PDA

View Full Version : Old 978.20(a) is this old news or still in the picture?


Addax
10-08-2007, 7:42 PM
Just on DOJ-BOF website doing a search for Muzzle Brake definition and came across this 978.20(a) regarding Detachable Magazines and the wording in there stating a bullet is not a tool, I also noticed this was from 2000?

I thought 978.20(a) is no longer valid or do I have my info. mixed up somewhere?

Sorry If I am rehashing old news, but I was just brushing up on legal stuff for my firearms collection etc.

I appreciate any input regarding this and the wording about a bullet not being considered a tool?

Thanks,
Addax

hoffmang
10-08-2007, 8:04 PM
978.20(a) is just the old numbering of the CCR. BoF did a full renumbering of their sections last year and that paragraph is now at 11 CCR 5469 (a).

-Gene

Addax
10-08-2007, 9:30 PM
978.20(a) is just the old numbering of the CCR. BoF did a full renumbering of their sections last year and that paragraph is now at 11 CCR 5469 (a).

-Gene

Thank you Gene.

This next question might sound very stupid, but a stupid question is the question not asked right?

So my question is, was BOF successful at defining that a bullet is not a tool?

I mean obviously the Bullet Button is being used everywhere and one would say that a bullet is still considered a tool, but the whole detachable magazine definition has been put to rest or BOF is not going to push the issue anymore?

I will read up 11CCR 5469 (a) some more tonight and tomorrow.

Thanks,
Addax

hoffmang
10-08-2007, 9:34 PM
The change was only a change in the numbering with nothing substantive.

DOJ did not submit the proposed rulemaking about capacity to accept and then my OAL petition forced them to admit that the concept of permanence was an illegal rulemaking: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf

-Gene

Addax
10-08-2007, 9:39 PM
The change was only a change in the numbering with nothing substantive.

DOJ did not submit the proposed rulemaking about capacity to accept and then my OAL petition forced them to admit that the concept of permanence was an illegal rulemaking: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal/OAL-280-Suspension-Notice-2007-09-21-w-Attachments.pdf

-Gene

Thanks Gene, lots of reading ahead for me, gotta put on my reading glasses :cool2:

Also, I am searching for the current documentation on the legal or somewhat confusing definition of a Muzzle Brake. I have found allot of info. on the DOJ site about a muzzle brake cannot direct the flash away from the field of view of the shooter or that muzzle brake would then be considered a Flash Hider.

I guess what I am trying to get at is are there any physical characteristics that are defined?

Thanks,
Addax

hoffmang
10-08-2007, 10:13 PM
There is some hard to find documentation of muzzle break in the 2000 Rulemaking's Final Statement of Reasons and in Hunt v. Lockyer. I don't think the Hunt stuff is online (I just have it in a box.)

Short answer is there really is no good definition of what a Flash Hider is.

-Gene