Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 3/29/2002 9:15:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 9:23:16 PM EDT by sulaco]
As well as firearms that were made after 1994 and anything that is currently legal to import into the US. Also, you would not have register that weapons as an assault weapon with the CA DOJ – so lets hear it, how many Californians out there want to have there rights to have these types of weapons restored? <Please note that this dose not apply to magazines that hold over 10 rounds>

Here’s my letter to Senator O’Connell, please keep in mind that he has supported SB23 in the past so that I really had to stop my self from saying something bad about SB23 whenever I was typing <I have two pages of ranting about how useless SB23 is from writing this letter, but I’m just trying to address one thing at a time, SB23 will get it’s far share of ranging from me in the near future – but for now lets stick to the topic, post 1994 semi automatic weapons. >

So anyway here is the letter, please note that I still need to have it proofed this weekend and I’ll probably get it out on Tuesday or so. If anyone would like to endorse this letter with me please feel free to email me about it, remember we have strength in numbers
- Sulaco
- sulaco@cox.net
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:18:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 9:20:38 PM EDT by sulaco]
March 29, 2002

Senator Jack O’Connell
228 West Carrillo Suite F
Santa Barbara, CA 93109

RE: SB23 and Post 1994 semiautomatic firearms

Dear Senator Jack O’Connell,
I appreciate your help on this matter. It takes about four weeks to get an answer out of the Department of Justice firearms division, and even then they don’t do a good job answering the questions asked. I did not intend to criticize the Department of Justice in any of my earlier letters; they are simply doing their job in enforcing the laws set by the legislators and the Governor. However the laws them selves can be very miss leading and difficult to interpreter, that is what I want to address; the interpretation of SB23 as it is relevant to firearms that were made after 1994 as well as the weapons described in section 12276.

Correct me if I am wrong but after careful analysis of SB23, I have found compelling reasons to believe that weapons made for civilian use after 1994 are exempt from SB23. This is because Section 12275 declares this chapter will be known as “Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989”. So the entire chapter with amendments will be know as the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. Now, section 12275.5 declares that it is not the intent of the Legislature by this chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities. Because the amendments are part of this chapter, if a firearm is excluded from this chapter then it is exempt from any other amendments to this chapter, unless those amendments are separated from this chapter, which they are not. We can conclude that section 12276 and all of its subsections are part of the “Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989” because it is declared in section 12275.5 that 12276 will be used to identify an Assault Weapon. This means that any firearm which was designed and intended for civilian ownership would be excluded from this chapter based on the premises that civilian weapons are intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities. It would not matter if the weapon metes any of the definitions of an assault weapon by any section of this chapter because it would have been exempt from this chapter and all of the amendments of this chapter.

Obtain statements from manufactures in regards to the use of their products and what alterations they have done to adept them to the civilian market would not be difficult. This will show how the manufactures have designed the weapons for the civilian market and not a military market, meting the first criteria of how they designed their products for legitimate sporting purposes. I can also obtain statements illustrating the manufactures endorsed uses for their products, however the manuals that are distributed with their products do illustrate proper use of the weapon. Furthermore, I should be able to obtain statements from professionals outside of the industry that show how the alterations that were made to these weapons have rendered them ineffective for anything other than hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities.
...
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 9:18:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2002 9:20:55 PM EDT by sulaco]
Please note that the caliber of the weapon will determine what kind of applications the weapon is most suitable for. You can’t go dear hunting with an UZI because an UZI uses pistol caliber ammunition, which is not effective enough against this size of game.

SB23 was instead as a protection for the public by removing a class of weapons that have been deemed as unsafe for civilian use. SB23 also recognizes that firearms made especially for the civilian market are exempt from classification as Assault Weapons. I can say with confidence that the weapons that are on the market today make up a small fraction of the weapons that would have been used in a crime and that a almost all of the buyers of these post ban weapons are not buying them for criminal use but for personnel use. Denying law-abiding citizens the right of choice is not what SB23 intended. So I ask you Sir, what steps can be taken in order to open the market for the free trade of post 1994 semiautomatic firearms?

Sincerely,

Dustin
Link Posted: 3/29/2002 10:47:47 PM EDT
Alright.

First, this may prove difficult but still its best to exhaust the legal methods first.

Second, i'm somewhat bothered by "SB23 was instead as a protection for the public by removing a class of weapons that have been deemed as unsafe for civilian use" as that can be whatever they construe them to be.

Some people have a problem with ANY kind of semi-auto weapon whether it is a rifle or handgun.

I think its a good effort none the less, its better than doing nothing.

Link Posted: 3/29/2002 11:10:27 PM EDT
No problem misterhemi,
It’s still a draft so I’m open to alterations. Keep in mind that Mr. O’Connell is in support of “sensible gun laws”. You can have good intentions and still have things turn out wrong, happens all the time. My point is that I will accomplish nothing if I flame him so I’m keeping it civil. He was kind enough to actually respond to my emails and letters, more than I can say for the “other” elected officials.

Difficult to prove yes, but there is a penal code that dose<sec. 12275.5, read all of it> exactly what that letter says – all we have to do is use it. Fortunately it’s amended into law so it isn’t like I am trying to get anything new passed. I can’t higher a lawyer to examine my theories and see if they are true or false <I only make $400 a month right now> so I’ll let someone with unlimited public resources try to prove my theory false, if he can’t then I’m on the right track.

Either way, just sitting here debating weather I should leave this sorry a$$ state isn’t going to do me any good – or the other firearm owners any good either. If we voice our opinions and make them loud then maybe they will hear us.
- Sulaco
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 4:33:21 AM EDT
I agree.

Let me know what help you need.
While i've been looking at property elsewhere I don't think it would help to just entirely abandon ship just yet as there is some progress being made (suprisingly some of the sheeple are waking up).

I have many thoughts about the matter which i'll discuss later but you have my support.
Link Posted: 3/30/2002 12:28:56 PM EDT
Top Top