I have competed in high power competition locally here in NorCal with a Bushmaster AR-15. Political BS being what it is, I have considered selling my beloved bushy for a Springfield M1A so I can continue competing without the registration hassle. It would use the same ammo as my PSS and perhaps detour the "assault rifle" nonsense. My question: is there anything to be gained by this or is the M1A just as susceptible to the new laws as the AR? My sincere appreciation to all replies.
M1A legality in future CA?
- Thread starter Zensho
- Start date
John Overbey
New member
For now, it would seem that the M1A, with the new "muzzle break" from Springfield Armory replacing the old flash hider, has avoided the "assault weapon" label and the hassle that goes with it. I still think it's too early to tell for sure though. I know the last I heard was that CA DOJ's interpretation of SB23 was that "pistol grip" is any part of the stock that extends below the imaginary line paralell to the barrel and level with the TOP of the trigger. If that is still the case, then the M1A, as well as the Mini-14, Browning BAR, and pretty much EVERY semi-automatic rifle is an "assault weapon". Of course, since that got out, there are still folks selling the M1A, Mini-14, heck, even AR's with the guncompliantstocks kit on it, even ones that have simply had the pistol grip sawed of level with the bottom of the trigger guard. So, to me, it's too early to tell exactly what the outcome will be. For now, I'd say get it.
-John
-John
Zensho - The M1A possesses one 'evil' feature - the detachable magazine. Minus the flash hider it is NOT considered an 'assault weapon' per CA DOJ... until they change the rules, again.
Traders and Turners started selling Mini-14's, etc. again after the CA DOJ clarified that they did not mean to include them in the ban.
BTW, the CA DOJ has NOT approved the Springfield Armory 'muzzle brake.' At least not yet. I suppose you could get just a bare barrel version, but the lack of a front sight may prove inconvenient.
Cliff
Traders and Turners started selling Mini-14's, etc. again after the CA DOJ clarified that they did not mean to include them in the ban.
BTW, the CA DOJ has NOT approved the Springfield Armory 'muzzle brake.' At least not yet. I suppose you could get just a bare barrel version, but the lack of a front sight may prove inconvenient.
Cliff
Unfortunately, there's nothing to stop HCI from suing the DOJ regarding Lockyer's "clarification" of his pistol grip ruling (the one that arbitrarily excluded Mini-14s and similar rifles). Of course, he wouldn't fight too hard, and the results would be very similar to the SKS "buyback" confiscation...
I would hold on to that Bushmaster. You can't legally sell it in "SAW" configuration in the PRK anyway.
-Troy
I would hold on to that Bushmaster. You can't legally sell it in "SAW" configuration in the PRK anyway.
-Troy
Rooster Cogburn
Inactive
It's like this:
No matter WHAT the current laws say today they can be (and probably will be) changed tomorrow. So if your Springfield is legal in 2000 it may well be illegal in 2001.
For that matter, a Remington 1100 will doubtless be designated an "assault weapon" (high rate of fire) in the near future, as will a Winchester 94 (high magazine capacity). Get it? The objective here is to OUTLAW ALL GUNS, not to reduce crime.
Just in case you weren't clear on the "laws."
------------------
"General, may I propose a toast: to the United States of America."
No matter WHAT the current laws say today they can be (and probably will be) changed tomorrow. So if your Springfield is legal in 2000 it may well be illegal in 2001.
For that matter, a Remington 1100 will doubtless be designated an "assault weapon" (high rate of fire) in the near future, as will a Winchester 94 (high magazine capacity). Get it? The objective here is to OUTLAW ALL GUNS, not to reduce crime.
Just in case you weren't clear on the "laws."
------------------
"General, may I propose a toast: to the United States of America."
Zensho:
The following is purely my take on the thing.
The goals of the anti-gunners are defined, and clearly stated in their name and by their acts. NOTHING IS SAFE.
Having said that, the make up of the courts in California, the Legislature and a whole lot of "public officals" have to be changed out. That is something perhaps dooable by voters, if they ever wake up, and face reality.
In conclusion, might I make so bold as to note, "with the legislature (or The Congress)is session, no man's civil rights (remember, it all involves civil rights) are in the least, safe.
The following is purely my take on the thing.
The goals of the anti-gunners are defined, and clearly stated in their name and by their acts. NOTHING IS SAFE.
Having said that, the make up of the courts in California, the Legislature and a whole lot of "public officals" have to be changed out. That is something perhaps dooable by voters, if they ever wake up, and face reality.
In conclusion, might I make so bold as to note, "with the legislature (or The Congress)is session, no man's civil rights (remember, it all involves civil rights) are in the least, safe.