Quoted: Quoted: I'm one of the ones that's stirring the pot.  It's gone on long enough. Do you think they'll stop gun control agenda if we just "play nice" with Lockyer?  Hahahah.  Very naive. Nope. In cali bans only happen when there is a trigger effect and a focused rally point; AW's, SNS, 50's, ect. There was not the uproar needed to pass a ban on M1A's and Mini-14's.  But creating negative publicity on the off list lower loophole may give them the attention they need for a sweeping new ban.

I could be mistaken, but there was no trigger-point for the .50bmg ban other than fearmongering and a politician wanting to make a name for himself and get a law on the books.  AFAIK there have been no .50bmg violent crimes commited, this was purely "preventative" legislation.

I do not have much time to write...just got home from a business trip.

I know FNC80 and AR15FAN well and you all should listen to what they have to say.
You are stirring a hornets nest...
I think that going in under the radar and rallying the firearms community is better solution than embarrassing DOJ and forcing retaliation.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The problem is that we live in one of the most liberal states in the union.  More to the point, Assault Weapons are not high on the priority of even moderate conservatives or the average hunter.  To think that this will be a turning point for AW owners is fueled in large part to the flurry of posts on Calguns or Arfcom, but outside of this group, it's safe to assume there is little support for our cause. Probably not much support for unlisted ARs, but if this turns into a ban of Mini14s, Garands, M1 carbines, and the like there will be a lot of push back. Not enought.  They could ban everything except .22's and .38's and gun enthusiasts still will not have the support to 1. Throw out the politiciuans who voted for the bans, 2. Replace them with gun friendly politicians, 3. get the bans repealed.

Part of the reason the Republicans took back the House in '94 was Clinton's AWB. The CA Dems risk political loses by embracing gun control. Many political races are only a few % apart, and issues like this can change the result.

Quoted: Well, at least the press release was written in non-technical, no legalese, plain English that can easily be understood by anyone.

The prime targets are newsrooms w/crime & political reporters. They have some knowledge of guns, but it's usually incorrect ;)

The supporting tech facts have to be there to avoid the "aw hell, this guy's nuts, they banned AWs 6 years ago", or misinterpretations of Kasler after being reshaped by Harrott.

It's a complex issue, and even folks here sometimes don't get it right...

Bill W.
San Jose

Quoted: I know FNC80 and AR15FAN well and you all should listen to what they have to say.

I understand their sentiments, and I disagree with them.

I find the gun community to be very politically naive.  Half the people here should get their heads out of Shotgun News and go back and read a high school civics/politics book.

You are stirring a hornets nest... I think that going in under the radar and rallying the firearms community is better solution than embarrassing DOJ and forcing retaliation.

What the hell will "rallying the firearms"community do?  Buy more off-list lowers?  Those who wanted them have them.  Sure, we might get another 20% sales increase.  Lovely fixed-mag rifles, right?

But those are just empty words. We have no legal authority ourselves, and only a limited political base in CA.

The DOJ really can't retaliate much further.  They're already doing that, in one sense, since December - intimidating 'audits' of FFLs handling off-list lowers.  And these are people with $$ for lawyers.   When DOJ is doing this, and publishing things like the Feb 1 memo, I know we have them worried.  So it's time to keep up the pressure.

If all you want is a fixed-mag AR, go get a FAB10.

If you're afraid this will cause more gun laws to be passed, you're mistaken - that will happen regardless of this.



Bill Wiese
San Jose

Gun community = NRA, firearm companies, CRPA and others who have more time and experience dealing with legislation than most individual gun owners.

DOJ is most likely not worried...the antigunners will certainly be pissed once this hits mainstream media.

I agree with you regarding the passing of new gun laws in this state. It will only get worse, I am just not fond of speeding up the process.

Quoted: Gun community = NRA, firearm companies, CRPA and others who have more time and experience dealing with legislation than most individual gun owners. DOJ is most likely not worried...the antigunners will certainly be pissed once this hits mainstream media. I agree with you regarding the passing of new gun laws in this state. It will only get worse, I am just not fond of speeding up the process.

The quicker we hit rock bottom, the quicker we can begin regaining rights.  We need the "AW" laws to start to affect ordinary Joes out there for there to be a big outcry.

Quoted: Gun community = NRA, firearm companies, CRPA and others who have more time and experience dealing with legislation than most individual gun owners.

In the past two months, Bill has done more for our gun rights than those organizations have done in their entire existance.

You mean like Britain, right?

And just for a reminder - it was the sheeps, the antis, who managed to make things like this. Never underestimate sheeps.

If average Joe and Jane did not have interest in gun laws, just how can you affect them? For them, total ban is better since it appears to be safer, so it won't bring out an outcry. Only when they realize that they need protection (say another riot, Katrina-ish disaster), then they will temporarily run around for guns. But how often those things happen?

If average Joe and Jane did not have interest in gun laws, just how can you affect them? For them, total ban is better since it appears to be safer, so it won't bring out an outcry. Only when they realize that they need protection (say another riot, Katrina-ish disaster), then they will temporarily run around for guns. But how often those things happen?

I think Bill was refering to the hunters or casual gun owners who haven't fired their one gun in 10 years.  The antis are doing their "divide and conquer" tactic to good effect.  A good percentage of hunters I meet at the range don't care for AWs and don't mind all this SB23 hoo-ha since it doesn't effect "them".

At the very beginning of all this Bill, Ben, and others mentioned that this wasn’t for the faint of heart. Those that didn’t want to take the legal risks involved where given a choice not to participate. Many questioned, disparaged, and defamed Bill and Ben, and I admit that at first I was one of those people. After consulting with my attorney and studying, reading, researching, and reviewing the penal code and Harrott case I have since changed my mind. Currently at our doorstep is one of the best test cases California gun owners could ever imagine. We have an opportunity to challenge the CaDOJ with an immense amount of legal support and standing. Never again can we expect such a perfect situation to arise. We’ve got thousands of new gun owners with a vested interest in seeing this through to the end. All of whom are willing to donate time and money towards a legal fund and fight. We’ve got multiple respectable lawyers willing to take on the case, and we’ve got hundreds of well educated supporters willing to organize such a fight. When was the last time you can remember that we were poised in a similar stance?

For those of you who are prejudicially opposed to this, I ask you to reread Bill’s FAQ:

www.calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm

than, proceed to read the PC sections 12275 through 12290:

caag.state.ca.us/firearms/dwcl/12275.htm

and finally, read and understand how the Harrott Case actually upsets the Kasler ban:

www.law.com/regionals/ca/opinions/jun/s055064.shtml

Only once you fully grasp the precedent that the Harrott decision set, can you appreciate the opportunity available to us.

With regard to AR15fan and Pthfndr, the both of you have been adamantly against this from the very beginning. This is a public forum and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I know that AR15fan is an LEO and I appreciate and respect his willingness to put his life on the line in order to protect and serve the rest of us. However, I disagree with your arguments and the attitude that’s conveyed with almost every post you make. It’s obvious that both of you own registered assault weapons and you enjoy the elitist status that registration has imparted on you. Your posts ooze of superiority and snobbery. And your decision to participate in certain discussions and not others further demonstrates your disapproval of any new “assault weapons” entering the state. All I can figure is that you feel threatened that your elitist status is being diluted. So you put up a barrier that blocks even the most rational thought that this may possibly be the best fight we’ve got. Whatever it is, it’s evident that you both enjoy the division of power among the have and have-nots.    

As far as the argument that stirring the post will lead to future bans of all semiautomatic weapons, that’s nothing more than a logical fallacy. As many are suggesting, just because the media is tipped off does not mean that we can expect future bans. Such an argument is nothing more than a dangerous descent down a slippery slope.

Quoted: ... just because the media is tipped off does not mean that we can expect future bans. Such an argument is nothing more than a dangerous descent down a slippery slope.

And, a reflection of that argument can also be made:  just because we don't do something like this, doesn't mean that new legislation is not coming!

Bill W.
San Jose

Since when did Kali Demoncrats needed any reason to pass any kind of anti-gun legislation?  We have a drop test with a certification list and an HSC that passed simply because some jackass in Sacramento got a stick up his ass.  What the hell caused the need for these two piece of shit laws?  Absolutely nothing!!!!  So is it any better to just sit around and watch our firearms rigths erode in spite of any effort we may have taken?  I don't see our situation improving any the last few years by just sitting around and not "stirring the pot."

Quoted: Since when did Kali Demoncrats needed any reason to pass any kind of anti-gun legislation?  We have a drop test with a certification list and an HSC that passed simply because some jackass in Sacramento got a stick up his ass.  What the hell caused the need for these two piece of shit laws?  Absolutely nothing!!!!  So is it any better to just sit around and watch our firearms rigths erode in spite of any effort we may have taken?  I don't see our situation improving any the last few years by just sitting around and not "stirring the pot."

+1, well put.  Sitting on our ass has gotten us nowhere.  In fact, it screws us almost every year.

Quoted: Somehow I don't think that letting the MSM run with a "Lockyer has allowed 10,000 AW's into CA in the last 2 Months" is a publicity storm WE need.

Thats exactly the point of this thread.  Thast press release is the best PR the Brady Campaign ever had.

THAT would wake up all the sleeping bitches , err soccer moms err dogs (yeah that's the word) against us.

.

Yep, resulting in new bans on all magazine fed semiautomatic centerfire rifles.


What positive outcome can there logically be to alerting the media that AR lowrers are being sold again????

Quoted: I talked this over with an attorney about a month or so ago, and he believes more semiauto stuff is in the works anyway, "regardless".

For sure.  But it would have failed just like everything else that lacks a focus point.  but alerting the media you have given them something they can throw into a 15second sound bite on the evening news which creates the popular support for a new ban.

Did you really think the legislature would see your memo and impeach l the AG or repeal the AW ban? What positive outcome do you imagine this press release will have?  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm one of the ones that's stirring the pot.  It's gone on long enough. Do you think they'll stop gun control agenda if we just "play nice" with Lockyer?  Hahahah.  Very naive. Nope. In cali bans only happen when there is a trigger effect and a focused rally point; AW's, SNS, 50's, ect. There was not the uproar needed to pass a ban on M1A's and Mini-14's.  But creating negative publicity on the off list lower loophole may give them the attention they need for a sweeping new ban. I could be mistaken, but there was no trigger-point for the .50bmg ban other than fearmongering and a politician wanting to make a name for himself and get a law on the books.   You are mistaken.  The trigger for the 50ban was the TV news shows harping on the "it can shoot down aircraft" claims and the GSA report onthe sales of AP & API ammo online. AFAIK there have been no .50bmg violent crimes commited, this was purely "preventative" legislation.

Google Criminal use of 50 caliber rifles.  There have been several, including at least one murder.  But it was the News stories that triggered the legislation that got them banned in cali. News stories often initiated by antigun press releases.  Sound familiar?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The problem is that we live in one of the most liberal states in the union.  More to the point, Assault Weapons are not high on the priority of even moderate conservatives or the average hunter.  To think that this will be a turning point for AW owners is fueled in large part to the flurry of posts on Calguns or Arfcom, but outside of this group, it's safe to assume there is little support for our cause. Probably not much support for unlisted ARs, but if this turns into a ban of Mini14s, Garands, M1 carbines, and the like there will be a lot of push back. Not enought.  They could ban everything except .22's and .38's and gun enthusiasts still will not have the support to 1. Throw out the politiciuans who voted for the bans, 2. Replace them with gun friendly politicians, 3. get the bans repealed. Part of the reason the Republicans took back the House in '94 was Clinton's AWB. The CA Dems risk political loses by embracing gun control. Many political races are only a few % apart, and issues like this can change the result.

Do you really believe a Republican California state legislature would repeal the existing gun laws?  Wasnt it a Republican Govenor that signed SB23, SB15 and the 50cal bans?Whens the last time you saw a gun law repealed in any state?

Quoted: Quoted: Gun community = NRA, firearm companies, CRPA and others who have more time and experience dealing with legislation than most individual gun owners. DOJ is most likely not worried...the antigunners will certainly be pissed once this hits mainstream media. I agree with you regarding the passing of new gun laws in this state. It will only get worse, I am just not fond of speeding up the process. The quicker we hit rock bottom, the quicker we can begin regaining rights.

So you want to make things really bad first so they will hopefully get better?

When is the last time you saw a gun law repealed in any state?  What makes you think California voters are going to elect a legislature interested in repealing gun laws? Or are you advocating armed revolution and suceeding from the union?

Quoted: At the very beginning of all this Bill, Ben, and others mentioned that this wasn’t for the faint of heart. Those that didn’t want to take the legal risks involved where given a choice not to participate. Many questioned, disparaged, and defamed Bill and Ben, and I admit that at first I was one of those people. After consulting with my attorney and studying, reading, researching, and reviewing the penal code and Harrott case I have since changed my mind. Currently at our doorstep is one of the best test cases California gun owners could ever imagine. We have an opportunity to challenge the CaDOJ with an immense amount of legal support and standing.

If Bill wants to go out and get himself arrested so he has the standing to challeange the entire ban all the way to the supreme court, I will support him.  But crafting a Brady Campaign like press release is rallying the wrong troops.  Why act as the anti's press agent and head cheerleader?

Quoted: Quoted: Since when did Kali Demoncrats needed any reason to pass any kind of anti-gun legislation?  We have a drop test with a certification list and an HSC that passed simply because some jackass in Sacramento got a stick up his ass.  What the hell caused the need for these two piece of shit laws?  Absolutely nothing!!!!  So is it any better to just sit around and watch our firearms rigths erode in spite of any effort we may have taken?  I don't see our situation improving any the last few years by just sitting around and not "stirring the pot." +1, well put.  Sitting on our ass has gotten us nowhere.  In fact, it screws us almost every year.

Nobody is suggesting sitting on your ass.  challanging the bans in court is a good thing.  working to repeal legislatiojn is a good thing.  Acting as an Antigun propoganda minister only hurts things.


Please explain what positive outcome this press release can have.

the negative outcome is it gives the antis a focus point for their anger, gives the media a sound bite, and gives the legislature a clear target for a sweeping new ban under the guise of closing a loophole.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Since when did Kali Demoncrats needed any reason to pass any kind of anti-gun legislation?  We have a drop test with a certification list and an HSC that passed simply because some jackass in Sacramento got a stick up his ass.  What the hell caused the need for these two piece of shit laws?  Absolutely nothing!!!!  So is it any better to just sit around and watch our firearms rigths erode in spite of any effort we may have taken?  I don't see our situation improving any the last few years by just sitting around and not "stirring the pot." +1, well put.  Sitting on our ass has gotten us nowhere.  In fact, it screws us almost every year. Nobody is suggesting sitting on your ass.  challanging the bans in court is a good thing.  working to repeal legislatiojn is a good thing.  Acting as an Antigun propoganda minister only hurts things. Please explain what positive outcome this press release can have. the negative outcome is it gives the antis a focus point for their anger, gives the media a sound bite, and gives the legislature a clear target for a sweeping new ban under the guise of closing a loophole.

The point of the release is to get them to act, either positively or negatively for us.  Either way is better than nothing since things can be challenged in court after they act.  

So you want to make things really bad first so they will hopefully get better?

Have you looked around, things already are "really bad".  If it has to get worse for CA gun owners (hunters included) to finally step up and say "enough", than yes that is what I want.   Ban those evil Remingtons!

Quoted: Do you really believe a Republican California state legislature would repeal the existing gun laws?

Not likely (although possible). But they wouldn't have put into place the bans, or create new ones.

Quoted: Wasnt it a Republican Govenor that signed SB23, SB15 and the 50cal bans?

As I recall, Gray Davis was a Democrat when he signed SB23. Not familiar with SB15. The 50 ban was Arnold, be he has vetoed a number of other bans.

Quoted: Whens the last time you saw a gun law repealed in any state?

The Shall-issue carry laws are effectively the same as removing legislation, in my book.

Here in CA, back in the 60s IIRC they had a magazine capacity limit, which was removed and eventually re-established via SB23.

You are correct in that it is harder to remove laws than it is to prevent them in the first place. I'm just not sure how much the Dems want to hurt their party and their individual chances at high office by signing gun control laws.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Since when did Kali Demoncrats needed any reason to pass any kind of anti-gun legislation?  We have a drop test with a certification list and an HSC that passed simply because some jackass in Sacramento got a stick up his ass.  What the hell caused the need for these two piece of shit laws?  Absolutely nothing!!!!  So is it any better to just sit around and watch our firearms rigths erode in spite of any effort we may have taken?  I don't see our situation improving any the last few years by just sitting around and not "stirring the pot." +1, well put.  Sitting on our ass has gotten us nowhere.  In fact, it screws us almost every year. Nobody is suggesting sitting on your ass.  challanging the bans in court is a good thing.  working to repeal legislatiojn is a good thing.  Acting as an Antigun propoganda minister only hurts things. Please explain what positive outcome this press release can have. the negative outcome is it gives the antis a focus point for their anger, gives the media a sound bite, and gives the legislature a clear target for a sweeping new ban under the guise of closing a loophole. The point of the release is to get them to act

They can still not act, let things remeain at the status quo and depend on the legislature to close the loophole with a sweeping new ban.

...things can be challenged in court after they act.

You may have to get arrested to have the standing needed to challange the law.  You can do that now, without any action by DOJ or initiating a new ban.

Quoted: Not enought.  They could ban everything except .22's and .38's and gun enthusiasts still will not have the support to 1. Throw out the politiciuans who voted for the bans, 2. Replace them with gun friendly politicians, 3. get the bans repealed.

I don't know how old you are or if you lived here in 1982, but it was prop 15 on the ballot that cost Bradley (a democrat) the govenors race. So not only did it cost him the race but it kept the handgun ban out.

Quoted: Quoted: Not enought.  They could ban everything except .22's and .38's and gun enthusiasts still will not have the support to 1. Throw out the politiciuans who voted for the bans, 2. Replace them with gun friendly politicians, 3. get the bans repealed. I don't know how old you are or if you lived here in 1982, but it was prop 15 on the ballot that cost Bradley (a democrat) the govenors race. So not only did it cost him the race but it kept the handgun ban out.

In 1982 this state was far different than it is now. But in a just a few years, with the computer boom and the influx of people looking for jobs, things changed blindingly fast.

When I was a kid in Palo Alto, a child could shoot a .22 within city limits and not get in trouble. Now it's almost impossible to smoke outside your own home, as an adult, in that city and not get cited.

ETA: No, I wasn't a kid in 1982, I was married, with children.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not enought.  They could ban everything except .22's and .38's and gun enthusiasts still will not have the support to 1. Throw out the politiciuans who voted for the bans, 2. Replace them with gun friendly politicians, 3. get the bans repealed. I don't know how old you are or if you lived here in 1982, but it was prop 15 on the ballot that cost Bradley (a democrat) the govenors race. So not only did it cost him the race but it kept the handgun ban out. In 1982 this state was far different than it is now. But in a just a few years, with the computer boom and the influx of people looking for jobs, things changed blindingly fast. When I was a kid in Palo Alto, a child could shoot a .22 within city limits and not get in trouble. Now it's almost impossible to smoke outside your own home, as an adult, in that city and not get cited. ETA: No, I wasn't a kid in 1982, I was married, with children.

Hell, where I live I can't legally shoot spitballs through a straw.  

Quoted: With regard to AR15fan and Pthfndr, the both of you have been adamantly against this from the very beginning. This is a public forum and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I know that AR15fan is an LEO and I appreciate and respect his willingness to put his life on the line in order to protect and serve the rest of us. However, I disagree with your arguments and the attitude that’s conveyed with almost every post you make. It’s obvious that both of you own registered assault weapons and you enjoy the elitist status that registration has imparted on you. Your posts ooze of superiority and snobbery. And your decision to participate in certain discussions and not others further demonstrates your disapproval of any new “assault weapons” entering the state. All I can figure is that you feel threatened that your elitist status is being diluted. So you put up a barrier that blocks even the most rational thought that this may possibly be the best fight we’ve got. Whatever it is, it’s evident that you both enjoy the division of power among the have and have-nots.

I wasn't going to comment on this, but I need to. THAT IS JUST SO MUCH BULLSH*T AND YOU NEED TO GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS AND REALLY GO READ WHAT WE'VE POSTED. AR15fan has himself gone out and bought these unlisted lowers. I have told many people at the range who did not get a AR before SB23 went into effect where to go get info on how to get one now (Calguns.net). In most all my posts, I say I hope this goes in favor of those who are buying the unlisted lowers.

Do you know me? Have you ever spoken with me in person? Did you go out in 99 and pay for other people's AR receivers because they couldn't afford one at the time? I did. Were you with me eight years ago in the public hearings in the capitol building and at the DOJ hearings? My 18 year old son was. So were several of my friends, my EX wife and her husband. We all spoke out against the coming law. All because I told them what was going to happen. I collected dozens of signatures, and handed out dozens more signature sheets for the last (failed) attempt to get a RKBA measure on the ballot. Why the hell would I object to other people being able to own an AR? That's about the most STUPID comment I've ever heard. So don't tell me I'm some kind of elitist.    

As far as the argument that stirring the post will lead to future bans of all semiautomatic weapons, that’s nothing more than a logical fallacy. As many are suggesting, just because the media is tipped off does not mean that we can expect future bans. Such an argument is nothing more than a dangerous descent down a slippery slope.

Some of the people who are supportive of alerting the media have come right out and said that further legislation on gun bans is coming. Some of them have even said to force the issue now. I haven't said that. Even so, how is that "arguement" a dangerous descent down a slippery slope?

So, it begins...

Risk losing what?
I am a California native in my early forties, got into guns in my early thirties, and in the short time that I have been aware of the erosion of our Second Amendent rights, I have seen it gone from bad to worse.
There is nothing to lose at this point in the game.  They have incapacitated our magazines, denied us of our American heritage, and harass those who try to abide by the law.  The criminals use firearms ilegally and get a slap on the wrist.  We abide by the laws, and they make us criminals.
Its time to stir the pot, as there really is nothing to lose.
This is California.

+1 and counting as many times that it takes to restore our firearm rights in California.  
Long live unlisted lowers!!!

I've seen some pretty stupid things on the internet.  This ranks right up there.

We're all on the same bus and we all want to get to the same place.  Problem is the route to get there.

This press release is a gift to:

1. The AG.  Now, instead of trying to create a new AR category of ownership and deal with the repercussion of such, all he has to do is sit back and watch the parade of bills working it's way thru the liberal assembly, committees, senate, and our very own Republican Governor, who we all know is a friend of gun owners.

2. The liberal press.  Christmas in March.  What a novel idea.

3. Anti-gun groups.  SSDD.

Yeah...lets rally all 150 posters on Calguns and Arfcom and take back our rights.  Reality is that we live in one of the most liberal states, with liberal voters, liberal politicians, and a liberal media.  How is this formula affected in a positive manner by alerting them to the fact that 10K lowers are now in the state due to a loophole?

We'll see where this knee-jerk plan takes us in the next few months.

Quoted: Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. From the Untied States Bill of Rights - the first ten Admendments to the United States Constitution. Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Well damn ... when did they sneak that law in there?

Paul I feel your pain.  In California, people are so afraid of the Govt.they are not willing to take a stand.
The Public re-education Kamps have been doing quite a number to all of the States.
Addd to that the influx of liberals, and you now have a State that wants the Government to take care of them.
Look at all the people who want Soc Security, Health Care, and even their butts wiped by the Govenment.
I for one am tired of people not knowing their Constitution.  This is a breath of fresh air.
It seems to me that the govt. has almost reached its goal of being the giver and denier of rights.   However this is not what the founding fathers visioned.
They know that all rights come from our Creator as reffered to no less then 5 times in the Declaration of Independence.
Whether you believe in God or not is not the issue here, the issue is, Does the Government have authority to give, and take away rights?
If yes then Amerc is done, if no for Gods sake stnd up and fight men, quit cowering in a corner, worried about what might happen, and do something about it.

Their is a large contention of others out their who wants California to wrot in hell, but someone has to fight.  Who is it going to be?
Here is an email from a dealer who I contacte early on when this thing first broke.

Will you send these to California, I am
interestedinbuying a few.  I have an ffl who is
willing toreceivethem, so this is not an issue.  These
are noton theKasler list, so they are 100% legal in
kali,withoutpistolgrip.Thanks,SeanCollins-

Rb<[email protected]>wrote:---------------------------------
  please readthe first paragraph on
mywebsite.Thanks,Robbie

Robbbie,Little slow
at reading your emails.Look at thedate I sent it,
already found a pro secondamendmentdealer.Thanks,Sean
Collins---

Rb <[email protected]>
wrote:---------------------------------    Good for
you, maybe when you become pro America,you'll move out
ofCalifornia.

Sean Colliuns wrote

I'm sure thats what all the Benedict Arnolds said when they cut and ran.

--- Rb <[email protected]> wrote:


---------------------------------
   When you start electing responsible politicians
unlike Boxer andFeinstein then you have the privilege
of calling others BenedictArnolds. A wise man once
said: " The people get what they deserve".Stop crying
about what the other parts of the country are able to
doand do it yourself by getting rid of your liberal
society in California.

sean colliuns wrote:
Crying?
You slay me!
An even wiser man said "Live Free Or Die!"
Another has said recently."your either with us or
aginst us"
Its a shame that you have chosen the wrong side, and
would rather aid those who will take your freedoms
away.
California is like cancer if not cured, it will spread
to all States, you will see, as this will happen in
our generation, cancer untreated is vicious cruel, and
sometimes fast.
When this day comes to a State near you, you will
remember these words, this I promise you, and you will
also remember how you failed to help thousands of law
abiding, freedom loving fellow Americans, because you
would not take the time to do your homework seeing
that it is completely legal, and send lowers to kali.
What goes around comes around.

Good luck in supporting the enemy.

Best Regards,

Sean Collins






Your right about California being the cancer and should you try to infiltrate this state you'll understand the term "Remember the Alamo!" And once again, you're right about what comes around goes around. The rest of this law abiding patriotic country has had enough of the shit that comes out of California. Good luck to you too, boy.

I may have been being sarcastic when I did this corresondence, but this is the attitude of many.
When will we as Constitutional Americans get our act together, and take this country back.

Quoted: The present course of action has produced ZERO results.  One way or another, this whole episode will become a turning point for Gun Owners in Cali.  Heck the Off-List AWs has gotten us all to rally around the cause!

I think if you were actually an NRA volunteer or something and so met with and spoke to a lot of California gun owners and got a feel for what they are thinking, you would understand that very few of them have ever heard of an off-list lower.

Quoted: I think there are quite a few of those things out there, but more to the point, it will drive the point home to even more gun owners. For example, a lot of hispanics are gun owners, and they tend Democrat. This would push some of them over to Republican.

On the other hand (and more likely, give the Republican stance on other issues of importance to Hispanics), it might also get Dem legislators to begin to defy their party platform and act to protect gun rights in response to the concerns of their Hispanic constituents.  Remember, very few legislators of either party actually care one way or the other about gun rights; they just want to stay in office.

In fact, this would be the preferred result because it would be better that Dem officeholders broke ranks with their party and became actively pro-gun than it would for more Republicans to be elected, as the latter are more interested in pro-gun rhetoric than pro-gun action.

Remember, the best friend of gun rights in the US House of Representatives is a Democrat.

The Dems could really get themselves in trouble by pushing this.

Maybe.  But for California Repubs to gain more of the Hispanic vote, they will have to stop their practice of bashing Hispanics at every opportunity.

And for Hispanics to make a difference with regard to gun rights in California, they have to be actively integrated into a statewide gun rights movement, and more of them have to be politically active (that is, to vote) than they are now.

But I agree with your broad point: California Hispanics are well of potential strength and power for the gun rights cause.

Quoted: California AG Bill Lockyer Failed To Update Banned Assault Weapon List For Past Five Years

Cool, I send a copy to my friends at the LA Times and invite them down to look at my lowers.  I'll demonstrate with an A2 grip how the mere act of slipping the grip over the grip boss would be commission of a felony.

Quoted: Quoted: California AG Bill Lockyer Failed To Update Banned Assault Weapon List For Past Five Years Cool, I send a copy to my friends at the LA Times and invite them down to look at my lowers.   I'll demonstrate with an A2 grip how the mere act of slipping the grip over the grip boss would be commission of a felony.

That's nice, go for it.  PDF of memo has been emailed to you.  LA Times already has been blasted w/the memo tthough (not sure if they saw it amongst a pile of others...)  This may take time to 'soak in' and/or require multiple blasts.

However, I would, for such a public and documented setting, NOT HAVE A SEPARATE PISTOL GRIP ANYWHERE NEARBY.   The DOJ says constructive possession doesn't apply, but a local prosecutor could think otherwise - and this is far blurrier than off-list lowers that have Harrott protection.    One gun attorney I spoke of believes constructive possession concepts that exist at a Federal level for gun stuff may propagate downward into state matters, and you wouldn't wanna be the first to find out.

Instead, have a legal, registered AW with pistol grip (preferably A2, fixed-stock style, no flash hider) next to an off-list lower without grip or other evil features and say, "looky here!"  




Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Quoted: On the other hand (and more likely, give the Republican stance on other issues of importance to Hispanics), it might also get Dem legislators to begin to defy their party platform and act to protect gun rights in response to the concerns of their Hispanic constituents.  Remember, very few legislators of either party actually care one way or the other about gun rights; they just want to stay in office.

In order for Dems to change their stance, they would have to be at risk of loosing voters.

Quoted: In fact, this would be the preferred result because it would be better that Dem officeholders broke ranks with their party and became actively pro-gun than it would for more Republicans to be elected, as the latter are more interested in pro-gun rhetoric than pro-gun action.

I disagree. It is better to have more Republicans. The Rs, on average, are significantly better on guns than the Ds. Adding several "good Ds" on the margins may slightly shift the party center of mass (or it might not), but generally speaking the Party will get most everyone in line when it is important.

The best thing is for the Ds to suffer defeats to Rs that seem to come from their stance on gun control. This means the Rs gained power, and it also means that the Ds are less likely to push gun control as an issue.

Quoted: Remember, the best friend of gun rights in the US House of Representatives is a Democrat.

Ron Paul?

Quoted: Maybe.  But for California Repubs to gain more of the Hispanic vote, they will have to stop their practice of bashing Hispanics at every opportunity.

Do they bash them? Is pushing for immigration control bashing?

My experience with hispanics is that many tend to vote D almost by reflex; for the most part it seems to tie to a perception that the Ds are nicer and like hispanics, and they inherently distrust Rs. But many hispanics are already voting R, and the Rs have more chance of gaining hispanic votes than the Ds do. Hispanics agree with quite a bit of the Republican platform without realizing it (as do blacks). The R problem is one of perception, and that will take a while to get over but the trend, IMO, will be towards more R voters. My hispanic wife, and I think her sister as well, have tended to vote more and more for the guy with the R.

Quoted: And for Hispanics to make a difference with regard to gun rights in California, they have to be actively integrated into a statewide gun rights movement, and more of them have to be politically active (that is, to vote) than they are now.

Not really. It only takes a small percent to make a difference, first of all, and what they have to do is get over their fear of Rs and their perception that Ds are nice people. Keep in mind, Ds only tend to win by a few % in most races, and a small % shift in hispanic voting will make a D shoe-in competative (requiring more resources for the D to prevail) and make a competative race a R victory.

Increasing the number of hispanic voters isn't likely to help Rs. New hispanic voters would more likely vote D, and generally speaking poorly informed/poorly motivated voters in general are more likely to vote D.

What we really need is for hispanics to vote more on a rational, informed basis, and to get over their reflexive perceptions. It doesn't have to be a sea change impacting most hispanics. Several % could make a big difference.

And a similar argument applies to blacks.

Quoted: Risk losing what? I am a California native in my early forties, got into guns in my early thirties, and in the short time that I have been aware of the erosion of our Second Amendent rights, I have seen it gone from bad to worse. There is nothing to lose at this point in the game.  They have incapacitated our magazines, denied us of our American heritage, and harass those who try to abide by the law.  The criminals use firearms ilegally and get a slap on the wrist.  We abide by the laws, and they make us criminals. Its time to stir the pot, as there really is nothing to lose. This is California. +1 and counting as many times that it takes to restore our firearm rights in California.   Long live unlisted lowers!!!

So what positive effect do you think the press release will have?  Nobody has answered that question yet.  maybe you will?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: California AG Bill Lockyer Failed To Update Banned Assault Weapon List For Past Five Years Cool, I send a copy to my friends at the LA Times and invite them down to look at my lowers.   I'll demonstrate with an A2 grip how the mere act of slipping the grip over the grip boss would be commission of a felony. That's nice, go for it.

What would be the point and intended positive result result of such a demonstration?

Poll added.

Quoted: Poll added.

 The problem with polls, is that they never include ALL the options, and they usually lack a catchall "something else" option. This allows the people writing the poll options to get the results they desire, and is part of why most polls on the news have such screwed up results.

 Why not add a " something else good", "something else bad", and "nothing" option to the poll. I don't see the press release causing any of the choices you mentioned.

 

The link provided for this information(Calguns FAQ) interpretes current situation as the author wants to be, not how it is. Just look at how CA DOJ replied in Feb. memo. A lot of people were buying lowers just for the hopes of getting standard configuration, only to be let down by the memo.

IF the CA DOJ pushes the limit and then decides to go with the AW registrartion process, then we can have our day in court and get the result since the argument of our side is a lot more valid than CA DOJ's.

However, the catch is that it should be done within judicial realm. What this new tactic will do is opening up the gates for political and social effect into the whole fixed magazine lower situation. And in those two arenas we do not have enough muscle to prevent getting pushed back. If all goes well as Bill intended, than we can get some action done by CA DOJ, but the truth is that the other side has shown that they can have equally shrewd move up their sleeves.

By sending this press release out, and if it has the desired affect, we are alerting the antis of what is happening, and inform the public that there are thousands of AW-capable rifles out there. If this  leads to public outcry, CA DOJ will have the proverbial ball in their court. What will happen from there is simple. They will not register, but explain the situation as they see fit. They will say that these are not AWs, but their hands are tied. And registering new AWs is not happening since the registration is already closed and refer this as a tactic by "gun nuts" trying to force open a loophole.

This will have Bradys jump and ask CA legislatures to come up with a new law that has more restrictive measures, and considering this state's politicos, they will get it. Than the end result is that we do not get our standard configuration, and end up even worse.

If everything went as some proponents of the current situation, we would have standard configuration ARs by now. It's been more than 2 months and we still are "in process." Getting agitated and rushing things will not be the best course.

Quoted: So what positive effect do you think the press release will have?  Nobody has answered that question yet.  maybe you will?

I thought it'd be obvious. They get tired of being accused of shirking their duty, and they list.


Bill W.
San Jose

Quoted: What would be the point and intended positive result result of such a demonstration?

Well, some of us believe we will never hang onto our gun rights unless we stand up and demonstrate to the public how ludicrous current gun control laws really are.  Also that shooting and collecting is a legitimate hobby, that it is safe, family oriented and no one has to get hurt, not even Bambi.

As I have said before, most people don't really care one way or the other; they just go with the ambient attitudes.  The ambient attitude in most of the media is that guns are scary and bad.  The NRA, GOA and all the rest do nothing to combat this because they concern themselves almost 100% with preaching to the choir (and filling the collection plate).

Anyone on this forum who has ever taken a nominally anti-gun or ambivalent person out to a range knows how easy it is to change minds once you confront people with the facts.

To agree with me you have to have an essentially optimistic view of people, that they can see and understand reason once it is presented to them.  I have seen my pro-gun message published in, for example, the OC Weekly.  As a former NRA volunteer, I can assure you that most gun rights activists would swear such a thing isn't possible.  But that's because most gun rights activists would never try. I want to go after the LA Times next, if I have time.

I disagree with Bill's objective of embarrassing the DoJ.  But that's because I don't really think they will be embarrassed.  I do agree with him that publicizing this issue is good for gun rights in California, because it gives us a chance to present the facts of the matter, and the facts are always on our side.  It's also one of the few cases where the pro gun rights side actually gets to initiate a discussion, rather than defending itself from some emotional and unwarranted attack.

If everything went as some proponents of the current situation, we would have standard configuration ARs by now. It's been more than 2 months and we still are "in process." Getting agitated and rushing things will not be the best course.

Two comments --

1) Grip-free or fixed mag black rifles are probably just as irritating to avg antigunners as a real AR itself.   These are not rational but emotional people.  The fact that a black rifle can exist legally and use a detachable mag and just not have a grip should be highly irritating to some of these folks - "Why are you letting this happen? Stop this nonsense!"  Esp as if the DOJ had updated the list continually, we would not have any off-list lowers.

2) If we delay things further more likely legislation can occur.  We've given them 2.5 months, now it's time to put the fat on the fire.


Bill W.
San Jose

Quoted: Two comments -- 1) Grip-free or fixed mag black rifles are probably just as irritating to avg antigunners as a real AR itself.   These are not rational but emotional people.  The fact that a black rifle can exist legally and use a detachable mag and just not have a grip should be highly irritating to some of these folks - "Why are you letting this happen? Stop this nonsense!"  Esp as if the DOJ had updated the list continually, we would not have any off-list lowers. 2) If we delay things further more likely legislation can occur.  We've given them 2.5 months, now it's time to put the fat on the fire. Bill W. San Jose

It would be irritating for antis just to see an airsoft, but they did not have enough backing, whether it is political or social to push for complete ban, or something to that effect. Now you are attempting to bring out the situation say, "F*** you! We still get what we want through loophole", this will give more credibility to antis and they will have this loophole closed through other means.

I don't know what you think of CA DOJ, but they are not your slaves, they have their own mind. Just because you say  "Jump!" doens't mean CA DOJ will ask "How high?" Just the fact that CA DOJ managed to delay this and break hopes of some people here shows that they are more than capable of than we give credit for. The biggest mistake one can make in a battle is underestimating enemy.

Quoted: Quoted: So what positive effect do you think the press release will have?  Nobody has answered that question yet.  maybe you will? I thought it'd be obvious. They get tired of being accused of shirking their duty, and they list. Bill W. San Jose

So your goal is to embarrass the CALDOJ into updating the list, at the significant risk of triggering a sweeping new ban under the guise of closing the loophole?  Sounds to me like the likely gain is not worth the likely risks.

Quoted: Poll added.

This press release will cause...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOJ to retract their memo and allow you to assemble your lower as an AW No
The legislature to seek a sweeping new ban on all magazine fed semiautomatic centerfire rifles No--the decision on this is based upon its political viability. Just as it was in 1999, just as it was in 1988. Now, it is possible that the legislature will send a very restrictive bill just to embarass the governator, given that it is a win for them if he signs and a win if he vetos. His current weak standing might encourage this. I suspect the memo would be a blip in all of this . . .
The legislature to repeal existing AW bans No

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspect the memo will drive the DOJ to revise the list ASAP.