Tag Archives: California Gun Control

Report: CA ‘Bullet Button Assault Weapons’ Mandatory Registration Process Failures

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/06/ar15-KAREN-BLEIERAFPGetty-Images-640x480.png

The deadline to register “bullet button assault weapons” in California was 11;59:59 p.m. on June 30, 2018, but CBS Los Angeles reports the registration page was not properly recognizing firearms when owners attempt to register them.

On June 24, 2018, Breitbart News reported that commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles outfitted with “bullet buttons” had to be registered before midnight of June 30. And in a situation where the gun lacks a serial number, the owner of the firearm was required to apply for a serial number from the state before trying to register the firearms before the deadline.

So the rush is on, but CBS Los Angeles reports that the website has had problems recognizing certain firearm parts as law-abiding citizens sought to comply with registration requirement.

For example, Franklin Armory’s Jay Jacobson said he was trying to register some personal firearms but the California DOJ website kept misidentifying the stock on his firearm. He said, “I believe they may be calling this a telescoping stock. It’s only a fixed stock, it’s only minutely adjustable. Other than that, I can’t figure out why they have not allowed this to go through and what is frustrating is they don’t bother to tell you.”

Moreover, many “bullet button assault weapon” owners are allegedly foregoing registration altogether. Guns, Fishing, and Other Stuff’s Travis Morgan said his customers told them “there is too much drawback to it.” He said, “I have been told that if you register your gun as an assault weapon, DOJ has the right to search your house at any point in time they feel like it. I don’t want them in my house.”

Why would anyone register after the state has made perfectly clear their goal is confiscation and genocide?

It will be interesting to see what percentage of “bullet button assault weapon” owners register their firearms and what the state does, if anything, for individuals who tried to register their guns but were unable due to website glitches.

Source: By AWR Hawkins | Breitbart

Advertisements

Wait Time for Concealed Carry in Riverside County, CA: Two Years

https://i0.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2017/09/concealed-carry-class-instructor-gun-getty-640x480.jpg

The wait time for a concealed carry permit in Riverside County, California, now sits at two years.

That means a law-abiding citizen who applies for a concealed permit out of fear for his life has to find a way to survive unarmed while waiting 24 months to receive a permit allowing him to carry a gun for self-defense.

According to the Reno Gazzette Journal, the wait time for applicants who apply for a concealed carry permit in Riverside County “has climbed from a few months to two years.” This means law-abiding citizens like 56-year-old Steve Perkio have to apply with the understanding that it will literally be years before they get a permit.

Perkio already has a non-resident permit outside of California, and that permit allows him to carry in 26 states across the country. But California refuses to recognize any permit but its own, which means Parkio’s out-of-state permit is not valid in his home state. And it also means Parkio is at the mercy of the criminal element while he waits two years for the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office to approve his concealed carry application.

And it should be remembered that even after two years, the issuance of a permit does not rest solely on Parkio being a law-abiding citizen but on Parkio being able to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a gun daily. So he may wait two years only to have the sheiff’s office arbitrarily reject his application.

News of the two year wait in Riverside County comes on top of the report that Los Angeles County has only issued 197 permits for its 10.2 million residents.  The discrepancy in the meager number of permits issued in a such a large population was uncovered by the California State Auditor. Moreover, the NRA-ILA observed that the Auditor found the “good cause” requirement was arbitrarily followed, if at all, in many of the instances where permits were issued.

This brings us back to the earlier point on Perkio, that even after waiting two years and being a law-abiding citizen he may be refused a permit unless he proves “good cause.”

By AWR Hawkins | Breitbart

* * *

NRA Readies Lawsuit Against California Ammunition Control

https://i1.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2015/07/young-woman-at-gun-range-AP-640x480.jpg

The National Rifle Association is readying a lawsuit against California’s new ammunition controls and that suit focuses on the failure to meet “statutorily mandated” deadlines throughout the lead-up to the launch of the controls.

Breitbart News reported that the ammunition controls went into effect January 1, 2018. They bar out-of-state ammunition purchases and require that all in-state purchases be made from a licensed dealer. This shrinks the supply, which will inevitably drive up price. Moreover, they require that any ammunition purchased online be sent to a licensed in-state dealer, who will then charge a processing fee for the ammo, thereby driving the price up even further.

This is all a prelude to the state’s January 1, 2019, goal of instituting point-of-sale background checks for ammunition purchases. Those sales will also carry a fee, ubiquitously to cover the cost of the background check. But the fee will drive the price of ammo even higher.

The NRA-ILA clams certain “statutorily mandated” deadlines were missed throughout the process of getting the ammunition controls in place, and argues that the controls must be halted because of this.  According to the NRA-ILA, “The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has approved the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed ammunition vendor regulations after failing to meet the statutorily mandated deadline of July 1, 2017 and the effective date of January 1, 2018.”

The NRA has enjoyed recent success against California gun control. For example, on June 29, 2017, a “high capacity” magazine ban was blocked two days before its scheduled implementation. The ban was stopped via a suit brought by the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued the ruling. ABC News quoted Benitez saying, “If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.”

Law-abiding firearm owners face a similar, “untenable choice” if the draconian ammunition controls are allowed to stand.

By HWR Hawkins | Breitbart

Ammo Sales Surge as Californians Seek to Beat New Gun Control Laws

https://i2.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2017/02/weapons-640x480.jpg

California ammunition sales are surging as residents rush to beat the January 1, 2018, implementation of new gun controls targeting ammo sales.

The incoming controls are the outworking of Proposition 63, passed by voters in 2016.

On December 15 Breitbart News reported that California’s war on guns would broaden to include a war on ammo in 2018. These controls include a ban on any ammunition not purchased within the state of California. Moreover, they narrowly define legally purchased ammo as that which is acquired via a licensed dealer in the state.

These controls will not only lessen the supply of ammunition available to Californians, thereby driving up the price for bullets, but will also add processing fees to certain ammo sales, driving up the price even higher.

Right now Californians are buying ammunition at a frenzied pace, getting it at a cheaper price while they can.

Orange County Register quotes AmmoMan’s Eric Schepps, who said, “California has been consistently at the top of our sales, but the biggest difference is that in 2014, about one in 10 packages was going to California. Last year, it was about one in every five packages. Today, every other package we ship is going to a California ZIP code.”

Sales in California have been running well above AmmoMan’s normal sales all year, and have steadily climbed as we draw nearer to January 1.

Here are percentages on how far sales have run above normal each month:

  • May: 134.6%
  • June: 134.8%
  • July: 147%
  • August: 138.2%
  • September: 152.6%
  • October: 151%
  • November: 173.2%
  • December: 187.5%

Shepps said “folks that are intent on buying ammo ASAP.” And he said it is evident “there is more urgency among them as we head toward January.”

By AWR Hawkins | Breitbart

California’s War on Guns Broadens to a War on Ammunition Beginning January 1, 2018

https://i2.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2017/02/weapons-640x480.jpg

This is one of many steps going into effect which will quickly place ammunition under controls similar to those which Democrat lawmakers have placed on firearms.

According to the Sacramento Bee, it will also be illegal “to transfer or buy ammo” from anyone other than a licensed dealer within the state, beginning January 1. California residents can order ammunition from a catalog as long as they have that ammunition shipped to a licensed dealer for pickup. The dealer will then add a “processing fee” to the cost of the ammunition.

In this scenario, a “processing fee” is just another tax that law-abiding citizens will pay for the bullets they buy.

Then, in 2019, all ammunition purchasers will be required to undergo a background check like those currently required for firearm sales. That background check will require the law-abiding citizen to “pay a $1 state fee” for the check. That “fee” is yet another tax.

This is how gun control or, in this case, ammunition control, works. First. they limit the supply by passing a law that it is only legal to possess ammunition purchased in California. Then they pass a law narrowing options even further, so that it is only legal to purchase in-state ammunition from a licensed dealer. Then they apply a tax but call it a “processing fee.” And in 2019 they will apply another tax of $1 to help cover the cost of a point of sale background check for law-abiding ammunition purchasers.

Once such fees are in place it is quite easy for state bureaucrats to increase them to cover unforeseen costs. In the end, this will make ammunition cost-prohibitive for poorer families who may live in situations where they need a gun and ammunition worse than anyone.

It should be clear from California’s gun control history that these laws on ammunition are only the beginning. After all, California implemented background checks for firearms then followed that with gun registration requirements and gun confiscation laws. They even put in a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases and required would-be gun buyers to acquire a certificate from the state proving eligibility to buy a gun. The certificate is only good for five years and requires a fee at renewal. That fee is another tax.

Ammunition laws will follow the same pattern if Californians keep electing the same people to office.

By AWR Hawkins | Breitbart

CA Gov. Jerry Brown Signs Bill Removing Mandatory Enhanced Sentencing For Using Guns In Crime

https://i0.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2017/10/Gov.-Jerry-Brown-640x480.png

At the end of the latest legislation session Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill removing mandatory enhanced sentencing for criminals who use guns in the commission of their crimes.

He did this at the same time that he signed other legislation making it illegal for teachers to be armed on K-12 campuses for self-defense.

Liberal logic–teachers are not allowed to shoot back if under attack and criminals face no mandatory sentence enhancement for using a gun in carrying out an attack.

Assembly Bill 424 made it illegal for teachers to be armed for self-defense and Senate Bill 620 removed the mandatory enhancement for using a gun for crime. SB 620 removed the mandatory enhancement from the Penal Code and placed it at the discretion of the judge presiding over the case.

The ChicoER observed, “So on one hand Brown and the Legislature make it more difficult for a teacher to protect children against gun-wielding criminals, while on the other they reduce potential penalties for gun-wielding criminals.”

Bills like AB 424 and SB 620 were the result of lawmakers scrambling to find any remaining areas where gun bills could be passed. After all, California Democrats passed so many laws in 2016, via Gunpocalypse, that the bills they passed this year served to either extend extant controls or repeal mandatory gun penalties for criminals, as in the case of sentencing guidelines.

Yet as with older gun controls, these new controls only impact law-abiding citizens. We saw proof of this in “the wave of legal purchases” that preceded the implementation of the laws contained in Gunpocalypse. Law-abiding citizens were getting out and buying everything they could while doing so was still legal.

The ChicoER noted such purchases “tell us that new gun laws have their greatest effect on law-abiding shooters, not those bent on criminal or violent misuse. Gang members and other gun criminals, by their nature, don’t make legal purchases. Rather, they acquire weapons and ammo surreptitiously, in ways that don’t leave paper trails of ownership.”

By AWR Hawkins | Breitbart News

Update: Terms Of Surrender In California

“Any person who from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2016 inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine as defined in Penal Code … including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool (commonly referred to as a bullet-button weapon) must register the firearm before January 1, 2018,” the State of California mandated in a May regulation notice.

It’s grand of them to finally share that with us, particularly after an earlier notice advised “The draft regulations are not open for public comment due to the exemption set forth in [the] Penal Code … Per the stated exemption, the Department is not required to provide further clarification.”

It would not have been surprising had they added “So there.”

Still, as the antis often ask us about guns, how many so-called “assault weapon” bans does “the Golden State” need?

They already had a 1989 ban on specific firearm models. A follow-up ban 10 years later on cosmetic characteristics inspired The New York Times to proclaim, “California enacts the toughest ban on assault guns.”

“This is a prototype for reasonable gun-control legislation,” the measure’s sponsor, State Senator Don Perata (holder of an elite “may issue” concealed carry permit), said at the time. “And if it can be done in California, I would argue that it can be done in the United States as a whole.”

That, of course, is one of the goals, along with promoting rabid gun-grabbers as the arbiters of what is “reasonable.”

As for the new edict, assuming a firearm was ‘legally acquired on or before December 31, 2016” and other qualifiers are met, there are all kinds of other hoops gun owners will be required to jump through. That includes typical and expected registration stuff, like name and identifying information for both the owner and the gun. They have to know who you are, what you’ve got and where they can find it (and you). “Common sense gun safety” and all.

Not content with just that, the gun-haters in Sacramento are also requiring “joint registration,” and I’m not talking about for legalized weed (see “A Mess of Pottage,” October 2016 issue). This decree applies if you want to be able to share enjoyment of your property with qualifying family members, and requires a “primary registrant” along with “acceptable forms” of “proof of address for each joint registrant.”

As an aside, compare that to “progressives” objecting to Voter ID laws because they claim proving you are eligible to vote “disenfranchises minorities.” You’ll note they never pull that argument when it comes to gun ownership requirements.

Imagine the cow they’d have if those voters were also required to have Internet access, because that’s also a mandate.

“Assault weapon registrations must be filed electronically using the Department’s California Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS)” the order specifies.

That shows nothing if not bureaucratic zeal, and the motivation appears to be gloating, in-your-face harassment. Because half-a-year in, California gun owners are still unable to comply with the new “law’s” requirements. The utility to register isn’t working yet. At this writing, this language still appears on the California Department of Justice website in bold red letters:

“UPDATE AS OF Thu Jun 01 2017 15:10:35 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) : The ability to register an Assault Weapon … is not yet available… Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.”
But wait, there’s more!

Because now imagine those “disenfranchised voters” also being required to own a digital camera. Gun owners are required to provide “Clear digital photos of firearms listed on the application.

“One photo shall depict the bullet button-style magazine release installed on the firearm,” the regulations order. “One photo shall depict the firearm from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock if it is a long gun or the point furthest from the end of the barrel if it is a pistol. The other two photos shall show the left side of the receiver/frame and right side of the receiver/frame.

“These locations are typically where firearms are marked when manufacturing is complete,” the instructions elaborate. “At the discretion of the Department the last two photos shall be substituted for photos of identification markings at some other locations on the firearm.”

“Discretion”? How? When? It’s like they’re trying to create compliance violations based on applicants not knowing what the … uh … heck they want.

For a “Firearm Manufactured By Unlicensed Subject (FMBUS),” there’s a department-issued serial number that needs to be taken in to a “Federal Firearms Licensed Manufacturer (type 07),” who is “under no obligation to perform this work.” Alternatively, “Persons who have manufactured their own firearm may also use non-licensed parties to apply the serial number and other required markings, however, the owner of the weapon must not leave the firearm unattended with an unlicensed party in violation of firearms transfer and/or lending laws.”

Then there are the fees, “$15.00 per person per transaction.” If you want “a copy of the original registration disposition letter,” that’ll be another 5 bucks. And they’ll only accept payment via credit or debit card.

Again, think of those “disenfranchised” voters.

Then think of something else. Think of the Second Amendment. Think of “shall not be infringed.” Think of the Founders who envisioned an armed citizenry capable of meeting “enemies foreign and domestic” with equivalent weaponry.

Here’s what it boils down to: Those of us who believe government exists to serve the people believe we have a right to keep and bear arms. Those who believe people exist to serve the government believe we do not.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association, with the backing of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, filed a lawsuit in April challenging the new ban. It will go through the courts for years. When it reaches the “liberal” Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, expect them to cite precedent and side with the state. When that’s appealed to the Supreme Court, all they need do for the law to stand is… nothing. If they decline hearing the case, the law will stand. And even if they hear it, there are no outcome guarantees.

In the mean time, gun owners have been dictated the terms of their unconditional surrender. Obey or be declared a criminal, and suffer all the penalties the state can bring down on your head to make an example of you to everyone else. Or flee to another state; one of those Don Perata envisioned exporting his “reasonable” disarmament to.

Let’s work toward reclaiming our right to keep and bear arms, heeding Patrick Henry’s warning to “guard with jealous attention the public liberty.” And let’s hope the Supreme Court ends up doing the right thing.

If they don’t, you’re going to have to ask yourself “What would Captain John Parker do?” If you don’t know who he was, you probably ought to make it a point to find out.

by David Codrea | Gun Magazine