PDA

View Full Version : Another letter to Jeff Amador


C.G.
08-07-2006, 8:23 PM
To: Jeff Amador, Dept of Justice Firearms Division

From: C.G

Subject: Objection to the Proposed Amendment of Section 978.20 of Division 1, Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) regarding definitions of terms used to identify assault weapons.

Dear Mr. Amador,
As an interested party and a firearms owner, I object to the proposed amendment of Section 978.20 of Division 1, Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) regarding definitions of terms used to identify assault weapons for the following reasons:
1) 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.” The original statute (Penal Code section 12276.1) does not require a firearm to be permanently altered to have a fixed magazine, so the proposed change is not to clarify, but to change the intent of the current law. Since the proposed amendment is very different from the current regulations, California owners of various firearms, i. e. Imbels and SKSs, who have been misled by and adhered to the current law, shall become felons under the proposed amendment.
2) ”Permanent alteration” is not defined in the proposed amendment. Unless it is defined, the fixed magazine Vulcan AR-15 and Vulcan HAR-25 (deemed not to be assault weapons by the CA DOJ), could suddenly become assault weapons because many have at least one feature prohibited by Penal Code section 12276. Many fixed magazine Vulcan AR-15s and HAR-25s were legally sold in California and again, under proposed change all owners would become felons, including me.
3) If the DOJ made a mistake in the definition up to this point and needs to re-define, the DOJ should open a registration period for the “newly defined assault weapons,” so that the firearms owners would not become felons for complying with a law that was erroneous for at least 5 years.
In closing, I would like to say that in spite of the fact that the current firearms regulations could be clearer at times, the proposed amendment will create more confusion than clarification.
Best regards,
C.G.



This is not meant to compete with 6172's letter, just another version to stimulate people to write one as well. Feel free to comment, correct grammar etc., constructively.

6172crew
08-07-2006, 8:57 PM
I like it!

Im not sure Id ad the part about the Vulcan, I think that is what they intend to make us do to our lowers. They cant verywell make folks turn in rifles that have already been approved by the DOJ themselves....or can they?:confused:

I hope we can get a dozen of these letters on Calguns before the end of the week.:)

C.G.
08-07-2006, 9:04 PM
I like it!

Im not sure Id ad the part about the Vulcan, I think that is what they intend to make us do to our lowers. They cant verywell make folks turn in rifles that have already been approved by the DOJ themselves....or can they?:confused:


Without a definition of "permanent," they very well could.

DRH
08-07-2006, 9:22 PM
The DOJ's definition of permanent is BS. The other "capacity to accept" definition in 12276 which related to evil features on pistols recently had the permanence issue applied during the Walther P22 pistol cluster. What was the DOJ's big fix after they allowed the weapons to be illegally sold in the state. They used "permanent epoxy", yes glue to permanently attach the muzzle nut. What they won't tell you is that a few minutes with a torch and it will come right off.

anotherone
08-07-2006, 9:42 PM
Guys just promise me that this time around we won't have guys going up during the comment period to talk about how the government wants to surgically implant microchips in our brains and control us using radio transmitters like remote control cars. Seriously the last comment period was like a friggin' tin foil buffet :rolleyes: ! I'm taking a day off work for this and I'm liking what I see so far. Great work C.G. I tip my hat to ya!

Gnote
08-07-2006, 9:43 PM
Without a definition of "permanent," they very well could.

I agree. We have seen how folks, with the proper tools, were able to make their CA approved Vulcan capable of accepting a detachable magazine. That being the case and not having a definition for "permanent as C.G. mentioned above, the CA approved Vulcan "could" be considered an AW.

PLINK
08-07-2006, 9:56 PM
I like it.

Could someone simply send an email just objecting to the proposed change w/o reason? Is that support enough?

Some people don't know the CA gun laws in great detail and trying to defend/ explain your position using their (CA) laws/ regulations for this matter could make the message the person is trying to send garbage, especially if they have it (laws) wrong.

C.G.
08-08-2006, 12:43 AM
The DOJ's definition of permanent is BS. The other "capacity to accept" definition in 12276 which related to evil features on pistols recently had the permanence issue applied during the Walther P22 pistol cluster. What was the DOJ's big fix after they allowed the weapons to be illegally sold in the state. They used "permanent epoxy", yes glue to permanently attach the muzzle nut. What they won't tell you is that a few minutes with a torch and it will come right off.

True, but not really to the point at hand.

C.G.
08-08-2006, 12:45 AM
I like it.

Could someone simply send an email just objecting to the proposed change w/o reason? Is that support enough?

Some people don't know the CA gun laws in great detail and trying to defend/ explain your position using their (CA) laws/ regulations for this matter could make the message the person is trying to send garbage, especially if they have it (laws) wrong.

E-mail are worth the paper they are written on.;)

6172crew
08-08-2006, 6:22 AM
I like it.

Could someone simply send an email just objecting to the proposed change w/o reason? Is that support enough?

Some people don't know the CA gun laws in great detail and trying to defend/ explain your position using their (CA) laws/ regulations for this matter could make the message the person is trying to send garbage, especially if they have it (laws) wrong.
The DOJ really has the authority to do this but they must make the time to listen to our concerns.

I dont think they give one ratts arse what we think as far as what we like and what we dont like.
:o

jerryg1776
08-08-2006, 11:43 PM
The DOJ's definition of permanent is BS. The other "capacity to accept" definition in 12276 which related to evil features on pistols recently had the permanence issue applied during the Walther P22 pistol cluster. What was the DOJ's big fix after they allowed the weapons to be illegally sold in the state. They used "permanent epoxy", yes glue to permanently attach the muzzle nut. What they won't tell you is that a few minutes with a torch and it will come right off.

This is so true..... little heat, vise gris and nada... there goes the permanet approved fix. DOJ needs to be consistent in the definition phase.