PDA

View Full Version : CA DOJ Regulating OLL/OLR's?


Addax
09-14-2007, 11:40 AM
Hello,

I am not sure if this has already been discussed here?

I understand that there is something else brewing with the CA DOJ.
Some sort of new approval process rule/law/legislation (not sure), that they might try and implement, which could then put the power back on their side to approve any OLL purchases or the shipment of any OLL/OLR rifles into California?

It would involve the CA DOJ having to provide an approval letter before each purchase or shipment from out of state for each OLL/OLR purchase.

The ffl dealer would need to submit an approval form each time one of us wants to purchase something, and wait for the DOJ to validate and approve the purchase/transaction/shipment.

Sort of like regulating (legally) the flow of products into the state.

Since we need to go to the ffl dealers to purchase our OLL/OLR's legally, this is how the DOJ will be able to monitor and regulate the OLL/OLR situation.

Anybody hear of this or am I do I have my information wrong?

Regards,
Addax

bwiese
09-14-2007, 12:01 PM
I understand that there is something else brewing with the CA DOJ.
Some sort of new approval process rule/law/legislation (not sure), that they might try and implement, which could then put the power back on their side to approve any OLL purchases or the shipment of any OLL/OLR rifles into California?

We have not heard of any valid info on that, and it is legally a nonstarter.



It would involve the CA DOJ having to provide an approval letter before each purchase or shipment from out of state for each OLL/OLR purchase.

Ah, that's last year's AB2521. That just will require a generated number from an CA FFL for any firearm transaction. Model numbers/types etc are not examined. While it's a tad more bureacracy it will have no effect on OLL matters.

It does not "approve" anything, it's just a tracking/recordkeeping thing, just a number.

Santa Cruz Armory
09-14-2007, 12:02 PM
Well, it sounds like I need to buy a bunch of lowers before this happens...I have a good line on lowers for a great price. :D

JawBone
09-14-2007, 12:09 PM
When are they starting this? In TWO WEEKS?? :yawn:

Where did you hear this? Under what legal authority would they be able to regulate OLL's differently from any other long guns?

Fjold
09-14-2007, 12:15 PM
IMHO, I think they would run a foul of interstate trade issues.

Addax
09-14-2007, 12:20 PM
Thanks Bwise.

I understand that DOJ will be implementing this by July 08?

It there any possibility that DOJ can turn this regulation / approval process against us law abiding gun owners?

I would hate to have to wait for DOJ to send an approval number back to a dealer for months just to purchase a OLL/OLR.

simonov
09-14-2007, 12:25 PM
As I mentioned in the thread in the rifle forum, keep in mind when you hear rumors about how Someone is going to Do Something about OLLs that despite fifteen years of effort by the Legislature, courts and DoJ, no one has been able to nail down a legal definition of an off-list lower. Without that legal definition, there's no way to target OLLs legally or administratively.

Addax
09-14-2007, 12:35 PM
As I mentioned in the thread in the rifle forum, keep in mind when you hear rumors about how Someone is going to Do Something about OLLs that despite fifteen years of effort by the Legislature, courts and DoJ, no one has been able to nail down a legal definition of an off-list lower. Without that legal definition, there's no way to target OLLs legally or administratively.

I thought we are the one's who are defining what an OLL/OLR is, based on the current loop holes in the laws.

If (and I say Big IF) DOJ comes around and says, "fine, we accept the fact that OLL/OLR's are legal due to the way the laws don't define them as being unlawful (does that make sense), then how hard would it be for them to set up a regulatory process not to ban the sales or shipments into California, but possibly lengthen the time they would take to approve an application/dros for one?

I would be upset if DOJ took a couple months to process the approval for me to legally purchase a OLL/OLR.

Again, I just heard this this week, and I am trying to figure out what is real and not, especially since I am a huge OLL/OLR collector/shooter, and I don't want anyone inc. DOJ to play games with my rights to purchase a OLL/OLR when I want to.

simonov
09-14-2007, 12:45 PM
I thought we are the one's who are defining what an OLL/OLR is, based on the current loop holes in the laws.

There is no definition, from us or from them.

Thought experiment: in three sentences or less, provide a clear, concise and comprehensive definition of an off-list lower, one that clearly distinguishes it from any other firearm. BTW, since there is no legal definition of an AR-15, you cannot use "AR-15" in your definition. Go!

If (and I say Big IF) DOJ comes around and says, "fine, we accept the fact that OLL/OLR's are legal due to the way the laws don't define them as being unlawful (does that make sense), then how hard would it be for them to set up a regulatory process not to ban the sales or shipments into California, but possibly lengthen the time they would take to approve an application/dros for one?

How hard? As I said, they have been trying for 15 years to keep them out of the state. It looks like it's been pretty hard for them so far.

Fjold
09-14-2007, 12:57 PM
Proposed regulation/rule:

All rifles/receivers/actions that look like receivers/actions/rifles that are banned from importation into the State or registered as "Assault Weapons", excluding the following:
a.) 50 BMG chambered rifles
b.) Handguns that are registered as "Assault weapons"
c.) Long guns that are classified as Curio and relic firearms
shall hereby require DOJ approval prior to being imported into the state. FFLs ordering said rifles/receivers/actions will need to fill out DOJ form "Umptysquat:" and attach a check or money order for $19 and mail it to:

CA Dept Of Justice
Firearms Division
Office of Funny Walks
PO Box, UmptySquat
Sacramento CA

Upon receipt of the "Approval to purchase a rifle/receiver/action that looks like another rifle/receiver/action form" the applying FFL dealer may accept delivery of said rifle/receiver/action.

Scarecrow Repair
09-14-2007, 1:51 PM
Thought experiment: in three sentences or less, provide a clear, concise and comprehensive definition of an off-list lower, one that clearly distinguishes it from any other firearm.

Any firearm not on the R-R list of assault weapons.

Sure it's stupid (vagueness intended).

Addax
09-14-2007, 2:05 PM
There is no definition, from us or from them.

Thought experiment: in three sentences or less, provide a clear, concise and comprehensive definition of an off-list lower, one that clearly distinguishes it from any other firearm. BTW, since there is no legal definition of an AR-15, you cannot use "AR-15" in your definition. Go!



How hard? As I said, they have been trying for 15 years to keep them out of the state. It looks like it's been pretty hard for them so far.


I think I understand that there are several different laws or legislations that have not been all tied together yet, and the DOJ is having a tough time trying to pin the tale on the donkey, but that does not mean that they are not trying to figure something out, kind of like how found a loop hole (many years after the laws were enacted), they could figure something out eventually, and this regulation thing I had heard about got me thinking, so I thought I would ask.

I don't mind answering your Thought Experiment question, but I think you will tell me I am wrong or something...

Yet giving you the answer is also showing how we have defined what OLL/OLR's Off List Rifles are based on where we found the loop holes in the laws.

Thought Experiment Answer:
An Off List Lower Receiver or Off List Receiver is a Receiver (AR design, AK design, FAL design, HK design, as examples, there are more) that is not listed on any of the Ban Lists in the state of California (i.e. Kasler List or RR) by both Manufacturer and Model. For Example Stag Stag-15 is considered an AR design Off List Lower Receiver, where as a Colt AR15 is an AR desing Listed Receiver and currently banned in the state of California.

An Off List Lower Receiver or Off List Receiver can have the same design attributes as a "listed rifle" as long as it does not have any evil features installed or as long as the Off List Lower/Receiver/Rifle is configured in such as way to prevent the use of evil features (such as the bullet button attachable magazine configuration) or the use of special customized parts like the Monster Man grip that eliminates the Pistol Grip and allows a detachable 10 round magazine to be utilized.

So a Stag15 Off List Receiver vs. a Colt AR15 Listed Receiver are essentially the same rifle by design attributes, but the Off List Receiver by Stag is legal since it is not listed by mfg and model on any of the ban lists, and in order for you to posses this receiver or assemble this receiver into a rifle, it cannot posses or have installed upon it any evil listed feature in RR such as a Pistol Grip and a Detachable Magazine and Flash Hider. Certain Compliant Parts can be installed in several different configurations that will allow the STAG15 Off Lise Lower/Receiver to be built into a fully legal Off List Rifle.

These Parts include:
Monster man Grip, Muzzle Brake (not Flash Hider), and only the use of a 10 round magazine

AR Magazine Lock (i.e. Prince 50 lock)
With this part installed, you can lock the magazine in place with a special tool, and install a Pistol Grip, Flash Hider etc. since the rifles configuration is now that it is a non detachable magazine rifle, and is not clearly defined in any of the California laws in this configuration.

Bullet Button
By installing this part, the rifle magazine is not in a fixed un-detachable configuration by hand, and the only way to remove the magazine is by using a tool, which then negates the originally designed Mag Release button on a Off List Lower/Receiver/Rifle, and thus the rifle does not have a true detachable magazine configuration as it was originally designed with, and a special tool is required to disassemble the magazine from the rifle's receiver.

So bascially, an OLL/OLR/Off List Rifle is a legal version by mfg/model designation and not by type (AR, AK), and with certain California Compliant Parts, these OLL/OLR/Off List Rifles are also legal by virtue of not having or negating the originally designed evil features.

What I have written here is not written in the California Law Books nor is it legally defined in any of the current laws, it is mainly an interpratation of the current laws loops holes that allow Law abiding California Citizens to own what is defined as (in the industry and by gun owners/citizens) Off List Lowers, Off List Receivers, Off List Rifles.

hoffmang
09-14-2007, 2:23 PM
Harrot makes it clear that making someone try to figure out what "design" their rifle is originally at their legal peril isn't constitutional.

The new requirement coming that out of state FFLs determine the existence of in state FFLs by getting a "check" receipt number is being inflated into something it is not and can not be.

The best the BoF has been able to do is to stop issuing written opinions that firearms comply with 12276.1. If they had something other than double talk and tactical "no answers" to come at us with, is there really a doubt they would?

And note that their double talk may prove dangerous to them.

-Gene

JohnJW
09-14-2007, 2:31 PM
Why don't CA DOJ just open up AW registration again so we can all just drop this silliness with on/off list, bullet mag release, & functional but awkward stocks. . . If scotus rules that DC ban is unconstitutional, does that mean SB23's closed registration will need to be reopened?

just wondering. . . .

Addax
09-14-2007, 2:35 PM
Thanks Hoffmang, and very good point regarding the dbl talk.



Harrot makes it clear that making someone try to figure out what "design" their rifle is originally at their legal peril isn't constitutional.

The new requirement coming that out of state FFLs determine the existence of in state FFLs by getting a "check" receipt number is being inflated into something it is not and can not be.

The best the BoF has been able to do is to stop issuing written opinions that firearms comply with 12276.1. If they had something other than double talk and tactical "no answers" to come at us with, is there really a doubt they would?

And note that their double talk may prove dangerous to them.

-Gene

JawBone
09-14-2007, 2:36 PM
Why don't CA DOJ just open up AW registration again so we can all just drop this silliness with on/off list, bullet mag release, & functional but awkward stocks. . .

just wondering. . . .

Can you imagine the public relations nightmare of 80-100K new registered/legal Assault Weapons in CA because they wrote a sloppy law? I want to see the anti-gun CA politician who is going to vote "yea" on that one.

Addax
09-14-2007, 2:36 PM
You are close but not quite there in your descriptions. You need to make it easier to read and understand like this:

-A rifle can have a fixed 10 round mag and any/all evil features (flash hider, forward grip, folding stock, etc.)
or
A rifle can have a detachable mag of any size and no evil features (monsterman, muzzle brake, fixed stock)

Short and Sweet.

I just like to type allot lol :D

hoffmang
09-14-2007, 2:38 PM
DOJ no longer has any ability to open up registration periods. That ended with AB2728 on 1/1/2007.

DOJ does have the ability to issue permits to individuals. Right now those permits would infringe other rights, but that may be a path for CA to save the AWCA post Parker/Heller.

However, the AWCA has other non 2A Constitutional issues that it will have to survive that are well outlined by the posts above.

-Gene

Addax
09-14-2007, 2:50 PM
So even if what I heard might have some truth to it, there are allot of potentially huge constitutional issues with the DOJ/State trying to implement this sort of regulating/issuing permits to individuals that would basically be shot down?

I presume it would have to go through allot of review and modifications where issuing a permit would be as easy as issuing a hunting permit (not trying to to directly associate the two)?

DOJ no longer has any ability to open up registration periods. That ended with AB2728 on 1/1/2007.

DOJ does have the ability to issue permits to individuals. Right now those permits would infringe other rights, but that may be a path for CA to save the AWCA post Parker/Heller.

However, the AWCA has other non 2A Constitutional issues that it will have to survive that are well outlined by the posts above.

-Gene

hoffmang
09-14-2007, 3:08 PM
So even if what I heard might have some truth to it, there are allot of potentially huge constitutional issues with the DOJ/State trying to implement this sort of regulating/issuing permits to individuals that would basically be shot down?

I presume it would have to go through allot of review and modifications where issuing a permit would be as easy as issuing a hunting permit (not trying to to directly associate the two)?

Right now, AW permits require you to waive your 4th Amendment rights. In a business context, that might be ok, but personally - no. The good news for the DOJ is that there is no legislative reason why they have to require those inspections (though I admit I haven't re-read the law on that part recently) so they could conceivably alter the license and start granting it widely to avoid problems post Parker/Heller and depending on the status of incorporation of the 14th Amendment.

-Gene

metalhead357
09-14-2007, 5:01 PM
I thought we are the one's who are defining what an OLL/OLR is, based on the current loop holes in the laws.



Just for clarity sake as this IS a pet peeve of mine and several others here...

THIS IS NOT A LOOPHOLE......No law is being broken or bypassed.....nor squeezed, shimmied, jimmied, bent, cuffed, slanted, sloked, poked, or misrepresented. "All this" is because of the fact they wrote the law(s) exactly the way they did...........

M. Sage
09-14-2007, 5:13 PM
Big +1 to that. This isn't a loophole: it's the letter of the law.

So even if what I heard might have some truth to it, there are allot of potentially huge constitutional issues with the DOJ/State trying to implement this sort of regulating/issuing permits to individuals that would basically be shot down?

They've tried what you were talking about, but they were shot down by CA's own government laws, not even Constitutional law.

It would require an act of the Legislature to come down on off-list firearms.

Simonov makes a good point about not being able to make a legal definition of what an "off-list" firearm is, in the context of off-list AR or AK for example. Everything not on the list is off-list. A Mossberg 500 is off-list in the legal sense (it ain't on the list), so there isn't any way or reason to treat an NDS-3 any differently. To come up with a "legalese" definition of our off-list would require you to make a third category. Not just off the list, but off the list while still illegal somehow. Just doesn't work.

In short: DOJ can't do dick about our toys and they know it. They tried and suffered further embarrassment for it.

About all they can do (and are, apparently) now is go to gun stores and spread BS rumors like these.

metalhead357
09-14-2007, 5:27 PM
About all they can do (and are, apparently) now is go to gun stores and spread BS rumors like these.

And hence alllllllllllllllll the stories of how the department is coming apart...most just trying to transfer or ride the storm until retirement. NRA, T&M and others will have thier field day(s) when it comes to the rest..... while they are a highly regulated department that is supposed to be a fair & balanced place for good and relieable and truthfull information and information dissemination. If they were all elected officials we would have had them out by now......

Tis a shame as I have known a few over the years gone through there and they were wonderful peeps in thier personal lives.........

bwiese
09-14-2007, 5:28 PM
Addax,

Essentially no new *regulations* regarding AW matters can be written.

Anything new would conflict with 7+ years of precedence of multiple prior approvals and opinion letters signed by/for the AG, and would cause transitions to AW status from current legal status.

*Regulations* are only used to shape/clarify the law, and can never extend the law.

The whole approval issue I spoke of in AB2521 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OLLs. The system cannot determine what's what, and is just a general firearm matter to assign a tracking number for inter-FFL transfer, supposedly to stop FFLs from shipping to phony FFLs. It is an entirely separate issue and some gunshop idiot mixed up two separate matters.

simonov
09-14-2007, 6:22 PM
Just for clarity sake as this IS a pet peeve of mine and several others here...

THIS IS NOT A LOOPHOLE......No law is being broken or bypassed.....nor squeezed, shimmied, jimmied, bent, cuffed, slanted, sloked, poked, or misrepresented. "All this" is because of the fact they wrote the law(s) exactly the way they did...........

Sure it's a loophole. We are exploiting technical deficiencies in the law, especially the bit about a bullet being considered a tool, in ways I assure you are contrary to the intent of the Legislature as well as the DoJ. That makes it a loophole.

What isn't a loophole is something like the "gun show loophole" as there is no technical deficiency in the law that is being exploited. Nothing magical happens at gun shows that allows people to circumvent firearms laws.

Since the Legislature can't define exactly what it is they are trying to ban when they ban "assault weapons," I am pretty sure this is a loophole they will be unable to close without a blanket ban on semi-auto rifles

metalhead357
09-14-2007, 6:54 PM
Sure it's a loophole. We are exploiting technical deficiencies in the law, especially the bit about a bullet being considered a tool, in ways I assure you are contrary to the intent of the Legislature as well as the DoJ. That makes it a loophole.

What isn't a loophole is something like the "gun show loophole" as there is no technical deficiency in the law that is being exploited. Nothing magical happens at gun shows that allows people to circumvent firearms laws.

Since the Legislature can't define exactly what it is they are trying to ban when they ban "assault weapons," I am pretty sure this is a loophole they will be unable to close without a blanket ban on semi-auto rifles


Ohhhhhhhh boy. This topic was beat to death, resurrected and beaten to death again and again, decapitatated and the remains sent to various parts of the planet. It aint a loophole:rolleyes: Nothing is being exploited- everything is well WITHIN the law and the case law that established and further defined its limits. They DID try to BAN ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!!! And THIS is what they got....... grassroots movement writ state wide

C.G.
09-14-2007, 8:42 PM
Sure it's a loophole. We are exploiting technical deficiencies in the law, especially the bit about a bullet being considered a tool, in ways I assure you are contrary to the intent of the Legislature as well as the DoJ. That makes it a loophole.


No, we are not exploiting anything. The BOF (actually it was the DOJ) has stated that if it needs a tool to remove it (tool can be a tip of a bullet) then it is not an detachable magazine. This is and has been written for 7 years now, so how exactly are we circumventing the law? Please read it and give us a brake; oh, wait you did that already, let's try a break.

Scarecrow Repair
09-14-2007, 9:36 PM
I doubt there's a legal definition of a loophole :-)

Seems to me the common sense definition is any way of circumventing the broad spirit of a law by some unintended unexpected reading of a law.

Since the bullet-as-tool was specifically coded into the regulations, that is not a loophole, altho I suppose some gun grabbers might think so, since they had intended the law to eliminate as many guns as possible.

The Bullet Button and OLLs in general are closer to being a loophole. Neither were expected by anyone. No one drafted the law with the thought in mind that 100K wannabe assault weapons would be brought into the state, nor that they would have almost-detachable magazines. But still not a real loophole, in my mind. I am sure the gun grabbers think otherwise.

Then there is the missing "buy" from the large capacity magazine restrictions. I wonder if anyone knows why that is missing? That, to me, is a bug in the law, not a loophole, unless someone actually intended to leave it out.

But the two exemptions for armored car operators and FFLs were specifically coded into the law itself, they do not come from "clarifying" regulations.

Now maybe each of the large capacity magazine anomalies was intended individually, but when you string all three together, you certainly get the unintended consequence that perhaps it will soon be legal for us mere mortals to buy large capacity magazines, or more correctly, for someone to legally sell them to us mere mortals. But even so, I don't think that qualifies as a loophole.

On the third hand, since loophole is a rather colloquial word, maybe it is merely in the mind of the beholder. What is a feature to us, because we come out ahead, may be a loophole to the gun grabbers who lose face and substance.

If some consequence of the gun laws worked against us unexpectedly, maybe we would be the ones yelling about the gun grabbers having found a loophole.

hoffmang
09-14-2007, 10:31 PM
There are two issues here and neither are loopholes.

1. Issue 1 is that when the California Supreme Court struck down parts of the AWCA, its called Case Law and not a loophole. Many of your statements would otherwise be using loopholes in laws that were struck down as infringements of the First Amendment.

2. The Bullet Button isn't a loophole. It's following a clear path required by the SKS.:

Comment

A1.12 - The SKS rifle with a detachable magazine cannot be changed without using a bullet tip as a tool, thus the regulations conflict with the specific listing of SKS rifles with detachable magazines in the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. DOJ has no authority to contradict existing law.

Response

The Department disagrees with the comment because any magazine that requires the use of a bullet or any other tool for its removal is a fixed magazine, not a detachable magazine. The SKS with a true detachable magazine does not require a bullet or any other tool to remove and is a controlled assault weapon under Penal Code section 12276. Identifying a bullet as a tool allows for the proper categorization of an SKS with a fixed magazine. Therefore, the SKS referred to in the comment has a fixed, not detachable magazine.
See Final Statement of Reasons for the 2000 Rulemaking, http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/fsor.pdf, Attachment A pg. 2.

Neither of those are loopholes. They are the only valid legal interpretation of black letter law.

-Gene

Addax
09-15-2007, 12:31 AM
I appreciate the feedback and I must say that what I have brought up has been debated countless times on this forum.

It is not my intent to rehash anything old, nor am I trying to beat a dead horse.

My intent is to find out more about something I had heard since it bothered me and there is not better place to find out information on these topics than right here on Calguns.

I am glad I brought it up and Thank You for the responses.

adamsreeftank
09-15-2007, 1:51 AM
Would you say that someone in DC who may soon be able to legally purchase a handgun is exploiting a loophole? Of course not. If a law is struck down by the courts, then it no longer applies. Original intent is irrelevant.

mikehaas
09-15-2007, 6:51 AM
...*Regulations* are only used to shape/clarify the law, and can never extend the law...
I don't even think the "shape" description applies, although it may be an issue of semantics as I know bweise surely knows his stuff.

Not being royalty, there are a series of requirements for an agency regulation to comply with state law. For example, a state agency regulations MUST clarify existing law. It must be limited in scope and deal with ONE law, not encompass a variety of legal concepts or advance or establish legalities not intended by the legislature. It cannot establish new law. It must be easily understood (it's got to CLARIFY something, right?)

For example, in 2006, DOJ learned it cannot create a new "category" of assault weapon via regulation. Yes, in 2006 they tried and cried "96 tears" TWICE, but as another famous song goes - "They tried, but they couldn't do it".

And from my personal observations, Attorney General Brown has had a distinct calming effect (probably, HOPEFULLY, involving locks and chains) on those DOJ children whose fangs drip, salivate and slobber for more gun control.

Mike

simonov
09-15-2007, 9:31 AM
No, we are not exploiting anything. The BOF (actually it was the DOJ) has stated that if it needs a tool to remove it (tool can be a tip of a bullet) then it is not an detachable magazine. This is and has been written for 7 years now, so how exactly are we circumventing the law?

No one is circumventing the law, otherwise it would be a violation, not a loophole.

We are circumventing the law's intent, which is what makes it a loophole.

Of course, now some of you will jump up and argue that it was the intent of the DoJ that California gun owners would use their definition of fixed magazine to legally build tens of thousands of bullet button AR-15s. If that is your line, it would be a waste of my time to attempt to dispute it.

hoffmang
09-15-2007, 10:28 AM
We are circumventing the law's intent, which is what makes it a loophole.


Kind of like how the California Legislature is exploiting a loophole in the Constitution to implement the AWCA?

Intent does not a loophole make. Not everyone who voted for the AWCA had the same intent. A loophole is when you use some quirk of the law to get around another part. Neither of the perfectly valid exceptions we're using are anything but case law and black letter regulatory/statutory law.

Using the Armored Car exception to invalidate the large-capacity magazine restrictions - that's much closer to being a loophole. The difference is that no one intended to create these path ways through the law. The CA Supremes and the DOJ itself actively and knowingly created the pathways for OLL/OLR and magazine fixing kits.

-Gene

bwiese
09-15-2007, 11:19 AM
CA AW laws are written in such detail and have enough internal conflicts that no rational 'intent' beyond "we wanna act like we're doing something about AWs" can be inferred.

The most inferrable broad intent of CA AW's laws was that any firearm that transitioned into AW status (for whatever reason), it must have a declared registration period and allowed to be retained.

The DOJ wanted to have its cake and eat it: they wanted to make existing rifles into AWs and disallow retention. There is ZERO support in the law and legislative history for that.

The detai in CA AW laws is at such a detailed level, extant for 18 years in some areas and 7+ years in others, that if the legislators had intended to add additional 'functionality' it could well have been added when all the other detail was added.

Generally, the more detailed and complex a law we consider, the less wiggle room for inferring any of various 'intents' exists: if legislators took the time & trouble to add a bevy of excruciating details during the law's formation, amendments and initial supporting regulations, then the omission of other details must actually be the intent - and not the other way around!

bwiese
09-15-2007, 11:36 AM
*Regulations* are only used to shape/clarify the law, and can never extend the law...

I don't even think the "shape" description applies, although it may be an issue of semantics....

True, Mike - I was using that term 'shape' rather causally/generically.


For example, a state agency regulations MUST clarify existing law. It must be limited in scope and deal with ONE law, not encompass a variety of legal concepts or advance or establish legalities not intended by the legislature. It cannot establish new law. It must be easily understood (it's got to CLARIFY something, right?)

Exactamundo, sir. Which is why redefinition of 11 CCR 5469(a) didn't and couldn't fly. Every one of its numerous side-effects was in effect making new law if the DOJ didn't do certain actions (which of course they won't).

tenpercentfirearms
09-15-2007, 11:39 AM
OK, back on topic.

This new requirement for firearms shipped into or around California has been discussed at length. Lets see if I can find the thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=52155&highlight=2521

To sum up that long thread:

Until the DOJ submits its regulations for how they are going to deal with this, there is not much to worry about.

In my opinion this bill was designed to complicate the process of our of state undercutters from sending guns into the state for transfer by requiring every sender to request an authorization number for every transaction (and possibly every gun) or the receiving FFL will be guilty of a misdemeanor (if they accept the firearm). Many out of staters will simply say, "No sales to California."

The DOJ is going to have a hard time justifying the holding up of any firearms longer than they need to be in this process. It most likely will be quick and instant and any attempts to slow down transactions will be tracked and can be noted in a lawsuit and the DOJ can easily be held accountable.

This new law is not going to hurt any specific firearm type sales. It is going to hurt all out of state transfers when the seller doesn't want to deal with our laws. Then you are going to have to buy the gun new from me.

Addax
09-15-2007, 3:03 PM
Thanks for the info. Wes.

Here is more of what I read up on AB2521 today.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2521_cfa_20060609_131153_sen_comm.html

This makes it sound like the DOJ-BOF wants to make sure that all firearms that are shipped to California (outside of any Assault Weapons or banned Firearms) are facilitated via ffl dealer/distributor (Out of State) to ffl dealer (here in Ca) via this verification program they are supposed to implement.

If they hold up any legitimate orders, then this could become a huge legal headache for DOJ... The only question is how much time is required by CA DOJ to provide a Verification Number, which I have not seen listed anywhere?

I know several dealers out of state that would be willing to apply for the Verification Number, probably have to pay them some admin. fee or something, but they would be willing to do it, since a decent percentage of their sales are to CA..

Thank you,
Addax

arguy15
09-15-2007, 4:34 PM
Is this going to have any effect on C&R holders?

hoffmang
09-15-2007, 4:56 PM
As I remember my last read, C&R holders are exempt from the shipment number regulations.

Either way, there will be a rulemaking process where we will all get to comment on the enabling regulations.

-Gene