Need help finding ref: Gun conf based on earlier registration

[Dubya Bee]

Hi, I need to find a reference to a situation I was sure happened but now can't document.

Did not one of the gun control states (NY, CA, MD, CT, etc) have "assault rifle" registration in place based on number of cosmetic features, and then decrease the number of legal features, suddenly making legal rifles illegal and demanding surrender or disposal?

Can anyone help point me to documentation for this please?

 

[tyeo098]

California and the whole SKS incident.
Basically boils down to:

1) Theyre not illegal
2) Yes they are
3) Well ok, they're not, but you have to register them.
4) jk, yes they are, turn them in (and now we know who you are)

SRC: http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/californiademandsaksrifles.htm
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-584798.html

 

[Twiki357]

The way CA is going, it probably won’t be much longer before the confiscation squads start knocking on the doors of every registered AW owner.

 

[Midwest]

Long guns have to be registered in California as of January 1 2014.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Firearms_Registration


The following might be relevant

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_374_cfa_20130415_155808_sen_comm.html


"SHOULD CALIFORNIA'S REGULATIONS CONCERNING "ASSAULT WEAPONS" BE
TIGHTENED, AS SPECIFIED?


PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to tighten California's regulation
of "assault weapons," as follows: "
.

 

[Dubya Bee]

Thank you for the responses. Tyeo098, I think the SKS issue was the one I was thinking of.