PDA

View Full Version : CA DOJ was nice to me/50BMG question


gloxter
02-16-2006, 8:49 PM
I inadvertantly put down my date of aquisition as "X" 2005 thinking that was what I needed to put down on the BMG form since that's actually when I possessed the receiver. I received on my answering machine at home a pleasant voice stating that a woman who's last name was Garcia had a question about my form. I called her the next day and have to admit that she was most pleasant. She simply told me that she didn't want to send out the equivalent of a rejection letter based simply, from what she felt, was an erroneous mistake on my part (the date of aquisition). My DROS date was in 2004. She said "I'll process your application now, you should receive your acceptance letter in a couple of days".

Wow, common sense for a change. From the CalGuns group I'd like to know the following: What are your opinions on the entire registration process; mainly, what the h*ll do I get for my $25.00? A few years ago I sent them $25.00 for an AW registration, got my letter, and haven't been contacted since (a good thing).

My understanding (basic) is that "national" registries are to be non-existant for long guns; so how is it that we have to pay for a service that is Federally illegal according to it's own admission, yet is perfectly acceptable in a State such as ours, especially since they've declared .50's to be AW's?

Enlighten me!

-gloxter

dwtt
02-16-2006, 8:59 PM
For our $50 (joint registration) we got two letters confirming the registration and, more importantly, the stay out of jail pass if the police or DA wanted to arrest me. The registration is good only to keep you out of jail. It doesn't do anything else.

ohsmily
02-16-2006, 9:59 PM
so how is it that we have to pay for a service that is Federally illegal according to it's own admission, yet is perfectly acceptable in a State such as ours, especially since they've declared .50's to be AW's?

Enlighten me!

-gloxter

what exactly is it that you think is "federally illegal" and where does it say that this is so?

LCAZES
02-17-2006, 7:23 AM
Every time I have called into the DOJ to ask questions, the agents on the phone have been helpful and courteous.

gloxter
02-17-2006, 8:47 AM
That I was under the impression that firearm registries were illegal as it pertains to the Federal government establishing such lists; or keeping permanent records of who owns what (outside Class 3). It stinks that California can establish such registries under the "we can be more stringent than the Federal government", such as the case with Fed-OSHA versus Cal-OSHA.

I wasn't trying to stir the pot, nor am I a constitutional authority of any sort, but some of the literature I've read has led me to believe that such registries are in effect illegal; regardless of whether or not the California Constitution has a 2nd Amendment-type clause (which it does not); but then again, they know we can't sue the government. BATFE wins every time.

Thanks for the reply, though. Hopefully you understand my silly logic now, he he.

-gloxter

DrjonesUSA
02-17-2006, 9:07 AM
Wow, common sense for a change. From the CalGuns group I'd like to know the following: What are your opinions on the entire registration process; mainly, what the h*ll do I get for my $25.00?


What you just got is that you just paid $25 to tell the government exactly where you live and what sort of guns you have.

You just paid $25 to make it easier for the government to confiscate your guns or otherwise harrass you until you turn them in.

I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow or even 5 years from now, but someday, you will regret registering your guns.

The only reason for a government to force its citizens to register their guns is so that they can confiscate them at a later date.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying to your face or is stupid.



My understanding (basic) is that "national" registries are to be non-existant for long guns; so how is it that we have to pay for a service that is Federally illegal according to it's own admission, yet is perfectly acceptable in a State such as ours, especially since they've declared .50's to be AW's?

Enlighten me!

-gloxter

First, anyone that tells you that there is no "national firearm registry" is lying to you. Just what do you think is the purpose of that ATF Form 4473 that you filled out??

Next, CA does not have a RKBA in our Constitution so our diktators....er...."politicians" can do pretty much whatever they want to CA gunowners.

Finally, because our entire system of government is so screwed up, states can pass laws that fly in the face of the Federal Constitution and Bill of Rights.

DrjonesUSA
02-17-2006, 9:09 AM
Every time I have called into the DOJ to ask questions, the agents on the phone have been helpful and courteous.


For the life of me, I cannot understand the purpose of this statement.

"Oh, the JBT's were nice to me while they were violating my rights, so it's all good!"

So if someone asks nicely enough, you'll just hand over your guns too???

(If that's the case, let me know where you live. :D )

NRAhighpowershooter
02-17-2006, 11:40 AM
Well.. back in the 89' ban and registration.. the state figured that there were over 300,000 A Salt weapons in the state and that only 20% were registered... can we say civil disobedience?? :D who knows how many are in the state now that didn't get registered from the 2000' band registration? let alone how many will not register in this offlist era?

anothergunnut
02-17-2006, 4:35 PM
I asked a question by e-mail about purchasing a long gun in Nevada. I got a response that was simply "no you can't do that" even though I had quoted federal law that says you can. When I e-mailed back that I wanted the specific state law that overrides federal law I got no response. I guess asking for specific, legal answers is too much for the DOJ.

glen avon
02-17-2006, 4:58 PM
For the life of me, I cannot understand the purpose of this statement.

because so many here make it sound like the DOJ is so difficult to deal with. they are not. and they are NOT the bad guys here. at least, not yet.

if you disagree, be glad for that, as that means you don't know how nasty they could be. like Clinton's ATF. there is a big difference in attitude between then and now.

gloxter
02-17-2006, 5:04 PM
That's the beauty of the public forum. While I'm a professional member of the public safety community, as such, I've never considered myself one of the "sheeple". I write my legislators frequently, and also write to those who don't necessarily reflect my beliefs, particularly as they pertain to my rights.

Here's a question: How many, or what percentage of law-enforcement officers do you think will register their .50's? If one peeks over the parking lot at a local police/sheriff's station, how many POV's have their door windows tinted? Should they be protected from registration merely because they've undergone background checks above and beyond what a normal citizen would get as a conditional offer of employment?

While I did indeed feel "lame" about sending the "MAN" another registration fee, I see it as a small price to pay as compared to becoming a REGISTERED FELON should I be caught without paperwork/unregistered AW, unable to provide for my family. The only reason I bring this up is because I have about 20 more years to work in my present profession before retiring. Believe me, Idaho is tops on my list. I hate playing the mother-may-I game as much as the next guy, but I'm comfortable for the decision none the less. Any thoughts? Thanks for the feedback! Calguns rocks.

-gloxter

pilotmadrat
02-17-2006, 6:04 PM
I see a small misunderstanding in this thread. I'm sure the rank and file at DOJ are basically nice normal folks just trying to earn a living. Possibly a little ignorant of the abuse they facilitate (imagine if nobody would work for DOJ :) ) but good folks.

Now the people in charge who think they can make law rather than enforce it are a different matter.

So when you beam the hate at DOJ think about who at DOJ its going to.

PMR