GUN CA People v. Assault Weapons

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by striker754, Jul 16, 2006.

  1. striker754

    striker754 Chillin

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    16,198
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Around
    Since no one will ever answer this, it needed its own thread.


    What incentive does DOJ have to make your guns AWs? The legislation passed obviously shows they are content with you having 10 rounds and bad features and that they are not content with you having 11 rounds and bad features. Why would they list them and have them be considered AWs?
     
  2. lobstradomus

    lobstradomus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA
    I cant quite make out the point you are trying to make so I'm just going to respond to each question individually.

    They have no incentive, obviously, but it was their job to list them, that was the whole point of Harrott VS County of Kings IMO.

    They are not content with 10 round mags and evil features, those are 2 different issues entirely. A magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is illegal unless you purchased it before 2000. Evil features are a part of Senate Bill 23 which was from 1999 to cover the end of the federal ban since Harrott was still in the SC. Also SB23 applies to centerfire rifles with detachable magazines, the latter part is being used to get around SB23 right now.

    They would list them because really its the only readily apparent option.
     
  3. striker754

    striker754 Chillin

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    16,198
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Around
    My point is:

    The state allows you to have weapons with evil features as long as the mag is attached. They are content with this as they have not banned these. They obviously are not content with you owning evil features with a detachable mag.

    Now what is their incentive to put the ar off list receivers on the list of AWs? Why would they want to create a ton of assault weapons when they are happy with what you have? There has obviously been no laws that REQUIRE them to list them. That doesn't make sense why they would list them.

    And even if they are listed, you cant have hi cap mags for them unless it was there before 2000? :rofl:
     
  4. 67olds442

    67olds442 uhhhh

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    0
    actually I don't think the DOJ is happy with us having them, infact if i remember corectly they released a "memo" saying they aren't legal (the pinned mags that aren't "permanent") I could be wrong but....
     
  5. Sssnake

    Sssnake meh

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    3,469
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Biggest Little City in the World
    because Californians are idiots that worry more about how things look than their function. They also tend to follow their emotions than facts.
     
  6. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    IIRC, in Harrot the DOJ was told it was their duty to list.

    67, disregard any and all memos that the DOJ puts out, if you have followed the situation, you will see that many of their memos dont even have the correct years for court cases, let alone any basis in law.

    as for their incentive, its called CYA. if one murder is traced to the DOJ allowing 'OMGEVILASSAULTWEAPONS' (/liberal media) into the state, then Bill Lockyer can kiss his political career good buy.


    Also, in the end, either they list and we get AWs, or they never list and more and more people get these, making the people that passed RR and SB23 look stupider and stupider.
     
  7. lobstradomus

    lobstradomus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA
    I got your point right after I responded :doh: . However they are not content with fixed 10 round mags. They released a memo stating that the current method of bolting/using loc-tite to fix the mag isnt permanent and leaves the "capacity to accept detachable magazines" or some such nonsense. The problem with that memo is that detachable magazine is defined in the CCR and says nothing about being permanent.

    Their only incentive to list, as I should have said in my other post, is to stop more AR/AK rifles from coming into CA. However they cant do that and make well over 30,000 assault weapons, but they have to look like they are doing something so they are trying to find a way that makes the receiver an assault weapon, but one that cant be built upon.

    Finally, yes no new high cap mags, even if its declared an AW, or even if you weld it to the rifle.
     
  8. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    404 evidence not found.
     
  9. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    not to condone anything illegal, but how many thousands of 'high-cap' magazines do you think have entered the state since 2000? I would bet that it is almost a hundred thousand. After all, you can still order replacement parts online, and its not like you would get searched for them crossing the border. :dunno:
     
  10. lobstradomus

    lobstradomus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA
    Careful there, it should be obvious by now that the DOJ is going to do anything they can to stop this. Remember the first memo that said they would list, but you still had to be SB23 compliant? That was the first clue that they wouldnt simply list. The new memo didnt do much either, they eventually simply said "its up to your DA." However this new idea of changing the CCRs is still very dangerous.
     
  11. lobstradomus

    lobstradomus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA
    I was only responding to his question about the legality of it. I have no doubt that there are many illegal high-cap mags in CA, and it is also true that the DA has to prove that you got the mag after 2000, which would be rather difficult to do if you simply say you threw out the old parts one by one and replaced them until lo and behold its all an all new magazine.
     
  12. striker754

    striker754 Chillin

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    16,198
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Around
    Until there is a law stating that the DOJ must list these receiver on the AW list, I just don't see it happening for you guys...

    If there were mandatory list additions, where would they stop? The AW ban would be useless.
     
  13. WiLL

    WiLL Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Messages:
    9,450
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    bayarea
    I dont get where you are going at. The DOJ doesnt look like they are going to list anymore. By listing they will just allow some of the 30k+ off list lowers in California to be registered as AW. Why would they want to do that?

    However, by listing and getting people to register them as assault weapons...they kinda know EXACTLY where every AW is.
     
  14. striker754

    striker754 Chillin

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    16,198
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Around

    Where I am going at, is that everyone is importing these receivers in false hopes that the DOJ will allow them to be AWs, when in fact the DOJ has no incentive to do this.
     
  15. lobstradomus

    lobstradomus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA
    Not everyone, many are happy having an AR with a fixed 10 round magazine. But yes, most do want them to be listed so that they can unbolt the magazine, or attach the grip or telescoping stock, and they are continuing to buy them because they think that the DOJ doesnt have much choice. As PanzerAce said though, still others are waiting for the media and anti-gun crew to get involved and demand immediate action to stop these weapons from coming into CA and essentially forcing the DOJ into action.
     
  16. striker754

    striker754 Chillin

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    16,198
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Around
    DOJ: "The result of stopping these weapons from entering the country will mean thousands of assault weapons in california."

    Media/Anti Gun: :eek4: Do something about that!

    CA Congress: AR/AK receivers banned from import into CA.


    I predict it goes something like this. I really have immense doubt that they will ever be listed. DOJ will not list them, they will just leave these as fixed mag weapons, and ban future imports with new laws.
     
  17. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    That is EXACTLY what the original AW ban did. It said that AR/AK 'series' weapons/frames were banned for importation. However the courts said that the DOJ had to take responsibility for IDing these, hence the list.

    The problem is that the DOJ can no longer list with out losing in some way or another. Had the listed in December (Hell, even febuary), they could have cut off the flow at around 30k (or about 10k in dec). And AFAIK, only one company had plans to change the name of the receiver to get around the new list that would occur. At this point, if they list, there are 40k+ new AWs in state, and some makers will change the names just to get around it. If they dont list, the probability of the OLL situation hitting the media in a bad way nears 1.
     
  18. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    werd.

    the idiots are the ones trying to take away our guns :squint:
     

Share This Page