PDA

View Full Version : DOJ making more noise 6/27


1911 Rookie
06-27-2006, 10:45 AM
New link on the DOJ web page, http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/awdefnotice0606.html

They want to add the "capacity to accept" to the law.

Jason

MaxQ
06-27-2006, 10:50 AM
Thanks for the quick heads-up.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-27-2006, 10:59 AM
Anyone want to buy a Lauer LCW-15 lower?:p

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 11:01 AM
Anyone want to buy a Lauer LCW-15 lower?:p

I'll take it off your hands for 5 dollars. :D

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-27-2006, 11:04 AM
I'll take it off your hands for 5 dollars. :D

Thanks, but I was hoping to get closer to 7 or 8 dollars.:D

Matt C
06-27-2006, 11:07 AM
So would this open a registration period?

MotoGuy
06-27-2006, 11:10 AM
Thanks, but I was hoping to get closer to 7 or 8 dollars.:D

I will give you $20. I'll just build another gripless rifle.

anotherone
06-27-2006, 11:20 AM
I've been lurking a while in here, but have been following the off-list situation. Doesn't this new proposed definition also ban SKS rifles, pinned FAL rifles, and dozens of other rifles? Afterall an SKS can accept duck-bill mags and is not "permenantly altered" when the mag is fixed.

This should be an interesting ride.

NoTime2Shoot
06-27-2006, 11:27 AM
So would this open a registration period?

In two weeks........

:D

C.G.
06-27-2006, 11:30 AM
Opens up a new can of worms; they do not define "permanently."

brando
06-27-2006, 11:43 AM
Hmm, then the question becomes "does this now categorize any lower receiver with an open magwell an AW?" Redefining and clarifying may be considered two different things to the DOJ, so who knows?

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 11:52 AM
Hmm, then the question becomes "does this now categorize any lower receiver with an open magwell an AW?" Redefining and clarifying may be considered two different things to the DOJ, so who knows?

No, it would only categorize a rifle with a fixed mag and a pistol grip or any other 12276.1 feature as an assault weapon.

mow
06-27-2006, 11:55 AM
It would make owners of OLL all felons:mad:

Paradiddle
06-27-2006, 11:57 AM
It would make owners of OLL all felons:mad:

Not if you don't run a pistol grip. Or "permanently" attach your mag.

mow
06-27-2006, 12:00 PM
Not if you don't run a pistol grip. Or "permanently" attach your mag.

Right but I haven't on my current build and I have one bare receiver so unless I build them as "permanently" fixed or no PG, FH, CS I am a felon if this passes. As is anyone else.

rkt88edmo
06-27-2006, 12:05 PM
Looks like Jeff Amador is our new best friend. ;)

These parts are interesting, I'm not sure what they legally mean, but it seems there would be some impact in compliance:

"" 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.


Small business determination: The Department has determined the proposed amendment does not affect small business. This determination is based on the fact that the proposed amendment simply defines a term used to identify assault weapons but does not place any additional cost burden on small businesses nor their customers.

Assessment regarding effect on jobs/businesses: The proposed amendment will not (1) create or eliminate jobs within California; (2) create new businesses or eliminate existing businesses within California; or (3) affect the expansion of businesses doing business within California. ""

Now the real fun begins...again...

Hopi
06-27-2006, 12:07 PM
It would make owners of OLL all felons:mad:

For security, I stowed and locked all of my off-list lowers on my yacht which, just last week sunk 65 miles off of the coast of Mexico.....now i think I'll run off and buy a FAB-10. :cool:

rkt88edmo
06-27-2006, 12:18 PM
Define a sixth term


Shall not be construed


Permanently altered


Many gun enthusiasts


Misconstrued


Abundantly Clear


!

Clodbuster
06-27-2006, 12:37 PM
So who is going to show up at the public hearing on August 16?

Clod

bbq_ribs
06-27-2006, 12:38 PM
"WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD

Any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Department. The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on August 16, 2006. Only comments received at the Department offices by that time will be considered.

Please submit written comments to:

Mail: Jeff Amador, Field Representative
Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200
or
Email: jeff.amador@doj.ca.gov

PUBLIC HEARING

The Department will hold a public hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 for the purpose of receiving public comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The hearing will be held in the Department of Water Resources auditorium located at 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California. The auditorium is wheelchair accessible. At the hearing, any person may present oral or written comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The Department requests, but does not require, that persons who make oral comments also submit written copy of their testimony at the hearing."

What if OLL owners (and pro-gun types all over the state) FLOODED them with public comments? What if a huge number of us packed the public hearing?

Could this be our chance to express our feelings?

Might be worth the trip up there.
The 16th is a Wednesday. I am more than willing to take that day off work and head up there.

gose
06-27-2006, 12:41 PM
"In accordance with Government Code section 11346.5(a)(13), the Department must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Department, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Department, would be either more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed regulations. The Department invites any person interested in presenting statements or arguments with respect to alternatives to the proposed regulations to do so at the scheduled hearing or during the written comment period."

I know of an easier way!

JUST LIST THE DAMN THINGS! :D

edit: I could probably take the day off as well, if you want company :)

Chaingun
06-27-2006, 12:42 PM
Here's the proposed 6th term, where is it placed under the current section?


Penal Code (PC) section 12276.1 identifies restricted assault weapons based on specific characteristics or features. Currently, California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 978.20 of Title 11 defines five terms used in § 12276.1 PC. The proposed amendment will define a sixth term, "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", as meaning "capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine."




12276.1

(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(b) "Assault weapon" does not include any antique firearm.

(c) The following definitions shall apply under this section:

(1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.

(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

(3) "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.

(d) This section shall become operative January 1, 2000.

Clodbuster
06-27-2006, 12:44 PM
Should look at the section "Consideration of Alternatives"....
Like maybe just list them ??????? :rolleyes:

Seems like DOJ is doing all this just to spite the people who bragged about "owning" them big time. Never seen a gov. agency willing to go through so much trouble.

Clod


Looks like Jeff Amador is our new best friend. ;)

These parts are interesting, I'm not sure what they legally mean, but it seems there would be some impact in compliance:

"" 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.


Small business determination: The Department has determined the proposed amendment does not affect small business. This determination is based on the fact that the proposed amendment simply defines a term used to identify assault weapons but does not place any additional cost burden on small businesses nor their customers.

Assessment regarding effect on jobs/businesses: The proposed amendment will not (1) create or eliminate jobs within California; (2) create new businesses or eliminate existing businesses within California; or (3) affect the expansion of businesses doing business within California. ""

Now the real fun begins...again...

SemiAutoSam
06-27-2006, 12:47 PM
How about one or more of our legal minds to show up with evidence that the BAN does nothing to halt crime and only infringes on the rights of law abiding gun owners.

And its time to fall inline with the federal sunset of the AW BAN.

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 12:49 PM
How about one or more of our legal minds to show up with evidence that the BAN does nothing to halt crime and only infringes on the rights of law abiding gun owners.

And its time to fall inline with the federal sunset of the AW BAN.

All of this may help with that, possibly helping with the lawsuit in San Diego. We have shown how vague and ineffectual the law is. Of course, the antis might want a more restrictive one, but I think it could be shown that would not help either.

Clodbuster
06-27-2006, 12:59 PM
Do you think the panel cares? All that information has been hashed and re-hashed and falls on deaf ears. What is needed is a huge contingent protesting outside, so that local, state, maybe national news coverage is done. Bring along a Mexican flag and wave it in front of the TV camera to get the illegal immigrant supporters out.:p

Clod

How about one or more of our legal minds to show up with evidence that the BAN does nothing to halt crime and only infringes on the rights of law abiding gun owners.

And its time to fall inline with the federal sunset of the AW BAN.

MaxQ
06-27-2006, 1:01 PM
chaingun, it would be item (f) in 11 CCR s 978.20:

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.

(b) "flash suppressor" means any device designed, intended, or that functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision.

(c) "forward pistol grip" means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp forward of the trigger.

(d) "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

(e) "thumbhole stock" means a stock with a hole that allows the thumb of the trigger hand to penetrate into or through the stock while firing.

Along the lines of:

(f) "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" means capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.


The link to the section is too long to post, but if you go to the following page and type in 978.20 in the Section search box, it will bring it up.

http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/search/default.asp?tempinfo=find&RS=GVT1.0&VR=2.0&SP=CCR-1000

glen avon
06-27-2006, 2:08 PM
Seems like DOJ is doing all this just to spite the people who bragged about "owning" them big time. Never seen a gov. agency willing to go through so much trouble.

Clod

they have to do this by regulation. it's rulemaking. DOJ is being dispassionate as far as I can tell. rulemaking always involves people shrieking one way or another, our little situation here is nothing new to them.

glen avon
06-27-2006, 2:09 PM
How about one or more of our legal minds to show up with evidence that the BAN does nothing to halt crime and only infringes on the rights of law abiding gun owners.

legal minds know that would not be appropriate and they don't have to listen to it.

SemiAutoSam
06-27-2006, 2:22 PM
Glen
When I said legal minds I mean the people here not the socalled lawmakers in Sacramento. After all they are the ones that have done this to US and past state Legislators.

6172crew
06-27-2006, 2:27 PM
legal minds know that would not be appropriate and they don't have to listen to it.

What is the DOJs responsiblity in reference to this public forum? Is it going to be a time to bring up safety issues to "permanent" magazines? Is the place to tell the doj that by changing the rules they have once again confussed the hell out of every person in CA? Is it time to strap on a OLL and buy a Vespa? I was going to PM you with these questions to a few of our legal types but Im sure there are a few guys who might want to know what to expect during these forums.

Im guessing this will have a partyline to call in a listen for those who cant make the trip to Sac.

five.five-six
06-27-2006, 3:26 PM
Opens up a new can of worms; they do not define "permanently."


simple, it must be sealed with a new metal called unobtainium :D

C.G.
06-27-2006, 3:35 PM
simple, it must be sealed with a new metal called unobtainium :D

Why didn't they say so, I have some of that stuff!:D

The SoCal Gunner
06-27-2006, 3:41 PM
Why don't those idiots just make it illegal to shoot at or kill people. If murder and attempted murder were illegal, people wouldn't do it.

O wait, criminals don't follow the freaking law and those things are already illegal.

sohijiro
06-27-2006, 3:43 PM
from what i see, the new sections under 12276.1 particularly 4-a and 4-c prety much ban M1a's correct me if im wrong

m1A's has detachable mags, and a threaded barrel , and do have a covered barrel or a "shroud"

vonsmith
06-27-2006, 3:46 PM
What is the DOJs responsiblity in reference to this public forum? Is it going to be a time to bring up safety issues to "permanent" magazines? Is the place to tell the doj that by changing the rules they have once again confussed the hell out of every person in CA? Is it time to strap on a OLL and buy a Vespa? I was going to PM you with these questions to a few of our legal types but Im sure there are a few guys who might want to know what to expect during these forums.

Im guessing this will have a partyline to call in a listen for those who cant make the trip to Sac.
I read the new proposed language and I am still confused.


(f) “capacity to accept a detachable magazine” means capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.

Without defining "permanently" the language doesn't clarify anything. For that matter I don't think there is a way a firearm can be "permanently" altered not to accept a detachable magazine. Almost any firearm through the use of hand tools or ,if necessary, machine tools could be made to accept a detachable magazine even if it wasn't designed to ever have a detachable magazine.

Similarly impossible situations exist for other banned features. How do you permanently alter a firearm not to accept a pistol grip, or a bayonet, or silencer, or flash suppressor, or folding stock, or grenade launcher, or bipod, or night sights, or fully automatic fire? Any of these features can be added easily to any semi-auto firearm with minimal tools and knowledge. I cannot think of any firearm construction method that would intrinsically prevent modification.


=vonsmith=

rorschach
06-27-2006, 4:13 PM
Exactly. Even a FAB-10 isnt a permanent mod. It can be made to accept mags readily, albeit with lots of machining, but it is possible.

They dont like their own definition of "permanent", are they now going to redefine "tool"??

blkA4alb
06-27-2006, 4:39 PM
from what i see, the new sections under 12276.1 particularly 4-a and 4-c prety much ban M1a's correct me if im wrong

m1A's has detachable mags, and a threaded barrel , and do have a covered barrel or a "shroud"
I'm not sure what your talking about, at all. Threaded barrels and barrel shrouds only apply to pistols. All our ARs have barrel "shrouds" (the handgurads.) Can you explain your line of thinking? :confused:

Mute
06-27-2006, 4:49 PM
Isn't this wonderful. Harrott was suppose to address the ambiguous nature of the AW laws in this state yet here we are going back and forth with this crap. I see another court case on the horizon.

stator
06-27-2006, 4:53 PM
For security, I stowed and locked all of my off-list lowers on my yacht which, just last week sunk 65 miles off of the coast of Mexico.....now i think I'll run off and buy a FAB-10. :cool:

Gun running in Mexico again, are we?

JPglee1
06-27-2006, 4:57 PM
Since a pre 1899 rifle, cannot by definition, be an "assault rifle" I think we need to start modifying all the old 8mm bolt action mausers to become semi auto, with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine ;)

Y'all think Im nuts, but with a little welding and machine work, it would actually be possible :) as long as you retain most of the receiver and the original serial number, they'd be hard pressed to say it WASN'T a Pre 1899 rifle :D


JP

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.

Ford8N
06-27-2006, 5:37 PM
Now is the time that the NRA must come thru....

bwiese
06-27-2006, 5:40 PM
Guys,

Let's not show our cards until late in the game (August). At the meeting.

Why give them help formulating stuff?

This ain't an unenforceable memo we're talking about.

leelaw
06-27-2006, 5:43 PM
Guys,

Let's not show our cards until late in the game (August). At the meeting.

Why give them help formulating stuff?

This ain't an unenforceable memo we're talking about.

So are you saying that we should submit "dumbed down" letters during the written comment period? Do you have any suggestions? I don't want this douchebag to be right and end up having no letters sent at all.

grammaton76
06-27-2006, 6:01 PM
man you gotta love this state. you guys must like all the crazy laws here. no wonder you guys don't want guys like me moving in here and encouraging me to not come, if more guys like me lived here we would not have these crazy laws :D

No, the problem is that out-of-state folks DID move here, but we received a disproportionate number of hippies. All 49 other states kept shipping us their surplus hippies and left-wing radicals for a few decades, and sooner or later the damn hippies got into politics! :p

I keep telling out of state friends that rather than complain about CA, they should bring in a 1000rd can of ammo and a few rifles, and give us two weeks of their time to help eliminate the surplus hippies that started off in THEIR states! That'd have CA back to a free state in short order.

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 8:41 PM
We need to send letters and we need to send them early. Just not this early. Lets wait a week and see what kind of form letters we can get up here, then lets send them. The idea is not to wait until the end. The idea is to put the pressure on early. However, just like when the DOJ posts up some stupid unsigned and undated memo, the effects don't last. We eventually realize they don't have a leg to stand on.

We want them to know we mean business. We want them to know we are aware of our rights and the law and what a huge charlie foxtrot this is going to be for them. So lets wait a week and be effective with our letter writing. There is no need to shoot from the hip on this one when we can take an extra second or two and then make a sure shot into the x ring.

Crazed_SS
06-27-2006, 9:34 PM
I've been lurking a while in here, but have been following the off-list situation. Doesn't this new proposed definition also ban SKS rifles, pinned FAL rifles, and dozens of other rifles? Afterall an SKS can accept duck-bill mags and is not "permenantly altered" when the mag is fixed.

This should be an interesting ride.

Well in the case of SKS's, they dont have any other evil features.
Additionally, detachable mag SKS's are already considered AWs.


The important thing here for OLL owners is what will be considered "permanent".. usually with stuff like this it comes down to would a reasonable person would consider permanent.

xenophobe
06-27-2006, 9:56 PM
We need to send letters and we need to send them early. Just not this early. Lets wait a week and see what kind of form letters we can get up here, then lets send them.

Form letters are a bad idea. A half-sensible response as long as it is a well formatted personal letter is better than 100 or even 1000 form letters.

Remember, this is not merely telling your representative that you are either for or against specific legislation... This is a committee soliciting responses to their proposed regulations. 10,000 form letters after the first one is pointless, and may even get a few genuine original letters thrown in the trash with them.

This is NOT a popularity contest where they're tabulating yes or no votes, it is a time where individual opinion is PARAMOUNT, and the more individual non-form letters that can be sent will actually prove meaningful, as they must take each different viewpoint and respond to it. With a form letter, they only need to respond to a million letters with one statement.

NO form letters. Take your time and write your own valid and unique reason why this is bad, against the intent, submarine rulemaking, against previous comment/response periods, and for any other reason you can think of.

A form letter after the first one will be summarily ignored.

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 10:24 PM
NO form letters. Take your time and write your own valid and unique reason why this is bad, against the intent, submarine rulemaking, against previous comment/response periods, and for any other reason you can think of.Ok, you make a valid point. Lets still give it a week so we can get several "examples" up and get a general idea of how to hit a lot of the same points and still make them personal. For example, who here knows exactly what "submarine rulemaking" is? Anyone here wonder why we give a damn what the navy does about this? ;)

If you think about it, there isn't too much we can say that they aren't going to agree with anyway. The main thing is numbers. We need them to see there is a very real and solidified response to this. Give it a week so we can get several key points together and then we can make "templates" that will allow a certain degree of personality while still remaining effective with well thought out and researched points.

Mark in Eureka
06-27-2006, 11:22 PM
Twenty-five or thirty years ago, the Consumer Product Safety Commision started rule making on book matches. They wanted them to be on locked packs and only stikeable on the book it self. They received so many letters they cancled the entire rule making process and just gave up. A couple million letters stoped them cold.

hoffmang
06-27-2006, 11:33 PM
Not all SKSs are devoid of other SB23 features...

blkA4alb
06-27-2006, 11:35 PM
Not all SKSs are devoid of other SB23 features...
As I was just reminded (for my temporary stupidity.) An sks with a detachable magazine is an AW regardless of features. I'm assuming that is what you were talking about?

jdberger
06-28-2006, 1:35 AM
Ok, you make a valid point. Lets still give it a week so we can get several "examples" up and get a general idea of how to hit a lot of the same points and still make them personal. For example, who here knows exactly what "submarine rulemaking" is? Anyone here wonder why we give a damn what the navy does about this? ;)

If you think about it, there isn't too much we can say that they aren't going to agree with anyway. The main thing is numbers. We need them to see there is a very real and solidified response to this. Give it a week so we can get several key points together and then we can make "templates" that will allow a certain degree of personality while still remaining effective with well thought out and researched points.
Then again, the advantage of a form letter (or at least a letter with a little guidance) is that it is less likely to open with, "Dear Friggin Moron,....."

6172crew
06-28-2006, 6:26 AM
Pretty amusing how opinion on this forum has done a complete 180 from where you all were at the beginning of the year.

Before the memo's were BS illegal scare tactics, now they are serious business.

Before lets all make posts self congratulating on how we beat the DOJ and how they have to list, how we're gonna force the DOJ to list and what cool features we're gonna put on our rifles when they list next week, now its "let's not let the DOJ know our plans."

Is this still the same calguns?

Come on Jarhead, the memo doesnt mean anything until they 2 things and one of them was done yesterday and the other will be Aug 17th until then the old law applies...bottom line.

Right now that memo doesnt change the law that is on the books but the memo might be law after Aug 17th.

Or did you just post here to say "see, I thought so?" If thats the case then maybe you should read up some then post so you dont look like an nonono.;)

GJJ
06-28-2006, 6:30 AM
I believe all the personal insults towards DOJ have hurt our position. It caused them to fight harder and with more of a vengence against us. They were never friends of gunowners. However, some of our tactics have come back to bite us in the butt. Anger is a powerful force in battle. It can cause the inexperienced to act foolishly. Or, it can be used as a powerful driving force by the patient and experienced as a performance enhancer.


The unintended consequence of all this will be that many just ignore DOJ completely. I am not advocating this. Just stating what I percieve to be a fact.

GJJ
06-28-2006, 6:52 AM
Eric, I think we are both right. The whole thing is insane. The AWB law is illegal. You have more of a right to a fully automatic M16 than you have to a Ruger 10/22. You should also be able to carry your guns in public without any permits or permission.

That being said. They are strong. We are weak. Making them angry makes it harder to beat them.

xenophobe
06-28-2006, 7:04 AM
Pretty amusing how opinion on this forum has done a complete 180 from where you all were at the beginning of the year.

Before the memo's were BS illegal scare tactics, now they are serious business.

Before lets all make posts self congratulating on how we beat the DOJ and how they have to list, how we're gonna force the DOJ to list and what cool features we're gonna put on our rifles when they list next week, now its "let's not let the DOJ know our plans."

Is this still the same calguns?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Internet_Troll.png

GJJ
06-28-2006, 1:22 PM
The beauty of the internet is the instant sharing of knowledge that brought us the OLL opportunity. 10 years ago, we couldn't have done this. I think it was a good thing to spread the word and flood California with OLLs.

The bad thing regarding the internet was that the DOJ probably read every post. They were insulted by our numerous personal attacks on them and I am sure this whole thing is very personal to more than a few key DOJ members. Heck, I remember seeing information about some of their children on this board!!!!! Smooth move.

We would have been more successful winning this war by doing what we need to do without inspiring the opposition to fight harder.

1. Anger causes the opposition to increase his desire to destroy you.
2. Anger makes people willing to endure more pain to defeat you.
3. Anger gives people adrenaline and determination.

Who would you rather fight? A angry person or a normal person.

hoffmang
06-28-2006, 1:30 PM
The funniest part about this process is that it will either keep the status quo permanent without legislation or force a registration.

I'm very happy with both!

Mudvayne540ld
06-28-2006, 2:30 PM
no, this wont allow a registration.

bwiese
06-28-2006, 3:06 PM
no, this wont allow a registration.

it may, but we're gonna keep our mouth shut ;)

hoffmang
06-28-2006, 4:31 PM
...must keep glee to minimum....

mblat
06-28-2006, 8:36 PM
The beauty of the internet is the instant sharing of knowledge that brought us the OLL opportunity. 10 years ago, we couldn't have done this. I think it was a good thing to spread the word and flood California with OLLs.

The bad thing regarding the internet was that the DOJ probably read every post. They were insulted by our numerous personal attacks on them and I am sure this whole thing is very personal to more than a few key DOJ members. Heck, I remember seeing information about some of their children on this board!!!!! Smooth move.

We would have been more successful winning this war by doing what we need to do without inspiring the opposition to fight harder.

1. Anger causes the opposition to increase his desire to destroy you.
2. Anger makes people willing to endure more pain to defeat you.
3. Anger gives people adrenaline and determination.

Who would you rather fight? A angry person or a normal person.


In OUR particular case you are right.... but lemme tell you - in my time I was doing quite a bit of marshal arts... and one of the first thing you want to do is to piss other fighter up.... 'cause angry fighter is the stupid fighter....

anotherone
06-28-2006, 11:31 PM
In OUR particular case you are right.... but lemme tell you - in my time I was doing quite a bit of marshal arts... and one of the first thing you want to do is to piss other fighter up.... 'cause angry fighter is the stupid fighter....

Bingo! If the DOJ wanted to do the smart thing they would have quietly listed back in November 2005 when they had almost effectively cut off the supply. They could have limited this to less than 300 lowers. Instead, they decided to make it personal and now there's 30,000 and counting.

The reason this whole episode is ridiculous is that whether or not you can lawfully build them up into a fixed magazine rifle, there's never been anything preventing any of those 30,000 lowers from becomming a fully operational AR-15. Before this whole episode there were plenty of people unlawfully aquiring AR-15 and AK-47 rifles in Nevada, now they can completely lawfully aquire all the parts in the comfort of their own home. If they wanted to keep AR-15s out of the state they dropped the ball... it seems like all they're interested in is being a pain in the butt to calguns.net members.

EvolutionGSR
06-29-2006, 2:38 AM
I just think its totally hypocritical how they put handguns in CA through such rigorous saftey tests and measures but they want to make it so that these rifles do not have the essential function of magazine release, the first step in rendering ANY firearm safe and clear, and the first step in clearing ANY jam or firearm malfunction. They will require handguns to have chamber loaded indicators and have magazine systems where the gun cannot fire unless the mag is in the gun to prevent accidental discharges, but will create rifles that will be more prone to them.

Ford8N
06-29-2006, 5:41 AM
I just think its totally hypocritical how they put handguns in CA through such rigorous saftey tests and measures but they want to make it so that these rifles do not have the essential function of magazine release, the first step in rendering ANY firearm safe and clear, and the first step in clearing ANY jam or firearm malfunction. They will require handguns to have chamber loaded indicators and have magazine systems where the gun cannot fire unless the mag is in the gun to prevent accidental discharges, but will create rifles that will be more prone to them.

Remember, this is NOT about safety, it is about banning guns.

GJJ
06-29-2006, 8:07 AM
"in my time I was doing quite a bit of marshal arts"

Thats funny. It is Martial Arts. Anger in your opponent is good if it causes them to make a mistake. Anger is bad if it makes them want to woop your butt even more.

In our case, the DOJ is the superior force. Yes, they made a few mistakes with the lowers. But, they are determined to make us pay for the things said on this board.

It would have been easier to win if we kept our mouths shut.

CowtownBallin
06-29-2006, 8:10 AM
So who is going to show up at the public hearing on August 16?

Clod

I'll be in Europe :rolleyes: Too bad, I'd like to sit in on the poo-flinging

vonsmith
06-29-2006, 8:42 AM
I just think its totally hypocritical how they put handguns in CA through such rigorous saftey tests and measures but they want to make it so that these rifles do not have the essential function of magazine release, the first step in rendering ANY firearm safe and clear, and the first step in clearing ANY jam or firearm malfunction. They will require handguns to have chamber loaded indicators and have magazine systems where the gun cannot fire unless the mag is in the gun to prevent accidental discharges, but will create rifles that will be more prone to them.
+1

Now that's a rational argument I can back. You're right. Some of the rules promulgated by the DOJ could result in some non-OEM configurations that are less safe. Pistol grips for instance are an improvement in ergonomics that allow better muzzle control of some types of firearms. Homemade workarounds to eliminate pistol grips could make for awkward, perhaps less safe, operation of the firearm. Open mag wells with an open bolt validate the safe condition of the firearm. Many other examples exist.

The DOJ isn't expressly responsible for firearm safety, but have some responsibility to public safety overall.


=vonsmith=

kenc9
06-29-2006, 9:39 AM
I think we may be jumping to conclusions in reguards to the impact of the proposed (f) rule.


I don’t see this new paragraph (f) changing anything for OLL’s.

You have the new (f) saying that,

(f) “capacity to accept a detachable magazine” means capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.

Then it directs you right back to what (a) says to what a detachable magazine (a) is that says,

(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.

SO? If (a) capacity to except a detachable magazine IS what (a) describes then you still need a tool on a Mag. Lock so that part hasn’t changed a bit.

The way I read it this the new (f) only excludes the sealed mags that DOJ wrote letters allowing manufactures to sell in Ca. from being an AW.

This new (f) doesn’t include or make any of our built up rifles AW’s but does exclude some.

-ken

zenthemighty
06-29-2006, 9:43 AM
Capable of Accepting just that. If you haven't welded your mag well shut, you're "Capable of accepting." It changes a lot.

tenpercentfirearms
06-29-2006, 9:46 AM
No, this rule change will take out the fixed mag rifle unless the magazine is permanently fixed. They don't define permanent and they don't tell us what to do when we are unwilling to change our lawfully aquired rifles that they have turned into assault weapons. This rule change will definitely shake things up. Especially for the thousands of FAL and SKS owners out there.

EricCartmanR1
06-29-2006, 9:47 AM
No, this rule change will take out the fixed mag rifle unless the magazine is permanently fixed. They don't define permanent and they don't tell us what to do when we are unwilling to change our lawfully aquired rifles that they have turned into assault weapons. This rule change will definitely shake things up. Especially for the thousands of FAL and SKS owners out there.

100% +10000

kenc9
06-29-2006, 9:48 AM
Capable of Accepting just that. If you haven't welded your mag well shut, you're "Capable of accepting." It changes a lot.

Capable of excepting a "detachable Magazine" which is described as not needing the use of a tool. You have to read it all as a set of rules not one part.

If (a) remains this (f) does little.

-ken

Comstock Lode
06-29-2006, 9:49 AM
the thread is interseting and fun to read until it degrades into this weak ego name calling, i'm so great, kalifornia is so screwed up crap...

Santa Cruz Armory
06-29-2006, 9:53 AM
Capable of Accepting just that. If you haven't welded your mag well shut, you're "Capable of accepting." It changes a lot.


No, Because I can take a Dremel tool and some time and make a sealed mag well accept a "detatchable" mag.

So the question is really, what degree of "tool to remove" do they mean? It takes tools to remove a fixed mag "kit". Both take tools to remove...one just takes a little longer

This is just ridiculous!!:eek: :mad:

JPglee1
06-29-2006, 9:54 AM
This rule change will definitely shake things up. Especially for the thousands of FAL and SKS owners out there.


Man I read the FAQs and I read all the posts and Im still lost...

If this passes does it mean my FAL will be contraband? Will they open a registration period for off-list FAL clones???


MOLON LABE!


JP

vonsmith
06-29-2006, 9:59 AM
This serves to show how ridiculous the "permanent" concept is. There are too many possible magazine/ammo feed configurations out there today and into the future for any law to define what is "permanent". It can be easily argued successfully that nothing is permanent.

Kalifornia has already limited us to 10 round magazines as it is (unless you are lucky enough to own pre-ban). I don't see any rational reason to compel gun owners to "permanently" alter their firearms.


=vonsmith=

vonsmith
06-29-2006, 10:09 AM
Huh... I forgot, what's this thread about again? We keep getting sidetracked. Oh yeah, the DOJ's peculiar text as it applies?/doesn't apply? to potential future legislation.

If the DOJ has something rational in mind for defining "capacity to accept" I can't discern it from the new proposed text.


=vonsmith=

thedrickel
06-29-2006, 10:11 AM
If this passes does it mean my FAL will be contraband? Will they open a registration period for off-list FAL clones???


You wish, buddy. You wish!

Vonsmith and cartman - you are BOTH libertarians. Especially you vonsmith, I feel exactly the same way. Conservative when it comes to economic and governmental issues (the preservation of my rights, etc.) and liberal when it comes to social issues (the preservation of OTHER PEOPLE's rights as long as they don't conflict with mine). Just wait til all this gay marriage stuff gets through the courts, it will be a cinch for the homos. IMHO all of these issues were settled in the 60s. Domestic partnership my butt. Separate but equal is inherently separate but unequal.

The problem with Republicans is just that they don't understand, other people have the same rights they do!

BTW - von, how the books workin out for ya? Get thru the blue book yet? J/k, the white one is more relevant reading anyway

And Cartman - anti-gun democrats are AKA "gun grabbers"

kenc9
06-29-2006, 10:15 AM
Prior to the last memo I guessed what DOJ would do.
Here is my post and the response to it.

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
************************************************** **
RESPONSE;

It won't. That doesn't make any sense. As bwiese has stated in other threads, they can't change their definition of fixed magazine at will. This will never happen as it has so many holes in it that it is actually quite funny.

Not to mention we get the anti-gunners onto how Bill Lockyer isn't doing his job and we keep up the pressure.

The list is coming, the list is coming.

*************************************************
This is my guess this time about the (f) rule. NRA won't fight it because it has no impact. They have only added the word permanent (without a definition) and (a) is still enforce as I posted above.
-ken

vonsmith
06-29-2006, 10:19 AM
Two things I'm certain of:

1) The DOJ isn't going to list.

2) The DOJ isn't going to explicitly tell us how to make a magazine "permanent".

The "capacity to accept" is an intrinsically flawed concept. The DOJ should just drop it.

Lockyer's on his way out. The best thing he can do is clean things up a little and keep a low profile until he finds a new job.


=vonsmith=

gose
06-29-2006, 10:23 AM
Capable of excepting a "detachable Magazine" which is described as not needing the use of a tool. You have to read it all as a set of rules not one part.

If (a) remains this (f) does little.

-ken

Well, according to the new crap the rifle would not have a detachabale magazine, but it would still be illegal since it does have the capability to accept a detachable magazine... IANAL, but thats my interpretation. Wonderful, isn't it?

kenc9
06-29-2006, 10:31 AM
Well, according to the new crap the rifle would not have a detachabale magazine, but it would still be illegal since it does have the capability to accept a detachable magazine... IANAL, but thats my interpretation. Wonderful, isn't it?

I disagree, (f) says “capacity to accept a detachable magazine” means capable of accommodating a detachable magazine,

Then you go read (a) and it still says the same thing, AW’s with Mags that need a tool or require to be disassembled are still excluded.

They have said very little new with no impact.

-ken

bwiese
06-29-2006, 10:56 AM
For the folks worried about SKSes becoming AWs thru prospective redefinition of terms, it is moot.

The redefinition only applies to generic AWs (12276.1) and not Roberti-Roos named guns, as per the preamble to the regulatory features definitions:


CCR 978.20: The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
....


Whatever regulatory action occurs in this regard will not change SKS status to "SKS with detachable magazine".

adamsreeftank
06-29-2006, 10:58 AM
you need to wake up. reality is reality man! the reality is liberals and homo's are responsible for the anti-gun laws. CA has a high population of democrats hence the laws are why they are. If CA had more Republicans, we would not have an AW ban in CA.


Let's not forget our fearless REPUBLICAN governator who caved like a little wuss and signed AB-50.

I'm a pro-gun liberal Democrat. It's not about left or right, Dem or Repub, and certainly not about gay or straight. IT'S ABOUT PRO SECOND AMENDMENT OR ANTI SECOND AMENDMENT.

Rant off.

What were we talking about anyways, oh yea. Off list lowers.

Crazed_SS
06-29-2006, 12:23 PM
For the folks worried about SKSes becoming AWs thru prospective redefinition of terms, it is moot.

The redefinition only applies to generic AWs (12276.1) and not Roberti-Roos named guns, as per the preamble to the regulatory features definitions:


CCR 978.20: The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
....


Whatever regulatory action occurs in this regard will not change SKS status to "SKS with detachable magazine".

Interesting that you point that out...

WeThePeople
06-29-2006, 12:59 PM
If we can move off the topic of orifices for a moment...


Maybe I skipped it, but I didn't see any discussion of the big picture here.

Why is this DOJ decision coming out now. To get something in place before the November elections? Who at the DOJ is behind this? Why? Maybe someone here can find out.

Also, is the date of the hearing cast in concrete? Can we get it delayed until after the elections if we want? After all, they are not giving the public much time until the hearing...less than 2 months. This is summertime, when many people are on vacation. This decision will affect many people, etc. Anyone know how to delay this process?

Someone at the DOJ is in a hurry to do this. Can we change the rules of the game?

bwiese
06-29-2006, 1:41 PM
Yes, this could be for "giving the appearance of doing work" in case it becomes an election issue - "Hey those wily gun freaks are exploiting a minor wording detail and we're diligently fixing it."

It is within their power as a regulatory agency to deal with these matters - esp things like definitions and implementations. They have given formal notice of proposed rulemaking and (so far) are obeying Administrative Code (11340) w/regards to adoption of new regulations.

_They_ determine hearing date - which is legit as long as we've had adequate notice, and we have.




Why is this DOJ decision coming out now. To get something in place before the November elections? Who at the DOJ is behind this? Why? Maybe someone here can find out.

Also, is the date of the hearing cast in concrete? Can we get it delayed until after the elections if we want? After all, they are not giving the public much time until the hearing...less than 2 months. This is summertime, when many people are on vacation. This decision will affect many people, etc. Anyone know how to delay this process?

hoffmang
06-30-2006, 12:22 AM
Bill,

Though I understand your reasoning for saying that an SKS isn't affected I don't know that I agree with you. If the effect of the regulatory change is to administratively define that an SKS magazine isn't really fixed... What is the substantive difference between:
SKS with detachable magazing
SKS with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine
?

For a much clearer example, lets consider an SKS that has been 922r sanitized and now sports a pistol grip, flash hider, or adjustable stock?

bwiese
06-30-2006, 2:41 AM
Bill,
Though I understand your reasoning for saying that an SKS isn't affected I don't know that I agree with you. If the effect of the regulatory change is to administratively define that an SKS magazine isn't really fixed...

What is the substantive difference between:
SKS with detachable magazing
SKS with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine
?

For a much clearer example, lets consider an SKS that has been 922r sanitized and now sports a pistol grip, flash hider, or adjustable stock?

Ah, yes, good catch, I wasn't thinking deeply enough. Glad you kicked my brain.

... I was thinking of a 'normal' SKS and just whether or not you'd cross into Roberti-Roos territory (12276) - 'SKS with detachable magazine' w/this redefinition. The prospective revised mag definition would in fact not throw SKSes into a Roberti-Roos 12276 category.

But, as you mentioned, yes, a 'sporterized' SKS would be controlled by 12276.1, even though detachable mag definition didn't apply to or trigger the Roberti-Roos definition. For SKSes without flash hiders and with normal stocks, the change would not matter since it'd end up a semiauto centerfire rifle w/a detachable magazine). (Likely for the recent Yugo SKSes with the covered-up/mangled grenade launcher/flash hiders). But since many (most? some??) SKSes have flash hiders, they are under 12276.1 generic control, so yes this could trigger AW status.

Good one!

sinner
06-30-2006, 10:29 AM
If you really get down to it, dont pretty much all firearms have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" with enough ingenuity and work?

jnojr
06-30-2006, 12:23 PM
All of this may help with that, possibly helping with the lawsuit in San Diego.

What lawsuit in San Diego???

I've been out of it for a while :)

dwtt
06-30-2006, 4:55 PM
I got this memo in the mail from the DOJ. They're serious this time. Is anyone planning to write in or go to speak at the hearing?
.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f276/dwtt/dojpage1.jpg

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f276/dwtt/dojpage2.jpg

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f276/dwtt/dojpage3.jpg

Paradiddle
06-30-2006, 5:41 PM
I got this memo in the mail from the DOJ. They're serious this time. Is anyone planning to write in or go to speak at the hearing?
.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f276/dwtt/dojpage1.jpg

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f276/dwtt/dojpage2.jpg

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f276/dwtt/dojpage3.jpg

Interesting. At least you know your registration card will get to the correct house (if that happens).

DRH
06-30-2006, 5:59 PM
Or they will have the correct house when they kick in your door with the no knock raid at 3:00am!! :eek: Sorry could not resist.:D

grammaton76
07-01-2006, 11:43 AM
Out of curiousity, why did you receive this? Do you work at a gun shop, are you LE, or do they just have your name from buying receivers?

docsmileyface
07-01-2006, 11:59 AM
It says that it won't affect buisnesses on the second page.... what about all the gundealers who will lose profits when they can't sell OLL anymore? :confused:

elsolo
07-01-2006, 3:27 PM
I got the letter in the mail today too.
I figure they sent it to me because I have registered AW's.

dwtt
07-01-2006, 8:11 PM
Out of curiousity, why did you receive this? Do you work at a gun shop, are you LE, or do they just have your name from buying receivers?
I have registered assault rifle in the house.

Rascal
07-01-2006, 8:28 PM
Well, my letter came in the mail today too.
I would be curious to see if anybody else, that didn't have a registered assault weapon, got the letter.
It would be nice if one of the more knowledge members could come up with some arguments to share, Via PM or email, but not on the site, to help others write a response to this.

daskraut
07-01-2006, 11:41 PM
is this how the new definition will read?? : 12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has any "ONE" of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip. (G) a detachable magazine
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches. ----- OR----- will it read like this : 12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has any "TWO" of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip. (G) a detachable magazine
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

trbon8r
07-01-2006, 11:54 PM
So in other words DOJ is essentially giving us the go ahead to build our off-list lowers into detachable magazine rifles since they intend to overstep their authority by legislating our legally obtained fixed mag weapons into contraband items anyway.

Isn't this just lovely? Really all this changes nothing since we knew all along that this whole thing would eventually be settled in court anyway.

At the end of the day DOJ can pontificate about whatever they want. Likewise the jerkoffs in the state legislature can pass whatever laws they want. However, even in the liberal CA courts, turning legally purchased products into contraband items subject to a felony conviction for their mere possession without giving owners a legal means to retain said product, may not prove to be as easy a task for the gun grabbers as they might think.

Jarhead4
07-02-2006, 12:35 AM
From reading the judges opinion on Harrott vs County of Kings, the judge stated what the intent of the AW law, and what the DOJ is suppose to do. The judge stated that the intent of the law was to have a list that anyone would know what an assault weapon is. This way the public would not be subject to illegal search and seizers by the police because the police did not know what is an AW. By changing the regulations they are going in the opposite direction that the judge said what the intent of the law was. By changing the regulations they are only adding more confusion to what is an assault weapon. If they keep going down this path, they will make the law even more unenforceable.

Apeman88
07-02-2006, 1:22 AM
Any idea what the NRA is doing about this, if any at all?? I "WAS" an NRA member many years ago... gave up on them since it seems they either can't do jack sh1t or won't do jack sh1t about Kali. Not bashing on NRA by any means... maybe their hands are tied... but end result is I can't legally purchase half of what is available to the rest of this country living in Kali thus came to to conclusion NRA can't help me or Kali gun owners and so... why be a part of it... it's a membership better suited for residents of other states.

I think if NRA is really working for Kali... it's time for them to step up to the plate. Regardless if we win or not... if NRA is at bat... it will at least win my confidence back that they are at the very least "trying". I would love to support and join a club or be a memeber of an organization that fights for Kali gun owner's right... just need to know which organization... NRA??? Batter UP!!! :D

Ken

thmpr
07-02-2006, 1:29 AM
Any idea what the NRA is doing about this, if any at all?? I "WAS" an NRA member many years ago... gave up on them since it seems they either can't do jack sh1t or won't do jack sh1t about Kali. Not bashing on NRA by any means... maybe their hands are tied... but end result is I can't legally purchase half of what is available to the rest of this country living in Kali thus came to to conclusion NRA can't help me or Kali gun owners and so... why be a part of it... it's a membership better suited for residents of other states.

I think if NRA is really working for Kali... it's time for them to step up to the plate. Regardless if we win or not... if NRA is at bat... it will at least win my confidence back that they are at the very least "trying". I would love to support and join a club or be a memeber of an organization that fights for Kali gun owner's right... just need to know which organization... NRA??? Batter UP!!! :D

Ken


Also lets not forget the CRPA. I have sent them an email with no reply as of last week Thursday.

xenophobe
07-02-2006, 1:49 AM
is this how the new definition will read?? : 12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has any "ONE" of the following:
----- OR----- will it read like this : 12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has any "TWO" of the following:


NO! Section 12276.1 will not change. That would require a bill originating in the Assembly or Senate. The proposed regulatory definition creation will not change the text of the Penal Code Section, it will only add into the CCR AW definition.

daskraut
07-02-2006, 8:18 AM
Thanks xeno, I thought I was going to have to haul-***** to the gun shop and get my M1A now!!!!.

Dont Tread on Me
07-02-2006, 8:56 PM
Any idea what the NRA is doing about this, if any at all?? I "WAS" an NRA member many years ago... gave up on them since it seems they either can't do jack sh1t or won't do jack sh1t about Kali.

Just attend you local NRA council meeting. The NRA is very aware and is working hard in CA. We are the only state with a full time staff (including a lobbyist). They work out in Sacramento. The NRA made it clear to the DOJ that there would be a legal fight if the first memo went anywhere. The City of SF gun ban just got overturned by a case filed by the NRA....

If you attend your local meeting you will find out what is happening on this issue and to me the more general issue of fixing our state's gun laws.

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/

cbshooter
07-03-2006, 9:55 AM
Just a thought, I would not say that I am well versed in this area of the law but with the limited amount of research I have done and perusing forums on various web sites over the last year or so I have a question to pose.

Assuming the redefinition is passed and assuming through the public debate process they arrive at some meaningful and clear determination of the meaning of "permanently"; it seems to me perhaps DOJ has exceeded their authority granted to them by law.

There are thousands of law-abiding gun owners who have acquired semi-auto rifles through currently legal channels and have made modifications to those firearms that are completely in compliance with current statues, laws, rules, regulations and even comply with issued memos and written responses from the AG and DOJ (not to mention those that have not been modified but will be affected). In effect this current proposed action by DOJ bans a whole new class of firearms that are completely and unarguably legal under current law.

My question to the legal types out there is:
1) Does DOJ possess the legislative authority to take such action?
2) If they don't, might this be the soft under belly to the problem?
3) Doesn't this line of thinking point you toward a strategy best not discussed in an open forum such as this?
4) If they do have the authority, doesn't the current AW legislation specify how that new class of firearms would be dealt with?

I not looking for specific answers here, just hoping that minds far brighter than mine have already pondered these questions and are preparing a strategy with some reasonable opportunity for success and will provide guidance for the rest of us when the time is right. Perhaps at this point the less said the better.

6172crew
07-03-2006, 3:49 PM
Assuming the redefinition is passed and assuming through the public debate process they arrive at some meaningful and clear determination of the meaning of "permanently"; it seems to me perhaps DOJ has exceeded their authority granted to them by law.


My question to the legal types out there is:
1) Does DOJ possess the legislative authority to take such action?
2) If they don't, might this be the soft under belly to the problem?
3) Doesn't this line of thinking point you toward a strategy best not discussed in an open forum such as this?
4) If they do have the authority, doesn't the current AW legislation specify how that new class of firearms would be dealt with?



The AG has been given authority to see that the AW ban is followed and it is up to them to see that the law is followed by setting up ground rules bt these have to go through a proccess and the part we can voice our concerns is Aug 16th.

edited to change the date to aug16th, when did they change that?

Mudvayne540ld
07-03-2006, 4:01 PM
NOOOOOO

AUGUST 16th !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JPglee1
07-03-2006, 4:06 PM
What does this mean for an M1 Garand? Will they be included in this?


JP

paradox
07-03-2006, 5:48 PM
What does this mean for an M1 Garand? Will they be included in this?


JP


All it takes is a milling machine, a bit of heat treating know-how, and a conversion kit and you too can make a M1 Garand into a detachable magazine, simi-auto, centerfire rifle. Nothing is permanent when we’re talking about such simple machines as firearms.

So does that mean that the M1 is capable of being capable of accepting a detachable magazine? If so, there are many felons-to-be out there who have M1s with standard flash-hiders sitting in the back of the safe.

MisterDudeManGuy
07-04-2006, 1:04 PM
All it takes is a milling machine, a bit of heat treating know-how, and a conversion kit and you too can make a M1 Garand into a detachable magazine, simi-auto, centerfire rifle. Nothing is permanent when we’re talking about such simple machines as firearms.

So does that mean that the M1 is capable of being capable of accepting a detachable magazine? If so, there are many felons-to-be out there who have M1s with standard flash-hiders sitting in the back of the safe.

The definition of "permanent" has had various meanings when used in conjunction with weapons manufacture. I assume that DOJ will want to adopt the same meaning that the ATF has for "permanent". Certainly if they want a different meaning, they would have to specify the new meaning, since the ATF has established a clear meaning for the term over a long period of time.

The ATF has specified both welding and silver soldering as permanent means for assembling parts - each in different situations, and sometimes they have flopped between the two. It is clear from ATF rulings that the word "permanent" has been used to mean that an attachment must be reasonably irreversible for an end user/consumer, not a manufacturer. The "permanent" operation is designed to require significant effort to reverse. Screws, locktite, and any means of attachment that can be easily removed with hand tools is not considered "permanent". Brazing, silver soldering and welding all are "permanent".

Anyone who is reasonably handy can easily disassemble soldered parts, but the efforts are the efforts of a person who is physically altering an asembly - not normal disassembly that an end user/consumer would perform. It is this that has been the focus of the word "permanent" - to make it difficult enough to alter a weapon so that the end user/consumer who has done the deed has gone through enough trouble that it is provable that they have willfully altered the assembly with a certain intent. Willful alteration of a weapon is much more easily prosecuted, while "whoops I didn't know I couldn't remove that screw" is less easily prosecuted.

What does this mean to Garand guys? Not a sausage. The weapon is not manufactured to accept a detachable magazine. Manufactured is the operative term there. Alteration of the Garand is the responsibility of the end user/consumer, and of course, falls into normal AW laws for what is and is not allowed. Alter a Garand into a BM-59, and you've got troubles you don't have with the unaltered Garand.

What does this mean to Cali-FAL guys? Maybe that they have to substitute a spot weld or a silver soldered magazine for a screwed-in magazine. In most cases, this means nothing, unless the sole purpose of having the Cali-FAL was to use it illegally by removing the screw.

6172crew
07-04-2006, 1:27 PM
The definition of "permanent" has had various meanings when used in conjunction with weapons manufacture. I assume that DOJ will want to adopt the same meaning that the ATF has for "permanent". Certainly if they want a different meaning, they would have to specify the new meaning, since the ATF has established a clear meaning for the term over a long period of time.

The ATF has specified both welding and silver soldering as permanent means for assembling parts - each in different situations, and sometimes they have flopped between the two. It is clear from ATF rulings that the word "permanent" has been used to mean that an attachment must be reasonably irreversible for an end user/consumer, not a manufacturer. The "permanent" operation is designed to require significant effort to reverse. Screws, locktite, and any means of attachment that can be easily removed with hand tools is not considered "permanent". Brazing, silver soldering and welding all are "permanent".

Anyone who is reasonably handy can easily disassemble soldered parts, but the efforts are the efforts of a person who is physically altering an asembly - not normal disassembly that an end user/consumer would perform. It is this that has been the focus of the word "permanent" - to make it difficult enough to alter a weapon so that the end user/consumer who has done the deed has gone through enough trouble that it is provable that they have willfully altered the assembly with a certain intent. Willful alteration of a weapon is much more easily prosecuted, while "whoops I didn't know I couldn't remove that screw" is less easily prosecuted.

What does this mean to Garand guys? Not a sausage. The weapon is not manufactured to accept a detachable magazine. Manufactured is the operative term there. Alteration of the Garand is the responsibility of the end user/consumer, and of course, falls into normal AW laws for what is and is not allowed. Alter a Garand into a BM-59, and you've got troubles you don't have with the unaltered Garand.

What does this mean to Cali-FAL guys? Maybe that they have to substitute a spot weld or a silver soldered magazine for a screwed-in magazine. In most cases, this means nothing, unless the sole purpose of having the Cali-FAL was to use it illegally by removing the screw.

Im sure this is what they want but they have already allowed the Vulcan lower to be sold and its not welded, brazed or soldered. They use a blind pin behind the magcatch that most owners removed in order to replace the junk magazine with a better 10 rounder. When I replaced my magazine I didnt use a rolled pin because if I ever had to do it again I would have destroyed to lower so I opted for a set screw that need a tool to remove the magazine.

So the big question is are these Vulcans now AWs?

MisterDudeManGuy
07-04-2006, 2:24 PM
It will be interesting to see if the Vulcan lower is declared an AW. To give a guess (and that's all we can do at this point), we have to consider the goals of the DOJ in making the wording change. The goal so far appears to be to make as few AW's as possible appear on the named list, and to place emphasis on making the features list more all-encompassing. This flies in the face of legal precedent, but rulings get reversed all the time. Especially in California.

If their goal is to forgo the list, then the argument in court from the DOJ then can become that the named list is useless because AW fans simply change the names and keep importing. How many companies offer custom makers marks at a nominal upcharge? A lot of them. So saying that a named list is useless is a very defensible position for the DOJ if the court is sold into the need to limit imports into the state and in the illegitimacy of people doing an end-run on the law by making new names for the same thing (an AR is a AR even if it's called a tomato). From what we've seen they are indeed bought into this viewpoint, and it is just a matter of getting the wording right to keep them from getting imported - under any name. Hence the changes to the features list.

If that is the intent (to make the features list more all-encompassing and to disregard the named list), then the Vulcan will not be an AW by name, but by feature, and any hopes of getting it registered as an AW would probably go out the door. I would assume that the remedy that they would specify for citizens holding the newly-defined contraband material would be to place it into compliance by welding or silver-soldering a magazine into it or to get rid of it. If they had a registration period, I'd be very, very surprised.

I'm not arguing, by the way, that this is the right thing or whether it is ok or anything like that. But I think I see the writing on the wall. I think the last thing they want to do is to update the list and allow registrations to increase. The best way to reduce registrations is to let the list die. Let's be honest - if you had to enforce a law based upon a list that never was as up-to-date as it needed to be so as to be effective (because people just changed the name of the thing they were importing), you'd do the same thing. It will probably take a case going all the way to the Supreme Court to get away with it, but in the meantime we'll be stuck with faulty law.

My two cents. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I am considering a Cali-FAL, and that's how I got into this whole mess. I may elect to just avoid the whole thing and vote with my feet. This is ridiculous.

tenpercentfirearms
07-04-2006, 2:38 PM
So, I need to buy a FAL and a Vulcan asap! :D

Ford8N
07-04-2006, 3:23 PM
So, I need to buy a FAL and a Vulcan asap! :D

+1

Everybody should be doing that. Except for the Vulcan. ;)

Crazed_SS
07-04-2006, 3:30 PM
All it takes is a milling machine, a bit of heat treating know-how, and a conversion kit and you too can make a M1 Garand into a detachable magazine, simi-auto, centerfire rifle. Nothing is permanent when we’re talking about such simple machines as firearms.

So does that mean that the M1 is capable of being capable of accepting a detachable magazine? If so, there are many felons-to-be out there who have M1s with standard flash-hiders sitting in the back of the safe.

If you guys take this argument to the DOJ, you will lose.

"All it takes is a milling machine" .. lol who the hell owns a milling machine? How many people here have access to one? How many people here have the technical ability to use one?

You guys seem to be completely missing the point by coming up with all these stupid hypothetical situations. If you want to win this argument, you need to think like normal people, not tin-foil wearing hat gun nuts.

MisterDudeManGuy
07-04-2006, 4:08 PM
If you guys take this argument to the DOJ, you will lose.

"All it takes is a milling machine" .. lol who the hell owns a milling machine? How many people here have access to one? How many people here have the technical ability to use one?

You guys seem to be completely missing the point by coming up with all these stupid hypothetical situations. If you want to win this argument, you need to think like normal people, not tin-foil wearing hat gun nuts.

Absolutely. The important idea is that it is the end user/consumer and their normal abilities that is the issue. Wording in the ATF regs specifies that normal hand tools can't be able to undo permanent attachments - hence the requirement to weld, braze, or solder certain devices to form an assembly.

Sure, someone could use a cold chisel and a coathanger to alter a Garand to take detachable magazines, but then they are in the act of manufacturing something and they own the responsibility for the changes they make. Use of a milling machine to alter an assembly is an action of a manufacturer, not of a normal consumer.

The DOJ language change can be justified in a pro-consumer light. By making the manufacturers silver solder the magazines in fixed-mag AR's and FAL's, the liklihood of a lesser-informed consumer removing a screw and creating a dire legal liability for themselves is reduced. If you look at it that way, the DOJ is being the consumer's friend. God, that felt ugly to say.

Hey, I'm not saying I like it, but I can see the justification for it, given a certain mindset. You gotta keep in mind that besides being anti-gun, California is also anti-responsibility/consumer-protectionist. This language change can be sold as being 'best/safest' for the gun consumer. Yes, I agree that a fixed mag weapon is less safe, but we're not talking facts here, we're talking emotional knee-jerk rulemaking for people who want no responsibility for their actions. And they believe that guns cause violence, rather than the people who wield them illegally.

paradox
07-04-2006, 4:55 PM
"All it takes is a milling machine" .. lol who the hell owns a milling machine? How many people here have access to one? How many people here have the technical ability to use one?


If you can afford a gun collection big enough to start bubbaizing M1s, you can afford a new milling machine: http://www.grizzly.com/products/category.aspx?key=480000

If you can read a how-to on the internet to put together and AR from a stripped lower or an AK from a kit and receiver, you can read a how-to on operating a mill and heat treating.

How is building a fixed mag OLL AR from pieces any different from bubbaizing an M1? If someone can bubbaize and M1 in their basement to take detachable magazines does that mean all M1s are ‘capable of accepting a detachable magazine’? If someone can build an OLL AR with a detachable mag, does that mean that your epoxied sporter conversion built up from a stripped lower is also capable of accepting a detachable mag? I think 58 DAs could all have different opinions which means that this clarification doesn’t clarify anything.

Mudvayne540ld
07-04-2006, 4:55 PM
+1

We need to show that it is unfair to just change up the law on law abiding gun owners. We need to show that it is unfair to make me spend money on something that I assembled legally. We need to show em that there are law abiding citizens, who are not psychos, and who DO follow their rules.

MisterDudeManGuy
07-04-2006, 5:26 PM
+1

We need to show that it is unfair to just change up the law on law abiding gun owners. We need to show that it is unfair to make me spend money on something that I assembled legally. We need to show em that there are law abiding citizens, who are not psychos, and who DO follow their rules.

Abso-freaking-lutely. Unfortunately, the tactic being employed appears to be to cast a vague law as wide as it can be cast and catch anyone they want with all of the various allowable interpretations. Then, when called into court to clarify, they add more generalizations that fence others in while tying off their prior loopholes.

Bad law simply creates more bad law. That is the goal of the anti-gunners, to create confusion and an ambiguous legal situation that will allow prosecurion of anyone they want for any reason they feel like. Sucks, but that's the game.

Crazed_SS
07-04-2006, 6:57 PM
If you can afford a gun collection big enough to start bubbaizing M1s, you can afford a new milling machine: http://www.grizzly.com/products/category.aspx?key=480000

If you can read a how-to on the internet to put together and AR from a stripped lower or an AK from a kit and receiver, you can read a how-to on operating a mill and heat treating.

How is building a fixed mag OLL AR from pieces any different from bubbaizing an M1? If someone can bubbaize and M1 in their basement to take detachable magazines does that mean all M1s are ‘capable of accepting a detachable magazine’? If someone can build an OLL AR with a detachable mag, does that mean that your epoxied sporter conversion built up from a stripped lower is also capable of accepting a detachable mag? I think 58 DAs could all have different opinions which means that this clarification doesn’t clarify anything.

Like I said before, you need to look at this from a reasonable person's perspective.

Ease of converting OLL to regular AR's is even one of the reasons given for buying OLL's instead of a Bushmaster Carbon-15... incease someone moves to a free state, they can easily turn the rifle into a fully functioning AR-15 with detachable mag..

What you're suggesting with M1 Garands takes a lot more skill, effort, time, and resources... not too mention completly impractical since M1A's are perfectly legal already.

Think of it this way. Converting a fixed-mag OLL rifle to a detachable mag rifle is like installing a bolt-on cold-air intake on a car. Modifying the Garand like you suggest would be like installing a new camshaft and valve springs.

Anyone could install the cold-air intake system in 30 minutes with a couple wrenches. The camshaft install is gonna take a few more tools, about 4 more hours, and a lot more automotive know-how.

:)

JPglee1
07-04-2006, 7:01 PM
What you're suggesting with M1 Garands takes a lot more skill, effort, time, and resources.




Yah, but it COULD be done in a clandestine shop without too much effort, a $400 minimill from HF and a $200 MIG welder would be about all you'd need, oh and maybe a set of torches to re heat-treat the receiver.

For the REGULAR guy with hand tools, it aint gonna happen.


JP

50BMGBOB
07-04-2006, 9:15 PM
I think it would be better to compare it to changing to a folding or pistol grip stock on a mini14. Easy, no tools required and illegal. The law already say's that if it takes a tool to remove it is a fixed mag. If you have a removable mag with "evil features" you are breaking the law. It is simple. No need to cloud it up with new definitions!

The recievers are legal to have and build with no "evil features" even with the proposed langage. If they want to make them illegal to buy then they should be listed as is already permitted by the current law. If not, leave it alone. Those that are going to break the law are going to regaurdless. Punish them not all of us LAW ABIDING people!

MisterDudeManGuy
07-04-2006, 10:46 PM
I think it would be better to compare it to changing to a folding or pistol grip stock on a mini14. Easy, no tools required and illegal. The law already say's that if it takes a tool to remove it is a fixed mag. If you have a removable mag with "evil features" you are breaking the law. It is simple. No need to cloud it up with new definitions!

The recievers are legal to have and build with no "evil features" even with the proposed langage. If they want to make them illegal to buy then they should be listed as is already permitted by the current law. If not, leave it alone. Those that are going to break the law are going to regaurdless. Punish them not all of us LAW ABIDING people!

They should be listed by make and model because that's what the rules say, but it does not look like they will be. Why would DOJ want to bother doing that - especially when that would serve to legitimize the importation of thousands of receivers that they didn't want in the state in the first place? I agree with you, but I just don't see it happening. Especially given the personal nature of the whole offlist hoo-hah.

Let's be honest. In reality, the named list is perfectly useless in practice. It simply can't be updated fast enough to be effective, and it would only legitimize commerce in material they don't want imported. It will not take long for that to be 'rectified', IMHO. I hate it, but there it is.

I sure want an AR for service rifle competition, but it looks like it ain't happening out here in Cal. - which is a damn shame. I buy ammunition, reloading supplies, rifle accessories, cases, targets, and all sorts of other ancillary support gear for HPR competition - but I won't be doing that for an AR. Taxable transactions that won't happen in Cal. because of the wisdom of the DOJ. Whatever...

thmpr
07-05-2006, 12:24 AM
In reality, if the DOJ did list back in January of 2006, it would have stopped the the OLL craze and probably would have been less than a 1000 new ARs to register as an AW. But if they really did their job, this situation would have never happened. Now you have owners with OLL that has >3 in their possession and people who never thought owning an AR would be possible now does own one.

MisterDudeManGuy
07-05-2006, 7:20 AM
In reality, if the DOJ did list back in January of 2006, it would have stopped the the OLL craze and probably would have been less than a 1000 new ARs to register as an AW. But if they really did their job, this situation would have never happened. Now you have owners with OLL that has >3 in their possession and people who never thought owning an AR would be possible now does own one.

I know that legal precedent says they have to list, but it is plain to see that doing so does not serve the goal of limiting commerce in AW's. If anything, it seems to have spurred it on (as you said). The game has become "rush and buy in bulk so that my new brand-x receivers can get listed". Like I said before, bad law...

So, what's your spin on this? Will they list, or will they bypass a legal tool that is obviously not working because it's way too specific? The features list is the only tool they have that really looks like it has a chance of working, IMHO.

The funy thing is that it's really a catch-22, now isn't it? I mean if the feature list gets general enough to catch everything they want it to catch, then it catches so much more that it forces the 2nd amendment issue to the forefront.

6172crew
07-05-2006, 8:13 AM
I know that legal precedent says they have to list, but it is plain to see that doing so does not serve the goal of limiting commerce in AW's. If anything, it seems to have spurred it on (as you said). The game has become "rush and buy in bulk so that my new brand-x receivers can get listed". Like I said before, bad law...

So, what's your spin on this? Will they list, or will they bypass a legal tool that is obviously not working because it's way too specific? The features list is the only tool they have that really looks like it has a chance of working, IMHO.

The funy thing is that it's really a catch-22, now isn't it? I mean if the feature list gets general enough to catch everything they want it to catch, then it catches so much more that it forces the 2nd amendment issue to the forefront.

The list was a option that was at the AGs disposal but they chose to use
sb23 which wasnt really working for them so now they whats behind curtain #3 which on its face is confusing for everyone envolved. The reason the judge gave the listing option was to keep folks "in the know", and now they have found a way to add yet another misleading rule in the knee deep stack of rules.

If you were to hit the range and ask anyone there what the rules were,are,going to be I bet less than 10% would have a grasp on what really needss to be done to stay out of jail and that includes the LE that you might be facing at a traffic stop after a long day at the range.

Having a AW card really helps stop any worries the cop might have when he sees the black case with the magazine pouches on the side.

mikeylikesit106
07-05-2006, 9:03 AM
I was talking with some friends who purchased some lowers and they were unclear as to if this goes though could the state really force them to turn in their lowers? Or what would need to be done with them?

vonsmith
07-05-2006, 9:25 AM
The list was a option that was at the AGs disposal but they chose to use
sb23 which wasnt really working for them so now they whats behind curtain #3 which on its face is confusing for everyone envolved. The reason the judge gave the listing option was to keep folks "in the know", and now they have found a way to add yet another misleading rule in the knee deep stack of rules.

If you were to hit the range and ask anyone there what the rules were,are,going to be I bet less than 10% would have a grasp on what really needss to be done to stay out of jail and that includes the LE that you might be facing at a traffic stop after a long day at the range.

Having a AW card really helps stop any worries the cop might have when he sees the black case with the magazine pouches on the side.
I asked a recently retired LEO that I know what he knew about the legalities of AR type rifles. He said he didn't really know much because the laws are too complicated. When he was on the job his view was if someone was acting responsibly with a gun he never bothered trying to figure out if the gun was legal or not. He didn't think cops should have to become gun law experts. He indicated that there were more important enforcement issues to worry about.

If Kalifornia gun laws are too complicated for the average cop then where does that leave the honest citizen?


=vonsmith=

thmpr
07-05-2006, 9:31 AM
Von,
My thoughts exactly!!! I have asked several RO and LEOs of whom I met at the gun range and they stated that they do not know the full extent of the AW laws and they usually ask for help from HQs for guidance. But the main thought they have when shooting at the gun range is how guns are handled. If you are handling your rifle in a safe manner, they could care less on how your rifle is configured.
These are the type of questions we need to bring up on Aug 16th...

EricCartmanR1
07-05-2006, 9:49 AM
Von, very good post. i figured the same thing. cops are not lawyers and even the people that work at the DOJ are not lawyers. no one seems to know the laws. bottom line is with vague laws, the courts and gov't can arrest whoever they want. but the weather is great though.

thmpr
07-05-2006, 10:10 AM
We should watch what we state on this forum. It seems that their are moles lurking....

vonsmith
07-05-2006, 1:37 PM
We should watch what we state on this forum. It seems that their are moles lurking....
+1

I hope my posts are revealing only what is already obvious. The fact that the laws are largely incomprehensible to the majority is not a secret and is, in my mind, indefensible. I'd like to see the DOJ try. :cool:

The more "meaty" issues that I believe are good talking points in arguing a case with the DOJ I generally PM to some of the senior members here. I always assume the DOJ is reading the posts here and may even be posting a few. Watch out for troll bait. :eek:


=vonsmith=

EricCartmanR1
07-05-2006, 2:02 PM
+1

I hope my posts are revealing only what is already obvious. The fact that the laws are largely incomprehensible to the majority is not a secret and is, in my mind, indefensible. I'd like to see the DOJ try. :cool:

The more "meaty" issues that I believe are good talking points in arguing a case with the DOJ I generally PM to some of the senior members here. I always assume the DOJ is reading the posts here and may even be posting a few. Watch out for troll bait. :eek:


=vonsmith=

DOJ runs this site. They do a pretty good job of turning gun owners against each other.

DrjonesUSA
07-05-2006, 2:29 PM
When I first joined and read hints that the DOJ was reading this site, I thought you guys were nuttier than squirrel turds.

Recently, I learned from a very reliable and trustworthy source that the CA DOJ is in fact monitoring this site and things mentioned on here DO get discussed at their meetings, both internally and with people at the capitol. (Sometimes they just laugh at the stuff posted here, but still....they ARE watching).

It would definitely behoove everyone to think twice before you post......

rkt88edmo
07-05-2006, 2:36 PM
It would definitely behoove everyone to think twice before you post......

Understatment of the year, even if the DOJ weren't watching.

grammaton76
07-05-2006, 3:41 PM
Hmm. So, it would be really amusing if folks were to apply for DOJ Firearms Division jobs. On the resume: "You've been reading my postings for a year as <x> on Calguns.net."

"Ah, this guy's borderline anti, let's hire him to keep the rest of them happy..."

vonsmith
07-05-2006, 3:47 PM
When I first joined and read hints that the DOJ was reading this site, I thought you guys were nuttier than squirrel turds.

Recently, I learned from a very reliable and trustworthy source that the CA DOJ is in fact monitoring this site and things mentioned on here DO get discussed at their meetings, both internally and with people at the capitol. (Sometimes they just laugh at the stuff posted here, but still....they ARE watching).

It would definitely behoove everyone to think twice before you post......
I wish some people would think even once. :D


=vonsmith=

DrjonesUSA
07-05-2006, 4:01 PM
I wish some people would think even once. :D


=vonsmith=



That's another huge, gaping understatement. :rolleyes:


:D

Nefarious
07-06-2006, 8:15 AM
Bottom line.. Short and sweet...:)

should this pass...

Lowers would need to have a welded or PERMANETLY attached mag?
Would that only apply to Newly acquired lowers? Purchased after law passed?
Assuming the above question is a "yes", wouldnt it make sence to stock up on some extra lowers now....

Seems I chose to come into the whole AR scene at a strange time in its li life :confused:

DrjonesUSA
07-06-2006, 9:06 AM
Bottom line.. Short and sweet...:)

should this pass...

Lowers would need to have a welded or PERMANETLY attached mag?
Would that only apply to Newly acquired lowers? Purchased after law passed?
Assuming the above question is a "yes", wouldnt it make sence to stock up on some extra lowers now....

Seems I chose to come into the whole AR scene at a strange time in its li life :confused:


Apparently this entire fiasco rests solely on the DOJ's definition of the word "permanent".

Gregas
07-06-2006, 9:25 AM
Bottom line.. Short and sweet...:)

should this pass...

Lowers would need to have a welded or PERMANETLY attached mag?

Seems I chose to come into the whole AR scene at a strange time in its li life :confused:

I'm not sure why people keep asserting that this would stop the flow of lowers or lowers would need to be welded. There is nothing wrong with having a detachable mag (unlisted) lower. It just can't have a pistol grip (or other "evil feature). A plain lower is fine. A full rifle with no PG/FH/CS/TS is fine. Until they list, you can buy as many as you want. The new regulation only affects fixed mag builds and, as another poster noted, hinges entirely on the undefined term "permanant".

Nefarious
07-06-2006, 9:48 AM
The new regulation only affects fixed mag builds...

Thats what I was getting at.
Purchasing X amount of lowers before the law goes into effect (assuming it does) ... allowing you X amount of builds that do NOT need "permanent" mags. Or am I way off in my thinking

6172crew
07-06-2006, 10:15 AM
I'm not sure why people keep asserting that this would stop the flow of lowers or lowers would need to be welded. There is nothing wrong with having a detachable mag (unlisted) lower. It just can't have a pistol grip (or other "evil feature). A plain lower is fine. A full rifle with no PG/FH/CS/TS is fine. Until they list, you can buy as many as you want. The new regulation only affects fixed mag builds and, as another poster noted, hinges entirely on the undefined term "permanant".

+1, you can keep buying the lowers and I think the gripless config. is becoming a better option.

Anyone who thinks a pistol grip makes a rifle any more deadly is an idiot, and they only need to look at the M14 and M1 Garand to see those won wars as well as a M16.

30.06 vs 5.56? what a bunch of mouth breathers.:rolleyes:

6172crew
07-06-2006, 10:18 AM
Thats what I was getting at.
Purchasing X amount of lowers before the law goes into effect (assuming it does) ... allowing you X amount of builds that do NOT need "permanent" mags. Or am I way off in my thinking

The AB2728 frame/receiver deal is what they want to use to get rid of our lowers and thats why its important to call your rep and tell them to vote no on AB2728 if they want to start calling frames as AWs.

xrMike
07-06-2006, 11:11 AM
Hey, does anybody know if the rules allow you to compete w/a gripless/detachable AR in Service Rifle matches? Does it say in the rules that you HAVE to have a pistol grip? Additionally, can you be truly competitive WITHOUT one?

Dont Tread on Me
07-06-2006, 11:38 AM
Hey, does anybody know if the rules allow you to compete w/a gripless/detachable AR in Service Rifle matches? Does it say in the rules that you HAVE to have a pistol grip? Additionally, can you be truly competitive WITHOUT one?

3 Gun at Chabot has let people shoot. I've seen Mudd use both his CA projects with great effect. Mudd let me try his "web" grip on a stage and it worked very well. Pleanty of control. So yes you can be competative.

I've also shot a stage with a fixed mag AR just for kicks. You are _not_ competive but you will make people smile when you reload!

My advice is to e-mail the match director before hand. Gripless is not a big deal but a fixed mag is. Most matches have a mag out and bolt back policy and people will shout if you walk around with a mag in. In my case I cleared it with the RO and did not uncase until I was on the firing line.

AxonGap
07-06-2006, 12:37 PM
The AB2728 frame/receiver deal is what they want to use to get rid of our lowers and thats why its important to call your rep and tell them to vote no on AB2728 if they want to start calling frames as AWs.

Wouldn't that open a registration period?

Nefarious
07-06-2006, 1:00 PM
Wouldn't that open a registration period?

Which would bring me back to part of my original question :)
with AB2728 or the hooplah over the addition of "capacity to accept" (again in a fix mag build up)... wouldnt it make sence to pick up some extra lowers before anything changes?
Edit: Im looking at it like a pre/post ban. Lowers purchased before the law cahnge would be "exempt" and not be required to have a permanent mag... in a fixed mag build; so long as a tool is still required to remove the mag

glockk9mm
07-06-2006, 3:55 PM
i dont kow if this was already asked,but does this mean that the mini-14 will be considered a AW?

blacklisted
07-06-2006, 4:00 PM
i dont kow if this was already asked,but does this mean that the mini-14 will be considered a AW?

Think about that for a minute.

Does the mini-14 have a capacity to accept a detachable magazine already? Yes.

Does it have any other evil features? No.

glockk9mm
07-06-2006, 4:15 PM
Think about that for a minute.

Does the mini-14 have a capacity to accept a detachable magazine already? Yes.

Does it have any other evil features? No.


sorry,but im not too familiar with the exsisting law, and kind of find this hard to understand. Does this new amendment there talking about only affect pistol grip rifles? Sorry for my idiotic question, but i need someone to help me understand.

blacklisted
07-06-2006, 4:21 PM
sorry,but im not too familiar with the exsisting law, and kind of find this hard to understand. Does this new amendment there talking about only affect pistol grip rifles? Sorry for my idiotic question, but i need someone to help me understand.

Basically, this would mean that in order for any rifle that has a pistol grip and/or any other evil features to have a fixed magazine would have to have the magazine permanently fixed in place. If all evil features are removed, then the magazine can remain detachable.

Since the mini-14 does not have any "evil features" besides the detachable magazine, it is not affected.





A semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of:

▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action

▪ a thumbhole stock or folding or telescopic stock;

▪ a flash suppressor, grenade launcher or flare launcher;

▪ a forward pistol grip.



A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with overall length of less than 30 inches;

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine holding over 10 rounds.

6172crew
07-06-2006, 4:35 PM
Wouldn't that open a registration period?

I see that it does, or are they going to come and kick down our doors @ 3am to take the lowers away?

They cant afford to buy them back at the cost we paid, including driving, taking time off work, lost sleep.(Im only joking Glen):cool:

glockk9mm
07-06-2006, 4:54 PM
Basically, this would mean that in order for any rifle that has a pistol grip and/or any other evil features to have a fixed magazine would have to have the magazine permanently fixed in place. If all evil features are removed, then the magazine can remain detachable.

Since the mini-14 does not have any "evil features" besides the detachable magazine, it is not affected.





A semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of:

▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action

▪ a thumbhole stock or folding or telescopic stock;

▪ a flash suppressor, grenade launcher or flare launcher;

▪ a forward pistol grip.



A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with overall length of less than 30 inches;

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine holding over 10 rounds.

thank you very much. now it's clearly understood by me.

bootcamp
07-07-2006, 3:00 PM
Why not just argue the fact that the OLLs cannot be altered to have fixed magazines due to safety issues when trying to clear FTEs, FTLs, FTFs? It's their own damn laws that they wrote that caused them to open a loophole in the system. It isn't our fault that they left a loophole and someone found it. Why should we pay the price for a fault they caused. If they didn't leave any loopholes, we wouldn't be in this situation with OLLs. They should pay the price not us.

juha_teuvonnen
07-07-2006, 3:15 PM
AFAIK the law can not be applied retroactively. I.E. If I buy an OLL today, and the legislature passes a law making them illegal tomorrow, I am not in violation af the law. When I bought an OLL it was legal, and it stays legal. I just won't be able to buy any more after they are outlawed.

bwiese
07-07-2006, 3:43 PM
Why not just argue the fact that the OLLs cannot be altered to have fixed magazines due to safety issues when trying to clear FTEs, FTLs, FTFs? It's their own damn laws that they wrote that caused them to open a loophole in the system.

Don't bother bringing this up, it'll just make you look like 'yet another redneck'.
The DOJ _wants_ people to bring up irrelevant crap like this to distract from the real issues (transition to AW status).

From a legal standpoint, it is absoultely irrelevant to the intent and consequences of the proposed regulatory change in 978.20.

JPglee1
07-07-2006, 3:51 PM
From a legal standpoint, it is absoultely irrelevant to the intent and consequences of the proposed regulatory change in 978.20.


Exactly.... Its irrelevant. You could opt to never build the receiver, which would make the FTF/FTE/Safety issue a non-starter...

Regardless of if you build the gun or not, the fact it has capacity to accept a detachable magazine is what matters... It could be a paper weight for ever, and still be affected by this debacle.



J

sigguy552
07-08-2006, 1:15 PM
Does anyone here recall the paratrooper SKS that was made illegal retroactively? I recall alot of individuals turning them in because they made it a felony after the fact. I think the same will happen with the OLL.

bwiese
07-08-2006, 2:34 PM
Does anyone here recall the paratrooper SKS that was made illegal retroactively? I recall alot of individuals turning them in because they made it a felony after the fact. I think the same will happen with the OLL.

That was not retroactive, you are mis-recalling the cases. It was not a 'paratrooper SKS', it was any 'SKS with detachable magazine'. The DOJ had orig said such SKSes were legal but after a lawsuit and court ruling, they were ruled illegal. To me, it was pretty clear that post-1989, any SKS w/detachable magazine was illegal and I wouldn't have had one. (Ones acquired before then could have been registered as assault weapons.)

Also, those SKS issues were pre-Harrott.