A different kind of response from DOJ regarding OLL rifles?

[shark92651]

On 11/14/2007 I wrote a letter to the Bureau of Firearms asking about the legality of buying a Stag Arms rifle with a Bullet Button and a fixed, 10-round magazine. I wanted to see if I would get the standard "you may be prosecuted by the 58 DA's..." response, or no response at all. I was somewhat surprised by the response I received. I am posting the letter I wrote and the response I received. Comments?


Here is the response I received (http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/StagBB_DOJResponse.jpg)




Bureau of Firearms
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200

Subject: Stag-15 rifle with magazine lock

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to request clarification of the legality of a rifle I intend to purchase. I have done extensive research on this topic but there seems to be much misinformation and confusion around this topic and I would like you to give me a definitive answer.

I intend to transfer in a Stag Arms Model 2 pre-ban rifle in .223 caliber that has a magazine lock kit installed and a fixed 10 round magazine. The magazine lock is referred to as a “Bullet Button”. The “Bullet Button” lock will not allow the magazine to be removed without the use of a tool. From the research I have done I believe that this rifle is legal in California for the following reasons:

• The Stag Arms rifle is not listed in the Roster of AK and AR-15 Series Weapons document found at this location: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/awguide/awguide.php

• The file, once fitted with the Bullet Button magazine lock, does not meet the generic characteristics of the Category 3 Assault Weapons as described in the Assault Weapons Identification Guide found at the same location as above.

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Penal Code section 12276, “assault weapon” shall also mean the following:
Rifles
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of
the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.


I have highlighted the key wording above, the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. Here is the definition of Magazine, detachable, found in the same document:

Magazine, detachable - An ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

When equipped with the Bullet Button lock, the rifle seems to clearly meet this definition since a bullet or other tool must be inserted into the lock in order to remove the magazine.

Please confirm if my reading and interpretation of this law is correct. To summarize, I would like to transfer into the state of California, a Stag Arms Model 2 rifle caliber .223 with a Bullet Button magazine lock kit already installed out of state. This rifle will be equipped with a 10 round capacity magazine fixed in place. According to the California Assault Weapon laws as currently written, is this rifle legal?


Regards,

David

[Grouch]

that looks like a very good response from the DOJ.

[Prc329]

TMLLP need a copy of that letter asap.

[Pugster]

I thought the DOJ was going to refrain itself from giving out opinions on OLLs?

[hoffmang]

This is a major improvement. I don't care to carry paperwork with my rifles, but for those that do - this is a very nice piece of paper to carry.

I will probably cross post a PDF version on my site unless I hear a complaint.

TMLLP and other Right People already have a copy.

-Gene

[oaklander]

Interesting that they didn't let Alison Merrilees write the letter. Wonder what's doing on behind the scenes? It's nice that they aren't using the 58 DA's thing. This is a major improvement.

[shark92651]

Gene,

Please create a PDF from this JPG so that my name/address is anonymized.

Thanks

[CSACANNONEER]

Uh, did I read that wrong or. is DOJ still thinking that "series" weapons are AWs?

[RRangel]

Does this response have the same weight of a Deputy AG?

[bwiese]

Gene,

Please create a PDF from this JPG so that my name/address is anonymized.


That's fine, but it's still a public record that can be PRARd.

This is a fairly good generic letter and improvement over FUD letters of the past.

An Administrator I is not the most senior person (better than an 'Analyst', though) - but it *is* over the signature of AG Jerry Brown.

Good catch.

[bwiese]

Uh, did I read that wrong or. is DOJ still thinking that "series" weapons are AWs?

"Series" weapons *are* AWs.

They are not 'series' members unless & until they are formally listed in the CCRs (Kasler list or Roberti-Roos list), though. And that list is frozen due to AB2728.

[AJAX22]

That is a GREAT letter!!!!

[bluestaterebel]

sounds like a major win for us!

[BLFD1]

Wow! This is encouraging... Maybe they (DOJ FD) have come to the realization that OLL are legal and that they need to do damage control.

Good work!

[.22guy]

That third paragraph is definitely the kicker!!! Thank you Karen! :)

[hoffmang]

Here is the letter in PDF form:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/AR-AK-Approval-Letters/DOJ-BoF-Stag-15-Approval-2007-12-19.pdf

I've added it to my AR and AK approval letters directory in my usual archive.

-Gene

[vandal]

Wait a sec... now it is up to US to determine these things? That is fantastic!

"If you determine that.... x y z ...you may lawfully posess it..."

Somehow I doubt it is really going to work that way. I think CADOJ and the 58 DAs will still be doing the determining.

[hoffmang]

If you show this letter to a LEO or a DA and walk him through how your rifle has either no features (Monsterman Grip) or a non detachable magazine per the CCR, you're in a very good place and you have that explanation process in black and white from the DOJ.

-Gene

[ARRRR-15]

I think this is a great improvement from past responses. Maybe we can get a letter on the monster man grip and bullet button now.

[ohsmily]

She misspelled "advice." ;)

[hoffmang]

I love that that's what you notice ohsmily. Don't ever change!

-Gene

[SemiAutoSam]

She quoted California Penal Code section 12021.5(c)(1) as bring the PC section that defines detachable Magazine.

This isn't the regulation that I am use to using that defines the detachable Magazine.

Does anyone else see a problem with this ?


I found the text here.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/12020-12040.html


12021.5. (a) Every person who carries a loaded or unloaded firearm
on his or her person, or in a vehicle, during the commission or
attempted commission of any street gang crimes described in
subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 186.22, shall, upon conviction of
the felony or attempted felony, be punished by an additional term of
imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years in the
court's discretion. The court shall impose the middle term unless
there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court
shall state the reasons for its enhancement choice on the record at
the time of sentence.
(b) Every person who carries a loaded or unloaded firearm together
with a detachable shotgun magazine, a detachable pistol magazine, a
detachable magazine, or a belt-feeding device on his or her person,
or in a vehicle, during the commission or attempted commission of any
street gang crimes described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section
186.22, shall, upon conviction of the felony or attempted felony, be
punished by an additional term of imprisonment in the state prison
for two, three, or four years in the court's discretion. The court
shall impose the middle term unless there are circumstances in
aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the reasons for its
enhancement choice on the record at the time of sentence.
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) "Detachable magazine" means a device that is designed or
redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a rifle that is designed or redesigned to
fire ammunition.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a rifle that is designed
or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(C) To feed ammunition continuously and directly into the loading
mechanism of a rifle that is designed or redesigned to fire
ammunition. (2) "Detachable pistol magazine" means a device that is designed
or redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a semiautomatic firearm that is not a rifle
or shotgun that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a firearm that is not a
rifle or shotgun that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(C) To feed ammunition continuously and directly into the loading
mechanism of a firearm that is not a rifle or a shotgun that is
designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(3) "Detachable shotgun magazine" means a device that is designed
or redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a firearm that is designed or redesigned to
fire a fixed shotgun shell through a smooth or rifled bore.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a firearm that is
designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell through a smooth
bore.
(C) To feed fixed shotgun shells continuously and directly into
the loading mechanism of a firearm that is designed or redesigned to
fire a fixed shotgun shell.
(4) "Belt-feeding device" means a device that is designed or
redesigned to continuously feed ammunition into the loading mechanism
of a machinegun or a semiautomatic firearm.
(5) "Rifle" shall have the same meaning as specified in paragraph
(20) of subdivision (c) of Section 12020.
(6) "Shotgun" shall have the same meaning as specified in
paragraph (21) of subdivision (c) of Section 12020.

[uclaplinker]

First off, nice work Shark.

Capacity to accept a detachable magazine is a property of a firearm, the magazine itself is what is being defined in that section. Two totally different definitions. She can't use that one as it describes a magazine, not a property of the rifle. Also, they are defined in each section of the PC.

Shark should send a follow-up, though.

She quoted California Penal Code section 12021.5(c)(1) as bring the PC section that defines detachable Magazine.

This isn't the regulation that I am use to using that defines the detachable Magazine.

Does anyone else see a problem with this ?


I found the text here.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/12020-12040.html


12021.5. (a) Every person who carries a loaded or unloaded firearm
on his or her person, or in a vehicle, during the commission or
attempted commission of any street gang crimes described in
subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 186.22, shall, upon conviction of
the felony or attempted felony, be punished by an additional term of
imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years in the
court's discretion. The court shall impose the middle term unless
there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court
shall state the reasons for its enhancement choice on the record at
the time of sentence.
(b) Every person who carries a loaded or unloaded firearm together
with a detachable shotgun magazine, a detachable pistol magazine, a
detachable magazine, or a belt-feeding device on his or her person,
or in a vehicle, during the commission or attempted commission of any
street gang crimes described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section
186.22, shall, upon conviction of the felony or attempted felony, be
punished by an additional term of imprisonment in the state prison
for two, three, or four years in the court's discretion. The court
shall impose the middle term unless there are circumstances in
aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the reasons for its
enhancement choice on the record at the time of sentence.
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) "Detachable magazine" means a device that is designed or
redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a rifle that is designed or redesigned to
fire ammunition.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a rifle that is designed
or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(C) To feed ammunition continuously and directly into the loading
mechanism of a rifle that is designed or redesigned to fire
ammunition. (2) "Detachable pistol magazine" means a device that is designed
or redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a semiautomatic firearm that is not a rifle
or shotgun that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a firearm that is not a
rifle or shotgun that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(C) To feed ammunition continuously and directly into the loading
mechanism of a firearm that is not a rifle or a shotgun that is
designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(3) "Detachable shotgun magazine" means a device that is designed
or redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a firearm that is designed or redesigned to
fire a fixed shotgun shell through a smooth or rifled bore.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a firearm that is
designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell through a smooth
bore.
(C) To feed fixed shotgun shells continuously and directly into
the loading mechanism of a firearm that is designed or redesigned to
fire a fixed shotgun shell.
(4) "Belt-feeding device" means a device that is designed or
redesigned to continuously feed ammunition into the loading mechanism
of a machinegun or a semiautomatic firearm.
(5) "Rifle" shall have the same meaning as specified in paragraph
(20) of subdivision (c) of Section 12020.
(6) "Shotgun" shall have the same meaning as specified in
paragraph (21) of subdivision (c) of Section 12020.

[blackberg]

printing this and the PC snippets and along with the flowchart that someone posted, there is a nice little packet that is unfolding, now just someone has to put it all together...
-bb

[chico.cm]

She misspelled "advice." ;)

Dang it! Ya beat me to it!

[Ford8N]

Very nice letter!

I wonder if this is some how a Jerry Brown touch, rather than a Bill Lockyer. We were told that Jerry had a different take on firearms than Bill. I'll keep a copy in my gear too. And I'll stir the pot at some of my favorite "everyone is going to go to jail" FFL's with this letter.

Score one for us.

[Wulf]

While this letter represents progress it still falls well short of DOJ's mission statement:

The Bureau of Firearms serves the people of California through education, regulation, and enforcement actions regarding the manufacture, sales, ownership, safety training, and transfer of firearms. Bureau of Firearms staff will be leaders in providing firearms expertise and information to law enforcement, legislators, and the general public in a comprehensive program to promote legitimate and responsible firearms possession and use by California residents.

Saying "if you determine" the firearm is legal "you may possess it", or hire your own attorney to figure it out for you, falls fraudulently short of serving the people of California with education and leadership in firearms expertise.

The OP's letter to DOJ is very detailed and complete. Anybody in the firearms division worth their salt should be able to write a letter that simply says "the rifle described by you in your letter does appear to be a legal configuration in this state. However, without actually examining the specific rifle in question the DOJ cannot make a legally binding ruling with respect to the legality of this weapon."

I wonder how possible it would be to get a legislator to sponsor a bill that would obligate BOF to live up to their charter. Basically require them to respond definitively and in a timely fashion to serious requests for information and education. Maybe include some sort of application process, with a reasonable fee. And perhaps a higher level review where someone like a gun or accessory manufacturer might apply and submit an exemplar for a hands on definitive review by a DOJ expert. Properly written such a bill would look like a win for both anti's and pro-gun people.

[Diablo]

Wow, this is great. This letter now goes with the papers I carry to the range. Thank you!!

[Fjold]

Shark, great letter! Quite a change in attitude by the DOJ, much more informative.

[gazzavc]

Lets all start a letter writing campaign to BOF to hold classes to educate the masses on what can and can't be done. What is legal and illegal, and to EDUCATE us in the correct application of the laws.

Maybe Iggy can be our teacher !!

[WolfMansDad]

Wow, this is a great leap forward! I especially like the phrase, "If you determine..." Apparently, we are now recognized as grownups who can read the penal code for ourselves and are respected for making a good-faith effort to follow the law.

This does sound like Jerry Brown's influence to me.

[Gryff]

Is it my imagination, or did they not answer the question?

It seems like they are basically saying, "If it is legal, you can have it." They did nothing to acknowledge that the gun specified is legal.

Jim

[Hunter]

She misspelled "advice." ;)

So you are advising she seeks advice on verb and noun use ?:D


Back to the main topic, this is a great letter. Still says one needs to seek legal council for more details, but no FUD.

[Jicko]

Just translate her 3rd paragraph into THE "flowchart"!! :D

Definitely need to followup with them, point out the definition of "detachable magazine" being "removable without the use of a tool"....

[Hopi]

Is it my imagination, or did they not answer the question?

It seems like they are basically saying, "If it is legal, you can have it." They did nothing to acknowledge that the gun specified is legal.

Jim

That is much better than, "It is, errrr, probably errrr, maybe errrr, well if it is legal, you still will be subject to prosecution by any of the 58 DAs, and we won't help you if you get arrested, neaner neaner neaner......."

[1911su16b870]

IMO this letter shows acknowledgement by our CA DOJ of the legality and all the work you guys have put in on OLLs.

Kudos to the calgunners!

:party:

[Hunter]

IMO this letter shows acknowledgement by our CA DOJ of the legality ....

Well, I donot see it exactly that way at all. They are only saying the burden of proof is on the owner to insure compliance with the law and that they make no claims, one way or the other, on the legality of the OLL. But it is very positive that they appear to have taken a neutral stance vs the FUD of 12 months ago.

[uclaplinker]

I don't think they can make that kind of determination without having the rifle in their physical possession.

In fact, the response was more powerful than that. it says if it follows the specified laws, it's not illegal. Furthermore, it doesn't contain threats or delusions.

Is it my imagination, or did they not answer the question?

It seems like they are basically saying, "If it is legal, you can have it." They did nothing to acknowledge that the gun specified is legal.

Jim

[hoffmang]

It's only error is to apply a definition of "detachable magazine" that is defined as only for that section - a section which has nothing to do with Assault Weapons. The definition of "detachable magazine" is the one we all know from the CCR.

-Gene

[SemiAutoSam]

SO I did ident that part correctly.

I didn't really see any correct response or a ATTABOY so I thought I was in ERROR for a split second.

OK I'm better now.


It's only error is to apply a definition of "detachable magazine" that is defined as only for that section - a section which has nothing to do with Assault Weapons. The definition of "detachable magazine" is the one we all know from the CCR.

-Gene

[dfletcher]

I don't wish to push the "If you determine that a firearm in question ....." approach too far, but given that it is obvious CA AW laws can be confusing to even the experts - as evidenced by CA DOJ's long term "let the DA decide" approach and the existence of many state experts - does this memo actually introduce what may be called a reasonable belief defense? As in, you reasonably believe your BB or MM grip is OK - therefore it is? You reasonably believed it's a muzzle brake or that the 30" OAL applies only when a folding stock is extended, etc.

[MudCamper]

I don't know. I don't like the letter, because they are (incorrectly) trying to apply the 12021.5 definition of detachable magazine. This IMO is more FUD to confuse people.

[uclaplinker]

That's where I suggested a follow-up for Shark... I think it could be an honest mistake, but it should be pressed. That definition of detachable magazine is to define the magazine itself, not what the firearm does, as it's a part of adding charges to gangbangers... it, of course, like the other definition, has the "used in this section" language... It's also the 1st place in the PC detachable magazine is defined, so if she's doing research herself it's the 1st hit. However, it is the BOF...

I don't know. I don't like the letter, because they are (incorrectly) trying to apply the 12021.5 definition of detachable magazine. This IMO is more FUD to confuse people.

[Phantom_Piney]

Personally I think this letter is heading in the right direction, and is some what written to signify that OLL are legal. :jump: Having said that I'll keep a copy or two in my range bag.

Thanks Calguns.net

[tenpercentfirearms]

This is cool. I talked to all sorts of people at the Acusport Show today about AR15s. Most guys don't care.

On a side note I asked the Heavyshot lady if her ammo was on the DFG list and she basically treated me like crap and said it was lead free and if I don't want it don't buy it. I hate when people treat me like they don't need me if I ask a legitimate question.

In fact, this pisses me off enough, screw Heavyshot. I am not going to stock their ammo. All she had to do was listen and realize there is a CA DFG letter on what ammo is approved and say if it isn't on the list, she will make sure it is. Instead, she treated me like crap.

I told the Remington guy HD wasn't on there and he said he would get on it and ask around. At least he realized the importance of being on the condor safe list.

[532Fastback]

Interesting.

[pottymouth310]

Hey, that 1 for the good guys! Job well done shark! you clarify alot hear-say.

[jcardona1]

Yeah, I agree with you guys on the detachable magazine part, it sounds a little sketchy. I would be a little nervous using this letter to explain the legality of my AR to an LEO. If I didn't know the laws, it would seem that BB-equipped AR would be illegal. Here's what I mean:

The letter says it can be an AW if its in PC 12276, 12276.5 or meets the criteria of 12276.1. 12276 and 12276.5 are easy; if it's listed by make/model, then its an AW.

12276.1, on the other hand, says "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine". The letter references PC 12021.5 (c)(1) for definition of a detachable magazine. If I didn't know about the "detachable magazine" definitions in the CCR, it would seem as though any rifle with evil features would be an AW.

I know better as I have read the laws, but how do you think an ordinary person would interpret this? Either way, its a step in the right direction :)

[uclaplinker]

Which ammo is safe to shoot condors? :D


I told the Remington guy HD wasn't on there and he said he would get on it and ask around. At least he realized the importance of being on the condor safe list.


I seriously think that the person looked for A definition of detachable magazine and used the only one they could find in the PC, relevant or not. They're confused. We're not. :D



12276.1, on the other hand, says "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine". The letter references PC 12021.5 (c)(1) for definition of a detachable magazine. If I didn't know about the "detachable magazine" definitions in the CCR, it would seem as though any rifle with evil features would be an AW.

I know better as I have read the laws, but how do you think an ordinary person would interpret this? Either way, its a step in the right direction :)

[Ironchef]

Be nice if calgunners with OLLs would keep a steady barrage of letters flowing to the AG's desk demanding Official AG definitive answers to our questions, eventually they'd write back.

[GuyW]

Be nice if calgunners with OLLs would keep a steady barrage of letters flowing to the AG's desk demanding Official AG definitive answers to our questions, eventually they'd write back.

Somebody needs to have a legislator send the definitive letter to DOJ asking all of the questions.

[simonov]

Some years ago I was dating a woman who owned a flower shop, and so for a while there I was sending flowers to every female who ever helped me or was otherwise kind to me in business or any other situation. I was really surprised by the reactions and responses, it's such a nice thing for a woman to receive flowers unexpectedly.

I don't have the energy right now, but maybe someone from Calguns could send some flowers to Karen Milani, to say thank you for the unexpectedly clear and concise letter.

Honey always makes a better impression than vinegar.

For years now I have been trying to come up with an equivalent gift you can send to dudes. Beer isn't always acceptable. Flowers could be misunderstood.

[metalhead357]

For years now I have been trying to come up with an equivalent gift you can send to dudes. Beer isn't always acceptable. Flowers could be misunderstood.

Big screen tv:confused:



:D

[Fjold]

Some years ago I was dating a woman who owned a flower shop, and so for a while there I was sending flowers to every female who ever helped me or was otherwise kind to me in business or any other situation. I was really surprised by the reactions and responses, it's such a nice thing for a woman to receive flowers unexpectedly.

I don't have the energy right now, but maybe someone from Calguns could send some flowers to Karen Milani, to say thank you for the unexpectedly clear and concise letter.

Honey always makes a better impression than vinegar.

For years now I have been trying to come up with an equivalent gift you can send to dudes. Beer isn't always acceptable. Flowers could be misunderstood.


Ammunition is always appropriate on here.

[drawn]

I don't think they can make that kind of determination without having the rifle in their physical possession.

In fact, the response was more powerful than that. it says if it follows the specified laws, it's not illegal. Furthermore, it doesn't contain threats or delusions.

Time to hack up a vulcan and other parts to create cut away working or non-working examples of the areas of the rifle in question. Then have a lawyer walk them in for clarification.

[socalguns]

a simple/plain thank you card (no weird cartoon ones, goofy WUB ones, or religious overtones) should suffice, with maybe a coupon for a free meal

[artherd]

This letter has several spelling mistakes and makes at least one error on applying an unrelated narrow definition of detachable magazine to the AW statutes.

The language is probably the best stance DOJ has applied to the OLL situation yet, but they have a ways to go before they stop violating their charter.

[CRTguns]

Dood... Double You Tee Ef??????????????????

I have no idea where to even start- AGAIN! Ahhhg. bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall bang head on wall

[FortCourageArmory]

I passed this letter on to the Western Regional Sales Manager for SIG Sauer. He's going to use it in a meeting with the president of SIG in order to get SIG to start producing mag-locked incorporated SIG EBRs for California.

Let me repeat that.....

A SIG VP wants to have SIG produce Prince 50-type mag lock SIG EBRs specifically for the CA market and if this letter helps that happen, then it's freakin' fantastic. Oh, and if SIG goes forward with this idea, they are GODS!!!

[hoffmang]

I passed this letter on to the Western Regional Sales Manager for SIG Sauer. He's going to use it in a meeting with the president of SIG in order to get SIG to start producing mag-locked incorporated SIG EBRs for California.

Let me repeat that.....

A SIG VP wants to have SIG produce Prince 50-type mag lock SIG EBRs specifically for the CA market and if this letter helps that happen, then it's freakin' fantastic. Oh, and if SIG goes forward with this idea, they are GODS!!!

You should tell him to go with Bullet Button locks instead of allen screw locks, or were you already meaning that?

And yes - that rules!

-Gene

[BaronW]

Even with the magazine error, this letter gives a big, bright green light to saigas!


(please someone with better legal-fu than me verify this :eek:)


edit: It also bothers me that this letter points to the PC with all the old 'series' nomenclature in it.

[tiki]

It seems to me that all this letter does is change the 58 DA's to the 58 DA's and you.

[GenLee]

Shark great letter and response, and Gene thank you for putting it in PDF format for us, I have printed a copy to go with that flow chart, I think I am really starting to get more confident when I head out to practice with my OLL Ar.

Thank's to all you CalGunners...
Matt

[SemiAutoSam]

Show him My MAG-LOCK'S as well maybe he would like something classy for such a prestigious rifle.

The thread with pics is the top one in my sigline.

I passed this letter on to the Western Regional Sales Manager for SIG Sauer. He's going to use it in a meeting with the president of SIG in order to get SIG to start producing mag-locked incorporated SIG EBRs for California.

Let me repeat that.....

A SIG VP wants to have SIG produce Prince 50-type mag lock SIG EBRs specifically for the CA market and if this letter helps that happen, then it's freakin' fantastic. Oh, and if SIG goes forward with this idea, they are GODS!!!








Especially with the PC she cites for detachable magazine.

If someone was to use that letter without putting in the CCR citation for detachable magazine there would a lot more arrests for AW possession.



It seems to me that all this letter does is change the 58 DA's to the 58 DA's and you.

[PIRATE14]

I passed this letter on to the Western Regional Sales Manager for SIG Sauer. He's going to use it in a meeting with the president of SIG in order to get SIG to start producing mag-locked incorporated SIG EBRs for California.

Let me repeat that.....

A SIG VP wants to have SIG produce Prince 50-type mag lock SIG EBRs specifically for the CA market and if this letter helps that happen, then it's freakin' fantastic. Oh, and if SIG goes forward with this idea, they are GODS!!!

That won't happen......but it's a good thought.....

[FortCourageArmory]

You should tell him to go with Bullet Button locks instead of allen screw locks, or were you already meaning that?

And yes - that rules!

-Gene

Gene,

I gave hime one sample of each. He personally liked the Prince 50, but whatever way he can convince SIG to go would be fine with me....and I'm sure the rest of you.

[FortCourageArmory]

That won't happen......but it's a good thought.....

I'm hopeful. The conversation started with him saying how SIG wants to be a larger player in the CA sport shooting scene. We started with stuff like Steel Challenge and IPSC and then someone mentioned SIG's EBRs (beautiful rifles BTW). We showed him some of the Stags and Spike Tacticals I have on the shelf and an in-depth conversation of what makes a OLL rifle CA-legal. He was pretty sharp about CA DOJ practices and didn't seem to mind the hornets nest SIG would be stirring up if they did it. Then I remebered this thread. One thing lead to another and he asked for a printout. He kept saying over and over that CA is the LARGEST shooting population in the country and that's why SIG wants in. If nothing else, it shows me that not all manufactureres are ready to cut and run on CA because of a few silly-***** laws. Overall a very good thing I think.

[blackberg]

money talks, and if they see there is a market here, and money to be made, it gives them an incentive to look in to it.
especially when seeing all the other OLL's coming in and being relatively trouble free, they want part of the pie too:cool:

[ibanezfoo]

Its cool and all, but she said "If you determine......." How is this to be interpreted? Being you aren't a lawyer (I'm assuming) does it matter what we common folks determine? I'm not ripping on this or anything, just thinking out loud about something that struck me as odd.

-Bryan