Looks like the socialist scum is out playing games with it's savages.  Also, since a gun is not on the list, it's not considered a banned gun.

+++++
Ruling Confirms Problems with"Assault Weapons" Law
                        After Ten Months, Police Officer is Cleared of Possessing an "Assault Weapon."

Riverside, California. On Monday, April 30, 2001, a Riverside Superior Court Judge dismissed all criminal charges against Steven O'Connor, a Desert Hot Springs
Police Officer who had been charged with illegally possessing an unregistered "assault weapon." The "Maadi" rifle was in fact not an unregistered "assault weapon"
under California law, but it took ten months and intervention by the California Attorney General's Office for the District Attorney to realize it.

"This case illustrates how complicated California's 'assault weapons' laws are. Even the police and prosecutors don't understand them," said Chuck Michel, O'Connor's
attorney. "The sole reason this case took ten months and thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to resolve is that even the police and the District Attorney's office - the
enforcers of the law - could not distinguish a legal firearm from an illegal 'assault weapon'."

O'Connor, who was featured in a nationally broadcast NRA infomercial about problems with California's firearms laws, was charged with possession of an
unregistered "assault weapon" in June 10, 2000. He was relieved of duty and is still fighting to get his job back. The charge was brought under the 1989 "assault
weapon" law, which lists "assault weapons" by make and model, even though O'Connor's gun was not on the list. Although California's gun control laws are ostensibly
not meant to expose law-abiding citizens to the scrutiny, emotional trauma, and expense that Officer O'Connor has endured over the past ten months, their ill-defined
terms invite misapplication and continue to lead to these types of wrongful prosecutions. Dozens of other Californians have also been unjustly accused. Officer
O'Connor was not the first, and unfortunately will not be the last.

"This is an ideal time to reflect on how 'sensible' it is to pass laws that are so ambiguous and complicated that even those charged with the responsibility of enforcing
the laws cannot properly interpret how to apply them." Officer O'Connor says. "If this could happen to me, a police officer, it could happen to anyone."

Let me guess - this story was on page C-16 of the local PRK newspaper?  Or from an out of state rag?

Time to take this to the California Supreme Court and hope that it still understands what individual rights means.  But I don't hold much hope.[:(!]

[sniper]

Hey, no problem! California will just make the law easy to understand and follow:

"If it's a rifle or pistol, it's illegal to own."

There.  Feel better now?  Any questions?  I didn't think so.

You are also kidding about the California Supreme Court.   What was that decision last year?  Kasler v. Lockyer?   It was obvious halfway through that their little minds were biased from the beginning.  Anyone caring to read it can find it on the www.ca.gov site - I'm pretty sure that's where I got it.

[red][size=4]P.R.K.

Yet most posters here think cops are somehow exempt from these laws....