PDA

View Full Version : AB2728 - Purpose Statement


Hunter
07-06-2006, 3:29 PM
Excuse me if this has been posted already, but I searched and didn't see it. Anyway, I was reading thru AB2728 and noticed the "author's reasons" for it actually states exactly what calgun.net users have been saying all along, and rightly so. Even states that listing the current OLL is an endless cycle and that over 30K have been legally transfered into the state. If this law passes, it will mean a new registration period for the 30K+ recievers, but that will be the end of the trail for getting anymore.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_cfa_20060626_145001_sen_comm.html



1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

The Attorney General intends to clarify the scope of
California's assault weapons laws with Assembly Bill
2728. The purpose of this legislation will be to
clean up provisions of the Penal Code dealing with
assault weapons. Specifically, this bill will
clarify that the possession of the lower receiver of
an assault weapon listed in Penal Code Section 12276
is equivalent to possession of an assault weapon. In
addition, this measure will remove the obsolete
"add-on" procedure, which allows the Attorney General
to deem certain weapons "assault weapons." This bill
will also make the possession of an unregistered
assault weapon in violation of the Penal Code a
nuisance, allowing for its destruction. Currently,
there is no provision in law that allows law
enforcement to dispose of seized unregistered assault
weapons.

2. Background - "Series Weapons," Frames and Receivers

According to the bill's sponsor, existing law prohibits the
manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale, and
possession of unregistered assault weapons (with limited
exceptions). Currently, assault weapons are classified by their
make and model (Penal Code 12276) and by their characteristics
(Penal Code 12276.1). The Attorney General also has the power
to deem specific firearms to be assault weapons through judicial
and administrative add-on procedures. (Penal Code 12276.5.) In
Harrott v. County of Kings (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1138, the Supreme
Court determined that in order to satisfy due process, the
Attorney General must list a "series" weapon, i.e., a firearm with
similar characteristics to a named model specifically listed under
Section 12276, before it can be identified as an assault weapon.
Consequently, firearms that are identical to named
assault weapons except for their markings cannot be considered
assault weapons unless and until the Attorney General lists them
pursuant to Section 12276.5 or they are assembled to have the
characteristics of assault weapons specified in Penal Code
Section 12276.1. The named "series" assault weapons are listed
in the Attorney General's Assault Weapons Identification Guide.
(http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/awguide/index.html.)

Several months ago, the Attorney General received an inquiry as
to whether a person may possess a "lower receiver" in California
so long as it is not a "named" receiver and so long as it does
not possess the prohibited characteristics under Section
12276.1. Although such a receiver is nearly identical to a Colt
AR-15 receiver except for its markings, the Attorney General's
Office determined that such a "lower receiver" is legal to
possess in California. These "clone" receivers are legal to
possess because they are not "series weapons" under Section
12276 (since the Attorney General has not listed them pursuant
to Section 12276.5), and because they do not contain any of the
characteristics that would make them assault weapons, e.g., a
pistol grip or flash suppressor. Although these receivers can
be made into lawful centerfire rifles, they are primarily
designed so that they can be made into Colt AR-15 clones, which
are "characteristics" weapons prohibited by Section 12276.1.<1>
Kits are readily purchased and instructions are available on the
Internet so that anyone can transform their legal-to-own
receiver into an illegal assault weapon.

Due to the growing popularity of lower receivers, the Attorney
General's Office has determined that updating the assault weapons
list with new makes and models will serve no purpose other than
to completely undermine California law by allowing the
proliferation of registered assault weapons. When the Attorney
General's Office lists a new assault weapon, it is required to
open up a registration period. (Penal Code 12285.)
Consequently, any person who has imported a legal receiver could
then register their receiver as an assault weapon.<2> This would
then theoretically allow the registrant to add any and all of the
features prohibited under Section 12276.1, and would allow the
----------------------------
<1> These are not "series" weapons under Section 12276,
subdivisions (e) and (f), because of the Harrott decision.
<2> It should be noted that there is some doubt as to whether
the Attorney General's Office has the statutory authority to
list a bare receiver as an assault weapon since it lacks the
characteristics of an assault weapon, including its ability to
fire.



person to possess a fully functioning assault weapon.
Unfortunately, as soon as a new list is promulgated, all the
current makes/models of lower receivers will immediately receive
new "markings" and monikers and the whole process will repeat
itself. Recently, because of the expectation that the Attorney
General will list new receivers, thereby opening up a
registration period for new weapons, it has been estimated that
more than 30,000 receivers have been imported into California.

To address the problem of the Attorney General having to
repeatedly update the list of "series" weapons and thereby, as a
matter of law, "grandfathering-in" a new batch of owners of
knock-off assault weapons or their constituent parts each time,
this bill proposes that the Attorney General's duty to
promulgate a list of all firearms designated as assault weapons
shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2007 but that any
firearm declared to be an assault weapon prior to that date
shall remain on the list.

Additionally, this bill will clarify that the possession of the
lower receiver of an assault weapon is equivalent to possession
of an assault weapon.

(Picture of a lower receiver - legal to possess in CA.)

(Picture of assembled lower receiver with pistol grip - illegal
in CA.)

(Picture of fully assembled Colt AR15A3 Tactical Carbine -
illegal in CA.)


Although these receivers can be made into lawful centerfire
rifles, their only true purpose is to be used to make
"characteristics" weapons prohibited by Section 12276.1. Kits
are easily purchased and instructions are available on the
Internet so anyone can transform their legal-to-own receiver
into an illegal assault weapon. (See below.)

(Instructions for assembling a receiver into an assault weapon.)

SHOULD THE PROHIBITION AGAINST POSSESSION OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON
INCLUDE THE FRAME OR RECEIVER USED TO MAKE SUCH WEAPONS?

3. Declaring Unlawful Weapons a Nuisance and Authorizing Their
Destruction
This bill provides that illegal possession of an assault weapon
or .50 caliber BMG rifle is a public nuisance, that the Attorney
General, any district attorney or any city attorney may enjoin
the possession of the weapon and that any such weapon "shall be
destroyed in a manner so that it may no longer be used," except
where a judge orders that its preservation is necessary to serve
the ends of justice.

SHOULD POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BE DEEMED A PUBLIC
NUISANCE AND SHOULD ALL SUCH WEAPONS BE DESTROYED, EXCEPT UPON A
COURT ORDER?

***************

fun2none
07-06-2006, 4:09 PM
To solve the OLL problem, the AB2728 will:

* discharge the AG's duty to list AW as of 1/1/07
* any declared AW remains AW
* a receiver of an AW is an AW. I do not understand this one. For any listed AW, it matters not whether it is a working firearm or a stripper lower. It order for a firearm to be an AW, it must have features or be listed. If your lower is listed, or if you add features, it is an AW.
* enabling the local DA to confiscate and destroy an illegally possesed AW. Don't you need a criminal conviction (jury or plea bargained) before that can happen ??

What exactly is AB2728 trying to accomplish other than removing the lspecified responsibility of the CA AG to list AW ? PM me if you are concerned with giving out too much info.

bwiese
07-06-2006, 4:16 PM
There are severe flaws with this.

Let's not discuss while in committee.

And for a variety of reasons I don't think Arnie will sign this.

Comstock Lode
07-06-2006, 4:32 PM
Of interest is the public confirmation 30,000 OLLs, the perceived problem with listing new AW's, the confirmed legality of OLLs, the perception of "online kits" to creat banned feature ARs (while the reality is everyone is seeking online kits/design alterations to create legal fixed mag ARs), the AG/DOJ wanting out of the AW listing business, the recognition of the limitations imposed by Harrot, the fact that DOJ may not actually be legally in a position to list simply by a receiver model number... In total, the AB, with its myriad faults, shows the myriad faults in the existing law supporting the ill conceived SB 23.

vonsmith
07-06-2006, 4:37 PM
There are severe flaws with this.

Let's not discuss while in committee.

And for a variety of reasons I don't think Arnie will sign this.
Ah... probably 'cause it's inane for one. I'm not kidding, seriously.


=vonsmith=

6172crew
07-06-2006, 4:40 PM
This baby needs to die a flaming death! How many unbuilt Fal uppers would suddenly become AWs? What a crock, go back to the drawing board:rolleyes:

Anthonysmanifesto
07-06-2006, 4:43 PM
I am cautiously optimistic. I kinda like it.

I see potential for my collection.

6172crew
07-06-2006, 4:48 PM
I am cautiously optimistic. I kinda like it.

I see potential for my collection.

? Im guessing you mean waiting for a reg period of 90 days? I need at least another year or 2 to get enough goodies to be ready for that.:D

xenophobe
07-06-2006, 4:55 PM
Excuse me if this has been posted already, but I searched and didn't see it.

I agree with Bill on this one. Please delete your comments on this. It currently serves no purpose and should not be a topic of open discussion for the time being.

Anthonysmanifesto
07-06-2006, 5:40 PM
I agreee with Xenophobe on this one. maybe we should just hold our public comments for the moment.

I thought my agreeing with xenophobe deserved special recognition.

Mute
07-06-2006, 6:04 PM
Due to the growing popularity of lower receivers, the Attorney
General's Office has determined that updating the assault weapons
list with new makes and models will serve no purpose other than
to completely undermine California law by allowing the
proliferation of registered assault weapons. When the Attorney
General's Office lists a new assault weapon, it is required to
open up a registration period. (Penal Code 12285.)
Consequently, any person who has imported a legal receiver could
then register their receiver as an assault weapon.<2> This would
then theoretically allow the registrant to add any and all of the
features prohibited under Section 12276.1, and would allow the
----------------------------

<1> These are not "series" weapons under Section 12276,
subdivisions (e) and (f), because of the Harrott decision.
<2> It should be noted that there is some doubt as to whether
the Attorney General's Office has the statutory authority to
list a bare receiver as an assault weapon since it lacks the
characteristics of an assault weapon, including its ability to
fire.



person to possess a fully functioning assault weapon.
Unfortunately, as soon as a new list is promulgated, all the
current makes/models of lower receivers will immediately receive
new "markings" and monikers and the whole process will repeat
itself. Recently, because of the expectation that the Attorney
General will list new receivers, thereby opening up a
registration period for new weapons, it has been estimated that
more than 30,000 receivers have been imported into California.

How amusing. Didn't they just post a "memo" a while back saying that this wasn't the case?

Dont Tread on Me
07-06-2006, 9:08 PM
How amusing. Didn't they just post a "memo" a while back saying that this wasn't the case?

Well spotted. I still don't understand the whole "memo" thing. Why did the DOJ waste the ink and crediabilty.

"Kits are readily purchased and instructions are available on the
Internet so that anyone can transform their legal-to-own
receiver into an illegal assault weapon."

I just love this reasoning. I'm sure instructions exist on the internet for converting many legal to own chemicles into illegal to own chemicals. It also applies to just about any center fire rifle with a detachable mag. Flash supressors and stocks with evil folding and pistol grip features are readily available.

thmpr
07-06-2006, 9:53 PM
There are severe flaws with this.

Let's not discuss while in committee.

And for a variety of reasons I don't think Arnie will sign this.


I agree with Bill on this one. We can not give the other party the chance to counter. We should write our questions in a form of a letter to the DOJ and have the special commitee deal with this.

SemiAutoSam
07-06-2006, 9:54 PM
Well spotted. I still don't understand the whole "memo" thing. Why did the DOJ waste the ink and crediabilty.

"Kits are readily purchased and instructions are available on the
Internet so that anyone can transform their legal-to-own
receiver into an illegal assault weapon."

I just love this reasoning. I'm sure instructions exist on the internet for converting many legal to own chemicles into illegal to own chemicals. It also applies to just about any center fire rifle with a detachable mag. Flash supressors and stocks with evil folding and pistol grip features are readily available.


Uh huh

http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976649162.htm

xenophobe
07-07-2006, 3:44 AM
I agreee with Xenophobe on this one. maybe we should just hold our public comments for the moment.

I thought my agreeing with xenophobe deserved special recognition.

lol. Yeah, kinda funny isn't it? ;)