PDA

View Full Version : Do we have a chance...?


Mr.RoDiN
07-25-2006, 10:22 PM
I was just wonderin, do we have any chance of registering these lowers? Is August 16 the day we are going to have it in writing that there won't be a registration period? Are they just going to redefine capacity to except? Or is there still hope?

tenpercentfirearms
07-25-2006, 11:56 PM
If they take this where they plan on taking this, I think we have good odds of triggering a reg period. There most certainly should be a reg period for the thousands of SKSs they are going to turn into assault weapons. I still think they don't want to take it that far, I think they are going to back off of their rule change too.

xenophobe
07-26-2006, 12:22 AM
The SKS won't become an AW with this regulatory change. Neither will M1As, M1 Garands, Mini-14s, FALs, SU-16's etc...

If they tinker with SB-23 regulatory definition, it may trigger an open-ended registration period, or the courts may end up forcing DOJ into opening one.

The proposed regulation change as it stands does nothing but steps further away from defining what is legal or not, and pushes the requirement of the 58 District Attorneys from making that judgement themselves. It will mostly be ignored, as it really does nothing. I have it on sound advice that the fixed mags we have here in Santa Clara County are legal, and that if it were to come to it, there would be expert testimony from one particular County employee that would pretty much destroy any DA's case. And, that the proposed regulatory change, even if DOJ gets the exact definition they want, won't do anything.

In any event, don't hold your breath, and don't expect anything to change. August 16th is only a day for you to submit non-debated comments to proposed changes. Your expressed points will not be argued or validated, they will only be noted for the record for the DOJ to respond to at their leisure in writing.

Crazed_SS
07-26-2006, 12:25 AM
I was just wonderin, do we have any chance of registering these lowers? Is August 16 the day we are going to have it in writing that there won't be a registration period? Are they just going to redefine capacity to except? Or is there still hope?

I doubt you will ever have the "oppurtunity" to register these lowers. The DOJ isnt stupid. They knew registration will give everyone exactly what they want.. real AR-15's.

kantstudien
07-26-2006, 12:39 AM
Nothing is going to happen until after Lockyer moves on to Treasurer.

James R.
07-26-2006, 12:39 AM
The SKS won't become an AW with this regulatory change.

I thought the proposed changes to 978.20(a) would negatively impact those persons who have SKS's with the duckbill style magazines which are affixed with a screw. If the SKS has a magazine affixed with a screw the rifle then has a, "fixed magazine" at which point the rifle can be legally configured with features like pistol grip and the like? If so altering the law could render the previously legal method of fixing the magazine with a screw to be insufficient to satisfy the newly restructured 978.20(a) [or whatever they end up calling it] thus making the rifle an assault weapon unless you remove the other offending features...that is assuming you could legally put them on the rifle in the first place. If the magazine is fixed I don't see why you couldn't unless there's something specifically barring the SKS in this regard?

I have to admit I don't know a whole heck of a lot about SKS's because I've never been attracted to them, but it seems that legally configured rifles (fixed magazine) with other features that would violate SB23 were the magazine no longer fixed could be made into illegally configured rifles by legal fiat.

Regards,

James R.

chris
07-26-2006, 12:41 AM
what really worries me and others is what happens to those who are out of the country like fighting in a war zone they will get screwed by a registration period that they cannot be there to do so. i sure hope the SKS does not get turned into a so called AW this would be a mess. but i know the DOJ really does not care about the public on this issue.

if a registration period were to open when in theory would it start?

James R.
07-26-2006, 12:48 AM
if a registration period were to open when in theory would it start?

It would start when they announce it. Problem is they can change this law regarding the permanence of the fixing of the magazine w/o having to trigger a registration period. This is unlike if they were to list in which case the triggering of the registration is built right into the law, it's automatic and extends for 90 days during which time you can register, relinquish, destroy or otherwise remove from the state any affected weapons.

They're only changing this law because they want to screw us. They've been caught with their pants down, shirked their responsibility to keep the list current and they don't want to pay the piper IMHO.

Regards,

James R.

anotherone
07-26-2006, 1:22 AM
The way I see it there are only two possible outcomes. Either the DOJ hears some very carefully thought out arguements on August 16th and decides not to move forward with regulatory change just like they changed their minds about their first course of action or they change definitions and this thing goes on for years in court. Personally I think it's about 50/50. Either way we win.

6172crew
07-26-2006, 5:26 AM
The way I see it there are only two possible outcomes. Either the DOJ hears some very carefully thought out arguements on August 16th and decides not to move forward with regulatory change just like they changed their minds about their first course of action or they change definitions and this thing goes on for years in court. Personally I think it's about 50/50. Either way we win.

:cool:
+1, if we do this right we wont have to worry about a permantly fixed magazine.

Its about time we start comparing letters IMHO.

tenpercentfirearms
07-26-2006, 6:50 AM
Xeno, you are going to consider requiring disasembling the action or requiring the use of a tool to remove as "permanent" aren't you? :D If they disagree and neither one of those is a permanent way of fixing the magazine, then most certainly the SKS can easily be converted to detachable magazine by simply removing the trigger group, taking out the fixed magazine, and reassembling it. Less than one minute, you go from fixed magazine to detachable. Hardly "permanent" from my figuring.

Yes it is time to start getting the letters ready.

ecounter
07-26-2006, 11:06 AM
I could be wrong but I believe a SKS with removable magazine(sporter) is already listed or considered an AW and therefore the point is moot??????

NRAhighpowershooter
07-26-2006, 12:05 PM
TWO Weeks!!!!!!! :d

tenpercentfirearms
07-26-2006, 12:21 PM
I could be wrong but I believe a SKS with removable magazine(sporter) is already listed or considered an AW and therefore the point is moot??????
The SKS sporter was unique in that it accepted detachable AK magazines.

Follow me here. If they change capable of accepting to capable of accomodating, unless it has been "permanently" altered, that means that any stanard SKS would be capable of accomodating a detachable magazine as it takes less than a minute to take the gun apart and take out the fixed magazine. Therefore, all SKSs would be considered detachable magazine, which SKSs are specifically listed as assault weapons if they hava detachable magazine. It wouldn't matter if they had evil features or not.

DRH
07-26-2006, 12:58 PM
There are hundreds (if not thousands) of SKS rifles in California that have evil features and a fixed magazine. Many of these are pre-import ban, many were made in violation of the confusing 922 and many are legal conversions that were made after the import ban with the proper parts count. If you go to a gun show you will see SKS rifles with dragunov stocks, pistol grips and flash hiders, these are currently legal with a fixed 10 round magazine. The DOJ wants to change (not clarify) the regulations and turn them into AWs.

tenpercentfirearms
07-26-2006, 7:55 PM
There are hundreds (if not thousands) of SKS rifles in California that have evil features and a fixed magazine. Many of these are pre-import ban, many were made in violation of the confusing 922 and many are legal conversions that were made after the import ban with the proper parts count. If you go to a gun show you will see SKS rifles with dragunov stocks, pistol grips and flash hiders, these are currently legal with a fixed 10 round magazine. The DOJ wants to change (not clarify) the regulations and turn them into AWs.
I can't tell if you understand what I am saying or not. It will not matter what it has on it. The SKS is listed by name as "SKS with detachable magazine." It won't matter if it has a flash suppressor, pistol grip, thumbhole stock, collapsible stock, or what, it will be an assault weapon simply by being a SKS.

Every SKS in the state will be an assault weapon, period. I don't know if they really want to do this or not. That sounds like a lot of work on their part and a long lawsuit that they very well might lose.

GW
07-26-2006, 8:12 PM
But even if it drags out with a lawsuit, what does it matter to Lockyer? He probably would prefer that as he's terming out and it will be the next guy's (Hopefully Poochigian!) problem. Then whatever happens happens, he washes his hands of it

chris
07-27-2006, 2:07 AM
i remember starting a thread on letters for this and i was accused for tipping our hand by some people here. the only thing i was suggesting was to start planning for the hearing. now it seems like we need to start. i cannot really participate due to my current location but i would really like to here that we had a good showing to this.

as for the SKS if this happens we have more problems than the SKS being declared so called AW's . it could mean more legislation is coming on semi auto rifles. who knows it is all speculation until after the hearing and the outcome is published. right?

tenpercentfirearms
07-27-2006, 7:02 AM
as for the SKS if this happens we have more problems than the SKS being declared so called AW's . it could mean more legislation is coming on semi auto rifles.How does their trying to stop us through the regulation process indicate that legislation is forthcoming? There will always be more legislation, this is no secret and should be expected.

Mute
07-27-2006, 7:21 AM
As long as we have an anti-gun AG in office they will keep screwing around with semantics and in general do everything they can to try and stop people from buying more lowers AND not be able to build real ARs. There will be continued ambiguity until someone with standing sues them and we get another court case.

WokMaster1
07-27-2006, 8:00 AM
Every SKS in the state will be an assault weapon, period. I don't know if they really want to do this or not. That sounds like a lot of work on their part and a long lawsuit that they very well might lose.

Wes, the DOJ agents there are not elected but permanent employees of the State. They have nothing to lose by engaging in a long, costly legal battle that they know they have no chance of winning. They are gov't employees i.e. there is no accountability for anyone's action. The money does not come from any where else but our pockets.

Sure there is a lot of work involved but from what I have seen, we are doing a lot of the research for them. Look at the current AW laws as is. Do they make sense? For God's sake, they are arguing that the law as written that requires a tool to remove the magazine is not what it is. So far they haven't done anything intelligent at all. But who am I to say.:)

6172crew
07-27-2006, 9:12 AM
I think what Wes is saying is that the SKS you bought yesterday will be a AW if they continue down the road of "permanently fixed", All of the legal SKS's out there have a magazine setup that can be reversed with the kits available in about a minute.

The DOJ has already told us the SKS is good to go so why is the DOJ now going bacvk on what it has already told folks?

DRH
07-27-2006, 9:41 AM
This regulation change will not effect SKS rifles with no evil features. The section of 12276 that is changing only applies to rifles with evil features. This section has nothing to do with catagory one weapons. The "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" is different from having a detachable magazine installed in the weapon, a requirement for the SKS to be listed as a catagory one weapon. This will be the DOJ's postition and it is a valid one. The argument that now legal SKS, FAL and garand rifles that have evil features will be turned into assault weapons is valid reasoning that the regulation change is just that and not a clarification of existing definitions.

tenpercentfirearms
07-27-2006, 10:30 AM
This regulation change will not effect SKS rifles with no evil features. The section of 12276 that is changing only applies to rifles with evil features. This section has nothing to do with catagory one weapons. The "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" is different from having a detachable magazine installed in the weapon, a requirement for the SKS to be listed as a catagory one weapon. This will be the DOJ's postition and it is a valid one. The argument that now legal SKS, FAL and garand rifles that have evil features will be turned into assault weapons is valid reasoning that the regulation change is just that and not a clarification of existing definitions.
This is a possibility I suppose, but I don't see how you can say some detachable magazines are different than others. Better yet I don't know how you can say that SKS with detachable magazine in PC 12276 is not the same as a definition of detachable magazine in 12276.1. In fact would I would think one of the 58 DAs might not see the difference.

It would still make any fixed magazine SKS with any evil features evil as well. The nice thing is that this rule change points out how much more confusing this whole charade is going to be.

I am sticking to my belief that you can't just say one definition of detachable magazine works for 12276 and is different in 12276.1. The bad thing is if that goes to court, the means all SKSs would probably end up being declared illegal, unless we got a favorable ruling stating the DOJ overstepped its bounds, had a means of updating the list, failed to to its duty, and should not punish the citizens of this state for their inaction. Boy that is a long ways off.

grammaton76
07-27-2006, 1:00 PM
Chill out, Midnite + 6172crew. You guys are headed for a flame war, and if you wanna do it, do it in PM. I don't want to see another thread get locked because two guys wanted to duke it out in public.

6172crew
07-27-2006, 3:00 PM
Chill out, Midnite + 6172crew. You guys are headed for a flame war, and if you wanna do it, do it in PM. I don't want to see another thread get locked because two guys wanted to duke it out in public.
:cool: Shaken the bush boss, shaken the bush.:cool: j/k:D I probably went overboard and was just trying to keep this baby on target. Please continue, sorry for my outburst.:)

Cato
07-27-2006, 3:18 PM
It's just ridiculous that gun owners and the state of California are getting so worked up over the cosmetics of a semi automatic weapon! Cosmetics! If they dont think these American citizens can handle the firepower, then why do we have Garands and M1As? Sadly, Im sure they are after those next. I am as guilty as the next guy for dreaming about a detachable magazines and pistol grips; I really wish the federal government could step in and standardize the gun laws for the entire country. Let us have our fake M16s and M4s! Are we Americans or Californians first?

Liberty Rules
07-27-2006, 3:32 PM
If AB2728 passes in its present form, my understanding is that it would allow the AG to declare ANY weapon he believes is an AW and add it to the list, without any court procedures, as long as he adds it prior to January 1, 2007. Based on the language in the revised bill, it looks like their intent is to allow the AG to list ANY rifle as an AW, not just ARs and AKs. There is no restriction in the text limiting it to any existing category of weapon. Theoretically, the AG could list M1A's as AWs, up until January 1, 2007 at least.

Here is the section I am referring to:
"(b) (1) Until January 1, 2007, the Attorney General shall
promulgate a list that specifies all firearms designated as assault
weapons in Section 12276 or declared to be assault weapons pursuant
to this section."

Sorry if the original poster was wondering about the proposed regulation change only, but I don't think that you can look at it so narrowly. The opposition certainly isn't.

6172crew
07-27-2006, 4:37 PM
If AB2728 passes in its present form, my understanding is that it would allow the AG to declare ANY weapon he believes is an AW and add it to the list, without any court procedures, as long as he adds it prior to January 1, 2007. Based on the language in the revised bill, it looks like their intent is to allow the AG to list ANY rifle
or receiver as an AW, not just ARs and AKs. There is no restriction in the text limiting it to any existing category of weapon. Theoretically, the AG could list M1A's as AWs, up until January 1, 2007 at least.

Here is the section I am referring to:
"(b) (1) Until January 1, 2007, the Attorney General shall
promulgate a list that specifies all firearms designated as assault
weapons in Section 12276 or declared to be assault weapons pursuant
to this section."

Sorry if the original poster was wondering about the proposed regulation change only, but I don't think that you can look at it so narrowly. The opposition certainly isn't.

I fixed it for ya.;) They are looking to get rid of the PTR, SW5, more than the M1A or Mini14.

newtothis
07-27-2006, 7:02 PM
I fixed it for ya.;) They are looking to get rid of the PTR, SW5, more than the M1A or Mini14.


Still ignorant here...and I tried Google and searched the forum. What are PTR and SW5? Thanks

newtothis
07-27-2006, 7:36 PM
Found the PTR, PTR-9111 A1F.

Liberty Rules
07-27-2006, 7:39 PM
Still ignorant here...and I tried Google and searched the forum. What are PTR and SW5? Thanks

PTR91 is an HK91 clone made by JLD. SW5 is an HK94 clone.

And thanks 6172crew for "fixing" my post. LOL. I guess I should have stuck with "weapon". I, for one, do not believe that particular change (referring to bare receivers) would do much (if anything) since if they list it by name, it is banned in any configuration, including bare receivers. Try doing a DROS on a bare receiver for something currently listed. Not gonna happen.

tenpercentfirearms
07-27-2006, 8:55 PM
Persuant to this section wouldn't include having to take it to a judge for non AR/AK series guns?

Are we Americans or Californians first?Californians. That is why we have 50 state governments and 1 federal government. The state governments are supposed to be able to make their own decisions specifically so we don't have to have laws like other states. It just so happens you live in a liberal, commie state and that the rest of the country is on a conservative swing right now.

midnitereaper
07-28-2006, 8:34 AM
Persuant to this section wouldn't include having to take it to a judge for non AR/AK series guns?

Californians. That is why we have 50 state governments and 1 federal government. The state governments are supposed to be able to make their own decisions specifically so we don't have to have laws like other states. It just so happens you live in a liberal, commie state and that the rest of the country is on a conservative swing right now.

Well I am an American first! I live in commifornia! Yes the federal government did make it clear that states would govern themselves. But there should have been some type of bar between governing and taking away overall freedom. Is it fair that the state next to me can have AR-15 firearms but mine can't even though we are are all within the same country? Both our states have the same flag. So why can't our states have the same laws?

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties." -- Abraham Lincoln

chris
07-28-2006, 10:07 AM
unfortunately the state we live in is so screwed up it must be fixed in our lifetime or in our generation. they want us out so the utopia they want to can be created. if there is resistence in anyway they will chisel away at freedoms until they get fed up and leave for the freedom this country was founded on. those principles are meaningless to those in power.

they want us to be serfs (servents) to them no the other way around. our firearms are first next it could be outdoor activity. they allready tried to shutdown most of our coastline to fishing. did you hear about it? maybe not they are trying. they want to stop people from riding dirtbikes in the desert remember Alan Cranston. that is his legacy.

folks we are in a fight that must be won. if not we will have to leave this state and live in freedom that we as Americans deserve. they are counting on us being divided and i have seen this here. we must stop and get together and give these liberals the pink slip. the state is run by the big cities and unions are controlling most of the state government. trhis is my personal opinion of some unions here.

i'm sure the founding fathers are spinning in their graves at what this state has become. i hope we win. but as for getting our lost freedomsback we have our work cut out for us.

like my signature says "once the proud resident of the Great State of California now known as the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia (PRK)". let us make it great again. in our lifetime or our grandchildren and their children live in what this state used to be. for those old enough to remember it. no insult to the old timers here but you know what i mean.

JOEKILLA
07-28-2006, 10:18 AM
unfortunately the state we live in is so screwed up it must be fixed in our lifetime or in our generation. they want us out so the utopia they want to can be created. if there is resistence in anyway they will chisel away at freedoms until they get fed up and leave for the freedom this country was founded on. those principles are meaningless to those in power.

they want us to be serfs (servents) to them no the other way around. our firearms are first next it could be outdoor activity. they allready tried to shutdown most of our coastline to fishing. did you hear about it? maybe not they are trying. they want to stop people from riding dirtbikes in the desert remember Alan Cranston. that is his legacy.

folks we are in a fight that must be won. if not we will have to leave this state and live in freedom that we as Americans deserve. they are counting on us being divided and i have seen this here. we must stop and get together and give these liberals the pink slip. the state is run by the big cities and unions are controlling most of the state government. trhis is my personal opinion of some unions here.

i'm sure the founding fathers are spinning in their graves at what this state has become. i hope we win. but as for getting our lost freedomsback we have our work cut out for us.

like my signature says "once the proud resident of the Great State of California now known as the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia (PRK)". let us make it great again. in our lifetime or our grandchildren and their children live in what this state used to be. for those old enough to remember it. no insult to the old timers here but you know what i mean.


+100

I totally understand how you feel. I served this country to protect our freedom but when I got home, I couldn't find that freedom that I almost died for.

They say we are free but I can't even listen to the radio station that I want to listen to.


Where do I sign up?

midnitereaper
07-28-2006, 10:58 AM
+100

I totally understand how you feel. I served this country to protect our freedom but when I got home, I couldn't find that freedom that I almost died for.

They say we are free but I can't even listen to the radio station that I want to listen to.


Where do I sign up?

Same here! I served my country to protect its freedom. When I got out I started to wonder what the hell I was protecting!

If your looking for a group to join then I suggest you check out www.americanminuteman.net/forums. Thats a start to see if anyone is even in your area. We also have comms setup by state that you can patch into.

ibbryn
07-28-2006, 1:58 PM
US citizen. Resident of California.

chris
07-28-2006, 8:46 PM
i have to say what still blows me away is the amount of support at home. it really does make being here a little easier allthough it can't compare to being home. i don't listen to the news because the polls are a small fraction of the population of our country.

i've said it before i'll say it again thank you for the support.

6172crew
07-28-2006, 9:48 PM
i have to say what still blows me away is the amount of support at home. it really does make being here a little easier allthough it can't compare to being home. i don't listen to the news because the polls are a small fraction of the population of our country.

i've said it before i'll say it again thank you for the support.

Say Hi to my Bro-inlaw for me. 1/7 Weapons CO.- Al Ansbar area;)

.....or any Marine CH46E:cool:

BTW I will make sure one of my letters have my GI's in mind, problem is the N/C on AUG16th should be kept to the point which is how does changing the current DOJ approved law which we live by today effect the guys owning them next year.

Part of the problem I think the DOJ should be taken into account is the folks serving abroad and how waiting until the deployments times relax some so that all of our Marines, Saliors, Solders, and Airmen have a chance to reply to the N/C period.

Im willing to bet 150k CA res are serving and dont have a fair shot at getting in on the N/C next month. If anything we should make sure they have a voice...IMHO.

Semper FI!

chris
07-30-2006, 3:34 AM
maybe at the hearing someone could bring this subject up to the DOJ. it would be a good idea and it should not meet any opposition but this is the DOJ anything can happen. if there is a registration period they should take into account that residents that are deployed abroad have a very slim chance in complying with the registraion period and should be given a grace period to comply upon return and release from active duty. this is mainly aimed at the Reserve and National Guard personell out there and there is alot of us that are gone.

it would be terrible PR for someone returning from deployment and get busted for possesion of an unregistered weapon and had absolutyy no chance of complying with the law while they were gone.

Mudvayne540ld
07-30-2006, 7:00 PM
+1 to that

My uncle got screwed back in 2000 while deployed overseas. This need to be heard. It is NOT fair to do this to people serving our country.

chris
07-30-2006, 8:39 PM
i personally think it would be a great subject to bring up at the hearing. but this state screws it's own people and do you think they care?

it would be a simple process to do. all one would have to do is provide proof that they were overseas and unable to register their weapon(s). something like orders or a DD214 would suffice as proof of service.