Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 11/20/2011 2:51:42 AM PST by marktwain
The term "assault weapon" has always rankled Second Amendment absolutists. Handled properly, an umbrella could be an "assault weapon." Considering the purpose of a weapon, the term "assault weapon" is rather redundant.
In this state it's also "unconstitutionally vague" according to a lawsuit filed this week by a band of gun rights crusaders.
The plaintiffs in the case, filed Thursday in Oakland, are the Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Brendan John Richards. The latter is an Iraq vet who managed to get himself arrested and his guns impounded -- twice. The former are two litigious firearms aficionado groups who have made a cottage industry out of suing cities and states (you may recall the Second Amendment Foundation successfully forcing Muni to accept advertising in which people brandish firearms).
In both of Richards' confrontations with the law, he and the arresting officer differed on whether the firearms in the ex-Marine's trunk fit the definition of "assault weapons." In both cases, Richards lost the argument, was arrested, had his guns taken away, and spent several days in jail while his family ponied up bail money. And, finally, in both cases, weapons experts overruled the arresting officers, declaring Richards' armory were not "assault weapons" -- all charges were dismissed, and Richards got his non-assault weapons back.
To take a shot at the nitty-gritty of this case, Richards' first arrest took place last year at a Sonoma County Motel 6 during an investigation of a "disturbance," about which the suit does not go into detail.
The plaintiff saw fit to tell a Sonoma County sheriff's deputy that there were unloaded firearms in his trunk. The deputy seized two pistols and a rifle -- the suit, again, does not offer more salient details -- and arrested Richards on two counts of assault weapon possession and four counts of "possession of large capacity magazines." Those charges were eventually dismissed, however, when a state expert on firearms ruled the guns did not meet the criteria of "assault weapons"
(For those who know their firearms, the semiautomatic pistol "had a properly installed bullet button, thus rendering the firearm incapable of accepting a detachable magazine that could only be removed from the gun by the use of a tool.")
In August of this year, Richards once again had a brush with the law. He once again told a Sonoma County sheriff's deputy he had unloaded weapons in his trunk. The deputy seized a "Springfield Armory M1A" from the vehicle, and Richards was arrested and incarcerated. Yet, once again, a state firearms expert ruled that this gun was not an "assault weapon."
In brief, the gun enthusiasts claim the state's "Assault Weapon Statutes and Regulations" are "vague and ambiguous on their face as related to Richards' arrests." The plaintiffs claim the state's laws are "hopelessly vague and ambiguous as applied; and thus an infringement on the Second Amendment." The state's regulations, then are "unconstitutionally vague," and "mere possession of a firearm, when otherwise lawful, cannot support a finding of probable cause to believe a crime has been committed."
Richards wants the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office to undergo more training related to California's Assault Weapon Statutes and Regulations -- which he'd also like to see taken out and shot as unconstitutional.
I just learned about “bullet buttons” and other onerous restrictions on firearms in CA from a cousin who lives there. He was amazed when I purchased an AR and 60 round magazines and left with the gun and mags in my possesion about 30 minutes after entering the store. Cali is a lost cause.
They did not arrest him, for an arrest requires a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred. he was KIDNAPPED AT GUNPOINT BY A JACK BOOTED THUG and HELD FOR RANSOM. The Police Officers involved should be FIRED and PROSECUTED for being STUPID under the COLOR OF LAW.
Can you explain this? It makes no sense to me, and is not a term used in Ga.
It is essentially a recessed mag release. You can use the tip of a bullet to push it in to get the mag out. i.e. Bullet button.
You can also use anything sufficiently stiff, pointy and small enough to fit in the hole.
You certainly wouldn’t want to get caught with a fully automatic Louisville Slugger “assault weapon” either. Or possibly some of those assault scissors either. I have to be careful, should I ever cross the state line into Kali, and make sure i haven’t left a 30 round mag in the truck somewhere. In all, I will try to avoid crossing the state line. Might have to scrape the tint off my windows as well. Is window tint classified as assault tint? Nut jobs for sure. Too bad the population centers control the normal people in California. There actually are some good folks there who just mind their own business. Therein lies the problem. The clowns don’t mind raising a ruckus but the normal folks are to busy WORKING and taking care of their daily lives.
The term "assault weapon" has always rankled Second Amendment absolutists. Handled properly, an umbrella could be an "assault weapon." Considering the purpose of a weapon, the term "assault weapon" is rather redundant.Yep, defining 'assault weapon' is and can tricky. And like Joe Pesci showed in 'Casino', a Parker Pen is one too if you want it to be. But that's another matter (for now).
We think of 'assault weapons' as having selective fire, and if they don't have that function then they're just 'semi-auto rifles'. But alas, as I recently found, and much to my dismay, that always ain't the case. As one of the rifles on my *wish list*, the venerated FN FAL (7.62x51mm NATO), aka: "The Right Arm Of The Free World" is one. The FAL went (and still does) from the factory, to armies all over the world, in two models: Selective Fire, or Semi Auto only. And the FN factory calls both of them 'Assault Rifles' so I think they should know what one is.
That being said I do have a couple of beefs with the gun grabbers grouping of 'assault weapons' on their *must ban* list: The Hi-Point 9mm Carbine and the 'scary looking' black rifle, the AR-15. The only reason they always list the Hi-Point is that the losers at Columbine used it. No other reason. And given the AR's 'small and very fast' bullet ballistics, it fits the description of a Varmint Rifle if anything.
IMHO just because the US Military went with its selective fire brother is irrelevant. 'Heck', our special ops guys don't even use it or the M4 any much now, they got the M-14's out of storage and now use that as their 'Main Battle Rifle'. The Navy SEALS being one of them (per the Military Channel).
Anywho, I too was always on the 'must have selective fire option' side but the FN FAL changed that. So what is an 'Assault Weapon'? Anything you can kill someone with, and that's a very long list -- including the 'Heavy Blunt Object'. Try banning that leftist 'assault weapon' grabbers.
An aside:
An interesting thing about the FN FAL. It is the only Main Battle Rifle that two opposing armies ever used against each other. It was with the Brits and Argentines during the Falklands War. The Brit Army had the semi-auto FAL 'assault rifle' and the Argentines had the selective fire version. And when Argentines were captured the Brits would drop their semi auto rifle and use the Argentines selective fire ones. (also per the Military Channel)
IOW, semi-auto AK variants, variants of the AR-15, semi-auto FALs and L1-A1s, etc. are not "assault weapons". But good luck trying to get a politician or media type to wrap his head around that.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Basically, you need a key to change a magazine. Pressing the mag release with a finger will not release the magazine. Not very convenient in a self defense scenario.
Basically, you need a key to change a magazine. Pressing the mag release with a finger will not release the magazine. Not very convenient in a self defense scenario.
Actually there’s a specific Statute which covers this. It’s 18USC242; Deprivation of Civil Rights under Color of Law.
As we all know “Assault Weapon” is a made up political term. It was made up to scare the stupid. The MSM being stupid can not say the word enough. It is like they are 5 and have just learned a 4 letter word and can not wait to use it. It is a fiction. A political ploy. And it is STUPID.
Correct. And "assault rifle" is a military term. The anti-gunners depend upon the confusion.
In Kalifornia there have been three different laws passed in order to outlaw "assault weapons". No single law could define such an ambiguous concept.
All of these laws are unConstitutional and will be found to be so soon due to Heller and McDonald. The burden of justification only has to shift the slightest bit in order to strike down these laws.
One of our clients came in for training last Friday (in S. TX). He is from Chicago but lives in Corpus Christi now. I brought my Para Warthog 45 ACP in to show to some of the other students. I offered it to him, and he held up his hands, eyes wide, and asked “is that a REAL GUN?” I showed it to him and got him to handle it. After some coaxing, I had him enthused about going to an indoor range and trying out some of my pistols. I also showed him my Super Blackhawk and P238. He is thinking about buying a gun after we go to the range.
Good for you! One at a time, we are winning.
California legislature is afraid someone will come in and blow them all away or something. So they banned a whole bunch of ‘menacing looking’ long guns, made restrictions against magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and passed a law so that a gun owner needs a tool to unlock the current magazine locked into the receiver in order to replace it. The term “Bullet Button” was coined because the sharp end of a bullet will work to unlock the magazine - though as mentioned any pointy metal object would do the same thing. They just don’t want people to be able to change magazines quickly.
The law has gone through a few revisions. At first they made a list of guns that were banned but then manufacturers just made new models. So then they banned guns that met certain descriptions, but that was not passed by the legislature it was written by the DA’s office so it was found unconstitutional. This particular law has undergone attack and I hope they continue to whittle it away. California citizens needs their 2A rights restored.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.