PDA

View Full Version : New memo is out


Pages : [1] 2 3

caduckgunner
05-09-2006, 2:23 PM
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

gose
05-09-2006, 2:26 PM
"Therefore, the Department will not update the list of "series" assault weapons".

Well, I'm not surprised...

Major Miner II
05-09-2006, 2:26 PM
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf
Let me be the first to say. . .I was right. :P

;)

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 2:27 PM
Hmmmm....While them saying they are not going to update is interesting, the problem as I see it is that the courts told them to update (If I recall)

However, it is the third paragraph that is interesting. Apparently, even if the magazine is fixed, these are now assault weapons.

HKdude
05-09-2006, 2:27 PM
:mad:

Damn

Rivet
05-09-2006, 2:29 PM
Please see sig.

CWM4A1
05-09-2006, 2:29 PM
So we will have to keep them nutered, big deal.

Major Miner II
05-09-2006, 2:29 PM
It also seems that this whole thing is going to make them re-evaluate the whole "tool detachable" magazine.

Nice going.

Cobrarlc
05-09-2006, 2:29 PM
Well the memo is here.....

rips31
05-09-2006, 2:30 PM
looks like they included language about mags, too. guess the kits are no-go.

gose
05-09-2006, 2:32 PM
So we will have to keep them nutered, big deal.

Well, since a pistol grip is an evil feature you need to fix the mag AND remove the pistol grip to be in compliance with the memo...

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 2:32 PM
Well, since a pistol grip is an evil feature you need to fix the mag AND remove the pistol grip to be in compliance with the memo...

apparently. It seems to me that they just created a new group of AWs, without opening registration of them....

GTKrockeTT
05-09-2006, 2:32 PM
Individuals who own firearms that meet the generic definition of assault weapons banned by SB 23 must do one of the following in order to comply with existing law: remove the features, sell the firearm (without the features), or permanently alter the firearm so that it cannot accept a detachable magazine.

this is going to get interesting...

spitkiss
05-09-2006, 2:34 PM
so ungrateful, they didn't even thank us for all the DROS fees.

GTKrockeTT
05-09-2006, 2:34 PM
once again, this is just a memo.

insin
05-09-2006, 2:34 PM
From what it reads, any of the previous "mag fixes" will not skirt the assult weapon classification

glen avon
05-09-2006, 2:35 PM
ha. told you so.

gh429
05-09-2006, 2:35 PM
Hahaha a ****ign knew it. So much for the DOJ not making "submarine" regulations huh?

Shieett... Challenge time. Will dealers continue to offer for sale lowers?

GTKrockeTT
05-09-2006, 2:35 PM
From what it reads, any of the previous "mag fixes" will not skirt the assult weapon classification

so, based on the memo, CA Legal FAL owners will be impacted as well.

James R.
05-09-2006, 2:36 PM
Wow that seriously blows, they seem to really be overstepping their powers with the assertion that the rifle must be PERMANENTLY modified such that it can no longer have a detachable magazine.

The law doesn't read that way, it says TOOL...if I need a tool to take it apart IMHO it should be legal, end of story.

Regards,

James R.

GTKrockeTT
05-09-2006, 2:36 PM
Hahaha a ****ign knew it. So much for the DOJ not making "submarine" regulations huh?

Shieett... Challenge time. Will dealers continue to offer for sale lowers?

as long as people buy...yes.

GTKrockeTT
05-09-2006, 2:37 PM
Wow that seriously blows, they seem to really be overstepping their powers with the assertion that the rifle must be PERMANENTLY modified such that it can no longer have a detachable magazine.

The law doesn't read that way, it says TOOL...if I need a tool to take it apart IMHO it should be legal, end of story.

Regards,

James R.

as stated, just a memo. it doesn't carry much weight without legislation.

fusion
05-09-2006, 2:38 PM
Well, maybe it's time to let the public on this and tell them how the DOJ is allowing these things into the state by not listing them.

caduckgunner
05-09-2006, 2:38 PM
so, based on the memo, CA Legal FAL owners will be impacted as well.

Well hell If I take my sks apart, the magazine is removable also................ I call B.S. on the DOJ:D

Major Miner II
05-09-2006, 2:38 PM
as stated, just a memo. it doesn't carry much weight without legislation.
The legislation is already there. That's what the memo says.

As for the mag issue. . .all they need to do is change the CCR. No problems there.

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 2:38 PM
Well, I think all of us kinda expected all of the paras except the 3rd.


Bill, call those lawyers that you wont let us know who they are.

James R.
05-09-2006, 2:38 PM
Agreed, but the wording is pretty strong...it'll make me want to take pause on installing my LPK on any of my lowers.

Regards,

James R.

thmpr
05-09-2006, 2:38 PM
as stated, just a memo. it doesn't carry much weight without legislation.


JUST A MEMO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WOULD NOT SWEAT IT.

50 Freak
05-09-2006, 2:39 PM
The way I read it, the lowers are still legal to own. You just can't build them with non "permanent" fixed mags. As that is now considered an AW.

So basically unless you permanent weld a mag on (would be interesting to see what the DOJ considers as "permanent") the lowers built with a fixed 10 rounders are AW's. This keeps the Bushmaster and the FAB10's legal

So the only avenue left is to keep it pistol grip less not even build it.

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 2:39 PM
Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state.

They're saying that all current fixed mag rifles with pistol grip and/or other evil features is an assault weapon currently, and you will be busted for it.

snobordr
05-09-2006, 2:39 PM
Anyone who thinks this makes anything final, post after me with your location, I will be more than happy to take those "paperweights" off your hands.

MC Sweatshop
05-09-2006, 2:39 PM
So.....we can still buy lowers, right?

gose
05-09-2006, 2:40 PM
as stated, just a memo. it doesn't carry much weight without legislation.

They don't have to list or introduce legislation, the memo is clarifying existing legislation.
To them all legislation that is needed is already in place.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 2:40 PM
this is going to get interesting...

I disagree, they will just fall back on the mag fixes that they approved for lowers, e.g., epoxied in place. they will change their hitherto generous rule of allowing mags that need to be removed with a tool such as a bullet, and require something more difficult.

and it will all be done without the DOJ eating a single child, no concentration camps, no mandatory microchip implants, and no warrantless raids.

then somebody will petition for a writ of mandate, DOJ will refuse, and the legislature will pass emergency legislation to moot the issue, and the legislation may well set us back a bit, if not further.

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 2:41 PM
Well hell If I take my sks apart, the magazine is removable also................ I call B.S. on the DOJ:D

I call shenanigans on the DOJ :D

Stan_Humphries
05-09-2006, 2:41 PM
Just go to Detachable Mag configuration.

Good luck to them on their stress of permenancy - as the memo itself points out, it requires a regulatory redefinition of "detachable magazine" to even create the possibility of a successful criminal prosecution.

gh429
05-09-2006, 2:43 PM
It's pretty much time to get together and challenge the legality of the DOJ rule-making. As I said they would, they pretty much just made an underground rule that is potentially unenforceable in a court of law. But this does serve their purpose in that it will open up any person caught with a sporting conversion to criminal prosecuting.

So the question is, if the OAL determines this is NOT illegal rule-making then do we get to register? LOL funny how things turn around don't they?

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 2:43 PM
LOL, someone is going to make a bunch of money on "spring retaining brackets"...until they rule that those are pistol grips.

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 2:44 PM
It's pretty much time to get together and challenge the legality of the DOJ rule-making. As I said they would, they pretty much just made an underground rule that is potentially unenforceable in a court of law. But this does serve their purpose in that it will open up any person caught with a sporting conversion to criminal prosecuting.

So the question is, if the OAL determines this is NOT illegal rule-making then do we get to register? LOL funny how things turn around don't they?

Well, since they just declared a bunch of guns as AWs, one would think that if this memo holds any legal weight, as the DOJ seems to think it does, then they would have to open up registration....

glen avon
05-09-2006, 2:45 PM
apparently. It seems to me that they just created a new group of AWs, without opening registration of them....

no they did not. they refer only to the features ban which has been around ohhhhh, for SIX YEARS or so.

all DOJ said was our latest attempt to get around the six-year-old ban does not, and certain efforts to avoid the ban are still within its purview.

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 2:45 PM
It's pretty much time to get together and challenge the legality of the DOJ rule-making. As I said they would, they pretty much just made an underground rule that is potentially unenforceable in a court of law. But this does serve their purpose in that it will open up any person caught with a sporting conversion to criminal prosecuting.

So the question is, if the OAL determines this is NOT illegal rule-making then do we get to register? LOL funny how things turn around don't they?

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


to:


Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1).

That's quite a jump.

KLABruin
05-09-2006, 2:45 PM
“Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the” state.

I think this part is crap. If you follow this logic, then a lower without a mag fixed and no pistol grip is illegal unless the lower is permanently altered so it can no-longer accept a pistol grip.

gose
05-09-2006, 2:46 PM
Well, since they just declared a bunch of guns as AWs, one would think that if this memo holds any legal weight, as the DOJ seems to think it does, then they would have to open up registration....

They didnt declare anything, they clarified the grey area in the current legislation. Those rifles were AWs to start with, so no new registration is required.

spitkiss
05-09-2006, 2:46 PM
BTW...how was this link found? I see no link from http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/ or anywhere else on their site.

gose
05-09-2006, 2:47 PM
BTW...how was this link found? I see no link from http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/ or anywhere else on their site.

Look again, its there... http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/
top right corner.

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 2:47 PM
BTW...how was this link found? I see no link from http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/ or anywhere else on their site.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/index.html

On the right.

thmpr
05-09-2006, 2:48 PM
BTW...how was this link found? I see no link from http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/ or anywhere else on their site.


http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/index.html

30Cal
05-09-2006, 2:48 PM
Again, it's just a memo. I read it to mean that they couldn't make the conditional registration fly and that opening a registration to begin with would be an expense for them... So they'll just bark up this tree for the time being (i.e. find some way to scare people out of buying them until after the election when it becomes someone else's problem).

It's yet another stalling tactic.
Ty

glen avon
05-09-2006, 2:48 PM
Wow that seriously blows, they seem to really be overstepping their powers with the assertion that the rifle must be PERMANENTLY modified such that it can no longer have a detachable magazine.

The law doesn't read that way, it says TOOL...if I need a tool to take it apart IMHO it should be legal, end of story.

Regards,

James R.

what blows is the repeated and abiding ignorance of people who only believe what they want to believe. as stated here many many many times, and this is an item that Bill and I concur on, DOJ is constitutionally and statutorily entitled to make rules, and rules as to what constitutes a fixed mag. that's a rule, not a law.

DOJ isn't overstepping anything. IMHO, YHO is overstepping the facts.:rolleyes:

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 2:48 PM
no they did not. they refer only to the features ban which has been around ohhhhh, for SIX YEARS or so.

all DOJ said was our latest attempt to get around the six-year-old ban does not, and certain efforts to avoid the ban are still within its purview.

Really? before this, we were allowed to have fixed mag rifles that could be converted to detach mags in a free state. Now, if you can do this, they are AWs. So maybe YOU should explain how that does not create a **** load of new AWs?

bwiese
05-09-2006, 2:49 PM
Just go to Detachable Mag configuration.

Good luck to them on their stress of permenancy - as the memo itself points out, it requires a regulatory redefinition of "detachable magazine" to even create the possibility of a successful criminal prosecution.

Exactly!...................

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 2:49 PM
Just like the last "memo", this "memo" apparently has people all bent out of shape initially.

According to the law and not a "memo", my 10 round, fixed mag rifle, that requires a tool to remove the mag is completely legal. Until the law is changed to reflect something other than what is says now.....I am not changing a thing.

This "memo" is having its desired effect....some people will stop selling....some will stop buying...some will decide not to build theirs up....and others will continue to follow the law as it is written.

To each their own....

glen avon
05-09-2006, 2:49 PM
Hahaha a ****ign knew it. So much for the DOJ not making "submarine" regulations huh?

Shieett... Challenge time. Will dealers continue to offer for sale lowers?

OK here's a challenge. please explain how this is "submarine regulation." because it isn't.

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 2:50 PM
Just like the last "memo", this "memo" apparently has people all bent out of shape initially.

According to the law and not a "memo", my 10 round, fixed mag rifle, that requires a tool to remove the mag is completely legal. Until the law is changed to reflect something other than what is says now.....I am not changing a thing.

This "memo" is having its desired effect....some people will stop selling....some will stop buying...some will decide not to build theirs up....and others will continue to follow the law as it is written.

To each their own....

This is correct.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 2:50 PM
Where is that guy with the scooter...?!!?!!!??!!

I could have sworn he said something about a list was coming.....huh....

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 2:51 PM
OK here's a challenge. please explain how this is "submarine regulation." because it isn't.

They are ruling that a detachable magazine is one that is not permanently attached, and doing so without going through the formal process.

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 2:52 PM
Just like the last "memo", this "memo" apparently has people all bent out of shape initially.

According to the law and not a "memo", my 10 round, fixed mag rifle, that requires a tool to remove the mag is completely legal. Until the law is changed to reflect something other than what is says now.....I am not changing a thing.

This "memo" is having its desired effect....some people will stop selling....some will stop buying...some will decide not to build theirs up....and others will continue to follow the law as it is written.

To each their own....

Agreed.

and glen, since you seem to be under the impression that this is all legal, Ill buy whatever lowers you might have of you for 20 bucks plus shipping. Hell, Ill even pay the fees on it.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 2:53 PM
OK here's a challenge. please explain how this is "submarine regulation." because it isn't.

I dont know about "submarine regulation", but I can tell you that the law, as it is written, directly conflicts with what the DOJ is claiming in this new "memo".

Nick5811
05-09-2006, 2:53 PM
I don't think you "I told you so" guys should start celebrating your pessimism(sp) just yet...This memo seems to say (basically) that the DOJ doesn't care about HARROT, and they are going to do whatever the hell they want to do.

They want to enforce another category of AW, call it an AW so they can charge you, but not allow its registration as an AW? This seems to slightly go against what was put out in the letters sent out by allison and statements by iggy...

It sounds like someone (DOJ) is having a hard time interpreting what the law says about a detachable magazine and is making things up as they go along. Maybe Lockyer knows he's fighting a losing battle and figures one of two things will happen...

1) gun owners will be too scared to fight his memo so it will stand,

or

2) gun owners will fight the memo, it will be overturned, and Lockyer can say "I tried, but the court system let down the people of California. Vote for me!"

I will leave mine stripped and locked up until the dust settles, but I am going to keep my eyes open and wallet ready to fight the fight, and fight to win!

Edit: HOLY CRAP! when I found this thread it was 2 pages. When I started this post it was 3 pages, by the time I was done typing this it was up to 6 pages! I guess the word finally spread!

glen avon
05-09-2006, 2:54 PM
Really? before this, we were allowed to have fixed mag rifles that could be converted to detach mags in a free state. Now, if you can do this, they are AWs. So maybe YOU should explain how that does not create a **** load of new AWs?

OK here goes: people who made fixed-mag rifles in violation of the evil features count that could readily be converted to detachable mag rifles made rifles that were always argued by some to be AWs.

DOJ didn't make a single dang rifle.

many of us always maintained that we may have crossed the line. the fact that you over-extended yourselves is whose fault? did DOJ put a gun to your head?

or did a bunch of people spur DOJ to act? if anybody caused this, it ain't DOJ.

gh429
05-09-2006, 2:54 PM
But you guys are failing to understand that LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL NAIL YOU FOR HAVING A SPORTING CONVERSION. As I believe Xeno has said time and time again, even if you win in court you lose (financially speaking).

I for one am not taking my rifles out until this blows over. If you want to go to the range, REMOVE THE PISTOL GRIPS.

While this might be illegal rule-making on the part of the DOJ, but until it is declared so by the OAL you may potentially be prosecuted for possession of an assault weapon.

sintax
05-09-2006, 2:54 PM
Well thats a pretty ****ty B-day present :)

GTKrockeTT
05-09-2006, 2:56 PM
Well thats a pretty ****ty B-day present :)

happy birthday!:D

glen avon
05-09-2006, 2:56 PM
They want to enforce another category of AW,

what "another category"? the category of rifles that do not comply with the features ban? that "category" is SIX YEARS OLD.

caduckgunner
05-09-2006, 2:58 PM
CRAP...... by the time drive my 6 mile drive home from work this thread is going to be 20 pages long....... I'm going to be reading for a long time;)

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 2:59 PM
what "another category"? the category of rifles that do not comply with the features ban? that "category" is SIX YEARS OLD.

Why are you trying to hard to justify what they are doing?

Don't you see that they are claiming that a magazine that is not PERMANENT violates the law, when it clearly doesn't?

People misusing terms like "new category of AW" or "submarine regulation" do not change this fact. The DoJ ****ed up.

thmpr
05-09-2006, 2:59 PM
what "another category"? the category of rifles that do not comply with the features ban? that "category" is SIX YEARS OLD.


It is not another AW cat. The memo does not correspond with the fixed mag definition. Does the DOJ have the power to change the definition enitrely? Sounds like BS to me.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 2:59 PM
While this might be illegal rule-making on the part of the DOJ, but until it is declared so by the OAL you may potentially be prosecuted for possession of an assault weapon.please explain how this would be "illegal rule making."

and please explain just how OAL "declares" something to be illegal rule-making. that is a court's province. OAL's mission is to assist agencies in good rule-making, not to "declare" any rule-making to be bad.

bwiese
05-09-2006, 2:59 PM
OK. Relax. THIS IS JUST A MEMO.

Also, NO PISTOL GRIP configurations with detachable mags are ENTIRELY LEGAL and UNAFFECTED.

Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state.

So right now, fixed-mag off-list ARs are legal. THEY ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Why? CCR 978.20(a) does not include any definition of permanence. It's just tools and time. The 12276.1(a)(1) statutory definition of AW depends on what is a detachable magazine, not what is a fixed magazine. We have no detachable magazines. For now, our fixed mags are legal. The fact that the DOJ says they have to update these regulations confirms this.

The last sentence above, "...the Dept. intents to exercise its power... to adopt regulations" means the sentiments expressed in this memo are exactly that, THEY ARE NOT LAW AS OF NOW.

If DOJ changes that definition of detachable magazine or defines some sort of fixed magazine, THE DOJ HAS MANUFACTURED THE ASSAULT WEAPON for you. A reg period will be required.

DOJ _cannot_ make you take things off that were once legal. There is NO statutory or regulatory support for surrender, decommisioning or modification of weapons. These were lawfully acquired and possessed before any DOJ regulatory action.

A regulatory change that makes existing fixed-mag rifles assault weapons is just akin to the Kasler decision that said "series" members were AWs: it triggered a reg period (independent of SB23)

Battle's not over yet, by far.

50 Freak
05-09-2006, 3:00 PM
This is why I never built up any of my receivers. They are sitting in the safe the same way they came to me. Those of you that thought this was a "quick" battle are sorely mistaken.

This is something that will play out in about a year or more. Until then. Keep your receiver stripped. Or if you have to build it, build it detachable and no PG.

I'm interested in seeing if the DOJ has any teeth in enforcing this memo. Cause remember it is a MEMO not law.

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 3:00 PM
OK here goes: people who made fixed-mag rifles in violation of the evil features count that could readily be converted to detachable mag rifles made rifles that were always argued by some to be AWs.

DOJ didn't make a single dang rifle.

many of us always maintained that we may have crossed the line. the fact that you over-extended yourselves is whose fault? did DOJ put a gun to your head?

or did a bunch of people spur DOJ to act? if anybody caused this, it ain't DOJ.

good job not answering the question. As for 'many of us', I assume you mean you and one or two others?

So, once again, how does this memo, if legally sound, not create a new group of AWs that used to be legal fixed mag self loading .223 rifles?

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 3:00 PM
OK here goes: people who made fixed-mag rifles in violation of the evil features count that could readily be converted to detachable mag rifles made rifles that were always argued by some to be AWs.

DOJ didn't make a single dang rifle.

many of us always maintained that we may have crossed the line. the fact that you over-extended yourselves is whose fault? did DOJ put a gun to your head?

or did a bunch of people spur DOJ to act? if anybody caused this, it ain't DOJ.

What is your definition of "readily". I do not see that in the law as it is currently written. Furthermore, the DOJ is absolutely making a new classification of AW....what was deemed to be legal last week, even by the DOJ, is now illegal according to this memo.

Glen...I appreciate you playing the role of devil's advocate....makes people think. I know you are smarter than thinking this memo carries weight in court.:)

MaxQ
05-09-2006, 3:01 PM
“Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the” state.

I think this part is crap. If you follow this logic, then a lower without a mag fixed and no pistol grip is illegal unless the lower is permanently altered so it can no-longer accept a pistol grip.

No, the memo makes it clear that you're okay with a detachable mag, as long as the evil features have simply been removed. There's no need for the rifle to be permanently modified to prevent evil feature reattachment. the permanent modification verbiage only applies to the detachable magazine capability.

blkA4alb
05-09-2006, 3:01 PM
This means nothing, and I think nothing of it. They are saying they will create category 4 just without saying it. Give this a week and it will blow off like the other memo.

Sig226
05-09-2006, 3:02 PM
what "another category"? the category of rifles that do not comply with the features ban? that "category" is SIX YEARS OLD.


The AssaultWeapons catagory of centerfire rifles, that have a fixed magazine (requiring tools and time), with any of the following: Pistol grip/Flash Hider/Forward Grip/Multi-postion Stock.

That's what they just said they created. So it's either legal for them to do that---and the courts will let us register---or it isn't legal and the DOJ can suck me slowly.

Joe
05-09-2006, 3:02 PM
OK. Relax. THIS IS JUST A MEMO.

Also, NO PISTOL GRIP configurations with detachable mags are ENTIRELY LEGAL and UNAFFECTED.

Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state.

So right now, fixed-mag off-list ARs are legal. THEY ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Why? 978.20(a) does not include any definition of permanence. Also, the last sentence, "...the Dept. intents to exercise its power... to adopt regulations" means the sentiments expressed in this memo are exactly that, THEY ARE NOT LAW AS OF NOW.

12276.1(a)(1) AW definition _depends_ on the detachable magazine definition. Our fixed mag rifles are legal. The fact that the DOJ says they have to update these regulations confirms this.

If DOJ changes that definition, THE DOJ HAS MANUFACTURED THE ASSAULT WEAPON for you. A reg period will be required.

DOJ cannot make you take things off that were once legal. There is NO statutory or regulatory support for decommisioning or modification of weapons. These were lawfully acquired and possessed before any DOJ regulatory action.

A regulatory change that makes existing fixed-mag rifles assault weapons is just akin to the Kasler decision that said "series" members were AWs: it triggered a reg period.


Battle's not over yet, by far.

good post.

gh429
05-09-2006, 3:03 PM
Why are you trying to hard to justify what they are doing?

Don't you see that they are claiming that a magazine that is not PERMANENT violates the law, when it clearly doesn't?

People misusing terms like "new category of AW" or "submarine regulation" do not change this fact. The DoJ ****ed up.

Yes the DOJ ****ed up, yes it's BS, yes it possibly may not stand a legal challenge. HOWEVER, the fact of the matter is, as of whenever the hell the memo came out, it is the official position of the California Department of Justice, Firearms Division, that your sporting conversion kit is illegal. This official position means that you WILL be prosecuted for having a sporting conversion at this point. Whether the case is thrown out, dismissed, or plea-bargained is irrelevant. It is now for all practical terms ILLEGAL to posses an AR-15 type rifle with a sporting conversion kit. You will need to either EPOXY / WELD the mag or remove your pistol grip.

Oh an happy birthday. :)

30Cal
05-09-2006, 3:03 PM
After pondering for a couple minutes, I have some more thinkings. Methinks Bill Lockyer doesn't want to spend any money on the issue and is more than content to make intimidating and inexpensive (yet empty) statements until it's someone else's problem.

spitkiss
05-09-2006, 3:04 PM
I may be playing with fire but i'm still planning on taking my fixed mag, ..223 self loading rifle to the range...

caduckgunner
05-09-2006, 3:04 PM
You will need to either EPOXY / WELD the mag or remove your pistol grip.

Epoxy is removable also, just need a knife and some time on your hands:D

Matt C
05-09-2006, 3:05 PM
So wait, now it's just as illegal to have a fixed mag as an unfixed one? Hmm.....

50 Freak
05-09-2006, 3:06 PM
After pondering for a couple minutes, I have some more thinkings. Methinks Bill Lockyer doesn't want to spend any money on the issue and is more than content to make inexpensive, yet empty scary statements until it's someone else's problem.

Ding Ding....give the man a cigar.

Good ole Bill doesn't want this to come back and haunt him. He's buying time till the next sucker...(errr, Attorney General) comes in. Then it's going to be his problem.....

Good old American politics....passing the buck.

gh429
05-09-2006, 3:06 PM
Epoxy is removable also, just need a knife and some time on your hands:D

That's why this new rule by the DOJ is retarded. :D But I mean it comes down to the arresting officer and the local DA who is going to probably call the DOJ. Sigh...

gose
05-09-2006, 3:06 PM
Epoxy is removable also, just need a knife and some time on your hands:D

With that reasoning the mag is removable unless its bonded to the receiver on a molecular level ;)

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:07 PM
...If DOJ changes that definition, THE DOJ HAS MANUFACTURED THE ASSAULT WEAPON for you. A reg period will be required.

I disagree. DOJ didn't manufacture anything. if you had a dog track before they were banned, and you refused to shut it down, DOJ didn't manufacture an illegal dog track.

see also the SKS fiasco....

DOJ cannot make you take things off that were once legal. There is NO statutory or regulatory support for decommisioning or modification of weapons. These were lawfully acquired and possessed before any DOJ regulatory action.

see SKS fiasco, there's your regulatory precedent.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 3:08 PM
Bill lockyer simply does NOT want to deal with the real issue, which is why the hell he didn't update the list as the law requires.

Now he has stepped in political doo doo because if he lists now he will make tens of thousands of legal AW's.

What he hopes to do is delay the issue while all along claiming that he has dealt with it. This is a political move on his part....one of protection.

In the end I envision one big *** registration process after this has worked itself through the courts...either that or no list ever and we can legally have our fixed mag rifles.....

bwiese
05-09-2006, 3:08 PM
and please explain just how OAL "declares" something to be illegal rule-making. that is a court's province. OAL's mission is to assist agencies in good rule-making, not to "declare" any rule-making to be bad.

Yes, but they do serve as gatekeepers during the rulemaking process. Part of their charter is to stop side effects since the side effects are the underground regulation, even if the direct regulation itself is on the up & up...

http://www.oal.ca.gov/underground%20regulations.htm

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 3:09 PM
I disagree. DOJ didn't manufacture anything. if you had a dog track before they were banned, and you refused to shut it down, DOJ didn't manufacture an illegal dog track.

see also the SKS fiasco....



see SKS fiasco, there's your regulatory precedent.

Glen, would you please answer the question I posed earlier, just how did the DOJ NOT create a new catagory/group of assault weapons with this memo?

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:09 PM
The AssaultWeapons catagory of centerfire rifles, that have a fixed magazine (requiring tools and time), with any of the following: Pistol grip/Flash Hider/Forward Grip/Multi-postion Stock.

That's what they just said they created.

no, what they are saying is that a mag is not fixed if it's easily removeable, even if only with simple tools.

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 3:10 PM
no, what they are saying is that a mag is not fixed if it's easily removeable, even if only with simple tools.

Which is false, according to the law.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 3:11 PM
10 pages already.....sheesh...

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:12 PM
...DOJ is absolutely making a new classification of AW....what was deemed to be legal last week, even by the DOJ, is now illegal according to this memo.

illegal under a pre-existing classification. not a new classification.

Glen...I appreciate you playing the role of devil's advocate....makes people think. I know you are smarter than thinking this memo carries weight in court.:)

I am NOT playing devil's advocate. and DOJ is not the devil. THEY MAY WELL BE RIGHT. and nobody says this memo means anything in court.

gh429
05-09-2006, 3:13 PM
So what now?

Challenge the rule and hope that it is declared legal and hope for registration (super long-shot IMO)

Or

Challenge the rule and hope it is declared illegal and go back to sporting conversions?

Or

????

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:13 PM
good job not answering the question.

I answered the question, you just don't like my answer so you pretend it's not there.

Mesa Tactical
05-09-2006, 3:14 PM
Let me be the first to say. . .I was right.


Beat me to it.

I hate to say I told ya so, but ...

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 3:14 PM
illegal under a pre-existing classification. not a new classification.



I am NOT playing devil's advocate. and DOJ is not the devil. THEY MAY WELL BE RIGHT. and nobody says this memo means anything in court.

You didn't answer the best question...which was what do you mean, how do you define, "readily". This is an of itself is the new classification....dont you get it?

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 3:15 PM
I answered the question, you just don't like my answer so you pretend it's not there.

where did you answer the question? Quote it again if you will, cause I sure as hell cannot find any answer that you gave to it.

thmpr
05-09-2006, 3:15 PM
I am sticking to Bill's reasoning which makes total sense to me. I will continue to take my rifle to the range and have a hell of a time!!!

:D

bwiese
05-09-2006, 3:17 PM
I disagree. DOJ didn't manufacture anything. if you had a dog track before they were banned, and you refused to shut it down, DOJ didn't manufacture an illegal dog track.

That may be for dog tracks, if the law says "no more dog tracks".

But the AW laws don't say that: they don't allow _banning_ of existing legal guns that are legally owned & acquired. It's not a ban on existing owners: that would never have passed, and was in fact mentioned in Kasler or Harrott.

A registration period MUST open for anything that transitions into AW status The DOJ definition change makes them AWs.


see SKS fiasco, there's your regulatory precedent.

The SKS thing is distinct/separate. In fact if the SKS situation had happened after Harrott, it may or may not've happened. The SKS problem happened because the DOJ said they were first OK, then not. (I personally would not have bought an SKS w/detachable mag even if DOJ said it was OK.)

[Glen Avon: I would like a pointer to the whole SKS Sporter fiasco incl step by step history. I've seen varying accounts and many have rumor mixed in.]

This issue is much more well-defined. We've got a rigid statutory definition. We have regulatory defintions that interleave with that. This interplay determines assault weapons status, and the definition currently extant clearly makes these NOT assault weapons.

In fact we benefit by this dual mode definition spread across two bodies of law.

Changing the detachable mag definition WILL make these an AW.

klmmicro
05-09-2006, 3:18 PM
With that reasoning the mag is removable unless its bonded to the receiver on a molecular level ;)

Now just how and the heck am I supposed to pull that off! :eek:

I do not have xray vision...and steel (my mag is mag of it) will not weld into aluminum (my lower is made of this), will it?

Let me get this straight, I have to remove the pistol grip in order to shoot my rifle? By removing the grip all SB23 regulation drops away as the grip is the only "and one of the following" features that my rifle has. Now it is open to having the detachable magazine.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:18 PM
Why are you trying to hard to justify what they are doing?

NOT EVERYTHING THE DOJ DOES IS WRONG.

Get over the simplistic, useless, "DOJ is a poopy-face so everything they do must be wrong and indefensible" mindset. it is not serving anybody well, and is so useless, that I feel a moral and ethical obligation to refute it when I see it.

For people to make intelligent decisions they have to do better than your simplistic blanket demonization.

Don't you see that they are claiming that a magazine that is not PERMANENT violates the law, when it clearly doesn't?

no, I don't and I am better at this than you are.

People misusing terms like "new category of AW" or "submarine regulation" do not change this fact. The DoJ ****ed up.

oh no they didn't. the legislature drafted bad law and DOJ is doing what it can to effect the letter and the intent of the law while actually being decent to gunowners.

so long as you think the DOJ f'd up, you are wrong and potentially misdirecting both understanding of the issue, and the correct way to address this issue.

gh429
05-09-2006, 3:19 PM
I am sticking to Bill's reasoning which makes total sense to me. I will continue to take my rifle to the range and have a hell of a time!!!

:D

If you are using a sporting conversion and this memo is rapidly disseminated to law enforcement agencies you have a good chance of being arrested. Be careful!

vandal968
05-09-2006, 3:21 PM
Which is false, according to the law.
I think that the memo doesn't carry any weight. The law is quite clear about what a detachable magazine is. If anyone gets busted on this (which I believe will happen) I'd make a point of demonstrating, in court, the process of converting an SKS from fixed mag to detachable mag. It's even less involved than removing the allen-key on one of the fixed-mag offlist AR's. And the SKS has the DOJ's blessing. If it looks like BS, and smells like BS...

c:rolleyes:

50 Freak
05-09-2006, 3:21 PM
We need a test case....

Who wants to take one for the team????/:D

You need to get busted and sent to jail on the powers of this "Memo". You need to hire an attorney and spend 10's of thousand and risk jail time.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:21 PM
Which is false, according to the law.

for now. when they change the rule, which is their right and their job, it will be true.

you know, DOJ doesn't have to post these memos. they could give us as little warning as possible. but no, they are doing what they can in a reasonably open and cooperative manner.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 3:21 PM
If you are using a sporting conversion and this memo is rapidly disseminated to law enforcement agencies you have a good chance of being arrested. Be careful!

At this point I would like to be arrested.....screw it. At least I will finally know where I stand with my rifle.....:eek:

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 3:22 PM
My definition of wrong does not necessarily equal illegal. Obviously, I think they are morally wrong and know that nothing can change that.

However, what I quoted clearly says that guns with magazines that are not permanently installed + other evil feature are CURRENTLY assault weapons.

Find me a current regulation that supports this.

NOT EVERYTHING THE DOJ DOES IS WRONG.

Get over the simplistic, useless, "DOJ is a poopy-face so everything they do must be wrong and indefensible" mindset. it is not serving anybody well, and is so useless, that I feel a moral and ethical obligation to refute it when I see it.

For people to make intelligent decisions they have to do better than your simplistic blanket demonization.



no, I don't and I am better at this than you are.



oh no they didn't. the legislature drafted bad law and DOJ is doing what it can to effect the letter and the intent of the law while actually being decent to gunowners.

so long as you think the DOJ f'd up, you are wrong and potentially misdirecting both understanding of the issue, and the correct way to address this issue.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 3:24 PM
for now. when they change the rule, which is their right and their job, it will be true.

you know, DOJ doesn't have to post these memos. they could give us as little warning as possible. but no, they are doing what they can in a reasonably open and cooperative manner.

So you are saying the DOJ can change a "rule" that directly conflicts with existing law and it will stand?

I dont think the DOJ are boogy-men, but you are taking this defending of the DOJ too far. Why would we even need a legislature if the DOJ could make law on their own?

gh429
05-09-2006, 3:27 PM
So you are saying the DOJ can change a "rule" that directly conflicts with existing law and it will stand?

I dont think the DOJ are boogy-men, but you are taking this defending of the DOJ too far. Why would we even need a legislature if the DOJ could make law on their own?

Yes, as the DOJ that is within their right. You have to remember conflicting with the existing law is not a determination made by you or me - it's made by a judge. So whatever they DOJ wants to do they can do until a judge feels differently. They are the DOJ not a private individual or a law firm.

bwiese
05-09-2006, 3:27 PM
So you are saying the DOJ can change a "rule" that directly conflicts with existing law and it will stand?

No he's not saying that. They can't change the statutory definition of AW.

But they CAN indeed, with notice, and procedures and comment period, change the regulatiory definition of detachable magazine.

I dont think the DOJ are boogy-men, but you are taking this defending of the DOJ too far. Why would we even need a legislature if the DOJ could make law on their own?

They can to some extent. We are protected by the 12276.1 definition because that itself can't be 'edited' by DOJ. But the detachable mag defintion does warp it, and DOJ can change that.

The kicker here is that DOJ redefinition WILL manufacture an AW and I think that'll trigger a reg period in the end.

xenophobe
05-09-2006, 3:28 PM
the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state.

I call BS. It's still only a memo. They're going after test cases.

rebelmark1
05-09-2006, 3:29 PM
Let me be the first to say....GlenAvon, shut your pie hole. You sound like a guy that is too broke to build an off list lower, and now you are taking pleasure in the fact that there is a memo that basically is saying they are illegal. STFU!

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 3:29 PM
Yes, as the DOJ that is within their right. You have to remember conflicting with the existing law is not a determination made by you or me - it's made by a judge. So whatever they DOJ wants to do they can do until a judge feels differently. They are the DOJ not a private individual or a law firm.

Key point in my questions was it wont stand. The law is clear.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:30 PM
So you are saying the DOJ can change a "rule" that directly conflicts with existing law and it will stand?

I dont think the DOJ are boogy-men, but you are taking this defending of the DOJ too far. Why would we even need a legislature if the DOJ could make law on their own?

please cite the "rule" and the "law" that would conflict.

I think you will find they are both rules. and I think that's why you think I am overly solicitous of the DOJ in this matter.

the legislature says "detachable magazine." The DOJ gets to define just what a detachable magazine is. tools? which tools? glue? which glue? the legislature does not have the time, expertise, or the resources for such minutae. but the responsible agencies do. hence, DOJ defines what a detachable mag is. for now, it's a mag that need s atool to remove. in the future, they will almost certainly define it a somethiong more permanent.

that's all.

DRH
05-09-2006, 3:32 PM
no, what they are saying is that a mag is not fixed if it's easily removeable, even if only with simple tools.

So all SKS rifles now have a detachable magazine and are AWs.:D

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:32 PM
Let me be the first to say....GlenAvon, shut your pie hole. You sound like a guy that is too broke to build an off list lower, and now you are taking pleasure in the fact that there is a memo that basically is saying they are illegal. STFU!

you are hardly the first, and I doubt you will be the last. thank you for your useful contribution to our better understanding of the complex legal issues we face.

7.62MM
05-09-2006, 3:32 PM
They are just testing the waters .See what kind of responce they get and mabey they want some more DROS fees .So a rush to buy = more $ for them . Just my .02

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 3:34 PM
please cite the "rule" and the "law" that would conflict.

I think you will find they are both rules. and I think that's why you think I am overly solicitous of the DOJ in this matter.

the legislature says "detachable magazine." The DOJ gets to define just what a detachable magazine is. tools? which tools? glue? which glue? the legislature does not have the time, expertise, or the resources for such minutae. but the responsible agencies do. hence, DOJ defines what a detachable mag is. for now, it's a mag that need s atool to remove. in the future, they will almost certainly define it a somethiong more permanent.

that's all.

And I will almost certainly use a detachable magazine without a pistol grip.

But for those people out there that will continue to use a fixed magazine, keep in mind that they are saying that your gun IS CURRENTLY an assault weapon if it has any other evil feature. These charges may not stick until they change the definition, but by then you will be screwed.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:35 PM
no, b/c SKSs aren't "restored" to detachable mag status. they are "converted." it's a thin argument, but no doubt with all of our discussions, the notice and the comment, DOJ will come to a workable solution if they can.

look at the regulatory history of the detachable mag definition. DOJ accepted comments and made changes to the rule to accomodate those comments.

Joe
05-09-2006, 3:35 PM
And I will almost certainly use a detachable magazine without a pistol grip.

that seems to be the best alternative. that is what i am going to do.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:36 PM
... keep in mind that they are saying that your gun IS CURRENTLY an assault weapon if it has any other evil feature.

that's their biggest mistake. only after the rule change will it be illegal.

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 3:36 PM
you are hardly the first, and I doubt you will be the last. thank you for your useful contribution to our better understanding of the complex legal issues we face.

yes, because all of your posts have been clear and on topic. I notice that you still havent shown me where you posted how this memo does not change once perfeclty legal rifles into AWs.

rkt88edmo
05-09-2006, 3:37 PM
you are hardly the first, and I doubt you will be the last. thank you for your useful contribution to our better understanding of the complex legal issues we face.

<<Originally Posted by rebelmark1
Let me be the first to say....GlenAvon, shut your pie hole. You sound like a guy that is too broke to build an off list lower, and now you are taking pleasure in the fact that there is a memo that basically is saying they are illegal. STFU!>>

Everyone who is arguing with GlenAvon needs to re-read the FAQ and then read the new memo a couple of times. :eek:

The question about currently legal SKSs being drawn into the "detachable mag" net is an interesting one.

rkt88edmo
05-09-2006, 3:38 PM
yes, because all of your posts have been clear and on topic. I notice that you still havent shown me where you posted how this memo does not change once perfeclty legal rifles into AWs.

It only announces the DOJs intention to do so, it doesn't actually change anything. The next question is, once the perfectly rifles are declared AWs what will happen, registration as Bill suggests, or instant contraband as per the previous "SKS fiasco". Of course, if there are no evil features, then there is no contraband and we will have endless debates about constructive intent and how to store your pistol gripless ARs away from those evil evil pistol grips.

gh429
05-09-2006, 3:38 PM
The more I look at it, the more I realize we're in an interesting predicament. Several weeks ago I discussed the DOJ possibly using the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" portion of 12276 to nail us. I think they did just that.

They just made a rule that differentiates / clarifies between temporarily and permanently capable / incapable of accepting detachable magazines. I am NOT a lawyer. That said I can't say I can see any conflicts with existing law... It does NOT affect the definition of detachable magazine, and SB23 does NOT discuss permanent or temporary issues...

Thoughts?

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 3:39 PM
dooooood, you are so wrong. they said after the rule change it will be illegal.

pay attention, junior.

Damnit, I know how to ****ing read.

I don't doubt that they mean that this will apply after they change the definition, but that is not what the memo says.

Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state.

They say "are", not "will be". The last part of the paragraph is what says they will probably be changing the definition of detachable magazine, but this is poor language on their part (perhaps intentional?)

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 3:40 PM
So this really begs the question.....Is the DOJ EVER going to list?

I think its time the tens of thousands of us that have purhcased lowers start getting vocal.

50 Freak
05-09-2006, 3:40 PM
Guys,

Unless I'm mistaken, under the same "non permanent" fixed mag ruling by the DOJ...

I BELIVE THEY HAVE JUST MADE ALL FIXED MAG FALS INTO ASSAULT WEAPONS TOO.

If so, they have just opened a bag of worms as they approved the DSA and Enterprise Fixed Mag FALs. Now they are saying that all these legal guns bought and sold in the last 5 years are illegal....

Boy are DS and Enterprise going to have some fun with this one.

where's my popcorn....here comes the fireworks.

snobordr
05-09-2006, 3:41 PM
no, what they are saying is that a mag is not fixed if it's easily removeable, even if only with simple tools.


Then my CA legal SKS is now an AW?

Giggity!

Think again.

gh429
05-09-2006, 3:41 PM
It only announces the DOJs intention to do so, it doesn't actually change anything. The next question is, once the perfectly rifles are declared AWs what will happen, registration as Bill suggests, or instant contraband as per the previous "SKS fiasco".

It changes the fact that law enforcement and DA's now have the blessing of the DOJ to arrest and prosecute for sporting mag conversions. I think it changes a whole damn lot...

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 3:41 PM
that's their biggest mistake. only after the rule change will it be illegal.

Look here, instead of admitting his mistake and name calling, he quickily edited his post. Nice job man.

ETA: See below.

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 3:42 PM
Guys,

Unless I'm mistaken, under the same "non permanent" fixed mag ruling by the DOJ...

I BELIVE THEY HAVE JUST MADE ALL FIXED MAG FALS INTO ASSAULT WEAPONS TOO.
if thats true, then I need to go get myself a FAL....

edit: and an SKS

Mesa Tactical
05-09-2006, 3:44 PM
So this really begs the question.....Is the DOJ EVER going to list?

They just said, "No."

50 Freak
05-09-2006, 3:44 PM
SKS's are not affected. They have no pistol grip or features that constitute an AW.

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 3:44 PM
Look here, instead of admitting his mistake and name calling, he quickily edited his post. Nice job man.

What we really need is a way to see the original post. Luckily though, you quoted him, and he cant change that.

Stan_Humphries
05-09-2006, 3:44 PM
The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state.


Right there is going to be the ticket to registration upon re-definition (or clarification, whatever).

By intent of the law, they really are talking about the intent of the legislature (for do laws really have intent in and of themselves?)

It's nothing new that legislative bodies can empower agencies to create administrative law - but along with that comes an extensive case law where these agencies overstep their bounds - boundaries that are often referred to in terms of legislative intent.


Sure, the new definitions can go into effect, but I'll tell ya' it's going to be difficult for an appellate court not to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the opening of a registration period for those who possessed the previously-legal rifles - for it's quite clear within the text of the penal code that legislature has ALWAYS intended for there to be registration following the transition of a set class of rifles into Assault Weapons status.

To not permit registration would clearly violate the inent of the legislature - and that my friends would constitute the agency in question overstepping the boundries granted it by the very same statute that requires registration.

Also... Let us not forget, Harrot v. County of Kings, where the California Supreme Court contructed a "saving" interpretation of existing statute. Should another issue come up over this very statute, they (or any other body) might not be able to peform such legal reconstructive surgery...

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 3:44 PM
They just said, "No."

I could have sworn somewhere in the law it said the DOJ is to update the list.....hmmmmmm.....:rolleyes:

snobordr
05-09-2006, 3:45 PM
please cite the "rule" and the "law" that would conflict.

that's all.

Section 978.20 defines six terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to PC section 12276. 1. Those terms are defined as follows:

* "detachable magazine" means any magazine that can be readily removed without the use of tools.

* "flash suppressor" means any device that reduces or conceals the visible light or flash created when a firearm is fired. This definition includes flash hiders, but does not include compensators and muzzle brakes (devices attached to or integral with the muzzle barrel to utilize propelling gasses for counter-recoil).

* "forward pistol grip " means any protrusion in front of the trigger that is designed or intended to grasp and control the firearm.

* "permanently altered" means any irreversible change or modification.

* "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means any component that allows for the grasp, control, and fire of the firearm where the portion grasped is located beneath an imaginary line drawn parallel to the barrel that runs through the top of the exposed trigger.

* "thumbhole stock" means any stock with any opening that enables the firearm to be grasped, controlled, and fired with one hand.



Seems pretty cut and dried to me that we have "law" defining a detachable magazine.

that's all.

Yer right.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:45 PM
Damnit, I know how to ****ing read.

I don't doubt that they mean that this will apply after they change the definition, but that is not what the memo says...

indeed. I corrected my post before you posted the above.

you do indeed know how to read. :blushing idiot:

Mesa Tactical
05-09-2006, 3:45 PM
SKS's are not affected. They have no pistol grip or features that constitute an AW.

But a detachable magazine SKS is an assault weapon in California.

This will all come out in the comment period.

GTKrockeTT
05-09-2006, 3:46 PM
Guys,

Unless I'm mistaken, under the same "non permanent" fixed mag ruling by the DOJ...

I BELIVE THEY HAVE JUST MADE ALL FIXED MAG FALS INTO ASSAULT WEAPONS TOO.

If so, they have just opened a bag of worms as they approved the DSA and Enterprise Fixed Mag FALs. Now they are saying that all these legal guns bought and sold in the last 5 years are illegal....

Boy are DS and Enterprise going to have some fun with this one.

where's my popcorn....here comes the fireworks.

what he said:

so, based on the memo, CA Legal FAL owners will be impacted as well.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=288575&postcount=19

;)

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 3:46 PM
SKS's are not affected. They have no pistol grip or features that constitute an AW.

but their fixed mag can be (sorta) easily changed to a detachable mag = AW by new memo

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 3:46 PM
What we really need is a way to see the original post. Luckily though, you quoted him, and he cant change that.

So he edited his post....I dont see the importance. Nothing in either of them was particularly earth shaking.......

gh429
05-09-2006, 3:47 PM
if thats true, then I need to go get myself a FAL....

edit: and an SKS

I'm not too familiar with the FAL's, but I would imagine due to the new memo, the only rifles potentially eligible for registration would be non-permanent fixed mag rifles that have received the blessing of the DOJ for sale in California. Do these rifles exist?

For those of you that have rifles that have received DOJ blessing (Bushmasters, Vulcans, etc.) that have dropped the mag, better start epoxying or dropping those pistol grips! Sucks because the factory mag in the bushy is terrible to say the least...

bg
05-09-2006, 3:47 PM
All the more reason to vote those in the majority out
of office up in Sac, along with getting Poochigian
elected as Atty Gen and keeping both Angelides and
Westly out of the Gov's seat. All of this nonsense
wouldn't even be here if it weren't for Davis getting
into office and signing SB-23, and where did SB-23
come from ?

Now if someone could just come up with a stock that
didn't employ a pistol grip and was still usable..

Or install one of those theft proof screws to hold the
mag in place. If you can't get the mag out, I'd say
that was permently fixed, wouldn't you ?

I just hope if they do a revised AW ban my mini-14
isn't going to be on the list.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:47 PM
Look here, instead of admitting his mistake and name calling, he quickily edited his post. Nice job man.

I edited it before you replied, check the time.

Mesa Tactical
05-09-2006, 3:48 PM
I could have sworn somewhere in the law it said the DOJ is to update the list.....hmmmmmm.....:rolleyes:

Latest memo says they think that's a dumb idea. I always thought the same thing:

The Department believes that the public and law enforcement are best served by reference to the generic definition of assault weapons set forth in SB 23, rather than reliance upon a scheme of identifying assault weapons by name. Therefore, the Department will not update the list of “series” assault weapons.

bwiese
05-09-2006, 3:48 PM
Then my CA legal SKS is now an AW?
Giggity!


Yep. The DOJ is really gonna have to examine side effects.

They may be "worse" than the "problem" they're trying to snuff out.

50 Freak
05-09-2006, 3:48 PM
Guys,

The DOJ doesn't have to follow the laws when it can use intimidation to acheive what it's intended purpose is.

I have 100 pound dog that recently broke her two front canines. Basically she has no "teeth". But if you come close to my house, she will bark and snarl at you to the point you will be afraid of entering without my approval.

She can't hurt you and is using intimidation to effect her purpose (defending the house).

Understand my example.....

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 3:50 PM
Yep. The DOJ is really gonna have to examine side effects.

They may be "worse" than the "problem" they're trying to snuff out.


*dances a jig*

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 3:50 PM
I edited it before you replied, check the time.

They're going to fix their mistakes soon like they did with the Feb 1st memo, they just use us as a proof reader.

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 3:51 PM
Guys,

The DOJ doesn't have to follow the laws when it can use intimidation to acheive what it's intended purpose is.

I have 100 pound dog that recently broke her two front canines. Basically she has no "teeth". But if you come close to my house, she will bark and snarl at you to the point you will be afraid of entering without my approval.

She can't hurt you and is using intimidation to effect her purpose (defending the house).

Understand my example.....

except that we are daring enough to ignore the snarling, and have found out that they really DONT have any teeth.

xenophobe
05-09-2006, 3:53 PM
It's only a memo. The last memo was pretty declaratory. What happened to it? They pulled it. Now there's a new one. A month from now there could be a different one.

Either way, nothing has really changed since December. Just more propaganda scare tactics.

It seems they can't stop from saying things that they can't readily do in these memos. They'll realize this in time.

Delay tactics, definitely.

bwiese
05-09-2006, 3:53 PM
I'm not too familiar with the FAL's, but I would imagine due to the new memo, the only rifles potentially eligible for registration would be non-permanent fixed mag rifles that have received the blessing of the DOJ for sale in California. Do these rifles exist?

"Eligible for registration"? That's what we are hoping for!

With the current DOJ sentiments today, what we want are existing fixed-mag rifles to be de facto declared as AWs by further DOJ redefinitions: they have to open a reg period for them.

And FAL clones with removed gas piston and closed gas port - it's not semiauto!

James R.
05-09-2006, 3:54 PM
Epoxy is removable also, just need a knife and some time on your hands:D

LOL you mean like, "tools and time" honestly I don't see how they can win this battle, they f**cked up plain and simple. To what extent must one go to fix the magazine? If the law defines, "tools and time, and tools include something as simple as a bullet" that was then the law prevailing at the time. I don't see how they can retroactively apply a more stringent standard w/o first allowing those who should not have to comply to register their weapons in a newly defined class which is based on the old standard of, "fixed magazine".

Regards,

James R.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:54 PM
Sure, the new definitions can go into effect, but I'll tell ya' it's going to be difficult for an appellate court not to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the opening of a registration period for those who possessed the previously-legal rifles - for it's quite clear within the text of the penal code that legislature has ALWAYS intended for there to be registration following the transition of a set class of rifles into Assault Weapons status.

To not permit registration would clearly violate the inent of the legislature - and that my friends would constitute the agency in question overstepping the boundries granted it by the very same statute that requires registration.

distinguishable on its facts. all the easily convertible fixed mag weapons can be made to comply. just really fix the mag. that would also be in line with legislative intent.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 3:56 PM
I cant find it, but it was either in one of the court cases...or written into the law that the DOJ was to update the list of banned AR's.....

anyone....?

fusion
05-09-2006, 3:56 PM
They're going to fix their mistakes soon like they did with the Feb 1st memo, they just use us as a proof reader.


I agree..................

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 3:57 PM
I agree..................

same here, but this time, I am going to make sure and keep a copy of each modification

glen avon
05-09-2006, 3:58 PM
If the law defines, "tools and time, and tools include something as simple as a bullet" that was then the law prevailing at the time. I don't see how they can retroactively apply a more stringent standard w/o first allowing those who should not have to comply to register their weapons in a newly defined class which is based on the old standard of, "fixed magazine."

then you are not understanding the whole rulemaking thing.

DOJ wroth rules stating what a detachable mag was in detail. they can change that. if you don't think they can change it, well we disagree profoundly.

if you think their change in a rule means we have to get registration, well, I don't think there is any law for that. some argue there is a case, I am not certain it will apply. maybe it will. maybe it won't.

mblat
05-09-2006, 3:58 PM
First of all - isn't definition of detachable magazine in memo conflicts with stated by DOJ opinion that "sporting conversion fixed magazines" are legal?

Second of all and most important - I am bored. This is just a memo and as such it isn't worth the electrons that DOJ spent posting it on web site.
For mean time they said several things:
1. Lowers/receivers can be sold legally in CA....
2. If you don't use grip - use detachable magazine as much as you want....
3. Current definition of detachable magazine allows using of "sporting conversions" etc..... and if I am not mistaken some people have letters from DOJ in support of it. BTW – can somebody locate and post it somewhere? In FAQ area may be?
4. If they are to change the definition of detachable magazine (and they have all rights to do so) they will create an assault weapon. Not me, they. So they will have to open registration period. At that point magazine no longer will have to be fixed.
5. Not to mention all complications that may arise for CA legal FALS, SKS…..

So like I said – I am bored. This memo is no different than previous one. They say they not going to list – we say we will continue to buy and use our rifles without pistol grips. Somebody will come out with stocks for them that will take care of springs….
In 3 years they will be several hundred thousands of those rifles in CA. Tehy will be sold in most of the smaller shops. Not Turners.... but in a lot of places.... Somebody will likely to kill somebody with it. That is when it will really get interesting and not a second before.

Like I said – I am bored – wake me up when there is a school massacre with CA legal AR…

glen avon
05-09-2006, 4:01 PM
First of all - isn't definition of detachable magazine in memo conflicts with stated by DOJ opinion that "sporting conversion fixed magazines" are legal?

yes, but the DOJ has changed their minds before, and there was no subsequent registration, folks had to get rid of the guns. the SKS fiasco.

Stan_Humphries
05-09-2006, 4:03 PM
distinguishable on its facts. all the easily convertible fixed mag weapons can be made to comply. just really fix the mag. that would also be in line with legislative intent.


Look, I'm not into name-calling, but you are really doing your best to demonstrate just how limited your intellectual capabilities are. (See, no name-calling!)

If the legislature had applied the henceforth-named "Glen Avon 'ease of conversion' theory", then why didn't they require such efforts of law abiding citizens back when SB23 passed? Could it be that their intent was not to have law abiding citizens modify their theretofore legally owned rifles so that they would have been compliant?

Certainly they listed conforming to a compliant configuration as an alternative that citizens could elect to do, but alongside that option was register & remove. See, the legislature gave options to the good citizens of CA... the present course suggested by the Agency does not align with the intent of the legislature.

snobordr
05-09-2006, 4:04 PM
yes, but the DOJ has changed their minds before, and there was no subsequent registration, folks had to get rid of the guns. the SKS fiasco.


Completely different situation and has no relevance in this arguement.

Calling you out on the carpet on this one. Pretty sure California regulations pass as "law" and as per my previous post, CCR 978.20 defines a non-detachable magazine, the new definition the DOJ is trying to pass off contradicts existing law.

artherd
05-09-2006, 4:05 PM
The Department believes that the public and law enforcement are best served
by reference to the generic definition of assault weapons set forth in SB 23, rather than
reliance upon a scheme of identifying assault weapons by name.
Woah, did DOJ just abolish the codified named ban, and require me to weld my mag?

No, they did neither. This memo does not have force of law.

There is so much extra-AR momentum to the detachable mag issue (ie SKS!) and no definition of what constitutes "perminantly".

Our set-screws requireing tools and being regulatorily compliant as-is are in my opinon not affected by this.


DOJ may have expressed opinion to criminalize the bullet-point-drop-mag design. That's about all.

gh429
05-09-2006, 4:05 PM
First of all - isn't definition of detachable magazine in memo conflicts with stated by DOJ opinion that "sporting conversion fixed magazines" are legal?

I respectfully disagree. To me it looks like DOJ simply clarified "capacity to accept" while leaving the CCR definition of detachable magazine alone...

megavolt121
05-09-2006, 4:05 PM
Guys,

Unless I'm mistaken, under the same "non permanent" fixed mag ruling by the DOJ...

I BELIVE THEY HAVE JUST MADE ALL FIXED MAG FALS INTO ASSAULT WEAPONS TOO.




FINALLY SOMEONE BRINGS THIS UP! ABOUT DAMN TIME!

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:05 PM
Again...this is a delaying tactic by Bill....


Not BWeise of course.....:)

snobordr
05-09-2006, 4:07 PM
What Glen is arguing is that CCR 978.20 is a rule that the DOJ can change.


Ok then, my bad possibly. I understood that California regulations had the same weight/status as law.

mblat
05-09-2006, 4:07 PM
yes, but the DOJ has changed their minds before, and there was no subsequent registration, folks had to get rid of the guns. the SKS fiasco.

Dude - you are boring too..... Like you sad SKS fiasco How many people it affected? Now we are talking about tens of thousands.....
And besides - SKS were illegal to begin with DOJ was wrong by declaring them legal and they had to fix mistake. They didn’t change law or the rules…..
In this situation they take something perfectly legal and making it into assault weapon....
Same thing with so called hi-cap magazines. Legislature can, indeed limit us to let's say 6 rounds capacity, but it can't confiscate our old mags.....

rkt88edmo
05-09-2006, 4:08 PM
Certainly they listed conforming to a compliant configuration as an alternative that citizens could elect to do, but alongside that option was register & remove. See, the legislature gave options to the good citizens of CA... the present course suggested by the Agency does not align with the intent of the legislature.

If you are talking about SB23 there was no "compliance configuration" because at that point the "AR/AK series" designation was still being considered as valid, right? Compliant configuration only applied to non-ARs and non-AKs

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:09 PM
What happened to my quoted post of Glen.....?

I think the forum is getting overloaded.....haha..

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:10 PM
Ok then, my bad possibly. I understood that California regulations had the same weight/status as law.

My thinking as well......but perhaps we are wrong....

snobordr
05-09-2006, 4:10 PM
We may break the record for number of visitors set on 2/3.

ETR new sig

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:11 PM
Let me be the first to say....GlenAvon, shut your pie hole. You sound like a guy that is too broke to build an off list lower, and now you are taking pleasure in the fact that there is a memo that basically is saying they are illegal. STFU!

People like you are exactly the reason why selfish immature AR owners screwed over the rest of CA. Go back to playing counterstrike son.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:12 PM
Anyone seen that guy on the scooter yelling "The list is coming...the list is coming"?

I think he was picked up by the CHP for possession of an unregistered AW......hahah....:D

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:14 PM
People like you are exactly the reason why selfish immature AR owners screwed over the rest of CA. Go back to playing counterstrike son.

Hey!!! I'm in my 30's and I still play Counter-Strike from time to time.....

Your point is well taken though....the guy probably is still in his teens and comments like those do nothing to add to the discussion.

gh429
05-09-2006, 4:14 PM
Guys, lets look at the big picture here.

Originally what was the status quo? You get pulled over by a law enforcement officer, he thinks you have an assault weapon despite your "sporting conversion kit". You tell him that you don't. Why? Because your rifle has NO CAPACITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE. What does the cop do? Scratch his head, thinks "man what a can of worms", and probably lets you go. EVEN IF the cop were to take your rifle to the DA, the DA looks at it "hmmm it doesn't look like it has the capacity to accept by california law, there's no precedence, I probably can't win this case, I won't file charges."

NOW with this memo what has happened? The DA looks at this rifle and thinks "hmm this rifle can be easily converted to accept detachable magazines per the California DOJ. I'm just an assistant DA, but the firearms division says this type of rifle has the capacity to accept. Therefore while it TEMPORARILY does not have the capacity to accept, it indeed does have the 'capacity to accept' as definied in 12776.1. Lets file charges."

Sure they judge MIGHT throw out the case. But you're screwed either way.

I don't think the definition of detachable mag is relevent... Unfortunately I must say take those pistol grips off....

artherd
05-09-2006, 4:15 PM
yes, but the DOJ has changed their minds before, and there was no subsequent registration, folks had to get rid of the guns. the SKS fiasco.
Wrong, DOJ did not change their minds on the SKS. The California State Supreme Court compelled them to change their minds.

As for the issue at hand, can DOJ modify CCR 978.20 on a whim? Good question, one I do not know the answer to.

I do know that DOJ will not be able to modify CCR 978.20 in the manner they expressly intend. To do so would (or could, their lettter is ambigious) criminalize ex post facto (after a fashion) the SKS, the approved FAL clones, etc.

The only thing that is for sure right now, is that THIS cute little memo is even more ill conceived than the last one.

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:16 PM
I think this is hilarious. Glen is giving a reasonable and logical point of view on this issue. All the AR people are so blind with rage they refuse to acknowledge that permanently fixed mags are gonna soon be a reality and are resorting to immature name calling towards him.

Real nice to see the true mentality of offlisters.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:16 PM
Wrong, DOJ did not change their minds on the SKS. The California State Supreme Court compelled them to change their minds.

As for the issue at hand, can DOJ modify CCR 978.20 on a whim? Good question, one I do not know the answer to.

I do know that DOJ will not be able to modify CCR 978.20 in the manner they expressly intend. To do so would (or could, their lettter is ambigious) criminalize ex post facto (after a fashion) the SKS, the approved FAL clones, etc.

The only thing that is for sure right now, is that THIS cute little memo is even more ill conceived than the last one.

At least it does NOT have the glaring mistakes of the previous memo with dates and such....haha.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:19 PM
I think this is hilarious. Glen is giving a reasonable and logical point of view on this issue. All the AR people are so blind with rage they refuse to acknowledge that permanently fixed mags are gonna soon be a reality and are resorting to immature name calling towards him.

Real nice to see the true mentality of offlisters.

I have been following this thread and there has been only one azzhat to call names. Sure you want to group all "off-listers" as such?

And you speak as though this memo is law.....its only the 3rd inning....lots of game left.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 4:19 PM
...To do so would (or could, their lettter is ambigious) criminalize ex post facto (after a fashion) the SKS, the approved FAL clones, etc.

that is not "ex post facto." an ex post facto law criminalizes past behavior which was legal at the time. something like buggery is illegal as of tomorrow, thus koretz is a criminal for everything he did today and before.

if koretz keeps buggering after it is against the law, that is not ex post facto.

RRangel
05-09-2006, 4:20 PM
I hate to get sort of off topic, but any name calling and poor behavior needs to stop now.

Please don't ruin this discussion or I will take action.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 4:20 PM
I have been following this thread and there has been only one azzhat to call names.

not me, I hope?

mblat
05-09-2006, 4:20 PM
I think this is hilarious. Glen is giving a reasonable and logical point of view on this issue. All the AR people are so blind with rage they refuse to acknowledge that permanently fixed mags are gonna soon be a reality and are resorting to immature name calling towards him.

Real nice to see the true mentality of offlisters.


You even more boring than Glen. Glen at least gives rational argument..... I don’t think anybody argues that DOJ can’t change definition of “detachable magazine” What is said that this WILL make all current existing rifles into assault weapons, we will register them and then they don’t have to have detachable magazines anymore….

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:20 PM
that is not "ex post facto" after any fashion. an ex post facto law criminalizes past behavior which was legal at the time. something like buggery is illegal as of tomorrow, thus koretz is a criminal for everything he did today and before.

Do you mean past behavior as in owning a particular firearm in a particular configuarion?

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:21 PM
not me, I hope?

HAHA...no Glen....you have thick skin and, obviously, can take it.....not that it is much to begin with.....;)

snobordr
05-09-2006, 4:22 PM
Can anyone speak with any knowledge of changing 978.20?

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:23 PM
The DOJ has already stated that they are NOT listing. Wow what is it gonna take to get you people to consider this possibility. If anything they are refusing to list just to spite you guys. Get over it, the AR isn't the only gun in the world, and its also a particularly boring one.

bear308
05-09-2006, 4:23 PM
I call shenanigans on the DOJ :D
"I swear to god I'll pistol whip the next guy that says shenanigans"

hahahaha

Guess I'll have to grab some popcorn.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:24 PM
You even more boring than Glen. Glen at least gives rational argument..... I don’t think anybody argues that DOJ can’t change definition of “detachable magazine” What is said that this WILL make all current existing rifles into assault weapons, we will register them and then they don’t have to have detachable magazines anymore….

Glen is NOT boring....half this thread consists of people either posting questions to or those replying to posts by Glen.....

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:25 PM
20 pages in 2 hours.....breaking records all over....

Mr.RoDiN
05-09-2006, 4:25 PM
I think one thing this new memo is going to do is give us a test case. And guys please be careful i dont wanna see any test cases. Most of you know what your doing and know the law better than I do. Now if someone does get caught, this will go to court. I think then the doj will have no other choice but to either ban these lowers.

gh429
05-09-2006, 4:25 PM
Heh, one third of this thread is full of people who are in denial of the reality of our situation. Another third is attempting to maintain a logical discussion. And another third has moved on to the next step of acceptance - Anger. ;)

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 4:25 PM
The DOJ has already stated that they are NOT listing. Wow what is it gonna take to get you people to consider this possibility. If anything they are refusing to list just to spite you guys. Get over it, the AR isn't the only gun in the world, and its also a particularly boring one.

fine, then you can stop posting here. If you really dont find the AR very interesting, then I am sure that there are a bunch of other threads for you to follow. But since you are here, I would say that you DO find this interesting, but are pissed off because of something else.

50 Freak
05-09-2006, 4:26 PM
an ex post facto law criminalizes past behavior which was legal at the time.

By your own definition, you contridict yourself. The non-detachable mag FALs (DS and Enterprise and many others) were declared legal as they had a non-detachable mag. Now by this Memo, this non-detachable mag has to be "permanent".

Well, that just means all stripper fed non detachable mag FALs are now detachable mag FALs, with under the characteristics ban illegal. Gee the DOJ just declared that the thousands of fixed mag FALs that they said was legal over the last 5-6 years is in fact an illegal AW.....

So it basically criminalized past legal activities.

mblat
05-09-2006, 4:26 PM
that is not "ex post facto" after any fashion. an ex post facto law criminalizes past behavior which was legal at the time. something like buggery is illegal as of tomorrow, thus koretz is a criminal for everything he did today and before.


Now - this is not boring - it is funny. You are kidding me right? Current definition of "detachable magazine" is codified for over 6 years. Af of yersterday it was totally legal to have sporting conversion and pistol grip. And that is supported by regulation and DOJ interpretation.
Now you "twick definition" and sporting conversion no longer legal . How is it not "ex post facto"
May I remind you that any court case on that matter directly affects tens of thousands of people who likely to contribute money and efforts into the fight?

MaxQ
05-09-2006, 4:27 PM
Guys,

Unless I'm mistaken, under the same "non permanent" fixed mag ruling by the DOJ...

I BELIVE THEY HAVE JUST MADE ALL FIXED MAG FALS INTO ASSAULT WEAPONS TOO.

If so, they have just opened a bag of worms as they approved the DSA and Enterprise Fixed Mag FALs. Now they are saying that all these legal guns bought and sold in the last 5 years are illegal....

Boy are DS and Enterprise going to have some fun with this one.
where's my popcorn....here comes the fireworks.

DSA is now adding welds to the receiver to fix the mag on their California FALs, which meets the more recent DOJ interpretation of a fixed magazine.

What about the fixed mag Vulcan receivers now? Many were sold in CA with just a couple of pins and no epoxy. A new requirement of a more permanent alteration (i.e., welding), would put owners who legally purchased them as fixed mag receivers, in jeopardy.

artherd
05-09-2006, 4:28 PM
that is not "ex post facto" after any fashion. an ex post facto law criminalizes past behavior which was legal at the time.
Correct. This would only become ex post facto if DOJ were to make administrative law that newly criminalized the past behavior of hainvg a bolted-in-place mag semi-auto rifle with pistol grip.

They are dangerously close to doing exactly that here. (as a practical matter, someone would have to be hooked for prior conduct I belive. Been a while since I delt with anything like this.)

Any thoughts on changing CCR 978.20 Glen?

something like buggery is illegal as of tomorrow, thus koretz is a criminal for everything he did today and before.
ROFL!

TheMan
05-09-2006, 4:29 PM
The DOJ has already stated that they are NOT listing. Wow what is it gonna take to get you people to consider this possibility.

They also stated they are listing them as Cat. 4 weapons a few months ago. What exactly is your point, other than trolling?

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:29 PM
fine, then you can stop posting here. If you really dont find the AR very interesting, then I am sure that there are a bunch of other threads for you to follow. But since you are here, I would say that you DO find this interesting, but are pissed off because of something else.

POST EDITED: Personal insults will not be tollerated, period.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 4:29 PM
Do you mean past behavior as in owning a particular firearm in a particular configuarion?

an ex post facto application of gun laws would be if the legislature passed a law saying it is illegal to own, or have owned even while they were legal to own, an AW.

or if the legislature said that possession of an AW before they were illegal would be against the law.

if coffee were banned tomorrow, going after you for drinking it today would be "ex post facto."

50 Freak
05-09-2006, 4:30 PM
DSA is now adding welds to the receiver to fix the mag on their California FALs, which meets the more recent DOJ interpretation of a fixed magazine.


Is this a recent thing? What about the older DS FALs? What about Enterprise or the thousands of people that have built up FALs over the last 6 years.

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:30 PM
They also stated they are listing them as Cat. 4 weapons a few months ago. What exactly is your point, other than trolling?

The point is, your dream of having a detachable mag AR in the golden state will never come true.

Have a nice day.

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 4:30 PM
I'm posting because I am pissed, thanks to you AR lovers I now have to permanently affix my FAL mag. Jerk.


And what if this whole craze was about FALs? Then what would you say?

rkt88edmo
05-09-2006, 4:31 PM
At least it does NOT have the glaring mistakes of the previous memo with dates and such....haha.


I dunno, the lack of a date on the memo seems like a similar error to me. When I write a memo for my files, having it dated is imperative to being able to reconstruct a timeline. :D

gh429
05-09-2006, 4:31 PM
What about the fixed mag Vulcan receivers now? Many were sold in CA with just a couple of pins and no epoxy.

Woah really? What type of pins? Just the sporting conversion kit or something drilled through the frame / mag? Were these receivers specifically approved by the DOJ in that form? If so I want one!

Guys, I really don't think the DOJ memo has any relevance to the CCR. They clarified only three words in 12776.1 - "Capacity to Accept"

snobordr
05-09-2006, 4:32 PM
I'm posting because I am pissed, thanks to you AR lovers I now have to permanently affix my FAL mag. Jerk.


Do we need to post the code of conduct here for you? With regards to your needing to affix your mag permanently to the FAL, sorry to hear it, but don't jump quite yet.

You do realize that this is merely a memo right?

The point is, your dream of having a detachable mag AR in the golden state will never come true.

Have a nice day.

Can I borrow your time traveling machine?

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:32 PM
And what if this whole craze was about FALs? Then what would you say?

I am ok and have always been ok with having a fixed mag top loader.

I never intended to selfishly exploit a loophole and provoke the DOJ so I can have a detachable magazine on my gun.

artherd
05-09-2006, 4:33 PM
This whole memo depends on a definition of "Permanent".

Sadly, or rather, practically, this is hard to do in terms of firearms. How does one "permanantly" alter a gun? Can't be changed without replacing parts? Without use of a tool? Tols and time? How much time? (8 hrs in a machine shop? I can make a gatling cannon out of a hunk of pweter in that time!)

Take for instance a Glock, which can be taken apart with no tools, such that it will not accept a threaded barrel? How do you "perminantly" fix it such that it does not have capacity to accept a threaded bbl?!

You really cannot do such a thing to a Reasonable Person standard.

This has all been brought up before, look in the Statement of Reasons and other comments that ennacted CCR 978.20.

Michael303
05-09-2006, 4:33 PM
This is another memo. Just like the one that came before it. If you look at the PDF filename, it’s “AWpolicyrev4”. This means they’ve been kicking it around since the first memo, and they’ll probably continue to tweak as they feel like.

For some details about the about the PDF itself, you can right click to get it’s properties...

C:\Documents and Settings\hollism\Local Settings\Temp\MXLibDir\new AW policy (revised4).wpd

TheMan
05-09-2006, 4:34 PM
I'm posting because I am pissed, thanks to you AR lovers I now have to permanently affix my FAL mag. Jerk.

Awww poor fella. Can we suggest a place where you can affix it?

No point in crying about the effects of the memo, since it is only a memo. Just like they said they were going to list a few months ago, now they are saying they aren't. Crying about a memo gains you nothing.

DigglerD
05-09-2006, 4:34 PM
2) gun owners will fight the memo, it will be overturned, and Lockyer can say "I tried, but the court system let down the people of California. Vote for me!"


OR

3) Post a quasi-legislative plan as a memo... go to Calguns and read about all the holes they find in it, fix the holes and then offer up a fixed version of the memo for legislative review.

drclark
05-09-2006, 4:34 PM
Hey,

We need to keep a couple of things in perspective. Prior to Dec2005 could California residents legally purchase offlist receivers at all? We all now at the very least have receivers in our posession. As long as offlist-receivers/rifles remain legal for sale in this state it can only be positive for us in the long run. Maybe one day we'll have enough undocumented-sport-utility-rifles in state that we can openly march in the streets demanding a path to legal status :D

By not listing, the DOJ is basically saying that any offlist receiver/rifle that does not meet the features ban is legal for sale in the state of CA. Can anyone say "off-list sporter AK"? The only thing that really handicaps the AR is the crappy ergonomics of trying to shoot sans pistol grip.

Also, fixed mag offlist AR's are not illegal yet. The key phrase in the memo is:

The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state.

There is an established process by which the DOJ has to re-write the definition of "detachable magazine". Creating a new definition that will cover the offlist-pinned-mag AR's without causing Joe-Blow's SKS with flash-hider to also become an AW will be very difficult. As others have said, any action by the DOJ that would cause currently legally posessed firearms to become illegal AW's has to trigger a new registration period by law. Even if they do manage to create a new definition, its going to create an enforcement nightmare.

The key is that we cannot give up, that is what the DOJ is hoping for. We need to make sure that we are very active when the DOJ publishes its new "detachable magazine rules" for public comments. All of us who purchased lowers need to be willing to contribute at least as much as we paid for our lowers to the legal fight we all know is comming.

Another aspect to the DOJ not listing is they are really in for a PR nightmare if, god-forbid, some nutjob builds an AW out of an offlist-lower and goes on a shooting spree. "These weapons were supposed to be banned since 2000! Bill Lockyer could have prevented this tragedy if only he had done his job and updated the list while he was head of the DOJ. Heck, a bunch of gunowners in 2006 even tried to bring this to his attention!"

This is one of those times when it would probably be better for Bill to suck up and admit he made a mistake, update the list, quietly register a bunch of new AWs, and then make for dang sure his agency is on top of keeping their lists up-to-date. Instead, they effectively are going to do nothing while offlist lowers/rifles will continue to trickle into the state; they won't be registered; the DOJ will have no way of keeping track of where they are or how they're configured.

drc

snobordr
05-09-2006, 4:36 PM
I am ok and have always been ok with having a fixed mag top loader.

I never intended to selfishly exploit a loophole and provoke the DOJ so I can have a detachable magazine on my gun.


All most of us tried to do was comply with standing law. Getting all pissy won't do much for your cause or ours.

gh429
05-09-2006, 4:36 PM
Sigh... ok enough for me.. I'm going back to work... Thanks for the fun an excitment!

If you guys are going to stick to the "It's just a memo I'm keeping my sporting conversion kit" then good luck.

Because a memo from a sheriff telling all his deputies to go to the local range and arrest everyone with a sporting conversion kit is also "just a memo."

It just so happens that DOJ "memos" can trigger some VERY REAL enforcement action. Of course you'll then "just be charged with violating PC 12276.1"

glen avon
05-09-2006, 4:36 PM
Now - this is not boring - it is funny. You are kidding me right? Current definition of "detachable magazine" is codified for over 6 years. Af of yersterday it was totally legal to have sporting conversion and pistol grip. And that is supported by regulation and DOJ interpretation.
Now you "twick definition" and sporting conversion no longer legal . How is it not "ex post facto"
May I remind you that any court case on that matter directly affects tens of thousands of people who likely to contribute money and efforts into the fight?

it's only ex post facto if they go after you for past behavior. the most salient example would be DOJ revising its detachable mag definition to require epoxy or something more permanent as of June 1, 2006. if you disposed of your "sporting conversions equipped AR" on or before May 31, 2006, and somebody went after you for possession of an AW based on detachable mag definition, that would be an ex post facto application of law.

if the legislature responds and says it is illegal to possess a rifle that has a detachable magazine, or to ever have owned such a rifle, then that would be an ex post facto law.

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:36 PM
Awww poor fella. Can we suggest a place where you can affix it?

No point in crying about the effects of the memo, since it is only a memo. Just like they said they were going to list a few months ago, now they are saying they aren't. Crying about a memo gains you nothing.

I'm not crying, I'm fine with having a top loader other than the hassle of having to pay 10 bucks for some JBweld. Seems like all the crying is coming from the AR fanatics who are boo hooing that they can't have a detachable mag.

rkt88edmo
05-09-2006, 4:37 PM
Woah really? What type of pins? Just the sporting conversion kit or something drilled through the frame / mag? Were these receivers specifically approved by the DOJ in that form?

There is a discussion and an attached pic that shows the roll pin placement pretty clearly. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=25274&highlight=roll+pin+vulcan

I know you are excited so I won't make fun of you for not using the search function :p

magmaster
05-09-2006, 4:38 PM
This is just another mark on the board why I need to leave CA. I'm so sick of them manipulating everything and making it a pain in the rear for us to have something that is legal. It is currently a memo so we'll need to sit back and see what comes of it. Hopefuly by then I will be gone enjoying my toys in a true free state.

Just think if they spent htis much time on figuring out how to keep the illegal immigrants from getting here?

TheMan
05-09-2006, 4:39 PM
The point is, your dream of having a detachable mag AR in the golden state will never come true.

Have a nice day.

Because they put up a memo that said they were going to list, now they put up a memo that said they weren't? Where was your point again?

PanzerAce
05-09-2006, 4:39 PM
I'm not crying, I'm fine with having a top loader other than the hassle of having to pay 10 bucks for some JBweld. Seems like all the crying is coming from the AR fanatics who are boo hooing that they can't have a detachable mag.

no, actually, we were just debating the memo, IIRC, it was you that started complaining about people whining.

spitkiss
05-09-2006, 4:39 PM
in the memo it says :

"The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state."

but after looking up 12276.5 under (h) it states:

"The Attorney General shall promulgate a list that specifies all firearms designated as assault weapons in Section 12276 or declared to be assault weapons pursuant to this section. The Attorney General shall file that list with the Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of Regulations. Any declaration that a specified firearm is an assault weapon shall be implemented by the Attorney General who, within 90 days, shall promulgate an amended list which shall include the specified firearm declared to be an assault weapon. The Attorney General shall file the amended list with the Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of Regulations."


so my question is, does "adopt those rules and regulations that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent of this chapter."; mean they can change the rules and ignore what's written in (i) about the AG preparing a description and listing etc?

snobordr
05-09-2006, 4:39 PM
Sigh... ok enough for me.. I'm going back to work... Thanks for the fun an excitment!

If you guys are going to stick to the "It's just a memo I'm keeping my sporting conversion kit" then good luck.

Because a memo from a sheriff telling all his deputies to go to the local range and arrest everyone with a sporting conversion kit is also "just a memo."

It just so happens that DOJ "memos" can trigger some VERY REAL enforcement action. Of course you'll then "just be charged with violating PC 12276.1"


I can see this argument being made should 978.20 be altered, but all a defendant would have to do is produce print outs of 12276, the Kasler list, 978.20 and the rifle in question.

I made every effort to comply with standing law.

TKo_Productions
05-09-2006, 4:39 PM
I think that the CaDOJ is just going to sit on this memo. They probably have no intention of redefining what a "detachable magazine" is, and will not pursue formal proceedings.

Instead, they will circulate the memo to law enforcement agencies, and let them decide whether or not to make the arrest. At that point it will be up to the local DA to decide whether or not to prosecute.

The problem with the way it stands right now is that we're all sitting extremely precariously. Do we proceed with the sporting conversion type modifications and risk arrest/prosecution? If we all run like scared chickens and decide against using such mods, we're only conceding to the DOJ bullish tactics.

The DOJ has bluffed and they've placed the ball in our court. How do we want to proceed? In order for us to take action we're going to need a test case, otherwise we have no legitimate cause of action.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 4:39 PM
And what if this whole craze was about FALs? Then what would you say?

same thing. he would be calling somebody else a jerk, on a different board. :D

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:40 PM
no, actually, we were just debating the memo, IIRC, it was you that started complaining about people whining.

Actually, I think it was more along the lines of "ha ha I told you so" but if you really want to call it complaining, I guess you are entitled to your own opinion.

I felt my language of the word "jerk" was a bit harsh so I have edited my original post and you are no longer a "jerk" but a "poopiehead".

Scotto
05-09-2006, 4:42 PM
ha ha my buddy and I just finished putting together his lower reciever and I jump on to read this mess :)

gh429
05-09-2006, 4:42 PM
I can see this argument being made should 978.20 be altered, but all a defendant would have to do is produce print outs of 12276, the Kasler list, 978.20 and the rifle in question.

I made every effort to comply with standing law.

978.20 can be arguied to be irrelevant. What will most likely be argued by the DA to be relevant will lie solely on having a "capacity to accept". And as the DOJ has said, a reversible capacity to accept is still a capacity to accept.

mblat
05-09-2006, 4:43 PM
it's only ex post facto if they go after you for past behavior. the most salient example would be DOJ revising its detachable mag definition to require epoxy or something more permanent as of June 1, 2006. if you disposed of your "sporting conversions equipped AR" on or before May 31, 2006, and somebody went after you for possession of an AW based on detachable mag definition, that would be an ex post facto application of law.

if the legislature responds and says it is illegal to possess a rifle that has a detachable magazine, or to ever have owned such a rifle, then that would be an ex post facto law.


I guees that would be for court to decide. I have $1.000.000 that says "it is" if I am charged and $100 if somebody else.
If 10.000 lower owens contribute $100 each that would make nice legal fund that likely to beat that rap.

Anyway, as I and some other people pointed already - if somebody goes nuts and shoots bunch of kids with AR or AK ( and we know, sadly, regretably it will happend) then they will get listed overnight.

EDIT : and I have a dollar that says that DOJ will NOT change definition of "detachable mag" any time soon. Let's say for one year.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:44 PM
OR

3) Post a quasi-legislative plan as a memo... go to Calguns and read about all the holes they find in it, fix the holes and then offer up a fixed version of the memo for legislative review.

HAHAHA...I hardly think the DOJ would be looking for the highly legal minds of Calguns.net members to tweak their memo......

There are only a couple people here that even come close.

snobordr
05-09-2006, 4:45 PM
978.20 can be arguied to be irrelevant. What will most likely be argued by the DA to be relevant will lie solely on having a "capacity to accept". And as the DOJ has said, a reversible capacity to accept is still a capacity to accept.


Then this whole conversation is pretty much moot. With the right skills/knowledge, anything can be altered, just look at the CA legal Vulcan. An SKS can be altered just as easily. Again, I made every attempt to comply with standing law, look, this design was approved for sale in CA, see how easily I can alter it?

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:45 PM
Anyway, as I and some other people pointed already - if somebody goes nuts and shoots bunch of kids with AR or AK ( and we know, sadly, regretably it will happend) then they will get listed overnight.

POST EDITED, no personal attacks will be tollerated.

mblat
05-09-2006, 4:46 PM
Sadly regrettably, if this is what it takes for you to get a detachable magazine, then you hope it happens?

POST EDITED, no personal attacks will be tollerated.

snobordr
05-09-2006, 4:47 PM
...
Where can I get a rock with a pistol grip?
...


No, but I may be able to point you at a dinner plate with a pistol grip, and a flashider.

Whole other conversation.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-09-2006, 4:47 PM
in the memo it says :

"The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state."

but after looking up 12276.5 under (h) it states:

"The Attorney General shall promulgate a list that specifies all firearms designated as assault weapons in Section 12276 or declared to be assault weapons pursuant to this section. The Attorney General shall file that list with the Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of Regulations. Any declaration that a specified firearm is an assault weapon shall be implemented by the Attorney General who, within 90 days, shall promulgate an amended list which shall include the specified firearm declared to be an assault weapon. The Attorney General shall file the amended list with the Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of Regulations."


so my question is, does "adopt those rules and regulations that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent of this chapter."; mean they can change the rules and ignore what's written in (i) about the AG preparing a description and listing etc?


Great point....I was looking for that blurb....good find....

TKo_Productions
05-09-2006, 4:47 PM
They don't understand that our CA Legal Self Loading Rifles were not made specifically for either a detachable mag or a fixed mag. It is up to the user to install a magazine that is in compliance with their local laws and works with the caliber upper used.

Is my car now illegal because it was made to not accept CA emmissions equiptment, or because I can bypass the emmissions package for more performance? NO! Only if I break the law have I broken the law. The potential to break the law is there with every single object in existence.Why don't they start banning rocks because the potential to kill multiple people quickly exists with them?

Where can I get a rock with a pistol grip?

All you M1A fans, buy more now, cause those are next. Join our fight or loose yours!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
You have included 34 images in your message. You are limited to using 4 images so please go back and correct the problem and then continue again.

So F'ing true.

The memo is a byproduct of the liberalism mentality/disease.

stator
05-09-2006, 4:47 PM
snip....DOJ is constitutionally and statutorily entitled to make rules, and rules as to what constitutes a fixed mag. that's a rule, not a law.

DOJ isn't overstepping anything. IMHO, YHO is overstepping the facts.:rolleyes:


A quick check of Articles 4,5, and 6 which are the legislative, executive, and judicial section of our state constitution makes no mention of the executive branch having powers of regulation. The word regulation only appears once in the Article 4 that gives the power of regulation of horses to the legilative branch.

Where in the state constitution does it grant regulatory powers to the executive branch?

BTW, I agree with you but would not go as far as saying "constitutionally" until I can reference it in the state constitution.

Pryde
05-09-2006, 4:48 PM
What the f!ck are talking about? For person who don't want to offend anybody you sure doing *****ty job on it. A55 hole. Where in my posts you saw that?

I just don't understand how a sad topic like killing others has to be brought up so many times. Maybe I'm wrong but it just seems to me like this is what some people are secretly rooting for.

snobordr
05-09-2006, 4:48 PM
Sadly regrettably, if this is what it takes for you to get a detachable magazine, then you hope it happens?


Ding ding ding!

And the award for the most assinine post ever made goes to.......

gh429
05-09-2006, 4:49 PM
Is my car now illegal because it was made to not accept CA emmissions equiptment, or because I can bypass the emmissions package for more performance? NO! Only if I break the law have I broken the law. The potential to break the law is there with every single object in existence.Why don't they start banning rocks because the potential to kill multiple people quickly exists with them?

No your car is not illegal just as the lower is not illegal. However if you choose to change your perfectly functioning catalytic converter to another catalytic converter even if it were to yield the same CO2 and Hydro-carbon emissions it would still be illegal. ;)

glen avon
05-09-2006, 4:49 PM
...Any thoughts on changing CCR 978.20 Glen?

not quite sure what you are asking. I think DOJ will amend it. I don't think we can. I don't think that anybody can make DOJ change it, not on the facts we have.

we can try to make them list, in theory, though they will likely seek to avoid that. if michel does not petition for a writ of mandate forcing DOJ to perform their statutory duties soon, this will be mooted out.

glen avon
05-09-2006, 4:52 PM
Ding ding ding!

And the award for the most assinine post ever made goes to.......

anybody who uses the word "ding" to simulate some lame-o game show.

back to you, Regis.

snobordr
05-09-2006, 4:53 PM
anybody who uses the word "ding" to simulate some lame-o game show.

back to you, Regis.

Pretty sure that bitter odor is emanating from your position.




But thanks for playing.


ETA: So again I ask, can anyone speak for the process/requirements to change 978.20?

glen avon
05-09-2006, 4:54 PM
The word regulation only appears once in the Article 4....

rulemaking is not the regulation addressed in the constitution. there is the constitutional concept of separation of powers, and rulemaking is analyzed under that rubric, that's why I used the term constitutional.

mblat
05-09-2006, 4:54 PM
I just don't understand how a sad topic like killing others has to be brought up so many times. Maybe I'm wrong but it just seems to me like this is what some people are secretly rooting for.

That called "projection", you a%%. If that what you are dreaming on - doesn’t mean other people do.
It also called "denial". Just because it is sad - I don't want to hear about it doesn’t mean it isn't going on.

Now. I don't think you are want to kill anybody. So I apologize for *****. But surely, you have to admit, that in wanting to make an argument you went way too far by trying to assign such desire to me.

Liberty Rules
05-09-2006, 4:55 PM
Finally. I caught up with the post. Everytime I got to the end of a page, there were one or two new pages added. By the time I finish typing, and answering a few calls, I wonder how many pages past 18 this will be...30?

For the record, I agreed with BWiese's post.

I also concur that gripless configuration remains unclouded.

Also concur that DOJ's interpretation of detachable is incorrect as the law is currently written. Any lawyer with half a brain will laugh at their strained interpretation of detachable...morphing into permanent. (insert lawyer jokes here--I thought all lawyers had half a brain, etcetera, etcetera.)

Also concur that revising the code definition of detachable mag would make AW's where they do not exist under current law. DOJ would cause itself, and the legal system, a lot of hassles if it does that. They would really make a mess, which is something Political Bill should want to avoid as he is running for office. Then again, zealots don't necessarily make the best laws.

If you've read Harrott, the crux of the ruling is that the public must have some sort of prior notice whether they are going to be a felons or not--at least the ability to determine it. The court clearly changed the Kasler regime when it ruled that the AG must create and publish a list for newly identified series weapons to be declared AW's, instead of relying on court rulings to declare that lawfully acquired rifles would be retroactively declared to be AWs and subject to criminal prosecution. The latter would not provide the innocent public with sufficient notice of what is illegal BEFORE the "crime" is committed. Should this issue reach the courts, I think that will be argument number one, and a convincing one at that. If this issue ever reaches a published decision, which is rare in the legal world, I would like to think that the courts will follow the same line of reasoning as in Harrott.

I also concur that DOJ is using its bully pulpit to try stem the tide. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When you have neither the law nor the facts on your side, make something up that sounds good and maybe you'll get lucky.

If not for the DOJ's morally repugnant attempts to turn law abiding people into felons, this would be a laughable farce.

rkt88edmo
05-09-2006, 4:55 PM
Pretty sure that bitter odor is emanating from your position.
But thanks for playing.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/barris.jpg

Stolen bandwidth pic, I just can't help it for this one.

Jicko
05-09-2006, 4:56 PM
I like http://www.americasarmy.com/ more.... the M4 is more accurately modelled!

Hey!!! I'm in my 30's and I still play Counter-Strike from time to time.....

Your point is well taken though....the guy probably is still in his teens and comments like those do nothing to add to the discussion.