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
  #681  
Old 04-17-2017, 10:57 AM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 3,199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I still haven't gotten a response from Becerra, and at this point I don't think I'm going to. Apparently listening to the public is not exactly a high priority over at the AG's office. I don't think I'll bother with a phone call, I'm pretty sure I already know what they'd say, which is nothing that we haven't already heard.
I will be amazed if Becerra, or anyone else from his office, respond to your queries.

But thank you for your concerted efforts, just the same!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #682  
Old 04-17-2017, 6:37 PM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 611
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Tell Becerra you would like to make a large contribution to his future campaigns, thanking him in response to his issuing multiple felony counts to the people who went undercover and exposed Planned Parenthood. Inform him that you've contact several news stations and will send out a major press release.

Bet that would get his attention.

Last edited by bootstrap; 04-17-2017 at 6:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #683  
Old 04-17-2017, 6:47 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Voted Most Handsome CG'er
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 9,314
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootstrap View Post
Tell Becerra you would like to make a large contribution to his future campaigns, thanking him in response to his issuing multiple felony counts to the people who went undercover and exposed Planned Parenthood. Inform him that you've contact several news stations and will send out a major press release.

Bet that would get his attention.
I wouldn't want to be a liar, so what kind of huge contribution should I sent him for his campaign? Doesn't have to be financial

Maybe something for his library.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverser View Post
As a matter of fact, the last guy I knew personally that wore a fanny pack was my brother in law. He left my sister for a guy he met at the gym.
Reply With Quote
  #684  
Old 04-17-2017, 8:34 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,742
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
I will be amazed if Becerra, or anyone else from his office, respond to your queries.

But thank you for your concerted efforts, just the same!
Becerra doesn't get bogged down in these details, no AG does. Find the name on the draft regs submitted to the OAL, she is involved or knows who is. Remember, it's her job, so be polite and professional. She is not the bad actor here; they are in the legislature.

If she can't help you, politely ask her who can, and work on that person.

Whatever does happen, send a letter by certified mail explaining that they are not leaving enough time to do a adequate job, and not giving the public a fair chance to register.

Be sure to cc the CPRA and Chuck Michel's office, so they know you commented on the issue.

If the AG does drop the regs late, it will be useful to have in the record that the AG was warned in writing. It could preserve the challenge later if nobody else exhausts on the issue.

Last edited by God Bless America; 04-17-2017 at 8:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #685  
Old 04-17-2017, 8:38 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,150
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
She is not the bad actor here; they are in the legislature.
The legislature did NOT write the regs. Somebody in the DoJ did. The question is why the regs aren't just simply "register your rifle" but rather also: "A BB is indistinguishable from a conventional mag release, and it is completely different from a conventional mag release". Hey, DoJ: nobody with half a brain is buying it.

The excuse of "they are just doing their job" is a load of crap, IMO.

Nobody here should put up with it.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #686  
Old 04-17-2017, 9:17 PM
A1BigTuna A1BigTuna is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What I can fathom is the desire of the CDOJ to make it difficult for semi-auto rifles to quickly change mags (whether high cap or just 10 rds) and press for that. But, can not understand that the stock mag release mag allows for a more rapid reload, why they are declaring the BB as a dangerous
feature which slows reloading down. Can't understand what they are thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #687  
Old 04-17-2017, 9:43 PM
joe_gman's Avatar
joe_gman joe_gman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 1,095
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A1BigTuna View Post
What I can fathom is the desire of the CDOJ to make it difficult for semi-auto rifles to quickly change mags (whether high cap or just 10 rds) and press for that. But, can not understand that the stock mag release mag allows for a more rapid reload, why they are declaring the BB as a dangerous
feature which slows reloading down. Can't understand what they are thinking.
The members of the California State Legislature that passed sb880 were hoping for the elimination of all AR/AK/Assault rifle style weapons in this state. After the first AW ban, off-list lowers and name changes on these type of firearms allowed firearm dealers to comply with the law and still provide a product that was in great demand in California. This enraged Legislators, so they passed a law that banned these firearms by feature instead of just a name. Then firearm dealers installed BB and magazine locks that required a tool to release them in order to comply with California law. Again, state Legislators were furious that their attempt to ban rifles that account for far less deaths than handguns, was circumvented by modifications. So SB880 was passed. The end goal was the elimination of all AR/AK/ Assault rifle style firearms.

The DOJ understood that the BB/Magazine lock made it really difficult to reload a firearm compared to a standard magazine release. They wanted to keep this handicap on all new rifles being registered. The DOJ sees it as less dangerous to have the BB on the rifles. It was the State Legislator, that reclassified BB/ maglocked rifles as AWs. They have already tried to ban all semiauto rifles as AWs. It was vetoed by Brown as too intrusive. The reality is that they want to ban of all firearms in the state of California.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by louemon View Post
If you would like to sine the petitions for California peacefully withdraw from the United States of America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone_Gunman View Post
Can I cosine it? Sorry to go off on a tangent...
Quote:
Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. James Madison
Reply With Quote
  #688  
Old 04-18-2017, 7:22 AM
stevebla stevebla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 324
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It is in the hands of the Miniluv.
"Ministry of Love (law and order)" newspeak 1984
Reply With Quote
  #689  
Old 04-21-2017, 12:29 AM
bool1tholz bool1tholz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 355
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default the button bullet

Agenda from Assembly Budget Subcommittee #5 on Public Safety April 17, 2017

Quote:
ISSUE 5: ASSAULT WEAPONS BUDGET CHANGE PROPOSAL
The Department of Justice will present the proposal for $2,588,000 and 27 positions
in order to implement provisions of Senate Bill 880 (Hall, Chapter 48, Statutes of 2016) and Assembly Bill 1135 (Levine, Chapter 40, Statues of 2016).
The requested DROS funding will be loaned from the Firearms Safety and Enforcement Special Fund,
and will be repaid no later than June 30, 2021.
...
GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL
The California Department of Justice (Department), Division of Law Enforcement,
Bureau of Firearms (Bureau) requests an increase of $2,588,000
and 27.0 positions
in FY 2017-18
in Dealers' Record of Sale (DROS) Special Fund spending authority
to implement the provisions Senate Bill (SB) 880 (Hall) and Assembly Bill (AB) 1135 (Levine).
...
The $15 fee associated with assault weapons is assessed per person rather than per weapon,
meaning that an individual could come in with several assault weapons at one time and only be assessed a $15 fee.
However, if an individual were to register an assault weapon on one day, and come back at a later date with additional weapons to be registered, DOJ has stated that the individual would be responsible for an additional $15 fee on all subsequent visits.
The Subcommittee may wish for DOJ to provide further detail as to whether or not the $15 fee would be reduced for individuals who only register one weapon as the actual costs may be lower than $15 per transaction. Alternatively, if an individual were to come in to register multiple weapons, the current fee may be insufficient to cover administrative costs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCcmYMS-iEk#t=50s

I like the part where the DOJ guy initially refers to the new funding for "the button bullet bill" before being corrected.
Reply With Quote
  #690  
Old 04-21-2017, 12:40 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,526
iTrader: 1 / 67%
Default

Interesting, looks like they are gearing up. Adds some credence to the idea tech / money issues might have been the reason for the delay and the regs will just appear in the same form as they did in January.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
So it sounds to me like you're outraged about something that isn't actually happening anywhere outside your imagination.
Reply With Quote
  #691  
Old 04-21-2017, 1:28 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,526
iTrader: 1 / 67%
Default

If we do some math we get some interesting numbers.

Is there a relationship between the funds they asked for and how many people they are expecting to register? I'd say yes because they are trying to justify a budget by saying that the $2,588,000 they asked for will be covered by the $15 reg fee.

So, if we assume that, then we get a number of 173,000 applications. Many might have multiple AW, so lets assume again that the average number of rifles per application is 2. I have no idea if that is reasonable, it might be higher, what do you think?

So 173,000 x2 and some extra and we get 350k-400k AW registered, that's what they are expecting. According to the DROS records and the assumption that there are 2-3 million AW's in CA sold between 2001-2016, then they are thinking around 10-20% of those weapons will be registered.

That's telling on many levels........if they are going to fund their project to that tune and only get 10-20% then they are preparing for a very low number. Does that mean they are going to produce the same regs, or even worse ones, to dissuade registration? Is this their policy, or have we been shown some cards as to what their policy is?

I would say yes. They don't want people to register. If they can satisfy the legal obligation to provide a reg period while making it as hard as possible to register, then only register 10-20%..................
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
So it sounds to me like you're outraged about something that isn't actually happening anywhere outside your imagination.
Reply With Quote
  #692  
Old 04-21-2017, 6:28 AM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 3,199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well finally, it looks like the process may be moving forward.

I wonder how long it will take them to roll out the new regs, once the budgetary request is approved?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #693  
Old 04-21-2017, 6:36 AM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,697
iTrader: 76 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Interesting, looks like they are gearing up. Adds some credence to the idea tech / money issues might have been the reason for the delay and the regs will just appear in the same form as they did in January.
They didn't need to pull the regulations because of technical issues or money. They could have left them the way they were and just marked them as pending. I highly doubt they will appear in the same form.
Reply With Quote
  #694  
Old 04-21-2017, 8:14 AM
itr1275 itr1275 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 133
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
I would say yes. They don't want people to register. If they can satisfy the legal obligation to provide a reg period while making it as hard as possible to register, then only register 10-20%..................
The DOJ is not a for profit entity. They need to cover the cost and come out net -zero on the money. If they start deliberately turning a profit or have the appearance of it they will get dinged. Also if hey ask for too much it will get escalated up.

The 2.5M include 8 bodies and equipment. Best case, let's say the cost of the 8 people is average $100K salary plus benefits for $200K total. That's $1.6M, then they have $900K in computers and equipment. $900 buys a lot of servers. So if they are actually spending it all it should be built for a serious work load. It will take a few months to get it implemented. We are looking at an Oct registration.

What I think will happen is they will low ball the workers. The 8 workers won't be tech, they will be low paid administrative employees making $50K at most. The equipment will be low end if anything new and they will funnel $1.5M or so to a buddy to do "contract work". Contract work doesn't show up as an employee just a resource. We are looking at a Dec registration.

Either way it takes time to get the system working and secure. It won't be July if they haven't even started yet.
__________________

Action Pistol Club
Reply With Quote
  #695  
Old 04-21-2017, 8:29 AM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
They didn't need to pull the regulations because of technical issues or money. They could have left them the way they were and just marked them as pending. I highly doubt they will appear in the same form.
They pulled the regs because of this (PDF doc):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...tbbpU2sWI7Y6mg

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
...history is written by those, who have hanged heros.
Reply With Quote
  #696  
Old 04-21-2017, 8:34 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,430
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
If we do some math we get some interesting numbers.

Is there a relationship between the funds they asked for and how many people they are expecting to register? I'd say yes because they are trying to justify a budget by saying that the $2,588,000 they asked for will be covered by the $15 reg fee.

So, if we assume that, then we get a number of 173,000 applications. Many might have multiple AW, so lets assume again that the average number of rifles per application is 2. I have no idea if that is reasonable, it might be higher, what do you think?

So 173,000 x2 and some extra and we get 350k-400k AW registered, that's what they are expecting. According to the DROS records and the assumption that there are 2-3 million AW's in CA sold between 2001-2016, then they are thinking around 10-20% of those weapons will be registered.

That's telling on many levels........if they are going to fund their project to that tune and only get 10-20% then they are preparing for a very low number. Does that mean they are going to produce the same regs, or even worse ones, to dissuade registration? Is this their policy, or have we been shown some cards as to what their policy is?

I would say yes. They don't want people to register. If they can satisfy the legal obligation to provide a reg period while making it as hard as possible to register, then only register 10-20%..................
Why 2-3 million? There were no long gun records prior to 2014.
Reply With Quote
  #697  
Old 04-21-2017, 8:35 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Voted Most Handsome CG'er
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 9,314
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

They only just now, in late April, started looking for funding and staff for the AW registration? It's almost like they only just now found out about this law that passed almost 10 months ago.

This is interesting news, for a few reasons. Particularly:

-It's unlikely they'd request $2.5m for the registration system if their plan is to never open registration to accept our fees to pay back the loan. So this basically confirms that DOJ does intend to open registration at some point, and it's only taking this long because it's CA and they have no idea what they're doing.

-They expect 173,000 different people to register rifles. That estimate blows me away. I would guess the number will realistically be 1/10th of that. I wonder what happens when they can't pay off their loan.

-They must be expecting that their next set of regulations aren't going to scare everyone away from registering and paying their $15.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverser View Post
As a matter of fact, the last guy I knew personally that wore a fanny pack was my brother in law. He left my sister for a guy he met at the gym.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-21-2017 at 8:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #698  
Old 04-21-2017, 9:03 AM
MASTERLAB's Avatar
MASTERLAB MASTERLAB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 815
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

They are not supposed to charge an excessive fee, but they have in the past. DROS then used the excess money to further their anti-gun agenda. I wouldn't put it past them to do the same with fees from "Regisered Assault Weapons"
Reply With Quote
  #699  
Old 04-21-2017, 9:12 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Voted Most Handsome CG'er
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 9,314
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

They can't charge any more than they already are, though. They're limited by statute:

The department may charge a fee in an amount of up to fifteen dollars ($15) per person

The fact that they were even arguing about whether or not the fee was per-gun or per-person is ridiculous actually, and the DOJ charging subsequent fees for additional registrations performed on later dates is even borderline illegal. The statute says "up to $15", "per person". It does not say "per firearm" or "per application". There can be only one interpretation of what "person" means.

Just another example of the DOJ making things up as they go. They think with each new day we are each a new person.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverser View Post
As a matter of fact, the last guy I knew personally that wore a fanny pack was my brother in law. He left my sister for a guy he met at the gym.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-21-2017 at 9:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #700  
Old 04-21-2017, 10:24 AM
Nor*Cal Nor*Cal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,105
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

When the DOJ withdrew their first draft of regulations, I was feeling pretty good about our chances of ending up with regulations that were not so overreaching.

However, with each passing day I feel worst and worst about what we will be facing when they finally release the revised regulations. There is no way that the new draft is taking so long only to be less convoluted than the initial draft.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that it's taking them this long to put the regulations in place. The lack of accountability and their incompetence is astonishing.

Just more proof that this state is ran by a bunch of buffoons.
Reply With Quote
  #701  
Old 04-21-2017, 10:30 AM
Beacholiver Beacholiver is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Near Pasadena, Calif.
Posts: 60
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor*Cal View Post
When the DOJ withdrew their first draft of regulations, I was feeling pretty good about our chances of ending up with regulations that were not so overreaching.

However, with each passing day I feel worst and worst about what we will be facing when they finally release the revised regulations. There is no way that the new draft is taking so long only to be less convoluted than the initial draft.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that it's taking them this long to put the regulations in place. The lack of accountability and their incompetence is astonishing.

Just more proof that this state is ran by a bunch of buffoons.
You know there is a secret underground Democratic star chamber where they are smoking weed, wearing dresses and plotting the most absurd regulations they can think of, all after they plan how to control the masses and get more votes to ensure their cushy career lasts until they can collect their sweet pensions.
Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 04-21-2017, 10:31 AM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor*Cal View Post
When the DOJ withdrew their first draft of regulations, I was feeling pretty good about our chances of ending up with regulations that were not so overreaching.

However, with each passing day I feel worst and worst about what we will be facing when they finally release the revised regulations. There is no way that the new draft is taking so long only to be less convoluted than the initial draft.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that it's taking them this long to put the regulations in place. The lack of accountability and their incompetence is astonishing.

Just more proof that this state is ran by a bunch of buffoons.
Maybe their attorneys are still arguing with the Michel & Associates (NRA) attorneys, trying to avoid actual lawsuits?

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
...history is written by those, who have hanged heros.
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 04-21-2017, 10:38 AM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 621
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bool1tholz View Post
Agenda from Assembly Budget Subcommittee #5 on Public Safety April 17, 2017



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCcmYMS-iEk#t=50s

I like the part where the DOJ guy initially refers to the new funding for "the button bullet bill" before being corrected.
Here's the original budget request, which has been online since January.

http://web1a.esd.dof.ca.gov/Document...820_BCP889.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 04-21-2017, 10:49 AM
Nor*Cal Nor*Cal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,105
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
Maybe their attorneys are still arguing with the Michel & Associates (NRA) attorneys, trying to avoid actual lawsuits?

A.W.D.
Do you really believe there is any back in forth communications going on? I don't. I would be willing to bet that the DOJ or it's legal representation has had zero verbal or written response to Michel & Associates or anyone else that was involved with the lawsuit letter.
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 04-21-2017, 10:57 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Voted Most Handsome CG'er
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 9,314
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
Maybe their attorneys are still arguing with the Michel & Associates (NRA) attorneys, trying to avoid actual lawsuits?

A.W.D.
I hope that's exactly what's happening, though I haven't seen any indication that anyone has been in direct communication with DOJ aside from that letter in January.

I share the concern that the length of time this is taking is not really a good sign that these regs will be less convoluted than the last ones. But they could just as easily be taking so long because they're failing to find a way to legally achieve their agenda. If it was easy, they'd have done it by now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverser View Post
As a matter of fact, the last guy I knew personally that wore a fanny pack was my brother in law. He left my sister for a guy he met at the gym.
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 04-21-2017, 11:03 AM
Nor*Cal Nor*Cal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,105
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
But they could just as easily be taking so long because they're failing to find a way to legally achieve their agenda.
We can only hope this is the case at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 04-21-2017, 11:06 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Voted Most Handsome CG'er
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 9,314
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor*Cal View Post
We can only hope this is the case at this point.
Also I don't think Becerra shares Kamala's enthusiasm about gun control. He's certainly not pro-gun, we know that, but he hasn't given any indication that it's a top priority for him like it was for KH. KH pretty much put gun control and immigration at the top of her list. Becerra seems more interested in immigration than anything else.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverser View Post
As a matter of fact, the last guy I knew personally that wore a fanny pack was my brother in law. He left my sister for a guy he met at the gym.
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 04-21-2017, 11:31 AM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor*Cal View Post
Do you really believe there is any back in forth communications going on? I don't. I would be willing to bet that the DOJ or it's legal representation has had zero verbal or written response to Michel & Associates or anyone else that was involved with the lawsuit letter.
I believe there is far more going on than any of us can accurately speculate on, and that there is indeed some sort of legal discussion, with various parties.

No response, seems to me, requires legal action - per Michel & Associates letter. That could result in something for us, and until we have actual proof of anything, I'm trying to be positive.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
...history is written by those, who have hanged heros.
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 04-21-2017, 11:39 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 608
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
Here's the original budget request, which has been online since January.

http://web1a.esd.dof.ca.gov/Document...820_BCP889.pdf
In the document, DOJ estimate 1 - 1.5 million rifles will be registers from 250,000 owners. Thus netting ~ $3.75M in fees to pay off the $2.8M loan. The loan is likely to pay for the 27 new positions they want to hire to process the registration.

Since the request was in Jan 2017, doubtful the regs was pulled and the delay was b/c of it. Maybe post M&S letter and reading all the forums encouraging folks to register, they realized the initial 1.5 million and 250k maybe too low and the current proposed system won't be able to handle it. Or the new guy saw the 1.5M new AW being sanctioned by the DOJ - "NOT ON MY WATCH!"

Last edited by walmart_ar15; 04-21-2017 at 11:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 04-21-2017, 12:38 PM
Beacholiver Beacholiver is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Near Pasadena, Calif.
Posts: 60
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I hope they realize the supreme court has changed, so they need to get their crazy plans ready for a pro-2A court when they probably had all their eggs in the Hillary basket.
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 04-21-2017, 12:45 PM
Wiz-of-Awd's Avatar
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 3,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacholiver View Post
I hope they realize the supreme court has changed, so they need to get their crazy plans ready for a pro-2A court when they probably had all their eggs in the Hillary basket.
No, it hasn't (really). Not yet.
It has been restored in a sense to what it has been for quite some time prior to Scalia's death.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
...history is written by those, who have hanged heros.
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 04-21-2017, 12:49 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,526
iTrader: 1 / 67%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
Here's the original budget request, which has been online since January.

http://web1a.esd.dof.ca.gov/Document...820_BCP889.pdf
That's extremely interesting, I haven't heard anyone mention this until now.

This document outlines ALOT and shows that:

"The Bureau roughly estimates 1-1.5 million assault weapons will be registered by approximately 250,000 different owners. It is estimated that these registrations will generate roughly $3.7 million dollars, and will be sufficient to cover the costs associated with this proposal."

Based on the 2-3 million estimated AW in ca sold from 2001-2016, that puts a final estimate of 10%-20% that they expect to register, which seems completely unreasonable. What do they expect the millions of other owners to do?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
So it sounds to me like you're outraged about something that isn't actually happening anywhere outside your imagination.
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 04-21-2017, 12:51 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Voted Most Handsome CG'er
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 9,314
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I doubt a supreme court composition or potential future decision is of any concern to them. By the time a case gets through district court, then 9th circus, and finally reaches SCOTUS and gets a ruling, most of these guys will be retired. And that's assuming SCOTUS even considers a case about assault weapon regulations in one state, which is a stretch. More likely that SCOTUS would take on a case regarding assault weapon bans in general, in which case these regulations are of little relevance.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverser View Post
As a matter of fact, the last guy I knew personally that wore a fanny pack was my brother in law. He left my sister for a guy he met at the gym.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-21-2017 at 12:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 04-21-2017, 12:52 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,526
iTrader: 1 / 67%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Why 2-3 million? There were no long gun records prior to 2014.
Look at these numbers, then calculate what you think a reasonable number is in terms of an estimate as to what percentage of long gun sales were "AW". I say conservatively that it was 20%. It's probably much much higher.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
So it sounds to me like you're outraged about something that isn't actually happening anywhere outside your imagination.
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 04-21-2017, 12:54 PM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 3,199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
That's extremely interesting, I haven't heard anyone mention this until now.

This document outlines ALOT and shows that:

"The Bureau roughly estimates 1-1.5 million assault weapons will be registered by approximately 250,000 different owners. It is estimated that these registrations will generate roughly $3.7 million dollars, and will be sufficient to cover the costs associated with this proposal."

Based on the 2-3 million estimated AW in ca sold from 2001-2016, that puts a final estimate of 10%-20% that they expect to register, which seems completely unreasonable. What do they expect the millions of other owners to do?
Wouldn't that 10%-20% fall in line with what was seen during previous registration periods?

The owners that didn't register during previous periods, either sold their guns (I know many that did), moved them out of CA, or simply ignored the registration and squirreled them away.
__________________

Last edited by onelonehorseman; 04-21-2017 at 12:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 04-21-2017, 1:05 PM
SailorDan SailorDan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northern Tijuana
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks for the update.

27 new positions !

Even at an entry level of 30-35k/year when adding benefits the manpower costs get really close to $1million/year -- and the state doesn't downsize well. Why not contracted work? This should be a temporary surge in work load. Is the Bureau of Firearms trying to grow its rice bowl? Will the 27 positions be swapped to enforcement in the future?

Or are they building permanent capacity for when registration of ALL semi-automatic centerfire rifles is required?
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 04-21-2017, 1:06 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Voted Most Handsome CG'er
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 9,314
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
Wouldn't that 10%-20% fall in line with what was seen during previous registration periods?

The owners that didn't register during previous periods, either sold their guns (I know many that did), moved them out of CA, or simply ignored the registration and squirreled them away.
10%-20% is probably in line with the previous registrations, but that number will be FAR less if the DOJ gets what they want with the registration regulations.

Keep in mind that the previous registration regulations were quite short - they basically said, "fill out the form, mail it in with a check, and never worry about your rifle again."

If the withdrawn regulations had stuck, I would estimate the 10-20% would have been reduced to 1-2%, maybe even less.

Even if the new regs are identical to the previous registrations, I'd bet we won't see higher than 5-10%, simply because the withdrawn regulations scared so many people away.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverser View Post
As a matter of fact, the last guy I knew personally that wore a fanny pack was my brother in law. He left my sister for a guy he met at the gym.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-21-2017 at 1:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 04-21-2017, 1:09 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,526
iTrader: 1 / 67%
Default

Actually I am thinking about the 10%-20% number looking at the 250,000 owners number, but they expect 1-1.5 million AW to be registered. That would put it squarely at the 50% mark if you believe the 2-3 million AW total estimate.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
So it sounds to me like you're outraged about something that isn't actually happening anywhere outside your imagination.
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 04-21-2017, 1:30 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,526
iTrader: 1 / 67%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
Wouldn't that 10%-20% fall in line with what was seen during previous registration periods?

The owners that didn't register during previous periods, either sold their guns (I know many that did), moved them out of CA, or simply ignored the registration and squirreled them away.
This got me thinking and I went back and looked at the numbers. Between 1991-2001 (1991 is the first year CA started to count the number of long gun sales) there were approximately 2 million applications processed. Lets say that equals 2,000,000 rifles roughly. I would say in the 90's during the Fed AW ban that AW was pretty scarce. I remember going to shows and local gun shops and there was always an AR, but they were not popular yet.

So let's say 10% of those rifles were AW. That's 200,000. We know that in the 89, 2000, and 2001 periods there were approximately 150,000.

So we are looking more like a 75% registration for that era, although it doesn't cover any estimate of what kind of AW was registered in 1989.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
So it sounds to me like you're outraged about something that isn't actually happening anywhere outside your imagination.
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old 04-21-2017, 1:46 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Voted Most Handsome CG'er
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 9,314
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Also new info from member CalAlumnus who pointed out a document that is called "STATE OF CALIFORNIA Budget Change Proposal - Cover Sheet
DF-46 (REV 08/16)
" which was submitted to the legislature on Jan 19 2017. It explicitly states exactly what the DOJ expects in terms of registration:

"The California Department of Justice (Department), Division of Law Enforcement, Bureau of Firearms (Bureau) requests an increase of $2,588,000 and 27.0 positions in FY 2017-18 in Dealers' Record of Sale (DROS) Special Fund spending authority to implement the provisions Senate Bill (SB) 880 (Hall III) and Assembly Bill (AB) 1135 (Levine)."


and

"The Bureau is required to create and administer a registration program for owners of assault weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action. The Bureau roughly estimates 1-1.5 million assault weapons will be registered by approximately 250,000 different owners. It is estimated that these registrations will generate roughly $3.7 million dollars, and will be sufficient to cover the costs associated with this proposal."

^ Yep, they need to create and administer a registration program for those rifles. As long as that's all they do, there won't be any problems.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverser View Post
As a matter of fact, the last guy I knew personally that wore a fanny pack was my brother in law. He left my sister for a guy he met at the gym.
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 5:33 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.