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 11-22-2017, 8:50 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Orange County CA / Dallas TX
Posts: 970
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default New CA "Assault Weapon Definitions" Regulations (released 11/22/2017)

SEE POST 19 — MICHEL & ASSOC PRESS RELEASE — FOR ONE PAGE EXPLANATION OF NEW REGS

CA DOJ has released notice of new regulations it has submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).

These are definitions to further define "Assault Weapons" that they are sending through the normal regulations rulemaking process, e.g., public comments must be accepted, etc.

From Page 6:
"The proposed regulation will apply the definitions of terms in CCR section 5471 to the identification of assault weapons pursuant to PC section 30515, without limitation to context of the new registration process."

I haven't had time to read it all yet but wanted to put the breaking news out there.

The PDF file is too large (~10 MB) to fit under CalGuns attachment size limits. I have posted the file to this free sharing site, the download ability will automatically cease 21 days from now:

http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id...daea86b3d25db0
__________________
-------------------------

Last edited by thorium; 11-27-2017 at 5:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:29 AM
AregularGuy's Avatar
AregularGuy AregularGuy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,745
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Tagged
__________________
All posts dedicated to the memory of Stronzo Bestiale

"You want my sister but now scam my Glocks too?
How about my sister? what can she do now? Still virgin and need Glcok."

---ARegularGuy

NRA Patron Member
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:29 AM
jaymz's Avatar
jaymz jaymz is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rancho Cucamomga
Posts: 6,289
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Pages 3-4 are full of lies. They essentially say that there will be no cost to the State whatsoever (I guess enforcing the new regs will be free) and it won't affect jobs and/or business in any significant way (I guess no longer selling America's most popular rifle, or equipping them with goofy mag locks or featureless crap won't have any impact on sales).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:37 AM
Two Nuggets Two Nuggets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,054
iTrader: 31 / 97%
Default

Pages 1-52 are all bull**** and lies.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:40 AM
EvoXguy's Avatar
EvoXguy EvoXguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Idaho
Posts: 736
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

They always do this bs before a holiday weekend?
__________________
Peace through superior firepower
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:41 AM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,399
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Im confused. Werent the regs were released already and registration is ongoing. Why new regs now?
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:47 AM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NV, ID, OR, CA soon to add TN
Posts: 19,966
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Two Nuggets View Post
Pages 1-52 are all bull**** and lies.
Nailed it
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:53 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Compare
Quote:
(m) “Detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action or use of a tool. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. An ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

An AR-15 style firearm that has a bullet-button style magazine release with a magnet left on the bullet-button constitutes a detachable magazine.

An AR-15 style firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly (magazine catch, magazine catch spring and magazine release button) constitutes a detachable magazine.

An AK-47 style firearm lacking a magazine catch assembly (magazine catch, spring, and rivet/pin) constitutes a detachable magazine.
With

Quote:
(p) “Fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.
Also note the laughable bb, magnet, and "no mag catch" verbiage.

They really are literally writing the law, no legislator required.
__________________
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." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 11-22-2017 at 11:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:53 AM
Tasty's Avatar
Tasty Tasty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,829
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidsnake87 View Post
Im confused. Werent the regs were released already and registration is ongoing. Why new regs now?
Me too. What gives? Why is there another new set?
__________________
As the great warrior poet Ice Cube once said "If the day does not require an AK, it is good."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-22-2017, 12:23 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasty View Post
Me too. What gives? Why is there another new set?
My quick analysis of the action is that because of Villanueva, that the DOJ is making an end-run around the fact that they illegally extended their APA exception to back-door changes to SB23.

They are now trying to use the normal APA process to enshrine their land-grab before there is an injunction from Villanueva. They are saying that the current open AW registration and approval by OAL of the regs necessary for the registration showed that the regulations are "legit" and the CA regulatory code should supersede all other definitions.

Where are we with Villanueva?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-22-2017, 12:29 PM
CmdrChuch's Avatar
CmdrChuch CmdrChuch is offline
Uhaul Enthusiast
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 565
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

After reading it, it definitely seems like they're trying to cover their butts for (among other things) including shotguns with bullet buttons.

Edit: As stated above, the "other things" are the ones included in Villanueva suit.

Last edited by CmdrChuch; 11-22-2017 at 12:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-22-2017, 1:35 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is online now
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 29,962
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Also note the laughable bb, magnet, and "no mag catch" verbiage.

They really are literally writing the law, no legislator required.
FYI.
Since 08-01-2017, those definitions have been in effect.

California Code of Regulations Title 11 Division 5 Chapter 39 Article 2 Section 5471
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

Last edited by Quiet; 11-22-2017 at 1:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-22-2017, 1:42 PM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Orange County CA / Dallas TX
Posts: 970
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

They are ensuring all the definitions they came up with for registration of AWs will be applicable in all situations, not just registration.

Remember that they had an exemption from the APA rule making process, comment period, etc. only for registration of AWs and they issued the registration regulations, which included these 44 assault weapon definitions, under that exemption.

Now they are sending the same definitions they came up with for the registration regulations through the full APA process with a comment period, etc. to ensure they are they are the law of the land in general, and not just for registration.

It’s pretty much them covering their ***, in case the lawsuits we have going against their registration regulations, and to get ahead of criminal prosecution defenses being able to say “those regulations are irrelevant because this arrest had nothing to do with registration of an assault weapon.”
__________________
-------------------------

Last edited by thorium; 11-22-2017 at 1:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-22-2017, 1:44 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is online now
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 29,962
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

It appears this is the only new change to the regulations that were adopted back in August 2017.

Quote:
§ 5460 Application of Definitions
The definitions of terms in section 5471 of this chapter shall apply to the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 30515.
Appears that when the passed the regulations the definitions were applied to PC 30900 and they forgot to put in that it also applies to PC 30515.

The proposed change is to rectify this and makes sure all the t's are cross and i's are dotted.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-22-2017, 1:47 PM
grlgunner grlgunner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bingo!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
It appears this is the only new change to the regulations that were adopted back in August 2017.



Appears that when the passed the regulations the definitions were applied to PC 30900 and they forgot to put in that it also applies to PC 30515.

The proposed change is to rectify this and makes sure all the t's are cross and i's are dotted.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-22-2017, 1:51 PM
grlgunner grlgunner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

FPC is encouraging everyone to send a form email:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/conta...on_regulations

The problem with this is the DOJ still has to view every email, print them, record them, and submit them to the Office of Administrative Law. I would imagine this would cost taxpayers a lot of money....especially if the comment was something worthless like a generalized "I oppose..." as is being suggested.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-22-2017, 1:53 PM
Crazed_SS's Avatar
Crazed_SS Crazed_SS is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,114
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CmdrChuch View Post
After reading it, it definitely seems like they're trying to cover their butts for (among other things) including shotguns with bullet buttons.
That's the main thing that stood out to me.

So in any regulation that can just say, "For the purposes of XXX, YYY means ZZZ"

It could be a phrase like "Capacity to accept detachable magazine" actually means "[insert total BS made up thing that isnt even codified in law]"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-22-2017, 1:55 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
It appears this is the only new change to the regulations that were adopted back in August 2017.



Appears that when the passed the regulations the definitions were applied to PC 30900 and they forgot to put in that it also applies to PC 30515.

The proposed change is to rectify this and makes sure all the t's are cross and i's are dotted.
And in doing so, putting all of their regulations post-SB880 in the formal APA process with a comment period, thereby ensuring Villanueva is short-circuited and left without standing.

The timing of Villanueva is prelim on 12/14 and case management on 1/8/18. By showing the regulations following the APA, there is less incentive to issue an injunction.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-22-2017, 1:57 PM
MCubeiro's Avatar
MCubeiro MCubeiro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 100
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default For Immediate Release

ANOTHER HOLIDAY GIFT TO GUN OWNERS—DOJ PROPOSES
REGULATION REGARDING “ASSAULT WEAPON” DEFINITIONS


On Wednesday, November 22—the day before Thanksgiving—the California Department of Justice officially notified the public of its intent to adopt a new regulation regarding the definitions of certain terms used to identify “assault weapons” under California law. If adopted, the regulation would take existing illegally adopted definitions of terms relating to “assault weapons” currently being challenged by NRA and CRPA in state court, and apply them to the identification of “assault weapons” under California law.

For those of you who are confused (and rightfully so, we might add), the regulation is a direct result of DOJ’s recently adopted regulations regarding the registration of newly classified “assault weapons” pursuant to AB 1135 and SB 880. As we reported in August, the Office of Administrative Law approved DOJ’s regulations regarding the registration of “assault weapons” only after it made a minor, non-substantive change to its originally proposed regulations which were formally rejected barely a month earlier.

According to DOJ, this non-substantive change made it so DOJ’s proposed regulations—including all of the definitions regarding “assault weapons”—only applied to the registration of newly classified assault weapons—a dubious distinction. As a result, those same regulations could not be used for the purposes of enforcement of California’s “assault weapon” restrictions in other respects. The proposed regulation will purportedly fix this gap created by DOJ as a result of its recently adopted “assault weapon” registration regulations.

NRA and CRPA attorneys are currently reviewing the proposed regulation and will be providing public comment. So stay tuned for more information, and make sure you are subscribed to NRA and CRPA email alerts.

In the meantime, members should know that DOJ will be holding a public hearing on the proposed regulation on January 8, 2018, from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, at the Resources Building Auditorium, located at 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. We encourage all of our members who are able to attend and voice their opposition. If you are unable to attend, you can also submit written comments no later than 5:00 PM on January 8, 2018, to the following:

Jacqueline Dosch
Bureau of Firearms
Division of Law Enforcement
Department of Justice

P.O. Box 160487
Sacramento, CA 95816-0487

Phone: (916) 227-5419
Email: awdefinitions@doj.ca.gov
__________________


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
  #20  
Old 11-22-2017, 2:01 PM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Orange County CA / Dallas TX
Posts: 970
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Mods feel free to make the Michel and associates post above the first post in this thread
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-22-2017, 2:02 PM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,712
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
It appears this is the only new change to the regulations that were adopted back in August 2017.



Appears that when the passed the regulations the definitions were applied to PC 30900 and they forgot to put in that it also applies to PC 30515.

The proposed change is to rectify this and makes sure all the t's are cross and i's are dotted.
It was with the earlier versions that DOJ pulled. To reference it to PC 30515 was deem not kosher without APA process for SB 880 so they pull it. Now they r using the APA process to amend the reg which they should have done in the first place. Wonder if it has anything to do with the pending law suit? Maybe they got wind that the judge is gonna slap them for bypassing APA process?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-22-2017, 2:08 PM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 6,458
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

So based on the verbiage regarding a bb with a magnet attached, is that acceptable if you register your bbraw?
Im confused now.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-22-2017, 3:25 PM
bhp1410's Avatar
bhp1410 bhp1410 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 392
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

it would seem so. Unless that is "altering" the bullet button.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
So based on the verbiage regarding a bb with a magnet attached, is that acceptable if you register your bbraw?
Im confused now.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-22-2017, 3:25 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,790
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
So based on the verbiage regarding a bb with a magnet attached, is that acceptable if you register your bbraw?
Im confused now.
If you attach a magnet it becomes a detachable magazine. They will (i'm assuming) argue that you have a "different weapon" than the one you registered if found with a magnet attached.
__________________
For you to believe globalization can continue, you have to believe it doesn't require increased consumption and that the Americans will continue to bleed and die so that the Chinese can access energy. - Peter Zeihan
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-22-2017, 3:43 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
They will (i'm assuming) argue that you have a "different weapon" than the one you registered if found with a magnet attached.
Yep. This is astounding. Instead of claiming that altering the firearm makes it illegal by configuration, they're literally arguing it becomes an unregistered AW because it is a different firearm.

Why? Because while it is (ostensibly) prohibited from making underground regulation, the ATF knows its authority for identifying a weapon is unquestioned.
__________________
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." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-22-2017, 7:04 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,193
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidsnake87 View Post
Im confused. Werent the regs were released already and registration is ongoing. Why new regs now?
So, from one of the other threads, there was a nice person on Calguns who posted a comparison page between all 3 submission attempts of the regs.

See here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rrzkxps205...mpare.pdf?dl=0

You'll notice that if you scroll down to "5471. Registration of Assault Weapons Pursuant to Penal Code Section 30900(b)(1); Explanation of Terms Related to Assault Weapon Designation.", that below that there's a sentence saying "For the purposes of Penal Code Section"

The 2nd submission of the regs was when the OAL officially rejected their regulations. The 3rd submission is when they accepted them. The most noteable (yet small bit of text) change in the 3rd submission was the removal of 30515 (The general Assault Weapon law) and the addition of 30900 (The registration law portion). It was assumed that OAL only denied the 2nd submission because CA DoJ BoF had overreached by using the APA Exemption to avoid public comment because 30515 was outside of their APA Exemption Regulatory Authority. So now that they didn't get exactly what they wanted, they're coming back to go through the public comment period to apply all of these definitions generally to 30515.

Really, my favorite part is this. Don't hold back laughter.
Quote:
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Penal Code (PC) section 30515 specifies characteristics that identify a firearm as an assault
weapon. Section 5471 of title 11, division 5, California Code of Regulations (CCR) further
defines terms used in PC section 30515 to describe those characteristics, for the purpose of the
requirement to register with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a new class of assault weapons by
stating assault weapons that do not have a fixed magazine, as defined in PC section 30515,
including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the
firearm with the use of a tool, as provided in PC section 30900(b)(1). Section 5471 defines
forty-four terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to PC section 30515 or
otherwise used in the section 5471 definitions themselves. Aside from the registration definitions
set forth in section 5471, there currently are no definitions of the terms used in PC section 30515
to identify a firearm as an assault weapon.
You mean the PROBLEM that the CA DoJ created itself? The definitions that were implemented after -3- submissions, each one ignoring the public comment period?

I haven't even fully read this yet, currently super busy. This thing is going to be a big crock of crap though.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-22-2017, 7:46 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Yep. All you have to do is do a search for "identify" and you can easily find where the DoJ is full of crap.

"Identify" no longer means by serial number, but rather by feature. This is an entirely new legal construct that has absolutely no precedent or basis.
__________________
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." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-22-2017, 10:44 PM
Dirk Tungsten's Avatar
Dirk Tungsten Dirk Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the basement
Posts: 1,965
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Yep. All you have to do is do a search for "identify" and you can easily find where the DoJ is full of crap.

"Identify" no longer means by serial number, but rather by feature. This is an entirely new legal construct that has absolutely no precedent or basis.
Hence the need for photos with registration.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-23-2017, 5:07 AM
BluNorthern's Avatar
BluNorthern BluNorthern is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Far NE California
Posts: 10,234
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvoXguy View Post
They always do this bs before a holiday weekend?
Seems so.

Kind of like past administrations releasing bad news on Fridays. Our government and it's manifestations have a very low opinion of the intelligence of it's constituents....rightfully so I'm afraid.
__________________
"I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-23-2017, 5:46 AM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 4,073
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default New CA "Assault Weapon Definitions" Regulations (released 11/22/2017)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BluNorthern View Post
Seems so.



Kind of like past administrations releasing bad news on Fridays. Our government and it's manifestations have a very low opinion of the intelligence of it's constituents....rightfully so I'm afraid.


No. Not at all They have a very low opinion of rule of law and constitutional government. They have a terribly low opinion of us in terms of respect for our rights. We are their subjects. Born to serve. Our role is to shut up and obey. We don’t deserve any better.

They do this because they can. It’s not that we’re too stupid, it’s that we don’t care. Or worse, let’s face it, kalifornians love being subjects.
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-23-2017, 6:25 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: 3,010
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grlgunner View Post
FPC is encouraging everyone to send a form email:
The FPC form email is nonsensical lol:

Quote:
I urge you to oppose the "assault weapon" regulations released on 11/22/17.
Urge the DOJ to oppose its own regs? Duh!!

How many lemmings have already sent this brilliant message to DOJ? If it ends up in the summary of public comments it will be hilarious to see DoJs response.
__________________

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 11-23-2017 at 6:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-23-2017, 6:34 AM
TKM's Avatar
TKM TKM is offline
Bring back the Lions.
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California's 3A Sanctuary City
Posts: 10,245
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Yep. This is astounding. Instead of claiming that altering the firearm makes it illegal by configuration, they're literally arguing it becomes an unregistered AW because it is a different firearm.

Why? Because while it is (ostensibly) prohibited from making underground regulation, the ATF knows its authority for identifying a weapon is unquestioned.
You know that F-Troop has nothing to do with this.
__________________
Feuertrunken
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-23-2017, 7:43 AM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 19,395
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Yep. All you have to do is do a search for "identify" and you can easily find where the DoJ is full of crap.

"Identify" no longer means by serial number, but rather by feature. This is an entirely new legal construct that has absolutely no precedent or basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten View Post
Hence the need for photos with registration.
The photos are there to make self incriminate yourself. Nothing more nothing less. No photographs have been required in the previous AW registrations. Why today is it so important to have a photo since before only a serial number, barrel length, caliber etc. etc. were sufficient enough before.


The photo requirement is BS on it's face.

the whole if you make your BB rifle have a detachable magazine it magically becomes different rifle is completely ludicrous. Too bad a judge won't see this insanity in this thinking.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-23-2017, 9:26 AM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidsnake87 View Post
Im confused. Werent the regs were released already and registration is ongoing. Why new regs now?
Its the same regs, OAL didn't let them apply to PC 30515 without a public hearing. This is your public Hearing.

Guess this answers the question, do the regs apply to AW's or just to their registration.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-23-2017, 9:30 AM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
It appears this is the only new change to the regulations that were adopted back in August 2017.



Appears that when the passed the regulations the definitions were applied to PC 30900 and they forgot to put in that it also applies to PC 30515.

The proposed change is to rectify this and makes sure all the t's are cross and i's are dotted.
No, they tried to do it the first time, but OAL crossed out 30515 when they approved them. Needed a public hearing before they could be applied to existing AW law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-23-2017, 10:58 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Duh!!
Does changing a feature on a firearm make it an entirely different firearm? Where is the original one? Has it been destroyed? The new firearm just happens to have the same serial number as the old, destroyed one?

Quote:
If it ends up in the summary of public comments it will be hilarious to see DoJs response.
How does it matter? The DoJ is not compelled to do anything based on public comments.
__________________
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." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 11-23-2017 at 11:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-23-2017, 1:41 PM
Diabolus's Avatar
Diabolus Diabolus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California / Los Angeles
Posts: 4,663
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

I don't keep up on the new regs like I use to so I am terribly confused on all the new regs I need to adhere to soon. I have no idea if I need to go bullet button and register, or if I need to go non-featureless.

This should not be so insanely difficult, what a mess.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-23-2017, 2:03 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: 3,010
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Does changing a feature on a firearm make it an entirely different firearm?
Wow, this could be a game changer lol.

Quote:
How does it matter? The DoJ is not compelled to do anything based on public comments.
Well the DOJ might think a public comment asking it to oppose its own regulations is kind of stupid don't you think?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-23-2017, 2:31 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,506
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Not really sure what all this legal stuff means. I know we tried to hash out what "pursuant" to 30515 meant, and how it was the only thing changed after the OAL rejected the regs. I thought it was real weaksauce on their part, because at least their logical argument was that the new regs are pursuant to the SB23 regs.

The question is what does it mean. Does this mean, if this stuff goes through, that the category system they came up with is null and all older reg period guns need to follow the new regs? Or does it mean that we can't ever change any features, and that the process people are going through right now to register with photos and being asked to put all accessorizes into photos lock us into a configuration that they will be justified by the new regs?

Super confusing as usual.
__________________
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
  #40  
Old 11-23-2017, 2:47 PM
August August is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: In a rabbit hole down by the river
Posts: 2,225
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Not really sure what all this legal stuff means. I know we tried to hash out what "pursuant" to 30515 meant, and how it was the only thing changed after the OAL rejected the regs. I thought it was real weaksauce on their part, because at least their logical argument was that the new regs are pursuant to the SB23 regs.

The question is what does it mean. Does this mean, if this stuff goes through, that the category system they came up with is null and all older reg period guns need to follow the new regs? Or does it mean that we can't ever change any features, and that the process people are going through right now to register with photos and being asked to put all accessorizes into photos lock us into a configuration that they will be justified by the new regs?

Super confusing as usual.
This a valid concern
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 6:10 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy