PDA

View Full Version : The August 16th Regulatory Comment Report Thread


tenpercentfirearms
08-16-2006, 6:30 AM
I unfortunately will be training fellow teachers today and won't be able to make it. Please post your meeting reports and details here. Good luck guys and gals.

thmpr
08-16-2006, 11:27 AM
CRPA or GOA? Not present? hhhhmmmmm....

PLINK
08-16-2006, 12:21 PM
Well, I think the turn out had a poor attendance. I say maybe 25 people tops. However, the people who did speak I believe did a great job. It was nice to see the NRA there. Jeff Amador seemed board and even left for a period of time. The other DOJ official Dale something seemed interested in what people had to say and actually took some notes. I actually heard a gentlemen read the letter I wrote, sent in and posted here. I did not mind though. It sounded pretty good. One gentlemen asked Jeff how many e-mails he had received and he said over 100 hundred but less than 200 hundred. This does not include mailed in letters.

FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE DRAGGING THEIR FEET ON SENDING IN LETTERS:

YOU HAVE UNTIL 5 PM TODAY 8/16/2006 TO E-MAIL OR SEND A LETTER IN THE MAIL (must be post marked today's date).

anotherone
08-16-2006, 1:52 PM
Keep in mind that unlike back in 1999 (which I believe was on a weekend), they made sure to pick a day right smack in the middle of the work week and they made it 9am. Jeff Amador probably didn't seem interested because as far as he's concerned this is a done deal.

I'm actually surprised that the NRA and their attorney showed up. It's encouraging to see them supporting us through this. I built my rifles up into lawful configurations and I will not be altering or surrendering them because the government changes the regulations. We need a reg period if these transistion to AW status.

rhunter
08-16-2006, 1:52 PM
At least there were not any "supporters" of the change in defination there. Jeff Amador hid behind his computer monitor; staved off the hairy eyeball. I think we have a chance, eveyone who spoke did well. It was good to meet all of the "on-line" people face to face.

Roger

Mudvayne540ld
08-16-2006, 1:57 PM
Did the DOJ say anythng at all on the matter? Did they say what would happen next. i.e another comment period

Henry47
08-16-2006, 1:57 PM
FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE DRAGGING THEIR FEET ON SENDING IN LETTERS:

YOU HAVE UNTIL 5 PM TODAY 8/16/2006 TO E-MAIL OR SEND A LETTER IN THE MAIL (must be post marked today's date).


is there a generic template to these letters that I can just fill my name and send in? Are the email recipients several senators?

blacklisted
08-16-2006, 2:00 PM
is there a generic template to these letters that I can just fill my name and send in? Are the email recipients several senators?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=38325

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD

Any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the Department. The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on August 16, 2006. Only comments received at the Department offices by that time will be considered.

Please submit written comments to:

Mail: Jeff Amador, Field Representative
Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200
or
Email: jeff.amador@doj.ca.gov

50BMGBOB
08-16-2006, 2:04 PM
Wish I could have made it. At least I did get a letter mailed in a few weeks ago. Interseting that only the NRA showed up. I wonder how long until we will know the outcome? I'm hoping that they leave it be. Besides, if you have to have tools to take it apart and change parts to put it back together then it is permantly changed. What I would really like is to see the whole ban repealed. But that wasn't an option with this hearing.

Hunter
08-16-2006, 3:18 PM
Ater the meeting I inquired to the Chairman of the meeting on how notice was sent to the public. He replied that he didn't know the facts but assured me that proper procedures where done such as sending to newspapers, or other such sources. Since he didn't know, he did find a DOJ staff member who was more than eager to answer my questions and was very polite and very professional in doing so.

So I asked the staff member again how was this meeting was announced to the public, since I personnally never received a letter from the DOJ or saw any announcment locally outside of internet chat boards;) . The staff member responded right off that there is NO LAW the requires them to even have this meeting for public comment. This was repeated a few times during the conversation. Anyway the person went on to say they took 10% of the registered AW owners and sent out the notification ( a number of them got returned due to invalid address). The staff member also said that they received comments back from folks that received 2 or 3 notices being sent to the same home (multiple joint ownerships) so that did decrease the actual households contacted. BUT THAT WAS IT FOR THE NOTIFICATION, other than posting it on the DOJ web site. No TV, NO newspapers, NO Gun Shop Flyers, nada..... But again it wasn't required by law! The staff member stated that this was an issue they struggle with on how to reach people. Seems they donot have budgets for running ads or other such public postings......

So the bottom line is if I were a current AW owner and by random drawing received this notice, I would have said "so what". I already have an AW, it is registered and this new definition will do nothing to change that..... into the trash with it. So in reality, the people who actually needed to hear/see it are the guys not only with the OLLs but also the FALs, the SKS, the Barretts, the Mark 1 -03s, ect... Guns that are not listed as AW and as such their owners would not have been notified. It is no wonder that they only have gotten less than 200 comments back to date.


Now on another point, Chuck Michels (Attorney for NRA AND CRPA as well) spoke multiple times. At one point he directed his comments to the audience to correct a mistake some made.........

That this ruling is a definition clarification of an existing law. So there doesn't have to be any "registration" of currently owned weapons. If the DOJ goes forth with this "clarification" it will legally take effect now. Anyone with the pinned mags could be in violation of the law (depending on how "permanent" is defined) Now he did say that such an act would also result in a lot of court cases that most likely will be tossed out..... but not before costing the defendant THOUSANDS of dollars in court fees.

jeffrice6
08-16-2006, 3:21 PM
The doj received less than 200 emails, and they will be accepting them untill 5:00 today. Do your part send them in. Also as a side note Bill kicked ****** today:)

jemaddux
08-16-2006, 3:38 PM
Was it asked or brought up how this would effect rifles already owned and built? Mine is built under current definitions:

(a) “detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be
removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action
nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is
considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked
ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load
cartridges into the magazine.

It would require a tool to remove my magazine. So if they change this and it was to take effect today would I have to change it or would it be grandfathered in? This is the question I keep getting, anyone have any ideas or was it brought up?

Snuffalofogus
08-16-2006, 3:47 PM
Also as a side note Bill kicked ****** today:)

Agreed. As did some of the other speakers.

This change is "lame"

:p

jemaddux
08-16-2006, 4:20 PM
This important issue was brought up by several speakers, some very succintly, like Chuck Michel.

the reality is, that they have all been illegal since May 9th, and The Department is now trying to gets the regs in after the fact. see here: http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

There is no grandfather ing for wepons that have alwsy been illegal .

There is no registration period for wepons have that have already been illegal.

the memo on May 9th claries the law. It doesnt list new wepons. this clarification dooms untold numbers of firearms.

the DOJ staff did not engage in dialogue or directly answer any questions. they may adress some of the issues in their fidings at a later date.


I know no one knows the true answer to all this right now because nothing has been decided in stone. My firearms were bought well before May 9th so they were built to the letter of the law before any additional memo was put out.

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

Law enforcement that has looked at mine has said no problem. I know all it takes is one rookie that is trying to make a name for himself to cause trouble but as I see it, most of us bought these well before any May 9th memo. We bought them with what they had written in the first memo and now they are asking for us to change what they said is ok. I think its a lot of BS is all it comes out to.

As for the sending out letters to people that have AWs already, why didn't they send it out per the official notice program on the DROS system? I notice they are really good at not doing anything to truely let people know what is going on.

glockk9mm
08-16-2006, 4:45 PM
where can i send my e-mail? Sorry if i missed it.

Hunter
08-16-2006, 4:52 PM
where can i send my e-mail? Sorry if i missed it.

Jeff Amador
Field Representative
Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200

jeff.amador@doj.ca.gov

Get it in by 5:00!

Hunter
08-16-2006, 4:57 PM
......
As for the sending out letters to people that have AWs already, why didn't they send it out per the official notice program on the DROS system? I notice they are really good at not doing anything to truely let people know what is going on.


From the reply I receive at the meeting, the DOJ is not legally obligated too solicited public opinion. Also they seem too imply that there is no money to formally announce this, so they just decided to pick a random 10% of the current AW owners on file. The staff member even stated that they just used the "non deliverable" mail that came back to stock todays meeting with the flyers as they didn't want to print any more.

thmpr
08-16-2006, 5:02 PM
That is an unfair practice since majority of the AW owners could care less about the OLL situation since they already have their guns. It would be in the best interest to notify NRA, gun ranges and clubs about this meeting. not only does it make sense but much mre efficient than sending 10% of AW gun owners.

:confused:

thmpr
08-16-2006, 5:06 PM
At this point....its obvious....!:D Thanks NRA for being there....


NRA Life member here!

jonb
08-16-2006, 5:06 PM
I actually heard a gentlemen read the letter I wrote, sent in and posted here. I did not mind though. It sounded pretty good.

OOPS,
Guilty as charged! Your letter was better than anything I came up with. It was short and to the point, yet touched on all the details. Thanks for posting it and I apologize for the blatant plagiarism! I thought the odds were slim to none that the author would be at the hearing, especially with the slim turn-out. I guess I should have contacted you about it.
Sorry about that, next time I'll ask if it's okay to plagiarize. And I'm not even a journalist!
JonB

Hunter
08-16-2006, 5:09 PM
That is an unfair practice since majority of the AW owners could care less about the OLL situation since they already have their guns. It would be in the best interest to notify NRA, gun ranges and clubs about this meeting. not only does it make sense but much mre efficient than sending 10% of AW gun owners.

:confused:


That was essentially my reply and the response was that they do indeed struggle with HOW to contact gun owners. I recommended also sending it to holders of hunting license as well. The staff member was very responsive to suggestions and would take any input for future use. Does little good for us now.


On another note, if this passes, we can kiss the Service Match for most CA shooters goodby at the CMP Western Games this November. The out of state adults will be able to compete but residents will not unless they use pre 2000 AW. Also all under 18yr olds will not be able too (resident or not) since the ARs will be considered AW in the Service Rifle configuration!! Wonder if CMP knows about that.

CALI-gula
08-16-2006, 5:26 PM
the reality is, that they have all been illegal since May 9th, and The Department is now trying to gets the regs in after the fact. see here: http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

There is no grandfathering for weapons that have always been illegal .
There is no registration period for weapons have that have already been illegal.the memo on May 9th claries the law. It doesnt list new wepons. this clarification dooms untold numbers of firearms.

All true statements - however, note that the DOJ is specifically attempting to address the configuration of these receivers when built with the fixed-magazine kits. They are noting this as an illegal configuration because they see it as still having a "detachable magazine" while having the other banned features. Their definition of permanence will need further clarification hopefully influenced by the proposal meeting.

It still stands that the DOJ would have to list the OLL receivers by name, and these rifles ARE legal even according to the May 9th memo, when constructed with detachable magazines and NO pistol grip. In that configuration, these Off-List lowers are no different than the Robinson Armament M96 or Kel-Tec SU16s which all accept AR15 magazines and are sans pistol-grip.

And depending on the route they take, those could be in jeopardy just as might be any of the following: all swing-out magazine SKSs, Browning BARs, Remington 7400s, Springfield M1As, Ruger M77's, M1 Garands, Ruger Mini-14s, Ruger Mini-30s, Browning BAR & Safari versions, DS Arms Stripper clip fixed magazine SA58 rifles, M1-Carbines, Marlin Camp Carbines in 9mm/.45ACP, Ruger PC4 or PC9 Carbines, Ruger M99/44 and M44 Carbines, Czech Vz-52, French MAS 49s, German Gewehr M41 & M43 based guns, Tokarev SVT-40, Swedish Ljungman/Egyptian Hakims, Johnson 1941rifle, and MANY more.

.

Can'thavenuthingood
08-16-2006, 5:30 PM
DOJ has the names and address of all the FFL's in the state. That list includes C&R and Pawnshops with FFL's.

They could easily enough send out notice through them to post or pass the word.
Most have computers so email would work as well.

They don't want to, they don't have to, so they won't. There is no law saying they must, but they'll bend law to enhance their advantage.

Vick

anotherone
08-16-2006, 6:02 PM
So the DOJ does, in fact, have the authority to force us to rebuild/surrender our fixed magazine rifles? And therefore: we're all going to jail :eek: !

Seriously, what are those of us with fixed magazine rifles supposed to do now? We were told that fixed magazine builds were lawful and built our rifles to conform with state law. Now we have to totally rebuild them into gripless builds? This is bullcrap.

Satex
08-16-2006, 6:05 PM
Interesting comments. The CA DOJ already has their own web server. How difficult is it to add an opt-in mailing list for any firearm related announcements/memos/updates? I bet many gun owners would want to be on it to make sure they are up to speed with the code. Since they already have the servers, and an IT division to manage it, the cost for this would be next to nothing!


The staff member stated that this was an issue they struggle with on how to reach people. Seems they donot have budgets for running ads or other such public postings......

anotherone
08-16-2006, 6:21 PM
I would really like to know what the heck we are supposed to do now! People are saying as of this moment our rifles are unlawful.

I don't want to go to jail, what am i supposed to do to be in compliance?

Does the DOJ therefore have the power to force us to rebuild/surrender these rifles?

Will those of us who are not gunsmiths have to find one or be expected to know one? No one in the state will even perform work on an AR/AK!

Mudvayne540ld
08-16-2006, 6:28 PM
I still dont see how they can force us to change our legaly configured rifle. Oh well...Im sick of playing there stupid games :mad: I follow the law and get ********ed. I disobey the law, I get ********ed.

AJD
08-16-2006, 6:42 PM
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I have a Yugo SKS with the original stock. IF the DOJ declares that the SKS magazine on this rifle is not considered permanently altered, thus really making it detachable in their eyes, would my rifle still be legal even though it doesn't have one of the other "evil features"? Or would it now be illegal as they consider the Chinese SKS rifles that accept detachable mags AWs under the current law?

Joe
08-16-2006, 6:43 PM
well at least they cant change the law to include the capacity to accept a pistol grip also. if they did this then the lower reciever itself would become illegal because it has the capacity to accept a magazine and the capacity to accept a pistol grip.

donger
08-16-2006, 7:02 PM
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I have a Yugo SKS with the original stock. IF the DOJ declares that the SKS magazine on this rifle is not considered permanently altered, thus really making it detachable in their eyes, would my rifle still be legal even though it doesn't have one of the other "evil features"? Or would it now be illegal as they consider the Chinese SKS rifles that accept detachable mags AWs under the current law?


No, it will not make it illegal unless you have any of the "evil" features described in SB-23.

Oh, and welcome to Calguns. :)

blkA4alb
08-16-2006, 7:24 PM
No, it will not make it illegal unless you have any of the "evil" features described in SB-23.

Oh, and welcome to Calguns. :)
No, it would not need any of the other feature of SB23 since the sks with a detachable magazine has been an AW since RR89. The sks is a special condition.

blkA4alb
08-16-2006, 7:26 PM
I would really like to know what the heck we are supposed to do now! People are saying as of this moment our rifles are unlawful.

I don't want to go to jail, what am i supposed to do to be in compliance?

Does the DOJ therefore have the power to force us to rebuild/surrender these rifles?

Will those of us who are not gunsmiths have to find one or be expected to know one? No one in the state will even perform work on an AR/AK!
Please stop freaking out. I'm beginning to think your shopkeep ;) . The DOJ does not have the power to force us to rebuild our rifles to stay legal. That would be saying that what was formerly legal is now illegal, and that requires a registration period.

So please, just calm down. Time will tell how this plays out.

blkA4alb
08-16-2006, 7:28 PM
I still dont see how they can force us to change our legaly configured rifle. Oh well...Im sick of playing there stupid games :mad: I follow the law and get ********ed. I disobey the law, I get ********ed.
They can't force us to change our presently legal configurations.

Calm down. Maybe I should make that my sig.

Pthfndr
08-16-2006, 7:29 PM
Originally Posted by Hunter
That depends on what kind of stock they have. A friend has a BAR with the sporting thumbhole tht you would find on a varmit gun. It now would be an AW under this change.

Sorry, I disagree. I presume we are referring to the modern BAR (the detachable-magazine semi-auto hunting rifle still being sold by Browning today). A detachable-magazine BAR with a thumbhole stock has been an assault weapon since SB23. That is completely unchanged by the regulatory change discussed today.

If, on the other hand, it was a BAR with a fixed magazine and a thumbhole stock, then todays regulatory change would indeed apply to it, and mean that it is an AW under the new definition of "capability to accept".

Treelogger is correct. The "modern" BAR has a detachable magazine. If your friend put a thumbhole stock on it then he has manufactured an AW under CA law.

Not that it would occur to any but the most rabid, anti gun, law enforcement person that the rifle is in AW configuration.

JOEKILLA
08-16-2006, 7:32 PM
When is this going to be finalized?

Hunter
08-16-2006, 7:47 PM
When is this going to be finalized?

They wouldn't give a date other than to say they would be pro active in reaching a decision.

anotherone
08-16-2006, 7:48 PM
Please stop freaking out. I'm beginning to think your shopkeep ;) . The DOJ does not have the power to force us to rebuild our rifles to stay legal. That would be saying that what was formerly legal is now illegal, and that requires a registration period.

So please, just calm down. Time will tell how this plays out.

Sorry, I just freaked out because I was busy all day and the minute I woke up from a short nap and turned on the computer I'm seeing people saying things like, "These rifles have always been illegal since the May 9 memo and the memo is just to clarify it". I can't help but be a little concerned.

However, I accept that I may someday become a felon overnight and have to reconfigure. This was a risk I was aware of when I purchased my lowers and I think most of us felt the same way. I purchased my lowers with the clear intention of building a Cali-legal rifle and I'm just steamed as heck that the DOJ wants to change the rules of the game at halftime!

hoffmang
08-16-2006, 8:02 PM
A clarification.

Chuck Michel was saying that it was the DOJ's position that fixed mag ARs with a pistol grip are illegal AWs. He was begging the question, not agreeing with the DOJ position.

-Gene

anotherone
08-16-2006, 8:06 PM
A clarification.

Chuck Michel was saying that it was the DOJ's position that fixed mag ARs with a pistol grip are illegal AWs. He was begging the question, not agreeing with the DOJ position.

-Gene

Thanks for clarifying that because that quote made me start looking out the window for blackhawks.

AJD
08-16-2006, 8:08 PM
Thank you donger and blkA4alb for your replies.

If the DOJ doesn't want to blatantly contradict themselves they almost have to say the the SKS rifle is a permanently fixed mag rifle in its original condition. Under current law they state ONLY certain Chinese SKS rifles and others which accept detachables are AWs. So that means that not ALL SKS rifles are AWs, which means they must currently view some of them as non-detachable. Otherwise they would have just said ALL SKS rifles are AWs in the original law. If however, they say that they are now viewed as a rifle which can accept a detachble mag, then this ruling is NOT a clarification (which is what they're trying to say), it's an expansion of the law. That's one of the issues I tried to express in my letter I sent to Mr. Amador. It will be very interesting to see how the DOJ reponds in the coming days.

m24armorer
08-16-2006, 8:43 PM
And just 25 people showed up per the 4th post. I guess they were the only active registered voters on this forum. I was not there, but the lack of support for our side is sadly apparent.

Most of you talk the talk, seems only 25 walk the walk.

HillBilly
08-16-2006, 8:48 PM
And just 25 people showed up per the second post. I guess they were the only active registered voters on this forum. I was not there, but the lack of support for our side is sadly lacking.

Most of you talk the talk, seems only 25 walk the walk.

I take extreme offense to this. Who are you to say this? Some of us live in So-Cal and did more than you I am sure to support this. Please list your impressive contributions to this cause or STFU!:mad:

tenpercentfirearms
08-16-2006, 8:48 PM
I am not worried about this thing at all. The DOJ is playing with fire. Their rule change very well could start a registration period for a lot of guns. I am fairly certain there are enough interested parties in this state that we will file a lawsuit should they try this thing without a registration period. Then, the bigger issue might arise on how clear is any of this and the whole thing might have to go away. There is more at stake than just OLLs, but possibly the entire SB-23. Does the DOJ really want to risk that for some OLLs when they could just as easily win by just leaving it alone? I think Mr. Lockyer just wants this thing to stay low key until he gets out of office. Toying with this thing right now very well could create a mess of epic proportions that certain politicians don't want to mess with in an election year.

If I were the DOJ, I would just let it go. Let guys have their fixed mag builds and gripless detachable magazines. That is what I would have done from the beginning.

blkA4alb
08-16-2006, 8:51 PM
I am not worried about this thing at all. The DOJ is playing with fire. Their rule change very well could start a registration period for a lot of guns. I am fairly certain there are enough interested parties in this state that we will file a lawsuit should they try this thing without a registration period. Then, the bigger issue might arise on how clear is any of this and the whole thing might have to go away. There is more at stake than just OLLs, but possibly the entire SB-23. Does the DOJ really want to risk that for some OLLs when they could just as easily win by just leaving it alone? I think Mr. Lockyer just wants this thing to stay low key until he gets out of office. Toying with this thing right now very well could create a mess of epic proportions that certain politicians don't want to mess with in an election year.

If I were the DOJ, I would just let it go. Let guys have their fixed mag builds and gripless detachable magazines. That is what I would have done from the beginning.
We think alike 10% :cool: .

Crazed_SS
08-16-2006, 8:51 PM
And just 25 people showed up per the 4th post. I guess they were the only active registered voters on this forum. I was not there, but the lack of support for our side is sadly apparent.

Most of you talk the talk, seems only 25 walk the walk.

Some people have jobs. Some people live pretty far from Sacramento. Some people (like me) dont even see how this change is gonna effect anything.

dwtt
08-16-2006, 8:53 PM
And just 25 people showed up per the 4th post. I guess they were the only active registered voters on this forum. I was not there, but the lack of support for our side is sadly apparent.

Most of you talk the talk, seems only 25 walk the walk.
So, where were you in the lineup? Did you speak before Chuck Michel?
I wasn't there, I sent in a letter two weeks ago.

hoffmang
08-16-2006, 8:56 PM
With the fact that we had a strong showing of a lot of the key guys on this forum we shouldn't be all that worried about our turn out. It could have been better but it was pretty darn good.

Only one commenter didn't stay completely on point on the Rulemaking and that was excellent. No one orally supported the Rulemaking.

What really matters is that people sent a letter. If you support the OLL situation and you didn't send a letter you should be ashamed.

Note that CRPA and GOA/GCA were not there but a group of us spotted them next to the Capitol on the way out of their offices... Take that how you want to take that.

-Gene

Can'thavenuthingood
08-16-2006, 9:03 PM
Note that CRPA and GOA/GCA were not there but a group of us spotted them next to the Capitol on the way out of their offices...

They have an office right next door to where the hearings were?

The were not present because they didn't know? Hmmmmmmmmm, so much for on the ball.

2 hard charging pro gun organizations already on the scene and they didn't even bring donuts to the participants with my donations?

Last nickel from me.

Vick

m24armorer
08-16-2006, 9:05 PM
HillBilly, you have no idea who I am.

TKo_Productions
08-16-2006, 9:10 PM
Now on another point, Chuck Michels (Attorney for NRA AND CRPA as well) spoke multiple times. At one point he directed his comments to the audience to correct a mistake some made.........

That this ruling is a definition clarification of an existing law. So there doesn't have to be any "registration" of currently owned weapons. If the DOJ goes forth with this "clarification" it will legally take effect now. Anyone with the pinned mags could be in violation of the law (depending on how "permanent" is defined) Now he did say that such an act would also result in a lot of court cases that most likely will be tossed out..... but not before costing the defendant THOUSANDS of dollars in court fees.

I find it hard to believe that Chuck Michels is in agreement with the DOJ on this.

If the DOJ creates/adds a new definition, they have at that point re-defined legislation that previously hadn't existed- an independent trigger that turns our OLL into assault weapon. At which point a registration period must open up.

We relied on current law (specifically the CURRENT definition of detachable) to configure our OLL is a compliant manner. They then went and added a new definition requiring "permanency," a term and requirement which previously hadn't existed. At that point it's the state's action that renders our OLL assault weapons, not a personal/individual action or configuration. Therefore, a registration period MUST open.

That’s my opinion anyway.

hoffmang
08-16-2006, 9:12 PM
TKo,

I'm repeating myself but Chuck Michel does not at all agree with the DOJ's position - he was just stating their opinion to all of us during his testimony to them. DOJ's opinion isn't worth much because I can show you that DOJ's opinion has gone back in forth week to week.

-Gene

swift
08-16-2006, 9:27 PM
Ok, so I was concerned about wrecking my precious receiver and I paid someone associated with an FFL to build my CA-legal AR15 and I have paperwork (a dated receipt mentioning building a CA-legal rifle, with serial #) to prove it.
Now that everyone on calguns has finished laughing at my mechanical ineptitude, what am I supposed to do - go back and ask the guy to make my rifle CA-legal again? Who's going to pay for this? Should the business take a loss? I have no problem complying with the laws, but I am compliant, at least until/unless the change in definition occurs.
I'm not doing anything until I see what happens with the proposed new definition change. I'm really just pointing out that some of us (probably all of us) have gone 'the extra mile' to be CA-compliant and this definition change is really a change in regulations rather than a clarification.

TKo_Productions
08-16-2006, 9:44 PM
There will be no registration period.

DOJ's opinion is that they are already illegal.

All to cover the tracks of one temporary staffer.

They have expressed there agenda over and over in bulletins and memos and the analysis of AB 2728.

The DOJs stance is udder nonsense. They never expressed a single concrete agenda, what they did was waffle back and forth.

First they were going to open a registration period which was within the DOJs "statutory authority to identify series assault weapons." Then in a complete reversal they decided that they weren't going to list and that "the public was best served by reference to the generic definition of assault weapons set for by SB23, rather than reliance on upon a scheme of identifying assault weapons by name."

Does that sound like the expression of a constant agenda "over and over in bulletins and memos and analysis?"

Hunter
08-16-2006, 9:51 PM
.....Note that CRPA and GOA/GCA were not there .....
-Gene


I believe Chuck Michels is the Attorney for both the NRA and CRPA here in the state. But I think, I recall that Mr Michels only introducing himself as there on the behalf of the NRA (I'm not 100% certain)..........or was it Paul Payne that introduced him that way only?


Mr. Payne introduced himself as being there on the behalf of the Executive Office of the Vice President of the NRA.

JALLEN
08-16-2006, 9:56 PM
Note that CRPA and GOA/GCA were not there but a group of us spotted them next to the Capitol on the way out of their offices...

They have an office right next door to where the hearings were?

The were not present because they didn't know? Hmmmmmmmmm, so much for on the ball.

2 hard charging pro gun organizations already on the scene and they didn't even bring donuts to the participants with my donations?

Last nickel from me.

Vick

I heard that August is "soak the lobbiests" month in Sacramento, that there were more than 20 fundraisers TODAY alone, that lobbiests never see their families during August, that there are some 1500 bills introduced that have to be voted on before adjournment and the vote buying is considered "de riguer" for lobbiests, etc. Besides, it's the lege that makes the rules not DOJ.

These outfits are small timers compared to the really big money boys. They don't have money to buy you donuts... it all goes for boiled shrimp, whiskey and other "remember me's".

Whatever happened to Jesse Unruh, who supposedly said, "If you can't take their money, drink their whiskey, screw their women and vote against them the next day, you don't belong here!"

TenKen714
08-16-2006, 10:02 PM
From how I interpreted everything in this thread, as of today, we are still allowed to buy OLL's and configure them with a pistol grip as long as we fix the mag, right? (ie. prince50 kit)

Hunter
08-16-2006, 10:04 PM
TKo,

I'm repeating myself but Chuck Michel does not at all agree with the DOJ's position - he was just stating their opinion to all of us during his testimony to them. DOJ's opinion isn't worth much because I can show you that DOJ's opinion has gone back in forth week to week.

-Gene


Too second what Gene is saying here, Mr. Michels followed his statement of the DOJs position, with the comment that if the DOJ kept to this belief, it would end up in the courts. There the most likely outcome would be that the case gets tossed out in no time. However, the problem for us is that initial defendants would end up having to pay the $1000s of dollars in court costs along with the DOJ just to prove the error of DOJs view.

So his comments were directed at pointing out to the DOJ that what they are attempting is wrong and that they (DOJ) need to go in a different direction. Otherwise it will cost both side $$s and more headaches for all involved. All without stopping DOJ's perceived problem of the OLL situation.

blkA4alb
08-16-2006, 10:04 PM
From how I interpreted everything in this thread, as of today, we are still allowed to buy OLL's and configure them with a pistol grip as long as we fix the mag, right? (ie. prince50 kit)
Yes, nothing has changed legally. You're good to go.

RRangel
08-16-2006, 10:18 PM
Let me make something clear. Do not try and defeat the world filters. If you can't have a civil discussion I don't care what the topic is it's getting closed.

TKo_Productions
08-16-2006, 10:19 PM
Too second what Gene is saying here, Mr. Michels followed his statement of the DOJs position, with the comment that if the DOJ kept to this belief, it would end up in the courts. There the most likely outcome would be that the case gets tossed out in no time. However, the problem for us is that initial defendants would end up having to pay the $1000s of dollars in court costs along with the DOJ just to prove the error of DOJs view.

So his comments were directed at pointing out to the DOJ that what they are attempting is wrong and that they (DOJ) need to go in a different direction. Otherwise it will cost both side $$s and more headaches for all involved. All without stopping DOJ's perceived problem of the OLL situation.

Ahh, I see now.

However, since you were their observing it all, do you think this is how Jeff Amador (etc?) took Chuck Michels comments?

HillBilly
08-16-2006, 10:24 PM
HillBilly, you have no idea who I am.


I can't say anything nice right now..so I will be silent.

tenpercentfirearms
08-16-2006, 10:29 PM
I think Hillbilly is a DOJ plant that is trying to get my thread closed. Ban Hillbilly, don't shut down my thread! :D

Or Hillbilly, use something other than asterisks or improve your vocabulary choice. Please don't get my thread shut down. Walk away from the computer and come back tomorrow.

HillBilly
08-16-2006, 10:35 PM
still not nice...deleted. Go about the on topic business. :)

1911_sfca
08-16-2006, 10:55 PM
It lasted till about 10:45. I thought the turnout was good, in that everyone there spoke, most spoke very, very well, and we were listened to sincerely by Amador and Ferranto.

I'm writing on a touch-screen handheld (Nokia 770), so that's about all I'm typing for now..

Hunter
08-16-2006, 11:08 PM
Ahh, I see now.

However, since you were their observing it all, do you think this is how Jeff Amador (etc?) took Chuck Michels comments?

First of all, there was never any real exchange of dialoge during the main meeting. The chairman would call the speakers up and then take notes.
But with that said, I do believe it rung a bell with the Chairman of the meeting (Dale Ferranto(sp?) ) who was running the show, and the other staff member that was sitting off to the side (Mike ?... never introduced). On the other hand, Jeff's body language came across as being totally bored with the whole thing.... he never spoke as it was the role of the Chairman to run the meeting.

Now when Anthony T. (3rd audience speaker) was up, he made a comment along the lines of how difficult it was for people to determine what was right. And that even the 58 DAs all had issues with the current laws on determination of what is legal and this new change would just make it even worst....when he stated this, the Chairman let a smile out and an ever so slight agreement nod. So I believe it was "ringing home" with them on some level.

At one point (after the meeting?), the chairman did make a comment that aside from the fact that the DOJ and various meeting attendees have been on an advisarial basis in the past, that even they (the present DOJ staff at their level) donot always agree with the orders handed down to them. He stated basically that if it is technically legal, then they must be good soldiers and follow their chain of command and execute their orders, even if they disagree..........

hoffmang
08-16-2006, 11:09 PM
Ok, Here is my recollection. Quark took some notes on who spoke in order.

The meeting started just after 9. Quark and I were about 5 minutes late (2 wrecks on I5 North...)

I believe NRA lead off. Moved through about 10 core speakers including in depth comments from Chuck Michel, Bill (don't call him Wyse) Wiese and others. One of the most interesting was a calgunner who testified to the fact that his law enforcement training instructor was happy that AW laws had been removed from law enforcement training as "no one ever understood them." Another fun moment was when one of our calgunners called the new Regs "Lame." There were a couple of more quick comments from myself and others. That brought us to about 10:15. Amador's boss who was chairing the meeting (Doug/Dave? - earlier in the thread) invited anyone who wanted to comment again to come forward. There were more comments from Chuck Michel, Bill, and a couple of others. After everyone was done it was about 10:30. The Chair actually spoke for a few minutes and that was the only real comments from the DOJ. The comments were along the lines of, "we take this very seriously. We will not lose your comments. When things like this get a bit contentious this is the best process for us to follow." He also stated that he had been taking some notes on specific things that they didn't know at all about - Law Enforcement training being an example (POST) as well as the semi auto retrofit kit for the 1911. We recessed to wait a few minutes in case someone showed up late. Much milling between NRA, Calguns and others occurred during this period. Just short of 10:45 no one else had shown up and the Chairman called the meeting back to order, thanked us. He and Jeff clarified that written comments would be taken up to 5PM at the Firearms office and that email would be taken till 5PM. Letters that had a postmark from today or early would also be taken. They were asked how many emails they had received and they stated between 100 and 200 so far. Also they were asked about when we would hear their official comments back and they didn't have a time line but stated that it would be expeditious.

I know I'm leaving things out and I may have the exact time line (Chair's comments at what time especially) out of order, but thats the gist.

There were a high number of CHP. Also in the audience were quite a few plainclothes DOJ related LEO. In the back was a group of older women who were being trained to be DOJ Firearms staff. It was pretty much a 1:1 ratio of CHP/DOJ and commenters. Iggster made an appearance at the beginning and at the end but made no comments and was pretty impassive.

My take on the Chairman was that he was a bit bemused by the complexities they would face on some of the issues we were pointing out. He may not be a fan of the Regulations, but he's a political pro so don't take my observation to mean too much. I think Amador seemed distracted because he was taking notes on the proceedings and for no other reason.

-Gene

Hunter
08-16-2006, 11:23 PM
...... For example, I know that it started at 9, that 25 people were there, but so far I have no idea how long it went, or how many of the 25 people actually spoke.......


There were 15 speakers initially that were given 5 minutes to talk. A number of these folks I believe are here on this forum, so they should give a run down of what they said. After the initial speaches, a number of speakers came back (Michel did at least twice) and spoke for more than the 5 minutes each time as did Bill W.. The Chairman basically waived the time limit due to the low turnout....

One speaker talked about going thru the LEO training program and how the instructors have now deleted any training on the AW laws due to its confusion. This was an eye opening comment to the chairman and something he said he will follow up on. The speakers point was that it reinforces the point that the laws are vague, confusing ,ect and if LEOs cannot adequately intrepret them, how can Joe Blow citizen figure them out??... (couple of Hu Rahs from the audience afterwords)

Everyone typically provided an example on the problems with the bill and how would impact sks, barretts, approved ARs, ect.... but in a lot more detail than some of the letters posted here.

Hunter
08-16-2006, 11:38 PM
The first speaker up was Bill H. from the Alameda NRA members group and talked about how the Springfield 1903 rifles (bolt action WWI rifles) could be impacted with this change. This could occur due to the development and availability of the Pedersen device that would convert those rifles to semi-auto guns with detachable magazine.

While these units are rare, there was a complete unit at the Reno show this last weekend that will be auctioned off soon.

Now a lot of these 1903 rifles were converted to sporting rifles in the 40s and 50s and some do now have the varmit thumbhole stocks on them. So while an owner might think his 1903 BOLT ACTION rifle is the farthest thing from an AW, he could be saddly mistaken if this passes....

PLINK
08-16-2006, 11:56 PM
OOPS,
Guilty as charged! Your letter was better than anything I came up with. It was short and to the point, yet touched on all the details. Thanks for posting it and I apologize for the blatant plagiarism! I thought the odds were slim to none that the author would be at the hearing, especially with the slim turn-out. I guess I should have contacted you about it.
Sorry about that, next time I'll ask if it's okay to plagiarize. And I'm not even a journalist!
JonB

No Problem at all. I am just glad you got involved and sent something in. I for one appreciate everyone's support on this issue. I sent the same letter to my brother, he just change the name and submitted it. Thanks for reading also. At least I know they got one copy incase my or brothers e-mail was to disappear.

C.G.
08-17-2006, 12:11 AM
I could not make the meeting, but I did send a letter. If some one would read it as well, it would be greatly appreciated:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=38157

Comstock Lode
08-17-2006, 8:29 AM
I had to work, but I sent 12 letters in about 5 weeks ago, each with somewhat different questions or comments... I'm sure I raised many of the same issues expressed by those who spoke at the meeting, with the obvious key questions being the definition of permanent, the legality of the fixed magazine receiver using available kits, the legality of other more "permanent" modifications that require a tool for magazine removal, the legality of a fixed mag receiver design when the magazine is removed, etc.

Thanks to all who made it. With no public endorsement of the proposed change, and good presentations from those in attendance, I have to conclude that the meeting was a complete success.

Chaingun
08-17-2006, 8:52 AM
The DOJs stance is udder nonsense. They never expressed a single concrete agenda, what they did was waffle back and forth.

First they were going to open a registration period which was within the DOJs "statutory authority to identify series assault weapons." Then in a complete reversal they decided that they weren't going to list and that "the public was best served by reference to the generic definition of assault weapons set for by SB23, rather than reliance on upon a scheme of identifying assault weapons by name."

Does that sound like the expression of a constant agenda "over and over in bulletins and memos and analysis?"

Have to agree, they really don't think things out that well. It's like they don't have a dedicated staff. Or maybe the lawyers are too busy to concentrate on one specific law and the eventual long term outcomes from their decisions. They seem to be grasping at straws never really getting a concise definition.

They seem to keep applying band-aids over band-aids.

Satex
08-17-2006, 9:53 AM
I am not worried about this thing at all. The DOJ is playing with fire. Their rule change very well could start a registration period for a lot of guns. I am fairly certain there are enough interested parties in this state that we will file a lawsuit should they try this thing without a registration period.

Maybe their strategy is to have a repeat of the SKS registration fiasco:
1) They adopt the change and declare no registration is needed
2) They get sued by xyz, and that forces them to open a registration
3) The Brady bunch sue that the registration should have been opened the day the change was made and invalidate the registration as a result of action #2
4) Californian are left with firearms declared as AW but can't register them - therefore they have to get rid of them...

mikehaas
08-17-2006, 10:50 AM
The NRA's Attorney's presence was very much an asset and he served his client well. The record will now show (his written comments were about one ream thick) the NRA's well thought out and exhibited testimony for future actions or discussion.
I will be making this entire ream, and a couple other things, available online later today. I'll followup here of course. Stout internet connections are recommended - it's a 2 part pdf, one of which is over 9Meg, if memory serves.

Please continue to ONE-CLICK as NRA requests at:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#contactinfo

Unity, focus and dedication are all we need.

NRA thanks you all for your support! Paul and Ed were really glad to meet you guys - they're even starting to reference you guys by usernames :-) And of course me too. And IMO, this teamwork could not come at a better time. As the "other CA gun groups" (sic) cut & run or don't show up at all, you folks are helping to make up the difference, and hopefully cancel-out some of their support for the anti-gunners (AB 2714) and PETA (SB 1578).

Mike

ibbryn
08-17-2006, 1:17 PM
Thank you to everyone who showed up. Thank you to everyone who wrote letters or emails.

If we ever meet face to face, and this subject comes up and you tell me you wrote or were there, I am definitely buying!

GW
08-17-2006, 1:53 PM
Thank you to everyone who showed up. Thank you to everyone who wrote letters or emails.

If we ever meet face to face, and this subject comes up and you tell me you wrote or were there, I am definitely buying!


No need to buy, I had a dog in this fight;)

the_quark
08-17-2006, 2:54 PM
As hoffmang noted, I took notes (sorry I've been away from the forum lately, work has been insane).

I'm sure this will all be a matter of public record when they post the transcript (a court reporter wrote down everything). Jeff Amador and Dale Ferranto were representing the DOJ on the panel. Dale seemed to be chairman. As hoffmang said, we got there late, so I missed the first couple of speakers.

When I sat down, Mike Haas was speaking. He was followed by John Sun, Chuck Michel, John Batchelder (spelling may be wrong on that), Roger Pinkstaff, Ken Doll, John Holst, Bill Wiese, Gene Hoffman, Brett Thomas (that's me), Joe Ruccione and Timothy Knifeton. All speakers were given a five minute time limit, but Mr. Ferranto was very relaxed about it and let several people speak over time (none of them taking more than a couple of minutes beyond their allotment).

At that point, everyone had spoken, and Mr. Ferranto asked if anyone wanted to speak, again.

Chuck Michel, Paul Payne and Joe Holst then spoke, again (from which I deduce that Paul Payne must've spoken before I got there, originally). My notes stop at that point, but as I recall, Bill Wiese and I *think* Timothy Knifeton also spoke, again.

For my part, I expressed to the DOJ my concern that, even if the new restrictions were drawn as narrowly as they think they are, they had at bare minimum tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens they were going to turn into felons with this, and that they needed to include some plan (be that registration, or what-not) to allow those citizens to both remain law-abiding and not have their property illegally taken from them.

I'll also echo hoffmang's point that, overall, people stayed on point. We did have one gentleman who rambled about how the DOJ really just needed to get rid of all this assault weapons ban stuff, which was in no way on the table and had no effect, whatsoever. But, other than that, everyone really seemed to understand what we were there to do.

One other fun story - at some point Paul Payne called out that Dale seemed much more relaxed than at the last such hearing. Dale replied from the chair that "it must be the scotch." Based on another comment he made to the court recorder, though, I'm not sure that'll be in the transcript. ;)

TQ

Pokey
08-17-2006, 3:27 PM
I too wrote a letter but I want to thank the 'Infamous 25' for being there on the front lines representing all of us that couldn't be there.
THANK YOU!

anotherone
08-17-2006, 3:50 PM
This is for humor value only... but...

Are we all going to jail? :eek:

sorry guys just had to throw that into this thread ;) !

mailman
08-17-2006, 4:13 PM
This is for humor value only... but...

Are we all going to jail? :eek:

sorry guys just had to throw that into this thread ;) !


I'd say no, 30,000 extra people in CA's over crowded jails, just what Arnold is trying to avoid ;)

AxonGap
08-17-2006, 5:21 PM
I'd say no, 30,000 extra people in CA's over crowded jails, just what Arnold is trying to avoid ;)

AB 2728 has been designed to dovetail into this so called “clarification” of existing law. In essence, the DOJ may be giving you a get out of jail free card by declaring your fixed mag OLL rifle a nuisance, so rather then slapping you w/ a felony AW charge (unless you are a criminal or are arrested doing something extremely stupid w/ it) they will confiscate it per AB 2728 and destroy it or use it ‘for the cause of justice’. I wonder about this part of the bill because it sounds like after they confiscate it they have the option to use the rifle and/or its parts for law enforcement purposes! (Free AR for the dept perhaps?) They realize the sheer numbers of OLL’s will incriminate a lot of people so they are giving us options; take off the offending features or get it confiscated and destroyed for free by your local law enforcement agency. The NRA will jump on any law that tries to ban otherwise legal firearms, so if you’re hoping that they will side w/ you to get your OLL’s listed, don’t hold your breath!

mikehaas
08-17-2006, 6:11 PM
I will be making this entire ream (documents submitted to DOJ by the real gun-groups... available online later today...
As promised, see:
http://calgunlaws.com/article-465.html

I also thought these docs were worth another thread so that their only announcement isn't buried a zillion pages into this one...
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=38595

Mike

WeThePeople
08-17-2006, 6:26 PM
AB 2728 has been designed to dovetail into this so called “clarification” of existing law. In essence, the DOJ may be giving you a get out of jail free card by declaring your fixed mag OLL rifle a nuisance, so rather then slapping you w/ a felony AW charge (unless you are a criminal or are arrested doing something extremely stupid w/ it) they will confiscate it per AB 2728 and destroy it or use it ‘for the cause of justice’. I wonder about this part of the bill because it sounds like after they confiscate it they have the option to use the rifle and/or its parts for law enforcement purposes! (Free AR for the dept perhaps?) They realize the sheer numbers of OLL’s will incriminate a lot of people so they are giving us options; take off the offending features or get it confiscated and destroyed for free by your local law enforcement agency. The NRA will jump on any law that tries to ban otherwise legal firearms, so if you’re hoping that they will side w/ you to get your OLL’s listed, don’t hold your breath!

It's probable that a number of judges, DOJ employees, politicians, LEOs, and their families decided that they also like OLLs and don't want to become felons just for owning them. Never underestimate the power of selfishness.

mikehaas
08-17-2006, 7:06 PM
I want to compliment every speaker, especially my fellow calguns.netters and NRA MCers, on their professionalism and focus. Gun owners would be proud to see such attention to detail and lack of stereotypical knee-jerk anger or "cheap shots" that we "knuckle draggers" are so often portrayed as expressing against perceived opponents. Even the one fellow who was off target in most of his arguments (for example, arguing his 10/22 was in danger due to the proposed regulations) didn't rage. (I've seen folks on "our side" attend such functions in camo and almost scream at the panel.)

I think few politicians are impressed by angry people who are spitting and fuming and threatening and venting, as they are seen as generally unlikely to then go and mount an effective counter-attack to whatever bad law or regulation is at hand (or even join groups that do).

But a group of knowledgable, focused and UNIFIED gun owners, willing to get behind a gorilla like NRA - I think that would get MY attention, if I were a government official.

Good job all. And the guy with the 10/22 - don't be discouraged, work with others to get better in formulating a coherent argument and try again! Just for attending and ALSO getting up to speak I have to give you points. Few folks understand how intimidating that can be for someone who has never done it.

Mike

derek@thepackingrat.net
08-17-2006, 11:01 PM
I'm not active here, nor did I speak. I simply made arrangements to go to show physical presence and to see the faces who work behind the scenes. You guys did great - a great inspiration!

xenophobe
08-17-2006, 11:17 PM
Ok, Here is my recollection. :snip:


Excellent recount. Thanks for the post!

taloft
08-17-2006, 11:19 PM
Did the press have a presence at the meeting?

Hunter
08-17-2006, 11:23 PM
Did the press have a presence at the meeting?

From what I saw there were only 4 groups present...
gun owners, the NRA, the CHP(lots) and the DOJ personnel.

anotherone
08-18-2006, 12:26 AM
From what I saw there were only 4 groups present...
gun owners, the NRA, the CHP(lots) and the DOJ personnel.

Was the CHP there to provide security?

Santa Cruz Armory
08-18-2006, 12:27 AM
I too wrote a letter but I want to thank the 'Infamous 25' for being there on the front lines representing all of us that couldn't be there.
THANK YOU!


Hey, I kinda like that moniker.

I can see myself at the top of a canyon, fists on my hips, c h i n held high, cape blowing in the breeze...It's kinda like the Magnificent seven... :D

Ok, ok, I'll stop :rolleyes:

I cant believe I had to doctor "c h i n" as in the part of my face thats below my mouth...LOL!!!

hoffmang
08-18-2006, 12:33 AM
No press.

CHP were providing security. They were wanding folks on the way in.

-Gene

taloft
08-18-2006, 1:28 AM
That's lame. It would have been nice to see a news clip showing eloquent gun owners that don't look like raving lunatics for a change. Maybe change the publics perception a bit. Oh well, they probably would have given it an anti-gun spin anyway.

anotherone
08-18-2006, 1:35 AM
That's lame. It would have been nice to see a news clip showing eloquent gun owners that don't look like raving lunatics for a change. Maybe change the publics perception a bit. Oh well, they probably would have given it an anti-gun spin anyway.

I'm sure if the press covered it they'd simply show a huge photo of a pre-ban AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and all the whistles and bells. Then they'd argue that we're truely psychos for calmly arguing the merits of our case. C'mon man the best press these days is NO press.

sac7000
08-18-2006, 7:44 AM
I'm sure if the press covered it they'd simply show a huge photo of a pre-ban AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and all the whistles and bells. Then they'd argue that we're truely psychos for calmly arguing the merits of our case. C'mon man the best press these days is NO press.

Correct, the press could do more damage then good. Less press, less mess. Take the Stockton newspaper article for example that sensationalized OLL's with a photo of what appeared as a gang-banger holding an AR-15. The newspaper story even included a quote from a well-known (to us anyway) DOJ agent who stated that pistol grips allowed the shooter to spray from the hip without having to stop to reload.

Renron
08-18-2006, 9:56 AM
Thanks go out to the 25 +/- who were physically present. I happened to be out of state or I would have attended also, I did the next best thing and sent 2 emails stating my concerns about the (un)clarity of current AW definitions.
As far as the CHP and local (El Dorado Co.) sheriffs go, I personally know of 2 who now own more than 2 each OLL. LOL.... CHP felons by design. I hope this mud clears soon, I can't see where I am allowed to go in this cesspool of regulations and memos.
Renron

tenringtaz
08-18-2006, 12:29 PM
I personally know of 2 who now own more than 2 each OLL. LOL.... CHP felons by design.... Renron

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't LEOs partially, if not completely, immune from the bans in CA? Even if it for their own personal use?

hoffmang
08-18-2006, 12:38 PM
The LEO private ownership immunities were mostly removed in Kasler.

-Gene

dwtt
08-18-2006, 1:15 PM
I can see myself at the top of a canyon, fists on my hips, c h i n held high, cape blowing in the breeze...It's kinda like the Magnificent seven... :D

Ok, ok, I'll stop :rolleyes:

It's a good thing you didn't wear your cape at the hearing. :)

taloft
08-18-2006, 1:23 PM
I'm sure if the press covered it they'd simply show a huge photo of a pre-ban AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and all the whistles and bells. Then they'd argue that we're truely psychos for calmly arguing the merits of our case. C'mon man the best press these days is NO press.
That's why I noted in my post that the press would most likely give it an anti-gun spin. I can still dream, can't I?:D

sac7000
08-18-2006, 4:32 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't LEOs partially, if not completely, immune from the bans in CA? Even if it for their own personal use?

I believe they need a department letterhead signed by Chief of Police where they work. At least that is what I was told by a FFL who supplies AR's for Leos. Upon retirement or separation from the department they become ordinary civlians and either must surrender their rifle or remove it from the state.

Skawrpion
08-18-2006, 4:40 PM
http://calgunlaws.com/article-465.html

Seems part1 of PDF document has been pulled for revision. :confused: I only got to read part of the second part. :(

Sorry I am late comer and was not able to send in a letter or e-mail, still i thank all of you here who were able and willing to do what I could not. Thanks!

mikehaas
08-19-2006, 10:45 AM
http://calgunlaws.com/article-465.html

Seems part1 of PDF document has been pulled for revision. :confused: I only got to read part of the second part. :(

Sorry I am late comer and was not able to send in a letter or e-mail, still i thank all of you here who were able and willing to do what I could not. Thanks!
Sorry about that. I was asked to remove part 1 for revision; the other docs are still there. You know lawyers!

As soon as I get the revised file, I'll repost it asap.

Mike

Santa Cruz Armory
08-20-2006, 10:43 AM
It's a good thing you didn't wear your cape at the hearing. :)


:::whispering::: I did, under my clothes...shhhhh! :D

booknut
08-21-2006, 3:34 AM
I would like to thank all the folks who made the meeting and wrote the letters and emails.

I actually flew into Sacramento the evening of the 15th with my daughter.
Unfortunately, I woke up the next morning not feeling well at all and didn't drive/walk to the meeting.
I was in a hotel on J street across from Old Sac and some mall.

So close but yet so far!

btw, my condition had nothing to do with anything 'fun' the night before. ;)

I really wish I had made it even if I did not get up to speak. :(

bwiese
08-21-2006, 4:12 AM
So close but yet so far!

btw, my condition had nothing to do with anything 'fun' the night before. ;)

I really wish I had made it even if I did not get up to speak. :(


Understand. Thanks, though, for perhaps not passing on whatever you might have had.

Pred@tor
08-21-2006, 11:31 PM
Man this propsal is ex post defacto meaning it'd be unconstitutional if theres no registration period. Would that stop them? I dont think so... Ah I dont care if it does pass hell with it.

FreedomIsNotFree
08-22-2006, 3:27 AM
Its like anything in life.....its not going to come easy....

We will likely see the outcome through the courts...hopefully with a mandated registration period if the DOJ keeps up the same nonsense.