PDA

View Full Version : Underground Regulation: Capacity to Accept a Detachable Magazine


Pages : [1] 2

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 2:15 PM
Out by courier today is this official petition (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/Underground_Rulemaking_CTA-2009-02-25-01.pdf) to the Office of Administrative Law (http://www.oal.ca.gov/) regarding the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms underground regulation (http://www.oal.ca.gov/Underground_Regulations.htm) of the term "capacity to accept a detachable magazine."

The petition is quite thorough in debunking Mrs. Merrilees attempt to reinterpret the phrase "capacity to accept."

On our last petition (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf), OAL took about 60 days to accept or reject the petition.

For those of you following the NRF activities, this was the little extra that we received. In what appeared to be an attempt to overload us in paper when responding to our PRA requests, we received the letter from Dolorian Capital and Mrs. Merrilees' response. Now that that is out of the way you should expect more news on the NRF front as well.

-Gene

artherd
02-25-2009, 2:18 PM
pwned!

ke6guj
02-25-2009, 2:20 PM
:thumbsup::rockon:

MonsterMan
02-25-2009, 2:38 PM
Great job Gene. Go get em. :D

rkt88edmo
02-25-2009, 2:42 PM
Wow, opening the PDF in a browser tab has a little miniGene peering down at you as the site icon, I think if I would be disconcerted if I were a 2A foe & the miniGene was watching over me.

Joe
02-25-2009, 2:42 PM
this is awesome

BamBam-31
02-25-2009, 2:42 PM
Sorry, in layman's terms, please? :confused:

rkt88edmo
02-25-2009, 2:49 PM
Sorry, in layman's terms, please? :confused:

I'm just reading this for the first time but what I see is that the DOJ amply fulfilled the PRA and provided written documentation that supports the CGF claim that DOJ was trying to use "underground regulation" to create policy that was not intended by the legislature.

so
1 - CGF has proof
and
2 - CGF has submitted a petition.

Can someone spell out what petitioning does and what the possible outcomes are?
I'm gathering that if the petition is viewed as correct the DOJ will have to acknowledge that P50/Bullet Button do not violate the law and will have to verify that the current CGF analysis of "detachable"
is correct.

BamBam-31
02-25-2009, 2:50 PM
Ah, pwned indeed. :)

Cypren
02-25-2009, 3:02 PM
Fantastic shot across the bow, Gene. Hopefully this will make AM and her friends take a step back for a bit.

DDT
02-25-2009, 3:03 PM
Pretty awesome. Pretty soon they're going to have to come clean specifically on the BB/P-50 issue.

Am I reading this correctly that the "bullet as a tool" ruling came down because BoF wanted to declare certain SKS models to be "fixed magazine?"

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 3:03 PM
It's a violation of the Adminstrative Procedures Act under California law for an administrative agency like DOJ BoF to try to reinterpret the law without going through a formal rulemaking process.

Alison is out there trying to cause confusion around the term "capacity to accept a detachable magazine." Her argument is specious :bofud:.

OAL will review such things, and if the petition has merit, rule on them in a way that gets considerable deference from California Courts.

The funny part about all this is we gave Alison two weeks to write a clarifying letter or ask for more time and she ignored us. Here is that letter: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/CGF-CTA-Underground-Regulation-2009-02-06.pdf

-Gene

DDT
02-25-2009, 3:05 PM
Now I understand why you were so up to the minute on the recent threads beating up BB'ed ARs as being in some state of limbo with an empty mag well.

383green
02-25-2009, 3:06 PM
Good job, guys! I was surprised both that BOF is still spouting their "capacity to accept" manure, and that they were dumb enough to hand you the evidence of their continuing illegal activity with a nice bow on top.

P.S.: I don't see miniGene with my browser (Safari on a Mac). On my system, the favicon just looks like a little planet earth.

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 3:07 PM
Am I reading this correctly that the "bullet as a tool" ruling came down because BoF wanted to declare certain SKS models to be "fixed magazine?"

Yep. The ultimate defender of the bullet button is the fact that the banned "SKS with detachable magazine" comes in legal conflict with "semiautomatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and..." The legislature banned one type of SKS, and not the other. Thus the unique and precise definition of "detachable magazine." You can read all about it in the Final Statement of Reasons for the 2000 Rulemaking (ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf).

-Gene

BamBam-31
02-25-2009, 3:19 PM
Are there any penalties for them over-reaching? At least a slap on the wrist?

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 3:21 PM
So there is a typo in footnote 9... There always has to be at least one no many how many times or pairs of eyes looks over it...

-Gene

Obviously a Plant
02-25-2009, 3:22 PM
Wow. I wasn't aware that the SKS was the rifle that paved the way for AR's to repopulate California (sealed magwells aside). That has a personal historical significance that makes it much harder to resist owning one... Thanks again Gene for keeping on top of all of this.

elenius
02-25-2009, 3:38 PM
So what does this have to do with NRFs?

PRKArms
02-25-2009, 3:43 PM
Interesting ;)

rkt88edmo
02-25-2009, 3:45 PM
Everyone hug your SKS

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 3:46 PM
So what does this have to do with NRFs?

The letter that shows BoF promulgating an underground regulation showed up on document requests we made regarding NRFs.

-Gene

DDT
02-25-2009, 3:54 PM
The letter that shows BoF promulgating an underground regulation showed up on document requests we made regarding NRFs.

-Gene

If I read Gene's op correctly the letter has little/nothing to do with their NeRF request but was part of a "document flood." Adversarial folks will dump much more documentation than asked for and mostly off-topic to make it harder for their adversaries to mine the data for what they seek. Just so happens they were looking for gold and found a diamond.


Why would they be adversarial any way aren't they supposed to be protecting law abiding citizens? [/sarcasm]

ke6guj
02-25-2009, 4:56 PM
So Gene, did you look like this, :shock:, once you figured out what you had received via the PRAR?

And can you comment any more on the original PRAR that dealt you this gem?

elenius
02-25-2009, 5:01 PM
The letter that shows BoF promulgating an underground regulation showed up on document requests we made regarding NRFs.

-Gene

Ah!

So anyway, why is everyone acting like this is good news? I mean, yeah, it's good that we know about this, but it's not good that they are trying to make things worse for us... is it?

Also, I thought the previous underground regulation (that was fought down?) was about detachable magazines? Can someone clarify?

N6ATF
02-25-2009, 5:02 PM
The funny part about all this is we gave Alison two weeks to write a clarifying letter or ask for more time and she ignored us.[/url]

-Gene

:thumbsup:

sierratangofoxtrotunion
02-25-2009, 5:19 PM
The letter that shows BoF promulgating an underground regulation showed up on document requests we made regarding NRFs.

-Gene

Oh that's just too perfect. The "mining for gold and found a diamond" metaphor is right on target.

Hunter
02-25-2009, 5:45 PM
Noticed that the letter is dated February 26, 2007..:o

wildhawker
02-25-2009, 6:28 PM
F'in A. Nice work!

DedEye
02-25-2009, 7:07 PM
Ah!

So anyway, why is everyone acting like this is good news? I mean, yeah, it's good that we know about this, but it's not good that they are trying to make things worse for us... is it?

Also, I thought the previous underground regulation (that was fought down?) was about detachable magazines? Can someone clarify?

They've been trying to make it worse for us this whole time. The response that Gene wrote to the OAL is a Good Thing.

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 7:12 PM
So anyway, why is everyone acting like this is good news? I mean, yeah, it's good that we know about this, but it's not good that they are trying to make things worse for us... is it?
This letter sent to a DA causes the DA to roll his eyes. Trust me, I know. It's just seen as inept. However, manufacturers don't know the law quite so well so I want this :bofud: to end.


Also, I thought the previous underground regulation (that was fought down?) was about detachable magazines? Can someone clarify?
The previous underground rulemaking was that fixed magazines have to be permanent. You'll note that she goes out of her way to say that temporary magazine fixing is good enough...
Noticed that the letter is dated February 26, 2007..:o
I count 4 typos <sigh>. I wanted to get this out today because we have some more surprises shortly.

I'm glad someone noticed I gave her two weeks!

-Gene

BillCA
02-25-2009, 7:25 PM
As a thought... We should (and I presume that we are) keeping track of the number of "underground regulations" and the difficulties the State's firearms-regulatory agency is having with determining what is/is-not an assault weapon.

When the time is ripe for a 2A challenge, this can be used as evidence of an unconstitutionally vague statute. The underground regulations can be used to show even the "authority" can't understand the law without help and/or refute claims that the law is clear and comprehensible.

Dr Rockso
02-25-2009, 7:36 PM
Is there an endgame to this beyond the OAL telling the DOJ to knock it off? Not that I don't want to see them knock it off, it just seems like we've won the OLL fight so it won't really change anything.

383green
02-25-2009, 7:48 PM
The underground regulations can be used to show even the "authority" can't understand the law without help and/or refute claims that the law is clear and comprehensible.

I'm not convinced that the "authority" has any trouble understanding the law. I think they're deliberately and maliciously trying to twist its interpretation to what they wish it said, instead of what it actually says. But then, I'm a cynic. ;)

69Mach1
02-25-2009, 7:53 PM
Outstanding! Can't wait til DOJ gets this shoved down their throats.

nick
02-25-2009, 8:01 PM
Can you dumb it down a little further for those of us who majored in business? MBA = "Minimal Brain Activity." Use drawings if possible, and fewer words. Thanks.

Need a PowerPoint? :p

wash
02-25-2009, 8:16 PM
It's a violation of the Adminstrative Procedures Act under California law for an administrative agency like DOJ BoF to try to reinterpret the law without going through a formal rulemaking process.

Alison is out there trying to cause confusion around the term "capacity to accept a detachable magazine." Her argument is specious :bofud:.

OAL will review such things, and if the petition has merit, rule on them in a way that gets considerable deference from California Courts.

The funny part about all this is we gave Alison two weeks to write a clarifying letter or ask for more time and she ignored us. Here is that letter: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/CGF-CTA-Underground-Regulation-2009-02-06.pdf

-Gene
On the last page of that attachment, Iggy admitted to manufacturing an "Assault weapon".

Is he covered by a law enforcement exemption? Would he need a letter from the chief or who ever gives permission for officers to buy an AW? Could we get one of the 58 DA's to prosecute him?

N6ATF
02-25-2009, 8:20 PM
On the last page of that attachment, Iggy admitted to manufacturing an "Assault weapon".

Is he covered by a law enforcement exemption? Would he need a letter from the chief or who ever gives permission for officers to buy an AW? Could we get one of the 58 DA's to prosecute him?

:drool5:

JeffM
02-25-2009, 8:27 PM
Is there an endgame to this beyond the OAL telling the DOJ to knock it off? Not that I don't want to see them knock it off, it just seems like we've won the OLL fight so it won't really change anything.

This particular underground regulation has been an obstacle that the DOJ has thrown into the path of manufacturers who want official confirmation that ARs/AKs/etc with BBs/P50s are legal here in CA.

Hopefully this will force the DOJ to simply respond with a sheepish "yes" when asked if XYZ rifle is legal with a BB/P50 magazine lock.

It could finally blow the dust off some of the remaining FFLs that won't deal with OLLs (I'm sure that there will be holdouts that simply wont do it no matter what), and give manufacturers the legal tools to finally be willing to ship their rifles to CA.

Stormfeather
02-25-2009, 8:36 PM
Great Job Gene! :thumbsup:

hoffmang
02-25-2009, 8:40 PM
Is there an endgame to this beyond the OAL telling the DOJ to knock it off? Not that I don't want to see them knock it off, it just seems like we've won the OLL fight so it won't really change anything.

Sometimes you have to invade Italy to beat the Nazis...

:inquis:

There is an end game and we're on it.

-Gene

sorensen440
02-25-2009, 8:40 PM
Sometimes you have to invade Italy to beat the Nazis...

:inquis:

There is an end game and we're on it.

-Gene
I'm just glad your on our side.... LOL

MonsterMan
02-25-2009, 9:05 PM
I think the fact that they still haven't updated the AW information on the DOJ BOF website is an "underground regulation". It still has "series" info and lots of stuff that doesn't apply anymore. Why don't we go after that?

truthseeker
02-25-2009, 9:07 PM
I am greatful for the few "foundations, associations, etc..." that are on OUR side of the 2nd Amendment.

I am even MORE thankful for the people who, not only talk the talk, but walk the walk when it comes for standing up for our RIGHTS!

When I get my tax refund tomorrow you can be sure that The Calguns Foundation will be getting some of it!

Thanks for everything you guys are doing!

CapS
02-25-2009, 9:29 PM
This is just so f*in pretty.
Don't you love it when a plan comes together? Even if you didn't really plan it?

Wow.

:68:

/Cap

Cali-V
02-25-2009, 9:44 PM
Gene Good Going...

Zebra
02-25-2009, 9:52 PM
Just love it! It is so very satisfying to see them choke on their own words! A.M. is going to have a very bad day tomorrow... :43:

Gene and all: Thank You!

Frank

bwiese
02-25-2009, 9:58 PM
I think the fact that they still haven't updated the AW information on the DOJ BOF website is an "underground regulation". It still has "series" info and lots of stuff that doesn't apply anymore. Why don't we go after that?

We can/will if necessary but this is more direct and the side effects have some near- immediate favorable results.

383green
02-25-2009, 10:08 PM
Poor Alison. She's going to have to spend so much of her hard-earned cash on kleenex after she sees this. You know, we'd all be totally nice to her if she'd just stop being evil... :rolleyes:

7x57
02-25-2009, 10:20 PM
Poor Alison. She's going to have to spend so much of her hard-earned cash on kleenex after she sees this. You know, we'd all be totally nice to her if she'd just stop being evil... :rolleyes:

This sounds like a line from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. :D

7x57

383green
02-25-2009, 10:37 PM
This sounds like a line from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. :D

:rofl2:

I hadn't noticed, but you're absolutely right!

I loved that show, although it lost some of its appeal to me when Willow hooked up with whatsherface, the annoying witch. I also like a lot of Joss Wheadon's other work... particularly Firefly.

7x57
02-25-2009, 10:43 PM
I loved that show, although it lost some of its appeal to me when Willow hooked up with whatsherface, the annoying witch. I also like a lot of Joss Wheadon's other work... particularly Firefly.

I'm afraid I'm the sort who thought season 2 was best, but I stuck it out for the whole show. Really everything is a let-down after the season of Evil Spike and Scary Dru. I never think TV shows are actually scary, but insane evil did-I-mention-INSANE Dru was just *creepy* to the point of being the exception.

I haven't watched any of his other stuff. In fact, Buffy may be the last show I watched.

Nah, we're not off-topic at all.

7x57, "What--watching Buffy isn't cool and all? Who knew?"

383green
02-25-2009, 10:53 PM
Oh, if you liked Buffy, you'd probably like Firefly, too. It couldn't decide whether it was a western or a space opera, and in fact, it was the only western I ever liked. It has Joss's usual spot-on casting and his talents for understatement and witty dialog. The special effects were great, too. Like all of Joss's work that I've ever seen, there's the expected frail-looking mega-deadly cute girl. Joss also isn't afraid of killing off a star if it's right for the plot. It also lives on the gray line between moral right and wrong, much like Buffy did. Great stuff.

Sample dialog: "Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly reaching a middle."

Oh, big guns, too. I even named one of my registered .50's after a gun in the show: Vera.

;)

artherd
02-25-2009, 11:41 PM
Summary: Alison tried to bury us in paperwork. She ended up handing us evidence we can use against her attempts to exceed the law.

Sometimes it just hurts being this good.

Beatone
02-26-2009, 12:08 AM
My thanks to Gene and all who are working on this and getting positive results.

Ford8N
02-26-2009, 5:12 AM
Is Jerry Brown aware of this crap? It could affect him in a bad way if the media or his competitors for the Governor's seat get a hold of it.

Sawdust
02-26-2009, 5:58 AM
Summary: Alison tried to bury us in paperwork. She ended up handing us evidence we can use against her attempts to exceed the law.

Sometimes it just hurts being this good.

I find it truly amazing that she still has her job.

Sawdust

1859sharps
02-26-2009, 6:46 AM
if this is what we can expect from her, maybe we should have a save Alison's job plan in place just in case some tries to get smart and fire her.

truthseeker
02-26-2009, 6:54 AM
Well I think the way the government works, when a PRAR is filed, the PRAR employee gathers all documents they can find and then they submit that to their supervisor to verify that anything they are disclosing CAN be sent out of house.

Therefore I don't think that A.M. is the person that is catching any flack for this, but the PRAR employee is probably taking it in the a*s for releasing info that is making A.M. job more difficult.

Cali-V
02-26-2009, 7:06 AM
It's bad news for us, every time a letter like Mrs. Merrilees' goes out. Manufactures/Importers and you average out of state Seller, become less motivated to do business here in CA...

jasilva
02-26-2009, 7:33 AM
It's bad news for us, every time a letter like that goes out. Manufactures/Importers and you average out of state Seller, become less motivated to do business here in CA...

:shrug:

Cali-V
02-26-2009, 8:11 AM
It's bad news for us, every time a letter like Mrs. Merrilees' goes out. Manufactures/Importers and you average out of state Seller, become less motivated to do business here in CA...


Better...

jasilva
02-26-2009, 8:15 AM
Better...


Much

Muy gracias

Soldier415
02-26-2009, 8:19 AM
Seems as though things are coming together like siamese prostitutes.

Fjold
02-26-2009, 8:43 AM
If you go to the DOJ website to look up "Assault Weapons" laws why does the text still say:

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
?

MonsterMan
02-26-2009, 9:01 AM
Cause that is the law.

Librarian
02-26-2009, 9:16 AM
If you go to the DOJ website to look up "Assault Weapons" laws why does the text still say:

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
?

As MM says, that's the law. What some parts of DOJ seem to be attempting is to re-interpret the law without the formality of legal rule-making, and that's a no-no. It's especially a no-no because the re-interpretation is contrary to existing regs.

peepshowal
02-26-2009, 9:55 AM
Thank you Gene! Reading the letter you linked to in post 13 really put a smile on my face. :D Also, the fact you gave her two weeks to respond and you really meant two weeks is just beautiful.

1BigPea
02-26-2009, 11:15 AM
Thank you Gene and to all who have worked so hard to fight this...:thumbsup:

trashman
02-26-2009, 11:54 AM
Outstanding work guys. Can't wait to read this...stuck in meetings in socal at the moment...

--Neill

norbs007
02-26-2009, 12:35 PM
Excellent work as always. Thank you.

YoungGun2
02-26-2009, 1:55 PM
I just might get Gene Hoffman tattooed on me............mmmm may be in TWO WEEKS......thanks for the hard work!!!!!:79:

7x57
02-26-2009, 2:15 PM
I just might get Gene Hoffman tattooed on me............

OK, now that's starting to get disturbing. I want to hear absolutely nothing about *where*, please. :D

7x57

shark92651
02-26-2009, 2:16 PM
Excellent! Gene and everyone on the CGF thank you for all you do!

tortoisethunder
02-26-2009, 2:27 PM
Ok I read the ENTIRE thread and links and attachments, as a new ar15 bullet button owner...just finished the build this week...What exactly does this mean? In basics terms please.

By the way, I am a lifetime CA resident and gun owner NRA member and just found this site? I would like to personally THANK everyone involved in my absense, but now will be active...I have already donated...more to come as funds permit.

Thank you!
Mike

Some Guy
02-26-2009, 7:20 PM
I wanted to get this out today because we have some more surprises shortly.-Gene

Full auto bazookas with detachable hi-caps,two weeks.

yellowfin
02-26-2009, 7:26 PM
Does anyone currently have the Calguns logo tattooed on them?

Librarian
02-26-2009, 7:36 PM
Ok I read the ENTIRE thread and links and attachments, as a new ar15 bullet button owner...just finished the build this week...What exactly does this mean? In basics terms please.

By the way, I am a lifetime CA resident and gun owner NRA member and just found this site? I would like to personally THANK everyone involved in my absense, but now will be active...I have already donated...more to come as funds permit.

Thank you!
Mike

It means that the California Code of Regulations defines what a 'detachable magazine' is, and part of the DOJ wants to change that definition without going through the proper procedures. The petition Gene filed is a legal way of telling the DOJ that such changes are illegal, and asking for the Office of Administrative Law to slap their fingers.

Welcome to the wonderful, weird world of California gun ownership!

7x57
02-27-2009, 12:10 AM
But it would be funny if someone took the flag and slung an EBR over the bear's back.

Right to arm bears and all...

I really like that idea. An unofficial Calguns logo? Secret recognition symbol for CA gun owners after the UN troops start kicking in doors and confiscating the weapons? :TFH:

Should be useful for something good, anyway. What about on a t-shirt?

7x57

tortoisethunder
02-27-2009, 1:37 AM
I really like that idea. An unofficial Calguns logo? Secret recognition symbol for CA gun owners after the UN troops start kicking in doors and confiscating the weapons? :TFH:

Should be useful for something good, anyway. What about on a t-shirt?

7x57

I would definately buy a t-shirt, and a few stickers...GREAT IDEA!

7x57
02-27-2009, 7:52 AM
I'd keep it simple--California flag, except the bear is armed, and the logo "Right To Arm Bears."

Claims that there is a subtext about arming Californians will be met with a carefully practiced look of incomprehension. Unless you know the secret handshake. :D

7x57

Fate
02-27-2009, 9:17 AM
Some background music for the day...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MxDbKXP-Y6E&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MxDbKXP-Y6E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ELBong
02-27-2009, 11:38 AM
[QUOTE=7x57;2094565]I'd keep it simple--California flag, except the bear is armed, and the logo "Right To Arm Bears."

Wow. Was there ever a better calguns.net motto?

"Protecting the Right to Arm Bears"

7x57
02-27-2009, 11:56 AM
Wow. Was there ever a better calguns.net motto?

"Protecting the Right to Arm Bears"

It just occurred to me that there is likely a California college/university whose athletic team is the Bears or Bruins or something like that.

Yeah, we should definitely be arming them. :43:

7x57

Santa Cruz Armory
02-27-2009, 12:24 PM
Whenever these get sent to the DOJ I get a warm fuzzy feeling all over! :D

Thanks guys for continuing the fight.

tortoisethunder
02-27-2009, 12:54 PM
I'd keep it simple--California flag, except the bear is armed, and the logo "Right To Arm Bears."

Claims that there is a subtext about arming Californians will be met with a carefully practiced look of incomprehension. Unless you know the secret handshake. :D

7x57

Is there someone working on this. Is there some graphic design guys on here? I know a silk screener.

rbgaynor
02-27-2009, 12:59 PM
It just occurred to me that there is likely a California college/university whose athletic team is the Bears or Bruins or something like tha
7x57

UCLA, UC Berkeley :eek:

7x57
02-27-2009, 1:15 PM
UCLA, UC Berkeley :eek:

So, let's arm them already. Nothing like driving straight for the enemy flag. :43:

7x57

AlliedArmory
02-27-2009, 1:49 PM
:owned:

elenius
02-27-2009, 2:28 PM
Did that bear just eat an AR-15? :P

N6ATF
02-27-2009, 2:33 PM
LOL this is why I am a colorist, not an artist.

10TH AMENDMENT
02-27-2009, 3:23 PM
I think the fact that they still haven't updated the AW information on the DOJ BOF website is an "underground regulation". It still has "series" info and lots of stuff that doesn't apply anymore. Why don't we go after that?

Great point, MM.

Allison states in her 9-29-08 response to Mike Badella that "The DOJ has never had the legal duty or authority to approve a rifle, shotgun, or pistol for sale in the state on the basis that the firearm is not an assault weapon."

This is patently incorrect. The DOJ/Attorney General is the constitutionally instituted chief law enforcement agency/Officer in the State of California. As such, the Attorney General of California and his Deputies at the DOJ are affirmatively charged under the California constitution to enforce the firearms laws of this state. That would explicitly charge the DOJ with the absolute duty to approve or disapprove the commercial sale of any and all firearms on the basis of whether they are statutorily defined "Assault Weapons" or not.

Her newly created "disclaimer" on behalf of the DOJ is absolutely disingenuous considering the fact that she has issued numerous public opinions approving the sale and purchase of "unlisted" properly configured "Harrot" firearms pursuant to her authority as Deputy Attorney General and head of the BoF.

She also says that "Under current law, DOJ has the duty to prepare the Assault Weapons Guide and distribute the guide to law enforcement".

First off, implicit in that duty (to prepare the guide) is the affirmative duty to ascertain whether any and all firearms sold are approved or disapproved for commercial sales in this state so that law enforcement can properly determine through use of the "Assault Weapons" guide whether violations are occurring or not.

Secondly, if that is in fact the duty of the DOJ as she admits, then someone up there at the DOJ/Bof is grossly derelict in their constitutionally mandated legal duties because the "Assault Weapons" guide is fundamentally erroneous in numerous respects. The result of this dereliction of duty is that tens of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens are being wrongly placed at risk of losing their personal liberty and property.

Tankhatch
02-27-2009, 3:45 PM
The DOJ BOF,,, is just following what the ATF DOF did back in the 1980's,,, Creative interpeting.......

In the 1980's, the powers that be cut the ATF DOF funding in 1/2, because they were becoming an embarasment to the upper political management for doing that.

Are you listening Arnold ?????

Hint, hint, nudge nudge.

Kim

Mstrty
02-27-2009, 9:56 PM
:rofl2:Those of you still reading; Im still laughing at the bear on the flag:rofl2:

7x57
02-27-2009, 10:31 PM
Hmm. Could the bear have a 1911 in a belt holster as well? Bears need sidearms too! Let's not deny them "an entire class of weapons commonly chosen for self defense." :-)

7x57

N6ATF
02-27-2009, 10:57 PM
I've moved the flag redesign threadjack to a new thread: http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2098374

drewski310
02-28-2009, 1:38 AM
It's 2:30am and I just finished reading this entire thread and the Petition and other attachments. Then promptly sent my donation to CGF. Now I'm starting to understand what "the buzz" is about with The Right People.

Thanks to all of you for your work in restoring our rights and for providing us with this invaluable Calguns community.

Drew

MP301
02-28-2009, 4:57 PM
Very interesting.

I have a question, is the following an example of "underground regulation" as well?

In December 1999, DOJ BOF sent the following information bulletin to Ca firearms dealers. Is said, in part, the following.....

Commencing January 1, 2000, prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale, or transfer of
any large capacity magazine unless to specifically designated parties and under specified
conditions. A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor or a felony.
(emphasis mine)

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/9904.pdf

But the actual applicable statute says the following......

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 12020-12040

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:

(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity
magazine.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html (great site - click on the type of code you want -Penal in this case - and the section you want -12020 in this case)

Looks the same except that the word transfer is missing from the actual statute. I find that interesting since the word transfer is the ONLY part that would include the purchaser/possessor as a party to any violation.

But just like my FFL buddy tells me, he gets these information bulletins from BOF and has always taken them as gospel...sorta explains why we sometimes get FUD from dealers...

Anyway, can Gene or someone tell me if this is an example of "Underground Regulation" or just plain mis-information or what?

BTW - great work Gene and those involved. CGF is one of the few hopes wee have left....Dont want to have to move just yet!

jasilva
02-28-2009, 5:52 PM
Very interesting.

I have a question, is the following an example of "underground regulation" as well?

In December 1999, DOJ BOF sent the following information bulletin to Ca firearms dealers. Is said, in part, the following.....

Commencing January 1, 2000, prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale, or transfer of
any large capacity magazine unless to specifically designated parties and under specified
conditions. A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor or a felony.
(emphasis mine)

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/9904.pdf

But the actual applicable statute says the following......

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 12020-12040

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:

(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity
magazine.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html (great site - click on the type of code you want -Penal in this case - and the section you want -12020 in this case)

Looks the same except that the word transfer is missing from the actual statute. I find that interesting since the word transfer is the ONLY part that would include the purchaser/possessor as a party to any violation.

But just like my FFL buddy tells me, he gets these information bulletins from BOF and has always taken them as gospel...sorta explains why we sometimes get FUD from dealers...

Anyway, can Gene or someone tell me if this is an example of "Underground Regulation" or just plain mis-information or what?

BTW - great work Gene and those involved. CGF is one of the few hopes wee have left....Dont want to have to move just yet!


I would think the part of the PC that I highlighted takes care of transfers.


Joe

MP301
02-28-2009, 8:20 PM
I would think the part of the PC that I highlighted takes care of transfers.

Joe

How is the purchaser/receiver giving or lending?

It seems like a small meaningless add-a-word by DOJ BOF, but when you consider what it means, its not such a small word.

If the word transfer would have been used statute, that would have effectively covered both parties in a magazine exchange transaction, right?

The one giving/selling/lending/etc AND the person receiving/buying/barrowing/etc would both be guilty of a crime if transfer was in the statute. The purchaser could be considered to be on the receiving end of the transfer, right?

But, IMO, since the Statute doesnt include that one little word, it is geared specifically AND exclusively toward the giver AND does not cover the purchaser in any way, shape or form.

So, the reason I asked if this was an "underground regulation" is because it appears as if BOF added that one little word intentionally for a different interpretation of the statute. And if that interpretation is passed on to someone via official government documentation, is that not an "underground regulation?"

Now, unless im missing something or there is another statute that I am unaware of, can anyone see any fault in my reasoning? (and please save the "conspiracy" angle because that only works if 2 or more people are "conspiring" to commit a crime and it appears the the receiver isnt doing anything wrong).

I would love to get input on this....

Diablo
03-01-2009, 7:08 AM
Excellent work Gene, as always, thank you for your work...:cheers2:

hoffmang
03-01-2009, 8:49 AM
How is the purchaser/receiver giving or lending?


How do you complete a sale without giving the thing bought to the buyer.

You are correct that BoF's wording isn't exactly precise, but it doesn't rise to the level of an Underground Regulation there. It is illegal to sell or give a large-capacity magazine in California. It is not illegal to buy or possess.

-Gene

MP301
03-01-2009, 4:35 PM
How do you complete a sale without giving the thing bought to the buyer.

You are correct that BoF's wording isn't exactly precise, but it doesn't rise to the level of an Underground Regulation there. It is illegal to sell or give a large-capacity magazine in California. It is not illegal to buy or possess.

-Gene

Thanks Gene, always great to get your input. I dont want to swell your head, but when you weigh in on something, we take it for gospel. I wasnt sure if it qualified but had assumed so because BOF's Bulletin does take it to a new meaning by including wording the includes the buyer.

It is also nice to get agreement from you regarding the purchasing and possessing of a Hi-cap magazines. I have explored this here before out of my never ending curiosity, and I would get flooded with bad info such as conspiracy, etc.

What I find interesting too, is that I keep hearing all about the need to have magazines that belong to a firearm that was manufactured before 2000, so that one can say that they possessed it before the ban date. The reality is, (although I personally would never test this out because you dont have to be guilty of a crime to be arrested in this state), that nowhere does it state that you cannot possess such a magazine, (like an XD9 for example).

Anyway, I think CGF is great and I am very much enjoying watching the progress you and the others involved make in protecting our RKBA. Thank you!

BillCA
03-02-2009, 3:21 AM
How do you complete a sale without giving the thing bought to the buyer.

You are correct that BoF's wording isn't exactly precise, but it doesn't rise to the level of an Underground Regulation there. It is illegal to sell or give a large-capacity magazine in California. It is not illegal to buy or possess.
-Gene

Ahh... no.
While I understand how lawyers can weasel words into different and particular meanings, I don't think you can turn the verb "give" into a finely deliniated moment at the end of a transaction.

Especially since the legislature did not strictly prohibit the sale of or the purchase of high-capacity magazines when they could have easily done so. Consider the wording of the section...

12020(2)...manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.

And compare to other firearms related PC sections where the sale of an item is prohibited;

12070. (a) No person shall sell, lease, or transfer firearms unless ...
12072. (a) (1) No person, corporation, or firm shall knowingly supply, deliver, sell, or give possession or control of a firearm to any person within ...
12020.3. Any person who, for commercial purposes, purchases, sells, manufacturers, ships, transports, distributes, or receives a firearm, where the coloration...

Examples of legislation that bans the selling of an item.

As used in 12020, the usage of the verb "gives" follows actions related to sales and precedes the verb "lend". It could be shortened to any person "who gives, or lends,". If read in this manner, the verb "gives" exists outside of the reference to sales and indicates a prohibition against providing large-capacity magazines to another person for no cost (e.g. as a gift).

And, while one definition of "give" in Merraim-Webster includes an example of a sale, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated A statute’s words must be given their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning, absent an indication Congress intended them to bear some different import. E.g., Walters v. Metropolitan Ed. Enterprises, Inc., 519 U. S. 202, 207. Thus, when give is used as an alternative to "keep for sale" or "lend" the ordinary, contemporary meaning is to "bequeath or bestow upon another" with no exchange of valuata.

As for the OP, I would certainly think that BOF's addition of the word transfer which is not in the statute would constitute an attempt for formulate an underground regulation. BOF is not empowered to add new words or meanings to statutes.

As far as I can tell, the phrases "Keep for sale", "expose for sale" and "offer for sale" do not have a defined meaning in the PC and I have not found any reference in the on-line OAL website.

Expose for sale would, I think, mean display of the item in a way that shows they are for sale, such as being grouped with other items for sale, marked with the selling price or next to a sign indicating a sale, price or discount.

Offer for sale, would indicate somone stating they have the item for sale, specifying a price for sale or offering to exchange the item for something else of value. Offer does not need to include the display of the item.

Keep for sale implies (to my thinking of course) that the intent of the possession (keeping) is soley for selling the item. Since the law does not prohibit the possession of a large-capacity magazine, mere possession of the magazine, absent a gun that it fits, is insufficient to establish a keep for sale violation. If BOF is to be believed, a high-capacity magazine must be retained by the owner until it can be disposed of out of state or destroyed. This means one can have a shoebox full of magazines left over from guns previously sold.

The question then becomes, if a person offers to buy a specific magazine, not only sight unseen but without knowing first if the person actually has the magazine, would acceptance of the offer (i.e. delivering the magazine(s) in a closed brown sack, constitute a violation of 12020(2)?

N6ATF
03-02-2009, 11:29 AM
Hmm, I thought that sounded familiar...

Maybe he thinks sales can be made where someone walks up to you, hands you money, and says "I've just bought your standard capacity magazine(s)". If you don't own any, you give their money back. If you do, that you weren't considering ever selling (keeping for sale), showing in public (exposing for sale), or talking about (offering for sale), then at that spontaneous and completely random moment you decide whether they are now the property of the stranger or if you have no desire to let the precious item go.

As if that would ever happen.

IAmASensFan
03-02-2009, 12:31 PM
Wow, opening the PDF in a browser tab has a little miniGene peering down at you as the site icon, I think if I would be disconcerted if I were a 2A foe & the miniGene was watching over me.

The minigene is very similar to the minime, only more diabolical.

artherd
03-02-2009, 3:10 PM
The question then becomes, if a person offers to buy a specific magazine, not only sight unseen but without knowing first if the person actually has the magazine, would acceptance of the offer (i.e. delivering the magazine(s) in a closed brown sack, constitute a violation of 12020(2)?

You really want to present as an affirmative defense on a FELONY CHARGE: "But he didn't know I had high caps in my trench coat." ?


Me neither.

BillCA
03-03-2009, 5:51 AM
Not especially, no.

But I had more in mind the idea that when the seller and buyer meet so the buyer can inspect the pistol, the buyer could legally make an offer to buy the standard magazines for a named price.

The dialoge might go something like....
B: Man, this Hi-Power is pristine. And the price is right.
S: You remembered to bring cash for the PPT fee, right?
B: Yup. And I'll buy any original mags you have for $20 each.
S: Nope.
B: Okay, $28 each. That's what they cost in other states.
S: No, sorry.
B: Well, $30 is my last offer.
S: Well, okay we'll do that deal after the paperwork.

I would contend that any enforcement action by LE after overhearing this conversation would be defensible because no crime has been committed under 12020. Even if the magazines are exchanged, I'd argue the activity did not include all the necessary elements of a violation of 12020.

But, I'm not a lawyer for a good reason. ;)

hoffmang
03-03-2009, 11:06 AM
But, I'm not a lawyer for a good reason. ;)

If someone sells a large-capacity magazine in the state of California and there is proof of the sale it will not be hard for the state to get a conviction. Judges and Juries don't parse the language as finely as you or a computer would.

You can't import for sale, offer for sale, or sell a large-capacity magazine in this state.

Repair parts kits are a whole different issue.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-03-2009, 4:20 PM
hoffmang, I've got a wager for you.:D

If OAL accepts your petition for review and agrees that the "only legally tenable interpretation" of the assault weapon law is that a semiauto, centerfire rifle (AR or AK) equipped with a Bullet Button does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, I will give you an M1 Garand that I got from the CMP a few years back. It's one of the non-import, USGI service grade rifles. It's been sitting in my safe, I haven't shot it.

If OAL accepts your petition and says there is a legally tenable interpretation that a semiauto, centerfire rifle (AR or AK) equipped with with a Bullet Button does have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, you buy me a new surfboard. New custom boards run around 700 bucks.

I will write a letter encouraging OAL to accept the petition for review, and if they do, to not issue a summary disposition letter on the ground that the DOJ advice letter is specifically exempt from APA requirements. The letter will argue the competing interpretation (Bullet Button rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine) and I can submit additional and/or repetitive commentary per the code if OAL decides to review the petition. I will transmit a copy of the letter to you at the same time I send it to OAL.

We are only talking about Bullet Buttons here, I think Prince 50 mag locks are legal. If OAL thinks the only legally tenable interpretation is that Prince 50 rifles are legal, you don't win the bet; if OAL thinks there's a tenable argument that Prince 50 rifles are illegal, I don't win the bet.

How does this sound? :thumbsup:

hoffmang
03-03-2009, 6:32 PM
FGG,

It's sadly more complex than that. OAL has no power to stop the AG from submitting a "280" letter.

Remember that all the relief OAL can really give me is that Alison's "capacity to accept" interpretation is an underground regulation. They usually don't want to go further to say its the only legally tenable. However, when arguing that its an underground rule, it doesn't hurt that I have a pretty strong case it is the only legal tenable rule.

Also, I have one piece of "insider trading" information that we'd have to discuss before I took your M1 Carbine (which I like a lot.)

So the possible outcomes are:

1. OAL accepts (yes go on, no full stop here.)
2. DOJ 280 (no go on, yes full stop.)
3. Comment period opens.
4. OAL rules that DOJ's attempt to broaden or interpret "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" in some way that alters the definition of "detachable magazine" as it relates to rifles is an Underground Regulation.

They never really rule that a BB is legal. I just was poking Alison in the eye and keeping an eye on future readers of this set of documents.

Want to propose a different bet that works under these circumstances?

-Gene

383green
03-03-2009, 8:04 PM
M1 Garand

M1 Carbine

Gene, please note that FGG put a Garand on the line, not a mere Carbine! The Carbines are adorable and fun, but a Garand is a Real Man's Rifle! :)

What does it mean to say that the AG might submit a 280 letter?

I just was poking Alison in the eye

Aha! I see the connection with the "disabled Calgunner" thread now. You're going to force DOJ to install a wheelchair ramp on Alison to better facilitate the eye-poking, right? :D

nobody_special
03-03-2009, 8:52 PM
It just occurred to me that there is likely a California college/university whose athletic team is the Bears or Bruins or something like that.

Yeah, we should definitely be arming them. :43:

7x57

Some of us are armed, at least in our homes. ;)

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-03-2009, 9:18 PM
There's another possible outcome I think, i.e., summary disposition letter, maybe under 270(f)(2)(E).

I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to wager around your possible outcome number 4.

I want to make sure I'm following you when you say "interpret...in some way that alters the definition of 'detachable magazine' as it relates to rifles." Do you mean interpret in some way that is inconsistent with the literal construction of 12276.1(a)(1) (with the regulatory definition substituted for "detachable magazine") as applied to BB equipped rifles?

If so, I'm not sure I'd want to bet on this; any interpretation that BB equipped rifles are not lawfully configured would be inconsistent with the literal construction which results in the rifle not having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. If it gets past acceptance and summary disposition it's likely to end up this way.

Betting on whether literal construction is the "only legally tenable interpretation" is another story but that's basically what I proposed above, and I agree it is unlikely that OAL would decide that. Betting on the whether literal construction is the "correct" interpretation I'd consider, but OAL isn't deciding that either.

This is my thinking on Bullet Button rifles: I think they're assault weapons if they have any of the prohibited features. I'm not going to even try to convince anyone here about it!:D I think OAL would fairly assess the competing arguments but it's hard for me to see how to construct a legal/not legal bet around an OAL decision on the petition. I'm serious about doing it though if we can figure out a way to decide a winner.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-03-2009, 9:21 PM
Gene, please note that FGG put a Garand on the line, not a mere Carbine! The Carbines are adorable and fun, but a Garand is a Real Man's Rifle! :)

If hoffmang wants a cute rifle instead, I can arrange that.:D

hoffmang
03-03-2009, 9:37 PM
This is my thinking on Bullet Button rifles: I think they're assault weapons if they have any of the prohibited features.

If a bullet button does not remove a rifle's capacity to accept a detachable magazine then aren't all SKS's illegal assault weapons since it only takes a tool to detach the magazine?

-Gene

oaklander
03-03-2009, 9:44 PM
This is my thinking on Bullet Button rifles: I think they're assault weapons if they have any of the prohibited features. I'm not going to even try to convince anyone here about it!:D I think OAL would fairly assess the competing arguments but it's hard for me to see how to construct a legal/not legal bet around an OAL decision on the petition. I'm serious about doing it though if we can figure out a way to decide a winner.

But your "thinking" conflicts with the plain language of the statute and the history of the rule-making. Do you have anything concrete to base this thinking on?

CHS
03-03-2009, 10:19 PM
This is my thinking on Bullet Button rifles: I think they're assault weapons if they have any of the prohibited features.

Your wrongness makes me laugh.

colossians323
03-04-2009, 4:48 AM
Your wrongness makes me laugh.

It may make you laugh, but FGG has always been a great source of oppositional thinking over the years, and he has made sure that we discover every bit of the enemies thinking.

It leads me to believe that he is playing devils advocate to help the cause, and is a double agent behind enemy lines.;)

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-04-2009, 4:57 AM
But your "thinking" conflicts with the plain language of the statute and the history of the rule-making. Do you have anything concrete to base this thinking on?

Yes, the plain language of the statute and the history of the rule making.:D

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-04-2009, 5:30 AM
If a bullet button does not remove a rifle's capacity to accept a detachable magazine then aren't all SKS's illegal assault weapons since it only takes a tool to detach the magazine?

I don't think so. Again, I'm not going to argue it here...has anyone ever won a statutory interpretation argument here after getting dogpiled at Calguns?:D

Here's my dilemma: I think it's a little reckless to tell people that BB equipped rifles with prohibited features are "100% friggin' legal" (bwiese said that once on one of the message boards). I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as that.

On the other hand the argument has gained a lot of traction and the risk of prosecution is low, so who can argue with results?

There is no chance of validation of the competing argument here, which is why it would be tempting for me to provide commentary in the OAL proceedings. I'd be conlicted about doing that but if it were done in the context of a wager that would be different.

hoffmang
03-04-2009, 12:10 PM
There is no chance of validation of the competing argument here, which is why it would be tempting for me to provide commentary in the OAL proceedings.

So let me skip you ahead a couple of chess moves. If you're argument is actually strong, then what do our competing arguments mean for the enforcement of 12276.1 (a) itself and as it interacts with 12276 (a)(11) when the scrutiny is more than rational basis?

-Gene

wash
03-04-2009, 12:56 PM
Yeah! Take that!

Wait, what?

DarkHorse
03-04-2009, 1:18 PM
Ahh, the plot thickens, just like bacon grease left in a skillet for two days...

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-04-2009, 1:32 PM
So let me skip you ahead a couple of chess moves.

I suck at chess...are you talking 2nd amendment, "dangerous or unusual" stuff? I wasn't even going there.:D

I'm not trying to give the competing argument a big build up...it's nothing earth shattering, just using basic rules of interpretation, applying the law to the facts, etc., resulting in legal SKS fixed-magazine rifle, legal Prince 50 rifle, not legal Bullet Button rifle. No conflict between 12276.1(a)(1), 12276(a)(11).

bill104
03-04-2009, 1:51 PM
All My Freinds call me a Tool, does this mean I don't need a BB.

tommyid1
03-04-2009, 2:04 PM
All My Freinds call me a Tool, does this mean I don't need a BB.

change your name to mr toolbag and nickname your fingers screwdriver's 1-10 and i think youd be good to go!!

bill104
03-04-2009, 2:24 PM
Thats Mr Tool Please, and only my pinky finger and index fingers are Screwdrivers, the rest are pin punches, oh and my thumbs are anvils, since I seem to bang on them more then anything else, and did I mention I use my forhead as a hammers sometimes. lol

tortoisethunder
03-04-2009, 3:45 PM
I need the Acronym list...dictionary...law book things...google and I still don't get half of what is being said?

Librarian
03-04-2009, 4:46 PM
I need the Acronym list...dictionary...law book things...google and I still don't get half of what is being said?

Bad thread to start in - lots of background. Think of your questions and try the search button [ third heavy line down from the top, third from the right ] for significant words. Problem is, there will be LOTS of threads returned - try using Advanced Search, in only 2nd Amend. Politics and Laws, and limiting the author to bwiese.

sorensen440
03-04-2009, 4:48 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=78606&highlight=acronymI need the Acronym list...dictionary...law book things...google and I still don't get half of what is being said?

sreiter
03-04-2009, 8:54 PM
As a nooB her, and to building OLL's in general - (sorry if this has been asked and asnwered a million times)

what if anything is being done to get the DOJ (who ever) to actually rule that "evil" black guns are in fact legal with a bb installed?

12voltguy
03-04-2009, 8:59 PM
As a nooB her, and to building OLL's in general - (sorry if this has been asked and asnwered a million times)

what if anything is being done to get the DOJ (who ever) to actually rule that "evil" black guns are in fact legal with a bb installed?

read post #1;)

hoffmang
03-04-2009, 10:14 PM
what if anything is being done to get the DOJ (who ever) to actually rule that "evil" black guns are in fact legal with a bb installed?

As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

-Gene

tortoisethunder
03-04-2009, 11:04 PM
As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

-Gene

Hoffmang,
Only being on CALGUNs a short time, when I come across you avatar I read, respect, and try to understand as much as I can. I am a lifetime gun owner (3 generations of guns in my safe), Hunter, sportsman, part time fisherman, and have lived in CA all my life. Thank you for your efforts past, present, and future!

sreiter
03-05-2009, 6:25 AM
As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

-Gene

thanks

sreiter
03-05-2009, 6:26 AM
read post #1;)

LOL - i read EVERY post including the 38 pages of the original BB thread :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-05-2009, 7:00 AM
As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

Here's another wager proposal: OAL agrees a legally tenable argument can be made that a Bullet Button equipped, semiautomatic centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, notwithstanding APA-compliant, binding 5469(a) and the lawfully configured SKS fixed-magazine rifle.:Pirate:

bombadillo
03-05-2009, 8:55 AM
As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

-Gene

Seriously, read my post about trying to get them to say that a flash hider connected to a BB/P50 OLL is either legal or illegal and as I said earlier, their silence is golden. If they had anything to say about it being illegal, they would and do. However, if there is no leg to stand on, they just try to confuse you to the point that you're too scared to stand up for your rights. Know and read 12276 very well and keep paperwork with you and your EBR's!

adamsreeftank
03-05-2009, 11:14 AM
...
I will write a letter encouraging OAL to accept the petition for review, and if they do, to not issue a summary disposition letter on the ground that the DOJ advice letter is specifically exempt from APA requirements. The letter will argue the competing interpretation (Bullet Button rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine) and I can submit additional and/or repetitive commentary per the code if OAL decides to review the petition. I will transmit a copy of the letter to you at the same time I send it to OAL.
...

So Fabio, for a mere surfboard, you are willing to argue against our collective rights with a state agency.

It's one thing to play a devil's advocate, but I think that would cross the line.

hoffmang
03-05-2009, 11:54 AM
So Fabio, for a mere surfboard, you are willing to argue against our collective rights with a state agency.

It's one thing to play a devil's advocate, but I think that would cross the line.

But for this issue I'd take you up on it.

-Gene

OldGunTard
03-05-2009, 12:40 PM
But for this issue I'd take you up on it.

-Gene

He gets the surfboard.
Do you get the carbine, or the garand?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-05-2009, 12:51 PM
But for this issue I'd take you up on it.

:thumbsup:

I'm going to lunch right now but let's figure out the details later. Think how we would decide if you win.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-05-2009, 2:34 PM
Think how we would decide if you win.

Ok I'm back from lunch. How's this: if OAL does not agree the argument in post #140 is tenable, you win. If the petition is not accepted, DOJ does a 280 certification, or OAL summarily disposes of or otherwise decides the petition without indicating whether or not the specific argument is tenable, it's a draw. The petition has to run its course, if you withdraw the petition I win.

Cypren
03-05-2009, 2:55 PM
But for this issue I'd take you up on it.

Now we know the real reason Gene puts so much work into Calguns: to trick people into bolstering his personal collection! :43:

We're onto you, Hoffman. Yes indeed. :TFH:

Blackhawk556
03-05-2009, 3:12 PM
hoffman said we would have NEW info in two weeks, anyone have any type of idea what that might be???? or when those two weeks come up?:confused:

colossians323
03-05-2009, 4:23 PM
So Fabio, for a mere surfboard, you are willing to argue against our collective rights with a state agency.

It's one thing to play a devil's advocate, but I think that would cross the line.


I think that he works for a state agency:confused:

wildhawker
03-05-2009, 4:41 PM
hoffman said we would have NEW info in two weeks, anyone have any type of idea what that might be???? or when those two weeks come up?:confused:

Oh, THAT new info? He told us TWO WEEKS ago... ;)

hoffmang
03-05-2009, 6:46 PM
Ok I'm back from lunch. How's this: if OAL does not agree the argument in post #140 is tenable, you win.

They will never need to agree that the argument in post #140 is tenable. All they will do is say that whatever Alison wrote isn't a legally adopted and valid regulation while also not being the only legally tenable interpretation.

If you have some other legally tenable interpretation that's dandy. It's still not validly adopted - or clearly - the only legally tenable interpretation. The one I advance is certainly legally tenable.

-Gene

CapS
03-05-2009, 6:57 PM
Oh, THAT new info? He told us TWO WEEKS ago... ;)

Oh. Are you sure? I thought he meant two weeks from today.

/Cap :popcorn:

DarkHorse
03-05-2009, 7:01 PM
hoffman said we would have NEW info in two weeks, anyone have any type of idea what that might be???? or when those two weeks come up?:confused:

Yes.

Here's my idea:
Type of info - pertaining to DOJ/BOF
When - sometime in the future


Help any?:p

18448

N6ATF
03-05-2009, 7:19 PM
LOL patience bear.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-05-2009, 7:22 PM
If you have some other legally tenable interpretation that's dandy. It's still not validly adopted - or clearly - the only legally tenable interpretation. The one I advance is certainly legally tenable.

-Gene

The interpretation doesn't need to be "validly adopted" and I never claimed it was the only legally tenable interpretation. What specifically would you be willing to wager on if anything?

bombadillo
03-05-2009, 7:27 PM
I just want to know what new info is coming out!!




And fabio is iggy!

hoffmang
03-05-2009, 7:41 PM
The interpretation doesn't need to be "validly adopted" and I never claimed it was the only legally tenable interpretation. What specifically would you be willing to wager on if anything?

State agencies don't get to interpret validly adopted regulations. Interpretations of validly adopted regulations are underground regulations.

I have a feeling we're having a disconnect on how the APA works and OAL's role in it. If you were to convince OAL that you had a different legally tenable interpretation of 11 CCR 5469, all you'd be doing is adding fuel to the fire of BoF being wrong trying to state that their own regulations are "unclear" or that "capacity to accept" all of a sudden newly modifies 11 CCR 5469.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-05-2009, 7:44 PM
I just want to know what new info is coming out!!

BREAKING NEWS: BULLET BUTTON 100% FRIGGIN' ILLEGAL!!!:43:

And fabio is iggy!

You would not be the first to figure that one out.:D

oaklander
03-05-2009, 7:48 PM
BREAKING NEWS: BULLET BUTTON 100% FRIGGIN' ILLEGAL!!!:43:



You would not be the first to figure that one out.:D

Fabio,

I've kind of read through most of this thread, and I still don't see how an SKS can be legal, and a BB-equiped rifle NOT be legal.

Can you explain to me in lay terms how you came up with this?

I think others following the thread would find it helpful as well. . .

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-05-2009, 7:59 PM
State agencies don't get to interpret validly adopted regulations. Interpretations of validly adopted regulations are underground regulations.

You're leaving out a big qualifier but it's neither here nor there.

I have a feeling we're having a disconnect on how the APA works and OAL's role in it.

I understand the APA process and OAL's role and realize they don't need to say whether or not the competing interpretation (post #140) is tenable. So again, what specifically would you be willing to wager on if anything?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-05-2009, 8:04 PM
Fabio,

I've kind of read through most of this thread, and I still don't see how an SKS can be legal, and a BB-equiped rifle NOT be legal.

Can you explain to me in lay terms how you came up with this?

I think others following the thread would find it helpful as well. . .

Again I'm not going to explain it here, it always ends up in the same place. I can say that hoffmang is a little too hung up on "validly adopted."

hoffmang
03-05-2009, 8:21 PM
Again I'm not going to explain it here, it always ends up in the same place. I can say that hoffmang is a little too hung up on "validly adopted."

You haven't read Tidewater then.

An agency can do three and only three things.

1. Adopt a regulation through the full APA route. The 2000 rulemaking and the failed "permanence" rulemaking were examples.

2. Explain the law without conflicting or embellishing on the law or validly adopted regulations.

3. Take a position that is the only legally tenable interpretation. At best you're saying that there is more than one legally tenable interpretation - a point I don't agree with you on but then again you remain unwilling to air your supposed point of view in public or private.

It troubles me that you only want to air your opinion when you (incorrectly) perceive that it can be ruled upon in a way that would hurt gun owners.

If you're sure you are correct, I suggest you go file a writ of mandate in your local superior court as they can vet your supposed interpretation. OAL can not and will not because this is not a process to adopt a new interpretation.

-Gene

oaklander
03-05-2009, 8:22 PM
Again I'm not going to explain it here, it always ends up in the same place. I can say that hoffmang is a little too hung up on "validly adopted."

OK - for the benefit of others, I will explain what I think your argument is, and why it fails:

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

This means that an AW must have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

11 CCR 5469 - The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) "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.

This means that a "detachable magazine" is anything that does not require a tool.

Those two code sections (along Harrot v. County of Kings and some other stuff) are the main basis for the bullet button. They go together very well. The second one even refers to the first one.

What I *think* you are saying is that the DOJ can ignore those statutes, the case law, and everything else, and make up any sort of rule they want (whether or not it's validly adopted), and since it's the DOJ, they can get away with it????

Do you have any idea how crazy this sounds?

EDIT: do you have access to some secret case or something that makes this NOT sound crazy?

hoffmang
03-05-2009, 8:27 PM
FGG,

You see that 11 CCR 5469 says "readily from the firearm" not "readily from a firearm", right?

-Gene

CHS
03-05-2009, 8:36 PM
I just want to point out, again, that I <3 this thread :)

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-05-2009, 8:36 PM
I'm not going to argue with you guys!!:D Are we going to bet on something or not?

oaklander
03-05-2009, 8:42 PM
I'm not going to argue with you guys!!:D Are we going to bet on something or not?

I appreciate your attempts at humor, however - you are taking an exotic position on the legality of the bullet button, and YET you appear to be unwilling or unable to argue exactly *why* you are "right."

Again, is there something that you know that the other 23,999 Calgunners don't know?

hoffmang
03-05-2009, 8:43 PM
There's another possible outcome I think, i.e., summary disposition letter, maybe under 270(f)(2)(E).


I'm glad I double checked this. It makes it clear to me that you do not understand the APA.

270(f)(2)(E) is for agencies who have had their rulemakings exempted from the APA. At no point in time has DOJ been exempted from the APA.

For those watching from the sidelines:

270(f)(2)(E) An express statutory exemption from the rulemaking provisions of the APA is applicable to the challenged rule.

DOJ's AW rulemaking authority is here:

12276.5 (c) The Attorney General shall adopt those rules and regulations
that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent
of this chapter.


Their one statutory exception to the APA was here and was only applicable to the AW listings before AB-2728 is right above and shows you how 270(f)(2)(E) would otherwise come into play:

12276.5 (b) (2) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of
Title 2 of the Government Code, pertaining to the adoption of rules
and regulations, shall not apply to any list of assault weapons
promulgated pursuant to this section.


Glenn/Spawn Ranch/FGG:

I've had this exact argument with you on Ar15.com where you stormed off in a huff after coming back from surfing.

If you care about moving gun rights forward, then give me your best argument that the bullet button isn't legal. This time, don't delete your post and your account before I get a chance to read it.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-05-2009, 8:55 PM
270(f)(2)(E) is for agencies who have had their rulemakings exempted from the APA. At no point in time has DOJ been exempted from the APA.

Is this really what you think an "express statutory exemption" from APA rulemaking provisions is?

hoffmang
03-05-2009, 8:57 PM
Is this really what you think an "express statutory exemption" from APA rulemaking provisions is?

This is an example of an "express statutory exemption" from the APA rulemaking provision:

12276.5 (b) (2) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of
Title 2 of the Government Code, pertaining to the adoption of rules
and regulations, shall not apply to any list of assault weapons
promulgated pursuant to this section.

Is that really not what you think it is?

If you're answer is yes, I question your legal training or understanding.

-Gene

oaklander
03-05-2009, 9:10 PM
Is this really what you think an "express statutory exemption" from APA rulemaking provisions is?

Fabio - what difference does all this make? I'm still trying to figure out how you came to the conclusion that the bullet button is not legal.

Please explain it to us, if you can.

I'm starting to think that you are just trolling us. Also, do you have a legal background, or are you an amateur?

CHS
03-05-2009, 9:17 PM
I'm starting to think that you are just trolling us. Also, do you have a legal background, or are you an amateur?

He's quite clearly just trolling.

We say BB is legal.
He says it's not.

We back up what we say with our proof.
He refuses to even give us his line of reasoning.

Calguns: 1
Troll: 0

Cypren
03-05-2009, 9:17 PM
:popcorn:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-05-2009, 9:18 PM
If you don't already know what statutory exemption I could have been talking about there is no need to say any more on that topic.

I'm not going to argue the bullet button here. Are you interested in a wager on the OAL petition or not?

hoffmang
03-05-2009, 9:21 PM
I'm not going to argue the bullet button here. Are you interested in a wager on the OAL petition or not?

You keep trying to wager on the OAL petition with stakes that the OAL is not going to rule on.

I'm willing to bet that if OAL accepts the petition then it is either 280'ed by DOJ or OAL calls Alison's letter an underground regulation.

If my two outcomes above come to pass, you owe me a nice M1. If it's not rejected, I'll spend about $700 on your new surfboard.

-Gene

leelaw
03-05-2009, 9:21 PM
So pretty much it is

Gene: This is what we think, this is our reasoning

Fabio: This is what I think, but you've gotta guess my reasoning (if any).

Fabio - you're getting dangerously close to trolling.

oaklander
03-05-2009, 9:23 PM
If you don't already know what statutory exemption I could have been talking about there is no need to say any more on that topic.

I'm not going to argue the bullet button here. Are you interested in a wager on the OAL petition or not?

OK - Gene said he's willing to bet you. Now spill the beans.

hoffmang
03-05-2009, 9:25 PM
If you don't already know what statutory exemption I could have been talking about there is no need to say any more on that topic.


Though DOJ usually enjoys a prosecutor's privilege it doesn't when its promulgating rules of generally applicability under a statute that it has been delegated to interpret and enforce.

The APA applies to any ruling DOJ makes now that AB-2728 mooted their one statutory exemption from the APA.

If another statutory exemption existed, then why didn't they claim it on the permanence underground regulation (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf)?

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-05-2009, 9:29 PM
Fabio - what difference does all this make?

The statutory exemption stuff? None at all.

You guys are illustrating the futility of arguing about stuff here. I'm trying to figure out a fun way to get the issue in front of an experienced, fair, neutral decision maker, without the acrimony and name calling that we're starting to see. I'm not sure I've got all the answers, but confident enough that I'm willing risk losing a nice Garand over it. It will be worth it to me even if the argument gets tested and fails then we all would be more certain about the Bullet Button.

hoffmang
03-05-2009, 9:35 PM
FGG,

If I could get a well recognized law prof to mediate a "moot arbitration" on the legality of the bullet button, would you do that?

I'm still unclear why you will not have the debate in private...

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-05-2009, 9:39 PM
You keep trying to wager on the OAL petition with stakes that the OAL is not going to rule on.

I'm willing to bet that if OAL accepts the petition then it is either 280'ed by DOJ or OAL calls Alison's letter an underground regulation.


Those are likely outcomes. I realize there's no need for OAL to squarely decide whether the competing interpretation has any merit which makes it difficult to come up with a bet about it.

hoffmang
03-05-2009, 9:47 PM
Those are likely outcomes. I realize there's no need for OAL to squarely decide whether the competing interpretation has any merit which makes it difficult to come up with a bet about it.

And then absent your unicorn interpretation, Alison is left with nothing to say but to quote the law and the CCR when manufacturers, DAs, or others inquire about the law and bullet buttons.

-Gene

oaklander
03-05-2009, 9:54 PM
The statutory exemption stuff? None at all.

You guys are illustrating the futility of arguing about stuff here. I'm trying to figure out a fun way to get the issue in front of an experienced, fair, neutral decision maker, without the acrimony and name calling that we're starting to see. I'm not sure I've got all the answers, but confident enough that I'm willing risk losing a nice Garand over it. It will be worth it to me even if the argument gets tested and fails then we all would be more certain about the Bullet Button.

I don't see much arguing. You've posted a lot of stuff that somehow implies that the DOJ doesn't have to follow the law, but when asked about it, you clam up.

Are you surprised that people are getting a bit impatient with you?

Also, it would be good to know your background, so that I/we can give your argument(s) the proper weight. Are you a lawyer?

GunOwner
03-06-2009, 12:54 AM
The DOJ is tyring to confuse things but this is pretty simple legal interpretation.

Ultimately all magazines are "detachable" from the weapon (and I have the tools to prove it)

SO under the existing law and regulations,

When looking at the same two weapons with the same qualifying evil features:

if the weapon is configured so that magazine is detachable WITHOUT TOOLS its an AW

if the weapon is configured so that magazine is detachable only WITH TOOLS its NOT an AW


Am I missing something?

hoffmang
03-06-2009, 10:01 AM
The DOJ is tyring to confuse things but this is pretty simple legal interpretation.

Ultimately all magazines are "detachable" from the weapon (and I have the tools to prove it)

SO under the existing law and regulations,

When looking at the same two weapons with the same qualifying evil features:

if the weapon is configured so that magazine is detachable WITHOUT TOOLS its an AW

if the weapon is configured so that magazine is detachable only WITH TOOLS its NOT an AW


Am I missing something?

Nope.

Especially when you consider that one of the comparable evil features is the weapon itself having the letters "SKS" on the side.

-Gene

bombadillo
03-06-2009, 2:20 PM
Gene, are you a lawyer, or legal advisor, or what the heck do you do for a living anyway. You really seem to know your stuff when it comes to the P.C. and are amazing when it comes to law in general. Just a question?

hoffmang
03-06-2009, 2:25 PM
Gene, are you a lawyer, or legal advisor, or what the heck do you do for a living anyway. You really seem to know your stuff when it comes to the P.C. and are amazing when it comes to law in general. Just a question?

My CV is here (http://www.hoffmang.com/about.html).

I tend to start companies in super high regulatory regimes. One of my former co-founders is an expert on anti-trust and copyright and I've just learned by bringing and getting lots of Federal lawsuits. I won my first Federal copyright case before I could legally drink. My corporate outside counsel's firm calls me a para-lawyer...

-Gene

bombadillo
03-06-2009, 4:05 PM
Man, quite the history there :notworthy:

Blackhawk556
03-06-2009, 4:47 PM
My CV is here (http://www.hoffmang.com/about.html).

I tend to start companies in super high regulatory regimes. One of my former co-founders is an expert on anti-trust and copyright and I've just learned by bringing and getting lots of Federal lawsuits. I won my first Federal copyright case before I could legally drink. My corporate outside counsel's firm calls me a para-lawyer...

-Gene

so in other words your rich :King::gunsmilie:

bombadillo
03-06-2009, 5:50 PM
so in other words your rich :King::gunsmilie:

Bwaahahahahaha!


Did you really have to say it?

wash
03-06-2009, 5:51 PM
That's a very impressive ~resume.

I'm glad to know that such highly qualified people are on my side.

diginit
03-06-2009, 6:06 PM
Wow, And I though drinking all night with Lee Majors. And having Roy Orbison and Ray Conniff as close family friends was special. Impresive resume', Gene.

TonyM
03-06-2009, 6:22 PM
so in other words your rich :King::gunsmilie:


Gene is probably the most down to earth "rich guy" you'll ever encounter. He's classy, yet not out of his element when it's time to get your hands dirty. Our paths have crossed and run parallel to each other over the years, but it took Calguns.net for me to actually meet him.

I love this place. :cool:

I think if you stick around long enough, you'll get to understand just who he is and what he's trying to do doing for the community.

7x57
03-06-2009, 6:41 PM
There are other wealthy businessmen working hard in the CA gun rights scene. At least in LA county, they could probably just donate enough money to the sheriff's election campaign to get a CCW and then do nothing else, so when there is a real personal commitment it's even more likely to be altruistic than it is for us serfs.

Remember, it is the left that insists that we see everything through a grid of economic class. We must judge people by who they are and what they do, and stay far away from their game.

Most of the founders, BTW, would fall into this precise category.

7x57

hoffmang
03-06-2009, 7:52 PM
All I've done is worked very hard and read a lot and tried to listen.

To get back on topic in this thread, I've been trying to listen for an argument from Fabio, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

FGG: I've offered up two scenarios. Which one would you like to take?

-Gene

oaklander
03-06-2009, 10:32 PM
All I've done is worked very hard and read a lot and tried to listen.

To get back on topic in this thread, I've been trying to listen for an argument from Fabio, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

FGG: I've offered up two scenarios. Which one would you like to take?

-Gene

Was it something I said?

:p

OK Fabio, I'll be nice to you. . .

JeffM
03-06-2009, 11:12 PM
:popcorn:

oaklander
03-06-2009, 11:19 PM
FGG - it's safe to come back in the thread. . .

Just remember that we'd like some facts to back up your arguments. . .

http://s5.tinypic.com/2ib26tk.jpg

7x57
03-06-2009, 11:46 PM
http://s5.tinypic.com/2ib26tk.jpg

Holy Moses, that picture is even more repulsive when it isn't the size of my thumbnail. It looks like Al Bundy in a wretchedly bad wig after a solid right cross to the nose. Where does this horrific image come from? How can we make it go away? Won't anyone think of the children?!?

7x57

oaklander
03-06-2009, 11:54 PM
Holy Moses, that picture is even more repulsive when it isn't the size of my thumbnail. It looks like Al Bundy in a wretchedly bad wig after a solid right cross to the nose. Where does this horrific image come from? How can we make it go away? Won't anyone think of the children?!?

7x57

http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com/news/archives/april99/stories/040199_01.shtml

7x57
03-07-2009, 12:04 AM
http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com/news/archives/april99/stories/040199_01.shtml

Well, and here I was wondering what getting "goosed" had to do with one's nose. :D

7x57

383green
03-07-2009, 4:56 AM
http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com/news/archives/april99/stories/040199_01.shtml

Huh. He actually got hit by a goose. I always assumed that the picture was taken after he got punched for trolling about "I can't believe it's not butter" in the pro-butter forum. :D

trashman
03-07-2009, 8:18 AM
I don't think so. Again, I'm not going to argue it here...has anyone ever won a statutory interpretation argument here after getting dogpiled at Calguns?:D

<john cleese> Ahhh...do I detect the scent of burning martyr? </cleese>

Seriously though, why would you seek that kind of validation on the internet, anyway?


Here's my dilemma: I think it's a little reckless to tell people that BB equipped rifles with prohibited features are "100% friggin' legal" (bwiese said that once on one of the message boards). I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as that.
There is no chance of validation of the competing argument here, which is why it would be tempting for me to provide commentary in the OAL proceedings. I'd be conlicted about doing that but if it were done in the context of a wager that would be different.So I'm not understanding what your dilemma is, exactly. But it sounds like you're just inherently uncomfortable with the opposition's inability to write anti-gun statutes that clearly reflect their intent -- and you'd rather we just skip all the legal wrangling and stop using BB-configured OLLs.

Have I got that right?

--Neill

artherd
03-07-2009, 9:42 AM
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
I don't think so. Again, I'm not going to argue it here...has anyone ever won a statutory interpretation argument here after getting dogpiled at Calguns?

YES. Me. On OLLs. In 2004.

NEXT!

BillCA
03-08-2009, 7:41 AM
Here's another wager proposal: OAL agrees a legally tenable argument can be made that a Bullet Button equipped, semiautomatic centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, notwithstanding APA-compliant, binding 5469(a) and the lawfully configured SKS fixed-magazine rifle.:Pirate:

I think I know where you are going, except I don't think a legitimate argument can be made by your reasoning.

In order for a judgement to be made whether a specific rifle is an "assault weapon" it must be considered as a complete, ready to fire unit. That includes a magazine inserted in the magazine well. When using a properly installed Prince50 or BB, with the magazine inserted, it cannot be removed without the use of tools and no longer has the "capacity to accept" any magazine.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-08-2009, 11:19 AM
This is probably a losing bet for me but with the right odds I'd take it: $250.00, 10 to 1 odds, that OAL summarily disposes of the underground regulation petition, or decides that there is no underground regulation in the "CTA letter." If OAL declines to accept or DOJ does a 280 certification it's a draw.

toolman9000
03-08-2009, 11:44 AM
http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com/news/archives/april99/stories/040199_01.shtml

Way off topic...

That is very cool to see a link to Ultimate Rollercoaster here, the owner of the site is a friend of mine and a SoCal native... but not a gun guy. He started the site in college, and I think some of the photos I took are still up there.

Cypren
03-08-2009, 12:13 PM
In order for a judgement to be made whether a specific rifle is an "assault weapon" it must be considered as a complete, ready to fire unit. That includes a magazine inserted in the magazine well. When using a properly installed Prince50 or BB, with the magazine inserted, it cannot be removed without the use of tools and no longer has the "capacity to accept" any magazine.

I have a hard time understanding how this is a legally-tenable interpretation. Wouldn't there be no such thing as a rifle that had a "capacity to accept" a magazine when it had a magazine already in its well?

I can only conclude that "capacity to accept" refers to the rifle with no magazine attached. The P50 (properly installed) and BB simply make the magazine non-detachable without tools, since it has no moving parts which make it "detachable" or "fixed" -- the magazine retention system of the rifle determines that. (As another poster rightly said earlier, "all magazines are ultimately detachable, and I've got the tools to prove it.")

artherd
03-08-2009, 1:46 PM
This is probably a losing bet for me but with the right odds I'd take it: $250.00, 5 to 1 odds, that OAL summarily disposes of the underground regulation petition, or decides that there is no underground regulation in the "CTA letter." If OAL declines to accept or DOJ does a 280 certification it's a draw.

It's been a while since I engaged in betting online, but isn't that unwinable ? :)

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-08-2009, 3:51 PM
It's been a while since I engaged in betting online, but isn't that unwinable ? :)

Pretty much.:D I've changed the odds to 10 to 1.

383green
03-08-2009, 5:10 PM
Seems to me that he's trying to bait y'all into making an online bet...


http://www.fivedigits.net/pix/phun/itsatrap.jpg

tortoisethunder
03-08-2009, 6:46 PM
What is a 280 certification?

hoffmang
03-08-2009, 6:58 PM
This is 1 CCR 280 (http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/Default.aspx?cnt=Document&db=CA-ADC-TOC%3BRVADCCATOC&docname=1CAADCS280&findtype=W&fn=_top&ifm=NotSet&rlt=CLID_FQRLT495055562183&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault.wl&rs=WEBL9.02&service=Find&spa=CCR-1000&vr=2.0):


TITLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
DIVISION 1. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
CHAPTER 2. UNDERGROUND REGULATIONS
This database is current through 2/20/09, Register 2009, No. 8
280. Suspension of Actions Regarding Underground Regulations.

(a) Any action of OAL or an agency pursuant to this chapter in connection with a petition shall be suspended if OAL receives a certification from the agency that it will not issue, use, enforce, or attempt to enforce the alleged underground regulation along with proof that the certification has been served on the petitioner. This certification shall be made by the head of the agency or a person with a written delegation of authority from the head of the agency.

(b) Upon receipt of this certification and proof of service, OAL shall do all of the following:

(1) File the petition and the certification with the Secretary of State.

(2) Publish a summary of the petition and the certification in the California Regulatory Notice Register.

(3) Provide a copy of the certification to the petitioner.

Note: Authority cited: Section 11342.4, Government Code. Reference: Section 11340.5, Government Code.

Hope the link works as westlaw's public stuff is kinda poor.

-Gene

sreiter
03-08-2009, 7:49 PM
http://www.fivedigits.net/pix/phun/itsatrap.jpg

lol

ever been to /b/ ?

over there it means something totally different

383green
03-08-2009, 7:51 PM
lol

ever been to /b/ ?

over there it means something totally different

No, I haven't been there, but I think I've seen some quoted /b/ material before. How do they use it there? (PM me if it's too risque for the open forum. ;))

sreiter
03-08-2009, 8:04 PM
pm sent

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-09-2009, 11:41 AM
Seems to me that he's trying to bait y'all into making an online bet...[/IMG]

Not trying to bait anybody. If the proposal isn't above board it's withdrawn. If we can, let's structure something that won't get anyone in trouble.

hoffmang
03-09-2009, 11:48 AM
If we can, let's structure something that won't get anyone in trouble.

As you might have caught from another thread, I've been a bit busy. I'd really like to find a way to do these sorts of public wagers legally. Mind taking a look?

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-09-2009, 12:01 PM
Sure, I'll take a look.

artherd
03-11-2009, 1:50 AM
I'd really like to find a way to do these sorts of public wagers legally.
-Gene

Trip to the Caymans? FGG, care to make this *really* interesting? :D

C.G.
03-11-2009, 1:57 AM
Trip to the Caymans? FGG, care to make this *really* interesting? :D

It is about time I get a vacation, how do I get into this game?

artherd
03-11-2009, 2:28 AM
It is about time I get a vacation, how do I get into this game?

Looser pays the GV's gas bill, last one there's a vegetarian!

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-11-2009, 10:19 AM
Edited: Looks like Penal Code 337a (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=330-337z) might prohibit the wager.

JWI
03-12-2009, 6:24 AM
What about the first paragraph of AM's letter where she says the DOJ has no duty to declare whether a firearm is not an AW.

In that case, why was a letter written advising that the Stag-15 was legal to purchase in California? I guess it's your duty only when you think it's convenient.

Ms. M, go back and read your job description:

It is the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced (California Constitution, Article V, Section 13.)

So who do you go to when you want a legal opinion as to whether your firearm is legal? One would think it's the BOF, but according to AM it's not their legal duty to say whether a firearms is legal and that is for the courts to decide. Maybe in that case the next move should be to file a lawsuit for declaratory relief that the P50 and the BB are legal, and an injunction against the DOJ enforcing its unconstitutional and illegal underground regulation.

hoffmang
03-12-2009, 10:13 AM
Maybe in that case the next move should be to file a lawsuit for declaratory relief that the P50 and the BB are legal, and an injunction against the DOJ enforcing its unconstitutional and illegal underground regulation.

:whistling:

We'll let OAL run its course first...

-Gene

hiyabrad
03-12-2009, 10:28 AM
:whistling:

We'll let OAL run its course first...

-Gene

Amen.

:King:

Sgt Raven
03-12-2009, 10:40 AM
:whistling:

We'll let OAL run its course first...

-Gene

+1 why spend money you don't have to.

DDT
03-15-2009, 5:51 PM
Edited: Looks like Penal Code 337a (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=330-337z) might prohibit the wager.

Looks to me like 337a is a limit on bookmakers not individual wagerers.

GunOwner
03-16-2009, 9:23 PM
Looks to me like 337a is a limit on bookmakers not individual wagerers.

Wanna bet?

hoffmang
03-16-2009, 9:29 PM
Wanna bet?

:smilielol5:

-Gene

artherd
03-17-2009, 11:45 AM
Wanna bet?

Baaaaahahahahhah!~ :thumbsup:

BillCA
03-17-2009, 12:38 PM
So who do you go to when you want a legal opinion as to whether your firearm is legal? One would think it's the BOF, but according to AM it's not their legal duty to say whether a firearms is legal and that is for the courts to decide.
Wouldn't that then mean that 12276.1 is an unconstitutionally vague law if the only authority that can determine if a law was violated is the judicial system?

i.e. How does one know what is proscribed if a court must decide what the law really means?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-18-2009, 3:21 PM
Looks to me like 337a is a limit on bookmakers not individual wagerers.

That's what it looked like to me at first glance. The standard jury instructions and decisional law say otherwise; 337a is interpreted as prohibiting individual wagers.

MP5
03-20-2009, 12:35 AM
Gene, you are the the man!

MP5
03-20-2009, 12:42 AM
BTW: what are we waiting on as far as getting the final ok on NeRF's

CHS
03-20-2009, 7:23 AM
BTW: what are we waiting on as far as getting the final ok on NeRF's

A response/ruling from the OAL to the petition.

MP5
03-20-2009, 10:19 AM
A response/ruling from the OAL to the petition.

So there are two separate petitions...one for NeRF's, one for BB's...and were waiting to hear responses on both correct?

CHS
03-20-2009, 10:29 AM
So there are two separate petitions...one for NeRF's, one for BB's...and were waiting to hear responses on both correct?

Correct.

NeRF's (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=157784)

MP5
03-20-2009, 10:41 AM
Gene I just read your bio...WOW! Youngest NASDAQ CEO ever! Most impressive, Thanks for taking up our cause!

http://www.hoffmang.com/about.html

:King:

MP5
03-20-2009, 10:42 AM
Correct.

NeRF's (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=157784)

thanks for the info and the link :thumbsup:

Mstrty
03-24-2009, 9:32 PM
Gene, according to your bio. It appears you are on life #3 or have you been a "gun fan" your entire life?

hoffmang
03-24-2009, 10:23 PM
I grew up in the South so I was a "gun fan" in the way that most southern boys were. I had a BB gun very early and my dad bought me a shotgun before I could drive.

I came out here and experienced the state placing its nose in places it shouldn't be and that accelerated my interest.

-Gene

rtlltj
03-24-2009, 10:27 PM
Gene I just read your bio...WOW! Youngest NASDAQ CEO ever! Most impressive, Thanks for taking up our cause!

http://www.hoffmang.com/about.html

:King:

QFT, Wow I am impressed and thankful we have you in this community.

Shotgun Man
03-25-2009, 5:01 PM
What about the AG's response? When might we expect to hear that?

truthseeker
03-25-2009, 7:24 PM
Government agencies usually take a while (my guess would be 90-120 days from submission) since they have a "chain of command" they have to go through, especially when it is something like this. You can bet the Anti's are trying to find every way possible to "weasel" their way out of this one!

7x57
03-25-2009, 7:46 PM
I came out here and experienced the state placing its nose in places it shouldn't be and that accelerated my interest.


Interesting. I never belonged to the NRA or had anything to do with gun rights until I came here. The frog doesn't get slow-cooked if you come here from America, and it tends to wake one up to where everything will go if it isn't stopped.

7x57

hoffmang
03-25-2009, 11:27 PM
What about the AG's response? When might we expect to hear that?

OAL has 60 days from submission. BoF then gets 30 days (from memory). Then the public gets 30 days, and finally CGF gets 15 days.

7x57: If you move to the frying pan, you tend to notice that you're the frog...

-Gene

7x57
03-25-2009, 11:50 PM
7x57: If you move to the frying pan, you tend to notice that you're the frog...


Exactly.

7x57

NickM1
03-27-2009, 4:05 PM
This is all well and good, and certainly necessary, but I hope we don't loose sight of the big picture. Arguing over the minutia of a rule or reg is just that, minute. While necessary, I think it might not be a bad idea to ask the big questions first, like; "How is this any of your business?" I still haven't heard a really good answer for that one. Has anyone?

DDT
03-27-2009, 5:25 PM
This is all well and good, and certainly necessary, but I hope we don't loose sight of the big picture. Arguing over the minutia of a rule or reg is just that, minute. While necessary, I think it might not be a bad idea to ask the big questions first, like; "How is this any of your business?" I still haven't heard a really good answer for that one. Has anyone?

The strongest buildings will crumble when their foundations are picked away a grain at a time.

NickM1
03-27-2009, 5:43 PM
The strongest buildings will crumble when their foundations are picked away a grain at a time.

This is true, so why let them at the foundation. They have no business there to begin with, that is where the fight should be. We're trying to have them justify each pick at the foundation, when we should be having them justify their presence anywhere near it. Besides, if they're already picking away a the foundation, the time for argument has past. You can try to prevent infestation any way you want, but once the termites are in there you only have one option.

CHS
03-27-2009, 6:59 PM
This is true, so why let them at the foundation. They have no business there to begin with, that is where the fight should be. We're trying to have them justify each pick at the foundation, when we should be having them justify their presence anywhere near it. Besides, if they're already picking away a the foundation, the time for argument has past. You can try to prevent infestation any way you want, but once the termites are in there you only have one option.

What you're suggesting has been talked about many times. The very very smart people "in the know" recommend very strongly against this. We must pick at their arguments and gain small wins and build win upon win upon win in order to fight this fight.