How registration could backfire on the state

[Discogodfather]

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

And what makes you think they want us to register when I clearly stated many points that prove that they do not? What proof do you have that they do?

[Kowan]

And what makes you think they want us to register when I clearly stated many points that prove that they do not? What proof do you have that they do?

You haven't proved anything other than you are reading between the lines seeing what isn't there.

[John Browning]

There is no way I could fly below the radar because of how many different guns I own, what I have already registered, my various FFLs, etc. I'm on enough lists that I won't ever go overlooked. The Gestapo knows where to find me.

If I owned a couple pre-2014 purchases that weren't on the radar, there's no way I'd register anything. I'd comply in one of the many other ways.

The best bet is to move everything out of state, and to go with it when you do.

[Smedkcuf]

You haven't proved anything other than you are reading between the lines seeing what isn't there.

The fact that the regulations require multiple pictures to register means they clearly want to dissuade people from registering. Also the fact that they require people to leave their bullet buttons on.

[John Browning]

The fact that the regulations require multiple pictures to register means they clearly what to dissuade people from registering. Also the fact that they require people to leave their bullet buttons on.

This is because they don't want you to change the configuration and want you to provide the evidence to hang yourself for when they need it later to show that you did.

They think that most people are dumb enough to give them what they will need to incriminate them later because most people talk themselves into jail when they talk to LE absent a lawyer. Nobody talks themselves out of it.

[Kowan]

The fact that the regulations require multiple pictures to register means they clearly want to dissuade people from registering. Also the fact that they require people to leave their bullet buttons on.

Conjecture. Their handling of what they require creates more going featureless, but isn't the proof you think it is.

Is this some weird Br'er Rabbit logic? "They don't want me to register, so I'm going to anyway!"

[Discogodfather]

You haven't proved anything other than you are reading between the lines seeing what isn't there.

(1) The DOJ waited until the last minute to file their regs
(2) They don't have an interface or any other method of registering up yet
(3) They added complexities to the process to......get people to be more open to registering?
(4) They are requiring you to keep the BB on to.....get people to be more open to registering?
(5) They haven't even officially published their regs yet
(6) In the past reg period, DOJ made it extremely difficult to register. Forms were not even available to me the first time I tried. They took months to process

What am I reading between the lines? Can you see these points above or are they not there for you?

[Discogodfather]

Conjecture. Their handling of what they require creates more going featureless, but isn't the proof you think it is.

I think you just proved your own point of view wrong. Your saying they are creating more featureless, but that is not their intent???

Let's see the explanation for this one.

[Kowan]

See, that right there is your problem. You think.

[jasonem]

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.

I think we all know the only way they will be able to ban featureless is if they did a full semi-auto ban and the ban would need to be both rifles and pistols. I just don't see that ever happening...even as crazy as this state is.

No point in registering if you go featureless. Registering is a terrible idea.

[Discogodfather]

I think we all know the only way they will be able to ban featureless is if they did a full semi-auto ban and the ban would need to be both rifles and pistols. I just don't see that ever happening...even as crazy as this state is.

No point in registering if you go featureless. Registering is a terrible idea.

Anything that wraps around the pistol grip that hinders the user from fully grasping the pistol grip is now considered a feature on the list of features.

That's all they would have to do to make what you think is not an AW into an AW. It's so easy it defies reason to suggest otherwise. Remember, they are trying to effect sales of rifles. You might think your definition of an AW is the right one, but they disagree and will continue to disagree. At least that's what history has taught us (or some of us).

[Drew Eckhardt]

I think we all know the only way they will be able to ban featureless is if they did a full semi-auto ban

Our legislature banned featureless rifles in 2013 with SB-374. We only have them today because Brown vetoed their bill and before the 2016 election the Democrats couldn't override with super majorities in both houses. They'll be gone by 2019 when Newsom signs a bill, perhaps in 2018 as a publicity stunt by politicians facing the 2018 mid-term elections.

Semi-automatic pistols will be gone once the roster empties naturally from manufacturers not implementing required features like micro-stamping (we've dropped from 1152 models in 2014 to 741) or the legislature requires re-certification.

[Jimi Jah]

Even if all the AR's in this state are never used in a crime, that's not a reason to not ban them here.

It's not about facts or results, it's about philosophy. The minds of Excremento do not believe/support the constitution of the United States. They support a liberal/socialist type of government, like in Europe.

[Wiz-of-Awd]

Even if all the AR's in this state are never used in a crime, that's not a reason to not ban them here.

It's not about facts or results, it's about philosophy. The minds of Excremento do not believe/support the constitution of the United States. They support a liberal/socialist type of government, like in Europe.

Really, this post can be used as a closing comment on all threads concerning the new laws.

A.W.D.

[Just_some_guy]

The problem with resisting registration is that you expose yourself to criminal prosecution, including the possibility of a felony conviction.

If you get caught with a non-registered "assault weapon" and it can be shown you refused to register it (ie, social media, a search of your browser history showing a post of the like to this site, or simply visiting web sites supportive of the 2nd A), you can be certain you'll be facing a felony prosecution.

On the upside, you'll have standing in the higher courts to appeal while you are serving your 16 months in the state pen.

Other than that, I can see no upside to defy, at least not in this state.

More voters in California voted for Prop 63 than voted for Hillary. (8,663,159 for prop 63 vs. 7,362,490 for Hillary ). We have NO popular support in this state.

Heck, more people voted for Prop 63 than voted for marijuana (7,979,041)

With that kind of voter support, one-party rule and a general attitude in the California government that it can simply defy the US Constitution as it wishes, the roadmap is quite clear. They do intend to confiscate weapons and impose further restrictions on the 2nd-A rights of residents of this state.

Your "featureless" rifle will eventually be banned too and they'll claim it was really an AW you "loopholed" to evade registration.

I think the only path forward is to register and when they do come to the point of infringement through whatever regulation or confiscation, hope and pray there's a path through the courts to overturn it.

After all, the segregated south had popular voting support and they denied the legitimate voting rights of their citizens for decades until the feds stepped in.