March 29, 2002
Senator Jack O’Connell
228 West Carrillo Suite F
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
RE: SB23 and Post 1994 semiautomatic firearms
Dear Senator Jack O’Connell,
I appreciate your help on this matter. It takes about four weeks to get an answer out of the Department of Justice firearms division, and even then they don’t do a good job answering the questions asked. I did not intend to criticize the Department of Justice in any of my earlier letters; they are simply doing their job in enforcing the laws set by the legislators and the Governor. However the laws them selves can be very miss leading and difficult to interpreter, that is what I want to address; the interpretation of SB23 as it is relevant to firearms that were made after 1994 as well as the weapons described in section 12276.
Correct me if I am wrong but after careful analysis of SB23, I have found compelling reasons to believe that weapons made for civilian use after 1994 are exempt from SB23. This is because Section 12275 declares this chapter will be known as “Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989”. So the entire chapter with amendments will be know as the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. Now, section 12275.5 declares that it is not the intent of the Legislature by this chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities. Because the amendments are part of this chapter, if a firearm is excluded from this chapter then it is exempt from any other amendments to this chapter, unless those amendments are separated from this chapter, which they are not. We can conclude that section 12276 and all of its subsections are part of the “Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989” because it is declared in section 12275.5 that 12276 will be used to identify an Assault Weapon. This means that any firearm which was designed and intended for civilian ownership would be excluded from this chapter based on the premises that civilian weapons are intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities. It would not matter if the weapon metes any of the definitions of an assault weapon by any section of this chapter because it would have been exempt from this chapter and all of the amendments of this chapter.
Obtain statements from manufactures in regards to the use of their products and what alterations they have done to adept them to the civilian market would not be difficult. This will show how the manufactures have designed the weapons for the civilian market and not a military market, meting the first criteria of how they designed their products for legitimate sporting purposes. I can also obtain statements illustrating the manufactures endorsed uses for their products, however the manuals that are distributed with their products do illustrate proper use of the weapon. Furthermore, I should be able to obtain statements from professionals outside of the industry that show how the alterations that were made to these weapons have rendered them ineffective for anything other than hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities.
...