How registration could backfire on the state

[Discogodfather]

I disagree.

They have passed the decree - 'Everyone must register!'

Everyone registers - they win (as they expected).

Or - nobody registers - we win (as they did not expect, while wondering how to enforce the next round of infringements knowing there will be no compliance).



.

Why? Explain how they win when we have an agreement to keep a free state rifle config (sans the mag release) that can be folded and go down to 26" as opposed to a rifle with far less features?

Explain how your featureless rifle is "safe" from further regulation?

Explain how you get your litigants together when there is virtually no record of who and where they are?

I think you bending over, but even worse because your bending over to put your head in the sand.

[bob.dakeelstripe]

Stop spreading reasonable ideas, the "featureless" crowd is convinced that they are completely safe and defying the evil gubermint. They can't imaging how much much much more open and vulnerable they are to further castration than someone that goes RAW.

No way they would ever regulate the featureless weapon to there extinction with no chance of being able to register. ..

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Devon]

they are smart

The DOJ must be aware of the low historical registration numbers when it comes to guns. They must know that this one will be no different. Especially with the divide and bitterness in the debate these days.

Because of this, and especially with the recent requirement to keep the bullet button on, they must want low registration. It is the only conclusion I can come to. They must be planning an attack on featureless auto loaders that are left vulnerable to more restrictions.

[walmart_ar15]

There are two party at work here, the politician and DOJ.

Politician - can't confiscate them now, so register them all! That will show them!

DOJ - WTF this just increase our workload x100! And only $15? It will not be enough for one database sever. K, Let's use gunowner's insecurity on "big brother are watching" and kick this can down the road.

Hey we want pictures and the name of ur first born...

Register and break them financially

[baranski]

I think the best thing that could happen is if nobody registers. Not one. Zero.

That would send the strongest message we are capable of at this point.

Yup and not go into hiding with them either.

[SonOfaDI]

We keep telling them our possible plans..... mums da word

[Dutch3]

Why? Explain how they win when we have an agreement to keep a free state rifle config (sans the mag release) that can be folded and go down to 26" as opposed to a rifle with far less features?

Explain how your featureless rifle is "safe" from further regulation?

Explain how you get your litigants together when there is virtually no record of who and where they are?

I think you bending over, but even worse because your bending over to put your head in the sand.

How do you define 'winning', with having an 'agreement' with the state? As if the state has never screwed over those it negotiated agreements with? Do you have any legally-owned magazines that are now illegal to possess, according to the state? How did that 'agreement' work out?

Featureless rifles are obviously on borrowed time. They will be in the same boat as RAW's within a year or two. That is, they will be subject to confiscation just as your RAW's will. Shake your registration papers in the faces of the government thugs and let me know how it works out for you.

Litigants? The time for litigation is past. No need to round up litigants...the Patriots will find each other.

You are bending over, embracing the warm fuzzy of government registration that will come back to bite you. Of course, this is my opinion, perhaps influenced by my choice of residence location as opposed to yours.

[Discogodfather]

How do you define 'winning', with having an 'agreement' with the state? As if the state has never screwed over those it negotiated agreements with? Do you have any legally-owned magazines that are now illegal to possess, according to the state? How did that 'agreement' work out?

It's worked out great with my previous RAW. How has it worked out with your non-Raw rifles?

Featureless rifles are obviously on borrowed time. They will be in the same boat as RAW's within a year or two. That is, they will be subject to confiscation just as your RAW's will. Shake your registration papers in the faces of the government thugs and let me know how it works out for you.

Confiscation is a fantasy. Explain how millions of rifles will be confiscated. It's literally impossible on a financial or practical level. And I will shake my paperwork at them if they ever try, in a class action lawsuit. What will you be waiving?

Litigants? The time for litigation is past. No need to round up litigants...the Patriots will find each other.

Your a tea partier, eh? Well good for you. The time of the biggest litigation in State and maybe federal history in terms of guns is going to happen, all signs point to it.

You are bending over, embracing the warm fuzzy of government registration that will come back to bite you. Of course, this is my opinion, perhaps influenced by my choice of residence location as opposed to yours.

Ah, you're not even in CA? or is that around Chico? Thanks for the armchair quarterback advice.

[1911su16b870]

We are so far behind any kind of logical, unbiased reasoning regarding "CA assault weapons" from the intent of the original legislation and that of any type of facts regarding deaths caused by the felonious use of centerfired rifles with detachable magazines and an "evil name or feature".

The state has repeatedly shown they just want to get rid of/take the guns away from the law abiding.

Penal Code 30505 (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state.  The Legislature has restricted the assault weapons specified in Section 30510 based upon finding that each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.  It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession.  It is not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities.

Bold is the rationale. Bold italics is the failure as AWs have never been afforded to the public for lawful sale or possession, only those in the military or law enforcement. Therein lies the intent and the problem.

[dieselpower]

they dont care if we register or not, they are just positioning the pieces on the board. In two years all firearm that are semiautomatic will need to be registered.

California has taken the stance that the 2nd Amendment is only for the Federal Government and this State can do as it pleases.

California has adopted the ideology that only firearms used for Hunting, target shooting and professional sport are acceptable for civilians to own. All semiautomatic firearms are a hazard to the public and need to be registered and ultimately banned.

There is a 10 year plan starting to take shape. By 2025 all semiautomatic firearms will be banned and the remaining registered ones will be destroyed or taken out of the State within a generation.

[Drew Eckhardt]

Confiscation is a fantasy. Explain how millions of rifles will be confiscated.

They won't confiscate. They'll just assess a prohibitive tax. Some countries charge more for a firearms permit expiring in one year than the median household income.

That just requires FTB populating its databases from DOJ's.

If you don't comply they'll have your employer garnish your wages.

There isn't a good work-around for that if you're not among the minority of people who are self-employed.

[Discogodfather]

We are so far behind any kind of logical, unbiased reasoning regarding "CA assault weapons" from the intent of the original legislation and that of any type of facts regarding deaths caused by the felonious use of centerfired rifles with detachable magazines and an "evil name or feature".

The state has repeatedly shown they just want to get rid of/take the guns away from the law abiding.

Penal Code 30505 (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state.  The Legislature has restricted the assault weapons specified in Section 30510 based upon finding that each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.  It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession.  It is not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities.

Bold is the rationale. Bold italics is the failure as AWs have never been afforded to the public for lawful sale or possession, only those in the military or law enforcement. Therein lies the intent and the problem.

I disagree because the public safety argument is a canard. They know, as we do, that less than 1% of gun crime is committed by AW.

Don't be confused by the fact that they use public safety as a propaganda tool.

Their goal is to end the buying and selling of AW (and all guns) in CA, for the express purpose of removing 10% of the gun industries sales.

[Discogodfather]

They won't confiscate. They'll just assess a prohibitive tax. Some countries charge more for a firearms permit expiring in one year than the median household income.

That just requires FTB populating its databases from DOJ's.

If you don't comply they'll have your employer garnish your wages.

There isn't a good work-around for that if you're not among the minority of people who are self-employed.

I don't doubt that is what is happened outside of the USA but it has never happened in the USA. I just see it as an impractical pipe dream.

Cutting off 10% of the gun industries business is much more low lying fruit.

[TMB 1]

I think the best thing that could happen is if nobody registers. Not one. Zero.

That would send the strongest message we are capable of at this point.

[Kowan]

I think your right except 180 degrees wrong. They don't want us to register, thats why they waited until the last minute, haven't even published their regs yet, added crazy difficult steps to the process, and don't even have a web interface up yet to register.

If everyone registers they lose.

That is some twisted logic claiming they don't want us to register when the exact opposite is true.