DOJ Audit....San Leandro

[50 Freak]

Just got back from our FFL in San Leandro and he said he was audited last week and that the DOJ agent spent 5 hours pouring through his records.

The important part is the agent said that "ALL AK RECEIVERS ARE ILLEGAL" and doesn't matter if they are listed or not "IF THE RECEIVERS SAY AK, THEY ARE ILLEGAL AND WILL BE CONFISCATED".

Who thinks this is just bull hickey?

[TonyNorCal]

I think it's BS. Harrot was about an AK. And, the DOJs own memo shows they are treating AKs like ARs (listing the unlisted).

[EBWhite]

Okay if the reciever says "AK" then is is illegal.

Did he mean that if the reciever was called a Gonzo AK47 receiver is would be illegal? Or did he mean that similar in apperance to the AK47 is illegal?

If the first question is correct, he might be more correct, if it is the second, he is dead wrong.

Names such as v47, m47, 7, etc are not the same as ak47.

I think the agent was refering to things that had physical stamps stating "AK47."

[Wulf]

There needs to be some sort of substiantial administrative penalty for agents the knowingly provide false interpretations of law.

I realize we cant expect them to be perfect and honest, but they should at least be obligated to try.

[JAMES77257]

DCI receivers do not say AK anywhere on them.

[50 Freak]

Yeah, didn't your mom tell you not to talk to strange AKs????:D

[bu-bye]

If the writing on the receiver has AK, its banned. Just like if AR was marked on a AR receiver. If you look at all the off list lowers you see stuff like STAG-15 not AR-15. Every off list lower does not have AR stamped anywhere on the receivers. If it did they would have been confiscated for sure during the audits state wide. Remeber guys these are not AR or AK receivers, they are self loading rifle receivers. Calling it an AR or AK is wrong and will cause you major problems if questioned. SELF LOADING RECEIVER. Remember that!

[artherd]

Remenber folks, DOJ Law Enforcement are just that, Law Enforcement officers,

THEY CAN AND DO LIE TO YOU DURING THE COURSE OF AN INVESTIGATION!!!

NEVER EVER TAKE LEGAL ADVISE FROM A COP!

[FreshTapCoke]

If the writing on the receiver has AK, its banned. Just like if AR was marked on a AR receiver. If you look at all the off list lowers you see stuff like STAG-15 not AR-15. Every off list lower does not have AR stamped anywhere on the receivers. If it did they would have been confiscated for sure during the audits state wide. Remeber guys these are not AR or AK receivers, they are self loading rifle receivers. Calling it an AR or AK is wrong and will cause you major problems if questioned. SELF LOADING RECEIVER. Remember that!

Make and model. Not just make, not just model. Make AND model.

[Jicko]

Ha ha ha, someone need to SUE them first....

There needs to be some sort of substiantial administrative penalty for agents the knowingly provide false interpretations of law.

I realize we cant expect them to be perfect and honest, but they should at least be obligated to try.

[6172crew]

There isnt a penal code for a law enforcement type that lies, my cop buddy told me that its a fact.

He cant get into trouble for not telling the truth during an investigation.

[JHC]

So, who's going to be the first to post a build pic of their " Soviet-style self-loading rifle" with no evil features or gas system disabled?.. Not me, I'm chicken.;)

[Wulf]

There isnt a penal code for a law enforcement type that lies, my cop buddy told me that its a fact.

He cant get into trouble for not telling the truth during an investigation.


But making a declarative statement such as "ALL AK RECEIVERS ARE ILLEGAL" during the course of an audit doesnt fall under the umbrella of "investigating" IMHO. If the agent said "We're just here to see you storage facilities." when they're actually there to look at paperwork errors which had already been comited it would seem fair. But if the agent is there and you ask him about some matter of fact ("Is this the correct way to fill out this form?", "Is the Vault Master 2000 an approved storage device?, Can the Terrorist Special-47 be lawfully transfered?") he should be required (if not by law than at least by agency policy) to answer truthfully to the best of his ability. Lieing in that situation seems like a form of entrapment. Would it be acceptible for DOJ to adopt the policy of propagating false information as a way of misleading people into breaking the law in the future so they can make busts later? I think not. If you approach a cop and ask him what's the speed limit on A-Street he should answer truthfully to the best of his ability; "35 MPH", "I think its 35 MPH but I'm not sure.", "I dont know." If he tells you its 65 knowing full well its 35, then beats feet out to A street, warming up the radar as he goes, he's not behaving in the public's interest or the best traditions of Law Enforcment professionals.

Sure, the smart money would insist on a signed letter in answer to a question about the legality of an AK, but that doesnt give an agent an out to be less than truthful or to propagate misinformation no matter how badily they wish that information was true.

If that's not the case than there's a law we DO NEED in this state.

[Hopi]

the smart money would insist on a signed letter in answer to a question about the legality of an AK,
The smart money values the Harrott decision as the "signed letter". Equal protection should/does fall under Harrott for both AK and AR receivers. AK, as well as AR, receivers are the focus of the Roster and as such, if AR's are protected, then off-list AK receivers are protected. ARs are not even a question at this point as Harrott has been favorably interpretted, a fact substantiated by the multiple AR letters, and therefore a letter to validate a single off-list AK receiver isn't needed.

But making a declarative statement such as "ALL AK RECEIVERS ARE ILLEGAL" during the course of an audit doesnt fall under the umbrella of "investigating" IMHO. If the agent said "We're just here to see you storage facilities." when they're actually there to look at paperwork errors which had already been comited it would seem fair. But if the agent is there and you ask him about some matter of fact ("Is this the correct way to fill out this form?", "Is the Vault Master 2000 an approved storage device?, Can the Terrorist Special-47 be lawfully transfered?") he should be required (if not by law than at least by agency policy) to answer truthfully to the best of his ability. Lieing in that situation seems like a form of entrapment. Would it be acceptible for DOJ to adopt the policy of propagating false information as a way of misleading people into breaking the law in the future so they can make busts later? I think not. If you approach a cop and ask him what's the speed limit on A-Street he should answer truthfully to the best of his ability; "35 MPH", "I think its 35 MPH but I'm not sure.", "I dont know." If he tells you its 65 knowing full well its 35, then beats feet out to A street, warming up the radar as he goes, he's not behaving in the public's interest or the best traditions of Law Enforcment professionals.

Sure, the smart money would insist on a signed letter in answer to a question about the legality of an AK, but that doesnt give an agent an out to be less than truthful or to propagate misinformation no matter how badily they wish that information was true.

If that's not the case than there's a law we DO NEED in this state.

[kantstudien]

If the receivers say "AK," then you need to open the airway and induce vomiting.

[Mike Searson]

I had a BATF agent try to tell me if I owned any guns that were not on 4473's to me that they were illegal.

Some ****heels try to impose their personal beliefs as law.

Like the Walmart lackey that tried to tell me their store policy forbade them from special ordering any rifles in a military caliber (30-06, 308, 223, etc).

I'd tell him to lick my sAK!

[6172crew]

Im just saying there is no penal code for a cop that lies.

But making a declarative statement such as "ALL AK RECEIVERS ARE ILLEGAL" during the course of an audit doesnt fall under the umbrella of "investigating" IMHO. If the agent said "We're just here to see you storage facilities." when they're actually there to look at paperwork errors which had already been comited it would seem fair. But if the agent is there and you ask him about some matter of fact ("Is this the correct way to fill out this form?", "Is the Vault Master 2000 an approved storage device?, Can the Terrorist Special-47 be lawfully transfered?") he should be required (if not by law than at least by agency policy) to answer truthfully to the best of his ability. Lieing in that situation seems like a form of entrapment. Would it be acceptible for DOJ to adopt the policy of propagating false information as a way of misleading people into breaking the law in the future so they can make busts later? I think not. If you approach a cop and ask him what's the speed limit on A-Street he should answer truthfully to the best of his ability; "35 MPH", "I think its 35 MPH but I'm not sure.", "I dont know." If he tells you its 65 knowing full well its 35, then beats feet out to A street, warming up the radar as he goes, he's not behaving in the public's interest or the best traditions of Law Enforcment professionals.

Sure, the smart money would insist on a signed letter in answer to a question about the legality of an AK, but that doesnt give an agent an out to be less than truthful or to propagate misinformation no matter how badily they wish that information was true.

If that's not the case than there's a law we DO NEED in this state.

[blacklisted]

Like the Walmart lackey that tried to tell me their store policy forbade them from special ordering any rifles in a military caliber (30-06, 308, 223, etc).


Haha, I guess they can't order 12ga and .22lr either...I'm sure both have been used in some capacity by the military.

[rkt88edmo]

http://sctest.cse.ucsc.edu/kenb/gif/bill_the_cat.gif

Wiese whould start using a Bill the cat avatar considering all the hairballs he coughs up each day for the off list masses ;)

[artherd]

Would it be acceptible for DOJ to adopt the policy of propagating false information as a way of misleading people into breaking the law in the future so they can make busts later? I think not.
HELL YES it is! You really need to talk to an attorney.

A cop can tell you it's OK to shoot the dude at the bus stop over there.
Dosen't mean it's legal.

The only person who can give you BINDING leagal advice, (backed up by malpractice insurance) is unfortunately an attorney.


If you approach a cop and ask him what's the speed limit on A-Street he should answer truthfully to the best of his ability; "35 MPH", "I think its 35 MPH but I'm not sure.", "I dont know." If he tells you its 65 knowing full well its 35, then beats feet out to A street, warming up the radar as he goes, he's not behaving in the public's interest or the best traditions of Law Enforcment professionals.

I fully agree. Unfortunately, case and statute law sees the situation differently. Know the system.

Sure, the smart money would insist on a signed letter in answer to a question about the legality of an AK, but that doesnt give an agent an out to be less than truthful or to propagate misinformation no matter how badily they wish that information was true.

If that's not the case than there's a law we DO NEED in this state.

Even Opinion Letters are barely enough to get out of jail free sometimes. They are not nessecarily legally binding, though they do carry some legal weight, as the DOJ is not supposed to lie in writing, it's a violation of their charter.

However, they can be wrong through simple *ignorance* and have been before. See the SKS Sporter issue, DOJ said they were good, were proven wrong in a court of law, SKS Sporters had to be bought back (but no convictions issued either.)

Only the courts make law, remenber that. Thank god we have Harrott to back us!

[MsJamie]

Only the courts make law, remenber that.

Um, no they don't. They just think they do.

It's the Legislature (you know, our elected representatives) who MAKE the law.

The Judicial system (the courts) interpret the law as written by the Legislature. (Although they've been known to find things in the law that nobody else can see.) This is why you can't count on a law unless it's been tested in court. (Judges generally don't like to say other judges were wrong...)

The Executive branch (the Governator and his workers, including the AG) enforce the law.

Here's a useful link that explains it:
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/students/misc.asp

[leelaw]

Even Opinion Letters are barely enough to get out of jail free sometimes. They are not nessecarily legally binding, though they do carry some legal weight, as the DOJ is not supposed to lie in writing, it's a violation of their charter.

However, they can be wrong through simple *ignorance* and have been before.

I'm having a hard time convincing one of the DOJ low-level functionaries that a minimum barrel length in CA is 16", NOT the 18" she's quoting me.

She's reading the right section, just only the part about SBShotguns..

Sigh, it's so frustrating..

[Wulf]

I fully agree. Unfortunately, case and statute law sees the situation differently. Know the system.



That's something that should be fixed. Maybe I'll fire off a call to my State Senator/Congressmen. It shouldnt be hard to write and pass a bill that would obligate law enforcment to respond honestly and correctly to the best of their ability to questions that do not require deception to further an ongoing investigation. I can do that without spilling the beans on the reciever deal.