California Dreaming

California’s tough gun laws scrutinized after San Bernardino shootings | McClatchy DC:

Officials have said that one of the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifles was altered to essentially function like an automatic weapon, while the other was changed to accommodate a high-capacity, 30-round magazine prohibited in California. Newsom said that briefings he has received suggest it is too early to pass judgment about the cache of weapons and ammunition and whether a particular law, or the various laws being contemplated, would apply. He is proposing a gun-control measure for next year’s ballot and said now is not the time to hold back in passing more “common sense” measures. “To the extent it would address the issues of San Bernardino, perhaps not,” Newsom said. “But would it have impacted (other) mass shootings in California? That’s an open-ended question for consideration.

How do you modify an AR15 action, which will accommodate a 10-round magazine, so that it will NOT accommodate a 30 round magazine? And what alterations are necessary so that a 30-round magazine can feed it?

(BTW, 30-round mags were notoriously prone to feeding problems, in my personal experience with the AR16.  We used 20-round magazines, and downloaded them so there were only 18 rounds actually loaded.   And even then we had to perform daily maintenance to ensure they fed reliably.   But I suppose there is a great difference between then and now.)

I lived in California for a while back in the 1970's, but I left when it was clear that the state was descending into a Hell On Earth and was no longer a fit residence for Americans.  (The crime rate was rising rapidly .... and that just among the elected politicians!)

Don't blame the Killer; blame the Freedom

Exclusive: Jumping The GunGuns Magazine.com | Guns Magazine.com:
Opinion Article by David Codrea in reference to the Colorodo Planned Parenthood Attack

If you haven't already seen it, it's worth reading

The issue that should be of interest to all readers here is that religious, speech and firearms freedoms are being blamed for the evil actions of a defective individual, one who appears incapable of living freely among his fellow human beings. And further restrictions on those who do not share those defects will solve nothing, except to make it harder for good people to defend themselves against bad ones.

The Supreme Court: What Will They Do? (Firearms capacity Limitations)

If  the supreme court decides that the states have the right to limit firearms capacity limitations, then what limits ARE acceptable?

Some states/communities are saying that they will not allow magazines which allow more than  rounds; some say "more than 10 rounds".

So which is right, and why?  Can (should!) states have the right to limit the magazine capacity of ANY firearm in their sphere of influence.  And if so, why?
And if SO ... how many rounds is "okay", and if one more round is in the magazine, what is the appropriate punishment for flaunting the Law of the Land?

Or is that crap any more reasonable than any other arbitrary law which will have no effect on Crime in the City!

POINT 1:

Several issues are on the SCOTUS venue for the coming judicial year (which always starts in October), and those with the highest profiles often consider Firearm Rights.

*(Also sometimes referred to as "impositions on the Second Amendment" cases.)

One of the most common applications of the Second Amendment is whether the various states have the RIGHT to impose restrictions on magazine capacity.

I am not certain how the Supreme Court of the United States can rule on this issue, given  the confusing matrix of state and local laws in reference to magazine capacity.

It's not so much the number of rounds which may be contained in a "legal" magazine, but the secondary laws which include unrealistic limitations.

One of my personal favorites is the genre of laws which render fire-arms "illegal" if they violate any law which looks something like this:

• Accepts a magazine which may contain more than 8 (eight) rounds of ammunition ..

or

• Accepts a magazine which may contain more than 10 (ten) rounds of ammunition .

Do you see the issue?  In their rush to forbid any firearm by introducing secondary and inconsequential characteristics, Gun-Control Moonbats completely ignore the physical characteristics of firearms, and assume that (for example) a pistol which will accept a 7-round magazine will not accept an 8-round magazine.  

(The example, of course, holds true for a 10-round magazine, for any firearms in which the magazine is not fully-enclosed when the firearm is in a 'firing' configuration.)

In other words, these highly-trained, college-educated Lawyers who constitute our State and National lawmakers are so ignorant that they do not realize that the laws they propose are impossible to obey.

OR ... ARE THEY?

If such "Magazine-Capacity Limits" laws are accepted and enacted, the various states (or the whole nation, if the verbiage is accepted in Federal Court), then any firearm which accepts ANY magazine length will immediately become regulated by a standard which does not necessarily apply to them.

So if you 1911 was originally constructed with the magazine designs of 1911, and only 'expects' a 7-round magazine, that does not protect it from the Gun Grabbers.

In fact, recent magazine follower designs have made the 8-round version equally acceptable to the 1911 Single-Stack pistol as the original 7-round magazine.

Extended magazines (such as the popular Chip McCormick design) would as easily alloy 10-magazines to feed quite as easily into almost any 1911 Single-stack frame.  And they magazines and the frame would both be illegal under proposed Gun Control Rules.

POINT 2:

It's hard to tell about Lawyers:

Are they ignorant, ill-informed, crafty, disingenuous, misinformed, confused, or merely the lying bags o'shit which they seem to be.  These four things are clear:

1. laws are often directed by congressmen
2. congressmen are lawyers who couldn't make it in the legal field
3. If you assume that Lawyers who draft laws  do not understand the nuances of the subject, they will hand you your ass and smile smugly all the while
4. There is no Number 4

SUMMARY:

Do not, ever, accept a law which include "magazine limitations" as any part .. even a minor part .. of the law.  The number is arbitrary, it doesn't mean a DAMN thing to anybody but the lawyers, and as soon as you accept a number (ANY number!) then you can be quite certain that someone will come up with a "new number" ...  which doesn't seem significantly different from the "old number" ... and they whittle your gun rights down to "ONE ROUND" sooner or later.

Probably sooner.

POINT 3:

HOW do you deal with a seemingly reasonable proposal from your local legislators .. City, County, State .. whatever)?

FIRST:  they are lying about their agenda.

The people who want to take your guns away (don't believe that isn't what they want to do; they just realize that it's a steep hill and they will take one step at a time to undermine YOUR constitutional rights) will say anything to meet your goal.

They have an advantage over you.  They can say anything; you are restricted by the truth.

There are many truths.  For example, when they bring up the issue of 

"we license cars, why shouldn't we license guns"

.... cars are not protected in the constitution; guns are.

SECOND:  They will undermine your agenda

Politicians seem to be genetically obliged to make laws.  It's how they justify their existance.  Every time they make a law which restricts your 2nd Amendment Rights, you should look very carefully at the law.

Does it make sense?  What is the purpose?  Does it seem designed to make people "feel Safe"?  (NOT a constitutional requirement!)

Look at the records of the legislators who have made a LOT of laws.  Note that the laws they make are usually designed to prevent you or others from doing ... "something".  If that "something" isn't already prevented, or if it's a Constitutional right, then assume it's a Stalking Horse and kill it!

THIRD:   They will chide you for being so reluctant to accept "reasonable, common-sense" rules

There are no "common-sense" rules, or laws, when it comes to the Second Amendment.  

"Shall Not Be Infringed" means that if you are a legal citizen of the country and someone proposes a law which will affect (adversely) your ownership of a firearm ... AND THE AMMUNITION NEEDED TO FUEL IT ... then it's not constitutional and you have no obligation to obey it.

The Supreme Court will rule on these laws, if they are called upon to accept the onus and if they choose to address the issue.  Under extreme pressure from state or local government, you may be obliged to determine whether your constitutional right will be locally recognized.  Yes, there are police and sheriff departments which are unclear about what their duties to the public entail.

PLEASE NOTE: there is a movement in this country involving people who understand their constitutional rights, and they have already decided that they WILL NOT COMPLY to "local (unconstitutional) laws which limit their rights.  See Colorado

If you decide to exercise your Constitutional Rights even though they conflict with local laws, then you may be subject to local prosecution.  You may fight that prosecution; you may lose.

WILL NOT COMPLY:  Firearm owners have already stated the the "Will Not Comply" with local firearms laws in the following states:

• New York
• Oregon
• Oh hell, look up the other states yourself.  I suggest you start with Colorado, ok?

The thing about INSURRECTION is that law enforcement officers are reluctant to do house-intrusions on people with whom the often have philosophical agreement, and who are not REALLY being a threat to peace and law in their community.

They just don't want to abide to unconstitutional and arbitrary laws.

And in some cases, are willing to respond to aggression with aggression.  Which NOBODY WANTS!

Appeasing the M16 Gods

Lee Williams: Down With Poly AK Mags! | WeaponsMan:

We also don’t think loading only 28 rounds buys you anything. The difference in pressure is nominal. This goes back at least as far as Vietnam and was a ritual practiced by troops (although, there it was putting 18 rounds in a 20-round magazine) who were neither trained on the rifle nor given a supply of replacement magazines. It was something they did to appease the M16 Gods

In response to this off-hand statement (in reference to an entirely different magazine-reliability issue), I note that in September, 1969, when I was assigned as a brand new Platoon Sgt (as an E6 Staff Sgt ... a full grade below TO&E standards), Infantry troops were carefully drilled in loading only 18 rounds in a replacement magazine, because a fully loaded (20 rounds) magazine was too difficult to quickly and reliably seat into the M16 A1 or A2 during a combat situation.  It usually wouldn't seat without the soldier being distracted from the primary mission at hand ... not getting shot!

Oh, and the much-vaunted 30-round magazine?  We never saw them, either.  We were just happy to get the 20-round magazines; we knew THEY worked (as long as you didn't expect them to hold 20 rounds.)

I will also note that even after spending a year in training I never received complete training on care and maintenance of the M16 A1 or A2 in the field.  We just did the best we could, which was not much since we were never issued cleaning materials.
(See the video here for information which we were never given.)

NY OFFICIALS AGREE TO NOT ENFORCE 7-ROUND MAGAZINE LIMIT WHILE GUN CASE ON APPEAL

Test NY OFFICIALS AGREE TO NOT ENFORCE 7-ROUND MAGAZINE LIMIT WHILE GUN CASE ON APPEAL 
(April 1, 2014)

Second Amendment Foundation: BELLEVUE, WA – 

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and State Police Superintendent Joseph D’Amico have agreed, in a stipulated order, to not enforce a section of the state’s controversial SAFE (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act while an appeal is underway in one of the legal challenges to that statute, amounting to a small but important victory for the Second Amendment Foundation in a challenge to the constitutionality of a provision in the law.

Well, isn't that special?

 At issue is the arbitrary seven-round limit on magazine capacity that was included in the SAFE Act under Section 265.37 of that law. At
trial in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn, Inc. v. Cuomo, Judge William M. Skretny ruled that the section dealing with the magazine limit is unconstitutional. He upheld other provisions in the Act.

 "... arbitrary seven round limit on magazine capacity ....."

Unless I am sadly mistaken, most of these 'arbitrary ... limit on magazine capacity" laws are disingenuous at best.  The usual practice is to accompany the 'mag capacity' rule with verbiage to the effect that " .... the following firearms are restricted in that they allow the use of a magazine with a capacity of holding more than (x-number) rounds".  The only variable is the "arbitrary"  number of rounds.

Make no mistake, that number is entirely arbitrary.  Is a seven round magazine acceptable, but an eight round magazine is "evil"?   Those who would mandate a magazine capacity limit would very much prefer a maximum of ONE round, but they feel magnanimous in "allowing" us to have up to <gasp!> SEVEN rounds of highly dangerous ammunition. 

One supposes that they feel this is a quid pro quo measure.

That is, they will "give" the citizens of their state the ability to carry SEVEN round of ammunition  (presumably because the WWII magazines in a 1911-frame .45 accepted 7 rounds).

In turn, they expect you to swallow, smile, and say "thank you, that was very good for me".

Those of you New Yorkers who have foolishly bought 8-round magazines, or even worse 10-round magazines?  Well, y'all are just shit out of luck because you know that this appeal process is going to fail in the long run.

Why?

It's the governor of New York, that's why.

And you thought Cuomo was a Good Guy because he stood up with GW Bush on 9/12.

The fact is, of course, that restricting magazine capacity DOES "infringe" upon the 2nd Amendment.