Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
5/29/2017 5:35:05 AM
Posted: 4/27/2001 11:23:25 AM EDT
I am from Oregon. I have read about some of the weapons that are not legal: ARs and 'assualt rifles' some HK handguns (357 Sig only - I believe) and a few other handguns, were not submitted or did not meet the requirements. My question is, are CA residents: Prohibited from owning such weapons? (No grandfather clause for those that already own them.) or Prohibited from purchase of these weapons that are new or that are imported from out of state? Can a banned, used weapon change hands from one CA resident to another CA resident? Either as a sale, trade or 'gift'? FWIW: in a phone conversation with our local state Senator and state Representatives this morning they assured me that they understand that OR does not need anymore laws relating to firearms. Furthermore, I asked both state Senator Hannon and Representative Bates about the status of SB 508 (introduced by Ginny Burdock - Democrat from Portland - which would prohibit a CHL holder from legally carrying on school grounds) they allowed that this was a fundementally weak bill and would most likely be killed off. Note to all - get involved in the politics of firearms!!! Do not let what is going on in CA happen in your state.
Link Posted: 4/27/2001 11:36:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/27/2001 11:37:00 AM EDT by lordtrader]
Any weapon falling under the RR89 and SB23 definitions/ban cannot change hands at all. If you own them prior to their respective cut off dates you can legally have them providing they are registered. Any handguns that did not pass per SB15 can still be tranferred w/i CA residents. However, no further new sales or importation of such handguns as of 1/1/01. If you've had them prior to that, you can keep em.
Link Posted: 4/27/2001 11:43:01 AM EDT
It is within your inalienable 2nd Amendment rights to own whatever you want wherever you want.
Link Posted: 4/27/2001 11:48:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/27/2001 12:02:15 PM EDT by operatorerror]
Okay, AR and AK series rifles had to be purchased by August 8,2000 and then registered with the CA DOJ by January 23,2001. Originally, you only had until December 31,1999 to purchase these, but people were removing the pistol grips and selling them to get around the registration requirement. This was outlawed as of August 8, 2000. And ALL variants of AR and AK were required to be registered by January 23, 2001. The date for registration of AR and AK variants was adjusted from December 31, 2000 to January 23,2001. You are not prohibited from owning these weapons if they are registered, BUT you may not bring any more of these into the state AND you may not sell or give these weapons to anyone in the state, including spouse, children or blood relatives. Other "assault weapons" such as the FAL are being sold, but without the pistol grip so as to comply with these laws. This is really a very long and complicated topic. For further info contact the CA DOJ. As of January 1,2001, NEW handguns offered for sale in the state of CA must pass, and be certified as having passed a "Drop Test". There are currently over 400 pistols and revolvers that have passed and are certified, and many that have passed but are not yet certified. Again, the DOJ has a list available on their website that is updated frequently. http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/certlist.htm
Link Posted: 4/27/2001 12:09:18 PM EDT
Interesting note on the drop test. It was intended to eliminate cheaply made, unsafe handguns from CA gun store shelves. And the current list shows the expected Smith& Wesson, HK, Colt, etc quality made weapons. But there are also Davis, Firestorm and Bryco Jennings on the list as being certified. I hear that someone in Sacramento is pissed!
Link Posted: 4/27/2001 2:39:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/27/2001 3:27:56 PM EDT
Weird, I just checked the list and alot of the HK's USPs are on the list but no .357 sig. I guess mine is unsafe... Yea right! I know alot of people were concerned that Glocks wouldn't pass without additional safety features (and I think the authors of law were pretty much hoping that too) but they were among the first to be listed and in their original form as well. As usual the well informed market leads to high quality products. No moron legislators required. Cheers
Top Top