Possible flaw in California SKS confiscation law

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The recent push in California to confiscate many SKS (improperly called "assault rifles") semiauto rifles has left some law abiding citizens without their choice of self protection. See http://www.sksbuyback.org/ for details of the plan. My son however, pointed out what appears to be a difference in the law as it is written and the law as it is being enforced. The official California web site makes it sound as if any SKS with a detachable magazine is illegal. To quote my son though

>>(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 12276, an "SKS rifle" under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47 magazine and imported into this state and sold by a licensed gun dealer, or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997.

......Now last time I checked SKS rifles didn't accept an Ak-47 mag. It is a different design!!! Does this mean that there is a loophole in the law? Could be a legal point to argue....>>

I admit that some SKS's have been modified to accept AK magazines, but most of the SKS's that I have seen have simply had their fixed magazines removed and a magazine similar to but not the same as an AK magazine is inserted. Is California Law Enforcement misinterpreting this to facilitate the confiscation of legal SKS's?

D'Joan

-- D'Joan (doghose@alpharalpha.blvd), June 13, 1999

Answers

Don Perata Assemblyman of Alameda County is the jerk who sponsered this garbage bill. He packs a nine millimeter and apparently considers himself to be a special kinda guy. He wants to disarm US and, since he and his ilk are special, keep himself armed.

I say ignore all unconstitutional, so-called, laws.

-- gotguns (gotguns@'nammo.militia), June 13, 1999.


D'Joan,

I wouldn't worry too much about that current law. It is probably just another example of a screw up in defining what is legal and what is not. It happens all the time in gun control legislation. Anyway, Calif is not going to conficate any guns, the way I see it. There are still all the other laws and constitution to permit you to have a gun. However, *if* the constitution is suspended under presidential executive orders martial law, then I expect the directive could go out to all states that guns should be confiscated, and the States will then only be agents of the Federal directive. In such a sceneario it won't matter what the previous law said, that will be voided and every gun they can locate will be picked up, or at least they will try to do that. The general population may have other ideas. So don't sweat any current regs, only martial law is the danger, in which case all bets are off regarding private ownership of *anything* and the free-for-all will start between the government and the people. It is exactly that sort of thing that the Constitution was designed to prevent, but as I say, under National Martial Law, the constitution is suspended and they can try to do anything they want.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 13, 1999.


Sorry I don't have an answer for you D'Joan. GORDON - do you not remember recent (past 6 years) legislation which changed the rights of law abiding citizens who already legally owned "assault rifles" (Steyer Aug (sp?)and other full auto weapons) who already had special permits? They can't sell them legally in-state, most gun stores really can't even take possession of them, etc. and the folks are made to feel like "nuts" because they own them. Personally I don't choose to own that kind of gun (semi-auto is fine with me) but these were law-abiding folks who were playing by the rules (many cops and cop's friends and buddies buy these guns). Now they are trying to do the same thing with many semi-autos.

I wish I felt differently but I do feel that we are not THAT far away from confiscation of weapons on a larger scale through various means. It is just happening insidiously with brain-washing by many media folks and misinformation by the anti-gun lobby followed by really silly gun laws which will do nothing to stop the violent crime. It is really sad that they are beginning to force otherwise straight-laced, law-abiding folks to consider becomming criminals if pushed about issues like this.

Stepping off my soap box now and biting my tongue.....

-- Kristi (securx@succeed.net), June 13, 1999.


Gordon,

Sorry in advance for my rambling post....I re-read your post and realized you probably are very aware of the legislation.... I guess I am just grumpy today.

Bye!

-- Kristi (securx@succeed.net), June 13, 1999.


D'Joan - for what it's worth there was an SKS variant which was marketted in this country which had been modified to take a removable AK-47 mag as opposed to the semi-fixed SKS mag...not a lot of them sold as (at the time) if you had the money to buy one like that you pretty much had the money to buy an AK, but they are out there.

As far as California goes - 80 percent of the owners of so-called assault weapons still haven't turned them in..I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon, and as long as the resistance continues on that scale the state will be virtually powerless to stop it. I say Keep up the good work - register nothing, turn in nothing!

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), June 13, 1999.



I sent the CA attorney general's office a SCATHING e-mail, telling them how I was ASHAMED to be from California, and the only way their Gestapo bastards would ever take my guns was by force. I also told them I'd make SURE I took several of their Nazi's with me. (I just neglected to tell them taht I haven't lived in CA for 38 years....

So they gotta REALLY want my guns to find me here in WISCONSIN!

(Take your fun where you can, I always say....)

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), June 13, 1999.


Kristi,

That's OK. I live in NJ which has been called the most restrictive gun law state in the union, and I believe that's correct. When I said what I did above I am looking ahead 6-9 months only. If we were having a discussion about state gun laws during normal times, I would have a slightly different approach. However, I am predicting martial law during the near future and that changes all the discussion. There will be no major gun control "legislation" passed in any state before we pass into martial law, and after that, place your bets on what the Federal government will attempt to do. It's pretty clear what the supreme commander now thinks about citizens being armed.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 13, 1999.


Every state has its own strange gun laws, it seems. Here in Connecticut the legislature just approved a bill that would allow confiscation of all weapons upon the recommendation of any two people who think that the gun owner may not be "stable". Since gun owners are afraid that the next door soccer moms will report them for confiscation, they will probably store them hidden away from the gun safe. But thats OK, cuz this bill allows search and seizure inspection for the whole residence!

-- Paul (retr50@snet.net), June 13, 1999.

Gordon, >under National Martial Law, the constitution is suspended and they can try to do anything they want.

Ummm...if the constitution is suspended, then the Government has NO authority to even exist. It is only through the consititution that 'We the people' give our CONSENT to form a government in the first place. That's what 'with the just consent of the governed' means. Suspend the constitution, and ALL laws, including the 'right' to confiscate guns goes with it.

Btw, I'm in New Joisy too and yes, the gun laws do suck here.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), June 13, 1999.


Tech 32: I agree with your sentiment, but as you can search the constitution thoroughly without finding my signature on it, I feel the same whether the government operates within the constitution or not. I like much of what the constitution says, I just never signed it. The government's authority over me comes from it's being more powerful than I am. But that has always been enough to keep me cooperative and it likely always will be.

-- Gus (y2kk@usa.net), June 13, 1999.


Tech 32,

With the constitution suspended, we become a dictatorship. Now I know this sounds nuts, impossible, whatever, and I certainly didn't believe it could be that way. But, if you start researching all the material that has been published recently regarding presidential executive orders, declaration of "national emergency" and martial law, you will find out it is both possible and true. Congress is put "on hold" for 6 months during this declaration, after which time they can decide to return to previous rules/laws, or let the president continue to run the country. I must say, I am stunned that Congress ever allowed this situation to become possible, but they have, and it dates back a long way. And it's not funny Magee, as they used to say.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 13, 1999.


Gus the Slave wrote:

"The government's authority over me comes from it's being more powerful than I am. But that has always been enough to keep me cooperative and it likely always will be."

Slave, slave, slave. Lick the boots of those who own you.

-- klm (klm@nwhre.not), June 13, 1999.


Gordon:

There is NO provision in the Constitution allowing for its suspension. Any "suspension" of the Constitution by the government renders said government illegitimate. The contract with the people is dissolved, and we the people are then obliged to restore said government by any means necessary.

-- klm (klm@nwhre.not), June 13, 1999.


KLM,

I hear you, and I agree with you. What I was saying, in a round about way I guess, is that we are about to go into that broken contract period, and Congress is a party to the whole thing, up to their necks. Seems like the stage is set for another Boston Tea Party, or revolution. It will all depend on the final will of the people to accept or reject the form of governance under martial law. Since the current administration has chosen to keep the people in the dark about what is happening, martial law will be the only thing left to attempt to restore order. Now, if this was under the control of a great leader, who we all respected and trusted, it would work. As it is, your guess is a good as mine as to how it all turns out. All I'm saying is that I strongly believe it will happen, by early January, if not sooner.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 13, 1999.


Understood, Gordon. I just wanted to clarify that point about legit/illegit authority. I feel as you do, that our elected "representatives" are culpable as the blazes. As to whether a majority of the people tolerate a contrived martial law situation or not, I feel it's immaterial. It will be an individual decision to submit or resist. Fighting for freedom and losing (read: dying) is better than living as a slave... one has to remember that no one, themselves included, lives forever. However, it saddens me to reflect on the fact that most of my fellow citizens have it the other way around.

-- klm@ (klm@nwhre.not), June 13, 1999.


Gordon,

KLM said it right, it's illegal for them to enforce such a law. Heck, Congress passes illegal laws all the time KNOWING that they will be struck down by the courts.

I doubt that many Americans (including a whole lot in the military) would ever stand for a dictatorship. That (getting sort of back on topic here) is why we have the Second Amendmant. As long as some 80 million of my fellow Americans own some 250+ million guns it could never happen.

And if all this sounds like I'm not "anti-government", well, I'm not. I'm "anti-people-who-don't-RESPECT-government-holding-public-office". I'm perfectly happy with the type and structure of government that we have in this Country and I'm in no hurry to see it replaced. And you don't need a violent revolution to fix things here. All you need to do is VOTE the right people into office. Sadly, some 62% of eligible voters didn't vote in our last Presidential election. That sense of "doesn't matter what I do they're going to do what they want anyway" is why we are where we are today...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), June 13, 1999.


Grrr...

And if all this sounds like I'm not "anti-government", well, I'm not.

should read:

And if all this sounds like I'm "anti-government", well, I'm not.

See what happens when you type faster than you read?? (BG)

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), June 13, 1999.


Do you all really believe that the people of the US will rise up and overthrow the govt if martial law is declared (or they grab the guns)? I doubt that they will.

During the American Revolution, only 3% (!) of the population particiapted. More supported it, but did nothing. And these were a much different breed of cat than we have in our brain-dead, socialism- loving people that are so common nowadays.

If you get .1% to participate, I'd be suprised. Most people are willing to put up with anything as long as they are allowed to work, come home and drink a beer and watch TV. Unless you threaten that, you probably won't get any rise out of them.

People in general are very complacent and uneducated, and as long as the economy is good, and the stock market is continuing to go up, you will hardly even get a bleat out of the sheep, let alone action.

Now, if such a revolution was well organized, you don't NEED a large percentage of the population, but still, you need some public support, and the media would never allow that. The media does control the govt, by and large, you know.

All, in all, an unlikely event to occur, unfortunately.

-- Bill (billclo@msgbox.com), June 14, 1999.


They can't take what they don't know you have. Buy your guns from private parties, no paperwork, no trail to you. My only concern is anyone caught with a gun would be subject to prison and fines, but if they made it that bad, the only time they would see my guns is when I needed to use them.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), June 15, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ