PDA

View Full Version : Where can I find a DoJ opinion...


FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-28-2006, 6:35 AM
...that an AR15 style firearm in a fixed magazine configuration (where you have to use a tool to remove the magazine) does not meet the statutory definition of assault weapon at PC 12276.1, even if the firearm has a pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc.? Is there such an opinion out there and where can it be found?

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2006, 9:12 AM
You can't. They do not want to tell you how to do it. This is part of their game. Heck, I bet Vulcan is probably really pissed at us right now because I bet after this thing comes out the DOJ will change their mind.

Don't assume the DOJ wants to help us out any. I don't think the like us and they want us to suffer and die if they could. The problem is, they can't.

As I have said before, if the DOJ knew what hey were doing they would simply do their job and not take any of this personally and just list them. For some reason they are taking it personally and playing games, games they are losing and will continue to lose. It could have something to do with the intoxication of power and control. They don't have us under control anymore. They don't have anyone under control anymore. So now they must resort to lashing out blindly with little to no effectiveness.

The only problem with that is one could surmize that they might do something really stupid in their desperation and that could be bad.

xenophobe
06-28-2006, 9:19 AM
Here's the Vulcan HAR-15 fixed mag letter:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6893/attachment4tu.jpg

Here's one for a fixed AK47:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a6/sac7000/DOJ_Aprovall_CAK47R_02.jpg

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-28-2006, 10:05 AM
Thanks guys, I was kind of tuned out when the last memo came out so I'm trying to get myself up to speed on the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" issue so I can evaluate the proposed regulation.

Would it be accurate to say that prior DoJ opinions dealt only with AR15 style firearms with "permanently" fixed magazines (Vulcan) or closed magwells (FAB10)?

Or in other words, has the DoJ issued or promulgated any written material that would lead one to believe that fixing a magazine on an AR15 style firearm using a kit (e.g., Sporting Conversions) would remove the firearm from the statutory definition of "assault weapon" at PC 12276.1, i.e., because the firearm would no longer have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine?

(By written material I mean something other than the regulatory definition of "detachable magazine" and any DoJ opinion letters concerning Vulcan or FAB 10 or similarly configured firearms.)

Here's another question: is there anything in the regulatory history of 11 CCR 978.20(a) (definition of "detachable magazine") to suggest that the DoJ considered any of the implications of the proposed regulatory definition as it might apply to AR15 style firearms with magazines fixed by use of a kit?

bwiese
06-28-2006, 10:16 AM
Fabio...

I believe there were some letters that approved non-FN FAL receivers with 'fixed' magazines that were retained by screw/locktite. I have not seen these letters however. Maybe someone can post it/them.

The fact that they are proposing new regulations shows the inadequacy of their existing defintions (for their goals). Several folks have told me that they have talked to DOJ agents (for what that's worth) both at DOJ, and in person in the field, that fixed mag setups "are currently legal".

The fact that a fixed-mag rifle cannot accept a detachable magazine (hey, it's got a fixed mag in there already!) - requires a 'construction' (removal of fixed mag) and the fact that the fixed mag is not detachable make the gun fall out of the defined generic AW category. This was info told to me by a gun lawyer. There's also the whole 'rule of lenity' issue about regulations that can be interpreted in two opposing ways (discussed in Harrott).

If something arose there would also be a fight over permanence - how is Vulcan with glue and pin any more or less not 'capable of accepting' than an OLL with locktited Sporting Conversions hardware? Especially as 'permanence' has been admitted to not being permanent by DOJ staff instructing folks it was legal to remove/replace mags on Vulcans to fix their lousy mags (and with no notice even to remove the pistol grip and/or telestock first).

6172crew
06-28-2006, 11:06 AM
how is Vulcan with glue and pin any more or less not 'capable of accepting' than an OLL with locktited Sporting Conversions hardware? Especially as 'permanence' has been admitted to not being permanent by DOJ staff instructing folks it was legal to remove/replace mags on Vulcans to fix their lousy mags (and with no notice even to remove the pistol grip and/or telestock first).

Thats what Id like to know.

xenophobe
06-28-2006, 12:52 PM
There is a DSArms SA58 California Legal DOJ opinion letter out there... I tried looking for it but couldn't find it... maybe someone here has one and can scan it... I tried looking, but after about a half hour, have given up.

PIRATE14
06-28-2006, 1:39 PM
There was the string on the SKS mag issue that evolved around "permanment", this was part of the DOJ addressing questions in the last rules / regs update.

blacklisted
06-28-2006, 2:18 PM
I wonder how the "good" folks at Evan's Gunsmithing/GB Sales will fare with their sealed magwells. Even though a plate is welded over the mouth of the mag well, they do state that the rifle can be returned to full functionality if the owner moves or sells the rifle out of state--ostensibly for a fee.

In my eyes, that's not a permanent modification if the mod is reversible. Given a few tools and some labor, the plate could be removed and the rifle would once again accept detachable magazines.

Strangely, the DoJ claimed in the last comment period that they agree "irreversible does not meen permanent" and that the "reasonable person" understands what "permanently altered" means. That's why they didn't define it (it was going to be the sixth defined term).



Comment

The use of the word "irreversible" in its definition, thus making it impossible to
"permanently alter" something, alters the meaning of the law, which DOJ does not have the authority to do.

Response

The Department agrees that the word "irreversible" is not synonymous with the word permanent". The Department has determined the phrase "permanently altered" as stated in PC section 12276.1(c)(2) is easily understood by reasonable people. Therefore, the Department believes further specificity is not necessary and has deleted the definition from its regulations.