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: 10/14/2002 7:33:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/14/2002 7:36:27 PM EDT by stator]
Most of you probably know of the bust of M&N Armory located in Fremont (specfically the owner who name is Norm, I believe). This company routinely has tables at the local gunshows including Crossroads and TS. Locals may recognize him as the guy who had the "good stuff" with hacked-off pistol grips. Or the guy who was first to retail the FAB-10. My question does anyone have information or has contacted Norm? I'm interested in this case because I believe that it could be the first real test of Lockyer's regulation 978.20(d):
"pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.
View Quote
Many of us from CA will recognize that this regulation is the remaining reason why we don't see AR-type lowers for sale without the pistol grip in this state unlike the FALs. The potential challenge comes from the significant deviation from the law this regulation derives it's authority from, IMO:
12276.1. (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.
View Quote
The problem that Lockyer has and something that can be overturned on a good legal challenge (IMO) is that Lockyer is trying to change the wording in the law of "conspicuously" (meaning "obvious to the eye or mind") into being "inconspicuously" (meaing " not readily noticeable"). The challenge is that the legislative and executive branches purposefully passed the law with understanding what the laymen term of "conspicuously" means; and that Lockyer is legislating "inconspicuously" illegally. Now if you read Lockyer's regulation again, notice that even an M1A or M1 Garand would fall under this catagory as the trigger guard can function as the AR-style trigger guard... allowing a pistol style grasp. The NRA complained of this exact thing when Lockyer floated the regulation. However, the NRA did nothing significant in court that I'm aware of. Finally, my thoughts on this is pure speculation at this point as I have no more information than the press release that was floating around. However, if this is the main reason for the bust of M&N Armory, I would like to see some of our contributed legal defense dollars to go this (like some of the $1K I gave to SAF.org and $700 to NRA) this past year. Thoughts?
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 6:24:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/15/2002 6:29:48 AM EDT by hanko]
There was a thread about Norm on the forums at [url]www.calguns.net[/url], but I can't find it right now?! Edited to add that pre-SB23, you could get away with a gripless AR whose mfr. was not on the Roberti-Roos list. I believe SB23 broadened the ban on 'ar-type' and 'ak-type' receivers. Pre-SB23, somebody was selling a hook thing which met the (at that time) protrusion requirements. Memory is fading as I moved away. -hanko
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 6:51:04 AM EDT
Thanks, I should register and post this over at calguns.net. The hook was legal until Lockyer revised his regulations. Paragraph (d) was the last to be revised. But regardless of this paragraph, an AR-type was illegal regardless of features due to the second amending of Robertti-Roos (ala Perata who was the main author) which included the "series" language. This, however, has been struck down by the CA Supreme court in Harrott vs. Kings County. Much to the displeasure of Perata. All of my pleasure was taken by seeing Perata rant on TV about the ruling and how it would set back gun control in this state.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 11:37:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stator: Thanks, I should register and post this over at calguns.net.
View Quote
It's a good board with just the right amount of bs. -hanko
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 4:33:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 5:53:26 PM EDT
From reading the press release over on Calguns, the CA DOJ [i]assisted[/i] the [b]BATF[/b]. That means [b]Federal[/b] law was broken and CA law had nothing to do with it. The BATF couldn't give a rats ass what CA law says as long it is legal by federal law.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 11:12:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stator: Paragraph (d) was the last to be revised. But regardless of this paragraph, an AR-type was illegal regardless of features due to the second amending of Robertti-Roos (ala Perata who was the main author) which included the "series" language. This, however, has been struck down by the CA Supreme court in Harrott vs. Kings County. Much to the displeasure of Perata.
View Quote
I missed this event. When did this happen, and what are the effects of the verdict to the AR-series rifles in CA?
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 7:56:00 PM EDT
Just do a search on harrott vs kings county. The CA supreme court decision is on several web sites. I believe the ruling was Apr-Jul 2001 timeframe. The justices basically said that the series feature is unconstitutional because it allows for judges to decide what is legal/illegal independently in each county (Superior Courts). They ruled that make/model must be specfically listed. The series feature of Robertti-Roos was added by Perata (then assemblyman) years after the original law was passed. Pete Wilson was the ahole republican governor who signed it. Perata wrote this bill in response to Lundgren's refusal to add additional weapons to the original 1989 Robertti-Roos law. Perata also has been at odds with Lockyer over the series issue. Perata believes that the series ban is for every model type listed in the ban and not just for the AK and AR series.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 8:12:09 PM EDT
To understand the CA gun laws, including their evolution, go to the CA DOJ website at [url]http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/[/url] The idea that the series regulations apply to all firearms on the list is nuts. Why would it say AR series then say Ak series but then just say Uzi. If they ment Uzi series then it should have specified. If the specification was not necessary for the Uzi, then it was not necessary for the AR or AK. This retard is trying to turn a lot of law abiding citizens into criminals.
Link Posted: 10/18/2002 7:01:50 AM EDT
(e) The term "series" includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer. (f) This section is declaratory of existing law, as amended, and a clarification of the law and the Legislature's intent which bans the weapons enumerated in this section, the weapons included in the list promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to Section 12276.5, and any other models which are only variations of those weapons with minor differences, regardless of the manufacturer. The Legislature has defined assault weapons as the types, series, and models listed in this section because it was the most effective way to identify and restrict a specific class of semiautomatic weapons.
View Quote
That's the series law that was added by Perata after the passage of Robertti-Roos. However, this is mute due to the CA Supreme Court ruling. I did call the firearms division and ask if they are planning to release a bulletin to clarify this. The answer was no plans.
Link Posted: 10/24/2002 10:40:44 PM EDT
Doesnt suprise me to see Norm in hot water. He frustrated me to no end when I had a deal with him. On the plus side he was the only dealer I knew with balls to sell AR lowers during that brief period in 2000 when the AR series got added to the Roberti-Roos. Hope things work out ok for him.
Link Posted: 10/27/2002 2:00:05 PM EDT
Atencio, i am with you on that. one time it took him 6 months to build my upper. I don't think the shutdown was because of the FAB. ATF doesn't need two years to nail him on this. I heard that the shutdown was caused by other things that he illegally transferred. Hi cap-mag....etc.. I still have to contact the local ATF that shut him down because i still haven't pickup my rifle.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 4:44:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Atencio: Doesnt suprise me to see Norm in hot water. He frustrated me to no end when I had a deal with him. On the plus side he was the only dealer I knew with balls to sell AR lowers during that brief period in 2000 when the AR series got added to the Roberti-Roos. Hope things work out ok for him.
View Quote
Norm wasn't the only dealer with balls. I bought a PWA lower from Cold War Relics just six weeks before they got put on the list.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 6:36:51 AM EDT
How could high-capacity mags get Norm into trouble? Did he sale LEO mags to non-LEO? I don't think this is likely because, while Norm may not have been the expidient salesperson, he did strike me as careful with what he sold. I still believe that it revolves around the hacked-off pistol grip and the CA-DOJ ruling that considers the pistol grip is always there regardless, if one cannot grip the rifle like a garand. This is a good opportunity to support a guy for the purpose of putting one big hole in CA's unconstitutional gun restrictions. However, after reading the comments here and on calguns.net, it is clear that we are too consumed with pissing on ourselves than the loss of our constitutional rights. I'm beginning to have no doubt that we will end-up like England and Australia. That is ashame. Can you image what our country would be like if our founding fathers and minutemans acted in response to the tyranny of England like we do with gun control?
Top Top