Posted: 4/1/2006 9:23:56 AM EDT
|
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?!? |
|
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. |
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 
|
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. |
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. |
Why not practical? Will the resulting list exceed the RAM of the DOJ computer?
So, they decided to start writing laws themselves? |
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. |
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. |