PDA

View Full Version : Important information regarding 2728!!!


jemaddux
08-30-2006, 10:36 AM
Just got off the phone with Sen Johan Klehs office, the writer of the bill. They are not aware of any letter from DOJ stating that there would be a reg period or any posting at all from DOJ. DOJ is denying any of this happened. The intent of the bill is to say straight across the board, center fire with detachable mag and one feature is a AW, that is it. If this bill is to pass there will be no list at all and no grandfathering, no anything. This is why DOJ is so happy, they sit and wait and everything goes away like they want:mad: . People really need to start calling their Assembly Members and making them aware that DOJ sent out letters saying they would open a reg period and this is why you bought what you did. If you don't make some calls you will have no one but yourself to blame when you end up with a ten round fixed paperweight:eek: .

bwiese
08-30-2006, 11:26 AM
It has nothing to do with any 'features' related to 12276.1.

odysseus
08-30-2006, 11:27 AM
So however, even if they pass a new bill like that - they have to open a period for reg on existing legal rifles that they now just banned. I know there is a ton of lines I just can't get through on this board regarding this - but isn't that what the DOJ must do?

anotherone
08-30-2006, 11:33 AM
Although 2728 does not state there will be a registration period, the Roberti-Roos act and legal precident states there will be a registration period. The legal precident in California is registration not confiscation. There are also constitutional issues involving ex-post facto laws and confiscation. Not to mention there's the issue of the DOJ wanting to ban pinned magazine rifles and having already approved the Barret M82CA and register a .50 rifle that will now be invalidated. Registration is comming by legal action so get all the off-list goodness you can.

Skawrpion
08-30-2006, 11:38 AM
The intent of the bill is to say straight across the board, center fire with detachable mag and one feature is a AW, that is it.

An OLL with a fixed mag would not fall into this, would it?

If you don't make some calls you will have no one but yourself to blame when you end up with a ten round fixed paperweight:eek: .

Same as above, if it is a fixed mag OLL why would it be a paperweight?

Just a little confused.

hoffmang
08-30-2006, 11:43 AM
2728 will have no direct impact on a fixed mag AR or AK.

-Gene

6172crew
08-30-2006, 12:21 PM
All I have to say is that the lawmakers better get used to the fact that Amercans will always find ways to get what they dont want to to have.

Best thing they can do is let it go. As some have said there will be some folks who are going to come out with new stocks that will work well with our lowers.

bwiese
08-30-2006, 12:27 PM
I dunno what orig poster is talking about.
Again, there is no reference to 'features' - 12276.1 definitions stand.

2728 just removed DOJ authority to list guns by themselves or thru court add-on motions. It essentially freezes 'the lists' on Jan 1 07 if passed. Although it doesn't repeal 12280 it gives effective reduction of simple AW possession penalties by allowing infraction (actually, public nuisance) charges and seizure and small fine - making this the 'easy path' for prosecutors.

2728 itself will have nothing to do with legit OLL builds; they ain't AWs.

Skawrpion
08-30-2006, 12:37 PM
I dunno what orig poster is talking about.
Again, there is no reference to 'features' - 12276.1 definitions stand.

2728 just removed DOJ authority to list guns by themselves or thru court add-on motions. It essentially freezes 'the lists' on Jan 1 07 if passed. Although it doesn't repeal 12280 it gives effective reduction of simple AW possession penalties by allowing infraction (actually, public nuisance) charges and seizure and small fine - making this the 'easy path' for prosecutors.

2728 itself will have nothing to do with legit OLL builds; they ain't AWs.

Thank you for this post, I was sweating "bullets" for a while and was abot to cancel some orders I've made. :)

bwiese
08-30-2006, 12:39 PM
Although 2728 does not state there will be a registration period, the Roberti-Roos act and legal precident states there will be a registration period.

Not quite...

... there is no requirement for a reg period for OLLs. There IS a plain requirement that if something IS banned as an AW by name, that a reg period must open. That is, if DOJ pursues further regulatory definition remanipulation (notice the "re-" prefix!) that involuntarily (to the owner) transitions existing legally owned rifles into AW status.

If these latter conditions exist, sure - there's no way a legal gun can transition into AW status (outside of owner misconduct in improper configuration) without a reg period having to be opened, as indeed the intent was for registration and not confiscation/'render safe', etc. activities. [The DOJ has no authority to mandate changes in configurations to already-legal rifles. They cannot tell you, for example, to weld a mag in.]


Not to mention there's the issue of the DOJ wanting to ban pinned magazine rifles and having already approved the Barret M82CA and register a .50 rifle that will now be invalidated.

Sure, and these issues as well as a massive prior history of DOJ regulatory stances contravening this all demonstrate the regulatory redefinition is new law and can in no way be regarded as 'clarification'.

There are, however, substantive 'detrimental reliance' issues on OLLs since at least 20,000 or more folks bought them because the Deputy AG said they were indeed going to list/ban them. In fact, tracking the sales surge and price drops of OLL sales and the sales explosion in the southland, you can see this activity occurred after Deputy AG A.M.'s massive, focused paper trail - including the Feb. 3 "Category 4" memorandum.

insisted on the fixed magazines that the DOJ is now acting like they revile!]

jemaddux
08-30-2006, 1:13 PM
I dunno what orig poster is talking about.
Again, there is no reference to 'features' - 12276.1 definitions stand.

2728 just removed DOJ authority to list guns by themselves or thru court add-on motions. It essentially freezes 'the lists' on Jan 1 07 if passed. Although it doesn't repeal 12280 it gives effective reduction of simple AW possession penalties by allowing infraction (actually, public nuisance) charges and seizure and small fine - making this the 'easy path' for prosecutors.

2728 itself will have nothing to do with legit OLL builds; they ain't AWs.

According to the Sen Johan Klehs office, the reason for this bill is for no other weapons will be ever listed as a AW. Plain terms, there will NEVER be a REG PERIOD if this bill passes. The only thing you will be able to have is a ten round FIXED, that is it. If for some reason someone was to decides to shoot lets say a detachable mag without a lower grip and has a muzzle break on but some DA decides that its a FS you just became a felon and will be fined and have the firearm destroyed. I know you think you are the GOD of all this Bill but your not. This does effect us all if this passes. It would mean we have Zero chance of ever getting these listed. It also means that someplace at some time someone is going to get busted and its going to start all kinds of trouble for us dealers. Someone new coming into office will not be able to do anything for us because this bill is already in place, if it doesn't pass then MAYBE in 2007 when someone new is there we can get something done. This bill was made to finish everything for the DOJ and give them what they want. The Sen office is claiming they had no idea that any post was out on DOJs web sight stating they would list. Maybe is they started getting phone calls and letters we can get it stopped for right now or a line adding a reg period, you don't know unless you try.:mad:

blacklisted
08-30-2006, 1:26 PM
Just got off the phone with Sen Johan Klehs office, the writer of the bill. They are not aware of any letter from DOJ stating that there would be a reg period or any posting at all from DOJ. DOJ is denying any of this happened. The intent of the bill is to say straight across the board, center fire with detachable mag and one feature is a AW, that is it. If this bill is to pass there will be no list at all and no grandfathering, no anything. This is why DOJ is so happy, they sit and wait and everything goes away like they want:mad: . People really need to start calling their Assembly Members and making them aware that DOJ sent out letters saying they would open a reg period and this is why you bought what you did. If you don't make some calls you will have no one but yourself to blame when you end up with a ten round fixed paperweight:eek: .

It has been that way for several years.

Perhaps you are confusing this with the DoJ's proposed regulation regarding "capacity to accept a detachable magazine"?

I suggest you read the letter (part 1, pages 1-19, 43-63) from the NRA attorney here:

http://www.calgunlaws.com/

It does explain the memo put out by the DoJ that caused the expectation that they would list, and shows why it was pulled and replaced by one stating that they would not list.

This bill is definately related to the DoJ, because it was sponsored by the AG. He does not want to list because he knows that is what many people want (and there is some question as to the legality of updating the "series" list, again see the letters I referenced above!).

If their proposed regulation passes, combined with this bill it would effectively stop non-permanent fixed-mag builds and allow for their confiscation (at least until it is challenged in court). However, without the regulation, this bill does nothing but lower the penalty for possession in certain cases, and remove the AG's power to list new firearms.

Hopi
08-30-2006, 1:31 PM
I'm confused:
Are we supposed to be worried that 1)we can't own or possess AR-15 and Ak-47 type receivers, or 2)that we are not going to be able to register them as assault weapons and add "evil features"?

Remember, registration of firearms is NEVER A GOOD THING, and the fact that we actually have these receivers in our safes is something none of us thought would happen for the 5 years following the final ban.

We've got them! So what that we can't drop our mags when we have added pistol grips, flash hiders, or coll. stocks?

I heard that bullets tear paper and alleivate life just the same, whether you are holding the rifle by the pistol gip or the buttstock.....

CALI-gula
08-30-2006, 1:42 PM
...Plain terms, there will NEVER be a REG PERIOD if this bill passes.

Likely so anyway, that there will not be any more new "listing" under Roberti-Roos according to DOJ. I doubt there would be and do not support the "listing" or banning of firearms, but HAVE bought Off List Lowers.

The only thing you will be able to have is a ten round FIXED, that is it.

Do you mean to say they wish to make that it won't matter if you have a fixed mag or not, because NO additional SB23 features will be allowed on centerfire rifles fixed mag or not? I don't see how this will work unless they go with the "capability to accept" language. And if you run a detachable mag set-up anyway, nothing is different - these Off-list lowers in DETACHABLE mag form are no different than a Mini-14, Kel-Tec SU-16, or M1-A, Robinson Armament M96, etc., where no SB23 features are allowed. It's simple: detachable mag = no SB-23 features, period. That is the way the law is now.

If for some reason someone was to decides to shoot lets say a detachable mag without a lower grip and has a muzzle break on but some DA decides that its a FS you just became a felon and will be fined and have the firearm destroyed.

Technically, and by DOJ error, that can happen now - AND DID! Refer to the Robinson Armament M96 confiscations story posted here on Calguns.net in several places by several people. Luckily, no rifles were destroyed.

It would mean we have Zero chance of ever getting these listed.

We are already looking at zero chance - that came and went in May. Unless it finally bugs the DOJ that over 40,000 AR lowers are now running rampant through CA - but I think they see the current laws of RR & SB23 as applicable.

It also means that someplace at some time someone is going to get busted and its going to start all kinds of trouble for us dealers.

That can happen anyway, for any reason - don't cross your T's and forget to dot your i's, and you will have all kinds of trouble. And some dealers HAVE had trouble over the OLL sales from DOJ.


.

bwiese
08-30-2006, 1:49 PM
According to the Sen Johan Klehs office, the reason for this bill is for no other weapons will be ever listed as a AW. Plain terms, there will NEVER be a REG PERIOD if this bill passes.

Not quite - after Jan 1 2007.

BTW, contacting Klehs office likely will not get you all the tech details.

The only thing you will be able to have is a ten round FIXED, that is it. If for some reason someone was to decides to shoot lets say a detachable mag without a lower grip and has a muzzle break on but some DA decides that its a FS you just became a felon and will be fined and have the firearm destroyed.

That's the case now, nothing changes.

Well there's always risk that the DA insists a given non-AW is an AW. I am sure many DAs think M1As and Mini14s are AWs even without features, though they are not. There's the old saying, "you can indict a ham sandwich". Also, there seem to be DOJ letters out there saying they don't know what the hell a flash hider acutally is.

If you get a muzzle brake that's recognized as one you'll be OK.

But if you are paranoid, for safety if you run gripless just have a bare muzzle.

2728 changes nothing other than we've protected a bunch of other firearms (M1A, M14, Keltec, etc.) and the DOJ gets out of a task they didn't want.


This does effect us all if this passes. It would mean we have Zero chance of ever getting these listed.

Perhaps. The DOJ doesn't wanna list unless they get forced to by a court (detrimental reliance due to AG's assertion they will list).

But a 12276.1 AW is still a 12276.1 AW, unchanged.

Your post reveals overall confusion on what's happening. This really changes nothing except lets the DOJ get out of listing (which they're avoiding anyway unless a court pressures them) and offers a reduced penalty option for simple possession. It does not affect OLL at all except for prospective penalty reduction.

Your concerns as a dealer should be identical pre-2728 or after 2728.

This is why NRA rates it as neutral (doesn't support/oppose).

Cato
08-30-2006, 2:04 PM
If there isn't a registration period, we can all move to America. Kalifornia taxes suck. The money I save on Kalifornia state taxes, I can spend on buying ARs and AKs. Let the liberals pay for the illegals, 'cause I'm leaving.

mailman
08-30-2006, 2:25 PM
104 days and counting, NV here i come :cool:

blkA4alb
08-30-2006, 3:24 PM
Don't take this as a personal attack because that is not the case jemaddeux. But I feel that this thread should be deleted, it is causing unneeded confusion regarding the legal situation. :(

TKo_Productions
08-30-2006, 4:09 PM
Call me goofy, but I understand what jemmadux is saying and I support him. One of the options available to us, in order to get detachable magazine + evil features, is to have the AG list. Now, it may seem unfavorable to us at the current moment with BL in office, but whoís to say that latter down the road we wont get a more sympathetic AG, or an AG who decides to list for political reasons or pressures (cutting deals in Sacramento happens all the time!!!)?

I remember someone saying that there was a divide within the DOJ, and that some senior agents wanted to list, while others didn't. How do we know who was in support of listing? and who wasn't? What if IC retires (as it's been rumored) and AM remains. Perhaps she wants to list, and will convince a new AG to do just that.

By allowing this bill to pass with all of you assuming that its preferential, seems to burn the proverbial bridge. We're closing a a door on a potential option available (albeit down the road) to have another AG list.

Remember, the whole OLL thing began because we all anticipated that the AG WOULD list. Now, we want to remove the VERY option that made this loophole all possible.

I'm shaking my head cause I don't understand how some of you have reached the conclusion that AB 2728 is beneficial.

grammaton76
08-30-2006, 4:36 PM
Remember, the whole OLL thing began because we all anticipated that the AG WOULD list. Now, we want to remove the VERY option that made this loophole all possible.

I'm shaking my head cause I don't understand how some of you have reached the conclusion that AB 2728 is beneficial.

It's a mixed bag.

On the one hand, it's advantageous if they never list, ever, and we won't have any more accidental overnight felons who just never found out. No AW restrictions, and (most importantly) OLLs can be propagated throughout the state in gripless or fixed-mag configs (pick one, don't care which). People will start getting used to seeing them again and become less sensitive and less likely to flip out when they see 'evil' guns.

Most importantly, it's the single most tangible, visible demonstration that SB23 is silly and useless. I don't think there are many people out there who would vote AGAINST a repeal of SB23, once they get an OLL into their hands.

OLL's aren't about having AR's; they're about spreading out groundwork for future assaults on the idiocy we're stuck with presently...

TKo_Productions
08-30-2006, 4:45 PM
It's a mixed bag.

On the one hand, it's advantageous if they never list, ever, and we won't have any more accidental overnight felons who just never found out. No AW restrictions, and (most importantly) OLLs can be propagated throughout the state in gripless or fixed-mag configs (pick one, don't care which). People will start getting used to seeing them again and become less sensitive and less likely to flip out when they see 'evil' guns.

Most importantly, it's the single most tangible, visible demonstration that SB23 is silly and useless. I don't think there are many people out there who would vote AGAINST a repeal of SB23, once they get an OLL into their hands.

OLL's aren't about having AR's; they're about spreading out groundwork for future assaults on the idiocy we're stuck with presently...

It's like Bill said though, why do you want everything to remain in stasis? Lets push the envelope and see what comes out of it. As long as we sit idly by we achieve nothing.

It all boils down to a very simple question:

Do you like sitting a stagnant pool of water? or do you want to see change?

VeryCoolCat
08-30-2006, 4:45 PM
This law will let the "i didn't know it was illegal" argument more usable.

Oh it was my grandfathers.... he gave me this ak47 when he died. That way you get public nuisence level charges (misdamenor) vs 5+ years in prison.

TKo_Productions
08-30-2006, 4:46 PM
This law will let the "i didn't know it was illegal" argument more usable.

Oh it was my grandfathers.... he gave me this ak47 when he died. That way you get public nuisence level charges (misdamenor) vs 5+ years in prison.

Thats NEVER been a viable defense. Ignorance of the law (or your inability to interpret/analyze it) is no excuse. 12276 and 12276.1 are VERY clearly written and easily understood.

Cross that excuse/defense out of your mind, courts and cops don't recognize it, and they never will.

grammaton76
08-30-2006, 4:53 PM
It's like Bill said though, why do you want everything to remain in stasis? Lets push the envelope and see what comes out of it. As long as we sit idly by we achieve nothing.

Who said anything about stasis? Right now there's estimates ranging upwards to 40k lowers in CA. I think that even without listing, we could easily pass 200k by the end of next year. And every single person who buys one is probably going to be very interested in initiatives to repeal SB23.

On the other hand, if they DO list, even better. There'll be a new generation of OLL's in short order, and the next generation will be even crankier about the lack of 'evil features'. But they'll be building on the initial development of CA-compliance parts that we've worked up and funded.

If they DO list all my lowers, I for one will buy at least a pair of unlisted lowers thereafter. That way it'd be my choice whether I'd have AW transport requirements or a Monsterman grip in place of a pg.

It all boils down to a very simple question:

Do you like sitting a stagnant pool of water? or do you want to see change?

No one's said anything about stagnation. I'm saying that either way the DOJ goes, we get to gain ground. Maybe YOU lose if they don't list, if your only purpose was to get yourself a few registered assault weapons. I'm not in this for a couple of guns; I'm in it because it represents the recruiting phase for a flat-out assault on the CA AWB.

artherd
08-30-2006, 5:30 PM
Remember, registration of firearms is NEVER A GOOD THING, and the fact that we actually have these receivers in our safes is something none of us thought would happen for the 5 years following the final ban.
While in principle I agree with you, in fact I know that DOJ has personally visited many the FFLs in the state of California that were selling OLLs, and has photocopied their books.

They now know who we all are, and in essence we are all 'registered'

(even though I would hazard a guess that DOJ will never admit to compiling such a secret, internal list. Consider this however, how many of us were on the Registered AW/.50BMG list, and bought OLLs, and recieved an 'important notice' letter?)

anotherone
08-30-2006, 5:43 PM
To those of you moving out of state or planning to as a result of this legislation/regulation combo, be sure you let me know about your favorite hunting spots first :)! Don't worry I'll maintain them for you out here in the PRK.

M. Sage
08-30-2006, 6:13 PM
if the DOJ's opinion is that , under their new understanding of the law, like the hearing we just had, then your SKS (for example) with one feature will have been considered banned since 2000 and you should have registered it then.

Can't do that. Ex post facto. You can't change the law and make it retroactive.

grammaton76
08-30-2006, 6:19 PM
Can't do that. Ex post facto. You can't change the law and make it retroactive.

That's the logical approach, yes.

However, the DOJ's position will be that the law was clearly written and transparent, that we chose to disregard it, and that they haven't been enforcing it until now.

The only question will be, if they think they can get away with it.