Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 3/2/2006 8:20:47 AM EDT
I can't speak for everybody, but if I was somebody jumping on the lower bandwagon, I'd want mine NOT banned and NOT registered and NOT declared anything at all and with the DOJ NOT having my name except on the DROS. I just want guns and to never have to deal with the DOJ ever in any way. Am I the only one?
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 8:23:07 AM EDT
No. And that's probably how 90%+ of the pre-2000 AW owners feel. At least that's the claimed non-compliance rate that seems to be bandied around regarding the SB23 registratons. I'm guessing the rate is even higher than that.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 8:31:12 AM EDT
You're not alone...
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 8:39:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/2/2006 8:42:15 AM EDT by SC_00_05]
I see what you mean but why not just build up an 80% lower on your own then? Then there would truly be no trail. I think I may go that route in addition to my lowers.

Edit: I think I read that there may be some legal issues with this involving no Harrot protection
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 9:12:47 AM EDT
I have thought all along the smartest course of action for DOJ is to simply do nothing in response to the sales of off list lowers. That way people can only build FABforgeries out of them or risk prosecution and no new AW's are added to the AW registry.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 9:13:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SC_00_05:
I see what you mean but why not just build up an 80% lower on your own then? Then there would truly be no trail. I think I may go that route in addition to my lowers.

Edit: I think I read that there may be some legal issues with this involving no Harrot protection



This gives some insight about building an 80% AR receiver. I still question what it implys with building an 80% AR, but that's current ruling.
calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Articles/letters060220.PDF

I would prefer an updated list that allows us all the bells and whistles.

I still believe the DOJ does not have to (and may not) update the list since SB-23 covers the evil feature issues.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 9:23:19 AM EDT
i registered all of my evil rifles in 2000. i can take them anywhere legal to use them without fear of getting busted. all of the people that did not and did not move them out of state have criminal charges waiting for them. all it takes is a heated argument with some one who knows what you have. if i had some one that lived in another state i would have moved some of my rifles instead of registering all of them but i don't. for those that don't want to be on "the list" well you are already on it bud. i am sure the DROS record is thrown out after 24 hours wink wink. they are never going to go door to door to get our registered assault weapons. the worst they would do is make you move them out of state. i doubt they will ever do that because they already will be gone by 2050 or so when the legal owners are dead. i undertand that some registered their rifles to a corp. or trust but i don't think "they" will let those rifles be transfered to new owners.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 10:49:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By occaar:
i registered all of my evil rifles in 2000.


I used to buy lowers 3 at a time for $79.99 each. I registered most of them. Sold some before the ban took effect, and stored the rest out of state.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 11:10:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chaingun:

Originally Posted By SC_00_05:
I see what you mean but why not just build up an 80% lower on your own then? Then there would truly be no trail. I think I may go that route in addition to my lowers.

Edit: I think I read that there may be some legal issues with this involving no Harrot protection



This gives some insight about building an 80% AR receiver. I still question what it implys with building an 80% AR, but that's current ruling.
calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Articles/letters060220.PDF



I do not think the writer of that DOJ memo thought about some of the issues surrounding Harrott listability.

I think a case could be made that since a homebuilt lower is not listable (i.e., not a series member until listed in CCR 979.11), it could fall back under Kasler ("an AR is an AR is an AR..."). I'm not saying this WILL happen, I'm saying that it could be a reasonable risk at the local DA level even if DOJ doesn't think of it that way.

There's simply no need to do a homebuilt lower when you can get an off-list lower. And there is also ZERO chance that a homebuilt lower would ever 'get listed'.


Bill W.
San Jose CA

Link Posted: 3/2/2006 2:41:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kasudyo:
I can't speak for everybody, but if I was somebody jumping on the lower bandwagon, I'd want mine NOT banned and NOT registered and NOT declared anything at all and with the DOJ NOT having my name except on the DROS. I just want guns and to never have to deal with the DOJ ever in any way. Am I the only one?



It's good to have a registered AR when you want to go out and practice.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 2:52:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By kasudyo:
I can't speak for everybody, but if I was somebody jumping on the lower bandwagon, I'd want mine NOT banned and NOT registered and NOT declared anything at all and with the DOJ NOT having my name except on the DROS. I just want guns and to never have to deal with the DOJ ever in any way. Am I the only one?



It's good to have a registered AR when you want to go out and practice.



Yes, felonies are nice to avoid.

Most folks don't realize it's worse to transport an unreg'd AW than simply to possess it.
Traffic stop = lifetime firearms ban due to felony 12280a bust.

A lawyer told me, though, that most AW busts are due to domestic situations. Any reason emergency personnel can come to your house can be a triggering event.

And I'd bet a bust for an unreg'd AW, in combination w/any address change recorded as part of your driver's license update, could demonstrate illegal AW transport as well.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

Link Posted: 3/2/2006 3:27:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
I have thought all along the smartest course of action for DOJ is to simply do nothing in response to the sales of off list lowers. That way people can only build FABforgeries out of them or risk prosecution and no new AW's are added to the AW registry.



If their goal is simply to harass lawabiding gun owners, that would be correct.

If the goal is to make it difficult for the real bad guys to obtain weapons, then that's a joke response.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 4:13:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
I have thought all along the smartest course of action for DOJ is to simply do nothing in response to the sales of off list lowers. That way people can only build FABforgeries out of them or risk prosecution and no new AW's are added to the AW registry.



If their goal is simply to harass lawabiding gun owners, that would be correct.

If the goal is to make it difficult for the real bad guys to obtain weapons, then that's a joke response.



The sad thing is, there are tons of laws in existance for years prohibiting criminals from having an off-list lower and every other kind of gun. A ton more laws won't make it any more illegal for criminals to have guns. The intent of every new gun law in California is to harass law abiding gun owners.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 8:40:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/2/2006 8:55:14 PM EDT by kasudyo]

Originally Posted By occaar:
for those that don't want to be on "the list" well you are already on it bud. i am sure the DROS record is thrown out after 24 hours wink wink.


Yeah, I'm sure too. I don't feel so bad with the DROS tho, cause every 5th person in this state is gonna have a DROS with their name on it.



they are never going to go door to door to get our registered assault weapons.


Ehhhhh, not everyone believes the same as you. But that doesn't also mean everyone's wearing the foil caps.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 9:08:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 10:55:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/2/2006 10:57:35 PM EDT by operatorerror]
nevermind
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 11:17:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kasudyo:
I can't speak for everybody, but if I was somebody jumping on the lower bandwagon, I'd want mine NOT banned and NOT registered and NOT declared anything at all and with the DOJ NOT having my name except on the DROS. I just want guns and to never have to deal with the DOJ ever in any way. Am I the only one?



Well, yes, there are still some folks that are still "unclear on the concept".

If you really want what you say you want, just go get a FAB10.

The DOJ has your name anyway if you've bought any papered guns.

Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:21:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
I have thought all along the smartest course of action for DOJ is to simply do nothing in response to the sales of off list lowers. That way people can only build FABforgeries out of them or risk prosecution and no new AW's are added to the AW registry.



But that becomes problematic the next time someone is arrested for an unregistered "assault weapon". "Your Honor, the rifle I have is identical to every one of the rifles on this list that the Attorney General has refused to designate as 'assault weapons'."

No, unfortunately, at this point, we're going to see a new "assault weapon" ban. Instead of worrying about a list of "evil" features or models, they'll likely ban all magazine-fed centerfire rifles period. SB23 / Kasler / Herrott is clearly unworkable, but in California that doesn't mean scrap the whole mess. It means the ban just wasn't far-reaching enough.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:59:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 4:01:29 PM EDT by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
I have thought all along the smartest course of action for DOJ is to simply do nothing in response to the sales of off list lowers. That way people can only build FABforgeries out of them or risk prosecution and no new AW's are added to the AW registry.



But that becomes problematic the next time someone is arrested for an unregistered "assault weapon". "Your Honor, the rifle I have is identical to every one of the rifles on this list that the Attorney General has refused to designate as 'assault weapons'."



Its not identical unless its built with a detachable mag and pistol grip. Build it as a FABforgery and your fine. Build it as an AW/SBR/Full auto and you get prosecuted. It's the no work solution for DOJ.


No, unfortunately, at this point, we're going to see a new "assault weapon" ban. Instead of worrying about a list of "evil" features or models, they'll likely ban all magazine-fed centerfire rifles period. SB23 / Kasler / Herrott is clearly unworkable, but in California that doesn't mean scrap the whole mess. It means the ban just wasn't far-reaching enough.


I believe you are 100% correct on that point.

Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:34:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By jnojr:
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
I have thought all along the smartest course of action for DOJ is to simply do nothing in response to the sales of off list lowers. That way people can only build FABforgeries out of them or risk prosecution and no new AW's are added to the AW registry.



But that becomes problematic the next time someone is arrested for an unregistered "assault weapon". "Your Honor, the rifle I have is identical to every one of the rifles on this list that the Attorney General has refused to designate as 'assault weapons'."



Its not identical unless its built with a detachable mag and pistol grip. Build it as a FABforgery and your fine. Build it as an AW/SBR/Full auto and you get prosecuted. It's the no work solution for DOJ.

That's the point, though... take a new lower and build it as it was meant to be built. Get arrested for possession of an "assault weapon". Your defense is that the AG has refused to designate your rifle as an "assault weapon". That opens up the features list to judicial scrutiny... the named list had to be very specific, and here's a rifle that is not on the named list but identical to other rifles that are. The waters get muddied, and nobody really wants that. Well, we think we do... anything other than an outright ban is bliss to us (how sad is that?) But the response to "muddied waters" is a call for new legislation to "fix" the problems.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:40:36 AM EDT

Build it as an AW/SBR/Full auto and you get prosecuted.


Why is it that people on this board are always talking about "...when you get prosecuted"..."going away in cuffs"...."when you get busted"...geez.

A great deal of tinfoil around here.

Mace
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 4:12:32 PM EDT
Hi Mace...


Originally Posted By MaceWindu:

Build it as an AW/SBR/Full auto and you get prosecuted.


Why is it that people on this board are always talking about "...when you get prosecuted"..."going away in cuffs"...."when you get busted"...geez.

A great deal of tinfoil around here.

Mace



Good meeting you at SJ Airport after SHOT Show.

Ordinarily that might be the case. AW violations have been, apparently, treated w/benign neglect, usu a tack-on crime.

But there's extraordinary attention to AW stuff now that we've got all these lowers into CA. I would expect to see quite a few AW busts in the next few months from people that haven't built them properly (didn't read the faq, etc.) and had an open magwell with pistolg grip, etc.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:43:10 PM EDT
Likewise Bill! Good to put a face with the name after all this time.


I would expect to see quite a few AW busts in the next few months from people that haven't built them properly /quote]

Agreed. (2) things are needed. Time and patience...


Mace
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 7:47:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MaceWindu:
Likewise Bill! Good to put a face with the name after all this time.


I would expect to see quite a few AW busts in the next few months from people that haven't built them properly /quote]

Agreed. (2) things are needed. Time and patience...


Mace



Don't forget #3, Reading comprehension skills.

In the last few years I've come to the conclusion that many people just lack the ability to understand something that is in writing.
Top Top