PDA

View Full Version : How many of you who lost receivers at Milpitas have called/written, done something?


TonyNorCal
02-21-2006, 7:51 PM
How many of you that lost receivers in the Milpitas sweep have taken some action - written a letter, called, etc.?

I was hopeful that they'd be returned as Rob complied immediately with their demand for a larger safe (went anf purchased one that same night). One would like to think that we live in a world where the forces of government do the right thing...much as we the citenzry do.

Sadly, it appears to me that the DOJ may in fact be unwilling to return these lowers. Or, perhaps they're just holding them until such time as the ban takes effect...and then they'll claim they can't be returned.

I was told today via phone (which I know isn't the best way to contact them and I know isn't always accurate information) that they don't intend to return them. Of course, I don't necessarily believe this or perhaps don't wish to. When pressed as to why I was told someone would 'call me back'.

At this point I fail to see what jusitification there is for continued protective custody of lowers that were lawfully purchased and are lawful to possess.

So how many of you have written letters? I need to. And, how many lowers total were taken?

shopkeep
02-21-2006, 7:54 PM
How many of you that lost receivers in the Milpitas sweep have taken some action - written a letter, called, etc.?

I was hopeful that they'd be returned as Rob complied immediately with their demand for a larger safe (went anf purchased one that same night). One would like to think that we live in a world where the forces of government do the right thing...much as we the citenzry do.

Sadly, it appears to me that the DOJ may in fact be unwilling to return these lowers. Or, perhaps they're just holding them until such time as the ban takes effect...and then they'll claim they can't be returned.

I was told today via phone (which I know isn't the best way to contact them and I know isn't always accurate information) that they don't intend to return them. Of course, I don't necessarily believe this or perhaps don't wish to. When pressed as to why I was told someone would 'call me back'.

At this point I fail to see what jusitification there is for continued protective custody of lowers that were lawfully purchased and are lawful to possess.

So how many of you have written letters? I need to. And, how many lowers total were taken?

500 were taken. If they are returned after the ban they will go to Ben who will then be stuck with 500 Assault Weapons he'll have to register or send out of state. Hopefully the lawyers get them returned before the list is published.

GW
02-21-2006, 8:35 PM
How is it that Ben would be stuck with them?

And Yes I have written and called the DOJ

dbol
02-21-2006, 8:40 PM
If they are returned after the ban they will go to Ben who will then be stuck with 500 Assault Weapons he'll have to register or send out of state.

I'm not sure this is true, because I'm pretty sure Ben isn't the owner of the seized lowers. Ben didn't sell the lowers to the Milpitas buyers, so with the exception of the few he purchased personally, he is no more the owner of the seized lowers than anyone else.

Let's not give the DOJ any ammunition in this fight by confusing the mechanics of the group buys that Ben organized.

xenophobe
02-21-2006, 9:52 PM
If they're returned, they'll be returned to the FFL from whom they were siezed.

tenpercentfirearms
02-21-2006, 10:50 PM
As long as they are DROSed, they should go back to you eventually since they are DROSed in your name. Now the DOJ might claim they can't return them to the FFL since he doesn't have a AW license and that might be their play. This is a tough situation. Good luck.

EBWhite
02-21-2006, 10:51 PM
what have you guys gotten back from the DOJ with the letters you sent in on this matter?

Wulf
02-22-2006, 6:33 AM
Has anybody actually gone down to DOJ in person? If I had one of those lowers in their custody, I'd show up at the front counter at DOJ with paperwork in hand and a tape recorder and ask for my property with the intent of staying there all day and recording every interaction. If they didnt had over the recievers I'd take my paperwork and reordings over to small claims court.

FreedomIsNotFree
02-22-2006, 6:43 AM
Has anybody actually gone down to DOJ in person? If I had one of those lowers in their custody, I'd show up at the front counter at DOJ with paperwork in hand and a tape recorder and ask for my property with the intent of staying there all day and recording every interaction. If they didnt had over the recievers I'd take my paperwork and reordings over to small claims court.

Yes, 200-300 small claims suits might get their attention. Not a bad idea....but you might want to wait a bit and see how this unfolds further. At the very least you should be able to get your money back.

6172crew
02-22-2006, 6:50 AM
If the FFL is out of compliance then the receivers were taken legally by the brown shirts.

I asked a few FFLs about this and all agree this can be done but most likely wouldnt be done but they dont like the whole stripped receiver deal and it was a way for them to stick it to Ben and RB.

stator
02-22-2006, 7:06 AM
I've been getting the DOJ run-around. The last conversation I had, a DOJ employee stated that these lowers are not my property, and are not, until I sign the 4473 on pickup. She said otherwise, anyone can be charged with felony posession if they fail the DROS/NIC check even though they had not picked them up yet. I am tired of their crap.

BTW, you cannot sue the government in small claims court until you go through an appeals process with the state. I posted this several weeks ago with links to the state website.

Wulf
02-22-2006, 7:50 AM
I've been getting the DOJ run-around. The last conversation I had, a DOJ employee stated that these lowers are not my property, and are not, until I sign the 4473 on pickup. She said otherwise, anyone can be charged with felony posession if they fail the DROS/NIC check even though they had not picked them up yet. I am tired of their crap.

BTW, you cannot sue the government in small claims court until you go through an appeals process with the state. I posted this several weeks ago with links to the state website.

Stator,

IIWY I'd go down there during business hours, put a running tape recorder on the counter and say, "I paid for that reciever that may lawfully be possessed and I passed the appropriate background check. When DOJ took possession of the reciever from the ffl that initiated the dros DOJ took responsability for finishing the transfer. Please complete the transfer now."

artherd
02-22-2006, 8:23 AM
I've retained one of the best firearms litigation firms in the state...

FYI- these are YOUR property, you've exchanged money for goods. Don't give up, and don't walk away (but getting somethign additional from sj gun exchange wouldn't be a horrible idea either.)

This may take a while, but you WILL see your property.

pilotmadrat
02-22-2006, 8:57 AM
Get a camera crew together, we know how much people like that love to be on TV!

Much better than audio tape.

xenophobe
02-22-2006, 10:15 AM
I've been getting the DOJ run-around. The last conversation I had, a DOJ employee stated that these lowers are not my property, and are not, until I sign the 4473 on pickup. She said otherwise, anyone can be charged with felony posession if they fail the DROS/NIC check even though they had not picked them up yet. I am tired of their crap.

From what I understand, it isn't legally yours untill you sign the 4473 and receive the firearm physically, according to ATF.

According to the state, the fact that you purchased and paid for the item makes it yours under consumer law, but the effective purchase date for DOJ isn't when you actually purchased the item, it's when you start the dros on the firearm. Regardless of the fact it hasn't been released -i.e. Roberti-Roos and SB-23 assault weapon purchases were allowed until the very last moment... example:

For SB-23, the Gun Exchange and many other stores were open until Midnight on Dec 31, 1999, and people were allowed to purchase and dros firearms up until midnight. The fact that the people didn't take possession of these firearms until Jan 10th or after, or up until the period their DROS ran out did not exclude them from legally registering these firearms as they were considered legally purchased before 1/1/00.

Just thought I'd add that.

Jeff Rambo
02-22-2006, 10:26 AM
FYI: I am also under the impression that the firearm being purchased does not legally become that of the purchasers until they sign the 4473 on pick-up. I was informed of this by two FFLs during previous transactions several months ago.

TonyNorCal
02-22-2006, 11:39 AM
Well,

A DOJ special agent did call me back (so at least the followed through on that). However, he has no definitive info to offer.

Will the lowers be returned? He doesn't know, depends on the 'resolution' of the situation.

Is there more to the situation than the safe being too small? He can't comment.

When might they be returned (month? few months)? Doesn't know.

Why aren't they being returned if the FFL is now in compliance (larger safe)? He can't comment.

That's pretty much how the conversation went...basically not providing any solid/definitive answers and me asking the same basic questions from multiple angles.

How lovely:rolleyes: :p .

Ok, well, I guess I am going to write Alison a letter.

1911_Mitch
02-22-2006, 11:45 AM
you should have asked him why he called you back.

Doesn't sound like he said anything meaningful other than "no comment"

filefish
02-22-2006, 11:48 AM
Yes, 200-300 small claims suits might get their attention. Not a bad idea....but you might want to wait a bit and see how this unfolds further. At the very least you should be able to get your money back.

unfortunatly we do not have the right to suie the government we have to ask for permission to suie them

6172crew
02-22-2006, 11:49 AM
Hmmm, maybe a call a day from everyone here will get some better answers.

Well,

A DOJ special agent did call me back (so at least the followed through on that). However, he has no definitive info to offer.

Will the lowers be returned? He doesn't know, depends on the 'resolution' of the situation.

Is there more to the situation than the safe being too small? He can't comment.

When might they be returned (month? few months)? Doesn't know.

Why aren't they being returned if the FFL is now in compliance (larger safe)? He can't comment.

That's pretty much how the conversation went...basically not providing any solid/definitive answers and me asking the same basic questions from multiple angles.

How lovely:rolleyes: :p .

Ok, well, I guess I am going to write Alison a letter.

TonyNorCal
02-22-2006, 11:55 AM
you should have asked him why he called you back.

Doesn't sound like he said anything meaningful other than "no comment"

He called back because I called yesterday and kept asking to speak to different people as I wasn't getting any satisfaction. So first I started with Rene (who is one of the people who answers the phones when you call the general number). Then I was transferred to Karen (who is some sort of supervisor). Karen said she would have the 'special agent in charge of the investigation call me'. I asked for his number, which she wouldn't provide. So I left mine and he called back today. And, as you see, I am still getting no satisfaction. So it's letter time.

xenophobe
02-22-2006, 12:01 PM
FYI: I am also under the impression that the firearm being purchased does not legally become that of the purchasers until they sign the 4473 on pick-up. I was informed of this by two FFLs during previous transactions several months ago.

That all depends on how you are looking the situation, based on what regulatory agency or law dictates...

Consumer law (I'm assuming) would suggest that you own the item when the item is paid for and receipt given, regardless of when it is actually delivered/transferred.

ATF (Federal) states that it is not yours until you take delivery of it, complete a 4473, etc...

California: This is where things get murky. I'm not sure if CADOJ has an official stance on this that is rock solid, as I provided in a post above, firearms are allowed to be purchased up until the day they are listed, even though taking delivery of the item purchased wouldn't happen for at least another 10 days. Since the 4473 has not been completed, nor has any firearm actually been taken into physical possession, sales would only be allowable up to 10 days before the actual enactment of any list. However, this was not the case when the SB-23 purchase deadline was reached.

IF the DOJ states that a firearm is not really yours until the 4473 has been filled out and you've taken delivery of the firearm, then assault weapons must have been purchased by Dec 21st and received on Dec 31st. This is indeed the case for many gun shops that were selling AWs in 1999, but DOJ stated that sales were legal until the 31st, with the expiration date of the DROS being the last date that you could actually complete the 4473 and receive these firearms.

vrylak
02-22-2006, 12:35 PM
Where does the US Constitution ends and Ca constitution begins. It seems to me that there is a gross violation here of our 2nd Amendment rights as US Citizens.

Are we Cali citizens first and US Citizens second?

Does the US Constitution stop at the Cali border and gets filtered in as it crosses the Cali border and only certain rights are let in?

Not just CA but a host of other states are in violation of the Supreme Law of the land when it comes to the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution.

Any person, persons and entity who are a party to these activities are downright guilty of this violation whether it is an order or not, more so if these are illegal orders.

I remember the oath before entering the service: ".... to uphold and protect the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic...."

There was and is a reason why our founding founders left the 2nd Amendment for us. They've done the hard part of fighting, suffering and dying, now it's our turn, our turn is the easiest as a matter of fact. All we got to do is protect it and guard it, hold the Fort against our enemies, foreign and domestic.

Omega13device
02-22-2006, 4:23 PM
What was the date that the DOJ took the lowers?

1911_sfca
02-22-2006, 4:37 PM
Yes, I wrote a letter. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=28696)

avidone
02-22-2006, 4:39 PM
Sometimes one gets the impression that the purpose of the legal system is to make sure that those parties who have more power and more resources are able to jerk the others around.

I always get that impression. :mad:

colossians323
02-22-2006, 6:21 PM
Why don't the 200 to 500 people arrange to take a day off from work and head to Sac city and wait in the lobby till each and everyone of you has spoken with an acting Deputy ag personally on what they are going to do with your property.
I don't have one confiscated, but I do have a suburban, and I would be willing to take a day off work for this kind of road trip.
I'm not sure if this would put the whole thing in the spotlight or not, but you guys have to do something.

highlandr
02-23-2006, 11:29 AM
Why don't the 200 to 500 people arrange to take a day off from work and head to Sac city and wait in the lobby till each and everyone of you has spoken with an acting Deputy ag personally on what they are going to do with your property.
I don't have one confiscated, but I do have a suburban, and I would be willing to take a day off work for this kind of road trip.
I'm not sure if this would put the whole thing in the spotlight or not, but you guys have to do something.

+1!
I am not one of the many whose property was confiscated, but I would gladly make the trip to Sac with you to lend strength in numbers and get their attention. Let's set a date for this to happen.

/ :cool:

colossians323
02-25-2006, 7:45 AM
Will are any of you who had your lowers taken going to step up to the plate and organize this, or are you going leave it up to the rest of us?

dwtt
02-25-2006, 8:21 AM
Will are any of you who had your lowers taken going to step up to the plate and organize this, or are you going leave it up to the rest of us?
/define cynicism on
noone will organize such an event because most gun owners in CA, including those who had their lowers taken by the DOJ, think standing up for their 2nd amendment rights is not as important as other things in their lives, like going out to dinner with their friends, seeing a movie, or getting their car washed and detailed. If it's really important to them, they would act to get their lower receivers back, but it's not, so noone should be surprised that only a few people are working on this.
/define cynicism off

Mr331
02-25-2006, 8:56 AM
I know the initial reason they were taken, the safe. What is the reason they aren't coming back? On what grounds are they claiming they can keep them? I think that has to be determined before anyone can do anything. There has to be more to this story.

colossians323
02-25-2006, 9:35 AM
If no action is taken how does March 2, sound it is next thursday, and I will drive my suburban, which can fit eight people uncomfortably.
Is this too soon?
How many are interested?
If we cannot get at least 100 Men and Women, this is not going to work
I home school my kids, and would be more then willing to take them on this field trip to view positive political activism first hand.
Lets do this, I have no lowers there , but I do have a stake in a legitimate/illegitimate seizure, and I would love to see them trying to meet one on one with each and every person involved.
I can bring at least two other men, one who actually had his lowers confiscated, but you guys need to step up to the plate.

Glasshat
02-25-2006, 12:27 PM
I think more people would go to Sacto if they knew what they were getting into. Right now everyone except for Ben knows only the following: 1. the safe was too small, 2. property was taken, 3. the safe got bigger. If that is all you know when you confront the DOJ desk jockey who knows all the details, you will get a response you are not informed enough to deal with.

The time to march on Sacto is after Ben has run this thing through channels and after he is unsuccessful in getting the property returned. I am not saying he is going to be unsuccessful in fact I'm confident he will prevail, I'm just saying don't march until he has had a chance to do it his way.

At the same time, it is depressing to see little interest voiced in taking action.

five.five-six
02-20-2007, 4:21 PM
did you guys ever get your lowers back?

artherd
02-20-2007, 8:36 PM
DOJ still has 'em, they're basically hoping we will forget about it, and they are counting it as some petty internal 'victory', when it was infact 'armed robbery' (The way I hear it; Iggy was there, desk-killing M4 in hand in full tac gear for the raid I MEAN STATE MANDATED INSPECTION!)

stealthmode
02-20-2007, 10:34 PM
has anyone hired a lawyer or called the NRA or second amendment foundation or any pro 2A groups?

forget writing the DOJ a letter

artherd
02-20-2007, 10:44 PM
I've spent a few thousand bucks (actually I have to check how much) on some good lawyers. Sad to say we're still deprived of our property, and I only had $500 worth of lowers tied up! I too am confident this will be resolved in 2007.

hoffmang
02-20-2007, 11:56 PM
This will be resolved this calendar year or should I say - progress will be made this calendar year.

-Gene

Nefarious
02-21-2007, 5:21 AM
This will be resolved this calendar year or should I say - progress will be made this calendar year.

-Gene

Details???

1911_sfca
02-21-2007, 5:39 AM
Details???

There's supposed to be something happening on this in 2 weeks.

Nefarious
02-21-2007, 5:57 AM
There's supposed to be something happening on this in 2 weeks.

LMAO :D
I asked for that one

Wulf
02-21-2007, 6:02 AM
I've spent a few thousand bucks (actually I have to check how much) on some good lawyers. Sad to say we're still deprived of our property, and I only had $500 worth of lowers tied up!

Has your legal help suggested that DOJ might have some IV'th Amendment violation exposure at this point...unreasonable search and seizure (not to mention 2nd :( )? Seemed like they passed "reasonable" many many months ago on their hold. At what point do you just bring suit and quit screwing around?

Matt640h
02-21-2007, 6:26 AM
Here is a snipit from one of my posts a few months back. I actually got to speak with Alison

Case officer is John Marsh, case number is F1706-2U. For the last 2 months I have been sending emails and calling them with status requests about this case.

My most recent call was to Allyson. It went a little something like this:

Me: So how is the case going and when can I expect my firearm back?
Ally: It is in on-going investigation and I can't say much more than that.
Me: It has been over 9 months, how long could it take?
Ally: Statute of limitations is 3 years.
Me: So I can expect my firearm back in 3 years or sooner?
Ally: You might not get the firearm back if it was not sold to you leagally. (she didn't expand on this but I'm sure they are trying to prove that the guns passed through the hands of a distributor that wasn't an FFL [Ben])

Paratus et Vigilans
02-21-2007, 8:54 AM
Go ahead and file a civil suit against the DOJ for replevin for holding your property without the legal right to do so. Allege in the complaint the BS delays and BS responses on the part of the DOJ. Verify the allegations of the complaint so they can serve as evidentiary statements when the demurrer comes. (See below.)

Serve the complaint on the DOJ.

The DOJ will respond by filing a demurrer (a legal challenge to the complaint) on the grounds that you've failed to follow through with the administrative process and therefore you are not yet allowed to sue in court.

The demurrer is in the nature of a motion. It will be briefed and argued before a judge of the Superior Court.

In opposition to the demurrer you point out all the BS on the part of the DOJ alleged in the verified complaint (you can't properly submit declarations in support of or in opposition to a demurrer - that's why you allege the facts in the complaint and verify it :) ) and argue that the DOJ is not doing its duty under the law and is detaining your property under color of law while unreasonably delaying its "decision" on what to do about the confiscated property.

The DOJ won't like having the delay scrutinized by the court. A judge of the Superior Court will not find it funny that the DOJ is giving people a song and dance without really doing anything in its "investigation."

The demurrer may, in the end, be sustained (i.e., granted) and the suit to recover the lowers thus may be put off for a time, but the heat generated by the process will get the DOJ off the pot, IMHO.

Just my $0.02 worth. :D

artherd
02-21-2007, 8:59 AM
Has your legal help suggested that DOJ might have some IV'th Amendment violation exposure at this point...unreasonable search and seizure (not to mention 2nd :( )? Seemed like they passed "reasonable" many many months ago on their hold.
They are looking into these and many other issues. There was nothing reasonable about this robbery.
At what point do you just bring suit and quit screwing around?
If we wait a tad longer; we may be able to get damages from Alison.

bwiese
02-21-2007, 9:22 AM
They are looking into these and many other issues. There was nothing reasonable about this robbery.

If we wait a tad longer; we may be able to get damages from Alison.

Yes, her personal liability is kicking in due to her irrationally sustaining this personal vendetta under color of law.

Rossi is just sitting back administratively and letting Allison run the show, he's in "pre retirement mode" and with an apparently bum hip that was operated on in Feb 2006 - so in effect DOJ FD is being run out of the Brady camp.

Time to go after her bar card.

thmpr
02-21-2007, 9:28 AM
This will get very ugly and interesting at the same time....

tgriffin
02-21-2007, 10:11 AM
good luck boys *makes popcorn*

artherd
02-21-2007, 10:29 AM
Time to go after her bar card.
Just the beginning. It would all have been so much easier for everyone if she just returned our property. Personal vendetta have no business in government office.

SemiAutoSam
02-21-2007, 10:36 AM
Let me know when Spielberg makes a movie of it and or when it comes out on DVD.

Who would Play Iggy, Alyson and Wes, Bill?

Ben who do you want to play your roll ?

All your receivers are belong to us ?

The Soup Nazi
02-21-2007, 10:39 AM
I could totally play Iggy. Let me just gain a lot of weight. And yeah, they've had those receivers for way too long.

bwiese
02-21-2007, 11:27 AM
I could totally play Iggy. Let me just gain a lot of weight.

SoupNazi,

You're also gonna have to drop quite a few IQ points, and you'll have to fail civics class - at least w/regard to knowledge of how regulatory law is subservient to statutory law.

Grakken
02-21-2007, 12:26 PM
I hope you guys get your property back and when you do can you sue the State for punitive damages?

jnojr
02-21-2007, 5:06 PM
Yes, her personal liability is kicking in due to her irrationally sustaining this personal vendetta under color of law.

Sovereign immunity.

That's going to be her defense to any claim of personal liability. IIRC, that's a pretty tall mountain to climb over, too.

I hope everyone is writing and calling constantly. You might as well make this process as miserable for them as possible.

SemiAutoSam
02-21-2007, 5:39 PM
Here is a hopefully good question?

Does either Alison or Iggy have an oath of office, Or a bond ?

artherd
02-21-2007, 11:41 PM
Sovereign immunity.

That's going to be her defense to any claim of personal liability. IIRC, that's a pretty tall mountain to climb over, too.

I hope everyone is writing and calling constantly. You might as well make this process as miserable for them as possible.
She is in for a very big surprise.

artherd
02-21-2007, 11:42 PM
Let me know when Spielberg makes a movie of it and or when it comes out on DVD.

Who would Play Iggy, Alyson and Wes, Bill?

Ben who do you want to play your roll ?

All your receivers are belong to us ?
LOL, I'm told I look like an early Tom Hanks.

I suspect I will end up getting played by Justin Timberlake (and then there'll be a movie made, oooooh ;)

tenpercentfirearms
02-22-2007, 5:34 AM
I suspect I will end up getting played by Justin Timberlake.
He is such a playa. I would be careful dating anyone like that, you know you are just going to get burned.

Paratus et Vigilans
02-22-2007, 6:19 AM
LOL, I'm told I look like an early Tom Hanks.


Early how? Like, how he looks early in the morning when he goes out to get the paper and his hair is all messed up and his eyes are still glued shut? Or, like early in his career, when he dressed up like a woman? :)

Sorry, Artherd, but that was a setup that just couldn't be passed up! :D