View Single Post
Old 03-03-2009, 6:32 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%


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 Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote