PDA

View Full Version : HOW can we officially ask/make BoF to remove the AR/AK notice?


Jicko
05-05-2007, 11:46 AM
From Bureau of Firearms (BoF)'s site

HOW can we officially ask/make BoF to remove this notice from their website? http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

That is *just* a notice, and it has no LAW backing it, especially these:

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.

There is really no legal definition of "temporarily incapable" nor the requirement to "permanently alther the firearm"....

But with this *notice* hanging high out there, LEOs/DAs (like those that are in BWO's case) are likely to arrest and prosecute "fixed mag" OLL.

Is there anything we can do?

PS. has anyone actually tried to "permanently alther the firearm" with a Bullet-Button?? :D

hoffmang
05-05-2007, 12:27 PM
Jicko,

I do think we can get it off over time, but it is probably not yet time.

-Gene

artherd
05-05-2007, 1:10 PM
Well now that they've handed us everything we need to defeat SB23, the nocice will become moot in short order.

Jicko
05-05-2007, 1:23 PM
The problem is it is STILL up there (had been for some time now).... and ill-informed LEOs may try to "enforce" that.... believing in what BoF stated.... unfortunately...

PanzerAce
05-05-2007, 2:47 PM
Well now that they've handed us everything we need to defeat SB23, the nocice will become moot in short order.

ORLY? You have information that I don't? ;)

rssslvr
05-05-2007, 3:13 PM
While it does misinform LEO about the fixed mag thing it also lets them know featureless build are legal.

HK fan
05-05-2007, 4:07 PM
first of all that memo was out under Lockyer, maybe we could as JB what HIS opinion is. The problem as I see it with this memo is this part "permanently alter the firearm so that it cannot accept a detachable magazine."

According to that memo, a bullet button would still be out because it still accepts a detachable magazine. You just have to use the bullet (tool) to remove it.

hoffmang
05-05-2007, 4:17 PM
HK,

The funniest thing about that memo is that a bullet button equipped rifle still can't take a detachable magazine.

Just like Alison has put her wishes on the web, I'll put my wish that she become a Life NRA member here. Both are about equally binding.

Anybody thought about the interesting problem that the memo also means that SKSs that we thought had non detachable magazines need to be permanently altered based on her logic?

-Gene

leelaw
05-05-2007, 4:39 PM
Anybody thought about the interesting problem that the memo also means that SKSs that we thought had non detachable magazines need to be permanently altered based on her logic?

-Gene

But then they'd have to define "permanent," which is near imposisble seeing how in this age where most people have Dremels can undo any magazine fixed in place by even the most ridiculous suggestions they have made so far (ie: weld)

SemiAutoSam
05-05-2007, 4:48 PM
Since the Bullet Button or my original MAG-LOCK® and or my NEW PIN-MAG-LOCK® requires a tool to detach the magazine. it cannot accept a detachable magazine when the above mentions products are utilized.


From the regulations at http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/chapter39.pdf ..

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.



first of all that memo was out under Lockyer, maybe we could as JB what HIS opinion is. The problem as I see it with this memo is this part "permanently alter the firearm so that it cannot accept a detachable magazine."

According to that memo, a bullet button would still be out because it still accepts a detachable magazine. You just have to use the bullet (tool) to remove it.

vikingshelmut
05-05-2007, 5:18 PM
I know the federal ban has sunset, but is there any way to eliminate the CA AW ban? Obviously it does not have a built in expiration date, I'm just curious as to the feasibility.

Color me curious.

bwiese
05-05-2007, 5:51 PM
I know the federal ban has sunset, but is there any way to eliminate the CA AW ban? Obviously it does not have a built in expiration date, I'm just curious as to the feasibility..

There are a variety of reasons why both SB23 and Roberti-Roos have, um, "issues" regarding constitutionality (due process, etc.) totally aside from any 2nd Amendment/RKBA issues.

We should thank the DOJ for their assistance in these matters over the course of the last 1-1/4 years. Some of these issues will be coming to a head.