Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: A Federal Firearms Operator's License [View all]Straw Man
(6,628 posts)135. Actually, it's worse than that.
Last edited Wed May 8, 2013, 01:00 AM - Edit history (3)
No registration of the SKS "Sporter" took place in CA.....
On further investigation, it appears that you are right -- up to a point. Registration of "assault weapons" allowed continued possession through grandfathering. SKS Sporter owners never had that chance, since the CA DOJ initially told them their rifles were not "assault weapons," and allowed them to be purchased after the registration window had closed, only to reverse themselves after the fact.
The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) was
passed in 1989 and became operative on January 1, 1991.
That act contained a specific list of rifles defined as
"assault weapons" and identified by the manufacturer's name
and model. Those rifles that are defined as "assault
weapons" are prohibited from sale in California.
Individuals in possession of these firearms are required to
register them with the Department of Justice. Among the
rifles requiring registration is a model known as the "SKS
with detachable magazine." The SKS model "with a fixed
magazine," however, is not on the "assault weapons" list
since only an SKS with a detachable magazine is required to
be registered.
In 1992, a new rifle came on the market known as the "SKS
Sporter" which is designed to accept a detachable magazine.
Since the firearms appeared after the implementation date
of AWCA, it could not be registered. Questions were raised
about whether this new version of the SKS was required to
be a registered firearm under AWCA.
In January of 1992, the Department of Justice began
informing the firearms industry and retail buyers that the
SKS was not regulated by the AWCA even though it contained
a detachable magazine. The department reasoned that the
"SKS Sporter" was a new firearm because it was not
mentioned specifically by name in the statute. The
department also made clear that the original "SKS with a
fixed magazine," which was not on the AWCA list, could
still be sold even though a new detachable magazine was on
the market that allowed this firearm to be converted to an
SKS rifle with a detachable magazine.
Between 1987 and 1997, at least three hundred thousand SKS
rifles with fixed magazines were sold in California.
Between 1992 and 1996, more than five million detachable
SKS magazines were produced and sold in California allowing
the SKS rifles with fixed magazines to be converted to
accept a detachable magazine.
In September of 1996, the Attorney General filed an amicus
curiae brief on behalf of the defendant in People v.
Dingman, involving an SKS detachable magazine, and
requested the California Supreme Court to review the
decision of the Court of Appeal. Chief Deputy Attorney
General Stirling, in his brief, explained that "[t]he
impact of the court's opinion cannot be overstated because
of the millions of SKS rifles and aftermarket magazines
currently in circulation. Tens of thousands of California
citizens may become criminal simply by using a perfectly
lawful rifle with a lawfully purchased magazine without
adequate notice that such activity brings them within the
proscriptions of the AWCA."
In September of 1997, the Attorney General suddenly
withdrew his amicus brief in support of the defendant in
People v. Dingman , stating that it now "inaccurately
reflects the view of the Attorney General."
In November of 1997, the Department of Justice advised, in
a mailing to 350 potential owners of SKS Sporters and SKS
with detachable aftermarket magazines, that the
department's position had changed and those rifles are now
considered assault weapons and "must be relinquished to a
local police or sheriff's department."
On December 19, 1997, the Department of Justice notified
licensed firearm dealers and law enforcement officials
about its revised position on the SKS rifle. There have
been at least 10 prosecutions for violation of the AWCA as
a result of the revised position of the Department of
Justice.
Tens of thousands of, if not several hundred thousand,
innocent people are now at risk of criminal prosecution,
and all the related costs, time, and trauma because they
detrimentally relied on the representation of the
Department of Justice that the SKS Sporter and the
detachable magazine for the SKS were legal purchases under
current law.
--legix.info/us-ca/measures;1997-98;ab0048/analysis@1998-08-28;senate
passed in 1989 and became operative on January 1, 1991.
That act contained a specific list of rifles defined as
"assault weapons" and identified by the manufacturer's name
and model. Those rifles that are defined as "assault
weapons" are prohibited from sale in California.
Individuals in possession of these firearms are required to
register them with the Department of Justice. Among the
rifles requiring registration is a model known as the "SKS
with detachable magazine." The SKS model "with a fixed
magazine," however, is not on the "assault weapons" list
since only an SKS with a detachable magazine is required to
be registered.
In 1992, a new rifle came on the market known as the "SKS
Sporter" which is designed to accept a detachable magazine.
Since the firearms appeared after the implementation date
of AWCA, it could not be registered. Questions were raised
about whether this new version of the SKS was required to
be a registered firearm under AWCA.
In January of 1992, the Department of Justice began
informing the firearms industry and retail buyers that the
SKS was not regulated by the AWCA even though it contained
a detachable magazine. The department reasoned that the
"SKS Sporter" was a new firearm because it was not
mentioned specifically by name in the statute. The
department also made clear that the original "SKS with a
fixed magazine," which was not on the AWCA list, could
still be sold even though a new detachable magazine was on
the market that allowed this firearm to be converted to an
SKS rifle with a detachable magazine.
Between 1987 and 1997, at least three hundred thousand SKS
rifles with fixed magazines were sold in California.
Between 1992 and 1996, more than five million detachable
SKS magazines were produced and sold in California allowing
the SKS rifles with fixed magazines to be converted to
accept a detachable magazine.
In September of 1996, the Attorney General filed an amicus
curiae brief on behalf of the defendant in People v.
Dingman, involving an SKS detachable magazine, and
requested the California Supreme Court to review the
decision of the Court of Appeal. Chief Deputy Attorney
General Stirling, in his brief, explained that "[t]he
impact of the court's opinion cannot be overstated because
of the millions of SKS rifles and aftermarket magazines
currently in circulation. Tens of thousands of California
citizens may become criminal simply by using a perfectly
lawful rifle with a lawfully purchased magazine without
adequate notice that such activity brings them within the
proscriptions of the AWCA."
In September of 1997, the Attorney General suddenly
withdrew his amicus brief in support of the defendant in
People v. Dingman , stating that it now "inaccurately
reflects the view of the Attorney General."
In November of 1997, the Department of Justice advised, in
a mailing to 350 potential owners of SKS Sporters and SKS
with detachable aftermarket magazines, that the
department's position had changed and those rifles are now
considered assault weapons and "must be relinquished to a
local police or sheriff's department."
On December 19, 1997, the Department of Justice notified
licensed firearm dealers and law enforcement officials
about its revised position on the SKS rifle. There have
been at least 10 prosecutions for violation of the AWCA as
a result of the revised position of the Department of
Justice.
Tens of thousands of, if not several hundred thousand,
innocent people are now at risk of criminal prosecution,
and all the related costs, time, and trauma because they
detrimentally relied on the representation of the
Department of Justice that the SKS Sporter and the
detachable magazine for the SKS were legal purchases under
current law.
--legix.info/us-ca/measures;1997-98;ab0048/analysis@1998-08-28;senate
Then came an amnesty from prosecution, contingent on surrender or disposal of the rifle.
The state allowed the SKS Sporter to be sold and then banned it. Nothing "straight" about it. If the state's error allowed them to be sold, the state should have allowed owners to register them and keep them. Don't you think?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
139 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
When you list guns-to-sell, is this a legal requirement? How about for CCW request?
Eleanors38
May 2013
#4
"A simple document with a notary seal ..."? In Illinois, a particular real estate agent notarized
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#51
Are you aware that you keep repeating the "firearms confiscation" nonsense........
rdharma
May 2013
#31
"NRA talking points" is the equivalent of a papal bull ("ex cathedra") for certain people.
friendly_iconoclast
May 2013
#45
The confiscation of *registered* SKS rifles in California is no "NRA talking point".
friendly_iconoclast
May 2013
#28
What difference does it make? You've denied the reality of confiscation more than once:
friendly_iconoclast
May 2013
#44
The law is there to read. Quit telling us it does not say what it does.
friendly_iconoclast
May 2013
#86
Intent to confiscate should be convincing enough, or are you calling Democrats liars?
Howzit
May 2013
#139
I'm sure it's important to you to note that SKS owners could sell out of state...
friendly_iconoclast
May 2013
#84
Do you think if you keep repeating it you'll convince someone? Or get your credibility back?
friendly_iconoclast
May 2013
#93
Slight correction: Handguns in Illinois are a 3 day waiting period, long guns are 1 day.
DonP
May 2013
#42
"don't know if medical practitioners/organizations are required ..." If a person is self-committed
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#52
I do know. I put quotation marks around the statement of the poster to whom I was responding.
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2013
#89