PDA

View Full Version : My letter to the DOJ


1911_sfca
02-15-2006, 10:19 AM
Here is a letter I sent to the DOJ via certified mail.

http://www.kniveton.com/images/tmp/seizedlowers1.gif
http://www.kniveton.com/images/tmp/seizedlowers2.gif

EBWhite
02-15-2006, 10:22 AM
sounds good, i would have added at the end something about "attorney"

keep us posted

capitol
02-15-2006, 10:23 AM
Reads well. I hope you get those receivers back.

1911_sfca
02-15-2006, 10:23 AM
sounds good, i would have added at the end something about "attorney"

Yah.. I wasn't really interested in threatening them. I just want to resolve the issue. As I said at the end, if there is no response I will consider the lowers stolen and take appropriate steps (which may involve an attorney)...

PanzerAce
02-15-2006, 10:25 AM
EB, notice the wording: "I will have to assume that my property has been stolen"

That should get their attention.

phish
02-15-2006, 10:27 AM
That letter reads very well. I like it. :cool:

ADDICTEDto.223LOWERS
02-15-2006, 11:12 AM
can you keep us up to date on the responce? this is better than court tv

xenophobe
02-15-2006, 11:20 AM
I'm eager to see your lowers returned, as well as to the response they'll give you.

fun2none
02-15-2006, 11:26 AM
Why not address your letter to Randy Rossi and copy Bill Lockyer ?

Can you make available a form-letter version that can be used by other members ?

It would also be interesting if a local newspaper, or TV station, consumer help line got involved but I doubt any of them would touch this.

Scotty
02-15-2006, 11:37 AM
I hope you didn't send it already. From how I read it, that second paragraph should be edited to remove the word "cash". And it sounded like you bought to receiver from someone else then did the dros on it later, which is illegal, making it into a straw purchase.

smallblockfuelie
02-15-2006, 11:40 AM
What a raw deal. I look forward to hearing how this works out.

Ken4
02-15-2006, 11:50 AM
That is a good letter. I do hope you get your lowers back. Like everyone else have already said, be sure to keep us posted if and when you hear back from them.

Good Luck!

ohsmily
02-15-2006, 11:52 AM
I hope you didn't send it already. From how I read it, that second paragraph should be edited to remove the word "cash". And it sounded like you bought to receiver from someone else then did the dros on it later, which is illegal, making it into a straw purchase.

I think you are unclear as to what a straw purchase is. A straw purchase is when some purchases a firearm that is intended to be given to someone else, thereby circumventing the background process for the person who will be eventually getting the gun (often times, the reason for this is the person who will be given the gun is unable to legally purchase the gun). This does not apply to legal gift of the gun, e.g. when a father buys a rifle with the intention of giving it to his son, this is legal (as long as the son is not otherwise legally prevented from owning a gun).

All this buyer did was buy the receiver from the dealer and DROS it, and he happened to pay cash...

Your interpretation is either and/or wrong and judging from this sentence from your post And it sounded like you bought to receiver from someone else then did the dros on it later, which is illegal, making it into a straw purchase. you didn't put much time into it before you posted it. Can't figure out if you meant to say THE RECEIVER or TWO RECEIVERS or TO RECEIVE FOR or FROM

vrylak
02-15-2006, 11:54 AM
Looks good. I'm sure this would get their attention. If there's anything that gets the government's attention is if it's documented. Everything must be on paper, black and white, still old school, even at our day and age, so much for all that talk about a paperless society/civilization. Having it documented, and with several copies to boot, seem to reach a lot of government desk inbetween their trips to the cooler, restrooms, breakrooms, shooting the sh#$%%$t, etc. What was it that I heard from the History channel a long time ago, the Nazis were meticulous record keepers, they document everything....

xenophobe
02-15-2006, 12:26 PM
What are you talking about...????

I would have obmitted the term "dealer fees", especially considering how this may end up play out. Nothing about the legality of the purchase of these were questioned. That is not why they were confiscated. From what I understand, the reason they're currently holding them is a different circumstance than the reason they were confiscated, but that's not my business, so out of respect I won't comment further on that. I just hope everyone gets their product. It was paid for and the legal owners should have them returned.

1911_sfca
02-15-2006, 1:20 PM
I hope you didn't send it already. From how I read it, that second paragraph should be edited to remove the word "cash". And it sounded like you bought to receiver from someone else then did the dros on it later, which is illegal, making it into a straw purchase.

Thanks for your concern. However, there is nothing wrong with paying in cash. It is still considered legal tender. I paid AT the FFL, bought it FROM the FFL, and did the DROS THROUGH the FFL immediately after paying. All kosher. And you don't seem to understand what a straw purchase is.

I would have obmitted the term "dealer fees", especially considering how this may end up play out.

Thanks for your advice, but I really have nothing to omit or hide. Dealer fees on dealer sales are totally fine, as long as they're not misrepresented as state fees. Read this (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dlrfaqs.htm#17G) for more info.

nightmanta
02-15-2006, 2:46 PM
Edited by Ben at the request of our FFL. Nothing has really changed from the user perspective, and we do not want to comment on an ongoing legal matter. Suffice to say at this time, progress is being made towards a DOJ return of property.

tpliquid1
02-15-2006, 2:47 PM
did they drop off any lowers?

Kalbi
02-15-2006, 2:53 PM
did they drop off any lowers?

Nope, I just called. He is not sure when they are going to give them back.

Edited by Ben at the request of our FFL. Nothing has really changed from the user perspective, and we do not want to comment on an ongoing legal matter. Suffice to say at this time, progress is being made towards a DOJ return of property.

hrlrdr22
02-15-2006, 2:54 PM
sounds good keep us posted i want to know how this turns out

troyPhD
02-15-2006, 3:05 PM
Yeah, the "property has been stolen" ought to garner some attention. The thought of the DOJ squirming brings a smile to my face. Subscribing to this thread.

jdberger
02-16-2006, 12:55 AM
Smart, well written.

Kudos.

artherd
02-16-2006, 6:57 AM
Well written, but I have to caution everyone else, be VERY CAREFUL you do not even give any impression of self-incrimination in any letter you write to DOJ!

You could actually GIVE THEM THE VERY PROBABLE CAUSE THEY NEED to never see your recievers again.

If you like I will review letters, send to e-mail.

However I recommend you have an attorney review your letter as well to avoid any legal issues.

ke6guj
02-16-2006, 10:14 AM
I hope you didn't send it already. From how I read it, that second paragraph should be edited to remove the word "cash". And it sounded like you bought to receiver from someone else then did the dros on it later, which is illegal, making it into a straw purchase.

I read "cash" as to mean, "I didn't use a credit card, so I can't dispute the transaction with the credit card company".

artherd
02-16-2006, 7:19 PM
I read "cash" as to mean, "I didn't use a credit card, so I can't dispute the transaction with the credit card company".

Irrelivant, let's not include any extraneous data.

Glasshat
02-17-2006, 9:56 AM
That is a nice letter and I would do exactly what you are doing if I was in your situation.
I'm not trying to be a troll but what steps are you going to take after you determine your property is stolen (after the ten day deadline)? I understand if you don't want to publish that kind of info here. Just curious.

Glasshat
02-17-2006, 10:02 AM
Well written, but I have to caution everyone else, be VERY CAREFUL you do not even give any impression of self-incrimination in any letter you write to DOJ!

You could actually GIVE THEM THE VERY PROBABLE CAUSE THEY NEED to never see your recievers again.

If you like I will review letters, send to e-mail.

However I recommend you have an attorney review your letter as well to avoid any legal issues.

From what I've read here, no one involved in this transaction has done anything immoral, fattening or illegal (except for the small safe thing which is 99.9% harrassment and 0.1% technicality).

What kind of things should people avoid saying in their letters?

EBWhite
02-23-2006, 11:38 AM
Any response from the DOJ yet? Do you have proof of the letter being delivered?

artherd
03-03-2006, 1:36 AM
From what I've read here, no one involved in this transaction has done anything immoral, fattening or illegal (except for the small safe thing which is 99.9% harrassment and 0.1% technicality).

What kind of things should people avoid saying in their letters?

Well I for one wouldn't want to put in wirting that I ate olestra potato chips, even though nonfattening they ARE cancerous! ;)

Seriously, just a quick reminder that DOJ are cops, (not only that, they seem to have a proverbial hard-on not for criminals, but for you and me AR purchasers) and that there are THIRTY THOUSAND firearm laws alone in this state.

Here's a real example, did you know it's illegal to opperate your windshield wipers in CA without your headlights on?! So if you included some irrelivant story about how you were outside the FFL driving your car on 680, and a bug splatted on the windshield so you turned the wipers on, there'd be at least articulatable Reasonable Suspicion that you were there during business hours (ie daylight) and PROBALLY DID NOT have your headlights on! BAM, arreast (well, if the headlights thing were a felony instead of a infraction that is, but you get the idea!)

Be real careful what you write up, a good way to play it safe is to stick to essentials. Martha Stewart wouldn't have spent a day in jail had she shut the f--- up.

troyPhD
05-05-2006, 9:57 AM
Any response from the DOJ yet? Do you have proof of the letter being delivered?

Any update on this?