|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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.. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
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).
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Im confused. Werent the regs were released already and registration is ongoing. Why new regs now?
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE! M. Sage's I have a dream speech; |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Compare
Quote:
Quote:
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.. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
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." |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
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? |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
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.. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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.. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
It appears this is the only new change to the regulations that were adopted back in August 2017.
Quote:
The proposed change is to rectify this and makes sure all the t's are cross and i's are dotted. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Bingo!
Quote:
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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]"
__________________
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
it would seem so. Unless that is "altering" the bullet button.
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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:
I haven't even fully read this yet, currently super busy. This thing is going to be a big crock of crap though. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Hence the need for photos with registration.
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
New CA "Assault Weapon Definitions" Regulations (released 11/22/2017)
Quote:
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. |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
The FPC form email is nonsensical lol:
Quote:
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.. |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Feuertrunken |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Guess this answers the question, do the regs apply to AW's or just to their registration.
__________________
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
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:
__________________
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.. |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
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:
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|