Other State CA gun registration results in confiscation

[leadcounsel]

It's a growing problem.

They lie about not wanting to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns. For decades they have implemented incremental schemes to take away gun owners rights and guns. This man in CA complied with all the laws and, after registration, they showed up and took his guns. A reminder that ultimately gun control is enforced by men with guns.

CA Man Registers 'Assault Weapons'; CADOJ Shows Up to Confiscate Them

Read More

 

[BSG 75]

This man in CA complied with all the laws...

Well, not exactly. As the article you linked to explains, he manufactured an AR pistol (handgun) from an 80% lower and under California law all handguns manufactured in California must pass drop safety and firing tests.

Side note: California law requires that all pistols and handguns manufactured or sold in the state pass drop safety and firing tests administered by an independent laboratory, in addition to other requirements, to be labeled "not unsafe.")

So the AR pistol he manufactured was in violation of that law. That's why it was deemed illegal and confiscated, although the owner apparently wasn't arrested. The only reason the CA DOJ became aware of it was because the owner for some reason "voluntarily registered" his firearm made from an 80% lower. More details here YouTube of the doj confiscation ar15 pistols - Calguns.net

The more important point is that if you live in a strict gun control state like CA, NJ, NY, and soon to be OR and WA it is hard to be a gun owner without breaking some gun control law or another, unless you restrict yourself to 19th century technology "huntin'" rifles and shotguns, black powder, and maybe revolvers. Even then you have to be careful about legally storing and transferring your 19th century technology firearms, or else you will be in violation of those laws.

 

[leadcounsel]

The point is the constant lies. They move the goal posts so frequently and so confusingly that even well-intended gun owners get trapped by confusing myriad of laws. They are purposefully creating a web of laws that confuse, scare, harass, and deter gun owners and gun ownership. Anyone paying attention sees these LIES and has seen it for decades that they are, in fact, "coming to take your guns."

In this case, they banned "assault weapons." Thus forcing folks to go the 80% lower route, which they have apparently also banned. When they make it impossible to follow laws while exercising rights, these are "law breakers" in the traditional sense. These are people trying to exercise their rights who get tripped up by confusing and arbitrary laws.

 

[awshoot]

Well, not exactly. As the article you linked to explains, he manufactured an AR pistol (handgun) from an 80% lower and under California law all handguns manufactured in California must pass drop safety and firing tests.

So the AR pistol he manufactured was in violation of that law. That's why it was deemed illegal and confiscated, although the owner apparently wasn't arrested. The only reason the CA DOJ became aware of it was because the owner for some reason "voluntarily registered" his firearm made from an 80% lower. More details here YouTube of the doj confiscation ar15 pistols - Calguns.net
...

Here is a direct link to a post that seems to explain the law, and how it was subject to two interpretations: Calguns.net - View Single Post - YouTube of the doj confiscation ar15 pistols (the acronym SSE in this post refers, I think, to "Single Shot Exemption")

Apparently, he would have been fine if he had bought a complete lower and then modified it -- one way to interpret the law is that if the manufacturer and later modifier are different people/entities, the pistol is legal, but if the manufacturer and the later modifier are the same person, the pistol is illegal. Others had previously taken the position, which CA did not adhere to, that it doesn't matter if the manufacturer and modifier are the same entity.

So in essence, a distinction without a difference caused this person to have his property confiscated. That's "common sense" gun laws at work and clearly what WA is working toward unless we get some Supreme Court intervention.

 

[User 1234]

He could not have built an AR pistol in California from a stripped AR lower because he would still be arguably manufacturing an off roster pistol. And to reply to one post above, he was not using an 80 percent lower to comply with the "assault weapon" ban, because that ban's definitions act upon features even if the receiver is not banned by name. 80% doesn't make much sense in California anymore.

 

[Martini_Up]

The lying started with the very first law restricting anything gun related, IMO.

Isn't any law restricting any aspect of owning any firearm an infringement?. I believe it is. If not, I'd like to see an example of what is considered and infringement so I know where things stand (for the moment)

 

[leadcounsel]

Rather than blaming the individual who apparently was TRYING to comply, how about holding the unethical liars responsible? I am appalled when gun owners blame other gun owners for noncompliance with often confusing or absurd laws.

 

[BSG 75]

Isn't any law restricting any aspect of owning any firearm an infringement?. I believe it is. If not, I'd like to see an example of what is considered and infringement so I know where things stand (for the moment)

Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States in the DC v Heller decision:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I am appalled when gun owners blame other gun owners for noncompliance with often confusing or absurd laws.

No one is blaming gun owners. Sometimes when I clarify or explain a gun control law some people think I am defending that law, or "blaming" someone for being tripped up by it. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of the problems with increasing gun control laws - as I pointed out earlier - is that it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid accidentally or unintentionally breaking the law, as the guy whose gun was confiscated nevertheless did do.

 

[User 1234]

There is fortunately some evidence that judges are starting to strike these ridiculously complicated laws as void for vagueness. The federal judge in Bishop, California cited that as one reason he was staying (blocking) the enforcement of the new state ban on possession of grandfathered +10 magazines. In his ruling he wrote that even the assistant Department of Justice lawyer could not explain the exceptions and details of the state magazine laws at the hearing, so how should a citizen be expected to figure it out? This is the same as cities that pass laws that you have to pay to read, a complete violation of the common man's rights under the constitution.

 

[HB of CJ]

It can go back a long time. I relocated out of Kommiefornika to SW Oregon USA way back in October 1987. It relates because the powers that be did not want me building precision AR15 rifles in my own condo. I mean I owned the dump. Not much but I owned it free and clear

100% legal to do at that time. They just did not want we doing it. Everything was in order. Did not matter. They kept changing the requirements for the home business license several times. Kept increasing the "security" requirements. Local. County. State. I got out just in time. Wow!

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I am trying to find some of the 10+/- year old news video of Kamal Harris's brute squad confiscating shotguns from old Hippies because they have 30 year old pot convictions.

 

[BSG 75]

I am trying to find some of the 10+/- year old news video of Kamal Harris's brute squad confiscating shotguns from old Hippies because they have 30 year old pot convictions.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

And she want's to be your next President.

 

[nwslopoke]

I am trying to find some of the 10+/- year old news video of Kamal Harris's brute squad confiscating shotguns from old Hippies because they have 30 year old pot convictions.

Good luck with that. Her team has probably scrubbed her from history by now. She was safe under California scrutiny but her history won't pass Oklahoma or Nebraska, hopefully. Not that she cares about the middle.

 

[User 1234]

She also signed onto the Green New Deal, which is a sort of middle finger to the swing states.

 

[awshoot]

Good luck with that. Her team has probably scrubbed her from history by now. She was safe under California scrutiny but her history won't pass Oklahoma or Nebraska, hopefully. Not that she cares about the middle.

Looking. ;-)

Here's Kamala Harris whining about Heller after the decision was released:

...This decision, the Heller decision, could impact public safety in a way that could threaten lives across this country. I was disappointed yesterday to read the majority opinion which did not go far enough. Yes it acknowledged that the Second Amendment is not an absolute right. Yes it acknowledged that the Second Amendment is not without limitations. However, because of the way the language is used to uphold the Second Amendment as an individual right, the NRA and others will be attacking San Francisco with the belief that the Heller decision equips them with an argument to say that we should not keep guns in locked boxes. They will use this decision to suggest we should not think about common sense regulation of guns in our communities geared to keeping innocent people safe. And in that way, this United States Supreme Court Decision is going to be manipulated to the advantage of those who can and will and have harmed others. And I think it is reason for all of us to be concerned and to stand up and say that we will support regulation of guns when that regulation is reasonably associated with keeping our community safe. ...

As if the "common sense" gun law at issue here protected anyone -- all it did was harm a law abiding citizen doing his best to comprehend CA's byzantine gun laws.

 

[Zathras]

The mindset by some mentioned here, where the ever-increasing laws are being used primarily to create an unnavigable maze is I think the correct one. The CA legislature and DOJ know full-well they can't enforce many or even some of these laws reliably, and even less-so at scale. The point is to have an ever-increasing 'suite' of rules they can draw from if/when they are needed at a future date. It's full-scale Minority Report.

Get pulled over? Check 'em for any one of the dozens of potential gun laws violated. Accompany this with a media spotlight about how this potentially violent felon was stifled and through heroic efforts and wildly successful safety laws are getting the 'guns off the streets'.

Get caught yelling too loud at your kids or wife (without any actual violence or proof of anything)? Neighbor calls and says "he is yelling and has an NRA sticker on his car, so for sure - he is going to kill someone ... I know it!" - probable cause to up-end your house and confiscate your property (just in case).

Vet who gets some medical/counseling help with PTSD? Better investigate thoroughly, and remove the guns first (again... just in case). Especially get that Gen4 Glock which ain't on the DOJ roster that he got 6 years ago in another state where he was stationed and then failed to report it to the state of CA when he entered. How dare he. Another (potentially) violent offender handled.

Get into a minor argument at work and then your coworker reports 'assault'? Then, you fail to grovel at the feet of HR for your toxic masculinity? Better get his guns. He's a sworn member of the evil patriarchy and obvious thought criminal.

 

[nwslopoke]

Particularly in California but sure to expand is, association. LA city council wants to be able to control your associations, especially gun related ones. For now. What they fail to acknowledge again is their arrogance of who will be in power.

Liberal gun ownership is said to be on the rise. In Oregon we've seen first hand, bias of the justice system and who gets a pass. Not that it's nevet happened previously just now it's out in the open.

Gun confiscation is not hyperbole, it's not paranoid speech it's currenty a small scale reality and growing. This California case from the OP is not the best example due to bad judgment on boths sides.Its wrong but no surprises.

 

[awshoot]

... The point is to have an ever-increasing 'suite' of rules they can draw from if/when they are needed at a future date. ...

True. Some years back the American Bar Association tried to merely count (not understand, just count) the number of Federal crimes. It failed: Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation's Federal Criminal Laws

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."

Things can only be worse when you add in states' laws. Personally, I see it as a hallmark of tyranny when you are presumed to know the law and yet even those most well versed in the law aren't able to simply count them, let alone know them. Given a legal framework where everyone is guilty of something (FN1), the legal system becomes a tool the plutocracy can use against those it dislikes for whatever reason. They don't care why they put you in prison -- a lobster tail shipped in plastic wrap as opposed to cardboard is reason enough (FN2) -- just that you go to prison.

FN1: One civil rights lawyer estimates the average professional commits three Federal felonies per day: You commit three felonies a day
FN2: 8 Ways We Regularly Commit Felonies Without Realizing It

 

[Zathras]

For another example in the past of how CA DOJ is selective in how they go after people, take an obvious felon in possession case where they burn him on a different charge, so it helps set a precedent... (also, see plenty of CalGuns discussion on it)

Been trying to find modern links, since some of the reference ones don't work.

AK-47 in Pieces is Still an AK-47
People v. Nguyen (2013) G046081 - Attempt AW from AK47 Parts Kit - Calguns.net