MERGED THREADS "Bullet Button Assault Weapon" Regs

[dieselpower]

No, the power to add aws was revoked by the legislature, at DOJ's request. That was one of the reasons the OLL thing took off.

thank you for the correction, but the list is still closed.

[dieselpower]

Okay, after 3k posts, what's the pro on register table?

17 years ago the same discussion was had.

If you register, you still get to use your AW legally, in public. With restrictions of course, such as locked transport.

If you do not register, your AW sits at home, and you risk a felony if caught with it. But you didn't register, impressing some people on the internet.

That is it. It is odious, an exercise in frustration, a sign of society heading into an urban toilet, etc., but that's what it is, no more, no less.

Start a thread asking which people wish they had registered in 2000, and which regret doing so. Might be interesting until it gets cluttered.

I registered in 2000 and I do not regret it.

This law is just one more step toward disarmament of the people. And this will not be the last step. They wll never come right out and demand we turn our guns in. The nation would not support it. They will continue to place more and more restrictions on the type of gun until the gun owners are so few they literally die off.

The saving grace in this registration is they opened up two things;
1- Family registration. You children can now be part owners of your firearms. It extends the "confiscation by death" 1 more generation.
2- De-registration into a non-cat III AW. So you or the other owners of the firearm can de-register it and sell it or pass it down again.

You have to imagine in 2018-2020 when this registration is closed, a new registration will be started, which will force all non-catIII AW type semiautomatic firearms to be registered. This means your featureless and fixed magazine firearms will need to be registered and you will not be able to turn them into a CatIII AW.

[Fox Mulder]

Anyone else hear chuck michel on just guns radio?

http://crpa.org/listen-just-guns-radio-1-9-17/

A couple takes on his comments:

1. There are only 3 categories of AW, even after sb880
2. DOJ had no authority to require BB stay

Well, clearly Chuck needs to have a conversation with ifilef, so he (Chuck) can see the error in his thinking.

[Discogodfather]

Start a thread asking which people wish they had registered in 2000, and which regret doing so. Might be intetesting until it gets cluttered.

I did register, in 2000, why would anyone regret that? My regret is not registering more. I dream of having a real AK.

[lrdchivalry]

Well, clearly Chuck needs to have a conversation with ifilef, so he (Chuck) can see the error in his thinking.

LMAO

I noticed he has gone quite and hasn't posted for the last three pages.

[CandG]

And the fact that they're going to make us keep the Bullet Button on our registered assault weapons surprises you? It was very surprising to me that any of you even thought that we would be able to take them off in the first place. This is not news to me.

Nobody ever said the DOJ wouldn't try to make that regulation. We've been saying all along that they might try, but that it would be illegal for them to do so. And we are proven correct in that assumption by the demand letters submitted by CRPA. You can try to say "I told you so" all you want but the fact is nobody was wrong.

Again, we were/are NOT WRONG about being legally allowed to remove our bullet buttons. We were just too optimistic about the DOJ submitting regulations that would be within their legal authority the first time. Hopefully they'll get it right on the second try, and if they don't, then hopefully the courts will side with us. Even if we lose those and can't remove our BB's, we still weren't "wrong", just screwed over.

[FelixEstrella]

Well, clearly Chuck needs to have a conversation with ifilef, so he (Chuck) can see the error in his thinking.

Jeezus! Can you guys give it a rest already? I really don't care which of your dicks is bigger.

[CandG]

I registered in 2000 and I do not regret it.

This law is just one more step toward disarmament of the people. And this will not be the last step. They wll never come right out and demand we turn our guns in. The nation would not support it. They will continue to place more and more restrictions on the type of gun until the gun owners are so few they literally die off.

The saving grace in this registration is they opened up two things;
1- Family registration. You children can now be part owners of your firearms. It extends the "confiscation by death" 1 more generation.
2- De-registration into a non-cat III AW. So you or the other owners of the firearm can de-register it and sell it or pass it down again.

You have to imagine in 2018-2020 when this registration is closed, a new registration will be started, which will force all non-catIII AW type semiautomatic firearms to be registered. This means your featureless and fixed magazine firearms will need to be registered and you will not be able to turn them into a CatIII AW.

I got hosed, I was exactly 17yrs 10mo old when registration closed in 2000.

Regarding your point #1 above, do you know if that means we can assign a minor child to be a part owner? Or is that still limited to 18 and older?

I agree wholeheartedly with your final paragraph. Which is why I am still leaning towards registration this year (though, I will wait until the last minute to do so, if I do)

[CandG]

Jeezus! Can you guys give it a rest already? I really don't care which of your dicks is bigger.

Don't be selfish, some of us care

[Wiz-of-Awd]

Jeezus! Can you guys give it a rest already? I really don't care which of your dicks is bigger.

You could just - wait for it - leave...

A.W.D.

[JimWest]

Sorry if repost:

http://crpa.org/crpa-nra-michel-associates-host-webinar-new-assault-weapon-regulations/

[ironpegasus]

Kes has confirmed that there is plenty of .ca.gov activity on this website.

That sounds like a good case to create some access control lists on a firewall... maybe redirect requests coming from DoJ IPs to a honey trap site that contains all the innocuous chatter and then the stuff that leads them in the direction that our legal team wants them to go in because it will lead to slam dunk wins. Use the ACLs to capture logins and... viola - you've just made it a bunch harder for them to screw us over.

[franklinarmory]

So then they will just read it on their phones?

They'll just subpoena what they want anyway.

[tonyxcom]

LMAO

I noticed he has gone quite and hasn't posted for the last three pages.

He is banned. Don't know if temp or perm but you can be 100% certain he is looking at this thread.

And drum roll.....

All the people that he ignored (like your's truly ) can remind him of what a tool he is for not manning up - since an ignore list doesn't work when you aren't logged in.

The more you refuse to admit it, the more you will be reminded of it. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth and just admit it. It's ok to be wrong buddy.

[CandG]

That sounds like a good case to create some access control lists on a firewall... maybe redirect requests coming from DoJ IPs to a honey trap site that contains all the innocuous chatter and then the stuff that leads them in the direction that our legal team wants them to go in because it will lead to slam dunk wins. Use the ACLs to capture logins and... viola - you've just made it a bunch harder for them to screw us over.

So then they will just read it on their phones?

They'll just subpoena what they want anyway.

I think the spirit of his idea was that by feeding "false" (but convincing) information to .gov IP's that access the site, they wouldn't think to try logging in with a VPN or their phone, because they'd be perfectly happy with the fake content they're seeing from their .gov IP, blissfully unaware that to see the actual forum they'd have to log in from elsewhere.

It's a funny idea, but impractical. Implementing it (and generating enough fake content) would take a ton of work, and as soon as they caught on it would have been all for naught.