Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/12/2001 3:09:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/12/2001 3:08:43 PM EDT by MacAttack]
Well after 5 months of waiting I finally received my AW registration and can now take my rifle out of hiding for a test run [uzi]. My concern over the whole [pissed] AW registration/ban is that the DOJ published all sorts of rules, regulations and consequences for registering your weapon. But not a word was written which tells you what you can do and can't do with your weapon. Additionaly, there is one troubling sentence on my registration form which really doesn't make sense to me: "Please not that subdivision (c) of Penal Code Section 12285 specifically restricts the use of lawfully registered assault weapons.[frag]" When I read this I interpreted as meaning "registered AW's may not be used." Can someone explain this to me!! Mac
Link Posted: 5/12/2001 9:17:47 PM EDT
I believe that you can only use your AW at an organized range. Also, the transportation requirements of an AW now resemble that of a handgun.
Link Posted: 5/12/2001 10:15:12 PM EDT
A couple of the more obnoxious restrictions are: Allowing someone else to possess it when you are not in their presence is a felony, 4-8 years. Ditto for allowing a minor to possess it, even when you are in their presence, except you get an extra year because it involves a minor.
Link Posted: 5/14/2001 10:23:44 AM EDT
I've, ummm... heard... yeah, that's it... that some ranges, if you ask politely and you appear respectable, they will look the other way while a minor experiences the firing of a non-politically correct weapon. I think it comes from the basis that these range officers are aware that the next generation better like guns, or we are all screwed. Additionally, many rangemasters note that the majority of the law enforcement officers will state that they (the LEOs) are not aware of how to interpret the laws regarding these things. Remember that the laws for guns alone, contain more words than are contained in the New Testament. And then they have to determine if an offense is being commited (because they don't want the legal backlash of a wrongful arrest)...
Link Posted: 5/14/2001 6:12:10 PM EDT
MacAttack, I think what (c) says is unless you get another permit you can only do (1) -(7): 12285 (c) A person who has registered an assault weapon under this section may possess it only under any of the following conditions unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 12286: (1) At that person's residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with the owner's express permission. (2) While on the premises of a target range of a public or private club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets. (3) While on a target range that holds a regulatory or business license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range. (4) While on the premises of a shooting club which is licensed pursuant to the Fish and Game Code. (5) While attending any exhibition, display, or educational project which is about firearms and which is sponsored by, conducted under the auspices of, or approved by a law enforcement agency or a nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or promotes education about, firearms. (6) While on publicly owned land if the possession and use of a firearm described in Section 12276 or 12276.1 is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land. (7) While transporting the assault weapon between any of the places mentioned in this subdivision, or to any licensed gun dealer, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12290, for servicing or repair pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 12290, if the assault weapon is transported as required by Section 12026.1.
Link Posted: 5/14/2001 6:20:36 PM EDT
IrvineGunNut, I agree with the intent of involving future generations in responsible gun ownership, but I think someone is looking at a felony (with loss of gun ownership rights) and serious jail time if they loan an "assault weapon" to a minor. Even if they do this in their presence at a gun range. They would be better off plinking in the middle of nowhere with no witnesses than doing it at a gun range. 12280. (a)(1) Any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon, except as provided by this chapter, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for four, six, or eight years. (2) In addition and consecutive to the punishment imposed under paragraph (1), any person who transfers, lends, sells, or gives any assault weapon to a minor in violation of paragraph (1) shall receive an enhancement of one year.
Link Posted: 5/14/2001 6:29:20 PM EDT
Right now this is an outrage. In a few years when nobody can remember "how it used to be", these B.S. regs will be the norm. Geez, I'm glad I don't live in Kalifornia. Don't worry though, fellas because Communism is definetly on the rise and spreading.
Link Posted: 5/14/2001 9:17:06 PM EDT
For you Kali folks, when you get a chance, explain to a kid that it's ok for them to shoot a mini-14, but letting them shoot an AR-15 is a felony that could get you 5 years in prison. The look on their face will be priceless.
Link Posted: 5/15/2001 7:46:40 AM EDT
I understand where you are coming from Cedric, but with a registered AW, you can no longer take it to land that is "in the middle of nowhere". As you mentioned, there are a limited amount of areas to shoot, and I wish you luck getting permission to shoot on BLM land. See the trick is that you run a risk of getting arrested for mere possession of the registered AW on BLM land. I mentioned it only as an option. Of course, a finer option is to take the gun over the border into a neighboring state for the day... But for some of us, that is not as easy as it sounds. (and oh yes, the Mini-14 discussion works really well on kids and adults as well!)
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 2:40:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By IrvineGunNut: Of course, a finer option is to take the gun over the border into a neighboring state for the day...
View Quote
3 1/2 hour drive each way. [img]http://different3.tripod.com//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/sloan.jpg[/img] Talk about "making a day of it" for a shooting trip! :(
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 3:50:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan: 3 1/2 hour drive each way. Talk about "making a day of it" for a shooting trip! :(
View Quote
Heck, you can see where I live... 3 1/2 hours would be lucky for me... leaving in the middle of the night with no traffic. For me it's more like 4 1/2. DOH!
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 3:59:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By IrvineGunNut: Heck, you can see where I live... 3 1/2 hours would be lucky for me...
View Quote
You drive to slow! From Irvine take the 241 toll road to the 91 to the 15, exit the Sloan NV offramp and you are there. If you dont make any stops and average about 80MPH it should'nt take longer than 3 1/2 hours. If you have fast track (i dont)it will shave about 5mins of your time.
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 7:34:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2001 7:37:06 PM EDT by Pthfndr]
I don't have a problem shooting in the forest. But then I have one of these. Though it's old, forest service enforcement officers haven't questioned it's authenticity yet. United States Forest Pacific Regional Office Department of Service Southwest 630 Sansome Street Agriculture Region San Francisco, CA 94111 Reply To~ 5300 Date: NOV 2 01991 Subject: Policy on Assault Weapons Legislation To: Forest Supervisors In 1989 the State of California enacted legislation restricting the possession and use of firearms defined as assault weapons. This legislation, titled the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989, was approved by the Governor on May 24, 1989. It was codified into the California Penal Code and became effective January 1, 1990. This law places restrictions on the possession and use of assault weapons in the State of California. Among other things the law requires that persons owning a firearm defined as an assault weapon must register them with the California Department of Justice before January 1. 1991. The law also places conditions on ownership, including a requirement that in order to possess a registered assault weapon on property owned by another a person must have the express permission of the land owner. The popularity of using firearms recreationally on National Forest System lands makes it desirable to have a policy that is~ consistent State-wide in dealing with thin issue. Forest Service policy in thin Region is: persons have the permission of the Forest Service to possess firearms, including lawfully registered assault weapons, on NYS lands except when prohibited by other applicable laws or regulations. Our responsibility for public safety, property and resource protection can be met using Federal laws and regulations. Forest Service Special Agents and Lay Enforcement Officers should continue to enforce appropriate Federal laws and regulations related to the possession and use of firearms as needed. They may enforce other State ~ related to the possession or use of firearms to the extent they are consistent with Federal laws or regulations. Forest Service Special Agents and Law Enforcement Officers may enforce the State Assault Weapons law under special circumstances arising as a result of their normal activities. Hopefully, this will clear up any questions you may have regarding the effect of thin law on managing NFS lands in this Region. Questions related to thin subject may be directed to Assistant Director for public Safety Joan Kushner. RONALD E · STEWART Regional Forester It's signed, not only by the regional forester, but also by various department heads. Granted it was a while back and was for the original RR law, but then that's what my AR falls under. It looks much better in original form. This is just a copy / paste from a scan of the document and does not show the signatures from everyone that signed off on it when circulated in the San Francisco office.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 2:01:02 AM EDT
Technically...ALL AR15/AK47 series fall under the '89 Roberti Roos...So,.. wouldn't all AR15/AK47 series rifles be OK to shoot on forest land???
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 2:34:45 AM EDT
MacAttack, it's really a sad thing that you felt you could not take your rifle out to the range before receiving your papers. I had no doubts as to the legitimacy of my actions after registering my AR's and shooting them before I had papers in hand. If you made copies of the application before you sent them off and carried them with you, would you have taken out your guns then?
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 9:59:03 AM EDT
They may enforce other State ~ related to the possession or use of firearms to the extent they are consistent with Federal laws or regulations.
View Quote
Looks like a typo. How was this sentence supposed to read?
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 6:18:06 PM EDT
"They may enforce other State ~ related to the possession or use of firearms to the extent they are consistent with Federal laws or regulations. " I believe it is: "They may enforce other State laws related to...." Also: thin=this "The popularity of using firearms recreationally on National Forest System lands makes it desirable to have a policy that is~ consistent State-wide in dealing with thin issue. Forest Service policy in thin Region is...."
Link Posted: 5/22/2001 3:29:12 PM EDT
Thanks for all your replies to this post. With everything going on I kind of forgot about this one. Since my last posting I have taken my rifle to one of the few rifle ranges in the area as well as my local indoor range (with my .22 cal conversion of course). Though I received quite a few stares from the casual onlooker I also received several words of encouragement and "at-a-boy's" from fellow AW owners. For my effort I also was requested by a off-duty ATF agent for proof of registration; which I boldly tossed in his face! Don't get me wrong I am for the most part a law abiding citizen who uses my AW strictly for personal pleasure. I do not plan to go against the government and for the majority respect my politicians(other than that dickhead Gray Davis!). With that said, I hope that our future gun owners will be able to enjoy the thrill of owning and firing firearms without all the negative sensationalism we have today. I for one can't wait until my Son is old enough to shoot. When that day comes it will be a very special day as I'm sure it was when my Dad first took me shooting. Thanks for listening. Mac
Link Posted: 5/22/2001 5:33:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MacAttack: I also was requested by a off-duty ATF agent for proof of registration; which I boldly tossed in his face!
View Quote
BATF does not enforce California state gun laws. CAL DOJ leaves that to local law enforcement. Could you give us the name of the range this occured at? Did you get the name of the "agent". Are you sure he wasnt just a mall ninja?
Link Posted: 5/22/2001 7:35:40 PM EDT
What right does a off-duty BATF officer have to inspect your registration letter. I know it is "a good idea" to keep a copy of the registration letter with you, but where does it say that you are required to do so? What range was this and where?
Link Posted: 5/22/2001 9:02:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/22/2001 9:02:32 PM EDT by Pthfndr]
Whether it was ATF, CA DOJ, or a local LEO, no where in the original RR law or in SB23 does it require an AW owner to carry proof of registration. While I too carry my "papers", I also have the complete text of both laws printed out ( in 8 pt ). If ever challenged I will tell whoever it is that I do not have to present papers, hand them the text and defy them to find anywhere in that morass of unconstitutional BS where it says I am supposed to carry and present proof of registration on demand. If they believe me to be breaking the law they are welcome to take down the serial number of the firearm and run it and arrest me and I will see them in court.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 8:31:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Pthfndr: If they believe me to be breaking the law they are welcome to take down the serial number of the firearm and run it and arrest me and I will see them in court.
View Quote
I admire your resolve, and desire to flood the courts with these issues. We should all be so brazen and combative when it comes to our rights. On an additional note, an off-duty police officer or other agent, is not in uniform, and not acting within his job description. He may well be in trouble with his superiors for his taking on a situation that could be dangerous, without the proper authority or backup. Just as a police officer is not supposed to take part in a high-speed pursuit after hours, he should not be interrogating suspects, or performing duties such as these during off hours as a civilian.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 8:48:10 AM EDT
I have on several occasions found myself at the range shooting an AR-15 with an off-duty LEO (San Diego PD, Sheriff's deputy, DEA agents) next to me. I always make an effort to strike up a conversation with cops. Never has any of them said anything to me about my rifles other than "Nice AR". It's not their job to enforce bullshit laws while off-duty. And they are fellow members of my range. I fear them not. Still, I keep copies of my Papers in the buttstock.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 10:22:20 AM EDT
I really don't want to trash the range where this occurred since it really isn't there fault for any of this happening. When the off-duty ATF agent approached me he did it first without identifying himself. Later he stated he was a agent and asked for my papers. I was so shocked what had just happened that I just showed them to him. In hindsight I guess he could have been BSing me since he didn't show any proof. My whole point for bring my incident up is to define the sad existence which we AW owners are now faced with. It's very reminiscent of the Nazi's and there demands "show me your papers" question. My fellow Californian's it is a sad sad world we are living in (gun regulations) to have have our personal pleasures (AWs) regulated as if they were drugs. It's a sad sad place.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 3:02:37 PM EDT
I am with Pthfndr and IrvineGunNut on this. I am going to keep a copy of my letter in my buttstock, but I am sure as hell not going to hand my rifle over to anyone until I see some identification. Who knows, they may be a felon or minor or some kind of joker. I would then request their official purpose for the inspection and hand it over unloaded. If they ask for my papers, I would follow Pthfndr's track and ask where it says I have to have the papers on my person. If all else fails, I'll give them the letter.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 3:05:06 PM EDT
I know that we have members from the Law Enforcement community on this board. Any from California? Anyone who knows any? What's their take on this issue of inspection; particularly at a place such as a range where "assault weapons" are specifically allowed.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 6:14:54 PM EDT
A couple weeks ago at my home range, where I also compete in High Power, I was out practicing on the 300 yard range with my competition AR. There were only two other shooters on the range with me at the time. Both of them Sacramento County Sheriffs deputies, both of them fellow HP competitiors. We would talk during breaks to check / mark targets. At no time did they ever ask me if I had registered my AR, or if I had my papers with me. They did say that there were a lot more rank and file LEO who felt like we do here.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 7:56:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 8:56:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: LEOs (on duty) can examine your firearm anytime they wish if you are out in public with it
View Quote
On duty, treats me politely, and conducting an inspection only, they can do it with no hassle. I have personal objections to it, but he's doing his job. On the other hand, if some pinko POS MMM LEO wants to harrass me while he's off duty and has a grudge against gun owners, then I'm resisting every chance I get. He needs to provide identification, reasonable cause, his commanding officer, a search warrant, and anything else I can think of at the moment.
Link Posted: 5/25/2001 10:39:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/31/2001 9:16:57 PM EDT
One thing we can never forget is that even though we generalize our negative feelings regarding the bureaucracy we're forced to deal with these days, and all the rules and regulations. that ultimately we still deal with individuals, and in reality most of the individuals we deal with are decent people. We might hate the laws and having to deal with the DOJ on the registration issue, but I have to say that all the DOJ employees I've dealt with, from the top down, have all been very pleasant to deal with, extremely helpful and willing to go out of their way to help you solve a problem. And the DOJ isn't the only agency that can be helpful solving a problem. One of my friends, who I don't talk to too often, has an RR registered StreetSweeper (still unfired, NIB). I called him up to see if he had taken care of the Federal Class 3, destructive-device registration with the May 1 deadline, and he didn't know anything about it -- this being on Friday April 27 in the afternoon. Well, that left Monday, April 30, as his one day to do everything for a Class 3 DD registration. My friend called a local BATF office to find out what to do , and one of the agents took it upon himself to spend his whole day guiding my friend by outlining what he had to do, arranging the fingerprinting, explaining to a number of LE agencies (who knew nothing about anything it seems) both what my friend needed and helping them decide which one actually had to be the one to sign-off via numerous phone calls, and making himself available all day to solve anything related to my friend's problem. By the end of the day my friend's application was completed and postmarked, because of the kindness of one agent.
Top Top