Quoted: Would it be so wrong if I prayed to have God rain dead horses down on the heads of every politician in Kalifornia?

More effective than the mental masturbation and insipid customary commentary that can be expected from most of the out of staters that will post on this thread.

Quoted: Any support we can get is appreciated. Any ant burners can sit back and mock us while the infectious California lust to ban firearms slowly creeps into their state.

Y'all keep saying that as if you hope it happens, yet it seems to be going the other direction in 80 percent of the states.

Actually, if you guys can't do anything about it, what can an out-of-stater do?  That's a serious question, what can we who do not live there do?

Quoted: You know what would be fuckin' AWESOME?!?!? Is if California had a HUGE earthquake, and was seperated from the rest of the U.S., and we can just tell them they're on their own, and they start their own little Gay Rights & Anti-2nd Amendment CUNTry. Problems solved.

Man, these threads always bring out people with the dumbest fucking opinions I've ever heard.

Quoted: Quoted: Any support we can get is appreciated. Any ant burners can sit back and mock us while the infectious California lust to ban firearms slowly creeps into their state. Y'all keep saying that as if you hope it happens, yet it seems to be going the other direction in 80 percent of the states. Actually, if you guys can't do anything about it, what can an out-of-stater do?  That's a serious question, what can we who do not live there do?

Mostly out of staters can show support by writing letters to the legislators, or in this case, to the agent in charge of this hearing. It's a little late at this point, but they tried this same thing back in 2000. The limited public support we had back then was able to get them to change their minds to the current definition. Now that we have the internet and are able to gather support and spread out information a lot easier than before, it should be easier to gain an overwhelming amount of public support.

ETA: And no, I don't hope legislation like California's gun laws spread out to the other states, however there is a trend where stuid whacko shit like this that begins in California, usually filters down to the other states, albiet slowly and with more resistance. I'd like to think that some ARFCOMers have the foresight to fight the battle before it's at their doorstep.

"First they came for the Californian guns, but I wasn't a Californian so I did nothing."

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is why we can never accept an AW ban. Once they get it, they can start creeping up on the definitions. May be another road trip in the near future to My dads house. I'm not ant burning, But Damn, Im even a member of California Rifle and Pistol Assn. what the hell is it going to take for you Kaliban Subjects to understand dropping a few Emails and phone calls does not do a damn thing?... You all need to start ( and I know that is hard in a logistical standpoint) showing up in person, in numbers to these hearings... When is it going to be the time to put an end to this shit? When you have a state as big as ours with the type of urban sprawl we have, 1 hearing in Sacramento isn't going to have a big turnout. Making a 1200 mile round trip for a meeting just isn't practical. And the State DOJ realizes that.

I guarantee they have a contingency plan if there is a turnout.  A case of flu for the main parties, perhaps?  Postpone for two weeks?

Quoted: Quoted: how far are they willing to stretch the meaning of magazine. technically, i can detach the magazine on my shotgun. not very practical, but maybe something to think about. Someone from CA should probably chime it... I am not sure... but I think "detachable" is defined as being able to detach without field stripping the weapon or accomplished without tools.

That's why the new law.  An FAL could easily be made CA legal under the old law.  One of tha major manufacturers in that segment, either Entreprise of DSA, IIRC, came up with a nice setup.  The mag. release was removed and replaced with a screw, washers and a nut, needing tools to remove.  A top cover accepting stripper clips, and the system is fine.  Not even as big a pain as the FAB.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Any support we can get is appreciated. Any ant burners can sit back and mock us while the infectious California lust to ban firearms slowly creeps into their state. Y'all keep saying that as if you hope it happens, yet it seems to be going the other direction in 80 percent of the states. Actually, if you guys can't do anything about it, what can an out-of-stater do?  That's a serious question, what can we who do not live there do? Mostly out of staters can show support by writing letters to the legislators, or in this case, to the agent in charge of this hearing. It's a little late at this point, but they tried this same thing back in 2000. The limited public support we had back then was able to get them to change their minds to the current definition. Now that we have the internet and are able to gather support and spread out information a lot easier than before, it should be easier to gain an overwhelming amount of public support. ETA: And no, I don't hope legislation like California's gun laws spread out to the other states, however there is a trend where stuid whacko shit like this that begins in California, usually filters down to the other states, albiet slowly and with more resistance. I'd like to think that some ARFCOMers have the foresight to fight the battle before it's at their doorstep. "First they came for the Californian guns, but I wasn't a Californian so I did nothing."

Alright, give me some names and address/e-mail addresses.

Yes, some stuff has filtered down to other states, but the gun laws, as I noted, seem to be going the other way in the vast majority of states.

Mr. Jeff Amador Department Of Justice Firearms Licensing And Permits Section P.O. Box 820200 Sacramento, CA 94203

Jeff Amador information-
email: [email protected]
Phone: (916) 227-3661
Fax: (916) 263-0676

Some example letters: www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=38325

NRA Alert on the meeting tomorrow to discuss the proposed regulation change: www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=38029

Any fuckin time, Any fuckin day.

Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

Quoted: INFORMATION UPDATE Hopefully, this will clear up some misconceptions, and allow you to realize how important this is.  If this passes as it is, it would not be a clarification of the law.  This would expand the legislation to include firearms it was not meant to include. To the original poster:  for a lawyer, your friend doesn't know much about the law.    No disrespect intended. Please change the thread title, and please make it say "update on page 2".   This is essentially what it would do: Here is a photo of someone's CA legal AR with a fixed magazine.  A magazine is not detachable if it requires a tool or disassembly to remove.  If this is the case, one can have any and all "evil features" on their rifle, as long as the OAL remains >30".  Pistol grip, flash suppressor, vertical foregrip, collapsible stock, etc.   (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle[ that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock. ...etc As you can see, if (1) is not met (rifle does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine), then the rifle can have the other "evil features".   The only difference between this and a "free state" AR is a small, threaded hole in the mag release button, and two set screws (one on top of the other with blue loctite, in place of the spring).  It complies with the letter of the law as currently written, but is not "permanent".  Remove the top screw (the top screw is not necessary, and is only an added legal protection), and a few twists of the bottom screw will drop the magazine. f the regulation goes through as-is, such a modification would have to be permanent.  What is permanent?  I don't know.  The AG seems to think that epoxy or welding would classify it as permanent.  They are NOT defining "permanently altered".  They tried that once before and failed.  They don't know how they are going to get 30,000+ receivers welded or epoxied, so they are trying to force people to take off the pistol grip.  Basically, this would mean that people in CA with a legal AR, AK, FAL, or anything else really would have to use a detachable magazine and remove the pistol grip and/or any other evil features.  This would also affect the Barrett M82, because the CA version has a non-permanent "swing down magazine". This also has the side effect of making every SKS in the state an assault weapon (SKS with detachable magazine is on the ban list, this would make a fixed mag on the SKS detachable). This does NOT affect pistols, nor does it affect all "semi-automatic centerfire, detachable magazine rifles".  The M14/M1A, mini-14, su-16, m1 carbine, m1 garand (en-bloc clip does not equal magazine), etc are not affected by this ruling.  However, tomorrrow's meeting is extremely important for the future of guns in this state.  The DoJ MUST be made aware of the consequences of their actions.   i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/maglock-1.jpg They are not re-defining "detachable magazine".  Instead, they are adding a new definition of "capacity to accept a detachable magazine". Current definition of "detachable magazine": “detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine. New definition of "capacity to accept a detachable magazine": “capacity to accept a detachable magazine” means capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine. This does not make any sense, because a rifle built with a non-detachable magazine can not accept a detachable magazine. It can, however be made to accept one.  Essentially, the DoJ is claiming that these rifles have "a capacity to accept a capacity to accept". It is also unclear if they can force people to remove the pistol grip from their currently fixed-mag rifle.  Not only would this likely be beyond their ability to do legally, it would render the firearm unsafe. This rulemaking will likely fail on the grounds that it has an overall affect that exceeds the Department's authority.

Thanks for the clarification... original post and title have been updated. Good luck out there!

Quoted: Just a side comment. How is it that a state DOJ (executive agency) has the power to ammend a law. In VA, only our legislature can do that.

The 1989 Roberti-Roos Act gave the California State DOJ the power to amend the Act on the definition of what constitutes an Assault Weapon. The law was challanged that it violated the State Consitution's Seperation of Powers, however the California Supreme Court ruled that the law did NOT violate seperation of powers, and hence was Constitutional.

The issue is dead as far as the State Courts and the State Constitution is concerned.

Unless the State Consitution is amended or a ruling by the SCOTUS that the Second Amendment is an Individual Right and not a Collective Right, and is not subject to infringment. Kali is doomed.

height=8

Quoted: Unless the State Consitution is amended or a ruling by the SCOTUS that the Second Amendment is an Individual Right and not a Collective Right, and is not subject to infringment. Kali is doomed.

Kali is doomed only so long as the citizens there abide by those silly enactments. Once you refuse to obey enactments that violate your rights, a whole new world of possibilities will open up for you.

Quoted: Kali is doomed only so long as the citizens there abide by those silly enactments. Once you refuse to obey enactments that violate your rights, a whole new world of possibilities will open up for you.

Hows that worked for you regarding the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968?