This is the thread to pass on any facts, rumors and disinformation regarding the forthcoming DOJ meeting to see what action will be taken concerning the inflow of AR recievers not on the List. Specifically, it is intended to be a gathering place where those of us have not yet DROSssed can monitor impending legal action to see if we will slide in under the supposed new deadline for registration of these lowers as "assault weapons", even though we fully intend to build them into CA-compliant "non-assault rifle" (no Evil features) rifles.

Just curious...

What 6 Jan meeting?  Where did we get the info on this?  We are getting scared by our own shadows here a little.  

Folks should hurry up, but we need to be careful to not pass on bad info and get everyone's panties in a bunch.

 I have heard there will be punch and pie.

I'm DROSing a lower today.

I wonder how that works out.

It's a wait and see and lots of speculation.
Calgun

In the former case (which is the one of most interest, as all these receivers are AR-series, with maybe a few AK-series thrown in), the $64000 question is the effective date. We've had two threads dealing with this question in gory detail - search for registry or OAL. The only answer I know for sure is that I don't know. The range is somewhere between "effective immediately" (sounds unlikely), to "effective as soon as published" (which happens on a Friday morning, look at the OAL website), to "on the Friday 10 days after the DoJ submits the new list to the OAL" (most likely in my mind), to "we'll get 30 days warning from the DoJ" (possible ), to "the OAL will run full public comment period and hearings", which would delay things by 3-6 months, and is not necessary and extremely unlikely. So to repeat: We'll either get a day or so warning (public announcement from the DoJ on Thursday, regulation takes effect Friday) or a week or two warning (announcement sometime, regulation takes effect Friday 10 or more days later).

Any word yet?

Quoted: This is the thread to pass on any facts, rumors and disinformation regarding the forthcoming DOJ meeting to see what action will be taken concerning the inflow of AR recievers not on the List. Specifically, it is intended to be a gathering place where those of us have not yet DROSssed can monitor impending legal action to see if we will slide in under the supposed new deadline for registration of these lowers as "assault weapons", even though we fully intend to build them into CA-compliant "non-assault rifle" (no Evil features) rifles.

Geez I thought registration was heresy around here.

But on a more practical vein, once the lower is registered as an AW why make them into a CA-Compliant"non-assault rifle", since a registered AW is allowed all or none or whatever evil features you want?  If a lower is legally registered in the grace period you have no problems with later legal build.  It's only when you have a non-registered or non-listed lower that you can't build it into a gun with the banned features (no thumbhole stock, ability to take magazines over 10 rounds, etc)

Quoted: Quoted: This is the thread to pass on any facts, rumors and disinformation regarding the forthcoming DOJ meeting to see what action will be taken concerning the inflow of AR recievers not on the List. Specifically, it is intended to be a gathering place where those of us have not yet DROSssed can monitor impending legal action to see if we will slide in under the supposed new deadline for registration of these lowers as "assault weapons", even though we fully intend to build them into CA-compliant "non-assault rifle" (no Evil features) rifles. Geez I thought registration was heresy around here. But on a more practical vein, once the lower is registered as an AW why make them into a CA-Compliant"non-assault rifle", since a registered AW is allowed all or none or whatever evil features you want?  If a lower is legally registered in the grace period you have no problems with later legal build.  It's only when you have a non-registered or non-listed lower that you can't build it into a gun with the banned features (no thumbhole stock, ability to take magazines over 10 rounds, etc)

you are correct on that statement. once it is a registered assault weapon you can pretty much do what you wish with it.. except full auto and silencers.

Quoted:  I have heard there will be punch and pie.

Alison forgot to bring the baked goods and Lockyer got pissed. He's decided against listing the lowers, so we're all going to have to configure them with fixed 10 round magazines.

F'cking Merrilees.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is the thread to pass on any facts, rumors and disinformation regarding the forthcoming DOJ meeting to see what action will be taken concerning the inflow of AR recievers not on the List. Specifically, it is intended to be a gathering place where those of us have not yet DROSssed can monitor impending legal action to see if we will slide in under the supposed new deadline for registration of these lowers as "assault weapons", even though we fully intend to build them into CA-compliant "non-assault rifle" (no Evil features) rifles. Geez I thought registration was heresy around here. But on a more practical vein, once the lower is registered as an AW why make them into a CA-Compliant"non-assault rifle", since a registered AW is allowed all or none or whatever evil features you want?  If a lower is legally registered in the grace period you have no problems with later legal build.  It's only when you have a non-registered or non-listed lower that you can't build it into a gun with the banned features (no thumbhole stock, ability to take magazines over 10 rounds, etc) you are correct on that statement. once it is a registered assault weapon you can pretty much do what you wish with it..

Thats the theory.  Untested though.

It will be interesting to see which approach CAL-DOJ takes. Will they simply do nothing?  Add them to the list and require resgistration?  perhaps there will be an SKS-D like buy back?  or maybe DOJ will offer a legal opnion that assembling a registered stripped lower into a functioning AW is "manufacturing" an assault weapon .

Alison forgot to bring the baked goods and Lockyer got pissed. He's decided against listing the lowers, so we're all going to have to configure them with fixed 10 round magazines.

Wouldn't it also be an option to configure them with a pre-ban style upper (i.e. no flash hider, etc.), a removable mag (either a 10-rounder or a larger magazine that was possessed before the magazine ban), and a non-pistol-grip non-thumbhole non-protruding grip, i.e., one of those SB-23 compliant grips that kinda looked like plastic dog turds, and were briefly sold between SB-23 passing and the addition of a bunch of new ARs (including the Bushmaster XM-15 series) to the list? I think I have a pair of those somewhere, unless I chucked 'em when it turned out that I'd need to register or remove my Bushmasters anyway. he
Maybe Lockyer will reconsider adding them to the list when folks get wind of the thousands of new 10rd fixed-mag ARs and dog-turd removable-mag ARs that can now find their way into CA 100% legally thanks to Harrott. hink
This won't happen by preserving the status quo. It'll only happen if the anti-gun portion of the CA legislature (I guess that's most of it) gets backed into a corner, and just runs out of creative ways to target just a small portion of the pro-gun crowd at a time.

If they add this new batch of off-list lowers to the list, then the DOJ and legislature get egg on their faces for creating an ineffective law, and all sorts of new 100% legal registered AWs will invade CA. This will keep happening over and over until new laws are passed, because new manufacturers will keep springing up outside CA to satisfy the CA market for off-list AR-compatible lowers. Econ 101, IMHO.

If they don't add this batch to the list, there still will be an ever-increasing number of folks who legally obtain firearms which are essentially the same as the Scary Black Evil guns that were supposed to be banned, just with a fixed mag or a dog turd grip. That puts egg on some faces, too.

Either way, it will become ever more apparent that SB-23 and the series ban don't really do anything to stop those Scary Evil Black Guns from showing up here.

The third option would be for the anti-gun crowd to address this by trying to pass new legislation that shuts down the option of building an off-list stripped lower into an SB-23 compliant rifle. It seems to me that it would be pretty hard to do that without going so far as to simply ban all semiautomatic rifles. That might not highlight the eggyness of the faces so much, but it also might serve to unify the pro-gun crowd in just the way that the anti-gunners have traditionally tried to avoid.

When it gets right down to it, I think that things will get far worse for gun owners in CA before they ever get better. Maybe we're all better off if that downhill slide can be accelerated, in order to either bring on the day when pro-gun folks finally get motivated enough to really affect some positive legal change, or else eliminate any false hope of things ever getting better so that all of us law-abiding gun owners in CA finally pack up for other states and leave CA to the violent criminals who'll carry guns regardless of any laws, and the disarmed populace that they will prey on. If I'm not getting my point across, I'm thinking in terms of the way boot camp needs to break recruits down before they can be built back up. Maybe CA can't be fixed until it finishes breaking itself?

Thus, it seems to me that it might not really matter whether or not the DOJ decides to add this new batch of manufacturers and model numbers to the list. Whatever they do, situations like this one just make it that much more clear that the CA AW bans are thoroughly stupid, and that the anti-gun crowd will never stop until no civilian can legally own a gun.

Hey, has anybody else noticed how the Assault Weapons Identification Guide on the CA DOJ Firearms Division site makes no mention of Harrott? Gee, could that be an accidental oversight? had

F'cking Merrilees.

I don't understand that reference. The second word, that is. I understood the first word.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is the thread to pass on any facts, rumors and disinformation regarding the forthcoming DOJ meeting to see what action will be taken concerning the inflow of AR recievers not on the List. Specifically, it is intended to be a gathering place where those of us have not yet DROSssed can monitor impending legal action to see if we will slide in under the supposed new deadline for registration of these lowers as "assault weapons", even though we fully intend to build them into CA-compliant "non-assault rifle" (no Evil features) rifles. Geez I thought registration was heresy around here. But on a more practical vein, once the lower is registered as an AW why make them into a CA-Compliant"non-assault rifle", since a registered AW is allowed all or none or whatever evil features you want?  If a lower is legally registered in the grace period you have no problems with later legal build.  It's only when you have a non-registered or non-listed lower that you can't build it into a gun with the banned features (no thumbhole stock, ability to take magazines over 10 rounds, etc) you are correct on that statement. once it is a registered assault weapon you can pretty much do what you wish with it.. except full auto and silencers.

I FULLY INTEND to make this lower into a CA-compliant non-assault weapon. I am acting in good faith, you see? If the lower is later put on a list and QUITE BY ACCIDENT I now have a lower I can assemble into a Evil Assault Rifle, well then, I'd be tickled pink! But I INTEND no such thing.

but ofcourse.. so do i, with the two i ordered

New "reliable information": The DOJ metting is now to be held on Monday 9 Jan

ayeguy : is that a joke?

We are our own worst enemy.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is the thread to pass on any facts, rumors and disinformation regarding the forthcoming DOJ meeting to see what action will be taken concerning the inflow of AR recievers not on the List. Specifically, it is intended to be a gathering place where those of us have not yet DROSssed can monitor impending legal action to see if we will slide in under the supposed new deadline for registration of these lowers as "assault weapons", even though we fully intend to build them into CA-compliant "non-assault rifle" (no Evil features) rifles. Geez I thought registration was heresy around here. But on a more practical vein, once the lower is registered as an AW why make them into a CA-Compliant"non-assault rifle", since a registered AW is allowed all or none or whatever evil features you want?  If a lower is legally registered in the grace period you have no problems with later legal build.  It's only when you have a non-registered or non-listed lower that you can't build it into a gun with the banned features (no thumbhole stock, ability to take magazines over 10 rounds, etc) you are correct on that statement. once it is a registered assault weapon you can pretty much do what you wish with it.. Thats the theory.  Untested though. It will be interesting to see which approach CAL-DOJ takes. Will they simply do nothing?  Add them to the list and require resgistration?  perhaps there will be an SKS-D like buy back?  or maybe DOJ will offer a legal opnion that assembling a registered stripped lower into a functioning AW is "manufacturing" an assault weapon .

I guess all those people who registered before are somehow guilty of "manufacturing" a registered  assault weapon into an assault weapon.  That makes a lot of sense!  I don't think they have any law to support a buy back or requiring that a registered assault weapon not be built into an assault weapon ().  We'll find out soon enough though.

Quoted: ayeguy : is that a joke?

no joke mat

link

ok, cool thanks.. was wondering if you were sarcastic

Quoted: F'cking Merrilees. I don't understand that reference. The second word, that is. I understood the first word.

I was referring back to Alison for putting Lockyer in a bad mood.

Alison's last name is Merrilees.

Quoted: Quoted: F'cking Merrilees. I don't understand that reference. The second word, that is. I understood the first word. hr I was referring back to Alison for putting Lockyer in a bad mood. Alison's last name is Merrilees.

Thanks for the clarification.

Did Ms. Merrilees really cheese Lockyer that much, or was he already in a sufficiently bad mood when he walked in the door?

AG Lockyer has SCREWED himself royally by NOT updating the ban list regularly.

1. IF he DOES update the ban list, California WILL have to open up a registration period for all of us that have these currently unlisted lowers. and...

The Brady bunch will flip OUT, the VPC will flip OUT, they will set the media off in a frenzy and Lockyer will be seen as an incompetant. "Assault weapons" are a HUGE buzzword in California, a BIG ISSUE item. The Anti-gun public as well as politicians will DEMAND accountibility fromt he DOJ and Lockyer.

2. If AG Lockyer does NOT update the ban list, The Brady Bunch, the VPC and other Anti-gun lobby organizations will SUE the state, this issue will EXPLODE and crawl all the way up the governmental ladder. The news will shout what is much like "Assault weapons flooding the streets of California again" and go on about the minor differences about a fixed magazine AR type rifle that is currently legal and a detachable magazine AR15 type rifle and the easy conversion to detachable magazine operation using mere tools. The Anti-gun public and politicians will FLIP OUT.


Either way, AG Lockyer is FUCKED. Our biggest ANTI-GUN politicians, Dianne Fineswine and Barbara Boxer will demand his head on a plate and Gov. Arnie may have no other choice but to fire Lockyer. You can bet MANY anti-gun politicans will demand something be done and that there will be accountability and the subsequent assignment of blame in which Dems will hold Lockyer up on a stick and hand him up as accountable and that won't hurt Arnie either way, he will be able to appease the Libs by handing Lockyer his pinkslip and gain their favor as a "Tough on assault weapons and a hold accountable" governor and still keep many Reps as he would be the Governor that fired Lockyer.

It may very well be that Lockyer is presently enjoying the last weeks of his employment as AG while at th e same time, kissing goodbye any hopes of political office in the future.

What is interesting is that so far, there is NO mention of THIS snafu in the media. Could it be that either they don't know about it yet OR currently investigating the store before it breaks. I think this issue is going to explode in California. I also think that we are going to benefit from it as gun owners and how innefectual this assault weapons legislation has been. We're living in interesting times. The humor is that we didn't go anything really, except in following the law, bought harmless lower recievers, the government however hung themselves with the very rope they created and THAT makes me smile.

In either scenario, SOMEONE will have to be accountable and the man at the top of the AW ban list screwup is AG Lockyer, there's the man everyone will blame.

why cant just everbody get guns and along?

As bad as this whole off-list lower thing must make Lockyer look, maybe things could be even wors for him (and better for us!). I find this part of the California AR/AK “Series” Assault Weapon FAQ very interesting:

Another vendor has received permission from CA DOJ to weld up Bushmaster and Colt lower receivers’ magazine wells; while actually ”named” as banned weapons, these latter guns/receivers are regarded as so substantively different from their original design that they’re no longer considered to be named banned assault weapons anymore, and are as legal to possess/transfer as any other rifle in California.  That is, these permanent and approved modifications have rendered their banned names moot.

It sure seems to me that this sets a clear precedent that it's possible to modify a listed receiver enough that the DOJ no longer considers it to be a restricted AW (existing laws would still restrict ownership, possession, transfer and importation before the modifications were made, of course). It's bad enough that the "series" ban has been ruled to not apply to off-list receivers which may be built into fixed-mag guns; clearly, even listed receivers can be turned into legal fixed-mag configurations!

So, exactly how much modification is "enough"? Is welding the mag well shut really necessary? Could some less severe (yet still "permanent") modification be made under some conditions (i.e., outside of CA, by licensed manufacturers or gunsmiths with appropriate permits, etc.) which would be considered sufficient to remove series-ban status? Could this precedent be extended to apply to modifications of other kinds of listed guns?

I'm really thinking about asking DOJ for a ruling on this after some of the current dust has settled. I'd appreciate any information about this approved welded-up receiver, such as the company(s) making them, details about the modifications that are made, any more details about the DOJ approval, etc.

If WizardOfAhs and I are right about thinking that the hell that may get raised over the whole off-list lower thing is good, then every new way of demonstrating how stupid the CA AW bans are will only help all of us CA pro-gun folks.

What do y'all think?

As long as the LA Times doesn't get ahold of this, there is a good chance for future off list AR's to make it in. Keep quiet.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is the thread to pass on any facts, rumors and disinformation regarding the forthcoming DOJ meeting to see what action will be taken concerning the inflow of AR recievers not on the List. Specifically, it is intended to be a gathering place where those of us have not yet DROSssed can monitor impending legal action to see if we will slide in under the supposed new deadline for registration of these lowers as "assault weapons", even though we fully intend to build them into CA-compliant "non-assault rifle" (no Evil features) rifles. Geez I thought registration was heresy around here. But on a more practical vein, once the lower is registered as an AW why make them into a CA-Compliant"non-assault rifle", since a registered AW is allowed all or none or whatever evil features you want?  If a lower is legally registered in the grace period you have no problems with later legal build.  It's only when you have a non-registered or non-listed lower that you can't build it into a gun with the banned features (no thumbhole stock, ability to take magazines over 10 rounds, etc) you are correct on that statement. once it is a registered assault weapon you can pretty much do what you wish with it.. Thats the theory.  Untested though. It will be interesting to see which approach CAL-DOJ takes. Will they simply do nothing?  Add them to the list and require resgistration?  perhaps there will be an SKS-D like buy back?  or maybe DOJ will offer a legal opnion that assembling a registered stripped lower into a functioning AW is "manufacturing" an assault weapon . I guess all those people who registered before are somehow guilty of "manufacturing" a registered  assault weapon into an assault weapon.

Do you think a jury of 12 people would understand the real functional differences between a stripped lower and a complete functioning firearm?

That makes a lot of sense!  I don't think they have any law to support a buy back

Yet there is precident with the SKS-D buyback.

Quoted: [ If they add this new batch of off-list lowers to the list, then the DOJ and legislature get egg on their faces for creating an ineffective law, and all sorts of new 100% legal registered AWs will invade CA. This will keep happening over and over until new laws are passed, because new manufacturers will keep springing up outside CA to satisfy the CA market for off-list AR-compatible lowers. Econ 101, IMHO.

Its worse than that.  CALDOJ has been sued before by antigun groups fpr allowing new AW registrations.

So DOJ adds the lowers.  You register them and build your rifle.  HCI & VPC sue DOJ in court and win a judgment saying the registration of new AW's was unlawfull.  The court orders DOJ to do a buy back. (that's essentially what happened with the SKS-D)

Quoted: Either way, AG Lockyer is FUCKED. Our biggest ANTI-GUN politicians, Dianne Fineswine and Barbara Boxer will demand his head on a plate and Gov. Arnie may have no other choice but to fire Lockyer.

Do you live in California?  Are you at least 18?  Then you should realize that the AG is an elected office.  It's not an appointed state cabinet position.

Here is a good thing I found: the DOJ website that features current and pending firearms regulations. I will be checking this daily.

ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/index.html

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is the thread to pass on any facts, rumors and disinformation regarding the forthcoming DOJ meeting to see what action will be taken concerning the inflow of AR recievers not on the List. Specifically, it is intended to be a gathering place where those of us have not yet DROSssed can monitor impending legal action to see if we will slide in under the supposed new deadline for registration of these lowers as "assault weapons", even though we fully intend to build them into CA-compliant "non-assault rifle" (no Evil features) rifles. Geez I thought registration was heresy around here. But on a more practical vein, once the lower is registered as an AW why make them into a CA-Compliant"non-assault rifle", since a registered AW is allowed all or none or whatever evil features you want?  If a lower is legally registered in the grace period you have no problems with later legal build.  It's only when you have a non-registered or non-listed lower that you can't build it into a gun with the banned features (no thumbhole stock, ability to take magazines over 10 rounds, etc) you are correct on that statement. once it is a registered assault weapon you can pretty much do what you wish with it.. except full auto and silencers.

....and short-barrel rifles.

Quoted: Quoted: Either way, AG Lockyer is FUCKED. Our biggest ANTI-GUN politicians, Dianne Fineswine and Barbara Boxer will demand his head on a plate and Gov. Arnie may have no other choice but to fire Lockyer. Do you live in California?  Are you at least 18?  Then you should realize that the AG is an elected office.  It's not an appointed state cabinet position.

He has a point. Because of term limits, the power-brokers in the party try to control who runs in what election more so than before. If Lockyer does not have the name recognition to go it alone without backing from the state Democratic party (and it's power brokers), pissing them off maybe be a problem for Lockyer.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Either way, AG Lockyer is FUCKED. Our biggest ANTI-GUN politicians, Dianne Fineswine and Barbara Boxer will demand his head on a plate and Gov. Arnie may have no other choice but to fire Lockyer. Do you live in California?  Are you at least 18?  Then you should realize that the AG is an elected office.  It's not an appointed state cabinet position. He has a point. Because of term limits, the power-brokers in the party try to control who runs in what election more so than before. If Lockyer does not have the name recognition to go it alone without backing from the state Democratic party (and it's power brokers), pissing them off maybe be a problem for Lockyer.

I believe he is running for Comptroller or something in the next election.  that type of political job shopping in Cali polictics has become all too common after term limits.

Quoted: Quoted: This will keep happening over and over until new laws are passed, because new manufacturers will keep springing up outside CA to satisfy the CA market for off-list AR-compatible lowers. Econ 101, IMHO. Its worse than that.  CALDOJ has been sued before by antigun groups fpr allowing new AW registrations. So DOJ adds the lowers.  You register them and build your rifle.  HCI & VPC sue DOJ in court and win a judgment saying the registration of new AW's was unlawfull.  The court orders DOJ to do a buy back. (that's essentially what happened with the SKS-D)

That is absolutely irrelevant here and you are confusing two separate issues.

The extended registration period that was sued and overturned was essentially the AG's office (Lungren) extending the reg period on their own to assist in further compliance.  They were sued because they were arrogating themselves legislative powers and making law - theory being, if the legislature wanted a longer reg period, they'd've written it in the law.  (While this was antigun in end result, it is good law - better to fight just the legislature in making bad laws than to also have to fight another branch of government.)

DOJ indeed has authority granted by law and affirmed by Harrott decision to add items in AR/AK format to the AR/AK 'series'.   (Other guns must go thru a PC 12276.5 'add on' court procedure at request of DOJ/AG, and this is much more involved.)   This is not challengeable.  There are no grounds to sue.

The only reason people are doing this is because the DOJ has failed to act in the last 5 years updating the Kasler list/DOJ "Roster of AR15/AK Series Weapons".   The DOJ is gonna do this as quickly/quietly as possible to save political embarassment.


Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

Quoted: The DOJ is gonna do this as quickly/quietly as possible to save political embarassment. Bill Wiese San Jose, CA

   

Time will tell. Although the time frame many predicted has come and gone.      

Quoted: Quoted: The DOJ is gonna do this as quickly/quietly as possible to save political embarassment.     Time will tell. Although the time frame many predicted has come and gone.

This whole hullabaloo of activity started in full swing really only 1 month ago.

During the latter 1/2 of December, lotsa staff were on vacation. Bureaucracies move slowly. A month's reaction to such events here is in fact lightning speed.

From my discussion with a knoweldgable attorny [who shall remain nameless] they're moving, but it may take a bit of time.  We were possibly expecting an announcement 1st week of Jan but it could take a tad longer.   Something will certainly happen by February.  The DOJ is aware of this and is frustrated (near direct quote).

One real issue is gonna be - does the ban set in when DOJ announces it, or does it really set in only when promulgated in the official release of the Calif. Code of Regulation sec. 979.11.  I don't think you'll find any FFLs doing transfers after the DOJ announces it though.

One DOJ senior agent told an FFL I am in contact with that they needed to get DROS info not stored (DL info).   When agent was asked for details later, it was for mailing purposes, and the DOJ visit was not really for audit purposes and went smoothly and cordially.   The FFL stated he was gonna mail papers to his customers when the hammer fell and distribute reg cards himself but was glad the DOJ was gonna save him the postage and handling costs.  Apparently the inspector left without the data gathered , s the FFL was gonna email it to him.  [If there had been more nefarious purposes for this data gathering I'm sure they'd've gathered the info right there and not relied on promise of future action from FFL.]


Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

Quoted: Quoted: Either way, AG Lockyer is FUCKED. Our biggest ANTI-GUN politicians, Dianne Fineswine and Barbara Boxer will demand his head on a plate and Gov. Arnie may have no other choice but to fire Lockyer. Do you live in California?  Are you at least 18?  Then you should realize that the AG is an elected office.  It's not an appointed state cabinet position.

Yup, sure do, and yup, sure am and DUH....  and the AG can still be shitcanned for stepping on his dick... Ya got a point to this or were you just jerking off and being a meatwhistle?

Edited to fix a line screwup..

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This will keep happening over and over until new laws are passed, because new manufacturers will keep springing up outside CA to satisfy the CA market for off-list AR-compatible lowers. Econ 101, IMHO. Its worse than that.  CALDOJ has been sued before by antigun groups fpr allowing new AW registrations. So DOJ adds the lowers.  You register them and build your rifle.  HCI & VPC sue DOJ in court and win a judgment saying the registration of new AW's was unlawfull.  The court orders DOJ to do a buy back. (that's essentially what happened with the SKS-D) That is absolutely irrelevant here and you are confusing two separate issues. The extended registration period that was sued and overturned was essentially the AG's office (Lungren) extending the reg period on their own to assist in further compliance.  They were sued because they were arrogating themselves legislative powers and making law - theory being, if the legislature wanted a longer reg period, they'd've written it in the law.  (While this was antigun in end result, it is good law - better to fight just the legislature in making bad laws than to also have to fight another branch of government.) DOJ indeed has authority granted by law and affirmed by Harrott decision to add items in AR/AK format to the AR/AK 'series'.   (Other guns must go thru a PC 12276.5 'add on' court procedure at request of DOJ/AG, and this is much more involved.)   This is not challengeable.  There are no grounds to sue. The only reason people are doing this is because the DOJ has failed to act in the last 5 years updating the Kasler list/DOJ "Roster of AR15/AK Series Weapons".   The DOJ is gonna do this as quickly/quietly as possible to save political embarassment. Bill Wiese San Jose, CA

Bravo Bill, you nailed it.

Quoted: As long as the LA Times doesn't get ahold of this, there is a good chance for future off list AR's to make it in. Keep quiet.

Nah, we WANT the LA Times to get ahold of it. They will scream bloody murder! They will scare the whole state with "OH My God! Assault weapons are loose on the streets again and it's AG Lockyer's fault"! While the Anti's gather and collectively spew their BS and it makes national coverage, the end result will be GREAT for us, they will want to hang someone and when they do, it will have to be one of their own, AG Lockyer. After that, there will be this forehead slapping "Gee I could have had a V8" moment when hey, for 5 years the AG didn't update the list, no mass flood of AW's running down the street independantly capping and bayonetting people, "AW control" and "AW ban" will more and more be viewed for what it is, "useless legislation" that does nothing. This is a feather in the cap for us and the best part is that the Dems did it to themselves. How much better can this get? It's giftwrapped! It's like going to "Hotdog on a stick" and asking for a "Lockyer" and they hand ya a weenie!

So, smile bro! The LA times getting wind of this is a good thing while we watch the Dems eat their own.

Edited: TYPOnese IS my second language...

Quoted: From my discussion with a knoweldgable attorny [who shall remain nameless] they're moving, but it may take a bit of time.  We were possibly expecting an announcement 1st week of Jan but it could take a tad longer.   Something will certainly happen by February.  The DOJ is aware of this and is frustrated (near direct quote).

I don't understand their frustration.

All that is happening is a lot of AR-15 lowers are coming into the state because the original legislation was sloppy in defining how you actually name a weapon by type.  But the lowers that are being DROSed today can only be legally configured like FAB-10s and fixed magazine Vulcans and Bushmasters, which the DoJ have explicitly approved.  So now, worse case from their point of view, there's going to be a lot more crippled AR-15s out there, but without Fab-10, Bushmaster or Vulcan logos on them.  If I were in their shoes, it would be very tempting indeed to simply shrug and let Californian gun-owners build up all the crippled AR-15s they want.  In fact, if I were Bill Lockyer, I would order that detailed instructions be promulgated on how to properly pin an AR-15 magazine so as to remain compliant with California law.  It's an easy out for the DoJ, and not much different in policy from what they have already been doing with Fab-10s, Bushmasters and Vulcans.

I don't envision so much as a peep from the LA Times or Brady Center.  All any of these people care about is getting their lame laws that make it harder for us, and none of that has changed.  There is no difference between pinned magazine Vulcan (explictly approved by DoJ for several months) and any other pinned magazine lower.  And in any case, it's not Lockyer's fault, is it?  It's a court decision and lousy legislative language.  Lockyer has nothing to do with this.  He's clean, as far as the VPC and their ilk are concerned.

This is my greatest fear, as I have no use for another pinned magazine lower.  I want to see my lowers banned.  But I also see the easist course for the DoJ is to do nothing.

Quoted: Quoted: As long as the LA Times doesn't get ahold of this, there is a good chance for future off list AR's to make it in. Keep quiet. Nah, we WANT the LA Times to get ahold of it. They will scream bloody murder! They will scare the whole state with "OH My God! Assault weapons are loose on the streets again and it's AG Lockyer's fault"! While the Anti's gather and collectively spew their BS and it makes national coverage, the end result will be GREAT for us, they will want to hang someone and when they do, it will have to be one of their own, AG Lockyer. After that, there will be this forehead slapping "Gee I could have had a V8" moment when hey, for 5 years the AG didn't update the list, no mass flood of AW's running down the street independantly capping and bayonetting people, "AW control" and "AW ban" will more and more be viewed for what it is, "useless legislation" that does nothing. This is a feather in the cap for us and the best part is that the Dems did it to themselves. How much better can this get? It's giftwrapped! It's like going to "Hotdog on a stick" and asking for a "Lockyer" and they hand ya a weenie! So, smile bro! The LA times getting wind of this is a good thing while we watch the Dems eat their own. Edited: TYPOnese IS my second language...

Dude, when has a politician ever been fired for incompetence?  Lockyer is going to blame this on the evil NRA and your local California gun nuts/whackos.  The news will find some crazy-eyed, missing three teeth, camo wearing fool and label him as representative of all gun owners.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: As long as the LA Times doesn't get ahold of this, there is a good chance for future off list AR's to make it in. Keep quiet. Nah, we WANT the LA Times to get ahold of it. They will scream bloody murder! They will scare the whole state with "OH My God! Assault weapons are loose on the streets again and it's AG Lockyer's fault"! While the Anti's gather and collectively spew their BS and it makes national coverage, the end result will be GREAT for us, they will want to hang someone and when they do, it will have to be one of their own, AG Lockyer. After that, there will be this forehead slapping "Gee I could have had a V8" moment when hey, for 5 years the AG didn't update the list, no mass flood of AW's running down the street independantly capping and bayonetting people, "AW control" and "AW ban" will more and more be viewed for what it is, "useless legislation" that does nothing. This is a feather in the cap for us and the best part is that the Dems did it to themselves. How much better can this get? It's giftwrapped! It's like going to "Hotdog on a stick" and asking for a "Lockyer" and they hand ya a weenie! So, smile bro! The LA times getting wind of this is a good thing while we watch the Dems eat their own. Edited: TYPOnese IS my second language... Dude, when has a politician ever been fired for incompetence?  Lockyer is going to blame this on the evil NRA and your local California gun nuts/whackos.  The news will find some crazy-eyed, missing three teeth, camo wearing fool and label him as representative of all gun owners.

Yeah, the NRA is responcible for updating the Banned AW list... Get it straight! It's Bush's fault! Don't you watch TV? The public at large is pretty stupid. I am cracking up at the crazy-eyes, missing three teeth, cammo wearing fool.

I started a similar thread over at CalGuns. I have got reponses (all of them "by a guy who I know who met with a DOJ guy) varying from "They will be put on the List" to "They will be confiscated".

Quoted: I started a similar thread over at CalGuns. I have got reponses (all of them "by a guy who I know who met with a DOJ guy) varying from "They will be put on the List" to "They will be confiscated".

That is to be expected.  For this reason, I consider everything I hear regarding what the DoJ is currently working on as rumor, speculation, or misinformation.  It will not be long now before we know what is REALLY going on.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Either way, AG Lockyer is FUCKED. Our biggest ANTI-GUN politicians, Dianne Fineswine and Barbara Boxer will demand his head on a plate and Gov. Arnie may have no other choice but to fire Lockyer. Do you live in California?  Are you at least 18?  Then you should realize that the AG is an elected office.  It's not an appointed state cabinet position. Yup, sure do, and yup, sure am and DUH....  and the AG can still be shitcanned for stepping on his dick...

"Arnie" as you called him cannot "fire" the AG.

Do you think a jury of 12 people would understand the real functional differences between a stripped lower and a complete functioning firearm?

Sadly, I do not think they could.  his
However, I think actually seeing a complete rifle and a stripped lower side by side would convince even  the dumbest person.  I would think that a compentent attorney, or even myself could effectively explain/show the difference.  

I think we should all stop talking about the legal what ifs.  Let's all just wait this out and see what happens.  Whatever happens will be interesting, that is for sure.

Quoted: Quoted: From my discussion with a knoweldgable attorny [who shall remain nameless] they're moving, but it may take a bit of time.  We were possibly expecting an announcement 1st week of Jan but it could take a tad longer.   Something will certainly happen by February.  The DOJ is aware of this and is frustrated (near direct quote). I don't understand their frustration. All that is happening is a lot of AR-15 lowers are coming into the state because the original legislation was sloppy in defining how you actually name a weapon by type.  But the lowers that are being DROSed today can only be legally configured like FAB-10s and fixed magazine Vulcans and Bushmasters, which the DoJ have explicitly approved.  So now, worse case from their point of view, there's going to be a lot more crippled AR-15s out there, but without Fab-10, Bushmaster or Vulcan logos on them.  If I were in their shoes, it would be very tempting indeed to simply shrug and let Californian gun-owners build up all the crippled AR-15s they want.  In fact, if I were Bill Lockyer, I would order that detailed instructions be promulgated on how to properly pin an AR-15 magazine so as to remain compliant with California law.

Yep.  The do nothing approach is both the easiest, and most politically viable.  Adding the no name lowers to the list and thus allowing them to be built into AWs goes against their goals if you belive they want to limit the number of AWs in the state.  Only doing nothing, a buy back or a prohibition on assembly prevents "new" AWs in the state.

The smart response from DOJ is leave it alone.  But it's hard to predict what bureacrats will do.

Quoted: Dude, when has a politician ever been fired for incompetence? Does the name Gray Davis ring a bell?

And he was the first in something like 80 years or more at the state level.  In other words, it ain't gonna happen.  The Governor cannot fire an elected official, he must be impeached by the legislature or recalled by the voters.

Quoted: Quoted: Dude, when has a politician ever been fired for incompetence? Does the name Gray Davis ring a bell? And he was the first in something like 80 years or more at the state level.  In other words, it ain't gonna happen.  The Governor cannot fire an elected official, he must be impeached by the legislature or recalled by the voters.

PaDanby,

Thanks for clarifying that for me.