Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Blooms in CA

Yes I do know that firearms are not banned in Ca, just some of them. I did not say that firearms were banned. In case you missed it, those that do not comply with the “micro stamping” requirement have been banned from sale for sometime. Furthermore, removable magazines of ten rounds or more are also banned as of last year. According to the news reports, both situations could have precluded his possession of “extended” magazines with a firearm purchased since 07 or so. That was the point of my comment which was made as sarcasm.

What is important about this story, way beyond whether he had approved firearms, is this guy was an apparent mental case who planned to take out a bunch of people before killing himself. What drove that is troubling as it seems to almost be a movie scene or something from a video game. There is no justification for it, not a damn thing.


86 posted on 11/08/2018 8:09:03 AM PST by Mouton (The media is the enemy of the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: Mouton
In case you missed it, those that do not comply with the “micro stamping” requirement have been banned from sale for sometime. Furthermore, removable magazines of ten rounds or more are also banned as of last year.

Not quite correct. The micro-stamping requirement only applies to new models of guns manufacturers want to introduce for sale. As long as existing models continue to pass safety and drop tests they can still be sold.

Possession of large capacity magazines is not illegal. The NRA filed a lawsuit, which a state judge denied. The NRA appealed to federal court and a preliminary injunction was issued blocking the state from enforcing the law while the lawsuit wends its way through the courts.

115 posted on 11/08/2018 9:31:49 AM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (For 'tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard., -- Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: Mouton
Furthermore, removable magazines of ten rounds or more are also banned as of last year.

Is this correct as stated? I thought the law banned magazines that can accept MORE THAN 10 rounds.

131 posted on 11/08/2018 10:39:10 AM PST by nonsporting (Investigate Ford and her legal team)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: Mouton
According to the news reports, both situations could have precluded his possession of “extended” magazines with a firearm purchased since 07 or so.

I've heard idiot news people repeat this phrase "extended" magazines all morning.

The "standard" capacity magazine for a Glock 21 holds 13 rounds.

The "reduced" capacity magazines were created to comply with arbitrary magazine limiting laws. (These were Clinton Crime Bill compliant magazines, until 2004 when that law sunsetted.)

And "extended" capacity magazine is a magazine that is over and above the "standard" capacity mag by either (1) replacing the floor plate and possibly sprint to allow the mag to accept in most instances 2 extra rounds; or (2) a magazine intended for a machine pistol and accepts 20+ rounds.

I doubt he had either. He may have simply had "standard" capacity magazines banned by Calif State law because they exceed the arbitrary 10 round capacity.

Ultimately IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. 2x or 3x extra 10-round magazines would have made little difference. Someone with training can reload in 1-1.5 seconds and keep on shooting and moving.

133 posted on 11/08/2018 10:49:47 AM PST by nonsporting (Investigate Ford and her legal team)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson