Underground Regulation: Capacity to Accept a Detachable Magazine

[hoffmang]

Out by courier today is this official petition to the Office of Administrative Law regarding the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms underground regulation of the term "capacity to accept a detachable magazine."

The petition is quite thorough in debunking Mrs. Merrilees attempt to reinterpret the phrase "capacity to accept."

On our last petition, OAL took about 60 days to accept or reject the petition.

For those of you following the NRF activities, this was the little extra that we received. In what appeared to be an attempt to overload us in paper when responding to our PRA requests, we received the letter from Dolorian Capital and Mrs. Merrilees' response. Now that that is out of the way you should expect more news on the NRF front as well.

-Gene

[artherd]

pwned!

[ke6guj]

[MonsterMan]

Great job Gene. Go get em.

[rkt88edmo]

Wow, opening the PDF in a browser tab has a little miniGene peering down at you as the site icon, I think if I would be disconcerted if I were a 2A foe & the miniGene was watching over me.

[Joe]

this is awesome

[BamBam-31]

Sorry, in layman's terms, please?

[rkt88edmo]

Originally Posted by BamBam-31

Sorry, in layman's terms, please?

I'm just reading this for the first time but what I see is that the DOJ amply fulfilled the PRA and provided written documentation that supports the CGF claim that DOJ was trying to use "underground regulation" to create policy that was not intended by the legislature.

so
1 - CGF has proof
and
2 - CGF has submitted a petition.

Can someone spell out what petitioning does and what the possible outcomes are?
I'm gathering that if the petition is viewed as correct the DOJ will have to acknowledge that P50/Bullet Button do not violate the law and will have to verify that the current CGF analysis of "detachable"
is correct.

[BamBam-31]

Ah, pwned indeed.

[Cypren]

Fantastic shot across the bow, Gene. Hopefully this will make AM and her friends take a step back for a bit.

Pretty awesome. Pretty soon they're going to have to come clean specifically on the BB/P-50 issue.

Am I reading this correctly that the "bullet as a tool" ruling came down because BoF wanted to declare certain SKS models to be "fixed magazine?"

[hoffmang]

It's a violation of the Adminstrative Procedures Act under California law for an administrative agency like DOJ BoF to try to reinterpret the law without going through a formal rulemaking process.

Alison is out there trying to cause confusion around the term "capacity to accept a detachable magazine." Her argument is specious .

OAL will review such things, and if the petition has merit, rule on them in a way that gets considerable deference from California Courts.

The funny part about all this is we gave Alison two weeks to write a clarifying letter or ask for more time and she ignored us. Here is that letter: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal...2009-02-06.pdf

-Gene

Now I understand why you were so up to the minute on the recent threads beating up BB'ed ARs as being in some state of limbo with an empty mag well.

[383green]

Good job, guys! I was surprised both that BOF is still spouting their "capacity to accept" manure, and that they were dumb enough to hand you the evidence of their continuing illegal activity with a nice bow on top.

P.S.: I don't see miniGene with my browser (Safari on a Mac). On my system, the favicon just looks like a little planet earth.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by DDT

Am I reading this correctly that the "bullet as a tool" ruling came down because BoF wanted to declare certain SKS models to be "fixed magazine?"

Yep. The ultimate defender of the bullet button is the fact that the banned "SKS with detachable magazine" comes in legal conflict with "semiautomatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and..." The legislature banned one type of SKS, and not the other. Thus the unique and precise definition of "detachable magazine." You can read all about it in the Final Statement of Reasons for the 2000 Rulemaking.

-Gene

[BamBam-31]

Are there any penalties for them over-reaching? At least a slap on the wrist?

[hoffmang]

So there is a typo in footnote 9... There always has to be at least one no many how many times or pairs of eyes looks over it...

-Gene

[Obviously a Plant]

Wow. I wasn't aware that the SKS was the rifle that paved the way for AR's to repopulate California (sealed magwells aside). That has a personal historical significance that makes it much harder to resist owning one... Thanks again Gene for keeping on top of all of this.

[elenius]

So what does this have to do with NRFs?

[PRKArms]

Interesting

[rkt88edmo]

Everyone hug your SKS

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by elenius

So what does this have to do with NRFs?

The letter that shows BoF promulgating an underground regulation showed up on document requests we made regarding NRFs.

-Gene

Originally Posted by hoffmang

The letter that shows BoF promulgating an underground regulation showed up on document requests we made regarding NRFs.

-Gene

If I read Gene's op correctly the letter has little/nothing to do with their NeRF request but was part of a "document flood." Adversarial folks will dump much more documentation than asked for and mostly off-topic to make it harder for their adversaries to mine the data for what they seek. Just so happens they were looking for gold and found a diamond.


Why would they be adversarial any way aren't they supposed to be protecting law abiding citizens? [/sarcasm]

[ke6guj]

So Gene, did you look like this, , once you figured out what you had received via the PRAR?

And can you comment any more on the original PRAR that dealt you this gem?

[elenius]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

The letter that shows BoF promulgating an underground regulation showed up on document requests we made regarding NRFs.

-Gene

Ah!

So anyway, why is everyone acting like this is good news? I mean, yeah, it's good that we know about this, but it's not good that they are trying to make things worse for us... is it?

Also, I thought the previous underground regulation (that was fought down?) was about detachable magazines? Can someone clarify?

[N6ATF]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

The funny part about all this is we gave Alison two weeks to write a clarifying letter or ask for more time and she ignored us.[/url]

-Gene

[sierratangofoxtrotunion]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

The letter that shows BoF promulgating an underground regulation showed up on document requests we made regarding NRFs.

-Gene

Oh that's just too perfect. The "mining for gold and found a diamond" metaphor is right on target.

[Hunter]

Noticed that the letter is dated February 26, 2007..

[wildhawker]

F'in A. Nice work!

[DedEye]

Originally Posted by elenius

Ah!

So anyway, why is everyone acting like this is good news? I mean, yeah, it's good that we know about this, but it's not good that they are trying to make things worse for us... is it?

Also, I thought the previous underground regulation (that was fought down?) was about detachable magazines? Can someone clarify?

They've been trying to make it worse for us this whole time. The response that Gene wrote to the OAL is a Good Thing.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by elenius

So anyway, why is everyone acting like this is good news? I mean, yeah, it's good that we know about this, but it's not good that they are trying to make things worse for us... is it?

This letter sent to a DA causes the DA to roll his eyes. Trust me, I know. It's just seen as inept. However, manufacturers don't know the law quite so well so I want this to end.

Also, I thought the previous underground regulation (that was fought down?) was about detachable magazines? Can someone clarify?

The previous underground rulemaking was that fixed magazines have to be permanent. You'll note that she goes out of her way to say that temporary magazine fixing is good enough...

Originally Posted by Hunter

Noticed that the letter is dated February 26, 2007..

I count 4 typos <sigh>. I wanted to get this out today because we have some more surprises shortly.

I'm glad someone noticed I gave her two weeks!

-Gene

[BillCA]

As a thought... We should (and I presume that we are) keeping track of the number of "underground regulations" and the difficulties the State's firearms-regulatory agency is having with determining what is/is-not an assault weapon.

When the time is ripe for a 2A challenge, this can be used as evidence of an unconstitutionally vague statute. The underground regulations can be used to show even the "authority" can't understand the law without help and/or refute claims that the law is clear and comprehensible.

[Dr Rockso]

Is there an endgame to this beyond the OAL telling the DOJ to knock it off? Not that I don't want to see them knock it off, it just seems like we've won the OLL fight so it won't really change anything.

[383green]

Originally Posted by BillCA

The underground regulations can be used to show even the "authority" can't understand the law without help and/or refute claims that the law is clear and comprehensible.

I'm not convinced that the "authority" has any trouble understanding the law. I think they're deliberately and maliciously trying to twist its interpretation to what they wish it said, instead of what it actually says. But then, I'm a cynic.

[69Mach1]

Outstanding! Can't wait til DOJ gets this shoved down their throats.

[nick]

Originally Posted by texan_in_exile

Can you dumb it down a little further for those of us who majored in business? MBA = "Minimal Brain Activity." Use drawings if possible, and fewer words. Thanks.

Need a PowerPoint?

[wash]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

It's a violation of the Adminstrative Procedures Act under California law for an administrative agency like DOJ BoF to try to reinterpret the law without going through a formal rulemaking process.

Alison is out there trying to cause confusion around the term "capacity to accept a detachable magazine." Her argument is specious .

OAL will review such things, and if the petition has merit, rule on them in a way that gets considerable deference from California Courts.

The funny part about all this is we gave Alison two weeks to write a clarifying letter or ask for more time and she ignored us. Here is that letter: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/oal...2009-02-06.pdf

-Gene

On the last page of that attachment, Iggy admitted to manufacturing an "Assault weapon".

Is he covered by a law enforcement exemption? Would he need a letter from the chief or who ever gives permission for officers to buy an AW? Could we get one of the 58 DA's to prosecute him?

[N6ATF]

Originally Posted by wash

On the last page of that attachment, Iggy admitted to manufacturing an "Assault weapon".

Is he covered by a law enforcement exemption? Would he need a letter from the chief or who ever gives permission for officers to buy an AW? Could we get one of the 58 DA's to prosecute him?

[JeffM]

Originally Posted by Dr Rockso

Is there an endgame to this beyond the OAL telling the DOJ to knock it off? Not that I don't want to see them knock it off, it just seems like we've won the OLL fight so it won't really change anything.

This particular underground regulation has been an obstacle that the DOJ has thrown into the path of manufacturers who want official confirmation that ARs/AKs/etc with BBs/P50s are legal here in CA.

Hopefully this will force the DOJ to simply respond with a sheepish "yes" when asked if XYZ rifle is legal with a BB/P50 magazine lock.

It could finally blow the dust off some of the remaining FFLs that won't deal with OLLs (I'm sure that there will be holdouts that simply wont do it no matter what), and give manufacturers the legal tools to finally be willing to ship their rifles to CA.

[Stormfeather]

Great Job Gene!