TexasCHLforum.com

After I wrote my original post I found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15s_in_California

The key seems to be no detachable magazine and mag < 10 rds. Maybe that's what they were. Looking at a photo of their weapons, the magazines were detachable. This is all semantics obviously - the main point I was trying to make was how quickly the press jumped on the statement that the weapons were legally purchased when they were not.

There's still the straw purchase which was clearly not legal.

Have others noticed that the press was quick to report that the "guns were legally purchased"? Yesterday I heard a clarification of that statement saying that the handguns were legally purchased. The rifles were apparently bought on a straw purchase by the neighbor. How can they call this legal? I think the press wants the guns to have been legally purchased and the potential of an illegal purchase just doesn't fit their agenda.

The second thing that is bothering me - how were these AR's legal to purchase or possess in CA? I thought CA still basically had the tenants of the AW ban in place. Maybe I'm wrong on this and there are only certain features on an AR that are illegal in CA. I have yet to hear any of this reported in the press - it doesn't fit their agenda.

Nothing to see here, move along, there was no further conspiracy... these were lone wolves...

OK - sarcasm off. Back to work...