SAKO TRG 42 is it legal in California?

Napolke

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
17
12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
A thumbhole stock.
A folding or telescoping stock.
A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
A flash suppressor.
A forward pistol grip.

Thanks for your input.
 
Isn't semiautomatic the term that makes this law inapplicable for a boltaction rifle like the trg?
 
Isn't semiautomatic the term that makes this law inapplicable for a boltaction rifle like the trg?

If the law is quoted correctly, the "semi-auto rifle" is key.
A bolt action rifle is not stated, probably excluded from this statute.
Any bolt action, even the TRG.

Is this current CA law?
Poor bastards. :D
 
This is a current California law.
Must be semi-auto accept a detachable magazine and then meet one of the conditions.
Just for fun do a search for California 12276 and read that crap.
Part of that bill was 50 BMG ban. People really use those 35 pound monsters for hold ups. Yeah right.
The 50 BMG ban is ridiculous. It is the only caliber banned. The Chetac or other big boomers are not effected.
 
It is not a semi. Also, a compensator or muzzle brake would be legal if it was a semi........however, it would not be legal if it was a pre ban semi, but its not a semi...:)
 
So it seems a SSK is legal under this statute.

It has a 10 round non-detach mag and no pistol grip.
Sometimes you have to take what you can get. :cool:
 
It has a detachable magazine so I would guess it is not permitted in CA. Sorry.

your wrong my friend. sorry. The statute needs to be looked at in more depth. You cant have more than a 10 rd magazine and a trg doesnt have this. its also not a semi auto so again it doesnt apply. its also not a 50 cal so it also doesnt apply to regulations in CA. You have to be careful what you are quoting on here and if you dont have applicable knowledge of the statute then its best not to make concrete statements like yours above. we wouldnt want to be putting out bad info.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top