PDA

View Full Version : Why the DOJ is approaching this from the wrong angle


shopkeep
03-03-2006, 2:45 PM
I think that there's a conflict in terms of how the DOJ veiws the off-list situation and how pro-gun 2nd amendment forces view it. To the DOJ this is all about commerce and a "few right wing militia nuts". They think this is all about a few rebellious FFLs that are doing this for financial gain.

What the DOJ doesn't see is the HUGE intense ligitimate interest in these rifles. There are also many of us who are VERY p.o.ed at the Legislature and appreciate a chance to stick it to the man. I don't know about the rest of you, but there's at least 1 or 2 lowers I got simply to stick it to the man!

HEUER
03-03-2006, 3:11 PM
This may sound a bit obvious to most of my fellow cal-gunners, but the CA DOJ has never had to deal with a situation where the public (that would be us) was so well connected through out the state with correct information. The collaborative process that takes place on this forum is a formidable tool, and I feel that the CA DOJ greatly underestimated the power of the internet to effect change within the state. While the majority of us have had a firm grasp of ERP/SCM, virtual enterprise information portals, and collaborative methods in generating new intellectual capitol and property, the DOJ has seemed to missed the lesson. Thank you Al Gore for the interenet.

leelaw
03-03-2006, 3:43 PM
I dunno about doing this for political reasons.. Sure it's involved somehow, but I'm just a gun nut. :D

Surveyor
03-03-2006, 3:58 PM
Hello. First time poster, long time reader. Anyhow, let me get to the point. I just drove 140 miles from Roseville to San Jose for my two High Standard lowers yesterday. I spent $250.00 + fees and traded a gun worth more than that to get them. I did this knowing that there is a possibility that these recievers won't make any list, as a way of preventing them from being built up to fully capable guns. Was it worth it ? Hell yes it's worth it! This may very well be the last time we will ever get a chance to legally buy and own one of these sweet little rifles. I see this as being kind of like buying an auto sear, you're paying for the ability to own an "assault rifle", not just the cost of materials. I know that I shouldn't have to pay for my rights but that's the current state of things in the PRK. I was doing a bunch of google searches on fixed mag AR's when I stumbled across the Calguns web site. I was ready to accept a nuetered Fab 10 when I discovered the good news:) The Fab ten would work but you only get one caliber with a dedicated conversion. Now I can have one in .223 and one in 6.8! I was too young to buy one before the ban, so I am sincerely grateful to the people that did the legwork and told us about this ;) It really is a second chance for me. I've wanted one since I was sixteen and now I'm going to have two!

Thanks again guys,

Matt

383green
03-03-2006, 4:24 PM
What the DOJ has failed to get is that many, if not most of us, are doing this for political reasons.

+1 on that! I bought three lowers, and I don't even like the AR or the round it most commonly fires all that much! :D

xenophobe
03-03-2006, 4:30 PM
Yeah, I'm not making a political statement. I'm getting the frenzy just like RR89 and SB-23. I spent close to $20k in Dec 99. I don't have nearly the financial strength to spend that kind of money today, but since these are just lowers, it's cheaper... kinda like collecting trading cards! lol

MailBoxCalGuns
03-03-2006, 5:18 PM
+1 on that! I bought three lowers, and I don't even like the AR or the round it most commonly fires all that much! :D

ditto... i'm not even an AR fan! doing this for political reasons!! i'm sick and tired of the legislature's and DOJ's ridiculous bans... pay back :D

Satex
03-03-2006, 5:54 PM
Since this is a public forum that is read and reviewed by many, I would like to respectfully object to your assumptions about why "we" purchase the mentioned lowers.
I am not a left wing liberal, I am not a right wing nut, and I did not buy a lower to "stick it to the DOJ".
I don't think anyone has the right to make generalizations as to why people buy what they buy.
I am a sportsman that has loved shooting since I was fourteen. I enjoy working on gun and improving the skills that are fostered as a result of this hobby: technical skills, patience, shooting skills, respect for discipline, safety and fellow man.
So please, when you feel the urge to decide for us why “we” are getting lowers, resist the urge to make that decision and public announcement which can do us all disservice.
Thank you!

grammaton76
03-03-2006, 6:01 PM
Eh, I would say there's nothing wrong with stating that annoying the DOJ is a PART of your reason for buying a receiver.

However, my 10 receivers were bought primarily because I don't ever want to look back when I'm 60 and go, "damn, wish I had one more."

I fear that, with only having one AK receiver, I will be saying exactly that at that age, with regards to the Kalashnikov's - even more so because I collect the commie bloc stuff. NDS wants cash, and it'll be weeks before I have the option of using anything but credit to buy stuff, otherwise I'd have an order of a few different receiver types in the mail right now.

thmpr
03-03-2006, 7:03 PM
And lets not forget that there are alot of intelligent and wealthy gun owners here who has the means and resources to see this till thee end!!!

dwtt
03-03-2006, 7:07 PM
I didn't have any political motivations to buy a few lower receivers. Also, I didn't care about sticking it to the DOJ. I don't want anything to do with the DOJ or deal with them at all. Unfortunately, the screwed up laws in this neocommunist state makes that impossible. I just wish the DOJ and those pain in the ***** politicians would leave me alone and let me exercise my constitutional rights, since I'm not hurting anyone. I bought some lowers because this is a temporary window of opportunity for me to buy a rifle similar to the one I used in the Marine Corps in the late '80's and Desert Storm, and similar to the Colt Sporter I owned in the '90's.
The DOJ is approaching this situation exactly as one expects from an antigun government agency that will abuse it's powers whenever it can.

jnojr
03-03-2006, 8:26 PM
What the DOJ has failed to get is that many, if not most of us, are doing this for political reasons. We are sick and tired of the legislature's and DOJ's ridiculous bans and this is our vengence. We're going to stick it to the man by bringing as many lowers as possible into this state.

And what an awful lot of "us" don't get is, the Department of Justice is not our enemy. Their job is to enforce the law. They have bad laws to enforce, and so they enforce them badly. Having an anti-gun whacko like Bill Lockyer as Attorney General certainly helps to stilt things more. But a pro-2A AG would still have to prosecute "assault weapon" violations, "high capacity" magazine violations, etc.

Further, sticking the AR lower thing in their face isn't going to result in them agreeing that yeah, it's a stupid law and we aren't going to enforce it any more... they're going to have no choice but to go to the Legislature and say "Hey, guys, enforcing the law as it is just isn't doable. We need a new law that's clearer and doesn't have these obvious loopholes in it". Anyone want to guess what form that new law will take? Does anyone honestly believe that the answer will be to scrub SB23 from the books and be done?

They didn't rush to amend the Kasler list not so they could see us "twist in the wind", but because they're trying to do it "right". We've rubbed their faces in the fact that they can't do it "right". It worked well enough for six years, but Pandoras box is open now. Mark my words... we'll see a new, "improved" ban introduced, almost certainly this legislative season.

shopkeep
03-03-2006, 8:32 PM
Eh, I would say there's nothing wrong with stating that annoying the DOJ is a PART of your reason for buying a receiver.

However, my 10 receivers were bought primarily because I don't ever want to look back when I'm 60 and go, "damn, wish I had one more."

I fear that, with only having one AK receiver, I will be saying exactly that at that age, with regards to the Kalashnikov's - even more so because I collect the commie bloc stuff. NDS wants cash, and it'll be weeks before I have the option of using anything but credit to buy stuff, otherwise I'd have an order of a few different receiver types in the mail right now.

I pretty much amassed 8 AR recievers for the same reasons. Paranoia (what if it breaks, etc) and what if I wanted more later!

As for AK recievers you've definitely hit the nail on the head as to why I haven't gotten any yet. In addition to low interest in AKs, my cash supply is pretty tapped after all those AR lowers!

Not to mention if I start getting into AKs then I'd have to build them and it will likely involve purchasing more tools (especially to be creative and build them in fixed mag form). I have to admit that Tyler and JHP built VERY cool AKs.

swhatb
03-04-2006, 12:57 AM
And what an awful lot of "us" don't get is, the Department of Justice is not our enemy. Their job is to enforce the law. They have bad laws to enforce, and so they enforce them badly. Having an anti-gun whacko like Bill Lockyer as Attorney General certainly helps to stilt things more. But a pro-2A AG would still have to prosecute "assault weapon" violations, "high capacity" magazine violations, etc.

Further, sticking the AR lower thing in their face isn't going to result in them agreeing that yeah, it's a stupid law and we aren't going to enforce it any more... they're going to have no choice but to go to the Legislature and say "Hey, guys, enforcing the law as it is just isn't doable. We need a new law that's clearer and doesn't have these obvious loopholes in it". Anyone want to guess what form that new law will take? Does anyone honestly believe that the answer will be to scrub SB23 from the books and be done?

They didn't rush to amend the Kasler list not so they could see us "twist in the wind", but because they're trying to do it "right". We've rubbed their faces in the fact that they can't do it "right". It worked well enough for six years, but Pandoras box is open now. Mark my words... we'll see a new, "improved" ban introduced, almost certainly this legislative season.
The only reason "we" were able to get these little jewls was that some lazy ***-- at DOJ didn't update the list. There was no "loopholes"! Please stop referring to this as "loopholes" in the AW "series" list. No doubt there will be new legislation brought fourth this year, but I doubt anything will be enacted. Remember it's election year :)

glen avon
03-04-2006, 10:00 AM
The only reason "we" were able to get these little jewls was that some lazy ***-- at DOJ didn't update the list. There was no "loopholes"! Please stop referring to this as "loopholes" in the AW "series" list. No doubt there will be new legislation brought fourth this year, but I doubt anything will be enacted. Remember it's election year :)

loophole. that's what it was. do you really, honestly think the legislature intended newly-named lowers to come in to the state and be subsequently added to the AW list so people could obtain and register lower receivers and thus assemble assault weapons after the legislature's clearly-stated cutoff date in 2000? do you, or do you not, think that is what they intended? if you think that is what the legislature intended, then you are correct that this is not a loophole. otherwise, it's a loophole. not some grass-roots second amendment popular reform revolution. we have, through a loophole, possibly reclaimed a tiny bit of our asses back. seeing how we lost our asses on a wholesale basis in 2000, that's not any progress, just a little relief.

whether the DOJ was lazy, indifferent, or too busy makes no difference. if the DOJ was as evil and maliscious as some here need them to be, they would not have been too lazy, indifferent, or busy. oppressive implementation of all gun control would have been job 1, from day 1.

but that's not what has happened for the past 6 years.

the DOJ is not the enemy. stupid, misguided, ignorant, lazy, self-righteous gun owners who refuse to fight in the ballot boxes and in the legislature are the enemy. fighting on the internet accomplishes nothin g but ego-stroking. fighting the DOJ is like cutting off your fingers to stop an itch.

just brilliant.

now, they *are* likely personally insulted and offended and are likely to not want to help us at all. if we had been polite and professional about this whole thing with DOJ, making it clear that it's the law, not DOJ we have issues with, we would undoubtedly be in better shape. why bite that hand that can beat you, when it's somebody else that's kicking you around?

glen avon
03-04-2006, 10:05 AM
To the DOJ this is all about commerce and a "few right wing militia nuts". They think this is all about a few rebellious FFLs that are doing this for financial gain.

where did you get that information? is that your opinion (which you are of course entitled to) or are you repeating a fact? if it's your belief or opinion, you should say so. if that's a verifiable fact, I would be very interested in knowing where it comes from.

What the DOJ doesn't see is the HUGE intense ligitimate interest in these rifles. There are also many of us who are VERY p.o.ed at the Legislature and appreciate a chance to stick it to the man. I don't know about the rest of you, but there's at least 1 or 2 lowers I got simply to stick it to the man!

well, you're getting closer, at least this time you are half right. :D

it's the legislature who missed the legitimate interest in these rifles. Not the DOJ. that's not their job or their concern. you should be proud about sticking it to perata and his ilk, the ones who came up with the ban. I would bet an awful lot that they are far more irritated than DOJ is about this whole thing.

6172crew
03-04-2006, 11:16 AM
There will always be a way to get by the law makers, there is no way to ban firearms or any other weapon. Look at the .50BMG- They already have a .50cal or some shiznit. Look at the Vulcan- we had the rolled pin figured out in a few weeks and it was replaced with a better system that was fixed and alowwed a guy to convert back in minutes. We have Fals, G3's, Bobcats, ARs, M1A/M14s, and Aks, SKS's, etc and they all pass the ban.

Whats next? Well we will find out soon enough but the laws are without teeth. Even the Cali-AW law can be riddled with holes once Americans start working on the problem.

The magazine law is un-enforceable and a waste of paper, lets just hope they dont start date stamping mag parts, and even then who's to say you didnt own it before the ban.:rolleyes:

Fact is the internet is going to stop alot of the BS that happened back 1999 and even when Wilson started the whole ban.

shopkeep
03-04-2006, 11:36 AM
the DOJ is not the enemy. stupid, misguided, ignorant, lazy, self-righteous gun owners who refuse to fight in the ballot boxes and in the legislature are the enemy. fighting on the internet accomplishes nothin g but ego-stroking. fighting the DOJ is like cutting off your fingers to stop an itch.

The DOJ is controlled by the same socialist elite that has captured the rest of the state. Don't even fool yourself into thinking our votes count. I've been voting for a long time now and NEVER ONCE has there been any change. The districts have all been gerrymandered to ensure a comfortable 65%+ margin of victory for incumbants and their successors. The only chance we have at the ballot box is through initiatives like RKBA and other grassroots efforts.

45Auto
03-04-2006, 12:52 PM
The state of California has been run by an extreme leftist legislature for a long time. This is because the majority of voters here still think that communism is a viable political system. And communists do not want an armed citizenry. The last real Republican governor was Ronald Reagan. Deukmanjian actually vetoed Roberti-Roos twice during his terms as governor. But the commie legislature is persistent. They know that they cannot be voted out because of the way California is districted. They merely have to wait for a weak governor (like Pete Wilson who signed Roberti-Roos into law) or for one of their own (like Davis) to push more gun laws onto the populace.
The intent of the legislature in passing AW bans was to deny Constitutional rights to California citizens.They did so comfortably knowing that the entire state and federal judiciary (9th Circuit) was behind them. It was the courts that threw them for a loop with the Harrott decision. The DOJ Firearms Division (whose motto, by the way is "Liberty and Justice Under Law") is charged by the California Constitution and the state legislature with implementing and enforcing gun laws. It was the function of the AG to update the list; he failed in his duty. So whether one thinks we took advantage of a "loophole" or not is irrelevant. The "loophole" was put in place by the courts, who, as you notice, did not strike down the entire law. Whether we have any friends in the DOJ Firearms Division is also beside the point. Its a damn good bet that the AG is rabidly anti gun. He was that way when he was in the state Senate. He has designs on becoming governor one day. Don Perata, the author of SB 23 has his own problems at the moment. No doubt there are another dozen or so anti gun senators eagerly waiting to jump into the breech (little pun there) and write up some more rotten anti gun laws. It was the AG that proposed a law requiring serial numbers on all cases/bullets. This piece of crap is still waiting for the right governor to come along. So given all those little facts I will not be surprised to see something really egregious coming out of Sacramento in the not too distant future. Even so, they will have a hell of a time trying to ban allsemiautos, even in California. If they claim that these off list lowers can only be built up with FAB-10 features, they will also have to then ban all the fixed mag lowers and their owners will subsequently have to register them. Same goes for the Cal legal FAL's. In any case, they will have to open some kind of new registration period. It is inconceivable that they will do nothing; politicians always think they are smarter than and above the "peasents". Therefore, they do not like to appear that they have been duped.

D.T. Rouland
03-04-2006, 1:21 PM
"fighting on the internet accomplishes nothin g but ego-stroking."

Dunno about all that. It got me two .223 lowers that I thought I'd never be able to own because of a late birthday. Sometimes the fight, no matter where, is worth it. For whatever reason, my huge thanks to all those involved in this one.

bwiese
03-04-2006, 1:29 PM
loophole. that's what it was. do you really, honestly think the legislature intended newly-named lowers to come in to the state and be subsequently added to the AW list so people could obtain and register lower receivers and thus assemble assault weapons after the legislature's clearly-stated cutoff date in 2000? do you, or do you not, think that is what they intended? if you think that is what the legislature intended, then you are correct that this is not a loophole.

It's probably not what the legislature intended. But they had around 5+ years since Harrott to update the list. Surely, though, primary legislative intent included the DOJ doing their job (listing). In fact, reading 1227x laws, the areas concerning DOJ/AG activity are amongst the most clear.


the DOJ is not the enemy. stupid, misguided, ignorant, lazy, self-righteous gun owners who refuse to fight in the ballot boxes and in the legislature are the enemy.

The DOJ is the enemy when it goes beyond basic enforcment and starts doing audits that are more like raids for perfectly legal items - and when they start illegally intimidating out-of-state vendors. In fact, if they hadn't wanted to blow this out of proportion they coulda listed in early January. I thought they would. They'dv'e only had 1000+ lowers in state, and could just update the list monthly to keep on top of it. A quick read of Shotgun News and Gun List would be all that's needed, and they could probably list as fast as smaller vendors can change their rollmarks.

now, they *are* likely personally insulted and offended and are likely to not want to help us at all. if we had been polite and professional about this whole thing with DOJ, making it clear that it's the law,

For the 1st several months of this many polite and professional letters were exchanged with the DOJ. Ben/artherd and blackrazor were the first to get DOJ letters acknowledging Harrott-based legality. But when the bulk purchases started, they elected to be confrontational, not us.

Sgt Raven
03-04-2006, 1:56 PM
The state of California has been run by an extreme leftist legislature for a long time. This is because the majority of voters here still think that communism is a viable political system. And communists do not want an armed citizenry. The last real Republican governor was Ronald Reagan. Deukmanjian actually vetoed Roberti-Roos twice during his terms as governor. But the commie legislature is persistent. They know that they cannot be voted out because of the way California is districted. They merely have to wait for a weak governor (like Pete Wilson who signed Roberti-Roos into law) or for one of their own (like Davis) to push more gun laws onto the populace.


I bet the fact that Deukmanjian got elected over Bradley on the coat tails of the failure of Prop 15 that Bradley backed had something to due with "Duke" not signing those laws.
And where is Roberti now? Didn't he pay for the R/R list? We need to make somemore of them pay for writing these laws.

mow
03-04-2006, 2:00 PM
the DOJ is not the enemy. stupid, misguided, ignorant, lazy, self-righteous gun owners who refuse to fight in the ballot boxes and in the legislature are the enemy. fighting on the internet accomplishes nothin g but ego-stroking. fighting the DOJ is like cutting off your fingers to stop an itch.

just brilliant.

now, they *are* likely personally insulted and offended and are likely to not want to help us at all. if we had been polite and professional about this whole thing with DOJ, making it clear that it's the law, not DOJ we have issues with, we would undoubtedly be in better shape. why bite that hand that can beat you, when it's somebody else that's kicking you around?

I disagree with these comments on a couple levels. I bet you feel like you are screaming at wall :D

Do you have evidence that gun owners don't vote? Can you point me towards your sources that allow you to come to the conclusion that it is the fault of non-voting or bad voting gun owners that these people get elected?

Is it possible that there are not enough gun owners in the state to make a majority on this topic?

Is it possible that there is a lack of politicians on the ballot that support gun rights?

Is it possible that the media has any role on the way people (gun owners as well as non-gun owners) vote in regards to gun laws?

Calling fellow gun owners stupid, mis-guided, ignorant, lazy and self righteous is no way to garner any respect. BTW isn't that statement you made an insult? So does that make you any better than the rest of the people that you are describing.

I am sure that we all understand that it is well within your rights as a citizen in the US to state your OPINION on this, that is unless you have facts to back up your opinionated insults.

I think you need to take a breath, step back from the computer and take a nice long hot bath. Then come back with some constructive criticism or you can ignore me and continue to spout worthless BS that will continue to alienate yourself here.

Mute
03-04-2006, 3:48 PM
When, oh when has the DOJ at any point in time cared even one iota about helping gunowners in Kalifornia? They don't see, or rather don't care, that many gunowners deeply resent having ignorant and politically correct intrusive legislation rammed down our throats.

None of us really want to see a day of reckoning over these issues, but if things keep going the way they are currently, it's going to happen. And it's going to get ugly.

glen avon
03-05-2006, 10:15 AM
I bet you feel like you are screaming at a wall :D

not really. more like I am speaking some foreign language. maybe I will start screaming later....

Do you have evidence that gun owners don't vote? Can you point me towards your sources that allow you to come to the conclusion that it is the fault of non-voting or bad voting gun owners that these people get elected?
It is my opinion, based upon my experience, that the left is more politically motivated and more politically sophisticated that the right. case in point: recent demonstration against Arnold by teachers. It was me and 5 or 6 other pro-reform types, and many hundreds of anti-reform types. and I live in a conservative area. have you ever seen the inverse? million man march, million mom march, etc., leftie causes are out in force, protesting, organizing, voting.

what happens when the right tries to do the same? an embarrassing fizzle. what kind of evidence would you like? tell me and I will find some if I can.

Is it possible that there are not enough gun owners in the state to make a majority on this topic?
sure, but the state is not so leftist demographically. the state is only a bit more liberal than conservative. but that is not reflected in the political process. sure, gerrymandering and process abuse has amplified the dems' lead and magnified the degree of process capture - but how did they get there to do it? out-politicking and out voting the competition.

Is it possible that there is a lack of politicians on the ballot that support gun rights?
obviously. but why is that? not because of the demographics. it's certainly not proportionate to the demographics.

Is it possible that the media has any role on the way people (gun owners as well as non-gun owners) vote in regards to gun laws?
sure, lots of things are possible.

Calling fellow gun owners stupid, mis-guided, ignorant, lazy and self righteous is no way to garner any respect. BTW isn't that statement you made an insult? So does that make you any better than the rest of the people that you are describing.
the gun owners who won't vote are stupid lazy and ignorant, each and every one of them.. danm straight that's an insult, and no it does not make me one of them because I do vote. gun owners that won't join the NRA and CRPA only make it worse.

I am sure that we all understand that it is well within your rights as a citizen in the US to state your OPINION on this, that is unless you have facts to back up your opinionated insults.
everybody is entitled to their opinion, myself included.

what kind of facts do you want? are you insulted by proxy by my request that shopkeep tell me if he has some kind of inside scoop, or is just expressing his opinion? lighten up! he's welcome to his opinions whatever they are and I never said to the contrary. whichever it is if fine by me (as if shopkeep cares what I think anyways), I just asked which one it was.

I think you need to take a breath, step back from the computer and take a nice long hot bath. Then come back with some constructive criticism or you can ignore me and continue to spout worthless BS that will continue to alienate yourself here.

I really don't care if I get alienated here. I am doing my very best to try and get folks on the right track. it may be unpopular, but so are math teachers. there is a misguided, but popular hegemony on this board that is inimical to our cause. being on the "wrong" side of that means nothing to me, except that I have more work to do. now, if you just want to follow along uncritically, with a bunch of warm fuzzies, go ahead. just block my posts.

if you are willing to learn and improve our lot, then pay attention.

either way - keep shooting.

6172crew
03-05-2006, 10:43 AM
I have been on Tom Mcklintocks email list for awhile and he backs up Glen when he says the left has 2500 donors and they total 1.5 mil, we have 3500 donors at $250,000. We are cheap bastards and dont do enough in this state.

We find excuses not to join the NRA and give $$ to the folks who back us.

I bet if I put up a lower for auction and promised to give the proceeds to a political org or a gunner in need we would have no problem raising $2k for a $100 chunk of metal.:(

Mute
03-05-2006, 3:44 PM
I agree that anyone who's fed up with the liberal crap that's taken hold in this state AND doesn't vote is a complete idiot. They have absolutely no right to complain. Unfortunately, I think many of the more conservative people in this state are also non-voters or not actively participating in the political process. Shame on us. The libs didn't take this state, we gave it to them.