PDA

View Full Version : Interesting discussion about "detachable mags" in CA


rjardy
03-18-2005, 4:19 AM
I am fairly active on another board that is geared more toward smithing. So while running through the AR section, I came accross this thread. Give it a quick read and let me know what you think. Basically it takes the literall interperatation of how the penal code reads,and puts it to work. The author of this thread has contacted the DOJ in regards to his idea and it was given an okay with the stipulation that some LEA may view it eiterh way. Definatly room for more discussion on this topic. If you dont want to click the link, here is a cut and paste.

Its as simple as this. If you live in California and want to build your own AR-15, AR-10, M4 (whatever) do this:
-Start with an 80% (or less) lower receiver
-PRIOR TO COMPLETION, find some way to cover the magazine catch release button in some fashion so that you can't access it with your finger. (I will probably cut the button flush with the receiver and jb weld a small thin aluminum plate over it. When I need to change buttons/springs) I'll pry it off
-Provide an access hole in your "cover" for a .223
bullet tip so the catch release button can be depressed
only with the bullet but under no circumstances with your finger.

You see, California Penal Code reads like this:

Article 2. Definitions of Terms Used to Identify Assault Weapons - 978.20 Definitions

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.


Now we have ourselves a "fixed" magazine firearm. (Go to the California DOJ firearms page and research for yourself. To lengthy to post)

I have no problem building a gun I never intend to sell, demonstrating that I attempted to follow the letter of the law, and attaching all the evil features of other "so called "Assault weapons".........

Let me know what you think.......


and the link http://www.homegunsmith.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?

Please let me know what you think!


Regards,
Robert

rjardy
03-18-2005, 4:19 AM
I am fairly active on another board that is geared more toward smithing. So while running through the AR section, I came accross this thread. Give it a quick read and let me know what you think. Basically it takes the literall interperatation of how the penal code reads,and puts it to work. The author of this thread has contacted the DOJ in regards to his idea and it was given an okay with the stipulation that some LEA may view it eiterh way. Definatly room for more discussion on this topic. If you dont want to click the link, here is a cut and paste.

Its as simple as this. If you live in California and want to build your own AR-15, AR-10, M4 (whatever) do this:
-Start with an 80% (or less) lower receiver
-PRIOR TO COMPLETION, find some way to cover the magazine catch release button in some fashion so that you can't access it with your finger. (I will probably cut the button flush with the receiver and jb weld a small thin aluminum plate over it. When I need to change buttons/springs) I'll pry it off
-Provide an access hole in your "cover" for a .223
bullet tip so the catch release button can be depressed
only with the bullet but under no circumstances with your finger.

You see, California Penal Code reads like this:

Article 2. Definitions of Terms Used to Identify Assault Weapons - 978.20 Definitions

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.


Now we have ourselves a "fixed" magazine firearm. (Go to the California DOJ firearms page and research for yourself. To lengthy to post)

I have no problem building a gun I never intend to sell, demonstrating that I attempted to follow the letter of the law, and attaching all the evil features of other "so called "Assault weapons".........

Let me know what you think.......


and the link http://www.homegunsmith.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?

Please let me know what you think!


Regards,
Robert

endings1@aol.com
03-18-2005, 9:02 AM
If the DOJ gave their blessing in writing, sign me up!http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chaingun
03-18-2005, 9:19 AM
The concept is correct for anything other than ARs and AKs. Someone who is selling a replacement nut/bolt for the magazine catch release button has a request in to DOJ.

Contact the DOJ and find out.

bwiese
03-18-2005, 10:02 AM
Rjardy...

This sounds like dangerous bench-top lawyering.
I'm not a lawyer but I do know some of the minutiae here and know where to fear treading...

Several problems here: I'd doubt CA DOJ would sign off on this in writing. I think an AR-type receiver that has an open mag well is just too close to an AR no matter what kind of latching system is in place (more below)...

As for building ARs, I see lotsa folks asking very specific questions of very limited scope, and then trying to generalize from that - thinking they've found a loophole. They haven't. At the very, very best, they've gotten into a grey area where DOJ shrugs and the local DA can prosecute.

Many, many bright folks here have been thinking about this since 2001 haven't yet found a way to build anything other than a FAB10-style AR. Other co's holding Calif. Assault Weapons Permits import Bushmaster lowers and weld up their mag wells, making them compliant. Don't think you can do better.

Some comments:

<LI> ARs and AKs, of all makes and models, are Type II assault weapons in CA. This means that the Aug 2000 Kasler decision moved them back into the 'Colt AR15 series' and "AK47 and series" categories of the original Roberti-Roos Assault Wpns Control Act of 1989 ("AWCA '89"). ARs and AKs are thus AWs at the receiver level and do not depend on any combination of evil features to make them assault weapons: the receiver is an AW in and of itself.

<LI> if you made an AR-like lower so it didn't have a detachable mag opening - a la the Shoeless Ventures FAB10 - it's not an AR lower anymore: it is 'sufficiently different' and would take reasonably major machine work to get it into standard AR15 form.

<LI> if your lower has an overall design accepting a detachable magazine - regardless of how your mag catch control is fixed/pinned in! - you're pretty likely to be considered having built an AR lower.

<LI> the 'detachable mag' definition you included above may not be really relevant for something that looks/smells like an AR lower receiver. It is banned because of its "AR-ness". If it looks like a duck it is a duck:
an AR is an AR is an AR is an AR.

The legislature + DOJ can go thru procedures to add about gun they want to the 'named list', even if it doesn't have a full suite of assault weapon features! (For example, SKS w/detachable magazine, inherently no different than a currently legal Mini 14 or M1A, is banned.)

<LI> You may not be aware of Harrott v Kings County for now - which is probably a good thing. This ruling is fairly recent, untested law that doesn't have stature of Kasler decision. It would supposedly allow you to make an AR lower that is not on DOJ's "Roster of AR/AK Weapons" because your homebuilt AR lower is not specifically named on this roster. But this is a very, very grey area and I would [B]NOT count on it at all.

You wrote,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have no problem building a gun I never intend to sell, demonstrating that I attempted to follow the letter of the law, and attaching all the evil features of other so-called "Assault weapons"... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you may not have problems, but DAs/ judges/ DOJ might. Your lack of intent to sell and attempted demonstration of the 'letter of the law' are irrelevant and discussion of them might well hurt you if prosecuted. If arrested, your stating the above (without a lawyer) would essentially convict you. In fact, your posting above could be used against you. You could be charged w/multiple felonies - manufacture as well as possession of an unreg'd AW.

Essentially all arrest/prosecutions of criminal cases in CA are by police + local DA, and in a local superior court. As DOJ itself has warned in various meetings, there are 58 separate DAs in Calif. Some DAs may disagree w/DOJ Firearm Div. opinions that some of us here might find favorable. The matters involved here are not grand enough to warrant an official Opinion Letter from AG office, so a sufficiently provoked local DA may well not mind disagreeing w/DOJ and going to bat against their sentiments by prosecuting someone for edge-condition AW violations.

In fact, some favorable-to-us efforts/opinions etc of DOJ Firearms Dvi have been overturned because they got sued by the Brady Bunch, VPC, etc.
(Like the late registration fiasco in 92? 93?)

Remember, in legal edge conditions like the one you are trying to push, the determination of whether or not your receiver' really an AR or not will most likely end up being tried in court, where the local judge will make a "finding of fact". While judge may use DOJ writings and opinions as expert guidance, he could even contravene DOJ opinion. The judge is likely to go along with 'intent' of the law - which is to ban assault weapons.

And conceivably this ruling against you could have other legal side effects affecting the rest of CA gun owners. Look what Kasler lawsuit did: it lost, and dug AR/AK owners even further in the hole!


Bill Wiese
San Jose

imported_TMC
03-18-2005, 1:32 PM
This may be slightly drifing from the specific topic but,

What about building a lower specifically for a 22 conversion. The CZ upper I have only needs about 1/2 of buffer movement. If you permanently attached a buffer tube that is partially plugged and will not allow a .223 upper to function would that be ok?

bwiese
03-18-2005, 1:57 PM
Hi Todd...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Todd wrote:
What about building a lower specifically for a 22 conversion? The CZ upper I have only needs about 1/2 of buffer movement. If you permanently attached a buffer tube that is partially plugged and will not allow a .223 upper to function would that be OK? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Relax, you're still on-topic of "how can we try to legally bypass CA laws about ARs" ;-)

It's a chicken & egg problem first of all. Unless you already had an AR/AR lower legally possessed and registered before 23 Jan 2001 (and in which case you wouldn't have to worry about this!!) you can't get an AR lower in the 1st place to modify.

You'd have to find a CA FFL that also holds a Calif Assault Wpns Permit - fairly rare. These guy's'd weld up your receiver to be permanently modified and seek DOJ approval that it could be transferred it to you.

Cost-prohibitive in the first place, but the fact that it could still accept AR mags would likely NOT allow it to be approved... especially as there exist(ed) AR uppers from vendors like ZM Weapons, Olympic Arms and maybe DSA (?) that don't require presence of receiver extension tube ('buffer tube') at all - some of these mfgrs had folding stocks on them, not collapsible ones!

If the lower's mag well area were peramently modfied so only a 22LR mag of some sort could be used, there'd be a fighting chance there. But again, acquisition/approval costs are likely cost prohibitive unless you're rich...


Bill Wiese
San Jose

imported_TMC
03-18-2005, 3:08 PM
Thanks bwiese, I should have stared by saying I was thinking about and 80% or less lower. You make a good point about the uppers like ZM, I forgot about those.

This gets going down the road of what is an accetpable level of modification or machining to make it work as a centerfire again. You could mill off the fixed buffer tube, thread for a new buffer and there you go, you have a lower that will take any upper. What about takedown pin spacing that only work with the 22 upper? At what point does the DOJ say what your building is acceptable? I guess there's too much leeway for an overzelous DA. Now you got me thinking of how to make an 80% only take .22 pistol mags? That my be the out.

bwiese
03-18-2005, 3:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Todd:
Thanks bwiese, I should have stared by saying I was thinking about and 80% or less lower. You make a good point about the uppers like ZM, I forgot about those.

This gets going down the road of what is an accetpable level of modification or machining to make it work as a centerfire again. You could mill off the fixed buffer tube, thread for a new buffer and there you go, you have a lower that will take any upper. What about takedown pin spacing that only work with the 22 upper? At what point does the DOJ say what your building is acceptable? I guess there's too much leeway for an overzelous DA. Now you got me thinking of how to make an 80% only take .22 pistol mags? That my be the out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not do ANY of these things without preapproval from DOJ.

And remember, even if DOJ said it was legal but borderline, a DA+ judge might say otherwise.

Frankly I think the FAB10 or the welded-up Bushmaster by GB is as close as I'd cut it.

If I were starting with an 80% lower I would NOT open the mag well at the bottom to accept a magazine without specific permission/ clarification from DOJ as to exact dimensions.

Additionally I would not possess an homemade lower with a magwell that could hold more than 10 rounds - that's an AW too! This could perhaps accidentally happen if not machined properly.

There's the law and there's what judges call "legislative intent" and are very reluctant to breach - not all loopholes are loopholes because of this.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

imported_TMC
03-18-2005, 4:01 PM
Thanks, you right,better safe than sorry.

I'll just put it on top of one the registered guns.

rjardy
03-18-2005, 8:14 PM
Thanks for the comments BWIESE, but I just threw this as some geewhiz information. I am not trying to find any "loop holes" and am not trying to presnt myself as "more brilliant" than the folks that have been looking into this since 01. I am a SSgt in the military who is deployed with an M4 and trains with it often. I am not looking to build something to get around the DOJ penal codes. The DOJ has a system in place for people such as me to be allowed to have an assualt weapon here in the state, of which I have. As I stated earlier, geewhiz information. Also, take a quick read over the penal code, and over my remarks. The code says nothing about a "open magwell" and I said nothing about buying or distributing such a part/reciever. One individual has recieved an okay from the DOJ for this "IDEA". If anyone feels compelled to persue this avenue, feel free. Just some more information for the general public. It is a literal interperatation of the code, nothing more, nothing less.

Regards,
Robert

rjardy
03-18-2005, 8:19 PM
Please also note Bwiese, I did not write the original post that I both linked to and "copy and pasted" You qouted the original poster and added "you wrote" wich I did not. Just wanted to clear that up.

rjardy
03-18-2005, 8:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bwiese:
Hi Todd...


Relax, you're still on-topic of "how can we try to legally bypass CA laws about ARs" ;-)

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not think that you are quite grasping my position on this one. This is not something I am "pushing" it was an idea that has recieved the go-ahead from the DOJ to another individual.
Thats it. I am not a manufacturer, look for a good way to make money. Just a military guy who thinks that they general populace should have access to the same type weaponry that I do.

Bill........calm down


Robert

rjardy
03-18-2005, 8:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

And conceivably this ruling against you could have other legal side effects affecting the rest of CA gun owners. Look what Kasler lawsuit did: it lost, and dug AR/AK owners even further in the hole!


Bill Wiese
San Jose </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, bill, you have allready convicted me. Who is the "bench-top lawyer" here?

whatever
03-19-2005, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Who is the "bench-top lawyer" here? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Well said.

bwiese
03-19-2005, 10:58 AM
Hi Rjardy..

Relax, I'm not trying to beat up on you!.

My term 'benchtop lawyer' was to refer to those (not necessarily you - sorry, I understand now you were quoting someone else) who think these laws have a loophole or two.

I just try to keep folks out of jail here http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
and am quite familiar w/PC 12276 etc AW laws in CA.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rjardy:
take a quick read over the penal code, and over my remarks. The code says nothing about a "open magwell" and I said nothing about buying or distributing such a part/reciever. One individual has recieved an okay from the DOJ for this "IDEA". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The DOJ approval you spoke of may have been for making "one-off" for them to further examine for further suitability/ legality! It would be interesting to have a copy of the DOJ approval letter posted here, and your friend's (or whoever he is) orig. request to DOJ Firearms.

True, the Calif PC says nothing about 'open magwell'. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. If it's even close to an AR lower it will be regarded as an AR lower. These are banned by series due to Kasler court decision in Aug 2000. But when an AR lower does not have an open magwell (like the FAB10) it is no longer an AR lower - because the DOJ can say it is 'sufficiently different'.

You can't just read specific sections of the code - you have to read it as a whole and deal w/court rulings too. And you always have to be conscious of 'legislative intent' too.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

Chaingun
03-21-2005, 9:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's a chicken & egg problem first of all. Unless you already had an AR/AR lower legally possessed and registered before 23 Jan 2001 (and in which case you wouldn't have to worry about this!!) you can't get an AR lower in the 1st place to modify. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BATF considers an 81% a complete receiver, but DOJ considers only a 100% a receiver (50cal ban on receivers). He could build a 99%, convert to .22 and then finish to 100%.

bwiese
03-22-2005, 9:28 AM
Hi Chaingun...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chaingun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">bwiese wrote:
It's a chicken & egg problem first of all. Unless you already had an AR or AR lower legally possessed and registered before 23 Jan 2001 (and in which case you wouldn't have to worry about this!!) you can't get an AR lower in the 1st place to modify. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BATF considers an 81% a complete receiver, but DOJ considers only a 100% a receiver (50cal ban on receivers). He could build a 99%, convert to .22 and then finish to 100%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Frankly I dunno why anyone wants a 22LR AR and spend lotsa time/$$$ to get something that's not as good as a decent 10/22, Rem 597, etc.

This 22 'conversion' you speak of would have to be permanent - i.e., lower's magwell not fully milled out.

A DA might conceivably still see this as an attempt to build an AW - "we just stopped you before you completeted it". Burden of proof otherwise could well be on you.

The other issue here - mostly theoretical - could also be that an AR-style lower does NOT determine rimfire vs. centerfire; that's the upper's job! So in theory this "22 only" lower could still be a centerfire lower for some other sort of small-diameter centerfire round - even something ridiculous like a 25ACP.

Given that caliber change still allows an AR to be an AR - that is, an AR10 is considered a Kasler AR - this purported 25ACP lower could be considered a semiauto AR variant that could, in fact, take a detach. magazine.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

rjardy
05-28-2010, 5:07 PM
haha funny that I posted this 5 years ago and caught crap for it. And look where we are now!

Full Clip
05-28-2010, 5:20 PM
LOL -- this is hilarious.

rjardy
05-28-2010, 5:23 PM
crazy huh. Man things seemed so much "foggier" five years ago. Or maybe thats just me getting old and my memory fading.. haha

Sniper3142
05-28-2010, 5:24 PM
Even if this is a SUPER OLD thread, you deserve the ability to say "I told ya so" to those that doubted you way back when!!

;)

Rekrab
05-28-2010, 5:26 PM
Man, that was trippy.

rjardy
05-28-2010, 5:28 PM
Even if this is a SUPER OLD thread, you deserve the ability to say "I told ya so" to those that doubted you way back when!!

;)


haha I thought so!!!

Super old thread. Man 5 years flew by....LOL

rjardy
05-28-2010, 5:30 PM
That's the oldest necropost I've ever seen. How is it you have only 25 posts in 5 years?

I spend a lot more time reading and learning than talking :)

haha

SanPedroShooter
05-28-2010, 5:35 PM
wow dude you totally called it! someone out there is making a bunch of money selling "bullet buttons".... probably not you.... of well. i suppose this idea would have occured naturaly just from reading the code "... with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required.A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool."
how did that part get put in there? it made the perfect opening.

stix213
05-28-2010, 5:46 PM
I was reading this thinking "Isn't he just describing a freaking BB???" Then I saw the date :p

MikeR
05-28-2010, 6:15 PM
No wonder i was majorly confused until i saw this....

haha funny that I posted this 5 years ago and caught crap for it. And look where we are now!

LOL

How about some winning lotto numbers rjardy ;)

rjardy
05-28-2010, 6:19 PM
wow dude you totally called it! someone out there is making a bunch of money selling "bullet buttons".... probably not you.... of well. i suppose this idea would have occured naturaly just from reading the code "... with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required.A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool."
how did that part get put in there? it made the perfect opening.

Serious, I totally would have made some tooling and cranked these babies out if I wasnt told I would make case law.

haha

Z ME FLY
05-28-2010, 6:20 PM
Oh geez! The memories!!

At least look how far we have came right?

rjardy
05-28-2010, 6:21 PM
No wonder i was majorly confused until i saw this....



LOL

How about some winning lotto numbers rjardy ;)


7 12 25 4 16 8 9

super mega lotto...


lol

Veggie
05-28-2010, 7:57 PM
BRAINZZZZZZZZ!!!

rjardy
05-28-2010, 8:26 PM
BRAINZZZZZZZZ!!!

eh?

Bhobbs
05-28-2010, 8:57 PM
I started reading this and freaking out. haha I should have looked at the date.

ZenMasta
05-29-2010, 12:07 AM
looking into the archives I see...

rjardy
05-29-2010, 12:31 AM
I get bored ;)

dieselpower
05-29-2010, 12:44 AM
This just shows you how things change. A guy I know has some crazy ideas too. He has been told his idea is a no-no and agrees not to try it. I know if in 5 years he is proven right I will never hear the end of it.

SID45
05-29-2010, 5:40 AM
That is the problem with laws that gets passed, it kinda restricts our minds from working, from innovating. It restricts our FREEDOM....

CavTrooper
05-29-2010, 8:19 AM
That's the oldest necropost I've ever seen. How is it you have only 25 posts in 5 years?

Reading the OP and the response he got, its a wonder he ever posted again at all.

I guess he and whoever wrote the thread he linked to deserve a big pat on the back.

beenawhile
05-29-2010, 8:51 AM
I was reading this thinking "Isn't he just describing a freaking BB???" Then I saw the date :p
I was thinking the exact same thing

MikeR
05-29-2010, 9:11 AM
That is the problem with laws that gets passed, it kinda restricts our minds from working, from innovating. It restricts our FREEDOM....

Kinda sounds like the liberal agenda, don't worry, There is no need for you to actually think and be a productive member of society, .gov will take care of you. ;)

rjardy
05-29-2010, 8:49 PM
Reading the OP and the response he got, its a wonder he ever posted again at all.

I guess he and whoever wrote the thread he linked to deserve a big pat on the back.


Thanks man! Progressive thinkers usually get smacked around for a while until everyone else finally figures out that "hey maybe this can benefit me too!"

But hey, the wheels of commerce are spinning, and other people are making money on a great idea.

This has just taught me to take more chances, and just because people tell me I cant, does'nt mean I should'nt.

Thanks for reading this, guys.

SoCalRandy
05-29-2010, 10:50 PM
Wow, this is EPIC!!!

bwiese
05-29-2010, 11:15 PM
It indeed is.

But I am glad we moved so cautiously initially.

If tons of people had been popped for going too far the OLL revolution would have dropped dead in its tracks. Now, we may have up to 300K OLLs - twice the number of reg'd AWs in CA - and this may well have an effect in the courts as to taking down AW laws.

rjardy
05-29-2010, 11:29 PM
It indeed is.

But I am glad we moved so cautiously initially.

If tons of people had been popped for going too far the OLL revolution would have dropped dead in its tracks. Now, we may have up to 300K OLLs - twice the number of reg'd AWs in CA - and this may well have an effect in the courts as to taking down AW laws.


5 years later and i do indeed agree with you.


Rob

Turbinator
05-30-2010, 12:05 AM
Very neat. Like looking back in time and seeing how the whole thing came together, all over again. :)

Turby

five.five-six
05-30-2010, 12:14 AM
two more weeks



there I said it.... this thread makes me think of shopkeep

asme
05-30-2010, 12:15 AM
It indeed is.

But I am glad we moved so cautiously initially.

If tons of people had been popped for going too far the OLL revolution would have dropped dead in its tracks. Now, we may have up to 300K OLLs - twice the number of reg'd AWs in CA - and this may well have an effect in the courts as to taking down AW laws.

Not wishing to defile this historic thread, but of curiosity, do we have any measurable statistic anywhere of "At least X amount of OLLs" as opposed to "up to X amount of OLLs?"

rjardy
05-30-2010, 12:39 AM
You're not defiling anything. I have no idea where we could get those figures. Bill, would be better to answer that one but I am fairly confident that the amount of OLL is out numbering the amount of registered AW in this state.

No one knew what they wanted until we couldn't have it. Im sure that my brain was not the only one stirring at the time, but this does go to show what motivated people can do. Keep asking why not, find acceptable solutions and press forward.

rkt88edmo
05-30-2010, 6:37 AM
TWO WEEKS!!!

I was talking about those days again with another member just this weekend....good times, always fun to take a trip down OLL memory lane

evidens83
05-30-2010, 7:13 AM
Wow times have changed for the better indeed :D

Mac
05-30-2010, 9:36 AM
Cool time capsule moment. I did not catch the date at first either.

Funny.