User Panel
Posted: 8/15/2006 10:29:35 AM EDT
This would include most pistols (DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE CASE--- SEE UPDATE ON PAGE 2)I
think we need a firemission in CA! Call/write Jeff Amador (see below). Here is the proposed rule (pdf file): www.oal.ca.gov/notice/26z-2006.pdf on .pdf page 25 of 57 TITLE 11. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING The Department of Justice (“Department” or “DOJ”) proposes to amend Section 978.20 of Division 1, Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) regarding definitions of terms used to identify assault weapons after considering all comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action. INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW Penal Code (PC) section 12276.1 identifies restricted assault weapons based on specific characteristics or features. Currently, California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 978.20 of Title 11 defines five terms used in § 12276.1 PC. The proposed amendment will define a sixth term, “capacity to accept a detachable magazine”, as meaning “capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.” And here is the my friend's email to the CA DOJ. -----Original Message----- From: Hank_Rearden1's buddy Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 6:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Proposed rulemaking - Sec. 978.20, Div. 1, Title 11 August 14, 2006 VIA EMAIL Jeff Amador Field Representative Department of Justice Firearms Licensing and Permits Section P.O. Box 820200 Sacramento, CA 94203-0200 Re: Proposed rulemaking - Sec. 978.20, Div. 1, Title 11 Dear Mr. Amador: I am writing in my individual capacity regarding the Department's proposed amendment to Section 978.20 of Division 1, Title 11, of the California Code of Regulations regarding definitions of terms used to identify assault weapons. The proposed amendment would define an "assault weapon" as any firearm "capable of accommodating a detachable magazine" (along with 5 other definitions). This new definition has the potential to very substantially expand the scope of California's "assault weapon" ban. Obviously, virtually every semi-auto (non-revolver) pistol has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. California law already regulates the capacity of pistol magazines. To avoid legal gamesmanship, any amendment ought explicitly to exempt semi-automatic pistols that do not otherwise fall into a different "assault weapon" category. In addition, the Department's statement of necessity is cryptic at best. The statement indicates that "many gun enthusiasts and firearm dealers in California have misconstrued the term 'capacity to accept a detachable magazine,'" but offers no explanation of how the phrase has been "misconstrued." Additional rule-making is inappropriate in the absence of a clearly-stated need for new regulations . . . and this statement simply does not suffice. I respectfully submit that no additional rulemaking is necessary at this time. Yours very truly, Hank_Rearden1's Friend Hank_Rearden1's Friend Admitted in California and the District of Columbia Law Firm Name and Info Redacted] |
|
Just a side comment. How is it that a state DOJ (executive agency) has the power to ammend a law. In VA, only our legislature can do that.
|
|
my guess, no one calls them on it. And of course they have the best of intentions. |
|
|
Yes. I'll look for the DOJ public comments on the proposal. |
|
|
Here's a fairly expansive look at the issue and some replies by the DOJ to specific questions about specific receivers/rifles.
www.calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm |
|
Would it be so wrong if I prayed to have God rain dead horses down on the heads of
every politician in Kalifornia? |
|
Nope. |
|
|
|
||
|
And if I tell my brother about his he will just reply "Well, what do I need a magazine fed gun for anyways?" Maybe he'll wake up when they start banning revolvers and shotguns. And maybe not.
|
|
One could ask the same about ATF... Yeah it violates separation of powers, but then, when has gov't ever played by the rules? |
|
|
While this may be unfortunate for our fellow citizens in PRK, it could be a blessing for the rest of U.S. Even moreso if this becomes law before the November elections.
|
|
That PDF made my head hurt......I really like the fact that they have a department that uses theoretical arguements to make rules/laws. Theoretically, the earth could blow up tomorrow, so should be able to break every law in the US. |
|||
|
I think what needs to be done here is for CA folks to bombard Jeff Amador with letters and calls... and show up at the hearing tommorow. They should insist that semi-auto pistols be specifically exluded.
|
|
i think they should INSIST that this shit stop RFN!! why keep fighting for table scraps? |
|
|
They will never get it.
People are bad not the weapons or tools they use. You can ban drugs but you can't keep drugs out of our communities. I am glad I left. What's next banning martial arts since they can potentially kick LEO but? Max |
|
Well they already lost most of their meal with not very much chance of getting it back... all they have left are table scraps. Asking to turn the clock on their AWB in this case is not going to serve any practical result. If they cannot win this small battle, how can they swing a larger victory? |
||
|
This is why we can never accept an AW ban. Once they get it, they can start creeping up on the definitions.
|
|
not to read the whole thing - but how about belt fed from a perminantly attached ammo box
|
|
how far are they willing to stretch the meaning of magazine. technically, i can detach the magazine on my shotgun. not very practical, but maybe something to think about.
|
|
Old school tag for when I get home and have a chance to read it. Doesn't look good, though.
|
|
Someone from CA should probably chime it... I am not sure... but I think "detachable" is defined as being able to detach without field stripping the weapon or accomplished without tools. |
|
|
DC, New York, and Chicago all have handgun bans. Are they safer citys because of it? I think not.
|
|
Not a chance. They are fucked...again. I'll tell you what else too...IF the Democrats retake congress, you will see this sort of crazy shit at the federal level too. If they retake the White House in '08 and still hold congress...it will PASS! Think carefully before stepping into the voting booth this November. Imagine the far left in charge...and Nancy Pelosi third in line to the presidency! |
|
|
May be another road trip in the near future to My dads house. I'm not ant burning, But Damn, Im even a member of California Rifle and Pistol Assn. what the hell is it going to take for you Kaliban Subjects to understand dropping a few Emails and phone calls does not do a damn thing?... You all need to start ( and I know that is hard in a logistical standpoint) showing up in person, in numbers to these hearings... When is it going to be the time to put an end to this shit? |
|
|
They've thought of that, the links are what are considered the ammunition feeding device. And no, i'm not joking. |
|
|
That used to be the case, but they are challenging that with all of the off-list AR lowers that came in the state. |
||
|
When you have a state as big as ours with the type of urban sprawl we have, 1 hearing in Sacramento isn't going to have a big turnout. Making a 1200 mile round trip for a meeting just isn't practical. |
||
|
And the State DOJ realizes that. |
|||
|
Instead of stopping illegals at the Kali border, sign them up for the NRA and pass out AKs. |
||
|
You forgot....good paying jobs and great increases in equity on your home. |
|
|
It didn't help in England with fox hunting. THey had a HUGE turnout to voice their anger at a possible ban on fox hunting, and yet it still passed. The elected royality in CA feel that they know best, and it doesn't matter what the masses think. |
||
|
I understand that.. Im a California Transplant ( Born in Redlands, Lived in Calimesa, former California Natl Guard in San B. and a former member with San G SAR team). hence the "I know that is hard in a logistical standpoint".. But I guess your standing up for your firearms rights " just isn't practical" |
|||
|
They are not amending lay. They are redefining terms created in statutory law, that the legislature left up to the DOJ to define properly. They're fully within their rights, but it doesn't have quite as expansive repercussions as the thread title suggests - it would ban any semi-auto, centerfire rifle with a pistol grip, folding stock, forward pistol grip, flash suppressor of flare launcher attached, basically (since the proposed definition doesn't take into account that nearly every gun could be forced to take a detachable magazine somehow... with lots of time and machining..) Any support we can get is appreciated. Any ant burners can sit back and mock us while the infectious California lust to ban firearms slowly creeps into their state. |
||
|
|
That is the current definition. The proposal, that will be discussed in the hearing tomorrow, is about changing the definition of a magazine from the above definition to "capacity to accept" a magazine that is not 'permanently affixed" to the rifle. This is a shitty definition since "capacity" and "permanent" are so vauge that they could very well encompass magazines that are removed with a tool (see: your shotgun tube example). There is a huge misconception in thie thread that it is about handguns, which it most certainly is NOT. This specifically addresses the definition of terms for assault weapons, mainly for rifles. It has reaching powers to make illegal firearms that were specifically approved by California, such as the CAK, an AK with a fixed magazine, and the FAB-10 and Vulcan FAR-15, both AR15s with fixed magazines, or the DSA CA FAL, with a fixed magazine. Since "permanently" is not defined further, it could mean "with time plus tools" in which it could affect the above mentioned rifles, since with tools like a mill or dremel, you could make them accept detachable magazines. It could also affect rifles like the Garand (with a detachable magazine kit out there) and the SKS. |
||
|
San Andreas. |
|
|
I'm guessing the sales of revolvers and blackpowder guns/rifle will skyrocket in California in the near future.
|
|
You guess wrong. |
|
|
And they have the 7th best economy in the world And the beaches And the girls They say that they stay to fight the good fight, yet it just keeps getting worse. |
|
|
You know what would be fuckin' AWESOME?!?!?
Is if California had a HUGE earthquake, and was seperated from the rest of the U.S., and we can just tell them they're on their own, and they start their own little Gay Rights & Anti-2nd Amendment CUNTry. Problems solved. |
|
The question is this: If gun owners did show up in person, would it do any good, would it change their minds? It sounds like the powers that be in California have their minds made up and no amount of dissention, discourse, or gnashing of teeth is going to stop them. |
|||
|
YES! Letters and public meeting changed their mind before, they almost made the M1 garand an assault weapon. |
||||
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.