California Assault Weapon Registration

[carries an axe]

Speaking of which...I think it's been discussed before, but what does anyone think about the prospects of an ADA lawsuit regarding overly restrictive California laws violating 2A rights of persons with certain disabilities?

It would be nice to find a good test case as a means of throwing all these evil features/ban lists out as being unconstitutional.

I'd love to be part of that.
I wrote a Calguns lawyer about it but never heard back.

 

[bojangle]

I'd love to be part of that.
I wrote a Calguns lawyer about it but never heard back.

That would be awesome.

I'm thinking of someone who has the ability to operate an AR with a pistol grip and detectable magazines, but is unable to operate a rifle with a fixed stock rifle grip, and is unable to manipulate a fixed magazine pistol grip gun to reload it.

This would effect their ability to defend themselves and infringe on their 2A rights in a protected class discriminatory manner. If those laws weren't already unconstitutional on their face value, making a case using ADA might work, me thinks.

 

[carries an axe]

That would be awesome.

I'm thinking of someone who has the ability to operate an AR with a pistol grip and detectable magazines, but is unable to operate a rifle with a fixed stock rifle grip, and is unable to manipulate a fixed magazine pistol grip gun to reload it.

This would effect their ability to defend themselves and infringe on their 2A rights in a protected class discriminatory manner. If those laws weren't already unconstitutional on their face value, making a case using ADA might work, me thinks.

Oh I'm not a good candidate for that.( I don't use a grip it all)

I'm more useful to combat the ammo shipping ban.
No access without driving out of my city

 

[NorCalAthlete]

Speaking of which...I think it's been discussed before, but what does anyone think about the prospects of an ADA lawsuit regarding overly restrictive California laws violating 2A rights of persons with certain disabilities?

It would be nice to find a good test case as a means of throwing all these evil features/ban lists out as being unconstitutional.

I made an ADA argument to the CGF lawyers for suppressors a couple years back and was blown off and told we had other more pressing matters. Now we have the Hearing Protection Act...which got shelved.

How about the disadvantaged minorities argument? Voter ID law comparisons? $25 is too much for people to pay to get an ID to vote, places to obtain IDs are too far away, but more than twice that year after year just to keep your 20 year old AR in compliance? Ranges and gun shops are pushed further out costing you more time and gas just to get there? Even if it was only for the usage of mandatory safety classes, I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that having to drive from SF to South San Jose / Morgan Hill is not an undue / unnecessary additional burden.

So basically, they want poor people to be able to vote for them but not own weapons / exercise their 2A / defend themselves. No issues with roadblocks and additional cost burdens on firearms and ammo.

 

[bojangle]

Oh I'm not a good candidate for that.( I don't use a grip it all)

I'm more useful to combat the ammo shipping ban.
No access without driving out of my city

That's a good angle.

I made an ADA argument to the CGF lawyers for suppressors a couple years back and was blown off and told we had other more pressing matters. Now we have the Hearing Protection Act...which got shelved.

How about the disadvantaged minorities argument? Voter ID law comparisons? $25 is too much for people to pay to get an ID to vote, places to obtain IDs are too far away, but more than twice that year after year just to keep your 20 year old AR in compliance? Ranges and gun shops are pushed further out costing you more time and gas just to get there? Even if it was only for the usage of mandatory safety classes, I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that having to drive from SF to South San Jose / Morgan Hill is not an undue / unnecessary additional burden.

So basically, they want poor people to be able to vote for them but not own weapons / exercise their 2A / defend themselves. No issues with roadblocks and additional cost burdens on firearms and ammo.

These are good angles too. These might just be the issues that eventually lead to sweeping changes that just might lead to SCOTUS rulings of unconstitutional.

 

[Eldritch]

I'd love to be part of that.
I wrote a Calguns lawyer about it but never heard back.

Holy Crap. If you could make a Civil Case as a 504 Violation, there could be a case for damages due to emotional distress.

 

[russ69]

...making a case using ADA might work, me thinks.

I would not hold my breath waiting for that. I have not heard one legal argument that had any merit concerning AW bans. We are now almost 30 years into the first ban and we have not gained any ground.

 

[Ridley]

I would not hold my breath waiting for that. I have not heard one legal argument that had any merit concerning AW bans. We are now almost 30 years into the first ban and we have not gained any ground.

Do you think the common use argument is lacking in legal standing too?

 

[russ69]

Do you think the common use argument is lacking in legal standing too?

The common use argument was very good and does provide some hope. However the political will to push this issue just doesn't exist and may never exist. It has been shown that states can prohibit the sales of guns even if they are a popular model. The real question is how far can they go before they have crossed the line and infringed on our rights. So far it seems they can go pretty far.

 

[Ridley]

The common use argument was very good and does provide some hope. However the political will to push this issue just doesn't exist and may never exist. It has been shown that states can prohibit the sales of guns even if they are a popular model. The real question is how far can they go before they have crossed the line and infringed on our rights. So far it seems they can go pretty far.

Wasn't common use part of the argument in Heller that the SC confirmed? However I agree with you in that the political environment in Ca is pointless to argue against because it seems that the 9th circus is in bed with the CA Democratic Party and DA.

 

[Junkie]

I would not hold my breath waiting for that. I have not heard one legal argument that had any merit concerning AW bans. We are now almost 30 years into the first ban and we have not gained any ground.

We absolutely got rid of some of the worst parts (classes of weapons), I'd call that gaining ground vs where we were at one point.

 

[Junkie]

I know this guy Will who started https://resurgentarms.com

He just finished his injection molds and products should ship in Nov.

Saw the grips in person and they seemed better than wraps or hammerhead.
$35

That looks a LOT like the Featureless Arms grip

 

[KXP]

I think its time to turn mine into the break back, bolt action single shot that ive been planning on doing. Im assuming that will past muster, yes?

 

[Junkie]

No need to be single shot, magazine fed is fine.

If it's set up as bolt action (I'd want no gas block/tube rather than an adjustable one turned down) you should be fine with a normal mag release and all the features you want. It would be a good idea to be able to show police that it's missing components that're required for semiauto use.

 

[Ridley]

I think its time to turn mine into the break back, bolt action single shot that ive been planning on doing. Im assuming that will past muster, yes?

Putting a bolt action upper on it would be fine. I believe that if you do that you can even have a standard mag release...no BB required. No need to monkey around with single shot, break action BS.

To be sure, look at the Calguns flowchart provided by russ69 in post 128. That will tell you what is and is not a california defined "Assault weapon".

 

[Snaggy]

Out of curiosity, what would a person have to do if they bought a Sporter in the 80's, went through the fingerprints and everything at the local PD to register it in 2003, and has since given the gun to a son that lives in a gun-friendly state?

 

[Junkie]

Putting a bolt action upper on it would be fine. I believe that if you do that you can even have a standard mag release...no BB required. No need to monkey around with single shot, break action BS.

To be sure, look at the Calguns flowchart provided by russ69 in post 128. That will tell you what is and is not a california defined "Assault weapon".

Since it isn't semiauto, as long as it isn't a named AW it isn't an AW. The list is a little out of date too: it refers to last year's laws.

Out of curiosity, what would a person have to do if they bought a Sporter in the 80's, went through the fingerprints and everything at the local PD to register it in 2003, and has since given the gun to a son that lives in a gun-friendly state?

I didn't think there was registration in 2003, but you can send no longer in possession paperwork into CA DOJ if you want.

I'd be more inclined not to, so that he can give it back to you sometime if you so desire.

 

[russ69]

I think its time to turn mine into the break back, bolt action single shot that ive been planning on doing. Im assuming that will past muster, yes?

OK unless it's a 50BMG.

 

[russ69]

Out of curiosity, what would a person have to do if they bought a Sporter in the 80's, went through the fingerprints and everything at the local PD to register it in 2003, and has since given the gun to a son that lives in a gun-friendly state?

By give I'm sure you meant that you shipped the gun to his FFL as must be done with all interstate transfers...so you are AOK, right?

Edited for correctness.

 

[Junkie]

By give I'm sure you meant that you went to your FFL and shipped the gun to his FFL as must be done with all interstate transfers...so you are AOK, right?

No need to go to your FFL, you can ship it directly to an FFL (or hand it to one in person if you're out of state)