PDA

View Full Version : Another question for the legal thinkers


adamsreeftank
02-27-2006, 9:20 PM
Sorry to post yet another "what if" or "how about this" post, but here goes.

The DOJ's memo states that we won't be able to add certain features to our receivers even if they are registered AWs. Now I know there has been endless debate and consternation about this, but one thing I haven't seen yet (maybe I missed it) is how/if SB 626 affects this. In short, SB 626 allowed LEOs to register AWs they already owned but had not registerd with a deadline of April 1, 2002. I am not lawyer and I have not read the actual text of SB 626, but I don't see any reference to "features" on the DOJ website.

Here is what I think are the pertinent parts. You can draw your own conclusions.


DOJ notice
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ar15notice.pdf
...
Newly identified "series" weapons cannot legally have the features listed in PC
section 12276.1 when they are registered. Those features cannot legally be added after the firearms are registered as assault weapons.
...
It should be noted that individuals who timely registered "Category 1" and "Category 2" assault weapons were allowed to keep or add the PC section 12276.1 features on their firearms. Those generic features were not illegal during the registration period for Category 1 assault weapons. In August of 2000, when the Department identified the Category 2 "series" weapons, it was legal to register weapons with those characteristics as Category 3 assault weapons. Firearms with those features could no longer be registered as of January 1, 2001. Therefore, newly identified "series" (Category 4) weapons likewise cannot have those features.
...


SB 626 (Stats. 2001, ch. 937) (Perata)
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/2001bills.htm
...
Effective January 1, 2002, allows specified law enforcement officers with the authorization of their employing agencies to retain and personally possess assault weapons that they have possessed or owned prior to January 1, 2000, provided they register those firearms as assault weapons with the DOJ on or before April 1, 2002. Also allows specified law enforcement officers with the authorization of their employing agencies to acquire assault weapons, providing they register them as assault weapons with the DOJ within 90 days of the date of acquisition.
...

1911_Mitch
02-27-2006, 9:38 PM
I would bet this has been considered in the memo rebuttal. Your not the first to notice this inequality.

shopkeep
02-27-2006, 10:12 PM
I have been saying for some time now that this is a violation of equal protection rights. There are some others who agree with me on this assertion. However, it is generally agreed that this is the one of the weaker arguements against the DOJ's position. There are several better arguments some of which I am not yet aware and others which I am aware of but will not mention here.

In my opinion the patchwork of CA handgun and "Assault Weapon" laws are so vague to the point of violating your rights to due process. I believe others have also advanced this arguement and been shot down.

My absolutely favorite part of this whole debacle is how the DOJ has reversed their position on the Vulcan V-15 and Bushmaster Carbon-15. All of the sudden these rifles which were sold here with DOJ letters saying they are NOT Assault Weapons are going to be listed. If the leaked DOJ memo is correct it would therefore follow that the DOJ was so confused as to what an "Assault Weapon" was that it allowed thousands to be sold with a letter of approval :D!

PanzerAce
02-27-2006, 10:41 PM
I think Bill already found the the LEO thing.

shopkeep
02-27-2006, 10:46 PM
I think Bill already found the the LEO thing.

Add to that the fact that original Kasler list registrants were granted 22 days past the closing of the "SB-23 reg period". Hence this becomes an even more powerful arguement because these registrants were in the same "class" of registration (i.e. civilians with named recievers).

adamsreeftank
02-27-2006, 10:57 PM
I think Bill already found the the LEO thing.

I must have missed that. Do you have a link?

EBWhite
02-27-2006, 10:59 PM
shop-
so those epoxy held fixed mag vulcan and bushys are now going to be added too?

blacklisted
02-27-2006, 11:28 PM
shop-
so those epoxy held fixed mag vulcan and bushys are now going to be added too?

I think this might be the holdup. Especially the vulcans! Vulcan was told that having a PERMANENTLY installed magazine would remove their weapon from the AR-15 "series". Vulcan's non epoxied/blind pinned lowers are essentially the same thing as the ones that have been sold here all along. I think this might be a source of problems for the new list.

filefish
02-28-2006, 12:02 AM
I think this might be the holdup. Especially the vulcans! Vulcan was told that having a PERMANENTLY installed magazine would remove their weapon from the AR-15 "series". Vulcan's non epoxied/blind pinned lowers are essentially the same thing as the ones that have been sold here all along. I think this might be a source of problems for the new list.


I would wager that the sealed lowers will be left alone which I think is great for the poor s.o.b. that finds he wants an ar 5-10 years from now, if you have one of these like i do i would reccomend geting a off list lower just in case. here are a few stags i found for ~$100

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=44433821


http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=44468136

bwiese
02-28-2006, 6:09 AM
shop-
so those epoxy held fixed mag vulcan and bushys are now going to be added too?

I do not think anything "approved" by DOJ (Vulcan Calif pinned mag lower, FAB10, Bushy closed magwell carbon fiber lower, or Evan's/GB Sales Bushy and Colt welded-magwell DOJ-approved lowers) will ever get listed.

bwiese
02-28-2006, 6:13 AM
Here is what I think are the pertinent parts. You can draw your own conclusions.

SB 626 (Stats. 2001, ch. 937) (Perata)
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/2001bills.htm
...
Effective January 1, 2002, allows specified law enforcement officers with the authorization of their employing agencies to retain and personally possess assault weapons that they have possessed or owned prior to January 1, 2000, provided they register those firearms as assault weapons with the DOJ on or before April 1, 2002. Also allows specified law enforcement officers with the authorization of their employing agencies to acquire assault weapons, providing they register them as assault weapons with the DOJ within 90 days of the date of acquisition.
...

Well, for right now, this does not allow them to manufacture an AW from a current off-list receiver If they had a receiver that was purchased back in 1999 or before (?) they could build it up undetected and register it.

If they could get departmental permission (apparently rare thing) they could get a regular complete AW, too, and register it. Don't think a cop really could not get a legal off-list lower and then build it up since that'd be a 12280(a) manufacturing violation. He could however get a real, listed true Colt AR15 lower and build it up!

Without further analysis/thinking, to me the term 'registration' is interesting, as this really sorta appears to fall on the 'permit' side.

As far as the DOJ memo goes, when a reg period opens, all hell will break loose as far as adding features. It's kinda separate from the SB626 law.

Supernam
02-28-2006, 8:16 AM
Without further analysis/thinking, to me the term 'registration' is interesting, as this really sorta appears to fall on the 'permit' side.



With further analysis, registration does NOT mean permit. However because of this, registration is now preempted by state law. Government Code 53071 was created as a response to a case that questioned whether or not Penal Code 12026 preempted the area of registration since it did not explicitly say "registration" but rather permit and licensing. In other words, "registration" was added in a different code to have the same effect as "permit" and "license".


53071. It is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole
field of regulation of the registration or licensing of commercially
manufactured firearms as encompassed by the provisions of the Penal
Code, and such provisions shall be exclusive of all local
regulations, relating to registration or licensing of commercially
manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision as defined in
Section 1721 of the Labor Code.



53071.5. By the enforcement of this section, the Legislature
occupies the whole field of regulation of the manufacture, sale, or
possession of imitation firearms, as defined in Section 417.2 of the
Penal Code, and that section shall preempt and be exclusive of all
regulations relating to the manufacture, sale, or possession of
imitation firearms, including regulations governing the manufacture,
sale, or possession of BB guns and air rifles described in
subdivision (g) of Section 12001 of the Penal Code.