PDA

View Full Version : You are all missing the subtle message from the DOJ


Pthfndr
05-11-2006, 2:08 PM
The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary ...........

That line right there. Everything else is just window dressing. That one line up there I think says it all. The DOJ will take no further action. At least not during Lockyer's reign. They DON'T HAVE TO. And from a political perspective it would be unthinkable for the DOJ to willing agree to allow untold thousands of LEGAL AWs into the state.

Why won't they take any action? BECAUSE IT ISN'T NECESSARY!

From the moment the first memo came out I stated I did not believe the DOJ would ever list because they had no NEED to. And a lot of people called me names and dumped on me. Well, the DOJ's latest memo says just that. They won't list.

That one line up there I think says it all. The DOJ will take no further action. At least not during Lockyer's reign. They DON'T HAVE TO. And from a political perspective it would be unthinkable for the DOJ to willing agree to allow untold thousands of LEGAL AWs into the state.

It doesn't matter how easily one coould convert an otherwise legal firearm into an illegal AW. The law says.....etc.......it would be illegal. End of story. If people convert them they're then bad guys and can go to jail when caught.

The fact that the law only stops law abiding people is irrelevant. What are you going to do, show the media and public how fast and easy it would be for you to commit a felony?

Maybe the DOJ will hold public comment hearings to determine what's "permanent", what is a "tool" (besides the people at DOJ) and what is "time". But I think they will not waste their resources, either time or financial.

I think they've done all they're going to do. Which is let SB23 be the law that everyone has to follow, and try to stir some cunfusion - which from the looks of this board they've certainly accomplished.

HEUER
05-11-2006, 2:17 PM
I agree with you 100%!

Omega13device
05-11-2006, 2:31 PM
There's no question that Lockyer doesn't want the pot stirred up before the election. Who is running against him for Treasurer? Maybe that person would be interested in hearing that the current AG has no interest in keeping track of the 30,000 AR-series rifles that recently came into the state....

adamsreeftank
05-11-2006, 2:37 PM
Maybe he will use this whole thing to his advantage in the election for treasurer.

..."When I was AG I didn't let a single legal assault weapon be registered, but I collected the DROS fees for thousands of guns that people wanted to be assault weapons. Look how good I am at bringing in money. Vote for me for treasurer."

blacklisted
05-11-2006, 2:45 PM
It would certainly be logical for them to do nothing, since the law does already restrict us. But what is this crap about them claiming that current fixed mag rifles with pistol grips are already assault weapons? Why not just say that they aren't going to do anything?

kenc9
05-11-2006, 2:47 PM
The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary ...........

That line right there. Everything else is just window dressing. That one line up there I think says it all. The DOJ will take no further action. At least not during Lockyer's reign. They DON'T HAVE TO. And from a political perspective it would be unthinkable for the DOJ to willing agree to allow untold thousands of LEGAL AWs into the state.

Why won't they take any action? BECAUSE IT ISN'T NECESSARY!

From the moment the first memo came out I stated I did not believe the DOJ would ever list because they had no NEED to. And a lot of people called me names and dumped on me. Well, the DOJ's latest memo says just that. They won't list.

That one line up there I think says it all. The DOJ will take no further action. At least not during Lockyer's reign. They DON'T HAVE TO. And from a political perspective it would be unthinkable for the DOJ to willing agree to allow untold thousands of LEGAL AWs into the state.

It doesn't matter how easily one coould convert an otherwise legal firearm into an illegal AW. The law says.....etc.......it would be illegal. End of story. If people convert them they're then bad guys and can go to jail when caught.

The fact that the law only stops law abiding people is irrelevant. What are you going to do, show the media and public how fast and easy it would be for you to commit a felony?

Maybe the DOJ will hold public comment hearings to determine what's "permanent", what is a "tool" (besides the people at DOJ) and what is "time". But I think they will not waste their resources, either time or financial.

I think they've done all they're going to do. Which is let SB23 be the law that everyone has to follow, and try to stir some cunfusion - which from the looks of this board they've certainly accomplished.

You are right on! When I took my best guess of what I thought DOJ would do,

"""What IF the new memo says;

Memo conserning the AR/AK series assault weapons.

It is the policy of the DOJ that strict enforcement of any new illegal assault weapons breaking any existing laws that are configured in such a way as to be considered an assault weapon.

While current law prohibits any assault weapon by name or configuration no further regulation is needed at this time.

Further it is the Departments view that the AR/AK series weapons shall have the magazine made permanant to the receiver and any temporary/non-permanant conversions are not conforming to DOJ policy.

While the Magazine lock "SPORTING CONVERSION" style is deemed exceptable and within the Departments policy they must be silver soldered in place to conform.

DOJ

Last edited by kenc9 : 05-03-2006 at 02:56 PM. """

I got the same treatment...As in that doesn't even make sense!!! haha
That quote up there a DOJ rule, if you go look where that is in the body of that writing is a how the DOJ may operate to make the LIST!
It isn't instant law, and won't effect ANY of our rifles except to trigger a Reg. period.
Besides their next new policy will wipe this one away like this memo did to the last one. They are starting tp pile up... :cool:

phish
05-11-2006, 2:47 PM
It would certainly be logical for them to do nothing, since the law does already restrict us. But what is this crap about them claiming that current fixed mag rifles with pistol grips are already assault weapons? Why not just say that they aren't going to do anything?

IED laced with FUD ;)

kenc9
05-11-2006, 2:50 PM
to adopt means some they have yet to do! :eek:

So we wait!?!!

CaGunNut
05-11-2006, 2:54 PM
There's no question that Lockyer doesn't want the pot stirred up before the election. Who is running against him for Treasurer? Maybe that person would be interested in hearing that the current AG has no interest in keeping track of the 30,000 AR-series rifles that recently came into the state....


Well according to the Sacramento Bee, http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/news/images/0415watch01.html, there are 7 candidates for California State Treasurer including Lil' Billy.

Keith Richardman(Republican):
District 38 Assemblyman
Richman for Treasurer
P. O. Box 4704
Chatsworth, CA 91313
888.322.0055 phone
805.584.8715 faz
RichmanforTreasurer@KeithRichman.com
www.KeithRichman.com

Claude Parrish(Republican):
P.O. BOX 2427
PALOS VERDES, CA 90274
BUSINESS: (562) 983-7855
Member, State Board of Equalization

E. Justin Noonan(Independent):
American Independent
1561 N. BEALE RD.
MARYSVILLE, CA 95901
BUSINESS: (530) 743-6878
ejnoonan@4xtreme.org
Computer Technician

Mehul M. Thakker(Green):
815 WASHINGTON ST., STE 52
OAKLAND, CA 94607
BUSINESS: (415) 305-3916
http://www.votethakker.com
mehul@votethakker.com
Investment Advisor

Marian Smithson(Libertarian):
1677 ASPEN VILLAGE WAY
WEST COVINA, CA 91791
BUSINESS: (626) 915-7666
mariansway@earthlink.net
City Treasurer/CPA

Gerald Sanders(Peace and Freedom):
P.O. BOX 24764
OAKLAND, CA 94623
BUSINESS: (510) 845-4360
http://www.peaceandfreedom2006.org
sanders@peaceandfreedom.org

shopkeep
05-11-2006, 2:59 PM
Ultimately they're going to decide to just forget about it all and not bother with a public hearing, the NRA, and media circus that is bound to follow doing anything.

They'll probably eventually take down the second memo and have NO memo there. We'll get to keep our pinned a gripless rifles. At worst we will find a new ingenious way to pin the mag without welding shut the magwell, and we will invent some VERY COOL grip alternatives.

Then over the next few years manufacturers and FFLs will interpret this lack of action on behalf of the DOJ to be a green light to go ahead and sell. Shelves of every gun store will have off-list AR-15 rifles and AK-47 rifles. Gun shows will be loaded with them.

Eventually the media and public will demand action and registration will then begin.

RRangel
05-11-2006, 3:00 PM
I'm pretty sure Ray Haynes will be running for treasurer. He's termed out of his current office.

HEUER
05-11-2006, 3:03 PM
35,893,799 residents of the State of California. 30,000 off list lower owners (maybe) in California. Not very good odds.

Pthfndr
05-11-2006, 3:07 PM
........But what is this crap about them claiming that current fixed mag rifles with pistol grips are already assault weapons? Why not just say that they aren't going to do anything?

I could imagine a discussion taking place with their legal people who told them, "look, you don't have to do anything. SB23 pretty much covers all the bases for keeping the law abiding peons in line. We can't do anything about the criminals, they will break the law regardless. But we're really getting sick and tired of wasting our precious time answering all these questions about assault weapons. So, this is what you can do to piss off those people at Calguns.net and make them spin their wheels some more and hopefully slow down the influx of legal recievers until after the elections........"

That's why they didn't just post a memo saying "Regarding the AR/AK reciever issue, the DOJ has decided to nothing and stand by existing law".

They've probably been laughing their asses off the last few days.

Pthfndr
05-11-2006, 3:12 PM
Path:

Confusion? CONFUSION???

This board hasn't become confused...It has become certifiably "5150"

Typo. I didn't proof read or use spell check.

What's 5150 mean?

Never mind, googled it - "When any person, as a result of mental disorder,....."

MaxQ
05-11-2006, 3:14 PM
35,893,799 residents of the State of California. 30,000 off list lower owners (maybe) in California. Not very good odds.

True, terrible odds, but that's 30,000-and-counting more than there were last year. Also, there are only about 15 million registered voters, and not everyone of those is anti-gun.

Of course it's all moot, as no pro-gun legislation has a snowball's chance without a significant shift in the political make-up of the legislature. And that's not going to happen without a voter demographic shift, redistricting, etc. I'm not holding my breath.

xenophobe
05-11-2006, 3:46 PM
You are all missing the subtle message from the DOJ

No, perhaps you didn't read the big thread on the memo when it came out?

This is a stall tactic. They're airing their third public opinion about this... first was "they'll list and you'll have detachable mags", then they changed to "they'll list, but Cat 4", now they're saying 'they won't list, they're going to change regulatory definition'... And it's that whole paragraph you should pay attention to. They're telling you 'that your fixed mag rifle is illegal, but we're going to have to change the definition to make it illegal'. Which is really not saying anything at this point other than it's legal now.

This memo has already been shot down, even quicker than the last memo. After all the phone/email/letter traffic they receive from this memo, I'll be surprised that it lasts one month.

In the end, whether AG Willie is still in command or not, they will end up listing. This memo is just pre-emptive damage control.

Omega13device
05-11-2006, 3:51 PM
We'll get to keep our pinned a gripless rifles. At worst we will find a new ingenious way to pin the mag without welding shut the magwell, and we will invent some VERY COOL grip alternatives.
You're still not getting it. Pinned with a pistol grip is still legal. You don't have to change anything until they update the definition of detachable magazine in the CCR.

Pryde
05-11-2006, 4:00 PM
35,893,799 residents of the State of California. 30,000 off list lower owners (maybe) in California. Not very good odds.

EXACTLY, there is life that exists outside of calguns.

There are probably far more hardcore anti-gunners out there than the 25,000 or so people who own offlist lowers.

People need to stop living in fantasy worlds and learn to accept the fact that there will never be a list and be happy with what they have. You've already won, you can now get a CA-legal AR that is not a FAB10 or Vulcan. How far do you want to push it?

Ford8N
05-11-2006, 4:34 PM
The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary ...........

That line right there. Everything else is just window dressing. That one line up there I think says it all. The DOJ will take no further action. At least not during Lockyer's reign. They DON'T HAVE TO. And from a political perspective it would be unthinkable for the DOJ to willing agree to allow untold thousands of LEGAL AWs into the state.

Why won't they take any action? BECAUSE IT ISN'T NECESSARY!

From the moment the first memo came out I stated I did not believe the DOJ would ever list because they had no NEED to. And a lot of people called me names and dumped on me. Well, the DOJ's latest memo says just that. They won't list.

That one line up there I think says it all. The DOJ will take no further action. At least not during Lockyer's reign. They DON'T HAVE TO. And from a political perspective it would be unthinkable for the DOJ to willing agree to allow untold thousands of LEGAL AWs into the state.

It doesn't matter how easily one coould convert an otherwise legal firearm into an illegal AW. The law says.....etc.......it would be illegal. End of story. If people convert them they're then bad guys and can go to jail when caught.

The fact that the law only stops law abiding people is irrelevant. What are you going to do, show the media and public how fast and easy it would be for you to commit a felony?

Maybe the DOJ will hold public comment hearings to determine what's "permanent", what is a "tool" (besides the people at DOJ) and what is "time". But I think they will not waste their resources, either time or financial.

I think they've done all they're going to do. Which is let SB23 be the law that everyone has to follow, and try to stir some cunfusion - which from the looks of this board they've certainly accomplished.



Some good points. We will see what happens after the election.

45Auto
05-11-2006, 4:44 PM
Eventually the media and public will demand action and registration will then begin.
I don't think the media, the public, the Cal legislature, the governor, or anybody else except those of us who bought an off list lower really care at all. I bought one simply because in my mind it was a tiny, little act of civil disobedience. I suppose it wasn't even that since Harrott made it legal.
At this time, California politics are insurmountable in terms of any real Constitutionality. This is true across the board in all areas touched by the filthy vermin in Sacramento, not just with firearm regulation. The legislative, judicial and executive brances in Cal are all on the same page when it comes to guns in the hands of the citizens: they don't like it. The last 15 years have seen a steady erosion in the RKBA here, and yet, the gun stores are still full of a fair array of firearms which are legal to purchase. It almost seems comical and I am very pleased to see quite a bit of humor displayed on this forum.
Whatever the ultimate outcome of the Great California Off-List Lowers Adventure, I think it is an overall win for the RKBA.

odysseus
05-11-2006, 4:49 PM
Pryde,

Out here on the sidelines I have been reading many of your posts regarding this issue. I am not sure if you are one who bought into the off-list rush or not. However you have at times been vehemently against anyone taking the DOJ to task on this issue; and I am not sure why.

My point of posting this is that in much of this country, this the AR15 rifle configuration in semi-auto with a detachable magazine and pistol grip is not an assault rifle now. As a supporter of the RKBA and a second amendment advocate myself, I find California's laws regarding this whole issue byzantine and controlling a right to which most tax paying legal citizens should expect to be able to excercise.

Now I am not trying to go way right of center and all libertarian on you - but I find that this movement and testing of the DOJ is an important stride us tax paying citizens should be able to put to review. What do you think is being so pushy? Change does not occur without people pushing for change. It is a law and regulation, wrongly put as many have it; and as such - subject to change.

What say you?

EXACTLY, there is life that exists outside of calguns.

There are probably far more hardcore anti-gunners out there than the 25,000 or so people who own offlist lowers.

People need to stop living in fantasy worlds and learn to accept the fact that there will never be a list and be happy with what they have. You've already won, you can now get a CA-legal AR that is not a FAB10 or Vulcan. How far do you want to push it?

Pthfndr
05-11-2006, 4:50 PM
No, perhaps you didn't read the big thread on the memo when it came out?

I've read every word of every thread since this all started last fall.

This is a stall tactic.

Yep. They want to stall the influx of legal receivers into the state by scaring people.

This memo has already been shot down, even quicker than the last memo. After all the phone/email/letter traffic they receive from this memo, I'll be surprised that it lasts one month.

Doesn't matter whether the memo is technically correct or not. It's a memo. Not law or codified rule.

In the end, whether AG Willie is still in command or not, they will end up listing.

I'll bet they don't. Ever.

xenophobe
05-11-2006, 5:33 PM
I'll bet they don't. Ever.

I can't see any other alternative for them, except that they don't list, don't change any regulations, and what the memo says is BS anyways because any fixed magazine kit follows the definition of the law.

I can't tell what would happen if there are any changes to any regulatory definitions, but SB-23 definition starts to waver and become ambiguous, gets stricken or limited by court, or court mandated registration period opens up which would include much more than AR or AK series. This would hurt DOJ the most.

Remember, "AR/AK Series" itself was considered too ambiguous by a judge. Imagine changing regulatory definitions that alters the application of 12276.1 definition to be even more confusing.

HEUER
05-11-2006, 5:45 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.

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.

I wonder how they will enforce this and when?

Pthfndr
05-11-2006, 5:54 PM
I can't see any other alternative for them, except that they don't list, don't change any regulations, and what the memo says is BS anyways because any fixed magazine kit follows the definition of the law.

This is basically what I'm saying. With the exception of having a lot of new "unlisted" lowers to choose from to build fixed 10 round mag rifles, the status quo is unchanged. (is that redundant?)

xenophobe
05-11-2006, 5:58 PM
Yes, but receivers still flow into the state, 'undesirable' people build detachable mag ARs and then use them in crime... If that were to happen the media would explode on the "all the parts are legal to buy in the state" combined with "no defining method to build one legally" and whomever is in the AG and Governors office will get the media crapstorm from hell.

The flow has to stop. Allowing them to continue to be sold is exactly what the intent of SB-23 wanted to stop.

Oh well, only time will tell...

Pthfndr
05-11-2006, 6:00 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.

I wonder how they will enforce this and when?

They won't. They will expect the local law enforcement people to know all the gun laws and be able to recognize the difference between an AW and a non AW by sight alone and make an arrest if a violation is taking place, and for the resident DA to press charges for the heinous crime. They think, like the anti gun crowd does, that all good citizens will comply with the law.

HEUER
05-11-2006, 6:02 PM
This is basically what I'm saying. With the exception of having a lot of new "unlisted" lowers to choose from to build fixed 10 round mag rifles, the status quo is unchanged. (is that redundant?)

Once April came around and a list was not posted, it was clear that SB 23 was doing a pretty good job.

Pthfndr
05-11-2006, 6:04 PM
Yes, but receivers still flow into the state, 'undesirable' people build detachable mag ARs and then use them in crime... If that were to happen the media would explode on the "all the parts are legal to buy in the state" combined with "no defining method to build one legally" and whomever is in the AG and Governors office will get the media crapstorm from hell.

The flow has to stop. Allowing them to continue to be sold is exactly what the intent of SB-23 wanted to stop.

Oh well, only time will tell...

Did the "Not unsafe" handgun law stop the flow of hand guns into the state as the left anticipated? No, of course not.

They just don't think like we do. Or like the criminals do. They never will.

Richie Rich
05-11-2006, 7:27 PM
Full restoration of our 2nd amend rights:)



AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

(don't usually post one word replies, this just caught me the right way)

NRAhighpowershooter
05-11-2006, 8:43 PM
There are DEFINATELY more than 25,000 hard core gun owners here in CA.. a few years ago by DOJ's own admission back during the '89 ban they figured that there were more than 300,000 legally owned AW's in the state and that less than 20% registered them.. let alone the people that didn't register back in 2000 either. Another possability is that a LOT of gun owners are unfortunately brainwashed by their unions during election times and figure that no one will come to take their guns away so they feel no need to vote the correct way and make a stand for their guns rights.

TKo_Productions
05-11-2006, 9:03 PM
Another possability is that a LOT of gun owners are unfortunately brainwashed by their unions during election times and figure that no one will come to take their guns away so they feel no need to vote the correct way and make a stand for their guns rights.

More people are bound to their jobs than they are to their guns. They're willing to give up their freedom in order to secure a paycheck.

It's modern day enslavement. We've sold ourselves to the government and mortgage companies.

kenc9
05-11-2006, 9:17 PM
I can't see any other alternative for them, except that they don't list, don't change any regulations, and what the memo says is BS anyways because any fixed magazine kit follows the definition of the law.

I can't tell what would happen if there are any changes to any regulatory definitions, but SB-23 definition starts to waver and become ambiguous, gets stricken or limited by court, or court mandated registration period opens up which would include much more than AR or AK series. This would hurt DOJ the most.

Remember, "AR/AK Series" itself was considered too ambiguous by a judge. Imagine changing regulatory definitions that alters the application of 12276.1 definition to be even more confusing.
Whether they list or make a change in the Mag. rule or some other rule, that will throw the AR/AK’s or SKS’s or which ever rifles they effect will force a Reg. period and all our new lowers will be assault rifles. I don’t believe they can say pin those mags on currently owned rifles so it should only effect new lowers.

So if they do nothing we have it like it is now and if they change the law some how those guys that wanted assault rifles will have them maybe 

I don’t see how they can make a new rule and have us all start changing our guns pronto like the memo seems to suggest.

Also there are current laws on the books addressing generic assault weapons as they say. The bad guys would have already broken that law so breaking another would take no extra effort.

-ken

xenophobe
05-11-2006, 9:54 PM
Whether they list or make a change in the Mag. rule or some other rule, that will throw the AR/AK’s or SKS’s or which ever rifles they effect will force a Reg. period and all our new lowers will be assault rifles. I don’t believe they can say pin those mags on currently owned rifles so it should only effect new lowers.

So if they do nothing we have it like it is now and if they change the law some how those guys that wanted assault rifles will have them maybe 


DOJ will not give in to an open ended Cat3 registration period. By changing definitions enough, the courts *may* force it. Notice the stress on the word 'may'. They may not. DOJ will have no willing part of that, I guarantee you. The courts may also decide that nothing needs to be done, or they may deem 12276.1 to be convoluted enough to nullify.

If it goes this direction, in the time it would take to hash out in court, new legislation could be put into effect and makes any decision useless.

After Harrott, I don't think the DOJ wants to see this issue in court.


I don’t see how they can make a new rule and have us all start changing our guns pronto like the memo seems to suggest.

They'll create/modify new definitions and tell you that is your only recourse. The only way to avoid it is by going to court. If DOJ sees that their tinkering may indeed jeopardize SB23, then they will willingly update the AR and AK series list.

I personally don't think the DOJ can handle this off-list situation long enough for new legislation to pass. I'm also pretty sure that they're scared all or part of SB-23 might be nullified if they adjust definitions too much. I also know they want to list but do not want you have detachable mag AWs. And I'm willing to bet that from all the phone/email/letter traffic along with the potential to tinker with definitions enough to get a court ordered Cat 3 registration in place or nullification of SB-23 are worse to them than listing. As for not listing? AR and AK series stripped receivers are considered AWs by legislative intent of SB-23 and the DOJ still sees them as AWs even though you are currently allowed to buy them. Letting their sales continue is something the DOJ does not want to let happen, and the only reason they have not made a move yet is because all of the other options leave them no choice to win. They've already lost this battle and they know it. Isn't that rather obvious by now?

Charliegone
05-11-2006, 10:06 PM
More people are bound to their jobs than they are to their guns. They're willing to give up their freedom in order to secure a paycheck.

It's modern day enslavement. We've sold ourselves to the government and mortgage companies.

OMG! Finally someone has realized it!!:eek:

chris
05-11-2006, 10:23 PM
i for one cannot see why anyone would vote the way the unions tell them too. they cannot know how someone voted anyway. well that is the way it is suppose to be. but i would not vote the way a union would. besides we all know who runs this state anyway. we saw that last year. but back to the topic.

i would hope the DOJ does nothing. they should'nt. but if anything all these lowers have shown is. that a poorly written law was forced upon us really has no teeth to it. i think we need the full restoration of our rights that have been sold out to the unions and people who let their job dictate how they vote. i'm sure the founding fathers are spinning in their graves as what people are willing to give up.

kenc9
05-11-2006, 10:42 PM
DOJ will not give in to an open ended Cat3 registration period. By changing definitions enough, the courts *may* force it. Notice the stress on the word 'may'. They may not. DOJ will have no willing part of that, I guarantee you. The courts may also decide that nothing needs to be done, or they may deem 12276.1 to be convoluted enough to nullify.

If it goes this direction, in the time it would take to hash out in court, new legislation could be put into effect and makes any decision useless.

After Harrott, I don't think the DOJ wants to see this issue in court.



They'll create/modify new definitions and tell you that is your only recourse. The only way to avoid it is by going to court. If DOJ sees that their tinkering may indeed jeopardize SB23, then they will willingly update the AR and AK series list.

I personally don't think the DOJ can handle this off-list situation long enough for new legislation to pass. I'm also pretty sure that they're scared all or part of SB-23 might be nullified if they adjust definitions too much. I also know they want to list but do not want you have detachable mag AWs. And I'm willing to bet that from all the phone/email/letter traffic along with the potential to tinker with definitions enough to get a court ordered Cat 3 registration in place or nullification of SB-23 are worse to them than listing. As for not listing? AR and AK series stripped receivers are considered AWs by legislative intent of SB-23 and the DOJ still sees them as AWs even though you are currently allowed to buy them. Letting their sales continue is something the DOJ does not want to let happen, and the only reason they have not made a move yet is because all of the other options leave them no choice to win. They've already lost this battle and they know it. Isn't that rather obvious by now?

I still doubt they can change the law and make a legal rifle into an assault rifle by their definition and not allow a 90 day Reg. time. If they can do that why would they ever have a Reg. period?
It is either a AW or it is not. When they make a law making something a AW they must Reg. already existing rifles the way I see it! :o

xenophobe
05-11-2006, 11:01 PM
I still doubt they can change the law and make a legal rifle into an assault rifle by their definition and not allow a 90 day Reg. time. If they can do that why would they ever have a Reg. period?
It is either a AW or it is not. When they make a law making something a AW they must Reg. already existing rifles the way I see it! :o

They can't change the law, they can change regulatory definitions. Changing definitions doesn't automatically trigger a registration period. Changing definition gives someone the ability to contest it in court, which may or may not trigger a reg period, or do what I wrote above.

kenc9
05-11-2006, 11:13 PM
They can't change the law, they can change regulatory definitions. Changing definitions doesn't automatically trigger a registration period. Changing definition gives someone the ability to contest it in court, which may or may not trigger a reg period, or do what I wrote above.

So if that is so...Why don't they just change the regulatory rule and be done with it already? I think if they trigger AW's... they trigger AW Regs.

I am no expert but from everything in the past I know of that is what has happened.

If they just changed law or regulation (law to us) tomorrow the next day we could all be felons!
Kind of like the day after we got this last memo.

Law just doesn't happen that way.

xenophobe
05-11-2006, 11:40 PM
So if that is so...Why don't they just change the regulatory rule and be done with it already? I think if they trigger AW's... they trigger AW Regs.

I am no expert but from everything in the past I know of that is what has happened.

If they just changed law or regulation (law to us) tomorrow the next day we could all be felons!
Kind of like the day after we got this last memo.

Law just doesn't happen that way.

What is going to trigger the AW registration? The DOJ won't. If they do not and say it's not necessary, which I'm sure they are likely to do, how does it get triggered? By the courts, if they think it's appropriate.

Pryde
05-12-2006, 1:40 AM
Pryde,

Out here on the sidelines I have been reading many of your posts regarding this issue. I am not sure if you are one who bought into the off-list rush or not. However you have at times been vehemently against anyone taking the DOJ to task on this issue; and I am not sure why.

My point of posting this is that in much of this country, this the AR15 rifle configuration in semi-auto with a detachable magazine and pistol grip is not an assault rifle now. As a supporter of the RKBA and a second amendment advocate myself, I find California's laws regarding this whole issue byzantine and controlling a right to which most tax paying legal citizens should expect to be able to excercise.

Now I am not trying to go way right of center and all libertarian on you - but I find that this movement and testing of the DOJ is an important stride us tax paying citizens should be able to put to review. What do you think is being so pushy? Change does not occur without people pushing for change. It is a law and regulation, wrongly put as many have it; and as such - subject to change.

What say you?

I'm not against taking the DOJ to task per se.

I just believe people are going about it the wrong way. Maybe I'm wrong but I just have this overwhelming feeling that people are pushing the offlist lower issues for themselves. (WARNING: Generalizations to follow) Offlisters aren't interested in reforming our gun laws, they for the most part don't care as long as they can own an AR with a detach mag, screw everyone else. They excuse it with a "I'm gonna take what I can get" attitude, yes I can see the benefits of this but they are by far selfish benefits. If the DOJ lists it benefits AR owners and to a lesser extent AK owners. It does not benefit the person who wants to own a FAL, G3, P90, or USP tactical, it does not benefit the person who wants to buy more than 1 handgun per month or the person who does not want to pay DROS fees. It only benefits those who have ARs. Assuming they listed, what about people in the future who want to own Stags or Fultons? Too bad for them right? The laws would still be there and the ARs would still be banned.

In my opinion, the battle had already been won when these lowers were imported into CA, people complained about wanting to own an AR but the only available options were fab10's and vulcans. Now they can own affordable, free state AR's having fixed mags. Yet that was not enough for them, no, they have to push the DOJ to list so they can have detachable mags too. I don't see SKS, FAL or PTR91 owners trying to devise loopholes to have detachable mags.

If these AR people were really motivated by non-self interest, they should write their congressmen, vote in elections, convince others that guns aren't evil. Something that will actually fix the problem not just helping yourself. In fact if anything it only serves to fuel anti-gunner's stereotypes: that gunowners don't care about the law and they are always trying to find loopholes so that they don't have to follow the law and can own dangerous weapons. Thats what the brady people want you to think.

xenophobe
05-12-2006, 1:47 AM
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5080/banhim7744504cp.jpg


I'm not against taking the DOJ to task per se.

I just believe people are going about it the wrong way. Maybe I'm wrong but I just have this overwhelming feeling that people are pushing the offlist lower issues for themselves. (WARNING: Generalizations to follow)

WHO are you and how old are you?

Sorry, I don't like being pigeonholed. You know squat. Reform gun laws? You want reform? True gun owners in California want repeals, not reform. We've had 16+ years of 'reform'. That's where we are today. Can't buy a firearm without a trigger lock or gun safe... oh like that handgun? Provide proof of residency, demonstrate that you know how to use it and wait a month till you can buy another one. Bolt action rifles have been proven to be bannable... Reform? :rolleyes:

So, where were you in '89? How about '94? And in '99? What about '04? What have YOU done for the cause?

I see you ranting and insulting your way around here, but you've provided no solutions, no suggestions, nothing. You're just trolling around and insinuating and insulting people you don't even know. You give firearms owners a bad name. F'n troll.

Pryde
05-12-2006, 1:55 AM
WHO are you and how old are you?

Sorry, I don't like being pigeonholed. You know squat. Reform gun laws? You want reform? True gun owners in California want repeals, not reform. We've had 16+ years of 'reform'. That's where we are today. Can't buy a firearm without a trigger lock or gun safe... oh like that handgun? Provide proof of residency, demonstrate that you know how to use it and wait a month till you can buy another one. Bolt action rifles have been proven to be bannable... Reform? :rolleyes:

So, where were you in '89? How about '94? And in '99? What about '04? What have YOU done for the cause?

I see you ranting and insulting your way around here, but you've provided no solutions, no suggestions, nothing. You're just trolling around and insinuating and insulting people you don't even know. You give firearms owners a bad name. F'n troll.


Are you obsessed with me or something? Repeal, Reform whatever, offlist lowers do not represent either of the above. You are arguing semantics with me, it should be obvious to you that I am for FIXING and ELIMINATING our gun laws once and for all. I am not for sideskirting the law for 90 days so a few people can get their detachable mag toys. True gun owners? How does one become a true gun owner, buy an AR? What are you implying by using this term? That some gun owners are better than others? You accuse me of pigeonholing, yet in the same paragraph you judge people based on their assumed nature of gun ownership? At least I can admit when I am generalizing.

I do what I can for the cause, and that doesn't include buying an offlist lower because I personally believe that it will do anything to help anyone except myself.

Ranting and insulting? What have you been doing but following my posts and talking unwarranted trash to me just because you disagree with my views? I think you really need to grow up and recognize that just because someone holds a differing viewpoint, it doesn't make them a bad person. You don't like what I have to say? Put me on the ignore list or scroll past my post.

I asked you last time you accused me of dodgin questions "what have I not answered from you"?, you never even responded because you have nothing to say other than insulting my character. I posed serious questions in my last post and rather than acknowledge any of them, you take it upon yourself to harrass me further and call me names. You give firearms owners a bad name, I would not want someone as immature petty and vindictive as you owning something as dangerous as a firearm.

gh429
05-12-2006, 2:05 AM
The DOJ pretty much did the smartest thing they could in their position - issued an intepretation of EXISTING LAW regarding the "capacity to accept". So any DA who gets an AR15 lower locked with a sporting mag conversion put in front of him and who now calls the CA DOJ Firearms, gets told "yeah that sporting mag conversion rifle still has capacity to accept. In our opinion it's a violation." And guess what? Chances are you get prosecuted. I think we all got hosed by the DOJ...

Omega13device
05-12-2006, 5:08 AM
The DOJ pretty much did the smartest thing they could in their position - issued an intepretation of EXISTING LAW regarding the "capacity to accept". So any DA who gets an AR15 lower locked with a sporting mag conversion put in front of him and who now calls the CA DOJ Firearms, gets told "yeah that sporting mag conversion rifle still has capacity to accept. In our opinion it's a violation." And guess what? Chances are you get prosecuted. I think we all got hosed by the DOJ...
Based on the way the regs are written right now, the prosecutor would LOSE. They are not going take on a case they know they are going to lose.

Mark my words, this is a tactic to stall things until after the election. Lockyer is just stalling so that this issue doesn't blow up in his face and hurt his chance to become treasurer. I am sure a lot of you work in IT...you are familiar with the holiday freeze on IT changes right? It's the same thing here. He has put a freeze on the DOJ doing anything that might disrupt his campaign.

kenc9
05-12-2006, 7:09 AM
The DOJ pretty much did the smartest thing they could in their position - issued an intepretation of EXISTING LAW regarding the "capacity to accept". So any DA who gets an AR15 lower locked with a sporting mag conversion put in front of him and who now calls the CA DOJ Firearms, gets told "yeah that sporting mag conversion rifle still has capacity to accept. In our opinion it's a violation." And guess what? Chances are you get prosecuted. I think we all got hosed by the DOJ...

I disagree, pinning the Mag. is not mentioned in law anywhere.

What they did is to say what they would like the law to be or what DOJ intends to change the law to.

And if they can change it why wait all these months and then only make a memo?

-ken

DigglerD
05-12-2006, 7:32 AM
So any DA who gets an AR15 lower locked with a sporting mag conversion put in front of him and who now calls the CA DOJ Firearms, gets told "yeah that sporting mag conversion rifle still has capacity to accept. In our opinion it's a violation." And guess what? Chances are you get prosecuted.

+1

Based on the way the regs are written right now, the prosecutor would LOSE. They are not going take on a case they know they are going to lose.

The mistake I am seeing time and time again on this board is that people seem to think the DOJ is some kid on the playground that you have an argument with. This is not the case, the DOJ is the teacher that you can argue with all day long but will not win.

They may be wrong but they are a mostly lawyers in a CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT AGENCY. When the DA's need advice on legality they are not going to pm xenophobe, email bweise or put in a call to the San Jose Gun Exchange. They are going to call the legal experts in this field as appointed by the state, the DOJ. Buy a Polic Sci 1 text book, this is the EXACT reason for government agencies, legislators can't be experts on everything so they sublet out expertise to agencies and then use thier input in legislation.

McCarthy was wrong too but that didn't stop him from ruining a lot of lives.

Argue the semantics all you want but they are not going to bail you out of a cell or pay your legal fees. The DOJ can throw as much money at this as they want and this whole "we screwed the DOJ" attitude will eventually have them lob a case-grenade our way.

Courts make very narrowly based decisions and a loss over this doesn't mean anything other than thier redefinition is incorrect. Sure this may have implications to past rulings but who is going to pony up the money to fight those as well?

KenV
05-12-2006, 8:34 AM
You give firearms owners a bad name, I would not want someone as immature petty and vindictive as you owning something as dangerous as a firearm.

Whoa. Statements like THAT are what worry me. Xeno's no criminal. He shows no propensity for wanton violence. Somehow, however, you find his desire to argue to be cause for him to be disarmed. I'm not going ad hominem here. Hell, I don't know you at all Pryde. I'm simply pointing out a rather prejudicial statement that I do not expect from gun guys.

For a while, this was about how we should push for our rights with regards to forcing a list update or other DOJ action. Ah, the good old days.

"Divide and conquer" seems to be working for the DOJ here. Treat us like rats, cooped up in close on this issue, and see if, after a long tense wait, we begin to bite at one another...

K

JWC6
05-12-2006, 8:42 AM
Can't we all get along? :)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Rodney_king.jpg

DigglerD
05-12-2006, 9:04 AM
Whoa. Statements like THAT are what worry me. Xeno's no criminal. He shows no propensity for wanton violence. Somehow, however, you find his desire to argue to be cause for him to be disarmed. I'm not going ad hominem here. Hell, I don't know you at all Pryde. I'm simply pointing out a rather prejudicial statement that I do not expect from gun guys.

Is it any worse than the huge pic that Xeno put to "ban him"? I know this is a private board but cries to ban Pryde are no worse than Pryde's desire to disarm Xeno, after all the 1st amendment comes before the 2nd.

Ryoushi
05-12-2006, 9:23 AM
When the DA's need advice on legality they are not going to pm xenophobe, email bweise or put in a call to the San Jose Gun Exchange. They are going to call the legal experts in this field as appointed by the state, the DOJ.

That's probably the most lucid thing I've read on this forum in the last four days.

As the proud owner of a forged aluminum Screw Bill Lockyer paperweight, I'd just like to thank Bill for all the work he's done on this issue. God I wish he would just host a website and put up the latest pertinent info so I wouldn't have to wade through this juvenile swamp ever again.

KenV
05-12-2006, 9:38 AM
Is it any worse than the huge pic that Xeno put to "ban him"? I know this is a private board but cries to ban Pryde are no worse than Pryde's desire to disarm Xeno, after all the 1st amendment comes before the 2nd.

Actually, yes. Let's assume Pryde were to be banned (inadvisable as discourse is invaluable, even if tainted in the meat of the moment with the occasional insult - this applies to us all). He can speak elsewhere. Now then, disarm Xeno....well now, he won't be armed at all. As was stated before, there is a world beyond Calguns. Pryde losing rights here is nothing compared to Xeno losing wep rights wherever he goes within CA/USA.

You said it yourself:

I know this is a private board

BTW I think you meant "no better" in the second sentence of your original response...unless you really, deep down, agree ;)

K

DigglerD
05-12-2006, 9:43 AM
Actually, yes. Let's assume Pryde were to be banned (inadvisable as discourse is invaluable, even if tainted in the meat of the moment with the occasional insult - this applies to us all). He can speak elsewhere. Now then, disarm Xeno....well now, he won't be armed at all. As was stated before, there is a world beyond Calguns. Pryde losing rights here is nothing compared to Xeno losing wep rights wherever he goes within CA/USA.


So yes... in the scheme of the world Pryde can go elsewhere (and this is why I noted it was a private board... it's an argument on principal) but I'm sure you understood the logic in that it's hypocritical (in principal) to condemn one and not the other.

And yes I meant "no better".:)

vonsmith
05-12-2006, 9:46 AM
Do you want Lockyer voted out of office? And there aren't enough interested gun owners to do it? Just tell all of your friends and acquaintances that he is pro-gun, proven by the fact he has let 30,000+ new potential AW into the state. He's pro-gun. If that doesn't get him voted out then nothing will. :eek:


=vonsmith=

KenV
05-12-2006, 10:21 AM
So yes... in the scheme of the world Pryde can go elsewhere (and this is why I noted it was a private board... it's an argument on principal) but I'm sure you understood the logic in that it's hypocritical (in principal) to condemn one and not the other.

And yes I meant "no better".:)

Hypocritical? Of course. Part of my argument comparing discourse on a web board to personal safety outside the board? No. It's an issue of scope to me. I looked at it with the borders of the USA as my scope because the issue at hand on this board applies to the entire nation (PRK at the very least) . I'm not "right" or "wrong", and neither were you of course. Just a semantic knot of sorts I guess.

I do understand where you're coming from. I don't see how banning can help when ignoring takes very little energy if desired. We get worked up because we're under attack and have been for some time. We need to focus/remain focused on unity, so that we vent our frustrations with proper action. Many here do, including the ones suggesting personal disarmament or posting pics from Gladiator ;) Heck, many of us who go at it here would probably sit down for a beer/soda together under less tense circumstances.

RATM has a song whose title comes to mind: Know Your Enemy. I know mine, and I don't see him on this board :)

K

DigglerD
05-12-2006, 10:28 AM
Hypocritical? Of course. Part of my argument comparing discourse on a web board to personal safety outside the board? No. It's an issue of scope to me. I looked at it with the borders of the USA as my scope because the issue at hand on this board applies to the entire nation (PRK at the very least) . I'm not "right" or "wrong", and neither were you of course. Just a semantic knot of sorts I guess.

I do understand where you're coming from. I don't see how banning can help when ignoring takes very little energy if desired. We get worked up because we're under attack and have been for some time. We need to focus/remain focused on unity, so that we vent our frustrations with proper action. Many here do, including the ones suggesting personal disarmament or posting pics from Gladiator ;) Heck, many of us who go at it here would probably sit down for a beer/soda together under less tense circumstances.

RATM has a song whose title comes to mind: Know Your Enemy. I know mine, and I don't see him on this board :)

K

http://www.norcal1320.com/forums/images/smilies/beer.gif

KenV
05-12-2006, 10:31 AM
Noted. Back atcha man!

K

24thMED
05-12-2006, 10:45 AM
This is a very interesting post. I have to say that I have always wondered why the DOJ would list and how they would keep up with the slew of new lowers being manufacturted.

I think this thread is a testament to the DOJ and their tactic of not listing. They have to be reading this and loving it. We are arguing amongst ourselves even though we all want the same thing???

The way the laws are written now, if they get something going on the detachable magazine verbage, that will probably close the gap.

In my opinion, they are waiting for a test case too. And if they find the right judge, they might get their way.

Omega13device
05-12-2006, 11:26 AM
In my opinion, they are waiting for a test case too. And if they find the right judge, they might get their way.
Test case for what? Have you guys read the section below or not?
s 978.20. Definitions.

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:

(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.
This is already codified into the law. There is nothing to "test". Unless they change this piece of the CCR a pinned mag is completely legal as long as it requires tools and time to remove.

When the DA's need advice on legality they are not going to pm xenophobe, email bweise or put in a call to the San Jose Gun Exchange. They are going to call the legal experts in this field as appointed by the state, the DOJ.
It doesn't matter who they call, the law is the law, and the law says that if it takes tools and time to remove your mag then it's not detachable.

DigglerD
05-12-2006, 12:58 PM
Test case for what? Have you guys read the section below or not?

This is already codified into the law. There is nothing to "test". Unless they change this piece of the CCR a pinned mag is completely legal as long as it requires tools and time to remove.


It doesn't matter who they call, the law is the law, and the law says that if it takes tools and time to remove your mag then it's not detachable.

You don't understand the difference between what's written on the books and what those who enforce the law can do in the here and now when they think they are right.

You tell them all that up there when they arrest you and see if it keeps you out of jail or pays your legal fees.

Omega13device
05-12-2006, 2:24 PM
You don't understand the difference between what's written on the books and what those who enforce the law can do in the here and now when they think they are right.

You tell them all that up there when they arrest you and see if it keeps you out of jail or pays your legal fees.
Sure I do. Just like the CHP *can* pull me over for going 66 in a 65mph zone. But no cop is going to do that because it's a waste of time.

Do you think police have nothing better to do than 1) keep up on the finer points of the DOJ's opinion on the definition of a detachable magazine, AND 2) spend time arresting someone, doing all the paperwork, and testifying in court because of an issue that is so in flux it's not only not a law, it's not even a regulation?

xenophobe
05-12-2006, 2:57 PM
Are you obsessed with me or something? Repeal, Reform whatever, offlist lowers do not represent either of the above. You are arguing semantics with me, it should be obvious to you that I am for FIXING and ELIMINATING our gun laws once and for all. I am not for sideskirting the law for 90 days so a few people can get their detachable mag toys. True gun owners? How does one become a true gun owner, buy an AR? What are you implying by using this term? That some gun owners are better than others? You accuse me of pigeonholing, yet in the same paragraph you judge people based on their assumed nature of gun ownership? At least I can admit when I am generalizing.

I do what I can for the cause, and that doesn't include buying an offlist lower because I personally believe that it will do anything to help anyone except myself.

Ranting and insulting? What have you been doing but following my posts and talking unwarranted trash to me just because you disagree with my views? I think you really need to grow up and recognize that just because someone holds a differing viewpoint, it doesn't make them a bad person. You don't like what I have to say? Put me on the ignore list or scroll past my post.

I asked you last time you accused me of dodgin questions "what have I not answered from you"?, you never even responded because you have nothing to say other than insulting my character. I posed serious questions in my last post and rather than acknowledge any of them, you take it upon yourself to harrass me further and call me names. You give firearms owners a bad name, I would not want someone as immature petty and vindictive as you owning something as dangerous as a firearm.

Obsessing? Following you? lmao... Excuse me your majesty, but the world does not revolve around you. Before posting that picture "BAN YOU" I searched your last two pages of posts. You're a troll. Plain and simple.

You do nothing but generalize about how good you are and how bad offlisters are, but do not offer any positive advice. Just like your post above.

Who are you and what have you done? Well, you've thrown around a bunch of insults and accusations, telling everyone how they're so bad for gun rights in California and when confronted with what you're doing to help the cause you reply "I do what I can"... which apparently isn't any more than trolling internet forums telling people who don't have a similar view to yours that they're ruining it for everyone.

You're a real piece of work. Personally, I don't know who you are, I asked you what you've done... Apparently telling me how horrible I am is all that you can respond with. I was actively fighting gun rights 16 years ago... where were you, in diapers?

EDIT: And yes, I'm an *******, and I will also call you how I see you. Don't think you're special. I only treat others how they deserve to be treated, and I am not above sinking to their (your) level.

DigglerD
05-12-2006, 3:04 PM
Sure I do. Just like the CHP *can* pull me over for going 66 in a 65mph zone. But no cop is going to do that because it's a waste of time.

It's happened to me. 26 in a 25 on Los Padres in Santa Clara. I had to take time off work to go to Palo Alto traffic court and have it tossed. I didn't have an attitude and I did what the officer asked. It was a speed trap and he wanted to write a ticket.

Can he do that? YES Can you be arrested for an OLL while they sort it out? YES

But like I said, if it happens to you, tell them they are wong and that you are following the letter of the law... see what they do.:rolleyes:

Omega13device
05-12-2006, 3:09 PM
Pryde and Xeno, no offense intended but please take it to PM as your personal discussion isn't adding anything to the thread.

Omega13device
05-12-2006, 3:13 PM
It's happened to me. 26 in a 25 on Los Padres in Santa Clara. I had to take time off work to go to Palo Alto traffic court and have it tossed. I didn't have an attitude and I did what the officer asked. It was a speed trap and he wanted to write a ticket.

Can he do that? YES Can you be arrested for an OLL while they sort it out? YES

But like I said, if it happens to you, tell them they are wong and that you are following the letter of the law... see what they do.:rolleyes:
Fair enough, I didn't give a good example because 66 in a 65 is technically illegal, whereas a pinned mag with evil features is not. But I get your point that you prefer to err on the conservative side. Personally I think that's conservative to the point of being paranoid (for the reasons I stated above, that cops aren't even aware of this situation), but I respect your right to approach it however you want.

AxonGap
05-12-2006, 3:21 PM
I think the DOJ memo is doing it's intended job. I bet they are getting a real kick out of this in Sacramento!

This thread reads like "War and Peace"!

Pryde
05-12-2006, 4:42 PM
Obsessing? Following you? lmao... Excuse me your majesty, but the world does not revolve around you. Before posting that picture "BAN YOU" I searched your last two pages of posts. You're a troll. Plain and simple.

You do nothing but generalize about how good you are and how bad offlisters are, but do not offer any positive advice. Just like your post above.

Who are you and what have you done? Well, you've thrown around a bunch of insults and accusations, telling everyone how they're so bad for gun rights in California and when confronted with what you're doing to help the cause you reply "I do what I can"... which apparently isn't any more than trolling internet forums telling people who don't have a similar view to yours that they're ruining it for everyone.

You're a real piece of work. Personally, I don't know who you are, I asked you what you've done... Apparently telling me how horrible I am is all that you can respond with. I was actively fighting gun rights 16 years ago... where were you, in diapers?

EDIT: And yes, I'm an *******, and I will also call you how I see you. Don't think you're special. I only treat others how they deserve to be treated, and I am not above sinking to their (your) level.

Wow just wow,

You win. I can now see why other people told me in PMs not to bother arguing with you. No matter what I say you will never give a meaningful response and instead just throw around immature insults. If you are really that old then I feel even worse for you that you never matured past such a childish mentality. Since you seem to be unable to take the initiative, I will do so and put you on my ignore list and you can be big man and retire as champion.

Have a nice day sir, Mr True gun owner a newbie like me should know to keep my mouth shut in your presence.

xenophobe
05-12-2006, 5:14 PM
Pryde and Xeno, no offense intended but please take it to PM as your personal discussion isn't adding anything to the thread.

Yes, I agree. It's silly and has stopped.

anothergunnut
05-12-2006, 7:43 PM
There is another alternative. All you guys that are whining about Lockyer can register to vote (if you're not registered you can't vote unless you are a Democrat living in Chicago) and then vote for his opponent. In November, you will have an opportunity to vote for Poochician (spelling?) who is a solid, no holds-barred conservative. Although he can't change the laws, he can certainly issue regulations that would make us happy.

Omega13device
05-13-2006, 11:39 AM
They may be wrong but they are a mostly lawyers in a CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT AGENCY. When the DA's need advice on legality they are not going to pm xenophobe, email bweise or put in a call to the San Jose Gun Exchange. They are going to call the legal experts in this field as appointed by the state, the DOJ. Buy a Polic Sci 1 text book, this is the EXACT reason for government agencies, legislators can't be experts on everything so they sublet out expertise to agencies and then use thier input in legislation.

Btw I would also point you to Hunt v. Lockyer (Hunt letter (http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT WEAPONS/Articles/76855_Fresno_DA_Hunt_Letter.PDF)) where the DA of Fresno County is suing the AG's office because the regs related to SB 23 are not well defined. And I quote from DA Hunt's letter: "I do not want my deputies to be faced by a criminal defense lawyer asserting that even if my prosecution is based on a correct reading of SB 23, his client relied on a DOJ-issued letter and so is entitled by due process not to be prosecuted." Now if a DA is saying that a DOJ-issued letter protects you from prosecution under due process, how do you think a prosecutor will fare when faced by the fact that you relied on the CCR, which has the force of law?