PDA

View Full Version : New DOJ Reply Letters - Eagle Arms AR-10


Hillbillly
03-25-2006, 5:54 PM
Hey All

Does anyone have any new DOJ letters since Feb?

I was at the Costa Mesa show today and a vendor was selling Eagle Arms.
I was surprised as they were AR10's.
When I went back around someone was buying and filling out the paper work, and behold they gave him a copy of a DOJ approval letter for the Eagle Arms AR10!!!! I had March 9th on it.


Hey Admin and Moderators can we get a Sticky of the DOJ Letters Thread.

RRangel
03-25-2006, 6:02 PM
I do not recall any letters regarding the Eagle Arms AR10. It doesn't mean someone didn't submit one. It does have "Div Armalite" and "AR10" on the receiver. One would think this is very risky.

Mr331
03-25-2006, 6:08 PM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hillbillly
03-25-2006, 6:11 PM
I have been on this battle since the beginning. I just had a conversation with Special Agent Sean Kelley (ref'd to him by Alison) from the DOJ. It is in the DOJ's opinion that that the Eagle Arms AR-10 is already named through the Armalite AR-10. I would stay clear of these. This one is trickier than the Wilson combat / Wilson Tactical situation.
All I can say is I did see one today.
I read it and it was the regular AR-15 clone form letter stating that the Eagle Arms AR10 was note listed but would be soon.
If anyone who bought today has the letter please post it.

Hillbillly
03-25-2006, 6:13 PM
I do not recall any letters regarding the Eagle Arms AR10. It doesn't mean someone didn't submit one. It does have "Div Armalite" and "AR10" on the receiver. One would think this is very risky.
I was hoping that you could sticky the other tread that had a examples posted. Was it a link to another site perhaps. I just cant find it now.

Thanks

Mr331
03-25-2006, 6:17 PM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hillbillly
03-25-2006, 6:21 PM
Wow, I have 3 letters and 2 e-mails stating different. Thats from multiple sources at the DOJ!
Well, it was xerox'd !

Hopefully they didn't use the old cut and paste....

RRangel
03-25-2006, 6:28 PM
I'd hate to be the test case:

http://www.liberty-products.com/ar10.jpg

kantstudien
03-25-2006, 6:28 PM
It would have helped if you would have asked for a copy or else found out where it came from.

xenophobe
03-25-2006, 6:30 PM
The receiver clearly says Armalite AR10 on it. Sure there are extra words on it, like Eagle Arms, Div. This is NOT an off-list lower, it is a named Category 2 AW.

On original Category 1 AWs, for example, it only states "Uzi and Galil"... for either of these, the Make and Model are not Uzi or Galil, however those names are stamped on those firearms, and they are banned, regardless of the fact the make or importer, IMI, Action Arms or Magnum Research, and model number 323, 329 etc are clearly listed on these guns, they will get you a quick felony if you imported one now and tried to register it.

69Mach1
03-25-2006, 6:33 PM
Someone was selling AR-10's at the show, and only one person has reported on it. Anyone else here go today and see the same thing? Anybody have a copy of that letter?

superhondaz50
03-25-2006, 6:53 PM
I was there, and held the receiver in my hands. I saw Armalite and thought WTF? Guess it's legal!! The vendor did have an awesome new mag locking device. It utilized a standard push button release, but had an allen screw in it, near the standard threads, to lock the button, but with a turn of a allen wrench, backing out the screw returned the button to normal free-state function. if I do another build I will use his mag-locking device.

Mr331
03-25-2006, 6:54 PM
If anyone goes, please get the name of the DOJ offical who signed the letter. Thanks for any help.

thmpr
03-25-2006, 7:09 PM
I was there, and held the receiver in my hands. I saw Armalite and thought WTF? Guess it's legal!! The vendor did have an awesome new mag locking device. It utilized a standard push button release, but had an allen screw in it, near the standard threads, to lock the button, but with a turn of a allen wrench, backing out the screw returned the button to normal free-state function. if I do another build I will use his mag-locking device.


Do you have a pic or brand or was it home made?

Thanks...

stevie
03-25-2006, 7:13 PM
Hey, did you like my AR-10 Upper? Its on loan with the vendor.

In conversation with the vendor, he has a letter from DOJ that basically says the Eagle AR-10 is an off-list AR clone. These lowers came direct from Armalite who is also in the belief that these lowers are legal. Armalite has stated that the DOJ has informed them its Eagle Brand AR-10 will be added to the off-list ban.

One of the clients who purchased a lower today is a Deputy District Attorney who knows the Author of the letter from the DOJ and believes it legal, sorry but i did not catch the name. I am just a friend of the vendor and posting his report from today.

hawk1
03-25-2006, 7:23 PM
Stevie ask your vendor for info the mag lock he had, or how it can be ordered, next time you talk with him please.
Thanks,

thmpr
03-25-2006, 7:25 PM
Hey, did you like my AR-10 Upper? Its on loan with the vendor.

In conversation with the vendor, he has a letter from DOJ that basically says the Eagle AR-10 is an off-list AR clone. These lowers came direct from Armalite who is also in the belief that these lowers are legal. Armalite has stated that the DOJ has informed them its Eagle Brand AR-10 will be added to the off-list ban.

One of the clients who purchased a lower today is a Deputy District Attorney who knows the Author of the letter from the DOJ and believes it legal, sorry but i did not catch the name. I am just a friend of the vendor and posting his report from today.

This is great news for us but is totally lame on the DOJ part. This is as close to the Wilson lower situation but I think this situatuion is much worst! What I dont understand is how legal this is and how far we can take other situations like this and not end up in jail. I have personally contacted the DOJ on this matter and they stated "It is illegal to purchase the Eagle AR-10, because it states Armalie and AR-10 (Make and Model)". Based on this, the whole AW category is absurd because there is no solid indentification guide to classify an AW (Even the DOJ proved that on the Eagle AR-10). If they do not list soon and try to create a new CAT.4, they will lose to the fact on this situation as mentioned above. If you have the original letter and can prove its authenticity, the DOJ has nothing concrete to have anyone convicted.


This is getting more confusing as time goes on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1:confused:

69Mach1
03-25-2006, 7:28 PM
Stevie. Please ask your friend to post the letter here. Thanks.

EBWhite
03-25-2006, 7:29 PM
In all honesty, the receiver is LEGAL. The make is Eagle Arms and the model is AR-10

However, it does say armalite but the make is Eagle arms, not armalite.

But in the end, i would hate to go to jail and spend cash on fighting my way to victory. You would win but who wants to risk time+money? That dealer is treading a thin line on those things...

What was he selling them for? Were they stripped or complete? any info?

C.G.
03-25-2006, 7:29 PM
Stevie. Please ask your friend to post the letter here. Thanks.

+1. :)

grumpy562
03-25-2006, 7:33 PM
this vendor i believe didnt have them in stock and was pretty much only taking orders. he said he was suppose to be getting them in within 30 days...:confused:

69Mach1
03-25-2006, 7:33 PM
In all honesty, the receiver is LEGAL. The make is Eagle Arms and the model is AR-10

However, it does say armalite but the make is Eagle arms, not armalite.

But in the end, i would hate to go to jail and spend cash on fighting my way to victory. You would win but who wants to risk time+money? That dealer is treading a thin line on those things...

What was he selling them for? Were they stripped or complete? any info?

I think that ADA who bought one thought that a letter from the DOJ was protection enough.

69Mach1
03-25-2006, 7:38 PM
Wow, I have 3 letters and 2 e-mails stating different. Thats from multiple sources at the DOJ!


Could you please post those letters and email here?
-Thanks.

thmpr
03-25-2006, 7:43 PM
this vendor i believe didnt have them in stock and was pretty much only taking orders. he said he was suppose to be getting them in within 30 days...:confused:



If its okay, please post the vendors name and contact info. I would like to purchase the fixed mag kit. PM would be great as well.

Thanks...

xenophobe
03-25-2006, 8:04 PM
In all honesty, the receiver is LEGAL. The make is Eagle Arms and the model is AR-10

However, it does say armalite but the make is Eagle arms, not armalite.


Yes, and Galils were banned in 1989, though Galil is not a Make or Model, it is a Model SERIES... Yet they were still banned.

Yes, I think these receivers could be registered as Eagle Arms AR-10's, but has DOJ actually viewed the rollmark on these? I think the very nature of the name Armalite being on these makes these illegal, or very close to it. If the DOJ were to audit a FFL and see these, I am positive they would get confiscated.

Mr331
03-25-2006, 8:14 PM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx

thmpr
03-25-2006, 8:20 PM
The agent I spoke with over the phone yeterday had the pic from gunblast.com and saw the roll marks. He said "Armalite and Eagle Arms are one in the same".

Did a little research myself before jumping on the Eagle arms and found this interesting article which made me back off on this deal. Anyone want to comment on the legality on this one?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_4_47/ai_71323940


ArmaLite Today

Former US Army Ordnance officer Mark Westrom acquired rights to the ArmaLite name and his firm, Eagle Arms, is now officially known as ArmaLite Corp., based in Genesco, Ill.

C.G.
03-25-2006, 8:27 PM
Did a little research myself before jumping on the Eagle arms and found this interesting article which made me back off on this deal. Anyone want to comment on the legality on this one?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_4_47/ai_71323940


ArmaLite Today

Former US Army Ordnance officer Mark Westrom acquired rights to the ArmaLite name and his firm, Eagle Arms, is now officially known as ArmaLite Corp., based in Genesco, Ill.

That is the SR-25 and besides being rather expensive, it is also listed.

thmpr
03-25-2006, 8:35 PM
That is the SR-25 and besides being rather expensive, it is also listed.


C.G,
There is nothing on the article stating SR-25, Knights Armament. Reverfied the article several times and all it states is the Armalite and Eagle Arms.


Thanks for the follow up!

EBWhite
03-25-2006, 8:50 PM
someone please post the letter, who has these (pm would be fine), and the prices they were going for

stevie
03-25-2006, 9:05 PM
Sorry, i do not have access to the letter, but anyone can probably see or maybe get a copy from the vendor at the show.

stevie
03-25-2006, 9:07 PM
Hawk1

He sold out of the mag locks, these will work on either the AR-10 or AR-15, supposed to be a nice design. Will see if i can get additional information on them. If you happen to go to the show, he can probably take orders for them. Sorry thats all i know for now.

tenpercentfirearms
03-25-2006, 9:10 PM
this vendor i believe didnt have them in stock and was pretty much only taking orders. he said he was suppose to be getting them in within 30 days...I would highly recommend that you don't buy receivers that a vendor does not have in stock. I only make this recommendation because I too once sold receivers I didn't have in stock and a hundred customers were rather disappointed when I was not able to follow through due to circumstances nearly beyond my control. Nearly beyond my control because I shouldn't have been selling lowers I didn't have. I know better now. Do you?

I wonder if this guy is going to get a visit tomorrow from Mr. Chinn. I met him on a Sunday. I didn't leave in cuffs.

Ford8N
03-25-2006, 9:27 PM
I want to see this letter.

donger
03-25-2006, 9:40 PM
Hey, did you like my AR-10 Upper? Its on loan with the vendor.

In conversation with the vendor, he has a letter from DOJ that basically says the Eagle AR-10 is an off-list AR clone. These lowers came direct from Armalite who is also in the belief that these lowers are legal. Armalite has stated that the DOJ has informed them its Eagle Brand AR-10 will be added to the off-list ban.

One of the clients who purchased a lower today is a Deputy District Attorney who knows the Author of the letter from the DOJ and believes it legal, sorry but i did not catch the name. I am just a friend of the vendor and posting his report from today.

Stevie, after seeing your toys, I'm green with envy!

.308! .308! .308!

stevie
03-25-2006, 9:44 PM
Donger, lets go play sometimes, the toys are waiting!!!!

EBWhite
03-25-2006, 10:02 PM
I smell BS. I have yet to hear anyone name the price of the thing and specs of it at the show today!

69Mach1
03-25-2006, 10:11 PM
Someone said $450

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=30903&highlight=costa+mesa

superhondaz50
03-25-2006, 11:34 PM
They were $450

Surveyor
03-26-2006, 12:19 AM
Donger, lets go play sometimes, the toys are waiting!!!!
Uh, huh huh, hey Beavis, you said play with Donger, uh huh huh. :D

artherd
03-26-2006, 2:17 AM
Outstanding! While not nessecarily an air-tight situation (DOJ has issued incorrect opinions in the past, see SKS Sporters) this should at the very least protect any purchasers from intent issues regarding purchase.

Summary: worst that could happen right now is a court decides they are infact Armalite AR-10s and DOJ was wrong. You'd probally have to turn-in your Eagle-AR-10 (for monetairy compensations), but you shouldn't be facing any criminal charges.

Please post a scan of this letter as soon as possible.

tenpercentfirearms
03-26-2006, 7:58 AM
The sooner that letter gets posted, the sooner those things will start flooding the state. Now you just have to find some FFLs willing to do it. I bet Xenophobe will take care of the Nor Cal market.

That has been the nice thing about me taking that first big plunge, now everyone is doing it. I have done my part and now it is back to my sleeply little gun shop in my sleepy little town.

hawk1
03-26-2006, 8:00 AM
Hawk1

He sold out of the mag locks, these will work on either the AR-10 or AR-15, supposed to be a nice design. Will see if i can get additional information on them. If you happen to go to the show, he can probably take orders for them. Sorry thats all i know for now.

Thanks Stevie,
I won't be going to the show, but would still like to get a couple. Sounds like a better setup than the Sporting Conversions offering. Any info you can get would be appreciated.

stevie
03-26-2006, 8:03 AM
Hawk

PM sent

50 Shooter
03-26-2006, 8:44 AM
If you want one of those mag release locks contact Darin, he makes them and works with Al. dlprince1@aol.com

Mr331
03-26-2006, 9:14 AM
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

Mr331
03-26-2006, 10:21 AM
Vic,

You are preaching to the choir here. I have been on this fight for a long time. All your points and more were in my letters to the DOJ. You have no idea of the time and effort I put into this discussion with the DOJ. Please, get a copy of that letter up on the net soon!

C.G.
03-26-2006, 10:39 AM
Here (http://www.mr331.com/Eagle-Arms.gif) is what Alison wrote me on March 13, 2006. This is about the 4th or 5th letter I have from going back and forth with her. This time it mentioned pictures. I copied pictures, the ones we have all seen from gunblast.com. and sent them in. A few days later, I got an e-mail from Special Agent Sean Kelley saying to call him about the matter. I called and we talked for a long while. The bottom line was, according to them, since the Eagle Arms says "Armalite" and "AR-10" on it and The DPMS says "Panther" on it, they are banned. I know, I know...."make and model". Just relaying what was said.

I would be inclined to take Alison's advice, Kathy is only a Field Agent.

gibbet
03-26-2006, 11:12 AM
Well,...........the thing that gets me (and CA DOJ) is that if they consider Eagle Arms the same as Armalite, and Armalite the same as Eagle Arms,......then why didn't they list the Eagle Arms AR-15 type rifles under the Armalite name or vice versa on their glorified AW list????????


I think its because Eagle Arms receivers originally did not have Armalite stamped on them. When DOJ first examined them before the AWB, Eagle Arms EA-15 is all they said. The DOJ listing is a 90s view of the matter. Speed forward to today and you have a new Armalite rollmark introduced onto the Eagle Arms receiver. Now you MAY have 2 of the required elements for listing as a category 2 weapon. Thats where the gray area begins.

Mr331: Does your name reference the unlisted Galil's? Humorous coincidence if it does.

bwiese
03-26-2006, 11:23 AM
I would run, not walk away from an Eagle AR10.

Your defense against illegal AW possession is the Harrott decision, not a info letter from a DOJ clerk or even a senior person like a deputy AG (unless it's a formal opinion letter). When it's not clearly banned by make AND model, you're OK. The question is if Armalite and Eagle are one & the same.

When you get something this close to the line you are exposing yourself to one of the 58 DAs.

The Wilson Combat vs Wilson Tactical is clearly a different company (as well as model names being different.) Different owners, different addresses, different FFL registration.

But Armalite and Eagle are under the same roof, may have the same mfgr FFL even. The Eagle name in fact is simply used by Armalite so that there is no chance for their 'premium rifles' from the factory to be confused with a gun-show 'parts gun' built on receivers sold by them. That is, it's a marketing artifice more than anything differentiating actual manufacturer.

xenophobe
03-26-2006, 11:43 AM
That has been the nice thing about me taking that first big plunge, now everyone is doing it. I have done my part and now it is back to my sleeply little gun shop in my sleepy little town.

Yes, and I can say that the combination of my boss freaking out when he found out you were selling lowers, with the DOJ being there, and the discussion that following monday, both myself and John looked further into the matter and placed our first orders relatively soon afterwards.

There were a couple of days of intense arguing, yelling and attitudes (typical if you've ever been to the shop) but we managed to convince Mike that it was fully legal and started ordering recievers, and the rest is history.

Thank you. And I know Mike got all huffy, but he's harmless. He talks loud because he's pretty much deaf without his hearing aides... so my apologies for him screaming at you. If you talked to him about it again, he probably wouldn't recount that meeting the same way as you remember it either. lol

xenophobe
03-26-2006, 11:51 AM
Mr331: Does your name reference the unlisted Galil's? Humorous coincidence if it does.

Actually, Galil is an incorrect listing. Galil is not a model, it is a model SERIES. IMI is the manufacturer, either Action Arms or Magnum Research are the importers, and ALL Galils have a designated model number, 323, 329, 392, etc... So the Make and Model are not specified, only a model series, and of course, as determined by the courts they cannot ban by series.... and not all of them are actually stamped 'Galil'...

Because we had several of these at our store in the 90s before I worked there, and they absolutely were California legal. Anyways, that's a moot point now, as they're all banned, except for the rare off-list that does not say 'Galil' on them.

mrhappym1a
03-26-2006, 12:06 PM
So xenophobe, if it does turn out that these are legal and can be sold, will your shop maybe stock them?

And if these are legal, then maybe Hesse/Vulcan can shut down their civilian line and go back to the lucrative "Special Forces" market.

xenophobe
03-26-2006, 12:11 PM
As long as these receivers say both "Armalite" and "AR-10" on them, no I will not order them, and I would advise the owner, as well as any other FFL to avoid them.

Hopefully one company that will remain nameless for the time being will be getting their own branded version of the Armalite AR-10. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Someone really needs to call Armalite and have them quickly run a batch that only says "Eagle Arms" on them.

CALI-gula
03-26-2006, 12:48 PM
... Also, yes, the Armalite/Eagle Arms similarity was discussed when I spoke to Kathy Quinn on the phone the very first time. She actually brought it up that the AR-10 was already listed under the Armalite name on their list. But I kindly reminded her of the Kasler vs. Kings County decision and the requirement that the AW's had to be listed specifically by MAKE and MODEL, and that Eagle Arms was a seperate DIVISION of Armalite, and that the current DOJ AW list treats them and lists them seperately! So she agrees with me and tells me that she will have to ask another more knowledgeable DOJ agent/rep for clarification on this and that she would call me back...

Everyone wants to see the letter that was in reply FROM the DOJ. I would be more interested in seeing your letter TO the DOJ. If it only said "Is my Eagle Arms AR10 lower legal?" without noting the word Armalite is included on the lower, they may send out the reply letter by rote operation.

If I write them a letter tomorrow asking them if the "Bugs Bunny" brand lower would be legal as it is not on the list, I bet I would get the popular 58 DA reply letter, mentioning that my "Bugs Bunny" brand lower, while not on the list, may soon be added.

These DOJ staffers may not know all of the various model names, and it is unlikely they have knowledge of the various roll/stamp marks on each lower. If you had sent them your letter that referenced only "Eagle Arms AR10" without noting it also shows the name of Armalite on it, a DOJ staffer with little knowledge on AR lowers might check the list and say "nope, I don't see anything as a model AR10 under Eagle Arms on the list" without making the connection, or even knowing of a connection, between the two. Then, when verbally told of the connection, they may still think the same, still not realizing that the word "Armalite" is clearly stamped on the lower, whether it is a division or not.

Wasn't Eagle Arms at one time ONLY Eagle arms? Then there would be no Armalite stamp. In reference to Mercury being a division, it does have "Ford" stamped on the majority of its parts, both body and mechanical. I have disassembled many a Mercury, and if you did not know cars and were to pick up any of the parts, you would clearly deduce each one was for a Ford. (I am currently deep in the re-configuration/rebuild of a '69 351W Cougar and drive a 1966 289 Ford Ranchero ever day). And when it comes to Holley carburetors, none of them actually are cast or marked noting New Colt Holding Corp or Colt Manufacturing Company anywhere on the body or float bowls.

I am not trying to doubt you or play devil's advocate for the DOJ in any way. I WANT to support you on this AND get myself a .308 lower, I REALLY want to get a .308 lower in a bad way. I bought many lowers the last week of December and STILL bought 2 Grizzly lowers this past Thursday from CWS, so my allegiance to all of this is genuine. I have also dealt with Al B. on many guns in the past, from his home, and he is a stand-up honest guy (with an impressive military background) so I have not qualms or doubts about giving Al B. my money. It is all good to me....

However, I want to be sure the decisions on the Armalite/Eagle issue are not ambiguous in any way. The details sound good, but I want to be sure the details are not the result of any miscommunication to the DOJ. Dan Lungren's DOJ once thought certain SKS models would be legal to sell - things changed. Bill Lockyer's DOJ once thought the Robinson Armament's M96 sans pistol grip was still an AW and should be confiscated from all who bought them - things changed. It's all still DOJ opinion and not the final word, just as I think their February 1 memo is just as valid as the 2 latter opinions. Too many of the DOJ staffers put opinon out there as fact.

.

xenophobe
03-26-2006, 1:04 PM
Everyone wants to see the letter that was in reply FROM the DOJ. I would be more interested in seeing your letter TO the DOJ. If it only said "Is my Eagle Arms AR10 lower legal?" without noting the word Armalite is included on the lower, they may send out the reply letter by rote operation.

Since the response does not mention "Eagle Arms, Div. Armalite; AR-10" in the letter, I would assume that the DOJ does not know, and "Div. Armalite" was specifically not included in the original letter questioning the particular lower.... If it was, I'll definitely eat my words.

thmpr
03-26-2006, 1:11 PM
Since the response does not mention "Eagle Arms, Div. Armalite; AR-10" in the letter, I would assume that the DOJ does not know, and "Div. Armalite" was specifically not included in the original letter questioning the particular lower.... If it was, I'll definitely eat my words.


As Bill stated "Run!!!". It would be great to see an actual letter stating what Xeno stated. I believe everyone wants this to be legal which will open another flood gate of lower buy frenzy since we do not have a broad off list 308 lower we can purchase besides Vulcan. It would be great if other vendors would rush their release dates of their AR-10. They would make a huge amount of sales and profits and not to mention all the DROS fees (Hint Hint--->DOJ ;) )

Furthermore, Eagle Arms does not have a seperate website for their parts. Need to purchase from Armalite....hhhmmmm
Lexus, a subsidiary of Toyota, has its own websites and dealership.


Is it to good to be true? :confused:

gibbet
03-26-2006, 1:55 PM
I would not classify the unmarked Galil's as rare. Maybe not everyday sales items but I see them regularly. Here is one:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=45585711

Sorry to digress, this is a thread about Eagle Arms.

69Mach1
03-26-2006, 2:02 PM
I just got back from the show and here is what I've learned. The Eagle ARMS AR10 receivers are marked with "div Armalite". He is selling the stripped lower with a 10 round (Armalite) magazine, and mag catch included for $450 (plus DROS and tax). He does not have any in stock, but will get them within the week, DIRECTLY FROM ARMALITE. According to the seller, Armalite does know of our situation here in California, and told him that they would not have shipped (Eagle Arms) recievers into California if it was not legal to do so. They (Armalite) believe that their Eagle Arms lowers are not on the banned list. He is only accepting inquiries via email. Leave a message and your contact info. and he will get back to you. He's still at the show if you want to go talk to him. And yes I did get a copy of that infamous letter and it does say what m2hbvic stated. I don't have a way of scanning it, sorry. By the way, he told me the same story about the assistant dictrict attorney coming by to purchase one of the receivers. He said that the DA knew Kathy Quinn and even called her on his phone right there, and purchased the receiver after he hung up.

info@hunters-creek.com
Ask for Alan.

Mr331
03-26-2006, 2:56 PM
Mail it Vic! I will host it!
mr331@sbcglobal.net

50 Shooter
03-26-2006, 3:06 PM
Incoming.:)

ohsmily
03-26-2006, 3:13 PM
The following letter is not sufficient to justify buying Eagle Arms AR-10s in my opinion. The writer is just a field representative, AND there is no mention of Armalite. It can be inferred that original inquirer of the letter did not indicate that Eagle is a division of Armalite and the ignorant field rep didn't know this and just sent a "canned" form letter thinking it was just another off-list lower.

I think it would be extremely unwise (read: stupid) to buy one of these lowers without getting a letter from A. Merilees or other assistant AG about these receivers clearly stating that the Eagle Arms (acknowledging the division of Armalite connection) AR-10 receiver is off-list. At the very least, the letter asking the question should indicate the Armalite-Eagle connection.

While the other letters we have about stags, etc., are not law or a complete shield from prosecution, this letter from a field rep is an even less persuasive document.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/ohsmily/image002.jpg

thmpr
03-26-2006, 3:23 PM
The following letter is not sufficient to justify buying Eagle Arms AR-10s in my opinion. The writer is just a field representative, AND there is no mention of Armalite. It can be inferred that original inquirer of the letter did not indicate that Eagle is a division of Armalite and the ignorant field rep didn't know this and just sent a "canned" form letter thinking it was just another off-list lower.

I think it would be extremely unwise (read: stupid) to buy one of these lowers without getting a letter from A. Merilees or other assistant AG about these receivers clearly stating that the Eagle Arms (acknowledging the division of Armalite connection) AR-10 receiver is off-list. At the very least, the letter asking the question should indicate the Armalite-Eagle connection.

While the other letters we have about stags, etc., are not law or a complete shield from prosecution, this letter from a field rep is an even less persuasive and weak document.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/ohsmily/image002.jpg


So why did the DA buy a lower from the Gun Show? For evidence purpose? Why was the vendor not arrested or taken in for selling the lower? Either the DA story was made up? Or this situation never happened. Is the DOJ setting us up? Conspiracy? :p

thmpr
03-26-2006, 3:26 PM
Bill Weise and Ben, your comments and insights would be very much appreciated on this situation!

Mr331
03-26-2006, 3:28 PM
While the other letters we have about stags, etc., are not law or a complete shield from prosecution, this letter from a field rep is an even less persuasive and weak document.

I'm not sure that who it is from matters..

It goes to court. Of course the DA calls in the DOJ to be the "expert". This document is pulled out. It shows that the buyer or (defendant in this example) has made the proper good faith step by asking for approval. the proper authority unit has responded with their opinion. This is exactly what Harrott is based on. So a guy not only has to write a letter, but has to ask a specific person. A letter is only good from specific people? Too much confussion for the "average guy". Am I wrong here? Maybe..help me through this.

ohsmily
03-26-2006, 3:32 PM
I'm not sure that who it is from matters..

It goes to court. Of course the DA calls in the DOJ to be the "expert". This document is pulled out. It shows that the buyer or (defendant in this example) has made the proper good faith step by asking for approval. the proper authority unit has responded with their opinion. This is exactly what Harrott is based on. So a guy not only has to write a letter, but has to ask a specific person. A letter is only good from specific people? Too much confussion for the "average guy". Am I wrong here? Maybe..help me through this.


NONE of the letters, even the ones from A Merilees are going to protect you 100% from prosecution. They can be introduced as evidence in support of your case, but it is not going to be like, you: "look, here is the letter" judge: "case dismissed". But a letter from an assistant AG will carry more weight than a field rep who overlooked a detail b/c the person sending the letter either concealed or omitted a salient fact.

You guys do what you want, we are all adults, but I will not be buying an AR-10 until I see a letter saying the Eagle Arms lower is legal while at the same time acknowleding the Armalite-Eagle connection. And, it will need to come from someone higher up than a field rep who just sent out a form letter.

ohsmily
03-26-2006, 3:35 PM
Wow, there are alot of asterisks and question marks in your post.

As to your question/statement about no one being "smart enough" to know who can give the final word...there is no FINAL WORD from ANYONE except a judge and jury on this. So you can post all the strings of exasperated question marks that you want, it won't answer anything.

BUT, having said that, people have consulted lawyers about the "off-list" situation, and they have concurred with the interpretation that off-list lowers are legal. NO ONE has asked a lawyer about this particular model and I GUARANTEE they will advise against getting it unless someone more than a field rep has the same interpretation (and even then they might advise against buying one).

Also, you are going to believe the story about a DA who bought one from someone you don't know? Talk about second hand knowledge. Like I am sure a DA would make a big deal about who they are when they are buying a gun. "Hi EVERYONE, I AM A DA, EVERYONE WATCH WHILE I BUY THIS...IS EVERYONE WATCHING ME...YAY!". You are really gullible. While it may have happened, you sure put alot of creedence in it while using it as a major part of your argument about why the AR-10's are kosher.

So, save your asterisks, buy whatever you like, no one is stopping you...We are counseling caution. There is apparently no rush anymore (nothing is going to be listed in "2 weeks" [knock on wood])

Well something must've been "sufficient" for that DA who knows and called Kathy Quinn from the gunshow, and then bought one right there on the spot! That's what 69MACH1 posted a few posts before this one!

And some people are saying that this letter/opinion/whatever is not the "final word" as such. So,.............does anyone out there know for sure and without a doubt, who the individual at CA DOJ, can positively and undeniably give that so-called "FINAL WORD" on the Eagle Arms AR-10 stripped lower receivers legality??????????????????????????????????

ANYONE???????????????????

WHO IS IT?????????????????????????????

Maybe I should call up the f*****g Governor of CA and ask him!!!!! Yeah, he's the head idiot there in Sacramento, running the whole show! Right???

It seems like alot of guys on this board are a bunch of expert armchair lawyers, yet nobody here is f*****g smart enough to know who at CA DOJ can make the absolute/undeniable/inarguable/gospel/etc. "FINAL WORD" decision on all this!

No wonder this state is so f***ed up and in the trouble it's in. The one hand that's wiping,..................doesn't have any idea what the other hand is doing!

Why aren't all the CA DOJ Field Reps on the same page??????

Why aren't all the CA DA's on the same page????????

Why aren't all of the beloved prosecutors in all of the great 58 counties of this so-called "Republic" on the same f*****g page????????????????????

The bureaucracy that this states government has created is way more complicated than the nuclear power plant at 3-Mile Island ever was!
Vic

TonyNorCal
03-26-2006, 3:39 PM
Some of you guys really ought to lighten up a bit

thmpr
03-26-2006, 3:41 PM
Vic,
Are you done venting? Relax bro, we are on your side! The main issue here is legality. I agree on the fact that the DOJ is obviously not on the right page. The AW law is the law and the last say. The DOJ has made mistakes here "SKS legality". As Ben stated previously, if this issue goes to court, the worst thing that can happen is monetary compensation. Here is an example, in the corporate world, first level managers or individual contributors have authorized someone via a written letter or verbally told it was okay to purchase goods and shot down at the end from HR. Been there myself. I totally understand your frustrations. Everyone is just CYOA here. This situtaion is very unique!!!

TonyNorCal
03-26-2006, 3:49 PM
My two cents on the matter are that the law generally seems to be about what a reasonable person would think. Isn't that what the law often comes down to...a reasonable person standard or test? Would a reasonable person, upon seeing an official DOJ letter signed with 'For Lockyer' on the bottom, assume this receiver is in fact legal to purchase? I'd say yes.

I'd say a reasonable person is not a gun expert and not someone who is well versed in the DOJ's internal rank structure. Is it likely that Alison will countermand this letter? Well, it's entirely possible. This may well be a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing.

Point is...
There is an official letter stating that the DOJ doesn't view it as an assault weapon. I don't see the issue of who signed it being as relevant when it comes to that reasonable person test.

Could someone be made to give up one of these receivers? I think maybe.
Would someone go to jail over this with that letter? I seriously doubt it.

Of course, like most of you, I am not an attorney and just stating my initial thoughts. If you disagree that's great.

At least in Cali we still have that right.

69Mach1
03-26-2006, 3:52 PM
PRINCE-50

Is there anyway you can convince Alan to post here about his experiences that led up to the importation of the Eagle Arms AR10 receivers into California? A first hand account may clear some things up.

ohsmily
03-26-2006, 3:57 PM
My two cents on the matter are that the law generally seems to be about what a reasonable person would think. Isn't that what the law often comes down to...a reasonable person standard or test? Would a reasonable person, upon seeing an official DOJ letter signed with 'For Lockyer' on the bottom, assume this receiver is in fact legal to purchase? I'd say yes.

Point is...
There is an official letter stating that the DOJ doesn't view it as an assault weapon. I don't see the issue of who signed it being as relevant when it comes to that reasonable person test.


Generally, the objective standard is appropriate. BUT, that is in application to LAW and statutes. This LETTER from a DOJ agent is NOT law. It is an advisory letter, an opinion; it is not the law. We have all seen the actual law. It lists Armalite Ar-10's as assault weapons. This receiver says Eagle Arms, division of Armalite AR-10. In my semi-legal opinion, a reasonable person would see that the AR-10 is listed. However, the Harrott decision was all about this, and it would require another court case to determine who is actually right. I am willing to risk that in relation to clearly off-list lowers (Stag, Double Star, etc), but this is way too close if not completely over the line.

In sum, your "reasonable person standard" (objective standard) does not apply to this letter from a field rep (or even an assistant AG).

ohsmily
03-26-2006, 4:01 PM
My Dad was right when he said that "the lawyers are ruining this country".

If you can't beat them, then join them.

Gosh, I think I'll become a lawyer!
Vic

Well, your father wasn't very well educated on the subject. It is easy to blame a class of people or profession for your woes. But don't forget, lawyers needs clients and a court system to function and the majority of them are honest, hard working people who highly regard the principles of ethics. Go take the multi-state professional responsibility exam (required before you can take the Bar in any state). (no, I don't have any lawyers in my family).

And btw, your NASA reference about crossing your fingers and hoping it will be alright seems to EXACTLY APPLY if you were to buy an Eagle AR-10 lower. Buy one and just "cross your fingers and hope it will be OK". It seems that you are arguing that sitting back and just crossing your fingers is bad...so then follow your own advice.

TKo_Productions
03-26-2006, 4:08 PM
Are these Eagle Arms/Armalite AR-10's considered AR-15 series weapons? By that I mean do they have a chance of being listed, and thus challenged so that we can use them with detachable magazines and other evil features?

ohsmily
03-26-2006, 4:09 PM
And how much is this going to cost us in legal fees?

The lawyers always win in any case, win or lose. They always get their $$$
Vic

Uh, that is the service they provide and went to school for. Do you feel the same way about engineers and doctors?

I mean, if you never went to those dang doctors, you would never know what was wrong with you or if something was serious or not and if you do, you gotta pay up...those pesky doctors always get their "$$$". Damn them! (this is heavy sarcasm if you couldn't tell).

It won't cost you anything right now if you choose not to buy a AR-10. And don't worry, I am sure someone else will hire a lawyer so you don't have to.

Don't get all huffy b/c a nobody like me advised against getting an Eagle AR-10. By all means, go get one if you think you will be reasonably safe from prosecution (if you haven't already DROSed one).

xenophobe
03-26-2006, 4:21 PM
DID ANYONE NOTICE THE CHANGE IN LETTERFORM?

"... and is not yet a Category Two assault rifle"

Wow... either this is a typo, or they have conceded that any additions will indeed be a Category 2 AW.... This is pretty freaking big news, IMO.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/ohsmily/image002.jpg

TKo_Productions
03-26-2006, 4:24 PM
DID ANYONE NOTICE THE CHANGE IN LETTERFORM?

"... and is not yet a Category Two assault rifle"

Wow... either this is a typo, or they have conceded that any additions will indeed be a Category 2 AW.... This is pretty freaking big news, IMO.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/ohsmily/image002.jpg

Either that, or more likely its further support of ohsmily's argument that that particular field agent doesn't fully understand or grasp the issue.

I mean lets face it, the whole thing is confusing, and these "field agents" aren't exactly experts.

phish
03-26-2006, 4:26 PM
:eek:

"Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis"?

First time I read this was when you just posted it, cat 2...

Does this mean they're back-pedaling on cat 4?

ETA, I get it: 2 different departments seem to have different opinions: the criminal information dept. vs. firearms division

xenophobe
03-26-2006, 4:27 PM
Phish, I think that might be a bigger hint on what is to come... It very may well have been a 'give'.


Either that, or more likely its further support of ohsmily's argument that that particular field agent doesn't fully understand or grasp the issue.

Either that or the Field Agent knows exactly what she's talking about... That's a change in letterform which has been pretty standard over the last 6 months or so regarding receivers, with wording changes from will list, to may list, now it is "not yet a Category Two assault rifle"?

Perhaps they've had the internal debate as to Category 4 and the fact that there isn't room in the law for one and have conceded that they will indeed be Category 2 after they are listed? (which is what they would be anyways, which we all know)

TonyNorCal
03-26-2006, 4:28 PM
Ok, I am just playing Devil's Advocate here...

Regarding this reasonable person thing...


Let's say the average 'reasonable' citizen goes to the Costa Mesa gun show. While there he comes across a licensed dealer openly selling Eagle Arms AR-10 receivers. This dealer is also in possession of a letter from the DOJ stating that they do not consider this to be a banned item.

The reasonable citizen looks at this letter. It is on official stationary, signed by a DOJ representative and says 'For Lockyer' at the bottom. Now, this reasonable person is not privy to Kasler and has never heard of Kasler. Have most reasonable citizens? He is also not familiar with the DOJ's hierarchy. He's never heard of Alison Merilees and Randy Rossi and all the DOJ cast members. Again, like most reasonable people. He does however know who Lockyer is, maybe even voted for him (let's hope not). Anyway, the letter is signed 'For Lockyer'.

So, he is presented to a state licensed dealer and a this letter which to him appears official, seems to carry the weight of the DOJ, and is even signed by proxy for Lockyer.

My contention is that most people not aware of the issues we are would assume this is a legitimate item to purchase and possess. Most people are not the saavy Calguns veterans, well versed in the nuances and who have given thought to gray areas, that some of you are.

So, should he be aware of issues beyond what he is presented with at the show? or would it be reasonable for him to assume, based on the information provided, that this is accepatable?

Now, this person goes home, dutifully reads the characteristics (12276.1) statute referenced in the letter. And follows the that statute is assembling his rifle.

Well, what do you think?

ohsmily
03-26-2006, 4:33 PM
Ok, I am just playing Devil's Advocate here...

Regarding this reasonable person thing...


Let's say the average 'reasonable' citizen goes to the Costa Mesa gun show. While there he comes across a licensed dealer openly selling Eagle Arms AR-10 receivers. This dealer is also in possession of a letter from the DOJ stating that they do not consider this to be a banned item.

The reasonable citizen looks at this letter. It is on official stationary, signed by a DOJ representative and says 'For Lockyer' at the bottom. Now, this reasonable person is not privy to Kasler and has never heard of Kasler. Have most reasonable citizens? He is also not familiar with the DOJ's hierarchy. He's never heard of Alison Merilees and Randy Rossi and all the DOJ cast members. Again, like most reasonable people. He does however know who Lockyer is, maybe even voted for him (let's hope not). Anyway, the letter is signed 'For Lockyer'.

So, he is presented to a state licensed dealer and a this letter which to him appears official, seems to carry the weight of the DOJ, and is even signed by proxy for Lockyer.

My contention is that most people not aware of the issues we are would assume this is a legitimate item to purchase and possess.

Now, this person goes home, dutifully reads the characteristics (12276.1) statute referenced in the letter. And follows the that statute is assembling his rifle.

Well, what do you think?

The person could use that letterand these hypothetical facts that you listed in support of their case to show their SUBJECTIVE state of mind and view of the isse, but it will still come back to an OBJECTIVE interpretation of the statute (b/c this particular statute does not allow for what someone thought at the time, but what a reasonable person, (NOT the actual accused), would have understood the law to say. All these factors that you are bringing in play into the SUBJECTIVE understanding of the particular person on trial. Though the evidence will come into play, the black letter law will be very damning (or maybe it won't be damning if the court believes that Armalite AR-10 does not include Eagle Arms of Armalite AR-10).

Wulf
03-26-2006, 5:16 PM
But if you go to a Jury and spend three days with a DOJ attorney interviewing a DOJ expert on the nuiances of the AW laws the jury is going to be either bored or confused to tears. On cross when, presented with the letter and the DOJ expert says, "oh, that's just a staffer who doesnt know what they're talking about, that letter doesnt mean anything" the whole DOJ will loose credability. Then when you get to present your case and you say " Look, its a state lic dealer, here's a very official letter, a letter in fact issued by DOJ in the name of the AG." The Jury will lock onto that simple understanble explaination and you'll not be convicted. The jury would want to send the message that they're pissed for being bored for three days and that the DOJ doesnt get to wrong and screw the little guy in the process.

These little whoops letters might not mean much in the eyes of the law but I'm thinking they'll have plenty of weight with a jury.

ohsmily
03-26-2006, 5:25 PM
But if you go to a Jury and spend three days with a DOJ attorney interviewing a DOJ expert on the nuiances of the AW laws the jury is going to be either bored or confused to tears. On cross when, presented with the letter and the DOJ expert says, "oh, that's just a staffer who doesnt know what they're talking about, that letter doesnt mean anything" the whole DOJ will loose credability. Then when you get to present your case and you say " Look, its a state lic dealer, here's a very official letter, a letter in fact issued by DOJ in the name of the AG." The Jury will lock onto that simple understanble explaination and you'll not be convicted. The jury would want to send the message that they're pissed for being bored for three days and that the DOJ doesnt get to wrong and screw the little guy in the process.

These little whoops letters might not mean much in the eyes of the law but I'm thinking they'll have plenty of weight with a jury.

Thats a happy little picture you painted of your court-room scenario...good luck...though the DOJ is slow and stupid as a gov't body, their high level attorneys are very skilled and knowledgeable and know alot more about how to argue a case properly than your happy hypo lets on.

I am not saying anyone is getting taken to court over anything right now, I don't tiptoe around anything (this seems clear to me). And, no offense, but it is very apparent from your post that the only judicial process understanding/education you have comes from TV and movies. For example, juries are restricted to decide based on a certain set of criteria (jury instructions for the particular offense) and it is likely that many of the things you mentioned won't even be allowed for the decision making process.

Hillbillly
03-26-2006, 7:35 PM
And some people are saying that this letter/opinion/whatever is not the "final word" as such. So,.............does anyone out there know for sure and without a doubt, who the individual at CA DOJ, can positively and undeniably give that so-called "FINAL WORD" on the Eagle Arms AR-10 stripped lower receivers legality??????????????????????????????????

ANYONE???????????????????

WHO IS IT?????????????????????????????

Maybe I should call up the f*****g Governor of CA and ask him!!!!! Yeah, he's the head idiot there in Sacramento, running the whole show! Right???

It seems like alot of guys on this board are a bunch of expert armchair lawyers, yet nobody here is f*****g smart enough to know who at CA DOJ can make the absolute/undeniable/inarguable/gospel/etc. "FINAL WORD" decision on all this!

No wonder this state is so f***ed up and in the trouble it's in. The one hand that's wiping,..................doesn't have any idea what the other hand is doing!

Why aren't all the CA DOJ Field Reps on the same page??????

Why aren't all the CA DA's on the same page????????

Why aren't all of the beloved prosecutors in all of the great 58 counties of this so-called "Republic" on the same f*****g page????????????????????


And all we have to worry about is who can we get the "FINAL WORD" from over at the CA DOJ!

I'm tired of all this BS!
Vic

I have to agree with the BS statement.

However, your answers are in the Harrot case law.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/harrott_v_kings.txt

As I read it, Only the Attorney General has the Power and Responsibility to name new Assault Weapons! It is easier for the AG to name AR and AK series weapons but needs to prove (overwhelming evidence) that other Weapons are AW's to a Court with a population over 1 million.

So,.............does anyone out there know for sure and without a doubt, who the individual at CA DOJ, can positively and undeniably give that so-called "FINAL WORD" on the Eagle Arms AR-10 stripped lower receivers legality
The answer would be Attorney General Bill Lockyer!!!

Why aren't all the CA DA's on the same page????????
I would assume the 58 DA's are smart enough to understand the results of Harrot case law and would not even try to make a case example out of a clearly non listed lower.

Example, They would know (without doubt)the lower is not on the list but would try to prosecute anyway.

I believe this is the reason I think most of the long time Calgun group advise staying away from the Eagle AR 10.
The good and bad thing about the current law is that the List = Bad and nothing more and non-list = Good. (excluding SB23 items)
But if it could be considered on the list and there are many examples of these grey area guns, then this Grey area = Good or Bad.

So lets say Joe Blow is out today with his lower and gets pulled over and the officer sees it on the back seat. It looks like a AR Lower to him and he decides you may have a AW. He asks you for your registration and you explain how you don't have one and don't need one. He does not believe you and decides to take you in to the station to determine how he should proceed.

Example 1) The lower is a Sun-devil SD-15 and once you get to the station they look it up in the AW Guide and find its not in it. They call the local DA and explain the situation. You probably have a very good chance of them stopping at this point.

Example 2) The Lower is a Eagle Arms by Armalite lower AR-10 and they look it up in the AW Guide. They can's find it in the Eagle section so they turn to the Armalite section and find the Armalite AR-10. They then call and explain this to the local DA. What do you think your chances or having this dreadful event end at this point? My opinion is it would be just starting!
Unless, you had a letter from Bill specifically outlining that this lower is not an AW. Maybe !

And even if you didn't have this letter, I am not saying a citizen could not make a great case and most likely win but I can see how this could happen with a Grey area gun and not so much with a clearly non listed gun.

My opinion on the whole result (meaning) behind Harrot is that everyone (citizens, DA's, Dealers, Courts, Manufactures) would easily know if a weapon is an AW because it would be on the Current updated list that would be promulgated and updated regularly. So that everyone can live by the law.
To me this basically means that the Attorney General defines what weapons are considered Assault weapons in Cali, and provides that information to everyone. With the specific intent of keeping law enforcement for illegally confiscating weapons that they shouldn't or keeping DA's from wrongly prosecuting citizens on illegal AW possession.

C.G.
03-26-2006, 7:39 PM
m2hbvic, done ranting? The fact remains that there are two letters and the negative one is from Alison Merrilees who is higher up on the DOJ ladder than Kathy Quinn. No wonder people are leery.

http://www.mr331.com/Eagle-Arms.gif

PIRATE14
03-26-2006, 7:57 PM
If you want a AR-10 LOWER and someone will ship/sell it and u get a dealer to xfer/sell.......****in buy it if u want.....but there will be a risk!!!!!!!!

If u don't want to take the risk........don't buy it......simple.

We don't need no stinkin.......letter:rolleyes:

CALI-gula
03-26-2006, 8:17 PM
I have no qualms about WHO signs off on the DOJ letter, though rank should be noted. However there is a lot of arguing here over the unrelated details, irrelevant, like whether lawyers are nice or not, while ignoring the primary fact of the letter’s text:

Was the importance of the full description of an "Eagle Arms AR-10" with its Armalite Div. roll mark on the lower communicated properly to the DOJ? I get the impression the DOJ would respond with their "58 DAs" letter no matter what lower name you ask about, even if fictitious, so long it is not on the list.

This is not subjective or ambiguous, nor irrelevant; “Armalite Div.” IS on the lower and the DOJ letter makes no mention of it. This is quite a literal notation on the lower, not a wavering interpretation. Nothing in the DOJ reply letter dictates they view the 2 companies as separate, and it should be noted that Eagle Arms and Armalite were once 2 different companies, the reason they show up on the list separately.

If the person drawing up the response letter is issuing many of these letters a week while also busy processing the 50BMG registration forms, and other parts of their job, maybe the letter received a quick turn-around as I stated in an earlier post with no commitment to any research of the name details. So they check the list, "nope, there is no Eagle Arms AR10 on it" without noting the Armalite AR10 is there, and Armalite AR10 appears on the lower. This no different than noting there is a Colt AR15 and an Armalite AR15 where early Colts may have been marked with both names as Colt/Armalite.

Early on in the mass lower purchases, people were pouring over the details again and again to be sure all of this was correct. Now I wonder if people are just getting in line and buying without educating themselves on why this mass lower purchasing exists in the first place, the details of the FAQ, and the Harrot case.

These new people may not be learning the details and are just buying because someone told them "Hey, did you know you can get an AR15 in CA again?". It will be these late-comers that make huge mistakes, that build fully detachable mag rifles without the effective list being revised. They might also bring in various AR models or AK variants that are on the list without ever referring to the list, or with SB23 features before any list is promulgated.

This is not a game of charades where either we or the DOJ needs to guess the word association. All aspects must be considered, not just "well I see it this way so it must be true". It would be unwise to completely blow off those that are raising questions of the lowers being stamped with "Eagle Arms/Armalite Div. AR10" being a problem

If the DOJ letter said "Eagle Arms/Armalite Division AR10" then I would have rushed down to Costa Mesa today to have bought 3 of them.

I am willing to bet that if a letter reaches Kathy again, but notes the Eagle/Armalite relationship, or that the Eagle Arms AR10 is stamped with “Armalite Div.” the return letter will not read as anywhere near the same. It might even say that it supersedes all previous determination letters. I would say someone needs to send a new letter noting the complete roll/stamp mark.

I do WANT to buy one of these; it just needs to be better defined with inclusion of "Armalite Div." in the name.

AND... I did notice the Category 2 reference. :D


.

artherd
03-26-2006, 9:59 PM
And some people are saying that this letter/opinion/whatever is not the "final word" as such. So,.............does anyone out there know for sure and without a doubt, who the individual at CA DOJ, can positively and undeniably give that so-called "FINAL WORD" on the Eagle Arms AR-10 stripped lower receivers legality??????????????????????????????????


Nobody, DOJ does not issue the so called 'final word'. Rather, the Judicial branch (namely the CA State Supreme Court) will issue the final word.

Anything said by DOJ untill then is at absolute best informal legal advice given without a formal retainer and without benefit of legal malpractice insurance. And they have been held to be wrong in opinion before (see SKS Sporters.)

PS: Yes, it's ****ed-up.

m2hbvic, done ranting? The fact remains that there are two letters and the negative one is from Alison Merrilees who is higher up on the DOJ ladder than Kathy Quinn. No wonder people are leery.

http://www.mr331.com/Eagle-Arms.gif
Meh? Where's that second letter, I've been out of the loop for a while.
-Ben.

Santa Cruz Armory
03-26-2006, 10:27 PM
Are there any AR 10 lowers that are legal to purchase right now? I'd like to get one in the safe for the future.

Thanks guys.

CALI-gula
03-26-2006, 10:53 PM
Are there any AR 10 lowers that are legal to purchase right now? I'd like to get one in the safe for the future.

Thanks guys.

Yes... There is the COBB MCR but it is rather high-priced; the COBB lower alone is fetching $1250, and the various parts from COBB to build it up will be another $1700 to $2500 on top of the $1250 cost for the lower, depending. At that rate, I would rather apply the $1250 toward a Springfield SOCOM I or II or a DSA Arms FAL.

There is the Vulcan (once Hesse) but quality, machining, and fit have been greatly questioned. Knowing what I know about Vulcan/Hesse .50BMG rifles, I would rather go without a .308 AR than to buy a Vulcan .308.

There is the MGI lower with an adaptable front mag-well, but so far I do not know of anyone that has them readily available in .308, though the company promises to get some to CA. That could be a while.

The reason everyone wants the "Eagle Arms/Armalite Div. AR10" lower to work out in our favor so badly is because the quality of the lower is exceptional, the price is reasonable (even for CA) and all of the Armalite AR10 parts will fit perfectly (as it is made by Armalite). It is a "true" AR10 made by the people that make the leading (and for the most part, only) AR10 . I too am HOPING there can be a follow-up letter validating the "Eagle Arms/Armalite Div. AR10" roll mark as not being considered the same as Armalite.

Busmaster's AR10 had some problems, would not fit the Armalite AR10 parts ifor some items, and was discontinued.

.

TKo_Productions
03-26-2006, 11:11 PM
I too am HOPING there can be a follow-up letter validating the "Eagle Arms/Armalite Div. AR10" roll mark as not being considered the same as Armalite.

C.G.'s copy of the letter is down, but here it is rehosted. In a letter dated after the one written by Kathy Quinn, Alison Merrilees a deputy attorney general and not just a field representative, states that the Eagle Arms AR-10 is already identified/listed, and thus illegal:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8881/eaglearms1sy.gif (http://imageshack.us)

adamsreeftank
03-27-2006, 2:44 AM
I have a couple of thoughts about this situation.

My first question is whether Eagle Arms ever made an AR-10 before they were aquired by Armalite. If so, maybe the original Eagle Arms rifle is off list, but the new Armalite/Eagle Arms isn't. Maybe this isn't the case. I don't know.

Second, seeing a DA purchase a lower would make me MORE nervous. I don't know when the law would "kick in", but if you sold an AW to a DA and actually DELIVERED it, I would expect a new pair of locking bracelets before you left the building.

Finally, I would love to get a COBB or MGI lower, but the price and time frame worry me. Frankly, I doubt either will be shipping in quantity before the list is updated. (I'd love to eat those words). For that reason, I decided to go with the Hesse. It is not made by Vulcan. They were bought by Vulcan at an auction, and when they are gone, they are gone. At least that is what the Vulcan rep told me. The quality is certainly not great (of the six sets of Vulcan uppers and lowers I have personally handled, none of them fit together properly.) But then, the Stags I have are very tight and I can't get the pins in my High Standard either. I don't think it will take much work to get them running. Especially if I go with an AR-10 upper. I could be wrong, but we'll see.

trbon8r
03-27-2006, 8:41 AM
I love the part in the letter about submitting a photograph of the receiver for review. Oh ok.

Then if it's determined to not be legal you've just skylined yourself to be the perfect test case for them to make an example of. Then it's either turn over the receiver (if you're lucky) or get prepared for your 4:00 am wakeup call from the MP-5 brigade. :rolleyes:

xenophobe
03-27-2006, 11:19 AM
IF someone has a viable email address for Allison, I will be more than happy to submit a letter and a photo of the lower in question.

TMC
03-27-2006, 1:06 PM
I would rather go without a .308 AR than to buy a Vulcan .308.



Wow, I'm just the opposite, I'd rather have a Hesse .308 than no .308 at all.

I have tools and can make it work

Hersir
03-27-2006, 1:12 PM
At least one poster seems to think it was ArmaLite that acquired Eagle Arms but it was the other way around. ArmaLite was just a defunct name that the owner of Eagle Arms bought in late 1994. Here's a link to the interesting history:

http://www.armalite.com/library/history/history.htm

Note the relationship between LMT and Eagle Arms many years ago and LMT's active role in developing what would become the modern AR-10 when it was being called the Eagle Arms M-10.

It's not a secret that Eagle Arms is a division of ArmaLite, or the history behind it. Eagle Arms never manufactured a complete .308 AR for sale before acquiring the ArmaLite name, but was actively developing one (the M-10). This rifle became the AR-10B under the ArmaLite Inc. brand. It was only produced after the reorganization and only under the ArmaLite name--and you could only buy a complete rifle, no "ArmaLite" lowers were sold separately.

Eagle Arms is the division that sells ArmaLite Inc. products under a distinct and different brand name since ArmaLite Inc. branded rifles come with a lifetime warranty and Eagle Arms parts do not. Interestingly the DOJ has never identified Eagle Arms as anything but a separate maker of firearms for the purposes of identifying "assault weapons". That is they have never referenced EA as "Eagle Arms Division of ArmaLite Inc." or "Eagle Arms/ArmaLite, Inc.", etc. Although the legal relationship between the two entities is well known DOJ has always treated them as distinct for the purposes of identifying "assault weapons".

Harrott is all about getting rid of doubt and confusion, and not having 58 DA's doing different things with the same firearms. It was direction to the DOJ to take responsibility for helping law enforcement and the courts to figure out what consititutes a series "assault weapon" in California. Clearly the situation with respect to series firearms is only more confusing now than ever before--requiring all of us to guess about these things, which is exactly what Harrott sought to do away with.

Mr331
03-27-2006, 7:45 PM
IF someone has a viable email address for Allison, I will be more than happy to submit a letter and a photo of the lower in question.

Save your time, I already did it.

C.G.
03-27-2006, 8:09 PM
Save your time, I already did it.

Did you re-submit?

Mr331
03-27-2006, 8:39 PM
Did you re-submit?


Yes, I sent in the photos from gunblast.com and the URL's to the pictures. Alison has had enough of me through this whole thing and handed me off to Special Agent Sean Kelley. Sean e-mailed me and asked me to call him so we could go over what I submitted. I called and he was very polite and professional. First he wanted to make sure I did not posses the lower. If I did, he wanted to make sure I got rid of it. He then went on to say "Armalite and Eagle Arms are one in the same". The real hang up for him seemed to be be the fact it said "Armalite" AND "AR-10". We went to discuss the way it's listed. He had no answer for Armalite and Eagle Arms being listed separate. I did take this from the conversation, the Eagle Arms AR-10 is NOT listed by the letter of the law now, but it will be. I will bet one of my DSA lowers on that.

C.G.
03-27-2006, 8:56 PM
Yes, I sent in the photos from gunblast.com and the URL's to the pictures. Alison has had enough of me through this whole thing and handed me off to Special Agent Sean Kelley. Sean e-mailed me and asked me to call him so we could go over what I submitted. I called and he was very polite and professional. First he wanted to make sure I did not posses the lower. If I did, he wanted to make sure I got rid of it. He then went on to say "Armalite and Eagle Arms are one in the same". The real hang up for him seemed to be be the fact it said "Armalite" AND "AR-10". We went to discuss the way it's listed. He had no answer for Armalite and Eagle Arms being listed separate. I did take this from the conversation, the Eagle Arms AR-10 is NOT listed by the letter of the law now, but it will be. I will bet one of my DSA lowers on that.

Thank you for the report, well written.:)
So, basically he re-stated your former letter. I guess, that is enough for me not to get into them, unless he sends you a different letter than the last time.

TacFan
03-27-2006, 9:20 PM
Thank you for the report, well written.:)
So, basically he re-stated your former letter. I guess, that is enough for me not to get into them, unless he sends you a different letter than the last time.

what letter was it ?

C.G.
03-27-2006, 9:23 PM
what letter was it ?

look on previous page, posted by TKO Productions.

blacklisted
03-27-2006, 9:50 PM
There is a red X there.

It's a conspiracy, they deleted the letter. :eek:

ETA: It's another conspiracy, they deleted your post!

Update: It's not a conspiracy, the letter is there! I repeat, the letter is there!

artherd
03-27-2006, 10:31 PM
Well I'll be dipped. Sounds like DOJ themselves do not know, and cannot be bothered after repeated request, including submission of photographic evidence, to do the due dilligance required to make a determination.

Somebody (out of state) is gonna have to send an example in, and retain an attorney to fight 'em on the point of law so they don't just declare "we may be mistaken again, but probally an AW.)

There is some question as to what constitutes "make" here. Is it company name? Is it the 07FFL the firearm was produced under? (I would lean toward the 07FFL interpretation, since we have a federal registration and standard for firearms 'manufactures'.)

There is another question as to what constitutes "Armalite" in CPC 12276. Is it the origional "Armalite" that went defunct? Is it the rights to the name which were subsequently purchased? Is it Eugene Stoner's ghost?


Frankly, this sort of thing IS what the courts are supposed to decide. I'd buy an EA AR-10 right now, but I would expect to go to court over it. I'd also expect to win.

(then again, I expected and was quite prepared to go to court over my very much legal CTR, and prevail, but that never came about. At least not yet :D )


Yes, I sent in the photos from gunblast.com and the URL's to the pictures. Alison has had enough of me through this whole thing and handed me off to Special Agent Sean Kelley. Sean e-mailed me and asked me to call him so we could go over what I submitted. I called and he was very polite and professional. First he wanted to make sure I did not posses the lower. If I did, he wanted to make sure I got rid of it. He then went on to say "Armalite and Eagle Arms are one in the same". The real hang up for him seemed to be be the fact it said "Armalite" AND "AR-10". We went to discuss the way it's listed. He had no answer for Armalite and Eagle Arms being listed separate. I did take this from the conversation, the Eagle Arms AR-10 is NOT listed by the letter of the law now, but it will be. I will bet one of my DSA lowers on that.

C.G.
03-27-2006, 10:45 PM
As was pointed out earlier and from what I've read since Eagle Arms bought Armalite, which includes the patents that Armalite hasn't sold. Until now, I thought it was the other way around, since Eagle Arms is the cheap end of Armalite.

koiloco
03-27-2006, 11:01 PM
....
(then again, I expected and was quite prepared to go to court over my very much legal CTR, and prevail, but that never came about. At least not yet :D )


Ben,

CTR ? what brand is that?

Thanks
Ben

C.G.
03-28-2006, 12:28 AM
Armalite, the division of Fairchild Aircraft never manufactured firearms for sale. They designed firearms and licensed those designs to be produced by other companies. The original AR10 as designed by Eugene Stoner was manufactured by Artillerie-Inrichtingen in the Netherlands. None of these were for commercial sale.

Armalite took the AR10 design and developed the smaller caliber AR15.

Armalite sold the manufacturing license for the AR15 to Colt's and it was Colt who sold the AR15 to the USAF to replace their M1 Carbines for USAF security forces.

In the 1980's a Redwood City gunshop called H&H Enterprises began remanufacturing semi-auto AR10's from demilled AR10 kits.

Eagle bought the rights to the Armalite name. Armalite, formerly Eagle, based their commercial AR10 design on their AR15 line of products.

Eugene Stoner never worked for Armalite (formerly Eagle). Instead he worked for Knight's Armament Corporation to work on an improved .308 Winchester self loading rifle, the SR-25 (A version of which is being developed as the XM110 to replace the M14 as the Army's semi-automatic sniper rifle).

I did a search and came up with only about half the information that you provided. Next time I'll just ask you.:)

artherd
03-28-2006, 12:38 AM
Ted, sounds like you can help us here with the depth of your knowlege!

What was the situation in 2001 when the Kalser/CCR 917 list was last updated? What was an "Armalite AR-10" at that time, and under who's 07FFL were they produced for resale?


Wealth of information pertaining to Armalite.

C.G.
03-28-2006, 1:15 AM
Well, that pretty much clears up any questions I had!

CALI-gula
03-28-2006, 1:19 AM
So why only 1 or 2 companies manufacturing AR10 lowers? Is it due to licensing & patent rights issues? I can't imagine Hesse/Vulcan has been exclusively bestowed certain rights that Armalite/Eagle owns without Armalite/Eagle also allowing companies like LMT or LAR to produce them under other names as well (or whomever might own such rights if that is the hurdle).

It would seem that any company currently making AR15 lowers could just as easily enter the specifications and dimensions in the CNC machine to cut out AR10 lowers from slightly larger chunks of forged pieces.

And because Sun Devil does their lower as all CNC machined from billet, shouldn't they be able to set it up in no less than a few days max, and start churning out AR10 lowers. What is stopping them? Sales would probably double, profit margin per lower would be greater, and you would have little competition on AR10 lowers, here in CA, or most any other states, lower issue aside.


.

C.G.
03-28-2006, 1:31 AM
Bushmaster dropped the ball, quoting low sales, picked up by RRA and they won't be coming out in their new incarnation till sometime in summer. Hesse/Vulcan only had 500 lowers, which they allegedly bought at an auction, and are not going to produce any more (according to them). American Spirit went belly up, was listed and SR-25 and DPMS is listed.
My conjecture is that if you copy the AR-10 you should use the Armalite mags to get the last round bolt stop, which are allegedly patented. Hesse tried to change that to DPMS mags, with no last round hold, but only time will tell whether that works well enough.

C.G.
03-28-2006, 1:32 AM
Just went through the BRII chapter about .308 ARs. The difference between the Armalite AR10's and the Eagle AR10's were basically this when the book was published: The Armalite models had chrome lined barrels and were available with muzzle brakes and a choice of black or OD furniture; the lower cost Eagle AR10's were only offered with unlined barrels, no muzzle devices and black furniture only.

To add, Armalite has lifetime warranty, Eagle Arms doesn't.

CALI-gula
03-28-2006, 2:57 AM
Armalite
DPMS
Vulcan/Hesse
Bushmaster (Discontinued due to lack of sales)
KAC

For the XM110 competition, Remington submitted a rifle built on lowers supplied by DPMS.

Yes, I know of these few companies; I suppose I should have said 1 or 2 "available to us here in CA." The Armalite and DPMS are not available to us, and I've discounted Vulcan/Hesse due to quality issues, and Bushmaster is out for obvious reasons (and listed?). So that leaves only 1 or 2 available to us and the options are not very good.

We need more names available to us in CA!! Any manufacturers listening?

.

6172crew
03-28-2006, 6:12 AM
Due to the 94 Fed AWB manufacturers were limited to FAL or M14 mags to retain a greater than 10 round capacity. Both were already available in large quantities.

Bushmaster used FAL mags, while Armalite chose modified M14. Armalite/Eagle found out early on that the FAL mags were a poor match for the AR bolt/bolt carrier design.

Does the Armalite/Eagle arms accept M14 magazines?:D What a bonus if they do.

Hersir
03-28-2006, 6:22 AM
ArmaLite/Eagle AR-10s use modified M14 magazines.

tenpercentfirearms
03-28-2006, 6:46 AM
WARNING! In reference to the guy selling these Eagles at a gun show when they are not in stock. I have to warn you guys again, do not buy and register a lower that is not in stock if you can avoid it. I made the mistake of selling lowers I didn't have once and the company bailed out on me, leaving 200 lowers I had sold not deliverable. Now I have heard from two different dealers that the Eagle Arms are 60 days back ordered. Hopefully that guy in Costa Mesa was the reason they are back ordered, but if he is on back order just like everyone else and he is DROSing these things, that could be a major problem.

I know everyone is excited, but unless you want to pay the $25 DROS a few times, I wouldn't DROS anything not in stock, expecially on super high demand Eagle Arms AR-10s. Also as you have seen by some of these group buys, putting your money on the table for merchandise not yet in stock is a good way to not see that money for a long time. Not to mention, the DOJ could still call up Eagle Arms and start their scare tactics. Sure guys like Pirate would take up the slack and order them from Texas, but the CA guys are out of the loop until they can find a middle man FFL.

Proceed with caution, learn from my mistakes. Don't buy anything not in stock if it is a risky item that might not make it in a certain time frame.

Cdog
03-28-2006, 8:49 AM
Yes, I know of these few companies; I suppose I should have said 1 or 2 "available to us here in CA." The Armalite and DPMS are not available to us, and I've discounted Vulcan/Hesse due to quality issues, and Bushmaster is out for obvious reasons (and listed?). So that leaves only 1 or 2 available to us and the options are not very good.

We need more names available to us in CA!! Any manufacturers listening?

.


The BM BAR is not listed. I own one and it's an awsome gun. You just can't get them in CA. Fixed 10 round mag.

xenophobe
03-28-2006, 9:11 AM
Is Eagle Arms and Armalite both manufacturing at the same address and under the same manufacturing 07 FFL? If they are, anyone who tries to register these might be in some trouble....

PIRATE14
03-28-2006, 10:17 AM
Is Eagle Arms and Armalite both manufacturing at the same address and under the same manufacturing 07 FFL? If they are, anyone who tries to register these might be in some trouble....

I'll check on that one........

bwiese
03-28-2006, 10:36 AM
Is Eagle Arms and Armalite both manufacturing at the same address and under the same manufacturing 07 FFL? If they are, anyone who tries to register these might be in some trouble....

Yep. I think it'll revolve around that key issue. And I'd bet that Armalite/Eagle wouldn't put both names on their Eagle lowers if they didn't have to. The late 90s Eagle production - after Armalite had surfaced as a premium AR vendor - was used to distinguish parts guns from true factory-built Armalites.

Note that this situation is different than that of the Wilson Combat AR15 (banned on Kasler list, CCR sec 979.11) vs. the Wilson Tactical WT15, which is not listed.

Apparently Wilson Tactical and Wilson Combat are father & son (?) operations, both in Berryville, AR - but are separate companies, at separate addresses, with separate 07 FFLs.

Aside from all that, even if Wilson Combat were actually the company to make the WT15, it would be an unlisted (and therefore legal) model - much like the CA-legal Rock River Arms' LAR15, even though RRA has some other banned items on Kasler list/CCR sec 979.11.

EBWhite
03-28-2006, 11:31 AM
Okay, just called Armalite.

Stripped Eagle Arms receivers are $220ea. Backordered for 60-90 days...

I also asked if Armalite and Eagle Arms are on seperate FFL's and they lady said that she thinks they are on the same FFL...

bwiese
03-28-2006, 11:38 AM
Okay, just called Armalite.
I also asked if Armalite and Eagle Arms are on seperate FFL's and they lady said that she thinks they are on the same FFL...

Well there goes that. No WAY anyone in CA should touch Eagles now.

EBWhite
03-28-2006, 11:44 AM
Pirate should should double check with them. I might have got bad info but im thinking they are the same ffl...the reason for putting armalite on the receiver.

snacks
03-28-2006, 11:58 AM
i'm hoping they are seperate. If that is the case i'm adding an Eagle to my collection. If not then that's just a crying shame.:(

PIRATE14
03-28-2006, 11:59 AM
Pirate should should double check with them. I might have got bad info but im thinking they are the same ffl...the reason for putting armalite on the receiver.

Well, same answer......there would have to be some pretty solid paper that u could track to establish that a division is a seperate company but it looks like they are all made under the same 07 FFL........

However......a few companies have their lowers made by STAG but just buy them w/ their company name on them ie MGI but still have Stag on them...etc so there is some precidence there.

Sounds like a pretty risky operation.......to purchase.

But we'll con't to work it...........

PIRATE14
03-28-2006, 12:19 PM
On another note.....I have 11 registered EAGLE ARMS M-15 rifles.

I checked my cards and I only put Eagle Arms and I have several Armalites as well......take that for what it's worth though.

I love this state...........

This would probably be winable in court if u wound up there...

1) They are already listed as seperate series...

2) Armalites are all marked specifically by model.....AR-10T, AR-10A4, AR-10A2....blah, blah, blah. No such model is strictly marked AR-10.

3) DOJ conflicting letters....

This is pretty much a moot point cause in 90 days I don't think we'll make it in time..........

Cdog
03-28-2006, 1:16 PM
Does the list say Armalite all or Eagle all? If not look at what bushmaster did with the carbon 15. Same company, same ffl and same name. Just differant series designation. Consider my BAR .308. Not on the list!

ohsmily
03-28-2006, 1:22 PM
Does the list say Armalite all or Eagle all? If not look at what bushmaster did with the carbon 15. Same company, same ffl and same name. Just differant series designation. Consider my BAR .308. Not on the list!

"Armalite AR-10" is listed. That is the root of the problem b/c these receivers say "Eagle Arms Div. Armalite AR-10".

Thank you for the inapplicable analogy regarding different models from the same company.

Cdog
03-28-2006, 1:31 PM
Thank you for the inapplicable analogy regarding different models from the same company.



Wow! Your a real smart ***. I'm sure your alot of fun to be around. Have a nice day.

ohsmily
03-28-2006, 2:03 PM
Wow! Your a real smart ***. I'm sure your alot of fun to be around

You must mean "YOU'RE" real smart, not YOUR (nice work though). You see, it is a contraction of YOU ARE (basic grammar for most people). And thank you, I am quite smart and a blast to be around :D(not sure what those asterisks are for though:rolleyes: )

Have a nice day.

I will indeed. Thank you again.

EBWhite
03-28-2006, 3:22 PM
You must mean "YOU'RE" real smart, not YOUR (nice work though). You see, it is a contraction of YOU ARE (basic grammar for most people). And thank you, I am quite smart and a blast to be around (not sure what those asterisks are for though:rolleyes: )



I will indeed. Thank you again.

Ohsmily, you're a smart *** sometimes.
:D

But everyone, we will let him slide, since he posted those pictures of his fiance :D :D

ohsmily
03-28-2006, 3:39 PM
__________ :d

mike452
03-30-2006, 11:26 PM
How can you tell which FFL is used for what? They seem to have 4..

435005077E00250
ARMALITE INC
ARMALITE
3805 SOUTH JONESVILLE RD
COLUMBUS, IN 47201
P O BOX 299
GENESEO, IL 61254

336073089A01511
ARMALITE INC
745 S HANFORD ST
GENESEO, IL 61254
PO BOX 299
GENESEO, IL 61254

336073078D36039
ARMALITE INC
745 S HANFORD ST
GENESEO, IL 61254-0000
PO BOX 299
GENESEO, IL 61254-0000

434123018G37753
ARMALITE INC
910 B COMMERCIAL ROW
PORT CLINTON, OH 43452-9578
PO BOX 299
GENESEO, IL 61254-0000