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.

Pistols too?

Quoted: Just a side comment. How is 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.

How many think that California can be saved?

Quoted: Pistols too?

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?

Quoted: Would it be so wrong if I prayed to have God rain dead horses down on the heads of every politician in Kalifornia?

Nope.

double tap

Quoted: Quoted: 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 That's great info thanks. However let's just keep in mind here that the proposed rule is going to change defininitions to a "capacity to accept" and probably is intended to bring semi-auto pistols into the definition. This is a new thing... it's going to public hearing for the first tommorow: PUBLIC HEARING The Department will hold a public hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 for the purpose of receiving public comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The hearing will be held in the Department of Water Resources auditorium located at 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California. The auditorium is wheelchair accessible. At the hearing, any person may present oral or written comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The Department requests, but does not require, that persons who make oral comments also submit written copy of their testimony at the hearing I found the DOJ statement of "reasons" here: ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ISOR0606.pdf

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.

Quoted: 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.

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.

Quoted: How many think that California can be saved?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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 That's great info thanks. However let's just keep in mind here that the proposed rule is going to change defininitions to a "capacity to accept" and probably is intended to bring semi-auto pistols into the definition. This is a new thing... it's going to public hearing for the first tommorow: PUBLIC HEARING The Department will hold a public hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 for the purpose of receiving public comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The hearing will be held in the Department of Water Resources auditorium located at 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California. The auditorium is wheelchair accessible. At the hearing, any person may present oral or written comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The Department requests, but does not require, that persons who make oral comments also submit written copy of their testimony at the hearing I found the DOJ statement of "reasons" here: ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ISOR0606.pdf

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.

Quoted: 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  

Quoted: Quoted: 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?

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.

At least they have nice weather out there.

Old school tag for when I get home and have a chance to read it.  Doesn't look good, though.

Tick, tock, tick, tock.

Quoted: 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.

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.

Quoted: How many think that California can be saved?

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!  

Quoted: This is why we can never accept an AW ban. Once they get it, they can start creeping up on the definitions.

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?

Quoted: not to read the whole thing - but how about belt fed from a perminantly attached ammo box

They've thought of that, the links are what are considered the ammunition feeding device.  And no, i'm not joking.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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.

That used to be the case, but they are challenging that with all of the off-list AR lowers that came in the state.

Where is he when you need him?

Quoted: Quoted: This is why we can never accept an AW ban. Once they get it, they can start creeping up on the definitions. 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?

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.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is why we can never accept an AW ban. Once they get it, they can start creeping up on the definitions. 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? 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.

Quoted: Quoted: How many think that California can be saved? Not a chance.  They are fucked...again.

Instead of stopping illegals at the Kali border, sign them up for the NRA and pass out AKs.

Quoted: At least they have nice weather out there.

You forgot....good paying jobs and great increases in equity on your home.

Quoted: Quoted: This is why we can never accept an AW ban. Once they get it, they can start creeping up on the definitions. 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?

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.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is why we can never accept an AW ban. Once they get it, they can start creeping up on the definitions. 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? 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.

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"

Quoted: Quoted: Just a side comment. How is 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.

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.

Guys, until you vote these tools out of office, you will forever be fighting dumb-ass gun-grabbing legislation like this



Until then............your friends - and fellow gun enthusiasts - will have your back for these fire missions.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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.

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.

What's the name of that big fault line again???  

INFORMATION UPDATE

Hopefully, this will clear up some misconceptions, and allow you to realize how important this is.  If this passes as it is, it would not be a clarification of the law.  This would expand the legislation to include firearms it was not meant to include.

To the original poster:  for a lawyer, your friend doesn't know much about the law.    No disrespect intended. Please change the thread title, and please make it say "update on page 2".  

This is essentially what it would do:

Here is a photo of someone's CA legal AR with a fixed magazine.  A magazine is not detachable if it requires a tool or disassembly to remove.  If this is the case, one can have any and all "evil features" on their rifle, as long as the OAL remains >30".  Pistol grip, flash suppressor, vertical foregrip, collapsible stock, etc.  

(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle[ that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock. ...etc

As you can see, if (1) is not met (rifle does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine), then the rifle can have the other "evil features".  

The only difference between this and a "free state" AR is a small, threaded hole in the mag release button, and two set screws (one on top of the other with blue loctite, in place of the spring).  It complies with the letter of the law as currently written, but is not "permanent".  Remove the top screw (the top screw is not necessary, and is only an added legal protection), and a few twists of the bottom screw will drop the magazine.

f the regulation goes through as-is, such a modification would have to be permanent.  What is permanent?  I don't know.  The AG seems to think that epoxy or welding would classify it as permanent.  They are NOT defining "permanently altered".  They tried that once before and failed.  They don't know how they are going to get 30,000+ receivers welded or epoxied, so they are trying to force people to take off the pistol grip.  Basically, this would mean that people in CA with a legal AR, AK, FAL, or anything else really would have to use a detachable magazine and remove the pistol grip and/or any other evil features.  This would also affect the Barrett M82, because the CA version has a non-permanent "swing down magazine".

This also has the side effect of making every SKS in the state an assault weapon (SKS with detachable magazine is on the ban list, this would make a fixed mag on the SKS detachable).

This does NOT affect pistols, nor does it affect all "semi-automatic centerfire, detachable magazine rifles".  The M14/M1A, mini-14, su-16, m1 carbine, m1 garand (en-bloc clip does not equal magazine), etc are not affected by this ruling.  However, tomorrrow's meeting is extremely important for the future of guns in this state.  The DoJ MUST be made aware of the consequences of their actions.  



They are not re-defining "detachable magazine".  Instead, they are adding a new definition of "capacity to accept a detachable magazine".

Current definition of "detachable magazine":

“detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.

New definition of "capacity to accept a detachable magazine":

“capacity to accept a detachable magazine” means 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.

This does not make any sense, because a rifle built with a non-detachable magazine can not accept a detachable magazine. It can, however be made to accept one.  Essentially, the DoJ is claiming that these rifles have "a capacity to accept a capacity to accept".

It is also unclear if they can force people to remove the pistol grip from their currently fixed-mag rifle.  Not only would this likely be beyond their ability to do legally, it would render the firearm unsafe.

This rulemaking will likely fail on the grounds that it has an overall affect that exceeds the Department's authority.  

Quoted: What's the name of that big fault line again???

San Andreas.

I'm guessing the sales of revolvers and blackpowder guns/rifle will skyrocket in California in the near future.

Quoted: I'm guessing the sales of revolvers and blackpowder guns/rifle will skyrocket in California in the near future.

You guess wrong.  

Quoted: At least they have nice weather out there.

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.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is why we can never accept an AW ban. Once they get it, they can start creeping up on the definitions. 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? 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.

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.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is why we can never accept an AW ban. Once they get it, they can start creeping up on the definitions. 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? 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. 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.