Hey 1010011010, how’s your tinfoil hat fitting lately?
Oh, no, you’re totally right: California is a nanny state that sends agents door-to-door to randomly confiscate peoples’ legally-owned property. It happens all the time. Yep. You can tell because there are no guns on California streets. OH, WAIT.
I am happy that they are taking guns away from *convicted Felons. *If that is what is meant by a “gun grab” I am thankful for the cite!
So, would you like to “step up and defend” these “easy targets”?
LilShieste
Unfortunately, Hostile Dialect, your great state of California has already done this. In order to legally own an “assault rifle” previously, you had to register it with the state. After a number of years CA banned all personal ownership of “assault rifles” and used the registration list to enforce the new law.
IIRC, Johnny L.A., knows of this firsthand.
I have a Colt AR-15 (SP-1). When the ban was enacted I registered it with the DoJ. I also have two clones that I built myself on receivers I bought before the ban. Although they were not on The List (not being called 'AR-15’s) I registered them as well. This allowed me to keep them. Before Clinton signed the AWB I bought a SAR-8 (HK-91). Obviously it was not on The List, as I was able to buy it. Never fired it, but I was thinking about doing something or other to it years later. I was told that I’d have to bring my registration paperwork with it. Ar? 
Seems they’d expanded the ban and neglected to tell anyone. I mean, I’m a bit of a news junkie; and yet I saw nothing. One would thing that being a registered ‘assault weapons’ owner, maybe the state would send me a notice. Nope. Suddenly I found out there was a new ban, and I missed the registration window by a year. I was committing a felony and didn’t even know it! At the very next opportunity I removed the SAR-8 from the state. I can’t tell you the relief I felt when I crossed the Oregon border.
When I lived in L.A. I talked to a lot of ‘people who knew people who didn’t register their banned guns’. From the sound of it, most people didn’t register. I never heard of anyone going door to door collecting them, but ISTR a couple of people being found with disallowed guns when their places were searched for other reasons.
It was specifically targeting a certain variant of SKS rifle. One that falls short of any realistic definition of an “assault rifle” other than by name and that it goes bang.
Individuals had to register them, later on, they had to turn them in without compensation.
Still looking for that Gunshow info by the way HD.
Hm. Maybe I should start a storage service for Californians who want to keep their guns out of state. 
:eek: They took away God-fearing Americans’ AK-47s and AR-15s? Why would they do such a thing?
They sound like classy folks. I’m sure their homes were being searched because they were thinking dangerous thoughts, though, not on suspicion of a…you know…crime.
OTOH, I certainly empathize with your frustration at the process. What California lacks in thought police, it makes up for in red tape. And I can see that it would be difficult for a gun owner to figure out what to do when his kind of gun is banned. Then again, I’m a believer in the Thomas Szasz school of thought that the government has no business regulating what people possess privately. What they buy, sell, and transfer is another game entirely IMO–and if someone owned a gun that could be traced back to an illegal sale, possession of the gun should be evidence of that crime, not a crime in and of itself. But to be frank, I haven’t shed many tears over the assault rifle ban.
Sorry, I missed this post earlier. My understanding is that state and federal laws regulating the sale and transfer of weapons, like background checks, etc., are much more lax for individuals who classify themselves as gun “collectors” rather than gun dealers, that gun shows are swarming with “collectors” who are all mysteriously in a position to be able to sell off their collections when the gun show comes to town, and that enforcement is nil at gun shows. I’m not aware of a specific law which makes filling up your trunk with Glocks more legal at a gunshow than outside of it, no. By “holes in the state gun laws”, I meant enforcement holes, not legislative loopholes.
BTW:
Er, no, they’re launching the campaign against people who have broken the law. People who haven’t broken the law don’t need to wear tinfoil and join the three-ring paranoia circus.
The problem isn’t the red tape, it’s the absurd notion of banning certain types of guns in the first place. This example alone should be enough to show that it really only harms law-abiding gun owners.
:dubious:
So, you think that the government shouldn’t regulate what a person is allowed to possess, but it’s okay to prohibit certain things from being bought, sold, or transferred? How do you justify this seeming contradiction, considering that transferral of ownership is kinda the primary means of obtaining possession?
Neither have I, in the sense that I did not weep for it when it was rightly allowed to die in 2004. It was an absurd and ineffective law that was nonetheless a violation of every American’s rights. Not to mention ill-named - an “assault weapon” is a mythical creature dreamed up by the anti-gun crowd, and an “assault rifle” is a short-barreled selective-fire rifle, the ownership of which had already been strictly regulated by the federal government by the time the 1994 ban on certain semiautomatic weapons came around.
As for defending the felons: I’m up to it. If their crimes were non-violent, they should not be under any firearms disability. Period. If they committed violent crimes, there should be a system in place by which they can have their rights restored if they can show that they no longer pose a threat to others. Period.
They’re launching the campaign against those with “convictions for felonies and violent or firearms-related misdemeanors” “about 1,000 illegal gun owners in Oakland, San Jose, Los Angeles, Redding, Fresno, and other areas throughout California.” “The crackdown is aimed at what authorities say are the most dangerous individuals.”
“There are about 9,000 others listed in the database, which could eventually include as many as 60,000 people, officials said.”
Are you sure? Why don’t you reread the article and try again?
There’s nothing contradictory about it. Under this school of thought (more of a Modified Szasz, really), a minor would not be a criminal for possessing alcohol, but the person who sold it or gave it to them would be. That doesn’t make sense to you?
I’m talking about the California ban, which, now that I think about it, is a ban on fully-automatic weapons, not on assault weapons.
Yeah, my rights are really feelin’ the pain.
There are certain things you can do as an American to lose rights. Joining the military is one of them. Having a child out of wedlock is another. Committing a felony is another, and if we’re going to give rights back to the felons, voting rights and the right to financial aid for college are much higher priorities. The state has a duty to protect its law-abiding citizens from felons, who are much more likely to lead a criminal lifestyle that will put them in a situation where having a gun could result in violence. (I’ll concede that my heart’s not in this particular point. This, on the other hand: )
So you’re saying that the same governments which you don’t trust now to determine who should and shouldn’t have guns, should be entrusted with determining which violent convicts should have guns? Jaco Pastorius’s murderer only got four months in prison despite giving Jaco so much brain damage that he lost an eye and died a slow, painful, conscious death over three months after his family pulled the plug. I do not trust Florida or the federal government to determine whether or not that guy gets to carry a gun. Not a chance in hell.
Look again. (.pdf)
I think that’s a good point. The prohibition should apply to people convicted of violent felonies, such as murder, kidnapping, rape, robbery, arson, burglary, mayhem, or aggravated assault.
If somebody has been convicted of insider trading, what’s the point of taking away their right to own firearms?
Cite?
In fact, this *pdf *cite
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf
Says that assault weapons can be owned if registered.
It comes from here.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs.php#5
“The assault weapon registration period has ended. The DOJ is no longer accepting assault weapon registration forms.”
It comes from here.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/
It’s similar to how the NFA has all sorts of provisions for the registration of newly manufactured or imported NFA arms… but the BATF just doesn’t add anything to the registry anymore.
I think DrDeath was replying to Hostile Dialect and not to me. (Not sure though.)
In any case, so-called ‘assault weapons’ are not banned in California. People can still own them there as long as they registered them before the DoJ stopped accepting registrations. New ones are effectively banned, since they can’t be registered.
They have 90-day registration amnesties on objects newly added to their ban.
What’s really interesting is the way it’s set up to cause a registered object to become unregistered… with no way of re-registering the same gun. The way it reads it sounds like breaking down a rifle drops it below the trip point for being an assault weapon (and thus voids its registry) and reassembly would be the manufacture of a new unregistered assault weapon. Surely it can’t be that if you’ve ever cleaned an assault weapon in California you’ve committed a felony? I’d hate to be a gunsmith in CA. Sucks when removing accessories from a rifle in the wrong order is a felony.
Sorry, but you are misinformed. A gun seller can be a licensed FFL dealer, who when they sell guns must perform background checks and complete form 4473’s. Or a seller is a regular joe with a gun to sell. Per federal law, he need to do nothing special to sell a gun more that if they sold a TV or a washing machine.
You may not like that law, but it is the current law regarding sales between private individuals. There is no Federal status designated as a “collector” that gives one special rights or shields them from any kind of enforcement. There is a CCR license that one my obtain, but that only allows one to order antique guns through the mail.
The gunshow loophole is a falsehood. There is no such thing.
Before I left California, all transfers had to go through a dealer.
