Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 2/28/2006 3:34:47 PM EDT
Some of the new off list lower AR type rifle owners have grown impatient and in what i think is a short sighted move are heating up AW retoric again. They apparently hope this will make DOJ upodate "the list" while ignoring the likely consequense of new far reaching bans.

Sounds like a good way to get every magazine fed semiautomatic centerfire rifle in cali banned to me.

www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=29416
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 3:59:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 4:00:53 PM EDT by Pthfndr]
What bothers me the most about some people wanting to "stir the pot", is the ones who want to this to go to court so they can say, "watch this......see, 2 minutes is all it takes to convert this SB23 legal rifle into "evil" configuration. So make the AG add them to the list of assault weapons so we can have ALL the evil features".

Yeah, that will impress people with our intelligence

Like you say. Unintended (and undesired) Consequences may be the result.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:07:14 PM EDT
I wonder if, since the federal ban was debated and allowed to expire, the soccer moms gave up on the whole AW issue.

They never were well informed on the finer points of federal and state bans, and maybe they thought the federal ban ended all discussion.

I've got to believe that if anyone was still scared of bullet hose semi automatic machine guns we would have heard squealing by now.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:07:58 PM EDT


They need to relax...
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:14:25 PM EDT
Does it matter if the pot is stirred? Outside of a few doj agents, does anyone care about AW's anymore?
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:21:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Sounds like a good way to get every magazine fed semiautomatic centerfire rifle in cali banned to me.



They would have banned them in 2000 or 1989 if they had the clout to do so. The AWBs (all of them, state & federal) are full of "loopholes" because they are technically stupid laws, based upon the fact that the pols are pushing the restrictions as far as they can get away with--i.e., the boundary conditions are based upon politics, not any rational understanding of the technology.

Now, the pols might use this exercise as propaganda to bolster a comprehensive ban. But pols with future presidental ambitions would likely steer clear. Gun control hasn't been a winner for Democrats lately.

That said, I think I prefer patience over stirring the pot. Makes sense to me to grandfather in as many lowers as possible . . .
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:31:42 PM EDT
I'm one of the ones that's stirring the pot. It's gone on long enough.

Do you think they'll stop gun control agenda if we just "play nice" with Lockyer? Hahahah. Very naive.

The goal is to now force the issue. And any purported "negative effects" would have existed on their own (bad) merits.

Hell, this may draw attention away from REALLY bad stuff like SB357 ammo marking bill.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:33:16 PM EDT
Calguns looks down.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:33:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
What bothers me the most about some people wanting to "stir the pot", is the ones who want to this to go to court so they can say, "watch this......see, 2 minutes is all it takes to convert this SB23 legal rifle into "evil" configuration. So make the AG add them to the list of assault weapons so we can have ALL the evil features".



You're unclear on the process.

If they are named we just want the DOJ memo to disappear. We don't need the extraneous rhetoric you've supplied above. Speed of tweaking is a nonissue, it's an assault weapon by name and there is no differentiation of assault weapons codified in the law.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:34:06 PM EDT
Well, we're only into day one, no way of knowing what the fall out will be.

I think the quickest unintended consequence is somebody being stupid and getting caught with an SB23 rifle made out of an off-list lower. With all the lowers that have poured in, the odds increased.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:35:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 4:38:13 PM EDT by Mesa_Tactical]

Originally Posted By Tonkaman:
I wonder if, since the federal ban was debated and allowed to expire, the soccer moms gave up on the whole AW issue.



No, the Federal ban sunsetted because Congress remembered what happened in 1994 to the people who enacted the law in the first place.


Originally Posted By bwiese:
It's an assault weapon by name and there is no differentiation of assault weapons codified in the law.



Several attorneys posting on Arfcom and Calguns, as well as the attorneys at the DoJ, disagree with you.

Let's all hope you can find an activist judge.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:37:55 PM EDT
I think the bad consequences (for us) will happen whether the pot is stirred or not...
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:47:41 PM EDT
Regardless of speculation to what the effect of the imported lowers will have on CA AW law, it appears that this is going to be a turning point.

For better or worse we can only speculate. I don't see anything happening swiftly. It will be interesting to see what comes of this. It should make for a good test of the DOJ's power over shooting enthusiasts.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:50:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mesa_Tactical:

Originally Posted By Tonkaman:
I wonder if, since the federal ban was debated and allowed to expire, the soccer moms gave up on the whole AW issue.



No, the Federal ban sunsetted because Congress remembered what happened in 1994 to the people who enacted the law in the first place.


Originally Posted By bwiese:
It's an assault weapon by name and there is no differentiation of assault weapons codified in the law.



Several attorneys posting on Arfcom and Calguns, as well as the attorneys at the DoJ, disagree with you.

Let's all hope you can find an activist judge.



It's CA DOJ who needs the activist judge.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:52:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mesa_Tactical:

Originally Posted By bwiese:
It's an assault weapon by name and there is no differentiation of assault weapons codified in the law.



Several attorneys posting on Arfcom and Calguns, as well as the attorneys at the DoJ, disagree with you.



Um, ONE attorney who posts on both boards.

I've also had an extended conversation w/Chuck Michel & assoc. who agree with me, as well as a couple other lurking lawyers on Calguns.



Bill W.
San Jose

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:57:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mesa_Tactical:

Originally Posted By bwiese:
It's an assault weapon by name and there is no differentiation of assault weapons codified in the law.


Several attorneys posting on Arfcom and Calguns, as well as the attorneys at the DoJ, disagree with you.



Who are the several attorneys on these boards, and what is their area of expertise? I've seen a few people disagree with the posted analysis of this, using questionable logic. I haven't yet seen anyone post anything that is even remotely credible counterpoint.

The wording of the law seems clear to me, that although there are several ways to define an assault weapon, they are all ways to define an assault weapon, and not subcategories of assault weapons.

Link Posted: 2/28/2006 5:06:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zapp:

Originally Posted By Mesa_Tactical:

Originally Posted By bwiese:
It's an assault weapon by name and there is no differentiation of assault weapons codified in the law.


Several attorneys posting on Arfcom and Calguns, as well as the attorneys at the DoJ, disagree with you.



Who are the several attorneys on these boards, and what is their area of expertise? I've seen a few people disagree with the posted analysis of this, using questionable logic. I haven't yet seen anyone post anything that is even remotely credible counterpoint.

The wording of the law seems clear to me, that although there are several ways to define an assault weapon, they are all ways to define an assault weapon, and not subcategories of assault weapons.




I agree.

The argument seems to be that AWs with SB23 features had to be registered during the SB23 reg period, but I don't see anywhere in the law where SB23 AWs are in a different class than other CA AWs.

For example, AWs registered under the '89 law did not have to be re-registered under SB23. A Bushmaster XM15 didn't require two seperate registrations to comply with both SB23 and the expansion of the '89 list.

CA DOJ is just having a hissy fit, based upon the memo. Not sure whet the motive of some of the gun board posting lawyers might be . . .
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 5:31:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 5:34:20 PM EDT by Pthfndr]

Originally Posted By bwiese:


Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
What bothers me the most about some people wanting to "stir the pot", is the ones who want to this to go to court so they can say, "watch this......see, 2 minutes is all it takes to convert this SB23 legal rifle into "evil" configuration. So make the AG add them to the list of assault weapons so we can have ALL the evil features".




You're unclear on the process.


I'm as clear on the process as you my friend


If they are named we just want the DOJ memo to disappear.


IF they are named to the list, I think the "memo" will disappear to be replaced by a formal rule which may or may not contain the same language, and if it does it will be determined by the courts.


We don't need the extraneous rhetoric you've supplied above.


The rhetoric is not mine. It has been posted by several people over on Calguns. I take no credit for it, nor do I agree with it.


Speed of tweaking is a nonissue, it's an assault weapon by name and there is no differentiation of assault weapons codified in the law.

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA





I agree there is no differentiation of assault weapons in the law. But a reasonable arguement has been presented that a semi automatic rifle capable of having a detachable magazine cannot by law have certain features added to it after a certain date. That too will most likely be settled by the courts.

Quite honestly, I can see it going either way. There is nothing wrong with people hedging their bet it will go the way gun owners would like to see it go by buying as many unlisted lowers as possible.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 6:10:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Some of the new off list lower AR type rifle owners have grown impatient and in what i think is a short sighted move are heating up AW retoric again. They apparently hope this will make DOJ upodate "the list" while ignoring the likely consequense of new far reaching bans.

Sounds like a good way to get every magazine fed semiautomatic centerfire rifle in cali banned to me.
www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=29416


Good. A big part of me hopes they try to ban every friggin thing out there. Maybe that'll wake up the hunters or other "non-gun nut" people. Maybe it'll help show just how ridiculous this whole thing is. Anything is better than the slow bake we're in now. I mean, for God's sake, we're pretty damn close to having every single casing serial numbered! I'll take some pot stirring over the status quo anyday.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 7:09:18 PM EDT
This was probably a poor idea. We all know that deparment of justice reads this forum and calguns.net. They are going for what it is listed in the memo. They know now that attempts will be made to accelerate the process and will ignore it.

Fixed magazine lowers are going to be a reality, sadly.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 7:16:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 8:03:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:

Originally Posted By bwiese:
I'm one of the ones that's stirring the pot. It's gone on long enough.



Agreed, we ain't got much to lose.



I disagree. If in fact the "far reaching consequences" play out, then we risk losing what we have now, which is a lot more than a few useless pieces of forged aluminum alloy.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 8:42:11 PM EDT
I am just happy to have an ar at all it is an outstanding weppon platform
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 9:19:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FNC80:

Originally Posted By Paul:

Originally Posted By bwiese:
I'm one of the ones that's stirring the pot. It's gone on long enough.



Agreed, we ain't got much to lose.



I disagree. If in fact the "far reaching consequences" play out, then we risk losing what we have now, which is a lot more than a few useless pieces of forged aluminum alloy.



Risk losing what?
I am a California native in my early forties, got into guns in my early thirties, and in the short time that I have been aware of the erosion of our Second Amendent rights, I have seen it gone from bad to worse.
There is nothing to lose at this point in the game. They have incapacitated our magazines, denied us of our American heritage, and harass those who try to abide by the law. The criminals use firearms ilegally and get a slap on the wrist. We abide by the laws, and they make us criminals.
Its time to stir the pot, as there really is nothing to lose.
This is California.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 2:24:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By colossians323:

Originally Posted By FNC80:

Originally Posted By Paul:

Originally Posted By bwiese:
I'm one of the ones that's stirring the pot. It's gone on long enough.



Agreed, we ain't got much to lose.



I disagree. If in fact the "far reaching consequences" play out, then we risk losing what we have now, which is a lot more than a few useless pieces of forged aluminum alloy.



Risk losing what?
I am a California native in my early forties, got into guns in my early thirties, and in the short time that I have been aware of the erosion of our Second Amendent rights, I have seen it gone from bad to worse.
There is nothing to lose at this point in the game. They have incapacitated our magazines, denied us of our American heritage, and harass those who try to abide by the law. The criminals use firearms ilegally and get a slap on the wrist. We abide by the laws, and they make us criminals.
Its time to stir the pot, as there really is nothing to lose.
This is California.



+1
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 6:18:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 6:31:06 AM EDT by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By bwiese:
I'm one of the ones that's stirring the pot. It's gone on long enough.

Do you think they'll stop gun control agenda if we just "play nice" with Lockyer? Hahahah. Very naive.



Nope. But without something to rally around the gun banners are ineffective. Creating a stink about off list lowers gives them something to rally the troops with. There is no positive side to it. Do you think if the LA times starts bitching about off list FABforgeries that it will make DOJ say what the hell, builkd them anyway you want? It will only strengthen their resolve and encourage new legislation.


The goal is to now force the issue.


What you may force is a new ban on all semiautomatic magazine fed centerfire rifles passed under the guise of "closeing the loophole" that allowed the offlist lowers.


And any purported "negative effects" would have existed on their own (bad) merits.


Nope. In cali bans only happen when there is a trigger effect and a focused rally point; AW's, SNS, 50's, ect. There was not the uproar needed to pass a ban on M1A's and Mini-14's. But creating negative publicity on the off list lower loophole may give them the attention they need for a sweeping new ban.


Link Posted: 3/1/2006 6:23:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 6:33:48 AM EDT by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By Mesa_Tactical:
Let's all hope you can find an activist judge.



That would really be a smarter course of action. Colt, Bushmaster, Armalite should be suing for violation of equal protection clause as there is no real difference between their banned products and the legal no name products. If they won the entire ban would be thrown out. If they lost we would have the staus quo.

Instead, the stir the pot approach, may encourage DOJ to ask the legislature for a sweeping new ban, or the status quo. There is no way a media storm is going to make DOJ retract their memo and tell you go ahead and assemble your unlisted lowers as functional AW's.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 6:27:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:

Originally Posted By bwiese:
I'm one of the ones that's stirring the pot. It's gone on long enough.



Agreed, we ain't got much to lose.



Just the M1, M1 Carbine, M1A, Mini-14/30, Camp9/45, BAR, Ruger PC9/40, ect...
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 6:30:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:

Originally Posted By bwiese:
I'm one of the ones that's stirring the pot. It's gone on long enough.



Agreed, we ain't got much to lose.



I would have preferred to allow more receivers into the state before stirring. Then again I don't think the DOJ is going to move too quickly on this either.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 6:54:57 AM EDT
The anti's have been turning the heat up a little at a time in Kali and the frogs don't even know they're in a pot of water. Maybe this will cause them to turn the heat up to fast and those others will see it for what it really is. Remember when they tried to ban all handguns with Prop 15, that caused the demo's to lose the govenors race that year.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 7:32:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By colossians323:
Risk losing what?



1. All the mag-fed rifles that are currently available for commercial purchase.
2. Crippling competitive programs such as NRA highpower.
3. Existing legacy AW's.

To name a few things...




I am a California native in my early forties, got into guns in my early thirties, and in the short time that I have been aware of the erosion of our Second Amendent rights, I have seen it gone from bad to worse.



I think it has gone from good to bad. Remember when you could go to Turners and buy an AKM, HK91, Colt AR15, HK93, Steyr AUG, etc...? With the exception of Class III, there was little difference between CA and NV.

What will make it go from bad to worse is forcing DOJ's hand.


Link Posted: 3/1/2006 7:50:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FNC80:

Originally Posted By colossians323:
Risk losing what?



1. All the mag-fed rifles that are currently available for commercial purchase.
2. Crippling competitive programs such as NRA highpower.
3. Existing legacy AW's.

To name a few things...




I am a California native in my early forties, got into guns in my early thirties, and in the short time that I have been aware of the erosion of our Second Amendent rights, I have seen it gone from bad to worse.




I think it has gone from good to bad. Remember when you could go to Turners and buy an AKM, HK91, Colt AR15, HK93, Steyr AUG, etc...? With the exception of Class III, there was little difference between CA and NV.

What will make it go from bad to worse is forcing DOJ's hand.




I understand where you're coming from but you make it sound like we people should be grateful that our handlers even allow us to do the things you listed.

Thank you sir for allowing us to own any rifles at all...
Thank you sir for letting us keep our legally owned rifles even though we can't pass them on to our kids...
Thank you sir for not serializing all our ammo... yet...

I hope this can be a turning point in California. Even if we lose more guns, somethings has got to wake up the populace. The incremental death march that we've been on is way too painful.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 8:15:34 AM EDT
What everybody needs to do is get out there and exercise your second amendment rights....on craigslist.org!!!
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 8:25:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SC_00_05:
I understand where you're coming from but you make it sound like we people should be grateful that our handlers even allow us to do the things you listed.



If you knew me, you'd know I don't believe that for a second, and the idea of thanking DOJ for the meager rights we have is patronizing.



I hope this can be a turning point in California. Even if we lose more guns, somethings has got to wake up the populace. The incremental death march that we've been on is way too painful.



The problem is that we live in one of the most liberal states in the union. More to the point, Assault Weapons are not high on the priority of even moderate conservatives or the average hunter. To think that this will be a turning point for AW owners is fueled in large part to the flurry of posts on Calguns or Arfcom, but outside of this group, it's safe to assume there is little support for our cause.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 8:41:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 8:42:04 AM EDT by SC_00_05]

Originally Posted By FNC80:

Originally Posted By SC_00_05:
I understand where you're coming from but you make it sound like we people should be grateful that our handlers even allow us to do the things you listed.



If you knew me, you'd know I don't believe that for a second, and the idea of thanking DOJ for the meager rights we have is patronizing.
I apologize if that seemed patronizing. It's just the feel that I got from your post. I'm just so sick and tired of being accepting of and thankful for the right to buy a Mini-14.


I hope this can be a turning point in California. Even if we lose more guns, somethings has got to wake up the populace. The incremental death march that we've been on is way too painful.



The problem is that we live in one of the most liberal states in the union. More to the point, Assault Weapons are not high on the priority of even moderate conservatives or the average hunter. To think that this will be a turning point for AW owners is fueled in large part to the flurry of posts on Calguns or Arfcom, but outside of this group, it's safe to assume there is little support for our cause.

That is why I'm thinking that if there is a far reaching ban on many more guns (all semi auto rifles for example), it'll wake them up. I realize that the vast majority of Californians (and gun owners for that matter) have no opinion one way or the other with off-listed lowers.


Link Posted: 3/1/2006 9:16:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FNC80:
The problem is that we live in one of the most liberal states in the union. More to the point, Assault Weapons are not high on the priority of even moderate conservatives or the average hunter. To think that this will be a turning point for AW owners is fueled in large part to the flurry of posts on Calguns or Arfcom, but outside of this group, it's safe to assume there is little support for our cause.



Probably not much support for unlisted ARs, but if this turns into a ban of Mini14s, Garands, M1 carbines, and the like there will be a lot of push back.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 9:22:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Mesa_Tactical:
Let's all hope you can find an activist judge.



That would really be a smarter course of action. Colt, Bushmaster, Armalite should be suing for violation of equal protection clause as there is no real difference between their banned products and the legal no name products. If they won the entire ban would be thrown out. If they lost we would have the staus quo.



Wouldn't that also have been "stirring the pot"? Couldn't it also lead to a more expansive ban, say on ALL semis with detachable mags?

I do agree, however, that the lawsuit you propose has more weight than individuals "stirring the pot". That is to say, the lawsuit has more potential benifits. But the risks--at least the worst case risks--appear similar. That said, worst case legislation carries risks for the other side. That's the only reason they pushed legislation with clear "loopholes" in the first place.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 9:27:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 9:29:53 AM EDT by DonS]
To what extent does CA DOJ really care about unlisted ARs, and to what extent is this about them avoiding embaressment? What's their motivation?

If it is mainly about face saving, are they more likely to add to the list or drop the whole thing*? What is the political reality of pushing additional gun legislation?

Edited to add: *by drop the whole thing, I mean simply pretend existing law works fine and not bother adding to the list to avoid opening a new reg period for full feature ARs & AKs. I am not convinced the "memo" is anything more than a bluff.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 9:55:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:
if this turns into a ban of Mini14s, Garands, M1 carbines, and the like there will be a lot of push back.



There will be a few more owners affected, but I would hesitate to call it a lot.

Think of your city and the number of residents who own Minis, M1A's, Garands, M1 Carbines, Keltecs, etc...

Now, imagine the number of soccer moms and minivan driving parents worrying about another Columbine happening within their city/town.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 10:03:18 AM EDT
The present course of action has produced ZERO results. One way or another, this whole episode will become a turning point for Gun Owners in Cali. Heck the Off-List AWs has gotten us all to rally around the cause!
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 10:11:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FNC80:
There will be a few more owners affected, but I would hesitate to call it a lot.

Think of your city and the number of residents who own Minis, M1A's, Garands, M1 Carbines, Keltecs, etc...



I think there are quite a few of those things out there, but more to the point, it will drive the point home to even more gun owners. For example, a lot of hispanics are gun owners, and they tend Democrat. This would push some of them over to Republican. Repubs only loose this state by a few %. The Dems could really get themselves in trouble by pushing this.


Originally Posted By FNC80:
Now, imagine the number of soccer moms and minivan driving parents worrying about another Columbine happening within their city/town.



I think they already tapped that contingent for all its worth.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 10:38:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:
For example, a lot of hispanics are gun owners, and they tend Democrat. This would push some of them over to Republican. Repubs only loose this state by a few %. The Dems could really get themselves in trouble by pushing this.



True, it might push some over. However, overcoming cultural conditioning is more than a single issue (ie. gun ownership), especially when faced with higher priority left wing pandering, such as "immigration rights", education, and affirmative action.



I think they already tapped that contingent for all its worth.


Hope so.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 10:46:25 AM EDT
Some of you are seriously confused here.
- The Cal DOJ does NOT have any legislative authority to add any more semi's(mini's,M1's,ect.)
- The Cal DOJ does NOT have any legislative authority to make a new classification of AW's (aka the "memo")
The DOJ only has the authority to enforce the laws enacted by the State Legislation

- The courts do NOT have the legislative authority to add any more semi's
- The courts do NOT have the legislative authority to make a new classification of AW's
The courts only have the authority to interpret the laws enacted by the State Legislation

We California gun owners are very fortunate to have someone like Mr Wiese who understands the process and has been willing to spend the time, effort and money to challenge the DOJ and hold them within their legal parameters.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 10:59:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FNC80:

Originally Posted By DonS:
For example, a lot of hispanics are gun owners, and they tend Democrat. This would push some of them over to Republican. Repubs only loose this state by a few %. The Dems could really get themselves in trouble by pushing this.



True, it might push some over. However, overcoming cultural conditioning is more than a single issue (ie. gun ownership), especially when faced with higher priority left wing pandering, such as "immigration rights", education, and affirmative action.



I agree. My brother-in-law is a raised-in-LA hispanic who doesn't like gun control but a devoted Democrat.

But some Republicans have made inroads with hispanics, and several % switch could be catastrophic for the Dems. I suspect that there are quite a few hispanics who could be convinced to jump the Dem ship, and this issue is just one added decision point. And hispanic opinion isn't uniform on immigration, education, or affirmative action. Specifically with respect to education, the hispanics I know hate the idea of Spanish language education for hispanic kids (although my mother-in-law is convinced it is a white Republican plot to sideline hispanics, so clearly there is some level of tin-foil hat membership going on).

Looking at the bigger picture, how important is gun control for Dems, and how many votes will this issue impact?
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 12:33:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By FNC80:
The problem is that we live in one of the most liberal states in the union. More to the point, Assault Weapons are not high on the priority of even moderate conservatives or the average hunter. To think that this will be a turning point for AW owners is fueled in large part to the flurry of posts on Calguns or Arfcom, but outside of this group, it's safe to assume there is little support for our cause.



Probably not much support for unlisted ARs, but if this turns into a ban of Mini14s, Garands, M1 carbines, and the like there will be a lot of push back.



Not enought. They could ban everything except .22's and .38's and gun enthusiasts still will not have the support to 1. Throw out the politiciuans who voted for the bans, 2. Replace them with gun friendly politicians, 3. get the bans repealed.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 12:37:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:
Some of you are seriously confused here.
- The Cal DOJ does NOT have any legislative authority to add any more semi's(mini's,M1's,ect.)
- The Cal DOJ does NOT have any legislative authority to make a new classification of AW's (aka the "memo")
The DOJ only has the authority to enforce the laws enacted by the State Legislation

- The courts do NOT have the legislative authority to add any more semi's
- The courts do NOT have the legislative authority to make a new classification of AW's
The courts only have the authority to interpret the laws enacted by the State Legislation



And throw out bad legistlation.


We California gun owners are very fortunate to have someone like Mr Wiese who understands the process and has been willing to spend the time, effort and money to challenge the DOJ and hold them within their legal parameters.


Nobody is talking about taking DOJ to court challenging the legality of their policy. thasts a fine idea. The bad idea is writting to the LA times posing as a soccor mom and complaining about off list lowers in an attempt to force DOJ to update the list. Its a bad idea because it may also force the legislature to ban a whole lot more becuase of the new popular support for a new ban.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:07:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 1:12:42 PM EDT by bwiese]
Blasted via a PR wire to several hundred CA newspapers and news/talk radio stations.

Y'all know how to contact me here or at Calguns, so I've blanked out the special contact email/phone# and reserved that for media.

I believe legislators will first tell DOJ to act - that way they can occupy themselves with other torments of the population.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
California AG Bill Lockyer Failed To Update Banned Assault Weapon List For Past Five Years
[/size]



Over 10,000 New AR and AK Rifle Frames in California in Last Two Months


California AG Bill Lockyer has failed to update the “Kasler list” of banned assault weapons for over five years. Over 10,000 unlisted AK and AR “series” firearm frames have been legally purchased in California since mid-December 2005. These are being built into legal, operational firearms differing from banned assault weapons only by model name and the lack of a 99-cent plastic pistol grip.

[/size]

San Jose, CA • March 1, 2006 — California gun owners are taking advantage of the fact that state Attorney General Bill Lockyer – running for state Treasurer in 2006 – has not updated the “Kasler list” of banned AR and AK “series” assault weapons since late 2000. The June 2001 California Supreme Court Harrott decision specifically states that “series” assault weapons must be officially named by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations before they can be banned from further sale (and subject to further regulation through a special registration process).

In just the last 10 weeks over 10,000 frames – called receivers – of unlisted AR and AK series weapons have been legally sold by licensed firearm dealers throughout the state. (State law requires receiver sales to be treated as any other firearm sales: sales must be performed at licensed dealers, with 10-day waiting periods and ID and background checks.) Letters from Lockyer’s Deputy AG, Alison Merrilees, confirm the legality of the sale and possession of these “off-list receivers”.

California gun owners are building these “off-list” AR-type frames into legal, operational rifles that differ from the PC 12276.1 generic definition of assault weapon only by the absence of a 99-cent plastic pistol grip. Other owners have affixed 10-round fixed magazines to these frames so as to avoid conforming with the detachable magazine definition codified in California Code of Regulations section 978.20(a), again not violating the PC 12276.1 generic assault weapons definition. Off-list AK-type receivers can also be legally constructed into non-semiautomatic, manually-cycled rifles by not installing the gas system and by also blocking the barrel’s gas port.

The recent intense interest in these off-list AR & AK receivers developed due to the national popularity of these sport-utility rifle platforms, the 2004 Federal assault weapons ban sunset, and the desire of California gunowners to be able to use these modified rifle platforms in state, while fully configuring these rifles with their standard features whenever they travel outside California.

For more information, please email XXXXXX at XXX@XXX.com or call 408-000-0000.

# # #

[/size]

References:

Harrott v. Kings County CA Supreme Court decision (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 1138, 1155.

Calif. assault weapon laws: ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.htm
Calif. assault weapon regulations: ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/sb23.pdf
Calif. assault weapon list: ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/aw.pdf
Article, AP State & Local Wire,
David Kravets, 6/29/01, Supreme Court Opinion Cripples Assault Weapon Ban
Article, People for American Way,
web article discusses Harrott decision and Justice Janice Rogers Brown:
www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12559
[/size]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:18:30 PM EDT
Well, at least the press release was written in non-technical, no legalese, plain English that can easily be understood by anyone.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:21:40 PM EDT
Somehow I don't think that letting the MSM run with a "Lockyer has allowed 10,000 AW's into CA in the last 2 Months" is a publicity storm WE need. THAT would wake up all the sleeping bitches , err soccer moms err dogs (yeah that's the word) against us. Let sleeping dogs lie.

Although getting such a shitstorm of negative publicity on failing to keep AWs out might not do a Lockyer Governator run much good among the Dem base.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:33:52 PM EDT
Seems like some people are getting agitated that things are not going the way they thought it should go, and is throwing hissy fit.

I hope you are not considering such action, since it is going to backfire on gun owners. People are not that stupid, and if you manage to stir up this controversy, you are not only opening up the gates for judicial showdown, but also for further restriction on certain firearms.

Let's assume that this caused some ruckus in political arena. Do you think antis will rush to list the lowers? They would make a legislative action that would further ban what we have through loophole. Consequently we would lose more than what we have now. You may get your own AW, but it will come at the cost of other future firearm owners.

This looks more like a child ruining his lunch plate because he can't have apple sauce he wanted and instead of finishing rest of the plate, throwing it in trash bin.


THAT would wake up all the sleeping bitches , err soccer moms err dogs (yeah that's the word) against us. Let sleeping dogs lie.

Bingo
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 1:44:25 PM EDT
Many of you guys are sheep.

You think by not doing this this things will get/stay better or at the status quo.

They will not. I talked this over with an attorney about a month or so ago, and he believes more semiauto stuff is in the works anyway, "regardless".

This in fact might be a useful diversion, and may well let the legislators say "see, those guys need to do their jobs".

Bill W.
San Jose
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top