Since it is questionable, at best, that the AWB will reincarnate into anything less restrictive than what we presently have ,and the press has given some attention to California's restrictions as a potential model for further denigration of our rights, can anyone post link or reply to what the CA AWB involves?

Was there outright confiscation?

Was there a grandfathering clause for presently owned weapons?

Thanks.

(Edited, as usual, for typos)

The most recent AW ban in Ca. called for registration of the rifles owned by persons in Ca.    Yes, they were grandfathered but only to the persons who owned the rifles if they complied with the registration process.


The rifles cannot be sold within Ca. any further longer after the legislation took effect.    Also banned transfer and purchase of high capacity magazines.


I'm betting that little slut Fineswine is wanting to close what she views as a loophole.   Question is whether the bitch is gonna try to push for the things to be included into the NFA laws or if she will simply allow them to be grandfathered.    However what a total cluster fuck if we had 2 seperate sets of "preban" firearms depending on when the rifles were grandfathered.

uglygun said it all.

Here is a link. THIS LINK DOESN'T WORK

http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislative%20Action&url=http://www.nraila.org

Go to www.nra.org.

Click on "Politics and Legislation"

Then click on "Research"

Click on "State Laws"

Finally, click on "California".

Sorry, my first direct link did not work.

Philip

Just to add my .82 worth.  The department of justice for the state of california required owners to register their AW by Dec 31, 2000. They estimate only 10% did.  I registered four of my AW so I can, without any stress, go and shoot my evil looking rifles at any ranges.  I must and do keep a copy of the letter I received from the dept of justice whenever I go shooting.
If you come from other states, you are just out of luck.  However, their are alot of illegal AW owners, according to the dept of justice. You would be in good company.  They can't prosecute everyone.  state would go bankrupt.  Whoops, they are going bankrupt!!!

Two things to note.  The M1A can be purchased here legally.  It is without flash suppressor and without bayonet lug.  Great shooter.  Also, some firm came up with an AR15 with the ability to load from the top into a permanently attached mag that is legal.

The person before me said it all.  Life sucks in California for gun owners.  They are making criminals out of good law abiding citizens.  

Here's the link to the assault weapons ban from the CA website:

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/dwcl/12275.htm

A similar, but lesser, situation exists here in CT, "The UnConstitutional State".

Since I moved here after 1994, some of my "better" firearms have to be stored out of state with a FFL licensed friend of mine.

Conviction of violation of CT's restrictions carries a mandatory prison sentence. Beyond that, those of us who maintain professional licensure would find said licensure in jeaopardy if such a conviction occured. It's just not worth dicking around with the law with that much on the line, shitty as the law may be.

It was a nasty mess.  All indications are that only around a tenth actually got registered.  They grandfathered with a certain date on a list of specific models.  Model names changed, some characteristics changed and business went on as usual.  Then they got "smart" and banned based on characteristics. (That list is the subject of it's own discussions, so for this we won't go there.)  Example - AR-15s were on the first list.  Sporters weren't.  Now they are both listed.  The only difference is no bayonet lug, yet the bayonet lug isn't a banned characteristic on the final list..  Another one version of the SKS was left off the first list and publicly pronounced as not subject, some time it was annouced as a mistake and should be on the list and since they hadn't been gegistered anybody in possession was now guilty of a felony, please turn yours in with no reimbursement.  I don't know what the final outcome is on that.  I think they got included in a second chance addendum to the registering on characteristics that happened in 99 or 2000.

So we have two separate laws here (addressing rifles only for this note) - a ban on new assault weapons, listing by name or model or variants AND/OR by characteristics.  Basically any centerfire rifle with detachable magazines and one or more of a list of characteristics.  The other law bans high capacity (10+ rounds) feeding devices on centerfire weapons.  SASS was able to get an amendment that made tubular feeds on lever action rifles legal.

For more gory details - http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/sb23indx.htm

Good luck, maybe you can get a "Made in CT" exemption.  

I still wonder why somebody hasn't designed a stock that meets the CA regs for AR-15 lowers.  That seems like it would be better than trying to come up with modified receiver designs

Fortunately, purchasing post-ban firearms isn't an issue here.
Owning non registered pre-bans is.

As sacreligious as it may sound, from my personal standpoint of practicality, a post-ban serves me just as well as a pre-ban. The differences to me are cosmetic and as long as reasonable facsimiles of the original evil features (eg: fake flash hiders) can be installed, I'm happpy.
From a theoretical standpoint;ie:the erosion of our Constirutional Rights, I'm infuriated.

My main concern was the potential for rendering post-bans illegal as well.

Interestingly, the CA AWB of 1999 ONLY COVERS CENTERFIRE RIFLES.

Therefore one in CA can have a detachble mag AR type rifle in .22 WMR or .22 LR or .17 HMR or 9MM Rimfire.

Get the picture?

CRC

AR15s and AK47 clones are not covered under the 1999 legislation, they did a last minute interpretation at the DOJ and decided to add them to the 89 Roberti/Roo's ban by calling them a "series" type firearm and avoided listing the guns by name/model.


If it uses an AR15 receiver, doesn't really matter whether it's a rim fire or not because they are looking at the receiver and whether it accepts a high capacity magazine.    I'm actually surprised the DOJ allowed the FAB-10 thing to be sold in Ca., it's breaking away from their decision to consider the receiver itself the AW.

Ugly,

How can Armscor then sell it's .22 LR AR-15 knockoff rifle and a .22 LR knockoff .22 AK??

CRC

If the little AR15 looking 22lr. thing you describe is the rifle I'm thinking about, it hardly uses a receiver that could be considered an AR15 receiver identical to that of actual AR15s.


"ugly" doesn't even begin to describe the AR15 22lr. that I have in mind.


If these are them, they are a FAR cry from anything remotely related to an AR15.
[url]http://www.armscor.com.ph/armscor/auto_rifle.htm[/url]