Understanding Assault Weapons

[NationsMostWanted]

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

hmm so that means? is has to be 30 inches and cant have a folding stock

[Librarian]

hmm so that means? is has to be 30 inches and cant have a folding stock

That's 2 separate issues.

You CAN have a folding stock IF the gun does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, i.e. ordinarily has a bullet button or equivalent.

No matter what, can't be shorter than 30 inches - but I can't remember how that's measured with folding stocks.

[Librarian]

My guess is (they) would rather use inappropriate terms when it comes to talking to officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law because you're more worried about kissing their *** than defending the truth. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Language is a set of agreed-upon symbols.

In the context of "officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law " the agreed-upon symbols are set forth in the text of the laws.

Legislators are generally highly uninformed about technical bits, and usually refuse to be educated for political reasons.

If you want to tilt at windmills, so be it, but it just isn't going to take us anywhere.

[9-12]

seems to me you are taking things way out of context. the context is "assault weapons" as far as the law is concerned. you are arguing semantics and really just muddling up the thread.

Maybe semantics to you...

If you want to tilt at windmills, so be it, but it just isn't going to take us anywhere.

Fair enough to all...I'll let it be. We all have our "pet peeves" and this whole "assault rifle/weapon" thing just irks me.
Sorry for the distraction and no disrespect intended.

[9-12]

Language is a set of agreed-upon symbols.

In the context of "officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law " the agreed-upon symbols are set forth in the text of the laws.

Legislators are generally highly uninformed about technical bits, and usually refuse to be educated for political reasons.

If you want to tilt at windmills, so be it, but it just isn't going to take us anywhere.

To the above...I agree, and I'll only add this in closing and to my point...it's the people who "agreed" to this mis-use of terminology to promote an agenda that are the problem. Again, not the term itself.

[bondmid003]

9-12 I think your time would be better spent correcting anti-gunners and the misinformed than arguing with us. Remember we're on your side.

[-hanko]

No matter what, can't be shorter than 30 inches - but I can't remember how that's measured with folding stocks.

CA law requires the weapon to be measured with the folding stock folded...different than federal law which measures with the folding stock unfolded.

-hanko

[IsaacGlass]

Listen bud, don't tell me we'll just have to agree to disagree, and then tell me why I say what I say. You couldn't be more wrong...about a few things here. First, I'm not changing any definition to suit anything. Jeez...are you intentionally being obtuse? The term "assault weapon" was improperly and inappropriately assigned to these weapons in the first place, to cause the "confusion" and garner the emotional support of their demise from those who don't know any better. The stroke of the brush, so to speak, to paint these specific rifles as "evil" and somehow more dangerous and lethal because of these features, and because they "look" like real assault weapons and to create fear.
Second, my reaction is not to the term, it's to the stupid lemmings who are more worried about their own comfy places in life and don't want to "rock the boat" among their peers, rather than challenge them with the truth. Wouldn't want to jeopardize that career. My guess is (they) would rather use inappropriate terms when it comes to talking to officers, legislators, lawyers, the judiciary, and other people who are actually involved in changing or enforcing the law because you're more worried about kissing their *** than defending the truth. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

"using tangible definitions is actually productive, while a personally-defined meaning is not"

Yes, I agree, and calling one of these rifles an "assault weapon" is a lie, and definitely a "personally defined meaning" (by the anti gun establishment), so what's your point?

Clearly you're the one who's confused.
At least that's my opinion...that is, if I'm still allowed to voice it...
Now we can agree to disagree.

Man, oh man. Someone done you wrong. Then again, internet forums is much cheaper than therapy sessions.

[Jonathan Doe]

I do not interprete the law and its language. When I examine a firearm, I go by what the law says in the penal code. If a firearm meets the criteria of an assault weapon, it is an assault weapon. It is simple as that unless someone change the terms in the penal code.

I don't agree with the assault weapon/ saturday night special stuff. But, the law is there and we will have to follow it. Whether one thinks it is a bad law or not, whether they agree or not is not an issue, I guess.

Let's go out and vote, so we can change it.

[Predator]

Agreed,

The laws may not make sense, but we are legally obligated to follow them.

If you don't agree with something you still have to follow the rules, otherwise work on getting the laws changed.

[Mute]

Sticking our fingers in our ears and saying, "la la la la la la la la..." isn't going to change the fact that the term "assault weapons" exist under the law. As long as that's the case we'll have to address it as defined by law so we can bring clarity to what are some very idiotic and ambiguous legislation, not only so we can properly attack it, but also to help gun owners stay out of trouble when they make purchases.

I and most of members here understand that there "assault weapons" only exist as defined by anti-gunners, but unfortunately they are written into law here in CA. If we're going to talk about them under the context of what and what isn't legal, we need to use the terminology as they are applied regardless of how we feel about these terms.

[ke6guj]

So what about a listed lower? Not an OLL?
Such as Colt, dpms, or KAC? Can you buy them and have them shipped into Cali stripped with a bulletbutton and leave them in your safe as long as you never configure it with an upper, are you legal?

maybe. The CGF guys have said that it would be defendable in court since a stripped lower is not a semi-automatic rifle, so even if it is on the list, it should be legal. But it is not recommended that you test out this theory.

[9-12]

Sticking our fingers in our ears and saying, "la la la la la la la la..." isn't going to change the fact that the term "assault weapons" exist under the law. As long as that's the case we'll have to address it as defined by law so we can bring clarity to what are some very idiotic and ambiguous legislation, not only so we can properly attack it, but also to help gun owners stay out of trouble when they make purchases.

I and most of members here understand that there "assault weapons" only exist as defined by anti-gunners, but unfortunately they are written into law here in CA. If we're going to talk about them under the context of what and what isn't legal, we need to use the terminology as they are applied regardless of how we feel about these terms.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, and I know the law is the law and we have to use the terminology when discussing the law...I understand that, but there's just something that really bothers me about using the term, especially in the title of a thread like this, with no distinction anywhere, and it's important enough to me, to take the time here to respond, with all due respect.

[Kafka]

Man, I'm glad I live in Texas.

[Jonathan Doe]

Man, I'm glad I live in Texas.

Lucky you. Someone still has to hold the ground in California.