Posted: 10/2/2007 7:36:35 PM EDT
|
I saw one of the way you Cali folks are able to get evil features on evil guns is through the use of a "bullet button" which requires the use of a tool (bullet) to release the mag, this being instead of a traditional magazine release. I know Cali DOJ hadn't given an official opinion on them out there, last I heard. What is the exact rationalization that makes this option seem legal under current Cali law? Here in CT, we have a mimick of the 1994 federal assault weapon still in effect. Here we do get to have post-ban configured rifles as the rule is detachable mag + 1 evil feature= okay. It would be cool to be able to have fun features like collapsible stocks, threaded barrels, suppressor usage, flashhiders, bayonet lugs, etc... and I want to get a CT DPS SLFU (Special Licensing and Firearms Unit) letter that says the bullet button is not a detachable magazione. I want to word the letter to DPS in a way that will be most likely to result in a positive response. That's why I want ya'll input. |
|
Go to your search engine like google and type in California DOJ. It should get you to the DOJ website. Now look up the firearms button and you can spend half a day trying to understand the issues. It might even include the assault weapon description. You can also look up Calguns.net for more info. Cheers! |
|
Gawd, we'd trade you for your CT law/emulation of expired Fed ban. A2 stock + pistol grip is ergonimically OK and better IMHO than telestock for people like me ("people of size"). Here's the background... I'll just deal with AW-categorized rifles and not shotguns/pistols for now. (1) CA bans rifles by make/model ("Roberti-Roos" law) or by configured features ("generic features ban", "SB23", etc.). A Colt AR15 is banned, but a Stag 15 isn't. Lotsa AR variants didn't make the banned list. People that had these named guns before 1989 or generic AWs before 2000 were able to specially register and retain them. No new ones can be made/acquired or transferred within the state - your kid can't inherit your reg'd AW within CA. (2) It's legal to have a semiauto centerfire rifle with detachable magazine. Tons of Mini14s and M1As and certain KelTecs and Remington 7400s, etc. are sold. No other 'evil features' can be on a semiauto centerfire rifle with detachable magazine: even a flash hider turns a standard-stocked Mini14, for example, into an AW. (3) California statutory law defines what a generic AW is. However, regulatory law was written by our DOJ, after public comment period, in 2000. It describes the various 'characteristic features' on AWs.
No other definition of 'detachable magazine' is possible, unless regulatory code is changed. We thus have the legally defensible situation of a "non-detachable magazine" being removable. We also have the odd situation in that even if you own hicaps you can't use them in fixed mag rifles since we have an alternate AW definition that says a fixed-mag rifle that can hold over 10 rounds is an AW, too. If they change regulatory code - and they tried to - they'd end up creating yet another group of AWs that would be registerable and then able to have full evil features. Besides the above actual regulatory code, we have a variety of docs regarding DOJ's comments of formulation of the above regulation, so they can't really change direction. In addition, fixed mag rifles the DOJ approved in the past, as well as the fixed-mag SKS would cause all sorts of troubles if things changed. Your law is probably substantially different and there likely is no regulatory definition or it's different. Carryover may not be possible. Be happy your law is the way it is, and not the way we have it. Bill Wiese San Jose CA |
Yeah, our law is nowhere near as bad as yours, and no I don't care to trade... I know that the A2 stock is more ergonomic- I have an RRA A4 configured rifle, 20" bbl; A2 stock. In fact, I always recommend an A2 stock for those purposes. I figure a telestock rifle would be fun, especially since they're so evil and bad-ass. |
Wait a minute.. CT banned the telestock? What the hell are these lawmakers thinking?? HOW the heck does... OH nevermind... I was going to ask how does the telestock make it more dangerous... then I answered my own question... probably the same way a pistol grip here makes it more dangerous... 
|
It's only going to jump up and start murdering baby's if the reciever was made after 13 september 94. Technically, you do get one evil feature in addition to a detachable magazine her- so if you didn't want a pistol grop, I guess a telestock would be legal. Pre ban rifles usually fetch $2,000 or so- way to much money to justify a toy that is basically had for its sheer badness. At least we have no mag-cap limits. Just to think- 2 of the largest AR makers are based out of CT 
|