PDA

View Full Version : Tokarev SVT40 - A. W.??? DOJ Letter Rcvd-Pg.9 (NEW UPDATE)


.454
07-15-2008, 6:58 PM
Hi everyone, newbie with a question here:

I found this Tokarev SVT40 in consignment at a gun store in Norwalk for a very good price. Rifle is not modified in any way. I paid for it in full and I was supposed to start the DROS in 20 days (gun was just brought in by the seller so it cannot be released for 30 days)

To my surprise and disbelief I just learned today that somebody from the gun store upper management decided the rifle is an assault weapon due to what he calls a "flash hider" (in reality it is the original muzzle brake. This person wants to refund my payment and have the Sherrif dept. come tomorrow and have a Deputy take the rifle and destroy it. This person would not listen to any arguments from me or even some store employees contradicting his belief.
I tried to call DOJ and I spoke with an agent who clearly didn't even knew what an Tokarev SVT40 is; after a couple of minutes of conversation I realized he was refering to this rifle as an "SKS". When I corrected him, he started looking on the Internet for a picture of the SVT40 and said "oh, now I see what you're talking about"!!!. Unfortunately the call was disconnected and when I called back I couldn't go through because it was after 5:30 PM.

So any of you have any advice what should I do now? Technically the rifle is mine because I paid for it in full - even if I didn't took posession of it. Can they just call the Sherrif office tomorrow and have them destroy my property because somebody in the upper management is disinformed?

How can I stop them from doing this?

Thanks in advance for your advice.

Corbin Dallas
07-15-2008, 7:11 PM
Do you have a receipt from the sale of the weapon? Did they start the DROS on the weapon?

If so, you are now the legal owner. It is not the decision of the store employee to determine legal status of the weapon. The store may refer the matter to DOJ, but by the looks of it the weapon is not an AW.

GL.

thefifthspeed
07-15-2008, 7:14 PM
Maybe someone with an SVT can chime in because I don't own one but wouldn't it be possible to just take the muzzle break off so there is no way someone can argue? I don't understand how someone who works as a gun store upper managment would want to destroy a prefectly legal gun. If they thought it was illegal then why did they agree to take it in as a consignment?

Whats the name of the gun store so we know not to shop there?

.454
07-15-2008, 7:17 PM
1. Have receipt, gun is paid in full.
2. DROS was not possible imediatly because the consigner just brought the gun into the store and it was supposed to stay there for 30 days before release. I was supposed to DROS it in 20 days (+10 day my waiting period) = 30 day total.

warpath
07-15-2008, 7:24 PM
what store is this

thedrickel
07-15-2008, 7:34 PM
Turners?

sen24
07-15-2008, 7:35 PM
ive gotten a reply from the doj specifically stating the svt in NOT an assault weapon. i wish i wouldve kept the email.

.454
07-15-2008, 7:41 PM
Turners?

Can't give any details right now.

Ding126
07-15-2008, 7:44 PM
Print this out and see if the store management can read. It says about the middle of the page that it is a muzzle brake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT-40

EBR Works
07-15-2008, 7:48 PM
I have one and it is definitely not an AW in Cali as originally configured.

Gator Monroe
07-15-2008, 7:52 PM
It's a C&R weapon and guy must have another buyer for more money than your deal (Somthing wrong here and these FFL/SHOPS that do not Stock SKS's, MAS 49's, VZ 52's Rashids,Hakims... ARE CLUELESS !

.454
07-15-2008, 8:02 PM
Print this out and see if the store management can read. It says about the middle of the page that it is a muzzle brake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT-40

Tried that already, and the article on SVT rifles from surplusrifles.com. Responded those articles are not "official" oppinion.

.454
07-15-2008, 8:03 PM
guy must have another buyer for more money than your deal

Doubt it. Employees confirmed it's not the case.

Ding126
07-15-2008, 8:15 PM
Why not go to the shop and sit down with the management and make a phone call to the DOJ. It's the least they can do to make this right. There might be more to this than beats the eye. Maybe they realized the gun is worth more than they sold it to you for?
They also would be destroying the consignee's property..so it sounds a bit odd.

Gator Monroe
07-15-2008, 8:18 PM
Doubt it. Employees confirmed it's not the case.

Get an SKS and save yourself the trouble (For now) then later get a GEW 41 or 43 or a Rashid or Hakim or MAS 49 or an AVS1936 or M1938 SVT or M1940 SVT ...

Casual Observer
07-15-2008, 8:19 PM
I would preempt the store manager and contact the Sheriff's Department yourself and explain the situation. Try to be at the store when the Sheriff's department tries to pick it up. Also, if you could get a hold of the original owner and advise him of the situation, he might be able to lean on the upper management too.

Usually it takes a while for the Sheriff's Department to destroy a weapon. They do them in batches every few months IIRC. So even *IF* they take it tomorrow, you'll still have time to get the situation ironed out before it gets destroyed.

Gator Monroe
07-15-2008, 8:20 PM
Any FFL who wants to/would give a weapon to LEO's for destruction insted of selling it online to an outta state buyer is wierd ...:confused:

Steyr_223
07-15-2008, 8:31 PM
What was the price on the SVT-40? Perhaps it was priced below market ($700-$1000) and someone at the store wanted it once they knew the value..

Once I purchased a milsup rifle at a store and after DROS, I told them the value of the rifle..They had it price several hundred dollars the going market..They tried to cancel the sale..LOL!

.454
07-15-2008, 9:01 PM
What was the price on the SVT-40? Perhaps it was priced below market ($700-$1000) and someone at the store wanted it once they knew the value..

Once I purchased a milsup rifle at a store and after DROS, I told them the value of the rifle..They had it price several hundred dollars the going market..They tried to cancel the sale..LOL!

Again everybody...this is NOT the case. I repeat: I have GOOD FRIENDS working there, they confirmed the story and they are as upset as I am. There is no shady behind my back deal here, it's just somebody higher up on the corporate food chain who's doesn't know the difference between a flash hider and a muzzle brake and won't budge to any arguments.

My question again for the legal minds here: gun is paid in full, can they send it for destruction imediatly only because somebody in the upper management believes it is an AW and without requesting an official oppinion from CADOJ or the AG?
If they do that, what are my options? Can I tell them I will sue for destroying my lawfuly owned property?

packnrat
07-15-2008, 9:14 PM
the svt-40 is not a assualt weapon. it does not even meet the doj dis of said items.
this rifle is a c&r rifle. listed by the batf as not assualt weapon.

take the pages from the doj web sight to the owner and have both of you on the same phone line talk to the doj.

this turners sound's like he wants your property for him self.:eek:

can you say theft.
.

cbn620
07-15-2008, 9:29 PM
I'm pretty sure they somehow reserve the right to do whatever they want. It isn't even being DROS'd yet. If you're not holding it right now, I'm pretty sure it's not yours. Welcome to businesses.

Definitely make the case though. You never know. Tell them what you're telling us, I mean you did pay for it in full and everything. I don't think you'll get too far with that angle, but it's still worth a shot.

It's totally not an AW...people have got em all over the place and it's not a flash hider on there. Even if it was, taking it off is all that would be necessary. Without the so called "flash hider" it would be featureless (class 3 AW), and since it's not listed or in any other way prohibited by name (class 1 and 2), it's not illegal.

.454
07-15-2008, 9:34 PM
I'm pretty sure they somehow reserve the right to do whatever they want. It isn't even being DROS'd yet. If you're not holding it right now, I'm pretty sure it's not yours. Welcome to businesses.

Definitely make the case though. You never know. Tell them what you're telling us, I mean you did pay for it in full and everything. I don't think you'll get too far with that angle, but it's still worth a shot.

It's totally not an AW...people have got em all over the place and it's not a flash hider on there. Even if it was, taking it off is all that would be necessary. Without the so called "flash hider" it would be featureless (class 3 AW), and since it's not listed or in any other way prohibited by name (class 1 and 2), it's not illegal.

If you take the MB down, you have a threaded barrel. That's even more trouble than the so called "flash hider".

Also I would argue that because it is paid in full and the store charged my credit card, gun is my property. Money changed hands already. Taking possession of it it is just a matter of paperwork between me and CADOJ. The store only has the role to submit my personal info for the background check and keep the rifle it until CADOJ certifies if I am not a criminal. Also the store is does not have the legal power to give a definitive LEGAL opinion, CADOJ or the AG does. It one of the two government agencies I cited above certifies SVT40 is an AW, they can go ahead and destroy it.

762cavalier
07-15-2008, 9:39 PM
If you take the MB down, you have a threaded barrel. That's even more trouble than the so called "flash hider".

UMMM NO Its not! threaded barrels are perfectly okay on a rifle;)

Mssr. Eleganté
07-15-2008, 9:41 PM
If you take the MB down, you have a threaded barrel. That's even more trouble than the so called "flash hider".

Threaded rifle barrels are not regulated in California.

Threaded barrels are only a problem on semiautomatic pistols that have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.

Gator Monroe
07-15-2008, 9:45 PM
I do not give any praise or money to Shops/ffls who do not stock SKS's, MAS 49/FN's, Rashids, Hakims GEW's, SVT's and know what they are ...

.454
07-15-2008, 9:52 PM
Threaded rifle barrels are not regulated in California.

Threaded barrels are only a problem on semiautomatic pistols that have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.


Didn't knew that. Thanks for the information. I will tell them I want to remove the muzzle brake and they can keep it, just as they keep hi cap pistol mags on consignment guns

Mssr. Eleganté
07-15-2008, 9:57 PM
Tell them to hang onto it for you until you can convince them that it is a muzzle brake. They could give it to you separated from the rifle even if it was a flash hider, but they don't sound like the kind of guys who would go for that. Heck, they might even tell you that threaded rifle barrels are illegal. :p

m2hbvic
07-15-2008, 10:10 PM
Skip all the BS and just call the corporate office for Turner's (it's a Turner's, isn't it???) and ask to talk to the head person in their human resources department who handles the idiot managers/supervisors at all their stores. Tell them what the problem is, who the idiot is that is causing the problem, and then tell them that you are going to call the CA DOJ BoF and the BATFE and tell them that you think this store needs their bound books and inventory audited ASAP! And then go tell the idiot all about it after the fact, when it's too late for him to backpedal out of it.
Vic

dfletcher
07-15-2008, 10:39 PM
I proceed from the point that no one else is scooping the gun away from you, but also that since DROS has not been completed it's not your gun.

I know nothing of the SVT - if the MB can be unscrewed, have you suggested to them to just take the darn thing off?

Other suggestions - line up a few other gun stores that have them in stock (City Arms in Pacifica has 2) and have the Mgr speak with them. Maybe he'll take their word? Can the original seller take back the gun, you cut a separate deal with him? You have friends at the store who could make the contact, I'm sure the seller wouldn't mind making some $$$.

I suppose filing in small claims court wouldn't happen soon enough to help, requiring them to complete the deal.

Maybe someone from Trutanich Michel will be on the site, make a quick post?

As an aside, get a C & R license for $30.00 and you can buy these things on line all day. And based on about 30 years of buying guns, if you don't get this one there will be another good deal coming up anyway.

Sampachi
07-15-2008, 10:59 PM
As mentioned above, City Arms has two unaltered SVTs for sale right now. I know Greg Martin's considers these AWs, but they also consider the M1-D Garand an AW(WTF!?).
I think someone in upper management wants it or has a higher paying customer in line for it. Don't buckle under! If they consider it an AW, have them remove the muzzle brake.

wilit
07-15-2008, 11:07 PM
So am I reading this right?

1. SVT owner drops gun off at store to be sold on consignment.
2. Store accepts SVT for a consignment sale.
3. You purchase said SVT, but can't begin DROS until the rifle has been at the store for 30 days.
4. All of a sudden they realize the SVT is an AW because they're retarded.

So, why did they accept an AW on consignment? I realize the SVT40 isn't an AW, but if they believe it is, and move forward with calling the cops, wouldn't they be opening themselves up to having charges filed against them for accepting an AW without owning an AW permit? Might want to bring that to their attention.

cbn620
07-15-2008, 11:12 PM
OP, I'm definitely not arguing it's not your property. In my opinion the dang thing is yours, I'm on your side here. Just saying, business is business and unfortunately too often in our world it's not yours unless you can grasp it with two hands. You bought it, but now they think they have the right to change their minds, and in terms of who actually has the authority here (the business and government), I'm willing to bet unless you convince them it's legal, you're SOL.

I do think it's legal though, in fact I know it is. I'm just saying your best bet is arguing legality because arguing ownership is harder when they have it. I'd focus on that angle. Someone who's more familiar with law can cite you specific codes, but I can show you towards the AW. Print that out and show it to them.

Under AW bans, there are three classes. The gist of it is, for a weapon to be deemed an assault weapon it must either be listed as one (in relation to the first two classifications) or have features (under the third classification). To start with, the SVT does not have a flash hider, and even if removed there are no regulations against threaded barrels on rifles. As another member said, this only applies to semi-auto pistols. The SVT is also not listed as an AW, so you're green there as well.

You can appeal to them by saying if it would make them feel comfortable they can take the muzzle break off. If they then say there is a law against it, ask them to prove it. If you've explained fully the law and they still won't give you your gun, then I'd say it's time to go the "I've already purchased it" route, because in their minds if it's illegal, it doesn't matter if you've already purchased it. If they honestly think it's illegal, they can't sell it to you regardless.

Anyways, good luck to you. In my mind the rifle is already yours.

bwiese
07-15-2008, 11:26 PM
Firstly, as was proved with Gene Hoffman's purchase of several DOJ-seized receivers (and his acquiring legal ownership before getting them returned/LEGR'd/re-DROSed to him), you can indeed *own* a firearm without the DROS being complete: you can have ownership rights even if you can't have immediate legal possession. If you are (1) nonprohibited/eligible buyer, (2) paid all fees/taxes/etc. for gun, and (3) began the DROS you can be regarded as owning the gun and having exclusive rights to it.

Now, I have seen a fair amount of resources referring to the muzzle device on an SVT-40 as a "flash hider" in addition to muzzle brake. From the nature of the holes/openings, it looks to have a fairly open interior with lotsa slits - that is, not that dissimilar from a non-CA-legal M1A/M14 flash hider as opposed to the CA-legal brake on Springfield M1As sold in CA.

Nationally-known gun lawyer James Bardwell (specializing in ATF/SOT matters and "What To Do When The BATF Comes A-knockin'") uses the term "flash hider" in his writings about the SVT40's muzzle device and its relation to importation ban of 1994 "Crime Bill": http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIID2b194.html

If James Bardwell thinks it's an FH, and there seems to be quite a bit of information out there it's commonly thought of as a FH, then I'd steer clear of rifles with that particular device too.

While DOJ regulations for FH are poor and DOJ staff have no idea what is or isn't an FH (and in fact they say it could include sunglasses hanging off the end of the barrel!), folks should shy away of such issues until the CA AW ban is stricken or further clarification comes out.

It's a defendable case, but you don't want a $5K+ legal bill for a $200 rifle.

Quick fixes:

FH is removed. Threaded bbls are not an evil feature under CA law or Federal law.
You can possess the FH separately/not installed. Find another surplus one, cut it
down and reblue it and turn it into a thread protector - or better yet, have a
machinist make a thread protector from some bar stock and use a Birchwood
Casey blueing pen on it.

Keep the orig. FH unharmed for when you move to a free state or CA's AWB is stricken.



Some kinda mag catch screw setup - have no idea how, others can speak up - is fastened
so the magazine is fixed and is not considered a detachable mag. (This rifle would work
GREAT with a fixed mag.)


Those of you with SVT40s out there should exercise caution in regard to this matter as this is functionally no different than a Mini14 or M1A with a factory flash hider.

jamesob
07-15-2008, 11:32 PM
sounds like the a-hole wants to keep it for himself. have the seller go pick the rifle up, the store owner has no power to confiscate it from the rightful owner.

.454
07-16-2008, 2:07 AM
Firstly, as was proved with Gene Hoffman's purchase of several DOJ-seized receivers (and his acquiring legal ownership before getting them returned/LEGR'd/re-DROSed to him), you can indeed *own* a firearm without the DROS being complete: you can have ownership rights even if you can't have immediate legal possession. If you are (1) nonprohibited/eligible buyer, (2) paid all fees/taxes/etc. for gun, and (3) began the DROS you can be regarded as owning the gun and having exclusive rights to it.

Now, I have seen a fair amount of resources referring to the muzzle device on an SVT-40 as a "flash hider" in addition to muzzle brake. From the nature of the holes/openings, it looks to have a fairly open interior with lotsa slits - that is, not that dissimilar from a non-CA-legal M1A/M14 flash hider as opposed to the CA-legal brake on Springfield M1As sold in CA.

Nationally-known gun lawyer James Bardwell (specializing in ATF/SOT matters and "What To Do When The BATF Comes A-knockin'") uses the term "flash hider" in his writings about the SVT40's muzzle device and its relation to importation ban of 1994 "Crime Bill": http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIID2b194.html

If James Bardwell thinks it's an FH, and there seems to be quite a bit of information out there it's commonly thought of as a FH, then I'd steer clear of rifles with that particular device too.

While DOJ regulations for FH are poor and DOJ staff have no idea what is or isn't an FH (and in fact they say it could include sunglasses hanging off the end of the barrel!), folks should shy away of such issues until the CA AW ban is stricken or further clarification comes out.

It's a defendable case, but you don't want a $5K+ legal bill for a $200 rifle.

Quick fixes:

FH is removed. Threaded bbls are not an evil feature under CA law or Federal law.
You can possess the FH separately/not installed. Find another surplus one, cut it
down and reblue it and turn it into a thread protector - or better yet, have a
machinist make a thread protector from some bar stock and use a Birchwood
Casey blueing pen on it.

Keep the orig. FH unharmed for when you move to a free state or CA's AWB is stricken.



Some kinda mag catch screw setup - have no idea how, others can speak up - is fastened
so the magazine is fixed and is not considered a detachable mag. (This rifle would work
GREAT with a fixed mag.)


Those of you with SVT40s out there should exercise caution in regard to this matter as this is functionally no different than a Mini14 or M1A with a factory flash hider.

DROS wasn't started, I couldn't because of the 30 day to release rule. I just paid for the rifle.
Just a tought: since the gun isn't mentioned by name in the CA-AWB ban list and it is an old design that precedes AK47 (it was manufactured from 1940-1945 I believe) then a logic question arises: why the Ro-Ro list doesn't mention it by name in the first place - since both AK47 semiauto clones and SVT40 sold in quantities in CA before the 2000 ban?

I understand somebody may argue even if it isn't banned by name it can be banned by evil features (flash hider).
My question is since SVT40 was a fairly common rifle at the time when the ban list was released, if it had an evil feature, why didn't they banned it by name "Russian Tokarev SVT40" - like they did with the AK, FN-FAL, HK, CETME, AR and the rest?

.454
07-16-2008, 2:24 AM
PS after doing some research about the SVT40 design, I learned the muzzle brake cannot be removed. The gas block, front sight and muzzle brake are machined as a single assembly.

Fate
07-16-2008, 2:36 AM
The muzzle brake (NOT flash hider) can be removed, but yes, it's part of the front assembly that includes the front sight. One thing to realize about SVTs, the nut holding the muzzle brake on is threaded backwards. TURN RIGHT to loosen!

I'm in the camp that believes the "higher up" wants it for himself. Threaten a lawsuit. It's your property.

Moonclip
07-16-2008, 4:12 AM
Turners?

Almost surely Turners if in Norwalk, they took in a lot of consignment guns on Sunday or Monday, many already sold, I also overheard an employee saying "few held back for friends", figures.

Only other gunshop I know of in Norwalk is Pawnmart. I HIGHLY reccomend you do not do business there. $50 charged for true PPT transfers is one reason. Owner wanting a copy of your DL for ammo purchases is another. Lack of good pricing doesn't help either.

Bruce
07-16-2008, 5:37 AM
If this is a consignment gun, what gives them the right to call the sheriff to have it destroyed. It belongs to the person who consigned it. They'd have to return it to him/her.

Corbin Dallas
07-16-2008, 6:56 AM
I was thinking about this last night and came up with a few suggestions.

1 - Try and get the cosignment's name and phone number so you can get them to transfer it to another dealer and do the transaction as a PPT.

2 - Bring in the CA DOJ information package here:


CHAPTER 2.3. ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS CONTROL ACT OF 1989
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
12275. This chapter shall be known as the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004.
12275.5. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state. The Legislature has restricted the assault weapons specified in Section 12276 based upon finding that each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession. It is not, however, 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.
(b) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the proliferation and use of .50 BMG rifles, as defined in Section 12278, poses a clear and present terrorist threat to the health, safety, and security of all residents of, and visitors to, this state, based upon findings that those firearms have such a high capacity for long distance and highly destructive firepower that they pose an unacceptable risk to the death and serious injury of human beings, destruction or serious damage of vital public and private buildings, civilian, police and military vehicles, power generation and transmission facilities, petrochemical production and storage facilities, and transportation infrastructure. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place restrictions on the use of these rifles and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession.
top

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a) All of the following specified rifles:
(1) All AK series including, but not limited to, the models identified as follows:
(A) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S.
(B) Norinco 56, 56S, 84S, and 86S.
(C) Poly Technologies AKS and AK47.
(D) MAADI AK47 and ARM.
(2) UZI and Galil.
(3) Beretta AR-70.
(4) CETME Sporter.
(5) Colt AR-15 series.
(6) Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR110 C.
(7) Fabrique Nationale FAL, LAR, FNC, 308 Match, and Sporter.
(8) MAS 223.
(9) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, and HK-PSG-1
(10) The following MAC types:
(A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11.
(B) SWD Incorporated M11.
(11) SKS with detachable magazine.
(12) SIG AMT, PE-57, SG 550, and SG 551.
(13) Springfield Armory BM59 and SAR-48.
(14) Sterling MK-6.
(15) Steyer AUG.
(16) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78S.
(17) Armalite AR-180.
(18) Bushmaster Assault Rifle.
(19) Calico M-900.
(20) J&R ENG M-68.
(21) Weaver Arms Nighthawk.
(b) All of the following specified pistols:
(1) UZI.
(2) Encom MP-9 and MP-45.
(3) The following MAC types:
(A) RPB Industries Inc. sM10 and sM11.
(B) SWD Incorporated M-11.
(C) Advance Armament Inc. M-11.
(D) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11.
(4) Intratec TEC-9.
(5) Sites Spectre.
(6) Sterling MK-7.
(7) Calico M-950.
(8) Bushmaster Pistol.
(c) All of the following specified shotguns:
(1) Franchi SPAS 12 and LAW 12.
(2) Striker 12.
(3) The Streetsweeper type S/S Inc. SS/12.
(d) Any firearm declared by the court pursuant to Section 12276.5 to be an assault weapon that is specified as an assault weapon in a list promulgated pursuant to Section 12276.5.
(e) The term "series" includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer.
(f) This section is declaratory of existing law, as amended, and a clarification of the law and the Legislature's intent which bans the weapons enumerated in this section, the weapons included in the list promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to Section 12276.5, and any other models which are only variations of those weapons with minor differences, regardless of the manufacturer. The Legislature has defined assault weapons as the types, series, and models listed in this section because it was the most effective way to identify and restrict a specific class of semiautomatic weapons.
top

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(b) The Legislature finds a significant public purpose in exempting pistols that are designed expressly for use in Olympic target shooting events. Therefore, those pistols that are sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee and by USA Shooting, the national governing body for international shooting competition in the United States, and that are used for Olympic target shooting purposes at the time the act adding this subdivision is enacted, and that would otherwise fall within the definition of "assault weapon" pursuant to this section are exempt, as provided in subdivision (c).
(c) "Assault weapon" does not include either of the following:
(1) Any antique firearm.
(2) Any of the following pistols, because they are consistent with the significant public purpose expressed in subdivision (b):
MANUFACTURER MODEL CALIBER
BENELLI MP90 .22LR
BENELLI MP90 .32 S&W LONG
BENELLI MP95 .22LR
BENELLI MP95 .32 S&W LONG
HAMMERLI 280 .22LR
HAMMERLI 280 .32 S&W LONG
HAMMERLI SP20 .22LR
HAMMERLI SP20 .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI GPO .22 SHORT
PARDINI GP-SCHUMANN .22 SHORT
PARDINI HP .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI MP .32 S&W LONG
PARDINI SP .22LR
PARDINI SPE .22LR
WALTHER GSP .22LR
WALTHER GSP .32 S&W LONG
WALTHER OSP .22 SHORT
WALTHER OSP-2000 .22 SHORT

(3) The Department of Justice shall create a program that is consistent with the purposes stated in subdivision (b) to exempt new models of competitive pistols that would otherwise fall within the definition of "assault weapon" pursuant to this section from being classified as an assault weapon. The exempt competitive pistols may be based on recommendations by USA Shooting consistent with the regulations contained in the USA Shooting Official Rules or may be based on the recommendation or rules of any other organization that the department deems relevant.
(d) The following definitions shall apply under this section:
(1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
(3) "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.
(e) This section shall become operative January 1, 2000.



Now, if I remember your past post, the muzzle brake is fixed correct? If so and there is no other evil features, then you should be good to go.

OH YEA, if this is TURNERS, ask the guy to brind down a Springfield M1A and have them explain the difference between that rifle and the Tokarev by features. Both have removable magazines, both have muzzle brakes. Have the manager explain in detail to you what feature makes the Tokarev ILLEGAL but the SA M1A LEGAL...

I wish you the best of luck!


OH YEA, Don't forget the flowchart! - http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf


One last thing, if the SHOP is arguing "muzzle brake / flash supressor", have them show you the difference by DOJ standards. (BECAUSE even the DOJ can't tell)

bwiese
07-16-2008, 10:36 AM
DROS wasn't started, I couldn't because of the 30 day to release rule. I just paid for the rifle.

Still the rifle may be 'your property' even without DROS: it was offered, you accepted, and (apparently) full payment was made.


Just a tought: since the gun isn't mentioned by name in the CA-AWB ban list and it is an old design that precedes AK47 (it was manufactured from 1940-1945 I believe)

Correct, it is not a "banned-by-name" AW - that is, it's not a Category 1 (Roberti-Roos) or Category 2 (formally identified AR & AK 'series' members). It would thus only possibly be an AW by feature ("Category 3").

then a logic question arises: why the Ro-Ro list doesn't mention it by name in the first place - since both AK47 semiauto clones and SVT40 sold in quantities in CA before the 2000 ban?

You're assuming DOJ competence & thoroughness which is well-nigh minimal. They missed a variety of guns and included others that weren't AWs in normal sense (Beretta BM59). Quite a few "AW-looking" guns continued to be sold in CA without change and did not even require renaming the model (or putting a thumbhole stock on, etc.)

I understand somebody may argue even if it isn't banned by
name it can be banned by evil features (flash hider).

Yup. I do have worries this could initially be regarded as an AW due to flash hider.

When James Bardwell cautions that it could be regarded as such, accompanied by a lot of popular writings also calling it such, I'd use caution.


My question is since SVT40 was a fairly common rifle at the time when the ban list was released, if it had an evil feature, why didn't they banned it by name "Russian Tokarev SVT40" - like they did with the AK, FN-FAL, HK, CETME, AR and the rest?

Again, DOJ's Roberti-Roos list in 1989 had LOTS of holes in it. SB23 was originally formulated in 1998 (vetoed) and passed in 1999 to avoid 'name issues' and just deal with feature combinations.

I'm betting some people formulating the Roberti-Roos list may (1) either not have known about its existence, or (2) it being old and a more traditional looking rifle, not thinking of it as an assault weapon at that time (1989) and considering it something like a Garand or M1A. In any case, no one would think of it as an AK derivative as it's a whole different rifle (just as the SKS is).

Again contrary to contrary advice in above posts, I would be cautious owning an SVT40 without a magazine lock, or a welded-over sleeve to disable the FH behavior, etc. I'll let others speak as to its removal.

SVT40's muzzle device status is murky enough that at least it's a defendable case (along with an AB2728 escape). I admit the DOJ doesn't know what the hell an FH is, and the definition is poor, but DOJ stance is (kinda) that if gun/device is sold/marketed as a FH it could be regarded as an FH. Since there's plenty of literature from very competent sources saying it's either an FH or has a high probability of being considered one (by ATF) this indeed bears on the situation.

Steyr_223
07-16-2008, 10:44 AM
The SVT 40 has a muzzle brake. So if one "expert" says a flash hider? But many more "experts" says its a muzzle brake, who is right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT-40

"In service, it was noted that the SVTs frequently suffered from vertical shot dispersion. For a sniper rifle, this was unacceptable and production of the specialised sniper variant of the SVT was terminated in 1942. At the same time, the milling of scope rails in the receivers of standard SVT rifles was discontinued. Other production changes included a new, simpler muzzle brake design. "

http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/RIFLES4.htm

http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/SVT40_AVT40.jpg

"SVT-38 has two-part rifle stock while SVT-40 had new one-part stock. The two rifles can easily separated from location of their cleaning rod (located right side of rifle in SVT-38 and below barrel in SVT-40) and differences in front part of their stocks. Both rifles had 10-round removable magazines, which when the bolt was open could also be reloaded from the top with the same cartridge clips as used in Mosin-Nagant rifles. This reloading process was easy as after firing and ejecting the last round bolt stopped locked the bolt open. Both SVT rifles have similar muzzle brake, which had 12 vents - 6 per side. Safety switch is located in rear part of trigger guard."

http://www.denarms.dk/index2.php?id=34&mainid=2

"The handgaurds of the rifle, there are two, are made of wood and pressed sheet metal construction. The short stamped sheet metal is found directly behind the muzzle extension/brake and covers the gas piston and cup assembly that drives the operating rod. Four round holes are spaced along both sides to aid in cooling the barrel and venting of the gas system. Five oblong or oval slots are spaced along each side of the wooden handguard to assist in barrel cooling also. The handguard is much longer than it"s revised version found on the SVT-40.


Sling swivels were found under the rear of the buttstock and on the bottom of the muzzle extension/brake on the rear portion. The muzzle extension/brake housed the front sight base and hooded front sight as well as the gas piston and regulator that protruded from the front of the humped section that covered the piston. The gas system had five different adjustment positions to accommodate weather conditions and ammunition. They were marked 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7. A special wrench was used that corresponded to the pentagon shape of the regulator. This tool was used to remove the muzzle brake and gas piston.



The safety of this rifle is a simple flag type that is located behind the trigger. It rotated down from the side to block the rearward movement of the trigger. The muzzle extension/brake had six vertical slots that deflected the escaping gases up and to the rear slightly to diminish recoil and muzzle flash. It is reported that some early muzzle brakes have eight slots but I can not confirm this. The front sight was a hooded or globe type like on the Mosin Nagant bolt action rifle and had a screw adjustable post for elevation. The tool to accomplish this was a T shape key cut out to mimic the post shape. Adjustment was done through a hole in the top of the sight that also allowed light to pass on to the post. This tool was also used to remove the cross bolt of the stock when the field stripping the weapon. Windage was accomplished by drifting the dovetail base of the sight. Rear sights were of a tangent type and graduated to 1500 meters in 100 meter increments. With standard Soviet type D ball ammo, 2545 FPS were attained"


http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/tokarev_m1940/index.html

"Unlike the U.S. M1 which has the gas chamber and operating rod placed below the barrel, the Tokarev has the gas chamber, cylinder, and operating rod above the barrel. This assembly is covered by a hand guard. A gas regulator with five different apertures may be adjusted by means of a small wrench, without disassembly of the piece.

A six-baffle combination muzzle brake compensator is permanently mounted on the muzzle. This helps keep the muzzle down and lessens the recoil, but the back blast from the gases produces a very bad effect on the firer in a comparatively short time. Over-all length is 48.2 inches, not including the bayonet of 9.5 inches. "


http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl06-e.htm

"SVT-40 is a gas operated, magazine fed self-loading rifle. It uses a short piston stroke gas action, located above the barrel. The interesting feature of the SVT is that the gas block, along with front sight base and a muzzle brake, were produced as a single barrel extension unit. This greatly simplified the manufacture of the barrel, but the barrel extension itself unit was quite complicated to make. Gas chamber has 5 positions gas regulator to ajust the system for any conditions."

CrippledPidgeon
07-16-2008, 10:45 AM
Still the rifle may be 'your property' even without DROS: it was offered, you accepted, and (apparently) full payment was made.

Well if he did pay be credit card, then not only was payment made, but he should definitely have a receipt for the transaction. Paper trails make for strong arguments.

Steyr_223
07-16-2008, 10:52 AM
http://www.mosinnagant.net/ussr/Svt-Photos1.asp

Early and late SVT40 muzzle brakes. Thanks to Vic Thomas at Mosinnagant.net

http://www.mosinnagant.net/images/svt_muzzle_breaks.jpg

http://www.pmulcahy.com/battle_rifles/russian_battle_rifles.htm

"Notes: Tokarev’s first battle rifle design, the SVT-38, was for the most part a failure due to the fragility of the weapon. It has a two piece stock, an external cleaning rod, a complicated gas operation system, and a six-baffle muzzle brake. These complicated pieces simply broke a lot.

The SVT-38 was replaced by the SVT-40, which was a more robust version of the SVT-38. There were a number of improvements, such as a one-piece stock, replacement of smaller pieces with large continuous ones where possible, a simplification of the operation, a two or three-baffle muzzle brake, and a number of other improvements. Unfortunately, the SVT-40 was still rifle that was expensive and slow to build. They were primarily issued to noncommissioned officers and to certain snipers"

jamesob
07-16-2008, 10:57 AM
the one with the slots, i believe its called a cutts break

dfletcher
07-16-2008, 11:53 AM
Let's look at a different approach - presume the store Mgr is acting in good faith, he believes the SVT is an AW and for the sake of discussion let's say it is an AW as configured. Is there any other course of action he will consider? What is his goal? If his goal is to destroy the SVT then I don't think there's much you can do. If his goal is to avoid what he sees as liability for the company, how can that be achieved?

You may be right - the gun isn't an AW and it's "your" gun - but I don't see that getting you anywhere.

I go back to the original owner reclaiming the gun for sale to you or configuring the gun in such a way that the store Mgr acknowledges it is no longer an AW. Epoxy a length of pipe inside the brake, fix the magazine - what would he accept, anything?

I know it's tough dealing with someone who is screwing things up for you and it's very easy to demonize the guy, but I think you've got to take the approach that he is as sincere in his motives as you are in yours - then find out what is important to him, how do you make it work.

Steyr_223
07-16-2008, 1:16 PM
Any CA BOJ folks here like Iggy, I will be at Chabot this Sunday between 10AM and Noon with my SVT 40.

Look for me at slot 38-44ish.

;)

packnrat
07-16-2008, 2:36 PM
a laymans way to know if a flash suppresser or a muzzle brake is look at the exit hole dia.
a flash suppresser is much larger than the bore.
a brakes is about the same size, just a tad bigger.


and the svt-40 is c&r proven, if you have a ffl3 you can have them shipped to your door from out of state.


.

jamesob
07-16-2008, 2:51 PM
what kinds of ww2 rifles had flash suppresors anyway, i can't think of one.

albacore
07-16-2008, 3:20 PM
what kinds of ww2 rifles had flash suppresors anyway, i can't think of one.

The Enfield No.5 Mk1 has an attempt at one.

NRAhighpowershooter
07-16-2008, 3:49 PM
a laymans way to know if a flash suppresser or a muzzle brake is look at the exit hole dia.
a flash suppresser is much larger than the bore.
a brakes is about the same size, just a tad bigger.


and the svt-40 is c&r proven, if you have a ffl3 you can have them shipped to your door from out of state.


.

Not necessarily true.... look at the M-14/M1A FS.. it has a small hole just a tad larger than .308 (.312") but the MB's for it is a LOT larger (.409" or larger)

M. Sage
07-16-2008, 4:50 PM
The Enfield No.5 Mk1 has an attempt at one.

Hey, that cone probably kept the flash out of a shooter's eyes pretty well, which is all you're going to use that for. Odds are, with a short rifle in .303, it was for daylight use anyway. :p

.454
07-16-2008, 6:34 PM
UPDATE:

Got a copy of the "SOVIET RIFLES AND CARBINES - IDENTIFICATION AND OPERATION" published by Office Of The Chief Of Ordnance in May 1954, approved by Cihef of Ordnance Maj Gen. E. L. Cummins and Col. F.J. Morrow, Ord. Corps Executive officer.

Paragraph h, page 38 of the guide: "(SVT40)...the two or three bafflle muzzle brake is permanently attached (fig. 59)"

Under the picture of the front end of the rifle, another caption:
"Fig.59 Soviet Two-Baffle Muzzle Brake"

That's the good news because the publication is an official Government publication, not just some Internet article written by John Doe, C&R collector and firearm enthusiast.

The bad news is I called DOJ and they declined my request. "We are sorry, we cannot give an oppinion on the legality of the firearm"

My question is: what are their "specialists" paid for then?

packnrat
07-16-2008, 6:41 PM
Not necessarily true.... look at the M-14/M1A FS.. it has a small hole just a tad larger than .308 (.312") but the MB's for it is a LOT larger (.409" or larger)

i did say "laymans"...just those i have knowledge of work this way in the listing of items for sale.
if i am wrong here or there it is because i do not know all.
a smart man learns a new item each day.:)


:TFH:


.

kap
07-16-2008, 7:39 PM
UPDATE:

Got a copy of the "SOVIET RIFLES AND CARBINES - IDENTIFICATION AND OPERATION" published by Office Of The Chief Of Ordnance in May 1954, approved by Cihef of Ordnance Maj Gen. E. L. Cummins and Col. F.J. Morrow, Ord. Corps Executive officer.

Paragraph h, page 38 of the guide: "(SVT40)...the two or three bafflle muzzle brake is permanently attached (fig. 59)"

Under the picture of the front end of the rifle, another caption:
"Fig.59 Soviet Two-Baffle Muzzle Brake"

That's the good news because the publication is an official Government publication, not just some Internet article written by John Doe, C&R collector and firearm enthusiast.

The bad news is I called DOJ and they declined my request. "We are sorry, we cannot give an opinion on the legality of the firearm"

My question is: what are their "specialists" paid for then?

Seriously! That is so awesome! So not even the government appointed officials who are supposed to know what is legal do not can comment! Awesome!

cbn620
07-16-2008, 9:24 PM
Hey, that cone probably kept the flash out of a shooter's eyes pretty well, which is all you're going to use that for. Odds are, with a short rifle in .303, it was for daylight use anyway. :p

What are you talking about? We all know flash suppressors are made to hide the weapon's muzzle flash. That way you can conduct super secret sniper missions 2 miles away from the target without being detected.


:rolleyes:

kap
07-16-2008, 10:59 PM
What are you talking about? We all know flash suppressors are made to hide the weapon's muzzle flash. That way you can conduct super secret sniper missions 2 miles away from the target without being detected.


:rolleyes:

Shhhh. Secret means secret, duh!

Tactical Support
07-22-2008, 9:41 PM
Get the owner to pick up the firearm and take it to another FFL to do a PPT.

As long as the firearm has not been at Turners for more than 30 days he can request to pick up the firearm now and have turners refund your $$ and pay him directly when you meet at another FFL.

Tactical Support
07-22-2008, 9:42 PM
The Enfield No.5 Mk1 has an attempt at one.

Enfield Jungle carbine

Mssr. Eleganté
07-22-2008, 10:08 PM
Get the owner to pick up the firearm and take it to another FFL to do a PPT.

As long as the firearm has not been at Turners for more than 30 days he can request to pick up the firearm now and have turners refund your $$ and pay him directly when you meet at another FFL.

Or better yet, get the owner to pick up the firearm from the Dealer and then do a cash and carry private sale with him out in the parking lot. It is a C&R long gun that is over 50 years old. The owner could have sold it to another Californian without going through an FFL.

wilit
07-22-2008, 10:43 PM
Whatever happened with this? They agree to release the rifle to the OP or what?

EastBayRidge
07-23-2008, 2:21 PM
"The bad news is I called DOJ and they declined my request. "We are sorry, we cannot give an opinion on the legality of the firearm""

I wonder if the DOJ would be amenable to something the SEC does - a "no action" request. Basically, you lay out the facts and reasoning of a particular course of action that there's no definitive guidance on, make your case to the Commission in a letter, and after review they say they will either take "no action" (ie. yes), or say they can't say they won't take action (ie "no")...

Guntech
07-23-2008, 2:24 PM
What the hell are you talking about 30 day holding period? I have ppt'd plenty of weapons and you only wait 10 days

BigMac
07-23-2008, 2:27 PM
A second hand dealer is required to hold all serielized property for 30 days. While we are holding the property, the local PD is supposed to perform a check to make sure the item is not reported stolen.

We have to follow pawnbroker rules.

Full Clip
07-23-2008, 2:47 PM
Absurd.
I sold an SVT to another Calgunner last year and we went to Turner's in Pasadena to do the paperwork.
Seeing the rifle, the manager refused to do the DROS because it was "an illegal assault weapon" due to the "flash hider." No amount of information or argument was going to convince that tool, so we left and did the deal at Gun World in Burbank. (There, the manager saw the SVT and said, "Hey, nice rifle.")
I'll never shop at Turner's.

bwiese
07-23-2008, 3:00 PM
I am still very uncomfortable about its legal status.

EBR Works
07-23-2008, 5:47 PM
Wow, I am profoundly dismayed by what is happening here. This weapon is C&R and has a muzzle brake, not a flash hider. Every reference to the SVT-40 that I had reviewed before I purchased mine last year says it is a brake. Here are some closeup photos. Obviously a brake!! I cannot believe that the DOJ is stonewalling you on a well documented C&R weapon. :eek:

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g302/impactco/BrakeSide.jpg

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g302/impactco/Brake45degrees.jpg

Here's a pic of the early and late muzzle brakes for reference:

http://www.mosinnagant.net/images/svt_muzzle_breaks.jpg

.454
07-23-2008, 6:03 PM
"The bad news is I called DOJ and they declined my request. "We are sorry, we cannot give an opinion on the legality of the firearm""

I wonder if the DOJ would be amenable to something the SEC does - a "no action" request. Basically, you lay out the facts and reasoning of a particular course of action that there's no definitive guidance on, make your case to the Commission in a letter, and after review they say they will either take "no action" (ie. yes), or say they can't say they won't take action (ie "no")...

I already did that, by sending them a fax asking for guidance. Basically, I told them I want to buy the SVT40 but I am concerned about the weapon compliance with the CA-AWB - so in order to avoid legal trouble I need them to tell me if I should pass it or not.
Three days later I called them and asked if anybody read my fax. One "specialist" there said "yes, we did read your fax but we still cannot give you any opinion".
I replied "but when do you give your opinion? After I buy it, get arrested for illegal AW possession and you come with your firearms experts to testify at my trial that what I purchased was indeed an illegal AW? Is this what your job description is? Refusing to help law abiding citizens to comply with the law and in the same time dropping the hammer on them if they break the law by ignorance?"
To this he replied (and I detected a certain note of honest regret in his voice): "we did issued opinions in the past, but things have changed since the new AG Jerry Brown took over DOJ. He ordered us not to send those "letters" anymore"
I said "thank you for being honest with me" and I hanged up.

Here it is, gentlemen, your tax dollars at work. Public servant AG Jerry Brown don't want to help California gun owners to stay out of jail. He wants you to break the law then send his firearms "specialists" to testify against you at your trial.

wilit
07-23-2008, 6:11 PM
You know what you can do... Submit a PRAR with the CA DOJ asking for any documentation relating to the SVT-40. By law they have to send you what they have. Perhaps there's already a letter in their files stating it's not a flash hider but a muzzle brake.

Here's the website to submit the Public Records Act Request (PRAR). Just tell them you are making a Public Record Act Request that you are looking for any and all copies of DOJ correspondence from say 1998 to present that relates to the SVT-40 (thanks to hoffmang for the info on using the PRAR system). http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/contact.php

bwiese
07-23-2008, 6:17 PM
Public servant AG Jerry Brown don't want to help California gun owners to stay out of jail. He wants you to break the law then send his firearms "specialists" to testify against you at your trial.


You are completely misreading the situation and do not understand relevant duties.

AG JB wanted the drama to stop - where phone clerks were giving often incorrect legal advice one way or the other, or where Alison was trying to entangle or entrap people.

Remember, talking to a DOJ BoF phone staffer is akin to asking a Frenchman about military victories.

In addition, it's not really the AG's duty to give legal advice to individuals on any matter, not just guns. They are not your personal lawyer, especially in an adversarial justice system as we have in USA. [The DOJ BoF itself does have an obligation to let dealer PD/LEOs know about the law, and their lack of participation in that is the fault of some individual DOJ BoF staff that have left with some still in place. That may gradually improve over the next half year.]

To reiterate:

the DOJ unclarity on flash hider defintion leaves things exposed;
this was part of Hunt case, and deposed DOJ BoF testimony could be used in a defense if charged;
I still worry because some sources indeed call this a flash hider;
when smart people like noted gun expert/gun lawyer James Jeffries call it a FH and
were worried about it during the Fed AW ban, others should be too!
the appearance/structure of the Tok's muzzle device does have similarities with some FHs;


Wilit's idea for PRARing on the SVT40 is a good idea to try.

.454
07-23-2008, 6:29 PM
Here is a copy of the fax

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7049/faxdojmg5.jpg

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1626/faxdoj02ej5.jpg

.454
07-23-2008, 6:33 PM
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/8105/faxdoj03qv9.jpg

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/7301/faxdoj04zt1.jpg

.454
07-23-2008, 6:35 PM
http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/5886/faxdoj05ip3.jpg

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/5351/faxdoj06hh0.jpg

.454
07-23-2008, 6:37 PM
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/3782/faxdoj07zb1.jpg

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5746/faxdoj08ld0.jpg

.454
07-23-2008, 6:42 PM
You know what you can do... Submit a PRAR with the CA DOJ asking for any documentation relating to the SVT-40. By law they have to send you what they have. Perhaps there's already a letter in their files stating it's not a flash hider but a muzzle brake.

Here's the website to submit the Public Records Act Request (PRAR). Just tell them you are making a Public Record Act Request that you are looking for any and all copies of DOJ correspondence from say 1998 to present that relates to the SVT-40 (thanks to hoffmang for the info on using the PRAR system). http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/contact.php

Thank you for the idea, I will submit the PRAR request right now.

EBR Works
07-23-2008, 6:56 PM
A similar discussion here:

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?p=119464

.454
07-23-2008, 7:09 PM
You are completely misreading the situation and do not understand relevant duties.
--------
In addition, it's not really the AG's duty to give legal advice to individuals on any matter, not just guns. They are not your personal lawyer, especially in an adversarial justice system as we have in USA.

Here is what CADOJ BOF states about their mission:

http://ag.ca.gov/careers/descriptions/firearms.php


The mission of the Bureau of Firearms is to serve the people of California through education, regulation and enforcement actions regarding the manufacture, sales, ownership, safety training, testing and transfer of firearms. Bureau of Firearms staff are leaders in providing firearms expertise and information to law enforcement, legislators and the general public in a comprehensive program to promote legitimate and responsible firearms possession and use by California residents. The bureau includes the organizational units as summarized below:
---------------------
Training, Information and Compliance Section provides firearms-related instruction and expertise to dealers, law enforcement, superior and juvenile courts, mental health facilities, district attorneys, legislators and the general public and inspects firearms dealerships and manufacturers to ensure compliance with firearms laws and regulations. This section also certifies handgun and firearm safety device testing laboratories and maintains a roster of handguns and firearm safety devices certified for sale in California.

bwiese
07-23-2008, 7:14 PM
That's just boilerplate feel-good PR.

And it's a bit irrelevant to some extent because the DOJ folks talking to you are neither experts nor lawyers.

.454
07-23-2008, 7:20 PM
That's just boilerplate feel-good PR.

And it's a bit irrelevant to some extent because the DOJ folks talking to you are neither experts nor lawyers.

Feel good PR? Or false advertising?.
OK, let's settle for "misleading the taxpayers" who in fact are paying for their fat paychecks and benefits ;)

I just did as advised and sent them a PRAR request using their website form. Do you think I should send another one by fax?

AJD
07-23-2008, 7:59 PM
I guess I can kind of see Jerry Brown's point about not having staff send out letters or giving opinions anymore. Their supposed firearms expert at one time who they considered the authority on the subject sent a letter to a dealer saying it was legal for him to sell a certain LISTED lower receiver he was selling to folks.

With that said, I wish the OP all the best of luck with this and I hope the situation resolves itself soon.

wilit
07-23-2008, 8:24 PM
Feel good PR? Or false advertising?.
OK, let's settle for "misleading the taxpayers" who in fact are paying for their fat paychecks and benefits ;)

I just did as advised and sent them a PRAR request using their website form. Do you think I should send another one by fax?

It won't speed the process along any faster. I sent a PRAR regarding the legality of STEN's in CA. I believe they have 10 business days to respond. I submitted mine the evening of Dec 6 and received a response Dec 17. Pretty decent response time considering who you're dealing with.

CALI-gula
07-23-2008, 11:37 PM
I see a lot of people think C&R rifles are exempt in CA from the AW bans. It only applies to .50BMG rifles where Curio & Relic is exempted and spelled out in the law. So it wouldn't be exempt from being an AW in CA, if the muzzle brake is incorrectly viewed as a Flash Hider. I say incorrectly because I have never seen them referred to in any other way, and most all of the SVT40s have muzzle brakes, no doubt. Having seen more than one in use, they don't hide any flash at all. More like a Roman Candle X 2.

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(Blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah....) and then:

(c) "Assault weapon" does not include either of the following: (1) Any antique firearm.

Then:

(3) "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.


But for .50BMG rifles, the wording gets a bit different:

12278. (a) As used in this chapter, a ".50 BMG rifle" means a center fire rifle that can fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not already an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, 12276.1, or 12276.5, or a machinegun, as defined in Section 12200.

(More blah, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah....) and then:

(c) A ".50 BMG rifle" does not include any "antique firearm," nor any curio or relic as defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (d) As used in this section, "antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.

That SVT40 is post 1940 (obviously) and pre-1945 most likely. Not an antique (yet).

.

.454
07-24-2008, 8:12 AM
I see a lot of people think C&R rifles are exempt in CA from the AW bans.

Indeed, that's just an all too common mistake. Just as believing that a C&R handgun can be shipped directly to your doorstep just because you have a C&R permit.

motorhead
07-24-2008, 8:27 AM
so is YOUR rifle still in limbo. enquiring minds want to know.

.454
08-02-2008, 1:31 PM
Received the PRA response letter from DOJ-BOF in the mail today.

It basically contains a 5 page response from Alison Merilees followed by a copy of an email between Brent George and Blake Graham (BOF employees I suppose) containing a link to this thread on Calguns.net, followed by a print-out copy of this entire Calguns thread. (I scanned and uploaded only two pages, the first one and the one with Willit's post #69 - wasn't circled by my hand )

There are also copies of the emails and faxes I sent to them the first ones requesting an oppinion and the last one with the PRA - since I already posted them here before I didn't scanned and uploaded them again.

So here is the update, feel free to comment!

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/6272/dojbofyc4.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/3548/dojbof1vf7.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1142/dojbof2sa2.jpg

.454
08-02-2008, 1:33 PM
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7907/dojbof3kc6.jpg

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8222/dojbof4qr8.jpg

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4954/dojbof5ne5.jpg

.454
08-02-2008, 1:35 PM
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6676/dojbof6ap5.jpg

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/4901/dojbof7xd8.jpg

.454
08-02-2008, 1:42 PM
P.S. I never told any BOF employee that "the muzzle brake redirects the flash".
What I told him was (I quote myself) "A muzzle brake does not hide the flash of a rifle from the field of vied of a view the shooter. If anything, a muzzle brake makes the shooter see more of the blinding flash than less".
And I didn't "got frustrated and hanged up". My cellphone connection got dropped as the area where I was at the time I called that day (South El Monte) has a crappy Sprint coverage and subsequent tries to call them back were unsuccessful.

(Now you know the truth, Mr. Brent George. Not that you didn't already know it, but you just had to twist and spin our telephone conversation in order to make a gun owner appear rude and stupid).

Corbin Dallas
08-02-2008, 3:22 PM
So basically DOJ is refusing to research the matter and the gun shop is refusing to transfer the weapon from the original owner to you.

So, did you get your money back?

CCWFacts
08-02-2008, 3:24 PM
We can't fault the DoJ for not sending you a letter that says "go ahead and buy that SVT!" Remember the difficulties AM and Iggy created for themselves with their letters? They have no requirement to write letters and, in a case like this, I can see why they wouldn't want to.

They're not evil people waiting to bust someone with an SVT, they just don't have a reason to write a letter like that.

It's a bummer because a) that's a beautiful rifle and b) it sure seems like a muzzle break not a flash hider so it should be legal here.

What's happening with the Hunt case? Isn't that case mainly about flash hider v. muzzle break at this point? I thought that the main result of Hunt was going to be that the distinction goes away, because it's basically impossible to make a determination one way or the other?

.454
08-02-2008, 3:50 PM
They have no requirement to write letters and, in a case like this, I can see why they wouldn't want to.



I think you are wrong here. But it's not me contradicting your opinion, it is BOF's own mission statement appearing on their own website doing it:

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/5153/scr146e7beis1yg4.jpg

I just wanted to be EDUCATED and requested their EXPERTISE. That's all. Is it too much to ask the CADOJ BOF employees to abide by their own self-stated mission?

.454
08-02-2008, 4:01 PM
So basically DOJ is refusing to research the matter and the gun shop is refusing to transfer the weapon from the original owner to you.

So, did you get your money back?

No, I don't need the money. I have an invoice and a receipt showing that money changed hands thus the rifle belongs to me even if the DROS was not started due to events only Turners can be held responsible for. Why would I give up and give away my best argument?

I need to see - and they (Turners) need to see what's happening if the rifle I purchased gets destroyed for no reason other than the personal opinion of somebody in the corporate offices who doesn't have any attributes or qualifications to make a legal ruling about this rifle.
I do have plenty of evidence supporting my opinion this isn't an evil AW. The question is, does he have any evidence it is - since DOJ-BOF declined to give their opinion on this issue?

WokMaster1
08-02-2008, 4:05 PM
I think you are wrong here. But it's not me contradicting your opinion, it is BOF's own mission statement appearing on their own website doing it:

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/5153/scr146e7beis1yg4.jpg

I just wanted to be EDUCATED and requested their EXPERTISE. That's all. Is it too much to ask the CADOJ BOF employees to abide by their own self-stated mission?

You're being a bit unrealistic here. How do you expect the unknowing & uninformed to teach us what is & what is not. Some of these people can't even count to ten.

To take the DOJ's mission statement to heart is the same as listening to Gavin Newsome whispering in your ear that "you're the best he's ever had":D

Corbin Dallas
08-02-2008, 4:08 PM
No, I don't need the money. I have an invoice and a receipt showing that money changed hands thus the rifle belongs to me even if the DROS was not started due to events only Turners can be held responsible for. Why would I give up and give away my best argument?

I need to see - and they (Turners) need to see what's happening if the rifle I purchased gets destroyed for no reason other than the personal opinion of somebody in the corporate offices who doesn't have any attributes or qualifications to make a legal ruling about this rifle.
I do have plenty of evidence supporting my opinion this isn't an evil AW. The question is, does he have any evidence it is?

I hate to say it, but you're first mistake was attempting to buy a weapon from Turners.

I had a similar problem with a PPT Glock 27. The "employee" argued with me that the weapon did not come with a factory CA approved lock. It was only after fighting with them and showing the manager the CADOJ website that states the included lock is approved did they finally give in and accept the facts.

From then on, I absolutely REFUSE to give Turners ANY of my business. I will do a transfer TO someone if they request to go to turners, but all my own purchases are now done elsewhere.

Turners employees are generally rude, unknowledgable and under the direction of the corporate office which makes decisions based on beliefs and not facts.

If I were in your shoes, I would demand to get in touch with the owner of the weapon and have them recall it back from Turners so as not to be destroyed. Get every dime back from Turners including your DROS fees, then PPT the weapon elsewhere.

If Turners refuses to refund your money, take them to court and file a claim based on the fact that they attempted to sell you an "Assault Weapon" based on THIER information.

Any Judge that hears a corporation attempted to sell you an assault weapon and is refusing to refund ALL your money will side with your claim.

GL and here's hoping for the best.

.454
08-02-2008, 4:16 PM
You're being a bit unrealistic here. How do you expect the unknowing & uninformed to teach us what is & what is not. Some of these people can't even count to ten.

To take the DOJ's mission statement to heart is the same as listening to Gavin Newsome whispering in your ear that "you're the best he's ever had":D


Easy there, Master Wok! As you can see from the print-out copies of this thread they sent me, BOF closely monitors this website. Ironically, I have never mentioned to them I wrote about this case here on Calguns.

Since giving an expert opinion about a firearm isn't part of the BOF employees job description, maybe reading Calguns.net every morning at work and being paid for it, is? ;)

.454
08-02-2008, 4:28 PM
I hate to say it, but you're first mistake was attempting to buy a weapon from Turners.



I do not hate Turners. Please do not try to transform this thread in a Turners bashing fest. I have very good friends and hunting buddies working there. Most of them are honest, knowledgeable, and helpful; the Turners guys I know are hard-core shooters, collectors and 2nd. Amendment supporters. I purchased my first firearm there years ago and I filled-up an entire gun safe since buying from the same store without having a single unpleasant experience. I have no issue with any of them; by the contrary, they have been very supportive in this case. It is a single individual from Turners corporate office who did this so I see no reason to blame an entire company or its employees.

chrisdesoup
08-02-2008, 4:37 PM
[QUOTE=WokMaster1;To take the DOJ's mission statement to heart is the same as listening to Gavin Newsome whispering in your ear that "you're the best he's ever had":D[/QUOTE]

:rofl2:

CCWFacts
08-02-2008, 4:45 PM
I just wanted to be EDUCATED and requested their EXPERTISE. That's all. Is it too much to ask the CADOJ BOF employees to abide by their own self-stated mission?

Yeah but ruling like this is beyond the scope of that. The problem isn't with the DoJ, it's with the law. Except in the most obvious extremes (bird cage vs. a 50 BMG muzzle break), the distinction between a flash hider and a muzzle break is like the distinction between a fiddle and a violin. There is no clear distinction, so you're left looking at various documents and trying to figure out if the guy who designed it intended it to be one or the other. In this case, the design documents are in Russian, are stored away in archives somewhere, and everyone who worked on it is dead and buried. It's not the DoJ's job to opine on such unanswerable questions. It's the job of the legislature to not write such baloney into the laws, but as we know, they delight in doing that in the area of gun regulation, just for this very reason.

.454
08-02-2008, 5:08 PM
In this case, the design documents are in Russian, are stored away in archives somewhere, and everyone who worked on it is dead and buried. It's not the DoJ's job to opine on such unanswerable questions. It's the job of the legislature to not write such baloney into the laws, but as we know, they delight in doing that in the area of gun regulation, just for this very reason.


Unanswerable questions? Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold any water. Samuel Colt is long dead and most of the documents and designs of his were destroyed in the fire of February 6, 1864. However, if I ask you if Colt's SAA is an AW or not, will you answer the same: "no original documents are available and the designer is dead, therefore this is an unanswerable question"?

I provided them with this http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1381979&postcount=72
What more evidence do they want than the US Ordnance Corps 1954 Soviet Rifles Identification And Operation Manual proving the rifle is equipped with a MUZZLE BRAKE? The authors of the manual and the military brass (the General Chief of Ordnance and the Colonel) who signed it were clueless Sunday plinkers?

Reading it should have been an relatively easy task. Nevertheless, it is obvious what the internal agenda at the BOF is.

M. Sage
08-02-2008, 5:30 PM
Exactly right. It's the BOF's job to know what the law says. If the law is too vague, they should have at least said so. However, if the law is too vague, they shouldn't be enforcing it...

CCWFacts
08-02-2008, 5:50 PM
Unanswerable questions? Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold any water. Samuel Colt is long dead and most of the documents and designs of his were destroyed in the fire of February 6, 1864. However, if I ask you if Colt's SAA is an AW or not, will you answer the same: "no original documents are available and the designer is dead"?

Nothing is needed. The law that defines a Colt SAA as a single-action is clearly written. I'm sure if you sent the DoJ a letter saying, "is the Colt SAA an AW?" they would send you a letter saying, "no it isn't".

the US Ordnance Corps 1954 Soviet Rifles Identification And Operation Manual proving the rifle is equipped with a MUZZLE BRAKE? The authors of the manual and the military brass (the General Chief of Ordnance and the Colonel) who signed it were clueless Sunday plinkers?

The DoJ isn't your lawyer. It's not their job to write you an opinion letter on something which doesn't have a clear answer.

Reading it should have been an relatively easy task. Nevertheless, it is obvious what the internal agenda at the BOF is.

It's obvious in this case that their agenda is to not stick their necks out when they don't need to.

Exactly right. It's the BOF's job to know what the law says. If the law is too vague, they should have at least said so.

That basically is what they said. "We're not going to say anything one way or the other on this."

However, if the law is too vague, they shouldn't be enforcing it...

The leg. puts them in a no-win situation every time the leg. drafts a law like this. This is what happens when you get a leg. that's both passionately anti-gun and utterly ignorant about guns. A analogy is this famous "I want to ban barrel shrouds but I don't know what they are" interview with McCarthy:

9rGpykAX1fo

And barrel shrouds are the same type of "I have no idea what they are" situation as flash hiders / muzzle breaks. Is fore end grip on an AR-15 a shroud or a grip? I don't know; it does both.

Look, this is what the whole Hunt case is about. There is no clear distinction between a flash hider and a muzzle break in many instances, which creates an impossible situation for both gun owners and the DoJ.

.454
08-02-2008, 6:02 PM
It is becoming more and more obvious to me that the DOJ-BOF true mission isn't to provide education and expertise to firearms dealers and the general public as they claim...After receiving the latest response from them I came to believe they are in the "gotcha" business.
The evidence is pretty clear: they distorted and misrepresented what I said in a telephone conversation and they monitor what California gun owners are writing on this website. Why? You tell me.

.454
08-02-2008, 6:19 PM
Nothing is needed. The law that defines a Colt SAA as a single-action is clearly written. I'm sure if you sent the DoJ a letter saying, "is the Colt SAA an AW?" they would send you a letter saying, "no it isn't".


Wanna bet? I will send them a letter and ask this question. If they decline to give an opinion, you lose. If they send and opinion and you are right, I still win because I will have more than enough proof they refused a legitimate request to give an oppinion about the SVT-40. Even if the answer would have been "sorry but we lack the expertise and the law isn't clear enough about this issue"




The DoJ isn't your lawyer. It's not their job to write you an opinion letter on something which doesn't have a clear answer.





Actually, it is my lawyer. And yours. CADOJ (BOF included) Chief is the Attorney General Ed Brown. And who is the Attorney General, his District Attorneys and the Prosecutors representing in the California courts? Ever heard about the phrase "People Vs. X"?
Who is representing the "People"?

I believe we all too often forget we are not subjects but citizens, the Government is ours and they should listen and serve us not the other way around. We are paying through the nose for their fat salaries and benefits afterall.


Office Of The Attorney General Mission Statement (http://ag.ca.gov/ag/mission.php)

It is our duty to serve our state and work honorably every day to fulfill California's promise. The Attorney General and our Department's employees provide leadership, information and education in partnership with state and local governments and the people of California to:

* Enforce and apply all our laws fairly and impartially.
* Ensure justice, safety, and liberty for everyone.
* Encourage economic prosperity, equal opportunity and tolerance.
* Safeguard California's human, natural, and financial resources for this and future generations.

WokMaster1
08-02-2008, 6:46 PM
Wanna bet? I will send them a letter and ask this question. If they decline to give an opinion, you lose. If they send and opinion and you are right, I still win because I will have more than enough proof they refused a legitimate request to give an oppinion about the SVT-40. Even if the answer would have been "sorry but we lack the expertise and the law isn't clear enough about this issue"



Actually, it is my lawyer. And yours. CADOJ (BOF included) Chief is the Attorney General Ed Brown. And who is the Attorney General, his District Attorneys and the Prosecutors representing in the California courts? Ever heard about the phrase "People Vs. X"?
Who is representing the "People"?

I believe we all too often forget we are not subjects but citizens, the Government is ours and they should listen and serve us not the other way around. We are paying through the nose for their fat salaries and benefits afterall.

I'm telling you right now....you better apologize to the unseen forces. They are warming up the tinted windowed black Suburbans.:D

The "People" in People vs X are those folks in the DOJ building. We're the X as in "X" marks the spot.;)

CCWFacts
08-02-2008, 7:57 PM
Wanna bet? I will send them a letter and ask this question.

I'll bet that if you ask them, "is the standard Colt Single Action Army revolver an assault weapon?", they will say, "no, it isn't." What's the bet?

If they decline to give an opinion, you lose.

Ok.

If they send and opinion and you are right, I still win because I will have more than enough proof they refused a legitimate request to give an oppinion about the SVT-40.

It's known that flash hider vs. muzzle break is, in many cases, an unanswerable question; that's what the Hunt case is about. Single action revolvers like the SAA being non-AWs is not at all a gray area.

Even if the answer would have been "sorry but we lack the expertise and the law isn't clear enough about this issue"

Sure. If you accurately describe the SAA as "a single-action, 6-shot revolver, with a 6" riffled barrel, chambered in 38spl (or whatever it is)", they will say, "that gun is fine in California."

Actually, it is my lawyer. And yours. CADOJ (BOF included) Chief is the Attorney General Ed Brown. And who is the Attorney General, his District Attorneys and the Prosecutors representing in the California courts? Ever heard about the phrase "People Vs. X"?
Who is representing the "People"?

True, they represent "the people" but they're still not our lawyer. If they are the lawyers for "the people", why is there a need for a public defender?

I believe we all too often forget we are not subjects but citizens, the Government is ours and they should listen and serve us not the other way around. We are paying through the nose for their fat salaries and benefits afterall.

Yeah, but that's a problem that's beyond the scope of this. None of these technical firearms regulations have any reason for existence. If I were drafting the laws, people would be able to buy Glock 18s with a simple NICS, and would be able to carry them out of the store with a simple shall-issue CCW.

But the DoJ isn't the legislature. Our problems come from the leg. The DoJ is just in the impossible position of having to deal with impossibly written laws. It's a known fact that CA's gun laws are a tangled mess and they have been the subject of a lot of litigation: Hunt, Harrott, etc.

RolinThundr
09-27-2009, 9:36 PM
.454, I don't know if your situation has been resolved yet, but if you really want the Tokarev SVT40, try calling City Arms in Pacifica, they've had a couple in store available for sale for a while now.

bwiese
09-28-2009, 12:37 AM
The "People" in People v. X are those folks in the DOJ building. We're the X as in "X" marks the spot.;)

Very good point.

To correct some misstatements above, the DOJ BoF is not your personal attorney. Nor is your local DA.

They, as a courtesy, may offer clarifying statements or opinions about a subject, at their whim. The DOJ or DA would be perfectly in their rights to say, "We live in an adversarial system, and you should consult your own attorney." Where the DOJ runs into Big Fail is allowing 58 attorneys to have varying opinions and that requires litigation or personnel change, or when there are regulations written by DOJ requiring clarification - which in this case might be relevant.


That being said, DOJ BoF does have some obligations to CA FFL dealers (as contrasted with general citizenry). An FFL, making a formal request for information, might be able to secure more detailed info.

bwiese
09-28-2009, 12:40 AM
rather than how Hunt turned out, what was interesting in the article was that it says depositions of DOJ employees revealed that not a single person was ever prosecuted under the AWB where the determining factor was a FS.

http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/current-litigation/53-court-filings/570-settlement-of-hunt-v-lockyer.html


Yes, at least as regards DOJ-driven cases.

Criminal filings at local DA level are a pig's breakfast of recordkeeping. If other charges are filed the AW charges may be down the list, and indexing sucks enough that the likelihood of finding such cases may be minimal even if these cases exist.

Yes, the depositions in the Hunt case are useful for clarifying "nobody knows WTF a FH really, really is."

But that a defense situation - it's best to not get into that situation in the first place.