Reply With Quote
thanks
Correct. They were a bunch of other modifications made to work around other bans as well. The bans themselves were quite ridiculous as they mostly involved cosmetic features. Like a forward grip or flash suppressor on my rifle makes it more dangerous.
thanks
I thought the Kasler list was basically closed to adding more to it once AB-2728 was passed.
I'm still here because of my job and the house I bought 3 years ago (finally seeing some market improvement), but I have been considering a move out of state for the last 6 months or so. The gun laws and the way this state is run are driving me nuts.
The legislature will never be satisfied here. The gun community here in CA has compromised enough with all the current restrictions, and now they want to add more. It's like a pissing contest between CA and NY on who can pass the toughest gun restrictions. I have to commend Mark LaRue of LaRue Tactical. As the owner and builder of some of the finest AR's on the market, he recently released a statement saying he is stopping selling and servicing all law enforcement agencies that are in these so called "ban" states. If the civilians can't have them, neither can LEO's. My hat is off to him for taking a stand, even if it hurts his bottom line. I'd like to see more firearm manufacturers and ammo producers do the same. Hit these states where it hurts.
Yeah, you're right. I missed that. Then again, the bunch on the list are still banned to this day.
I think both er and McDonald (especially McDonald) are fairly recent, and that's why some of the tight regulation are still there, but are being actively challenged.
But yeah, if you like special kind of toys, you're probably better off somewhere else.
And it's not just assault weapons, we have strict regulations on handguns as well. I tried to purchase a certain model Sig Sauer, but could not because it had not been drop tested in CA. I was however able to purchase the exact same model with a different finish on it. Makes no ing sense.
Indeed.I think both er and McDonald (especially McDonald) are fairly recent, and that's why some of the tight regulation are still there, but are being actively challenged.
But yeah, if you like special kind of toys, you're probably better off somewhere else.
Honestly, I have only looked at the bullet button bill, but that has nothing about confiscation in its current form. Could you direct me to the one that does?
Not a bill yet but here is what is being proposed in CA.
And leave behind your I don't see anything about confiscation shtick. They're basically forcing the sale of said firearms, unless you want to keep and hope you're not caught. So now these weapons, if kept, would be pointless in the home for self defense. If you were justified in using a firearm in self defense and it happened to fall under the banned list you'd be ed.
remember in the OP when they were 'talking about gun confiscation" in the Feinstein bill? Just stop ting your pants every time any gun control advocate opens his or her mouth pussy.
OK, so far in this video there is absolutely no mention of confiscation or outlawing of existing, now-legal guns. The most I can see is your having to replace magazines for your guns which you will be able to keep.
Yeah, zero talk of confiscation outside of getting guns from the known felons and crazies. Did you even watch the video you posted?
This directly affects me as I live in California you stupid . This isn't some bill that won't make it through congress. This will pass, I don't see how it can't.
My AR's would be illegal, they don't make any with permanently fixed magazines. They also don't make 6 round magazines for my handguns either.
When did I ever bring up confiscation and this proposal? For s sake.
Let me know if you can't decipher the legalese.That's OK, because 6 isn't the limit.They also don't make 6 round magazines for my handguns either.
lol ar15.com forum
Just for reference, the *only* proposed law that didn't include 'grandfathered' language (that is, language that lets gun owners keep their current guns legally) was that Proposition H in San Francisco, which was ruled uncons utional both in the first trial and on appeals by the California Supreme Court.
Someone at the forum TSA lifted that ful post from actually, you know, read the proposed legislation like I started doing.http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/143...ge=8#i38428022I could not find any info or bills about the OP's cliff notes in regard to
"Possession of hollow point bullets and similar assault bullets a felony."
Could not find anything on this topic.
"Possession of more than 500 rounds of ammo a felony."
Only thing I found was talking about having to get background check in order to buy ammunition.
"6 round magazine limit"
Could find nothing on that
"Changing definition of shotgun revolving cylinder -- Basically only single shot shotguns will remain legal"
What I got from the bill is banning of rifled bored shotguns that have a revolving cylinder IE the Judge
"Bullet Buttons will become illegal All AR and AK style rifles that are currently equipped with them will be designated Assault Weapons. Felony to possess"
True but there is a registration period of already bulleted button weapons.
Do your homework next time.
thanks for the info, good to know. Looks like i can put the tinfoil away for a while. That forum moves way to fast for me to keep up.
The steam from the unnecessary grunt is piping out of your pants with with each stride as you walk.
Cops for starters.
Hunters.
Bloods, Crips. Etc.
I think stricter gun regulations help to reduce gun deaths in the long run.
Is there a cut off for you, or should law abiding citizens be able to purchase any type of military style gun that a manufacturer has the ability to make?
troof. please catch up.
how'd that work out a few days ago for the two women delivering newspapers.
"Don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.
That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number.
This is not meant to be an indictment of the police. In fact, because police often live on the edge, they naturally tend to shoot first and ask questions later. Although they are trained to repress this instinct, it does not always work, as evidenced by the number of innocent people killed by police. Also, since they are generally better marksmen, they tend to kill, rather than wound or totally miss their target.
The Kleck study shows that police shoot and kill around 600 criminals each year. Yet the University of Chicago study shows that police killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993. That means that for every two criminals killed by police, one innocent citizen is killed by police. Although I have the greatest respect for the police and how they must respond under pressure, I think that I would much rather trust an armed populace."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions