Anyone have Stag lowers and are willing to ship to California?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Anyone have Stag lowers and are willing to ship to California? (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 12/11/2005 6:50:26 PM EDT

Yes, it's (currently) perfectly legal to do so. I'm not looking for people to respond telling me it isn't legal, that they won't do it, that CA sucks, that I should move, etc. If yo are, or know someone who is, an FFL with these receivers in-stock and are willing to ship to CA, please pipe up. For maybe a couple of weeks, Californians can buy them if they have an FFL willing to handle the DROS.

Let me repeat... This is perfectly legal

You will be helping Californians stick their thumb in the AGs eye and get real AR-15s. Once these lowers are added to the Kasler list, DOJ must open a 90 day registration window.

BTW... I already have mine...

I'm just trying to help a few more Californians slip in under the wire here

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:09:56 PM EDT

[#1]

tag

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:15:13 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

You will be helping Californians stick their thumb in the AGs eye and get real AR-15s. Once these lowers are added to the Kasler list, DOJ must open a 90 day registration window.

Okay, let me get this straight - there is a LOOPHOLE, that would allow a NEW brand of AR-15's into the market, with a 90 day registration period?

Then someone needs to start a company and just change brand names a four times a year - they could sell AR's into Kalifornistan all the time!

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:15:31 PM EDT

[#3]

Same issue I hear with the DS Arms lowers too!

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:16:55 PM EDT

[#4]

Sounds like a coordinated buying & registering plan is in order.

Every 90 days, just bring a new brand in and sell the crap out of them for as long as legally allowed.

Got a good state pro-gun group that could run that?

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:21:00 PM EDT

[#5]

I'm already giving everyone that I know "heads up" about this.

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:26:07 PM EDT

[#6]

Explain to me the details on this loophole.

Here are your stripped Stag Arms lowers.

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:28:53 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Once these lowers are added to the Kasler list, DOJ must open a 90 day registration window.

BTW... I already have mine...

Out of curiosity, can you provide a link to letter of the law that spells this out?

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:36:56 PM EDT

[#8]

Wait, what?

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:37:56 PM EDT

[#9]

All Ar-15's of any manufactor were banned as of 2000. There is no loophole because the law states Ar-15 and similar makes.

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:39:15 PM EDT

[#10]

... I love hearing potentially good news - taggage & bumpage

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:44:54 PM EDT

[#11]

20 pages. 3 bans, 7 suspensions. A lock, then unlock, then lock again and trashed.

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:46:22 PM EDT

[#12]

I doubt it will happen but then again the R22 was CA approved.

YOu dont by chance have and ad in SGN for "drop in auto safeties" do you?

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:48:01 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
20 pages. 3 bans, 7 suspensions. A lock, then unlock, then lock again and trashed.

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:48:03 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
20 pages. 3 bans, 7 suspensions. A lock, then unlock, then lock again and trashed.

You're giving it too much credit.

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:48:09 PM EDT

[#15]

this is true. it will be done in 2 weeks as per doj agent.
go to calguns.net check their legal forum
non named ar and ak type recievers are legal to ship into california for unrestricted sale.

with that said PLEASE SOMEONE SHIP 2 EWBANKS AK RECIEVERS TO MY FFL IN CALIFORNIA. I WILL PAY $100 EACH SHIPPED.

[from a SA post] HOOK A N@#A UP

Posted: 12/11/2005 7:55:30 PM EDT

[#16]

Still no hicap mags though!

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:12:43 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
All Ar-15's of any manufactor were banned as of 2000. There is no loophole because the law states Ar-15 and similar makes.

but how do the FAB-10 and the new Bushmaster make it buy there clearly "ar-15's" just with 10 round internal magazins.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:15:24 PM EDT

[#18]

Sounds like BS

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:35:08 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
All Ar-15's of any manufactor were banned as of 2000. There is no loophole because the law states Ar-15 and similar makes.

Wrong. Please go tocalguns. This is apparently for real and some of us are trying to get the word out to as many as possible before the CA DOJ bans the sale of these receivers.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:35:55 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:

You will be helping Californians stick their thumb in the AGs eye and get real AR-15s. Once these lowers are added to the Kasler list, DOJ must open a 90 day registration window.

Okay, let me get this straight - there is a LOOPHOLE, that would allow a NEW brand of AR-15's into the market, with a 90 day registration period?

Only if the "AR15 series" ban has been lifted.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:37:38 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:37:42 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
All Ar-15's of any manufactor were banned as of 2000. There is no loophole because the law states Ar-15 and similar makes.

but how do the FAB-10 and the new Bushmaster make it buy there clearly "ar-15's" just with 10 round internal magazins.

Nope. The fixed 10 round mag makes them so fundamentally different that they are not banned as "AR series" weapons.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:41:19 PM EDT

[#23]

News Alert this just in.........

Californians are going crazy and buying banned guns and having them shipped to there FFL's......

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:41:30 PM EDT

[#24]

If I lived in Cali I would consult a lawyer before I did anything. However, isn't a normal AR15 lower matched to a pump action upper legal?

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:47:16 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
All Ar-15's of any manufactor were banned as of 2000. There is no loophole because the law states Ar-15 and similar makes.

Wrong. Please go tocalguns. This is apparently for real and some of us are trying to get the word out to as many as possible before the CA DOJ bans the sale of these receivers.

I've read all the stuff over there.

"Apparently for real" being the operative expression here. Are there any official DOJ representatives saying (in an official capacity) that this does not violate the CA bad on AR-series weapons?

I'd think it would be really important to get some confirmation from the CA department of justice about the legality of this scheme BEFORE going on the larges AR-forum in the united states and advising people to do something that may very well be a felony in CA.

I'm not saying it is wrong - I'm NOT a lawyer who specializes in this - I'm just saying that it seems to be at odds with the existing understanding that many other people have of the law, and you'd think the the legal departments of Colt, Bushmaster, RRA (and others) who have a huge financial interest in something like this - would have figured this out if it really is as simple as it is described in that thread.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:47:34 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

It was ruled that the guns must be banned by make and model. This link explains it better than I can calgunsOf course this may all fail if the DOJ decides to not put the receivers on the list but people are currently getting these lowers as we speak and have written documentation from the CA DOJ that it is legal.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:48:55 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

It was ruled that the guns must be banned by make and model. This link explains it better than I can calgunsOf course this may all fail if the DOJ decides to not put the receivers on the list but people are currently getting these lowers as we speak and have written documentation from the CA DOJ that it is legal.

So people have posted proof of this written documentation from the DOJ in CA?? That would be pretty sweet.

I didn't see that over there. Sorry - I must have missed it.

Link?

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:50:05 PM EDT

[#28]

And what mags are you going to use with these new guns of yours?

The end result of thise will be several individuals getting arrested and several FFLs getting raided.
CH

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:50:28 PM EDT

[#29]

how about consulting the CALIFORNIA DOJ as was already done. they say for now this is legal though they are working to add stag,fulton,dsa, etc.. to the list. if you want your you better get to taft this week to start dros. i hope someone will have imported ak recievers by that time. i would like a few more.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:50:45 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is the CA DOJ stating that an unspecified AR type receiver is legal for the moment: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260461

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:51:33 PM EDT

[#31]

.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:52:46 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

It was ruled that the guns must be banned by make and model. This link explains it better than I can calgunsOf course this may all fail if the DOJ decides to not put the receivers on the list but people are currently getting these lowers as we speak and have written documentation from the CA DOJ that it is legal.

So people have posted proof of this written documentation from the DOJ in CA?? That would be pretty sweet.

I didn't see that over there. Sorry - I must have missed it.

Link?

Yeah, several people posted scanned copies of documentation from the DOJ. It is really a strange scenario since even if you have the lower, you can't make it into an "AW" until they officially ban it and therefore must open up registration for 90 days. Nothing is for sure unfortunately and if they don't ban it, I'll simply have an expensive paperweight since I don't plan on making a neutered AR.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:53:54 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
And what mags are you going to use with these new guns of yours?

The end result of thise will be several individuals getting arrested and several FFLs getting raided.
CH

Can't speak for all, but some of us have countless mags bought before the ban.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:56:44 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Wouldn't putting a pistol grip on it be illegal?

I beleive I can have a Ruger Mini-14, but I can't replace the original stock with a pistol grip one.

Yes it would be illegal unless it is banned and consequently registered At that point you can put on as many evil features as you like. Since the Mini 14 is not considered an "AW", you can't add any features that would make it one unless you had registered it as an "AW" before the initial ban. Kinda confusing.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:57:01 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is the CA DOJ stating that an unspecified AR type receiver is legal for the moment: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260461

Yeah - the receiver appears to be legal, but you cannot build an AR-15 on it, can you?

As far as I read it, the second you put a pistol grip on your new receiver, you've broken the law. So, sure, you can buy a new AR-15 receiver from one of the new manufacturers, but you cannot build an AR-15 in a pre-CA-ban configuration, so what difference does it make.

Or did I misunderstand the letter?

I'm tired - maybe I'm completely wrong on this - which would be AWESOME for everyone in CA.

Posted: 12/11/2005 8:59:28 PM EDT

[#36]

.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:00:31 PM EDT

[#37]

it will only be awesome if individuals and dealers send the non named recievers into california fast before they are banned again.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:00:58 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is the CA DOJ stating that an unspecified AR type receiver is legal for the moment: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260461

Yeah - the receiver appears to be legal, but you cannot build an AR-15 on it, can you?

As far as I read it, the second you put a pistol grip on your new receiver, you've broken the law. So, sure, you can buy a new AR-15 receiver from one of the new manufacturers, but you cannot build an AR-15 in a pre-CA-ban configuration, so what difference does it make.

Or did I misunderstand the letter?

I'm tired - maybe I'm completely wrong on this - which would be AWESOME for everyone in CA.

The DOJ is planning on banning these very, very soon by adding them by name to the banned list. At that point, they would have to open up a 90 day period where owners could register them. After registering them, you could put any features you want on it since it is forever an "assault weapon". This is all, of course, like trying to think about what your opponent's next move will be in chess. Nobody is positive what will happen.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:02:16 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is the CA DOJ stating that an unspecified AR type receiver is legal for the moment: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260461

Yeah - the receiver appears to be legal, but you cannot build an AR-15 on it, can you?

As far as I read it, the second you put a pistol grip on your new receiver, you've broken the law. So, sure, you can buy a new AR-15 receiver from one of the new manufacturers, but you cannot build an AR-15 in a pre-CA-ban configuration, so what difference does it make.

Or did I misunderstand the letter?

I'm tired - maybe I'm completely wrong on this - which would be AWESOME for everyone in CA.

dk, yes you care correct, but , as receivers, theyre hoping the DOJ will open the window for 90 days to register these as AW's. and when that happens.. it becomes a registered.. AW .... ... if they open it up

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:02:29 PM EDT

[#40]

DK Prof,

I think what the Cali guys are trying to say is that if the DOJ makes them register their new lowers as "assault weapons", then they can put whatever they want on them. They'll have the same status as any other Cali assault weapon.

If the DOJ doesn't require them to be registered, then yes, they can't put a pistol grip on.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:03:20 PM EDT

[#41]

tag

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:03:52 PM EDT

[#42]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=25342

www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=25342

DOJ LETTERS POSTED HERE

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:09:33 PM EDT

[#43]

AK Series Weapons

American Arms
AK-Y 39
AK-F 39
AK-C 47
AK-F 47

Arsenal
SLR (all)
SLG (all)

B-West
AK-47 (all)

Hesse Arms
Model 47 (all)
Wieger STG 940 Rifle

Inter Ordnance - Monroe, NC
RPK
M-97
AK-47 (all)

Kalashnikov USA
Hunter Rifle / Saiga

MAADI CO
AK 47 *
ARM *
MISR (all)
MISTR (all)

Made in China
84S *
AKM *
86S *
AKS *
56 *
AK *
56S *
AK47 *

MARS
Pistol

Mitchell Arms, Inc.
M-90
AK-47 (all)
AK-47 Cal .308 (all)
M-76
RPK

Norinco
86 S *
86 (all)
84 S *
81 S (all)
56 *
RPK Rifle
NHM 90, 90-2, 91 Sport
AK-47 (all)
MAK 90
56 S *
Hunter Rifle

Ohio Ordnance Works (o.o.w.)
ROMAK 991
AK-74

Poly technologies
AKS *
AK47 *

Valmet
Hunter Rifle
76 S

WUM
WUM (all)

* Specifically named in the Robert-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989
and required to be registered by March 31, 1992

AR-15 Series Weapons

American Spirit
USA Model

Armalite
AR 10 (all)
M15 (all)
Golden Eagle

Bushmaster
XM15 (all)

Colt
Law Enforcement (6920)
Match Target (all)
AR-15 (all) *
Sporter (all)

Dalphon
B.F.D.

DPMS
Panther (all)

Eagle Arms
M15 (all)
EA-15 A2 H-BAR
EA-15 E1

Frankford Arsenal
AR-15 (all)

Hesse Arms
HAR 15A2 (all)

Knights
SR-15 (all)
SR-25 (all)
RAS (all)

Les Baer
Ultimate AR (all)

Olympic Arms
AR-15
Car-97
PCR (all)

Ordnance, Inc.
AR-15

Palmetto
SGA (all)

Professional Ordnance, Inc.
Carbon 15 Rifle
Carbon 15 Pistol

PWA
All Models

Rock River Arms,
Standard
Car A2
Standard
Car A4 Flattop
NM A2 -
LE Tactical

Wilson Combat
AR-15

* Specifically named in the Robert-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989
and required to be registered by March 31, 1992

These 84 weapons were banned from future sales. The Kasler v. Lockyer California Supreme Court decision upholds the constitutionality of the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. As a result, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is obligated to enforce the statute with respect to identification of AK and AR-15 series weapons. These assault weapons are listed by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Chapter 12.9, Section 979.11 (11 CCR 979.11)

Any firearm which is a variation, with minor differences, of the AK or AR-15 type (i.e., series weapon), regardless of manufacturer, is an assault weapon under the original Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. These assault weapons are listed by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Chapter 12.9, Section 979.11 (11 CCR 979.11)

An AR lower is an AR lower.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:14:13 PM EDT

[#44]

California court case: Harrott vs. County of Kings

Ruling that simply stating AR/AK series rifles is too vague and that DOJ must specify the rifle by brand in "the list".

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:19:45 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is the CA DOJ stating that an unspecified AR type receiver is legal for the moment: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260461

Yeah - the receiver appears to be legal, but you cannot build an AR-15 on it, can you?

As far as I read it, the second you put a pistol grip on your new receiver, you've broken the law. So, sure, you can buy a new AR-15 receiver from one of the new manufacturers, but you cannot build an AR-15 in a pre-CA-ban configuration, so what difference does it make.

Or did I misunderstand the letter?

I'm tired - maybe I'm completely wrong on this - which would be AWESOME for everyone in CA.

The DOJ is planning on banning these very, very soon by adding them by name to the banned list. At that point, they would have to open up a 90 day period where owners could register them. After registering them, you could put any features you want on it since it is forever an "assault weapon".

Nope you would be manufacturing an assualt weapon in violation of CPC 12280(a)(1). At best you will be able to register and keep the stripped lower, but you will be violating 12280(a)(1) if you assemble it into an AW later.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:22:17 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
California court case: Harrott vs. County of Kings

Ruling that simply stating AR/AK series rifles is too vague and that DOJ must specify the rifle by brand in "the list".

I'm aware of the court case and what it should mean for gun owners in Cali. The reality is the district attorny's have ignored that ruling and are still prosecuting people for violation of the law under the "series" provisions.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:25:21 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is the CA DOJ stating that an unspecified AR type receiver is legal for the moment: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260461

Yeah - the receiver appears to be legal, but you cannot build an AR-15 on it, can you?

As far as I read it, the second you put a pistol grip on your new receiver, you've broken the law. So, sure, you can buy a new AR-15 receiver from one of the new manufacturers, but you cannot build an AR-15 in a pre-CA-ban configuration, so what difference does it make.

Or did I misunderstand the letter?

I'm tired - maybe I'm completely wrong on this - which would be AWESOME for everyone in CA.

The DOJ is planning on banning these very, very soon by adding them by name to the banned list. At that point, they would have to open up a 90 day period where owners could register them. After registering them, you could put any features you want on it since it is forever an "assault weapon".

Nope you would be manufacturing an assualt weapon in violation of CPC 12280(a)(1). At best you will be able to register and keep the stripped lower, but you will be violating 12280(a)(1) if you assemble it into an AW later.

Have you at least gone to the Calguns link? All of these issues have been addressed. I cannot possibly repeat the 38 pages of information. BTW- I appreciate your skepticism, I know I was too before reading through it all

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:27:36 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
California court case: Harrott vs. County of Kings

Ruling that simply stating AR/AK series rifles is too vague and that DOJ must specify the rifle by brand in "the list".

I'm aware of the court case and what it should mean for gun owners in Cali. The reality is the district attorny's have ignored that ruling and are still prosecuting people for violation of the law under the "series" provisions.

Doesn't court ruling = affirmative defense?

I am aware that simply being prosecuted is pretty bad, and costs a lot of money, but making the State Attorney look like an assclown is come compensation...