View Full Version : OLL Law Enforcement Notification/Education

08-01-2007, 1:28 PM
Ok, after researching CA law and reading many opinions (both legal and private insights) it appears to me that OLL legality is at a stable “snapshot” for the moment. We need to notify law enforcement and help educate as well.

As law abiding citizens, we need to be proactive on this issue and begin (flood) a grassroots effort to “educate” our City and County law enforcement since the DOJ clearly is not and is even on the verge of illegal actions themselves. Additionally, we need to make chief law enforcement aware (remind them) they are not in a position of legislation but, rather enforcement of existing law and neither uneducated nor aggressive personnel is an excuse for overstepping their boundaries. Given the estimated number of legal OLLs in the state vs. the number of “prosecutions” on going; I think we are doing ourselves a disservice by not speaking out. The cases in play might be something where the OLL is ancillary to the actual issue where the OLL was seized and is clearly a small percentage. I think we need to make “noise” supporting California law and overall legality not letting a few questionable cases set the tone.

I propose that we send letters to the County District Attorneys, chief law enforcement of County and City jurisdictions and our elected officials we each deal with in our normal routines.

If the estimates are close (70,000+ legally owned OLLs in the state) and 30% of owners write letters, that should provide a significant education that the DOJ would have trouble dismissing. Even if you do not own an OLL, as a concerned gun owner and taxpayer you should chime in so the City/County does not squander $$ on unsupported enforcement, prosecutions, and liability payouts for actions clearly not supported by state law.

I reside in two counties and will send 15 to 20 letters to cover the jurisdictions I would most likely encounter. I spend $700 to $2500 on a rifle. I think I can part with $10 or so in postage and a little time.

The Anti’s often succeed because they make lots of noise, even though the Anti’s lie/cheat/confuse/distract related facts. We need to make noise as well, founded in state law, and not just whine on our forums if we hope to overcome. Bottom line is we need to take the mystique out of the issues around OLLs, educate law enforcement, and let folks know they can’t make up variations with a “oh I’m sorry” after they have destroyed a life. I believe expressing knowledge of the issue will help curtail the rogues in our enforcement system.

I’m posting a draft of a letter and would like constructive input on modifying it making a clear correct statement with a strong and respectful tone. Once I finalize it, I will post it in MS Word format so all can download and modify for you personal use. Here we go…..


Official being written

Mr/Mrs/Ms Official.

I am a concerned resident in your community regarding misuse of public funds and violation of individual rights for potentially inappropriate actions/enforcement, by your organization, regarding the legal ownership of Off List Lower (OLL) AK/AR series receivers. AR and AK series firearm receivers that are not published on the assault weapon list in California Code of Regulations (CCR) 979.10/11 and are configured pursuant to PC 12276.1 with a fixed magazine of 10 rounds or less that, at a minimum, requires a tool to remove the magazine (as defined in CCR 978.20) or with a detachable magazine without the features described in PC 12276.1 are currently legal to own by any individual capable of owning firearms in California. The CA DOJ Firearms Division acknowledges (see attached sample letter, one of many) that OLLs are legal to posses in the state subject only to the restrictions of PC 12276.1 as described above.

I would like to be advised on your plan for “in service instruction” to staff members (office and field) for the proper application of California law regarding legal OLLs to avoid any misuse of public funds and/or misconduct through ignorance or personal agenda contrary to California law.


Your name


August 4 2005

Re: Harrott vs. County of Kings
Dear <Name>:

This correspondence is in response to your letter of May 13th, 2005, you posed three questions regarding Harrott v. County of Kings and "series" assault weapons.
Your first question was about the effect of the Harrott decision on California assault weapons law. In Harrott the California Supreme Court upheld the Attorney General's authority to identify series assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code (PC) section 12276(e), but held that such firearms must first be included in the list of series assault weapons promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to section 12276.5(h), before they are considered "assault weapons" under California law. Since the Harrott decision, the Attorney General's Office has carried out its legal authority by identifying assault weapons and periodically publishing the "Assault Weapons Identification Guide."
Your second question was whether the receiver of a semiautomatic rifle could be an "assault weapon" if it does not have any of the characteristics specified in PC section 12276.1 and it is not listed in PC section 12276. The answer is "yes". As affirmed in Harrott, the receiver of a semiautomatic rifle would be considered an "assault weapon" if it were specifically listed by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), as authorized under PC 12276.5(h).
Your final question was whether it is lawful under California law to purchase a stripped [brand] [model] receiver. The [brand] [model] is not listed in PC Section 12276 nor is it listed in CCR Section 979.11 (Title 11, Division 1, Chapter 12.9). Therefore, assuming it does not meet the characteristics criteria specified in PC section 12276.1 (such as a "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon"), it could lawfully be purchased or possessed in California. If it did meet the characteristics criteria, it would be a prohibited assault weapon per PC section 12276.1(a)(1).
You should be aware that all [brand] receivers, including the [model], will soon be added to the list of weapons that are considered "assault weapons" under California law. After the list is published, owners will have 90 days to registered their firearms, pursuant to PC 12285.
If you have any additional questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me at (916) 263-xxxx.

Alison Merrilees
Deputy Attorney General
Firearms Division
For: Bill Lockyer
Attorney General

08-01-2007, 1:58 PM
I'd do the same myself....but maybe there's stuff in the works we still don't know....:confused:


08-01-2007, 2:06 PM
First problem, your letter comes off a bit accusatory, which may offend, and be counter productive. Second, it's very confusing. I think that it would be best to first develop a short, clear, easy-to-read document that explains current law that you could include with a cover letter.

08-01-2007, 2:08 PM
Know what you mean however, being proactive will help keep everything on the up and up and it might even deter the sneaky DOJ folks........Owning OLLs is legal right now and I hate being made to feel like there is something wrong when there is nothing wrong!

Need to be proactive and not defensive.

08-01-2007, 2:09 PM
First problem, your letter comes off a bit accusatory, which may offend, and be counter productive. Second, it's very confusing. I think that it would be best to first develop a short, clear, easy-to-read document that explains current law that you could include with a cover letter.

This is why I put it out here....Please chime in and make suggestions on "fixes"......thanks

08-01-2007, 2:32 PM
DA's, I think have an unspoken code amongst themselves to not speak to us, the people. They won;t even personnaly read your letters. If they do, I assure you, they will not listen or even consider what you are saying. DAs accept orders and suggestions from above, only.
Just my experience.

I have recieved copies of 8 letters to our local DA, written by supporters of my case have written to the DA- Zero response from the DA.

Consider a picket protest in front of the DA's office. Demand an audience with the DA, so that you can speak face-to face.

08-01-2007, 2:37 PM
Yeah. It's the "inappropriate actions/enforcement, by your organization" part that would worry me. Sounds like you're blaming them. I know what you mean - they may not know the confusing law so they may make an honest mistake - but I don't know how to say it that way concisely.

Another thing. the CCR numbers have all been changed. The list is now in s5499 and the detachable mag definition is now in s5469. Dunno if it's wiser to use the old or new number tho...