PDA

View Full Version : BoF Website Update: 2008 Firearms Laws Changes


hoffmang
07-13-2008, 8:54 PM
All,

DOJ BoF's web site has changed. They've added a new link to the 2008 Dangerous Weapon Control laws and changes. This is a decent resource and the PDF at the bottom of this page: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/index.php is actually handy for having all the Penal Code and Codes beyond the Penal Code that relate to firearms all in one place with redlines from 2007.

-Gene

69Mach1
07-13-2008, 8:57 PM
e) The term "series" includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

I was hoping they had updated it.

CavTrooper
07-13-2008, 8:58 PM
Any chance that "series" crap will ever be removed?

gunsR4me
07-13-2008, 9:32 PM
Any chance that "series" crap will ever be removed?

i though it was removed and listed by make and model

FEDUPWBS
07-13-2008, 9:47 PM
:mad: :mad: :mad:

I was hoping they had updated it.

If it was they would no longer be the BOFud, would they?

Rumpled
07-13-2008, 10:06 PM
Gene,
Didn't you get them to remove that languasge before?
On that memo they had up?

Bill_in_SD
07-13-2008, 10:44 PM
Funny how they have not updated the CCW statistics for the last year, either. I thought I read somewhere that they are required to publish those statistics by July 1?

hoffmang
07-13-2008, 10:46 PM
Gene,
Didn't you get them to remove that languasge before?
On that memo they had up?

Series language will be addressed but has gotten lower priority due to some other items.

In the interim, we have the truth available from AG Lockyer here (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Lockyer%20Letter%20-%20AB%202728.pdf).

-Gene

hoffmang
07-13-2008, 10:57 PM
Any chance that "series" crap will ever be removed?

A clarification on my comment above. 12276.1(e) isn't going to be removed from the Penal Code without a bill passing both houses. However it is utterly mooted by People v. Clark. This is kind of like how there are still racist property deed restrictions on a lot of property in California. No one takes them off as it costs too much but the don't have any force or effect.

Edited to ad: The above is incorrect. The cite should be 12276 (e) and the case that mooted it is Harrot v. County of Kings... I'm leaving it to make the lower posts make sense. Thanks Librarian.

-Gene

69Mach1
07-13-2008, 11:09 PM
Unfortunately that series crap may have an effect. When the police use it as reference.

Librarian
07-13-2008, 11:16 PM
A clarification on my comment above. 12276.1(e) isn't going to be removed from the Penal Code without a bill passing both houses. However it is utterly mooted by People v. Clark. This is kind of like how there are still racist property deed restrictions on a lot of property in California. No one takes them off as it costs too much but the don't have any force or effect.

-Gene
Wouldn't that be 12776(e) instead of 12776.1(e), and Harrot v County of Kings rather than People v Clark ?

gemini05
07-13-2008, 11:25 PM
does this mean OLL receivers will be ban?

oaklander
07-13-2008, 11:30 PM
does this mean OLL receivers will be ban?

No, THe DOJ/BoF lost the ability to list new receivers after AB2728.

California would have to pass new laws to ban OLL receivers, and that is not likely now.

What people are commenting on is old language about a "series" ban that was mooted by a later court case. The DOJ AW Guide and Firearms Owners Guide have not yet been changed by the DOJ to reflect the new case. That is all.

Shane916
07-13-2008, 11:34 PM
does this mean OLL receivers will be ban?

Two weeks

Saigon1965
07-13-2008, 11:36 PM
No, THe DOJ/BoF lost the ability to list new receivers after AB2728.

California would have to pass new laws to ban OLL receivers, and that is not likely now.

What people are commenting on is old language about a "series" ban that was mooted by a later court case. The DOJ AW Guide and Firearms Owners Guide have not yet been changed by the DOJ to reflect the new case. That is all.


I know an FFL that will not transfer AKs because of this. He'll do OLL.

hoffmang
07-13-2008, 11:40 PM
Wouldn't that be 12776(e) instead of 12776.1(e), and Harrot v County of Kings rather than People v Clark ?

Yes and yes... :kest:

I wish I could blame the wine but I'm stone cold sober.

-Gene

Ford8N
07-14-2008, 4:45 AM
Unfortunately that series crap may have an effect. When the police use it as reference.


+1

Even though you the gun owner are legal, you go through the meat grinder and are out major $$$$$$$$$$. So until this is off the books, avoid the LEO when in possession of firearms.

Peashooter
07-14-2008, 6:36 AM
No, THe DOJ/BoF lost the ability to list new receivers after AB2728.

California would have to pass new laws to ban OLL receivers, and that is not likely now.

What people are commenting on is old language about a "series" ban that was mooted by a later court case. The DOJ AW Guide and Firearms Owners Guide have not yet been changed by the DOJ to reflect the new case. That is all.

Look at the amendments

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php

gunsR4me
07-14-2008, 2:39 PM
(e) The term "series" includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer.


DOES THIS MEAN WERE SCREWED:confused:

grammaton76
07-14-2008, 3:07 PM
(e) The term "series" includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer.


DOES THIS MEAN WERE SCREWED:confused:

No, that's the old language, which is long since rendered moot by case law.

Ding126
07-14-2008, 9:29 PM
simpleton here.... Can I or Can I not get an Colt AR lower? legally now.

hoffmang
07-14-2008, 9:54 PM
simpleton here.... Can I or Can I not get an Colt AR lower? legally now.

There exists 1 and only 1 off list colt lower receiver but it is non trivial to find.

-Gene

fleegman
07-14-2008, 10:45 PM
hmmmmmm..... makes me wonder if my Arsenal SLR-95 (kept out of state) is legal or what?

hoffmang
07-14-2008, 10:58 PM
hmmmmmm..... makes me wonder if my Arsenal SLR-95 (kept out of state) is legal or what?

It's certainly legal if you keep it legally out of state.

-Gene

Ding126
07-15-2008, 8:52 AM
There exists 1 and only 1 off list colt lower receiver but it is non trivial to find.

-Gene

Gene,
Can you tell me which lower that is? I see colts for sale all the time in Az.
Please explain.

Thank you

hoffmang
07-15-2008, 10:34 AM
Gene,
Can you tell me which lower that is? I see colts for sale all the time in Az.
Please explain.

Thank you

I don't recall directly. There have been posts on here before about it and I think SemiAutoSam claimed to own one. I think it is a 6000 series model number that has none of the other listed terms on it (Sporter, Law Enforcement, etc.)

-Gene

Bill_in_SD
07-23-2008, 11:27 PM
Funny how they have not updated the CCW statistics for the last year, either. I thought I read somewhere that they are required to publish those statistics by July 1?

Look what popped in the website:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ccwissuances2007.pdf

CCW stats for 2007

Statewide, we are losing permits.......

6172crew
07-24-2008, 10:41 AM
Gene,
Can you tell me which lower that is? I see colts for sale all the time in Az.
Please explain.

Thank you
The HBAR and the Colt LE Carbine are good to go. My 6920 isnt marked 6920 but has the Colt LE carbine markings.