DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: California. Would YOU Comply? reminds us of the gun control bills California Governor Jerry Brown signed, which become law on January 1, 2017:

  • SB 880 (Hall) and AB 1135 (Levine): Bans common and constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
  • SB 1235 (de Leon): Now competes with Gavin Newsom’s Safety for All Act/Ammo Ban.
  • SB 1446 (Hancock): Confiscation of lawfully acquired, standard capacity ammunition feeding devices.
  • AB 1511 (Santiago): Bans the loaning of firearms.
  • AB 1695 (Bonta): Makes some non-violent misdemeanors punishable by prohibitions on owning firearms.

If this was your state, would you comply?

desantis blue logo no back 4 small


  1. avatar SelousX says:

    Nope. Not at all.

    1. avatar california richard says:


    2. avatar Matt in TX says:


  2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    As I have no moral duty to comply with unconstitutional laws, I would not comply with such.

    If house-to-house searches commenced, I would hide any non-compliant equipment. They would have better luck finding Jimmy Hoffa.

    1. avatar Gullible says:

      Hoffa was shot by a mob friend, in a mob-borrowed safehouse and cremated by a mob-owned funeral home, The Daily Mail, a British newspaper had an article about it a while back. The FBI, however, continues to waste time and money on the case. Hoffa’s ashes are probably scattered in some alley. There is NO body left.

      1. avatar MarkF says:

        Son of a gun! What a coincidence! The EXACT same thing happened to my guns, ammo, magazines, spare parts, manuals, etc. Nothing left but ashes.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Jimmy Hoffa was carrying all my guns in the trunk of his car. We’d had a range date that morning.

          I’ve given up hope of ever seeing my guns again.

      2. avatar Timmy! says:

        Wasn’t Hoffa voted “Most Likely to Become an ‘Off Ramp'” in high school?

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      If house to house searches commenced, they would be followed closely by house to house torchings of the homes of the searchers.
      Leave my home alone and I’ll do the same for you.

  3. avatar pwrserge says:

    Yeah… Nope. I laughed at the Cook County “assault weapons” ban (I owned numerous “banned” rifles for the few years I lived there) and would welcome these cucks to come and try to take my guns.

  4. avatar Mercutio says:

    Considering the local gendarmes bought two FN “sniper rifles” to , ahem, “save lives”, mebbe so. (quotes from local fishwrap)

  5. Just as it is an infringement to the 2nd Amendment to make such a law, it is a violation to comply voluntarily. Make them enforce it. Make them eat it.
    You will go down in history as a hero. When the tyrants came to your door you took a stand. You were more brave than most. You did not die in vain. Shortly after the tyrants gunned down the patriots, the citizens rose up and shouted “NO MORE!” The laws were repealed and replaced with a law stating that any bill brought to the floor of any federal or local legislative body that contained any language requesting infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, would result in the person drafting and or cosigning the bill to be incarcerated for no less than 10 years in Federal prison and barred from holding any office or government job.

    1. avatar MarkF says:

      By Jove! I’m in. You go first. (wink, absolutely no intend besides a bit of humor intended)

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      It’s not going to work. The media will say he was resisting arrest and everyone here on TTAG will look past it, because of such.

      1. Only the last patriot should surrender. Playing a game of hide and seek will never reverse the course of tyranny. When they come to take your guns, shoot the bastards.

      2. avatar Bill in IL says:

        Agreed, there are a large amount of Fudds infesting TTAG lately.

        1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

          well, maybe we can put the fudds and trolls in their own little room and sell tickets to raise some legal defense funds or something.

          I’d pay $5.

  6. avatar Kurt says:

    Easy to talk tough, but when it comes right down to it having a neutered rifle is better than having a felony. They’re going after cops in San Francisco now ( which seems to me to be deliberate – once cops realize THEY’RE getting persecuted, they’ll have less incentive to look the other way for non-cops. It’s a crapfest no matter how you look at it.

    1. avatar FlaResident says:

      The article is pretty non-specific. What did he do to “manufacture” and “assault weapon”? put a fore grip on his quad rail and and replace the fixed stock with an adjustable one ?

      1. avatar Kurt says:

        From a friend of mine who works at the department, it was replacement of the bullet button with a standard magazine release.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          If the SanFran cop is willing to fight it to the end on 2A grounds, I’m willing to kick in $100 towards his attorney fees.

          I’m not anti-cop, I’m anti-crime. When cops commit real crimes against real people, I denounce that. Then the real copsuckers call me anti-cop as if it were a bad thing. Around here, copsuckers are easy to spot. They’re the idiots who think RF is anti-cop.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        We can have all those things if we have a bullet button. Rumors abound to what he did, because details have not been released. but the best two guesses are 1) SBR, or 2) no bullet button. It seems that the possibility he crafted an auto sere are remote, as the ATF is not involved. What we do know is that he is facing a felony and a misdemeanor, his career is shot, he may go to prison, he will likely lose his pension and his gun rights. And it may all be because he didn’t have a $15 bullet button installed on his lower.

        The timing is curious, to say the least, his arrest coming right n the heals of Brown signing the bullet button ban bill. One with a touch of tinfoil could easily surmise that the arrest is intended to encourage owners of ARs to register their guns next year. And this is especially true of anyone who posted pictures of themselves with their rifles on social media, or shared their ownership with friends and family. Big Brother is watching.

        1. avatar Kurt says:

          This is the most likely scenario. Whatever they are, the statists in Sacramento aren’t stupid. They’re playing a long game, and we, their loyal opposition, have not been.

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          This does not speak well for San Francisco detectives. From what I read he had been under investigation for a year before his arrest. A year to determine if his AR did or did not have a “bullet button”?

  7. avatar Old Air Force says:

    I plead the fifth………

  8. avatar Matt Richardson says:

    Nope, and the few friends/family I still have living out that way won’t be complying.

  9. avatar Jim says:

    I’m going to move my M&P 15 out of state. I bought it in CA so the DoJ knows I have it. I expect compliance letters to be sent to known owners first. Followed by visits from their confiscation teams. Yes, we have those in CA. As a teacher I’m not going to risk a felony charge but I will not register or turn in. So my semi auto rifle will sit out the war in free territory until I retire.

    My plan is to either pick up a lever or bolt action to tide me over.

    1. avatar MarkF says:

      Might I recommend a handy Marlin 1894 in .357 Magnum? I have the stainless version, carbine length. And it is the absolute last weapon I will part with. Love it. Feed it well and it will love you back.

      Nothing slouchy about the old .357 for a bit of HD. Mine digests all .38 Specials extremely well, also.

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        If you can find a decent used one.

        The new ones are absolute crap from the examples I’ve seen.

        I have owner three and the my last has the ballard rifling so its shoots lead bullets as well as jacketed.

        158 grain JHP launches at around 1900 fps. Pretty jiggy.

        I love mine. Maybe Marlin/Freedom Group will get their act together. I would like a 16 inch Trapper version.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          If you can find a decent used one. The new ones are absolute crap from the examples I’ve seen.

          That’s all too true, and everyone knows it.

          I just bought a Winchester 94 in .30-30. Made in New Haven, CT in 1975 and hardly fired. Great fit and finish, great wood and accurate as hell — and it’s a post-64 model, which is supposed to be of lesser quality that the pre-64 rifles.

          The quality of that old Winchester is so far superior to anything made by Marlin-Freedom Group that it’s not worth comparing the two.

          Marlin was once a great gunmaker. It’s sad what has happened to Marlin and Remington.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Ralph, if you don’t mind how much did you pay for that 94? I bought a brand new one a couple years before your 1975 made for less than a hundred bucks. The times, they have changed.

        3. avatar B says:

          Just bought a Marlin 1895 SBL that’s perfect. Spent the first day just cycling the lever, now its so smooth. Gonna plug some hog holes with it first chance I get. Even the 336Y I bought 2 years ago was fine (a 16″ lever gun is so freaking handy), though I don’t really care for the parkerized looking finish. Really think the QA issues are in the past, mostly.

      2. avatar Renner says:

        First they came for the full autos, sawn off shottys, and suppressors, but I did nothing because I didn’t have one of those. Then they came for the sporting rifles and imported weapons, but I said nothing because I didn’t have any of those either. Then they came for the lever actions and single shots, and there was nothing left for me to stand against the tyrants with.

      3. avatar junkman says:

        Had 1894 C .357, but I sold it for a lot more than I paid for it after I got disgusted with it–way too ammo picky–I wanted one so bad that it took searching over 6 dozen gun shops to find one–it was hard to let go of, but the Ruger 77/357 that I replaced it with is beyond complaint–it is dead nuts accurate with any ammo; stainless steel with black synthetic stock so I do not have to worry about it–goes great with my numerous Ruger .357 revovlers

      4. avatar Clear Thru says:

        Got me a Rossi M92 in .357 last year; clone of the Win ’92.
        $400 new, OTD.
        Gritty action & trigger at first, but that smoothed out like butta after 100 rnds.
        Dead on accurate right outa the box. It shoots better than I ever dreamed it could. It has improved my marksman.
        I believe that is because it is so accurate with the iron sights, I really try harder to do my part.
        It is very zen actually. The bullet is going to go where you send it. Do your part, and trust that rifle will respond accordingly.
        THE single most fun gun I own. I LOVE this rifle.
        It will never carry a scope, nor leave it’s “watery grave”.

  10. avatar ColdNorth says:

    I can’t speak for Americans, but in Canada there was a high rate of non-compliance when the long gun registry came in. If even in Canada that happened, I can see similar or greater rates in the US (even in California).

    1. avatar MarkF says:

      Compliance in both New York and Connecticut was extremely low. It would be same in California. Americans are notoriously hard to push around – same for Canadians, as many German troops learned in two world wars – and one who is decently armed is even harder to push around.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “Americans are notoriously hard to push around … and one who is decently armed is even harder to push around.”

        Hmm. Could that be why fedzilla (and state analogs) want to disarm us?

  11. avatar Bob Jones says:

    California is slowly making the transition from English Law to Napoleonic Law, in preparation for the Mexicans to take over again. Citizens will be disarmed and property will be owned under new rules.

    Under Napoleonic Law, if your property gets stolen, you probably didn’t care for it properly and deserved to lose it, particularly if the perp is a politician’s kinfolk.

  12. avatar formerwaterwalker says:

    Yeah I’m with serge and Curtis(IL and Cook). A lot of doofuses sold their AR’s and they became “legal” soon after. And a whole lot of folks carried before CC. Enforce illegal and unconstitutional laws at your peril…

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Oh, I did one better. I bought ARs out of county during the ban and didn’t really care. Non-compliance is a lot easier when local businesses give the bureaucrats the one finger salute like they are in Colorado with their magazine ban.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Part of the reason for that is because the mag ban here was written by people who are retarded. They actually stated that the reason for the ban was because once the magazine was fired it somehow disappeared/couldn’t be used again.

        The way the law is written it’s illegal to buy a new, fully assembled magazine that holds more than 15 rounds. If you get caught with a mag over 15 rounds it’s up to the government to prove that you bought it or acquired it after the ban went into effect and that the mag was full assembled when you got it. So with the exception of newly invented mags like the new ones from Daniel Defense or one that has a date of manufacture stamped on it there’s no way they can prosecute you.

        Even with something like a newer PMAG you could always claim that you damaged your old one and simply bought a replacement part and they would have to prove that it wasn’t true. (You can buy full GI mags that are disassembled as a “spare parts kit” from most stores here and assemble them at home.) Obviously you can also deface the PMAG if you choose to.

        On top of that something like 98 Sheriffs in Colorado refused to enforce these laws and even sued to the state over it. As far as I am aware there is no LEA in the state that takes the law seriously or makes any attempt to enforce it.

        People truck or fly in illegal mags all the time and no cops even try to enforce this law so it’s basically nullified in terms of AR mags. The only pain in the ass is that if you buy something like a G17 pistol NIB at this point you get it with no mags and have to acquire some from out of state.

  13. avatar AlanInFL says:

    Sorry, mines sank in a boating accident.

    Will not comply

  14. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Nope. I would not comply.
    That same crap is coming to Oregon.

  15. avatar Anon says:

    In every wave of bad laws, there is a silver lining.

    Mainly, people who could not build AR-15’s because they were too young to register their AW’s under previous grandfather periods (like me!), can now take a bullet-button or featureless AR-15, register it as an assault weapon, and now build it out to their heart’s content wth all those evil pistol-grips and other horrible global tragedies that improve the safety and accuracy of a self-defense tool.

    And Bullet Button 2.0 has already demonstrated that this wave of laws is stupid and useless… BB2 can turn a detachable-mag rifle into a fixed rifle. To ban that, you’d have to ban rifles in general… and the 2nd Amendment would rear its ugly head at that point.

    1. avatar notalima says:

      The 2A should already be rearing its head, but CA has cut off that head…at least up to the court of appeals.

      And they have shown that they simply don’t care. This is just another slice of the cake. They will let folks get used to more brownshirtedness, then come for rifles next and as long as the courts sit the way they do today (or worse if HRC puts in the 5th progressive SC Justice) it will pass without issue.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Highland Park, Illinois banned ARs, the Court of Appeals confirmed the constitutionality of the law (on hideous and egregiously wrong legal principles) and the Supreme Court denied review. The Massachusetts AG just interpreted Mass. law as banning all lower receivers, effectively banning all AR and AK pattern rifles in the state. California just banned bullet buttons, and although there is already a work-around, it is more awkward than using the BB. And owners are now required to register their formerly legal ARs as “assault weapons, ” which includes serializing 80% lower receivers. Ownership of an unregistered AW is of course a felony. If the Mass. AG’s ban succeeds, Governor Newsome will be signing a similar law here in a couple of years.

      After the first of the year, the only (still) legal semi-auto rifles in California that are not AWs will be “featureless” rifles such as the Ruger Minis and Springfield M1As, C&R rifles such as Garands and M1 Carbines, and rifles with fixed internal magazines (SKS, semi-auto hunting rifles with 3 or 4 shot capacity). Pumps and lever guns are still legal, and will likely stay so since few if any have a capacity of greater than 10 rounds and they have fixed internal (tube) mags.

      1. avatar Brian says:

        But, if those NEW “assault weapons” are found on your person, just make sure you’ve filed the serial numbers off if the value of the rifle is less than $950. Because theft of a firearm valued at less than $950 is just a misdemeanor, not a felony.

      2. avatar Elwyn Fields says:

        Sounds like you have a pretty good handle on what arms the law affects. You mention the “SKS Hunting Rifle” with a fixed internal magazine of 3 or 4 rounds.Aren’t those SKS’s with the permanently attached box magazine usually 10 rounds? I’ve never seen one with 3 or 4 rounds only capacity, but I have seen them with detachable magazine in 5 round capacity (but then it could accept larger detachable magazines, too). I guess you could alter the 10 round box magazine to only accept 5 or less rounds, but you might be hard pressed to permanently alter it. Just curious where you got that information. Thank-you for any feedback.

  16. avatar Jp says:

    Nope. Never.

  17. avatar Paul says:

    No, I would not.

  18. avatar jwm says:

    I don’t own any of the banned weapons. However, i do cc without a license when the mood hits me. Especially, but not limited to, on road trips.

    As for the bogus ammo safety bs I’m going to stock between now and Jan. and after that I will road trip out of state. I’m not buying a license to buy ammo. That’s complete bs.

    Trump 2016.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Just so you know, the DeLeon bill does not require a license (only registration of purchases), and does not go into effect until 1/1/18. So you have a bit to stock up. Second, bringing in ammo from out of state is a misdemeanor under the law which entails a fine and the loss of the “contraband” ammo you are bringing in. Also, all or parts of the DeLeon bill do not go into effect unless the Newsome ballot initiative bill passes, but I haven’t taken time to research the intersection of these laws, and whether or not they conflict.

      1. avatar Kurt says:

        How do they plan on enforcing this? The ammo they see someone bringing into the state could very well have been taken OUT of the state to begin with, and is just being returned, unfired, since the out-of-state range trip got cut short.

        1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

          As I understand it, you would not be able to return with ammo you took out of state for a training class, etc. Also, keep in mind that in CA, they know who has registered weapons and this information is tied to vehicle registration. So theoretically, they could scan your license plate, know that you are a gun owner and check you for ammunition at the border.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      You don’t need a license to Carbon Copy (cc) people on e-mails, thanks to the First Amendment.

      Carry on.

  19. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Yes I will comply because I’m a law abiding citizen and not put my CCW in jeopardy.

    Yes I will kit the magazine with a lock showing compliance.

    Yes I will inform the TTAG crew if I get a knock and they confiscate my rifle.

    I do not have the resources for a court fight and do not wish to harm law enforcement.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      So what your saying is law enforcement isn’t on our side?

      A better question Farago could ask – if you are law enforcement – will you enforce these laws??

      1. avatar mk10108 says:

        I see no reason to kill a police officer performing his duty. I can always move out of state or build another rifle. If I have to, I can transport my rifle to GA where my parents live.

        1. Will you fight with us? If not, we don’t need you.

        2. avatar FedUp says:

          Just performing their duties?
          This is the USA, the Nuremberg defense doesn’t cut it here.

          If they think doing serial home invasion robberies is part of their duties, then I’m all for setting their homes alight and shooting everything that runs out. I think the cops in CA, like those in New England, know better than to start that kind of civil war.

        3. avatar mk10108 says:

          If there is organized resistance yes. Bunch of wannabe militia, I’ll pass

        4. avatar Curtis in IL says:

          Do you think the police have a duty to enforce unconstitutional laws?

        5. avatar FedUp says:

          mk10108 :
          Who needs an organization?
          1. Identify a great wrong, as in death penalty level wrong.
          2. Administer the death penalty to the perpetrator, walk away, and keep your mouth shut.

          All an organization is really good for is making it easy to identify you as a member for later round-ups, like the Bundy Ranch and Malheur demonstrators.

          Shooting random cops in public places (as in Dallas and Baton Rouge) is good for two things:
          1. Getting you caught/killed.
          2. Discrediting yourself and your cause.

        6. avatar uncommon_sense says:


          Something tells me that you have actually read Sun Tzu’s Art of War … and learned something from it as well.

  20. avatar Clay-in-UT says:

    As soon as I am done using them…

  21. avatar BDub says:

    I wouldn’t just NOT COMPLY, I would go out of my way to subvert it.

  22. avatar Anonymous says:

    With so many laws, i’ve probably committed a few felonies today without knowing it, what’s a few more?

    1. avatar Renner says:

      Ain’t that the sobering truth.

  23. avatar MarkF says:

    Nope. Won’t comply. Already had that talk with my wife, explaining that should the insanity come to New Mexico, which is very unlikely, I will not comply.

    Explained that I would risk my job, my freedom, the future solvency of our family, and even my life should it come to that, all of it against the principle. She didn’t get it for a while, but is coming around. I certainly hope it never comes to that, though some days I long for the zombie apocalypse. I never thought I was a hard liner, but crap, all of the essential liberty is being slowly squeezed out of the entire Bill of Rights. If that continues, freedom just evaporates.

    But those are the dark thoughts. The happy thought is that the Statists are very weak on enforcing non-compliance with stupid laws. They just like passing them. Actually enforcing them? Not what they’re strong at.

  24. avatar John L. says:

    I decline to answer on the ground that I might have to move back there some day for work reasons.

  25. avatar C.S. says:

    Now that the semiauto version is illegal, I wonder how many will now opt for the REAL assault rifle. The cartels are going to make a fortune… Leland Yee would be proud.

    1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

      Yep. Illegals used to sell stolen stereo equipment out of their vans, and soon they’ll be selling AR-15s without bullet buttons featuring the uber-deadly thingy that goes up and boxes of fresh ammo from Mexico.

      If you can’t stop people coming in at the border, you certainly cannot stop whatever they are carrying in their backpacks.

  26. avatar jwtaylor says:

    No I would not comply and I would be vocal in my non-compliance. As an example, I have now twice not complied with the ridiculous, illegal, and unconstitutional stipulation that I pay a massive ITAR fee for modifying and selling firearms. I have cut the barrel to 20″ on 2 separate Mosin Nagants, and sold them. Er. Mu. Gerd. Blood in the streets.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      By shortening the barrels on those moist nuggets you created flamethrowers. What’s the law on flame throwers in your state?

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Moist nuggets again… 🙂 Autocorrect is doing a number on you today, JWM.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          No autocorrect problem there. “Moist nugget” is a pretty well-known nickname for the Mosin Nagant rifle.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Autocorrect is not what’s doing a number on me today, Ing.

          Now my autocorrect is telling me I’m spelling autocorrect and your name wrong. It’s gonna be one of those days.

      2. avatar jwtaylor says:

        jwm, you have a point. Flame throwers are completely legal here. Good lord it is getting hard to be rebellious when every illegal thing you do turns out to be somehow also legal and every legal thing turns out to be also illegal.
        “A well defined legal code is the hallmark of an immoral society”-somebody said something like that probably

  27. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

    I don’t generally admit to intention to or willingness to violate the law on the internet.

  28. avatar Gabe says:

    No. I told my wife if these laws ever come to our state, I will not comply so be prepared.

  29. avatar Ralph says:

    No, I wouldn’t comply. And anyone who shows up at my door to steal my property is going to have a horrible boating accident of their own.

    I’m an old guy. My kid is all grown up and fends for herself quite nicely. Without a family to feed, I can do what I want. You younger guys with families do not have that luxury.

  30. avatar Mark N. says:

    If arrested and convicted for possessing an AW, I would be fined, might skip jail, but I would most certainly lose my professional license. And that would mean I could not care for myself or my disabled wife. I will ship anything I might own that is illegal first, comply second. I can’t afford to do otherwise.

    1. We will all lose in the end unless we take a stand.

  31. avatar ButtHurtz says:


    How many deaths would it take to fix these unconstitutional laws? 5,10,50,25000 ? I’d be working on that number.

    Where are the vets? You going to allow this? There is no way this country makes it out of 2017.

  32. avatar Sian says:

    “◾AB 1695 (Bonta): Makes some non-violent misdemeanors punishable by prohibitions on owning firearms.”

    They’ll be sure to NOT include the MISDEMEANOR ‘illegal possession of a stolen firearm’ on this list, because they know what side their bread is buttered on.

  33. avatar scooter says:

    Any law that makes a man a criminal without that man making a decision or taking an action deserves to be ignored.

  34. avatar RoddH says:

    HELL No

  35. avatar Jack says:

    Molon labe

  36. to quote a famous actor from my cold dead hands

  37. avatar cigardog says:

    Leaving this dumpster fire of a state regardless.

    Three words:

    Governor Gavin Newsom.

  38. avatar Accur81 says:

    I expect compliance to be spotty. Some cops will overlook these “violations.” I was planning on retiring and leaving CA in 9 years. It may be sooner now. The rate of this idiotic gun control is increasing. If you register, they’ll just retroactively ban your guns. They’ve already shown their disdain for the 5th Amendment.

    If Hillary wins, look for all this gun control to be pushed at a federal level immediately following a school shooting. After every mass shooting Hillary will blame AWs, the NRA, and the “evil gun lobby.” Meanwhile she’ll stack gun control lovers in every available judge / justice position.

    Some of you bash and mock CA gun owners. I’ve never found that to be helpful. I hope, pray, write letters, vote and advocate to the best of my ability so that this doesn’t happen to you at the federal level.

  39. avatar OldGene says:

    Nope. Not at all.

    BUT….All my guns were manufactured (and initially sold) prior to 1968. I have made sure there is no paper (i.e., registration) trail on anything I have kept. And I buy nearly all my ammo and loading components “next door” at gun shows.

    I suppose this makes me a criminal, or at least paranoid. Just remember the concept of “self-fullfilling prophecy.” If you treat me like a dangerous criminal, then I have no responsibility to act in any other way.

  40. avatar Son of Alan says:

    It will be partial on my part, I have bought replacement ‘DROS Registered’ lowers, in the last couple of months. The pre-registration (pre- 1-1-2014) will be built featureless or kept unfinished and will never been registered. The main reason is I need something to shoot and take to the range.

    Part of my past purchasing strategy is to have something available:
    Mini 14 / M1 Carbine
    (in case of a featured ban)
    M1 Garand (in case of a detachable magazine ban)
    Winchester 94 in 357 (in case of a semi auto ban)
    I need to find a pistol carbine pump rifle next

  41. avatar Hipneck says:

    Everyone can talk tough and bury their ‘assault weapons’ and 30 rd. mags and whatnot, but if the ammo laws and registry hold up in court we won’t have any choice but to comply, roll our own, or drive to Oregon or Nevada for ammo. It’s easy to ‘not comply’ with some of these laws, not so easy with others.

  42. avatar barnbwt says:

    I would refuse to comply with the entire power structure that would demand such restriction, up to and including refusing to give them the very legitimacy of my presence or tax dollars. Flee with my freedom intact to a more defensible position & wage the battle of ideas anew, until none are left, only then is fighting back both necessity and justifiable.

    Refusal to comply is different from civil disobedience; one is a protest tactic meant to force preposterous legal challenges so that a bad law may be struck down quickly, the other an attempt to survive beneath the boot heel of tyranny as long as they will let you breath. I’ve seen lots of hue and cry about refusal to comply from Kali’s, precious little civil disobedience, precious little protest in general, frankly.

    At this point the remainder of Kali gun owners who would actually offer something to gun rights (if directing their efforts in a more productive location) is statistically insignificant. Massachusetts brings out larger crowds, quicker, and to less restrictive outrages, for cryin’ out loud. There are undoubtedly a handful of Kalis who wake up or come of age and realize what must be done to solve their problems, but they are precious few, and are more than wise enough to leave at the instant of this realization. Many complain that Kalis can no longer rely on the NRA for assistance, but the truth is the NRA can no longer rely on Kali gun owners for anything but donations.

  43. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    No nope never. Id go out of my way to get what I need out of state and bring it back in.
    Since its evident Kalfornia has no borders or fences for anything not even for bugs in fruit.
    Shouldn’t be hard to go with a bit of Civil Disobedience to unlawful laws. Which Id never obey anyway.

  44. avatar zorro says:

    If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. Thomas Jefferson

  45. avatar JohnF says:

    Irrelevant question. It would not be my state and if it were, I would move.

    It is also irrelevant because compliance is not the issue. It will be easy enough to keep your prohibited guns and accessories. That’s no challenge. But all you will be able to do is look at them. You won’t be able to sell them. You can’t take them out to a public range. If the authorities have any probable cause you have prohibited items, they could get a warrant to search your house if they decided to mess with you for some other reason.

    Gun control is not about guns. It’s about control.

  46. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    If this was your state, would you comply? I would comply like I complied with some of the knife laws in Indiana all these years. Thank you Grandfather.

  47. avatar Will says:

    Still have to wait and see to what this actually boils down to, frankly.

    If you want to continue to use the rifle, you’ll want to register it. Back In The Day, many were chomping at the bit for the California DA to update the Assault Weapons list to include their “off list lowers”, in order to let them become full boat “Assault Weapons”, rather than the “less featured” rifles that they already had. The DA said they were never going to expand the list.

    The question is whether that’s what will actually happen here, that the list is now opened back up in order for existing rifles to be registered as an Assault Weapon. If they keep the current definitions, then a RAW (Registered Assault Weapon) can have all the accessories and ugly gun features the folks in the rest of the country can have, but with the other limitations imposed on RAW (such as you can’t transfer the rifle at all).

    So, some of those folks that were eager before, may be eager now.

    Also, if the rifle has changed hands since 2014, it is registered anyway, so sticking it on the RAW list isn’t losing anything. If you’ve purchased a pistol since, oh, I don’t know when, more than 20 years, that pistol is registered also. That suggests that were someone coming to seize firearms, anyone who actually owns a pistol may come under extra scrutiny. This simply means odds are if you been active at all in the firearm world in California, you’re on a list already.

    Finally, we’re waiting to see what, if anything, will happen to rifles that happen to be built around an AR lower. In that case many may just convert their rifles and leave them out of the RAW registry. Not much help to the folks of other pattern rifles, however.

    Also, if you have a “ghost gun” in a non-AW configuration, you don’t have to do anything. However if you wish to make a firearm in the future, you need to apply for a serial # for the firearm from the CA DOJ. But there’s no retroactive burden that I’m aware of on a completed firearm.

    1. avatar Kurt says:

      My understanding is that all finished 80%s need to have a CADOJ serial number, and that this law is retroactive.

  48. avatar Fight islam Now says:

    NO. Period!

  49. avatar Mikial says:

    No. But then, I lived in California for 18 months after getting out of the Army, and left the moment I could.

  50. avatar Tom says:

    If there is massive non compliance and civil disobedience, it would make enforcement difficult as such actions would overwhelm the system. It would be Alinsky in reverse. It would be very likely that California DOJ would be very aggressive enforcing such laws. You would have to be willing to carry that civil disobedience even if arrested in such forms as refusing to be photographed and fingerprinted. Or if you are that committed be willing to go on a hunger strike. I think another way to strike back at the state would be to get a ballot initiative in 2018 that would impose civilian gun restrictions on all government agencies in the state. I believe you would get the votes to pass and to see the hypocrisy from state leaders would be delightful. They would have no way to spin such a effort without looking like total fools.

  51. avatar Micah says:

    I didn’t last time I lived there. I doubt I would if I went back.

  52. avatar anonymoose says:

    My friends and I all lost all our weapons in an unfortunate jet-skiing accident. 🙁

  53. avatar Arizona Free says:

    I know a lot of sheriff’s have taken a stand they will not enforce any gun laws that would require you to relinquish certain types of firearms. What would they do if the fed’s try? If you call 911 and state there are armed individuals trying to break in and then hang up. Will they take sides or just stand back and watch.

  54. avatar Robert says:

    By making laws illegally, making laws in conflict with he US Constitution, making laws in conflict with other laws, the government has established anarchy. I have no choice but to comply with the anarchy.

  55. avatar Bruce Shell says:

    This video shocked me. I knew that California has tough gun laws but I didn’t realize that the movement to subvert the Second Amendment was moving at such an undeterred speed and lack of rationale. I can’t wait to watch the lawsuits that result from all this madness. Most remarkably, I am amazed at the truly stupid people that somehow find their way into the legislature! Moronic! Lastly, there are no longer legislators that talk, argue, reason and compromise. California, while not being the only place where party line voting has become epidemic, is the absolute worst of it’s kind. It’s not the least bit democratic.

  56. avatar Anonymous says:

    Nyet. *loads AK*

  57. avatar JoeJoe says:

    Hell Naw!!!!!

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: California. Would YOU Comply?" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email