Gun laws in CA for 2002?

R

rowdy1

New member
This thread was brought up before but was shut down due to arguing.
I would just like a run-down of the new laws taking effect in 2002.

When I bought a handgun last week the salesman told me that starting Jan. 1st I would have to put a slide lock on the gun just to transport it.
I don't know whether to believe him or not because this is the same idiot that tried telling me ALL SKS's are illegal in CA. That I was breaking the law, yada, yada. I then proceeded to make a real idiot out of him in front of everyone.:D The laws are bad enough here without dealers calling law-abiding gun owners criminals.
 
S

SIGarmed

New member
Basically at that CA DOJ link its going to have so much verbage it'll give you a headache. Ouch!
You can't buy any firearms in CA 2002 with out owning a safe or CA DOJ certified safety device for every firearms you buy. The device must not be bought prior to thirty days of the firearm. The safe has to be approved,but any typical decent safe with real features should do,and you don't have to worry about the safety devices if you have an approved safe.
To be legal the safety device has to pass a CA DOJ test ala the CA DOJ legal handgun test. Pretty soon they'll be making it illegal to have ammo with out a lock.
I talked to a local FFL who gave me some good info. There is some new paperwork wich he showed me that has to filled out stating that you own an approved safe,or bought a safety device,and you need reciepts along with your signature. This won't really prevent you from buying a new gun,but it is just one more step to disarmament. In 2003 veterans will not be exempt from the new gun license because of the bill Gray Davis signed 2001. All these laws get accepeted and pave the way for more.
The sad part is the politicians in Sacramento never stop,they create more anti-gun laws every year. In 2001 I learned that there were more than 3000 total new laws being considered in the capitol. I don't have the exact figure because I forgot,and only a small percentage of these laws were anti-gun,but you get the idea. Thats what the politicians are doing with our tax money. They write more laws.
 
P

PKAY

New member
DROS fees go from $15 per transaction to $20. Look for the Social Engineers in Sacramento to glom onto this train and incrementally increase fees yearly until they squeeze gun owners financially.
 
M

Malone LaVeigh

New member
How about handguns brought onto the state? I brought several handguns in about a week ago which I recently received as part of an inheritance. I understand I have 60 days to get them registered. Will I need to get locks and a safe for them also?

Also, does anyone know where I get the paperwork to get them registered? Can I do it through a FFL holder or do I need to report to the Commissars?
 
T

tyme

Administrator
longeyes, that's part of the new handgun transfer permit scheme that goes into effect in 2003; you have another year.

malone, the safety device is only required for transfers. The new law basically prohibits tranfers unless the sd requirements are met. The ca doj link(s) above should have instructions for registering your handguns should you desire to be a good citizen.

IANAL, and this is not legal advice.
 
P

PKAY

New member
Malone - Each handgun will have to be registered and a "registration fee" of $15 will be required for each one! Further, if any of the handguns you inherited and brought (read "imported") into CA are not on the DOJ Approved Handgun list (excepte C&R's and single actions) they are contraband and illegal to possess. Of course, some of those not on the list may have been gifted to you many years ago; then it's OK. If you are LEO, none of the unlisted guns will qualify as contraband and can be legally possessed. In other words, LEO's can own "unsafe" handguns but not the rest of us. Welcome to Alices Adventures in Wonderland - CA Democrat Party in action!
 
Z

Zander

Moderator
How about handguns brought onto the state?
Click to expand...
Oh, please...how will the fascists who run the People's Republic of Kalifornia know when or how you acquired your firearms?

It's none of their damn business; keep and use them as you choose...and to hell with the bureaucrats that willingly abrogate your Constitutional Rights.
 
B

Bobshouse

New member
California is worse than I originally thought. I just checked their "approved" list and noticed now they have added "expiration" dates...

What happens? Does the firearm become "unsafe" after a certain period of time?

It's just another way to get the gun manufacturers to give up in selling firearms in the state. Now not only do they have to pay a fee and submit firearms for certification, they have to do it every couple of years.

These idiots actually think that this is going to curb gun violence in california? Hey, if I wanted to break the law I could get any damn gun I wanted. All this is going to acomplish is make criminals out of gun owners looking for specific models or makes not on the list. It will encourage the blackmarket and further the "gun problem" in california. God forbid getting rid of the gang bangers and getting the rest of the scum off the streets.

I couldn't even get a Ruger .22 SP101 for Christmas because of this 5hit.

Thanks for letting me blow off some steam.

Bob
 
S

SIGarmed

New member
The handguns have to be payed for every year in order to stay on the approved list. I don't beleive that they have to be retested. The real slap in the face is that police officers are exempt. So if you're a law enforcement officer in CA you can carry any pistol that hasn't passed the CA DOJ tests or one that hasn't even been tested as your duty sidearm. So you see they are so dangerous that police can carry them. What a scam! The liberal fascists are so bold in CA look what they've pulled off.
 
M

MeekAndMild

New member
These idiots actually think that this is going to curb gun violence in california?
Click to expand...

This isn't the real reason. The politicos really want to keep guns out of the hands of Hispanics, Chinese and Blacks. But they are so evil, twisted and politically correct they can't just admit it. A liberal can't just come out and say he is afraid of people of color now can he?

This situation reminds me of Mississippi when I was stationed there a few decades ago. There was a law on the books requiring registration of every center fire rifle. But I never met anyone who did and most of the civilians I knew didn't even know the law existed. The only reason I knew was I had to sign off on a legal briefing during inprocessing.

Later I bought a rifle so I asked a civilian LEO about how to go about registering it. He said don't worry, he didn't even have the forms, it was just so they would have another crime on the blotter if a "colored man" got out of line. Wink. Wink. At least Mississippi was honest about its prejudice.
 
A

arthur

New member
meek + mild : you may be correct in your reasoning about blacks , hispanics and others , but to my way of thinking , the liberals want to keep the guns out of the - americans - hands . when i say american , i mean american citizen of any color or race that fully understands and SUPPORTS the reasons for the 2nd ammendment ! when it comes to numbers , i think that california still has a majority - white - population and i think that the liberal fears the - white - gun owners who are the majority . i also think that it is the newly arrived furner of any race that becomes a citizen that votes for and supports the liberal democrats that are in power . in closing , i think that what i have just said about kalifornia applies to the united states as a whole ! -------arthur
 
M

MeekAndMild

New member
i also think that it is the newly arrived furner of any race that becomes a citizen that votes for and supports the liberal democrats that are in power .
Click to expand...

You are right there. It seems true all over the country with most minorites. I have never figured out how Huey P. Long, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, the Daley dynasty and scores of other Democrats maintained the Black vote despite all reason for so many years.
 
L

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
"So if you're a law enforcement officer in CA you can carry any pistol that hasn't passed the CA DOJ tests or one that hasn't even been tested as your duty sidearm. So you see they are so dangerous that police can carry them."

Fret not.

This is a new type of "trickle-down rights" check. Once it's found out that these guns are safe in the hands of LEOs, then the mere citizens will be trusted with them too.

Oops! Sorry. Different thread. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top