PDA

View Full Version : Possible Legislation Tactic?


EBWhite
05-08-2006, 8:32 PM
I personally do not feel a list will be coming out. DOJ knows these will keep on coming in with new models and names in the future. The only way to solve the problem for good is to end it all together.


A law, "Banning any rifle not on the CA safe rifle list- A new list of weapons tested for safety and for sporting purpose deemed by the DOJ. Any rifle not of sporting purpose will not be allowed to be sold in California..."

Everyone will cry that guns need to be safe and only have a sporting purpose- 2 main ideas the anti's and media cry about when talking about sensible gun control.

Its just an idea and a lot of moderates in the state would support such a stupid idea since they feel guns with sporting purposes should be owned by the public, not military style weapons...

Pryde
05-08-2006, 8:38 PM
IMO the only option the DOJ has and probably what they will do.

List nothing.

Change definition of fixed magazine to "welded" or "permanently fixed".

We can all then thank the tactical wannabe AR fans for screwing the rest of us over.

hoffmang
05-08-2006, 8:46 PM
Careful with accusing those pushing the issues forward with causing a reactionary legislative move.

If you read US V. Miller (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174) the real Supreme Court question was whether a sawed off shotgun had any relevance to military service. If there is any weapon and there is any reality behind the Second Amendment, then the AR-15 is the current weapon protected by the Bill of Rights.

swift
05-08-2006, 9:00 PM
I hope they do nothing. If legislation is needed, they may want to make the first offense of possessing a banned AW a felony. I think it would be easier politically to try to pass a so-called "tough on crime" legislaion than admit 30,000 new AW-type rifles arrived in CA.

Personally, a CAT-4 AW status wouldn't be a big deal to me, just as long as the rifle was not required to be permanently rendered unable to accept detachable magazines. While I'm no expert on AR (or on rifles, for that matter), it seems inherently less safe to be unable to remove a magazine from a jammed semi-automatic rifle.

I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see them listing. That's why I hope they do nothing.

chris
05-08-2006, 9:04 PM
IMO the only option the DOJ has and probably what they will do.

List nothing.

Change definition of fixed magazine to "welded" or "permanently fixed".

We can all then thank the tactical wannabe AR fans for screwing the rest of us over.

I would like to know why you think all the wannabe tacticla AR owners screwed us over? How can you make that statment. The laws that are in place were made by uninformed politicians. We all know this. So explain why and how the wannabe tactical folks screwed us? I for one don't care if someone does this. That is not the reason.

But what is in for the future of gun ownership in California is anyones guess. My guess is it is not good for us unless we fight these goons.

In the end we the gun owners in this state are at fault for what we have. We became complacent and did nothing. We don't vote in enough numbers and we have different views on what the gun banners want to do. I'l tell you this they want them all no matter what you own.

blacklisted
05-08-2006, 9:11 PM
IMO the only option the DOJ has and probably what they will do.

List nothing.

Change definition of fixed magazine to "welded" or "permanently fixed".

We can all then thank the tactical wannabe AR fans for screwing the rest of us over.

Because as long as we can keep our bolt action deer rifles and pump shotguns, all other gun control is fine...:mad:

tenpercentfirearms
05-08-2006, 9:16 PM
IMO the only option the DOJ has and probably what they will do.

List nothing.

Change definition of fixed magazine to "welded" or "permanently fixed".

We can all then thank the tactical wannabe AR fans for screwing the rest of us over.This opinion is unsupported by simple logic and/or any type of rational explanation. As has already been stated this would include many more firearms other than the AR in a new registration period and those firearms will also enjoy possible reconfiguration. If the DOJ wanted to make everyone's day and ruin theirs, this is what they would do.

You can thank the liberals of this state for any screwing that is going on. Your lick the hand of your master and stroke him in order to keep what limited rights you have left attitude is seriously lacking. If we are going to play that game, we can thank you non-AR tactical fans for selling out all gun owners by only being concerned with their own precious non-tactical guns.

We don't need more inflammation of this topic. Everyone just relax, buy some lowers, and relax some more. What happens, happens. These crazy tin foil hat theories are just that. Worst of all they only serve to get people all worried and bent out of shape.

shopkeep
05-08-2006, 9:18 PM
They're going to play around with other options for a while longer. In the end though they will end up having to list them and open a Category 2 registration period. There is no room for them to do anything else to resolve this situation and if they do nothing they will not be doing anything to perpetuate their beuaracracy (did I even spell that right?).

In the meantime there's no outcry from anti-gun groups or victims groups to take any immediate action. Therefore both parties (the DOJ and us) have plenty of time to play around and experiment with various options. I am confident though that at the end of the day the DOJ will update the list because I don't believe they'd make this much noise about it without following through on their threats.

TacFan
05-08-2006, 9:25 PM
I can't take these polls, speculations, and "what if ?"s anymore !!!!!!!!!!!!!

thmpr
05-08-2006, 9:29 PM
People need to relax! Just enjoy the moment and not worry about what they will do and will not do. I am highly confident that we as gun owners will fight back if they do pull something over our heads. There are to much at stake for us to do nothing. And based on the friends I have met through this journey, we have a large fund available to do what is necessary.

:D

thmpr
05-08-2006, 9:32 PM
I can't take these polls, speculations, and "what if ?"s anymore !!!!!!!!!!!!!


I can't agree with you more!!! Is there a way to get rid of these threads?

kenc9
05-08-2006, 9:52 PM
I think Pryde may have been talking about some making alot of noise calling DOJ and keeping this subject on the top burner at DOJ. Mostly government reacts when they do something. But everyone has the right to do what they feel is best.

Their (DOJ) best cleanest shot is to tweak the Mag. law on simi-auto rifles that have the capacity to handle a high capacity magazine.

Manufactures will need to submit any receiver made by any manufacturer to the new Magazine test before it can be sold in Kalifornia. AK's and AR's will need a bonded magazine before sold because they all take high capacity Mags.

That ought to do it...No Leg. action...No list...Covers all rifles.

-ken

tenpercentfirearms
05-08-2006, 9:58 PM
Their (DOJ) best cleanest shot is to tweak the Mag. law on simi-auto rifles that have the capacity to handle a high capacity magazine.

Manufactures will need to submit any receiver made by any manufacturer to the new Magazine test before it can be sold in Kalifornia. AK's and AR's will need a bonded magazine before sold because they all take high capacity Mags.

That ought to do it...No Leg. action...No list...Covers all riflesLOL. I don't know whether to cry or laugh. I sure hope you are kidding Ken. Please tell me I missed what was clearly satire. Please tell me you meant to spell semi-auto wrong and that you don't seriously think they have the authority to create a "safe magazine" program with out clear legislative direction.

Seriously, these tin foil hat theories have to stop. The DOJ is not the big monster everyone seems to think they are. Sure they have some juice and they can pull some crazy stunts. However, some of you are going off the deep end giving them super bureaucratic abilities that just simply don't exist. Sheesh.

All newbies beware! A lot of these guys on this board are crazy!!! They seem to derive great pleasure in throwing out grandiose theories that all involve doomsday scenarios that trample your lack of gun rights in this state. Most of these theories are devoid of any real logical thought and mainly revolve around the notion that the DOJ is a superhuman agency that has an unlimited budget and powers above all legislative and judicial review. Don't buy into it! The sky is not falling!

kenc9
05-08-2006, 10:07 PM
LOL. I don't know whether to cry or laugh. I sure hope you are kidding Ken. Please tell me I missed what was clearly satire. Please tell me you meant to spell semi-auto wrong and that you don't seriously think they have the authority to create a "safe magazine" program with out clear legislative direction.

Seriously, these tin foil hat theories have to stop. The DOJ is not the big monster everyone seems to think they are. Sure they have some juice and they can pull some crazy stunts. However, some of you are going off the deep end giving them super bureaucractic abilities that just simply don't exist. Sheesh.

The spellings not the point...simmer down...you have your theory and thats fine and ok. I don't think they will jump right to the Mag. check, they may just change the Mag. law THEY wrote and open it up to public comment, then later test if they can get it to that point. They need no test for the AR/AK series. ;)

EDIT: None of these measures will effect our rifles, only future rifles.

-ken

xenophobe
05-08-2006, 10:10 PM
Where's the option to vote for "I've already placed my vote in a half dozen different poll threads"? *shrug*

taloft
05-08-2006, 10:15 PM
I just use humor to stay sane. See my new post for an example.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=33578

James R.
05-08-2006, 10:48 PM
Seems to me the logical thing for them to do is use the powers they have in hand to plug the current hole ASAP. Their only real power is to update the list as extensively as possible, begin the 90 days registration period and *then* pursue some sort of legislation that will plug the hole for good frustrating the efforts of those behind the inevitable renaming and rebranding of the same old stuff that would surely follow an updated list thus defeating it in spirit.

I dunno, seems to me if they don't list and the liberals get a hold of this and make it a matter of public discord there will be a huge outcry and finger pointing at the CADOJ for not doing their job. How could they sit idly by while 10's of thousands of AR pattern and AK pattern lower receivers flooded into the state? Most of us are law abiding citizens, however inevitably some are not and the CADOJ's inaction has effectively enabled those who are not law abiders to usurp the spirit of the law by *legally* stockpiling lower receivers under the pretense of sporting interest with the ultimate goal of doing something nefarious with them, the law be damned.

I of course don't feel that way, I'm just trying to put myself in a liberals head for a moment. Now I feel dirty and need to go shower...

Regards,

James R.

Pryde
05-08-2006, 10:48 PM
Sorry, no offense to you offlisters.

But you guys are taunting the DOJ.

It was fine and dandy back when people were getting offlisters because they wanted AR clones with fixed mags. I got no problem with people wanting to get an AR clone that is legal under california law.

Where all this crap went wrong is when people started plotting to get them banned. People buying up 5-10 receivers and calling the DOJ, threatening the DOJ to list, so they can try and exploit a legal loophole to have detachable magazine AR's. Think whatever you want, you cannot win against them, the fact of the matter is, if the lower thing was kept quiet then the DOJ probably would have banned and listed by now without a hitch. I think its hilarious that the offlisters talk nonstop about how they have the upper hand on the DOJ and how you are gonna win. Don't you think they read this board? They know what you people are trying to do and they are gonna f**k you back and they will f**k you hard.

This is a case of gun owners trying to get guns banned so you can selfishly own a detachable mag AR and screw everyone else over. You offlisters are gonna reap what you sow and the rest of us are gonna pay for it too.

EBWhite
05-08-2006, 10:52 PM
This is a case of gun owners trying to get guns banned so you can selfishly own a detachable mag AR and screw everyone else over. You offlisters are gonna reap what you sow and the rest of us are gonna pay for it too.

your right about that. It is very hypocritical.

xenophobe
05-08-2006, 10:57 PM
Sorry, no offense to you offlisters.

Where all this crap went wrong is when people started plotting to get them banned.

This is a case of gun owners trying to get guns banned so you can selfishly own a detachable mag AR and screw everyone else over. You offlisters are gonna reap what you sow and the rest of us are gonna pay for it too.

Assault weapons are already banned. AR and AK series receivers were banned, was struck down by court and will be banned again. Please get your facts straight.

Nothing here we do will stop this... Nothing here we do can taunt them into doing anything they're not already planning on doing.

Pryde
05-08-2006, 11:31 PM
Assault weapons are already banned. AR and AK series receivers were banned, was struck down by court and will be banned again. Please get your facts straight.

Nothing here we do will stop this... Nothing here we do can taunt them into doing anything they're not already planning on doing.

If you read what I said before, In my opinion if the whole offlist thing did not explode the way it did, the DOJ would have listed and moved on. This whole offlist craze/fiasco trying to provoke the DOJ into listing is just gonna push the DOJ into a fixed mag change or a semiauto magazine ban. Thereby screwing over the rest of us NON-AR gunowners.

hoffmang
05-08-2006, 11:52 PM
"And we would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you kids."

I was a participant in the battle to export cryptography software. There were lots of folks making similar arguments about how all we were doing was forcing the US to further restrict and control all software by making more and more restrictive export controls de rigueur.

We published crypto in a book in OCR B and then it was clear that crypto export laws violated the first amendment.

What is missing from this debate is the tinfoil hat crowd looking at possible positives. We may force DOJ into a stalemate where they have no real good options beyond doing nothing. Should we all get left with only SB23 restrictions on certain AR and AK like weapons, so be it. We will have done a huge favor for every new California resident and everyone who wasn't paying attention in previous registration events. If someone has an illegal lower because they forgot or didn't care to register or the just moved here and didn't know better, now they can yank off their lower, buy a new one, sell the old one out of state, and keep their gun.

Did folks add some risks by challenging authority? Yes. Debate the politics of the likelihood of new and more restrictive legislation. I for one don't think the public cares. Everyone has been hearing about all the clamor to re adopt the federal ban, right? (Sarcasm) Also remember that these bans were instituted at a time when the military or homeland security were not on the minds of the body politic. What should be a concern is that the basic infrastructure will allow anti gun folks to use the slippery slope to keep making it harder and harder to buy, sell, or own guns. Witness the new handgun safety mess.

Attacking someone always has the risk of casualties and counter attack. Maybe we should also just call Osama and tell him we're not willing to accept his counter attacks. Iran?

Lets make sure we're all on the same page here. We have a right in the bill of rights to own these weapons. The 9th Circuit has been and remains wrong on the law. The political makeup of SCOTUS made a direct challenge ill advised. That's changed. CATO has a good case headed that way. The guys here have found a legal way for us to exercise our rights to own guns that arguably are part of the militia. Federal law says we of the 18-45 set are members of that militia.

Lets chose to be citizens and work for our rights instead of concentrating only on the ways we could lose more. Blind obedience gets societies in trouble.

Pryde
05-09-2006, 12:35 AM
I'm all for challenging the unfair gun laws of this state.

I'm not for the selfish and dangerous tactics of exploiting legal loopholes, and playing to anti-gunners fears so that you can own an AR with a detachable magazine.

If you're gonna do it, do it by going out and telling the government that you don't agree with their BS, not by getting a de-facto banned AW AR. Remember the RKBA petition?
What the hell happened to that?

I'll tell you what happened. People stopped giving a s**t after they realized "OMFG I CAN EXPLOIT THE LAW AND GET AN AR", screw everyone else right? As long as you have your AR, its all good.

Getting the DOJ to list is NOT fighting the system, it is a cowardly method of using their rules to get your way.

xenophobe
05-09-2006, 12:37 AM
If you read what I said before, In my opinion if the whole offlist thing did not explode the way it did, the DOJ would have listed and moved on. This whole offlist craze/fiasco trying to provoke the DOJ into listing is just gonna push the DOJ into a fixed mag change or a semiauto magazine ban. Thereby screwing over the rest of us NON-AR gunowners.

You're assuming they're not going to list. They will. ALL of their alternatives are politically worse than listing. They're preparing the AW Identification Guide and they're also hiring a new staffer for "assault weapon registration". The next step after pulling that BS memo off the site is to actually notify of upcoming listing and registration.

IF they don't list, thousands of AR and AK receivers will continue to flow. If they change the magazine definition, they open a Category 3 registration period. If they list, then everyone gets a detachable magazine. The DOJ has no choice but to pick one of these options. Listing is the most effective and least harmful for them.

Screwing over the rest of you non-AR gun owners? They will not change the magazine definition, mark my words... If they do, they open the door for another Category 3/SB-23 registration period, which is open-ended -i.e., anything that you want to register as an AW will be allowed. They will not let this happen, and this is the worst-case-scenario that they could imagine. It would basically be an open-ended amnesty reg period. They don't want that.

As for banning anything else... grab your tin foil hat and coolaide. Whatever plans are in the works have been there for a lot longer than off-list receivers.

xenophobe
05-09-2006, 12:40 AM
We have a right in the bill of rights to own these weapons.

As US Citizens, we do. As California Citizens, we do not. California has no RKBA clause, and the State right to legislate RKBA away is permitted by the US Constitution.

Pryde
05-09-2006, 12:48 AM
You're assuming they're not going to list. They will. ALL of their alternatives are politically worse than listing. They're preparing the AW Identification Guide and they're also hiring a new staffer for "assault weapon registration". The next step after pulling that BS memo off the site is to actually notify of upcoming listing and registration.

IF they don't list, thousands of AR and AK receivers will continue to flow. If they change the magazine definition, they open a Category 3 registration period. If they list, then everyone gets a detachable magazine. The DOJ has no choice but to pick one of these options. Listing is the most effective and least harmful for them.

Screwing over the rest of you non-AR gun owners? They will not change the magazine definition, mark my words... If they do, they open the door for another Category 3/SB-23 registration period, which is open-ended -i.e., anything that you want to register as an AW will be allowed. They will not let this happen, and this is the worst-case-scenario that they could imagine. It would basically be an open-ended amnesty reg period. They don't want that.

As for banning anything else... grab your tin foil hat and coolaide. Whatever plans are in the works have been there for a lot longer than off-list receivers.

Seriously, how hard would it be for the DOJ to change the definition of fixed mag to "permenantly affixed"? How does that open the door for category 3 registration? All the offlisters in state would be perfectly legal as long as you owners weld in your mag releases, not too hard to do. They won't care if thousands of receivers flow in as long as you are good law abiding citizens who weld your mag releases in.

I know you people will do or say anything to believe that the DOJ will list because you have invested too much time/money into the offlist craze, but list or no list, I don't really give a crap, as long as they don't institute a semi auto ban, which I am afraid may well be the case. IMO, if they were really planning on listing, they would have done so back in november when they said they would. The fact that they haven't yet points to something bigger in the works.

Unlike you I'm not gonna resort to name calling, but if I were a koolaid drinker as you suggest, I should follow the leader and get an offlister because its the thing to do right?

grammaton76
05-09-2006, 1:14 AM
Heh... ok, so if they had to do a cat-3 registration period...

All our SU-16s could have folding stocks and forward pistol grips (on quad rails), with flash hiders.

Heaven forbid the insane things we'd be doing with our handguns. The Walther P22's would be getting reg'ed, and the original barrels would be installed.

Yugo M59/66 SKSes would be getting restored to their original condition.

We can all stick flare launchers underneath our AR-15's.

C'mon guys, let's come up with lots of "scary" things we could do legally as soon as they trigger a category 3 period... since the DOJ reads this site, most likely seeing all these options would scare them away from that path. :)

gh429
05-09-2006, 3:18 AM
I agree with Pryde. The DOJ can change the definition of detachable mag anytime they damn well please. Other regulatory agencies do it all the time. Is it subject to review? Sure. But they can still do it anytime they feel like.

Does changing the definition of a detachable mag automatically trigger registration? I would say a carefully crafted definition will not. We may not agree with the DOJ's position on firearms, but they most definitely are legally competent. We should give them some credit. They are the DOJ, not a one lawyer show, not even a medium sized law firm that won't pony up for LCD monitors or the open bar at X-mas parties... The DOJ guys. But that's just my opinion.

What are we doing here? We're betting the farm on a long-shot hail-mary glimmer of hope that a legal loophole has been created to allow us to legally circumvent the 2000 ban. Keep in mind this supposed loophole is based on decisions where the Cali Supreme Court AGREED with the position of the DOJ. So in essence we're betting the farm on the fact the DOJ is legally incompetent. I would dare to say that they are not. I would also dare say that when you try to push the DOJ into a corner things can potentially get a whole lot worse before they get better. But that's just my opinion.

And personally I am not going to let a glimmer of hope blind me about the realities of our situation... I will be estatic if we get to register our lowers as full-on assault weapons, I will be fine with keeping top loading and no pistol grip rifles, but I am also prepared for the possibility of having to epoxy magazines or worse.

CalNRA
05-09-2006, 4:06 AM
d e l e t e d

Drifter721
05-09-2006, 4:30 AM
Sorry, no offense to you offlisters.

But you guys are taunting the DOJ.

It was fine and dandy back when people were getting offlisters because they wanted AR clones with fixed mags. I got no problem with people wanting to get an AR clone that is legal under california law.

Where all this crap went wrong is when people started plotting to get them banned. People buying up 5-10 receivers and calling the DOJ, threatening the DOJ to list, so they can try and exploit a legal loophole to have detachable magazine AR's. Think whatever you want, you cannot win against them, the fact of the matter is, if the lower thing was kept quiet then the DOJ probably would have banned and listed by now without a hitch. I think its hilarious that the offlisters talk nonstop about how they have the upper hand on the DOJ and how you are gonna win. Don't you think they read this board? They know what you people are trying to do and they are gonna f**k you back and they will f**k you hard.

This is a case of gun owners trying to get guns banned so you can selfishly own a detachable mag AR and screw everyone else over. You offlisters are gonna reap what you sow and the rest of us are gonna pay for it too.


Well said, and unfortunately, this is the reality of the situation.

xenophobe
05-09-2006, 5:41 AM
Seriously, how hard would it be for the DOJ to change the definition of fixed mag to "permenantly affixed"? How does that open the door for category 3 registration? All the offlisters in state would be perfectly legal as long as you owners weld in your mag releases, not too hard to do.


You're making a lot of assumptions here. How can the DOJ instantly reclassify a currently legal configuration without grandfathering existing firearms? If the classification changes from non-detachable magazine (under current definition) to detachable, then you are in possession of an Assault Weapon, which would need to be registered.


They won't care if thousands of receivers flow in as long as you are good law abiding citizens who weld your mag releases in.

Oh they won't care? Where do you get this info from? Must I remind you again that stripped receivers WERE considered Assault Weapons before Harrott? Has DOJ's opinion on these receivers changed? Where have you heard that they won't care? All of the talk about 58 DAs, stating that they may be added as Category 2 weapons would imply that they still consider these stripped receivers as Assault Weapons. Again, you're making assumptions.

Off List Recievers were banned, the Harrott decision changed this, and although they are currently legal, they are still considered Assault Weapons by DOJ and will be regulated again. Off-List receivers were a FELONY before the Harrott decision. People were prosecuted for possession of unregistered ARs and AKs until this gap in the law was created. What makes you think that the DOJ won't do anything about them again?


I know you people will do or say anything to believe that the DOJ will list because you have invested too much time/money into the offlist craze, but list or no list, I don't really give a crap, as long as they don't institute a semi auto ban, which I am afraid may well be the case. IMO, if they were really planning on listing, they would have done so back in november when they said they would. The fact that they haven't yet points to something bigger in the works.


So you're reading your crystal ball here? What leads you to believe they won't list? The fact they haven't yet? I can provide MANY more reasons why they haven't listed and why they will than you can assume that they haven't because they won't. Please give me more than one reason why you believe this.


Unlike you I'm not gonna resort to name calling, but if I were a koolaid drinker as you suggest, I should follow the leader and get an offlister because its the thing to do right?

You should at least base your arguement off something more than 'the tea leaves told you so'. My viewpoint is based off consistent DOJ actions, policy and statements.

tenpercentfirearms
05-09-2006, 5:49 AM
I agree with Pryde. The DOJ can change the definition of detachable mag anytime they damn well please. Other regulatory agencies do it all the time. Is it subject to review? Sure. But they can still do it anytime they feel like.Would you care to back up this opinion with any shred of legal precedence? Can the DOJ just instantly change the definitions that are already in the code of regulations? I believe it has already been pointed out and stated, they cannot instantly change regulations. You guys keep claiming they can and will, but have yet to offer solid proof this is possible.

Second you continue to blatantly ignore the fact that changing the definition of a magazine to what you suggest would make all SKSs assault weapons. Legally, how can the DOJ tell me my SKSs is now an assault weapon and I must completely alter the firearm and have no choice but to do so and I have no choice to register it. Again, do you have any sort of rational evidence to support your claim? Why would creating a new class of thousands upon thousands of assault weapons that have no means of being tracked or found be more benefitial than listing specific AR rifles by make and model? Oh it wouldn't. It just sounds scary and we are on a scare tactic spree right now.

And talk about hypocrisy! The real truth comes out. This whole offlist craze/fiasco trying to provoke the DOJ into listing is just gonna push the DOJ into a fixed mag change or a semiauto magazine ban. Thereby screwing over the rest of us NON-AR gunowners.Aren't you calling the kettle black Mr. Pot? All of us off-listers are selfish because we want something but because you would rather see us held back in order to protect your less than evil semi-autos, we are the bad guys? Hypocrite!!! If the anti-gunners have what it takes to make a full out semi-auto ban, we have bigger issues here than the off-list debacle. What seems to be the preeminent fear from you nay-sayers and rabble-rousers is that if we upset the CA DOJ, they will punish us. Who are the cowards who lick the hands of their masters in order to remain in their good graces? The CA DOJ and this state government work for us! We are not subservient to them. They have laws they must follow and they face judicial oversight. Quit fearing them. They are not the evil master you make them out to be. The Harrott decision should reaffirm that fact for you, but for some reason you are forgetting that they have already been struck down in court for over stepping their bounds.

What this recent rash of tin foil hat theories and illogical creation of doomsday scenarios is about is fear. Some people are scared that their master is going to come down on them hard because they are not behaving. "These crazy off list guys are going to upset the balance and cause a complete semi-auto ban." WRONG! The liberals in this state with the support of their liberal constituents might cause a semi-auto ban. It will not be the gun owners on this site that are exercising their legal rights. It might be the gun owners of this state who are so busy stroking the ego of their masters who fail to properly organize and stop a semi-auto ban that also share blame. It won't be the active people of this board who don't just sit back and wait in fear of their fate.

If you are not a boot licker, then none of my comments are aimed at you. If you take people shooting, write letters, donate to RKBA groups, and try and fight the good fight, then you are doing the right thing. If all you do is sit around and worry about the next ban and live your life in fear of your liberal masters, wake up and live! All your fear and worry won't change the liberalís plans and goals. Take action. Get busy living or get busy dying.

Drifter721
05-09-2006, 6:57 AM
Would you care to back up this opinion with any shred of legal precedence? Can the DOJ just instantly change the definitions that are already in the code of regulations? I believe it has already been pointed out and stated, they cannot instantly change regulations. You guys keep claiming they can and will, but have yet to offer solid proof this is possible.

I can name two instances where the "magic wand" gets waved and your legally owned firearms get reclassified, then confiscated. 1. SKS
Sporters. 2. MKS Specialties M14.

When you are coming from a sales point of view, as Tenpercentfirearms and xenophobe are, your reality gets clouded.


It would not surprise me at all if the DOJ cracks the whip after all the foolish and immature blatent taunting on this board, and we find ourselves fighting an all out semi-auto centerfire rifle ban. If you claim to be a crusader against anti-gun liberals, taunting the DOJ is not going to accomplish this - fact is, it will make things severely worse for all of us.

There's a big difference between foolish mud-slinging and diplomatic rights advocacy.



.

KenV
05-09-2006, 7:06 AM
Well stated Wes. When people throw the tantrum about how we're pushing the DOJ's buttons too hard and supposedly ruining everything, I am reminded of the inmate mentality whereby the CO can "make things difficult" for the housing unit to turn the unit on a bad inmate or two for the sake of order. The other inmates, fearing new waves of searches and other disruptions, coerce the inmates that made the trouble into straightening out.

Here's the difference: We aren't inmates making life tough for a CO. We're honest Americans who are doing what is necessary to make change. These acts and the legal wrangling that follows are the eggs that break for the sake of making breakfast. Whining about how we're supposedly ruining everything, when in reality we are exercising (and fighting for) our rights, smacks of complicity with those who would enslave us. My Mom grew up in occupied Denmark in WWII, and recalls how those women who consorted with German troops were shaved bald up top and paraded in the streets after the occupation ended. While that won't happen these days (pity?), people sure the hell remember those who said "Can't we just lie here and hope they leave us alone?"

Until we completely and voluntarily give up our sovereignty as a people, the governing bodies work for us. So why give up, why run, why hide? For God's sake, we're the alpha males in this pack. As Wes stated, we've told them what to do/where to go/where to stick it when they try to make us subservient. That's what we do. We're free people, in a fight on various levels for our freedoms.

Believe it or not I cut out half of my rant, as I was merely echoing Wes even more than I did here. Where's my scooter?

K

Pryde
05-09-2006, 7:54 AM
And talk about hypocrisy! The real truth comes out. Aren't you calling the kettle black Mr. Pot? All of us off-listers are selfish because we want something but because you would rather see us held back in order to protect your less than evil semi-autos, we are the bad guys? Hypocrite!!! If the anti-gunners have what it takes to make a full out semi-auto ban, we have bigger issues here than the off-list debacle. What seems to be the preeminent fear from you nay-sayers and rabble-rousers is that if we upset the CA DOJ, they will punish us. Who are the cowards who lick the hands of their masters in order to remain in their good graces? The CA DOJ and this state government work for us! We are not subservient to them. They have laws they must follow and they face judicial oversight. Quit fearing them. They are not the evil master you make them out to be. The Harrott decision should reaffirm that fact for you, but for some reason you are forgetting that they have already been struck down in court for over stepping their bounds.

What this recent rash of tin foil hat theories and illogical creation of doomsday scenarios is about is fear. Some people are scared that their master is going to come down on them hard because they are not behaving. "These crazy off list guys are going to upset the balance and cause a complete semi-auto ban." WRONG! The liberals in this state with the support of their liberal constituents might cause a semi-auto ban. It will not be the gun owners on this site that are exercising their legal rights. It might be the gun owners of this state who are so busy stroking the ego of their masters who fail to properly organize and stop a semi-auto ban that also share blame. It won't be the active people of this board who don't just sit back and wait in fear of their fate.

If you are not a boot licker, then none of my comments are aimed at you. If you take people shooting, write letters, donate to RKBA groups, and try and fight the good fight, then you are doing the right thing. If all you do is sit around and worry about the next ban and live your life in fear of your liberal masters, wake up and live! All your fear and worry won't change the liberalís plans and goals. Take action. Get busy living or get busy dying.

I've already explained my position on the laws in previous posts. I'm all for fighting this liberal gun law BS but offlist lowers is not the way to do it. I take people shooting all the time, I signed the RKBA, and by god, you better not mention that you dislike guns around me because I will give you an earful of what I think about hippy gun views. Since this offlist thing started the attention has shifted away from RKBA and changing our laws, the attention is now on trying to get lowers listed so you can own a detachable mag AR.

Wes, I think the difference here is in point of view. I'm a younger guy (mid 20's). Most of the people I have personally met in my age group who own offlist lowers aren't interested in RKBA or changing things, The mentality seems to be "I don't care about RKBA, I just want to have an AR". I think it would be safe to say that at least 40% of the offlisters I personally know in real life keep their lowers in a safe with no intention of building until they are "listed". If you are fine with the possibility of having a fixed mag loading AR, more power to you, I fully support your wanting to own an offlister. If all you care about is being able to own a detachable mag AR then you are selfish and you are making all of us gun owners look bad. Typical self centered California attitude, "as long as I get mine that's all that matters, screw everyone else". I'm sure you're not one of those people Wes, but owning a gun store I'm sure that you are aware that people like this exist.

bwiese
05-09-2006, 9:15 AM
I agree with Pryde. The DOJ can change the definition of detachable mag anytime they damn well please. Other regulatory agencies do it all the time. Is it subject to review? Sure. But they can still do it anytime they feel like.

Yup. But if they change it it will have MAJOR consequences. And they have to change detachable mag definition, not add a fixed mag definition, since the law we're dealing with involves "not being a detachable mag".

The issue that opens up is that the DOJ redefinition will likely have massive side effects. It may well make existing fixed-mag rifles asssault weapons (I cannot see how this happens without a registration period opening since there's no statutory render-safe or required-modification plan that exists in the law for guns legally owned and already legally acquired.) In addition this may well have side effects on the SKS. The OAL (Office of Administrative Law) would have interest in these side effects since their charter is to avoid 'submarine regulation'.

So in essence we're betting the farm on the fact the DOJ is legally incompetent. I would dare to say that they are not. I would also dare say that when you try to push the DOJ into a corner things can potentially get a whole lot worse before they get better. But that's just my opinion.


Let us separate DOJ in general from DOJ Firearms Division ("FD"). The latter is a small division with a small budget.

The DOJ FD brings many, many cases that are dismissed. Other than simple 'gimme' cases for PR raids, they're running around a 22%-24% rate of charges filed being sustained into conviction.

The DOJ may have won Kasler and even have their powers reaffirmed in Harrott. I seem to recall these cases were fought by general DOJ staff attorneys, not firearms division attorneys. DAG Alison Merrilees is generally regarded as being a bit out of her depth; Randy Rossi is an attorney but heads the division so he's not really practicing as a lawyer. I don't think there are other attorneys in the FD - the Asst Dir Ferranto came over from DOJ Narcotics, where he worked his way up the ranks as an agent and doing CAMP stuff, IIRC.

The fact the DOJ FD didn't act after Harrott is very telling.


I will be fine with keeping top loading and no pistol grip rifles, but I am also prepared for the possibility of having to epoxy magazines or worse.

We do all know this is a gamble - albeit with a low cost of entry into the game. I myself have really no need for new AWs as I have 9 reg'd AWs already, and just enjoy the game.

And there is no way the DOJ itself can mandate epoxied magazines on _existing_ legal rifles. There's no supporting statutory law for demanding modifications. The DOJ may insist, but that can readily be challenged.

bwiese
05-09-2006, 9:23 AM
I can name two instances where the "magic wand" gets waved and your legally owned firearms get reclassified, then confiscated. 1. SKS Sporters. 2. MKS Specialties M14.

MKS was playing fast & loose w/NFA MG laws. And that's a Fed issue, not a state issue.

The SKS Sporter issue is admittedly murkier. But when the law says "SKS with detachable magazine" I'd've not purchased one.


When you are coming from a sales point of view, as Tenpercentfirearms and xenophobe are, your reality gets clouded.

They ain't making that much money on this. And in fact they subject themselves to much more DOJ attention which costs gun shops time/money.
In fact due to legal issues these guys have to have clearer vision, esp w/compliance issues.

It would not surprise me at all if the DOJ cracks the whip after all the foolish and immature blatent taunting on this board, and we find ourselves fighting an all out semi-auto centerfire rifle ban.

Your naivete is amazing...
there are already attacks being formualted on semiauto centerfire rifles in the CA legislature. Progress or lack thereof will continue with or without DOJ intervention.

the DOJ itself does not make completely new laws. So p*ssing off the DOJ Firearms Division, a very small organization, will not affect legislation.

The idea that if we're nice the opposition will back off is simply laughable. The battle is every day, every moment.


If you claim to be a crusader against anti-gun liberals, taunting the DOJ is not going to accomplish this - fact is, it will make things severely worse for all of us.

This is not a crusade against them, it's merely a low-level exploitation of specific conditions.

The battle against antigunners is mostly lost in CA. We can generally at best just do holding actions and cannot gain new ground. Demographics combined w/gun owners' laziness conspired to do that: look at the failure of the RKBA petition.

CALI-gula
05-09-2006, 11:30 AM
I'll tell you what happened. People stopped giving a s**t after they realized "OMFG I CAN EXPLOIT THE LAW AND GET AN AR", screw everyone else right? As long as you have your AR, its all good.

Getting the DOJ to list is NOT fighting the system, it is a cowardly method of using their rules to get your way.

Yeah, I suppose the DOJ's knowledge of some 40,000 and counting AR lowers now existing in the state of CA legally within the law, will have no effect on the DOJ. It's all the fault of the "Off List Lower crowd" for whatever the outcome may be....

RKBA petition was only that - a petition. It failed out of the ongoing apathy of California citizens, period. It did not fail for any part of focus being drawn away to the current Off List Lower purchasing. If anything, this deal with Off List Lowers has helped to create a whole new awareness with gun owners about hundreds of unjust CA laws, along with awareness of current unjust bills moving through the House and Senate, and has motivated many young people as well as those previously and totally unaware of gun control laws in California to study 2nd Amendment rights (or the lack thereof) in California.

The Off List lower purchasing HELPED the RKBA petition. It helped bring thousands of new people to this board, and made them aware of the RKBA petition whom otherwise might never heard of the petition.

The Off List Lower mass purchasing presents a MUCH more tangible and active protest of current unjust gun laws in California than a petition will ever present, AND it is legal. No other action in the past 20 years of California passing anti-2nd Amendment laws has presented as much of a force to be reckoned with - I have seen NUMEROUS petitions like RKBA come and go; I have signed AND contributed funds to propel them all. But I have NEVER seen anything like this Off List lower situation, save for dumping large amounts of tea into Boston harbor.

But by your logic.....

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason Roberti-Roos passed into law, banning many named "Assault Weapons".

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason SB23 passed into law, banning many "Assault Weapons" by certain features.

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason AB-50 passed and banned all future sales of a whole series of bolt-action target rifles, never used to injure or kill anyone in the history of California, either intentionally or accidentally. Registration included and emphasis on the word: bolt-action.

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason Proposition H passed in San Francisco.

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason SB15 passed subjecting thousands of models of firearms to pointless "safety" testing, especially numerous revolvers even if they did have a safety-transfer bar in the hammer where like models with exact same actions in different barrel lengths also passed, and essentially banning any firearm from being sold outright by a dealer (except PPT/consignment) NOT submitted for the testing, from 50 years old an newer, even when the manufacturer may not exist anymore or the model may no longer be made.

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason AB202 was passed into law limiting the purchase of new handguns to one per 30 days, and anyone taking advantage of the "loophole" which allows any number of PPT or Consignment handgun purchases within 30 days is a pagan. (MUST be those Off list lower people again!).

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason SB480 passed into law requiring all newly submitted semi-auto handguns to be sold in California after 1/1/2006 to have either a loaded-chamber indicator or a magazine disconnect by 1/1/2006 and to have both devices by 1/1/2007.

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason SB1689 was passed into law banning the manufacture, importation, sale, giving, commerce, etc., of hard plastic knuckles that protect the wearer's hand while striking a blow.

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason my BFSC "good for life" card was nullified, by the passing of SB52 and changing it to the more restrictive HSC program, with its testing to see if you can enjoy your 2nd Amendment Rights, with other qualities to "test" you, fingerprint you, provide proof of residency in the form of a utility bill or deed, etc., give a "safe handling" demonstration, and install an expiration of the HSC card, whereby you will be "re-tested" to renew it.

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason AB106 was passed into legislation, requiring the purchase of a "safety device" or proof of an approved safe/lock-box for every firearm purchase.

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason AB2053 passed into law prohibiting the sale, purchase, shipping, transportation, distribution, etc., of toy firearms unless the entire exterior surface is bright orange or bright green, or in combination.

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason Paul Koretz wants to introduce new incantations of "microstamping" ammunition when fired, previously known as AB352 .

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason the legislature continually reintroduces legislation to tax ammunition sales, or circumvent an illegal tax by way of a "fee".

Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason for ????????????????????????????????????????? and on, and on, and on, etc., etc., infinity.

Wrong. Misguided. Out of touch. Naive. The Off List Lower crowd and the promoted purchasing, whether hoping for addition to the Roberti-Roos/SB23 list or not, has done MORE for 2nd Amendment Rights in California and to introduce new people to awareness of 2nd Amendment Rights in California (or again, lack thereof), than any other group within the past 20 years, public or private, and the only fee was to buy a firearm.

You just gotta love that membership fee!



.

bwiese
05-09-2006, 12:04 PM
CALigula,

That's a bad post. Remember, you're supposed to be nice to your governmental betters and not disturb them and they may throw you a crumb or two...

:)

gh429
05-09-2006, 12:28 PM
Yup. But if they change it it will have MAJOR consequences. And they have to change detachable mag definition, not add a fixed mag definition, since the law we're dealing with involves "not being a detachable mag".

The issue that opens up is that the DOJ redefinition will likely have massive side effects. It may well make existing fixed-mag rifles asssault weapons (I cannot see how this happens without a registration period opening since there's no statutory render-safe or required-modification plan that exists in the law for guns legally owned and already legally acquired.) In addition this may well have side effects on the SKS. The OAL (Office of Administrative Law) would have interest in these side effects since their charter is to avoid 'submarine regulation'.

Thanks for clearing up the "submarine" regulation (rule making) Bwiese, I will not respond to Ten Percent's reply then.

I'm of the opinion that the DOJ can and will do whatever they want to in terms of rule making (epoxied mags, a time test, needs to be attached to the rifle frame, etc.) As you stated yourself, our only recourse would lie in a legal challenge, be it OAL or a test case for a penal code violation. I'm not a legal technician and don't claim to be - but logic and common sense tells me that there is significant risk if this is to occur. Judges don't consider legal issues like this in a vacuum - they WILL take into consideration the intent of the legislation, the intent of the DOJ, and they WILL consider the fact that tens of thousands of rifles are potentially being modified into big bad assault weapons. Whether or not the subsequent decision would be favorable to our cause is questionable.

We all know the existing assault weapon ban is ridiculous. Pistol grip is bad, but no pistol grip is ok? Detachable mag is bad, but mag that can be detached in 1 minute is ok? Retarded. But from the state's perspective they had to draw a line - How do you get the bad assault weapons that have a high killing potential off the street while protecting the interests of legitimate sporters and hunters? They drew a line and it's a slippery slope. And they just might decide to push the legal line back to where the incline isn't quite so steep.

As it stands it doesn't appear the DOJ gives a damn about the Ruger Mini 14/30 right now. But if 30K+ Ruger Mini-14/30 stock conversion kits (which are legal on their own) and 50K+ hi-cap mag "parts" (which are legal on their own) came into the state in the last 6 months, and they were getting dozens of phone calls / letters / e-mails everyday about it, then common sense and logic would dictate that there just might possibly be the off chance that these items would no longer be legal in the near future...

SFV_Dealer
05-09-2006, 12:37 PM
Doors to this is closed as of SB23. New laws - too much work unless the media makes it a circus or politicians are made fun of... I think it'll remain the same - no action for awhile - after all, elections this year!

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 12:40 PM
Caligula, I think that is one of the best if not the best political post on this forum.

xenophobe
05-09-2006, 12:47 PM
Yeah, I suppose the people buying the Off List Lowers were also the reason for ????????????????????????????????????????? and on, and on, and on, etc., etc., infinity.


.

Amen to everything you said ...all of that, brother! I'm agnostic, but reading that was like a religious experience, or at least what I would imagine one to be... heh.

hoffmang
05-09-2006, 1:02 PM
The off list lower event is going to be a seminal event in making more people care about RKBA in California than ever before.

I can personally state that the three strong RKBA guys in my office added to the group who care about gun issues in California by at least 6 new people. Many of these people would never have bought an AR but did it simply because they were peeved that California would really care to restrict such things. What has been more amazing is watching them become educated by DROS, locks, waiting periods and on and on.

Heck, Prop H sold at least one new gun into SF. A good friend of mine has been hearing how asinine these laws were and was a friend of the sponsor of Prop H. He told the guy he was full of it and when it passed, I accompanied him down to the gun store to buy his handgun before Prop H could take effect. He also now bought a lower. He's told his Supervisor friend that he bought one just because of him. All this and my buddy is a staunch and active Dem.

We've put those who would like to stop this in a pickle. This opportunity has allowed this group to build a community who cares about OLL. Should DOJ do something ill advised, there will be a large amount of people with skin (in the form of cash invested in Lowers) in the game already. Thats a heck of a lot more tangible than the proposition drive to the average guy and I'm a supporter of the proposition.

These facts are why I think you'll see DOJ do nothing or simply list. Not listing has risks with their political base, but doing nothing looks to have a lower risk.

Here is the DOJ analysis from their point of view:

Not List
Risk - "Evil assault weapons leaking into CA, film of machine gun at 11."
Reward: Nobody notices the status quo. The sound bite from anyone responsible is that SB23 makes these guns "safe!"

List
Risk - "DOJ approves the import of 50,000 new evil assault weapons, film of machine gun at 11." Also inside the party, "you let who do what? A bunch of snot nosed internet guys?"
Reward - "We're stopping the proliferation of these evil weapons! Re-elect me urban Democrat!"

Come after OLL buyers
Risk - You lose and further cement a core group of seriously pissed off people who have proven they'll spend at least $175 and sometimes up to $1000 to protect their rights on lowers alone. You'll probably lose.
Reward - You would cause a pause in new importation. You might not have to ever update the list in the future.

Randomebayguy
05-09-2006, 1:03 PM
I was turned on to this offlist situation last week and i'm happy ive been able to pick up a lower recently. up until now ive know almost nothing about california gun laws. (other than lots of crap is banned) seeing a built up AR made me realize that although im no gun freak.. I'd like to have one and that i would like to legally be able to purchase it. yeah im sure there are plenty of "offlisters" that are just hoping to circumvent a loophole in the law but i for one am perfectly happy with a fixed 10 rnd mag as im sure the only action its gonna see is the inside of a target range. but i'm also 1 more voting person that has realized how screwy the gun laws in this state are and im willing to join with everyone to fight it.. is that soo wrong? i dont think the majority of ppl buying offlist AR lowers should be lumped into this crazy catagory. thats my two cents.

bwiese
05-09-2006, 1:03 PM
I'm of the opinion that the DOJ can and will do whatever they want to in terms of rule making (epoxied mags, a time test, needs to be attached to the rifle frame, etc.)

They can try that but remember that they have to DEAL WITH ALL THE EXISTING FIXED-MAG OFF-LIST RIFLES if they do this. They do not have authority to 'back propagate' and make you change/modify your existing rifle. So they've just jumped from a "Cat 2" to a Cat 3 situation. And OAL will hold them to task on regulations not being overbroad if they are challenged during comment periods.

I think:
(1) the DOJ will realize the above if they go more deeply in 978.20(a) - espe with SKS side effects;
(2) the DOJ can do NOTHING about detachable mag off-list ARs without grips or evil features. In terms of "dangerousness" this is worse from their viewpoint, I'd bet, and they may not realize that some fraction of folks have such rifles already.

The longer they wait the worse it gets.

gh429
05-09-2006, 1:32 PM
They can try that but remember that they have to DEAL WITH ALL THE EXISTING FIXED-MAG OFF-LIST RIFLES if they do this. They do not have authority to 'back propagate' and make you change/modify your existing rifle. So they've just jumped from a "Cat 2" to a Cat 3 situation. And OAL will hold them to task on regulations not being overbroad if they are challenged during comment periods.

I think:
(1) the DOJ will realize the above if they go more deeply in 978.20(a) - espe with SKS side effects;
(2) the DOJ can do NOTHING about detachable mag off-list ARs without grips or evil features. In terms of "dangerousness" this is worse from their viewpoint, I'd bet, and they may not realize that some fraction of folks have such rifles already.

The longer they wait the worse it gets.

I hope so. I do have quite a few pre-2000 rifles, but I REALLY want to have full capabilities on my Carbon-15. :) That said, honestly I feel the best option for the DOJ is just going to keep saber rattling but not list. So I dunno, I'm keeping my fingers crossed too, but I personally don't think listing / registration / conversion will be allowed...

tenpercentfirearms
05-09-2006, 2:03 PM
For those of you who keep thinking they won't list, don't forget that is what we pay them to do! It is their job to make and update that list. They work for us. We just need to turn up the pressure and make sure they are accountable and do their job. We can all start calling and writing our represetnatives and tell them the DOJ is not protecting the citizens of this state and that they need to force the DOJ to do their job. Update the list.

Really, the DOJ is sort of stuck in this whole mess. The legislature gave them a crappy law and it has turned around and bit them. Sure they get some of the blame as Bill Lockyer has known about this for a while. I think as soon as they list, it becomes a non-issue for them. The longer they let the rifles in, the worse it is going to look when the cat is let out of the bag.

Major Miner II
05-09-2006, 2:10 PM
For those of you who keep thinking they won't list, don't forget that is what we pay them to do!
I thought we paid them to enforce the intent of the law, which was to prohibit more assault weapons from entering the state?

kenc9
05-09-2006, 2:12 PM
I hope so. I do have quite a few pre-2000 rifles, but I REALLY want to have full capabilities on my Carbon-15. :) That said, honestly I feel the best option for the DOJ is just going to keep saber rattling but not list. So I dunno, I'm keeping my fingers crossed too, but I personally don't think listing / registration / conversion will be allowed...

You know everyone? After reading EBWhite's post and all the ones that followed that it should be pretty clear to those that really did read them why the DOJ FD hasn't tackled this after all this time.

They (DOJ) have a 100 miles of VERY rough road in any attempt to remedy this AW problem.

1) Not sure they really can LIST them all and will surely go on and on!
2) The Mag. way may just open up a bigger can of worms than they EVER thought of.
3) Enforce current law may be their only way out!

So now we sit back and watch DOJ and see if they really can formulate a plan, or replace a plan with a few watch out memo's... :)


-ken

gh429
05-09-2006, 2:25 PM
For those of you who keep thinking they won't list, don't forget that is what we pay them to do! It is their job to make and update that list. They work for us. We just need to turn up the pressure and make sure they are accountable and do their job. We can all start calling and writing our represetnatives and tell them the DOJ is not protecting the citizens of this state and that they need to force the DOJ to do their job. Update the list.

But see, therein lies the problem - The DOJ, even if they were not before, they are now fully aware of the potential outcome of listing. Given the resources and legal savvy of the DOJ I'm more inclined to believe they will pull something out of their bag that will not only update the list but also PREVENT the conversion of existing rifles to pre-SB23 style rifles. How they will do this is open to speculation, but I personally feel we as a community have a tendency to under-estimate the abilities and resolve of the DOJ. The DOJ, like most government entities tend to default to the path of least resistance. If a few gun enthusiasts have some AR-15's so what? Even if these gun enthusiasts drop the mags and go to the range, so what - as long as no one is shooting cops and robbing banks it's not a big problem. Despite the political rhetoric, I dare to say most people familiar with firearms, including those at the DOJ will agree that the completely legal Ruger Mini 14/30 can be just as deadly as a semi-auto AR-15. Most anti-gun proponents don't know that so there's no political pressure. But throw some political pressure into the mix and you now have a catalyst for the DOJ to take action - which can potentially blow up in our faces. At least that's the way I see it. I don't oppose those that are pressuring the DOJ to list. It's a high-risk gamble and I'm willing to double-down. But everyone should be aware of the odds before playing. That's all :)

bwiese
05-09-2006, 2:33 PM
I thought we paid them to enforce the intent of the law, which was to prohibit more assault weapons from entering the state?

There are multiple conflicting (or partially conflicting) intents in these laws. While that was part of it, there was also the part that allows existing legal firearms to be declared/identified as AWs and then registered. So clearly the writers realized the job would not be finite: there was envisioning that some things that were legal could or would later be restricted, even though those items had moved into the state legally. There was also the assumption that the AG would monitor the AW market - especially significant after Harrott.

Also, another expressed intent of the law was to not harm sport shooters, which clearly has not been the case (how does a new Californian shoot or maintain skills in National Match-type competitions?)

The California AW laws have been updated or revised four (?at least) times over the last 15 years. Especially notable is that these laws were not revised (except for last year's AB88 penalty update/clarification) after the 2001 Harrott decision.

The more detailed and specific laws are, with varying conflicting intents expressed, the less intent can be inferred in between the lines - after all, if law writers took all the trouble to go into such detail in a variety of areas, it could be easily argued that they could or did consider other changes, but those might not have been legislatively possible.

So courts often can be chary of legislative intent issues on standing law that is detailed and that has been updated over time. Remember, legislative intent can also be extracted from _lack_ of legislative activity, too!

Major Miner II
05-09-2006, 2:35 PM
Legislative intent is usually found in the recorded banterings of the committtee hearings and floor diatribes.

There are multiple conflicting (or partially conflicting) intents in these laws. While that was part of it, there was also the part that allows existing legal firearms to be declared/identified as AWs and then registered. So clearly the writers realized the job would not be finite: there was envisioning that some things that were legal could or would later be restricted, even though those items had moved into the state legally. There was also the assumption that the AG would monitor the AW market - especially significant after Harrott.

Also, another expressed intent of the law was to not harm sport shooters, which clearly has not been the case (how does a new Californian shoot or maintain skills in National Match-type competitions?)

The California AW laws have been updated or revised four (?at least) times over the last 15 years. Especially notable is that these laws were not revised (except for last year's AB88 penalty update/clarification) after the 2001 Harrott decision.

The more detailed and specific laws are, with varying conflicting intents expressed, the less intent can be inferred in between the lines - after all, if law writers took all the trouble to go into such detail in a variety of areas, it could be easily argued that they could or did consider other changes, but those might not have been legislatively possible.

So courts often can be chary of legislative intent issues on standing law that is detailed and that has been updated over time. Remember, legislative intent can also be extracted from _lack_ of legislative activity, too!

bwiese
05-09-2006, 2:38 PM
...rough road in any attempt to remedy this AW problem.

1) Not sure they really can LIST them all and will surely go on and on!
2) The Mag. way may just open up a bigger can of worms than they EVER thought of.
3) Enforce current law may be their only way out!



I agree with #2. I think it'll be examined and found wanting.

#1 (listing) if done soon and in detail, addresses the problem pretty well, and then they can keep updating the list with monthly market monitoring/ surveillance. They may have budgetary reasons why they don't want to do this if possible.

But 2 guys reading Shotgun News and Gun List and AR15.COM at lunch can find all the new brands/models in short order. And the DOJ can update The List faster than vendors can make/advertise newly named (rollmarked) lowers.

Lower mfgrs aren't - nor should they! - doing one-off models of lowers. The unlisted lowers they sell into CA should be in general circulation inside/outside CA to keep full Harrott protections.

bwiese
05-09-2006, 2:41 PM
Legislative intent is usually found in the recorded banterings of the committtee hearings and floor diatribes.

Yes, but those weren't voted upon and are largely irrelevant. You're still on your "office of legislative intent" kick...

Those recordings are for public interest, general documentation, etc. uses.

Never heard of them being cited in court cases. (I suppose if a legislator were charged with bribery/collusion charges etc that could show how he was 'bent'.)

Some court cases do note some legislative history of bills that become law, but that usually involves edited/amended bills that get sent back to committee, a far more formal thing, where edits/updates are in writing. The edits/updates are the direct reflection of committee/legislator discussions.

DigglerD
05-09-2006, 2:52 PM
Where all this crap went wrong is when people started plotting to get them banned. People buying up 5-10 receivers and calling the DOJ, threatening the DOJ to list, so they can try and exploit a legal loophole to have detachable magazine AR's. Think whatever you want, you cannot win against them, the fact of the matter is, if the lower thing was kept quiet then the DOJ probably would have banned and listed by now without a hitch. I think its hilarious that the offlisters talk nonstop about how they have the upper hand on the DOJ and how you are gonna win. Don't you think they read this board? They know what you people are trying to do and they are gonna f**k you back and they will f**k you hard.

This is a case of gun owners trying to get guns banned so you can selfishly own a detachable mag AR and screw everyone else over...

+1,000,000

I don't like some of your logic but this hits the nail right on the head.

DigglerD
05-09-2006, 2:56 PM
They ain't making that much money on this. And in fact they subject themselves to much more DOJ attention which costs gun shops time/money.
In fact due to legal issues these guys have to have clearer vision, esp w/compliance issues.

I guess I shouldn't complain about the fact that it helped put my company on the map and got a brand new gun shop out of the red in less than a month.

Granted, he got audited and stopped but how many other haven't been audited or stopped?

Brand new shop... treading the edges of the law and the only place known to be selling at the time. The lowers may have been the reason, but there are several factors here.

I was selling Stags for $140 for one, $135 for 2-4, and $125 for 5+! (don't you wish you could see those prices again). The Sun Devils were $10-20 bucks more and the Fultons were like $5 more. I had visions of selling hundreds more as I started the long trek back to Taft. Little did I know that the day Monday December 12, 2005 would forever be a day of infamy in my life forever.

He got out of the red on these prices... rock-bottom prices I have yet to see in this state from any other retailers. Fact is the mfgs are not charging more so that that surplus money is going somewhere... Lawyer? For what? Non litigation? Non DOJ action (other than phone calls)?

They are stores in the business to make money... lowers are in demand and make a ton more than the $50 on some Kimber sitting in the case for a month or two. This may not be "welfare guns" but it's not "autruistic gun shops" either.

Drifter721
05-09-2006, 3:08 PM
They can try that but remember that they have to DEAL WITH ALL THE EXISTING FIXED-MAG OFF-LIST RIFLES if they do this. They do not have authority to 'back propagate' and make you change/modify your existing rifle. So they've just jumped from a "Cat 2" to a Cat 3 situation. And OAL will hold them to task on regulations not being overbroad if they are challenged during comment periods.



The hell they can't "back propogate!" They made us pin our legal folding stocks and legal high cap magazines just prior to the ban in '92. I've got a foldiing stock (later pinned to compy), detachable magazine (later pinned yet again to comply to another new law) Chinese SKS that is witness to the string of post facto compliance "adjustments" to legally owned and originally compliance configured firearms. We had to make those retrofits back in the early 90's. Don't think they can't do this or that, because they can and will! No one will fight it (California gun owners rarely fight, they just ***** a lot) and the end result will be a retributional set of restrictive new laws. Sorry, but that's the cold reality.



Don't get me wrong. I'm all for preserving rights and not losing ANY ground, but there are right ways and wrong ways to go about it. We have to pick our battles diligently and carefully. Lets see where the chips fall for now and stop the petty taunting and scoffing. When is the last time you responded positively to scoffing and taunting? That will only cause a backlash. If we all need to fight in court later, then so be it.



.

Joe
05-09-2006, 3:18 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=33601&page=1

saki302
05-09-2006, 3:36 PM
At this point, DOJ has myabe 3 choices.

1. Do nothing- nothing changes- can't legally make it into an AW anyways.
2. Wait for legislation to properly create a new AW category, THEN require registration
3. Require registration but fail to process forms if you do not sign a statement agreeing to abide by SB23 in terms of construction. You'd have to fight this one iin court.

I would bet it's either option 1 or 2 at this point, with option 1 being the bet with greater odds. Since there is no political stink being made right now, they gain nothing by listing the lowers except for bad publicity for leting this slide for so long.

-Dave

saki302
05-09-2006, 3:37 PM
Whoops- just read the new memo- I guess I was right! :(

-Dave

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:00 PM
Sorry, don't mean to be a jerk but I can't resist.

I TOLD YOU SO

Big thank you's to bweise and the rest of the offlist crew for screwing over california gun owners!

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 4:01 PM
Sorry, don't mean to be a jerk but I can't resist.

I TOLD YOU SO

Big thank you's to bweise and the rest of the offlist crew for screwing over california gun owners!

You're welcome, Mr. Bootlicker. :D

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:05 PM
You're welcome, Mr. Bootlicker. :D

I hate the DOJ just as much as anyone, I'm sorry your obsession with owning an AR has screwed everyone else over, I hope it was worth it. Why don't you take your anger out on your offlist heros who put you in this situation instead of me?

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 4:17 PM
I hate the DOJ just as much as anyone, I'm sorry your obsession with owning an AR has screwed everyone else over, I hope it was worth it. Why don't you take your anger out on your offlist heros who put you in this situation instead of me?

I'm far from obsessed with being able to own an AR, and I am not angry.

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:19 PM
I'm far from obsessed with being able to own an AR, and I am not angry.

Then why are you name calling?

Maybe it was an honest mistake, so to clarify, my last name is not Bootlicker. :)

xenophobe
05-09-2006, 8:31 PM
Sorry, don't mean to be a jerk but I can't resist.

I TOLD YOU SO

Big thank you's to bweise and the rest of the offlist crew for screwing over california gun owners!


It's a bit early for a 'told you so'. Nothing has changed since December.

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 8:41 PM
Then why are you name calling?

Maybe it was an honest mistake, so to clarify, my last name is not Bootlicker. :)

My mistake.

tenpercentfirearms
05-09-2006, 9:05 PM
Pryde, I will be honest. I am not one of the types you think is selfishly trying to just get what is good for me and screw everyone else. I, with great malice, want to piss off the DOJ so bad that they have no choice but to go after fixed mag FALs and hopefully try to ban all semi-autos. I am doing this for no other reason than I dislike you and I want you to suffer. This is not about 30,000 off-list lowers, this is not about my customers, this has nothing to do with anyone but you. I want YOU to suffer. So you can call me selfish, but it is all about you, no one else. I hardly call that selfish.

DOJ, DO YOUR JOB AND BAN PRYDE'S GUNS!!!

Pryde, you are a worthless troll. I am sorry, I am tired of reading your waste of space. Your opinion has been noted and no longer serves any purpose here. I will no longer acknowledge anything you say at any time. I hope my fellow calguners will react the same. I am done taking you seriously. Go back to your subservance to your masters and leave us free Americans to our jobs of following the law and exercising our rights.

gh429
05-09-2006, 9:29 PM
It's a bit early for a 'told you so'. Nothing has changed since December.

I respectfully disagree. My reading of the DOJ memo is that we now have a GREATLY increased chance of being prosecuted for using a "sporting conversion" kit. This upsets me because I just bought 6 kits. :p

tenpercentfirearms
05-09-2006, 9:35 PM
gh429 you were always running a risk of getting prosecuted for anything you do. Remember, there are 58 different DAs in the State of California and any of them could disregard the DOJs determination of assault weapon. Those same DAs could also tell the DOJ to take a flying leap if they were to try and get you for using your fixed mag kits. I live in Kern County, now what are the odds that Ed Jagels is going to be prosecuting any of these cases anytime soon? Well, actually, I called him this afternoon to ask him and his only response was, "All your base are belong to us." I was flabbergasted, the DOJ must have called him and told him about the 58 DAs thing before I could get a hold of him. That is the second time the DOJ has ruined my day on the account of a phone call.

xenophobe
05-09-2006, 9:41 PM
I respectfully disagree. My reading of the DOJ memo is that we now have a GREATLY increased chance of being prosecuted for using a "sporting conversion" kit. This upsets me because I just bought 6 kits. :p

The last memo was supposed to have been distributed to the police, the 58 DAs and FFLs. In the 3+ months it was on the DOJ site, it never was. Not a single FFL, not a single police officer was notified of this.

The new memo does not increase your chance of being prosecuted. There is no new regulatory definition to charge you with. If you're worried about prosecution now, you should have been worried about this before this new memo.

There is nothing new with this memo. DOJ has repeatedly stated that the Sporting Conversions kit was not legal over the phone. They would never provide it in opinion letter though, why? Because their opinion is not based on the law.

And as of today, the legality of such items has not changed at all from what they were yesterday.

saki302
05-10-2006, 2:47 AM
I called him this afternoon to ask him and his only response was, "All your base are belong to us." I was flabbergasted

It's beginning...

http://allyourbase.planettribes.gamespy.com/video1_view.shtml

-Dave

Pryde
05-10-2006, 11:33 AM
Pryde, you are a worthless troll. I am sorry, I am tired of reading your waste of space. Your opinion has been noted and no longer serves any purpose here. I will no longer acknowledge anything you say at any time. I hope my fellow calguners will react the same. I am done taking you seriously. Go back to your subservance to your masters and leave us free Americans to our jobs of following the law and exercising our rights.

I'm only a troll to you because my opinion differs from yours. It really doesn't matter to me if you no longer want to acknowledge me, my words are not posted for your benefit. Rather than respond to my arguments, you like all other offlisters resort to calling me names and a bootlicker, koolaid drinker, whatever. I'm just telling you what I think is gonna happen and I'm sorry if that's what you don't want to hear. I will leave you "free" americans to complain about the DOJ over one shoulder and beg them to win by their rules over the other.

xenophobe
05-10-2006, 11:37 AM
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.... how many questions have I asked you that you haven't responded to? Oh, cause you never had valid answers. :rolleyes:

Pryde
05-10-2006, 11:41 AM
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.... how many questions have I asked you that you haven't responded to? Oh, cause you never had valid answers. :rolleyes:

Maybe I missed them while scrolling through, please rephrase them to me and I will do my best to give you a complete answer.

Have a nice day.