PDA

View Full Version : Comparison of memos - stunning reversal


Omega13device
05-09-2006, 11:22 PM
I took a look at the first memo again and it's quite interesting to compare the two.

The first memo is all about justifying the fact that they are going to list. In fact, the DOJ goes to great lengths to prove that it has the authority to list (emphasis added):

The Department has the statutory authority to identify "series"assault weapons. In 2000,the California Supreme Court upheld that authority in Kasler v. Lockyer (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 472. The Department updated the list of “series” weapons in 2000 (as "Category 2" assault weapons), shortly after the Kasler decision.

The California Supreme Court reiterated in 2001 that the Attorney General has the authority to determine that certain semiautomatic firearms are assault weapons by simply identifying them as such in the list published by the Attorney General in the California Code of Regulations...

They then go on to state what they WILL be doing (emphasis added):

Accordingly, the Department is currently in the process of identifying those firearms in the state that are variations, with minor differences, of AR-15/AK 47 "series" weapons. Once this process is complete, the Department will promulgate a list and file it with the Secretary of State's office. Concurrently, the Department will begin updating the Assault Weapon Identification Guide which is currently available via the Department's website at http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/index.html. Once the list of newly identified "series" weapons is filed with the Secretary of State, citizens who possess those weapons will have 90 days to register them with the Department of Justice.

Compare that to what they are saying now:

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.

So, what was a good idea last week is a bad idea this week. What are we left to conclude from this?

1. The DOJ is more interested in gaming the system to the detriment of law-abiding gun owners than in following the intent of the law with respect to regulating firearms. This gaming of the law and regulations has nothing to do with protecting the public, since criminals don't obey the law anyway. A criminal is not going to permanently affix his 10-round magazine to his lower receiver before committing a crime.

2. What the Department "believes" isn't so much a belief as a reflection of the way the wind is blowing. The 180-degree reversal of the DOJ's position shows how little they have invested in whatever position they are taking in these memos, and that no one (including law enforcement) should rely on such a memo as it's likely to be reversed the next week.

3. Rather than choosing a position based on serious research and contemplation of the facts, the DOJ has chosen to approach this problem by trial and error. Their strategy is to try one shoe after another until they find one that fits, not to use their knowledge and experience to craft an approach that best serves the people of California.

TKo_Productions
05-09-2006, 11:30 PM
Yea, and what about all those letters that Allison wrote me?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/tkoproductions/soon.jpg

Was she lying?

xenophobe
05-09-2006, 11:31 PM
Personally, I think the new memo is just a stall tactic. Scare the hell out of potential purchasers, and try to scare owners to sell. Try to slow down, stop and even reverse the numbers, confuse everyone and put the fear of prosecution in place.

Quietly, some time in the near future, when all of the materials, forms, lists and personel are in place, they will list, and it will surprise everyone.

blkA4alb
05-09-2006, 11:53 PM
Well this is a fun game! It seems the DOJ likes to cheat though, but the cheaters always lose. :)

And I agree, memo=nothing. But it seems to have had its intended affect.

troyPhD
05-10-2006, 12:00 AM
Not that it should surpise anyone, but the DOJ proves that their genuine concern isn't about the potential for North Hollywood-type bank robbers taking these frames and converting them in SB23 weapons or even full auto. Rather, they just don't like the Average Joe firearms enthusiast who wants a tactical plinker or competition rifle.

Maybe they oughtta give back the Milpitas lowers to their rightful owners, since this new memo is a de facto acknowledgement that they are perfectly legal.

I wonder what Iggy thinks about all this?

shopkeep
05-10-2006, 1:01 AM
After how pointless and irrelevant their last memo is I'm not really attaching much credibility to this one. We're in uncharted territory here and who knows what will happen. This could very well be the beginning of the end of SB-23 and the Assault Weapons Ban. Wether it ushers in something worse or something better who knows.

jwissick
05-10-2006, 1:09 AM
And I agree, memo=nothing.


In the eyes of the court, true. but in the eyes of LEO, it's as good as law. If LEO reads it, you will be arrested and lose a small fortune defending yourself in court, even if you win.

Do you want to be the test case? Best to keep it stripped and stored till someone hands the DOJ it's ***.

Me? I plan to have a metal ring welded through the mag well till this blows over.

Unknownassailant
05-10-2006, 1:29 AM
Heres a wacky and mabye pointless thing to do but what would happen if 20 plus thousand of us offlisted lower receiver owners all came together on one specific day, marched to a rally point where guns are legal like say somewhere on BLM land, invited the press/media and simultaneously on cue, unpin our magazines as a silent form of protest against unconstitutional oppression. Even call it the day of AW solidarity. Would they toss all of us in jail?? :D

antarius
05-10-2006, 1:38 AM
What about this part though?

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.

Is there a legal statute/code that defines what "permanent" specifically means?

We know what "detachable" means, therefor we can conclude what steps to take to make it "non-detachable," but do we know what the code says "permanent" means?

Or now that I think about it, does it state anywhere in PC 12276.1 or PC 12276 that the firearm must "permanently not accept a detachable magazine," or does it just merely state it "must not accept a detachable magazine?"

Jedi
05-10-2006, 5:46 AM
I am curious if anyone has thought of contacting their local DA to request that the DA state if they will enforce the definitions as per PC §12276.1 and CCR §979.11 or if they will enforce the latest memo. I know that my local DA told the Stockton Record (and by way of that the community) that a rifle meeting PC §12276.1 and CCR §979.11 was totally legal and that they would not prosecute people for posession of them.

I am working on a letter myselft to ask that very question. At the very least, the DA will have it brought to their attention that this memo does not change the law and should not change their stance on these rifles.

Omega13device
05-10-2006, 6:06 AM
In the eyes of the court, true. but in the eyes of LEO, it's as good as law. If LEO reads it, you will be arrested and lose a small fortune defending yourself in court, even if you win.

Are you an LEO? If not than don't assume you know what this means in their eyes.

In another thread regarding the San Francisco handgun ban, there was a posting from an LEO in which he said they tended not to enforce areas of the law that were still in the process of being settled or making their way through the courts. This is why LEOs have consistenly said they would not enforce the SF handgun ban - it is still making its way to the courts.

In our situation we merely have a pronouncement that the regulations WILL be change, not that they have changed. This carries even less force than the SF handgun ban.

jwissick
05-10-2006, 10:33 AM
All it takes is one anti gun cop and one anti gun DA.... And there are enough of both around...

It's a question of waiting and being safe OR having fun and possiably getting screwed.

hoffmang
05-10-2006, 11:00 AM
Jedi,

I'm thinking about writing that letter to my DA.

zenthemighty
05-10-2006, 11:26 AM
In the eyes of the court, true. but in the eyes of LEO, it's as good as law. If LEO reads it, you will be arrested and lose a small fortune defending yourself in court, even if you win.

Do you want to be the test case? Best to keep it stripped and stored till someone hands the DOJ it's ***.

Me? I plan to have a metal ring welded through the mag well till this blows over.

That's why I carry a copy of the regs with me... I also keep pertinent sections highlighted. I intend to educate them on the law.

docsmileyface
05-10-2006, 11:32 AM
Heres a wacky and mabye pointless thing to do but what would happen if 20 plus thousand of us offlisted lower receiver owners all came together on one specific day, marched to a rally point where guns are legal like say somewhere on BLM land, invited the press/media and simultaneously on cue, unpin our magazines as a silent form of protest against constitutional oppression. Even call it the day of AW solidarity. Would they toss all of us in jail?? :D


Well, they didn't toss the 100,000 illegals marching in prison. Maybe worth a shot? I know I'd love to toss a 30 rounder into my OLL and shoot her like she was meant to be shot!! :D

Choptop
05-10-2006, 11:38 AM
I wonder is internal DOJ memo's about the public memo's would fall under CA's version of the freedom of information act (the FIA is for federal info, but each state has its own version).

that way the public could see what the thinking, if any, behind the contradicting statements in the memos.

Unknownassailant
05-10-2006, 11:53 AM
Well, they didn't toss the 100,000 illegals marching in prison. Maybe worth a shot? I know I'd love to toss a 30 rounder into my OLL and shoot her like she was meant to be shot!!


Exactly my point, strength in numbers and it would definately get the attention of not just the gungrabbers but also of the rest of America who are in the free states. I think it would show our legislatures that we are angry and we don't want their bull**** gun control laws that do nothing but affect good law abiding citizens. It would also serve as a beacon to America's gunowners that "we need help!" Plus I know we ALL would love to have at least one day where we can have a go at the communal Beta C mag being passed around without fear of prosecution in the PRK. :D

PIRATE14
05-10-2006, 11:57 AM
In the eyes of the court, true. but in the eyes of LEO, it's as good as law. If LEO reads it, you will be arrested and lose a small fortune defending yourself in court, even if you win.

Do you want to be the test case? Best to keep it stripped and stored till someone hands the DOJ it's ***.

Me? I plan to have a metal ring welded through the mag well till this blows over.

I know a lot of LEOs and they memo means nothing to them...........:eek:

artherd
05-12-2006, 8:21 PM
I know a lot of LEOs and they memo means nothing to them...........:eek:
I know many LEOs who have no problems with guns of any sort "Unless they're stolen, or pointed at me". Period.

Then agian, I know almost as many who "don't like guns" and
Don't feel comfortable around them" (it's a good thing they have national carry permits!):eek: :eek: :eek:

RRangel
05-12-2006, 8:31 PM
So people are prosecuted for laws that don't exist? I think people are taking this a little too far. I wish people would relax.
Any law enforcement that would confiscate your off list lower would probably do so regardless of the new memo "configuration" or not.

1911_Mitch
05-12-2006, 8:38 PM
Couple of things:

First: The head of the DOJ organization obviously is not a very good leader. Case in point: his underlings cannot even produce a letter (let alone about 50 of them) that expresses the intent of the Department he leads. It seems they are farting into the wind. How can a Department have such a stunning reversal of opinon within 3 months? Seems they are trying to save face.

Second: I seriously cannot fathom how this guy will probably be the new State Treasurer - Lord help us. To bad for this State. The level of incompetence is amazing. Oh sorry, this is just one issue, I am sure he has done alot of good, but I have not read his reelection propoganda yet.

I think a few letters to the editor are in order to spread the word. A few letters to say: The Sacratomato Bee, The Lost Angels Times, The San Freko Times, The Press Democrap, and other notables detailing the gross negligence of one of his Departments Divisions (i.e 30,000 AR model lowers (supposed to be banned)) entering the State) may help to steer his election campaign down an uncertain road.

Rant over.

artherd
05-12-2006, 8:40 PM
So people are prosecuted for laws that don't exist? I think people are taking this a little too far. I wish people would relax.
Any law enforcement that would confiscate your off list lower would probably do so regardless of the new memo "configuration" or not.
I was once ticketed for "drag racing" against myself... Judge laughed that one out (quite literally, once she asked who I was racing.)

Back on topic, I've had several 'chats' about paperwork for my NON-AW fixed-mag Barrett 82A1. Owning that thing sure helped me prepare for OLLs though!

Da_shotcaller
05-13-2006, 9:00 AM
I know a lot of LEOs and they memo means nothing to them...........:eek:

What memo??? Did DOJ started sending this memo to all LE Department yet??? I guess my department didn't get one yet

6172crew
05-13-2006, 9:22 AM
:confused: What memo??? Did DOJ started sending this memo to all LE Department yet??? I guess my department didn't get one yet

Are you kidding?

kick Z tail out
05-13-2006, 9:22 AM
I am curious if anyone has thought of contacting their local DA to request that the DA state if they will enforce the definitions as per PC §12276.1 and CCR §979.11 or if they will enforce the latest memo. I know that my local DA told the Stockton Record (and by way of that the community) that a rifle meeting PC §12276.1 and CCR §979.11 was totally legal and that they would not prosecute people for posession of them.

I am working on a letter myselft to ask that very question. At the very least, the DA will have it brought to their attention that this memo does not change the law and should not change their stance on these rifles.
Please don't get the DAs involved in this right now... We have enough of a clusterf*** as is....

Phantom_Piney
05-13-2006, 5:32 PM
Heres a wacky and mabye pointless thing to do but what would happen if 20 plus thousand of us offlisted lower receiver owners all came together on one specific day, marched to a rally point where guns are legal like say somewhere on BLM land, invited the press/media and simultaneously on cue, unpin our magazines as a silent form of protest against unconstitutional oppression. Even call it the day of AW solidarity. Would they toss all of us in jail?? :D

Hehehe.....We don't need no stinky memos!!! What a great idea, I'll be the one with the American flag and right below it the official NRA Flag. Carry on;)

thmpr
05-13-2006, 9:02 PM
Here is another conflicting DOJ statement that they stated back in December 2005 concerning the capacity to accept. This will be a letter that we definately can use as evidence of the DOJ's conflicting comments and ruling on their stance.

kick Z tail out
05-14-2006, 10:47 AM
Hehehe.....We don't need no stinky memos!!! What a great idea, I'll be the one with the American flag and right below it the official NRA Flag. Carry on;)
There would be a big car chase and my Z28 would be the only one to get away. :eek: :cool:



Kidding aside, that would be badass. At the same time, we could all load 30 rounders. ;)

PanzerAce
05-14-2006, 11:26 AM
There would be a big car chase and my Z28 would be the only one to get away. :eek: :cool:



Kidding aside, that would be badass. At the same time, we could all load 30 rounders. ;)

You know, if we did that, I dont think ANYONE would know what the end result would be.

1911_sfca
05-15-2006, 3:14 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. Therefore, the Department will not update the list of "series" assault weapons.

So, what was a good idea last week is a bad idea this week. What are we left to conclude from this?

We are left to conclude that the California Department of Justice doesn't like the assault weapon law as it is on the books, especially the part about mandatory 90-day registration windows. So instead of upholding the law, it is going to shirk its duty, and spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about what the words "detachable" and "tool" mean.

I'm telling you, all it's going to take is one good exposé on this, and Lockyer's campaign is dead in the water.