PDA

View Full Version : NO JOKE! New DOJ Memo. Here comes a change in CCR!


tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 1:36 PM
Read it here. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awdefnotice0606.html

Title 11. Department of Justice Notice of Proposed Rulemaking


June 27, 2006

The Department of Justice ("Department" or "DOJ") proposes to amend Section 978.20 of Division 1, Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) regarding definitions of terms used to identify assault weapons after considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action.

INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

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."

AUTHORITY AND REFERENCE

Authority: Penal Code section 12276.5(i)
Reference: Penal Code sections 12276.1, 12276.5, 12280, 12285, and 12289

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.

DISCLOSURES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Department has made the following determinations:

Mandate on local agencies or school districts: None

Cost or savings to any state agency: None.

Cost to any local agency or school district which must be reimbursed in accordance with Government Code sections 17500 through 17630: None.

Other nondiscretionary cost or savings imposed on local agencies: None.

Cost or savings in federal funding to the state: None.

Significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states: None.

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.

Significant effect on housing costs: None.

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.

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

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.

CONTACT PERSONS

Please direct inquiries concerning the proposed administrative action to Jeff Amador at (916) 227-3661. The backup contact person is Troy Perry at (916) 227-3707. The mailing address for Jeff Amador and Troy Perry is:

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


AVAILABILITY OF RULEMAKING FILE INCLUDING THE INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND TEXT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS

The DOJ will have the entire rulemaking file available for inspection and copying throughout the rulemaking process. The initial statement of reasons and the text of proposed regulations are currently available at the DOJ website at http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/. You may also obtain copies by contacting Troy Perry at the telephone number or address listed above.

AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT

After considering all timely and relevant comments received, the Department may adopt the proposed regulations substantially as described in this notice. If the Department makes modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the modified text (with the changes clearly indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days before the Department adopts the regulations as revised. The Department will accept written comments on the modified text for 15 days after the date on which they are made available. Copies of any modified text will be available from the DOJ website at http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/. You may also obtain a written copy of any modified text by contacting Troy Perry at the telephone number or address above.

AVAILABILITY OF FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

Upon completion, the final statement of reasons will be available at the DOJ website at http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/. You may also obtain a written copy of the final statement of reasons by contacting Troy Perry at the telephone number or address above.

AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS ON THE INTERNET

Copies of the Notice of Proposed Action, the Initial Statement of Reasons, and the text of the regulations in strikeout format, as well as the Final Statement of Reasons once it is completed, can be accessed through the DOJ website at http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/.

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 1:39 PM
Your first dupe? :D I like your thread title best though!

6172crew
06-27-2006, 1:40 PM
Your calguns search -fu is weak glasshappa.

6172crew
06-27-2006, 1:41 PM
Your first dupe? :D I like your thread title best though!

Hes been waiting for 7 months to make that post, poor guy.:D

You got me by 1 min.:cool:

MaxQ
06-27-2006, 1:41 PM
No one is immune.

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 1:42 PM
Well, if 2728 passes, or the DoJ goes through with this regulation, he may be able to start up his scooter once again!

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 1:42 PM
This is not a dupe. The other thread says, "Ned DOJ info on AW's". The guy mispelled "Need". :D Use my thread from now on, it is properly titled!

Stanze
06-27-2006, 1:42 PM
OMG, that was so 3 hours ago.:rolleyes:

:p

chickenfried
06-27-2006, 1:46 PM
No, the thread is titled "DOJ making more noise.................."
This is not a dupe. The other thread says, "Ned DOJ info on AW's". The guy mispelled "Need". :D Use my thread from now on, it is properly titled!

Santa Cruz Armory
06-27-2006, 1:49 PM
So will this open a registration period for all the people that have purchased these firearms legally??:confused:

SemiAutoSam
06-27-2006, 1:52 PM
Personally I dont want AR regstration I want the LAW repealed Ive owned these kind of rifles for 30 years and I didn't rob a bank with it or shoot a cop or anything. The AW law is just total infringement on the rights of legal firearms owners. Criminals don't and won't try to purchase their firearms at a gun shop.

END OF STORY

Shane916
06-27-2006, 1:55 PM
So will this open a registration period for all the people that have purchased these firearms legally??:confused:

Hopefully!! Who knows?! :eek:

Blacktail 8541
06-27-2006, 1:58 PM
Doesn't matter that some one beat you to the post Ten%, Your thread title is better!

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 1:59 PM
Thanks Blacktail!

glen avon
06-27-2006, 2:01 PM
YO WES why are you not on your scooter on the way to sacto?

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 2:06 PM
YO WES why are you not on your scooter on the way to sacto?
That isn't until August 16th. This thing is full of as many holes as anything else they have done so far. I can't wait until they inadvertantly make all SKSs illegal. That will be fun times.

So what is the next step? How do we set up an effective comment letter campaign? Really we don't need a volume of letters do we? Just letters with good comments right? So what is the plan? Or do we just let them do this and then ask for our reg period?

leelaw
06-27-2006, 2:07 PM
YO WES why are you not on your scooter on the way to sacto?

He's testing the tinsel strength on his new 3-point, 3-rifle sling.;)

SemiAutoSam
06-27-2006, 2:12 PM
Wes your new jet powered scooter is ready.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/WesScooter.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/WesScooter2.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/WesScooter3.jpg

I didnt feel the yellow really shows your courage SO I painted it blue as shown.

Enjoy

glen avon
06-27-2006, 2:13 PM
How do we set up an effective comment letter campaign? Really we don't need a volume of letters do we? Just letters with good comments right? So what is the plan? Or do we just let them do this and then ask for our reg period?

just send good, appropriate, legitimate comments. more is better, but only if they are good. bad/ranting/off-point letters are counterproductive.

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 2:14 PM
I'd like to see how they intend to get 30,000+ receivers welded, and to overcome the issue of welding aluminum to steel, or welding a nut to the mag catch without destroying the thing. It's a delicate process. Of course, most people are going to go gripless anyway....And some will do nothing at all.

caduckgunner
06-27-2006, 2:15 PM
This is not a dupe. The other thread says, "Ned DOJ info on AW's". The guy mispelled "Need". :D Use my thread from now on, it is properly titled!

I fixed my screw up for ya:p

thmpr
06-27-2006, 2:24 PM
I'd like to see how they intend to get 30,000+ receivers welded, and to overcome the issue of welding aluminum to steel, or welding a nut to the mag catch without destroying the thing. It's a delicate process. Of course, most people are going to go gripless anyway....And some will do nothing at all.


Not only that, but maint. of the rifle especially when you want to send it out of state for repair/upgrade. How does this affect the us if we want to sell the it or move to another state. This is not right....but again we live in CA.:confused:

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 2:43 PM
Ok, I had flawed thinking earlier when I was pondering this, so someone help me make sure I am right. We can still buy and have OLLs as long as we don't have any of the evil features. So there will be no confiscation or loss of lowers, you will just have to strip it back down to where it has no evil features. I am thinking correctly right?

I still don't see how this thing isn't going to change the SKS. Not to mention what does "permanent" mean?

oni
06-27-2006, 2:51 PM
Not to mention what does "permanent" mean?

Thats up to the 58 DA's to decide.

SemiAutoSam
06-27-2006, 2:51 PM
Wouldn't you call a Mag-lock permanent ? if its welded or If permanent loctite is used on the thread ?

I suppose I would use the defense that HEY I used permanent loctite

"Permanent" means non removable right

and filling the allen wrench recess with epoxy would make it impossable to get a allen wrench into the nut to remove it.

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 2:54 PM
That is the problem, without defining permanent, they create another big huge :confused: . I know from talking to Michael at Sporting Conversions when he had a conversation with Allisson and Ignatus that they didn't consider loctite or epoxy permanent. Of course they don't make the law, they just give their opinions, which we all know the 58 DAs can just ignore those anyway.

6172crew
06-27-2006, 2:57 PM
Remember, the Vulcan was approved by the DOJ and look how permanent that mag is.:rolleyes:

xrMike
06-27-2006, 2:59 PM
Woah! This is like DejaVu all over again!

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 3:07 PM
That is the problem, without defining permanent, they create another big huge :confused: . I know from talking to Michael at Sporting Conversions when he had a conversation with Allisson and Ignatus that they didn't consider loctite or epoxy permanent. Of course they don't make the law, they just give their opinions, which we all know the 58 DAs can just ignore those anyway.

I posted my provisional comments that address these issues and more! :D

I'd like your input.

GJJ
06-27-2006, 3:11 PM
The insane part is that the law does not state anything about the requirement for the mag to be permanent. It just states that if the magazine needs a tool to be removed, it is not detachable.

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 3:13 PM
The insane part is that the law does not state anything about the requirement for the mag to be permanent. It just states that if the magazine needs a tool to be removed, it is not detachable.

Yes, but this would change that.

GJJ
06-27-2006, 3:43 PM
It seems to me they are overstepping the law. The law says a certain thing about what a detachable magazine is and is not. Their "new" definition goes beyond the law. This is actually making law independent of the legislature.

They can define the color green to be red. That does not make it so.

leelaw
06-27-2006, 3:59 PM
I still don't see how this thing isn't going to change the SKS. Not to mention what does "permanent" mean?

The SKS has a magazine that is detachable with the disassembly of the action of the firearm.

Therefore, the magazine will be considered "detachable" under the new regulation.

The SKS is specifically banned if it has a detachable magazine, as an assault weapon.

If the law is changed, SKSs are now banned, and will likely require confiscation/destruction.

6172crew
06-27-2006, 4:13 PM
It seems to me they are overstepping the law. The law says a certain thing about what a detachable magazine is and is not. Their "new" definition goes beyond the law. This is actually making law independent of the legislature.

They can define the color green to be red. That does not make it so.

Heres the thing that most guys dont understand, the DOj has been told by the lay makers that it is the job of the AG to keep the integrity of the AW laws that are on the books. So in fact they can change regs but must hold a public forum.

At least that is how I take this.

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 4:17 PM
If the law is changed, SKSs are now banned, and will likely require confiscation/destruction.Now you are going a little overboard there. They won't be in a big hurry to go out and confiscate or destroy the thousands upon thousands of SKSs in this state. Plus they might not be able to, they might have to open a registration period for all of us to register our SKSs. My opinion is the DOJ is treading on very dangerous ground if they go after everyone's SKSs. I am a little shocked they are messing with this now. I thought for sure they were just going to wait for Lockyer to get out first.

blkA4alb
06-27-2006, 4:32 PM
The SKS has a magazine that is detachable with the disassembly of the action of the firearm.

Therefore, the magazine will be considered "detachable" under the new regulation.

The SKS is specifically banned if it has a detachable magazine, as an assault weapon.

If the law is changed, SKSs are now banned, and will likely require confiscation/destruction.
No, they cannot just change the law and then confiscate/destroy any sks'. I bought my sks legally, if they change the law saying that these are now illegal they HAVE to open a registration period.

blkA4alb
06-27-2006, 4:33 PM
... Not to mention what does "permanent" mean?
As I said in the other thread ;)

Come on silly permanent means unable to :D .

I hope thats vague enough ;) .

Mirage
06-27-2006, 4:48 PM
No, they cannot just change the law and then confiscate/destroy any sks'. I bought my sks legally, if they change the law saying that these are now illegal they HAVE to open a registration period.
Yes, and I bought my Offlist lower legally, as per the definition of the law at the time. Now they are going to change the definition, and what? Confiscate/destroy, make me now modify it to meet the refined definition? Or now with the refined definition it has become an assault weapon and must be registered?

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 5:16 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.

Charliegone
06-27-2006, 5:41 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.

Good idea, lets stay quiet and see how things go.

gose
06-27-2006, 5:46 PM
Good idea, lets stay quiet and see how things go.

Heheh, and how likely is that to happen? ;)

leelaw
06-27-2006, 6:06 PM
Good idea, lets stay quiet and see how things go.

Heheh, and how likely is that to happen? ;)

Not to naysay about those who are fighting this, but I do not trust them to be effective on their own.

What would be more influential to the DOJ: a handful of people at the meeting, or a handful of people at the meeting PLUS a few hundred or thousand letters expressing their discontent?

bwiese
06-27-2006, 6:09 PM
Not to naysay about those who are fighting this, but I do not trust them to be effective on their own.

What would be more influential to the DOJ: a handful of people at the meeting, or a handful of people at the meeting PLUS a few hundred or thousand letters expressing their discontent?

True. But at the right time - toward 2nd week of August (or whenever the close of written comment periods).

Then we get a variety of well-spoken folks to go to Sacto...

grammaton76
06-27-2006, 6:11 PM
True. But at the right time - toward 2nd week of August (or whenever the close of written comment periods).

So, what you're saying is that you'd like to declare a "letter-mailing day" so that they get a metric crapload of letters at once?

Interesting idea, got a date in mind?

Mudvayne540ld
06-27-2006, 6:12 PM
yea!
I would write up a letter

crzpete
06-27-2006, 6:20 PM
yea!
I would write up a letter

Yes and please post for a copy

Jicko
06-27-2006, 6:33 PM
Emails are OK too?

anotherone
06-27-2006, 7:19 PM
Maybe we should set up a system similar to the NRA's "one click" letter or get some form letters on here. The NRA was very effective when they had a form letter that got sent thousands upon thousands of times to the UN. Might be worth a try.

6172crew
06-27-2006, 7:55 PM
Maybe we should set up a system similar to the NRA's "one click" letter or get some form letters on here. The NRA was very effective when they had a form letter that got sent thousands upon thousands of times to the UN. Might be worth a try.

I wonder if they would help us with that? Id like to know what Ed W. is thinking about this public forum, is anyone going to call him and get some NRA input?

NorCal MedTac
06-27-2006, 8:00 PM
I think I few good outlines of letters would be in order for those of us (like me, not too smart) to follow so we use the same points and are all on the same page.

Charliegone
06-27-2006, 9:06 PM
Hey man! You just don't run into battle you gotta plan ahead first.:D

xenophobe
06-27-2006, 9:36 PM
I think I few good outlines of letters would be in order for those of us (like me, not too smart) to follow so we use the same points and are all on the same page.

Bad idea.

For this, we want as many different and professionally formatted personal letters as people can think of to write...

If there is a form letter, and they see dozens of these, a few individual well thought letters might get thrown in the trash with the form letters. A point only needs to be sent in once. 10,000 letter saying the same thing is pointless in this matter.

Remember, this is not merely informing your representative of your views, but addressing a specific concern that the DOJ must respond to. One letter will do just as much as 10,000 of the same... so write a proper letter, and address their request for opposition to their rulemaking INDIVIDUALLY.

Writing one form letter for everyone on this issue would be BAD NEWS.

xenophobe
06-27-2006, 9:47 PM
Nothing like saying "Doh. I'll exercise my freedom of expression by letting someone else think for me." with a form letter.

A form letter is perfectly fine for addressing an issue to a representitive for State legislation.

For addressing a committee for arguement against their proposed regulations, it's an entirely different matter.

10,000 form letters can be ignored after they note the first one. 10,000 unique and individual responses to their proposed regulations must be addressed individually in committee and is open to public scrutiny.

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 10:30 PM
Ok, so we wait for next week so we can make templates that will address the main points and allow for individual additions that make them more personal. Now we are thinking. So everyone wait and lets hit this next week after we can get our acts together.

dawson8r
06-27-2006, 11:05 PM
Kind of like in college when you "borrow" a term paper to get some "ideas" to write your own paper. Since it worked in college, I'm willing to give it a try.

Someone suggested waiting until the 2nd week of August. I'd suggest a sticky thread get created around August 4 so the weekend of the 5th-6th can be a "draft" collection period (don't know about you but I seem to have more time on the weekends). Maybe some Admin help to narrow down and/or consolidate the suggestions/templates to about 5-6 then freeze the thread?

This should provide everybody the opportunity to read a few well thought out letter templates, mix and match to reflect their own views/opinions and a sufficient amount of time to put together their own personalized letter and get it mailed off.

podobo
06-28-2006, 8:19 AM
In addition by having everyone write their own letter will show that all of us have different concerns and confusions that this new proposal will cause. Hopefully causing them to clearly define things. I know I'm more confused now than I was before. :confused:

hoffmang
06-28-2006, 1:47 PM
My office and I will be making the trip. Its going to be fun meeting all of you.

We'll all be in suit and tie (a rarity around here.) I recommend others do so as well.

gose
06-28-2006, 2:08 PM
Cool, I was thinking of going in a suit as well... (but I do that way too often as it is)

killermarmot
06-28-2006, 3:51 PM
Problem is this still doesn't seal off things like just putting a nut on the end of the mag release. They make it clear that permanantley welded mags are legit but it doesn't seem to effect the wordage in there that defines the whole using a tool including a round to release the magazine. If they start dicking with that language then I'll get antsy.

6172crew
06-28-2006, 3:55 PM
Suggestions: If anyone has experience with DoJ or other law enforcement regulatory hearings, please comment whether I got it all wrong. Also, we should ask those people who are in regular contact with gun law attorneys (like bwiese or artherd) to ask the attorneys whether having a large turnout at the hearing would have any effect at all.

+1 We need some help from a few pros, this means alot to me and would make my stay here in my home state much better if I able to build up without going to jail.

killermarmot
06-28-2006, 3:59 PM
Wait a second that says add a sixth condition, there are already six conditions
A)pistol grip
b)thumbhole
c)folding stock
d)grenade launcher
e)flash suppressor
f)forward pistol grip

unless I've lost my ability to count that would mean they're making it seven criteria and re-writing the AWB to ban all semi-auto centerfire rifles that have ANY of the features, unless they were to switch over to previous federal ban of both. Granted it's just an info bulletin and they would have to write entirely new AW legislation which would mean going through a whole new AW reg period for probably hundreds of thousands of firearms.

But read it over and please correct me if i'm wrong but if they take the terminology "capacity to accept a detachable magazine out of the (1) criteria and make it a lettered criteria, they just banned all semiauto rifles

Ok I'm off to form a new and better tin foil hat.

gose
06-28-2006, 4:18 PM
Problem is this still doesn't seal off things like just putting a nut on the end of the mag release. They make it clear that permanantley welded mags are legit but it doesn't seem to effect the wordage in there that defines the whole using a tool including a round to release the magazine. If they start dicking with that language then I'll get antsy.

Yeah, they really added to the confusion.

A rifle with a tool-release mag would be considered illegal since it does have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine if you remove the tool-release, but then they just banned a lot of legally owned rifles that was previously legally built using DOJ's own guidelines.

Or is a rifle with a tool-release magazine not capable of accepting a detachable magazine?

I have no idea...

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2006, 4:33 PM
Wait a second that says add a sixth condition, there are already six conditions
A)pistol grip
b)thumbhole
c)folding stock
d)grenade launcher
e)flash suppressor
f)forward pistol grip

unless I've lost my ability to count that would mean they're making it seven criteria and re-writing the AWB to ban all semi-auto centerfire rifles that have ANY of the features, unless they were to switch over to previous federal ban of both. Granted it's just an info bulletin and they would have to write entirely new AW legislation which would mean going through a whole new AW reg period for probably hundreds of thousands of firearms.

But read it over and please correct me if i'm wrong but if they take the terminology "capacity to accept a detachable magazine out of the (1) criteria and make it a lettered criteria, they just banned all semiauto rifles

Ok I'm off to form a new and better tin foil hat.I am sorry to break this to you, but you are mistaken. The sixth term is in CCR 980.20 found here (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/sb23.htm). They are not changing PC 12276.1, they are changing their own definitions that they set back in 2000 when the first ban took effect.

You do bring up a valid concern that this is going to only get more confusing and cause more problems for law abiding citizens.

hoffmang
06-28-2006, 4:36 PM
My intent to be physically present is to only support a long letter that will already be on file.

One would be surprised what a well possessed audience that is clearly in opposition to the hearing in question does for the attitude of future regulation.

I want it clear that there are enough people serious enough to hold our public officials accountable all the way.

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2006, 4:39 PM
I think we should all show up to the meeting for no other reason than to get all of us who have been typing our lives away on here in support of this whole process together and have a great time! It is a little premature, but I most certainly think this thing should turn into the OLL get together that we orginally intended to have when we started getting everything together in December and January.

That is my plan, I want to meet everyone and even if they use my written comments more than my audible comments, I still plan on trying to organize a big get together for us. If that includes a shoot that afternoon at a local range, then lets do it. Now no one start running your mouths about the DOJ showing up and busting us as I don't want to be busted and they might be crazy enough to do it.

Jicko
06-28-2006, 5:09 PM
I think we should all show up to the meeting for no other reason than to get all of us who have been typing our lives away on here in support of this whole process together and have a great time! It is a little premature, but I most certainly think this thing should turn into the OLL get together that we orginally intended to have when we started getting everything together in December and January.

Bring the OLLs too? Show them how "evil" they are stripped?

Tailgate BBQ, scooter races, t-shirts selling etc.... :D

Comstock Lode
06-28-2006, 5:30 PM
Well, I guess I'm still thinking that the receiver can't accept a detachable magazine if it already has a fixed magazine in place (meaning a magazine that requires a tool to release it).

Has it been "permanently" modified such that it can't accept a detachable magazine with the pin/lock-nut magazine capture device? The permanence analogy with the magazine capacity limitation of 10 rounds is not directly on point because of the definition of the "detachable magazine" that allows a bullet be used as tool to comply with the "non-detachable" definition.

I've been trying to think of a "permanent" mag release design that would require a bullet to release the magazine... perhaps simply cutting the threaded portion of the mag release short enough that to push it open you would have to stick a bullet tip in the hole (maybe even make the hole smaller) or open the receiver to push it with a screwdriver or something?

gose
06-28-2006, 5:44 PM
I think we should all show up to the meeting for no other reason than to get all of us who have been typing our lives away on here in support of this whole process together and have a great time! It is a little premature, but I most certainly think this thing should turn into the OLL get together that we orginally intended to have when we started getting everything together in December and January.

That is my plan, I want to meet everyone and even if they use my written comments more than my audible comments, I still plan on trying to organize a big get together for us. If that includes a shoot that afternoon at a local range, then lets do it. Now no one start running your mouths about the DOJ showing up and busting us as I don't want to be busted and they might be crazy enough to do it.

Lets make sure the shoot is after the meeting, just in case ;)

Comstock Lode
06-28-2006, 5:46 PM
...but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.

We're clear, it does not include permanently altered receivers (FAB 10, etc.). How about alterations that fix the mag, requiring a tool to remove? Are we supposed to assume that if a tool is required to restore it to being capable of accepting a detachable that this is not permanent and therefore has the capacity to accept?

Comstock Lode
06-28-2006, 5:49 PM
And what is permanent anyway, a tool such as a bullet constitutes the difference between a "permanent detachable" vs "permanent non-detachable" magazine design, so, logically, if a tool is required, then it is permanent.

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2006, 5:51 PM
These are all good questions to ask when you write your comment letter.

SMOKYNSB
06-28-2006, 5:54 PM
So can we still buy OLL's this week?:confused:
How does this affect the purchaser wanting to buy right now?

So far an interesting disussion........

6172crew
06-28-2006, 6:00 PM
So can we still buy OLL's this week?:confused:
How does this affect the purchaser wanting to buy right now?

So far an interesting disussion........

Sure you can buy a lower, this crap wont be talked about until Aug 17th.

anotherone
06-28-2006, 6:18 PM
Can we still build up lowers into fixed magazine rifles? Or would it now be best to build them only as gripless builds?

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2006, 6:26 PM
Can we still build up lowers into fixed magazine rifles? Or would it now be best to build them only as gripless builds?I know what the law says. It says a detachable magazine is defined as needing neither disassembly of the action nor the use of a tool to remove the magazine. I have built up two of my OLLs and they require the use of a tool to remove the magazine, so they are not detachable magazine rifles so PC 12276.1 does not apply. Of course any of the 58 DAs could disagree, but I live in Kern County so I know my DA doesn't care. Last I checked he was trying to prosecute real criminals.

A good source for OLLs is www.coldwarshooters.com. They have transfer dealers just about everywhere. If you don't mind driving to Taft I can take care of you too.

Boy wouldn't it be a shame if this new deadline created another lower rush? :D

NorCal MedTac
06-28-2006, 6:31 PM
Ok, so we wait for next week so we can make templates that will address the main points and allow for individual additions that make them more personal. Now we are thinking. So everyone wait and lets hit this next week after we can get our acts together.

Thats exactly what I meant and a perfect example of why some of us (read me) need a little help writing a letter.

grammaton76
06-28-2006, 6:39 PM
Can we still build up lowers into fixed magazine rifles? Or would it now be best to build them only as gripless builds?

As 10% said, as the law is presently written, you're fine with the standard mag locks. But if you wanna be a little more paranoid, you can go the SRB / Monsterman route. That seems to be the route the DOJ favors, as they've stated that they're legal when gripless, regardless of how they wish they'd defined detachable mags in the first place.

hoffmang
06-28-2006, 10:42 PM
In fact, there are very good reasons why it may be very important that you build up your stripped lowers into fixed magazine builds before the mid-august date.

PLINK
06-29-2006, 1:11 AM
I think we should all show up to the meeting for no other reason than to get all of us who have been typing our lives away on here in support of this whole process together and have a great time! It is a little premature, but I most certainly think this thing should turn into the OLL get together that we orginally intended to have when we started getting everything together in December and January.

That is my plan, I want to meet everyone and even if they use my written comments more than my audible comments, I still plan on trying to organize a big get together for us. If that includes a shoot that afternoon at a local range, then lets do it. Now no one start running your mouths about the DOJ showing up and busting us as I don't want to be busted and they might be crazy enough to do it.

I just received notice that my request for this day off is approved. I am definately going to the meeting and a gathering afterwards would be cool.

Randomebayguy
06-29-2006, 11:21 AM
i too will be at the meeting. :o)

will be writing a letter as wel but wanna have a few ppls look at it first.

wayoutwest
06-29-2006, 12:02 PM
INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

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."



wont this also shut off the import of stripped lowers since they all are capable of accommodating a detachable magazine even if they are off list?

blacklisted
06-29-2006, 12:08 PM
wont this also shut off the import of stripped lowers since they all are capable of accommodating a detachable magazine even if they are off list?

No, because a stripped lower does not have a pistol grip or any other "features".

gose
06-29-2006, 12:35 PM
Wonder how all the companies with lowers on the list will take this, since by not listing they're blocking a few companies to sell their products here, while allowing others to continue to sell a pretty much identical product...

Aren't there any laws against that? :)

GJJ
06-29-2006, 1:01 PM
If you think about it, almost any gun has the CAPACITY to accept a detachable magazine if you add/subtract enough parts. I have made a decision to keep my gun with a pistol grip and 10 round mag that is bolted into the gun. It takes a tool to remove the mag.

It will not accept a detachable mag the way it is built. I frankly don't care what they try to do to torture the english language in their silly definitions. They can define my gun as a WMD. But, that does not make it one. My gun meets their unconstitutional law and I am not changing it.

grammaton76
06-29-2006, 3:38 PM
Wonder how all the companies with lowers on the list will take this, since by not listing they're blocking a few companies to sell their products here, while allowing others to continue to sell a pretty much identical product...

Aren't there any laws against that? :)

I've been saying this for a while... all we really need is Armalite / Colt / HK etc to challenge the current state of things. Considering the DOJ's stated positions about not listing, and their desire to rely solely upon SB-23, they should "update" the by-name list by removing everything from it. Not just the AR/AK list, all the lists.

It's the only way for them to not be discriminating based upon brand.

kenc9
06-29-2006, 5:10 PM
What does ths mean?

The proposed definition will add clarity to the existing statutes but will not change or affect their current application and enforcement.

Is this the same as this (f) will have no effect of AWs laws but was added to clarify it only?

-ken

bbq_ribs
06-29-2006, 9:39 PM
I just received notice that my request for this day off is approved. I am definately going to the meeting and a gathering afterwards would be cool.

I think that we need a sticky thread about who is going up there, and where we oughta meet/etc.

There is a new Pyramid Alehouse up there. I LOVE that place. LOVE. It gets my vote. It's on K Street.

Mudvayne540ld
06-30-2006, 12:24 AM
If you think about it, almost any gun has the CAPACITY to accept a detachable magazine if you add/subtract enough parts. I have made a decision to keep my gun with a pistol grip and 10 round mag that is bolted into the gun. It takes a tool to remove the mag.

It will not accept a detachable mag the way it is built. I frankly don't care what they try to do to torture the english language in their silly definitions. They can define my gun as a WMD. But, that does not make it one. My gun meets their unconstitutional law and I am not changing it.

Same here.

hoffmang
06-30-2006, 12:29 AM
There is an interesting commerce case for one of the banned lower manufacturers to make a commerce clause claim of discrimination against their goods. It would be an even stronger case if there was a California supplier of OLL's...

bwiese
06-30-2006, 1:33 AM
There is an interesting commerce case for one of the banned lower manufacturers to make a commerce clause claim of discrimination against their goods. It would be an even stronger case if there was a California supplier of OLL's...

No, because the existing mfgrs can readily rename their product.

Already Colt has one or two models of off-list lowers.

Bushmaster could have a PDQ-15.

rhunter
06-30-2006, 5:34 PM
Anyone else get an unsolicited letter regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking from the DOJ? I got one today.

Guess they have names and addresses.

Roger

Crazed_SS
06-30-2006, 6:07 PM
Anyone else get an unsolicited letter regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking from the DOJ? I got one today.

Guess they have names and addresses.

Roger

I didnt get one..

I wonder if they're sending these letters to owners of OLLs.. Do you own an off-list lower? I'd be sorta concerned.

blacklisted
06-30-2006, 6:27 PM
Anyone else get an unsolicited letter regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking from the DOJ? I got one today.

Guess they have names and addresses.

Roger

When and where did you buy your first off-list lower? PM me if you'd like.

Also, are you a LEO?

jemaddux
06-30-2006, 7:01 PM
Anyone else get an unsolicited letter regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking from the DOJ? I got one today.

Guess they have names and addresses.

Roger

That would be kind of interesrting on how that would happen. When the DROS information is put in it only gives the option of this is a Long Gun sale. It never asks "what" your buying. There would be no way for DOJ to actually know you are buying a off list unless they went into the dealer and checked his books and so on. I know this did this to a couple dealers but DOJ never took copies of anything so I don't see them really doing that either.

Did you send in an email or something regarding a question on the OLLs or something?

bwiese
06-30-2006, 7:01 PM
I wouldn't doubt they have a few thousand names before they gave up logging all the 4473/DROS data.

rhunter
06-30-2006, 8:26 PM
I bought an Amtec from 6712Crew's guy in Martinez and a Fulton Armory in Milpitas.
I am not LEO.
I have not had any correspondence regarding the OLL issue.
The only correspondence was to transfer a handgun from my mom about 2 years ago.

blacklisted
06-30-2006, 8:31 PM
I bought an Amtec from 6712Crew's guy in Martinez and a Fulton Armory in Milpitas.
I am not LEO.
I have not had any correspondence regarding the OLL issue.
The only correspondence was to transfer a handgun from my mom about 2 years ago.

Milpitas would certainly explain it (it was early on, and they may have checked records during the seizure).

NoTime2Shoot
06-30-2006, 8:39 PM
Anyone else from a Milpitas buy get one?

Which buy were you in rhunter?

rhunter
06-30-2006, 8:54 PM
My wife works for a federal agency that works with the State of California on regulatory issues. She deals with these comment periods all the time. Her advice to me on how to make an impression:

Flood them with letters. Even if you can only send a generic letter that someone posts here and you SIGN and SEND. They have to tally and take all correspondence into consideration. Multiple letters have the “weight effect.” They cannot just throw them away. Send certified if you are worried about this.

If you are like me, send a personal letter, but follow this general format. Letters should have several parts to give them more gravity.

1. Introduction (I object, I concur with the point being made,
2. You credentials/qualifications (sportsman, law abiding, etc)
3. Short and succinct points of objection, use bullet points,
Ex. Unclear to what the intent the change is, Intent is unsupported, history of issue, why promulgation of change now, legislation does not support this change, what effect will this have regarding the intent of the legislation, I fear it and why, Goal of legislation does not support what the change will achieve.
4. Propose alternatives. (Just for this issue, not all of ugly gun law)

Other ways to get more attention and turn the heat up:
Notify the media. (May not be a good idea in our situation?)
Notify our lobbyist (NRA, CPRA)

This is not giving anything away to the DOJ, these are standards that the bureaucrats like, but do not expect from the public. Every agency is different; some read the letters as they come in, some wait until the end. It really depends upon who is working on the issue and other workload issues. Flooding them with letters at the end of the cycle may or may not have the desired effect.

rhunter
06-30-2006, 9:01 PM
Anyone else from a Milpitas buy get one?

Which buy were you in rhunter?

The Group Buy right before that lot of lowers got pinched by the state.

Roger

adamsreeftank
06-30-2006, 9:09 PM
Anyone else get an unsolicited letter regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking from the DOJ? I got one today.

Guess they have names and addresses.

Roger

Can you scan your letter and poste a picture of it? I'd like to see it.

bwiese
06-30-2006, 9:21 PM
I can understand the highly audited FFLs (Wes @10%, and ColdWar and Milpitas) having some 4473/DROS info transcribed during late Dec/early Jan, in anticipation of mailing out "these need to be registered" letters.

However, my buddy just got one as well. He has not purchased any OLLs, just a handgun recently, and has 2 reg'd ARs from 1999.

I think they are mailing these out also to reg'd AW owners.

blacklisted
06-30-2006, 9:30 PM
Can you scan your letter and poste a picture of it? I'd like to see it.

dwtt got one as well:

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

rhunter
06-30-2006, 9:31 PM
Here is page 1, the rest are just like the web site. Hope you can see the attached, 1st time I've managed an attachment.

Roger

rhunter
06-30-2006, 9:34 PM
I can understand the highly audited FFLs (Wes @10%, and ColdWar and Milpitas) having some 4473/DROS info transcribed during late Dec/early Jan, in anticipation of mailing out "these need to be registered" letters.

However, my buddy just got one as well. He has not purchased any OLLs, just a handgun recently, and has 2 reg'd ARs from 1999.

I think they are mailing these out also to reg'd AW owners.


Didn't think about that. I also bought an M1A and reg'd a .50 cal earlier this year.

vonsmith
06-30-2006, 9:40 PM
I wonder if this is the other shoe dropping I've been waiting for? :cool:

For good or ill this should be interesting.


=vonsmith=

HKdude
06-30-2006, 9:50 PM
I can understand the highly audited FFLs (Wes @10%, and ColdWar and Milpitas) having some 4473/DROS info transcribed during late Dec/early Jan, in anticipation of mailing out "these need to be registered" letters.

However, my buddy just got one as well. He has not purchased any OLLs, just a handgun recently, and has 2 reg'd ARs from 1999.

I think they are mailing these out also to reg'd AW owners.

I have several registered AW's and OLL and I haven't got anything yet. I feel left out:mad:

Steve

edit: I got mine from 10% and BSP

tenpercentfirearms
06-30-2006, 11:35 PM
Hell I sell OLLs and I never got a letter. I think they cross referenced people who post on here a lot and didn't bother sending us one. They know everything! :D All your base are belong to DOJ!

50BMGBOB
07-01-2006, 12:13 AM
I got a letter and so did my wife. She has never bought a gun but I did co-register her on my 50BMG. I bet anyone that got one has a registered assult weapon or 50BMG.

Nefarious
07-01-2006, 5:51 AM
All your base are belong to DOJ!

I wonder how many people are going to get that :) :) :)

Fate
07-01-2006, 8:11 AM
I wonder how many people are going to get that :) :) :)
If they spend any time online: 90%

chris
07-01-2006, 9:27 AM
I got a letter and so did my wife. She has never bought a gun but I did co-register her on my 50BMG. I bet anyone that got one has a registered assult weapon or 50BMG.

i guess my letter will be sitting at my house until i get home. if they sent a letter out to people with registered AW's. i never even bought an OLL. i haven't been home to do so anyway.
can anyone post a copy of this letter?

ldivinag
07-01-2006, 10:39 AM
the letter is exactly what wes posted on post #1.

i was surpised as heck too...

i FFL'ed from the san jose place late dec, early jan. but i also reg'ed 2 50's so....

Randomebayguy
07-03-2006, 9:48 AM
I wonder how many people are going to get that :) :) :)

i got it. :)

tenpercentfirearms
07-04-2006, 9:40 AM
Thanks DOJ! They read I hadn't received one yet and I promptly got one when I got back from the mountains today. Thank you for sending me the exact same thing that is on your website.

6172crew
07-04-2006, 9:50 AM
Thanks DOJ! They read I hadn't received one yet and I promptly got one when I got back from the mountains today. Thank you for sending me the exact same thing that is on your website.

We need to make photocopies of the letter and post it at every gun show and gun shop, it time to get the word out. :cool:

Mudvayne540ld
07-04-2006, 5:26 PM
agree

Ill try to see if some local gun shops will put it up :)

sac7000
07-04-2006, 5:52 PM
agree

Ill try to see if some local gun shops will put it up :)

Gun shops, local newspapers, on every bulletin board in every laundrymat, public restrooms, on your car, your neighbor's car, telephone poles, tent poles and pole cats. . And anywhere else that somebody might see who is thinking about someday owning a cool looking black rifle with a pistol grip just like the one John Rambo used to rescue his buddies. In other words, make it public, very public.

grammaton76
07-05-2006, 1:54 PM
We need to make photocopies of the letter and post it at every gun show and gun shop, it time to get the word out. :cool:

Better still, come up with "our version" of it - where it details the way things stand, as well as the way California wants to make it. If you just post the DOJ's memo, all that's going to happen is that the Elmer Fudds will go, "yep, see, them thar aysault wuppins is still banned!"

There are still people out there who haven't heard yet about off-list rifles.

The guy who did the layout on the AR flier in my sig does great work - if somebody wants to put together some nice text on it, perhaps we could hassle him to lay out another version, slanted at motivating people to write their representatives, etc.