Talk:AR-15s in California

numbered list changed to bullet points

I changed the numbered list of AR-15 type rifles that are legal in California to use bullet points instead since the numbers did not work properly. I didn't want to go in and add manual line breaks to fix the problem, as this would make the list a fixed width instead of adjusted to the user's browser window width. See here - Help:List for an explanation of why manual line breaks are needed to make the numbers work properly. Bwe1862 (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

incorrect info

"With regards to high capacity magazine devices, after January 1, 2000, it is illegal to offer for sale, import, manufacture, give, or lend (although it is legal to possess, use, buy, or receive) any detachable box magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 cartridges." The part in parenthesis is incorrect. It is only legal to use, and only when the legal owner is nearby. The law clearly says "possession of" is illegal, except pursuant to relevant codes.

It is only legal to buy, sell, give, receive, lend, or possess high-capacity magazines if you are part of law enforcement or: (a) Has a valid federal firearms license. (b) Has any regulatory or business license, or licenses, required by local government. (c) Has a valid seller's permit issued by the State Board of Equalization. (d) Has a certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 26710. (e) Has a license issued in the format prescribed by subdivision (c) of Section 26705. (f) Is among those recorded in the centralized list specified in Section 26715. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.112.25.54 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989

I recommend that this article be merged with the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 page with appropriate redirect. Which appears to be the focus of this article anyway.--Limpscash (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Then please follow the directions at WP:MERGE, there is no need for a formal WP:RFC which could bring in dozens of people for the next thirty days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Limpscash and Redrose64: Yes, the directions at WP:MERGE are good for proposing that two articles be merged. Those say to (1) start a discussion -- that's this talk page section, (2) tag both articles with merge-to and merge-from templates -- I've just done that, and (3) leave the discussion open for at least 30 days (unless there's either overwhelming support for, or opposition to, the merger, then it can be closed sooner). A Request For Comment is not necessary. So I think we're all set for the moment, let's see what other editors say. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support I support the merger. "AR-15s in California" talks about how AR-15s are regulated under the laws covered by "Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989". If the AR-15 laws were a lot different, or if there was a lot more to say about the AR-15s, then it would be fine to leave this article separate -- in general it's okay to have an article that covers a subtopic of another article -- but as things stand I don't think leaving them separate would be advantageous. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Seem reasonable enough. This article is just needlessly repeating info that's already in that article. Plus, it looks like the main article is actually Gun laws in California. The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 is a subtopic of that article and this the AR-15s in California is a subtopic of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. Here per comment request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms--RAF910 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)