Underground Regulation: Capacity to Accept a Detachable Magazine

[trashman]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

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?

<john cleese> Ahhh...do I detect the scent of burning martyr? </cleese>

Seriously though, why would you seek that kind of validation on the internet, anyway?

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.

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.

So I'm not understanding what your dilemma is, exactly. But it sounds like you're just inherently uncomfortable with the opposition's inability to write anti-gun statutes that clearly reflect their intent -- and you'd rather we just skip all the legal wrangling and stop using BB-configured OLLs.

Have I got that right?

--Neill

[artherd]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
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?

YES. Me. On OLLs. In 2004.

NEXT!

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

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.

I think I know where you are going, except I don't think a legitimate argument can be made by your reasoning.

In order for a judgement to be made whether a specific rifle is an "assault weapon" it must be considered as a complete, ready to fire unit. That includes a magazine inserted in the magazine well. When using a properly installed Prince50 or BB, with the magazine inserted, it cannot be removed without the use of tools and no longer has the "capacity to accept" any magazine.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

This is probably a losing bet for me but with the right odds I'd take it: $250.00, 10 to 1 odds, that OAL summarily disposes of the underground regulation petition, or decides that there is no underground regulation in the "CTA letter." If OAL declines to accept or DOJ does a 280 certification it's a draw.

[toolman9000]

Originally Posted by oaklander

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

Way off topic...

That is very cool to see a link to Ultimate Rollercoaster here, the owner of the site is a friend of mine and a SoCal native... but not a gun guy. He started the site in college, and I think some of the photos I took are still up there.

[Cypren]

Originally Posted by BillCA

In order for a judgement to be made whether a specific rifle is an "assault weapon" it must be considered as a complete, ready to fire unit. That includes a magazine inserted in the magazine well. When using a properly installed Prince50 or BB, with the magazine inserted, it cannot be removed without the use of tools and no longer has the "capacity to accept" any magazine.

I have a hard time understanding how this is a legally-tenable interpretation. Wouldn't there be no such thing as a rifle that had a "capacity to accept" a magazine when it had a magazine already in its well?

I can only conclude that "capacity to accept" refers to the rifle with no magazine attached. The P50 (properly installed) and BB simply make the magazine non-detachable without tools, since it has no moving parts which make it "detachable" or "fixed" -- the magazine retention system of the rifle determines that. (As another poster rightly said earlier, "all magazines are ultimately detachable, and I've got the tools to prove it.")

[artherd]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

This is probably a losing bet for me but with the right odds I'd take it: $250.00, 5 to 1 odds, that OAL summarily disposes of the underground regulation petition, or decides that there is no underground regulation in the "CTA letter." If OAL declines to accept or DOJ does a 280 certification it's a draw.

It's been a while since I engaged in betting online, but isn't that unwinable ?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by artherd

It's been a while since I engaged in betting online, but isn't that unwinable ?

Pretty much. I've changed the odds to 10 to 1.

[383green]

Seems to me that he's trying to bait y'all into making an online bet...

[tortoisethunder]

What is a 280 certification?

[hoffmang]

This is 1 CCR 280:

TITLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
DIVISION 1. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
CHAPTER 2. UNDERGROUND REGULATIONS
This database is current through 2/20/09, Register 2009, No. 8
§ 280. Suspension of Actions Regarding Underground Regulations.

(a) Any action of OAL or an agency pursuant to this chapter in connection with a petition shall be suspended if OAL receives a certification from the agency that it will not issue, use, enforce, or attempt to enforce the alleged underground regulation along with proof that the certification has been served on the petitioner. This certification shall be made by the head of the agency or a person with a written delegation of authority from the head of the agency.

(b) Upon receipt of this certification and proof of service, OAL shall do all of the following:

(1) File the petition and the certification with the Secretary of State.

(2) Publish a summary of the petition and the certification in the California Regulatory Notice Register.

(3) Provide a copy of the certification to the petitioner.

Note: Authority cited: Section 11342.4, Government Code. Reference: Section 11340.5, Government Code.

Hope the link works as westlaw's public stuff is kinda poor.

-Gene

[sreiter]

Originally Posted by 383green

lol

ever been to /b/ ?

over there it means something totally different

[383green]

Originally Posted by sreiter

lol

ever been to /b/ ?

over there it means something totally different

No, I haven't been there, but I think I've seen some quoted /b/ material before. How do they use it there? (PM me if it's too risque for the open forum. )

[sreiter]

pm sent

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by 383green

Seems to me that he's trying to bait y'all into making an online bet...[/IMG]

Not trying to bait anybody. If the proposal isn't above board it's withdrawn. If we can, let's structure something that won't get anyone in trouble.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

If we can, let's structure something that won't get anyone in trouble.

As you might have caught from another thread, I've been a bit busy. I'd really like to find a way to do these sorts of public wagers legally. Mind taking a look?

-Gene

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Sure, I'll take a look.

[artherd]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

I'd really like to find a way to do these sorts of public wagers legally.
-Gene

Trip to the Caymans? FGG, care to make this *really* interesting?

[C.G.]

Originally Posted by artherd

Trip to the Caymans? FGG, care to make this *really* interesting?

It is about time I get a vacation, how do I get into this game?

[artherd]

Originally Posted by C.G.

It is about time I get a vacation, how do I get into this game?

Looser pays the GV's gas bill, last one there's a vegetarian!

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Edited: Looks like Penal Code §337a might prohibit the wager.

[JWI]

What about the first paragraph of AM's letter where she says the DOJ has no duty to declare whether a firearm is not an AW.

In that case, why was a letter written advising that the Stag-15 was legal to purchase in California? I guess it's your duty only when you think it's convenient.

Ms. M, go back and read your job description:

It is the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced (California Constitution, Article V, Section 13.)

So who do you go to when you want a legal opinion as to whether your firearm is legal? One would think it's the BOF, but according to AM it's not their legal duty to say whether a firearms is legal and that is for the courts to decide. Maybe in that case the next move should be to file a lawsuit for declaratory relief that the P50 and the BB are legal, and an injunction against the DOJ enforcing its unconstitutional and illegal underground regulation.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by JWI

Maybe in that case the next move should be to file a lawsuit for declaratory relief that the P50 and the BB are legal, and an injunction against the DOJ enforcing its unconstitutional and illegal underground regulation.

We'll let OAL run its course first...

-Gene

[hiyabrad]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

We'll let OAL run its course first...

-Gene

Amen.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

We'll let OAL run its course first...

-Gene

+1 why spend money you don't have to.

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Edited: Looks like Penal Code §337a might prohibit the wager.

Looks to me like 337a is a limit on bookmakers not individual wagerers.

[GunOwner]

Originally Posted by DDT

Looks to me like 337a is a limit on bookmakers not individual wagerers.

Wanna bet?

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by GunOwner

Wanna bet?

-Gene

[artherd]

Originally Posted by GunOwner

Wanna bet?

Baaaaahahahahhah!~

[BillCA]

So who do you go to when you want a legal opinion as to whether your firearm is legal? One would think it's the BOF, but according to AM it's not their legal duty to say whether a firearms is legal and that is for the courts to decide.

Wouldn't that then mean that 12276.1 is an unconstitutionally vague law if the only authority that can determine if a law was violated is the judicial system?

i.e. How does one know what is proscribed if a court must decide what the law really means?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by DDT

Looks to me like 337a is a limit on bookmakers not individual wagerers.

That's what it looked like to me at first glance. The standard jury instructions and decisional law say otherwise; 337a is interpreted as prohibiting individual wagers.

[MP5]

Gene, you are the the man!

[MP5]

BTW: what are we waiting on as far as getting the final ok on NeRF's

[CHS]

Originally Posted by MP5

BTW: what are we waiting on as far as getting the final ok on NeRF's

A response/ruling from the OAL to the petition.

[MP5]

Originally Posted by bdsmchs

A response/ruling from the OAL to the petition.

So there are two separate petitions...one for NeRF's, one for BB's...and were waiting to hear responses on both correct?

[CHS]

Originally Posted by MP5

So there are two separate petitions...one for NeRF's, one for BB's...and were waiting to hear responses on both correct?

Correct.

NeRF's

[MP5]

Gene I just read your bio...WOW! Youngest NASDAQ CEO ever! Most impressive, Thanks for taking up our cause!

http://www.hoffmang.com/about.html

[MP5]

Originally Posted by bdsmchs

Correct.

NeRF's

thanks for the info and the link

[Mstrty]

Gene, according to your bio. It appears you are on life #3 or have you been a "gun fan" your entire life?

[hoffmang]

I grew up in the South so I was a "gun fan" in the way that most southern boys were. I had a BB gun very early and my dad bought me a shotgun before I could drive.

I came out here and experienced the state placing its nose in places it shouldn't be and that accelerated my interest.

-Gene