TheCpaNextDoor
Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
- Messages
- 16
Has any ban occurred that did not grandfather guns? Not including bump stocks (which I hate were banned but nonetheless...)
The CA mag “surrender” was defeated in Fed court - have all states grandfathered mags?
- Thread starter TheCpaNextDoor
- Start date
- Status
Jim Watson
Member
New Jersey has banned simple possession of magazines larger than ten rounds. No grandfather clause.
SilentStalker
Member
VA is currently looking at banning ARs, no grandfathering either. Who know if it will pass.
RickD427
Member
The California magazine ban has not been defeated in the courts. The case is still pending and it can go either way.
California did ban possession of SKS Rifles having detachable magazines. The legislation was a classic example of FUBAR, but when finally sorted out, the owners of affected rifles were left without the ability to "grandfather" them and were required to surrender them for nominal compensation.
California did ban possession of SKS Rifles having detachable magazines. The legislation was a classic example of FUBAR, but when finally sorted out, the owners of affected rifles were left without the ability to "grandfather" them and were required to surrender them for nominal compensation.
JohnBiltz
Member
An interesting thing about NJ they are required to turn magazines into the state police, as of last week they have not had a single magazine turned in. Since the ban extends to off duty police. It seems that there are a fair number of police that are not complying as well as citizens.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
I need more like buttons.
NJ not exempting law enforcement is more honest, but certainly not the way most police state favoring legislators work.
The legal system in a big police state tends to view the police as their blue collar lackeys that need to be kept on a short leash, but on their side as without uniformed men with guns enforcing what they put to paper their typing and writing and what judges determine in court accomplishes very little.
But then again once the police state gets strong enough even the rank and file police are viewed with just slightly less suspicion than the average citizen. They are like the rabble but have passed a background check and earn a paycheck from the government. Still if it is local government then it is not directly under their thumb. Now a state officer working directly under a state level controlled bureaucracy...
California likewise applies assault weapon laws for personally owned firearms to off duty law enforcement, which many do not comply with as they own their own normal AR-15s and other firearms. However they are still breaking the law, and not a minor law at that, a law that is punishable by serious crimes and would result in charges that put an end to any law enforcement career. Yet it is almost never enforced, so even when equal under the law some are more equal than others. It still creates an understanding though with the civilians and is probably a huge reason the enforcement is often not heavy handed.
The legal system in a big police state tends to view the police as their blue collar lackeys that need to be kept on a short leash, but on their side as without uniformed men with guns enforcing what they put to paper their typing and writing and what judges determine in court accomplishes very little.
But then again once the police state gets strong enough even the rank and file police are viewed with just slightly less suspicion than the average citizen. They are like the rabble but have passed a background check and earn a paycheck from the government. Still if it is local government then it is not directly under their thumb. Now a state officer working directly under a state level controlled bureaucracy...
California likewise applies assault weapon laws for personally owned firearms to off duty law enforcement, which many do not comply with as they own their own normal AR-15s and other firearms. However they are still breaking the law, and not a minor law at that, a law that is punishable by serious crimes and would result in charges that put an end to any law enforcement career. Yet it is almost never enforced, so even when equal under the law some are more equal than others. It still creates an understanding though with the civilians and is probably a huge reason the enforcement is often not heavy handed.
Last edited:
RickD427
Member
Zoogster,
You don't quite understand California's laws regarding Assault Weapons owned by LEO's.
California law allows LEOs to privately purchase Assault Weapons upon the authorization of their agencies. Those weapons are subsequently registered to the officers as 'Registered Assault Weapons" which makes their private possession completely legal. No law is broken, there is nothing to enforce, and there are no blind eyes being turned.
There have been cases where California LEOs have illegally obtained Assault Weapons. One such case, involving a San Francisco police officer is currently working its way through the court system.
You don't quite understand California's laws regarding Assault Weapons owned by LEO's.
California law allows LEOs to privately purchase Assault Weapons upon the authorization of their agencies. Those weapons are subsequently registered to the officers as 'Registered Assault Weapons" which makes their private possession completely legal. No law is broken, there is nothing to enforce, and there are no blind eyes being turned.
There have been cases where California LEOs have illegally obtained Assault Weapons. One such case, involving a San Francisco police officer is currently working its way through the court system.
NJ is exempting law enforcement. It was an oversight in the law but there is a bill to change it already in the system. Weird, how active duty off duty guys aren't exempt but us retired guys are!
RickD427 in some places agencies are reluctant to give authorization, or authorization for multiple purchases, or authorization for purchases that are not for an item that will be used in any official capacity.
An AR is probably not the best example as purchase of that for official use even if it ends up at home is going to be easier as it can be claimed it is needed as a patrol rifle.
Your example of a San Francisco example being prosecuted highlights how very different agencies can be, coming out of one of if not the most anti-gun cities in the United States, where they go out of their way to make it hard for gunshops to exist, and even voted by popular support to ban handgun ownership in the home prior to Heller. Of course San Francisco is going to have a lower bar for prosecuting its law enforcement for gun violations than just about anyone else.
Contrast that with its polar opposite a place like King's County (I see your listed county) with Bakersfield, rednecks, one of the lowest cost of living populated parts of the state, blue collar, good ol boy area with a lot of incoming prison money unrelated to productivity, and related jobs. With a lot of dirt poor field workers making up a sizable part of the population. While having a population in the entire county that is less than a couple of even moderate sized cities in most of California.
It is the type of environment that typically has a very old fashioned and pro law enforcement vibe, especially since a lot of the county is tied to corrections or law enforcement, and much of the rest of the population is dirt poor and wields little influence in local politics. Good ol boy type of situation where law enforcement is going to have pretty free reign if they don't attract the attention of other parts of the state or piss off one of the few big players or wealthy community members, and be in positions of power and authority less challenged than most places.
Many other parts of California are somewhere in between those two polar opposites.
Getting a department to sign off on purchase of items with no intended official use is only as easy as that department chooses to make it.
An AR is probably not the best example as purchase of that for official use even if it ends up at home is going to be easier as it can be claimed it is needed as a patrol rifle.
Your example of a San Francisco example being prosecuted highlights how very different agencies can be, coming out of one of if not the most anti-gun cities in the United States, where they go out of their way to make it hard for gunshops to exist, and even voted by popular support to ban handgun ownership in the home prior to Heller. Of course San Francisco is going to have a lower bar for prosecuting its law enforcement for gun violations than just about anyone else.
Contrast that with its polar opposite a place like King's County (I see your listed county) with Bakersfield, rednecks, one of the lowest cost of living populated parts of the state, blue collar, good ol boy area with a lot of incoming prison money unrelated to productivity, and related jobs. With a lot of dirt poor field workers making up a sizable part of the population. While having a population in the entire county that is less than a couple of even moderate sized cities in most of California.
It is the type of environment that typically has a very old fashioned and pro law enforcement vibe, especially since a lot of the county is tied to corrections or law enforcement, and much of the rest of the population is dirt poor and wields little influence in local politics. Good ol boy type of situation where law enforcement is going to have pretty free reign if they don't attract the attention of other parts of the state or piss off one of the few big players or wealthy community members, and be in positions of power and authority less challenged than most places.
Many other parts of California are somewhere in between those two polar opposites.
Getting a department to sign off on purchase of items with no intended official use is only as easy as that department chooses to make it.
Last edited:
RickD427
Member
Zooster,
You're correct in that there is a lot of variance between agencies in the issuance of the personal purchase authorizations. I retired from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's. That agency declined, as a matter of policy. to issue such letters.
My comments were directed toward your global categorization of California LEO's.
You actually made the same mistake with your mis-categorization of King County (and note that that there is no "s" in King County). We're actually one of the wealthiest, and most left-leaning counties in the state, and nowhere near Bakersfield. Several years ago, we actually adopted to portrait of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as the county symbol. I don't think you would see the folks in Bakersfield doing such a thing.
Attachments
You are right, the quality of some of my rambling has gone downhill as of late. I think I get on and post at times I am too tired to be posting.
Kern county was what I was thinking of. Kings came to mind as when I have been around that region I often go through both and that whole area looks similar. That whole area also seems similar big agricultural money, corrections money, and a lot of dirt poor people.
That whole region always stunk of oligarchy to me. Where there is a limited amount of wealth and it is primarily concentrated in a small minority that manages a lot of poor people.
But that means the people with the wealth rely on law enforcement even more, which will come with some perks.
And yes a lot of the population is going to be left leaning because most of the population is descendants of Mexican farm workers that normally vote predictably when they turn out. Yet in spite of that you see that region of California is one of the stronger regions of Republican support. Which I believe is partially from the rural and agricultural history and culture, but also in large part due to oligarchy that keeps things the way they want in spite of the tide of California. With oil, agriculture, corrections, and military spending being a huge part. Prisons help with that as many can't vote but still are counted as residents of the population for per capita funding and representation.
I guess they couldn't pick Caesar Chavez because it is King county and not Chavez county.
Kern county was what I was thinking of. Kings came to mind as when I have been around that region I often go through both and that whole area looks similar. That whole area also seems similar big agricultural money, corrections money, and a lot of dirt poor people.
That whole region always stunk of oligarchy to me. Where there is a limited amount of wealth and it is primarily concentrated in a small minority that manages a lot of poor people.
But that means the people with the wealth rely on law enforcement even more, which will come with some perks.
And yes a lot of the population is going to be left leaning because most of the population is descendants of Mexican farm workers that normally vote predictably when they turn out. Yet in spite of that you see that region of California is one of the stronger regions of Republican support. Which I believe is partially from the rural and agricultural history and culture, but also in large part due to oligarchy that keeps things the way they want in spite of the tide of California. With oil, agriculture, corrections, and military spending being a huge part. Prisons help with that as many can't vote but still are counted as residents of the population for per capita funding and representation.
I guess they couldn't pick Caesar Chavez because it is King county and not Chavez county.
Last edited:
mgmorden
Member
The bad thing about this (and the Dems know it) is that you have to become a criminal in the time it takes to challenge anything like that in court.
If you gave them up, sued and got the no grandfather bit overturned, you can't exactly ask for your rifles back.
SilentStalker
Member
Of course! They didn’t think this crap overnight. They have been planning this stuff for decades!
Dudedog
Contributing Member
As a FYI Kern county is largely Oil and Agriculture and unlike a lot of California a citizen and get a CCW here, our Sheriff is Pro Gun.
Some large Military bases and prisons but mostly Oil and Ag.
Lots of middle class right leaning people here.
mrmike7189
Member
Massacusetts has banned AR15& AK47 type rifles (except for 22LR caliber). You can however buy Pre-ban ones for big $$$$$$$.
to the OP .....same thing with magazines, pre 1994 hi caps are grandfathered. New guns have a 10 round mag limit.
to the OP .....same thing with magazines, pre 1994 hi caps are grandfathered. New guns have a 10 round mag limit.
The Liberal
member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
- Messages
- 79
Why are these bans bad things?
badkarmamib
Member
Assuming that you are legitimately asking, and not trolling...
When the government tells you that you don't "need" something, that is control. That is communism. And contrary to what anti-gunners think and say, the Second Amendment is there to remind the government that they serve the people, not the other way around. The people have the power, which is why the government wants to take it away. You want to know what they want as the end game? Look at the communist and socialist nations of the world. The officials are living in luxury, the common folk are living with only what the officials say that they "need". Progress, indeed.
Gun and magazine bans are played as "reducing crime". They never work. Again, open your eyes and look at the locations that they have been implemented. Bans are designed to incrementally shift power from the people to the government.
You call yourself "The Liberal", yet you seem to be "liberal" with other people's rights. History shows that they will not stop with "one more step", they WILL keep coming, until they finally get to something that you do care about.
Last edited:
Elkins45
Member
Because your right to enforce an illusion of safety does not trump my right to keep the Constitutionally-protected property I already own and have paid for.
My MIL is a big liberal. She wants all guns banned. A a couple years ago at thanksgiving dinner she mentioned she had a pistol. I said really I would like to see it. Sure enough it was a loaded Iver Johnson 32 S&W short. Probably the perfect gun for her. I casually mentioned that she should turn hers in as no one should have guns. (According to her) She said mine makes me feel safe. (She lives alone) Bottom line is she doesn’t think “normal” people should be able to protect themselves. Only the elite. Socialists want power and the first thing to do is take away your right to defend yourself. Makes you feel vunrable. Side note I get along great with her even though we don’t agree on much of anything . ( great cook to boot)
The Liberal
member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
- Messages
- 79
I really like guns. I think they should be more available. I also don’t think we need easy, common ownership of assault weapons or weapons with more than eight rounds on board.
Sebastian
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2018
- Messages
- 145
What is an assault weapon? Why 8 rounds? What does on board mean?
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
