Can you explain what this means in everyday english, so I may understand it.

[Ding126]

For the purpose of filing criminal charges against a defendant involving assault weapons or .50
BMG rifles, distinct and separate offenses may be filed for each assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle,
except in the case of a first violation involving not more than two firearms. (Penal Code § 12280.)
As of January 1, 2007, the legislature has repealed DOJ’s authority under Penal Code § 12276.1
to identify Colt AR-15 and AK-47 type “series” assault weapons by name, or to seek a judicial
declaration that a firearm is identical to an assault weapon listed in Penal Code section 12276.
The legislature has authorized the Attorney General, or any district attorney, or any city attorney
to bring an action in superior court, in lieu of criminal prosecution, to enjoin the possession of the
assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle, seek destruction of the weapon as a public nuisance, and to obtain
civil fines (Penal Code § 12282(b)).
As of January 1, 2007, California state law requires the destruction of any assault weapon or .50
BMG rifle declared by a court to be a public nuisance, or upon a conviction for “any misdemeanor
or felony involving the illegal possession or use of an assault weapon.” (Penal Code § 122882(c);
12282(d)).
As of January 1, 2007, the legislature has authorized law enforcement to obtain a court order to
preserve an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle for law enforcement purposes “in the interests of
justice” (Penal Code § 12282(c)).
California Firearms

[Hopi]

It means the DOJ cannot list new assault weapons as of Jan. 1st 2007. Previously, they were tasked with keeping track of and listing prohibited "AK-47 and AR-15 clone" weapons as new brands/makes/models hit the marketplace.

They did a horrible, or outstanding, job...depending on who you ask...

CA law now requires legislation to ban firearms.

Further, the addition to the law allows a DA to choose civil penalties, or the destruction of the weapon, in lieu of criminal charges/prosecution for illegal AW possession.

[RRangel]

Yes, this all came about because of the lower situation in California. The powers that be didn't like the fact that according to law the AG was basically mandated to add new "assault weapons" to the list. This was targeted at our AR/AK lower receivers that are all over the market now. In adding new weapons to the list a registration period would open up thus allowing all those who were in possession of a lower receiver the ability to have a newly registered "assault weapon", along with all the evil features attached. You can see why the banners in the legislature and the AGs office put this into play.

[BillCA]

This applies only if your "assault weapon" is not legally registered. In that case, the DOJ or police can ask a court to declare it a public nusiance and be destroyed.

Unless, of course, the police think it's nifty weapon and want to keep it. Then they can file with the court to seize it for public use. What a clever way for them to get a few .50 BMGs...

[Ding126]

So what I am reading. If you have a OLL, the questioning officer can take your weapon and have it destroyed as a nuisance. Correct?

[bwiese]

So what I am reading. If you have a OLL, the questioning officer can take your weapon and have it destroyed as a nuisance. Correct?

No, because if properly configured, it's not an assault weapon. It's just an ugly semiautomatic centerfire rifle.