Colt Offers Two New California-Legal Carbines

[Johnny Rico]

http://www.guns.com/colt-offers-two-new-california-legal-carbines-8228.html

California keeps throwing laws at gun makers and Colt keeps knocking 'em out of the park...Colt is offering two new rifles, the CR6720CA and the CR6724CA, that are in complaince with California's strict bullet button laws.

A while ago, California made legislation that placed a ban on quick-change magazines. To get around that problem, gun manufacturers developed bullet buttons so that Californians' favorite firearms were legal again. Then California legislators heard about the bullet button on the news and moved to make those illegal, too.

Colt is undettered by this onslaught of restrictive gun legislation. They're releasing two new rifles specifically for the California gun crowd. The CR6720CA and the CR6724CA are the most accurate rifles among Colt's Match Target line, featuring longer barrels for increased firing distance and a scope mount out of the box. That brings the list to seven Colt rifles that are legal in California (LE6920CA, LE6920CMP-B, LE6920CMP-FDE, LE6920CMP-O, and the LE6940CA).

This follows the old adage, "Whenever a door closes, a window opens." Colt Defense LLC Vice President David Rdiley said, "We are pleased to be expanding the list of products we offer to our customers in California." Luckily, gun owners whose favorite rifles have just been made illegal will now have a great alternative with this California-proof Colt carbines. Well, until these are somehow made illegal, also.

[ileus]

1. Very nice product for a market the richly deserves it.

At a time when many retailers won't sale in Ca and manufactures won't customize, Colt comes forward with designs made to Californian standards.

Congrats to our firearm friends in Ca.

[Hoyt]

2. With all the problems in the world, who needs such a rifle? And, who really cares it's available?

[Glaug-Eldare]

3. Couldn't you use that argument against almost anything?

Just because I don't tinker with computers doesn't mean nobody should be able to, and "all the problems in the world" don't override their right to pursue that hobby. There are always going to be problems in the world that make ours trivial in comparison -- that shouldn't be used as an excuse for berating one particular pastime.

[Hoyt]

4. Computers aren't guns. Do you consider strutting down the street with a gun a "hobby?"

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. You do realize that it is a target rifle?

[SGMRTDARMY]

12. Not a "hobby"

A choice to be able to defend myself if needed.

[Hoyt]

13. You're back. "Welcome." Whatyaneed to defend yourself from on city streets?

Last edited Sat May 26, 2012, 10:03 PM - Edit history (1)

[SGMRTDARMY]

14. I'm back?

Last edited Sun May 27, 2012, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Back from where?
I've no clue what you're saying, but thank you for the warm welcome.

By the way, I do not live in a city.

[Johnny Rico]

5. Some people in California appear to need it, otherwise Colt wouldn't be marketing it.

And, who really cares it's available?

Statement of Purpose

Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

Really, given how much you post it this group I'd think you'd be a bit more familiar with it by this point...

[PavePusher]

10. Hoyt's schtick only "works" through his ignorance.

If he looses that carefully cultivated veneer of ignorance and indecency, he has no gimmick to work the crowd with.

[DanM]

8. "All the problems in the world" . . . isn't that an argument for needing a rifle?

After all, that's one of the things a rifle can be lawfully used for . . . protecting you and your family from the potential problems of the world that rise to the level of requiring force, like home invasion for example.

Do you think it's logically cohesive to argue against having a tool for such problems when the first thing you affirm is the existence of all the problems in the world?

[ileus]

16. What does all the problems in the world have to do with AR's in Ca?

Probably can't solve many of the worlds problems...so why not buy a nice plinking rifle and take the family shooting and enjoy being outdoors.

[Meiko]

7. Probably a real

pain in the ass to load and unload.

[ManiacJoe]

9. Seems to use the bullet button like everyone else.

[Johnny Rico]

11. Well, at least it doesn't look like these Californicated abominations:

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. It's clear that CA gun laws violate the FIRST Amendment...

...as the stupid fuckers that passed them obviously believe in animism!

[-..__...]

17. If the CA AWB is succesfully overturned...

are those easily converted to a rightful/proper version using a standard mag release button?

[ellisonz]

18. Gun companies just won't accept the message...

We don't want your assault weapons in California, that's the will of the people.

[gejohnston]

19. if it was the will of the people

there would be no market. Most of the people probably don't know or care about gun laws. Any politician that whines "that is the way it should be, no discussion" about guns and then claims racism when the People take issue with inhumane and wasteful slaughter of sharks, doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the will of the people.

[ellisonz]

21. Why do you insist upon...

...the tyranny of the minority. And don't call my voters ignorant.

[gejohnston]

23. they are ignorant on this issue

I lay odds the average Californian thinks an "assault weapon" is a machine gun.
Everyone is ignorant on something. There is more to California than your part of LA.

[Glaug-Eldare]

22. How can you possibly call any CA-legal gun an "assault weapon?"

Even if the nebulous "assault weapons" were used in more than a handful of crimes nationwide (which they are not), CA-legal rifles would be completely unfit for that purpose. The mutilation CA puts them through makes them unfit for almost any purpose whatsoever, besides loud paperweights.

[-..__...]

24. The "will of the people"...

voted against same sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana.

By your logic, the GBLT community, medical and recreational marijuana users should just STFU and accept the message.

[ellisonz]

25. The former is a clear issue of the 14th Amendment...

...the latter is a criminal issue, and I accept that result for what it was.

There is no right to an assault rifle under the U.S. Constitution.

[gejohnston]

26. how so?

a criminal issue? Are you saying those people at the target range are members of MS13? Get serious.
They are not assault rifles. Assault rifles have been tightly regulated since 1934.
Depends on how you interpret it. According to Miller, military weapons are Constitutionally protected, which would not include these sporting weapons.

[Glaug-Eldare]

27. I think he meant drug laws are a criminal issue n/t

[ellisonz]

28. Since you want to talk about MS13...

...let's talk about the Timothy McVeigh types and all the white supremacists nuts we have in California. You get serious.

Gun nuts get a lawyer, or stop whining.

[gejohnston]

31. Saw enough of them in California

and heard enough of KSFO coming office radios. At least you acknowledge that they exist there. Neither one of them are the good folks at the target range.

[ellisonz]

33. I'm sorry, but white supremacists/militia-nut/sovereign citizens types...

...and gun ranges go hand in hand. You can't deny that...

[gejohnston]

36. actually I can

because you are basing an opinion on a false stereotype that no different than saying hip hop music and gangs go hand in hand.

[ellisonz]

37. I wouldn't deny that...

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/summer/updates-on-extremism-and-the-law

The problem is that hip hop music doesn't get people killed, the money in it does. See Tupac and Biggie.

Just admit it - the gun nuttery and right-wing extremism are wedded at the hip.

[gejohnston]

38. why should I admit to something that is not true?

a stereotype based on no evidence, but is part of the major reason behind the gun control movement?
Why don't you just admit that bong owners are stupid stoners who cheer when cops get blown away?

[-..__...]

29. It's not a "clear issue"...

until the courts say it is.

There is no right to an assault rifle under the U.S. Constitution.

Actually, there is.

We just need more clarification on it bolstered by an appropriate standard of judicial review (nothing less than strict scrutiny is acceptable).

The ray of sunshine in that endeavor is that we already have a solid foundation to work from.

[ellisonz]

34. So take it to court...

...and stop whining and squirming, but don't deny that Colt isn't deliberately spitting in the face of the State of California here...we don't want your brand of gun nuttery in this state.

[Glaug-Eldare]

39. Then why haven't they passed a law against them?

CA has defined and banned "assault weapons," so Colt is selling the rifles that California has deemed permissible. Here's an analogue: Maryland requires at least a 35% Light Transmittance Value on car windows. It's not "spitting in the face of the State of Maryland" to tint your windows all the way down to 35% LTV.

Simply put, some Californians want to do more than the law allows -- they will fit the shape of the container to exercise their right as fully as they can. It's not wrong for them to do this, no matter how much some of legislators don't want them to.

[petronius]

40. Please stop saying "we" in your comments related to CA. TIA.

[hack89]

45. So Colt obeying California law is spitting in their face? Really? nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. "we don't wan't..." How very royal of you.

[Clames]

30. Will of the people?

You mean on this one issue? I bet you certainly don't mean Prop 8, do you? Huh, how telling.

[ellisonz]

35. It's when you compare...

...the right to marry freely to toting assault rifles that you truly sound like an extremist.

[Clames]

42. And when you have nothing left but labels...

...is when you truly sound like you have no interest in civil discussion. Also, please show exactly how I compared equality in marriage to "toting" assault rifles. If you can't than I strongly suggest you refrain from lying about members of this group.

[ellisonz]

49. That's exactly the comparison you made...

...and I quote:

Will of the people?

You mean on this one issue? I bet you certainly don't mean Prop 8, do you? Huh, how telling.

You're making quite the presumption that I think something like marriage equality is in the same category as the claim to have a right to own a specific weapon is the same thing...the Constitution says clearly that gun ownership may be regulated, it says no such thing about marriage, which is IMHO a 9th Amendment right. I strongly suggest you refrain from insinuating that I believe in unconstitutional regulations.

[Glaug-Eldare]

51. "tote" = "own" ?

And if CA has not adequately defined "assault weapon" for the purpose of their own regulation, who has?

I'm not trying to play semantic games -- ownership and carry are very different, particularly in my home state. As for the marriage comparison...I agree with the basic premise that Constitutional rights (of which SCOTUS and I both believe encompass individual RKBA as well as marriage) should not be subject to frivolous and arbitrary restraint.

[Clames]

54. Insinuating?

I strongly suggest you refrain from insinuating that I believe in unconstitutional regulations.

Given your obvious disdain for the 2A and the fact you hold it to be lesser than other rights then there is no "insinuating" when it's calling a spade a spade. Simple fact is "it's the will of the people" when it fits your agenda.

[ellisonz]

57. It's the will of the people when it's Constitutional...

And there you - do you or do you not believe your supposed right to own whatever firearm you may wish is the same as the right to marry whom one pleases? Either put up, or stand down.

I have disdain for an extremist interpretation of the Second Amendment (funny how you guys don't spell it out), that is consistent with the overwhelming opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. There has been no ruling on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans

[Glaug-Eldare]

58. Freedom's good, whether regarding arms or marriage.

I'm looking forward to progress on both issues here, since Woollard and HB 438 have both passed their initial hurdles.

As for the Second Amendment, it reads "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."

As I read it, "Because the ability to raise and organize armies is necessary to preserve liberty, individuals have the right to own and carry arms suitable for the defense of themselves and the state."

[Clames]

59. I've never insisted on what you assert.

Since I don't insist on being able to own crew-served small arms and nuclear missiles. Only ones howling that idiocy are those on your side of the issue. I only wish to own small arms of suitable use for lawful self-defense and sporting purposes. And yes, that includes semi-autos. Put up or stand down? Like you have any authority here...


I have disdain for the extremists who insist that only the police and military are somehow uniquely qualified to handle weapons. They are not. Overwhelming opinion (you should acutually read the 170+ pages of the Heller decision) holds there is an individual right. Stop whining about it...



Oh, and Prop 8 was struck down on Constitutionality grounds by the lower courts and is not too many steps from the Supreme Court at this time. So I foresee gay marriage attaining the same protection that individual gun ownership has in the Constitution in the coming years and the sooner the better.

[Glaug-Eldare]

43. Neither "toting" nor "assault rifles" are the focus of this thread

Last edited Mon May 28, 2012, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

The pictured rifles are, by CA definition, not "assault weapons," and rifles are very rarely carried, anyway. I assume long gun carry is illegal in California, but I could be wrong.

[Johnny Rico]

44. What does this thread have to do with assault rifles?

The rifles in question are neither assault rifles nor "assault weapons" as defined by California law.

[ellisonz]

50. I see you have your dancing shoes on. n/t

[Johnny Rico]

55. That's rather amusing, given that you didn't address my point.

The firearms in the OP are neither assault weapons or "assault weapons" as defined by California law.

Do you agree or disagree?

Answer the question, and we have a starting point for a conversation. Tap dance around it, and we don't.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. That's twice you've called firearms that aren't assault rifles "assault rifles".

Did you do so out of ignorance- or deliberately?

If the latter, it would be very reminiscient of a quote from the Violence Policy Center's Josh Sugarman:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

Which is it?

[Clames]

48. Probably both in his case.

He's not going to let little things like "facts" get in the way of an opportunity to throw a few insults around or deliberately misrepresent a post either. Now why does that remind me of somebody else...

[ileus]

52. anything that's not a single shot or bolt action is an assault weapon.

Even singleshot's and bolt actions are assault weapons if they have any of the following; pistol grip, rails, come in black, threaded barrel, adjustable trigger, centerfire, length less than 48".

[sylvi]

56. Sophistry noted

The subject is the "will of the people" and how it is often neither just nor wise, Prop. 8 as an example.

Not the relative differences between right to marry and gun laws.

[ileus]

32. Sounds like gun companies hear a different tune...

one where people want nice semi-auto sporting arms to enjoy with the whole family.

[slackmaster]

53. A firearm is either classified as an AW under California law, or not an AW.

There is no middle ground, no gray area.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. Necessity is The Mother of Invention