Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > GENERAL DISCUSSION > General gun discussions > CGN's Best Threads (Limited Posting)
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

CGN's Best Threads (Limited Posting) This forum is for storing and or easy accessing useful or important threads.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 02-27-2009, 7:52 AM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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.

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-27-2009, 9:17 AM
Fate's Avatar
Fate Fate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Proud Member of the Quitter Club. Moscow, ID
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Some background music for the day...

__________________
"On bended knee is no way to be free." - Eddie Vedder, "Guaranteed"

"Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson
, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr dated August 19, 1785
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-27-2009, 11:38 AM
ELBong ELBong is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[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"
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-27-2009, 11:56 AM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ELBong View Post
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.

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-27-2009, 12:24 PM
Santa Cruz Armory's Avatar
Santa Cruz Armory Santa Cruz Armory is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 4,329
iTrader: 76 / 100%
Default

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

Thanks guys for continuing the fight.
__________________
FFL07 offering special order firearms sales and transfers in the Santa Cruz Area. Custom Gun-smithing also availabe. $35 dealer transfers

Check out or web page for current *Web Specials* WWW.SANTACRUZARMORY.COM
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-27-2009, 12:54 PM
tortoisethunder's Avatar
tortoisethunder tortoisethunder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Simi Valley
Posts: 418
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
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.

7x57
Is there someone working on this. Is there some graphic design guys on here? I know a silk screener.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-27-2009, 12:59 PM
rbgaynor's Avatar
rbgaynor rbgaynor is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 233
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
It just occurred to me that there is likely a California college/university whose athletic team is the Bears or Bruins or something like tha
7x57
UCLA, UC Berkeley
__________________
- Brian

Oceanside Practical Pistol Club - USPSA and IDPA matches in San Diego County
Linea de Fuego - USPSA and 3-Gun matches in San Diego County
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-27-2009, 1:15 PM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbgaynor View Post
UCLA, UC Berkeley
So, let's arm them already. Nothing like driving straight for the enemy flag.

7x57
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-27-2009, 1:49 PM
AlliedArmory's Avatar
AlliedArmory AlliedArmory is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SGV, CA
Posts: 10,174
iTrader: 309 / 100%
Default

__________________
http://alliedarmory.com/
California Business - No Credit Card Fees - $6.95 Flat Rate Shipping on Any Order



http://www.alliedbrassprocessing.com/
Professional Brass Processing Service of your 223/5.56, 300 AAC Blackout and 9MM brass at an affordable price
PM me about local dropoff and pickups
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-27-2009, 2:28 PM
elenius's Avatar
elenius elenius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Redwood City
Posts: 773
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Did that bear just eat an AR-15? :P
__________________
NRA Member
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 02-27-2009, 2:33 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

LOL this is why I am a colorist, not an artist.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-27-2009, 3:23 PM
10TH AMENDMENT's Avatar
10TH AMENDMENT 10TH AMENDMENT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 693
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsterMan View Post
I think the fact that they still haven't updated the AW information on the DOJ BOF website is an "underground regulation". It still has "series" info and lots of stuff that doesn't apply anymore. Why don't we go after that?
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.

Last edited by 10TH AMENDMENT; 02-27-2009 at 5:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-27-2009, 3:45 PM
Tankhatch Tankhatch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 131
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
__________________


NRA Life Member since 1978
CRPA Life Member since 1978
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-27-2009, 9:56 PM
Mstrty's Avatar
Mstrty Mstrty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,423
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Those of you still reading; Im still laughing at the bear on the flag
__________________
~ ~
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-27-2009, 10:31 PM
7x57's Avatar
7x57 7x57 is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 5,161
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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
__________________


What do you need guns for if you are going to send your children, seven hours a day, 180 days a year to government schools? What do you need the guns for at that point?-- R. C. Sproul, Jr. (unconfirmed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
I know every chance I get I'm going to accuse 7x57 of being a shill for LCAV. Because I can.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-27-2009, 10:57 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I've moved the flag redesign threadjack to a new thread: http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2098374
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-28-2009, 1:38 AM
drewski310's Avatar
drewski310 drewski310 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 48
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-28-2009, 4:57 PM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

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!
__________________
Any Questions about Front Sight memberships or specific information about attending, Feel Free to send me a PM!
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-28-2009, 5:52 PM
jasilva's Avatar
jasilva jasilva is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vacaville
Posts: 371
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301 View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-28-2009, 8:20 PM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasilva View Post
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....
__________________
Any Questions about Front Sight memberships or specific information about attending, Feel Free to send me a PM!
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 03-01-2009, 7:08 AM
Diablo's Avatar
Diablo Diablo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,235
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Excellent work Gene, as always, thank you for your work...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 03-01-2009, 8:49 AM
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%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301 View Post
How is the purchaser/receiver giving or lending?
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
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
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
  #103  
Old 03-01-2009, 4:35 PM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
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!
__________________
Any Questions about Front Sight memberships or specific information about attending, Feel Free to send me a PM!
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 03-02-2009, 3:21 AM
BillCA's Avatar
BillCA BillCA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 3,832
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
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
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...

Quote:
12020(2)...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.
And compare to other firearms related PC sections where the sale of an item is prohibited;

Quote:
12070. (a) No person shall sell, lease, or transfer firearms unless ...
12072. (a) (1) No person, corporation, or firm shall knowingly supply, deliver, sell, or give possession or control of a firearm to any person within ...
12020.3. Any person who, for commercial purposes, purchases, sells, manufacturers, ships, transports, distributes, or receives a firearm, where the coloration...
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)?

Last edited by BillCA; 03-02-2009 at 3:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:29 AM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Hmm, I thought that sounded familiar...

Quote:
Originally Posted by N6ATF View Post
Maybe he thinks sales can be made where someone walks up to you, hands you money, and says "I've just bought your standard capacity magazine(s)". If you don't own any, you give their money back. If you do, that you weren't considering ever selling (keeping for sale), showing in public (exposing for sale), or talking about (offering for sale), then at that spontaneous and completely random moment you decide whether they are now the property of the stranger or if you have no desire to let the precious item go.

As if that would ever happen.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:31 PM
IAmASensFan IAmASensFan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 64
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rkt88edmo View Post
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.
The minigene is very similar to the minime, only more diabolical.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 03-02-2009, 3:10 PM
artherd's Avatar
artherd artherd is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North SF Bay Area
Posts: 5,069
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillCA View Post
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)?
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.
__________________
- Ben Cannon.
Chairman, CEO - GPal, Inc.™
CoFounder - GeoVario™, LLC. - the hosting company that brings you Calguns™

Postings are my own, and are not formal positions of any other entity, or legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 03-03-2009, 5:51 AM
BillCA's Avatar
BillCA BillCA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 3,832
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

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.

Last edited by BillCA; 03-03-2009 at 5:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 03-03-2009, 11:06 AM
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%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillCA View Post
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
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
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
  #110  
Old 03-03-2009, 4:20 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

hoffmang, I've got a wager for you.

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?

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 03-03-2009 at 7:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #111  
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%
Default

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 Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
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
  #112  
Old 03-03-2009, 8:04 PM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,320
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
M1 Garand
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
M1 Carbine
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I just was poking Alison in the eye
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?
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 03-03-2009, 8:52 PM
nobody_special nobody_special is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,040
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
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.

7x57
Some of us are armed, at least in our homes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmund G. Brown
There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights. If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffyhog
When the governor vetoes a bill that would make it a felony to steal a gun, but signs a bill into law that makes it a felony not to register a gun you already legally own, you know something isn't right.

Last edited by nobody_special; 03-03-2009 at 9:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 03-03-2009, 9:18 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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! 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.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 03-03-2009, 9:21 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 383green View Post
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!
If hoffmang wants a cute rifle instead, I can arrange that.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 03-03-2009, 9:37 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%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
This is my thinking on Bullet Button rifles: I think they're assault weapons if they have any of the prohibited features.
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
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
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
  #117  
Old 03-03-2009, 9:44 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
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! 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.
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?
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 03-03-2009, 10:19 PM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,329
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
This is my thinking on Bullet Button rifles: I think they're assault weapons if they have any of the prohibited features.
Your wrongness makes me laugh.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 03-04-2009, 4:48 AM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 17,761
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsmchs View Post
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.
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 03-04-2009, 4:57 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander View Post
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?
Yes, the plain language of the statute and the history of the rule making.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:59 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.