How is this incorrect information still on the AG's website?

[tacticalcity]

How is this incorrect information still on the AG's website? Is Calguns doing anything to address this? They have gotten missinformation removed from both the AG and DOJ websites before by pointing out their errors to them.

It contradicts the Harrot vs. County of Kings ruling. They still trying to say the entire AK Series of weapons are banned rather than specific makes and models.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/awlist.php

As of 5:02PM 10-14-2011

[Cokebottle]

How is it incorrect? The Roberti-Roos and Kasler lists are still very much in force, and include the models listed.

The only thing incorrect about that is the incompleteness of the list.


No... the FUD that bothers me is:

Bill Lockyer's memo, still on the site:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/9907.pdf

Any person who is a licensed collector pursuant to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued to him or her by the Department of Justice pursuant to PC 12071 (curio and relic firearms only).

The actual law:

PC 12072(a)(5)(B)(ix) Any person who is licensed as a collector pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued to him or her by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12071.

[aklover_91]

How is it incorrect? The Roberti-Roos and Kasler lists are still very much in force, and include the models listed.

The only thing incorrect about that is the incompleteness of the list.


No... the FUD that bothers me is:

Bill Lockyer's memo, still on the site:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/9907.pdf

The actual law:

Because it says ALL AK SERIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMTED TO THE FOLLOWING:

I read that as implying an SGL, stock Saiga, WASR, M70, etc. would be illegal,

[Cokebottle]

Because it says ALL AK SERIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMTED TO THE FOLLOWING:

I read that as implying an SGL, stock Saiga, WASR, M70, etc. would be illegal,

That is not incorrect.

All AK series are banned.
The SGL, Saiga, WASR, M70, etc, do not have "AKxx" stamped on the receiver.

There is an important distinction between an "AK Series" and an "AK Pattern" rifle, same as there is an important distinction between an "SKS" and an "SKS Pattern" rifle.
The Yugo 59-66 is not an SKS, and possession of one in California with a detachable magazine is NOT illegal under "SKS with detachable magazine"
The SKS was made by Norinco and Tula. Anything else is not an SKS.

Likewise, very few of us own an AR15.
Most of us own a "Colt/Armalite Pattern" rifle.


The memo is correct in that it pretty much quotes the appendix.

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

Appendix A Roberti-Roos AW list:
Made in China: 56, 56S, 84S, 86S, AKS
Made in China: AK, AK47, AK47S, AKM


It is for this reason that "the right people" strongly suggest that NO homebuilt AK or AR pattern build should have the actual text "AK47/AK74" or "AR15" stamped into it. The same would go for any other banned-by-name rifle.

Yes, your homebuild is an off-list, and a "TacticalCity AK47" is not banned by name.
Do you have $30,000 to prove that in court?

[dieselpower]

because you are reading something that isn't there. I understand a LEO could do the same thing and arrest you for it...but then both of you are in the wrong.

Since when is a SGL, Saiga, WASR, or M70 a "series" in the AK line up?
Those are "variants" of the design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47 Same as a Stag-15 isn't an AR15 in the truest sense, its an AR15 variant. Yeah its semantics, but the law is clearly spelled out using the Herrot vs Kings county. So its not just what the laws says it how to proceed with it. From what we all know its a dead issue, but still a valid part within the law.

There are many laws still on the books that are un-enforceable due to court rulings. That doesn't mean the law gets deleted from the books. I think that takes further laws.

[CSACANNONEER]

Because it is still part of the written law. Just because the definition of "series" has been narrowly defied by the courts doesn't mean that the letter of the law has changed or can just be editted to make you happy.

[aklover_91]

-snip-

Oh I totally get that, but to my eye it seems almost intentionally misleading.

[Cokebottle]

Oh I totally get that, but to my eye it seems almost intentionally misleading.

Of course it is.

If fewer words can be used and scare people away from buying a gun... they'll do it.

Or in the case of Bill's memo... if the law can be quoted, but a few words can be added to indicate THEIR IDEA of the legislative intent... they'll do it.

[rob474]

are you saying that a sks can have a detachable magazine in california and if so what is the mazinum rounds it can be i am just wondering thank you sorry for the off subject question

That is not incorrect.

All AK series are banned.
The SGL, Saiga, WASR, M70, etc, do not have "AKxx" stamped on the receiver.

There is an important distinction between an "AK Series" and an "AK Pattern" rifle, same as there is an important distinction between an "SKS" and an "SKS Pattern" rifle.
The Yugo 59-66 is not an SKS, and possession of one in California with a detachable magazine is NOT illegal under "SKS with detachable magazine"
The SKS was made by Norinco and Tula. Anything else is not an SKS.

Likewise, very few of us own an AR15.
Most of us own a "Colt/Armalite Pattern" rifle.


The memo is correct in that it pretty much quotes the appendix.

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

Appendix A Roberti-Roos AW list:
Made in China: 56, 56S, 84S, 86S, AKS
Made in China: AK, AK47, AK47S, AKM


It is for this reason that "the right people" strongly suggest that NO homebuilt AK or AR pattern build should have the actual text "AK47/AK74" or "AR15" stamped into it. The same would go for any other banned-by-name rifle.

Yes, your homebuild is an off-list, and a "TacticalCity AK47" is not banned by name.
Do you have $30,000 to prove that in court?

[hoffmang]

We have sued. DOJ says they have no duty to update that. They're wrong but that stupid position will be used against them.

-Gene

[CSACANNONEER]

are you saying that a sks can have a detachable magazine in california and if so what is the mazinum rounds it can be i am just wondering thank you sorry for the off subject question

No! A "SKS" with a detachable mag is not legal in CA. I don't even think it would be legal to have a RAW SKS with a detachable mag. However, a SKS patterned gun which is not marked "SKS" can arguably have a detachable mag as long as no evil features are on the gun. Here's the kicker, a SKS or any semi auto centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine is restricted to a magazine of 10 rounds or less but, a non listed (doesn't say "SKS" on it) semi auto centerfire rifle without any evil fetures and with a detachable magazine can utilize any size legally owned magazine one has at his/her disposal.

[tacticalcity]

We have sued. DOJ says they have no duty to update that. They're wrong but that stupid position will be used against them.

-Gene

Thanks Gene. I knew I was correct in that thanks to the Harrott vs. County of Kings decision they could not ban an entire series of anything but must instead list it on a publicly available list by BOTH make and model number.

This came to my attention when reviewing eBay's assault weapon policy. Ebay cites this web page as their reasoning for why they believe California bans a boat load weapons to include but not limited to the AK47, AR15, M1A, SKS and more. Makes zero sense to me.

Here is a quote from the email they sent me justifying why I was cited for violating ebays policy...

"We have removed your listing because you are selling a stock for an assault weapon. Due to U.S. Federal and California state laws (and as eBay is a California based company), we do not permit the sale of any assault weapon-related parts or accessories."

They then provide a link to their specific written policy: http://pages.ebay.com/sell/policy/fi...t_weapons.html

I am not sure why they think it applies to the MIA. That page does not say the M1A is banned anywhere on it, nor does it list any other model. Instead it says "Any weapon defined as an assault weapon by federal or California law" and provides the following two links:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/awlist.php

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/awguide/awguide.php

Both links contain outdated information that was made obsolete by the Harrott vs. County of Kings decision. Yet thanks to it still being posted on the Attorney Generals website business like eBay mistakenly believe it is still California law and have based their policies on that misconception.

I know they are a public company and can prohibit the sale of whatever they want. But their policy is very unclear and confusing. Instead of listing what eBay considers to be assault weapons, they instead defer to what they interpret to be Federal and California law. They have a very bastardized version of what that is, especially when you factor in that is no law regarding assault weapons and hasn't been for some time. So in effect, the only way to know whether or not something is banned on ebay is to accidentally list it and find out the hard way. Which has negative repercussions on your selling privileges.

I'm trying to work with eBay's legal department and point them to the correct information so they at the very least stop telling people things are illegal according to Federal and California law when in fact they are perfectly legal. But it is very hard to get that point across to them with incorrect information like this on the Attorney General's own website.

Before everybody and their brother says don't sell on eBay...let me respond by saying to you voluntarily give up 55% of your pay check on principle alone...didn't think so!

I'm the kind of person who at least tries to fix a problem when encounter it. It might be an uphill battle. But as somebody who's livelihood is affected here, I want to try and get this fixed. If I'm not part of the solution, then I'm part of the problem.

In any case, if you decide to sue again, perhaps the fact that businesses like eBay have based their policies based on false information about California law on missinformation provided by the Attorney General after they were informed of its presence on their website as part of it. It has impacted small business owners and eBay an unknown and obscene amount of money. Not to mention encourages eBay to unintentionally lie to its sellers and buyers about what is and is not legal in California, affecting their future purchasing decisions and in a round about way negatively impacting their gun rights. Since they won't buy it if they think it is illegal. While I know this would not be the sole argument, it does illustrate how this intentional oversight on the part of the Attorney General has negatively affected commerce in the state of California.

[tacticalcity]

Here is a pic of the Ebay Assault Weapons Policy...

[tacticalcity]

The first page they link to on the Attorney General's website that contains information made obsolete by Harrott vs. County of Kings is...

[tacticalcity]

The second is...


The PDF guide implies all weapons that look like those pictured are illegal, and even says so in more than one place.

The Kasler v. Lockyer Assault Weapon List uses the term (all) rather than listing each model number as required by the Harrott decision.