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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #4001  
Old 07-22-2017, 7:20 AM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 679
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tiger View Post
I think the white tile and white toilet in my bathroom provide the perfect contrast for photographing a black rifle.

I could prop the rifle on the toilet seat. Unfortunately, due to the drought and my desire to save the planet I don't always flush. Even after a #2. I hope they don't mind.
They will love it. Reminds them the lunch hour is coming, and they are hungry.
  #4002  
Old 07-22-2017, 7:30 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 694
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Section 5472 (c) is also different.. reads like if u have a featureless shotgun with BB, u can also register it?
  #4003  
Old 07-22-2017, 7:39 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,033
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

5472 differences:

2nd round:

The Department will not register a firearm as an assault weapon if the firearm is featureless.


3rd round:

The Department will not register a firearm as an assault weapon if the firearm is featureless except for bullet-button shotguns as described in section 5470(d).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
"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
  #4004  
Old 07-22-2017, 7:39 AM
CreamyFettucini's Avatar
CreamyFettucini CreamyFettucini is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 444
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Being featureless doesn't matter to a shotgun. If it does not have a fixed magazine it must be registered. Seems like they were trying to clarify their interpretation.
  #4005  
Old 07-22-2017, 8:05 AM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 740
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Vacationed in free states, visited some gun shops while there. Display cases full of suppressors, full autos available for rent. NFA stamp application help.

Stark reminder of how much we are getting ****ed in CA. It's apallling our reresentatives would spend time and our tax dollars writing any of this ****.
  #4006  
Old 07-22-2017, 8:20 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 694
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

With the modified 5471, reads like DOJ is trying to defined a new category of AW as in BBRAW. Any registeration based on 30900 (b)(1) will have the new definition.

Since 30900 (b)(1) specifically reference 30515, the question now and as always before is did DOJ overstep by trying to define a new category of AW as the new 30900 (b)(1) provides no authority to modify or add new AW definition. In May they had try to hid behind 30515, but now they are forced to make it clear the intention.

Hopefully, OAL, acting as check and balance, will realize this blatant abuse of power and strike them down.
  #4007  
Old 07-22-2017, 8:31 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,033
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walmart_ar15 View Post
With the modified 5471, reads like DOJ is trying to defined a new category of AW as in BBRAW. Any registeration based on 30900 (b)(1) will have the new definition.

Since 30900 (b)(1) specifically reference 30515, the question now and as always before is did DOJ overstep by trying to define a new category of AW as the new 30900 (b)(1) provides no authority to modify or add new AW definition. In May they had try to hid behind 30515, but now they are forced to make it clear the intention.

Hopefully, OAL, acting as check and balance, will realize this blatant abuse of power and strike them down.
Yeah, that's my interpretation too. They tried to piggyback off of SB 23 and could not get it exempted, then decided to fly without it. It hurts them because SB 880 called for 30515 to be amended to read "For purposes of this section, “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."

If they would have just used the 30515 definitions and opened the reg period it would have been a smooth process. They chose to get as much as they could and got greedy. Now they are faced with having to defend the concept that their new definitions appear nowhere in the law and PC and they just made that stuff up.

Again, they are no longer "pursuant". Two different sets of definitions that contradict each other. They are going to have to explain that in court.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
"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
  #4008  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:01 AM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,892
iTrader: 79 / 100%
Default

via Imgflip Meme Generator
  #4009  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:16 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,654
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Problem still exists: what connection does any of this have to SB 23 definitions? The law called out that it did, but now the regs DO NOT say that any of it is pursuant to SB 23. Without the connection, how can they claim any of it has to do with past criteria for what is or is not AW?

They have closed off SB 880 to only include what is defined by the regulations written for it. Sure they reference 30515 everywhere, but without it explicitly stating that these regs are pursuant to 30515, what difference does it make?
Sometimes, it is valuable to put oneself in the "other chair" and force yourself to defend that which you abhor. (As the old adage goes, "Walk a mile in the other guy's shoes, and if you still disagree, you're a mile away and they are barefoot.)

It is often easy to confuse regulations with statute and let the tail wag the dog.

Regulations implement statute; they cannot override existing statute.
Regulations do not define an Assault Weapon; the statute does.

So, let's start with the statutes.

PEN 30515 defines "Assault Weapon" and describes their "features". (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=30515)

SB 880 added a new component to the definition:
Quote:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(b) For purposes of this section, “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.
The provisions of SB 23 are intact and in force, with slight modification by SB 880 which appears to establish a new type of assault weapon. (Gasp)

PEN 30900 was amended, to include:
Quote:
(b) (1) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed 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,....
That puts the guns squarely under the statutory definitions for AW (including "features") written under SB 23 (and amended by SB 880 to include "bullet button" guns). No regulations, yet.

30900(b)(1) continues on to establish the registration of these guns under its provisions and any regulations DOJ may publish:
Quote:
... shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted pursuant to paragraph (5), with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish by regulation pursuant to paragraph (5).
So far, everything has statutory basis; no regulations impact it.

Finally, PEN 30900(b)(5) authorizes:
Quote:
(5) The department shall 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).
That's all statute. Not a regulatory action anywhere. We now have a new, statutorily-defined AW and the authority to write regs to register the AW.

Now, the regulations appear, and all of their provisions are under the authorization of PEN 30900(b)(5). That authorizes the regs, and sets them outside of the APA process. They are put in place for the purposes of registration for this particular group of AWs. (Arguably, since the registration periods of the previously-defined AWs have long passed, they no longer have value. Therefore, the new regulations can over-write the regulation descriptions and add to them for the purposes of registration.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Their whole argument was that we need new definitions because without them LEO and enforcement could not take place. They also said that SB 23 features and definitions still applied (they had to because the law said so). Everything made sense because they claimed the new definitions were pursuant to the old ones, meaning they where in accordance with them.

But they don't, they contradict. Someone said that they could not APA exempt them, so they ditched the language that called out that the new reg definitions were pursuant to the old ones. They were in a jam and decided to fly without it.

Now they have to go to market without the protection of the idea that the new regs are anything but completely isolated from the old definitions, right? If they claim otherwise I can show where they deleted the language from earlier drafts.
Earlier drafts are irrelevant. They were withdrawn and mean nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Rock meet hard place, they just finagled themselves out of the protection of claiming that everything was in accordance with everything else. It wasn't, and it isn't, so go to court with that blunder DOJ.
The proposition that the actions are part of an overall regulatory scheme has not been impacted by this.

NOTE: As always, the usual all caveats apply: I don't support the DOJ action, IANAL, it's worth what you paid for it; I know nothing and have no additional, secret squirrel knowledge of what is going on.

Have a value-added weekend.
  #4010  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:19 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,654
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walmart_ar15 View Post
With the modified 5471, reads like DOJ is trying to defined a new category of AW as in BBRAW.
SB 880 changed the statutory definition of an AW.
  #4011  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:20 AM
cibo cibo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So i have a basic question which after searching the forum i still can't seem to answer.

Can I travel out of state and back with a bb rifle bought pre jan 17?

I don't want to convert to featureless/maglock since its a ptr 91 but i can separate the rifle into stock, trigger and receiver.

Any info before i head out of state for a shooting trip?
  #4012  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:22 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: 3,558
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bootstrap View Post
Vacationed in free states, visited some gun shops while there. Display cases full of suppressors, full autos available for rent. NFA stamp application help.

Stark reminder of how much we are getting ****ed in CA. It's apallling our reresentatives would spend time and our tax dollars writing any of this ****.
And this is why I am selling my house, and leaving - for America.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
Seven. The answer is always seven.
  #4013  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:26 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,033
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post

Regulations implement statute; they cannot override existing statute.
Regulations do not define an Assault Weapon; the statute does.
Yeah, I was just hoping that they had made a big mistake, but mining anything positive out of this whole process is pretty grim.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
"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
  #4014  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:38 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 694
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
SB 880 changed the statutory definition of an AW.
Yes, like u suggested, a slight modification of SB23 of what is a fix mag, but did not define a new cataglory of AW. 5471 try to redefine an AW that's different than what is in 30515. Thus, overreach. I'm in total agreement.

This could be one of the reason OAL rejected the May submission. 5471 did reference 30515 but were materially different, therefore, as written cannot be implemented. So DOJ thought to fix it by removing the 30515 reference to allow 5471 stand alone, thus opening up the debate if they had over reached.

Last edited by walmart_ar15; 07-22-2017 at 9:43 AM..
  #4015  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:45 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,033
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walmart_ar15 View Post
Yes, like u suggested, a slight modification of SB23 of what is a fix mag, but did not define a new cataglory of AW. 5471 try to redefine an AW that's different than what is in 30515. Thus, overreach. I'm in total agreement.

This could be one of the reason OAL rejected the May submission. 5471 did reference 30515 but were materially different, therefore, as written cannot be implemented. So DOJ thought to fix it by removing the 30515 reference to allow 5471 stand alone, thus opening up now the debate if they had over reached.
Categories of AW do not exist in law or PC, it's just some terminology DOJ came up with themselves. I doubt it has any real meaning.

It seems as if AWCA is now structured on what the criteria of each reg period had at the time of the registration, and that's how they will move forward. The circular logic of pointing at 30515 and then pointing to 30900 to justify the statutory redefinition is pretty mind numbing but it might work for them.

All periods have their own definitions, and this one will be no different. Even though they didn't explicitly come up with all new definitions for SB 880 and referred to past law and PC, it doesn't seem to be the Achilles heel I was hoping for. Maybe yes maybe no, who knows.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
"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
  #4016  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:48 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 694
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Yeah, I was just hoping that they had made a big mistake, but mining anything positive out of this whole process is pretty grim.
I don't think the situation changed much. We had always contented that DOJ had no authority to make regulations beyond simple registeration process. This recent modification made that assertion even more obvious.
  #4017  
Old 07-22-2017, 9:56 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 694
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Categories of AW do not exist in law or PC, it's just some terminology DOJ came up with themselves. I doubt it has any real meaning.

It seems as if AWCA is now structured on what the criteria of each reg period had at the time of the registration, and that's how they will move forward. The circular logic of pointing at 30515 and then pointing to 30900 to justify the statutory redefinition is pretty mind numbing but it might work for them.

All periods have their own definitions, and this one will be no different. Even though they didn't explicitly come up with all new definitions for SB 880 and referred to past law and PC, it doesn't seem to be the Achilles heel I was hoping for. Maybe yes maybe no, who knows.
Sorry to use the term category, yes it is just the criteria for each reg period... However, pls correct if I remember it wrong, for each prior registeration period, the criteria was defined in the Law, the statue, not in regulation. This time the statue only redefined fix mag to include mag removable with a tool, not the rest of the junk written in 5471. That to me is clearly an over reach from DOJ's part.

Bottom line, SB880 just ask DOJ to setup a process to register, DOJ had gone on its own to command what can and cannot be registered when they had no legal authority to define or redefine an AW.

Last edited by walmart_ar15; 07-22-2017 at 12:18 PM..
  #4018  
Old 07-22-2017, 10:09 AM
SmallShark's Avatar
SmallShark SmallShark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento 95834
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

the law is simple. a BB doesnt make the rifle not an AW, either register the rifle as an AW or convert it into featureless, or go to jail.


but the DOJ cares so much that they cant wait for the politicians to write new bills so they stepped up and bypassed a whole branch of our government. check and balance my *****

this cannot be more illegal and the DOJ surely knows it.

whatever obstacle they put up, the hell with it, register your rifle.
__________________
  #4019  
Old 07-22-2017, 10:11 AM
SmallShark's Avatar
SmallShark SmallShark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento 95834
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

the law is simple. a BB doesnt make the rifle not an AW, either register the rifle as an AW or convert it into featureless, or go to jail.


but the DOJ cares so much that they cant wait for the politicians to write new bills so they stepped up and bypassed a whole branch of our government. check and balance my *****

this cannot be more illegal and the DOJ surely knows it.

whatever obstacle they put up, the hell with it, register your rifle.
__________________
  #4020  
Old 07-22-2017, 10:21 AM
walmart_ar15 walmart_ar15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 694
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

One thing I don't understand is why DOJ is trying SO hard to discourage registeration? Contrary to common belief they don't hate us or like us. As most government entities, typically they would take the path of least resistance, 9-5 job and nice gov pension when retired. Why r they trying so hard?

Is it because when over millions of rifle are registered as AW, that this state's AW policy for the last 16 years will look like a farce, and putting those anti 2A proponents looking like idiots? Or is there truly idealist in DOJ got brain washed trying to obtain a form of utopian socialist society? I just don't get it
  #4021  
Old 07-22-2017, 10:22 AM
GM4spd's Avatar
GM4spd GM4spd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 5,080
iTrader: 99 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallShark View Post
the law is simple. a BB doesnt make the rifle not an AW, .
I believe this is the problem,the prior two laws defined an AW,there can
only be ONE definition of an AW and it doesn't have a bb.
__________________
NRA LIFE (1974)

Since 1971 using/abusing my Colt ARs(thru thousands of rds) some Full Auto----no spares required.

I had a commission/USNR from 71-77 but neverconsider myself a Veteran.MyDad+4uncles/USMC/WW2/Korea/Vietnam. My Grandfather US Army WW1. No heroes,just regular folks--they were Veterans.
  #4022  
Old 07-22-2017, 10:35 AM
SmallShark's Avatar
SmallShark SmallShark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento 95834
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

the law is simple. a BB doesnt make the rifle not an AW, either register the rifle as an AW or convert it into featureless, or go to jail.


but the DOJ cares so much that they cant wait for the politicians to write new bills so they stepped up and bypassed a whole branch of our government. check and balance my *****

this cannot be more illegal and the DOJ surely knows it.

whatever obstacle they put up, the hell with it, register your rifle.
__________________
  #4023  
Old 07-22-2017, 11:11 AM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,081
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

I'm so tired of reading draft regs by now. I'll just wait till they are final for my next read. It's beyond me why they are tying so hard to push underground regulations, especially after getting the hammer from oal.
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
  #4024  
Old 07-22-2017, 11:11 AM
SmallShark's Avatar
SmallShark SmallShark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento 95834
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

the law is simple. a BB doesnt make the rifle not an AW, either register the rifle as an AW or convert it into featureless, or go to jail.


but the DOJ cares so much that they cant wait for the politicians to write new bills so they stepped up and bypassed a whole branch of our government. check and balance my *****

this cannot be more illegal and the DOJ surely knows it.

whatever obstacle they put up, the hell with it, register your rifle.
__________________
  #4025  
Old 07-22-2017, 11:15 AM
Battosai1 Battosai1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 65
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallShark View Post
the law is simple. a BB doesnt make the rifle not an AW, either register the rifle as an AW or convert it into featureless, or go to jail.


but the DOJ cares so much that they cant wait for the politicians to write new bills so they stepped up and bypassed a whole branch of our government. check and balance my *****

this cannot be more illegal and the DOJ surely knows it.

whatever obstacle they put up, the hell with it, register your rifle.
If it's so simple then why repeat it 3 times? Also you don't have to register your rifle, go featureless. Don't try to push people into complying with this garbage.
  #4026  
Old 07-22-2017, 11:37 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,094
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidsnake87 View Post
I'm so tired of reading draft regs by now. I'll just wait till they are final for my next read.
Maybe that's what they're counting on
  #4027  
Old 07-22-2017, 11:41 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,654
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GM4spd View Post
I believe this is the problem, the prior two laws defined an AW, there can only be ONE definition of an AW and it doesn't have a bb.
So, "named" assault weapons are no longer defined as assault weapons?

The second definition, from SB 23, gave us the concept of a gun with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine if the gun had one of a list of enumerated "features".

(That's two definitions, so far).

SB 880 altered the PEN 30515 statutory definition of an assault weapon. (See the "Introduced" version of the bill at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201520160SB880)

Quote:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(b) For purposes of this section, “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.
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.

What gets folks confused is the entry in the new regulations that, once a BBAW is registered, if one removes the BB, one creates a different weapon which is also an assault weapon. That may seem to constitute a new definition which was not contemplated by the legislation. The addition of shotguns also seems problematic. But those are issues to be left to parse out in the specific regulations. Unfortunately, since the regulations are outside of APA review, OAL may not have the authority to question it. It will probably require a lawsuit to make the case of overreach.

Last edited by Dvrjon; 07-22-2017 at 11:49 AM..
  #4028  
Old 07-22-2017, 11:47 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,654
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
The circular logic of pointing at 30515 and then pointing to 30900 to justify the statutory redefinition is pretty mind numbing but it might work for them. (Emphasis added.)
Please re-read this. The tail seems again to be wagging the dog.

PEN 30900 doesn't, "...justify the statutory redefinition...", of AW.
PEN 30515 was amended by the Legislature to broaden the statutory definition of AW.
PEN 30900 was amended to require the registration of weapons brought under this broader statutory definition.

Last edited by Dvrjon; 07-22-2017 at 11:49 AM..
  #4029  
Old 07-22-2017, 12:10 PM
ChuckDizzle ChuckDizzle is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Manteca (Where the Bass Pro is)
Posts: 3,317
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walmart_ar15 View Post
One thing I don't understand is why DOJ is trying SO hard to discourage registeration? Contrary to common belief they don't hate us or like us. As most government entities, typically they would take the path of least resistance, 9-5 job and nice gov pension when retired. Why r they trying so hard?

Is it because when over millions of rifle are registered as AW, that this state's AW policy for the last 16 years will look like a farce, and putting those anti 2A proponents looking like idiots? Or is there truly idealist in DOJ got brain washed trying to obtain a form of utopian socialist society? I just don't get it
Once again their bosses are the politicians who want these guns gone. Heller and McDonald protects weapons of common usage. Would you describe a weapon type with millions of proven to exist weapons in legal private ownership as common?

Registration helps our argument in the courts.
  #4030  
Old 07-22-2017, 12:14 PM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,709
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

None of this undercuts 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

Last edited by naeco81; 07-22-2017 at 12:25 PM..
  #4031  
Old 07-22-2017, 12:36 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,094
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I just noticed that the first draft of the regulations (from december) said that we have to mark homemade firearms with the height and depth of the markings that are engraved. In other words, homemade receivers would have had to say:

Your Name
City, State
Caliber: Multi
XXXXXXXX
These markings are 1/16" tall and .003 deep




They've since corrected that in the later versions.


Just thought I'd point that out if anyone wanted a good laugh
  #4032  
Old 07-22-2017, 12:56 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,094
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Alright, this thread has grown so big that it's starting to bog down the server. Let's carry this over to the new 2017 California AW Regulations - DISCUSSION Thread 2.0

Would a moderator would please be so kind as to lock this one? I'll link to it in the new thread for anyone who wants to reference any of the old discussion.
  #4033  
Old 07-22-2017, 1:22 PM
A1BigTuna A1BigTuna is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good, it was just becoming more of the same stuff, nothing new.
  #4034  
Old 07-22-2017, 2:27 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,509
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
So in a court the definition of what is an AW will not come up?

Can anyone tell me what an AW is in terms of SB 880 RAW period? Seems to me like it's what 5471 says it is. The old definitions in 30515 don't apply because 5471 is not pursuant anymore. Bit of a problem, no?
Correct - the definition of what an AW is would be trivial and both sides would agree.

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.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #4035  
Old 07-22-2017, 3:07 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,059
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

off to version 2, please.

If you really need something out of this thread, PM and I'll unlock it. Expect that to be less than first priority.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

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.


  #4036  
Old 07-22-2017, 3:11 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,059
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Closed as requested - please use version 2.0.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

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.


  #4037  
Old 07-22-2017, 3:11 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,059
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Closed as requested - please use version 2.0.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

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.


Closed Thread

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 9:47 PM.




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.