(Cut and Paste from NRA Web) SB238 (Perata -Dem) Lowers the penalty for the simple possession of an unregistered firearm classified as a "Roberti-Roos Assault-Weapon" to a simple infraction (ticket) and not endanger your gun rights.
SB238 I guess was voted in to law.
The "Roberti-Roose Assault-Weapon" law was the Ban that went into effect back in 1989 (right?)
Among other rifles this law banned, it named specificaly the "COLT AR-15".
SB23 Is the wonderful law that bans guns by thier evil features and in conjunction with the Kasler v. Lockyer decision it banned ALL AK and AR Series Weapons. (right?)
Now for my question:
What Assault Weapon Classification does a rifle marked with "COLT AR-15" Fall under Today (2004) in California?
For example Suppose "Joe Smith" had a Unregisted AR-15 that was made by Bushmaster, and he got caught with it for some reason by some Cop. He would be cited for this and would be charged with Felony!
But if "Joe Smith" had a Unregisterd AR-15 that was made by COLT and was marked "COLT AR-15" in the situation above, would it just be a "infraction" with a fine?
Also.... Say "Joe Smith" had a diffrent weapon that was unregisterd but it was definatly a "Roberti-Roos Assault-Weapon" (such as a HK-93,91,PSG1,MAC10,FNFAL..Whatever!) And he was caught with it and cited for an infraction in acordance with SB238. CAN they confiscate the gun? or do they just write you a ticket and let you on your way like a speeding ticket?
Well I can tell ya from experiance living in cali, nothing is just a minor in fration, you get caught speeding here, they make you feel like a freaking felon. I doubt, that if you are caught with an "assault" weapon, they will let you off with a simple ticket. I'm afraid of even driving around with my Fab10 AR, even though it is legal, it still looks scary to a cop.
An unregistered Colt AR-15 would fall under Section 12276 of the Penal Code. That's the original, 1989 part that deals with specific makes and models.
12276.1 covers Evil Features.
There is no difference in the penalty. Penalties provisions begin in Section 12280.
See www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=pen&codebody=&hits=20 and happy hunting.
You know I read SB-238 and I don't see any mention regarding possession of an unrestricted firearm unless it was something added later and the DOJ website is not up to date.
SB 238 (Stats. 2003, ch. 499) (Perata)
* Present law requires that every police and sheriff’s department shall make a record entry into the Automated Firearms System (AFS) for each firearm that it recovers if that firearm is illegally possessed, has been used in a crime, is suspected of having been used in a crime, was reported lost, stolen, found, recovered or is under observation (safekeeping) (PC § 11108). This legislation expressly permits any law enforcement agency to do the same.
Additionally, this legislation allows any law enforcement agency or agent to make a record entry into the AFS for any firearm taken into custody for the purposes of tracing, except when the firearm is voluntarily placed with the law enforcement agency (PC § 11108.3).
* Clarifies that sales of machineguns to law enforcement agencies may be transacted only by a person who has been issued the proper permit by the DOJ (PC § 12201).
* Provides that a person who has been convicted for a violation of Penal Code Section 246 is prohibited from possessing firearms for his or her entire lifetime. Prior to enactment of this legislation, such a conviction was a ten-year firearm prohibition (PC § 12021).
* Repeals provisions that allowed law enforcement agencies to transfer assault weapons to retired sworn peace officers. Also repeals provisions that allowed retired peace officers who were transferred such assault weapons to be in possession of those assault weapons (PC § 12280).
* Adds to the list of destructive devices any device (i.e., flamethrower) designed or intended to emit or propel a burning stream of combustible or flammable liquid a distance of 10 feet or more (PC § 12301).
I think you got your answer which was either both: Robertti-Roos and SB23; or just Robertti-Roos if you don't have the prerequisite number of evil features for SB23.
I jumped in here because I wanted to point out that there were two succeeding amendments to Robertti-Roos and that the second one resulting in Kasler vs. Lockyer (was Kasler vs. Lundgren). Ironically, a small part of Kasler's lawsuit (which was denied by CA supreme court) was upheld in a separate and unrelated ruling in Harrotts vs. Kings County... by our truely wise CA supreme court (NOT)!