is selling as "single shot" a loophole?

[JohnFLand]

The law (12133PC) has a SPECIFICALLY-WORDED EXEMPTION for dimensionally-comoliant single-shot handguns.

This was a specific exemption passed in its own right back in 2005 (I think it was AB269, by Dutton).

The law got traction across the aisle because it was thought to be for "hunting guns" (Thomspon/Center Contenders, Rem. XP100s without mags, etc.)

The fact that other guns can be converted not really relevant to anything except our creativity.

This is the "Civil War" vs. "War between the States" situation: the label depends on the position.

While it is clear that there is a quite precise exception for "dimensionally-compliant single-shot handguns", the "loop-hole" label will be applied by gun opponents because the INTENT of the exception was to permit a certain class of guns designed and built to be single shot to (like the TC Contender) be sold by dealers.

What was not intended by the legislature was that other guns (that would otherwise be barred from dealer sales because of non-roster status) would be *temporarily* altered to come within the exception, sold by a dealer, and then converted back to their original form. Such "wink-wink" activities are classic examples of legal loopholes (as labeled by opponents of the activity).

Tax law lawyers and accountants deal with the same labeling issue all the time: their compliance with the letter of the tax law to achieve a tax benefit -- regardless of original purpose of the law -- is a politician's "tax loophole".

Saying it ain't a loophole doesn't make it so, since the label can only really be applied by an opponent (right up their with "left wing", "right wing", "judicial activist", etc.).

And frankly, my view is that the single-shot exemption is not without risk to dealers (not to buyers) -- just because no action has been taken does not mean that action will not be taken. Got a new governor now, don't we?

Edit: here's the legislative history: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...&author=dutton

Note that the main argument for this bill was this:

The sponsors of this bill assert that the single-shot pistols affected by this bill are sufficiently similar in design, use, and sales to the currently exempted handguns to merit an exclusion, as well.

The focus was on exempting low-volume, high quality guns DESIGNED to be single shot. So I still question the "safety" to dealer-manufacturers in doing "temporary" conversions (they do want want the dummy barrel and mag back, after all).

[corrupt]

If you don't like these threads then why don't you just leave; I don't think many would miss you or your attitude.

[mlgs00]

It seems that in almost every thread there is someone saying "This subject has been beaten to death... blah, blah, blah." Well, some of us actually have lives and can't read every thread ever posted to this forum. The purpose of these forums is to ask questions and learn from those who are more knowledgeable on the subject. So, people ask questions. Imagine that.

If you find the subject matter of the thread redundant, just pass it by. Yet, some of you can't pass up the opportunity to display your innate superiority by insulting and/or belittling the original poster. I find it amazing that you waste your precious time posting your snarky comments in a thread that you believe to be beneath you. Obviously, you have lots of time on your hands.

Calguns has a lot of knowledgeable and helpful people who go out of their way to help educate those less knowledgeable than themselves regarding firearms and gun laws. Unfortunately, Calguns also has some holier than thou jerks who make it their mission in life to insult people for asking questions. If you were truly as smart and superior as you think you are, you wouldn't waste your time on these trivial redundancies.

[Arreaux]

It seems that in almost every thread there is someone saying "This subject has been beaten to death... blah, blah, blah." Well, some of us actually have lives and can't read every thread ever posted to this forum. The purpose of these forums is to ask questions and learn from those who are more knowledgeable on the subject. So, people ask questions. Imagine that.

If you find the subject matter of the thread redundant, just pass it by. Yet, some of you can't pass up the opportunity to display your innate superiority by insulting and/or belittling the original poster. I find it amazing that you waste your precious time posting your snarky comments in a thread that you believe to be beneath you. Obviously, you have lots of time on your hands.

Calguns has a lot of knowledgeable and helpful people who go out of their way to help educate those less knowledgeable than themselves regarding firearms and gun laws. Unfortunately, Calguns also has some holier than thou jerks who make it their mission in life to insult people for asking questions. If you were truly as smart and superior as you think you are, you wouldn't waste your time on these trivial redundancies.

My thoughts exactly! Well said.

[Blackhawk556]

What mlgs00 said ^^^^^:-)

[MasterYong]

A loophole would be a way to circumvent the law. It's a political term, and there are rarely true loopholes (if ever) in the law.

The single-shot exemption isn't a loophole because you're not circumventing the law, you're following it to the letter as it was written.

ETA: They make bullet buttons for the XDM? (How else would it be single-shot?). I would like one please.

[sigfan91]

No loop - We read the law and abided by it - Word for word -

Exactly! It was written into the law. We didn't somehow "find" it in the law.

A loophole is using the "common welfare" language in the constitution to nationalize health care industry.

A loophole is justifying abortion by using the "privacy" clause in the constitution.

Single shot examption was written into a very unconstitutional law.

[JagerTroop]

This is the "Civil War" vs. "War between the States" situation: the label depends on the position.

While it is clear that there is a quite precise exception for "dimensionally-compliant single-shot handguns", the "loop-hole" label will be applied by gun opponents because the INTENT of the exception was to permit a certain class of guns designed and built to be single shot to (like the TC Contender) be sold by dealers.

What was not intended by the legislature was that other guns (that would otherwise be barred from dealer sales because of non-roster status) would be *temporarily* altered to come within the exception, sold by a dealer, and then converted back to their original form. Such "wink-wink" activities are classic examples of legal loopholes (as labeled by opponents of the activity).

Tax law lawyers and accountants deal with the same labeling issue all the time: their compliance with the letter of the tax law to achieve a tax benefit -- regardless of original purpose of the law -- is a politician's "tax loophole".

Saying it ain't a loophole doesn't make it so, since the label can only really be applied by an opponent (right up their with "left wing", "right wing", "judicial activist", etc.).

And frankly, my view is that the single-shot exemption is not without risk to dealers (not to buyers) -- just because no action has been taken does not mean that action will not be taken. Got a new governor now, don't we?

Edit: here's the legislative history: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...&author=dutton

Note that the main argument for this bill was this:

The focus was on exempting low-volume, high quality guns DESIGNED to be single shot. So I still question the "safety" to dealer-manufacturers in doing "temporary" conversions (they do want want the dummy barrel and mag back, after all).

So you agree that these single shot pistols are within the scope of the law, regardless of the original intent of the law?

END OF STORY.

[sigfan91]

Note that the main argument for this bill was this:

The focus was on exempting low-volume, high quality guns DESIGNED to be single shot. So I still question the "safety" to dealer-manufacturers in doing "temporary" conversions (they do want want the dummy barrel and mag back, after all).

But isn't it always the left/liberal/socialist/progressive that believes the law is a "living, breathing" document?

Not that I believe in it. I just want to see some consistency here.

[Barkoff]

I told a friend about buying a xdm using the single shot method and he said, "oh, so it's a loophole". I told him that it was a way To comply with the law but he said again, "yeah but it's a loophole". He's not an anti, he actually is a member here but hardly logs on.

He actually loves this because he also wants a xdm and other non-roster guns.
So what do you say? Will the antis start saying we are using "loopholes" to get around the roster?

Ya, I think it's a loophole alright, I also think CA would shove any loophole they could find up our azzes if given the chance. Can I say that?

[fullrearview]

I just explain to people that its letter of the law...But I use the term loophole, but explain its a poor way to explain it....Make sense?

Do the same with a BB AR

[JohnFLand]

So you agree that these single shot pistols are within the scope of the law, regardless of the original intent of the law?

END OF STORY.

Sigh. Missing the concept...

[gsrious]

its not a loophole. its a cleary defined law, as other members have stated.

[evolixsurf]

I know that people have written the governing council of these similar subjects and have recieved responses back. Does anyone have this information available to post here? I would like to see a specific question and answer to the proper council to understand their view on this.

Thanks!

[JohnFLand]

But isn't it always the left/liberal/socialist/progressive that believes the law is a "living, breathing" document?

Human language is inherently ambiguous, since any language is comprised of coined terms. People communicate by using more-or-less agreed upon meanings. If they can't agree on meanings, they can't communicate. Try having a telephone conversation with someone speaking a language you don't know.

Lawyers who write laws for legislators generally (not always) try to make them reasonably precise. However, laws are written in language, and hence can be ambiguous if reasonable minds differ on the meaning the words attempt to capture (as *any* lawyer -- left, center, or right -- will tell you). Further, laws have a purpose, which often is NOT expressed in the law itself. Hence the common practice of considering legislative history when trying to determine the meaning, purpose, and scope of a law. So, yes, interpreting law, whether as a judge, lawyer, non-lawyer, etc. -- means just that: interpretation. Some laws *are* clearer than others, some are not.

A classic example from law school: A state legislature, in attempting to further deter car thefts, makes it a crime to "knowingly transport a stolen motor vehicle across county lines" (violating this crime adds time to a sentence). A teenage boy steals a Cessna airplane in L.A. and purposely flies to Ventura. Has he broken this particular law? (After all, a Cessna is a vehicle, and has a motor). If you answer "yes", you'd be wrong.

To be clear: Yes, the temporarily converted handguns fall within the letter of the law, but you'd be seriously mistaken to think that you'd *automatically* win a case on that basis -- many people have gone to prison or paid fines for what a court determines to be a "blatant and transparent attempt to circumvent the law" -- otherwise known as taking advantage of a loophole (happens a lot in tax "avoidance" schemes that are later held to be tax "evasion" schemes).