[Can'thavenuthingood]

So after again reading the thread http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=39164
on AB 2728, it seems this DOJ sponsored bill may be a way for the AG/DOJ to back away gracefully from listing legal only lowers. No point in going there as more unlisted lowers will just pop up.

This bill allows for the DA's to decide for themselves if they want to continue the persecutions or prosecutions.

Looks to me like we ought to request the Governor to sign this bill into law.

Is this a correct interpretation?

Which way do we want it as a state law?

Vick

[USMC_2651_E5]

I'm wondering that if it was to pass, would it nullify the lawsuit pending against B.L. to list?

[blkA4alb]

Originally Posted by MC_2651_E5

I'm wondering that if it was to pass, would it nullify the lawsuit pending against B.L. to list?

What are you talking about?

[grammaton76]

Originally Posted by blkA4alb

What are you talking about?

I believe he's talking about the detrimental reliance suit that Bill's been kicking around, which could perhaps be made vs AM's letters. I'm of the opinion that it would at the very least add extra hurdles to a DR suit if they can delay the case's resolution past Jan 1st.

[blkA4alb]

Originally Posted by grammaton76

I believe he's talking about the detrimental reliance suit that Bill's been kicking around, which could perhaps be made vs AM's letters. I'm of the opinion that it would at the very least add extra hurdles to a DR suit if they can delay the case's resolution past Jan 1st.

Ah, from his post he made it sound like there was a pending case. Not a prospective one.

[Ragweed]

I am not sure that I understand this. If you are caught with an assualt weapon, it would be considered a public nuisance pushishable by fine of up to $300.00 on the first offense. If the weapon was used in a crime it would be destroyed.

A pinned mag rifle is not considered an assualt weapon therefore no crime is being commited.

Does anyone know if "permantly attached" has been defined yet?

[blkA4alb]

Originally Posted by Ragweed

I am not sure that I understand this. If you are caught with an assualt weapon, it might be considered a public nuisance pushishable by fine of up to $300.00 on the first offense. If the weapon was used in a crime it would be destroyed.

I fixed your post, the DA still has the option to charge you with a felony. It just makes it easier to charge you and get the rifle. This doesn't change the felony for transportation either if you get caught at the range.

[VeryCoolCat]

Well the downside its way easier to prosecute a public nuisence misdemeanor than a felony assault weapons charge.

At least its a quick, this happened... we take your gun end of story. No lawyer talk... just end of story. You lose.

[C.G.]

Originally Posted by Ragweed

Does anyone know if "permantly attached" has been defined yet?

Not yet, that is the problem.

[Ragweed]

Thank you the help.

This scenario has been a lesson in politics that has sure opened my eyes.

[Mr.RoDiN]

As much as I love the fact that these bastards wouldn't be able to put a single rifle on the "list", my heart desires a black rifle! Im torn between which outcome would benefit us more. I just don't understand one thing. If AB 2728 does indeed pass, I believe the DOJ is obligated to make a list, along with pictures and send the new list to LEO offices. Wouldn't life be easier on them if they just put these lowers on the original list? They would still have the authority to ban rifles, in the future. There is somthing fishy about all this. Im not a lawyer and am not very good with understanding the law. But this bill just doesn't seem right, there has to be a catch! Any opinions? PLease correct me if i'm wrong.

[hoffmang]

I've posted this before but I want to post it again:

Let me throw out four classes of folks.

1. Registered AW owners

2. Owners of AW's that predated the ban and should have registered but didn't.

3. Owners of correctly configured OLLs.

4. Owners of incorrectly configured OLLs.

This bill doesn't impact #1 at all. They've been good to go for a while.

This bill has a very serious and very real impact on #2. Some poor schmo gets in a fight with his wife, doesn't have a clue his AR he bought in 1986 should be registered. LEO looks around and finds it. He most likely gets the nuisance charge, forks over his $300 and the gun and keeps the other 12 guns he owns.

#3 has no or very little impact. Your good to go, but now even the risk of a bad prosecution is lowered and an indiscretion about not keeping the rifle in the right config can have much less serious consequences.

#4 gets the same sorts of protections that #2 gets. Lots of folks aren't really paying close enough attention to what you can and can't have on a gripless config, or they heard through a friend of a friend that you can "build 'em up detachable after March (2 weeks!)"

Plus, all of us are going to always be able to buy and build #3 above for the foreseeable future. Also, the threat of the 58 DAs is pretty empty. There are only about 5 DAs that would even care and we know who they are. I planning on writing a letter and pushing on mine which is one of the 5.

-Gene

[Ragweed]

Originally Posted by Mr.RoDiN

As much as I love the fact that these bastards wouldn't be able to put a single rifle on the "list", my heart desires a black rifle! Im torn between which outcome would benefit us more. I just don't understand one thing. If AB 2728 does indeed pass, I believe the DOJ is obligated to make a list, along with pictures and send the new list to LEO offices. Wouldn't life be easier on them if they just put these lowers on the original list? They would still have the authority to ban rifles, in the future. There is somthing fishy about all this. Im not a lawyer and am not very good with understanding the law. But this bill just doesn't seem right, there has to be a catch! Any opinions? PLease correct me if i'm wrong.

I agree that something is fishy here. If they do get 2728 through, they will no longer have to create a list. What then? They will have to define what is banned somehow. That somehow has me puzzled. Could be a ban on features, style or it could be a blanket statement that says AR style lower reciever.

I am waiting to see the statement " anything that can make a baby cry is hereby banned". Barny is screwed!

[luvtolean]

Guys, why would you be in favor of a bill that sponsors banning guns? Aren't you pro gun??!

Yes, I understand you want to take your mag lock off, or bolt your pistol grip on. Me too.

BUT, this bill is a step. It means the DOJ can no longer ban assault rifles. It also decriminalizes minor mistakes by the OLL person. Do you want to win the battle or the war?

We (I'll use this term to denote all AW and OLL owners, and those that want to) lost the ability to even have an AR in this state. Then we got Fab10's and now we have detachable mag, OLL, non-AW configured ARs. It has taken almost 6 years to get to this point. It has taken a couple of court rulings. But it has been progressing. Can't you see the progress? I can walk into a gun store and choose an AR lower out of the display case. I can go to a gun show and buy one, even as DOJ agents watch. Think about that! Incredible! My credit card is still feeling the pain.

Don't you think, instead of wasting dollars/time/mental energy with suits that give only a bit of temporary good to you and me is a far too short term goal? Don't you want your kids to be able to buy an AR? Lest you forget, AWs are not inheritable.

We need to continue the slow process that has started. This board, the OLL movement, CA NRA have shown people are willing to dig into these matters, and slowly, methodically work towards undoing the wrong that was Roberti-Roos. It has shown gun owners care about this, haven't forgotten (like the gun grabbers did, we aren't going to be so lucky going forward) and are willing to organize.

So, instead of spending your time as the defeated, begging for handouts in looking for clauses to allow us to register one more time, let's act like people who want to win. Look at 2728 as a step as Hoffman keeps trying to point out subtly (and not-so when the message isn't communicated) and trust it.

When Roberti-Roos passed Feinstein admitted it was a bill that banned as much as was politically feasible. We're doing the same thing, we are undoing as much as we can at a time.

I want to win the war. How about you?

Big words from a 4 post wonder, I'll agree.

[Whitesmoke]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Guys, why would you be in favor of a bill that sponsors banning guns? Aren't you pro gun??!

Yes, I understand you want to take your mag lock off, or bolt your pistol grip on. Me too.

BUT, this bill is a step. It means the DOJ can no longer ban assault rifles. It also decriminalizes minor mistakes by the OLL person. Do you want to win the battle or the war?

We (I'll use this term to denote all AW and OLL owners, and those that want to) lost the ability to even have an AR in this state. Then we got Fab10's and now we have detachable mag, OLL, non-AW configured ARs. It has taken almost 6 years to get to this point. It has taken a couple of court rulings. But it has been progressing. Can't you see the progress? I can walk into a gun store and choose an AR lower out of the display case. I can go to a gun show and buy one, even as DOJ agents watch. Think about that! Incredible! My credit card is still feeling the pain.

Don't you think, instead of wasting dollars/time/mental energy with suits that give only a bit of temporary good to you and me is a far too short term goal? Don't you want your kids to be able to buy an AR? Lest you forget, AWs are not inheritable.

We need to continue the slow process that has started. This board, the OLL movement, CA NRA have shown people are willing to dig into these matters, and slowly, methodically work towards undoing the wrong that was Roberti-Roos. It has shown gun owners care about this, haven't forgotten (like the gun grabbers did, we aren't going to be so lucky going forward) and are willing to organize.

So, instead of spending your time as the defeated, begging for handouts in looking for clauses to allow us to register one more time, let's act like people who want to win. Look at 2728 as a step as Hoffman keeps trying to point out subtly (and not-so when the message isn't communicated) and trust it.

When Roberti-Roos passed Feinstein admitted it was a bill that banned as much as was politically feasible. We're doing the same thing, we are undoing as much as we can at a time.

I want to win the war. How about you?

Big words from a 4 post wonder, I'll agree.

I totally agree! This bill doesn't help ME....the law abiding gun owner at all!!!

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

I've posted this before but I want to post it again:

Let me throw out four classes of folks.

1. Registered AW owners

2. Owners of AW's that predated the ban and should have registered but didn't.

3. Owners of correctly configured OLLs.

4. Owners of incorrectly configured OLLs.

This bill doesn't impact #1 at all. They've been good to go for a while.

This bill has a very serious and very real impact on #2. Some poor schmo gets in a fight with his wife, doesn't have a clue his AR he bought in 1986 should be registered. LEO looks around and finds it. He most likely gets the nuisance charge, forks over his $300 and the gun and keeps the other 12 guns he owns.

#3 has no or very little impact. Your good to go, but now even the risk of a bad prosecution is lowered and an indiscretion about not keeping the rifle in the right config can have much less serious consequences.

#4 gets the same sorts of protections that #2 gets. Lots of folks aren't really paying close enough attention to what you can and can't have on a gripless config, or they heard through a friend of a friend that you can "build 'em up detachable after March (2 weeks!)"

Plus, all of us are going to always be able to buy and build #3 above for the foreseeable future. Also, the threat of the 58 DAs is pretty empty. There are only about 5 DAs that would even care and we know who they are. I planning on writing a letter and pushing on mine which is one of the 5.

-Gene

Im sold.. lets let it ride.

kill AB 2714 and SB 59

[Can'thavenuthingood]

I'm confused, I feel like a bimbette here.

So we should let the Governor do as he wishes? Shouldn't we support or oppose it?

To have no opinion seems an oddity here.

Did the Ag and Legislators paint us into a corner?

luvtolean: I figure you want this signed into law.
whitesmoke: You agree with luvtolean, but say the bill doesn't help.

Me, I'm thinking it ought to be signed into law. In most cases I'd think the DA would deal away with the law abiding and use the big hammer for the genuine crooks.

Vick

[hoffmang]

I believe it was not us who were painted into a corner.

I think we should just not oppose 2728 and otherwise oppose 59 and 2714.

-Gene

[artherd]

Originally Posted by Can'thavenuthingood

Did the Ag and Legislators paint us into a corner?

No, it didn't quite work out that way...

[anotherone]

The minute we say anything positive about AB2728 or we say that we actually support it, the DOJ is going to be screaming at Arnie to veto it. They're watching these threads and have reacted to them in the past (re: Feb memo). Best for us to stay quiet.

[USMC_2651_E5]

Originally Posted by grammaton76

I believe he's talking about the detrimental reliance suit that Bill's been kicking around, which could perhaps be made vs AM's letters. I'm of the opinion that it would at the very least add extra hurdles to a DR suit if they can delay the case's resolution past Jan 1st.

I know it's off topic now, but just want to clarify. I thought I read a post that a couple DA's suing DOJ FD to update the list. The case was set to go in Jan 07 I believe. Now the way it looks, if 2728 passes, the suit will go away since DOJ FD wont be able to list. And what my post has to add to anything, I dont know. Just thinking out loud.

Semper Fi.

[anotherone]

Originally Posted by MC_2651_E5

I know it's off topic now, but just want to clarify. I thought I read a post that a couple DA's suing DOJ FD to update the list. The case was set to go in Jan 07 I believe. Now the way it looks, if 2728 passes, the suit will go away since DOJ FD wont be able to list. And what my post has to add to anything, I dont know. Just thinking out loud.

Semper Fi.

I could be mistaken here so Bill feel free to jump in...

Despite the timing on the case and the assumed passage of AB2728, the case is still valid. It's not whether the DOJ had the ability to list, but whether they had the ability to list in February 2006 when they said they intended to do so. Instead they've opted to attempt to bypass the Roberti-Roos registration requirements through regulatory action.

Keep in mind that there can be and will be no legal action unless the DOJ proceeds with regulatory action. If AB2728 gets signed I personally doubt the DOJ will continue to pursue regulatory action. I could be wrong but you never know...

[Whitesmoke]

Maybe I was reading his post wrong.....

But even when reading his assesment of the benefits of this bill....I think the bill only really helps those that are breaking the law. By making a lower punishment possible, instead of a felony.

It would prevent the DOJ from listing new AW's by name though....which is good. But we already have a way around that problem currently.....the firearms MFG's will just change the names constantly enabling us to buy each model/brand until they get listed....then they change the name again.

I really don't like the idea that a police officer could confiscate your legal rifle and then a DA could declare your perfectly legal rifle a nuisence. Don't you guys kid yourselves...many DA's/police depts. will do this if they get a chance.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Whitesmoke

Maybe I was reading his post wrong.....

But even when reading his assesment of the benefits of this bill....I think the bill only really helps those that are breaking the law. By making a lower punishment possible, instead of a felony.

It helps you also if a LEO, who is not clear on these byzantine laws, believes your OLL is illegal and prosecutes you for it.

Right or wrong, you're going to court for this. And when you are being submitted to the vagaries of the court system, any help will be welcome.

It would prevent the DOJ from listing new AW's by name though....which is good. But we already have a way around that problem currently.....the firearms MFG's will just change the names constantly enabling us to buy each model/brand until they get listed....then they change the name again.

If you just want a "generic" lower, I guess it's a bit of a who cares. But if you want a Colt, with it's different pin sizes, it's a bit tougher. How about if you want a high end target AR, like a JP? You think a small boutique guy is going to change markings every week for the few rifles he sells to Californians?

I really don't like the idea that a police officer could confiscate your legal rifle and then a DA could declare your perfectly legal rifle a nuisence. Don't you guys kid yourselves...many DA's/police depts. will do this if they get a chance.

Exactly why we need the protections in this law. The DA has always been able to declare your illegal rifle a nuiscance. This is not a new right...

If 2728 passes, unfortunately for some poor schmo, it's probably going to take a test case to rule on it.

[6172crew]

AB2728 falls short in that it should read that the DA, AG cant charge a fellony if the only charge was for having the rifle.

What I mean is if OLL guy is at the range and gets caught with detachable magazine he can still be charged with a fellony if this law passes.

Like others have said, one step at a time.

[hoffmang]

All. Remember that there are two types of lists.

1. Updating the Series or Kasler List.

2. Updating the Roberti-Roos List.

We lose a little on 1 but not really. Commerce in OLL will become very common after January - both from in and out of state sellers.

#2 is a big win. Please read between the lines.

-Gene

[mikehaas]

Originally Posted by Can'thavenuthingood

I'm confused, I feel like a bimbette here.

So we should let the Governor do as he wishes? Shouldn't we support or oppose it?

To have no opinion seems an oddity here.

NRA has no position on AB 2728. In reply to the above question, I have some GENERAL comments about why it makes sense sometimes to not have a public opinion about an issue. (read: not push one way or the other)

First, always remember that NRA does not operate above the radar in some of what needs done. It's not that they ever do anything shady, it's that often, public light can cause things to not go our way.

The best example I can think of is Prop H in San Francisco - BEFORE IT WAS EVEN QUALIFIED FOR THE BALLOT. It needed a majority of the SF Supes to vote for it to qualify. Publicly, NRA had stayed relatively quiet about the thing. Behind the scenes, NRA had convinced just enough supes to withdraw their support to keep it from qualifying. However, the supes needed to handle the public relations aspects of that decision themselves, announce it at the right time, the right way, etc. Who cares about that, right? So it worked in our favor to not fight it publicly.

Unfortunately, before it all happened (actually within a matter of days is my understanding), TWO (count 'em, 2) hotheaded "pro-gun" activists had attacked the supes en masse, literally CHALLENGING them to support something that stupid. The willing media inteviewed these guys and publicly, the issue quickly was framed as "the gun lobby vs. the Supes" which automatically becomes "NRA vs. the Supes" for the general population. You can see where this is going - once the supes were backed up against a wall, they could not be seen as "caving to the evil NRA", and it all fell through.

So it cost NRA over half-a-million to defeat it in court. yeah, defeat it for the SECOND time. Loose cannons ALWAYS hurt the cause - we all have to work together to win, and sometimes that takes faith. We have to have faith in NRA. And now, after the great effort with AB 352, NRA has more reason than ever to have faith in calguns, and I know Paul and Ed hope for continued support.

This is the rule I follow: If NRA isn't raising flags (good or bad) about a bill, that's a message to me as a volunteer that it's not worth MY valuable time either. I DEFINITELY don't want to get into the business of second-guessing NRA. There are so few really effective activist "groups", every activists time is important. That's why what we did this year was so important. Focus maximised every call we made. It's why the members' Councils are effective too. (Isn't it great to WIN stuff? Beats getting discouraged when your initiative doesn't qualify!)

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2006&summary=ab2714

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2006&summary=sb59

There are many more pro-gun folks than there are gun haters. Our problem has always been working together.

Mike

[Anthonysmanifesto]

thanks for the straight dope.. lets focus on SB 59 and AB 2714

[TKo_Productions]

I already voiced my opinion on AB2728 in another thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...6&postcount=21

It's sort of futile arguing it though, as it appears many of you believe that because a few people on this board say its good for you, you jump on board. Just because the NRA doesn't oppose it, doesn't mean that you shouldn't. Read the bill, understand the implications, and understand that you STILL can be charged with a FELONY regardless. So, if you can still be charged with a felony, what does the bill accomplish? One thing - BL goal/objective, which was the point of AB2728 from the very beginning. This was a gut and amend bill. BL went to Klehs and had him write this bill on his behalf. Now tell me, who’s interest do you think BL has in mind? Yours and mine? or his own (specifically during and election year when he's running for treasurer)?

[Stevil]

An interesting point-of-information, The Governor promised whilst running in 2003 that he would VETO all "gut and amend" bills that came before him on principle, I believe AB2728 was a GANDA bill was it not?

[blacklisted]

The problem is that this didn't really begin because we thought they would list (although it was a possibility). Many of us just wanted something better than a FAB-10 or Vulcan...

Of course, it accelerated when people believed that the list would be updated (because of what THEY said!).

Originally Posted by TKo_Productions

I already voiced my opinion on AB2728 in another thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...6&postcount=21

It's sort of futile arguing it though, as it appears many of you believe that because a few people on this board say its good for you, you jump on board. Just because the NRA doesn't oppose it, doesn't mean that you shouldn't. Read the bill, understand the implications, and understand that you STILL can be charged with a FELONY regardless. So, if you can still be charged with a felony, what does the bill accomplish? One thing - BL goal/objective, which was the point of AB2728 from the very beginning. This was a gut and amend bill. BL went to Klehs and had him write this bill on his behalf. Now tell me, who’s interest do you think BL has in mind? Yours and mine? or his own (specifically during and election year when he's running for treasurer)?

[blackrazor]

MikeHaas,

Your analysis of the situation is spot on, I'm sure of it. There's NO WAY that the NRA doesn't have a position on a bill that deals with AW's, NO WAY. So their not taking a position on the bill is a tactical move.

Look at it this way, the bill seems to be on the way to becoming law, without any intervention from the NRA. Therefore, if the NRA didn't want the bill to pass, they would be opposing it (as they would have nothing to lose). HOWEVER, if the NRA actually wanted the bill to pass, the best course would be to do nothing, in other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If the NRA comes outright and endorses 2728, everyone will see it for what it is, a pro-gun bill. But, so long as the NRA remains silent, anti-gun Arnold will probably sign it as he almost certainly believes this is an anti-AW bill.

If this bill becomes law, it's passage will conclude one of the NRA's great master plays here in CA.

[Whitesmoke]

Originally Posted by TKo_Productions

I already voiced my opinion on AB2728 in another thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...6&postcount=21

It's sort of futile arguing it though, as it appears many of you believe that because a few people on this board say its good for you, you jump on board. Just because the NRA doesn't oppose it, doesn't mean that you shouldn't. Read the bill, understand the implications, and understand that you STILL can be charged with a FELONY regardless. So, if you can still be charged with a felony, what does the bill accomplish? One thing - BL goal/objective, which was the point of AB2728 from the very beginning. This was a gut and amend bill. BL went to Klehs and had him write this bill on his behalf. Now tell me, who’s interest do you think BL has in mind? Yours and mine? or his own (specifically during and election year when he's running for treasurer)?

I agree with you 100%...

[hoffmang]

Gentlemen,

Feel free to disagree with me but think through the nastiest things that could happen if the DOJ retained the right to list any semiautomatic rifle it wished.

-Gene

[Whitesmoke]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Gentlemen,

Feel free to disagree with me but think through the nastiest things that could happen if the DOJ retained the right to list any semiautomatic rifle it wished.

-Gene

Correct me if I'm wrong...but I believe the DOJ ONLY has the power to list AR and AK series weapons. All other semi-auto rifles can only be banned by legislation.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by Whitesmoke

Correct me if I'm wrong...but I believe the DOJ ONLY has the power to list AR and AK series weapons. All other semi-auto rifles can only be banned by legislation.

Not true.

Currently the AG can add AR/AK flavors to the Kasler list, or can do a PC 12276.5 add-on petition in certain Superior Courts (those in counties over 1Mil population). While I at first thought this is a more involved process, wiser heads told me that despite requirement for a 'preponderance of evidence', a 'tame' judge could rubberstamp a request.

The legislature cannot add new guns without a whole new piece of legislation (i.e., no shortcuts).

[Whitesmoke]

Thanks Bill....my mistake. Thanks for the explaination...I appreciate it.