Another OLL factor

[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?