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
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 6/29/2001 5:35:38 AM EDT
I'm new to this site. In fact this is my first post. Driving to work today, I heard a report on KNX 1070 AM radio in Los Angeles that the assault weapons ban in California had been overturned on appeal. The report indicated that the law was so vague, it was impossible to determine exactly what weapons were illegal under this bill and that as such, the AK series of rifles (and they did specifically mention AKs and not ARs) were legal as a result. I'm not trying to spread rumors here. I'm looking for reliable information. Did anyone hear this report? Or does anyone know anything else about this? I heard this on the radio at 5:00 A.M. this morning on my way in to work.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 5:54:31 AM EDT
The decision had nothing to do with SB23. It pertained to the Robert-Ross Act of 1989. The court said that only the Attorney General could add weapons to the list, and that trial judges could not. SB23 made the decision moot and it will have no effect on current law.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 6:51:09 AM EDT
EOD guy is correct that it has nothing to do with SB23. However, in my totally amateur legal opinion this puts AR-15s back in the position they were prior to the settlement of Kassler v. Lockyer, i.e. if it isn't specifically on the Roberti-Roos list and doesn't have Evil Features, it's legal. For example, a stripped lower receiver that is not marked "Colt AR-15", "Colt Sporter", ArmaLite M15", "PWA ", etc. is completely legal. One could IMHO legally build a rifle on a non-listed lower or an unmarked (i.e. homebuilt) lower. The biggest problem would be making a USABLE rifle with no thumbhole stock or pistol grip. The geometry of the AR, specifically the buffer tube, gets in the way. This decision is very important. I've been wanting to buy a stripped lower or two. See you at the next gun show in Del Mar. [beer] P.S. Happy Friday everyone. Today I get to pick up the target pistol I bought with my anticipated federal tax rebate.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 1:48:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 1:48:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 4:36:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2001 4:34:02 PM EDT by f1reverb]
The situation is that the Series concept has been overturned. I'm going to write an update for my August 3, 2000, calnra.org article on taking advantage of the loophole, so read the story at the link: [url]http://www.calnra.org/080300hector.htm[/url] You can't violate SB23, but you would be able to get a stripped/complete-lower and then if they add it by name to RR89, you're free to assemble the complete post-ban AR/AK clone.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 4:46:22 PM EDT
Nice! I did get pissed about the assertion that "the AK is popular with drug dealers and gang members" by Ms. Chiang, so I e-mailed her and told her so. Also asked her (very politely) if she could let me know where this information could be found. She's a reporter right? She should have it. Now, I wish I had a way to contact that Chief Justice Ronald George. I suppose it shouldn't be too hard. I understand he spends more time in a courtroom than I, but, are AK's REALLY used often by criminals, or is this just exageration?
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 7:48:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2001 7:54:36 PM EDT by California_Kid]
Here is something I picked up, apparently from Mike Haas. Edited to activate links. - CK ------------------ begin forwarded article------------------ Please post and cross post: Came down today: HARROTT v. COUNTY OF KINGS, No S055064 (Cal. June 28, 2001) California Supreme Court today held that under the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, a superior court does not have the authority to declare a rifle to be an "AK series" assault weapon (AK or AR) when the Attorney General has neither identified it as such in the Assault Weapon Identification Guide nor included it in the list of "assault weapons" published in the California Code of Regulations. They have to name it specifically for it to be one. That's the good news. Too bad it wasn't obvious to prosecutors that this was the law since 1989. Lots of innocent and unaware people could have been spared criminal charges and/or jail sentences. The AG can, however, add AK and AR series guns (only) without going through the judicial add-on process. Effectively, this shifts the burden of proof from the AG to the owner/manufacturer/importer to challenge a gun's designation as an AK or AR series firearm. For all guns except AR and AK series, the AG must go to court and use the judicial add-on procedure. (Not sure why he would given SB 23 covers everything, unless he just wants to get his name in the papers.) Of course, as a practical matter, the only guns effected are ARs and AKs that have the SB 23 offending features stripped off, since unmodified ARs and AKs have the demonized feature(s) and so are 1999 SB 23 AWs anyway. But there is some good language about vagueness/notice/due process that we can use in the forthcoming SB 23 challenge and the inability to identify offending firearms features that render guns SB 23 AWs. NRA filed an amicus brief in this case, which is quoted in the Opinion. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: [url]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s055064.doc[/url] [PDF File] [url]http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s055064.pdf[/url] Chuck Michel TRUTANICH - MICHEL, LLP Attorneys At Law Port of Los Angeles Office 407 North Harbor Blvd. San Pedro, CA 90731 (310) 548-3703 Fax: (310) 548-4813
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 9:25:48 PM EDT
A plea to all Californians on this site: please keep up fighting the fight out there, we know you are up against some pretty bad odds, but, hey, with enough good people and even just a slight change in the fickle public, and you folks may have a chance in getting some better leaders in public service. You must get rid of Waxman and Feinstein, they are a disgrace to your state. Anyway, we all feel for you and wish you the best!!
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 11:50:25 PM EDT
Does this mean I can now buy a "stripped" non-Colt marked lower again? AR10 perhaps? (I dont know if its on the list) or ASA .308 lower? Please wake me up if I'm dreaming [whacko] -del
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 5:41:02 AM EDT
If you can find an FFL willing to import one for you, you should now be able to buy any AR-15 type rifle (less pistol grip) or lower that is not marked "Colt AR-15" and is not specifically listed in the Assault Weapon Identification Guide. Go to [url]http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/awguide/index.html[/url] for more information. And everybody PLEASE don't post any non-listed makes or models. Keep 'em guessing! [chainsawkill]
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 6:01:13 AM EDT
I heard from a judge on TV that cali doesn't have a provision in their constitution for gun ownership. So her thought was gun control was permissible. She came out and said it. What I say is the 2nd amendment has very much power and clout still. Even though they are pissing on it (This pertains to all states and federal)and trying to beat the sh t out of the bill of rights it is still standing. This shows me the founders knew what they were doing. If we didn't have the 2nd we would all be out of guns. Not just cali. We would own nothing legally. Look at how they have to pass all the laws. They have to try to make a need to ban these type of rifles. Then the law is ass backwards. makes no sense. If there were no 2nd it would be no firearm ownership. That would be the law. It would pass and that would be it. The bill of rights is better and more powerfull then these stupid law makers. I do realize that things can be beaten only so much before it starts to fall. But so far the founders have done us right. God bless them. And God bless America!
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 2:18:37 PM EDT
On page 63 of the CA AW Guide, virtually every major AR manufacturer is listed. Does this new ruling mean that these rifles are now legal to purchase? Or just manufactures that are not listed, which I will not mention at this time?
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 2:35:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: On page 63 of the CA AW Guide, virtually every major AR manufacturer is listed. Does this new ruling mean that these rifles are now legal to purchase? Or just manufactures that are not listed, which I will not mention at this time?
View Quote
Just the manufacturers and/or models not [yet] listed.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 3:45:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By California Kid: Just the manufacturers and/or models not [yet] listed.
View Quote
Then that would mean the LEGP is out of the question since Rock River Arms is listed.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 4:24:57 PM EDT
How about Carbon 15 rifles?
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 4:29:10 PM EDT
Nevermind it's on there. What about the fact that it says; DPMS : Panther (all) Bushmaster: XM15(all)? There are several Panther models. It doesn't specify.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 5:28:29 PM EDT
so what some here are saying is that anything listed is still banned? If that is the case, we are in no better position than we were last week. Searching for some non-listed AR15 is something we should have been doing anyways before the latest decision. or am i wrong? still confused.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 10:42:59 PM EDT
before the ruling even stuff that was not mentioned by name but still a clone was also banned.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 3:50:31 AM EDT
I'm going to write the DOJ for clarification tomorrow, uh today, man it's late! I printed the whole damn AWIG, and on the AR-15 series weapons page 63 I see alot of makes and models listed. So, each one listed is banned. Like what was asked earlier; will they have to go and specify which particular models belonging to manufacturers marked...(all)...are banned? Will manufacturers be able to play "one step ahead" by swapping parts around and redesignating the new firearms? Wait, I think that particular question is a NO due to the fact they would be creating a NEW AW? And I thought it was hard moving to a new state and figuring out the fish & game laws!
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 6:43:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By frpcmanager: Nevermind it's on there. What about the fact that it says; DPMS : Panther (all) Bushmaster: XM15(all)? There are several Panther models. It doesn't specify.
View Quote
I'm wondering if "all" constitutes a "series" type phrase and can be null and void. This law requires very specific naming of receiver types, not just blanket "all" or "series". This should allow a manufacturer to build receivers without names, and then you pick the name.
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 6:49:45 AM EDT
...I'm wondering if "all" constitutes a "series" type phrase and can be null and void. This law requires very specific naming of receiver types, not just blanket "all" or "series". This should allow a manufacturer to build receivers without names, and then you pick the name.
View Quote
LOL! An excellent question and suggestion. What if PWA came back to life and started making paintball guns. Would they be banned automatically as well? I say ATTACK on all fronts. [heavy]
Link Posted: 7/1/2001 9:45:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 3:45:19 AM EDT
Go get a Tannery Shop lower. Bob's Bunny-Shooter-15 isnt on the list of banned firearms, nor is Paul's PoodleShooter-15. Kharn
Top Top