PDA

View Full Version : It's all in the definitions


shopkeep
05-16-2006, 1:32 AM
OK, I accept that the DOJ is going to play the game by changing the rules at this point. Simple fact is that we learned the rules, played by them, and won the game fair and square. So while we're changing the rules lets make sure we get some new definitions from the DOJ on the following:

1) "Permenant" what does permenant mean? Some DOJ reps have told me that welding techniques are an important factor in "permenant". Most have told me there is no new definition. I am looking forward to seeing what they come up with because there is _NO_SUCH_THING_ as a permenant fixed mag... all it takes is a dremal to open any magwell.
2) "Restore" define "Restore to accept detachable magazines" how is a fixed magazine rifle restored?
3) "AR-15/AK-47 series". Wait a minute I thought if a rifle was determined to be a series member it was an "Assault Weapon". So these "unamed rifles" are indeed series members but NOT assault weapons? Well if you're going to say "permenant" or "restore" only applies to "series member" weapons then shouldn't those weapons be Category 2?
4) "temporary" and "disable". What is the difference between building a rifle as a fixed mag rifle and building one that is "temporarily disabled"? I built two rifles with fixed mags and at _NO_POINT_ in their assembly were they ever able to accept a detachable magazine. NONE of my rifles has ever had a detachable magazine inserted into it... how is it "temporarily disabled"?

Benellishooter
05-16-2006, 6:02 AM
It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Seriously, these Nazi b*stards are so freaking arrogant that they now believe they have control of the english language. The existing law speaks for itself. They just don't like it.

A resident of Bagdad has more gun rights than a resident of California.

bwiese
05-16-2006, 6:28 AM
Calm down.

Your DOJ girl you spoke to yesterday said we were legal. (Not that a desk clerk's opinion has legal force, but she sounds like she's heard all the back-room discussions of the off-list situation.)

If they change the regulations/definitions, they won't be able to make us change :) Especially if redefinition makes our guns AWs - then a reg period has to happen. There is no mandate in any gun law on the books for guns to be modified (let's not get confused with the S&W/Walther P22 situation since that was differerent).

Inoxmark
05-16-2006, 7:10 AM
I'd like to also have a definition of "semi-automatic". I haven't been able to find it in the CA laws.
Common definition of semi-automatic rifle seems to go as follows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle):A semi-automatic rifle is a type of rifle that, each time the trigger is pulled, fires a single bullet without the need to operate a bolt or other firing or loading mechanism other than the trigger, until the firearm's supply of cartridges is depleted. I thought if it was possible to somehow permanently modify the receiver to lock back the bolt after every round requiring the shooter to manually hit bolt release between pulling the trigger, and voila, the rifle is no longer semi-automatic and can be assembled in any configuraton. Certainly seems better than bolt-operated AR discussed in other threads.
Problem is that common and legal definitions often have nothing in common, and this project may not have proper backing in the law.

Cold Iron
05-16-2006, 7:16 AM
The aviation industry uses LOTS of adhesives (glues) Aircraft parts are permanently bonded and generally require destruction of the part for removal. Permanent does not mean forever, does a permanent resident have to die where they reside? Cold Iron

Jicko
05-16-2006, 7:21 AM
And.... shopkeep.... instead of posting your request here.... just write a letter to DOJ.... feel free to CC us here... but just posting it out here probably won't do anything... even if DOJ have someone monitoring the forum... the most you will get is a laugh from him....

DOJ: see? as we have expected.... they are panicking!!! HA HA HA :D


PS. I mostly agree with all the things that are going thru your mind... and all the questions that you have....

xenophobe
05-16-2006, 1:46 PM
Your DOJ girl you spoke to yesterday said we were legal. (Not that a desk clerk's opinion has legal force, but she sounds like she's heard all the back-room discussions of the off-list situation.)

If you record her, Lynda Tripp style, it may well have more legal force than the latest memo. lol

shopkeep
05-16-2006, 1:59 PM
Calm down.

Your DOJ girl you spoke to yesterday said we were legal. (Not that a desk clerk's opinion has legal force, but she sounds like she's heard all the back-room discussions of the off-list situation.)

If they change the regulations/definitions, they won't be able to make us change :) Especially if redefinition makes our guns AWs - then a reg period has to happen. There is no mandate in any gun law on the books for guns to be modified (let's not get confused with the S&W/Walther P22 situation since that was differerent).

Yeah, I really gotta confess I was really surprised by how much of the backroom info she knew. Sounds like they've got someone down there who's actually interested in their work; she must be a new hire :D!

I agree 100% that if you trigger AW status you open a feature based reg period. Isn't there something in state law regarding feature reg periods? I believe a feature reg period is 180 days isn't it?

I would LOVE a Category 3 registration period so I can reg my M-14 and other rifles. I might just have to install a pinned SOPMOD stock on my M-14 and reg it.

yiha
05-16-2006, 3:32 PM
It depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Seriously, these Nazi b*stards are so freaking arrogant that they now believe they have control of the english language. The existing law speaks for itself. They just don't like it.

Speaking of misinterpreting language


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I still dont quite understand how they got around that one...

zenthemighty
05-16-2006, 4:02 PM
Speaking of misinterpreting language


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I still dont quite understand how they got around that one...

Its simple. Politicians are the people. Us non-politicians are just peasants.

shopkeep
05-16-2006, 5:09 PM
Its simple. Politicians are the people. Us non-politicians are just peasants.

Although recently I have to admit this peasant has had one heck of a case of "stick it to the man" syndrome. I must admit I've found this whole episode strangely empowering.

Ford8N
05-16-2006, 5:38 PM
I'd like to also have a definition of "semi-automatic". I haven't been able to find it in the CA laws.
Common definition of semi-automatic rifle seems to go as follows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle): I thought if it was possible to somehow permanently modify the receiver to lock back the bolt after every round requiring the shooter to manually hit bolt release between pulling the trigger, and voila, the rifle is no longer semi-automatic and can be assembled in any configuraton. Certainly seems better than bolt-operated AR discussed in other threads.
Problem is that common and legal definitions often have nothing in common, and this project may not have proper backing in the law.


I found the Federal definition:

18 USC 921
Definitions


(28) The term "semiautomatic rifle" means any repeating rifle which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.


So, since there seems to be no state definition of what is a semiauto rifle, does the DOJ use the federal?

B.J.F.
05-17-2006, 7:12 PM
I'd like to also have a definition of "semi-automatic". I haven't been able to find it in the CA laws.
Common definition of semi-automatic rifle seems to go as follows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle): I thought if it was possible to somehow permanently modify the receiver to lock back the bolt after every round requiring the shooter to manually hit bolt release between pulling the trigger, and voila, the rifle is no longer semi-automatic and can be assembled in any configuraton. Certainly seems better than bolt-operated AR discussed in other threads.
Problem is that common and legal definitions often have nothing in common, and this project may not have proper backing in the law.


it would be a simple solution to making the bolt catch do just that, all you need is a slightly stronger spring under the bottom of the catch forceing it to pop up after each round fired, problem is, you might have to replace the catch due to wear & tear, but no big deal, just a roll pin to press out and a 2 dollar part DOJ's arguement is going to be that it is again " temporary "

B.J.F.
05-17-2006, 7:19 PM
Speaking of misinterpreting language


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I still dont quite understand how they got around that one...



because california did not adopt the second amendment into the constitution, or had it removed at some point.

I rented an appartment from Mammoth Mountain Ski Resort, posessed my firearm legaly kept it legaly locked up and ammo also locked, and they still evicted me for possession of a banned weapon, since when is a Glock 17 a banned weapon

sac7000
05-17-2006, 7:23 PM
I rented an appartment from Mammoth Mountain Ski Resort, posessed my firearm legaly kept it legaly locked up and ammo also locked, and they still evicted me for possession of a banned weapon, since when is a Glock 17 a banned weapon

The resort must be run by Ebay policy makers....

Satex
05-17-2006, 7:43 PM
Well my friend, as you must understand by now, any and everything is open to interpertation. How else do you explain how some people find justification for murder in the bible and some don't?

Speaking of misinterpreting language


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I still dont quite understand how they got around that one...

Here is how I see a bleeding heart liberal interpreting the quoted statement:
1) Here is the definition of militia from www.m-w.com:

1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

So based on this definition, the National Guard meets that criteria!

2) Note it says “well regulated”, so the states should put lots and lots of regulations on the militia, i.e. ban .50BMG, ban AW, cooling periods and so on

3) “The right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed” (doesn’t this come in direct conflict to the first part of the amendmen, i.e. well regulated?) This part doesn’t say what kind of arms shall not be infringed, and everyone is already has two "arms" and can get as many airsofts as possible ;)

Then, you get the fundamentalist view that would say that 2nd only related to muzzle loaders since that was what they had at the time. To that I say, the 1st only relates to vocal speech, feather pen paper, and 1776 technology press machines. No radio, Internet, TV, or PA systems – since those were all technologies that did not exist at the time.

So, as you see, how you interpret things depends on your position!
And BTW, I don’t believe the position I stated, I just showed you how “they” don’t see it like you do!

Tzvia
05-21-2006, 7:20 AM
This is the only thing I need to interpet (SB23)
"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."

Where is 'permanent' listed there? This is what I go by, it's called the law (I call it unconstitutional too but hey, I'm just a citizen). I only use a locking nut and medium threadlock. My brother could not move it and neither could I. I would also need to install the spring and do not take one with me to the range (just in case I need to show no intent). I also leave the socket set in the car as part of my emergency roadside stuff (again, no intent).

Lois

Tzvia
05-21-2006, 7:35 AM
Here is how I see a bleeding heart liberal interpreting the quoted statement:...


I have some liberal relatives (yea I know :rolleyes: ) who state "back then, there were no assault weapons so it does not apply to what we have now". So I say, there was no TV, no Internet, no radio and no electronic printing presses (modern newspapers) so the first amendment does not refer to that too, right?

I then get "it's terrible that Bush is making lists of where and who people are calling on the phone... it's illegal." Ok, there were no phones back then, nothing in the constitution covers it (they said speech, not telephone conversations). Besides, they put me on a list, whenever I buy a handgun, something legal to own; I get put on a list that the government keeps, they know what I do and what I buy, and I have to be backround checked when I buy a rifle, is that OK? IM ON SOME FREGGIN LISTS THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS IS THAT OK?

Liberals. They just don't get it.

Lois

sac7000
05-21-2006, 9:08 AM
This is the only thing I need to interpet (SB23)
"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."

Where is 'permanent' listed there? This is what I go by, it's called the law (I call it unconstitutional too but hey, I'm just a citizen). I only use a locking nut and medium threadlock. My brother could not move it and neither could I. I would also need to install the spring and do not take one with me to the range (just in case I need to show no intent). I also leave the socket set in the car as part of my emergency roadside stuff (again, no intent).

Lois

Well said. It could not be any more clear. The memo is what the memo is, a meaningless document that contains untruths and distorted facts. It serves no other purpose then to intimidate honest citizens.

Shame on you DOJ, it's no wonder so many of your employees are jumping overboard. When you have to resort to fear tactics you have lost the battle and respect of all.