Pen2_the_penguin

iTrader: (4)

Anyone here with a M44 mosin pre-1945 that wants a nice twist-lock on muzzle brake? I purchased one and didnt realize that the front sight posts changed sizes. So my loss is your gain. I paid 60 plus shipping, yours for 50 shipped. Brand spankin' new, just got it yesterday. It's a Mosin Plus muzzle brake.


I guess I was dumb and didnt read the disclaimer for the year differences.

NastyNate

iTrader: (1)

After 4 months my chl finally got here yesterday! I'm going to to sell my baby eagle to get a shield or something similar.

calteg

iTrader: (18)

Protip: Show your CHL instead of your driver's license if you get pulled over. Gotten me out of two tickets so far.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Who knows anything about getting a gun in California? I want a bolt action rifle and possibly a CC gat if I can get a CC permit. Do I have to get any gun registered? Can I just put it in a storage unit or do I need a real address? I really want a rifle out here but all these stupid laws are making it a pain in the ***.

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

Gearhead good news in regards to carry permits, circuit court just ruled that requirement for "good cause" is unconstitutional and the San Diego police are not challenging the ruling en-banc so the ruling stands. Basically this means that all of California and Hawaii becomes SHALL ISSUE.

That is the cliff notes version, so look into it for specifics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...y-of-handguns/

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Thats crazy, don't get me wrong I'm happy about it but I was sure California would have been a "shall issue" state. Now I just have to see if the state of California will let me get a bolt action hunting rifle without having me jumping through flaming hoops. At least I have family in free America who let me keep my real guns at their place.

EO2K

iTrader: (37)

Charlie, you have a CA issued ID or are you just deployed here atm?

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

Charlie, head on over to calguns. They are the leading organization in California and will be able to answer all your questions.

https://www.calguns.net

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

I'm stationed at Pendleton. I have a military ID and a Ohio ID. I didn't think about all that last night, I'll have to see if California and San Diego Count will honor a Ohio CC permit.
Thanks, I'll check that out

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Negative. CA is now one step closer to Shall-Issue, but the only thing Peruta challenged was the San Diego Sheriff's specific application of how they issued permits. Basically that not allowing "self-defense" to satisfy their "good cause" requirement for issue was unconstitutional. There are still several hoops that could be jumped through to keep this specific mandate from going into effect. There's no doubt that it's s huge victory... perhaps one of the biggest victories for Concealed Carry EVER, but this ruling does not mean that everybody who applies and meets the minimums will automatically get a permit. In fact, it doesn't affect CA state law at all. And it is fully expected that the various CA counties that are currently an effective "no issue" zone, will continue to be extremely restrictive along a few other paths they can take to do so.

The only flaming hoop you'll need to worry about is the 10-day waiting period for all guns. Your MIL ID satisfies the handgun-safety-course requirement if you want to buy one, but you still have to wait the 10 days.

CA honors NO OTHER STATE for CCW and never will. To buy a long-gun in CA, you need your MIL ID, orders, Drivers License, and probably 2 documents verifying a local CA address, like a phone bill or credit-card statement.

There are no face-to-face sales in CA, every sale must go through an FFL.

There's also DROS, the CA version of NICS check, that is also a hand-gun registration program.

You are going to pay a premium to buy guns in CA... everything is more expensive, including ammo. You may have luck at the MCCS on base, most Marine Exchanges sell firearms, but are limited in selection... at least they can confirm all the specifics, and recommend "the place" out in town where all the jarheads get their stuff.

Storing firearms in a storage locker IS DUMB! They get broken into a lot, and you never know when you'll run out of luck, have it seized and sold at auction.

pusha

iTrader: (5)

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

#MomsdemandgunsenseinGreatBritten

rmcelwee

iTrader: (1)

I can't tell by the picture. Does the butt stock attach with two screws at the top like a real AK? If so, how about a link to the sale.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Not sure about how the butt stock is attached to the rest of the rifle, but I do know it is not made from a parts kit like a similarly priced AK. They are built in Romania from new parts.
this is similar but not exactly what I have. The fore grip looks completely different. I got mine at kygunco.com, I actually ended up driving down to Bardstown Ky from Cincinnati which is like 3 hrs each way because I didn't want to wait for it to be shipped from a FFL. I got it on sale shortly after Mikhail Kalashnikov died, ended up paying like $640 something after tax. Here is a link to the exact one I have.

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

I may update this post later with more info, but for now I just want to link the PDF of the Peruta decision...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._San_Diego.pdf

In short, while Sam is correct in that California is "may" issue, I don't believe that after removing the "good cause" provision the general prohibition of carrying of firearms of the general population can continue within the bounds of the law.

TurboTim

iTrader: (9)

My dad and I stopped by a newly opened huge beautiful gun shop/range on the way home from AC last saturday, just off the Parkway. Spur of the moment thing as we approached their exit. I've been looking for a particular model 10/22 that seems to be hard to come by, and they had one right there, mixed in with all the rest, for $50 less than MSRP (last one on gun broker recently sold for $90 over retail, plus whatever shipping and transfer, and no way to make sure the stock looks good). Bought it on the spot but of course NJ NICS was down, had to wait until yesterday to drive back down to the boonies and pick it up.

LVT model, slightly tapered barrel to .705 at the end, not the full bull barrel. 50th anniversary edition engraving on receiver and bolt too. I need to tweak the trigger, I want it at least as nice as my SW1911.

Generic image:


I still haven't shot any of my guns, but this place has a $50 one hour course on range etiquette and general safety, with 22lr ammo and target. That will be a good idea because I'd feel like a dope otherwise. I have to find a baby sitter soon.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

The 9th did not say that requiring "good cause" was illegal... it only agrees that SPECIFICALLY, the way San Diego went about it was illegal. CA law will not change over this. Counties within the state will still be able to require "good cause"... they simply can no longer refuse to accept "self defense" as a reason.

However, you give the anti's too much credit if you think this is over and done. Those counties who are effectively "no issue" have a dozen other tricks up their sleeve within the permitting process to continue to deny permits. Each one will take a lawsuit. I see doubling of training hours, psychological exams, a tiered layer of interviews, insurance requirements, huge increase in fees, permits that only last 6 months, mandatory home inspections, etc...

I will reiterate that this case is HUGE, perhaps the biggest victory we've had since Heller... but in no way shape or form will the specific counties within CA that hate guns give up their fight and simply start issuing permits. Actually, I take that back... some of the more BROKE counties will probably get better, but the counties with money won't.

This quote is the reason for the lawsuit:
The power to grant concealed-carry licenses in San Diego County is vested in the county sheriff’s department. Since 1999, the sheriff’s department has required all applicants to “provide supporting documentation” in order “to demonstrate and elaborate good cause.” This “required documentation, such as restraining orders, letters from law enforcement agencies or the [district attorney] familiar with the case, is discussed with each applicant” to determine whether he or she can show a sufficiently pressing need for self-protection. If the applicant cannot demonstrate “circumstances that distinguish [him] from the mainstream,” then he will not qualify for a concealed-carry permit.

More:
...open carry is prohibited in San Diego County, and elsewhere in California, without exception. See id. §§ 25850, 26350. It is against this backdrop of the California carry regime at large, Peruta argues, that the unconstitutionality of the County’s restrictive interpretation of
“good cause” becomes apparent. His is not an attack trained on a restriction against concealed carry as such, or viewed in isolation. Rather, he targets the constitutionality of the entire scheme and requests the least intrusive remedy: that the County of San Diego, in line with many of the other counties in the State of California, should be made to issue carry licenses to citizens whose only “good cause” is the Heller-approved desire for self-defense.

More:
the question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear
arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

More:
In California, the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table. The San Diego County policy specifies that concern for “one’s personal safety alone” does not satisfy the “good cause” requirement for issuance of a
permit. Instead, an applicant must demonstrate that he suffers a unique risk of harm: he must show “a set of circumstances that distinguish [him] from the mainstream and cause[] him . . . to be placed in harm’s way.” Given this requirement, the “typical” responsible, law-abiding citizen in San Diego County cannot bear arms in public for self-defense;

THE ACTUAL DECISION:
The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.

Erat

iTrader: (5)

Any news on what's going on in Connecticut right now?

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

NSSF vs. Malloy dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in December.
http://ia600906.us.archive.org/18/it...01409.27.0.pdf

Shew vs. Malloy, decision for summary judgement for defendents granted a few weeks ago, appeal filed same day:
http://ia601705.us.archive.org/12/it...1021.127.0.pdf

Those should be the only 2 court cases running that seek to overturn the laws enacted after Sandy Hook.

One of those laws is the mandatory assault rifle ban/registration and hi-cap magazine ban/registration bullshit that nobody is complying with. Back in January when the deadline to register your stuff or become a felon had come, it was estimated that somewhere in the neighborhood of 5% (40k registrations compared to the estimated 1 million guns and magazines) actually registered. I'm surprised it was even that much.

But January was the last time I can find any articles about an amnesty.

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

Sam, I am from (and living in) Illinois, I can identify with your pessimism. I have no doubt the "anti's" have many tricks up their sleaves, and it is all conjecture until the first permits start trickling out in very anti-gun counties. That said, the ruling applies to the whole state. There will be more lawsuits to wring out the details but as a whole it is crumbling.