Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/4/2006 8:52:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2006 8:53:21 PM EDT by tenround]
I just read the DOJ notice, and I can see (not agree) with their logic.

Newly identified Aseries@ weapons cannot legally have the features listed in PC
section 12276.1 when they are registered. Those features cannot legally be added after the
firearms are registered as assault weapons. The PC section 12276.1 features have been
banned since January 1, 2000, when Senate Bill 23 went into effect. The public was notified of
the prohibition on the specified features many years ago.
IMPORTANT NOTICE
Page Two
The registration period for assault weapons with those characteristics (Category 3
assault weapons) ended on December 31, 2000. Because non-“series” assault weapons with
PC section 12276.1 features may not be offered for sale, manufactured, imported, or
possessed in California, it follows that newly registered “series” weapons may not have the
features listed in PC section 12276.1, either.
The prohibition on the features listed in PC section 12276.1 is consistent with current
DOJ policy that named Aseries@ weapons are illegal, unless registered, regardless of whether they
have the PC section 12276.1 features. It is also consistent with the intent of the California state
legislature to ban assault weapons, expressed in 1991 when PC section 12276(f) was enacted.

Basically any lower added to the list post SB 23 has to be built into a rifle in specification to SB 23. hinking.gif
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:09:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2006 9:09:37 PM EDT by ZCHF]
thats fine and dandy, but if thats the case and you are building it to abide by SB23, then its not an AW, period.

If they decide to call it an assault weapon, regardless of SB23, then its open game. They either get a couple thousand new assault rifles with all features, or potentially hundreds of thousands of lowers that must be fixed. Its their decision, but they cant have both like they are stating.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:18:48 PM EDT
So if you understand their logic...how can the CA Peace Officers who were allowed to register under the "make-up" registration allowed to have evil features on their "assault weapons"? How many of them have had their registration revoked or charged with felonies?
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:51:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nightmanta:
So if you understand their logic...how can the CA Peace Officers who were allowed to register under the "make-up" registration allowed to have evil features on their "assault weapons"? How many of them have had their registration revoked or charged with felonies?



People keep bringing this up and I'd like to look at it in more depth. Do you have a cite or a link that would explain what the "make up" registration was all about?
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:59:12 PM EDT
Here's the basic logic you must understand before their notice makes sense:

All these firearms we're going to force to be registered as Assault Weapons, may not be Assault Weapons. If they are Assault Weapons, they're no longer registered Assault Weapons.

Make sense? No, of course not. It also doesn't make legal sense, and is one shitty foundation to build a case on.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 10:28:28 PM EDT
(g) (1) Any person who registered a firearm as an assault weapon
pursuant to the provisions of law in effect prior to January 1, 2000,
where the assault weapon is thereafter defined as an assault weapon
pursuant to Section 12276.1, shall be deemed to have registered the
weapon for purposes of this chapter and shall not be required to
reregister the weapon pursuant to this section.
(2) Any person who legally registered a firearm as an assault
weapon pursuant to the provisions of law in effect prior to January
1, 2005, where the assault weapon is thereafter defined as a .50
caliber BMG rifle pursuant to Section 12278, shall be deemed to have
registered the weapon for purposes of this chapter and shall not be
required to reregister the weapon pursuant to this section.

Link Posted: 2/4/2006 10:52:26 PM EDT
<nevermind>
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 7:12:42 AM EDT
If you want me to register it as an AW then thats what it is.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 8:02:57 AM EDT
There are at least two ways a weapon can be an assault weapon in California. It can be beanned by name or banned by features. CALDOJ has decided that they are going to add the unlisted lowers to the banned by name catagory. Adding features that would make the an AW would be violating another section of law, no different in DOJ's mind than if you make an SBR or full auto and claim being banned by name allows you to do so.

DOJ's position is simple, meeting the legal requirments of one segment of AW law doesnt give you card blanc to ignore the other sections of ca AW law.

The laws that prohibit the manufacturing of an AW, SBR, full auto, silencer, pipe bomb is not trumped by a AW registration card if the registration is based on name, not features, alone..
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 8:39:26 AM EDT
Except that logic doesnt't work either or how could listed bushmasters, which are listed by name and series, be allowed into the state if the detatchable magazine feature is removed? That is what they have allowed with the welded bushmasters. And these do not have to be registered with the DOJ so why would we register our fixed magazine firearms as "assault weapons"?
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 9:19:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
The laws that prohibit the manufacturing of an AW, SBR, full auto, silencer, pipe bomb is not trumped by a AW registration card if the registration is based on name, not features, alone..



And none of those laws would be broken by adding a detachable magazine and pistol grip to it, once they declare the lower an assault weapon. You can't manufacture an AW, if it is already declared an AW. Their view of the definition of AW as categorized based on how it got there, just isn't supported in the text of the law.

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the
following designated semiautomatic firearms:
<banned by name and series declarations here>

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall
also mean any of the following:
< list of AW characteristics here>

It appears straightforward to me that while there are 2 paths to get to being an AW, either way, it is fully considered an AW. When they declare it to be an AW, THEY manufacture the AW, not the owners. When the owners want to add a detachable magazine to an existing AW, that is not a problem.

Then look at the registration section:
12285. (a)(1) Any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon, as defined in Section 12276, prior to June 1, 1989, shall register the firearm by January 1, 1991, and any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was specified as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.5 shall register the firearm within 90 days, with the Department of Justice pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish. Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 12280, any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.1, and which was not specified as an assault weapon under Section 12276 or 12276.5, shall register the firearm within one year of the effective date of Section 12276.1, with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish.

If they define it ti be an AW based on name(section 12276, we are able to register it as an AW, and we do not have to register is as an AW pursuant to 12276.1, EVEN IF ADDING FEATURES MAKES IT MEET THE DEFINITION OF AW BY 12276.1

It doesn't get any clearer than this to me.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 10:14:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zapp:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
The laws that prohibit the manufacturing of an AW, SBR, full auto, silencer, pipe bomb is not trumped by a AW registration card if the registration is based on name, not features, alone..



And none of those laws would be broken by adding a detachable magazine and pistol grip to it, once they declare the lower an assault weapon. You can't manufacture an AW, if it is already declared an AW.



I think DOJ disagrees with you on that and could prove their case by letting a Jurry of 12 examine a stripped lower and your completed rifle.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 10:50:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 10:52:35 AM EDT by Spahn_Ranch]

Originally Posted By Zapp:
If they define it ti be an AW based on name(section 12276, we are able to register it as an AW, and we do not have to register is as an AW pursuant to 12276.1, EVEN IF ADDING FEATURES MAKES IT MEET THE DEFINITION OF AW BY 12276.1



What the language you highlighted from PC 12285(a)(1) says is that if you were in lawful possession of an assault weapon as defined by 12276.1 prior to January 1, 2000, and the AW was not on the original Roberti-Roos list (12276) and was not a subsequently listed AR/AK series or add-on AW (12276.5) -- in which case you would have been previously required to register the AW within the statutory deadlines applicable to those specific definitions of "assault weapon" -- then you were required to register the AW within one year after the effective date of section 12276.1 (SB 23). Without that language, someone who did not timely register an AW that was on the original Roberti Roos list, or listed as an AR/AK/add-on AW under 12276.5 (were there any of those prior to January 1, 2000?), would have argubaly been given a second bite at the registration apple back in 2000. The highlighted language was meant to rule that argument out.

If you did have a 12276 or 12276.5 AW that you timely registered under pre-SB23 law, then you were excused from the requirement to "reregister" the assault weapon as an 12276.1 assault weapon under SB 23 if it also met the 12276.1 criteria (see Penal Code 12285(g)(1)). There is no similar excuse for compliance with the 12/31/00 deadline to register 12276.1 assault weapons for 12276.1 assault weapons built out of AR series receivers added to the list subsequent to the January 1, 2000, effective date of SB 23.

I have to say that you are headed on the right track here, much more so than the folks who keep repeating "an assault weapon is an assault weapon" or "there are no categories of assault weapons" or "it doesn't matter what path an assault weapon took to become an assault weapon" because all of those can be fairly easily dismantled by examining the text of the AW, especially its registration scheme and registration deadlines for each category of AW. What is needed is more and better textual support for those arguments, which is what you appear to be looking for. Better arguments will be needed in order to have a shot at challenging the DOJ's interpretation, which is more than amply supported by the text of the AW laws, which promotes the legislative intent of those laws, and which will be entitled to deference in court. I think lots of folks are in denial about this.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 11:09:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Zapp:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
The laws that prohibit the manufacturing of an AW, SBR, full auto, silencer, pipe bomb is not trumped by a AW registration card if the registration is based on name, not features, alone..First, what a shitty comparison. We;ve got apples, oranges, screwdrivers, blue jay, catalytic converters.. a whole array of totally unsimilar items that you're trying to compare. Bad form.



And none of those laws would be broken by adding a detachable magazine and pistol grip to it, once they declare the lower an assault weapon. You can't manufacture an AW, if it is already declared an AW.



I think DOJ disagrees with you on that and could prove their case by letting a Jurry of 12 examine a stripped lower and your completed rifle.

I guess everyone who bought a stripped receiver before 2000 must be breaking the law, too, according to your interpretation.

It boils down to: Is it registered as an AW? Yes or no? If yes, then it can be made to fit under any of the definitions of AWs we have on the books.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 11:34:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Zapp:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
The laws that prohibit the manufacturing of an AW, SBR, full auto, silencer, pipe bomb is not trumped by a AW registration card if the registration is based on name, not features, alone..



And none of those laws would be broken by adding a detachable magazine and pistol grip to it, once they declare the lower an assault weapon. You can't manufacture an AW, if it is already declared an AW.



I think DOJ disagrees with you on that and could prove their case by letting a Jurry of 12 examine a stripped lower and your completed rifle.



A jurry of 12? Is that a Jury of 12 pirates? Arrr!

I don't think letting them examine a stripped lower and the completed rifle is the key to anything that the jury would decide. The key would be in the wording of the law as I pointed out. And that would probably be a case decided by the CA supreme court, either way.

Link Posted: 2/5/2006 11:50:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 11:52:24 AM EDT by Zapp]

Originally Posted By Spahn_Ranch:

Originally Posted By Zapp:
If they define it ti be an AW based on name(section 12276, we are able to register it as an AW, and we do not have to register is as an AW pursuant to 12276.1, EVEN IF ADDING FEATURES MAKES IT MEET THE DEFINITION OF AW BY 12276.1



What the language you highlighted from PC 12285(a)(1) says is that if you were in lawful possession of an assault weapon as defined by 12276.1 prior to January 1, 2000, and the AW was not on the original Roberti-Roos list (12276) and was not a subsequently listed AR/AK series or add-on AW (12276.5) -- in which case you would have been previously required to register the AW within the statutory deadlines applicable to those specific definitions of "assault weapon" -- then you were required to register the AW within one year after the effective date of section 12276.1 (SB 23). Without that language, someone who did not timely register an AW that was on the original Roberti Roos list, or listed as an AR/AK/add-on AW under 12276.5 (were there any of those prior to January 1, 2000?), would have argubaly been given a second bite at the registration apple back in 2000. The highlighted language was meant to rule that argument out.



But it also rules out the need to register an AW(as defined by characteristics) if it is an add on to the series or named AW lists AFTER 2000. Simply stated, it says, if its lawfully possessed as an AW(AW as defined by any of the defiinitions of AW), then it doesn't need to be reregistered.


Originally Posted By Spahn_Ranch:

I have to say that you are headed on the right track here, much more so than the folks who keep repeating "an assault weapon is an assault weapon" or "there are no categories of assault weapons" or "it doesn't matter what path an assault weapon took to become an assault weapon" because all of those can be fairly easily dismantled by examining the text of the AW, especially its registration scheme and registration deadlines for each category of AW. What is needed is more and better textual support for those arguments, which is what you appear to be looking for. Better arguments will be needed in order to have a shot at challenging the DOJ's interpretation, which is more than amply supported by the text of the AW laws, which promotes the legislative intent of those laws, and which will be entitled to deference in court. I think lots of folks are in denial about this.



Unfortunately, I still disagree with you about this. An AW is an AW, regardless of how it got there. That was my point with the excerpts from 12276 and 12276.1, to show that they are showing methods for describing AW, and not a method of describing a category of AW. The registration scheme and deadlines are not for categories of AW, but rather they are requirements for each method of defining an AW. That doesn't make them seperate categories, it simply means that if it is an AW according to rule A, it needed to be registered by time A, if it was defined an AW by rule B, it needed to be registered by time B. But once it is declared an AW, and the registration is done, there is no requirement to reregister it if it , whether it is defined an AW by one method, or 20 methods.

That DOJ letter sounds like Dean Wormer at the DOJ is trying to put us on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 11:51:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:
It boils down to: Is it registered as an AW? Yes or no? If yes, then it can be made to fit under any of the definitions of AWs we have on the books.



Wouldn't it be nice if the AW legislation actually said that? Unfortunately it doesn't, and the DOJ is taking the position that registration under one category/definition/designation of assault weapon does not amount to registration under another. This position is fully supported by the text of the Penal Code. Your efforts are doomed unless you acknowledge that and find another argument.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 12:11:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zapp:
But it also rules out the need to register an AW(as defined by characteristics) if it is an add on to the series or named AW lists AFTER 2000. Simply stated, it says, if its lawfully possessed as an AW(AW as defined by any of the defiinitions of AW), then it doesn't need to be reregistered.



Not really. The language has to do with AWs that were possessed prior to January 1, 2000, and which were on the original Robert-Roos list or added on prior to that date. There is no basis on which to extend the language to cover AR series AW's listed subsequent to that date. And again, the language is not saying "once you register under one category you don't have to register under another" it's saying "if you have a 12276 or 12276.5 AW on January 1, 2000, that you did not previously register, you can't even make the argument that you should be allowed to register it now." And PC 12285(g) suggests that even if you did have a properly registered 12276 or 12276.5 AW as of January 1, 2000, you would have been required to re-register that AW as an 12276.1 AW sometime between 1/1/00 and 12/31/00 (assuming the previously registered AW met the 12276.1 criteria) but for the language in 12285(g) which says you don't have to.

The "an AW is an AW regardless how it got there" mantra has surface appeal, but that's all it has and it's not much. The legislature intended to ban 12276.1 AWs effective 1/1/00, and they did that through registration requirements and deadlines. The DOJ's ultimate position can be stated simply: You may not possess a 12276.1 AW unless it was lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2000, and timely registered on or before 12/31/00. Therefore cannot build your newly-listed and registered AR receiver into an 12276.1 AW without violating this ban on possession.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 12:58:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spahn_Ranch:

The "an AW is an AW regardless how it got there" mantra has surface appeal, but that's all it has and it's not much. The legislature intended to ban 12276.1 AWs effective 1/1/00, and they did that through registration requirements and deadlines. The DOJ's ultimate position can be stated simply: You may not possess a 12276.1 AW unless it was lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2000, and timely registered on or before 12/31/00. Therefore cannot build your newly-listed and registered AR receiver into an 12276.1 AW without violating this ban on possession.



I can see why the timeline argument is used by the CA DOJ. I don't think that is the issue, however. Military personnel apparently can continue to get valid AW registrations, that exempts them from the 2000 deadline for features, or whatever the date was.

What the DOJ is wanting to do is add a stipulation that the AW registration for the new lowers is immediately rendered invalid upon addition of those year 2000 deadline features. Is that DOJ adding in new legislation that is not coded into law? We'll wait and see.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 1:02:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spahn_Ranch:

Originally Posted By Zapp:
But it also rules out the need to register an AW(as defined by characteristics) if it is an add on to the series or named AW lists AFTER 2000. Simply stated, it says, if its lawfully possessed as an AW(AW as defined by any of the defiinitions of AW), then it doesn't need to be reregistered.



Not really. The language has to do with AWs that were possessed prior to January 1, 2000, and which were on the original Robert-Roos list or added on prior to that date. There is no basis on which to extend the language to cover AR series AW's listed subsequent to that date.



Other than the law itself, you are correct, there is no basis to extend the language to cover AR series AWs listed subsequent to that date. That is something we will just disagree on. It seems quite clear to me that is what it says.



Originally Posted By Spahn_Ranch:
And again, the language is not saying "once you register under one category you don't have to register under another" it's saying "if you have a 12276 or 12276.5 AW on January 1, 2000, that you did not previously register, you can't even make the argument that you should be allowed to register it now."



It quite clearly says IF the weapon was NOT defined as an AW via 12276 and 12276.5, then you have to register it by X deadline. These new lowers will be defined as an AW by 12276.5, so the requirement to register is NOT there.

You are correct though, the language doesn't say if you register under one category, you don't have to register under another. But you are only correct because the language doesn't mention categories of AW. The law clearly states that if it was defined as an AW according to 12276 or 12276.5, then it is not required to register it according to the 12276.1 characteristics, ie. no need to reregister. Why would you need to reregister, since its already an AW?


Originally Posted By Spahn_Ranch:
And PC 12285(g) suggests that even if you did have a properly registered 12276 or 12276.5 AW as of January 1, 2000, you would have been required to re-register that AW as an 12276.1 AW sometime between 1/1/00 and 12/31/00 (assuming the previously registered AW met the 12276.1 criteria) but for the language in 12285(g) which says you don't have to.



It states that you don't have to reregister, which backs up the other statement about not requiring to reregister. Nothing more in it than that.



Originally Posted By Spahn_Ranch:
The DOJ's ultimate position can be stated simply: You may not possess a 12276.1 AW unless it was lawfully possessed prior to January 1, 2000, and timely registered on or before 12/31/00. Therefore cannot build your newly-listed and registered AR receiver into an 12276.1 AW without violating this ban on possession.



Unfortunately, their position isn't supported by the Penal Code. Not that the law has stopped them in the past.

Link Posted: 2/5/2006 2:50:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Zapp:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
The laws that prohibit the manufacturing of an AW, SBR, full auto, silencer, pipe bomb is not trumped by a AW registration card if the registration is based on name, not features, alone..First, what a shitty comparison. We;ve got apples, oranges, screwdrivers, blue jay, catalytic converters.. a whole array of totally unsimilar items that you're trying to compare. Bad form.



And none of those laws would be broken by adding a detachable magazine and pistol grip to it, once they declare the lower an assault weapon. You can't manufacture an AW, if it is already declared an AW.



I think DOJ disagrees with you on that and could prove their case by letting a Jurry of 12 examine a stripped lower and your completed rifle.

I guess everyone who bought a stripped receiver before 2000 must be breaking the law, too, according to your interpretation.



DOJ opinion was if you registered a stripped lower building it into a complete rifle was manufacturing an AW. Remember they they asked for Brl length and caliber on the registration forms. However that opinion is pretty tough to enforce.

Link Posted: 2/5/2006 2:52:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spahn_Ranch:

Originally Posted By leelaw:
It boils down to: Is it registered as an AW? Yes or no? If yes, then it can be made to fit under any of the definitions of AWs we have on the books.



Wouldn't it be nice if the AW legislation actually said that? Unfortunately it doesn't, and the DOJ is taking the position that registration under one category/definition/designation of assault weapon does not amount to registration under another.



Pretty much. Although I read it more as registation under one catagory/definition does not allow you to violate the provisions of another catagory/definition.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 2:53:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 2:54:53 PM EDT by Whitesmoke]
"Newly identified Aseries@ weapons cannot legally have the features listed in PC
section 12276.1 when they are registered."

Hold on a second....that statement is just not true. These lowers CAN legally have these features now...AS LONG AS IT DOESN"T HAVE A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE. They are creating assualt weapons out of a rifle that is currently NOT an assualt weapon. These rifles with a non-detachable magazine can ALREADY legally have these features.

So, that statement doesn't hold an water in my opinion....what do you guys think?
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 3:05:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ShadowOne:
What the DOJ is wanting to do is add a stipulation that the AW registration for the new lowers is immediately rendered invalid upon addition of those year 2000 deadline features. Is that DOJ adding in new legislation that is not coded into law? We'll wait and see.



There is no explicit authority for the DOJ to do that; my prediction is that the DOJ will issue a regulation to that effect, under its statutory authority to issue regulations to implement the AW legislation. Don't have the cite handy. The concept of invalidating the registration for a 12276.5 AW if it is built into a 12276.1 AW is consistent with the idea that registration as one type of AW (12276.5) does not allow you to violate the ban on possession of other AWs (12276.1) as AR15fan summed it up above. If the DOJ does issue such a regulation, it might be the thing to hang your hat on as far as finding an avenue to challenge the DOJ's interpretation of AW laws.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 3:36:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 3:37:05 PM EDT by AyeGuy]

Originally Posted By Whitesmoke:
"Newly identified Aseries@ weapons cannot legally have the features listed in PC
section 12276.1 when they are registered."

Hold on a second....that statement is just not true. These lowers CAN legally have these features now...AS LONG AS IT DOESN"T HAVE A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE. They are creating assualt weapons out of a rifle that is currently NOT an assualt weapon. These rifles with a non-detachable magazine can ALREADY legally have these features.

So, that statement doesn't hold an water in my opinion....what do you guys think?



As I said in another thread: DOJ is making you register these recievers as legal assault weapons...then telling you they cannot be made into assault weapons
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 3:39:49 PM EDT
Wow, this all very facinating. So now LEOs or range nazis will need some kind of "Identifying Assault Weapons for Dummies" handbook when "enforcing" the laws.

They will then have to determine the Roberti-Roos AWs, the pre-2000 AR/AK series AWs, the pre-2000 SB23 AWs, and the brand, spanking, new-for-2006 model year: the post-2000 AR/AK series AWs!!!!

I think all the ranges should now extend the cease fire period from 5-10 minutes to a frakin 60 minutes just in case some jbt wants to use CLETS to check if a rifle is kosher or not. Or better yet, why not a mandatory bar-code or RFID tag that will be embedded in the receiver, so all that needs to be done is to scan a gun at ranges before anyone is allowed on the firing line.

so, Mr. Spahn_Wrench, are you just here to play devil's advocate, or do you really support the notion of multiple tiers of AWs which will only accomplish adding more confusion in terms of enforcement and the possibility of dumb-asses getting busted for doing something stupid?

You would think that it would just be easier for these off-list lowers to be added to the list, the 90-day window opened up, etc., then everyone goes about their merry little way. On the other hand, the DOJ could just simply do nothing and enforce SB23, so all the off-list lowers will just be higher quality FAB10 type rifles. Either of these paths will leave little confusion, yet you seem to advocate doing things "the hard way".


Link Posted: 2/5/2006 3:40:38 PM EDT
Let's look back at the legislature's written reasons for why firearms should be listed in 12276 of the Penal Code. We find that in section 12275.5. It is based on "each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings." That is the stated reason for the law.
Why does this matter? If you have a pinned magazine, you no longer have a "high rate of fire" and such a weapon would not fall under the scope of the law.
If you don't have a pistol grip on these firearms, the rate of fire and capacity for firepower drops dramatically. That was the reason that pistol grips were included in the characteristics because of their ability to aid in rapid fire. Therefore the weapon would not fall under the scope of the law.
The characteristics listed in 12276.1 were viewed as the characteristics shared by the listed weapons that made them especially dangerous.
How many of the named firearms had detatchable magazines? How many had pistol grips? How many had flash suppressers? There is your answer.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 5:13:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By phish:
Wow, this all very facinating. So now LEOs or range nazis will need some kind of "Identifying Assault Weapons for Dummies" handbook when "enforcing" the laws.



Whats most likely to happen is when California local LEOs encounter an AR pattern rifle they will run the serial number and see if its a registered AW. If its legally registered, has a Brl at least 16" long, and an OAL of at least 26" your average street cop is going to think its perfectly legal. The average street cop is unlikely to recognize a Stag or Doublestarlower and realize the registration is invalid per CALDOJ becuase it has a detachable mag and a PG.

However, if you find orself in a position where the cops are running the SN or your AR you're likely in hot water already. Additionally if you find youself in really hot water, to the point that local LE realize they are in over their heads and call i CALDOJ for their expertide, it might bite you on the ass.

that second paragraph is the reality of how most people get themselves into trouble for "assault weapons" in California. It's not like the cops are stopping you for a b/o headlight, getting consent to search for drugs and stumbling across an AW in the trunk every day. When they do they are not usually in the possession of the types of people who fill out registration cards.

In my 13 years of southern California LE i am aware of less than 10 AW arrests. Compair that to Hundreds of drug arrests, hundreds of domestic violnece arrests, hundreds of DUI arrests. Hell I find more brass knuckles, billy clubs and stolen handguns than AWs.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 7:02:11 PM EDT
[qoute]As I said in another thread: DOJ is making you register these recievers as legal assault weapons...then telling you they cannot be made into assault weapons

No, what they are telling you is that you cannot have a FIREARM with "evil features".
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 7:05:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By phish:
Wow, this all very facinating. So now LEOs or range nazis will need some kind of "Identifying Assault Weapons for Dummies" handbook when "enforcing" the laws.



Whats most likely to happen is when California local LEOs encounter an AR pattern rifle they will run the serial number and see if its a registered AW. If its legally registered, has a Brl at least 16" long, and an OAL of at least 26" your average street cop is going to think its perfectly legal. The average street cop is unlikely to recognize a Stag or Doublestarlower and realize the registration is invalid per CALDOJ becuase it has a detachable mag and a PG. That's been my experience, at least inregards to LEO that frequent my ranges. Mostly they have Colts, so everything else falls into the category of registered or not registered




However, if you find orself in a position where the cops are running the SN or your AR you're likely in hot water already. Additionally if you find youself in really hot water, to the point that local LE realize they are in over their heads and call i CALDOJ for their expertide, it might bite you on the ass. Boy, isn't that the truth
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 8:47:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
[qoute]As I said in another thread: DOJ is making you register these recievers as legal assault weapons...then telling you they cannot be made into assault weapons

No, what they are telling you is that you cannot have a FIREARM with "evil features".



An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 8:52:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
[qoute]As I said in another thread: DOJ is making you register these recievers as legal assault weapons...then telling you they cannot be made into assault weapons

No, what they are telling you is that you cannot have a FIREARM with "evil features".



An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features

An assault weapon by definition has evil features

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features



I dont understand.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 9:09:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 9:31:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 9:32:38 PM EDT by Pthfndr]

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
[qoute]As I said in another thread: DOJ is making you register these recievers as legal assault weapons...then telling you they cannot be made into assault weapons

No, what they are telling you is that you cannot have a FIREARM with "evil features".



An assault weapon by definition has evil features Not true. The RR assault weapons were assault weapons because the legislature said they were. Not because they had any specific features as mentioned later on in SB23. A stripped Colt AR15 lower receiver was (and still is) an AW, even though it had / has NO features. Under SB23 a FIREARM was called an AW if it had certain features. You need to think like a lwayer, not a gun lover

They are making you register your firearm as an assault rifle (which has evil features)...then saying you can not make it into an assault rifle...which cannot have evil features No again. They are making you register a firearm as an AW because the LAW says they can. Regardless of if it has evil features or not. They aren't saying you can't make it into an AW, they're saying you can't have a FIREARM with evil features because having a FIREARM that was purchased after a fixed date, and adding evil features after a fixed date makes it ILLEGAL to possess, sell, transfer, etc within this state.






Whether it's on the list as an AW or not, you cannot add evil features to it anymore because there was a date after which that is ILLEGAL to do.

I think this will all come down to how what a court thinks the intent of the legislation was. You know what a court on this side of the rockies will think. SCOTUS might think differently.

Try not to get hung up on the "AW" designation. Think of the basic instrument as a firearm and how the legislature has tried to alter the designation of various firearms.

Link Posted: 2/5/2006 9:35:52 PM EDT

"Newly identified Aseries@ weapons cannot legally have the features listed in PC
section 12276.1 when they are registered."

Hold on a second....that statement is just not true. These lowers CAN legally have these features now...AS LONG AS IT DOESN"T HAVE A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE. They are creating assualt weapons out of a rifle that is currently NOT an assualt weapon. These rifles with a non-detachable magazine can ALREADY legally have these features.



Exactly! DOJ is just out of their mind and is coming up with STU-PID things. We shouldn't have to register it if we are going to have it as FIXED MAG, this is no longer an AW. If we were to register it as AW than this is an AW, which i think should have all the good feature.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 10:21:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 10:34:53 PM EDT by Whitesmoke]



Whether it's on the list as an AW or not, you cannot add evil features to it anymore because there was a date after which that is ILLEGAL to do.



I don't really think thats an accurate statement. If you have a registered AW from the last ban...you can keep adding features anytime you like. Thats not illegal to do at all.

Also...my fixed mag 5.56mm rifle can have all the features I want under CURRENT Ca law. But they are now trying to say that the FEATURES are illegal.

The features are NOT illegal in themselves....but they ARE the defining Characteristics which define what an assault weapon is. They are just defining Characteristics...not illegal attributes.

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:
followed by the list of Characteristics.

It is not the Characteristics themselves that are banned.....if they were, you couldn't have pistol grips on non-detachable mag semi-auto centerfire rifles

(like the barret 50 cal in the following link before the 50 cal was banned in CA last year)
www.50bmgstore.com/barrett50bmgstore_M82A1.htm

Make sure to read the CA DOJ letter posted there as well.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 10:38:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 10:41:32 PM EDT by Pthfndr]

Originally Posted By Whitesmoke:



Whether it's on the list as an AW or not, you cannot add evil features to it anymore because there was a date after which that is ILLEGAL to do.



I don't really think thats an accurate statement. If you have a registered AW from the last ban...you can keep adding features anytime you like. Thats not illegal to do at all. True, but we're talking about newly listed ones here

Also...my fixed mag 5.56mm rifle can have all the features I want under CURRENT Ca law. But they are now trying to say that the FEATURES are illegal. If it has a detachable mag it would be

The features are NOT illegal in themselves....but they ARE the defining Characteristics which define what an assault weapon is. They are just defining Characteristics...not illegal attributes. agreed

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:
followed by the list of Characteristics.

It is not the Characteristics themselves that are banned.....agree, it's a firearm with the characteristics, not an AW with the characteristics



I would imagine that when / if the DOJ adds all these new receivers to the list they will add a sort of "disclaimer" that says *with detachable magazine.

That way they preserve their prior action of allowing Fab10s, Vulcans and Bushies with fixed to come into the state as legal firearms, while at the same time supposedly preventing anyone from building a firearm with evil features. And since they're naming new receivers as AWs they also get to make people register them.

I think the DOJ letter wasn't worded very well. It should have said that a newly named receiver to the series list could not have any of the defining characteristics if it also had a detachable magazine. (or did I miss where it says that?)
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 11:44:06 PM EDT

It should have said that a newly named receiver to the series list could not have any of the defining characteristics if it also had a detachable magazine. (or did I miss where it says that?)


I agree with you there....it would have made a whole lot more sense if they had worded it that way. The way it is worded now makes the features sound like they are banned....when it's really just a combination of the features that creates an AW.

Sheesh...I wish they'd just live the law abiding citizens alone.....any criminals would have just went and bought one out of state or elsewhere years ago, not messing with these legal lowers and trying to stay within the law.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 5:32:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
[qoute]As I said in another thread: DOJ is making you register these recievers as legal assault weapons...then telling you they cannot be made into assault weapons

No, what they are telling you is that you cannot have a FIREARM with "evil features".



An assault weapon by definition has evil features




Not all of them. They can be banned by name too. A hunk of aluminum is an AW if it has the right/wrong brand and model number stamped on it.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:34:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 2:35:17 PM EDT by Spahn_Ranch]

Originally Posted By phish:
so, Mr. Spahn_Wrench, are you just here to play devil's advocate, or do you really support the notion of multiple tiers of AWs which will only accomplish adding more confusion in terms of enforcement and the possibility of dumb-asses getting busted for doing something stupid?



Initially I came here to try to show people there was another side to the coin other than the Calguns FAQ. After reading that FAQ and Harrott, I went out and bought a new lower myself, but I had nagging doubts about whether the strategy of building it into an SB23 AW would ultimately work. So I tried to lay out a possible counter argument using specific language from the AW legislation. It wasn't like I wanted to adopt or believe the counter argument myself, I just felt it was risky for people to follow a FAQ which refused to even admit there could even be a counter argument, and those risks needed to be vocalized.

But when all is said and done, yes, at this point I do think the legislature intended to ban SB23-configured AWs effective 1/1/00; that there are separate categories of AWs with separate registration deadlines (that were how the ban was accomplished); and that it will be an uphill battle to try to convince a trial judge or appellate court otherwise. Now that the DOJ notice came out people on both sides of the argument are starting to do more statutory analysis, and some have good arguments which are making me re-evaluate my own position. I think this is a healthier state of affairs than saying "there can be no other way than what the FAQ says" although there are some who still have that mindset.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:44:12 PM EDT
The "intent" of the laws was to ensure no more AWs made it "legally" into the state.

If you think they had any other intent it was sure hidden.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 2:55:52 PM EDT
"SEC. 12. It was the original intent of the Legislature in enacting
Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989 to ban all assault weapons,
regardless of their name, model number, or manufacture. It is the
purpose of this act [i.e., S.B.23] to effectively achieve the Legislature's intent
to prohibit all assault weapons."

I don't know, this statement of intent seems pretty clear to me.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 3:00:29 PM EDT
What they "intended" to do and what the law actually says can be two different things. Intent is not a magic wand, the law must be obeyed only in its detail.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 3:04:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zapp:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
The laws that prohibit the manufacturing of an AW, SBR, full auto, silencer, pipe bomb is not trumped by a AW registration card if the registration is based on name, not features, alone..



And none of those laws would be broken by adding a detachable magazine and pistol grip to it, once they declare the lower an assault weapon. You can't manufacture an AW, if it is already declared an AW. Their view of the definition of AW as categorized based on how it got there, just isn't supported in the text of the law.

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the
following designated semiautomatic firearms:
<banned by name and series declarations here>

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall
also mean any of the following:
< list of AW characteristics here>

It appears straightforward to me that while there are 2 paths to get to being an AW, either way, it is fully considered an AW. When they declare it to be an AW, THEY manufacture the AW, not the owners. When the owners want to add a detachable magazine to an existing AW, that is not a problem.

Then look at the registration section:
12285. (a)(1) Any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon, as defined in Section 12276, prior to June 1, 1989, shall register the firearm by January 1, 1991, and any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was specified as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.5 shall register the firearm within 90 days, with the Department of Justice pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish. Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 12280, any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.1, and which was not specified as an assault weapon under Section 12276 or 12276.5, shall register the firearm within one year of the effective date of Section 12276.1, with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish.

If they define it ti be an AW based on name(section 12276, we are able to register it as an AW, and we do not have to register is as an AW pursuant to 12276.1, EVEN IF ADDING FEATURES MAKES IT MEET THE DEFINITION OF AW BY 12276.1

It doesn't get any clearer than this to me.



I really do think Zapp has it right. This DOJ policy is NOT consistent with the law. It will NOT stand up in court. I reiterate that it will take someone going to court to get the policy overturned. I do not particularly want it to be me.

The silver lining is we have the official green light to buy the lowers. That is a huge step forward.
Top Top