Semi good news from doj

[6172crew]

I called the DOJ regaurding my letter sent; asking about H&K type receivers and they had no receipt of the email I sent them but Dana (guy who called me back) said he would look into it personally and gave me his direct email addy.

I re-submitted and will post results as soon as Dana gets back to me.

The letter asks if owning a hk94,91,53 type receiver is illeagal or not and if they can be built down the same lines as a Fal would be built in the PRK.:)

[Charliegone]

Hey! Let us know what response you get. My ptr-91 receivers are on the way. Hopefully get em by the end of this month. They will probably deny any pistol less rifle. My guess, but probably be ok with a fixed mag or receiver by itself.

[bwiese]

The letter asks if owning a hk94,91,53 type receiver is illeagal or not and if they can be built down the same lines as a Fal would be built in the PRK.


What good news? You really didn't need to write this letter.

Apparently you're not familiar with the difference btwn Type I ("named") assault weapons and Type III ("by feature") assault weapons, so we'll go over this here yet again....

HK91s, HK93s and HK94s are all banned in California specifically by name in PC 12276: this means even the bare receiver is considered an assault weapon, no matter what evil features are or are not installed!

....from http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/dwc.htm (bold/underline text below is mine)

PC 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.
.
{...snip...}
.


However, HK53s are not specifically named, and therefore the bare receivers are legal (unless that gun was full auto, and then the BATF mantra "once a machinegun, always a machinegun" applies, completely removing it from consideration.)

I believe the receivers used in the PTR91 rifles (HK91 clone) now becoming available are not banned by name (since they are not HK91 nor CETME Sporter).

Remember, Cali-FAL rifles with fixed mags are legal ONLY on non-FN FAL receivers (Imbel, DSA, Entreprise, Coonan, etc.) Like HK91/93/94 receivers, true FN FAL receivers are assault weapons in & of themselves regardless of configuration and making a CaliFAL from it will not make it legal (unless it was a reg'd assault weapon in CA in the first place, making the CaliFAL stuff moot anyway).

Aside from legality, I am puzzled as to to why someone would want a gripless HK-type rifle, since a fixed-mag stripper-fed version a la CaliFAL would be difficult/impossible...


Bill Wiese
San Jose

[Mike Searson]

Anyone who would neuter/mutilate a genuine FN marked FAL receiver needs to be clubbed like a baby seal with it.
;)

[C.G.]

Anyone who would neuter/mutilate a genuine FN marked FAL receiver needs to be clubbed like a baby seal with it.
;)

Even if you neuter an FN FAL around here, Mike, you still have an assault weapon!

[artherd]

See my sig if you need to contact the DOJ (not sure you do at all, but having the letter on hand to hand out to cops isn't a bad idea.)

[6172crew]

Dana @ the DOJ told me over the phone that the PTR91 and SW5 receivers are a HK91 type and HK94 type and are therefore banned per series law after Harriet vs doj.

Dana understood that the PTR was not named and that I was going to remove the features to comply but told me they are HK type receivers and therefore we could not buy them.:confused:

Bewise: why do you care if I want to hack the grip off a G3? That is like the second time I heard you say that and I get it :rolleyes: and why did you bring up HK94, 91 receievrs as I never said I was trying to buy a HK receiver? :rolleyes: I cant understand why anyone would buy a lever action rifle but I dont give a ratts *** if you have one and wont follow your post around telling folks I dont get it.:cool:

[Mike Searson]

Even if you neuter an FN FAL around here, Mike, you still have an assault weapon!

Understood.

BUT

If anyone were to neuter one they'd deserve to be beaten with it.
That's what Imbels and DSA's are for.

:)

[bwiese]

Dana @ the DOJ told me over the phone that the PTR91 and SW5 receivers are a HK91 type and HK94 type and are therefore banned per series law after Harriet vs doj.

Dana understood that the PTR was not named and that I was going to remove the features to comply but told me they are HK type receivers and therefore we could not buy them. :confused:


Well, here's the problem. Dana is wrong and full of pure sh*t. He is JUST PLAIN FLAT-OUT WRONG. He is an idiot, should be fired, and his pension cancelled. Some of us here would say he should be gang-raped by monkeys bathed in cosmoline. He is a waste of oxygen and is effectively defrauding the people of CA by taking his salary and dispensing incorrect info. 'Harriet vs DOJ' is really Harrott v Kings County and really relates only to AR and AK 'series' weapons and not any others (HK, FN, etc.)

This is not a simple mistake for Dana but a fundamental misconception. This is what happens when you talk to a clerk or 'field representative' or agent. By definition, these are people not smart enough to be a lawyer nor even qualified to have ordinary private sector jobs - other than working at 7-11 or McDonald's.

Again, PTR91s and SW5 receivers are NOT banned by name - they are NOT Type I AWs. You can acquire stacks of these receivers. They are perfectly legal to possess as long as no pistol grip, or other evil feature is mounted.

This is the exact same situation with FAL-style rifles in CA: Imbel, DSA and other FAL-style receivers are perfectly legal to buy, possess, etc. FN-FAL receivers are not, since they are specifically named. You just can't go ahead and take a non-named receiver and make a Type III AW out of it, you have to make a CaliFAL w/fixed 10rd magazine.

Bwiese: why do you care if I want to hack the grip off a G3? That is like the second time I heard you say that and I get it :rolleyes:

Hell, I don't CARE what YOU do with it - perhaps you have your reasons, whatever they are. But I've heard enough other discussion here on modding HK-style rifles for CA legaility that I just wonder about their utility and don't want other folks reading to get hot & bothered and paying good $$$ to acquire parts for something that's, well, near-useless. You have to remove (or rather, not install) the pistol grip but also cut off the protruding stud on the trigger frame, and there's no real hope of a HK-style stripper-fed fixed-10rd-mag variant rifle with pistol grip, unlike the CaliFALs.


and why did you bring up HK94, 91 receievrs as I never said I was trying to buy a HK receiver? :rolleyes:

Yes, you pretty well did. You said, "The letter asks if owning a hk94,91,53 type receiver is illeagal or not and if they can be built down the same lines as a Fal would be built in the PRK." Your phrase, "hk94,91,53 type receiver", does actually include the actual banned HK91 or 94 receivers as a subset.

You might have gotten a better answer to your letter, from a qualified person, if your writing, phrasing spelling and capitalization were a bit better (for example, "illegal" and "receiver" are correct spellings, and it's an "HK91" not "hk91"). That might be why your letter got foisted off to an idiot desk clerk instead of someone serious. The fact that you asked them a question about something that is fairly apparent in PC 12276 (except to idiots like Dana!) also likely got your letter sent to the "general questions" pile.

I cant understand why anyone would buy a lever action rifle but I dont give a ratts *** if you have one and wont follow your post around telling folks I dont get it.:cool:

Again, this isn't just about you. This is a public discussion forum; other people read these things. Due to your poor wording in your letter, someone might get the wrong idea. Already you've gotten some folks perhaps thinking SW5 receivers are banned when they are not, by quoting some DOJ idiot, Dana, who is too stupid to breathe yet too dumb to die.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

[6172crew]

Well, here's the problem. Dana is wrong and full of pure sh*t. He is JUST PLAIN FLAT-OUT WRONG. He is an idiot, should be fired, and his pension cancelled. Some of us here would say he should be gang-raped by monkeys bathed in cosmoline. He is a waste of oxygen and is effectively defrauding the people of CA by taking his salary and dispensing incorrect info. This is not a simple mistake, but a fundamental misconception.

This is what happens when you talk to a clerk or 'field representative' or agent. By definition, these are people not smart enough to be a laywer nor even qualified to have ordinary private sector jobs - other than working at 7-11 or McDonald's.

Again, PTR91s and SW5 receivers are NOT banned by name - they are NOT Type I AWs. You can acquire stacks of these receivers. They are perfectly legal to possess as long as no pistol grip, or other evil feature is mounted.

This is the exact same situation with FAL-style rifles in CA: Imbel, DSA and other FAL-style receivers are perfectly legal to buy, possess, etc. FN-FAL receivers are not, since they are specifically named. You just can't go ahead and take a non-named receiver and make a Type III AW out of it, you have to make a CaliFAL w/fixed 10rd magazine.



Hell, I don't CARE what YOU do with it - perhaps you have your reasons, whatever they are. But I've heard enough other discussion here on modding HK-style rifles for CA legaility that I just wonder about their utility and don't want other folks reading to get hot & bothered and paying good $$$ to acquire parts for something that's, well, near-useless. You have to remove (or rather, not install) the pistol grip but also cut off the protruding stud on the trigger frame, and there's no real hope of a HK-style stripper-fed fixed-10rd-mag variant rifle with pistol grip, unlike the CaliFALs.



Yes, you pretty well did. You said, "The letter asks if owning a hk94,91,53 type receiver is illeagal or not and if they can be built down the same lines as a Fal would be built in the PRK." Your phrase, "hk94,91,53 type receiver", does actually include the actual banned HK91 or 94 receivers as a subset.

You might have gotten a better answer to your letter, from a qualified person, if your writing, phrasing spelling and capitalization were better (for example, "illegal" and "receiver" are correct spellings, and it's an "HK91" not "hk91"). That might be why your letter got foisted off to an idiot desk clerk instead of someone serious. The fact that you asked them a question about something that is readily apparent in PC 12276 (except to idiots like Dana!) also got your letter sent to the "general questions" pile.



Again, this isn't just about you. This is a public discussion forum; other people read these things. Due to your poor wording in your letter, someone might get the wrong idea. Already you've gotten some folks perhaps thinking SW5 receivers are banned when they are not, by quoting some DOJ idiot, Dana, who is too stupid to breathe yet too dumb to die.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

Bill, Sorry I took your post as you were calling me an idiot for trying to rig a G-3 for Cali-legal, I understand what your saying.

As far as Dana goes; Im not sure how to get past him and get the AG to say otherwise, we all know the law and you are right but the guy selling the SW5 receivers are not going to send to Califonia unless the DOJ gives them the OK which they dont want to do.

Anyone have another idea? :confused:

[bwiese]

Bill, Sorry I took your post as you were calling me an idiot for trying to rig a G-3 for Cali-legal, I understand what your saying.

As far as Dana goes; Im not sure how to get past him and get the AG to say otherwise, we all know the law and you are right but the guy selling the SW5 receivers are not going to send to Califonia unless the DOJ gives them the OK which they dont want to do.

Anyone have another idea? :confused:

6172,

I didn't know they wouldn't ship to you, I though this was just a provisional question.

'Artherd'/Ben has just managed to get a CTR02 receiver (AR-style) from JP rifles. He had a cooperating FFL dealer and got preapproval from DOJ. It's in another current thread here - either in Political tree or California Rifles tree...

Ask him for a copy of his letter and change the relevant receiver names to SW5 and/or PTR91. Don't call them directly "HK91-type". They will have to tell you that they are not banned, though they will add CYA statements "but may be considered AW in future", etc. etc.

Perhaps address your letter to Tim Riegert (Rieger??) and/or Alison Merilees; these are senior DOJ folks with the 'mojo'. Before you send it off to them, do please run it by Artherd and/or me so the writing is tightened up.

You may run into interesting behavior from Special Weapons no matter what your letter says. Todd Bailey is not known for sane responses or quality products. The PTR91 is likely to be much much better.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

[bwiese]

Bill:
In fact, you got so excited and passionate in your response to 6172crew, that you characterized attorneys as "laywers". Now, is that some kind of cryptic pejorative or what!;) :D

10thAmend...

Haha, serves me right, spelling problem.... my fingers get dyslexic typing quickly. The posting feature needs a spell check!

I got wound up a tad because I didn't realize that 6172 was actually trying to buy a receiver, and thought he was just asking for asking's sake and ending up getting confusing info posted to the board.

But what REALLY got me totally wound up is that DOJ idiot, Dana - steam is still coming out my ears.

As it is, I've referred him to artherd's thread about his successful acquisition of a non-Harrott (non-Roster) AR receiver (JP Rifles' "CTR02"). This is a bit different since it's a Type II situation, not a Type III by-feature issue. However, the wording and addressing of the letter should be similar.

[ I'm starting to believe much of gov't runs by putting idiots at desks to say "No", even when they are wrong. In 2000 my mom was looking into various Medicare? vs. MediCal vs Vet Affairs, etc. issues for my (late) dad in 2000 when he was going into a care home/skilled nursing facility. The old adage that seniors have to spend themselves near broke before getting care-home expenses covered is a misnomer, and yet is parrotted by the phone reps at the involved agencies. It turns out that the healthy "community spouse" not in a care home is allowed to keep a very reasonable amount of assets (incl home, pension accts, reasonbly large bank accts) -- and in fact if you sue MediCal properly, the administrative law judge just rubber stamps retention of even more-than-reasonable existing assets for the community spouse. But you never hear of this 'til you talk to an elder care attorney.]



Bill Wiese
San Jose

[6172crew]

6172,

I didn't know they wouldn't ship to you, I though this was just a provisional question.

'Artherd'/Ben has just managed to get a CTR02 receiver (AR-style) from JP rifles. He had a cooperating FFL dealer and got preapproval from DOJ. It's in another current thread here - either in Political tree or California Rifles tree...

Ask him for a copy of his letter and change the relevant receiver names to SW5 and/or PTR91. Don't call them directly "HK91-type". They will have to tell you that they are not banned, though they will add CYA statements "but may be considered AW in future", etc. etc.

Perhaps address your letter to Tim Riegert (Rieger??) and/or Alison Merilees; these are senior DOJ folks with the 'mojo'. Before you send it off to them, do please run it by Artherd and/or me so the writing is tightened up.

You may run into interesting behavior from Special Weapons no matter what your letter says. Todd Bailey is not known for sane responses or quality products. The PTR91 is likely to be much much better.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

I copy on all, and thanks for the heads up on the JP rifle, they make nice stuff.

I was told Tim no longer works at the DOJ.

[bwiese]

6172:
That is correct, he is no longer there. That's unfortunate too, because he was a decent and objectivly fair source of clarification info when you needed it.

Whoa, news to me. No wonder all the paperwork seems to say Alison Merilees (spelling?) now. At least her responses are sane and seemingly thought out, though I don't think she knows guns like Tim Riegert did.

Oh well, maybe he got an honest job in the private sector - or perhaps he was called back to duty (he's Army Reservist, served in 2002-3 in Afghanistan).


YOU ROCK!!

Haha, thanks, but actually was brought up w/classical music.

Probably the only F150 driver w/2000 rounds of ammo in his toolbox listening to Mahler as he drives ;)


Bill Wiese
San Jose

[artherd]

Not to stray completely off topic, all my DOJ corrospondance has switched to Allison now as well. Hope Tim is safe and well!

I saw Rush in concert just this last year. Great show; man they still can play all these years later!

[dwtt]

As far as Dana goes; Im not sure how to get past him and get the AG to say otherwise, we all know the law and you are right but the guy selling the SW5 receivers are not going to send to Califonia unless the DOJ gives them the OK which they dont want to do.

Anyone have another idea? :confused:
Here's the only way to deal with the DOJ or any other government agency. Write them a letter. Send it Certified with a return receipt as proof of delivery. They will answer your question in writing. Do not accept a phone call from them as a reply to your inquiry. If they call you, ask them to put it in writing and send it to you so you'll have a copy for your files. Otherwise, people like this Dana guy will just lie to you on the phone.