View Single Post
Old 06-21-2011, 10:16 PM
bubbapug1's Avatar
bubbapug1 bubbapug1 is offline
Dazed & Confused
CGN Contributor
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South South OC
Posts: 6,471
iTrader: 260 / 100%

Some on Staff also have a great knowledge of AR's too. For a long time there was a prejudice against AR's with BB's by management, probably to avoid possible DOJ drama, but the staff has (had) a lot of Marines, and they know their AR15's. The only shop that beats their staff knowledge is Rifle Gear and OC Armory. I too would be wary of any gray areas if I ran a range and owned the underlying property to avoid a seizure proceedings...but the law is not gray now, its very brilliantly black and white.

Now that Turners is selling AR's, and the present Cali AG has stated in her pleadings in a recent case that bullet buttons render a gun legal, perhaps On Target may now embrace the black rifle officially. On Target would sell a ton of them because as we all know, once you shoot one, you have to own one. And On Target has more traffic than any other gun store in SoCal, and can use the range to "hook" a client immediatly on an AR.

So check it out Gregg....And I paraphrase here..

Attorney General of California
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 142541
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-1376
Fax: (415) 703-1234
Attorneys for Defendants California Department

thority, the First Amended Complaint must be dismissed due to these defects.

This case concerns whether the California Attorney General and the California Department
of Justice have a statutory duty to issue a bulletin regarding California’s Assault Weapon ban.
They do not have such a duty.
Mark Aaron Haynie, The Calguns Foundation, Inc., and The Second Amendment
Foundation (“Plaintiffs”) have filed an action seeking injunctive relief relating to California’s
Assault Weapons Control Act (Cal. Penal Code 12275, et seq., hereafter “AWCA”) Plaintiffs
maintain that the Attorney General and the California Department of Justice (“Defendants”) have
failed to perform their duty under state law to inform local law enforcement about which weapons
are subject to the AWCA and which weapons are exempt from it. Plaintiff Haynie was arrested
in Alameda County for allegedly violating the AWCA , when Pleasanton Police thought that his
Colt AR-15 was a banned weapon. FAC 12. However, the rifle possessed by Haynie was
equipped with a “bullet button,” a device which required the use of a tool to remove the
magazine, taking the weapon out of the statutory definition of an assault weapon. FAC 15.
Therefore , charges were never filed, and Pleasanton stipulated to Plaintiff Haynie’s factual
innocence and agreed to pay for Haynie’s bail bond costs. FAC 18-22.
In Plaintiffs’ view, the Defendants have failed to properly inform local law enforcement
that weapons equipped with a “bullet button” are legal weapons to possess. Plaintiffs concede
that the Assault Weapons Identification Guide published by the California Department of Justice
indicates that weapons where a tool, such as a bullet, is needed to remove the magazine the
weapon is not considered a banned gun solely due to its “detachable magazine.” FAC at 32.
However, Plaintiffs believe that by not issuing “a statewide bulletin or other directive regarding
the ‘bullet button,’” Defendants have somehow caused Plaintiff Haynie to possess “a reasonable
fear that he may suffer wrongful arrests in the future.” FAC at 33, 35. Likewise, The Calguns
Case3:10-cv-01255-SI Document26-1 Filed05/06/11 Page5 of 13

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss (10-cv-1255-SI)
Foundation and The Second Amendment Foundation allege that they “fear that [their] members
may be subject to wrongful arrests.” FAC at 36.