PDA

View Full Version : OLL


coverme2
04-10-2011, 8:26 AM
Please explain this to me in layman's terms: Although they essentially look and function the same, why is a lower like a Mega allowed for sale in Calif but a lower like a Bushmaster is not? How was it determined that one goes on the OLL and the other did not? And I see it applies to certain complete firearms as well. I'm trying to educate myself on how some Calif legislators think....if that's even possible lol. Thank You!!!

johndoe2150
04-10-2011, 8:29 AM
There is no reason other than I belive that the on roster lowers were made commonly back then and they were trying to ban most of the guns, but they didn't think that there were going to be more manufacturers in the future.

It all boils down to they weren't thinking. Politicians+Logic=Fail.

Purple K
04-10-2011, 8:45 AM
The list was initiated in 1994 with the AW ban. It was all AW's know to the legislators at that time. A few more were added to the list a short time later. Then legislation was passed to prevent any more additions to the list. Manufacturers that have come into existence since then can not be added to the list. These new manufacturers are now known as makers of OLL's.

FatalKitty
04-10-2011, 8:46 AM
There is one fundamental and universal truth regarding Gun Laws in the U.S.

They follow no logic

coverme2
04-10-2011, 8:46 AM
That makes sense. Now if they (the Calif legislators) would only see the error of their ways and repeal the" ban" it would make even more sense...or they could amend the law to include present non-OLL items...let's hope not on the latter. Newb Q: Is anything being done and what can I do to help change the present ban, restricted hi-cap mags, and the" bullet button" in Calif?

bwiese
04-10-2011, 8:54 AM
Please explain this to me in layman's terms: Although they essentially look and function the same, why is a lower like a Mega allowed for sale in Calif but a lower like a Bushmaster is not? How was it determined that one goes on the OLL and the other did not? And I see it applies to certain complete firearms as well. I'm trying to educate myself on how some Calif legislators think....if that's even possible lol. Thank You!!!

This had nothing to do with the legislature. The legislature thought they wanted to ban a whole buncha stuff.

This instead was a result of the Harrott v. County of Kings decision in 2001, where the CA Supreme Court held that listing criteria over "series" membership was too vague, and they wanted uniformity so a defendant's gun would not be decided as listed/banned or unlisted/unbanned in different trial courts throughout the state.

After Harrott was handed down in June 2001, the DOJ could have kept updating the AR/AK list by reading Shotgun News and Gun List every month. They didn't do anything and eventually new makes/models came on the market (plus they missed several when they compiled the Kasler list (11 CCR 5499) in fall of 2000. We gunnies were stupid enough to sit around until 2005, but at least there were a ton of OLLs to acquire then.

Due to a bunch of embarrassment and trying to partially 'control' the 'problem', the legislature passed AB2728, which became active 1/1/07 and 'froze' the lists of banned AWs. The DOJ Deputy AG thought her redefinition of permanence of mag attachment (i.e, redefining detachable/nondetachable) was going to solve the problem and render our receivers as 'paperweights' but she was not able to run this thru due to political pressure from above, in combination with the fact it was a statutorily unsupported 'underground regulation' that exceeded the scope/force of the original SB23 law and also conflicted with prior DOJ approvals..

Neither the DOJ can add to the 'Kasler' list of banned AR/AK 'series' guns, nor can certain Superior Court judges declare other guns as AWs (i.e., add to the 1989 Roberti-Roos list). It is highly unlikely the legislature wants to even touch this hot potato now given the complexity of the issue.

coverme2
04-10-2011, 9:08 AM
Thanks for the education. I'd hate to have to move out of CA when my real job is done here but it appears this may be the case. Sure I see there are "ways" around CA's laws to have some resemblance of our type of fun, but overall this state is not too firearm and hot-rod/musclecar friendly. Why not enhance the penalty for convicted criminals and those charged in criminal activity when they are in possession of or use hi-cap mags/mag-release firearms instead of making stupid laws that make law-abiding citizens into criminals in CA for mere possession of hi-cap mags/mag-release? Thugs and criminals could care less about the law and acquire banned weapons and components in spite. I know I'm preaching to the choir...sorry....just venting.

bwiese
04-10-2011, 9:13 AM
Thanks for the education. I'd hate to have to move out of CA when my real job is done here but it appears this may be the case. Sure I see there are "ways" around CA's laws to have some resemblance of our type of fun, but overall this state is not too firearm and hot-rod/musclecar friendly. Why not enhance the penalty for convicted criminals and those charged in criminal activity when they are in possession of or use hi-cap mags/mag-release firearms instead of making stupid laws that make law-abiding citizens into criminals in CA for mere possession of hi-cap mags/mag-release? Thugs and criminals could care less about the law and acquire banned weapons and components in spite. I know I'm preaching to the choir...sorry....just venting.

Never assume there's any rationality in any antigun legislation in CA. It's all about emotion - plus it's a way for certain politicians to attack those they feel are on the right.

We will ultimately fix CA gun laws given how well we've done at the US Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases, where the 2nd is now regarded as an individual right and applicable at the state/local gov't level.

Court cases take time, but be assured there is litigation coming on various matters that can go all the way to the top now - before this, CA gun laws could really only (except in rare cases) stay in the California court chain.

Gun laws pass as a political sop to certain party/contributor elements, and in view of an urban-metro population that's concerned about crime.

Purple K
04-10-2011, 9:24 AM
Thanks Bill, I didn't realize that the original AW ban was just about features rather than Make-Model. This had nothing to do with the legislature. The legislature thought they wanted to ban a whole buncha stuff.

This instead was a result of the Harrott v. County of Kings decision in 2001, where the CA Supreme Court held that listing criteria over "series" membership was too vague, and they wanted uniformity so a defendant's gun would not be decided as listed/banned or unlisted/unbanned in different trial courts throughout the state.

After Harrott was handed down in June 2001, the DOJ could have kept updating the AR/AK list by reading Shotgun News and Gun List every month. They didn't do anything and eventually new makes/models came on the market (plus they missed several when they compiled the Kasler list (11 CCR 5499) in fall of 2000. We gunnies were stupid enough to sit around until 2005, but at least there were a ton of OLLs to acquire then.

Due to a bunch of embarrassment and trying to partially 'control' the 'problem', the legislature passed AB2728, which became active 1/1/07 and 'froze' the lists of banned AWs. The DOJ Deputy AG thought her redefinition of permanence of mag attachment (i.e, redefining detachable/nondetachable) was going to solve the problem and render our receivers as 'paperweights' but she was not able to run this thru due to political pressure from above, in combination with the fact it was a statutorily unsupported 'underground regulation' that exceeded the scope/force of the original SB23 law and also conflicted with prior DOJ approvals..

Neither the DOJ can add to the 'Kasler' list of banned AR/AK 'series' guns, nor can certain Superior Court judges declare other guns as AWs (i.e., add to the 1989 Roberti-Roos list). It is highly unlikely the legislature wants to even touch this hot potato now given the complexity of the issue.

coverme2
04-10-2011, 9:25 AM
This is begining to be a great educational forum for a newbie firearm enthusiast like me as it pertains to CA firearms law. Are there more legit resources available that I should read and be a part of? The reason for all my Qs is that I want to try 3Gun and want to ensure I get the right equipment without breaking the law. Of course I'll seek firearm opinions in the proper forums. Thanks again for all your help in my continuing education.

jb7706
04-10-2011, 10:11 AM
This is begining to be a great educational forum for a newbie firearm enthusiast like me as it pertains to CA firearms law. Are there more legit resources available that I should read and be a part of? The reason for all my Qs is that I want to try 3Gun and want to ensure I get the right equipment without breaking the law. Of course I'll seek firearm opinions in the proper forums. Thanks again for all your help in my continuing education.

Follow the AW flow chart at the top of the forum. It will help out stay out of jail. Hit the competition forums and find out what builds are working for the guys that are into 3 gun.

bwiese
04-10-2011, 10:21 AM
Thanks Bill, I didn't realize that the original AW ban was just about features rather than Make-Model.

I must have written something unclear then.

The 1989 Roberti-Roos was by and large "banned by specific make & model". (Exceptions: "SKS with detachable magazine", and of course "Colt AR15 and series" and "AK and series")

The 2000 SB23 ban was a ban via various configured features suites.

The Kasler decision also hit in August of 2000 during midst of SB23 reg period, and created the list of various AR/AK makes/models as an example (even though other makes/models of ARs/AKs would still be banned until 28 Jun 2001 when Harrott hit.)

Librarian
04-10-2011, 11:48 AM
And you may find this wiki article about the law enlightening - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/History_of_%27Assault_Weapon%27_laws