California Assault Weapons Ban
Yes, like every other thing legislators fail to take into consideration, the California Assault Weapons Ban has a loophole:
Assault weapons were banned across the country in 1994 and continue to be illegal in California, even though the federal ban expired in 2004. State legislation passed in 2000 expanded the definition of banned assault weapons to include any semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine if it has a pistol grip, flash suppressor or grenade launcher; and any semiautomatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine if it also can accept a flash suppressor, forward hand grip or silencer. But nothing banned assault-weapon receivers – essentially the frame of a gun.
That created a gray area that many gun owners say is confusing. Gun owners who purchase off-list receivers – so called because they are not on the list of guns banned by the state – are not in violation of the law as long as they don’t add the illegal components to the guns, said Randy Rossi, director of the Firearms Division of the attorney general’s office. But they could be prosecuted by local courts that consider the weapons to be in violation of the ban, Rossi said.
The San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office and the Stockton Police Department both have said owners of off-list receivers are not breaking the law as long as they don’t add illegal features as specified in the assault-weapon ban.
Receivers that technically could be built into assault weapons are legal in the state. Anti-gun groups fear that such receivers easily could be used to build weapons like the ones legislators banned. True assault weapons, such as fully automatic Uzis and AK47s, can fire up to 30 bullets in five seconds.
And, of course, if someone is inclined to break the law and make assault weapons, they may also be inclined make the fully automatic weapons.
My understanding of the California ban is that specific manufacturers’ weapons were banned by name. As such, lesser known manufacturers receivers, for example, are not on the list. I think the law also allows for the Cali DOJ to add weapons to the list. Here’s a list of restricted weapons in California.
Arguments like Merrilees’ show exactly why these “assault weapons” bans are so ridiculous. They are roundabout ways of trying to eventually ban all legal gun ownership. It’s not the receiver or the flash suppressor or the pistol grip, it’s the bad guy misusing the gun; it’s the criminal. Control them and you stop the problem and law abiding citizens can go about their business with whatever firearms they want for hunting, sporting, or personal defense.
April 10th, 2006 at 10:51 am
My understanding is that California does regularly add receivers to the ban list. Weren’t a bunch of guys in California stocking up on off-list receivers in hopes they would be added to the list? Apparently if they get added, you have a certain amount of time to register them, but once they are registered, they are considered assault weapons under the law and you can add all the “evil features” you want.
Makes me glad I don’t live in California.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Once the original list was published back in ’00, it has pretty much languished in obscurity. Not once has the AG’s office updated it, though they had a duty to, instead counting on the blanket coverage of the AWB. They still have not added the receivers that are being imported to the list, even though it is a very simple process – it has now been 5 months and approx 15K new receivers imported, and there is no update.
We were all hoping that they’d add our brands to the list, thus giving us 90 days to have them registered as the eeeeeevil assault weapons they are. Instead, it looks as though they are going to take a legislative route and try to classify these weapons in a new, fourth category. The fourth category, as I understand it by DOJ’s letter of intent, would require us to register these now-legal weapons as AW’s, yet prohibit us from adding pistol grips, collapsing stocks, flashhiders, etc. Basically, a non-AW AW.
April 10th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
CA banned AR and AK “series” guns but the state supreme court ruled in Harrot v County of Kings that it was unconstitutionally vague and didnt give sufficient notice of what was illegal. The AG (Bill Lockyer, a fanatical gun grabber) has to add receivers to the list by name because of the ruling. The owners then have a certain period of time to register them, at which point they become “registered assault weapons.”
The AG hasnt been adding guns lately because:
-the added guns, now being assault weapons, can now have the full evil featureset as if they were pre 99 guns.
-the manufacturers respond to the banning by changing the name of their recievers and sending a truckload more to CA, where people buy them up in expectation of the next announcement that they are assault weapons
The AG HAS sent out nastygrams warning people not to add evil features to their “assault weapons” if the “assault weapon” didnt have those features before being added. However, this isnt actually against the law, so his nastygrams really arent legally binding or enforceable. *middlefinger*
I expect he is waiting for some sort of legislative solution to his problem, but the truth is that the legislature already gave him everything he wanted, it just happened to violate due process. They could solve the problem by making a special category of assault weapon that isnt really an assault weapon except by executive fiat and then forbid converting from one class to another, but that might be too obviously silly for even the gun phobic weenies in the CA legislature. Ok, maybe not.
April 10th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
I guess it boils down to whether the executive branch in CA can ban any gun by fiat, even if it doesnt actually fit into any defined legislative category. I dont think the CA constitution has a real RKBA, but it seems like a takings case in the making. What is to stop the CA attorney general from banning all guns as AR or AK “series” guns or whatever the legislature decides to call “executive fiat AWs?”
What about guns like the Kel-Tec SU16CA that incorporate design features of a number of guns without really belonging to either series? What about the SKS? Really more of a “garand series” or a “simonov series” if it belongs to a category. How will people be able to contest the AGs findings that something is or isnt an AW? If anything, this will provide more “see they are coming for your guns” material for the NRA and GOA.
I notice that Saigas except the Kalashnikov-USA variety are completely off the list.