PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on AB2728


anotherone
08-31-2006, 11:59 PM
Well tonight AB2728 was voted into law. It's doubtful the governator will veto this little sucker. It's an interesting little bill, I love it and hate it at the same time. On the positive side having an AW is no longer a felony but is only a civil crime. On the negative side... hmmm... well the AG can't list but he was never going to in the first place... so on the negative side... wait can anyone find anything on the negative side?

Interesting how easily the bill passed...

Shane916
09-01-2006, 12:04 AM
Since it's only a civil crime, it's almost worth going around with a detachable magazine.

hoffmang
09-01-2006, 12:05 AM
No other gun will ever be added to the list by name. Mmm... Sig-556...

Shane916
09-01-2006, 12:06 AM
No other gun will ever be added to the list by name. Mmm... Sig-556...

Indeed... happy thoughts :)

anotherone
09-01-2006, 12:12 AM
No other gun will ever be added to the list by name. Mmm... Sig-556...

Personally I was more excited about the LAR-10

Gregas
09-01-2006, 12:18 AM
Well tonight AB2728 was voted into law. It's doubtful the governator will veto this little sucker. It's an interesting little bill, I love it and hate it at the same time. On the positive side having an AW is no longer a felony but is only a civil crime.
Why does everyone keep saying this??? It's at the DA's option. The felony still exists. They'll pick you up on flimsy evidence and then give you the choice of giving up the gun or going to a felony trial! Why does everyone like this? It just opens the door to confiscation!

PS...If someone knows something about this that I don't know and doesn't want to post please PM. This does not look good!

Gregas
09-01-2006, 12:19 AM
Since it's only a civil crime, it's almost worth going around with a detachable magazine.

Yeah...roll the dice...

hoffmang
09-01-2006, 12:29 AM
Gregas,

First, why are you getting picked up? Second, Mag pinned or no evil features (gripless) and it isn't even an AW.

If you got picked up before 2728 you were getting a misdemeanor at best and a felony at worst. Now worst case your worst case plea bargaining to a misdemeanor and more likely getting a speeding ticket and losing the gun. Then you walk down to your local dealer and buy an OLL to replace it cause we're all going to be able to buy as many OLLs as we want for as long as we want them.

Your kids will get ARs and AKs and Fals and all they'll have to do is pin the magazine or run without SB-23 implicated features.

Anybody else think that out of state manufacturers are going to start tooling up for Cali legal new models and types now that NO LISTING WILL OCCUR EVER AGAIN AFTER January 2007?

-Gene

double_action
09-01-2006, 12:34 AM
Since it's only a civil crime, it's almost worth going around with a detachable magazine.

It's not worth it.

"It is a felony for any person to manufacture, distribute, transport, import into California,or keep or offer for sale, or give or lend, an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle. (PenalCode 12280.)"

This part of the Penalcode does NOT change. You can still be charged with a felony for the manufacture and/or transport of your illegally configured OLL with a detachable mag.

This is only good for those who never registered their pre-2000 AWs and get caught with it at home. They can still get charged with a felony for transporting their AW to the range.

Hunter
09-01-2006, 12:39 AM
This bill doesn't really change anything when looked at the worst case side when looking at a violation. Illegal AW can still be charged as a felony.

To think one can now risk running around with an illegal AW and only get a slap for it is wrong. This bill allows for the possesion of the AW to be knocked down from a felony, but it doesn't mandate it. Also it still keeps the felonies in place for movement, storage, lending, ect...

So to now think it is no big deal to have an illegal AW is completely wrong!! It still can get you nailed with 2-3 felonies!!


So what does this bill do for gun owners..... I think Hoffmang as already covered that above.

bwiese
09-01-2006, 12:42 AM
AB2728 does not affect OLL-based rifles unless they are illegally configured.
All receiver language has been excised for awhile.

When a 'crime' exists DAs feel obligated to prosecute it. If they don't have flexibility sometimes they have to push for unreasonable punishments because there's no other choice.

However, felonies cost money/staff/time to prosecute, and the jails are full. If there's no other associated egregious conduct other than simple possession (no DV, theft, discharge, brandishing, etc.), they wanna move paper quickly They get to tout a gun 'conviction', and a 'gun off the streets' and get money in (they can say you paid a fine). All benefits for them. You? You've unfortnately lost a gun but saved $15K in legal fees to fight a felony. The whole idea is to make it easier for a DA to do the easiest, path-of-least-resistance thing.

AB2728 charges are nuisances, which fall in the same category as code violations like letting your lawn grow too long, etc.

Most importantly AB2728 removes DOJ's ability to declare new firearms as AWs either thru a tame judge or adding to a list.

AB2728 was the result of a DOJ Firearms Div & a Deputy AG so panicky that it gave up a big chunk of authority - have you ever seen a bureaucracy wanna do that except under pressure?? ;)

mikehaas
09-01-2006, 1:35 AM
Why does everyone keep saying this??? It's at the DA's option. The felony still exists. They'll pick you up on flimsy evidence and then give you the choice of giving up the gun or going to a felony trial! Why does everyone like this? It just opens the door to confiscation!

What 'choice'? What 'opens the door to confiscation'? We have had confiscation for years now...
http://nrawinningteam.com/states/Lindex.html

And nobody gives you a choice about surrendering an illegal AW.

You lose the gun today and you lose the gun after AB 2728 - no change there. The difference is the penalty - AB 2728 makes it a public nuisance (like a barking dog) - less than an infraction (which is less than a misdemeanor) - it can't endanger your 2A rights - you keep your other guns and have no record. (Which means you didn't have to retain a 2A attorney for $5000!)

PS...If someone knows something about this that I don't know and doesn't want to post please PM. This does not look good!
Sure. The AG not being able to list is a GOOD THING - that means one less way for CA to ban guns. - AND ON A WHIM, with no legisaltive action. Remember, when you wanted him to list your OLL, YOU WERE SUPPORTING GUN REGISTRATION AND ASSAULT WEAPONS BANS. You wre agreeing to both, just so you could have a black ugly gun. That's not protecting the Second Amendment.

if the DOJ's proposed regulatory change doesn't happen, AB 2728 is a good thing indeed, IMO.

Mike

anotherone
09-01-2006, 3:06 AM
Yes, it's late. Yes, I'm still up after tonight's exciting drama! In my opinion AB2728 missed the mark due to fantastic efforts both on behalf of grassroots and NRA efforts. The bill was borne from a politician who just had to get an anti-gun bill passed to further his career. The DOJ just jumped onto the bill as a vehicle to attempt to further their agenda.

As far as I'm concerned AB2728 is generally a positive development. Seriously folks, no one was ever going to list in a million years because it would be political suicide. Hence it's fantastic that they've basically made possession a civil charge and removed the AG's ability to prevent me from getting that Sig 556 I wanted for Christmas :D!

adamsreeftank
09-01-2006, 4:41 AM
Well, they have until the end of the year. Maybe they will make us all happy and list the receivers we already have and then let us buy all of the new ones that come out later. I would be OK with that.

Call me a gun banner if you want, but I'd rather have 10 reged AWs than 100 OLL rifles. I guess I'm just selfish (and still kicking myself for not stocking up when I had the chance.)

Gregas
09-01-2006, 7:45 AM
What 'choice'?

It's my understanding that the DA can prosecute at his discrestion. If the DA has a flimsy case. He could offer you a choice: Cop to the "public nuisance" and give up you gun or pay the lawyers and roll the dice in court on the felony charge. I guarantee that many will give up their legally configured OL rifle rather than paying the lawyer and rolling the dice, even if their gun is legal!

What 'opens the door to confiscation'? [\quote]
Now there is a tool whereby law-abiding citizens can be coerced into giving up their legal guns to be destroyed. They don't need good evidence to do this.


And nobody gives you a choice about surrendering an illegal AW.
Right. I'm not worried about clearly illegal AWs. I don't and won't ever have any since I am a law abiding citizen. I'm worried about rifles that I know to be legal, but DOJ and one of 58 DA's might disagree. Now they know that they don't have to proving in court that it is an AW, they just need pick people up and threaten them w/ a felony prosecution. People will give them up, even if they are legal!

You lose the gun today and you lose the gun after AB 2728 - no change there. The difference is the penalty - AB 2728 makes it a public nuisance (like a barking dog) - less than an infraction (which is less than a misdemeanor) - it can't endanger your 2A rights - you keep your other guns and have no record.
At the DA's discretion. This is a very important distinction.


Sure. The AG not being able to list is a GOOD THING - that means one less way for CA to ban guns. - AND ON A WHIM, with no legisaltive action.
Remember, when you wanted him to list your OLL, YOU WERE SUPPORTING GUN REGISTRATION AND ASSAULT WEAPONS BANS. You wre agreeing to both, just so you could have a black ugly gun. That's not protecting the Second Amendment.
Did I say that I wanted them to list? I admit that I may have felt that way in the beginning of this ruckus (Jan) for me. But I agree with you on this point. This is not why 2728 bothers me. I think it's good that they can't list.

Perhaps, I'm just more paraniod than most, but if I was a rabidly anti-gun DA, I would simply round up all the people that I could find with built-up OLLs, theaten them with the felony and let them cop to the public nuicance. I'd get a pretty good slag-heap out of it, I'm sure. I guess that I just don't have the same faith in the DAs sense of justice as you do.

Gregas
09-01-2006, 7:51 AM
Gregas,

First, why are you getting picked up? Second, Mag pinned or no evil features (gripless) and it isn't even an AW.

You are getting picked up becuase you have a rifle that the DOJ has told the DA is illegal (even if it is legal). The DA will never need to prove this in court because most people will give up the rifle when threatend with a felony prosecution instead.

I hope that I've made my point now, in this and other posts. Take a little time to consider the possible scenarios. I hope that I'm wrong. I don't want to be a chicken little, so I'm going to back off and stop commenting on it. I'll just sit back and hope that the rabidly anti-gun DAs out there are not as devious as I am.

dwtt
09-01-2006, 8:14 AM
If 2728 is signed by Ahrnold, I'm going to be very careful about how and where I shoot my Stag off list rifle. An enterprising DA might just decide to increase the local county revenue and have another gun "conviction" on his record by taking my legal rifle.

artherd
09-01-2006, 8:54 AM
AB2728 was the result of a DOJ Firearms Div & a Deputy AG so panicky that it gave up a big chunk of authority - have you ever seen a bureaucracy wanna do that except under pressure?? ;)
This has to be the most amazing aspect to AB2728.

bwiese
09-01-2006, 9:34 AM
If 2728 is signed by Ahrnold, I'm going to be very careful about how and where I shoot my Stag off list rifle. An enterprising DA might just decide to increase the local county revenue and have another gun "conviction" on his record by taking my legal rifle.

You act like AB2728 (if enacted, signed and in force) changes something in relation to legal OLLs.

It doesn't. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. A stupid DA can do something stupid right now, or next year.

hoffmang
09-01-2006, 9:37 AM
First, only about 5 DAs even care a little about OLL. The other 40 plus are in counties where the risk/reward balance may mean that you should go with a Prince50 and feel comfy with the screw loose at home in an OLL.

Also, doesn't everyone here understand that it would be a good thing for a DA to come looking for OLLs. The DOJ can lie, but under oath and under cross examination, the truth that these are legal builds will become legal precedent. SB-23 as written is a relatively easy to understand law. SB-23 as implemented is unconstitutionally vague. Courts have to go on the written part if there is going to be a misdemeanor or felony trial.

Also, in the few counties where a DA might want to try to claim that a legal OLL configuration is an AW, there are low cost ways to show that it isn't before someone comes after you. I know I will be writing a letter at the appropriate time.

-Gene

Hunter
09-01-2006, 9:48 AM
The one key thing with this bill is that is allows for a way for the DA to destroy a AW once it has confiscated. Right now that ability doesn't exist.

hoffmang
09-01-2006, 9:51 AM
However, in practice that meant that the gun collected dust in a locker or was redeployed to the SWAT team. No real change from the "former" owner's perspective. If you have an illegal AW today, you aren't getting it back.

-Gene

Can'thavenuthingood
09-01-2006, 10:08 AM
Okay, I'm a revolver and slow bolt guy not clear on this issue of off list lowers.

If it is legal to have them, why the concern over legalities?

If the DA can confiscate, its not legal.

But you CAN have them, therefore they are legal.

I need a picture to understand this better.

I also do not trust DA's. In their quest for public attention anything goes. Apologies will be listed in the comics section of your newspapers. In the meantime your life is devastated.
I see 2728 as adding flexibility to the DA's options. If he/she wants you, this added layer of OLL will multiply the potential consequences of the original charges. Particularly in the urban areas, LA, SF and Sac where this office is a spring board to higher gov incomes.

Just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Vick

6172crew
09-01-2006, 10:13 AM
The one key thing with this bill is that is allows for a way for the DA to destroy a AW once it has confiscated. Right now that ability doesn't exist.
BS, What do you think they do with AWs that are found un registered? They dont give em' back, thats a fact.

Every firearm taken during a crime is destoyed after all said and done.

Hunter
09-01-2006, 10:27 AM
Before AB2728

Existing law provides, with respect to illegally possessed
weapons, that if a weapon is not of the type that can be
sold to the public, the weapon, in the month of July next
succeeding, or sooner if necessary to conserve local
resources including space and utilization of personnel who
maintain files and security of those weapons, that the
weapon shall be destroyed so that it can no longer be used
as such a weapon, except upon the certificate of a judge of
a court of record, or of the district attorney of the
county, that the retention of it is necessary or proper to
the ends of justice. [PEN Section 12028(d)]



After AB2728 --- A lot easier to just destroy the weapon, no need to try to sell it out of state.


This bill provides that illegally possessed assault weapons
or .50 caliber BMG rifles will be destroyed, except as
specified, and that upon conviction of any misdemeanor or
felony involving an assault weapon, the weapon shall be
deemed a nuisance and disposed of, as specified.




ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:

"This bill will also generally make the possession of
an unregistered assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles in
violation of the Penal Code a nuisance, allowing for
its destruction. Currently, there is no provision in
law that allows law enforcement to dispose of seized
unregistered assault weapons. "

hoffmang
09-01-2006, 11:02 AM
Vick,

Let me throw out four classes of folks.

1. Registered AW owners

2. Owners of AW's that predated the ban and should have registered but didn't.

3. Owners of correctly configured OLLs.

4. Owners of incorrectly configured OLLs.

This bill doesn't impact #1 at all. They've been good to go for a while.

This bill has a very serious and very real impact on #2. Some poor schmo gets in a fight with his wife, doesn't have a clue his AR he bought in 1986 should be registered. LEO looks around and finds it. He most likely gets the nuisance charge, forks over his $300 and the gun and keeps the other 12 guns he owns.

#3 has no or very little impact. Your good to go, but now even the risk of a bad prosecution is lowered and an indiscretion about not keeping the rifle in the right config can have much less serious consequences.

#4 gets the same sorts of protections that #2 gets. Lots of folks aren't really paying close enough attention to what you can and can't have on a gripless config, or they heard through a friend of a friend that you can "build 'em up detachable after March (2 weeks!)"

Plus, all of us are going to always be able to buy and build #3 above for the foreseeable future.

-Gene

Can'thavenuthingood
09-01-2006, 11:07 AM
Now I got it, thanks.

I'll take a #3 with a case of cartridges.

Vick

PanzerAce
09-01-2006, 11:54 AM
tree logger, thats not a seperate class, thats a subclass.

dwtt
09-01-2006, 12:35 PM
Vick,

Let me throw out four classes of folks.

1. Registered AW owners

2. Owners of AW's that predated the ban and should have registered but didn't.

3. Owners of correctly configured OLLs.

4. Owners of incorrectly configured OLLs.

If the DOJ pushes through it's rule change about what is considered detachable magazine rifle, then those people in group 3 who pinned their magazines would fall into group 4 and 2728 will allow their rifles to be confiscated and destroyed. The owners of group #3 rifles with pinned magazines would have to take off all evil features, and might as well unpin the magazine. I'm paranoid that some local DA in the Bay Area who hates guns will confiscate perfectly legal off list rifles, even if it's correctly configured.

hoffmang
09-01-2006, 12:52 PM
If people in group 3 are moved into group four by regulatory action, they would have property rights and ex post facto rights to be grandfathered in and become group 1. It may take a fight but I can promise you that there are plenty of resources waiting for that opportunity.

The sound of silence from DOJ on the rulemaking process is deafening...

-Gene

mikehaas
09-01-2006, 1:14 PM
I originally asked "What choice?" to which you replied...

It's my understanding that the DA can prosecute at his discrestion.
But originally you said...

"...They'll pick you up on flimsy evidence and then give you the choice of giving up the gun or going to a felony trial..."

And again I say "What choice?". The DA may have choice, the AG too, but you have none, during the entire process. That's why AB 2728 is important - it relieves you of serious legal liability. (I can't say it any plainer than that.)

This shows a tremendous lack of understanding of the issue on the poster's part. Those caught with an illegal AW now have no choice but to lose your rifle now and you have the same after AB 2728 - the bill doesn't make anything worse there.

I'm not worried about clearly illegal AWs. I don't and won't ever have any since I am a law abiding citizen. I'm worried about rifles that I know to be legal, but DOJ and one of 58 DA's might disagree
Now please listen carefully:

AB2718 doesn't change anything there, either. AW-ignorant cops will still call your Ruger Mini-14 an Assault Weapon by mistake; they will still arrest people for having legal guns. I support LEO's but they make mistakes. AB 2728 helps US here.

The UP side to AB 2728 is that now you won't have to immediately go out and retain a 2A attorney for $5000 because AB 2728 keeps your 2A rights from being threatened in the situation. if you get caught with an illegal AW now, it can risk your gun ownership for at least 10 years. But not with AB 2728 in effect. So you can fight to get your gun back due to the incorrect charge, without being on defense.

Your replies are very emotional and "seems-to-me" based, but do you actually know of a single concrete downside to the bill?

Mike

mikehaas
09-01-2006, 1:23 PM
The sound of silence from DOJ on the rulemaking process is deafening...
Yeah, isn't it though? If we stopped the proposal, how will we know? They don't have to come out and announce they've changed their mind (and probably won't).

So far, I think this has been a great year. The AW laws have never been shown to be so suspect (and DOJ is still in a pickle) and we beat AB 352 and SB 357. Those 2 bills were the crown jewels for HCI this session! :-)

If we get Arnold to agree with us, the antis won't get a damned thing this year, while NRA passed 2 bills into law.

And at worst - AB 2714 and SB 59 have been watered down and have much less impact than when first introduced.

Good job, NRA members!

Mike

mikehaas
09-01-2006, 1:44 PM
Those people had realistic hopes from November until about May
More accurately, during this period DOJ had unrealistic expectations of what they were going to do, then like amatuers, went public with a bad hand and had to fold. (Thank you NRA for not allowing more guns to be banned!)

So the people's hopes were never realistic, but they could not have known that. You were jerked around by DOJ, who has too little professionalism and dedication to their obligations under law - to CLARIFY where needed by regulations.

By law, agency regulations MUST CLARIFY their related statute and CANNOT conflict with it. Their fantasy proposal was not designed with the interest of the citizen in mind, rather only to get certain DOJ persons out of hot water.

Mike

Gregas
09-01-2006, 2:37 PM
I originally asked "What choice?" to which you replied...


But originally you said...

"...They'll pick you up on flimsy evidence and then give you the choice of giving up the gun or going to a felony trial..."

And again I say "What choice?". The DA may have choice, the AG too, but you have none, during the entire process. That's why AB 2728 is important - it relieves you of serious legal liability. (I can't say it any plainer than that.)

If the DA has a choice, then DA can offer you an "easy out", which some people will take even when they are not guilty!



Now please listen carefully:

AB2718 doesn't change anything there, either. AW-ignorant cops will still call your Ruger Mini-14 an Assault Weapon by mistake; they will still arrest people for having legal guns. I support LEO's but they make mistakes. AB 2728 helps US here.

The UP side to AB 2728 is that now you won't have to immediately go out and retain a 2A attorney for $5000 because AB 2728 keeps your 2A rights from being threatened in the situation. if you get caught with an illegal AW now, it can risk your gun ownership for at least 10 years. But not with AB 2728 in effect. So you can fight to get your gun back due to the incorrect charge, without being on defense.

Only if the DA plays nice and chooses not prosecute the felony.


Your replies are very emotional and "seems-to-me" based, but do you actually know of a single concrete downside to the bill?

I'm not really very emotional about it. My response is well-reasoned, if from a somewhat paranoid perspective. I don't think it's really productive to continue arguing this. I do see the positives that you are pointing out. I was just pointing out the potential for abuse.

Lastly, I do also appreciate the your work and the NRAs work to clean up this bill along the way. I really hope that the new law gets applied in the way that you think it will. Only time and 58 DAs can tell.

mikehaas
09-01-2006, 5:12 PM
"cathog" noted something in...
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=39089
...that bears relating here too...

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).

Gotta love calguns.

Mike

6172crew
09-01-2006, 5:30 PM
Not to get into a pissing match here but all handguns bought today are registered and they havent taken any of those that I know of.

Before anyone calls Walther P22 Id say the letters sent out were a load of garbage and I havent heard of anyone getting that pistol taken away.

The NRA is to old school sometimes, the right to own a AW in CA is stopped because they think they will get taken one day. I say it wont happen, and if it did the NRA would be there like they were after the Katrina mess.

An open registration system would keep folks on the right path and the folks who dont wish to register them can go with a Monster Grip or Mag catch but I think it should be a choice and I do think there are a lot more like me that could use teh NRAs help getting that done.

Call me crazy but a pistol-less gripped AR15 is like tits on a boar. Im not bashing the guys who are running this setup because Im trying to figure out what CA compliant setup Im going to use for my trip to NV next month.

GW
09-01-2006, 6:56 PM
Why would you bother with California compliance when you're in Nevada?

6172crew
09-01-2006, 7:02 PM
Why would you bother with California compliance when you're in Nevada?

I have to transport them in CA legal mode. Of course I have to travel hundreds of miles to shoot it as it should be.

Dont get wrong, I could be going to NV and shooting my buddies rifles but these I own.:cool:

GW
09-01-2006, 9:13 PM
Ah
I assumed you were putting them together here to transport there and my thinking was why even bother to assemble it here
Just put it all together the way it was meant to be when you get there.
At any rate
Have a great rip

bwiese
09-01-2006, 9:55 PM
On the positive side having an AW is no longer a felony but is only a civil crime.


NOT TRUE!!!

2728 does not repeal 12280(a) and (b). It just gives an easier option for all parties - saves prosecution budget, lets them move paper faster/easier, and they can still say they won a gun case and got a 'gun off the street'. It's an alternate prosecutorial tool for situations where there's no other 'color' surrounding a simple weapons charge (i.e, no assualt, drugs, etc.) It allows some 'income' too for a small fine, making it advantageous.

It deals with simple possession matters only. It does not deal with illlegal manufacture, transport or importation that might be surrounding issues...

artherd
09-01-2006, 10:05 PM
NOT TRUE!!!

2728 does not repeal 12280(a) and (b). It just gives an easier option for all parties - saves prosecution budget, lets them move paper faster/easier, and they can still say they won a gun case and got a 'gun off the street'. It's an alternate prosecutorial tool for situations where there's no other 'color' surrounding a simple weapons charge (i.e, no assualt, drugs, etc.) It allows some 'income' too for a small fine, making it advantageous.

It deals with simple possession matters only. It does not deal with illlegal manufacture, transport or importation that might be surrounding issues...

Plus if it's a really sweet AW, barney fife will get to keep it instead of melting it down.

adamsreeftank
09-02-2006, 1:02 AM
...
Call me crazy but a pistol-less gripped AR15 is like tits on a boar. Im not bashing the guys who are running this setup because Im trying to figure out what CA compliant setup Im going to use for my trip to NV next month.

While I like the Monster grips alot, I think for what you are needing, the Prince50 kit is the ONLY way to go. It is genius the way you can keep the spring functional. When you back out the little screw until it is flush, the mag release works the way it was always meant to. When you are ready to cross the border back into CA, just screw it down and your M4 clone or whatever is good to go.

PIRATE14
09-02-2006, 8:40 AM
Well, this one still has me the fence as to good or bad.....

OLL are still good to buy sell and trade.....for now.:D

Handing over power to DAs can't be good in my book but time will tell.

As I've said in the past this whole thing is far from over.....:cool:

SemiAutoSam
09-02-2006, 9:19 AM
While I like the Monster grips alot, I think for what you are needing, the Prince50 kit is the ONLY way to go. It is genius the way you can keep the spring functional. When you back out the little screw until it is flush, the mag release works the way it was always meant to. When you are ready to cross the border back into CA, just screw it down and your M4 clone or whatever is good to go.


HEY The Prince50 kit is NOT the only way to go.

Or did everyone forget my home grown MAG-LOCK. Built with the AR15 owners of california totally in mind.

Anonymous Coward
09-02-2006, 9:50 AM
Let me try to play devil's advocate to understatnd why this doesn't have a long term effect on OLLs in the long run (through a court decision).

AWCA still has these clauses:

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a) All of the following specified rifles:
(1) All AK series including, but not limited to, the models identified as follows:
(A) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S.
[...]
(5) Colt AR-15 series.
[...]
(e) The term "series" includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer.

Note that the Harrot decision made the OLLs possible, by using the "comparing the receiver markings with the list" test and not the "minor differences" test as the prosecution wanted.

The Harrot argument in decision relies heavily on the ability of the AG to list. E.g. it says:

The fact these amendments [12276.e and h] were
enacted together supports the conclusion that subdivision (e) of section 12276 is
not self-executing, but, rather, that the specific make and model of an assault
weapon must first appear on the list the Attorney General, pursuant to section
12276.5, subdivision (h), files with the Secretary of State for publication in the
California Code of Regulations.

It would be interesting to see how Harrot would play out without the AG ability to list. I don't think it's that clear-cut that the outcome would be the same.

blacklisted
09-02-2006, 2:39 PM
This interpretation is certainly unusual. :eek: :D (posted by sac7000 on gunscal)

I had a good laugh.

[]http://www.wagv.org/Legislative%20Priorities

This bill will prohibit the sale and possession of receivers that would enable gun owners to modify legally purchased firearms to circumvent the assault weapons ban. Currently there are no restrictions on these dangerous parts and the process to change a gun into a assault weapon can be done easily with instructions from the internet. AB2728 will also close the loophole in the weapons ban that requires a registration period for all new weapons added to the list of banned guns. the registration period would grandfather in weapons that are illegal under other statutes. by eliminating the naming of specific weapons the ban will apply on the basis of certain characteristics of the weapon (pistol grip, flash suppressor ect.) strengthening the assault weapons ban. The bill is sponsored by the DOJ.

SemiAutoSam
09-02-2006, 2:54 PM
This interpretation is certainly unusual. :eek: :D (posted by sac7000 on gunscal)

I had a good laugh.

[nourl]http://www.wagv.org/Legislative%20Priorities

This bill will prohibit the sale and possession of receivers that would enable gun owners to modify legally purchased firearms to circumvent the assault weapons ban. Currently there are no restrictions on these dangerous parts and the process to change a gun into a assault weapon can be done easily with instructions from the Internet. AB2728 will also close the loophole in the weapons ban that requires a registration period for all new weapons added to the list of banned guns. the registration period would grandfather in weapons that are illegal under other statutes. by eliminating the naming of specific weapons the ban will apply on the basis of certain characteristics of the weapon (pistol grip, flash suppressor ect.) strengthening the assault weapons ban. The bill is sponsored by the DOJ.

Circumvent my big white *** we followed the letter of the law no more no less. Doj is just bent that we were able to acquire legal rifles that follow the letter of the law even with all of the roadblocks that were put in our way.

blacklisted
09-02-2006, 3:00 PM
Why was my name replaced with John Paul Jones? :confused:

adamsreeftank
09-02-2006, 9:26 PM
HEY The Prince50 kit is NOT the only way to go.

Or did everyone forget my home grown MAG-LOCK. Built with the AR15 owners of california totally in mind.

Hey, no offense intended. .

I think all of the options out there are great. I was just talking about his desire to take his rifle back and forth to Arizona. The Prince50 kit allows you go convert from AW to CA legal without having to carry any spare parts other than the wrench.

But I REALLY like the kits you sell too!.

SemiAutoSam
09-02-2006, 9:36 PM
Why was my name replaced with John Paul Jones? :confused:

Just come creative experimentation.

Tzvia
09-03-2006, 6:11 PM
I've read through some of the posts here, and frankly I don't like AB 2728. I hope the GOV doesn't like it either. I just get a real slimey feeling inside when the anti's send a bill to the Gov's desk even though all that had to be done was list the lowers according to existing law. First, they say, no listing, no more list ever. Then the DOJ tries an end run with the 'permanent' nonsense and we get trapped in the middle. That's what it feels like to me. Please someone tell me I'm wrong. (not that I'm a defeatist, I just don't trust the anti crowd for one second- you know they are up to something).

Been sitting on 2 'preban' mags since well before the ban, did not have the money for an AR at the time, but the mags were used and cheap, and I was in wishfull thinking mode. They are covered in dust and now that I have 9 oll's, (4 built), I would like one day to use them. I don't think AB 2728 gets me any closer so I haven't bothered to clean them or get the new style followers for them either.

Now I'm not a betting person, but what do you all THINK the Gov will do with AB 2728?

It's good that some things went well; it's nice to know the money I send to NRA ILA and my life membership in NRA is finally doing some good in the long forgotten state of CA.

mattmcg
09-04-2006, 5:20 AM
I think it is now more important than ever to show proof that a pinned mag constitutes as a "non-detachable" magazine and thus doesn't fall under the definition of an assault weapon. I know that there have been discussions around this very item (and for that matter, a law clearly stating the use of a tool) but a DOJ letter clarifying that a pinned mag (which requires the use of a tool to remove) is wholly within the confines of the law would work wonders for clarifying this area of the AW laws.

It would be extremely beneficial for any of the vendors offering pinned mag conversion kits to offer a copy of a DOJ letter stating this fact (i.e. Mag-lock kit, Prince50, Sporting Conversions, etc.). That would also greatly legitimize the business of fixed magazine conversions as well as up the demand for those specific devices (also warranting a higher purchase price). I know that this may have already been attempted but perhaps AB2728 will give the DOJ a reason to finally reply.

Alternatively, it would be nice if somebody could begin modifications of other available OLL's (Stag, CMMG, Mega, etc.) with a welded bottom and fixed mag to increase competition and lower prices in this arena. This would follow along with stated letters of acceptance by the DOJ on rifles like the Bushmaster Carbon 15, California Bushmaster, and others. This would be the safest of all options as there is already a set DOJ acceptance.

My $.02!

6172crew
09-04-2006, 7:32 AM
It would be extremely beneficial for any of the vendors offering pinned mag conversion kits to offer a copy of a DOJ letter stating this fact (i.e. Mag-lock kit, Prince50, Sporting Conversions, etc.). That would also greatly legitimize the business of fixed magazine conversions as well as up the demand for those specific devices (also warranting a higher purchase price). I know that this may have already been attempted but perhaps AB2728 will give the DOJ a reason to finally reply.

My $.02!

Prince50 said he already has sent in his mag catch for reveiw, he just hasnt heard anything back.

hoffmang
09-04-2006, 10:47 PM
6172 - I have a personal friend who had his Walthers P-22 Seized. It has happened at least once.

-Gene

cathog
09-05-2006, 10:21 PM
Please forward any information relating to the person who had their Walther P22 seized to dojcomments@gmail.com. I would like to speak with that person.

Thank you,

Jason Davis

hoffmang
09-05-2006, 11:41 PM
Jason - Message sent...

bwiese
09-06-2006, 12:58 AM
MattMCG...

I don't think you will never get a DOJ approval letter for any OLL-related fixtures. They've been buffeted about by the situation, and still want to create an atmosphere of F.U.D.

Lack of approval does not mean illegality, and DOJ may well hold higher standards for blessing than whatever standards are required for an item's actual legality.

The best reference for fixed mag situation is the submission by NRA lawyers posted on Calgunlaws.com.

"Prior art" from DOJ over the last 6 years, including approval for the fixed mag design of the Barrett M82CA - which is nonpermanent, can be removed with 2 screws, and discussions during the 2000 SB23 regulatory period, all indicate they held our original understanding of what a fixed/nondetachable magazine is. Only now are they adding an element of permanence, which is nowhere in regulation or relevant statute. (This contrasts with separate issue of permanence in modifying a hicap to be 10rds or less, which does exist - and DOJ appears to be trying to mix'n'match the two.)

If you don't like a fixed mag, use a detachable mag with no other evil features and use the MonsterMan grip. This grip is CLEARLY legal as it can in no way e described by the regulatory definition of pistol grip.

anotherone
09-06-2006, 2:07 AM
If you don't like a fixed mag, use a detachable mag with no other evil features and use the MonsterMan grip. This grip is CLEARLY legal as it can in no way e described by the regulatory definition of pistol grip.

It's only clearly legal until the DOJ sees enough photos of these beauties online and decides to go after rifles configured with the monsterman grip and other grip alternatives. Call me cynnical but this latest attempted regulatory change is really a glimpse into the future of how the DOJ intends to handle our newest property. Just like they said, "Hey fixed magazines are no problem" for years about the FAL and other rifles then freaked out when they saw an AR-15 with a fixed magazine they will react similarly when they see enough featureless AR-15s with grip alternatives. And the longer this goes on, the more sophisticated and higher quality those alternatives are going to become.

Best for us to confront them in court now if they attempt to follow through with this regulatory change. In the meantime my fixed magazine rifles are lawfully possessed and have been my lawful property up to this point. Any government action that results in their status changing to "Assault Weapons" has existing legal precident for registration not confiscation. It's going to be interesting to see how this thing works out when the DOJ, NRA, and other parties end up in court in 2007.

chris
09-06-2006, 4:14 AM
i will be watching the closely next year. i hope the lawsuit on SB23 from former DA Hunt goes forward next year. that should be interesting also. since the NRA made such a strong showing this year. one has to wonder about the lawsuit regarding SB23. it is my true hope that the DOJ does not screw the people that have OLL's and whatever rifles that may be affected by their sneaky actions.

bwiese
09-06-2006, 11:27 AM
If you don't like a fixed mag, use a detachable mag with no other evil features and use the MonsterMan grip. This grip is CLEARLY legal as it can in no way e described by the regulatory definition of pistol grip.


It's only clearly legal until the DOJ sees enough photos of these beauties online and decides to go after rifles configured with the monsterman grip and other grip alternatives.

They'd have to change the regulation to do that. They're too clear to be anything but that. In contrast, they're trying to play around with 'capacity to accept' redefinition (not clarification) because they have some wiggle room to act like they can do something.

The pistol grip definition w/regards to MonsterMan grips is too clear and these grips cannot be assailed as an 'evil feature'.


Call me cynnical but this latest attempted regulatory change is really a glimpse into the future of how the DOJ intends to handle our newest property. Just like they said, "Hey fixed magazines are no problem" for years about the FAL and other rifles then freaked out when they saw an AR-15 with a fixed magazine they will react similarly when they see enough featureless AR-15s with grip alternatives.

Sure, they'll try anything they can - Deputy AG A.M. even told one noted gun lawyer she was willing to pass illegal regulations and then let the NRA sue (I hope this was recorded).

But, again, this is so clear it's unassailable. Most folks here know my mix of cautiousness & aggressiveness: I have zero fear of possessing a MonsterMan equipped OLL.

artherd
09-06-2006, 3:35 PM
6172 - I have a personal friend who had his Walthers P-22 Seized. It has happened at least once.

-Gene
Wow, can you post any details? I'm sure there are a couple attorneys in CA that would like to hear about this, if nessecary please contact one in confidence. (feel free to e-mail me as well.)

hoffmang
09-06-2006, 4:19 PM
Ben,

I've put my friend in touch with Jason Davis. The guy who showed up was none other than I.C.

-Gene

artherd
09-06-2006, 5:38 PM
Ben,

I've put my friend in touch with Jason Davis.
Excellent, he is in good hands.
The guy who showed up was none other than I.C.
-Gene
Absolutely astounding. He should be smart enough to know better.

Proof posative that Registration does indeed lead to Confiscation!

6172crew
09-06-2006, 6:14 PM
Ben,

I've put my friend in touch with Jason Davis. The guy who showed up was none other than I.C.

-Gene

I stand corrected, first I heard about. Sad deal.:(

hoffmang
09-06-2006, 6:41 PM
Yep.

Buddy in question was laughing hard as he showed Iggster a whole host of far nastier handguns in his collection.

-Gene

hoffmang
09-06-2006, 6:44 PM
I've seen records that show that even Deputy AG AM agrees that gripless or Monsterman without other SB-23 features are legitimate, legal builds.

I should be able to share the primary sources soon but need to get some approvals first.

-Gene

MonsterMan
09-06-2006, 8:16 PM
I've seen records that show that even Deputy AG AM agrees that gripless or Monsterman without other SB-23 features are legitimate, legal builds.

I should be able to share the primary sources soon but need to get some approvals first.

-Gene

I would love to see something in writing from them as to how they feel about my grip. Please post soon.:)

Thanks
MonsterMan