PDA

View Full Version : DOJ letters


evan69
05-31-2009, 2:49 PM
Can somebody point me to some DOJ letters that pertain to ar-15's?

I heard they send letters to gun stores saying that ar-15's are illegal and cannot sell them, which is crap, but is this true? If so does anybody have a copy of these letters?

I am specifically looking for any letters pertaining to the bullet button and the entire OLL idea.

I need these to show my dad because he thinks my OLL could be a bit dicey, and finishing the rifle could be even worse. He just doesn't like the idea of pushing the DOJ, and he wants to read up on it so he can be sure about everything. I sent him the DOJ AW guide, and http://www.tenpercentfirearms.com/index.php?main_page=ar15 that page.

I just need some letters to go along with it.

Vtec44
05-31-2009, 3:05 PM
It's crap because you can't ban a series of weapon. From what I've read, CA DOJ would not comment on the legality of magazine locks, including bullet button. The definition of a detachable magazine, on page 80 of the California Assault Weapon Identification Guide (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf), An 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. You can't remove the magazine on a BB equiped rifle without the use of a tool.

evan69
05-31-2009, 3:09 PM
I realize that, but it's not me that needs convincing. He just doesn't want to **** with the DOJ, at all. So he wants to see the what the DOJ is saying.

Vtec44
05-31-2009, 3:10 PM
They won't comment on it.

evan69
05-31-2009, 3:13 PM
What does the DOJ say to gun shops about it?

Vtec44
05-31-2009, 3:22 PM
As far as I know, there isn't a letter to gun shops banning the sale of AR15's as they can't ban a series of weapon. It has to be specific make and model.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer or an insider of any kind.

lorax3
05-31-2009, 3:37 PM
Take a look at the following.

http://www.calguns.net/copmemo2.pdf

There some attached letters from the DOJ toward the middle.

WokMaster1
05-31-2009, 3:57 PM
search for the Sacramento PD memo. It says that OLL is legal when configured properly. Also go to www.tenpercentfirearms.com Wes has a FAQ there which is pretty comprehensive.

The CA Assault Weapons ID flowchart is also a great tool. It's located on top of the page.

The DOJ is not a good source for gun laws as everyone interpretes the CA gun laws their own way, which is to say FUD, at the least.

evan69
05-31-2009, 4:01 PM
search for the Sacramento PD memo. It says that OLL is legal when configured properly. Also go to www.tenpercentfirearms.com Wes has a FAQ there which is pretty comprehensive.

The CA Assault Weapons ID flowchart is also a great tool. It's located on top of the page.

The DOJ is not a good source for gun laws as everyone interpretes the CA gun laws their own way, which is to say FUD, at the least.

I think my dad is more worried about whether they can **** up his life or not than if it is truly legal.

Thanks for the letter about the stag lower, lorax. It works perfectly because my lower is a stag haha.

CSDGuy
05-31-2009, 4:13 PM
Well, if the rifle is yours, your dad won't have his life messed up by the DOJ. Show him the Harrott decision... that's the one that says that firearms can only be banned by make and model specifically or that they must have a detachable and any of the specific features. The DOJ can not place any further rifles on "the list" anymore.

What you'd have to worry about more is the overzealous DA or cop that thinks your rifle is illegal, regardless of if it actually is illegally configured or not. It seems that the DA's are getting the idea that the DOJ won't help them if the rifle is legal... but looks like an AW...

Really, possession of any long gun (because ownership info isn't in the AFS) can get you some trouble... and because some cops probably still think that all firearms must be registered... and if it's not in the AFS, they're not legally possessed...

bohoki
05-31-2009, 5:21 PM
there is only one company that makes ar-15s and that is colt and they are banned

the other guns that use similar recievers that are not listed are ok as long as they are not an assault weapon due to features

railroader
05-31-2009, 5:23 PM
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Sacramento-PD-OLL_Training_Bulletin-2008-11-18.pdf Here's the Sacramento PD bulletin. Mark

evan69
05-31-2009, 5:33 PM
there is only one company that makes ar-15s and that is colt and they are banned

the other guns that use similar recievers that are not listed are ok as long as they are not an assault weapon due to features

To be clear, I know what is and is not legal in california. This is an issue of citation, and I need citation for my dad's own education on the subject.

Posts like these, while correct, are unnecessary and unhelpful to my situation. I asked for letters and documents. Thank you to those who have given documents, they were very helpful.

tomah
05-31-2009, 5:37 PM
subscribing

bwiese
05-31-2009, 6:56 PM
Can somebody point me to some DOJ letters that pertain to ar-15's?

Some are here...
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/

A variety of letters in early 2006/late 2005 said various makes/models of receivers are OK.


I heard they send letters to gun stores saying that ar-15's are illegal and cannot sell them, which is crap, but is this true? If so does anybody have a copy of these letters?I have not heard of any. I don't think they exist, DOJ wouldn't wanna be caught on paper saying this. There was some drama in early 2006 about 'permanence' of fixed magazines which led to a pending regulatory redefinition that never took place.

DOJ staffers are more likely to tell wild things to folks via the phone, esp. out of state FFLs.


I am specifically looking for any letters pertaining to the bullet button and the entire OLL idea.Two entirely separate matters...

1. OLL idea = covered by Harrott v County of Kings decision. Not listed by exact make/model = not banned by name.

2. 'Bullet button': requires tool to unlatch, thus not meeting regulatory definition (11 CCR 5469(a)) of 'detachable magazine' - which means that a semiauto centerfire rifle can have all evil features (pistol grip, folder, etc.) because it does not have a 'detachable magazine' - even though it's a removable magazine. Thus the rifle is not an AW because it doesn't conform to the SB23 definition in 12276.1PC.

3. You could always go 'featureless' and use a MonsterMan grip and a detachable magazine.





I need these to show my dad because he thinks my OLL could be a bit dicey, and finishing the rifle could be even worse. He just doesn't like the idea of pushing the DOJ, and he wants to read up on it so he can be sure about everything. I sent him the DOJ AW guide, and http://www.tenpercentfirearms.com/index.php?main_page=ar15 that page.

I just need some letters to go along with it.

200,000 OLL folks are not in jail.

Calguns Foundation has defended over a dozen OLL rifle cases with favorable resolution (no charge, rifle back in owners' hands).

If you have to convince your dad about what 200K other folks know in detail, well, you need to evaluate your living situation.

evan69
05-31-2009, 7:25 PM
Some are here...
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/

A variety of letters in early 2006/late 2005 said various makes/models of receivers are OK.

I have not heard of any. I don't think they exist, DOJ wouldn't wanna be caught on paper saying this. There was some drama in early 2006 about 'permanence' of fixed magazines which led to a pending regulatory redefinition that never took place.

DOJ staffers are more likely to tell wild things to folks via the phone, esp. out of state FFLs.

Two entirely separate matters...

1. OLL idea = covered by Harrott v County of Kings decision. Not listed by exact make/model = not banned by name.

2. 'Bullet button': requires tool to unlatch, thus not meeting regulatory definition (11 CCR 5469(a)) of 'detachable magazine' - which means that a semiauto centerfire rifle can have all evil features (pistol grip, folder, etc.) because it does not have a 'detachable magazine' - even though it's a removable magazine. Thus the rifle is not an AW because it doesn't conform to the SB23 definition in 12276.1PC.

3. You could always go 'featureless' and use a MonsterMan grip and a detachable magazine.






200,000 OLL folks are not in jail.

Calguns Foundation has defended over a dozen OLL rifle cases with favorable resolution (no charge, rifle back in owners' hands).

If you have to convince your dad about what 200K other folks know in detail, well, you need to evaluate your living situation.

It's not so much that I told him what's going on and he needs convincing, it's that he knows next to nothing and wants to do his own research on the subject, and is being very methodical about it all.

Vtec44
05-31-2009, 7:38 PM
Tell him to get on Calguns and do some reading on old posts. :D

evan69
05-31-2009, 7:43 PM
After he gets into it a bit I'll send him to calguns for any questions he may have haha. I'll give him breathing room till then.

Librarian
05-31-2009, 10:15 PM
After he gets into it a bit I'll send him to calguns for any questions he may have haha. I'll give him breathing room till then.

It sounds like your dad is assuming that the DOJ is a dispassionate, neutral party intent on doing a good job. I used to think that, briefly.

It's hard to convince some people that government agencies are not our friends, and by no means neutral at the policy-setting level.

Blackhawk556
05-31-2009, 10:44 PM
After he gets into it a bit I'll send him to calguns for any questions he may have haha. I'll give him breathing room till then.

check your messages i PM you a lot of stuff

Vtec44
05-31-2009, 10:50 PM
It sounds like your dad is assuming that the DOJ is a dispassionate, neutral party intent on doing a good job. I used to think that, briefly.

I thought the same thing when I first started out, then realized that they want to make it as confusing/intimidating as possible to deter people from even thinking about owning these evil looking rifles legally.

Blackhawk556
05-31-2009, 10:50 PM
After he gets into it a bit I'll send him to calguns for any questions he may have haha. I'll give him breathing room till then.

check these out

24577

24578

24579

Blackhawk556
05-31-2009, 10:53 PM
24580

hoffmang
05-31-2009, 11:03 PM
Approval letters for specific ARs and AKs: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/AR-AK-Approval-Letters/

Non detachable magazines: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/CA-DOJ-Detachable_Magazine_Niether_Nor-2001-02-22.pdf

FAL non-detachable magazines: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ_SA58_FAL-Magazine-Lock-analysis.pdf , http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ_SA58_FAL-Magazine-Lock-opinion.pdf

Letter from the former AG to the Governor re ARs: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Lockyer%20Letter%20-%20AB%202728.pdf

Permanence not required for non detachable magazines: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf

-Gene

swhatb
06-01-2009, 6:49 PM
subscribing...:thumbsup: