BoF Website Update: 2008 Firearms Laws Changes

[hoffmang]

All,

DOJ BoF's web site has changed. They've added a new link to the 2008 Dangerous Weapon Control laws and changes. This is a decent resource and the PDF at the bottom of this page: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/index.php is actually handy for having all the Penal Code and Codes beyond the Penal Code that relate to firearms all in one place with redlines from 2007.

-Gene

[69Mach1]

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.

I was hoping they had updated it.

[CavTrooper]

Any chance that "series" crap will ever be removed?

[gunsR4me]

Any chance that "series" crap will ever be removed?

i though it was removed and listed by make and model

[FEDUPWBS]

I was hoping they had updated it.

If it was they would no longer be the BOFud, would they?

[Rumpled]

Gene,
Didn't you get them to remove that languasge before?
On that memo they had up?

[Bill_in_SD]

Funny how they have not updated the CCW statistics for the last year, either. I thought I read somewhere that they are required to publish those statistics by July 1?

[hoffmang]

Gene,
Didn't you get them to remove that languasge before?
On that memo they had up?

Series language will be addressed but has gotten lower priority due to some other items.

In the interim, we have the truth available from AG Lockyer here.

-Gene

[hoffmang]

Any chance that "series" crap will ever be removed?

A clarification on my comment above. 12276.1(e) isn't going to be removed from the Penal Code without a bill passing both houses. However it is utterly mooted by People v. Clark. This is kind of like how there are still racist property deed restrictions on a lot of property in California. No one takes them off as it costs too much but the don't have any force or effect.

Edited to ad: The above is incorrect. The cite should be 12276 (e) and the case that mooted it is Harrot v. County of Kings... I'm leaving it to make the lower posts make sense. Thanks Librarian.

-Gene

[69Mach1]

Unfortunately that series crap may have an effect. When the police use it as reference.

[Librarian]

A clarification on my comment above. 12276.1(e) isn't going to be removed from the Penal Code without a bill passing both houses. However it is utterly mooted by People v. Clark. This is kind of like how there are still racist property deed restrictions on a lot of property in California. No one takes them off as it costs too much but the don't have any force or effect.

-Gene

Wouldn't that be 12776(e) instead of 12776.1(e), and Harrot v County of Kings rather than People v Clark ?

[gemini05]

does this mean OLL receivers will be ban?

[oaklander]

does this mean OLL receivers will be ban?

No, THe DOJ/BoF lost the ability to list new receivers after AB2728.

California would have to pass new laws to ban OLL receivers, and that is not likely now.

What people are commenting on is old language about a "series" ban that was mooted by a later court case. The DOJ AW Guide and Firearms Owners Guide have not yet been changed by the DOJ to reflect the new case. That is all.

[Shane916]

does this mean OLL receivers will be ban?

Two weeks

[Saigon1965]

No, THe DOJ/BoF lost the ability to list new receivers after AB2728.

California would have to pass new laws to ban OLL receivers, and that is not likely now.

What people are commenting on is old language about a "series" ban that was mooted by a later court case. The DOJ AW Guide and Firearms Owners Guide have not yet been changed by the DOJ to reflect the new case. That is all.

I know an FFL that will not transfer AKs because of this. He'll do OLL.