Underground Regulation: Capacity to Accept a Detachable Magazine

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Originally Posted by mnegrete

Can somebody clarify who has the authority to legally interpret "detachable magazine"?

If you mean in a way that creates binding law, the courts do. Or DOJ through APA compliant rulemaking. Or the legislature through legislation.

From everything I can tell following these threads, DOJ is not taking a stance and the only way to figure out if it's legal or not is to go to the range, drop a magazine w/a tool & bullet button, get arrested, and then see if the local DA will prosecute or not.

Bullet Buttons are in widespread use and nobody is prosecuting because the law (i.e, section 5469(a)) can only be interpreted one way, i.e., rifles with bullet buttons do not have the capacity to accept detachable magazines.

Now, this argument (that section 5469(a) can be interpreted only one way) has been used to get a summary disposition letter from OAL affirming that the assault weapon law is open to interpretation, which, although it doesn't seem helpful at first glance, it's actually really helpful. Get it?

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Anyway, I don't think the "lack of clarity" in the assault weapon law, as applied to Bullet Button or Prince 50 rifles, gets you what you think it does.

Standing alone it doesn't get that which I'm working towards, but with a few other interesting facts, it is sure indicative of some interesting conclusions.

-Gene

[BillCA]

Gene,

Just to recap this whole thing...

1. A representative of Hi-Standard Mfg asked DOJ if it was legal to sell an off-list complete rifle with a 10-round magazine and a Prince-50 kit.
   
2. DOJ responded that they cannot approve a rifle for sale as "not an assault weapon" and provides some statutory definitions of an assault weapon.
   
3. Further, DOJ itself says there is no question that a Prince-50 would render the magazine to be non-detachable. But at the same time the law is unclear as to whether a rifle loaded with a fixed magazine negates the rifle's "capacity to accept a detachable magazine".
   
4. DOJ relies on the above to say that without some kind of guiding regulation, they cannot say for sure if a rifle equipped with a Prince-50 or Bullet Button is legal or illegal.
   
5. A OAL ruling defines “detachable magazine” as “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.”

Now... I are not a lawyer, however...

a) It seems to me that a Prince-50 or BB equipped rifle which requires a tool to remove the magazine does not, in fact, have a detachable magazine as defined by 11 CCR Section 5469.

b) That rifle with the P50/BB installed, and no magazine in the well, does not have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", because once the magazine is replaced, a tool is required to remove the magazine. This means that any legal magazine that latches into place cannot be defined as a "detachable magazine". This is pursuant to 11 CCR Section 5469.

c) In terms of semantics, DOJ's response that a rifle equipped with a P50/BB kit that requires a tool or disassembly to remove the magazine and a magazine does not negate it's capacity to accept a detachable magazine is, to borrow from Justice Scalia, worthy of a mad hatter.

d) Since the DOJ, with all of its legal resources, cannot definitively say whether an off-list rifle equipped with a Prince-50/BB kit which renders the magazine "non-detachable" is or is not legal, then the law is unconstitutionally vague as to what is proscribed by law. To wit:

Penal laws must be understood not only by those persons who are required to obey them but by those persons who are charged with the duty of enforcing them. Statutes that do not carefully outline detailed procedures by which police officers may perform an investigation, conduct a search, or make an arrest confer wide discretion upon each officer to act as he or she sees fit. Precisely worded statutes are intended to confine an officer's activities to the letter of the law.
American Law Encyclopedia Vol 10

[When a law] fails to give the ordinary citizen adequate notice of what is forbidden and what is permitted, it is impermissibly vague. See, e.g., Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614.
-- U.S. Supreme Court, Chicago v. Morales (97-1121) 527 U.S. 41 (1999)

Not the CA-DOJ, nor a manufacturer, nor a dealer, nor a citizen can definitively say whether a particular rifle is or is not permissible under California statutes - according to DOJ. If DOJ cannot say that a P50/BB equipped rifle is or is not legal, they cannot advise the 58 D.A.'s or police officers in the state or the citizenry of what constitutes an illegal "assault weapon" based on 12276.1.

Thus, because the state itself has no idea what conduct or what assemblage of parts is illegal, the law is too vague to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Do I win a cookie?

[mpetersondoj]

i did not read this thread except the first page, but an sks can accept a detach and if you take the fixed mag off to clean the gun, etc bam assault weapon.

just an example i suppose

[CHS]

Originally Posted by mpetersondoj

i did not read this thread except the first page, but an sks can accept a detach and if you take the fixed mag off to clean the gun, etc bam assault weapon.

just an example i suppose

When cleaning an SKS, to remove the magazine you must first remove the trigger group.

Without a trigger group, the SKS is not a semi-automatic rifle, so it doesn't matter if it can accept a detachable magazine or not.

[MP5]

Originally Posted by bdsmchs

When cleaning an SKS, to remove the magazine you must first remove the trigger group.

Without a trigger group, the SKS is not a semi-automatic rifle, so it doesn't matter if it can accept a detachable magazine or not.

yep

...and you need to use a tool to remove the magazine

[MP5]

Originally Posted by BillCA

Gene,

Just to recap this whole thing...

1. A representative of Hi-Standard Mfg asked DOJ if it was legal to sell an off-list complete rifle with a 10-round magazine and a Prince-50 kit.
   
2. DOJ responded that they cannot approve a rifle for sale as "not an assault weapon" and provides some statutory definitions of an assault weapon.
   
3. Further, DOJ itself says there is no question that a Prince-50 would render the magazine to be non-detachable. But at the same time the law is unclear as to whether a rifle loaded with a fixed magazine negates the rifle's "capacity to accept a detachable magazine".
   
4. DOJ relies on the above to say that without some kind of guiding regulation, they cannot say for sure if a rifle equipped with a Prince-50 or Bullet Button is legal or illegal.
   
5. A OAL ruling defines “detachable magazine” as “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.”

Now... I are not a lawyer, however...

a) It seems to me that a Prince-50 or BB equipped rifle which requires a tool to remove the magazine does not, in fact, have a detachable magazine as defined by 11 CCR Section 5469.

b) That rifle with the P50/BB installed, and no magazine in the well, does not have the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine", because once the magazine is replaced, a tool is required to remove the magazine. This means that any legal magazine that latches into place cannot be defined as a "detachable magazine". This is pursuant to 11 CCR Section 5469.

c) In terms of semantics, DOJ's response that a rifle equipped with a P50/BB kit that requires a tool or disassembly to remove the magazine and a magazine does not negate it's capacity to accept a detachable magazine is, to borrow from Justice Scalia, worthy of a mad hatter.

d) Since the DOJ, with all of its legal resources, cannot definitively say whether an off-list rifle equipped with a Prince-50/BB kit which renders the magazine "non-detachable" is or is not legal, then the law is unconstitutionally vague as to what is proscribed by law. To wit:




Not the CA-DOJ, nor a manufacturer, nor a dealer, nor a citizen can definitively say whether a particular rifle is or is not permissible under California statutes - according to DOJ. If DOJ cannot say that a P50/BB equipped rifle is or is not legal, they cannot advise the 58 D.A.'s or police officers in the state or the citizenry of what constitutes an illegal "assault weapon" based on 12276.1.

Thus, because the state itself has no idea what conduct or what assemblage of parts is illegal, the law is too vague to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Do I win a cookie?

so the entire 12276.1 will be negated if this works? (ie. will we be then able to build OLLs into their standard configrations) or will Price 50's & BB's be "officially" legal?

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

Here's the theory: the assault weapon law is so unmistakeably clear that it can be interpreted one way and one way only. And to top that off, the assault weapon law is so hopelessly unclear that it's unconstitutionally vague!!

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!

Here's the theory: the assault weapon law is so unmistakeably clear that it can be interpreted one way and one way only. And to top that off, the assault weapon law is so hopelessly unclear that it's unconstitutionally vague!!

You're forgetting two important words: "as enforced."

-Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to this?

I thought a response was due on May 1st.

[ke6guj]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward

What happened to this?

I thought a response was due on May 1st.

...

Originally Posted by CSDGuy

Gene... here's their determination. It was "published" on the 27th. Please tell me that this isn't the one you were waiting for...

http://www.oal.ca.gov/pdfs/determina...ination_10.pdf

[Vtec44]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward

What happened to this?

I thought a response was due on May 1st.

Yeah, what happend to this?

[ke6guj]

Originally Posted by Vtec44

Yeah, what happend to this?

...

Originally Posted by CSDGuy

Gene... here's their determination. It was "published" on the 27th. Please tell me that this isn't the one you were waiting for...

http://www.oal.ca.gov/pdfs/determina...ination_10.pdf

[Vtec44]

Are we currently doing anything regarding this, since it's not considered an underground regulation?

[thedrickel]

Originally Posted by Vtec44

Are we currently doing anything regarding this, since it's not considered an underground regulation?

Ummm . . . you know there's a 2A forum, right?

[Vtec44]

I did a search for "capacity detachable" there and didn't find anything relevant.

[hoffmang]

I responded in your other thread. Alison continues her FUD campaign. It's actually useful and will be addressed soon. I can tell you that DA's find her letters amusing.

-Gene

[Vtec44]

I saw the response. Thanks Gene.