Are we allowed now in Cali.?

[Alex650]

I'm not clear

if we are allowed now in california to have M16a2, M4a4 or those types of weapons. I know that it just expired few days ago, but still I'm not clear.
Are we still only allowed 10round mag.?? or can we have large holding mags.
Clearification will be highly appreciated......

Thanks Alex

 

[Val]

California State law still restricts you to 10 round magazines. The California laws are more stringent than the federal assault weapons law was.

 

[machine]

Kali never allowed M16's

Only AR15's

And now none

 

[Backcountry]

Originally posted by Alex650@Oct 18 2004, 02:44 PM
if we are allowed now in california to have M16a2, M4a4 or those types of weapons.

Hey Alex... from a legal semantics point, "those type of weapons" are fully automatic. Tossing terms like that around makes it sound like you've either been watching too much TV or getting your firearm terminology lessons from Sarah Brady. Fully automatic weapons haven't been legal in Kalifornia for many decades. However, you can own fully automatic weapons in many other states (e.g., Nevada) after paying for a $200 BATF tax stamp and getting a signature from your local chief law enforcement officer. It's really no more difficult than buying a handgun in California. Be prepared to shell out near ten thousand dollars for a full-auto rifle that isn't a complete piece of junk (the "junk" goes for $3000-$5000).

As for the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (which addressed a plethora of semi-automatic firearms), it never had any legal bearing in Kalifornia. We have had more stringent firearm laws in place since 1989, and the sunset of the Federal law has no effect on state law. In most other states (besides Kalifornia, Mass, Hawaii, New York, and New Jersey) you can now buy whatever was legal pre-1994... AR-15s, M-forgeries, and all the evil goodies like flash suppressors, tele-stocks, regular capacity mags, and the much coveted (but never needed) uber-evil bayonet lug. Is your mouth watering yet?

With respect to Kalifornia, if you have to ask, the answer is no. If you don't already have a registered "assault weapon" you can not get one now. If you didn't own regular capacity magaiznes before the state ban (i.e., mags that can hold more than 10 rounds), then you can't own them now. Break those rules and you're going to the pokey (and you know what happens there).

My suggestion, move out of state or join the military if you want to play with big-boy toys.

***edited to add***
Dude, I forgot you're the guy from RWC that e-mailed me... you're the guy in the Army Reserve in Kuwait, right? Keep up the good work and enjoy the fun-guns while you can... even the semi-auto clones are bad ju-ju here in the land of Feinstein. Be safe & come home soon!
***I now return you to my previously scheduled rant***

There are two other alternatives...

First, get a Ruger mini-14 or mini-30. They do not stand up as well to heavy use as the many AR variants, but they're pretty much your only legal choice for semi-auto centerfire carbine in Kali. Oh, you'll have to get that with a restricted capacity 10 round magazine.

Second, before the end of the year, purchase and accept possesion of a .50 caliber rifle. You even have a choice of single-shot bolt, bolt (magazine fed), or the very manly semi-auto. Come January 1st, the Democrats (and Arnold) will reclassify that firearm as an "assault weapon" and you'll need to register it, and purchase a special lockable case to transport it in, and take it nowhere but your home or the range ("assault weapons" are restricted from use on most BLM and National Forest lands in California).

Sorry to rain on your fun parade, but let's not forget we gave this state away to the liberals a long time ago and semi-automatics are just too evil to allow in this peace-loving state.

Backcountry

 

[Alex650]

Thanks a lot Backcountry,

You gave the response I was looking for, I'm totally clear now. I guess I will enjoy playing with toys while I'm over here. In some weeks we are heading up north....wish me luck. Oh yeah by the way the M16A2 is not full auto it is has the brust system(three rounds at the time) and also M4. Enough about that.

How was your season?

Once again. thanks alot

Alex

 

[Jeff S.]

Hey Backcountry:
If you purchase a 50 BMG before Jan 1, you can keep it and shoot it as long as you register it and keep iot in a locked case? What about ammo?
- Jeff

 

[Backcountry]

When all the hullaballoo was going on prior to Arnold signing the bill, I'm pretty sure I recall reading that mere possession of a single evil .50 caliber round would also be "bad", and thus banned... now, I quickly perused the final version of the bill that was signed into law, and don't see mention of any restrictions on the .50 BMG ammo.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_..._chaptered.html

Don't take my word for it, I skimmed, as my bloodpressure rises waaaaaay too fast when I take the time to thoroughly read any piece of crappy gun control legislation.

Backcountry

 

[jmabbott888]

AR-15s & the M-4 configuration are legal in Cali if they have the FAB-10 lower reciever which is a fixed 10rnd box mag. I'm still checking on the SAW configuration for the AR lowers since the 1919 is legal I don't see a reason the SAW wouldn't be if the belt was kept to less than 10 rnds but thats just a guess on that part lol

 

[DKScott]

Maybe somebody has more precise info than I, but with respect to the .50BMG ban, my understanding is that if you register a reciever before 12/31/04 you're OK to keep it - just like the AW ban a few years ago, correct?

Apparently a lot of the 50 cal guys have essentially homemade inexpensive bolt-action lowers machined out of a single block of aluminum (the stock# eludes me) modeled on the AR pattern. The factory manufactured commercial uppers are not "firearms" and can be bought and sold freely - like AR15s and this will be the case post ban, again like the AR15 uppers.

Up til now, these non-semi automatic lowers have not required an FFL to manufacture or to be serial numbered unless and until sold by the "manufacturer". I have been told that if you merely etch a serial number into a piece of stock, this would represent a registerable "lower" and the machining could be completed at a later date.

The implication is that if you think you might ever want a 50 cal in California, get one or more blocks of the appropriate bar stock, put a serial number on it and register as a 50 BMG. In the AW registrations, you did not need to present the firearm, just list the serial number(s) on the form. Of course, like the AWs, you could never transfer ownership within CA , but you would be able to have a 50.

Anybody know if this is a workable strategy? I am not giving advice here, just asking a question.

 

[spectr17]

Anybody who registers a gun is a fool. You're just handing the goobermint a laundry list of what they'll demand when they come for your guns. Some of us here in the People's Republik have already had theirs taken away.

 

[Backcountry]

Yep, spectr17 is soooooo right...

Put your weapons on a list and they will come for them, sooner or later, they will come.

Easier to just bide your time and move to free America as soon as you can, than register a piece of bar stock with a serial number. If you really want a .50 in the future, drop $4000 today and buy the real deal.

Man, the crap the DemocRATs are putting us through really twists my crank.

Backcountry

 

[DKScott]

I really didn't want to get into a political flap, but since you brought it up, I have news for you. If you have bought a handgun in California since, I think August 1992, you are already on a state list as an owner of a registered weapon. If the long gun or handgun that you bought was DROS'd through a FFL that is no longer in business, those files are in the possession of the ATF and possibly the state as well. If you really think the knock on the door is on the way, you should leave now. Being a rebel without a clue only hands them a big fat felony rap to hang on you. I know of a couple guys locally that got nailed for unregistered AWs. Beyond the jail time and the disruption of their lives, they didn't change anything. They're not heroes. They are just bankrupt convicted felons who lost their homes, all their guns - legal and otherwise, as well as the right to own guns ever again, the right to vote, any professional or trade licenses they might have had and their ability to get a decent job.

Not everyone want to or is able to throw $4,000 at one of these things. Apparently many of the 50 cal shooters to date haven't been doing it either. My friend has about $1,800 in his. To me its not worth risking a felony just to own a conspicuous toy that I could never risk taking out and using because somebody might inquire as to it's legal status.

Jesse and Backcountry, you and everybody else are free to conduct yourselves as you wish. I was just posing a technical question for folks that may choose differently. And I would still like to hear an answer to that question.

 

[Backcountry]

DK, I'm not trying to get into a political tug-O-war with you or anybody else... if anything I typed came across as accusatory it's because the gun control thing is my #1 gripe. I’m pretty sure we’re on the same side…

As for my knowledge of gun registration and guns laws... I had an FFL for several years here in Calif. and I'm well aware of all the laws governing what I own, what I want to own, what I used to own, what has the required paper trail, and what doesn't require a paper trail because they were purchased or gifted many decades before any of these silly laws came into being. When I decided to "close up shop" and get rid of my FFL (back in '93), indeed I put my bound book and 4473's into a file and mailed it off to the BATF like the good little boy I am, and I imagine some lackey entered all that info into a database for "future reference" when the Democrats control the congress, senate, white house, and supreme court.

I don't think Jesse and I encouraged anybody to break the law... on the contrary, I'm encouraging people to NOT break the law... and there are many ways to do that... none are convenient (like owning property in Nevada and storing guns there), but they are legal and they get around some of the PRK's nutjob gun laws (as long as you don't bring the guns into Kalifornia). Another choice of course is to not own anything which requires registration, but this difficult if you’re just starting out your collection or wish to purchase the newest pistol on the market.

As for your specific question...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

The implication is that if you think you might ever want a 50 cal in California, get one or more blocks of the appropriate bar stock, put a serial number on it and register as a 50 BMG.[/b]

I've read of this and similar schemes regarding AR-15 ownership, and all are fraught with potential pitfalls in that it is an attempt to tread a very grey line, and in Kalifornia if there's a question of who's right vs. who's going to jail, it's almost always the evil gun owner that gets the shaft. Not something I'd want to be a test case for. As far as making your own receiver and assigning it a serial number, I'm pretty sure that has to do with Federal law and the BATF, not the state. If you can get through all the BATF hoops, then you'll still need to register it as a .50 with the state... if this is all to save money (and let's consider that time is money) and plan for a rainy day when a .50 might come in real handy (camel jockeys invading your neighborhood perhaps), but it seems easier to just purchase outright a stripped receiver for a Barrett, Beowulf, or other .50 variant and be done with it (after registration of course).

I have no clue how much a stripped receiver costs, but if complete rifles cost $4000 (and up), then the receiver should be what, about $1000-$1500? The advantage here of course is that you don’t need to mess around with a machine shop and instead will have something that’s for sure plug-n-play if/when you decide to actually purchase the matching upper.

Oh, one more thing... upon skimming the actuall bill that was signed into law (link I posted above), I think people have until May 1st 2006 to register their .50's, but that they have to take possession of the .50's by January 1st, 2005... again, I only skimmed, so anybody that really needs to know should read the law themselves or go to the experts for answers...

http://www.fcsa.org/

I think what gripes me so much is that I never wanted a .50 until this law passed that says I can't have one now...

Anyway, sorry if I yanked your chain, but gun laws are just plain dumb.

Backcountry

 

[Backcountry]

Here's an interesting thread...

http://forum.fcsa.org/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=49

In summary, if you already have a registered AR-15 lower, you should be able to put a .50 BMG upper on it at any time in the future, since as DK correctly noted, the upper is not considered the "firearm".

Backcountry

 

[Backcountry]

Gun porn time... 41 pounds of honest to goodness reach-out-and-touch-someone at 4,000 meters beauty!

just $2750 from the fine folks at http://www.statearms.com/

Hey DK, your idea may actually be the only game in town right now... I just lurked through a few .50 forums and there is apparently a run on .50's here in Kalifornia... imagine that... I bet they sell four times as many .50's in 4 months as existed in the entire state before the ban. Apparently if you're not on a waiting list already, then no .50 BMG

Backcountry

 

[DKScott]

Backcountry, I understand your (and Jesse's) argument and share your view, but beyond the bravado, there are certain realities to owning guns if you want to live in CA. As you said, the only legal alternative to complying with the registration BS is to keep the guns out of state, which strikes me as kind of pointless for most folks. If they do ever decide to try to confiscate legally owned weapons, there will be time to get them out of state, bury them or whatever.

As for making your own, I too was skeptical, but apparently with some exceptions (handguns, semi-automatics) you can indeed make your own rifle for personal use. As I understand it, you could never sell it because of the lack of a serial number and manufacturer's license. However, if anybody wants to do it I would advise more due diligence than reading internet forums.

I wonder if the AR 15 lower would need to be re-registered or co-registered specifically as a 50 BMG rather than as a generic AW asuuming you want to register anything). I noticed Ferret stated they were marking their CA-bound Ferret 50s as "F-50/ 50 BMG" vs. the "F-50 / Multi-Cal" they had been marking them.

 

[Jeff S.]

OK I read the law, and throughout it refers to a .50BMG. Just out of curiosity, what would happen if someone necked down the .50BMG case to, say .458 and called this new wildcat the .458 Jereboam (the next size champagne bottle bigger than a magnum) Wouldn't that be something different entirely?

- Jeff

 

[Backcountry]

Originally posted by Jeff S.@Oct 21 2004, 09:54 AM
what would happen if someone necked down the .50BMG case to, say .458 and called this new wildcat the .458  Jereboam (the next size champagne bottle bigger than a magnum) Wouldn't that be something different entirely?

In my interpretation (from skimming), yes... the law appeared to go to great lengths to specify the case dimensions of the .50 BMG round... a weapon chambered for a wildcat based on the .50 BMG round would thus be legal under AB-50. There is no doubt these rounds are already being designed (it's mentioned several times in one of the links I posted above) and it wouldn't surprise me if the end result is even better long-range terminal ballistics than the .50 BMG. Not what the gun banners intended I'm sure.

What I fear most is that the door has now been opend to the banning of single shot bolt action weapons... this is a first for America, and it's wise to recall that in other countries when single-shot bolt action weapons became regulated it signaled a quickening of the race towards total confiscation.

Design something incrementally smaller than the .50 BMG, the gun banners will bitch, a new law gets passed, the cycle continues, and it's not long at all before our deer rifles (aka "armor piercing sniper rifles with cop-killer bullets") are up for grabs. I'll predict that it won't be long before we see a bill to blanket ban all caliber weapons of .300 and above (or .338 or .270 or .250, take your pick), and all magnum calibers... will it pass the first go around? Probably not. But the .50 cal ban was on the table in some form or another for three years and it finally made it through... the gun banners only need to win once in a while to incrementally chip away at our rights... we need to win every battle to simply prolong what in the end will be taken away anyway.

This is a good time to remind the few John Kerry fans here (IBAfoo, you listening?), that he voted for a Ted Kennedy amendment to ban most center-fire rifle ammunition, including the most common rounds used by hunters and target shooters.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=149

But at least Californians are safer now that the evil .50 BMG has been banned.

Backcountry

p.s. Lest anyone get offended (except perhaps IBAfoo), I know I'm preaching to the choir, and my ranting is rhetorical and not directed towards any participant in this thread... I wish my ranting was cathartic too, but it's not. Only a solid Kerry-whooping by GWB is going to make me feel better. So heed my Chicken Little words and get out there and VOTE, because the sky is falling for gun owners.