PDA

View Full Version : Interpretations of CA-DOJ Memo (May 9, 2006)


NoobShooter
06-22-2006, 9:58 PM
Hi everybody,

The memo I'm referring to is posted May 9th, 2006 on the CA-DOJ website (http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/)...

Anyways, just a quick personal interpretation...

Paragraph 1: "... rather than reliance upon a scheme of identifying assault weapons by name. Therefore, the Department will not update the list of “series” assault weapons." --- This is self explanatory... the list will not be updated. So... no OLL manufacturer or model will be added to the list.

You say, "So?"...

Well, means that all the OLL lowers that everybody has been saving will be considered an illegal firearm once you start adding "evil" parts to create a firearm, assault weapon by definition of the law (ie pistol grip, detachable mag, folding stock, etc).

Just my 2 cents... what does everybody think? :confused:

Stanze
06-22-2006, 10:03 PM
I think it's a memo, not law. The law say's we're gold, otherwise DOJ would be busting people and FFLs left and right.

Omega13device
06-22-2006, 10:28 PM
I think this has already been discussed to death.

socalguns
06-22-2006, 10:56 PM
Which is why it is time for a BBQ

five.five-six
06-22-2006, 11:46 PM
we are all going to jail

PanzerAce
06-23-2006, 12:13 AM
in two weeks...

Stanze
06-23-2006, 12:36 AM
Did you miss this thread? If the law say's we're gold, they're working on another one that'll change things.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=36257

It appears to be a redundant bill!:rolleyes: If the AG did his job, then the receivers would be "assault weapons"! Good grief.

rorschach
06-23-2006, 12:48 AM
Well, means that all the OLL lowers that everybody has been saving will be considered an illegal firearm once you start adding "evil" parts to create a firearm, assault weapon by definition of the law (ie pistol grip, detachable mag, folding stock, etc).

Well, yes, according to the law, you would have built an illegal assault weapon, if you built a rifle with both an open magwell AND a pistol grip/flash hider/folding stock.

Thats why we build them with one or the other. Locked 10 round mag and evil features, or open magwell and no evil features.

As was stated before, memos hold no weight. We are all following the law, not some stupid memo. No one has ever been prosecuted for violation of a memo.

adamsreeftank
06-23-2006, 1:53 AM
Troll ?? ?? ?? ??

MicronuT
06-25-2006, 7:23 PM
we are all going to jail

+642 ... http://usualsuspect.net/forums/images/smilies/17.gif

blacklisted
06-25-2006, 7:27 PM
I'm going to write a letter to Santa Claus tomorrow and ask him what his legal opinion is on the off-list situation. :

Omega13device
06-25-2006, 7:34 PM
Let's not forget that this is STILL the law:

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.

sac7000
06-26-2006, 12:41 AM
Did somebody say the list is out?

kantstudien
06-26-2006, 1:09 AM
There's even a current member in LA who's invited members of his bike forum to troll this board in the past.

Hey...I gots to know!

TheMan
06-26-2006, 5:49 PM
Hey...I gots to know!


Me too. What bike forum? Do you have the links to their trolling?

phish
06-26-2006, 8:38 PM
^ they were deleted

suffice it to say, he posted some rather questionable topics

one of them rubbed me the wrong way in particular, and I'm rather thick-skinned

phish
06-26-2006, 8:48 PM
There's even a current member in LA who's invited members of his bike forum to troll this board in the past. His good fun only serves to sow seeds of distrust. Mark my words.

not anymore...:D

p.s. if you're still reading, watch out for those silver MDXs! :p

NoobShooter
07-08-2006, 3:05 AM
Just got into the whole shooting scene...

Brother got me into it with a KelTec...

I just got myself a M1A Socom Standard.

Anyways, thanks for the info.

Happy shooting.

Creeping Incrementalism
07-08-2006, 9:48 AM
Let's not forget that this is STILL the law: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.

Could someone explain to me by what authority the DOJ thing it can just change the law?

bwiese
07-08-2006, 11:57 AM
Could someone explain to me by what authority the DOJ thing it can just change the law?

Like other regulatory agencies, the DOJ Firearms Division has regulatory authority to 'fill in the gaps' in statutory law. That is, they can make regulatory law that aids the enforcement, clarity, and administration of the statutory law.

In particular, in 2000 they came up with the 978.20 definitions of various AW features after a contentious comment period. This is entirely within their regulatory authority. They can do other things like make rules about how, say, AW registration periods are administered, any appeals process works, response times, etc.

However, massively reinterpreting regulatory law - or where regulations are unclear enough or can be interpreted in opposing directions, and the agency takes "definition du jour" - can effectively be illegal "submarine law" or "underground regulation". This is especially the case because, if DOJ doesn't like a particular regulation's cant, they can change it with appropriate notice - and they wrote it themselves.

For the DOJ saying they are 'clarifying' anything is BS. The fact that a new regulatory definition needed to be addded to achieve their desired outcome directly imports current legality. If they had wanted to achieve the goal of permanence, the could've tried it back in 2000 (with this August's fight moved back then...)

[One other questionable case is the extension of the AW registration period for AR/AK 'series' weapons from 1/1/01 - 1/22/01 because of a printing mishap in the Secy of State's office. I am not sure they had the authority to extend a 90 day reg period. While there are due process questions that might disallow prosecution for an unregistered AW attempted to be reg'd during that time, a unilateral extenstion of the reg period is not something the DOJ can do. They perhaps can do some handwaving and say the reg period wasn't clear when it started - but because of Kasler decision on Aug. 16 and the DOJ regarding AR/AK 'series' as AWs at the time as assault weapons and sales banned that day even at the receiver level, this is questionable too: something can't be banned as an assault weapon yet a registration period not started.]

Creeping Incrementalism
07-11-2006, 6:45 PM
Like other regulatory agencies, the DOJ Firearms Division has regulatory authority to 'fill in the gaps' in statutory law. That is, they can make regulatory law that aids the enforcement, clarity, and administration of the statutory law.

In particular, in 2000 they came up with the 978.20 definitions of various AW features after a contentious comment period. This is entirely within their regulatory authority. They can do other things like make rules about how, say, AW registration periods are administered, any appeals process works, response times, etc.

:confused: I thought SB23 is what defined assault weapons by feature.

bwiese
07-11-2006, 6:54 PM
Like other regulatory agencies, the DOJ Firearms Division has regulatory authority to 'fill in the gaps' in statutory law. That is, they can make regulatory law that aids the enforcement, clarity, and administration of the statutory law.

In particular, in 2000 they came up with the 978.20 definitions of various AW features after a contentious comment period. This is entirely within their regulatory authority. They can do other things like make rules about how, say, AW registration periods are administered, any appeals process works, response times, etc.


:confused: I thought SB23 is what defined assault weapons by feature.

SB23, which is PC12276.1, defines assault weapons by various feature combinations.

DOJ regulatory code in 978.20 actually defines what some of the key items mentioned in the law (but not defined there) are: 'detachable magazine', 'pistol grip', etc.

Regulatory agencies are allowed to fill in gaps in law by doing things like creating definitions (like what is or isn't a pistol grip), and rules for administration (say, how many days are allowed to process an assault weapon registration, etc.).

tcrpe
07-12-2006, 2:16 PM
. . . .otherwise DOJ would be busting people and FFLs left and right.


You're right about that.

On another note, my gun dealer had a call from Fresno today inquiring via a thousand questions whether or not he sold AR15s AK47s, etc.

Suspicious, who is in Fresno with jurisdiction over Bakersfield?

bwiese
07-12-2006, 5:01 PM
The way understood the "extension of the wait period" , is that it wasnt.

The Kasler decision set out a date,by court order, which was then "extended" by existing government codes relating to weekends and holidays.

Thats what I recall anyways.

The Kasler decision did nothing of the sort. As a side issue, it just said that all ARs and AKs were 'series' members.

The DOJ then banned them (separate from SB23 features ban already running) in mid-August. So the ban started running then.

There is no provision in the law for a ban to happen separate from a registration period; they must coincide.

SemiAutoSam
07-12-2006, 5:10 PM
.I will try to ge the evidence if anyone is curious. Of course im im wrong, you all can mock me. This is my best recollection from my dealings with this issue at the time

Boy aint that the truth.

bwiese
07-12-2006, 5:20 PM
The Kasler decision date , was in fact, set out later than SB 23, which was set by statute.

Yep, SB23 reg period was the whole year of 2000.


There was a few days added on also, as the Government code requires extra days added for compliance when dates land on holiday sand weekends.


There's no way they can get an extra 3 weeks (1/1/01-1/22/01) because the Sec State misprinted the date (it was to be 12/31/00 also!) Sure, there are situations akin to the IRS gig where if Apr 15 is a Saturday, you can mail in your taxes on Apr 17th. But this is in no way the issue here.

I am just not sure at all the DOJ can extend a reg period into January solely because of a misprint of the Sec State's office. Really, they should have issued AW permits instead of registrations for these last 3 weeks.

Yes, there can be a public notification period. But that appears to be part of the ban/registration period.

In any case, regardless of the public notification period offset issues - whether they began in mid August or 10/1, AT BEST the 90 day reg period would have ended 12/31. That was, in fact the date supplied to Secy of State's office for publication. The SoS munged it and changed it via misprinting to 1/23/01 and the DOJ went along with this extension.

bwiese
07-12-2006, 5:28 PM
again as I recall, after some bureauecratice issue, the clock started ticking on the Kasler required reg period, which landed out farther than the statutory SB 23 period.

I am not mocking you but I believe you are wrong. I looked into this and even found out more from Alllllison Merrileeeeees. I dug into this because of specific interest due the the "Cat 4" memo the DOJ put out this February,

The Kasler period reg end was actually to land on 12/31, in simultaneity w/SB23. The SoS office munged it to 1/23/01 and screwed things up.


thats all. the extra 2 or 3 days for the holiday/Sunday thing was just that. ca couple of days.

23 days (3 weeks) is not just 2 or 3 days over a weekend. And reg periods are 90 day windows, including weekends. There might be a 1-2 day hangover for holiday, dunno. But not 3 extra weeks!

Also if this 'couple of extra days' concept applied to one reg period, it'd have to apply to the other, and 12/31 was the definitive end of SB23 registration.


but no, DOJ didnt just make up the date. They got shot down for that when Lundgren extended the roberti roos period and the courts stopped it.

True, DOJ did not initially make up the date. They had it scheduled for 12/31 but SoS office screwed it up. The DOJ then just moved it up.

The Sec of State, btw, is responsible for printing regulations (things like updates of the Kasler list, for example) and matters of statewide effect. (It's also part of the 'good government' oversight of other agencies as it has OAL (Office of Admin. Law) under its wing.)

I am aware of the Lungren extension. It is the same theme but significantly different extent. He opened a whole new registration period a year or so later as an "amnesty" or "catchup" period clearly contrary to legislative intent.

Here, the DOJ was administratively trying to fix a messup not of their own fault. But I am still glad I reg'd my ARs before 12/31 if this is ever challenged.

Fortunately I think very few folks knew of the difference btwn Kasler and SB23 registration and 99% of those registering probably sent in their reg's on or before 12/31.

bwiese
07-12-2006, 6:08 PM
I appreciate withholding the "mocking"!lol
I can tell you that Allllison Merrrrrileeees was working for Jack Scott at the time, and when questioned at the time as to how this stuff works in reality, she shrugged and said that DOJ's issue. ironic.

Yup. But when I talked to her this Feb she knew all about it (esp as I'd discussed it in my public rebuttal to the DOJ memo which only mentioned the 12/31 date). It was indeed a SoS misprint. They wanted Kasler and SB23 periods to end at the same time, 12/31 and DOJ had worked to do that.

This is also what I heard from the gun lawyer I was discussing Cat 4 B.S. issues with.

bwiese
07-12-2006, 7:10 PM
I will defer to your position and move on , and if I find anything else interesting on this, ill forward it.

Yes, I'd love to hear more details. I know what I have is right, but how they can go ahead and feel they have legal support to do this is another thing.


but the name of the woman who formerly worked for Jack Scott seems to have been edited out of my post above.

Is this the policy of this board?


Several key names are bleeped out unless severely misspelled. Apparently this board was getting a bit too "high profile" (incl posts by myself, I must confess).

But in the context above, the reference is fine - just that the blanking out is automatic now.

....so it's Alllllisonnn and Iggagigy :)

tenpercentfirearms
07-12-2006, 10:26 PM
I call them allisson and ignatus.

TheMan
07-13-2006, 9:14 AM
Several key names are bleeped out unless severely misspelled. Apparently this board was getting a bit too "high profile" (incl posts by myself, I must confess).



Your posts were too high profile? I think you are overrating them. You haven't become too high profile on this board until your name is added to the filters. Bill Wiese isn't in there. Yet :D

TheMan
07-13-2006, 9:15 AM
I call them allisson and ignatus.

Why not assillon and ignance?

xrMike
07-13-2006, 9:39 AM
***removed***

EDIT: My bad! It was a mouth-before-brain thing...

grammaton76
07-13-2006, 11:44 AM
Ok, guys, don't make me lock this thread.

The deal is this - the 'out of control' stuff was leading to Very Bad Things (tm) for the site.

Do not make comments about named officials which can be viewed as defamatory, slanderous, etc.

You may talk about them, but keep it - for lack of a better description - 'journalistic'. IE, things which you would be perfectly content to say about them in front of a rabid, foaming lawyer who wants nothing more than to press charges on you for defamation of character.

TheMan
07-13-2006, 12:07 PM
IE, things which you would be perfectly content to say about them in front of a rabid, foaming lawyer who wants nothing more than to press charges on you for defamation of character.

Wouldn't characterizing a lawyer as rabid and foaming be defamation of character?

xenophobe
07-13-2006, 12:15 PM
Wouldn't characterizing a lawyer as rabid and foaming be defamation of character?

Only if he was talking directly about a specific lawyer and couldn't prove it. ;)

grammaton76
07-13-2006, 12:20 PM
Wouldn't characterizing a lawyer as rabid and foaming be defamation of character?

Sure, if I said that Jimbo P. Lawyer is rabid and foaming at the mouth, while at the time he's not actually doing so.

But in this case, I'm not describing any particular lawyer. I'm saying that your goal should be to write such that no lawyer, no matter how rabid or foaming, could bring charges.

TheMan
07-13-2006, 6:51 PM
No, because truth is a complete defense to a suit for defamation...and character evidence is admissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith. :D

You'd think if truth were a defense for defamation, this board could survive without a filter on Lockyer's name;)

grammaton76
07-13-2006, 9:52 PM
You'd think if truth were a defense for defamation, this board could survive without a filter on Lockyer's name;)

Not when board members are posting 'satirical conjecture' about his personal life, etc.

It's one thing to stick to the truth; it's another to make other statements for humorous effect. If everyone could be trusted to keep it on the level, I don't think we'd have names in the filter.