PDA

View Full Version : Registration Period?


Mr.RoDiN
07-04-2006, 7:14 PM
Im not a lawyer. Nor do I know the law that well. So my question is, if they do add new definitions arent they obligated to open up a registration period?

xenophobe
07-04-2006, 7:27 PM
Not if the status of the law and application of it does not change. The proposed regulatory definition they are planning will do nothing to make lowers illegal, nor will they affect rifles that have been built up either gripless, or with a fixed magazine, so no.

AB2728 might cause a court mandated registration period... but only after litigation is filed against the enactment of AB2728 into law...

blkA4alb
07-05-2006, 12:25 AM
The proposed regulatory change might change the status of a rifle from non-AW (fixed mag + pistol grip) to AW (mag is not permanently fixed, therefore able to accept a magazine, and still has the pistol grip). A change of status in this direction (brought on by change in law or regulation) has so far always opened a registration period (the SKS fiasco is not a counter-example). To my knowledge, the DoJ has no means to force people to turn this rifle back into a non-AW by forcing them to remove the pistol grip.

The big question is: where is there a statuatory obligation to open a registration period?
Well, to my knowledge whenever they make something illegal that was formerly legal they have to open a registration period. My rifle is currently legally configured with a fixed magazine and pistol grip. If they change these codes and make my rifle an AW after being currently legal, I don't see how they can get around a registration. Thats my understanding at least. (You never did fire my mossberg at the shoot n q treelogger :p .)

anotherone
07-05-2006, 12:43 AM
I'm sure they will fight hard against opening a registration period. However, if one does open it will still be a big victory for them because it prevents anyone else from registering ever again after they update the CCRs. Of course I probably shouldn't be saying that because that's what the DOJ was saying that lead us to this point.

bwiese
07-05-2006, 12:52 AM
A primary intent of AW law was that existing owners of legally-owned, legally-acquired firearms that become AWs thru actions other than their own (i.e., illegal configuration) must be allowed to be registered and retained. Why? To avoid confiscation issues. This was key to Roberti-Roos (and SB23 really just added generic definition) being passed.

The DOJ effectively 'declares' certain guns to be AWs if they manipulate regulatory definitions that reshape 12276.1.

There is no middle ground: the government can't make something be an AW and then not allow it to be registered & retained.

Muzz
07-05-2006, 1:40 AM
There is no middle ground: the government can't make something be an AW and then not allow it to be registered & retained.
But you can bet they are probably going to try.

brando
07-05-2006, 2:23 PM
And so our argument can always be "look, I bought an OLL to build a fixed mag rifle and it was entirely legal. Now you're redefining what a fixed magazine is and now my rifle is an AW."

Of course, this is where DOJ says "it can still be legal. You just need to remove the pistol grip."

Ugh, this is going to be a headache for the next year or so, I predict. I count my lucky stars that I have pre-ban lowers too.

blacklisted
07-05-2006, 2:32 PM
And so our argument can always be "look, I bought an OLL to build a fixed mag rifle and it was entirely legal. Now you're redefining what a fixed magazine is and now my rifle is an AW."

Of course, this is where DOJ says "it can still be legal. You just need to remove the pistol grip."

Ugh, this is going to be a headache for the next year or so, I predict. I count my lucky stars that I have pre-ban lowers too.

Yep, that's probably what they would say. Of course, I would say "What gives you the authority to force me to modify my gun that was built in a legal configuration?"

anotherone
07-05-2006, 3:59 PM
Haven't the courts and other entities opened up additional registation periods before like back when they gave law enforcement officers an extension because they didn't know they had to register? Therefore there is precident for registration periods to open outside of what is perscribed by state law.

The real question I'm wondering is what are the minimum components needed to build a rifle that would require registration in the event a registration period did in fact open? It would seem to me that with the logic of AB2728 and everything else going on all it would take is a pistol grip and a fixed mag kit.

Mr.RoDiN
07-05-2006, 4:47 PM
All i know is one of the topics that should be brought up in august and or in your mails should be the fact that the doj is making us build our rifles in a very unsafe manner. The ar 15 rifle wasnt designed to have a fixed magazine. When the rifle jams, it was designed for the operator to release the magazine and clear the round. With a fixed mag, this process is impossible and very dangerous. They think a fixed 10 rounder is safer than a regular open mag well, well as usual these idiots are wrong again.

bwiese
07-05-2006, 5:30 PM
Do NOT use the safety argument, it is a nonstarter that does not pertain to this proposed regulatory change. It's about as relevant as a 2nd Amendment-based attack

You don't HAVE to build a gun at all if it's so unsafe. No one is forcing you to have an off-list AR.

The DOJ loves to respond to poor, cluttered reasoning that does not address the matter at hand. That makes them look good.

adamsreeftank
07-06-2006, 12:09 AM
All i know is one of the topics that should be brought up in august and or in your mails should be the fact that the doj is making us build our rifles in a very unsafe manner. The ar 15 rifle wasnt designed to have a fixed magazine. When the rifle jams, it was designed for the operator to release the magazine and clear the round. With a fixed mag, this process is impossible and very dangerous. They think a fixed 10 rounder is safer than a regular open mag well, well as usual these idiots are wrong again.

You are assuming they care about the safety of the gun owner. In truth, they MAY care about the safety of the non-gun owning public. I think they probably see us all as criminals regardless of how we configure our rifles.

tenpercentfirearms
07-06-2006, 12:16 AM
All i know is one of the topics that should be brought up in august and or in your mails should be the fact that the doj is making us build our rifles in a very unsafe manner. The ar 15 rifle wasnt designed to have a fixed magazine. When the rifle jams, it was designed for the operator to release the magazine and clear the round. With a fixed mag, this process is impossible and very dangerous. They think a fixed 10 rounder is safer than a regular open mag well, well as usual these idiots are wrong again.
This is irrelevant. No one is forcing you to build up a firearm. Not to mention you can't try and argue that an illegal firearm should be legal because it is safer than the legal version. That is beyond absurd. It would be like saying you shouldn't get a ticket for driving 100 MPH because it is safer than driving 105 MPH. Either way it is illegal and the law is the law. I never understood why people try to make a big deal about this like the DOJ is going to change the clearly stipulated law beyond their scope of authority in the name of safety. :confused:

Mr.RoDiN
07-06-2006, 1:51 PM
Looks like I P O d a few of our members. Sorry it was just how I felt abuot the situation. But you guys are right, they wouldn't care in the first place and also I am not obligated to build this rifle. Any other suggestions on what my letter can include?

tenpercentfirearms
07-06-2006, 6:30 PM
You didn't upset us, we just wanted to educate you. Stand by, the letters are coming.

SFV_Dealer
07-09-2006, 9:23 PM
Will the letters do anything or will they be round filed by DOJ ?

bwiese
07-10-2006, 12:23 AM
Will the letters do anything or will they be round filed by DOJ ?

They are legally required to address, comment and analyse public commentary.
This is a formal procedure.

I recommend all who care to pay a few nickles more and send their letters in return receipt.

I don't think quite yet is when to send letters, more like 1st wk of August

blacklisted
07-10-2006, 12:32 AM
But are they legally required to address only the good questions? ;)

That's why I hope that people don't flood them with comments that don't address the issue.

They are legally required to address, comment and analyse public commentary.
This is a formal procedure.

I recommend all who care to pay a few nickles more and send their letters in return receipt.

I don't think quite yet is when to send letters, more like 1st wk of August

bwiese
07-10-2006, 12:49 AM
But are they legally required to address only the good questions? ;)

That's why I hope that people don't flood them with comments that don't address the issue.

Yeah, it has to relate directly to the outcomes & implications of the change.

Things like idiots addressing safety issues will be lumped in the report as "we have received a number of letters discussing various safety issues, which are not relevant to the proposed regulatory change, esp as these issues apply to fixed magazine rifles no matter the method or permanency of magazine affixation."

And then there will be the pile of irrelevant "2nd amendment" letters, which will be breezily dismissed with "as the August 2000 Kasler decision notes, there is no right to bear arms within the state constitution ..."

They don't have to address each and every letter (though I do believe they must be filed and perhaps catalogued for reference) publicly and individually (i.e "Joe Blow says X, but we believe Y; Bob Smith says Z, and we agree..."): but they do have to address each separate/independent issue or theme raise - whether or not it's voiced in only one letter, or is in fact a common theme in multiple letters.