PDA

View Full Version : Bullet Button: Haynie v. Pleasanton


Pages : [1] 2

hoffmang
05-06-2011, 7:45 PM
Bottom line first. The California Department of Justice has opined in print and on the record that Bullet Buttons are legal.

Last March, CGF filed Haynie v. Pleasanton (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.docket.html). For strategic reasons (some of which remain) we had kept this case at a low profile.

Some background. Mark Haynie was arrested February 7, 2009 by Pleasanton PD on the way back from Chabot with an OLL, bullet button correctly installed, an empty magazine well, and a cracked windshield that created the stop in the first place. He was arrested and forced to post bail of $60,000.00 ($6,000 to the bondsman out of his pocket.)

CGF successfully defended him and obtained a finding of factual innocence. We then sued Pleasanton PD and CA DOJ. The original complaint (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.1.0.pdf) is here.

Pleasanton then offered to settle the case as to them by paying Mr. Haynie's $6000.00 in damages. CGF decided to facilitate the settlement by not insisting on it's legal fees.

We amended the complaint (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.23.0.pdf) against The California Department of Justice basically claiming that CA DOJ has a statutory duty under a constitutional avoidance theory to inform law enforcement and the 58 DA's that AR-15 (and other) like rifles with bullet buttons conform to the law and are legal long arms in California.

Today, The California Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.26.1.pdf).

Here are critical excerpts (emphasis added):

Plaintiff Haynie was arrested in Alameda County for allegedly violating the AWCA , when Pleasanton Police thought that his Colt AR-15 was a banned weapon. FAC ¶ 12. However, the rifle possessed by Haynie was equipped with a “bullet button,” a device which required the use of a tool to remove the magazine, taking the weapon out of the statutory definition of an assault weapon. FAC ¶15. Therefore , charges were never filed, and Pleasanton stipulated to Plaintiff Haynie’s factual innocence and agreed to pay for Haynie’s bail bond costs. FAC ¶¶18-22.

...

Plaintiffs implicitly concede, as they must, that both California’s regulations and the Assault Weapons Identification Guide issued by the California Department of Justice accurately recite California law, and demonstrate that Haynie’s gun was a “fixed magazine” weapon not banned by the AWCA. 3 (FN 3 This assumes that the bullet button was installed properly, and actually required the use of a tool to release the magazine) FAC ¶¶ 28, 32. Accordingly, Haynie’s arrest was clearly improper under relevant California law and contrary to the Department’s guide and regulations. Plaintiffs have not explained how issuing a new bulletin would be more effective than the existing guide and regulations. While Plaintiffs contend that if the Department of Justice issued a bulletin it would “[e]nsure statewide compliance with the law” (FAC ¶ 34), they supply no rationale for believing this to be true. Based on the facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint, Haynie’s weapon was legal, and his arrest was improper notwithstanding the publication of regulations and a guide which explained the legality of the gun.

....

As pled, Haynie’s arrest appears to be human error by an officer in Pleasanton, and there is no showing that a new bulletin about assault weapons would reduce such errors to zero or eliminate the “fear” alleged by Plaintiffs.

I'm forced to not comment much on they "why" or "next steps" as much of the same strategic items that required some discretion in this case remain in place.

However, there is now clear evidence that the California Department of Justice opines on the record that properly installed bullet buttons with 10 round or less magazines create legal AR type firearms in California.

-Gene

oaklander
05-06-2011, 7:50 PM
Ha!

This isn't bad!

I thought it was something crazy, like an incompetent lawyer actually losing a BB criminal defense case, or something like that. . .

Wow - nothing to see here - except for more WIN.

:D

The whole WINNING thing is not just a meme - it's an accurate reflection of our overall progress here. . .

CUE: FGG!

ALSO - I know people associate Don ONLY with Nordyke. That is error. DK works on many many cases, most of which do not appear here - and every single one that I know of has had a very positive outcome. We always need to remember that we are winning as much as 95 percent of the cases that we file (by "we" I mean everyone - not just CGF).

I think sometimes we have battered spouse syndrome on this stuff - but that's OLD THINKING - the new thinking is that we are pretty much epically winning everything we touch.

jwkincal
05-06-2011, 7:54 PM
Huzzah!

Is there a PDF suitable for framing with Kamela's signature and everything?

Us3rName
05-06-2011, 7:54 PM
this is great news and back up data to present to LEO concerning any confusions with BB on an AR or any other weapon for that matter.

Monte
05-06-2011, 7:55 PM
Not bad at all! Great news! Keep up the great work, guys!

hoffmang
05-06-2011, 7:55 PM
Huzzah!

Is there a PDF suitable for framing with Kamela's signature and everything?

It was the final link in my post: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.26.1.pdf

-Gene

Cokebottle
05-06-2011, 7:55 PM
Ditto.
No bad news.

Looks like DOJ is going to do everything they can to keep the BB from going to court and being codified in case law.


Or did this case do exactly that?

Blackhawk556
05-06-2011, 7:55 PM
Awesome!!!!!!!! I can't wait to hear FGG

Quiet
05-06-2011, 7:56 PM
:party:

Dreaded Claymore
05-06-2011, 7:57 PM
VICTOLY! :)

CSACANNONEER
05-06-2011, 7:59 PM
:jump::party::jump:

jwkincal
05-06-2011, 8:00 PM
It was the final link in my post: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.26.1.pdf

-Gene

Beautiful, absolutely beautiful.

Thanks so much!

hoffmang
05-06-2011, 8:01 PM
Or did this case do exactly that?

This filing is an admission in a Federal Court by the Attorney General of California that a properly installed bullet button on an off list rifle is not a semiautomatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

You can't get much more affirmative or official than that. It's in some ways more binding than an official AG "opinion" as it's a position taken in an adversarial Federal action.

-Gene

Andy Taylor
05-06-2011, 8:02 PM
:D :D :D

jtmkinsd
05-06-2011, 8:08 PM
Ditto.
No bad news.

Looks like DOJ is going to do everything they can to keep the BB from going to court and being codified in case law.


Or did this case do exactly that?

The highlighted text from the motion in Gene's post is a statement of capitulation. As configured (with a bullet button) it is a "fixed magazine" firearm. :D

EDIT: Gene beat me to it

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
05-06-2011, 8:08 PM
Awesome!!!!!!!! I can't wait to hear FGG

If a tool is required to remove the magazine, the rifle doesn't have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. It's that simple!;)

ENTHUSIAST
05-06-2011, 8:12 PM
Right on!!! :hurray:

Cokebottle
05-06-2011, 8:12 PM
If a tool is required to remove the magazine, the rifle doesn't have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. It's that simple!;)
Big wheels turn slowly.

We've been saying that since 2005 ;) :D

AAShooter
05-06-2011, 8:12 PM
Well done . . . so is having a magazine actually installed important? Or is an empty magazine well okay?

anthonyca
05-06-2011, 8:18 PM
Bottom line first. The California Department of Justice has opined in print and on the record that Bullet Buttons are legal.

Last March, CGF filed Haynie v. Pleasanton (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.docket.html). For strategic reasons (some of which remain) we had kept this case at a low profile.

Some background. Mark Haynie was arrested February 7, 2009 by Pleasanton PD on the way back from Chabot with an OLL, bullet button correctly installed, and empty magazine well, and a cracked windshield that created the stop in the first place. He was arrested and forced to post bail of $60,000.00 ($6,000 to the bondsman out of his pocket.)

CGF successfully defended him and obtained a finding of factual innocence. We then sued Pleasanton PD and CA DOJ. The original complaint (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.1.0.pdf) is here.

Pleasanton then offered to settle the case as to them by paying Mr. Haynie's $6000.00 is damages. CGF decided to facilitate the settlement by not insisting on it's legal fees.

We amended the complaint (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.23.0.pdf) against The California Department of Justice basically claiming that CA DOJ has a statutory duty under a constitutional avoidance theory to inform law enforcement and the 58 DA's that AR-15 (and other) like rifles with bullet buttons conform to the law and are legal long arms in California.

Today, The California Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.26.1.pdf).

Here are critical excerpts (emphasis added):


I'm forced to not comment much on they "why" or "next steps" as much of the same strategic items that required some discretion in this case remain in place.

However, there is now clear evidence that the California Department of Justice opines on the record that properly installed bullet buttons with 10 round or less magazines create legal AR type firearms in California.

-Gene

I love you guys. I will again donate some money.

peopleofthesun
05-06-2011, 8:19 PM
Great job! Thank you for all your hard work.

oldyeller
05-06-2011, 8:20 PM
I wonder if we can get places like cheaper than dirt and sportsmans guide to start shipping here now?

oaklander
05-06-2011, 8:24 PM
That could probably be done with one single phone call to the right person. BUT, I'm NOT volunteering for yet another project LOL!!!

My wife already misses me. . .

:o

I wonder if we can get places like cheaper than dirt and sportsmans guide to start shipping here now?

707electrician
05-06-2011, 8:24 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/3367265715_96427509c4.jpg and :Ivan:

Nice win:D

SoCal Bob
05-06-2011, 8:24 PM
Well done . . . so is having a magazine actually installed important? Or is an empty magazine well okay?

From Gene's post: Some background. Mark Haynie was arrested February 7, 2009 by Pleasanton PD on the way back from Chabot with an OLL, bullet button correctly installed, and empty magazine well, and a cracked windshield that created the stop in the first place.

jtmkinsd
05-06-2011, 8:25 PM
Well done . . . so is having a magazine actually installed important? Or is an empty magazine well okay?

Having a magazine in the well is of no importance...the firearm is incapable of accepting a detachable magazine.

Arisaka
05-06-2011, 8:30 PM
:oMegaWin. Finally got a test case.....

jtmkinsd
05-06-2011, 8:31 PM
I could be wrong...but isn't this argument by the AG the precise reason a bulletin is needed?

Plaintiffs have not explained how issuing a new bulletin would be more effective than the existing guide and regulations. While Plaintiffs contend that if the Department of Justice issued a bulletin it would “[e]nsure statewide compliance with the law” (FAC ¶ 34), they supply no rationale for believing this to be true. Based on the facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint, Haynie’s weapon was legal, and his arrest was improper notwithstanding the publication of regulations and a guide which explained the legality of the gun.

Even with all this, an unlawful arrest occurred. Seems to me they will do anything to keep from eating the fat crow they have coming.

HowardW56
05-06-2011, 8:32 PM
Bottom line first. The California Department of Justice has opined in print and on the record that Bullet Buttons are legal.

Last March, CGF filed Haynie v. Pleasanton (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.docket.html). For strategic reasons (some of which remain) we had kept this case at a low profile.

Some background. Mark Haynie was arrested February 7, 2009 by Pleasanton PD on the way back from Chabot with an OLL, bullet button correctly installed, and empty magazine well, and a cracked windshield that created the stop in the first place. He was arrested and forced to post bail of $60,000.00 ($6,000 to the bondsman out of his pocket.)

CGF successfully defended him and obtained a finding of factual innocence. We then sued Pleasanton PD and CA DOJ. The original complaint (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.1.0.pdf) is here.

Pleasanton then offered to settle the case as to them by paying Mr. Haynie's $6000.00 is damages. CGF decided to facilitate the settlement by not insisting on it's legal fees.

We amended the complaint (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.23.0.pdf) against The California Department of Justice basically claiming that CA DOJ has a statutory duty under a constitutional avoidance theory to inform law enforcement and the 58 DA's that AR-15 (and other) like rifles with bullet buttons conform to the law and are legal long arms in California.

Today, The California Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.26.1.pdf).

Here are critical excerpts (emphasis added):


I'm forced to not comment much on they "why" or "next steps" as much of the same strategic items that required some discretion in this case remain in place.

However, there is now clear evidence that the California Department of Justice opines on the record that properly installed bullet buttons with 10 round or less magazines create legal AR type firearms in California.

-Gene

:clap:

dmacintyre
05-06-2011, 8:33 PM
Thank you.

atomicwedgy
05-06-2011, 8:33 PM
will this help at all once the ban is lifted on "standard" capacity magazines? As in possible changes to the definition of an AW

trashman
05-06-2011, 8:38 PM
Out****ingstanding. Reminds me that I have not made my donation to CGF for this tax year - will get on it this weekend.

It's also a good reminder why orgs like CGF can't plaster their whole strategy all over the Internet...hopefully folks will see this and grok that point...

Great work CGF!

--Neill

SJgunguy24
05-06-2011, 8:43 PM
OK, so the DOJ says that a bulletin to all LEA's and DA's in the state is pointless. I bet if they banned something or found a common gun to be illegal they would let every agency in the state know about it.

I guess we can only expect this type of bulls**t from freedom hating liars , what kills me is they're wasting our tax dollars doing this.

Blackhawk556
05-06-2011, 8:48 PM
^^^Don't worry, they'll just tax you some more and not worry about wasting anything.

trashman
05-06-2011, 8:49 PM
CGF decided to facilitate the settlement by not insisting on it's legal fees.


BTW, what's the ROM of the CGF attorney's fees in this case?

--Neill

hoffmang
05-06-2011, 8:51 PM
BTW, what's the ROM of the CGF attorney's fees in this case?

In the underlying criminal case CGF spent $3713.43. Obviously the civil action after has additional ongoing attorney's fees.

-Gene

oaklander
05-06-2011, 8:53 PM
Agreed!

Yes - at this point, I guess we can just print out the fricken court case and carry that around. Folks are still getting busted for their LEGAL rifles, and it's NOT LE's fault. It's DOJ's fault for being in denial about this whole winning episode of ours.

They are probably feeling like the abused spouse here - and we aren't even "abusers" - we are just folks who are pointing out, in polite language, that our "spouse" is smoking crack. . .

Remember - it's always:

WINNING for us - LOSING for them. . .

And has been that way since 2006. . .

:43:

OK, so the DOJ says that a bulletin to all LEA's and DA's in the state is pointless. I bet if they banned something or found a common gun to be illegal they would let every agency in the state know about it.

I guess we can only expect this type of bulls**t from freedom hating liars , what kills me is they're wasting our tax dollars doing this.

hoffmang
05-06-2011, 8:56 PM
Folks are still getting busted for their LEGAL rifles, and it's NOT LE's fault. It's DOJ's fault for being in denial about this whole winning episode of ours.

QFT.

-Gene

Uriah02
05-06-2011, 8:56 PM
In the underlying criminal case CGF spent $3713.43. Obviously the civil action after has additional ongoing attorney's fees.

-Gene

The civil action against the PD?
Concerning the criminal dismissal, well done!

hoffmang
05-06-2011, 8:59 PM
The civil action against the PD?
Concerning the criminal dismissal, well done!

We haven't broken the fees out on the civil side yet since the overall case is still moving. Volunteers are just happy we have the financials in order...

-Gene

Shady
05-06-2011, 9:04 PM
AWESOME!

jwkincal
05-06-2011, 9:07 PM
We haven't broken the fees out on the civil side yet since the overall case is still moving. Volunteers are just happy we have the financials in order...

-Gene

Wait... so Kamala decided to basically hang the local LE out to dry?

hoffmang
05-06-2011, 9:10 PM
Wait... so Kamala decided to basically hang the local LE out to dry?

Pleasanton PD very promptly moved to settle this case.

Now, the AG's office is officially opining that it is error for an officer to arrest for possession of an AR with a properly installed bullet button.

-Gene

AAShooter
05-06-2011, 9:12 PM
Who was the officer?

MountainShooter
05-06-2011, 9:14 PM
Thanks to all the people that made this happen. I will be making my donation CalGuns. I am proud to have found this forum. Keep up the good work.

jwkincal
05-06-2011, 9:14 PM
Pleasanton PD very promptly moved to settle this case.

Now, the AG's office is officially opining that it is error for an officer to arrest for possession of an AR with a properly installed bullet button.

-Gene

But DOJ can't admit that additional notification is necessary otherwise they'd be copping to liability in the civil case, right?

eaglemike
05-06-2011, 9:14 PM
Very well done.......

Am I correct in thinking the DOJ is avoiding (what seems to me) it's duty?

DougJ
05-06-2011, 9:18 PM
Another excellent move in the right direction.

Thanks Gene!

CHS
05-06-2011, 9:23 PM
This filing is an admission in a Federal Court by the Attorney General of California that a properly installed bullet button on an off list rifle is not a semiautomatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.


How is a Colt AR-15 an off-list weapon?


Plaintiff Haynie was arrested in Alameda County for allegedly violating the AWCA , when Pleasanton Police thought that his Colt AR-15 was a banned weapon.

CONFUSED!!!!

Sky_DiveR
05-06-2011, 9:25 PM
Woo Hoo! Another win for the Good guys! CGF rocks!:King:

oaklander
05-06-2011, 9:28 PM
Yes, in my personal opinion, they have the organizational equivalent of "abused spouse syndrome."

That means that they "can't believe it is happening to them again," sort of thing. . .

Spousal abuse is a serious matter - and I don't want to make light of it - BUT my analysis of their behavior is aligned perfectly with the syndrome.

Again: they need to go into therapy - WE DO NOT. The worst thing we did to them was politely point out their errors.

If you picture them like someone who is in a "good" relationship, but misperceives it as "bad" - then maybe my metaphor will make more sense. We've actually been helpful to them - and we've tried to point out how dysfunctional they are. But like a person who is somewhat crazy, they just keep repeating the same actions, expecting different results.

. . . I really do hope they will go into organizational therapy. . .

Very well done.......

Am I correct in thinking the DOJ is avoiding (what seems to me) it's duty?

Connor P Price
05-06-2011, 9:29 PM
How is a Colt AR-15 an off-list weapon?



CONFUSED!!!!

Probably not actually a Colt. Maybe Colt upper? Maybe that was written stupidly be someone with thinks all AR15's are Colts?

dantodd
05-06-2011, 9:29 PM
It's DOJ's fault for being in denial about this whole winning episode of ours.


If another cop makes this mistake and busts someone for a legal OLL it could really be painful for the AG and the DOJ.

Once that happens a few, expensive times, I suspect that there won't be a whole lot of interest in inspecting OLLs.

WDE91
05-06-2011, 9:30 PM
Congrats on the success

Blackhawk556
05-06-2011, 9:30 PM
@bdsmchs...From what I read on another thread, there are off list colt lowers

G60
05-06-2011, 9:32 PM
How is a Colt AR-15 an off-list weapon?



CONFUSED!!!!

there are a couple (2 or 4 i think) model Colt lowers that are Off List.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=94510

jb7706
05-06-2011, 9:37 PM
Another step towards restoring our rights. Someday no Bullet Button will be required at all, and with great luck I'll tell my kids about that funny thing that looks like a mag release. Thanks Don and co.

RP1911
05-06-2011, 9:38 PM
So, can we do a mass mailing to 58 Sheriffs and 58 County DAs? I'll pitch in for the cost of a Certified Mailing.

hoffmang
05-06-2011, 9:39 PM
How is a Colt AR-15 an off-list weapon?

Probably not actually a Colt. Maybe Colt upper? Maybe that was written stupidly be someone with thinks all AR15's are Colts?

Haynie's AR was not a Colt and I don't recall which exactly it was... In the complaint you can see that it's not listed. I think The AG's office made a minor error and took our line in the complaint that said:

MARK HAYNIE’s rifle is based on the popular and commonly available (in
most other states) Colt AR-15 rifle. It is functionally identical to an AR-15
except that the magazine (as noted above) is non-detachable and the nondetachable magazine capacity does not exceed ten (10) rounds.

And confused that a little.

-Gene

trashman
05-06-2011, 9:42 PM
And confused that a little.


It does neatly drive the point home that even the chief LEO* in our great golden state cannot parse the letter of own firearms laws...to the letter.

--Neill

*with lotsa taxpayer-funded staff assisting...

sreiter
05-06-2011, 9:43 PM
OK, so the DOJ says that a bulletin to all LEA's and DA's in the state is pointless. I bet if they banned something or found a common gun to be illegal they would let every agency in the state know about it.



^This

CHS
05-06-2011, 9:44 PM
@bdsmchs...From what I read on another thread, there are off list colt lowers

there are a couple (2 or 4 i think) model Colt lowers that are Off List.


Correct, there ARE off-list Colt lowers.

However, there ARE NO off-list Colt AR-15 lowers.

"Colt: AR-15 (all)" by itself is a listed rifle/lower.

Unless we now have a nice handy little piece of paper signed and affirmed by the Attorney General that the Colt AR-15 with a bullet button is now a California-legal configuration :)

Joe
05-06-2011, 9:45 PM
Awesome!

hoffmang
05-06-2011, 9:53 PM
Unless we now have a nice handy little piece of paper signed and affirmed by the Attorney General that the Colt AR-15 with a bullet button is now a California-legal configuration :)

I wouldn't push that issue as it's tangential and doesn't comport even with what we're asserting in the case.

-Gene

Sky_DiveR
05-06-2011, 9:59 PM
Woo Hoo! and I learned 2 new words today. Now I gotta figure out how to work them into a conversation. Thanks, Gene. :thumbsup:

Suvorov
05-06-2011, 10:05 PM
This is outstanding news! Thanks to all who helped to make it happen :thumbsup:

I am, like most here, concerned that the AG is not taking corrective action to update the horribly antiquated "assault weapons guide" that the DOJ has on its site.

gatdammit
05-06-2011, 10:08 PM
WIN! This just made my day... it seems that this whole case has brought the whole OLL /Bullet/button issue even further out of the legal 'grey' zone (at least when it comes to my friends). I still have friends that are paranoid and give me warnings b/c of the 'types' of guns I own. And hopefully now that this case is here, law enforcement just can't arrest people to give them a hard time and put them through BS via harassment, even if they know all this OLL stuff is NOT illegal. Law enforcement shouldn't be able to claim ignorance of the technicalities of the law, and keep arresting OLLers...

Harbinger
05-06-2011, 10:09 PM
Great job!

killshot44
05-06-2011, 10:14 PM
Sweet.

This just cut the new Centerfire threads by a fifth...

Connor P Price
05-06-2011, 10:16 PM
Haynie's AR was not a Colt and I don't recall which exactly it was... In the complaint you can see that it's not listed. I think The AG's office made a minor error and took our line in the complaint that said:


And confused that a little.

-Gene

Pretty much what I was thinking. It's understandable that many non gun people would think AR-15 = Colt, or 1911 = Colt, or something to that effect not realizing the following they have with other makers. However it certainly would be wise to pay greater attention to detail in court proceedings.

fuenstock
05-06-2011, 10:18 PM
Awsome! I'm thankfull for all your hard work.

bden
05-06-2011, 10:39 PM
Awsome! I'm thankfull for all your hard work.

I couldn't say it better myself. Great work guys. Thank you.

Blackhawk556
05-06-2011, 10:59 PM
@connor p price.... 1911 Does = colt. All the rest are just clones remember ;)

N6ATF
05-06-2011, 11:04 PM
May be channeling Fabio here, but what if AG Harris did everything asked? LE would probably still make "mistakes" after reading a training bulletin, and probably even if she spent the rest of her term(s?) of office personally schooling each and every LEO, statewide. Isn't it unreasonable to expect her to be Godlike and put an end, once and for all, to this specific 2A harassment?

hoffmang
05-06-2011, 11:10 PM
May be channeling Fabio here, but what if AG Harris did everything asked?

Before this filing can you point me available to the publicly available document from the AG's office that acknowledges that properly installed bullet buttons take OLL AR's out of the AWCA definition?

-Gene

Neve
05-06-2011, 11:17 PM
I love you guys. I will again donate some money.

This. Thank you for fighting for our essential freedoms. <3

wash
05-06-2011, 11:31 PM
As much as we shouldn't need this letter and as much as the DOJ should have written it for free, I still feel like this case was ~five grand well spent.

Keep kicking *** CGF!

Connor P Price
05-06-2011, 11:31 PM
@connor p price.... 1911 Does = colt. All the rest are just clones remember ;)

Ok ok, AR=armalite to. ;)

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

jtmkinsd
05-06-2011, 11:32 PM
May be channeling Fabio here, but what if AG Harris did everything asked? LE would probably still make "mistakes" after reading a training bulletin, and probably even if she spent the rest of her term(s?) of office personally schooling each and every LEO, statewide. Isn't it unreasonable to expect her to be Godlike and put an end, once and for all, to this specific 2A harassment?

If she spends the rest of her term doing that she won't have time to figure out new ways to infringe what rights we have left. :D

bubbapug1
05-06-2011, 11:50 PM
Wow, that is really a huge piece of paper, she admits OLL's with BB's are in fact legal. I bet she had to swallow hard to write that one unless she's a closet builder herself, and why not?!?!?

The human error factor is really a weak argument. The reason for the arrest was the ambiguity the DOJ lets permeate around some of the "grayer" area of the law, such as bullet buttons, spade grips on 50 bmg builds, etc.

The lack of clear and concise euclidiation of the guns laws, which they propogate intentionally, leads to many various interpretations and errors, as simply shown by their own error on the colt Ar reference, and the case in point shows that more work is required on their part via communications and clarifications to remove possibly erroneous interpretation of gun laws by LEO or civilians due to the ambiguities and contradictions in the penal codes.

I think they (DOJ) have a fair chance of losing the motion to dismiss if their argument is attacked vigorously with past case law related to similar situations.

jdberger
05-06-2011, 11:50 PM
Excellent news. Well done.

I still want the bulletin, though. ;)

....the lamentation of the women.

bob7122
05-06-2011, 11:57 PM
winning one case at a time yippeeee!

bjl333
05-06-2011, 11:58 PM
:thumbsup:

Liberty1
05-07-2011, 12:18 AM
....the lamentation of the kamela. fixed

INDEED! :)

NorCalDustin
05-07-2011, 12:40 AM
Wow, that is really a huge piece of paper, she admits OLL's with BB's are in fact legal. I bet she had to swallow hard to write that one unless she's a closet builder herself, and why not?!?!?


I wish... That would make me laugh though... :)


In all seriousness though... I have a feeling that there are some people in certain positions that probably help us in our battle to gain these little wins.... People that would probably rather not be identified.

I thank everyone.

mattmcg
05-07-2011, 12:55 AM
Nice work CGF. I agree with one of the above posters though. Would have been nice to see the official bulletin. A+ for effort getting that though. Had to go for it as it was close in coming.

At least this provides the "get out of jail for a lower cost" option when LE mistakenly arrests for possession of an OLL and will have the AG drop pursuing charges given proper enlightenment.

N6ATF
05-07-2011, 1:11 AM
Before this filing can you point me available to the publicly available document from the AG's office that acknowledges that properly installed bullet buttons take OLL AR's out of the AWCA definition?

-Gene

1) I thought it had been said that lawyers can make whatever claims they want in briefs, they are not binding law outside court, win or lose.
2) If that ack is now binding law, do you think the court will award a full reimbursement of all plaintiff's costs to date on the case against the AG, because she effectively issued the bulletin in a not-so-brief, brief form?
3) There are plenty of government documents disregarded on a daily basis, from the supreme law of the land, all the way down. Without proof of service upon each and every future "mistaken" LEO statewide, do you expect an AG bulletin or even a CGF edit of this brief to strip their qualified immunity, or at a bare minimum, consistently get attorney's fees added to damages (i.e. the $6k bail) in each and every settlement?

If she spends the rest of her term doing that she won't have time to figure out new ways to infringe what rights we have left. :D

Touche. :D

Anchors
05-07-2011, 1:38 AM
Good job. Continue to stay vigilant.
:]

the_quark
05-07-2011, 4:58 AM
We haven't broken the fees out on the civil side yet since the overall case is still moving. Volunteers are just happy we have the financials in order...

-Gene

From a financial perspective I've just been tracking all this under Haynie - we're accounting for this sort of thing right now just based upon the individual. My main focus has been making sure we don't all of the sudden look up and realize we've spent half the money on one case or something.

If we start having a lot of cases where we expect to get a percentage of the fees back, I agree it might be useful to track the individual cases separately so we could have some estimate of what our potential receivables are, but that hasn't yet been much of an issue, and it'll be pretty easy to break those into separate accounts retroactively if we need to.

-Brett (Treasurer)

EDIT: To further clarify, from an accounting perspective I think we have to look at all of these court costs as sunk. We have absolutely no certainty we'll win any legal fees in any case, so we account for them as "spent". It's possible if we had a large number of cases that we were recovering fees on we could build a model where we said "We get fees back in 72% of the cases, so we'll model in future years getting that back as revenue" but we really at this point have no data to make that in any way meaningful so I haven't spent any time on it.

the_quark
05-07-2011, 5:05 AM
Nice work CGF. I agree with one of the above posters though. Would have been nice to see the official bulletin. A+ for effort getting that though. Had to go for it as it was close in coming.

It ain't over 'til it's over, man. This is DOJ saying "Court, we don't have to issue a bulletin because it's completely obvious bulletin button rifles aren't assault weapons." That's the argument they're making.

Obviously we're arguing that if it were completely obvious we wouldn't constantly be having people arrested for it. We have in no way stopped trying to get them to issue a bulletin and the courts have not yet opined on whether DOJ's argument is valid. Don't write off a bulletin, yet. This is the most important victory - it indicates that anyone arrested is now unconvictable - but our goal remains to make it so that people stop being arrested to begin with.

the_quark
05-07-2011, 5:08 AM
1) I thought it had been said that lawyers can make whatever claims they want in briefs, they are not binding law outside court, win or lose.


No, as I understand legal procedure (and I'm not a lawyer), you're prohibited from making contradictory legal arguments. Now that the AG's office has argued bullet button-equipped rifles aren't assault weapons, they can't later claim they are in another case.

SanPedroShooter
05-07-2011, 5:27 AM
Great job CGF!

oaklander
05-07-2011, 5:32 AM
Yes - you can "argue in the alternative" on a theory in a current case. But if you make a legal assertion, you are "estopped" from making a conflicting assertion in a later case.

This was done on purpose. They wanted to "close the door" (open the door, actually).

It's a subtle difference, and is not one that is apparent to non-lawyers - but TQ nailed it (since he's generally smart anyways) . . . .

:D

I'm too fuzzy to think this all the way through - but my guess is that they are trying very hard to AVOID getting the whole AW "body of law" thrown out - at this point. SO they are starting to make legal concessions.

No, as I understand legal procedure (and I'm not a lawyer), you're prohibited from making contradictory legal arguments. Now that the AG's office has argued bullet button-equipped rifles aren't assault weapons, they can't later claim they are in another case.

trashman
05-07-2011, 6:43 AM
I'm too fuzzy to think this all the way through - but my guess is that they are trying very hard to AVOID getting the whole AW "body of law" thrown out - at this point. SO they are starting to make legal concessions.

I have trouble imagining that there is any longer-term strategy here (to "fix" OLL rifles) on the part of the DOJ, since that would necessarily involve advocating for the Legislature to change the AWCA in some way.

It's likely that they are just doing the absolute minimum required to respond to the immediate lawsuit/issue. They are painted into a corner on this issue and it would seem they 'get' it.

--Neill

RP1911
05-07-2011, 7:24 AM
Maybe sending a copy to AM. :D Looks like she is now legislative director for senate majority leader.

dk45
05-07-2011, 7:53 AM
I saw that they were talking about colt AR-15 in motion to dismiss, and I thought BB would still make category 1 assault weapon illegal.

oaklander
05-07-2011, 7:58 AM
Ah,

Yes - that makes sense!!!!

I have trouble imagining that there is any longer-term strategy here (to "fix" OLL rifles) on the part of the DOJ, since that would necessarily involve advocating for the Legislature to change the AWCA in some way.

It's likely that they are just doing the absolute minimum required to respond to the immediate lawsuit/issue. They are painted into a corner on this issue and it would seem they 'get' it.

--Neill

Soldier415
05-07-2011, 8:06 AM
Great news

thedrickel
05-07-2011, 8:35 AM
This is awesome news! I can't wait to get that bulletin :)

Though nothing quite brings a tear to my eye like that Alison email that says "we can't afford to buy back all of the series clones."

Mute
05-07-2011, 9:55 AM
As they say in the old McDonald's commercials, "I'm lovin' it!"

hoffmang
05-07-2011, 10:00 AM
I saw that they were talking about colt AR-15 in motion to dismiss, and I thought BB would still make category 1 assault weapon illegal.

Asked and answered earlier in this thread.

-Gene

rrr70
05-07-2011, 10:00 AM
What is that "Bullet Button" you are speaking of? :D

N6ATF
05-07-2011, 10:16 AM
No, as I understand legal procedure (and I'm not a lawyer), you're prohibited from making contradictory legal arguments. Now that the AG's office has argued bullet button-equipped rifles aren't assault weapons, they can't later claim they are in another case.

Yes - you can "argue in the alternative" on a theory in a current case. But if you make a legal assertion, you are "estopped" from making a conflicting assertion in a later case.

This was done on purpose. They wanted to "close the door" (open the door, actually).

It's a subtle difference, and is not one that is apparent to non-lawyers - but TQ nailed it (since he's generally smart anyways) . . . .

:D

I'm too fuzzy to think this all the way through - but my guess is that they are trying very hard to AVOID getting the whole AW "body of law" thrown out - at this point. SO they are starting to make legal concessions.

What about district attorneys? Are they estopped from charging legal BBed rifles as AWs contrary to the AG's assertion? (Not sure if DAs are in the command structure of the AG or their own islands) Or county/city counsels - will they have any reason to feel bound by the AG's assertion when you sue the offending LEA for false arrest and seizure?

Baconator
05-07-2011, 10:25 AM
Maybe we could amend the pdf flow chart with this case info.

gatesbox
05-07-2011, 10:42 AM
This is fantastic, and a great document to include with the AW flow chart in the range bag?...I still wish they would issue a new bulletin....to many good and intelligent LEOs have no clear directive and are poorly informed...still hope the larger case is heard....

bwiese
05-07-2011, 10:45 AM
Hundreds of thousands of "Allison's paperweights" are in use in CA every weekend at a range near you.
.
This is the third time we've done "Dances With Kamala". Other instances were when she was the SF DA;
it appeared at least in one case then that she was being driven by former DOJ antigun deputy AG.

Another case involving a sezied OLL rifle in SF was handled by a skilled lawyer (not a CGF case, though
we did have communications with him) and resulted in judge Kathleen Feinstein (DiFi's daughter, actually
a well-regarded judge respected by both sides of the bar) ruling that an OLL rifle with a closed Prince50
and empty magwell was indeed a legal single-shot rifle that was not an assault weapon.
.
I'm unclear if Kamala Harris had a ton of direct involvment in this, with the work being done by the DOJ's
mainline professional legal staff (i.e., not the BoF).
.
The "AWIG" (DOJ Asssault Weapons ID Guide, commonly called "DOJ's Coloring Book") has regulatory force
and conflicts with actual law, especially in areas of Harrott "series" membership. There are a multiplicity
of areas where a cop examining this guide by flashlight during a traffic stop could easily make a mistake
and seize a legit gun or arrest a leigt individual on wholly incorrect basis.
.
Isn't it nice to have a case like this, instead of cases where people get popped for stupid things? I think
it's a vindication of many Calgunners' concerns that we push, push, push for max legality, avoid drama
about 'edge conditions', and communicate with others so they too stay out of the cooler. (So now you
know why I yell atthe people selling the red magnets at gun shows.)
.
"We're all going to jail".... in TWO WEEKS!

Soldier415
05-07-2011, 10:48 AM
"We're all going to jail".... in TWO WEEKS!


I'll bring the Jenkem

trashman
05-07-2011, 10:50 AM
What about district attorneys? Are they estopped from charging legal BBed rifles as AWs contrary to the AG's assertion? (Not sure if DAs are in the command structure of the AG or their own islands) Or county/city counsels - will they have any reason to feel bound by the AG's assertion when you sue the offending LEA for false arrest and seizure?

There is no 'command structure' between the City/County DAs and the AG; they are each independently elected officials representing their respective (city- or state-wide) constituencies.

What binds them together is the law; legal precedent, and the fact that they use taxpayer resources to pursue criminal actions. DAs are going to be a whole lot less likely to pursue a case that they can't win - and it's going to be hard to win an OLL arrest case when the AG has opined in a Federal lawsuit that such properly-configured rifles are legal.

--Neill

Connor P Price
05-07-2011, 11:05 AM
I'll bring the Jenkem

I'm in.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

trashman
05-07-2011, 11:07 AM
(So now you know why I yell atthe people selling the red magnets at gun shows.)


And my guess is that's why you're also always haranguing people about cracked windshields!

Seriously though, when I told my wife about this case last night she had two reactions:

1) that's AWESOME!
2) that could have been us!

...as the windshield on one of our cars is cracked and I've just been too lazy to get it replaced. So I've certainly driven back from Chabot with an OLL in that very car...

--Neill

wilit
05-07-2011, 11:09 AM
Pleasanton PD very promptly moved to settle this case.

Now, the AG's office is officially opining that it is error for an officer to arrest for possession of an AR with a properly installed bullet button.

-Gene

Didn't see it mentioned, but in that settlement, was it only monetary or is Pleasanton PD going to supply some training to their officers on the legality of BBs and OLLs?

Window_Seat
05-07-2011, 11:11 AM
So, can we do a mass mailing to 58 Sheriffs and 58 County DAs? I'll pitch in for the cost of a Certified Mailing.

Good question...

Erik.

bwiese
05-07-2011, 11:37 AM
Didn't see it mentioned, but in that settlement, was it only monetary or is Pleasanton PD going to supply some training to their officers on the legality of BBs and OLLs?

I think *city* of Pleasanton now "gets it".

The issue is statewide, and a result of either DOJ abandoning their duty or assuming the bare minimum work done 10+ years ago despite major changes in court cases and marketplace was sufficient - and despite the statutory requirement for education/promulgation.

If you're statutorily bound regulate and/or do enforcement on items that are common consumer products in common circulation, then your regulatory and promulgation process needs to have a consumer-product-style outreach. Look at how the DMV deals with all sorts of automotive matters in CA, with a variety of booklets, information, helplines, etc. and contrast that with DOJ BoF.

SJgunguy24
05-07-2011, 11:54 AM
Didn't see it mentioned, but in that settlement, was it only monetary or is Pleasanton PD going to supply some training to their officers on the legality of BBs and OLLs?

I could provide all the training needed in about 5 minutes.
Do you as the inspecting officer need to use anything other then your finger to remove the mag?
Yes, have a nice day.
No, we're going for a little ride.

SJgunguy24
05-07-2011, 11:59 AM
I think *city* of Pleasanton now "gets it".

The issue is statewide, and a result of either DOJ abandoning their duty or assuming the bare minimum work done 10+ years ago despite major changes in court cases and marketplace was sufficient - and despite the statutory requirement for education/promulgation.

If you're statutorily bound regulate and/or do enforcement on items that are common consumer products in common circulation, then your regulatory and promulgation process needs to have a consumer-product-style outreach. Look at how the DMV deals with all sorts of automotive matters in CA, with a variety of booklets, information, helplines, etc. and contrast that with DOJ BoF.

Yes but driving is a privilege and owning a firearm is an enumerated right guaranteed by the supreme law of the land. This state is so backwards sometime it's hard to determine where the head ends and the a**hole begins.
Oh wait.

MrTenX
05-07-2011, 1:23 PM
So, did Mr. Haynie get his rifle back?

the_quark
05-07-2011, 4:17 PM
So, did Mr. Haynie get his rifle back?

Yes, absolutely. As I've said before, unless I'm forgetting someone, in every bullet-button case we've had we've gotten the rifle(s) back.

jtmkinsd
05-07-2011, 4:24 PM
Yes, absolutely. As I've said before, unless I'm forgetting someone, in every bullet-button case we've had we've gotten the rifle(s) back.

I wonder how many there have been? The way the AG framed their argument this was a one time rogue cop who didn't bother to apply the "guide" correctly.

All the more reason a bulletin and/or extra training is required.

oaklander
05-07-2011, 4:37 PM
LOL - I have confidential plates!!!

Typical scenario:

LE: Mr. Oaklander, did you know you have a taillight out?

Oaklander: Yes

LE: You are free to go, have a good day!

:D

And my guess is that's why you're also always haranguing people about cracked windshields!

Seriously though, when I told my wife about this case last night she had two reactions:

1) that's AWESOME!
2) that could have been us!

...as the windshield on one of our cars is cracked and I've just been too lazy to get it replaced. So I've certainly driven back from Chabot with an OLL in that very car...

--Neill

hoffmang
05-07-2011, 4:38 PM
Didn't see it mentioned, but in that settlement, was it only monetary or is Pleasanton PD going to supply some training to their officers on the legality of BBs and OLLs?
I believe that PD's counsel verbally informed us that they had already completed the training so we saw no need to press it when they were making our gunowner whole.
I wonder how many there have been? The way the AG framed their argument this was a one time rogue cop who didn't bother to apply the "guide" correctly.

I could imagine that everyone is about to find out... :43:

-Gene

JB-Norcal
05-07-2011, 4:58 PM
So, can we do a mass mailing to 58 Sheriffs and 58 County DAs? I'll pitch in for the cost of a Certified Mailing.
Count me in, a good defense is a strong offense.
Any reason not to?

Saigon1965
05-07-2011, 5:28 PM
Pleasanton - They have extra cash so take em to the cleaners -

vincewarde
05-07-2011, 6:20 PM
It would be nice to have a similar statement from DOJ. Don't get me wrong, the flow chart is great, it's accurate, it's just not from DOJ.

Librarian
05-07-2011, 6:51 PM
It would be nice to have a similar statement from DOJ. Don't get me wrong, the flow chart is great, it's accurate, it's just not from DOJ.

Since DOJ has a record of inaccuracy, I fail to see how something from them is either here or there.

I do understand that CA's gun law complexity induces some discomfort.

But the essential principle remains 'that which is not forbidden is permitted'.

hoffmang
05-07-2011, 7:00 PM
Count me in, a good defense is a strong offense.
Any reason not to?

There are very good reasons not to do this yet.

-Gene

Barbarossa
05-07-2011, 8:34 PM
Great work CGF!

I was a Pleasanton resident frequently traveling to Chabot and back untill last week.
(Now in Dublin)

My truck even has a cracked window!

Could have easily been me in this guys shoes.

Keep the freedom train rolling!

thedrickel
05-07-2011, 8:49 PM
Would the bulletin include any notice about featureless builds and their legal status?

oaklander
05-07-2011, 9:18 PM
Hmm. . . .

Trying to think!

Maybe it's a less complicated issue? My thinking is that the bullet button "idea" relies on several code sections, and other stuff that I forget. The featureless "idea" just relies on a strict reading of one code section.

Still seems like it should be included.

Would the bulletin include any notice about featureless builds and their legal status?

Cokebottle
05-07-2011, 9:33 PM
My thinking is that the bullet button "idea" relies on several code sections
And one (now two) case law cites.

oaklander
05-07-2011, 9:41 PM
WIN!

And one (now two) case law cites.

Jim_KT
05-07-2011, 9:50 PM
First, and foremost, WOW. Congratulations to those involved!

Second, I just read through the original complaint, dismissed complaint, and motion to dismiss that was posted by Gene at the start of this thread. Forgive me if I'm a bit slow, but does this pertain to just rifles outfitted with the Bullet Button product, or does this include all magazine lock devices? I ask because "bullet button" is used quite a bit, and I interpreted it to be a descriptor and not a singled out item per se.

Lone_Gunman
05-07-2011, 10:00 PM
I just took the time to read through the AG's Motion to Dismiss. WOW! They DO NOT want to issue a bulletin. Seems stubborn and stupid. Guess that's 'cause it is.

luckystrike
05-07-2011, 11:24 PM
big Pleasanton pd fail.

WIN! :party:

hoffmang
05-07-2011, 11:26 PM
Forgive me if I'm a bit slow, but does this pertain to just rifles outfitted with the Bullet Button product, or does this include all magazine lock devices? I ask because "bullet button" is used quite a bit, and I interpreted it to be a descriptor and not a singled out item per se.

It's the generic class of device that alters magazine releases such that they require a tool to remove a magazine. There are disclosures to come that will make that even more clear...

-Gene

donw
05-08-2011, 7:55 AM
congratulations...a well earned and huge win for the CGF.

one thing I've observed over the years is that LE and legislators do NOT like to admit errors and are usually very reluctant, even when beat in court, to admit and concede they are wrong.

this is just one skirmish in the, yet intensifying, war with state legislators...like cornered rats, they get more viscous when confronted.

keep up the good work.

Librarian
05-08-2011, 8:46 AM
like cornered rats, they get more viscous when confronted.

Yes, that is something of a sticky situation; I bet they get vicious, too. :D

As a long-time denizen of alt.folklore.urban (https://groups.google.com/group/alt.answers/msg/63a4b17a62d1a2a3?hl=az), I am reminded of "And as for the voracity [sic] of the source, this is my GRANDMOTHER you're talking about."

Jim_KT
05-08-2011, 8:56 AM
It's the generic class of device that alters magazine releases such that they require a tool to remove a magazine. There are disclosures to come that will make that even more clear...

-Gene

Understood!

BigDogatPlay
05-08-2011, 9:36 AM
I just took the time to read through the AG's Motion to Dismiss. WOW! They DO NOT want to issue a bulletin. Seems stubborn and stupid. Guess that's 'cause it is.

Committing words to paper under the color of a regulatory authority, which CaDoJ clearly has relative to the subject, can open up entirely new avenues of attack. While I am not a lawyer, words still mean things and once published they can come back to bite you in unexpected and unintended ways.

I'd wager they won't publish any update until ordered to by a competent court.

Well played CGF. This is a solid win.

uyoga
05-08-2011, 10:05 AM
Good Job.

We need to continue to help CGF (and others similarly situated) in any manner we can.

These actions are not cheap.

Purple K
05-08-2011, 10:36 AM
WOW!!! Just WOW. I don't log-on for a few days and now look... A bushel full of WIN!

nitroxdiver
05-08-2011, 10:37 AM
Thank you Gene. You and the team are true hero's, and I don't use that term lightly.
John

Window_Seat
05-08-2011, 11:01 AM
So, can we do a mass mailing to 58 Sheriffs and 58 County DAs? I'll pitch in for the cost of a Certified Mailing.Count me in, a good defense is a strong offense.
Any reason not to?There are very good reasons not to do this yet.

-Gene


Just one thing I wanted to know (at this point), thanks Gene.

Erik.

Which Way Out
05-08-2011, 11:22 AM
Spike the Ball !!!

pdugan6
05-08-2011, 11:29 AM
great victory.

Kavey
05-08-2011, 3:00 PM
This filing is an admission in a Federal Court by the Attorney General of California that a properly installed bullet button on an off list rifle is not a semiautomatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

You can't get much more affirmative or official than that. It's in some ways more binding than an official AG "opinion" as it's a position taken in an adversarial Federal action.

-Gene

Excellent work, Mr. Hoffman, I'm truly impressed.

If I may, I would like to ask the following question on the general subject California compliant AR's and AK's: Since the effective date of California's last AW law (SB23), which, do you believe, has resulted in more arrests by "confused" LEO's – OLL Bullet Button equipped rifles or OLL No Features builds?

Anybody else in a position to know, please comment.

hoffmang
05-08-2011, 3:50 PM
If I may, I would like to ask the following question on the general subject California compliant AR's and AK's: Since the effective date of California's last AW law (SB23), which, do you believe, has resulted in more arrests by "confused" LEO's – OLL Bullet Button equipped rifles or OLL No Features builds?


I actually can't come up with an instance where a featureless build lead to an arrest (for just gun owners.) There have been arrests that have a featureless rifle, but there was also a featured firearm that drove the arrest. There was one incident for an FFL which we fought and won.

-Gene

ptoguy2002
05-08-2011, 4:40 PM
Good work.
Awesome

the_quark
05-08-2011, 4:56 PM
I actually can't come up with an instance where a featureless build lead to an arrest (for just gun owners.) There have been arrests that have a featureless rifle, but there was also a featured firearm that drove the arrest. There was one incident for an FFL which we fought and won.

-Gene

I'll second this. We had a case where a gentleman was arrested with a featured-non-detachable-magazine build and a featureless detachable magazine build. Can't say which "caused" the arrest, though, and that's probably a meaningless question in that situation.

That said, this is probably a reflection of the relative popularity of the two types - I get the feeling that featured builds are more popular, so you'd expect them to get most of the arrests as a matter of simple statistics.

sh0t1
05-09-2011, 7:50 AM
Great work!

Time to donate some more money to the foundation!!!

Untamed1972
05-09-2011, 10:54 AM
This filing is an admission in a Federal Court by the Attorney General of California that a properly installed bullet button on an off list rifle is not a semiautomatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

You can't get much more affirmative or official than that. It's in some ways more binding than an official AG "opinion" as it's a position taken in an adversarial Federal action.

-Gene


So does this also include that as long as there is a properly installed and functional BB that having an empty magwell, like when transporting, DOES NOT make the rifle illegal?

I mean we all know that is the case, but does the DOJ admission cover the empty magwell condition?

mdimeo
05-09-2011, 11:25 AM
There are very good reasons not to do this yet.

-Gene

I just remembered the various opinion letters from the DOJ early on when the whole OLL thing was ramping up here.

Can we use a similar procedure to get the DOJ to review the flowchart for accuracy, and provide a written response saying it's correct? (Obviously we know it's correct, but some more official sanction would be nice).

Librarian
05-09-2011, 11:30 AM
So does this also include that as long as there is a properly installed and functional BB that having an empty magwell, like when transporting, DOES NOT make the rifle illegal?

I mean we all know that is the case, but does the DOJ admission cover the empty magwell condition?

The law covers the empty mag well condition.

An empty mag well is not significant, and never has been.

What matters is, when a magazine is inserted, it takes a tool to disassemble that magazine from the rifle.

dantodd
05-09-2011, 12:05 PM
So does this also include that as long as there is a properly installed and functional BB that having an empty magwell, like when transporting, DOES NOT make the rifle illegal?

I mean we all know that is the case, but does the DOJ admission cover the empty magwell condition?

The firearm at issue in this case had an empty magwell, so yes, they are def. covered.

dantodd
05-09-2011, 12:05 PM
Will Mr. Haynie be getting a Finding of Factual Innocence?

hoffmang
05-09-2011, 12:09 PM
Will Mr. Haynie be getting a Finding of Factual Innocence?

*facepalm* In the OP I mention that he got a finding of factual innocence and that fact is repeated in all the court filings I linked to... :rolleyes:

So. Yes.

-Gene

Untamed1972
05-09-2011, 12:09 PM
The law covers the empty mag well condition.

An empty mag well is not significant, and never has been.

What matters is, when a magazine is inserted, it takes a tool to disassemble that magazine from the rifle.

That's my point.....we all here know that, but I recall numerous reports of LEOs claiming a rifle was an AW because there was no mag inserted despite there being a BB installed, I remember a case specifically posted here about SDPD refusing to return a seized rifle on those very grounds.

But I do see how the wording of the AGs statement saying this arrest was incorrect would cover that condition.

dantodd
05-09-2011, 12:22 PM
*facepalm* In the OP I mention that he got a finding of factual innocence and that fact is repeated in all the court filings I linked to... :rolleyes:

So. Yes.

-Gene

Ooops. Sorry for wasting your time on that one. Don't know how I missed it the third time 'round. I'm sure I saw it the first few times which is why I didn't ask earlier.

pacrimguru
05-09-2011, 1:39 PM
bravo gentlemen, let's keep fighting the good fight. cgf donation coming in!

mdimeo
05-09-2011, 1:48 PM
The law covers the empty mag well condition.

An empty mag well is not significant, and never has been.

What matters is, when a magazine is inserted, it takes a tool to disassemble that magazine from the rifle.

I think the best way to explain this is that a BB rifle with empty mag well doesn't have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. It has the capacity to accept a non-detachable magazine, which is ok.

cfm117
05-09-2011, 1:49 PM
People are still getting arrested by out of the loop PD's 6 years later. How long does it take for them to come out of their little bubble?

scarville
05-09-2011, 2:07 PM
Looks like Harris is admitting the bullet button makes the gun legal but she doesn't want anyone to know about it.

goober
05-09-2011, 2:42 PM
Great work on this, CGF! :cheers2:
This is a very, very Good Thing™. :D

tomah
05-09-2011, 2:52 PM
exxxxxxxxxxxcellent! *insert mr. burns picture*

advocatusdiaboli
05-09-2011, 3:20 PM
Looks like Harris is admitting the bullet button makes the gun legal but she doesn't want anyone to know about it.

Of course. They don't want people exercising their Federal rights. They'd love it if they got to re-write the Bill of Rights—California style. It would fit on a postcard—with room for advertisements to help support the debt for the social welfare programs for illegals.

rojocorsa
05-09-2011, 4:00 PM
This is great news. CGF FTMFW!


But, please forgive my ignorance on the topic. Does this have any implications for AR/AK type featureless rifles?

huck
05-09-2011, 4:51 PM
Yes, I know this was discussed earlier in the post, but...

I'm still really bugged that they referred to his rifle as a "Colt AR-15". It's even a problem in the sentence where it's used in the motion (...when Pleasanton Police thought that his Colt AR-15 was a banned weapon.) A Colt AR-15 IS a banned weapon.

What bugs me most of all is that this motion must have been vetted by a dozen people - most of them attorneys. Are they ALL idiots? Didn't someone there say, "Hey! That gun IS illegal" and then find out that it was wrong and try to fix it? No, because these people drafting and sometimes enforcing gun laws know nothing about guns or they wouldn't be doing it.

dantodd
05-09-2011, 4:58 PM
*facepalm* In the OP I mention that he got a finding of factual innocence and that fact is repeated in all the court filings I linked to... :rolleyes:

So. Yes.

-Gene

I hope my act of contrition was adequate. ;)

1puttkehr
05-09-2011, 4:59 PM
Congrats! New to the group but glad there are people like defending our rights.

supersonic
05-09-2011, 5:22 PM
Well, as per my usual modus operandi, I am fashionably late to the party. Great job to all involved. I can't believe how worm-like the BOF are. Despicable egos running rampant (when there is absolutely nothing to be egotistical about). DOUCHEY OLD JACKASSES.:D

craneman
05-09-2011, 5:29 PM
Simply Awesome! Thank You CGF.

goober
05-09-2011, 6:37 PM
Yes, I know this was discussed earlier in the post, but...

I'm still really bugged that they referred to his rifle as a "Colt AR-15". It's even a problem in the sentence where it's used in the motion (...when Pleasanton Police thought that his Colt AR-15 was a banned weapon.) A Colt AR-15 IS a banned weapon.

What bugs me most of all is that this motion must have been vetted by a dozen people - most of them attorneys. Are they ALL idiots? Didn't someone there say, "Hey! That gun IS illegal" and then find out that it was wrong and try to fix it? No, because these people drafting and sometimes enforcing gun laws know nothing about guns or they wouldn't be doing it.

it is all too ironic, isn't it? :rolleyes:

jaymz
05-09-2011, 6:37 PM
Fanfriggintastic!!!

OHOD
05-09-2011, 6:42 PM
Sweet.

GettoPhilosopher
05-09-2011, 7:07 PM
I'll second this. We had a case where a gentleman was arrested with a featured-non-detachable-magazine build and a featureless detachable magazine build. Can't say which "caused" the arrest, though, and that's probably a meaningless question in that situation.

That said, this is probably a reflection of the relative popularity of the two types - I get the feeling that featured builds are more popular, so you'd expect them to get most of the arrests as a matter of simple statistics.

Just a WAG, but it seems that the greater visual difference might make uninformed LEOs less likely to arrest over a featureless build as well. "Oh, this weird looking gun isn't an AW" vs "No officer, this weapon that looks identical to the vaunted cop/baby killing AK47 isn't an AW, it has a very small metal device attached!".

As I said, </WAG>.


People are still getting arrested by out of the loop PD's 6 years later. How long does it take for them to come out of their little bubble?

I'd guess approximately exactly 6 years. ;)

AaronHorrocks
05-09-2011, 7:43 PM
Wow - nothing to see here - except for more WIN.

:D

The whole WINNING thing is not just a meme - it's an accurate reflection of our overall progress here. . .

We don't win until all U.S. government agencies conceed that any firearm bans or regulations are a violation of the content, intent, and wishes of the writers, of the United States Constitution.

mosinnagantm9130
05-09-2011, 7:46 PM
exxxxxxxxxxxcellent! *insert mr. burns picture*

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_k_ICSkAB1hk/TKLZPZI8dsI/AAAAAAAAGfc/eNMbqc1EEWw/s1600/simpsons_mr_burns_excellent.jpg

BroncoBob
05-09-2011, 8:18 PM
Excellent! Each and every win is sweet.

jacques
05-09-2011, 8:55 PM
It is too bad Mark had to go through that.:( But the outcome is great!!!!!:D

hoffmang
05-09-2011, 10:41 PM
I hope my act of contrition was adequate. ;)

Oh yeah - no worries. I tried to figure out how to tone down my "callout" but it wasn't easy... ;)

-Gene

oaklander
05-10-2011, 6:45 AM
Do you see that happening? You seriously need to stop watching "Red Dawn" reruns.

Winning in real life is different than winning in the movies or COD.

Also, I don't recall ever meeting you at any event. Have you at least tried stepping away from the keyboard? The screen resolution in the real world is amazing! It looks just like real life!

We don't win until all U.S. government agencies conceed that any firearm bans or regulations are a violation of the content, intent, and wishes of the writers, of the United States Constitution.



Via Android. Excuse brevity.

oaklander
05-10-2011, 7:03 AM
DT and GH,

Don't start getting all nice on us! That will just confuse people!

:kiss:

Oh yeah - no worries. I tried to figure out how to tone down my "callout" but it wasn't easy... ;)

-Gene



Via Android. Excuse brevity.

GutPunch
05-10-2011, 7:19 AM
Woot! Good job CGF.

resqme
05-10-2011, 7:29 AM
Yes, this is my first post. I'm a lurker.

Just want to remind everyone that this stuff isn't free. Reading this, I realized I spend hundreds each year on firearms, but am not helping keep them legal. So I joined the forum and dropped some coin on Calguns Foundation. Seems only fair.

Thanks, Calguns!

supersonic
05-10-2011, 7:53 AM
Woot! Good job CGF.

Ah, yes...I forgot to put in my woots. WOOT! WOOT!:shock::excl:

Yes, this is my first post. I'm a lurker.

Just want to remind everyone that this stuff isn't free. Reading this, I realized I spend hundreds each year on firearms, but am not helping keep them legal. So I joined the forum and dropped some coin on Calguns Foundation. Seems only fair.

Thanks, Calguns!

'Atta boy! That's the way to do it.:thumbsup:

Barbarossa
05-10-2011, 8:01 AM
Yes, this is my first post. I'm a lurker.

Just want to remind everyone that this stuff isn't free. Reading this, I realized I spend hundreds each year on firearms, but am not helping keep them legal. So I joined the forum and dropped some coin on Calguns Foundation. Seems only fair.

Thanks, Calguns!

Awesome!

Make sure you donate to http://calgunsfoundation.org as well!

greasemonkey
05-10-2011, 8:43 AM
CGF FTMFEW (that's for the, uh, epic win).


iEZo84KNxKs

Now having read this awesome news, go take The Pistolero Challenge!

DSA_FAL
05-10-2011, 10:12 AM
Great job team CGF!

DocClark340
05-10-2011, 12:00 PM
I carry the laws and regulations with me in my AR rifle case on the off chance I run into the same situation.
Now I have absolutely no idea if this will make a difference to the potential arresting officer but intend to tell him I have paperwork on my rifle and present him with the laws. If he reads it, now that’s another story.
We can only hope that a rookie cop hell bent on “Enforcing the Law” has the common sense to at least hear what you have to say and read your documents.

You can’t fix “Stupid”

Keep up the fight…………………….

:26::26::26::26:

orion5457
05-10-2011, 1:31 PM
We don't win until all U.S. government agencies conceed that any firearm bans or regulations are a violation of the content, intent, and wishes of the writers, of the United States Constitution.

I agree I am not sure we won anything either...Until our gun laws reflect those of a free state, I am not sure there is anything to party or be happy about...

oaklander
05-10-2011, 1:55 PM
Guys - something I need to ALSO remind you about is THIS:

CGF is an all volunteer organization. That means that a HUGE percentage (likely, nearly 100 percent) goes directly to fun stuff like this. . .

Again - WINNING!

greasemonkey
05-10-2011, 2:39 PM
I agree I am not sure we won anything either...Until our gun laws reflect those of a free state, I am not sure there is anything to party or be happy about...

:confused::rolleyes: What do you expect to happen, do you think we're just going to go to sleep and wake up to a 'free state'? How on earth do you expect to arrive at a destination or achieve a goal if you don't take it one step at a time?!
We have to celebrate the victories (and this is a pretty big deal to have substantially more standing on the legality of BB'd rifles and to greatly reduce the threat of wrongful arrest for BB'd OLL's).

It's not as is if CGF is saying "okay, it's all good, we can go home now". This is one of many, many steps and it's exciting that positive progress is being made continually.

SJgunguy24
05-10-2011, 3:14 PM
Yes, I know this was discussed earlier in the post, but...

I'm still really bugged that they referred to his rifle as a "Colt AR-15". It's even a problem in the sentence where it's used in the motion (...when Pleasanton Police thought that his Colt AR-15 was a banned weapon.) A Colt AR-15 IS a banned weapon.

What bugs me most of all is that this motion must have been vetted by a dozen people - most of them attorneys. Are they ALL idiots? Didn't someone there say, "Hey! That gun IS illegal" and then find out that it was wrong and try to fix it? No, because these people drafting and sometimes enforcing gun laws know nothing about guns or they wouldn't be doing it.

Not all Colt AR 15's are listed. This is another reason why these laws are wrong on so many levels. Add in a spineless gun hating, cop hating, illegal pandering AG who won't put her oath and duty before her feelings and this is what we get. More lives ruined, more tax dollars wasted, more black eyes for those who have to enforce these laws.

Write Winger
05-10-2011, 3:28 PM
Chalk another one up to "ignorance of the law is no excuse" going both ways.

You can't win if you never fight. Freedom is often won by killing tyranny with a thousand little cuts.

Gene, for every win do you put another notch in you belt or bedpost? :D

goober
05-10-2011, 3:33 PM
Not all Colt AR 15's are listed...

Roberti-Roos list says Colt: AR-15 (all)
which Colt AR-15's aren't listed? The ones not included in "all"?
:confused:

Write Winger
05-10-2011, 3:38 PM
I may be wrong, but if the receiver is labeled a "Colt Mambie Pambie - 15" it would be an off list lower because it wouldn't then be a "Colt AR15", get it?

goober
05-10-2011, 3:44 PM
I may be wrong, but if the receiver is labeled a "Colt Mambie Pambie - 15" it would be an off list lower because it wouldn't then be a "Colt AR15", get it?

yes, the labeling defines the model.
yes, "Colt Mambie Pambie - 15" is off-list.
that's because by their definition, a "Colt Mambie Pambie - 15" is not a Colt AR-15.
ergo, all Colt AR-15's are listed.
if Colt called it an AR-15, and labeled it as such, it's listed.

CHS
05-10-2011, 3:45 PM
Not all Colt AR 15's are listed

Not all COLT's are listed.

But ALL Colt AR-15's are listed.

RRangel
05-10-2011, 3:46 PM
Roberti-Roos list says Colt: AR-15 (all)
which Colt AR-15's aren't listed? The ones not included in "all"?
:confused:

I'm almost certain that there are certain Colt AR pattern rifles that were not called "AR-15" for whatever reason and that's probably what the poster was referring to. The state certainly can't classify "series" as illegal because Harrott v. County of Kings took care of that. It's make and model only. The very reason we can have OLLs.

CHS
05-10-2011, 4:02 PM
I'm almost certain that there are certain Colt AR pattern rifles that were not called "AR-15" for whatever reason and that's probably what the poster was referring to. The state certainly can't classify "series" as illegal because Harrott v. County of Kings took care of that. It's make and model only. The very reason we can have OLLs.

*FACEPALM*

Colt AR-15 is a explicit make and model of firearm with a few variants.

ALL Colt AR-15's are banned by make and model via the Roberti Roos AW list. All Colt AR-15's are Category 1 assault weapons.

If it doesn't say "Colt" AND "AR-15" on it, it's NOT a Colt AR-15.

The court document mistakenly says "Colt AR-15", which is a banned firearm regardless of how many bullet buttons you put on it.

huck
05-10-2011, 4:03 PM
The fact remains that Mr Haynie didn't have a COLT anything. And this Motion to Dismiss could lead someone to beleive that their Colt AR-15 with a bullet button is legal.

CHS
05-10-2011, 4:04 PM
The fact remains that Mr Haynie didn't have a COLT anything. And this Motion to Dismiss could lead someone to beleive that their Colt AR-15 with a bullet button is legal.

EXACTLY :)

BigDogatPlay
05-10-2011, 4:08 PM
I agree I am not sure we won anything either...Until our gun laws reflect those of a free state, I am not sure there is anything to party or be happy about...

They've done the damage to our rights with incremental steps. The only way we can ever achieve your ideal is by taking those incremental steps back one step at a time. That is how the law works, for the most part. And so does life. Getting our gun laws here in California to equal those of a 'free state' is not something that is going to happen overnight, perhaps even in this century.

Each one of those tiny steps that is rolled back is a win for us, and needs to be celebrated appropriately lest we become discouraged that the road ahead is too far and that giving up becomes an attractive alternative.

We have to keep fighting and keep moving forward.

RRangel
05-10-2011, 4:36 PM
*FACEPALM*

Colt AR-15 is a explicit make and model of firearm with a few variants.

ALL Colt AR-15's are banned by make and model via the Roberti Roos AW list. All Colt AR-15's are Category 1 assault weapons.

If it doesn't say "Colt" AND "AR-15" on it, it's NOT a Colt AR-15.

The court document mistakenly says "Colt AR-15", which is a banned firearm regardless of how many bullet buttons you put on it.

Yes, I just tried to say the same thing, but differently. Thanks.

greasemonkey
05-10-2011, 4:59 PM
*FACEPALM*

Colt AR-15 is a explicit make and model of firearm with a few variants.

ALL Colt AR-15's are banned by make and model via the Roberti Roos AW list. All Colt AR-15's are Category 1 assault weapons.

If it doesn't say "Colt" AND "AR-15" on it, it's NOT a Colt AR-15.

The court document mistakenly says "Colt AR-15", which is a banned firearm regardless of how many bullet buttons you put on it.

What if it had 15 bullet buttons installed?

CHS
05-10-2011, 5:03 PM
What if it had 15 bullet buttons installed?

Then it would be a Colt AR-30. Since those are off-list, they are legal in CA. :cool2:

N6ATF
05-10-2011, 5:14 PM
LMFAO

Jpsfirstresponse
05-10-2011, 6:17 PM
who's cgf and what are good attorneys for any gun case?

greasemonkey
05-10-2011, 6:35 PM
who's cgf and what are good attorneys for any gun case?

CGF is the CalGuns Foundation
www.calgunsfoundation.org - under the 'Resources' tab are a few helpful info links, one of which is the CGF Wiki, a very comprehensive listing of California firearms laws.
As for good firearms attorneys, see the 'Help Hotline' section, also on the home page.

glockwise2000
05-10-2011, 9:59 PM
So does this thread means that those leaflets and instructions on the BBs being sold can be change from:
"This Lock Kit has Not been approved by CA DOJ" to
"This lock kit has been approved by CA DOJ provided that the kit has been installed properly"?

jltapia
05-11-2011, 10:55 AM
Great news. Good job CGF, I will go donate right now.

Cokebottle
05-11-2011, 4:25 PM
So does this thread means that those leaflets and instructions on the BBs being sold can be change from:
"This Lock Kit has Not been approved by CA DOJ" to
"This lock kit has been approved by CA DOJ provided that the kit has been installed properly on a Colt AR15"?
Fixed it for you ;)

But seriously, I don't think we'll ever get a formal approval for any product, and I would not want to be the manufacturer to make such a claim and be taken to task by an attorney if/when the purchaser gets arrested.

But I do think that the manufacturers can comfortably remove that reference from their packaging, and honestly, I would have never had it there in the first place.
Rather, they should have the flowchart and PD memos on their web site, with a link to that page on the packaging.

glockwise2000
05-11-2011, 5:15 PM
Fixed it for you ;)

I was thinking on adding the AR-15 on the end of my statement but the BBs are used on other rifles too like AKs, etc....

goober
05-11-2011, 6:01 PM
I was thinking on adding the AR-15 on the end of my statement but the BBs are used on other rifles too like AKs, etc....

it was a joke. clearly you missed it. :rolleyes:

OHW
05-15-2011, 12:57 PM
We don't win until all U.S. government agencies conceed that any firearm bans or regulations are a violation of the content, intent, and wishes of the writers, of the United States Constitution.

^^^^this^^^^

Pecking away one small battle at the time is annoying. We fight on their turf by their rules instead of going for broke on the intent of the 2nd.

Librarian
05-15-2011, 4:28 PM
^^^^this^^^^

Pecking away one small battle at the time is annoying. We fight on their turf by their rules instead of going for broke on the intent of the 2nd.

and if we 'go for broke' and lose, we step back another decade to undo the damage.

The antis had decades to make all the bad stuff seem 'main stream'. Plan to be 'annoyed' while a sound legal foundation is laid and built on to undo the damage.

curtisfong
05-15-2011, 5:16 PM
Pecking away one small battle at the time is annoying.


Boo hoo. Do you want to win or not?

going for broke

Well. I guess you answered my question. You'd rather be broke than annoyed.

oaklander
05-15-2011, 6:22 PM
What do you do for a living?

Problems like this require a different way of thinking than what you are used to. You don't even realize that we've actually changed the "turf" here, do you???

The fact that you don't even understand that we've changed the playing field makes me think that you may not understand much at all. . .

^^^^this^^^^

Pecking away one small battle at the time is annoying. We fight on their turf by their rules instead of going for broke on the intent of the 2nd.

oaklander
05-15-2011, 6:24 PM
That sounds exciting! What would a reasonable timeline be for this event?

We don't win until all U.S. government agencies conceed that any firearm bans or regulations are a violation of the content, intent, and wishes of the writers, of the United States Constitution.

wchutt
05-19-2011, 6:00 AM
So, is it legal to remove a empty fixed magazine with a tool, and replace it with a non-removable loaded magazine?

CHS
05-19-2011, 8:03 AM
So, is it legal to remove a empty fixed magazine with a tool, and replace it with a non-removable loaded magazine?

Of course. That's why the bullet button was designed in the first place.

Wherryj
05-19-2011, 9:55 AM
From Gene's post: Some background. Mark Haynie was arrested February 7, 2009 by Pleasanton PD on the way back from Chabot with an OLL, bullet button correctly installed, and empty magazine well, and a cracked windshield that created the stop in the first place.

I'd put money on a bet as to the cause of his cracked windshield. The poor guy probably ended up getting pulled over thanks to Pleasanton's insistence to keep its gravel quarry open by hauling gravel from Tracy to Pleasanton's depleted quarry.

I've had two shattered windshields in the past two years thanks to all of the gravel that gets thrown from those trucks onto 580, Isabel and Stanley. I'm just lucky that I haven't been pulled over due to my currently cracked windshield-I'm really getting tired of paying $800 to replace it and haven't gotten around to it.

Back to the thread's point: Great job by CGF and Don Kilmer-and any others that I missed on this one. Removing the ambiguity of laws in CA is an important step in keeping the law abiding citizen from getting caught in the "justice" system that seems all too eager to grind up an honest gun owning citizen.

wchutt
05-19-2011, 10:00 AM
Of course. That's why the bullet button was designed in the first place.

What I have heard at local gun shops is that you should never disconnect your magazine at the range, only if you are cleaning it. FUD I would then assume. I have started a build, want to stay legal!

DocSkinner
05-19-2011, 10:07 AM
What I have heard at local gun shops is that you should never disconnect your magazine at the range, only if you are cleaning it. FUD I would then assume. I have started a build, want to stay legal!

You get a lot of FUD at local gun shops - and not just about bullet buttons!

goober
05-19-2011, 10:44 AM
What I have heard at local gun shops is that you should never disconnect your magazine at the range, only if you are cleaning it. FUD I would then assume. I have started a build, want to stay legal!

your assumption (of FUD) is correct. as long as you use only non-detachable (must use a tool to remove) magazines capable of holding 10 rounds or less in your featured, bullet button equipped semi-automatic centerfre rifle, you may remove the magazine (using a tool) all you want, for reloading, changing/replenishing ammo, cleaning, or any other reason.
NEVER insert a magazine capable of holding > 10 rounds in your bullet button equipped semi-automatic centerfre rifle, as that would constitute creation of an AW per PC § 12276.1 (a)(2). (In California)

CHS
05-19-2011, 10:58 AM
What I have heard at local gun shops is that you should never disconnect your magazine at the range, only if you are cleaning it. FUD I would then assume. I have started a build, want to stay legal!

It's FUD based on the confusion between "detachable" and "removable".

The magazine cannot be detachable. Detachable is defined very specifically in the penal code so it DOES NOT follow the dictionary definition of detachable.

A detachable magazine can be removable. No problem. It just requires a tool. And if it requires a tool, then it's NOT detachable, even if it's removable.

Makes perfect sense, right?

tonelar
05-19-2011, 11:16 AM
Indeed. I believe there isnt an auto loader made whose magazine can't be separated from the weapon upon dissassembly. So, their desire to not face EVERY semi auto owner in the state over the AWB is what gave us the ability to go BB OLL.

Very cool WIN. I wana lami of this pdf to go with the flowcharts etc (i keep in my range bags).

Donation to CGF inbound.

wchutt
05-19-2011, 11:18 AM
It's FUD based on the confusion between "detachable" and "removable".

The magazine cannot be detachable. Detachable is defined very specifically in the penal code so it DOES NOT follow the dictionary definition of detachable.

A detachable magazine can be removable. No problem. It just requires a tool. And if it requires a tool, then it's NOT detachable, even if it's removable.

Makes perfect sense, right?

It does to me! But I want to avoid drama at the least and court time at the worst.
In summary, in Haynie the DOJ has stated that a bullet button makes it so a tool is required to remove a magazine, therefore the rifle no longer has a detachable magazine per penal code. The rifle may or may not have a magazine in it at any given time, but if a magazine is installed in the rifle it must be no greater than 10 rounds. Using a tool to remove a magazine is legal, no matter what the purpose of removing the magazine is.

Librarian
05-19-2011, 12:29 PM
It's FUD based on the confusion between "detachable" and "removable".

The magazine cannot be detachable. Detachable is defined very specifically in the penal code so it DOES NOT follow the dictionary definition of detachable.

A detachable magazine can be removable. No problem. It just requires a tool. And if it requires a tool, then it's NOT detachable, even if it's removable.

Makes perfect sense, right?

More precisely, the weapon cannot accept 'detachable magazines' - that is, the qualifying attribute applies to the weapon itself, and has little to do with the magazines.

If a weapon has a properly installed and operating magazine lock device (such as a 'bullet button'), any magazine inserted will thereafter require the use of a tool to disassemble that magazine from the weapon.

The presence or absence of a magazine in the magazine well does not matter.

goober
05-19-2011, 12:48 PM
More precisely, the weapon cannot accept 'detachable magazines' - that is, the qualifying attribute applies to the weapon itself, and has little to do with the magazines.

If a weapon has a properly installed and operating magazine lock device (such as a 'bullet button'), any magazine inserted will thereafter require the use of a tool to disassemble that magazine from the weapon.

The presence or absence of a magazine in the magazine well does not matter.

well, isn't it the combination of firearm and magazine that determines "detachable-ness"?
i mean there could be magazines that, when inserted into a rifle with a (normally) properly installed and operating magazine lock device, remained detachable.
insert a magazine that the mag lock works with, and you're fine.
insert one that can be detached (removed without using a tool) and you have a AW.

randian
05-19-2011, 1:04 PM
OK, so the DOJ says that a bulletin to all LEA's and DA's in the state is pointless.
Au contraire. It is not pointless. You miss the grand strategy at work. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for peons like you and me, but it is for LEOs. They have qualified immunity when they do bad acts in alleged ignorance. The lack of a bulletin facilitates bad arrests because LEOs will claim they were never notified by CA-DOJ. I believe this to be intentional.

Librarian
05-19-2011, 1:20 PM
well, isn't it the combination of firearm and magazine that determines "detachable-ness"?
i mean there could be magazines that, when inserted into a rifle with a (normally) properly installed and operating magazine lock device, remained detachable.
insert a magazine that the mag lock works with, and you're fine.
insert one that can be detached (removed without using a tool) and you have a AW.

I would call those - "magazines that, when inserted into a rifle with a (normally) properly installed and operating magazine lock device, remained detachable" - "broken" and I would throw them away. I would expect them to just fall out of the mag well, as they would not properly seat and engage the whatever-it-is-the-mag-release-manipulates (don't know the part name)magazine catch (I looked it up :)).

goober
05-19-2011, 1:34 PM
I would call those - "magazines that, when inserted into a rifle with a (normally) properly installed and operating magazine lock device, remained detachable" - "broken" and I would throw them away. I would expect them to just fall out of the mag well, as they would not properly seat and engage the whatever-it-is-the-mag-release-manipulates (don't know the part name).

broken, worn, purposely altered, meant for another firearm, etc... there are a number of ways this could (hypothetically) occur.
whatever the reason, if used then the combination of firearm and magazine constitutes a centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. if it has features, its an AW.
i'm just trying to make the point that saying it's all about the firearm isn't quite accurate, since it also depends on the magazine used.

while probably correct under normal circumstances, the theory that a mag that would remain detachable despite a mag lock being installed would just fall out is moot.

Librarian
05-19-2011, 1:58 PM
broken, worn, purposely altered, meant for another firearm, etc... there are a number of ways this could (hypothetically) occur.
whatever the reason, if used then the combination of firearm and magazine constitutes a centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. if it has features, its an AW.
i'm just trying to make the point that saying it's all about the firearm isn't quite accurate, since it also depends on the magazine used.

while probably correct under normal circumstances, the theory that a mag that would remain detachable despite a mag lock being installed would just fall out is moot.
Well, my exact statement was 'little to do with the magazines'; in some abnormal cases, clearly 'little' is not 'nothing'.

It is a continuing annoying feature of California laws that one needs to consider very unusual cases as if they might be common.

goober
05-19-2011, 2:02 PM
Well, my exact statement was 'little to do with the magazines'; in some abnormal cases, clearly 'little' is not 'nothing'.

It is a continuing annoying feature of California laws that one needs to consider very unusual cases as if they might be common.

So you did, sir. My apologies. Clearly I read "little" and somehow retained "nothing". :o

My quibbling over this matter was in error. I believe we agree.

mlevans66
05-19-2011, 3:43 PM
Great fight and EPIC win. I am glad you guys are fighting instead of me. I would have went ECW on somebody with all that legal crap! LOL

DDXVfan
05-19-2011, 7:39 PM
Great job all, thanks for your hard work.

Cokebottle
05-19-2011, 8:25 PM
I would call those - "magazines that, when inserted into a rifle with a (normally) properly installed and operating magazine lock device, remained detachable" - "broken" and I would throw them away. I would expect them to just fall out of the mag well, as they would not properly seat and engage the whatever-it-is-the-mag-release-manipulates (don't know the part name)magazine catch (I looked it up :)).
broken, worn, purposely altered, meant for another firearm, etc... there are a number of ways this could (hypothetically) occur.
whatever the reason, if used then the combination of firearm and magazine constitutes a centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. if it has features, its an AW.
i'm just trying to make the point that saying it's all about the firearm isn't quite accurate, since it also depends on the magazine used.

while probably correct under normal circumstances, the theory that a mag that would remain detachable despite a mag lock being installed would just fall out is moot.
Not attached.

For a magazine to be "detachable" it first must be "attached"

A magazine that is worn/modified/damaged in such a way so at to allow it to drop from the magwell was never "attached", therefore, it may not be "detachable"... simply because it was never "attachable"

RLTW
05-20-2011, 11:57 PM
That is Great... Awesome Job CGF... Keep up the Great Work!!!:cheers2:

1911_sfca
05-21-2011, 9:16 PM
This filing is an admission in a Federal Court by the Attorney General of California that a properly installed bullet button on an off list rifle is not a semiautomatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

You can't get much more affirmative or official than that. It's in some ways more binding than an official AG "opinion" as it's a position taken in an adversarial Federal action.

-Gene

It not only admits that OLL w/ BB is legal, the filing explicitly calls this arrest improper and a mistake by one LEO / Pleasanton PD. (Which the AG falsely claims they have no power to prevent by issuing updated AW guide or other guidelines.)

hoffmang
05-22-2011, 10:10 AM
It not only admits that OLL w/ BB is legal, the filing explicitly calls this arrest improper and a mistake by one LEO / Pleasanton PD. (Which the AG falsely claims they have no power to prevent by issuing updated AW guide or other guidelines.)

Give me 24 hours to agree very strongly with you here :43:

-Gene

franklinarmory
05-23-2011, 6:36 AM
Au contraire. It is not pointless. You miss the grand strategy at work. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for peons like you and me, but it is for LEOs. They have qualified immunity when they do bad acts in alleged ignorance. The lack of a bulletin facilitates bad arrests because LEOs will claim they were never notified by CA-DOJ. I believe this to be intentional.

I'm not so certain that they have immunity, but rather that their agency will defend them in court so long as it can reasonably be determined that the officer was working within the agency's written policies.

BTW, Great win CGF!

dantodd
05-23-2011, 10:13 AM
I'm not so certain that they have immunity, but rather that their agency will defend them in court so long as it can reasonably be determined that the officer was working within the agency's written policies.

BTW, Great win CGF!

Police in this situation would certainly have "qualified immunity" meaning they cannot be held individually responsible. Piercing this immunity is quite difficult and a simple case of false arrest will not do so. Can one recover costs etc. from the agency etc? Probably, especially since this interpretation is held by the AG's office and it is the responsibility of the agencies to keep up with the laws and train their officers. However; we need a lot more 2A case law before we can go around taking away the homes and other property of cops who arrest honest, law abiding gun owners. Once we get to that point the game changes dramatically.

dantodd
05-23-2011, 11:02 AM
Give me 24 hours to agree very strongly with you here :43:

-Gene

I would say that is "strongly agreeing" with him. Nice work.

hoffmang
05-23-2011, 11:07 AM
I would say that is "strongly agreeing" with him. Nice work.

And of course I was referring to this: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=436300

And my new decleration: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.27.0.pdf

-Gene

dantodd
05-23-2011, 11:17 AM
Declaration is awe inspiring..... numerous examples of their obfuscating and implying to police, DAs and the public that owning a BB could land you in jail and then just a short little blurb at the end. "oh, by the way, they testify under penalty of perjury they've known all along that it's perfectly legal to own one."

bwiese
05-23-2011, 11:54 AM
One other thing we could have added is that DOJ regularly inspects, audits and approves of (thru continuation of state licensing) CA FFLs selling OLL rifles with BBs as legal (along with other configurations).

The DOJ attacks on CA FFLs for OLLs curtailed after the 2007 Sonoma Firearms/John Contos matter closed out - that was pretty much Alison's last ring of the bell, too: she couldn't run it as an AG case, so she had to shop it around to a confused local DA. (End result: guns returned, Fctual Finding of Innocence issued, and more black rifles sold every day.)

Yet while the DOJ BoF was approving-thru-inspection + continued licensure, they were still not issuing valid information, and phone staff was even cautioning individuals about invalid (non)legal issues. The AWIG was not even updated to even reflect Harrott, let alone BulletButton maglock matters.

goober
05-23-2011, 1:42 PM
Give me 24 hours to agree very strongly with you here :43:

-Gene

Well played, sir! :cheers2:

choprzrul
05-23-2011, 2:55 PM
Police in this situation would certainly have "qualified immunity" meaning they cannot be held individually responsible. Piercing this immunity is quite difficult and a simple case of false arrest will not do so. Can one recover costs etc. from the agency etc? Probably, especially since this interpretation is held by the AG's office and it is the responsibility of the agencies to keep up with the laws and train their officers. However; we need a lot more 2A case law before we can go around taking away the homes and other property of cops who arrest honest, law abiding gun owners. Once we get to that point the game changes dramatically.

Civil court for civil rights violations? If each officer involved had to surrender 25% of his pension to each person violated, they would soon stop violating 2A civil rights.

.

HowardW56
05-23-2011, 7:56 PM
Give me 24 hours to agree very strongly with you here :43:

-Gene

Well played, sir! :cheers2:

Very well played........


:King:

Cokebottle
05-23-2011, 7:59 PM
And of course I was referring to this: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=436300

I'd be banned if I typed my verbal reaction to reading this.

Good job guys!