Okay, I've got an interesting situation that I need help sorting out. Nothing major, just interesting.
Spent the hols in Vegas with the in-laws (as usual), and we all went to American Shooters for an afternoon of killing paper. We all had a blast (pun intended), and afterward as we were in the car talking about guns and stuff my father-in-law stated that when he passes he wants all of his guns to transfer to me. (His biological son is vehemently anti-gun.) He explained that he wanted to put that intention into paper so that when the time comes, the transfer will be as smooth as possible.
Here's the potential dilemma: His collection numbers about 7 or 8 pistols and revolvers, a shotgun....... and an AR-15 and an M1 Garand. I don't have any concerns about the handguns, but the AR and the M1 -- look, I live in California; I honestly don't know if those weapons can
be transferred to me. I don't know if the Garand qualifies as a curio piece, or if the AR was sold as new before 1989 (which I think is the cutoff date for CA assault weapons)
Where do I go to research the legalities in play here? He's in fine health, so there's no real urgency to the matter, but I would like to figure out what's what relatively soon.
redwill wrote:Haha. So I guess an assault weapons ban is the answer after all, eh?
To what point and purpose? During the ten-year AWB from 1994 to its sunset in 2004, the number of mass shootings in the U.S. actually rose incrementally. Since the AWB's expiration,
Banning a class of guns because of their cosmetics is absurd.
And rest assured, it is the cosmetics and cosmetics alone that make 'assault weapons' so nasty in people's minds. They look like military weapons, ergo they should not be in civilian hands. Never mind that they are used in only 1/5 of 1% of violent crimes, and still less than 1% when the crime pool is specifically narrowed to only include gun crimes. They account for less than 2% of civilian-owned population of firearms in the U.S. Banning assault weapons because of a handful of admittedly horrific acts makes no more sense than would banning sports cars because of deaths resulting from knuckleheads street racing.
It's lipstick, nothing more. And because it makes such little legislative sense, it's easy to rally against it. We have a collection of data from right here in our own country that shows the complete lack of impact an AWB has on gun crime. The issue is that people will expend political capital fighting to get another meaningless AWB in place, and then there will be little stomach to debate or compromise on substantive gun control measures that actually might make some sort of sense. (Like a unified background check requirement across the country, for example)