PDA

View Full Version : AB2728 has been ammended


DRH
08-08-2006, 6:15 AM
xyz

MaxQ
08-08-2006, 7:21 AM
This receiver/frame verbiage has been removed:
This bill would provide that the term "assault weapon" for those purposes includes the frame or receiver of the weapon.


Since this amended version is relatively small, here it is in it's entirety:


An act to amend Sections 12001 and Section 12276.5 of, and to add Section 12282 to, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 2728, as amended, Klehs Firearms.

Existing law provides a judicial procedure for declaring a firearm an assault weapon, as specified. This bill would repeal those provisions. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General to declare a firearm an assault weapon. This bill would provide that authorization ends January 1, 2007. Existing law generally regulates the possession of assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles. This bill would provide that possession of any assault weapon or of any .50 BMG rifle in violation of specified provisions of law would be a public nuisance. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney to bring an action in superior court, in lieu of criminal prosecution, to enjoin the possession of the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle. The bill would further provide that any assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle possessed in violation of specified provisions of law would, subject to exception, be destroyed, as specified. The bill would also provide that upon conviction of any misdemeanor or felony involving an assault weapon, the assault weapon would be deemed a nuisance and disposed of as specified.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 12276.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

12276.5. (a) The Attorney General shall prepare a description for identification purposes, including a picture or diagram, of each assault weapon listed in Section 12276, and any firearm declared to be an assault weapon pursuant to this section, and shall distribute the description to all law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcement of this chapter. Those law enforcement agencies shall make the description available to all agency personnel.
(b) (1) Until January 1, 2007, the Attorney General shall promulgate a list that specifies all firearms designated as assault weapons in Section 12276 or declared to be assault weapons pursuant to this section. The Attorney General shall file that list with the Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of Regulations. Any declaration that a specified firearm is an assault weapon shall be implemented by the Attorney General who, within 90 days, shall promulgate an amended list which shall include the specified firearm declared to be an assault weapon. The Attorney General shall file the amended list with the Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of Regulations. Any firearm declared to be an assault weapon prior to January 1, 2007, shall remain on the list filed with the Secretary of State.
(2) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, pertaining to the adoption of rules and regulations, shall not apply to any list of assault weapons promulgated pursuant to this section.
(c) The Attorney General shall adopt those rules and regulations that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent of this chapter.

SEC. 2. Section 12282 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

12282. (a) Except as provided in Section 12280, possession of any assault weapon, as defined in Section 12276, 12276.1 or 12276.5, or of any .50 BMG rifle, in violation of this chapter is a public nuisance. The Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney may, in lieu of criminal prosecution, bring an action in superior court to enjoin the possession of the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle. Any assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle possessed in violation of, or otherwise in violation of this chapter shall be destroyed in a manner so that it may no longer be used, except upon the filing of a certificate of a judge of a court of record, or the district attorney, or the Department of Justice stating that the preservation of the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle is necessary to serve the ends of justice.
(b) Upon conviction of any misdemeanor or felony involving an assault weapon, the assault weapon shall be deemed a nuisance and disposed of pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 12028.

6172crew
08-08-2006, 7:40 AM
Very Nice! That receiver/frame language creeped me out.:cool:

At least if it passes it wont really do anything but give the DA the right to take your rifle away....which they will do anyway.

I have $$ that says the NRA made this happen.

Satex
08-08-2006, 8:40 AM
First, it's good that it has been cut down significantly!

Second, if I understand this correctly, it means that the AJ will have to update the list "one last time?" and after that any firearm on the list could be declared a nuisance if captured and destroyed. Is this their way to get around the 90 registration and hose any OLL owner?

xenophobe
08-08-2006, 8:48 AM
Yes, the receiver verbage may be removed, but SB 59 defines the receiver as the firearm in a more generic fashion. Looks like they might be trying to get a little sneaky.

6172crew
08-08-2006, 9:02 AM
Romur has it that if in fact your charged with a nuisence that the whole jail time is thrown out on the first charge and only a small fine will be your punishment...as long as the charge was for possesion only and not for something violent.

Ive also heard that this wouldnt allow them to take the rest of your 2nd ammendment rights away like they can now.

At least that is how I heard it.

Sydwaiz
08-08-2006, 10:15 AM
Any assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle possessed in violation of, or otherwise in violation of this chapter shall be destroyed in a manner so that it may no longer be used, except upon the filing of a certificate of a judge of a court of record, or the district attorney, or the Department of Justice stating that the preservation of the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle is necessary to serve the ends of justice.


I like this part... It sounds like they want to confiscate them and then keep them for themselves.

6172crew
08-08-2006, 10:22 AM
I like this part... It sounds like they want to confiscate them and then keep them for themselves.

Sounds like they want to keep the AW for evidence.

Cato
08-08-2006, 10:31 AM
Romur has it that if in fact your charged with a nuisence that the whole jail time is thrown out on the first charge and only a small fine will be your punishment...as long as the charge was for possesion only and not for something violent.

Ive also heard that this wouldnt allow them to take the rest of your 2nd ammendment rights away like they can now.

At least that is how I heard it.

__________________________________________________ _________
Sounds like this is their "concession" in the whole OLL debate. "Ok, we will JUST take your rifle, and not ALL your guns 'n freedom (jailtime).

grammaton76
08-08-2006, 10:34 AM
First, it's good that it has been cut down significantly!

Second, if I understand this correctly, it means that the AJ will have to update the list "one last time?" and after that any firearm on the list could be declared a nuisance if captured and destroyed. Is this their way to get around the 90 registration and hose any OLL owner?

I don't think they have any way to get around the 90 day registration window - they're just streamlining the AG's access to the update system before removing it entirely on Jan 1st.

The nuisance bit looks to me that they're ensuring that if you do anything even vaguely scary with an AW, that they get to destroy the AW(s) it involved if you're convicted.

...looks like it's a good time to stock up on receivers.

Fate
08-08-2006, 10:35 AM
I like this part... It sounds like they want to confiscate them and then keep them for themselves.

Well since Barrett now refuses to sell .50 cal rifles to CA police departments, you might not be far off base. :rolleyes:

bg
08-08-2006, 10:44 AM
The way I'm reading this and I admit I'm poor at
it, the above states, ANY attorney working for
a city can bring you and ANY weapon the AG decides
is an "Assault Weapon" to court, force you to give it
up, and STILL have to pay the court money for
the "trouble" of stealing & destroying YOUR rifle ?

What about those rifles that aren't considered
"AW's" now ? For instance the M-1 Garand, the
Ruger mini-14, etc..What kind of malarkey based
bill is this ?

Ten Rounder
08-08-2006, 1:20 PM
and no, there wont be "one last" list.

OJ, has got his ducks in a row. Aug 16 he will slam the first door shut. Reguardless what we all have for input they will continue on a steady course of adding (f). OJ then gets this bit of legislation passed and does not list (bussiness as usuall). Declares they are already AW's. A parting FU shot off the fantail of his regin. Time expires and no more listing abilities. OLL=nuisance=AW end of subject. Harrot is washed out of the picture because of this bill.

If passed will he really follow thru and LIST????

The only thing I see that will put a wrench in thier works is a law suit from our side.

Please tell me if my thinking is flawed.

grammaton76
08-08-2006, 1:24 PM
One thing I find interesting, is that at one point they've stated that they're removing the AG's "DUTY to list" new AW's.

They may have concluded that it is a duty for him to list as things stand presently, but that ending his ability to do so will relieve him from the duty to do so in the future. Hence, one best-faith list released on Dec 31st 2006.

That's one possible scenario at least.

blacklisted
08-08-2006, 1:29 PM
OJ, has got his ducks in a row. Aug 16 he will slam the first door shut. Reguardless what we all have for input they will continue on a steady course of adding (f). OJ then gets this bit of legislation passed and does not list (bussiness as usuall). Declares they are already AW's. A parting FU shot off the fantail of his regin. Time expires and no more listing abilities. OLL=nuisance=AW end of subject. Harrot is washed out of the picture because of this bill.

If passed will he really follow thru and LIST????

The only thing I see that will put a wrench in thier works is a law suit from our side.

Please tell me if my thinking is flawed.

Your thinking is flawed. This does not eliminate Harrott. A firearm still has to be listed to to be an assault weapon. They even eliminated the "receiver/frame" language.

An OLL can not be an illegal AW. However, a rifle (or pistol!) built from one can be.

mikehaas
08-08-2006, 2:43 PM
Sounds like this is their "concession" in the whole OLL debate. "Ok, we will JUST take your rifle, and not ALL your guns 'n freedom (jailtime).
Progress is progress, the rest is just a matter of degrees.

In fact, what is the downside of this bill now? ASFAIK, a "nuisance" is the lowest level of violation possible. There used to be a real problem with Roberti-Roos/SB23 ignorant gun owners (but otherwise legal citizens) being caught with illegal AWs - off the top, a $5000 attorney retainer and that's the BEST outcome. In 2003 NRA dropped that from misdemeanor to an infraction (equivalent of a traffic ticket) removing the threat to one's gun-rights. Now it's dropping to a "public nuisance". Anyone want it to stop now?

And the AG can't ban more guns after January. It's atrocius that he could ever do that by administrative fiat, with no action by the legislature and governor. Abominable. That's how we lost SKS Sporters, by a Republican AG who wanted to look more anti-gun for his 1998 governor's race.

Two positive changes, right?

Mike

Racefiend
08-08-2006, 2:54 PM
Progress is progress, the rest is just a matter of degrees.

In fact, what is the downside of this bill now? ASFAIK, a "nuisance" is the lowest level of violation possible. There used to be a real problem with Roberti-Roos/SB23 ignorant gun owners (but otherwise legal citizens) being caught with illegal AWs - off the top, a $5000 attorney retainer and that's the BEST outcome. In 2003 NRA dropped that from misdemeanor to an infraction (equivalent of a traffic ticket) removing the threat to one's gun-rights. Now it's dropping to a "public nuisance". Anyone want it to stop now?

And the AG can't ban more guns after January. It's atrocius that he could ever do that by administrative fiat, with no action by the legislature and governor. Abominable. That's how we lost SKS Sporters, by a Republican AG who wanted to look more anti-gun for his 1998 governor's race.

Two positive changes, right?

Mike

I am in agreeance here. The way the bill reads right now, I actually tend to support it :)

Satex
08-08-2006, 2:58 PM
Mike, from the sounds of it, you are happy with this bill. For me, I still don't understand how this bill would impact the OLL situation - if at all?
Can you explain?

JOEKILLA
08-08-2006, 3:01 PM
Mike, from the sounds of it, you are happy with this bill. For me, I still don't understand how this bill would impact the OLL situation - if at all?
Can you explain?

+1 here, please enlighten our minds :D

Cato
08-08-2006, 3:08 PM
Progress is progress, the rest is just a matter of degrees.

In fact, what is the downside of this bill now? ASFAIK, a "nuisance" is the lowest level of violation possible. There used to be a real problem with Roberti-Roos/SB23 ignorant gun owners (but otherwise legal citizens) being caught with illegal AWs - off the top, a $5000 attorney retainer and that's the BEST outcome. In 2003 NRA dropped that from misdemeanor to an infraction (equivalent of a traffic ticket) removing the threat to one's gun-rights. Now it's dropping to a "public nuisance". Anyone want it to stop now?

Mike
_______________________________________________
So, if a guy gets caught with an unregistered AW, it is ONLY an infraction, no different than a speeding ticket? I thought it was a big time felony.

glockk9mm
08-08-2006, 3:23 PM
if this bill were to pass, would we still be able to build OLL's?

Racefiend
08-08-2006, 3:26 PM
Mike, from the sounds of it, you are happy with this bill. For me, I still don't understand how this bill would impact the OLL situation - if at all?
Can you explain?


I'm not Mike, but here's the way I see it.

The way it impacts the OLL situation is that after January 1st, there will be no more listing by the AG. This means all the OLL at that time will remain OLL, just like they are now, and we need to keep them within SB23 guidelines. Up until that time, the AG "might" list some lowers, at which point we can register them within 90 days.

The purpose of this bill, as I see it, is to get the AG out of hot water for not listing. It is apparent that the AG does not want to list any more AR/AK models. As was mentioned before in the bill, the list would allow a bunch of OLL's to turn into registered AW's. Then the names would change, a new list would happen, and MORE OLL's would become registered AW's.

It is the AG's DUTY to list these weapons. Therefore, if he chooses never to list, he can come under fire for neglecting his duties. Remember, the public is dumb. They won't realize that not listing is in their best interest (from a gun grabber POV), and will only see that the AG is dropping the ball banning more possible AW's. The AG knows this, so this bill removes that duty, and therefore any blame, for not listing.

6172crew
08-08-2006, 3:45 PM
+1 what Racefeind said. That and they wont be throwing you in jail and ruing your life over a rifle.

I can live with this as a chiping away at the bunk laws that have been placed on in the PRK.

Richie Rich
08-08-2006, 4:10 PM
Still lose your $1,500+ rifle if you get caught...

Better then a felony on your record but still......

Wish these guys would just give up like 95% of the other states did after the fed ban sunsetted....

6172crew
08-08-2006, 4:16 PM
Still lose your $1,500+ rifle if you get caught...

Better then a felony on your record but still......

Wish these guys would just give up like 95% of the other states did after the fed ban sunsetted....

I wonder if the upper would be taken if it was attached? Not that it would be a good idea at all to own a AW that wasnt reg'd in 2000 but I wonder what they would take if they were broken down.

Im not trying to get the thread locked and will delete this if a Mod wishes.

AxonGap
08-08-2006, 4:22 PM
It’s my understanding that the NRA is adamantly against ALL registration and regulation of firearms therefore the very listing of OLL’s goes against NRA’s base philosophy. Also, if your fixed magazine AR does not meet the AG’s new requirements for “permanent” , they are giving LEO’s the green light to automatically confiscate your rifle and dispose of it or use it in what ever way they deem fit (free AR’s for the department perhaps?), but rather then being slapped w/ a felony you are getting a fix-it ticket w/ nothing left to fix!. I guess an open magwell without the evil features are more acceptable then a questionably fixed magazine w/ all the evil features. FAB-10’s and Cali Bushmasters are protected w/ the; “but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.” blurb.
The DOJ better have a plan on how they will define grip alternatives (monsterman & SRB)!

anotherone
08-08-2006, 4:43 PM
It’s my understanding that the NRA is adamantly against ALL registration and regulation of firearms therefore the very listing of OLL’s goes against NRA’s base philosophy. Also, if your fixed magazine AR does not meet the AG’s new requirements for “permanent” , they are giving LEO’s the green light to automatically confiscate your rifle and dispose of it or use it in what ever way they deem fit (free AR’s for the department perhaps?), but rather then being slapped w/ a felony you are getting a fix-it ticket w/ nothing left to fix!. I guess an open magwell without the evil features are more acceptable then a questionably fixed magazine w/ all the evil features. FAB-10’s and Cali Bushmasters are protected w/ the; “but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.” blurb.
The DOJ better have a plan on how they will define grip alternatives (monsterman & SRB)!

Despite what the language of 2728 says, DOJ action will likely result in fixed mag rifles becomming "Assault Weapons" before January 1, 2007. Where does it say in state law that we are hereby forced to modify or surrender our lawfully possessed property? 2728 might cause such a rifle to be considered a "Nuisance" but before it was considered a "Nuisance" it was my lawfully possessed property. If they don't open a reg period they've got confiscation on their hands.

Bizcuits
08-08-2006, 5:29 PM
How would this effect Mini 14, Mini 30, and other "currently non listed rifles" that have detachable mags?

Anyone with an opinion or information for us Mini owners would be nice.
- Thank you.

mikehaas
08-08-2006, 5:54 PM
As everyone that is in the process knows, and anyone who even reads a few of the posts above, the AW situation in CA is a complex on that, at any time, is subject to change.

I've read some extremely perceptive analysis here. Problem is, so much can happen that can upset the cart - too many variables. As was smartly noted, we have pending AW regulatory action that threatens to turn this whole world on it's head. Actually, the OLL situation was the first major "variable" to develop in the AW situation for a long time; it's existence has prompted much of what is being reacted to. All that own an OLL should be very proud to be part of this "problem" - your lower is much more valuable to the Second Amendment unregistered and unbuilt. (I know, that's maybe not how it is for you, the owner. But you know that war requires sacrifice, and you are doing it for the 2A like those in other states can't fathom.)

Oh, yeah, someone put it well...
It’s my understanding that the NRA is adamantly against ALL registration and regulation of firearms
Would you really want it any other way?

See you on the 16th.

Mike

xenophobe
08-08-2006, 6:19 PM
I just re-read SB59, excuse my ignorance.

anotherone
08-08-2006, 6:22 PM
Yes, but this bill in conjunction with SB 59 does the same thing as this bill did before it's last revision:

SB 59 + stripped receiver = complete firearm (regardless of configuration)
OAL process for new definition "Series" (which has never been defined)
stripped OLL = complete assault weapon (because it is buildable in banned SB-23 configuration)


I'm not saying this will happen, but it is a viable possibility.

If legislative action results in our off-list lowers being declared "Assault Weapons" because a stripped OLL is then considered an "Assault Weapon" will they attempt confiscation or will they open registration?

xenophobe
08-08-2006, 6:30 PM
If legislative action results in our off-list lowers being declared "Assault Weapons" because a stripped OLL is then considered an "Assault Weapon" will they attempt confiscation or will they open registration?

I just re-read SB59 and didn't see what I thought I remembered seeing in it. Disregard my comments.

MonsterMan
08-08-2006, 8:59 PM
Say the new regulation goes through and a "fixed mag" OLL is now an illegal "AW". If people just take off their "evil" SB23 banned features, then the lower would no longer be considered a "AW" by definition. You could go gripless and no features and not be breaking the law (unless they come after gripless builds next). That is a worst case scenerio considering that the new "permanent" definition thing goes through. We need everyone to write letters to try to stop it. Not just a few. Imagine 20,000 letters arriving at the DOJ. That would be awsome.

MM

swift
08-08-2006, 9:04 PM
Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but if this passes, it seems we could, at a risk of losing our rifles, construct normal AR15 rilfes. If found to be a nuisance (eg, causing trouble, domestic dispute), we could lose them. Not great, but it seems better than the current uncertainty.

If I'm wrong, then I'm sure someone here will let me know.

sac7000
08-08-2006, 9:40 PM
I am in agreeance here. The way the bill reads right now, I actually tend to support it :)

NRA is neither opposing or supporting the bill but is watching closely according to their website.

http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=ab2728&year=2006

double_action
08-08-2006, 10:28 PM
but if this passes, it seems we could, at a risk of losing our rifles, construct normal AR15 rilfes.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but if this passes, transportation and manufacture of an AW would still be a felony. Building your OLL into a normal AR15 configuration, or going to a range to use it, could land you in serious trouble. I wouldn't be hard for a DA to prove you manufactured an AW with your OLL, since you bought it in 2005.

This seems to be good news for those who have pre-2000 AWs buried in their backyards, and for keeping the AG from adding to the list. Am I missing something???

AxonGap
08-08-2006, 11:30 PM
All the DOJ is saying is "No evil features" on your OLL's. The fixed magazine is the tricky part, and doing the old “switcheroo” by redefining the definition of “permanent” is absurd. In the AG's eyes a FAB-10 or Cal Bushmaster can have all the evil features because the receiver was manufactured without a magwell by design. By design I mean they had no open magwell to begin with and were never intended to have an open magwell or even "accommodate" a detachable magazine. I thoroughly believe that the AG considered AR’s and AK’s to be an open and shut case, and the mere thought of an AR lower w/ an open magwell legally finding its way into the state was impossible. Thanks to Harrot v. Kings County we see that it’s possible by 35-45k (and counting). The fixed magazine “with a tool” issue is so sticky because they did not envision it to be applied to an AR’s receiver because they were supposed to be listed therefore non-existent.

Apeman88
08-09-2006, 5:13 AM
This seems to be good news for those who have pre-2000 AWs buried in their backyards, and for keeping the AG from adding to the list. Am I missing something???

Where in the admendment does it say unregisitered pre-2000 AWs are now okay? This can open up another can of worm. Oh... hushhh. :D

Ken

sac7000
08-09-2006, 6:36 AM
All the DOJ is saying is "No evil features" on your OLL's. The fixed magazine is the tricky part, and doing the old “switcheroo” by redefining the definition of “permanent” is absurd. In the AG's eyes a FAB-10 or Cal Bushmaster can have all the evil features because the receiver was manufactured without a magwell by design. By design I mean they had no open magwell to begin with and were never intended to have an open magwell or even "accommodate" a detachable magazine. .

The DOJ approved CA legal Bushmaster Carbon-15 has a fully functional mag release and formed magwell. All that is required to accept magazines is a 5 to 10 mintue dremel job to remove the very thin " plug " on the bottom and remove a small rivet. They are no different then their standard production carbon-15 lowers other then the plug. Remove the plug to open the magwell and presto, instant AW.

chiefcrash
08-09-2006, 6:54 AM
The DOJ approved CA legal Bushmaster Carbon-15 has a fully functional mag release and formed magwell. All that is required to accept magazines is a 5 to 10 mintue dremel job to remove the very thin " plug " on the bottom and remove a small rivet. They are no different then their standard production carbon-15 lowers other then the plug. Remove the plug to open the magwell and presto, instant AW.

don't give me any ideas...

shonc99
08-09-2006, 6:56 AM
The DOJ approved CA legal Bushmaster Carbon-15 has a fully functional mag release and formed magwell. All that is required to accept magazines is a 5 to 10 mintue dremel job to remove the very thin " plug " on the bottom and remove a small rivet. They are no different then their standard production carbon-15 lowers other then the plug. Remove the plug to open the magwell and presto, instant AW.


And there we are back to the definition of definition of permenant. Perhaps Ol' Slick Bill can give some insight to the definition of what permenant IS. :rolleyes:

mikehaas
08-09-2006, 7:36 AM
Imagine 20,000 letters arriving at the DOJ. That would be awsome.

MM
In 2001, the CA NRA Members' Councils held a "Virtual rally" just after Mother's Day (a day of attempted nationwide anti-gun demonstrations). A bevy of well-dressed volunteers HAND-DELIVERED over 32,000 HAND-WRITTEN letters to Sacramento offices...
http://calnra.com/virtrall.shtml
http://nrawinningteam.com/0105/camc.html (event report)
(And an additional 8,000 emails on the same day... over 19,000 emails in all!)

http://nrawinningteam.com/0105/sort1.jpg
http://nrawinningteam.com/0105/sort2.jpg
http://nrawinningteam.com/0105/sort3.jpg
It took days for the MC volunteers
to sort 32,000 letters by legislator

If you would like to join this ONLY grassroots network actively working to save your gun-rights in CA for over a decade, visit:
http://calnra.com/volunteer/

Mike

chiefcrash
08-09-2006, 8:16 AM
*ahem*

TWO WEEKS!!!

sac7000
08-09-2006, 11:35 AM
And there we are back to the definition of definition of permenant. Perhaps Ol' Slick Bill can give some insight to the definition of what permenant IS. :rolleyes:

Don't hold yer breath....

blkA4alb
08-09-2006, 12:05 PM
This is to all the people who are saying that the AG is telling us to remove the evil features and we'll be ok.

I will not be removing my fixed mag and pistol grip anytime soon. If they say that these are now illegal, when in the past (right now) it is legal, they have to open a registration, period. They cannot order me to modify my presently legal gun. This is how I'm reading this and what I have always thought. They cannot get around it. I guess its better that the charges would just become nuisance charges. But the part about keeping to gun if justice can use it is BS. They confiscate my gun for whatever reason and then they can go and use it?? Psh :mad: .

This is just my present thoughts on it though :D .

midnitereaper
08-09-2006, 12:10 PM
This is to all the people who are saying that the AG is telling us to remove the evil features and we'll be ok.

I will not be removing my fixed mag and pistol grip anytime soon. If they say that these are now illegal, when in the past (right now) it is legal, they have to open a registration, period. They cannot order me to modify my presently legal gun. This is how I'm reading this and what I have always thought. They cannot get around it. I guess its better that the charges would just become nuisance charges. But the part about keeping to gun if justice can use it is BS. They confiscate my gun for whatever reason and then they can go and use it?? Psh :mad: .

This is just my present thoughts on it though :D .

+1! I bought my rifle here in CA totally legal. I built my OLL up totally legal under CA law. They want to take my completely legal rifle away from me then they can take it from my cold dead hands!:mad:

6172crew
08-09-2006, 12:12 PM
blkA4alb, I agree the easiest thing the DOJ can do is open reg for these things but they dont have to, and they can change the rules in the middle of the game.

The DOJ has been told by the lawmakers that they can do what they need to do in order flor the law to work.

blkA4alb
08-09-2006, 12:17 PM
They may not want to open a registration, or maybe they are just trying to be forced to. But in any case, even if they change the definition of 'readily detachable', and make my rifle illegal. That requires registration. :rolleyes: Seems pretty simple to me.

Preaching to the choir.

grammaton76
08-09-2006, 12:22 PM
The really interesting thing would be if this triggered an unclear registration period.

Obviously you'd need to register a pinned-mag rifle.

Would you need to register a featureless rifle?

If given a CLEAR statement that registration was not required for rifles built without evil features, I would probably leave 3 unregistered receivers and register my other 7. The same ratio would apply to my AK's. This wouldn't be so that I could have "off the radar" weapons or whatnot - only so that I'd have a few AR/AK's which were not subject to AW transport requirements, plus minors could still use them, etc.

bwiese
08-09-2006, 12:31 PM
They may not want to open a registration, or maybe they are just trying to be forced to. But in any case, even if they change the definition of 'readily detachable', and make my rifle illegal. That requires registration. :rolleyes: Seems pretty simple to me.


You are absolutely correct.

Any transition to AW status not caused by owner's action (i.e., illegal configuration or already-banned receiver) requires registration to be allowed. There is no statutory support for 'render safe', dismantling, or forcing owners to make changes to legally-owned, legally-acquired rifles that were not AWs to begin with: DOJ simply has zero power to order this.

One fundamental legislative intent of Roberti-Roos (and unchanged by SB23 or other amendations) was to avoid seizure and compensation issues: Roberti-Roos only passed by a couple of votes amid concerns otherwise (they'd've loved to have required people to 'turn 'em in' but that wouldn't have flown
legislatively.) The law even envisions guns transitioning into AW status in the future, and describes procedures for such.

anotherone
08-09-2006, 2:15 PM
They may not want to open a registration, or maybe they are just trying to be forced to. But in any case, even if they change the definition of 'readily detachable', and make my rifle illegal. That requires registration. :rolleyes: Seems pretty simple to me.

Preaching to the choir.

At this point of the game I believe that even if the DOJ does have to open a registration period they've still scored a minor victory. Such a registration period would not be opened by the DOJ but by another agency hence they can say "Hey it wasn't us!". Furthermore, after the registration period had closed all OLL can no longer be built into fixed mag builds. I wouldn't be surprised one bit to see them go after gripless builds after that.

On the otherhand, the DOJ has suffered a major defeat because nearly 50,000 AR-15s and AK-47s are in the state and they have finally admitted that not only are OLL lawful but if you build them gripless they are lawful as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see gripless builds going mainstream after all is said and done.

Ten Rounder
08-09-2006, 3:11 PM
With all due respect, Ten Rounder, either your thinking is flawed, or my thinking is flawed, because either way, I have not got the foggiest idea what you just said!:confused:

Pray tell, who in the heck is "OJ", and what ducks does he have in a row?

The last I heard of OJ was that he was making porn movies.;)

OJ=AJ, a little parady, much like the bloody glove that did not fit. "I did not DO IT".

How does one wash thier hand and not have any stink left to tell?

Vanna, a clue again.

1 Aug 16
2 bill pass requiring listing
3 OJ not listing
4 Adious all
5 incoming mess for the new AJ and now crippled and unable to list

mow
08-09-2006, 4:43 PM
Who or what is AJ?

6172crew
08-09-2006, 5:01 PM
Action Jackson?:D

AJ Foit?

Atomic Jack

Automatic Jerrycurl

This is going to be fun!:)

grammaton76
08-09-2006, 5:02 PM
Who or what is AJ?

Pretty sure he means AG. 'Cause the characters from Simon+Simon probably don't hate guns... :)

xLusi0n
08-09-2006, 5:07 PM
But he said AJ so many times.

TKo_Productions
08-09-2006, 6:14 PM
Who or what is AJ?

Freaking neophytes, AJ stands for Andrew Jackson:

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/gal/jackson2.jpg


Sheesh! :p :p

Of course, I could be way off, and AJ could be shorthand for Ahmadinejad:

http://35heures.blog.lemonde.fr/photos/uncategorized/ahmadinejad.jpg

anotherone
08-09-2006, 11:32 PM
Of course, I could be way off, and AJ could be shorthand for Ahmadinejad:

http://35heures.blog.lemonde.fr/photos/uncategorized/ahmadinejad.jpg

Ahmadinejad is one scarey guy... if anyone's going to use nuclear weapons and start a SHTF scenario it's Ahmadinejad.

TKo_Productions
08-09-2006, 11:40 PM
Ahmadinejad is one scarey guy... if anyone's going to use nuclear weapons and start a SHTF scenario it's Ahmadinejad.

I'm under the impression that Ahmadinejad is a figurehead, and that he actually has no power over anything. He says crazy things that I don't believe the mullahs or his own people necessarily agree with.

He's a nutjob, don't get me wrong, but I don't believe he calls the shots. And I don't believe that he has the authority to initiate a nuclear war (or any war) on August 22nd as a few people are predicting.

Punkermonkey
08-10-2006, 1:44 PM
Could someone please name some OLL's and where to get them? Would a Stag lower be considered off list?

thanks

grammaton76
08-10-2006, 1:51 PM
Could someone please name some OLL's and where to get them? Would a Stag lower be considered off list?

Yes, Stag is offlist. So is CMMG, Mega, and a good number of others.

If you hit www.coldwarshooters.com or www.ddsranch.com, you're set.

If you walk into the San Jose Gun Exchange, Bright Spot Pawn in Riverside, Ammo Bros in Cerritos, or Ade's Gunshop in Orange County, you can inspect and purchase them in a face to face setting. Based on the website, I'm thinking that Ten Percent Firearms in Taft also does walk-in purchases.

Hope this answers your questions.

anotherone
08-10-2006, 2:11 PM
Could someone please name some OLL's and where to get them? Would a Stag lower be considered off list?

thanks

Stag is the lower that started it all back in fall 2005.

AxonGap
08-10-2006, 3:49 PM
They may not want to open a registration, or maybe they are just trying to be forced to. But in any case, even if they change the definition of 'readily detachable', and make my rifle illegal. That requires registration. :rolleyes: Seems pretty simple to me.

Preaching to the choir.

I’d rather the AG not consider my Ca legal OLL rifle an AW. As much as I want my OLL to be free I think of the cost of my own freedom. My friend has a registered AW (Colt AR-15) and he hates the fact that he has a “registered” firearm. Once you’ve registered it you’ve given up a fraction of your 2nd amendment right. His biggest regret is that now his personal info is in some database in Sacramento w/ “Assault Weapon” tagged to it! I know we all want an AR or AK the way they were intended, but do we really want the words “Kick Me!” on our backs as well. What if some yahoo at the capital decides to audit all registered AW owners in the state? It would be like having a huge hand pointing at you saying “Look here first and see what we can confiscate in this person’s gun collection!” We balk at this now, but at the rate our rights are dwindling I wouldn’t put it past any future over zealous AG w/ a twisted anti-gun agenda. We should concentrate on rescinding this ridiculous ban on so called “Assault Weapons” so we can resume legislation on issues that really matter!

Punkermonkey
08-10-2006, 5:41 PM
Thanks guys! I stop buy Ade's Gunshop tomorrow and start the DROS.

blacklisted
08-10-2006, 5:43 PM
I’d rather the AG not consider my Ca legal OLL rifle an AW. As much as I want my OLL to be free I think of the cost of my own freedom. My friend has a registered AW (Colt AR-15) and he hates the fact that he has a “registered” firearm. Once you’ve registered it you’ve given up a fraction of your 2nd amendment right. His biggest regret is that now his personal info is in some database in Sacramento w/ “Assault Weapon” tagged to it! I know we all want an AR or AK the way they were intended, but do we really want the words “Kick Me!” on our backs as well. What if some yahoo at the capital decides to audit all registered AW owners in the state? It would be like having a huge hand pointing at you saying “Look here first and see what we can confiscate in this person’s gun collection!” We balk at this now, but at the rate our rights are dwindling I wouldn’t put it past any future over zealous AG w/ a twisted anti-gun agenda. We should concentrate on rescinding this ridiculous ban on so called “Assault Weapons” so we can resume legislation on issues that really matter!

Keep in mind that handguns are "registered". Do you not own handguns?

I definately agree that we should attempt to get the "Assault Weapon" ban removed, but I feel that this whole situation gives us more ammunition to use against it.

AxonGap
08-10-2006, 7:28 PM
Keep in mind that handguns are "registered". Do you not own handguns?

I definately agree that we should attempt to get the "Assault Weapon" ban removed, but I feel that this whole situation gives us more ammunition to use against it.

I'm sorry, I was referring to long guns per the topic. More specifically, the "evil" status of AW's tagged to your name. Branded by the state from just gun owner to assault weapon owner. Lovely!

Custard
08-10-2006, 9:18 PM
\Any transition to AW status not caused by owner's action (i.e., illegal configuration or already-banned receiver) requires registration to be allowed.

What does this mean if you have only unbuilt lowers? Would a registration period open only for peope who have built guns with fixed magazines?

Thanks for explaining all this. I can read RFCs and technical docs all day long but legal jargon makes my eyes glaze over. It gives me new sympathy for all the people who can't learn how to double-click.

Dan

Mudvayne540ld
08-10-2006, 11:43 PM
there isnt anyway for them to know if you have one built up. If the do open up a reg. period, you can register just the reciever, then build it up.

gh429
08-11-2006, 1:18 AM
Not sure where all this enthusiasm is coming from... From the looks of it:

1. This bill originates from gun grabbers.

2. It looks like this bill makes it EASIER for the AG to declare AW, rather than harder. "Hey officer, anything that looks like this is bad". Will it hold up to legal challenge given the new composition of the Cali court? Possibly.

3. Make the AW possession crime a slap on the wrist - that way the judges will have a much EASIER time taking away and destroying your rifles as opposed to substantial criminal liability where a judge must carefully consider his/her decision.

Not sure why we're celebrating here, I think we are getting owned...

6172crew
08-11-2006, 5:06 AM
Not sure where all this enthusiasm is coming from... From the looks of it:

1. This bill originates from gun grabbers.

2. It looks like this bill makes it EASIER for the AG to declare AW, rather than harder. "Hey officer, anything that looks like this is bad". Will it hold up to legal challenge given the new composition of the Cali court? Possibly.

3. Make the AW possession crime a slap on the wrist - that way the judges will have a much EASIER time taking away and destroying your rifles as opposed to substantial criminal liability where a judge must carefully consider his/her decision.

Not sure why we're celebrating here, I think we are getting owned...

Your right, this isnt our bill but as you said no more jail time over the possesion of a rifle that is legal anywhere in the US of A but here. Also I think it cost around 6k to retain a lawyer for the purposes of defending yourself agaisnt AW charges, this would make it a fine and you could still own the other shotgun or .22lr and could even buy a handgun that month.

Its just a chipping away at the bad law they make us live by(imho).

bwiese
08-11-2006, 10:23 AM
Also, while it does allow 'nuisance' seizures without heavy charges, it appears not to repeal 12280(a). So you're still exposed there - this is additive, not a replacement.

PIRATE14
08-11-2006, 10:49 AM
Also, while it does allow 'nuisance' seizures without heavy charges, it appears not to repeal 12280(a). So you're still exposed there - this is additive, not a replacement.

Since most DA won't prosecute the AW-----Felony part ie laws are to confusing for people to understand.

This is an easy out for any DA and DOJ plus the burden of proof is much less so it will be much easy to seize and destroy your property.

This is no cause for celebration..........

anotherone
08-11-2006, 11:49 AM
Also, while it does allow 'nuisance' seizures without heavy charges, it appears not to repeal 12280(a). So you're still exposed there - this is additive, not a replacement.

Is 12280(a) transportation?

tacticalcity
08-11-2006, 7:40 PM
Can you list some other sources up here in Nor Cal? While I am happy the Gun Exchange offers them, they are a little too pricy for me ($299 out the door). Plus they are a 3 hour drive for me. By the time I am done I'm spending $400+ just for a lower (includes gas money). I'm in Sacramento. Any help here would be BEYOND appriciated.

While on one hand, I hate the idea of registration...once the item gets banned and you register it there is one upside...you get to restore it to it's inteded design, right? An AW is an AW. So if it is registered as such, don't you get to add a pistol grip, flash hider, and etc.

I'm not saying I would want this to happen...I'm just trying to see the silver lining in a very, very dark cloud!

Sounds to me like it is time to stock up on lowers just in case.

bwiese
08-11-2006, 8:49 PM
Is 12280(a) transportation?

12280(a) is anything but simple AW possession. It includes transportation, manufacture, unauthorized possession/possessing at the wrong place, etc.

grammaton76
08-12-2006, 1:27 AM
Can you list some other sources up here in Nor Cal? While I am happy the Gun Exchange offers them, they are a little too pricy for me ($299 out the door). Plus they are a 3 hour drive for me.

Ten Percent Firearms, up in Taft. Also, check www.coldwarshooters.com; they have a fairly extensive transfer network and may have someone close by.

Sounds to me like it is time to stock up on lowers just in case.

It's been time to stock up since December, when I was smiling ear to ear spending $240 on my first lower. :)

mikehaas
08-12-2006, 1:55 PM
Keep in mind that handguns are "registered". Do you not own handguns?

I definately agree that we should attempt to get the "Assault Weapon" ban removed, but I feel that this whole situation gives us more ammunition to use against it.
But not if you give it your endorsement by supporting a new registration period. Then you cancel out the power of the situation with an "OK, I agree, register my gun..."

The political ammo this situation gives us exists ONLY because the DOJ hasn't been able to register your OLLs and they are in a real pickle. If they had been able to add 40,000 new registered "AWs" to the rolls, the anti-gunners would be slapping hands and there would be no controversy.

And after the "new" wears off, a lot of those new AW owners would eventually find they had capitulated with that which we despise = gun registration, only to have a new government shackle around their necks - a government-registered "assault weapon". Don't you want to be able to respect yourself in the morning? or not worry that next month, DOJ will be rounding up your baby?

Yes, I know handguns have been registered in California since 1913. That's NO reason to give in to NEW registration. Some clamor for the repeal of these idiotic laws... well, every gun-owner who stops fighting registration AND STARTS SUPPORTING IT makes that day more distant.

Mike

bwiese
08-12-2006, 2:24 PM
Mike,

In some ways you are correct - the 'politically correct' line from NRA, that is, from an absolutist progun viewpoint.

No one hates such registration BS more than I do.

But so far if it weren't for my (and about a half dozen others') efforts, SB23/Roberti-Roos would be static and most aspects unchallengable. There was no real action on these fronts, so everything stood in stasis.

You are smoking a crack pipe, however, if you think SB23/RR will be completely overturned. So if it comes down to a choice where no one has new AWs, or 40,000 people get new AWs and embarass the DOJ into listing, then I'm all for the latter. Trying to keep new AWs in CA is a worthy goal. There is a chance at least a few folks might get AWs out of this. I'd rather have 50K new AWs in CA and DOJ having to jump thru listing nightmares (allowing another 50K in) than statis where folks use fixed mags.

Aside from this, I sincerely believe that all these efforts have significantly tied up DOJ FD staff and management time. All this activity may have stopped or delayed other dept efforts - analysis, enforcement, legislative cuddling - from progressing. The rumor mill has it that ********** even lost some of his planned Christmas vacation when all this started in December..

hoffmang
08-12-2006, 2:55 PM
I'm just going to throw a thank you in here. No matter how this all plays out, we've embarrassed the DOJ, and I have 3 AR "type" rifles that I never would have owned as a CA resident. Worst case is that I keep 3 nicely pinned mag rifles that are reconfigurable if I ever leave. Best case, I get the three and an SKS I bought to make sure, I get four registered AWs and we all get a ton of evidence that SB-23 as applied is potentially unconstitutionally vague.

blacklisted
08-12-2006, 6:18 PM
But not if you give it your endorsement by supporting a new registration period. Then you cancel out the power of the situation with an "OK, I agree, register my gun..."

The political ammo this situation gives us exists ONLY because the DOJ hasn't been able to register your OLLs and they are in a real pickle. If they had been able to add 40,000 new registered "AWs" to the rolls, the anti-gunners would be slapping hands and there would be no controversy.

And after the "new" wears off, a lot of those new AW owners would eventually find they had capitulated with that which we despise = gun registration, only to have a new government shackle around their necks - a government-registered "assault weapon". Don't you want to be able to respect yourself in the morning? or not worry that next month, DOJ will be rounding up your baby?

Yes, I know handguns have been registered in California since 1913. That's NO reason to give in to NEW registration. Some clamor for the repeal of these idiotic laws... well, every gun-owner who stops fighting registration AND STARTS SUPPORTING IT makes that day more distant.

Mike

That is what I was referring to.

anotherone
08-12-2006, 8:15 PM
12280(a) is anything but simple AW possession. It includes transportation, manufacture, unauthorized possession/possessing at the wrong place, etc.

Is simple possession simply just being caught with one in your safe, etc?

blkA4alb
08-12-2006, 10:47 PM
Is simple possession simply just being caught with one in your safe, etc?
Yes, as in the cops come in a domestic dispute. If you get busted at the range you obviously transported it there.

JOEKILLA
08-25-2006, 9:21 AM
Looks like they changed it again. Now they want money too. :mad:

AxonGap
08-25-2006, 9:30 AM
Looks like they changed it again. Now they want money too. :mad:

"(b) Upon motion of the Attorney General, district attorney, or
city attorney, a superior court may impose a civil fine not to exceed
three hundred dollars ($300) for the first assault weapon or .50 BMG
rifle deemed a public nuisance pursuant to subdivision (a) and up to
one hundred dollars ($100) for each additional assault weapon or .50
BMG rifle deemed a public nuisance pursuant to subdivision (a)."

tacticalcity
08-25-2006, 10:08 AM
Moral Absolutism is dangerous. You have to be a pragmatist in this life.

When lecturing your children, go ahead and take the hard line that all gun registration is bad because it is a slippery slope towards gun confiscation. However, you live in the real world. In that world, you have to take what you can get. No one is saying give up the fight. Keep fighting to change the law so that more and more it becomes more in our favor. Just realize that it takes baby steps.

As far as I can tell this bill is a very good thing for us OLL owners. As it stands today, should you be foolish enough to build your into a NON-SB23 Compliant AW configuration, you have committed a felony and are looking at serious jail time if you get caught. After this bill passes, it will no longer be a felony. There will likely be no jail time, just loss of your rifle and a maybe a fine. In many ways, it will be no worse than speeding. Everybody speeds!

Of course, I am in no way encouraging you to build an illegal AW. I’m just trying to point out, that this bill is in many ways a very strong compromise in our favor.

The AG also gets something. He gets off the hook politically for not listing all of our OLLs. He can still tell his anti-gun supporters, “Assault Weapons are still illegal!” When in reality, he turned a very scary law into a toothless one.

What I am saying is, don’t look a gift horse in mouth. For the time being, smile and say thank you and hope to hell this bill passes.

JOEKILLA
08-25-2006, 10:12 AM
Moral Absolutism is dangerous. You have to be a pragmatist in this life.

When lecturing your children, go ahead and take the hard line that all gun registration is bad because it is a slippery slope towards gun confiscation. However, you live in the real world. In that world, you have to take what you can get. No one is saying give up the fight. Keep fighting to change the law so that more and more it becomes more in our favor. Just realize that it takes baby steps.

As far as I can tell this bill is a very good thing for us OLL owners. As it stands today, should you be foolish enough to build your into a NON-SB23 Compliant AW configuration, you have committed a felony and are looking at serious jail time if you get caught. After this bill passes, it will no longer be a felony. There will likely be no jail time, just loss of your rifle and a maybe a fine. In many ways, it will be no worse than speeding. Everybody speeds!

Of course, I am in no way encouraging you to build an illegal AW. I’m just trying to point out, that this bill is in many ways a very strong compromise in our favor.

The AG also gets something. He gets off the hook politically for not listing all of our OLLs. He can still tell his anti-gun supporters, “Assault Weapons are still illegal!” When in reality, he turned a very scary law into a toothless one.

What I am saying is, don’t look a gift horse in mouth. For the time being, smile and say thank you and hope to hell this bill passes.


Im smiling :D

6172crew
08-25-2006, 10:17 AM
Im smiling :D

+1, Your kids will be able to buy OLL, Fals, etc as long as they dont like them by name and they dont build them into AWs.

If they do list other AWs then of course my Credit Card bill will be pretty bad, Id rather keep buying my 1-2 rifles a year and not have to worry about a list at this point.

Ethier way I will take advantage of anything the lawmakers try to pull on us, they drew first blood.:)

midnitereaper
08-25-2006, 10:21 AM
Moral Absolutism is dangerous. You have to be a pragmatist in this life.

When lecturing your children, go ahead and take the hard line that all gun registration is bad because it is a slippery slope towards gun confiscation. However, you live in the real world. In that world, you have to take what you can get. No one is saying give up the fight. Keep fighting to change the law so that more and more it becomes more in our favor. Just realize that it takes baby steps.

As far as I can tell this bill is a very good thing for us OLL owners. As it stands today, should you be foolish enough to build your into a NON-SB23 Compliant AW configuration, you have committed a felony and are looking at serious jail time if you get caught. After this bill passes, it will no longer be a felony. There will likely be no jail time, just loss of your rifle and a maybe a fine. In many ways, it will be no worse than speeding. Everybody speeds!

Of course, I am in no way encouraging you to build an illegal AW. I’m just trying to point out, that this bill is in many ways a very strong compromise in our favor.

The AG also gets something. He gets off the hook politically for not listing all of our OLLs. He can still tell his anti-gun supporters, “Assault Weapons are still illegal!” When in reality, he turned a very scary law into a toothless one.

What I am saying is, don’t look a gift horse in mouth. For the time being, smile and say thank you and hope to hell this bill passes.

Well I am not going to be smiling as this bill passes as it is uncomfortable having it shoved up my butt with no lube while at the same time having my freedom feathers plucked one by one. I will just except it as I have to conform to commifornia law. I am no longer a man but a number.

grammaton76
08-25-2006, 10:53 AM
As it stands today, should you be foolish enough to build your into a NON-SB23 Compliant AW configuration, you have committed a felony and are looking at serious jail time if you get caught. After this bill passes, it will no longer be a felony.

Dangerous way to think, here. The FELONY crime has not been done away with. It will remain up to the DA, whether to prosecute you with a felony or an infraction.

It IS a good thing that they're turning a felony into a wobbler, but make no mistake: they CAN go after the felony side of it if they feel like it. Will they? I dunno, do you feel lucky, punk? :)

xenophobe
08-25-2006, 11:04 AM
From the way I'm reading it, it will only be a felony if you have an AW in possession in the commission of a crime. Otherwise it would be an infraction if you were shoulder tapped at the range, or pulled over for a bad taillight or whatever.

grammaton76
08-25-2006, 11:06 AM
From the way I'm reading it, it will only be a felony if you have an AW in possession in the commission of a crime. Otherwise it would be an infraction if you were shoulder tapped at the range, or pulled over for a bad taillight or whatever.

Well, unless they're actually pulling the OTHER law from the books, the felony is still an option for them to prosecute under. Where are you getting that the DA can *only* prosecute it as an infraction?

blkA4alb
08-25-2006, 11:06 AM
Dangerous way to think, here. The FELONY crime has not been done away with. It will remain up to the DA, whether to prosecute you with a felony or an infraction.

It IS a good thing that they're turning a felony into a wobbler, but make no mistake: they CAN go after the felony side of it if they feel like it. Will they? I dunno, do you feel lucky, punk? :)
Don't forget that the lesser charges are just for possession. This doesn't change the felonious transportation of an AW. How did you get it to the range? :rolleyes:

Cato
08-25-2006, 1:25 PM
OK, my thoughts:

First of all, if this law passes and the penalty for having an AW will be an infraction. Some of us are happy to hear that the felony part is being done away with, right? We assume our legal (?) pinned mag AR/AKs wont result in jail time. But this concession will prevent us from ever comfortably shooting our rifles at a range. In effect if a person wont be able to shoot his rifle and just owning it will be illegal, albeit the penality will be small.

Second, doesn't the law require the AG to list?

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

isn't that what SHALL means?

ketec_owner
08-25-2006, 5:10 PM
No - it doesn't require them to list. SHALL promulgate ("promulgate"? does anyone actaully speak/write like this anymore?) a list doesn't specify what is on the list. It also means that the responsibility of the DOJ to update the list ends 1/1/07. They could list - but it's not forcing them to.

I'm still a little vague on why it's written this way. I'm sure there is a reason they kept it past 3 or 4 revisions. There certainly are many options for the DOJ on this. Perhaps giving them some flexibility in what to list - if at all.

The revisions are pretty clear cut. If LE finds an AW - they will declare it a public nuisance, "enjoin" it or seize it, and fine the owner $300 on the first AW, $100 for every additional AW. I notice it no longer states - "dispose of".

I'm not sure about y'all - but are you guys supposed to be against laws that say the government can sieze your firearms? Looks to me like this law seems to read like it forces DOJ to list (but doesn't really) and gives them the option to seize firearms without the burden of a criminal court (* which the standard of evidence is higher *).

blkA4alb
08-25-2006, 5:26 PM
This is the way I see it. Right now, I can add a pistol grip to any of my OLL's, but in doing so I run the risk of a felony conviction. If this bill passes, I can do the exact same thing, but after Jan 1st, 2007 I would only be risking a $300 fine and no criminal record... in other words, possession of an OLL with attached "evil" features becomes the equivalent of parking ticket. Correct me if I'm wrong...
Correct, but what people don't get is that you still get a felony for transportation if you get busted at the range or on the way home etc. All this does is reduce the possession charge.

ketec_owner
08-25-2006, 8:18 PM
Well in any event - the senate bill is revised for a third reading - meaning they can have a yea/ney vote as soon as the reading for the senate is done.

sac7000
08-25-2006, 8:20 PM
Correct, but what people don't get is that you still get a felony for transportation if you get busted at the range or on the way home etc. All this does is reduce the possession charge.

Oh sweet jesus we iz all going to jail! :)

xLusi0n
08-26-2006, 1:29 AM
Someone scolded me for re-posting that link with the detachable pistol grip...now it sounds like a good idea, no? :)

AxonGap
08-26-2006, 7:03 AM
Judging by the length of this thread and the amount of questions, it's obvious that this bill makes the AWB laws even more vague.

sac7000
08-26-2006, 7:15 AM
I've got a binder that's now 3 inches thick with documents ready for LEO inspection in order to support my claim that SB23 is clear as mud.

artherd
08-27-2006, 1:05 AM
I've both faced in court (and prevailed upon) or know personally several DAs.

I tell you what, I feel darn lucky.

I do agree, the remainder of a felony charge for simple posession without any extenuating circumstances, is not a comforting indicator of this society's health.

Also, I've got several guns worth over $10grand, I'd fight those out pretty darn hard before kissing my rifle goodbye!

Dangerous way to think, here. The FELONY crime has not been done away with. It will remain up to the DA, whether to prosecute you with a felony or an infraction.

It IS a good thing that they're turning a felony into a wobbler, but make no mistake: they CAN go after the felony side of it if they feel like it. Will they? I dunno, do you feel lucky, punk? :)

grammaton76
08-27-2006, 1:53 PM
Correct, but what people don't get is that you still get a felony for transportation if you get busted at the range or on the way home etc. All this does is reduce the possession charge.

OPTIONALLY! That's what people aren't getting here: this does NOT do away with the option of them going for a felony charge. It simply adds the OPTION for them to go for a ticket-level issue.

If the bill stated that it did away with the other crime, then it would indeed be reduction. All it's doing, as presently written, is converting it into a wobbler and making people more likely to risk getting caught. :(