PDA

View Full Version : Those 'assault weapon permits'? Don't hold your breath...


Librarian
04-01-2009, 3:53 PM
Roberti-Roos suggests it's possible to acquire a new-to-California 'assault weapon' if you obtain a permit from the Department of Justice in the same manner as
specified in Article 3 (commencing with Section 12230) of Chapter 2,
PC 12285(b)(1)

I used the contact form on DOJ's web site and asked how many of those had ever been issued.

Got a phone call the other day from DOJ. That was a tiny bit disappointing, since I have no documents in hand to share.

However, I did learn this: according to the DOJ person, no 'civilian' aws have been registered since 2001 (the expiration of the 1-year SB 23 registration period, Jan 1, 2000 - Dec 31, 2000).

We did not talk about MAWPs, and only mentioned LE registrations, which was OK since I didn't really care about them.

Hopi
04-01-2009, 4:01 PM
The issue really hasn't been the denial of permits, it has been the absence of applicants.

I looked into this sometime ago, and Gene has been rolling his snowball for awhile now. The permit is designed as shall-issue....the demand that it be enforced as such has yet to unfold completely.

deleted by PC police
04-01-2009, 4:02 PM
Roberti-Roos suggests it's possible to acquire a new-to-California 'assault weapon' if you PC 12285(b)(1)

I used the contact form on DOJ's web site and asked how many of those had ever been issued.

Got a phone call the other day from DOJ. That was a tiny bit disappointing, since I have no documents in hand to share.

However, I did learn this: according to the DOJ person, no 'civilian' aws have been registered since 2001 (the expiration of the 1-year SB 23 registration period, Jan 1, 2000 - Dec 31, 2000).

We did not talk about MAWPs, and only mentioned LE registrations, which was OK since I didn't really care about them.

I believe one of the right people is envolved in a battle with them right now over this. This right person applied and was denied even though meeting the "guidlines".

artherd
04-01-2009, 4:43 PM
We are on this like white on rice - have been for over a year now.

Librarian
04-01-2009, 4:50 PM
Yes, I do recall Gene published his denial letters; wasn't aware it was being prodded along more generally.

artherd
04-01-2009, 5:10 PM
NOTHING we do is haphazard :)

LOW2000
04-01-2009, 5:15 PM
NOTHING we do is haphazard :)

Don't haphazardly draw the name for the .308 raffle, deliberately pull my name out of the hat. :thumbsup::p

Shotgun Man
04-01-2009, 5:16 PM
Was there a previous thread on the topic of Gene's application?

Hopi
04-01-2009, 5:22 PM
Was there a previous thread on the topic of Gene's application?

Here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=107974&highlight=aw+permit)

and Here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=105908&highlight=aw+permit)

JTecalo
04-01-2009, 5:26 PM
NOTHING we do is haphazard :)

Now you're getting scary...

"we control the horizontal and the vertical"

bwiese
04-01-2009, 5:35 PM
I have registered assault weapons. What if I apply for a permit for another one? Why would I be denied?

Because you are evil.

fairfaxjim
04-01-2009, 6:00 PM
It is sort of a cousin to the old Catch-22. If you want one, you are too evil to be trusted with one. End of story. :)

artherd
04-01-2009, 6:37 PM
Now you're getting scary...

"we control the horizontal and the vertical"

You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the deepest inner mind to... The Calguns Foundation! :D

trashman
04-01-2009, 6:39 PM
Because you are evil.

Yeah. That and you already own too many guns. Why do you need more?

:hide:

--Neill

hoffmang
04-01-2009, 6:42 PM
Why do you need more?


Such an easy question to answer...

I prefer my government subservient and in awe.

-Gene

Librarian
04-01-2009, 6:51 PM
I have registered assault weapons. What if I apply for a permit for another one? Why would I be denied?

You've gotten all the good answers :) but the other reason is that there are no more registration periods for we 'civilians'. In practice, as I noted in the first post, it appears that Our Gub'mint doesn't care to allow it unless you're LEO-with-a-letter.

Never try to apply logic to the motivations of government, unless you consider first 'increase government power' and second 'get someone reelected'. (And someone's CYA third!)

scootergmc
04-01-2009, 6:53 PM
Did any LEOs apply as a civilian?

What about already AW-owning LEOs as civilians?

phil conrad
04-01-2009, 7:08 PM
We are on this like white on rice - have been for over a year now.

Any idea on the time untill we have news ?

Spyder
04-01-2009, 7:13 PM
Two... ...

Oh, nevermind...

7x57
04-01-2009, 7:26 PM
Because you are evil.

Hmm, but is that really the metaphysical situation? Is he evil, or is the gun evil? If him, is it because of the gun's evil influence?

Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of anti-gunners?

7x57

DDT
04-01-2009, 7:45 PM
I prefer my government subservient and in awe.


Just drop trou. Rumor is that will awe anyone.

Nodda Duma
04-01-2009, 8:13 PM
Do you need more people to apply for permit? :D

-Jason

hawk1
04-01-2009, 8:32 PM
I have registered assault weapons. What if I apply for a permit for another one? Why would I be denied?

Sure you would silly guy, everyone knows you only NEED one registered aw...:p

rynando
04-01-2009, 8:50 PM
Did any LEOs apply as a civilian?

What about already AW-owning LEOs as civilians?

LEOs are civilians . . . Iíve heard from quite a few people that itís getting very hard to get CLEOs to request AW permits for department staff. These days, in many departments, only SWAT-types get permits and (legally) get to take their AWs home with them.

R

1911su16b870
04-01-2009, 9:05 PM
LEOs are civilians . . . Iíve heard from quite a few people that itís getting very hard to get CLEOs to request AW permits for department staff. These days, in many departments, only SWAT-types get permits and (legally) get to take their AWs home with them.

R

Well its sounding like our CA AW registration is really a ban??? :mad: :eek:

trashman
04-01-2009, 9:07 PM
I prefer my government subservient and in awe.


All joking aside, I obviously agree.

The interesting thing is, (I can't put my hand on the data at the moment) that the statistics show that the old "80-20" guideline is applicable here -- meaning the top ~20% of consumers/hobbyists (also known as EVERY FREAKING USER ON CALGUNS) own ~%80 of the firearms in private hands.

Even if we change that spread (i.e., introduce many new one-gun households) it's not clear those new owners will vote-their-gunsafe (rather than vote-their-wallet) when it matters.

--Neill

hoffmang
04-01-2009, 9:11 PM
Even if we change that spread (i.e., introduce many new one-gun households) it's not clear those new owners will vote-their-gunsafe (rather than vote-their-wallet) when it matters.


Fair, but there is another reality. I have a large swath of neighbors who all own at most 1 firearm and many own none. None of them are anti, but should it ever reach an important point I and they know that they can borrow.

I like my government to remember that too. The Second Amendment is really the only fundamental right that works best when it never has to be fully exercised.

-Gene

trashman
04-01-2009, 9:47 PM
Fair, but there is another reality. I have a large swath of neighbors who all own at most 1 firearm and many own none. None of them are anti, but should it ever reach an important point I and they know that they can borrow.


Yep, very true and I agree with the sentiment. But (purely for argument's sake) let me double-back on my own comment and say that along those lines it would be more effective to ensure as many households as possible own at least one gun.

Sort of a .torrent idea of gun ownership/distribution. That might be as necessary as anything if An Important Point is ever reached.

You bring up an interesting point -- I usually think of these things in terms of urban chaos during an earthquake (I live in the city). Never really thought about it in terms of being the neighborhood armory -- only defending whoever was smart enough to join the best-defended house on the street...:43:

--Neill

yellowfin
04-01-2009, 10:11 PM
I like my government to remember that too. The Second Amendment is really the only fundamental right that works best when it never has to be fully exercised.

-Gene
They also too well remember that it is all too rarely exercised and there is extreme hesitance to do so, so they feel all the more free to do their worst.

DDT
04-01-2009, 11:19 PM
Even if we change that spread (i.e., introduce many new one-gun households) it's not clear those new owners will vote-their-gunsafe (rather than vote-their-wallet) when it matters.


The point of living in a constitutional republic rather than a democracy is that the vote of the masses cannot strip minorities of their rights. This is exactly why the founding fathers set up this nation as a republic. Pure Democracy is mob rule codified.

wikidklown
04-02-2009, 5:24 AM
Because you are evil.

I thought that the permit gives the permission to be evil ;)

trashman
04-02-2009, 6:47 AM
The point of living in a constitutional republic rather than a democracy is that the vote of the masses cannot strip minorities of their rights.

Sure, but the problem is, minorities have their legal/civil rights infringed all the time. How do you explain:



Segregation
Anti-Miscegenation
the 1994 AWB
CA gun laws..
Prop 8

...when they all driven by non-majority views?

--Neill

DDT
04-02-2009, 6:59 AM
Sure, but the problem is, minorities have their legal/civil rights infringed all the time. How do you explain:



Segregation
Anti-Miscegenation
the 1994 AWB
CA gun laws..
Prop 8

...when they all driven by non-majority views?

--Neill



The founding fathers gave us a means to deal with each of these issues. The first two are essentially non-issues today. They were a hold over from days when blacks were considered property and did not have standing to make civil rights claims. The compromise that the founding fathers had to make was both unfortunate and curable within the system. That is why they were corrected.

As for the 1994 AWB there was not a credible challenge that went to SCOTUS and even if there was you would have been at the mercy of 9 jurists, NOT the rule of a MOB.

Prop 8 is still up in the air. I am not even sure what you mean by bringing it up. It was a codification of long standing tradition. Not mob rule but the de-facto law of 160 years in CA. If that is to change it will not happen in 12 months and you cannot measure our system on such a short term view. THAT would be mob rule. The checks and balances are not immediate.

trashman
04-02-2009, 7:38 AM
The founding fathers gave us a means to deal with each of these issues.

[...]

The checks and balances are not immediate.


We agree...but your earlier point


Originally Posted by DDT http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2257745#post2257745)
The point of living in a constitutional republic rather than a democracy is that the vote of the masses cannot strip minorities of their rights.
...is wrong. The reason I gave the examples I did is that despite such checks and balances, rights CAN and ARE stripped from minorities, and sometimes (as in the case of segregation) for several generations/lifetimes. (You might feel comfortable explaining it away as a historical "holdover" but I am not.)

But you made my point for me, nicely -- the reason I was musing about increasing the number of gun owners in the first place is that we can't simply count on the Judiciary to set things right. We need to work that angle AND others as well.

--Neill

biglou
04-02-2009, 8:17 AM
LEOs are civilians . . . Iíve heard from quite a few people that itís getting very hard to get CLEOs to request AW permits for department staff. These days, in many departments, only SWAT-types get permits and (legally) get to take their AWs home with them.

R

I have a CA Reg. Assault Weapon (AR15) prior to becoming LE. My CLEO will not issue a letter so myself and half the department are going the OLL route, including SWAT. Which I don't have a problem with, as I feel ALL Americans should have the same freedom no matter your career choice. This is off subject, but can I use hi cap mags since I can buy them with LE credentials ? I have asked other LEO from other agencys and they say it should not be a problem. No one has not been challenged on it. This also says volumes on CA gun laws. Even LE are confused !

trashman
04-02-2009, 8:26 AM
This is off subject, but can I use hi cap mags since I can buy them with LE credentials ? I have asked other LEO from other agencys and they say it should not be a problem.

I assume you mean using your LEO-obtained high-caps with an OLL -- and I think that the answer is "no" since you'd be (by statute) automatically
creating an AW.

Bill W. will weigh in on this shortly, I bet -- this converges with the work he's been doing...

--Neill

Tallship
04-02-2009, 8:31 AM
I have a CA Reg. Assault Weapon (AR15) prior to becoming LE. My CLEO will not issue a letter so myself and half the department are going the OLL route, including SWAT. Which I don't have a problem with, as I feel ALL Americans should have the same freedom no matter your career choice. This is off subject, but can I use hi cap mags since I can buy them with LE credentials ? I have asked other LEO from other agencys and they say it should not be a problem. No one has not been challenged on it. This also says volumes on CA gun laws. Even LE are confused !

Yes, I believe you can, if you have a POST Basic certificate and are employed full time as a peace officer. If this is the case, you are a sworn peace officer 24 hours a day and all privileges and exemptions accrue to you at all times. However, this only applies to state law, and you may run afoul of your department if they find you using hi caps off duty. "Be careful out there!"

biglou
04-02-2009, 8:35 AM
I assume you mean using your LEO-obtained high-caps with an OLL -- and I think that the answer is "no" since you'd be (by statute) automatically
creating an AW.

Bill W. will weigh in on this shortly, I bet -- this converges with the work he's been doing...

--Neill

I have been using 10 round mags and BB on my OLL's. I don't want to become the Case Law guy. There does seem to be 'gray area' as far as some LE are perceiving it. IMO all should be equal for everyone.

fairfaxjim
04-02-2009, 8:50 AM
I have a CA Reg. Assault Weapon (AR15) prior to becoming LE. My CLEO will not issue a letter so myself and half the department are going the OLL route, including SWAT. Which I don't have a problem with, as I feel ALL Americans should have the same freedom no matter your career choice. This is off subject, but can I use hi cap mags since I can buy them with LE credentials ? I have asked other LEO from other agencys and they say it should not be a problem. No one has not been challenged on it. This also says volumes on CA gun laws. Even LE are confused !

You, and other LEO's, can use hi-cap mags obtained with LE credentials (or owned previous to the ban) in:
1. Your previously CA registered AW. As a reg. AW, it is pretty much good to go on anything you are legal to own.
2. An AW that is purchased with, and used in acordance with any restrictions included in, a Department letter, as it is an AW with an LEO permit.
3. An OLL that is FEATURELESS. If you have any of the SB23 features, using a hi-cap mag will make it an AW. There is no LE exemption without department letter to posess an AW, and SB23 limits ALL rifles containing the listed features to 10 rounds or less. Yes can purchase hi-cap mags, but you can't use them to manufacture an AW, LEO or not.

The LEO you have asked are incorrect, and maybe are just comming from an attitude of "who's gonna bust you?" I hope not, but even ask myself, "who's gonna bust you?"

biglou
04-02-2009, 8:56 AM
The LEO you have asked are incorrect, and maybe are just comming from an attitude of "who's gonna bust you?" I hope not, but even ask myself, "who's gonna bust you?"

You're right. It's the DOJ up in Sac I don't trust.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-02-2009, 12:32 PM
Fair, but there is another reality. I have a large swath of neighbors who all own at most 1 firearm and many own none. None of them are anti, but should it ever reach an important point I and they know that they can borrow.

I like my government to remember that too. The Second Amendment is really the only fundamental right that works best when it never has to be fully exercised.

-Gene

Are you saying you would loan out your legal guns in a SHTF situation?

DDT
04-02-2009, 12:49 PM
Are you saying you would loan out your legal guns in a SHTF situation?

I don't think he meant you could apply for your library card now or anything. I'd be more than willing to let my neighbors use my weapons to protect our neighborhood. (well, almost all my neighbors)

bwiese
04-02-2009, 12:53 PM
LEOs are civilians . . . I’ve heard from quite a few people that it’s getting very hard to get CLEOs to request AW permits for department staff. These days, in many departments, only SWAT-types get permits and (legally) get to take their AWs home with them.

Somewhat true.

However some depts do issue LEO AW reg letters so they don't have to buy AWs out of departmental budgets.

That's also why - in addition to plain ol' illegally-possessed AWs (either thru admitted 'brass pass' noncompliance, or incorrect assumption that LEOs are exempt like they are for hicap mags & Rostering matters) - there may be a large number of spurious (forged, wrong signature from wrong command chain, etc.) LEO AW registrations.

This could get interesting.

CnCFunFactory
04-02-2009, 12:56 PM
LEOs are civilians . . . Iíve heard from quite a few people that itís getting very hard to get CLEOs to request AW permits for department staff. These days, in many departments, only SWAT-types get permits and (legally) get to take their AWs home with them.

R

A very good friend of mine works for the BP in the San Diego area and is on their SRT... Even they can't take home full auto guns, all of his that are issued trough his agency are semi auto only.

DDT
04-02-2009, 12:57 PM
Somewhat true.

However some depts do issue LEO AW reg letters so they don't have to buy AWs out of departmental budgets.

That's also why - in addition to plain ol' illegally-possessed AWs (either thru admitted 'brass pass' noncompliance, or incorrect assumption that LEOs are exempt like they are for hicap mags & Rostering matters) - there may be a large number of spurious (forged, wrong signature from wrong command chain, etc.) LEO AW registrations.

This could get interesting.

Are these subject to PRAR?

artherd
04-02-2009, 1:08 PM
I have a CA Reg. Assault Weapon (AR15)... This is off subject, but can I use hi cap mags since I can buy them with LE credentials ?

Yes, you may use any lawfully acquired high cap mags in your reg'd AW.

possession is not even controlled.

The relevant Penal Code is 12020(a)(2) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/12020-12040.html)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.

artherd
04-02-2009, 1:39 PM
Because you are evil.

...but legal ;)

hoffmang
04-02-2009, 8:02 PM
They also too well remember that it is all too rarely exercised and there is extreme hesitance to do so, so they feel all the more free to do their worst.

You vastly overestimate the bravery of politicians. The only reason to seize power is if you can keep it. The 2A is a check on the ability for anyone rational to believe they can truly undermine the system.

If you disagree you make it clear you've never thought about the actual realities of facing someone armed defensively.

-Gene

yellowfin
04-02-2009, 8:41 PM
I'm not overestimating their bravery, I'm correctly estimating their arrogance and their discounting of our resolve and willingness to take the first swing. The risk is all ours if we do.

scootergmc
04-02-2009, 9:07 PM
LEOs are civilians . . . Iíve heard from quite a few people that itís getting very hard to get CLEOs to request AW permits for department staff. These days, in many departments, only SWAT-types get permits and (legally) get to take their AWs home with them.

R

I guess you aren't getting my question: Have any LEOs applied for an AW permit as a civilian (w/o letterhead)?

7x57
04-02-2009, 10:58 PM
Never really thought about it in terms of being the neighborhood armory

I don't think I have thought it out like Gene, but it's occurred to me that having some extras on hand could be useful for that reason.

You have to have neighbors that would be remotely useful in a crisis, however.

7x57

hoffmang
04-02-2009, 11:00 PM
I have plenty to share and I do actually trust my neighbors to borrow in a SHTF situation. Safety in numbers and we have a defendable little area.

-Gene

7x57
04-02-2009, 11:30 PM
Are you saying you would loan out your legal guns in a SHTF situation?

I can easily imagine scenarios in which I would. The first set revolve around the fact that I can't be awake all the time. In fact, my wife and I can't both be awake all the time without severely blunting judgment and reflexes. The military guys would know much more about this than me, but sailing tends to teach you some limits you aren't usually aware of. I stood one in three watches on shipboard once for, hmm, twenty days or so, and even with one on and two off (plus some off-watch work during the day) I spent most of the second week in bed every possible moment sleeping off the deficit I built up on the first week and getting my body used to being up in the middle of the night.

Sailors used to often have to stand watch-and-watch, meaning half your time is on half is off. I can't imagine how bad that must be for those of us not used to it.

That's not so awful different than what you'd have to do to make sure someone was on watch at night. You're going to want at least three times as many armed men as you need on watch at any given time. If you only have twice as many, life is going to really, truly suck, and your judgment is going to be bad when you need it most. So where do you get these guys? You do what survival communities have always done: you watch your neighbors, they watch you. When it comes time that the man on watch had better be armed, then you'll be awful glad to arm any trustworthy neighbors you have.

The second set revolves around things being bad enough that it isn't just a matter of watching other houses, it is a matter of banding together and concentrating in defendable positions. You'll be even happier to loan a gun at that point, since you need all the rifles you can get.

Not such a bad reason to have some extra rifles in the safe, I think.

7x57

jnojr
04-03-2009, 9:47 AM
Yep, very true and I agree with the sentiment. But (purely for argument's sake) let me double-back on my own comment and say that along those lines it would be more effective to ensure as many households as possible own at least one gun.

You're assuming that owning a gun will make people pro-gun, and that they'll start to vote accordingly.

Lots of liberals own guns. It just isn't a big enough deal to them. Either they still believe that "those people" should not be allowed to, or they're willing to sacrifice the gun issue for their core beliefs. Just as many Republicans have held their nose and voted for someone who was soft on immigration, for example... they weren't "pro amnesty", but they were willing to sacrifice the immigration issue to other issues.

trashman
04-03-2009, 9:50 AM
You're assuming that owning a gun will make people pro-gun, and that they'll start to vote accordingly.

Actually the scenario had shifted from voting to SHTF...which is why I posited (given Gene's idea that he can arm his neighbors) it makes sense to have as many distributed in as many hands as possible....(for the SHTF scenario).

I agree (see my earlier post) that under normal conditions folks who are casual gun owners will continue to vote-the-<whatever> instead of voting-their gunsafe.

--Neill