PDA

View Full Version : Possible ramification of DOJ-inspired legislative action rather than listing


TonyNorCal
03-22-2006, 12:40 PM
From posts on this board it seems that there are an increasing number of individuals who are of the opinion that the DOJ won't update Kasler and will instead attempt a legislative solution. The winds of such opinion seem to be gathering in strength here anyway.

I personally vacillate back and forth. It seems to me that updating the list...even with the cumbersome, slow, and inefficient wheels of state government...shouldn't take this long. Of course, never underestimate the resolve of the state to bring an endeavor to resolution in the least efficient way possible:p .

Ok, so let's say for the sake of argument the list isn't updated...
(just asking for opinion, informed speculation, etc.)

- What are the ramifications of possible legislative action?
- Are there any conceivable circumstances by which they could retroactively strip us of our right to ownership?
- Would they seek some sort of comprehensive ban that would include these receivers along with many other firearms?
- Would there be a registration period, and if so would we be allowed 'characteristics' or still be 12276.1 constrained?

blacklisted
03-22-2006, 12:43 PM
They say it's taking so long because they are updating the AW identification guide, which fits. They really have to do the whole "series" part over again!

However, I don't see it taking 3-6 months. If I'm wrong, they should stop being so secretive about it and explain exactly why it's taking them so long.

The kind of legislative action I worry about is something that will back up the Feb 1 memo. It would be a registration sort of the like the .50 BMG registration, where these are registered but we can't put evil features.

metalhead357
03-22-2006, 12:48 PM
Ok, so let's say for the sake of argument the list isn't updated...
(just asking for opinion, informed speculation, etc.)

1- What are the ramifications of possible legislative action?
-2 Are there any conceivable circumstances by which they could retroactively strip us of our right to ownership?
- 3Would they seek some sort of comprehensive ban that would include these receivers along with many other firearms?
-4 Would there be a registration period, and if so would we be allowed 'characteristics' or still be 12276.1 constrained?


Ummm,
1. More stoooopid laws that will take DOJ another year to intrepret
2. Nope, ex post facto laws are unconstitionial on thier face
3. They already tried...and look where it got them/. they even had the ability to update the comprehensive list and floundered it........
4. WAY to broad. If you've read the memo sounds like they will try and end run around catagory II and III....allow registration of the weapons as Catogory II BUT WITHOUT catagory III stuff...........

But its all conjecture....they will update the list...as THAT is the closest to a "gurantee" they can get- no such thing going the legislative route and would leave the "buy" window open months and months longer........


Metalhead

CowtownBallin
03-22-2006, 12:52 PM
If they push for legislation, what will they say?

"We can't do our job, so we need your to write a law so we don't have to do anything."

shopkeep
03-22-2006, 1:41 PM
The fact that the liberal media doesn't care about this just mirrors what's going on in the rest of the country. Assault Weapons are a dead issue. The fed ban lapsed, nothing happened, nobody cares. The only ones who care are us and the DOJ.

gh429
03-22-2006, 1:45 PM
IMHO:

1. The magazine must be part of the frame, either welded or with epoxied. IE the definition of a detachable / non-detachable magazine is changed. (falls in line with prior DOJ "approvals" of Vulcan, Fab, Carbon-15 )

2. Pistol grips become illegal (less likely, but how many bolt-action rifles use pistol grips?)

kantstudien
03-22-2006, 2:05 PM
The problem with the analogy to .50BMG registration is that everyone knew about it, and it is prominently displayed at most gun stores. Do you think DOJ wants to advertise that people can actually buy offlist AR/AK receivers until so-and-so date?

Surveyor
03-22-2006, 2:35 PM
The problem with the analogy to .50BMG registration is that everyone knew about it, and it is prominently displayed at most gun stores. Do you think DOJ wants to advertise that people can actually buy offlist AR/AK receivers until so-and-so date?

$4000.00 .50 bmg rifles didn't really pose that problem, did they? But $150.00 stripped lowers are a different subject. I knew about the .50 cal ban, but had no way to come up with that much scratch (for a toy) in that much time. However I did manage to scrape up enough for two recievers.
You may be on to something.

EBWhite
03-22-2006, 2:40 PM
I only see legislative action in the future. They don't want to keep updating a list, it will be a big cat and mouse game and they will look like idiots in the media.

I see one of two things:
Any new centerfire semi auto cannot have a detachable magazine (harder to pass this law)
or
Any AR/AK type action weapon must have a welded/epoxy magazine to be sold, imported, etc. (easy to pass)

CALI-gula
03-22-2006, 3:31 PM
The fact that the liberal media doesn't care about this just mirrors what's going on in the rest of the country. Assault Weapons are a dead issue. The fed ban lapsed, nothing happened, nobody cares. The only ones who care are us and the DOJ.


This is VERY true. I work among many of the lousy louts.

And think of how much work it takes to explain this legal lower issue to some of the self-proclaimed "gun nuts" that come here as newbies; people that have owned many guns or carried one in Iraq at any length of time during the past 16 years. Think of how hard it has been to get many of these gun owners to understand the concept and logistics of the FAQ, and the repeated "I don't get it, explain it to me" posts. Patience only lasts so long.

NOW... try explaining these technicalities and details to a liberal media that never has owned guns, doesn't like guns, builds rating on anti-2nd Amendment stories, nor ever cared about the laws other than to report what they hear from the VPC. Then ask that same liberal media to put it into a news-byte of 25 seconds and no more than 1 minute-30seconds if even as a special coverage story.

No, they can't do it, so it will only get addressed after the finale is in place. The short absolute is all they can report anymore as the uninformed public only wants short absolutes, a product carryover from the fast-paced clip-assaults of MTV that has melted into all media, encouraging short attention spans. Commercials once were 30 to 45 seconds - now many are 7 to 10 seconds

So if the media ever does address it, all you will hear at that time is "A new ban goes into effect today as the state legislature has......" or "an update of California's Assault Weapon ban was amended today to add numerous rifles that have entered the state through a loophole in the law..." and then they will cut to an interview with Don Perata, Bill Lockyer, or Paul Koretz or some Million Mom Ninny who will talk highly of themselves and how they are doing such grand work to protect the public, while some "bubble-headed-bleach blonde, comes on at 5" holding an UZI Carbine or a folding-stock Russian AK47 with a 30 round magazine noting "guns like this".

Anyone that thinks the DOJ will be embarrassed by this is wrong, as the liberal media will see to it that there is no embarrassing atonement, only heroic worship of our "great protectors". The majority of the 2nd Amendment apathetic public won't even care or understand, and the Anti-2nd Amendment Terrorist/Hate Groups will hold up Bill Lockyer as a Zeus among amoebas.

The average non-gun owning public will not care one way or the other what is or is not banned, just as there was little fan fare among the non-gun public over AB50. Even now when I explain AB50 to people, to many non-gun people that have never even seen such a rifle, on sight, they think "wow, maybe those should be banned". Then try explaining SB15, the DOJ "Safety-Approved" list, and the "consignment and PPT" exemption to non-gun owners, and watch their upper lips and eyebrows try to meet somewhere near their nose, in a confused squish.

We see it as big news because it affects us directly and we are focused on it.

Well, if we were all into smoking our lungs out, and advocates of the same, would California citizens in any number be screaming about Calabasas banning smoking in all public areas, and have any affect? That got more cover (even nationally) than this ever will. And nobody blinked a bit.

Californians WANT government to herd them, some even thinking it is good for them. "Hey, it might help me to quit smoking" I heard one dork say on the news. For the record, Mr. CALI-gula does not smoke, but if I wanted to do so… Anyway, I love beer. Yet, as of today, portions of government are saying in Texas that I can't drink to get a nice buzz in a bar or I'll be arrested? How long before this begins at the "Sage Brush".

The general Californian's answer to a news story overing the DOJ's supposed embarrassment, for not updating the list, as some have noted here will be, "Whatever. Gi'me dat remote, what's on MTV ?"


.

bwiese
03-22-2006, 5:43 PM
It will be a profound effort to get legislation this year: looking at legislative calendar, key dates have already passed. It would take a profound unconventional effort to do new legislation at this point - unless there's something subterranean at this point, but I think we'd hear of it now.

That means almost another 2 years from now to go if something got passed in 2007: that legislation would most likely kick in in 2008 without additional extraordinary action.

The longer they wait, the more work they have (reg papers to process, etc.) And this is an unexpected hit on their budget for staffing requirements and
deferment of other work. Totally off-schedule. Do you think they had ANY idea before 1st week of Dec 2005 that this would slam them in the face?

Nevertheless, we should proceed with paranoia at this point and keep 'kicking the dog' just in case.

Anonymous Coward
03-22-2006, 6:07 PM
Worst case would be:

They could ask legislature to extend 12276.(d) which right now reads

Any firearm declared by the court pursuant to Section 12276.5 to be an assault weapon that is specified as an assault weapon in a list promulgated pursuant to Section 12276.5.

To add something like

Any firearms declared assault weapons pursuant section 12276.(d) cannot have any of the characterstics mentioned in section 12276.1. (a)

After this law passes they ammend the list and we cannot have both detachable mags and a pistol grip on our ARs.

11Z50
03-22-2006, 6:27 PM
They (DOJ) will raise a hue and cry and Koretz or some other Kommie will intro a bill outlawing ALL semi-auto rifles. The justification will be there are too many loop holes us crazy gun nuts can exploit to get around the AW law, and DOJ needs help. The poor cops can't enforce this AW ban which is way too complicated. If the Bay Area and LA assemblymen do not object, it will fly thru the state house and the senate will surely agree as well.

Look for this to be an emergency act which Arnold will sign in the "interest of public safety". All they need is an incident. Iggy's working on that.

Builder
03-22-2006, 7:33 PM
They (DOJ) will raise a hue and cry and Koretz or some other Kommie will intro a bill outlawing ALL semi-auto rifles. The justification will be there are too many loop holes us crazy gun nuts can exploit to get around the AW law, and DOJ needs help. The poor cops can't enforce this AW ban which is way too complicated.
Oh, I hope this happens. For if it does, it instantly becomes a 2nd Ammendment infringement, not just a restriction. This scenario would go all the way to the US Supreme court. Note the new make-up of the court. The commies have everything to lose in this infringement battle. This could turn all restriction that aren't based upon civilian & militia (military) use on its ear. If it's military arms, civilian hunting, or personal protection, then it can't be infringed and limited restrictions [US v. Miller].
Since some commies don't think the 2nd Ammendment applies to individuals, they will get some very bad news with US v. Verdugo-Urquidez from 1990.
In both situations, the commies lose.
Builder

grammaton76
03-22-2006, 7:44 PM
Oh, I hope this happens. For if it does, it instantly becomes a 2nd Ammendment infringement, not just a restriction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 2nd only (supposedly) protects us from FEDERAL infringement of our rights. States may choose to do what they wish, and because California doesn't have the 2nd in our state constitution, the state can do whatever they want to our rights.

xenophobe
03-22-2006, 7:45 PM
Some of you people are just reading, eating, and breathing this stuff over-compulsively... Step outside, forget about your receivers for a week or two. DOJ will list. It will seem like an eternity if you sit at the CADOJ website if you constantly refresh it every 5 minutes.

Government does NOT do it's job swiftly or in a timely manner. However, they do end up doing their job. Take a break. Give it a rest. The list will be upon us.

I'm the total receiver whore, and even I'm not stressing if or when they'll list.

blacklisted
03-22-2006, 7:45 PM
State rights can only go so far.

gh429
03-22-2006, 8:15 PM
The fact that the liberal media doesn't care about this just mirrors what's going on in the rest of the country. Assault Weapons are a dead issue. The fed ban lapsed, nothing happened, nobody cares. The only ones who care are us and the DOJ.

Feinstein was a bigger ***** than usual during the "sunset" though. ;)

GW
03-22-2006, 8:26 PM
Feinstein was a bigger ***** than usual during the "sunset" though. ;)
But for all her bluster, the federal AW ban still expired.
To quote Nelson Muntz: Ha-ha!

kenc9
03-22-2006, 9:18 PM
First of all this whole thing is political and here is how the politics are forming into for the moment.

News...Attorney General Bill Lockyer planned to run for governor, but lowered his sights to the treasurer's race. And Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, a former two-term governor, is looking to move back into statewide office with a run for attorney general.

Now with Bill running for a new position and all polititians try to sweep stuff under the rug I am sure he doesn't want the AW thing in the news this year.

Any thing could happen but I think there is a good chance nothing happens at all. I think for now they keep up with tough language like they have been doing and nothing else but inforce the 10 round fixed mag and try to say you have to epoxy the mags and the 58 DA warning over and over.

We will see! :)


-ken

EBWhite
03-22-2006, 9:21 PM
if the DOJ does list these, private party prices will skyrocket to 500+ each up until the ban...

C.G.
03-22-2006, 10:09 PM
if the DOJ does list these, private party prices will skyrocket to 500+ each up until the ban...

Once it is listed it is too late to transfer.

EBWhite
03-22-2006, 10:17 PM
once they are listed, you will have that day to do the transfer...

xenophobe
03-22-2006, 10:34 PM
once they are listed, you will have that day to do the transfer...

The day they are listed is the first day they are banned.

kantstudien
03-22-2006, 10:37 PM
The very second they are listed, they will be illegal to transfer or sell. You will still be able to pick up receivers that were DROSed prior to listing, but were still in the 10-day wait.

phish
03-22-2006, 10:45 PM
just buy other kinds of guns in the meantime

then buy any books about them so you can appreciate them more

it works, trust me :D

EBWhite
03-22-2006, 10:52 PM
For example, i was under the impression that if the list came out tomorrow (thursday), the first day you cannot start a new dros them would be friday...

EBWhite
03-22-2006, 10:57 PM
another worst case scenario is the DOJ trying to do one of buybacks similar to the SKS deal back in the mid 90's

xenophobe
03-22-2006, 11:06 PM
For example, i was under the impression that if the list came out tomorrow (thursday), the first day you cannot start a new dros them would be friday...

As soon as they are listed, they are illegal to transfer, except to those waiting to pick up ones they had bought previous to the day they were listed.

No more sales, no more private party transfers on the date they are listed.

CALI-gula
03-23-2006, 12:23 AM
...I'm the total receiver whore, and even I'm not stressing if or when they'll list.

Aye! Aye! Here! Here!

I just bought 2 more Grizzly lowers tonight from the pirate. Still whorin'. Someone should try to get a lower commissioned with the Engergizer bunny on it, as this thing keeps "going, and going, and going....". :D

And from my ealier post of the apathy of the media - it was also my intention to back the very reason why continuing on kicking that dog would be necessary, if not getting harder with each kick. If we don't kick the media, the VPC is bound to do it for us in a way not favorable to our wishes. We can have be proactive and have the media ridicule the absurd gun laws and lack of DOJ action and pointlessness of gun control, or we can stay hushed and later have the media ridicule us as gun-toting heathens "breaking the intention of the law" on a technicality.


.

CowtownBallin
03-23-2006, 1:18 AM
Find the right reporter to write the right story in a big newspaper. Can't just contact random lefties and expect something positive.

HEUER
03-23-2006, 11:33 AM
Just remember guys, the CA DOJ does not have to do any thing. Period. SB-23 prevents the lowers from becomeing "assualt rifles". They have all the time in the world.

Spoke to an proffessor of law at U.C. Hastings the other day, and he stated unless their is another 101 California, the "Assualt Rifle" issue is dead.

Their was a couple shot with an AK 47 in Oakland the other night, no public outcry to "ban" assualt rifles.

Mr. and Mrs. Liberal are not even showing up in large numbers to protest the war, and this (off-list lowers) issue has less traction.;)

xenophobe
03-23-2006, 12:18 PM
ugh... This is not political anymore it is DEPARTMENTAL... It is the duty of a department of the State government. It is DOJ's job to identify new assault weapons and list them. They will do that because that is their job. Not because they do or don't want to, but because that is what they're paid for. Hell, most of the people I've talked to in the DOJ Firearms Division think these laws are stupid and aren't anti-gun... However, they will do the job they're required to do. People just don't seem to understand this.

These receivers weren't an issue until a few months ago, now it is, and now they will have to do something about it, that is their job, plain and simple.

To think the DOJ is somehow tied into the politics of this, or the legislature is amusing to say the least...

HEUER
03-23-2006, 12:46 PM
ugh... This is not political anymore it is DEPARTMENTAL... It is the duty of a department of the State government. It is DOJ's job to identify new assault weapons and list them. They will do that because that is their job. Not because they do or don't want to, but because that is what they're paid for. Hell, most of the people I've talked to in the DOJ Firearms Division think these laws are stupid and aren't anti-gun... However, they will do the job they're required to do. People just don't seem to understand this.

These receivers weren't an issue until a few months ago, now it is, and now they will have to do something about it, that is their job, plain and simple.

To think the DOJ is somehow tied into the politics of this, or the legislature is amusing to say the least...

Sure buddy, they will list the recievers tomorrow. That's what is really amusing. LOL. What a joke.

xenophobe
03-23-2006, 12:52 PM
Sure buddy, they will list the recievers tomorrow. That's what is really amusing. LOL. What a joke.

Yeah, I guess you should believe everything your professor tells you. lol.

HEUER
03-23-2006, 1:10 PM
Yeah, I guess you should believe everything your professor tells you. lol.

He's my cousin. He graduated from prep school at 16. Graduated form college at 19 with honors and law school at 22. Clerked for several Fedeal Judges. Yes, I would listen to him over you.

I am surprised you could spell professor. LOL. What a joke!

xenophobe
03-23-2006, 1:30 PM
You're the last one to be telling anyone how to spell.

Just remember guys, the CA DOJ does not have to do any thing. Period. SB-23 prevents the lowers from becomeing "assualt rifles". They have all the time in the world.


loser.

CALI-gula
03-23-2006, 1:31 PM
Just remember guys, the CA DOJ does not have to do any thing. Period. SB-23 prevents the lowers from becomeing "assualt rifles". They have all the time in the world.

Spoke to an proffessor of law at U.C. Hastings the other day, and he stated unless their is another 101 California, the "Assualt Rifle" issue is dead.

Their was a couple shot with an AK 47 in Oakland the other night, no public outcry to "ban" assualt rifles.

Mr. and Mrs. Liberal are not even showing up in large numbers to protest the war, and this (off-list lowers) issue has less traction.;)

What you have not taken into consideration is that as time passes, tens of thousands of standard mil-spec open-mag-well lowers will be entering into CA. The longer the DOJ waits, the more the news of this exception will spread. It will then become hundreds-of-thousands of mil-spec open-mag-well lowers one day.

Nothing prevents someone in possession of these lowers to turn them into illegal assault rifles, and merely takes a few minutes to do so. It is actually less parts than a fixed-mag rifle. We here on Calguns.net are not likely to do this, but might foolish uninformed people do this act? Might criminals do this stupid move?

If machine guns are illegal as rifles except by NFA permit, tax stamp, etc., why was there a need to ban machine gun sears? For the same reason they will wish to ban standard lowers from coming into CA.

The original idea of Roberti-Roos & SB-23 was to prevent such guns getting into California in any form, especially by signaling out ARs and AKs.

I agree with you that this is not the biggest issue in the world to California government and politics, or most non-gun owner California citizens. This is currently only relevent to us and the DOJ, but as time goes on, watch how large a topic it becomes. Just wait until a few of these liberal groups or politicans discover the memo and start asking, "What does this mean?". Just wait until June 2 when the politicos are back in full aggressive session. Most are on spring vacations.

In any case, the DOJ's memo released 2/3/06 contradicts the idea that they would be completely complacent to the topic of legal lowers. They are not now, nor likely in the future, to take this issue of thousands of lowers entering CA weekly with a flaccid approach.

Give it some time to snowball. I think this was the reason Bill and others have been talking going proactive with the media, so it is an issue in our favor and not waiting until the Anti-2nd Amendment Hate/Terrorist Groups make the news stories in their favor.

.

CALI-gula
03-23-2006, 1:42 PM
He's my cousin. He graduated from prep school at 16. Graduated form college at 19 with honors and law school at 22. Clerked for several Fedeal Judges. Yes, I would listen to him over you.

I am surprised you could spell professor. LOL. What a joke!


Huh???

I know you must have been kidding with that one, obviously practicing self-deprecation, because you spelled professor with two (f)s .


...becomeing "assualt rifles". They have all the time in the world.

Spoke to an proffessor of law...

HEUER
03-23-2006, 1:49 PM
Huh???

I know you must have been kidding with that one, obviously practicing self-deprecation, because you spelled professor with two (f)s .

You are correct sir.

HEUER
03-23-2006, 1:53 PM
You're the last one to be telling anyone how to spell.




loser.
Where did you get your law degree from? San Jose School of Law and Agriculture?

How is junior college treating you?

LOL. What A Joke.

bwiese
03-23-2006, 2:00 PM
Hmmm, the last person I'd ever trust/rely on making a political bet is a law professor.

They might be quite bright but even those of their own profession in the world outside the ivory tower are often a bit more grounded in politics & sentiment. (And, BTW, I read awhile back somewhere - can't remember - that some of the 'big name' professors do poorly when brought into real-world court trials and do often have an especially hard time in front of juries.)

We also have 'separable interests' here: while the DOJ Firearms Div works for the AG, they have separate goals that don't necessarly have much overlap.

The DOJ folks are civil service employees who want to just do their jobs as directed. They're difficult to embarass. They may be a bit zealous in some areas because of promotion or performance bonus standings, but the AG/DAG are the ones to target for embarassment as the rest are mostly time-servers.

AWs may indeed be a politically 'dead' issue, but Lockyer hasn't entered the primary yet. He desparately does not want any negative PR and wants his apple cart to proceed directly down the road without being knocked over. I intend for there to be some potholes, at least.

bwiese
03-23-2006, 2:03 PM
Heuer,

Please stop these attacks, they are below you.

Xenophobe is a really bright guy who's done a lot of great analysis and has direct DOJ contacts and knows the gun biz. And, btw, he's quite a good writer - very cogent, nicely structured posts. He's been right about everything I've seen him post.

25 year old boy wonder law professors are exactly the kinda folks wide-eyed candidates hire their first time they run for election. After they crash & burn, they realize these guys know the books but not the reality.... law school's a helluva lot different than the real world.

grammaton76
03-23-2006, 2:06 PM
Where did you get your law degree from? San Jose School of Law and Agriculture?

How is junior college treating you?

LOL. What A Joke.

NO LONGER A MEMBER OF CAL GUNS

Is it just me, or are a LOT of folks getting irritable lately, compared to usual? Heuer, are you leaving Calguns, or is that some kind of "I'm not the same as the rest of the folks here" kind of statement?

Jarhead4
03-23-2006, 3:50 PM
1. An Assault Weapon is defined in SB23.
2. The DOJ does not have to add to the list.

If the DOJ does not list these receivers, then all you have is a non-assault weapon as far as the state is concern. They may feel that this will accomplish their goal of keeping these evil inanimate pieces of aluminum off the streets. (i.e., pistol grip, flash suppressor, ect.)

However, if we consider the Memo that the DOJ put out, then they do intend to add these receivers to the list. Yes they can take their time, but it makes them look bad. Because the intent of the law was to have the DOJ to add them to the list so they never got into the state. The DOJ knew this was a possibility since 2001. They are just trying to find a way so if they add them to the list, the guns will still have to be SB23 compliant. However that is a fight that they will most likely loose.

Even if they try to legislate new law, It will be very hard to do and kind of pointless. That is because that most people that have gotten these receivers are law-abiding citizens. Not a big risk. Even if you bring in 100,000 receivers, it is not a lot because the majority will be owned by a few. A few that follows the law. Also, the judge has stated that the last law passed on this was too confusing for the average person. So if they do pass a new law, it would just add a new category. But as pointed out By Bill, that will not happen for at least a year. Which, once again the longer they take the worse they government looks. And if you are running for a public office that is one thing you don't want to do.


And if I miss spelled anything, Damn it Jim! I'm and Engineer, not an English teacher!!!

Pthfndr
03-23-2006, 5:38 PM
Nothing prevents someone in possession of these lowers to turn them into illegal assault rifles, and merely takes a few minutes to do so.

.............................Might criminals do this stupid move?

.

Ok, please don't take this as a flame or such, because that's not what's intended.

What you said has been posted by more than a few people, and I just don't get why anyone uses that arguement. What stops (LAW ABIDING) people from converting them to illegal AWs? The law does. I question why anyone who's buying unlisted lowers would go around saying, "Look how easy it is to convert this legal firearm into an illegal assault weapon." What's the point of that?

Of course the laws won't stop someone with criminal intent from doing it. By the same token, the laws won't stop someone with criminal intent who bought a legal unlisted lower from using one in the commision of a crime if the unlisted lowers are listed as AWs.

xenophobe
03-23-2006, 8:00 PM
Heuer, I'm sorry I called you a loser. I even felt bad driving on the way to work. I'm not above lowering myself to anothers' attitude. I fully know that makes me less than I could be, but that's just me. I don't back down. Even in life... ask Dave Brennan if you ever stop by the store. lol

Bill, thanks for the kind and supportive words... I feel like I've won some kind of Emmy or Academy Award. :P Seriously though, thank you.

CALI-gula
03-24-2006, 3:00 AM
...What you said has been posted by more than a few people, and I just don't get why anyone uses that arguement. What stops (LAW ABIDING) people from converting them to illegal AWs? The law does. I question why anyone who's buying unlisted lowers would go around saying, "Look how easy it is to convert this legal firearm into an illegal assault weapon." What's the point of that?

Of course the laws won't stop someone with criminal intent from doing it. By the same token, the laws won't stop someone with criminal intent who bought a legal unlisted lower from using one in the commision of a crime if the unlisted lowers are listed as AWs.

True, and most of the previous posts on this topic are more often my own, as I have stated this elsewhere. However, it's not my argument or rationale directly - instead, I was giving a view of this, more from the angle of the DOJ or politicians like Jack Scott, Paul Koretz, Mark Leno, Jackie Goldberg, Don Perata, Antonio Villagarosa, etc., to reiterate why such people would be consumed with the importance or logic of adding these to the list of named weapons. It is their perception that the "Assault Weapon" is somehow a more powerful, faster shooting, more accurate, or more sinister rifle. Most do not logically understand how a Remington 700 shoots a .223 just as well as an AR15. So the idea of many lowers coming into CA that could potentially be made into ARs (OK, by anyone) would be a threat to their Anti-2nd Amendment distortions.

What stops (LAW ABIDING) people from converting them to illegal AWs? The law does.

And as you have noted too, these laws don't stop anyone from doing anything illegal with a fixed mag version either, such as taking one with a fixed magazine and robbing a bank. That is not the point though; the original intention of their AW laws was hopeful in keeping ALL AR type lowers out of California, by naming AR and AK class receivers, of any kind, not drastically altered with a sealed mag well. As is the whole originating blueprint for these purchases; they can't simply do that, they must clarify by name what is and is not an AW.

I question why anyone who's buying unlisted lowers would go around saying, "Look how easy it is to convert this legal firearm into an illegal assault weapon." What's the point of that?


That does seem illogical from an anti-registration view, as I share with most gun owners.

Yet, as is well known, if you have bought a handgun in CA in the past under a DROS, you own "registered" fireams. If you bought anything under Roberti-Roos, SB23, and AB50, again, you own "registered" firearms. Adding these now to the list for those owned by many of the latter makes no difference to them. AND... many that are using the comparison tactic, are pushing to get the DOJ to add these to the list before new "creative" legislation goes through the legislature that attempts to add these as named AWs, but with illogical text that states no AW features can be added. That would make little sense, and as Bill has pointed out, would be another legal fight. We don't want that and the DOJ does not want that; the DOJ can't even afford it. It would be in the DOJ's best interest, under their current tapped expense account for such legal fights, to simply add these "off-list" lowers to their list.

Those explaining the new offlist lowers are little different than listed lowers are using that as a motivator to get the DOJ to act. The French MAS 49/56 has been around this whole time, and has been available in its non-pistol grip form since the passing of SB23. It is technically, and "offlist" lower. However, there has been nothing to stop anyone from turning it into the attached:

http://www.mccannindustries.com/rifles/mas/mas.html

Just as there has been nothing stopping anyone from taking a Mini-14 and putting a flash-hider and folding stock on it. But the anti-gun crowd tends to be confused by rifles with wooden stocks instead of black polymer stocks. Blackness somehow makes them more dangerous.

.

krazek
03-24-2006, 3:34 AM
And if I miss spelled anything, Damn it Jim! I'm and Engineer, not an English teacher!!!

Darn straight. Thats why we invented spellcheck

hdcd
03-24-2006, 6:58 AM
Prior to this lower biz happening, what were your choices as a CA resident buying a legal lower in CA or in another state such as AZ or NV, etc? zero, zilch, nada...

NOW..worst case, they figure out how to ban them..you move them over the border to friends/family in AZ or NV, put all your evil features on them and you got yourself a real assault weapon that the CA DOJ can't touch. <just leave um there!>

This is a huge victory for gun owners in CA as it stands - even if we have to shoot them across the border.

Kestryll
03-24-2006, 12:08 PM
Is it just me, or are a LOT of folks getting irritable lately, compared to usual? ......


Of course people are getting more irritable, Calguns is being fragmented into cliques.

You have the 'hell-bent for lowers' crowd, you have the ones that aren't intersted in lowers, you've got one group who are taking actions that may affect everyone but they are thoughly convinced of the 'rightness' of thier action so full speed ahead, you have those who feel group 'C' is making a fatal error and must be stopped at all costs and that's just the split over the AR lowers.Who knows who is really right, time will tell.

Somewhere around mid December Calguns stopped being the warm, helpful gun family it was and grew up into mini-arf. It's sad but it is what happens with most gun forums, eventually it's no longer an extended family instead it is a collection of groups debating and decrying each other.
I've seen it on hundreds of boards for many years. I hoped that since Calguns is a smaller more localized board we would avoid this but life happens.

Roy Mustang
03-27-2006, 8:56 PM
Hopefully we can elect enough people to office to get rid of these crappy laws...

I might not like Republicans, but I hate democrats; that's why I vote Republican.

blkA4alb
03-27-2006, 9:21 PM
i agree that the lowers have divided everyone, not that i can relate to how it was before since i joined not too long ago. i think that we all need to step away from the comps a little and go put some more lead down range. it fixes everything:D. what do people think of having a little sign/shirt/something to identify yourself as a calgunner when at the range, it might help unite us:)

Justang
03-27-2006, 9:33 PM
Any AR/AK type action weapon must have a welded/epoxy magazine to be sold, imported, etc. (easy to pass)

I don't think they can do that. "type" and "series" are pretty much the same thing.

"sorry DOJ, I didn't know this Stag Arms was an AR."

Harrott. :)

C.G.
03-27-2006, 9:37 PM
Of course people are getting more irritable, Calguns is being fragmented into cliques.

You have the 'hell-bent for lowers' crowd, you have the ones that aren't intersted in lowers, you've got one group who are taking actions that may affect everyone but they are thoughly convinced of the 'rightness' of thier action so full speed ahead, you have those who feel group 'C' is making a fatal error and must be stopped at all costs and that's just the split over the AR lowers.Who knows who is really right, time will tell.

Somewhere around mid December Calguns stopped being the warm, helpful gun family it was and grew up into mini-arf. It's sad but it is what happens with most gun forums, eventually it's no longer an extended family instead it is a collection of groups debating and decrying each other.
I've seen it on hundreds of boards for many years. I hoped that since Calguns is a smaller more localized board we would avoid this but life happens.

Agreed 100%. Don't forget the "Giveme, Givemies". Once the list comes out it hopefully it will return to some where close to its previous state.

Justang
03-27-2006, 9:51 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but 2nd only (supposedly) protects us from FEDERAL infringement of our rights. States may choose to do what they wish, and because California doesn't have the 2nd in our state constitution, the state can do whatever they want to our rights.

hmm, maybe I don't remember my HS goverment classes correctly, but I thought the US Constitution was the law of the land. All states in the Union had to follow that... but beyond the Constitution they could do what they what they pleased.

am I wrong?

C.G.
03-27-2006, 11:23 PM
hmm, maybe I don't remember my HS goverment classes correctly, but I thought the US Constitution was the law of the land. All states in the Union had to follow that... but beyond the Constitution they could do what they what they pleased.

am I wrong?
Yes. California does not have the 2nd Amendment.

1911_sfca
03-28-2006, 11:46 AM
i agree that the lowers have divided everyone, not that i can relate to how it was before since i joined not too long ago.


The lowers didn't divide everyone here, only the people who recently joined for the sole purpose of discussing lowers, and the regulars who have their own opinions.

You know, there are still people on here who read OTHER forums than Legal/Political or the off-list discussions. Surprise!

Justang
03-28-2006, 3:05 PM
I've wondered if they don't list, maybe they'd try to require "approval" for all long arms sold in Cali.

I think they'll list though.

blkA4alb
03-28-2006, 3:24 PM
The lowers didn't divide everyone here, only the people who recently joined for the sole purpose of discussing lowers, and the regulars who have their own opinions.

You know, there are still people on here who read OTHER forums than Legal/Political or the off-list discussions. Surprise!
i read all the forums, and you will find posts of mine in every forum..even the most unused gun locks/safes forum. i may have joined during the lower craze for the purpose of educating myself, but im here for the long run. ive read more legal crap than i ever wouldve liked to, but hey, now i can quote direct law phrases and PC codes etc:D

FreedomIsNotFree
03-29-2006, 6:55 AM
Yes. California does not have the 2nd Amendment.

The US Consitution applies to ALL Americans, regardless of which state they live in. The 10th Amendment states clearly:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That means that if it is not spelled out in the Bill of Rights, like the 2nd Amendment, then it is reserved to the States to decide for themselves.

True, the 2nd Amendment is a contentious issue to say the least....but it applies to Californians just like it applies to everyone else. The problem, in my opinion, lies with the differing interpretations of the 2nd Amendment....that should be cleared up...but I am not holding my breath.

Surveyor
03-29-2006, 7:11 AM
I might not like Republicans, but I hate democrats; that's why I vote Republican.
I couldn't have said it any better! The republicans are very hypocritical when it comes to drug laws. But we needed a more favorable Supreme Court so Bush got my vote.

HEUER
05-10-2006, 12:46 PM
Just remember guys, the CA DOJ does not have to do any thing. Period. SB-23 prevents the lowers from becomeing "assualt rifles". They have all the time in the world.

Spoke to an proffessor of law at U.C. Hastings the other day, and he stated unless their is another 101 California, the "Assualt Rifle" issue is dead.

Their was a couple shot with an AK 47 in Oakland the other night, no public outcry to "ban" assualt rifles.

Mr. and Mrs. Liberal are not even showing up in large numbers to protest the war, and this (off-list lowers) issue has less traction.;)

I see th CA DOJ memo finally came out. By the way my cousin has over 10 years experience in litigation guys. This was no surprise. ;)

xenophobe
05-10-2006, 12:49 PM
The lowers didn't divide everyone here, only the people who recently joined for the sole purpose of discussing lowers, and the regulars who have their own opinions.

You know, there are still people on here who read OTHER forums than Legal/Political or the off-list discussions. Surprise!

I'm sorry, I'm new here, because of the lowers. I will still be here, and I do participate in the other forums too.

You're not getting rid of me that easily! lol :p

I think I'm on to something here... posted in a different thread:


That's confusing. And now, a police officer, DA or the DOJ are left with individual case-by-case determination if a magazine is fixed enough to comply with the laws? A careful read of Harrott would lead one to believe there is enough injected abiguity in the law by DOJ's new stance to either strike down recent actions by the DOJ, trigger a registration period, or possibly strike down SB-23 12276.1 definitions as not being a direct enough approach to properly identify an assault weapon.

Does anyone think that there is enough ambiguity throwin into the 12276.1 definition now, with the new memo opinion that the difficulty a normal Police Officer or Citizen defining an AW has exponentially increased?

WokMaster1
05-10-2006, 1:28 PM
First of all this whole thing is political and here is how the politics are forming into for the moment.

News...Attorney General Bill Lockyer planned to run for governor, but lowered his sights to the treasurer's race. And Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, a former two-term governor, is looking to move back into statewide office with a run for attorney general.

Now with Bill running for a new position and all polititians try to sweep stuff under the rug I am sure he doesn't want the AW thing in the news this year.

Any thing could happen but I think there is a good chance nothing happens at all. I think for now they keep up with tough language like they have been doing and nothing else but inforce the 10 round fixed mag and try to say you have to epoxy the mags and the 58 DA warning over and over.


We will see! :)


-ken


Speaking of the 58 DAs in California, has anyone gotten a feel from these DAs about what their position on this "memo". I know that there is a current litigation between Mendocino, Alameda County & The DOJ.

If the majority of these DAs are against this "memo" then DOJ's position & credibility weakens even more. I think if everyone can get letters from their respective DA stating their official position on this issue (vague so they won't prosecute), then we can put more pressure on the DOJ by alerting the media & thus pushing them to make a move.

I am just trying to offer my input. May or may not work. So let's hear it.


Can we do a roll call to see how many counties are covered here?
I'm in Contra Costa.

HEUER
05-11-2006, 12:11 PM
Heuer,

Please stop these attacks, they are below you.

Xenophobe is a really bright guy who's done a lot of great analysis and has direct DOJ contacts and knows the gun biz. And, btw, he's quite a good writer - very cogent, nicely structured posts. He's been right about everything I've seen him post.

25 year old boy wonder law professors are exactly the kinda folks wide-eyed candidates hire their first time they run for election. After they crash & burn, they realize these guys know the books but not the reality.... law school's a helluva lot different than the real world.

He has 10 years in private practice.

HEUER
05-11-2006, 12:12 PM
Hmmm, the last person I'd ever trust/rely on making a political bet is a law professor.

They might be quite bright but even those of their own profession in the world outside the ivory tower are often a bit more grounded in politics & sentiment. (And, BTW, I read awhile back somewhere - can't remember - that some of the 'big name' professors do poorly when brought into real-world court trials and do often have an especially hard time in front of juries.)

We also have 'separable interests' here: while the DOJ Firearms Div works for the AG, they have separate goals that don't necessarly have much overlap.

The DOJ folks are civil service employees who want to just do their jobs as directed. They're difficult to embarass. They may be a bit zealous in some areas because of promotion or performance bonus standings, but the AG/DAG are the ones to target for embarassment as the rest are mostly time-servers.

AWs may indeed be a politically 'dead' issue, but Lockyer hasn't entered the primary yet. He desparately does not want any negative PR and wants his apple cart to proceed directly down the road without being knocked over. I intend for there to be some potholes, at least.

The law professor was right! ;)