PDA

View Full Version : Long phone call with DOJ.


jemaddux
07-03-2006, 10:23 AM
So to answer one question, NO the hearing will be in a state building and no firearms, parts and so on will be allowed. So, if you have anything you want to show, bring pictures for them.

Now, in this phone call with this Jeff Amador, Mike something or other (Jeff's boss) and Lisa whatever it was discussed that in order for a OLL to be a fixed mag you had to "alter" the firearm. What they are basicly coming up with is that you buy a OLL, "ALTER" it from the factory to make it fixed but it still has the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine”. I'm just kind of shaking my head about how they are trying to play with words. So be aware that this is how they are thinking right now. Anything you write should reflect that no ALTERATIONS are made to the firearm.

And again, it has been stated that they really think no one is going to show for this. They will be happy to hear from people but really feel that no one is going to show. Make a showing and be there. Write letters and be heard that you feel this is going to effect you.

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

Hearing will be:
9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 2006

NOT AUGUST 17th

Department of Water Resources auditorium located at 1416 9th Street, Sacramento

anotherone
07-03-2006, 3:25 PM
My question is that because they feel they don't need to open a registration period how will we know when and where to surrender fixed mag rifles, move them out of state, or permenantly weld them shut? I don't want to end up becomming a felon overnight if they don't open registration :(!

jemaddux
07-03-2006, 3:48 PM
My question is that because they feel they don't need to open a registration period how will we know when and where to surrender fixed mag rifles, move them out of state, or permenantly weld them shut? I don't want to end up becomming a felon overnight if they don't open registration :(!


It wouldn't be over night. There would be a date that this would go into effect and then would be posted on the web sight just like all the rest. You wouldn't become the instant felon. The reallity of all this is that if we have a good strong showing there at this hearing and people are well thought out and present themselves well, we may be able to get this tossed out and it won't happen. Its really going to be up to how many write letters and show a interest. I know many are saying they won't listen to anything but they really did back in 2000 with all this.

From the responses they received in 2000

The Department also added the phrase "without disassembly of the firearm action" as a result of public comment stating that there are firearms with fixed magazines that can be field stripped (disassembled in the field) without using any tools (such as the M1 Garand). Including those firearms in the definition of a "detachable magazine" would have been inconsistent with the legislative intent of the statute. Several comments were made that claimed that an assault weapon pursuant to PC section 12276 has a detachable magazine requiring the use of a bullet tip or cartridge to remove it from the firearm. The comments claimed that if a bullet or ammunition cartridge were to be considered a tool, these types of firearms statutorily defined as assault weapons would not meet the definition of having a detachable magazine.

They listened before, we can together make them listen again. Everyone needs to get out of the feeling that we are just going to lose and that is that. Look, I spent a very long time on the phone with three of them on speaker phone and they admited, they are NOT lawyers, they are only worker bees that do not know that much about firearms. They are trusting that because they are only holding a hearing in Sacramento and not in Los Angeles also like they did last time no one will take any interest and they can push this through. Prove them wrong

tcrpe
07-03-2006, 6:59 PM
I don't want to end up becomming a felon overnight if they don't open registration :(!


Here's something (else) they may be overlooking:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

crzpete
07-03-2006, 7:13 PM
I would like to get an idea of what to write on my letter, if any of you can please post your thoughts or some general stuff. I know that we should write different letter but still would like to get a general idea just to get started.

6172crew
07-03-2006, 7:23 PM
I would like to get an idea of what to write on my letter, if any of you can please post your thoughts or some general stuff. I know that we should write different letter but still would like to get a general idea just to get started.

This is a quote from another member who I have the same feelings about this new memo.

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.

hdcd
07-03-2006, 10:20 PM
This is a quote from another member who I have the same feelings about this new memo.

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.

So the DOJ has the meeting and mucks things up even more. What's the next step? Can the judge from the above opinion step in and force the DOJ to list or is it another 10 year lawsuit? I'm just trying to get a feel on where this is going..

tcrpe
07-04-2006, 8:50 AM
. . . . is it another 10 year lawsuit?

If someone files suit (hello, NRA!), it will be a ten year lawsuit.

Now, WRT the online handgun ammo sales ban, I betting Arnold signs that bill in a heartbeat.

EricCartmanR1
07-04-2006, 8:53 AM
I am going to give you an answer everyone gives me.

"yeah but the weather is great here" :D

bg
07-04-2006, 9:03 AM
If someone files suit (hello, NRA!), it will be a ten year lawsuit.

Now, WRT the online handgun ammo sales ban, I betting Arnold signs that bill in a heartbeat.
Why do you see this happening ?

FreedomIsNotFree
07-05-2006, 12:21 AM
If someone files suit (hello, NRA!), it will be a ten year lawsuit.

Now, WRT the online handgun ammo sales ban, I betting Arnold signs that bill in a heartbeat.


Please tell me why you think the NRA should be party to any lawsuit which essentially lists guns to ban? You really expect the NRA to work towards the OLL issue? I dont and am glad they aren't part of it. There are countless citizens which could have standing and sue without the NRA. Bad idea.

SFV_Dealer
07-05-2006, 6:02 AM
Yeah, the NRA won't get involved here because they only get involved in new laws restricting ownership. This is an amendment to an existing law. How about the CRPA or GOC ? Will they help in putting an injuction against this amended law once DOJ prints it out ?

tcrpe
07-05-2006, 6:53 AM
Please tell me why you think the NRA should be party to any lawsuit which essentially lists guns to ban?

First, I was being a bit sarcastic. The NRA won't involve itself, they are too busy patting themselves on the back, mailing out money pitches, and running silly polls.

Second, my reading of this situation is that the bureaucrats will now be in charge, issuing gun control by fiat, and the "lawmakers" and the courts will be out of the loop.

Not really representative government, is it?

FreedomIsNotFree
07-05-2006, 11:16 PM
First, I was being a bit sarcastic. The NRA won't involve itself, they are too busy patting themselves on the back, mailing out money pitches, and running silly polls.

Second, my reading of this situation is that the bureaucrats will now be in charge, issuing gun control by fiat, and the "lawmakers" and the courts will be out of the loop.

Not really representative government, is it?

What the hell are you talking about? Are you that naive? You really think the NRA is too busy "patting themselves on the back" to get involved? Did the obvious go right over your head?

The OLL issue involves LISTING EXISTING LEGAL RIFLES as Assault Weapons. Why the hell would the NRA, the nations oldest FIREARM PROTECTION organization, all of a sudden start demanding particular rifles be listed as Assualt Weapons when they dont agree with the Assualt Weapon law as it is? C'mon now....you can do better than that.

Gun control by fiat? Really? Sounds interesting, but has no application in reality. Yes, it absolutely is representative government. We get the Government we deserve by people like yourself that complain after the fact rather than taking action, consistently, to protect gun owners rights.

What have you done in your life to protect the 2nd Amendment? What have YOU done? I can tell by your misunderstanding of the OLL situation, not much, if any at all.

FreedomIsNotFree
07-05-2006, 11:23 PM
Yeah, the NRA won't get involved here because they only get involved in new laws restricting ownership. This is an amendment to an existing law. How about the CRPA or GOC ? Will they help in putting an injuction against this amended law once DOJ prints it out ?

The NRA will fight laws that restrict gun ownership, but will not spend time and energy having existing legal rifles declared assault weapons. It's counterproductive in the long run and only the shortsighted would expect them to take a lead role in the OLL issue.

We dont need any Gun Rights groups to take the lead on this. There are enough citizens and lawyers on the case as it is in my opinion. That doesn't mean we could not use more, but to think nothing is being done or it could be done better with the CRPA or the GOC is incorrect in my opinion.

tenpercentfirearms
07-06-2006, 12:10 AM
When the DOJ plans on adding a change to existing regulations that effectively bans thousands of people's rifles like the SKS, FALs, and other guns, the NRA should get involved. I am going to see what I can do to make that happen and contact them. This isn't about OLLs anymore, this is about something bigger. Lets see if the NRA will come through for us. I am not about to issue judgement yet, the new memo came out last week and we have over a month left.

chris
07-06-2006, 12:28 AM
if they ban the SKS because it has the ability to accept. this is fact will defacto make thousands of citiznens instant felons. even though the majority of the public has no intention changing the SKS from it's original fixed 10 round magazine. just because it can be changed they are doing something very sinister here IMO. i thought the SKS with a detachable magazine was allready illegal. i hope the NRA gets involved or we are in more trouble than we relize. i think the frog in the boiling pan is allready begining to relize it is being cooked.

since the DOJ has never acted in our best interest i guess another registration period is coming up. now firearms that have 10 round magazines are effectively banned if this hearing goes the F#$^&*ng liberals way like it always does. we are now one step closer to the total ban on firearms ownership.

people forget the OLL they are not even discussing it like tenpercent said. better get off our a##es now or lose so big my above statement will become a reality in our lifetime and near future.

tcrpe
07-06-2006, 6:50 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Are you that naive? You really think the NRA is too busy "patting themselves on the back" to get involved? Did the obvious go right over your head?

The OLL issue involves LISTING EXISTING LEGAL RIFLES as Assault Weapons. Why the hell would the NRA, the nations oldest FIREARM PROTECTION organization, all of a sudden start demanding particular rifles be listed as Assualt Weapons when they dont agree with the Assualt Weapon law as it is? C'mon now....you can do better than that.

Gun control by fiat? Really? Sounds interesting, but has no application in reality. Yes, it absolutely is representative government. We get the Government we deserve by people like yourself that complain after the fact rather than taking action, consistently, to protect gun owners rights.

What have you done in your life to protect the 2nd Amendment? What have YOU done? I can tell by your misunderstanding of the OLL situation, not much, if any at all.

I'm a dues paying NRA member. And yes, they do spend a lot of time patting themselves on the back, sending out money pitches, and running silly polls.

My mailbox is the "obvious" to me.

And if I've ever seen a case of gun control by "fiat" this is it.

I don't expect much from the NRA, and I'm not disappointed.

What have I done?

Is this going personal now? I guess that's all the NRA defenders have left.

Ok, I'll not renew.

Carry on . . . . .

Crazed_SS
07-06-2006, 7:18 AM
if they ban the SKS because it has the ability to accept. this is fact will defacto make thousands of citiznens instant felons. even though the majority of the public has no intention changing the SKS from it's original fixed 10 round magazine. just because it can be changed they are doing something very sinister here IMO. i thought the SKS with a detachable magazine was allready illegal. i hope the NRA gets involved or we are in more trouble than we relize. i think the frog in the boiling pan is allready begining to relize it is being cooked.

since the DOJ has never acted in our best interest i guess another registration period is coming up. now firearms that have 10 round magazines are effectively banned if this hearing goes the F#$^&*ng liberals way like it always does. we are now one step closer to the total ban on firearms ownership.

people forget the OLL they are not even discussing it like tenpercent said. better get off our a##es now or lose so big my above statement will become a reality in our lifetime and near future.

You have to dissassemble a SKS to remove the magazine. See step 12
http://www.surplusrifle.com/sks/carbine/index.asp
For all intents and purposes, It is permanent.

Now if the SKS magazine easily dropped free by manipulating a small bolt, nut or screw, then the argument that it isnt really permanent might hold some weight.

ohsmily
07-06-2006, 7:49 AM
This is a quote from another member who I have the same feelings about this new memo.

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.

I hope that isn't a quote of what was actually sent to the DOJ; it makes whoever wrote it look stupid.

tenpercentfirearms
07-06-2006, 8:12 AM
You have to dissassemble a SKS to remove the magazine. See step 12
http://www.surplusrifle.com/sks/carbine/index.asp
For all intents and purposes, It is permanent.

Now if the SKS magazine easily dropped free by manipulating a small bolt, nut or screw, then the argument that it isnt really permanent might hold some weight.This is your opinion that does not seem to be based on what the law says or takes into consideration who is going to eventually decide what permanent is. After all, the law is very clear in CCR 980.20(a) when it defines a detachable magazine as "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". So if it requires the use of a tool to remove or disassembly of the action it is not a detachable magazine. However, the new change will state that if it can accomodate a detachable magazine then SB-23 applies. The only definition of what "accomodate" means has to be infered from the line "but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine."

Logic and reasoning means nothing here, especially if you are basing it on your own knowledge and not what the law says. Right now it doesn't matter how you fix your magazine as long as it requires the use of a tool to remove or disassembly of the action. The current state of things protects the SKS just as well as a fixed mag OLL. Just because one seems easier to swap out than the other to you, has nothing to do with the law. Really everything hinges on permanent and how it will be defined. If the law specifically says disassembly of the firearm action is permanent, then it will be. Right now it does not and your speculation that it some how is is faulty at best.

This proposed amendment to CCR 980.20 is going to put all of this into limbo. I wonder if the DOJ really wants to open a reg period for all of the SKS, FALs, and OLLs out there? Time will tell.

6172crew
07-06-2006, 8:21 AM
I hope that isn't a quote of what was actually sent to the DOJ; it makes whoever wrote it look stupid.

Naw, Ive just been collecting stuff for my letter and if a sound argument can be made from questions raised on this board then I think that would work for a type of form letter.

Although I pretty much suck at writing Im able to grab info like anyone else and then ask for help later.

ohsmily
07-06-2006, 8:55 AM
Naw, Ive just been collecting stuff for my letter and if a sound argument can be made from questions raised on this board then I think that would work for a type of form letter.

Although I pretty much suck at writing Im able to grab info like anyone else and then ask for help later.

Cool. Though the DOJ is not full of brilliant folks, it behooves those of you who are sending letters in to have another pair of eyes go over the text beforehand. Look for spelling and grammatical errors before you send it. More importantly, make sure the substantive information and arguments in the letter are sound as well.

6172crew
07-06-2006, 11:18 AM
Cool. Though the DOJ is not full of brilliant folks, it behooves those of you who are sending letters in to have another pair of eyes go over the text beforehand. Look for spelling and grammatical errors before you send it. More importantly, make sure the substantive information and arguments in the letter are sound as well.

Are you offering to look over mine when Im done?:D

kenc9
07-06-2006, 11:31 AM
EDIT . I think DOJ has us by the tail this time!

6172crew
07-06-2006, 11:41 AM
Kenc9, Id get rid of that!

6172crew
07-06-2006, 12:22 PM
Ken, your PM box is full!:D

blacklisted
07-06-2006, 12:28 PM
It appears that I missed something...

kenc9
07-06-2006, 12:37 PM
Ken, your PM box is full!:D

I got a rash of PM's :D

drclark
07-06-2006, 2:42 PM
The biggest problem is that "permanent" is such a nebulous term.

Is red-lock tite permanent?
Would spot welding the sporting conversions nut to the mag catch be permanent?
Is epoxying the mag in the magwell considered permanent?
Is welding a plate over the magwell considered permanent?

With a dremmel, heatgun, solvents or even basic handtools you can reverse all of these "permanent conversions" of a standard lower.

The DOJ is going to have to define what exactly a permanent conversion is or they will end up with the same situation as they have now. A very nebulous situation where OLL are still comming into the state and law-abiding gunowners are trying their best to remain legal with a whole lot of gray area and confusion of what is really legal and what is not. The longer they dink-around with this the greater chance they run of someone getting arrested with a seemingly legal OLL and successfully getting the whole mess overturned as being unconstitutionally vauge.

Personally, I suspect that the DOJ does not want to have to spend its resources tracking down and listing every new lower make/model and new AW weapon type that comes along. Let alone the resources to have to continually deal with new reg. periods every time they update the list. Nor do I. I would rather the DOJ spend our tax $$ tracking and arresting real criminals for real firearms violaitons, etc.

I think that the pending rules changes and new legislation (AB2728) is attempting to close all the "loopholes" in the current laws so that no new receivers can be sold within the state. Once that is done I would bet the DOJ will do one sweeping list update that would cover all the AR/AK lowers, FALS clones, etc and open a "final" reg period (maybe Jan 1, 2007 as AB2728 suggests)

Anyways, the the picture I get when you look at AB2728 and the proposed rule changes together.

drc

vonsmith
07-06-2006, 3:10 PM
"Permanent" is a fuzzy moving target. I contend that nothing is permanent, not even the pyramids. "Permanent" as applied to the firearms in question can be interpreted too many ways. There are an infinite number of possible firearm configurations. I think it is a losing proposition for the DOJ to attempt to define it. This doesn't stop them from trying. If the DOJ does define it I predict that shortly thereafter someone will have an example of a configuration that meets their definition, but not their intent. They should just avoid using this language in the first place.

The DOJ shouldn't try to micro-manipulate definitions for their own weird purposes. They keep stepping on their own crank. This has led to confusion and a loss of credibility.

Just my opinion (and frustration).


=vonsmith=

grammaton76
07-06-2006, 3:14 PM
Duuude... I'm gonna develop a mag lock that uses a pyramid to hold the mag in place. Unfortunately, it can only be used in Egypt, but it should be far more permanent than DOJ's other solutions.

vonsmith
07-06-2006, 3:39 PM
Duuude... I'm gonna develop a mag lock that uses a pyramid to hold the mag in place. Unfortunately, it can only be used in Egypt, but it should be far more permanent than DOJ's other solutions.
Damn boy, you are one smart motherlucker. I wish'd I thought of that. Damn, outdid me again. :eek:

Just remember the pyramids were built by people who didn't mind pursuing diminishing goals. :rolleyes:


=vonsmith=

Crazed_SS
07-06-2006, 4:41 PM
This is your opinion that does not seem to be based on what the law says or takes into consideration who is going to eventually decide what permanent is. After all, the law is very clear in CCR 980.20(a) when it defines a detachable magazine as "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". So if it requires the use of a tool to remove or disassembly of the action it is not a detachable magazine. However, the new change will state that if it can accomodate a detachable magazine then SB-23 applies. The only definition of what "accomodate" means has to be infered from the line "but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine."

Logic and reasoning means nothing here, especially if you are basing it on your own knowledge and not what the law says. Right now it doesn't matter how you fix your magazine as long as it requires the use of a tool to remove or disassembly of the action. The current state of things protects the SKS just as well as a fixed mag OLL. Just because one seems easier to swap out than the other to you, has nothing to do with the law. Really everything hinges on permanent and how it will be defined. If the law specifically says disassembly of the firearm action is permanent, then it will be. Right now it does not and your speculation that it some how is is faulty at best.

This proposed amendment to CCR 980.20 is going to put all of this into limbo. I wonder if the DOJ really wants to open a reg period for all of the SKS, FALs, and OLLs out there? Time will tell.

The thing is, the SKS cannot accomadate a detachable magazine unless it is disassembled and modified. Doing so would be creating an assault weapon. The DOJ has the SKS covered. The whole "but shall not be construed" part doesnt even apply to the SKS situation. That part is referring to guns like ARs, AKs, FALs, etc since these a guns that are designed from the factory to accept detachable magazines. Like you said.. this is just my opinion though.

ALso, they've approved certain ARs for sale.. If you look at those rifles, I think that will give you an idea of what the DOJ thinks "Permnanent" is. Those approved ARs could conceivably be changed back to being able to accommodate a detachable magazine with a little bit more effort than a OLL fixed-mag rifle.. but in the end they will still accommodate one.

I agree that the language needs to be clearer though. Hopefully whatever calgunners are going up there can help them out. Definition is permanent is the key. Like you said, we'll just have to wait and see.

tenpercentfirearms
07-06-2006, 6:28 PM
The thing is, the SKS cannot accomadate a detachable magazine unless it is disassembled and modified.That doesn't matter. If it can accomodate a detachable magazine, then it is a detachable magazine unless you permantently alter it. That is what proposed change says. The DOJ can't have their cake and eat it too.

Otherwise I could argue that my OLL cannot accomodate a detachable magazine unless you use a tool to remove the magazine or in your words, "disassemble or modify" it. That is the whole point of their modification, make all OLL fixed mag builds illegal. They want us to either run no evil features or have worthless paper weights. The problem their little game is going to hit a whole lot more guns that just OLLs and that could mean problems for them. It also could trigger a reg period. The DOJ is in dangerous territory and this thing is still in our favor.
ALso, they've approved certain ARs for sale.. If you look at those rifles, I think that will give you an idea of what the DOJ thinks "Permnanent" is. Those approved ARs could conceivably be changed back to being able to accommodate a detachable magazine with a little bit more effort than a OLL fixed-mag rifle.. but in the end they will still accommodate one.And that is why those approved rifles might not be approved much longer.

xrMike
07-06-2006, 6:36 PM
"Permanent" is a fuzzy moving target. I contend that nothing is permanent, not even the pyramids. "Permanent" as applied to the firearms in question can be interpreted too many ways. There are an infinite number of possible firearm configurations. I think it is a losing proposition for the DOJ to attempt to define it.Maybe they won't even bother to try? Maybe they plan on just leaving that up to the various DA's, and ultimately the courts, to codify the meaning of "permanent" as it applies to AW mags...

6172crew
07-06-2006, 6:46 PM
Maybe they won't even bother to try? Maybe they plan on just leaving that up to the various DA's, and ultimately the courts, to codify the meaning of "permanent" as it applies to AW mags...
Problem with that is the DOJ is the ones giving guidance to the DA's...well cept for the last few years or so.:rolleyes:

SemiAutoSam
07-06-2006, 6:59 PM
Duuude... I'm gonna develop a mag lock that uses a pyramid to hold the mag in place. Unfortunately, it can only be used in Egypt, but it should be far more permanent than DOJ's other solutions.


Ive already mfg the Pyramaglock Its coming off the CNC as we speak.

Yes it will be made of sandstone and one other item that is included with it at no additional charge.

It has the mummys curse.

jerryg1776
07-06-2006, 8:34 PM
Ive already mfg the Pyramaglock Its coming off the CNC as we speak.

Yes it will be made of sandstone and one other item that is included with it at no additional charge.

It has the mummys curse.

Oooh.. a Mummy curse. Does that mean if the DOJ confiscates your OLL they will have 7000 years of bad luck and be attacked by those flesh eating beetles? If thats the curse - I will take one of those new pyramaglocks!

HKdude
07-06-2006, 10:28 PM
The thing is, the SKS cannot accomadate a detachable magazine unless it is disassembled and modified.

I haven't looked at a sks in a while, but what needs to be modified for a sks to accept detachable mags?:confused:

ohsmily
07-06-2006, 10:51 PM
I haven't looked at a sks in a while, but what needs to be modified for a sks to accept detachable mags?:confused:

He is wrong. It does NOT need to be permanently modified to accept detachable magazines. All you have to do is remove the triggerguard, remove the stock, remove the fixed magazine and then reassemble the rifle; it will now accept a detachable magazine (the "duckbill" ones).

Ford8N
07-07-2006, 6:27 AM
He is wrong. It does NOT need to be permanently modified to accept detachable magazines. All you have to do is remove the triggerguard, remove the stock, remove the fixed magazine and then reassemble the rifle; it will now accept a detachable magazine (the "duckbill" ones).

+1

Very easy to do. About the same amount of time and effort as pinning an OLL.

Crazed_SS
07-07-2006, 6:21 PM
I haven't looked at a sks in a while, but what needs to be modified for a sks to accept detachable mags?:confused:

I'm not saying the gun needs to be modified to accept the detachable mag, I'm saying by installing a detachable mag, you've modified the weapon from its original design.

tenpercentfirearms
07-07-2006, 7:23 PM
I'm not saying the gun needs to be modified to accept the detachable mag, I'm saying by installing a detachable mag, you've modified the weapon from its original design.So? What is your point? How does that have anything to do with the laws and/or regulations we are talking about? I have never read anything about intent of original design having anything to do with a features based on detachable magazine ban.

kenc9
07-07-2006, 10:15 PM
Guys, all this stuff is for nothing.

As long as (a) exists the SKS is covered and anything else that needs a tool or taken apart.

(f) is for detachable ones and (a) Mags are permanent enough to be legal as per DOJ written definitions.

-ken

tenpercentfirearms
07-07-2006, 10:37 PM
Guys, all this stuff is for nothing.

As long as (a) exists the SKS is covered and anything else that needs a tool or taken apart.

(f) is for detachable ones and (a) Mags are permanent enough to be legal as per DOJ written definitions.

-kenF will change all this and make anything that can accomodate a detachable magazine the same as having a detachable magazine. Really, it is going to murky the water a whole heck of a lot. Time will tell.