Issues with Rule Change and mag permanency

[tiki]

I going over some thoughts as I finalize my letter. I would like to open discussions on some of the areas to help me and others finish up the letters.
I was thinking about the welding of the magazine or the other methods of making it permanent.
I have problems with this and I think I should be brought up in the letters that magazines are prone to failure over time. By making one permanent in the firearm, if something should go wrong with the mag in the future, the firearm could be rendered useless. I think that this is an ureasonable modification on this ground. What do you guys think?

Also, the issue on having to disassemble the action of the firearm. If the action of the firearm is considered the bolt and barrel, how can they require that the disassembly of the bolt and barrel would make the modification ok? First of all, we are talking about moving parts. How can moving parts be used to secure something? Second, you could not buy a california legal lower since the upper would have to be shipped with it to make the magazine permanent.
If the action is in the upper part of the firearm, and the magazine is in the lower, how can you require the parts in one, distinct, logically seperate component be used to fasten the parts in anothe , distinct, logically sperate component?
Thoughts?:confused:

[damon1272]

Logic? Logic? This is the DOJ you are talking about. Antways, I agree with what you are talking about. I think that if they are going to advise on how a magazine is sucured then they show tell the process. Welding is rediculous as welds can break. The welding process if not done correctly can damage parts. Epoxy can be used but what type? Basically what I am getting at is they are telling us what process to use but not how to go about that process and what is deemed exceptable. Someone can weld the mag to the receiver and get no pernetration on the receiver and you could fir all intents and purposes remove the mag. I think that the idea someone on this board posted about going through the mag bolt and having to open the receiver to undo this follows the law. If you welded that part together, the bolt through the pin, then the mag would be permenant and would require desruction of that part to get it out. Even thougth the part would be destroyed it would not render the receiver useless. I think that a ruling on the legalities of the gripless lowers should be given also.

[SemiAutoSam]

Ok Here is the deal IMHO

They know what weapons have made it into the PRC the 30-45K of the AR and AK receivers right.

SO they made this ruling or reg or what ever ya wanna call it in mind with those products.

as welding a AK mag to the AK receiver is one thing from memory the AK receiver as well as the mag in the area where it enters the mag well is thicker at that point so welding that one to the receiver might be feasible but with the AR its not so and they know it that IMHO is why they wrote the new regs the way they did.

anyone confer ?

[tiki]

Ok Here is the deal IMHO

but with the AR its not so and they know it that IMHO is why they wrote the new regs the way they did.

anyone confer ?


Sorry for the dumb question, i'm not a welder, but, why is it not possible?
And, if it is not a possible solution, then, they are not giving clarity with the law and it is contradictory, so, it won't pass the test in court.
If they have something that is legal, and, by their own letters and by what the law says, it is legal, and, then they change the law and give you compliance examples which are not feasible, it kind of makes the whole ridiculous. Yeah, I know I know. We all know the wording of the new statute is ridiculous, but, now their samples for compliance are also ridiculous.
I'm still stuck on this epoxy stuff. They say to fix a rivet in place with epoxy. Well, what the hell does that do? Do I put the epoxy on the bottom of the rivet before I put it in the hole to hold it in place in case the rivet wants to accidentally fall out, or, do I put the rivet in the hold, connect it, then put a dab of epoxy on top of the rivet? And, what the hell does that do? I looked at the epoxy in the store today, they all say that once it sets, you can drill it. So, WTF?
So, you can't weld it.
The rivet isn't permanent like they claim.
And, you have to add epoxy to the rivet, which does nothing.
Nice!!!

[SemiAutoSam]

Sorry for the dumb question, I'm not a welder, but, why is it not possible? In an AR15 Style rifle most receivers are aluminum and the Mag's a lot of the time are steel you cant weld steel and aluminum together ( and if you could it would cost a bundle. and even if the Mag's are aluminum they are mfg out of very thin metal. and hence would also be very expensive.



And, if it is not a possible solution, then, they are not giving clarity with the law and it is contradictory, so, it won't pass the test in court.
If they have something that is legal, and, by their own letters and by what the law says, it is legal, and, then they change the law and give you compliance examples which are not feasible, it kind of makes the whole ridiculous. Yeah, I know I know. We all know the wording of the new statute is ridiculous, but, now their samples for compliance are also ridiculous.
I'm still stuck on this epoxy stuff. They say to fix a rivet in place with epoxy. Well, what the hell does that do? Do I put the epoxy on the bottom of the rivet before I put it in the hole to hold it in place in case the rivet wants to accidentally fall out, or, do I put the rivet in the hold, connect it, then put a dab of epoxy on top of the rivet? And, what the hell does that do? I looked at the epoxy in the store today, they all say that once it sets, you can drill it. So, WTF?
So, you can't weld it.
The rivet isn't permanent like they claim.
And, you have to add epoxy to the rivet, which does nothing.
Nice!!!

Nothing in this world is permanent less death. welds can be ground off and or drilled out.

I had the idea to take the Mag catch (the stud part that's threaded 10/32) and turn it into a rivet by drilling down the center of the stud with a .060 or so drill bit and then using a die or anvil kind of device to collapse the rivet so it captures the mag within the mag well.

I also had the idea to use loctite and epoxy and maybe even welding the Allen nut to the MAG-LOCK insert on my kit see thread for pics to see how this would work.

But this was before the new purposed regs were brought out by the DOJ.

I think this newly purposed reg and SB23 should be attacked on a constitutional level as its a violation of our liberty's maybe a title 42 action.

[drclark]

I don't know if the DOJ is concerned that the "irreversibility" of the modifications would render a firearm useless if the magazine failed. In fact they would probably prefer it.

I am concerned about the "disassembly of the action" which is obviously an attempt to make the SKS immune to the new regs. Is the DOJ willing to define what constitutes sufficient disassembly for every fire-arm type out there? Is breaking the upper from the lower constitute "disassembly"? Could one argue that the SAS kit is protected since the entire SAS mag catch assembly has to be removed and replaced with the original mag-catch assembly constitutes disassembly???

I am also concerned that "irreversibility" is poorly defined. The bushmaster carbon lower could be converted to accept detachable mags in 5 min with a dremmel? Does this mean that all "plastic" guns are now banned? As others have brought up, firearms are simple machines and just about any modification is reversible to someone with knowledge and tools.

I'm also going to address the "ease of conversion" to AW is a huge expansion of the scope of the original law. If the same logic that they are trying to apply to magazines were applied to the other features, just about any semi auto could be considered an AW by an aggressive DA. Heck, I could screw a flash hider on to my SU16 faster than I can undo the mag-lock on my OLL.

I also going to address that these new regs don't fullfil the original intent of the law w.r.t. to the OLL situation. The law provided a method of updating the AW list and opening reg periods to deal with new weapons as they became available that somehow found a "loop hole" through the SB-23 features list. The intent was to ban future weapons from comming into the state and maintain a list of those who have those weapons (for crimefighting or ultimately confiscation). If the DOJ had been maintaining the list per the original intent of SB23 they never would have had 50K+ lowers flood the state. These proposed regs are only attempting to punish law abiding gunowners who recognized that they could obtain non-harrot listed AR pattern lowers and build them into an SB23 compliant configuration. These regs do nothing to stop OLL's from comming into the state and being built up into illegal configurations by potentially dangerous criminals.

I will be writing and mailing my letter this weekend (along with my NRA renewal)

drc

[damon1272]

Tiki,
Welding two differnet thicknesses of similar metal can be hard due to the fact that the thicker section would require more heat to get it to the proper tempeture than the thinner piece. If not done correctly, you would burn through, or in the case of aluminimum it would either evaporate or just pool on the welding bench. It can be done,but only by a very experinced welder.

[tiki]

I don't know if the DOJ is concerned that the "irreversibility" of the modifications would render a firearm useless if the magazine failed. In fact they would probably prefer it.
drc

Yeah, I know the DOJ doesn't care. It's obvious that the DOJ isn't the ones we are writing the letters for. This is for the Office of Admistrative Law when the review what the DOJ is trying to do. Aside from glaring violations of the standards of clarity and consitency provided by the Administrative Procedures Act, a court hearing this case or the OAL in it review will look at the fact that while the DOJ is trying to change the law to make what is now legal illegal, the law is being rewritten such that the methods proposed to comply with the regs are either impossible or impractical.
So, now the welding solution is impossible, the rivet and epoxy is not irreversible and requiring the disassembly of the upper to lock the magazine which is in the lower is not practical either.
I bought some rivets and a rivet gun to pin my magazine, but, when I sat down and thought about it, I figured it was a waste of time. So, no evil features for now.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Ok Here is the deal IMHO

They know what weapons have made it into the PRC the 30-45K of the AR and AK receivers right.

SO they made this ruling or reg or what ever ya wanna call it in mind with those products.

as welding a AK mag to the AK receiver is one thing from memory the AK receiver as well as the mag in the area where it enters the mag well is thicker at that point so welding that one to the receiver might be feasible but with the AR its not so and they know it that IMHO is why they wrote the new regs the way they did.

anyone confer ?

Absolutely. I don't believe that there is anything that forces them to put regulations in place that are a) logical, b) reasonable, or c) such that the firearm in question can actually be built. That seems to be the point. I think they will be satisfied to see it go to court. IF anyone takes it there.

Their goal, as stated time and time again, is to eradicate AW's from the PRK. A reg that renders weapons inoperable in the future (weld and reweld) serves that purpose. It is underhanded, but there it is. If an AR were rendered inoperable by routine maintenance (mag replacement), they would say "sucks to be you - shouldn't have one". Same for the fixed-mag dangers - those dangers are on US, not them. We chose to build them, after all...

Not saying I like it, but there it is.

[Paratus et Vigilans]

This is my first post, and I'm a relative newbie to the AR world, but as a lawyer for over 20 years, I think I have something to add to this discussion that might be of value. My primary area of practice is civil litigation, and I've argued statutory interpretation issues at the appellate level in several of the California District Courts of Appeal as well as before the U.S. Ninth Circuit. I say that only to establish my [I]bona fides[I] and let you all know that I actually know whereof I speak from personal and practical experience.

While I personally have no desire to be a "test case" for whether the proposed "clarification" being advanced by the DOJ is valid or invalid, I will tell you this right off the bat: any prosecutor attempting to enforce the revised subsection (f) definition of what is and what is not the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" is going to have to overcome what seems to me to be a fatally flawed drafting error. The words "detachable magazine" are already defeined in subsection (a). No change to that subsection is proposed. Okay, now when you take those already defined words and plop them into subsection (f) you also plop into subsection (f) the definition of them from subsection (a), which among other things includes the exception for "the use of a tool." That means that if you're configured with, say, the Prince50 kit, to lock down the mag release catch in your OLL so that "the use of a tool," namely that tiny little allen wrench, is required to free up the catch to drop the mag out of the OLL, then you have rendered that locked-in mag no longer a "detachable magazine." With me so far? Good, because that was the easy part. Next comes the part that induces head spin, so hang on.

Under Pen.Code § 12276.1, the predicate for disallowing the so-called "evil features" of subsections (1)(A) - (1)(F) is that you have a semi-auto centerfire rifle with ". . .the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. . . ." The proposed new regulatory language supposedly defining the terms "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" clearly fails to deal with the fact that the existing regulations [I]already define the last two words of that phrase[I], and do so in a way entirely inconsistent with the definition of "detachable magazine" in subsection (A) that the proposed clarifications in subsection (F) do not seek to modify. What does that leave us with? Well, if the proposed new language were to become part of the Code of Regs, we would have a hash that is so vague and unintelligible that a court would be unable to enforce it. Okay, so now you're thinking, "Great argument. Hope its a winner in court. But I don't want to be accused of a felony and have to defend myself in court on that basis." Right. So am I. Where does that leave us, then?

A good many of the posts I've read on this subject over the past few days have been rather pessimistic about the ability to challenge this proposed new language in court, and/or about the chances of succeeding in such a challenge. Well, it's not so dire a situation as you might think. You don't have to wait to be accused of a felony to test the validity of the law. First, as more than a few of you have suggested, the OAL might see the light before it gets that far, and kick it back simply because it's unworkable in application. If they could erase subsection (a), then they might have a shot at getting their revisions to subsection (f) through, but they can't dispose of (a) just because they don't like it anymore. As we all realize, the concept behind (a), and behind the approved sealed magwell lowers, is to slow down the reloading process, not make the rifle illegal. The point is to assure that the LEO's on an unfolding crime scene can take down the AR-toting bad guy while he's got his rifle scissored open to load his next ten rounds. As though said bad guy is going to bother bringing a "legal" AR configuration to the scene of his intended felonious conduct to begin with. But I digress. Subsection (a) says that if you need a tool to get out the mag, it's no longer a "detachable magazine." Period. The proposed changes to subsection (f) are a clumsy attempt to say that if you can remove your "not a detachable magazine" with a tool, then your rifle meets the predicate of "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine" and can't have any of the "evil features" on it. That simply will not fly. In fact, its so clumsy an attempt, one has to wonder why it is even being proposed. Having considered all the reasonable possibilities, and even some of the unreasonable ones, I'd have to side with Wes of Ten Percent Firearms, and say that they just chucked it out there to see if it would float, to see if they could slow down the flow of OLL's into the state. I think its just about the same as the numerous letters the DOJ has sent out saying that Stag-15 lowers will soon be designated as AW's. Yeah. Right. I say that the sheer numbers they'd then have to register as AW's would be such a political bombshell that amending the list of AW's to add all the OLL's that have come in recently would qualify as a "third rail" that no sane politician has any interest in touching. Jerry Brown may be a lot of things, but one thing he is not is stupid.

So, back to the original train of thought here: what happens if the OAL accepts the "clarification" of subsection (f) and adds it to the California Code of Regulations? Well, I don't know who'll get to the courthouse first, be it the NRA or the group in San Jose that Bill Wiese deals with all the time, but an action will be filed seeking a declaratory judgment that the reg as amended is so vague and ambiguous as to be unenforceable, and it will seek a temporary restraining order and a prelimary injunction to prohibit the DOJ and the 58 DA's (all of whom will need to be named in the action) from enforcing the new regulation while the court hears and decides the case on the merits. Okay, that means that for the next couple of years, at least, the current mag lock solutions ought to be safe, and no radical, or even simple, inside-the-receiver additional alterations ought to be necessary. In the end, the most probable outcome is that the DOJ and the plainitff(s) negotiate some proposed language that both sides can live with, and the case is settled. The next most probable outcome is that the case goes to trial, and win or lose it goes on appeal, and some three-judge panel gets to decide the issue, and the most probable outcome there is that the DOJ gets sent back to the drawing board. The least probable outcome is that the "clarification" gets adopted by the OAL, becomes an official regulation, and that the trial and appellate courts uphold it. It's just too badly done for that to happen, IMHO.

So, I say take heart, things are not that desparate, Put down the torches and riveters and epoxy tubes, and enjoy your evil featured AR's with not detachable magazines, because this one is going to be a "L" in the DOJ's win/loss column.

May I even be so bold as to suggest that an approach be made to AG-elect Brown to nip this in the bud and that he form a DOJ-Citizen task force or study group to work out some language that all can live with?? Let him take credit for resolving a mess that Lockyear left behind and couldn't clean up. It'll look good for Jerry when he makes his next run at higher office - maybe the U.S. Senate when Dianne Feinstein is ready to step down and retire?

Okay, there it is - what do you think? Doom, or opportunity?

[hoffmang]

Paratus,

First welcome. Second - thanks for some added sanity. I've been saying much the same thing:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=41425

The funniest part is that this creates standing to add in a couple of other claims on unconstitutional vagueness of the entirety of SB-23 for fun. The last part probably isn't a winner, it would still be very funny.

-Gene

[tiki]

Okay, there it is - what do you think? Doom, or opportunity?

What do I think? I think
1) Welcome to the board
2) Stick around
3) I LIKE IT!

If we look at the last scenario you mentioned:


The least probable outcome is that the "clarification" gets adopted by the OAL, becomes an official regulation, and that the trial and appellate courts uphold it. It's just too badly done for that to happen, IMHO.

If something like that does happen, albeit unlikely, what would happen to the now legally configured firearms? Since once legal and now illegal, would the court be likely to force registration for them?

[BLFD1]

So, I say take heart, things are not that desparate, Put down the torches and riveters and epoxy tubes, and enjoy your evil featured AR's with not detachable magazines, because this one is going to be a "L" in the DOJ's win/loss column.

May I even be so bold as to suggest that an approach be made to AG-elect Brown to nip this in the bud and that he form a DOJ-Citizen task force or study group to work out some language that all can live with?? Let him take credit for resolving a mess that Lockyear left behind and couldn't clean up. It'll look good for Jerry when he makes his next run at higher office - maybe the U.S. Senate when Dianne Feinstein is ready to step down and retire?

Okay, there it is - what do you think? Doom, or opportunity?

First off, welcome aboard. It's nice to have another "legal eagle" on our side.
Alot of us talk about legalities but it's nice to have more people that actually work in the industry to bring us back down to earth.

I like your take on the proposed reg. changes. The letters we send are a great starting point but, I feel that a few letters from attorneys would make the DOJ "sit up and take notice" a little better.

Would you be willing to send a letter opposing the proposed changes, sighting the things you outlined in your post? I believe there are a few other Attorneys that frequent this board, it would be nice to get a few letters sent on their letterhead. Am I on track or would that be career suicide?

Thanks again for the insight and welcome.

[Rascal]

Paratus,
A hardy Welcome to the site, and thank you for your interpretation.
I whole heartedly agree with what you said and believe that this could be a great opportunity to get what we want and bridge the gap between DOJ and the gun owners of California, if the new AG is not tainted by others in the organization that have a bone to pick with us.
This whole thing would have been a lot easier if we hadn't slapped them in the face and belittled them by beating them at their own game, but we need to start healing the wounds between us and them, in order to get past what I believe is their trying to get revenge on us for embarrassing them.

To ALL,
I know that this is a free country and you all have freedom of speech, but you can't call someone a retard and expect them to want to help you.
They are only doing this because we belittled them and now they are mad and want to get revenge on us.
We need to turn this into a win win situation for all of us. DOJ gets to save face and we get to keep our OLL's in simple fixed mag or gripless without evil features configuration, and not have to modify it to the extremes.

[arguy15]

Very well said. Thank you.

[Grakken]

:rolleyes: Absolutely. I don't believe that there is anything that forces them to put regulations in place that are a) logical, b) reasonable, or c) such that the firearm in question can actually be built. That seems to be the point. I think they will be satisfied to see it go to court. IF anyone takes it there.

Their goal, as stated time and time again, is to eradicate AW's from the PRK. A reg that renders weapons inoperable in the future (weld and reweld) serves that purpose. It is underhanded, but there it is. If an AR were rendered inoperable by routine maintenance (mag replacement), they would say "sucks to be you - shouldn't have one". Same for the fixed-mag dangers - those dangers are on US, not them. We chose to build them, after all...

Not saying I like it, but there it is.

But we all know, unlike the fool politicians and moronic John Q Citizen that criminals will always have whatever firearms they want. I am willing to bet that most politicians really dont care about who has what guns etc but they care about votes and since most people are ignorant to guns etc, they will always vote for that one person who said "I voted to keep assualt weapons off the streets". Well Duh, I'm for that too if by what you mean is "I voted to keep criminals from having AW's and off our streets.". Im also willing to bet that more people are killed by drunk drivers every year than ALL firearm deaths (pistol, shotgun, rifle, Machine guns, rocket launchers and plasma swords) so ill say it agian, Can we please get these evil automobiles off of our streets! Lets do it for the children! :rolleyes:

[Paratus et Vigilans]

Thanks to all for the welcome! It is good to belong to this thoughtful and patriotic community.

Before turning to our most recent "problem," let me say this about our gun laws in general: Though well intentioned (for the most part), the California gun laws do precious little to keep firearms of any kind out of the hands of the "bad guys." We law abiding citizens who have homes and property and freedom that we cherish will, of course, do what is necessary to stay "legal." The "bad guys" don't care about legalities, which is one of the defining characteristics that make them "bad guys" to begin with. So, we endure the indignity of the "feel good" gun laws that the entire LE community knows are really worthless as any kind of crime deterrent or crime reduction device, and which serve only to provide an additional basis upon which to prosecute a "bad guy" for the gun law violation on top of the basic crime he used the gun to commit, be it murder, manslaughter, robbery, or what have you.

Well, anyway, that gives you a bit of idea of who I am and where I am coming from when I post here. Now, to the specifics:

First off, one of you asked what do I think would happen if the proposed "clarification" of subsection (f) becomes an official regulation in the California Code of Regulations? I think that anyone who has a rifle configured with a no-longer-compliant mag lock who wants to keep it that way would have to be afforded the opportunity to register it as an AW. I don't think the DOJ will initially agree with that. I think it will take court action for that position to be imposed upon the DOJ.

Another of you asked if I would be willing to write to the DOJ and express my thoughts on this situation along the lines of what was in my last post. The answer to that is that my letter is in progress and will beat the deadline by several days. As another of you has pointed out earlier, either in this thread or another, the audience for these letters is not the DOJ, but rather the OAL who must take our comments, and the DOJ's responses to them, into consideration as it considers the proposed "clarification" submitted by the DOJ. Thus, for myself, and for the rest of you out there working on your own letters, I suggest that the focus not be on the merits of what the DOJ wants to do with the reg, but rather on the way the proposed language defining "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" causes inherent internal conflicts within itself (subsection (f)) and with subsection (a). In effect, it causes ambiguities rather than resolving them. Point out how the "use of a tool" exception to something meeting the definition of a "detachable magazine" would have no meaning and would be surplussage if the proposed "clarification" of subsection (f) were to be adopted and made a part of the Code of Regulations. The words "detachable magazine" are used throughout the proposed clarification to subdivision (f) to delineate the part that a firearm must not be "readily modifiable to accept," yet once a tool is required in order to remove a magazine from a gun, it is no longer a "detachable magazine" under subdivision (a). Point out that the entire concept of trying to define "readily modifiable to accept a detachable magazine" as presented in the proposed "clarification" is also fataly flawed because subsection (f) is filled with operative terms for which no definitions are provided or proposed. For instance, what is a "firearm" for purposes of subdivision (f)? Subdivision (a) uses the terms "firearm action" in conjunction with the term "disassembly." Subdivision (f) (4) talks about "disassembly of the action" but does not use the term "firearm" as a modifier of the term "action." Is, then, a "disassembly of the action" something different than a "disassembly of the FIREARM action"? What is mean by "alterations to the magazine well"? Is the filling of the magazine well with a non-detachable magazine that requires a tool to remove, as stated subsection (a), not an "alteration to the magazine well" that renders it without the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine"? If not, though clearly contrary to the plain language of subsection (a), then what kind of "alteration" is meant by the proposed "clarification" of subsection (f)? Does "alteration of the magazine well" mean affixing a magazine in the magazine well with "ribbon(s) of welding"? If so, this does not make sense and provides no clarification, since nearly all magazines are of a material (steel or plastic) that is dissimilar to the magazine wells into which they might be inserted (aluminum or carbon fiber), and therefore are not susecptible to "welding" within the common usage meaning of that word. Perhaps someting other than "welding" as is commonly known is meant by the term "welding" as used in subsection (f)(3)(B)? And what is meant by the terms "...rivet (or other irreversible locking device)" since rivets are not themselves an "irreversible locking device." Rivets can be removed with a "tool," and that being so, how does subsection (f) clarify subsection (a)? Finally, what is meant by "disassembly of the action" as used on subsection (f)(3)(D)? Is this the separation of the upper receiver from the lower receiver? Is it more than that? Is it that plus the removal of the trigger assembly and/or the bolt catch and/or the magazine catch? Subdivision (f)(3)(A) says that a firearm is not "readily modifiable" to "receive a detachable magazine" if it "has no magazine well." Really? The "top loading" Bushmaster Carbon 15 variant, which the DOJ has approved for sale, even with a flash suppressor and a collapsible stock ("evil features"), does in fact have a magazine well, it's just been sealed by a floor plate of carbon fiber material, material that could be removed with a "tool" in under a minute. The rivet securing the internal 10 round magazine might take a "tool" and another 5-10 seconds to remove, and then the firearm clearly has the capacity to "receive a detachable magazine." All of which being doable without "disassembly of the action." How, then, is that firearm any less "readily modifiable" than, say, a Prince50 maglocked firearm? The proposed "clarification" of subsection (f) must, is so vague and ambiguous that it would define firearms already expressly declared by the DOJ as NOT "assault weapons" to in fact be "assault weapons" because they are "readily modifiable" to "receive a detachable magazine."

You all get the idea, I'm sure. What the author of the "clarification" is really trying to do, of course, is write out the "use of a tool" exception from subsection (a), which of course cannot be done without deleting the exception itself, which of course cannot be done without going to the legislature, which of course cannot be done without calling attention to the fact that the attempt to define an assault weapon by setting forth its characteristics has not gone very well. The essential problem with this whole attempt to "clarify" the regs is that the DOJ wants to use its regulatory power to define an "assault weapon" more broadly than the legislature that passed the underlying law was willing to do. In the law, we call this sort of thing a "tortured construction." You can't make sense of it, because it is not sensible.

The ultimate answer, which may need to come from a court, is this: under Penal Code § 12276.1, if you lock in the magazine with a device that requires a tool to disengage the device and detach the magazine from the firearm, then the firearm may also be configured with the so-called "evil features." If the magazine is not so locked, then configuring the firearm with any one of the "evil features" makes it an assault weapon within the meaning of Pen. Code § 12276.1. If the DOJ wants to expand the definition of an assault weapon beyond that to include express requirements on how the magazine must be locked into the firearm and to what lengths one must go to detach the magazine from the firearm, the expansion of that definition will require additional legislation because it is not capable of being expanded through the regulatory process.

Once again, the key focus here, for purposes of getting the OAL to nix this proposed "clarification" at the administrative law level is to show how it "alters or amends" Penal Code § 12276.1 and seeks to "enlarge its scope." The OAL will review the proposed "clarification" for "consistency" with what is already in place. Obviously this is the achilles heel of proposed "clarification" because it is inconsistent with subsection (a) in almost every respect.

Okay, that's MORE than enough from me. Get out there and WRITE YOUR LETTERS to the DOJ and get them in by or before November 17th. Be courteous. Don't name-call. That will detract from the gravity of the situation. Try to be detached and analytical, not angry and irrational. Take the high road. Give 'em hell!

[Ford8N]

I now have the outline of my letter. Thanx

[damon1272]

Welcome! Very well written. I thought it was a lawyer writing in the first post. To be a lawyer and into guns you must be truly "evil". Great advice on the content of the opposition letters and hope to hear more of your opinion on guns and legal matters. Now if we can get DOJ to make a decision on gripless builds that would make me happy.

[Ten Rounder]

I see this coming to a head in less than 45 days. Time to buy stock in Pelican.

Thanks Paratus, last time I read a good rant was the from the Unibomber. Thanks again for sharing your positive perspective. I would not want to be a mouse in this maze. Forget about being "painted into the corner," this is more like "brick and mortoring into the tomb."

[Ten Rounder]

I now have the outline of my letter. Thanx

Sshhhhh!!