PDA

View Full Version : Called the DOJ and was told 'something new' may be posted


TonyNorCal
05-02-2006, 11:25 AM
*First let me throw in the disclaimer that calling the DOJ is hardly a sound way to get good, solid information as any of you who have called through this lower saga well know. It's a bit of a crap shoot. So with that in mind take this for what it's worth.*

So the memo is gone?

Ok then, so the person there I trust most for good information is out today. So I just asked my question of the person manning the phone. She took my number in order to try and get an answer (which is at least a good thing) and just called back. She says the memo 'may' be replaced by something else at the end of the week or early next. Let me say may again. When pressed for additional details she had none.

That is all.

thmpr
05-02-2006, 11:31 AM
Most definately a cat and mouse game from here on.... Or Should I say since December 2005 :rolleyes:

Thanks Tony for the heads up!

ohsmily
05-02-2006, 11:32 AM
Most definately a cat and mouse game from here on.... Or Should I say since December 2005 :rolleyes:

Thanks Tony for the heads up!

Definitely.

PanzerAce
05-02-2006, 12:24 PM
Most definately a cat and mouse game from here on.... Or Should I say since December 2005 :rolleyes:

Thanks Tony for the heads up!

agreed. Of course, it has been hard to figure who the cat and who the mouse have been...

grammaton76
05-02-2006, 1:34 PM
Well, they may have figured out the memo is helping sell AR's.

I ran into a guy at the range yesterday...

Him: "Oh yeah, I heard about the AR's being legal now."
Me: "Oh? Are you a Calguns member?"
Him: "Calguns? Never heard of it... I was just looking at the Department of Justice website and noticed they said we could have them."
Me: "Oh, really? Interesting. Want a flier?"
Him: "Nah, I already know they're legal."
Me: "Right, but do you know who you can call to order one here in San Diego?"
Him: "You can get them locally?!?" - I thought he was gonna faint.

He happily took a flier, as did another couple folks in the lobby. :)

kenc9
05-02-2006, 1:49 PM
What IF the new memo says;

Memo conserning the AR/AK series assault weapons.

It is the policy of the DOJ that strict enforcement of any new illegal assault weapons breaking any existing laws that are configured in such a way as to be considered an assault weapon.

While current law prohibits any assault weapon by name or configuration no further regulation is needed at this time.

Further it is the Departments view that the AR/AK series weapons shall have the magazine made permanant to the receiver and any temporary/non-permanant conversions are not conforming to DOJ policy.

While the Magazine lock "SPORTING CONVERSION" style is deemed exceptable and within the Departments policy they must be silver soldered in place to conform.

DOJ

tenpercentfirearms
05-02-2006, 1:52 PM
It won't. That doesn't make any sense. As bwiese has stated in other threads, they can't change their definition of fixed magazine at will. This will never happen as it has so many holes in it that it is actually quite funny.

Not to mention we get the anti-gunners onto how Bill Lockyer isn't doing his job and we keep up the pressure.

The list is coming, the list is coming.

TKo_Productions
05-02-2006, 1:52 PM
What IF the new memo says;

Memo conserning th AR/AK assault series weapons.

It is the policy of the DOJ that strict enforcement of any new illegal assault weapons breaking any existing laws that are configured in such a way as to be considered an assault weapon.

While current law prohibits any assault weapon by name or configuration no further regulation is needed at this time.

Further it is the Departments view that the AR/AK series weapons shall have the magazine made permanant to the receiver and any temporary/non-permanant conversions are not conforming to DOJ policy.

While the Magazine lock "SPORTING CONVERSION" style is deemed exceptable and within the Departments policy they must be silver soldered in place to conform.

DOJ

+1 This is what I'm anticipating. And my gut tells me that they will leave it at that rather than listing them.

TKo_Productions
05-02-2006, 1:54 PM
It won't. That doesn't make any sense. As bwiese has stated in other threads, they can't change their definition of fixed magazine at will. This will never happen as it has so many holes in it that it is actually quite funny.

Not to mention we get the anti-gunners onto how Bill Lockyer isn't doing his job and we keep up the pressure.

The list is coming, the list is coming.

Many said that a 4th category wasn't possible, and that an admonishment of rights on the registration card wasn't possible, in yet the Feb. 1st memo said just that.

It may not be "possible" but it doesn't mean that the DOJ won't push their luck and try it anyway.

PanzerAce
05-02-2006, 1:56 PM
Many said that a 4th category wasn't possible, and that an admonishment of rights on the registration card wasn't possible, in yet the Feb. 1st memo said just that.

It may not be "possible" but it doesn't mean that the DOJ won't push their luck and try it anyway.

the Feb 1 memo has no legal standing. Also, you notice that they havent gone ahead with the 4th cat yet?

crzpete
05-02-2006, 1:57 PM
Well, they may have figured out the memo is helping sell AR's.

I ran into a guy at the range yesterday...

Him: "Oh yeah, I heard about the AR's being legal now."
Me: "Oh? Are you a Calguns member?"
Him: "Calguns? Never heard of it... I was just looking at the Department of Justice website and noticed they said we could have them."
Me: "Oh, really? Interesting. Want a flier?"
Him: "Nah, I already know they're legal."
Me: "Right, but do you know who you can call to order one here in San Diego?"
Him: "You can get them locally?!?" - I thought he was gonna faint.

He happily took a flier, as did another couple folks in the lobby. :)

I’ve seen the flyer around but would like to save one, do you have one in PDF file or can you post. Thanks

TKo_Productions
05-02-2006, 1:59 PM
the Feb 1 memo has no legal standing. Also, you notice that they havent gone ahead with the 4th cat yet?

You're missing my point.

Regardless of whether or not they fulfill what they set out to, they can still publish a memo stating exactly what KenC9 laid out.

They'll leave it at that, and wait for a challenge (if one ever comes).

When talking about the CaDOJ, I don't think we should be thinking in terms of what is or isn't possible. They've already demonstrated their incompetence.

tenpercentfirearms
05-02-2006, 2:00 PM
So tell us where the February 1st memo is now? No one said a catagory 4 wasn't possible until after they posted a memo on it and then it was shot full of holes faster than a yellow Honda Metro scooter on Highway 99. That memo is now missing in action.

Come on ladies and gentleman. The DOJ is not this great monster that runs around popping scooter tires in the night or stealing black rifles from little kids. They have rules and regulations they have to follow. They know they have very competent lawyers standing by to take this baby on as soon as they try something stupid. Bill Lockyer does not need this kind of attention right before an election. They have to follow the rules. Sure I will give you I didn't see catagory 4 coming, so they might be onto something new. However, screwing with the definition of a magazine isn't it. At this point, Lockyer reduces the most damage by doing his job and listing the lowers. He only has until January and then he is done and then the continual import/list/import/list game can be done by someone new and it can be their headache.

Regardless of whether or not they fulfill what they set out to, they can still publish a memo stating exactly what Kenc9 laid out.They could also post a memo that says all bolt action rifles are illegal. What is your point? They are not going to waste their time and money on something they know is pointless and only going to cause them legal problems. The flood gates are open, as you might have noticed, they are no longer trying to stop the little holes with memos and scare tactics. They are being quiet because they know it is too late.

The list is coming, the list is coming.

grammaton76
05-02-2006, 2:05 PM
I’ve seen the flyer around but would like to save one, do you have one in PDF file or can you post. Thanks

Look in my signature. :p

kenc9
05-02-2006, 2:07 PM
Many said that a 4th category wasn't possible, and that an admonishment of rights on the registration card wasn't possible, in yet the Feb. 1st memo said just that.

It may not be "possible" but it doesn't mean that the DOJ won't push their luck and try it anyway.

I'll say again...This is an election year...They put out a memo before they had their ducks in a row!

Now it seems they have taken back the memo. They see the winds are not blowing in a favorable direction so they may be left redirecting their talk.

The thing that is done the least on an election year are acts!
The things done most are words! I think words are heading our way!

Time will tell...But it feels like something may be happening. That memo being pulled on day 2 after .50 Reg with no new memo in place or action spells last minute planning because of changes in plans.

-ken

PanzerAce
05-02-2006, 2:09 PM
So tell us where the February 1st memo is now? No one said a catagory 4 wasn't possible until after they posted a memo on it and then it was shot full of holes faster than a yellow Honda Metro scooter on Highway 99. That memo is now missing in action.

wait, you mean you are lying on the side of the road shot full of holes? If you near Merced, drag yourself to the UC so I can take that rifle off your hands eh? ;)

glen avon
05-02-2006, 2:13 PM
...they can't change their definition of fixed magazine at will....

all they have to do is give notice and accept comments. they still get to make and change the rules.

TKo_Productions
05-02-2006, 2:13 PM
They know they have very competent lawyers standing by to take this baby on as soon as they try something stupid.

If they have very competent lawyers, then how did the Feb. 1st memo, which was full of holes, make it out of the department? We all know that it doesn't carry any weight, and that it was revised multiple times.

Bill Lockyer does not need this kind of attention right before an election.

Precisely why he's trying to keep all this hush hush until he's left office. The only action they've taken is to stall, and I see that continuing.

He only has until January and then he is done and then the continual import/list/import/list game can be done by someone new and it can be their headache.

Further supporting my contention that he's stalling until he's out of office. The'll continue to publish memo after memo, declaring their "interpretation."

They could also post a memo that says all bolt action rifles are illegal. What is your point?

That analogy is a little facetious don't you think? Bolt action rifles being deemed illegal is a little more clear cut/black-and-white, when compared to the issue at hand. We're treading on unfound land with these off-list lowers and everyone (including the CaDOJ) is unsure. Not to mention that if they declared bolt action rifles illegal you'd have a whole bunch of pissed off hunters (folks who don't normally support the right to own AWs) and the NRA involved.

tenpercentfirearms
05-02-2006, 2:14 PM
wait, you mean you are lying on the side of the road shot full of holes? If you near Merced, drag yourself to the UC so I can take that rifle off your hands eh? I am the exception. Paul Revere was never captured and they will never capture me either!

The list is coming, the list is coming.

jemaddux
05-02-2006, 2:16 PM
I'll say again...This is an election year...They put out a memo before they had their ducks in a row!

Now it seems they have taken back the memo. They see the winds are not blowing in a favorable direction so they may be left redirecting their talk.

The thing that is done the least on an election year are acts!
The things done most are words! I think words are heading our way!

Time will tell...But it feels like something may be happening. That memo being pulled on day 2 after .50 Reg with no new memo in place or action spells last minute planning because of changes in plans.

-ken

It can be words, it can be actions, its all just a guessing came at this point in time. I just always think about years ago when I joined the Army, signed a contract stating my MOS. Next thing I know I am told that is no longer my MOS and I will be doing this job. JAG stated it wasn't really legal buy really try fighting it when they have unlimited resources. You can say all you want this and that can't happen but it does every day, look at your pay check and how much on taxes are taken out. It will all be known in the next couple days what is going to happen. I hope it will be for the good of us all and our new toys, if not I will still have fun with a fixed ten round.:)

MC Sweatshop
05-02-2006, 2:17 PM
I really hope the list isn't coming. :(

adamsreeftank
05-02-2006, 2:21 PM
I really hope the list isn't coming. :(


INFIDEL !!!

floorance
05-02-2006, 2:36 PM
I really hope the list isn't coming. :(


My Pre-Ban Mags beg to differ...they can't wait to finally be of some use (and no...they dont want to find a home in a Su16) :D

PanzerAce
05-02-2006, 2:37 PM
My Pre-Ban Mags beg to differ...they can't wait to finally be of some use (and no...they dont want to find a home in a Su16) :D

Yah, pre ban AR mags in a Su-16 is like kissing your sister...

grammaton76
05-02-2006, 2:38 PM
My Pre-Ban Mags beg to differ...they can't wait to finally be of some use (and no...they dont want to find a home in a Su16) :D

Mine are quite at home in my SRB-equipped AR, thank you very much. :p

rssslvr
05-02-2006, 2:40 PM
Mine are quite at home in my SRB-equipped AR, thank you very much. :p
mine are too:D

caduckgunner
05-02-2006, 2:41 PM
Yah, pre ban AR mags in a Su-16 is like kissing your sister...


But what if your sister is hot? :eek:

glen avon
05-02-2006, 2:44 PM
that is dicussed over at http://www.alabamaguns.com

PanzerAce
05-02-2006, 2:47 PM
But what if your sister is hot? :eek:

well, if your sister is hot, I would be glad to kiss her :D

Juniper Kid
05-02-2006, 3:09 PM
I'm happy :P

socal57chevy
05-02-2006, 3:16 PM
So what if they do list. California will be flooded with lowers offered by other companies and with new model numbers. The "list" would require near constant updating. I see new leg. as their only way out of this mess. I would rather stay offlist myself with with the mighty state of California not regulating when and where I may do what with my rifle. :cool:

6172crew
05-02-2006, 3:26 PM
Then why not just buy a Vulcan or FAB10? Those wont ever be listed and youy wont have to worry about the list.:rolleyes:

So what if they do list. California will be flooded with lowers offered by other companies and with new model numbers. The "list" would require near constant updating. I see new leg. as their only way out of this mess. I would rather stay offlist myself with with the mighty state of California not regulating when and where I may do what with my rifle. :cool:

socal57chevy
05-02-2006, 3:35 PM
Then why not just buy a Vulcan or FAB10? Those wont ever be listed and youy wont have to worry about the list.:rolleyes:
I own property in Missouri where it is entirely legal to own, transport and use a fully functional AR type rifle without registration of any kind.

kenc9
05-02-2006, 3:37 PM
It won't matter because they will tell us...OK...Everything is different now but much like it was before!

I'll bet the next memo is as clear as dirty water! But the one after that!
That will be even better! :)

I don't recall but has the DOJ forewarned us about anything they didn't legally have to before? Seems kinda weird they would tell us about future actions.

-ken

socal57chevy
05-02-2006, 3:44 PM
The new memo will read
"We give up. You win. There is no longer an assualt weapons ban as the state of California has determined that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, only weapons used in assault as defined by California penal code."

:D

PanzerAce
05-02-2006, 3:47 PM
The new memo will read
"We give up. You win. There is no longer an assualt weapons ban as the state of California has determined that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, only weapons used in assault as defined by California penal code."

:D

*checks DOJ site*

Damnit, you tricked me! :p

seriously though, if SB-23 and RR were repealed, along with AB-50, I would be SO DAMNED HAPPY (and, very quickly, so damned broke :D)

grammaton76
05-02-2006, 3:52 PM
*checks DOJ site*

Damnit, you tricked me! :p

seriously though, if SB-23 and RR were repealed, along with AB-50, I would be SO DAMNED HAPPY (and, very quickly, so damned broke :D)

I wouldn't go broke - in fact, I'd spend quite a bit less than I'm presently spending.

I would, however, be very quickly broke if they said they were only repealing it for a month or so... ;)

PanzerAce
05-02-2006, 3:55 PM
I wouldn't go broke - in fact, I'd spend quite a bit less than I'm presently spending.

I would, however, be very quickly broke if they said they were only repealing it for a month or so... ;)

well, Im a college student, and since I could barely afford to both build my two ARs, my AK, and buy a .50, I WOULD go broke (plus, I would buy a HK94 off a guy I go shooting with)

grammaton76
05-02-2006, 4:04 PM
well, Im a college student, and since I could barely afford to both build my two ARs, my AK, and buy a .50, I WOULD go broke (plus, I would buy a HK94 off a guy I go shooting with)

Eh, what I'm saying is that the urgency wouldn't be there. If we know we can buy them whenever we want, we'll do so at a rate which our wallets are at least moderately happy with. At the moment, I believe the majority of us are making our wallets unhappy due to the urgency of getting what we want before it's banned.

HKdude
05-02-2006, 4:54 PM
The new memo will read
"We give up. You win. There is no longer an assualt weapons ban as the state of California has determined that there is no such thing as an assault weapon, only weapons used in assault as defined by California penal code."

:D

If that happens, I might have to find a job:D

Steve

gh429
05-02-2006, 5:06 PM
What is to stop the DOJ from changing the definition of detachable magazine as part of its administrative authority?

Something to the effect of "It is the opinion of the California DOJ that a fixed magazine that is not otherwise welded or epoxied to the frame of the rifle does not meet the requirements blah blah blah... And anyone doing so would be GUILTY of possessing or causing to manufacture an assault weapon".

AKA, as I think Bweiss said, underground rule making. This might not fly (legally speaking) in the long-term, but in the short-term I sure as hell am not going to take my rifle out anywhere, and this would immediately hit the brakes on any importation of non "DOJ approved" AR-series rifles.

This is potentially a win-win scenario for the DOJ as it buys them what they need most (time) as I believe the process to overturn with the OAL may take months, unless there is another process which I am not aware of.

A couple of months ago, my suggestion that the DOJ may try to change the definition of detachable mag to resolve this situation was pretty much shotdown, but I'm still thinking they will go this route...

Charliegone
05-02-2006, 5:21 PM
Oh, god please let them list so I can finally put a pistol grip on that ITM arms receiver!!:D

Oh yeah on a side note, my armory 5.45 receiver should be here this week.:D

TacFan
05-02-2006, 5:46 PM
the DOJ is coming. the DOJ is coming :eek:

ohsmily
05-02-2006, 6:28 PM
ALL YOUR BASES ARE BELONG TO US!


:D

I think it is "All your base are belong to us"....:D (but I could be wrong).

PIRATE14
05-02-2006, 6:52 PM
What is to stop the DOJ from changing the definition of detachable magazine as part of its administrative authority?

Something to the effect of "It is the opinion of the California DOJ that a fixed magazine that is not otherwise welded or epoxied to the frame of the rifle does not meet the requirements blah blah blah... And anyone doing so would be GUILTY of possessing or causing to manufacture an assault weapon".

AKA, as I think Bweiss said, underground rule making. This might not fly (legally speaking) in the long-term, but in the short-term I sure as hell am not going to take my rifle out anywhere, and this would immediately hit the brakes on any importation of non "DOJ approved" AR-series rifles.

This is potentially a win-win scenario for the DOJ as it buys them what they need most (time) as I believe the process to overturn with the OAL may take months, unless there is another process which I am not aware of.

A couple of months ago, my suggestion that the DOJ may try to change the definition of detachable mag to resolve this situation was pretty much shotdown, but I'm still thinking they will go this route...

They couldn't stop importation by a simple detachable mag definition.....that would only hinder the builds......but you just get a SRB, no pistol grip, and have drop free 10 rd or 30rd if u bought some way back when.....

swift
05-02-2006, 7:07 PM
What is to stop the DOJ from changing the definition of detachable magazine as part of its administrative authority?

Something to the effect of "It is the opinion of the California DOJ that a fixed magazine that is not otherwise welded or epoxied to the frame of the rifle does not meet the requirements blah blah blah... And anyone doing so would be GUILTY of possessing or causing to manufacture an assault weapon".

AKA, as I think Bweiss said, underground rule making. This might not fly (legally speaking) in the long-term, but in the short-term I sure as hell am not going to take my rifle out anywhere, and this would immediately hit the brakes on any importation of non "DOJ approved" AR-series rifles.

This is potentially a win-win scenario for the DOJ as it buys them what they need most (time) as I believe the process to overturn with the OAL may take months, unless there is another process which I am not aware of.

A couple of months ago, my suggestion that the DOJ may try to change the definition of detachable mag to resolve this situation was pretty much shotdown, but I'm still thinking they will go this route...

Not clear on this: can the DOJ simply state that the mag must be epoxied to the lower or would they require a change to the law?

Also, they may have removed the feb 1 memo to discourage people like me from buying OLL because their memo stated, in effect, that we could buy these legally as long as we complied with the current law.

If that memo wasn't posted, I would never have purchased an OLL. I'm sure there are many people like me.


Thankyou.

PanzerAce
05-02-2006, 7:08 PM
:D

I think it is "All your base are belong to us"....:D (but I could be wrong).

Somebody set us up the bomb!

sierratangofoxtrotunion
05-02-2006, 10:11 PM
Somebody set up us the bomb!
What you say!

Matt C
05-02-2006, 10:27 PM
Narrator: In A.D. 2005, war was beginning.

Lockyer: What happen ?
Iggy: Somebody set up us the offlist.
Allison: We get letter.
Lockyer: What !
DOJ Secret Operative: Main internet turn on.
Lockyer: It's you !!
Calguns: How are you gentlemen !!
Calguns: All your assault weapon are belong to us.
Calguns: You are on the way to destruction.
Lockyer: What you say !!
Calguns: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Calguns: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
Iggy: General !!
Lockyer: Take off every 'Memo' !!
Lockyer: You know what you doing.
Lockyer: Move 'Memo'.
Lockyer: For great justice.

DSA_FAL
05-02-2006, 10:30 PM
Ha, that's awesome!:D

Narrator: In A.D. 2005, war was beginning.

Lockyer: What happen ?
Iggy: Somebody set up us the offlist.
Allison: We get letter.
Lockyer: What !
DOJ Secret Operative: Main internet turn on.
Lockyer: It's you !!
Calguns: How are you gentlemen !!
Calguns: All your assault weapon are belong to us.
Calguns: You are on the way to destruction.
Lockyer: What you say !!
Calguns: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Calguns: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
Iggy: General !!
Lockyer: Take off every 'Memo' !!
Lockyer: You know what you doing.
Lockyer: Move 'Memo'.
Lockyer: For great justice.

hoffmang
05-02-2006, 11:39 PM
Should DOJ go the "redefine a fixed magazine route" there will be a comment period. During that comment period, this group should come up with comments that show that DOJ's definition would sweep in guns that shouldn't be swept in and otherwise attack that definition. California firearms attorneys, likely the NRA, and hopefully a manufacturer or two will also submit comments. At the end of that process DOJ may or may not get a new definition to stick. If there is something legally infirm about that definition, it may be time for us all to hit the hip for a legal challenge fund, but I tend to doubt we'll get there.

Either way, if that's the strategy, we'll have plenty of notice to stock up on lowers.

BTW: My M1A1/M14 means I haven't messed around with a Garand fixed mag much. Can that be removed without cutting or torching?

ke6guj
05-03-2006, 12:27 AM
Should DOJ go the "redefine a fixed magazine route" there will be a comment period. During that comment period, this group should come up with comments that show that DOJ's definition would sweep in guns that shouldn't be swept in and otherwise attack that definition. California firearms attorneys, likely the NRA, and hopefully a manufacturer or two will also submit comments. At the end of that process DOJ may or may not get a new definition to stick. If there is something legally infirm about that definition, it may be time for us all to hit the hip for a legal challenge fund, but I tend to doubt we'll get there.


I remember reading about an earlier comment period while they attempted to define the earlier AW laws. There was discussion on "fixed magazine" where they had to do the "require a tool" to prevent some rifles from being declared AW's. Something came to mind when I read that, what rifles were they trying to keep legal? Also, the earlier "fixed magazine" discussion/rulings should be able to used to fight any newer "fixed magazine" rulings.

shopkeep
05-03-2006, 1:03 AM
They won't try to redifine the detachable magazine in a memo or through registration. The DOJ will move forward with the same registration process as before except this time a letter of warning will come back with the registration papers. They will then attempt to enforce "Category 4" and new definitions of "Fixed mags" in various court rooms and try to create policy through case law.

Ford8N
05-03-2006, 5:21 AM
I remember reading about an earlier comment period while they attempted to define the earlier AW laws. There was discussion on "fixed magazine" where they had to do the "require a tool" to prevent some rifles from being declared AW's. Something came to mind when I read that, what rifles were they trying to keep legal? Also, the earlier "fixed magazine" discussion/rulings should be able to used to fight any newer "fixed magazine" rulings.


They were trying not to sweep up Elmer Fudd's Remington 742 in with the "evil, nasty, black" rifles. Kind of hard to do because we know a semi auto is a semi auto is a semi auto. Also, I remember they originally wanted to get the Mini 14, M1 carbine and the dreadful SKS.

glen avon
05-03-2006, 7:10 AM
...Something came to mind when I read that, what rifles were they trying to keep legal?

maybe they were throwing us a bone? trying not to make it any worse than it has to be?

Also, the earlier "fixed magazine" discussion/rulings should be able to used to fight any newer "fixed magazine" rulings.

please explain

glen avon
05-03-2006, 7:12 AM
...AKA, as I think Bweiss said, underground rule making. This might not fly (legally speaking) in the long-term, but in the short-term I sure as hell am not going to take my rifle out anywhere, and this would immediately hit the brakes on any importation of non "DOJ approved" AR-series rifles....

please explain how that is "underground rule making." Bill did not say that it was.

glen avon
05-03-2006, 7:17 AM
Not clear on this: can the DOJ simply state that the mag must be epoxied to the lower or would they require a change to the law?

yes, I think that is within their legislative grant of rulemaking authority. they only need to follow the cotrrect administrative procedures (notice and comment) and they can change the rules. that id their job. it is not underground, submarine, nefarious, evil, anti, nor the breaking of the first seal (as others would have us believe). it is just refining rules to reflect reality. DOJ is supposed to be able to do that, and relatively quickly, because the legislature cannot move with sufficient alacrity or detail to effectuate useful rules.

jmlivingston
05-03-2006, 7:24 AM
yes, I think that is within their legislative grant of rulemaking authority. they only need to follow the cotrrect administrative procedures (notice and comment) and they can change the rules. that id their job. it is not underground, submarine, nefarious, evil, anti, nor the breaking of the first seal (as others would have us believe). it is just refining rules to reflect reality. DOJ is supposed to be able to do that, and relatively quickly, because the legislature cannot move with sufficient alacrity or detail to effectuate useful rules.

If it was further refinement of existing law I might agree with you, but since the statuate specifically defines the use of a tool in regards to detachment I don't think they can do so in this case.

John

bwiese
05-03-2006, 7:33 AM
The problem with changing the definintion of detachable magazine (which could well thus affect compliance of fixed magazines) is that the redefinition could end up triggering a 12276.1 definition of assault weapon.

Since these weapons exist already, and this would be done by DOJ, they would in effect have 'manufactured' an assault weapon by crossing the AW boundary themselves just like if they listed it as a banned gun by make/model!

So there is a good chance their redefinition of detachable magazine could trigger a mandatory registration period.

I'll have to reread 12276.5 and 12285 etc this weekend....

bwiese
05-03-2006, 7:37 AM
If it was further refinement of existing law I might agree with you, but since the statuate specifically defines the use of a tool in regards to detachment I don't think they can do so in this case.


No, the statute does NOT define detachable magazine and tool use, etc. The only statutory definition is the 12276.1 generic by-features definition of assault weapon.

Regulatory law is written by DOJ and they are allowed to define, and redefine, terms. They can redefine terms but must follow Admin Procedures Act to do so and open comment period, timeline, etc.

What they can't do is do it immediately. Comments by 'stakeholders' will be relevant: changes to this definition could end up declaring thousands of existing rifles as assault weapons. Because of this side effect, I think they'd have to open a reg period: there is no regulatory authority to force people to change something that became an AWs to a non-AW configuration if these folks had legally acquired/built a firearm in a legal form originally.

kenc9
05-03-2006, 8:16 AM
No, the statute does NOT define detachable magazine and tool use, etc. The only statutory definition is the 12276.1 generic by-features definition of assault weapon.

Regulatory law is written by DOJ and they are allowed to define, and redefine, terms. They can redefine terms but must follow Admin Procedures Act to do so and open comment period, timeline, etc.

What they can't do is do it immediately. Comments by 'stakeholders' will be relevant: changes to this definition could end up declaring thousands of existing rifles as assault weapons. Because of this side effect, I think they'd have to open a reg period: there is no regulatory authority to force people to change something that became an AWs to a non-AW configuration if these folks had legally acquired/built a firearm in a legal form originally.

It seems to me that is exactly what this defination says a bullet is not a tool.

Section 978.20 Definitions of Terms Used to Identify Assault Weapons
Section 978.20 further defines terms used in Penal Code section 12276.1 to describe the characteristics that identify a firearm as an assault weapon. The six terms (Section 978.20 (a-f)) initially identified in this section are addressed separately relative to the revisions made to each of the original definitions proposed by the Department and subsequently noticed and modified.
978.20(a) Detachable Magazine
The proposed definition as originally noticed to the public defined a detachable magazine as "any magazine that can be readily removed without the use of tools." During the initial public comment period (December 31, 1999 through February 28, 2000), comments were received that caused the Department to make revisions to the definition. Comments expressed concern about the use of the term "magazine," which is often erroneously used to describe clips that are used to load ammunition into a fixed magazine. Recognizing that to be true, the Department changed the word "magazine" to the statutory term "ammunition feeding device" (PC section 12276.1(c)(1)). The Department also added the phrase "without disassembly of the firearm action" as a result of public comment stating that there are firearms with fixed magazines that can be field stripped (disassembled in the field) without using any tools (such as the M1 Garand). Including those firearms in the definition of a "detachable magazine" would have been inconsistent with the legislative intent of the statute. Several comments were made that claimed that an assault weapon pursuant to PC section 12276 has a detachable magazine requiring the use of a bullet tip or cartridge to remove it from the firearm. The comments claimed that if a bullet or ammunition cartridge were to be considered a tool, these types of firearms statutorily defined as assault weapons would not meet the definition of having a detachable magazine. For that reason the Department added "For the purpose of this definition, a bullet or ammunition cartridge is not a tool."
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/fsor.htm#978-20

glen avon
05-03-2006, 8:29 AM
and further down in that same paragraph it reads:

"Comments also claimed that a bullet or ammunition cartridge should be considered a tool because the type of firearm that utilizes a bullet or ammunition cartridge to release the magazine is a firearm with a fixed magazine, clearly not intended by the Legislature to be categorized as an assault weapon. The Department further researched the claims and confirmed that it is necessary to identify a bullet or ammunition cartridge as a tool to allow certain firearms with fixed magazines to remain fixed by definition. The definition was again revised to read "detachable magazine means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor the use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine." This second revision prompted a second 15-day comment period (July 12 through July 31, 2000). None of the comments received during the second 15-day comment period warranted additional revisions to the definition."

everybody should realize from the comments and actions referenced above that DOJ was being reasonable and not sticking it to us. they do not deserve the badmouthing and demonizing they have received on this board.

jemaddux
05-03-2006, 8:35 AM
This is what is posted as of right now regarding this:

Article 2. Definitions of Terms Used to Identify Assault Weapons
978.20 Definitions
The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant
to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) “detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be
removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action
nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is
considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked
ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load
cartridges into the magazine.

So the way I am and have understood is the a bullet is considered a tool to remove the magazine. Now am I reading something wrong or has all this changed also?

kenc9
05-03-2006, 8:38 AM
and further down in that same paragraph it reads:

"Comments also claimed that a bullet or ammunition cartridge should be considered a tool because the type of firearm that utilizes a bullet or ammunition cartridge to release the magazine is a firearm with a fixed magazine, clearly not intended by the Legislature to be categorized as an assault weapon. The Department further researched the claims and confirmed that it is necessary to identify a bullet or ammunition cartridge as a tool to allow certain firearms with fixed magazines to remain fixed by definition. The definition was again revised to read "detachable magazine means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor the use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine." This second revision prompted a second 15-day comment period (July 12 through July 31, 2000). None of the comments received during the second 15-day comment period warranted additional revisions to the definition."

everybody should realize from the comments and actions referenced above that DOJ was being reasonable and not sticking it to us. they do not deserve the badmouthing and demonizing they have received on this board.

You are right! I didn't read the third change they made. So they will need to change this and it may be a tough job as this time it took several tries to get it right!

As far as being reasonable, they changed these rulings of including those firearms in the definition of a "detachable magazine" would have been inconsistent with the legislative intent of the statute as it states in the writing there.

-ken

bwiese
05-03-2006, 9:19 AM
OK guys, let's clarify...

I said I'd acquired information from a reliable source that a DOJ redefinition of 'detachable mag' was being examined. Whether it or any other DOJ activity really happens is up in the air.

But IT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, and they can't do it off-the-cuff. They can do it, however, as they wrote the original definition. They must obey APA administrative procedures in changing regulations, however - this stuff just won't happen tomorrow, nor can they claim it as 'emergency regulation'.

I especially note that the possibly nice thing about this is that if any proposed changes to 978.20(a) 'detachable mag' definition occur (and end up redefining what is a fixed magazine) is that there's already a batch of many thousands of assembled, operational, currently-legal fixed magazine rifles in existence.

The redefinition of 978.20(a) could end up declaring these rifles as assault weapons by DOJ fiat.

There is no provision in the AW law to surrender, seize, render safe, or force modification thereof, etc. any weapons that were legally owned and which crossed the boundary into AW status by DOJ activity. I think DOJ actions such as these would force declaration/registration as AWs.

[Note: The S&W/Walther P22 situation is much different as those guns were illegally shipped and sold as assault weapons.

shopkeep
05-03-2006, 9:27 AM
OK guys, let's clarify...

I said I'd acquired information from a reliable source that a DOJ redefinition of 'detachable mag' was being examined. Whether it or any other DOJ activity really happens is up in the air.

But IT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, and they can't do it off-the-cuff. They can do it, however, as they wrote the original definition. They must obey APA administrative procedures in changing regulations, however - this stuff just won't happen tomorrow, nor can they claim it as 'emergency regulation'.

I especially note that the possibly nice thing about this is that if any proposed changes to 978.20(a) 'detachable mag' definition occur (and end up redefining what is a fixed magazine) is that there's already a batch of many thousands of assembled, operational, currently-legal fixed magazine rifles in existence.

The redefinition of 978.20(a) could end up declaring these rifles as assault weapons by DOJ fiat.

There is no provision in the AW law to surrender, seize, render safe, or force modification thereof, etc. any weapons that were legally owned and which crossed the boundary into AW status by DOJ activity. I think DOJ actions such as these would force declaration/registration as AWs.

[size=1]Note: The S&W/Walther P22 situation is much different as those guns were illegally shipped and sold as assault weapons.]

If they were to change the definition of a fixed magazine then most designs such as the SKS would become assault weapons. Do such new registrations take place as Category 3 or Category 4? Maybe they're going to say that Category 4 is some new blanket classification of fixed mag rifles that have to be registered much as category 3 were.

Regardless of what is happening here I can't help but think the DOJ is creating new legislation from within its department. While it may be lawful for them to change the definition of a fixed magazine this would open a HUGE can of worms.

Overall I guess all I can conclude is simply "I told you so". They pass legislation saying what an "assault weapon" is and then just keep making the criteria more strict... sounds kinda like AB-15 eh?

bwiese
05-03-2006, 9:52 AM
If they were to change the definition of a fixed magazine then most designs such as the SKS would become assault weapons.

Good catch, but there is no definition of fixed magazine. (They conceivably could add one, but they just define detachable magazine to clarify the 12276.1 usage in the generic definitions of assault weapons.)

Our fixed mags are legal because they are described by the converse of the 978.20(a) definition of detachable mag.

They might be willing to futz with this definition and specifically exempt SKSes or rifles over a certain age. Or, the definition could be constrained to relationship w/pistol grip.

They do have a special hard-on for AR/AK guns (Perata supposedly did SB23 because he was infuriated with - specifically - the Colt Sporter.)

I do not think the DOJ is yet aware that many folks have legal off-list detachable mag ARs that are running without pistol grips. When they become aware of that, they might change their mind as to the efficacy of redefining term 'detachable mag'.

And I am indeed sure some at the DOJ would like to bring SKSes under its control. Antigunners all over the country hate SKSes because they are cheap, plentiful, reliable, and use cheap ammunition. This would, in fact be a possible left-handed way of getting SKSes declared as AWs. The SKS has even made the center column of the Wall St. Journal in the mid/late 1990s.

Do such new registrations take place as Category 3 or Category 4?


Well, registrations never take place as anything, really. You don't check off a box. The 2000 reg period essentially let you reg anything if it could or would have evil features. The 1/1/01-1/22/01 "Kasler gap" allowed reg of ARs and AKs if _you_ perceived them to be 'series' members.

Maybe they're going to say that Category 4 is some new blanket classification of fixed mag rifles that have to be registered much as category 3 were.

I think Cat 4 may be dead.

It appears now what they are struggling to do is restrict features combos and yet not have things declared as AWs.

I can't help but think the DOJ is creating new legislation from within its department. While it may be lawful for them to change the definition of a fixed magazine this would open a HUGE can of worms.

Just from the fixed-mag off-list ARs alone that are already legal, operational rifles, any change that results in existing fixed mags being a no-no triggers them being an assault weapon. And they'd have to open a reg period.

glen avon
05-03-2006, 9:59 AM
...I didn't read the third change they made. So they will need to change this and it may be a tough job as this time it took several tries to get it right!

a very common mistake and a perfect exaple of how complicated and difficult it is to read legislation, let alone write good legislation and/or rules.

kenc9
05-03-2006, 10:01 AM
Don't get too excited about this Mag thing yet, they still need those firearms in the definition of a "detachable magazine" be inconsistent with the legislative intent of the statute.

DOJ has a hard job here it would seem, every choice has major draw backs and/or problems.

1) They LIST they have thousands of new ASSAULT WEAPONS and new ones as new models pop up.

2)They create a new Cat. 4 either based on make and model and/or based on new Mag. definition they may not be on solid legal ground but they won't have new AW's with unlocked mags.

I think they will tweak the existing law and not go the "LIST" method as this would be an unending job and never reach 100% success.

I think this is why the memo was pulled and the new memo may shed some light on their new direction but I'll bet the new path will be mostly based on magazine redefinations with less concern if any on what the rifle is.

-ken

stator
05-03-2006, 8:05 PM
Hey, Mr. RHCS please meet Mr. RLCS... roster of long-gun certified for sale to end the problem with listing mfg/models. It seems like the only question appears to be whether we'll get a round 2 in. Source is a politican. When I get more info, I will post. LSC will fix the AW loophole cleanly as those favoring it believe so. I have to admit that as I understand it, it will.

Ford8N
05-04-2006, 10:08 AM
Hey, Mr. RHCS please meet Mr. RLCS... roster of long-gun certified for sale to end the problem with listing mfg/models. It seems like the only question appears to be whether we'll get a round 2 in. Source is a politican. When I get more info, I will post. LSC will fix the AW loophole cleanly as those favoring it believe so. I have to admit that as I understand it, it will.

:confused:

6172crew
05-04-2006, 10:17 AM
:confused:

I think he is saying they are going to try to do the same thing as they did with handguns which is make it im possible for us to bring in any rifle that doesnt pass a drop test.

Im sure this would fix the headache for them but we will always find a way, anti-gunners dont get it.

Just list the damn thing and quit trying to fix somthing that isnt broken already.

fun2none
05-04-2006, 10:30 AM
:confused:

It has been proposed in that one way of dealing with the off-list AR/AK receivers is to require that long guns be certified in the same manner as handguns. This would require legislation to implement. DOJ can not do this on their own.

Such a certification process would effectively stop all sales of receivers as there is no way to certify a receiver. It can't be dropped tested, or test fired. I would imagine that C&Rs, single shot, bolt action rifles, and pump shotguns would be exempt from certification. Any semi auto would have to conform to 12276.1.

If such legislation is enacted, the question is what happens when someone builds an "unsafe long gun" from a previously owned legal lower receiver. Would all the existing receivers be grandfathered in, like handguns ?

In other words, if I bought a 1911 pistol receiver before the certification law took effect, I can build it up, use it, and sell it PPT. Would the same hold true for any off-list lower ?

tenpercentfirearms
05-04-2006, 11:06 AM
Why doesn't every one stop making up these crazy theories completely unrelated to the issue of making a new list? Changing the definition of a magazine? Making a safe rifles list? Come on. Lets stick to the subject. We know their option are pretty much limited. Lets stick to reality. Man some people definitely have their tin foil hats on way too tight.

jtyoshi
05-04-2006, 11:22 AM
I predict Friday they release photos of the DOJ "hoot and shoot" with Bill Locky playing with all the off list receivers :p

kenc9
05-04-2006, 11:35 AM
Why doesn't every one stop making up these crazy theories completely unrelated to the issue of making a new list? Changing the definition of a magazine? Making a safe rifles list? Come on. Lets stick to the subject. We know their option are pretty much limited. Lets stick to reality. Man some people definitely have their tin foil hats on way too tight.

If they say anything other than “the following firearms are listed” tomorrow they are going to cause a complete avalanche in orders until they finally do something. But with them pulling down the Feb. 1st memo the list method is looking dim at best because the memo seemed to support the list method and now with the memo being out of favor with DOJ they obviously now have other ideas or are stumped.

thmpr
05-04-2006, 11:46 AM
Why would "removing the infamous memo" state DOJ's intentions. What if they removed it because they found it no longer holds true and is liable for making this type of written statements. If they list they list if not, who do I make the courst funds to? :D

xenophobe
05-04-2006, 11:54 AM
Changing regulatory definition would open a can of worms for the DOJ that they would not be able to control. If the definiton is changed, that would open a new SB-23 type, open-ended registration period. I do not see this happening. Sure, they are considering it. But in the end they will decide that regulatory definitions cannot be changed. Any changes affecting the non-AW status of a firearm will trigger a registration period. It must.


I think Cat 4 may be dead.

I would tend to agree, and all of the receiver letters include the wording 'is not yet a Category 2 Assault Rifle', even ones sent out after the Feb 3 memo. Each of the categories were created through enacted or judicial law. As you well know, a Category 4 cannot just be created without new law. Removal of the memo may well be a sign that they have finally come to this conclusion as well. Also, the only reason they would have to remove this declaratory opinionated memo is the fact that on one or more levels, it is not legally possible, and if they do indeed list, it will trigger a Category 2 registration period, as per the Kasler decision.

If they do change regulatory definitions, they will open up a Category 3 registration period, which would be open-ended, meaning that anything that falls under the new definiton, OR that could fall under it would be registerable. Since this is not AR/AK Series specific, you'll be able to register your HK Clones, even dissassembled PS90s (or whatever else you have the balls to import) or your M1A's so you can have Sage stocks and M14E2 stocks.

There is nothing short of new legislation that will keep these receivers from coming into the state and keep you from having a detachable magazine when they are listed. New legislation will also be required to force fixed mag compliance on new receivers, pre-existing receivers built up before this change would be grandfathered, but receivers not completed would not. This is solid reasoning FOR building up your receivers NOW instead of waiting to see what happens, yes? lol

Their current options:

1) They do not list and let receivers flow into the state and wait for new legislation.
2) Slow/stop the flow by listing, which would mean a Category 2 Registration period.
3) Change regulatory definition, it will trigger an open-ended Category 3 Registration period.

Option 3 would be a GRAVE mistake on DOJ's part, and allow people to register whatever they want.

Option 1, for all the tin-foil hat people, can't happen. The flow of these receivers, which are considered unregulated AW's in the DOJ's eyes, must be stopped. They cannot let these continue to be sold because the DOJ considers these assault weapons, even though they do not meet the currently legal definition of an AW (like they did before the Harrott decision). Remember, before Harrott, an AR or AK stripped receiver WAS an Assault Weapon.

Option 2 is the most sensible for them, and although we win and they lose, they do not lose as badly as they would if they end up choosing option 1 or 3.

Major Miner II
05-04-2006, 12:06 PM
Option 1, for all the tin-foil hat people, can't happen. The flow of these receivers, which are considered unregulated AW's in the DOJ's eyes, must be stopped. They cannot let these continue to be purchased. Now see. . .this is what I don't get.

They are nothing more than rifles without the "evil features".

Why do you consider them unregulated AW's?

You know. . .people talk here all the time about how you don't need more gun laws, you just need to enforce the one's you have. It's also said that law abiding citizens shouldn't be punished for things only criminals do.

So. . .given those two assertations, wouldn't it stand to reason that they would just ignore the whole thing, knowing that only criminals would build them into AW's, and there are laws on the books to deal with that?

Wouldn't they be giving you what you (not the loophole people) really ask them for?

PanzerAce
05-04-2006, 12:09 PM
Their current options:

1) They do not list and let receivers flow into the state and wait for new legislation.
2) Slow/stop the flow by listing, which would mean a Category 2 Registration period.
3) Change regulatory definition, it will trigger an open-ended Category 3 Registration period.

Option 3 would be a GRAVE mistake on DOJ's part, and allow people to register whatever they want.

Option 1, for all the tin-foil hat people, can't happen. The flow of these receivers, which are considered unregulated AW's in the DOJ's eyes, must be stopped. They cannot let these continue to be sold because the DOJ considers these assault weapons, even though they do not meet the currently legal definition of an AW (like they did before the Harrott decision). Remember, before Harrott, an AR or AK stripped receiver WAS an Assault Weapon.

Option 2 is the most sensible for them, and although we win and they lose, they do not lose as badly as they would if they end up choosing option 1 or 3.

*crosses fingers for Option 3*

Hey, a kid can dream cant he? :p

xenophobe
05-04-2006, 12:19 PM
Now see. . .this is what I don't get.

They are nothing more than rifles without the "evil features".

Why do you consider them unregulated AW's?


Do you not know the history of the law? Off-list AR and AK series receivers WERE AWs, that needed to either be registered or destroyed/moved out of state. It was only until the Harrott decision that struck down the portion of the law that blanket banned AR and AK series rifles down to their stripped receivers. Before Harrott, owning an unregistered off-list stripped receiver in California was a felony.

EDIT: In the eyes of the DOJ, these are currently legal to own, but are still considered to be Assault Weapons by the DOJ. Hence the fact they intend to list them, the fact they intend to restrict what you can do, hence the fact that they threaten you with possible prosecution from '58 DAs', etc...


Wouldn't they be giving you what you (not the loophole people) really ask them for?

I'd rather not get into this tired argument, but there is no loophole. Show me where buying an off-list receiver is currently illegal and what law we are using to get around this law?

MC Sweatshop
05-04-2006, 12:25 PM
I think people just have different definitions of 'loophole.' If one reads the FAQ one knows that we are not breaking the law, only seizing the opportunity to get what we want.

kenc9
05-04-2006, 12:30 PM
Why would "removing the infamous memo" state DOJ's intentions. What if they removed it because they found it no longer holds true and is liable for making this type of written statements. If they list they list if not, who do I make the courst funds to? :D

It no longer holds true if they change their mind of what their choices are on, that I agree.

Liable? Liable for what? They have made many untruthful written statements before and as far as I know...never been held liable. Basicly they stated their decisions of in the future being AW's and not being able to add features...and if your lower was made after the evil feature law was created then you broke that law as they stated. We will have some light on this tomorrow I would expect if they have any idea what they are going to do at all they will start their move!

The DOJ have a legal department that can think...the problem is for them is a politician is their boss. So they have legal decisions changed to political decision that is normally always messed up.

When I worked for the state they always said...There is the right way..There is the wrong way...AND...There is the state way!!!!

The states decisions were almost always flawed in one way or the other.

thmpr
05-04-2006, 12:33 PM
[When I worked for the state they always said...There is the right way..There is the wrong way...AND...There is the state way!!!!

:D

kenc9
05-04-2006, 12:39 PM
Do you not know the history of the law? Off-list AR and AK series receivers WERE AWs, that needed to either be registered or destroyed/moved out of state. It was only until the Harrott decision that struck down the portion of the law that blanket banned AR and AK series rifles down to their stripped receivers. Before Harrott, owning an unregistered off-list stripped receiver in California was a felony.

EDIT: In the eyes of the DOJ, these are currently legal to own, but are still considered to be Assault Weapons by the DOJ. Hence the fact they intend to list them, the fact they intend to restrict what you can do, hence the fact that they threaten you with possible prosecution from '58 DAs', etc...



I'd rather not get into this tired argument, but there is no loophole. Show me where buying an off-list receiver is currently illegal and what law we are using to get around this law?

If they really do see these as AW's then why are they seemingly ok'ing pinned AR's in with no problems. They seem to be giving mixed signals aren't they?

-ken

Major Miner II
05-04-2006, 12:39 PM
I'd rather not get into this tired argument, but there is no loophole. Show me where buying an off-list receiver is currently illegal and what law we are using to get around this law?
I thought you didn't want to get into the "tired" argument! ;)

Suffice it to say, when there is a law that prohibits something, finding a way to do it anyway is a loophole.

The intent of the law was to prohibit ownership of AR type assault weapons. By trying to get one by purchasing an off list lower and having them list it so you can have an AW is circumventing the intent of the law.

Hence. . .the loophole. :D

Look at that recent story about people renting a cow so they could claim farmland tax breaks. These people are circumventing the intent of the law.

Loophole.

Major Miner II
05-04-2006, 12:40 PM
I think people just have different definitions of 'loophole.' If one reads the FAQ one knows that we are not breaking the law, only seizing the opportunity to get what we want.
Who ever said using a loophole is breaking the law.

It may be unethical, but it is legal.

That's why it's called a loophole. It's a hole in the law.

kenc9
05-04-2006, 12:41 PM
[When I worked for the state they always said...There is the right way..There is the wrong way...AND...There is the state way!!!!

:D

I couldn't see your response? My HTML must be going hay wire!

:D

xenophobe
05-04-2006, 12:48 PM
If they really do see these as AW's then why are they seemingly ok'ing pinned AR's in with no problems. They seem to be giving mixed signals aren't they?

-ken

Yes, they have been. Fixed mag vulcans with blind pinned mags epoxied in have been allowed, but this approval is post-Harrott. Receivers without a mag well have been approved, and AWs that have been modified to remove the magwell are ignored (which could change in the future).

IF you notice the recommended list a few months back, Vulcan HAR-15 (Fixed) was noted on there. You do the math... *shrug*

kenc9
05-04-2006, 1:00 PM
Yes, they have been. Fixed mag vulcans with blind pinned mags epoxied in have been allowed, but this approval is post-Harrott. Receivers without a mag well have been approved, and AWs that have been modified to remove the magwell are ignored (which could change in the future).

IF you notice the recommended list a few months back, Vulcan HAR-15 (Fixed) was noted on there. You do the math... *shrug*

I see it like this...If you go by their actions more than their words...I see them more worried about the magazine than the rifle it is in.

Hense they allow previously called AW's now ok. Whoever demanded the letter does not seem to be the guy that said pinned lowers are ok.

I see them still taking the easy way out...and in one way we win...we don't have to be so regulated where, when, how we take them to shoot.

I could live with always being able to get a AR and put any feature on I want if I secure the mag...I could live with that...Sure I wish their were no more reg at all but??????? :)

-ken

xenophobe
05-04-2006, 1:03 PM
I have no problem with keeping my post-SB-23 fixed round rifles as they are either. If another federal AWB were to take place, these are pre-ban and can be built up elsewhere as well. Just being prepared. lol

bwiese
05-04-2006, 1:13 PM
I do not think the DOJ is really aware that lotsa off-list ARs are being configured in a compliant version with detachable magazine - that is, no pistol grip, telestock or flash hider.

So their fixed-mag attitude may change when they become aware of the "99-cent pistol grip" situation...

kenc9
05-04-2006, 1:19 PM
I do not think the DOJ is really aware that lotsa off-list ARs are being configured in a compliant version with detachable magazine - that is, no pistol grip, telestock or flash hider.

So their fixed-mag attitude may change when they become aware of the "99-cent pistol grip" situation...

I was referring to guns manufactured here..They have to know about Vulcans being manufacrured in this state. Home built or assembled rifles are another matter.

-ken

blacklisted
05-04-2006, 1:32 PM
I do not think the DOJ is really aware that lotsa off-list ARs are being configured in a compliant version with detachable magazine - that is, no pistol grip, telestock or flash hider.

So their fixed-mag attitude may change when they become aware of the "99-cent pistol grip" situation...

Yeah, maybe someone should make a website or something that explains the "99-cent pistol grip" solution to the fixed mag problem.

swift
05-04-2006, 6:39 PM
Who ever said using a loophole is breaking the law.

It may be unethical, but it is legal.

That's why it's called a loophole. It's a hole in the law.

It is not unethical. It is the law.

Major Miner II
05-04-2006, 8:15 PM
It is not unethical. It is the law.
Note: You can act unethically and still be within the law.

CALI-gula
05-05-2006, 12:46 AM
Note: You can act unethically and still be within the law.

Correct; I also accept your use of the word "loophole" as it too does not apply any moral or immoral context.

However, I would draw the line at comparing the purchase of these off-list lowers to an action open for moral judgment, as your use of unethical would convey.

Even in a standard code of conduct in the realm of scruples and morals, we are not treading on moral laws, infringing on the rights of others. We are certainly NOT breaking laws as written, no matter how superficial they may be (where an uninformed lobby created them for their own political benefit to collar an imagined fear and promoted it as a tool for their propaganda campaign).

Buying and owning these off-list lowers infringes on nobody, and causes no harm to anyone else's rights or existence, beliefs or verisimilitude; no moral insult exists nor does the purchase of an off-list lower take something tangible or any entity of perceived value away from another, therefore, nothing in the act of buying an off-list lower is unethical.

This ban of certain AR models, whether you believe the "intent" was to ban all AR receivers or not, is no different than an uneducated group of people that hold no more automotive mechanical wherewithal than how to put gas in the little flap-door on their Prius, finding the need and recognizing their position of power giving them an ability to ban red Corvettes because they perceive red ones to be faster than all other color Corvettes, and their list of banned Corvettes did not include those painted blue.

You buy your blue Corvette legally. If you don't break the law of speeding and felonious fleeing and eluding, by which someone could be injured or killed as a result of your direct actions, actions morally corrupt, then the act of buying a blue corvette, even if a loophole, is NOT unethical. Driving the blue Corvette in a reckless manner that infringes on others existence IS unethical.

So too would be using these off-list lowers in an unethical manner, robbing a bank or partaking in a drive-by, and nobody here is promoting such actions.

Buying an offlist lower may be a loophole, though unfortunately the word has been ruined and made "dirty" by a hellbent media on a quest for conjuring up an evil salaciousness of gun owners; but unethical? NO!


.

Ford8N
05-05-2006, 5:02 AM
Correct; I also accept your use of the word "loophole" as it too does not apply any moral or immoral context.

However, I would draw the line at comparing the purchase of these off-list lowers to an action open for moral judgment, as your use of unethical would convey.

Even in a standard code of conduct in the realm of scruples and morals, we are not treading on moral laws, infringing on the rights of others. We are certainly NOT breaking laws as written, no matter how superficial they may be (where an uninformed lobby created them for their own political benefit to collar an imagined fear and promoted it as a tool for their propaganda campaign).

Buying and owning these off-list lowers infringes on nobody, and causes no harm to anyone else's rights or existence, beliefs or verisimilitude; no moral insult exists nor does the purchase of an off-list lower take something tangible or any entity of perceived value away from another, therefore, nothing in the act of buying an off-list lower is unethical.

This ban of certain AR models, whether you believe the "intent" was to ban all AR receivers or not, is no different than an uneducated group of people that hold no more automotive mechanical wherewithal than how to put gas in the little flap-door on their Prius, finding the need and recognizing their postion of power giving them an ability to ban red Corvettes because they perceive red ones to be faster than all other color Corvettes, and their list of banned Corvettes did not include those painted blue.

You buy your blue Corvette legally. If you don't break the law of speeding and felonious feeling and eluding, by which someone could be injured or killed as a result of your direct actions, actions morally corrupt, then the act of buying a blue corvette, even if a loophole, is NOT unethical. Driving the blue Corvette in a reckless manner that infringes on others existence IS unethical.

So too would be using these off-list lowers in an unethical manner, robbing a bank or partaking in a drive-by, and nobody here is promoting such actions.

Buying an offlist lower may be a loophole, though unfortunately the word has been ruined and made "dirty" by a hellbent media on a quest for conjuring up an evil salaciousness of gun owners; but unethical? NO!


.


Exactly! No one should feel guilty or that they are doing something wrong.

BTW, nice job of explaining CALI-gula.

paradox
05-05-2006, 5:20 AM
Loophole (n): an action that is permitted within the letter of the law but violates the spirit of the law.

No moral assesments either way. In our case, the spirit of the law is immoral and anti-american, so excercising the loophole is a good thing.

troyPhD
05-05-2006, 8:47 AM
I do not think the DOJ is really aware that lotsa off-list ARs are being configured in a compliant version with detachable magazine - that is, no pistol grip, telestock or flash hider.



And somehow I don't think the DOJ is really aware that there are likely a lot of off-list ARs being configured into a NON-COMPLIANT version with everything on it. Five months and counting, and still no urgency on their part to stop the sale of lowers. They seem to be more concerned with hindering average Joe firearms enthusiast than stopping an over-the-counter source for un-modified AW ("AW" in their opinion if not by law) receivers. Not that this suprises anyone.