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 > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3761  
Old 07-19-2018, 10:50 AM
shaocaholica shaocaholica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 659
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcnyct View Post
I've read a lot of advice in this forum to disassemble your BBAW while you're waiting for your registration confirmation.

However, wouldn't they still be able to charge you along the lines of "Attempted Possession of an Assault Weapon" - People v Nguyen case

For instance, you submit your BBAW registration with details and photos - then you decide to disassemble while you wait. You place parts in separate container (as suggested here) - DOJ reviews your app and decides something is wrong and pays you a visit. Upon DOJ visit, it's confirmed you screwed up. They can charge you at this point if they find all the parts disassembled, right?

You had to have made sure what you attempted to register was 100% compliant to begin with. I don't think the disassemble and play it safe approach helps in any way.
Are you saying they can charge you with something if you assemble an illegal AW, take photos of it and upload it to DOJ servers for registration even though you disassembled the illegal AW after submission?
Reply With Quote
  #3762  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:05 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,265
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcnyct View Post
I've read a lot of advice in this forum to disassemble your BBAW while you're waiting for your registration confirmation.

However, wouldn't they still be able to charge you along the lines of "Attempted Possession of an Assault Weapon" - People v Nguyen case

For instance, you submit your BBAW registration with details and photos - then you decide to disassemble while you wait. You place parts in separate container (as suggested here) - DOJ reviews your app and decides something is wrong and pays you a visit. Upon DOJ visit, it's confirmed you screwed up. They can charge you at this point if they find all the parts disassembled, right?

You had to have made sure what you attempted to register was 100% compliant to begin with. I don't think the disassemble and play it safe approach helps in any way.
As with all things in life, there's always some degree of risk that someone might charge you with something, regardless of legality.

But disassembling your firearm absolutely causes it to not be an AW anymore, so a conviction for that should be about as likely as a conviction for dealing dealing drugs when all they found is a box of ziplocks in your kitchen, a postage scale in your garage, and a bottle of prescription pills in your bathroom. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible. But It's very unlikely (IMO & IANAL)

Nguyen was in 2013. After that, in 2017, DOJ published new regulations clarifying what is and isn't an assault weapon. Among those regulations:

Quote:
(hh) “Semiautomatic” means a firearm functionally able to fire a single cartridge, eject the empty case, and reload the chamber each time the trigger is pulled and released. Further, certain necessary mechanical parts that will allow a firearm to function in a semiautomatic nature must be present for a weapon to be deemed semiautomatic. A weapon clearly designed to be semiautomatic but lacking a firing pin, bolt carrier, gas tube, or some other crucial part of the firearm is not semiautomatic for purposes of Penal Code 30515, 30600 and, 30605(a) and 30900.
(1) A mechanically whole semiautomatic firearm merely lacking ammunition and a proper magazine is a semiautomatic firearm.
(2) A mechanically whole semiautomatic firearm disabled by a gun lock or other firearm safety device is a semiautomatic firearm. (All necessary parts are present, once the gun lock or firearm safety device is removed, and weapon can be loaded with a magazine and proper ammunition.)
(3) With regards to an AR-15 style firearm, if a complete upper receiver and a complete lower receiver are completely detached from one another, but still in the possession or under the custody or control of the same person, the firearm is not a semiautomatic firearm.
(4) A stripped AR-15 lower receiver, when sold at a California gun store, is not a semiautomatic firearm. (The action type, among other things, is undetermined.)
The firearm cannot be considered an AW if it isn't semiautomatic (see CA PC 30515 for what constitutes an AW... the first criteria is that it must be semiautomatic.)

The 2017 DOJ regulation all but eliminated their ability to convict people of constructive possession of an AW.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-19-2018 at 11:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3763  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:05 AM
jcnyct jcnyct is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaocaholica View Post
Are you saying they can charge you with something if you assemble an illegal AW, take photos of it and upload it to DOJ servers for registration even though you disassembled the illegal AW after submission?
along those lines.. that's why I said you had to make sure it was 100% compliant to begin with.

I'm questioning the advice to disassemble what you registered while you wait for confirmation... it makes no sense.. even if you separate the lower and upper as some have suggested here.
Reply With Quote
  #3764  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:14 AM
jcnyct jcnyct is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
As with all things in life, there's always some degree of risk that someone might charge you with something, regardless of legality.

But disassembling your firearm absolutely causes it to not be an AW anymore, so a conviction for that should be about as likely as a conviction for dealing dealing drugs when all they found is a box of ziplocks in your kitchen, a postage scale in your garage, and a bottle of prescription pills in your bathroom. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible. But It's very unlikely (IMO & IANAL)

Nguyen was in 2013. After that, in 2017, DOJ published new regulations clarifying what is and isn't an assault weapon. Among those regulations:



The firearm cannot be considered an AW if it isn't semiautomatic (see CA PC 30515 for what constitutes an AW... the first identifier is that it must be semiautomatic.)

The 2017 DOJ regulation effectively eliminated their ability to charge people with constructive possession.
thank you for clarifying.. I thought it was an issue of intent or attempted possession not necessarily constructive possession
Reply With Quote
  #3765  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:21 AM
ugimports's Avatar
ugimports ugimports is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 3,641
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
...The 2017 DOJ regulation all but eliminated their ability to convict people of constructive possession of an AW.
Although, weren't those the same regulations that were just pulled (I might be confusing them)? What does that mean now?
__________________
us on facebook
UG Imports - Fremont, CA FFL - Transfers, New Gun Sales
Closure Schedule: http://ugimports.com/closed
web: http://ugimports.com/calguns / email: sales@ugimports.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/ugimports / phone: (510) 371-GUNS (4867)
G+: http://google.com/+UGImportsLLCFremont / FB: http://facebook.com/ugimports
NorCal Range Maps: http://ugimports.com/rangemaps

I AM THE MAJORITY!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3766  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:31 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,265
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcnyct View Post
thank you for clarifying.. I thought it was an issue of intent or attempted possession not necessarily constructive possession
Well like I said, anything is possible. CA PC 664 says:

Quote:
Every person who attempts to commit any crime, but fails, or is prevented or intercepted in its perpetration, shall be punished where no provision is made by law for the punishment of those attempts, as follows:

(a) If the crime attempted is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, the person guilty of the attempt shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail, respectively, for one-half the term of imprisonment prescribed upon a conviction of the offense attempted.
The problem is - what other option does someone have? They have to do something, and DOJ has not provided any information to us about what to do with our AW that are pending registration after 7/1/2018. They left us to fend for ourselves.

So it leaves us with these options:
1) Do nothing, keep the weapons assembled.
2) Disassemble the weapons, but keep the parts at home.
3) Keep some or all of the parts elsewhere.

I've been saying for a while that the safest, most foolproof plan is to keep the weapons outside of CA until your letter arrives. But that's not possible for everyone - so the next best solution is to remove some "critical part" from each weapon, rendering it non-semiauto, and store those parts elsewhere.

Note that in Nguyen, he possessed ALL of the parts to make a functioning AK. So if you remove, for example, the bolts from all of your AW's, and mail them to your grandmother's house in Florida, or bury them in an ammo can in the woods, then you would no longer possess all of the necessary parts for an AW, which should make a conviction exceedingly more difficult than it was in Nguyen.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-19-2018 at 11:37 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3767  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:33 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,265
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ugimports View Post
Although, weren't those the same regulations that were just pulled (I might be confusing them)? What does that mean now?
No, they weren't pulled. All the AW regulations published in 2017 are still in effect.

The regulation you're thinking of is something different, an additional one that they proposed but then withdrew.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #3768  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:47 AM
jcnyct jcnyct is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Well like I said, anything is possible. CA PC 664 says:



The problem is - what other option does someone have? They have to do something, and DOJ has not provided any information to us about what to do with our AW that are pending registration after 7/1/2018. They left us to fend for ourselves.

So it leaves us with these options:
1) Do nothing, keep the weapons assembled.
2) Disassemble the weapons, but keep the parts at home.
3) Keep some or all of the parts elsewhere.

I've been saying for a while that the safest, most foolproof plan is to keep the weapons outside of CA until your letter arrives. But that's not possible for everyone - so the next best solution is to remove some "critical part" from each weapon, rendering it non-semiauto, and store those parts elsewhere.

Note that in Nguyen, he possessed ALL of the parts to make a functioning AK. So if you remove, for example, the bolts from all of your AW's, and mail them to your grandmother's house in Florida, or bury them in an ammo can in the woods, then you would no longer possess all of the necessary parts for an AW, which should make a conviction exceedingly more difficult than it was in Nguyen.
yep.. 1 or 2 won't help if there is a serious issue with your registration

3 is the safest way to go - keep evil parts far far far far far from home until you receive registration confirmation
Reply With Quote
  #3769  
Old 07-19-2018, 4:08 PM
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 503
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The 2017 DOJ regulation all but eliminated their ability to convict people of constructive possession of an AW.
Only within the purview of registration though, right? The scope of the definitions, including (hh), only applies to Penal Code 39000 and Articles 2 and 3 of Chapter 39 of the AW regs (which covers registration and things related to registration). (hh) would have been applied generally (to 30515), but those regs were pulled.
Reply With Quote
  #3770  
Old 07-19-2018, 4:15 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,265
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
Only within the purview of registration though, right? The scope of the definitions, including (hh), only applies to Penal Code 39000 and Articles 2 and 3 of Chapter 39 of the AW regs (which covers registration and things related to registration). (hh) would have been applied generally (to 30515), but those regs were pulled.
Well DOJ has taken the position that the regulations apply to all assault weapons.

So, either:

disassembled rifles are not semiautomatic and we can't remove our bullet buttons, or

Disassembled rifles are semiautomatic and we can remove our bullet buttons.

They can't have it both ways, they had to pick which one of those two scenarios they wanted. They picked the first one.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-19-2018 at 4:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3771  
Old 07-19-2018, 4:38 PM
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 503
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Eh.... I mean I guess the DoJ can take whatever position it wants, but the stuff that's actually codified suggests otherwise, and the 2017 reg revision history suggests they had to make that concession to limit the scope of those definitions for OAL to approve those 2017 regulations in the first place. I agree that seems to be what the DoJ -wants- to do, but their patch to apply it generally was pulled last minute for unknown reasons.

That said, I think it would be foolish for CA DoJ to go after people who are documented (it cuts both ways) as trying to comply with the law to the best of their ability, only to, upon disapproval of their app, charge them with constructive possession over a rifle they disassembled and stored in case their application wasn't approved, showing once again that they were trying to comply with the law to the best of their ability (the reason why they were denied would probably matter for our theoretical scenario).

Then again, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just reading the written stuff. Perhaps some precedent would allow them to extend that definition outside of its scope.

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 07-19-2018 at 4:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3772  
Old 07-19-2018, 5:46 PM
shaocaholica shaocaholica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 659
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

If only they did go after people trying to comply without making dumb mistakes would be a PR loss for them. This is a good thing. Donít get clouded by the FUD.
Reply With Quote
  #3773  
Old 07-19-2018, 7:18 PM
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 503
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In the big picture yeah, it'd more evidence, but I'd feel sorry for the person who suffered that in the meantime.

Regarding registration,I haven't gotten any fix-it e-mails yet, though I submitted way late near the end (not the last day, but close enough). Probably any day now within the week based off what you've all been saying though I'll be getting something.
Reply With Quote
  #3774  
Old 07-19-2018, 9:55 PM
eazyle eazyle is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 84
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For those who received their letters, are they mailed in discreet envelopes or does it scream DOJ?
Reply With Quote
  #3775  
Old 07-19-2018, 9:58 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,083
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eazyle View Post
For those who received their letters, are they mailed in discreet envelopes or does it scream DOJ?
It says DOJ on it but it's not really loud or anything, almost like a letter from the DMV.
__________________
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
  #3776  
Old 07-19-2018, 10:00 PM
shaocaholica shaocaholica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 659
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eazyle View Post
For those who received their letters, are they mailed in discreet envelopes or does it scream DOJ?
The fine print says Bureau of Firearms. Some many pages back someone posted a scan.
Reply With Quote
  #3777  
Old 07-19-2018, 10:02 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,083
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

__________________
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
  #3778  
Old 07-19-2018, 10:44 PM
eazyle eazyle is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 84
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks, guys!
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 7:01 AM.




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.