PDA

View Full Version : OLL with Fix mag illegal now???


OldWestGambler
03-15-2007, 9:56 PM
I was sent this today from a friend.

Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state.
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf?PHPSESSID=cac927cf5252c858a7180d2 4ce5ce9c7

Does this mean that if someone has an OLL build with a pisto grip and/or muzzle brake that they are in violation of the law?:confused: I'm in the midst of building an OLL and would like to know your thoughts.:confused:

The Soup Nazi
03-15-2007, 10:01 PM
Sounds like more scare tactics from the D-Oh-Jay to curb OLLs. They can come up with all the letters and memos they want but they aren't law. They do seem to be doing a good job at dissuading people though.

M. Sage
03-15-2007, 10:01 PM
No, that's complete and total BS. Looks like that old memo where they were trying to legislate-by-memo to ban fixed-mag builds.

Nothing has changed. Carry on.

PLINK
03-15-2007, 10:03 PM
That just looks like a piece of the memo. Is your friend an LEO and got this from his department or something he just found on the web?

SemiAutoSam
03-15-2007, 10:04 PM
Your friend was most likely talking to a Ignorant gun shop.

They most likely do not know about the definitions.


http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/sb23.pdf


Article 2. Definitions of Terms Used to Identify Assault Weapons
978.20 Definitions
The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant
to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) “detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be
removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action
nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is
considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked
ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load
cartridges into the magazine.

TacFan
03-15-2007, 10:11 PM
simply scare tactics which work on some people

Solidmch
03-15-2007, 10:16 PM
There is no date on the Memo and ol Billy aint the gov!

SemiAutoSam
03-15-2007, 10:21 PM
These bastards are so pompas

IMPORTANT NOTICE
California Department of Justice
Information Regarding the Sale/Possession of Unnamed
AR-15/AK 47 “Series” Firearms

The Department of Justice (hereafter Athe Department@) has received numerous inquiries from the public and firearms industry personnel about the legality of various AR-15/AK 47 “series” style firearms that have not been named by the Department as Aseries@ assault weapons. The Department believes that the public and law enforcement are best served by reference to the generic definition of assault weapons set forth in SB 23, rather than reliance upon a scheme of identifying assault weapons by name. Therefore, the Department will not update the list of “series” assault weapons. SB 23 has banned the possession, sale and manufacture of firearms with the characteristics of assault weapons as defined in California Penal Code §12276.1 since January 1, 2000. A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any of the generic features listed in Penal Code §12276.1(a)(1) is contraband unless it was registered prior to January 1, 2001. It is illegal to manufacture, cause to be manufactured, distribute, transport, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give or lend such a weapon, except as permitted by law. Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state. Individuals who own firearms that meet the generic definition of assault weapons banned by SB 23 must do one of the following in order to comply with existing law: remove the features, sell the firearm (without the features), or permanently alter the firearm so that it cannot accept a detachable magazine. I dont think so This is not required by law. :mad:

It remains illegal to possess assault weapons banned by name (either in statute or regulation), unless those assault weapons are registered and possessed in accordance with state law. The time limits for registration, which depend on the make and model of the assault weapon, are set forth in Penal Code §12285.

1norcalvarmintHunter
03-15-2007, 10:27 PM
Would there be lawyers or reps to represent one of us OLL builders should they go after our compliant rifles?

OldWestGambler
03-15-2007, 10:30 PM
This this New Info? I wish Bwiese was here, that dude knows everything. Are you guys reading this memo for the first time? Everyone seems like :eek:

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf?PHPSESSID=cac927cf5252c858a7180d2 4ce5ce9c7

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/modifiedtextnov1.pdf

Paratus et Vigilans
03-15-2007, 10:32 PM
This is just the same ****, different day.

Note that the document is undated.

Further note that the FORMER AG's name appears in the upper left hand corner of the document, not the CURRENT AG's name.

Further note that the regulations the CA DOJ proposed regarding the permanent/temporary fixed mag issue as discussed in the document were shot down in flames when published for comment, have yet to be acted upon, and if ever adopted will be challenged in court before the ink is dry on the paper.

SB 23 and the ADOPTED regs flowing from it are the law. This document is not the law. In fact, this document is a gross misstatement of the law as presently in effect.

Note that no court of record has ruled upon this issue yet, one way or the other. So, while this document is BS, that does NOT mean that you and your OLL with a Prince50 maglock, a bullet button, or other similar device that requires the use of a tool in order to detach from the rifle the magazine affixed to it thereby, are immune from prosecution under the AW laws in California. It just means that if you are, you should win. Therefore, act at all times within the discretion of your conscience and the limits of your ability to pay for a competent defense if challenged.

We follow the letter of the law. It would be nice if the FD of the CA DOJ would at least follow the spirit of the law. :rolleyes:

PLINK
03-15-2007, 10:32 PM
That is old.

Mr.RoDiN
03-15-2007, 10:32 PM
Even though we know our rifles are legal, if the DOJ is sending this memo to LEO, its going to cause alot mor arrests and legal battles. Not everyone can afford or even want to go through this hastle of being arrested and going to court. This doesn't look good. If the DOJ is sending this memo out to LEO, can we counter attack in anyway? Can we file a lawsuit or maybe a memo of our own, written by gun lawyer? I know its just a memo and wont hold in court, but I think the LEO should know the real law in order to prevent arrests and going to court in the first place. Oh and DOJ, once again what is your definition of permanent?

OldWestGambler
03-15-2007, 10:34 PM
Would there be lawyers or reps to represent one of us OLL builders should they go after our compliant rifles?

Probably not, unless you hire one.

Paratus et Vigilans
03-15-2007, 10:38 PM
Oh and DOJ, once again what is your definition of permanent?


With respect, the DOJ definition of "permanent" is irrelevant. The word "permanent" is not in the definition of "detachable magazine" set forth in the regs promulgated pursuant to SB 23.

JPN6336
03-15-2007, 10:43 PM
This is old, I believe this came out right around the same time as the proposed change of definition of capacity to accept. Possibly they put it out right after they started seeing the comments of the comment period when they realized that they weren't as smart as they thought they were or maybe that we aren't a dumb as they think we are. They're trying to scare people that are on the fence about fixed magazine builds and people that have heard the barest info about OLLs but haven't read the FAQs or the threads around here. Law is law and the DOJ saying "permanent" in a memo isn't law.

OldWestGambler
03-15-2007, 10:46 PM
[QUOTE=, that does NOT mean that you and your OLL with a Prince50 maglock, a bullet button, or other similar device that requires the use of a tool in order to detach from the rifle the magazine affixed to it thereby, are immune from prosecution under the AW laws in California. It just means that if you are, you should win.[/QUOTE]


Should?

JPN6336
03-15-2007, 10:49 PM
Should?

Like he said there is no specifications for what IS legal. We are acting on reasonable interpretation of what is illegal to build rifles we believe are legal. If you get a convincing DA, an anti-gun judge, and a panel of anti-gun jurors there is a possibility (though I believe it is a very very very low possibility) that you could be convicted.

hoffmang
03-15-2007, 10:49 PM
OWG,

Paratus says "should" because strange things happen. If you arrested for Reckless Driving on the way to work in the morning while doing the speed limit in a straight line, you "should" be found not guilty.

Here are some reasons to worry less:
There have been a few attempted prosecutions especially of the Prince-50 classic magazine fix kit. Charges were dropped.
If your weapon was to be mis-configured, AB-2728 gives you a likely non criminal way out. There have been a couple of cases of it being used where the arrests weren't just straight AW possession and judges and prosecutors seem to like it.

Go forth and don't worry. If something does happen, just make sure it gets back to Calguns and the cavalry will be called.

-Gene

SemiAutoSam
03-15-2007, 10:49 PM
The doj attempted this little scam back in august and it didn't fly then this is just intimidation and or Propaganda as the law does not state what they say here where I have highlighted it in red.

The text at the 2nd like you provided is not valid the text at the link below is where the text at the 2nd link you provided would go if it were adopted but since it never was and didn't get through OAL it will not be adopted.

Note how the numbers are the same but the text of the law is not the same.
They expected to be able to get the new definitions adopted but since they never were this is how the regulations stand.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf



If you want to have some fun with these communists call them up and directly ask them where this is stated within the law as it is written today ?

Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state.




This this New Info? I wish Bwiese was here, that dude knows everything. Are you guys reading this memo for the first time? Everyone seems like :eek:

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf?PHPSESSID=cac927cf5252c858a7180d2 4ce5ce9c7

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/modifiedtextnov1.pdf

OldWestGambler
03-15-2007, 10:52 PM
Would it be best to have it detach mag with nothing added on the AR type rifle OR fixed with nothing on the rifle with the mag welded?

SemiAutoSam
03-15-2007, 10:55 PM
Hell no personally I'm not going to give in to their strong arm tactics.

Start doing those kind of things and we all may as well just lay down our guns and let Sarah Brady know she won.

Would it be best to have it detach mag with nothing added on the AR type rifle OR fixed with nothing on the rifle with the mag welded?

bwiese
03-15-2007, 10:56 PM
This this New Info? Are you guys reading this memo for the first time? {snip} Everyone seems like :eek:

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf?PHPSESSID=cac927cf5252c858a7180d2 4ce5ce9c7

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/modifiedtextnov1.pdf

DON'T PANIC, THIS IS OLD STUFF.

Looks like you weren't paying attention last year ;) This was well discussed here and on AR15.COM These memos were waaay back there, with some catch-up stuff last November 1.

These were just DOJ memos. These are descriptions of proposed regulations that the DOJ wanted. What is described is not current, in-force regulations, and have many technical deficiencies ("underground law"), conflict with prior 6 years of published DOJ stance as well as prior DOJ-approved firearms. In addition to these deficiencies, any submission to Office of Admin Law would be deficient since they violated Gov't Administrative Code (sec 11340 et seq) by 'changing horses in the middle of the stream': proposed regulations must not change other than trivial grammar/punctuation or minor clarification tweaks during comment periods, and the 45-day 'clock' would have to be reset for the changes made prior to Nov comment period. The changes btwn the proposed regulation as of May 1 2006 and Nov 1 2006 were substantial, with different sets of side effects, and lack of DOJ addressing these sever issues commented on last Aug 16.

Since these regs are deficient in a variety of ways, the DOJ is kinda ruling by FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

The fact that the DOJ even tried to propose a change last year was one key factor in why the San Jose OLL-fixed-mag rifle case was dropped before trial (aside from the fact the cops had to use a sledgehammer to remove the magazine, making them possibly guilty of manufacture of an AW).

OldWestGambler
03-15-2007, 11:00 PM
Bwiese, I knew you'd know what this stuff was about. Thanks for jumping in. Which setup do you think carries less risk of legal trouble: Fixed mag with accessories like pistol grip and Prince 50 OR detach mag with nothing on it?

JPN6336
03-15-2007, 11:02 PM
Would it be best to have it detach mag with nothing added on the AR type rifle OR fixed with nothing on the rifle with the mag welded?

The revised definition they tried to pass off included examples of permanent attatchement that included welding AND rivets (which aren't even actually permanent the stupid heads). Without that, there is no mention of what is permanent. So you could still be legally culpable with a welded-in magazine with the unlikely worst case court scenario. If you want to be totally safe, don't build an OLL since no alternative grips have the go-ahead from DOJ so that worst case scenario could also decide you have a pistol grip.

On a personal not I believe that the current methods we are using are legal including sporting conversion mag-lock, Prince50, Bullet Button, Monsterman, and U15. However, if you want to be completely safe, shoot bolt action rifles and "safe" handguns until they decide to take those away from you.

OldWestGambler
03-15-2007, 11:07 PM
[QUOTE=JPN6336;537542]If you want to be totally safe, don't build an OLL since no alternative grips have the go-ahead from DOJ so that worst case scenario could also decide you have a pistol grip.
QUOTE]


Would it be better to just make an OLL detach mag with no features on it? It seems they're going after the fixed mag builds in this memo.

Rem1492
03-15-2007, 11:10 PM
Bweise, you got a link to that San Jose case? I am still catching up on CA gun drama. I wouldnt think courts would even waste time on petty gun laws like these since there are illegal aliens murdering people and drug dealers out there getting out on parole, I was sure there'd be bigger fish to fry............

I guess not.

bwiese
03-15-2007, 11:11 PM
Bwiese, I knew you'd know what this stuff was about. Thanks for jumping in. Which setup do you think carries less risk of legal trouble: Fixed mag with accessories like pistol grip and Prince 50 OR detach mag with nothing on it?

Perhaps legal gripless is a tad safer.

There is no way MonsterMan grip or U15 stock can be remotely considered as a banned feature due to the regulations. The DOJ is trying to play around with wording on the others (I think they thought we were rednecks that couldn't read).

All OLLs have the danger that LEs don't know that an unlisted rifle (in legal config) is not an AW; many still think "an AR is an AR is an AR" and are not aware of Harrott.

There appears to be some internal dissension inside DOJ Firearms, as lower/midlevel staff seem to recognize the Deputy AG's overfocus on forced, tortured wording lead to firearms with detachable magazines and higher firepower capabilit - all due to Alison's fear of 99 cent plastic grips. One or more DOJ staffers seem to think that the gripless detachable mag builds are promoting illegal importation or construction of hicap mags - unintened consequences of Alison's monofocus; they're rather puzzled why she's more horrified of fixed-10rd-mag rifles than detachable mag rifles.

PLINK
03-15-2007, 11:13 PM
The way you build them is personal preference. I have one fixed mag build and that is because that is the way it came. The others are either U15 or Monster man builds. IMO I just feel that evil feature-less builds are more usable especially on BLM land or for competition. What ever you do, just build your rifle SB23 compliant.

bwiese
03-15-2007, 11:18 PM
Bweise, you got a link to that San Jose case? I am still catching up on CA gun drama. I wouldnt think courts would even waste time on petty gun laws like these since there are illegal aliens murdering people and drug dealers out there getting out on parole, I was sure there'd be bigger fish to fry...........

Nope. No further info other than it's resolved w/o chargers. Dunno if guy's gotten gun back yet, waiting for LEGR.

BTW, it appears that all OLL AW cases (at least the ones I know of) have been pushed by *female* DAs.

JPN6336
03-15-2007, 11:18 PM
[QUOTE=JPN6336;537542]If you want to be totally safe, don't build an OLL since no alternative grips have the go-ahead from DOJ so that worst case scenario could also decide you have a pistol grip.
QUOTE]


Would it be better to just make an OLL detach mag with no features on it? It seems they're going after the fixed mag builds in this memo.


I suppose the safest way, if you really want to be cautious, to do an OLL would be use an Spring Retaining Bracket in place of any type of grip, use a non-threaded barrel and an A1 or A2 stock. That way there is no question of whether you have a pistol grip or not, and no doubt about whether a muzzle device is a flash hider or muzzle break. If you're going to be that cautious don't use the Magpul PRS since it could be seen as the buttpad telescopes in and out of it.:rolleyes:

threadcrapper
03-15-2007, 11:20 PM
Does anyone have a link to info. on SB-23?

mltrading
03-15-2007, 11:29 PM
That's old BS.:)

Josh3239
03-15-2007, 11:37 PM
Use the search button next time. SB23 info is all over this forum. http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/genchar2.htm

threadcrapper
03-15-2007, 11:45 PM
Use the search button next time. SB23 info is all over this forum. http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/genchar2.htm

Right, thanks for the link. I'll hit the search next time.:)

bwiese
03-16-2007, 6:31 AM
[QUOTE=OldWestGambler;537549]
I suppose the safest way, if you really want to be cautious, to do an OLL would be use an Spring Retaining Bracket in place of any type of grip, use a non-threaded barrel and an A1 or A2 stock. That way there is no question of whether you have a pistol grip or not, and no doubt about whether a muzzle device is a flash hider or muzzle break.

There is no question the MonterMan grip is not described by regulatory definition of pistol grip. Similarly the U15 stock is not a thumbhole stock. This is solid ground. We're hearing lots of incidences where even DOJ phone staff acknowledges that MonsterMan grip by recommending them (not by name, but by general description).




If you're going to be that cautious don't use the Magpul PRS since it could be seen as the buttpad telescopes in and out of it.:rolleyes:

Perhaps. Some bright people disagree with me, but I find the PRS to be perhaps a bit grey.

tenpercentfirearms
03-16-2007, 6:33 AM
In my opinion the Monsterman Grip is the safest way to go and rumor is it might get an approval letter from the DOJ!!! The U-15 being next safest and only edged out because some moron might thing it has a hole even though it doesn't.

Due to those memos, the fixed mag options are least "safe", but still 100% legal until proven otherwise and if they were ever to go to court would be found legal. If you get busted or know anyone who gets busted, please contact us with very few details here and we will get you in touch with the right people to help defend you. If necessary, financial assistance can be provided.

I have four OLLs built up right now. A MonsterMan Grip version, a Bullet Button version, and two Prince50 versions. I sell all of these products. What we are doing is legal, but not very popular with the anti-gunners. All the more reason for you to keep building! :D

Geoffkoop
03-16-2007, 9:25 AM
In my opinion the Monsterman Grip is the safest way to go and rumor is it might get an approval letter from the DOJ!!! The U-15 being next safest and only edged out because some moron might thing it has a hole even though it doesn't.

Due to those memos, the fixed mag options are least "safe", but still 100% legal until proven otherwise and if they were ever to go to court would be found legal. If you get busted or know anyone who gets busted, please contact us with very few details here and we will get you in touch with the right people to help defend you. If necessary, financial assistance can be provided.

I have four OLLs built up right now. A MonsterMan Grip version, a Bullet Button version, and two Prince50 versions. I sell all of these products. What we are doing is legal, but not very popular with the anti-gunners. All the more reason for you to keep building! :D


Amen! Keep building and selling them!

Prc329
03-16-2007, 9:40 AM
Perhaps. Some bright people disagree with me, but I find the PRS to be perhaps a bit grey.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I'm going to look into fixing the length open. As much as I like my PRS Stock and have had absolutely no issues with LEO and the stock, it has been in the back of my mind that all it takes is that one guy having a bad day to make for a bad weekend for me. I don't think I want to sell all three and replace with an A2 but I will look into pinning them open to my desired position.

bwiese
03-16-2007, 10:21 AM
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I'm going to look into fixing the length open. As much as I like my PRS Stock and have had absolutely no issues with LEO and the stock, it has been in the back of my mind that all it takes is that one guy having a bad day to make for a bad weekend for me. I don't think I want to sell all three and replace with an A2 but I will look into pinning them open to my desired position.

Yes before assembling a full operational rifle, just fit the PRS stock to the lower
and adjust for proper length. Figure out how to remove the adjustable knob and/or pin it etc. so it's not user adjustable. While there is no permanence mentioned in the regulations, this should fall way out of the the bounds since it's not for size reduction, and any adjustment by someone else could be a 'construction'.

xenophobe
03-16-2007, 11:38 AM
Nope. No further info other than it's resolved w/o chargers. Dunno if guy's gotten gun back yet, waiting for LEGR.

Yes, he's already received his Off List rifle back some time ago.

Shane916
04-05-2007, 10:23 PM
month late on this one :D