Underground Regulation: Non Rosterable Frames

[hoffmang]

So far, I haven't spotted any typos in this one...

-Gene

[Barbarossa]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Thanks Alison

Seeing this unfold, Makes me even more grateful of the work that went into OLL's.

Cheers!

[oaklander]

[Racefiend]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

So far, I haven't spotted any typos in this one...

-Gene

Not to burst your bubble, but on page 5 you use "neither...or" instead of "neither...nor".

Great job nonetheless. If I was a woman, I'd have your babies.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by Racefiend

Not to burst your bubble, but on page 5 you use "neither...or" instead of "neither...nor".

Excellent nit-pick!

However as typos go, I'll take that compared to three embarrassing ones in the CTA petition and one in the original permanence petition.

-Gene

[leelaw]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

I'll take that compared to three embarrassing ones in the CTA petition and one in the original permanence petition.

-Gene

LOL.. Yeah....

[Racefiend]

Well if you ever need proofreading, I would donate my time for the cause

[bones138]

You deserve a dinner party in your honor and to be presented with a nice plaque.

[artherd]

Originally Posted by bones138

You deserve a dinner party in your honor and to be presented with a nice plaque.

Can the plaque have the remnants of certain bothersome laws-gone-bye?

[Sam]

thank you Gene!

[bruss01]

Wow.

Times are tight right now for us, but these 2 submissions are a really a deserving effort. Just sent my contrib for $100 to CGF.

At last somebody doing something tangible! Thank you!

[SDJim]

Originally Posted by bones138

You deserve a dinner party in your honor and to be presented with a nice plaque.

Maybe we should take a vote to select an "Honorary Cal-Gunner of the Year" to be awarded to the bureaucrat who most helped advance the cause of Gun Owners Rights in California . . . They could get a plaque also.

[Santa Cruz Armory]

Thanks for all the time and hard work you guys put into defending our rights here in CA. The CGF needs to expand to other non gun friendly states.

[Taro]

Gene, you are doing a wonderful job representing all of us that want to comply with California's draconian guns laws. Your letter is certainly on point, containing very convincing data to support your conclusions. Thank you for taking the time and effort to draft such a comprehensive letter.

I sincerely hope and pray that DOJ will finally see the light and declare rifles with bullet buttons installed are not assault weapons. If they do, we have only you to thank for your herculean efforts on behalf of all of us.

[rkt88edmo]

Time to start saving my pennies for a Pac Lite upper for the MkII

[oddball]

Kudos to Gene!

[jas000]

Thanks!

And, just donated $100 to CGF ! (Efforts like this deserve moral and whatever financial support can be mustered. I remember a couple months back something about having a "topologist" (mathmetician specializing in shapes and surfaces) prepared if needed for the U15-stock issue - classic !).

[rkt88edmo]

iv.) The Analysis of Federal Law is Irrelevant, Incorrect, and Cuts the Other Way

That has to be one of my favorite titles - it is poetical enough to be in a play

ACT IV: In Which The Analysis of Federal Law is Irrelevant, Incorrect, and Cuts the Other Way


This section seems to hinge on the new 4473. I know they changed the form but do we have any real insight as to why 4473 was changed? Particularly the part about frames not being handguns or revolvers for reporting purposes?

[Fate]

Gene, you're a superhero! Glad you're on our side!

[Tallship]

Great job, guys. Just out of curiosity, who was the first one to realize that 12025 was not included in 12001?

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by Tallship

Great job, guys. Just out of curiosity, who was the first one to realize that 12025 was not included in 12001?

The actual first person can't be named but he knows who he is. In a different regulatory environment he didn't want to make it public as we might have faced "fixup" legislation.

A Calgunner started a thread about pistol framed carbines. That made me look and I discovered the discrepancy anew.

-Gene

[383green]

He Who Cannot Be Named? I like the sound of that...

[7x57]

As long as it wasn't He Who Cannot Even Be Vaguely Alluded To.

7x57

[wash]

If a frame isn't a handgun, does this mean we can get more than one every thirty days?

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by wash

If a frame isn't a handgun, does this mean we can get more than one every thirty days?

No. A frame is a firearm/handgun for the section of the Penal Code that limits us to one handgun in 30 days per 12001(c).

-Gene

[wash]

I guess that means we still need a handgun safety certificate?

I haven't bought a handgun in a while...

[thedrickel]

C&R + COE FTW!

[xxdabroxx]

This line in the frames letter really pisses me off, "A pistol must be tested and approved by a DOJ-certified handgun testing laboratory before it can be approved for sale in California. A handgun that is tested and approved is eligible for listing on DOJ's roster of handguns that have been determined 'not unsafe' and approved for sale to the public

and thanks Gene, Bill, and all others at CGF!

but did you have to use a Taurus pt1911 for the complete pistol and frame? really?

and what is Tidewater?

[Monte]

Originally Posted by rkt88edmo

Time to start saving my pennies for a Pac Lite upper for the MkII

Ooh, good call, but would a serial numbered barreled upper qualify? I thought I read somewhere in one of these threads that the reason a frame didn't qualify as a firearm was because it didn't have the ability fire a projectile (I'm still trying to re-find that bit of info). It might be a bit of a stretch, since you'd have to futz around with it a bit to fire a round, but who knows.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by xxdabroxx

and what is Tidewater?

Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal. 4th 557, 571 (1996)

In this case, we decide whether the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) govern employment in the Santa Barbara Channel. To decide that question, we must decide, among other things, whether written interpretive policies of the state agency charged with enforcing IWC wage orders constitute regulations within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq.). We conclude that these interpretive policies do constitute regulations and therefore are void because they were not adopted in accordance with the APA. Nevertheless, we conclude that the agency properly exercised its enforcement jurisdiction and that the trial court erred in granting a permanent injunction barring enforcement.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Generically, state agencies must follow the rules to create regulations.

[rkt88edmo]

Originally Posted by Monte

Ooh, good call, but would a serial numbered barreled upper qualify? I thought I read somewhere in one of these threads that the reason a frame didn't qualify as a firearm was because it didn't have the ability fire a projectile (I'm still trying to re-find that bit of info). It might be a bit of a stretch, since you'd have to futz around with it a bit to fire a round, but who knows.

Good question - but what good is a barrelled upper without a bolt, firing pin, hammer, etc. - it definitely is not quite cleanly as cut since the MkII upper has a barrel and chamber - but still lacks the majority of what would make up a "handgun'.

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by 7x57

As long as it wasn't He Who Cannot Even Be Vaguely Alluded To.

7x57

THAT is classic!

[7x57]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

THAT is classic!

I wish it was original with me, but it isn't.

7x57

[CHS]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

A Calgunner started a thread about pistol framed carbines. That made me look and I discovered the discrepancy anew.

-Gene

That was me

[CHS]

Originally Posted by Monte

Ooh, good call, but would a serial numbered barreled upper qualify? I thought I read somewhere in one of these threads that the reason a frame didn't qualify as a firearm was because it didn't have the ability fire a projectile (I'm still trying to re-find that bit of info). It might be a bit of a stretch, since you'd have to futz around with it a bit to fire a round, but who knows.

Only a complete assembled handgun has the ability to fire. A pac-lite upper does not, even though it has a chamber.

The paclite does not come with a bolt, which also means it has no firing pin. The paclite uses your original bolt. There's also no hammer since that is part of the frame.

A paclite is a perfect NeRF example.

[Joe]

this is awesome

[Monte]

Originally Posted by rkt88edmo

Good question - but what good is a barrelled upper without a bolt, firing pin, hammer, etc. - it definitely is not quite cleanly as cut since the MkII upper has a barrel and chamber - but still lacks the majority of what would make up a "handgun'.

Originally Posted by bdsmchs

Only a complete assembled handgun has the ability to fire. A pac-lite upper does not, even though it has a chamber.

The paclite does not come with a bolt, which also means it has no firing pin. The paclite uses your original bolt. There's also no hammer since that is part of the frame.

A paclite is a perfect NeRF example.

Good points about the lack of bolt and firing pin. Completely forgot they didn't come with those parts.

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by Monte

Good points about the lack of bolt and firing pin. Completely forgot they didn't come with those parts.

You will note that in the document I say that "a frame or receiver generally does not contain a chamber..." I was thinking of some revolver frames that would have integral barrels in the frame but that is another example.

-Gene

[BigDogatPlay]

Gene, thank you. That petition is brilliant and simple. The words in the law mean things, and it's good that the BoF may get to learn that lesson again.

While any hearing is a crap shoot, it's going to be very difficult to argue against the logic and the facts of the petition. I wish I could be there to hear BoF trying to argue it as it is bound to be funny.

CGF is just about the best thing gun owners in California have going for them these days. I'll have a donation on the way out this weekend.

[GuyW]

Originally Posted by bdsmchs

Only a complete assembled handgun has the ability to fire.

So a non-fireable gun is defacto "safe", yes?

What safety-nazi can object to a non-firing gun?
.