PDA

View Full Version : Has anyone receiver a written response regarding the Milpitas receivers?


TonyNorCal
02-24-2006, 6:45 PM
Curious if anyone has received a letter/written correspondence on the matter? I haven't written yet. Called again today. Asked for a field rep I know to be helpful. Turns out she actually did the follow-up compliance inspection at Rob's. So she said she'd talk to the special agents (who evidently are running the show on the confiscated receivers. She calls back and says the agent said they aren't getting returned. Ok, I've heard that before. Read it here I think. But they seem to be intent on not returning these things. She says I can e-mail her and she'll forward it along to the agent and he can mail me back. Ok, I'll try that...but I'll send a letter as well.

This is getting a bit frustrating.

*Edited to ad...Freudian slip there in the title lol...Receiver instead of received...guess it's clear what's on my brain*

artherd
02-24-2006, 9:30 PM
I can't really comment, but it's been 'interesting' so far to say the least.

HeHateMe
02-24-2006, 10:05 PM
Someone's gonna have some real good stories to tell.

EBWhite
02-24-2006, 10:07 PM
Hey guys-

Well, i hope everyone gets their stuff back from the DOJ.
Anyways, if doj wont give them back, you cannot blame them 100%. The FFL who did the transfer is also responsible and I would bet in court they would need to refund the money for the lowers since they were not following the law on the safe capacity. If the FFL would have followed the law on this (a stupid law), then they could not have been taken. Sure the DOJ is way more worn on this but the FFL needs to be held at least partly responsible for getting them taken in the first place. Not trying to bad mouth the ffl, just my opinion on this.

phish
02-25-2006, 12:29 AM
He did pony up for a bigger safe to be in compliance, and passed a re-audit.

It's the DOJ who isn't holding up their end and jerking everyone around. :mad:

I know they're operating in typical gov't fashion, but there comes a time when they need to start acting like the public servants they are and return these receivers to their rightful owners.

EBWhite
02-25-2006, 12:35 AM
Yes, he fixed the problem and passed readuit. Again, the DOJ is mainly at fault here. However, if someone buys something and it gets taken away for a problem with the ffl and the doj decided to keep it, it is the job of the ffl to get it back or refund the money. Again, not bashing, just pointing out this is the way it would be if i was involved.

Pablo
02-25-2006, 1:12 AM
I can't really comment, but it's been 'interesting' so far to say the least.

Ohhh man, I'm dying to know what's going on... Hopefully one day you can tell us. ;)

stator
02-25-2006, 7:13 AM
It seems apparent that they (DOJ) feel that these lowers were involved in a sale without the proper FFL license.

Turbinator
02-25-2006, 7:25 AM
It seems apparent that they (DOJ) feel that these lowers were involved in a sale without the proper FFL license.

Ok, interesting. But you can legally buy firearms from an out of state source, and the seller will gladly take your money and charge your credit card. You just have to have them shipped in to an FFL for receipt, which is what was being done. Since the original buyer was not making any money off of the transaction, can you really say that he was engaging in sales? It's a grey area, at the least..

Turby

shopkeep
02-25-2006, 12:09 PM
I just hope Ben and Josh are OK. I hope they aren't trying to charge him with a straw purchase or some other bullcrap. Ben we're all behind you 110% man, keep fighting the good fight!

6172crew
02-26-2006, 8:53 AM
Even if this is a on going invetigation couldnt anyone get a copy of the report? Im not sure how they work when its the DOJ and not a local PD etc.

jtyoshi
02-26-2006, 10:30 AM
To busy to research anymore into the topic this week but...

I know Penn. has a State level Freedom of Information Act.
California has a Public Records act...
Perhaps someone should summit a "Request for Public information" about the finding of why the lowers are considered contraband.
Here the Cali law:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270

blacklisted
02-26-2006, 12:27 PM
To busy to research anymore into the topic this week but...

I know Penn. has a State level Freedom of Information Act.
California has a Public Records act...
Perhaps someone should summit a "Request for Public information" about the finding of why the lowers are considered contraband.
Here the Cali law:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270

I don't think that applies to an active investigation. Sadly, I think this whole lower thing IS an active investigation. I hope not :(

artherd
02-26-2006, 3:44 PM
That'd be pretty difficult, considering no crimes were committed, and our Doctorine of Legality says that which is not illegal is NOT criminal...

They're not doing ****, other than trying very hard to be a quiet little pain in our asses.

They will fail.


I just hope Ben and Josh are OK. I hope they aren't trying to charge him with a straw purchase or some other bullcrap. Ben we're all behind you 110% man, keep fighting the good fight!

Ford8N
02-26-2006, 4:28 PM
That'd be pretty difficult, considering no crimes were committed, and our Doctorine of Legality says that which is not illegal is NOT criminal...

They're not doing ****, other than trying very hard to be a quiet little pain in our asses.

They will fail.

The big question is why?

Why keep something that is legal to possess from law abiding citizens. It makes for bad feelings toward law enforcement. It enforces the sense that law enforcement doesn't trust the very people they are suppose to work for.

6172crew
02-26-2006, 5:23 PM
I have heard 3 times the same quote from the same brown shirts "Im going to get that guy" and the only thing they had in common was bringing in the lowers. I wont name names but it is true, they are plenty pissed at the guys bringing the lowers in California.:(

It doesnt matter what the law is they think the sale of he lowers should be illeagal and that its a loop hole that shouldnt be taken advantige of.

The big question is why?

Why keep something that is legal to possess from law abiding citizens. It makes for bad feelings toward law enforcement. It enforces the sense that law enforcement doesn't trust the very people they are suppose to work for.

glen avon
02-26-2006, 5:34 PM
... our Doctorine of Legality ....

our what? I couldn't find that in the penal code anywhere. or the civil code. I did a google search too for ""doctrine of legality" california" and nothing legal having to do with California came up.

artherd
02-26-2006, 9:18 PM
DOJ has made this 'us versus them'. They want to stop you from acquiring a select legal property.

Not only do they not trust us, they actually HATE us and that we are free to legally purchase this property, and will do anything they can (and sometimes things they legally cannot) to stop us.

You know what? List 'em DOJ. You have the delegated authority to do so. Anything less (category 4s, illegal siezures, etc.) is all cowardly small-ego driven nonsense. List 'em, realize that we're the GOOD GUYS and are ON YOUR SIDE in the fight against real crime, and let's all hug and move on with our lives.

The big question is why?

Why keep something that is legal to possess from law abiding citizens. It makes for bad feelings toward law enforcement. It enforces the sense that law enforcement doesn't trust the very people they are suppose to work for.

blacklisted
02-26-2006, 9:22 PM
our what? I couldn't find that in the penal code anywhere. or the civil code. I did a google search too for ""doctrine of legality" california" and nothing legal having to do with California came up.

Another way of saying "rule of law". It's the basis of our legal system, check it out some time ;).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

Just in case you don't realize I'm being sarcastic: I'm being sarcastic. But only to a certain extent.

artherd
02-26-2006, 9:40 PM
our what? I couldn't find that in the penal code anywhere. or the civil code. I did a google search too for ""doctrine of legality" california" and nothing legal having to do with California came up.

...and you claim to be an attorney? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

glen avon
02-27-2006, 12:15 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

settle down francis, you referred to the "doctorine of legality" in a legal context, and I looked it up, and it's not there. so I asked you what it was. why does this offend you? why are you insulting me personally? I never called you an attorney!

neither "doctorine of legality" nor "doctrine of legality" are found in the link you posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22doctrine+of+legality%22&go=Go

glen avon
02-27-2006, 12:18 PM
Another way of saying "rule of law". It's the basis of our legal system, check it out some time ;).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

Just in case you don't realize I'm being sarcastic: I'm being sarcastic. But only to a certain extent.

but "doctrine of legality" is not in there. and there is no wikipedia entry for it, either. Now, I know what the rule of law is, and that is found in the California legal system, but "doctrine of legality" is not, at least not that I found.

bwiese
02-27-2006, 12:23 PM
I'm surprised I can't find it listed either. I have heard the term before in a natural rights, evolving legal framework standpoint a year or two ago. (i.e., building rule-of-law legal systems in war-torn countries trying to get on their feet). Perhaps a finer-honed search or rejiggering of the name will help.

Broadly, it's the concept of "that which is not prohibited is permitted", or coarsely, "if it ain't listed, it ain't criminal".

C.G.
02-27-2006, 1:01 PM
I'm surprised I can't find it listed either. I have heard the term before in a natural rights, evolving legal framework standpoint a year or two ago. (i.e., building rule-of-law legal systems in war-torn countries trying to get on their feet). Perhaps a finer-honed search or rejiggering of the name will help.

Broadly, it's the concept of "that which is not prohibited is permitted", or coarsely, "if it ain't listed, it ain't criminal".

This is from
"The Spirit of Magna Carta Continues to Resonate in Modern Law"
http://wopared.parl.net/Senate/pubs/pops/pop39/c07.pdf

Excerpt:

The doctrine of
legality mandates that government action cannot proceed arbitrarily and without
lawful authority. It represents the kernel of the rule of law. A recent case has vividly
illustrated how Magna Carta continues to underpin this doctrine in important respects.

glen avon
02-27-2006, 1:21 PM
but artherd says "... our Doctorine of Legality says that which is not illegal is NOT criminal...."

maybe it's a different one. artherd?

blacklisted
02-27-2006, 1:23 PM
Thesaurus:

Main Entry: doctrine
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: opinion
Synonyms: article, attitude, axiom, basic, belief, canon, concept, convention, conviction, credenda, creed, declaration, dogma, fundamental, gospel, implantation, inculcation, indoctrination, instruction, position, precept, principle, pronouncement, propaganda, proposition, regulation, rule, statement, teaching, tenet, tradition, universal law, unwritten rule

Main Entry: justice
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: lawfulness
Synonyms: amends, appeal, authority, authorization, charter, code, compensation, consideration, constitutionality, correction, credo, creed, decree, due process, equity, evenness, fair play, fair treatment, fairness, hearing, honesty, impartiality, integrity, judicatory, judicature, justness, law, legal process, legality, legalization, legitimacy, litigation, penalty, reasonableness, recompense, rectitude, redress, reparation, review, right, rule, sanction, sentence, square deal, truth

Why are we arguing about this? :D

Why must we quarrel about this topic?

Etc

glen avon
02-27-2006, 1:42 PM
Why are we arguing about this? :D Etc

I'm not arguing, it was a term I have not heard of, I couldn't find where it applied legally here in CA, I asked a couple questions, and the answers are not consistent. it's not argument so much as finding out what the term "doctrine of legality" has to do with gun laws here in CA.

C.G.
02-27-2006, 1:57 PM
I'm not arguing, it was a term I have not heard of, I couldn't find where it applied legally here in CA, I asked a couple questions, and the answers are not consistent. it's not argument so much as finding out what the term "doctrine of legality" has to do with gun laws here in CA.

I provided one example and did not take me very long to find it, either (and I have nothing to do with law).
If you'd like I will provide you with more, just PM me.

Now, can we move on, please, it is somewhat counter-productive or I am going to bring out the Seabiscuit; ah, too late:http://fs6.deviantart.com/i/2005/064/c/0/Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif :)

6172crew
02-27-2006, 3:10 PM
I forgot, what were we talking about?:confused:

Group buy anyone?:)

rodgster
02-27-2006, 5:44 PM
I'll bet $20 glen avon is a DOJ attorney.

Seems obvious to me.

;)

6172crew
02-27-2006, 6:06 PM
Then its good to have him here, I like to know why they do the things they do, we could use a better relationship with the NRA and other firearm supporters, Im guessing most folks here dont know jack all about the guys who make the laws and enforce them.

If Glen was contracted/employed by the state then we could do well to listen to what he is saying, we have lost just about every battle that has come down our way.

Look at the .50 cal; Ronnie Barrett went to bat for us big time but the LAPD stood in front of the councel and showed them a detachable mag, semi auto, .50 and backed up the crap cake the media fed the anti-gunners.

They asked for a ban and they got one. It didnt matter that no crime was ever commited w/ a .50 and that its big $$ to own one (gangters usually like cheap stuff like SKS/AKs).

If the DOJ was gun freindly like they claim then it would be nice to be able to have one on board to ask whats going on and the agent not lie to us or tell us some BS over the phone just to shut us up. The fact is there are a few sqaures up there and they have the AGs crap on thier noses but almost all the FFLs have a person they trust to tell them the straight scoop and it would be nice to have them here ask questions and hit with a tack hammer now and again.:D IMHO.

I'll bet $20 glen avon is a DOJ attorney.

Seems obvious to me.

;)

artherd
02-27-2006, 9:47 PM
I first heard it in law school.

settle down francis, you referred to the "doctorine of legality" in a legal context, and I looked it up, and it's not there. so I asked you what it was. why does this offend you? why are you insulting me personally? I never called you an attorney!

neither "doctorine of legality" nor "doctrine of legality" are found in the link you posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22doctrine+of+legality%22&go=Go

rodgster I'll take your bet, but on the side of the house ;)

rodgster
02-27-2006, 11:09 PM
There must be something you know that I don't.

From reviewing the timing (8 am to sometimes 8 pm) and the positions he takes in a number of them.... well, like I said, it seems obvious to me.

If I'm wrong, I have a nice crisp 20 here for ya, also let me know if you need additional donations for the legal fund.

And thanks again.

EBWhite
02-27-2006, 11:15 PM
Maybe he's just one of those guys that must argue all the time??

artherd
02-28-2006, 6:58 PM
No, I meant to say I think you're right and I'll add my $20 to your "Glen is a doj stooge" pool :D

There must be something you know that I don't.

From reviewing the timing (8 am to sometimes 8 pm) and the positions he takes in a number of them.... well, like I said, it seems obvious to me.

If I'm wrong, I have a nice crisp 20 here for ya, also let me know if you need additional donations for the legal fund.

And thanks again.

xenophobe
02-28-2006, 7:55 PM
I forgot, what were we talking about?:confused:

Group buy anyone?:)

I'm in for a S&W M&P-15.... Who is willing to find them, dissassemble them and sell them here in kits? lol

artherd
02-28-2006, 9:08 PM
I'm in for a S&W M&P-15.... Who is willing to find them, dissassemble them and sell them here in kits? lol

I may have someone...

rodgster
02-28-2006, 9:20 PM
I may have someone...


<me to self> DAMMIT STOP IT!

Well, OK just one more. Then I'll stop.

..... some time later ..........

<rodgster stands up in a room full of people from calguns.net> My name is rodgster and I'm addicted to strippers ... er ah .... I mean stripped receivers.

<crowd> hello rodgster

:eek:








Note to humor impaired: this is meant to be funny.

1911_sfca
03-01-2006, 9:40 AM
I'll bet $20 glen avon is a DOJ attorney.

Seems obvious to me.

;)

What tipped you off? Is it because he doesn't know what "rule of law" means? :rolleyes:

glen avon
03-01-2006, 10:10 AM
What tipped you off? Is it because he doesn't know what "rule of law" means? :rolleyes:

please explain yow you came to that conclusion.

the question was not "rule of law," but "doctorine of legality."

s281c
03-01-2006, 12:31 PM
I may have someone...

Heh, I'm in if this happens.............G