PDA

View Full Version : Stopped by sheriff while shooting my off-list AR, commander came out to inspect


whonosewhose
03-05-2006, 11:16 PM
Well I went squirrel hunting in the hills above town with a few buddies.

We took our 17HMR's, my 22-250 and my newly put together off-list AR-15.

After shooting a few dozen squirrels a sheriff pulled up. We were off the road a little bit and shooting away from the road. As he pulled up we put everything in the back of the truck.

I was very worried because I had my AR with me, and you always fear an uneducated LE person not knowing the laws.

So my AR had my preban 30-rd mags in it, it is a M4gery 16" style, collapsible M4 stock (pinned so it cant move after I found where I wanted it), muzzle break and a fab-ten non-pistol grip (pic below)
http://www.fabten.com/ATF%20Grip_cutout-RGB_Web%20(1).jpg


Well he had us all step far awy from the vehicle, he unloaded the dozen rifles we had with us, then picked up my AR with the look of "oh **** I just found a machine gun". He immediately asked whos it was, I let him know it was mine. He asked for my assault weapon registration, which I told him it was not an assault weapon. He immediately had us sit down and called for a back up unit.

Another sheriff shows up...he is inspecting it and takes it over to his car. Other sheriff inspects it and they start discussing it. They take me over to the side and start asking where I got it, if I knew that it was a felony and started drilling me. I calmly started explaining that it was fully DROS'ed and purchased legally in Nov, 05. I then from memory started trying to rattle off how it was listed on the DOJ website as being fully legal as long as it did not have assault weapon features. I explained to him the grip on it was found by the ATF to not be a pistol grip. Then I explained it does not have a "pistol style grasp" that can allow the web of the hand to go below the top of the trigger. I asked him to grasp the grip and he did, and his web was clearly above the trigger line.


Soooooooooooo a commander was called out.

Commander came out, fully inspected it. Said "good thing you dont have a pistol grip on this thing, or youd be going to jail, looks like your fully in compliance, sorry for the inconvienance, have a good day".



And I went back to shooting squirrels :)

I was pretty worried but it all turned out ok, no problem.

x2delight
03-05-2006, 11:21 PM
wow... coulda been super worse if no one knew wtf was the right from wrong..

how many squirrels u bag?

Surveyor
03-05-2006, 11:21 PM
What county, praytell?

Boarding-Team-Leader
03-05-2006, 11:24 PM
O.K. tell the truth, when LEO gave you that :eek: look a couple drops of pee leaked out of you right.:D

blacklisted
03-05-2006, 11:27 PM
Holy ****, people are actually using the FAB-10 grip! You are very lucky my friend, that could have easily ended in a bad way. We have had discussion on this grip, and most believe that it might be considered a pistol grip. Very risky if you ask me. Remember, just because the ATF says it's OK does NOT mean it is OK in California. You came VERY close to getting your *** busted.

This just shows that the average reasonable person can not be sure what a pistol grip is/is not. One more reason that this stupid law needs to go away!

trbon8r
03-05-2006, 11:33 PM
I feel so much safer now that the donut eaters have made sure you have complied with the Fuhrers mandates. :mad:

I guess there weren't any cars parked in a red zone to ticket, or some bum at the 7 Eleven for them to roust.

xenophobe
03-05-2006, 11:34 PM
Holy ****, people are actually using the FAB-10 grip! You are very lucky my friend, that could have easily ended in a bad way. We have had discussion on this grip, and most believe that it might be considered a pistol grip. Very risky if you ask me. Remember, just because the ATF says it's OK does NOT mean it is OK in California. You came VERY close to getting your *** busted.

This just shows that the average reasonable person can not be sure what a pistol grip is/is not. One more reason that this stupid law needs to go away!


+1

I'm willing to bet since you can wrap your hand around it and your thumb around to hold that device with a closed fist, that DOJ would not approve of that.

I would steer clear of that device until Shoeless Ventures gets a DOJ approval letter. Since he has one on the FAB-10 proudly displayed with each receiver, I would assume that he's been rejected or hasn't gotten a response for the grip yet. That would worry me.

blacklisted
03-05-2006, 11:35 PM
If you want to become a "test case" for what a pistol grip is, then by all means continue using that particular grip in public.

whonosewhose
03-05-2006, 11:42 PM
I purchased the FAB-10 grip only to try and see in person for myself if I thought it was legal to the letter of the law. There is no requirement to get "DOJ approval" on anything as long as it follows the law. Just because you dont have a DOJ letter, doesn't mean it is illegal. FAB-TEN has submitted their grip to the DOJ and they actually wont reply with a statement to whether or not they deem it legal. It almost seems they are avoiding it. I have emailed the DOJ and called and they completely avoid a clear answer and just give wishy washy answers of how they cannot give personal legal advise...

1st) This grip doesnt allow a "pistol like grasp" as the law clearly described. There is clearly no pistol shaped grip hanging below the bottom in anyway. Anyone who trys to define a metal bar that is completely horizontal to the rear as a pistol grip would really have to be a fool.

2nd) You can only really grasp it one way. When you do, the dovetail on the back of the grip puts the webbing of the hand slightly higher to even with the top of the trigger (like the line you see in the DOJ pictures). So even if it was considered a "pistol like grasp", it puts the web above or even. Youd have to see it in person and grasp it to see.



So no...it was deemed by three sherrifs, one being a commander to not be a pistol grip. The first two guys didnt have a problem recognizing the pistol grip, they just had never heard anything about "new" legal AR-15's and didnt have a clue what I was talking about having a CA legal AR-15...



I am actually going to go down to the sheriff dept next week and speak to a commander regarding getting a written letter from the local sherrif dept stating they deem it to be legal as I am worried about running into future problems with interpretation by any other LE...

boiwithnolife
03-05-2006, 11:43 PM
I'm not really clear but isn't your configuration illegal? You might have a pre-ban 30 round mag but ur 'rifle' is not classify as a AW yet so the max mag you can have is 10 rounds. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

blkA4alb
03-05-2006, 11:45 PM
yeah for sure thats crazy, i would never use that fab-10 "grip" out in public. at least until the DOJ says its ok, which we here have deemed it probably is not. your very lucky, and crazy. i hope your not still using it. just pin a 10 rounder and wait it out, its not worth messing up now.

blacklisted
03-05-2006, 11:45 PM
1st) This grip doesnt allow a "pistol like grasp" as the law clearly described. There is clearly no pistol shaped grip hanging below the bottom in anyway. Anyone who trys to define a metal bar that is completely horizontal to the rear as a pistol grip would really have to be a fool.

So no...it was deemed by three sherrifs, one being a commander to not be a pistol grip.

You got lucky. Someone else might not be.

You are probably right about this not being a pistol grip. And they would have be a gool to call a horizontal bar a pistol grip. But guess what? These are fools we are dealing with.

If anyone wants to buy these, they might not be pistol grips. If you are willing to take the chance of going to court and proving that once and for all, then by all means buy one.

blacklisted
03-05-2006, 11:46 PM
I'm not really clear but isn't your configuration illegal? You might have a pre-ban 30 round mag but ur 'rifle' is not classify as a AW yet so the max mag you can have is 10 rounds. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

That's only with fixed mag.

With a detachable magazine and NO pistol grip, pre-ban mags are legal.

whonosewhose
03-05-2006, 11:47 PM
wow... coulda been super worse if no one knew wtf was the right from wrong..

how many squirrels u bag?

14 with my 17hmr with a nice little 3-9x40 Nikon buckmaster (17hmr is one sweet varmit round at 150-250 yds), only a couple with my AR since it has a non-maginification Aimpoint on it and its hard to hit something that small at 100-150 yds with it.

blkA4alb
03-05-2006, 11:48 PM
I'm not really clear but isn't your configuration illegal? You might have a pre-ban 30 round mag but ur 'rifle' is not classify as a AW yet so the max mag you can have is 10 rounds. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.
he can use his pre-ban 30 rounders because it does not have a pistol grip on it in his words (however most of us disagree.)

xenophobe
03-05-2006, 11:49 PM
I purchased the FAB-10 grip only to try and see in person for myself if I thought it was legal to the letter of the law. There is no requirement to get "DOJ approval" on anything as long as it follows the law. Just because you dont have a DOJ letter, doesn't mean it is illegal. FAB-TEN has submitted their grip to the DOJ and they actually wont reply with a statement to whether or not they deem it legal. It almost seems they are avoiding it. I have emailed the DOJ and called and they completely avoid a clear answer and just give wishy washy answers of how they cannot give personal legal advise...

1st) This grip doesnt allow a "pistol like grasp" as the law clearly described. There is clearly no pistol shaped grip hanging below the bottom in anyway. Anyone who trys to define a metal bar that is completely horizontal to the rear as a pistol grip would really have to be a fool.

2nd) You can only really grasp it one way. When you do, the dovetail on the back of the grip puts the webbing of the hand slightly higher to even with the top of the trigger (like the line you see in the DOJ pictures). So even if it was considered a "pistol like grasp", it puts the web above or even. Youd have to see it in person and grasp it to see.



So no...it was deemed by three sherrifs, one being a commander to not be a pistol grip. The first two guys didnt have a problem recognizing the pistol grip, they just had never heard anything about "new" legal AR-15's and didnt have a clue what I was talking about having a CA legal AR-15...



I am actually going to go down to the sheriff dept next week and speak to a commander regarding getting a written letter from the local sherrif dept stating they deem it to be legal as I am worried about running into future problems with interpretation by any other LE...


You forget to realize that YOUR interpretation of the law does not matter. A DOJ letter will not matter. All it takes is one police officer to say that it is a pistol grip, and you could be in a world of trouble if that DA decides to agree.

Each DA may interpret that law differently, and no matter how much you think you are in the right and following the letter of the law, a DA can say that they don't like it and attempt to prosecute you. And if you're willing to go through court, good for you. Many other people would not.

blkA4alb
03-05-2006, 11:49 PM
blacklisted it seems that you and i are replying to the same posts at the same time:D :cool:

EBWhite
03-05-2006, 11:49 PM
what county was this in??

whonosewhose
03-05-2006, 11:51 PM
Hmmm...im friends with some local deputies...

I think im going to attempt to get a letter from the SO office about it stating they found it to be legal.

Imagine if one of us could get a letter from a LE dept stating it be legal under their intrepetation with my grip. That would go a long way to each of us having a copy of it with our rifles.

I'll see what I can do this week. Im not looking to tempt fate, but I really think im completely inside the letter of the law with it.

whonosewhose
03-05-2006, 11:52 PM
what county was this in??

Kern.


Oh yea by the way after they deemed it legal, they asked if they could turn the aimpoint on and check it out...

They played with it for a few minutes.

I also had my Mossberg 500 with me that has the Knoxx 10-rd detachable drum mags which they thought was an assault weapon too but the commander informed them it was fully legal, but they only seemed really concerned with the AR

blkA4alb
03-05-2006, 11:54 PM
Hmmm...im friends with some local deputies...

I think im going to attempt to get a letter from the SO office about it stating they found it to be legal.

Imagine if one of us could get a letter from a LE dept stating it be legal under their intrepetation with my grip. That would go a long way to each of us having a copy of it with our rifles.

I'll see what I can do this week. Im not looking to tempt fate, but I really think im completely inside the letter of the law with it.
as xenophobe said and i thought, it does not matter if YOU think your inside the letter of the law. and i dont think that a letter from a single police dept is enough to prevent anyone from being prosecuted. the police enforce the law, they dont determine what the law means.

EBWhite
03-05-2006, 11:56 PM
Up near lake isabella area? I'm in kernville. I'm suprised the sheriffs called it a machine gun, they are normally cool up there

phish
03-05-2006, 11:58 PM
police enforce the law, they dont determine what the law means.

so what has the DOJ been trying to pull?

whonosewhose
03-06-2006, 12:00 AM
....you know, Yes I am willing to defend my rights in court.


I believe I know the CA assault weapon laws better than any DA or police office in my county and I *KNOW* I am lawful.


So I will not have my rights violated. My configuration is legal by law and I will defend that in court if need be.

I dont plan on having to prove that *or* be the test case for everyone else, but if need be I will.

(and if you think im stupid for being willing to stand up for my 2nd amendment rights then that is your right as well)

blkA4alb
03-06-2006, 12:00 AM
so what has the DOJ been trying to pull?
im not sure what your getting at here, what are you asking? if your implying that the DOJ is overstepping their boundries with the memo they released about cat 4 AWs, i agree and they have.

whonosewhose
03-06-2006, 12:01 AM
Up near lake isabella area? I'm in kernville. I'm suprised the sheriffs called it a machine gun, they are normally cool up there

Nono...they didnt call it a machine gun. The guy just looked as if he had found a hand grenade or something. I doubt most officers have ever pulled over a person with an AW before...

xenophobe
03-06-2006, 12:01 AM
Oh yea by the way after they deemed it legal...

Sometimes a police officer may see you speeding but doesn't pull you over, or lets you off with a warning. That doesn't make driving over the speed limit legal.

EBWhite
03-06-2006, 12:02 AM
whon, your right in your statements. I support your efforts..

The fixed mag thing is not yet considered legal by the DOJ even though we know it is good to the letter of the law. Again, it will take a court case to prove it and most dont have the money or want the stress to deal with it. This also applies to the case of the fabten wannabe pistolless grip...

Hanniballs
03-06-2006, 12:04 AM
I'm not really clear but isn't your configuration illegal? You might have a pre-ban 30 round mag but ur 'rifle' is not classify as a AW yet so the max mag you can have is 10 rounds. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

As long as he owned the mags before the ban they are good to go.

blkA4alb
03-06-2006, 12:05 AM
whon, your right in your statements. I support your efforts..

The fixed mag thing is not yet considered legal by the DOJ even though we know it is good to the letter of the law. Again, it will take a court case to prove it and most dont have the money or want the stress to deal with it. This also applies to the case of the fabten wannabe pistolless grip...
the fixed mag kits are legal by what the law says, requiring a tool etc to remove the magazine. but the law about pistol grips says if the web of the thumb and finger can be below the exposed portion of the trigger, it is deemed a pistol grip, which it LOOKS like it is on the fab-10 grip. i have not personally held one so i do not have first hand experience with it.

xenophobe
03-06-2006, 12:08 AM
Actually, the fixed mag thing like the Vulcan HAR-15 (pinned and glued) has been given the opinion by the DOJ to be lawful. Opinion is the key word. They also state that any one of the DAs might not necessarily agree to their opinion and may prosecute if they so desire.

EBWhite
03-06-2006, 12:08 AM
But running no pistol grip will violate the law then because the web of the thumb will be below the exposed part of the trigger

blacklisted
03-06-2006, 12:10 AM
But running no pistol grip will violate the law then because the web of the thumb will be below the exposed part of the trigger

Only an actual "grip" installed on the lower would cause such a violation.

blkA4alb
03-06-2006, 12:11 AM
But running no pistol grip will violate the law then because the web of the thumb will be below the exposed part of the trigger
thats where the SRB comes in. if the DOJ rules that it is a pistol grip than the whole lower receiver MUST be a pistol grip. then i dont know what:)

blacklisted
03-06-2006, 12:11 AM
978.20 (e) Pistol Grip that Protrudes Conspicuously Beneath the Action of the Weapon

This term was originally defined as "any component that allows for the grasp, control, and fire of the firearm where the portion grasped is located beneath an imaginary line drawn parallel to the barrel that runs through the top of the exposed trigger" and noticed during the initial comment period (December 31, 1999 through February 28, 2000). This definition was subject to broad interpretation primarily due to the wording "any component." The definition was accordingly initially revised by replacing "any component" with "a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp." The Department believes that the concept of a "pistol style grasp" is generally understood by persons affected by the regulations. This revision: "pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp below the top of the exposed trigger" was noticed to the public during the first 15-day notice period (May 10 through May 30, 2000). Subsequent comments resulted in additional modifications. To further clarify the criteria that establishes a "pistol style grasp" and its relationship to a grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, the condition "in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" was added to the definition. The revision also reflects a change from "top of the exposed trigger" to "top of the exposed portion of the trigger" because as one contributor pointed out, the former would mean the upper portion of a trigger, a part of which is exposed, with the balance hidden from view in the receiver of the firearm. The final revised definition: "Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" was noticed during the second 15-day comment period (July 12 through July 31, 2000). Although additional comments were received, no comments were received during the second 15-day comment period that warranted additional revisions to the definition.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

xenophobe
03-06-2006, 12:12 AM
Not so. Without a physical pistol grip to hold on to, a centerfire rifle without a flash hider or collapsable stock is perfectly legal. There is already precedent with this in the Robinson Armament M96.

whonosewhose
03-06-2006, 12:14 AM
But running no pistol grip will violate the law then because the web of the thumb will be below the exposed part of the trigger


Not true......the law specifically states that the web of the hand requirement is *ONLY* on a rifle with a "pistol like grasp"

People constantly misread the law that you cannot have the hand below the trigger etc etc when it ONLY applies if the grip allows a pistol grip grasp.

The Fab-ten doesnt allow a pistol like grasp, therefore no hand-web requirement. AND even if it was a pistol like grasp, the web does not go below the trigger in anyway at all, and is actually slightly above.


I personally think people that have deemed the Fab-ten illegal have misread the law slightly and not handled them 1st hand...only seen one picture (the one i posted)

Key things are:
"that allows for a pistol style grasp " <----doesnt apply since it doesnt, so web has nothing to do with it.
"in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" <---- if you have held on in the firing position you will see that the dovetail on the back of the Fab-ten grip actually places your hand above to even the top of the exposed trigger

blkA4alb
03-06-2006, 12:20 AM
Not true......the law specifically states that the web of the hand requirement is *ONLY* on a rifle with a "pistol like grasp"

People constantly misread the law that you cannot have the hand below the trigger etc etc when it ONLY applies if the grip allows a pistol grip grasp.

The Fab-ten doesnt allow a pistol like grasp, therefore no hand-web requirement. AND even if it was a pistol like grasp, the web does not go below the trigger in anyway at all, and is actually slightly above.


I personally think people that have deemed the Fab-ten illegal have misread the law slightly and not handled them 1st hand...only seen one picture (the one i posted)

Key things are:
"that allows for a pistol style grasp " <----doesnt apply since it doesnt, so web has nothing to do with it.
"in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing" <---- if you have held on in the firing position you will see that the dovetail on the back of the Fab-ten grip actually places your hand above to even the top of the exposed trigger
but isn't a pistol like grasp DEFINED by the web of your hand? and why dont you prove us wrong and take some pictures of the grip? since we've "...only seen one picture"

blacklisted
03-06-2006, 12:24 AM
Pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (between the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

It's a pistol grip if:

It is a grip.

It allows for a pistol style grasp, which is:
*Web of hand (skin between thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

So, if this GRIP (it is a grip) allows for one to hold it in a way such that the web of the hand is below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger (looks possible from the picture you showed) then it is a pistol grip. Am I right?

Why don't you do an experiment and see if it is possible to hold it in a way that had the web below the top of the exposed portion. I've never seen a picture of one of these other than the crappy one on the FAB-10 site.

xenophobe
03-06-2006, 12:29 AM
So, if this GRIP (it is a grip) allows for one to hold it in a way such that the web of the hand is below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger (looks possible from the picture you showed) then it is a pistol grip. Am I right?

Absolutely correct.

The fact that you can hold the grip with your hand closed and grasped around it is probably a valid enough reason for a DA to attempt to file charges. If they can find someone to hold it where the web of the hand is even slightly below that line, then they would most likely win.

blkA4alb
03-06-2006, 12:29 AM
It's a pistol grip if:

It is a grip.

It allows for a pistol style grasp, which is:
*Web of hand (skin between thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.

So, if this GRIP (it is a grip) allows for one to hold it in a way such that the web of the hand is below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger (looks possible from the picture you showed) then it is a pistol grip. Am I right?

Why don't you do an experiment and see if it is possible to hold it in a way that had the web below the top of the exposed portion. I've never seen a picture of one of these other than the crappy one on the FAB-10 site.
the law says if the web of the hand can be placed below the trigger. you personally may not choose to shoot it that way, but if it is possible to do, it is illegal. and blacklisted, again we're asking the same thing? we both want pics.:cool:

whonosewhose
03-06-2006, 12:45 AM
I'll take some pictures with my hand on it in different ways.

I'll post them tomorrow. Im off to bed for tonight.

jdberger
03-06-2006, 12:50 AM
Just for fun:
if a cop says it's legal, ain't necessarily so.
If a DA says it's legal, ain't necessarily so.
If the DOJ says it's legal, ain't necessarily so.

It pretty much comes down to what someone is willing to try to prosecute you for.

And of course..........what the court decides - and then THAT is the final say so....

taloft
03-06-2006, 12:57 AM
This thread must have set some kind of speed record for posts.

I'm glad no one got busted.

Watching you guys debate this just makes me appreciate my lawyer that much more.

Charliegone
03-06-2006, 1:01 AM
What happens if he does go to the slammer and for what? Not following the law because of an overzealous DA or the DOJ not doing their damn job? WTF man? Can't people write a law that actually makes sense now a days? Can't trust the DOJ on the ruling if its a pistol grip or not, can't trust the 58 DA's..cause one of them might prosecute for not following the law "right." You can't even trust your own damn judgement of the law just by reading it because some DA, cop, doj agent whatever can't tell if its a pistol grip or not? I would like to see what those morons writing laws like this say in Sacramento when the wife and children of a guy who legally built his rifle (and trying to keep in compliance with the law) gets arrested and get sent to jail (and get tried for multiply aws if he did the same thing to his other lowers, thanks Koretz you jacka**!) because of stupid laws like this! Either it is a pistol grip or it isn't? Obviously that isn't being done by anyone, especially in this state!:mad:
Ok rant off..

larryh
03-06-2006, 1:05 AM
Get the DA to give you a letter confirming his opinion
if its not to difficult.
The commander sounds like he knew about the possibility of a new generation
of AR's in his territory and now it appears you may have influenced several
of the officers involved in the interruption of your acts (to terminate with extreme prejudice local varmits ) to become potential off list buyers.
I applaud your gumption but not sure if I would try it in Sacramento County yet.

artherd
03-06-2006, 1:24 AM
Just for fun:
if a cop says it's legal, ain't necessarily so.
If a DA says it's legal, ain't necessarily so.
If the DOJ says it's legal, ain't necessarily so.

And of course..........what the court decides - and then THAT is the final say so....

This bears repeating, ONLY THE COURTS MAKE LAW!

DOJ does not. DAs do not. Local PDs do not.

artherd
03-06-2006, 1:29 AM
I aplaud you and your effrots. Your thoughts here echo my sentiments around October of 2005 when I brought in (one of) the first off-list lowers ever.

I said "You know, what? I've got lawyers, guns, and money. Let 'em ****ing prosecute, I know the law better than they do, and I will prevail if they have the gall, malice, and sheer mindless folly to actually take me into a courtroom with them."

You're very brave to try that grip in public. I think it's a edge condition that I could likely make come down in my favor eventually.

The way I read the law: "Pistol Style Grasp" AND "web of hand above top portion of trigger" are the TWO essential components to a PG.

Also, the obstrifucation alone by DOJ as to wether this thing is legal should be grounds enough to get any charges droped and an arrest record expunged.

Shoot me an e-mail I would love to discuss this more with you in private.


....you know, Yes I am willing to defend my rights in court.


I believe I know the CA assault weapon laws better than any DA or police office in my county and I *KNOW* I am lawful.


So I will not have my rights violated. My configuration is legal by law and I will defend that in court if need be.

I dont plan on having to prove that *or* be the test case for everyone else, but if need be I will.

(and if you think im stupid for being willing to stand up for my 2nd amendment rights then that is your right as well)

Skammy
03-06-2006, 1:37 AM
http://i1.tinypic.com/o9pv01.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.com/o9pv5x.jpg

EBWhite
03-06-2006, 1:55 AM
anyone got a photo of this barrett 82a1 grip?

Skammy
03-06-2006, 1:59 AM
There isn't a picture.. the description is the key..

artherd
03-06-2006, 2:48 AM
Thanks I was just about to post a copy of that very letter.

Note of course that DOJ does not make or even decide law (at best, courts give them noted expert status and take their findinds under consideration only.) the Court system does that. DOJ has issued opinions that courts have later found to be WRONG before, namely SKS Sporter issue, and recently the Walther P22s.

A photo of that grip WOULD be nice, I hear it was a ZM Weapons grip that is no longer made. I have never seen a picture.

tenpercentfirearms
03-06-2006, 6:34 AM
You see, the problem with this whole debate is you have to understand where this guy is at. KERN COUNTY! Even if the sheriffs had tried to arrest him, the DA would most likely have dropped the charges. So take note, if you are in a liberal county, be ready to go to court. In Kern County, we don't have to worry about it as much. Ed Jagels is not going to be in any hurry to make a test case. In fact, he is much more likely to buy one. :D

Chaingun
03-06-2006, 7:35 AM
as xenophobe said and i thought, it does not matter if YOU think your inside the letter of the law. and i dont think that a letter from a single police dept is enough to prevent anyone from being prosecuted. the police enforce the law, they dont determine what the law means.

At least it will save his butt in Kern county.

It would be a comforting feeling for all of us interested in that grip if you had a letter from the DOJ, but it sounds like they won't reply:confused:

Just stay away from the cities.

Leadthrower
03-06-2006, 7:50 AM
Get the DA to give you a letter confirming his opinion
if its not to difficult.
The commander sounds like he knew about the possibility of a new generation
of AR's in his territory and now it appears you may have influenced several
of the officers involved in the interruption of your acts (to terminate with extreme prejudice local varmits ) to become potential off list buyers.
I applaud your gumption but not sure if I would try it in Sacramento County yet.

I wouldn't try this in Sac County!!! I know quite a few officers that work for Sac Co. and they are not the cream of the crop, most will just harrass w/o PC... Anyways if you are going to shoot a legal lower in Sac Co. I'd do it on private property, and no where else for now.

glen avon
03-06-2006, 8:00 AM
If you want to become a "test case" for what a pistol grip is, then by all means continue using that particular grip in public.

I do believe he has aced that test so far.

glen avon
03-06-2006, 8:03 AM
This bears repeating, ONLY THE COURTS MAKE LAW!

DOJ does not. DAs do not. Local PDs do not.

the legislature makes law too....

jmlivingston
03-06-2006, 8:07 AM
the legislature makes law too....

I was just thinking along those same lines. The courts are supposed to interprate the laws made by the legislature. Of course the libs do try to legislate from the bench when they can't get what they want out of the legislature...

John

fun2none
03-06-2006, 8:36 AM
anyone got a photo of this barrett 82a1 grip?

This sure looks like a "thumb hold" grip.
http://www.zmweapons.com/images/Horzgrip.jpg

bwiese
03-06-2006, 8:39 AM
The fixed-mag issues are far far far more clear and not subject to much interpretation, unlike the pistolgrip stuff.

Whether or not the FAB10 grip is a pistol grip could possibly vary as to whether or not the examiner had fat, fleshy hands.

I would RUN AWAY from that grip, it's too unclear in its relationship to the definition. While the poster is right that just because it's unapproved it doesn't make it illegal, I see large issues here.

By contrast, the fixed-10rd-mag setup that is unapproved is legal as it definitely comports (in the converse) to the CCR 978.20 detachable mag regulation, even with a narrow highly literal reading.

Go with a fixed 10rd mag, or don't use a pistol grip.

bwiese
03-06-2006, 8:43 AM
The fixed-mag issues are far far far more clear and not subject to much interpretation, unlike the pistolgrip stuff.

Whether or not the FAB10 grip is a pistol grip could possibly vary as to whether or not the examiner had fat, fleshy hands.

I would RUN AWAY from that grip, it's too unclear in its relationship to the definition. While the poster is right that just because it's unapproved it doesn't make it illegal, I see large issues here.

By contrast, the fixed-10rd-mag setup that is unapproved is legal as it definitely comports (in the converse) to the CCR 978.20 detachable mag regulation, even with a narrow highly literal reading.

Go with a fixed 10rd mag, or don't use a pistol grip.

And an approval or compliance letter from the sheriff's office has ZERO use. These people are not regarded as experts in the law (i.e., too dumb to go to law school) - they merely have the power to arrest if there's reasonable PC. A smarter sheriff's office public affairs person would send a letter back to you saying, "this ain't our job, ask the DA".

paradox
03-06-2006, 8:47 AM
Legislative branch writes law.

Executive branch enforces said law.

Judicial branch decides if, as applied to a specific case, the law in question is constitutional and applicable to said case.

Even though the judicial branch only weighs in only on specific cases, prior rulings to similar cases are almost always followed by subsquent courts. Thus if the court says that the law doesn't mean what the executive branch thinks it means, it is very, very rare for the executive branch to continue to misapply the law. If they do, they tend to get smacked down by the courts rather quickly.

Blue
03-06-2006, 8:58 AM
You say it's a "M4gery" upper...you dont have a flash hider on that thing do you?

tenpercentfirearms
03-06-2006, 9:00 AM
I was sort of wondering about that too. That would be funny if he did and they totally missed that. It should also scare the hell out of the guy that he could have went to prison had they read the penal code.

fun2none
03-06-2006, 9:09 AM
You say it's a "M4gery" upper...you dont have a flash hider on that thing do you?

In his original post, he indicated that he had a "muzzle break" attached.

blackrazor
03-06-2006, 9:13 AM
Why are so many gun owners such complete cowards?! It makes the whole "from my cold dead hands" expression sound like a lame joke. Here you are all warning someone not to use a grip which clearly IS NOT a pistol grip, just because some misinformed LEO might mistake it for one. Yes, it's true that they can declare the FAB-10 grip a pistol grip, hell, they can declare your car a pistol grip too if they want, but that doesn't make it so, now does it? It's time to grow a pair folks. If you really think you can go before a jury, with all the DOJ letters, the ATF lettter saying the FAB-10 grip is NOT a pistol grip, and then show the jury what a real pistol grip looks like, and still be busted, you are a paranoid freak, and are too cowardly to own any firearm, IMO.

CrazyGunner
03-06-2006, 9:25 AM
Why are so many gun owners such complete cowards?! It makes the whole "from my cold dead hands" expression sound like a lame joke. Here you are all warning someone not to use a grip which clearly IS NOT a pistol grip, just because some misinformed LEO might mistake it for one. Yes, it's true that they can declare the FAB-10 grip a pistol grip, hell, they can declare your car a pistol grip too if they want, but that doesn't make it so, now does it? It's time to grow a pair folks. If you really think you can go before a jury, with all the DOJ letters, the ATF lettter saying the FAB-10 grip is NOT a pistol grip, and then show the jury what a real pistol grip looks like, and still be busted, you are a paranoid freak, and are too cowardly to own any firearm, IMO.

I don't think anyones a coward- they are just well aware of the consequences that could be brought up. The laws still are murky and if he was arrested on the said charges, who knows how the case could end up. Being in California, there is probably a good chance he would get charged. Well in fact its not a pistol grip to us, there is always some anti-gun soccer mom who will eventually end up on the jury.

xenophobe
03-06-2006, 9:33 AM
Why are so many gun owners such complete cowards?! It makes the whole "from my cold dead hands" expression sound like a lame joke. Here you are all warning someone not to use a grip which clearly IS NOT a pistol grip, just because some misinformed LEO might mistake it for one. Yes, it's true that they can declare the FAB-10 grip a pistol grip, hell, they can declare your car a pistol grip too if they want, but that doesn't make it so, now does it? It's time to grow a pair folks. If you really think you can go before a jury, with all the DOJ letters, the ATF lettter saying the FAB-10 grip is NOT a pistol grip, and then show the jury what a real pistol grip looks like, and still be busted, you are a paranoid freak, and are too cowardly to own any firearm, IMO.


Either you're young, rich, stupid or some combination of the three.

Bimmerworld
03-06-2006, 9:37 AM
Why don't you go be the test case then Mr. Norris?

Why are so many gun owners such complete cowards?! It makes the whole "from my cold dead hands" expression sound like a lame joke. Here you are all warning someone not to use a grip which clearly IS NOT a pistol grip, just because some misinformed LEO might mistake it for one. Yes, it's true that they can declare the FAB-10 grip a pistol grip, hell, they can declare your car a pistol grip too if they want, but that doesn't make it so, now does it? It's time to grow a pair folks. If you really think you can go before a jury, with all the DOJ letters, the ATF lettter saying the FAB-10 grip is NOT a pistol grip, and then show the jury what a real pistol grip looks like, and still be busted, you are a paranoid freak, and are too cowardly to own any firearm, IMO.

anotherted
03-06-2006, 9:40 AM
Oh my goddddd.

I bet the DOJ has to go through the same crap to decipher its OWN rules.
this is PURE crazytown.

soopafly
03-06-2006, 9:43 AM
If you really think you can go before a jury, with all the DOJ letters, the ATF lettter saying the FAB-10 grip is NOT a pistol grip, and then show the jury what a real pistol grip looks like, and still be busted, you are a paranoid freak, and are too cowardly to own any firearm, IMO.


Well...some of us need to look out for what's in the best interest of our family also. Although I agree with you, and in an ideal world, yes, I would love to show up a DA in court, but...Time away from work without pay, time away from family, lawyer fees and stress are not in the best interest of my family. If I was still in my early 20's, single and had deep pockets, then I wouldn't hesitate. For now, I prefer to err on the side of caution. For my family's sake.

edwardm
03-06-2006, 9:43 AM
Why are so many gun owners such complete cowards?! It makes the whole "from my cold dead hands" expression sound like a lame joke. Here you are all warning someone not to use a grip which clearly IS NOT a pistol grip, just because some misinformed LEO might mistake it for one. Yes, it's true that they can declare the FAB-10 grip a pistol grip, hell, they can declare your car a pistol grip too if they want, but that doesn't make it so, now does it? It's time to grow a pair folks. If you really think you can go before a jury, with all the DOJ letters, the ATF lettter saying the FAB-10 grip is NOT a pistol grip, and then show the jury what a real pistol grip looks like, and still be busted, you are a paranoid freak, and are too cowardly to own any firearm, IMO.

Good point. Imagine if, for every damn post to this thread, everyone went out and got 10 people to sign the RKBA petition. That would do a whole bunch more good than sitting here stroking off.

When it comes to juries, I know more than one DA who regularly refers to them as "the 12 moon rocks". Generally we're not dealing with the intellectuals of society here, and in *this* state, you're probably not going to be dealing with gun owners/2nd Am. supporters. So there go your chances with a jury of 12.

Personally, I'm leaving this state. Montana looks so much better. I'll deal with the cold winters in exchange for more plentiful (and well managed) game, the outstanding trout fisheries, the dire *lack* of human beings to interfere with me, and perhaps best of all, the non-existence of stupid gun laws. It may be tough to move, find work, move the family, etc., but I'll take a 'tough trip through paradise' (read the book, btw) over an easy trip through liberalville-afornia.

Fjold
03-06-2006, 9:54 AM
I'm not really clear but isn't your configuration illegal? You might have a pre-ban 30 round mag but ur 'rifle' is not classify as a AW yet so the max mag you can have is 10 rounds. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

I was going to ask the same thing. Isn't any new semi-auto rifle that holds more than ten rounds automatically an "Assault Weapon"?

~Scott~
03-06-2006, 10:04 AM
Why are so many gun owners such complete cowards?! It makes the whole "from my cold dead hands" expression sound like a lame joke. Here you are all warning someone not to use a grip which clearly IS NOT a pistol grip, just because some misinformed LEO might mistake it for one. Yes, it's true that they can declare the FAB-10 grip a pistol grip, hell, they can declare your car a pistol grip too if they want, but that doesn't make it so, now does it? It's time to grow a pair folks. If you really think you can go before a jury, with all the DOJ letters, the ATF lettter saying the FAB-10 grip is NOT a pistol grip, and then show the jury what a real pistol grip looks like, and still be busted, you are a paranoid freak, and are too cowardly to own any firearm, IMO.
Some of us have more at stake than others. As the sole income provider in my household, I would not put my family at financial risk just to become the test case for the rest of the State..... If I were carted off to prison, while awaiting trial my personal life would be lost....

It might not be right or fair but it is what it is.....:(

6172crew
03-06-2006, 10:09 AM
If I buy a M1a I can use my 20 round GI mags, If I boughta keltech I can use my AR15 magazines that hold 30 rounds. If I pin a magazine then it has to be no more than 10 rounds. Yo cant buy magazine that hold more than 10 rounds now so you had to own them before the ban.

The FAQ still apply in this thread.

I was going to ask the same thing. Isn't any new semi-auto rifle that holds more than ten rounds automatically an "Assault Weapon"?

ohsmily
03-06-2006, 10:12 AM
I was going to ask the same thing. Isn't any new semi-auto rifle that holds more than ten rounds automatically an "Assault Weapon"?

It doesn't hold ANY AMMO. The magazine does. That is where you are screwed up. If he FIXED the 30 round mag in place, then it would be an AW b/c the rifle would hold more than 10 rounds. By your logic, putting a full cap mag into a mini14 or M1A or kel tec would be an AW too, but that is WRONG.

xenophobe
03-06-2006, 10:25 AM
A "pistol style grasp" allows the fingers to wrap firmly around the grip. The alternative Barrett 82A1 "thumb hold" exemplar cannot be considered an assault weapon pistol grip because the device allows only the thumb and not all fingers to grasp the device"

This would appear to protrude conspicuosly below the action, though only allow for a thumb hold grip, and appears legal to me. Even if the web of your thumb/index fingers could be placed below the action, it appears to be small enough not to easily grasp with your other fingers. A picture of someone holding this would be more telling. I think it is probably legal. Your opinion and DOJ's may be different than mine:

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/8681/horzgrip2ns.jpg

This would appear to protrude conspicuously below the action. It appears to allow one to grasp it with all of your fingers. Whether or not you can put the web of your thumb/index finger below the action could be the deciding factor. I think this isn't legal. Again, your opinion and mine, as well as the DOJ's may differ.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/407/grip1fi.jpg


Clearly, the Shoeless Ventures model is walking the line on this issue, and I wouldn't tell a single customer of mine that it is legal, or even that it might be. Only that if they decide that it's legal, to be careful and warn them of the consequences if they happen to find a DA who doesn't agree.

Jicko
03-06-2006, 10:37 AM
I think all of us who want to go out and shoot out "off-list" lower build should print out a list of documents and bring with us.

Like the:
- OK letters to purchase and DROS "off-list" lower
- the CA DOJ AW ID guide
- Kasier letter
- pistol grip definition
- maybe even the Feb 1 notice

I'm planning to put together a package for myself... maybe I'll list them out with links when I get there...

Stanze
03-06-2006, 10:41 AM
I think all of us who want to go out and shoot out "off-list" lower build should print out a list of documents and bring with us.

Like the:
- OK letters to purchase and DROS "off-list" lower
- the CA DOJ AW ID guide
- Kasier letter
- pistol grip definition
- maybe even the Feb 1 notice

I'm planning to put together a package for myself... maybe I'll list them out with links when I get there...

Print out a copy of the U.S. Constitution also, particually this part.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

;)

And, a business card from your civil rights attorney.:D

xrMike
03-06-2006, 10:47 AM
I think all of us who want to go out and shoot out "off-list" lower build should print out a list of documents and bring with us.

Like the:
- OK letters to purchase and DROS "off-list" lower
- the CA DOJ AW ID guide
- Kasier letter
- pistol grip definition
- maybe even the Feb 1 notice

I'm planning to put together a package for myself... maybe I'll list them out with links when I get there...I'd appreciate that very much, and I'm sure everyone else would too.

It'd be nice to have an "info packet" ready to pull out and present, in the unlikely event you were hassled by some overzealous, under-educated law enforcement person...

wangankin
03-06-2006, 11:12 AM
then picked up my AR with the look of "oh **** I just found a machine gun".

FREAKING CLASSIC! Morons.

shopkeep
03-06-2006, 11:24 AM
Not so. Without a physical pistol grip to hold on to, a centerfire rifle without a flash hider or collapsable stock is perfectly legal. There is already precedent with this in the Robinson Armament M96.

Based on this precedent would it also logically follow that because it has already been deemed legal to pin a mag on CaliFALs that the Sporting Conversions kit and similar solutions are also legal?

whonosewhose
03-06-2006, 11:32 AM
Pics of Fab-ten grip:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28/AidanN20/Guns/JimAR15-2.jpg
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28/AidanN20/Guns/JimAR15.jpg

Oh yea...and pics of my Mossberg 500 that they were also freaking out about.

I dont think they had ever seen a detachable mag shotgun before so they assumed it was illegal till the commander showed up.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28/AidanN20/Guns/tacshotgun3.jpg
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28/AidanN20/Guns/TacShotgun2.jpg

6172crew
03-06-2006, 11:34 AM
Based on this precedent would it also logically follow that because it has already been deemed legal to pin a mag on CaliFALs that the Sporting Conversions kit and similar solutions are also legal?

Ive never heard the cali-fal mag setup we use was ok'd by the DOJ. They told DSA they would have to weld in order to sell here.

Anyone have written word on if this is good to go?

6172crew
03-06-2006, 11:36 AM
BTW why is that mossberg so angry?:cool: The cop was looking at the wrong firearm IMHO.:D

whonosewhose
03-06-2006, 11:38 AM
Ok.....CA is officially retarded.

1) I know a local district judge quite well. I am going to show him my AR (with the fixed mag in it) and attempt to get an written opinion on its legality

2) I am going to attempt to get the local LE sheriff office to give me a letter

3) I will attempt to get the local DA to give me a written opinion

4) I will printout all the paperwork on the previous page regarding the off-list reciever stuff


Take all of that, make it into a packet and keep it under the foam in the double rifle case I transport my AR in.


I think there is about a chance in hell that any LE officer would attempt to arrest with that kind of paperwork handy. PLUS there is no court in this world that would be able to convict me after I literally had approval from every agency in the county stating it was legal.



I will only remove this grip if it is deemed illegal by one of the local agencies...

Guess I have a mission over the next two weeks.

bwiese
03-06-2006, 11:48 AM
Whonosewhose...


1) I know a local district judge quite well. I am going to show him my AR (with the fixed mag in it) and attempt to get an written opinion on its legality


I don't think judges - even 'friends' - will give opinions outside of courtrooms. They're not serving as your lawyer. You might be able to have a friendly chat with him, that's all.



2) I am going to attempt to get the local LE sheriff office to give me a letter


Why is the Sheriff's office even relevant? They're just idiots that arrest you if they think something got violated. They ain't lawyers - they were too dumb to go to law school or have another worthwhile career.

And any smart SO public affairs officer will just say "ask the DA".



3) I will attempt to get the local DA to give me a written opinion

OK, don't incriminate yourself: STAY AWAY FROM THAT DAMNED FAB10 PISTOL GRIP.



4) I will printout all the paperwork on the previous page regarding the off-list reciever stuff
Take all of that, make it into a packet and keep it under the foam in the double rifle case I transport my AR in.


That's a good idea to carry PC 12276, etc around with you as well as CCR sec 979.10/979.11 (Roberti-Roos and Kasler lists) as well as sec 978.20 (definitions of detachable mag and pistol grip, etc.)


I think there is about a chance in hell that any LE officer would attempt to arrest with that kind of paperwork handy. PLUS there is no court in this world that would be able to convict me after I literally had approval from every agency in the county stating it was legal.

Maybe out in the sticks where you live.

As far as all those letters, maybe yes, maybe no. They might not be admissible. Except for an opinion letter from the local DA and/or AG, they carry no weight.

Just forget about that pistol grip that ain't a pistol grip that likely is a pistol grip. Either run your gun without a grip (and use bent sheetmetal to cover the grip boss on the receiver) or use a 10rd or less fixed magazine.




I will only remove this grip if it is deemed illegal by one of the local agencies...
Guess I have a mission over the next two weeks.

This grip smells so bad that even if they say it's OK, DOJ could still pop you. (Supposedly they are doing range inspections - we'll see.)

I am confident fixed mags are cool even if it pisses the DOJ off due to 978.20 definition of detachable magazine, which is very very clear-cut.

But the fact you can put your web of your hand around this FAB10 grip is worrisome and a very grey area with a very troublesome non-clear-cut definition.

markymark
03-06-2006, 11:54 AM
whonosewhose-
it would be best for you to remove the flash suppressor on your rifle before taking it out shooting again. ;)

whonosewhose
03-06-2006, 11:56 AM
......i understand where you are coming from.


But it seems rediculous to me that even with a letter from the local DA saying "your legal", I still should worry about it after that?

Also when about if I just cut the bar off the fab-ten grip and just use the square part which I can still hold on to fairly comfortabley...

whonosewhose
03-06-2006, 11:58 AM
whonosewhose-
it would be best for you to remove the flash suppressor on your rifle before taking it out shooting again. ;)

That is a muzzle break. I removed the flash suppressor and put the muzzle break on.

Bought it here on del-ton:
http://www.del-ton.com/detail.aspx?ID=1164

GTKrockeTT
03-06-2006, 12:00 PM
whonosewhose-
it would be best for you to remove the flash suppressor on your rifle before taking it out shooting again. ;)

and...collapsible stock (if that is one).

whonosewhose
03-06-2006, 12:04 PM
and...collapsible stock (if that is one).

It is not collapsible, I pinned it.

Mud
03-06-2006, 12:29 PM
My Bad, I see that it is closed off now. Bad angle on Photos of MB:D .

blacklisted
03-06-2006, 12:30 PM
Looks like a muzzle brake to me.

ohsmily
03-06-2006, 12:32 PM
I agree with removing the Picture due to the FS, that is not a picture with the DelTon MB installed. I'm sure you took that picture when you were in Nevada the other day right?

It is a muzzle brake. You are confused. Look at the link he posted. It takes you to the product. It even says that the muzzle brake mirrors the A2 flash hider look but it has a CLOSED front (only about .25 in diameter), not opened up wide like a flash suppressor.

Clodbuster
03-06-2006, 12:34 PM
I wonder why people are always trying to compare the illegal possesion of weapons to speeding...

Now if the driver was trying to outrun a police officer that is chasing him then speeding turns from an infraction to a misdeameaner and starts approaching the boundaries of a felony depending on how long you let him chase you. At this point I very much doubt if the cop will let you go with a warning.

Clod

Sometimes a police officer may see you speeding but doesn't pull you over, or lets you off with a warning. That doesn't make driving over the speed limit legal.

EBWhite
03-06-2006, 12:35 PM
whon- please repost your photos you got, none of them showed up!

ohsmily
03-06-2006, 12:38 PM
whon- please repost your photos you got, none of them showed up!

everyone else can see them (we have been commenting on them). in any case, I can see them.

markymark
03-06-2006, 12:52 PM
That is a muzzle break. I removed the flash suppressor and put the muzzle break on.

Bought it here on del-ton:
http://www.del-ton.com/detail.aspx?ID=1164
my bad. :o

EBWhite
03-06-2006, 12:55 PM
everyone else can see them (we have been commenting on them). in any case, I can see them.


Yup, on IE they show up fine....AOL SUCKS!!:mad:

whonosewhose
03-06-2006, 1:01 PM
You know, I know some of you guys on here are respected guys that are really pushing for the better good of the CA community.


But I'm not buying the whole "even if the DOJ says it is legal, then the DA might still prosecute". Thats just BS.

If my local DA gives me a letter saying its legal (in Kern Co) then i sure as hell as im going to keep it that way and keep the letter with the AR all the time and just never leave Kern Co with it.


Did I mention I even have my AR on my CCW card, as well as my mossberg 500.
thats not legal right? well they did that too here in Kern Co. I just walked in, paid my $4 to add them both to my card..and they are on my ccw card.


I only did that so i could leave it loaded in the car and not have to worry about it etc ...

EBWhite
03-06-2006, 1:16 PM
Didn't CCW's have to be for pistols only?

Now a short barrell AR pistol would be sick! lol

Jicko
03-06-2006, 1:17 PM
According to this.... there is just *NO WAY* that the Fab10 grip is CA-OK!!??:confused:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/pistolgrip.htm

Anyone got any CA-DOJ letter or anything saying that grip is OK?
ATF OK *really NOT equal to* CA-DOJ OK....

I am *really* confused.....

Pics of Fab-ten grip:

swhatb
03-06-2006, 1:19 PM
You see, the problem with this whole debate is you have to understand where this guy is at. KERN COUNTY! Even if the sheriffs had tried to arrest him, the DA would most likely have dropped the charges. So take note, if you are in a liberal county, be ready to go to court. In Kern County, we don't have to worry about it as much. Ed Jagels is not going to be in any hurry to make a test case. In fact, he is much more likely to buy one. :D


whonosewhose- you're lucky you weren't in alameda co (not a liberal county). the deputy would have booked you. the da would most likely charge you and at the courts discression, all your weapons could be collected for 'safe keeping' if they thought you were a risk. and who knows how they would define 'risk'. the courts have done that before here on a minor weapons violations. just to be safe, you may want to drop the fab 10 lower grip until doj gives there "opinion" and put a fixed 10-round magazine in the gun, unless your young, rich, and don't mind being a test case! you'd probably win but at what cost? you've definately got some ba--s. but not all cops out there would let you explain the law to them! kern co. sounds like a nice place to live, maybe i should take a look at it. :)

EBWhite
03-06-2006, 1:19 PM
This is the problem of having federal, state and then local laws. They are too hard to remember and they all conflict. We need one set of gun laws for everyone and that is the bill of rights...

What if he made a state law banning the use of racist speak and unpopular speech? That would be fought on the ground of 1st admendment and it would win until the end of time. But for some reason the 2nd admendment gets attacked and nobody cares

swhatb
03-06-2006, 1:21 PM
This is the problem of having federal, state and then local laws. They are too hard to remember and they all conflict. We need one set of gun laws for everyone and that is the bill of rights...

What if he made a state law banning the use of racist speak and unpopular speech? That would be fought on the ground of 1st admendment and it would win until the end of time. But for some reason the 2nd admendment gets attacked and nobody cares
no kidding...

artherd
03-06-2006, 1:25 PM
Either you're young, rich, stupid or some combination of the three.
I'm all 3, but aparently that's what it took to get ARs in to CA at all ;)

Blackrazor and myself are more than willing to be test cases, we'll make some very nice little case law for you all!

Best!
Ben.

phish
03-06-2006, 1:50 PM
I'm all 3, but aparently that's what it took to get ARs in to CA at all ;)

Blackrazor and myself are more than willing to be test cases, we'll make some very nice little case law for you all!

Best!
Ben.

Well, I don't think it should have to come to that. It would be nice if there's a uniform ruling on the FAB10 grip. Things are kind of tipped in our favor because of the ATF's ruling and the LEOs involved in this little encounter determined that it was o.k., at least to them. If they really wanted to make an issue out of it, somebody would be in a cell right now pending booking.

I think the DOJ is avoiding this because: a.) gov't agency, don't bother me, b.) it would open the door for all the off-list receivers to have them and c.) we don't want you guys to have "fun" mentality

For all we know, maybe the two sheriffs are looking for off-list lowers to buy for themselves! :D

swhatb
03-06-2006, 1:51 PM
I'm all 3, but aparently that's what it took to get ARs in to CA at all ;)

Blackrazor and myself are more than willing to be test cases, we'll make some very nice little case law for you all!

Best!
Ben.
glad you are all 3! someone has to start something and make us spend our money!!!!!!!

Jicko
03-06-2006, 2:06 PM
How are you going to get that DA to say that you are LEGAL? By showing him the gun!? If he don't think so.... he will just have you arrested RIGHT THERE!!
(when he read your DOJ letter.... saying that, one of the 58 DAs may not agree it is OK.... and for the fun of it... he just try to *not agree*... since... he is so tired of prosecuting all those domestic violent cases... and he wanna try a "assault weapon possession" case, just for fun...)

lol.... :D

Anyways, show us the letter.... or maybe we will try to raise some $$ to bail you out....


......i understand where you are coming from.

But it seems rediculous to me that even with a letter from the local DA saying "your legal", I still should worry about it after that?

Also when about if I just cut the bar off the fab-ten grip and just use the square part which I can still hold on to fairly comfortabley...

artherd
03-06-2006, 2:10 PM
I'll give you a hint, it ain't 'a'...
I think the DOJ is avoiding this because: a.) gov't agency, don't bother me, b.) it would open the door for all the off-list receivers to have them and c.) we don't want you guys to have "fun" mentality

artherd
03-06-2006, 2:12 PM
You know, I know some of you guys on here are respected guys that are really pushing for the better good of the CA community.


But I'm not buying the whole "even if the DOJ says it is legal, then the DA might still prosecute". Thats just BS.

Well, you probally wouldn't end up with an AW conviction if the court was in a good mood and you're not a ganbanger, HOWEVER DOJ and the DAs have done exactly this in the past already.

DOJ ruled that SKS Sporters were not assault weapons. DA filed charges, and a Court determined that they INFACT WERE ASSAULT WEAPONS!!! WHOOPS! 4,500 potential felonies weren't charged, and instead DOJ had to buy the guns back and destroy them.

NRAhighpowershooter
03-06-2006, 2:27 PM
Also to mention.. the brady bunch also sued when the DOJ allowed registration.

blackrazor
03-06-2006, 3:21 PM
Well...some of us need to look out for what's in the best interest of our family also. Although I agree with you, and in an ideal world, yes, I would love to show up a DA in court, but...Time away from work without pay, time away from family, lawyer fees and stress are not in the best interest of my family.

I don't think anyones a coward- they are just well aware of the consequences that could be brought up. The laws still are murky and if he was arrested on the said charges, who knows how the case could end up. Being in California, there is probably a good chance he would get charged. Well in fact its not a pistol grip to us, there is always some anti-gun soccer mom who will eventually end up on the jury.

Hate to say it, but it's attitudes like this which empower our enemies. Freedom isn't free, and if you aren't willing to fight for it, then you might as well give it up. It's true... maybe it isn't worth it, but that's the way it is. The founding fathers of our country risked a lot too, but I think they did the right thing. Now it's our turn... and you have two choices: do what's right, or do what's safe.

Either you're young, rich, stupid or some combination of the three.

Xenophobe:

You can call it stupidity if you want, but I was sitting on my stockpile of DSA receivers last August. As far as getting AR's in the hands of Californians, from the tone of your posts, it looks like I (and artherd) willl have to do everything ourselves, from writing the letters to offering ourselves up as a test cases. I've seen people like you everywhere I go, they think it's great that these lowers are legal, and you're always around to cash in on the dividends or other people's efforts, but when it comes time to throw down, when it comes time to take a chance, you're nowhere to be found. The final chapter on this whole ordeal is about to unfold, and while I'm sure I can't count on your help, I'm sure you'll be around to enjoy the rewards. You're welcome.

Justang
03-06-2006, 3:23 PM
This bears repeating, ONLY THE COURTS MAKE LAW!

DOJ does not. DAs do not. Local PDs do not.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

The courts do not make law. They interpret the law! IF they do make law, then they are overstepping their bounds! I think this is a big problem in America, the Judicial system should not be making law!!!

Executive implements the law.

And legislative makes the laws.


I think some people need to take High School Government again. Some of the things I read are laughable.

ohsmily
03-06-2006, 3:32 PM
WRONG WRONG WRONG! The courts do not make law. They interpret the law!

You edited your post while I was typing this response.

Well, you are partially right. The courts interpret the law, BUT by their rulings, they also MAKE law. That is how our judicial system works. For example, it doesn't say anywhere in any federal legislation that a woman has a right to have an abortion. But, a case that turned on the issue of the right to individual privacy (Roe. v. Wade) has established precedent (basically law) that allows women to have abortions. Our judicial system allows someone to cite to a previous court case to show a favorable interpretation and then application of the law in their jurisdiction.

BUT, I do agree with you that the main purpose of the courts is not to MAKE law, that is the job of the legislature.

Justang
03-06-2006, 3:49 PM
You edited your post while I was typing this response.

Well, you are partially right. The courts interpret the law, BUT by their rulings, they also MAKE law. That is how our judicial system works. For example, it doesn't say anywhere in any federal legislation that a woman has a right to have an abortion. But, a case that turned on the issue the right to individual privacy (Roe. v. Wade) has established precedent (basically law) that allows women to have abortions. Our judicial system allows someone to cite to a previous court case to show a favorable interpretation and then application of the law in their jurisdiction.

BUT, I do agree with you that the main purpose of the courts is not to MAKE law, that is the job of the legislature.

IMO, and I've only had HS Goverment and College Gov/Poly Sci, the courts should not make law. They can only uphold the law or deem the law unjust. Like the case of Harrot V Kings. They deemed the Series AW to be unjust because the lay person could not follow the law, thus the DOJ must ammend the list. Now we don't have to follow the Series AW law. Hence all the new lowers. :)

But that's just my interpretation, and I'm here to learn. :D

I do think the courts have been making laws... but they shouldn't be. We can't have the Judicial system running our country. Balance of power!

sorry 'bout the quick edit.... I had more to say. :D

Sgt Raven
03-06-2006, 4:08 PM
Hate to say it, but it's attitudes like this which empower our enemies. Freedom isn't free, and if you aren't willing to fight for it, then you might as well give it up. It's true... maybe it isn't worth it, but that's the way it is. The founding fathers of our country risked a lot too, but I think they did the right thing. Now it's our turn... and you have two choices: do what's right, or do what's safe.

Sometimes you have to bide your time. It isn't wise to attack untill you're ready. Don't start a fight untill your ready and able to win it. Sometimes you don't have that choise as you're the one attacked and you have to defend yourself to buy time till you can go on the offenseive. Look at the time right after Pearl Harbor, the US didn't have the strength to counter attack right away. And we lost some other battles after that, but we as a country were able to see it through to victory.

Sig226
03-06-2006, 4:13 PM
Well I went squirrel hunting in the hills above town with a few buddies.

We took our 17HMR's, my 22-250 and my newly put together off-list AR-15.

After shooting a few dozen squirrels a sheriff pulled up. We were off the road a little bit and shooting away from the road. As he pulled up we put everything in the back of the truck.



Just curious---


What was the reason the sheriff was there? Was he called out by an RP? Was he just cruising by and saw an EVIL BLACK rifle?


I don't know where you were exactly, however I have never seen a sheriff out on BLM land without a Ranger/BLM Officer calling them in for backup.

ohsmily
03-06-2006, 4:24 PM
I don't know where you were exactly, however I have never seen a sheriff out on BLM land without a Ranger/BLM Officer calling them in for backup.

I have. The Sheriff included it is part of his patrol area and normal beat. He was just taking a cruise by and making sure things looked good (from a distance, I was not approached. This was a few years ago in the desert near Barstow/Ft Irwin).

blkA4alb
03-06-2006, 4:49 PM
wow, a lot has happened since this morning here. i jus spent the last 45 minutes catching up on everything. and i do think that this thread has set the record for the most posts in the least amount of time. this discussion has been great and exciting, BUT i personally think that it may be reaching a point where more bashing and less discussion is occurring, if we can't keep the insults in our head i think this may need to be closed. so just stay on topic and be peaceful everyone.

MIB916
03-06-2006, 6:09 PM
Listen... We are all in this together! We all want the same thing (our second amendment rights)!

WTF... bash the cops for? There are hundereds of laws cops have to know off the top of there heads, BP, HS, WI, PC, CC (county codes) CVC's. LEOS have to know these in order to arrest people. If the wrong codes are used it is primarily the DA's that kick the cases for FOJ (Furtherance of Justice).

Saying things like.... Stupid cops were'nt smart enough to get a real job or smart enough to go to law school are WAY out line. How many f**King lawyers out there barely pass law school or barely pass the bar? Not to mention crappy lawyers that are appointed to judges?

Professional courtesy goes a LONG WAY. If the two Deputies did not know what they where looking at it is because the DA office has not informed them. Training plays a large part in this iggorance! and DA/ ADA's seldom if ever give the same answer to the same questions.

I think with all the experience (legal/ gun) on this site we could focus our energy toward the main problem: the ineffectiveness of the DOJ to come out in plain english and state the truth on how they are screwing the people of this state on their rights!!!!

xenophobe
03-06-2006, 6:46 PM
I wonder why people are always trying to compare the illegal possesion of weapons to speeding...


And you would equate Barney Fife with saying "looks legal to me" to be case precedent? lol Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

DV8
03-06-2006, 6:53 PM
Hate to say it, but it's attitudes like this which empower our enemies. Freedom isn't free, and if you aren't willing to fight for it, then you might as well give it up. It's true... maybe it isn't worth it, but that's the way it is. The founding fathers of our country risked a lot too, but I think they did the right thing. Now it's our turn... and you have two choices: do what's right, or do what's safe.



Xenophobe:

You can call it stupidity if you want, but I was sitting on my stockpile of DSA receivers last August. As far as getting AR's in the hands of Californians, from the tone of your posts, it looks like I (and artherd) willl have to do everything ourselves, from writing the letters to offering ourselves up as a test cases. I've seen people like you everywhere I go, they think it's great that these lowers are legal, and you're always around to cash in on the dividends or other people's efforts, but when it comes time to throw down, when it comes time to take a chance, you're nowhere to be found. The final chapter on this whole ordeal is about to unfold, and while I'm sure I can't count on your help, I'm sure you'll be around to enjoy the rewards. You're welcome.


:rolleyes: sheesh... what a buncha....

xenophobe
03-06-2006, 7:05 PM
Xenophobe:

You can call it stupidity if you want, but I was sitting on my stockpile of DSA receivers last August. As far as getting AR's in the hands of Californians, from the tone of your posts, it looks like I (and artherd) willl have to do everything ourselves, from writing the letters to offering ourselves up as a test cases. I've seen people like you everywhere I go, they think it's great that these lowers are legal, and you're always around to cash in on the dividends or other people's efforts, but when it comes time to throw down, when it comes time to take a chance, you're nowhere to be found. The final chapter on this whole ordeal is about to unfold, and while I'm sure I can't count on your help, I'm sure you'll be around to enjoy the rewards. You're welcome.

I'm not a coward, nor am I rich. I can't afford to throw my collection in the hands of law enforcement, nor will I challenge them directly and taunt them about it. And you're not better than anyone because of it. Sorry to burst your 'higher than thou' bubble.

As for saying I won't do anything? Where were you during RR89? I was calling my congressmen, writing letters, and sitting in an office chairs licking envelopes and stamps. I did my time for the Recall Roberti campaign, and because of us Roberti never became treasurer... I was selling AR receivers they moment July 1, 1989 came out. Wooo... big deal.

I don't care WHO you are, you don't know me and what I've done... donated hundreds to the ILA, CCRKBA and other organizations, passing out fliers, gathering signatures, etc...

Your blanket statements calling people cowards are rude, uninformed and reek of elitist disdain.

Yay, you're rich and young and can afford to laugh in the face of the devil. Good for you. *pats you on your back*

Would you like a lolipop too? Geez....

Jeff Rambo
03-06-2006, 7:27 PM
Why is the Sheriff's office even relevant? They're just idiots that arrest you if they think something got violated. They ain't lawyers - they were too dumb to go to law school or have another worthwhile career.


Bill,

It is obvious that you have a clear dislike for law enforcement, but I am going to ask that you refrain from posting comments like this here. It serves no valuable purpose to this discussion or any other discussion and it is offensive to many members, myself included.

This applies to comments along the same lines being made by others as well.

triaged
03-06-2006, 7:29 PM
WTF... bash the cops for? There are hundereds of laws cops have to know off the top of there heads, BP, HS, WI, PC, CC (county codes) CVC's. LEOS have to know these in order to arrest people.

More like hundreds of thousands (if not millions).
I talked to a cop friend of mine at the start of '05. There were something like 900+ laws that went into effect 1/1/05...he knew of 3 of them from hearing about it on the news.

RRangel
03-06-2006, 7:31 PM
This has about runs it's course.

artherd
03-07-2006, 1:27 AM
WRONG WRONG WRONG!
The courts do not make law. They interpret the law! IF they do make law, then they are overstepping their bounds! I think this is a big problem in America, the Judicial system should not be making law!!!

More to the point, I should have said:
Legislative branch MAKES law.
Judicial branch makes CASE LAW (which is still law, but should be construed to the appropriate specific application of general statute law, and should not segue into "Legislating from the bench".)

artherd
03-07-2006, 1:33 AM
Listen... We are all in this together! We all want the same thing (our second amendment rights)!

WTF... bash the cops for?

Oh, I don't know :rolleyes: , how about Illegal Search and Siezure, Unlawfull Detainer, Malicious Prosecution, Illegial siezure of firearm, Knowing Illegal use of radar, etc.

And that's just my personal expierences, this year alone.

Then again, one of my shooting buddies is one of the good ones, and a CHPie to boot. Most people in LE are actually the good, honorable, noble ones. It is the corrupt few that muck up the world for the rest of us.

There are hundereds of laws cops have to know off the top of there heads, BP, HS, WI, PC, CC (county codes) CVC's. LEOS have to know these in order to arrest people. If the wrong codes are used it is primarily the DA's that kick the cases for FOJ (Furtherance of Justice).
Ignorance is no excuse for you and me, it should be DOUBLY SO for those that GET PAID to do NOTHING BUT ARREST PEOPLE!

Professional courtesy goes a LONG WAY. If the two Deputies did not know what they where looking at it is because the DA office has not informed them.
Yeah, and if I didn't know I had an illegal AW I'd have a felony slapped on my hinder.

IF THE COPS DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT, THEY SHOULD HAVE WALKED AWAY AND NOT BOTHERED HIM!

Training plays a large part in this iggorance! and DA/ ADA's seldom if ever give the same answer to the same questions.
I've had no formal training, and know the law pretty effing well. I'm not even paid full time, trained, and then sworn to uphold and know it either.

To suggest that LE should not be held to an even higher standard of 'knowing the law' as you and me is, I think, the height of folly.

I think with all the experience (legal/ gun) on this site we could focus our energy toward the main problem: the ineffectiveness of the DOJ to come out in plain english and state the truth on how they are screwing the people of this state on their rights!!!!
That's merely ancilary, the real problem is a corrupt legislature enacting illegal laws, and the secondary problem is the corrupt agents at DOJ opperating outside the very law they have sworn to uphold. Both of these groups are scumm and traitors.

artherd
03-07-2006, 1:39 AM
I'm not a coward, nor am I rich. I can't afford to throw my collection in the hands of law enforcement, nor will I challenge them directly and taunt them about it.

At some point I would expect you would (when the violations against us became eggregious enough, let's say going door to door and executing all Muslims). I think what BR and I fear is that by that point, it would be far too late.

The time to stand up and fight in my opinion is now. Just realize that many of you are buying into the very hype you claim to disdain. "oh, can't do it, might cost me my job.security.finances.time.effort.etc"

Many people who fold up like babies and won't risk a $20k court defense for a rightous cause have $80,000bass boats. That's what really sickens me.

We're all in this together guys, and calling someone WILLING to stand up and take a chance and fight a crazy/stupid/loon/etc. just does furthur service to the myth that DOJ wants you to belive. That they are all powerful, and above the law.

artherd
03-07-2006, 1:40 AM
I am about ready to close this thread myself, sheesh.

Jeff Rambo
03-07-2006, 1:49 AM
Ben, in case you did not notice... the thread was closed by Ramon almost six hours ago.

artherd
03-07-2006, 1:58 AM
Ben, in case you did not notice... the thread was closed by Ramon almost six hours ago.
dangnabbit! I saw his post but figured it a warning. Usually he says "Thread Closed"

It's almost too easy to post in closed threads, we should ban high capacity multi-tabbed web browsers :D (then again, as of late I seem to be participating in half the threads getting closed, maybe I need to work on that. :P