Calguns.net  

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-16-2006, 3:49 PM
mkinla mkinla is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default What DOES happen if our lowers are on the list and we HAVE to register them?

Sorry if this is a really retarded question, but I bet a ton of members are thinking the same thing, but might be afraid to ask the question. If WE are forced to register them does that mean, we no longer have to have mag locks and 10 round mags? I see guys at the range without them all the time.

Again, sorry if it's a stupid question,

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-16-2006, 4:19 PM
CowtownBallin's Avatar
CowtownBallin CowtownBallin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 519
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Not this again
__________________
-Miran
Resident Yugo expert
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-16-2006, 4:22 PM
glen avon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Nnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-16-2006, 4:29 PM
NRAhighpowershooter's Avatar
NRAhighpowershooter NRAhighpowershooter is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 6,493
iTrader: 95 / 100%
Default

What happens?? we have to turn them in to be melted down to be made into paper weights for the DOJ......
__________________
'Just Don't Point, Squint, and Laugh! '

Distinguished Rifleman Badge #2220
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-16-2006, 4:37 PM
Hunter's Avatar
Hunter Hunter is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 1,759
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkinla
......does that mean, we no longer have to have mag locks and 10 round mags? ......
From DOJ's current viewpoint, you will end up with exactly what you currently have now (i.e mag locks, ect) and not more. But being listed as an AW, you will now have a lot more restrictions on what you can do, where you can go, ect... with the rifle.

Now there are those here that think once it is declared a AW then there is no difference from pre 89 AW guns..... that will remain to be seen if it goes that way. IMHO, someone will have to be the test dummy case and have lots of cash for legal fees to have it go this way.....

A current example of going the DOJ viewpoint way is seen in the 50 bmg ban. Currently the .50 BMG rifles, that are due to be registered by the end of 4-06, will not be allowed to have the banned AW features added after registration. This has been clearly stated by DOJ and so far I haven't seen any discussion from folks challenging this. So why do some think it will be any different for these "off-list" lowers that are to be listed as "Catagory 4" weapons in DOJ's eyes??

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ar15notice.pdf

Only time will tell how this ends up. For now it is anyone's guess
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-16-2006, 4:42 PM
jnojr's Avatar
jnojr jnojr is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 8,022
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter
From DOJ's current viewpoint, you will end up with exactly what you currently have now (i.e mag locks, ect) and not more. But being listed as an AW, you will now have a lot more restrictions on what you can do, where you can go, ect... with the rifle.

Now there are those here that think once it is declared a AW then there is no difference from pre 89 AW guns.
The law, as written, supports the later argument. DOJ just isn't happy about it.

The real question is, what happens if DOJ works with the grabbers in Sacramento to pass a law that states that "assault weapons" registered after 2000 cannot have "assault weapon" features? That would be ex post facto. Normally a big no-no, but the Lautenberg domestic violence thing was allowed to work ex post facto, so who knows?
__________________


San Diego FFLs | San Diego ranges
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-16-2006, 4:48 PM
gose's Avatar
gose gose is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SF Bay Area (San Mateo)
Posts: 3,997
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr
The law, as written, supports the later argument. DOJ just isn't happy about it.

The real question is, what happens if DOJ works with the grabbers in Sacramento to pass a law that states that "assault weapons" registered after 2000 cannot have "assault weapon" features? That would be ex post facto. Normally a big no-no, but the Lautenberg domestic violence thing was allowed to work ex post facto, so who knows?
Which I suspect is exactly why they aren't listing them. Listing them now would mean that they would be turned into "normal" AWs, but if they wait for legislation they can turn them all into "neutered" fixed-mag AWs. I think that having a few more thousand "neutered" rifles in the state beats having 15000 spanking new full-fledged AWs (from a DOJ perspective). They were caught with their pants down, updating the list would mean admitting to that, while making sure that no new "real" AWs are created will look like a solution to the "AW-loophole" problem (which is how this will be presented to the media).

Last edited by gose; 03-16-2006 at 4:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-16-2006, 5:50 PM
shopkeep
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

What will probably happen is that once they are registered people will forget all about this and over the next few years most, if not all of them, will be converted to detachable mag rifles. No one will get arrested because if LEOs ask anyone they'll simple show reg papers that look identical to any other registrant's papers.

The DOJ has themselves said in their memo that the only way they'll be enforcing this is through a "letter of admonition". We'll just have to see what happens.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-16-2006, 5:53 PM
PanzerAce's Avatar
PanzerAce PanzerAce is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: A wretched hive of scum and villainy
Posts: 4,238
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shopkeep

The DOJ has themselves said in their memo that the only way they'll be enforcing this is through a "letter of admonition". We'll just have to see what happens.
is that on the memo itself? cause truthfully I havent followed it since the initial release...
__________________
"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order"
-Ed Howdershelt


Quote:
Originally Posted by hossb7 View Post
HK is the best $500 gun you can get for $1,000
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-16-2006, 6:02 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,975
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerAce
is that on the memo itself? cause truthfully I havent followed it since the initial release...
The DOJ said "they intend to enforce" (their so-called Category IV stuff) limitations "through the registration process". (Approximate quote.) Intent is apparently to invalidate registrations when evil features are found (i.e. at point of LEO inquiry/arrest).

Which means they can't find any PC that says it's illegal to add, change, or remove features to a registered AW. Otherwise they'd say they were busting for illegal manufacture, a felony. Really the only possible charges for such a situation are 12280(a) (illegal mfg, transport, etc.) or 12280(b) - possession of an unreg'd AW. Neither one applies.

Furthermore, there are some real due process issues. When a cop arrests someone for burglary, that crime existed (or reasonable suspicion of it) before the arrest. But with this DOJ memo BS, the arrest/inquiry precedes the crime. (That is, the arrest caused you to have an unregistered AW!)
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-16-2006, 6:06 PM
xenophobe's Avatar
xenophobe xenophobe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SF Peninsula/South Bay Area
Posts: 7,075
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

The DOJ will list. They have to. That is one of their specific missions in life. Whether or not they'll be full fledged Category 2 AWs is something that doesn't horribly concern them. They already can be illegally, so their goal is to stop the flow of receivers and push the progressive representatives to pass new legislation. People are starting to get impatient, but not to worry, it'll happen.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-16-2006, 10:32 PM
Muzz Muzz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 145
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

With all this DOJ poker playing going on I've been wondering something...Since the DOJ apparently has the power to "legalize" a named Catagory 2 AW like a welded up Colt or Bushmaster, then what's to stop them from making Cat. 4 AWs out of thin air?

There is no provision in the AW laws that I've read that allows them to legalize a Colt just because it has been altered "enough" to apparently satisfy the "spirit" of the law and ignore the letter of the law. If they can get away with that, then they can get away with Cat. 4 registrations to satisfy that same spirit of the law, which is to ban AWs in CA.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-16-2006, 10:36 PM
blacklisted blacklisted is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,608
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You asked for it...

Last edited by blacklisted; 03-16-2006 at 10:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-16-2006, 11:02 PM
Rivet's Avatar
Rivet Rivet is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 172
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I knew they had red eyes!!!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-17-2006, 8:10 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,975
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muzz
With all this DOJ poker playing going on I've been wondering something...Since the DOJ apparently has the power to "legalize" a named Catagory 2 AW like a welded up Colt or Bushmaster, then what's to stop them from making Cat. 4 AWs out of thin air?
The AG/DOJ indeed has the power - confirmed by both the August 2000 Kasler and June 2001 Harrott decisions - to determine "series" membership. That would include determining what is not a series member, too.

The only Colts that are actually Roberti-Roos guns are the original Colt AR15rifles. Every other Colt gun is on the Kasler list and is a Cat II/Kasler addition: Colt has not made "Colt AR15" rifles for some time. [I do not believe DOJ would allow welded-up true Colt AR15 to not be an AW.]

The welded up Colts and Bushmasters can be considered so substantively different that they are no longer "series" members even if named. The DOJ has the right to consider what a series member is, and I believe they are well within their rights on this. [In fact, I do believe any welded-up guns will never become declared as AWs if their receivers are not listed, and there is a small possibility that declaration/registration may even exempt welded-up receivers from registration.]

Now, we also have the further clouding of the situation in that some/most (?) of the welded-up Colts (but not Bushmasters) being done by GB Sales/EGSW may well have not been listed by exact make and model, and are thus Harrott protected - meaning those rifles' magwells don't need to really be welded up, as a fixed screwed-down 10rd mag would suffice (at least for legality of possession but perhaps not for official DOJ sanctioned approval for resale).

Quote:
There is no provision in the AW laws that I've read that allows them to legalize a Colt just because it has been altered "enough" to apparently satisfy the "spirit" of the law and ignore the letter of the law.
DOJ can't pull stuff off the Roberti-Roos list. But they can indeed determine standards for series membership (AR/AK only, and any new "series" they get declared thru a successful 12276.5 court add-on petition.)


Quote:
If they can get away with that, then they can get away with Cat. 4 registrations to satisfy that same spirit of the law, which is to ban AWs in CA.
No, completely different spirit.

Purported Cat4s are a different thing. The above discussion here deals with what does/does not cross an AW boundary, and what is/is not a series member - there's no shading or tiers of registration or AW status here, it is or it ain't.

By contrast, the purported definition of a supposed Cat 4 gun [as per Feb 1 memo] means it's already a declared and reg'd AW, to which they are seeking to (illegally) place further restrictions and a funky conditional registrations upon - which is certainly not supported by law or any court case.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-17-2006, 8:14 AM
10TH AMENDMENT's Avatar
10TH AMENDMENT 10TH AMENDMENT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 691
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glen avon
Nnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Glen just passed out! Someone stick some smelling salts up Glen's nose to revive him.

BTW, I agree with your response.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-17-2006, 9:50 AM
xenophobe's Avatar
xenophobe xenophobe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SF Peninsula/South Bay Area
Posts: 7,075
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese
The only Colts that are actually Roberti-Roos guns are the original Colt AR15rifles. Every other Colt gun is on the Kasler list and is a Cat II/Kasler addition: Colt has not made "Colt AR15" rifles for some time. [I do not believe DOJ would allow welded-up true Colt AR15 to not be an AW.]
Actually, some Colt LE rifles still come with AR-15, AR-15A3, or some such designation stamped on the receiver.

Quote:
The welded up Colts and Bushmasters can be considered so substantively different that they are no longer "series" members even if named. The DOJ has the right to consider what a series member is, and I believe they are well within their rights on this. [In fact, I do believe any welded-up guns will never become declared as AWs if their receivers are not listed, and there is a small possibility that declaration/registration may even exempt welded-up receivers from registration.]
There is no exemption. They are still "series" guns and still assault weapons. I do believe that you're correct that since they've been permanently altered to not accept detachable magazines that the outstanding opinion by the DOJ to any particular DA would be 'not to prosecute'. However, a DA could still attempt it, and depending on the locale, could possibly still get a conviction. I'm sure the DOJ would actually side with the defendant in this circumstance though.
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 2:34 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.