PDA

View Full Version : So I went to my ffl today...


Charliegone
09-28-2005, 4:17 PM
So I went to my ffl today and he had the 2 receivers and 1 rifle I had purchased. He said that the rifle was no problem (in fact someone working there said what the hell is this? He thought the feather rav-22 I bought was a pistol) but with the ptr-91 receivers he said they could be illegal because they could be built as "assault weapons." I started thinking what he is saying is wrong. Under that logic, the mini-14 would be illegal because it could also be built up as an "assault weapon." Even though he was a bit reluctant at first, he did put the ffl through and "we'll see." I'm pretty sure it is legal since it is NOT on the Roberti-Roos list and is NOT an AW under sb23. I just can't wait for prop. 77, if it passes I hope some of these dumb laws can be repealled. They are nothing but a pain in the butt. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

bwiese
09-28-2005, 4:26 PM
Like many gunshop folks, he's just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.

The PTR91 is not a listed 'Roberti-Roos' assault weapon, nor is it a Kasler "class" weapon like ARs/AKs. Thus, it's only an AW if it has a collection of evil features.

If the PTR91 does not have pistol grip and flash hider it is still legal in CA. "Could be built" is not part of the law. Buying a PTR91 receiver is no different than buying an Imbel FAL clone receiver - the PTR91 is NOT an HK91 or G3 and the Imbel is NOT a true FN/FAL.

And don't get your hopes up on CA AW ban being ever repealed even if Prop 77 passes. All the passage of Prop 77 will do is reduce the pace of introduction of new idiotic laws, esp with the demographics of CA (too many idiotic soccer moms, union members and gov't employees vote).


Bill Wiese
San Jose

Charliegone
09-28-2005, 4:36 PM
Thanks Bill, I figured he was wrong. I just wonder why are most gun shops reluctant to "allow" them. They are not illegal, but my guess is that they are afraid of the anti-gunners bring in sues and what not.

Charliegone
09-28-2005, 4:49 PM
And while we are on the topic of whats legal and whats not here is website to give you an idea.

http://www.geocities.com/awatters2002/m1a/calegal.html

Mike
09-28-2005, 5:40 PM
Originally posted by bwiese:
(too many idiotic soccer moms, union members and gov't employees vote).


Ain't THAT the truth!

I am truly sorry guys, but damn it really sucks how bad of an uphill battle CA is... http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JH2
09-28-2005, 8:02 PM
Originally posted by bwiese:
(too many idiotic soccer moms, union members and gov't employees vote).
Bill Wiese
San Jose

Please don't assume that ALL union workers and government employees are going to vote with the liberals. Some of us do actually use our brain and think for ourselves.

Jim

BSlacker
09-28-2005, 9:29 PM
Is your dealer Mike? I live near by.

Turbinator
09-29-2005, 8:04 AM
Originally posted by bwiese:
"Could be built" is not part of the law.

I'm just curious here, isn't it possible to be convicted of "intent" to break the law? E.g. if we were back in pre-Crime Bill Sunset days, and you had a post-ban Bushy with a pre-ban collapsible stock sitting in the same closet, weren't there a whole lotta people saying "don't do it" as it shows intent to create a banned configuration?

Turby

Charliegone
09-29-2005, 7:39 PM
No, its not Mike. Unfortunately my dealer said he won't do http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif oh well. He said the only way to do if the company I bought it from (ohio rapid fire) sends it to him with fixed magazines. So, I told ORF that would send them the mags and that if they could fix the mag release, making it a "fixed" magazine receiver. Of course I have to pay for it..

bwiese
09-29-2005, 8:30 PM
Originally posted by Charliegone:
No, its not Mike. Unfortunately my dealer said he won't do http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif oh well. He said the only way to do if the company I bought it from (ohio rapid fire) sends it to him with fixed magazines. So, I told ORF that would send them the mags and that if they could fix the mag release, making it a "fixed" magazine receiver. Of course I have to pay for it..

Well why don't you find another FFL dealer?

This guy's an idiot and making up law on his own.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

bwiese
09-29-2005, 8:32 PM
Originally posted by Turbinator:
I'm just curious here, isn't it possible to be convicted of "intent" to break the law? E.g. if we were back in pre-Crime Bill Sunset days, and you had a post-ban Bushy with a pre-ban collapsible stock sitting in the same closet, weren't there a whole lotta people saying "don't do it" as it shows intent to create a banned configuration?

In that case if you didn't have a preban lower you shouldn't have a preban upper.

Worse, though, is owning M16 fire ctrl and bolt carrier parts along with an AR15 - even when not installed, nor on the same premises. Concept of "constructive possession".

Some of this is due to crazy rulings about tax law, not gun law - and original 1934 NFA act is really tax law relating to guns.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

artherdGROUPEESUCKS
10-01-2005, 2:04 AM
CA DOJ has opined before in writing that they do not consider 'constructive posession' for Category 3 AWs (the Feature based weapons.)

So for instance, it would be legal to have a full M1a, and also have a flash hider (not mounted) sitting in your safe.

bwiese
10-01-2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by artherdGROUPEESUCKS:
CA DOJ has opined before in writing that they do not consider 'constructive posession' for Category 3 AWs (the Feature based weapons.)

So for instance, it would be legal to have a full M1a, and also have a flash hider (not mounted) sitting in your safe.

Can you show me that in writing?

The problem is that one of the 58 local DAs in CA could make that argument to a judge, regardless of DOJ's opinion. And the trial judge would make that decision as a matter of law. DOJ opinion would definitely hold weight but you never know (DOJ has lost before in court on progun positions to anti-gunners suing DOJ...)

It's a very grey area. If you have an almost-TypeIII AW - such as a gripless FAL - I'd still keep the AW-triggering item quite separate on a day-to-day basis. If I were travelling out of state with, say, a gripless FAL and a pistol grip, I'd keep them both SEPARATELY locked away from each other until crossing into a free state.

Your M1A/flash hider example is good from a legal standpoint but I think pistol grip stuff may be more of a baited red flag to some metro ***'t inner city DA.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

artherdGROUPEESUCKS
10-02-2005, 1:07 PM
Can you show me that in writing?

Bill, I'm at my other house this weekend, I will dig it up on monday.

I should really scan everything into my online db.

Once again, your advice (keeping all components that may be construed constructive) is prudent, but may not be strictly nessecary

artherdGROUPEESUCKS
10-02-2005, 1:19 PM
Bill, I managed to find the letter online from Robinson Armament Co.

See Paragraph 3 at the bottom of page 1, and note that this applies to Category 3 AW classification ONLY!
http://www.robarm.com/DOJ%20Answers%208Jan04.pdf

bwiese
10-02-2005, 2:43 PM
Art...

Thanks for the pointer.

That is a pretty good letter inasmuch as it was signed by Tim Riegert, deputy head of DOJ Firearms - a lawyer, and who knows a bit about guns. Much more weight than something written by a 'field agent' or 'analyst' (clerk!).

However, this is the same guy that has told me, and other folks, in a recent NRA Members Council meeting, several times that there are 58 separate DAs in CA whose opinion may vary from DOJ's. DOJ may establish technical standards, but matters of law can sometimes go skewy with DAs and judges - and what is or isn't 'constructive possession' could be a matter for trial court. DOJ recommendations will carry weight but I still will not travel with a gripless unreg'd FAL clone next to a FAL grip without them being locked apart from each other

(Tim Riegert even warned of this latter situation w/regard to local DAs when specifically questioned about this.)


Bill Wiese
San Jose

artherdGROUPEESUCKS
10-03-2005, 8:30 AM
Yes, this letter from Tim himself is about as good as we are going to get out of the DOJ, and as straight a "NO." as I have ever seen (withought the usual 58 DA warning most DOJ letters on various subjects contain.)"

I suppose we conclude this to mean that consistency even from top DOJ officals is a difficult position.

Hrm, new question to ponder; as an attorney can Tim give legal advice, and could written correspondence on a legal matter be regarded as such?

Charliegone
10-03-2005, 4:21 PM
Well, update, and very interesting discussion regarding aw features.. hmm, well problem has been fixed somewhat, the guys that sold me the receivers will do the work, basically free, beside I was going to fix the magazine anyways. I think it would be a GREAT idea if the DOJ actually posted something like(the letter) that on the website to clear up some doubts.

bwiese
10-03-2005, 7:30 PM
ArtHerd...

Originally posted by artherdGROUPEESUCKS:
Yes, this letter from Tim himself is about as good as we are going to get out of the DOJ, and as straight a "NO." as I have ever seen (withought the usual 58 DA warning most DOJ letters on various subjects contain.)

No, this was written to another (well-known) attorney, Chuck Michel. He didn't have to warn him about variations in interpretation, Michel knows there is that risk at local DA level.

as an attorney can Tim give legal advice, and could written correspondence on a legal matter be regarded as such?

Riegert's "legal advice" is only to his employer/ client, the state of CA, specifically related to DOJ Firearms matters. He can't be a "dual agent" and represent you too (and legal advice is kinda a form of that). He is however senior enough to state Cal DOJ's overall positions on gun legal matters.

Info from Riegert is about as good quality as you'll ever get from DOJ (let alone ATF). Stay on the bright side of the line and you're OK.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

artherdGROUPEESUCKS
10-03-2005, 11:34 PM
Riegert's "legal advice" is only to his employer/ client, the state of CA, specifically related to DOJ Firearms matters. He can't be a "dual agent" and represent you too (and legal advice is kinda a form of that). He is however senior enough to state Cal DOJ's overall positions on gun legal matters.

Yes, late night combined with thoughts of "Hrm, but are The People at large his client, as we do employ him by virtue of the state?" Be nice if it worked that way for state employees wouldn't it? http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I got a letter from Alison Merrilees today (Deputy AG, Firearms Division. Also a Bar certified lawyer.) Oddly enough, I addresed it to Tim, but Alison responded.

artherdGROUPEESUCKS
10-03-2005, 11:38 PM
Charliegone; You can send a Certified Letter to the CA DOJ Firearms Division (address it specifically to an attorney like Tim or Allison, or to Rossi himself, NOT a clerk.)

You will find a responce in a timely fassion, I am seeing about 10-14days turn around right now which is in my opinion exemplary.