I thought if you have a CA registere Assault Weapon it can only legally be in your house, being transported to a certified range, or on a certified range.

not at all.. if you legally own it, and it is registered with the state of CA.. buisness as usual!  do what ever you want with it.. range, desert, mtns!

Quoted: not at all.. if you legally own it, and it is registered with the state of CA.. buisness as usual!  do what ever you want with it.. range, desert, mtns!

I'm afraid not!  California law does specify where you can possess a so called "assault weapon".  Here is an excerpt from the California Penal Code, Section 12285(c):

(c) A person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a .50 BMG rifle under this section may possess it only under any of the following conditions unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 12286:
(1) At that person's residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with the owner's express permission.
(2) While on the premises of a target range of a public or private club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets.
(3) While on a target range that holds a regulatory or business license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range.
(4) While on the premises of a shooting club which is licensed pursuant to the Fish and Game Code.
(5) While attending any exhibition, display, or educational project which is about firearms and which is sponsored by, conducted under the auspices of, or approved by a law enforcement agency or a nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or promotes education about, firearms.
(6) While on publicly owned land if the possession and use of a firearm described in Section 12276,12276.1, or 12278, is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land.
(7) While transporting the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle between any of the places mentioned in this subdivision, or to any licensed gun dealer, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12290, for servicing or repair pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 12290, if the assault weapon is transported as required by Section 12026.1.

What you said above is pretty much the same for any firearm...so false.

The BLM has specifically permitted the use of any legal firearm on BLM land.

Quoted: Quoted: not at all.. if you legally own it, and it is registered with the state of CA.. buisness as usual!  do what ever you want with it.. range, desert, mtns! I'm afraid not!  California law does specify where you can possess a so called "assault weapon".  Here is an excerpt from the California Penal Code, Section 12285(c): (c) A person who has registered an assault weapon or registered a .50 BMG rifle under this section may possess it only under any of the following conditions unless a permit allowing additional uses is first obtained under Section 12286: (1) At that person's residence, place of business, or other property owned by that person, or on property owned by another with the owner's express permission. (2) While on the premises of a target range of a public or private club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets. (3) While on a target range that holds a regulatory or business license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range. (4) While on the premises of a shooting club which is licensed pursuant to the Fish and Game Code. (5) While attending any exhibition, display, or educational project which is about firearms and which is sponsored by, conducted under the auspices of, or approved by a law enforcement agency or a nationally or state recognized entity that fosters proficiency in, or promotes education about, firearms. (6) While on publicly owned land if the possession and use of a firearm described in Section 12276,12276.1, or 12278, is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land. (7) While transporting the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle between any of the places mentioned in this subdivision, or to any licensed gun dealer, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12290, for servicing or repair pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 12290, if the assault weapon is transported as required by Section 12026.1.

Yes, that's the passage I remember reading.

Quoted: The BLM has specifically permitted the use of any legal firearm on BLM land.

That doesn't appear to be good enough as far as California is concerned.  The penal code states that "the possession and use of a firearm described in Section 12276,12276.1, or 12278" must be specifically approved.  That means that BLM must specifically allow the use of "assault weapons" (Sections 12276 and 12276.1) and/or .50 BMG rifles (Section 12278).  "Any legal firearm" is not sufficient.

I have no idea how this permission must be communicated to the public.

Quoted: Quoted: The BLM has specifically permitted the use of any legal firearm on BLM land. That doesn't appear to be good enough as far as California is concerned.  The penal code states that "the possession and use of a firearm described in Section 12276,12276.1, or 12278" must be specifically approved.  That means that BLM must specifically allow the use of "assault weapons" (Sections 12276 and 12276.1) and/or .50 BMG rifles (Section 12278).  "Any legal firearm" is not sufficient. I have no idea how this permission must be communicated to the public.

Unfortunately the BLM website for California has been down for quite some time now but they did specifically state at one time that you could shoot "Assault weapons" as long as they were legally registered and possessed on BLM land that allowed shooting. Not all BLM land allows shooting and some areas have been closed down for shooting due to high fire danger. I remember reading this on their website within the last few years after reading a post here on ARFCOM about how BLM had changed their position from their previous, which was banning AW on BLM land.

The BLM does allow "registered assault weapons" on all of its land in the state of california.  The normal rules apply, ie: no shooting within 100 yrd of improved campsites, no shooting off roadways or from moving vehicles etc.  When the BLM california reading room website is up, you can view the memo and print it out from .pdf.  I carry a copy with me when Im on BLM land in central california (Clear Creek Management Area) but have never had any LE contact... even after lighting off huge tannerite shots and multiple rapid fire sessions with about 12 guys.. sounds like downtown ragdad every time we go.  

Since the site is down, you can view an html cached copy of the memo here compliments of google:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:GRUMiIOctxkJ:https://doi1.ios.doi.gov/cdirectives.nsf/0/180c6147510e288588256d640057f876/%24FILE/CAIM2003-049.pdf+BLM+California+Policy+on+Assault+Weapons+&hl=en&start=3

This is the latest memo regarding the use of "assault" weapons on BLM property.  I'll post the full text of the letter in another post.  As always, if challenged by LE on any BLM property, cooperation and common sense is your friend.  The last thing these guys want to do is get into confrontations in the middle of nowhere.  

Here's the text from the memo:

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT California State Office 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W1834 Sacramento, CA 95825www.ca.blm.gov July 15, 2003 In Reply Refer To: 9260 (CA-913) P EMS TRANSMISSION: 07/15/03 Instruction Memorandum No. CA-2003-049To: All Field Offices From:State Director Subject: State Policy on Use and Possession of Assault Weapons The State of California has in recent years issued amendments to the 1989 California Assault Weapons law, and in 2000 changed the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include specific items instead of make and model. As a result of these changes, this office has received requests to address the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) current policy regarding the use and possession of these weapons on BLM-administered public lands. In 1989, the State of California enacted legislation restricting the possession and use of firearms defined as assault weapons. The Governor approved this legislation, titled the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, on May 24, 1989. It was coded into the California Penal Code and became effective January 1, 1990. This law places restrictions on the use and possession of assault weapons in the State of California. Among other things, the law requires that persons owning a firearm defined as an assault weapon, must register it with the California Department of Justice before January 1, 1991. The law also places conditions on uses of legallyregistered assault weapons, including the following:Chapter 2.3, 12285, (c) (6) “While on publicly owned land if the possession and use of a firearm described in Section 12276 or 12276.1 is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land.” In accordance with this provision, BLM-California’s policy for the use of assault weapons is: Persons have the permission of the BLM to possess and use firearms, including lawfullyregistered assault weapons, on BLM-administered public lands except when prohibited by other applicable laws and regulations. This policy is consistent with the U.S. Forest Service’s policy for Region 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
Our responsibility for public safety, property, and resource protection can be met using Federal laws and regulations. BLM Law Enforcement Officers should continue to enforce appropriate Federal laws and regulations related to the use and possession of firearms as needed. Questions related to this subject should be directed to the Acting Special Agent-in-Charge, Ross Butler, at (916) 978-4450. SignedAuthenticated Mike PoolLouise TichyState DirectorRecords Management

Great!  It seems that there is no problem on BLM land.

Quoted: Quoted: Great!  It seems that there is no problem on BLM land. Nope. I spent some time chatting with the rangers at the Moreno Valley station and they were more than happy to have me and the guys I shoot with back on the lands.

I thought I was indicating that it was ok on BLM land.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Great!  It seems that there is no problem on BLM land. Nope. I spent some time chatting with the rangers at the Moreno Valley station and they were more than happy to have me and the guys I shoot with back on the lands. I thought I was indicating that it was ok on BLM land.

I think he meant Nope = no, there is no problem on BLM.

Darn Navy guys can't put a coherent sentence together

If you use BLM land to shoot, and I have for the past 15 yrs. make sure you take only PRK neutered arms, or have your un-pc  firearm registered and on file with the CA-DOJ.  Even if you are LEO, and do not have your Ar registered  for example, the best you can hope for is confiscation of said firearm.  - In my dealings with SOME blm officals, they do not care if you have a state or local badge.

Double plus good! I will sleep well tonoght!

This is great news!

How about use of registered AW's on Nation Forest land? (or is that the same as BLM?)

Quoted: If you use BLM land to shoot, and I have for the past 15 yrs. make sure you take only PRK neutered arms, or have your un-pc  firearm registered and on file with the CA-DOJ.  Even if you are LEO, and do not have your Ar registerd  for example, the best you can hope for is confication of said firearm.  - In my dealings with SOME blm officals, they do not care if you have a state or local badge.

They were the same way and they should be with my Dad about 20 years ago.  Just because you have a badge does not mean you should expect special treatment.  Any of the BLM folks I've run into were always willing to give a warning and directions to authorized areas.  And around here you'll earn the instant enmity of the JBT bashers who even catch a hint of implication that the laws shouldn't apply to you.  A word to the wise all asking for favors does is taint you in the eyes of those that are willing to paint you negatively anyway.  Now, just so you don't think I am a gratuitous basher, both my Grandfather and Father were LEO, on Ma Danby's side her Greandfather was LEO, Uncle LEO brother and cousin are LEO.  And I had military LE experience.  Nothing pissed my Dad off more than to have someone ask to get off of something because they had a badge.  Now if something was good for a warning (wrongside of the county ordinance line on BLM land, couple of mph high, wobbler on BAC,) fine.  But to expect release from egregious violation was bad police ethics.  

BTW if you have an unregistered AW is it really yours? or your Departments?  and if your departments, shouldn't you really have a letter indicating you are authorized to have it in non-duty situations?  You have opened an interesting honeypot , and I am more than happy to give it a stir.

Please explain why you should get treatment that any other person would get???

Quoted: This is great news! How about use of registered AW's on Nation Forest land? (or is that the same as BLM?)

No it's not the same, and that could get you some nasty surprises.  The USFS is part of the Department of Agriculture, back from the days when exploiting the forests was considered a good thing.  BLM is part of the Department of the Interior as is the Park Service.  The Park Service now is pretty much anti-gun (not totally).  BLM is nominally charged with exploiting the land but most BLM land is non-exploitable except for mining and mineral extraction, and in some areas has moved into a protectionist mode.

As far as I know only the BLM Manager for CA has ok's registered AW's on BLM land.  There has been no similar blanket declaration for any of the National Forests here.  They are allowed at various ranges concessioned by the USFS, I don't know if all allow them.

This is definitely an area you need to get smart on from good sources, don't rely on hearsay you may get here.

Calm down man - I was just relaying a story one of the boys  told me at a training session awhile back.  Not to mention the fact that not even leo's will get a break (known as professional courtesy) if you do not follow the rules with these guys.

Quoted: Calm down man - I was just relaying a story one of the boys  told me at a training session awhile back.  Not to mention the fact that not even leo's will get a brake (known as professional courtesy) if you do not follow the rules with these guys.

Expecting and getting "Professional Courtesy"  led to the traffic death of a friend of mine.  If you were in fact a professional you wouldn't need "Professional Courtesy."  My Dad used to include spelling in his  Intro to CJ and similar classes at CalState LA and PCC.  It looks like they need to start doing that again.

The point you apparently missed and will likely find out in a far more distasteful way on the GD is that LEOs that imply they should get special treatment because they are LEOS  are underappreciated around here.  For some unknown reason, most of the people here expect their LEOs to obey the same laws they have to obey.  Then we have the others who you will never convince that you aren't an illiterate JBT who doesn't have to obey the laws.  Guess which kind of reaction you are going to get if you imply speciality?.

Learn the laws for where you are and obey the laws where you are.  Don't expect special treatment around here because you are a Vet, or LEO or both, around here that's pretty common.  

Why you are be'n a hard ass about a particular story I've heard I don't know - I never said I expect special treatment - Perhaps you miss my point -  since the particular BLM agent  would not give the leo in my story a break, ie- "You can't have that here,- next time We'll confiscate it"  ( that would be professional courtesy),  Citizen Joe will likely not get a break either. So- it is not worth the risk to take an unregistered (aw)  firearm onto BLM land in the PRK.

 In case you are even moderately interested, I've been an NRA life member for 5 yrs. a yearly member for the 15 before that, a recreational target shooter and collector since the age of  16, and a  general gun-nut  since before I could ride a bicycle.  Not exactly the resume` of a  "ban them all  -  except for me  - jack boot".  

As for spelling and typing, I did end up with alot of extra PT for shortfalls in this area, and have learned to praise spell check as a gift from the gods!--

hit submit twice -- my bad!

We've gotten a little off-track here.  The original question was where you could possess AWs.  If you are driving around with them in your car/SUV/truck/APC, then you will have the burden of proving that you were going to or from the range.  This would be kind of hard to do at 10:30 p.m., after you've just come out of a tavern or a movie.

If you are headed out to shoot on BLM land, you'd better not be stopping at the dry cleaners on the way, since the "to" and "from" part of this is strictly interpreted.  My read of the law is that the Legislature was thinking in terms of regular shooting ranges, not public lands.  My belief is that the AG's Office, headed by Bill Lockyer (no friend of gun owners), would give the law a very narrow reading.

Long gone are the days when we could drive around on a normal day with our CARs in the trunk "just in case" the SHTF.  Now all that I have is my 870.

3rd paragraph. This policy IS still in effect in the El Dorado National forest.

Sorry about the size.

Quoted: hit submit twice -- my bad!

 Just trying to warn yah the GD guys can be a really nasty bunch, trying to warm yah up a bit.  They really get hyper.  In fact they have a high quotient of mouth breathers that can't stand being told "No" for any reason.

It's a sore point with me.  What with the death and catching shit all the time growing up because I "got breaks".  Umm No I didn't.  in fact , the "professional courtesy" would have been a direct phone call to my Dad.  (He taught Intro courses at the local State College and Community College and a variety of POST and similar classes), so he was pretty much known to most of the local Departments.  He also taught in the car driver training at my High School.     IF I had ever got in trouble, being treated like an anonymous kid would have been far preferable.

I must admit I tried to use "PC" once.  Joined the Navy to see the world and I ended up on a ship in the yards in Long Beach.  One of my guys was AWOL and left a message that he was being held by a local PD for DUI but he was trying to talk his way out.  Hadn't been booked yet.  Well I'ld know the Ass't Chief since before I was born so to speak.  He had been on my Dad'd Department.  So I gave my Dad a call to see if he could make a few calls and to see if it would be worth me calling his friend.  Could I spring my troop from the jaws of the local poh-lease.?  (He had been the XO of a segregated Army Ambulance Company in Camp Shelby, LA and getting his troops out of the hands of the police was one of his duties then so I knew he looked favorably on the concept.)  Turns out my sailor had not been arrested anywhere in SoCal.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Great!  It seems that there is no problem on BLM land. Nope. I spent some time chatting with the rangers at the Moreno Valley station and they were more than happy to have me and the guys I shoot with back on the lands. I thought I was indicating that it was ok on BLM land. I think he meant Nope = no, there is no problem on BLM. Darn Navy guys can't put a coherent sentence together

Wait a second, what about this one? and I said it first

The BLM has specifically permitted the use of any legal firearm on BLM land.

Properly registered AWs are a subset of "any legal firearm".

VR

PD,
Duty Old Fart

Quoted: Wait a second, what about this one? and I said it first The BLM has specifically permitted the use of any legal firearm on BLM land. Properly registered AWs are a subset of "any legal firearm". VR PD, Duty Old Fart

Like I said before, that statement, in itself is not sufficient.  The California Penal Code say that "assault weapons" must specifically be authorized.  BLM appears to have done so.