Upcoming ban on HIGH cap magazines ca.

[smith and wesson]

Apologize for making so many threads.

I've been thinking there are a lot of gun owners across the nation who are stating they will not comply with new gun laws, New York being the most recent, when only a few thousand complied to register their firearms and millions simply didn't.

Maybe it's time that Californians did the same. Simple, I will not comply.

What say you fine gentlemen of calguns?

A few links showing we're not alone in this fight.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/oregon-gun-rights-advocates-rally-against-new-laws-will-not-comply/

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/24/425966334/flouting-the-law-some-new-yorkers-wont-register-guns

http://www.guns.com/2015/07/23/ohio-group-plans-civil-disobedience-of-clevelands-new-gun-laws/

Everything posted here is for laughs and entertainment purposes only.

[8mmFMJ]

Ok so we got a link for Oregon, New York, and Ohio.

Where is this story about banning magazines in California?

[uxo2]

[Decoligny]

What standard are you using for your "Standard" magazine?

My handguns came standard with a 7 round, and an 8 round magazine. Will these be banned?

What about the extended capacity magazines I bought for my 9mm that holds 10 rounds, will this ban on "standard capacity magazines" apply to these "non-standard capacity magazines" also?

Standard Capacity is a phrase that has no legal meaning whatsoever. It only serve to confuse those who may be new to firearms.

The appropriate terminology is that which is in the Penal Code.

16740. As used in this part, "large-capacity magazine" means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(a) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(b) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

[smith and wesson]

Well.. can't argue with that.

[2ndAmendmentMan]

What standard are you using for your "Standard" magazine?

My handguns came standard with a 7 round, and an 8 round magazine. Will these be banned?

What about the extended capacity magazines I bought for my 9mm that holds 10 rounds, will this ban on "standard capacity magazines" apply to these "non-standard capacity magazines" also?

Standard Capacity is a phrase that has no legal meaning whatsoever. It only serve to confuse those who may be new to firearms.

The appropriate terminology is that which is in the Penal Code.

16740. As used in this part, "large-capacity magazine" means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:
(a) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(b) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

That's what they would like you to believe. Do you also call your semi-auto AR an "assault weapon?"

[Decoligny]

That's what they would like you to believe. Do you also call your semi-auto AR an "assault weapon?"

I currently don't own an AR, however, if I did, and I didn't have it configured properly, I wouldn't be subject to arrest for possession of an AR, I would be charged with possession of an unregistered assault weapon. I would also be fully cognizant of what the Penal Code definition of an assault weapon is.

[Spyguy]

The appropriate terminology is that which is in the Penal Code Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

FIFY

[2ndAmendmentMan]

I currently don't own an AR, however, if I did, and I didn't have it configured properly, I wouldn't be subject to arrest for possession of an AR, I would be charged with possession of an unregistered assault weapon. I would also be fully cognizant of what the Penal Code definition of an assault weapon is.

Again, there is a difference between the actual definition of an assault weapon and the definition the politicians have created out of thin air because it sounds more dangerous and therefore easier to ban.

Just like "large capacity magazines" are used in un-gun friendly states to justify their regulation. The proper phrase to describe any magazine that comes with a specific firearm is "standard capacity" regardless if it has more than 10 round capacity.

Maybe if you would like to keep things clear you could refer to our neutered magazines as "low capacity."

[elsolo]

I've been thinking they're are a lot of gun owners across the nation who are stating they will not comply with new gun laws, New York being the most recent, when only a few thousand complied to register their firearms and millions simply didn't.

Maybe it's time is Californians did the same. Simple, I will not comply.

What say you fine gentlemen of calguns?

I suppose you weren't into guns prior to CA's previous assault weapon bans in 89 and 99.

Most people didn't register their AW's.

Those who did were able to continue using them, without fear of being arrested.

Would you rather have a legal and reg'd AW today or an illegal one?

What about full auto?
If this was 1985 (and not CA), would you register your full autos so you can legally keep and sell them later?

Not registering is not a protest, it's what they want. Fewer legally owned guns and more criminals they could bust.

(Outright ban compliance is a different issue)

[Jimi Jah]

That's what they would like you to believe. Do you also call your semi-auto AR an "assault weapon?"[/QUOTE]

Only to my liberal friends.

[smith and wesson]

I suppose you weren't into guns prior to CA's previous assault weapon bans in 89 and 99.

Most people didn't register their AW's.

Those who did were able to continue using them, without fear of being arrested.

Would you rather have a legal and reg'd AW today or an illegal one?

What about full auto?
If this was 1985 (and not CA), would you register your full autos so you can legally keep and sell them later?

Not registering is not a protest, it's what they want. Fewer legally owned guns and more criminals they could bust.

(Outright ban compliance is a different issue)

I will not comply, I will not turn in my standard cap magazine. Which I don't own anymore cause I lost them in a magical boating accident.

[elsolo]

I will not comply, I will not turn in my standard cap magazine. Which I don't own anymore cause I lost them in a magical boating accident.

Unless you live in the city of Los Angeles, it doesn't affect you anymore than if Canada passed a new law.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[JDW67]

Darn those boating accidents. They've claimed so many of my guns and now, magazines.

[bangel]

I just read this - specific to City of Los Angeles, they are voting today I think:

http://mynewsla.com/government/2015/07/28/gun-decision-faces-l-a-city-council/?google_editors_picks=true

In response to a series of mass shootings across the country, the Los Angeles City Council is poised Tuesday to ban the possession of high-capacity gun magazines.

Councilman Paul Krekorian, who is pushing for the ban, joined advocates for restricting gun use, victims of gun violence and others at a City Hall rally prior to the City Council voting on the proposed law.

The ordinance would prohibit possession of magazines with more than 10 rounds. If the law is ultimately approved, anyone already possessing such magazines would need to remove them from the city, give them up to the Los Angeles Police Department to be destroyed, or sell or transfer the magazines according to state law.