PDA

View Full Version : Issues with Category 4 Assault Weapons and 12280(g)


shopkeep
03-07-2006, 10:26 AM
Here's something I don't get...

During the 90 registration window 12280(g) protects owners of newly declared Assault Weapons from possession charges. The way the DOJ plans to charge people for adding features to their Category 4 Assault Weapon is by invalidating the registration. Well if there's no registration to invalidate during the 90 day registration window what are they going to charge someone with if they add 12276.1 features?

So my question is: What is to stop me from adding 12276.1 features to my "Assault Weapon" during the 90 day registration window and then registering it with them already on it? The DOJ can only charge someone for possession/manufacture if they nail them BEFORE or AFTER the 90 day window (presumably through invalidating my registration). Does this create a category 3 registration?

This whole thing is getting so confusing because of the way the DOJ wants to play this game.

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 10:34 AM
I was just re-reading the memo and they have a huge hole in their consistency they are going to have to fill. What I mean is they are saying that it is legal to add features to firearms registered in 2000. Well most of those firearms were prohibited from adding features until the 2004 federal ban. So most of those guns did not earn any new featuers until 2004. Why is it ok for them to violate 12276.1 in 2004, but not ok for people to violate it in 2006? Second, can you imagine what the courts are going to say when the first guy gets there says he was confused which one of his lowers were which and which laws apply to which lower? If they thought it was bad they through out the "AR series" ban which is pretty clear, then just guess what they are going to do with this one.

Lets make this thing happen already. I want a list!

xenophobe
03-07-2006, 10:39 AM
I'm going to use SB-23 Registration forms, if I can find them at work, and mail them off right when the registration period starts... that is, if there's some kind of extra language that you 'agree to' by signing. lol After about a month, I'll call the reg office directly and ask what the hold up is. I'll resubmit with new forms if requested. ;)

blacklisted
03-07-2006, 10:51 AM
I've wondered about this myself.

bwiese
03-07-2006, 10:59 AM
was just re-reading the memo and they have a huge hole in their consistency they are going to have to fill. What I mean is they are saying that it is legal to add features to firearms registered in 2000. Well most of those firearms were prohibited from adding features until the 2004 federal ban. So most of those guns did not earn any new featuers until 2004. Why is it ok for them to violate 12276.1 in 2004, but not ok for people to violate it in 2006?

Absolutely. I pointed this out a couple of times in my rebuttal discussions in the past month, and in my detailed memo to the gun lawyers. DOJ answered many many folks in the affirmative when they asked if they could add, after 9/13/2004, Federal 'preban' features to their Federal 'postban' guns that were registered as CA AWs. The relevant features here were mostly telestocks or folding stocks, and flash hiders. Perhaps some folks with M1As w/flash hiders that were reg'd as AWs wanted to add SAGE pistolgrip stocks too.

So my question is: What is to stop me from adding 12276.1 features to my "Assault Weapon" during the 90 day registration window and then registering it with them already on it? The DOJ can only charge someone for possession/manufacture if they nail them BEFORE or AFTER the 90 day window (presumably through invalidating my registration).

This is just a subset issue of the larger issue: there is no separate criminal charge in the 12280 etc section of the PC (Prohibited Activities) that prevents features from being added, removed, or changed on either registered AWs or guns that have just been declared as AWs and a new 90day window has opened.

The only possible charges are in 12280(a) - manufacture/import, which doesn't apply since the 'boundary crossing' to AW status was created by the DOJ itself from a legal gun, and 12280(b), possession of an unreg'd AW. This latter charge is moot since 12280(g) protects against charges of possession of an unreg'd AW during the 90 day reg window. The only issues involve being legal/registered (or declared), or not.

When the DOJ says things like "The Department intends to enforce this restriction through the assault weapon registration process," you know that means they don't have actual criminal code violations. They have to try to threaten to synthesize a crime after an arrest or LEO inquiry - which will have significant due process issues since the purported crime appears to exist after the arrest or LEO inquiry, and not before.

swhatb
03-07-2006, 11:42 AM
Absolutely. I pointed this out a couple of times in my rebuttal discussions in the past month, and in my detailed memo to the gun lawyers. DOJ answered many many folks in the affirmative when they asked if they could add, after 9/13/2004, Federal 'preban' features to their Federal 'postban' guns that were registered as CA AWs. The relevant features here were mostly telestocks or folding stocks, and flash hiders. Perhaps some folks with M1As w/flash hiders that were reg'd as AWs wanted to add SAGE pistolgrip stocks too.
bwiese- do you or anyone else have a copy of that memo from doj regarding adding 'preban' features to their Federal 'postban' guns that were registered as CA AWs? i would LOVE to read this. thanx.

xenophobe
03-07-2006, 11:52 AM
So my question is: What is to stop me from adding 12276.1 features to my "Assault Weapon" during the 90 day registration window and then registering it with them already on it? The DOJ can only charge someone for possession/manufacture if they nail them BEFORE or AFTER the 90 day window (presumably through invalidating my registration).

I just stated this in another thread:
---
If a new AR or AK type is listed in CCR 979.11, there is no provision listed under 12280 stating an Unlawful Activity includes modification of a registered assault weapon that was lawfully purchased before the weapon was listed, regardless of when it is registered or what laws are in effect at the time of purchase. Any newly purchased firearms that are later deemed assault weapons have no such restrictions put in place.

If the particular firearm is NOT an assault weapon, creating a firearm that fits the definition in 12276.1 is illegal. If it becomes defined as an 'assault weapon' pursuant to the 'add on' clause, 12276.1 features are not required, but are definitely implied to be features a newly listed weapon should have by the original code.
----

I'll add: Bill is indeed right. You cannot be charged with manufacturing an assault weapon if it becomes listed... the receiver you own has already been manufactured, serialized and sold through a commercial channel legally as a firearm. The action of the DOJ by listing it causes it to become an AW through no modifications of your own.

bwiese
03-07-2006, 12:50 PM
bwiese- do you or anyone else have a copy of that memo from doj regarding adding 'preban' features to their Federal 'postban' guns that were registered as CA AWs? i would LOVE to read this. thanx.

I do not have any written evidence. But I've heard (or actaully seen reports here) of folks calling the DOJ in Sept/Oct 2004 asking about this after the Fed AWB sunset. These were casual informational phone calls.

shopkeep
03-07-2006, 2:00 PM
OK so let me get this straight:

If I register one of my rifles during the 90 days, I then have to pin a mag or have no evil features because it's a Category 4 registered rifle. However, if I leave one of my other recievers unregistered that one can lawfully have all the 12276.1 features I want until the point it is registered. So during the 90 days registration window both Category 4 and Category 3 rifles may exist and it will be up to Law Enforcement and the DOJ to determine which are registered and therefore cannot have 12276.1 features and which are NOT YET registered and can therefore have 12276.1 features.

The DOJ is acting punatively against us and discriminating by treating us differently than previous registrants. If a 90 day registration window does open under the memo's restrictions I will consider my rights to due process violated by a patchwork of laws so vague they are impossible to fully understand.

tenpercentfirearms
03-07-2006, 2:06 PM
Good point. I need to stock up on .223 ammo because when that 90 days hits, the amount of detachable magazine action in this state is going to skyrocket. Guys are just going to shoot 5000 rounds in a day just because they can. :D

glen avon
03-07-2006, 2:31 PM
...the receiver you own has already been manufactured, serialized and sold through a commercial channel legally as a firearm....

not for CA AW law purposes.

shopkeep
03-07-2006, 4:10 PM
I do not have any written evidence. But I've heard (or actaully seen reports here) of folks calling the DOJ in Sept/Oct 2004 asking about this after the Fed AWB sunset. These were casual informational phone calls.

www.calgunlaws.com has all the various letters written to the DOJ archived there. One of the letters deals with the fed AW ban sunset.

Ford8N
03-07-2006, 5:13 PM
I would be really interesting to have a defense attorney ask a jury to tell him the difference between a registered Colt Match Target receiver and a Stag receiver. And why one can have a pistol grip and one not. AND BOTH ARE REGISTERED ASSAULT WEAPONS. This whole mess is about a $.99 piece of plastic.

blkA4alb
03-07-2006, 5:29 PM
but remember!! that .99 cent piece of plastic makes the gun much deadlier. it allows the gun to be used how it was designed "for spray firing from the hip, or hosing down an area." scoff, because rotating my hand 90 degrees makes it more deadly...yeah right.

shopkeep
03-07-2006, 5:39 PM
but remember!! that .99 cent piece of plastic makes the gun much deadlier. it allows the gun to be used how it was designed "for spray firing from the hip, or hosing down an area." scoff, because rotating my hand 90 degrees makes it more deadly...yeah right.

That's rather odd... I had no trouble bump-firing a couple pre-ban mags out of my SOCOM-16 a couple weekends ago. You should have seen what it did to father-in-law's old washing machine :eek:!!!

xenophobe
03-07-2006, 6:03 PM
not for CA AW law purposes.

Umm... the full sentence is:

You cannot be charged with manufacturing an assault weapon if it becomes listed... the receiver you own has already been manufactured, serialized and sold through a commercial channel legally as a firearm.

Don't take half a sentence and try to spin it.

shopkeep
03-07-2006, 6:14 PM
Don't take half a sentence and try to spin it.

Spinning half sentences comes straight from the pages of the DOJ field manual.

kantstudien
03-07-2006, 7:27 PM
Shopkeep, have you heard of the character "Puddleglum?" You remind me very much of him, but you are not as pessimistic. :)

shopkeep
03-07-2006, 7:52 PM
Shopkeep, have you heard of the character "Puddleglum?" You remind me very much of him, but you are not as pessimistic. :)

What book/movie is this character from?

xenophobe
03-07-2006, 8:20 PM
sentences comes straight from the manual.

And from literature.... what was your point? lol

kantstudien
03-07-2006, 8:26 PM
What book/movie is this character from?

One of the Narnia books

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puddleglum

glen avon
03-07-2006, 8:43 PM
Umm... the full sentence is:

Don't take half a sentence and try to spin it.

makes no difference, I was saving time and bandwidth. I wasn't spinning anything, must be your head spinning at my brilliance. :D

glen avon
03-07-2006, 8:44 PM
Spinning half sentences comes straight from the pages of the DOJ field manual.

I have never seen one, can I borrow your copy?

:eek: :D :eek: :D

shopkeep
03-07-2006, 9:59 PM
I have never seen one, can I borrow your copy?

:eek: :D :eek: :D

Mine's an older copy from back when Gray Davis was in office. I doubt they've updated the guide since then. It still says to confiscate lower recievers that have "AUTO" etched into them :P!

swhatb
03-08-2006, 11:38 AM
I'm going to use SB-23 Registration forms, if I can find them at work, and mail them off right when the registration period starts... that is, if there's some kind of extra language that you 'agree to' by signing. lol After about a month, I'll call the reg office directly and ask what the hold up is. I'll resubmit with new forms if requested. ;)
xenop- can you upload that document. would like to see it. thanx. if not, PM would work as well. i think "we" should all send that form in during the 90-day period:D

HKdude
03-08-2006, 7:19 PM
Good point. I need to stock up on .223 ammo because when that 90 days hits, the amount of detachable magazine action in this state is going to skyrocket. Guys are just going to shoot 5000 rounds in a day just because they can. :D


......that's why the UPS guy just dropped off 3k rounds at my house today:D
I think I need more already.


Steve

Crazed_SS
03-09-2006, 12:53 AM
Dont you guys think if needed, the DOJ will just get the necessary legislation passed to make off-list lowers prohibited from having removable mags? It wouldnt be that hard. They banned .50 cals like it was nothing. I doubt the politicians in Sacramento would have a problem passing a new law that closes a "loophole" in the original AW ban.

blacklisted
03-09-2006, 12:55 AM
Dont you guys think if needed, the DOJ will just get the necessary legislation passed to make off-list lowers prohibited from having removable mags? It wouldnt be that hard. They banned .50 cals like it was nothing. I doubt the politicians in Sacramento would have a problem passing a new law that closes a "loophole" in the original AW ban.

Sure, but that kind of thing doesn't happen over night.

xenophobe
03-09-2006, 12:58 AM
xenop- can you upload that document. would like to see it. thanx. if not, PM would work as well. i think "we" should all send that form in during the 90-day period:D

Sure, but it won't be useful, because you need to use an original card, and not a reproduction of one... if I remember correctly.





makes no difference, I was saving time and bandwidth. I wasn't spinning anything, must be your head spinning at my brilliance. :D

Okay, then tell me how you can manufacture an Assault Weapon if it's already declared an Assault weapon? *shrug*