PDA

View Full Version : DOJ Bof Will Not Enforce Permanently Altered Magazines (or will they?)


hoffmang
09-24-2007, 3:54 PM
All,

On September 11, OAL accepted (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-acceptance%20letter-2007-09-11.pdf) my petition (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/Underground_Rulemaking_Important_Notice-2007-07-11-04-public.pdf) alleging that the Department of Justice attempted to publish and enforce an underground regulation claiming to require that magazines must be permanently fixed to not be detachable magazines under Penal Code 12276.1 (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/12275-12278.html).

The acceptance and the petition were scheduled to be published in this Friday's (September 28, 2007) Notice Register (http://www.oal.ca.gov/notices/September2007_notice_pdf.htm).

However, BoF, by way of a certification from Attorney General Brown, certified pursuant to Section 280 of Title 1 of the CCR that:

CERTIFICATION

I EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Attorney General, hereby certify:

1. The California Department of Justice received notice that Gene Hoffman, Jr. had filed a petition with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) alleging that a document entitled "Important Notice" which was posted on the website maintained by the Bureau of Firearms within the California Department of Justice constituted an "underground regulation." A copy of the petition is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. The California Department of Justice will not issue, use, enforce, or attempt to enforce the policy at issue as a rule of general application, but reserves the right to interpret the law in any case that may arise in the course of case-specific adjudication, as authorized in Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 572.

___________/s/_______________ Dated: September 20, 07
EDMUND G. BROWN Jr.
Attorney General


OAL has accepted (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf) that this certification is a certification under Section 280. That means that instead of opening a public comment period after September 28, OAL considers its role here complete but reminds me that I should feel free to attempt to work this out with DOJ or through the courts. As such, I expect that my petition and Mr. Brown's certification will be published in the Notice Register this Friday or a Friday shortly thereafter.

What does this mean for us?

1. With the above linked documents it would be very hard to secure a conviction for an otherwise legal semiautomatic rifle with a magazine that requires a tool to remove but is not permanent that has PC 12276.1 features.

2. The Department of Justice admits it did not follow California Law and it may be continuing to not follow California Law.

I'm going to have to reserve certain comments about point 2 above as I decide which next steps I care to take.

-Gene

Diablo
09-24-2007, 3:59 PM
Thank you Gene, your work is greatly appreciatted...:jump:

Anthonysmanifesto
09-24-2007, 3:59 PM
Gene-

you are the hardest working man in show biz

thank you for working within the system, over and over to bring us to these important outcomes.

I think you are bucking for calgunner of the year or something!

SemiAutoSam
09-24-2007, 3:59 PM
Congratulations Gene.


This is a massive step in the right direction for the rights of all Californians.

Ten Rounder
09-24-2007, 4:12 PM
But do we still have a ton of bricks on the scaffold overhead from Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 572? someone Please explain in layman terms.

Paratus et Vigilans
09-24-2007, 4:14 PM
Great work, Gene!

I suspect that AG Brown has made a command decision to focus his efforts and political capital elsewhere and to not let his underlings go off tilting at windmills and making him look bad.

I think Jerry's looking at running for the U.S. Senate against Arnold when the next seat (Feinstein?) opens up. I don't think he wants to be governor again, and I still think deep down in him there's that unscratched itch to run for POTUS in a better way than he has in the past. All of which possibilities mean that he is NOT interested in a high-profile losing court battle with California gun owners. He's not stupid, and he's read the law and regs for himself, I'm sure.

Regardless, kudos to you Gene, and my BB-equipped builds and I thank you (and Darin for building his BB's) and my Dillon XL 650 thanks for you keeping it busy!

Jim

Rck'n'ROll
09-24-2007, 4:18 PM
THIS IS FREAKIN AWESOME. THNX SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, MONEY AND DEDICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA GUN MOVEMENT, GENE!!!!!!:D

Thnx again,

Semper Fi

dustoff31
09-24-2007, 4:20 PM
A big tip of the hat to you, Mr. Hoffman.

Stormfeather
09-24-2007, 4:22 PM
Gene, there are thousands of gun owners here in cali that should be thanking you right now. Thanks for all the great work, please keep it up! If I can ever be of assistance, please feel free to contact me!

Diablo
09-24-2007, 4:25 PM
But do we still have a ton of bricks on the scaffold overhead from Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 572? someone Please explain in layman terms.

+1...What does this mean?

bwiese
09-24-2007, 4:27 PM
Great move, Gene.

The wording is 95% of the way there, there's a few "58 DA" 'weasel words' still but that's major forward progress.

The fact that this exists - and the proposed regulation that was not submitted/adopted - should be a part of any defense on a fixed-mag rifle case.

I am wondering if the Iggy-driven prosecution of a NorCal FFL has just gone on the ropes now given similarities to the file-and-walk away DOJ behavior in Modesto case.

soopafly
09-24-2007, 4:27 PM
much props:cool:

double_action
09-24-2007, 4:29 PM
Awesome Gene THANK YOU

tango-52
09-24-2007, 4:30 PM
Nice job making the government follow the rules! They are not above the law! Thank you very much for your hard work!!! :patriot:

hoffmang
09-24-2007, 4:31 PM
But do we still have a ton of bricks on the scaffold overhead from Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 572? someone Please explain in layman terms.

Tidewater doesn't mean what DOJ would like it to mean.

For those of you with a Findlaw login: http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal4th/14/557.html

-Gene

hoffmang
09-24-2007, 4:35 PM
Notice Register
is that the right side of cal bof web site

Kimber, No. The Notice Register is a document that the OAL publishes each Friday that summarizes all the activity in administrative activity in all the California Administrative agencies. See this link: http://www.oal.ca.gov/notice.htm

-Gene

metalhead357
09-24-2007, 4:57 PM
THANK YOU GENE!!!!!!!!!!!!

If it wern't cyber space I'd hug ya'...if I wern't married I'd...WAIT~ lets not go THAT far:p... But awsome job man!!!!

762cavalier
09-24-2007, 5:01 PM
So Gene I briefly looked at Tidewater Marine and am i correct in that it boiled down to the state saying that it had authority to do something outside of regulations because they were just interpreting regulations but they got slapped down because the were actually outside of regulations.
If its not too much effort can you break it down into layman's terms for those of us whose brains start to smoke when reading legaleze:D

Kestryll
09-24-2007, 5:02 PM
First things first.
Gene, you rock.
Thank you for all your time, money, effort and hassle and thank you in advance for your continued efforts in this fight.

Second, for all those who think things can't change or that it's hopeless read this thread again. We CAN make things change, we CAN stand up to the overwhelming machine of government and make them toe the line as we are expected to do.

We only lose when we give up, and we're not giving up!

The_Fonz
09-24-2007, 5:03 PM
Thank you sir. You really do alot of work for us, and every bit of it is greatly appreciated. Big time Kudos!

JawBone
09-24-2007, 5:04 PM
Great work. Thank you. :notworthy:

Gringo Bandito
09-24-2007, 5:10 PM
Thank you Gene!

tgriffin
09-24-2007, 5:17 PM
Add me to the appreciative masses Gene. Your (and Bill / The Right People's) work on the behalf of all gun owners deserves praise from all far and wide.

Ladder51
09-24-2007, 5:22 PM
Gene , Thank you for your hard work and dedication.

taloft
09-24-2007, 5:25 PM
Simply outstanding Gene! Well done.

This part of the cert. made me laugh.
2. The California Department of Justice will not issue, use, enforce, or attempt to enforce the policy at issue as a rule of general application, but reserves the right to interpret the law in any case that may arise in the course of case-specific adjudication, as authorized in Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 572.

Isn't that exactly the type of behavior that got them in this mess in the first place?

WilsonCQB
09-24-2007, 5:27 PM
Great job. Thank you!!!!

hoffmang
09-24-2007, 5:28 PM
So Gene I briefly looked at Tidewater Marine and am i correct in that it boiled down to the state saying that it had authority to do something outside of regulations because they were just interpreting regulations but they got slapped down because the were actually outside of regulations.
If its not too much effort can you break it down into layman's terms for those of us whose brains start to smoke when reading legaleze:D

Tidewater is the controlling case from the California Supreme Court that really explains and enforces the Court's interpretation of the Administrative Procedures Act and underground regulation. The Court says that a rule that isn't adopted by the APA process can not be enforced with the one caveat that if the interpretation that is the rule is the only valid interpretation of the law then that doesn't neccessarily mean the rule is moot.

In our case here, the rule isn't even a valid interpretation so it fits in the 90% of underground regulation cases that the APA was meant to stop and Tidewater agrees are moot rules.

DOJ's interpretation of Tidewater is just wrong or massively unclear and that could get very interesting.

-Gene

M. Sage
09-24-2007, 5:28 PM
Wow, so it sounds like they're still trying to weasel? :rolleyes:

Couldn't the guy have just done the right thing: fired a couple of people and said "oops. My bad."????

hoffmang
09-24-2007, 5:29 PM
Simply outstanding Gene! Well done.

This part of the cert. made me laugh.


Isn't that exactly the type of behavior that got them in this mess in the first place?

Yeah... Doesn't that kind of sound like an Underground Regulation right there in the Certification?

-Gene

donger
09-24-2007, 5:32 PM
If you're ever in the LA area, I promise to buy you a good dinner. Not at some cheezy diner but a nice, sit down, put a jacket on, hey look there's Brangellina dinner.

Thanks for all of your hard work and for keeping up the fight.

:cheers2:

tango-52
09-24-2007, 5:34 PM
Yeah... Doesn't that kind of sound like an Underground Regulation right there in the Certification?

-GeneGene, you hit 5000 with your last post. Another reason for congratulations!

newtothis
09-24-2007, 5:36 PM
THE POWER OF ONE

Well done.

Fjold
09-24-2007, 5:38 PM
Fantastic job! Gene. Bravo Zulu!

hoffmang
09-24-2007, 5:42 PM
THE POWER OF ONE

Well done.

Gents,

I worked hard on this, but this is the power of a whole bunch of guys- in fact all of you guys - on here. Ben, the doc, Wes, Bill, forumguy, Kes, Oaklander, The Right People, the NRA, all of you who post here and push hard. Setting up the conditions to win takes this little "Army of Davids."

-Gene

G17GUY
09-24-2007, 5:44 PM
Congrats to everyone. Thank You!:79:

762cavalier
09-24-2007, 5:47 PM
Thanks Gene for that clarification.

And I forgot to mention THANK YOU for your continuing efforts. You, and all the others working behind the scenes, are an inspiration.:D;)

SchooBaka
09-24-2007, 5:48 PM
FNG here.
I'd just like to say THANKS!! to all.
:notworthy:

metalhead357
09-24-2007, 5:50 PM
Gents,

I worked hard on this, but this is the power of a whole bunch of guys- in fact all of you guys - on here. Ben, the doc, Wes, Bill, forumguy, Kes, Oaklander, The Right People, the NRA, all of you who post here and push hard. Setting up the conditions to win takes this little "Army of Davids."

-Gene

Gene, got another thread going today from a guy about possible underground regs on Forrest service lands.....

Anyway you're up for another letter?

newtothis
09-24-2007, 5:51 PM
Gents,

I worked hard on this, but this is the power of a whole bunch of guys- in fact all of you guys - on here. Ben, the doc, Wes, Bill, forumguy, Kes, Oaklander, The Right People, the NRA, all of you who post here and push hard. Setting up the conditions to win takes this little "Army of Davids."

-Gene


I think that's understood by most all of us and I didn't intend any slight to the all those that engage in the struggle. But...you were point on this.

C.G.
09-24-2007, 5:55 PM
Good job, Gene.:cheers2:

mecam
09-24-2007, 5:56 PM
U DA MAN!!! :gunsmilie:

Beatone
09-24-2007, 6:10 PM
Bravo Gene. Well done!!! :party:

Number 6
09-24-2007, 6:10 PM
Thank you Gene, and everyone else involved. We all owe you.

Mr. Ed
09-24-2007, 7:03 PM
Awesome! Thanks!

oaklander
09-24-2007, 7:11 PM
Gene *your're* tha' man!!!

:D

Gents,

I worked hard on this, but this is the power of a whole bunch of guys- in fact all of you guys - on here. Ben, the doc, Wes, Bill, forumguy, Kes, Oaklander, The Right People, the NRA, all of you who post here and push hard. Setting up the conditions to win takes this little "Army of Davids."

-Gene

-aK-
09-24-2007, 7:11 PM
Three cheers for Gene!

peepshowal
09-24-2007, 7:13 PM
Thank you Gene, and everyone else, for not letting them get away with this.

WokMaster1
09-24-2007, 8:59 PM
Hippy! Thanks Gene.:D

glockman19
09-24-2007, 9:55 PM
Thank You Gene

artherd
09-24-2007, 9:59 PM
DOJ's interpretation of Tidewater is just wrong or massively unclear and that could get very interesting.
-Gene

Makes you wonder wether Alison read the Case, or the Cliff's Notes...

I'm half tempted to Petition the OAL about DOJ's "certification" or rather lack thereof...


2. The California Department of Justice will not issue, use, enforce, or attempt to enforce the policy at issue as a rule of general application, but reserves the right to interpret the law in any case that may arise in the course of case-specific adjudication, as authorized in Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 572.

___________/s/_______________ Dated: September 20, 07
EDMUND G. BROWN Jr.
Attorney General

This is like saying we reserve the right to ban abortion pursuant to Roe v Wade...

artherd
09-24-2007, 10:01 PM
Gents,

I worked hard on this, but this is the power of a whole bunch of guys- in fact all of you guys - on here. Ben, the doc, Wes, Bill, forumguy, Kes, Oaklander, The Right People, the NRA, all of you who post here and push hard. Setting up the conditions to win takes this little "Army of Davids."

-Gene

Gene, you rightfully deserve to carry the olympic torch on this one! Just think of what one David did to a Goliath, and imagine what a legal army of us can do :D

artherd
09-24-2007, 10:08 PM
2. The California Department of Justice will not issue, use, enforce, or attempt to enforce the policy at issue as a rule of general application, but reserves the right to interpret the law in any case that may arise in the course of case-specific adjudication, as authorized in Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 572.

___________/s/_______________ Dated: September 20, 07
EDMUND G. BROWN Jr.
Attorney General


This is like saying we reserve the right to ban abortion pursuant to Roe v Wade...

SUBSONIC
09-24-2007, 11:57 PM
Great job!:patriot:Thanks!!!

ETD1010
09-25-2007, 2:46 AM
Awesome!! Thanks so much for your hard work and dedication!!!:jump:

Kilbane
09-25-2007, 3:32 AM
New here but ghosting these forums for a while.
Just wanted to thank you and all the the people here for all their hard work. :cheers2:

adamsreeftank
09-25-2007, 3:46 AM
Nicely done Gene!

Keep their feet to the fire.

aileron
09-25-2007, 5:50 AM
Kudos to you Gene, Great job!

chico.cm
09-25-2007, 11:08 AM
Gents,

I worked hard on this, but this is the power of a whole bunch of guys- in fact all of you guys - on here. Ben, the doc, Wes, Bill, forumguy, Kes, Oaklander, The Right People, the NRA, all of you who post here and push hard. Setting up the conditions to win takes this little "Army of Davids."

-Gene


Gene and Compatriots: THANK YOU! I appreciate your dedication and commitment to the cause!

:cheers2:

stealthmode
09-25-2007, 11:25 AM
Hoffman,

Thanks for all you are doing.

Does the Cal NRA, CRPA or any other california based organization give you any help? I hope you are not spending any of your own money but if you are you should send them a bill for you doing their job.

hoffmang
09-25-2007, 11:28 AM
Hoffman,

Thanks for all you are doing.

Does the Cal NRA, CRPA or any other california based organization give you any help? I hope you are not spending any of your own money but if you are you should send them a bill for you doing their job.

I spend my own money on this sort of thing. However, know that NRA - though not involved or supporting me directly - is helpful. CPRA... not so much.

I'm not sending anyone but the State my bill...

-Gene

Cobrarlc
09-25-2007, 11:31 AM
Thanks a million Gene.

gmcal
09-25-2007, 11:59 AM
I would like to thank Gene, Ben, the doc, Wes, Bill, forumguy, Kes, Oaklander, The Right People, the NRA and anyone else who took part this effort.

Gene, does the State reimbuse you for your costs?

The second point of the certification still has me a little concerned and confused. Under what conditions would the State be allowed to interpret the law other than how it is stated? (Sorry, I don't have a sharp mind when it comes to these types of things).

The SoCal Gunner
09-25-2007, 12:10 PM
Will the BOF take any steps to right their wrongs? Even though they have stopped posting the "Important Notice" and stopped sending it to FFLs and PDs, it has already made its effect.

Someone should forward that to Evans though I'm sure it wouldn't change the crap he spews.

And thanks to all involved. This stuff is history in the making.

badwolf
09-25-2007, 12:19 PM
Much thanks, Gene!

and much thanks to everyone else involved in gun owner rights!

shonc99
09-25-2007, 12:30 PM
You sir are a god amongst mortals. Many thanks to your efforts. We truly have the power in our little corner of the web to change this state around

:party:

bwiese
09-25-2007, 1:19 PM
Someone should forward that to Evans though I'm sure it wouldn't change the crap he spews.

It won't stop that, because his welded-up lowers are (according to him) technically superior aside from his misunderstandings of the law.

However, we should thank Evan's/GBSales for the Iggy-Approval-Based-on-Misconceptions since this may be useful in the future to folks who find themselves in a jam - esp due to further DOJ shenanigans afterwards in the 'cleanup' thereof.

Sometimes things like this are blessings in disguise.

sammy
09-25-2007, 4:21 PM
:D Thank you Gene and Bill both for all your efforts. If the BOF had your intelligence, drive and motivation we would have no guns at all. Keep up the good fight! :D

odysseus
09-25-2007, 4:33 PM
Great Job Gene and all who help!

mcubed4130
09-25-2007, 4:33 PM
+1 more - Nice work Gene and others who will go unnamed - but not forgotten.

-M3

glockk9mm
09-25-2007, 5:18 PM
Thanks Gene!

heyjak
09-25-2007, 6:10 PM
Gents,

I worked hard on this, but this is the power of a whole bunch of guys- in fact all of you guys - on here. Ben, the doc, Wes, Bill, forumguy, Kes, Oaklander, The Right People, the NRA, all of you who post here and push hard. Setting up the conditions to win takes this little "Army of Davids."

-Gene

Thank you, Mr. Hoffman and all who helped see this through!:)

E Pluribus Unum
09-25-2007, 6:10 PM
Ba Humbug! Get a life Gene! ;)

hoffmang
09-25-2007, 6:17 PM
Ba Humbug! Get a life Gene! ;)

EPU is just mad that I correct him from time to time :p

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
09-25-2007, 6:53 PM
EPU is just mad that I correct him from time to time :p

-Gene

I am never wrong... once I thought I was wrong... but I was mistaken... or did you misspell your words and swap an "E" for "CO"?

trashman
09-25-2007, 10:33 PM
Nicely done, Gene. And while your description of an "army of davids" is a pretty good way to describe the larger pro-2A approach, what you've done here is decidedly old-school -- just good old-fashioned individual patience and effort, and attention to detail, in order to bring the machinery of our government to heel.

Again, nice work.

--Neill
San Francisco

Addax
09-25-2007, 10:45 PM
Thank you Gene.

Your hard work and dedication is of great benefit for all of us.

If you ever need or require assistance, please advise.

Sincerely,
Addax

artherd
09-26-2007, 12:09 AM
Unfortunately RKBA efforts often require going deep out of pocket. I think the State of CA should one day cut me a check, that's about it.

Ask me sometime how much OLLs cost :)

PS: I echo Gene, NRA has been helpful (indirectly) and deserves your $.

Best!
Ben.


Hoffman,

Thanks for all you are doing.

Does the Cal NRA, CRPA or any other california based organization give you any help? I hope you are not spending any of your own money but if you are you should send them a bill for you doing their job.

Dieseldog
09-26-2007, 1:19 AM
Thank you Gene.

FreedomIsNotFree
09-26-2007, 1:23 AM
Amazing work Gene!!!

Goes to show what a lot of hard work and determination can lead to. All CA gun owners owe you a debt of gratitude...whether they know it or not.

Thank you.

hitnrun
09-26-2007, 9:20 AM
Wow. Great work Gene. You have stepped up in an attempt to make a difference that will affect all of us Californians in the long run. Thank you for you hard work, dedication, and unrelenting determination to see things through to the end. And now it's off to the next battle...

:cheers2:

hoffmang
09-26-2007, 3:33 PM
This one is not quite over yet :hammer:

-Gene

Wulf
09-26-2007, 4:19 PM
This one is not quite over yet :hammer:

-Gene

What? Is the state auditing your tax records or something?

;)

Scarecrow Repair
09-26-2007, 8:16 PM
What Attorney General Brown is saying here is this:

"The California Department of Justice hereby rescinds and will not openly recognize and enforce this "IMPORTANT NOTICE" as an official Department regulation. However, the Department will exercise its authority under Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 572 to prosecute any and all "fixed magazine" violations according to the exact interpretation of what constitues a legal "fixed magazine" as contained in the aforementioned rescinded "IMPORTANT NOTICE".

Are you saying that they speak with forked tongue? Oh noes! (insert video clip of the Home Alone shriek)

supersonic
09-26-2007, 11:07 PM
GH: How does it feel to have all these Cal-Gunners' tongues up your arss? I guess it won't matter much (or that you will "feel" the difference) as I slip mine in, too!:tt2:.........wait.......EEEWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!:: :tooth:..Ahhh, much better. Sorry, not my bag, so I'll just say a big THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! Peace,
SS:43

duenor
09-26-2007, 11:49 PM
ewww...!
that's a blow for the antigunners! now what exactly does it mean?

code6charles
09-27-2007, 12:05 AM
thanks Gene,
building my first ar15, if it wasn't for people like you, a lot of us would have illegal firearms..keep up the good work...:boxing_smiley::boxing_smiley:

PanzerAce
09-27-2007, 7:29 AM
Wow, I leave for a few days to write some papers, and this is what happens.

Good job man :)

shooterx10
09-27-2007, 10:17 AM
:95:

We got them on the run now!!! One down, so many more to go.

Thank you Mr. Hoffman for your hard work! :D

BaronW
09-27-2007, 12:22 PM
As I read it, they haven't done anything except to cease publication of their underground regulation. They still intend to enforce it in court. I look forward to more updates.

Scarecrow Repair
09-27-2007, 12:44 PM
Wow, I leave for a few days to write some papers, and this is what happens.

I hope (1) you are claiming credit, and (2) you have some more papers to write. That would be nice!

Richard
09-27-2007, 7:38 PM
Good job Gene.....we thank you.;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/ro1964/boratthumbsup.jpg

supersonic
09-28-2007, 6:04 AM
What Attorney General Brown is saying here is this:

"The California Department of Justice hereby rescinds and will not openly recognize and enforce this "IMPORTANT NOTICE" as an official Department regulation. However, the Department will exercise its authority under Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 572 to prosecute any and all "fixed magazine" violations according to the exact interpretation of what constitues a legal "fixed magazine" as contained in the aforementioned rescinded "IMPORTANT NOTICE".

Doesn't this essentially say : "We will rescind the IMPOTANT NOTICE, and will not enforce it. But, actually, we WILL DO IT ANYWAY."????????? (BTW, there are NO typos to be found in this here post!:))
SS:43:

PanzerAce
09-28-2007, 7:18 AM
I hope (1) you are claiming credit, and (2) you have some more papers to write. That would be nice!
I have no idea what claiming credit means, and yes, I do have two more papers to write.

shonc99
09-28-2007, 8:13 AM
CERTIFICATION

I EDMUND G. BROWN Jr., Attorney General, hereby certify:.....

2. The California Department of Justice will not issue, use, enforce, or attempt to enforce the policy at issue as a rule of general application,

but reserves the right to interpret the law in any case that may arise in the course of case-specific adjudication, as authorized in Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw (1996) 14 Cal.4th 557, 572.

___________/s/_______________ Dated: September 20, 07
EDMUND G. BROWN Jr.
Attorney General


They are stating that they will not use the "Important Notice" as the official guide, i.e. policy, because it WOULD be an "Underground Reg", but that they will still review the pertinant law as it relates to the specifics of any case that might come because of it.

Also, from reading the appeal summary from Justice Chin, "...the (original) trial court erred in granting a permanent injunction barring enforcement..." which is what I think the DOJ is referring to when they say that they still have the right to enfore the regulation as a whole, though not by way of the "IMPORTANT NOTICE".
I guess the original trial court not only said the particular policy was an underground regulation but then barred the CA labor office from being able to enforce the law at all.

hoffmang
09-28-2007, 9:37 AM
Also, from reading the appeal summary from Justice Chin, "...the (original) trial court erred in granting a permanent injunction barring enforcement..." which is what I think the DOJ is referring to when they say that they still have the right to enfore the regulation as a whole, though not by way of the "IMPORTANT NOTICE".
I guess the original trial court not only said the particular policy was an underground regulation but then barred the CA labor office from being able to enforce the law at all.

Your reading of Tidewater is correct for that case. However in that case the interpretation was the only valid reading. Here with the BoF the rule conflicts with their own regulation.

-Gene

savasyn
09-28-2007, 9:52 AM
Sooooo, what does that mean for the bullet button/Prince-50 crowd?

bwiese
09-28-2007, 11:15 AM
OK, folks, here's what I think is happening. I believe Gene will concur at least somewhat:

1) Given who signed letter and higher-level staff analysis (non-BoF!), this letter is trying to say "OK, you win, let's let this die down. Enough time has been spent on this."

2) Thinking a bit more, "We can't say you win directly, because that might have political overones we don't wanna deal with in future elections. So please read between the lines. And we know you're tired of dealing with "58 DA" statements so we threw in Tidewater instead to give our *** some political cover so we can say you didn't win. But we really want this to go away."

This is also de facto based on DOJ FD/BoF-driven attempted prosecutions of FFLs selling OLL rifles (Sierra Sports in Modesto and an FFL up in NorCal btwn Sacto & SF). The DOJ drives the case into local DA's office but throws up its hands afterwards.

The DOJ helped drive the filing but appears not to be able to come thru in the push. The local DA in Modesto was left hanging without support and with delay/stall after delay the judge kicked it. They seemed to hope for a plea.
The DOJ thru AG could take these cases on directly if they cared to instead of referring to local DA.

The local DAs have 15-45 minutes per case, and it's often a 29 yr jr Deputy DA girl who doesn't know sh*t from Shinola about guns on top of that. So when a DOJ Firearms dude comes in with a case they initially think it's legit until they're left at the altar.

In all other OLL cases I know of (and I think I know of all of them other than raw blantant likely undefendable AW violations) the DOJ may have been contacted and/or offered some opinion, but DOJ Boffers was not driving the case or driving the initial filing of the case.

However, this paper can help in a case. If anything, it helps confirm that the regulation didn't go thru and was just a proposed one.

Remember:

(1) Not a single person has been convicted of illegal AW possession, manufacture, etc in relation to a properly-configured OLL rifle (i.e, in the various legal configurations that we Calgunners regularly discuss).

(2) I know of at least 6-8 traffic stops w/OLL rifle where dude drives away and/or just gets a ticket. (Not sure of exact count, since sometimes I get separate reports of same incidence.)

(3) There have been a couple of OLL cases that were kicked before even arriving at DAs office.


Also, remember, the matters Gene writes about are not final and there is more area for (currently ongoing) activity ;)
I believe Gene will take a deep breath, have another double-shot expresso, and continue! ;)

Again thanks to Gene (and Oaklander) for getting it to this stage.

hoffmang
09-28-2007, 2:43 PM
I want to disagree with you a bit 10th.

The DOJ said in effect:
"We broke state law (the APA) and we reserve the right to keep breaking state law."

Sometimes being vague in an attempt to salvage wiggle room is a really bad idea. I'd suggest some reading between the lines of what I've been writing starting with my first post of this thread.

No matter what, fixed magazines as we understand them that comply with the definition in CCR 5469 (a) are going to be impossible to convict on with the certification document and my petition. The entire package with OAL letter, DOJ Letter, and my petition is a concise and compact read for any DA that all California defense attorneys can use. Just click this link: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf

-Gene

Ten Rounder
09-28-2007, 3:07 PM
I want to disagree with you a bit 10th.

The DOJ said in effect:
"We broke state law (the APA) and we reserve the right to keep breaking state law."

From your first post on this thread, that is what I read into this matter after trying to decipher Tidewater. Just like the bully on the play ground, "this is my turf and we will play by my rules ONLY!"

With the OLL coming up on two years, at what point do they become bankrupt(morally and financially) and quit?

Thanks Gene for your efforts.

metalhead357
09-28-2007, 5:02 PM
[quote=Ten Rounder;771193]
With the OLL coming up on two years, at what point do they become bankrupt(morally and financially) and quit?[quote]


Morality AND a goobermint agency...Now THAT would be an interesting idea. But moreover the interesting idea is that enough people just tell thier reps to reign in, or flat out disband an agency that while noble in alleged purpose is not, and has not been following the law(s) and cases subsequent to that. But Bankrupt? LOL! Maybe they can borrow weapons from the statie-metermaids:eek:

hoffmang
09-29-2007, 11:21 AM
But maybe that agency is actually doing everything it can to indirectly promote gun rights? :41:

-Gene

hoffmang
09-29-2007, 11:24 AM
And, uh... This is kind of strange. It is Saturday and there is no Notice Register published on Friday the 28th.... I've not yet seen a Friday that OAL missed.

http://www.oal.ca.gov/notices/September2007_notice_pdf.htm

-Gene

SemiAutoSam
09-29-2007, 11:53 AM
Do the notices always appear on Friday or are they all only dated Friday ?

Maybe ya scared them and the turtle head is not coming out.

Did they take their ball and go home ?

And, uh... This is kind of strange. It is Saturday and there is no Notice Register published on Friday the 28th.... I've not yet seen a Friday that OAL missed.

http://www.oal.ca.gov/notices/September2007_notice_pdf.htm

-Gene

Addax
09-29-2007, 12:15 PM
So if the DOJ-BOF is dancing the Sacramento two step with the DA's, won't a few of these DA's start becoming reluctant to listen and believe to the BOF's firearms gospel?

Is my understanding correct that some DA's are voicing some criticism back to AG's office about the lack of working knowledge of the true firearms laws by the BOF in the state, and this is possibly leading into some deep inquiries (may have already happened) by the AG's office?

I can totally understand the political dimensions of how the BOF is saying that we basically win, but produce the media snow job that makes it look like they are still in control and that California is the model state for Firearms control..

hoffmang
09-29-2007, 12:48 PM
SAS, OAL has remained a very easy organization for us to work with and seems to be truly interested in fairness. Please trust me when I say that I have reasons to believe that OAL is not the problem. However, I have never seen them not post and publish a Notice Register copy every Friday. We shouldn't be too quick to read into it - it could be that the web guy was out sick... But I'll just say its odd.

And yes Addax - DA's (with future political ambitions) are not exactly happy with BoF on firearms issues. DA's don't like their overseers making them look bad.

-Gene

jmlivingston
09-29-2007, 9:44 PM
And, uh... This is kind of strange. It is Saturday and there is no Notice Register published on Friday the 28th.... I've not yet seen a Friday that OAL missed.

http://www.oal.ca.gov/notices/September2007_notice_pdf.htm

-Gene

When the OLL "stuff" first started off there was more than one that didn't get posted to the web until Monday.

John

hoffmang
09-29-2007, 10:35 PM
By "OLL stuff" do you mean from when I filed the petition or do you mean DOJ web postings last year?

-Gene

jmlivingston
09-30-2007, 6:20 AM
I mean when the whole movement started. Back when we thought the DoJ were really going to add them to the list in "2 weeks".

John

bwiese
10-01-2007, 11:55 AM
And believe me when I say that the threat of this is a real tangible tool and objective of those on the other side of these issues. I don't beleive for a minute that they or their minions have have, or ever intend to give up the slightest inch of idealogical ground in this fight.

10th,

If that were the case, the DOJ-driven fixed-mag cases would have had a more onerous and time-taking path.

From the closed (dismissed) Modesto case, and the ongoing matters involving a very nice Norcal FFL, we see DOJ throws a case to the local DA and then can't back it up - i.e. leaves junior DA twisting in the wind. Other cases that had some DOJ involvement were similar.

Frankly it appears you're better off having the DOJ involved in your case.

I don't think early OLL busts had anything but tangential DOJ involvement as the local DA didn't even know about Harrott or regulatory code.

Using the various papers that Hoffman has accumulated and/or the NRA comment package assembled for the regulatory hearings last year is a good starting defense package. It appears DAs hold out til trial then fold when a mound of supporting information is presented - if anything, they simply don't wanna take the time to analyze it once they realize they don't know what an AW is.

In addition, there's now about two telephone books of material that's been PRARd and from court testimony discrediting DOJ field staff (Iggy in particular, but others as well).

The BWO case recived major media hype post-VATech, and because of this it's not one of the regular "is this OLL found during a traffic stop?" kinda gigs.

It's now pretty easy to drop an "OLL defense kit" to even a non-gun attorney and get him up to speed quickly (max. 3-4 hours). Given that the prosecution really can allocate only a few hours time (shifting btwn prosecutors every court appearance in larger DA offices) in some ways the edge is ours.

fun2none
10-01-2007, 11:55 AM
It's posted at
http://www.oal.ca.gov/pdfs/notice/39z-2007.pdf

Thanks Gene.

swhatb
10-02-2007, 9:06 PM
somebody named hoffmang deserves a big b*ar ;) should we start a paypal fund!

oaklander
10-02-2007, 9:17 PM
Damn, we're good!

:D

bohoki
10-03-2007, 4:59 PM
it doesnt make sense to me that they allow sks's with pistolgrip stocks with a tool removable magazine but not an off list lower with the magazine locked in via the catch with a nylocknut instead of the actuating button

Subvertz
10-03-2007, 6:51 PM
Well that was worth the few extra days wait!

hoffmang
10-03-2007, 8:58 PM
it doesnt make sense to me that they allow sks's with pistolgrip stocks with a tool removable magazine but not an off list lower with the magazine locked in via the catch with a nylocknut instead of the actuating button

But in fact, they do allow OLL's with only tool removeable magazines. That's kind of the point of my petition.

-Gene

davedog665
10-03-2007, 9:09 PM
Great job !!!!!!!!!! luv to see that as a growing kid it shows me that fighting for what you want can make a difference and i've already seen that most people will not make the effort and thats what they count on to get this bogus crap thru.

pretty much couple months ago i thought ar's were totally out of question but now i have a registered oll and have ordered an upper and parts and did so not because an ar is the best or deadlist gun but because its a symbol for gun control and what cali needs to realize were law abiding citzens who want to shoot for fun and protect are familly like the rest of the us.

bwiese
10-03-2007, 9:24 PM
it doesnt make sense to me that they allow sks's with pistolgrip stocks with a tool removable magazine but not an off list lower with the magazine locked in via the catch with a nylocknut instead of the actuating button

This is one of the key reasons they did not push the regulation thru.

hoffmang
10-04-2007, 9:44 AM
pretty much couple months ago i thought ar's were totally out of question but now i have a registered oll ...

Please note that you don't have a "registered oll." You have a normal unregistered long gun that has to comply with all the California laws. I expect that you understand that, but your post could cause some confusion.

-Gene

code6charles
10-04-2007, 10:37 PM
can u elaborate on that. i went through dros for my off list lower "OLL" that just means i have a long gun in my possession. do i need to register the rife?my rifle has a bb on it. technically it not an assault rifle...

C.G.
10-05-2007, 12:25 AM
can u elaborate on that. i went through dros for my off list lower "OLL" that just means i have a long gun in my possession. do i need to register the rife?my rifle has a bb on it. technically it not an assault rifle...

Registration is long past due; no more registrations allowed. It is up to you to keep the rifle current.

rod
10-05-2007, 5:55 AM
can u elaborate on that. i went through dros for my off list lower "OLL" that just means i have a long gun in my possession. do i need to register the rife?my rifle has a bb on it. technically it not an assault rifle...

Not much to elaborate on. When you DROS a gun, the dealer indicates wether it's a long gun or a handgun along with the serial number. There is no difference between an AR or a krinker plinker (I had to say it) or a bolt action when you DROS a long gun. I imagine this is to simplify things for the folks that have to file the paperwork. I don't think anyone would keep their senses for very long if they had to look up every make and model of firearm just to figure out what folder to put your paperwork in.

When you build your own AR style firearm, you DROS the lower receiver. That's the part that has the serial number on it. It doesn't matter if there's anything attached to the lower when you DROS it. You do not need to register your lower now or any other time. Once you complete the DROS, you are the owner of a long gun regardless of the make and model. Registration took place a few years ago when CA banned certain makes and models of firearms. Some folks in California already owned firearms of those makes and models. Well, you can't turn someone into a criminal by passing a law outlawing something that was once legal. So, the owners of the certain makes and models of firearms that are now banned had to register them. Now those proud owners of the banned firearms can continue to enjoy the sport of shooting since they are identified as being owners of "assault weapons" before they were illegal. You can no longer buy or build firearms that are considered assault weapons so there is no more registration required. You are only allowed to buy or build legally configured long guns or hand guns and DROS them.

code6charles
10-05-2007, 11:26 AM
thats what i thought i just wanted to make sure... thanks for the reply..like Gene said the last tread made me double think myself,i want to keep my guns legal.:dupe::dupe:

artherd
10-06-2007, 1:40 AM
I just had two local PD officers fired after they (repeatedly, after being instructed not to) ticketing some of my trucks for non crimes (ie, a registered 3/4 ton pickup ticketed as "unregistered vehicle" and "commercial vehicle over 3/4 ton illegally parked").


How long before certin DOJ personel's own violations of law lead to their termination and/or criminal charges?

Brown has now implicated himself in signing that certification. If any more knowingly illegal prosecutions occur after the certification date, he is highly and directly culpable.

stag6.8
10-09-2007, 2:13 PM
this is by far great news for all of us..I`m hoping the chief of the NRA personally contacted you giving you kudos...yes...we still a fight ahead....but...its in the right direction.....we need to do a petition lifting the 10 round mag rule for rifles.... to 20 rounds.....reasonable...its calif we know(sucks)....but 20 rounds more is more realistic to me in post 911 than 10 rounds..if you do a petition ill be the first to sign it

BaronW
10-10-2007, 9:55 AM
this is by far great news for all of us..I`m hoping the chief of the NRA personally contacted you giving you kudos...yes...we still a fight ahead....but...its in the right direction.....we need to do a petition lifting the 10 round mag rule for rifles.... to 20 rounds.....reasonable...its calif we know(sucks)....but 20 rounds more is more realistic to me in post 911 than 10 rounds..if you do a petition ill be the first to sign it

That's a completely separate issue.

But as far as the topic at hand... Looks like you CAN fight city hall. :D

Robin47
04-05-2010, 3:58 PM
Thanks Gene, doing great historical work, never thought you are making history ? Yes you are !
Patriots are always remembered ! Robin47 :cool2: :) :smilielol5:

bwiese
04-05-2010, 4:01 PM
Wow, necroposting has allowed this thread to come alive again.

NiteQwill
04-05-2010, 4:02 PM
Wow, necroposting has allowed this thread to come alive again.

I've always wondered how old stuff like this just POPS up? :confused: