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 > 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.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-05-2009, 8:22 PM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,103
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Again I'm not going to explain it here, it always ends up in the same place. I can say that hoffmang is a little too hung up on "validly adopted."
OK - for the benefit of others, I will explain what I think your argument is, and why it fails:

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
This means that an AW must have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

11 CCR 5469 - The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.
This means that a "detachable magazine" is anything that does not require a tool.

Those two code sections (along Harrot v. County of Kings and some other stuff) are the main basis for the bullet button. They go together very well. The second one even refers to the first one.

What I *think* you are saying is that the DOJ can ignore those statutes, the case law, and everything else, and make up any sort of rule they want (whether or not it's validly adopted), and since it's the DOJ, they can get away with it????

Do you have any idea how crazy this sounds?

EDIT: do you have access to some secret case or something that makes this NOT sound crazy?

Last edited by oaklander; 03-05-2009 at 8:33 PM..
Reply With Quote

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 11:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host., the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved. and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to