97%
A real-world example of mass civil action causing government to stop enforcing its interpretation of gun laws has been the hundreds of thousands of AR rifles purchased in California by California gun owners over the past few years, despite the continued presence of CA’s increasingly irrelevant AWB on the books. The legal framework and impetus was primarily due to members of the Calguns board.
Stupid compromisers.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:03 am
That is an impressive bit of work, in one of the most oppressive gun-hater states, no less.
Prediction: “They are still slaves because the unenforceable laws are still on the books… (Many pages later)… The heroic, Irish-Spartan-militants remain ready to parachute onto our own doorsteps and be expended.”
December 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am
You’re a smartass, Uncle – and I approve.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Does this mean that the 3%ers can’t be thrown under the bus just for grins?
December 9th, 2008 at 10:31 am
i would not throw them under the bus, ever. I will, however, taunt them as long as they poo-poo substantial victories.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Amen, brother.. and a hearty Bravo Zulu to the folks in Kali..
December 9th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I’m a self-described Three Percenter and I can’t imagine disregarding this. It’s great news.
Now if only I could buy a handgun in New York.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Hundreds of thousands? OK, maybe.
I appreciate the work that it must have taken to successfully navigate (so far) the laws that CA has in place. It’s too bad, though. Imagine what that money and time could have been better spent on.
Yes, mostlygenius, they are still slaves. I mean, at least those with the time and money it takes to accomplish this so-far-legal action can possibly skirt the CA AWB, all the while leaving the rest of the proles behind – that’s perfect!
Tell me, if a group of people could get together and skirt the drug laws, would you applaud? Hmmmm, what about skirting child pornography law? Would you be lauding their actions?
Finally, how do people not see this as a negative? If we’re not challenging the laws, but finding circuitous routes AROUND the laws (see the comments on RNS’ site about scouring teh current laws to find the loop holes) , this gives all the antis just that much more justification. “See? Even with common sense gun laws like in California, law abiding citizens can still lawfully acquire guns. More states should follow California’s successful model.”
Crap like this legitimizes their efforts.
I have not had or taken the time to become intimately familiar with California gun laws, but base on what I’ve read, that’s the way I see it.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am
It’s not an AR15 if you have to pull out the takedown pin to reload it after 5 rounds.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Skullz:
While not being pro-drug (or child-porn), Marijuana is rapidly becoming ‘legal’ because of this very same sort of civil-action. There are a number of places that while they haven’t legalized it – they basically just refuse to prosecute simple possession.
More legal gun owners is progress. It seems to me that this process of creating a direct legal challenge to gun control, regulation by regulation has some legs. The “proles” get the benefit of having somebody else pave the way for them. Are you so sure that if the gov. went after one the “proles” they wouldn’t get some legal help from elsewhere?
Seriously, listen to yourself. Now we shouldn’t be challenging gun laws because if we are *successful* it ultimately plays into the hands of the gun-banners?
Where were the militants when the registration/confiscation in CA started? Don’t any of them live in that state? Oh, No Fort Sumpters. Got it.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
IT is absolutely possible that I am reading it wrong. Where are people challenging the gun laws?
From the comments at softgreenglow:
1)dedicated non-lawyer gun nuts scour the laws and regulations trying to figure out ways around ‘em that are technically still lawful (or at least arguably so);
2) the nuts develop relationships with one or more gun-friendly law firms to confirm/deny the gun nuts’ interpretations of the laws and regs;
So, no one is challenging the law, they are following it. Am I wrong?
December 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
technically, you are correct. however, the existing interpretation by CDOJ is being challenged.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
The Calgunners’ goal is simply to lay the groundwork for the many cases we need to get on the books striking down the ridiculous CA laws.
Yes, I still have to bob and weave and have the right arguments in my head if I want to plug my full-cap magazine into my AR magwell in this state. Etc., etc. But not for too much longer.
Skullz, finding the loopholes and exploiting them to rip larger and larger tears in the fabric of the law is part of a larger goal: as the existing laws in this state become more and more meaningless, both on paper and “on the ground,” then they become more and more vulnerable to Constitutional attack once Heller is incorporated. And that’s the whole point.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
It’s called “civil disobedience” (emphasis on the word “civil”) and it’s just another way to plan for the eventual nullification of California’s stupid gun laws.
It’s also called “using the law to fight the law”, and history has shown that this method has a lot more chance of success than manning the (real or imaginary) barricades.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I wish Calguns the best of luck in their attempt to have the current CA AWB and associated pointless gun laws ruled constitutionally null and void.
But please, lets maintain some sense of reality. Following the law is, by definition, not civil disobedience.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
A dated, but still interesting writeup with details on some of the Calguns efforts is here: http://thegunwiki.com/Gunwiki/HistoryOLL
December 9th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Skullz, if you’ll read the link I just posted, you’ll note that for much of the early effort, CA DOJ was actively asserting that the Calgunners’ position was illegal.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
As David points out, it’s important to lay the foundation for future action. If no one owns an AR, it’s easy for the state to say that it’s not a commonly-owned weapon. If you can point at ones that are widely owned, even if in neutered form, you probably shoot down that argument. For you 3%ers, you also make it easier to make a few strategic alterations and get a military-grade weapon. What it hopefully does is also put legislators on notice that no matter what they do to try and ban guns, a way will be found around it. If this is combined with public sentiment that the right to self-defense is crucial, the end result may be the halting of attempts to ban guns and actual progress toward ensuring that the RKBA is protected while also denying guns to those who would misuse them.
Essentially, it’s a guerrilla war: the goal isn’t necessarily to soundly defeat the opponent on their own terms but to simply force them to abandon the field.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
The bestest, brightest hope for a wider acceptance of gun rights is self-defense from crime. It is visceral, widely occurring, and the most accessible for the mainstream. When something goes bad people start wanting a gun – it’s the one favor that Hollywood has done for us. It only gets stronger when more people already have guns.
Most of people aren’t worried about some government agency, they are worried about crackheads, serial killers, stalkers, and rapists.
Women voting is no longer a political argument. No candidate could mention it, let alone run on a platform of revoking suffrage. Moving to the point where gun rights are the same is the goal.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Made a quick check with Folks In The Know and revised the estimate down to more than 100k rifles purchased in the past few years. State Bureau of Firearms estimates had the initial surge in March 2006 at 30k+.
Still a lot of rifles, especially when the state was telling DAs and FFLs until recently that they’re all illegal.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Mostlygenius, along those lines we’re apparently about to have 52,000 CA prison inmates released by a Federal court so the rest of them can get — wait for it — adequate health care.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_11123762?source=rss
What do you think that will do for self-defense gun sales in Cali? A silver lining in an otherwise ominous cloud.
December 9th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
A pertinent quote from my friend Pete at WRSA:
“Slaves learning to read by firelight contra Massa’s orders aren’t free — they’re brave.”
Figuring out ways to get on somebody’s registration list for the purpose of being “legal” is, as Pete suggests, much like being proud of the written safe conduct pass you have from Ole Massa so you can show the “patty-rollers” when you’re walkin on the path from your plantation to your wife’s for a conjugal visit.
You sure foxed them ole patty-rollers, now din’t ya?
My understanding is that the reason the various provisions of the SKS ban and other Californicated gun laws haven’t been enforced is because both the state and local police told then-Attorney General Lundgren they wren’t about to risk getting their asses shot off for it. This will last until some new people’s commissar comes into power. Of course Lundgren is now NRA-approved, with all of his sins forgiven. One more reason, if any were needed, to tell the NRA to go to hell.
Mike Vanderboegh
III
December 9th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
What? I don’t suppose you’d be willing to provide, oh, I don’t know, a reference or something to validate your ludicrous claim?
December 9th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Ahab, I think what Mike V. is talking about is when AG Lundgren (spit, spit) pulled an about-face and drafted a letter to be sent to every registered SKS owner in the state threatening confiscation, despite having previously declared them lawful. AFAIK, said confiscation never happened, except in a few individual instances, and it may well be because state or local cops wanted no part of it — and I’m sure the reason he states had something to do with it.
However, that’s the exception. The laws I’m talking about WERE enforced, but in the usual way of state bureaucracies — that is, not by JBTs breaking down doors to confiscate OLLs. Instead, BOF bureaucrats harassed FFLs both in audits and at gun shows and threatened their licenses, and gave support to local AGs who called asking what to do about charging somebody for OLL possession. Those efforts were fought on many fronts and eventually the BOF went from claiming OLLs were illegal, to taking no position but leaving enforcement to the DAs discretion, and now apparently they’ve acquiesced as official letters supporting OLLs are in Calgunners’ hands.
December 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Sorry, meant to say “local DAs” rather than “local AGs.”
December 9th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
A) A top-loading AR with a pinned magazine is silly, and unnecessary. In California we either eliminate the pistol grip and collapsible stock, and use either 10-rd mags or hi-cap mags purchased before the AW ban; or, we use something called a “bullet button” which requires the tip of a bullet to release the 10-rd mag, and pop in a new one. With a li’l bit of practice, we can do it as fast as a regular mag swap.
B) Regarding the debate as a whole, I’m a member of the CalGuns forum. I can’t speak for them, but personally, I think about it like this: if the law said, “Blacks cannot sit on a stool at the lunch counter,” and blacks bring in raised chairs which do not fit the legal definition of a stool, they’re sticking it to the man. See, we’re using the law against them. They said NO to .50BMG, so we said, “Fine!” and started on every .50 caliber variant we could find.
DOOM ON YOU, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE!
December 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
By getting around the spirit of the law (civil disobedience) while obeying the letter of the law (staying out of jail), we are demonstrating that it’s basically impossible to define “assault weapon” outside of the real definition (a machine gun).
This has helped get three district attorneys to sue the Cali Attorney General to demand a clarification of the so called “Assault Weapon Ban”.
That just might lead to a repeal.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
What about the real-world example of mass civil action which caused the government to create these laws when hundreds of thousands of California gun owners over the past few years demonstrated their irrelevance by voting for those very same politicians who wrote these laws in the first place? The legal framework and impetus was primarily due to their unwillingness to get involved in the political selection and election process. Don’t try to make these people into heroes by referring their laziness as “civil disobedience.”
December 9th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Instead of getting the law off the books point out a glaring “loophole” for them to close.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Ah. Jacob, generally, we didn’t vote for them. We’re outnumbered. See here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=83839&highlight=history
December 9th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I think because our Legal System is such a freaking joke that it’s half-intentional – a kind of Liberal State Psychosis.
Like our Legislature, a shambles of willfully destructive, Ego-monstrosities, maniacally feeding at the Sacramento hog trough. And it’s just another way to keep making money go around in the State. Taxes you know. AND it’s job security for DA’s and whoever comes next through the revolving AG door.
Like the Unions who bargain with with the State-Unions to strike when they do in order to make the State fork over more money further down the bankruptcy and pension trail, which in turn funds the next Union Approved Candidate for Office who caves into every Union demand after a bit of Kabuki-play for the MSM.
Everyone’s in collusion – the State suing the State is a recreational and lucrative practice for State Employees.
But yeh too, non-compliance is an old California tradition – “THEY” make the laws, but it’s still up to you to interpret them according to your own personal needs and responsibilities. Nobody drives 65, and that hands-free cell-phone law? Marijuana? Drinking age?? Hahahahaha! Forget it. Just don’t do it, do what you want, just like Hollywood does…
December 9th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Oh yeh, Lundgren got his ass handed to him because he stepped out of line and went over his mark – there are a lot of personalities at a very high wealth-level who use political proxies in the State to play their bits out.
Sorta like how Arnie got neutered and de-balled by the big Bitches who run this play-pen. He’s toeing the line now with a weird brand of environmentalism and begging for Federal dollars. They have scourged him and marked him as a jester – and Hollywood will play any part for the money.
December 9th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
You’re not outnumbered, you’re outclassed. There are more than enough gun owners in liberal meccas like San Francisco that, if they put their time, effort and money into serious political action like the Lefties do with their kook groups, you wouldn’t have any problems whatsoever in CA. Face the facts. The problems you have are entirely of your own making.
December 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Congratulations to the CalGunners to find ways of operating inside the letter of the law, but showing the lawmakers just how idiotic those laws really are. While that may prompt some people into thinking about how to plug that hole, it is also going to prompt other people into realizing the laws are useless, and start fighting against them even more. Ideally, this should turn into a nice snowball effect the farther it goes down the line, and, barring that, at least more Kalifornistanians have more ebil assault rifles, right?
But, no, leave it to the insurrectionists to qualify anything short of utter and complete abolition of all firearms-related laws as a failure…
December 9th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Have the .0000097% even got THIS law gone?
December 9th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
“Have the .0000097% even got THIS law gone?”
I was a liberal arts major, but I’m pretty sure there are more than about 30 “prags” in the United States.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
You’re entirely right. I don’t know why I haven’t seen it before: California is composed of a gun-owning, conservative Republican supermajority! For some reason they skulk around like Christians under Roman rule, drawing little fish in the sand to recognize each other. If only there were a way to find out how people voted in elections; maybe if we could find county-by-county results… Nah…
Too complicated.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Being smart and working around idiotic laws is fine with me, congratulations to cal guns. As was pointed out it is not “civil disobedience” to follow the law. Still a nice way to use the law. And if it really is foundation to challenge bad law, so much the better.
So some good news and people use it as an excuse to attack other pro rights people? Way to show your class.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Tom: They’re not going to close this loophole. That would validate it too much.
If they close the off-list rifles loophole, all of us with off-list rifles get to register them and put all of those evil things that we can’t have right now on. Pistol grips and detachable magazines are entirely too scary for this state to allow us. Just the THREAT of that scared the legislature into AB2728 which took away the DOJ’s ability to add receivers to the list because it would have required the state to allow us to register them. Can you imagine the political implications to “six years after the assault weapons ban passed, fifty thousand new assault weapons were registered. More to come next year as manufacturers gleefully change their model names to make huge amounts of fast cash in the newly re-opened CA market”?
The beautiful thing is that by denying us registration (and thus full features), they’re shooting themselves in the foot. My off-list AK type with it’s funky non-pistol grip grip is identical or equal in every manner of performance to any other semi-auto AK clone in the US. In fact, I’d have to say it’s superior in performance to a lot of the AKs you free-staters have (I like to tinker 😀 ). Now just sit an think about that “equal in every way but classed differently” thing and imagine it being used in a court of law…
For what it’s worth, too, people don’t have to “build” the off-list rifles (not that it takes any real skill to “build” an AR type…), but many gun stores have CA compliant rifles available on the shelf.
This is just the thin end of the wedge. We’re gaining the traction we need to have these laws tossed, and they will be.
And yes, help and support from out of state are things we desperately crave!
December 9th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
“…There are more than enough gun owners in liberal meccas like San Francisco that, if they put their time, effort and money into serious political action like the Lefties do with their kook groups, you wouldn’t have any problems whatsoever in CA. Face the facts. The problems you have are entirely of your own making.”
This from a New Yorker?
December 10th, 2008 at 8:48 am
No, this from someone who understands the political process. The same goes for NY, MA, NJ, IL, etc.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
The thing of it is, there’s plenty of gun-owners in San Francisco who vote Democrat and support ultra Liberal causes; minimum living-wage,Unions, No Nukes, End-the-War, LaRaza and Critical-Mass, Gay Rights and Marriage, and Medicinal Pot, and Environmental Justice.
They come together but under the Liberal Kool-Aid Banner – not a gun rights banner, they just happen to own guns. And a LOT of them are VERY wealthy inheritors of Great-Grandpa’s Evil Robber Baron money, so they lean Left and support Lefty causes. They acknowledge guns are evil – but necessary (as in, “by any means necessary”), but Big-Money is worse-evil and needs to be spent on defeating itself. And there’s a strong tradition of refined Decadence, so enjoying a “teeny” bit (or a LOT) of all that BigMoney is like responsible drinking – or not. Anyhow they do enjoy it and it makes them feel bad about themselves so they redouble their effort to give a bit away so they can feel better about themselves. A bit. They’re not crazy, just decadent.
So no, they’re not going to be getting under Teh Big Gun Rights Tent anytime soon.