Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/2/2001 5:38:47 PM EST
I tried to post the news article here, but I get an error message saying the message is too long. flip over to the AK site and read my post for details. MH.
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 5:46:14 PM EST
Can you either post the article as a two part reply (so you don't get that error) or post a link to the other thread. I couldn't find it. Thanks
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 5:48:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 7:33:00 PM EST
see the posts in the legal section, has some of the text and links in it
Link Posted: 7/2/2001 8:47:31 PM EST
Here you go guys : [url]http://ak-47.gunsnet.net/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14531[/url] ColtShorty GOA KABA COA JPFO SAF NRA "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."
Link Posted: 7/3/2001 9:58:12 PM EST
Actually guys,... apon re-reading this article in close detail. If Im not mistaken, this is really not "good news". Like I originally thought it was. Its an article that contradicts itself. and it seems nothing has changed. at all. The long and the short of it is: during the 1990;s what was going on in California courts is that people were being arrested for assault rifle "look-a-likes". These rifles were in fact [b]not[/b] listed under the current laws of that particular time as an "assault rifle". So, what happened was,...when these people were hauled before a court,...any judge who felt like it,...could in fact "declare" the rifle that the person was arrested with, as an actual assault rifle. Regardless of the fact that it had not been listed by the California legislator. As you can see by this article: because this was allowed to go un-questioned, thousands of people were convicted of possession of an "assault rifle" even though, in fact, that rifle was not on their "list". Although I will note that many of these folks were drug dealers doing drive by shootings. So I did not loose much sleep over it. On the flip side of the coin,...we being the "good guys" and the Vangaurds of the law, we cant stretch the law for our purposes then constrict them for the bad guys if we want to remain credible. Its up to us to be staunch defenders of whats right and wrong. What this judge is saying is that these umm, "people" were wrongly convicted under the strict definition of that days laws. [b]However[/b], if you notice, what it then goes on to say, is that the Attorney general (Lockyer) can declare anything he wants as a banned firearm. Huh????? Which of course, Dracula, has already done. He has outlawed everything. So, in the end,....were all back to square one. This is just my "Hunch". Im not a lawyer so we should all wait to hear from the lawyers from the National Rifle Association, GOA, ect for direction and a much more precise clarification. dont anybody go running outside into the daylight of the PRC with their "pre-ban" thinking "slavery" has suddenly been outlawed. it hasnt. bide your time. MH
Link Posted: 7/4/2001 3:16:53 AM EST
What this did, was prevent lower courts from declaring a rifle not on the list an assault weapon. It keeps that authority solely in the hands of the AG. He is required to publish a list of ass guns and only that list is official. A court can't add one, just because it looked scarey. Norm
Top Top