Mag Lock Frustration

[SDgarrick]

I was Just checking out the new B-16 (Big thanks to Toolbox X) when I realized how incredibly asinine it is to mandate a magazine lock whilst already implementing a 10 round mag requirement. Mag lock + 10 round max = WTF?

I know this has been beat to death, It's just been a crappy day and I hate being reminded of our laws.

[Seesm]

YOU said a mouthful... a mouthfull that has been said before, but a mouthfull none the less...

Heck I think I even did a post about this...

I would love to sit down with law makers and look em in the eye's and like "WTF you ret*rd, what were you thinking?" And there are ALOT of laws that are like that...

[SDgarrick]

YOU said a mouthful... a mouthfull that has been said before, but a mouthfull none the less...

Heck I think I even did a post about this...

I would love to sit down with law makers and look em in the eye's and like "WTF you ret*rd, what were you thinking?" And there are ALOT of laws that are like that...

LOL thank you.

[NeoWeird]

There is always more than one way to vote, and our country and it's fore fathers are known for voting in alternate ways when those in control lose sight of what the constitution means and why it was written.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Would you rather there be no mag locks? Would you rather they all be illegal like we thought they were before 2005?

What are you doing about it? Are you a member of the NRA? Are you donating money to their political branch the ILA? Are you donating money to the Calguns Foundation?

Make no mistake about it. These laws have nothing to do with common sense or public safety. They were designed to take guns out of circulation and disarm the citizens of this country, one class at a time.

So other than complaining about it on this forum (which is fine), what are you doing to help retrieve our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in order to protect this country from a tyrannical government?

[CSACANNONEER]

No problem. If you don't like it, don't run a maglock and use normal mags. It's that simple. Of course, I'd suggest following the law and going with a featureless build if you're not using <10 round mags in a non-detachable build. Or, simply don't own a firearm which needs a magazine lock.

[Librarian]

I would love to sit down with law makers and look em in the eye's and like "WTF you ret*rd, what were you thinking?" And there are ALOT of laws that are like that...

I can answer that for you.

They were thinking they wanted to be re-elected.

To get re-elected, they had to show their district voters they had 'done something about crime' as well as other things of local interest.

To get anything done of local interest, they had to get their bills out of committees.

To get their bills out of committee, they had to vote the way the party leadership wanted on other bills.

Voters, most of whom have no interest at all in guns, get their information from California newspapers and television stations. Those outlets have maintained a constant 'guns are bad' message for at least 30 years that I know of.

The party leadership likes gun control bills. They get money from anti-gun groups, and money helps get them get re-elected, so they can still be party leeaders and keep the resst of the legislators in line.

Picking on guns is much easier than picking on causes of violence. When legislators pick on guns, uninterested and uninformed voters don't call them on it. When they are not called on it, the laws pass.

When the laws pass, it appears they are 'doing something about crime'. When the laws pass, it reinforces the power of the party leadership. When the laws pass, it reinforces the influence of the anti-gun contributors.

If they are 'doing something about crime', they appear to be doing their jobs, and voters vote for them again.

Note there is nothing in that litany that has anything to do with public safety.

It's money and power and control.

[aplinker]

I think you have your cart and horse bass-ackwards...

mag locks exist because they get us the firearms we want, not because the legislators mandated them.

[SDgarrick]

Would you rather there be no mag locks? Would you rather they all be illegal like we thought they were before 2005?

What are you doing about it? Are you a member of the NRA? Are you donating money to their political branch the ILA? Are you donating money to the Calguns Foundation?

Make no mistake about it. These laws have nothing to do with common sense or public safety. They were designed to take guns out of circulation and disarm the citizens of this country, one class at a time.

So other than complaining about it on this forum (which is fine), what are you doing to help retrieve our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in order to protect this country from a tyrannical government?

Ohhhh ok. If I give enough money to the ILA can I complain then? At what point may I express my dissatisfaction with our CA gun laws, may I do it here, on a forum about CA guns comprised mainly of CA gun owners, who are in turn affected by CA gun laws? you must be bankrolling the ILA and have two or three NRA memberships, because I can recall a number of threads which served as your soapbox. Still mad at all those pesky customers wanting to know if items are in stock? Get over it, When I'm an important person like you, I hope I remember to utilize a little tact when someone comes to me complaining about CA gun laws.

[Experimentalist]

Indisputably these laws are wrong, and eventually - with a little luck and a lot of hard work - they will be repealed.

Librarian is of course correct when he points out the politics of the laws. But I believe an important element is the reluctance to curb hunting and other shooting activities deemed legitimate in the eyes of the general public.

In other words, they wanted to ban evil black rifles, but not Grand Dad's hunting rifle. So a convoluted set of laws were enacted resulting in guns that look like the Ruger Mini-14 being legal while the AR-15 in original as-designed configuration is not.

It's cool to vent. But Tenpercent has a legitimate question. Don't take it personally.

[bplvr]

I can answer that for you.

They were thinking they wanted to be re-elected.

To get re-elected, they had to show their district voters they had 'done something about crime' as well as other things of local interest.

To get anything done of local interest, they had to get their bills out of committees.

To get their bills out of committee, they had to vote the way the party leadership wanted on other bills.

Voters, most of whom have no interest at all in guns, get their information from California newspapers and television stations. Those outlets have maintained a constant 'guns are bad' message for at least 30 years that I know of.

The party leadership likes gun control bills. They get money from anti-gun groups, and money helps get them get re-elected, so they can still be party leeaders and keep the resst of the legislators in line.

Picking on guns is much easier than picking on causes of violence. When legislators pick on guns, uninterested and uninformed voters don't call them on it. When they are not called on it, the laws pass.

When the laws pass, it appears they are 'doing something about crime'. When the laws pass, it reinforces the power of the party leadership. When the laws pass, it reinforces the influence of the anti-gun contributors.

If they are 'doing something about crime', they appear to be doing their jobs, and voters vote for them again.

Note there is nothing in that litany that has anything to do with public safety.

It's money and power and control.

Very concise ....the only thing I would add is that right after new gun laws are passed the crime rate goes up.
{ref the Ca. homocide rate after 2000}
Which means that we need more gun control. ....back to the top of your list.
In the end all guns will be outlawed , like in mexico.

[Liberty1]

In the end all guns will be outlawed...

In the end "we" (individuals) win. One way or the other. Society either reverses the trend and steers back towards freedom and liberty. Or society, like in Mexico, USSR, or Rome for that matter, moves forward to destruction, and out of the collapse, self reliant individuals survive to exert their natural born freedom and liberties when those collapsed societies can no longer control them.

[SJgunguy24]

Monster man grip. Thats all I have to say.

[ohsmily]

I was Just checking out the new B-16 (Big thanks to Toolbox X) when I realized how incredibly asinine it is to mandate a magazine lock whilst already implementing a 10 round mag requirement. Mag lock + 10 round max = WTF?

I know this has been beat to death, It's just been a crappy day and I hate being reminded of our laws.

If you are so bent out of shape about magazine locks, JUST GO FEATURELESS so you can use your high capacity magazines. Get a U15 or monsterman grip.

[SDgarrick]

If you are so bent out of shape about magazine locks, JUST GO FEATURELESS so you can use your high capacity magazines. Get a U15 or monsterman grip.

I'm not bent out of shape, I merely dislike said laws that are in place. I called these laws asinine, wouldn't really call that whining. In the end, we are all in agreement about these laws.