LA Chargers linebacker Denzel Perryman learned a hard lesson about Golden State gun laws last week. California is one of ten states that bans so-called assault weapons – a law Golden State anti-gunners take very seriously. The NFL player was pulled over and caught with two “noncompliant” rifles. Now he’s facing felony charges that could see his right to keep and bear arms revoked for life – and all over something that’s perfectly legal in most of the rest of the country.
Not California Compliant?
Perryman, 32, was reportedly on his way to a shooting range when LA County officers pulled him over for some unspecified “vehicle code violations.” They searched his car – like the initial traffic stop itself, the information thus far publicly available doesn’t explain the justification for the search – and found five firearms.
Three were handguns, and the other two were AR-15 rifles. But here’s the kicker: California is one of ten states (11 if you count DC, even though it isn’t a state) that have gun laws banning so-called assault weapons. Perryman’s rifles, according to the police, weren’t “California compliant.” For those who live in the less insane four-fifths of the nation without “assault weapon” bans, here’s what that means.
Before the Robert-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA) took effect in 1992, the AR-15 was just another firearm in California. The AWCA – which became the blueprint for the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban – takes three approaches to making America’s most popular sporting rifle a felony.
Category I
The original bill named more than 50 specific firearms by type, make, and model, identifying them as “assault weapons” and making the possession of them a felony in the state. The state’s attorney general was required to provide a photo and description of each. Any model not included by name was an “off-list” AR. But that satisfied the gun grabbers for only so long.
Category II
In 2000, Category II and III were added to the AWCA. Category II included the words “copycat/clone series AK and AR-15 assault weapons” and added 63 more named models to the list of banned firearms. This clone series business was intentionally vague and eventually was struck down by the California Supreme Court.
Category III
But Category III – which defined general features that would make a rifle an assault weapon – remains. There were a lot of features, but they apply only to semi-automatic, centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine. The big ones that most commonly trip folks up are a protruding pistol grip, a telescopic or folding stock, a thumbhole stock, a flash suppressor, or a forward grip.
Avoid any of these (or the other listed features) or get a gun with a fixed magazine, and you’re golden in the Golden State. For a long time, the so-called bullet button was the solution for many. The magazine release sat flush with the body of the gun and couldn’t be pressed with a finger. But the tip of a bullet or some other small, pointy tool would suffice. That, however, was banned in 2016. Now, “fixed magazine” is defined as meaning the rifle has to be made inoperable to remove the magazine. The AR Maglock is the new California-legal part. It can be actuated only when the upper and lower receivers are separated.
California Gun Laws Steeped in Propaganda
If this law sounds like a bunch of baloney, that’s because it is. Assault weapon isn’t a real firearms industry or military term. But it has been very effectively used to conflate modern sporting rifles (MSRs) with actual weapons of war – which they are not – simply because they bear a similar aesthetic style. In fact, the term has seeped so deeply into our collective consciousness that many pro-Second Amendment advocates and organizations are erroneously using it in place of another.
There are two terms one must learn to fully understand this issue. Battle rifles were full-size rifles firing full-size rifle calibers. For a long time, these were semi-automatic. But as firearms technology evolved, newer battle rifles were made that had select fire capabilities, meaning they could toggle between semi and full auto. These rifles were heavy and hard to use accurately. The bigger the boom from the gun, the more that gun’s going to jump, and that’s especially true with rapid fire, full auto or not. Even in semi-auto, few soldiers could actually hit enemy personnel at the maximum range of these guns. Thus was born the smaller, lighter, select-fire rifles chambered in intermediary calibers (more powerful than a pistol round but not as powerful as the full rifle rounds) with maximum effective ranges between 300 and 400 yards – a far more reasonable distance to expect soldiers to be able to hit each other. They were much easier to carry (as was the ammunition) and to shoot, and they were called – wait for it – assault rifles.
The AR-15 is semi-auto only, as are the AK variants available on the civilian market. They can fire the same ammo as their assault rifle cousins, but they lack the select-fire capability. They simply aren’t the same weapons mechanically. So they can’t accurately be called assault rifles. But what about assault weapons? Ah, now there’s a term that’s frighteningly similar and evokes the specter of full auto fire without technically claiming it.
Perryman and the Bum Rap
It must be stated that, regardless of whether a law is good or bad – or constitutional, regardless of ethical concerns – it’s still the law. Violating the law and getting caught typically comes with penalties, and it’s the responsibility of every gun owner to know the law. So, no, the charge against Perryman likely isn’t “false” or “trumped up” – though, as mentioned previously, the authorities never explained the full reasoning for the initial traffic stop or their justification for the vehicle search.
However, the way to put an end to unconstitutional laws is to challenge them in court – and frequently that follows someone who has the money and time and maybe even political clout or fame to endure the process of becoming the victim of said law. It’s a shame Perryman has to endure criminal prosecution for exercising his Second Amendment rights, but as an NFL player without any prior charges who’s worth millions, the silver lining – if there is one – might be that he’s likely the best person to fight California's unconstitutional gun laws and push through to a Supreme Court that has been quite friendly to gun owners.
Still, there’s no guarantee of defeating this law or avoiding a felony conviction. Making someone a felon for life for possessing a firearm legal in 80% of the states – and thus stripping him of the right to keep and bear arms anywhere in the country – is crazy. Perryman reportedly has never faced felony charges before, and now there’s a good chance he’ll lose many of the rights of citizenship – including his Second Amendment right to be armed. If that doesn’t qualify as a “bum rap,” what does?
