PDA

View Full Version : Californi DOJ 2007 Laws Summary Booklet


ov223
08-11-2008, 10:33 PM
I was taking a look at the 2007 Laws Summary Booklet that is published by the department of justice and noticed that they leave out the definition of a detachable magazine. I believe this gives them freedom to interpret the law how ever they feel like it.

In addition, in their dangerous weapons control laws (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/dwc.pdf) for 2008, I could not find any mention of using a bullet as a tool for removing magazines. However, for someone who was in the process of committing a gang related crime, they do define a detachable magazine as the following :

(1) "Detachable magazine" means a device that
is designed or redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a rifle that is designed or
redesigned to fire ammunition.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a
rifle that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(C) To feed ammunition continuously and
directly into the loading mechanism of a rifle that is
designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.

Could this be the definition that they would like to use against all law abiding citizens that own guns in California? This definition would do away with the bullet buttons, prince 50 and basically any epoxied AR-15's with a pistol grip.

Is anyone doing anything to make the DOJ include the definition of detachable magazine for law abiding citizens in their most recent publications (last one that included it was in early 2000's)?

Are there any DOJ publications published in 2007-2008 that include the definition of a detachable magazine (asides from the one above, that I am not aware off) that I could show a LEO in the event I was questions at a shooting range or on my way home from a shooting range.

Thanks

Librarian
08-11-2008, 10:57 PM
I believe this gives them freedom to interpret the law how ever they feel like it.
Can't happen.

DOJ publications are not updated with the effects of current case law or their own rulings and testimony. It would seem they're dragging their feet.

ETA: Gene also posted a link to an important document in this post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1390232&postcount=60) - the ruling of the Office of Administrative Law.

hoffmang
08-11-2008, 11:03 PM
The California Code of Regulations doesn't need to be republished to remain in effect. All you need is this: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf

-Gene

navyinrwanda
08-12-2008, 1:00 AM
As noted above, the California Code of Regulations (CCR) still governs. And 11 CCR 5469, in part, states (emphasis added):

"detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

Gene Hoffman's July 2007 petition to the Office of Administrative Law (available at http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf) resulted in a decision which re-affirmed this definition.

Also, the California 2008 Rulemaking Calendar does not list any proposed changes to these regulations.

lrdchivalry
08-12-2008, 8:14 AM
I was taking a look at the 2007 Laws Summary Booklet that is published by the department of justice and noticed that they leave out the definition of a detachable magazine. I believe this gives them freedom to interpret the law how ever they feel like it.

In addition, in their dangerous weapons control laws (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/dwc.pdf) for 2008, I could not find any mention of using a bullet as a tool for removing magazines. However, for someone who was in the process of committing a gang related crime, they do define a detachable magazine as the following :

(1) "Detachable magazine" means a device that
is designed or redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a rifle that is designed or
redesigned to fire ammunition.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a
rifle that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(C) To feed ammunition continuously and
directly into the loading mechanism of a rifle that is
designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.

Could this be the definition that they would like to use against all law abiding citizens that own guns in California? This definition would do away with the bullet buttons, prince 50 and basically any epoxied AR-15's with a pistol grip.

Is anyone doing anything to make the DOJ include the definition of detachable magazine for law abiding citizens in their most recent publications (last one that included it was in early 2000's)?

Are there any DOJ publications published in 2007-2008 that include the definition of a detachable magazine (asides from the one above, that I am not aware off) that I could show a LEO in the event I was questions at a shooting range or on my way home from a shooting range.

Thanks

Looks like the definition of detachable magazine under 12021.5 of the penal code, which wouldn't apply unless your in the commision or attempted commision of any street gang crime.

11 CCR 5469 is the law that defines a detachable magazine for the purposes of identifying assault weapons.

sorensen440
08-12-2008, 8:39 AM
They don't get to change or make the law
I believe there job is to make it as confusing as possible

lrdchivalry
08-12-2008, 11:07 AM
I believe there job is to make it as confusing as possible

They are doing a decent job at it. One of my fellow LEO's I work with fell for DOJ's FUD while teaching gun safety classes. Last night I actually gave him a copy of Gene's letter in regards to the underground regulation along with the ad from cold war shooters and informed him of bright spot receiving the supposedly illegal firearms back after the raid by RSO.

My question to him was if the mag locked (I am assuming they had BB on them) rifles from Bright Spot were illegal then why would the RSO give them back? It should have been a slam dunk for the SO's office and the DA. He didn't have a response. I preceded to tell him that they gave them back because there was no violation of the law and the rifles were prefectly legal.

Adonlude
08-12-2008, 12:27 PM
So by listing only the definition applying to gang related crimes the DOJ is doing its best to perpetuate a myth that our favored forms of creating fixed magazines are illegal? I would imagine the DOJ wants cops to make arrests based on that definition becuase the thousands of dollars required for us to defend ourselves creates a defacto ban.

ov223
08-12-2008, 9:07 PM
navyinrwanda and Hoffmang

Thanks for Gene Hoffman's July 2007 petition to the Office of Administrative Law. That is the document I was looking for to complement the chapter 39 copy that I carry along in my rifle case just in case.

Adonlude

My thoughts exactly.

motorhead
08-13-2008, 8:23 AM
doj has embraced defeat on expanding the aw list. they continue to grab at straws to avoid a total loss of face. the current theme seems to be, it it makes us wrong we'll leave it ambiguous. edmond jr. still has major housecleaning to do.

Ironchef
08-13-2008, 8:40 AM
They don't get to change or make the law
I believe there job is to make it as confusing as possible

BUt they do get to tell police how to interpret the law, which is why there's so many unlearned cops out there...they're using DOJ as their ultimate decision in law interpretation. I doubt PD chiefs, Lts, Sgts, and watch commanders use case law and just PC for their interpretation..but I could be wrong.

THis is probably why so many FFLs are backwards when it comes to knowing what is and what isn't lawful practice.

THis is why we go to court and spend tens of thousands of dollars, to show those unlearned cops that their source (the DOJ) was wrong. Sounds like suing the DOJ is the answer..but good luck with that!

Adonlude
08-13-2008, 10:39 AM
THis is why we go to court and spend tens of thousands of dollars, to show those unlearned cops that their source (the DOJ) was wrong. Sounds like suing the DOJ is the answer..but good luck with that!

Is suing the DOJ really such an impossible proposition? If they are peddling misinformation and half-truths to our police force to cause unjust arrests shouldn't some sort of class action suit be possible?

The DOJ is using "the system" and the cost of being subjected to it as a form of punishment. Is there no precedent that makes harassment by legal action or unjust criminal charges illegal?

There is evidence against the DOJ such as this law summary booklet and various other letters that people of this forum keep on file. That DOJ attempt to create an "underground regulation" comes to mind.

A speeding ticket is a punisment. Being forced into "the system" on false AW charges probably equates to being written 5 speeding tickets (taking into account insurance premiums and revoked liscence) in terms of punishment. There should be some way to put a stop to this practice. But what do I know, I'm an engineer not a lawyer. Please edumacate me.

hoffmang
08-13-2008, 7:57 PM
Is suing the DOJ really such an impossible proposition?

In a word - no.

-Gene