Comments on: Speaking of gun confiscations in Cali

By: DirtCrashr

DirtCrashr — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:49:39 +0000

But you can take it with you when you retire and move to Nevada where Class III stuff is available! Good thing Nevada is next to CA.

By: bob

bob — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:27:00 +0000

My memory on this is a liitle fuzzy, but is it not the case that the registered “assault” weapons in Kali cannot be transferred (even via a will)? If so, isn’t the registration just a very slow confiscation process?

Re: ammo first. Ammo first, second and third. Fighting tyranny is not something that should ever be condemned.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:43:21 +0000

No. What Kali did was pass an "assault" weapons ban that grandfathered any weapons registered within the required time frame. Those weapons are still grandfathered and remain legal to this day. The confiscation bit applies only to those weapons that were registered after the deadline had passed, and after a court ruled that the DOJ had no authority to extend the deadline. This is important, because as the usual "registration causes confiscation" argument goes, California has no history of confiscating guns registered in accordance with the law. To the extent that gun owner paranoia was the reason for at least some of these late registrations, it's possible that the popular perception that registration leads to confiscation, itself led to confiscation.

By: Lergnom

Lergnom — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:55:42 +0000

Did Kali do what NY did years ago? They begged gun owners to register, just so if the guns were stolen they could be returned to their rightful owner, swearing the lists would not be used for confiscation. Some years later, the legislature outlawed a group of firearms and used the lists to tell the owners to ‘turn them all in’.
On a related note, does anyone have the video of DiFi on 60 minutes, the ‘Mr & Mrs America, turn them all in’ clip?
Regards