PDA

View Full Version : AB2728 - Passed Senate - back to Assy


MaxQ
08-30-2006, 5:00 AM
Yesterday, after the third reading, AB 2728 passed the Senate 29-6. It's now back to the Assembly for concurrence with the Senate's amendments.

The link is to the amended text as of 8/24/06.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_bill_20060824_amended_sen.pdf

ketec_owner
08-30-2006, 6:31 AM
Thanks for the update.

6172crew
08-30-2006, 7:02 AM
Hmm, I looks like this is telling the AG they will update the list and keep a list including pictures, etc until Jan 2007.

Am I wrong or does it look like they are going to open up a reg period for the AR/AK OLL?:confused:

blacklisted
08-30-2006, 7:43 AM
Most recent analysis:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_cfa_20060829_231230_asm_floor.html

Ten Rounder
08-30-2006, 7:48 AM
Hmm, I looks like this is telling the AG they will update the list and keep a list including pictures, etc until Jan 2007.

Am I wrong or does it look like they are going to open up a reg period for the AR/AK OLL?:confused:

My gut feeling is that BL will not update the list as he will deemed it not nessary in his demcratic eyes(view). Justs slams the door on an reg period with no additional list. New AG, lots a luck, his will be hands tied. If GB becomes AG I see a hard approach from him. Met him once when @ 5Ave in Oaktown, just an aging airhead hippy. FD division, he won't have a clue and others will run policy.

Future??? You will have to pay attention on what county(Red or Blue) you are in and traveling thru to keep your OLL.

blacklisted
08-30-2006, 7:50 AM
Does this sound like he wants to list?


" According to the Office of
the Attorney General, "Due to the growing popularity of lower
receivers, the Attorney General's Office has determined that
updating the assault weapons list with new makes and models will
serve no purpose other than to completely undermine California's
assault weapons laws. When the Attorney General Office lists a
new assault weapon, it is required to open up a registration
period. Consequently, any person who has imported a legal
receiver could then register their receiver as an assault
weapon. This would then theoretically allow the registrant to
add any and all of the features prohibited under section
12276.1, and would allow the person to possess a fully
functioning assault weapon. Unfortunately, as soon as a new
list is promulgated, all the current makes/models of lower
receivers will immediately receive new "markings" and monikers
and the whole process will repeat itself. Recently, because of
the expectation that the Attorney General will list new
receivers, thereby opening up a registration period for new
weapons, it has been estimated that more than 30,000 receivers
have been imported into California."



1)Repeal provisions of law that allow a court to declare a
firearm an assault weapon, as specified.

2)End the Department of Justice (DOJ) authorization to declare a
firearm an assault weapon as of January 1, 2007, and any
firearm declared to be an assault weapon prior to that date
shall remain on the list of specified firearms with the
Secretary of State.

3)Clarify that except as provided in existing law related to the
sale and distribution of assault weapons, possession of an
assault weapon is a public nuisance, as specified.

MaxQ
08-30-2006, 7:52 AM
No, this bill doesn't make a reg period any more likely. The new 12276.5 (a), (b) and (c):

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.

are the same as current 12276.5 (g), (h) and (i), with the addition of ending the AG's authority to list on 1/1/07. AB2728 removes the AG/court add-on procedure stuff currently in 12276.5, since the AG will no longer have that authority.

Theoretically, if this bill were to take effect tomorrow, it would be a heck of a lot easier for the AG to list, as there would be no necessary court procedures, noticing, hearings, etc. Simply declare them AWs, update the list, open a reg period. But, although the DOJ believed they had an obligation to update the list back in 2000, they quite obviously no longer think so. Their interpretation is that they are required to do just what they are currently doing. Nothing.

Ten Rounder
08-30-2006, 8:01 AM
Most recent analysis:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_cfa_20060829_231230_asm_floor.html

4)Authorize the Attorney General (AG), any district attorney, or
any city attorney in lieu of criminal prosecution, to bring a
civil action or reach a civil compromise in any superior court
to enjoin the possession of an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle
that is a public nuisance, as specified.

What would this civil action or civil compromise be? This looks interesting, since I know the Sherrif, the DA, and the Judge in my home county.

Can'thavenuthingood
08-30-2006, 8:37 AM
Originally Posted by blacklisted
Most recent analysis:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/...asm_floor.html

4)Authorize the Attorney General (AG), any district attorney, or
any city attorney in lieu of criminal prosecution, to bring a
civil action or reach a civil compromise in any superior court
to enjoin the possession of an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle
that is a public nuisance, as specified.

I might be out of context, but it seems to me they will prosecute you under civil charges rather criminal charges. Civil charges will still create a financial hardship without the burden of a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is that interpretation incorrect?

Vick

anotherone
08-30-2006, 10:39 AM
The legal precident in California is registration not confiscation. Although the DOJ may not want to allow for registration, legal precident and constitutional issues with their attempts to confiscate property (especially in the case of their previously approved rifles such as the Vulcan and Barret M-82CA) should make our side of the case stronger in court. Right now they're mostly concerned with shutting off the flow of lowers and off-list recievers into the state... registration, etc. will come after this fight is over.

grammaton76
08-30-2006, 11:26 AM
Theoretically, if this bill were to take effect tomorrow, it would be a heck of a lot easier for the AG to list, as there would be no necessary court procedures, noticing, hearings, etc. Simply declare them AWs, update the list, open a reg period. But, although the DOJ believed they had an obligation to update the list back in 2000, they quite obviously no longer think so. Their interpretation is that they are required to do just what they are currently doing. Nothing.

Actually, I think the key is found in their statements that the makes/models would just change as soon as they did this.

I think that streamlining the process for the AG is just so that he can kick out a new list, no red tape, on the LAST day of the year, not giving the manufacturers enough time to roll out new models.

They've stated they'll list in the past, and Bill's brought up some points about detrimental reliance and such which may or may not hold true. But they're just interesting enough that the DOJ is probably grumbling about maybe getting sued for it.

I personally do not know if they WILL list, but I do know that if they DO list, it will be on the last day of the year, with no advance notice, so that there won't be a last minute buying frenzy that puts 1999 to shame.

This is why I'm stepping up the pace of my personal OLL campaigning - I'm trying to make sure that everyone I know of, has known about them pre-ban and has a choice. Whether they choose to own it or not, is not my concern. :)

I will say though, that even if they do list, it looks like they aren't trying to cut off the future sales of OLL's. So there'll still be a market for Monsterman grips, SRBs, and (if the DOJ doesn't update the definitions) fixed-mag kits.

grammaton76
08-30-2006, 11:29 AM
I might be out of context, but it seems to me they will prosecute you under civil charges rather criminal charges. Civil charges will still create a financial hardship without the burden of a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt.

More interesting, to me, is the section below:

3)Clarify that except as provided in existing law related to the
sale and distribution of assault weapons, possession of an
assault weapon is a public nuisance, as specified.

Now that I've actually found a link to it, I know why some of the guys were talking about it being a reduction from felony to nuisance. It's interesting that they're looking to "clarify" the law to be something other than it was plainly stated before. However, they could perhaps charge you with conspiracy to distribute an AW if you bought it from someone else, and I believe conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony.

I don't think that 'nuisance' is a civil thing - I mean, are traffic tickets civil?

bg
08-30-2006, 1:48 PM
I just have the worst feeling my mini-14 along with
Garands, etc are going to end up on this "new" list.

That's why it's so important to try and help Sen
Poochigian get elected as the new Atty Gen instead
of Brown.

MaxQ
08-30-2006, 1:59 PM
Actually, I think the key is found in their statements that the makes/models would just change as soon as they did this.

I think that streamlining the process for the AG is just so that he can kick out a new list, no red tape, on the LAST day of the year, not giving the manufacturers enough time to roll out new models.

They've stated they'll list in the past, and Bill's brought up some points about detrimental reliance and such which may or may not hold true. But they're just interesting enough that the DOJ is probably grumbling about maybe getting sued for it.

I personally do not know if they WILL list, but I do know that if they DO list, it will be on the last day of the year, with no advance notice, so that there won't be a last minute buying frenzy that puts 1999 to shame.

This is why I'm stepping up the pace of my personal OLL campaigning - I'm trying to make sure that everyone I know of, has known about them pre-ban and has a choice. Whether they choose to own it or not, is not my concern. :)

I will say though, that even if they do list, it looks like they aren't trying to cut off the future sales of OLL's. So there'll still be a market for Monsterman grips, SRBs, and (if the DOJ doesn't update the definitions) fixed-mag kits.

The February memo and many conversations various people had with DOJ employees strongly indicate that the DOJ's original intention was to list. That intention changed, whether because of public interest, quantity of OLLs, finger-in-the-eye reaction, possibility of rinse and repeat, etc. I agree, 2728 has no impact on evil-featureless or fixed mag OLLs. As I've said in the past, updating the list would have caused an increase in OLLs missed in that list, and also newly marked models. But, that could have been quickly followed up by legislation (such as we see now), which would have reduced the overall number of OLLs to far less than what it will be with no list and unlimited OLLs coming in for the forseeable future. Manufacturers couldn't have changed model markings quickly enough to have more than one or two iterations. Don't forget that the DOJ could easily have pressured at least the major manufacturers by saying that they would immediately update the list each time, resulting in tooling, marketing, and model name/number changes for a very limited run. Sorry, but I don't see Stag, DSA, etc., putting out a new model lower every couple of months, with left over post-list-update stock being sold nationwide.

I understand Bill's point about detrimental reliance, but I don't know enough to guess at the outcome of that court fight (thoughts, Bill?). How much weight will the unsigned February memo have in court? How long would a court battle last? Wouldn't a reg period based on this only apply to OLL buyers between the February memo and the May 9th memo saying no list? A couple of years down the road, would a judge feel justice would best be served by opening a reg period for owners of OLLs during only part of 2006? If SB23 compliant OLLs remain legal, you can't argue that those possibly affected OLL owners have paperweights and can't build or use their firearms. I'm also guessing that the NRA wouldn't get involved, as such a win might result in registration.

Sure, there's a possibility they might list at the last minute, I just don't see how that would benefit the AG/DOJ (except maybe by giving them less restrictive listing powers until 1/1/07). If a detrimental reliance lawsuit was my worst case concern, I'd take my chances and not update the list. That being said, I'd still be prepared just in case there is a last minute reg period...

As things stand now, SB23 compliant OLLs will continue to be legally imported, transferred and used in even greater numbers, especially as other stocks and grip substitutes become available. Either way, I think that California firearms owners are much better off than a year ago. If this passes, FALs, HK clones, etc., won't be subject to the AG's power to list. Of course, "permanently altered" is another issue.

anotherone
08-30-2006, 4:02 PM
Exactly +1.

All AB2728 does is reduce the penalty for possession to an infraction and prevent the DOJ from listing after 1/1/07. No where in there does it prevent either fixed mag or gripless builds.

The only problem I see with the DOJ trying to implement the new regulation is that the regulation contradicts products that they have already approved as having a "fixed mag" such as the Vulcan V-15 (glued mag) and Barret M-82CA (hinged mag). Such regulation will invalidate the M-82CA registration as .50 rifles.

I predict we'll be seeing another stunning reversal or change in regulation/direction from the DOJ by the time the day is done.

Joe
08-30-2006, 4:12 PM
so say if they pass AB2728... then on january 2nd they pass new legislation which somehow bans our gripless or fixed mag rifles. would a registration period still be able to open up?

artherd
08-30-2006, 4:31 PM
I personally do not know if they WILL list, but I do know that if they DO list, it will be on the last day of the year, with no advance notice, so that there won't be a last minute buying frenzy that puts 1999 to shame.
Count on it.

anotherone
08-30-2006, 4:53 PM
so say if they pass AB2728... then on january 2nd they pass new legislation which somehow bans our gripless or fixed mag rifles. would a registration period still be able to open up?

There is nothing in the law or legal precident for confiscation or "reconfigure to meet new regulation". There is, however, registration both as part of the original AW ban AND as legal precident. AB2728 removes the ability to list, but does not remove registration procedures. However, at this time it is more likely a court would open a reg period than the DOJ.

I completely expect them to go after gripless builds next. If they don't it will only be a matter of time before mostergrip AR-15s and gripless AK-47s begin to flood gun shows and the media will demand bans at that point in time. They are definitely out to outlaw all lawful configurations.

One DOJ rep claimed to me over the phone "hahahaha have you seen how hard it is to fire an AR-15 without the pistol grip?". They just haven't seen the evolving and growing selection of grip alternatives. Once they do, expect a memo.

grammaton76
08-30-2006, 5:13 PM
I completely expect them to go after gripless builds next. If they don't it will only be a matter of time before mostergrip AR-15s and gripless AK-47s begin to flood gun shows and the media will demand bans at that point in time. They are definitely out to outlaw all lawful configurations.

One DOJ rep claimed to me over the phone "hahahaha have you seen how hard it is to fire an AR-15 without the pistol grip?". They just haven't seen the evolving and growing selection of grip alternatives. Once they do, expect a memo.

Actually, the SRB was well known and accepted before the MM grip came along. I actually have a hard time deciding which configuration I like better, for some things. I'm thinking that for an HD weapon, the SRB is probably better because you have better access to the safety. However, for general purposes, the MM grip feels really nice too.

Sooo - what I'm getting at here, is that gripless has been an established method for a while now, and the DOJ doesn't really have any grounds to assail it - they've even more or less condoned it in their memo speaking out against pinned mags. I think not even they, are silly enough to try.

Oh well, I don't have to choose, I have both!

MaxQ
08-31-2006, 7:11 AM
AB2728 has been referred back to the Assembly Public Safety Committee - normal procedure when a bill has been substantially amended.

anotherone
08-31-2006, 1:21 PM
I'm thinking that for an HD weapon, the SRB is probably better because you have better access to the safety. However, for general purposes, the MM grip feels really nice too.

I use an Ambi safety with the MM grip, it makes a good thumbrest too for the ape grip :D! For some reason rifles with the MM grip make me feel like I'm in "Planet of the Apes" with one of those modded M-1 Carbines they used with the ape grip on it... oh well I digress :)!

anotherone
08-31-2006, 4:32 PM
Sorry to double post but I've got a quick question: if AB2728 doesn't pass by midnight tonight is it dead like the other bills we're fighting this evening?

Mudvayne540ld
08-31-2006, 5:49 PM
I am wondering the same thing.

Can'thavenuthingood
08-31-2006, 6:11 PM
I believe once referred back to the safety committee at this late hour in the session its pretty much dead for this session. However, the safety committee can vote on it and pass it back the floor at anytime.

I think its going to sit there and wait to be resurected next session. You haven't seen the last of this one, its just sitting down for a breather.

Anyone who has the knowledge on how these bills travel between the houses and seemingly die and yet come back to life please expound, draw a picture or something.

Its a bit of a puzzle.

Vick

anotherone
08-31-2006, 6:24 PM
I think its going to sit there and wait to be resurected next session. You haven't seen the last of this one, its just sitting down for a breather.


Of course while it's sitting down they're going to have at least half a year to think this thing out more and see how the attempted regulatory change goes. If it is destined to pass it probably would have been better to pass it now... but I suppose at least now the incoming AG has an opportunity to do the right thing and list.

Cato
08-31-2006, 7:02 PM
Of course while it's sitting down they're going to have at least half a year to think this thing out more and see how the attempted regulatory change goes. If it is destined to pass it probably would have been better to pass it now... but I suppose at least now the incoming AG has an opportunity to do the right thing and list.
__________________________________________________ ______
So is AB2728 dead? Do we now just wait for the AG to take care of the OLL issue?

anotherone
08-31-2006, 7:17 PM
__________________________________________________ ______
So is AB2728 dead? Do we now just wait for the AG to take care of the OLL issue?

short of miraculous last minute committee action, the OLL issue is now solely in the hands of the DOJ and ultimately in the hands of whatever judge is presiding over the court where the DOJ is sued.

Cato
08-31-2006, 7:43 PM
short of miraculous last minute committee action, the OLL issue is now solely in the hands of the DOJ and ultimately in the hands of whatever judge is presiding over the court where the DOJ is sued.
______________________________________________
Well the longer it takes to resolve the issue the better. Calguns and other gun boards are still getting post of guys who are saying "is it true I can have an AR if I build it myself?" About 11 days later that dude is hugging his rifle running around his house fighting make believe terrorists. The DOJ estimates there are 30,000 receivers in the state today. In another year it will be in the 100,000s. Look at all these posts of guys shooting their builds at the range with detachable 30 rounders. I see there being two options for the DOJ 1) do nothing a la illegal immigration 2) fight OLLs and get SB23 voided.

chunger
08-31-2006, 8:07 PM
Seems the committee is having an emergency session to talk about it now. . .

hoffmang
08-31-2006, 8:12 PM
I'm sure that's where Ed is...

Mudvayne540ld
08-31-2006, 8:21 PM
what room are they in?

chunger
08-31-2006, 9:13 PM
Just on the floor. . . it got pulled. . . up again later?

chiefcrash
08-31-2006, 9:29 PM
just passed

MaxQ
08-31-2006, 9:44 PM
I can't edit the thread title, but AB2728 passed the assembly 47-9. So, now it's off to the governator to:

1. Sign - it becomes law

2. Ignore - it still becomes law

3. Veto - can later be overturned by a majority vote of both houses.

Cato
08-31-2006, 9:44 PM
just passed

Where can we get a link?

Hunter
08-31-2006, 9:49 PM
Where can we get a link?


For the on going vote?

If so, try this...

http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/_comm/ROOM_LIST_O.HTM

chiefcrash
08-31-2006, 10:00 PM
Where can we get a link?

i was listening in via webcast, so no idea who voted what...

Jumper41
09-01-2006, 9:58 AM
Hey Guys,
I really haven't been paying attention lately, and I can't really understand most of your postings because I haven't learned the lingo. But where are we at with the Updated Assault Weapon List and Registration Period. Does it look like its going to happen or what? I'm itching to legally put mine together the way I want it. Detachable magazine, pistol grip and all.

Jumper

gose
09-01-2006, 10:00 AM
Hey Guys,
I really haven't been paying attention lately, and I can't really understand most of your postings because I haven't learned the lingo. But where are we at with the Updated Assault Weapon List and Registration Period. Does it look like its going to happen or what? I'm itching to legally put mine together the way I want it. Detachable magazine, pistol grip and all.
Jumper

That will never happen. Move on...

hoffmang
09-01-2006, 10:09 AM
Never may be too strong a statement, but unlikely is a better way to put it.

-Gene

Jumper41
09-01-2006, 10:13 AM
I guess there will be 30,000 plus lower recievers sitting in peoples closets. Bummer....

cathog
09-01-2006, 10:14 AM
All,

I generally do not respond to comments regarding the legal issues in a forum due to the liability of providing such services. But because I am greatly concerned about what I have been reading on this and other threads, I want to make it clear that AB2728 does not limit violations of the "assault weapon" laws to only civil penalties. i.e. A District Attorney can still criminally prosecute a person for illegal possession of "assault weapons."

But, AB2728 does provide a civil alternative to the District Attorney and other prosecutors to choose whether to prosecute criminally or seek a civil remedy (forfeiture and fine).

hoffmang
09-01-2006, 10:17 AM
Jumper,

Build it up with a pinned magazine or go gripless and featureless. Don't be a killjoy. Shoot your rifle.

Cathog is correct about the outcome of not configuring your OLL correctly however.

-Gene

mgcchkn
09-01-2006, 10:20 AM
______________________________________________
In another year it will be in the 100,000s.
I agree with this statement, so far I have bought 6 in the past 2 weeks and won't quit buying them until I'm stopped! lol :) I just hope someone comes out with an OLL in 308 before time is up.

Jumper41
09-01-2006, 10:23 AM
Your right, I should at least shoot my rifle. Because I'm clueless I have to ask this question. How would one configure their OLL correctly and legally. Break it down to me barney style.
I'll be off the forum for a couple of hours but I look forward to your reply.

Thanks boss.

hoffmang
09-01-2006, 10:29 AM
I personally prefer pinning in a 10 round capacity magazine so that I can have other features that SB-23 would otherwise not allow. Here is the review of the two primary magazine pinning kits:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=33165

Others here are gripless fans. You should use the little search box. I'm happy to point you in the right direction, but you can do the search/read work too.

-Gene

AYEAREFIFTEEN
09-01-2006, 10:43 AM
This may be a long shot, but could this bill perhaps set us up for something worse down the road?

They will not list by make and model because they know it won't prevent new models from being manufactured. What stops the AG, DOJ or powers that be from creating new law to ban receivers/firearms by characteristic beyond SB23?

mgcchkn
09-01-2006, 10:51 AM
I think they will just end up banning all semi-auto centerfire rifles in the long run. Mini-14's, Mini-30's, M1A's, etc... they will all be a thing of the past in the near future.

AYEAREFIFTEEN
09-01-2006, 10:56 AM
I think they will just end up banning all semi-auto centerfire rifles in the long run. Mini-14's, Mini-30's, M1A's, etc... they will all be a thing of the past in the near future.

That is the same thought I had. I and many others owning Mini14's and M1A's would be forced to register.

hoffmang
09-01-2006, 10:58 AM
The laws can always change - but not until the next session next year.

If the laws do change, then the legal situation is that you will get the opportunity to register whatever you currently own. But, with the types of effort we've been seeing here and the results we're starting to get it may not be easy for those who oppose us to get through some sort of sweeping change. AB-352's defeat is a good example of that.

-Gene

mgcchkn
09-01-2006, 11:06 AM
That is the same thought I had. I and many others owning Mini14's and M1A's would be forced to register.
Not that I'm giving up, but at least we'd still be able to enjoy them if we were forced to register them. Thankfully they have registration periods instead of surrender and confiscation. I plan on buying as many weapons as possible that may end up being targets of the liberal hippy bozo's that think they are actually solving problems by doing such things. And I guess if it gets that bad, Arizona or Nevada aren't too far to move. :)

hoffmang
09-01-2006, 11:20 AM
The looming threat from the anti-gunners has the curious economic effect of forcing us all to quickly accumulate the guns that we think are most likely to be banned sooner and more completely. I love unintended consequences...

I need:
Yugo 56
AR in Pink for the wife
FAL
SIG-556
Another M1A
SU-16CA

My poor wallet...

6172crew
09-01-2006, 11:37 AM
The looming threat from the anti-gunners has the curious economic effect of forcing us all to quickly accumulate the guns that we think are most likely to be banned sooner and more completely. I love unintended consequences...

I need:
Yugo 56
AR in Pink for the wife
FAL
SIG-556
Another M1A
SU-16CA

My poor wallet...

.....PTR91
FS2000
Ps90
AUG a3
BobCat
:D

mgcchkn
09-01-2006, 12:12 PM
you guys were starting to get me happy listing all those guns.. :( how about a list of guns that are currently CA legal that you think might get banned in the next 3-5 years or so... (besides EVERYTHING)

grammaton76
09-01-2006, 1:03 PM
But where are we at with the Updated Assault Weapon List and Registration Period. Does it look like its going to happen or what? I'm itching to legally put mine together the way I want it. Detachable magazine, pistol grip and all.

DOJ has said they won't list, mostly because they've read a lot of posts on here like yours. :(

Seriously though, detachable mag plus no pistol grip is great if you have a weapon weighted the right way.

The DPMS Tuber upper is *really* front heavy, and a weighted A2 buttstock is also really rear heavy. Monsterman grips are far better than standard AR grips for waist-level shooting.

Soooo - I think it's time for some videos to start circulating about how you can put together a CHEAP, very effective bump-firing rifle (heavy helps, I understand) with a laser sight so you can hit the target. It's as politically incorrect as humanly possible, yet legal!

Yes, we need those pistol grips, they'll prevent us from bump-firing as effectively! :)

AYEAREFIFTEEN
09-01-2006, 1:32 PM
Seriously though, detachable mag plus no pistol grip is great if you have a weapon weighted the right way.

Yes, we need those pistol grips, they'll prevent us from bump-firing as effectively! :)

LOL!

I'm sure there are many people out there, including myself, that have no problem at all shooting their Mini-14 or M1A without a pistol grip.

Having a pistol grip on an OLL should not make or break someone's decision to buy one. Neither should a folding/collapsable stock or a flash suppressor (that doesn't do a whole hell of a lot more to hide flash than a muzzle break).

blacklisted
09-01-2006, 1:34 PM
About the DoJ listing: has anyone actually read the letter from Chuck Michel to the DoJ regarding the February 1st memo? This letter is what caused the DoJ to retract that memo.

It sounds like a lot of people have missed it...but it said that any new list (post SB 23) would likely be challenged in court.

Basically, it made it seem unclear whether or not the DoJ has the authority to actually list any new firearms that may not have SB 23 features).

I am curious about one possible effect this bill might have. Bill especially has been saying not to build 80% receivers (a reasonable precaution) because they could never be listed and thus may not be protected by Harrott. Now that no new guns can be listed after 1/1/07, perhaps this precaution will no longer be necessary. ;)

grammaton76
09-01-2006, 1:43 PM
I am curious about one possible effect this bill might have. Bill especially has been saying not to build 80% receivers (a reasonable precaution) because they could never be listed and thus may not be protected by Harrott. Now that no new guns can be listed after 1/1/07, perhaps this precaution will no longer be necessary. ;)

Can we say, magwell milled out to only accept 22LR pistol mags? ;)

mgcchkn
09-01-2006, 2:18 PM
Can we say, magwell milled out to only accept 22LR pistol mags? ;)
I think a 17HMR AR would be kinda cool. :)

glockk9mm
09-01-2006, 3:09 PM
since this bill passed, and the if the governer signs it will we still be able to buy lowers? Or will this stop the lower importation?

6172crew
09-01-2006, 3:38 PM
OLL lowers would still be legal.

Now if we can get the NRA to help us get approval for the magazine catches that are available then we would be peaches.

I going to go ahead and order a few up for a road trip but it would be nice to have a peice of paper to show flat foot on the beat if it was ever needed.

Like some have said transporting a AW is still a felony and Im sure they would ask questions later on some cities.

MonsterMan
09-01-2006, 3:38 PM
since this bill passed, and the if the governer signs it will we still be able to buy lowers? Or will this stop the lower importation?

You can still buy lowers. Just don't build them into a illegal config.

mgcchkn
09-01-2006, 6:02 PM
so what can I say or how do I convince a local shop that OLL's aren't illegal to sell and they won't be sued by anyone if they do sell them?

hoffmang
09-01-2006, 6:13 PM
Gents,

I'm quite positive that the correct folks will be getting mag fixes approved at the right time. That right time is not now but in a couple of months.

-Gene

Jumper41
09-06-2006, 8:33 AM
I appreciate the response. You're right, a video would be nice so that no confusion occurs between the legal and illegal parts by us less informed people.

DOJ has said they won't list, mostly because they've read a lot of posts on here like yours. :(

Seriously though, detachable mag plus no pistol grip is great if you have a weapon weighted the right way.

The DPMS Tuber upper is *really* front heavy, and a weighted A2 buttstock is also really rear heavy. Monsterman grips are far better than standard AR grips for waist-level shooting.

Soooo - I think it's time for some videos to start circulating about how you can put together a CHEAP, very effective bump-firing rifle (heavy helps, I understand) with a laser sight so you can hit the target. It's as politically incorrect as humanly possible, yet legal!

Yes, we need those pistol grips, they'll prevent us from bump-firing as effectively! :)

tacticalcity
09-06-2006, 9:15 AM
Maybe I missed it...but it seems like the "permanently altered" not to accept a magazine wording that the AG threatened to add to this bill did not make it in yet.

So if I understand the bill correctly, if it passes...

1) All of our OLLs will still be legal.
2) We can still legally build gripless (no SB23 evil features) versions.
3) We can still legally build mag-lock (prince kit and others) versions.
4) We no longer go to jail if we violate the rules (1-2 rifles) but rather pay a fine of $300 or less per rifle and possibly loose our rifle(s).

If this is correct, we should be happy. It is much better than the way things currently stand.

The current law gives the AG too much power.

This new law restricts that power, as well as the punishment for owning an AW. Sounds good to me!

hoffmang
09-06-2006, 3:31 PM
On #4 above - you are still exposed to a felony or a misdemeanor or a nuisance charge. You are likely to only get the nuisance charge.

DOJ was very worried that a future AG would see the listing tool as a pro gun opportunity. I'll post proof of that statement shortly. As such they were willing to do just about anything to get future listing taken away. That's a win.

-Gene