PDA

View Full Version : NRA: Lockyer's New Proposed "AW" Regulations


mikehaas
08-04-2006, 4:49 PM
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!!!

LOCKYERíS 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 doesnít 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 DOJís 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." DOJís 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 DOJís 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.

This info is available at:
http://calnra.com/calerts/calert080406.shtml

Hunter
08-04-2006, 4:50 PM
All ready posted below:D

mikehaas
08-04-2006, 4:59 PM
All ready posted below:D

<sniff> I think my work is done... go forth and multiply... :-)

Mike

(Thanks for spreading the word!)

PanzerAce
08-04-2006, 6:16 PM
wow, um.....uh......what rock did you just crawl out from? :D

6172crew
08-04-2006, 6:21 PM
wow, um.....uh......what rock did you just crawl out from? :D

The NRA has been working on this all along they have been trying to work behind the scene and now it looks like the NRA is asking for our help.

Although it appears the NRA is late to the table in fact if you call into the the office they will explain what they have been doing to help us in the AW fight.

Time to start comparing letters folks, the west bay contra costa get together is AUg 8th hope to see a few of you guys there, this will be my first time at one of these meetings.

mikehaas
08-04-2006, 7:07 PM
...the west bay contra costa get together is AUg 8th hope to see a few of you guys there, this will be my first time at one of these meetings...
Small correction - the EAST Contra Costa County MC Meeting is Aug 8th (2nd Tuesday of month):
EAST COCOCO MC CONTACT INFO (http://calnra.com/cgi-bin/haasmcshowwebpage.cgi?mc=eastcoco)

West CoCoCo MC (my MC) is the 17th of Aug (3rd Thursday):
WEST COCOCO MC CONTACT INFO (http://calnra.com/cgi-bin/haasmcshowwebpage.cgi?mc=westcoco)

Mike

WokMaster1
08-04-2006, 8:25 PM
The NRA has been working on this all along they have been trying to work behind the scene and now it looks like the NRA is asking for our help.

Although it appears the NRA is late to the table in fact if you call into the the office they will explain what they have been doing to help us in the AW fight.

Time to start comparing letters folks, the west bay contra costa get together is AUg 8th hope to see a few of you guys there, this will be my first time at one of these meetings.


Chris, is the meeting you are talking about the same as the one Mike Haas's at Richmond Rod & Gun? :)

6172crew
08-04-2006, 8:29 PM
Chris, is the meeting you are talking about the same as the one Mike Haas's at Richmong Rod & Gun? :)
Nope, the one for the east CoCo county (thanks Mike) is in Antioch at a Pizza joint (aladenos?) which Im sure doesnt do much for a chef :p but hopefully we get some action at the meeting.

I sure hope you can make it even though your home town is 20 min away.:D

WokMaster1
08-04-2006, 8:48 PM
Nope, the one for the east CoCo county (thanks Mike) is in Antioch at a Pizza joint (aladenos?) which Im sure doesnt do much for a chef :p but hopefully we get some action at the meeting.

I sure hope you can make it even though your home town is 20 min away.:D

Chris, this is no joke!!!!!! I'll go back there if I have to show them how to make a pie......:D I've done my share of pie making in my days.

I'll be at there to eat pie.

chris
08-04-2006, 9:32 PM
i had a feeling the SKS was gonna get hit. Mini 14 M1A1 M1 garand, M1 carbine.

dam we need to fix this stupid arse state. good luck guys were gonna need it on this one.

The Soup Nazi
08-04-2006, 9:40 PM
Hence why I bought the SKS as my first rifle. (Does this mean I get to Bubba up my Russian with a detachable magazine now? :eek: ) But as my friend put it simply, "There'd be a riot if they made the M1 Garand illegal"

Dont Tread on Me
08-04-2006, 9:49 PM
wow, um.....uh......what rock did you just crawl out from? :D

All I can say is that the NRA is working hard in this state. There are a bunch of us who give up our time to fight the good fight. I just don't know how to get that message out. I keep seeing posts that assume the NRA is completely ignoring CA and replies that talk about the full time office in Sacramento. The cycle repeats.

Just give up some time and attend a local meeting to find out what is really going on. If you had been there over the last few months you would have known how much effort was being put in and that these talking points were comming.

chris
08-04-2006, 10:06 PM
i will have to get more involved than i usd to be i will renew my CRPA membership when i get home. i have always watched and called when needed and e-mailed too. but now we have to fight that much harder than ever. when is the next gun show in orange county? i know the local NRA council will be out. people better pull their collective heads out their butt and get involved NOW!!!!!!!


again folks lets beat this one. we defeated AB352. we can beat this nonsense.

adamsreeftank
08-04-2006, 11:38 PM
It's nice to see the NRA taking an interest in the OLL situation, but I have one issue with the statement. The last two lines are:

- 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.


The first line is questionable, but the last line makes no sense. Unless I have been sleeping for the last five months, there was never an opportunity to register any OLLs.

bwiese
08-04-2006, 11:39 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.


The first line is questionable, but the last line makes no sense. Unless I have been sleeping for the last five months, there was never an opportunity to register any OLLs.

Correct!

.

blacklisted
08-04-2006, 11:44 PM
It's nice to see the NRA taking an interest in the OLL situation, but I have one issue with the statement. The last two lines are:

- 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.


The first line is questionable, but the last line makes no sense. Unless I have been sleeping for the last five months, there was never an opportunity to register any OLLs.

They may be saying this:

The DoJ will claim this configuration has been illegal all along. The SB23 registration period is over. This will make some non "series" guns SB23 assault weapons, unable to be registered.

Also, they could be referring to "SKS with detachable magazine". If this went through and affected the fixed magazine SKS, that registration period is over. Whatever they meant, it needs clarification.

Dont Tread on Me
08-05-2006, 6:56 AM
Unless I have been sleeping for the last five months, there was never an opportunity to register any OLLs.

This is refering to a rifle with a fixed mag and one or more "evil" feature (e.g. SKS) that you had in 2000 that will now become and assult weapon. If you knew it would become an assult weapon in 2006 then you would have registered it in 1999.

Dont Tread on Me
08-05-2006, 7:11 AM
People were mislead to believe that by putting a fixed magazine of their rifle they were in compliance with the law.

I feel that I was mislead by the current regulations. They are quite clear about tool + time = fixed magazine. Fixed magazine + evil features = legal. Changing the regulations to make this configuration illegal is not fair on those who invested money in something that a reasonable person reading the law would conclude is legal.

dwtt
08-05-2006, 9:28 AM
Everyone remember the deadline to send in your opinion is 5:00 PM, August 16. Your letter to DOJ has to be received by this time. So, write up your letters this weekend and send them in on Monday if you are not going to go in person for the hearing.

xenophobe
08-05-2006, 9:32 AM
I feel that I was mislead by the current regulations. They are quite clear about tool + time = fixed magazine. Fixed magazine + evil features = legal. Changing the regulations to make this configuration illegal is not fair on those who invested money in something that a reasonable person reading the law would conclude is legal.

There is nothing about 'time' in the regs that I'm aware of. The whole tool+time is an argument Bill created.

bohoki
06-09-2008, 7:29 PM
looks like if this passes stocks in monsterman grips will rise and bullet buttons will plumet

bwiese
06-09-2008, 7:35 PM
looks like if this passes stocks in monsterman grips will rise and bullet buttons will plumet

Dude, why did you raise this from the dead?

It's dead and over with. DOJ abandoned the rulemaking early last year.

Plus Hoffman/Oaklander forced them to pull down the proposal on their website since DOJ was leaving it up to created FUD.

ke6guj
06-09-2008, 7:35 PM
wow, necropost.

Look at the date, and they are talking about AG Lockyer, not Brown.

Cazach
06-09-2008, 7:35 PM
looks like if this passes stocks in monsterman grips will rise and bullet buttons will plumet

Holy necroposting Batman!

CSDGuy
06-09-2008, 7:36 PM
Old thread. Almost 2 years (and a lot of changes) old.

Glock30
06-09-2008, 7:39 PM
Jesus this is old!

Fobjoe
06-09-2008, 7:40 PM
Oh my goodness! I'm going to CALL RIGHT AWAY and give the DOJ a piece of my mind! :D

HK fan
06-09-2008, 7:55 PM
The treasurer cannot be allowed to get away with this!

bwiese
06-09-2008, 7:57 PM
The treasurer cannot be allowed to get away with this!

Certainly not in a naughty nurses' uniform!

Glock30
06-09-2008, 8:00 PM
Certainly not in a naughty nurses' uniform!

Oh but especially in a naughty nurses uniform!

jumbopanda
06-09-2008, 8:02 PM
http://buffalogeek.wnymedia.net/blogs/wp-content/blogs.dir/4/files/shipmentofFail.jpg
http://imgdump.info/data/media/46/Truck%20of%20Fail.jpg
http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/atlarge/epic_fail.jpg
http://samuelpablo.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/epic_fail.jpg
http://media.g4tv.com/images/blog/2007/12/06/633325462873135493.jpg
http://media.g4tv.com/images/blog/2007/11/27/633317514784490542.jpg

ohsmily
06-09-2008, 8:54 PM
looks like if this passes stocks in monsterman grips will rise and bullet buttons will plumet

You have got to be kidding me. How did you even come across this thread...

I agree with JumboPanda.....FAIL.

oaklander
06-09-2008, 9:00 PM
The rulemaking is old news. DOJ got "double-teamed."

:D

Dude, why did you raise this from the dead?

It's dead and over with. DOJ abandoned the rulemaking early last year.

Plus Hoffman/Oaklander forced them to pull down the proposal on their website since DOJ was leaving it up to created FUD.

DedEye
06-09-2008, 9:06 PM
looks like if this passes stocks in monsterman grips will rise and bullet buttons will plumet

Jesus, I was expecting the necroposter to be a newb with a post count in the single or doublt digits, Bohoki, you've been registered here longer than me!

Panda has it right: Epic, Gargantuan, MASSIVE amounts of FALE (sic)!

bohoki
06-09-2008, 9:22 PM
Dude, why did you raise this from the dead?

It's dead and over with. DOJ abandoned the rulemaking early last year.

Plus Hoffman/Oaklander forced them to pull down the proposal on their website since DOJ was leaving it up to created FUD.

whoa i dont know i normally just hit new posts and somehow this was there maybe it was a glitch sorry about lazarusing this zombie

i had a moment of weakness i apologize

my wrongitude is unforgivable

hoffmang
06-09-2008, 9:30 PM
The rulemaking is old news. DOJ got "double-teamed."

:D

And they both liked it and can't remember who was who....

Ah... necroposts...

-Gene

rkt88edmo
06-09-2008, 9:42 PM
No blaming the system now :P

383green
06-09-2008, 10:38 PM
my wrongitude is unforgivable

And yet, very entertainifying! :D