PDA

View Full Version : NRA Counsel ALERT on DOJ Meeting 8-4-06


Hunter
08-04-2006, 4:42 PM
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!!!

LOCKYER’S NEW PROPOSED “ASSAULT WEAPON” REGULATIONS

COULD DRAMATICALLY EXPAND “ASSAULT WEAPON” LAW.

DOJ NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU! NOW!!!
The California Department of Justice has published proposed administrative regulations that could turn thousands of semi-automatic rifles with fixed magazines, previously thought to be legal, into illegal “assault weapons.” The regulation and related information is posted at: www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awdefnotice0606.html.

The regulation would appear to deem any fixed magazine rifle with one feature prohibited by Penal Code section 12276.1 that could be retrofitted with a detachable magazine an “assault weapon.” The most obvious examples would be SKS type rifles, DSArms FN-FAL series rifles, and any rifle for which an after market detachable magazine retrofit kit is available.

Under Penal Code section 12276.1 (passed as part of SB 23 in 2000), any “semi-automatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine” and any one of the listed features (conspicuously protruding pistol grip, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, etc.) is an “assault weapon.” Since its passage in 2000, “capacity to accept” has been understood to mean a rifle receiver into which a detachable magazine could be inserted in the condition in which it is possessed. So fixed magazine rifles that could be reconfigured or retrofitted to accept an after market detachable magazine, if not actually so configured, were legal.

Then in late June, the DOJ Firearms Division published the proposed new regulations, which would define “capacity to accept” a detachable magazine as:

“capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.”

A bulletin published by DOJ on May 9th explains what DOJ is trying to do. The bulletin says:

“Semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accomodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in section 12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(I) to adopt regulations as “necessary and proper to carry out the purpose and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state.”

The bulletin is posted at: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

The regulation itself is confusing, despite the fact that regulations are supposed to “clarify” the law. “Capable of accommodating a detachable magazine” seems redundant with “capacity to accept” a detachable magazine. And nothing in the regulation confirms that “permanent alteration” of a detachable magazine is the only way for a magazine to be deemed non-detachable. What about rifles that are originally manufactured with a fixed magazine, but that can be retrofitted with an after market detachable magazine? These rifles were never “altered” at all. And what does means “permanent alteration” mean? Practically any gun can be machined and so “altered” to accept a detachable magazine. In fact, the statute itself doesn’t even use the term “permanently altered” in addressing “detachable magazines,” it only uses that term when discussing “high capacity” magazines.

Nonetheless, the DOJ bulletin makes clear that the regulation is intended to only exclude firearms that are “permanently altered” to only accept a fixed magazine from the “capacity to accept a detachable magazine” definition. So the effect of DOJ’s proposed regulation would be to expand the definition of “assault weapon” to include any rifle with just one of the prohibited features that could be retrofitted with a detachable magazine, even if currently equipped with a fixed magazine. Given the number of after market detachable magazine conversion kits available, and the ability to further machine practically any receiver to accept a detachable magazine, the new regulation could condemn thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of guns!

How did this come about? It started several months ago. Responding to a letter about AR “series” receivers, the DOJ acknowledged that unless an AR or AK receiver is listed in Penal Code section 12276 (the 1989 Roberti-Roos list), or listed by DOJ in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the receiver is legal. (There is still some debate about whether a receiver by itself is an “assault weapon.” DOJ’s position, naturally, is that it is). This caused an influx of these legal receivers into the state. Concerned about this, DOJ announced it was going to make the receivers illegal by adding them to the “series” list in the CCR. But this would mean DOJ would have to allow them to be registered. When it was pointed out that once registered, the SB 23 prohibited features could then be added to the firearm, the DOJ announced that it would create two classes of “assault weapon” registration, and that the newly registered guns could not have the features. When it was pointed out to DOJ that the law did not provide for two classes of “assault weapon” registration, and that if these guns were registered the features would have to be allowed, DOJ decided not to add the series receivers to the list after all. Instead, this regulation was proposed, and DOJ introduced legislation (AB 2728) that would repeal the regulatory add-on provisions so DOJ would not have to administer that aspect of the law anymore.

Regulations are supposed to clarify the law. And the “assault weapon” statutes need a lot of clarification. But this regulation does not clarify anything and needs to be opposed.

ACTION REQUIRED:

Review the DOJ’s proposal at http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awdefnotice0606.html direct questions to the Firearms Division at (916) 263-4887, email your comments to jeff.amador@doj.ca.gov and/or fax them to his attention at (916) 263-0676.

The Department will hold a public hearing on the proposed regulation beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 in the Department of Water Resources auditorium located at 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California. At the hearing, any person may present oral or written comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The Department requests, but does not require, that persons who make oral comments also submit written copy of their testimony at the hearing.

In your LETTER OF OPPOSITION, be sure to point out that:


The regulation itself raises questions instead of answering them and should be withdrawn or at least rewritten.

The statute (Penal Code section 12276.1) does not require a firearm to be permanently altered to only accept a fixed magazine – the “permanently altered” language only applies to “high capacity” magazines

The regulation is contrary to what DOJ has lead people to believe about how to make their guns legal.

Many fixed magazine guns can be retrofitted with a detachable magazine -- which would make them illegal.

”Permanent alteration” should be defined. But given modern machining capabilities, no firearm is ever “permanently altered” to only accept a fixed magazine.

The regulation would deem any fixed magazine rifle with a one feature prohibited by Penal Code section 12276.1 that could be retrofitted with a detachable magazine an “assault weapon.” There are many of these rifles in California.

The most obvious examples would be SKS type rifles, DSArms FN-FAL series rifles, and any rifle for which an after market detachable magazine retrofit kit is available.

People were mislead to believe that by putting a fixed magazine of their rifle they were in compliance with the law.

People were not told they needed to register these guns as “assault weapons” and the registration period has now expired.

tenpercentfirearms
08-04-2006, 4:45 PM
Damn, I wanted to be the first to post. Well what do you know, the NRA cares after all. :D

Here is the link. http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert080406.shtml

jemaddux
08-04-2006, 4:51 PM
Damn, I wanted to be the first to post. Well what do you know, the NRA cares after all. :D


Yea, but isn't it a little late to be coming out with this. The Glendale gun show is coming up but gives little time for anyone to respond. I hope this can get out fast enough for people to write a letter or contact DOJ.

Hunter
08-04-2006, 4:53 PM
Yea, but isn't it a little late to be coming out with this. The Glendale gun show is coming up but gives little time for anyone to respond. I hope this can get out fast enough for people to write a letter or contact DOJ.


The meeting is over 12 days away, shouldn't take that long to write a letter. Plus it can be emailed to the contact provided in the alert.

tenpercentfirearms
08-04-2006, 5:19 PM
It is perfect timing. The NRA didn't tip their hand too early. I like how they gave a little history too. The cat is out of the bag.

Guinness
08-04-2006, 5:26 PM
It is perfect timing. The NRA didn't tip their hand too early. I like how they gave a little history too. The cat is out of the bag.


I have to agree - I've not been a huge NRA fan of late (yes, I am still a member though) - But thier timing on this is good.

leelaw
08-04-2006, 5:46 PM
So, do we have Calgun's permission to send letters now? :rolleyes:

Diabolus
08-04-2006, 5:53 PM
I mailed a letter this morning. I generally do not get involved in matters like this but this is absurd.

I really hope all of you take 20 minutes out of your day to write a letter and mail it off; while I was at Kinkos I sent it via fax as well.

Dont Tread on Me
08-04-2006, 6:02 PM
I've been attending my local NRA council meetings for a couple of months and can assure that the NRA has been working the OLL issue for a long time. Who do you think pointed out to the DOJ that the first memo was not going to fly? The timing of this request has been carefully considered. 10% hit the nail on the head and I've not posted for a while as I did not want to let anything slip.

The NRA is amazingly active in this state and I'm just surprised that the word never seams to get out (remember the SF handgun ban?). I sit at council meetings where members dream about what could be achieved if more members of the shooting community came up to the plate and helped out.

Please take time to write on this issue and if you can try attending your next local NRA council meeting. There are a tone of issues to fight (serialized ammo, micro-stamping etc).

Satex
08-04-2006, 6:29 PM
Email, Fax, and Letter sent!

jemaddux
08-04-2006, 7:10 PM
Email, Fax, and Letter sent!


The only other board I know is AR15.com.

How about a list of other boards that people belong to that we can also get information to and get them to write letters, Faxes and emails?

6172crew
08-04-2006, 7:14 PM
Im still working on my letter, but will FAX, Send and Email when done.

My concerns are already above but my letter will ask what the SKS which has already been proven by the DOJ to be a legal rifle with a fixed mag that can be made illegal in minutes and does have the ability to accept a detachable magazine if one wanted to make it happen.

If the new ruling is ment to clarify the law of the last 6 years then they have alot of clearing up to do. The law is clear as it stands and this will only confuse those that are trying to obey the law. The courts have already handed down guidlines and it is a waste of taxpayers $$ to send it back to court yet again when it is challenged for being vague and misleading.

The .mil folks were legal when they left for the sandbox and might be felons when they return, because they dont have anyway to contact the NRA website, DOJ, etc the concerns that they might have will in fact be ignored and concideration should be made for all active, reserve, and gaurd units should have the right to voice opposition to any changes to legal rifle they own.

Muzz
08-04-2006, 7:28 PM
Well, I'll be darned...the NRA does seem to give a frog's fat butt after all.

When this is all over, I hope we all haven't just shot ourselves in the collective foot with all this...along with thousands of unsuspecting "capacity to accept" rifle owners.

MonsterMan
08-04-2006, 8:32 PM
I emailed and faxed my letter today. :)

MM

wilit
08-04-2006, 9:42 PM
Can someone post up an example of the letter they sent? I want to do my civic duty, but don't want to look like an idiot because I don't know what key words I should've included.

chris
08-04-2006, 9:47 PM
now i think a letter needs to be put out or PM'd to those who want one. i will work on one today anyone care to print and mail it for me i will PM anyone who would do this for me. i can e-mail but i want a hard copy sent as well. thanks and good luck to all on this the word MUST get out.


VOTE this year guys we have to do something.

tenpercentfirearms
08-04-2006, 10:14 PM
There is no reason not to start posting letters. The time has come. Let em have it!

6172crew
08-04-2006, 10:21 PM
Can someone post up an example of the letter they sent? I want to do my civic duty, but don't want to look like an idiot because I don't know what key words I should've included.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In your LETTER OF OPPOSITION, be sure to point out that:

- The regulation itself raises questions instead of answering them and should be withdrawn or at least rewritten.

- The statute (Penal Code section 12276.1) does not require a firearm to be permanently altered to only accept a fixed magazine - the "permanently altered" language only applies to "high capacity" magazines

- The regulation is contrary to what DOJ has lead people to believe about how to make their guns legal.

- Many fixed magazine guns can be retrofitted with a detachable magazine -- which would make them illegal.

- "Permanent alteration" should be defined. But given modern machining capabilities, no firearm is ever "permanently altered" to only accept a fixed magazine.

- The regulation would deem any fixed magazine rifle with a one feature prohibited by Penal Code section 12276.1 that could be retrofitted with a detachable magazine an "assault weapon." There are many of these rifles in California.

- The most obvious examples would be SKS type rifles, DSArms FN-FAL series rifles, and any rifle for which an after market detachable magazine retrofit kit is available.

- People were mislead to believe that by putting a fixed magazine of their rifle they were in compliance with the law.

- People were not told they needed to register these guns as "assault weapons" and the registration period has now expired.

This info is available at:
http://calnra.com/calerts

bwiese
08-04-2006, 10:41 PM
...the NRA has been working the OLL issue for a long time. Who do you think pointed out to the DOJ that the first memo was not going to fly?

Me........................

xenophobe
08-04-2006, 10:49 PM
Me........................

+1 Good job Bill.

WokMaster1
08-04-2006, 10:54 PM
Me........................

Bill, don't be shy now.

It was me, damn it!!!:D :D

DRH
08-04-2006, 10:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- People were mislead to believe that by putting a fixed magazine of their rifle they were in compliance with the law.

- People were not told they needed to register these guns as "assault weapons" and the registration period has now expired.

I do not agree with these last two talking points from the memo, we need to clearly state our position and not compromise it away.

A fixed magazine rifle is in compliance with the law, no one has been mislead about there legality. The only misleading that has been done is the recent attempt by the DOJ to convince the public into believing they are not changing the intent and scope of the AW regulations but only "clarifing" them.

A fixed magazine rifle is not an AW within the definition of 12276 and therefore does not need to be registered. If the DOJ wants to change the regulations and add these weapons to the AW catagory they need to open a new registration window or leave the weapons as is simple long guns.

tenpercentfirearms
08-04-2006, 11:02 PM
DRH I think the idea is if the regulations go into effect, then those two statements will apply.

chris
08-04-2006, 11:07 PM
There is no reason not to start posting letters. The time has come. Let em have it!

the only reason that was posted was to help those who are not so eloquent in letter writing but want to be counted in the fight we have ahead of us. i have this to say teamwork or hardwork, one team one fight. no pun intended but help those who request it.

i completely agree to let em have it. lets give em hell guys on this one.:)

Mudvayne540ld
08-04-2006, 11:42 PM
e-mailed - faxed - sent

lets kick some tail

adamsreeftank
08-04-2006, 11:45 PM
I like the NRA Memo, or whatever it is, but I have to wonder about the last line.

- People were not told they needed to register these guns as "assault weapons" and the registration period has now expired.


What exactly are they talking about? Unless I missed something very very BIG, there was no chance to register OLLs.

adamsreeftank
08-04-2006, 11:47 PM
Me........................

That's right Bill. IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT! If you had just kept quite, they would have passed some rediculous regulation that would already have been thrown out and we'd all have registered AWs now.:mad: :mad: :D

Hunter
08-04-2006, 11:57 PM
I like the NRA Memo, or whatever it is, but I have to wonder about the last line.

- People were not told they needed to register these guns as "assault weapons" and the registration period has now expired.


What exactly are they talking about? Unless I missed something very very BIG, there was no chance to register OLLs.

I think it is about SB23. At that time if you didn't register your firearms that meet the definitions of AW, the law stated you could remove the necessary features that were banned and you would be ok in keeping them. So those people with say a FAL not listed on '89RR could pin the mag for example and would have been fine in 2000 (per law) in doing so. The same goes with the other FMPs, SAR-8, ect.... Now it would not be the case if this passes and then that statement would apply.

mikehaas
08-05-2006, 8:58 AM
Me........................
For whatever communications you carried on with CADOJ regarding this issue, Thank You.

I would just point out that if NRA, through it's attorneys, had also told DOJ (and they did of course, quite forcefully), no one would know. Please consider the political sensitivity of such an interaction between NRA and DOJ and why it would not be made public. NRA has to remain fully engaged with DOJ on this and many other issues. It's an entirely different matter if a poster on a public forum puts reality in their faces in one situation and talks about it. (And again, thanks bweise for your efforts.)

In my 6 months or so here, IMO the most common misunderstanding many posters here operate under is that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist. Folks, we only see the surface of what goes on. NRA is constantly engaged and much of what happens does not NEED to be made public (and would probably hurt if it did). And that includes personal relationships too, with governmental staff and elected officials. They swim in that pond - we pay them to and they do it better than anyone.

Recently, The Administrator of the MC system put out an internal memo that cautioned all MC leaders about the "Not Invented Here" syndrome. This is where, just because an idea originates from outside a certain group, it is rejected by that group. Obviously, he wanted to make sure that MC leaders do not inadvertantly allow this to take root in their councils (as a good administrator should).

IMO, most often this syndrome is attributed to large corporate entities that can allow themselves to be isolated in various ways. But any organization of humans (including forums) can fall victim so such "group think". The only reason I bring it up here is to point out that when that causes forum members to lose resepct for our association, it hurts us all.

Mike

xenophobe
08-05-2006, 9:30 AM
Bill, you should make the final rebuttal to the Feburary memo public, and explain what most people probably don't know...

mikehaas
08-05-2006, 11:24 AM
it seems to be a leap of faith to some that the NRA is aware of and working on issues important to gun owners...
Well put. Of course the problem is there is great frustration. I've seen it cause good people to lose perspective. Being pissed off makes it easy to lose sight of the fact that just being pissed-off doesn't help anyone. Just complaining that NRA sucks (or the Republicans aren't good enough or the Democrats are evil - whatever) doesn't advance the line. But it often generates more frustration, more anger.

That's why I so heavily promote the NRA Members' Councils
http://calnra.com/volunteer/

It's a place to turn that anger into productive action on unison with other NRA members - somplace grassroots like us can really make a difference. I strongly suggest everyone use the above link, find the place and time of your local MCs meeting and attend. Big or small, that MC is sure to need your help.

Those who have been around the block know that failed initiatives and crazy Supreme Court cases - the products of frustration, not "fighting smart" - just waste effort and cause more anger, more feeling helpless. NRA gives us a place to go and giving NRA an army sure can't hurt.

Mike

6172crew
08-05-2006, 11:54 AM
Paul Paine just gave me a PDF file so we can print these out and take them to the range to spread the word.

http://www.calnra.com/calerts/pdf/calert080406.pdf

Im going to drop off one at the Concord sportmans range tommarow.

calAWBsux
08-05-2006, 3:08 PM
Time To Write Some Letters!!!

Dont Tread on Me
08-05-2006, 6:40 PM
Me........................

Not detracting one iota from you amazing contribution Bill - I hope to thank you in person some day.

I think you plus the NRA attorneys promising a court case if the DOJ tried to introduce a new category of assault weapon was better than just you standing on your own.

bwiese
08-05-2006, 7:16 PM
Not detracting one iota from you amazing contribution Bill - I hope to thank you in person some day.

I think you plus the NRA attorneys promising a court case if the DOJ tried to introduce a new category of assault weapon was better than just you standing on your own.

Oh I'm not bad-mouthing the attorneys. I had spoken to Chuck Michel (courtesy contact via Bruce Bauer Guns of Fresno area) during the SHOT Show about this (a week after the Cat 4 memo) and they'd just heard about it.

I'm just saying the day after the memo went out in Februrary, I publicly shot down the Cat 4 nonsense in a couple of very detailed posts here. Right after that I wrote am even more detailed 15 pg (NB:corrected) memo to "the gun lawyers" and laid out initial groundwork. But I think the DOJ saw the response here initially and at that point knew we couldn't be bamboozled.

It appears maybe the NRA was aware of the OLL situation but some/all of these lawyers may not (at that time) have been aware of the degree/extent/detail of the activities, types of configurations, DOJ threats/intimidation of FFLs, etc. So I will claim some credit in getting that ball rolling (introductory analysis, shooting down various DOJ ideas, etc.)

It's all of course moot since Cat 4 concepts are of course discredited/out the window and even DOJ doesn't assert anything about that anymore.

xenophobe
08-05-2006, 7:32 PM
Your detailed counterpoint was 15 pages long.

bwiese
08-05-2006, 7:43 PM
Your detailed counterpoint was 15 pages long.

Damn, you're right. Once I get going, it's hard to stop ;)

Dont Tread on Me
08-05-2006, 7:50 PM
Bill, I wish there was an award for contributions to gun ownership in CA. I think you and the organizers of the CA group buys would be the stand out winners for 2006.

It would be great if more people with your level of smarts and drive were working inside the NRA in CA. There are good people in the member councils but they could use more.

WokMaster1
08-05-2006, 8:39 PM
Bill, I wish there was an award for contributions to gun ownership in CA. I think you and the organizers of the CA group buys would be the stand out winners for 2006.

It would be great if more people with your level of smarts and drive were working inside the NRA in CA. There are good people in the member councils but they could use more.


What's stopping you from starting such an award? I am certain that I speak on behalf of many folks here that Bill is certainly one of the most knowledgable person I know as far as firearms legalities are concerned. Why he's not a lawyer is beyond me, he definitely could be the Johnny Cochran of the shooting sports world. "If it's fixed, you must acquit!":D

No, i'm not blowing air up someone's a.... Bill & many others has always been patiently helping out people with all sorts of questions. I for one had already given up hope in even smelling an AR until i accidently came across this website. I was actually working on the design of a 10 round semi auto slingshot. It never got further than the cocktail napkin......:p

jwissick
08-06-2006, 1:14 AM
Oughta fill that meeting room with NRA members.... Explain to them in no uncertain terms that they have gone too far.

Bizcuits
08-06-2006, 5:14 AM
Just wanted to say that I sent an email. The link to this thread was found on a website for airsoft in sacramento. I'm a Security Guard in sacramento, work full time. Would love to send a fax, but I don't have one.

hiyabrad
08-06-2006, 10:33 AM
My email, letter and fax have been sent. Everyone, do your part!

WRENCHHEAD
08-06-2006, 12:41 PM
what other points of reason should we state in our letter? i'm thinking of mentioning the fact that it will disable our ability to use it normally "OUT OF STATE."

that can't regulate anything out of state!

6172crew
08-06-2006, 1:29 PM
Id like to know if anyone was told they could build the lowers into a fixed 10 round rifle by the DOJ and who it was that said it.

PM me if you dont want to say out loud but I was told by the DOJ it was ok as long as didnt have a detachable magazine.

This could fall into the same lines as the 2 different Eagal Arms letters that came out of that office with in days of each other and had 2 opinions.

Solidsnake87
08-06-2006, 3:32 PM
The language of their proposition is confusing. Does this mean my NDS-3 is illegal? Are the police going to go around confiscating these firearms from myself and others?????? I was told by a DOJ rep that fixing the mag made it legal. The CA ATF also told me the same thing.

HillBilly
08-06-2006, 4:53 PM
Did we get a sample letter up yet? Or can someone PM me a way to get a sample letter. I want to make sure I made all the valid points, and do not sound uneducated on the topic. ;)

WRENCHHEAD
08-06-2006, 5:36 PM
same here, all the different points to state are jumbled in my head.

mikehaas
08-07-2006, 9:44 AM
Did we get a sample letter up yet? Or can someone PM me a way to get a sample letter. I want to make sure I made all the valid points, and do not sound uneducated on the topic. ;)
The NRA alert has a section titled "In your LETTER OF OPPOSITION, be sure to point out that:" and gives a list ot talking points.

If you are a loss for words, you might try taking a few of these points and putting them in your own language.

Mike

DRH
08-07-2006, 11:37 AM
Id like to know if anyone was told they could build the lowers into a fixed 10 round rifle by the DOJ and who it was that said it.
The DOJ said in writing that if the magazine was "not readily detachable" that the weapon was not subject to the ban on characteristics. The letter that I saved off this site was dated Dec 21, 2005 and it was written by the Deputy Attorney General, Firearms Division (I would type her name but it will get X'ed out). The existing definitions in the regulations clearly spell out what "readily detactable" means in the context of magazines - removable without the use of a tool or cartridge. If you want a copy of the letter email me or search the site. Now they want to twist the "capacity to accept" and "permanent" definitions around to their advantage. It is sad to see public servants with an agenda.

mikehaas
08-07-2006, 1:51 PM
The DOJ said in writing that...
Do you think DOJ is bound by what they have previously put in writing? Bill Doss thought so too. he got this letter back from CA DOJ in 1995, saying his SKS Sporter was legal. ..
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/sksgood.jpg
So he moved here and brought it.

Then Mr. Doss got this letter:
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/sksbad.jpg

Of course, this is the famous SKS confiscation story...
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/Lindex.html
(Yeah, that was with a REPUBLICAN AG.)

But DOJ, in writing? Good for birdcages, maybe. And I stress the maybe.

Mike

DRH
08-07-2006, 2:19 PM
Correct a DOJ opinion letter carries no legal protection or weight, but it is a clear indication of their past position on fixed magazine weapons. So when they say they are just "clarifying existing regulations" not changing the regulations or their stance it provides me evidence to call them liars.

Talkin2u2
08-10-2006, 9:14 AM
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!!!

LOCKYER’S NEW PROPOSED “ASSAULT WEAPON” REGULATIONS

COULD DRAMATICALLY EXPAND “ASSAULT WEAPON” LAW.

DOJ NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU! NOW!!!
The California Department of Justice has published proposed administrative regulations that could turn thousands of semi-automatic rifles with fixed magazines, previously thought to be legal, into illegal “assault weapons.” The regulation and related information is posted at: www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awdefnotice0606.html.

The regulation would appear to deem any fixed magazine rifle with one feature prohibited by Penal Code section 12276.1 that could be retrofitted with a detachable magazine an “assault weapon.” The most obvious examples would be SKS type rifles, DSArms FN-FAL series rifles, and any rifle for which an after market detachable magazine retrofit kit is available.

Under Penal Code section 12276.1 (passed as part of SB 23 in 2000), any “semi-automatic, center fire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine” and any one of the listed features (conspicuously protruding pistol grip, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, etc.) is an “assault weapon.” Since its passage in 2000, “capacity to accept” has been understood to mean a rifle receiver into which a detachable magazine could be inserted in the condition in which it is possessed. So fixed magazine rifles that could be reconfigured or retrofitted to accept an after market detachable magazine, if not actually so configured, were legal.

Then in late June, the DOJ Firearms Division published the proposed new regulations, which would define “capacity to accept” a detachable magazine as:

“capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.”

A bulletin published by DOJ on May 9th explains what DOJ is trying to do. The bulletin says:

“Semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accomodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in section 12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(I) to adopt regulations as “necessary and proper to carry out the purpose and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state.”

The bulletin is posted at: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

The regulation itself is confusing, despite the fact that regulations are supposed to “clarify” the law. “Capable of accommodating a detachable magazine” seems redundant with “capacity to accept” a detachable magazine. And nothing in the regulation confirms that “permanent alteration” of a detachable magazine is the only way for a magazine to be deemed non-detachable. What about rifles that are originally manufactured with a fixed magazine, but that can be retrofitted with an after market detachable magazine? These rifles were never “altered” at all. And what does means “permanent alteration” mean? Practically any gun can be machined and so “altered” to accept a detachable magazine. In fact, the statute itself doesn’t even use the term “permanently altered” in addressing “detachable magazines,” it only uses that term when discussing “high capacity” magazines.

Nonetheless, the DOJ bulletin makes clear that the regulation is intended to only exclude firearms that are “permanently altered” to only accept a fixed magazine from the “capacity to accept a detachable magazine” definition. So the effect of DOJ’s proposed regulation would be to expand the definition of “assault weapon” to include any rifle with just one of the prohibited features that could be retrofitted with a detachable magazine, even if currently equipped with a fixed magazine. Given the number of after market detachable magazine conversion kits available, and the ability to further machine practically any receiver to accept a detachable magazine, the new regulation could condemn thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of guns!

How did this come about? It started several months ago. Responding to a letter about AR “series” receivers, the DOJ acknowledged that unless an AR or AK receiver is listed in Penal Code section 12276 (the 1989 Roberti-Roos list), or listed by DOJ in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the receiver is legal. (There is still some debate about whether a receiver by itself is an “assault weapon.” DOJ’s position, naturally, is that it is). This caused an influx of these legal receivers into the state. Concerned about this, DOJ announced it was going to make the receivers illegal by adding them to the “series” list in the CCR. But this would mean DOJ would have to allow them to be registered. When it was pointed out that once registered, the SB 23 prohibited features could then be added to the firearm, the DOJ announced that it would create two classes of “assault weapon” registration, and that the newly registered guns could not have the features. When it was pointed out to DOJ that the law did not provide for two classes of “assault weapon” registration, and that if these guns were registered the features would have to be allowed, DOJ decided not to add the series receivers to the list after all. Instead, this regulation was proposed, and DOJ introduced legislation (AB 2728) that would repeal the regulatory add-on provisions so DOJ would not have to administer that aspect of the law anymore.

Regulations are supposed to clarify the law. And the “assault weapon” statutes need a lot of clarification. But this regulation does not clarify anything and needs to be opposed.

ACTION REQUIRED:

Review the DOJ’s proposal at http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awdefnotice0606.html direct questions to the Firearms Division at (916) 263-4887, email your comments to jeff.amador@doj.ca.gov and/or fax them to his attention at (916) 263-0676.

The Department will hold a public hearing on the proposed regulation beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 in the Department of Water Resources auditorium located at 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California. At the hearing, any person may present oral or written comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The Department requests, but does not require, that persons who make oral comments also submit written copy of their testimony at the hearing.

In your LETTER OF OPPOSITION, be sure to point out that:


The regulation itself raises questions instead of answering them and should be withdrawn or at least rewritten.

The statute (Penal Code section 12276.1) does not require a firearm to be permanently altered to only accept a fixed magazine – the “permanently altered” language only applies to “high capacity” magazines

The regulation is contrary to what DOJ has lead people to believe about how to make their guns legal.

Many fixed magazine guns can be retrofitted with a detachable magazine -- which would make them illegal.

”Permanent alteration” should be defined. But given modern machining capabilities, no firearm is ever “permanently altered” to only accept a fixed magazine.

The regulation would deem any fixed magazine rifle with a one feature prohibited by Penal Code section 12276.1 that could be retrofitted with a detachable magazine an “assault weapon.” There are many of these rifles in California.

The most obvious examples would be SKS type rifles, DSArms FN-FAL series rifles, and any rifle for which an after market detachable magazine retrofit kit is available.

People were mislead to believe that by putting a fixed magazine of their rifle they were in compliance with the law.

People were not told they needed to register these guns as “assault weapons” and the registration period has now expired.



Sent my letter, fax, and e-mail. :)

Thanks to the NRA for http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert080406.shtml

Ricki Stevens
Sacramento, California

Builder
08-15-2006, 6:03 PM
Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200


During the comment period for SB23, a comment about detachable magazines was made and commented on by the DOJ. Source:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/attachmenta.pdf
Comment:
A1.12 4 The SKS rifle with a detachable magazine cannot be changed without using a bullet tip as a tool, thus
the regulations conflict with the specific listing of SKS rifles with detachable magazines in the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. DOJ has no authority to contradict existing law.
Response:
The Department disagrees with the comment because any magazine that requires the use of a bullet or any other tool for its removal is a fixed magazine, not a detachable magazine. The SKS with a true detachable magazine does not require a bullet or any other tool to remove and is a controlled assault weapon under Penal Code section 12276. Identifying a bullet as a tool allows for the proper categorization of an SKS with a fixed magazine. Therefore, the SKS referred to in the comment has a fixed, not detachable magazine.


As stated by the DOJ in the above Response, 12276 does indeed declare the SKS with detachable magazine as an assault weapon.
12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a) All of the following specified rifles:
(1) –
(10)
(11) SKS with detachable magazine.
Since any proposed change to the definition of fixed magazine in the DOJ Regulations Chapter 12.8, Article 2, 978.20A,
Chapter 12.8 - Department of Justice Regulations for Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines
Article 2. Definitions of Terms Used to Identify Assault Weapons
978.20 Definitions
The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
A. "detachable magazine" means any magazine that can be readily removed without the use of tools.
would immediately make the SKS with a current definition fixed magazine, a detachable magazine. Thus an SKS with a current definition fixed magazine would no longer be a fixed magazine. The SKS fixed magazine can be removed by tools. By changing the definition, the DOJ will declare the SKS to be an assault weapon and thus the DOJ would be required to open a 90 day assault weapon registration.

This would also apply to ANY AND ALL CURRENT DEFINITION FIXED MAGAZINE FIREARMS which are semi-automatic and centerfire AND have currently legal SB23 Assault Weapon definition “Evil Features” which have been approved by the DOJ. Any time the DOJ declares a firearm an assault weapon, it must open an assault weapon registration.

This would create a greater confusion for all concerned, rather than simplify or improve current regulation.
Changes to the current Chapter 12.8, Article 2, 978.20A are unwarranted and unwise.

Thanks,

Shogun45
02-02-2014, 3:50 AM
e-mailed - faxed - sent

lets kick some tail

He did say it was not the WWII Model haha
Edit: My phone teleported me from the night owl the ad to this. My apologies
Sent From My Note 3

IVC
02-02-2014, 9:19 AM
Zombies do exist after all!

This is from 2006. Talking about close to a decade of being dead...

ptoguy2002
02-02-2014, 10:49 AM
Wow
This is a blast from the past.
Depressing though, seeings how it is 7 years later and we are still dealing with doj and Sacramento BS.

SanPedroShooter
02-02-2014, 11:05 AM
Zombies do exist after all!

This is from 2006. Talking about close to a decade of being dead...

Did you say dead....

This one still walks among us.

The Gleam
02-02-2014, 11:22 AM
Did you say dead....

This one still walks among us.

While wildly a necropost, it's not all that wildly irrelevant and I would go as far to say it is as much a good post to read some 7-and-half years later and quite educational, and as important to look back on it as anything else that is being posted on Calguns now days. A good read at any rate.

Look at is as a history lesson. What did we fail to learn then that we are not implementing now? Or what did we do right then that is not working now?

Librarian
02-02-2014, 1:24 PM
Seven and a half years dormant suggests there's nothing specific to add to this thread.

RIP