California ‘Emergency’ Gun Magazine Ban Withdrawn
The California Department of Justice (DOJ) withdrew its “emergency” regulations on large-capacity firearm magazines Thursday.
According to an Office of Administrative Law (OAL) memo sent to California Attorney General Kamala Harris Thursday, “This notice confirms that your proposed regulatory action regarding Large- Capacity Magazines was withdrawn from OAL review pursuant to Government Code section 11349.3(c).”
The DOJ proposed a series of “emergency” regulations relating to magazines that can hold over 10 rounds last Friday. The proposed regulations were submitted under California’s emergency rule-making protocols, where a 5-day public comment period happens.
Section 11349(c) states: ”If an agency determines, on its own initiative, that a regulation submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) should be returned by the office prior to completion of the office’s review, it may request the return of the regulation. All requests for the return of a regulation shall be memorialized in writing by the submitting agency no later than one week following the request.”
“Any regulation returned pursuant to this subdivision shall be resubmitted to the office for review within the one-year period specified in subdivision (b) of Section 11346.4 or shall comply with Article 5 (commencing with Section 11346) prior to resubmission.”
Firearms Policy Coalition, a grassroots lobbying initiative, collected and delivered to the DOJ and OAL thousands of letters sent by people who opposed the proposed regulations.
“This is welcomed news for law-abiding gun owners and the thousands of people who stood up for common-sense in their letters opposing the DOJ’s outrageous proposed regulations,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “But make no mistake, the DOJ isn’t done with this issue. Our policy team will continue to aggressively monitor and oppose all anti-gun regulations that DOJ might dream up next.”
FPC lobbyist Craig DeLuz sent both agencies Tuesday a letter opposing the regulations, citing reasons that the new rules should not be considered “emergency” in nature.
“The DOJ has offered no facts to support its attempted ’emergency’ rule making here. Virtually all of DOJ’s Proposed Emergency Regulations are based upon statutes that have been in effect for over 3 to as many as 16 years. The Department has had many years to weigh in on the issues raised in their Proposed Emergency Regulations, but chose not to,” De Luz writes.