Underground Regulation: Capacity to Accept a Detachable Magazine

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

If a bullet button does not remove a rifle's capacity to accept a detachable magazine then aren't all SKS's illegal assault weapons since it only takes a tool to detach the magazine?

I don't think so. Again, I'm not going to argue it here...has anyone ever won a statutory interpretation argument here after getting dogpiled at Calguns?

Here's my dilemma: I think it's a little reckless to tell people that BB equipped rifles with prohibited features are "100% friggin' legal" (bwiese said that once on one of the message boards). I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as that.

On the other hand the argument has gained a lot of traction and the risk of prosecution is low, so who can argue with results?

There is no chance of validation of the competing argument here, which is why it would be tempting for me to provide commentary in the OAL proceedings. I'd be conlicted about doing that but if it were done in the context of a wager that would be different.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

There is no chance of validation of the competing argument here, which is why it would be tempting for me to provide commentary in the OAL proceedings.

So let me skip you ahead a couple of chess moves. If you're argument is actually strong, then what do our competing arguments mean for the enforcement of 12276.1 (a) itself and as it interacts with 12276 (a)(11) when the scrutiny is more than rational basis?

-Gene

[wash]

Yeah! Take that!

Wait, what?

[DarkHorse]

Ahh, the plot thickens, just like bacon grease left in a skillet for two days...

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

So let me skip you ahead a couple of chess moves.

I suck at chess...are you talking 2nd amendment, "dangerous or unusual" stuff? I wasn't even going there.

I'm not trying to give the competing argument a big build up...it's nothing earth shattering, just using basic rules of interpretation, applying the law to the facts, etc., resulting in legal SKS fixed-magazine rifle, legal Prince 50 rifle, not legal Bullet Button rifle. No conflict between 12276.1(a)(1), 12276(a)(11).

[bill104]

All My Freinds call me a Tool, does this mean I don't need a BB.

[tommyid1]

Originally Posted by bill104

All My Freinds call me a Tool, does this mean I don't need a BB.

change your name to mr toolbag and nickname your fingers screwdriver's 1-10 and i think youd be good to go!!

[bill104]

Thats Mr Tool Please, and only my pinky finger and index fingers are Screwdrivers, the rest are pin punches, oh and my thumbs are anvils, since I seem to bang on them more then anything else, and did I mention I use my forhead as a hammers sometimes. lol

[tortoisethunder]

I need the Acronym list...dictionary...law book things...google and I still don't get half of what is being said?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by tortoisethunder

I need the Acronym list...dictionary...law book things...google and I still don't get half of what is being said?

Bad thread to start in - lots of background. Think of your questions and try the search button [ third heavy line down from the top, third from the right ] for significant words. Problem is, there will be LOTS of threads returned - try using Advanced Search, in only 2nd Amend. Politics and Laws, and limiting the author to bwiese.

[sorensen440]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...hlight=acronym

Originally Posted by tortoisethunder

I need the Acronym list...dictionary...law book things...google and I still don't get half of what is being said?

[sreiter]

As a nooB her, and to building OLL's in general - (sorry if this has been asked and asnwered a million times)

what if anything is being done to get the DOJ (who ever) to actually rule that "evil" black guns are in fact legal with a bb installed?

[12voltguy]

Originally Posted by sreiter

As a nooB her, and to building OLL's in general - (sorry if this has been asked and asnwered a million times)

what if anything is being done to get the DOJ (who ever) to actually rule that "evil" black guns are in fact legal with a bb installed?

read post #1

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by sreiter

what if anything is being done to get the DOJ (who ever) to actually rule that "evil" black guns are in fact legal with a bb installed?

As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

-Gene

[tortoisethunder]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

-Gene

Hoffmang,
Only being on CALGUNs a short time, when I come across you avatar I read, respect, and try to understand as much as I can. I am a lifetime gun owner (3 generations of guns in my safe), Hunter, sportsman, part time fisherman, and have lived in CA all my life. Thank you for your efforts past, present, and future!

[sreiter]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

-Gene

thanks

[sreiter]

Originally Posted by 12voltguy

read post #1

LOL - i read EVERY post including the 38 pages of the original BB thread

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

Here's another wager proposal: OAL agrees a legally tenable argument can be made that a Bullet Button equipped, semiautomatic centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, notwithstanding APA-compliant, binding 5469(a) and the lawfully configured SKS fixed-magazine rifle.

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

-Gene

Seriously, read my post about trying to get them to say that a flash hider connected to a BB/P50 OLL is either legal or illegal and as I said earlier, their silence is golden. If they had anything to say about it being illegal, they would and do. However, if there is no leg to stand on, they just try to confuse you to the point that you're too scared to stand up for your rights. Know and read 12276 very well and keep paperwork with you and your EBR's!

[adamsreeftank]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

...
I will write a letter encouraging OAL to accept the petition for review, and if they do, to not issue a summary disposition letter on the ground that the DOJ advice letter is specifically exempt from APA requirements. The letter will argue the competing interpretation (Bullet Button rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine) and I can submit additional and/or repetitive commentary per the code if OAL decides to review the petition. I will transmit a copy of the letter to you at the same time I send it to OAL.
...

So Fabio, for a mere surfboard, you are willing to argue against our collective rights with a state agency.

It's one thing to play a devil's advocate, but I think that would cross the line.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by adamsreeftank

So Fabio, for a mere surfboard, you are willing to argue against our collective rights with a state agency.

It's one thing to play a devil's advocate, but I think that would cross the line.

But for this issue I'd take you up on it.

-Gene

[OldGunTard]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

But for this issue I'd take you up on it.

-Gene

He gets the surfboard.
Do you get the carbine, or the garand?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

But for this issue I'd take you up on it.

I'm going to lunch right now but let's figure out the details later. Think how we would decide if you win.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Think how we would decide if you win.

Ok I'm back from lunch. How's this: if OAL does not agree the argument in post #140 is tenable, you win. If the petition is not accepted, DOJ does a 280 certification, or OAL summarily disposes of or otherwise decides the petition without indicating whether or not the specific argument is tenable, it's a draw. The petition has to run its course, if you withdraw the petition I win.

[Cypren]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

But for this issue I'd take you up on it.

Now we know the real reason Gene puts so much work into Calguns: to trick people into bolstering his personal collection!

We're onto you, Hoffman. Yes indeed.

[Blackhawk556]

hoffman said we would have NEW info in two weeks, anyone have any type of idea what that might be???? or when those two weeks come up?

[colossians323]

Originally Posted by adamsreeftank

So Fabio, for a mere surfboard, you are willing to argue against our collective rights with a state agency.

It's one thing to play a devil's advocate, but I think that would cross the line.

I think that he works for a state agency

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by du9207

hoffman said we would have NEW info in two weeks, anyone have any type of idea what that might be???? or when those two weeks come up?

Oh, THAT new info? He told us TWO WEEKS ago...

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Ok I'm back from lunch. How's this: if OAL does not agree the argument in post #140 is tenable, you win.

They will never need to agree that the argument in post #140 is tenable. All they will do is say that whatever Alison wrote isn't a legally adopted and valid regulation while also not being the only legally tenable interpretation.

If you have some other legally tenable interpretation that's dandy. It's still not validly adopted - or clearly - the only legally tenable interpretation. The one I advance is certainly legally tenable.

-Gene

[CapS]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Oh, THAT new info? He told us TWO WEEKS ago...

Oh. Are you sure? I thought he meant two weeks from today.

/Cap

[DarkHorse]

Originally Posted by du9207

hoffman said we would have NEW info in two weeks, anyone have any type of idea what that might be???? or when those two weeks come up?

Yes.

Here's my idea:
Type of info - pertaining to DOJ/BOF
When - sometime in the future


Help any?

patience-demotivational-poster-1209855914.jpg

[N6ATF]

LOL patience bear.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

If you have some other legally tenable interpretation that's dandy. It's still not validly adopted - or clearly - the only legally tenable interpretation. The one I advance is certainly legally tenable.

-Gene

The interpretation doesn't need to be "validly adopted" and I never claimed it was the only legally tenable interpretation. What specifically would you be willing to wager on if anything?

[bombadillo]

I just want to know what new info is coming out!!




And fabio is iggy!

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

The interpretation doesn't need to be "validly adopted" and I never claimed it was the only legally tenable interpretation. What specifically would you be willing to wager on if anything?

State agencies don't get to interpret validly adopted regulations. Interpretations of validly adopted regulations are underground regulations.

I have a feeling we're having a disconnect on how the APA works and OAL's role in it. If you were to convince OAL that you had a different legally tenable interpretation of 11 CCR 5469, all you'd be doing is adding fuel to the fire of BoF being wrong trying to state that their own regulations are "unclear" or that "capacity to accept" all of a sudden newly modifies 11 CCR 5469.

-Gene

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by bombadillo

I just want to know what new info is coming out!!

BREAKING NEWS: BULLET BUTTON 100% FRIGGIN' ILLEGAL!!!

And fabio is iggy!

You would not be the first to figure that one out.

[oaklander]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

BREAKING NEWS: BULLET BUTTON 100% FRIGGIN' ILLEGAL!!!



You would not be the first to figure that one out.

Fabio,

I've kind of read through most of this thread, and I still don't see how an SKS can be legal, and a BB-equiped rifle NOT be legal.

Can you explain to me in lay terms how you came up with this?

I think others following the thread would find it helpful as well. . .

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

State agencies don't get to interpret validly adopted regulations. Interpretations of validly adopted regulations are underground regulations.

You're leaving out a big qualifier but it's neither here nor there.

I have a feeling we're having a disconnect on how the APA works and OAL's role in it.

I understand the APA process and OAL's role and realize they don't need to say whether or not the competing interpretation (post #140) is tenable. So again, what specifically would you be willing to wager on if anything?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by oaklander

Fabio,

I've kind of read through most of this thread, and I still don't see how an SKS can be legal, and a BB-equiped rifle NOT be legal.

Can you explain to me in lay terms how you came up with this?

I think others following the thread would find it helpful as well. . .

Again I'm not going to explain it here, it always ends up in the same place. I can say that hoffmang is a little too hung up on "validly adopted."

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Again I'm not going to explain it here, it always ends up in the same place. I can say that hoffmang is a little too hung up on "validly adopted."

You haven't read Tidewater then.

An agency can do three and only three things.

1. Adopt a regulation through the full APA route. The 2000 rulemaking and the failed "permanence" rulemaking were examples.

2. Explain the law without conflicting or embellishing on the law or validly adopted regulations.

3. Take a position that is the only legally tenable interpretation. At best you're saying that there is more than one legally tenable interpretation - a point I don't agree with you on but then again you remain unwilling to air your supposed point of view in public or private.

It troubles me that you only want to air your opinion when you (incorrectly) perceive that it can be ruled upon in a way that would hurt gun owners.

If you're sure you are correct, I suggest you go file a writ of mandate in your local superior court as they can vet your supposed interpretation. OAL can not and will not because this is not a process to adopt a new interpretation.

-Gene