PDA

View Full Version : Glad DOJ is so fast to get back to you.....


jemaddux
07-27-2006, 8:54 PM
I emailed DOJ a while back on a question and today I just got a responce:

Dear Mr. Maddux:

In regard to your e-mail inquiry, off list lowers may be sold and owned. Individuals who alter a firearm designed and intended to accept a detachable magazine in an attempt to make it incapable of accepting a detachable magazine do so at their legal peril. Whether or not such a firearm remains capable of accepting a detachable magazine is a question for law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, and ultimately juries of twelve persons, not the California Department of Justice. We cannot anticipate how any or all of the above entities will view the conversion of a firearm.

Current law defines 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) as an assault weapon. These features may be added to a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has a permanently fixed magazine.

As stated in our Important Notice, the Department believes that the public and law enforcement are best served by reference to the generic definition of assault weapons set forth in SB 23, rather than reliance upon a scheme of identifying assault weapons by name. Therefore, the Department will not update the list of "series" assault weapons.

Should you have any further questions, you may contact the Firearms Division at (916) 263-4887.

Sincerely,

Leslie McGovern, Analyst
Firearms Division



I emailed back in the end of May and it now the end of July, I would guess that pretty fast service for DOJ right. You just have to love the wonderful service we get.:eek:

tenpercentfirearms
07-27-2006, 8:56 PM
That is a pretty good letter. Basically it says, "We lost, you won!" All your base belong to calguns!

Mudvayne540ld
07-27-2006, 8:59 PM
I'd say that is really quick. I sent in a Q about CA OLL's, and it took nearly 3 months =/

thmpr
07-27-2006, 9:00 PM
That letter should be placed on a shirt!!!

anotherone
07-27-2006, 9:24 PM
That's right folks... even after spending millions, the NRA, GOA, CRPA, and numerous attorneys could not get a legal reciever into the state. Yet a handful of people who had never met each other in person online were able to get 30,000+ recievers into the state in less than a year and even force the DOJ to admit what the law really was in writting. Talk about a huge victory for grass roots!

xenophobe
07-27-2006, 9:28 PM
It is exactly the DOJ's job to add to, define and list assault weapons.

Thanks DOJ! We won! :)

avidone
07-27-2006, 9:43 PM
Whether or not such a firearm remains capable of accepting a detachable magazine is a question for law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, and ultimately juries of twelve persons, not the California Department of Justice.

Oh, silly me.

I though the California Department of Justice, Firearms Division was there to, among other duties, assist me in understanding the firearms laws.

Silly me.

bwiese
07-27-2006, 10:55 PM
Oh, silly me.

I though the California Department of Justice, Firearms Division was there to, among other duties, assist me in understanding the firearms laws.

Silly me.


Acutally they're not.

They're not your personal lawyer. They represent "The People" - as in the People v. Joe Schmo, with Joe Schmo being busted for something. The Atty General is not your personal lawyer. Their explanations are mostly a courtesy (with some due process stuff for regulatory matters).

As a regulatory agency, they do have some obligation to explain regulations and how they interface with laws, but not necessarily the law itself! They explain that to you at trial :)

avidone
07-28-2006, 1:42 AM
They explain that to you at trial :)

Oh that's great!

chris
07-28-2006, 3:00 AM
nice letter i like it put it on a t-shirt and it should have a score people 1 DOJ 0. in reading the letter it looks like they are admitting they lost. but still the law we have to follow is so badly written how could anyone figure it out. IMO it seems the law was written in a hasty manner. but the law is here we can only hope to chip away at it as they have chipped away at ours.

we have to keep fighting!!!!

Ford8N
07-28-2006, 5:26 AM
That's right folks... even after spending millions, the NRA, GOA, CRPA, and numerous attorneys could not get a legal reciever into the state. Yet a handful of people who had never met each other in person online were able to get 30,000+ recievers into the state in less than a year and even force the DOJ to admit what the law really was in writting. Talk about a huge victory for grass roots!



+1

But try and explain that to some FFL's in this state who are telling people that you will go to jail if you have an OLL. Sometimes I wonder whose side are they on....

6172crew
07-28-2006, 5:31 AM
How is it easier to define an AW than listing? If its listed its no good, or is it fixed, or is it now fixed? Does that protrude or does it not protrude, does that stock fold or does it not fold.

shonc99
07-28-2006, 5:50 AM
If the DOJ thinks that a generic features ban is better than some sort of "scheme" of identifying by make and model, then perhaps they should repeal the earlier bans which prevents us from buying DPMS, Colt, Bushmaster and other brands. :mad:

If SB23 is so simple and easy to use, then I declare under the powers given me by the great and powerful Wizard here in the land of ODD that any and all firearms laws are now null and void. :eek: :D

jemaddux
07-28-2006, 6:56 AM
Acutally they're not.

They're not your personal lawyer. They represent "The People" - as in the People v. Joe Schmo, with Joe Schmo being busted for something. The Atty General is not your personal lawyer. Their explanations are mostly a courtesy (with some due process stuff for regulatory matters).

As a regulatory agency, they do have some obligation to explain regulations and how they interface with laws, but not necessarily the law itself! They explain that to you at trial :)


I find myself disagreeing with you again Bill. I feel they are actually here to enforce and explain the law.


Office of the Attorney General
Mission Statement

It is our duty to serve our state and work honorably every day to fulfill California's promise. The Attorney General and our Department's employees provide leadership, information and education in partnership with state and local governments and the people of California to:

Enforce and apply all our laws fairly and impartially.

Ensure justice, safety, and liberty for everyone.

Encourage economic prosperity, equal opportunity and tolerance.

Safeguard California's human, natural, and financial resources for this and future generations.


Just like police, if they didn't explain the laws how would you know what is correct? And by explaining I mean putting out information in writing that is correct AND answering questions correctly when needed.


"Whether or not such a firearm remains capable of accepting a detachable magazine is a question for law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, and ultimately juries of twelve persons, not the California Department of Justice. We cannot anticipate how any or all of the above entities will view the conversion of a firearm."

But they are not really giving out correct answers to anything when they say they do not enforce the laws but in their own mission statement they say "Enforce and apply all our laws fairly and impartially. "


They really should spend some time figuring out their own job and then maybe try figuring out what a firearm is:D .

Jicko
07-28-2006, 7:34 AM
"Whether or not such a firearm remains capable of accepting a detachable magazine is a question for law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, and ultimately juries of twelve persons, not the California Department of Justice. We cannot anticipate how any or all of the above entities will view the conversion of a firearm."

But they are not really giving out correct answers to anything when they say they do not enforce the laws but in their own mission statement they say "Enforce and apply all our laws fairly and impartially. "

They really should spend some time figuring out their own job and then maybe try figuring out what a firearm is:D .


Either attend or send in your comments for the 8/16 hearing.... ask that in their face why are they (or AG himself) not doing what they are/he is *supposed* to do.... ie. keep the list updated!!

Liberty Rules
07-28-2006, 9:00 AM
Acutally they're not.

They're not your personal lawyer. They represent "The People" - as in the People v. Joe Schmo, with Joe Schmo being busted for something. The Atty General is not your personal lawyer. Their explanations are mostly a courtesy (with some due process stuff for regulatory matters).

As a regulatory agency, they do have some obligation to explain regulations and how they interface with laws, but not necessarily the law itself! They explain that to you at trial :)

Bill, I respectfully disagree with you on this one. The AG's office is the top "lawyer" for the state, but that does not mean that the position is exactly equivalent to the role of a private attorney representing his client. The AG's office is also expected to issue advisory opinions on any number of legal issues to provide guidance to folks in the state--interpreting statutes, regulations, and cases. An AG opinion does not carry the force of case law and is not binding on courts, but it does carry some weight. It will often take years for the court system to issues rulings on a new statute. Do not forget that the grand majority of cases are decided with no published opinion. Hence the need for guidance from the top legal officer in the state.

The AG is not obligated to issues opinions simply because someone asks for one. However, where there is an absence of case law on a topic, there is great uncertainty, and a high likelihood of confusion amongst the law abiding public (or other agencies for that matter), you would want a responsible AG to issue an opinion as guidance in the meantime--particularly where the AG's office is primarily responsible for the interpretation of those laws (the firearms division) and for the guidance given to law enforcement concerning their application. For them to say that they have no involvement and it is solely in the hands of DA's and juries is political gamesmanship, pure and simple. They are opposed to private ownership of firearms and they are doing what they can to throw sand in the gears.

This is an area ripe for AG guidance until there are court rulings on the subject. With that said, be careful what you wish for. I do not believe that any of us would like the advisory opinion that Bozo Bill's office would issue. He would probably state that everything is illegal.

If you want to peruse the breadth of the topics AG opinions cover, you can find AG opinions on any of the legal research websites. You can also go to www.ag.ca.gov and click on the "Legal Opinions" link. You will find that the AG's office is offering a host of interpretations of legal issues involving cases, statutes, and regulations. They tend to follow the IRAC format so familiar to law students: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.

Here is a partial list of the OPINIONS PENDING JULY 2006:

05-603 May a city prohibit a tenant of city property from displaying political advertising on the property? (Stone)
05-702 How are special education property tax revenues to be distributed when a school district takes over special education programs previously operated by the county superintendent? (Lee)
05-710 May a community services district terminate services and dissolve an existing zone established to pay for the services? (Nolan)
05-903 Does the spousal privilege not to testify (Evid. Code, § 980) apply to peace officer internal affairs investigations? (Stone)
05-914 May an elected mayor of a general law city appoint the members of the city's planning commission? (Nolan)
05-1006 May a school district trustee, who receives retirement health benefits as a former district teacher, participate in decisions affecting the health benefits of current teachers if his retirement health benefits are linked to current district benefits? (Nolan)
05-1014 May the Prison Industry Board appoint an executive officer of the board who is exempt from civil service requirements? (Stone)
05-1106 May two or more child molestation parolees be placed in the same residential facility that serves six or fewer persons (Pen. Code, § 3003.5)? (Lee)
05-1113 May a person serve simultaneously as a director of the Metropolitan Water District and director of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California? (Nolan)
05-1201 Does a judge commit a federal crime when he or she orders the return of medical marijuana to a defendant? (Nolan)
06-102 May the California State University employ “selection criteria” to limit the number of qualified bidders under the terms of Public Contract Code section 10708? (Nolan)
06-105 May a county treasurer, who is also the county auditor, be a member of the county’s board of retirement? (Lee)
06-107 Where should funds paid to the state for Medicare and Medicaid Services pursuant to federal law to encourage employers to continue existing prescription drug coverage for their retirees be deposited? (Nolan)
06-109 May a licensed pest control operator use a pellet gun to kill cottontail rabbits that are damaging ornamental landscaping? (Lee)
06-201 Does the term “independent study” include distance learning through use of computer and communications technology so as to limit the offering of programs by an online charter school to students residing in the school’s county and adjacent counties only? (Gonot)
06-203 May a district attorney release local summary criminal history information in response to a Public Records Act request? (Stone)
06-204 May a District Attorney Investigator exercise peace officer powers without completing the Regular Basic Course training requirement? (Nolan)
06-210 May LAFCO condition approval of the incorporation of a city upon voters in the proposed city approving a general tax? (Gonot)
06-301 Is a wholesale used vehicle auction operator required to be licensed as a “repossession agency”? (Lee)
06-307 May a sheriff issue an honorary badge to a civilian (Nolan)?
06-402 May a sheriff set staff salaries without the approval of the county board of supervisors? (Gonot)
06-404 May a county create exclusive service areas for it solid waste collection program? (Stone)

sac7000
07-28-2006, 1:00 PM
+1

But try and explain that to some FFL's in this state who are telling people that you will go to jail if you have an OLL. Sometimes I wonder whose side are they on....

It would help greatly if the email response was on DOJ letterhead. Especially the part that states: In regard to your e-mail inquiry, off list lowers may be sold and owned.

That's what FFL's I've talked to are looking for, a simple yes it's ok to dros OLL's and signed by DOJ with their blessings.

midnitereaper
07-28-2006, 1:17 PM
So why dont we take it to the next level? Ask them what is the difference between legally buying and owning a OLL and a colt. They are both the same shape size and weight but with different names. Might want to also get colt involved with this. I am sure their lawyers would have a field day on this subject as it totally looks like discrimination agains one manufacturer. OH and if any of these OLL manufacturers are foreign then wooo hooo colt will have an even bigger case that the CA DOJ banned an american company from selling an american product to americans in CA!

sac7000
07-28-2006, 1:23 PM
So why dont we take it to the next level? Ask them what is the difference between legally buying and owning a OLL and a colt. They are both the same shape size and weight but with different names. Might want to also get colt involved with this. I am sure their lawyers would have a field day on this subject as it totally looks like discrimination agains one manufacturer. OH and if any of these OLL manufacturers are foreign then wooo hooo colt will have an even bigger case that the CA DOJ banned an american company from selling an american product to americans in CA!

discrimination sucks... down with discrimination now! :)

ibbryn
07-28-2006, 1:55 PM
Doesn't someone somewhere in CA government tell us what the relevant definitions are in order to enforce vehicle code?

Someone, somewhere in a CA government office has stated what the maximim permissible tint on the driver's side window of your car is. They've developed a procedure the cop in the field can use to test and see if your tint is in compliance with the codes. You could do the same test yourself before taking your vehicle out on the road so you would not be out of compliance.

It's insane that the CA DOJ won't / can't tell us what the definition of a detachable mag / permenently attached mag is. I think it is their job.

AxonGap
07-28-2006, 2:34 PM
If you read AB2728; as of January 1, 2007...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4/UndersK0R_2006/Base.jpg

Also, as I posted on another thread, check out the ammended verbiage under Section 12001 of the Penal Code:

“SECTION 1.Section 12001 of the Penal Code is AMENDED to read: 12001.(a) (1) As used in this title, the terms “pistol,” “revolver,” and “firearm capable of being concealed upon the person” shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. THESE TERMS ALSO INCLUDE ANY DEVICE THAT HAS A BARREL 16 INCHES OR MORE IN LENGTH WHICH IS DESIGNED TO BE INTERCHANGED WITH A BARREL LESS THAN 16 INCHES IN LENGTH.

Are they going after the interchangeability of the upper receiver as well?

John S
07-28-2006, 2:34 PM
What we need to do is print out all of the early brand specific letters (Stag, DSA. etc.) form around the early part of this year where the DOJ reps stated in writing that our lowers were legal to own and would be added to the AW list very soon.

We also need to print out all the various memos which are a total contradiction to both the early letters and even themselves and ask the DOJ why we are being jerked around and possibly entrapped since nothing seems to jive what so ever!

chiefcrash
07-28-2006, 2:52 PM
THESE TERMS ALSO INCLUDE ANY DEVICE THAT HAS A BARREL 16 INCHES OR MORE IN LENGTH WHICH IS DESIGNED TO BE INTERCHANGED WITH A BARREL LESS THAN 16 INCHES IN LENGTH.

Are they going after the interchangeability of the upper receiver as well?

can't you change out the barrel of just about ANY rifle and shotgun? Is my Remington 870 gonna be illegal because i could put a 10" barrel on it if i had it?

icormba
07-28-2006, 3:00 PM
I emailed back in the end of May and it now the end of July, I would guess that pretty fast service for DOJ right. You just have to love the wonderful service we get.:eek:

Man! I remember the days when you could email the DOJ and they would reply the next day... but then again, the last time I did that was a few years back.

blacklisted
07-28-2006, 3:26 PM
As I have said before:

It already says that!

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12000.htm


12001. (a)(1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol," "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.


So stop worrying!


If you read AB2728; as of January 1, 2007...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4/UndersK0R_2006/Base.jpg

Also, as I posted on another thread, check out the ammended verbiage under Section 12001 of the Penal Code:

“SECTION 1.Section 12001 of the Penal Code is AMENDED to read: 12001.(a) (1) As used in this title, the terms “pistol,” “revolver,” and “firearm capable of being concealed upon the person” shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. THESE TERMS ALSO INCLUDE ANY DEVICE THAT HAS A BARREL 16 INCHES OR MORE IN LENGTH WHICH IS DESIGNED TO BE INTERCHANGED WITH A BARREL LESS THAN 16 INCHES IN LENGTH.

Are they going after the interchangeability of the upper receiver as well?

AxonGap
07-28-2006, 3:32 PM
As I have said before:

It already says that!

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12000.htm



So stop worrying!

I'm not worrying, I'm whining!
So I'll stop whining! :)

sac7000
07-28-2006, 5:14 PM
Would you be willing to scan that letter as a PDF, or other format, and place it in a post so users can download copies?

I thought his response was via email? Did he receive a formal letter reply?

M. Sage
07-28-2006, 5:28 PM
Either attend or send in your comments for the 8/16 hearing.... ask that in their face why are they (or AG himself) not doing what they are/he is *supposed* to do.... ie. keep the list updated!!

The "list" is (should be) just an enforcement tool, and shouldn't be considered law.

The most truthful thing they said was that it's ulitimately up to a jury to decide what does and doesn't fall under the ban. The DOJ's job isn't to write or enterpret laws, even parts of them. It's only to enforce them.

Paul1960
07-28-2006, 5:49 PM
It's amazing that the guy would come right out and admit that the law is so vauge as to be un-Constitutionally impossible to interpet! Most laws are black and white, guilty or not, and just as was predicted when the average man can no longer tell if he's in violation, let alone the damn DoJ the law is soon to be overthrown ... either that or the government needs a good wake up call.

C.G.
07-28-2006, 6:23 PM
I thought his response was via email? Did he receive a formal letter reply?

His response was worth the paper it was written on.;)

Tzvia
07-29-2006, 7:01 PM
That letter is poo poo.
"These features may be added to a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has a permanently fixed magazine."

Where in the laws is there anything about a permanently fixed magazine? The law states the magazine can be removable, with tools like my sks's. Once the mag requires a tool to remove, it is legal. And as long as that mag is in there, locked in requiring a tool, I can't insert a detatachable mag. So that letter should line the bottom of a birdcage somewhere...

Heck, my BM Carbon 15 is the toploader-the bottom of the magwell is closed, but five minutes or less with a dremmel opens it up-but the DOJ said to BM it was ok. Is that their idea of permanent?

sac7000
07-29-2006, 7:45 PM
That letter is poo poo.
"These features may be added to a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has a permanently fixed magazine."

Where in the laws is there anything about a permanently fixed magazine? The law states the magazine can be removable, with tools like my sks's. Once the mag requires a tool to remove, it is legal. And as long as that mag is in there, locked in requiring a tool, I can't insert a detatachable mag. So that letter should line the bottom of a birdcage somewhere...

Heck, my BM Carbon 15 is the toploader-the bottom of the magwell is closed, but five minutes or less with a dremmel opens it up-but the DOJ said to BM it was ok. Is that their idea of permanent?

Yup, as we all know very well, nothing has changed. Talk is cheap and so are memos. It's finally cooled off and I'm hitting the range tomorow. Got important stuff to do, need to litter the target birms with more lead. It's my job and I do it well. You betcha by golly....

anotherone
07-29-2006, 9:13 PM
If the DOJ thinks that a generic features ban is better than some sort of "scheme" of identifying by make and model, then perhaps they should repeal the earlier bans which prevents us from buying DPMS, Colt, Bushmaster and other brands.

I agree that if they're going to decide to go with features and this new permenant mag definition they should just toss out the list and let all stripped AR and AK recievers be lawful. Just let the laws guide the buyer on what can lawfully be built up out of the recievers. Oh wait a minute... that would actually make sense :rolleyes: !