Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
6/25/2018 7:04:05 PM
Posted: 7/13/2018 3:07:34 AM EDT
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/11/california-doj-withdraws-registration-assault-weapons/

i don't know how this will all pan out.. does that mean i don't have to go featureless? can i still use a bullet button? crazy times.
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 6:04:54 AM EDT
Misleading title. That's not what happened. What the ramifications are of this, though, I have not sorted out.
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 11:11:26 AM EDT
It would be nice if there was an agency or lawyer who could go after all the media for false representation of semi automatic rifles. Through a lawsuit on the media source who purposely puts an incorrect picture in the story to mislead the public in what gun is actually being attacked. What is this like the 1000000th time they put an M16 in the story pic.
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 11:43:59 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
Misleading title. That's not what happened. What the ramifications are of this, though, I have not sorted out.
View Quote
what exactly happened? everything i could find was confusing as hell. seemed like for now the registration is off the table, but will most likely come back.

also, franklin armory stated that only about 6000 people registered about 10000 rifles or so
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 12:42:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 1:13:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2018 1:13:31 PM EDT by Trollslayer]
It's only scuttlebutt/rumor but I read somewhere Newsom will push for a complete ban on semiautomatics. Imagine an outright ban with nothing but bolt actions allowed. You have to give up your AR's and your M1 Garands!
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 6:32:16 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bennjammin:
what exactly happened? everything i could find was confusing as hell. seemed like for now the registration is off the table, but will most likely come back.

also, franklin armory stated that only about 6000 people registered about 10000 rifles or so
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bennjammin:
Originally Posted By bigstick61:
Misleading title. That's not what happened. What the ramifications are of this, though, I have not sorted out.
what exactly happened? everything i could find was confusing as hell. seemed like for now the registration is off the table, but will most likely come back.

also, franklin armory stated that only about 6000 people registered about 10000 rifles or so
Registration is done. It's over. Unless suits that argue that the window should be opened briefly again due to the failings of DOJ (or deliberate actions to make registration difficult) wins in court, there will be no more registration unless a law is passed allowing it. It had already been extended (date-wise) due to DOJ's delays.

The whole thing has been confusing, but the gist that I'm now getting is that the current regs are for registration only. These regs would have been for enforcement purposes. In some ways this is good, as DOJ wanted to enforce its illegal application of the new AW rules to shotguns and changes to OAL measurement (such that a bunch of rifles, mostly bullpups, suddenly needed their muzzle devices pinned and welded to make OAL), etc. I think their enforcement of the concept that the BB needed to stay on newly registered AWs was part of it as well. On the other hand, their idea that disassembly of the action or incomplete rifles are not semi-auto (which also eliminated constructive possession) also seems to have gone away with this, and previous court cases have been supportive of constructive possession of AWs, so it could again be possible that people could be prosecuted for having separated uppers and lowers for a rifle that when assembled would met AW definitions and such. A lot of the current compliance devices also rely on language that may now no longer have validity.

At least this is my take so far. So much confusing and conflicting discussion. I could be quite off the mark. But what I'm sure of is that the headline in question does not reflect the truth.
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 6:33:59 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Trollslayer:
It's only scuttlebutt/rumor but I read somewhere Newsom will push for a complete ban on semiautomatics. Imagine an outright ban with nothing but bolt actions allowed. You have to give up your AR's and your M1 Garands!
View Quote
One of his campaign staffers suggested that he could support confiscation of current RAWs. If the legislature were to again pass the detachable-magazine semi-auto rifle and shotgun ban that Brown vetoed a few years ago once Newsom is Governor, I am quite certain that he'd sign it.
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 8:47:19 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Trollslayer:
It's only scuttlebutt/rumor but I read somewhere Newsom will push for a complete ban on semiautomatics. Imagine an outright ban with nothing but bolt actions allowed. You have to give up your AR's and your M1 Garands!
View Quote
GUARANTEED he would support a full ban on any and all semi autos, I fully expect that to happen .....and more.
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 9:54:46 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Garand1911:
GUARANTEED he would support a full ban on any and all semi autos, I fully expect that to happen .....and more.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Garand1911:
Originally Posted By Trollslayer:
It's only scuttlebutt/rumor but I read somewhere Newsom will push for a complete ban on semiautomatics. Imagine an outright ban with nothing but bolt actions allowed. You have to give up your AR's and your M1 Garands!
GUARANTEED he would support a full ban on any and all semi autos, I fully expect that to happen .....and more.
Worst case, but that would need to go through the Legislature which is almost a sure bet. Then would come the various law suits, injunctions. etc.

I would bet that the preliminary injunctions would go our way and eventually it would die a lingering death in the Federal Courts best case.

Best case would be the legislature doesn't pass it. (I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn) Next that if gets to a favorable Fed Judge that applies a strict ruling and throws out all the semi-auto and magazine restrictions
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 9:59:03 PM EDT
It appears they withdrew it but might be able to bring it back with a new date and an adequate (by whose definition?) publicity campaign.

I think all we get realistically is more time. Also they get a shot at fixing the defects.
Link Posted: 7/14/2018 12:31:42 AM EDT
Tag for more info.

The emails I received from CRPA & NRA provided info about a lawsuit filing but didn't provide any particulars that everyone above is discussing. I have no idea what this lawsuit achieves?...
Link Posted: 7/14/2018 1:39:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/14/2018 1:41:38 AM EDT by Featureless]
In a short form, I think this is what is going on. The examples of "problems" are samples, not a complete list. The laws didn't change. If one were to have chosen to register a "bullet button" AW, as opposed to converting to to fixed mag or featureless, or legally dispose of it, etc., those laws governing the registration or alternatives are still in place. The regulations which are supposed to describe the features, implement the laws, etc., were submitted and withdrawn. A couple of issues. Some of the new definitions are unclear (and some of the original older definitions which were retained still are) - (I still like that they separated and separately defined grips and stocks. They didn't fix the abomination that is the definition of a flash suppressor.) Some of the regulations/requirements exceeded the requirements in the laws and/or conflict in spots. Like some of the regulations applied to shotguns. The marking and photo requirements appear to be arguably excessive. They arguably didn't follow the procedures required in developing, reviewing and implementing regulations.

That the system they put in place seems to have crashed or been dysfunctional in ways that kept people from being able to comply with the law was I believed mentioned in the regulatory response but is also, IIRC, a part of separate legal actions.
Link Posted: 7/14/2018 11:24:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/14/2018 11:26:47 AM EDT by LoneStoner]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 50_Shooter:
So at least half of the people decided to lick the jackboots! I'm willing to bet that most if not all are democrats that call themselves gun owners.

If this is true and it's off the table for now, good but don't get complacent! It will come back in a form far worse than the original.

If that piece of shit Newsome gets in office, we might have to go full civil war on these shitbags! That includes some of them so called Democrat gun owners. So they need to get off the fence and unfuck their minds.

I can only imagine all the threads on Calguns about this right now... The insanity must be at all new heights right about now!!
View Quote
P.O.S. Newsome would just go for a total ban on ALL SEMI-AUTOs!

( Oops! Just noticed someone else said the same thing! )
Link Posted: 7/14/2018 11:28:47 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigstick61:

Registration is done. It's over. Unless suits that argue that the window should be opened briefly again due to the failings of DOJ (or deliberate actions to make registration difficult) wins in court, there will be no more registration unless a law is passed allowing it. It had already been extended (date-wise) due to DOJ's delays.

The whole thing has been confusing, but the gist that I'm now getting is that the current regs are for registration only. These regs would have been for enforcement purposes. In some ways this is good, as DOJ wanted to enforce its illegal application of the new AW rules to shotguns and changes to OAL measurement (such that a bunch of rifles, mostly bullpups, suddenly needed their muzzle devices pinned and welded to make OAL), etc. I think their enforcement of the concept that the BB needed to stay on newly registered AWs was part of it as well. On the other hand, their idea that disassembly of the action or incomplete rifles are not semi-auto (which also eliminated constructive possession) also seems to have gone away with this, and previous court cases have been supportive of constructive possession of AWs, so it could again be possible that people could be prosecuted for having separated uppers and lowers for a rifle that when assembled would met AW definitions and such. A lot of the current compliance devices also rely on language that may now no longer have validity.

At least this is my take so far. So much confusing and conflicting discussion. I could be quite off the mark. But what I'm sure of is that the headline in question does not reflect the truth.
View Quote
With all this confusion, best to not take anything to a range. Leave 'em at home and WAIT for 100% Clarity on the law!
Link Posted: 7/14/2018 6:44:38 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PaDanby:
It appears they withdrew it but might be able to bring it back with a new date and an adequate (by whose definition?) publicity campaign.

I think all we get realistically is more time. Also they get a shot at fixing the defects.
View Quote
This changes nothing. DOJ was trying to apply the definitions they used in the BBAW regulations to the greater penal code. The withdrew that attempt. The OP is fake news.
Link Posted: 7/15/2018 2:21:47 AM EDT
Is this anything more than the DOJ taking down a web site because the registration period has ended?
Link Posted: 7/15/2018 12:44:52 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Trollslayer:
Is this anything more than the DOJ taking down a web site because the registration period has ended?
View Quote
DOJ wanted to apply definitions used for BBAW to other areas of the penal code. Logically it makes sense for consistency. There were complaints that there should be a public comment period first. So DOJ withdrew their proposal.
Link Posted: 7/15/2018 8:47:38 PM EDT
I think taking down the website, as opposed to just turning it off, was premature. The site was subject to a lawsuit so removing it may be problematic (for the DoJ) if they try to argue the site worked, failure to register was not their fault but that of people waiting too long to do so. It's possible, unlikely to my mind, that they could be ordered to re-open the process to allow anyone who wanted to finish registering. Not sure how many that might be or if the site is readily restored? haven't looked at it. OTOH, some of the regulations were directly in support of the specific requirements for the registration, like requiring specific pictures and markings (maybe they also applied to "new" home-builts?) that were not in earlier regs. That said, failure to have the full or least needed regs in place makes it harder to argue for fault on the part of registrees. It would seem to be a continuing pattern of behavior that not only makes certain "things" illegal, but also makes it hard to do them legally, which would seem to play poorly when it comes to consitutionally protected rights.
Link Posted: 7/16/2018 2:04:19 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Featureless:
I think taking down the website, as opposed to just turning it off, was premature.
View Quote
They have not taken down the website. People are still logging in and submitting corrections to their pending registrations daily.
Top Top