Complying with new California laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
Large Capacity Magazine - Senate Bill 1446 goes into effect on 7/1/17 which bans "large-capacity" magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds and owners can:

- Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state
- Sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer
- Destroy the large-capacity magazine
- Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction

Owners can also sell or give large capacity magazine to current/honorably retired sworn peace officers, law enforcement agencies, gunsmiths, historical society/museums, armored vehicle companies - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ith-new-california-laws.815370/#post-10443221

On 12/16/16, California DOJ proposed "Emergency" regulations to provide one more option - https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...e-than-10-rounds-but-none-for-assault-weapons

According to the proposal, owners could permanently modify magazines to hold 10 rounds or less - http://www.guns.com/2016/12/19/california-doj-proposes-emergency-regs-on-magazines/

  • For box magazines, use of block and rivet/epoxy/weld and make floor plate non-removable
  • Drum magazines would be loaded with epoxied dummy rounds and sealed permanently
  • Tubular magazines (excluding lever action/.22 caliber) be plugged with dummy rounds riveted in place
  • Shotguns to base capacity on 2.75" shells but Kel Tec KSG and SRM Arms Model 1216 are exempted
Manufacturing includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate.

The manufacturing, importation into the state, offering for sale, keeping for sale, exposing for sale, giving, and lending of a large capacity magazine is controlled. No person may participate in these activities without a permit issued by the Department of Justice. For exceptions, see Penal Code §§12020(b)(19)-(32)


It appears those emergency regulations have been withdrawn. (The ban is still going into effect July 1. The withdrawal is of the regulations only)

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/pres...emergency-magazine-ban-regulations-withdrawn/


I'm willing to bet money they'll be back again.
 
Category 3 assault weapon definition - https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

Just to point out how much attention to detail the CA-DOJ applies to its on-line references - the 'Dangerous Weapons' section of the Penal Code was re-organized and re-numbered effective in 2012.

"12276"
no longer exists; the CA 'assault weapon' law begins at Penal Code 30500
 
Penal Code was re-organized and re-numbered effective in 2012.

"12276"
no longer exists; the CA 'assault weapon' law begins at Penal Code 30500
My apologies.

Still, the re-numbering of Penal Code section does not change the scope of this thread and the fact that there are new laws going into effect starting 1/1/17, notably the ban on bullet button.

30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
 
Last edited:
Sheesh...

All this BS makes me REALLY wish all the firearms and after-market companies would take a stand and refuse to sell ANTHING to California that doesn't meet the state laws, including to state agencies. And any servicing of any weapons or accessories would result in modifications to make them California compliant.

Figure the odds, though. I guessone can dream.

There's actually quite a few that do just that. Barret and BCM are two of the more well know companies that have that policy. Unfortunately the real big companies like Glock, S&W, and Colt are not likely to do the same.
 
Which is just going to feel like a defeat to legislators with a super majority but in reality still keeps us from having firearms in a normal modern configuration. The result will be an attempt to ban that next time around. Eventually the game will leave them with having to go for semi autos in general (when those firearm registries play a bigger role), which if the nation allows sets a precedent for the whole nation on what is not protected. So the nation either has to create national protections, since the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution doesn't seem to count even after Heller and McDonald to protect the most 'in common use' firearm in the United States, or it allows a precedent that semi autos can be banned which as we see in every similar nation that has done so, it keeps going till even pump shotguns have capacity restrictions and are more restricted than doubles.
 
Last edited:
Which is just going to feel like a defeat to legislators with a super majority but in reality still keeps us from having firearms in a normal modern configuration. The result will be an attempt to ban that next time around. Eventually the game will leave them with having to go for semi autos in general (when those firearm registries play a bigger role), which if the nation allows sets a precedent for the whole nation on what is not protected. So the nation either has to create national protections, since the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution doesn't seem to count even after Heller and McDonald to protect the most 'in common use' firearm in the United States, or it allows a precedent that semi autos can be banned which as we see in every similar nation that has done so, it keeps going till even pump shotguns have capacity restrictions and are more restricted than doubles.


They could do something like MA did and target "similar" (enough) weapons instead.

http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html
A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate and is therefore a prohibited Assault weapon if it meets one or both of the following tests and is 1) a semiautomatic rifle or handgun that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine, or 2) a semiautomatic shotgun.3

  1. Similarity Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if its internal functional components are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an Enumerated Weapon. Under this test, a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons.
  2. Interchangeability Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if it has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an Enumerated Weapon. A receiver will be treated as the same as or interchangeable with the receiver on an Enumerated Weapon if it includes or accepts two or more operating components that are the same as or interchangeable with those of an Enumerated Weapon. Such operating components may include, but are not limited to: 1) the trigger assembly; 2) the bolt carrier or bolt carrier group; 3) the charging handle; 4) the extractor or extractor assembly; or 5) the magazine port.
If a weapon meets one of the above tests, it is a Copy or Duplicate (and therefore a prohibited Assault weapon), even if it is marketed as “state compliant” or “Massachusetts compliant.”
 
No because California likes a clear legal logic and we already have precedent that says AR and AK series firearms, aka things similar to but called another name, is too vague of a description. So they already did that and it didn't work out under CA decisions.
That is why they started having the 'Attorney General' (which really means the CADOJ comes up with the list under their authority) list makes and models by name to ban those. They were adding all the guns they felt qualified to the list each year as manufacturers made new ones, but people always had a few months to buy the latest models before they got banned each year, and it was requiring them to allow legal registration in a brief window of time of those just banned, when they wanted them banned outright. So the registry was not really closed anymore, and anyone could still buy them, wait for it to get banned and register it, making them all semi legal for a few months after they came out for the indefinite future.

Which is a catch 22 of the issue. Registration. Registered weapons have new restrictions on transport and use beyond just putting you on a later confiscation list, but they do make it still legal..for now.
They also have a gun confiscation team that goes around and gets guns from anyone that becomes prohibited, which gets bigger and more funded each year. I would venture being a registered assault weapon owner would put you higher on their list of how quickly they come confiscate your weapons if you ever get prohibited (and the state has more ways to get prohibited than the federal restrictions.)
They are working to expand prohibited classes too. So beyond just banning the guns they want to ban more people from having the guns that are still legal to buy. Registration is part of all that, knowing who has what that needs eventual removal from the population.

They want to know who has what so they can exercise even more control over them later on. They got super majorities, and sadly Jerry Brown, no huge gun rights supporter but still someone of some reasonable sense, has actually vetoed many bad gun laws that have been basically passed by the legislature and just need his signature. He is not going to keep going against them, and he finally caved last June which before many were cemented in by the proposition in November was how they got on the books.

They know what they are doing, they don't like legal modern firearms but realize they are in the United States, so they are putting everything in place to limit new guns and go after old ones. The 'approved handgun list' even passed a microstamping requirement that would basically keep all new handguns from getting approved forever.
Other requirements in place have been keeping many new handguns, often no different than ones grandfathered on the list, from getting on. CA still has just gen 3 glocks and can never add another generation glock because glocks dont even meet the requirements to get on the list anymore.

And all these things in spite of Heller and McDonald being allowed to happen are setting precedent for what is allowed under the 2nd Amendment at the national level. If the 2nd is an individual right incorporated against the states, and these things don't immediately and clearly violate the 2nd Amendment, then similar bans in places that previously feared lawsuits and legal battles they couldn't afford will feel free to add more and more bans. They gain additional legitimacy as they remain in place.
We need national level protections, because state level bans now set national precedent anyways.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top