PDA

View Full Version : Someone update the Assault Weapon FAQ


Hanniballs
04-28-2007, 3:00 PM
http://calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm

FYI.

Number 9 needs to be updated with Bullet Button info.

xenophobe
04-28-2007, 3:59 PM
Bill is currently in the process of updating it.... he's busy, but you should expect to see it in a few weeks at most.

Hanniballs
04-28-2007, 5:15 PM
Bill is currently in the process of updating it.... he's busy, but you should expect to see it in a few weeks at most.

:)

No prob. I wasnt sure if anyone noticed it. I got into a disagreement with a guy I know about the legality of the bullet button. Turns out he was referencing the outdated FAQs. He was given some bad info regarding the BB from an FFL and some "swat" guys he claims to know :rolleyes:. I knocked some sense into him tho.

My favorite line was i guess you're the authority

and i don't see how the guys who actually deal with this stuff every day know less than you about it

SemiAutoSam
04-28-2007, 5:25 PM
Just show him the law and explain that the magazines need a tool to detach hence they are not detachable mags.

Bill's FAQ would help but its still based on law that you can quote.

From the horses mouth so to speak, The DOJ being the horse.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf
Relevant part below.

ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED TO IDENTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS 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.

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.htm
Also relevant part below.

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.




:)

No prob. I wasnt sure if anyone noticed it. I got into a disagreement with a guy I know about the legality of the bullet button. Turns out he was referencing the outdated FAQs. He was given some bad info regarding the BB from an FFL and some "swat" guys he claims to know :rolleyes:. I knocked some sense into him tho.

My favorite line was

Cpl. Haas
04-28-2007, 6:48 PM
ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED TO IDENTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS 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.
Those two little words make me a bit nervous... aren't using the words neither and nor a fancy way of saying it requires both disassembly of the action and use of a tool?

Since I currently have a Bullet Button on my OLL, I'm hoping someone can prove me wrong...

383green
04-28-2007, 6:55 PM
Those two little words make me a bit nervous... aren't using the words neither and nor a fancy way of saying it requires both disassembly of the action and use of a tool?


Nope. A magazine is only detachable if it requires neither disassembly nor the use of a tool, thus a magazine is non-detachable if it requires either disassembly or the use of a tool.

SemiAutoSam
04-28-2007, 6:59 PM
NOPE all its saying is "detachable magazine" = not having to disassemble the firearm NOR use of a tool think of NOR = OR.


think of it this way the word NOR means what ?




Below is a NOR gate.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/NOR.jpg


This article is about NOR in the logical sense. For the electronic NOR gates see NOR gate, for other uses of similar terms, see NOR (disambiguation).

NOR Logic GateThe logical NOR or joint denial is a boolean logic operator which produces a result that is the inverse of logical or. That is, (not or), p NOR q is only true when both p and q are false.

The NOR operator is also known as Webb-operation or Peirce arrow, named after Charles Peirce who demonstrated that any logical operation can be expressed in terms of logical NOR. Thus, as with NAND operator, NOR can be used by itself, without any other logical operator, to constitute a logical formal system (making NOR functionally complete




(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.




Those two little words make me a bit nervous... aren't using the words neither and nor a fancy way of saying it requires both disassembly of the action and use of a tool?

Since I currently have a Bullet Button on my OLL, I'm hoping someone can prove me wrong...

PIRATE14
04-28-2007, 7:04 PM
You have to use the correct language when you talk about the BB design.......it's a fixed magazine rifle.....when the mag is in the rifle it is fixed......

It does require a tool to remove the mag..... you can remove the mag but the rifle is still a fixed magazine rifle......:)

GI-M1
04-28-2007, 7:09 PM
Just a humble request from someone.....

Is it possible to post a sticky that has all of the OLL info in one, condensed formate \ writing, that it can be printed and put into your rifle case with your OLL rifle in case you are questioned by LEO \ DOJ? In otherwords, a one or two page document (that is quick and easy to digest) that summarizes the laws and features that allow us to own \ possess a OLL rifle.

Maybe one sticky for a featureless build, and a 2nd sticky when using a BB.

The last thing any of us want to do is fumble around pages and pages of documents in front of a LEO when you are trying to come across as knowing what you are talking about.

TIA for any help.

SemiAutoSam
04-28-2007, 7:25 PM
SO a legal paperwork forum ?

Kest is that a possibility ?

Just a humble request from someone.....

Is it possible to post a sticky that has all of the OLL info in one, condensed format \ writing, that it can be printed and put into your rifle case with your OLL rifle in case you are questioned by LEO \ DOJ? In other words, a one or two page document (that is quick and easy to digest) that summarizes the laws and features that allow us to own \ possess a OLL rifle.

Maybe one sticky for a featureless build, and a 2nd sticky when using a BB.

The last thing any of us want to do is fumble around pages and pages of documents in front of a LEO when you are trying to come across as knowing what you are talking about.

TIA for any help.

GI-M1
04-28-2007, 8:27 PM
Great idea SAS (ie. a separate 'Legal Form' forum).

I feel that if set up correctly, newbees, like myself, can simply be sent over to it for Q&A's and OLL forms without having to negotiate all of the various DOJ letters and laws that have been issued so far. A lot of the work, I feel, has already been done, it just needs to be organized into one place.

Perhalps a 'decision tree diagram' could be used at the beginning of it (this new forum) to show people what they need or where to go.

This would certainly keep the '2nd Amend. Politics and Laws' forum more streamlined in the future.

SemiAutoSam
04-28-2007, 8:35 PM
Thanks BTW are you talking about a flow chart?

Great idea SAS (ie. a separate 'Legal Form' forum).

I feel that if set up correctly, newbees, like myself, can simply be sent over to it for Q&A's and OLL forms without having to negotiate all of the various DOJ letters and laws that have been issued so far. A lot of the work, I feel, has already been done, it just needs to be organized into one place.

Perhalps a 'decision tree diagram' could be used at the beginning of it (this new forum) to show people what they need or where to go.

This would certainly keep the '2nd Amend. Politics and Laws' forum more streamlined in the future.

GI-M1
04-28-2007, 9:59 PM
Yes,,,,sort of.

A decision tree diagram is more interactive. You are asked 'yes' or 'no' questions. Depending on your response, a prescribed remedy is offered (or towards the bottom of the treebranches, a hyperlink). You continue down the decision tree based on your responses and are directed towards a finalized course of action (ie. a quick summary of a DOJ letter or a copy of the DOJ letter itself).

It would save a lot of time for many of the regulars not having to answer a lot of "I'm new to the board and I want to build a legal OLL, what do I do?". Instead of telling them to use the search function, they could be directed towards this 'legal forms \ beginners section' forum. Telling people to go off and use the search function seems a little 'cold' for someone that is new to the forum. And reading a lot of old posts can be really time consuming and frustrating. It's a way to get more people on board with Calguns in an easy, non-intimidating, professional way.

I realize that on the main webpage to Calguns, there are a number of topic choices that are available. But for someone new, it would be nice to have 'a roadmap' as you first get involved with the site. Especially if you need the information quickly for an up coming purchase, ect.

Just my initial impressions that I had with the site.

hoffmang
04-29-2007, 10:22 PM
CA DOJ has confirmed in both letters and sworn court testimony that neither/nor does not require both. I can't quickly locate the letter while traveling but I have read examples of both.

-Gene

bwiese
04-29-2007, 10:28 PM
CA DOJ has confirmed in both letters and sworn court testimony that neither/nor does not require both. I can't quickly locate the letter while traveling but I have read examples of both.

We do not need to rely on DOJ for their interpretation of simple words like neither and/or nor, nor basic grammar and syntax. They wrote the regulations, and if they wanted a different meaning to be extracted, they could rewrite the regulations (providing all side effects were dealt with appropriately :) )