California: DOJ Submits “Assault Weapon” Regulations

The NRA and CRPA submitted a letter to the DOJ and OAL opposing the proposed “emergency" regulations on large-capacity magazines that can be read here.
The NRA and CRPA submitted a letter to the DOJ and OAL opposing the proposed “emergency” regulations on large-capacity magazines that can be read here.
NRA - Institute for Legislative Action
NRA – Institute for Legislative Action

California-(Ammoland.com)- On Thursday, December 29, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) backed down from its proposed “emergency” regulations on large-capacity magazines, asking the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) to withdraw them from consideration.

The NRA would like to thank all those who submitted comments and made their voices heard! This would not have been possible without your efforts.

Thousands of individuals weighed in despite the suspect timing of the five day comment period opening at the start of the Christmas weekend when few were paying attention.

The NRA and CRPA submitted a letter to the DOJ and OAL opposing the proposed “emergency” regulations on large-capacity magazines that can be read here.

A full analysis created by the NRA and CRPA attorneys of the proposed “emergency” regulations on large-capacity magazines can be read here.

While DOJ withdrawing the regulations is good news, this fight is not over. For updates please continue to check your email and www.nraila.org.

Oppo to Proposed Emergency Regs Re Lg Capacity Mags Conversion Kits 12.28.16 by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd

Subscribe
Notify of
6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jimbo
jimbo
3 years ago

Impose Article 1 Section 9 No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or… Read more »

Bob G
Bob G
3 years ago
Reply to  jimbo

Dude! I was trying to get through your text, and I applaud your effort to ensure we’re informed, but what was the point? Not harshing on you, but I don’t get how this is material is relevant to the subject.

John Dunlap
John Dunlap
3 years ago
Reply to  Bob G

I believe his point is that the California legislature has engaged in an illegal conspiracy against rights, in this case the right to keep and bear arms. I agree. Any point of leverage, any new angle of attack we can find against these would be tyrants, must be explored.

Ring68
Ring68
3 years ago
Reply to  John Dunlap

That state has been taking gun rights away from law abiding citizens for decades nothing is going to change without a severe rebellion from the citizens and nobody has the balls to do that no matter how much tough talk you hear on these blogs, it is what it is just jaw jacking all bark no bite citizens, the truth hurts and gets your guns taken.

Jim S
Jim S
3 years ago

While I would like to thank those for working on this, changing the laws on banning possession of large capacity magazines to wait until 6/2017 hardly seems like much of a victory. How about fighting this whole AW classification of rifles purchased last year with BB’s (or even going forward). How about fighting this dumb azz restriction on mail ordering ammo (which starts in 2018). DOJ fights the long battle while we pick up a small win here and there but lose the whole effort.
I try to be positive but these DOJ clowns are definitely frustrating….

dwight looi
dwight looi
3 years ago

The prohibition on the alteration (ie. removal) of the Magazine Release Device (bullet button) after a weapon is registered as an Assault Weapon is not authorized by law and will be stuck down in court. The legislation as passed in 2016 [Penal Code 30900 Subdivision (b)] does not prohibit the alteration, addition or removal of any feature on Registered Assault Weapons. It merely requires that such weapons, legally obtained between 2000 and 2016 (inclusive) be-registered within the allowed time window. Hence, the CA DOJ does not have the legal basis or authority to enact any prohibition to this regard. Specifically,… Read more »