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
  #1  
Old 02-21-2017, 11:48 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default 2017 California AW Regulations - DISCUSSION Thread

This thread has grown so large that it's bogging the servers down now. Discussion continues in this thread.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 07-22-2017 at 2:05 PM..
  #2  
Old 02-21-2017, 1:04 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

The most popular question I've seen about these regulations, is:

"What is taking them so long?"

All we know for sure is that they don't really have any deadlines to publish regulations, or at least the deadline isn't before 2017 is over.

Nobody knows exactly what's going on behind the scenes, but I'm inclined to think the DOJ is pretty embarrassed about their current position. They have not successfully published a single firearm regulation since March of last year, after having now submitted both AW regulations and "emergency" magazine regulations, then withdrawing both of them for unknown reasons (but probably because they got called out on their abuse of regulatory rulemaking laws).

The "emergency" magazine regulation withdrawal is particularly embarrassing, because they claimed (3 months ago) that it was URGENT that those regulations get published ASAP. Now, almost 2 months after withdrawing them, still no replacement. Guess it wasn't such an emergency after all Now, after having waited so long to replace them, they've pretty much ruled out any possibility to still claim an emergency exists.

Likewise with the AW registration regulations - any "emergency" that they could've claim existed is now 100% their own fault, for having completely wasted the last 8 months since the legislative bills were signed into law. The option to submit AW regulations as "emergency" is now essentially gone, by nobody's fault but their own (but of course that may not stop them from trying). Again, must be extremely embarrassing for them. I'm starting to realize why Kamala waited until she left the DOJ to withdraw the mag regs and submit the aw regs. She didn't want the egg on her face.

So, while they have no relevant deadlines to publish replacement regulations, I think it's in their best interest to get things moving and out of their hands as quickly as possible. The legislative branch can't possibly be happy with the executive branch's (DOJ's) mishandling and ineptitude of their responsibilities.

Based on all that, my guess is that we'll see new magazine regulations submitted to OAL within the next month or two, followed a few days later by new AW registration regulations. But that's purely a guess

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 02-21-2017 at 1:33 PM..
  #3  
Old 02-21-2017, 1:15 PM
MultiCaliber MultiCaliber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Antelope Valley, DPRC
Posts: 461
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

  #4  
Old 02-21-2017, 1:19 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiCaliber View Post
One of these days that smilie is actually going to be right
  #5  
Old 02-21-2017, 1:59 PM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,561
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Likely looking for ways to cover the compliance devices that came out right after the first set of regulations were released.
  #6  
Old 02-21-2017, 2:08 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,223
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
Likely looking for ways to cover the compliance devices that came out right after the first set of regulations were released.
How so? Wouldn't that require new legislation?
__________________
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

  #7  
Old 02-21-2017, 2:12 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
Likely looking for ways to cover the compliance devices that came out right after the first set of regulations were released.
I honestly don't think they're too worried about the new compliance devices, they probably get significant humor out of watching people open their receivers to change magazines
  #8  
Old 02-21-2017, 2:13 PM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aztlan
Posts: 3,107
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
Likely looking for ways to cover the compliance devices that came out right after the first set of regulations were released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
How so? Wouldn't that require new legislation?
It could, but we have a very motivated supermajority that could run through a lot of clarifying bills in a fairly short amount of time. They already have some curious bills that look like gut and amend placeholders ready to go. The Legislature is going to go big this year, with the only debate being what are their top priorities.
__________________
  #9  
Old 02-21-2017, 2:25 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OlderThanDirt View Post
It could, but we have a very motivated supermajority that could run through a lot of clarifying bills in a fairly short amount of time. They already have some curious bills that look like gut and amend placeholders ready to go. The Legislature is going to go big this year, with the only debate being what are their top priorities.
Indeed, I saw more than a few bills whose entire contents say things like:

Changes "can't" to "can not".

If that's not a placeholder, then I don't know what is. On the plus side, there's no guarantee any of them will be used for nefarious anti-2a gut-and-amend bills. Although, if history proves anything, I'm probably too optimistic.
  #10  
Old 02-21-2017, 4:30 PM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,354
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

But the DOJ does a great job of updating their website to tell you that you can't register.

Quote:
At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future.
Not sure what regs. are "pending"?

And their definition of "very near future" must be different from mine.
__________________
Watch & Pray
  #11  
Old 02-21-2017, 4:33 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 Trust Me, I'm Gov't
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 14,074
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

So what are we discussing?
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
  #12  
Old 02-21-2017, 4:41 PM
SC1 SC1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 209
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Indeed, I saw more than a few bills whose entire contents say things like:

Changes "can't" to "can not".

If that's not a placeholder, then I don't know what is. On the plus side, there's no guarantee any of them will be used for nefarious anti-2a gut-and-amend bills. Although, if history proves anything, I'm probably too optimistic.
That's called a "spot bill." Those WILL evolve into something more. It's a way to get your bill introduced before the deadline while you are hurriedly working on the actual content to be put into the bill.
  #13  
Old 02-21-2017, 5:13 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SC1 View Post
That's called a "spot bill." Those WILL evolve into something more. It's a way to get your bill introduced before the deadline while you are hurriedly working on the actual content to be put into the bill.
Yep, it's just not always directed towards 2a when they finally add contents to it. Although, lately they have been
  #14  
Old 02-21-2017, 5:58 PM
tpliquid1 tpliquid1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: yay area
Posts: 414
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiCaliber View Post
man i remember that day when bunch of us bought lowers from RMB. then later on DOJ came in and then took all our lowers. I think we waited 1/2 to a year to get them back.
  #15  
Old 02-21-2017, 6:02 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,192
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

be prepared for gut and amend this year like never before.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
  #16  
Old 02-21-2017, 6:11 PM
superNoid's Avatar
superNoid superNoid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm a bit confused, I've read some headlines lately but what is the current status on the AW regulations as of today?
  #17  
Old 02-21-2017, 6:15 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,223
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by superNoid View Post
I'm a bit confused, I've read some headlines lately but what is the current status on the AW regulations as of today?
ANSWER
__________________
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

  #18  
Old 02-21-2017, 6:43 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 Trust Me, I'm Gov't
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 14,074
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
be prepared for gut and amend this year like never before.
Very much a possibility (as always), but with the way the CGN CA 2A section is humming along, the legislators are off to a "good" start already...

AB721
SB497
AB1525
AB1471
AB1453
SB710
AB464
AB785
AB736
...
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
  #19  
Old 02-21-2017, 6:45 PM
AnchorTactical AnchorTactical is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 100
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Are there any emergency regulations on monitoring the release of dangerous criminals on our streets?
  #20  
Old 02-21-2017, 6:46 PM
superNoid's Avatar
superNoid superNoid is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
thank you sir
  #21  
Old 02-21-2017, 7:55 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnchorTactical View Post
Are there any emergency regulations on monitoring the release of dangerous criminals on our streets?
Pfffffff, they're fine, they've been rehabilitated. Nothing to worry about, carry on, citizen.
  #22  
Old 02-21-2017, 9:49 PM
Devon Devon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 413
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default doubt that

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
Likely looking for ways to cover the compliance devices that came out right after the first set of regulations were released.
There is not much further they can go, we are already having to swing open our receivers to reload, so far beyond the design on an AR it is laughable. What more could they want.
  #23  
Old 02-21-2017, 9:51 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon View Post
There is not much further they can go, we are already having to swing open our receivers to reload, so far beyond the design on an AR it is laughable. What more could they want.
DOJ agent right now:

  #24  
Old 02-21-2017, 10:06 PM
Devon Devon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 413
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default cut our receiver in half

Perhaps the new regulations will require us to fill the chamber with a crude weld, as well as cut the receiver with a torch.

There is no way to make opening the receiver to reload respectable, and not an embarrassment. I watched some videos of guys trying to look serious while shooting and reloading in this way and I couldn't stop laughing. Better of with a 100 year old mosin.
  #25  
Old 02-21-2017, 10:25 PM
SmallShark's Avatar
SmallShark SmallShark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Sacramento 95834
Posts: 1,090
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

It might be possible the doj will simply follow the laws.

We register with our basic info and the firearms' serial numbers then we take off the BB.

Case closed.
  #26  
Old 02-21-2017, 10:26 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devon View Post
Perhaps the new regulations will require us to fill the chamber with a crude weld, as well as cut the receiver with a torch.

There is no way to make opening the receiver to reload respectable, and not an embarrassment. I watched some videos of guys trying to look serious while shooting and reloading in this way and I couldn't stop laughing. Better of with a 100 year old mosin.
The thing is, about the regulations, from what I can tell they're really only supposed to regulate AW registration, thus these regulations should not regulate guns which will not be registered, as that's a whole other kind of firearm that falls under a whole other set of statutes. The AW statutes only define what an AW is, and what can and can't be done with them. The AW statutes do not, and CANNOT, define what we can and can't do with things that aren't AWs, as that would be an infinitely long list.

So even if they define a fixed magazine as cutting the receiver in half, it would only apply to people who register an AW and choose to fix the magazine, which is approximately nobody. It would effectively mandate that all RAWs have to have non-fixed magazines, which accomplishes nothing for them (although it would be pretty funny for us)

Now, that doesn't mean they won't try to regulate guns which aren't being registered, anyways. I'd bet they probably will. That is unless someone higher up than them has already told them to knock it off, or unless they're not willing to risk having rejected needing to withdraw again yet another set of regulations.

I give it about a 50% chance that they play fair and just submit normal, non-intrusive regulations for registration that roughly mirror the 2000 ones, and a 50% chance that they double down and submit something just as stupid as or more stupid than the first time.

It would be great if they would just follow what the statute asked them to do, submit their basic regulations which we probably won't even oppose, and just get the ball rolling. But it's not often that the state of CA likes to do things the easy/cheap way.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 02-21-2017 at 10:40 PM..
  #27  
Old 02-21-2017, 10:35 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,223
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallShark View Post
It might be possible the doj will simply follow the laws.

We register with our basic info and the firearms' serial numbers then we take off the BB.

Case closed.
That's the hope, some are totally convinced they will not do that, I tend to think it's possible.

We had these conversations on Calguns years ago when we theory crafted the endgame for all the BB talk. Basically, some made very good arguments (like myself of course) that they would be stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to register AW when they knew that making BB's like regular mag releases would yield hundreds of thousands (maybe more like millions) of rifles that all of a sudden became AW.

When that happened, they would be faced with a huge dilemma of having to hurt their own cause by having millions of registered AW in CA, which furthers the all important common usage arguments for future SCOTUS.

I agree with CAG, they either are dialing it down and trying to save face and minimize the amount of time people have to register or they are concocting some kind of crazy new fiasco.

That's why it' so important if they are reasonable and try and quietly (at the last minute) open the reg period we need to all be on top of it and spreading the word. I am a huge advocate of registering if that's going to be the case.
__________________
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

  #28  
Old 02-22-2017, 11:35 AM
HiND-SIGHT HiND-SIGHT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 231
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

They are stupid. They give a bullet button ban, and expect us to keep using bullet buttons after we register, saying it's a /i/ different /i/ "assault weapon" old Soviet operation, invent definitions, eventually it backfires because you create loopholes with loose categorizations.

Ready the lawsuit cannons!
  #29  
Old 02-22-2017, 11:52 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

^ yep.

"You can't have bullet bullets, they're dangerous!"

"So, I should take it off, then?"

"No, don't do that!"
  #30  
Old 02-22-2017, 12:24 PM
BigStiCK's Avatar
BigStiCK BigStiCK is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: ReTard Capital of the World
Posts: 2,826
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

Tag. As much as this stupidity hurts my brain, it pays to stay on top of things.
__________________
  #31  
Old 02-22-2017, 12:36 PM
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 HiND-SIGHT View Post
They are stupid. They give a bullet button ban, and expect us to keep using bullet buttons after we register, saying it's a /i/ different /i/ "assault weapon" old Soviet operation, invent definitions, eventually it backfires because you create loopholes with loose categorizations.

Ready the lawsuit cannons!
They have already been made ready, and top men are standing by.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
Seven. The answer is always seven.
  #32  
Old 02-22-2017, 12:39 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 8,886
iTrader: 80 / 100%
Default

This belongs in ca ;law and how it affects us. Not a 2a issue.
  #33  
Old 02-22-2017, 12:47 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edgerly779 View Post
This belongs in ca ;law and how it affects us. Not a 2a issue.
I disagree, while DOJ figures out how they want to implement the legislation, it's still a political issue. When the regulations get published, then it becomes a "how it affects us" issue (and possibly also a litigation issue)

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 02-22-2017 at 12:50 PM..
  #34  
Old 02-22-2017, 12:54 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,298
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Crazy idea I know....

Maybe the CADOJ should reach out and have a meeting with Michel & Associates.

...ok you can all stop laughing now.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
  #35  
Old 02-22-2017, 1:00 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
Crazy idea I know....

Maybe the CADOJ should reach out and have a meeting with Michel & Associates.

...ok you can all stop laughing now.
You mean, to quickly find a compromise everyone can agree with, instead of a long, difficult, expensive process that will end with the same net result? That's just silly.
  #36  
Old 02-22-2017, 1:31 PM
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 Sousuke View Post
Maybe the CADOJ should reach out and have a meeting with Michel & Associates.
They likely will, through their own attorneys.
That's how it works.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
Seven. The answer is always seven.
  #37  
Old 02-22-2017, 2:01 PM
brucegillkc6avy brucegillkc6avy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 33
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Will you need to register an AR-15 if it's got a 22lr conversion in California?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #38  
Old 02-22-2017, 2:06 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucegillkc6avy View Post
Will you need to register an AR-15 if it's got a 22lr conversion in California?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If it's a pistol, yes, otherwise no.
  #39  
Old 02-22-2017, 2:18 PM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,561
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
How so? Wouldn't that require new legislation?
Im not going to say anything until the regulations are finalized, but I can think of at least one part of the bill that is not defined and could potentially be defined by the DOJ in a way that would make all the compliance devices that have been released so far be non compliant.
  #40  
Old 02-22-2017, 2:37 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,243
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoooper View Post
Im not going to say anything until the regulations are finalized, but I can think of at least one part of the bill that is not defined and could potentially be defined by the DOJ in a way that would make all the compliance devices that have been released so far be non compliant.
Without spilling the beans, is that part of the bill contained inside of PC 30900(b), or somewhere else? Because regulations for PC 30515 (and all the others) aren't exempt from the APA, nor do they even request DOJ regulatory clarification.

-They can only regulate the registration of assault weapons.
-They tried to regulate the actual registered weapons themselves, but weren't supposed to be allow to.
-They definitely can't regulate things that are not assault weapons and thus not even covered by the AW statutes.

IMO

If DOJ was allowed to make a list of things we can't do with things that aren't discussed by that statute, the list would be infinitely long and impossible to write, which is why the statute limited the scope of the regulations to only the registering of assault weapons.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 02-22-2017 at 2:47 PM..
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 9:19 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.