Deputy that was in England. There was an article in thr Dallas Morning I believe then when I got my 1st Freedom mag. there was a considerable article about it.

Last I heard, they had not banned semi-auto pistols. There are certain models that are banned, but not all.

Hi-capacity magazines however, are illegal.

I'd be interested to know the circumstances on the girl. I can't think of a firearm used in the olympics that would be illegal in CA.

What it boils down to is if John McCain is elected odds are a lot better our right to own guns and defend ourself will remain like they are.
The gun laws we have now suck to no end. They are just stupid. I hope I never have to shoot someone to defend myself but I hope I have that choice if and when that time comes.

My Sig Sauer P6 is legal in Cali because the mags are only 8 round capacity. I have a Sig Sauer 225 of the same design because I believe the Pelosi Congress will begin the process of Califonication of gun laws after this election. Obama believes that reasonable restrictions as defined by politicians should be put in effect so that criminals can't get guns. Somehow apparently they assume how criminals get their guns now is law abiding citizens or the gun fairy puts them under their pillow.

If you own the newly restricted outlawed gun you can keep the guns. You will not be able to move to another State nor sell them to someone else...ever. Ever, never, never and ever never. California law.

"If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1, 2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers."

(PC Section 12020 (b)(19-29))
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php

These are my thoughts too. I believe his pick for Biden was not to win, but if he did, their radical agenda could move forward.

He not only has thought of ways to disarm, be has calculated it. He only saw a couple (2) sportsmen in the back. By that he wants to picture us as a minute population. He wants to portray it that way to make people think no one hunts anymore so there is no need for anyone to own a highpower rifle. There is enough already that doesn't think you need to own an AR type of weapon. he is looking into the future. He's a loser in my book and cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would vote for this clown.

It was a semi auto her family moved across the line to Nevada. They lived in San Fransico before they moved. Also Obama has said he would ban concealed carry premits.

I'm still not aware of any semi-auto that she would use in the Olympics that is banned in CA. I don't know specifically about San Francisco.

I have a friend who shoots smallbore rifle and I will try to get in touch with him and find out what it was.

I got a Pea Shooter!

I called my friend he said she could have the gun but could not pratice withit. There was so much red tape her dad had his company transfer him to Nevada. But no one can convince me Calif don't have wacky gun laws.

i dont care if he gets in or not. nobody will ever take my guns away. not while im breathing, anyway.

They might not launch a frontal assault on gun ownership. They have a number of other ideas in mind. Restricting the sales of ammunition is one idea. Then again there are a myriad number of lock laws they can pass which will make gun ownership much more expensive.

Let's see..... we have a gentleman with highly questionable loyalty to American religious values, absolutely no experience, the worst voting record for sportsmen that anyone could ever even dream of, that wants to ban guns and CHL's running for the position of president of the greatest nation on the earth..... and he wants our votes????

This has to be one of the biggest no brainers ever in the history of politics........ Except for the liberals that know he will give them more handouts of free food stamps and other stuff so that they won't flood the job market by looking for a job.

I just wonder how many Dems that hunt will go ahead and vote for someone that they know will push judges into the Supreme Court as much as he can that want to ban or limit the possession of firearms???? Do you think there are actually some Dems out there that would be stupid enough to do that??? Surely not.....

Hag...your question? Are there stupid democrats?

This is a trick question - right?

Must be an electroshock therapy exam. You know, Dr. Vankman from the Ghostbusters......

Open mouth insert foot.

The more he talks the better it is for Palin/McCain.

Is he really that stupid ?

There, fixed it for you....

TFP

My two cents. I moved here from California for good in 1994. The job I had up until the day I moved was as receiving clerk in a gun store; part of my job entailed staying current on the law so we would not inadvertently violate it. At the time I left, it was illegal to own, transfer or sell a list of weapons including, but not limited to Colt AR-15, SKS w/detachable magazine & AK-47. Some 'post-ban' variants were ok to sell, such as an SKS with a fixed magazine, or a Bushmaster AR-15. All magazines over 10 rounds were prohibited for sale, except for rimfire weapons. You could not possess a firearm in the passenger compartment of your vehicle; it had to be in a locked case, with the ammunition stored elsewhere in the vehicle.

If you already owned a banned weapon before the ban took effect, you were to submit a registration form to the state. Failure to do so was a felony. However, they promised that it was ok for you to keep the weapon.

In subsequent years, even variants of some weapons were banned in CA - as proof, I submit that you drive the highways in that great state & stop at a maintained public rest stop. Look at the bulletin board for public notices & pay careful attention to the one regarding SKS rifles. As the bans have continued & become more detailed, the state used those registration forms to track down owners & advise them to get rid of the bad gun or face charges (guess how I know this? I was able to say truthfully that it was legally sold in TX)

The restrictions continue incrementally to this day, with the final goal being the disarmament of all Kalifornia citizens ... but I guess they'd only be civilians then. Right?

Here are California firearms laws for anyone who wants to learn more about the subject they are discussing. Try not to throw up dinner while reading it.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

I don't hunt anymore but own guns so sportsman does not cover me. I like to think of myself as a gun toting armed pacifist.

As Hank says:

Don't start none and there won't be none.

We'll just have to start with the TFF/THF Well Armed Militia to make certain we fit within the Constitution.

I realize you are not the voice of all who are in law enforcement, but I do like the fact that you do not support citizen being stripped of their guns. I know you have scary encounters with crazies or drunks that do have weapons.

Law enforcement sees first hand every day that felons have guns. They are felons. They do not respect laws. They have guns even though it is a felony for them to possess a gun. It does not take a genius to figure out who will have guns if citizens are not allowed to own them.

Obama 08

Why? Good reasons, please..