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 > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-11-2018, 2:34 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 563
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default DOJ withdrew 5460 (AW Regs)

5460 Was withdrawn a day before OAL was going to make a decision on it.

https://oal.ca.gov/wp-content/upload...5/RAT-0711.pdf

Page 29
__________________

Last edited by PMACA_MFG; 07-11-2018 at 2:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-11-2018, 2:37 PM
SmallShark's Avatar
SmallShark SmallShark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento 95834
Posts: 1,426
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

after the registration regulations were approved by the OAL, that department doesnt mean anything anymore
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-11-2018, 2:46 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 563
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So far as I know, they haven't been approved for anything but registration. They had a public comment period and put them back in to OAL for common use approval, but then withdrew them a day before they were to be ruled on.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-11-2018, 3:24 PM
Mr.RoDiN Mr.RoDiN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 886
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

What does this mean?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-11-2018, 3:30 PM
MCubeiro's Avatar
MCubeiro MCubeiro is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default For Immediate Release

Someone beat me to the punch! This appears to be a result of the letter we submitted to OAL opposing the proposed regulation.

For immediate release via NRA/CRPA:


Following NRA and CRPA Opposition, CA DOJ Withdraws Proposed
Regulation Expanding Application of “Assault Weapon” Definitions


Less than two months ago, the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms (“CA DOJ”) formally submitted a proposed regulation expanding the application of its improperly adopted “assault weapon” definitions to apply in all circumstances. The Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) was scheduled to decide whether to approve the regulation yesterday. Following opposition submitted by the CRPA & NRA legal team, CA DOJ officially withdrew its proposed regulation the day before OAL was scheduled to make its decision.

This isn’t the first time CA DOJ has withdrawn a proposed regulation. It was previously forced to withdraw its illegal “assault weapon” registration regulations following NRA and CRPA’s joint-opposition, regulations which were later officially rejected by OAL. Those regulations are now the subject of a lawsuit titled Villanueva v. Becerra, which challenges the regulations as a violation of California’s Administrative Procedures Act and will soon be briefed before the California Court of Appeal.

This latest withdrawal of a proposed regulation expanding the application of DOJ’s illegally adopted regulations is welcome news for all California gun owners. At the very least, the withdraw shows CA DOJ does not get a free pass to adopt regulations outside the scope of its authority.

To stay up-to-date on this and other important Second amendment issues here in California, including the Villanueva v. Becerra lawsuit, be sure to subscribe to NRA and CRPA email alerts. And be sure to visit the NRA-ILA California dedicated webpage at www.StandAndFightcalifornia.com and the newly redesigned CRPA webpage at www.CRPA.org.

And don’t forget to register to vote and visit CRPA’s webpage to learn more about volunteer opportunities in your area to help protect and promote the Second Amendment in California. Visit www.crpa.org/crpa-events/volunteer/ for more information.
__________________


NRA Certified Instructor- Pistol, Rifle, PPITH, PPOTH, Metallic Cartridge Reloading, Home Firearm Safety, Refuse to be a Victim
NRA Range Safety Officer

NRA Patriot Life Member - Benefactor Level
CRPA Life Member
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-11-2018, 3:36 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,763
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So if the regulations have never been adopted for enforcement... only for registration..........

does this theoretically mean we can ignore everything in the regulations that is outside the scope of registration?
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-11-2018, 3:48 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 563
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.RoDiN View Post
What does this mean?
Probably some changes made to the regulations, another comment period, and then resubmitted to OAL for approval.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-11-2018, 4:58 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 425
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So correct me if I'm wrong, but this section of the CCR (from CCR 5471)

Quote:
(hh) “Semiautomatic” means a firearm functionally able to fire a single cartridge, eject the empty case, and reload the chamber each time the trigger is pulled and released. Further, certain necessary mechanical parts that will allow a firearm to function in a semiautomatic nature must be present for a weapon to be deemed semiautomatic. A weapon clearly designed to be semiautomatic but lacking a firing pin, bolt carrier, gas tube, or some other crucial part of the firearm is not semiautomatic for purposes of Penal Code sections 30515, 30600, 30605(a), and 30900.
... does not apply to definitions of an "assault weapon" from a penal code perspective, but only from a registration perspective? (i.e, that implication would mean separating the upper from the lower does not relieve you from being in possession of an AW, nor would removing a firing pin, bolt carrier, etc)

If so, some people are going to be in for quite a shock
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-11-2018, 5:58 PM
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 506
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallShark View Post
after the registration regulations were approved by the OAL, that department doesnt mean anything anymore
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
So correct me if I'm wrong, but this section of the CCR (from CCR 5471)



... does not apply to definitions of an "assault weapon" from a penal code perspective, but only from a registration perspective? (i.e, that implication would mean separating the upper from the lower does not relieve you from being in possession of an AW, nor would removing a firing pin, bolt carrier, etc)

If so, some people are going to be in for quite a shock
Correct, those definitions only apply to the registration of AWs. One thing that's often overlooked about the OAL's handling of the AW Registration Regs is that they indeed did force CA DoJ to make concessions. Remember that there were three submissions (all with no public comment):
1st: Was submitted, then withdrawn
2nd: Was submitted, then denied by OAL
3rd: Was submitted, than accepted.
Edit: For illustration purposes, this was a revision doc that some calgunner drew up, showing the differences between each version


The major substantial change between the 2nd and 3rd versions of the AW Registration regulations (Again, the REGISTRATION regs, not the ones that were withdrawn today, which are the general regs) is that the sections to which the definitions applied to was changed from the general AW regulation section to the registration aw regulation section. As far as we can tell, OAL basically told CA DoJ that they cannot use the no-public-comment exemption and apply those definitions outside the scope of registration.

Which is why the CA DoJ then later promulgated these regulations/definitions, held public comment, told everyone to go screw themselves, and now for some reason they've withdrawn the regs.... probably because they were going to get denied. It will be interesting what revisions the CA DoJ makes before submitted new regs for public comment.

Edit2: At least that's the reason we hope they were withdrawn. I remain... very cautiously optimistic. Enjoy the win in the meantime.

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 07-11-2018 at 6:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-11-2018, 6:25 PM
drifts1 drifts1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bakersfield / Orange County
Posts: 1,381
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

What exactly did we win?

What can do or get that we couldn’t before?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-11-2018, 6:28 PM
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 506
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drifts1 View Post
What exactly did we win?

What can do or get that we couldn’t before?
For now? Nothing in the tangible sense other than frustrating the CA DoJ.

In the future? We won't really know what we won tangibly until CA DoJ submits new regulations incorporating changes that will pass muster with OAL (or they were withdrawn for other legal reasons).

So I'd guess keep an eye out to see what new regs they submit.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-11-2018, 6:44 PM
drifts1 drifts1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bakersfield / Orange County
Posts: 1,381
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Why would they even re-submit, now that the registration window is closed?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-11-2018, 6:58 PM
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 506
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drifts1 View Post
Why would they even re-submit, now that the registration window is closed?
Because these regulation/definitions apply generally, to all Assault Weapons (and by extension to every firearm to determine if they are Assault Weapons). Read the first page of the letter that Michel & Associates submitted above.

Basic timeline:
CA DoJ created the AW Registration regulations with all the definitions, bypassing public comment
First submitted, then withdrawn
Second submitted, then denied
Third submitted, then accepted.

Those regulations only applied to the registration of firearms for the new AWB. They also repealed all the old regulatory definitions that applied generally.

So now CA DoJ creates a new set of definition regulations that are copied almost verbatim from the registration regulation definitions. These are the regulations (5460) that were withdrawn today.
They do public comment
They answer public comments (Mostly ignore them, tell everyone to go screw themselves)
They submit regs.
They then withdraw regs on the last day before OAL makes a decision.

They care because the new regs will apply -generally- outside of registration... definitions that include things like flash suppressors etc.
There are currently no general AW regulatory definitions (only AW registration regulatory definitions) because they repealed the original ones for unknown reasons. There's only penal code definitions right now afaik.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-11-2018, 7:02 PM
Mr.RoDiN Mr.RoDiN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 886
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drifts1 View Post
Why would they even re-submit, now that the registration window is closed?
I’m extremely lost. But from what I can gather, they don’t actually have a consequences for “breaking the law”. I think they have to re-submit and get approved for the penal code to apply for “breaking the law”.

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

I have no idea what’s going on and everyone re posting this on instagram is also starting off by “I have no idea what this means”
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-11-2018, 7:09 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 425
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drifts1 View Post
Why would they even re-submit, now that the registration window is closed?
I'm guessing they won't. My best guess about what happened... Hang on...


Okay... My best guess is that the DoJ wanted to use the regs to cram some extra restrictions in the PC, such as preventing people from removing the BB once registered- so they attempted to have the regs and its definitions apply to the PC since the AW registration law was already passed with glaring oversights (remove BB after reg, etc)

Buuuuttt... they forget they put a lot of stuff into the regs to make sure someone couldn't register an unfinished rifle- such as classifying something missing key parts (bolt carrier, firing pin, separated upper/lower) as not semi-auto so it's not capable of being registered. That would prevent them from prosecuting someone for constructive possession. Effectively, they neutered their definition of "AW". Someone at the DA probably tapped DoJ on the shoulder and politely asked them to remove-head-from-sphincter. I don't think it's far-fetched considering they are monitoring this site and how often people here have been talking about separating uppers/lowers to skirt AW status.

Or, ya know... I could be way off here. I don't see how them pulling this is a solid "win" for gun owners
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-11-2018, 7:13 PM
Dirk Tungsten's Avatar
Dirk Tungsten Dirk Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the basement
Posts: 1,053
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

I agree with Tenemae, I think something bad is going to come out of this.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-11-2018, 7:21 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,754
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.RoDiN View Post
I’m extremely lost. But from what I can gather, they don’t actually have a consequences for “breaking the law”. I think they have to re-submit and get approved for the penal code to apply for “breaking the law”.

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

I have no idea what’s going on and everyone re posting this on instagram is also starting off by “I have no idea what this means”
Really has nothing to do with penalties of the AW law but the definitions that apply to AWs so that LEOS and DAs can determine whether or not to press charges.

The key definitions for things like how overall length is measured and what a semi-automatic firearm is. They basically tried to use the same definitions for AW identification that they did for registration, they were only authorized to make them for registration.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-11-2018, 7:27 PM
solidfreshdope solidfreshdope is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 600
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So can I take my Bullet buttons off yet? Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
Welcome to the United Snakes.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-11-2018, 7:33 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 563
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solidfreshdope View Post
So can I take my Bullet buttons off yet? Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Only if you didn't register it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-11-2018, 8:17 PM
SmokeTheClay SmokeTheClay is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 243
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does this at all affect the Assault Weapon registration many of us just complied with?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-11-2018, 8:19 PM
AdidasCJ's Avatar
AdidasCJ AdidasCJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Apple Valley
Posts: 873
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

I am COMPLETELY lost on this.... Does this mean the AW Registration went away? Unenforceable? No more registration/fix mag/featurless nonsense?
__________________
Quote:
'socialism is fine, until you run out of other peoples money'

-Maggie Thatcher
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-11-2018, 8:25 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 425
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdidasCJ View Post
I am COMPLETELY lost on this.... Does this mean the AW Registration went away? Unenforceable? No more registration/fix mag/featurless nonsense?
No. Registration still stands. It just means there is a (temporary?) disconnect between the definition of an "assault weapon" from Penal Code point of view and the registration regulations used to get said AW registration. This nullifies nothing.

Until further notice, the AW definitions used in registration were used only for registration and are (now) completely irrelevant in regards to what you can be arrested/charged with.

The difference is in definitions only. If you reged, you still have a reged AW (assuming your application was/is approved)
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-11-2018, 8:26 PM
SmokeTheClay SmokeTheClay is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 243
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
No. Registration still stands. It just means there is a (temporary?) disconnect between the definition of an "assault weapon" from Penal Code point of view and the registration regulations used to get said AW registration. This nullifies nothing.

Until further notice, the AW definitions used in registration were used only for registration and are (now) completely irrelevant in regards to what you can be arrested/charged with.

The difference is in definitions only. If you reged, you still have a reged AW (assuming your application was/is approved)
So lets say I didnt register a rifle defined as an AW? What happens?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-11-2018, 8:35 PM
jj8325 jj8325 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeTheClay View Post
So lets say I didnt register a rifle defined as an AW? What happens?
If I understand this right, you could still be charged with AW possession as AW were defined before this whole debacle (i.e. before 2016). I think post #17 above explains it pretty well.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-11-2018, 8:46 PM
kcheung2's Avatar
kcheung2 kcheung2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,692
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

I'm not totally sure, but my impression is that one tangible result is that people with featureless bullpups don't require a pin/welded muzzle device to achieve 30"; a screwed on device will suffice.

The previous AW definitions they had submitted added the permanent muzzle device stuff whereas in the past the OAL requirement could have been met with a chopstick taped onto the barrel.
__________________
---------------------
"There is no "best." If there was, everyone here would own that one, and no other." - DSB

Last edited by kcheung2; 07-11-2018 at 8:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-11-2018, 8:49 PM
Michael777 Michael777 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 902
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Damn we are screwed. All the criminals are putting the features back on their assault weapons. Don’t know how I’m going to sleep tonight.
__________________
Lindsey for LA Sheriff
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-11-2018, 8:57 PM
titan's Avatar
titan titan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 549
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

What a complete cluster F. I am lost on this crap, let me know when you all figure this out.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-11-2018, 8:59 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,180
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

My take on this is:

1) SB23 back in 2000 redefined an AW from named models to a list of features

2) SB880 redefined what an AW was, equating a BB with a standard magazine release

3) DOJ published their regulations, which stated several key things that were NOT defined in the law. One of those things was keeping BB on. Most of the other changes from SB23's laws were other definitions about OAL, semi shotguns, etc.

4) NRA-ILA / CRPA / Michel filed Villanueva v. Becerra, which basically says "Hey DOJ, you just made stuff up and put it in there and denied us public review, which is BS. It's not enough that SB 880 called for an APA exemption, that only applies to the written law, not underground regulations."

5) The SB 880 regulations are NOT what was withdrawn by DOJ just now. Those regs are finalized and approved. The DOJ sought to further clarify( in 2018) that their made up new definitions of assault weapons be "pursuant" to the SB23 regulations, which means they were in accordance with SB23's definitions. But that was thin and pretty ridiculous. DOJ is feeling uncomfortable and vulnerable and seeking to tie up loose ends.

6) The pressure applied by Villanueva v. Becerra and other pressures might be getting to the DOJ, and the OAL is again pushing back as we theorized they did back in mid 2017 to the original regs.

7) It doesn't effect anything yet. The problem is we don't know why DOJ withdrew it, and what it means. Similar to this time last year.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-11-2018, 9:08 PM
troyPhD troyPhD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 158
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Doesn't seem to mean anything, unless the definitions of AW in regs unlawfully denied people with incomplete BBAWs from registering.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-11-2018, 9:13 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,180
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcheung2 View Post
I'm not totally sure, but my impression is that one tangible result is that people with featureless bullpups don't require a pin/welded muzzle device to achieve 30"; a screwed on device will suffice.

The previous AW definitions they had submitted added the permanent muzzle device stuff whereas in the past the OAL requirement could have been met with a chopstick taped onto the barrel.
Unfortunately I don't think that's the case. People are conflating the old approved SB880 regulations (which are approved and that ship has sailed since mid 2017) with the newer regulations concerned SB880 that DOJ proposed in early 2018. All those new regulations proposed was that newer definitions (SB880) are pursuant to the older ones (SB23).

And we don't know why they withdrew it. They withdrew the original SB 880 regs and we all celebrated because we thought that it meant the OAL rejected them on APA grounds. Three days later they resubmitted and were approved a day after that. I called OAL and DOJ during that time and they indicated to me that it was clerical related (very indirectly, I had to lead them and they kind of said ok to it) and that it was not based on any substantive issue.

So nothing is known and nothing has changed. It might lead to something, hopefully.

Again, the central issue is that DOJ claims SB 880 definitions are pursuant to SB23 definitions, which CRPA challenged on the basis that because of the difference between the two definitions (and other issues) cannot be exempt from the APA and public review.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-11-2018, 9:14 PM
superdave50 superdave50 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Central valley
Posts: 436
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Just more "hurry up and wait"
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-11-2018, 9:28 PM
enegue enegue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Culver City, CA
Posts: 602
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

When was the last time withdrawn regs or denied regs ended up being a positive thing for us?

Still not totally sure what is the status of a disassembled “AW” rifles.

What is the overall length requirement now? Do muzzle devices need to be pin-welded to meet overall length?

Are semi-auto mag-fed shotguns AWs or not?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-11-2018, 9:38 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,180
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enegue View Post
Still not totally sure what is the status of a disassembled “AW” rifles.
Same status, nothing has changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enegue View Post

What is the overall length requirement now? Do muzzle devices need to be pin-welded to meet overall length?
30" and requires a permanent muzzle device, no change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enegue View Post

Are semi-auto mag-fed shotguns AWs or not?
Yes, they still are.


None of the new definitions have been changed at all. They were approved in mid 2017. Until we know why the DOJ withdrew and if they will go into effect or not we can assume that DOJ will still proceed as they have.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-11-2018, 9:48 PM
enegue enegue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Culver City, CA
Posts: 602
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Same status, nothing has changed.
Got it. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-11-2018, 9:53 PM
Smedkcuf Smedkcuf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 325
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
30" and requires a permanent muzzle device, no change.
I thought 26" was now the minimum length after registering.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-11-2018, 9:56 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,180
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smedkcuf View Post
I thought 26" was now the minimum length after registering.
Yes, but anything that is NOT AW has to be 30" with a perm muzzle device if it doesn't reach 30" without it.

26" is fine for registered rifles.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-11-2018, 10:13 PM
etwinam's Avatar
etwinam etwinam is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,283
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Yes, but anything that is NOT AW has to be 30" with a perm muzzle device if it doesn't reach 30" without it.

26" is fine for registered rifles.
So does that mean I can put an 11" upper with perm attached brake on my registered Rifle Ar lower? Total oal would be 26" if my math is correct. I'm confused about the 26" I guess. Or is this just for AR pistols being registered as AW?
__________________
God, Guns & Integrity. Prioritize your Priorities.

WTB
P10F**
Browning BLR**
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-11-2018, 10:21 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,180
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etwinam View Post
So does that mean I can put an 11" upper with perm attached brake on my registered Rifle Ar lower? Total oal would be 26" if my math is correct. I'm confused about the 26" I guess. Or is this just for AR pistols being registered as AW?
26" is for rifles. If the 11" barrel has a perm attached muzzle device and it measures 16" minimum with it, then it's fine. You could have a 6" barrel that has a 10" fake can welded to it and it's fine- we have to meet the Fed 16" requirement.

26" is governed by the CA SBR laws. We are debating how to make 26", I believe we can make it with a non-perm muzzle device. Others say no, it needs to be permanent. It's a complex issue requiring us to look at past SBR court cases in CA like Rooney.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-12-2018, 12:25 AM
Endless's Avatar
Endless Endless is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ellsworth, ME/ Bend, OR
Posts: 1,403
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
No. Registration still stands. It just means there is a (temporary?) disconnect between the definition of an "assault weapon" from Penal Code point of view and the registration regulations used to get said AW registration. This nullifies nothing.

Until further notice, the AW definitions used in registration were used only for registration and are (now) completely irrelevant in regards to what you can be arrested/charged with.

The difference is in definitions only. If you reged, you still have a reged AW (assuming your application was/is approved)
Whenever I hear registered assault weapon that implies a fully automatic M16 used by the US Army infantry in war, not a semi automatic AR15 with OEM/standard mag release that civilians use. Big difference. Lol

I am all about lever action rifles now.
__________________

US Military Veteran 1994-2015

“An assualt rifle by definition is a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use. A semiautomatic Ar15/Ak47 type firearm with a standard magazine release is not considered an assualt rifle”......Paul LePage, Maine State Governor
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-12-2018, 12:38 AM
troyPhD troyPhD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 158
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Could it be that DOJ wrote up regulations to deny registration to incomplete builds during the open registration period? With the registration period closed, now they are reverting back the regulations to define AWs as they always have been, i.e. a lower receiver with BB + features is now back to being defined as AW? The timing would seem to suggest this was all part of DOJ's designed plan.

This would not be beneficial to us. But it could open an angle of legal attack if the regulations were purposely designed to deny registration to those who otherwise were legally entitled to?
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 5:59 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.