Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 5/6/2004 8:16:52 PM EST
I know that several years ago, Kalifornia passed an assault weapons ban that was the strictest in the nation. I remember that the NRA did an infomercial, and I remember seeing that some people had recieved letters saying "you have to turn in your guns". Can anyone give me some details on this? Specifically:

- What was all this stuff about this law creating "Instant Felons" (I remember the term from the NRA infomercial)? How exactly did that work?

- How did they know who had what? Were these guns already registered? Did they subpoena FFL records?

- How did some people get exemptions, while others did not?

I ask, because there is a similar bill in the House and Senate, and I am curious about the potential impact on a national level. Call me paranoid, or over cautious but I want to be prepared just in case.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:33:34 PM EST
As a designated gunsmith, ammo r&d tech, and politically aware individual, here is my analysis of the kalifornia ban.

1. If you own more than 2 unregistered "assault weapons" it is a felony.
2. Registration was voluntary. Nothing was done to those who didn't register as the state does not (or so they say) have records on every "assault weapon" sale. They do however have records of every handgun sale.
3. The only people that have automatic exemptions are law enforcement and military. There is a process where the state attorney general can grant an exemption, but that involves lots of ankle grabbing and no lube.

All in all, it is a valuable tool for law enforcement to use against those who hate our freedoms.

Peace be with you.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:39:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 8:40:03 PM EST by sgtar15]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

- What was all this stuff about this law creating "Instant Felons" (I remember the term from the NRA infomercial)? How exactly did that work?

- How did they know who had what? Were these guns already registered? Did they subpoena FFL records?

- How did some people get exemptions, while others did not?

I ask, because there is a similar bill in the House and Senate, and I am curious about the potential impact on a national level. Call me paranoid, or over cautious but I want to be prepared just in case.



First off, Imbro is full of shit!

1st point: SB23 went into effect at the start of 2000. This banned all NEW ar15 and AK type rifles, along with certain others that had a "proturding" pistol grip

2nd point: Previous owners of these rifles had to register these rifles before that date. The other option was taking them out of state.

3rd: They did not have any way of knowing who owned what rifles...only that they were rifles to begin with, but not what type.

4th: If you failed to register your assult weapon then you are a felon. (I think)

5th NOBODY except Leos (surprise) got exemptions.

SGatr15

PS To the best of my knowledge NO ONE has been charged with violating this law.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:11:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 9:12:25 PM EST by H3At]
3 words

­

IT fucken SUCKS!

Sorry
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:15:21 PM EST
two words....

<­BR>

CALIFORNIA SUCKS!!!!
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:20:44 PM EST
What did I say that was in error?
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:29:32 PM EST
RRRRGH I WANT OUT
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:30:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:


1st point: SB23 went into effect at the start of 2000. This banned all NEW ar15 and AK type rifles, along with certain others that had a "proturding" pistol grip


PS To the best of my knowledge NO ONE has been charged with violating this law.



Actually, SB23 did not ban AK and AR type rifles, it was just a features ban. It was a state supreme court decision that allowed AR and AK type rifles to be added to the banned list under the Roberti-Roos '89 ban.

And there have been several people charged with violating the law, mostly people caught for other crimes and found to have unregistered assault weapons.

The instant felons came because there were many people unaware of the law so did not register. My old neighbor had a Mini 14 that he put a pistol grip stock on. Doesn't ever really shoot so didn't think about it. Didn't know about the ban until after it was passed and I was able to advise him to put the stock stock back on.

Some say as much as 80% of the "assault weapons" in the state are unregistered.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:31:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By Imbroglio:
What did I say that was in error?



The 2 or more part and that it was voluntary registration.

SGatr15
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:31:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 9:39:17 PM EST by PaDanby]

1. If you own more than 2 unregistered "assault weapons" it is a felony. Wrong only one


2. Registration was voluntary. Nothing was done to those who didn't register as the state does not (or so they say) have records on every "assault weapon" sale. They do however have records of every handgun sale. Wrong - Mandatory - (although a lot decided to ignore that,) thus the instant felony if you are caught with one or more unregistered.


3. The only people that have automatic exemptions are law enforcement and military. There is a process where the state attorney general can grant an exemption, but that involves lots of ankle grabbing and no lube. Active duty military have to apply before importing, it appears the exemption goes away with military status. And LEOs can't obtain as personal weapons, their department can "issue" one to them but that exemption is supposed to go away when they leave the department.


but other than the above Imbro wasn't too wrong.


The turn in your guns letter refers to a specific model of SJS as I recall had a detachable magazine or something that would have made it a no-no under the features but not under the first iteration which named by type. So AK's were proscribed but not SKS which mostly had fixed magazines. So there was a group of detach mag that were ok, and then somebody figured out later that these SKS slipped through and by the time the feature ban came along most had missed their registration date and the AG wouldn't allow grandfathering and sent "Too Bad" letters to those request ing to register. IIRC they did get relief but it took a nasty lawsuit. My Bro-in-law got one of the letters. BTW is an LEO and his Dept would not go to bat for him and request an "exemption" at least for the SKS. My Bro-in-law in Indiana now has it.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:33:32 PM EST
Top Top