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
  #4281  
Old 09-15-2018, 9:03 AM
paratroop's Avatar
paratroop paratroop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Simi
Posts: 1,595
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I just got incomplete apps for all of my fmbus numbered raws. I did them in 3 separate transactions. All they wanted was me to put the make as my first and last name in the comments section.

The only hiccup was the expired password. The link they sent me didn't work. But if I highlighted the entire link, and right clicked it, I could open in New tab. A little weird, but I'm relieved! Those were my last raws! Expecting letter in mail soon!

My volregs are the last things to worry about now. Waiting to deal with that mess, uploading unnecessary photos in a system that is already closed and all that jazz! Can't wait!
Reply With Quote
  #4282  
Old 09-15-2018, 9:05 AM
paratroop's Avatar
paratroop paratroop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Simi
Posts: 1,595
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I just got incomplete apps for all of my fmbus numbered raws. I did them in 3 separate transactions. All they wanted was me to put the make as my first and last name in the comments section.

The only hiccup was the expired password. The link they sent me didn't work. But if I highlighted the entire link, and right clicked it, I could open in New tab. A little weird, but I'm relieved! Those were my last raws! Expecting letter in mail soon!

My volregs are the last things to worry about now. Waiting to deal with that mess, uploading unnecessary photos in a system that is already closed and all that jazz! Can't wait!
Reply With Quote
  #4283  
Old 09-15-2018, 12:43 PM
Xerxes Xerxes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,584
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by southbayrookie View Post
need a suggestion how i prove that stock on my scar 17 is not foldable? any suggestions are appreciated...
If you could prove it by photo then great, else they have been accepting applicants comments, as after all you should be assumed to be telling the truth, though in reality all the dirty rotten no good gun owners can never be trusted in what they say to anyone. They are born pathological liars.

Remember you are attesting under penalty of perjury that what you put is truthful so by checking that box and stating in the comments has to be accepted at face value (unless you are an evil lying good for nothing gun owner-then the government does not trust you with anything-especially the truth). Comments has worked for 4 of mine, two are still in limbo for INCOMPLETES for reasons other than folding stock. I did add in my comments a very brief how it was blocked (welded open, pinned open, bolted open, etc). In fact the easiest way for those types of stocks is to drill and tap the button then screw in the bolt far enough that you can not push the button. Then later WITH TOOLS (screw driver) you can remove the bolt to clean your rifle and such. The BATFE has accepted a stock as permanent if it required tools to remove for overall length. Hopefully the DOJ will not pull another Rooney on us by using another definition AFTER we all bought our rifles legally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
For anyone still waiting for their manufacturer to get added to the list (I know at least 1 person is), they still have not added any new ones since 8/16.

On 8/16, they added 82 new ones to the list all at once, after months of not adding a single one. I would expect the same thing will happen again, and they'll add another batch of several dozen manufacturers all at once, whenever they get around to it. Could be tomorrow, could be 3 months.
Yep, still waiting for mine.....McClure Outdoors. I even scan the whole list thinking it may have been put out of order somehow but nope....no go...
Reply With Quote
  #4284  
Old 09-15-2018, 1:36 PM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 6,004
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paratroop View Post
-I just got incomplete apps for all of my fmbus numbered raws. I did them in 3 separate transactions. All they wanted was me to put the make as my first and last name in the comments section.

The only hiccup was the expired password. The link they sent me didn't work. But if I highlighted the entire link, and right clicked it, I could open in New tab. A little weird, but I'm relieved! Those were my last raws! Expecting letter in mail soon!

My volregs are the last things to worry about now. Waiting to deal with that mess, uploading unnecessary photos in a system that is already closed and all that jazz! Can't wait!
All my fmbus numbered firearms are getting a lot of scrutiny.
Reply With Quote
  #4285  
Old 09-18-2018, 8:53 AM
MASTERLAB's Avatar
MASTERLAB MASTERLAB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bed Sheet and Sofa Cushion Fort
Posts: 878
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Haven't heard anything in a while...

For those who already have their RAW Letter; Is there any information or indication of enforcement regulations being approved? (as opposed to registration regulations)

I remember based on the law there was hope that the 'keep your BB on' would be struck from enforcement regulations, but as far as I know enforcement regulations were submitted then pulled and have not gone through public comment and have not been approved yet
Reply With Quote
  #4286  
Old 09-18-2018, 8:54 AM
MASTERLAB's Avatar
MASTERLAB MASTERLAB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bed Sheet and Sofa Cushion Fort
Posts: 878
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Haven't heard anything in a while...

For those who already have their RAW Letter; Is there any information or indication of enforcement regulations being approved? (as opposed to registration regulations)

I remember based on the law there was hope that the 'keep your BB on' would be struck from enforcement regulations, but as far as I know enforcement regulations were submitted then pulled and have not gone through public comment and have not been approved yet
Reply With Quote
  #4287  
Old 09-18-2018, 8:55 AM
MASTERLAB's Avatar
MASTERLAB MASTERLAB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bed Sheet and Sofa Cushion Fort
Posts: 878
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Haven't heard anything in a while...

For those who already have their RAW Letter; Is there any information or indication of enforcement regulations being approved? (as opposed to registration regulations)

I remember based on the law there was hope that the 'keep your BB on' would be struck from enforcement regulations, but as far as I know enforcement regulations were submitted then pulled and have not gone through public comment and have not been approved yet
Reply With Quote
  #4288  
Old 09-18-2018, 1:13 PM
Cyclepath Cyclepath is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 699
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

I wanted to see if others have submitted registration and have not heard back longer than me. No kickbacks or any other information from them. I hope somehow my registrations did not get lost?

Submitted and paid on June 14.
Reply With Quote
  #4289  
Old 09-18-2018, 1:38 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,639
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MASTERLAB View Post
Haven't heard anything in a while...

For those who already have their RAW Letter; Is there any information or indication of enforcement regulations being approved? (as opposed to registration regulations)

I remember based on the law there was hope that the 'keep your BB on' would be struck from enforcement regulations, but as far as I know enforcement regulations were submitted then pulled and have not gone through public comment and have not been approved yet
It's still not clear. DOJ did withdraw some regulations (which would have applied the BBRAW definitions to other some AW penal codes besides just the one pertaining to registration), but otherwise all of the old regulations are still in effect and might still prevent us from legally removing our BBs. Specifically, regulation 5477 "post-registration modifications" is still in effect, we just don't know whether or not it has any teeth. Safest thing to do right now is leave the BBs on unless/until we learn otherwise, either from DOJ or the courts. Could be years from now before we really know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclepath View Post
I wanted to see if others have submitted registration and have not heard back longer than me. No kickbacks or any other information from them. I hope somehow my registrations did not get lost?

Submitted and paid on June 14.
Lots of people. Maybe even most people.

I've even got one I submitted in early april that DOJ hasn't sent me any updates about.

Your registration was electronic - it didn't get lost. The only problem is that it's a state agency who has absolutely no oversight and zero motivation to do anything in a timely manner.
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 09-18-2018 at 1:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4290  
Old 09-18-2018, 1:51 PM
Cyclepath Cyclepath is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 699
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Thank you. At least, I feel a little less worried now. Yes, i agree. The submission should not be lost - in IT for almost 20 years. And also agree that they have zero motivation.



Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Lots of people. Maybe even most people.

I've even got one I submitted in early april that DOJ hasn't sent me any updates about.

Your registration was electronic - it didn't get lost. The only problem is that it's a state agency who has absolutely no oversight and zero motivation to do anything in a timely manner.
Reply With Quote
  #4291  
Old 09-18-2018, 7:47 PM
Cyclepath Cyclepath is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 699
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

OK. Received emails from CFARs after coincidentally submitting my post above 4 hours previously.

1. Had multiple kickbacks because I stupidly checked "forward pistol grip" when my photos did not show any.
2. One had missing alphabets preceding the serial number.
3. My SW lower which is not caliber marked, I did not submit a photo of the barrel. There are also no caliber stamp on the barrel. So I took a photo of just the top of the barrel with no handguards. I could not submit any additional photos so I put in the comments section that there no caliber markings and only 1 optional photo was available to upload. Also, ask to advise if this was not sufficient.
Reply With Quote
  #4292  
Old 09-19-2018, 9:05 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,639
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclepath View Post
OK. Received emails from CFARs after coincidentally submitting my post above 4 hours previously.

1. Had multiple kickbacks because I stupidly checked "forward pistol grip" when my photos did not show any.
2. One had missing alphabets preceding the serial number.
3. My SW lower which is not caliber marked, I did not submit a photo of the barrel. There are also no caliber stamp on the barrel. So I took a photo of just the top of the barrel with no handguards. I could not submit any additional photos so I put in the comments section that there no caliber markings and only 1 optional photo was available to upload. Also, ask to advise if this was not sufficient.
You can use the "hunting license" photo slot for an additional photo if needed.

DOJ has historically eventually accepted non-caliber-marked guns after some hesitation - usually they'll keep asking for photos until they're satisfied that there really aren't any caliber markings, after which they'll begrudgingly move ahead and process it.
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #4293  
Old 09-19-2018, 9:26 AM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West LA
Posts: 3,026
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
DOJ has historically eventually accepted non-caliber-marked guns after some hesitation - usually they'll keep asking for photos until they're satisfied that there really aren't any caliber markings, after which they'll begrudgingly move ahead and process it.
Yup. They did that for my FAL Para asking for caliber markings where there were none, and after a few back and forth bouncebacks and me staying firm that there's no caliber marking, they eventually accepted it.

Obviously if there is some kind of caliber marking anywhere, just take the picture and be done with it. It's not like you can't change caliber on a gun in the future anyways.
Reply With Quote
  #4294  
Old 09-19-2018, 11:15 AM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 6,004
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You can use the "hunting license" photo slot for an additional photo if needed.

DOJ has historically eventually accepted non-caliber-marked guns after some hesitation - usually they'll keep asking for photos until they're satisfied that there really aren't any caliber markings, after which they'll begrudgingly move ahead and process it.
Iíve come to the conclusion itís just another way the DOJ is trying to discourage registration.

Caliber on a registered AW means nothing if you can change the caliber by swapping barrels or parts.

I wonder if the NRA notices this?
Reply With Quote
  #4295  
Old 09-19-2018, 12:10 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,639
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
I’ve come to the conclusion it’s just another way the DOJ is trying to discourage registration.

Caliber on a registered AW means nothing if you can change the caliber by swapping barrels or parts.

I wonder if the NRA notices this?
The same can also be said about the "features" checkboxes, "firearm color", and many of the other aspects of the form.

The AW ban bills were specific about what was required:
  • a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks
  • the date the firearm was acquired
  • the name and address of the individual from whom, or business from which, the firearm was acquired

Everything else that the DOJ asked us for (color, caliber, "features", and especially photos) was completely unnecessary, borne purely from a desire to make the process as complicated as possible.

"Make" and "serial number" are the only two identification marks that (when referenced together) uniquely identify a weapon. All the rest of it is easily and legally changeable by the end user and thus unhelpful in "identifying it uniquely".
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 09-19-2018 at 1:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4296  
Old 09-19-2018, 1:02 PM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 6,004
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Very true C&G
Reply With Quote
  #4297  
Old 09-19-2018, 6:36 PM
DELTACREW DELTACREW is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 0
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

First, I want to thank C&G for all the great advice and starting this thread.

Here is my timeline:
6-22-18 Submitted application for 6 weapons.
9-19-18 Received email approval on 6 weapons, confirmation letter to follow.

Hope this helps... I had no kickbacks, just a long 90 day wait.

Last edited by DELTACREW; 09-19-2018 at 7:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4298  
Old 09-20-2018, 9:33 AM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West LA
Posts: 3,026
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The same can also be said about the "features" checkboxes, "firearm color", and many of the other aspects of the form.

The AW ban bills were specific about what was required:
  • a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks
  • the date the firearm was acquired
  • the name and address of the individual from whom, or business from which, the firearm was acquired

Everything else that the DOJ asked us for (color, caliber, "features", and especially photos) was completely unnecessary, borne purely from a desire to make the process as complicated as possible.

"Make" and "serial number" are the only two identification marks that (when referenced together) uniquely identify a weapon. All the rest of it is easily and legally changeable by the end user and thus unhelpful in "identifying it uniquely".
You know what's funny is that I know people who had initially attempted to submit photos of my first batch of RAWs in black-and-white since they didn't read anything in the law or regulations that required color photos, but they bouncebacked the guns that weren't already obviously black (like ARs and such) by claiming that they required an "accurate color representation of the firearm".

Didn't stop them from sending them 640x480 resolution photos. Their camera is old, you know.
Reply With Quote
  #4299  
Old 09-20-2018, 9:37 AM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West LA
Posts: 3,026
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
Iíve come to the conclusion itís just another way the DOJ is trying to discourage registration.
Wouldn't surprise me if the DOJ concocted the whole "can't take off or modify the bullet button on a RAW" regulation out of thin air to also further discourage registrations, since the way the law is written in the penal code, it should allow for reverting a post-2017 RAW as a normal weapon as it just adds the bullet button as another evil feature.

There's a reason why people were paying upwards of $5k for a SCAR 17 right before 2017 in anticipation of the registration period, and the DOJ probably wanted to deflate a lot of the enthusiasm to RAW guns by coming up with the bullet button regulation (that may evaporate due to court order within a few years if we're lucky), so I feel like people who haven't registered like they didn't register pre-2000 are gonna regret that they were scammed by the DOJ's BB regulations.
Reply With Quote
  #4300  
Old 09-20-2018, 9:44 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,639
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntax Error View Post
You know what's funny is that I know people who had initially attempted to submit photos of my first batch of RAWs in black-and-white since they didn't read anything in the law or regulations that required color photos, but they bouncebacked the guns that weren't already obviously black (like ARs and such) by claiming that they required an "accurate color representation of the firearm".

Didn't stop them from sending them 640x480 resolution photos. Their camera is old, you know.
Hahaha, that's pretty funny they tried that, I didn't even think of that.

My photos were all reduced to about 640x480 as well, and stripped of all metadata. I think they were all about 150kb each. Just trying to save their bandwidth costs
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #4301  
Old 09-20-2018, 9:51 AM
hermosabeach's Avatar
hermosabeach hermosabeach is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,908
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Any update on the lawsuit about people not knowing the date of acquisition?
For those who did not keep dros records?
__________________




ďScience is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you.Ē
ó Neil deGrasse Tyson

- If the Democrats thought for one seconds that Illegals were voting republican, You'd see the Border Wall from Space! - Abe Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #4302  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:09 AM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 6,004
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntax Error View Post
Wouldn't surprise me if the DOJ concocted the whole "can't take off or modify the bullet button on a RAW" regulation out of thin air to also further discourage registrations, since the way the law is written in the penal code, it should allow for reverting a post-2017 RAW as a normal weapon as it just adds the bullet button as another evil feature.

There's a reason why people were paying upwards of $5k for a SCAR 17 right before 2017 in anticipation of the registration period, and the DOJ probably wanted to deflate a lot of the enthusiasm to RAW guns by coming up with the bullet button regulation (that may evaporate due to court order within a few years if we're lucky), so I feel like people who haven't registered like they didn't register pre-2000 are gonna regret that they were scammed by the DOJ's BB regulations.
Very true. The DOJ and their Masters, the anti gun groups, didnít like the way the law was written. So they made up some rules out of thin air on very weak ground and bypassed the legislature. Although they know they have full support of the 9th circuit court.

It will need to be tested or litigated. But the NRA is the big dog when it comes to representing gun owners in this state. Thatís why we support them, right?
Reply With Quote
  #4303  
Old 09-21-2018, 7:06 AM
Junkie's Avatar
Junkie Junkie is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,813
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntax Error View Post
You know what's funny is that I know people who had initially attempted to submit photos of my first batch of RAWs in black-and-white since they didn't read anything in the law or regulations that required color photos, but they bouncebacked the guns that weren't already obviously black (like ARs and such) by claiming that they required an "accurate color representation of the firearm".

Didn't stop them from sending them 640x480 resolution photos. Their camera is old, you know.
They resizes all the photos quite a bit too, to the point that I had to go back to my records of the photos, crop them, and resubmit (so they could read the serial, which was legible in my original photo but not in the resized one)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntax Error View Post
Wouldn't surprise me if the DOJ concocted the whole "can't take off or modify the bullet button on a RAW" regulation out of thin air to also further discourage registrations, since the way the law is written in the penal code, it should allow for reverting a post-2017 RAW as a normal weapon as it just adds the bullet button as another evil feature.

There's a reason why people were paying upwards of $5k for a SCAR 17 right before 2017 in anticipation of the registration period, and the DOJ probably wanted to deflate a lot of the enthusiasm to RAW guns by coming up with the bullet button regulation (that may evaporate due to court order within a few years if we're lucky), so I feel like people who haven't registered like they didn't register pre-2000 are gonna regret that they were scammed by the DOJ's BB regulations.
A BB isn't an evil feature. It simply no longer prevents AW status.

It's perfectly legal to take a 2018 manufacture featureless rifle and add a BB to it. It's still featureless, and not an AW. I don't know why you would, but it would be legal.




Also: DOJ has told my FFL that 30s in BBRAWs aren't ok. I'd be interested to see if they've told other people similar things. I don't believe they've said that publicly.
__________________
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
  #4304  
Old 09-21-2018, 7:37 AM
ugimports's Avatar
ugimports ugimports is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 3,707
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkie View Post
...
Also: DOJ has told my FFL that 30s in BBRAWs aren't ok. I'd be interested to see if they've told other people similar things. I don't believe they've said that publicly.
Did your FFL ask why? I would have. They aren't going to say it publicly because there is no basis for it. E.g., there is no law broken if it's a BBRAW.
__________________
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
  #4305  
Old 09-21-2018, 8:49 AM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West LA
Posts: 3,026
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkie View Post
Also: DOJ has told my FFL that 30s in BBRAWs aren't ok. I'd be interested to see if they've told other people similar things. I don't believe they've said that publicly.
Sounds like more DOJ disinfo. How would putting a legally-acquired standard cap mag render a RAW an illegal AW if it's already a RAW? This was the case prior to BBAW RAW registration, but not anymore once you have a lettered RAW.

Are they trying to argue that this would be "constructing" a new and distinct illegal AW? This is the same rationale they attempt to use with removing the bullet button on a post-2017 RAW.
Reply With Quote
  #4306  
Old 09-21-2018, 8:59 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,639
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Fortunately for us, the DOJ reportedly telling an FFL something is not the same thing as law.

The fact is, there's no legal basis to make a claim that LCMs can't be used in BBRAWs. No penal codes support that, and even their own regulations don't support that. It's not even listed as something we can't do in their BBRAW info on their website.

An employee at the DOJ can tell your FFL that we can't read books on Tuesdays, but that doesn't actually mean we can't, when the law makes no mention about what days we aren't allowed to read books on.

Unless they gave the FFL something in writing, with an explanation of precisely what makes it illegal and (most importantly) what their authority is to make such a determination/declaration, it's meaningless.


In the 108 pages of this thread, there's a plethora of stories of DOJ telling people wrong information. They are not human encyclopedias of AW law - they often just repeat things they heard from their colleagues at work, or that they just assumed to be true without actually verifying. The accuracy of the legal info obtained from DOJ employees is often on par with the legal info one can obtain from talking to Bubba at Guns R Us down the street.

They are SO BAD at giving their legal opinions, that to mitigate the damage, they've adopted an official policy that their employees aren't allowed to give legal opinions in writing.
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 09-21-2018 at 9:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4307  
Old 09-21-2018, 9:24 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkie View Post
Also: DOJ has told my FFL that 30s in BBRAWs aren't ok. I'd be interested to see if they've told other people similar things. I don't believe they've said that publicly.
Maybe DoJ meant to say that new (as in post-2000) 30-round mags in BBAWs aren't ok?

However, until Duncan v. Becerra is resolved, old 30-round magazines that were lawfully possessed (e.g. pre-2000), are not restricted from use in BBAWs.

In any event, as C and G posted, unless DoJ provides written proof of their authority to issue a rule on the legality of using 30-round magazines in BBAWs, it is basically background noise. Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent a mis-informed LEO from taking action if they see you using a 30-round mag in your BBAW. Ounce of prevention vs. a pound of cure and what-not.
Reply With Quote
  #4308  
Old 09-21-2018, 9:29 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,639
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Here's the relevant law:

30515.
  • (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:
    • (2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
  • (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.

Here's the plain-English breakdown, according to the penal codes and regulations (or lack thereof)

Assuming lawfully-possessed LCMs and otherwise-legally-configured/possessed firearms:
LCM in any not-SA gun = ok
LCM in any SA RF rifle = ok
LCM in any gun w/ non-FM (a BB is non-FM) = ok
LCM in any RAW = ok
LCM in any non-RAW FM SA CF rifle = illegal
LCM in any non-RAW FM SA pistol (CF or RF) = illegal

(Glossary: LCM = 11+ capacity magazine, SA = SemiAutomatic, CF = CenterFire, RF = RimFire, FM = Fixed Magazine, BB = Bullet Button, RAW = Registered Assault Weapon)
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 09-21-2018 at 12:48 PM..
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 3:03 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.