PDA

View Full Version : Clearing up the Confusion: DOJ Proposed Definition Addition


TKo_Productions
07-03-2006, 1:44 AM
There’s been a number of posts where people have misconstrued the DOJ’s proposed definition addition.

The CaDOJ’s proposed rulemaking found here:

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

would amend the California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 978.20 found here:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/sb23.htm

Instead of being (a) through (e):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/tkoproductions/ccr01.jpg

It would read (a) through (f), with (f) being the new proposed definition:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/tkoproductions/ccr02.jpg

This would not amend penal code section 12276.1 (the features ban). This section of the law would remain untouched:

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.

Such a change would require a bill proposed by either the state senate or assembly.

jemaddux
07-03-2006, 6:18 AM
I am not following what differance this would make? I pretty much thought we were all on the same page that by adding the "F" as you pointed out here would make it so we wouldn't be able to have the ARs like we have them now with the kits on them. We would have to do something that would destroy the firearm. Its something I am not willing to do with mine. I like to have the opition of changing it back to a mag release if I am out of this "Peoples Republic State". I work in the largest industry of lefts that there is in California. I work for the studios full time and do the firearms sales part time. You should hear what is said about people that own firearms. I have seen people have to leave because they get so scared of them around, like they are going to jump off the table and attack, this is what they have been told growing up. You'll hear "I'm a anti gun person that hasn't been mugged yet", in other words, once they get mugged then they will want a firearm. What kind of thinking is this?? A very uneducated one is my feeling. This "F" line will be a start of many more to come taking more and more away. If they can get this one line added when do you think they will stop? Ok, off my soap box now. Let me say this tho "HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY" tomorrow, spend the day thinking about what our fathers of this country did to give us our rights that make this the greatest nation under God and then think about what they are doing to take it all away.

chris
07-03-2006, 6:46 AM
the answer to this? they will never stop till all firearms are outlawed then they may stop.

Forever-A-Soldier
07-03-2006, 8:41 AM
This whole thing doesn't really seem to change a thing as they left definition (a) intact. So (f) would technically read:

(f) "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", as meaning "capable of accommodating a [(detachable magazine =)... 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.], but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permenantly altered so that it can not accommodate a detachable magazine.

Therefore 12276.1. reads:

(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the (capablility of accommodating a 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... ) 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.

Everyone else reading this the same way I am?

F.A.S. Out

vonsmith
07-03-2006, 8:44 AM
the answer to this? they will never stop till all firearms are outlawed then they may stop.
+1

Does the language add clarification or more restriction? Who knows what "permanently altered" means? I guess it's obvious to the most casual observer? I don't think so. Nothing is permanent. I think the DOJ is trying to force gun owners into buying pre-configured guns straight from the OEM. If things keep up this way that is the only gun configuration that you can be nearly certain is legal. Well unless you bought a Robinson Arms M96 a couple of years ago. But that is a different story.


=vonsmith=

DRH
07-03-2006, 9:08 AM
This whole thing doesn't really seem to change a thing as they left definition (a) intact. So (f) would technically read:

(f) "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", as meaning "capable of accommodating a [(detachable magazine =)... 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.], but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permenantly altered so that it can not accommodate a detachable magazine.

Therefore 12276.1. reads:

(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the (capablility of accommodating a 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... ) 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.

Everyone else reading this the same way I am?

F.A.S. Out

Your revised 12276 is the true intent of the legislature when passing SB23, but the DOJ is trying to redfine the definition from "disassembly of action and tool" to permanently fixed by welding or such other permanent methods. This is a giant change on intent and definition, but they are saying that they are just clarifiing the existing definition (no change = no registration period).
I just wonder whether they have to consider the public comments and take them into account or whether this has already been decided and the process is just a show for the public. Either way, understand the stituation and write a letter or two.

DrjonesUSA
07-03-2006, 9:53 AM
Your revised 12276 is the true intent of the legislature when passing SB23, but the DOJ is trying to redfine the definition from "disassembly of action and tool" to permanently fixed by welding or such other permanent methods. This is a giant change on intent and definition, but they are saying that they are just clarifiing the existing definition (no change = no registration period).

That's the real issue, right?

Thanks for clearing it up.



I just wonder whether they have to consider the public comments and take them into account or whether this has already been decided and the process is just a show for the public. Either way, understand the stituation and write a letter or two.


Is that a joke?

Our "comments" are not worth squat to the DOJ or any of the other statist thugs we have in both elected and unelected offices.

Do you really think Koretz would change his vote even if he got 10,000 separate pro-gun letters?

30,000?

What makes you think the DOJ would change their intentions?

DRH
07-03-2006, 10:00 AM
What makes you think the DOJ would change their intentions?

The light of day on their cheezy attempted redefinition, public pressure and outcry, public defiance on the final product?? I don't know enough about the process, maybe the outcome has already been decided and maybe it has not. Letters can not hurt and they are very cheap.

KLABruin
07-03-2006, 10:08 AM
Maybe I am just dense, but I don’t see how this definition changes anything. My interpretation is…They are just saying a “permanently altered” firearm does not have the “capacity to accept a detachable magazine.” Isn’t that how everyone is already interpreting the law? All this does is give some added protection to “permanently altered” firearms form overly zealous DAs.

It is not like it says; “only permanently altered firearms do not have the capacity to accept detachable magazines.” Or is there some weird legal meaning to “but shall not be construed” that I am missing?

kenc9
07-03-2006, 1:29 PM
Go here, http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ISOR0606.pdf
DOJ says,

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

I said this from the time I read it. This is just like when they said the AR/AK series has always been illegal! And they are right! But until they update the list these are not considered AR/AK series weapons.

This does nothing to our OLL's like I have said a few times before.

Nothing will change until the Fresno DA has his court case with the AG over the assault weapons law.

No telling how that will end up.

-ken

jemaddux
07-03-2006, 2:22 PM
Go here, http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ISOR0606.pdf
DOJ says,

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

I said this from the time I read it. This is just like when they said the AR/AK series has always been illegal! And they are right! But until they update the list these are not considered AR/AK series weapons.

This does nothing to our OLL's like I have said a few times before.

Nothing will change until the Fresno DA has his court case with the AG over the assault weapons law.

No telling how that will end up.

-ken


This will effect the OLLs in every way. As long as you leave them as paper weights you have no problem. Now if you build them, according to the new wording "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" would mean unless they were welded they would be illegal. DOJ is saying that we are "ALTERING" the firearm from what it is meant to be and there for they still with use of tools or not will have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" and are then illegal to own unless you have a AW permit. I just had a very long phone meeting with the people writing all this and this is what they explained.:mad:

Chaingun
07-03-2006, 2:39 PM
This will effect the OLLs in every way. As long as you leave them as paper weights you have no problem. Now if you build them, according to the new wording "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" would mean unless they were welded they would be illegal. DOJ is saying that we are "ALTERING" the firearm from what it is meant to be and there for they still with use of tools or not will have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" and are then illegal to own unless you have a AW permit. I just had a very long phone meeting with the people writing all this and this is what they explained.:mad:

But what they have conveyed to you is still confusing. A weld can be cut, likewise a Fab10 can be cut to accept a detachable magazine. Are they also banning all Fab10 rifles?

Additionally, you just received a verbal communication which amounts to nothing. Get it in writing.

Isn't the DOJ getting a little obsessive over this fixed mag rifle thing?

TKo_Productions
07-03-2006, 2:50 PM
From:

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ISOR0606.pdf

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/tkoproductions/alternatives.jpg

No other reasonable alternatives were presented or considered? Bull$h*t, how about following the Harrott decision and listing?

That seems to be a helluva lot less convoluted then the proposed definition.

And by the way, when exactly did they open up a hearing to accept these proposed alternatives? I sure wasn’t notified.

jemaddux
07-03-2006, 3:13 PM
But what they have conveyed to you is still confusing. A weld can be cut, likewise a Fab10 can be cut to accept a detachable magazine. Are they also banning all Fab10 rifles?

Additionally, you just received a verbal communication which amounts to nothing. Get it in writing.

Isn't the DOJ getting a little obsessive over this fixed mag rifle thing?


It has been put in writing over and over again.

From the May 9th Memo:

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any of the generic features listed in Penal Code §12276.1(a)(1) is contraband unless it was registered prior to January 1, 2001.

(Side note, also provided they have any of the evil features)

Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state.


From current information:

noted below under “Technical, Theoretical, and/or Empirical Study, Reports, or Documents Relied Upon”, the proposed definition is derived virtually word for word from the statutory definition of the very similar term "capacity to accept more than 10 rounds." Therefore, it should be abundantly clear that the proposed definition is completely consistent with the original intent of the California legislature.


What they are and have been trying to say is that the rifles have the "capacity to accept" more then 10 rounds the way that they are. Yes, you are correct even welded they could be cut and so on but that would most likely destroy the rifle doing so. There have been a few letters from DOJ stating that they have to be welded, apoxy was not exceptable but that is still up in the air. They are really just playing a game with words. They are saying this could mean this and this could mean that, right now this is like art and its all in the eyes of the beholder.

kenc9
07-03-2006, 3:17 PM
This will effect the OLLs in every way. As long as you leave them as paper weights you have no problem. Now if you build them, according to the new wording "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" would mean unless they were welded they would be illegal. DOJ is saying that we are "ALTERING" the firearm from what it is meant to be and there for they still with use of tools or not will have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" and are then illegal to own unless you have a AW permit. I just had a very long phone meeting with the people writing all this and this is what they explained.:mad:
Nope, this (f) talks about IF you have a detachable mag. and according to (a)you do not have a detachable Mag. IF it takes a tool or you have to take it apart to remove it.
(f) tells you about something IF (a) is not conformed to. It is double talk, confusing and will help the court case when the DA has his day in court.

If this meant what you are saying it conflicts with (a) and in the DOJ's own words this does not change application or enforcement.

Don't jump to conclusions...read the PDF...then tell me how it doesn't mean what they say (DOJ).

You are adding the words weld, and altering, it doesn't say that anywhere.

It does say...DOJ's words...
"""The proposed definition will add clarity to the existing statutes but will not change or affect their current application and enforcement."""

Read the Initial Statement of Reasons
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ISOR0606.pdf
Necessity
It has come to the Department’s attention that many gun enthusiasts and firearm dealers in California have misconstrued the term “capacity to accept a detachable magazine” as used in PC section 12276.1. Amending the current regulation by defining “capacity to accept a detachable magazine” as used in PC section 12276.1 will facilitate the accurate identification of statutorily restricted assault weapons by law enforcement and the public. The proposed definition will add clarity to the existing statutes but will not change or affect their current application and enforcement. As noted below under “Technical, Theoretical, and/or Empirical Study, Reports, or Documents Relied Upon”, the proposed definition is derived virtually word for word from the statutory definition of the very similar term "capacity to accept more than 10 rounds." Therefore, it should be abundantly clear that the proposed definition is completely consistent with the original intent of the California legislature.

(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.

I have (a) type nondetachable feeding device. :D


-ken

Charliegone
07-03-2006, 6:29 PM
Nope, this (f) talks about IF you have a detachable mag. and according to (a)you do not have a detachable Mag. IF it takes a tool or you have to take it apart to remove it.
(f) tells you about something IF (a) is not conformed to. It is double talk, confusing and will help the court case when the DA has his day in court.

If this meant what you are saying it conflicts with (a) and in the DOJ's own words this does not change application or enforcement.

Don't jump to conclusions...read the PDF...then tell me how it doesn't mean what they say (DOJ).

You are adding the words weld, and altering, it doesn't say that anywhere.

It does say...DOJ's words...
"""The proposed definition will add clarity to the existing statutes but will not change or affect their current application and enforcement."""

Read the Initial Statement of Reasons
http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ISOR0606.pdf
Necessity
It has come to the Department’s attention that many gun enthusiasts and firearm dealers in California have misconstrued the term “capacity to accept a detachable magazine” as used in PC section 12276.1. Amending the current regulation by defining “capacity to accept a detachable magazine” as used in PC section 12276.1 will facilitate the accurate identification of statutorily restricted assault weapons by law enforcement and the public. The proposed definition will add clarity to the existing statutes but will not change or affect their current application and enforcement. As noted below under “Technical, Theoretical, and/or Empirical Study, Reports, or Documents Relied Upon”, the proposed definition is derived virtually word for word from the statutory definition of the very similar term "capacity to accept more than 10 rounds." Therefore, it should be abundantly clear that the proposed definition is completely consistent with the original intent of the California legislature.

(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.

I have (a) type nondetachable feeding device. :D


-ken

Man you guys try to hard...don't worry about it...you will have your AR w/ a detachable magazine IN the future.:D

kenc9
07-03-2006, 7:10 PM
Man you guys try to hard...don't worry about it...you will have your AR w/ a detachable magazine IN the future.:D

You must not of taken the time to read what I meant/said.
I have a nondetachable Mag. as per (a)... (f) does not pertain to my Mag. :D

vonsmith
07-03-2006, 7:34 PM
This whole thing doesn't really seem to change a thing as they left definition (a) intact. So (f) would technically read:

(f) "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", as meaning "capable of accommodating a [(detachable magazine =)... 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.], but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permenantly altered so that it can not accommodate a detachable magazine.

Therefore 12276.1. reads:

(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the (capablility of accommodating a 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... ) 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.

Everyone else reading this the same way I am?

F.A.S. Out
I believe this wording is close to meeting the intent of the law, but doesn't meet the intent of the DOJ. I think the original intent was to to prevent configurations where bad guys could swap magazines quickly in a fire fight. Magazine removal by disassembly or tool use meets the proper intent. Instead the DOJ seems to be intent on requiring something "permanent". This doesn't serve the law or the people.

The "removed readily" phrase would allow owners to clear jammed magazines or do repairs without being automatic felons. Under the current interpretations such would be the case if an owner removed a temporarily fixed magazine out of a rifle that had other "evil" features to do repairs or other work.

I hope we're not doing the DOJ's work here. They seem to be fixated on the "permanently altered" issue. They are on a slippery slope and don't seem to realize it.


=vonsmith=

Maddog5150
07-03-2006, 9:14 PM
I confused. What if we want detachables and take the pistol grip off? Will this bill affect our OLLs that way?

kenc9
07-03-2006, 9:18 PM
Whats the status of that case?
The case will be heard January 2007. Now that DA is an X DA but it still shows that the case is on for the beginning of the year.

I keep getting the feeling it won't happen but it is scheduled.

-ken

grammaton76
07-04-2006, 12:23 PM
I confused. What if we want detachables and take the pistol grip off? Will this bill affect our OLLs that way?

That's the only configuration which the DOJ has stated explicitly is acceptable, so those won't be affected.

xenophobe
07-04-2006, 12:30 PM
This still changes nothing... man, some of you guys are uber paranoid.

Unless they define "permanent" in the context of alteration or "fixed magazine" this means nothing. They're blowing smoke up your collective arses.

kenc9
07-04-2006, 12:56 PM
This still changes nothing... man, some of you guys are uber paranoid.

Unless they define "permanent" in the context of alteration or "fixed magazine" this means nothing. They're blowing smoke up your collective arses.


WELL SAID!!!

DrjonesUSA
07-04-2006, 12:59 PM
This still changes nothing... man, some of you guys are uber paranoid.

Unless they define "permanent" in the context of alteration or "fixed magazine" this means nothing. They're blowing smoke up your collective arses.


EXACTLY.

I was thinking about this for several days before bothering to post in any of the threads on this topic, and for the life of me, I cannot see how this affects us or changes anything at all.

Though it would not surprise me in the least if they started playing with and stretching the definition of "permanent".

Mssr. Eleganté
07-04-2006, 1:43 PM
I'm sure this has been brought up before, but don't some types of red Loc-Tite even say "PERMANENT" right on the package?

Using "PERMANENT" thread lock on your magazine lock kit might not make CalDOJ happy, but it seems like it would make at least 1 out of 12 jurors have some reasonable doubt.

If a DA tries to make the case that just a few minutes with some cutting tools could turn your firearm into an illegal assault weapon, then they would also have to admit that a few minutes with some cutting tools could turn every single rifle and shotgun in the state into an illegal short barrelled rifle or shotgun.

ecounter
07-04-2006, 3:34 PM
So excuse me if I am mistaken but I can convert a Mini 14 into an illegal AW in just 1 minute if I buy a perfectly legal to own pistol grip stock and install it. BAM I am now a felon and it only took 1 minute. Same is also true of the M1A and mini 30 and guess what, if I am not mistaken it did not even require a tool. Just remove the trigger assembly.

Charliegone
07-04-2006, 5:14 PM
So excuse me if I am mistaken but I can convert a Mini 14 into an illegal AW in just 1 minute if I buy a perfectly legal to own pistol grip stock and install it. BAM I am now a felon and it only took 1 minute. Same is also true of the M1A and mini 30 and guess what, if I am not mistaken it did not even require a tool. Just remove the trigger assembly.

thats...what I am saying....this will not be helpful to the DOJ! They are crucifying themselves!

SemiAutoSam
07-04-2006, 5:36 PM
I'm sure this has been brought up before, but don't some types of red Loc-Tite even say "PERMANENT" right on the package?

Using "PERMANENT" thread lock on your magazine lock kit might not make CalDOJ happy, but it seems like it would make at least 1 out of 12 jurors have some reasonable doubt.

If a DA tries to make the case that just a few minutes with some cutting tools could turn your firearm into an illegal assault weapon, then they would also have to admit that a few minutes with some cutting tools could turn every single rifle and shotgun in the state into an illegal short barrelled rifle or shotgun.

Your right as im at least one of the individuals that have said that in my threads

If a reasonable person used the red (permanent Loctite) http://68.72.74.108/Threadlocker_per.htm couldnt this reasonable person expect that this is a permanent attachment ?

I would think so and would think a jury of your peers (thats a major joke)
Would also feel the same way ?

CalNRA
07-04-2006, 5:59 PM
That's the only configuration which the DOJ has stated explicitly is acceptable, so those won't be affected.

In the world of cycling there is a wide usage of quick-release axles, parts and accesseries. I see a potential market for decorative AR quickrelease pistol grips....

SemiAutoSam
07-04-2006, 6:07 PM
SO what your saying is use the Quick Release pistol grip and what when johnny law comes about just remove it ?

and still have a detachable mag ?

I hope your not suggesting this.

JPglee1
07-04-2006, 6:11 PM
In the world of cycling there is a wide usage of quick-release axles, parts and accesseries. I see a potential market for decorative AR quickrelease pistol grips....


http://www.mountsplus.com/miva/graphics/00000001/23.gif

Already exists for those wanting to make new friends in prison.


JP

SemiAutoSam
07-04-2006, 6:16 PM
You can even give this grip a nice nickname

CALL HIM BUBBA

your gonna know bubba well if you use this grip

Or to put it another way use this grip and then you will know another grip

Grabbing your ankles

On another note wouldnt it be nice if we could make Calif DOJ accountable for what they day and do. ?

JPglee1
07-04-2006, 6:20 PM
Or to put it another way use this grip and then you will know another grip

Grabbing your ankles

Good one ;)


JP

TKo_Productions
07-04-2006, 10:23 PM
http://www.mountsplus.com/miva/graphics/00000001/23.gif

Already exists for those wanting to make new friends in prison.


JP

That grip is meant to be attached as a forward grip on a rail system.

It's not meant to be a throw lever quick release pistol grip for the lower receicver.

SemiAutoSam
07-05-2006, 6:15 AM
That grip is meant to be attached as a forward grip on a rail system.

It's not meant to be a throw lever quick release pistol grip for the lower receicver.

Doing that (that is if I understand the law correctly) would put you in just as much hot water as a pistol grip on the lower receiver with an open mag well ( one without a Fixed Mag Kit installed.)

See post #1 at top of page.

Omega13device
07-05-2006, 7:46 AM
They will have to define what they mean by permanent, otherwise they'll find themselves in a Harrott position again, where the court rules that the average person can't be expected to be an expert on what is legal and what is not. I think that's the whole point of the comment period and hearing - to hear about these kinds of issues.

ldivinag
07-05-2006, 7:56 PM
In the world of cycling there is a wide usage of quick-release axles, parts and accesseries. I see a potential market for decorative AR quickrelease pistol grips....


hmmm... a pistol grip made by MAVIC???? in carbon fiber????? ;)

Racefiend
07-07-2006, 1:53 AM
Doing that (that is if I understand the law correctly) would put you in just as much hot water as a pistol grip on the lower receiver with an open mag well ( one without a Fixed Mag Kit installed.)

See post #1 at top of page.

That's another thing I don't understand. If you attach a pistol grip to an open magwell OLL, I don't see how it is illegal. As long as the magazine catch is not installed, the magazine cannot be detached, as it would first have to be attached before it could be detached.

SemiAutoSam
07-07-2006, 6:37 AM
That's another thing I don't understand. If you attach a pistol grip to an open magwell OLL, I don't see how it is illegal. As long as the magazine catch is not installed, the magazine cannot be detached, as it would first have to be attached before it could be detached.

Its illegal because the LAW tells us its ILLEGAL we don't have to understand it for it to be ILLEGAL with the AR series you (At the present time) you can have it 2 ways fixed 10 round mag with pistol grip OR detachable mag W/O pistol grip.

Those that are in power DON'T want us to have these EVIL rifles as the pistol grip makes them very deadly you can make the gun SPRAY bullets IF you have a pistol grip (to quote a female member of the DOJ who shall remain nameless.

END OF STORY

If you pay attention to the FAQ at the top of the page and also to some of the more knoledgeable members of this board
you will be ok.

KEEP IN MIND THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY.