Few things are more corrosive to our civil liberties than unaccountable bureaucrats drafting administrative regulations. It’s far worse, though, when those same bureaucrats provide the administrative clarifications to liberty-suffocating laws that were directly passed by the legislature and the people by popular referenda.

California politicians have long sought to throw roadblocks in front of the right to keep and bear arms, but this has accelerated in the last decade. Last year, a smorgasbord of gun control laws were passed by both the state legislature and via popular referenda in the Golden State (kindly enumerated online by public station 89.3 KPCC):

(1) Expanding California’s definition of “assault weapons” to include semi-automatic rifles that are equipped with a tool to detach the magazine (“bullet button rifles”). There would be a grandfathering provision here, as rifles legally possessed and registered with California authorities at the time the law comes into effect would still be legal, but could never be transferred (even at time of death of the owner.)

(2) Requiring a background check for people purchasing ammunition.

(3) Banning mere possession of any detachable magazine capable of holding more than ten (10) cartridges, with no grandfather provision. Before the law comes into effect, these magazines would have to be either destroyed, transferred out of state, or handed in to law enforcement.

(4) Restricting the loaning of firearms to persons who are not immediate relatives.

(5) Making it a misdemeanor to falsely report a stolen firearm, and banning guilty people from buying another firearm for ten years.

So what are these laws going to look like when the rubber hits the road? Well…I wish I could tell you more, but I can’t. At least not yet.

Before these rules can be enforced, the California Department of Justice’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has to draft new regulations interpreting these laws, which will be added to the communistically long set of rules that Californians must endure.

In December 2016, the OAL tried to move forward with a series of draft regulations interpreting these new laws, but used a “file and print” process. That means that the regs were not going to be subject to public notice or comment. When word got out that they were using a secretive process to submit these new rules, a hue and cry was raised, and the OAL backed down.

As Bruce Krafft reported, the OAL is at it again. They were forced to cough-up sixty pages of documents related to the new regulations thanks to a public records request from the Firearms Policy Coalition. The documents can be viewed in their entirety here, although there’s only fifteen pages that contain the proposed regulations.

It appears that the OAL wants to completely rewrite Title 11, Division 5, Chapter 39, Article 2 sec. 5469 of the California Code of Regulations. Originally, this section provided definitions of the five criteria that made a firearm an “assault weapon” under California law. The proposed changes, however, are pretty substantive.

The title of Article 2 has been changed from “Definitions of Terms Used to Identify Assault Weapons” to “Registration Requirement, What Qualifies for Registration, and Definitions.” The re-naming of Article 2 is an eloquent reminder of the mission creep that accompanies all gun control laws.

The definition section jumps through a lot of verbal hoops to explain that a semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine that can be removed with a so-called “bullet button” is an “assault weapon.” It also lays out the process through which the unhappy denizens of California with these previously-legal rifles will have to endure to register their firearms so they may continue to legally possess them.

Online registration will apparently be available — the website currently, however, shows this message to visitors:

In theory, of course, these regulations are still tentative, and another surge of protest might cause them to be softened on the edges (although the black letter law being what it is here, there’s only so much softening that can be done.)

Still, as hard as it may be to believe, there are 33 millions guns legally owned in California, more than in any other state in the Union. Even Texas. Even if there’s a 3:1 ratio of guns to individual owners, that’s still a heck of a lot of people whose voices might make a difference.

I spoke with Dr. Arthur Przebinda, a California gun rights activist and occasional TTAG contributor on the impact of these regulations.

He pointed out something that is sometimes lost in the shuffle: as a gun rights activist, he tries to make sure that that his equipment is always in compliance with the law (even if it could’ve been ‘grandfathered’ in,) in part because he doesn’t want to get harassed by ill-informed or jumpy gun range staff or local constabulary.

He also wants to make sure that his firearm collection can be inherited — which even grandfathered-in, properly registered “assault weapons” in California cannot be. There’s a chilling effect that these laws have above and beyond the immediate term.

In my opinion, it lays bare the lawmakers’ desire to dry up the supply of rifles that can be owned by the citizenry.

Until the administrative rules are finalized, Dr. Przebinda and millions of other gun owners in California are in a holding pattern. They aren’t able to take steps to comply with the registration requirement, because that’s still up in the air. They can’t even take steps to make their rifles compliant with the new laws, because they don’t know how, exactly, the OAL is going to define “assault weapons” just yet.

“We don’t know what features and components would make a Stoner or Kalashnikov variant compliant and exempt from registration as an [assault weapon],” says Dr. Przebinda.

Helping Californians who just want to go on with their own lives, of course, was never what these laws were about.

90 Responses to New California Gun Control Regulations to Dry Up Supply of ‘Assault Weapons’?

    • In 25 words or less: California continues on its trajectory to near-complete civilian disarmament.

      • no, that would only apply to legal gun owners.

        if we take mexico as an example, they have way worse crime problems and most of them involve guns. fancy that!

    • Here’s 13:

      If you live in California and want a modern sporting rifle, you’re boned.

      • “2 words: boating accident”

        What’s stopping a registered ‘AW’ owner to arrange to just have the weapon shipped out of state prior to or upon their demise?

        You can’t convict a corpse…

        • IANAL, but “upon their demise” is probably too late, the firearms then being in the deceased’s estate, and no longer belonging to the deceased. If said guns can’t be inherited, they then belong to the state.
          Trust me, this has been thought of already.
          The abomination isn’t in the rules, but in the hearts of the people who demand this disarming of the populace.

    • In short:

      1) All ‘scary’ semi Auto rifles are now illegal.
      2) All mags over 10 rounds are illegal.
      3) Our state government considers us more evil than ISIS
      4) You need a special license now to buy ammo and no ammo purchases online.

      • JUST LIKE it is here in CT. So if the Scary AR was banned here and you replaced it with a Rugar Mini 14 or 30 so you could own a legal semi-auto rifle – well, under the new CALifornia proposed laws -those are now illegal too.

        • Mini’s are only banned if they have certain features such as a pistol grip and flash hider.

        • “Mini’s are only banned if they have certain features such as a pistol grip and flash hider.


          Because everyone knows those things turn the shooter into a dangerous, violent felon.
          No, wait, actually they turn the GUN into a dangerous, violent, ummm, felon?
          How stupid is that?
          And the people who write this stuff (the laws) want to run our lives? Politicians need term limits.

      • 5) A database of said ammo purchases will be kept in order to track and eventually limit and control your ammo purchases.

    • I can do it with nine – idiocy, illogical, unnecessary bureaucracy and suppression of constitutional rights.

    • Means, there will be a whole new class of criminals in California. If I still lived there, there’s no way I would conform to their new laws.

  1. I live in CA, and got a “bullet button Assault rifle” (their term, not mine) last December before the restrictions went into effect. Many people here do not vote (roughly 50%), or if they do they don’t pay much attention to the laws being proposed. Ironically, most of the people I talk to do not know many of these laws were passed, and many more do not understand what these laws will mean to them and their gun ownership. I think CA politicians don’t realize how many gun owners are in this state, and at some point these voters will be angry at how hard it will be for them to purchase ammo (Many hunters here do not seem to care about AR or handgun restrictions). Hopefully it will finally get them engaged in voting for Pro-gun laws, but we will have to wait and see.

    • Good luck with that. The rest of the America is hoping CA is successful in their 2018 secession vote so we don’t have to deal with their 55 electoral votes anymore.

      • Let me guess; you voted for that liar HiLIARy and because of the 55 electoral votes from Ca. she lost. Waah!

        • Did you even read what I wrote? I want CA gone from the union because they consistently vote Democrat/antigun. I want 55 less electoral votes for the Democrats, I want 2 less Democratic senators, I want 53 less Democratic House representatives.

          You get what I am saying? I hope the ocean swallows Commiefornia and sends it back to hell where it belongs but I’ll take their secession gladly if I can’t have my first option.

  2. On the one hand I feel for the people in California who are losing their right to keep and bear arms “brick by brick”. On the other hand I have no empathy for them when just ONE IN 100 firearm owners cannot be bothered to show up in Sacramento to angrily and loudly demand that California stop infringing on their rights.

    One in 100 firearm owners in California equates to something like 100,000 people. I have to imagine the California government machine would stand up and take notice when 100,000 people descend on Sacramento on the same day.

    • Do you know how long the drive from Los Angeles to Sacramento is?
      Do you know the cost of renting buses?
      Do you know the cost of a nights stay in a Sacramento hotel?
      Do you know what it costs to secure a permit to protest on capitol grounds? (yes, you can protest on the sidewalk, but when you obstruct traffic, you will be removed)

      None of these things excuse low participation. But neither are they conducive to the kinds of efforts we’d like to see….

      • CalGunsMD,

        Do you know how long the drive from Los Angeles to Sacramento is?
        Do you know the cost of renting buses?
        Do you know the cost of a nights stay in a Sacramento hotel?
        Do you know what it costs to secure a permit to protest on capitol grounds?

        Who said anything about renting buses or staying in a hotel? As for the cost of a permit to protest on capital grounds — WHICH ITSELF IS A CONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT — even if it was $100,000 that is only $1 per person if 100,000 people show up.

        And for the drive from Los Angeles to Sacramento: you hit the road at 5:00 a.m. and get there at 11:00 a.m. … and then after petitioning your government for a redress of grievances for three hours (and allowing an additional hour for whatever) you leave at 3:00 p.m. and return home at 9:00 p.m. Is that a long day? Sure … and well worth it to fight for your rights.

        And for those who don’t think they are capable of a 12 hour round trip drive in one day, stay at a hotel in Fresno, Modesto, or Stockton to knock down your drive time and expenses.

        In other words stop whining and making excuses and actually put the political screws to your government.

      • Don’t forget one thing off that list

        We unlike lib dem bottom feeders on welfare—gun grabbing snowflakes

        We have REAL jobs and any time spent off is golden!

        and who wants to GO to sac town?
        have rallies in LA–SD–and san fran if you can? in san fran?

      • All of those “roadblocks” to oppositions to
        Socialist takeover DO NO APPLY to the cowards who trash and burn working tax payers property in protezt to ANYTHING that might end their FREE GRAVY TRAIN.

    • “just ONE IN 100 firearm owners cannot be bothered to show up in Sacramento to angrily and loudly demand that California stop infringing on their rights…”

      No one cares. No one who matters, anyway. The politicians don’t care. The judges don’t care.

      They care about votes and money. If you don’t have more of one or the other, it doesn’t matter how many times you go out in public with ‘don’t tread on me’ flags

  3. Good question Charlie.
    Bottom line.
    The DOJ can’t enforce the law that was passed.
    They don’t even know how to deal with it, December 31, 2017 is the deadline.
    Even if you did register, they can only be destroyed if you die, or taken out of state.

    DO NOT COMPLY!

    • So move out of state or become immortal?

      Any POTG is welcome in Alabama, we like hunting and shooting in our backyard (outside city limits though)

      • I would like to say the same, but we have enough CA’s in this state already. Now they’re causing the real estate market to explode and houses are doubling in cost. These people are coming in, paying $20k over asking and driving the market through the roof. Normally, if I was a home owner, I’d say it’s a good thing, doubling your return on investment. People like me however, are completely screwed when trying to purchase homes, and the rental rates are climbing just as fast as the home prices are.

      • I’ll second The Duke’s invitation, and add that in many small towns the city limit restriction is not an issue, it’s more about distance to neighbors due to noise.

    • From what I’ve heard thru “the grapevine” the LEO’s aren’t even planning on trying to enforce it.

  4. The California legislators are so completely clueless, it’s become comical. Take for instance that one of the “featureless” requirements is for a muzzle brake in lieu of a flash suppressor, or that the stock be pined and not adjustable. It has no bearing on the operation of the firearm, and actually makes it more pleasant to shoot in some instances (muzzle brake buffers recoil). Thank GOD the NRA and CRPA has recently stepped in and filed a lawsuit to address some of these atrocities. Enough is enough- this nonsense has to come to an end. If you ever expect a change in the status quo, now is the time to contribute to the NRA or CRPA…

    • “The California legislators are so completely clueless”

      No. They are not.

      The greatest disservice you can do to RKBA efforts is to assume your opponents are stupid, naive or clueless.

      • Clueless about guns as actual tools, yes. Clueless about the intended effects of their laws, no.

        They know damn well what they’re doing to the people who bear the brunt of these laws, and they’re doing it to you with pleasure.

  5. The definition is quite clearly described in existing law. California is a ‘single-feature’ state. Any of the typical ‘assault weapon’ cosmetic features (including the pistol grip) gets your gun labeled as such. If you’d don’t have the features, your gun isn’t an assault weapon. Ironically, this actually entitles you to use detachable mags. As an example, an unmolested Saiga with the original sported (no thumbhole) stock isn’t an Assault Weapon. The only thing the new law did was to throw bullet-button guns on the pile. Hera arms has released a stock currently being used by a lot of manufacturers to make a so-called featureless build with no cosmetic features from then ban. Others are using work arounds to enable them to have a mag release and pistol grip while not getting caught in the ban. Most of these are tricks that let you pivot your receiver open on an AR quickly for reloading, though at least one company is releasing ah polymer stripper clip that gets inserted through the ejection port to charge the gun. The Cali DOJ, recognizing that the new law only put a tiny bandaid on the gaping hole in the existing law, attempted to write the regs in such a way that they could do what they wanted. They got called on it, and now they’re trying to regroup and see what will stick from their wishlist.

  6. Well, Johannes, you really don’t know what you are talking about.
    Let’s start with the easy stuff.
    1.If you own a Bullet Button firearm, you can keep it. But if you do not change its configuration, it must be registered.
    2. Unless the firearm meets the definition of “assault weapon”, it is neither subject to nor can be registered.
    3. No new BB rifles or pistols may be sold.
    4.. BUT there are at least two different ways to avoid the BB ban, and rifles are still available on dealers shelves. First is the so-called “featureless” build.
    A. A featureless build lacks specified characteristics, and therefore does not fit the definition. The banned characteristics are: forward vertical grips, flash hiders, pistol grips that allow the user to wrap the thumb around the grip, and a collapsible stock. A “featureless” rifle is NOT required to have a bullet button OR a fixed mag. A Mini is a featureless rifle, for example. So a compliant rifle will have a thread protector or muzzle break, no forward grip or a slanted one, a Thordsen or Hera stock, or one of the various “fins” that prevent the thumb from wrapping around the pistol grip, and a fixed stock.
    B. In the alternative, an owner may install a fixed magazine, either a Prince device that disables the mag release, or a Franklin mag that drop in from the top when the receiver halves are split. However, due to the unusual features of the regs as written, it is possible to comply with the law and have a removable mag. As long as the receiver halves are split , thus disabling the firing mechanism, the action has been “disassembled” within the meaning of the law. There are several devices which prevent the mag release from being operated until the rear pin is pulled and the halves slightly split. there is also a device, reviewed here, that allows loading through the ejection port.
    If the rifle complies with either A or B, is is not subject to registration, and is treated the same as any other firearm, without the transportation or transfer restrictions under the “assault weapon” law.

    The proposed registration requirements are truly onerous, and deserve an article unto themselves. For example: The only way to register is electronically, and that registration MUST be completed by December 31, 2017. Once the window closes, no further rifles may be registered, and they are contraband unless converted as described above or taken out of state. A registrant MUST provide multiple electronic photographs of the rifle showing its current configuration, serial number and manufacturer identification. If it is a home built rifle, the applicant MUST obtain and etch or imprint a state issued serial number, along with the name of the builder and place of residence. the etching or stamping MUST be done by an FFL licensed to handle “assault weapons”, or in the presence of the owner by a person not so licensed, all before attempting to register. The current regs, although there seems to be no statutory authority allowing it, require that owners of BB rifles CANNOT remove the BB after registration, even though it should be an “assault weapon” just like all the ones registered under a 2000 law. Register AWs can only be transported between the home and the range and back, and as noted, can only be transferred out of state; otherwise they must be turned in for destruction.

    So why would anyone ever register when there are plenty of options, and very good reasons to legally avoid doing so? If the intent is to reduce the number of AWs in the state, this law will not accomplish it. Once they figure that out, the next step will be to require the registration of all semiautomatic firearms as “assault weaons,” but that may be a bridge too far..

    • Good info except for a couple of points:
      -Franklin magazines and Prince devices are still under review because there is a debate whether hinging the upper and lower is considered disassembled or if both upper and lower have to be separated (not hinged) to be disassembled. NO REGULATORY DECISION YET ON FRANKLIN MAGS AND PRINCE DEVICES
      -The definition of “featureless” is under review supposedly because they don’t like the idea of monsterman grips and such that can be removed.
      So, yes, in the end it will probably ban most semi-autos that are currently legal. The final product is up to the Attorney General

      • I am aware of the lengthy discussion, BUT The new regs cover the first question–and it is allowed. As you may know, the Prince device was the predecessor to the Bullet button (same inventor), and it locks the mag in place by disabling the release. This was the way things were until the BB case along, and if they were legal then, given no change in the law on that particular issue, then they are legal now. By any definition, the Prince device creates a fixed magazine. Second, the current proposed regs clearly specify that a magazine is fixed if you have to “disassemble the action” to remove it, and further specify that if the rifle is unable to fire, it is “disassembled” within the meaning of the regs. Therefore, “approved” or not, this action complies with the law as written. In fact, if you take the upper completely off, your rifle is not even an assault weapon. You can even keep both halves in the same place (Yeah, I know that’s weird)and it is still not an assault weapon.
        The Hera stock isn’t really all that different from a Monsterman, since both prevent the thumb from wrapping around the grip–and the Hera (or Thordsen) stocked rifles are being sold all over the state. Nor does the DOJ typically issue letters “approving” any particular device, though many seem to believe it does. Only the ATF issues advisory opinions, AFAIK.

        • You are right on all counts except that cops look to the Attorney General’s stance before they decide to enforce. Regardless of the law interpretation in court, if the AG decides something and issues guidance you will be arrested and the court will decide your innocence later. Unless you have the time and moneybags to be a plaintiff, wait for AG opinion before doing anything with an AR

    • Why is it that POTG cannot discuss technical subjects and disagree therein with each other without opening their comments with something along the line of “jeez, you’re a moron!”?

      You might have great technical knowledge to share, but it’s going to be colored under the veneer of immaturity, and so have much less impact.

      • Johannes is an outsider looking in, and he has only a taste of this complicated issue that us “insiders” have been dealing with for months if not years. It is important that misinformation not be spread.

  7. I have a question. Given Californias constant changes in statues and regulations on guns, How on earth are movies and tv shows filmed in California not violating gun transfer laws during shooting?

    • ” How on earth are movies and tv shows filmed in California not violating gun transfer laws during shooting?”

      The movie biz in Cali is *Unionized*.

      That’s part of it, but as I understand it, while weapons are on-set, they are considered in the control of the designated firearm Armour…

      • So standard 2 sets of rules. One for the special people and one for every one else.

        I know what I’m about to say is an oxymoron giving we’re talking California , but that makes no logical sense

        • Many of these firearms have been modified so that they will not chamber a live round, only a blank, so that they are no longer “firearms.”

  8. There are companies that do realistic looking blank modifications to guns solely for the movie industry. There is a lot of money made in this and the harder it is to get guns, the more these movie-gun rental places make

  9. At some point, hopefully soon, a large group of firearms owners will proceed to utilize these weapons in the way they were intended, while calling on patriots nationwide to join them. The only way Americans will know freedom is by defeating these Liberal Terrorists™ in the next Civil War. It can’t come soon enough, so my child may know peace.

    • Civil disobedience is far more likely than armed resistance, and so far those efforts have been weak (not that it would matter–they hate us and do not listen to what we have to say). I think armed resistance is exceedingly unlikely.

    • Approximately 70% of the Assembly and Senate and most State level offices that matter are Democrats who recently gave Trump the finger at the California Dems convention. Hope a bunch of Dems are recalled over the car tax to ruin their supermajority

  10. CA has been overrun by communists. We need to have our government eradicate them, or we need new guards. [Para. 2nd, U.S. Declaration of Independence (but read the whole fing thing, ok)].

  11. The magazine ban is theft, plain and simple and should not be complied with. You cannot expect someone to destroy or surrender property without compensation.

    • Well gee, they were nice enough to “let” you take them over to Reno or Vegas and sell them there. So as far as they are concerned, you’ve had your chance to get money out of them, now they are contraband and may be seized as such, or as a nuisance. either way, legally they owe you nothing unless and until the law is overturned. (Don’t hold your breath.) Sorry, dems da facts of life.

  12. Democrats have probably got the voter rolls and elections so rigged that the state will be solid democrat until it goes back to Mexico. The sooner, the better.

    • Although there is probably some of that going on, the fact is that 60% of the registered voters are registered Democrats, and until that changes, gerrymandering has no real effect on outcomes.

  13. Honestly this is precursor. When Gavin Newsome wins the governorship. There will be a blanket semi-auto ban and you know what, we will do nothing about it because short of the courts it would require lead delivery. No one will want be the first, lose there rights or want to spend time in jail.

    • Newsom will be governor in 2018,
      But there is talk of Newsom-Cuomo in 2020 for President. Both have a rock-star like following and huge war chest and media loves them. God help us if Trump does not give us 2 more in the SCOTUS

      • Given that Cuomo is a governor and has national exposure, that would be a Cuomo-Newsome ticket. I am not sure that Gavin wants to play second fiddle to anyone any more. He is practically a shoe-in for governor (yes, there is competition from LA, but it isn’t very strong), but a partial first term won’t be enough to get him a lead role.

  14. I’m in California. I own a bullet-button AR. I’m going to get the take-down pin to release the mag modification in the next few weeks.
    They wanna pass a law outlawing technology? No sweat. We can beat it with new ideas.
    (I’m faster reloading my SKS with a stripper clip anyway…I just wish optics were easier to mount on it.)
    But,
    there is a law that should be scaring you all shitless: Registration and waiting periods for ammo purchases.
    “No sweat- road trip!” you say?
    Not so fast. Someone made a sweetheart deal with Nevada- they now card for ammo purchases. Show up with a
    California ID, and they will send it to your FFL dealer in California- they will NOT give it to YOU!
    You still have to fill out the forms, wait the waiting time, pay the fees- even if you buy it in Nevada.
    Your states will follow along next. You know it’s coming.

    (And, speaking of fees- why is it bad to make people pay a fee to get an ID card, so they can vote- making voting
    a pay-for-play Right, yet, fees keep going up on firearms and- now- ammo? Isn’t that a sumptuary law, preventing
    the poor from having IIA Rights? Someone wanna file a “Voter-ID” like lawsuit for that?)

    • Nevada may co-operate with California, but here in Arizona we LIKE guns and ammo, and don’t like the anti-gunners from California. So come buy your ammo, we will take your money. I would suggest cash, so there isn’t an electronic or paper trail for the CA socialist government to follow.

    • You can come to Arizona – I doubt we will make such a deal concerning ammo purchases.
      BTW, I can’t find anything online about the deal with Nevada you mention.

  15. “there are 33 millions guns legally owned in California . . . . Even if there’s a 3:1 ratio of guns to individual owners, that’s still a heck of a lot of people whose voices might make a difference.”

    Ridiculous! Everybody knows that five super-owners own 97% of all the known guns in the universe! You can look it up!

  16. I wish people (especially the TRUTH about guns) would stop using that article to make estimations (or statements of fact, even worse) about the number of guns in a given state. The key quote from that article is thus: “We then took the estimate of 88.8 guns per 100 people for the U.S.—which, seven years later, is likely higher—and used it to calculate each state’s estimated gun ownership, based on state populations from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 survey.”

    They are simply projecting the national average rate of gun ownership on the population of each state. Do you really think California is even close to the average rate of gun ownership? Do you think Texas is as low as the average rate of gun ownership?

  17. A refinement: California has an Administrative Procedures Act. The ‘assault weapons bill, SB880 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB880) explicitly exempts the regulations associated with that bill from the AP aact – “(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code).” So, no public review.

    However, it seem to be the opinion of the NRA lawyers in CA that the regulations as available very much over-reach the regs that could be written from that bill.

    I expect a lawsuit in the next couple of weeks.

    That becomes interesting, because the bill says “(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5).”

    If the lawsuit delays or reverses adopting the regs then the registration date is on hold.

  18. My two ARs are now featureless. All my gun stuff is 100% Kalifornia legal. At great time and monetary expense. Most people I know with ARs. People who are otherwise law abiding with shall we say high level jobs, are simply Not going to comply. They will defy the government! I’m surprised how many people have said that they simply will not comply! Clearly, the government is overstepping and it could get ugly….

    • Let’s see, since I decided to go featureless, I have taken off the A2 flash hider and purchased a thread protector for $14. (I’ve never been a fan of brakes, and I have found no one that makes a straight compensator.) I have a line on a finned (no longer) pistol style grip for $6 (currently out of stock). All I need to do is pin the stock, the parts for which are about $5.(I wouldn’t mind a simple stock that has a good length that mounts on the tube, but the only ones I see are short little CQB stocks. Not for me; I have long arms.) Going the Thordsen or Hera route would cost a pretty penny, though, as both retail for north of $100.

  19. For all of you that think you’re safe cause you don’t live in California, you coudnt be more blind. They’re going to make it work here, and then they’re going to make it work everywhere. It’s called the Locust effect. They come to your state and slowly by slowly take over. Look at Nevada, they already have people pushing for gun-control there. Why? People moving from California looking for cheap living. But they get there and they spread their poison. This is a civil right, it’s a federal issue, not a state issue. Every gun owner in America should Raise Hell over this. Tumi it’s almost as bad as racism in Mississippi was. It took the feds to come in and stop the lynchings.

  20. Will the big fault of this law is the law itself but now I get to nitpick at it.

    Doing a new round of registration is done to do nothing because the last one they did for only 15% of complied with it.

    Trying to do a background check for ammo has failed the New York State. They learn the hard way you can’t use the NICS.

    Oh by the way the state has had 15 mass shootings with all of their gun control I don’t think the new stuff is going to help?

    What I’ve seen so much stuff coming out to go around their stupid laws with going around the pistol grip parts kits for magazines which technically are legal as long as they were apart.

    But last let’s look at the two State that pass the same type of legislation. New York State in Connecticut only 5% of people registered your firearms in both those states.

    Can’t wait to see you the numbers that come out of this after the registration due date. I wonder if they’ll have to sue like Connecticut and New York State?

    • I am pretty sure it was Washington State where they can’t use NICS. but for us Californians, it is a nonissue. First, we get to pay $50 for an ammo purchase permit, which entails a background check. California has its own system for doing so, which includes NICS. At the time of purchase, one will have to present the license, and the dealer will perform, not a background check, but merely an instant check to see if your name appears on the State’s armed prohibited persons list (an APPS check). While this is processing, the dealer will record your information and that amount and caliber of all ammunition sold.

      Since ammunition is not, AFAIK, traceable, this is idle security theater which is supposed to deter the gangs from buying ammo. If it is true that Vegas will not sell ammo to California residents (which is suspect since the law doesn’t go into effect until next year and Nevada sellers are not subject to the law, only buyers who bring the ammo back into California), then maybe there will be a reduction of crime–but I doubt it. There is still Aridzone and Oregon. the main effect will be to wipe out most internet sales traffic.

  21. This registration / confiscation is a 5th amendment violation as well as a violation of the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

    Do Not Comply.

    These commie regs will be overturned. It may take fifteen years but they will not stand.

    Stop spending money in california. Move. Do business with out of state companies. Do everything in your power to not create taxable events in california. Do not give these bastards money.

    Support national reciprocity!!!

  22. Sooo….. I can visit family in California for our bi-monthly shootout. I can bring all of my hand pressed ammo and potato salad. And of course who couldn’t leave California without a trunk full those great green veggies they have.

  23. So if I train my dog can he purchase ammo without ID?

    “(2) Requiring a background check for people purchasing ammunition.”

  24. The problems with the AR and AK being disliked by so many older politicians, is that they are replica’s of the Vietnam war!
    Another way of castigating and destroying all vestiges of the Vietnam Veteran, through this hidden agenda of anti-gun extreme-ism.
    denying that the Veterans even exist in a war that Johnson instigated to fill his own back pocket!
    Democrats profited the most from the war and wanted too prolong it for monetary gain off the industrial complex but now are working hardest at destroying the Constitution of the US, dissembling the very moral fabric of our existence for political power

  25. The concept that more California gun control will prevent gangs from having semi-automatic rifles would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic for legitimate gun owners. Just like the U.S. Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, determined that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence,” this latest BS law will do nothing to prevent gangs from getting anything they want since they don’t acquire their guns legally anyway.

    Liberals are morons, pure and dimple.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *