PDA

View Full Version : If the CCR of "removable magazine" is altered, will that initiate new registrations?


NeoWeird
05-10-2006, 7:44 PM
I was just thinking about this. IF the California Code of Regulations is altered in a way that changes a definition, will the DOJ be required to open a new registration window that falls within the new definition, or would you simply be forced to modify your firearm to be in compliance or sell it?

To keep this out of AR/AK territory, I will use a different firearm. I was thinking earlier about how I always wanted to make a M1 Carbine with the paratrooper stock with a pinned magazine. I figured since they have stripped clips that hold all ten rounds at once, it wouldn't be too bad (and I could always use my grandpa's 15 rounders when I get a normal M1 Carbine).

However, if someone owned the firearm described above, and they modified the CCR so that is was no longer in a legal configuration, would the DOJ be required to open a period to register said rifles?

I highly doubt it, but it could be interesting if it was the case, what will all the Cali-legal FALs, PTR-91s, etc. coming into the state. Heck, you could even pin a 10 round SKS magazine in place (obviously to replace your worn fixed magazine with an aftermarket magazine, not to do anything illegal).

Just curious as I am not very knowledgable as to how the CCR is modified/changed/ammended.

xenophobe
05-10-2006, 7:47 PM
DOJ will not allow a new registration period and will compel people to change the configuration of any rifles that fall under the changes...

Litigation may push the courts to force it. If they do, it will be an open-ended SB-23 type registration, as any rifle (not limited to AR/AK series weapons) that may be subject to reclassification would need to be registered.

NeoWeird
05-10-2006, 7:54 PM
What are the chances of a litigation like that going through? I don't mean what are the chances that they will open registration, but what are the chances that it would be brought up and argued?

Again, there is no evil mastermind plan behind this all; just curious what happens next if they do alter the CCR.

xenophobe
05-10-2006, 8:10 PM
It could be a test case that a prosecutor tries, or if DOJ ends up changing anything, they will be taken to court. I don't think it's a matter of chance or a matter of 'if'... just a matter of when.

shopkeep
05-10-2006, 8:20 PM
It could be a test case that a prosecutor tries, or if DOJ ends up changing anything, they will be taken to court. I don't think it's a matter of chance or a matter of 'if'... just a matter of when.

I have a feeling that while there may or may not be a registration period in the immediate future, there will be one in the not too distant future. Changing the CCRs will result in giving the green light to FFLs and Manufacturers to begin selling gripless AR-15s, AK-47s, FALs, and other rifles across the state.

Eventually anti-gun groups and possibly the public will become sick of clones being sold at gun shows and various shops. They will pass something ominous or list and boom! registration.

I am still fairly confident though that the possibility for registration in the near future exists. The principle concern of the DOJ is obviously to avoid the creation of a DeFacto open registration scheme whereby you find something not on the list and then it gets listed so you can register it. By not listing as Category 4 they have ALSO shown us that we indeed have some compelling legal arguments and they believe our case is a strong one.

But hey, look on the bright side: The DOJ has acknowledged that these are indeed AR-15 and AK-47 rifles. They have acknowledged they are lawful to sell and own in gripless configuration.

bbq_ribs
05-10-2006, 9:11 PM
so should we waste our time writing to our congress critters?

Hrm. Let's all go have a BBQ on the front steps of the Capitol building (but leave the lowers at home, please!)

:-)

JWC6
05-11-2006, 7:46 AM
Neoweird,

I was thinking about the same thing last PM. What does permanent mean? I think Technical Ted brought up an interesting point about GB Sales in one of the other posts. In order for GB to get the "approval letter" from the CA DOJ, a sample of a Bushmaster XM-15 with a sealed mag well lower was inspected and deamed to permanent. Mr. Chinn stated so in a letter with the DOJ letterhead (I have a copy). However, on the GB website and in verbal communication, Evan's and/or GB sales will be glad to convert to full functioning status when the owner moves out of state. Hence, even a "permanent modification" can be unmodified.

Capability or capacity to accept is a rather nebulous concept also. My M1A has the capacity of accepting a pistol grip stock and a flash hider, thereby violating SB23. Robinson Arms M96 CA version is capable of accepting a pistol grip (we know what happened to the CA DOJ with THAT fiasco). The Kel Tec SU16 with a rail forearm is capable of accepting a foreward vertical grip. Obviously not what Harrott addressed BUT with the confusion of the recent memo, really points out a rather glaring lack of CA DOJ insight in CA firearms law and history.

So, as I see it, the "off-list Harrott issue" has now encompassed the SB23 issue.

Yes, this monkey is dancing ("Dance Monkeys Dance!"). And I don't know where this is going. But, at a very minimum, this issue has galvanized a well educated population of enthusiasts - capable of some very critical thinking (thank you Glen Avon, bweise, digglerd, fabio with the nose apparatus, et al) - and who are willing to put our time, money and faith behind it.

bwiese
05-11-2006, 8:10 AM
Capability or capacity to accept is a rather nebulous concept also. My M1A has the capacity of accepting a pistol grip stock and a flash hider, thereby violating SB23. Robinson Arms M96 CA version is capable of accepting a pistol grip...


Yes, but the prob is the capacity to accept is only applicable to detachable mags. It does not apply to the list of characteristic features that follows. This was what all the ruckus was concerning the M96 seizures a few years ago. There is a letter on calgunlaws about this.

The real issue is that 'capacity to accept' can be regarded in two ways, which should get lenity treatment (i.e., the non-criminalizing meaning) -esp as expert (crime lab) witnesses will testify that fixed mag off-list rifles do not violate 12276.1. The DOJ interpreation they are suggesting in 'the memo' would also require 'construction' to remove the fixed mag to accept another mag, and we have DOJ letters saying that constructive possession doesn't apply to AW features law.

JWC6
05-11-2006, 8:20 AM
Sorry, I was getting the capacity to accept detachable magazines issue muddled with the capacity to accept other 12276.1 features.

bg
05-11-2006, 10:11 AM
Crap. If this happens it means my lil ole mini-14 would
be reclassified and all I've been doing is minding my own
business..and I've YET to see my mini open the safe,
load itself and starting firing..What major BS this
reclassified deal would be IF it were to happen.

glen avon
05-11-2006, 10:20 AM
DOJ will not allow a new registration period and will compel people to change the configuration of any rifles that fall under the changes...

Litigation may push the courts to force it. If they do, it will be an open-ended SB-23 type registration, as any rifle (not limited to AR/AK series weapons) that may be subject to reclassification would need to be registered.

I think that is exactly right.

DOJ won't "add" anything to the list. the list still says "detachable mag" blah blah blah. the "temporarily modified" guns can be easily made compliant without major issues - just leave of the PG. thus, I don't think a court will force new registration b/c there is an easy way to avoid the law and still keep the gun. couldn't do that if DOJ added "stag" to the list, then there would be registration.

glen avon
05-11-2006, 10:22 AM
Crap. If this happens it means my lil ole mini-14 would
be reclassified....

that is absolutely incorrect. your mini has no other evil features and always had a detachable mag. how on earth would this affect your mini? ignore the misinformed hysteria on this board. minis and sks's will be unaffected.

bwiese
05-11-2006, 10:30 AM
I think that is exactly right.
DOJ won't "add" anything to the list. the list still says "detachable mag" blah blah blah. the "temporarily modified" guns can be easily made compliant without major issues - just leave of the PG. thus, I don't think a court will force new registration b/c there is an easy way to avoid the law and still keep the gun. couldn't do that if DOJ added "stag" to the list, then there would be registration.


The gun attorney I spoke to yesterday believes that if regulatory definitions are changed (they won't be added to) and that transitions existing rifles into AWs, that would either open up a reg period, or the side effects of triggering AW status would be grave enough that the changed regulation may not be able to "go thru".

(Well, they could add a regulatory definition of "capacity to accept..." in combination with changing permanence standards on detach mag definitions.)
But that could trigger transitions to AW status for a variety of guns - existing fixed-mag rifles of any sort, as well as SKS situation.

There's no precedent for DOJ to require mandatory surrenders, forced modifications, "render safe" actions or forced sales when the firearm was a legal firearm beforehand.

Furthermore, these are not 'converted' firearms since most all of 'em _started_ from bare receiver level (except a couple of S&W M&P15s imported in pieces) and went directly into a nonAW status. They also cannot really restrict their definitions to revovling around "AR-ness" or "AK-ness" because of Harrott-required specificity and listing to be considered AR or AK series members, so they'd have to list to have any "AR-ness"/"AK ness" even considered.

glen avon
05-11-2006, 12:55 PM
There's no precedent for DOJ to require mandatory surrenders, forced modifications, "render safe" actions or forced sales when the firearm was a legal firearm beforehand....

SKS fiasco. legally sold and bought. later determined to be illegal. get rid of them or we come and take them.

I know you will say "but that was different" and indeed the situation is not identical. but it's close enough.

you watch.

kantstudien
05-11-2006, 1:08 PM
[QUOTE=glen avon]SKS fiasco... get rid of them or we come and take them.QUOTE]

Not true, they never said "we will come and take them." They stated that you need to get rid of it out of state, turn them in for reimbursement money, or become a felon should we catch you.

MaxQ
05-11-2006, 1:12 PM
SKS fiasco. legally sold and bought. later determined to be illegal. get rid of them or we come and take them.


But, there was an opportunity to register an SKS with a detachable mag prior to the "get rid of them" point.

glen avon
05-11-2006, 1:30 PM
But, there was an opportunity to register an SKS with a detachable mag prior to the "get rid of them" point.

DOJ tried to do the right thing and did indeed propose one but the antis sued and shot it down. that's right, DOJ tried to do the right thing.

grammaton76
05-11-2006, 1:37 PM
But, there was an opportunity to register an SKS with a detachable mag prior to the "get rid of them" point.

Incorrect. People who attempted to register their SKSes were refused, on the grounds that an SKS is "not an AW". If they hadn't been refused, a number of folks would have been allowed to keep theirs.

gh429
05-11-2006, 2:39 PM
Any thoughts on trying to push the angle that a non-pistol grip AR creates a weapon that is non-operational (or more unsafe if such a point can be argued). Therefore DOJ's initial approvals of "lowers only" is flawed and that by essentially declaring sporting conversions illegal it deprives us of our rifles therefore we should be allowed to register? Hahaha talk about long-shot

Of course for this to occur :

1. the DOJ will have to define "capacity to accept" in CCR
or
2. Someone will have to be prosecuted
3. All calguns members will need to start collecting 4-leaf clovers and rabbit foots...

grammaton76
05-11-2006, 2:43 PM
Any thoughts on trying to push the angle that a non-pistol grip AR creates a weapon that is non-operational (or more unsafe if such a point can be argued). Therefore DOJ's initial approvals of "lowers only" is flawed and that by essentially declaring sporting conversions illegal it deprives us of our rifles therefore we should be allowed to register? Hahaha talk about long-shot

Geez, folks talk about things that could backfire. "Look, to get around the law, all these nuts are using horribly unsafe configurations - we should confiscate those to prevent negligent discharge!"

On the other hand, stirring the pot could be useful.

MaxQ
05-11-2006, 2:55 PM
Incorrect. People who attempted to register their SKSes were refused, on the grounds that an SKS is "not an AW". If they hadn't been refused, a number of folks would have been allowed to keep theirs.

Actually, I believe there were two opportunities to register them. Anyone who owned a detachable mag SKS prior to the original 1989 cut-off, could register it during the initial Roberti-Roos reg period. I don't think these were refused or invalidated.

I think the buybacks and confiscations were due to the DOJ's well-intentioned second reg period which was later invalidated.

Or, is my memory going?