California-safe "assault rifle"

That. Is. EVIL! AND perfect for the People's Republik.

Based on the comments that guy got, he could sell quite a few of the "HK AR-15"

And here I always thought HK stood for Heckler and Koch.

Oh the horrors. There is a bayo lug on that semiauto M4...

And...and...couldn't those handguards be mistaken by the less-informed among us as a barrel shroud? Oh, nevermind...Carolyn McCarthy informed me that a the menacing barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up.

Glad I know, and glad that California remains safe. A little New Year humor no doubt...

I was surprised to find out that you can actually buy a gun like that in California now. I had thought that guns similar to a banned gun were also banned. But it seems that there was a case where it was declared that for a weapon to be banned it had to be specifically named by make and model number by the Attorney General (or have the specific features of an "assault weapon" I guess). In addition a law went into effect at the beginning of 2007 that ended the AG's authority to add weapons to the banned list. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_bill_20060929_chaptered.pdf
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not sure at all that this is correct.

I was under the impression that in Kali rifles like that had to have fixed mags and be fed from the top by stripper clips.

But what do I know?

More info on Cali-legal AR's/AK's here:

http://calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm

Short answer - you can have (i) a detachable mag rifle with no "evil features" (flash suppressor, pistol grip yada yada) or (ii) a rifle with a fixed mag and evil features, or (iii) a rifle with a magazine removable with a tool (like a bullet) and evil features. The "monsterman grip" pictured is a work-around to the pistol grip and allows a detachable mag.

The happy lady towards the bottom of this thread seems to be the owner - there's another happy lady with a pink multi-cam AR (and a U-15 Cali-legal non-pistol grip stock) above her as well:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=79553&page=8

That there is a market for these abominations is a hymn to the spirit of American inventiveness and resistance.

$DIETY bless America.

Another example of the law of unintended consequences.

Yes, these AR variants are becoming commonplace in CA.

I was one of the four or five guys on Calguns.Net that stumbled around & helped organize this, and now every rifle range in CA has quite a few shooting positions occupied by folks with "warped black rifles". We walked a narrow line to keep people outta jail. We probably have 100,000 new off-list rifles - mostly ARs, some AKs as well as a variety of other types - now in CA since the 2000 "SB23" ban.

California bans assault weapons in two ways - by "listing" of make/model combination, or by banning various configured features suites on semiauto centerfire rifles. (There are also AW definitions for shotguns and pistols.)

California's 2001 Harrott v. County of Kings decision (thank you, Janice Rogers Brown!) stopped CA from asserting the previous broad "series" status for AR and AK firearms, and forced them to be 'listed' by specific make/model combo. When we realized in 2005 that the CA Attorney General (Bill Lockyer, at the time) had not listed new makes/models since end of 2000 (and if we configured them legally) we could again have AR and AK type rifles: "off-list" guns built on "off-list receivers". Legal semiauto rifles in CA either run without 'evil feautres' (pistol grip, folding stock, flash hider, etc.) or run with a 10 round fixed magazine.

The various 'evil features' are precisely described in regulatory code, so alternative devices for gripping or serving as a stock were used to render the rifles legal and ergonomic
(see websites for http://www.monsterman.com and http://www.californiarifles.com ) Some benchrest types didn't mind using a fixed 10rd mag where the rifle was scissored open to reload. A special magazine release called the 'Bullet Button' was fashioned and championed by Calgunner Gene Hoffman; this still met the regulatory requirement of not being a defined 'detachable magazine while indeed being a removable magazine.

We at first thought we just might get a few hundred or thousand such guns/receivers in before they became 'named' as assault weapons and then a mandatory registration period would open (and ban further sales of those particular models) and didn't think things would grow the way they did. In fact many of the early purchases were for 'retirement guns': a hedge for folks intending to move out of California at a later date eyt wanting to hedge their bets against a possible future worse Federal AW ban being enacted. (Californians can't buy guns in other states without going thru a CA FFL.)

Instead, the CA DOJ Firearms Division (now Bureau of Firearms) panicked and made the situation laughably worse - they tried to create an "almost-AW" called a "Category 4" gun, they tried to redefine CA regulatory definitions of "detachable magazine" even though it conflicted with extant prior approvals of other guns, did raid-like 'audits' of CA dealers selling off-list receivers, etc.

During the course of this, we found that the Deputy Attorney General (Firearms) was in active cahoots with the Brady campaign, getting direction from their Brian Siebel as well as others. The California NRA + its CA lawyers (Trutanich-Michel LLP) were able to add some organization and formalize the regulatory fight beyond our capacities: while some of us had the broad skills and gun/legal knowledge to know the CA DOJ couldn't do what it wanted to do, it did help us that there were some good folks with ", Esquire" on their business cards.

This hulaballoo got so large, and DOJ Firearms leadership embarassed (AG Lockyer was running for Treasurer) they drove thru legislation in 2006 where they *surrendered* their ability to ban new guns by name - effectively cancelling the 1989 Roberti-Roos law, and protecting other guns that could have been listed as AWs via court declaration even though they didn't have 'features'. (There was always a risk, until this, that M1As, Mini-14s, many SKSes etc could have been banned thru court order.) The DOJ was panicky enough they even gave in and allowed a tagalong amendation for alternate civil compromise settlements for illegal AW possession instead of
felony prosecutions.

Things have quieted down a bit now, but there has still been the odd arrest by a cop (followed thru by DA prosecution) who doesn't understand CA's AW laws. The CA DOJ sometimes tries to step into these cases and harrumph around definitions and try to force inappropriate matters of 'constructive possession', etc. Much of this is due to DOJ abandoning (and never asserting) its formal legal duty to promulgate details about AW laws in CA (and offer training) - they just foist it off with boilerplate text to the "58 DAs" in CA , even though the AG/DOJ is the chief law enforcement officer here and is supposed to DRIVE these matters. (Harrott decision even mentions goal of state uniformity in AW matters.)

More is coming, the ongoing Hunt v. Lockyer (well, now Hunt v. Brown) case is wending its way, and there are some other matters that appear to be in the queue.

I suspect there will be some more news in the future. CA's AW law flaws (combined with CA DOJ inconsistency, opinion letters du jour, etc.) may help kill it off in a few years - regardless of Parker/Heller or its successors.

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA