1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Cali bans ALL semi-auto rifles w/ detachable mags

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Brian in Oregon, Sep 10, 2013.

  1. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,248
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    That includes Ruger 10-22s, clip fed Marlins, Browning BAR, Remington 74 & 7400, and many, many other sporting rifles. If it is semi-auto and has a detachable magazine it is now an "assault weapon", even if it is clearly a "sporting" rifle.

    I recall stating here this is where California would go over a decade ago, and having some Fudds and liberals tell me that was nonsense and I was paranoid, that it would never happen.

    The chickens have come home to roost. Sadly, I am vindicated.
     
  2. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    Today I shot with a police officer, a canine handler, who told me not to worry about it, that California's cops would not enforce these laws. I have verifiable fact that is not true. He is a cop and he will always get a free pass but not so for regular serfs like me. Real estate here is climbing like crazy. I am going to ride this market to the top, sell out and get out. I will not continue to live in Nazi California.
     
  3. 22hornet

    22hornet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,461
    Location:
    Hanford, CA
    I can't wait to get out of here. I have many friends who are like minded. We are taking our tax contributions and moving on. California is circling the drain. The democrats have destroyed this state. I really can't stand them or their miserable agenda.
     
  4. 548

    548 Guest

    From article -- "It would classify as an assault weapon as any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and would ban its sale or purchase."


    That isn't exactly what you said, is it Brian?

    And it can't hardly ban "ALL", as you say, if it only prohibits new sales. All current firearms are legal upon registration. That is if this even gets signed by the governor, of course.


    That said, I agree that this is nuts. Clearly unconstitutional in my opinion.
     
  5. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,248
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    The ban isn't just about the denial of purchase of new guns fitting the definition.

    It bans people moving to California from taking their own property there.

    It bans people in California from inheriting family property.

    It bans people in California from giving their own property to their children.

    It bans a spouse from giving his or her own property to their spouse.

    Unless the property can be sold out of state, it has to be turned in to the state for destruction without compensation.

    Keep in mind that if you have a 10-22 target model worth, say, $300, do you think someone outside your state is going to pay that PLUS FFL transfer fees - possibly on both ends - plus shipping, for a used gun they can save potentially $50 to $100 on locally without the fees? Not every gun is going to be transferable without loss to be competitive. That loss is uncompensated. This is government taking your property without compensation.

    BTW, don't assume that "All current firearms are legal upon registration". Tell that to the SKS owners who got screwed over and had to surrender their SKSs after they registered them.

    This law has problems with the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.

    It also shows clearly, once and for all time, that the anti's are out to ban ALL firearms given any opportunity, and will do so regardless of whether or not they are "sporting". The anti's simply went after "unpopular" or "politicvally incorrect" firearms because they were easy pickings. This should stand as a warning that "sporting" no longer has any meaning to the anti's. Many of us have warned this day would be coming, and now it's here.

    Let me make it absolutely, positively clear:

    YOUR SPORTING FIREARMS ARE NO LONGER SAFE FROM A BAN, NO MATTER HOW SPORTING OR POLITICALLY CORRECT THEY ARE.
     
  6. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,956
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    They weren't safe under Hitler nor Stalin!! Wake up dips, that vote for these KNOWN clowns!!
     
  7. Rkoetting

    Rkoetting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    58
    Another problem for us in California is that if all of these new weapons are classified as "assault weapons" and have to be registered as such, is the restrictions placed on assault weapons. They can only be possessed at your home or other property or while in transit to or from a firing range that is "licensed" or any public land that specifically allows the use of "Assault weapons. (none do)" They cannot be used for hunting or other activities unless you hunt at licensed firing ranges or the non-existent public lands that allow assault weapons. You cannot even "lend" an assault weapon to a person under 18 years of age. (I guess I am going to have to shoot my daughter's pink 10-22). They cannot be sold, or inherited by your heirs. If the new laws simply redefine what an assault weapon is, the provisions of California Penal Code sections 12275 through 12289.5 will apply to all of these newly registered firearms. 12289.5 is especially cute, since it states that if you register an "assault weapon" you SHALL allow an inspection for "security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile inventory..." a either one or five year intervals. So, by registering a single weapon, you lose your right to be free from search without probable cause. You just can't make this stuff up folks...
     
  8. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,248
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    See? Ban them from sporting use and then declare they're not sporting. Perfect.
     
  9. Don Steele

    Don Steele Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,538
    Location:
    Florida's beautiful E. Coast
    Rkoetting hit the most significant part of this law. The left has worked out an interesting way to get you to sign away your right to be free from unreasonable search by declaring that an "inventory check" of your private residence is "reasonable" and forcing you to agree to accept it if you keep WHATEVER they choose to define as an "assault weapon".
    The first thing that came to my mind, personally, is that the old Remington mod. 740 I inherited from my Father is now an "Assault Weapon" because despite the fact that it was manufactured with a 4 rd. magazine..it "Can Accept" a 20 rd aftermarket mag.
    At the end of the day....if this kind of strategy is found to be constitutional I wonder what the left will decide to ban, then force you to accept random "inventory checks" of your residence to look for...????
    Incandescent lightbulbs...???
    Salt..???
    The left has a WHOLE list of things THEY believe YOU should not have. Assault weapons is just one of the easiest to go after.
     
  10. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,248
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    "Assault weapon" is a political term designed to ban as many firearms as possible. Given this new law, there can be no doubt of that.
     
  11. 548

    548 Guest

    Brian, I'm not in favor of this law in the least, and I don't think it would pass constitutional challenges. That said, please tell me why a Ruger 10-22 would be banned? The language specifically says magazines with a capacity MORE than ten. That doesn't mean less than ten, it doesn't even mean ten, it means MORE than ten. You lose your credibility when you blatantly say false things to stir anger and emotion.
     
  12. Ahab

    Ahab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,650
    548 ... have you ever looked into a mirror?
     
  13. trapgeek

    trapgeek Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    315
    I think it was already stated as a gun that "CAN ACCEPT any magazine of more than 10 rounds. After market mags are out there for these guns with a capacity to hold more than 10, whether or not you actually own them. The potential is there.
     
  14. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,248
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    548, the law bans long arms capable of accepting more than a ten round detachable magazine. Almost all modern semi-auto rifles either have factory or aftermarket magazines available of more than ten round capacity. many antiques do to, like early Winchester semi-autos. Don Steele provided an example above of his Remington.

    Since you specified the 10-22, yes, there are factory and aftermarket magazines of 15, 20, 25, 30 and 50 rounds. So the 10-22 is capable of accepting more than a ten round magazine.

    Having said that, I did some checking and found one news outlet that says the above applies only to centerfire, not rimfire. I have not been able to confirm whether the bill as passed has a rimfire exemption or not. Earlier versions of the bill did not exempt rimfires. And the media is reporting rifles, whereas earlier versions said long arms, which would include shotguns.

    I'd like to point out that I replied to your earlier post, and this one, with civility. Your last reply lacks it. Is that the way you want it? If so, I'm your Huckleberry.
     
  15. SirMissalott

    SirMissalott Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,241
    I'm a little relieved my brother lives in California and I now can assure him that he will be as safe as if he lived in chicago, detroit, dc etc...
     
  16. 548

    548 Guest

    I wouldn't interpret the spirit of the proposed law that way, but I guess you're correct, the "can accept" is a monkey wrench.

    This brings up some more legal issues. Should company A's product (Ruger 10-22 for example) be banned because company B, not associated with company A, produces a product that will function in concert with company A's product? The obvious answer is that it is company B's product that should be banned and not company A's.

    I think that is the spirit of the language, but you guys are correct, that's not what it says.
     
  17. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,248
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    548, keep in mind that one of the legal definitions of an "assault weapon" is that it is capable of accepting a large capacity magazine. Yet, no "assault weapon" has been discharged from that category when some of the states with such bans also banned large capacity magazines.

    California has a bill for banning all detachable mags over ten rounds. If it passes, do you think this will negate this new ban? Nope. And I'll bet this is why the bills are being voted on this particular order.
     
  18. Brad Dysinger

    Brad Dysinger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    578
  19. stokinpls

    stokinpls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,486
    And be ready to move again.

    Bob Falfa
     
  20. shannon391

    shannon391 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,477
    Just shut up and get in the box car.