PDA

View Full Version : So what's the plan of attack?


TonyNorCal
05-09-2006, 4:53 PM
Just read the memo. I haven't read all 100+ responses in the thread. So what is the plan now? Is there a way to challenge this or can the DOJ just hold their cards and we're at the end of the line?

Correct me if mistaken, here are my assumptions...

1.) DOJ has used its regulatory discretion to redefine detachable magazine. Specifically they have replaced the 'removal with a tool' with 'permanent'. Is there any question here regarding their authority to do this?

2.) Since the memo applies to AR/AK series it should not affect FALs, SKSs, etc...only AR/AK series....correct or mistaken?

xenophobe
05-09-2006, 4:54 PM
Read the thread. Both questions have been answered in there.

gh429
05-09-2006, 4:57 PM
Just read the memo. I haven't read all 100+ responses in the thread. So what is the plan now? Is there a way to challenge this or can the DOJ just hold their cards and we're at the end of the line?

Correct me if mistaken, here are my assumptions...

1.) DOJ has used its regulatory discretion to redefine detachable magazine. Specifically they have replaced the 'removal with a tool' with 'permanent'. Is there any question here regarding their authority to do this?

2.) Since the memo applies to AR/AK series it should not affect FALs, SKSs, etc...only AR/AK series....correct or mistaken?

1. The way I see it is the DOJ has expanded / clarified the definition of "capacity to accept" in 12276 and left the definition of detachable magazine in the CCR alone.

2. The memo states specifically centerfire rifles, not just the AR/AK series.

Are there any non AR/AK series that received the blessing of the DOJ with a "temporary" magazine? Would these be open to registration?

blacklisted
05-09-2006, 4:58 PM
1. The way I see it is the DOJ has expanded / clarified the definition of "capacity to accept" in 12276 and left the definition of detachable magazine in the CCR alone.

2. The memo states specifically centerfire rifles, not just the AR/AK series.

Are there any non AR/AK series that received the blessing of the DOJ with a "temporary" magazine? Would these be open to registration?

It does seem that they have done so, but let's wait and see if they correct their mistake.

bwiese
05-09-2006, 5:00 PM
1.) DOJ has used its regulatory discretion to redefine detachable magazine. Specifically they have replaced the 'removal with a tool' with 'permanent'. Is there any question here regarding their authority to do this?

DOJ has authority to redefine detachable magazine. It must be formal, not on the fly via informal memo, and this takes time. We'll have opportunity in any mandatory comment period to show why this is a bad idea, if the DOJ is even thinking of this.

However that could have massive favorable side effects - transitioning fixed mag rifles into declared AWs with mandatory reg period.


Since the memo applies to AR/AK series it should not affect FALs, SKSs, etc...only AR/AK series....correct or mistaken?

Um, that is likely just due to interest levels. Since they have not identified them as series members, they are treated just like Imbel FAL clones, etc.

Plain SKS situation will be important as rejiggering of definition could trigger SKSes becoming AWs!

383green
05-09-2006, 5:22 PM
It does seem that they have done so, but let's wait and see if they correct their mistake.

I disagree. We have waited for months, and the DOJ has now stated their intention to NOT update the list, as they are expected to do based on the Harrott decision. We've waited long enough. I'm sick of waiting. I feel it's time to go on the offensive, and take the DOJ to task for their stated plan to NOT do what the legislators and court told them they must do.

the_quark
05-09-2006, 5:52 PM
Put a little more precisely: What the court found is, no weapon becomes an AR or AK series weapon without the DOJ updating the list. The DOJ has no particular obligation to update the list, and I'd say they're within their administrative responsibilities in saying "The legislature wanted to ban assault weapons, and we can best do that by focusing on the features aspect of 12276(a)(1) instead of the AR/AK series definition."

bwiese
05-09-2006, 5:54 PM
I disagree. We have waited for months, and the DOJ has now stated their intention to NOT update the list, as they are expected to do based on the Harrott decision.

No, there is no requirement mandated to further identify "series" members.

It's just that DOJ _can_ do this, and on its own, for AR and AK pattern firearms/receivers without court intervention.

bwiese
05-09-2006, 5:55 PM
Put a little more precisely: What the court found is, no weapon becomes an AR or AK series weapon without the DOJ updating the list. The DOJ has no particular obligation to update the list, and I'd say they're within their administrative responsibilities in saying "The legislature wanted to ban assault weapons, and we can best do that by focusing on the features aspect of 12276(a)(1) instead of the AR/AK series definition."

Correct. Good summary.

383green
05-09-2006, 6:06 PM
No, there is no requirement mandated to further identify "series" members.

It's just that DOJ _can_ do this, and on its own, for AR and AK pattern firearms/receivers without court intervention.
Well, that's disappointing. I guess I read it differently, or maybe wishful thinking altered my memory of what I read a while back.

I'm still sick of waiting. I feel that the DOJ's astounding lack of any reasonable action during the months that this has been going on is a clear sign of the firearm division's effective incompetence to perform their mandated job. I think that either a dyed-in-the-wool anti who thinks that guns make Baby Jesus cry, or a rabid pro-2nd-amendment mouth-foamer like me would agree that the DOJ hasn't been doing their job, despite our different opinions about what that job should be. I think that legal action against the DOJ is warranted on that basis alone.

Is there anything we can do, that doesn't involve me getting arrested to provide the test case? :rolleyes:

grammaton76
05-09-2006, 6:17 PM
Great amusement here - I wonder how the DOJ would respond to requests to REMOVE guns from the Kasler list? If they say they're not going to list, then put their money where their mouth is and tell people they can have Colts, etc, as long as they comply with the new definition of fixed magazine.

Point out that they have issues of interstate commerce there. If fixed magazine setups are going to be adequate from now on, then why are Mega, Stag, etc being given favored status over DPMS, Colt, and Bushmaster? Why must the Kasler and Roberti-Roos listed brands be subject to greater scrutiny than other identical brands?

They can go either way to be consistent, but if they choose the path of welding/epoxying and not listing, then they need to cease their discriminatory practices by removing all the brands from the AR/AK list!

hoffmang
05-09-2006, 8:44 PM
I was thinking this too in the other thread, but as I spend more cycles on it, Congress has delegated the right to regulate firearms via the FFL process to the States. As such, I think its not a commerce clause challenge, but an equal protection issue.

Gregas
05-09-2006, 8:50 PM
Obviously, DOJ just wants to keep stalling until they get a miracle. We can't let them do that. In spite of Bill W's publicity effort it looks like nothing is happening. They don't want to list. Various good arguments have been made here, but I wonder which ones can be used in a proactive manner.

In the memo, DOJ said essentially that they are not going to efforce the Kasler series ban. I don't think that they can just decide that. SB23 did *not* replace the original RR AWCA and Kasler, it merely amended it.

I'm curious what would happen if someone sent them an off-list exemplar to evaluate whether it was "a variation, with only minor differences"? Or could we have an independant expert prove that these are variations, with only minor differences? With such evidence, is the a legal process to make the AG enforce Kasler? If they decline to enforce it then I should be able to buy a Colt (not that I want one).

Anyway, the point of this rambling is to ask whether there is a legal process that we can use other than becoming a test case. If there is, I think that it's time to use it.

Charliegone
05-09-2006, 8:55 PM
And that is why come election time we need Poochi old boy in there so he can update the list! The only way now it seems is getting Lockyer out of the DOJ.