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
  #201  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:41 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
I can't comment on bullpups-I don't know about them. What made them legal to purchase in the first place?

And what makes them legal now under the regs?

For how long the 30" min. OAL requirement in existence? Is it new with SB 880?

Do bullpups have minimum OAL of 30" under the definitions?
It's in 30515, SB 23 features definitions since 2001. It was legal to purchase a rifle with a 30" minimum length WITHOUT a permanent muzzle device between 2001-2016.

Bullpups needed to be 30", but they rarely make 30" minimum without a permanent muzzle device.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:42 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
Bullpups purchased before 2017 were legal if the overall length was 30" or more. It didn't require a muzzle brake to be pinned. They still don't have to be pinned if you are at 30" inches from the end of the barrel without a muzzle brake attached.
So, my statement stands.

Any SACF rifle must have 30" min. OAL in 2016 to be registered as AW.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:42 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,544
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Ignore that in the webinar? When did Michel ever say in the webinar that you need to have a permanent muzzle device if it doesn't meet 30" to register?
Read the link I previously provided regarding the comment bolded in red: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1&postcount=62
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:45 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
Read the link I previously provided regarding the comment bolded in red: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1&postcount=62
Holy god are you dense. That has do to with having a rifle less than 30", it has nothing to do with the new definitions. Nothing about that checkbox has anything to do with the concept that you have a rifle less than 30" if it doesn't meet the new definition.

Totally separate idea. We all have rifles legally acquired between 2001-2016 that meet the 30" requirement, duh.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:47 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,544
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Holy god are you dense. That has do to with having a rifle less than 30", it has nothing to do with the new definitions. Nothing about that checkbox has anything to do with the concept that you have a rifle less than 30" if it doesn't meet the new definition.

Totally separate idea. We all have rifles legally acquired between 2001-2016 that meet the 30" requirement, duh.
Others already understand that comment. It is painfully obvious. You obviously don't understand the spirit of the statement. Including Michel & Associates comments about that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:48 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 623
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This chapter shall be known as the “Department of Justice Regulations for Assault Weapons and Large-Capacity Magazines,” may be cited as such and are referred to herein as “these regulations.” The provisions of these regulations shall apply to assault weapons as defined in Penal Code section 30515 and as specified pursuant to Penal Code section 30520, and large-capacity magazines as defined in Penal Code section 16740. These regulations do not apply to assault weapons as defined in Penal Code section 30510.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:49 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
It's in 30515, SB 23 features definitions since 2001. It was legal to purchase a rifle with a 30" minimum length WITHOUT a permanent muzzle device between 2001-2016.

Bullpups needed to be 30", but they rarely make 30" minimum without a permanent muzzle device.
Okay, thanks, finally, for that clarification.

So the perm muzzle device requirement is new only with the regulation?

How could they have been legal under federal law if barrels less than 16" and overall length greater than 30" with a non-permanent muzzle device? Seems as if it might be a SBR under federal law. Oh, maybe it's distinguishable as greater than 26" under fed law. Right?

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 1:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:50 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 623
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like they crossed it out on 5471, but added it back in here.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:52 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,544
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
Okay, thanks, finally, for that clarification.

So the perm muzzle device requirement is new only with the regulation?

How could they have been legal under federal law if barrels less than 16" and overall length greater than 30" with a non-permanent muzzle device? Seems as if it might be a SBR under federal law.
Only if you are trying to achieve "30 inches without adding length to the stock. As long as the barrel is 16" long and the overall length is 30" long you don't need to pin a muzzle brake. Just remember when measuring from the BARREL END not including the muzzle brake.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:54 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
Okay, thanks, finally, for that clarification.

So the perm muzzle device requirement is new only with the regulation?

How could they have been legal under federal law if barrels less than 16" and overall length greater than 30" with a non-permanent muzzle device? Seems as if it might be a SBR under federal law.
The perm muzzle device definition is ultra vague and yes, it's only associated with SB 880.

What we do not know is what that definition means. Not even the Michel webinar went into it.

There is a fed law for 16" and that is absolute, anything shorter than a 16" barrel is an SBR. We can't have SBR's in CA.

Bullpups were legally sold for 15 years between 2001-2016 with a 16" barrel and some kind of really long muzzle device (non permanent) to meet the 30" minimum length.

In 5471 in the new regs, the DOJ said we need a permanent muzzle device to meet 30" minimum, and now the question is: does this apply to AW or non-AW??
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:57 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
The perm muzzle device definition is ultra vague and yes, it's only associated with SB 880.

What we do not know is what that definition means. Not even the Michel webinar went into it.

There is a fed law for 16" and that is absolute, anything shorter than a 16" barrel is an SBR. We can't have SBR's in CA.

Bullpups were legally sold for 15 years between 2001-2016 with a 16" barrel and some kind of really long muzzle device (non permanent) to meet the 30" minimum length.

In 5471 in the new regs, the DOJ said we need a permanent muzzle device to meet 30" minimum, and now the question is: does this apply to AW or non-AW??
Lookit, 16" bbl is good to go under fed and state SBR laws. 30" OAL is good to go under AW laws.

The way I read 5471 is if bbl is 16" no permanently attached muzzle device is required at all.

What am I missing here?

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 2:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:58 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Looks like they crossed it out on 5471, but added it back in here.
I don't follow you, this is the header on 5471 from the new regs:

§ 5471. Registration of Assault Weapons Pursuant to Penal Code Section 30900(b)(1); Explanation of Terms Related to Assault Weapon Designation.

They took pursuant to 30515 out.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:59 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,544
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
Lookit, 16" bbl is good to go under fed and state SBR laws. 30" OAL is good to go under AW laws.

What am I missing here?
The only change is "30 inches overall length on how it's measured. You used to measure with a muzzle device attached. Now you have to measure without the muzzle device attached UNLESS it's permanently installed. (pin, welded)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 08-23-2017, 1:59 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
Lookit, 16" bbl is good to go under fed and state SBR laws. 30" OAL is good to go under AW laws.

What am I missing here?

The way I rea 5471 is if bbl is 16" no permanently attached muzzle device is required?
16" is never good to go under red and state laws. What are you saying? Under CA law its an SBR which is wholly illegal. We have no NFA items in CA, at least not for 99.9999% of us. Under fed law you need a tax stamp and paperwork for it to be a legal SBR in other free states.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:01 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 623
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Disco , yes and stuck it in 5459.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:02 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

This issue has driven me so up the wall for months. Does 5471 OAL definition apply to AW or non-AW (or both). No legal information has been given from all the legal eagles, and it's always been a giant gray area.

For me, at this point, I am seriously considering ponying up the $200 and getting an official legal opinion from out friends. I called the DOJ 10 times and they always say the same thing "we can't interpret the regs for you".
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:04 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Disco , yes and stuck it in 5459.
Could you spell the whole theory out? 5459 doesn't seem to appear anywhere, I can't tie it to 5471?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:05 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 623
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

...and 5459 just kind of appeared out of nowhere. But makes these regs apply to 30515, but not 30510, which is the list. In my opinion they have ducked the public comments process with this.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:07 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 623
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Doc...ta=(sc.Default)
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:07 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
This issue has driven me so up the wall for months. Does 5471 OAL definition apply to AW or non-AW (or both). No legal information has been given from all the legal eagles, and it's always been a giant gray area.

For me, at this point, I am seriously considering ponying up the $200 and getting an official legal opinion from out friends. I called the DOJ 10 times and they always say the same thing "we can't interpret the regs for you".
Look, were the bullpup 16" barrels when sold stand-alone? Please answer.

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 2:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:09 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
16" is never good to go under red and state laws. What are you saying? Under CA law its an SBR which is wholly illegal. We have no NFA items in CA, at least not for 99.9999% of us. Under fed law you need a tax stamp and paperwork for it to be a legal SBR in other free states.
What are you talking about. 16" bbl stand-alone is fine. Get overall length to 30" in 2016 and you're good under AW laws. Lawfully possessed.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:14 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,544
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
I think you are referring to this: The link expires for me, but I captured this screenshot.

Screen Shot 2017-08-23 at 2.12.06 PM.jpg
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif

Last edited by meno377; 08-23-2017 at 2:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:14 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
This issue has driven me so up the wall for months. Does 5471 OAL definition apply to AW or non-AW (or both). No legal information has been given from all the legal eagles, and it's always been a giant gray area.
5471 title thereof says that it applies to AW. It's a start.

If you look at 5471(c), if your bbl stand alone is 16" what are you worrying about? You said the barrels in these bullpup sold during the applicable period were 16". If not, then the reg may be ex post facto. Exception needs to be carved out or extend the stock minimum with a spacer. Still have SBR issue without a perm muzzle attachment. They never should've been sold here without a perm muzzle attach under fed law if bbl less than 16". They'd have to fill out a NFA form according to Skyhawk in another thread. In that thread, Colt CS confirmed.

Lawyer for The Gun Collective on YT has two videos where he briefly explains the federal law re SBR's. Recommend.

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 2:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:15 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
...and 5459 just kind of appeared out of nowhere. But makes these regs apply to 30515, but not 30510, which is the list. In my opinion they have ducked the public comments process with this.
How can 30515 be pursuant to 5471 definitions? That would mean all the SB23 weapons would need to be 30" no? It doesn't make any sense.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:16 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
Look, were the bullpup 16" barrels when sold stand-alone? Please answer.
Yes, all bullpups and and rifles sold in California since forever had a 16" barrel.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:17 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
5471 title thereof says that it applies to AW. It's a start.

If you look at 5471(c), if your bbl stand alone is 16" what are you worrying about? You said the barrels in these bullput sold during the applicable period were 16". If not, then the reg may be ex post facto.
This has nothing to do with 16" barrels. It has everything to do with meeting 30" minimum length with or without permanent muzzle devices.

Take it as a given all bullpups had to also have 16" barrels.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:19 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 623
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There was a pregnant pause between OALs file and print, and when the regs actually got printed. Think is was 2 1/2 weeks, when it should have been less than 1

I found the old version of 5459, it is worded the same, just different numbers. BUT the trouble is, it was the intro to an APA public reviewed set of regulations, the new ones are not, and as such 5459 is inappropriate.

Last edited by PMACA_MFG; 09-04-2017 at 12:47 PM.. Reason: found the old reg
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:31 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Yes, all bullpups and and rifles sold in California since forever had a 16" barrel.
So, once again, what is the problem?

I think I know. 5471(x)- OAL doesn't count unless muzzle is permanently attached. So what?

Put in spacer to extend min. length or a longer stock. If can do, GTG. If you can't do it, regulation as ex post facto or carve out exception. Subject to challenge. You have a 16" bbl, you can include the non-permanent muzzle under prior law before 5471(x), right?

As to ARs, I think they come to 32" usually so not an issue with non-permanent attachment, so should be gtg.

And whatever one does, the box 'less than 30" is a trap, intentional or not. Don't check it. But better to just wait until the issue is sorted out.

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 2:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:43 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
So, once again, what is the problem?

I think I know. 5471(x)- OAL doesn't count unless muzzle is permanently attached. So what?

Put in spacer to extend min. length or a longer stock. If can do, GTG. If you can't do it, reg as ex post facto or carve out exception.

As to ARs, they come to 32" usually so not an issue with non-permanent attachment.
See my new thread for clarification. We need to know if we need to permanently attach our muzzle devices if we aren't 30" without one in order to register.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:45 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,026
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
See my new thread for clarification. We need to know if we need to permanently attach our muzzle devices if we aren't 30" without one in order to register.
You shouldn't need to modify a 2016 legally owned firearm just to register it, and thats your whole point of course.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:50 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
See my new thread for clarification. We need to know if we need to permanently attach our muzzle devices if we aren't 30" without one in order to register.
Link to new thread?

If 5471(x) stands, I'd say so. Sucks. Ex post facto regulation. It makes a bullpup less than 30" if muzzle not permanent. Are you saying that with the muzzle non-permanent it only comes to 30" exactly, and it was legal before? No leeway, like 32" overall length? I'd measure OAL now to see for sure. But no worries about SBR, that is for sure.

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-23-2017 at 2:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:53 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,234
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoutitoutshutitup View Post
I can't comment on bullpups-I don't know about them. What made them legal to purchase in the first place?

And what makes them legal now under the regs?

For how long the 30" min. OAL requirement in existence? Is it new with SB 880?

Do bullpups have minimum OAL of 30" under the definitions?
In 2016 I purchased a Tavor SAR with a bullet button on it that measured 30.5" OAL with a 4" screw on muzzle brake (could have been a flash hider but not pertinent to this discussion). It was legal for me to possess/transfer up until 1/1/2017. This was all done because the OAL of 30" was not previously defined as requiring a "permanent" muzzle device to achieve the 30". If I was to remove the muzzle device in 2016 I would have manufactured an AW which could not have been registered as such at that time.

What others are trying to point out is the OAL definition has changed to include the "permanent muzzle device" requirement to achieve 30".

Prior to 1/1/2017 I made my Tavor SAR featureless by adding a fin grip. It now has no features (pistol grip, forward grip, flash hider, adjustable stock) and NO bullet button. As of the publishing date of the regulations, 5471(x) makes my previously legally owned SACF rifle an AW. According to 30900(b)(1) I should be able to register my 2016 legally purchased/legally owned SACF rifle before 7/1/2018. However, the regulations stipulate in 5472(c) indicate that featureless rifles cannot be registered. Hence the dilemma and vagueness that generates all of this uncertainty and doubt.

I could put the bullet button back on and take the fin grip off (a configuration that I legally owned in 2016) and register it, but does the 5471(x) only apply to rifles being registered or only to rifles not being registered, or both? That is the question that is not clear. An argument can be made that it only applies to rifles being registered because 300900(b)(5) only allowed adoption of regulations specifically "for registration purposes". However, this also goes against the plain language in 30900(b)(1) referring to "legally owned firearms" that now meet the definition of an AW per AW definition in 30515.

Of course we can surmise that the DOJ wants all rifles to meet the 30" OAL with "permanent" muzzle devices. However, there is no requirement for pre-2000 RAWs to meet that definition and if they expect them to this would be the first time the protected RAWs would have additional requirements put on them. Additionally, PC30515 only defines what an AW is and that is where the 30" OAL shows up. Once the AW is registered the only governing PC is Federal 26" and CA SBR.

If the DOJ wants me to pin/weld a 4" muzzle device to make it "permanent" (per their definition), there is nothing stopping me from grinding off the weld, unpinning and removing the muzzle device and going below the 30" OAL (as long as it stays above the 26" OAL and 16" barrel).

The plain language of the law (PC30900(b)(1) and PC30515) is clear. The regulations threw water on it and made the whole thing a mud pit.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Last edited by mshill; 08-23-2017 at 2:56 PM.. Reason: typos/grammer
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:56 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post

If the DOJ wants me to pin/weld a 4" muzzle device to make it "permanent" (per their definition), there is nothing stopping my from grinding off the weld, unpinning and removing the muzzle device and going below the 30" OAL (as long as it stays above the 26" OAL and 16" barrel).

The plain language of the law (PC30900(b)(1) and PC30515) is clear. The regulations threw water on it and made the whole thing a mud pit.
How will you be registering it? Pinned and welded or not?

My new thread specifically on this.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 08-23-2017, 2:57 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
You shouldn't need to modify a 2016 legally owned firearm just to register it, and thats your whole point of course.
Agreed, and never had to do under prior registrations. Could possess as-is.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 08-23-2017, 3:07 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,234
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
How will you be registering it? Pinned and welded or not?

My new thread specifically on this.
I have read your thread. I have 8-10 months to decide. I despise the Tavor BB and am leaning towards featureless, and would only register if there is a miracle and the BB can come off. Pinning/welding? Waiting to see what falls out of the lawsuit(s) over the regulations (btw where the hell are they?).

The problem as you have articulated, is that the lawsuits will not be decided until well after the end of the registration window and there is the risk of missing out on benefits if they are successful. On the other hand, if I had to pin/weld for featureless I'm not sure the 3" is that big a deal if I already have to put up with a fin grip.

Like I said, I will figure it out in 8-10 months.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 08-23-2017, 3:12 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,544
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
...
The fact that you ignore the CRPA webinar explaining that the new overall length definition isn't clear when you register is very concerning. If anyone wants to listen to the webinar: http://crpa.org/webinars/

Go to the site, go to the bottom link and enter any name you want. Jon doe works. at 1Hour, six minutes, 20 seconds approx. explains their concern and they suggest if you plan on checking that box, YOU SHOULD TALK TO AN ATTORNEY. If you do without talking to an attorney, there is the possibility of them questioning why you didn't register a number of years ago. In other words, they say it could be a trap. This assessment is coming directly from Michel & Associates and it doesn't make it clear about pinning a muzzle brake to meet the new definitions of an overall length of "30 inches or more.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 08-23-2017, 3:18 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,490
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
The fact that you ignore the CRPA webinar explaining that the new overall length definition isn't clear when you register is very concerning. If anyone wants to listen to the webinar: http://crpa.org/webinars/

Go to the site, go to the bottom link and enter any name you want. Jon doe works. at 1Hour, six minutes, 20 seconds approx. explains their concern and they suggest if you plan on checking that box, YOU SHOULD TALK TO AN ATTORNEY. If you do without talking to an attorney, there is the possibility of them questioning why you didn't register a number of years ago. In other words, they say it could be a trap. This assessment is coming directly from Michel & Associates and it doesn't make it clear about pinning a muzzle brake to meet the new definitions of an overall length of "30 inches or more.
It dosent have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT QUESTION. NO ONE REGISTERING SHOULD EVER CHECK THAT BOX FOR ANY REASON.

The concepts have sailed over the heads of the usual suspects.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 08-23-2017, 3:19 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,234
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
The fact that you ignore the CRPA webinar explaining that the new overall length definition isn't clear when you register is very concerning. If anyone wants to listen to the webinar: http://crpa.org/webinars/

Go to the site, go to the bottom link and enter any name you want. Jon doe works. at 1Hour, six minutes, 20 seconds approx. explains their concern and they suggest if you plan on checking that box, YOU SHOULD TALK TO AN ATTORNEY. If you do without talking to an attorney, there is the possibility of them questioning why you didn't register a number of years ago. In other words, they say it could be a trap. This assessment is coming directly from Michel & Associates and it doesn't make it clear about pinning a muzzle brake to meet the new definitions of an overall length of "30 inches or more.
winner, winner, chicken dinner...
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 08-23-2017, 3:34 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,544
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
The fact that you ignore the CRPA webinar explaining that the new overall length definition isn't clear when you register is very concerning. If anyone wants to listen to the webinar: http://crpa.org/webinars/

Go to the site, go to the bottom link and enter any name you want. Jon doe works. at 1Hour, six minutes, 20 seconds approx. explains their concern and they suggest if you plan on checking that box, YOU SHOULD TALK TO AN ATTORNEY. If you do without talking to an attorney, there is the possibility of them questioning why you didn't register a number of years ago. In other words, they say it could be a trap. This assessment is coming directly from Michel & Associates and it doesn't make it clear about pinning a muzzle brake to meet the new definitions of an overall length of "30 inches or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
winner, winner, chicken dinner...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
It dosent have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT QUESTION. NO ONE REGISTERING SHOULD EVER CHECK THAT BOX FOR ANY REASON.

The concepts have sailed over the heads of the usual suspects.
You are absolutely right Disco.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif

Last edited by meno377; 08-23-2017 at 3:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 08-23-2017, 6:34 PM
shoutitoutshutitup shoutitoutshutitup is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
In 2016 I purchased a Tavor SAR with a bullet button on it that measured 30.5" OAL with a 4" screw on muzzle brake (could have been a flash hider but not pertinent to this discussion). It was legal for me to possess/transfer up until 1/1/2017. This was all done because the OAL of 30" was not previously defined as requiring a "permanent" muzzle device to achieve the 30". If I was to remove the muzzle device in 2016 I would have manufactured an AW which could not have been registered as such at that time.

What others are trying to point out is the OAL definition has changed to include the "permanent muzzle device" requirement to achieve 30".

Prior to 1/1/2017 I made my Tavor SAR featureless by adding a fin grip. It now has no features (pistol grip, forward grip, flash hider, adjustable stock) and NO bullet button. As of the publishing date of the regulations, 5471(x) makes my previously legally owned SACF rifle an AW. According to 30900(b)(1) I should be able to register my 2016 legally purchased/legally owned SACF rifle before 7/1/2018. However, the regulations stipulate in 5472(c) indicate that featureless rifles cannot be registered. Hence the dilemma and vagueness that generates all of this uncertainty and doubt.

I could put the bullet button back on and take the fin grip off (a configuration that I legally owned in 2016) and register it, but does the 5471(x) only apply to rifles being registered or only to rifles not being registered, or both? That is the question that is not clear. An argument can be made that it only applies to rifles being registered because 300900(b)(5) only allowed adoption of regulations specifically "for registration purposes". However, this also goes against the plain language in 30900(b)(1) referring to "legally owned firearms" that now meet the definition of an AW per AW definition in 30515.

Of course we can surmise that the DOJ wants all rifles to meet the 30" OAL with "permanent" muzzle devices. However, there is no requirement for pre-2000 RAWs to meet that definition and if they expect them to this would be the first time the protected RAWs would have additional requirements put on them. Additionally, PC30515 only defines what an AW is and that is where the 30" OAL shows up. Once the AW is registered the only governing PC is Federal 26" and CA SBR.

If the DOJ wants me to pin/weld a 4" muzzle device to make it "permanent" (per their definition), there is nothing stopping me from grinding off the weld, unpinning and removing the muzzle device and going below the 30" OAL (as long as it stays above the 26" OAL and 16" barrel).

The plain language of the law (PC30900(b)(1) and PC30515) is clear. The regulations threw water on it and made the whole thing a mud pit.
Review the June 19, 2017 thirty-seven page letter Michel & Associates wrote to DOJ and OAL after the second set of regs were submitted. If it does not touch upon the issue, suggest that you write them an email about it.

Last edited by shoutitoutshutitup; 08-24-2017 at 6:15 PM..
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 10:12 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.