PDA

View Full Version : Ned DOJ info on AW's


caduckgunner
06-27-2006, 10:43 AM
New DOJ AW info


http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awdefnotice0606.html

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 10:50 AM
I hope people don't flood them with comments that don't address the issue...

6172crew
06-27-2006, 11:06 AM
Well, bohica. A proper response from calguns is needed and this is something worth hashing out on this board.

Im guessing this is where we will find out what "permantly fixed" means and if the maglocks are good to go or not.

Tin foil hat...check!:cool:

glen avon
06-27-2006, 11:15 AM
I hope people don't flood them with comments that don't address the issue...

I have already submitted comments that:

this is underground submarine regulation and legislation

it is a violation of the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8, 9th, and 10th amendments

it is a violation of due process

you don't need to be a lawyer to see how full of holes the new regulations will be

what part of infringed do you not understand

it is too vague because what if I hold a mini-14 in one hand, a pistol in the other, but a hi-cap mag falls out of my pocket? was that a detachable mag pistol grip AW?

more to follow....

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 11:16 AM
Is this coming from a Merchant Marine perspective? ;)

I have already submitted comments that:

this is underground submarine regulation and legislation

it is a violation of the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8, 9th, and 10th amendments

it is a violation of due process

you don't need to be a lawyer to see how full of holes the new regulations will be

what part of infringed do you not understand

it is too vague because what if I hold a mini-14 in one hand, a pistol in the other, but a hi-cap mag falls out of my pocket? was that a detachable mag pistol grip AW?

more to follow....

If someone is serious, comments should focus on how this will affect other guns (specifically the SKS), and whether or not they have the authority to force modifications of these rifles. But I don't believe any comments should be sent without review.

6172crew
06-27-2006, 11:31 AM
I have already submitted comments that:

this is underground submarine regulation and legislation

it is a violation of the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8, 9th, and 10th amendments

it is a violation of due process

you don't need to be a lawyer to see how full of holes the new regulations will be

what part of infringed do you not understand

it is too vague because what if I hold a mini-14 in one hand, a pistol in the other, but a hi-cap mag falls out of my pocket? was that a detachable mag pistol grip AW?

more to follow....

You forgot about the Commerce Clause....slacker.:)

PanzerAce
06-27-2006, 11:36 AM
Cost impacts that a representative person or business would incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action: The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

Hmmmm, so how do they expect us to perm attach the mags in the ARs? If they want us to weld, what about the finacial impact on a person that does not have a welder?

This also brings up the issue of what permanent means, because as mentioned awhile ago, SKSs and M1-D (I think) rifles can be modified quite easily to take detachable magazines.

anotherone
06-27-2006, 11:41 AM
Nevermind, I'm not going to do any preliminary work for the DOJ. This time around they're going to have to do their own thinking. I might be new around here but I've been following the off-list situation long enough that I'll take Atherd's advice and edit this post as to not state anything.

blkA4alb
06-27-2006, 11:43 AM
I suppose that the real legal nit-picking now is going to be dissecting what "permenant" means.
Come on silly permanent means unable to :D .

bwiese
06-27-2006, 11:53 AM
This opens a whole can of worms - quite nicely.

Existing legal rifles based on OLLs are not AWs. The existence of this NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) confirms this.

I do not think the DOJ can mandate that folks change their current, existing, legally-owned, legally configured guns. But if existing legally-owned, currently legally configured guns transition into AWs thru an AG/DOJ regulatory redefinition, that means a gov't action has triggered their assault weapons status - and a reg period must open.

There is simply no statutory basis for seizure, modification, render-safe/ render-useless actions of legally-owned, legally-configured rifles that happen to transition into assault weapons status thru governmental action.

odysseus
06-27-2006, 12:05 PM
That's pretty much the crux of the issue, but do you think by this latest notice that they are admitting this and will take that course of action? Seems still very fuzzy at best.


There is simply no statutory basis for seizure, modification, render-safe/ render-useless actions of legally-owned, legally-configured rifles that happen to transition into assault weapons status thru governmental action.

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 1:18 PM
This opens a whole can of worms - quite nicely.

Existing legal rifles based on OLLs are not AWs. The existence of this NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) confirms this.

I do not think the DOJ can mandate that folks change their current, existing, legally-owned, legally configured guns. But if existing legally-owned, currently legally configured guns transition into AWs thru an AG/DOJ regulatory redefinition, that means a gov't action has triggered their assault weapons status - and a reg period must open.

There is simply no statutory basis for seizure, modification, render-safe/ render-useless actions of legally-owned, legally-configured rifles that happen to transition into assault weapons status thru governmental action.


After a long talk with this "Jeff Amador", his basic stand is that he feels they will only get a few letters and NO ONE will show up at the hearing. I tend to agree with this. Over and over people are saying they want changes but are unwilling to do any letter writing. I doesn't have to be well stated, it just has to say that you feel doing this change will damage your firearm. This is all very simple, send letters, specailly people that KNOW welding and explain that welding two metals can cause the frame to warp and would be no good any more, explain that if you move to another area or the laws were to change you would like the opition to remain legal and convert it back to the manafacture specs. Also start finding pictures of firearms out there that can easily be converted to "except" a larger mag M1, SKS and so on. Take a day or two off and show up at the hearing and again bring letters and show your against this. Its like voting, you vote and lose you and complain, you don't vote then you have lost your right to say anything.

Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
Attn: Jeff Amador
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 1:20 PM
It should only take a few letters (unless they ignore the good questions)...I'll write one this week that covers everything I can think of. I'll be willing to attend the hearing as well.

After a long talk with this "Jeff Amador", his basic stand is that he feels they will only get a few letters and NO ONE will show up at the hearing. I tend to agree with this. Over and over people are saying they want changes but are unwilling to do any letter writing. I doesn't have to be well stated, it just has to say that you feel doing this change will damage your firearm. This is all very simple, send letters, specailly people that KNOW welding and explain that welding two metals can cause the frame to warp and would be no good any more, explain that if you move to another area or the laws were to change you would like the opition to remain legal and convert it back to the manafacture specs. Also start finding pictures of firearms out there that can easily be converted to "except" a larger mag M1, SKS and so on. Take a day or two off and show up at the hearing and again bring letters and show your against this. Its like voting, you vote and lose you and complain, you don't vote then you have lost your right to say anything.

Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
Attn: Jeff Amador
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 1:25 PM
Reasonable Alternatives to the Proposed Regulatory Action That Would Lessen Any Adverse Impact on Small Businesses and the Agency’s Reasons for Rejecting Them
The Department finds that the proposed amendment to the current regulation would not have an adverse impact on small businesses and no reasonable alternatives were presented or considered.
Evidence Supporting Finding of No Significant Adverse Economic Impact on Any Business
The Department’s determination that the proposed amendment will have no significant adverse economic impact on any business is based on the fact that the proposed amendment simply defines a term used in PC section 12276.1 but does not place any additional cost burden on businesses nor their customers.
Page 2 of 2


This is the other thing that the firearm dealers need to point out is that it will impact your business on parts and so on. That many have had a good year with business because you have been selling parts, even the lowers themselves.

Just a thought, stand up and be heard.

MaxQ
06-27-2006, 1:30 PM
Does anyone else find the timing of the DOJ's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking a little too coincidental? Up to this point only non-binding memos, but as soon as the legislature makes a move, so does the DOJ. If the new and improved (gut and amend) AB2728 actually passes in some form, it would reflect negatively on the AG. The legislature had to get involved because the AG/DOJ had not updated the list of AWs for the past 6 years, even though the AG had the statutory authority to do so. It could be a campaign issue if the AG were to, say, run for another office...

Regardless of whether or not the proposed definition is earthshattering, it is activity. Even if AB2728 dies, the DOJ bought itself some time to deal with this issue, while at the same time continuing to distract and confuse us.

thmpr
06-27-2006, 3:48 PM
If the AB2728 does pass, would that mean all the OLL we have will force a registration? But what validates the already placed SB23 if they go through with AB2728? Or does it mean we need to modify our lowers to be welded which wil lbe next to impossible without damaging our precious lowers....

grammaton76
06-27-2006, 4:32 PM
If the AB2728 does pass, would that mean all the OLL we have will force a registration? But what validates the already placed SB23 if they go through with AB2728? Or does it mean we need to modify our lowers to be welded which wil lbe next to impossible without damaging our precious lowers....

I believe what bweise is saying, is that they might be able to force future lowers to be welded, but that there's no precedent for them to force us to retroactively modify our existing rifles.

The interesting thing here, is that if non-perm pinned mags are grandfathered on a mag-pinning-style basis, the DOJ may be able to say "bare receivers are bare receivers - you can only register the rifles you've built".

Can of worms indeed.

thmpr
06-27-2006, 4:37 PM
This will get very ugly!!!!!! Where do I send the funds to? Will definately send my two cents to the DOJ in a form of a letter....

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 4:40 PM
I believe what bweise is saying, is that they might be able to force future lowers to be welded, but that there's no precedent for them to force us to retroactively modify our existing rifles.

The interesting thing here, is that if non-perm pinned mags are grandfathered on a mag-pinning-style basis, the DOJ may be able to say "bare receivers are bare receivers - you can only register the rifles you've built".

Can of worms indeed.

It depends on when they back date the wording. If they say the law has always been in place they just want to define the wording better then it could mean all that have been bought here legally. And before it gets said, they are already trying back door rulings here, nothing could really stop them from back dating this with all that they have already done. Just think about it.

Jicko
06-27-2006, 4:50 PM
Are we going to get some LAWYERS invovled in this??

It is time to put a legal fund into ACTION!!!

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 5:21 PM
I have an idea. We know we want to get active for this comment period and get as many people to comment as possible. The only thing is I am not a lawyer and I don't know the best way to go about this. Why don't we wait a week or two and lets see if we can't talk to some lawyers and get a good draft going.

I think we have been doing better on here lately with thinking of the bigger picture and not telecasting our comments to the DOJ and the legislature, lets keep it up. So I propose we wait a week, see what happens and who we can talk to, then lets move together.

NO LEGAL FUNDS! Too crazy to keep track of. Just be patient and lets see what we can do then we will act together as one.

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 5:26 PM
Are we going to get some LAWYERS invovled in this??

It is time to put a legal fund into ACTION!!!


Well, I am hoping that the so many people that have preached about the NRA will start making phone calls to them asking them to step up to the plate.

I hope the NRA proves me wrong with everything I have thought.

All I know is I am going to be there and see what happens. I hope a bunch of you will join.

xenophobe
06-27-2006, 6:01 PM
This opens a whole can of worms - quite nicely.

Existing legal rifles based on OLLs are not AWs. The existence of this NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) confirms this.

I do not think the DOJ can mandate that folks change their current, existing, legally-owned, legally configured guns. But if existing legally-owned, currently legally configured guns transition into AWs thru an AG/DOJ regulatory redefinition, that means a gov't action has triggered their assault weapons status - and a reg period must open.

There is simply no statutory basis for seizure, modification, render-safe/ render-useless actions of legally-owned, legally-configured rifles that happen to transition into assault weapons status thru governmental action.

Shush!

Actually, along with some of the really interesting commentary here, there are a lot of things one needs to 'read inbetween the lines' on this bill. I won't comment in detail here, but someone involved with the writing of this bill is keeping some truth from the AG and possible committee on what this bill will partially accomplish.

Blacktail 8541
06-27-2006, 7:52 PM
I will keep from sending a letter for 1 week to see what type of form letter comes up. If no futher info is posted I will send one in my own style and words. I will be there for the meeting on the 16th. I will look forward to meeting some of the members of this forum!

Randomebayguy
06-29-2006, 10:52 AM
luckily my company has an office up in sac so i can just go up there and do some work for a day and then hit this event. (plus my boss is a big hunter guy so im sure he wont mind)

i hope alot of ppl show up.