12276 (e)...

[SoCalAR]

"(e) The term "series" includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer."

"Colt AR-15 series" is listed in (a).

Are OLL's variations on a Colt AR-15 if manufacturer is not considered?

Is there a thread (I searched and nothing came up for 12276(e)) someone could point me to where this is discussed?

Thanks.

[hawk1]

Synopsis,
"Series" was thrown out in court. They have to be listed by name. Due to legislation there will be no updates to the list by DOJ.

[SoCalAR]

Synopsis,
"Series" was thrown out in court. They have to be listed by name. Due to legislation there will be no updates to the list by DOJ.

"Series" was thrown out you say. Can you tell me which case it was as I would like to look it up.


Thanks.

[bwiese]

"Series" was thrown out you say.
Can you tell me which case it was as I would like to look it up.

It's Harrott v. County of Kings, June 28 2001. (Commonly misnamed Harrott v. Kings County)

This is why we can have 'off-list' receivers built up into rifles that are not generic AWs: items can only be considered as "series" members - or "copies and duplicates" - if they've been formally identified by make/model in regulatory code.

The banned list of formally-identified 'series' members for AR & AK pattern guns is in 11 CCR 5499, commonly called the "Kasler list". It was created at end of 2000 and was never updated since then.

Additionally, the lists (both the original 1989 Roberti-Roos list, as well as Kasler list) of banned guns became frozen 1 Jan 2007 because methods to list new items were killed due to passage of AB2728 in 2006.

[hoffmang]

Here is a copy of the decision:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Harrot-v-County_of_Kings.pdf

-Gene

[SoCalAR]

Here is a copy of the decision:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Harrot-v-County_of_Kings.pdf

-Gene

Gene,
Do you mind if I save a copy of that decision and print it out to keep with me as well as to let others read?

I don't know if it is your "property" but it's on your webspace so I figure asking would be in order.

Thanks,
Mike

[Sgt Raven]

Gene,
Do you mind if I save a copy of that decision and print it out to keep with me as well as to let others read?

I don't know if it is your "property" but it's on your webspace so I figure asking would be in order.

Thanks,
Mike

I'm not Gene, but I think I can safely say that he doesn't mind at all.

[bwiese]

Gene,
Do you mind if I save a copy of that decision and print it out to keep
with me as well as to let others read?

Not that Gene wouldn't let you, but court decisions are public records - no one "owns" them!

[SoCalAR]

Not that Gene wouldn't let you, but court decisions are public records - no one "owns" them!

Well, yeah, I know, I just figured since it was on his page I would ask first.

Though I hold the opinion that we all, as citizens, own those decisions.

[hoffmang]

Well, thanks for asking but I appropriated it under fair use from somewhere in the first place so you should certainly feel free to further use it.

-Gene

[Liberty1]

Well, thanks for asking but I appropriated it under fair use from somewhere in the first place so you should certainly feel free to further use it.

-Gene

Sure, but at least hit him up for a donation to the CGF (calguns foundation)!