I'd keep it simple--California flag, except the bear is armed, and the logo "Right To Arm Bears."

Claims that there is a subtext about arming Californians will be met with a carefully practiced look of incomprehension. Unless you know the secret handshake. :D

7x57

Some background music for the day...

[QUOTE=7x57;2094565]I'd keep it simple--California flag, except the bear is armed, and the logo "Right To Arm Bears."

Wow. Was there ever a better calguns.net motto?

"Protecting the Right to Arm Bears"

It just occurred to me that there is likely a California college/university whose athletic team is the Bears or Bruins or something like that.

Yeah, we should definitely be arming them. :43:

7x57

Whenever these get sent to the DOJ I get a warm fuzzy feeling all over! :D

Thanks guys for continuing the fight.

Is there someone working on this. Is there some graphic design guys on here? I know a silk screener.

UCLA, UC Berkeley :eek:

So, let's arm them already. Nothing like driving straight for the enemy flag. :43:

7x57

:owned:

Did that bear just eat an AR-15? :P

LOL this is why I am a colorist, not an artist.

Great point, MM.

Allison states in her 9-29-08 response to Mike Badella that "The DOJ has never had the legal duty or authority to approve a rifle, shotgun, or pistol for sale in the state on the basis that the firearm is not an assault weapon."

This is patently incorrect. The DOJ/Attorney General is the constitutionally instituted chief law enforcement agency/Officer in the State of California. As such, the Attorney General of California and his Deputies at the DOJ are affirmatively charged under the California constitution to enforce the firearms laws of this state. That would explicitly charge the DOJ with the absolute duty to approve or disapprove the commercial sale of any and all firearms on the basis of whether they are statutorily defined "Assault Weapons" or not.

Her newly created "disclaimer" on behalf of the DOJ is absolutely disingenuous considering the fact that she has issued numerous public opinions approving the sale and purchase of "unlisted" properly configured "Harrot" firearms pursuant to her authority as Deputy Attorney General and head of the BoF.

She also says that "Under current law, DOJ has the duty to prepare the Assault Weapons Guide and distribute the guide to law enforcement".

First off, implicit in that duty (to prepare the guide) is the affirmative duty to ascertain whether any and all firearms sold are approved or disapproved for commercial sales in this state so that law enforcement can properly determine through use of the "Assault Weapons" guide whether violations are occurring or not.

Secondly, if that is in fact the duty of the DOJ as she admits, then someone up there at the DOJ/Bof is grossly derelict in their constitutionally mandated legal duties because the "Assault Weapons" guide is fundamentally erroneous in numerous respects. The result of this dereliction of duty is that tens of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens are being wrongly placed at risk of losing their personal liberty and property.

The DOJ BOF,,, is just following what the ATF DOF did back in the 1980's,,, Creative interpeting.......

In the 1980's, the powers that be cut the ATF DOF funding in 1/2, because they were becoming an embarasment to the upper political management for doing that.

Are you listening Arnold ?????

Hint, hint, nudge nudge.

Kim

:rofl2:Those of you still reading; Im still laughing at the bear on the flag:rofl2:

Hmm. Could the bear have a 1911 in a belt holster as well? Bears need sidearms too! Let's not deny them "an entire class of weapons commonly chosen for self defense." :-)

7x57

I've moved the flag redesign threadjack to a new thread: http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2098374

It's 2:30am and I just finished reading this entire thread and the Petition and other attachments. Then promptly sent my donation to CGF. Now I'm starting to understand what "the buzz" is about with The Right People.

Thanks to all of you for your work in restoring our rights and for providing us with this invaluable Calguns community.

Drew

Very interesting.

I have a question, is the following an example of "underground regulation" as well?

In December 1999, DOJ BOF sent the following information bulletin to Ca firearms dealers. Is said, in part, the following.....

Commencing January 1, 2000, prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale, or transfer of
any large capacity magazine unless to specifically designated parties and under specified
conditions. A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor or a felony.
(emphasis mine)

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/9904.pdf

But the actual applicable statute says the following......

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 12020-12040

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:

(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity
magazine.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html (great site - click on the type of code you want -Penal in this case - and the section you want -12020 in this case)

Looks the same except that the word transfer is missing from the actual statute. I find that interesting since the word transfer is the ONLY part that would include the purchaser/possessor as a party to any violation.

But just like my FFL buddy tells me, he gets these information bulletins from BOF and has always taken them as gospel...sorta explains why we sometimes get FUD from dealers...

Anyway, can Gene or someone tell me if this is an example of "Underground Regulation" or just plain mis-information or what?

BTW - great work Gene and those involved. CGF is one of the few hopes wee have left....Dont want to have to move just yet!

I would think the part of the PC that I highlighted takes care of transfers.


Joe

How is the purchaser/receiver giving or lending?

It seems like a small meaningless add-a-word by DOJ BOF, but when you consider what it means, its not such a small word.

If the word transfer would have been used statute, that would have effectively covered both parties in a magazine exchange transaction, right?

The one giving/selling/lending/etc AND the person receiving/buying/barrowing/etc would both be guilty of a crime if transfer was in the statute. The purchaser could be considered to be on the receiving end of the transfer, right?

But, IMO, since the Statute doesnt include that one little word, it is geared specifically AND exclusively toward the giver AND does not cover the purchaser in any way, shape or form.

So, the reason I asked if this was an "underground regulation" is because it appears as if BOF added that one little word intentionally for a different interpretation of the statute. And if that interpretation is passed on to someone via official government documentation, is that not an "underground regulation?"

Now, unless im missing something or there is another statute that I am unaware of, can anyone see any fault in my reasoning? (and please save the "conspiracy" angle because that only works if 2 or more people are "conspiring" to commit a crime and it appears the the receiver isnt doing anything wrong).

I would love to get input on this....

Excellent work Gene, as always, thank you for your work...:cheers2:

How do you complete a sale without giving the thing bought to the buyer.

You are correct that BoF's wording isn't exactly precise, but it doesn't rise to the level of an Underground Regulation there. It is illegal to sell or give a large-capacity magazine in California. It is not illegal to buy or possess.

-Gene

Thanks Gene, always great to get your input. I dont want to swell your head, but when you weigh in on something, we take it for gospel. I wasnt sure if it qualified but had assumed so because BOF's Bulletin does take it to a new meaning by including wording the includes the buyer.

It is also nice to get agreement from you regarding the purchasing and possessing of a Hi-cap magazines. I have explored this here before out of my never ending curiosity, and I would get flooded with bad info such as conspiracy, etc.

What I find interesting too, is that I keep hearing all about the need to have magazines that belong to a firearm that was manufactured before 2000, so that one can say that they possessed it before the ban date. The reality is, (although I personally would never test this out because you dont have to be guilty of a crime to be arrested in this state), that nowhere does it state that you cannot possess such a magazine, (like an XD9 for example).

Anyway, I think CGF is great and I am very much enjoying watching the progress you and the others involved make in protecting our RKBA. Thank you!

Ahh... no.
While I understand how lawyers can weasel words into different and particular meanings, I don't think you can turn the verb "give" into a finely deliniated moment at the end of a transaction.

Especially since the legislature did not strictly prohibit the sale of or the purchase of high-capacity magazines when they could have easily done so. Consider the wording of the section...

And compare to other firearms related PC sections where the sale of an item is prohibited;

Examples of legislation that bans the selling of an item.

As used in 12020, the usage of the verb "gives" follows actions related to sales and precedes the verb "lend". It could be shortened to any person "who gives, or lends,". If read in this manner, the verb "gives" exists outside of the reference to sales and indicates a prohibition against providing large-capacity magazines to another person for no cost (e.g. as a gift).

And, while one definition of "give" in Merraim-Webster includes an example of a sale, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated A statute’s words must be given their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning, absent an indication Congress intended them to bear some different import. E.g., Walters v. Metropolitan Ed. Enterprises, Inc., 519 U. S. 202, 207. Thus, when give is used as an alternative to "keep for sale" or "lend" the ordinary, contemporary meaning is to "bequeath or bestow upon another" with no exchange of valuata.

As for the OP, I would certainly think that BOF's addition of the word transfer which is not in the statute would constitute an attempt for formulate an underground regulation. BOF is not empowered to add new words or meanings to statutes.

As far as I can tell, the phrases "Keep for sale", "expose for sale" and "offer for sale" do not have a defined meaning in the PC and I have not found any reference in the on-line OAL website.

Expose for sale would, I think, mean display of the item in a way that shows they are for sale, such as being grouped with other items for sale, marked with the selling price or next to a sign indicating a sale, price or discount.

Offer for sale, would indicate somone stating they have the item for sale, specifying a price for sale or offering to exchange the item for something else of value. Offer does not need to include the display of the item.

Keep for sale implies (to my thinking of course) that the intent of the possession (keeping) is soley for selling the item. Since the law does not prohibit the possession of a large-capacity magazine, mere possession of the magazine, absent a gun that it fits, is insufficient to establish a keep for sale violation. If BOF is to be believed, a high-capacity magazine must be retained by the owner until it can be disposed of out of state or destroyed. This means one can have a shoebox full of magazines left over from guns previously sold.

The question then becomes, if a person offers to buy a specific magazine, not only sight unseen but without knowing first if the person actually has the magazine, would acceptance of the offer (i.e. delivering the magazine(s) in a closed brown sack, constitute a violation of 12020(2)?

Hmm, I thought that sounded familiar...

The minigene is very similar to the minime, only more diabolical.

You really want to present as an affirmative defense on a FELONY CHARGE: "But he didn't know I had high caps in my trench coat." ?


Me neither.

Not especially, no.

But I had more in mind the idea that when the seller and buyer meet so the buyer can inspect the pistol, the buyer could legally make an offer to buy the standard magazines for a named price.

The dialoge might go something like....
B: Man, this Hi-Power is pristine. And the price is right.
S: You remembered to bring cash for the PPT fee, right?
B: Yup. And I'll buy any original mags you have for $20 each.
S: Nope.
B: Okay, $28 each. That's what they cost in other states.
S: No, sorry.
B: Well, $30 is my last offer.
S: Well, okay we'll do that deal after the paperwork.

I would contend that any enforcement action by LE after overhearing this conversation would be defensible because no crime has been committed under 12020. Even if the magazines are exchanged, I'd argue the activity did not include all the necessary elements of a violation of 12020.

But, I'm not a lawyer for a good reason. ;)

If someone sells a large-capacity magazine in the state of California and there is proof of the sale it will not be hard for the state to get a conviction. Judges and Juries don't parse the language as finely as you or a computer would.

You can't import for sale, offer for sale, or sell a large-capacity magazine in this state.

Repair parts kits are a whole different issue.

-Gene

hoffmang, I've got a wager for you.:D

If OAL accepts your petition for review and agrees that the "only legally tenable interpretation" of the assault weapon law is that a semiauto, centerfire rifle (AR or AK) equipped with a Bullet Button does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, I will give you an M1 Garand that I got from the CMP a few years back. It's one of the non-import, USGI service grade rifles. It's been sitting in my safe, I haven't shot it.

If OAL accepts your petition and says there is a legally tenable interpretation that a semiauto, centerfire rifle (AR or AK) equipped with with a Bullet Button does have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, you buy me a new surfboard. New custom boards run around 700 bucks.

I will write a letter encouraging OAL to accept the petition for review, and if they do, to not issue a summary disposition letter on the ground that the DOJ advice letter is specifically exempt from APA requirements. The letter will argue the competing interpretation (Bullet Button rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine) and I can submit additional and/or repetitive commentary per the code if OAL decides to review the petition. I will transmit a copy of the letter to you at the same time I send it to OAL.

We are only talking about Bullet Buttons here, I think Prince 50 mag locks are legal. If OAL thinks the only legally tenable interpretation is that Prince 50 rifles are legal, you don't win the bet; if OAL thinks there's a tenable argument that Prince 50 rifles are illegal, I don't win the bet.

How does this sound? :thumbsup:

FGG,

It's sadly more complex than that. OAL has no power to stop the AG from submitting a "280" letter.

Remember that all the relief OAL can really give me is that Alison's "capacity to accept" interpretation is an underground regulation. They usually don't want to go further to say its the only legally tenable. However, when arguing that its an underground rule, it doesn't hurt that I have a pretty strong case it is the only legal tenable rule.

Also, I have one piece of "insider trading" information that we'd have to discuss before I took your M1 Carbine (which I like a lot.)

So the possible outcomes are:

1. OAL accepts (yes go on, no full stop here.)
2. DOJ 280 (no go on, yes full stop.)
3. Comment period opens.
4. OAL rules that DOJ's attempt to broaden or interpret "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" in some way that alters the definition of "detachable magazine" as it relates to rifles is an Underground Regulation.

They never really rule that a BB is legal. I just was poking Alison in the eye and keeping an eye on future readers of this set of documents.

Want to propose a different bet that works under these circumstances?

-Gene

Gene, please note that FGG put a Garand on the line, not a mere Carbine! The Carbines are adorable and fun, but a Garand is a Real Man's Rifle! :)

What does it mean to say that the AG might submit a 280 letter?

Aha! I see the connection with the "disabled Calgunner" thread now. You're going to force DOJ to install a wheelchair ramp on Alison to better facilitate the eye-poking, right? :D

Some of us are armed, at least in our homes. ;)

There's another possible outcome I think, i.e., summary disposition letter, maybe under 270(f)(2)(E).

I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to wager around your possible outcome number 4.

I want to make sure I'm following you when you say "interpret...in some way that alters the definition of 'detachable magazine' as it relates to rifles." Do you mean interpret in some way that is inconsistent with the literal construction of 12276.1(a)(1) (with the regulatory definition substituted for "detachable magazine") as applied to BB equipped rifles?

If so, I'm not sure I'd want to bet on this; any interpretation that BB equipped rifles are not lawfully configured would be inconsistent with the literal construction which results in the rifle not having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. If it gets past acceptance and summary disposition it's likely to end up this way.

Betting on whether literal construction is the "only legally tenable interpretation" is another story but that's basically what I proposed above, and I agree it is unlikely that OAL would decide that. Betting on the whether literal construction is the "correct" interpretation I'd consider, but OAL isn't deciding that either.

This is my thinking on Bullet Button rifles: I think they're assault weapons if they have any of the prohibited features. I'm not going to even try to convince anyone here about it!:D I think OAL would fairly assess the competing arguments but it's hard for me to see how to construct a legal/not legal bet around an OAL decision on the petition. I'm serious about doing it though if we can figure out a way to decide a winner.

If hoffmang wants a cute rifle instead, I can arrange that.:D

If a bullet button does not remove a rifle's capacity to accept a detachable magazine then aren't all SKS's illegal assault weapons since it only takes a tool to detach the magazine?

-Gene

But your "thinking" conflicts with the plain language of the statute and the history of the rule-making. Do you have anything concrete to base this thinking on?

Your wrongness makes me laugh.

It may make you laugh, but FGG has always been a great source of oppositional thinking over the years, and he has made sure that we discover every bit of the enemies thinking.

It leads me to believe that he is playing devils advocate to help the cause, and is a double agent behind enemy lines.;)

Yes, the plain language of the statute and the history of the rule making.:D