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
  #281  
Old 04-30-2009, 8:44 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: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnegrete View Post
Can somebody clarify who has the authority to legally interpret "detachable magazine"?
If you mean in a way that creates binding law, the courts do. Or DOJ through APA compliant rulemaking. Or the legislature through legislation.

Quote:
From everything I can tell following these threads, DOJ is not taking a stance and the only way to figure out if it's legal or not is to go to the range, drop a magazine w/a tool & bullet button, get arrested, and then see if the local DA will prosecute or not.
Bullet Buttons are in widespread use and nobody is prosecuting because the law (i.e, section 5469(a)) can only be interpreted one way, i.e., rifles with bullet buttons do not have the capacity to accept detachable magazines.

Now, this argument (that section 5469(a) can be interpreted only one way) has been used to get a summary disposition letter from OAL affirming that the assault weapon law is open to interpretation, which, although it doesn't seem helpful at first glance, it's actually really helpful. Get it?

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 04-30-2009 at 8:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 04-30-2009, 11:50 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Anyway, I don't think the "lack of clarity" in the assault weapon law, as applied to Bullet Button or Prince 50 rifles, gets you what you think it does.
Standing alone it doesn't get that which I'm working towards, but with a few other interesting facts, it is sure indicative of some interesting conclusions.

-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
  #283  
Old 04-30-2009, 3:49 PM
BillCA's Avatar
BillCA BillCA is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 3,832
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Gene,

Just to recap this whole thing...
  1. A representative of Hi-Standard Mfg asked DOJ if it was legal to sell an off-list complete rifle with a 10-round magazine and a Prince-50 kit.
  2. DOJ responded that they cannot approve a rifle for sale as "not an assault weapon" and provides some statutory definitions of an assault weapon.
  3. Further, DOJ itself says there is no question that a Prince-50 would render the magazine to be non-detachable. But at the same time the law is unclear as to whether a rifle loaded with a fixed magazine negates the rifle's "capacity to accept a detachable magazine".
  4. DOJ relies on the above to say that without some kind of guiding regulation, they cannot say for sure if a rifle equipped with a Prince-50 or Bullet Button is legal or illegal.
  5. A OAL ruling defines “detachable magazine” as “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.”
Now... I are not a lawyer, however...

a) It seems to me that a Prince-50 or BB equipped rifle which requires a tool to remove the magazine does not, in fact, have a detachable magazine as defined by 11 CCR Section 5469.

b) That rifle with the P50/BB installed, and no magazine in the well, does not have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", because once the magazine is replaced, a tool is required to remove the magazine. This means that any legal magazine that latches into place cannot be defined as a "detachable magazine". This is pursuant to 11 CCR Section 5469.

c) In terms of semantics, DOJ's response that a rifle equipped with a P50/BB kit that requires a tool or disassembly to remove the magazine and a magazine does not negate it's capacity to accept a detachable magazine is, to borrow from Justice Scalia, worthy of a mad hatter.

d) Since the DOJ, with all of its legal resources, cannot definitively say whether an off-list rifle equipped with a Prince-50/BB kit which renders the magazine "non-detachable" is or is not legal, then the law is unconstitutionally vague as to what is proscribed by law. To wit:
Quote:
Penal laws must be understood not only by those persons who are required to obey them but by those persons who are charged with the duty of enforcing them. Statutes that do not carefully outline detailed procedures by which police officers may perform an investigation, conduct a search, or make an arrest confer wide discretion upon each officer to act as he or she sees fit. Precisely worded statutes are intended to confine an officer's activities to the letter of the law.
American Law Encyclopedia Vol 10
Quote:
[When a law] fails to give the ordinary citizen adequate notice of what is forbidden and what is permitted, it is impermissibly vague. See, e.g., Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614.
-- U.S. Supreme Court, Chicago v. Morales (97-1121) 527 U.S. 41 (1999)
Not the CA-DOJ, nor a manufacturer, nor a dealer, nor a citizen can definitively say whether a particular rifle is or is not permissible under California statutes - according to DOJ. If DOJ cannot say that a P50/BB equipped rifle is or is not legal, they cannot advise the 58 D.A.'s or police officers in the state or the citizenry of what constitutes an illegal "assault weapon" based on 12276.1.

Thus, because the state itself has no idea what conduct or what assemblage of parts is illegal, the law is too vague to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Do I win a cookie?
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 05-01-2009, 1:08 AM
mpetersondoj mpetersondoj is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

i did not read this thread except the first page, but an sks can accept a detach and if you take the fixed mag off to clean the gun, etc bam assault weapon.

just an example i suppose
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 05-01-2009, 7:56 AM
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 mpetersondoj View Post
i did not read this thread except the first page, but an sks can accept a detach and if you take the fixed mag off to clean the gun, etc bam assault weapon.

just an example i suppose
When cleaning an SKS, to remove the magazine you must first remove the trigger group.

Without a trigger group, the SKS is not a semi-automatic rifle, so it doesn't matter if it can accept a detachable magazine or not.
__________________
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
  #286  
Old 05-01-2009, 9:16 AM
MP5 MP5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: VENTURA COUNTY
Posts: 213
iTrader: 6 / 88%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsmchs View Post
When cleaning an SKS, to remove the magazine you must first remove the trigger group.

Without a trigger group, the SKS is not a semi-automatic rifle, so it doesn't matter if it can accept a detachable magazine or not.
yep

...and you need to use a tool to remove the magazine
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 05-01-2009, 9:22 AM
MP5 MP5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: VENTURA COUNTY
Posts: 213
iTrader: 6 / 88%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillCA View Post
Gene,

Just to recap this whole thing...
  1. A representative of Hi-Standard Mfg asked DOJ if it was legal to sell an off-list complete rifle with a 10-round magazine and a Prince-50 kit.
  2. DOJ responded that they cannot approve a rifle for sale as "not an assault weapon" and provides some statutory definitions of an assault weapon.
  3. Further, DOJ itself says there is no question that a Prince-50 would render the magazine to be non-detachable. But at the same time the law is unclear as to whether a rifle loaded with a fixed magazine negates the rifle's "capacity to accept a detachable magazine".
  4. DOJ relies on the above to say that without some kind of guiding regulation, they cannot say for sure if a rifle equipped with a Prince-50 or Bullet Button is legal or illegal.
  5. A OAL ruling defines “detachable magazine” as “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.”
Now... I are not a lawyer, however...

a) It seems to me that a Prince-50 or BB equipped rifle which requires a tool to remove the magazine does not, in fact, have a detachable magazine as defined by 11 CCR Section 5469.

b) That rifle with the P50/BB installed, and no magazine in the well, does not have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", because once the magazine is replaced, a tool is required to remove the magazine. This means that any legal magazine that latches into place cannot be defined as a "detachable magazine". This is pursuant to 11 CCR Section 5469.

c) In terms of semantics, DOJ's response that a rifle equipped with a P50/BB kit that requires a tool or disassembly to remove the magazine and a magazine does not negate it's capacity to accept a detachable magazine is, to borrow from Justice Scalia, worthy of a mad hatter.

d) Since the DOJ, with all of its legal resources, cannot definitively say whether an off-list rifle equipped with a Prince-50/BB kit which renders the magazine "non-detachable" is or is not legal, then the law is unconstitutionally vague as to what is proscribed by law. To wit:




Not the CA-DOJ, nor a manufacturer, nor a dealer, nor a citizen can definitively say whether a particular rifle is or is not permissible under California statutes - according to DOJ. If DOJ cannot say that a P50/BB equipped rifle is or is not legal, they cannot advise the 58 D.A.'s or police officers in the state or the citizenry of what constitutes an illegal "assault weapon" based on 12276.1.

Thus, because the state itself has no idea what conduct or what assemblage of parts is illegal, the law is too vague to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Do I win a cookie?
so the entire 12276.1 will be negated if this works? (ie. will we be then able to build OLLs into their standard configrations) or will Price 50's & BB's be "officially" legal?

Last edited by MP5; 05-01-2009 at 11:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 05-01-2009, 12:07 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: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's the theory: the assault weapon law is so unmistakeably clear that it can be interpreted one way and one way only. And to top that off, the assault weapon law is so hopelessly unclear that it's unconstitutionally vague!!
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 05-01-2009, 2:53 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Here's the theory: the assault weapon law is so unmistakeably clear that it can be interpreted one way and one way only. And to top that off, the assault weapon law is so hopelessly unclear that it's unconstitutionally vague!!
You're forgetting two important words: "as enforced."

-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
  #290  
Old 05-07-2009, 1:50 PM
Anonymous Coward's Avatar
Anonymous Coward Anonymous Coward is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 200
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What happened to this?

I thought a response was due on May 1st.
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 05-07-2009, 1:53 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is online now
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,267
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward View Post
What happened to this?

I thought a response was due on May 1st.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSDGuy View Post
Gene... here's their determination. It was "published" on the 27th. Please tell me that this isn't the one you were waiting for...

http://www.oal.ca.gov/pdfs/determina...ination_10.pdf
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 07-10-2009, 7:58 PM
Vtec44's Avatar
Vtec44 Vtec44 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fontana & Big Bear, CA
Posts: 2,231
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward View Post
What happened to this?

I thought a response was due on May 1st.
Yeah, what happend to this?
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 07-10-2009, 8:00 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is online now
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,267
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtec44 View Post
Yeah, what happend to this?
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSDGuy View Post
Gene... here's their determination. It was "published" on the 27th. Please tell me that this isn't the one you were waiting for...

http://www.oal.ca.gov/pdfs/determina...ination_10.pdf
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 07-10-2009, 8:13 PM
Vtec44's Avatar
Vtec44 Vtec44 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fontana & Big Bear, CA
Posts: 2,231
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Are we currently doing anything regarding this, since it's not considered an underground regulation?
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 07-10-2009, 8:56 PM
thedrickel's Avatar
thedrickel thedrickel is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lost in the wheels of confusion
Posts: 5,371
iTrader: 128 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vtec44 View Post
Are we currently doing anything regarding this, since it's not considered an underground regulation?

Ummm . . . you know there's a 2A forum, right?
__________________
I hate people that are full of hate.

It's not illegal to tip for PPT!
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 07-11-2009, 8:25 AM
Vtec44's Avatar
Vtec44 Vtec44 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fontana & Big Bear, CA
Posts: 2,231
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I did a search for "capacity detachable" there and didn't find anything relevant.
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 07-11-2009, 10:18 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

I responded in your other thread. Alison continues her FUD campaign. It's actually useful and will be addressed soon. I can tell you that DA's find her letters amusing.

-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
  #298  
Old 07-11-2009, 10:47 AM
Vtec44's Avatar
Vtec44 Vtec44 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fontana & Big Bear, CA
Posts: 2,231
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I saw the response. Thanks Gene.
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 1:34 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.