April First and no list? I have read all the sugar-coated "they will list" talk over at cal-guns, but we are now in month four and no list.

Here are some other questions I have:

Have the lower recievers that were confiscated from Milpitas been returned yet?

Is there any truth to the rumor that Tradersports in San leandro California was specifically targeted (I know they have been on the radar for years) for an audit because they sold the first JP enterprises lower in Northern California?

Will the California DOJ begin a new round of audits at FFL's concentrating on shops selling off-list lowers?

Were individuals arrested at a range in Davis California for shooting off-list lowers?

What's goin on? Anyone have any updates?!?

Well, I know for a genuine fact that the new list is going to be released May Day

Quoted: April First and no list? I have read all the sugar-coated "they will list" talk over at cal-guns, but we are now in month four and no list. At this point there is little doubt that they will list.  We just don't know how long. Here are some other questions I have: Have the lower recievers that were confiscated from Milpitas been returned yet? As far as I know, they have not been returned Is there any truth to the rumor that Tradersports in San leandro California was specifically targeted (I know they have been on the radar for years) for an audit because they sold the first JP enterprises lower in Northern California? This is false, I believe their problems were federal and local (city).  They may have sold the first JP lower, but they haven't sold any since.  Some of the more high volume FFLs have sold hundreds, and at least on I know of has sold thousands.   Will the California DOJ begin a new round of audits at FFL's concentrating on shops selling off-list lowers? They already did this back in January/February, that's how they seized the Miplitas lowers. Were individuals arrested at a range in Davis California for shooting off-list lowers? They may have been, but it is not clear at this time if they were using a fixed mag configuration or using the rifle with detachable mag (much more likely) What's goin on? Anyone have any updates?!?

I am going to have to disagree with you about there being "little doubt" about the lowers being put on the list. I have a funny feeling I am not the only person who feels this way either. Why so long?

Quoted: I am going to have to disagree with you about there being "little doubt" about the lowers being put on the list. I have a funny feeling I am not the only person who feels this way either. Why so long?

They said in person at the San Jose gun show back in December that these would be listed.

Leaked documents around this time (including provisional list updates) confirm that they are working on it.

They have said in writing numerous times that they are going to list these.

They said in the Feb. 1st memo that these would be listed.

They say in phone calls that they are definately listing, but they have to redo the ASSAULT WEAPONS IDENTIFICATION GUIDE before they do so, and that it could take from 3-6 months (said this last month).  

Disagree if you want, but I see this as being "little doubt".  


There is a possibility that they are delaying for new legislation, but I think they are just a slow government agency.  However, I think that they can be pushed into working faster.  

Quoted: Quoted: I am going to have to disagree with you about there being "little doubt" about the lowers being put on the list. I have a funny feeling I am not the only person who feels this way either. Why so long? They said in person at the San Jose gun show back in December that these would be listed. "They" said two weeks. So much for what "they" said. Leaked documents around this time (including provisional list updates) confirm that they are working on it. More than likely "they" started to work on the process, and then discovered by reading all the new lowers on calguns that it was futile. They have said in writing numerous times that they are going to list these. They said in the Feb. 1st memo that these would be listed. The last document that I saw stated that they would be listed as  CAT 4. They say in phone calls that they are definately listing, but they have to redo the ASSAULT WEAPONS IDENTIFICATION GUIDE before they do so, and that it could take from 3-6 months (said this last month).   "They" say in phone calls the lowers will be listed as CAT 4. Disagree if you want, but I see this as being "little doubt". I am going to disagree. I read that the people who had their lowers confiscated would get them back soon. Nothing. I heard that people would start a media blitz and force the California DOJ's into producing a list. Nothing. There is a possibility that they are delaying for new legislation, but I think they are just a slow government agency.  However, I think that they can be pushed into working faster.

Updating the list is not practical. Too many different lowers out there. The number of lower manufactures that would be added to the list may exceed the companies already on the list. The California DOJ understands this. They are taking there time to find a more permanent solution.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am going to have to disagree with you about there being "little doubt" about the lowers being put on the list. I have a funny feeling I am not the only person who feels this way either. Why so long? They said in person at the San Jose gun show back in December that these would be listed. "They" said two weeks. So much for what "they" said. Leaked documents around this time (including provisional list updates) confirm that they are working on it. More than likely "they" started to work on the process, and then discovered by reading all the new lowers on calguns that it was futile. They have said in writing numerous times that they are going to list these. They said in the Feb. 1st memo that these would be listed. The last document that I saw stated that they would be listed as  CAT 4. They say in phone calls that they are definately listing, but they have to redo the ASSAULT WEAPONS IDENTIFICATION GUIDE before they do so, and that it could take from 3-6 months (said this last month).   "They" say in phone calls the lowers will be listed as CAT 4. Disagree if you want, but I see this as being "little doubt". I am going to disagree. I read that the people who had their lowers confiscated would get them back soon. Nothing. I heard that people would start a media blitz and force the California DOJ's into producing a list. Nothing. There is a possibility that they are delaying for new legislation, but I think they are just a slow government agency.  However, I think that they can be pushed into working faster.   Updating the list is not practical. Too many different lowers out there. The number of lower manufactures that would be added to the list may exceed the companies already on the list. The California DOJ understands this. They are taking there time to find a more permanent solution.

I like to type in red too

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am going to have to disagree with you about there being "little doubt" about the lowers being put on the list. I have a funny feeling I am not the only person who feels this way either. Why so long? They said in person at the San Jose gun show back in December that these would be listed. "They" said two weeks. So much for what "they" said. Leaked documents around this time (including provisional list updates) confirm that they are working on it. More than likely "they" started to work on the process, and then discovered by reading all the new lowers on calguns that it was futile. They have said in writing numerous times that they are going to list these. They said in the Feb. 1st memo that these would be listed. The last document that I saw stated that they would be listed as  CAT 4. They say in phone calls that they are definately listing, but they have to redo the ASSAULT WEAPONS IDENTIFICATION GUIDE before they do so, and that it could take from 3-6 months (said this last month).   "They" say in phone calls the lowers will be listed as CAT 4. Disagree if you want, but I see this as being "little doubt". I am going to disagree. I read that the people who had their lowers confiscated would get them back soon. Nothing. I heard that people would start a media blitz and force the California DOJ's into producing a list. Nothing. There is a possibility that they are delaying for new legislation, but I think they are just a slow government agency.  However, I think that they can be pushed into working faster.   Updating the list is not practical. Too many different lowers out there. The number of lower manufactures that would be added to the list may exceed the companies already on the list. The California DOJ understands this. They are taking there time to find a more permanent solution.

What exactly does "category IV" have to do with this?  That has nothing to do with whether they list or not.

Updating the list is practical, at least as far as the law is concerned.  They can get most of them now, and then have time to work on getting the law fixed.  I have no doubt that they have learned from this and will push for new legislation, or at least and amendment to the current "list" process.  

You're right that this is a lot "worse" than it seemed to them at first.  Part of this is due to the demand for every brand that is out there.  

Whatever they are going to do, there is no point complaining about it now because we just don't know for sure.  From my perspective, they behave erratically.

Well, there is always Monday...

i say 2 weeks or 87 days...which ever comes first for the doj

Quoted: i say 2 weeks or 87 days...which ever comes first for the doj

That's a fine estimate.

Quoted: Updating the list is not practical. Too many different lowers out there. The number of lower manufactures that would be added to the list may exceed the companies already on the list. The California DOJ understands this. They are taking there time to find a more permanent solution.

Werd up.  I've long felt the same way.  Also, contrary to what you read on the Internet, DoJ is not staffed by a bunch of idiots.

Calguns is a board of deranged Kool-Aid drinkers.  Anyone over there who doesn't drink the Kool-Aid is soon hounded off.

Folks might be kind of grouchy here on Arfcom, but at least they aren't stupid sheep.  Well, not all of them anyway.

The DOJ is not some magical branch of the legislature, and they have no power in creating new law.  The will not rely on the legislature to pass new law, that is not their job.  The DOJ is there to enforce existing law.

The DOJ will list.  That is what they must do.  Also remember, we're still in .50 BMG registration season, and it would be too confusing for the general public and a bad logistical choice to start a new registration period while one is already running.

Why did the DOJ update the Category 2 Kasler list?  If they didn't care about this, then they wouldn't have bothered with that.  People are getting too paranoid and are in too much of a rush to realize this is a government agency we're dealing with.  They do not work fast.  Look at any VA Hospital, the Social Security Office, the Post Office, whatever...  

Patience is a virtue.

dont forget the dmv...i say just enjoy what you have in the mean time remember this is a whole lot better than where we were before december

Quoted: Calguns is a board of deranged Kool-Aid drinkers.  Anyone over there who doesn't drink the Kool-Aid is soon hounded off.

Better to drink coolaid than to drink the stale piss that seems to be all too common elsewhere, wouldn't you say?

Quoted: Updating the list is not practical. Too many different lowers out there. The number of lower manufactures that would be added to the list may exceed the companies already on the list.

Why not practical? Will the resulting list exceed the RAM of the DOJ computer?

Quoted: The California DOJ understands this. They are taking there time to find a more permanent solution.

So, they decided to start writing laws themselves?

Quoted: Quoted: Updating the list is not practical. Too many different lowers out there. The number of lower manufactures that would be added to the list may exceed the companies already on the list. The California DOJ understands this. They are taking there time to find a more permanent solution.   Werd up.  I've long felt the same way.  Also, contrary to what you read on the Internet, DoJ is not staffed by a bunch of idiots. Calguns is a board of deranged Kool-Aid drinkers.  Anyone over there who doesn't drink the Kool-Aid is soon hounded off. Folks might be kind of grouchy here on Arfcom, but at least they aren't stupid sheep.  Well, not all of them anyway.

The point is that DOJ can either enforce the law or ignore it, but they can't write new law. They have to depend on the legislature for that.

They can wait for new legislation, and perhaps work with the legislature to draft new legislation. But then it is a matter of votes and a gov's sig to determine the fate of the legislation. Even in this state, gun laws and not a sure thing. And they take time to work out. In the meantime, the AG is risking himself if he allows guns to come in absent registration.

Point being, there have only so many courses of action, and most likely no certain outcome with respect to new legislation. Not listing carries risk, they don't have any magic wand.

Quoted: They can wait for new legislation, and perhaps work with the legislature to draft new legislation. But then it is a matter of votes and a gov's sig to determine the fate of the legislation. Even in this state, gun laws and not a sure thing. And they take time to work out. In the meantime, the AG is risking himself if he allows guns to come in absent registration.

You guys post as if the DoJ is out to get us.  They aren't.  They're just trying to do their job.  And the current combination of legislation and court decisions is making their job very difficult indeed.

New legislation makes sense.  "Hey, Legislature, this assault weapon stuff is a dog's breakfast.  Fix it."  Why would the DoJ care what the Legislature did as long as it was something they could handle?  If they thought the Legislature would rescind Roberti-Roos and SB23, I'm sure they'd be happy to see it happen.  A hell of a lot fewer headaches for them.

Spend some time talking to civil servants - the people who actually have to enforce the laws that city councils and legislatures enact without thinking it through - and you'll get an idea of how they regard complicated ill-considered legislation.

It would be a simple matter for the legal beagles at the DoJ to draft up some proposed legislation that would remove the ambiguity from the current law, then get someone to introduce it this year as a bill.  Hell, it wouldn't even be controversial, except to the gun rights community, and when was the last time anyone in California, Democrat or Republican, gave any notice to us?

I'm not saying this is what is happening.  But it does seem to me the cleanest way of dealing with the current "problem" (if it even is a problem), and there's nothing to prevent them from going this route.

What's most important to the DoJ is that the laws are clear and easily enforced.  Right now, the assault weapon laws are not.  I would expect their first priority to be cleaning things up rather than setting up a bureacracy to update an ever changing list.