AB574 Manditory Registration of all of your guns

[dfletcher]

I have more than one residence. One of which we visit occasionally (more than 30 days gaps) which have a safe and guns. So I know where they are even though not verified with my eyeballs. So I assume my yes is accurate anyways. Screw these aholes.

Reflects my situation and sentiment exactly. About half my guns have been moved up to my 2nd residence. And some of them have been sold out of state. It seems to me CA cannot really determine what I have and do not have, nor when it was no longer my gun. Does CA suppose it can hold me accountable for guns no longer in CA, even though they may still be my guns?

67 and a half cannot come too soon. 8 months and counting.

[The Gleam]

You said, and not in the quote from from California Carry: "... a time when not all guns had to be kept track of and private sales were just that, private; i.e., no need for an FFL or paperwork on long guns until 2014..."

Sorry, but that statement is incorrect. Starting in 1991, private sales of long guns were not private, but needed to go through an FFL with paperwork.

I have no problem with the quote from California Carry.

There is one element of truth in that, which I've noted in another post elsewhere; up until 2014, long-guns 50 years old and older did not require going through an FFL in trade/sale between two private parties, and a C&R/COE was not required of either party in the transaction.

So that would meet the definition of "not all guns" - and many of those are quite substantial firearms.

It sure made collecting Garands, G43s, SVT-40s, M1 Carbines, FN49s, Rashids, Hakims, Ljungmans, some SKSes, Remington 8s & 81s, 1903s, and older lever actions a lot more fun - among many others.

----

[TrappedinCalifornia]

How firearms move from legal purchase to criminal use

...One key finding in the study is that guns reported lost are three times more likely to be used in a crime, and stolen guns are almost nine times more likely to be used in a crime...

See? UC Davis says it's 'necessary' to have you confirm you possess what you possess because stolen guns are more likely to be used in crimes. Uh... Doesn't the fact that they were stolen already make them a factor in a crime? Be that as it may...

Purchaser, firearm, and retailer characteristics associated with crime gun recovery: a longitudinal analysis of firearms sold in California from 1996 to 2021

Firearm violence is a major cause of death and injury in the United States. Tracking the movement of firearms from legal purchase to use in crimes can help inform prevention of firearm injuries and deaths. The last state-wide studies analyzing crime gun recoveries used data from over 20 years ago; thus, an update is needed...

In total, 38,441 handguns (0.80%) and 6,806 long guns (0.24%) were recovered in crimes. A firearm dealer’s sales volume, percent of transactions that were denials, pawns, pawn redemptions, and firearms that became crime guns were each positively associated with firearm recovery in crime. Handguns that were inexpensive, larger caliber, and that had been reported lost or stolen were positively associated with recovery in crimes. Purchaser characteristics associated with crime gun recovery included: being younger, female, Black, Hispanic, Native American or Pacific Islander, or other race/ethnicity (vs white), having previous arrests, living in close proximity to the firearm dealership, and living in a more socially vulnerable census tract. Associations with race and ethnicity were modified by previous infraction-only arrests...

Uh... I need to take something for an headache after reading that. Just bear in mind that this is the type of 'study' underlying their sense of 'necessity' for such laws.

[abinsinia]

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I'll ask the same question I did back in December... What is being used as the basis of confirmation?

Am I supposed to confirm I have possession of every firearm I've ever purchased? Every firearm I've ever purchased through an FFL? Every firearm I currently own; i.e., how does the Government know that my confirmation is accurate vs. their records? What are the potential consequences if my answer doesn't match their records and how do they intend to confirm that? If you check N/A, are you going to get a letter or knock on the door to 'confirm' what you currently own/have possession of? How many DROS transactions are going to be denied over this without actual cause?

Naturally, we know the State doesn't care if you can't buy firearms while they sort it out.

[abinsinia]

I'll ask the same question I did back in December... What is being used as the basis of confirmation?

Am I supposed to confirm I have possession of every firearm I've ever purchased? Every firearm I've ever purchased through an FFL? Every firearm I currently own; i.e., how does the Government know that my confirmation is accurate vs. their records? What are the potential consequences if my answer doesn't match their records and how do they intend to confirm that? If you check N/A, are you going to get a letter or knock on the door to 'confirm' what you currently own/have possession of? How many DROS transactions are going to be denied over this without actual cause?

Naturally, we know the State doesn't care if you can't buy firearms while they sort it out.

In the video they said your answers are under penalty of perjury, so it's illegal to lie. Most likely they will prosecute you if they _think_ you lied and the jury will convict because they don't like you because you own guns.

I'm wonder what gives the state the right to conduct an interrogation under penalty of perjury to get access to your rights ? They also do this for CCW.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

In the video they said your answers are under penalty of perjury, so it's illegal to lie. Most likely they will prosecute you if they _think_ you lied and the jury will convict because they don't like you because you own guns.

I'm wonder what gives the state the right to conduct an interrogation under penalty of perjury to get access to your rights ? They also do this for CCW.

That's the question. What do they think I'm 'lying' about? That I don't still have possession of every firearm I ever DROS'd/purchased or that I might still have possession of, at least, some of them? If I don't still have possession, I'll then have to prove how they were 'disposed' of and to whom. One of those guilty until proven innocent things which stands our system on its head.

Right now, it looks like a 'trap' no matter how you answer the question. Again, I admit I haven't looked to closely at the language, but I'd think it was deliberately intended to create a chilling effect on future purchases and a certain amount of fear with regard to what is owned/possessed. As the title of the thread also suggests or alludes to, I can see this as a precursor to registration in that the Government will say it is 'necessary' to 'clarify' what you actually possess so as to allow for 'accurate' responses to the question which can be verified.

You see, it's not an 'interrogation' from their point of view. It's a simple question. The fact that we are 'struggling' with how to answer is, to them, an indication we have something to hide and that the matter should be 'investigated' further.

[Rogerbutthead]

The question was on the form I filled out yesterday when I bought my latest weapon.

Anyone know exactly what they mean yet?

[abinsinia]

The question was on the form I filled out yesterday when I bought my latest weapon.

Anyone know exactly what they mean yet?

Are you asking what the question means ? It should be clear, did you look at your guns in the last 30 day ?

It seems either yes or no are fine responses, otherwise we would have heard about denied gun purchases.

[Rogerbutthead]

Some of us have many safes and hundreds of guns. Is looking at a safe mean we checked all the guns in the safe? Is having no break ins in your house mean you confirm they are where you last put them? Perhaps you have some stored in a safe in a house you visit may 3 or 4 times a year?

Not sure what the authorities would do in that situation.

[abinsinia]

Some of us have many safes and hundreds of guns. Is looking at a safe mean we checked all the guns in the safe? Is having no break ins in your house mean you confirm they are where you last put them? Perhaps you have some stored in a safe in a house you visit may 3 or 4 times a year?

Not sure what the authorities would do in that situation.

I think if you mark "Yes" then you would have to look at each gun in each safe in each house each month.

[DCoakley]

It's a catch-22. Only time this will come to play is in a criminal case.

[broadside]

I think if you mark "Yes" then you would have to look at each gun in each safe in each house each month.

But that is not what is happening here. At the time they ask you the question is when that 30 day period is applicable. If you buy a gun every 4 years, then only the 30-days prior to the point in time they ask you that question does it apply. So you can go 3 yr 11mo without looking for all your guns.

[abinsinia]

But that is not what is happening here. At the time they ask you the question is when that 30 day period is applicable. If you buy a gun every 4 years, then only the 30-days prior to the point in time they ask you that question does it apply. So you can go 3 yr 11mo without looking for all your guns.

yeah, that's true it applied only the the prior 30 days.

[Ki6vsm]

I wonder what happens if you mark "No",

Going back to the beginning of the thread. "No" would surely, just cause a denial/rejection of the DROS: "This guy doesn't know for sure where all his other guns are now!", now being within the last 30 days. They don't ever want to see "No".

But if "No" is said untruthfully, it's a lie that no one could prove anyway, I don't think. And you won't be getting the firearm you were hoping to purchase.