Jim Diver
Member
Come to the meeting in person if at all possable. Let's pack that room to overflowing and give them what for.
Not to metion its a real experiance to see the insanity of the DOJ in person.
<< Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>
CAL-ERT 08/04/06 --- 3:30 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!!!
The California Department of Justice has published proposed administrative regulations that 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: www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awdefnotice0606.html.
The regulation would appear to 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.” The most obvious examples would be SKS type rifles, DSArms FN-FAL series rifles, and any rifle for which an after market detachable magazine retrofit kit is available.
Under Penal Code section 12276.1 (passed as part of SB 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.
Then in late June, the DOJ Firearms Division published the proposed new regulations, which would 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.”
A bulletin published by DOJ on May 9th explains what DOJ is trying to do. The bulletin says:
“Semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accomodate 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 regulation itself is confusing, despite the fact that regulations are supposed to “clarify” the law. “Capable of accommodating a detachable magazine” seems redundant with “capacity to accept” a detachable magazine. And nothing in the regulation confirms that “permanent alteration” of a detachable magazine is the only way for a magazine to be deemed non-detachable. What about rifles that are originally manufactured with a fixed magazine, but that can be retrofitted with an after market detachable magazine? These rifles were never “altered” at all. And what does means “permanent alteration” mean? Practically any gun can be machined and so “altered” to accept a detachable magazine. In fact, the statute itself doesn’t even use the term “permanently altered” in addressing “detachable magazines,” it only uses that term when discussing “high capacity” magazines.
Nonetheless, the DOJ bulletin makes clear that the regulation is intended 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 would 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!
How did this come about? It started several months 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 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. Instead, this regulation was proposed, and DOJ 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.
Regulations are supposed to clarify the law. And the “assault weapon” statutes need a lot of clarification. But this regulation does not clarify anything and needs to be opposed.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Review the DOJ’s proposal at http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awdefnotice0606.html direct questions to the Firearms Division at (916) 263-4887, email your comments to [email protected] and/or fax them to his attention at (916) 263-0676.
The Department will hold a public hearing on the proposed regulation beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 in the Department of Water Resources auditorium located at 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California. 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.
In your LETTER OF OPPOSITION, be sure to point out that:
The regulation itself raises questions instead of answering them and should be withdrawn or at least rewritten.
The statute (Penal Code section 12276.1) does not require a firearm to be permanently altered to only accept a fixed magazine – the “permanently altered” language only applies to “high capacity” magazines
The regulation is contrary to what DOJ has lead people to believe about how to make their guns legal.
Many fixed magazine guns can be retrofitted with a detachable magazine -- which would make them illegal.
”Permanent alteration” should be defined. But given modern machining capabilities, no firearm is ever “permanently altered” to only accept a fixed magazine.
The regulation would deem any fixed magazine rifle with a 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.
The most obvious examples would be 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.
Not to metion its a real experiance to see the insanity of the DOJ in person.
<< Please cross-post & distribute this CAL-ERT >>
CAL-ERT 08/04/06 --- 3:30 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!!!
The California Department of Justice has published proposed administrative regulations that 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: www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awdefnotice0606.html.
The regulation would appear to 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.” The most obvious examples would be SKS type rifles, DSArms FN-FAL series rifles, and any rifle for which an after market detachable magazine retrofit kit is available.
Under Penal Code section 12276.1 (passed as part of SB 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.
Then in late June, the DOJ Firearms Division published the proposed new regulations, which would 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.”
A bulletin published by DOJ on May 9th explains what DOJ is trying to do. The bulletin says:
“Semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accomodate 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 regulation itself is confusing, despite the fact that regulations are supposed to “clarify” the law. “Capable of accommodating a detachable magazine” seems redundant with “capacity to accept” a detachable magazine. And nothing in the regulation confirms that “permanent alteration” of a detachable magazine is the only way for a magazine to be deemed non-detachable. What about rifles that are originally manufactured with a fixed magazine, but that can be retrofitted with an after market detachable magazine? These rifles were never “altered” at all. And what does means “permanent alteration” mean? Practically any gun can be machined and so “altered” to accept a detachable magazine. In fact, the statute itself doesn’t even use the term “permanently altered” in addressing “detachable magazines,” it only uses that term when discussing “high capacity” magazines.
Nonetheless, the DOJ bulletin makes clear that the regulation is intended 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 would 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!
How did this come about? It started several months 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 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. Instead, this regulation was proposed, and DOJ 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.
Regulations are supposed to clarify the law. And the “assault weapon” statutes need a lot of clarification. But this regulation does not clarify anything and needs to be opposed.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Review the DOJ’s proposal at http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/awdefnotice0606.html direct questions to the Firearms Division at (916) 263-4887, email your comments to [email protected] and/or fax them to his attention at (916) 263-0676.
The Department will hold a public hearing on the proposed regulation beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 in the Department of Water Resources auditorium located at 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California. 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.
In your LETTER OF OPPOSITION, be sure to point out that:
The regulation itself raises questions instead of answering them and should be withdrawn or at least rewritten.
The statute (Penal Code section 12276.1) does not require a firearm to be permanently altered to only accept a fixed magazine – the “permanently altered” language only applies to “high capacity” magazines
The regulation is contrary to what DOJ has lead people to believe about how to make their guns legal.
Many fixed magazine guns can be retrofitted with a detachable magazine -- which would make them illegal.
”Permanent alteration” should be defined. But given modern machining capabilities, no firearm is ever “permanently altered” to only accept a fixed magazine.
The regulation would deem any fixed magazine rifle with a 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.
The most obvious examples would be 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.
