Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-22-2017, 12:54 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default 2017 California AW Regulations - DISCUSSION Thread 2.0

7/31/2018 - The 3rd draft of the regulations appears to have been summarily approved, 4 weeks early, by OAL. We are awaiting verification, and the regulations have not yet been published in the CCR, so please see note in red below.

As such, this thread is essentially superceded by the new AW Registration - The Complete Guide thread.




See the attached PDF for an overview of the changes which DOJ has implemented between versions 1 (withdrawn), 2 (rejected), and 3 (approved). Hint: there weren't many changes between any of them.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf AW Regulations.pdf (167.2 KB, 734 views)

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 08-09-2017 at 3:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-22-2017, 12:56 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

The old discussion thread, for your reading pleasure, can be found here:

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1306120
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-22-2017, 1:10 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,170
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

IN!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-22-2017, 1:15 PM
LowThudd's Avatar
LowThudd LowThudd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sherman Oaks
Posts: 3,650
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Alrighty then. A freshen up is probably overdue. lol
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-22-2017, 1:30 PM
bababoris bababoris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 911
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

To all the unfriendlies reading this thread: Go F yourselves! You will ultimately lose this fight! Mark my words.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-22-2017, 1:58 PM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,837
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

None of the recent changes undercut CRPA's complaints filed in their previous letter, specifically:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SB 880
(5) The department shalt adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code).
Paragraph (5) makes clear that only regulations whose purpose is implementing “this subdivision,” i.e., subdivision (b) of section 30900, are exempt from the APA. This means DOJ’s exemption from the APA is limited to only those regulations relating to:
(1) “those procedures” as stated in (b)(1) to register “an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool,” i.e., the newly classified “assault weapons”;
(2) the electronic submission of the registration of an “assault weapon” defined in (b)(1), in compliance with (b)(2);
(3) the information to be contained in the registration as required (and limited) by (b)(3); and
(4) the amount of the registration fee and how to pay it in compliance with (b)(4).

In sum, any regulations unrelated to Paragraphs (1)-(4) of subdivision (b) are not exempt from the APA.

II. A NUMBER OF THE REGULATIONS PROPOSED BY DOJ EXCEED THE SCOPE OF PENAL CODE § 30900(B) AND MUST, THEREFORE, ADHERE TO THE APA OR BE DEEMED INVALID

DOJ’s proposed regulations do more than just implement the registration scheme delineated in Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b) for firearms newly-designated as “assault weapons” by AB 1135 and SB 880. They seek to create or amend a whole host of definitions for “assault weapon” features and other terms, as well as regulate activities after the registration process. As a result, these proposed regulations exceed the scope of the APA exemption provided by Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(5) and are invalid because “an agency does not have the authority to alter or amend a statute or enlarge or impair its scope.”11 “If a rule constitutes a ‘regulation’ within the meaning of the APA ... it may not be adopted, amended, or repealed except in conformity with ‘basic minimum procedural requirements’ [citation] [of the APA] that are exacting.”12 Any regulation that substantially fails to comply with these requirements can be judicially declared invalid.13

And, even if there is some debate on whether the proposed provisions relate to implementing the new registration scheme, “any doubt as to the applicability of the APA’s requirements should be resolved in favor of the APA.”14

11 Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1236.
12 California School Boards Assn, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at 1328, internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
13 Id.
14 Id. (emphasis added).


__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
The architects of the assault weapon bans ... are simply trying to fight the Culture War. And we can't win, not in California anyway because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you.
Crime rate per 100k people
General population: 3,817
Police officers: 108
Legal CCW: 18
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-22-2017, 3:23 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Within the next few hours, I'll be posting a comprehensive A/B/C comparison between the 3 versions of the proposed regulations, so that everyone can clearly see what changes DOJ has made along the way.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-22-2017, 3:29 PM
OCArmory's Avatar
OCArmory OCArmory is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,038
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Thanks it is hard to figure out

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Within the next few hours, I'll be posting a comprehensive A/B/C comparison between the 3 versions of the proposed regulations, so that everyone can clearly see what changes DOJ has made along the way.
__________________
OC Armory
23012 Del Lago Dr.
Suite B
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
(949)768-5189
www.ocarmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-22-2017, 3:31 PM
Gun Nerd's Avatar
Gun Nerd Gun Nerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Corona
Posts: 867
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Within the next few hours, I'll be posting a comprehensive A/B/C comparison between the 3 versions of the proposed regulations, so that everyone can clearly see what changes DOJ has made along the way.
You da man!!!!!
__________________
Girls like my guns more than me
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-22-2017, 3:47 PM
25MOA 25MOA is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

IVC stated earlier:

"The state would claim that the *registration paperwork* doesn't apply to your gun because "it applies to a different gun." So, the question is not whether you have an AW or not, but whether you have a RAW or not."

The different gun argument won't fly because the specific gun that would have been registered is uniquely defined by it's serial number.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-22-2017, 4:11 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,511
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by bababoris View Post
To all the unfriendlies reading this thread: Go F yourselves! You will ultimately lose this fight! Mark my words.
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf
I see the gulf of Mexico
As tiny as a tear
The coast of California
Must be somewhere over here, over here
Greatful Dead
“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-22-2017, 5:00 PM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Got a question for those that understand legalese.. So between 1/1/2001 to 12/31/2016 if u owned a BB featured rifle, it was considered fixed then thus can be lawfully posssessed, but as of 1/2017, it is now considered removable no different than a standard push button release AW. However, We r exempt from prosecution for possession of AW as long as we intend to register before 6/30/2018. So basically, all BB rifle owners currently possesses AW.

I know this part already got beaten to death, but IF we could now modify BB into a standard release after 1/1/2017 but before 6/30/2018 (without triggering manufacturing), we could still register the same rifle (it was still lawfully prossessed btw 1/1/2001 to 12/31/2016 and meets all other 5472 criteria). Except now, we will not be allowed to switch the mag release to anything but standard push button as that is how it is registered.

Is it possible to establish that changing configuration of an existing AW does not constitute manufacturing AW? If we believe that we can switch mag release post registeration since a RAW is still a RAW, then what is the difference switching a mag release on an AW, it is still the same AW isn't it?

Wishful thinking...

Last edited by walmart_ar15; 07-22-2017 at 5:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-22-2017, 5:27 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walmart_ar15 View Post
Got a question for those that understand legalese.. So between 1/1/2001 to 12/31/2016 if u owned a BB featured rifle, it was considered fixed then thus can be lawfully posssessed, but as of 1/2017, it is now considered removable no different than a standard push button release AW. However, We r exempt from prosecution for possession of AW as long as we intend to register before 6/30/2018. So basically, all BB rifle owners currently possesses AW.

I know this part already got beaten to death, but IF we could now modify BB into a standard release after 1/1/2017 but before 6/30/2018 (without triggering manufacturing), we could still register the same rifle (it was still lawfully prossessed btw 1/1/2001 to 12/31/2016 and meets all other 5472 criteria). Except now, we will not be allowed to switch the mag release to anything but standard push button as that is how it is registered.

Is it possible to establish that changing configuration of an existing AW does not constitute manufacturing AW? If we believe that we can switch mag release post registeration since a RAW is still a RAW, then what is the difference switching a mag release on an AW, it is still the same AW isn't it?

Wishful thinking...
Good theory, but the problem is that BBs werent ever called "fixed", they were called "non-detachable", and they're still called that. The word "fixed" was never used until this current ban.

The confusion is that, in everyday life, "non-detachable" and "fixed" are exactly synonymous, but the legislation defined them differently and unfortunately they're allowed to do that.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-22-2017 at 5:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-22-2017, 5:54 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Ok guys, here you go, for your reading pleasure.

Here's all 3 copies of the regulations, merged to show the differences between each one. I triple-checked it and I'm about 99% sure I caught everything, but if you see anything else let me know.

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/attac...1&d=1500774704

I must say, I found a lot more changes to these than I expected to find, a few that seem to have slipped through the cracks until now.

For example, I think we all missed the change that joint-registrants have to live in the same house as the primary registrant now. That wasn't the case in the first version, it was added later.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf AW Regulations.pdf (167.2 KB, 525 views)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-22-2017, 5:58 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Perhaps the biggest change this 3rd version makes, is that now shotguns that have bullet buttons must be registered even if they are featureless.

Otherwise, all they really changed was the dates to reflect the 6 month extension.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-22-2017 at 6:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-22-2017, 6:08 PM
XCC_RIDER's Avatar
XCC_RIDER XCC_RIDER is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Socialist Republic of Kalyforrnya
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gotta say thanks for doing the comparisons. I totally gave up trying to figure it out and it makes sense now.
__________________
50% Deplorable, 50% wanting America to return to what it was
And proud of it!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-22-2017, 6:24 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 676
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon
A standard bullet button allows the ammunition feeding device to be removed without disassembly of the firearm action. That means a BB weapon is no longer a fixed magazine.

That means a featured gun with a bullet button is a defined assault weapon.

That's a third definition, which combines the second, noted above.
This is from the past thread and in this thread the confusion continued. To be clear: a bullet button never made for a fixed magazine and it still doesn't. Also, as a side note, neither a detachable magazine nor a bullet button are or ever have been "features."

The newest assault weapon bill did not create an additional assault weapon definition, it REPLACED the previous assault weapon definiton. A not-banned-by-name semi-auto rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has, say, a pistol grip is no longer statutorily an assault weapon... ...now if it DOESN'T have a fixed magazine, that's a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-22-2017, 6:43 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XCC_RIDER View Post
Gotta say thanks for doing the comparisons. I totally gave up trying to figure it out and it makes sense now.
You're welcome! Also, it's condensed to a mere 9 pages now, much easier to read hopefully.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-22-2017, 6:53 PM
Junkie's Avatar
Junkie Junkie is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,771
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Good theory, but the problem is that BBs werent ever called "fixed", they were called "non-detachable", and they're still called that. The word "fixed" was never used until this current ban.

The confusion is that, in everyday life, "non-detachable" and "fixed" are exactly synonymous, but the legislation defined them differently and unfortunately they're allowed to do that.
I thought that the law referred to fixed magazines >10rd as fixed since 2000
__________________
I will never buy another Spikes Tactical item, as I have a 5.45 marked barrel from them with a 5.56 bore that keyholed at 25 yards, and they wouldn't replace it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
A real live woman is more expensive than a fleshlight. Which would you rather have?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-22-2017, 6:55 PM
Junkie's Avatar
Junkie Junkie is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,771
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Perhaps the biggest change this 3rd version makes, is that now shotguns that have bullet buttons must be registered even if they are featureless.

Otherwise, all they really changed was the dates to reflect the 6 month extension.
Shotguns have always been different.

Featureless shotguns were never a thing, and a BB or fixed mag shotgun with a pistol grip and folding stock has always been an AW.
__________________
I will never buy another Spikes Tactical item, as I have a 5.45 marked barrel from them with a 5.56 bore that keyholed at 25 yards, and they wouldn't replace it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
A real live woman is more expensive than a fleshlight. Which would you rather have?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-22-2017, 7:10 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkie View Post
Shotguns have always been different.

Featureless shotguns were never a thing, and a BB or fixed mag shotgun with a pistol grip and folding stock has always been an AW.
PM sent, there's perhaps more to this than it appears
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-22-2017, 7:14 PM
CreamyFettucini's Avatar
CreamyFettucini CreamyFettucini is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 484
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkie View Post
Shotguns have always been different.

Featureless shotguns were never a thing, and a semiautomatic BB or fixed mag shotgun with a pistol grip and folding stock has always been an AW.
Fify
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-22-2017, 8:02 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,182
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkie View Post
I thought that the law referred to fixed magazines >10rd as fixed since 2000
No.

'Fixed' and 'capacity' are related only once: a centerfire rifle with a fixed mag > 10 rounds was an alternate set of circumstances that described an 'assault weapon'. That's why it was illegal to use large-capacity mags in a 'bullet-buttoned' rifle, since our argument was that the BB made the weapon unable to accept a 'detachable magazine', and ordinary usage had no term for that condition other than 'fixed'. An M1 Garand or a vanilla SKS are examples of a 'real' fixed magazine.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice]

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-22-2017, 8:47 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,792
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

What's obvious to me after reading through the comparison document is that, at each revision, the regs have become progressively worse. They keep pushing the envelope further and further, as if the letters from Michel are just taunting a teenager that can't get enough. Each iteration is a colossal FU to every law abiding gun owner in CA.

I really believe their goal is very simple, to make the reg process as hard and as insanely complicated as possible so as it make the reg period fail. Then they go after featureless next, or simply proceed to an SB 347 fixed mag on everything SACF. It's really an ingenuous plan, because when the reg period fails and gets 50,000 rifles in it that leaves millions out there. And when they ban the next set of loopholes, they claim no one wanted to register last time so we will not be opening it again.

The other horrible thing I can't get around is that the regs say the rifle needs to have a permanent muzzle device to meet 30" requirements. We cannot register unless the rifle is modified for this, and we can always be arrested afterwards because we didn't do it.

This is insanity.
__________________
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
  #25  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:04 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

They also have deleted A LOT of (irrelevant) reference citations, while adding almost none. It appears OAL called them out when they tried to obfuscate their regulations by throwing in a bunch of crap that didn't matter.

Take a look at how many reference citations they deleted from their definitions section.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:22 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Honestly, before I did the version comparison, I was thinking that OAL would approve version 3. But now, seeing conclusively what they changed, which is virtually nothing substantive, I'm foreseeing another rejection in DOJ's future.

IMO, there's no way OAL rejected "file & print" orders (which essentially command the OAL to ignore errors) for nothing more than a changed PC reference in their definitions and a revised date.

It had to have been rejected for more substantive reasons than that. As far as I can tell, it's virtually unheard of for OAL to reject F&P regulations for minor reference and date errors.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-22-2017 at 9:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:29 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,090
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
I really believe their goal is very simple, to make the reg process as hard and as insanely complicated as possible so as it make the reg period fail. Then they go after featureless next, or simply proceed to an SB 347 fixed mag on everything SACF. It's really an ingenuous plan, because when the reg period fails and gets 50,000 rifles in it that leaves millions out there. And when they ban the next set of loopholes, they claim no one wanted to register last time so we will not be opening it again.

The other horrible thing I can't get around is that the regs say the rifle needs to have a permanent muzzle device to meet 30" requirements. We cannot register unless the rifle is modified for this, and we can always be arrested afterwards because we didn't do it.

This is insanity.

They can't just simply say "no one wanted to register the last time so we won't be opening it again". Mainly because they are not allowing millions to be registered. They won't allow featureless to be registered, so how could they claim no one wanted to register?

For the welding, just put a weld mark on the muzzle device. No one that inspects your rifle will be able to pull it off by hand anyways, welded or not.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-22-2017, 10:39 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 233
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSOG View Post
Also an AR and AK without the mag catch assembly installed is still considered a fixed magazine as stated on the bottom of page 3. Rediculous
So if you remove the mag catch and just hold the magazine up against the action is that good? I bet you could swap mags even faster without a catch.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-22-2017, 10:53 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
So if you remove the mag catch and just hold the magazine up against the action is that good? I bet you could swap mags even faster without a catch.
No I think he meant (or at least should have meant) that an AK (or AR) lacking a mag catch mechanism is NOT considered a fixed magazine, it is considered a detachable magazine. That's what the regs say.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-22-2017, 10:54 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,792
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
They can't just simply say "no one wanted to register the last time so we won't be opening it again". Mainly because they are not allowing millions to be registered. They won't allow featureless to be registered, so how could they claim no one wanted to register?
I would count on them being totally unreasonable. After all, this is a cultural war and they want you and me out of it. Imagine the worst case scenario and then plan on that happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post

For the welding, just put a weld mark on the muzzle device. No one that inspects your rifle will be able to pull it off by hand anyways, welded or not.
That's not legal.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-22-2017, 11:39 PM
Ocguy31 Ocguy31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Something isn't passing the smell-test here. No matter what the OAL does, only an injunction in place all the way through SCOTUS is appropriate at this point. Not against the regs obviously, but the PC behind them.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-22-2017, 11:53 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocguy31 View Post
Something isn't passing the smell-test here. No matter what the OAL does, only an injunction in place all the way through SCOTUS is appropriate at this point. Not against the regs obviously, but the PC behind them.
You're 100% correct, even if OAL only let's DOJ pass minimal regulations, we're still contending with the assault weapon ban as a whole, and we need a court to intervene. A case was recently filed (Rupp v. Becerra) that seeks exactly that, and we have to support it with everything we can. I encourage everyone to donate what they can to CRPA so they can get a huge win for us here.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-23-2017, 12:21 AM
unclerandy unclerandy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 738
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

bookmark
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-23-2017, 1:02 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,891
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

You can subscribe to this thread by clicking here.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-23-2017, 5:49 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 727
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unclerandy View Post
bookmark
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You can subscribe to this thread by clicking here.
I think he is marking where he stopped reading; I kept thinking the same thing in the first thread, until I realized he was "bookmarking" regularly.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-23-2017, 6:13 AM
Junkie's Avatar
Junkie Junkie is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,771
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
No.

'Fixed' and 'capacity' are related only once: a centerfire rifle with a fixed mag > 10 rounds was an alternate set of circumstances that described an 'assault weapon'. That's why it was illegal to use large-capacity mags in a 'bullet-buttoned' rifle, since our argument was that the BB made the weapon unable to accept a 'detachable magazine', and ordinary usage had no term for that condition other than 'fixed'. An M1 Garand or a vanilla SKS are examples of a 'real' fixed magazine.
Right, my point is that the old law referred to fixed magazines in exactly one place (as defining an AW if there was one >10), even if it didn't define it.
__________________
I will never buy another Spikes Tactical item, as I have a 5.45 marked barrel from them with a 5.56 bore that keyholed at 25 yards, and they wouldn't replace it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
A real live woman is more expensive than a fleshlight. Which would you rather have?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-23-2017, 6:36 AM
essjay essjay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 1,412
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
No I think he meant (or at least should have meant) that an AK (or AR) lacking a mag catch mechanism is NOT considered a fixed magazine, it is considered a detachable magazine. That's what the regs say.
Coincidentally, an AR or AK lacking a mag catch mechanism can't have magazines attached.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-23-2017, 9:25 AM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 5,895
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Ok guys, here you go, for your reading pleasure.

Here's all 3 copies of the regulations, merged to show the differences between each one. I triple-checked it and I'm about 99% sure I caught everything, but if you see anything else let me know.

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/attac...1&d=1500774704

I must say, I found a lot more changes to these than I expected to find, a few that seem to have slipped through the cracks until now.

For example, I think we all missed the change that joint-registrants have to live in the same house as the primary registrant now. That wasn't the case in the first version, it was added later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Perhaps the biggest change this 3rd version makes, is that now shotguns that have bullet buttons must be registered even if they are featureless.

Otherwise, all they really changed was the dates to reflect the 6 month extension.
Thank you for all your work


Seems to me the enemy has been reading CalGuns quite a bit and taking notes.
Thanks CalGuns, they appreciate the help!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-23-2017, 10:25 AM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,532
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just sort of a side comment....if the reference change away from 30515 is all OAL wanted, this would have been addressed in the last version right?
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-23-2017, 10:48 AM
1911su16b870's Avatar
1911su16b870 1911su16b870 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,730
iTrader: 137 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You're 100% correct, even if OAL only let's DOJ pass minimal regulations, we're still contending with the assault weapon ban as a whole, and we need a court to intervene. A case was recently filed (Rupp v. Becerra) that seeks exactly that, and we have to support it with everything we can. I encourage everyone to donate what they can to CRPA so they can get a huge win for us here.
+1 I also concur that Federal Court intervention/permanent AW injuntion is the only positive outcome that can happen now.
__________________
Trump on RKBA "The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. PERIOD."

CGF Contributor
NRA, CRPA LIFE MEMBER
Beretta, GLOCK (Gen 1-5, G42/43), SA-Colt AR15/M16, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer
Remington Nylon, 1911, HK, Ruger Armorer just for fun!
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 4:42 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.