New California Law Requires Annual Government Inspection of Weapons?

[Zoogster]

I have seen it mentioned a few times that as part of the laws passed a couple months ago that have yet to take effect if someone registers a new banned weapon they will have regular inspections?
I recall something similar already in the law for owners of an assault weapon permit, an entirely different thing. Was it extended to registered assault weapons too?

I remember hearing some gun laws of other countries with such things but never in the US.
Agents of the government get to come inspect and sign off on your weapons?

What if someone does not want to keep it in the state? How would I present the firearm if I have it out of state and they come to inspect it?

In a state with a huge list of permanent and temporary prohibitions, and a task force that disarms people, now they get to come sign off on an inspection that happens annually?


Does the state actually expect people to follow these laws? Or just punish people as they catch them.
The state is turning into an Orwellian entity that now needs an ongoing relationship with any people that own certain types of guns.

Isn't this what Australia did right before the big mandatory buyback, AKA mass gun confiscation of semi-automatic long guns in 1996?

 

[Spats McGee]

Got any links or citations?

 

[Zoogster]

Here is an article that mentions it:

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/california-assault-weapons-ban-ar15-compliance/

Under the law, owners of assault weapons will also have to submit to periodic inspections of those firearms by law enforcement officials.

 

[Tirod]

The Trace is Bloomberg's anti gun media site and would be suspect. Citations and links to the actual law are preferred as lawmaking is a lot like sausage making. The labels don't accurately describe what's in it and you often don't want to see the process.

As in, the requirement for "annual" vs "periodic."

This is why it's necessary to apply the exact language or discussion becomes entirely speculative and a waste of time.

One aspect, of course, is that this could be an unfunded mandate on counties and municipalities imposed by the state. Who's paying for it and going to do the inspections? That usually becomes a negative aspect with most of the local jurisdictions lacking any support for the measure.

 

[200Apples]

...New Law Requires Annual Inspection...

No.

Nevermind the rest of what I might have said.

Need coffee...

 

[larryh1108]

If HC gets in this is what we will be looking at as a country.
What a travesty.

 

[Tirod]

I have no fondness for HRC but stating she will bring even more laws like that doesn't stand up with her predecessors legacy. If anti gun measures are counted up against advances, there is at best a stalemate - some states went full retard with gun laws, but a lot more states went Shall Issue and the move to Constitutional Carry pressed forward.

I've yet to have anyone explain how a sitting President creates law unilaterally against the people's will. It's arguable but basically Congress has to go along with it, then enforcement becomes an issue. At present the enforcement issue is rife with outright opposition with statements of support for the 2A - take the SAFE act in NY as an example.

Regardless the topic is inspections of firearms owned by CA citizens and their frequency. What does the law require and who's going to do it? Most enforcement agencies are on a budget and they cannot and largely will not have the time in manpower to handle the work load.

EX: my metro has 25,000 households, if 50% of Americans own guns, then 12,500 of them need inspections. On an annual basis, given a 40 hour work week, or 2,080 hours a year, about 6 households an hour worth of guns need to be inspected.

Its always fun to do the math and break down just how unrealistic and stupid political concepts become in reality.

Since the average owner of firearms has 3 guns, with the 6th owning the balance of about 14 - referring to "super owners" who apparently possess the remaining guns known to be in America - thats over 30 guns to be "inspected."

What are they inspecting for, and why would someone bring in a gun that wouldn't comply with whatever standards exist in law? What are the penalties - seizure and arrest. People won't generally risk it.

So either the inspections are a farce, or have to occur IN THE HOME to accomplish it. That's 6 homes worth of guns EVERY HOUR just to keep up. Add transit time to get to the next home, administrative time out of the day, etc. If it's randomized to prevent your neighbor hiding his guns because he's next in line, you lose time in the day driving to the next address.

As for the inspection itself - CA already does that with motor vehicles, and it's a ripe subject on auto forums about owners swapping complete intake systems and cams for street use, then changing them back to OEM for the periodic inspection. It would be the same as owning a CA compliant AR and then installing all the "illegal" parts for private range use or HD.

It's High Road, so nobody here will state that is happening - but then again the ratio of known "assault rifles" registered under CA law is less than 25% by estimates. There is a huge amount of non compliance, and the same thing going on in NY, too.

Inspections will be a useless waste of time, and when the first ones conducted at homes start up - after the extra manpower is hired, trained, and then tasked to do it - there will be a serious interest in local politics about it.

That's why these measures are largely ineffective and a joke.

Do the math.

 

[Randy in Arizona]

"As for the inspection itself - CA already does that with motor vehicles, and it's a ripe subject on auto forums about owners swapping complete intake systems and cams for street use, then changing them back to OEM for the periodic inspection. It would be the same as owning a CA compliant AR and then installing all the "illegal" parts for private range use or HD."

Many newer cars need only a 'smart phone' or a laptop and a data cable to reprogram the performance criteria in the engine control computer. And a couple of minutes to restore the 'proper settings' for an emissions check.

417

 

[rodregier]

Tirod has it right, it would be a vast unfunded mandate.

The only way this could be financed would be a levy/tax/user fee against firearm owners.
(Which then gets into the 2A infringement meme).

So one of the red flags to watch for in legislation or regulations would be that kind of action.

 

[larryh1108]

It's like a lot of other laws.... it's there when they want to use it. If they are targeting a specific area or neighborhood or even a specific person(s) for 'whatever' then all they need to do is cite the law on the books and demand an inspection because they can, by law. Also, if they are trying to pile on charges then all they need to do is find guns not registered in a suspect's home, etc. Unilateral search and seizures are not part of this process..... yet... but it opens the door for convenience whenever they have a desire to put the screws to you and if they don't get the results they want/expect then it's a small process to tack on more laws and verbiage to tighten the screws some more. I have no doubt that Cali will be the first state to ban all firearms ownership, except for single shot, when a state tries to cross that bridge with MA a close 2nd. Yeah, MA, the state that started the Revolutionary War when England tried to take their arms. Such hypocrisy.

 

[Librarian]

The bill creating the new 'assault weapon' law changes is SB 880 - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB880

Read for yourself.

 

[Snyper]

I've yet to have anyone explain how a sitting President creates law unilaterally against the people's will.

The next President will be appointing several Supreme Court justices.
"The people's will" means nothing to them.

 

[Quiet]

Under CA laws/regulations...

The only people subject to an annual CA DOJ BOF inspection/audit are people who have a CA DOJ Dangerous Weapons Permit for an assault weapon [PC 31005(a)], Destructive Device [PC 18910], Machine Gun [PC 32670], Short Barrel Rifle [PC 33320], or Short Barrel Shotgun [PC 33320].

Compliance inspections have been required since the 1960s.



CA Penal Code 18910
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the Department of Justice shall, for every person, firm, or corporation to whom a permit is issued under this article, annually conduct an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile the inventory of destructive devices.
(b) A person, firm, or corporation with an inventory of fewer than five devices that require any Department of Justice permit shall be subject to an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile inventory, once every five years, or more frequently if determined by the department.

CA Penal Code 31005
(b) Application for the permits, the keeping and inspection thereof, and the revocation of permits shall be undertaken in the same manner as specified in Article 3 (commencing with Section 32650) of Chapter 6.

CA Penal Code 32670
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the Department of Justice shall, for every person, firm, or corporation to whom a permit is issued pursuant to this article, annually conduct an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile the inventory of machineguns.
(b) A person, firm, or corporation with an inventory of fewer than five devices that require any Department of Justice permit shall be subject to an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile inventory, once every five years, or more frequently if determined by the department.

CA Penal Code 33320
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the Department of Justice shall, for every person, firm, or corporation to whom a permit is issued pursuant to this article, annually conduct an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile the inventory of short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns.
(b) A person, firm, or corporation with an inventory of fewer than five devices that require any Department of Justice permit shall be subject to an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile inventory, once every five years, or more frequently if determined by the department.

 

[Quiet]

Under CA laws/regulations...

There are a differences between a person with a Registered Assault Weapon (RAW) and a person with a CA DOJ Dangerous Weapons Permit for an Assault Weapon (DWP-AW).

A requirement for issuance of a DWP-AW is having a valid FFL.
A person with a DWP-AW is subject to storage, transport, and usage reporting requirements.
Because of this they are subject to yearly CA DOJ BOF compliance inspection audits and annual permit fees.

A person with a RAW is exempt from all that.
But is subject to restrictions on where they can legally possess the RAW and transport requirements to & from those authorized locations.

 

[barnbwt]

I've yet to have anyone explain how a sitting President creates law unilaterally against the people's will.

It's called 'fiat' and is a very well understood and common concept throughout most of the world/history. The word that appears to be missing from your sentence is "legally," which yes, does not exist as an option within our system as it currently operates.

If the Big Man says "jump" and everybody does, then guess what? He just passed a jump law all by himself. If a third tell him to jump in the river and/or dump him in it, then he was unable to impose his will unilaterally.

TCB

 

[old lady new shooter]

I've yet to have anyone explain how a sitting President creates law unilaterally against the people's will.

His or her "pen and phone", i.e. Executive Orders.

 

[Tirod]

If a President can do that, why haven't they already? It's part of the Obama legacy that he not only couldn't but didn't, yet he was as motivated as any other.

Goes to MA AG Maura Healy's reinterpretation of state law and subsequent ban of anything that is similar to a banned assault weapon. Ok, so it's now HER interpretation. What has become of it? Nobody is turning them in, sales are still ongoing, and nothing has resulted of it.

At least on the surface. There are numerous legal challenges being prepared and for the most part, the people aren't complying with the intent. If anything it will make them less concerned about obeying the law if it can be manipulated outside the rules.

Because of that, the old cliche about when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns is actually becoming true. And gun owners are now prepared and willing to embrace it. Why? Because so many of the LEO's who would be tasked with enforcement aren't willing to do so. MA isn't NY, no, but the Sheriffs there are about 90% opposed, by name and in writing, against enforcing the SAFE Act. I suspect in MA its a majority, too, outside Boston, and push comes to shove it will come down to "Come and take them" along with the local cops saying "unfunded mandate, make me do it."

It's being used as a pry bar to force the citizens to either cling to their government for all that is good and decent, or stand on their own two feet and be Independent Citizens for what is right and just. It's exactly what Saul Alinsky and others were formulating as a strategy to make the people turn their back on democracy by usurping it and putting them at odds with their own government. Once you create enough momentum to create a rebellion then you seize the moment and take control of the process turning America into a totalitarian regime with certain groups making the decisions. Don't for one minute think they aren't already entrenched to do exactly that.

Simple "revolutionary" politics to create a "people's" republic in only name. It's been done dozens of times around the world, described in the history books for nearly 100 years, and the handwriting is on the wall. We are on the same slope and about to enter the stage where open chaos is used to frighten people into submission.

You either discover you have ethics and a backbone now, or submit to it. You only get this one chance.

 

[Jeepergeo]

It's not on the books yet, but the current trajectory of laws is leading towards that position. California is a mess and is not on the path to things getting better thanks to unions owning so many politicians here and the lockstep members voting lib-dem that support such measures.

 

[roscoe]

Image the logistics of trying to inspect every single firearm in California. Hah!

 

[old lady new shooter]

If a President can do that, why haven't they already? It's part of the Obama legacy that he not only couldn't but didn't, yet he was as motivated as any other.

Goes to MA AG Maura Healy's reinterpretation of state law and subsequent ban of anything that is similar to a banned assault weapon. Ok, so it's now HER interpretation. What has become of it? Nobody is turning them in, sales are still ongoing, and nothing has resulted of it.

At least on the surface. There are numerous legal challenges being prepared and for the most part, the people aren't complying with the intent. If anything it will make them less concerned about obeying the law if it can be manipulated outside the rules.

Because of that, the old cliche about when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns is actually becoming true. And gun owners are now prepared and willing to embrace it. Why? Because so many of the LEO's who would be tasked with enforcement aren't willing to do so. MA isn't NY, no, but the Sheriffs there are about 90% opposed, by name and in writing, against enforcing the SAFE Act. I suspect in MA its a majority, too, outside Boston, and push comes to shove it will come down to "Come and take them" along with the local cops saying "unfunded mandate, make me do it."

It's being used as a pry bar to force the citizens to either cling to their government for all that is good and decent, or stand on their own two feet and be Independent Citizens for what is right and just. It's exactly what Saul Alinsky and others were formulating as a strategy to make the people turn their back on democracy by usurping it and putting them at odds with their own government. Once you create enough momentum to create a rebellion then you seize the moment and take control of the process turning America into a totalitarian regime with certain groups making the decisions. Don't for one minute think they aren't already entrenched to do exactly that.

Simple "revolutionary" politics to create a "people's" republic in only name. It's been done dozens of times around the world, described in the history books for nearly 100 years, and the handwriting is on the wall. We are on the same slope and about to enter the stage where open chaos is used to frighten people into submission.

You either discover you have ethics and a backbone now, or submit to it. You only get this one chance.

Panama is looking better by the day.

 

[Powder296]

"Since the average owner of firearms has 3 guns, with the 6th owning the balance of about 14 - referring to "super owners" who apparently possess the remaining guns known to be in America - thats over 30 guns to be "inspected."

According to this I'm a "super owner"? I assume that's an anti term. In no way shape or form do I consider myself to be a "super owner".

 

[PBR Streetgang]

What's the next step past super owner? Just askin for a"Friend" ! ;-)

 

[Acera]

We tend to pay for other government inspections of our properties. I am sure they will find a way to charge the gun owner for the privilege to inventory, document, check for evil parts, etc. their property. Going to try and make it not worth the effort for many honest subjects................of course not for criminals who don't care and the rules don't apply.



.

 

[Dog Soldier]

HRC plans to use Executive Actions to financially bankrupt gun companies.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...posals-to-include-executive-action-1444017603

 

[Tirod]

And yet part of the commentary included in news articles on that very subject is the explanation that the POTUS does NOT have any authority to do it. Even the main stream media gets that.

Whatever is said or even talked about behind the scenes has to be taken with a grain of salt - politicians play to their audience, and there it ample evidence in the current Podesta Wikileaks of some very two faced political positioning.

There is also the actual reality, as expressed in NY state over the SAFE act. Over 90% of the Sheriffs are on record stating they refuse to enforce it, many will act to prevent others from doing that. Less than 25% of the citizens have complied to date. What you are seeing is outright defiance of an unconstitutional and illegal statute.

If I were to understand the point of view of some who post here, I would speculate they see the American Revolution from the perspective of the British Crown. And yet the gun owning citizens of NY state and their elected LEO's are on record as saying, "Come and take them."

There is NO obligation to obey an illegal order. If fact, doing so is aiding and abetting a crime against our nation and people. Where do you plan to stand on that?