Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/1/2006 12:59:54 PM EDT
sd aw law

thread at cal gunscal gun thread

I was hoping to move to san diego some day but wow those are some really fucked up laws.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:02:31 PM EDT
holy crap a shotgun that holds more than 6 rounds is a assault weapon.

I thought SD was full of military???
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:02:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911greg:
sd aw law

thread at cal gunscal gun thread

I was hoping to move to san diego some day but wow those are some really fucked up laws.



It's Kalifornia. Wy does the city matter. Anywhere in CA id F'ed in the A.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:05:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:

Originally Posted By 1911greg:
sd aw law

thread at cal gunscal gun thread

I was hoping to move to san diego some day but wow those are some really fucked up laws.



It's Kalifornia. Wy does the city matter. Anywhere in CA id F'ed in the A.



san diego is probably the nicest city in the country.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:06:19 PM EDT
What ROCK have you been living under?
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:06:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911greg:

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:

Originally Posted By 1911greg:
sd aw law

thread at cal gunscal gun thread

I was hoping to move to san diego some day but wow those are some really fucked up laws.



It's Kalifornia. Wy does the city matter. Anywhere in CA id F'ed in the A.



san diego is probably the nicest city in the country.



you dont travel much, do ya?
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:08:32 PM EDT
Any shotgun or rifle that has a barrel longer than 18 inches and 16 inches respectivly?
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:18:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
What ROCK have you been living under?



m1a's and pump shotguns are legal anywhere else in CA.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:24:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
What ROCK have you been living under?




Pretty much.
If you like freedom, don't move to MD, CA, Ill, NJ, MA, or CT.
Did I forget any?
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:28:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 1:39:52 PM EDT by kc8ard]
I hate San Diego. I went there two christmas's ago and they tried to put me in jail when a bum tried to assault me on the street. Bummie's friends say I assaulted a woman, so bummie/friends charged me with assault because I attempted to have him charged with assault/attempted mugging/etc.... If only I had my ccw, this would have been over really quick......


Edit: spelling/grammar
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:32:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kc8ard:
I hate San Diego. I went there two christmas's ago and they tried to put me in jail when a bum tried to assault me in the street. Bummie's friends say I assaulted a woman, so bummie/friends charged me with assault because I attempted to have him charged with assault/attempted mugging/etc.... If only I had my ccw, this would have been over realy quick I would be in prison in California right now......



Fixed it for ya
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:38:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:

Originally Posted By kc8ard:
I hate San Diego. I went there two christmas's ago and they tried to put me in jail when a bum tried to assault me in the street. Bummie's friends say I assaulted a woman, so bummie/friends charged me with assault because I attempted to have him charged with assault/attempted mugging/etc.... If only I had my ccw, this would have been over realy quick I would be in prison in California right now......



Fixed it for ya




Ha, I guess I meant if I was legally allowed to carry my ccw....
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:39:42 PM EDT
The term “assault weapon,” as used in this Section, shall include:

(1) Any semiautomatic action, center fire rifle or carbine which accepts a
detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty (20) rounds or more,
with a barrel of more than sixteen (16) inches, including but not
limited to the following firearms or their copies: AR 15 semiautomatic
assault rifles, Uzi semiautomatic assault rifles or carbines, Ingram
Mac–10 semiautomatic assault carbines, Ingram Mac–11
semiautomatic assault carbines, Heckler and Koch 93 semiautomatic
assault rifles, Heckler and Koch 91 semiautomatic assault rifles, AK–
47 semiautomatic assault rifles, AKM–47 semiautomatic assault rifles,
all Avtomat Kalashnikov weapons, M1–A semiautomatic assault
rifles, M–14 semiautomatic assault rifles, Thompson semiautomatic
carbines and any other semiautomatic carbines manufactured by Auto
Ordnance;
(2) Any shotgun with a barrel of more than eighteen (18) inches and a
folding stock or magazine capacity of more than six (6) rounds;

So, if an AR has a 16-inch barrel, and a shotgun has an 18-inch barrel, they are NOT assault weapons? OK...


(b) As used in this Section, the term “semiautomatic” means a weapon which
fires a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger and which employs a
magazine.


So, if it's belt-fed, then it's NOT semi-auto??

Ch. Art. Div.
5 3 0 6
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(6-2000)
(c) The term “assault weapon” does not include any of the following:
(1) Any of the above generally and specifically described weapons which
is a “machine gun” as that term is defined by Section 12200 of the
Penal Code of the State of California; any pistol, revolver or other
firearm which is capable of being concealed upon one’s person, as
defined and regulated by the provisions of Sections 12021 and 12025
of the Penal Code of the State of California;
(2) Any of the following: weapons which do not use fixed ammunition,
weapons which were manufactured prior to 1898, manually operated
bolt action weapons, lever action weapons, slide action weapons,
single–shot weapons. multiple–barrel weapons, revolving cylinder
weapons
, semiautomatic weapons which use exclusively Mannlicher–
style clips, semiautomatic weapons manufactured prior to 1954, rim–
fire weapons that employ a tubular magazine;

So a minigun would be OK, then. So would an MP-44 converted to semi. So would a semi Bren.

See?? It's not so bad...
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:42:40 PM EDT
To make it easier for the Chicoms to establish a beachhead?
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:48:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911greg:

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:

Originally Posted By 1911greg:
sd aw law

thread at cal gunscal gun thread

I was hoping to move to san diego some day but wow those are some really fucked up laws.



It's Kalifornia. Wy does the city matter. Anywhere in CA id F'ed in the A.



san diego is probably the nicest city in the country.



Not for guns it isnt.

Lived there for a long time, cool if you need to have a socal address. Too many people, and I dont like to drive 1 1/2 hrs to work each way..
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:00:10 PM EDT
I loved being in San Diego for the very short time I lived there. I refused to give up my guns or to register them though.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:01:16 PM EDT
Weirdness. I live in the city of San Marcos which is part of SD county but outside of SD city, but I grew up within the boundaries of San Diego county. One of my favorite gun shops is within the city of SD (California Police Eqiupment, don't let the name fool you...it ain't just police but they mostly offer products officer buy...hence the name. They offer the best deal in the country on Lake City M193.) and sells plenty of stuff that would qualify as an assault weapon under those rules.


Originally Posted By dsg2003gt:

Originally Posted By 1911greg:

san diego is probably the nicest city in the country.



you dont travel much, do ya?



I've lived here most of my life and had the opportunity to travel the entire country and visit quite a bit of Europe. It is my firm belief that the original Garden of Eden was either in San Diego County or Orange County. T'aint no better place.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:14:03 PM EDT
CA has a preemption law though, right?
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:18:28 PM EDT
I would think the same ruling that buggerd the CA AWB as being "to vague" would apply to that one as well. If the State has to list by name all banned firearms, why wouldn't the city? I guess they could be saying the city is not part of the state and already part of Mexico again.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:21:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
CA has a preemption law though, right?



We are fortunate in that, but it doesn't stop a city from passing a constitutionally illegal law and enforcing said law until the city is taken to court over it.

Yup, that's the fun game our property taxes are going to...
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:21:09 PM EDT
it's like Kalifornia and Illinois are stuck in a retard contest!

IIRC didnt IL just put out some bullshit anti-manufacture laws recently?
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:25:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911greg:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
What ROCK have you been living under?



m1a's and pump shotguns are legal anywhere else in CA.



CA law pre-empts.

And SD is America's finest city. Only those that are demented and/or have never been there think otherwise.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:31:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
What ROCK have you been living under?




Pretty much.
If you like freedom, don't move to MD, CA, Ill, NJ, MA, or CT.
Did I forget any?



Ya forgot NY.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:34:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:

Originally Posted By 1911greg:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
What ROCK have you been living under?



m1a's and pump shotguns are legal anywhere else in CA.



CA law pre-empts.

And SD is America's finest city. Only those that are demented and/or have never been there think otherwise.



I grew up in San Diego. It is over rated and expensive as hell to live there.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:37:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
CA has a preemption law though, right?



Exactly. Who cares what this "law" says? Also, do you know ANY person arrested under this law? Never had a problem at any of the ranges in town, even when shooting with cops.

To answer your question though, it looks like it passed in 1989 - the same time as Robert Roos?
And while SD is for the most part a conservative city, the city council is full of union-backed democrats.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:53:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blue_Dragon:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
What ROCK have you been living under?




Pretty much.
If you like freedom, don't move to MD, CA, Ill, NJ, MA, or CT.
Did I forget any?



Ya forgot NY.



In NY the AWB never went away, except, AFAIK, the part where a lower had to be a complete rifle before the ban date. At least it's not as bad as some of the other states. I'm still looking to get out, though.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:59:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
What ROCK have you been living under?




Pretty much.
If you like freedom, don't move to MD, CA, Ill, NJ, MA, or CT.
Did I forget any?



You forgot the communist Hawaii
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 4:04:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FITTER:
The term “assault weapon,” as used in this Section, shall include:

(1) Any semiautomatic action, center fire rifle or carbine which accepts a
detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty (20) rounds or more,
with a barrel of more than sixteen (16) inches, including but not
limited to the following firearms or their copies: AR 15 semiautomatic
assault rifles, Uzi semiautomatic assault rifles or carbines, Ingram
Mac–10 semiautomatic assault carbines, Ingram Mac–11
semiautomatic assault carbines, Heckler and Koch 93 semiautomatic
assault rifles, Heckler and Koch 91 semiautomatic assault rifles, AK–
47 semiautomatic assault rifles, AKM–47 semiautomatic assault rifles,
all Avtomat Kalashnikov weapons, M1–A semiautomatic assault
rifles, M–14 semiautomatic assault rifles, Thompson semiautomatic
carbines and any other semiautomatic carbines manufactured by Auto
Ordnance;
(2) Any shotgun with a barrel of more than eighteen (18) inches and a
folding stock or magazine capacity of more than six (6) rounds;

So, if an AR has a 16-inch barrel, and a shotgun has an 18-inch barrel, they are NOT assault weapons? OK...


(b) As used in this Section, the term “semiautomatic” means a weapon which
fires a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger and which employs a
magazine.


So, if it's belt-fed, then it's NOT semi-auto??

Ch. Art. Div.
5 3 0 6
San Diego Municipal Code Chapter 5: Public Safety, Morals and Welfare
(6-2000)
(c) The term “assault weapon” does not include any of the following:
(1) Any of the above generally and specifically described weapons which
is a “machine gun” as that term is defined by Section 12200 of the
Penal Code of the State of California; any pistol, revolver or other
firearm which is capable of being concealed upon one’s person, as
defined and regulated by the provisions of Sections 12021 and 12025
of the Penal Code of the State of California;
(2) Any of the following: weapons which do not use fixed ammunition,
weapons which were manufactured prior to 1898, manually operated
bolt action weapons, lever action weapons, slide action weapons,
single–shot weapons. multiple–barrel weapons, revolving cylinder
weapons
, semiautomatic weapons which use exclusively Mannlicher–
style clips, semiautomatic weapons manufactured prior to 1954, rim–
fire weapons that employ a tubular magazine;

So a minigun would be OK, then. So would an MP-44 converted to semi. So would a semi Bren.

See?? It's not so bad...



What are the tolerances on that "more than"? .0001?

Also, are SBRs allowed in Cali?
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 4:21:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 4:21:51 PM EDT by Mauser101]

Originally Posted By TheSneak:

Also, are SBRs allowed in Cali?



Nope. No NFA goodies for us.

SBRs are covered in a law that also covers this strange portion...


Possession of other firearms and related items may be punished as either a misdemeanor or as a felony. This includes, but is not limited to: <snip> (2) any camouflaging firearm container; <snip>


Now, if I'm reading that correctly a wall safe concealed behind a picture that holds a pistol could very well get you brought before the court. Weird. I wonder what the original intent of that portion of the law was. Maybe they were afraid of violin cases.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 4:30:28 PM EDT
SD in the late 80's and early 90's was a beautiful seaside village, filled with friendly, outgoing people. When I left in '02, it was getting very hard to tell just where the border was. It's probably the prettiest shithole in the US, though.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 5:11:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/2/2006 5:12:39 AM EDT by EOD_Guy]

Originally Posted By Mauser101:

Originally Posted By TheSneak:

Also, are SBRs allowed in Cali?



Nope. No NFA goodies for us.

SBRs are covered in a law that also covers this strange portion...


Possession of other firearms and related items may be punished as either a misdemeanor or as a felony. This includes, but is not limited to: <snip> (2) any camouflaging firearm container; <snip>


Now, if I'm reading that correctly a wall safe concealed behind a picture that holds a pistol could very well get you brought before the court. Weird. I wonder what the original intent of that portion of the law was. Maybe they were afraid of violin cases.



No. Read the definition of a camouflaging firearm container in the Penal Code Section 12020(c)(9).

(9) As used in this section, a "camouflaging firearm container" means a container which meets all of the following criteria:
(A) It is designed and intended to enclose a firearm.
(B) It is designed and intended to allow the firing of the enclosed firearm by external controls while the firearm is in the container.
(C) It is not readily recognizable as containing a firearm. "Camouflaging firearm container" does not include any camouflaging covering used while engaged in lawful hunting or while going to or returning from a lawful hunting expedition.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 5:24:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EOD_Guy:

Originally Posted By Mauser101:

Originally Posted By TheSneak:

Also, are SBRs allowed in Cali?



Nope. No NFA goodies for us.

SBRs are covered in a law that also covers this strange portion...


Possession of other firearms and related items may be punished as either a misdemeanor or as a felony. This includes, but is not limited to: <snip> (2) any camouflaging firearm container; <snip>


Now, if I'm reading that correctly a wall safe concealed behind a picture that holds a pistol could very well get you brought before the court. Weird. I wonder what the original intent of that portion of the law was. Maybe they were afraid of violin cases.



No. Read the definition of a camouflaging firearm container in the Penal Code Section 12020(c)(9).

(9) As used in this section, a "camouflaging firearm container" means a container which meets all of the following criteria:
(A) It is designed and intended to enclose a firearm.
(B) It is designed and intended to allow the firing of the enclosed firearm by external controls while the firearm is in the container.
(C) It is not readily recognizable as containing a firearm. "Camouflaging firearm container" does not include any camouflaging covering used while engaged in lawful hunting or while going to or returning from a lawful hunting expedition.



That's already illegal under NFA.

I do get annoyed at states - and, CA is by no means the only one - who want to pass laws on something already covered by another or a Federal law. It creates copmplication and confusion. But, it's the greatest proof that the politicians are grandstanding with feel-good nonsense.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 5:31:56 AM EDT
Doesn't California have a state preemption law? No city or other local govt can enact a law stricter than state law?
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 5:40:05 AM EDT
Spent a month in San Diego a few years back..Perfect Weather, Scenery, Nightlife etc...
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 5:42:46 AM EDT
Interesting ordinance - it doesn't outlaw "assault weapons." It merely allows a police officer to take "temporary custody" of one if necessary "for safety." This is actually more insidious than an outright ban. I know what you're asking - Can't a police officer already take temporary custody of any weapon if necessary "for safety"? Yes, but he has to give it back in a timely manner. This ordinance, however, requires the cops to keep the weapon for at least 48 hours.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 5:52:32 AM EDT
hmmmm...
And for handguns (pistols) they have to be on a list ...

Has Bushmaster or RRA applied to get their AR15 pistol on the list?

Ted...
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 8:55:52 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 9:06:53 AM EDT
IT will be interesting if this is allowed to stand. I don't know if CA has a state pre-emption or not. If it does, then San Diego law will have to be repealed. I'll bet the courts won't want to do that. It's about guns, so the usual rights don't apply; if it were something else, there would be demonstrations in Sacramento already, and some judge already would have granted an injunction.

But, I think the biggest risk is it may follow another course: the antis in Sacramento will try to add this in to the main CA "assault weapon law" to take into account whatever weapons they missed the first time around. It will be a laugh, though a bitter and ironic one, on the smug ones who always say, "See, I have my rifles" when someone criticizes the law, now have to "register".
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 9:29:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rjroberts:
IT will be interesting if this is allowed to stand. I don't know if CA has a state pre-emption or not. If it does, then San Diego law will have to be repealed. I'll bet the courts won't want to do that. It's about guns, so the usual rights don't apply; if it were something else, there would be demonstrations in Sacramento already, and some judge already would have granted an injunction.

But, I think the biggest risk is it may follow another course: the antis in Sacramento will try to add this in to the main CA "assault weapon law" to take into account whatever weapons they missed the first time around. It will be a laugh, though a bitter and ironic one, on the smug ones who always say, "See, I have my rifles" when someone criticizes the law, now have to "register".



It doesn't look like the state preemption applies. State preemption (Government Code Section 53071) concerns regulations relating to the registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms. There is nothing in the San Diego ordnance concerning registration or licensing.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 9:38:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/2/2006 9:42:35 AM EDT by Mauser101]

Originally Posted By phonegunner:
hmmmm...
And for handguns (pistols) they have to be on a list ...

Has Bushmaster or RRA applied to get their AR15 pistol on the list?

Ted...



In California a pistol with a detachable magazine forward of the pistol grip (ala AR and AK pistols) is an assault weapon as well. This is a real pisser for some olympic pistol shooters. It's a pretty stong AW low with few loopholes.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 10:40:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mauser101:

Originally Posted By phonegunner:
hmmmm...
And for handguns (pistols) they have to be on a list ...

Has Bushmaster or RRA applied to get their AR15 pistol on the list?

Ted...



In California a pistol with a detachable magazine forward of the pistol grip (ala AR and AK pistols) is an assault weapon as well. This is a real pisser for some olympic pistol shooters. It's a pretty stong AW low with few loopholes.



There is a whole list of olympic type target pistols that are exempted from the list. See the link.

Roster of Exempted Olympic Competition Pistols
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 10:53:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 1911greg:
sd aw law

thread at cal gunscal gun thread

I was hoping to move to san diego some day but wow those are some really fucked up laws.



Seeing that Kalistan has a firearms pre-emption law wouldn't that ban be unconstitutional, under the same reasons that San Frans handgun ban is also unconstitutional?
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 10:54:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/2/2006 10:55:22 AM EDT by Big_Bear]
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 10:56:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mauser101:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
CA has a preemption law though, right?



We are fortunate in that, but it doesn't stop a city from passing a constitutionally illegal law and enforcing said law until the city is taken to court over it.

Yup, that's the fun game our property taxes are going to...



Perhaps folks need to get off thier asses and ask the NRA/GOA/some state gn rights organisation to file a suit against this crap.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 1:13:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 1:36:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By danno-in-michigan:
Interesting ordinance - it doesn't outlaw "assault weapons." It merely allows a police officer to take "temporary custody" of one if necessary "for safety." This is actually more insidious than an outright ban. I know what you're asking - Can't a police officer already take temporary custody of any weapon if necessary "for safety"? Yes, but he has to give it back in a timely manner. This ordinance, however, requires the cops to keep the weapon for at least 48 hours.





Holy Shitcakes...!!!


Someone who can actually read AND comprehend!


Link Posted: 3/2/2006 1:40:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Big_Bear:
IT'S NOT A BAN!




BB you know it does no good attempting to point out the obvious...



Link Posted: 3/2/2006 1:46:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 2:46:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By EOD_Guy:

Originally Posted By Mauser101:

Originally Posted By phonegunner:
hmmmm...
And for handguns (pistols) they have to be on a list ...

Has Bushmaster or RRA applied to get their AR15 pistol on the list?

Ted...



In California a pistol with a detachable magazine forward of the pistol grip (ala AR and AK pistols) is an assault weapon as well. This is a real pisser for some olympic pistol shooters. It's a pretty stong AW low with few loopholes.



There is a whole list of olympic type target pistols that are exempted from the list. See the link.

Roster of Exempted Olympic Competition Pistols



Thanks EOD_Guy. I was not aware that there were any exemptions. Good to know.


Perhaps folks need to get off thier asses and ask the NRA/GOA/some state gn rights organisation to file a suit against this crap.


AFAIK the San Fran gun ban has already had suit filed. That's the NRA's fight in California at the moment. It seems the NRA focuses all it's power on one suit or issue at a time in each state...which I cannot blame them for doing.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 7:13:49 PM EDT
Top Top