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 11-16-2012, 9:44 AM
MoMo MoMo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default CA:DOJ Assault Weapon Identification Guide

This seems like it's meant to be the "CA AW Law for Dummies"...

But it has me a little worried... Based on the interpretation presented within this guide, it would appear the DOJ wants it to be interpreted that the majority of our guns are illegal, regardless of features, simply because of their platform.

Am I reading it wrong or is this really just a bunch more confusion/misinformation about the law being thrown our way?

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/awguide
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-16-2012, 9:57 AM
Merc1138 Merc1138 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,254
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Yes it's BS, and check the date on the first page.

CA DOJ is not in the business of helping citizens understand current laws, CA DOJ is in the business of scaring people into complying with their own agendas by doing things like "oops, sorry. we forgot to update our guide, we'll get right on that" while never doing so.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-16-2012, 10:05 AM
MoMo MoMo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Shouldn't they be legally responsible for updating that? Especially given the fact that their the "authority on the subject"..

I get that it's one of those things that a blind eye is turned to but it seems like it could potentially serve as a lawsuit to shed some light on the attempts (either accidental or intentional) to mislead the public.

Always seems like each side of this whole 2nd battle are looking for fights like this to chip away at the other.

EDIT

They even go as far as straight up saying rimfire weapons are AW's. I was under the impression that rimfire weapons have a number of exemptions.

Last edited by MoMo; 11-16-2012 at 10:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-16-2012, 11:36 AM
berg's Avatar
berg berg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near the 92 and the 101
Posts: 1,753
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMo View Post

EDIT

They even go as far as straight up saying rimfire weapons are AW's. I was under the impression that rimfire weapons have a number of exemptions.
You're talking about the Category 2 weapons, right?

CATEGORY 2
AK and AR-15 Series Weapons (Kasler v. Lockyer)
This California Supreme Court decision took effect on August 16, 2000. Under this decision, any firearm of
minor variation of the AK or AR-15 type (i.e., series weapon), regardless of the manufacturer, is a Category 2

(Kasler v. Lockyer) assault weapon under the original Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989.
All AK and AR-15 series weapons had to be possessed before August 16, 2000 and must have been
registered on or before January 23, 2001. The Department of Justice is required to identify these series
weapons and includes in this publication a listing of identified AK and AR-15 series weapons.
It is important to note that removal of a firearm’s characteristics does not affect its status as a Category
2 assault weapon.
A Category 2 assault weapon is still an assault weapon even if it has no Category 3
(SB 23 - generic characteristics) features.
Category 2 assault weapons may be of any caliber, including .22 caliber rimfire.

From page 56: http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pd...s/awguide.pdf?

Last edited by berg; 11-16-2012 at 11:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-16-2012, 12:43 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,269
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

That document has a well-known set of deficiencies.

That was one of the motivations to produce the flow charts,
http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf
http://www.calguns.net/caawid/hgflowchart.pdf
http://www.calguns.net/caawid/sgflowchart.pdf
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-16-2012, 1:13 PM
MoMo MoMo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Has the idea of attempting to force the removal/revision of this document ever been discussed?

I know it may seem minor but one fewer "official" document available for those in the media to quote and perpetuate the spread of misinformation could definitely be a plus.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-16-2012, 1:35 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,730
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

There is absolutely no incentive for the DOJ to present any legal opinion other than whatever it is they *wish* the law says.

And there is nothing preventing the DOJ from having (or offering) an inaccurate legal opinion.

Bottom line? They have carte blanche to say whatever they want. When it comes to a courtroom, of course, it might not be in their best interest to flat out lie about everything. Not that they don't do that too.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-17-2012, 5:56 AM
donw's Avatar
donw donw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between temecula and palm springs
Posts: 1,631
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ALL seats of govt are more than willing to let unclear, misleading laws remain in place. to them, it shows a sign of weakness to actually remove or amend laws THEY deem as being credible.

it is my belief, that the number of MSR's (Modern Sporting Rifle-AKA AR)) now being sold LEGALLY, here in the state of California, and nationwide, will render almost any attempt to outlaw them nearly impossible*; i believe that another magazine capacity law and, possibly, a nation-wide BB law might result.

*even for the mighty Diane Feinstein...
__________________
NRA life member, US Army Veteran

i am a legend in my own mind...

we are told not to judge muslims by what a few do...yet, the NRA membership and firearms owners are ALL considered as radical...

"The second amendment ain't about your deer rifle..."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-17-2012, 11:01 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMo View Post
Especially given the fact that their the "authority on the subject"..
They aren't. SCOTUS is, followed by the Cal. S.Ct., and then probably Gene Hoffman. I wish the order were up for debate, but it is not.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-18-2012, 9:44 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,912
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMo View Post
Has the idea of attempting to force the removal/revision of this document ever been discussed?

I know it may seem minor but one fewer "official" document available for those in the media to quote and perpetuate the spread of misinformation could definitely be a plus.
Please google Haynie.

Welcome to the forum.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-18-2012, 10:10 AM
Springfield45's Avatar
Springfield45 Springfield45 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,973
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If they clarified on any of it people would know that they can legally have some AR/AK platforms. And the powers that be here in Occupied Kalifornia do not want that to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-18-2012, 11:43 AM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoMo View Post
This seems like it's meant to be the "CA AW Law for Dummies"...

But it has me a little worried... Based on the interpretation presented within this guide, it would appear the DOJ wants it to be interpreted that the majority of our guns are illegal, regardless of features, simply because of their platform.

Am I reading it wrong or is this really just a bunch more confusion/misinformation about the law being thrown our way?

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/awguide
This document was produced because it was required by law. It is not required by law to be continually updated.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-18-2012, 12:02 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,912
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

OP: Some background for you.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/...foundation.php

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Harris

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=429902

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...bullet-button/
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
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 1:00 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.