PDA

View Full Version : California Department of Justice still spreading FUD


LG1980
04-30-2009, 1:28 PM
I had a conversation with Renee of the DOJ this afternoon, when I called to find out why someone from her office told a vendor that a Romanian SAR 1 without prohibited SB23 features was still illegal to ship to California.

The vendor said someone from the DOJ office described the Romanian SAR 1 as a category 2 prohibited weapon.

When I asked Renee about this she said "is it an AK series weapon?" and I said it is an AK type of weapon. She said, it is therefore illegal. I asked if she was familiar with Harrot v. County of Kings and she said "we are not lawyers here" If you or the vendor want legal advice, you should contact the district attorney.

I pointed out there are 57 DAs in the state and she said "that is correct"

When I asked if it was an office policy to spread misinformation, going back to at least 2006, she replied, if you have a specific complaint, please e-mail our office.

I can't believe in 2009, they are still playing these tired games.

I thought Calguns squashed this kind of garbage in 2007?

DDT
04-30-2009, 1:30 PM
i sure wish this was recorded.

Vtec44
04-30-2009, 1:38 PM
I had a conversation with Renee of the DOJ this afternoon, when I called to find out why someone from her office told a vendor that a Romanian SAR 1 without prohibited SB23 features was still illegal to ship to California.

Well now you know who's spreading this false information. I typically write a formal letter to the DOJ. It takes about a month to get a reply but at least you have it in written form in case you need to refer back to it. They usually give you a very generic answer anyway, but it's all in how you phrase your question to get what you want.

kalguns
04-30-2009, 1:40 PM
D.O.J.= Department of Jokers

Soldier415
04-30-2009, 1:42 PM
i sure wish this was recorded.
Yeah, they dont like to put that type of BS on paper where there is a record because they have earned it will come back to bite them.

Soldier415
04-30-2009, 1:43 PM
D.O.J.= Department of Jokers
DOJ = Department of Jenkem

Vtec44
04-30-2009, 1:51 PM
I thought DOJ means Department of JackAzzes :o

LG1980
04-30-2009, 2:02 PM
Since the only venue Renee offered to complain was their e-mail, which can easily be deleted. Will some Calguns veterans give me an idea of the proper way to phrase the question when I write a complaint?

Hasn't or will the DOJ be sued for this ongoing, consistent policy of flouting the law and the California Supreme Court?

gcvt
04-30-2009, 2:09 PM
If they didn't spend all day spreading FUD, they wouldn't have anything to do.

bwiese
04-30-2009, 2:11 PM
You've just run up against "clerk incompetence" - it's often more that. than FUD.

Don't assume folks that answer the phone at DOJ BoF know anything about guns or gun laws.

Go and precisely comply with the law as we've all discussed here and don't worry about phone idiots.

At this point there are many bigger fish to fry ;)

DDT
04-30-2009, 2:13 PM
His problem isn't going after them, it's that a out of state "vendor" who was going to sell him an SAR was told they were illegal in CA and canceled the sale. I'm sure the OP knows the law but his vendor wanted re-assurance from BoF and got bad info.

LG1980
04-30-2009, 2:16 PM
You've just run up against "clerk incompetence" - it's more that than FUD.

Don't assume folks that answer the phone at DOJ BoF know anything about guns or gun laws.

Go and preciesly comply with the law as we've all discussed here and don't worry about phone idiots.

At this point there are many bigger fish to fry ;)

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my query but I felt this was a "big fish to fry" because out of state vendors take their cue from that office.

3 times I have sent links and quotes from the DOJ website to vendors and 2 times I've had vendors not read the links and in this case, a vendor decided to call the DOJ, rather than read the DOJ links I sent him. Perhaps it's my bad luck but it appears to me that there is a pattern of vendors being affected by the FUD spread by the DOJ office which affects interstate commerce.

bwiese
04-30-2009, 2:17 PM
The BoF can actually lie to out of state vendors without much recourse unless we start playing commerce games.

They do have a higher legal obligation to a Californian and even higher to a CA FFL, who is their agent.

It would be nice if the two parties along with a CA FFL were on the phone making the enquiry - with acknowledged tape recording - and then when Renee spills her BS, call her on it, and tell her the precise time date and place of the legal transfer. I'd love for DOJ agents - please pretty please! - to intervene.

We could use another John Contos to show "pattern & practice" issues that happened under multiple DOJ leaders (Rossi, Cid) and Dept AGs (Palimieri and Merrilees).

bwiese
04-30-2009, 2:18 PM
I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my query but I felt this was a "big fish to fry" because out of state vendors take their cue from that office.

3 times I have sent links and quotes from the DOJ website to vendors and 2 times I've had vendors not read the links and in this case, a vendor decided to call the DOJ, rather than read the DOJ links I sent him. Perhaps it's my bad luck but it appears to me that there is a pattern of vendors being affected by the FUD spread by the DOJ office which affects interstate commerce.


We may just have to start publishing things in Shotgun News and Gun List ;)

Nodda Duma
04-30-2009, 2:21 PM
We may just have to start publishing things in Shotgun News and Gun List ;)

I've often wondered over the past few months why this hasn't happened yet.

-Jason

LG1980
04-30-2009, 2:23 PM
I'm also offended that 8 years after Harrot v. County of Kings that the language of the website has not been updated.

Isn't this an open disregard for the law & the California Supreme Court?

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf

CHAPTER 2.3. ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS
CONTROL ACT OF 1989
LISTING
The ACT provides in part:
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:

bwiese
04-30-2009, 2:28 PM
I've often wondered over the past few months why this hasn't happened yet.


Well, things have generally been going pretty good overall - guns are flowing into the state and CFLC hasn't quite been as bad of a hurdle as initially thought, and intermediary FFLs help us too.

Spending money on ads instead of litigation/defense has its drawbacks even if we get a "public service" ad discount (and some co-spend money from other gun groups).

In my prior life I was involved in the sales of aftermarket automotive electronic products.
Our (smart) ad guys told us it took several months of ads to even start getting traction (i.e, before seeing a significant rise in sales/contacts). The level of detail required in the ads would require substantial column-inches, too - fair fraction of a full page.

DDT
04-30-2009, 2:33 PM
Well, things have generally been going pretty good overall - guns are flowing into the state and CFLC hasn't quite been as bad of a hurdle as initially thought, and intermediary FFLs help us too.

Spending money on ads instead of litigation/defense has its drawbacks even if we get a "public service" ad discount (and some co-spend money from other gun groups).

In my prior life I was involved in the sales of aftermarket automotive electronic products.
Our (smart) ad guys told us it took several months of ads to even start getting traction (i.e, before seeing a significant rise in sales/contacts). The level of detail required in the ads would require substantial column-inches, too - fair fraction of a full page.

What about a section on CGF website or CalNRA website with info for non-CA FFLs looking to ship into CA?

LG1980
04-30-2009, 2:38 PM
I guess I'm just having bad luck with the CFLC program.

I've had several vendors refuse to sell (even after avoiding anyone that writes the "NO CALIFORNIA" on their websites or in their auction descriptions) and even had two private party non-FFL holders refuse to sell because they were positive they had to participate in the CFLC program and refused to do so.

I've heard several times on other gun websites "Does anyone know if I can sell or ship an SKS to California?" and one individual remarked "any gun that has the ability to fire more than 10 rounds is illegal in California"

Peachtree guns in GA and several other vendors won't sell to California because of the CFLC program.

It even spills over into the ammo topic with sellers refusing to sell ammo, from what I can determine "just on principal" or a misunderstanding of the laws, whether it's Sportsmansguide or small private vendors that say, "I don't ship to California or ___ fill in the blank, the counties in which it's legal to ship but vendors believe it is not.

The anti-California attitude in the gun community seems alive and well to me but perhaps I have the unfortunate luck of running into the ones that don't or won't.

M. D. Van Norman
04-30-2009, 2:45 PM
At least we will get to enjoy that extra little bit of satisfaction when the nation’s RKBA war is won here. :cool:

LG1980
04-30-2009, 2:53 PM
From what I've read in other online gun forums, Californians won't get credit for that fight or that victory.

bwiese
04-30-2009, 3:00 PM
From what I've read in other online gun forums, Californians won't get credit for that fight or that victory.

Who cares?

... when there's no handgun Roster here,
... when the CA AWB is taken down,
... when the 10 day wait is on your first gun purchase only...
..etc etc

Works for me. The glory will be the results, not who knows.

soundwave
04-30-2009, 3:01 PM
She could have been right in the middle of a game of Minesweeper for all you know. How rude of you!

dmckean44
04-30-2009, 3:05 PM
We may just have to start publishing things in Shotgun News and Gun List ;)

Where do I send money to contribute to the ad?

bwiese
04-30-2009, 3:09 PM
Where do I send money to contribute to the ad?

If the ad WERE to take occur (!!) it would be done under auspices of CGF.

I cannot guarantee this will happen and not sure it really NEEDS to happen; time often does its work.
It will be discussed/reviewed, and we'd see

blackberg
04-30-2009, 3:12 PM
If the ad WERE to take occur (!!) it would be done under auspices of CGF.

I cannot guarantee this will happen and not sure it really NEEDS to happen; time often does its work.
It will be discussed/reviewed, and we'd see

How about the "free" advertising, such as having someone like "American Rifleman" or one of the other rags, writing an article on whats really going on in the PRK?

-bb

RomanDad
04-30-2009, 3:28 PM
she said "we are not lawyers here"

EXQUISE ME?


The California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (which is the office of the CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, AKA the GENERAL LEGAL COUNSEL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) are not "lawyers?"


Everybody I KNOW who works for them (and I know at least two dozen people who work for the DOJ) are ALL lawyers.....

WTF???


And if you were unlucky enough to reach the two people in the building who ARENT lawyers, and they arent bothering to stick their noses out of their cubicles where the building is absolutely lousy with lawyers to ask what THEY THINK the right answer is, why are clerks in the practice of giving LEGAL ADVICE TO FFLs AS TO WHATS ILLEGAL (also known as the unlicensed practice of LAW)????

Untamed1972
04-30-2009, 3:31 PM
Who cares?

... when there's no handgun Roster here,
... when the CA AWB is taken down,
... when the 10 day wait is on your first gun purchase only...
..etc etc

Works for me. The glory will be the results, not who knows.

There are many things I love about CA and many that I don't. Many of the places in the country that have better gun laws are crappy places to live. so when we win those battles we'll have better gun laws AND all the great parts of CA too! :thumbsup:

I CANT WAIT!!!!!

Mute
04-30-2009, 3:34 PM
Go ahead and email those fools. Email backups can be subpoenaed. I've seen it happen in civil suits.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-30-2009, 4:04 PM
... when the 10 day wait is on your first gun purchase only...


Ooohhh! A sneak peek. Didn't think about that one before!

RRangel
04-30-2009, 4:11 PM
I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my query but I felt this was a "big fish to fry" because out of state vendors take their cue from that office.

3 times I have sent links and quotes from the DOJ website to vendors and 2 times I've had vendors not read the links and in this case, a vendor decided to call the DOJ, rather than read the DOJ links I sent him. Perhaps it's my bad luck but it appears to me that there is a pattern of vendors being affected by the FUD spread by the DOJ office which affects interstate commerce.

I would send registered mail if I wanted them to send me verifiable proof in writing. Anyone can tell you anything over the phone. Don't be surprised if the next "clerk" tells you something different. Many of us here have learned this already.

dmckean44
04-30-2009, 5:00 PM
If the ad WERE to take occur (!!) it would be done under auspices of CGF.

I cannot guarantee this will happen and not sure it really NEEDS to happen; time often does its work.
It will be discussed/reviewed, and we'd see

It needs to happen. Outside this forum nobody understands CA gun laws. A little bit of education could help a lot.

Psy Crow
04-30-2009, 5:13 PM
Greetings All,
(FNG here)

I'm also offended that 8 years after Harrot v. County of Kings that the language of the website has not been updated.

Isn't this an open disregard for the law & the California Supreme Court?

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf

CHAPTER 2.3. ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS
CONTROL ACT OF 1989
LISTING
The ACT provides in part:
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:

Interestingly, www.leginfo.ca.gov shows the same text for PC 12276 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=13643715182+6+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve):

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:

Post Harrot, what should 12276.1 read?

bwiese
04-30-2009, 5:29 PM
Greetings All,
(FNG here)

Interestingly, www.leginfo.ca.gov (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov) shows the same text for PC 12276 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=13643715182+6+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve):

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:

Post Harrot, what should 12276.1 read?

It should still read the same thing.

Court decisions do not re-write the actual laws, only the Legislature can do that.

The court decision just makes material like this inapplicable/invalid.

"Actual applied law" = on-the-books statutory law + any relevant on-the-books regulatory law + case law interpretations from court decision(s).

That's why we can do what we do here, that section of law has essentially been voided.

The legislature generally does not go back and 'clean up' laws, tons of laws are on the books that have been wholly or partially invalidated or reshaped by court decisions.

Psy Crow
04-30-2009, 6:07 PM
It should still read the same thing.

Court decisions do not re-write the actual laws, only the Legislature can do that.

The court decision just makes material like this inapplicable/invalid.

"Actual applied law" = on-the-books statutory law + any relevant on-the-books regulatory law + case law interpretations from court decision(s).

That's why we can do what we do here, that section of law has essentially been voided.

The legislature generally does not go back and 'clean up' laws, tons of laws are on the books that have been wholly or partially invalidated or reshaped by court decisions.

Bill, thank you for clearing that up.

Cheers!

N6ATF
05-01-2009, 1:50 AM
One does not bite the hand that feeds it.

wildhawker
05-01-2009, 6:51 AM
It should still read the same thing.

Court decisions do not re-write the actual laws, only the Legislature can do that.

The court decision just makes material like this inapplicable/invalid.

"Actual applied law" = on-the-books statutory law + any relevant on-the-books regulatory law + case law interpretations from court decision(s).

That's why we can do what we do here, that section of law has essentially been voided.

The legislature generally does not go back and 'clean up' laws, tons of laws are on the books that have been wholly or partially invalidated or reshaped by court decisions.

First thing, Bill, nice avatar. :thumbsup:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/image.php?u=191&dateline=1241163767&type=thumb

Back on topic, I'm not sure how much upside we'd see with one ad. Further, the website referenced in the ad would have to be easy for a non-Calgunner to navigate and find the relevant info within the attention span of maybe 5 minutes. They're not going to do a search, they have businesses to run. The only way I would see this working is to have a list of common misconceptions (in the style of a FAQ possibly) with links to a paragraph of text explaining the issue, and links under the text for the applicable PC section/regs/case law.

Even with all that, you'll still have to convince some (reasonably paranoid) FFLs to go beyond their comfort zone and accept this info as truth. Once California's market becomes appealing and accessible (which I tend to think will happen in time, which heals all wounds), more and more businesses will start supporting us. Cash is king.

cousinkix1953
05-01-2009, 8:05 AM
The BoF can actually lie to out of state vendors without much recourse unless we start playing commerce games.

They do have a higher legal obligation to a Californian and even higher to a CA FFL, who is their agent.

It would be nice if the two parties along with a CA FFL were on the phone making the enquiry - with acknowledged tape recording - and then when Renee spills her BS, call her on it, and tell her the precise time date and place of the legal transfer. I'd love for DOJ agents - please pretty please! - to intervene.

We could use another John Contos to show "pattern & practice" issues that happened under multiple DOJ leaders (Rossi, Cid) and Dept AGs (Palimieri and Merrilees).
It isn't illegal for some of those out-of-state dealers to annomynously record their telephone conversations with the DoJ. Just make sure that you live in the right states before you do it. Only one party to the conversation has to know that a tape is running in those jurisdictions...

bwiese
05-01-2009, 9:50 AM
It isn't illegal for some of those out-of-state dealers to annomynously record their telephone conversations with the DoJ. Just make sure that you live in the right states before you do it. Only one party to the conversation has to know that a tape is running in those jurisdictions...

Not sure about that, would take some analysis. There are both Fed & State recording & wiretapping laws. We don't want an FFL to get in trouble for a non-gun issue.

cousinkix1953
05-01-2009, 11:01 AM
Not sure about that, would take some analysis. There are both Fed & State recording & wiretapping laws. We don't want an FFL to get in trouble for a non-gun issue.
If you are in the right state you can do it without telling the DoJ but Kalifornia isn't one of them...

LG1980
05-01-2009, 4:35 PM
First thing, Bill, nice avatar. :thumbsup:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/image.php?u=191&dateline=1241163767&type=thumb

Back on topic, I'm not sure how much upside we'd see with one ad. Further, the website referenced in the ad would have to be easy for a non-Calgunner to navigate and find the relevant info within the attention span of maybe 5 minutes. They're not going to do a search, they have businesses to run. The only way I would see this working is to have a list of common misconceptions (in the style of a FAQ possibly) with links to a paragraph of text explaining the issue, and links under the text for the applicable PC section/regs/case law.

Even with all that, you'll still have to convince some (reasonably paranoid) FFLs to go beyond their comfort zone and accept this info as truth. Once California's market becomes appealing and accessible (which I tend to think will happen in time, which heals all wounds), more and more businesses will start supporting us. Cash is king.

I'd venture to say "A picture is worth a thousand words" It's much easier to grasp an image, like when I first visited 10% firearms website, the FAQ had several photos, which made it quick to understand what the text was saying.

Trader Jack
05-01-2009, 10:23 PM
You've just run up against "clerk incompetence" - it's often more that. than FUD.

Don't assume folks that answer the phone at DOJ BoF know anything about guns or gun laws.

Go and precisely comply with the law as we've all discussed here and don't worry about phone idiots.

At this point there are many bigger fish to fry ;)

I know Rene and let me assure you she could not find her *** with a mirror and a surefire.:chris:

Dark&Good
05-01-2009, 10:34 PM
I had a conversation with Renee of the DOJ this afternoon, when I called to find out why someone from her office told a vendor that a Romanian SAR 1 without prohibited SB23 features was still illegal to ship to California.

The vendor said someone from the DOJ office described the Romanian SAR 1 as a category 2 prohibited weapon.

When I asked Renee about this she said "is it an AK series weapon?" and I said it is an AK type of weapon. She said, it is therefore illegal. I asked if she was familiar with Harrot v. County of Kings and she said "we are not lawyers here" If you or the vendor want legal advice, you should contact the district attorney.

I pointed out there are 57 DAs in the state and she said "that is correct"

When I asked if it was an office policy to spread misinformation, going back to at least 2006, she replied, if you have a specific complaint, please e-mail our office.

I can't believe in 2009, they are still playing these tired games.

I thought Calguns squashed this kind of garbage in 2007?

When she said "we're not lawyers here", I would've said "no, you're lawyers' target, if you continue doing illegal things. So cut the crp."

DDT
05-01-2009, 10:36 PM
I know Rene and let me assure you she could not find her *** with a mirror and a surefire.:chris:

Do you have a link to the youtube video?

N6ATF
05-02-2009, 12:45 AM
Do you have a link to the youtube video?

HooS1rtXDGk

7222 Hawker
05-02-2009, 1:02 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again..... DOJ are a bunch of low paid, under-educated clowns who couldn't get hired by any other agency. Especially the lawyers. Why would anyone who paid their way through law school work for pennies on the dollar for some half assed orgnization - unless they were idiots.....