PDA

View Full Version : visited by the DOJ, has this happened to you?


akira
01-21-2010, 12:18 PM
HK SP89- with bullet button and 10 round mag (which took me a long time to find)

I just got a vist today from the DOJ, They wanted to inspect my SP89 to see if it was ok for california.
The officers were very polite and i responed in compliance.

There was a discussion among the officers about its legality and the one who seemed to be the higher racking officer stated that it is compliant with the california laws.

He had to bring it in anyways to have someone (I have no clue) check out the pistol.

The officer said if it checks out, I will get it back.
If not, i will have a chance to send it out of state.
Thank god cause this think cost me an arm and a leg.

anyways, i have a few questions.

Has this happened to anyone else?
If this happened to you, have you actually recieved your fire arm back?
If you had to have it sent out of state, how did that tranfer work?

bodger
01-21-2010, 12:21 PM
Did they knock on your door or what??

Maltese Falcon
01-21-2010, 12:23 PM
Holy C***!

Where was this? ... at home or are you in the firearms business?

Was there a warrant?

.

akira
01-21-2010, 12:23 PM
yes, they knocked and i opened, I thought they may be selling cookies or something cause they all had smiles on thier faces.

akira
01-21-2010, 12:24 PM
not in the buisness, just a collector and gun nut like most of us here.

pnkssbtz
01-21-2010, 12:24 PM
Did they have a warrant?

If no, tell them to pound sand. Good luck getting your pistol back.

Hanniballs
01-21-2010, 12:25 PM
And... Did they have a warrant? Why did you give it to them?

Unit74
01-21-2010, 12:26 PM
I would have asked them for a warrant myself.

akira
01-21-2010, 12:26 PM
I did not see a warrent nor ask for one.
I did not want to act like i was hiding anything, cause i wasnt.

akira
01-21-2010, 12:27 PM
If they had a warrent, they would have the right to go through all my stuff
and that is probablly why they did not do so.

Maltese Falcon
01-21-2010, 12:27 PM
I think STOP posting and contact via PM BWiese.

.

dustoff31
01-21-2010, 12:28 PM
I'm not disputing your account of things, or calling you out, but that is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

If the officer thought your gun was legal, why did he take it?

If whoever they are taking it to deems it illegal, why would they give it back, even to ship out of state?

Are you sure they were real DOJ agents?

para38super
01-21-2010, 12:28 PM
How do you know they were legit?

nick
01-21-2010, 12:28 PM
If this was at home, did you have to let them in to begin with?

bwiese
01-21-2010, 12:29 PM
HK SP89- with bullet button and 10 round mag (which took me a long time to find)

I just got a vist today from the DOJ, They wanted to inspect my SP89 to see if it was ok for california.
The officers were very polite and i responed in compliance.

There was a discussion among the officers about its legality and the one who seemed to be the higher racking officer stated that it is compliant with the california laws.

He had to bring it in anyways to have someone (I have no clue) check out the pistol.

The officer said if it checks out, I will get it back.
If not, i will have a chance to send it out of state.
Thank god cause this think cost me an arm and a leg.

anyways, i have a few questions.

Has this happened to anyone else?
If this happened to you, have you actually recieved your fire arm back?
If you had to have it sent out of state, how did that tranfer work?


Why did you comply? Did they have a warrant?

I'm betting not.

NEVER EVER COMPLY WITH SUCH REQUESTS.
IF THEY HAD A WARRANT, YOU'D KNOW.
REFER ALL QUESTIONS TO AN ATTORNEY.

Please PM me or Gene Hoffman (hoffmang) with the agent's contact information. CGF needs to know about this and to stop this crap from happening.

There are important strategic reasons for jumping on this now.

Rooftop Voter
01-21-2010, 12:30 PM
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bwiese
01-21-2010, 12:31 PM
I did not see a warrent nor ask for one.
I did not want to act like i was hiding anything, cause i wasnt.

That's exactly the way they want you to feel.
You were played like a fiddle.

para38super
01-21-2010, 12:34 PM
Contact CALGUNS.net they might be able to help.

45DAVID1
01-21-2010, 12:37 PM
Contact CALGUNS.net they might be able to help.

If he posted here he already is on calguns.net

erik18
01-21-2010, 12:38 PM
You do not have to let the police into your house. Unless they have a warrant or exigent circumstances they can not come inside.

Also, if they had a warrant they would have provided you a copy

akira
01-21-2010, 12:39 PM
If they had a warrent, they would have gone thought all my stuff and trust me that would have taken a long time.
If they wanted to see all my stuff, i would have asked for a warrent.

I am happy that the best case senerio happened.

They just wanted to see the one piece so i went and got it.
I am an honest citzen, and they knew it.

And yes they were DOJ and showed me credentals.


My question to you guys:

has this happened to anyone eles?
have you received your gun back?

MasterYong
01-21-2010, 12:41 PM
:eek:

:popcorn:

If they asked to see just one of my firearms, I may have retrieved it for them. Maybe.

If they wanted to take it, I would have told them to piss off. If they did anyway, my first call would have been to an attorney.

Sounds like an illegal seizure to me.

truthseeker
01-21-2010, 12:42 PM
Amazing!

I just had this same discussion with the wife last night.

I told her if I was not there, to speak to them through the door.

Also, to never allow anyone into our house no matter what I.D. they flashed and to call the police officer across the street to come and verify who they are first. If he isnt home then for her to wait until I got there to open the door.

glock_this
01-21-2010, 12:44 PM
I thought this stuff happening was a myth..

maybe we are all getting Punk'd

para38super
01-21-2010, 12:44 PM
If he posted here he already is on calguns.net

I meant to pm, the person thats runs the show.

Wyatt
01-21-2010, 12:44 PM
This may be a silly question but did they mention how they were able to locate you and why they thought there was any question regarding it's legality?

thedrickel
01-21-2010, 12:45 PM
What were their names?

jdberger
01-21-2010, 12:45 PM
To answer the OP -- No. This hasn't happened to anyone else.

Send Bill and Gene a PM ASAP.

This is a crock of ....

paul0660
01-21-2010, 12:46 PM
maybe we are all getting Punk'd

On the internet? Come on!

SanSacto
01-21-2010, 12:46 PM
Wow, I can't believe you let them check out your gun without a warrant. :no:

para38super
01-21-2010, 12:48 PM
So they pretty much said to wait and wait and wait anda wait to see what happens. Did they give a phone number or contact information to contact them. I would call the DOJ.

para38super
01-21-2010, 12:49 PM
To answer the OP -- No. This hasn't happened to anyone else.

Send Bill and Gene a PM ASAP.

This is a crock of ....

we hope this doent's happen to anybody else.

Farva
01-21-2010, 12:51 PM
What is more disturbing, is how they knew who you were and what gun you had...

nick
01-21-2010, 12:57 PM
If they had a warrent, they would have gone thought all my stuff and trust me that would have taken a long time.
If they wanted to see all my stuff, i would have asked for a warrent.

I am happy that the best case senerio happened.

They just wanted to see the one piece so i went and got it.
I am an honest citzen, and they knew it.

And yes they were DOJ and showed me credentals.


My question to you guys:

has this happened to anyone eles?
have you received your gun back?

Yes, you are. But they aren't necessarily such. As for them knowing it, what makes you think they cared about it? Prosecutions/persecutions of honest citizens aren't anything new in this state.

To answer your questions:

1. Not sure if something exactly like this happened to anyone else. However, confiscations of legal firearms did and do happen all the time. A search of this site would provide quite a few examples, and that list wouldn't be complete to begin with.

2. In some cases, people received their guns back, usually after a long and expensive process. In some cases they either couldn't get them back, or deemed it too expensive a prospect.

To give an example, in one case someone deemed the rifle illegal because the bullet button (a standard one) could be pressed by someone at the police department with a sharp fingernail. Just to give you an idea of how much integrity you might be dealing with.

Which is why it's essential that you contact CGF. Of course, you can also hope that the nice people at DOJ would be nice to you, after having confiscated the rifle they themselves deemed legal.

dfletcher
01-21-2010, 12:58 PM
HK SP89- with bullet button and 10 round mag (which took me a long time to find)

I just got a vist today from the DOJ, They wanted to inspect my SP89 to see if it was ok for california.
The officers were very polite and i responed in compliance.

There was a discussion among the officers about its legality and the one who seemed to be the higher racking officer stated that it is compliant with the california laws.

He had to bring it in anyways to have someone (I have no clue) check out the pistol.

The officer said if it checks out, I will get it back.
If not, i will have a chance to send it out of state.
Thank god cause this think cost me an arm and a leg.

anyways, i have a few questions.

Has this happened to anyone else?
If this happened to you, have you actually recieved your fire arm back?
If you had to have it sent out of state, how did that tranfer work?

I don't think I'm alone in seeing there could be a 3rd option if the gun "doesn't check out". Very much hope it wouldn't happen, but if I were a cop and found a gun that "doesn't check out" I think I'd be back with paper to see if anything else "doesn't check out".

I don't understand why or how they would hand the thing back to you for an opportunity to sell out of state.

I do understand the inclination to co-operate - and damn, that is an expensive gun.

xxdabroxx
01-21-2010, 1:00 PM
What is more disturbing, is how they knew who you were and what gun you had...

pistols get registered, have you bought a firearm recently?

HotRails
01-21-2010, 1:01 PM
There are lots of questions here.. Hope bweise gets to the bottom of it..

pnkssbtz
01-21-2010, 1:01 PM
If they had a warrent, they would have gone thought all my stuff and trust me that would have taken a long time.
If they wanted to see all my stuff, i would have asked for a warrent.

I am happy that the best case senerio happened.
Why do you think the "best case scenario" happened? Because clearly it did not.

Just ask yourself this:

How much money did that pistol cost? Who has possession of it?


My question to you guys:

has this happened to anyone eles?
have you received your gun back?
I am not 100% certain, but I believe the vast majority of people who have voluntarily given up their firearms when requested by the police so that said police can verify compliance with the laws, have not received them back.

I do recall one instance in which the police removed the bullet button, making the firearm non-compliant, and then charged the owner for having an illegal assault weapon.

If the firearm is EVER in an illegal configuration, you are the one who will be penalize for this. The firearm is now no longer in your possession.

1+1=2

odysseus
01-21-2010, 1:02 PM
I did not see a warrent nor ask for one.
I did not want to act like i was hiding anything, cause i wasnt.

ARGH!

Because asking for proper paperwork and documentation means you might be hiding something???:banghead:

They just wanted to see the one piece so i went and got it.
I am an honest citzen, and they knew it.

You have a LOT to learn about life, liberty, and the government. On another note, if you have a lot of cash on hand - you want to come by and play poker with me?

HotRails
01-21-2010, 1:03 PM
pistols get registered, have you bought a firearm recently?

Is SP89 on the HSR? Like I said, lots of questions with this one..

Farva
01-21-2010, 1:06 PM
pistols get registered, have you bought a firearm recently?

Not handguns. And I forgot that this particular firearm was in fact a handgun. Either way its fishy to me.

xxdabroxx
01-21-2010, 1:08 PM
Is SP89 on the HSR? Like I said, lots of questions with this one..

Prob. brought in as a dimensionally compliant single shot. I would guess.

Not handguns. And I forgot that this particular firearm was in fact a handgun. Either way its fishy to me.

either way, they can find you. Letting them in may not be the best idea though.

Liberty1
01-21-2010, 1:11 PM
To answer the OP -- No. This hasn't happened to anyone else.

Send Bill and Gene a PM ASAP.

This is a crock of ....

Bill is on it see his above post...:cool:

kertong
01-21-2010, 1:12 PM
Wow, I can't believe you let them check out your gun without a warrant. :no:

What he said. I know you said "i had nothing to hide", but that's a moot point - they were treating you like a criminal without any basis, and *because* you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't have subjeted yourself to an illegal search and seizure.

What's done is done though - I hope you get in touch with bwiese/hoffmang and get something worked out to get your gun back! good luck!

jdberger
01-21-2010, 1:13 PM
Bill is on it see his above post...:cool:

only if the op gives the rest of the story....

Steve G
01-21-2010, 1:14 PM
The OP's story smells like..........................

para38super
01-21-2010, 1:14 PM
What he said. I know you said "i had nothing to hide", but that's a moot point - they were treating you like a criminal without any basis, and *because* you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't have subjeted yourself to an illegal search and seizure.

What's done is done though - I hope you get in touch with bwiese/hoffmang and get something worked out to get your gun back! good luck!

I agree with him!

CAL.BAR
01-21-2010, 1:17 PM
While I don't necessarily agree with what the OP did (i.e. giving the firearm w/o a warrant) I regret to report that what would have happened is this. They go to the nearest magistrate (i.e. non-gun owning court judge or commissioner) and given him/her a declaration saying "I think so and so has an unlicensed and illegal ASSAULT WEAPON!!!) Judge then signs the warrant without any more thought and they are back. Elapsed time: 2-3 hours. Really! That's it.

So demanding a warrant (while still the right thing to do) will only slow them down by a few hours or a day or two at the most) Then they are back and are pissed and now armed with the warrant will turn your house upside down looking for assault weapons!##@$@!@ (scary emphasis added)

6172crew
01-21-2010, 1:18 PM
Probably the same guys who planted a listening device in the false ceiling at the gun shop.

I have a feeling you wont get it back, but I hope I am wrong.

Liberty1
01-21-2010, 1:18 PM
Has this happened to anyone else?


Yes it did. The Law Abiding Citizen did not consent with DOJs request and contacted CGF's attorney Jason Davis. Jason contacted the agent. The agent was never heard from again...

Don't know if Jason "disappeared" him or he just moved on to more gullible Law Abiding gun owners who just have nothing to hid wishing for the best scenario to happen.

sfwdiy
01-21-2010, 1:19 PM
Tagged for outcome.

If OP's story is true, he just had his gun stolen by the gubment. My money is on him never seeing it again.

Then again, this could also just be an epic troll post. The story is almost unbelievable.

--B

putput
01-21-2010, 1:19 PM
Let's be a little sympathetic here folks. How often do any of us have badged and armed people knocking on our doors and asking for specific firearms?

bruss01
01-21-2010, 1:20 PM
did you take photos?

Write anything down?

Got names, department id numbers, anything verifiable?

Call the PD or DOJ to verify they were who they said they were?

It's pretty easy to fake an ID.

Did you at least get a claim check for the gun?

Here's the problem I see... anything can happen to that gun once it leaves your possession. It can be altered, it can have the serial filed off, bullet button removed, mag capacity altered... etc. The gun is then found to be "illegal" and scheduled for destruction. The pile of guns to be melted is left unattended in front of the furnace, and one happens to go missing but of course no one ever notices that. We know this happens because guns have turned up back on the street that were allegedly "destroyed".

Good luck getting your gun back. I too would not let them in without a warrant. I'd like to know what justification they would have to convince a judge to grant a warrant.

Amazing how our forefathers fought and died for the 4th amendment freedom that their decedents just shrug away. If they are looking down on us from above they really have to wonder why they even bothered.

I really have to wonder how taking your gun to an "expert" serves any interest. Maybe if they "cooperated" with me by having their photos taken, having their id photo'd, consenting to have the encounter taped, handing them a copy of the AW flowchart to study, and offering to let them look through the window as I demonstrate that the pistol is not an AW (walk through of the flow chart regarding this gun) then I would have considered discussing the matter further with them. Odds are, they would have said "see ya" and either come back with a warrant or dropped the whole thing.

Let me guess, you were alone during this encounter, so there is no one to verify your version of the story if they allege something else really happened.

Fabulous.

My guess is there is something in the apt besides a messy bathroom that you don't want them finding. Or you are a complete pushover.

PatriotnMore
01-21-2010, 1:22 PM
Did you at least get a claim check for the gun?

That's what I would like answered?

CHS
01-21-2010, 1:24 PM
Let's be a little sympathetic here folks. How often do any of us have badged and armed people knocking on our doors and asking for specific firearms?

Every day!!

Except they usually pay for them and wait 10 days to pick them up ;)

Liberty1
01-21-2010, 1:25 PM
While I don't necessarily agree with what the OP did (i.e. giving the firearm w/o a warrant) I regret to report that what would have happened is this. They go to the nearest magistrate (i.e. non-gun owning court judge or commissioner) and given him/her a declaration saying "I think so and so has an unlicensed and illegal ASSAULT WEAPON!!!) Judge then signs the warrant without any more thought and they are back. Elapsed time: 2-3 hours. Really! That's it.

So demanding a warrant (while still the right thing to do) will only slow them down by a few hours or a day or two at the most) Then they are back and are pissed and now armed with the warrant will turn your house upside down looking for assault weapons!##@$@!@ (scary emphasis added)

And in the mean time your collection goes somewhere else.

They might not spend the time to get a warrant and go through all the trouble of the planning and approval of a "raid". If they got a warrant then the info they put in there would be actionable on the part of CGF.

In fact Chuck Michel's firm is suing some offending leos and their dept. currently over a warrant issue.

MasterYong
01-21-2010, 1:30 PM
I do recall one instance in which the police removed the bullet button, making the firearm non-compliant, and then charged the owner for having an illegal assault weapon.

If the firearm is EVER in an illegal configuration, you are the one who will be penalize for this. The firearm is now no longer in your possession.

1+1=2

Ummmm... who was that??? What was the outcome???

professorhard
01-21-2010, 1:32 PM
Say bye bye to that pistol cause I doubt you'll ever see it again. Maybe if CGF fights it out in the courts you'll get it back in a few months and in alot worse condition than they took it from you in. Goodluck

Grakken
01-21-2010, 1:35 PM
Wow, some of you guys are just cold blooded.

To the OP, I'm sure next time, if there is one, you will be better prepared. Good luck to you. Hope the good guys can help you out.

DTOM CA!
01-21-2010, 1:37 PM
Hi, My name is Fred and I am with the DOJ. Here is my badge <Fred-DOJ> and I would like everyone who is honest and has nothing to hide to send me there expensive guns to see if they are in compliance. You may get them back at some point if I find them not to be dangerous, or evil, or black or you know. DOJ=Dept. of Jest.

bootcamp
01-21-2010, 1:40 PM
You got jacked!

chris
01-21-2010, 1:40 PM
it would be my guess that this was an illegal search?

paul0660
01-21-2010, 1:43 PM
He complied with their request so it isn't an illegal search.

The story makes no sense however.

He had to bring it in anyways to have someone

Indeed.

xxdabroxx
01-21-2010, 1:43 PM
it would be my guess that this was an illegal search?

No, he let them in. Legal search, he consented.

Liberty1
01-21-2010, 1:44 PM
it would be my guess that this was an illegal search?

No he consented to the inspection. The only questionable part is under what authority did they take it, evidence?. But with no recording of the event they could claim that was consensual too.

ChuckBooty
01-21-2010, 1:45 PM
This is pretty unbelievable. I don't want to bag on you, and of course, hindsight is all 20/20 but there is no way on Gods green earth you should have let them walk out with that gun.

This is why I researched this site and the laws for months and months before I decided to buy a center-fire rifle. And even that was an SKS. My first AK-style was about six-months after I discovered calguns. This is why it's SOOO important to research, research, research before getting into this stuff. And that includes knowing your 4th amendment rights as well, if not BETTER than your 2nd. Especially in California.

I'm sorry you had this happen to you man. And I hope that we (by we I mean CGF) can get some legislative change done using this case as a stepping stone.

aermotor
01-21-2010, 1:49 PM
"Hello officer, oh you'd like me to forfeit all my rights I have and just obey like a sheeple? Sure thing."

Sorry, just sounds fishy to me... I understand you're a law abiding citizen, but that doesn't mean you need to be helpful to their cause ad forget that we have a constitution and that it protects us.

Liberty1
01-21-2010, 1:50 PM
Flex your rights:

http://www.flexyourrights.com/

and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=player_embedded


i8z7NC5sgik

bodger
01-21-2010, 1:54 PM
Nobody gets in without a warrant. I don't care if they do come back pissed off because I made them go get the warrant.

We can't allow the DOJ or any other LEOs to operate like this. And letting them, and allowing them to take a firearm to "check it out" is ridiculous.

Sorry OP, I'm not trying to be cold blooded but damn man, you've got to know your rights or stick with six shooters that don't put you on the radar.

Barbarossa
01-21-2010, 1:58 PM
I heard that the DOJ agent hit the bolt handle with a hammer. :TFH:

(I'm sure the OP is dealing with the "right people" by now, what are we gaining by bickering about this amongst ourselves, and belittling the OP?)

SJgunguy24
01-21-2010, 1:59 PM
If they had a warrent, they would have the right to go through all my stuff
and that is probablly why they did not do so.

The forth amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They have to be specific as to what they can take. Unless it says all contents of safe.
Tell them to get a warrant, you have opened yourself up to more visits in the future. I would've posted instantly with them standing at the door.

zum
01-21-2010, 1:59 PM
well... there went all of our end of year fund raiser moneys :dots:

;)

freonr22
01-21-2010, 2:02 PM
well there went all of our end of year fund raiser moneys :dots:

If the op had the $$ for that kind of pistol, he very well might have the $$ for defense etc

xxdabroxx
01-21-2010, 2:04 PM
well there went all of our end of year fund raiser moneys :dots:

lol i was thinking along similar lines...

pullnshoot25
01-21-2010, 2:09 PM
I did not see a warrent nor ask for one.
I did not want to act like i was hiding anything, cause i wasnt.

BIG MISTAKE

Kestryll
01-21-2010, 2:11 PM
Wow, some of you guys are just cold blooded.
Seriously.
Instead of ragging on him let's see if there is a way to help and to make sure that should this happen again he knows what to do and who to call.



This is pretty unbelievable. I don't want to bag on you, and of course, hindsight is all 20/20 but there is no way on Gods green earth you should have let them walk out with that gun.

This is why I researched this site and the laws for months and months before I decided to buy a center-fire rifle. And even that was an SKS. My first AK-style was about six-months after I discovered calguns. This is why it's SOOO important to research, research, research before getting into this stuff. And that includes knowing your 4th amendment rights as well, if not BETTER than your 2nd. Especially in California.

I'm sorry you had this happen to you man. And I hope that we (by we I mean CGF) can get some legislative change done using this case as a stepping stone.

Just to use your post as a segue...

Remember, not everyone is as conversant in 2A, 4A and CA law as many Calgunners are.
We make it a point to be so because we're on the front lines, those who are not usually do not have a need to research all of this until it invades their life.

When it does they come here and we educate not ridicule.
Next time they may well be helping to educate the next guy.

Joe
01-21-2010, 2:17 PM
I might have let them in before reading this thread :/

Ty for sharing your experience OP

I'm curious to see how this pans out.

Glock22Fan
01-21-2010, 2:18 PM
I did not see a warrent nor ask for one.
I did not want to act like i was hiding anything, cause i wasnt.

Let's all cooperate with the nice policeman/official/whatever. After all, we've been told many times on this board that it is better to cooperate because they have the power to make your life difficult, even if you talk yourself into losing equipment or even going to jail. After all, they are 100% nice people who would never trick you into admitting something you shouldn't.

</sarcasm>

DON"T GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS, it makes it that much harder for the rest of us. Now they'll say "What are you hiding? That nice akira person cooperated, why don't you? You must be guilty!"

And, Kestryl, I'm not ragging at him specifically so much as at all the people who say "it's better to tell them you have a gun and let them look than it is to say "Nothing illegal, no you can't search" and have them use it as an excuse to search and detain you anyway."

bubbapug1
01-21-2010, 2:19 PM
I'd be curious to find out why they picked you of all guys, and that gun. How long ago did you buy the gun?

What i really hope didn't happen is someone..not the DOJ...stole you gun, that would be horrible..

corrupt
01-21-2010, 2:20 PM
Hopefully the DOJ agents don't just destroy your firearm after filling out paperwork (if any) saying that owner requested it be destroyed. Oooops.

Good luck.

bruss01
01-21-2010, 2:21 PM
Seriously.
Instead of ragging on him let's see if there is a way to help and to make sure that should this happen again he knows what to do and who to call.

Remember, not everyone is as conversant in 2A, 4A and CA law as many Calgunners are.
We make it a point to be so because we're on the front lines, those who are not usually do not have a need to research all of this until it invades their life.

When it does they come here and we educate not ridicule.
Next time they may well be helping to educate the next guy.

Ok, I do want to apologize for the tone of my earlier post a bit. If the OP has a credible reason for not knowing better, we can sympathize a bit and maybe buy him a beer to cry in over his (maybe) gone-forever firearm. It's just that it's very frustrating to watch fellow firearm's owners get screwed over because of their own ignorance about the law, the police, and the protections afforded them under the law. Maybe stories like this and the responses help get other people's attention so they don't make the same kind of bone-headed mistakes out of sheer ignorance... hey, we were all 18 once, right, and didn't know any better even if we should have. So maybe some slack cutting or shoulder patting is in order. Hopefully OP learns an expensive lesson from this and nothing worse comes of it. Darn shame though. There was a war over this kind of thing once, sometimes we forget that.

justbill5789
01-21-2010, 2:23 PM
I am new to Calguns and I have been following this post. I am going to ask the dumb question and take the hit, since there may be others that want to ask the same question. If we get the knock on the door or get pulled over, what should we do? What are the consequences of forcing them to get a warrant versus complying? I want to be educated. I am like the OP, I was taught to cooperate with the law since I have nothing to hide. However, after reading this, I know cooperating within the law and cooperating without thinking are not the same.

para38super
01-21-2010, 2:23 PM
All have to say. Is good luck!

383green
01-21-2010, 2:24 PM
To the original poster: Please view the video that Liberty1 posted above. Learn from it. The way the conversation should have gone is:

DOJ: "We'd like to see your pistol" or "Can we come in" or (anything else).

YOU: "Do you have a warrant?"

DOJ: "No." or "No, but we can get one" or (anything else that isn't "yes").

YOU: "Talk to my lawyer."

Repeat as necessary, and do not answer any questions, no matter what they ask or say, unless your lawyer instructs you to.

If you haven't already sent a private message to bwiese (who posted above), please do so ASAP. This kind of harassment must be stomped on, and hard!

Good luck getting your pistol back, and I hope this all blows over quickly.

Glock22Fan
01-21-2010, 2:24 PM
I am new to Calguns and I have been following this post. I am going to ask the dumb question and take the hit, since there may be others that want to ask the same question. If we get the knock on the door or get pulled over, what should we do? What are the consequences of forcing them to get a warrant versus complying? I want to be educated. I am like the OP, I was taught to cooperate with the law since I have nothing to hide. However, after reading this, I know cooperating within the law and cooperating without thinking are not the same.

In as nice a way as you can, say "I have (done) nothing illegal. I do not consent to a search." And have the phone number of a good lawyer in your wallet (I keep Chuck Mitchel's).

xxdabroxx
01-21-2010, 2:26 PM
If he is buying that pistol, he should know the laws pretty well as he knew he was pushing the limits with it.

http://remtek.com/arms/hk/civ/sp89/sp89.gif

if your buying that, you should know your way around the laws first. Is that not what we tell everyone who comes here looking for their first OLL?

I can sympathize with the fear of the all mighty badge. It happened to me once, and it will never happen again.

Flopper
01-21-2010, 2:26 PM
The whole part about letting him send it out of state if it's illegal smacks of the ultimate BS.

Keep in mind that with a few limitations, LEO's are allowed to mislead and even lie in the course of an investigation.

xxdabroxx
01-21-2010, 2:27 PM
I am new to Calguns and I have been following this post. I am going to ask the dumb question and take the hit, since there may be others that want to ask the same question. If we get the knock on the door or get pulled over, what should we do? What are the consequences of forcing them to get a warrant versus complying? I want to be educated. I am like the OP, I was taught to cooperate with the law since I have nothing to hide. However, after reading this, I know cooperating within the law and cooperating without thinking are not the same.

To the original poster: Please view the video that Liberty1 posted above. Learn from it. The way the conversation should have gone is:

DOJ: "We'd like to see your pistol" or "Can we come in" or (anything else).

YOU: "Do you have a warrant?"

DOJ: "No." or "No, but we can get one" or (anything else that isn't "yes").

YOU: "Talk to my lawyer."

Repeat as necessary, and do not answer any questions, no matter what they ask or say, unless your lawyer instructs you to.

If you haven't already sent a private message to bwiese (who posted above), please do so ASAP. This kind of harassment must be stomped on, and hard!

Good luck getting your pistol back, and I hope this all blows over quickly.

there is your answer.

socalgunrunner
01-21-2010, 2:29 PM
Just my .02 cents...

The SP89 is an AW by characteristics. The previous owner (if residing in CA) would have had to register it as such in the year 2000. If he did not have it de-registered as an A/W prior to selling it to the OP, then this would have caused a red flag. Simply adding a mag lock device isn't going to cut it. As we all know, it is illegal to transfer AW's in this state.

I myself do not understand why the DOJ would need to confiscate the firearm for further review. They could have taken photographs, or found all the information that they needed online.

I sure hope the OP got the agents info, AND a receipt.

delisle
01-21-2010, 2:29 PM
(I'm sure the OP is dealing with the "right people" by now, what are we gaining by bickering about this amongst ourselves, and belittling the OP?)[/QUOTE]

I really hope the OP got legal advice. This really makes me think about my collection in and how much attention I might garner through electronic channels( i.e. ordering gun parts online).

I am sure there are a few folks from DOJ cruising this site as it is a free country and using our right to free speech to harass law abiding citizens.

Seems as though the tyrants are knocking out our doors.

:leaving:

:sailor:

Alaric
01-21-2010, 2:30 PM
I am new to Calguns and I have been following this post. I am going to ask the dumb question and take the hit, since there may be others that want to ask the same question. If we get the knock on the door or get pulled over, what should we do? What are the consequences of forcing them to get a warrant versus complying? I want to be educated. I am like the OP, I was taught to cooperate with the law since I have nothing to hide. However, after reading this, I know cooperating within the law and cooperating without thinking are not the same.

They need to have evidence of a crime to get a warrant. If you haven't committed a crime, then they shouldn't have the grounds to get a warrant. In said warrant, they need to specify what they are looking for and where they hope to find it. This limitation can help reign in any "fishing expedition" they may be on, and prevent you further misery.

So what should you do in your interaction with an LEO. Commit these words to heart, "I have nothing illegal sir, you may NOT conduct a search".

putput
01-21-2010, 2:34 PM
Please, please, please, everyone let's not make the OP regret his decision to come here and look for advice… It’s great that this conversation could help in educating everyone about what to do in a similar situation but, let’s be helpful and maybe even gentle??? This way others will come here when they need legitimate help in the future and we can win a few for the good guys…THANKS!

compulsivegunbuyer
01-21-2010, 2:36 PM
The officer said if it checks out, I will get it back.
If not, i will have a chance to send it out of state.
Thank god cause this think cost me an arm and a leg.

Yea, as a previous poster said, LE is generaly lying to you the moment they opens their mouths. Thaey can say whatever they want to get you to comply, confess, ect. But if you lie, oh, that's a different story. Don't let them in without a warrant, and say nothing, period.

JSilvoso
01-21-2010, 2:37 PM
This actually is not unusual for Cal DOJ.

I am aware of a number of instances where DOJ comes to a person's house and asks to speak to an individual about X. They usually want to come in ("if it's alright with you?") and want to look at or discuss X. After discussing or looking at X they may ask if they can take X for further investigation.


I am not going to rehash what the other posts have suggested you do.


However, my strong advise is: 1. contact an Attorney ASAP; 2. if law enforcement contacts you again tell them you won't talk to them without an attorney present and give them the information of the attorney you contacted (see 1); 3. if law enforcment comes back with a warrant don't try to stop them BUT DO NOT discuss anything with them (see 2).

Josh3239
01-21-2010, 2:39 PM
I have been serving on the Grand Jury for several months now and I must say I am shocked how people just throw their rights out the window. It doesn't make you a criminal, or wrong, or mean you are hiding something, or even give probable cause to assert your rights. I have heard cases were guy have drugs and guns hidden in their car yet they consent to a search with no PC, they then waive their Miranda rights and confess. Of course when they get an attorney he'll file to have the case get thrown out (standard from my understanding) and then withdraw the confession. But still I don't care if you have dope in your car or nothing illegal, why not assert your rights (in fact it makes more sense if you have contraband in the car to assert your rights, yet they seem to be more likely to waive their rights)? I just don't get it, those checks and balances are there for good reason, many good men died to make sure we have those rights, and many many people on the planet wish they have those rights. I don't mean disrespect to anybody and certainly not the OP, I am just ranting.

bigcalidave
01-21-2010, 2:39 PM
Wow, I'm really surprised they went door to door on this one. Don't they have criminals to catch somewhere? Instead of gun collectors?

galekowitz
01-21-2010, 2:41 PM
They will always take the path of least resistance. Hopefully the OP is cooperating with CGF.

xxdabroxx
01-21-2010, 2:44 PM
Wow, I'm really surprised they went door to door on this one. Don't they have criminals to catch somewhere? Instead of gun collectors?

To them we are all possible criminals. :(

lowracer
01-21-2010, 2:45 PM
Wow this sucks. I hope you get your weapon back.

I've never been a lawyer or sat on a grand jury but I've watched years of cop and lawyer shows on TV. Amazing how many people on the cop and lawyer shows let the police in to snoop around and it later gets them in trouble, even if they were innocent. Especially if they were innocent.

tac
01-21-2010, 2:56 PM
Im sorry to hear :(

I would stop posting on the subject and contact either an attorney or the guys at the Cal Guns Foundation.

In my opinion nothing good can come from posting more information related to this issue on a public forum.

evanp
01-21-2010, 3:07 PM
Wow, I can't believe you let them check out your gun without a warrant. :no:

(1) They do not need a warrant.

(2) Just what do you think that two computer programmers under the guise of GCF can do? How did we know he had the weapon? it is called a DROS.:rolleyes:

duscati
01-21-2010, 3:10 PM
This is a travesty. On so many levels.

HowardW56
01-21-2010, 3:11 PM
I think STOP posting and contact via PM BWiese.

.

DO IT NOW!

BONECUTTER
01-21-2010, 3:12 PM
I feel for the poster.

Most people fall into the LEO's are the good guy mentality. While this may be true in most cases if they are asking you direct question they are not bored and killing time. They are trying to make a case against somebody. You/Seller/Dealer... doesn't matter. Maybe they figured you would of put a stock to a vertical foregrip on it and hand it to them that way or the would walk into your house and find a bag of meth on the table. Who knows. Next time try to stand your ground.

I have given up consent before. Its easy to be and internet commando and type what I would of said in that situation. Mine I had 6 officers with guns pointed at my head. I wussed out and let them look in my backpack.

Giving the facts they prolly had cause to look anyway. But at that point I didn't feel like saying no.

BONECUTTER
01-21-2010, 3:14 PM
(1) They do not need a warrant.


They do if the weapon is in your home like this situation.

Dirk Tungsten
01-21-2010, 3:20 PM
How did we know he had the weapon? it is called a DROS.:rolleyes:

We? Are you DOJ?

Mssr. Eleganté
01-21-2010, 3:20 PM
(1) They do not need a warrant.

(2) Just what do you think that two computer programmers under the guise of GCF can do? How did we know he had the weapon? it is called a DROS.:rolleyes:

We? Are you from CalDOJ? If so, then you know exactly what "two computer programmers under the guise of CGF can do". :p

goober
01-21-2010, 3:29 PM
(1) They do not need a warrant.

(2) Just what do you think that two computer programmers under the guise of GCF can do? How did we know he had the weapon? it is called a DROS.:rolleyes:

(1) wrong.
(2) wong again, you clearly don't know who you're speaking of.

i'd like to add my voice to those of Kes and others, urging folks to be friendly and constructive in their postings regarding the OP's situation.
yes, he could have dealt with the visit in better ways. but let's help him and others understand this in a way that does not berate or belittle, so that folks are encouraged to ask these kind of questions, rather than the opposite.

CSDGuy
01-21-2010, 3:31 PM
(1) They do not need a warrant.

(2) Just what do you think that two computer programmers under the guise of GCF can do? How did we know he had the weapon? it is called a DROS.:rolleyes:
Yes they do. Meeting someone at the door to their house does not an exigent circumstance make... A house normally isn't mobile... therefore a LEO can not search said residence at the same level of RS/PC that's allowable for an automobile. The LEO must obtain a warrant, absent consent to search.

These folks apparently asked... and got compliance/consent.

garandguy10
01-21-2010, 3:34 PM
Well, if this situation is true, the OP can very well expect the DOJ to be back, this time with a warrant and flak vests etc. He likely gave them PC for a warrant when he let them see the pistol. They may very well come back with an arrest warrant and search warrant and take all of his guns......IMHO

bubbapug1
01-21-2010, 3:38 PM
Just my .02 cents...

The SP89 is an AW by characteristics. The previous owner (if residing in CA) would have had to register it as such in the year 2000. AND a receipt.

I don't remember seeing the Special Weapons 89 on the forbidden AW list. You can't say its a AW due to charateristics, it MUST be listed. Thats the whole point of OLL's. The DOJ started out that way but the courts said that was too broad and ambiguos...

HowardW56
01-21-2010, 3:39 PM
Well, if this situation is true, the OP can very well expect the DOJ to be back, this time with a warrant and flak vests etc. He likely gave them PC for a warrant when he let them see the pistol. They may very well come back with an arrest warrant and search warrant and take all of his guns......IMHO

That is a possibility...

MasterYong
01-21-2010, 3:40 PM
(1) They do not need a warrant.

(2) Just what do you think that two computer programmers under the guise of GCF can do? How did we know he had the weapon? it is called a DROS.:rolleyes:

You haven't been reading this forum long have you?

CGF has gotten more done in the last few years than most others have in the last 100.

A couple computer programmers?

Seriously?

HowardW56
01-21-2010, 3:44 PM
(1) They do not need a warrant.

(2) Just what do you think that two computer programmers under the guise of GCF can do? How did we know he had the weapon? it is called a DROS.:rolleyes:




You haven't been reading this forum long have you?
CGF has gotten more done in the last few years than most others have in the last 100.

A couple computer programmers?

Seriously?

I had the same thought, but I was cutting the newbie some slack...

If he hangs out long enough, he'll learn....

kf6tac
01-21-2010, 3:44 PM
I don't remember seeing the Special Weapons 89 on the forbidden AW list. You can't say its a AW due to charateristics, it MUST be listed. Thats the whole point of OLL's. The DOJ started out that way but the courts said that was too broad and ambiguos...

Ummm, yes you can. That's why we need bullet buttons or other mag locks to have evil features (aka characteristics). Since the OP had a bullet button and 10-round mag he's probably good to go, but it's entirely possible to have an assault weapon that's not listed by make and model.

MasterYong
01-21-2010, 3:46 PM
[/INDENT]I had the same thought, but I was cutting the newbie some slack...

If he hangs out long enough, he'll learn....

Meh. I'll cut someone slack if they're genuinely misinformed. The tone of his comment was, however, malicious.

I'm still rolling here... "a couple computer programmers" :rofl:

Try tens of thousands of pissed-off, organized, determined 2A supporters. :D

mrhappym1a
01-21-2010, 3:46 PM
Tagged for resolution. Hope it all works out. Good luck.


Some of ya'll need to chill.

woodey
01-21-2010, 3:47 PM
Bummer & good luck

goober
01-21-2010, 3:50 PM
Just my .02 cents...

The SP89 is an AW by characteristics. The previous owner (if residing in CA) would have had to register it as such in the year 2000. If he did not have it de-registered as an A/W prior to selling it to the OP, then this would have caused a red flag. Simply adding a mag lock device isn't going to cut it. As we all know, it is illegal to transfer AW's in this state.

I myself do not understand why the DOJ would need to confiscate the firearm for further review. They could have taken photographs, or found all the information that they needed online.

I sure hope the OP got the agents info, AND a receipt.

I don't remember seeing the Special Weapons 89 on the forbidden AW list. You can't say its a AW due to charateristics, it MUST be listed. Thats the whole point of OLL's. The DOJ started out that way but the courts said that was too broad and ambiguos...
as far as receivers go, yes... they must be named. but it is quite possible to build an OLL into a configuration that is an AW by characteristics.
(and thus illegal)

Ummm, yes you can. That's why we need bullet buttons or other mag locks to have evil features (aka characteristics). Since the OP had a bullet button and 10-round mag he's probably good to go, but it's entirely possible to have an assault weapon that's not listed by make and model.
right.

pnkssbtz
01-21-2010, 4:12 PM
Ummmm... who was that??? What was the outcome???

It was about 2 years ago. A member here on this board had his rifle confiscated. He had a magazine lock kit on it (prince50, IIRC).

While the rifle was in custody, the police department took a mallet to it and smashed the magazine lock until it broke. Then charged the individual with possession of an assault weapon (since the magazine could then be removed).


IIRC, the individual was exonerated, but the rifle was destroyed.

BONECUTTER
01-21-2010, 4:16 PM
IIRC, the individual was exonerated, but the rifle was destroyed.

I think they told him he could pick it up but because it was in AW form after they broke it he was trying to figure out a way to legally take control of it. Dont remember if they sperated the upper and lower for him or he just figured it wasn't worth it.

jaq
01-21-2010, 4:23 PM
I don't remember seeing the Special Weapons 89 on the forbidden AW list. You can't say its a AW due to charateristics, it MUST be listed. Thats the whole point of OLL's. The DOJ started out that way but the courts said that was too broad and ambiguos...

According to this site (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg15-e.htm), it was listed: "It is interesting to know that during the 1980s HK manufactured a semi-automatic only version of the MP-5K for the civilian market. It was called the SP-89, and visually differed from the MP-5K by the lack of the front grip. The SP-89 has been included in the US 1994 "Assault weapons ban" and is no longer imported to the USA, and, most probably, no longer made..."

tombinghamthegreat
01-21-2010, 4:24 PM
If they had no warrant why would you let them inspect the gun.

goober
01-21-2010, 4:25 PM
According to this site (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg15-e.htm), it was listed: "It is interesting to know that during the 1980s HK manufactured a semi-automatic only version of the MP-5K for the civilian market. It was called the SP-89, and visually differed from the MP-5K by the lack of the front grip. The SP-89 has been included in the US 1994 "Assault weapons ban" and is no longer imported to the USA, and, most probably, no longer made..."

federal list. no longer relevant.

per the CA Handgun AW Flow Char (http://www.calguns.net/caawid/hgflowchart.pdf)t, only the following pistols are listed AWs in CA:
(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 M11.
(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.

nobody_special
01-21-2010, 4:32 PM
This is a nice demonstration of the problems with registration of firearms. :beatdeadhorse5:

socalgunrunner
01-21-2010, 4:32 PM
I don't remember seeing the Special Weapons 89 on the forbidden AW list. You can't say its a AW due to charateristics, it MUST be listed. Thats the whole point of OLL's. The DOJ started out that way but the courts said that was too broad and ambiguos...

The SP89 is not named on the banned list (nor does it need to be). It is classified as an AW based on generic characteristics under Penal Code Section 12276.1. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2.php

This pistol does not fall under the same category as an "OLL". The term originated in Harrot v. County of Kings where it was determined that AR15/AK47 receivers not on the Kasler List were legal to own and are now commonly referred to as Off List Lowers/Receivers. http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Off_List_Lowers_%28OLL/OLR%29

goober
01-21-2010, 4:35 PM
The SP89 is not named on the banned list (nor does it need to be). It is classified as an AW based on generic characteristics under Penal Code Section 12276.1. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2.php

<edit>


not with a BB or similar maglock and <11 rd mag it isn't.

Heartbreaker
01-21-2010, 4:40 PM
I'm nearly certain this is either a troll or we aren't getting the whole story, but if it isn't, it's at least a good lesson. If you don't know/understand your rights they will be infringed upon.

cbn620
01-21-2010, 4:41 PM
If they had a warrent, they would have the right to go through all my stuff
and that is probablly why they did not do so.

Not necessarily. Warrants declare what the judge has approved them to search. It has to be in plain English what they're searching, whether that be your entire compound if you're a suspected drug runner, or in this case probably no more than the bedroom you keep the firearm in and probably less than that.

You can never go bad by requesting that they get a warrant before you consent to a search. A warrant is not a free pass for them to do everything up to having a crane brought in to lift your house off the dirt so they can peer under it.

I can't comment on the legality of the firearm, but I don't think legality matters when it comes to the pure principle of not giving your rights away. Even if what you are being accused of is mega illegal, it is more to your benefit to stand on your rights and have them do what they have to do by the books. Being, such as in your case, overly cooperative has no benefit to any case they may be building against you. Politely asserting your rights, however, not only does no damage but in most cases can save you (and your lawyer) a lot of unnecessary headaches down the line.

By the way, if they don't have a warrant, that is at least some indication that perhaps they could not get one. If it was dead serious business and they knew that gun was illegal and needed to be seized to protect the children, I'm willing to say you could bet your chonies that they'd have a warrant. The fact that they showed up empty handed hoping you'd just cooperate means they thought that'd be easier than getting a warrant.

socalgunrunner
01-21-2010, 4:41 PM
not with a BB or similar maglock and <11 rd mag it isn't.

That is correct. My original post several pages back stated that if this gun had been in CA 10 years ago, it would have been necessary for the owner to register it as an AW. To my knowledge mag locks did not exist at that time. If it was sold to the OP without it being de-registered as an AW, this might have been what alerted the DOJ.

usas12
01-21-2010, 4:41 PM
GOOD F***ING GRIEF !!!!!!!! the op did what he did because he choose to do so . the laws in Calif are the game you play here . ALL of the opinions expressions , everything that was in response to what he origanally posted is all of the super / hyper repsonsive S**T that they claim they would do it it ever happened to them. We will never know until it happens to them . The OP can do as he FU**N' pleases , his discission , not yours . Unfortunatly he posted it on here and got every idiots / persons / lawyers opinions . Non of which are relavent other than possibly the attorneys . my opinion , which does not mean S**T , is that he did what he wanted too. Maybe he had better stuff that he did not want them to see , whatever ... thats his buisness . I have posted about the guy that I know had BATF show up w/ papers , he showed them what they wanted , they left , nothing more . they suspected straw purchase .

This post is NO diffrent than the post about the "clusterf**k " that happened at Angeles range and then got everyones & their moms opinion (including mine ) from the minimalist to the extreme worst scinerio ...

BONECUTTER
01-21-2010, 4:52 PM
That is correct. My original post several pages back stated that if this gun had been in CA 10 years ago, it would have been necessary for the owner to register it as an AW. To my knowledge mag locks did not exist at that time. If it was sold to the OP without it being de-registered as an AW, this might have been what alerted the DOJ.

Not really. If it was here 10 years ago it could of had AW features removed (IE taken apart) or it could of been removed from the state by the owner and brought back years later in compliant form.

antonio
01-21-2010, 4:52 PM
The LEO asked and he let them in no illegal search

Sniper3142
01-21-2010, 5:00 PM
If this story is true...

Then the OP did a very, very silly thing.

NEVER voluntarily grant access to ANY Government or LE Officers.

NEVER!!

And being a good citizen has Nothing to do with it. POLICE and/or Government folks ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS and they DO NOT have your rights or best interests in mind.

cbn620
01-21-2010, 5:01 PM
GOOD F***ING GRIEF !!!!!!!! the op did what he did because he choose to do so . the laws in Calif are the game you play here . ALL of the opinions expressions , everything that was in response to what he origanally posted is all of the super / hyper repsonsive S**T that they claim they would do it it ever happened to them. We will never know until it happens to them . The OP can do as he FU**N' pleases , his discission , not yours . Unfortunatly he posted it on here and got every idiots / persons / lawyers opinions . Non of which are relavent other than possibly the attorneys . my opinion , which does not mean S**T , is that he did what he wanted too. Maybe he had better stuff that he did not want them to see , whatever ... thats his buisness . I have posted about the guy that I know had BATF show up w/ papers , he showed them what they wanted , they left , nothing more . they suspected straw purchase .

This post is NO diffrent than the post about the "clusterf**k " that happened at Angeles range and then got everyones & their moms opinion (including mine ) from the minimalist to the extreme worst scinerio ...

I think that's a very poor way to look at the world, that everyone just does what they "want to" or what they think is right in any given situation, and everything will work out. I don't think this is the incessant quarterbacking you describe, that someone who may have been in a similar circumstance offers advice on how they would--or have in the past-- reacted to a situation such as this. I think all of us have had to deal with the police at one point in our lifetime, other than some very lucky and sheltered individuals. This isn't like a 9 year old who plays with die cast airplanes telling an experienced pilot how to fly a jet.

There is always some advice I disagree with, but I think the majority of the discussion in this thread you are disagreeing with is the very basic, elementary, fundamental stuff. I think people saying he should have asked for a warrant is a far cry from what you describe.

People who have learned how to better deal with law enforcement and assert their own fundamental rights in the face of authority are better persons for it. I sure am glad to have learned what I have been able to from the fine folks on this and other sites. I think accusing people of being holier than thou Monday morning quarterbackers who have no idea what they'd do in a similar situation is kind of a d-bag way to treat people who are legitimately trying to help.

Paul
01-21-2010, 5:17 PM
Greetings to all the antburners from ARF.COM!

Unfortunately this happens here almost daily but since the random check points when up nobody talks about the door-to-door searches going on.

B Strong
01-21-2010, 5:23 PM
I don't even know where to start.

No warrant.

You allowed them to enter.

You didn't invoke the Fifth Amendment.

You produced the firearm in question on demand and allowed them to remove it from your home? Marone!

B Strong
01-21-2010, 5:26 PM
GOOD F***ING GRIEF !!!!!!!! the op did what he did because he choose to do so . the laws in Calif are the game you play here . ALL of the opinions expressions , everything that was in response to what he origanally posted is all of the super / hyper repsonsive S**T that they claim they would do it it ever happened to them. We will never know until it happens to them . The OP can do as he FU**N' pleases , his discission , not yours . Unfortunatly he posted it on here and got every idiots / persons / lawyers opinions . Non of which are relavent other than possibly the attorneys . my opinion , which does not mean S**T , is that he did what he wanted too. Maybe he had better stuff that he did not want them to see , whatever ... thats his buisness . I have posted about the guy that I know had BATF show up w/ papers , he showed them what they wanted , they left , nothing more . they suspected straw purchase .

This post is NO diffrent than the post about the "clusterf**k " that happened at Angeles range and then got everyones & their moms opinion (including mine ) from the minimalist to the extreme worst scinerio ...

No officer worth his salt would talk to IA without his union rep and his attorney present.

Why should a civilian do things any different?

Mr Wizard
01-21-2010, 5:30 PM
Anyone hear from the op lately. There are allot of legitimate questions being asked about the details of this incident. Has he been advised by legal counsel to clam up or just too embarrassed to respond now because of all the flaming he's getting on here?

I am genuinely concerned about this happening to someone else (like me)
I'm not sure how I would have responded to their visit, myself.

socalgunrunner
01-21-2010, 5:36 PM
Not really. If it was here 10 years ago it could of had AW features removed (IE taken apart) or it could of been removed from the state by the owner and brought back years later in compliant form.

Remove it from the state and bring it back later: Yes

AW features removed (IE taken apart): No

There would be no way to remove the AW features (mag well outside of the pistol grip). Also, "taking apart" the firearm does not meet the requirement of rendering the weapon permanently inoperable. If you owned an AW and did not register by the deadline, this is what you would have had to do.

thedrickel
01-21-2010, 5:38 PM
I think it's time to get IBTL!

Glock22Fan
01-21-2010, 5:50 PM
GOOD F***ING GRIEF !!!!!!!! the op did what he did because he choose to do so . the laws in Calif are the game you play here . ALL of the opinions expressions , everything that was in response to what he origanally posted is all of the super / hyper repsonsive S**T that they claim they would do it it ever happened to them. We will never know until it happens to them . The OP can do as he FU**N' pleases , his discission , not yours . Unfortunatly he posted it on here and got every idiots / persons / lawyers opinions . Non of which are relavent other than possibly the attorneys . my opinion , which does not mean S**T , is that he did what he wanted too. Maybe he had better stuff that he did not want them to see , whatever ... thats his buisness . I have posted about the guy that I know had BATF show up w/ papers , he showed them what they wanted , they left , nothing more . they suspected straw purchase .

This post is NO diffrent than the post about the "clusterf**k " that happened at Angeles range and then got everyones & their moms opinion (including mine ) from the minimalist to the extreme worst scinerio ...

Cool down. And please get a spell checker.

paul0660
01-21-2010, 5:58 PM
boys, we are getting our legs pulled.

BONECUTTER
01-21-2010, 6:00 PM
Remove it from the state and bring it back later: Yes

AW features removed (IE taken apart): No

There would be no way to remove the AW features (mag well outside of the pistol grip). Also, "taking apart" the firearm does not meet the requirement of rendering the weapon permanently inoperable. If you owned an AW and did not register by the deadline, this is what you would have had to do.

This is wrong. That would only apply to something banned by name. The owner could of broke the gun down to parts and it is just parts.

Like having a MK23 with a threaded barrel. Remove barrel its now legal.
Or a mini 14 with a pistol grip stock. Remove stock=no need to register it.

RobG
01-21-2010, 6:23 PM
:lurk5:

lomalinda
01-21-2010, 6:34 PM
"boys, we are getting our legs pulled."

Your rationale for saying this is?

socalgunrunner
01-21-2010, 6:35 PM
This is wrong. That would only apply to something banned by name. The owner could of broke the gun down to parts and it is just parts.

Not true. The receiver is not "just parts". That is the serialized portion of the firearm that must be registered with the DOJ because it's a pistol. If the receiver is still intact (even though the gun is completely unassembled) you're still in possession of a firearm according to the law.

Like having a MK23 with a threaded barrel. Remove barrel its now legal. Or a mini 14 with a pistol grip stock. Remove stock=no need to register it.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but the (2) examples you gave are not the same as what I'm discussing. The SP89 is an AW because it takes a detachable magazine that is outside of the pistol grip. Obviously, it would be impossible to remove this feature.