PDA

View Full Version : Catching up on Amendments to 978.20


Sander77
05-07-2007, 1:01 PM
As a late comer to black rifles, I've had to do a lot of catching up on legal issues...

I've read through a lot of the great posts that were written on this forum when the amendments to 978.20 were first proposed by the DOJ in regards to changing the language that defined detachable mags, etc.

Calgunlaws has a great summary on the topic, but from what I gather from that article as well as posts here, am I right to conclude that the issue is still as yet "unresolved"?

From Calgunlaws:
...during public comment period, the DOJ was flooded with public comments that pointed to a multitude of firearms with non-permanent modifications that the DOJ had previously approved for sale and possession. Undeterred, the DOJ amended its proposed regulations to exempt a number of the previously approved firearms - but not all, and specifically not the previously approved model SA58. Finalizing and publishing the regulations has been delayed, but is still pending.


I read a lot of posts around November during the aforementioned public comment period. But after that I couldn't quite find the follow-ups I was looking for.

Is there a piece of the bigger story that I missed? Or are we still just waiting on the DOJ to take the next step on this? (I really hope I'm just missing something...)

Thanks!

Surveyor
05-07-2007, 1:13 PM
The big thing that happened was AB 2728. Basicly the DOJ gave up the right to list AW's by name. It also created three categories of AW offences: felony, misdemeanor and infraction.

Also, the memo about permenantly fixing your mag is BS.

Bullet Buttons rule!!!

tango-52
05-07-2007, 1:14 PM
They have until the end of June to submit it to the Office of Administrative Law for review. This is the response I received when I asked about the status of the proposed rulemaking:

At this time, the Department is still in the process of summarizing,
considering, and preparing responses to the public comments we received.
As you are probably aware, the Department's options regarding this
rulemaking are:

1. To make changes to the proposed regulations based on the comments
received.

2. Make no changes and submit a completed rulemaking to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) for their review.

3. Abandon the proposed regulations without submission to OAL.

Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, the Department has one
year from 6/30/2006 (the date of the original Notice of Proposed
Regulations) to submit a completed rulemaking to OAL.

Jeff Amador, Field Representative

Sander77
05-07-2007, 1:46 PM
Thanks, Tango - that's what I was looking for...

Also, I read a couple posts that seemed to suggest that the "amendments" that the DOJ are attempting here would not open up an AW registration period. Is that really the case?

Sander77
05-07-2007, 1:47 PM
Surveyor - yup, thank god for that :)

But I'm specifically referring to a set of amendments the DOJ is proposing that alters the language that describes a detachable magazine. This is less about OLLs in general, and more about the legality of fixed-mag builds...

bwiese
05-07-2007, 2:04 PM
Thanks, Tango - that's what I was looking for...

Also, I read a couple posts that seemed to suggest that the "amendments" that the DOJ are attempting here would not open up an AW registration period. Is that really the case?

They wouldn't - directly - given DOJ stance and the Division's (Bureau's) being managed, in documented fashion, as an extension of the Brady Campaign. However a court may well say otherwise :)

Any transition (outside user behavior) that causes a legally-owned, legally-configured rifle to transition to AW status would really have to be registerable.

The DOJ simply has no authority to mandate changes, repairs, tweaks, fixes dismantling, or "rendering safe" of a rifle or its attributes or subfunctions. The fact that the proposed rulemaking was prooposed means that configuration as per old regulatory definition was in fact legal and sufficient!

The overarching goal of Roberti-Roos (from which SB23 features lists were merely patched into) was that legally owned guns could be retained and registered: it passed by only one vote and this was key in legislative discussion/history, as the writers wanted to avoid any problems with seizures of legally-owned property.

Actually because of the issues with this transition to AW status, the whole "SKS problem" has arisenm and the prior approval of the DSA California FAL (not welded!) and the Barrett M82CA (swing-down bail magazine, just a screw) put the lie to the DOJ stance. Plus we have the Iggy Chinn deposition in Hunt case. All this would present enormous challenges at any fight at the OAL (Office of Admin. Law) level.

Additionally, the DOJ violated Govt Admin Code 113xx regarding proposal & adoption of new regulations when they made appreciable changes in the proposed regulatory redefinition in Nov 2006 that differered substantially from the May 29 '06 version.... - they "changed horses in the middle of the stream", when in reality only trivial spelling/grammatical/typo fix changes are allowable....

bwiese
05-07-2007, 2:08 PM
Surveyor - yup, thank god for that :)

But I'm specifically referring to a set of amendments the DOJ is proposing that alters the language that describes a detachable magazine. This is less about OLLs in general, and more about the legality of fixed-mag builds...

Fixed mag builds are as legal as the law says they are already, and indeed conform to DOJ approvals of existing firearms whose fixed mags are not welded or 'permanent' - including the DSA Cali FAL and the Barrett M82CA.

See the DSA approval letter, an AG opinion letter, on calgunlaws.com , as an example.

Note that there has never been any statutory (or regulatory!) insistence on permanence of attachment, except when it was newly 'invented' last year by a panicked Deputy AG, and that the only element of permanence required anywhere in AW-related law is the restriction on magazine capacity of fixed-mag semiauto rifles to 10 rounds or less.

Sander77
05-07-2007, 2:19 PM
Bill,

You know, I may have been misunderstanding this the whole time...

The proposed change centers around this addition, correct?
...capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.

And so it's the concept of "permanence" that's the crux of the issue?

Sander77
05-07-2007, 2:27 PM
Ah, nevermind - had to reread all the old posts again, but I think I got it now...

Boy, does this stuff make your head spin sometimes!!

bwiese
05-07-2007, 3:42 PM
Bill,
You know, I may have been misunderstanding this the whole time...

And so it's the concept of "permanence" that's the crux of the issue?

Yes, they wanted to add regulatory requirement for 'permanence' that is nowhere reflected or intended in statutory law, and which conflicts with prior DOJ approvals.

BTW, 11 CCR 978.20(a) now has been renumbered to 11 CCR 5469(a).

Ford8N
05-07-2007, 5:46 PM
Yes, they wanted to add regulatory requirement for 'permanence' that is nowhere reflected or intended in statutory law, and which conflicts with prior DOJ approvals.

BTW, 11 CCR 978.20(a) now has been renumbered to 11 CCR 5469(a).

But, the BOF still has this up and this is official policy as far as the non-knowing gun public is concerned.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

So... this must mean that DSA FALS are AW's. It's right on the BOF's site.

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.

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).

Is this the BOF's misinformation or wishful Brady puppets posting info to confuse the public.

bwiese
05-07-2007, 7:01 PM
But, the BOF still has this up and this is official policy as far as the non-knowing gun public is concerned.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf


That's just FUD and a meaningless memo.

The fact that the regulation had to be (proposed) changed means the existing regulation is sufficient for current rifle implementations.


So... this must mean that DSA FALS are AW's. It's right on the BOF's site.


No, see the DSA CA FAL approval letter on Calgunlaws.com. That means it's not an AW :)