PDA

View Full Version : Could the CA DOJ go straight to the legislature?


HEUER
02-19-2006, 4:03 PM
I was looking at my Calender today after the Daytona 500 and noticed that Tuesday will be the 21rst of Feb, and yet there has been no list published. The CA DOJ has repeatedly provided incorrect information, and the latest memo has been changed a number of times.

The DOJ seems to be taking there time. I do not buy the fact that they are taking there time to list "all" the lowers. The DOJ is aware that names can be changed (that is how we all got to this point ;) ) and I do not think they will make the same mistake twice.

The DOJ waited two months and the sky has not fallen for them. I think they may string everyone along, while preparing for some type of legislative action?

SB 23 has been doing a pretty good job from allowing lower owners from not having a pistol grip + detachable magazine rifles.

Could the CA DOJ go straight to the legislature and skip the lists?

bwiese
02-19-2006, 4:31 PM
The DOJ is gonna do as complete a list as possible. Even back in Jan it made sense to me for them to wait until the SHOT Show - several new brands and models. Also, they have a lot to clean up on the existing list to meet legal standards.

Furthermore, they have repeatedly, in formal written communications, that they will list. I always take an enemy at its word that it will do something when it says it'll do something.

You are unrealistically expecting the reaction speed of a for-profit, corporate free-market business from a public organization that has no relation to reality, efficiency, or profit -- and that just doesn't happen. Gov't is slow and plodding, and the wheels take time to grind.

They're still probably digesting their memo, wondering what happened given our rapid response demolishing their stance legally (i.e, my rebuttal memo being reshaped/recast by a real lawyer, who is in touch w/DOJ last week but who hasn't received a response yet.)

To do anything legislatively, a bill will have to be proposed, it will have to go thru the committee process, go thru the opposite house (i.e., happens in Senate and assembly), and have the governor sign - or vote to override his veto, and there aren't the votes for that. This takes at least 6+ months.

By then 50,000 legal off-list lowers could be in-state :)

HEUER
02-19-2006, 4:37 PM
Bill I hear what your saying, but by they time they put out this list they could be half way to legislative action.

I just bring it up because it is getting close to March, and it just seems odd that they are taking so long.

Intersting answer. Bill from what you have written, we could see leg action this year?

glen avon
02-19-2006, 4:45 PM
DOJ isn't stringing anybody along. they are trying to deal with poorly drafted legislation.

If DOJ was actually, institutionally, anti-gun, we would be in worse shape.

blacklisted
02-19-2006, 4:48 PM
What sort of legislative action do you mean? Fixing up the AR-15 "series" ban language and confiscating the ones that made it into the state? I think they'll update the list first before trying any legislative action.

mblat
02-19-2006, 4:56 PM
What sort of legislative action do you mean? Fixing up the AR-15 "series" ban language and confiscating the ones that made it into the state? I think they'll update the list first before trying any legislative action.

I am no legislative expert on gun control issues, but it seems to me that the only solutions to the "problem" is declaring ANY simi-auto rifle with detachable magazine as AW.

Pthfndr
02-19-2006, 5:23 PM
The DOJ does not write legislation itself.

They need to get a state rep or state senator to write it. The it has to follow the path bwiese pointed out.

Finding a an appropriate person to write some kind of legislation would most likely not be a problem. But just the first step of writing it and having reveiwed by legal persons prior to having introduced to the legislature for the first step could take many months.

PIRATE14
02-19-2006, 5:25 PM
This takes at least 6+ months.

By then 50,000 legal off-list lowers could be in-state :)

Let's hope so.........only 40,000 left to go or there abouts.....:D

fun2none
02-19-2006, 5:35 PM
Or Lockyer could just delay until his term ends in November. He publicly states that he is going to take action yet has no intention of touching this political hot potato.

He can placate his anti-gun supporters by memo-posturing while he avoids implementing any controversial measures. If anybody asks why he has not (or did not) done anything, he responds with some meaningless answer such as "we are exploring all available options to ensure that these deadly weapons are not proliferated in our great state. Ultimately, the courts and legislature will have to decide the matter."

In short, pass the buck and let the next AG deal with it.

PIRATE14
02-19-2006, 6:15 PM
I am no legislative expert on gun control issues, but it seems to me that the only solutions to the "problem" is declaring ANY simi-auto rifle with detachable magazine as AW.

well I don't know about simi-auto but u can bet they are kickin around the idea of semi-auto center fire.......:D

Ford8N
02-19-2006, 7:03 PM
By then 50,000 legal off-list lowers could be in-state :)


Wonderful! Good news.

DSA_FAL
02-19-2006, 7:17 PM
If you look at the legislative calendar, They won't start debating bills until April. So if they go the legislative route, it could take quite a while.

phish
02-19-2006, 7:50 PM
You are unrealistically expecting the reaction speed of a for-profit, corporate free-market business from a public organization that has no relation to reality, efficiency, or profit -- and that just doesn't happen. Gov't is slow and plodding, and the wheels take time to grind.


wow, that's funny, sad, and true, all at the same time!

LOW2000
02-19-2006, 7:59 PM
Thats ok, I might buy "just one more" lower since my fiancee has really latched onto the idea of her pink furniture AR (and wants urban camo over the pink:D ) That or i'll just go to 3-gun competitions with a pink rifle:o I'd like it if we could both shoot our carbines, but worse comes to worse, I can always just slap a different upper on my varmint rig.:cool:

xrMike
02-19-2006, 9:09 PM
I am no legislative expert on gun control issues, but it seems to me that the only solutions to the "problem" is declaring ANY simi-auto rifle with detachable magazine as AW.Wow, scary to think my late grandfather's deer rifle, a Winchester Model 100, made way back in 1962, might soon be an evil assault weapon... :)

tenpercentfirearms
02-19-2006, 9:18 PM
I don't think they are going to go the confiscation route. That takes up too much money and takes too many risks. Afterall, these guys are armed and some of them might just be looking for a reason to put their "From my cold dead hands" bumper sticker to use.

I would also like to see them go after all semi-autos. I would like to see what the public will say about that.

Basically, nothing has changed and we have nothing to fear. We bought these things as 10 round fixed magazine rifles and that is what they are staying. Just kick back and relax and enjoy the ride. They won't be able to sneak in legislation, so just keep waiting to see the next move.

HEUER
02-19-2006, 9:29 PM
I thought I would ask, because in nine days it will be March, and at that point I do not think the legislative route is completely out of the question. ;)

tenpercentfirearms
02-19-2006, 9:30 PM
I have seen the elephant. If we were doing something wrong, I would already be in cuffs. Don't confuse that with cockiness, I don't want to see it again. I just call it the way I see it, relax and enjoy the fun. There is nothing we can do at this point to change any of this, as has been for the last 4 years, it is the DOJ's move. We have nothing to fear or be anxious about.

HEUER
02-19-2006, 9:32 PM
Is this the big pink elephant in the room no one wants to admit exists or talk about? ;)

HEUER
02-19-2006, 9:38 PM
http://wesclark.com/jw/elephant.html


Thank you Ted. That was something I did not know. :D

shopkeep
02-19-2006, 10:16 PM
I am no legislative expert on gun control issues, but it seems to me that the only solutions to the "problem" is declaring ANY simi-auto rifle with detachable magazine as AW.

Good thing all that STAG-15 carbine I just built up has a 10 round fixed magazine then isn't it :)? Hey, come to think of it everyone in this forum has been building a lot of fixed mag rifles... I think internal mags are beginning to overtake detachable mags in popularity in this state for some unknown reason :D!

gose
02-19-2006, 10:31 PM
Let's hope so.........only 40,000 left to go or there abouts.....:D

Wee! Maybe even I can get some then! :)

phish
02-19-2006, 10:35 PM
Is this the big pink elephant in the room no one wants to admit exists or talk about? ;)

That's an interesting quote. I live with my sister, what's your excuse? ;)

There's nothing stopping Joe the DOJ employee from bugging a representative from his/her district. This route will take time though, the government and all that good stuff.

If that's the case, I hope it drags out until the fall, gives time for RRA to crank out those LAR-10s! :D

bwiese
02-19-2006, 11:41 PM
If they don't start listing in another coupla weeks then we come up with a strategy to make it happen ;)

Right now this is all nonpublic "inside baseball" stuff. If/when publicity hits and we shape it properly, they will be forced to act.

artherd
02-19-2006, 11:58 PM
I dunno, can Perata even chapter anything while he's still under Federal Indictment? ;)

Guys, compare NASA to Scaled Composites.

Scaled Composites built an entire space program on a budget of abour $40m, or about the cost of a Gulfstream V.

NASA would be hard pressed to run ONE BUILDING IN THEIR CAMPUS on a budget of $40m!

DOJ has a lot of legwork to do before they can do very much of anything. Most of the existing list has illegal language in it, as do the various leaked 'update candidates'.

I would hope the DOJ would do a reasonable (heck, an kindergarden) level of DD before attempting an update of any kind.

Pablo
02-20-2006, 12:00 AM
If they don't start listing in another coupla weeks then we come up with a strategy to make it happen ;)

Right now this is all nonpublic "inside baseball" stuff.

This is getting very interesting... I wish you could tell us more...:)

grammaton76
02-20-2006, 2:10 AM
This is getting very interesting... I wish you could tell us more...:)

You do realize, if this DOES manage to get the assault weapons ban repealed here or whatnot, that Bill and Artherd are going to co-write a very successful book about the "inside stuff", with signings held at shooting ranges throughout CA, right?

Well, a guy can hope...

bridgeport
02-20-2006, 6:11 AM
Funny that last week I had some of the same posters here angry with me for stating that likely these lowers we are buying will not be added to any list for political reasons. If we keep the lowers as they are we have fixed mag rifles as ten percent stated without any type of registration. Now Bill says that if they do not add them he or they or whoever will strategize to get them added. Sounds like some of you really want to stir up a hornets nest when things are likely acceptable for most of us as they stand. I for one would not want to attempt to poke the DOJ in the eye on this one.

tenpercentfirearms
02-20-2006, 7:18 AM
I for one would not want to attempt to poke the DOJ in the eye on this one.You already have by the simple fact you bought one. I too would rather not poke at the hornet's nest and wonder if we really want them registered. I don't think it is going to matter whether they get registered or not because the legislation is coming. Probably not for a long time, but it is coming and it will make all of this a moot point. The only problem there is the anti's have to be very careful what they do with a RINO in office and with the possiblity that they finally push too far. If they try to shut us down and fail politically, that would be very bad.

Me? I am just here to watch the ride, shoot my 10 round fixed mag rifles (sadly enough, that means my FAB-10s), and sell uppers. My PRK legal lowers are justting unassembled in my safe. :D

stator
02-20-2006, 9:05 AM
I dunno, can Perata even chapter anything while he's still under Federal Indictment? ;)



The Secretary of State chapters legislation. Perata can only introduce and vote on legistation in the senate.

Perata has introduced 27 bills in this session so far. His latest is SB1334 which was just introducted this past week.

Where's my Lauers and Ameetec from GB Phase 4 and 5? .... S$#t, D#m, and F(&^.

Ford8N
02-20-2006, 9:45 AM
Giving these firearms laws the benefit of the doubt, they are presumably instituted to control and prevent criminal misuse of firearms. They are not a pretext to be used by the DOJ to harass and threaten the 99% of law abiding citizens who have never and will never commit criminal acts with the firearms that are the subject of discussion on this board.







10TH


Good point.

bg
02-20-2006, 10:10 AM
I am no legislative expert on gun control issues, but it seems to me that the only solutions to the "problem" is declaring ANY simi-auto rifle with detachable magazine as AW.
WHOA! Don't be going there please. SB-23 and the orig AW ban was/is terrible enough.

bwiese
02-20-2006, 10:12 AM
Funny that last week I had some of the same posters here angry with me for stating that likely these lowers we are buying will not be added to any list for political reasons.

Those people are misinformed. This is all a timing game.


If we keep the lowers as they are we have fixed mag rifles as ten percent stated without any type of registration.

If the makes/models of off-list lowers do get listed, then yes they MUST be registered - regardless of features.


Now Bill says that if they do not add them he or they or whoever will strategize to get them added. Sounds like some of you really want to stir up a hornets nest when things are likely acceptable for most of us as they stand.

What's wrong with stirring up a hornet's nest?

You're accepting of 10rd fixed magazines? You're a tolerant sort.


I for one would not want to attempt to poke the DOJ in the eye on this one.

Why are you so timid? Not enough testosterone in your Cheerios today? There's nothing they can do to you for following the law (as long as you do the right things at the right times, as outlined in my FAQ).

We're merely gonna make the DOJ follow existing statutory law.

The recent memo was a very poorly written, poorly thought-out panicky response.

fun2none
02-20-2006, 10:33 AM
Why are you so timid? Not enough testosterone in your Cheerios today?

Those type of personal comments are really not productive. Bridgeport is entitled to his opinion as it everyone else. We will just have to wait and see how this plays out.

Gregas
02-20-2006, 10:40 AM
I
Guys, compare NASA to Scaled Composites.

Scaled Composites built an entire space program on a budget of abour $40m, or about the cost of a Gulfstream V.


Ben, I agree w/ your points about the speed/efficiency of government, but having worked w/ both NASA and Scaled and having examined SpaceShipOne closely, I can tell you that is not a fair comparison!

Their entire space program consists of one airplane, one tiny capsule with one tiny SRM that can barely scratch the edge of the atmosphere and can't come close to acheiving orbit. And it's scary as hell.

As a long time space buff and past aircraft homebuilder, Burt Rutan is truly one of my heroes. They really can do a lot with a little up at Scaled. But calling it an entire space program is like calling the three Cessna 172s belonging to some small African nation an entire air force!

bridgeport
02-20-2006, 5:00 PM
Bill, Experience has bread a certain restraint in me. I have been in this game my whole life and certainly have respect for your intentions, and would like to see this whole thing turn out for the best, and also it is my opinion that the
whole picture should be put forth, that's all. Ten P, why arent you still selling lowers yourself if you are so sure of things. Reality and fantasy will be reconciled.

6172crew
02-20-2006, 5:33 PM
We all know the AG wants new law and can get it in this crap state but that doesnt take into account my lower was bought legally and can be made into a fixed 10 rounder.

We all know what they have planned they tell us what they want and its to make sure we dont have firearms period. I know there are plenty of doj guys that sound like your buddy over the phone but Dana has already told folks he wouldnt put them on the list that way we cant build them as a AW. Why does he care unless he doesnt want other to have firearms.

Im thinking the damage is done and he is looking for a weasel way out and that is where we stand today. Can the law abiding citizens and the internet beat the AG or not? Time wil tell.

Update the list fatboy!:cool:


Bill, Experience has bread a certain restraint in me. I have been in this game my whole life and certainly have respect for your intentions, and would like to see this whole thing turn out for the best, and also it is my opinion that the
whole picture should be put forth, that's all. Ten P, why arent you still selling lowers yourself if you are so sure of things. Reality and fantasy will be reconciled.

ohsmily
02-20-2006, 6:50 PM
Bill, Experience has bread a certain restraint in me.

like wheat bread? perhaps rye?

Or maybe experience hasn't bred much of anything into you. Let Bill and others who fully understand the situation concern themselves. It can only help, not hurt you...no one is going to confiscate your precious lower whether this issue is pressed or not by Bill and others...

PIRATE14
02-20-2006, 7:42 PM
We all know the AG wants new law and can get it in this crap state but that doesnt take into account my lower was bought legally and can be made into a fixed 10 rounder.
cool:

Exactly......if I was you guys I would build them and shoot them.....why kowtow now.......

Keep going......

PIRATE14
02-20-2006, 7:49 PM
I know there are plenty of doj guys that sound like your buddy over the phone but Dana has already told folks he wouldnt put them on the list that way we cant build them as a AW. Can the law abiding citizens and the internet beat the AG or not? Time wil tell.

Update the list fatboy!:cool:

Well you got the letters.......
Second they told 100's of people by phone that they were going to list and you have to register and build....legal to buy and sell....
Third you've got the memo.....a new story with a different twist...

Time will tell in the showdown...................plan on going to court and vote every election.

Keep buying rcvrs and spread the word......stay together.

GW
02-20-2006, 7:55 PM
Where's my Lauers and Ameetec from GB Phase 4 and 5? .... S$#t, D#m, and F(&^.
My sentiments exactly (Except Doublestar instead of AMEETEC:( )

Update the list fatboy!

Ditto

glen avon
02-21-2006, 7:36 AM
We all know the AG wants new law....
and how is it that we all know this?

bg
02-21-2006, 10:33 AM
I believe Lockyer is going to run for treasurer and the guy
who is treasurer now is more than likely the front man for the
Dems against AS come Nov. The DOJ just might take a
"wait and see what happens" stance themselves..Never know.

bwiese
02-21-2006, 10:40 AM
The DOJ just might take a "wait and see what happens" stance themselves..Never know.

Not if we begin to "force the issue" in a several weeks. (You'll know it when it happens ;) )

Lockyer needs to have his record showing "control" and "authority" in an easily digestible fashion. Ordinary public, esp his voter base, doesn't know diddly about what is or isn't an AW. 10,000 new kinda-sorta AWs can cause all sorts of nightmares :)

6172crew
02-21-2006, 10:47 AM
I guess you didnt read the dojs memo:rolleyes:
The AG is looking to change the law, but if you dont read and just post I can see why you wouldnt know.;)
and how is it that we all know this?

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 11:02 AM
Not if we begin to "force the issue" in a couple of weeks. (You'll know when it happens.)

Lockyer needs to have his record showing "control" and "authority" in an easily digestible fashion. Ordinary public, esp his voter base, doesn't know diddly about what is or isn't an AW. 10,000 new kinda-sorta AWs can cause all sorts of nightmares :)

After seeing your rebuttal I have a feeling anyone at the DOJ reading this is SH**ing their pants.

bwiese
02-21-2006, 11:17 AM
After seeing your rebuttal I have a feeling anyone at the DOJ reading this is SH**ing their pants.

You haven't seen the real rebuttal - the 17 page one in .DOC format. That's gone directly/privately to the lawyers, and they're adding even more to it (and, yes, admittedly probably reshaping my detailed-but-unlawyerly work for best outcome). They're apparently already in touch with DOJ about this.

bridgeport
02-21-2006, 11:49 AM
At the range the other day I saw a few guys with new toploading fixed mag
rifles, and it's a nice thing to see. O.K. Bill I'm onboard... Have at em and
lets git er done. By the way if you read this post Ten P., I meant to delete that bit regarding you in my last post. I respect your position. Bredport.

grammaton76
02-21-2006, 11:55 AM
At the range the other day I saw a few guys with new toploading fixed mag rifles, and it's a nice thing to see.

Funny thing is, at my range I'm seeing craploads of fab-10's and not very many off-list lowers. The off-listers I do see are frequently built in free-state configurations.

Maybe they're buying fab-10's because they're cheap now...?

PIRATE14
02-21-2006, 12:00 PM
Not if we begin to "force the issue" in a several weeks. (You'll know it when it happens ;) )

Lockyer needs to have his record showing "control" and "authority" in an easily digestible fashion. Ordinary public, esp his voter base, doesn't know diddly about what is or isn't an AW. 10,000 new kinda-sorta AWs can cause all sorts of nightmares :)

It's all a timing game as previously stated, pretty certain the AJ wants new legislation......that's gonna take time and it's gotta be made public.

Forcing the issue is a good thing but you'd drop a lot more weight if you can boost your numbers up to 30,000-50,000......now politicians will def listen to those kinda numbers......

bridgeport
02-21-2006, 12:10 PM
Well for what its worth Pirate, I agree the more folks the better and I would rather be part of the solution than the problem. Also regarding off-listers, All that I saw were in proper SB-23 compliant config with nary a complaint. I did see guys shooting
Drop mag AR's that I am assuming are registered etc. But hey, being the timid type I'm not asking Q's.

glen avon
02-21-2006, 12:26 PM
I guess you didnt read the dojs memo:rolleyes:
The AG is looking to change the law, but if you dont read and just post I can see why you wouldnt know.;)

I just re-read The Memo and I don't see where it states that the AG wants new law.

he very well might, and I would if I were him, but that does not mean we all know that he wants new law.

6172crew
02-21-2006, 1:20 PM
The only way the memo becomes real is with new law. The AG doesnt make law they enforce it.

I just re-read The Memo and I don't see where it states that the AG wants new law.

he very well might, and I would if I were him, but that does not mean we all know that he wants new law.

mow
02-21-2006, 1:30 PM
OK NOW, I am very confused on this topic ... I thought I had it but I don't know maybe it is all the different opinions but ....

When I read the DOJ memo I understand that the DOJ believes that existing law supports their case (no addition of PC12276.1 features on newly identified/registered lowers)... at least to me that is what the memo is saying.

Whether or not that holds up is another story....

Or do I have it wrong and the DOJ memo indicates that there is impending legislation?

bwiese
02-21-2006, 1:35 PM
When I read the DOJ memo I understand that the DOJ believes that existing law supports their case ... at least to me that is what the memo is saying.

I don't know what they believe, but that is what they are saying.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who passed the bar could assert what they are doing is remotely legal, at least without a good loud guffaw.

Whether or not that holds up is another story...

You betcha. If they act on that memo, it ain't gonna hold.


Or do I have it wrong and the DOJ memo indicates that there is impending legislation?

There is no impending legislation for now. It takes time. However, in 6-8 months, who knows?

xenophobe
02-21-2006, 1:42 PM
I'm pretty sure modified AW regulation will quickly and quietly move through the senate and assembly with the rank and file libs being told that it needs to get done quickly and without amendments... it will probably be code re-written by DOJ and introduced by no-name legislators, with the big libs quietly pushing/strongarming everyone thorugh meetings and office calls telling them they need to vote for it or else... They don't want big media on it, at least until after it's done, then they can say the "look at what we did.... we closed a loophole" bullcrap.

I'd expect to see a bill slip by through to the Governators desk by years' end and signed without much fanfare.

mow
02-21-2006, 1:55 PM
... so minus my use of the word believes, (don't know what I was thinking) I have a good understanding of what the DOJ memo is saying :D

glen avon
02-21-2006, 1:56 PM
The only way the memo becomes real is with new law. The AG doesnt make law they enforce it.

gotcha.






.......................

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-21-2006, 2:03 PM
I find it hard to believe that anyone who passed the bar could assert what they are doing is remotely legal, at least without a good loud guffaw.

Except for the part about invalidating registrations if the off-list lower is built up in SB 23 configuration, everything the DOJ's memo says can be supported by the current AW statute. Are the attorneys who are handling this really going to take the position that there is no possible way you can read the AW legislation as banning SB 23 configured weapons --including those built out of newly-listed AR Series receivers-- if they were not lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/00 and registered on or before 12/31/00? I think that would be a mistake because you can certainly read the AW legislation that way. It's a fantasy to think that any judge would just laugh the DoJ out of court and say "there's no possible way to read the AW that way, you're delusional!" The question is not going to be "can the AW legislation be interpreted as the DOJ is interpreting it," the question is going to be "why should the court adopt the gun owner's interpretation over the DOJ's interpretation." I think we'd all be better off if the DOJ's interpretation was recognized as the real threat that it is and the gun owners come up with a better arguments why the AW legislation should be interpreted their way. I don't think the absolutist position (i.e., no possible way that DOJ's interpretation is supported by the current AW legislation) is going to get very far if this goes to court, but it's your money I guess.

BTW I've been a practicing CA attorney since '93 with enough experience arguing statutes and regulations in court to see that the DOJ isn't just making stuff up without anything to support their position. If anyone feels like telling me to just "read the law" don't bother! ;)

bwiese
02-21-2006, 2:08 PM
Except for the part about invalidating registrations if the off-list lower is built up in SB 23 configuration, everything the DOJ's memo says can be supported by the current AW statute. Are the attorneys who are handling this really going to take the position that there is no possible way you can read the AW legislation as banning SB 23 configured weapons --including those built out of newly-listed AR Series receivers-- if they were not lawfully possessed prior to 1/1/00 and registered on or before 12/31/00?
...
BTW I've been a practicing CA attorney since '93 with enough experience arguing statutes and regulations in court to see that the DOJ isn't just making stuff up without anything to support their position. If anyone feels like telling me to just "read the law" don't bother! ;)

One big part of this is that the definition of AW is completely separate from punishment/prohibited conduct - the latter of which revolves around whether an AW is registered or not.

Bottom line: there is no criminal violation for adding or changing features to a firearm already named an assault weapon.

This is why the DOJ is trying to exercise their control at the registration process by synthesizing a crime, because they certainly can't find a PC that's being violated (without their post-registration intervention and feedback from a LEO about configuration status so they can then de-register the rifle).

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-21-2006, 2:27 PM
One big part of this is that the definition of AW is completely separate from punishment/prohibited conduct - the latter of which revolves around whether an AW is registered or not.

Not really, as there are separate registration deadlines for each definition of assault weapon. If you have an assault weapon as defined by 12276.1 (which you would have if you built one out of a newly-listed lower) your deadline to register was 12/31/00, and not being able to register your 12276.1 assault weapon any more, you may not lawfully possess it in that configuration. You can't get around that by saying, "well, I timely registered my lower as a 12276.5 AW so the 12276.1 registration deadline doesn't apply to me and I can build up my lower any way I want even if it then becomes an AW in a separate category/definition/designation." The AW definitions are an integral part of the registration scheme (PC 122985(a)(a)), this is how the legislature banned SB 23 configured assault weapons effective 1/1/00.

Look, I know that you are one of the prime motivators in all of this and you have good reasons for taking the stance you are taking publically. But in court there are going to be competing interpretations, the DOJ's interpretation will be taken seriously, and whichever judge you get is going to need a better argument why that interpretation should not be followed.

PanzerAce
02-21-2006, 2:46 PM
The problem with that interpretation Fabio is that you are stating that there are different 'tiers' of AWs, when in reality, an AW is an AW is an AW. That is one of the primary reasons that the Memo can be challenged. I dont know about you, but when I read the applicable sections, I dont see any provisions for different tiers of AWs.

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 2:49 PM
Not really, as there are separate registration deadlines for each definition of assault weapon. If you have an assault weapon as defined by 12276.1 (which you would have if you built one out of a newly-listed lower) your deadline to register was 12/31/00, and not being able to register your 12276.1 assault weapon any more, you may not lawfully possess it in that configuration. You can't get around that by saying, "well, I timely registered my lower as a 12276.5 AW so the 12276.1 registration deadline doesn't apply to me and I can build up my lower any way I want even if it then becomes an AW in a separate category/definition/designation." The AW definitions are an integral part of the registration scheme (PC 122985(a)(a)), this is how the legislature banned SB 23 configured assault weapons effective 1/1/00.

You do realize that under this logic any LEO or Military personnel that registered their Colt or Bushmaster AR-15 after 2000 is now a felon...

P.S. Don't be a Troll.

bwiese
02-21-2006, 2:49 PM
The problem with that interpretation Fabio is that you are stating that there are different 'tiers' of AWs, when in reality, an AW is an AW is an AW. That is one of the primary reasons that the Memo can be challenged. I dont know about you, but when I read the applicable sections, I dont see any provisions for different tiers of AWs.

Right - there are various separate "triggers", but once the AW boundary is crossed they are all equal AWs.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-21-2006, 3:02 PM
The problem with that interpretation Fabio is that you are stating that there are different 'tiers' of AWs, when in reality, an AW is an AW is an AW.

If an AW is an AW is an AW, then there would have been no reason for the AW legislation to say that someone who registered an AW prior to 1/1/00 "where the assault weapon is thereafter defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.1 shall be deemed to have registered the weapon for purposes of this chapter and shall not be required to reregister the weapon pursuant to this section"? In the absence of this language, the new definition of assault weapon would have triggered a requirement to re-register the AW as an AW as defined by PC 12276.1. Registration prior to 1/1/00 is deemed to be registration as an AW as defined by 12276.1. Those aren't my words, they're the legislature's and they fully support the concept of separate registration requirements for AWs defined as AWs under more than one definition. The arguments that this language means something else are weak.

PanzerAce
02-21-2006, 3:07 PM
Um, I cannot seem to find that wording in any of the applicable laws. Could you point me to it?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-21-2006, 3:14 PM
Um, I cannot seem to find that wording in any of the applicable laws. Could you point me to it?

I think it's PC 12285(f).

Look, the point here is not whether I'm right or wrong. The point is that contrary to conventional wisdom on the gun boards, the DOJ is not going to be laughed out of court, and moreover, the court is going to give deference to the DoJ's interpretation of the AW laws just as it did in the Harrott case.

bridgeport
02-21-2006, 3:17 PM
Fabio, I think it's pretty clear that as long as you build in a fixed mag config
per 12276.1 with a legaly purchased lower, the build is not an AW. If anything
is named or added to the an AW list by the DOJ, then the real struggle will begin, and you are correct, the arguments will have to have merit lest the whole enterprise be sunk. Some have already voiced concern as a poor argument can be worse than none. Will or should legal challenges ever be made, the ducks will certainly have to be lined up. The details do matter.
what also matters though, is that we are legal now.

bwiese
02-21-2006, 3:25 PM
That 12285(f) wording was really merely for clarification and to stop dual registrations from cluttering the system and taking up staff time - not that a second registration of the same gun would have been required without this clause.

After all, 12285(a)(1) has:
"...any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.1, and which was not specified as an assault weapon under Section 12276 or 12276.5, shall register the firearm within one year..."

...which would not have forced double registration either. In fact, this is being declared an AW by 12276.5. Furthermore, its identification of series membership really throws it back into AR15 series, which is a 12276 gun!

PIRATE14
02-21-2006, 3:26 PM
If they list.....it's an AW period under the RR

If they don't list it's not a AW.......as long as it complies w/ SB23 regs.

HOWEVER......DOJ are going to ranges looking for off-list lowers w/ fixed 10rd mag kits......tool, bullet whatever and they are going for an arrest.....this will test that portion of the law soon........

They'll still need new legislation for anything else.....period.

glen avon
02-21-2006, 3:27 PM
Right - there are various separate "triggers", but once the AW boundary is crossed they are all equal AWs.

some may want to bear in mind that DOJ does not agree with this opinion and is not under any obligation to act in accordance with it.

others may elect to disregard the DOJ, at their own risk.

caliar15
02-21-2006, 3:29 PM
If they list.....it's an AW period under the RR

If they don't list it's not a AW.......as long as it complies w/ SB23 regs.

HOWEVER......DOJ are going to ranges looking for off-list lowers w/ fixed 10rd mag kits......tool, bullet whatever and they are going for an arrest.....this will test that portion of the law soon........

They'll still need new legislation for anything else.....period.
When did you here they have begun doing this?

PIRATE14
02-21-2006, 3:31 PM
They are doing it now.........heard this about two hours ago.

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 3:32 PM
I think it's PC 12285(f).

Look, the point here is not whether I'm right or wrong. The point is that contrary to conventional wisdom on the gun boards, the DOJ is not going to be laughed out of court, and moreover, the court is going to give deference to the DoJ's interpretation of the AW laws just as it did in the Harrott case.

I'd say that we've been tremendously successful in our efforts thus far. The California state government has been working hard for the past 27 years to ban AR-15 and AK-47 "series" firearms. The fact that as we post to this forum thousands of them are still comming into the state 100% legally is something the DOJ and courts CANNOT deny.

HEUER
02-21-2006, 3:32 PM
CA DOJ at a range? What? Rumor or fact?

bwiese
02-21-2006, 3:37 PM
If Pirate14 says this, there is likely some truth behind it - or he's heard it from DOJ employee's mouth.

bridgeport
02-21-2006, 3:39 PM
Look guys , We have all seen the Vulcans, Fabs, Ca. Bushies, with fixed mags
or welded magwells, DSA has got FALS with fixed mags etc. So I think it is accepted that fixed mags are legal. THE PROBLEM is that some people may not fix the mags on purpose and of course as we all know this could be bad news if caught with a detachable mag and other evil features. The moral of the story is if you build it BUILD IT WITH A FIXED MAG that will not come undone without a tool which is NOT a bullet. If the law comes a lookin at the range and your mag can pop off on "accident" your asking for it.

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 3:40 PM
If Pirate14 says this, there is likely some truth behind it - or he's heard it from DOJ employee's mouth.

Well if they're busting people for having 10 round fixed mags are these to be registered as stripped recievers and cannot be lawfully built up AT ALL?

HEUER
02-21-2006, 3:41 PM
If they list.....it's an AW period under the RR

If they don't list it's not a AW.......as long as it complies w/ SB23 regs.

HOWEVER......DOJ are going to ranges looking for off-list lowers w/ fixed 10rd mag kits......tool, bullet whatever and they are going for an arrest.....this will test that portion of the law soon........

They'll still need new legislation for anything else.....period.

I heard back in December that they were going to have a "test case", but was told that it would likely happen at the point of sale. What is the DOJ looking for?

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 3:46 PM
I heard back in December that they were going to have a "test case", but was told that it would likely happen at the point of sale. What is the DOJ looking for?

From the looks of the memo it appears they are less interested in test cases then they are in just getting them listed. It doesn't make any sense to go after someone until _AFTER_ the list is published. That way they can attempt to uphold their newfound authority to invalidate registration.

bwiese
02-21-2006, 3:49 PM
Bridgeport's right.

They're looking for folks that got the lowers and didn't wanna read the FAQ or they thought they could come up with some cute trickery. They can't say they've not been warned.

There's no possible charge for a 10rd fixed mag rifle, or a grip-free rifle with grip not present, on an off-list lower. Given the fact they've certified fixed mag rifles, they'd not pull this stuff.

What they MIGHT also be doing is looking for blithering idiots that think a fixed mag will legalize their unregistered Colt AR15 or Bushmaster XM15 - i.e., some unlisted guns coming out of the woodwork.

We've already seen some real "winning" questions here by folks that can't be bothered to read and think about the FAQ (or even other folks' knowledgable posts here).

I am sure they wanna stir the pot for some "example busts" to "show activity".

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 3:54 PM
Bridgeport's right.

They're looking for folks that got the lowers and didn't wanna read the FAQ or they thought they could come up with some cute trickery. They can't say they've not been warned.

There's no possible charge for a 10rd fixed mag rifle, or a grip-free rifle with grip not present, on an off-list lower. Given the fact they've certified fixed mag rifles, they'd not pull this stuff.

What they MIGHT also be doing is looking for blithering idiots that think a fixed mag will legalize their unregistered Colt AR15 or Bushmaster XM15 - i.e., some unlisted guns coming out of the woodwork.

We've already seen some real "winning" questions here by folks that can't be bothered to read and think about the FAQ (or even other folks' knowledgable posts here).

I am sure they wanna stir the pot for some "example busts" to "show activity".

Don't forget to mention all the morons who insist that they can lawfully have a detachable mag configuration where a bullet tip ejects the mag. As long as that allen wrench cranks the nut in real tight (and prefferably flush to the reciever) things should be fine.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-21-2006, 3:58 PM
That 12285(f) wording was really merely for clarification and to stop dual registrations from cluttering the system and taking up staff time - not that a second registration of the same gun would have been required without this clause.

After all, 12285(a)(1) has:
"...any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.1, and which was not specified as an assault weapon under Section 12276 or 12276.5, shall register the firearm within one year..."

...which would not have forced double registration either. In fact, this is being declared an AW by 12276.5. Furthermore, its identification of series membership really throws it back into AR15 series, which is a 12276 gun!

Good luck with your "merely for clarification" argument!!

The 12285(a)(1) language quoted says that if you lawfully possessed an AW as defined by PC 12276.1 prior to 1/1/00, i.e., the date that it became defined as an AW by PC 12276.1, you needed to register it within one year of that date, unless it had already been defined as an AW under 12276 or 12276.5, in which case you were supposed to have registered it already. The legislature didn't want to give a second chance to owners of unregistered AWs to register AWs that should have been registered previously. That's the DOJ's interpretation (at least that's what I expect it will be).

Your interpretation appears to be that what 12285(a)(1) really means is that if you timely register an AW as a 12276.5 AW, you don't have to comply with the registration deadlines for 12276.1 AWs. In other words, PC 12285(a)(1) takes 12276.5 AWs outside of the registration scheme for 12276.1 AWs. Do you really think that gun owners will be able to convince a judge that's what the legislature meant (as opposed to preventing owners of unregistered AWs from getting a second bite at the apple)? That even though you can't put 12276.1 features on your off-list lower now, that once you've registered it there's no problem building it up in a 12276.1 configuration? I think there will be huge resistance to that argument. Of all the things in the memo, the DOJ zeroed in on this in a powerful way and will get a lot of mileage out of it in court. It puts things in perspective and it will be hard to argue why this result is supported by the text of the AW legislation or as a matter of policy.

Again the point here is that the DOJ will have a legitimate, text based interpretation that will be given deference in court.

blacklisted
02-21-2006, 4:00 PM
Good luck with your "merely for clarification" argument!!

The 12285(a)(1) language quoted says that if you lawfully possessed an AW as defined by PC 12276.1 prior to 1/1/00, i.e., the date that it became defined as an AW by PC 12276.1, you needed to register it within one year of that date, unless it had already been defined as an AW under 12276 or 12276.5, in which case you were supposed to have registered it already. The legislature didn't want to give a second chance to owners of unregistered AWs to register AWs that should have been registered previously. That's the DOJ's interpretation (at least that's what I expect it will be).

Your interpretation appears to be that what 12285(a)(1) really means is that if you timely register an AW as a 12276.5 AW, you don't have to comply with the registration deadlines for 12276.1 AWs. In other words, PC 12285(a)(1) takes 12276.5 AWs outside of the registration scheme for 12276.1 AWs. Do you really think that gun owners will be able to convince a judge that's what the legislature meant (as opposed to preventing owners of unregistered AWs from getting a second bite at the apple)? That even though you can't put 12276.1 features on your off-list lower now, that once you've registered it there's no problem building it up in a 12276.1 configuration? I think there will be huge resistance to that argument. Of all the things in the memo, the DOJ zeroed in on this in a powerful way and will get a lot of mileage out of it in court. It puts things in perspective and it will be hard to argue why this result is supported by the text of the AW legislation or as a matter of policy.

Again the point here is that the DOJ will have a legitimate, text based interpretation that will be given deference in court.

How do you think they plan on enforcing this?

How will the invalidate registrations?

What crime would they charge someone with?

grammaton76
02-21-2006, 4:08 PM
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to round up 5-10 guys with off-list lowers in illegal drop-mag configurations, then throw in ONE guy with a pinned 10rd mag. Then, try to say the pinned-mag guy was up to the same tricks.

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 4:09 PM
Good luck with your "merely for clarification" argument!!

The 12285(a)(1) language quoted says that if you lawfully possessed an AW as defined by PC 12276.1 prior to 1/1/00, i.e., the date that it became defined as an AW by PC 12276.1, you needed to register it within one year of that date, unless it had already been defined as an AW under 12276 or 12276.5, in which case you were supposed to have registered it already. The legislature didn't want to give a second chance to owners of unregistered AWs to register AWs that should have been registered previously. That's the DOJ's interpretation (at least that's what I expect it will be).

Your interpretation appears to be that what 12285(a)(1) really means is that if you timely register an AW as a 12276.5 AW, you don't have to comply with the registration deadlines for 12276.1 AWs. In other words, PC 12285(a)(1) takes 12276.5 AWs outside of the registration scheme for 12276.1 AWs. Do you really think that gun owners will be able to convince a judge that's what the legislature meant (as opposed to preventing owners of unregistered AWs from getting a second bite at the apple)? That even though you can't put 12276.1 features on your off-list lower now, that once you've registered it there's no problem building it up in a 12276.1 configuration? I think there will be huge resistance to that argument. Of all the things in the memo, the DOJ zeroed in on this in a powerful way and will get a lot of mileage out of it in court. It puts things in perspective and it will be hard to argue why this result is supported by the text of the AW legislation or as a matter of policy.

Again the point here is that the DOJ will have a legitimate, text based interpretation that will be given deference in court.

Do you Troll for the DOJ in any official capacity or are you here merely for the sake of seeking to get info out of Bill and others that will eventually be heard in a court of law?

The DOJ does not want to let 10,000+ fully operational AR-15 and AK-47 rifles into the state without a fight. They have unlimited funds to fight in the courts. We're not going to give up to them without a fight either and many here have already obtained legal counsel.

Ramon, please lock up this puppy and shut it down. Lets not be giving out our legal arguements in a public forum. No sense in giving the DOJ a sneak preview of our case.

bwiese
02-21-2006, 4:10 PM
Blacklisted,

Right. That's the whole issue. The structure of the law and separation of 12280(a) and (b) penalties from the definition and registration/permits section of the law - combined with DOJ not listing for 5+ years since Harrott - lead to this.

The only criminal charges relevant to this discussion are possession of an unreg'd AW. When it's reg'd, you no longer are in possession of an unreg'd AW. When it's reg'd, changing/adding/deleting features is not manufacturing an AW.

The mere fact that the DOJ says "they will be enforcing this thru the registration procedure" tells you they have no direct criminal violation and they have to resort to synthetic means.

PIRATE14
02-21-2006, 4:16 PM
If Pirate14 says this, there is likely some truth behind it - or he's heard it from DOJ employee's mouth.

Listen CAREFULLY people.....I've dealt with more DOJ than you guys ever will, hopefully. It's what I do.

They are going to ranges looking for OFF-LIST lowers w/ fixed 10rd mag kits....whatever tool, bullet.....glue...etc. When and if they find one they will arrest or warrant....blah, blah whatever.......you will be headed to court worst case.....best case u just lose a rifle.

As I stated before this will be a test for what is a tool, what is fixed, etc.
So be ready to donate for your test case legal fund.

Might also be for what your definition of manufacture vs assembly in the state......right or wrong they will do it.

bwiese
02-21-2006, 4:18 PM
Listen CAREFULLY people.....I've dealt with more DOJ than you guys ever will, hopefully. It's what I do.

They are going to ranges looking for OFF-LIST lowers w/ fixed 10rd mag kits....whatever tool, bullet.....glue...etc. When and if they find one they will arrest or warrant....blah, blah whatever.......you will be headed to court worst case.....best case u just lose a rifle.

As I stated before this will be a test for what is a tool, what is fixed, etc.
So be ready to donate for your test case legal fund.

Might also be for what your definition of manufacture vs assembly in the state......right or wrong they will do it.

Pirate,

I do believe that you heard this. But this does sound like more spouted Dana McKinnon BS.

I think that's scare tactics, though. I think they're looking for REAL violations.

There is no way a 10rd fixed mag rifle is illegal. There is no correspondence btwn this and a gun listed in 12276.1 description, and fixed mag (screwed in) certainly is opposite of the 978.20 detachable magazine definition.

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 4:18 PM
Listen CAREFULLY people.....I've dealt with more DOJ than you guys ever will, hopefully. It's what I do.

They are going to ranges looking for OFF-LIST lowers w/ fixed 10rd mag kits....whatever tool, bullet.....glue...etc. When and if they find one they will arrest or warrant....blah, blah whatever.......you will be headed to court worst case.....best case u just lose a rifle.

As I stated before this will be a test for what is a tool, what is fixed, etc.
So be ready to donate for your test case legal fund.

Might also be for what your definition of manufacture vs assembly in the state......right or wrong they will do it.

Remember that old poll?

We're all going to jail aren't we?

grammaton76
02-21-2006, 4:25 PM
Remember that old poll?

We're all going to jail aren't we?

You mean this one?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=27950

I can't take credit for the line, one of my range buddies has a gf who, after listening patiently as he got all excited over how he was going to get to buy AR's, simply asked him: "Are we gonna go to jail?"

It's caught on amongst my group. :)

PIRATE14
02-21-2006, 4:25 PM
Pirate,

I do believe that you heard this. But this does sound like more spouted Dana McKinnon BS.

I think that's scare tactics, though. I think they're looking for REAL violations.

There is no way a 10rd fixed mag rifle is illegal.

Well there is no way "AUTO" marked semi-auto rcvrs are illegal either but those are gone....contraband....

If I told you I saw 7 DOJ roll out of unmarked SUV.....u might.

Scare tactics.....it's all tactics......we are coming to part where the rubber meets the road....we keep to ours they have theirs.

bridgeport
02-21-2006, 4:29 PM
Manufacture Vs. assembly? get out man, NO court of law is going to call putting together a lower parts kit and slapping on an upper a couple of times
manufacture, Jeez, we all had to buy these LEGALLY... or what was the DROS
and ten day wait for. The whole point of my old opinion post was that these are LEGAL, we aint done nothin wrong so let em eyeball away and try to intimidate us. I for one will stand and did so specifically by going to a public range and "coming out" with it even though I have my own property to shoot on that nobody can see etc.

PIRATE14
02-21-2006, 4:34 PM
Manufacture Vs. assembly? get out man, NO court of law is going to call putting together a lower parts kit and slapping on an upper a couple of times
manufacture, Jeez, we all had to buy these LEGALLY... or what was the DROS
and ten day wait for. The whole point of my old opinion post was that these are LEGAL, we aint done nothin wrong so let em eyeball away and try to intimidate us. I for one will stand and did so specifically by going to a public range and "coming out" with it even though I have my own property to shoot on that nobody can see etc.

Now your talkin.........keep it all legal.....our tactics.

Mesa Tactical
02-21-2006, 4:38 PM
How do you think they plan on enforcing this?

Simple. If your AW registration occurred after the deadline for SB23, you can't have evil features.

What's hard to understand or enforce about that?

Do you Troll for the DOJ in any official capacity or are you here merely for the sake of seeking to get info out of Bill and others that will eventually be heard in a court of law?

Ramon, please lock up this puppy and shut it down. Lets not be giving out our legal arguements in a public forum. No sense in giving the DOJ a sneak preview of our case.

Oh grow up. He is repeating almost exactly what no fewer than TWO OTHER PRACTICING LAWYERS have already pointed out here and on Arfcom. Since the actual lawyers around here seem to be in agreement on these points, it's likely that these interpretations are not exactly seekrit and unknown at DoJ (the head of which is called the "Attorney General," get it?).

If the law was as cut and dried as a lot of you folks seem to ythink it is, lawyers wouldn't be able to bill $400 per hour telling us what it all means.

bridgeport
02-21-2006, 4:44 PM
Well I just want to hear the AG tell a judge how the DOJ let FFLS sell these to people without the expectation that SOMETHING like building a FIXED mag rifle with them, would be done, OR is there now a ten day waiting period on unlisted paperweights. I DONT THINK SO... they'd be laughed out of court on that one. The more ya think about it, the more "right" we are.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-21-2006, 4:57 PM
How do you think they plan on enforcing this?

How will the invalidate registrations?

What crime would they charge someone with?

These are excellent questions. There are no provisions in the AW legislation for invalidating registrations of AR Series lowers if they are subsequently built into 12276.1 AWs. What the DOJ might do is enact a regulation to that effect under its express statutory authority (and mandate) to make regulations to carry out the purposes of the AW legislation. But even if they do that, it's going to be extremely difficult to enforce as a practical matter. Somebody is going to have to get caught first and it's unlikely that the average cop on the street (i.e., not the savvy ones who post here) is going to appreciate the nuances of the AW law. If they run a firearm and it turns up as a registered AW, that's likely going to be the end of the story. I suppose the DOJ could send out information bulletins to the effect that if you find someone with an AR registered after 12/31/00 that is built up with 12276.1 features then that person has a problem (i.e., possession of an unregistered AW as defined by 12276.1), but I don't know if whatever database that law enforcement uses to determine whether a firearm is registered includes the date of registration, and if not, whether it's feasible to add the dates of registration. Maybe some LEOs could weigh in here on the practical realities of enforcing the DOJ's position.

glen avon
02-21-2006, 5:02 PM
That 12285(f) wording was really merely for clarification and to stop dual registrations from cluttering the system and taking up staff time - not that a second registration of the same gun would have been required without this clause.

says who? that's quite a legal conclusion. who's is it?

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 5:05 PM
Well I just want to hear the AG tell a judge how the DOJ let FFLS sell these to people without the expectation that SOMETHING like building a FIXED mag rifle with them, would be done, OR is there now a ten day waiting period on unlisted paperweights. I DONT THINK SO... they'd be laughed out of court on that one. The more ya think about it, the more "right" we are.

I believe that DOJ's response to Ben's original letter about the JP Rifles Ctr-02 has language in it that it is a legal act to not only build up off-list lowers into fully operational rifles provided they do not violate SB-23, but also that it's OK to import them as fully functional rifles provided again that no characteristics violate SB-23.

I'll also agree that it's going to be an uphill battle. Remember we're going up against a single party government that has control over all three branches of state government. The key here will be to challange them in a very conservative county and not let them establish a whole slew of case law in liberal counties. USE CAUTION if you're in a liberal county with a fully operational pinned mag off-list build.

glen avon
02-21-2006, 5:05 PM
Don't forget to mention all the morons....

hello? what's with the namecalling? not everybody who disagrees with you is a moron.

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 5:07 PM
hello? what's with the namecalling? not everybody who disagrees with you is a moron.

Although I can certainly say my use of the word "moron" could be construed as subjective, I will readily admit that I personally believe that someone who risks 10 years in prison and NEVER being able to own a firearm again just to reload 10 - 20 seconds faster is indeed a "moron" in my book.

glen avon
02-21-2006, 5:09 PM
Bridgeport's right.

They're looking for folks that ... thought they could come up with some cute trickery.

ya know, I'd bet quite a bit that's how DOJ regards all this hullabuloo. It amuses me that you think it's OK to outwit the Legislature and the DOJ, but if somebody tries to outwit you and your FAQ it's "cute trickery." :cool:

glen avon
02-21-2006, 5:10 PM
Although I can certainly say my use of the word "moron" could be construed as subjective, I will readily admit that I personally believe that someone who risks 10 years in prison and NEVER being able to own a firearm again just to reload 10 - 20 seconds faster is indeed a "moron" in my book.

that assumes they agree with your take on the law. they don't have to be a moron to disagree with you, do they? this is a civil board, and I regret seeing namecalling.

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 5:13 PM
that assumes they agree with your take on the law. they don't have to be a moron to disagree with you, do they? this is a civil board, and I regret seeing namecalling.

Yeah, no one likes to see name calling but I've got some pretty strong feelings about these bullet detachable magazine configurations. Remember, all it takes is a few busts in liberal counties to seriously reduce our chances of a successful challange. I DO NOT want to see anyone getting in trouble.

So far NO ONE has been arrested, charged, or prosecuted. I'd very much like to see things continue to go on this way. True, we haven't done anything illegal but keep in mind we're on thin ice none the less.

PIRATE14
02-21-2006, 5:18 PM
These are excellent questions. There are no provisions in the AW legislation for invalidating registrations of AR Series lowers if they are subsequently built into 12276.1 AWs. What the DOJ might do is enact a regulation to that effect under its express statutory authority (and mandate) to make regulations to carry out the purposes of the AW legislation. But even if they do that, it's going to be extremely difficult to enforce as a practical matter. Somebody is going to have to get caught first and it's unlikely that the average cop on the street (i.e., not the savvy ones who post here) is going to appreciate the nuances of the AW law. If they run a firearm and it turns up as a registered AW, that's likely going to be the end of the story. I suppose the DOJ could send out information bulletins to the effect that if you find someone with an AR registered after 12/31/00 that is built up with 12276.1 features then that person has a problem (i.e., possession of an unregistered AW as defined by 12276.1), but I don't know if whatever database that law enforcement uses to determine whether a firearm is registered includes the date of registration, and if not, whether it's feasible to add the dates of registration. Maybe some LEOs could weigh in here on the practical realities of enforcing the DOJ's position.

Well one good thing is that the Supreme courts decision/intent was too make the AW laws easy for the common guy and LE to understand.....what CAL DOJ is attempting to do or wants to do is pretty much the opposite.....make things really complicated, so this will be another major battle in the AW saga. Smok'em if you gottem and buy'em while you can.

6172crew
02-21-2006, 5:23 PM
:confused: Whaoo, what is the problem here? Why is it that you seem to want to pick fights and cant take a little chesse thrown your way?

Id like to think we all came here to find out how to stay out of trouble, we cant call the DOJ and get a straight answer so we hash it out online (good or bad thats the way it has become with this AG and the guys who answer the phone at the firearms dept.

The facts are the legal receivers are legal and that the DOJ thinks you cant build a rifle out of them and most guys here think we can build them into a fixed 10 rounder. Again the DOJ says you cant build them into a fixed 10 rounder and we will have to reg them when they change the law which will probably happen in this crap cake of a state.

If they dont list them then we are stuck building them out of state, keeping a paperweight, selling/giving them off out of state, or reg them and build them as the brown shirts say you can.

Gloves are off and the $$ is on the DOJ to win (they have a great record) but Im voting for the underdog and every lower brought into state is a thorn in the AGs side.:cool:

ya know, I'd bet quite a bit that's how DOJ regards all this hullabuloo. It amuses me that you think it's OK to outwit the Legislature and the DOJ, but if somebody tries to outwit you and your FAQ it's "cute trickery." :cool:

Sgt Raven
02-21-2006, 5:23 PM
If an AW is an AW is an AW.....snip.... Those aren't my words, they're the legislature's and they fully support the concept of separate registration requirements for AWs defined as AWs under more than one definition. The arguments that this language means something else are weak.

We went over this the last time you brought it up. What about those AR/ AK registered after the class 3- SB23 period was over but the registration period had to be kept open due to Kasler. Yes it was only 22 days, but be it 1 day or more those are considered full AWs without any other restrictions. If Kasler registered AR/AKs are considered full AWs then Harrott registered AR/AKs should also be full AWs or you have a equal protection issue.

So FGG what about those AR/AKs registered after the SB23 period closed but the Kasler period was still open?

glen avon
02-21-2006, 5:33 PM
:confused: Whaoo, what is the problem here? Why is it that you seem to want to pick fights and cant take a little chesse thrown your way?

Id like to think we all came here to find out how to stay out of trouble, we cant call the DOJ and get a straight answer so we hash it out online (good or bad thats the way it has become with this AG and the guys who answer the phone at the firearms dept).

I'm not looking to pick fights at all, I apologize if that's how I came off.

a little chesse thrown my way? I don't understand (even if you meant "cheese").:confused:

I do agree that most of us came here to find out how to shoot and stay out of trouble, but that doesn't mean that everything posted here is correct. Keeping out of trouble might require more than one person's opinion. An intelligent, informed decision in these matters absolutely depends on more than one perspective, and more importantly, facts. Where I see unfounded assumptions, gaps in reasoning, etc. which might lead to incorrect or unfounded conclusions, I ask about them. I didn't mean to sound argumentative, I only asked simple, direct questions.

But, I'm not afraid of goring a sacred cow or two, if that's what it takes.

Jarhead4
02-21-2006, 5:41 PM
Iím the new guy on the block, and I try work on the KISS principal. (Keep It Simple Stupid).

The legislature has only give the DOJ the authority to add new Make and Models to the existing Category 2.

Category 3 (SB23) basically defines what the state claims to be an Assault Weapon. There are two things that a rifle has to be plus one of the evil features. Those two things are, the rifle has to be a semi-automatic, and it has to have a detachable magazine.

So assuming that you have a semi-automatic rifle, if it is not on the DOJís list and it does not have a detachable magazine then it is not a California Assault Weapon. We know this is true from the letters that the DOJ has sent out.

What the DOJ is proposing in their memo is to add a sub category of California Assault Weapons. This would be a Category 4. The legislature did not give this authority to the DOJ. They just said that they could ADD to the list, not redefine what the legislature has already defined.

Another argument that you could have is that the Harrott vs County of Kings is saying that you law is too confusing for average person. So you need to keep it to a simple list of Make and Model. (Kind of like using the KISS principal.) To add another category that would actually make it more confusing does not go well with what the court intended.

I am just a dumb former Jarhead, but correct me if I am wrong on any of this.

xenophobe
02-21-2006, 5:51 PM
I just heard from Don Kilmer at the shop. He stated that he heard DOJ is currently contemplating a way to classify these unlisted receivers so they can't be built up and so they'll never be registered as AWs. I don't generally accept he said/she said stuff, and I didn't get to ask any specifics as there were too many customers to take care of, but this is what he said he heard. This was a couple hours ago as well.

6172crew
02-21-2006, 5:52 PM
They just said that they could ADD to the list, not redefine what the legislature has already defined.

I am just a dumb former Jarhead, but correct me if I am wrong on any of this.

Theres the problem the DOJ thinks it has the authority to say what kind of devise you can fix a mag with what what you cant fix a mag with.

Im willing to bet you wont find any letter saying the nut/bolt mag catch is good to go.

BTW nice to have another Marine on board;)

Semper gumby!

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 6:57 PM
I just heard from Don Kilmer at the shop. He stated that he heard DOJ is currently contemplating a way to classify these unlisted receivers so they can't be built up and so they'll never be registered as AWs. I don't generally accept he said/she said stuff, and I didn't get to ask any specifics as there were too many customers to take care of, but this is what he said he heard. This was a couple hours ago as well.

I have no doubt the DOJ is at this point trying to contemplate every possiblility at their disposal... both within and outside the boundries of state and federal law. No matter what happens at this point, people will be losing their jobs and political careers are going to be ended. I have no doubt we'll continue to see many more threatening memos as well.

I'm no lawyer myself but at this time it would be difficult to make them illegal to build up because the DOJ has already:

1) said a glued mag config of an off-list lower is a 100% legal build
2) a welded mag build of a category 2 assault weapon removes its AW status
3) people have built up FALs for years now using pinned mag builds and the Robinson Arms M-96 even has a stub to attach a pistol grip. Why the sudden obsession over these builds?
3) it is a lawful act to import an off-list reciever when the intention of doing so is to build a legal rifle

I wouldn't be surprised if their strategy would be to attack pinned mag versions to force us to glue/weld. I also wouldn't be surprised if they went after the non-pistol grip and said it was actually an unlawful build. If they could rule out both of these builds then they could possibly prevent a build. BUT... that still doesn't solve the problem of thousands more comming in... and we all know regardless of what they do short of adding to the list, more will come.

The stakes are simply too high for the DOJ to give this out without a serious fight. Losing this one will basically say, "SB-23 failed" in front of the whole country. Just think of the embarassment... Illinois, Boston, and Hawaii are all in the process of attempting implementing SB-23 in their state. For six years various gun control groups have championed SB-23 as the ultimate AW ban.

Folks, when Ben pinned a mag in that JP Rifles Ctr-02 he opened Pandora's Box. We're only just now beginning to see the implications of his build.

caliar15
02-21-2006, 7:09 PM
Well the law says it cant be a bullet, that leaves a fairly wide and deep field of tools and methods. Ten fixed, ten fixed, ten fixed...
Read it again, it say's you CAN use a bullet for a tool.

blacklisted
02-21-2006, 7:15 PM
Simple. If your AW registration occurred after the deadline for SB23, you can't have evil features.

What's hard to understand or enforce about that?



Well...let's see.

If the DoJ claims "you can't build this with detachable mag+evil features once it's registered" but there is nothing they can charge you with and no way to invalidate your registration, would the average person follow their reccomendation? It would just be an empty threat.

It's like when parents say to their kids "don't do this." The kids ask "why?" and the parents say "because".

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 7:22 PM
Well...let's see.

If the DoJ claims "you can't build this with detachable mag+evil features once it's registered" but there is nothing they can charge you with and no way to invalidate your registration, would the average person follow their reccomendation? It would just be an empty threat.

It's like when parents say to their kids "don't do this." The kids ask "why?" and the parents say "because".

I agree 100% with this analysis of the situation. However, the DOJ rightfully believes that a well placed threat will eliminate all but 5% or so of these ever being built up after they are registered.

At this point I've made sure to collect a variety of lowers. In fact, I am almost positive some of mine won't be on the first cut of the list... that is IF there is even a list forthcomming at this point.


By the way, you always have such charming avatars Blacklisted.

Gregas
02-21-2006, 7:23 PM
Well...let's see.
It's like when parents say to their kids "don't do this." The kids ask "why?" and the parents say "because".

I hate to point this out, but when I was a kid, my parents always won arguments that went like that! Of course they were absolute rulers and the DOJ is not.

blacklisted
02-21-2006, 7:34 PM
I like how we can argue about this here. It's good to see plenty of conflicting opinions, as long as everyone keeps in mind that we are on the same side here. Soon enough we will find out what is going to happen, then there will be plenty of time for "I told you so".

Some of us that got in this early have known all along that even if these dont get listed or anything we still have something better than a FAB-10 or Vulcan pinned/glued mag lower.



By the way, you always have such charming avatars Blacklisted.

Thanks. ;)

The avatar for March will be even more charming!

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 7:46 PM
I hate to point this out, but when I was a kid, my parents always won arguments that went like that! Of course they were absolute rulers and the DOJ is not.

Unfortunately the Legislature is and there has been a considerable amount of speculation about future legislation :(.

And for those of your arguing that the legislative intent was to create "tiers" of Assault Weapons remember what the Teflon Don said:

When asked what an Assault Weapon was, Don Perata explained, "It is clear that in the case of rifles, an assault weapon is a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has one of the characteristics added in my bill, such as a vertical handgrip or a folding or telescoping stock".

subroutine
02-21-2006, 8:09 PM
when is this big SHOT show, and where?

TKo_Productions
02-21-2006, 8:10 PM
when is this big SHOT show, and where?

LOL. You missed it. It was Feb. 9th through the 12th in Las Vegas.

You'll have to wait until 2007.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-21-2006, 8:18 PM
We went over this the last time you brought it up. What about those AR/ AK registered after the class 3- SB23 period was over but the registration period had to be kept open due to Kasler. Yes it was only 22 days, but be it 1 day or more those are considered full AWs without any other restrictions. If Kasler registered AR/AKs are considered full AWs then Harrott registered AR/AKs should also be full AWs or you have a equal protection issue.

So FGG what about those AR/AKs registered after the SB23 period closed but the Kasler period was still open?

If I recall, the last time this was brought up, I pointed out that the DOJ's memo appeared to support the idea that you could not register an AW with 12276.1 characteristics after 12/31/00. In looking at the memo again now, it does say that but it looks like they would let the Kasler AWs slide because at the time the registration period opened for the Kasler AWs, it was still legal to register AWs with 12276.1 characteristics. (Also I think it was bweise who reported that he heard that the DOJ did not have a problem with Kasler AWs registered post 12/31/00.) Not sure if I agree with that line of reasoning, I think that to be consistent the DOJ would need to treat Kasler AWs the same way as the current off-list AR receivers. Also not sure if the inconsistency proves anything more than the DOJ has a reason for treating Kasler lowers differently than new off-list lowers.

PIRATE14
02-21-2006, 8:39 PM
If I recall, the last time this was brought up, I pointed out that the DOJ's memo appeared to support the idea that you could not register an AW with 12276.1 characteristics after 12/31/00. In looking at the memo again now, it does say that but it looks like they would let the Kasler AWs slide because at the time the registration period opened for the Kasler AWs, it was still legal to register AWs with 12276.1 characteristics. (Also I think it was bweise who reported that he heard that the DOJ did not have a problem with Kasler AWs registered post 12/31/00.) Not sure if I agree with that line of reasoning, I think that to be consistent the DOJ would need to treat Kasler AWs the same way as the current off-list AR receivers. Also not sure if the inconsistency proves anything more than the DOJ has a reason for treating Kasler lowers differently than new off-list lowers.

89 RR.....Colt AR-15, HK-91, etc.....1st registration

Okay SB23 12/00......only characteristics....evil features..2nd registration
after the 2nd registration you could still legally buy stripped lower rcvrs...bushmaster, armalite, etc or not register and comply w/ SB23.....this led to the tumor...grip...etc.

89 RR updated list..forget the name of the case AUG 01......didn't matter if it was a stripped rcvr if it was listed by make/model.....stripped or complete in comp w/ SB23.....u had to register it......3rd registration.

So, today not on the list (thx to Supreme Court) and in compliance w/ SB23 u are good to go......nxt registration period???

Technically u could have bought a BM XM-15 E2S registered a complete rifle by 12/31/00 and on Jan 01/01 and bought a stripped BM XM-15 lower rcvr, you than had to registed that 2nd rcvr after 16 Aug 01............Today u could buy a BM 23 Tango stripped rcvr...

Or you could buy a sealed up mag well BM XM-15 E2S............okay....I am confused.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-21-2006, 8:41 PM
Do you Troll for the DOJ in any official capacity or are you here merely for the sake of seeking to get info out of Bill and others that will eventually be heard in a court of law?

Not trolling for the DOJ. My audience is mainly the new people who are trying to figure this stuff out who either get (1) berated for not absorbing the FAQ as fully as others think they should or (2) hear claims that the DOJ is just going to get shut down in court or that real lawyers think the DOJ's position is laughable. I imagine these folks are trying to decide, how much $$$ am I going to shell out for one or more of these off-list lowers? I also imagine that if they knew that the issues weren't so cut and dried, that might influence their decision on how much they will decide to spend. Maybe it wouldn't, but shouldn't that information at least be out there? In my case, I decided that one lower was as much committment as I wanted to take. I wouldn't want any more than 1 top loading rifle that I could convert to detachable magazine the next time I go shooting in Arizona.

Look, I wouldn't vote for Lockyer if he ran for governor. But even before he was AG, I knew of his reputation as a legislator and a lot of the bills he sponsored were just plain smart. He was effective and savvy. And contrary to what some on the gun boards claim, his office has done very well in major firearms litigation from what I can see. Can't speak for the second hand reports that his office has pursued misguided, losing prosecutions of individual gun owners or whatever, I have no information to evaluate those.

ohsmily
02-21-2006, 8:49 PM
Not trolling for the DOJ. My audience is mainly the new people who are trying to figure this stuff out who either get (1) berated for not absorbing the FAQ as fully as others think they should or (2) hear claims that the DOJ is just going to get shut down in court or that real lawyers think the DOJ's position is laughable. I imagine these folks are trying to decide, how much $$$ am I going to shell out for one or more of these off-list lowers? I also imagine that if they knew that the issues weren't so cut and dried, that might influence their decision on how much they will decide to spend. Maybe it wouldn't, but shouldn't that information at least be out there?

ABSOLUTELY!!! as much information as possible should be made available to prospective buyers as long as the so-called information isn't patently false. I believe most people getting into this need to read and understand this stuff more than many of them currently do.

BTW, I am SURE someone must have commented on your handle already...but THAT IS FANTASTIC! :D

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-21-2006, 8:55 PM
So, today not on the list (thx to Supreme Court) and in compliance w/ SB23 u are good to go......nxt registration period???

Yes, if your off-list lower gets listed you're supposed to have 90 days to register it. I think the DOJ is too smart to mess with that. (Was that what you were asking?)

xenophobe
02-21-2006, 9:20 PM
At this point I've made sure to collect a variety of lowers.

May I inquire how many different brands you have so far? You don't need to name names, I was just wondering the count... Just curious.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-21-2006, 9:29 PM
BTW, I am SURE someone must have commented on your handle already...but THAT IS FANTASTIC! :D

You're the first...thanks!!:D

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-21-2006, 9:44 PM
This is extremely sensible. I happen to disagree with your arguments above (the ones that center around 12285 f or g), but it is very important that you are free to make these arguments. And this helps make it clear to the less legally savvy readers in this forum that the issues around these lowers are at this point absolutely not cut and dried. I happen to agree with the legal interpretation that is often proposed by bwiese, artherd and blackrazor, but until a court rules on the issue definitively, or until the legislature makes it all irrelevant by creating new legislation, we have to all consider the very real possibility that the viewpoint of the DoJ memo might prevail.

Right on. Like I said before, I don't have anything invested in whether I'm right or wrong about this. There are ambiguities in the AW legislation, and the ambiguities present opportunities. My primary observation is that it's better to accept and live with the ambiguities (until this thing get decided in court) than it is to deny them. And again, the fact that we are going to be able to even make these arguments is an accomplishment in and of itself. I have a lot of respect for the individuals who saw the implications of the Harrott decision, and for those individuals who were instrumental in getting the off-list lowers into the state in the first place, especially the dealers who had the balls to be the guinea pigs.

Ford8N
02-22-2006, 5:58 AM
Right on. Like I said before, I don't have anything invested in whether I'm right or wrong about this. There are ambiguities in the AW legislation, and the ambiguities present opportunities. My primary observation is that it's better to accept and live with the ambiguities (until this thing get decided in court) than it is to deny them. And again, the fact that we are going to be able to even make these arguments is an accomplishment in and of itself. I have a lot of respect for the individuals who saw the implications of the Harrott decision, and for those individuals who were instrumental in getting the off-list lowers into the state in the first place, especially the dealers who had the balls to be the guinea pigs.

I agree. At least we can get receivers and hats off to all the FFL's who have the guts to get them (thumbs down to FFL's who don't) . And the more receivers that come in, it is just another chip in the AW law.

Mesa Tactical
02-22-2006, 6:10 AM
If the DoJ claims "you can't build this with detachable mag+evil features once it's registered" but there is nothing they can charge you with and no way to invalidate your registration, would the average person follow their reccomendation?

They could charge you with manufacturing an assault weapon as defined in 12276.1 after January 1 2000.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-22-2006, 7:06 AM
anybody heard the term "Void for Vagueness"?

It sure would be nice if part of SB23, or its entirety, were repealed by the courts. Of course I am not holding my breath, but it would be nice.

Basically, this would mean SB23 is too convoluted. The more the DOJ and others try to read into the law which is not there the more likely this is to occur.

One can dream cant they?

glen avon
02-22-2006, 7:38 AM
Not trolling for the DOJ. My audience is mainly the new people who are trying to figure this stuff out who either get (1) berated for not absorbing the FAQ as fully as others think they should or (2) hear claims that the DOJ is just going to get shut down in court or that real lawyers think the DOJ's position is laughable.

(1) well that's just HERESY. All hail the FAQ! Thou shalt read and agree with the FAQ and make no image thereof! The FAQ is the way and the truth, and nothing else shall be abided. any who do not love and adore the FAQ is obviously a DOJ plant/troll/etc.

(2) thank God at least one other person has noted the "Well, I'm no lawyer, but allow me to expound like one. The DOJ memo is so wrong, it's laughable. Anybody who passed the bar should know that" posts.

I agree the DOJ is not stupid, Lockyer is not stupid, if he and they are so stupid, why are they winning? there is a real problem here on this board where a bunch of amateurs have talked themselves into what may well be misplaced confidence. The DOJ is a longstanding, professional institution of lawyers who are sophisticated and experienced in legislation, its interpretation, and its application. they eat this kind of crap for breakfast.

the fact that some folks have temporarily exploited a loophole - a clever trick at best - does not mean the legislative and executive branches of government have been beaten.

I hope this all ends well for us, but that is, in my opinion, a long shot.

whatever happens, the proof will be in the pudding.

6172crew
02-22-2006, 8:21 AM
Without changing the law the memo is worthless IMHO, tell us how the DOJ can make law as they go along. Can the DOJ make law? Is another cat of AW really needed if its already illegal to build a AW out of a receiver?

If the DOJ does nothing then these receivers can only be built into a fixed magazine like a FAB10/Vulcan, then why do they need to be reg'd and what is the difference between a Vulcan sold with a fixed mag and one that wasnt?(they both ahve the same make/model yet one will be postban and reg'd and one wont.

Why does the FAQ page not ring true? Bill has come out with a pretty good guidline on the firearms laws as they are written but if you know of special memos, or permissions given to the DOJ by law makers let us know.

Feel free to point out any spelling errors I could care less.:rolleyes:



(1) well that's just HERESY. All hail the FAQ! Thou shalt read and agree with the FAQ and make no image thereof! The FAQ is the way and the truth, and nothing else shall be abided. any who do not love and adore the FAQ is obviously a DOJ plant/troll/etc.

(2) thank God at least one other person has noted the "Well, I'm no lawyer, but allow me to expound like one. The DOJ memo is so wrong, it's laughable. Anybody who passed the bar should know that" posts.

I agree the DOJ is not stupid, Lockyer is not stupid, if he and they are so stupid, why are they winning? there is a real problem here on this board where a bunch of amateurs have talked themselves into what may well be misplaced confidence. The DOJ is a longstanding, professional institution of lawyers who are sophisticated and experienced in legislation, its interpretation, and its application. they eat this kind of crap for breakfast.

the fact that some folks have temporarily exploited a loophole - a clever trick at best - does not mean the legislative and executive branches of government have been beaten.

I hope this all ends well for us, but that is, in my opinion, a long shot.

whatever happens, the proof will be in the pudding.

glen avon
02-22-2006, 8:58 AM
Without changing the law the memo is worthless IMHO, tell us how the DOJ can make law as they go along. Can the DOJ make law? Is another cat of AW really needed if its already illegal to build a AW out of a receiver?

the DOJ can't make law, but they can make rules and regulations to implement the law.

Why does the FAQ page not ring true? Bill has come out with a pretty good guidline on the firearms laws as they are written but if you know of special memos, or permissions given to the DOJ by law makers let us know.

I did not say the FAQ did not ring true. What I do say is that whatever is in the FAQ (pbuFAQ) is not the end of the analysis, not the only interpretation, not the answer to life. It is only an opinion - and not a lawyer's or legislator's opinion AFAIK. the posts admonishing others for not having read or agreeing with the FAQ (pbuFAQ) are self-important and misguided, IMHO.

the FAQ (pbuFAQ) is nothing but an opinion, and is no better that others' opinions here.

however, this board appears to be sliding towards being a smaller version of ar15.com, where dissent from a favored few personalities and their judgments is not tolerated.

Feel free to point out any spelling errors I could care less.:rolleyes:

????

6172crew
02-22-2006, 9:22 AM
Agreed on all points.;)
the DOJ can't make law, but they can make rules and regulations to implement the law.



I did not say the FAQ did not ring true. What I do say is that whatever is in the FAQ (pbuFAQ) is not the end of the analysis, not the only interpretation, not the answer to life. It is only an opinion - and not a lawyer's or legislator's opinion AFAIK. the posts admonishing others for not having read or agreeing with the FAQ (pbuFAQ) are self-important and misguided, IMHO.

the FAQ (pbuFAQ) is nothing but an opinion, and is no better that others' opinions here.

however, this board appears to be sliding towards being a smaller version of ar15.com, where dissent from a favored few personalities and their judgments is not tolerated.


:cool: cheese

????????

bwiese
02-22-2006, 9:31 AM
the DOJ can't make law, but they can make rules and regulations to implement the law.

Yes, indeed. But little things like what a pistol grip is, what a detachable magazine is, etc. Some basic administrative procedural things - how a registration database is set up, response times for questionable information needing correction on registration, etc.

They cannot redefine what's codified in the law or go beyond what those strictures are - i.e., conditional registration, etc.

And they can't make instant regulatory law, either. No 'underground' regulations - there must be comment periods for stakeholders, etc. The only CCR sec 978/979 stuff they can update directly without sec 11340 matters needing attention is the update of "The List", which is specifically exempted by 12276.5(h) from 11340 control.

glen avon
02-22-2006, 9:40 AM
Yes, indeed. But little things like what a pistol grip is, what a detachable magazine is, etc. Some basic administrative procedural things - how a registration database is set up, response times for questionable information needing correction on registration, etc.

They cannot redefine what's codified in the law or go beyond what those strictures are - i.e., conditional registration, etc.

says who? do you have experience in administrative rulemaking by the DOJ? beyond what experience you think you have acquired in this one circumstance?

And they can't make instant regulatory law, either. No 'underground' regulations - there must be comment periods for stakeholders, etc. The only CCR sec 978/979 stuff they can update directly without sec 11340 matters needing attention is the update of "The List", which is specifically exempted by 12276.5(h) from 11340 control.

nobody said they could.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-22-2006, 10:46 AM
"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." That's a pretty broad grant of rule making power, it seems to me. If the DOJ's proposed regulations (whatever they might be) are based on a plausible interpretation of the text of the AW legislation, and the courts give deference to the implementing agency's interpretation of the statute, then what is the authority for the proposition that the DoJ can only make regulations for "little things"?

6172crew
02-22-2006, 11:06 AM
Good point, and Im sure that is why they go around razzing folks about things that should be legal, like the fixed mag law. The law says a AW must have the abilty to accept a detachable magazine and yet a bolted mag cath isnt good enough. This is confusing unless you see that they have the trump card that you have posted.:(



"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." That's a pretty broad grant of rule making power, it seems to me. If the DOJ's proposed regulations (whatever they might be) are based on a plausible interpretation of the text of the AW legislation, and the courts give deference to the implementing agency's interpretation of the statute, then what is the authority for the proposition that the DoJ can only make regulations for "little things"?

troyPhD
02-22-2006, 11:34 AM
They could charge you with manufacturing an assault weapon as defined in 12276.1 after January 1 2000.

That's true. They can charge you with anything, and they can TRY to convict you for anything. But if I one is in the military, they get an AW registration today. But, how could that be? It's after Jan 1, 2000!?!? The registration card protects them. The DOJ memo infers that this is true, which is why they are trying to instantly invalidate registrations when off-list lowers are built into SB23 configuration.

eje
02-22-2006, 11:39 AM
But if I one is in the military, they get an AW registration today.

Can somebody point me to a link or give me a cite for this? Thanks.

bwiese
02-22-2006, 11:51 AM
Can somebody point me to a link or give me a cite for this? Thanks.

We're mixing two situations here. The military-person-stationed-in-CA is covered with a MAWP (Military Assault Weapons Permit). This is an AW permit, granted at DOJ discretion, for specific uses. I have heard that the DOJ has issued some permits for nonresidents to bring AWs in, periodically, for competition, but have not been able to verify this. (CA AW law does allow outsiders to bring in AWs for competition by recognized bodies, but it's unclear if any extended stay possible - i.e., in theory you might have to drive in & out of CA to shoot without staying overnight, etc. It's murky and I certainly wouldn't try it. But a permit, if issued, may allow some time windows for this.)

Note that the MAWP does not allow hicap mags to be imported. Mag stuff is separate from AW law.

It is separate from concept of a registered AW. Registration of an AW is not on a discretionary basis.

When a reg period opens for a given gun that's been declared as an AW, registration is mandatory for both sides - both for the owner to file (unless he surrenders or moves it out of state) - and mandatory for the DOJ to issue (unless registrant was a member of prohibited class, gun was also illegal some other way -i.e., an SBR or SMG).

bwiese
02-22-2006, 11:58 AM
They could charge you with manufacturing an assault weapon as defined in 12276.1 after January 1 2000.

No they couldn't. (Well, yes they could - in the spirit of "you can indict a ham sandwich.")

If a gun becomes declared and reg'd as an AW, you can't create "more of an AW" by adding features. The only charges that are applicable are in 12280(a) and 12280(b). Manufacturing an AW charge is out - since it's already an AW.

This is why the DOJ memo said, "...this will be enforced thru the registration process." That is, even the DOJ can't find an actual 12280(a) or (b) crime, so they want to synthesize one by invalidating the registration after an inquiry about its status is made (say, by LEO) if 'features' are found.

eje
02-22-2006, 12:01 PM
Thanks for the explanation, Bill.

subroutine
02-22-2006, 9:17 PM
Yes, if your off-list lower gets listed you're supposed to have 90 days to register it.

question on this.
suppose you purchased lowers today and are waiting for them in the mail to your FFL. they should be at your FFL next wednesday. lets say tomorrow, the DOJ updates the list and puts your lower on the list.....

1) are you still able to take possession of the lower?
2) you will have 90 days to regester it as an AW (preface to 3)
3) can you sell this lower to someone else before the 90 days is up?...or did you have to already have done a p2p transfer w/ them before the DOJ updated the list?

i'm most interested in qestion 3, of course....

SUB

bwiese
02-22-2006, 9:33 PM
question on this.
suppose you purchased lowers today and are waiting for them in the mail to your FFL. they should be at your FFL next wednesday. lets say tomorrow, the DOJ updates the list and puts your lower on the list.....

1) are you still able to take possession of the lower?

Hmmm, if the DROS/10day wait period has started, yes. Whether an FFL can DROS while items are "in flight" is open question. Some do this and some refuse. And this off-list lower situation will likely have elevated scrutiny so it may really make sense to play by the book 100%.

Now, if you've DROSed the lower (already in inventory at dealer) and then the lower got listed during that wait, it's yours. This is what happened in August of 2000.

2) you will have 90 days to regester it as an AW (preface to 3)


When formally declared as an AW, yes you have 90 days to register it, surrender it, or move it out of state.


3) can you sell this lower to someone else before the 90 days is up?


NO. Once listed and in the 90 day period, it IS an assault weapon and therefore is NOT transferrable to another Californian.


...or did you have to already have done a p2p transfer w/ them before the DOJ updated the list?

Yes, it's a musical chairs thing. The last person that DROSed the lower before it got declared an AW is the one that has it "stuck" to him.

It appears likely that there's a 10 day (exact? approximate?) posting window between when the DOJ submits The List to the Sec'y of State's office and the posting to Calif Code of Regulation sec 979.11 (the "Kasler list"). The DOJ may be courteous and announce what is listed informally before the formal list is updated (which is the green light for the 90 day window and when the lower actually becomes an AW). That MIGHT give you some time for your buddy to start a DROS, but don't count on this informal notification to happen.

subroutine
02-22-2006, 9:42 PM
ok, i understand your explaination......
but.........

when you dros, you are not drosing for any particular serial number, so theoritically, you could transfer to anyone who has dros'd in the last 30 days and be fine (???) or is this a real grey area?

xenophobe
02-22-2006, 10:07 PM
question on this.
suppose you purchased lowers today and are waiting for them in the mail to your FFL. they should be at your FFL next wednesday. lets say tomorrow, the DOJ updates the list and puts your lower on the list.....

1) are you still able to take possession of the lower?


Hmmm, if the DROS/10day wait period has started, yes. Whether an FFL can DROS while items are "in flight" is open question. Some do this and some refuse. And this off-list lower situation will likely have elevated scrutiny so it may really make sense to play by the book 100%.

Now, if you've DROSed the lower (already in inventory at dealer) and then the lower got listed during that wait, it's yours. This is what happened in August of 2000.

For all practical purposes, once you have started a DROS on an item that becomes a listed AW, it's yours as long as you pass the background check and pick the item up before the dros expires, regardless if it's in inventory or still in transport.

For items in inventory, since the AW in question would already have been purchased and DROSed, the dealer is merely holding onto the item for safekeeping until the background check is clear and the owner may take delivery of the item.

For items in transport, the item would need to already be within the state border, as bringing it across the state line would be transporting a contraband item across state borders, and the FFL would need an AW permit to receive such items after the date it was listed.

In truth, there is no way for the DOJ to monitor packages in USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc. If it's in transit when the item is listed, it will get to it's destination, and the FFL in question will have to deal with it how they see fit. Perhaps your item will get tucked away with your reciept, DROS and 4473 until you are able to pick it up, or maybe the dealer will send it back and refund your money. Anything the dealer decides though is pretty much what you must agree to. It's not something up to debate either. What the dealer decides in this circumstance is the final story.

Ford8N
02-23-2006, 5:31 AM
It appears likely that there's a 10 day (exact? approximate?) posting window between when the DOJ submits The List to the Sec'y of State's office and the posting to Calif Code of Regulation sec 979.11 (the "Kasler list"). The DOJ may be courteous and announce what is listed informally before the formal list is updated (which is the green light for the 90 day window and when the lower actually becomes an AW). That MIGHT give you some time for your buddy to start a DROS, but don't count on this informal notification to happen.


Did the DOJ do this the last time? Because I bet there would be a massive transfering of lowers during that time.

bwiese
02-23-2006, 8:32 AM
Did the DOJ do this the last time? Because I bet there would be a massive transfering of lowers during that time.

Yes, but it was kinda moot because SB23 had kicked in.

Remember that Kasler decision came out in August of 2000 - right in the midst of the SB23 registration period. Because most folks didn't know the interplay of these laws or what could/couldn't be done with a bare receiver - i.e., fixed mag rifles were of some use - I think there were VERY few bare receivers of AR/AK or even FAL clone type sold in all of 2000, and probably nothing sold in August of 2000. Most people thought AWs were AWs and that it was over on Dec 31, 1999.

PIRATE14
02-23-2006, 9:08 AM
Yes, but it was kinda moot because SB23 had kicked in.

Remember that Kasler decision came out in August of 2000 - right in the midst of the SB23 registration period. Because most folks didn't know the interplay of these laws or what could/couldn't be done with a bare receiver - i.e., fixed mag rifles were of some use - I think there were VERY few bare receivers of AR/AK or even FAL clone type sold in all of 2000, and probably nothing sold in August of 2000. Most people thought AWs were AWs and that it was over on Dec 31, 1999.

There was lowers sold in AUG 2000 as was most of Jan-Aug 2000 but not like in the numbers in 99........it was too confusing to understand for most people since they thought it was all over 31 DEC 99.

Similar situation today.....lots of confusion and some people are buying but......not as many as should.

bwiese
02-23-2006, 10:40 AM
There was lowers sold in AUG 2000 as was most of Jan-Aug 2000 but not like in the numbers in 99........it was too confusing to understand for most people since they thought it was all over 31 DEC 99.


Gee, I'm wondering why people bought lowers from Jan 2000 - mid-August 2000. They couldn't legally make them into AWs until Kasler was decided in August, as the DROS date would clearly indicate it was not registerable as an AW under SB23. And I don't think anyone had conceived of fixed-mag rifles at the time - kinda an all-or-nothing situation back then.

In fact anyone who registered an AR or AK receiver purchased between 1/1/00 and 8/16/00 and who filled out & submitted a registration before 8/16/00 may have a deficient or invalid registration. Registration papers would have to really be re-submitted after Aug 16 2000 to be valid.

PIRATE14
02-23-2006, 10:54 AM
Gee, I'm wondering why people bought lowers from Jan 2000 - mid-August 2000. They couldn't legally make them into AWs until Kasler was decided in August, as the DROS date would clearly indicate it was not registerable as an AW under SB23. And I don't think anyone had conceived of fixed-mag rifles at the time - kinda an all-or-nothing situation back then.


Correct....no one had considered the fixed mag idea.....it was all about the pistol grip back than.......this led to the blob grip.

Well when people bought them there was no idea that they would be allowed to register them or build them up w/ a pistol grip....plus the fed ban was still in effect so you were stuck in post ban configuration....in compliance w/ SB23......for who knew how long. A true all or nothin situation.....but you still had the piece of CALI BLACK GOLD in your pocket..........legally bought and purchased

PIRATE14
02-23-2006, 11:03 AM
In fact anyone who registered an AR or AK receiver purchased between 1/1/00 and 8/16/00 and who filled out & submitted a registration before 8/16/00 may have a deficient or invalid registration. Registration papers would have to really be re-submitted after Aug 16 2000 to be valid.

That was the deal......u couldn't submit registration paper work if you purchased one after 12/31/99.....no one knew when the last law court action that listed them by name would take place.... the case against RR89, since that case was in limbo they came up w/ SB23. It just so happened that the other case was won by CALI and became effective 16 AUG 01, so all those guys that listened to me and bought lowers.....from 1/00-8/00, got what they wanted the ability to register a AW past 12/31/99......

Now, today.......you've got a slightly different situation but in the end, we should prevail.

This is why people should keep on buying.......this might be over tomorrow or a 12 months from now but you've got a piece of black gold in your pocket.

shopkeep
02-23-2006, 11:13 AM
That was the deal......u couldn't submit registration paper work if you purchased one after 12/31/99.....no one knew when the last law court action that listed them by name would take place.... the case against RR89, since that case was in limbo they came up w/ SB23. It just so happened that the other case was won by CALI and became effective 16 AUG 01, so all those guys that listened to me and bought lowers.....from 1/00-8/00, got what they wanted the ability to register a AW past 12/31/99......

Now, today.......you've got a slightly different situation but in the end, we should prevail.

This is why people should keep on buying.......this might be over tomorrow or a 12 months from now but you've got a piece of black gold in your pocket.

How can they treat us differently from other post SB-23 registrants? Isn't that a violation of equal protection clauses to re-interpret the law differently during the second registration period?

PIRATE14
02-23-2006, 11:18 AM
How can they treat us differently from other post SB-23 registrants? Isn't that a violation of equal protection clauses to re-interpret the law differently during the second registration period?

You have a valid point.....there were a few guys running around w/ rifles w/o a pistol grip and shootin up a storm w/ the 20-30 rd mags......as far as I know they never arrested anybody during this period for doing this.....

The only part that they have some precidence on is the "DOJ approved" fixed mag for the last few years.

There has got to be a challenge against a submission of what a fixed mag is according to law.....vs DOJ reg/policy

bwiese
02-23-2006, 11:47 AM
The only part that they have some precidence on is the "DOJ approved" fixed mag for the last few years.

There has got to be a challenge against a submission of what a fixed mag is according to law.....vs DOJ reg/policy

Lack of "DOJ approval" does not mean illegal.

Our fixed magazines are, by any reading of the DOJ's 978.20 definition, not detachable magazines.

6172crew
02-23-2006, 11:58 AM
Yet the DOJ thinks it has the authority to disapprove any firearm from being sold in CA, they have told this to everyone over the phone and but only the vague law that FGG posted backs up that theory.



"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."
Lack of "DOJ approval" does not mean illegal.

Im not sure where FGG got this but this may be what the DOJ refers to when thye say they can do anyting they want.



Our fixed magazines are, by any reading of the DOJ's 978.20 definition, not detachable magazines.

glen avon
02-23-2006, 12:03 PM
How can they treat us differently from other post SB-23 registrants? Isn't that a violation of equal protection clauses to re-interpret the law differently during the second registration period?

NO that is NOT a violation of the equal protection clause .

"equal protection" does not mean everybody gets treated exactly the same, or that things always have to be fair.

6172crew
02-23-2006, 12:05 PM
WTF?:(

Glen are you alright?

PanzerAce
02-23-2006, 12:10 PM
glen, if you are going to waste the time to copy and paste that, you might as well take a few minutes to explain HOW it is not a violation.

glen avon
02-23-2006, 12:32 PM
why, whatever are you all referring to? ;)

it's not a violation because it does not meet the required elements. will let our own "not a lawyer" explain why it *would* be an EP violation, because the burden belongs on him.

PIRATE14
02-23-2006, 1:40 PM
Lack of "DOJ approval" does not mean illegal.

Our fixed magazines are, by any reading of the DOJ's 978.20 definition, not detachable magazines.

Correct.....but they are not making things easy.....

Lets keep it all rolling........don't fold, keep spreading the word and increase the numbers.............

bwiese
02-23-2006, 1:42 PM
Correct.....but they are not making things easy.....

Lets keep it all rolling........don't fold, keep spreading the word and increase the numbers.............

Pirate,
Just talked to Michelle. Told her who you should be talking to...

bridgeport
02-23-2006, 3:50 PM
The Burden though ( for compliance) is with the individual who decides to build a lower into a rifle. Everything so far is speculation even with the memo
etc. Until some concrete decision/ action takes place, so do what you please and be ready to assume responsibility but remember that as an individual you always stand a chance of convincing a judge that you "believed" you were in compliance with the law if you actually try to comply by fixing the mag in a reliable manner, etc. No guarantee here but if youre gonna do it, do it right.

shopkeep
02-23-2006, 3:56 PM
The SANE thing to do is to avoid wasting millions of dollars and letting thousands more of these come into the state but simply declaring them Assault Weapons and having people register them as such. If the DOJ was smart and wanted to keep these out they'd just declare and then spend alot of time working on the list so in the future the number of lowers that could sneak into the state would only number in the 100s each time.

If they were REALLY smart they'd just leave registration open. Chances are if people could just buy an AR-15 any time they wanted, people wouldn't have purchased 5 or 10 lower recievers this time around. They've increased consumption and importation by 1000% by continuing to issue confusing and ominous memos.

Ford8N
02-23-2006, 4:05 PM
Correct.....but they are not making things easy.....

Lets keep it all rolling........don't fold, keep spreading the word and increase the numbers.............

Exactly. The more people who get a lower, is one more problem the DOJ has to take care of. Let's see lots more AR and AK receivers in gun shops and gun shows. Most gun owners I know, know nothing about getting an off list lower.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-23-2006, 4:25 PM
The Burden though ( for compliance) is with the individual who decides to build a lower into a rifle. Everything so far is speculation even with the memo
etc. Until some concrete decision/ action takes place, so do what you please and be ready to assume responsibility but remember that as an individual you always stand a chance of convincing a judge that you "believed" you were in compliance with the law if you actually try to comply by fixing the mag in a reliable manner, etc. No guarantee here but if youre gonna do it, do it right.

Actually the affirmative defense scenario does not apply here. The burden will rest with the state to prove that what has been built is an AW. The potential defendant will NOT have to prove that the alledged AW is actually legal.

That being said, I'm not sure if I would want the Judge to make the decision or if I would go with a jury trial. Most likely the jury trial in hopes of getting a least a few sympathetic gun owning jurors.

I think a good defense attorney could win a case like this.

bridgeport
02-23-2006, 4:36 PM
Well that is good news. I suppose it would take some doing to get it to trial anyways, but I thought that if a person were arrested for something, that upon arraignment before a judge you or your attorney would have a chance to explain to a judge or DA or whoever. Then again, it has already been pointed out here that if a person were arrested, the DA would have to research the existing law to see if there is anything worth prosecuting
so I guess I was kind of putting the horse before the cart. Thanks for the correction. Still though, is not the obligation to comply with the law on the person who puts the puppy together? Otherwise joe shooter could put it together wrong
and just say he thought it was right, or am I wrong? Also , what if the DA offered a plea bargain say instead of possesion of an illegal AW he/she lets you go with some type of wrist slap???

shopkeep
02-23-2006, 4:38 PM
Actually the affirmative defense scenario does not apply here. The burden will rest with the state to prove that what has been built is an AW. The potential defendant will NOT have to prove that the alledged AW is actually legal.

I think a good defense attorney could win a case like this.

I have a feeling that this is something the DOJ believes as well. They are really holding back on prosecuting anyone or making arrests on this. In fact, they're being as quiet and secretive about it as we are. NO ONE is telling the press, NO ONE wants to touch this with a 30' pole, and NO ONE wants to test the limits.

I will certainly say that the longer this has gone on, the more bold each side has gotten. I will also certain say that our side is rapidly increasing in numbers daily hahahaha :D!

PanzerAce
02-23-2006, 5:27 PM
yah, both sides are really playing the same game: ie: keep it all on the down low. but we have the advantage of not having to react to every single thing the DOJ does, other than the registration itself, while they have to find EVERY lower that we bring in and add them to the list, etc.

glen avon
02-23-2006, 5:50 PM
Still though, is not the obligation to comply with the law on the person who puts the puppy together? Otherwise joe shooter could put it together wrong and just say he thought it was right, or am I wrong?

depends. most crimes are "general intent" which means you meant to do what you did. I.e., did you intend to assemble a firearm, or did you trip and drop a bunch of tools on a pile of AR parts and *miraculously* an AR popped up?

some crimes are "specific intent" which means you had to have something specific in mind, like fraud, you have to know it's not true.

the AW laws are general intent. if you meant to assemble a gun, and it turns out to be an AW, your are in trouble, even if you didn't mean to build an AW.

6172crew
02-23-2006, 6:00 PM
depends. most crimes are "general intent" which means you meant to do what you did. I.e., did you intend to assemble a firearm, or did you trip and drop a bunch of tools on a pile of AR parts and *miraculously* an AR popped up?

some crimes are "specific intent" which means you had to have something specific in mind, like fraud, you have to know it's not true.

the AW laws are general intent. if you meant to assemble a gun, and it turns out to be an AW, your are in trouble, even if you didn't mean to build an AW.

Although spirit of the law helps to keep you from going in front of the man.

If you are showing intent to follow the law but have somehow missed a law in the maze of Cal gun laws you will probably be ok as long as you were not commiting a crime when the LEO asked about your firearms.

bridgeport
02-23-2006, 6:14 PM
I think I've got it now... A puzzle... thats all it is, a plastic ,aluminum and steel puzzle... After 18 pages of this stuff I'm DIZZY... hey , thats two double "Z" words in one hypersentence. Do I win anything here??

FreedomIsNotFree
02-23-2006, 6:16 PM
Well that is good news. I suppose it would take some doing to get it to trial anyways, but I thought that if a person were arrested for something, that upon arraignment before a judge you or your attorney would have a chance to explain to a judge or DA or whoever. Then again, it has already been pointed out here that if a person were arrested, the DA would have to research the existing law to see if there is anything worth prosecuting
so I guess I was kind of putting the horse before the cart. Thanks for the correction. Still though, is not the obligation to comply with the law on the person who puts the puppy together? Otherwise joe shooter could put it together wrong
and just say he thought it was right, or am I wrong? Also , what if the DA offered a plea bargain say instead of possesion of an illegal AW he/she lets you go with some type of wrist slap???

If you were arrested on an AW charge it is a criminal offense. The DA then has 72 hours in most juristictions to arraign you. Arraignment is NOT when you argue your case.....all the DA needs to do is convince a judge that a crime has likely occured and there is enough evidence to believe you may have committed a crime. The burden at this point is very low.....but if the case is obviously BS to the Judge he can dismiss it on the spot....not likely to happen in this situation. The questions raised are far too complex for a judge to determine there on the spot.

I would love to see a case like this go to trial. Unfortunately that would mean someones nuts are on the block and I dont wish for them to be mine or anyone here.

artherd
02-23-2006, 11:24 PM
Lack of "DOJ approval" does not mean illegal.

Our fixed magazines are, by any reading of the DOJ's 978.20 definition, not detachable magazines.
Agreed, DOJ can suck it if they think any different. They do not make law, and frankly we're the GOOD guys. You know, the ones trying like all hell to obey the law to the letter at all times.

Why not go sieze some you know, criminals? Those are people that like actually hurt other people and stuff.

KenV
02-24-2006, 6:49 AM
Agreed, DOJ can suck it if they think any different. They do not make law, and frankly we're the GOOD guys. You know, the ones trying like all hell to obey the law to the letter at all times.

Why not go sieze some you know, criminals? Those are people that like actually hurt other people and stuff.

And really, that's the underlying issue here. They are going after the law abiders because it's an easy way to (falsely) claim progress. For those in the Red Tape Farm that know this, work is either easy (no ethics) or difficult (getting a paycheck and knowing that a lot of what they do is wrong).

K

glen avon
02-24-2006, 7:34 AM
Although spirit of the law helps to keep you from going in front of the man.

If you are showing intent to follow the law but have somehow missed a law in the maze of Cal gun laws you will probably be ok as long as you were not commiting a crime when the LEO asked about your firearms.

yes indeed, that is prosecutorial discretion.