CA DOJ files latest version of 'assault weapon' regulations 5/18/2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
Librarian

Librarian

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2003
Messages
1,475
Location
Concord, CA
And, to quick inspection, not much of the text that raised objections has changed.

Still wants to apply the fixed magazine language to shotguns, without apparent statutory support.

Still wants to keep 'bullet buttons' on registered guns.

Still wants those registering to provide photographs.

I foresee a stop in court.

CRPA hosts a copy of the new version : http://crpa.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=10f1b2be1fbee7acd9ac7bb79&id=6b7647752a&e=0779b6b477

We are still looking at a Dec 31, 2017 registration deadline - with no web registration yet available, as required.

ETA If ever such a web function comes into existence, it is supposed to be connected to the CFARS page, https://cfars.doj.ca.gov/crisHome!displayCrisHomeAsGuest.do
 
Last edited:
I just read this bill. All I can say is "wow." You folks out in CA, NY, NJ, etc., really have an uphill battle. Best of luck!
 
WOW, sorry fellas. If you live in that state you have my sympathies.

Now for my question about this. I noticed this in the link provided in post #1

CADOJ_zpsy24ecwpy.png


So if for some reason I have to move to California, I can take my ARs apart, and as long as I leave the upper and lower separated, I do not have to comply with that BS law?

To me it sounds like you will have your range guns that are registered and within the limits of the law.

Then you have your disassembled weapons, normally configured, not registered to use if the law changes, they take your other rifles, etc.

Right???


.
 
You sure you want to come here? - https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs

"8. Does California have a law regarding the storage of firearms?

Yes. If you keep any loaded firearm within any premise which is under your custody or control and know or reasonably should know that a child (person under 18 years of age) is likely to gain access to the firearm, you may be guilty of a felony if a child gains access to that firearm and thereby causes death or injury to any person including themselves unless the firearm was in a secure locked container or locked with a locking device that rendered it inoperable.

25. I am moving into California and I own several firearms. What are the new-resident registration requirements?

You are considered a personal firearm importer as defined by California law. You may bring all of your California-legal firearms with you, but you must report them all to the California Department of Justice within 60 days as required utilizing the New Resident Firearm Ownership Report (BOF 4010A), pdf. You may not bring ammunition feeding devices with a capacity greater than ten rounds, machine guns, or assault weapons into California.

26. How do I know if my firearms need to be registered?

There is no firearm registration requirement in California except for assault weapon owners and personal handgun importers. However, you must submit a Firearm Ownership Report (FOR) Application (BOF 4542A), pdf to the California Department of Justice (the Department) for any firearm you are seeking return where no other record is on file with the Department identifying you as the most recent owner/possessor. Having a FOR application on file with the Department will authorize the return of your firearm in the event it is subsequently lost or stolen. With very few and specific exceptions, all firearm transactions must be conducted through a firearms dealer. If you purchased a handgun from a properly licensed California firearms dealer and underwent a background check via the state’s Dealer’s Record of Sale (DROS) process, a record of your handgun purchase is already on file with the Department. Therefore, it should not be necessary for you to submit a FOR application for handguns previously purchased in California. Unfortunately, this is not the case with regards to rifles or shotguns. Prior to January 1, 2014, the Department was prohibited by law from retaining DROS long gun information."
 
I have a question if I make my AR Featureless can I remove the bullet button? I read the PDF I did not notice any wording on this unless I missed it.
 
Lman57 said:
If I make my AR Featureless can I remove the bullet button?
Click to expand...
According to CA-DOJ, no - you have to keep it.

Since there is no conceivable public safety or administrative reason that makes sense - and really, no CA gun laws make sense in those areas - it would seem it's that way just to harass gun owners.
 
Librarian said:
According to CA-DOJ, no - you have to keep it.

Since there is no conceivable public safety or administrative reason that makes sense - and really, no CA gun laws make sense in those areas - it would seem it's that way just to harass gun owners.
Click to expand...
Thank you Sir It figures.
 
Lman57 said:
I have a question if I make my AR Featureless can I remove the bullet button? I read the PDF I did not notice any wording on this unless I missed it.
Click to expand...

featureless = not at issue with this registration nonsense

i changed my AR and AK types to featureless last year
 
if you register it Librarian is correct... if you don't (with this current bullet button assault weapon registry), convert it to featureless and ignore the new registry
 
i have to leave the bullet button onn I am not going to register it I am going featureless,
 
Response filed today by CRPA/NRA - see http://crpa.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=10f1b2be1fbee7acd9ac7bb79&id=10bc8fb448&e=0779b6b477
These proposed regulations are virtually identical to those that DOJ previously submitted to the
OAL on December 30, 2016, and subsequently withdrew on February 10, 2017 (OAL Regulatory
Action Number 2016-1229-01FP). And, like the previous ones, DOJ improperly seeks to shoehorn
these proposed regulations into the exemption provided by section 30900, subdivision (b)(5). Instead of
spending the time since February 10, 2017 to formally adopt regulations through the Administrative
Procedure Act’s (“APA”) rulemaking process, DOJ apparently spent that time writing a cover letter
attempting to justify its desire to avoid the APA process. The result is DOJ’s May 4, 2017 letter
addressed to OAL Director Debra M. Cornez (“DOJ’s May 4th Letter” or “May 4th Letter”).
....
DOJ’s proposed regulations and forms for “Bullet-Button Assault Weapons” (i.e., OAL
Regulatory Action Number 2017-0512-02FP) are unlawful. And they are riddled with other flaws that
make their administration, interpretation, and enforcement highly problematic. Allowing these
regulations to be implemented would cause irreparable harm to countless thousands of Californians and
subvert the basic minimum procedural requirements that the APA was enacted to protect. Thus, DOJ
should not be allowed to implement its proposed regulations for “Bullet-Button Assault Weapons” as
they are currently constructed. We look forward to the OAL and DOl’s cooperation and hope litigation
will not be necessary to address our clients’ concerns. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Click to expand...
 
Office of Administrative Law has rejected the DOJ re-submission of the AW regulations.
On Monday, June 26, the Office of Administrative Law formally rejected DOJ’s proposed regulations for the registration of newly classified “assault weapons,” which go far and above what is necessary by creating over 40 new definitions and improperly re-classifying certain firearms as “assault weapons.” If approved, California gun owners would have been subject to burdensome and excessive requirements in order to register firearms equipped with “bullet buttons” as required under California law.

As previously reported, DOJ submitted their proposed regulations as “file and print only,” thereby claiming an exemption to the normal public review process required of any regulation from a state agency. DOJ even initially refused to release a copy of their proposed regulations to the public. And it is unsurprising why, for DOJ’s proposal remained largely unchanged from their first set of proposed regulations which NRA and CRPA opposed.

By rejecting the proposed regulations, the Office of Administrative Law appears to have agreed with NRA and CRPA attorneys, who on June 19 submitted a comprehensive opposition letter highlighting how DOJ’s proposal was unnecessary, lacked appropriate legislative authority, and was otherwise vague and unenforceable.
Click to expand...
 
(6/30/17) California DOJ sued for hiding "Assault Weapon" regulations, violating California constitution and Public Records Act - https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/c...alifornia_constitution_and_public_records_act

"Sacramento resident Craig DeLuz, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and The Calguns Foundation (CGF) have announced a new legal action intended to ensure that the California Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot hide its proposed regulations from the public. The action was filed after DeLuz and two civil rights advocacy organizations sought access to DOJ regulations on so-called 'assault weapon' firearms so that they could review them and inform the public, but were denied."
 
I dunno, but I'm pretty sure the nutbags and gangbangers will the first to line up for registration...

I too foresee noncompliance by the public.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top