View Single Post
Old January 2, 2012, 04:33 AM   #29
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
Y'know... it might be worth the trouble to stage a nice demonstration for the court. The result would be a video showing how wrong police and the public can be about the law.

Imagine seven rifles on a table and you ask five different police officers to identify the CA-defined "assault weapon"[¹]. Do the same with three or four civilians. Among the rifles should be one true (legally registered) "assault rifle", a .22LR version, a modified rifle with no pistol grip, a (likely borrowed) Class-III M16, a CA-compliant "fixed magazine" rifle with a collapsing stock and bayonet lug and two CA-compliant "standard" AR-15 pattern rifles.

For non-Californians - CA has two (2) statutes. The 1989 law lists specific makes and models - such as the Colt AR-15 and Bushmaster XM15 - by name. After names were changed, CA added a "ban by features" that included things like a pistol grip, detachable magazine and any one of a list of features (bayonet lug, flash hider, collapsing stock, etc.)

In the demo above, the .22LR version is exempt because the law deines an AW as a "centerfire" rifle. Likewise, without a "protruding pistol grip" the rifle does not meet the definition under the "features" ban. The actual M-16 is not a banned "assault rifle" but a "machine gun" in CA. The "bullet button" mentioned requires the use of a bullet tip (or similar probe) to release the 10-round magazine which qualifies as a "fixed" magazine and exempts the rifle from the AW statute.

¹ "Assault weapon" as defined by CA law, not by military arms terminology the rest of the world uses.
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Page generated in 0.08116 seconds with 7 queries