[jnojr]

Whether DOJ refuses to list OLLs, or this new bill gets signed and the courts and DOJ no longer can list OLLs, I see a gaping problem.

Receiver #1 is a listed, banned "assault weapon". Receiver #2, which is literally identical, except for markings, is not an "assault weapon".

Looks like grounds for a lawsuit to me.

Thoughts?

[Hunter]

You are correct that it ended up in a court case.

California Supreme Court case named Harrott v. County of Kings (Cal. 2001)

That is the whole reason we do have OLL today, since look alikes are not the same as named receivers.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by jnojr

Whether DOJ refuses to list OLLs, or this new bill gets signed and the courts and DOJ no longer can list OLLs, I see a gaping problem.

Receiver #1 is a listed, banned "assault weapon". Receiver #2, which is literally identical, except for markings, is not an "assault weapon".

Looks like grounds for a lawsuit to me.

Thoughts?

You can't sue lawmakers. They, after all, are responding to DOJ FD panic.

[podobo]

What about the manufacturers? Seems like the older manufacturers that were around to get their product banned back in the day are losing money to newer manufacturers that sell the exact same product with a different name.

[hoffmang]

After 2728 goes into effect, there are some very, very interesting Commerce Clause challenges for out of state manufacturers...

-Gene

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by podobo

What about the manufacturers? Seems like the older manufacturers that were around to get their product banned back in the day are losing money to newer manufacturers that sell the exact same product with a different name.

All they have to do is put out a different model as the manufacturer is not the issue. For example, there is a least one Colt AR-15 type available that is legal as an OLL. DPMS, Armalite and others could do the same if they wanted part of this market.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by podobo

What about the manufacturers? Seems like the older manufacturers that were around to get their product banned back in the day are losing money to newer manufacturers that sell the exact same product with a different name.

Yes, but they can of course rename.

Nothing is stopping Bushmaster from renaming their rifles/lowers to something different than "XM15". In fact, the Bushmaster carbon fiber lower is called a "Carbon 15" and many of them have been sold in CA.

Colt is selling something like "Match Elite" rifles/lowers, and they are off-list as well.

Don't think there would be many grounds to sue on given all this.

The far bigger issue is 'detrimental reliance' by OLL buyers on high DOJ officials' statments that they indeed would list. Multiple letters from the Deputy AG/DOJ staff and also the Feb. 3 "Category 4" memo, indicated this would happen, triggering the mid-Feb thru April sales spike. I think maybe 15K-20K lowers were specifically purchased just because the DOJ (thru its Deputy AG) said they were going to list.

[hoffmang]

This argument is not based on common sense, its based on the technicalities of the law.

One major impact of the Federal Commerce Clause is that it doesn't allow a state to discriminate against out of state sellers. An out of state seller that has a make and model listed on the actual Kasler List is being discriminated against if they are forced to retool or change the product when someone who is not or never has been listed can sell the same product (in the eyes of the Federal Court) into the state.

What's interesting about this is that it might invalidate everything except SB-23... The issue is that we'd need one of the manufacturers on the list to care to file and take the political heat.

-Gene

[jnojr]

Originally Posted by bwiese

You can't sue lawmakers. They, after all, are responding to DOJ FD panic.

But laws can be challenged. The passing of a law doesn't set it in stone for all time.

[jnojr]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

This argument is not based on common sense, its based on the technicalities of the law.

One major impact of the Federal Commerce Clause is that it doesn't allow a state to discriminate against out of state sellers. An out of state seller that has a make and model listed on the actual Kasler List is being discriminated against if they are forced to retool or change the product when someone who is not or never has been listed can sell the same product (in the eyes of the Federal Court) into the state.

What's interesting about this is that it might invalidate everything except SB-23... The issue is that we'd need one of the manufacturers on the list to care to file and take the political heat.

Ronnie Barrett?

[hoffmang]

Challenging a law that you have a strong chance of prevailing still takes a budget between $40K and $250K (and can go as high as $2M...)

Spend someone else's money wisely!

Barrett is not on any of the "Lists."

-Gene

[jnojr]

Originally Posted by bwiese

The far bigger issue is 'detrimental reliance' by OLL buyers on high DOJ officials' statments that they indeed would list. Multiple letters from the Deputy AG/DOJ staff and also the Feb. 3 "Category 4" memo, indicated this would happen, triggering the mid-Feb thru April sales spike. I think maybe 15K-20K lowers were specifically purchased just because the DOJ (thru its Deputy AG) said they were going to list.

They'll just argue that A) those statements and memos were never "official policy", and B) even if there was "detrimental reliance", nobody is being deprived of rights, property, or money... they still have their lower, and can feel free to use it as a paperweight or build it into a "legal" rifle.

[mblat]

Originally Posted by jnojr

Ronnie Barrett?

If anybody has enough balls to do that would be him... But I don't think he has anything listed.

[damon1272]

I think that we should take a page from the illeagal aliens. I do not understand the wanting of people to ban these items. Yes, it would be nice to have all of the cool toys but I think gun owners would be in a better position if there were a coulpe of hundred thousand of these receivers rather than say fifty thousand. It makes it harder for the DOJ and others to portray us as people trying to skirt the law and find loop holes. The longer this goes on the better for us. It goes to show a reluctance to prosecute and inforce any perceived law on there side. At this point I feel the best thing to do is let things stay at a low simmer and talk to friends and nieghbors about your cool and *****en new legal rifle and how they could own one too. This will help to change perceptions and bolster the numbers and increase our chance of changing things when it comes to the law and politicians.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

maybe we would enjoy this conversation more next year.

[the_quark]

Originally Posted by Anthonysmanifesto

maybe we would enjoy this conversation more next year.

I know I would.

[tenpercentfirearms]

That is not the calguns way. We like to publically bring up points that the DOJ might have missed.

[hoffmang]

Well, on this one the DOJ's goose is somewhat cooked. You think they'll ask the Governator to veto 2728? I'd love to see that for laugh value...

-Gene

[6172crew]

I wonder if they missed these?

[Anthonysmanifesto]

AB 2728 is an Attorney General Sponored Bill.

they wont go back on it.

even, I myself am eagerly awating AK style sporting arms re-apearing on the store shelves with Saiga style stocks, but I was only suggesting that we may consider that it may be more appropriate to discuss this after it has been signed, and refrain from discussing potential litigation or other strategies.

but this is calguns afterall, and the first amendment is definitely alive and well here.

[6172crew]

Originally Posted by Anthonysmanifesto

but this is calguns afterall, and the first amendment is definitely alive and well here.

Like a bunch of mouthbreathin, gun luvin, ATV riding, Yuppies we are.


I wonder how many times the NRA and the DOJ said to themselves this year "I wish we could shut some of those CalGunners up."

J/K Anthony, what kind of time frame would be expected out of a regulatory hearing?

[hoffmang]

Guilty as charged... On this particular issue though I don't think there is much that talking about it can tip our hand. However, I do agree that there are some closely related issues that we shouldn't tip and my comments here get close to those.

-Gene

[Anthonysmanifesto]

I think the amount of times I check calguns has become worthy of an intervention.

[Addax]

One dealer down in So Cal that I know of has already brought in some AK style 308 sporting rifles with compliant receivers, CA approved parts etc. He sold over 50% of his stock in the first week.

Originally Posted by Anthonysmanifesto

AB 2728 is an Attorney General Sponored Bill.

they wont go back on it.

even, I myself am eagerly awating AK style sporting arms re-apearing on the store shelves with Saiga style stocks, but I was only suggesting that we may consider that it may be more appropriate to discuss this after it has been signed, and refrain from discussing potential litigation or other strategies.

but this is calguns afterall, and the first amendment is definitely alive and well here.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

THE AG has a list of his sponsored bills and has a curious summary of ab 2728

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1334

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by Anthonysmanifesto

THE AG has a list of his sponsored bills and has a curious summary of ab 2728

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1334

Indeed it is curious.

One way of restating: "We're giving up our authority to ban guns because our girl left a huge paper trail, and because we forgot to update the list of banned guns for over 6 years and got called on it."

[five.five-six]

screw all this i just want a regular rifle like everyone else in the united states have

[hoffmang]

One step at a time 5.56... One step.

[eman_308]

OLL will be a big headache for the fed. i don't see anything being truly enforced. i say live free or die!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksAarNUpEOg

[Mudvayne540ld]

THE AG has a list of his sponsored bills and has a curious summary of ab 2728

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1334

The summary makes it seem as tho we can build an AR now, and register it as an AW.

[Ford8N]

Assault Weapons Ban –AB 2728 (Klehs) would close a loophole in California’s assault weapons ban by removing the potential for individuals to continually build, register and legally own new types of weapons before a prohibition on those specific firearms can take effect. The measure is on the Governor’s desk.


I don't understand.

I thought AW were not allowed to be built or registered?