Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/18/2005 9:33:42 AM EDT
The proper procedure is that the AG will need to request a court hearing in a county with a population higher than 1 million. Once the court hearing concur with AG's proof that the new list of firearms (with discription, pictures, etc) follow the PC 12276, then they are declared AW.

Only after that the AG will have 90 days to update the list in PC 12276.5. The list will then need to be published so all law-enforcement agency will have them. I think they need to notify FFL as well (not sure here).

So does anyone know if the hearing already started? This type of hearing should fall under public info. Generally a request will be submitted, and a date will be set and published.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 9:49:27 AM EDT
Great question I would like to know too. They will have 90 days to update the list but something tells me they'll do it the next day.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 9:55:30 AM EDT
It is fortunate for us that it is near Christmas. All the people leaving for vacation could buy us an extra week or two. I could be wrong. But, I would be surprized if they had a hearing before the new year. Bureaucracies are not known for speed of execution.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 10:08:22 AM EDT
The AG will have to pull some favors from some county and Judge to cut in line to be the first on the list. Can be done, but will AG use his political reveue to do this? (Most likely some where near San Fransico)

Normal court date process, they'll be lucky they get it before first quarter of next year.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 2:44:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2005 2:45:28 PM EDT by warlord]
My feeling is that there it is probably not likely 2006, Lockyer is rumored to be running for Ahnoold's job, and he doesn't need the distraction that he is a anti-gun candidate. His supporters already know this, no need to emphasize it to his opponents.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 2:58:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By warlord:
My feeling is that there it is probably not likely 2006, Lockyer is rumored to be running for Ahnoold's job, and he doesn't need the distraction that he is a anti-gun candidate. His supporters already know this, no need to emphasize it to his opponents.


Last April Lockyer dropped out of the race in order to run for State Treasurer

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/27/BAGHGFEI2G1.DTL


But that changed in April, when Democratic Attorney General Bill Lockyer dropped out of the governor's race and plopped his $11 million war chest into the contest for treasurer.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 3:05:18 PM EDT
Damn it, why must you all make me use up my posts before my 1,000th. I wanted to save that for my "look what I got" thread

As I understand it, that is the proper procedure for ADDING weapons to the list. If they wanted to add another FAL manufacture, or add the Ruger Mini 14, or something like that then they would have to go through that procedure.

However what is happening at this moment is a bit different. They are not ADDING weapons, they are adding DETAIL to a DEFINITION. As I understand it, Harrott vs. Kings County simply made it so series did not cover EVERY weapon possible in that series. A Dragunov is completely different from an AK, yet visually and functionally they are very similar. Like a Garand and a M14, there is just too much difference between them to say they are the same weapon, even though they are in the same 'series'. So then how much different must the firearm be to NOT be part of the series? Well the Supreme Court basically ruled (again as I understand it, I could be wrong) that those receivers listed by the pre-existing list of AR or AK receivers was the series, and anything not on them wasn't part of the series. For example, Bushmaster's XM-15 is listed on the list of Assault Weapons, and is in the list of AR series weapons. If the AR series was ever removed completely, that rifle would still be banned even though other ARs were now available. The "series" is basically a list that defines what the series is. The DOJ can alter and add to it at pretty much any time they want. They could add new receivers to the list today if they wanted. That is the cause of the amss rush to get them.

I personally believe that they are taking their time to get EVERY manufacturer they can. Once all currently available models are listed, they will just need to add those that come out as they come out. Companies always put out promotionals on their new weapons and the DOJ would just need to watch those to ban them before they are even for sale. Like this:

day 1: "Company X is proud to announce their new AR: the XAR-15. Taking orders now, it will be available within the next week."
day 2: DOJ adds Company X's XAR-15 to the list.
day 3: XAR-15 sales open, it's already restricted to California residents.

That's why I think they are taking their sweet ass time right now. They want to make sure they royally screw everyone over permanently.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 3:21:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NeoWeird:
Damn it, why must you all make me use up my posts before my 1,000th. I wanted to save that for my "look what I got" thread

As I understand it, that is the proper procedure for ADDING weapons to the list. If they wanted to add another FAL manufacture, or add the Ruger Mini 14, or something like that then they would have to go through that procedure.

However what is happening at this moment is a bit different. They are not ADDING weapons, they are adding DETAIL to a DEFINITION. As I understand it, Harrott vs. Kings County simply made it so series did not cover EVERY weapon possible in that series. A Dragunov is completely different from an AK, yet visually and functionally they are very similar. Like a Garand and a M14, there is just too much difference between them to say they are the same weapon, even though they are in the same 'series'. So then how much different must the firearm be to NOT be part of the series? Well the Supreme Court basically ruled (again as I understand it, I could be wrong) that those receivers listed by the pre-existing list of AR or AK receivers was the series, and anything not on them wasn't part of the series. For example, Bushmaster's XM-15 is listed on the list of Assault Weapons, and is in the list of AR series weapons. If the AR series was ever removed completely, that rifle would still be banned even though other ARs were now available. The "series" is basically a list that defines what the series is. The DOJ can alter and add to it at pretty much any time they want. They could add new receivers to the list today if they wanted. That is the cause of the amss rush to get them.

I personally believe that they are taking their time to get EVERY manufacturer they can. Once all currently available models are listed, they will just need to add those that come out as they come out. Companies always put out promotionals on their new weapons and the DOJ would just need to watch those to ban them before they are even for sale. Like this:

day 1: "Company X is proud to announce their new AR: the XAR-15. Taking orders now, it will be available within the next week."
day 2: DOJ adds Company X's XAR-15 to the list.
day 3: XAR-15 sales open, it's already restricted to California residents.

That's why I think they are taking their sweet ass time right now. They want to make sure they royally screw everyone over permanently.



Hum, I did not read the Harrott vs. Kings decision that way. The point of the decision is to protect the general public from errous confiscation of legally purchased firearms. The court hearing is to make sure there are two body of government (DOJ and Court) to review the proof of new firearm belong to the AW list.

Basically, the decision make sure that DOJ alone cannot add firearm to the list without supervision or review. Else what's stopping DOJ to add any firearm to the "series" list regardless if it function or looks like an AR or AK? They can claim M1A as a "series" weapon and put it on the list and ban all M1A in the market.

I believe every time they change the list, they need to provide proof, info to the court. (Otherwise, the list will be changing continously already)

What do yo'al think?
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 5:52:56 PM EDT
There will be no court hearing. There will be no receivers added to the list. There will be all the CA legal receivers with fixed 10 round mags you want - for as much as the manufacturers and FFLs can get for them. There will be no new assault weapons allowed into the state.

Smoke and mirrors guys. The DOJ is blowing smoke.

As far as the FFL backing out or not wanting to get involved, look at it from their point of view. If they decide to handle the transaction for just 1 stripped not yet named lower receiver, and the person who buys it decides they just can't wait for due process to happen and assembles it into an illegal AW and gets caught. The FFL would most likely get named as an accessory in a criminal trial. And you can just bet that in CA they would be found guilty. There goes their business, their right to own firearms, their future.

Some might be willing to take the chance. But I can not fault the ones who don't want to.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 6:49:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
As far as the FFL backing out or not wanting to get involved, look at it from their point of view. If they decide to handle the transaction for just 1 stripped not yet named lower receiver, and the person who buys it decides they just can't wait for due process to happen and assembles it into an illegal AW and gets caught. The FFL would most likely get named as an accessory in a criminal trial. And you can just bet that in CA they would be found guilty. There goes their business, their right to own firearms, their future.

Some might be willing to take the chance. But I can not fault the ones who don't want to.



Bad example. How often do gun dealers get brought in on murders that are committed with weapons LEGALLY purchased? No different than someone taking a Mini-14 and putting a pistol grip stock on it. That "someone" would take the heat.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 7:36:45 PM EDT
If I were DOJ, I would put out a new list - reason:

I believe all Kaliforian gun owners are criminals at heart. So if I would to allow new receivers to come in, these folks will make them all into "illegal" AW and have a street war with detachable magazine flying as fast as bullets.

Only way to prevent future importation of these type of receiver, I would have to ban them out right. So no one in or out State will import them legally so no illegal AW can be built.

Thus, I have done my job to protect the sheep, helpless citizens of this great state!

Link Posted: 12/18/2005 8:44:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
There will be no court hearing. There will be no receivers added to the list. There will be all the CA legal receivers with fixed 10 round mags you want - for as much as the manufacturers and FFLs can get for them. There will be no new assault weapons allowed into the state.

Smoke and mirrors guys. The DOJ is blowing smoke.




That would have been my thought too had the DOJ not been so actively trying to discourage manufacturers from sending receivers and FFL's from accepting them. No reason to do all this if they intend to just have everyone keep them as is by not listing them.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 3:36:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SillyPuddy:
Bad example. How often do gun dealers get brought in on murders that are committed with weapons LEGALLY purchased? No different than someone taking a Mini-14 and putting a pistol grip stock on it. That "someone" would take the heat.



No, it was a good example. If you ask an FFL to DROS one of these AR receivers, you are asking him to do something questionable. It's a gray area, otherwise there wouldn't be so much discussion about it here and eleventy bazillion threads on calguns. There's nothing questionable about DROSing a Mini-14, no liability at all.

Any California FFL still in business has survived a couple decades of willful purging by the BATFE and the AG's office. They have every reason to be cautious. I don't blame them for not being willing to risk their livelihoods and their retirements so one of us can buy a kewl gun.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 4:36:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By urbanred:
[
No, it was a good example. If you ask an FFL to DROS one of these AR receivers, you are asking him to do something questionable. It's a gray area,



No Gray area at all, it is a position both the DOJ, and the courts hold. 100% legal to do this type of transaction.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 10:29:22 AM EDT
Below are the Counties in CA with Pop over 1 million:

Alameda 1.4
Contra Costa 1.0
LA 9.9
Orange 2.98
riverside 1.8
Sacramento 1.3
San Bernardino 1.9
San Diego 2.9
Santa Clara 1.6

Total CA pop ~ 35 mil - 2004 Census.
Link Posted: 12/24/2005 10:48:31 PM EDT
Some of the above posters are mixing up various elements of CA AW law.

- The DOJ indeed has the power to 'identify' new AR/AK 'series' members. They can merely update the Kasler list, which is in Calif Code of Regulation sec 979.11 (and echoed in PC 12276(e). The DOJ does NOT need a PC 12276.5 superior court 'add on' procedure for these guns (receivers!) and can act on their own. This is confirmed in Harrott decision, which also says that if they get too far off the reservation (i.e., declaring something as an AR or AK series member that really ain't at all) then this is challengeable in court.

- For non-AR/non-AK (i.e., non-"series"-members) guns (receivers!), the DOJ must go thru the PC 12276.5 'add on' procedure in a superior court in a county of population 1+ million. Harrott also confirms this. They get a temporary, then permanent order if sufficient 'good cause' shown. So far this has never been done. It takes more effort than updating the AR/AK Kasler list.

- In either case above, a mandatory 90-day registration window opens once the gun makes the list (Calif Code of Regulation is the gold standard - when that's updated, that's the trigger).

The Kasler AR/AK list is easiest to update, and we know there is furious activity at DOJ right now. Because of all the recent activity, it will likely be updated 1st-2nd week of January, likely 'freezing' off-list DOJ-known AR/AK receivers. If your DROS started before this, you're OK. If your DROS hasn't started before the 'declaration', you're SOL.


Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA


Link Posted: 12/26/2005 12:38:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/26/2005 1:06:22 AM EDT by kasudyo]
I'll admit I'm no expert on this latest flurry of activity. My two cents is that the DOJ is a big lumbering beaurocracy, and I wouldn't expect them to do things "quickly." The Walther P22 had been selling in CA for a couple years, and it had been advertised in national publications how it had a threaded barrel and could accept a suppressor, before CADOJ even noticed. And this was a gun they'd already seen and approved for sale. Even after they figured this out they didn't bitch about it for 6 months, and then they came up with an unenforceable "retrofit or else" policy that scared most owners into submission. It took em 4 years to notice they had approved a definition-AW, and then another year & 1/2 to come up with a paper tiger.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 8:44:19 AM EDT
DOJ will add them to the list and you will be required to register them.
That way they will know where they are when the confiscation begins after the mandatory turn in/buyback.

That's funny about Lockyergunsup running for treasurer...reminds me of that weasley brown noser in highschool who used to clean the blackboards and would run for student council...only after everyone voted for the 2 popular kids who became pres and VP....this guy with his 3 votes...one cast by him, one cast by someone who felt sorry for him and the other by an apathetic smartass who did it as a joke. That's all the treasurer is when you think about it.

Link Posted: 12/26/2005 10:47:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Walmart_Special:
Once the court hearing concur with AG's proof that the new list of firearms (with discription, pictures, etc) follow the PC 12276, then they are declared AW.




So will these pictures and descriptions be of the stripped lowers that are actualy finding their way into Cali. Or will they be of the complete rifles only available outside Cali?
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 10:51:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
There will be no court hearing. There will be no receivers added to the list. There will be all the CA legal receivers with fixed 10 round mags you want - for as much as the manufacturers and FFLs can get for them. There will be no new assault weapons allowed into the state.





You may be right. CAL DOJ may decide the best approach is to allow lowers not specifically named to be openly sold again and then just bust those who build them into cpmplete AWs.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 11:19:45 AM EDT
I seriously doubt it..........

even if that was the case the DOJ could count on 500-1000, 10rd
CALI-RCVRS per month, not to mention the AK rcvrs.....

AJ won't allow that........no way
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 2:59:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
CAL DOJ may decide the best approach is to allow lowers not specifically named to be openly sold again and then just bust those who build them into cpmplete AWs.



The law doesn't allow them to do that.

The only way they have of suppressing sales of lowers is through fear and intimidation, by strongly suggesting that "you could be exposed to prosecution from 58 different jurisdictions".

The simple fact is that, until any given lower is on the Kalser list, it's legal. Herrott already told DOJ they can not not "allow lowers not specifically named to be openly sold again".
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 6:14:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mute:

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
There will be no court hearing. There will be no receivers added to the list. There will be all the CA legal receivers with fixed 10 round mags you want - for as much as the manufacturers and FFLs can get for them. There will be no new assault weapons allowed into the state.

Smoke and mirrors guys. The DOJ is blowing smoke.




That would have been my thought too had the DOJ not been so actively trying to discourage manufacturers from sending receivers and FFL's from accepting them. No reason to do all this if they intend to just have everyone keep them as is by not listing them.



I think that the DOJ's tactic of trying to scare manufacturers into not allowing their product in California is an attempt to not have to add receivers to the list.

If they can keep the receivers out of CA and hope to keep them at least in low numbers then they won't bother updating the list. No reason to allow people to have newly registered AW if they can help it.

If the DOJ's scare tactics don't work and many receivers come into CA then they will be forced to take actual action. They may make new legislation stating that any rifle that has more than a certain percentage of "banned" type parts are illegal.

The DOJ has the creativity of a 5 year old. They may come out with some more stupid laws/definitions.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 6:38:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KillAgain:

Originally Posted By Mute:

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
There will be no court hearing. There will be no receivers added to the list. There will be all the CA legal receivers with fixed 10 round mags you want - for as much as the manufacturers and FFLs can get for them. There will be no new assault weapons allowed into the state.

Smoke and mirrors guys. The DOJ is blowing smoke.




That would have been my thought too had the DOJ not been so actively trying to discourage manufacturers from sending receivers and FFL's from accepting them. No reason to do all this if they intend to just have everyone keep them as is by not listing them.




I think that the DOJ's tactic of trying to scare manufacturers into not allowing their product in California is an attempt to not have to add receivers to the list.

If they can keep the receivers out of CA and hope to keep them at least in low numbers then they won't bother updating the list. No reason to allow people to have newly registered AW if they can help it.

If the DOJ's scare tactics don't work and many receivers come into CA then they will be forced to take actual action. They may make new legislation stating that any rifle that has more than a certain percentage of "banned" type parts are illegal.

The DOJ has the creativity of a 5 year old. They may come out with some more stupid laws/definitions.



If thousands of receivers is considered damage control, I guess they have met their goal if not, they are flowing in over the border by the thousands, and those that are shipping have back orders by the hundreds, and constantly growing. I guess I don't understand their tactics
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 7:38:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By colossians323:

Originally Posted By KillAgain:

Originally Posted By Mute:

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
There will be no court hearing. There will be no receivers added to the list. There will be all the CA legal receivers with fixed 10 round mags you want - for as much as the manufacturers and FFLs can get for them. There will be no new assault weapons allowed into the state.

Smoke and mirrors guys. The DOJ is blowing smoke.




That would have been my thought too had the DOJ not been so actively trying to discourage manufacturers from sending receivers and FFL's from accepting them. No reason to do all this if they intend to just have everyone keep them as is by not listing them.




I think that the DOJ's tactic of trying to scare manufacturers into not allowing their product in California is an attempt to not have to add receivers to the list.

If they can keep the receivers out of CA and hope to keep them at least in low numbers then they won't bother updating the list. No reason to allow people to have newly registered AW if they can help it.

If the DOJ's scare tactics don't work and many receivers come into CA then they will be forced to take actual action. They may make new legislation stating that any rifle that has more than a certain percentage of "banned" type parts are illegal.

The DOJ has the creativity of a 5 year old. They may come out with some more stupid laws/definitions.



If thousands of receivers is considered damage control, I guess they have met their goal if not, they are flowing in over the border by the thousands, and those that are shipping have back orders by the hundreds, and constantly growing. I guess I don't understand their tactics



If DOJ's goal is to not allow more "AW's" in Cali then not adding the lowers to the list meets that goal better than adding them to the list.

Realy the smartest thing for DOJ to do is say enjoy your Stag lower. use it as a paperweight, build it into a nonAW configuration and have fun with your new FABforgery. But get caught with it in an AW configuration and your screwed.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 7:39:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
CAL DOJ may decide the best approach is to allow lowers not specifically named to be openly sold again and then just bust those who build them into cpmplete AWs.



The law doesn't allow them to do that.



They are required to add lowers to the list?
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 8:17:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By jnojr:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
CAL DOJ may decide the best approach is to allow lowers not specifically named to be openly sold again and then just bust those who build them into cpmplete AWs.



The law doesn't allow them to do that.



They are required to add lowers to the list?



Of course! Because otherwise people are bringing in expensive paper weights
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 12:13:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2005 12:15:42 PM EDT by RBPRECISION]
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 2:39:32 PM EDT
Just keep in mind that even if DOJ decides to not add any new lowers to the ban list, you'll still have a genuine AR15 lower that isn't neutered by a welded in mag tube. At worst, you can either build it with the neutered mag, or resell your lower out of state and you'll be out at most, your DROS fee and maybe shipping. I got my lower at cost, so I'm not really loosing much if these lowers are never listed.
Top Top