PDA

View Full Version : Question regarding the "memo" on DOJ.


antarius
02-12-2006, 10:35 PM
So I was reading the "memo" on the DOJ website ( http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ar15notice.pdf ). The spot that is of concern to me is the multiple places within said memo which states:

"Registrants of newly identified "series weapons" cannot legally add PC section 12276.1 features to those firearms."

Series weapons would be these new wonderful not-yet-banned lowers that we're all buying, and 12276.1 features would be the nifty things such as the flash suppressors, pistol grips, collapsable stocks, hand grips, etc.

Does this mean that if/when they make our lowers illegal, and we have to "register them as assault rifles," we'll have to remove our PC 12276.1 features to keep them legal?

My understanding was due to the fact that the weapon is not both semi-automatic and equipped with a detachable magazine, the "features" were allowed. The reason I say this is because PC 12276.1 states: 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:

The "following" are the nifty little "evil items" we all love so much... to me it seems pretty clear, because our weapons cannot "accept a detachable magazine" (because they have fixed magazines! woo hoo!) they're not within the restrictions of 12276.1's "any one of the following" features, thus we can own them even after the registration period is required (After they ban our lowers).

I just wanted to check a little to see if I'm missing anything, or if not, hopefully this post will help clear up some questions with anyone else...

Thanks in advance, and yes, I read the FAQ. =]

HEUER
02-12-2006, 10:47 PM
For now, this is just a memo. The memo does give us a glimse as to what the DOJ would like to happen, but it is not clear if what they are proposing will stick.

Right now, you just have to wait. nothing has changed. Comply with SB 23.

tenpercentfirearms
02-12-2006, 10:48 PM
They are speaking in a general sense and they mean you won't be able to have the features which means you can't have a detachable magazine and any of the following. You should still be able to have fixed ten round magazine and any of the features (be careful with the grenade launcher, I am pretty sure they are already illegal).

Basically nothing has changed since that memo. We were buying these lowers to build fixed magazine rifles and they say we are going to have to keep them that way. So keep them that way until the courts tell you otherwise.

antarius
02-12-2006, 10:48 PM
For now, this is just a memo. The memo does give us a glimse as to what the DOJ would like to happen, but it is not clear if what they are proposing will stick.

Right now, you just have to wait. nothing has changed. Comply with SB 23.

I will be complying with SB 23, with a fixed magazine (not detachable), semi-automatic and all the nifty little goodies.

My concern is if they ban them in the future, and we have to register them, they're saying they're going to make us remove the 12276.1 "nifty" features.

Reading 12276.1 makes it clear that the weapon must be both semi-automatic, have a detachable magazine *and* one of the following. So since mine will still have the non-detachable magazine, it would therefor still be legal, correct?

antarius
02-12-2006, 10:49 PM
They are speaking in a general sense and they mean you won't be able to have the features which means you can't have a detachable magazine and any of the following. You should still be able to have fixed ten round magazine and any of the features (be careful with the grenade launcher, I am pretty sure they are already illegal).

Basically nothing has changed since that memo. We were buying these lowers to build fixed magazine rifles and they say we are going to have to keep them that way. So keep them that way until the courts tell you otherwise.

Okay, thanks, just confirming...

glen avon
02-12-2006, 10:51 PM
I just now noticed that there is a grassy knoll near Daly Plaza, where a second shooter might have been. has anybody thought about this?

shopkeep
02-12-2006, 11:30 PM
If there's anything we've learned about information comming from the DOJ it's that their info is unreliable.

Just stay in compliance with the law. The law is on our side and we will ultimately prevail in the courts. The current AG likes to throw his weight around and really push the envelope. We'll give him a similar smack down to the one that was issued in the Harrott case (which might I mention made all this fun possible).

I am certain the the DOJ's lack of concern and lack of action over the last court ruling will not weigh in their favor. "What? We TOLD you what you had to do... now you're playing catch-up and expecting us to help you create a second tier of Assault Weapons?"