CA *NEWS*: DOJ may attempt last-minute regulatory change

[glockman19]

From Calguns.net:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=61177

It appears, from multiple sources, that DOJ BoF - or, in reality, one senior staffer apparently also working for Brady campaign - may attempt to formally submit the proposed regulatory redefinition regarding 'detachable magazine', as the one-year regulatory clock is about run down.

Whether this is DOJ BoF EDITED -leelaw chest puffing or reality I don't yet know, but things appear to be astir.

As many of you recall, BoFfers are trying to include statutorily-unsupported concepts/measures of permanence of attachment.

Some of you may recall DOJ "changed horses in the middle of the stream" and rewrote the definition between the orig. Jun 2006 version (commented upon at the Aug 16 2006 hearing) and the Nov 2006 near-complete rewrite: their "clarification" took a 3-line definition to much of a page. This re-redefinition should have reset the rulemaking clock to the start.

As such - even without concerning matters of "underground law" side effects - this is deficient on OAL submission grounds, as only minor, trivial changes are allowed as per Gov't Admin Code sec 11340 et seq (especially 11346). The November changes are essentially a rewrite of the regulation which requires a "clock reset" back to a 45-day comment perod.

The vast 'underground law' issues involving existing DOJ-approved firearms (Barrett M82CA, the DSArms California fixed-mag FAL, both backed by formal opinion letters) - as well as SKSes and sporterized Zastava M59 matters - also loom heavily here. There are at least 250,000 lawfully-owned, lawfully-acquired, and possibly modified (in lawful ways) that could transition to assault weapons status.

It's instructive that DOJ did not offer intermediate commentary to our original comments in August or November of 2006. One would think that the good-faith dialogue attempted to be mandated by Adminsitrative Code for regulatory adoption would at least be given facial respect - if for appearance's sake only. That lack of ongoing dialogue is telling, as at least some BoFfers think we're trailerpark rednecks and that they regard this as a fait accompli.

Do stay tuned. We may need Calgunners and friends to take the battle to the OAL at the appropriate time - with letters, emails and calls - and which could be soon.

Gene Hoffman notes the rulemaking's official publication date was 30 Jun 2006 in the OAL register:

http://www.oal.ca.gov/pdfs/notice/26z-2006.pdf

He thus believe the last day DOJ BOF could *file* it is 29 Jun 2007, although I also seem to hear a 6/27 date being bandied about (?). I believe there'd then be a 10-day window for the regulation to be incorporated into the CCR, or - if the OAL is made to understand the numerous 'underground law' problems cited above and at http://www.calgunlaws.com, and due to procedural problems as well - to not be suitable for for inclusion in regulatory code.

OAL does shoot down adoption of proposed regulations by a variety of agencies with some frequency.

I will note that if this goes thru, this really helps the two current OLL prosecutions (BWO's, Dave Lake in Modesto) as the new regulation not only was merely proposed during the supposed non-crime 'crimes', but that the adopted regulation changed after their arrests.

Of course, in Allison's world we're all guilty of post-thoughtcrime.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Thanks for the heads up!