PDA

View Full Version : Why can't DOJ update OLL list?


Gp100
12-13-2008, 7:27 PM
Someone told me CA DOJ cant update the off list receiver list why?

slappomatt
12-13-2008, 7:28 PM
This is CA. They can and do, do whatever they want as long as its a bad idea and makes no sence.

Gp100
12-13-2008, 7:31 PM
So can they update the list?

Pthfndr
12-13-2008, 7:32 PM
Someone told me CA DOJ cant update the off list receiver list why?

Because the state legislature passed a law removing that ability.

CSDGuy
12-13-2008, 7:32 PM
No they can not. They gave up that ability in a law that took effect Jan 1, 2007.

MonsterMan
12-13-2008, 7:32 PM
They gave their ability away with AB2728.

Pthfndr
12-13-2008, 7:32 PM
So can they update the list?

Not without the legislature passing a new law.

mecam
12-13-2008, 7:34 PM
So can they update the list?

They wouldn't cause that will allow people to register their OLL as an AW and have all the evil features without a maglock.

MonsterMan
12-13-2008, 7:35 PM
If they did update the list then we all could turn our oll rifles into registered AW's and not have to worry about BB's and mmg's. That is why they wanted to take their ability to list new models away.

Satex
12-13-2008, 7:39 PM
Someone told me CA DOJ cant update the off list receiver list why?

There never was an "off list receiver" list.

shark92651
12-13-2008, 9:41 PM
There never was an "off list receiver" list.

Good point. Is it possible to have a list of things that are not on a list :confused:

fairfaxjim
12-13-2008, 10:45 PM
Good point. Is it possible to have a list of things that are not on a list :confused:

You've obviously never read "Catch 22" :D

sorensen440
12-13-2008, 10:56 PM
If they did update the list then we all could turn our oll rifles into registered AW's and not have to worry about BB's and mmg's. That is why they wanted to take their ability to list new models away.

Yep and then new models would simply be available as off list :D

Blue Label
12-13-2008, 11:09 PM
Yep and then new models would simply be available as off list :D

LOL!!!!!

adamsreeftank
12-14-2008, 1:00 AM
Haven't you guys seen xenophobes Off-list list?

aplinker
12-14-2008, 1:01 AM
Haven't you guys seen xenophobes Off-list list?

It's pretty out of date now, though.

Steve O
12-14-2008, 2:26 AM
Good point. Is it possible to have a list of things that are not on a list :confused:

Yes. just read the list!

diddler
12-14-2008, 5:37 AM
No they can not. They gave up that ability in a law that took effect Jan 1, 2007.

I understand that they gave up the ability, what I don't understand is -why-. Seems impossible for me to believe that a government agency (which lives pretty much to write laws) would write one that would bind their hands and keep them playing their little games in the future. I understand why the might not want to update the list (and make legal thousands of new Assault Weapons) but why wouldn't they just leave it open ended so they could exercise the right somewhere in the future?

MonsterMan
12-14-2008, 5:49 AM
I understand that they gave up the ability, what I don't understand is -why-. Seems impossible for me to believe that a government agency (which lives pretty much to write laws) would write one that would bind their hands and keep them playing their little games in the future. I understand why the might not want to update the list (and make legal thousands of new Assault Weapons) but why wouldn't they just leave it open ended so they could exercise the right somewhere in the future?

They didn't want to give us all the satisfaction of getting to own AW's in CA. It was personal to them. They were afraid that a new AG would come in and update the list and we would be happy little shooters. They came up with AB2728 so that could never happen. We would be forced to keep neutering our rifles until new legislation either banned them or reversed the current law. They seemed to also think that they were going to push this "non permanence" fixed mag thing and that no one would be able to shoot their rifles if your rifle wasn't "welded" shut or something similar. So between AB2728 and them trying to push a "permanent" fixed mag setup, they thought we would just have a bunch of lower receivers that we could not use and they would laugh their way home at night. But... we all now how that all went.

thefurball
12-14-2008, 6:37 AM
I understand that they gave up the ability, what I don't understand is -why-. Seems impossible for me to believe that a government agency (which lives pretty much to write laws) would write one that would bind their hands and keep them playing their little games in the future...

Assembly Bill No. 2728 CHAPTER 793
"An act to amend Section 12276.5 of, and to add Section 12282 to, the
Penal Code, relating to firearms...
Existing law authorizes the Attorney General to declare a firearm an
assault weapon. This bill would provide that authorization ends January 1, 2007..."

DOJ didn't give it up. The law that allowed them to declare a firearm an "assault weapon" was changed by AB2728.

LB21
12-14-2008, 6:44 AM
They didn't want to give us all the satisfaction of getting to own AW's in CA. It was personal to them. They were afraid that a new AG would come in and update the list and we would be happy little shooters. They came up with AB2728 so that could never happen. We would be forced to keep neutering our rifles until new legislation either banned them or reversed the current law. They seemed to also think that they were going to push this "non permanence" fixed mag thing and that no one would be able to shoot their rifles if your rifle wasn't "welded" shut or something similar. So between AB2728 and them trying to push a "permanent" fixed mag setup, they thought we would just have a bunch of lower receivers that we could not use and they would laugh their way home at night. But... we all now how that all went.

Yup, a lot of spiteful people in the DOJ.

ke6guj
12-14-2008, 10:54 AM
DOJ didn't give it up. The law that allowed them to declare a firearm an "assault weapon" was changed by AB2728.Right, but who pushed for that law? DOJ did. They requested that that law be written and passed to prevent a future pro-gun AG from initiating AW list updates in a manner that would help us.

thefurball
12-14-2008, 12:12 PM
Right, but who pushed for that law? DOJ did. They requested that that law be written and passed to prevent a future pro-gun AG from initiating AW list updates in a manner that would help us.

A pro-gun AG elected in the PRK? Hard to say with a straight face. :rolleyes:

ke6guj
12-14-2008, 12:23 PM
A pro-gun AG elected in the PRK? Hard to say with a straight face. :rolleyes:Well, when they lobbied for the bill, Chuck Poochigian was thought have a decent chance of defeating Jerry Brown. So, CADOJ wanted the law to prevent the opening of the AW roles if Pooch won.

Fate
12-14-2008, 12:41 PM
...they thought we would just have a bunch of lower receivers that we could not use and they would laugh their way home at night.
Yup, who's laughing now? :D 350,000+ offlist firearms have rolled in with more on the way. DOJ Fail.