PDA

View Full Version : Unable to use!


horsejwilson
05-17-2006, 7:37 PM
I was at my local shooting range today (Iron Sights of Oceanside) and I was asking about the new memo that was sent out by the California DOJ about the unnamed ar 15's. He said that under that memo it was classified as an assault weapon and would unable to operate it at their range. Currently I have the sports conversation fixed magazine kit. He said that does not fall under the definition of a permanently fixed magazine and I would have to fix it into the receiver to bring it in accordance with state law. I am seriously considering either selling it or making the magazine permanently fixed unless I can get some information that would allow me to shoot it at my range. Any ideas?

12voltguy
05-17-2006, 7:50 PM
I was at my local shooting range today (Iron Sights of Oceanside) and I was asking about the new memo that was sent out by the California DOJ about the unnamed ar 15's. He said that under that memo it was classified as an assault weapon and would unable to operate it at their range. Currently I have the sports conversation fixed magazine kit. He said that does not fall under the definition of a permanently fixed magazine and I would have to fix it into the receiver to bring it in accordance with state law. I am seriously considering either selling it or making the magazine permanently fixed unless I can get some information that would allow me to shoot it at my range. Any ideas?I'll give you $1.00 + shipping to my FFL, that is good deal since you can't use it:rolleyes: noce 1st post:D

6172crew
05-17-2006, 7:52 PM
I was at my local shooting range today (Iron Sights of Oceanside) and I was asking about the new memo that was sent out by the California DOJ about the unnamed ar 15's. He said that under that memo it was classified as an assault weapon and would unable to operate it at their range. Currently I have the sports conversation fixed magazine kit. He said that does not fall under the definition of a permanently fixed magazine and I would have to fix it into the receiver to bring it in accordance with state law. I am seriously considering either selling it or making the magazine permanently fixed unless I can get some information that would allow me to shoot it at my range. Any ideas?

I will take the whole mess off your hands for 1/2 of what you paid for it, that way you can buy a Vulcan (which isnt permanently fixed) and they cant say anything to you. :cool:

6172crew
05-17-2006, 7:52 PM
Damn 12volt is the high bidder.:D

AS45-70
05-17-2006, 7:55 PM
Find a new range, its not worth dealing with them if you want to shoot it there.

Joe
05-17-2006, 7:56 PM
it DOES fit the definition of fixed magazine

blacklisted
05-17-2006, 8:04 PM
I was at my local shooting range today (Iron Sights of Oceanside) and I was asking about the new memo that was sent out by the California DOJ about the unnamed ar 15's. He said that under that memo it was classified as an assault weapon and would unable to operate it at their range. Currently I have the sports conversation fixed magazine kit. He said that does not fall under the definition of a permanently fixed magazine and I would have to fix it into the receiver to bring it in accordance with state law. I am seriously considering either selling it or making the magazine permanently fixed unless I can get some information that would allow me to shoot it at my range. Any ideas?

The memo did not change anything, the magazine is still non-detachable according to the law.

James R.
05-17-2006, 8:06 PM
IMHO you should have ignored them. I get a sneaking suspicion you went and asked them what they thought of XYZ and with their interest piqued they told you no way no how. They're just taking the conservative CYA position...

When I show up at the range I just roll my **** out, if you don't like it you can come up to me and say something. It's a shooting range, you shoot guns there. Unless it's a Howitzer I don't see any reason why they should object. With the 50 BMG it's nice to take an end lane if you can just to spare the people to your sides.

Regards,

James R.

Henry47
05-17-2006, 8:15 PM
oh noes, if I can't even shoot these at the local range, i'm going to sell all my offlist lowers out of state. :rolleyes: Nice try DOJ :p

Evil Gun
05-17-2006, 8:21 PM
IMHO you should have ignored them. I get a sneaking suspicion you went and asked them what they thought of XYZ and with their interest piqued they told you no way no how. They're just taking the conservative CYA position...

When I show up at the range I just roll my **** out, if you don't like it you can come up to me and say something. It's a shooting range, you shoot guns there. Unless it's a Howitzer I don't see any reason why they should object. With the 50 BMG it's nice to take an end lane if you can just to spare the people to your sides.

Regards,

James R.http://forums.corvetteforum.com/images/smilies/iamwithstupid.gif
Exactly. Just bust'm out and make like you know how to shoot them and you'll be ok.

artherd
05-17-2006, 8:22 PM
Yeah I get my legal advice at the local shooting range too :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Back to square one Mr. DOJ Stooge!

shopkeep
05-17-2006, 8:27 PM
You mean you don't shoot your off-list rifles on BLM land or in the National Forest? Nobody around to hassle you there and no rules against shooting .223 hollow points into various vegetables and other biodegrable targets :)!

Just build yourself a target stand and head out into the woods. Believe me, even when you do bring a legal rifle to the range everyone nags you anyhow because the laws are so out of control here.

CALI-gula
05-17-2006, 8:29 PM
I was at my local shooting range today (Iron Sights of Oceanside) and I was asking about the new memo that was sent out by the California DOJ about the unnamed ar 15's. He said that under that memo it was classified as an assault weapon and would unable to operate it at their range. Currently I have the sports conversation fixed magazine kit. He said that does not fall under the definition of a permanently fixed magazine and I would have to fix it into the receiver to bring it in accordance with state law. I am seriously considering either selling it or making the magazine permanently fixed unless I can get some information that would allow me to shoot it at my range. Any ideas?

First post and this is it? Hmmmm....

Ok, cite the section of the law for them which is CURRENTLY the law; the memo, which is ONLY a memo, does not negate that law. Current text points to a fixed mag being considered fixed and permanent if a tool must be used to remove it. Doing a search on the DOJ website will find the actual text, as well as a search on Calguns.net will give you debates and rationale, which currently makes the "sports conversation" (you mean Sporting Conversions right?) fully legal.

And I have to agree with Mr. James R. above. Screw Ďem.

But being a first post and the use of "sports conversation" makes my Hmmmmmm.... still resonate. Why? I would not put it past the harping of nay-sayers to post fictional "anecdotes" where rumored scare-tactics of the current memo are being applied by associations that could theoretically tread on our 2nd Amendment rights within our own camps. It would be another ruse perpetuated yet again in attempting to discourage people from buying more legal Off-list lowers, OR just some dorks here who are sooooo desperate to say "I told you so" over an empty-headed memo, they might do anything to grasp an example, even if fiction. They might even make up a new user-name to post just such an account.

But then you also jump to a quick conclusion of "I am seriously considering either selling it or making the magazine permanently fixed" even after your rare chance at purchase, 10 day wait, and as I am willing to bet, you took great time to order the parts kit to build it then proceeded to take more time to build it to "operate"? So you get one dickhead at one range telling you can't shoot it there are you are convinced to get rid of it, and it is presented as a position of futility as if we should ALL share in your futility, and sell ours too?

My doubt-sense is tingling. Sorry if it's wrong, but it has been heightened lately from mutltiple DOJ memos stating idiotic positions as well as moronic "Icky chin" DOJ employees stating lie after lie.

If true... my condolences. And WELCOME to Calguns.net!! If citing the actual law and noting the memo is JUST a memoe does not work for your range... find a new range; they are ignoring the law and I would be worried about other laws for which they might be ignorant. Their ignorance of the law could get you arrested or seriously injured, depending on the laws to which they choose to turn a blind eye.


.

Charliegone
05-17-2006, 8:29 PM
So...Iggy...how's the kool aid?:D ;)

Jicko
05-17-2006, 9:15 PM
I don't think Iron-sights will even ask you for your AW permit if you bring in an open mag AR?

Active military personel have AW permits that allow them to have ARs (and some of them may even be of one of these OLL)... I have seen them!!

horsejwilson
05-17-2006, 9:42 PM
Thanks for the help everyone.

I am going to give a try tomorrow and print out some conversations and see if I can talk some sense into them. If not I will try another range.

I would also like to say that I donít work for the DOJ nor am I using a fictional anecdote. I am being sincere about my request for help but of course only time will prove this statement true.

As for the idea that I am contemplating giving up my ar after such a small obstacle, it is merely my nature as I get discouraged easily.

Again thanks for the help.

sintax
05-17-2006, 9:43 PM
Nobody around to hassle you there and no rules against shooting .223 hollow points into various vegetables and other biodegrable targets :)!


DO NOT, I repease DO NOT shoot ANY of the plant life on BLM land. This is a big mistake and can result in fines. The last time I was out shooting on BLM land someone thought it would be cool to shot some cacti, needless to say rangers DO NOT like this and will fine you.

Pthfndr
05-17-2006, 9:49 PM
DO NOT, I repease DO NOT shoot ANY of the plant life on BLM land. This is a big mistake and can result in fines. The last time I was out shooting on BLM land someone thought it would be cool to shot some cacti, needless to say rangers DO NOT like this and will fine you.

I'm pretty sure he meant the type of vegies one might get a grocery store :)

AW-FANATIC
05-17-2006, 9:57 PM
EVIL watermelons like .223 and 7.62x39. They do quite a dance. Thats my favorite choice for BLM land

gh429
05-17-2006, 10:00 PM
First post and this is it? Hmmmm....

Ok, cite the section of the law for them which is CURRENTLY the law; the memo, which is ONLY a memo, does not negate that law. Current text points to a fixed mag being considered fixed and permanent if a tool must be used to remove it. Doing a search on the DOJ website will find the actual text, as well as a search on Calguns.net will give you debates and rationale, which currently makes the "sports conversation" (you mean Sporting Conversions right?) fully legal.

And I have to agree with Mr. James R. above. Screw Ďem.

Fixed mag has nothing to do with "capacity to accept". The DOJ, as the AG of California simply offered their opinion of "capacity to accept". This pretty much means they think it's illegal which pretty much means cops and DA's should think it's illegal also. Whether or not it is is up to a court to decide. But once you're there I'd say you have a 50% chance of winning with a 100% chance of already been screwed.

As for the range, I agree, screw them. What the hell does the range care what you're shooting as long as it's not incendiary or full auto... If they are a bunch of tight-asses go elsewhere...

wutzu
05-17-2006, 10:18 PM
I was at my local shooting range today (Iron Sights of Oceanside) and I was asking about the new memo that was sent out by the California DOJ about the unnamed ar 15's. He said that under that memo it was classified as an assault weapon and would unable to operate it at their range. Currently I have the sports conversation fixed magazine kit. He said that does not fall under the definition of a permanently fixed magazine and I would have to fix it into the receiver to bring it in accordance with state law. I am seriously considering either selling it or making the magazine permanently fixed unless I can get some information that would allow me to shoot it at my range. Any ideas?

**** 'em. Take your business elsewhere.

DSA_FAL
05-17-2006, 10:32 PM
I think this no OLL nonsense might be related to the Fixed magwell Bushmasters that they're selling.

I brought my Cali-FAL to Iron Sights yesterday and was shooting it. One of the range officers was eyeing me.....so I eyed him back. He didn't say anything though.

artherd
05-17-2006, 11:18 PM
If you are really on the up and up, I both appologize and sympathize.

You might not convince this range. Many many many people do not understand law, and often choose to interperet it incorrectly or overly-conservatively in a fear-response.

For instance, for MONTHS no FFLs would touch an OLL. Obviously that's changed (a little) for the better.

Good luck


Thanks for the help everyone.

I am going to give a try tomorrow and print out some conversations and see if I can talk some sense into them. If not I will try another range.

I would also like to say that I donít work for the DOJ nor am I using a fictional anecdote. I am being sincere about my request for help but of course only time will prove this statement true.

As for the idea that I am contemplating giving up my ar after such a small obstacle, it is merely my nature as I get discouraged easily.

Again thanks for the help.

CALI-gula
05-18-2006, 12:02 AM
Fixed mag has nothing to do with "capacity to accept". The DOJ, as the AG of California simply offered their opinion of "capacity to accept". This pretty much means they think it's illegal which pretty much means cops and DA's should think it's illegal also. Whether or not it is is up to a court to decide. But once you're there I'd say you have a 50% chance of winning with a 100% chance of already been screwed.

As for the range, I agree, screw them. What the hell does the range care what you're shooting as long as it's not incendiary or full auto... If they are a bunch of tight-asses go elsewhere...
The DOJ had previously diffused the intentions of this latest "capacity to accept" with the Robinson Armament M96 debacle. I have posted this elsewhere... here is an encore performance.

The DOJ's opinion on "capacity to accept" has gotten them in trouble before, as they know that opinion is NOT law:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The new memo does NOT clarify the "capacity to accept" by any means, as no device of permanence or lack-of-permanance is designated, or what they mean in terms of locking in a magazine with a bolt or glue, or use of a tool to remove them. NOTHING has changed.

The only thing that has changed is that tens-of-thousands of CA citizens now own legal standard-spec AR and AK receivers that are not on the Assault Weapon List AND have open Magazine wells. We didn't have that option for the past 5 years as most people were still to busy licking boots to notice the law was wrong; NOT AN OPINION... the actual LAW was wrong on banning AR/AK "series".

Does the DOJ's opinion on confiscating Robinson Arms M96 guns in 2003 still stand that the M96 is an Assault Weapon under this recent MEMO of opinion? Even though the DOJ later acknowledged their "capacity to accept" opinion at that time, which appears no different than this current MEMO, was NOT the law, and furthermore WRONG when they confiscated the guns?

The previous example below proves that interpreting the "capacity to accept" fundamentals are no different than use of a tool to remove or not, and the Sporting Conversion/Prince bolt kits are considered PERMAMENT. CHAGRINED CALIFORNIA DOJ GUN POLICE RETURN IMPROPERLY CONFISCATED RIFLES DOJ Firearms Division's Own Agents Confused About What Constitutes An "Assault Weapon"

On November 25, 2003 the California DOJ announced the seizure of a number of illegal "assault weapons" from a Laguna Niguel gun dealer. One of the guns on display in the store was a Robinson Armament model M96 rifle. Believing this rifle to be an illegal "assault weapon," DOJ Firearms Division agents used the store's transaction records to locate each purchaser of the M96 rifle, then went door to door, often in the dead of night, confiscating the firearms under threat of criminal prosecution. One such raid was videotaped. No compensation was offered for the seized firearms.

Only problem: the M96 rifle is perfectly legal and is not an "assault weapon." Thankfully, higher ups at the DOJ Firearms Division got involved at the urging of CRPA and others, and reversed the Agents' interpretation.

The confiscations illustrate the difficulty in determining whether a firearm is an "assault weapon." Even the specialized DOJ Firearms Division's own agents, with their advanced training on the subject, couldn't tell. So, then how is the average gun owner supposed to know? The confusion inherent in the statute lead the District Attorneys in Fresno and Mendocino counties to file an unprecedented prosecutor vs. prosecutor lawsuit against the Attorney General over the vagueness of the law when it first passed. Hunt v. Lockyer (Fresno Superior Court #01 CE CG 03182) is still being litigated, and challenges the 1999 amendment to the state's "assault weapon" law that bans firearms based on their cosmetic features. The lawsuit points out that the law does not provide gun owners, dealers, police, or prosecutors with sufficient guidance to determine what features on a firearm are prohibited so they cannot enforce the law fairly and unilaterally or determine how to comply with it. A letter from District Attorney Hunt explaining the lawsuit is available at the CRPA's website.

In seizing the M96 rifles, the DOJ Firearms Division agents mistakenly believed that the model M96 was illegal because of one statutory definition of an "assault weapon" includes any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and a conspicuously protruding pistol grip. Although the M96 does not have a pistol grip, the agents wrongfully believed that the "capacity to accept" provision applies to both the detachable magazine and the pistol grip. The agents believed the M96 was an "assault weapon" because it has the "capacity to accept" a pistol grip - as many guns do.

"We have been aware of the confusion since this law was passed in 1999," said CRPA spokesman Chuck Michel. "The practical effect of that confusion is that the law has created a whole class of accidental felons in California."

CRPA attempted to clear up the pistol grip issue last year when its attorneys wrote DOJ for clarification. Luckily, DOJ's written responses were available to prove the DOJ's Agents were wrong. Using those previous DOJ responses, attorneys from both the CRPA and Robinson Armament were on the phone with DOJ immediately after the raids started.

"We had to e-mail the DOJ copies of their own documents that detail specifically why the M96 is not an 'assault weapon'" said Robinson Armament attorney Jason Davis. "These kind of 'mistakes' by DOJ terrorize law abiding customers and damage my client financially."

Approximately one week after seizing the model M96 rifles, DOJ's Agents began returning the model M96 rifles to their owners.

http://www.lawyertalk.org/_CRPA_Chagrined_California_DOJ_Gun_Police_Return_I mproperly_Conf-26639881-269-a.html (http://www.lawyertalk.org/_CRPA_Chag...olice_Return_I%20mproperly_Conf-26639881-269-a.html)
My OPINION is the DOJ has an "INCAPACITY to accept" their ineptitude !!!!!

.

klmmicro
05-18-2006, 5:14 AM
Thanks for the help everyone.

I am going to give a try tomorrow and print out some conversations and see if I can talk some sense into them. If not I will try another range.

I would also like to say that I donít work for the DOJ nor am I using a fictional anecdote. I am being sincere about my request for help but of course only time will prove this statement true.

As for the idea that I am contemplating giving up my ar after such a small obstacle, it is merely my nature as I get discouraged easily.

Again thanks for the help.

Did they ask you specifically what firearm you are using, or did you ask them if it would be ok to use your OLL there? Sounds like someone took the easy way and simply gave a CYA answer.

I have shot mine there. A couple of friends have also and no one gives us any worry about it at all. Heck, last time I was up there an off duty police officer and I had a friendly competition to see whose was more accurate! Just as long as you are not shooting any steel core or cased ammunition you should be okay.

I sent you a PM earlier as I was curious who you spoke with that said it was a no-go. My advice is, instead of printing out lengthy threads from Calguns (which carry as much weight as the memo), why don't you simply go in, rent a lane and shoot your weapon? Make sure you are not shooting ammunition they don't allow and just have some fun.

arguy15
05-18-2006, 7:13 AM
Let me guess. Was it the know it alll Asian guy that works there who told you this? He is a real *****.

JWC6
05-18-2006, 7:18 AM
EVIL watermelons like .223 and 7.62x39. They do quite a dance. Thats my favorite choice for BLM land


Sacrilege! I prefer using broccoli instead...:)

mow
05-18-2006, 7:29 AM
Sacrilege! I prefer using broccoli instead...:)

Actually I think cauliflower is better than broccoli as you can see it explode better since it is white, but come on, watermelon is fun as hell, just a bit more pricey :p

glen avon
05-18-2006, 7:52 AM
it DOES fit the definition of fixed magazine

maybe it does inside the range you own and operate.

Unknownassailant
05-18-2006, 8:48 AM
Let me guess. Was it the know it alll Asian guy that works there who told you this? He is a real *****.

I think everyone meets at least 1 or 2 know it all asian guy *****s in their lifetime. Like that guy who sells body armor at the Glendale and Costa Mesa show.

Major Miner II
05-18-2006, 8:57 AM
I think everyone meets at least 1 or 2 know it all asian guy *****s in their lifetime. Like that guy who sells body armor at the Glendale and Costa Mesa show.
If you try harder, maybe you can be more racist, eh?

JWC6
05-18-2006, 9:13 AM
They come in all races, sizes and shapes.

Just watch on for the ones with Peyronie's Disease ;)

I think everyone meets at least 1 or 2 know it all asian guy *****s in their lifetime. Like that guy who sells body armor at the Glendale and Costa Mesa show.

KenV
05-18-2006, 9:13 AM
If you try harder, maybe you can be more racist, eh?

That's what crossed my mind. I'm of European descent (100% USA born/bred by good fortune), and I've met *****s from both halves of my genes. Insuffereble ones at that. *****ness(?) isn't picky on whom it chooses as its host.

So, take out "Asian" and the sentence stands. Lots of jackassery at the shows :D

K

Edit: JWC6, that disease is part of my sig on another forum. "Bent like Peyronie's"...lol

BTW, it appears that our posts bumped each other on the way into CalGuns ;)

rez
05-18-2006, 11:27 AM
Horse is not a DOJ employee... in fact he works at one of the "tactical shops" in oside.

To make matters worse his AR is fubar, the gunsmith at his work offered to help him out, but iron sites is not going to let them fire off a few test shots.

blacklisted
05-18-2006, 11:38 AM
maybe it does inside the range you own and operate.

Are you referring to the fact that "fixed magazine" is not defined?

glen avon
05-18-2006, 11:48 AM
no, I am referring to the principle that each establishment has the right to determine what it allows/does not allow. if range X says something is illegal, well then it might as well be for all intents and purposes while at range X.

gh429
05-18-2006, 11:49 AM
The DOJ had previously diffused the intentions of this latest "capacity to accept" with the Robinson Armament M96 debacle. I have posted this elsewhere... here is an encore performance.

The DOJ's opinion on "capacity to accept" has gotten them in trouble before, as they know that opinion is NOT law:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The new memo does NOT clarify the "capacity to accept" by any means, as no device of permanence or lack-of-permanance is designated, or what they mean in terms of locking in a magazine with a bolt or glue, or use of a tool to remove them. NOTHING has changed.

The only thing that has changed is that tens-of-thousands of CA citizens now own legal standard-spec AR and AK receivers that are not on the Assault Weapon List AND have open Magazine wells. We didn't have that option for the past 5 years as most people were still to busy licking boots to notice the law was wrong; NOT AN OPINION... the actual LAW was wrong on banning AR/AK "series".

Does the DOJ's opinion on confiscating Robinson Arms M96 guns in 2003 still stand that the M96 is an Assault Weapon under this recent MEMO of opinion? Even though the DOJ later acknowledged their "capacity to accept" opinion at that time, which appears no different than this current MEMO, was NOT the law, and furthermore WRONG when they confiscated the guns?

The previous example below proves that interpreting the "capacity to accept" fundamentals are no different than use of a tool to remove or not, and the Sporting Conversion/Prince bolt kits are considered PERMAMENT. CHAGRINED CALIFORNIA DOJ GUN POLICE RETURN IMPROPERLY CONFISCATED RIFLES DOJ Firearms Division's Own Agents Confused About What Constitutes An "Assault Weapon"

On November 25, 2003 the California DOJ announced the seizure of a number of illegal "assault weapons" from a Laguna Niguel gun dealer. One of the guns on display in the store was a Robinson Armament model M96 rifle. Believing this rifle to be an illegal "assault weapon," DOJ Firearms Division agents used the store's transaction records to locate each purchaser of the M96 rifle, then went door to door, often in the dead of night, confiscating the firearms under threat of criminal prosecution. One such raid was videotaped. No compensation was offered for the seized firearms.

Only problem: the M96 rifle is perfectly legal and is not an "assault weapon." Thankfully, higher ups at the DOJ Firearms Division got involved at the urging of CRPA and others, and reversed the Agents' interpretation.

The confiscations illustrate the difficulty in determining whether a firearm is an "assault weapon." Even the specialized DOJ Firearms Division's own agents, with their advanced training on the subject, couldn't tell. So, then how is the average gun owner supposed to know? The confusion inherent in the statute lead the District Attorneys in Fresno and Mendocino counties to file an unprecedented prosecutor vs. prosecutor lawsuit against the Attorney General over the vagueness of the law when it first passed. Hunt v. Lockyer (Fresno Superior Court #01 CE CG 03182) is still being litigated, and challenges the 1999 amendment to the state's "assault weapon" law that bans firearms based on their cosmetic features. The lawsuit points out that the law does not provide gun owners, dealers, police, or prosecutors with sufficient guidance to determine what features on a firearm are prohibited so they cannot enforce the law fairly and unilaterally or determine how to comply with it. A letter from District Attorney Hunt explaining the lawsuit is available at the CRPA's website.

In seizing the M96 rifles, the DOJ Firearms Division agents mistakenly believed that the model M96 was illegal because of one statutory definition of an "assault weapon" includes any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and a conspicuously protruding pistol grip. Although the M96 does not have a pistol grip, the agents wrongfully believed that the "capacity to accept" provision applies to both the detachable magazine and the pistol grip. The agents believed the M96 was an "assault weapon" because it has the "capacity to accept" a pistol grip - as many guns do.

"We have been aware of the confusion since this law was passed in 1999," said CRPA spokesman Chuck Michel. "The practical effect of that confusion is that the law has created a whole class of accidental felons in California."

CRPA attempted to clear up the pistol grip issue last year when its attorneys wrote DOJ for clarification. Luckily, DOJ's written responses were available to prove the DOJ's Agents were wrong. Using those previous DOJ responses, attorneys from both the CRPA and Robinson Armament were on the phone with DOJ immediately after the raids started.

"We had to e-mail the DOJ copies of their own documents that detail specifically why the M96 is not an 'assault weapon'" said Robinson Armament attorney Jason Davis. "These kind of 'mistakes' by DOJ terrorize law abiding customers and damage my client financially."

Approximately one week after seizing the model M96 rifles, DOJ's Agents began returning the model M96 rifles to their owners.

http://www.lawyertalk.org/_CRPA_Chagrined_California_DOJ_Gun_Police_Return_I mproperly_Conf-26639881-269-a.html (http://www.lawyertalk.org/_CRPA_Chag...olice_Return_I%20mproperly_Conf-26639881-269-a.html)
My OPINION is the DOJ has an "INCAPACITY to accept" their ineptitude !!!!!

.

While the M96 issue was an interesting and amusing DOJ debacle the issue at hand differs with the M96 issue. The M96 issue was simply the DOJ agents being retarded and not being able to read existing legislation. Clearly the pistol grip characteristic is a sub-section of 12276.1 (detachable magazine) but the DOJ agents apparently are not intelligent enough to see that.

The "Capacity to Accept" issue differs where the DOJ is giving the opinion that "capacity to accept" is reversability. It is not necessary to define reversable and to incorporate every conceivable aspect of reversability or irreversability (glue, welding, etc.) - if it were so all existing laws would be so complex no one would be able to make sense of them. Rather in this case the common sense definition of reversability will most likely prevail. Using a tool that allows a detachable mag to be replaced without changing the structure of the gun will most likely be the position that the DOJ argues. Whether or not this definition will hold and where the line is actually drawn in terms of reversability will be determined by a California court.

klmmicro
05-18-2006, 11:58 AM
but iron sites is not going to let them fire off a few test shots.

Who is prohibiting him from firing off a few test rounds?

blacklisted
05-18-2006, 12:01 PM
no, I am referring to the principle that each establishment has the right to determine what it allows/does not allow. if range X says something is illegal, well then it might as well be for all intents and purposes while at range X.

That makes sense, thanks.

glen avon
05-18-2006, 12:18 PM
Who is prohibiting him from firing off a few test rounds?

the range, it said no to an OLL build.

klmmicro
05-18-2006, 1:22 PM
the range, it said no to an OLL build.

Having shot mine up there with no problems from employees or fellow shooters seems to indicate that we can shoot them at Iron Sights. It does not seem to be a blanket directive put forth by "the range". I should have been more specific in my question I guess; which employee told him "no"?

adamsreeftank
05-18-2006, 1:55 PM
no, I am referring to the principle that each establishment has the right to determine what it allows/does not allow. if range X says something is illegal, well then it might as well be for all intents and purposes while at range X.

Would the coverse also be true?

If I own a range and allow full-auto and nude sunbathing, then does that make it "legal"????

horsejwilson
05-18-2006, 2:05 PM
I have no names but I will get some tonight if they don't let me on the range. It is my belief that if I were to show him the section of the penal code that defines a detachable magazine I can convince him. I found that section and I am going to cite it tonight when I go down there.

I have shot there before without any problems but since this memo has come out, the employee seemed as if he were not going to let me shoot.

CALI-gula
05-18-2006, 2:16 PM
While the M96 issue was an interesting and amusing DOJ debacle the issue at hand differs with the M96 issue. The M96 issue was simply the DOJ agents being retarded and not being able to read existing legislation. Clearly the pistol grip characteristic is a sub-section of 12276.1 (detachable magazine) but the DOJ agents apparently are not intelligent enough to see that.

The "Capacity to Accept" issue differs where the DOJ is giving the opinion that "capacity to accept" is reversability. It is not necessary to define reversable and to incorporate every conceivable aspect of reversability or irreversability (glue, welding, etc.) - if it were so all existing laws would be so complex no one would be able to make sense of them. Rather in this case the common sense definition of reversability will most likely prevail. Using a tool that allows a detachable mag to be replaced without changing the structure of the gun will most likely be the position that the DOJ argues. Whether or not this definition will hold and where the line is actually drawn in terms of reversability will be determined by a California court.

I know you are on our side and simply playing Devil's advocate. But there is no difference from the M96 issue - the "capacity to accept" was directly the problem at hand - and its reversibility - with capacity to accept a pistol grip and/or detachable magazine, where the current law shows a "fixed" magazine is permanent when a tool must be used to remove. And the law prevailed, which was my point. I am looking at the real world, and how it is applied today - not an intangible DOJ opinion being misapplied as law by people today. Existing legislation is on our side and the MEMO is not existing legislation; I am sure you know this, you've been here a while.

One MEMO and the DOJ's previous opine is already dead - this 2nd MEMO is just starting to choke and Bill is holding the bucket for them nice and square - the DOJ is sure to punt.
"It is not necessary to define reversable and to incorporate every conceivable aspect of reversability or irreversability (glue, welding, etc.) - if it were so all existing laws would be so complex no one would be able to make sense of them." No, it is absolutely necessary for the DOJ to only enforce the law and it is absolutely necessary for the Legislature to properly DEFINE the law - just as the DOJ could not be ambiguous about generalizing receivers as AR/AK "series" or be sketchy when it came to legality of the M96 - THEY MUST OPERATE WITHIN THE DEFINITIONS OF THE LAW THAT THE LEGISLATURE DEFINES. It is not up to the citizen to play with ambiguous definitions, and by doing so, it is TRUE that...
"existing laws would be so complex no one would be able to make sense of them." Apparently the ability to make sense of the laws or as others may see it, the lack there-of, is the exact reason 6 years after SB23 took effect, the numbers of AR and AK lowers entering California by legal purchases is now approaching 40,000 !! But it took 6 years for the complexity to come full circle, and now the DOJ is realizing their lack of ability to make any sense. Define, define, define!
"Rather in this case the common sense definition of reversability will most likely prevail." HA HA, "common sense definition"... thanks for the laugh, that's a good one! Is that like common sense gun control? Was listing ARs and AKs by a series common sense? I tip my glass and my hat to the DOJ for their common sense! This latest MEMO is LOADED with common sense! Just ask anyone that owns an SKS or a Barret M82-CA (while registered under AB50, is NOT allowed to have SB23 configurations!!)

DOJ having common sense!! HA! HA! LOL!! :D :D

.

glen avon
05-18-2006, 2:26 PM
Would the coverse also be true?

If I own a range and allow full-auto and nude sunbathing, then does that make it "legal"????

no, but it is your right to believe it is legal in your range. you may in fact be wrong, but that is your prerogative.

besides, that is a stupid question, as NOBODY would want to see us sunbathing nude.... :eek: ;)

CALI-gula
05-18-2006, 2:45 PM
no, but it is your right to believe it is legal in your range. you may in fact be wrong, but that is your prerogative.

besides, that is a stupid question, as NOBODY would want to see us sunbathing nude.... :eek: ;)

I agree with Glen on this - if citing the law to them does not change their mind, and they decide otherwise, that it is their personal opinion to not allow fixed-mag ARs on their grounds, so be it. It's their private property. We have already seen such opinion from certain dealers that decided not to sell Off-list lowers. I would try to appeal to them, but if they don't agree with you, and still say no, you must respect their wishes; arguing it will only solidify their position. So boycott them - give your money to another range that agrees with your position.

I don't allow anyone to smoke in my house, though it is legal. You also won't be playing any Barry Manilow music either, sorry. You smoke in my house, you'll be eating your cigarette. Play any Barry Manilow music and... well, I don't know what kind of hell you might reap from me!

I think the better approach going forward, especially if not posted in the "range rules" is to just go to your bench or stall, break out your fixed-mag AR and start shooting - enjoy your day at the range, and no need to make a fuss or heightened awareness to a non-problem.

That would be like flagging down a police officer to stop, so you can tell him you were driving 55MPH in a 55MPH zone, but you still think you deserve a ticket for reckless operation because it was raining. It's not illegal, but hey, why not convince him to give you a ticket anyway.

.

jerryg1776
05-18-2006, 4:44 PM
Let me guess. Was it the know it alll Asian guy that works there who told you this? He is a real *****.

Well actually half japanese.. does that mean I am only half as smart and not a total *****?

Just kidding man..... just remember they come in all shapes sizes and races....

horsejwilson
05-19-2006, 1:40 PM
It worked! I was able to shoot last night! Thanks for the help everyone.

PIRATE14
05-19-2006, 1:54 PM
It worked! I was able to shoot last night! Thanks for the help everyone.

COMMON sense prevails..................:D