mean, the intention of California legislators was never to let us have uncomfortable or "neutered" black rifles... they wanted to ban them without affecting ranch style rifles.

If that is the case (as you believe single shot pistols are), then just about every gunstore in Ca. can expect a visit from Brown's henchmen.

I'm sure even YOU recognize that their ultimate goal/intention is to ban ALL guns in this state. Why don't you just roll over and give up already? You know their intent. COMPLY! For the rest of us, we will fight until our last breath, to push the issues, innovate, and find new and creative ways to regain our freedom. All while following the letter of the law.

[Barkoff]

its not a loophole. its a cleary defined law, as other members have stated.

Hmm, clearly defined is the Ruger LCP not allowed to be purchased new in CA as a six shot semi-auto. If it were, we wouldn't be making two 100 mile drives to buy one.

[JagerTroop]

Hmm, clearly defined is the Ruger LCP not allowed to be purchased new in CA as a six shot semi-auto. If it were, we wouldn't be making two 100 mile drives to buy one.

However, it IS clearly defined that it (and any other) is allowed to be sold in a single shot configuration. Otherwise, you wouldn't be driving anywhere

[AVgunGUY]

Lol at the replies. Of course it's a loophole. That's what a loophole is. Who cares. Nothing to be ashamed about. Loopholes are cool.

umm... I did a search and couldn't find "loophole" defined anywhere in the law. Therefore it must not exist. I'm going with not a loophole.

[plan-b]

"blatant and transparent attempt to circumvent the law"

But a single shot conversion is a blatant and transparent attempt at complying with the law. To the letter.

[AVgunGUY]

To be clear: Yes, the temporarily converted handguns fall within the letter of the law, but you'd be seriously mistaken to think that you'd *automatically* win a case on that basis -- many people have gone to prison or paid fines for what a court determines to be a "blatant and transparent attempt to circumvent the law" -- otherwise known as taking advantage of a loophole (happens a lot in tax "avoidance" schemes that are later held to be tax "evasion" schemes).

I'm not aware of a single case where tax avoidance was successfully prosecuted. (Parsing words here) Only tax evasion. In fact, substantially all tax avoidance, even in its most egregious forms (but shy of frivolous) is at worst a civil crime whereby the perpetrator (taxpayer) pays his tax, interest and penalties.

Most tax evasion is exactly that, a complete disregard for the statutes, regs and cases. The Treasury has been fighting this since 1913 with an enhanced effort starting in 1986. The problem is the economics of business are complex and trying to produce a set of rules that allows the spirit of congressional intent to rule the day is near impossible. The IRS has been trying that with economic substance for 10 years now.

I think there is a pretty big difference between how our tax laws are enforced versus how our gun laws are enforced (even on a California basis). In tax parlance "non-private private property" within a 1,000 feet would default to the people, not to the government.

[FNH5-7]

Actually, Valkyrie is quite late to the party. Other shops have been doing this for years. PRK was one of (if not "THE") frontrunners of this exemption. How do you think there were so many AR, AK, MAC, and UZI pistols before Valkyrie came along?

I was referring to OFF-ROSTER handguns in particular, 1911s, XDM's, Glocks, thing of THAT NATURE. Yes, AK, ARs, and fake UZIs have been available for years. Many shops do those but up until a few months ago the only OFF ROSTER handguns done were 1911s and they WERE NOT available to the masses, you had to be "special". It would also turn out to be very expensive.

[tube snake boogie]

Wow, whata douche.

+1

[JohnFLand]

AVgunGUY:

I'm not aware of a single case where tax avoidance was successfully prosecuted. (Parsing words here) Only tax evasion.

That's part of my point -- labels get applied by the opponent (often also the "victor"). When legal "tax avoidance" is proven, that's a conclusion. If the avoidance scheme isn't done correctly (as where a tax shelter scheme is bolstered by opinions of counsel, where the opinions are wrong or fraudulent -- as happened a couple of years ago in a case involving the law firm of Greenberg Traurig), the conclusion is "tax evasion".

All I've done here is point out that anti-gun folks WILL call the current exploitation of the single-shot exception a "loophole", regardless of what pro-gun folks call it, and not without a reasonable argument (that the intent of the law was to allow sales of Thomson Contenders -- mentioned by name in the legislative history -- and similar low-volume, high-end guns DESIGNED from the git-go to be single shot, and that the deliberate temporary conversion of a weapon by a few dealers into single shots violates the spirit of the law).

JagerTroop:

And you are buckling under the iron fist of this unconstitutional administration. *sigh*

So I would be correct in assuming that you believe both fixed mag and featureless AR, AK, and HK style rifles are exploiting loopholes as well?

I was pointing out that a reasonable argument can be made that temporary compliance with the single-shot exception violates the spirit of the law, and thus can be labeled a loophole. I think the same is true (that reasonable arguments can be made) for bullet buttons, which permit otherwise banned "evil" features to exist on a gun and yet technically comply with the letter of the law. On the other hand, I don't think such an argument can be reasonably made for weapons that in fact lacked "evil features" in the first place.

And please don't twist my ability to see the other side's arguments (which I do for a nice living) as evidence of anything about my political leanings or personal intestinal fortitude, so stop with the ad hominem attacks. Failing to understand an opponent (here, the anti-gun minority) is a huge mistake in most conflicts. Refusing to even try is an even larger mistake.

[dascoyne]

Ahh I always enjoy when the few folks get their feelings hurt. I generally always reply to these "single shot" BS threads because it's beating a dead horse. There should be a sticky regarding single shot exemption right below the "The California ‘safe gun list’" thread so people don't bring this up EVERYDAY. omg, i can haz?

the gold badge made me laugh...

It's good this knucklehead has something to gloat about. It certainly doesn't make me feel bad since I earn about six times his salary.

[rscot]

It seems that in almost every thread there is someone saying "This subject has been beaten to death... blah, blah, blah." Well, some of us actually have lives and can't read every thread ever posted to this forum. The purpose of these forums is to ask questions and learn from those who are more knowledgeable on the subject. So, people ask questions. Imagine that.

If you find the subject matter of the thread redundant, just pass it by. Yet, some of you can't pass up the opportunity to display your innate superiority by insulting and/or belittling the original poster. I find it amazing that you waste your precious time posting your snarky comments in a thread that you believe to be beneath you. Obviously, you have lots of time on your hands.

Calguns has a lot of knowledgeable and helpful people who go out of their way to help educate those less knowledgeable than themselves regarding firearms and gun laws. Unfortunately, Calguns also has some holier than thou jerks who make it their mission in life to insult people for asking questions. If you were truly as smart and superior as you think you are, you wouldn't waste your time on these trivial redundancies.

Thank you,

I didn't know about this until last week when asking about 1911s in a post. Now I'm going down and buying (2) new pistols. I don't live on here, but am spending time here now do to a recent surgery and have learned much more than I knew, but see this kind of thing frequently. I'm learning to just pass it and keep reading.

[dfletcher]

Why was the single shot exemption originally even in part of the bill?

Compromise - and probably with the intent it would be used just as it is being used.

[dfletcher]

It's not a loophole just as plan-b stated. It is written out in the law that a single shot pistol does not have to be on the roster. There is no ambiguity there. It is written out clear as day.

A loophole would be painting a XYZ gun silver because it was illegal to own green, red and blue colored XYZ guns. The "law" would thus be written that green, red and blue XYZ guns are illegal, but it would not be stated if SILVER colored XYZ guns are illegal. Thus creating a loophole because of the ambiguity if silver XYZ guns are legal.

I think this is a bit of the same trap as the "single shot is a loophole" - if the legislature passed a bill that said in effect "red, green, and blue XYZ brand guns are illegal" I would presume two things - they wanted to leave untouched silver XYZ guns AND they wanted to encourage the sale of silver paint. Despite our conventional "what a bunch of numb nuts" point of view on these guys (they do make it easy to think so) I think we have to presume they write exactly what they prefer to write, knowing exactly what the result will be and if an aspect of the law appears inexact or unfinished it is because through compromise that is all that could be done. The "bullet as a tool" and exclusion of "possession" regarding hi cap restrictions are, I think, two examples of the deliberate, legislative process and are being used exactly as intended.

[JagerTroop]

JagerTroop:
1)I was pointing out that a reasonable argument can be made that temporary compliance with the single-shot exception violates the spirit of the law, and thus can be labeled a loophole. I think the same is true (that reasonable arguments can be made) for bullet buttons, which permit otherwise banned "evil" features to exist on a gun and yet technically comply with the letter of the law.
2)On the other hand, I don't think such an argument can be reasonably made for weapons that in fact lacked "evil features" in the first place.

3)And please don't twist my ability to see the other side's arguments (which I do for a nice living) as evidence of anything about my political leanings or personal intestinal fortitude, so stop with the ad hominem attacks.
4)Failing to understand an opponent (here, the anti-gun minority) is a huge mistake in most conflicts. Refusing to even try is an even larger mistake.

1) So now we're supposed to be mind readers? If they had intentions when writting the bill, other than what is specifically stated, why not just spell it out? (I am fully aware of their tactics, using ambiguous text to obtain acceptance. This question is obviously rhetorical) Realistically, most any law can be twisted to have a different "spirit", but the "letter" is usually unmistakable(unless we're talking 2A ).
2)Do you honestly think they intended the "featureless" rules to apply to an EBR? This law is clearly in place to exempt rifles like the Mini 14, Mini 30, SKS, and other self loading, non-threatening (well... LESS threatening) rifles. I'm sure they're kicking themselves for not being more specific. I'm sure that the Monsterman grip and Solar Tac wrap haunt their dreams
3)I am under no illusion regarding your ability to see the other side's arguements. It is quite obvious that you are playing devil's advocate. Sorry, but a little ribbing goes with the territory
4)Their agenda is crystal clear. Though I may not appreciate their cause, I fully understand them. I simply do not care. Nothing brings me more joy than to thwart their efforts, be it future restrictions or legally steamrolling current restrictions by creative means.

I appreciate the concerns you bring to this situations, but you're not the only legal mind directing this freight train of liberty. We have some very crafty folks at the helm.

[smle-man]

It's not the conversion to single shot that concerns me, it is returning it to a repeating arm that I think is going to bite folks in the butt.