|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#4001
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#4004
|
||||
|
||||
5472 differences:
2nd round: The Department will not register a firearm as an assault weapon if the firearm is featureless. 3rd round: The Department will not register a firearm as an assault weapon if the firearm is featureless except for bullet-button shotguns as described in section 5470(d).
__________________
Quote:
|
#4005
|
|||
|
|||
Vacationed in free states, visited some gun shops while there. Display cases full of suppressors, full autos available for rent. NFA stamp application help.
Stark reminder of how much we are getting ****ed in CA. It's apallling our reresentatives would spend time and our tax dollars writing any of this ****. |
#4006
|
|||
|
|||
With the modified 5471, reads like DOJ is trying to defined a new category of AW as in BBRAW. Any registeration based on 30900 (b)(1) will have the new definition.
Since 30900 (b)(1) specifically reference 30515, the question now and as always before is did DOJ overstep by trying to define a new category of AW as the new 30900 (b)(1) provides no authority to modify or add new AW definition. In May they had try to hid behind 30515, but now they are forced to make it clear the intention. Hopefully, OAL, acting as check and balance, will realize this blatant abuse of power and strike them down. |
#4007
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If they would have just used the 30515 definitions and opened the reg period it would have been a smooth process. They chose to get as much as they could and got greedy. Now they are faced with having to defend the concept that their new definitions appear nowhere in the law and PC and they just made that stuff up. Again, they are no longer "pursuant". Two different sets of definitions that contradict each other. They are going to have to explain that in court.
__________________
Quote:
|
#4008
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4009
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Quote:
It is often easy to confuse regulations with statute and let the tail wag the dog. Regulations implement statute; they cannot override existing statute. Regulations do not define an Assault Weapon; the statute does. So, let's start with the statutes. PEN 30515 defines "Assault Weapon" and describes their "features". (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=30515) SB 880 added a new component to the definition: Quote:
PEN 30900 was amended, to include: Quote:
30900(b)(1) continues on to establish the registration of these guns under its provisions and any regulations DOJ may publish: Quote:
Finally, PEN 30900(b)(5) authorizes: Quote:
Now, the regulations appear, and all of their provisions are under the authorization of PEN 30900(b)(5). That authorizes the regs, and sets them outside of the APA process. They are put in place for the purposes of registration for this particular group of AWs. (Arguably, since the registration periods of the previously-defined AWs have long passed, they no longer have value. Therefore, the new regulations can over-write the regulation descriptions and add to them for the purposes of registration.) Quote:
Quote:
NOTE: As always, the usual all caveats apply: I don't support the DOJ action, IANAL, it's worth what you paid for it; I know nothing and have no additional, secret squirrel knowledge of what is going on. Have a value-added weekend. |
#4010
|
||||
|
||||
SB 880 changed the statutory definition of an AW.
|
#4011
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
|
#4012
|
|||
|
|||
So i have a basic question which after searching the forum i still can't seem to answer.
Can I travel out of state and back with a bb rifle bought pre jan 17? I don't want to convert to featureless/maglock since its a ptr 91 but i can separate the rifle into stock, trigger and receiver. Any info before i head out of state for a shooting trip? |
#4013
|
||||
|
||||
Yeah, I was just hoping that they had made a big mistake, but mining anything positive out of this whole process is pretty grim.
__________________
Quote:
|
#4014
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, like u suggested, a slight modification of SB23 of what is a fix mag, but did not define a new cataglory of AW. 5471 try to redefine an AW that's different than what is in 30515. Thus, overreach. I'm in total agreement.
This could be one of the reason OAL rejected the May submission. 5471 did reference 30515 but were materially different, therefore, as written cannot be implemented. So DOJ thought to fix it by removing the 30515 reference to allow 5471 stand alone, thus opening up the debate if they had over reached. Last edited by walmart_ar15; 07-22-2017 at 9:43 AM.. |
#4015
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It seems as if AWCA is now structured on what the criteria of each reg period had at the time of the registration, and that's how they will move forward. The circular logic of pointing at 30515 and then pointing to 30900 to justify the statutory redefinition is pretty mind numbing but it might work for them. All periods have their own definitions, and this one will be no different. Even though they didn't explicitly come up with all new definitions for SB 880 and referred to past law and PC, it doesn't seem to be the Achilles heel I was hoping for. Maybe yes maybe no, who knows.
__________________
Quote:
|
#4016
|
|||
|
|||
I don't think the situation changed much. We had always contented that DOJ had no authority to make regulations beyond simple registeration process. This recent modification made that assertion even more obvious.
|
#4017
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Bottom line, SB880 just ask DOJ to setup a process to register, DOJ had gone on its own to command what can and cannot be registered when they had no legal authority to define or redefine an AW. Last edited by walmart_ar15; 07-22-2017 at 12:18 PM.. |
#4018
|
||||
|
||||
the law is simple. a BB doesnt make the rifle not an AW, either register the rifle as an AW or convert it into featureless, or go to jail.
but the DOJ cares so much that they cant wait for the politicians to write new bills so they stepped up and bypassed a whole branch of our government. check and balance my ***** this cannot be more illegal and the DOJ surely knows it. whatever obstacle they put up, the hell with it, register your rifle. |
#4019
|
||||
|
||||
the law is simple. a BB doesnt make the rifle not an AW, either register the rifle as an AW or convert it into featureless, or go to jail.
but the DOJ cares so much that they cant wait for the politicians to write new bills so they stepped up and bypassed a whole branch of our government. check and balance my ***** this cannot be more illegal and the DOJ surely knows it. whatever obstacle they put up, the hell with it, register your rifle. |
#4020
|
|||
|
|||
One thing I don't understand is why DOJ is trying SO hard to discourage registeration? Contrary to common belief they don't hate us or like us. As most government entities, typically they would take the path of least resistance, 9-5 job and nice gov pension when retired. Why r they trying so hard?
Is it because when over millions of rifle are registered as AW, that this state's AW policy for the last 16 years will look like a farce, and putting those anti 2A proponents looking like idiots? Or is there truly idealist in DOJ got brain washed trying to obtain a form of utopian socialist society? I just don't get it |
#4021
|
||||
|
||||
I believe this is the problem,the prior two laws defined an AW,there can
only be ONE definition of an AW and it doesn't have a bb.
__________________
NRA LIFE (1974) Psalm 46:10 I had a commission/USNR from 71-77 but never consider myself a Vet MyDad+4uncles/USMC/WW2/Korea/Vietnam. My Grandfather US Army WW1. No heroes,just regular folks--they were Veterans. “Do not be deceived.God is not mocked. You will reap what you sow.” |
#4022
|
||||
|
||||
the law is simple. a BB doesnt make the rifle not an AW, either register the rifle as an AW or convert it into featureless, or go to jail.
but the DOJ cares so much that they cant wait for the politicians to write new bills so they stepped up and bypassed a whole branch of our government. check and balance my ***** this cannot be more illegal and the DOJ surely knows it. whatever obstacle they put up, the hell with it, register your rifle. |
#4023
|
||||
|
||||
I'm so tired of reading draft regs by now. I'll just wait till they are final for my next read. It's beyond me why they are tying so hard to push underground regulations, especially after getting the hammer from oal.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#4024
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#4025
|
||||
|
||||
the law is simple. a BB doesnt make the rifle not an AW, either register the rifle as an AW or convert it into featureless, or go to jail.
but the DOJ cares so much that they cant wait for the politicians to write new bills so they stepped up and bypassed a whole branch of our government. check and balance my ***** this cannot be more illegal and the DOJ surely knows it. whatever obstacle they put up, the hell with it, register your rifle. |
#4026
|
||||
|
||||
Maybe that's what they're counting on
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#4027
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The second definition, from SB 23, gave us the concept of a gun with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine if the gun had one of a list of enumerated "features". (That's two definitions, so far). SB 880 altered the PEN 30515 statutory definition of an assault weapon. (See the "Introduced" version of the bill at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201520160SB880) Quote:
That means a featured gun with a bullet button is a defined assault weapon. That's a third definition, which combines the second, noted above. What gets folks confused is the entry in the new regulations that, once a BBAW is registered, if one removes the BB, one creates a different weapon which is also an assault weapon. That may seem to constitute a new definition which was not contemplated by the legislation. The addition of shotguns also seems problematic. But those are issues to be left to parse out in the specific regulations. Unfortunately, since the regulations are outside of APA review, OAL may not have the authority to question it. It will probably require a lawsuit to make the case of overreach. Last edited by Dvrjon; 07-22-2017 at 11:49 AM.. |
#4028
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
PEN 30900 doesn't, "...justify the statutory redefinition...", of AW. PEN 30515 was amended by the Legislature to broaden the statutory definition of AW. PEN 30900 was amended to require the registration of weapons brought under this broader statutory definition. Last edited by Dvrjon; 07-22-2017 at 11:49 AM.. |
#4029
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Registration helps our argument in the courts. |
#4030
|
|||
|
|||
None of this undercuts CRPA's complaints filed in their previous letter, specifically:
Quote:
(1) “those procedures” as stated in (b)(1) to register “an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool,” i.e., the newly classified “assault weapons”; II. A NUMBER OF THE REGULATIONS PROPOSED BY DOJ EXCEED THE SCOPE OF PENAL CODE § 30900(B) AND MUST, THEREFORE, ADHERE TO THE APA OR BE DEEMED INVALID DOJ’s proposed regulations do more than just implement the registration scheme delineated in Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b) for firearms newly-designated as “assault weapons” by AB 1135 and SB 880. They seek to create or amend a whole host of definitions for “assault weapon” features and other terms, as well as regulate activities after the registration process. As a result, these proposed regulations exceed the scope of the APA exemption provided by Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(5) and are invalid because “an agency does not have the authority to alter or amend a statute or enlarge or impair its scope.”11 “If a rule constitutes a ‘regulation’ within the meaning of the APA ... it may not be adopted, amended, or repealed except in conformity with ‘basic minimum procedural requirements’ [citation] [of the APA] that are exacting.”12 Any regulation that substantially fails to comply with these requirements can be judicially declared invalid.13 And, even if there is some debate on whether the proposed provisions relate to implementing the new registration scheme, “any doubt as to the applicability of the APA’s requirements should be resolved in favor of the APA.”14 11 Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1236. 12 California School Boards Assn, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at 1328, internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 13 Id. 14 Id. (emphasis added).
__________________
Quote:
General population: 3,817 Police officers: 108 Legal CCW: 18 Last edited by naeco81; 07-22-2017 at 12:25 PM.. |
#4031
|
||||
|
||||
I just noticed that the first draft of the regulations (from december) said that we have to mark homemade firearms with the height and depth of the markings that are engraved. In other words, homemade receivers would have had to say:
Your Name City, State Caliber: Multi XXXXXXXX These markings are 1/16" tall and .003 deep They've since corrected that in the later versions. Just thought I'd point that out if anyone wanted a good laugh
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#4032
|
||||
|
||||
Alright, this thread has grown so big that it's starting to bog down the server. Let's carry this over to the new 2017 California AW Regulations - DISCUSSION Thread 2.0
Would a moderator would please be so kind as to lock this one? I'll link to it in the new thread for anyone who wants to reference any of the old discussion.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#4034
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The state would claim that the *registration paperwork* doesn't apply to your gun because "it applies to a different gun." So, the question is not whether you have an AW or not, but whether you have a RAW or not.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#4035
|
||||
|
||||
off to version 2, please.
If you really need something out of this thread, PM and I'll unlock it. Expect that to be less than first priority.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#4036
|
||||
|
||||
Closed as requested - please use version 2.0.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#4037
|
||||
|
||||
Closed as requested - please use version 2.0.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|