PDA

View Full Version : California Attorney General website hosting expired gun law?


dropcrate.com
08-26-2011, 1:08 PM
First off, HI I am from Texas and my name is Isaac. I was hoping you guys (and ladies) could tell me if this page on your state's AG website is still correct. I did my research and it seems to be referencing an expired law.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/awlist.php

Before I start here is my disclaimer, YES I KNOW EBAY IS EVIL. I hate 'em too but it helps me pay the bills as I can only do so many gun shows.

As you know eBay has a stupid double standard on gun parts. But they are using what I believe to be an expired law on the AG's website as their 'guideline (http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/firearms-weapons-knives.html)'. That just doesn't seem right. The AG shouldn't host expired laws as an unhanded way for a company to mis-inform the public.

Yes I know that eBay won't change their policy... I just want to out them for what they are by getting the AG website update. Any ideas?

Here is the research I did: http://www.dropcrate.com/blog/ebay-uses-expired-california-law-company-policy-08-2011

Interestingly there are over 200 websites (http://www.google.com/search?q=links%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2***.ca.gov%2Ffirearms %2Fawlist.php&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a#q=links:%22http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/awlist.php%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&tbo=1&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=ivns&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=OO5XTpeNLqP-sQLjp6XEDA&ved=0CBEQpwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=8611df39e77e29eb&biw=1680&bih=921) that reference the AG's expired webpage, so plenty of people are getting misinformed.

paul0660
08-26-2011, 1:11 PM
If you are asking if the CALIFORNIA AWB is still in effect, yes it is and that page is for real.

Crom
08-26-2011, 1:17 PM
The CA DOJ webpage is not entirely accurate. That is not news to us. Follow this flowchart (http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf) for how to stay legal in CA. Also please do reference our Wiki on Off List Lowers (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Off_List_Lowers_%28OLL/OLR%29)

dropcrate.com
08-26-2011, 2:04 PM
I am just saying that this DOJ AG website isn't correct right?

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/awlist.php

The following designated semiautomatic firearms are assault weapons:

(a) All of the following specified rifles: (1) All AK series including, but not limited to, the models identified as follows: (A) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S.


Because as my research and your flowchart shows not ALL AKs are evil assualt weapons based soley on the name per the current California laws. They must either be specifically listed or have predefined features.

Shouldn't there be some way to get the AG website to remove dead pages so they don't appear to be current law?

IGOTDIRT4U
08-26-2011, 2:15 PM
I am just saying that this DOJ AG website isn't correct right?

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/awlist.php

The following designated semiautomatic firearms are assault weapons:

(a) All of the following specified rifles: (1) All AK series including, but not limited to, the models identified as follows: (A) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S.


Because as my research and your flowchart shows not ALL AKs are evil assualt weapons based soley on the name per the current California laws. They must either be specifically listed or have predefined features.

Shouldn't there be some way to get the AG website to remove dead pages so they don't appear to be current law?

The list issue can be confusing. The ones listed by SB 23 and the ones listed on the page you linked, are banned. All others, if otherwise compliant to the flowchart, are ok. It's the name stamped on the product that leads to an AW issue. The OLL's are "new" renamed lowers, same for the "AK" style of receiver. They are in specwise the same as an AK, but do not have "AK" stampings.

I think I just confused myself!

stix213
08-26-2011, 2:25 PM
I am just saying that this DOJ AG website isn't correct right?

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/awlist.php

The following designated semiautomatic firearms are assault weapons:

(a) All of the following specified rifles: (1) All AK series including, but not limited to, the models identified as follows: (A) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S.


Because as my research and your flowchart shows not ALL AKs are evil assualt weapons based soley on the name per the current California laws. They must either be specifically listed or have predefined features.

Shouldn't there be some way to get the AG website to remove dead pages so they don't appear to be current law?

The AK & AR series language was ruled unconstitutional in the CA Supreme Court in Harrott vs County of Kings (2001). All banned AK & AR firearms have to be specifically listed by make & model. The CA DOJ leaves the series language in documentation on their website even though they know it is inaccurate, probably because they like the chilling effect it has by misinforming people (my opinion).

Note that our anti-gunners here are so stupid that "makes" for imported arms use the importer instead of the manufacturer. The full list of make/models which are banned are listed in the already mentioned flowchart.

Also note that the anti-gunners here are so stupid that they forgot to ever update the banned list with new makes/models, and when they finally figured it out they realized we would get to all register them as "registered assault weapons" which would allow us to remove the bullet button mag locks, etc. Instead the CA .gov has chosen to permanently freeze the list. So all makes/models that aren't on the list specifically have little chance of ever being banned from then on (assuming properly configured).

IGOTDIRT4U
08-26-2011, 2:34 PM
Also note that the anti-gunners here are so stupid that they forgot to ever update the banned list with new makes/models, and when they finally figured it out they realized we would get to all register them as "registered assault weapons" which would allow us to remove the bullet button mag locks, etc. Instead the CA .gov has chosen to permanently freeze the list. So all makes/models that aren't on the list specifically have little chance of ever being banned from then on (assuming properly configured).

:D:D:D

dropcrate.com
08-26-2011, 2:41 PM
Thanks IGOTDIRT4U, that.... well doesn't really make sense to a Texan... but I see the end goal. So it seems that just using the term "AK" seems to make them an AW per California rules which is all that matters to eBay.

We can shoot most anything in North Texas, just has to be done while enduring our summer heat without your beaches or mountains! Its a sacrafice and the trade off.

SJgunguy24
08-26-2011, 2:53 PM
The DOJ beleives intimidation, half truths, ambigous regulations, and outright lies are not just the policy for harassing law abiding citizens, they make it a standard in order to work there. The constitution, their oath of office, orders from the bench, and the law have no place in that corrupt agency.
Kamala Harris, the states top law enforcement officer is a noted and documented cop hater. If you want a straight answer from them you'll need to call a dozen times and pick the answers that kinda match.

IGOTDIRT4U
08-26-2011, 2:56 PM
Thanks IGOTDIRT4U, that.... well doesn't really make sense to a Texan... but I see the end goal. So it seems that just using the term "AK" seems to make them an AW per California rules which is all that matters to eBay.

We can shoot most anything in North Texas, just has to be done while enduring our summer heat without your beaches or mountains! Its a sacrafice and the trade off.

Good luck with your business endeavours! And I have a sister in Austin and a good friend just moved to Keller. They love the lack of dumb regulations.

stix213
08-26-2011, 3:10 PM
Shouldn't there be some way to get the AG website to remove dead pages so they don't appear to be current law?

We're trying to take it a step further actually.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=436300

The Calguns Foundation and the 2nd Amendment Foundation have sued to get the entire thing thrown out as unconstitutionally vague after an Iraq war vet was thrown in jail for 6 days for firearms later determined to be perfectly legal. Our side is also accusing the DOJ of leading a disinformation campaign to purposely confuse people as to what is legal and what is not related to this law. Leaving the "dead pages" up is argued to be part of that campaign.

Liberty1
08-27-2011, 1:03 AM
:twoweeks: :D