Underground Regulation: Capacity to Accept a Detachable Magazine
Out by courier today is this official petition to the Office of Administrative Law regarding the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms underground regulation of the term "capacity to accept a detachable magazine."
The petition is quite thorough in debunking Mrs. Merrilees attempt to reinterpret the phrase "capacity to accept." On our last petition, OAL took about 60 days to accept or reject the petition. For those of you following the NRF activities, this was the little extra that we received. In what appeared to be an attempt to overload us in paper when responding to our PRA requests, we received the letter from Dolorian Capital and Mrs. Merrilees' response. Now that that is out of the way you should expect more news on the NRF front as well. -Gene |
pwned!
|
:thumbsup::rockon:
|
Great job Gene. Go get em. :D
|
Wow, opening the PDF in a browser tab has a little miniGene peering down at you as the site icon, I think if I would be disconcerted if I were a 2A foe & the miniGene was watching over me.
|
this is awesome
|
Sorry, in layman's terms, please? :confused:
|
Quote:
so 1 - CGF has proof and 2 - CGF has submitted a petition. Can someone spell out what petitioning does and what the possible outcomes are? I'm gathering that if the petition is viewed as correct the DOJ will have to acknowledge that P50/Bullet Button do not violate the law and will have to verify that the current CGF analysis of "detachable" is correct. |
Ah, pwned indeed. :)
|
Fantastic shot across the bow, Gene. Hopefully this will make AM and her friends take a step back for a bit.
|
Pretty awesome. Pretty soon they're going to have to come clean specifically on the BB/P-50 issue.
Am I reading this correctly that the "bullet as a tool" ruling came down because BoF wanted to declare certain SKS models to be "fixed magazine?" |
It's a violation of the Adminstrative Procedures Act under California law for an administrative agency like DOJ BoF to try to reinterpret the law without going through a formal rulemaking process.
Alison is out there trying to cause confusion around the term "capacity to accept a detachable magazine." Her argument is specious :bofud:. OAL will review such things, and if the petition has merit, rule on them in a way that gets considerable deference from California Courts. The funny part about all this is we gave Alison two weeks to write a clarifying letter or ask for more time and she ignored us. Here is that letter: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal...2009-02-06.pdf -Gene |
Now I understand why you were so up to the minute on the recent threads beating up BB'ed ARs as being in some state of limbo with an empty mag well.
|
Good job, guys! I was surprised both that BOF is still spouting their "capacity to accept" manure, and that they were dumb enough to hand you the evidence of their continuing illegal activity with a nice bow on top.
P.S.: I don't see miniGene with my browser (Safari on a Mac). On my system, the favicon just looks like a little planet earth. |
Quote:
-Gene |
Are there any penalties for them over-reaching? At least a slap on the wrist?
|
So there is a typo in footnote 9... There always has to be at least one no many how many times or pairs of eyes looks over it...
-Gene |
Wow. I wasn't aware that the SKS was the rifle that paved the way for AR's to repopulate California (sealed magwells aside). That has a personal historical significance that makes it much harder to resist owning one... Thanks again Gene for keeping on top of all of this.
|
So what does this have to do with NRFs?
|
Interesting ;)
|
Everyone hug your SKS
|
Quote:
-Gene |
Quote:
Why would they be adversarial any way aren't they supposed to be protecting law abiding citizens? [/sarcasm] |
So Gene, did you look like this, :shock:, once you figured out what you had received via the PRAR?
And can you comment any more on the original PRAR that dealt you this gem? |
Quote:
So anyway, why is everyone acting like this is good news? I mean, yeah, it's good that we know about this, but it's not good that they are trying to make things worse for us... is it? Also, I thought the previous underground regulation (that was fought down?) was about detachable magazines? Can someone clarify? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Noticed that the letter is dated February 26, 2007..:o
|
F'in A. Nice work!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm glad someone noticed I gave her two weeks! -Gene |
As a thought... We should (and I presume that we are) keeping track of the number of "underground regulations" and the difficulties the State's firearms-regulatory agency is having with determining what is/is-not an assault weapon.
When the time is ripe for a 2A challenge, this can be used as evidence of an unconstitutionally vague statute. The underground regulations can be used to show even the "authority" can't understand the law without help and/or refute claims that the law is clear and comprehensible. |
Is there an endgame to this beyond the OAL telling the DOJ to knock it off? Not that I don't want to see them knock it off, it just seems like we've won the OLL fight so it won't really change anything.
|
Quote:
|
Outstanding! Can't wait til DOJ gets this shoved down their throats.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Is he covered by a law enforcement exemption? Would he need a letter from the chief or who ever gives permission for officers to buy an AW? Could we get one of the 58 DA's to prosecute him? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hopefully this will force the DOJ to simply respond with a sheepish "yes" when asked if XYZ rifle is legal with a BB/P50 magazine lock. It could finally blow the dust off some of the remaining FFLs that won't deal with OLLs (I'm sure that there will be holdouts that simply wont do it no matter what), and give manufacturers the legal tools to finally be willing to ship their rifles to CA. |
Great Job Gene! :thumbsup:
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.