California Farmer Charged With 12 Felonies After Trying To Register His Guns

[aGameOfThrones]

HBakersfield, CA – A member of a prominent farming family was charged with a dozen weapons-related felonies, after he attempted to comply with California’s state-mandated gun registration laws.

According to court documents, Jeffrey Scott Kirschenmann’s home was raided in April, after he attempted to register an AR-15 using the state of California’s website, KGET reported.


The businessman was attempting to comply with California’s ever-tightening gun laws, one of which required gun owners to register “assault-style weapons” by the end of June.

He electronically submitted photographs of his AR-15 as part of the registration process, and soon became the focus of a California Department of Justice investigation.

According to court documents, the weapon was “illegally modified,” and served as grounds for the Department of Justice (DoJ) to raid Kirschenmann’s home.

It's not immediately clear what the illegal modification was, but the rifle was presumably not in compliance with the recent bans

Investigators seized two “silencers,” 230 rounds of ammunition, and 12 firearms in the search, KGET reported.

On May 17, the district attorney’s office charged Kirschenmann with a dozen felony weapons-related charges.

He was subsequently released on $150,000 bond.

According to retired Kern County Sheriff’s Office Commander Joe Pilkington, a court-recognized firearms expert, California’s rapidly-changing gun laws have created a significant amount of confusion with regards to what requirements are currently mandated, KGET reported.

"Just in the last few years, there have been lots of changes in gun laws," Commander Pilkington explained. "Making an effort, a good faith effort to comply with these really complicated laws, should count for something."



https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/api/amp/bluelivesmatter/news/california-farmer-charged-with-12-felonies-after-trying-to-register-his-guns-KaYA9xPcY0eSpeNnNm6PCw/

[Swordsmyth]

What an idiot.

[AuH20]

Does he know what state he lives in?

[TheTexan]

these really complicated laws

It's really not that complicated. As a general rule, weapons that are designed to kill deer are legal. Weapons that are designed to kill people, are not legal.

This is because only weapons that are designed to kill deer are protected by the 2nd amendment.

[Suzanimal]

"Just in the last few years, there have been lots of changes in gun laws," Commander Pilkington explained. "Making an effort, a good faith effort to comply with these really complicated laws, should count for something."


Sounds like CA's gun laws are working exactly as intended.

[Anti Federalist]

Do Not Call Cops.

[shakey1]

Not surprising in this day & age.

[dean.engelhardt]

It's really not that complicated. As a general rule, weapons that are designed to kill deer are legal. Weapons that are designed to kill people, are not legal.

This is because only weapons that are designed to kill deer are protected by the 2nd amendment.

:):p Humor and sarcasm are strong with this one.

[jkr]

#got INFRINGMENT?

YEP!

[Jan2017]

Does he know what state he lives in?

This question in general hits the nail on the head in the 2nd Amendment discussions to me . . .
Second Amendment confers the right to the States to have a militia and for it's citizens to bear arms.


It's really not that complicated. As a general rule, weapons that are designed to kill deer are legal. Weapons that are designed to kill people, are not legal.

This is because only weapons that are designed to kill deer are protected by the 2nd amendment.

Meh . . . ok I like the sarcasm but really, with deer especially - but also the big game (Bighorn Sheep etc. ) - the requirement in most hunting laws is to have a LARGE enough caliber.

.22 rifle is useless and illegal to kill deer - or rather try to kill deer and have the slow shot round jus' bounce off - a .45ACP handgun is at least legal for deer usually ?

[Bern]

It would be interesting to know if Kirschenmann had the proper BATF stamp for the suppressors. If he did, it's kind of shitty on the news outlets for not mentioning it, because it colors how one interprets the story.

[dannno]

It is possible to get a compliant AR-15 in California, but clearly that is kinda dangerous to attempt..

California Compliant AR-15: What You Need To Knowhttps://www.ar-15lowerpartskit.com/california-compliant-ar-15-what-you-need-to-know/

[Jan2017]

Does he know what state he lives in?


This question in general hits the nail on the head in the 2nd Amendment discussions to me . . .
Second Amendment confers the right to the States to have a militia and for it's citizens to bear arms.



Sounds like CA's gun laws are working exactly as intended.

And I think the Founders saw something important in confering to the States a right to gun ownership by the citizens -
i.e. if a state like California actually did decide to leave the Union and seceed, technically those California citizens would no longer have a Second Amendment gun ownership right (?)

[Brian4Liberty]

It is possible to get a compliant AR-15 in California, but clearly that is kinda dangerous to attempt..

California Compliant AR-15: What You Need To Knowhttps://www.ar-15lowerpartskit.com/california-compliant-ar-15-what-you-need-to-know/

Yeah, AR enthusiasts in CA are always talking about the changes they have to constantly make to stay compliant with changing law. Constant "modification" is required.

It's a farce.

[kcchiefs6465]

Probably a SBR but in California you never know.

What ever happened to the couple of idiots who sawed their ARs in half (illegally making a SBR in the process)?

[Anti Federalist]

.22 rifle is useless and illegal to kill deer - or rather try to kill deer and have the slow shot round jus' bounce off - a .45ACP handgun is at least legal for deer usually ?

Untrue.

Almost every state that permits rifle hunting, permits hunting with .223 caliber.

Some permit taking deer with cartridges down to .172 caliber such as the .17 HMR

[A Son of Liberty]

This question in general hits the nail on the head in the 2nd Amendment discussions to me . . .
Second Amendment confers the right to the States to have a militia and for it's citizens to bear arms.

It does wat?


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Where does it do that exactly?

[TheTexan]

It is possible to get a compliant AR-15 in California, but clearly that is kinda dangerous to attempt..

California Compliant AR-15: What You Need To Knowhttps://www.ar-15lowerpartskit.com/california-compliant-ar-15-what-you-need-to-know/

Seems reasonable. 10 rounds is more than enough to take down a couple deers.

[kcchiefs6465]

Seems reasonable. 10 rounds is more than enough to take down a couple deers.
A couple of deer?

Peasants only need one deer a year.

[Anti Globalist]

What a buffoon.

[phill4paul]

What a buffoon.

Yup, dumb ass.

[DamianTV]

Registration can only lead to Confiscation. Do people NOT understand this?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Don't talk to cops anyone in government.

[Swordsmyth]

This question in general hits the nail on the head in the 2nd Amendment discussions to me . . .
Second Amendment confers the right to the States to have a militia and for it's citizens to bear arms.
Nonsense.




Meh . . . ok I like the sarcasm but really, with deer especially - but also the big game (Bighorn Sheep etc. ) - the requirement in most hunting laws is to have a LARGE enough caliber.

.22 rifle is useless and illegal to kill deer - or rather try to kill deer and have the slow shot round jus' bounce off - a .45ACP handgun is at least legal for deer usually ?
Varmint hunting then.

[aGameOfThrones]

http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/meme23.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

And I think the Founders saw something important in confering to the States a right to gun ownership by the citizens -
i.e. if a state like California actually did decide to leave the Union and seceed, technically those California citizens would no longer have a Second Amendment gun ownership right (?)

The right is GOD given and recognized by the Constitution, it isn't conferred by the Constitution, it is also recognized in many state Constitutions.

[fedupinmo]

A couple of deer?

Peasants only need one deer a year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7JmKW8xhrg

[Danke]

"He was subsequently released on $150,000 bond" seems a little extreme for an honest mistake. But I can see the deterrent effect for others.

[Swordsmyth]

"He was subsequently released on $150,000 bond" seems a little extreme for an honest mistake. But I can see the deterrent effect for others.



If it doesn't work they can always shoot the next person who tries to register.

[Jan2017]

Untrue.

Almost every state that permits rifle hunting, permits hunting with .223 caliber.

Some permit taking deer with cartridges down to .172 caliber such as the .17 HMR
Uh . . . almost every state - point taken.
But actually, deer require a fast 30-06 or any larger caliber, for me. NH may be different ?

[Jan2017]

It does wat?



Where does it do that exactly?

I look at case law . . . what has been decided in Federal courts.
I can interpret it all as meaning state citizens are given a gun ownership right.

Regrets now - actually not it's near apricots harvest time -
but I'll cite some cases next week as I'll be back in Denver soon, with those case law resources available.

[Anti Federalist]

Uh . . . almost every state - point taken.
But actually, deer require a fast 30-06 or any larger caliber, for me. NH may be different ?

NH allows any center fire caliber.

.22 or smaller rimfire is prohibited.

[Swordsmyth]

I look at case law . . . what has been decided in Federal courts.
I can interpret it all as meaning state citizens are given a gun ownership right.

Regrets now - actually not it's near apricots harvest time -
but I'll cite some cases next week as I'll be back in Denver soon, with those case law resources available.

1. The Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentii) by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?92+542) , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?116+252) , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?307+174) , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[A Son of Liberty]

I look at case law . . . what has been decided in Federal courts.
I can interpret it all as meaning state citizens are given a gun ownership right.

Regrets now - actually not it's near apricots harvest time -
but I'll cite some cases next week as I'll be back in Denver soon, with those case law resources available.

Ah. I see. Part of the problem.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/230061_image.jpg