Multiple California Compliant Magazine Release Options

AR Mag Lock

As much as I would like to avoid discussing politics, the reality is politics influences the kinds of guns and gear that are available to us. Case in point: the Bullet Button.

Several new gun bills were recently passed and signed into law in The Golden State. One of them directly affects the legality of the Bullet Button.

If I may paraphrase the character of Dr. Ian Malcolm, gun owners will find a way. In this case there are two devices I am aware of that appear to be compliant under the new law: the AR Mag Lock and the Bullet Button Reloaded. Both seem to work in a similar manner.

Bullet Button Reloaded

With this device, the standard Bullet Button is replaced with a new unit that is fixed while the gun is assembled. A tool – like the pointy end of a .223 cartridge – will not release the magazine. However, when you pivot the upper from the lower, the Bullet-Button Reloaded will allow you to drop the magazine.

To help speed up the opening of the gun, the Bullet Button Reloaded is shown with an extended takedown pin.

No word on pricing, but the company will begin taking orders soon.

AR Mag Lock

The AR Mag Lock has been around for several years, but doesn’t have the name recognition that Bullet Button has. Nathan S. talked about this back in March of 2014.

This device appears to work in a similar manner to the Bullet Button Reloaded, and the way the shooter reloads the gun appears to be identical. The true benefit is the device has been in use and any problems with the design have likely been worked out already.

These are ready for sale now. For $59.95, you get the magazine button replacement plus a new takedown pin.

The following video shows the AR Mag Lock in use:

Final Thoughts

Look – neither of these two systems are perfect, and both are incredibly slow compared to how the rifle is designed to be reloaded. But, they appear to be completely compliant under the new California law. Until such time as the laws change, these two products may be the best you can do in that state.

Of course, we never know what some ingenious machinist might come up with. People even came up with ways to restore the functionality of the original bullet button, so something better that works within the new laws may yet be invented.



Richard Johnson

An advocate of gun proliferation zones, Richard is a long time shooter, former cop and internet entrepreneur. Among the many places he calls home is http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/.


Advertisement

  • Andrew Miller

    Remember in 1775, when the Colonials used “flint lock buttons” to keep their rifles compliant with British Regulation?

    • BryanS

      They used the buttons that made it go bang.

  • Harry’s Holsters

    I’m glad they keep innovating. It’s great to see someone make a difficult situation work but it also sucks they have to deal with the situation to begin with.

  • Ambassador Vader

    I can see the third innovation now……. Clap your hands three times, spin around twice, curse Diane Fienstein 4 times, and jump on one foot for 3 minutes and the magazine will drop out.

    • 360_AD

      Clap hands three times, move out of state.

    • Evan

      There already is this wonderful innovation called a Uhaul truck. Load your stuff in it, drive across the border to Arizona or Nevada (or even farther), and stay there.

      • rifflizard

        That`s what we`re doing!!!

      • Wes

        True, move out of state… but here’s the thing…. the formation of the “several states” into a union had 10 basic rules for government… thou shall not restrict speech, infringe on arms, shall provide quick and public trials, etc….. 10 basic rules and aside from those rules, the states were free to be what the citizens of each wanted. But now that isn’t the case… states are infringing all over 1st and 2nd amendments, the patiot act gutted the 4th,6th and 8th amendments…. You should NOT have to vote with your feet for the exercise of the original 10 rules.

        • Evan

          I agree, you shouldn’t have to, and it is a travesty that people do have to. But the reality of the matter is that they do. States like California do not recognize the Bill of Rights, and it’s unlikely that they will in the forseeable future. The only realistic option, if you live there and care about those rights, is to move. I was forced out of my native New York for the same reasons.

        • AlDeLarge

          The Bill of Rights did not originally apply to states. Each of the original thirteen states had official state religions. The Fourteenth Amendment changed that, but it wasn’t officially recognized by the Supreme Court until 1925. The Second Amendment was not officially incorporated against the states until 2010, with McDonald v. City of Chicago.

          • Wes

            Please send me some links to back up your statement…. i’m very interested to read, makes my head spin if true. :-/ I do recall MA had a state endorsed religion, but I thought that went away when they ratified the US Constitution.

          • AlDeLarge

            The reply with links and graph are waiting for approval.

            This is an important point when you run across the occasional gungrabber who brings up early, local gun bans and registration as evidence the right to keep and bear arms was never intended to be an individual right. They claim the fact that such things were allowed so soon after ratification proves the Founding Fathers only wanted official militias to have guns. The Bill of Rights simply did not apply to territories, states, and cities back then.

          • Wes

            I don’t think the 2A applies to official militias only as well. Art 1, Sec 8 of US Const says Congess shall only allocate money for AN army for 2 years. Goes hand in glove with the citizens forming a militia on the spot defending while congress gets around to forming an army. We’ve perverted this intent by always budgeting for the military. Odd isn’t it that every two years, we have some “need” for our military. 1989, Russia failed, by 1991 we had war in Iraq. God forbid we don’t renew some defense spending bill and be viewed as unpatriotic or against our military. We have perpetual military when the original intent was an army only when needed.

          • Evan

            He’s right, various court decisions have applied the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th Amendment (I don’t remember the specific clause). And it was the 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago that finally confirmed that the 2nd Amendment applies.

      • Mr Evilwrench

        And get out soon, before the value of the grossly overpriced real estate collapses due to oversupply. Sell high and move to the Midwest (except IL) and you’ll live a freer life, much cheaper.

      • Idaho is good too Evan.

    • Nicholas Trueblood

      even better, vote the libtards out and repeal the laws.

      • Or better yet Nicholas, make sure Hillary doesn’t get back in the white house.

        • Nicholas Trueblood

          I was assuming that was a given. Why would someone sane want to vote her in. I was thinking more of what California could do to help theirselves. But your right Rick. We can ill afford a Clinton presidency after the past two globalist presidents.

    • HollowTs

      Don’t forget about Polosi’s dumb ass!

  • Violet

    is the Ares SCR still legal in california as is?

    • Elijah Decker

      Yes, as is the Mini-14, M1A, and any other mag fed semi auto that lacks a pistol grip or any other AW features.

      • Holdfast_II

        And that’s great and all if you’re just into ARs – but what if you want a SCAR or a Tavor? That’s where you need these contrived mag-release gizmos. And please come up with something that will make a Tavor Connecticut legal.

        • Tess

          How about moving out of a crappy state and embracing freedom? Why should mfgs cater to the few states with ridiculous restrictions? We’re placing money before our rights. Get some balls and take the state back or shore-up the numbers in a free state.

          • Holdfast_II

            One: Because manufacturers like to make $$, and unfortunately those of us stuck in AWB states will pay a premium to get access to the arms we want, even if in slightly neutered form.

            Two: Because bad ideas tend to spread – I mean, 10 years ago who would have thought that Colorado would be an Anti-2A state? Washington State also used to have a rep as a pretty 2A friendly place, despite Seattle. If we all leave and completely surrender places like CA, NY, CT, CO and WA, then those bad ideas will be coming to your state next. So help us fight them at the source.

          • ccpotter

            What is the plan to fight them at the source? Gun owners are vastly outnumbered by the welfare dependents whose breeding they finance with their taxes, and the illegal immigrants who take the short step to become illegal voters. CA is lost. You are right that the idiocy spreads, when people raised in leftist states with leftist attitudes get fed up with the consequences of leftism and move to a non-leftist place, bringing their leftist attitudes with them and vote accordingly. What’s your plan to stop that dynamic? It’s an honest question, cause I don’t have a plan either.

          • SharpStick

            Few? The population x purchasing power of persons in restrictive states is pretty darn high and increasing.
            And why don’t YOU move? I grew up in ne Hampshire. I can promise you virtually EVERY state is more restrictive. If there was an article here on people in Texas, Virginia or Florida optimizing their carry rights under those states laws, how would you feel if people from NH just chimed in with : “Grows some balls and move out of crappy Texas or Virginia?”

      • I think kel-tec su-16 (ca compliant version) too

        • Cymond

          The SU-16 A, B, and CA variants are all California compliant. Only the C and SBR models aren’t.

          • are 30 rd magazines still banned if we use a compliant rifle?

          • Cymond

            The question is moot.

            Previously, preban magazines were legal to possess (and there was no way to tell which were preban, so some guys flaunted the law).

            Now, all magazines over 10 rounds will be illegal to possess at all, even preban mags.

            FYI, previously, it was legal to use preban mags in “featureless” compliant rights like the SU-16, but illegal to put them in a mag locked compliant guns like any rifle with a Bullet Button.
            I guess it’s still legal, idk when the new laws take effect.

      • Evan

        So the M14/M1A are legal, but, if, for instance, you put a Sage EBR/EMR stock or a Troy chassis, or any of the other pistol grip stocks on, does that exact same rifle that was legal in its stock configuration magically become illegal?

        • Elijah Decker

          Yes, it’s insane. Taking a legal M1A barreled action out of its traditional wood stock and putting it in a stock with a pistol grip will instantly make you a felon. How exactly Californian politicians and voters think this will deter people intent on murder, I have no idea.

          • Evan

            Based on the fact that that idiot babbles about ghost guns with .30 caliber magazine clips that fire off in half a second, it doesn’t really surprise me.

  • datimes

    More deep thinking from the land of fruits and nuts.

  • FrenchKiss

    Just convert it to a featureless rifle using the Thorsden stock. Then you can use a real mag release. Can’t wait until some jihadi in Commiefornia uses a neutered AR-15 for terrorist purposes. What will Commiefornia do then? Repeal the 2A?

    • Anonymoose

      Removable magazines are now a “feature.”

      • Roy G Bunting

        That was last term’s bill. This one just defines “fixed magazine ” as requiring action disassembly

      • FrenchKiss

        “Featureless” according to Kommiefornia law.

    • KestrelBike

      San Bernardino terrorists already did, they just converted their bullet-buttoned ARs back to regular functionality. Cost $5 to do so.
      Same thing could be done with a revolver and gridlock traffic though, like the panhandlers just walk down the jammed street starting at the intersection going car to car for handouts, safe bet most people wouldn’t get out of their cars to run before it’s too late. And in SoCal, it is a near certainty that unless one of them is an off-duty cop, none of the civilians will be armed.

      • FrenchKiss

        Exactly

    • Cal.Bar

      First – the Second Amendment is LONG DEAD in CA. Second, why would anyone bent on committing MASS MURDER worry about keeping their rifle compliant with a stupid CA law? That’s what we keep telling the fools in Gov.

    • Judging by the kneejerk reaction to the Orlando massacre, pass a steaming pile of new laws that wouldn’t even have affected the previous spree killer.

    • bee O bee

      They’re working on very hard on it.

  • BryanS

    Or, they could do like New York, and tell the state to sod off.

    Im for air dropping arms and supplies to aid them in taking back their capitol, much more than I am for us doing so anywhere in the middle east.

    I say we rint a plane, get a couple thousand standard cap mags and threaded barrels (and lots of parachutes) and drop them all across their capitol plaza.

    • Lt. Dan

      Agreed.

    • I’ve always appreciated the way Apex products come with the label “Manufactured behind enemy lines in Los Osos, California”.

      • MrEllis

        Yet they stay there.

        • I don’t approve of the semi-literate jackwagons who run my state, either, but like absolute hell am I gonna let ’em run me off.

          • Evan

            Texas seems to be run by mostly sane people. I’ve never actually been there (apart from driving through the panhandle on I-40), but everything I’ve ever read makes Texas look like one of the most reasonable states in the country.

          • They’ve passed “voter ID” laws that are unambiguously designed specifically to disenfranchise poor people, Latinos, women, and the disabled; their constant attempts to use nickel-and-dime legislation to attack women’s reproductive rights shows they have just as little respect for the Bill Of Rights as gun-grabbing Democrats do, and are using the exact same incrementalist legislative strategies; they threw 250,000 children off of 100% free federal health insurance by letting a compliance bill expire– solely to thumb their nose at national Democrats– and spent that session time instead on voting to recognize Chips And Salsa as the Official State Snack; they illegally redrew congressional districts between censuses to create some of the most absurdly gerrymandered district lines in the nation to guarantee a “permanent majority” in a state with rapidly changing demographics, and actually said out loud that a main reason they did so was to get rid of one highly popular D Representative in Austin (a city which is now carved up into five districts); they voted to cut the budget for the state Forestry Service– the agency charged with preventing and fighting wildfires– by over two thirds, one month before the Labor Day fires burned over four million acres of farms and ranches and neighborhoods and homes and an irreplaceable state park flat to the goddamn ground.

            Guns are the one and only issue where the Texas Legislature aren’t some of the pettiest, most childish, most vicious congressional scumbags in America, and I ain’t gonna be a single issue voter in my own back yard when all the other scummy things they do have a hell of a lot bigger impact on my life and the lives of my family, especially not in a state where gun control legislation has about as much chance of passing as a cinder block through a chihuahua.

          • Stephen Shallberg

            Hear, hear.

          • Evan

            Killing your kids isn’t “reproductive health”, voter ID laws are basic common sense and don’t “disenfranchise” anyone, gerrymandering isn’t remotely illegal and happens in every state. So yeah, based on your own words, Texas seems pretty sane.

          • A fetus is not a child– that’s why there are different medical terms for each– and you do not, under any circumstances, have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their own internal organs. Full stop, no exceptions. Would you stand by and smirk while a woman-controlled state legislature mandated that all males are required to be circumcised as infants for hygeine and required to have vasectomies at age 13 to prevent overpopulation, and have to jump through a gauntlet of punitive legal hoops to legally have their tubes reconnected? No? Then stop pretending like you have some kind of right to legislate a stranger’s internal organs.

            Voter ID laws are ~~ostensibly~~ meant to prevent a kind of election fraud which has been prosecuted exactly six times since Texas became a state in 1845. Meanwhile, I had to drive my actual literal human being wife forty miles to the nearest DPS driver’s license office three times to get a state photo ID so she could vote, because the law was written to place additional barriers in front of married women who change their family name, and poor people who don’t have access to any one of the four required forms of proof of identity. Thank my Homeless-Born Hebrew Carpenter God we were able to afford three separate forty mile trips.

            Redrawing congressional districts is expressly and specifically required by law to only be done every ten years, after a national census. In every state. They did it halfway through a census cycle because they knew damn well that they wouldn’t be able to maintain their artificial grip on power if the Latinos and po’ folk who are universally disadvantages by their policies were allowed to vote fairly. Oh, and to %#$& with Lloyd Dogget in particular, because they really hate that a widely popular Democrat constantly calls them out on their bovine effluvia.

            …See, this is why this blog generally tries to avoid politics.

          • Evan

            A fetus is by no means an “internal organ”. It is a human life. It is genetically distinct from its mother. Your argument is based entirely in emotion. The biology says you’re wrong. Whether or not abortion may be a social good is irrelevant, it is immoral in extremis, and nothing can excuse that. Now, there we’re at a full stop.

            If you aren’t competent to register to vote or obtain a driver’s license, that is your own fault, and you probably ought not to make decisions that affect anyone else. Obtaining state ID is by no means hard to do. I’ve managed to get state IDs in New York, New Jersey, Washington, and Pennsylvania with no problem whatsoever. I vote in PA, which has a voter ID law, and it’s no burden at all. And when I moved here and obtained my PA driver’s license, I was fresh out of college and didn’t have a car or a job.

            Gerrymandering is a fact of politics. Get used to it. Both parties do it, and they do it in all 50 states. I live in a gerrymandered district as well, one of those “majority minority” districts designed so that people where I live’s votes are irrelevant. Again, get over it.

          • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

            Morals are by and large subjective, which is why we generally don’t pass laws based on “morality”.

            If you were so correct on abortion, then there wouldn’t be the controversy that there is and it would be an easy slam-dunk legislation to outlaw it entirely.

          • Evan

            Morals are objective, and most of the laws we pass are rooted on morality – the overwhelming majority of things that are illegal are illegal because they’re immoral.

            That something may be prima facie true does not necessarily make it easy to legislate. The abortion industry has deep pockets and a lot of people who would rather go with their convenient answer rather than the correct one. It’s actually quite similar to the gun issue. We know gun control doesn’t work, there’s really no question as to that. Why haven’t we gotten rid of it? Because some people choose to believe foolish things in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

          • You’re correct– presuming that you have some kind of right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies is, indeed, objectively immoral, in addition to being more authoritarian and totalitarian than Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton could ever dream of being.

            I accept your apology.

          • A fetus is a lump of cells in a body which does not belong to you. The heart of the Second Amendment is the right to protect oneself and one’s community from attack, because if you don’t have the right to defend yourself you don’t have any rights. Bodily autonomy is the exact same thing; if you don’t have the right to control your own literal flesh, you have no rights at all.

            Interesting how ~~FOR THE CHILDREN!!1!~~ is the same argument the gungrabbers make.

          • AlDeLarge

            I have absolutely no problem with aborting a “lump of cells” but that’s a blastocyst, not a fetus. I have no problem with medical abortion, which includes embryos. Still not a fetus. My support for abortion falls exponentially from the time surgical abortion is necessary to none at all at viability. Abortion becomes surgical at about 8 weeks because the unborn child is a fetus then.

            Full Definition of fetus
            : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
            Merriam-Webster

          • I see you also have “no problem with” The State being so intrusively totalitarian that it literally controls its subjects’ internal organs. Sorry, but that is double-plus unacceptable in a free society.

          • AlDeLarge

            You can’t deal with fact that a fetus is neither a “lump of cells” nor an internal organ, can you?

          • You really can’t deal with the fact that women are actual human beings who have the same human rights you do, can you?

          • AlDeLarge

            That’s the worst attempt at justification for partial birth abortion I’ve ever seen. What man has the right to stab a baby in the head as it’s born?

          • TIL “women are actual human beings” is an “attempt at justification”. Good to know, I guess, that in addition to supporting invasive totalitarianism, you also don’t consider half the human race to actually be human.

          • AlDeLarge

            Changing your story again? I said I was opposed to post-viability abortion AKA partial birth abortion. You claimed it was a human right. What human has the right to stab a baby in the head as it’s born?

          • That’s a pretty sweet tactic, moving the goalposts yourself and then blaming the other guy when the teams start running in a different direction.

          • AlDeLarge

            I didn’t move any goalposts; You can’t read or you don’t know what you’re defending. “My support for abortion falls exponentially from the time surgical abortion is necessary to none at all at viability.” (Oh wow look, I quoted something that I actually wrote.)

          • …Also, I seriously have better things to do with my day than continue giving you a platform for declaring yourself a terrible person and a fan of totalitarianism, so I’m done here. Go ahead and have your precious Last Word™ and pat yourself on the back for Winning The Internet– I’m out.

          • AlDeLarge

            I didn’t force you to embarrass yourself here.

          • Banjo

            “…a platform for declaring yourself a terrible person…”
            Says the person who is arguing FOR murdering a child…for convenience no less!

          • Banjo

            I wasn’t aware men had the Right to murder innocent unborn infants! :/
            Rape, incest, high risk of death to the mother, severe birth defects…OK, justified and I understand and have no problem. Abortions on demand to kill innocent unborn humans because someone couldn’t keep their legs together or wear protection…not justified and NOT OK! That’s tantamount to taking your little 3 year old girl out back and putting a bullet in her head because you just don’t want her anymore!!!

          • I’m seeing an awful lot of blahblahblah here that all adds up to you failing to understand that other people besides you have rights.

            Remember to think in Newspeak, comrade– the totalitarian state you support will be less likely to decide you don’t have any rights as long as you play along.

          • Banjo

            I have read the Constitution many times and I’ve yet to read the part where states that ANYONE has the Right to murder just because they believe they have the Right! 😐

          • Evan

            Again, your attempt to define a fetus as an “internal organ” of the mother lacks any scientific basis. You take a biopsy of any and all of my internal organs, you get the same DNA profile. You take a biopsy of any and all the internal organs of a pregnant woman AND a biopsy of her fetus, you will find two different DNA profiles. Sorry, you lose.

          • Evan

            A “lump of cells”. And now we come back to the most pressing question about this “lump of cells” – whose DNA do they have? If this “lump of cells” has the same DNA as the mother, then it is clearly a part of her body and she ought to do with it as she wills. If it does not share the mother’s DNA profile, then it is clearly a separate human being, with all the inherent rights as such.

            I agree, bodily autonomy is absolutely paramount – where we disagree here is that I believe that bodily autonomy only applies to one’s own body, whereas you seem to believe that another life being carried inside one’s body is subject to summary execution at the will of the mother. If only you felt the same way about the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay…

          • Banjo

            A fetus is a child in it’s very early stages of development, it’s a developmental title, not a state of being. Just like a caterpillar is a early stage of development of a butterfly! Even though it doesn’t yet look like a butterfly…it’s still a developing butterfly.
            The whole “fetus’ are not really human, so that makes it OK to kill them” is the EXACT same rational that the Nazis used to justify killing undesirables!!
            A fetus is not an internal organ! A female is not born with a fetus, and it does not fulfill any biological process other than creating a new developing human, that’s why there are 23 chromosomes FOREIGN to the mother body!
            These are biologically and factually baseless claims by pro-abortion people in an attempt to justify killing an unwanted developing human for CONVIENIENCE and has NOTHING to do with “reproductive rights”.
            You say that no one has “the right to tell other what they can and cannot do with their own internal organs”.
            Why then do we have laws against controlled/banned substances? It’s the person’s own internal organs…right?
            You might answer with “because many of those substances cause the user to affect others negatively”.
            I say in response: “BINGO”!

            So, your wife never buys anything or does any activity that requires a photo ID? She has never driven since she changed her name? No alcohol, cigarettes, renting most things and a whole laundry list of tasks that require a photo ID? There has to be extenuating circumstances in her case that you are not mentioning to cause her “difficulty”. I have to drive just about as far to do the same thing and I got my ID no problem. The fact is, photo ID puts no more of a “barrier” to people poor or otherwise than requiring a photo ID on any number of other Rights!
            Since Democrats like to compare the US to other countries when it suits them, I will do the same in this instance: We are one of the very few nations to NOT require a photo ID to vote.

          • So I can put you down as supporting mandatory prison time for any man who expels millions of potential ~~children~~ anywhere other than his legally married wife for purposes of procreation? Good for the goose, good for the gander, after all. A lump of cells is not a person, and the fact that you consider a zygote to have more rights than an actual factual human being says pretty much all anyone needs to know about you as a person.

            You do not have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their own internal organs. Full stop.

          • Banjo

            OK, a little biology 101 for you 😉 It takes a Mommy and a Daddy to fertilize an egg and ultimately create a new human child. Daddy’s sperm on their own do not, Mommy’s egg on it’s own does not.

            The “logic” in your example would make it illegal for nocturnal emissions(wet dreams). Not a very smart example :/

            A tumor is a lump of cells, a fetus is a developing human…only a simple-minded fool would compare the two.
            The fact that you are willing to murder a child for convenience says all we need to know about you as a person and your value of human life.
            Society has EVERY Right to tell people they cannot murder. FULL STOP.

          • The “extenuating circumstances” are disabilities that, yes, prevent her from driving anymore. The disabled– a number which, thanks to the cowardly chickenhawks running the country in the first decade of the century, includes rather quite a lot of combat veterans– are also disenfranchised by Voter ID laws, because they don’t have the same access to “only open on alternating Thursdays from 2PM-4PM forty miles away” sort of government services that everyone else has. The barrier isn’t the requirement for an ID in and of itself, the barrier is that those IDs cost money some people don’t have, and take time some people can’t spare from work or childcare, and require traveling some people can’t do without undue burden, and require multiple forms of verification some people can’t obtain easily. All of those people are still US citizens who still have the same Constitutional rights everyone else has. Nobody protested the old requirement that you bring your voter registration card and have the signature on it match the one on the voter list at the polling place because it didn’t impose any burden beyond “has been verified to live primarily in a certain precinct and has a valid mailing address”, and that worked well enough that the kind of voter impersonation that Voter ID laws claim to prevent had only been prosecuted– and I cannot stress this enough– six times in 170 years.

          • AlDeLarge

            “The disabled … are also disenfranchised by Voter ID laws”
            From Texas’ EIC website:
            “If you are voting by mail, you do not have to submit a photo ID.
            “If you have a documented disability, you may apply at your county voter registrar for a permanent exemption from the photo ID requirement. If approved, you will not need a photo ID to vote.”

            “those IDs cost money some people don’t have”
            From the same page:
            “If you do not have any of the following acceptable forms of ID, beginning June 26, 2013, you may apply for an Election Identification Certificate (EIC) at no charge.”

            “and take time some people can’t spare from work”
            How does someone properly fill out the required I9 form to get a job without an ID?

          • If you honestly don’t understand how “having the time, money, and ability to travel to a doctor’s office to obtain a medical certification of disability” and “having the time, money, and ability to travel to the Voter Registrar’s office to apply for an exemption” and “hurry up and wait while we review your information, with no statutory requirement to actually do so at all, much less in a timely manner” are still barriers to exercising voting rights, then I’m not sure I can help you.

          • AlDeLarge

            Who are you quoting? Is that the only point you want to your excuse for? Cost of an EIC? Job with no ID?

            And by the way, I am a disabled combat veteran who lives more than 200 miles from the nearest VA hospital, more than 60 miles from the nearest tuesday-only VA clinic. I know a lot about “having the time, money, and ability to travel to a doctor’s office to obtain a medical certification of disability.” I doubt you could help me with anything.

          • So… you already know– from personal experience– exactly how and why you’re wrong about this, but you’re still arguing the point because…?

          • AlDeLarge

            Arguing implies you’ve made any valid points to argue against. You gave up on two of the points I destroyed, and you’re desperately deflecting the third. I live far from VA facilities, but there are many doctors in the little desert town I live in. If your wife is so disabled, why don’t you live near some doctors?

          • rifflizard

            EXACTLY!

          • lbeacham

            So, you want Texas to become California?

          • Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

          • lbeacham

            Meaning you’re embarrassed to admit you admire California?

          • Meaning you’re embarrassed to admit you touch yourself inappropriately when you think of Hitler?

          • lbeacham

            You’re off the deep end. A liberal Dem in Texas. Poor bastard.

          • You’re off the deep end. A kiddie porn enthusiast who literally wants to live in Stalinist Russia. Poor bastard.

          • SharpStick

            Respectfully I disagree on a number of your points.Like you I am a political moderate who strong supports the bill of rights including the second amendment’s clear and explicit prohibition on infringement of the individual’s right to keep and bear arms1) Voter fraud in the US is an issue. It is a red herring on your part to trot out the number of successful prosecutions when the fact si that there are so few successfully prosecuted cases is in good part due to the lack of strong voter ID. I’ve lived and worked in a dozen countries, and all of them have biometric strong voter ID. The claim that the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia are massively disenfranchising people through voter ID is not a sober claim
            2) On abortion I believe in choice. But I also am glad there are people arguing the other side. Just as I believe a one month fetus is not a child, I also know an eight month one is certainly human life, every nation, including the most “progressive” has some limits on term length for at will abortion. Almost all are 23 to 26 weeks. Sensible people in every developed democracy know this is a simply a conflict between rights with no “bright line” and that a messy compromise has to result. My sister in law was working at CNN last year when a seven month pregnant woman had her unborn baby cut from her womb and killed. The woman who was the copywriter for the story was a friend of hers and very pro choice. She wrote unborn baby in the copy and headline slug and it ran that way. There was then an uproar at CNN and headline and lede was changed to “fetus.” The fact is anyone who has seen an ultrasound of an 7 or 8 month fetus knows it is a “baby” and not “a mass of tissue.” On the other side of the argument it is common sense and basic human history that the lack of choice has been used to subjugate women, and pervasively so, and that a two month fetus is in common sense not a person. Again the problem is the science itself is muddy, and we are stuck with a messy compromise, but messy compromises are sometimes the best choice.

          • Banjo

            You can always tell when a person is a Liberal and has no valid rebuke when they start with the “Oh yeah? Well, you’re a poo poo head!” insults! :/

          • You can always tell when a person hasn’t actually read the thread before they comment.

          • Banjo

            My reply wasn’t over the entire thread…only that particular post.

            Actually, while I’m here…you are slightly baffling. In one post you seem relatively Conservative(Liberty, pro-2A, Etc), but in another I get Liberal nuances(Pro-abortion, anti-voter ID, Etc).
            Can you shed some light for me? Maybe I’m misreading you? 😐

          • Pauly_Pants

            People like you need to stay in California. When you move out you spread this cancer.

          • I was born less than a mile from our big pink State Capitol, amigo– where the hell are you from?

          • Banjo

            How is it that someone from Texas would be so Liberal? Oh…Austin, that explains it!

          • I own too many guns and have too long a list of reasons I’m willing to use them without hesitation to be “Liberal”, sorry. Try some different empty buzzwords, maybe one of ’em’ll stick eventually.

          • mb

            Hence the reason we are moving from Rhode Island, another Democrat stronghold where AR- 15s are still legal amazingly but the totally incompetent governor. her minions are diligently working to make illegal. We bought in Texas and move next week.

    • OBlamo Binlyen

      We actually have plenty of arms, way more than our masters are wiling to admit to. If every firearm owner in the state were to visit SackOfTomatoes at the same time the fools would run for their safe space behind their armed security.

      • I keep hearing pundits say there are “300 million” guns in the US, and I laugh every time, because y’all? That ain’t even countin’ all the legal guns– millions more of which are manufactured every year– and milled-out 80% lowers that aren’t on paper anywhere, much less all the illegally manufactured and imported guns.

        • Cymond

          Well the estimate was about 220 million back in the 90s. The current estimate is based on that, plus all known manufactured firearms.

          Honestly though, home made guns and illegally imported/made guns are dwarfed by the massive number of guns manufactured by the big national companies. Since it’s an estimate, there’s a degree of uncertainty far larger than that.

          What I’m curious about is the rate of loss of guns. Aside from a recent spree of boating accidents, I wonder about guns that are lost in the woods, rusted, worn out, broken without replacement parts, Kaboom’d, etc.

          • Navy Davy

            Confiscated, buy back, impounded, evidence, lockers, etc.

          • SharpStick

            It is likely there are 400 million today, And estimates in the 90s ran up to 325 million

        • rifflizard

          You “betcha!!!”

  • iowaclass

    Technical question: possible to make an upper that lets an AR load like an SKS?

    • Aramaki

      No. You could make something that could mate to an AR-lower, but to make a top-loaded AR would require you to redesign the entire action of the weapon so that you can top load it (and not to mention, losing the ability to mount optics in the process).

      • LG

        You need an M1941 Johnson style lower. Better than en-block clips and still going strong!!!

        • Elijah Decker

          Yeah, a fixed rotary mag loaded from the side with stripper clips would be pretty cool.

          • LG

            Precisely! And with the side loading gate, stripper clips can keep it continuously topped off!

          • Porty1119

            I’m personally still not sold on detachable magazines; an internal rotary magazine fed by stripper clips sounds fantastic.

          • LG

            You young folks have no idea how well it works. In the M1941 system the loading gate is on the side so it can be recharged with a round in the chamber loaded or partially charged. This is without ever hitting a beat and ALWAYS having a live round in the chamber to go down range, this is what Alex C. did not comprehend or understand with his “Run and Gun” featuring the M1941. It is the perfect marriage of the Krag style side loading gate, Mannlicher rotary magazine, Mauser’s stripper clip, a reliable short recoil system, and sturdy rotary locking lugs. What is there not to like? Melvin Johnson was a true genius. As an aside Melvin had Eugene Stoner use the multi lug rotating bolt in ???? something called an AR10??? As far as a detachable magazine Melvin was way ahead of Eugene. On the Johnson Automatic Rifle, the select fire versions, the feed lips are on the receiver and not the magazine. There are far fewer malfunctions from defective/damaged magazines that way. The Johnson Automatic Rifle puts the BAR to shame and I believe is superior to the Fg42

      • Elijah Decker

        I don’t think it would be that difficult to design a stripper clip fed AR upper. The bolt carrier already locks to the rear on empty and has no gas piston or anything else that would prevent top loading. Yeah, you’d lose the rail space directly over the magazine, but the rear of the receiver and the hand guard could still have rails. Look at the AR-57.

        • Anonymoose

          At that point you could just buy a FAL with a stripper-clip dust cover.

        • LG

          Too retrograde. Look at the M1941 Johnson rifles side loaded rotary magazine.

        • Aramaki

          where would the charging handle go?

          • ARCNA442

            It might not have to go anywhere if you just make pulling it back part of the reload. This would also help seal the top of the action.

  • Elijah Decker

    The alternative is a featureless build, which allows the use of a detachable magazine, but no pistol grip(s), flash hider (muzzle brakes and compensators are fine), or telescoping/folding stock. A fixed stock AR, AK, FAL, G3, etc. variant can be made CA compliant by swapping the flash hider for a brake and putting a piece of kydex on the grip that prevents the user from wrapping their thumb around it. I have a couple of rifles set up like this and it works decently enough.

    • Roy G Bunting

      Ares SCR and we can still us AR uppers. Now if they’d just offer them without a flash hider attached.

      • gusto

        why would anybody chose to have a pistolgrip and flash hider if they have to have one of those stupid bullet button or this new thingamaging?

        and compensating a .223? what are you new york times journalists?

        Heck that ares with a wooden stock even kinda looks like a real rifle and not the M(atel)4 look people seem to dig

        • iksnilol

          Well, a comp doesn’t count as a flash hider. So it helps with remaining featureless whilst still having a muzzle device.

        • AFAIK, compensators aren’t considered flash hiders under any of the idiotic state level “assault weapon” bans, so they can be pinned/welded on a shorter barrel to put it over 16 inches. Linear compensators in particular are a darn fine feature on a short barrel, since they throw the gahdawful loud muzzle blast downrange instead of at everyone in the next two lanes on either side.

        • Roy G Bunting

          The only reason I built some “Bullet button”ARs is because I saw this coming. A magazine release is a safety feature. Once I register them it will allow me to have all the features I want with a magazine release too. And it will be part of a message that this nonsense law is just creating more “assault weapons”.

          Other people did it because a bullet button doesn’t slow you down much at the range and pistol grips are more comfortable then the grip less options.

        • Cymond

          Well, since they can’t have a flash hider, they can either use a compensator or nothing at all.

    • Cymond

      When I was in CA, I eventually went ‘featureless’ with an Exile Machine Hammerhead, fixed Ace stock, and brake. Honestly, I hated the Hammerhead.

      The Thordsen FRS-15 came out later. I have handled one, but not fired it. Honestly, I liked the feel so much that I think people in free states should at least hold one. I genuinely liked it.

      • Elijah Decker

        I’m an AK guy, so I just use the Solar Tactical kydex grip wraps on my AK variants. It’s an infringement and a nuisance, but a minor one that I can live with. Not being able to buy bulk ammo online anymore is the major infringement here. I’m moving to a freer state ASAP.

  • LG

    Everything old is new again. Look at the M1941 Johnson rifle. It passes on all counts, can be continuously fed single rounds or stripper clips and comes in 30-06!!

    • Roy G Bunting

      New production Johnson m1941s please! In 223, 300blk, 308 and the classic 30’06.

      Preferably with different barrel lengths available.

      • LG

        Old hat. By the quick change barrel swap out 30-06, to 270 Winchester, to 7 X 57 mm Mauser. Melvin Johnson lives on!!!

    • gunsandrockets

      M1 Garand still legal in Commiefornia. At least for the moment.

      • LG

        The M1 rifle is a good weapon system. I can put more aimed fire down range with the M1941. The real problem with the M1941 is it’s poor rear sight such as on a Reising.

        • gunsandrockets

          Charger loading systems seem clumsy to me. Good enough for a properly set up 5 shot bolt action, but grossly inferior for a larger capacity semi-automatic.

          • LG

            Try it and you will like it. Once you become proficient with both the enbloc clip loading technique of the M1 rifle and the charger side loaded rotary magazine of the M1941, the M1941 wins. The downside to the rotary magazine of the M1941 is it’s bulky, portly, appearance of a pregnant rhino.

  • tyrannyofevilmen

    I’m a bit confused. I thought the existing AR-15s had to be registered as assault weapons. Assuming someone is doing that, why then neuter the gun at that point with a locking device?

    And if you are NOT going to register the gun, does this somehow nullify that since by locking the magazine to the gun makes it essentially a fixed magazine thus no longer making it an “assault weapon”?

    • Aramaki

      It’s not “evil” unless the mag is unlocked. So, the old bullet button, by old law, was a locking device, as it required a tool to remove the mag. New law says that you need to disassemble the receiver, so a bigger takedown pin, and “BB-reloaded” is also kosher, until Sacramento freaks out again.

      • tyrannyofevilmen

        Thanks. That’s Interesting. That’s really gonna put a kink in their socialist craw!

        • Aramaki

          I’m just glad I can live and put beans on my plate in a free state.

    • nadnerbus

      Yes. If you register a bullet button rifle, you don’t have to otherwise neuter it, but then you can never sell it in-state, will it to your kids, etc.

      Fixing the mag, as this device does, removes it from “assault weapon” category, allowing you more freedom with what you do with it, at the expense of functionality.

  • Mike

    ARES SCR, It’s your time to shine. Hey TFB Peeps! Make James’ review go viral

    • Cal S.

      Why not the Kel-Tec SU-16? Fewer caliber options, but works just as well (maybe even better) for a much cheaper package.

      • SharpStick

        I looked at Ke-tec before deciding in Ares, Firstly the right side charge was a major drawback. On my Ares lower I can put any AR15 upper, including a left side charger which makes way more sense. the balance on the ares was a lot better when holding with right hand and with an extended mag release all operations can easily be done with the left while maintaining firing grip with right hand

        • Cal S.

          Understandable. Like I said about the caliber options. However, if you just want to shoot 5.56/.223, then the SU-16 is a good, economic, contender.

  • iksnilol

    Why not just do one of the following:

    -make an upper with a cutout in the top so that you can use stripper clips

    Or

    -make an side charging bolt action upper (+ you save weight on removing the gas system and using no buffer weight).

    • jess

      Now that there are multiple options for side charging uppers, the second option would probably be the first one to see use in the wild.

      I haven’t seen anyone take a dremel to an upper to use stripper clips, but im sure someone will soon. Simultaneously, we’ll see increasing incidences of “Arf thumb”.

      All this assuming no lawsuits are filed and if they are, eventually rejected by 9th.

  • Gary Kirk

    And inherent freedom, but only if you comply

  • valorius

    Why someone hasnt designed a rifle that takes 10 rd 5.56mm stripper clips is a bit of a surprise to me.

    • gunsandrockets

      Back in the 1990’s someone (I don’t remember who) marketed a Mini-14 accessory that did exactly what you are talking about.

      IIRC the charger guide fastened to the Mini-14 receiver similar to some of the aftermarket scope mounts, by replacing the side plate on the receiver which covers the bolt-hold open mechanism.

  • valorius

    I wonder what kind of idiocy CA would come up with if someone went on a shooting rampage with a 24″ .38/.357 “high capacity” lever action (and a second slung on his back).

    Heck, a regular old 18″ pump shotgun, such as the one used by the navy yard shooter is all any terrorist would need to inflict mass carnage.

    These laws are so stupid it boggles the mind.

  • hkguns

    #Noncompliance

    • Cymond

      #Felony

      I understand the desire to refuse, but it’s a personal choice and a large risk. Noncompliance only works as a method of change if done in large enough numbers for long enough. I mean, it seems to be working for marijuana, right? It only took a few decades, and countless arrests of nonviolent offenders.

      • Evan

        Noncompliance was over 90% in New York, and pretty damn high in Connecticut as well. I haven’t heard anything about mass arrests (or even singular arrests). I am originally from NY, and every friend I asked “did you register/modify your weapons” after the SAFE act (I had moved to America by then) just laughed.

    • Stan Darsh

      Hell, even Australia had ~80% non-compliance in 1996.

      • bee O bee

        The crime rate, both gun related and non-gun related went up dramatically after the so-called ‘buy back’ [read: weapons confiscation]

        • …And after the brief surge in violent crime which always– always— follows major national gun control laws anywhere in the world, it went right back to where it had been before that massive confiscation scheme. Gun-grabbers try to hold Australia up as some kind of proof of the alleged effectiveness of gun control laws, but in fact the average year-on-year statistics only prove that such laws have no practical effect on violent crime.

  • TheSmellofNapalm

    I’m sorry, but the Thordsen UBBT mag spikes and UBML lower and far superior to either of these designs. Mags have bullet button tools installed on the bases and mags can be dropped from the LEFT HAND SIDE. Can someone please explain the new laws for a simpleton like me? Would that system no longer work?

    • Cymond

      From what I understand:
      In short, rifles with Bullet Buttons will now be “Assault Weapons”. Current owners will be allowed to register & keep their rifles, with severe restrictions on transport & use (like all “assault weapons” in CA). These ‘grandfathered’ rifles will NOT be transferable (again, standard in CA). After the law takes effect, it will be illegal to sell a rifle with a BB.

      Using a system like in the article allows Californians to continue owning AR-15s without any additional restrictions.

  • Cymond

    I hear ya, but an even safer option would be to convert to a noncompliant configuration while in the desert, and then convert back before driving home. It would add about 2 (tedious) minutes to your day.

    And when I was in CA in 2013, and it seemed like a new federal AWB might be coming, I traded my 9mm 1911 for a Glock 34 and a few magazine rebuild kits (disassembled 17 round magazines). I later noticed that it was a “blue label” Glock, meaning the guy I traded with was probably a LEO, which also explained why he wasn’t worried about giving up his full-cap mag kits. He was exempt from any AWB, and could always buy more. The point is that I had no idea he was LE until later. You never know who might be a few lanes over.

  • Cymond

    Agreed, but not an option for everyone. Some people have ties, connections. I lived in CA for 3.5 years. I hated it and wanted out, but my options were to stick it out or get a divorce.

    • valorius

      A divorce from a woman who wont move to the free world would be preferable than living in the land of fruits and nuts.

      • MrEllis

        You seem rational.

        • valorius

          I’m glad you agree.

          • MrEllis

            You seem observant.

          • valorius

            You seem like a troll.

          • MrEllis

            Ahh, a student of irony as well, I see!

          • valorius

            Still going, eh?

      • Cymond

        You sure are a warm, friendly person.

        We had been together for over 8 years when she accepted the job offer. She had just earned her Master’s in Computer Science. New grads are lucky to get a 6 figure job offer with a major company, and moving to Silicon Valley for a few years was a smart career move. She was contractually obligated to work for them for 2 years, and it took a while after that to find a position back on the east coast. We’ve been out of CA for almost 2 years now.

        She now works for Lockheed Martin. I don’t know much about her job there, but it’s something about aerospace.

        • valorius

          Hey, if putting your career ahead of your rights is how you want to roll, by all means, do so.

          Not me.

          My woman is from NJ. I told her if she wanted to live together she either came to the free state of Pa, or it wasnt happening. She moved. Now we’re together, happy and I can actually own a gun with a detachable magazine.

          • Cymond

            Hey, if putting a few pieces of plastic ahead of your family is how you want to roll, by all means, do so.

            It’s important to know where your priorities are. I wouldn’t want to live in NJ, but people matter more to me than machines.

            And we didn’t lose our rights, they were just (partially) suspended for a while. I still had drop free magazines, just limited to 10 rounds, and my rifle had a funky grip. Fwiw, NJ’s AWB isn’t as bad as CA’s.

          • valorius

            Yes, the rights of myself and others are 100000000x more important than any woman i may be, might have, or ever will date.

          • SharpStick

            Really I have to respectfully disagree. Do you say the same of people living in Texas, Virginia, Pennsylvania which have more restrictions on the second amendment than New Hampshire (where I grew up)?

          • valorius

            I’m not familiar with New Hampshire gun laws. I live in Pa though, and our gun rights are very strong.

          • SharpStick

            My point is NH has much more respect for the second amendment.

          • Cymond

            How does moving out of CA protect the rights of others?
            Where to live is a personal decision with personal consequences. You keep trying to make a personal housing decision sound like a grandiose struggle for liberty.

            And as said, we didn’t lose out rights, just put them into storage for a bit. It was a hard time to go through, but it’s over.

            Likewise, spending 2 weeks in a hospital last year was tough, but we got through it, too. Oh yeah, I wasn’t armed then, either. You better hope you don’t get injured or seriously sick, since since a gun at your side seems to be your highest priority.

          • valorius

            I’m pretty sure i’ve made my point clear. Do what makes you happy.

          • Evan

            NJ requires permits to buy any firearms whatsoever. CA doesn’t. Both are horrible states that no reasonable person would live in by choice. I lived in NJ for a few years in my teens, and CA for a few years in the Marine Corps. I go to NJ a couple times a year to visit my parents, or drive through from PA to upstate NY, and you couldn’t pay me enough to set foot in California again.

  • MrEllis

    This makes it look like you don’t understand what communism is and you don’t get people actually vote for these politicians. The NRA and their ilk have you so worked up you think every battle is all or none, so guess what battles are being fought now? All or none. All the rhetoric and fear mongering is paying off, just not for the NRA.

    When the only discourse you have is all or none and the like it becomes that. Hopefully, some owners are more rational, this argument is destined to fail.

    • valorius

      Blah, blah, blah son.

      • MrEllis

        Yeah, words are hard.

        • valorius

          Eventually, you’ll go somewhere else and bother someone else.

          • MrEllis

            Now you’re the victim? How droll.

          • valorius

            And you’re still going….

        • maodeedee

          Not for you they aren’t. For a Troll in favor of gun control who want’s to argue the advocacy of gun control on a forum called The Firearms Blog, words are a great way of stirring up conflict and fighting heroic mock battles against your ideological “enemies” and claiming victory again and again in your own mind.

          • MrEllis

            You use the word “troll” because you can’t refute anything. If I was trolling you, I’d type a lot less. But then again I don’t think you know what the word really conveys, it’s just easier for you to carry on not having to think. It’s become the comment section switch for cognitive dissonance.

            Everyone advocates gun control if you have one rule about them. It’s the degrees that matter. I own guns, I carry guns, I used them for my vocation. I still believe we can place better controls on them.

            So respond with substance or embrace the irony of your blather.

          • maodeedee

            I’ve already responded to your statement, “Remember, having a gun is not a natural born right, it’s not a universal law or constant. It is something society as a whole deems fit for you.”

            And I responded with substance to that statement but my response would be meaningless to someone as enamored of his own opinions as you obviously are. I could suggest that you go back and read my response but it wouldn’t change your closed mind. The mind is like a parachute, it has to be open to work properly.

          • MrEllis

            You type a lot and say nothing. It’s a gift.

    • Bill

      Every battle IS all or none when it comes to firearms. The Liberal tactic, which is so simple it boggles the mind and so effective that in a Lib state there is virtually no defense against it, is to take a little each time and give nothing in return. Lather, rinse, repeat. That is the Lib definition of compromise, and CA gun owners have compromised until they have little left while the other side has lost nothing. We are at war, folks, and this is how wars are lost.

  • Tess

    Sorry but CA gun owners have let things get this far without major opposition. Now you want the NRA to “bail” you out of the mess you created, with money from out of state donations no less? Elections have consequences. Consequently, your state is well and truly a lost cause. If you can’t get your act together now, I fail to see how an outside group would be any more effective.

    • Cymond

      How many hardcore, serious gun owners live in CA? I mean, the ones who care about the 2A. Compare that to the total population. I think their just simply outnumbered.

      I voted a straight R ticket when I lived in CA in 2012. You think it made any difference? No, but I did enjoy casting a ballot against Feinstein!

  • Evan

    I was stationed in California in the Marine Corps, and I bought my first rifle – an M1A – there. I even traded some M16 mags I had for a couple of 20 round M14 mags with a gun shop owner who was a Vietnam vet. Are M14/M1A variants still legal in CA? Not that I ever intend to go back there, I’m just curious.

    • Phil Hsueh

      They are for now, you either buy a CA compliant version new or replace the flash suppressor with a muzzle brake on a normal one and you’re good.

  • Amit Nachman

    need a ar variant fed by stripper clips.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      It’s really not possible with the AR without opening the action on a fixed mag (I have seen this mod with a “fixed” 100 round drum).

      Strippers load through the top. There are mechanicals and structure on the top of the AR.

  • Nicholas Trueblood

    a fast way to get around the law is to rig the AR to take a stripper clip similar to the M1 garand’s do.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Sure, just mill off the top of the upper receiver and the gas tube. Fast. Simple.

  • MrEllis

    The inability to understand the importance of compromise will leave you with nothing.

    • Evan

      Right. My point here is that we’re not talking about actual compromise. We’re talking about giving up our rights gradually instead of at once. When we give into their nonsense, we gain nothing and they lose nothing. What, do you consider it “compromise” if they say that flash hiders aren’t going to appear on the new arbitrary list of banned features on rifles? So they back off very slightly, we still lose elements of a very important right without gaining anything, and then in six months, the next time they decide to push for more gun control, this time the flash hiders are banned, and they “compromise” by allowing rifles with polymer stocks to still be legal…for now. This isn’t a marriage, we’re dealing with people acting in bad faith and on zero knowledge trying to take our rights away because of their own phobias and lack of understanding.

      • MrEllis

        You’re going to lose all of your rights because it’s the only battle you fight. When you draw a line in the sand and say “I will never compromise,” don’t be shocked if the argument doesn’t pull right up to that line in the sand and become all about that. Then, if society deems it, you must actually fight that battle constructed for rhetorical effect. You can’t pull back from the all or none fight after that, you can’t broker for compromise when the entire argument is based on not compromising.

        Remember, having a gun is not a natural born right, it’s not a universal law or constant. It is something society as a whole deems fit for you. The same society that grants a right can remove a right.

        There is a vast amount of space between all or none. Sure the rhetoric and false drama injected by the ilks of the NRA generates money and the power that comes with it. But one day there could be a tipping point and then it will be none.

        When you treat people wanting to have effective background checks the same as you treat people who want every firearm melted into slag and none ever to be made again, well, you’re the problem in that equation. It’s just kicking the can down the road at that point.

        • Evan

          Right, you’re still missing the point here. You say “compromise”. History has shown that “compromising” on gun rights just means giving up our rights piecemeal in exchange for absolutely nothing. You may be okay with that, but I am not. The ability to defend one’s self – including owning the tools necessary to do so – is indeed a natural human right, as much as any other is. I am a free man, a citizen. Free men own weapons. Subjects and slaves do not. I would no more compromise my right to bear arms than I would my right to free speech.

          The people howling for what you call “effective background checks” (although reality has shown them to be entirely ineffective, as criminals by definition will obtain their firearms illicitly) are the same people who want universal confiscation. They realize, however, that universal confiscation is not politically feasible at the moment, so they call for these universal background checks, which would make me a felon for shooting a friend’s gun and having him shoot mine when we go to the range. This is plainly backdoor registration. Registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation.

          Quite frankly, the government has no business knowing how many guns I own, to say nothing of the makes, models, and serial numbers. I am not a criminal and do not appreciate being treated as one.

          I find it quite ironic that you speak of kicking the can down the road. The type of appeasement you talk about is akin to the Jewish “leadership” of the Warsaw ghetto, aiding and abetting the Nazis as they murdered hundreds of thousands in a futile attempt to save a few. When you tell these people “oh, I’ll give up this right, and I’ll give up that scary looking gun there, and this standard capacity magazine, and that pistol grip, and these lead bullets….” the end result is a 10 year wait to buy a popgun, with the stipulation that you agree to warrantless searches of your property whenever the state feels the need.

          • MrEllis

            When the law of the land says guns are illegal, then what? What if The Constitution is amended to say as such? That is exponentially more likely than someone resurrecting Hitler or whatever the scenario is. Will you honor The Constitution then? Or only when it suits you? You’ve been amped up on rhetoric so much you can’t even think objectively.

            Let’s be perfectly clear here, the only time in US history guns have been used against the government was to defend the institution of slavery.

            The rest, yeah, you’re grasping.

          • Bill

            Wow. Read a book-please!

          • MrEllis

            Okay, which-one?

          • Bill

            Critical Thinking for Dummies might be a good start…

          • MrEllis

            Aww, poor you. Hurt feelings? Internet warriors running their mouth, nothing to see.

          • Bill

            Sorry, little boy-guess that one is over your head. Get back to us when you’re grown up enough for us to actually call you Mister.

          • MrEllis

            You’re not even making-sense by your bizarre rules.

          • Bill

            What’s the hyphen for?

          • MrEllis

            I’ve been wondering that one myself. A few posts now.

          • Evan

            Ok, so it seems you don’t understand metaphor very well. Or history that matter, if you think the Civil War was the only time in US history guns were ever used against the government (there have been several of them, starting with this little spat between 1775-1781 that you ought to have heard of, that, incidentally, started when the government sent troops to confiscate guns in Concord, Mass).

            It is politically impossible to amend the Constitution to remove the Second Amendment. That’s why gun grabbers attempt to use the type of piecemeal legislation that you apparently support. Chip away here, chip away there, the end game is the same effect as an outright repeal. And “compromise” only means “giving into whatever unpalatable piece of legislation they’re currently using to diminish my rights under the banner of ‘common sense'”.

            The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn’t create it. The right to defend one’s self, and to own the tools to do so, is what I (and the Founders) considered a natural right.

          • MrEllis

            I’m maybe suggesting bringing up Hitler’s ghost to add weight to your story is unreasonable and I am well aware of the likelihood of an Amendment being revoked. I have stated many times, here as a fact, people will most likely nullify it by case law or inject laws into the system than make it effectively defunct. But it’s still a more realistic story than someone unleashing genocide on America in 2016.

            Rights are constructs of society. Period. Do you think a bear gives a warm bucket of piss about your rights? Chlamydia? A tornado? People have no rights but those granted by others.

          • Cymond

            “I have stated many times, here as a fact, people will most likely nullify it by case law or inject laws into the system than make it effectively defunct. ”

            In other words, people will “compromise” the 2nd Amendment to death.

            I would be willing to accept a true compromise in some areas, if I could trust that it wouldn’t be eroded. However, I haven’t seen any compromises offered, just more attempts to “inject laws into the system that make it effectively defunct.” Naturally, we push back against those, and are in turn accused of rejecting a compromise that was never even offered.

          • MrEllis

            The rhetoric from the NRA doesn’t allow for compromise. I could literally suggest we not sell firearms to a known terrorist and someone would pipe up about our freedoms.

            As a test mention they intend to enact laws already in place in your state, ones that people already follow and people will lose their ever-loving-shit over them. It’s like you removed part of their soul. At the end of the day I don’t identify with owning a firearm as essential to my existence. The reality is we could have all the guns ever made and the people in power are still there. We’re not ruled by tyrants, regardless of empty rhetoric. And it’s absurd to suggest you could fight the most powerful fighting force in the world with a black gun. Or any gun. Guns now are used mostly as a ploy to drive a wedge between people, yet the only time people threaten to use them is when duly elected officials enact laws they do not like.

            Guns are a distraction to the real exchange of power, we’ve been bought and sold a hundred times over and tricked into voting against our own self-interests a thousand times over and not a single gun would have stopped that. Guns play no part in the fight for the things that would improve the quality of American by any real degree. We want a tyrant to fight because simple solutions make for a world that’s easy to understand. The fact is we’re a couple of hundred million petty little tyrants, who vote with our guts instead of our minds. We have done more damage to ourselves than any leader, it’s just easier to blame other things and fight other fights than address the hard issues.

          • Cymond

            “The rhetoric from the NRA doesn’t allow for compromise. ”

            Maybe I haven’t been clear enough. I haven’t seen any compromises offered from **either** side. I haven’t seen any compromises suggested by deLeon, Feinstein, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, or any other anti-gunner.

            Are you seriously suggesting that the NRA controls them?

            I haven’t seen a compromise offered in my lifetime, but I have seen many attempts to pass further restrictions that were falsely labeled as “compromise” in which we were offered nothing in return.

            So pardon me when I doubt your constant demands that we “compromise”.

          • ccpotter

            “the only time in US history guns have been used against the government was to defend the institution of slavery.”

            Bull. The federal government up until 1861 served the Slave Power and was forcing northern states to assist the slave states in recovering fugitive slaves. Ever heard of John Brown and Harpers Ferry? That was somebody using guns against the government, and it sure as hell wasn’t to defend slavery.

            Indeed the only reason the US government ever became anti-slavery was because the slave states seceded, allowing the north to dominate Congress! Not that I’m defending the slave states, their motivations were horrid, but without the secession we would have had slavery for much longer.

            Ever heard of the Corwin Amendment, which Abe Lincoln supported, which would have enshrined slavery as a protected right in the constitution?

            Not sure if you’re a troll or a moron. Either way responding to you is probably pointless.

          • MrEllis

            I’m gonna roll my eyes and move on. John Brown wasn’t a militia, an institution or a state it was a score of men. He posed no real threat. He has a kick-ass story but stripped of it’s virtues it’s absurd to draw a parallel to that and the Civil War. Arms were taken up, well regulated militias were formed and the focus was the destruction of America in the defense of slavery.

            President Lincoln supported a lot of horrible stuff to try and keep The Union from dissolving. In the end, we see what he did do, though. He played the polls just like any other president, but in the end he destroyed chattel slavery in America. Really hasn’t much to do with the point at hand though.

            I’m fairly certain what you are, so we need not go into it.

        • maodeedee

          “Remember, having a gun is not a natural born right, it’s not a universal law or constant. It is something society as a whole deems fit for you.”

          Not according to the US Constitution which says that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. In China on the other hand, having a gun is not a natural born right, It is something Chinese society as a whole deems fit for you.

          The right to self-defense is a basic human right and a fundamental civil right. The tactic of compromise that you so stubbornly insist on has been a failure in preserving those fundamental rights.

          The fact that you believe that the only rights we have are those that society as a whole deems fit for us to have is a pretty good indication of why you advocate unlimited compromise.

    • Cymond

      We’re already on the slow road to having nothing.

      As I’ve said before, the anti-gunners don’t offer compromises. They’re just as much “all our nothing” as are. Worse, we’ve learned that their compromises are false promises. We still have to live with the Hughes amendment, but the rest of FOPA has been severely eroded.

      • MrEllis

        No, those people flourish because of you, not n spite of you. They play into the constructed dialog. And why is that dialog constructed in such a manner, because it’s convenient to those who promote an agenda. The problem is that false dialog is a two edged sword. It cuts both ways.

        • Cymond

          We used to have a moderate, compromising gun group. Maybe you’ve heard of them, they were called the NRA.
          They were taken over by “radicals” because moderation wasn’t working.

    • maodeedee

      Gun owners in California have been compromising with the Leftist gun prohibitionists for years and they are well on their way to being left with nothing.

      Compromising with dishonest politicians is like trying to convince a mugger to only take ten dollars out of your wallet and to leave you the rest.

      Anyone who thinks compromise is the way to gain anything rather than to just agree to lose a little at a time, is a fool.

  • Cymond

    Does this actually work? I figured they’d write something into the bill to create a new class of AWs to prevent people from doing that.

    If I were still in CA, I would definitely register one AR-15 as an AW and build a featureless rifle later. This is the only chance most Californians will ever have to get a registered AW.

    • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

      The law expanded the definition of AW’s without creating a new class.

      Once an AW, always an AW.

      So yeah, once your rifle is registered as an AW in 2017, you would be able to remove your bullet button and just run it as a regular normal free-state configuration.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        Also, since this is technically a fixed mag, couldn’t you have as big a mag as you wanted?

        • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

          No.

          First, they just outlawed any magazine over 10rds. Period. Those millions of large-capacity grandfathered magazines will be criminally possessed come 2017.

          Additionally, it was always illegal to have a semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine above 10rds. That makes it an assault weapon.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Thanks for the information. Is it correct that all the existing ones will become registered AWs?

  • supergun

    The best way is for the citizens to votes these heathens out of office and replace with American Patriots. Of course, when the imbeciles outnumber the American Citizens, that will not happen.

  • phil box

    an easy but somewhat expensive option is multiple weapons with the largest legal mags. one can use common sense or one can write encyclopedias full of rules. it is the punishment that determains how obedient people will be. like getting spanked for misbehaving as a child. you learned real quick to be good.

  • disqus_XlYouOiadt

    At first glance all these anti-gun folks just look stupid, but, actually they make good livings from this drivel.

  • maodeedee

    When I lived in California I bought my guns out of state. And then when I went to remote areas to fire my guns I brought guns with me that were “Good Guns” like bolt actions or lever actions and if anyone who looked remotely like they could be any type of law enforcement approached the area where I was shooting I would put away the “Bad Guns” and get out the “Good Guns”.

    But there were times where I took a chance and even at a public firing range where I fired my bad guns nobody ever seemed to notice whether of not my guns were good guns or bad guns. I don’t like doing things that are against the law no matter how stupid the law is but I’ve still refused to obey these stupid laws and just figured that the odds were against my “being caught”.

    Think about it. How many of you Californians have been out shooting and some government agent or even regular law enforcement asked to inspect your “California-legal” firearm to make 100% sure it was “California-legal”? Eventually I solved the problem by moving out of California and starting over someplace else which was by no means easy but it was well worth it.
    “Lex Mala, Lex Nula” – a bad law is worse than no law at all.

    • Cymond

      How did you buy your guns out of state? The 1968 GCA completely forbids out of state handgun purchases (except when transferred through an in state FFL) and only allows out of state rifles & shotgun purchases when also allowed by both states. CA forbids any out of state purchases .

      Actually, I need to correct myself. A person with homes in multiple states can purchases firearms in either state. It’s not exactly practical for most people.

  • tjcrowley65@aol.com

    No matter what the antis can come up with, our side can always out fox them. Maybe we could swap sides? Nah

  • I like to avoid politics on this site as well. But why anyone would want to continue to live in California is beyond me. It’s bad enough here in Maryland.

  • markrb

    As a Californian, I see these as ways for gun shops to keep selling “assault weapons”. As an American with the unalienable right to keep and bear arms, I see this as an affront and basically kissing the @$$ of the tyrant politicians who will continue to enact unConstitutional laws if we let them.
    The answer in California, as seen in New York and Connecticut, is NON-COMPLIANCE.
    If we refuse to register our “assault weapons”, it puts the ball in the court of these politicians. Are they then going to confiscate our rightfully owned arms? I don’t believe that’ll go over so well.
    Americans are not obligated to obey unConstitutional laws….by doing so, we are giving corrupt politicians power over us.
    At some point, we have to make a decision….do we give up our unalienable rights, or do we put the politicians in their place and remind them that they work for us.

  • 1inidaho

    It is absolutely ridiculous to have to jump through these kinds of hoops to satisfy unconstitutional, governmental, hoplophobes who got lucky enough to be elected by the stupid.

  • Fool_Killer

    Kludges to fix problems that shouldn’t exist.
    But I guess that’s appropriate given the origin of the M-16…
    designed by committee to do everything, but nothing well.
    I am truly in awe of how the platform has evolved into something elegant and useful.
    Now if we could just get the committees to back off and leave the gains that have been made alone…