So I actually attempted to register my rifle now that the state got the site up and running. It failed miserably - so I decided to just make the darned thing 'featureless' - The thing that I find remarkable after this process (plenty of options and I will have a rifle that is not considered an assualt weapon at the end) is that I cannot imagine in what world the weapon I end up with is no longer an 'assault rifle'. The function is going to be exactly the same and now I can remove the bullet button (which is also a bit silly)
So here we have a regulation that makes no sense to me (and I am 100% for common sense regulation) it's just this one is not common sense.
Ah well - now I won't have to register it.....it's been a bizarre year...
Re: Going 'featureless' in CA
2Shhhhh.....cdrridg wrote:The thing that I find remarkable after this process (plenty of options and I will have a rifle that is not considered an assualt weapon at the end) is that I cannot imagine in what world the weapon I end up with is no longer an 'assault rifle'. The function is going to be exactly the same and now I can remove the bullet button (which is also a bit silly)
Ya, featureless is definitely the way to go, and there are pretty darn good featureless stock choices for the AR platform. For other semi-autos, like the AK, the choices are not quite as good, but still better than registering.
"To initiate a war of aggression...is the supreme international crime" - Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson, 1946
Re: Going 'featureless' in CA
3can you hang on to all the "feature" parts, or does that constitute "constructive intent"?
i'm retired. what's your excuse?
Re: Going 'featureless' in CA
4The contortions you Californians have to go through to stay legal...
You poor bastards.
You poor bastards.
Re: Going 'featureless' in CA
5Not sure if you are snarking, but it is perfectly legal to possess parts that together could constitute an illegal weapon, with a few specifically enumerated exceptions, like "hi cap" magazines if a new law stands.lurker wrote:can you hang on to all the "feature" parts, or does that constitute "constructive intent"?
"To initiate a war of aggression...is the supreme international crime" - Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson, 1946
Re: Going 'featureless' in CA
6Welcome to the club. For what it's worth, the FRS-15 is a very nice stock and still allows for one handed manipulation, unlike the grip fins. The SCR is also very nice and makes your "assault rifle" into a black mini 14/AR hybrid-type thingy but at significantly more $ and is a proprietary lower (so would get registered anyway through DROS).cdrridg wrote: so I decided to just make the darned thing 'featureless' -
Either way, it's worth it to not need to hassle with the bullet button that has a greater chance of resulting in a negligent discharge than it does in stopping a mass shooter.
Re: Going 'featureless' in CA
7no, not intentionally snarking. don't know why you might think that. seemed like a reasonable question to me.Elmo wrote:Not sure if you are snarking, but it is perfectly legal to possess parts that together could constitute an illegal weapon, with a few specifically enumerated exceptions, like "hi cap" magazines if a new law stands.lurker wrote:can you hang on to all the "feature" parts, or does that constitute "constructive intent"?
if california were to follow the feds' lead wrt suppressors and full-auto parts, you could conceivably be in big trouble simply by keeping the parts you took off your rifle to make it compliant. that would be bad.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?
Re: Going 'featureless' in CA
8The SCR also requires a proprietary bolt carrier body, although the other bits making up a bolt carrier group, as well as the bolt itself, remain the same.
"In every generation there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster
Re: Going 'featureless' in CA
9Yeah, let's hope that they don't start looking at constructive intent bullshit. Could make for another swath of really terrible laws. The flip side of that of course, is that there are many ways to make a rifle featureless/compliant that would still use standard AR parts, so I think that one would be a real pain in the ass to prosecute.lurker wrote:no, not intentionally snarking. don't know why you might think that. seemed like a reasonable question to me.Elmo wrote:Not sure if you are snarking, but it is perfectly legal to possess parts that together could constitute an illegal weapon, with a few specifically enumerated exceptions, like "hi cap" magazines if a new law stands.lurker wrote:can you hang on to all the "feature" parts, or does that constitute "constructive intent"?
if california were to follow the feds' lead wrt suppressors and full-auto parts, you could conceivably be in big trouble simply by keeping the parts you took off your rifle to make it compliant. that would be bad.
Re: Going 'featureless' in CA
10it just seems to me that there are legislators in CA and elsewhere who simply do not want citizens to own semiauto removable magazine rifles at all. whether they want to go further than that and go for all semiauto and/or magazine fed rifles, i don't know. but a logical step in the direction would be to make it illegal to possess parts. precedent already exists on the federal level. maybe i shouldn't be talking about this. can legislators read?shinzen wrote: Yeah, let's hope that they don't start looking at constructive intent bullshit.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?
Re: Going 'featureless' in CA
11Legislators don't need to be able to read, they have staff and interns for that. "We'll have to pass it to find out what's in it."lurker wrote:it just seems to me that there are legislators in CA and elsewhere who simply do not want citizens to own semiauto removable magazine rifles at all. whether they want to go further than that and go for all semiauto and/or magazine fed rifles, i don't know. but a logical step in the direction would be to make it illegal to possess parts. precedent already exists on the federal level. maybe i shouldn't be talking about this. can legislators read?shinzen wrote: Yeah, let's hope that they don't start looking at constructive intent bullshit.
"In every generation there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster