1919 A4 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
742 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
For those of you stuck with me behind the iron curtain...

Did anyone pay attention to the fact that sign away Newscum signed sb218/ab88?

This basically closed the little feature about long guns, M2's fell into this "other" category. So now M2's have been deemed AW's and are no longer legal. My guess is that 1919's will also fall into this category also.

Has anyone DROS'd an M2 in CA in the last couple of months or a 1919? Did it happen or were you denied?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
756 Posts
I'm aware of it; but I think a lot of people aren't. The main intent was to close the door on that fellow that came out with an AR-type rifle that completely got around the Cali assualt rifle ban. In doing so, they closed the door on a lot of other weapons, which does not bother the Cali Dem's one bit. I am not an expert on this particular law, but part of the write-up for it said:

This bill would expand the definition of “assault weapon” to include a semiautomatic firearm that is not a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, that either does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the attributes currently associated with assault weapons, as specified, that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, or that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.


3 additions:
1. Does not have a fixed magazine but has any of the attributes currently associated with assault rifles; OR
2. has a fixed magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds; OR
3. Has an overall length under 30".

Cali defines an "assault rifle" -- I'm just going off the top of my head here - as any center fire rifle with a detachable magazine AND any one or more of the other features - flash hider, pistol grip under the barrel, pistol grip under the receiver, folding stock.
The M2 and the 1919a4 have a detachable magazine as defined by Cali Law - a "magazine" is legally defined as "any ammunition feeding device." So, per the excerpt above, as long as your semi auto that does not have a fixed magazine (like your M2 and my 1919a4's) does not have any other assault rifle features (in your case a flash hider), has a fixed magazine of over 10 round capacity (not applicable to the M2 or 1919a4 ) or is under 30" in overall length (not applicable to M2 or 1919a4) you should be OK.

Disclaimer:
1. While I work with legal issues all the time, and have several lawyers reporting to me in my professional life, I am not a
lawyer.
2. If in doubt, ask a lawyer.
3. Don't waste your time trying to get anything out of the Cali DOJ. They don't work for you, the taxpayer, they report to
the Cali. Democrat party. They will tell you to do what you think is right and if they disagree they will see you in court.
4. The quote from the bill is from a pre-approved version. I will need to get the final version the be absolutely sure and
don't have time to do that right now. You should ASAP. I will when I can; this was however what went up for vote, so it
should not have changed in the final version.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
742 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Bob, thanks for the reply and the overview of the bill.

The bad part is, how many people have just become felons? How many are aware of this and do/can they register their M2's or 1919's?

I know one person that sold his kit M2 and then bought another built gun and didn't register it! We were talking about this today and he might have to send it out of state ASAP!

Very bad situation and people need to know that they can't build their M2 now unless they can register it and registration was closed years ago. So somehow the state will have to let them register it or....?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,615 Posts
I am also very confused. None of my semi-auto belt feeds (as currently configured) were ever considered assault rifles. Can't be 100% sure that is the case now but I think so. Guns like Bren's, MG34/42's, M-60's etc. were generally considered assault rifles (unless in a modified form, e.g. M-60D with spade grip). Shrouds were associated with pistols, not rifles. I am sure we will be hearing more as we move forward.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Darn I think you guys just passed NY state and I hate hearing about any more stupid legislation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
I'm aware of it; but I think a lot of people aren't. The main intent was to close the door on that fellow that came out with an AR-type rifle that completely got around the Cali assualt rifle ban. In doing so, they closed the door on a lot of other weapons, which does not bother the Cali Dem's one bit. I am not an expert on this particular law, but part of the write-up for it said:

This bill would expand the definition of “assault weapon” to include a semiautomatic firearm that is not a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, that either does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the attributes currently associated with assault weapons, as specified, that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, or that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

3 additions:
1. Does not have a fixed magazine but has any of the attributes currently associated with assault rifles; OR
2. has a fixed magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds; OR
3. Has an overall length under 30".

Cali defines an "assault rifle" -- I'm just going off the top of my head here - as any center fire rifle with a detachable magazine AND any one or more of the other features - flash hider, pistol grip under the barrel, pistol grip under the receiver, folding stock.
The M2 and the 1919a4 have a detachable magazine as defined by Cali Law - a "magazine" is legally defined as "any ammunition feeding device." So, per the excerpt above, as long as your semi auto that does not have a fixed magazine (like your M2 and my 1919a4's) does not have any other assault rifle features (in your case a flash hider), has a fixed magazine of over 10 round capacity (not applicable to the M2 or 1919a4 ) or is under 30" in overall length (not applicable to M2 or 1919a4) you should be OK.

Disclaimer:
1. While I work with legal issues all the time, and have several lawyers reporting to me in my professional life, I am not a
lawyer.
2. If in doubt, ask a lawyer.
3. Don't waste your time trying to get anything out of the Cali DOJ. They don't work for you, the taxpayer, they report to
the Cali. Democrat party. They will tell you to do what you think is right and if they disagree they will see you in court.
4. The quote from the bill is from a pre-approved version. I will need to get the final version the be absolutely sure and
don't have time to do that right now. You should ASAP. I will when I can; this was however what went up for vote, so it
should not have changed in the final version.
Ok - so the law was signed by the Gov., but will not go into effect until July 2022. Generally, they will give a one year registration period. So, we have time. However, as to whether 1919's and M2's are covered by the law, keep in mind, the Bill's aim was to bring AOW's into the auspices of the AW law PC 30515, and it basically adds weapons that are not rifles, pistols or shotguns as follows:

(9) A semiautomatic centerfire firearm that is not a rifle, pistol, or shotgun, that does not have a fixed magazine, but that has any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(G) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(H) A second handgrip.
(I) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer’s hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.

SO... is a 1919 a rifle? Well they were all DROS'd as "rifles". CA law does not define a "rifle" as such. Fed law does, and it's a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder (i.e. NOT a 1919 etc.)

Is a 1919 a pistol. Clearly not.
So.... could the law claim that a 1919 is not a "rifle", not a "pistol" and not a shotgun? Sure I suppose they could. AND if so... then a 1919 is semi-auto, does not have a fixed mag and has a barrel shroud. So.... it would be included in this ban.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
Please sir, fire a hundred rounds and grab that shroud.....
While I understand your argument, if you have to fire 100 or 500 rounds to make a difference, I suspect you will lose in court. Without that "shroud" the barrel would be too hot to shoot after 20 rounds.

In determining the meaning of laws, you have to take the plain meaning of them without any special information or knowledge. Does the "shroud" attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel " Yes. Does it allow the shooter to fire the gun w/o getting his hands burned on the barrel? Yes - albeit not very efficiently. As we all know, the State was aiming for barrel shrouds like we see on the HK94 or UZi. Now, THOSE are shrouds under any definition and... they will allow you to shoot the gun (for a while) without being burned. Taken the other way, if you will only define a "shroud" as that which will allow an infinite number of rounds to be fired without burning the hand on the shroud we would be able to argue that no such device exists under the laws of thermodynamics as we understand them. But in the end... we ALL know what a barrel shroud is. Exhibit A from the Sarco Catalogue "Barrel jacket". 1919A6 Barrel jacket

Do YOU want to be the test case that says "It's not a barrel "shroud" but a barrel "jacket"?
I'll gladly be the attorney to argue the case, but not the defendant.

A much more interesting argument is whether the 1919 is a "rifle" or what exactly is a "rifle" under CA law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,615 Posts
When I get a chance, I will write the CA DOJ a letter asking for clarification. I will reference a letter I have where they explicitly said that a 1919a4 is not an assault weapon. Perhaps the point is mute now. Law really doesn’t impact me much actually as all my guns will be grandfathered in like the AR and AK. Still what is happening here in CA is not right and eventually this will happen to many other states if it is not stopped. Take away our guns, defund the police, what could possibly go wrong, oh wait I have more than them so now I am rich and privileged which is not fair.
 

·
PhD in Over-Engineering
Joined
·
12,199 Posts
In the past, as I recall, CA used a similar legal definition of a rifle that federal law has. In other words, the phrase "intended to be fired from the shoulder" was in the definition. Pretty sure that's exactly why 1919s and M2s always missed the AW or AR definition in the law, so long as you didn't add an "evil feature." I don't know if that has changed since. I think it is going to take some time for this stuff to shake out, but I don't think CA DOJ BOF has issued much, if anything, in written clarifications since Bill Lockyer was AG. I thought they stopped doing that in order to NOT nail themselves down on anything.

Seems like M2s are safe from the new law, from what I gather in Cal.BAR's post, and other light research I've done. He has an interesting point on the barrel shroud. Certainly, it is not designed to be safe to hold onto. So we are left with another vague bit of language in the statute, which the courts or the legislature could clarify. Was the intent ONLY for "shrouds" that are INTENDED to protect the hand from a hot barrel? That would exempt the Browning. Or are they going to claim that any shroud, handguard, any feature that encloses the barrel and can be held by hand is intended? Then there is the fact that the Brownings are tripod mounted, virtually never fired in a hand held fashion, and so there is no reasonable expectation that a shooter's hand would be anywhere near the barrel shroud, so how can that feature be covered in the law?

This is why we need the Duncan vs Becerra, LCM case to stick. It then becomes the foundation for getting rid of all these "AW" laws. Same language and arguments will apply, I believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
742 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Good to hear from you Lucky, they really created a convoluted fluster cluck haven't they?!

I really hate Newscum, the guy is just the biggest scumbag that has disgraced the governor's office! I thought Brown was bad but Newscum is just on a whole nuther level!!!

The parts that Bob underlined is what gets any and all beltfeds. Someone did their homework for them or was paying attention to some of the gun boards and taking notes!

In the past these weapons were good to go but now they've become AW's. People need to know what's happening, if not they could become felons and not even know!

F'ing demonrats have ruined the state I love!!! What's wrong with these idiots?! Guess they wiped their collective asses with the constitution and don't care about the oath they took! Spineless POS's!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
I used to say the irony of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away. This election and current political climate have may concerned to say the least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
While I understand your argument, if you have to fire 100 or 500 rounds to make a difference, I suspect you will lose in court. Without that "shroud" the barrel would be too hot to shoot after 20 rounds.

In determining the meaning of laws, you have to take the plain meaning of them without any special information or knowledge. Does the "shroud" attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel " Yes. Does it allow the shooter to fire the gun w/o getting his hands burned on the barrel? Yes - albeit not very efficiently. As we all know, the State was aiming for barrel shrouds like we see on the HK94 or UZi. Now, THOSE are shrouds under any definition and... they will allow you to shoot the gun (for a while) without being burned. Taken the other way, if you will only define a "shroud" as that which will allow an infinite number of rounds to be fired without burning the hand on the shroud we would be able to argue that no such device exists under the laws of thermodynamics as we understand them. But in the end... we ALL know what a barrel shroud is. Exhibit A from the Sarco Catalogue "Barrel jacket". 1919A6 Barrel jacket

Do YOU want to be the test case that says "It's not a barrel "shroud" but a barrel "jacket"?
I'll gladly be the attorney to argue the case, but not the defendant.

A much more interesting argument is whether the 1919 is a "rifle" or what exactly is a "rifle" under CA law.
Yes, but could it not be argued that the "shroud" is actually a "slide" because the gun will not function properly without the barrel being supported by the booster like a "slide" does? "Here sir let me take the "shroud" off and show me how well the firearm functions without it". Or better yet "Here sir let me just take the booster off and show me how well it functions without it".
Food for thought.
Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,544 Posts
Bottom line is they couldn't come right out and ban all semi autos with a removable feed device although this is clearly their intent. The only saving grace right now is that by banning certain specific "features" we can disassemble our firearms to a bare receiver and they will be legal to own. Admittedly water cooled type firearms will be more difficult but without internals, top covers or grips they are not capable of firing at that specific time.

We can nitpick about the wording in the legislation but the choice is pretty simple - compliance or non-compliance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
When I get a chance, I will write the CA DOJ a letter asking for clarification. I will reference a letter I have where they explicitly said that a 1919a4 is not an assault weapon. Perhaps the point is mute now. Law really doesn’t impact me much actually as all my guns will be grandfathered in like the AR and AK. Still what is happening here in CA is not right and eventually this will happen to many other states if it is not stopped. Take away our guns, defund the police, what could possibly go wrong, oh wait I have more than them so now I am rich and privileged which is not fair.
While I'd be happy to see the letter, any DOJ opinion would not apply to the NEW AW law. While it is true the BEFORE the 1919's etc. weren't AW's, this new section of the law including the barrel shroud and AOW reference definitely puts them in play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
Yes, but could it not be argued that the "shroud" is actually a "slide" because the gun will not function properly without the barrel being supported by the booster like a "slide" does? "Here sir let me take the "shroud" off and show me how well the firearm functions without it". Or better yet "Here sir let me just take the booster off and show me how well it functions without it".
Food for thought.
Steve
Certainly a valid point. However, you are still faced with a barrel "jacket" or shroud that encircles the barrel and allows the shooter to hold the gun by it etc. Just as the law references. A 1919 WILL fire without the barrel jacket and booster. It may not fire WELL and it may not be reliable, but THAT is not the definition or intent of the law. It's a bit like the definition of a "firearm" (capable of expelling a projectile by expansion of gases etc....) A home printed plastic gun that only fires one or two rounds before blowing up IS a firearm under the eyes of the law just like a pipe zip gun is. They may be BAD guns, but...they are guns in the eyes of the law regardless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
Bottom line is they couldn't come right out and ban all semi autos with a removable feed device although this is clearly their intent. The only saving grace right now is that by banning certain specific "features" we can disassemble our firearms to a bare receiver and they will be legal to own. Admittedly water cooled type firearms will be more difficult but without internals, top covers or grips they are not capable of firing at that specific time.

We can nitpick about the wording in the legislation but the choice is pretty simple - compliance or non-compliance.
Yep. This is true for this (and ALL laws).
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
11,525 Posts
has anyone made a barrel support like on the M2 for the 1919 to get rid of the shroud?

then lighten the barrel to reduce the need for the booster?
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top