California ALERT! Semi-autos in danger!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jim Diver

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
376
Location
San Jose, PRK
Mods please sticky!

<< Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>
<< Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>
<< Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>



CAL-ERT 11/07/06 --- 8:00 PM.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CALIFORNIA REGULATORY ALERT
This information is accurate at the time this CAL-ERT was written and originally distributed. The NRA Members' Councils of California will keep you informed as the situation changes in Sacramento.


IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!!!

LOCKYER’S NEW PROPOSED “ASSAULT WEAPON” REGULATIONS

COULD DRAMATICALLY EXPAND “ASSAULT WEAPON” LAW.

DOJ NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU! NOW!!! (deadline Nov. 17, 2006)

The California Department of Justice has recently published a second (revised) set of new proposed administrative regulations pertaining to "assault weapons." If adopted, the regulations could turn thousands of semi-automatic rifles with fixed magazines, previously thought to be legal, into illegal "assault weapons." The regulation and related information is posted at: http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awnotice1106.php.

The regulation would appear to deem many fixed magazine rifles with a one feature prohibited by Penal Code section 12276.1 that could be retrofitted with a detachable magazine an "assault weapon." Firearm owners and concerned parties need to review the regulations and submit their comments. In commenting, please consider the following:

EXISTING LAW:

Under Penal Code section 12276.1 (passed as part of Senate Bill 23 in 2000), any "semi-automatic, center fire rifle that has the 'capacity to accept a detachable magazine'" and any one of the listed features (conspicuously protruding pistol grip, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, etc.) is an "assault weapon." Since its passage in 2000, "capacity to accept" has been understood to mean a rifle receiver into which a detachable magazine could be inserted in the condition in which it is possessed. So fixed magazine rifles that could be reconfigured or retrofitted to accept an after market detachable magazine, if not actually so configured, were legal. And if a magazine was adapted so that it could not be removed without using a tool or disassembling the receiver, it was no longer considered "detachable" and so the Senate Bill 23 features could be left on, or put on, the firearm.

INFLUX OF OFF-LIST LOWER RECEIVERS AND DOJ’S RESPONSE:

Almost a year ago, responding to a letter about AR "series" receivers, the DOJ acknowledged that unless an AR or AK receiver is listed in Penal Code section 12276 (the 1989 Roberti-Roos list), or listed by DOJ in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the receiver is legal. (There is still some debate about whether a receiver by itself is an "assault weapon." DOJ’s position, naturally, is that it is.) This caused an influx of these legal receivers into the state. Concerned about this, DOJ announced it was going to make the receivers illegal by adding them to the "series" list in the CCR. But this would mean DOJ would have to allow them to be registered. When it was pointed out that once registered, the SB 23 prohibited features could then be added to the firearm, the DOJ announced that it would create two classes of "assault weapon" registration, and that the newly registered guns could not have the features. When it was pointed out to the DOJ that the law did not provide for two classes of "assault weapon" registration, and that if these guns were registered the features would have to be allowed, DOJ decided not to add the series receivers to the list after all. But DOJ did publish a bulletin on May 9th in an attempt to restrict the use of the receivers. The bulletin says:

"Semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in section 12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as "necessary and proper to carry out the purpose and intent" of California law to ban assault weapons in the state."

The bulletin is posted at: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

The DOJ bulletin makes clear DOJ intends to only exclude firearms that are "permanently altered" to only accept a fixed magazine from the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" definition. So the effect of DOJ’s proposed regulation could be to expand the definition of "assault weapon" to include any rifle with just one of the prohibited features that could be retrofitted with a detachable magazine, even if currently equipped with a fixed magazine. Given the number of after market detachable magazine conversion kits available, and the ability to further machine practically any receiver to accept a detachable magazine, the new regulation could condemn thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of guns!

In June, DOJ proposed a new regulation, and introduced legislation (AB 2728) that would repeal the regulatory add-on provisions so DOJ would not have to administer that aspect of the law anymore. In its first draft of the regulations, DOJ attempted to define "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" as "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." The regulation itself was confusing, despite the fact that regulations are supposed to "clarify" the law. Based on comments submitted in opposition to the first regulation (see www.calgunlaws.com) the DOJ has now rewritten the regulations.

THE NEW PROPOSED REGULATIONS: (as amended on November 1, 2006)

As now proposed, the regulations define "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" as follows:

(f)(1) "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" means currently able to receive a detachable magazine or readily modifiable to receive a detachable magazine.

(2) A firearm is readily modifiable to receive a detachable magazine if it has a device that prevents the magazine from being released but allows the firearm to accept a detachable magazine when the device is removed, reversed, or disengaged, without alterations to the magazine well.

(3) A firearm is not readily modifiable to receive a detachable magazine if, for example:

(A) it does not have a magazine well;

(B) the magazine is fixed to the receiver by a continuous ribbon of welding around the perimeter of the magazine well, or by multiple ribbons of welding that are each at least one half inch in length;

(C) the magazine is fixed to the receiver with a rivet (or other irreversible locking device) that is driven through the magazine well and fixed in place with epoxy; or

(D) the modification requires disassembly of the action.

ACTION REQUIRED:

Since the CA-DOJ has published they "revised" regulations, it is necessary to submit new comments into the public record in opposition to these misguided rules that were proposed on November 1, 2006. .

Review the DOJ’s proposal at http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awnotice1106.php Direct questions to the Firearms Division at (916) 263-4887, email your comments to [email protected], or fax them to his attention at (916) 263-0676. Comments must be submitted by November 17th, 2006.

The Department will NOT hold a public hearing on the proposed regulation.

In your LETTER OF OPPOSITION, be sure to point out that:

  • Over one-hundred thousand firearm owners have relied, to their detriment if this regulation passes, on the historical interpretation, actions, and application of the "assault weapon" statutes and existing regulations defining "detachable magazine," which focuses on the interface between the magazine and the rifle.

  • Fixed magazine guns, like the Barrett 82A1/CA and DSArms, can be retrofitted with a detachable magazine -- which would make them illegal.

  • The DOJ historically emphasized that the focus on modifications of firearms was whether the firearm was a "fixed magazine" or a "detachable magazine," not the reversibility of the modification. For example, Director of the Firearms Division, Randy Rossi stated in a letter as far back as August 13, 2002 that a Barrett 82A1/CA, which was approved by the DOJ, was a "fixed magazine" – despite the fact that the same firearm would not meet the newly proposed regulation by the DOJ.

  • A DOJ lawyer for the Firearms Division has previously stated in writing that "a receiver with a magazine that is not ‘readily detachable’ is not subject to the ban on generic characteristic [sic] set forth in section 12276.1(a)(1)."

  • This regulation would invalidate all ".50 BMG Rifle" registrations for the Barrett 82A1 made by owners pursuant to AB50, because an "assault weapon" cannot be registered ".50 BMG Rifle."

  • "Reversed" should be defined. But given modern machining capabilities, no firearm is ever "irreversible" to only accept a fixed magazine. And, the DOJ has admitted that a firearm cannot be permanently altered to not accept a detachable magazine.

  • The regulation would deem any fixed magazine rifle with one feature prohibited by Penal Code section 12276.1 that could be retrofitted with a detachable magazine an "assault weapon." There are many of these rifles in California. These could include SKS type rifles, DSArms FN-FAL series rifles, and any rifle for which an after market "detachable magazine" retrofit kit is available.

  • People were mislead to believe that by putting a fixed magazine of their rifle they were in compliance with the law.

  • People were not told they needed to register these guns as "assault weapons" and the registration period has now expired.

  • It is unclear what the term "action" means. Is it the receiver, the trigger group, or what?

  • The DOJ has already stated that the phrase "capacity to accept" is clear.

  • The DOJ has already stated that the courts should decide what "capacity to accept" means.

  • The proposed amendment affects small businesses by making criminals out of law abiding purchasers of firearms who relied upon the DOJ’s previous interpretations and their dealer’s assurances that firearms purchased by the public were lawful.

  • It is unclear what the term "device" means, because it has not been defined.

  • It is unclear what the term "irreversible" means since anything can be reversed with time and tools, even the approved methods of modification.

  • The inclusion of the phrase "removed, reversed, or disengaged, without alteration to the magazine well" limits the allowable modifications to the four modifications listed in subdivision (3) despite the inclusion of the unrestricted language "for example" used in subdivision (3). This is also true despite the fact that the four proposed approved "examples" are reversible and conflicts with the alleged intent of the newly proposed regulation.

  • The proposed amendment exceeds the scope of the stated purposes of the regulation, which was to "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.’"
This list is not exhaustive; please consider your own situation for your letter and make us aware of any additional talking points that should be shared. In addition to sending your comments to the DOJ, please forward your comments to the California NRA Office at: http://www.calnra.com/msg/index.shtml
 
What would need to happen for this to pass?

Thank God Schwarzenegger won.

What about mini-14's?

If this passes will the California government begin to confiscate guns they deem unfit? Sometimes attempted confiscation (just so long that actual guns are not taken away from their law-abiding owners) can be good, it's always fun to watch another Waco on CNN.
 
They are essentially Restricting Rifles down to Bolt Action, and Single Shot.

It is almost exactly like the NFA & GCA only For Simi-Autos instead of Full-Autos.:banghead:
 
It sucks :fire: but looks like they are patching up the holes in their ak/ar ban. I knew this would happen eventually. So all those who have one will need to register it:rolleyes: Be good little subjects, so that Frau Feinstein can keep you safe but taking away your property:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:
 
They are essentially Restricting Rifles down to Bolt Action, and Single Shot.

No they arent. Detachable magazine is already an evil feature.. Esentially what they're trying to do is define "Capacity to Accept a detachable magazine" as an evil feature also.. The DOJ is trying to patch a loophole that allowed "Off List" lower receivers in the state. They are not satisfied with the methods that people are using to fixed the magazines on their legal AR-15 receivers... Here is one of those methods, http://www.coldwarshooters.net/inde...id=129&zenid=9348d2f806bbcc2bcf725f3a4606704b

If they can get "Capacity to Accept" defined as an evil feature, then that means an Off-List receiver with a pinned mag would be considered an illegal AW as it has TWO evil features (Pistol Grip and Capacity to Accept)


This has no bearing on rifles like the M1A, SU-16, Mini-14, etc, etc. Those semi-auto rifles have one evil feature (detachable magazine) and that's it.

So all those who have one will need to register it

That would be a blessing actually. If a registration period opens up, everyone will get what they wanted... Real AR-15's that arent gimped by having the pistol grip removed or having the magzine fixed.

I'm thinking about buying an off-list AR Receiver in the hope that they will declare it an AW.. Then I'd be able to build a real rifle out of it.


EDIT: IMO, the SKS isnt affected by this either.. Many will disagree with me though.
Here are the proposed modifications..http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/modifiedtextnov1.pdf

(f)(1)“capacity to accept a detachable magazine” means currently able to receive a detachable magazine or readily modifiable to receive a detachable magazine."

(3)A firearm is not readily modifiable to receive a detachable magazine if, for
example:
....
(D)the modification requires disassembly of the action.


Generally, you need to disassemble the SKS to remove the fixed mag... http://www.surplusrifle.com/sks/carbine/index.asp
Though, someone pointed out to me that the SKS mag can be removed without going through the standard steps. I never tried it.
 
The DOJ has already said they consider the barrel and the housing it is connect to as the "action". Therefore, taking the trigger group out of an SKS is not disassembly of the action, making all SKSs assault weapons.

Calm down, this has no bearing on detachable magazine rifles that do not have any of the evil features. This includes all of the Off List Lowers that have come into the state.

Mainly this is more scare tactics by the DOJ with little chance of sticking. They like to throw things out there and see if they stick. This won't stick either.
 
Brown is not as consistent as Lockyer was. Brown has been pro-gun at various times in the past. He did get an endorsement from the Brady Campaign.

All in all, CA did pretty well this time, with the major dark spot being Brown.
 
All in all, CA did pretty well this time, with the major dark spot being Brown.

And the rest of the statewide offices, including Garamendi, Lockyer, et al., the fact that ALL of the bond issues passed -- we have a SERIOUS borrowing problem as individuals and as a state, buying everything on credit 'til we go bankrupt -- and eminent domain reform lost.

At least Corrupt Cruz didn't win, and most of the other props lost, except for the Sex Offender one, which could turn into a civil liberties nightmare.
 
At what point do you Californians revolt?

Well, in reality, this really isnt that big of a deal. All the cool evil rifles were banned for good back in 2000. People recently figured out away to get legal receivers into the state and build gimped rifles.. The DOJ is trying to change the regulations so that people will stop buying them.

There will be no revolt. Those who can no longer stand the gun laws or insane housing costs will just end up leaving.
 
California Carbines.

Sounds like Mini-14's, M1 Carbines, Ruger PC9 and PC4 carbines, and the Marlin Camp Carbine are still all safe.
 
Revolts don't happen in the PRK. Everyone is happy here, and the people have Soma for when it isn't.
 
Revolts don't happen in the PRK. Everyone is happy here, and the people have Soma for when it isn't.

1 1/2 years till I can PCS!!

543 days.... And a wake up..
 
eh

I bought my entreprise fal for just such probably eventualities.
i also intend to get an ar15 receiver (can't afford to get the full rifle yet... i sure miss my stolen *sniff* ar15)

incidentally, I've shot the PC40. with a truglo 1x, the rifle is so unbelievably accurate, low kicking, and just generally nice that I am actually going to start another caliber (.40) just for it.

ruger guns have always eemed clunky to me but they do do the trick.
 
And the rest of the statewide offices, including Garamendi, Lockyer, et al., the fact that ALL of the bond issues passed -- we have a SERIOUS borrowing problem as individuals and as a state, buying everything on credit 'til we go bankrupt -- and eminent domain reform lost.

Um, I posted that I thought CA was doing well before I saw the final returns. I take it back! CA was a disaster.

All this loss is mainly about the Iraq war, totally irrelevant to gun ownership. I have been opposed to the war in Iraq since the day it started, and right now if a candidate had run on a "let's cut and run" platform I would have voted for him. At some point during the Vietnam was they asked some congressman, "How should we get out of Vietnam?" and he answered, "with boats". That's what we need to do in Iraq. Just declare victory and leave, simple as that. We could have the troops home by Christmas.

And my attitude on that is more extreme than most but most people are now having some milder version of that, and that swept Democrats in, just because they aren't affiliated with Bush.

Oh well, I hope the Republicans learn a lesson about war fighting, how difficult it is, how big the political costs can be, etc. Maybe that will keep us out of the next war.
 
That's what we need to do in Iraq. Just declare victory and leave, simple as that. We could have the troops home by Christmas.

That's called a rout, and you don't want to imagine the casualties that would be taken in the process. But if the goal is to have multiply the current number of dead by two or three times, that's a good way of doing it.
 
I'm gonna have to double check my list after these elections

"rate your state"

But I only have less than 2 years to go!

I might just have to get a cal legal ar or ak (I found one somewhere for $750)

Your already registered when you get a handgun.:barf:

Some day Feinstein Moonbeam and the SS will come looking for my guns.:barf: I just hope I'm outta state by then:neener:

And if I'm not they'll get the handgun, the rest won't "exist" anymore:D

Of course, if a confiscation was in the works you could have your handguns and AW's "stolen" report it to the cops, no more confiscation.

<But I'd never condone breaking the law>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top