Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Where are you going with this?Can you link one? California has done us a dirty with the redundant term “assault weapon”. What you do with a weapon, any weapon, is assault. Even defensive sword work is counterassault.
So to generate a category called “assault weapon” is pure negative branding. A legislative overreach, but it does seem to be popular.
What seriously slows my gun-rights roll is the observation of how tightly the display of guns these past two years has correlated with white racists. I will surrender my firearms (actually, sell them off while I can) rather than support racists.
My one ask/hope is that it becomes codified that police (other than FBI) are civilians, and nowhere exempt from civilian law. California again: police are allowed to own “assault weapons” denied other civilians. End this corrupt exemption. Please.
I don't live in CA and don't own a gun other than my speargun used for spearfishing. But your post surprised me because I saw a federal law that specified quite clearly which makes and models were banned, not just some blanket "assault rifle" term. I agree that that term is nebulous.
So, I looked it up and it does specify very clearly which guns the law bans. This link contains that list.
Then again the whole thing is likely to be moot because the ban was overturned last year and is only in force under a stay while the case goes through the appeal process.