Underground Regulation: Capacity to Accept a Detachable Magazine

[oaklander]

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."

OK - for the benefit of others, I will explain what I think your argument is, and why it fails:

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

This means that an AW must have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

11 CCR 5469 - The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:
(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

This means that a "detachable magazine" is anything that does not require a tool.

Those two code sections (along Harrot v. County of Kings and some other stuff) are the main basis for the bullet button. They go together very well. The second one even refers to the first one.

What I *think* you are saying is that the DOJ can ignore those statutes, the case law, and everything else, and make up any sort of rule they want (whether or not it's validly adopted), and since it's the DOJ, they can get away with it????

Do you have any idea how crazy this sounds?

EDIT: do you have access to some secret case or something that makes this NOT sound crazy?

[hoffmang]

FGG,

You see that 11 CCR 5469 says "readily from the firearm" not "readily from a firearm", right?

-Gene

[CHS]

I just want to point out, again, that I <3 this thread

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

I'm not going to argue with you guys!! Are we going to bet on something or not?

[oaklander]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

I'm not going to argue with you guys!! Are we going to bet on something or not?

I appreciate your attempts at humor, however - you are taking an exotic position on the legality of the bullet button, and YET you appear to be unwilling or unable to argue exactly *why* you are "right."

Again, is there something that you know that the other 23,999 Calgunners don't know?

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

There's another possible outcome I think, i.e., summary disposition letter, maybe under 270(f)(2)(E).

I'm glad I double checked this. It makes it clear to me that you do not understand the APA.

270(f)(2)(E) is for agencies who have had their rulemakings exempted from the APA. At no point in time has DOJ been exempted from the APA.

For those watching from the sidelines:

270(f)(2)(E) An express statutory exemption from the rulemaking provisions of the APA is applicable to the challenged rule.

DOJ's AW rulemaking authority is here:

12276.5 (c) The Attorney General shall adopt those rules and regulations
that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent
of this chapter.

Their one statutory exception to the APA was here and was only applicable to the AW listings before AB-2728 is right above and shows you how 270(f)(2)(E) would otherwise come into play:

12276.5 (b) (2) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of
Title 2 of the Government Code, pertaining to the adoption of rules
and regulations, shall not apply to any list of assault weapons
promulgated pursuant to this section.

Glenn/Spawn Ranch/FGG:

I've had this exact argument with you on Ar15.com where you stormed off in a huff after coming back from surfing.

If you care about moving gun rights forward, then give me your best argument that the bullet button isn't legal. This time, don't delete your post and your account before I get a chance to read it.

-Gene

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

270(f)(2)(E) is for agencies who have had their rulemakings exempted from the APA. At no point in time has DOJ been exempted from the APA.

Is this really what you think an "express statutory exemption" from APA rulemaking provisions is?

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Is this really what you think an "express statutory exemption" from APA rulemaking provisions is?

This is an example of an "express statutory exemption" from the APA rulemaking provision:

12276.5 (b) (2) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of
Title 2 of the Government Code, pertaining to the adoption of rules
and regulations, shall not apply to any list of assault weapons
promulgated pursuant to this section.

Is that really not what you think it is?

If you're answer is yes, I question your legal training or understanding.

-Gene

[oaklander]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Is this really what you think an "express statutory exemption" from APA rulemaking provisions is?

Fabio - what difference does all this make? I'm still trying to figure out how you came to the conclusion that the bullet button is not legal.

Please explain it to us, if you can.

I'm starting to think that you are just trolling us. Also, do you have a legal background, or are you an amateur?

[CHS]

Originally Posted by oaklander

I'm starting to think that you are just trolling us. Also, do you have a legal background, or are you an amateur?

He's quite clearly just trolling.

We say BB is legal.
He says it's not.

We back up what we say with our proof.
He refuses to even give us his line of reasoning.

Calguns: 1
Troll: 0

[Cypren]

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

If you don't already know what statutory exemption I could have been talking about there is no need to say any more on that topic.

I'm not going to argue the bullet button here. Are you interested in a wager on the OAL petition or not?

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

I'm not going to argue the bullet button here. Are you interested in a wager on the OAL petition or not?

You keep trying to wager on the OAL petition with stakes that the OAL is not going to rule on.

I'm willing to bet that if OAL accepts the petition then it is either 280'ed by DOJ or OAL calls Alison's letter an underground regulation.

If my two outcomes above come to pass, you owe me a nice M1. If it's not rejected, I'll spend about $700 on your new surfboard.

-Gene

[leelaw]

So pretty much it is

Gene: This is what we think, this is our reasoning

Fabio: This is what I think, but you've gotta guess my reasoning (if any).

Fabio - you're getting dangerously close to trolling.

[oaklander]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

If you don't already know what statutory exemption I could have been talking about there is no need to say any more on that topic.

I'm not going to argue the bullet button here. Are you interested in a wager on the OAL petition or not?

OK - Gene said he's willing to bet you. Now spill the beans.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

If you don't already know what statutory exemption I could have been talking about there is no need to say any more on that topic.

Though DOJ usually enjoys a prosecutor's privilege it doesn't when its promulgating rules of generally applicability under a statute that it has been delegated to interpret and enforce.

The APA applies to any ruling DOJ makes now that AB-2728 mooted their one statutory exemption from the APA.

If another statutory exemption existed, then why didn't they claim it on the permanence underground regulation?

-Gene

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by oaklander

Fabio - what difference does all this make?

The statutory exemption stuff? None at all.

You guys are illustrating the futility of arguing about stuff here. I'm trying to figure out a fun way to get the issue in front of an experienced, fair, neutral decision maker, without the acrimony and name calling that we're starting to see. I'm not sure I've got all the answers, but confident enough that I'm willing risk losing a nice Garand over it. It will be worth it to me even if the argument gets tested and fails then we all would be more certain about the Bullet Button.

[hoffmang]

FGG,

If I could get a well recognized law prof to mediate a "moot arbitration" on the legality of the bullet button, would you do that?

I'm still unclear why you will not have the debate in private...

-Gene

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

You keep trying to wager on the OAL petition with stakes that the OAL is not going to rule on.

I'm willing to bet that if OAL accepts the petition then it is either 280'ed by DOJ or OAL calls Alison's letter an underground regulation.

Those are likely outcomes. I realize there's no need for OAL to squarely decide whether the competing interpretation has any merit which makes it difficult to come up with a bet about it.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Those are likely outcomes. I realize there's no need for OAL to squarely decide whether the competing interpretation has any merit which makes it difficult to come up with a bet about it.

And then absent your unicorn interpretation, Alison is left with nothing to say but to quote the law and the CCR when manufacturers, DAs, or others inquire about the law and bullet buttons.

-Gene

[oaklander]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

The statutory exemption stuff? None at all.

You guys are illustrating the futility of arguing about stuff here. I'm trying to figure out a fun way to get the issue in front of an experienced, fair, neutral decision maker, without the acrimony and name calling that we're starting to see. I'm not sure I've got all the answers, but confident enough that I'm willing risk losing a nice Garand over it. It will be worth it to me even if the argument gets tested and fails then we all would be more certain about the Bullet Button.

I don't see much arguing. You've posted a lot of stuff that somehow implies that the DOJ doesn't have to follow the law, but when asked about it, you clam up.

Are you surprised that people are getting a bit impatient with you?

Also, it would be good to know your background, so that I/we can give your argument(s) the proper weight. Are you a lawyer?

[GunOwner]

The DOJ is tyring to confuse things but this is pretty simple legal interpretation.

Ultimately all magazines are "detachable" from the weapon (and I have the tools to prove it)

SO under the existing law and regulations,

When looking at the same two weapons with the same qualifying evil features:

if the weapon is configured so that magazine is detachable WITHOUT TOOLS its an AW

if the weapon is configured so that magazine is detachable only WITH TOOLS its NOT an AW


Am I missing something?

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by GunOwner

The DOJ is tyring to confuse things but this is pretty simple legal interpretation.

Ultimately all magazines are "detachable" from the weapon (and I have the tools to prove it)

SO under the existing law and regulations,

When looking at the same two weapons with the same qualifying evil features:

if the weapon is configured so that magazine is detachable WITHOUT TOOLS its an AW

if the weapon is configured so that magazine is detachable only WITH TOOLS its NOT an AW


Am I missing something?

Nope.

Especially when you consider that one of the comparable evil features is the weapon itself having the letters "SKS" on the side.

-Gene

[bombadillo]

Gene, are you a lawyer, or legal advisor, or what the heck do you do for a living anyway. You really seem to know your stuff when it comes to the P.C. and are amazing when it comes to law in general. Just a question?

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by bombadillo

Gene, are you a lawyer, or legal advisor, or what the heck do you do for a living anyway. You really seem to know your stuff when it comes to the P.C. and are amazing when it comes to law in general. Just a question?

My CV is here.

I tend to start companies in super high regulatory regimes. One of my former co-founders is an expert on anti-trust and copyright and I've just learned by bringing and getting lots of Federal lawsuits. I won my first Federal copyright case before I could legally drink. My corporate outside counsel's firm calls me a para-lawyer...

-Gene

[bombadillo]

Man, quite the history there

[Blackhawk556]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

My CV is here.

I tend to start companies in super high regulatory regimes. One of my former co-founders is an expert on anti-trust and copyright and I've just learned by bringing and getting lots of Federal lawsuits. I won my first Federal copyright case before I could legally drink. My corporate outside counsel's firm calls me a para-lawyer...

-Gene

so in other words your rich

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by du9207

so in other words your rich

Bwaahahahahaha!


Did you really have to say it?

[wash]

That's a very impressive ~resume.

I'm glad to know that such highly qualified people are on my side.

[diginit]

Wow, And I though drinking all night with Lee Majors. And having Roy Orbison and Ray Conniff as close family friends was special. Impresive resume', Gene.

[TonyM]

Originally Posted by du9207

so in other words your rich

Gene is probably the most down to earth "rich guy" you'll ever encounter. He's classy, yet not out of his element when it's time to get your hands dirty. Our paths have crossed and run parallel to each other over the years, but it took Calguns.net for me to actually meet him.

I love this place.

I think if you stick around long enough, you'll get to understand just who he is and what he's trying to do doing for the community.

[7x57]

There are other wealthy businessmen working hard in the CA gun rights scene. At least in LA county, they could probably just donate enough money to the sheriff's election campaign to get a CCW and then do nothing else, so when there is a real personal commitment it's even more likely to be altruistic than it is for us serfs.

Remember, it is the left that insists that we see everything through a grid of economic class. We must judge people by who they are and what they do, and stay far away from their game.

Most of the founders, BTW, would fall into this precise category.

7x57

[hoffmang]

All I've done is worked very hard and read a lot and tried to listen.

To get back on topic in this thread, I've been trying to listen for an argument from Fabio, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

FGG: I've offered up two scenarios. Which one would you like to take?

-Gene

[oaklander]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

All I've done is worked very hard and read a lot and tried to listen.

To get back on topic in this thread, I've been trying to listen for an argument from Fabio, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

FGG: I've offered up two scenarios. Which one would you like to take?

-Gene

Was it something I said?



OK Fabio, I'll be nice to you. . .

[JeffM]

[oaklander]

FGG - it's safe to come back in the thread. . .

Just remember that we'd like some facts to back up your arguments. . .

[7x57]

Originally Posted by oaklander

Holy Moses, that picture is even more repulsive when it isn't the size of my thumbnail. It looks like Al Bundy in a wretchedly bad wig after a solid right cross to the nose. Where does this horrific image come from? How can we make it go away? Won't anyone think of the children?!?

7x57

[oaklander]

Originally Posted by 7x57

Holy Moses, that picture is even more repulsive when it isn't the size of my thumbnail. It looks like Al Bundy in a wretchedly bad wig after a solid right cross to the nose. Where does this horrific image come from? How can we make it go away? Won't anyone think of the children?!?

7x57

http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com...40199_01.shtml

[7x57]

Originally Posted by oaklander

http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com...40199_01.shtml

Well, and here I was wondering what getting "goosed" had to do with one's nose.

7x57

[383green]

Originally Posted by oaklander

http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com...40199_01.shtml

Huh. He actually got hit by a goose. I always assumed that the picture was taken after he got punched for trolling about "I can't believe it's not butter" in the pro-butter forum.