User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 3:06:37 PM EDT
[#1]
I'd say 3, followed by 1. Pistol grip shotguns, on the other hand, just don't have any real stigma attached them them--they don't look "evil" and plenty of "normal" people keep them around the house for home defense. I see these as among the last weapons to be banned.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 3:08:03 PM EDT
[#2]
Hate to tell you, but the .50 bmg is already on the list to be banned. Most pistol grip shotguns are already banned. The state has been trying to ban concealable "saturday night specials" for awhile now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 3:14:34 PM EDT
[#3]
The .50 ban is already underway. Check out AB2222
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 3:20:27 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Hate to tell you, but the .50 bmg is already on the list to be banned. That would be AB2222, put into play about a week and a half ago. My guess is, that at some point, they will add "chambered in a primarily military caliber including 5.56mm and 7.62mm" as a defining characteristic for an SB23 assault rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 3:26:37 PM EDT
[#5]
[size=5]CHIPMUNK 22[/size=5]
Mainly because the way CA looks at it, a gun owner is a criminal, so banning the "kid" guns, they'd be saving children from a life of crime (in ownership). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 4:34:31 PM EDT
[#6]
One of these days, whenever the KA gun ban lobby gets one of its periodical shots in the arm (as if it ever really relaxes to begin with), the state is going to have to seriously consider the action of just banning all guns, and getting it over with.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 4:47:24 PM EDT
[#7]
It couldn't happen to a nicer state.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 5:01:36 PM EDT
[#8]
The most endangered arms in Californistan are presently:
1. 50 caliber rifles (all types) See [url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2222_bill_20020220_introduced.html[/url] 2. Potato guns ("devices commonly known as") See [url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2513_bill_20020221_introduced.html[/url]. Small, easily concealed handguns were already banned according to a column written recently by Osama Bill Lockyer, which appeared in major newspapers. (He's referring to AB15, which hasn't actually banned anything, but we're humoring him.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 5:05:08 PM EDT
[#9]
4. Any device designed to fire a bullet or assumed to fire a bullet or appears that it may fire a bullet or it appears that it may be able to be converted to fire a bullet or appears that it once fired a bullet or appears that it wants to fire a bullet.z
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 5:17:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: 4. Any device designed to fire a bullet or assumed to fire a bullet or appears that it may fire a bullet or it appears that it may be able to be converted to fire a bullet or appears that it once fired a bullet or appears that it wants to fire a bullet.z Replace "fire" with "fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to move". Replace "bullet" with "bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object". |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 5:37:29 PM EDT
[#11]
After MadMatt's suggestion, it becomes:
4. Any device designed to fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to move a bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object or assumed to fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to move a bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object or appears that it may fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to move a bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object or it appears that it may be able to be converted to fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to move a bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object or appears that it once fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to moved a bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object or appears that it wants to fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to move a bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object.z |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 5:37:36 PM EDT
[#12]
You mean there still ARE guns left in Kalifornistan?! [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 5:44:02 PM EDT
[#13]
This is not a good subject…
Lets put more effort into taking our guns back than thinking about what they are going to take next. But if you ask me, I would way pistols are next. [:(] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 5:55:26 PM EDT
[#14]
Howbout NONE...
Gray Davis isnt going to be Governor next year, Californinas hate him because of his econmic decisions and the power fiasco. Can they get a Veto proof majority in both houses? The presumptive new Governor has a A rating from the NRA. I doubt that he would sign any new anti- gun legislation. That means any new anti gun legislation would have to have a two thirds vote in both houses and I dont think that the Left has that much power even in Cali. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 6:05:55 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: I'm curious what people think. Let's say CA decides, for whatever looney reason, that its current assault weapon ban is just too warm and fuzzy. Maybe Davis wins another term, maybe some idiot goes on a killing spree; obviously the current batch of evil weapons will have to go. Which currently CA-legal guns would be banned, in your opinion? My top three choices: 1. Any rifle in .50 BMG (due to their 4-mile range and ability to take down planes in the air [rolleyes]) 2. Pistol-gripped pump shotguns (because they're death machines designed only for combat [rolleyes]) 3. Small handguns (concealable = evil) I hate to break it to ya, but it would take a small handful of miracles to shoot down anything with a .50 rifle, unless you're in a WWII fighter. As for the 4 mile thing, you're really lucky to hit a very large boulder at 2 miles, if, and only if you're shooting the finest match grade rifle, ammo, and your name happens to be Skip Talbot. The whole .50 ban is smoke and mirrors, with out and out lies thrown in. If .50 is too big, then so is .416 Rigby, .338 Lapua, .458 Cheyenne Tac., etc. Where do you draw the line? The anti gunners draw it at .177, and if it's a registered Crossman airgun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 6:18:24 PM EDT
[#16]
urodoji, please note the "eye-rolling" smiley next to where I say the .50 has a 4-mile range and the ability to shoot down planes.
I'm well aware that it would be pretty much impossible to do either of these things. But thanks nonetheless... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 6:23:06 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Howbout NONE... Gray Davis isnt going to be Governor next year, Californinas hate him because of his econmic decisions and the power fiasco. Can they get a Veto proof majority in both houses? The presumptive new Governor has a A rating from the NRA. I doubt that he would sign any new anti- gun legislation. That means any new anti gun legislation would have to have a two thirds vote in both houses and I dont think that the Left has that much power even in Cali. I'm not quite that confident about getting Davis out. While many moderate and liberal Democrats hate him, they also may hate Simon more. In any case, Davis will be serious liberal special interest group ass kissing mode for the rest of his term, and will probably sign any legislation that is vaugely anti-gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 6:23:48 PM EDT
[#18]
If you non-voters among you let your elected assholes get their way, in a few years (maybe less) a California gun show will consist of a bunch of people gathering in an empty parking lot, passing around photos of all the guns, ammo, knives, and other weapon-related stuff that you USED to own, but either turned in or got confiscated from you.
THIS IS FOR REAL, PEOPLE! If you're not voting pro-gun, it's exactly the same as voting anti-gun! How many letters and/or personal visits have you given to your elected officials lately? If the answer's zero, then you aren't doing your part. Any elected offical who wants to remain in office will vote in line with the vocal majority, even if personally they don't agree. Elections are won by being POPULAR, not by being RIGHT. Get off your asses. Write letters, pay visits, and above all, VOTE FOR YOUR RIGHTS! This rant does not necessarily apply to those who are already doing these good things. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 7:20:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: Howbout NONE... Gray Davis isnt going to be Governor next year, Californinas hate him because of his econmic decisions and the power fiasco. Can they get a Veto proof majority in both houses? The presumptive new Governor has a A rating from the NRA. I doubt that he would sign any new anti- gun legislation. That means any new anti gun legislation would have to have a two thirds vote in both houses and I dont think that the Left has that much power even in Cali. I'm not quite that confident about getting Davis out. While many moderate and liberal Democrats hate him, they also may hate Simon more. In any case, Davis will be serious liberal special interest group ass kissing mode for the rest of his term, and will probably sign any legislation that is vaugely anti-gun. Well the next 7 months are a problem, but remember that kissing up to the wealthy far left can alienate as many people as it attracts. Look at what happend to Gore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 7:22:18 PM EDT
[#20]
one possibility will be all mag fed guns such as the m1a and mini14s.thye get by because of no pistol grip.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 7:58:56 PM EDT
[#21]
Well I’m feeling lucky tonight, and a little contrarian.
On the one hand, I am very optimistic about the political prospects of second amendment supporters in general, probably more so than most members here. Even Bill Clinton and Al Gore have publically admitted that we cost Al his home state of Tenn., which had he won, would have rendered the South Fla. dispute mute. Pres. Gore, anyone? On the other hand, I’m pessimistic about Bill Simon. If I lived in CA. I would have voted for Simon, but without any illusions. I don’t think Simon can carry the state. I think it’s too far gone. That’s not to fault those CA. members who support the second, or are otherwise conservative in nature. It’s just gotten to the point that it will take a major political re-alignment to change things in CA. Such re-alignments generally occur only about once a generation. Don’t get me wrong. Few things would make me happier than a Gov. Simon, leading a revitalized CA. Republican party working hard to attract candidates that could defeat people like Waxman, Boxer, and the unmentionable from San Fran. I just don’t think it’s going to happen in 2002. I predict Davis will win with about 54% of the vote. What really scares me is that he will then think he is “Presidential” material. God help us all. Reasonable people can disagree, so please tell me I’m wrong. I’d really like to be wrong. You can take heart in the fact that I often am. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 7:59:51 PM EDT
[#22]
The reality is that nothing will get better in the PRK as far as gun rights go, until the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses its "collective right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and that won't happen until the U.S. Supreme Court shoves it down their throats.
Republican, Democrat, whatever... it doesn't matter. The anti's will keep chipping away in a state where half the population lives in 3 cities and depends on welfare, paid for by the other poor bastards who actually work for a living. Roberti-Roos (sp?) will need to be overturned before there is any hope... I wonder how large an explosion would be required to set off the San Andreas fault? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 8:00:33 PM EDT
[#23]
My guess is that they will do the following:
(1.) Ban all 50 BMG firearms (2.) Add the FAL, M1A, Mini 14, SKS to the Roberti - Roos Bill (all it takes is action by the Attorney General to do this in CA). (3.) A Ban on Pistol Magazines holding more than 6 rounds. (4.) A Ban on Semi-Automatic Handguns (5.) A Ban on Bolt Action Rifles (which will be labored 'Sniper Rifles'). (6.) A Ban on both Pump Action and Semi-Automatic Shotguns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 9:07:15 PM EDT
[#24]
[bounce] If ya'll haven't guessed they want to ban them all.....that way there won't be any more crime! Man you guys are dense....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 10:59:11 PM EDT
[#25]
I tried writing in June.
[url]www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=29740&page=1[/url] I'm sick of writing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2002 11:49:26 PM EDT
[#26]
There are a few good reps in this state.
[url]http://www.petenelson.com/Photos/Misc/Guns/AB%2035/Letter%20from%20Lynn%20Leach.jpg[/url] SysProg is right. The reason there are so many liberals in office and bad laws right now in San Fran and LA. Someone posted a breakdown of the recent election here last week. For the proposition to allow voters to override term limits, the only counties approving it were SF and LA ([url]http://vote2002.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/mapR045.htm[/url] ). The rest of the state voted no on it. For the republican governor's race, LA voted for Riordan, a few counties near Fresno voted for Jones and the rest were Simon. This state is a lot more conservative than you realize as long you cut SF and LA out of the picture. It's almost like we need an electoral college just for state elections. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 1:05:19 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Well the next 7 months are a problem, but remember that kissing up to the wealthy far left can alienate as many people as it attracts. Look at what happend to Gore. Hell, look what happened to Riordan! He enjoyed a comfortable lead up to a few weeks before the election, then he was seen at a gay and lesbian breakfast about the same time Simon's "I'm a conservative and Ronald Reagan and George Bush are my heroes" ad hit the airways. It was a death knell to Riordan's campaign, which was run by a bunch of political neophytes. Someone more politically savvy would have advised him not to alienate his voter base. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 1:33:39 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Well I’m feeling lucky tonight, and a little contrarian. On the one hand, I am very optimistic about the political prospects of second amendment supporters in general, probably more so than most members here. Even Bill Clinton and Al Gore have publically admitted that we cost Al his home state of Tenn., which had he won, would have rendered the South Fla. dispute mute. Pres. Gore, anyone? On the other hand, I’m pessimistic about Bill Simon. If I lived in CA. I would have voted for Simon, but without any illusions. I don’t think Simon can carry the state. I think it’s too far gone. That’s not to fault those CA. members who support the second, or are otherwise conservative in nature. It’s just gotten to the point that it will take a major political re-alignment to change things in CA. Such re-alignments generally occur only about once a generation. Don’t get me wrong. Few things would make me happier than a Gov. Simon, leading a revitalized CA. Republican party working hard to attract candidates that could defeat people like Waxman, Boxer, and the unmentionable from San Fran. I just don’t think it’s going to happen in 2002. I predict Davis will win with about 54% of the vote. What really scares me is that he will then think he is “Presidential” material. God help us all. Reasonable people can disagree, so please tell me I’m wrong. I’d really like to be wrong. You can take heart in the fact that I often am. Mike Let me put it this way. Davis is the first Democratic governor in 20 years. Califorians have shown that they will vote for a Republican, i.e. Pete Wilson served two terms but was 'term limited' out in 1998. Pete Wilson vetoed the same gun laws that Davis signed the last few years. But Pete Wilson was more moderate than Simon is. That could be a problem. But what I'm hearing over and over again is that people are so pissed off at Davis over his bungling the energy crisis and turning a huge budget surplus into a huge budget deficit, they would vote for ANYONE besides Gray Davis. That could be in our favor. Regarding realignment, the Democrats redrew voting districts after the 2000 census to help their party maintain their lock on power. That's a long term problem for us, but it doesn't help Gray Davis. People tend to look for balance in their politics. They don't want one party to have too much power. That's why off year elections favor the party that's not in power. That could help Republican Bill Simon in November. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 4:26:24 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: After MadMatt's suggestion, it becomes: 4. Any device designed to fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to move a bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object or assumed to fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to move a bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object or appears that it may fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to move a bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object or it appears that it may be able to be converted to fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to move a bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object or appears that it once fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to moved a bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object or appears that it wants to fire, launch, fling, expel or otherwise cause to move a bullet, slug, pellet, shot, projectile, or other object.z or something like this? "Firearm" means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, automatic or semi-automatic rifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectable ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas, vapor or other noxious thing, by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances. It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person. "Weapon" means anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury. The term includes, but is not limited to, all (1) firearms, even though not loaded or lacking a clip or other component to render them immediately operable; (2) components which can be readily assembled into a weapon; (3) gravity knives, switchblade knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos, or other dangerous knives, billies, blackjacks, bludgeons, metal knuckles, sandclubs, slingshots, cesti or similar leather bands studded with metal filings or razor blades imbedded in wood; and (4) stun guns; and any weapon or other device which projects, releases, or emits tear gas or any other substance intended to produce temporary physical discomfort or permanent injury through being vaporized or otherwise dispensed in the air New Jersey Code 2C:39-1, sections (f) and (r). Which basically means I know a few felons who happen to be carrying concealed weapons, but only for a few hours after downing some chile. Also means my dad ought to still be in jail for buying me that unlicensed, unregistered rubber band gun when I was 8. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 12:33:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Greyout Davis's campaign is also being run by amatures. He blew 10 Million on attack ads against Rierdon in the REPBULICAN primary, because he thought that Rierdon- as a professional pol- was his biggest threat.
Oh and supposidly GW himself is going to come out and stump for Simon. Just hope that Simon doesnt have any ex girlfriends in the closet, cause this campaign is going to get NASTY. Or at least Davis's side is going to get nasty. Simon will have to answer Davis's attack ads, but he had better not go negative himself. The NRA however can come to CA and buy attack ads against Davis, independant of Simons campaign. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 2:24:38 PM EDT
[#31]
Fixed-mag SKS, Mini-14/30
Paintball guns, squirt guns, "burp" guns, toy guns, nail guns, heat guns, timing lights, hair dryers, caulking guns, staple guns, pointing your finger and saying "bang", GI Joes, any war-related film/book/computer game....need I continue? It's already begun. I can't find realistic-looking toy guns anymore, and paintball guns are now called paintball "markers". |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2002 5:06:38 PM EDT
[#32]
I say that all kalidiots do the right thing and turn in your guns now. The extent you all will go to preserving the "security of a free state" amounts to nothing but fist waving while drinking overpriced coffee at Starbucks.
Hang your heads in shame. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
