Assault rifle confiscation

[thesafebroker]

Does anyone know if they passed the bill that would allow them to confiscate assault rifles from approximately 20k people in California? If it did pass do you know if they have the right to get them from out of a gun safe?
Thanks,
thesafebroker

[Quiet]

They don't need a bill to confiscate assault weapons.

Because, current CA laws (since 1989) allows them to confiscate assault weapons. [PC 30800]

[dls]

They passed the Bill allowing them to use the DROS fees to go after the "prohibited" gun owners. For starters anyway.

[CAL.BAR]

OP - you have numerous questions in your post that are rather more complicated than you may know. (as alluded to in the previous response)

[Wiz-of-Awd]

Assault rifles are select fire/automatic weapons already highly regulated. These are not what is being legislated currently.

A.W.D.

Does anyone know if they passed the bill that would allow them to confiscate assault rifles from approximately 20k people in California? If it did pass do you know if they have the right to get them from out of a gun safe?
Thanks,
thesafebroker

[diverwcw]

From what I understand when they passed that bill to raid the fund created by DROS fees, they authorized DOJ to hire 26 agents specifically for this purpose. Somehow they get a list of prohibited people who possess firearms. Then they show up to the residences and ask "permission" to enter to inspect for firearms. If the weapons are found they are confiscated, I don't know if charges are brought or not. As far as I know, search warrants are still required. Agents are gaining entry via consent.

Bottom line - If LE shows up at your door asking for your consent, send them away. If they threaten to get a search warrant it usually means they don't have the grounds to get one and want to scare you. They might try to bamboozle you further telling you that they will tell the judge you were not cooperative. FWIW, judges have no problem with people exercising their rights. Force law enforcement officers to get warrants.

[stitchnicklas]

20,000???? more like 250,000+ legal rifles


goodluck getting the first 100 of those...

[IVC]

Several problems with your question.

You are most likely asking about "assault weapons" (political terminology) and not about "assault rifles" (military terminology, fully automatic). In CA, both "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" are banned (except the registered "assault weapons" that were grandfathered in).

What looks like an "evil black rifle," but with bullet button installed, is not an "assault weapon" per CA definition. These rifles are neither "assault rifles" nor "assault weapons." The new legislation is trying to fine-tune the definition of the "assault weapon" to encompass some of this "aesthetically undesirable rifles" and outlaw them through the "must register, cannot transfer" mechanism.

[JDay]

20,000???? more like 250,000+ legal rifles

There's been more than that sold this year alone.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[waxer]

goodluck getting the first 100 of those

They will have no problem getting thousands of them. Most of them will be cooperative and fearful rather than tough and standing their ground.

Unfortunately, most people are all talk. Especially when that talk is over the internet.

Let there be a swat team outside demanding your weapons while their weapons are aimed at you, your family, and your home.... I will guarantee you that most people will fold and hand over anything to defuse the situation.

[chris]

Demand a warrant and watch the look on their face.

[foreppin916]

No on in California owns an assault rifle that's a select fire weapon ( well maybe illegally or there might be 1 or 2 that were registered pre 1968 ). You mean "assault weapon" which is another made up term to make the firearm sound scarier than it is.

Stop drinking the kool aid. If your part of the pro gun community you should know your terminology

[IVC]

Let there be a swat team outside demanding your weapons while their weapons are aimed at you, your family, and your home.... I will guarantee you that most people will fold and hand over anything to defuse the situation.

That's why we don't want registration.

Currently, the state doesn't know who has what kind of rifle (the new rifle registration starts next year). It's much easier to have civil disobedience of *registration* (bureaucratic non-compliance, prevents state from collecting information), than of true *confiscation* (door to door scenario above).

I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that *registration* compliance will be very, very low. Those who do register, if ever their firearms become prohibited, will mostly turn them in (or ship them out of state).

[pMcW]

The bill that was just passed (SB 140) has nothing to do with assault weapons. It relates to the confiscation of all firearms from known prohibited persons. They say that they know of around 20,000 of these persons in the state. And really the bill is just allowing them to use (steal) surplus DROS funds for that purpose.

[thomashoward]

They still need a warrant unless you are under a search order