PDA

View Full Version : Redefining detachable magazine? someone fill me in


CalGunsNoob
05-08-2006, 11:45 AM
I've seen mentioned in a few posts that there is some speculation here that the DOJ might redefine what a detachable mag is. Can someone explain to me what they might say and why some here think this is the way it's going?

Also, how is it permissable for the DOJ to do this? I thought their option was to list or not list.

blacklisted
05-08-2006, 12:04 PM
I've seen mentioned in a few posts that there is some speculation here that the DOJ might redefine what a detachable mag is. Can someone explain to me what they might say and why some here think this is the way it's going?

Also, how is it permissable for the DOJ to do this? I thought their option was to list or not list.

They might say that the magazine has to be permanently welded or something in order to not be detachable.

They do have the authority to change the definition, because it is in their regulatory powers. However, they must have a "public comment period".

Keep in mind that if they did this, it would cause other guns to have detachable magazines as well. I don't know if they have the authority to have a seperate definition for the AR/AK series.

bwiese
05-08-2006, 12:08 PM
... seen mentioned in a few posts that there is some speculation here that the DOJ might redefine what a detachable mag is. Can someone explain to me what they might say and why some here think this is the way it's going?


I was the one passing this one - heard it from a gun lawyer in a recent conversation last week. At this point it's just internal scuttlebutt and may or may not happen, I think it may just be in evaluation/discussion stages...

The issue also is that our off-list fixed mag rifles have fixed magazines, which are not defined. We are just clearly "not a detachable magazine" - which is defined.

There are several 'problems' with this from even DOJ standpoint:
doesn't address ARs with open magwells + no pistol grips/other features;

side effects on other guns w/fixed mags (SKS) might trigger them becoming AWs (!!!)

if definition changes so that existing fixed-mag off-list rifles are not regarded as fixed mags, they instantly become assault weapons by the revised definition. That alone likely triggers a reg period because it's a declaration. There is no way for DOJ to have something that is an assault weapon but not be registerable, or for DOJ to force you to back-modify or surrender an existing legal firearm. So this is a big can of worms and they may well step from the frying pan to the fire.



Also, how is it permissable for the DOJ to do this? I thought their option was to list or not list.

To declare an AR or AK pattern receiver as an AW, yes. Really can't declare "partial assault weapons" or registered-but-further-restricted Cat 4 garbage, etc.

But the DOJ has regulatory authority in other aspects. They can and do write regulatory law that is supported by statutory law, to fill in the blanks and/or fulfill clauses in the law like "the Attorney General shall devise regulations to implement....". They can establish technical standards & definitions within their field of regulation.

For example, they did write - and can update - the various definitions of 'detachable magazine', 'pistol grip', etc. in CCR 978.20 to set standards in relation to the statuory 12276.1 generic definitions of assault weapons.

Problems can easily open up here because this whole situation is based on the interplay of PC 1227x laws and their relation to the Kasler and Harrott decisions, along with the 978.20 regulatory definitions they wrote in 2000.

If they change detachable magazine definition, that could well redefine fixed magazine and instantly trigger assault weapons status of existing lawfully-owned, lawfully-acquired fixed-mag off-list rifles. There is no statutory support for DOJ requiring existing legal rifles that were not AWs to be modified, 'rendered safe', decommissioned, surrendered, etc.

If their rejiggering of definitions triggers AW status on existing guns, I think that alone would force them to open a reg period. This is a tad grey since law + court decisions envisioned only originally banned guns (Roberti-Roos), features guns, and guns that are added to list for Kasler list update, or guns added to list thru PC 12276.5 'add-on' petition/court declaration. I think this could create a new 'by features' reg period.

If they try this redefinition, it will require a formal regulatory update process compliant with Admin Procedures Act (sec 11340... stuff). There are comment periods from stakeholders, etc. These very real concerns may very well be of interest to the OAL (Office of Administrative Law) whose mission is to avoid 'submarine regulation' and have clear regulatory law with accounting for side effects...

Let's not get our shorts tied in a knot over this yet - it's just a passed-on rumor, and is likely just in the analytical stage. They may try another 'memo' with at first as scare tactics but memos have no legal force.

6172crew
05-08-2006, 12:10 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=33185&highlight=detachable+magazine

This was found using a search engine also.:)

Jicko
05-08-2006, 12:34 PM
Guys.... please don't speculate.... just wait and see.... more "what if"s will just confuse everyone....

(Just like the "cat 4" BS.... all DOJ have said is that they may try for a "cat 4 AW".... and people are freaked out.... but see, they have now removed that memo!!!)

adamsreeftank
05-08-2006, 1:09 PM
Guys.... please don't speculate.... just wait and see.... more "what if"s will just confuse everyone....

(Just like the "cat 4" BS.... all DOJ have said is that they may try for a "cat 4 AW".... and people are freaked out.... but see, they have now removed that memo!!!)

Yes, but to be replaced with what...

CATEGORY 5 !!!! :eek:

Dont Tread on Me
05-08-2006, 2:39 PM
if definition changes so that existing fixed-mag off-list rifles are not regarded as fixed mags, they instantly become assault weapons by the revised definition.

Bad luck if you had not built up your lowers at the time such a change occured!

Major Miner II
05-08-2006, 2:42 PM
Yes, but to be replaced with what...

CATEGORY 5 !!!! :eek:
They're going to replace it with Ethernet Cable??? ;)

zenthemighty
05-08-2006, 7:25 PM
Bad luck if you had not built up your lowers at the time such a change occured!

Then you get into the whole "Prove it wasn't" argument.

xenophobe
05-08-2006, 7:34 PM
If they change definition and force an open-ended registration period, it will be a Category 3/SB-23 registration period, and anything that remotely fits this description will be allowed to be registered. I highly doubt they want everyone who bought FAL and HK type receivers to become registered, since turning these into registered AWs, there is nothing keeping you from having detachable magazines.

So changing the definition will do nothing but allow you to register even MORE items than just AR/AK series receivers and rifles. They will not do this without legislation enacting and declaring a Category 4.

So, I see this definition change as a less likely solution than listing receivers, by a long shot.

tenpercentfirearms
05-08-2006, 9:07 PM
So, I see this definition change as a less likely solution than listing receivers, by a long shot.Here, here!

Glockguy40
11-29-2006, 12:23 AM
See proraptor2's post at the link below for an insight into what the enemy is thinking!

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=266355&page=18