PDA

View Full Version : DOJ states new additions will be Category 2


xenophobe
03-26-2006, 3:47 PM
"... and is not yet a Category Two assault rifle"

Has DOJ conceded/slipped that any additions will indeed be a Category 2 AW, or is this an accidental mistake by a staffer?

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

ohsmily
03-26-2006, 3:51 PM
I am glad you pointed it out xeno, but I don't think this means anything. This is a lower level field rep who isn't an attorney and doesn't have the training or understanding of the situation...(of course, this is my opinion, that is everyone else's cue to argue or agree).

GW
03-26-2006, 3:52 PM
While I am hopeful, IMHO this carries about as much weight as the 2/3 DOJ memo, but it might be useful in a legal defense...

phish
03-26-2006, 3:54 PM
Good catch.

I'm "undecided" because I don't know if the left hand knows what the right is doing: Bureau of Criminal Information and the Firearms Division.

Both departments have the same boss though.

I suppose I'm "optimistically undecided". :o

xenophobe
03-26-2006, 3:54 PM
Well, this is a form letter, which they do not type out every time. They just add *make* *model* and hit print, and sign it. Any time a form letter changes, there are particular reasons behind it.

That's why it has me fired up right now.

69Mach1
03-26-2006, 3:58 PM
Good catch. I think we're wearing them down.

AW-FANATIC
03-26-2006, 4:03 PM
So what would it mean if there is to be 2nd category of AW? Is this a good or bad thing for all of us off listers?

docsmileyface
03-26-2006, 4:18 PM
Its good. It means once listed we can pull the 10 round mag and actually have an un-neutered AR! :D

TacFan
03-26-2006, 4:19 PM
So what would it mean if there is to be 2nd category of AW? Is this a good or bad thing for all of us off listers?

good thing ... we do not want another category (ie cat 4) that would enable us to keep the rifle provided it has a fixed mag and blah blah blah

blacklisted
03-26-2006, 4:26 PM
I'm undecided. If I see another from a different agent, or from Alison, then I will change my mind.

69Mach1
03-26-2006, 4:28 PM
Just saw it, never mind.

blacklisted
03-26-2006, 4:29 PM
Wait. I just reread the DOJ memo. They don't mention a cat. 4. Catagory 4 was termed here at CALGUNS. If our newly acquired lowers were registered, they would be registered as Cat. 2, but with restrictions against adding evil features. So the statement in the letter can be considered correct.

Yes they do:

Therefore, newly identified series (Category 4) weapons likewise cannot have those features.

6172crew
03-26-2006, 4:34 PM
I'm undecided. If I see another from a different agent, or from Alison, then I will change my mind.

Kathy is pretty straight unlike Dana. She takes care of my FFL and is th egal who told my FFL that we can build them as long as we stick w/ current laws.

blacklisted
03-26-2006, 4:35 PM
Kathy is pretty straight unlike Dana. She takes care of my FFL and is th egal who told my FFL that we can build them as long as we stick w/ current laws.

Maybe, but a second opinion would still be nice to confirm it. Of course, if the second opinion was by Dana...:D

AW-FANATIC
03-26-2006, 4:36 PM
Well at leat it something to be a little more hopeful about while im assembling my lowers. Thanks guys

grammaton76
03-26-2006, 4:37 PM
Hmm. My pessimism filter is kicking in. That letter just had a good-things overload.

"You can have AR-10's with no relation to Vulcan!"
"We're going to make these Cat2 rifles when we DO list them."

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. One or the other of the good things, I could see coming out of the letter - but two?

ohsmily
03-26-2006, 4:41 PM
Hmm. My pessimism filter is kicking in. That letter just had a good-things overload.

"You can have AR-10's with no relation to Vulcan!"
"We're going to make these Cat2 rifles when we DO list them."

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. One or the other of the good things, I could see coming out of the letter - but two?

Um, what does that letter have to do with Vulcan??? the question there is whether that agent knew that Eagle is a division of Armalite...the Armalite AR-10 is listed. Therein lies the conflict, not with Vulcan.

Mr331
03-26-2006, 4:44 PM
Um, what does that letter have to do with Vulcan??? the issue is whether that agent knew that Eagle is a division of Armalite...the Armalite AR-10 is listed. Therein lies the conflict, not with Vulcan.

Wrong thread......

ohsmily
03-26-2006, 4:46 PM
Wrong thread......

No, right thread. I was directly responding to Gram's statement about "no mention of Vulcan". I was pointing out that the letter has nothing to do with Vulcan and much more to do with Eagle v. Armalite.

But thanks for incorrectly telling me "wrong thread".....(that was sarcasm, I am telling you in case you misread that too)

Mr331
03-26-2006, 5:06 PM
*back on topic*

While the staffers at DOJ may not be up on ever thing, it is pretty silly to think they know nothing. What they know is what they are told from up above, right or wrong.

shopkeep
03-26-2006, 6:22 PM
Frankly I think overall this letter is GOOD NEWS! It's not a sign of the DOJ changing their position, I still think we'll have to fight them in court when they publish the new list. However, this proves that the Feb 1 memo was indeed a panicked approach and that we are correct.

We should get as many of these kinds of letters as possible and keep writting them via certified mail. All the responses will later be useful when we end up in court after an injunction.

What we really need to do is write some good letters asking them to clarify various points of Category 2 vs. Category 4 and cite their own letters and memos in them.

PIRATE14
03-26-2006, 6:29 PM
SMELLS like VICTORY....

But I'm not lighting my cigar just yet....:)

C.G.
03-26-2006, 6:45 PM
SMELLS like VICTORY....

But I'm not lighting my cigar just yet....:)

I wouldn't even buy the cigar yet.:D

TacFan
03-26-2006, 6:48 PM
they might have a huge lower buyback ... $300 per lower if you turn them in :D

PIRATE14
03-26-2006, 6:49 PM
I wouldn't even buy the cigar yet.:D

Don't worry......I'll give you one:cool:

grammaton76
03-26-2006, 7:01 PM
Um, what does that letter have to do with Vulcan??? the question there is whether that agent knew that Eagle is a division of Armalite...the Armalite AR-10 is listed. Therein lies the conflict, not with Vulcan.

The letter has nothing to do with Vulcan whatsoever. Note that up until now, the only route to a 308 AR here was either the Cobb receiver, or the Vulcan/Hesse receiver, and most folks were going the Vulcan route.

An AR-10 variant which hasn't touched Vulca's "quality assurance" setup is a good thing. :)

Kevlarman
03-26-2006, 7:03 PM
Wow, you mean somebody other than me lives in Lancaster?
:cool:

PIRATE14
03-26-2006, 7:03 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

shopkeep
03-26-2006, 7:12 PM
I think that the DOJ is just completely screwed and they're only now beginning to realize just how screwed they are. AR-15 recievers are probably in the top 5 most common manufactured firearms items. They are INCREDIBLY common, so much so that even companies like S&W are beginning to sell them.

NRAhighpowershooter
03-26-2006, 7:40 PM
I REALLY hate to say this.. BUT.... if the DOJ ACTUALLY lets us get away with our off list lowers as Cat II's.. you can bet your sweet bippy that the brady bunch will sue the DOJ.. just like they did with the SKS 'Sporters"

blacklisted
03-26-2006, 7:44 PM
I REALLY hate to say this.. BUT.... if the DOJ ACTUALLY lets us get away with our off list lowers as Cat II's.. you can bet your sweet bippy that the brady bunch will sue the DOJ.. just like they did with the SKS 'Sporters"

Maybe, but I don't know what grounds they could sue them on.

PIRATE14
03-26-2006, 7:44 PM
I REALLY hate to say this.. BUT.... if the DOJ ACTUALLY lets us get away with our off list lowers as Cat II's.. you can bet your sweet bippy that the brady bunch will sue the DOJ.. just like they did with the SKS 'Sporters"

They might sue but they don't have much of a legal leg to stand on.....pretty much cut and dry that the DOJ has the legal right and responsibilty to update the list...........

PIRATE14
03-26-2006, 7:45 PM
I think that the DOJ is just completely screwed and they're only now beginning to realize just how screwed they are. AR-15 recievers are probably in the top 5 most common manufactured firearms items. They are INCREDIBLY common, so much so that even companies like S&W are beginning to sell them.

Oh they realized this quite a few weeks back.......

grammaton76
03-26-2006, 7:52 PM
I REALLY hate to say this.. BUT.... if the DOJ ACTUALLY lets us get away with our off list lowers as Cat II's.. you can bet your sweet bippy that the brady bunch will sue the DOJ.. just like they did with the SKS 'Sporters"

Yes, and if they go with cat4, we'll sue them. DOJ is going to get sued by someone either way they do it.

That may be a further reason for them spending ridiculous amounts of time getting ready to list... they may be trying to figure out just which way the courts would go and then choose to annoy the side that'll get turned down by the courts the fastest.

NorCal MedTac
03-26-2006, 7:55 PM
I think it is good news. It at least a sign of possible good news. I'm gonna go aheade and at least buy a cigar for now. Its enough of a hope that makes me want to get a few last friends who haven't bought yet to get at least one.

50BMGBOB
03-26-2006, 8:04 PM
I don't see the differance. They aren't listed and are going to be. Still doesn't stop them from trying to make a cat 4. Not that I think it is legal but that hasn't stopped them in the past. I'm affraid we still have a LONG way to go.

PanzerAce
03-26-2006, 8:20 PM
Damn, I am offline for 2 days, and you bastards spring this on me :D

I think that this is good news, but like mentioned earlier, I would like to see something signed by someone higher up...

xenophobe
03-26-2006, 8:46 PM
This is the first receiver letter I've seen since the Feb 1st memo (stating there will be a Category 4). If that is truly what the DOJ is attempting, why are they stating that these will be Category 2 weapons? I think that this further shows that the memo was just put there to yank everyones' proverbial chain and to try to slow the sales until they can list...

And I would be willing to bet that there will be a Category 4 sometime in the future, but I bet these receivers get by without falling under this. I think this is good news, personally.

blacklisted
03-26-2006, 8:57 PM
This is the first receiver letter I've seen since the Feb 1st memo stating there will be a Category 4. If that is truly what the DOJ is attempting, why are they stating that these will be Category 2 weapons? I think that this further shows that the memo was just put there to yank everyones' proverbial chain and to try to slow the sales until they can list...

And I would be willing to bet that there will be a Category 4 sometime in the future, but I bet these receivers get by without falling under this. I think this is good news, personally.

I think you made a typo...

xenophobe
03-26-2006, 9:05 PM
Actually I didn't, but it reads funny. The Feb 1st memo stated there will be a Category 4.

blacklisted
03-26-2006, 9:08 PM
Actually I didn't, but it reads funny. The Feb 1st memo stated there will be a Category 4.

Oh, sorry.

artherd
03-26-2006, 9:08 PM
I am sure internal stratedgy is being reviewed and evaluated on an ongoing basis. I doubt a decision has been made yet, there are so many factors at work here.

I do belive that in the end DOJ will do the right thing and enforce and apply existing law per their charter.

artherd
03-26-2006, 9:12 PM
I wouldn't even buy the cigar yet.:D
Anyone up for a group buy of celebratory cigars? :D :D :D

shopkeep
03-26-2006, 9:15 PM
I am sure internal stratedgy is being reviewed and evaluated on an ongoing basis. I doubt a decision has been made yet, there are so many factors at work here.

I do belive that in the end DOJ will do the right thing and enforce and apply existing law per their charter.

Personally I agree with you. I think that in the end all they'll do is send a nasty letter along with the registration confirmation. This letter will be completed ignored by registrants and law enforcement because it has no legal basis and is unsupported by California penal codes.

This is significant though because in all the letters I was sent it says "...will be updating the Assault Weapons Identification Guide." Hence this is the first time they've openly stated these are Category 2 and thus no different than existing Category 2 Assault Weapons.

1911_Mitch
03-26-2006, 9:36 PM
This is not the first time the DOJ has said they will be Cat 2 AW.

I have a copy of a letter signed by Alison from December 28, 05 that indicates they will be Cat 2 AW. Letter references Stag-15s.

I think all the buzz is due to this most recent letter having a date of March 06, which is after the Feb 1, 06 memo.

xenophobe
03-26-2006, 9:38 PM
Actually, it's the first time since the Feb. memo that they've stated that these will be Category Two firearms. That's what I found most significant.

I do agree, in the end they'll send a nasty letter, and as long as you've registered them, you'll be okay, whether you have a fixed 10 round magazine or not probably won't matter.

Remember, this would add so much confusion to the process and legality of certain firearms that the Police would never be able to get this straight, so if they did try to enforce a Category 4, it would probably be regarded by the courts as more BS that is too difficult for the average patrol officer to discern.

tenpercentfirearms
03-26-2006, 9:39 PM
The question is if they do list them and the reg paper has a catagory 4 clause on it, what are you going to do? I think I will just cross it off and state I agree to no such thing and to just process my paperwork anyway. :D

blacklisted
03-26-2006, 9:40 PM
This is not the first time the DOJ has said they will be Cat 2 AW.

I have a copy of a letter signed by Alison from December 28, 05 that indicates they will be Cat 2 AW. Letter references Stag-15s.

I think all the buzz is due to this most recent letter having a date of March 06, which is after the Feb 1, 06 memo.

I also have a letter referencing the Stag-15 dated 12/28, and it says "The Stag-15 is not listed as a Category One assault rifle...and is not yet a Category Two Assault rifle...Therefore, the Stag-15 will soon be classified as an assault weapon."

adamsreeftank
03-27-2006, 2:05 AM
So if the DOJ come out with a "category 4" list and there is a challenge in court, can we subpeona the Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis to testify against the Firearms Divisions interpretation?
:D

bonjing
03-27-2006, 3:56 PM
a little off topic, xenophobe, will you guys be bringing thes lowers in? i am sure a lot of us are more than enterested in this thanks.

bwiese
03-27-2006, 4:02 PM
So if the DOJ come out with a "category 4" list and there is a challenge in court, can we subpeona the Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis to testify against the Firearms Divisions interpretation?
:D

Um, that was just probably result of using the wrong paper tray in the networked laser printer.

As far as testimony vs putative Cat 4 stuff, we have some nice clear law already on our side: PC 12280(a) and (b) do not apply and they are the only conceivable 'prohibited activities' relevant to this situation: simply stated, there is no crime in adding, changing or deleting any 'features' on registered assault weapon..

I also wouldn't read too much into variations of memos. Lower-level staff may use template memos, but Alison M probably writes her own each time so sometimes things get 'lost in translation' - I am sure she is inundated with letters right now.

Apeman88
03-27-2006, 9:32 PM
My 2 cent...

It is on DOJ's letterhead... any person authorized to use and write a letter on that letterhead represents the company (or in this case, the agency). It is the voice of the agency that wrote that letter and should not matter who signed it.

It is true that the person who wrote it might of made a mistake but the agency need to stand behind the words in that letter and/or write a "correction" or "retraction" to the mistake on the previous letter.

I have 20 people working for me and almost half are authorized to write and sign letters representing "the company"... others can write but the letter needs to be signed by someone who has the authoirty to do so.

Therefore, in my view... the letter is valid... I'm not saying they did not make a mistake... just that the letter and it's words (what ever it may be worth) is the representation of the agency as a whole.

Again... just my opinion... nothing more.

Ken

bwiese
03-28-2006, 9:51 AM
Any reference or discussion concerning which "catagory" these receivers belong to is pointless since different catagories of assault weapons do not exist. All this discussion does is further the notion that there are different catagories of assault weapons. I know the DOJ will say otherwise, but hey... surprise folks... they're lying! It's high time we all woke up and stopped buying into the endless stream of bull$h!t spewed forth by the DOJ.

You got it, baby...

The current terms - Cat I, Cat II, Cat III - are not codified into law as separate classes of AWs. These really merely are convenient shorthand terms to refer to 'trigger dates' when certain guns became AWs, and do not/cannot refer to any separate post-registration treatment.

Cat II ('Kasler'/'series') AWs are, in fact, really Cat I 'by name' AWs. These just get folded into the Roberti-Roos AR or AK series, but if and only if officially identified as series members first. There is really thus no reason for a partition of CCR 979.10 (Roberti-Roos list) and 979.11 (Kasler list) - they're really all the same bundle of joy.

I am thus also feeling a bit leery of the DOJ's guidance/assertion that guns registered as AWs by features ("Cat III") can have various features removed and then not be treated as AWs.

383green
03-28-2006, 9:58 AM
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything in that letter that addresses whether the DOJ will try to force new registrations into an imaginary "category 4" or not. It states that the receiver in question is not yet a category 2 assault weapon and that it will later be declared to be an assault weapon, but I do not see any suggestion that it will be declared to be any particular category of assault weapon.

I think that some of y'all may be reading too much into "not yet a Category Two assault rifle". I read that as stating that an illegal assault rifle has not yet been manufactured by the addition of restricted features, not that it will become a "Category Two assault rifle" after it's added to the identification guide.

There are other grammatical and/or typographical errors in the letter, so I would not try to interpret any intention from subtleties of wording in it aside from the clear statement that the receiver in question will be classified as an assault weapon in the future.

glen avon
03-28-2006, 10:14 AM
...simply stated, there is no crime in adding, changing or deleting any 'features' on registered assault weapon.....

in your opinion.

others, including the DOJ, disagree.

if you are going to be making legal proclamations, do the right thing and qualify them properly.

bwiese
03-28-2006, 10:30 AM
in your opinion.
others, including the DOJ, disagree.



First thing, the memo is all wet until a listing/reg period starts.

And yes, it is clear no crime exists for adding/deleting/changing features on a registered AW. There clearly are no other relevant prohibited activities regarding this than in 12280(a) and 12280(b).

Please read between the lines in the memo. The DOJ would have said you can't do this and cited PC for doing this - if they could. Instead the memo had said it would synthesize a registration violation by modifying the registration. No PC allows conditional registrations - otherwise, that's a separate issue of AW permit.

BTW the number I hear regarding DOJ-Firearms related charges that are sustained out to the end (guilty result at trial or plead out) is 24%. Supposedly cases driven by agent Iggy Chinn are around 33%. And of those cases, most are likely clearly criminal "gimme" cases.
So what DOJ asserts, vs what they can sustain, are entirely different. This is information from FFLs who were dragged thru the ringer w/felony AW charges by DOJ (who were laughed out of court in a summary fashion during pretrial motions).

bwiese
03-29-2006, 8:23 AM
Sometimes I think you waste your time, Bill.


Yeah, fortunately my fingers don't tire easily ;)

If the DOJ told everyone that you had to stand on your head and eat with your butt, half the people on this board would do it without flinching.

Um, isn't that DOJ regulation found in the CCRs at 979.99?

;)

bwiese
03-29-2006, 8:24 AM
Sometimes I think you waste your time, Bill.


Yeah, fortunately my fingers don't tire easily ;)

If the DOJ told everyone that you had to stand on your head and eat with your butt, half the people on this board would do it without flinching.

Um, isn't that DOJ regulation found in the CCRs at 979.99?

;)

glen avon
03-29-2006, 9:32 AM
Sometimes I think you waste your time, Bill. Clearly, there are people so brainwashed by the state that they will believe *anything* the DOJ says, no matter what. You can't convince them, they don't care what the law says, all they care about is what the all powerful, all knowing DOJ tells them. If the DOJ told everyone that you had to stand on your head and eat with your butt, half the people on this board would do it without flinching. Sad.

On the other hand, there are people who care what the law says, and who disagree with Bill and others' interpretation of it.

That's right - Bill is only capable of giving you his interpretation of the law. he is not a lawyer. and he certainly does not speak for the DOJ.

that means his interpretation, which is nothing more than his opinion, is no more The Law than anybody else's opinion.

Bill is no more likely to convince me than I am to convince him.

believing one must choose between either agreeing with Bill or being brainwashed by the DOJ is impaling youself on the horns of a false dilemma.

why should he convince me, or others? what objective facts to you have to support your premise that people should be convinced by Bill? and that all to the contrary is DOJ brainwashing?

what makes you think that Bill, who is not a lawyer and not a member of the state government, has a better understanding of this than the DOJ, which is literally full of lawyers and others educated and experienced in the law and legislation? That is highly unlikely. Of course it could be true, but criticizing those who share a contrary opinion only shows that you are brainwashed yourself.

if Bill told you to stand on your head and eat with your butt, it appears as though you would. without flinching.

Now, so you all understand, I say Bill and everybody else are entitled to their opinions.

I say without objective evidence to support a contrary conclusion, it is likely that DOJ understands this better than even Bill. My objective evidence supporting my argument are the following facts:

DOJ is an institution experienced in law and legislation. It's their job.

DOJ employees are educated, trained, and experienced in these matters.

DOJ has many lawyers and those lawyers know how to interpret and apply the law.

Without objective evidence to the contrary (which does not include your opinion of Bill's opinion), the premise that people who disagree with Bill must be brainwashed by the DOJ is inane.

xenophobe
03-29-2006, 10:07 AM
I am thus also feeling a bit leery of the DOJ's guidance/assertion that guns registered as AWs by features ("Cat III") can have various features removed and then not be treated as AWs.

If you remove various features on a firearm registered under SB-23 definition so the firearm does not meet those definitions, you send a letter and have the firearm removed from their registry and you are free to sell it in California. I have done this twice for 3 firearms. "Dear DOJ, I have removed features from Firearm A, B and C and have sold them to a private party in California, please remove them from my AW Registration". I have not specified to whom they have sold to, nor have they asked. All they did was send confirmation letters that they have been removed and sent an updated AW Registration list to reflect this.


in your opinion.

others, including the DOJ, disagree.

if you are going to be making legal proclamations, do the right thing and qualify them properly.

Please qualify your position with any portion of law that you can find. There is nothing prohibiting an DWCL/RR89 firearm from having features added or removed, and doing such does not affect its' classification.

A stripped AR-15 receiver is an AW, when in fact it has no defining features to make it an AW, and adding a pistol grip, collapsable stock, flash hider or removing them does not change this fact.

Apostolos
03-29-2006, 10:08 AM
My objective evidence supporting my argument are the following facts:

DOJ is an institution experienced in law and legislation. It's their job.

DOJ employees are educated, trained, and experienced in these matters.

DOJ has many lawyers and those lawyers know how to interpret and apply the law.

That reminds me of the Dark Ages when the Medieval "Church" said they were the only ones who were qualified to interpret the Bible.

The Church was the experienced theological institution.

The Church leaders were educated.

The Church had many theologians to interpret the Bible.

Therefore the sheeple should just follow them, and if not, they were burned at the stake.

I think your argument is based on a servant/subject mentality.

It could potentially be people like you who will rat out their neighbors to the DOJ if you feel people aren't following the DOJ's "interpretation" of the law. :rolleyes:

God bless,
David

snobordr
03-29-2006, 10:15 AM
DOJ is an institution experienced in enforcing existing law and legislation. It's their job.

Fixed it for ya.


DOJ has many lawyers and those lawyers know how to interpret and apply the law.

I thought it was the judge who interprets and applies law. A lawyer is just your trained mouthpiece in court.

glen avon
03-29-2006, 10:19 AM
Please qualify your position with any portion of law that you can find.

the law that prohibits manufacture of an AW. the DWCL does not specifically treat AW receivers as complete firearms. and I quote:

12000. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as "The
Dangerous Weapons Control Law."

12001. (a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol,"
"revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"
shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a
weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any
explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less
than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that
has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be
interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
(2) As used in this title, the term "handgun" means any "pistol,"
"revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person."
(b) As used in this title, "firearm" means any device, designed to
be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel a
projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion.

(c) As used in Sections 12021, 12021.1, 12070, 12071, 12072,
12073, 12078, 12101, and 12801 of this code, and Sections 8100, 8101,
and 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the term "firearm"
includes the frame or receiver of the weapon.

by law, someting stated in one statute but not another means it was meant not to be stated in the other statute. that's the law. the rule against surplusage. so the state intentionally did not define reveivers as firearms for the purposes of the RRAWCA.

that's the law.

now you can look at the RRAWCA for anything defining the receiver as a firearms and you will not find it. so, if you can't find law - not opinion - that states that CA must treat a receiver as an AW for the purposes of 12276, 12276.1, 12280, even though it may seem obvious, intuitive, or even common sensical you you - then there is no law requiring your interpretation or precluding others. IOW, if you can't find any law to preclude any contrary interpretation of the law, then it's just a matter of differing opinions, and there is no reason yours (or Bill's) has to be right.


There is nothing prohibiting an DWCL/RR89 firearm from having features added or removed, and doing such does not affect its' classification.

in my opinion, you are half right. there is indeed nothing preventing removal of features, but the PC does prohibit manufacture of an AW, which DOJ apparently interprets as adding evil features to something not an AW.

A stripped AR-15 receiver is an AW, when in fact it has no defining features to make it an AW, and adding a pistol grip, collapsable stock, flash hider or removing them does not change this fact.

well, that is not an objective fact, but your opinion of what should be a fact. the point of my above posts is that others may reasonably come to different conclusiuons, and all we are able to do here on this board is post our opinions of the law, none of us have the force of law supporting our interpretation of the law.

if you cannot recognize the difference between an opinion of what the law is v. a statement of the law, then we are done here, and we are not likely to change each others' minds.

if you do recognize the difference, then I expect you will agree with me that Bill's proclamations above are his opinion, and not objective declarations of the law that anybody has to agree with.

Bill and his spiel are popular here, no doubt, but popularity and wishful thinking and sympathetic messages do not the law make.

bwiese
03-29-2006, 10:31 AM
On the other hand, there are people who care what the law says, and who disagree with Bill and others' interpretation of it.


Hmmm. I've read what the laws say, and in detail. The structure of the law -
because of SB23 'glue on' to orig Roberti-Roos law - and with definitions separate from prohibited activities, is clear to me and indicates there is no possible criminal violation for adding/changing features to an already registered AW. I cannot see how others view it in the converse. There is simply an absence of law here.

Bill is only capable of giving you his interpretation of the law. he is not a lawyer.

True. But the lawyers I've spoken to in detail, about this memo, agree with me :)

and he certainly does not speak for the DOJ.

The moment I become a DOJ mouthpiece, someone please put a bullet thru my head.


I say without objective evidence to support a contrary conclusion, it is likely that DOJ understands this better than even Bill. My objective evidence supporting my argument are the following facts:

DOJ is an institution experienced in law and legislation. It's their job.


Let's split the entity. DOJ broadly, maybe. DOJ Firearms Divsion, NO!

With a conviction rate for filed cases in the 20% range it's clear they DON'T know their own laws & regulations. I know of several FFLs with felony charges filed that are free & selling guns simply because the DOJ Firarms Div either (1) didn't know the law (2) wanted to hold a false position.


DOJ employees are educated, trained, and experienced in these matters.

Um, given some of the conflicting info we've getting from their desk jockeys, they must be playing spin the bottle on some of these answers. (The collection of DOJ letters at Calgunlaws is kinda funny when you cross-compare letters).


DOJ has many lawyers and those lawyers know how to interpret and apply the law.

DOJ Firearms Division has only one or two lawyers. (Deputy AG/Firearms Alison Merilees is, not sure about Director Rossi). Former Asst. Dir. Tim Rieger was, and we have documented cases where he gave out wrong info - and I've met him and he's a fairly smart guy and even knows a thing or two about guns. Many people, in discussion w/Alison, have come to feel she is out of her depth - a political appointee, with no tech background about guns other than her writing some 'gun safety' legislation for Jack Scott. The DOJ memo's even indicates that (1) the person who wrote it is a poor writer, or
(2) does not understand the formal 12276.1 definition of an AW.

The rest of DOJ Firearms Div are bureaucratic clerks and cop-like people, who may or may not even have reading & analytical skills up to par with some of us here.

PIRATE14
03-29-2006, 10:44 AM
The rest of DOJ Firearms Div are bureaucratic clerks and cop-like people, who may or may not even have reading & analytical skills up to par with some of us here.

This statement is TRUE.........this I know from personal experiences.

My .02 is that if the DOJ thought their memo held water they'd have already listed..........Why? Because that would have stopped the whole debacle.

You've got to read various parts of CALI AW laws since they are distinct and seperate.

theseacow
03-29-2006, 10:46 AM
.....

glen avon
03-29-2006, 10:48 AM
Fixed it for ya.
no, ya broke it, though i appreciate the effort. lawyers are trained and experienced in the law, not just enforcing it. they have to interpret t and apply it, too.

I thought it was the judge who interprets and applies law. A lawyer is just your trained mouthpiece in court.

lawyers have to make the arguments for the judge to choose from. they have to be as good at it as he is. an experienced lawyer with a focused practice will usually know more about a particular law than a judge will, as judges usually have a wide variety of matters they must know. they usually are kinda jacks of all trades, masters of none.

glen avon
03-29-2006, 10:52 AM
...I cannot see how others view it in the converse.....

then you have a significant blind spot in either your reasoning or your analysis.

you don't have to agree, you have to understand.

snobordr
03-29-2006, 11:09 AM
no, ya broke it, though i appreciate the effort. lawyers are trained and experienced in the law, not just enforcing it. they have to interpret t and apply it, too.


Show me anywhere it states that a lawyer's job is to enforce law?


lawyers have to make the arguments for the judge to choose from.

The judge then appliesthe law to the arguments and facts before him.

they have to be as good at it as he is. an experienced lawyer with a focused practice will usually know more about a particular law than a judge will, as judges usually have a wide variety of matters they must know. they usually are kinda jacks of all trades, masters of none.

Usually? Always? Most judges spend a pretty good deal of time as attorneys before sitting as a judge on any court. So what, they suddenly lose that knowledge in the process?

What are you, a DOJ plant? Again, lawyers do not create or enforce law. The DOJ cannot create law but they can enforce it.

PIRATE14
03-29-2006, 11:12 AM
A RCVR is a "FIREARM" both the state and federal gov't treat it as such.

Certain RCVRs are AW by name period...the state treats them as such.

U can't argue against these facts anywhere...........

snobordr
03-29-2006, 11:17 AM
then you have a significant blind spot in either your reasoning or your analysis.

you don't have to agree, you have to understand.


I was going to put this in the last post, but figured here was better.

Once an rifle, receiver, handgun, or can of spam is defined as an AW, it is an AW. There are no levels of AWness and this is the basis for Bill's opinion as well as many others. The Categories in 12276 are there for clarity and definition, nothing else. The DOJ can create a 4th category to their heart's content, it doesn't mean anything. If they try to distinguish between pre-2000 AWs and newly identified members in their configuration requirements, that seems pretty clearly to be writing legislation.

What is so hard to understand?

glen avon
03-29-2006, 11:25 AM
IOnce an rifle, receiver, handgun, or can of spam is defined as an AW, it is an AW.... What is so hard to understand?

I don't understand how you can assert that conclusion without any citation to law, especially when I have cited law to the contrary. please post the statutory law requiring the state to treat receivers as AWs for the purposes of state law. if you can't find any - and you won't - then you are left with unfounded opinions.

again - please post the statutory law requiring the state to treat receivers as AWs for the purposes of state law.

glen avon
03-29-2006, 11:29 AM
A RCVR is a "FIREARM" both the state and federal gov't treat it as such.

sometimes. sthe state does for the purpose of licensing and sales. see my above post quoting that law.

Certain RCVRs are AW by name period...the state treats them as such.

U can't argue against these facts anywhere...........

please show me the law with a list of receivers - not firearms - designated as AWs.

I showed you the law stating that CA treats receivers as firearms only for certain provisions of the law, which do not include CA AW laws.

The CA AW laws define AWs as semi-auto, centerfire rifles with blah blah, or the firearms on a list. there is no official list of receivers declared to be AWs. None. If there is, please post a link to it. but is has to include the word receiver, not just firearms or rifles.

snobordr
03-29-2006, 11:33 AM
I don't understand how you can assert that conclusion without any citation to law, especially when I have cited law to the contrary. please post the statutory law requiring the state to treat receivers as AWs for the purposes of state law. if you can't find any - and you won't - then you are left with unfounded opinions.

again - please post the statutory law requiring the state to treat receivers as AWs for the purposes of state law.


You see the three categories in 12276?

Do you see Category 2? Those named receivers are AWs regardless of feature count. Doesn't get any simpler than that.

I am not arguing that there is law specifically stating that receivers are treated as AWs. I am not searching for it. I do know for a fact that posession of a named lower, stripped, assembled, or covered in gravy and put on a dinner plate will result in your being charged of possession of an illegal AW, not possession of a stripped receiver that could be an AW.

So does legal precedence count for anything, if so, CA will and does treat receivers the same as an assembled weapon.


Oh jeezus... I just saw the previous post. Now we are arguing semantics for the sake of argument alone. I am done here, now we are beating a dead horse for Glen's entertainment.

PIRATE14
03-29-2006, 11:37 AM
sometimes. sthe state does for the purpose of licensing and sales. see my above post quoting that law.



please show me the law with a list of receivers - not firearms - designated as AWs.

I showed you the law stating that CA treats receivers as firearms only for certain provisions of the law, which do not include CA AW laws.

The CA AW laws define AWs as semi-auto, centerfire rifles with blah blah, or the firearms on a list. there is no official list of receivers declared to be AWs. None. If there is, please post a link to it. but is has to include the word receiver, not just firearms or rifles.

If I tried to sell u a stripped Armalite M-15 or a COLT AR-15 lower rcvr.......what laws would I be violating???

If I tried to sell u a Stag-15 complete rifle or Bushmaster Carbon-15 rifle....what laws would I be violating??

If I just sold you a Stag-15 rcvr face to face in the state of CALI w/o DROS process...what laws would I be violating??

glen avon
03-29-2006, 11:46 AM
Show me anywhere it states that a lawyer's job is to enforce law?
you said it right here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=258346&postcount=64)

Usually? Always? Most judges spend a pretty good deal of time as attorneys before sitting as a judge on any court. So what, they suddenly lose that knowledge in the process?

no, but there is no guarantee that the judge you get will have been a practicing expert in the field of the matter at bar before ascending the bench. that is in fact statistically unlikely.

What are you, a DOJ plant? Again, lawyers do not create or enforce law. The DOJ cannot create law but they can enforce it.

yes, of course, anybody who does not agree with Bill must be one of Them. anybody who does not shout the party slogan at every cue must be a DOJ plant. anybody who thinks that DOJ is not a pile of retards, each and every one of them, must be a DOJ plant.

why do i keep doing this?

the institutional revulsion to contrary opinions is staggering.

I used to think I might educate somebody, but all I'm doing is getting a headache and nobody is learning how to sing.

glen avon
03-29-2006, 11:52 AM
If I tried to sell u a stripped Armalite M-15 or a COLT AR-15 lower rcvr.......what laws would I be violating???

possibly none, if done thru an FFL and all that.

If I tried to sell u a Stag-15 complete rifle or Bushmaster Carbon-15 rifle....what laws would I be violating??

the penal code and maybe the GCA of 1968

If I just sold you a Stag-15 rcvr face to face in the state of CALI w/o DROS process...what laws would I be violating??

the GCA of 1968 and the penal code

bwiese
03-29-2006, 11:56 AM
If you have a named gun (Roberti-Roos or listed on Kasler list), but stripped to the bare receiver and it's unregistered and/or acquired after any reg period is closed, you'll be popped for a minimum of a 12280(b) violation if discovered.

The statutory law bans these by name without regard to features. Thus, their bare receivers are de facto banned. The make/model of these R-R/Kasler guns are the sole determiner of AW status. Lack of a features set will not prevent it from being an AW or from you being slammed for an AW violation if not registered.

Now, one gun attorney I spoke with said that an argument could be attempted that 'series' bare receivers (i.e., 979.11 Kasler-listed) aren't members of the series unless they are similar (i.e., have features) of the complete exemplar weapon for that series (Colt AR15 or AK) -- but that that was not anything to rely upon; I got the impression that was a 'last ditch' defense. Furthermore, that concept might well only be relevant to the series members (say, a Bushmaster XM15 or DPMS Panther) as opposed to the master exemplar of the series (a true Colt AR15) that was named in Roberti-Roos. Harrott, though, likely would work against this concept since it says if listed in CCR as a series member it is an AW. (I will have to read exact wording of Harrott tonight as 'series member' vs. 'assault weapon' could be regarded differently here.) Harrott would also motivate the 'name = bad thing' concept from sheer point of clarity & uniformity.

In other words, for Roberti-Roos and Kasler-listed items, features are irrelevant - meaning the ban on named items extends to the receiver level.

adamsreeftank
03-29-2006, 11:59 AM
please show me the law with a list of receivers - not firearms - designated as AWs.

I showed you the law stating that CA treats receivers as firearms only for certain provisions of the law, which do not include CA AW laws.

The CA AW laws define AWs as semi-auto, centerfire rifles with blah blah, or the firearms on a list. there is no official list of receivers declared to be AWs. None. If there is, please post a link to it. but is has to include the word receiver, not just firearms or rifles.

Glen Avon,

Could I hire you to to put this opinion on your legal letterhead so I can submit it to the DOJ if I ask permission to purchase Colt, Armalite, and 50bmg receivers?

Just let me know what your rates are.

Thanks.

Surveyor
03-29-2006, 12:03 PM
[QUOTE=glen avon


yes, of course, anybody who does not agree with Bill must be one of Them. anybody who does not shout the party slogan at every cue must be a DOJ plant. anybody who thinks that DOJ is not a pile of retards, each and every one of them, must be a DOJ plant.

why do i keep doing this?

the institutional revulsion to contrary opinions is staggering.

I used to think I might educate somebody, but all I'm doing is getting a headache and nobody is learning how to sing.[/QUOTE]


I get where you're coming from. The mere suggestion of what arguments can be made against our position is not heresy. It is in fact, required if we expect to be victorious in our little effort. It's also a good idea to throughly examine your personal opinions, on any matter, by challenging your own arguments. Especialy when you consider what's at stake here. Glen's not a plant simply because he's putting forth the opposing view. I personaly agree with most of Bill's interpretations, but I realize that they are just his and mine interpretations. We owe it to ourselves and others to be completely honest about all of the possible outcomes.

383green
03-29-2006, 12:07 PM
On the other hand, there are people who care what the law says, and who disagree with Bill and others' interpretation of it.
So? Pick any topic, and you'll find people who have differing opinions, interpretations or understandings about it.

That's right - Bill is only capable of giving you his interpretation of the law. he is not a lawyer. and he certainly does not speak for the DOJ.
Agreed.

that means his interpretation, which is nothing more than his opinion, is no more The Law than anybody else's opinion.
Not quite. If two people have diametrically opposed understandings about something that is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion, then at least one of them is wrong.

Bill is no more likely to convince me than I am to convince him.
If that is true, I don't see any point in either of you reading what the other one writes, or in responding to each other's writings. I guess there's no point in my response, either, but I have some time to kill while I let my salad settle in my stomach before I dig into my roast beef sandwich.

why should he convince me, or others? what objective facts to you have to support your premise that people should be convinced by Bill? and that all to the contrary is DOJ brainwashing?
Well, neither Bill nor anybody else has to convince me. Reading his interpretation got me interested enough to dig through the AW laws myself and reach my own conclusion, which happens to agree with Bill's and disagree with what the DOJ has stated. I'm well-educated and have good reading comprehension, and my personal experience has shown me that when somebody else disagrees with me on a matter of fact, more often than not it turns out that my understanding was correct. My interpretation could be wrong, but at this time I do not believe that it is.

what makes you think that Bill, who is not a lawyer and not a member of the state government, has a better understanding of this than the DOJ, which is literally full of lawyers and others educated and experienced in the law and legislation?
The DOJ has been wrong before. They're not perfect. Thus, it cannot be safely assumed that whatever they say is automatically correct. In my opinion, their past history shows that they have an organizational bias against firearms rights, and that they tend to err on the anti-gun side when they misinterpret the laws. To be fair, I'll bring up the SKS situation which was a notable case where the DOJ erred on the pro-gun side and got spanked in court, but I think that was an exception to the rule.

Furthermore, few of my interactions with government organizations (i.e., DOJ, DMV, etc.) have led me to assume that they're staffed predominantly with highly-skilled professionals who rarely make any mistakes.

Based on my own careful reading of the AW laws, I believe that Bill's intepretation is correct, and that the stated DOJ interpretation is incorrect. You are free to feel differently, and only time will tell whether either of us was correct. I'm betting on me.


criticizing those who share a contrary opinion only shows that you are brainwashed yourself.
By that argument, you're brainwashed, too.

if Bill told you to stand on your head and eat with your butt, it appears as though you would. without flinching.
If Bill or anybody else told me to do that, whether I otherwise agreed with them or not, I'd helpfully suggest something they could do with their own butt. Then I'd laugh, because it would remind me of at least two South Park episodes.

Now, so you all understand, I say Bill and everybody else are entitled to their opinions.
We agree on that.

I say without objective evidence to support a contrary conclusion, it is likely that DOJ understands this better than even Bill.
We do not agree on this, however.

DOJ is an institution experienced in law and legislation. It's their job.
I've met plenty of people who were very, very bad at their jobs. There was this one engineer that I worked with several years ago. He presented himself well in his interview, and he seemed smart. However, it turned out that he did such a bad job and screwed up everything he touched so thoroughly, that when he was ejected from the company a year or so later we literally had to throw away everything he did, using our revision control system to turn back the clock by a year and go back to the pre-him versions of any code he ever touched.

I've also worked with many folks who are highly skilled, highly competent, and have track records which lead me to generally trust them without any second-guessing.

The competence of individual people, as well as the net competence of complete organizations, varies all over the spectrum. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that government organizations tend to be below average compared to private concerns because they're much more insulated from the economic pressures that tend to weed out incompetent companies in the private sector, and it's generally a lot harder to get fired from a government job than a private-sector job.

Any competent, skilled government employees who are reading this should not be offended. I'm not writing about you. I'm writing about that oxygen thief in the next cube. You know who I mean. ;)

So, the fact that it's the DOJ's job to interpret laws does not mean a danged thing to me by itself. If they had a track record of near infallibility, then I'd be inclined to accept their interpretation without digging into the law text myself. I don't feel that's the case, so I'd rather read the law text myself and form my own opinion. Maybe they're right 75% of the time, or even 90% of the time, but I don't think they're so perfect that my interpretation can't be right.

glen avon
03-29-2006, 12:08 PM
Glen Avon,

Could I hire you to to put this opinion on your legal letterhead so I can submit it to the DOJ if I ask permission to purchase Colt, Armalite, and 50bmg receivers?

Just let me know what your rates are.

Thanks.

who says I have "legal letterhead"?

and DOJ would not be impressed with letterhead. this isn't a PI case and they're not chumps.

just send them a letter asking them whether it would be legal or not, and ask them for the citation for that.

glen avon
03-29-2006, 12:13 PM
...In other words, for Roberti-Roos and Kasler-listed items, features are irrelevant - meaning the ban on named items extends to the receiver level.

not necessarily true. the RRAWCA controls rifles and pistols, and nothing in the penal code defines receivers as rifles except for the limited definition I posted above.

bwiese
03-29-2006, 12:30 PM
...In other words, for Roberti-Roos and Kasler-listed items, features are irrelevant - meaning the ban on named items extends to the receiver level.


not necessarily true. the RRAWCA controls rifles and pistols, and nothing in the penal code defines receivers as rifles except for the limited definition I posted above.

Thru the 1990s, there have been sustained busts/prosecutions for illegal/unreg'd possession of bare receivers that are listed (with no other handwaving about NFA issues, etc.) The one I recall most vividly was for a half-dozen IMI Uzi sheetmetal frames without any parts attached. And I seem to recall there were a couple of gunshow yahoos popped in 2000 who thought that taking pistol grips/uppers off of preban Colt AR15A2s made them non-AWs because they thought SB23 overrode Roberti-Roos.

The failed bust by DOJ at the Pomona gun show for HK lowers also partially demonstrates some of these concept(s). The DOJ guys apparently (incorrectly!) thought HK9X pistol grip frames were actual receivers and busted the seller - for illegal transfer AND unreg'd assault weapons charges.

Stanze
03-29-2006, 12:33 PM
The DOJ guys apparently (incorrectly!) thought HK9X pistol grip frames were actual receivers and busted the seller - for illegal transfer AND unreg'd assault weapons charges.

Oh man, too funny! Sucks for the seller though.

bwiese
03-29-2006, 12:34 PM
Oh man, too funny! Sucks for the seller though.

Very public bust by DOJ.

Very very very quiet dropping of all charges.

PIRATE14
03-29-2006, 1:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PIRATE14
If I tried to sell u a stripped Armalite M-15 or a COLT AR-15 lower rcvr.......what laws would I be violating???


possibly none, if done thru an FFL and all that.

Wrong......Listed by make and model..........12280 A and B


Quote:
If I tried to sell u a Stag-15 complete rifle or Bushmaster Carbon-15 rifle....what laws would I be violating??


the penal code and maybe the GCA of 1968

PC 12280 A


Quote:
If I just sold you a Stag-15 rcvr face to face in the state of CALI w/o DROS process...what laws would I be violating??


(k) For purposes of Sections 12021, 12021.1, 12025, 12070, 12072, 12073, 12078, 12101, and 12801 of this code, and Sections 8100, 8101, and 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, notwithstanding the fact that the term "any firearm" may be used in those sections, each firearm or the frame or receiver of the same shall constitute a distinct and separate offense under those sections.

I used to get a kick out of your opinions but ur losing some respect:mad:

blkA4alb
03-29-2006, 1:59 PM
im not sure what just happened to the thread but it freaked out on me...and added like 15 posts in 10 seconds since i opened. i dont know, disregard this post.

glen avon
03-29-2006, 2:00 PM
I used to get a kick out of your opinions but ur losing some respect:mad:

I'm sorry to disappoint you. :(

Surveyor
03-29-2006, 2:21 PM
Glen, I gotta know, what is your profession? I'm guessing attorney or writer.

blkA4alb
03-29-2006, 3:07 PM
Glen, I gotta know, what is your profession? I'm guessing attorney or writer.
i dont think you want to go there, the hole in the ozone gets bigger whenever glen and bill go at it...the more frequents will know what im talking about. glen has never told us whether he is an attorney or not.

adamsreeftank
03-29-2006, 3:10 PM
Glen, I gotta know, what is your profession? I'm guessing attorney or writer.

Does the DOJ have an intern program?

6172crew
03-29-2006, 3:11 PM
Glen, I gotta know, what is your profession? I'm guessing attorney or writer.


imbroglio \im-BROHL-yoh\, noun:
1. A complicated and embarrassing state of things.
2. A confused or complicated disagreement or misunderstanding.
3. An intricate, complicated plot, as of a drama or work of fiction.
4. A confused mass; a tangle.

:D Did I win Glen? or I mean FGG?????????

glen avon
03-29-2006, 3:36 PM
I'm neither Imbroglio nor FGG, though all I have is a 10/22 and a .38....

and Bill and I don't really go at it, you must be thinking of artherd and me. Bill just argues his case, there are no insults or attacks by him that I know of. We generally lose interest in the horses we kill pretty quickly.

6172crew
03-29-2006, 3:38 PM
I'm neither Imbroglio nor FGG, though all I have is a 10/22 and a .38....

and Bill and I don't really go at it, you must be thinking of artherd and me. Bill just argues his case, there are no insults or attacks by him that I know of. We generally lose interest in the horses we kill pretty quickly.

Damn, I was sure I nailed that one, oh well now we have our very own Glen Avon. http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_freak.gif

glen avon
03-29-2006, 3:48 PM
you really thought I might be Imbroglio?

6172crew
03-29-2006, 4:02 PM
you really thought I might be Imbroglio?

You chafe like him but no I didnt think you were him, he would have signed up under his own name Id think. :)

Do tell, what is your occupation?

Im a AA&T tech, Marine vet 93-99. Dad, 2 sons, white w/ a Jap wife.:)

Or should we have a saving private ryan poll?:D

bwiese
03-29-2006, 4:04 PM
you really thought I might be Imbroglio?

no but sometimes you sound like delloro - but your spelling is better ;)

6172crew
03-29-2006, 4:09 PM
no but sometimes you sound like delloro - but your spelling is better ;)
:eek:
Im not even sure if that was meant to be a compliment or not.:p

glen avon
03-29-2006, 4:30 PM
You chafe like him but no I didnt think you were him, he would have signed up under his own name Id think. :)

heh. he and I used to go round and round on arf.com when it was fun. that dude is hilarious. but I haven't seen him post in literally years - where is he posting now?

Do tell, what is your occupation?

I really would rather not say, I have a very strong sense of privacy.

Im a AA&T tech, Marine vet 93-99. Dad, 2 sons, white w/ a Jap wife.:)

Or should we have a saving private ryan poll?:D

Thanks for your service to our country!

6172crew
03-29-2006, 4:36 PM
heh. he and I used to go round and round on arf.com when it was fun. that dude is hilarious. but I haven't seen him post in literally years - where is he posting now?

subguns last I heard.



I really would rather not say, I have a very strong sense of privacy.

Very well;)



Thanks for your service to our country!

It was worth every moment, well almost.:D

glen avon
03-29-2006, 4:44 PM
now I am an arch-nemesis?!?!

that just *can't* be good for my reputation...

blkA4alb
03-29-2006, 4:51 PM
I'm neither Imbroglio nor FGG, though all I have is a 10/22 and a .38....

and Bill and I don't really go at it, you must be thinking of artherd and me. Bill just argues his case, there are no insults or attacks by him that I know of. We generally lose interest in the horses we kill pretty quickly.
oops, yea i meant artherd. oh well, sorry bill

Sgt Raven
03-29-2006, 5:24 PM
now I am an arch-nemesis?!?!

that just *can't* be good for my reputation...

It'll only get worse when the mini-glen avon shows up. :eek: :rolleyes:

Surveyor
03-29-2006, 6:25 PM
Glen,
Well I respect your right to privacy, I'm going to make an educated guess and say that you are an attorney of some sort. Tax law, contract law, criminal, I don't know, but you argue way to well for a civilian. Another thing is that you can't be bothered to capitalize the beginning of your sentences. Normally that would be indicative of an uneducated person, but we know that's not true. Getting your point across is more important to you. Also, you argue each point like a truly impartial person, but I know that you're biased in favor of gun owners since you are one. Most of us in the second amendment camp have a pretty hard time separating our emotions from the debate, but not you. You write posts that seem to not support our position, yet you give technical advice on building AK's. A DOJ plant wouldn't have any idea how to put together one of those rifles. A flamer wouldn't bother to help. Lastly I point to your repeated dodging of the question surrounding your profession. You keep reminding us that you never claimed to be a lawyer, but you never denied it either. I think that you're either an attorney or some kind of political insider who wants to help us out, but also wants to avoid bringing to much attention to himself.

Mute
03-29-2006, 6:36 PM
no but sometimes you sound like delloro - but your spelling is better ;)

That's harsh. I suppose it's better than calling him gunkid.

glen avon
03-29-2006, 6:40 PM
It'll only get worse when the mini-glen avon shows up. :eek: :rolleyes:

ask and ye shall receive....

glen avon
03-29-2006, 6:42 PM
Glen,
Well I respect your right to privacy, [many nice things]....

Thanks for the kind words. I do appreciate it.

6172crew
03-29-2006, 6:46 PM
If he knows Imbroglio then hes been around the gun boards for a few years, that guy was booted 2 years ago from ArFcom.

Its hard to think outside the box when most of my info comes from here or other gun collectors.

Glen isnt a gun collector w/ a 10/22 and a .38 nor is he looking for like kind, I mean how many guys/gals on these boards have 2 firearms and still hang around after that purchase? I can dig if he doesnt want to let us know if he has any lowers or not but my guess is he does practice law or stays in the Holiday inn.

blacklisted
03-29-2006, 7:03 PM
Can someone fill me in on the 10/22 and a .38? I've heard about it, but I haven't heard the story.

xenophobe
03-29-2006, 7:11 PM
in my opinion, you are half right. there is indeed nothing preventing removal of features, but the PC does prohibit manufacture of an AW, which DOJ apparently interprets as adding evil features to something not an AW.

If DOJ lists an AR-15 series firearm by name, then it becomes an AW and is defined under a different statute than non-AW firearms. Assault Weapons are a seperate definition of firearms in itself.


A stripped AR-15 receiver is an AW, when in fact it has no defining features to make it an AW, and adding a pistol grip, collapsable stock, flash hider or removing them does not change this fact.

well, that is not an objective fact, but your opinion of what should be a fact. the point of my above posts is that others may reasonably come to different conclusiuons, and all we are able to do here on this board.

Yes, that is objective fact. Read below (and note this isn't just DOJ opinion, it is their legal answer on their own web site):


http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs.htm#8


8. I am a firearms dealer. If I remove the characteristic(s) that make a firearm an assault weapon, can I sell it?

Yes, but only if the firearm is an assault weapon that is defined as such only by its characteristics, and only if you have registered it as an assault weapon with the DOJ. (Penal Code section 12276.1, SB 23 - This section of law may be accessed on the DOJ Firearms Division Website's Online Dangerous Weapons Control Laws). THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ORIGINAL ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS OR AK and AR-15 SERIES WEAPONS.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regagunfaqs.htm#13

13. If I registered my SB 23 assault weapon and now I remove the characteristic(s) that make it an assault weapon, can I cancel the registration?

Yes. If the defining characteristics establishing a firearm as an SB 23 assault weapon are removed, it is no longer an assault weapon and the registration may be canceled. However, once the registration is canceled, you can never replace the characteristic(s) that make it an assault weapon, or you will be in possession of an illegal weapon.

THIS APPLIES ONLY TO FIREARMS DEFINED AS ASSAULT WEAPONS BY CHARACTERISTICS (Penal Code section 12276.1, SB 23). THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ORIGINAL ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS OR AK and AR-15 SERIES WEAPONS IN THAT REMOVAL OF THEIR CHARACTERISTICS DOES NOT NEGATE THE REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER THE ASSAULT WEAPON.


As for receivers... Please tell me how I can manufacture an Assault Weapon, if an 'off-list' receiver is declared an Assault Weapon. By the very virtue of it being listed and deemed it is an Assault Weapon, adding or removing features do not manufacture an Assault Weapon, by definition it already is one.

Surveyor
03-29-2006, 7:12 PM
Thanks for the kind words. I do appreciate it.

Still dodging the question. Still REEEAAALLLYYY dodging the question.
Okay, I'll drop it. For now.;)

glen avon
03-29-2006, 7:20 PM
Can someone fill me in on the 10/22 and a .38? I've heard about it, but I haven't heard the story.

it's what Imbroglio used to say. "all I have is a 10/22 and a .38. where are the wimminz? why do you all persecute me so?" never mind he had a McBros .50 and then some.

glen avon
03-29-2006, 7:33 PM
Xenophobe, DOJ can take the position that a Roberti-Roos AW receiver is an AW all they want, but the statute can be read differently. if I can read it differently, so can they.

please note that all California AW laws are in the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act. look it up and you will see that I am right. PC sections 12275 - 12290. same statute. different code sections, but same statute. look and see.

so one may argue, as DOJ may have to in the future, that SB23 weapons *are* Roberti-Roos weapons, and that RR weapons should be treated as SB23 weapons and the receivers don't have that RR magic anymore.

thus, the receivers don't have automatic inherent AW status without features, and one may not add them after the cutoff date.

please remember, the point is not that I am right and/or that you are wrong. my point in this thread - which you are responding to - is that there are other interpretations and we should be aware of them. Bill's opinion is not the law. It may coincide with the law at some fiuture time, perhaps even perfectly, but not yet, not today. this is still unresolved. there are more that one interpretation which should be considered.

PIRATE14
03-29-2006, 7:52 PM
U could read the LAWS in many different ways but the DOJ will not do an about face on any precidences they've already set.......

It's a no win position in court if they did...........

xenophobe
03-29-2006, 7:54 PM
Well, I am not the law either, but it is my job to reasonably interpret and apply California law on a daily basis where either I, my boss or my company can be held liable for an improper or negligent interpretation. I've been doing this as an FFL or working for one for the better part of the time since 1988 or 1989, and what I determine is what either happens or doesn't. I don't just have to sit here and make internet interpretations for everyone, what I say here equally represents what I will or will not do or tell someone at my store. I stand by my own conclusions in the face of fines and jail time. Yes, that is MY penalty for being wrong on any of these issues moreso than anyone else here, other than another dealer.

DOJ states that a Roberti Roos AW is an assault weapon whether or not it is a receiver or a fully assembled rifle. Read further:


7. Does the possession of some, but not all, of the components which could be used to assemble an "assault weapon" constitute an unlawful possession of an "assault weapon"? If so:

.Which components, if possessed individually in a dissassembled state, would be deemed to be an "assault weapon"?

.Which combination of components possessed in a dissassembled state would be deemed an "assualt weapon"?

* Answer to both part 1 and part 2: category 1 and 2 the receiver.

http://www.robarm.com/DOJ%20Answers%208Jan04.pdf


Basically, that means that for a Category 1 or 2 weapon, all that you need to constitute an "assault weapon" or unlawful possession of an "assault weapon" is the receiver.

glen avon
03-29-2006, 7:56 PM
U could read the LAWS in many different ways but the DOJ will not do an about face on any precidences they've already set.......

It's a no win position in court if they did...........

they have done an about-face before, see the SKS with detachable mag fiasco cited in an above post. I'm sure they didn't want to, but they did. if they have to do another one for the current situation, I do not doubt that they will.

glen avon
03-29-2006, 8:04 PM
...DOJ states that a Roberti Roos AW is an assault weapon whether or not it is a receiver or a fully assembled rifle....

Basically, that means that for a Category 1 or 2 weapon, all that you need to constitue an "assault weapon" or "unlawful assault weapon" is the receiver.
Yes, that's what they say, but it is subject to changing interpretation without better statutory authority.

the law does not say a receiver is an AW. DOJ says that now, apparently, but they could easily change their interpretation. or a legislative fix could clarify this all to our advantage or disadvantage.

PIRATE14
03-29-2006, 8:04 PM
they have donme an about-face before, see the SKS with detachable mag fiasco cited in an above post. I'm sure they didn't want to, but they did. if they have to do another one for the current situation, I do not doubt that they will.

Different situation.....they stepped outside the boundry of the LAWs so they had no choice.....

Right now they have the right to declare and update the list w/in the current law and allow a registration period.

PIRATE14
03-29-2006, 8:09 PM
Yes, that's what they say, but it is subject to changing interpretation without better statutory authority.

the law does not say a receiver is an AW. DOJ says that now, apparently, but they could easily change their interpretation. or a legislative fix could clarify this all to our advantage or disadvantage.

Well I don't think anybody will be selling Bushmaster XM-15E2S lower recievers anytime soon........

glen avon
03-29-2006, 8:22 PM
Well I don't think anybody will be selling Bushmaster XM-15E2S lower recievers anytime soon........

yeah, I'm not holding my breath on that one either.

Rascal
03-29-2006, 8:24 PM
Glen,
Well I respect your right to privacy, I'm going to make an educated guess and say that you are an attorney of some sort. Tax law, contract law, criminal, I don't know, but you argue way to well for a civilian. Another thing is that you can't be bothered to capitalize the beginning of your sentences. Normally that would be indicative of an uneducated person, but we know that's not true. Getting your point across is more important to you. Also, you argue each point like a truly impartial person, but I know that you're biased in favor of gun owners since you are one. Most of us in the second amendment camp have a pretty hard time separating our emotions from the debate, but not you. You write posts that seem to not support our position, yet you give technical advice on building AK's. A DOJ plant wouldn't have any idea how to put together one of those rifles. A flamer wouldn't bother to help. Lastly I point to your repeated dodging of the question surrounding your profession. You keep reminding us that you never claimed to be a lawyer, but you never denied it either. I think that you're either an attorney or some kind of political insider who wants to help us out, but also wants to avoid bringing to much attention to himself.

What Glen does is give us a look at what the opposition might have to say. It is not just good enough to make a point, but to make sure that our point is covered and there can be no room for argument. Glens posts are testing the validity of our stance. If we can confirm all of Glens positions, then we will have a better chance of winning. It's good to question your idea, otherwise when is comes up to the real thing and we haven't thought of all the answers, it is a good chance that the opposition will find fault and we will loose.

Glen, I don't care what you do for a living, just keep doing what you do. I believe that with your help, we can cover all the bases. :)

Sgt Raven
03-29-2006, 9:07 PM
Yes, that's what they say, but it is subject to changing interpretation without better statutory authority.

the law does not say a receiver is an AW. DOJ says that now, apparently, but they could easily change their interpretation. or a legislative fix could clarify this all to our advantage or disadvantage.

But the BATFE does say the receiver is the firearm. You can sell all parts of a non-NFA firearm without going through a FFL, but a receiver must go through a FFL in Kali.

ohsmily
03-29-2006, 9:21 PM
But the BATFE does say the receiver is the firearm. You can sell all parts of a non-NFA firearm without going through a FFL, but a receiver must go through a FFL in Kali.

This is a state issue not a federal issue.

TacFan
03-29-2006, 9:24 PM
it seems this thread has gone off topic

blacklisted
03-29-2006, 9:33 PM
This is a state issue not a federal issue.

True, but I don't see CA going against the Feds for the definitions of "firearm" and "receiver".

But we'll find out soon enough what is going to happen.

aklover_91
03-29-2006, 9:36 PM
do I still have time to get my lower????

CALI-gula
03-29-2006, 10:05 PM
Glen ...I'm going to make an educated guess and say that you are an attorney of some sort... Getting your point across is more important to you.

It could be that Glen is just a hen-pecked husband, loses every argument, and brings the heart-ache of derision to this board as a release, to continue the thrust and parry, because his wife won't let him "thrust and parry". It's a cold, cold couch, eh?

All silliness aside... these last few pages present quite a confusing cacophony of prophets with theological overtones.

Which one do you choose?

I don't understand the repeated need by Glen to sycophantically try to profess, convert, doubt, and lob a crusade of etceteras toward advocacy of the DOJ. It is like someone that runs around screaming "There is no God! There is no life after death! You need to believe me, you are all FOOLS for thinking there is a God!" but their is no reward of any kind for adopting his view.

To what end or design? If there is no God, fine. But what punishment is there for believing in Him? If there is a life after death, there are rewards. If there is no life after death, the human mind will never know it, as it will be no more active in consciousness than a lump of wet mud.

Why argue there is no God? I can't prove to you he exists, but I don't need to prove to you that he doesn't exist either. If you don't believe it, fine; what is the motivation for convincing others of the same? What do you gain? If you don't believe faith is a warranted utility of truth, that there is no proof in God, so using faith as a replacement for lack of evidence is mundane sheep-like behavior, if you are satisfied there is no proof, what do you gain by a crusade to squash faith? Is the cause for the finale of just being right? That would be a truly empty hearted ending to stand up and say “ha ha” when upon your own death, your lump of mud won’t know it either – you won’t ever enjoy your own perceived reward.

If you are right, the eventual lumps of mud will never be able to acknowledge you as having been so and you will never enjoy that honor out of them! But what if they held something in hand, and life after death was real, so that whatever it was they held as true here on earth could be utilized later in their life after death?

If Glen is right, why not just be satisfied to sit back and later say “See, I was right” when it eventually does go the way by which he has orated? In any case, I wonder if Glen has been smart enough to have ignored his own lump of mud’s arrogance and bought some lowers.

Faith in Glen's OPINION gets me NO lowers. Faith in Bill's OPINION gets me lowers. Neither can predict the end result, and I ascribe nor acquiesce to either as 100% fact. However, I would rather be on Bill's side should Glen be wrong, than be on Glen's side should Bill be wrong. I will still have lowers in the safe either way.

It is like the person that wants to be SURE there is no God, but in order to avoid the full ramifications of not believing in God should it be true, he sees need to bring as many as possible into his boat, in the general feeling that if enough people believe there is no God, then by sheer numbers, he will not be the only one punished, or there may be a lesser punishment, or a minimize suffering of regrets, as if to say "See, I'm not so bad, I'm not the only one!". But nothing is brought as an offering - just "I'm right". You may see both sides as trying to do the same, but I will go with the side that offers the most hope, even if it is by default. Of course I will default to the error that gives me the most gain.

There is no proof this stairway to lower heaven will turn out good or bad; even if you cite opinion of the laws. But in any case, I would rather have my legally purchased lowers in the safe.

-- If the list materializes as Bill has figured, with no category 4 blueprints, then eureka, I have my AWs.

-- If no list materializes, and the DOJ and legislature do nothing, then eureka, I have some lowers I can either build into fixed-mag or no-pistol-grip versions here in CA, or eventually take to that second home I want to buy just outside of Clark County, Nevada, and have my dream "Armory" room just off my den.

-- Should Glen be right in that a Category 4 is enforced by the DOJ, and we can do nothing with them, and a long court battle ensues to remove any form of category 4 proclamation by the DOJ (since it can't make law) or additional legislation by the State Assembly or Senate toward banning whole new categories or adding new names, maybe even some new class, then it is still a fact that we have had the chance as California citizens to have legally bought mil-spec, open-mag-well lowers and retain them as lowers alone, so should any future Federal AW ban return that is more voracious than the Clinton 94 Crime Bill ban, we as CA citizens will be able to say we had bought "Pre-Ban lowers" just like the rest of the most of America can do at this time. Upon our move to any other state, we will have them in hand to do as we please. And should the CA AW ban eventually be rescinded 10 years from now, by a gradually Republican influenced California, then we will be able to do with our lowers as we please at that time. But at least we will have them, as I don't believe confiscation of 30,000 plus lowers will be an easy task for the DOJ to accomplish.

What does your plotting do for us Glen? You might say that you are attempting to keep people "out of jail" but people are not going to jail anyway. DOJ is after nobody over this. I just don't see your gain in all of your posts, nor what you might be doing to help the gain of any others.

The difference is that here we have Bill bringing something tangible to the table; he simply says "Look, there is this hankering hole in the law, and you can buy lowers legally, without being arrested". So... some 10,000 lowers per month are coming into CA because of this deduction since September, and the DOJ is NOT arresting anyone, not knocking on their doors, not hauling FFLs off in handcuffs, as Glen's repeated application of cited laws would have you believe, in truth, it is just the opposite. And there are more than enough letters to show the DOJ leans in our favor on category and class as to the latter without indicting numerous off-list lower consumers, now or at any time in the future.

If an issue should arise similar to the SKS/Dan Lungren twist, where we must get rid of these, then there is no great loss. But even with that doubt, I would rather have the back-up of lowers in hand, than to have the doubt, and have it go by the way of revisions to the list where all I am left with is regrets.

So at the point where we stand, with a teeter-totter of DOJ possibility, a belief in Bill's interpretation and OPINION makes more pragmatic sense than a belief in Glen's OPINION.

So if faith is a factor in all of this... and the faith could yield rewards while a lack of faith could reveal regrets ...is Bill ...(gulp) ...a prophet?


.

blacklisted
03-29-2006, 10:41 PM
It could be that Glen is just a hen-pecked husband, loses every argument, and brings the heart-ache of derision to this board as a release, to continue the thrust and parry, because his wife won't let him "thrust and parry". It's a cold, cold couch, eh?

<snip>

So if faith is a factor in all of this... and the faith could yield rewards while a lack of faith could reveal regrets ...is Bill ...(gulp) ...a prophet?


.

Great post, as usual.

xenophobe
03-29-2006, 10:49 PM
Yes, that's what they say, but it is subject to changing interpretation without better statutory authority.

the law does not say a receiver is an AW. DOJ says that now, apparently, but they could easily change their interpretation. or a legislative fix could clarify this all to our advantage or disadvantage.

Yes, the law says whatever DOJ names is an assault weapon. The defining feature of a Roberti Roos is a receiver marked with a specific name and model. Stripped bare, or fully built. It doesn't matter, and there is no difference in the law.

With .50BMG registrations, pieces of metal with serial numbers aren't accepted for registration purposes, but fully functional stripped receivers are.

So where is this changing interpretation of yours? I still would like to see one example of where a receiver itself is not considered a firearm. You must dros a receiver. You may register a receiver, in RR89, SB23 and SB50. Why would a receiver not be a firearm in California if they have held this consistency?

glen avon
03-30-2006, 7:12 AM
True, but I don't see CA going against the Feds for the definitions of "firearm" and "receiver".

But we'll find out soon enough what is going to happen.

it's not a matter of "going against." federal definitions apply to federal law. state definitions apply to state law. "and that's the law."

the feds are clear in that fed firearms premption is limited. courts agree. the CA PC sections that parallel the fed FFL regs do, specifically, define a firearm to include the receiver or frame.

the other sections don't. thus, no conflict.

Surveyor
03-30-2006, 7:21 AM
Faith in Glen's OPINION gets me NO lowers. Faith in Bill's OPINION gets me lowers. Neither can predict the end result, and I ascribe nor acquiesce to either as 100% fact. However, I would rather be on Bill's side should Glen be wrong, than be on Glen's side should Bill be wrong. I will still have lowers in the safe either way.

.

Cali,

The whole reason behind playing devils advocate is to prepare a defense against our opponents, not to instill doubt in each others minds. It serves to help us with our rebuttals and our strategy. There is no one on this board who will be dissuaded from buying or building up a lower simply because of Glens' posts. If his ideas make you too paranoid, then you certainly won't have the stomach to take your new gun to the range. I personally don't feel comfortable taking risks like this without throughly examining the risk/reward factor. If Bills' opinions, echoed by others, were the only ones presented, I would feel like I was being led down a primrose path. If something seems too good to be true it usually is. However, the combination of Bills' good news and facts, coupled with the potential outcomes presented by Glen (not his real first name, I know) has allowed me to buy my lowers with confidence. When I first heard about this I thought it might be a scam to sell quasi-legal receivers to a bunch of rubes. Anyone who's ever seen a pre-'81 DIAS advertised in The Shotgun News knows what I'm talking about. Reading all of the different scenarios presented by the different people on this board is what helped convince me otherwise. The back and forth between Glen, Bill, Artherd and others is what gives this whole situation balance. It's really naive of us to think that ours is the only possible interpretation of the law. For the record I think that Bill is 99% right, but I temper that with the knowledge that I might have to run a fixed mag. Honestly this is one of the most helpful threads that I have ever read, and I thank all of you guys for contributing! :cool:

glen avon
03-30-2006, 7:25 AM
It could be that Glen is ... a prophet?

Rascal and surveyor hit the nail on the head.

my point is nothing more metaphysical than understanding that your opponent makes diffferent arguments, understanding your opponent's arguments, the arbiter may decide your opponent is right, and in fact, your opponent may be right.

that's all.

blindly believeing Bill is right because one likes his message and believing that DOJ is wrong because one does not like their message may be easy and comfortable, but it does nothing to help us in our fight. if anything, it just adds dead weight to our side. unprepared soldiers in a battle of wits.

whether or not Bill is right is another matter for another day. getting to that point as successfully as possible is our task today.

in my own apparently inartful way, I have been trying my best to help us all. but the institutional revulsion this board displays to alternative concepts is astounding.

artherd
03-30-2006, 7:33 AM
in my own apparently inartful way,
Hey! I'm right here! :D

I have been trying my best to help us all. but the institutional revulsion this board displays to alternative concepts is astounding.
Keep at it, there was much resistance to my interpretation of Harrott even by many members of this board, before 30,000 others successfully followed suit.

Let me rephrase that, keep at it, but without resorting to personal attacks. There may be a place for those in the courtroom but there is no place for them here, period.

PS: DOJ has already opined with Bill, that a Named AW lives for all legal purpose, in the receiver. They're not going to reverse that position untill a court makes them. Doing so prematurely would undermine their consistancy of interpretation on a broad spectrum of issues. Their position may or may not infact be legal, but I would get their opinion reversed to your side before buying a Bushy XM-15 and argueing infront of a judge "But your honor, it's not constructive (or actual) posession of a Bushmaster XM-15!"

I have had this discussion with dellero already... you can't be him despite the grammar. The upshot for us is, we buy uppers. The downside for DOJ is, they have to allow recievers. Why is this a problem?

glen avon
03-30-2006, 7:38 AM
hey now, I don't recall personally insulting anybody. if you think I did, point out the post and I will edit it and apologize.

artherd
03-30-2006, 7:40 AM
please note that all California AW laws are in the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act. look it up and you will see that I am right. PC sections 12275 - 12290. same statute. different code sections, but same statute. look and see.

so one may argue, as DOJ may have to in the future, that SB23 weapons *are* Roberti-Roos weapons, and that RR weapons should be treated as SB23 weapons and the receivers don't have that RR magic anymore.

Since one could make a matching counter-argument using precicely your same supporting facts, your origional argument does not hold water.

artherd
03-30-2006, 7:45 AM
hey now, I don't recall personally insulting anybody. if you think I did, point out the post and I will edit it and apologize.
Well you did call me a dingleberry or such and skirt around and into overt attacks on others every now and then. Just keep it civil and continue to attack ideas, not the individual, please. :)

artherd
03-30-2006, 7:48 AM
Here's a thought, any appellate or supreme level cases of successful prosecution for a named 'category 2' reciever only? There ought to be case law on this by now to settle the issue.

Surveyor
03-30-2006, 8:08 AM
Since one could make a matching counter-argument using precisely your same supporting facts, your original argument does not hold water.


Good! I'm glad that his argument won't hold water. Neither does the position of " SB23 features are already illegal, so ya' can't put them on reg'ed off-listers" made my the sweet Ms. Merilees. But I'm glad she made that argument so that I could counter it with the facts. We've all been obsessing over this issue for a few month's now. The most productive thing we can do with that energy is to drill each other on our arguments. Luck favors the prepared. Don't think for a moment that the DOJ isn't doing the same thing. I believe that is the reason all of the memo's stopped coming. All we get now is a verbal over the phone. "Oh yeah, were getting the list ready as we speak. Any day now." :rolleyes: They're covering all of their bases so they won't get caught with their pants down again. We should be doing the same, and we are.

For the record;

I have two lowers.

I believe Glen has lowers too, since he knows about the best rivets to use in an AK!

I believe they will list.

I believe they are tying up loose ends so that this never happens again.

I believe that the law clearly supports having a fully fictional weapon after they are reg'ed.

I believe we will ultimately win.

I believe that it won't be easy.

I believe that the biggest asset the left wing has, is their ability to get along and cooperate with each other. (It's certainly not their well reasoned arguments!)

And lastly I believe that it takes all kinds of personalities to make an effective army. Even if they are conflicting personality's.

Lets all put away our ego's for a while and just focus on our common goal. :)

glen avon
03-30-2006, 8:24 AM
Well you did call me a dingleberry...

it was "doofus" and was not meant to be offensive at all. it was not meant as an attack, I assure you.

colossians323
03-30-2006, 8:30 AM
Rascal and surveyor hit the nail on the head.



that's all.

blindly believeing Bill is right because one likes his message and believing that DOJ is wrong because one does not like their message may be easy and comfortable, but it does nothing to help us in our fight. if anything, it just adds dead weight to our side. unprepared soldiers in a battle of wits.

whether or not Bill is right is another matter for another day. getting to that point as successfully as possible is our task today.

in my own apparently inartful way, I have been trying my best to help us all. but the institutional revulsion this board displays to alternative concepts is astounding.

I like watching from afar, but I really don't believe most of us are blindly believing in what Bill posts.
Using Cal-gulas faith analogy.
Faith is not just a blind leap into a dark chasm, following all the other lemmings over the cliff. Faith is based on evidence we have before us.
Having read both sides of the argument, Bills assesment could be correct, On the other hand Glenns argument could be correct. But the two put before us Bills is definitely more appealing, but more important then that it definitely holds water. The DOJ may or may not be able to proceed how they would like .
Bottom line is we have let this situation get to where it is at by are apathy.
These silly laws that we are arguing about would never have come to be if we stood up for our Second Amendment rights, instead we slowly keep giving up rights, because none are brave enough to lead or follow the right path.
How can a half million illegal immigrants organize, and galvanize, and we can't even get enough signatures for a right, handed to us by God, and taken away from us by our Government?
Illegals wanting rights for breaking he law, and Americans letting the Government break the law. Will it get better, or are we going to continue to hand over our rights, and let some of the other animals on the farm be even "MORE EQUAL" then us?

jmlivingston
03-30-2006, 8:33 AM
believe that the law clearly supports having a fully fictional weapon after they are reg'ed.


If it gets to the point where our fictional weapons have to be registered, I'm definately leaving the state! :D

John

Surveyor
03-30-2006, 8:43 AM
I wonder if all of the 500,000 people that showed up in LA to protest were friends? I wonder if their ability to accept people for who they are ( fat, skinny, gay, straight, Latino, cracker, etc...) helps them in organizing? I wonder if they put aside hurt feelings and just got to work?

Seriously guys, we live in The Divided States Of America. Nobody just disagrees with each other anymore. They get right to hating each other. We have to agree to let bygones be bygones and start treating each other with some more respect. The other side already hates us. That's right, they hate us. To them we are nothing more than a bunch of elitist white men who want to play with guns at the expense of other peoples lives.
That's as far as they go with their opinion. They stop thinking at that point.
We can't possibly win if we don't love each other. I know that this is probably to touchy-feely for some of the old school, but I'm new school.
On the job site I practice this. I don't yell at my crew when things aren't going my way. I talk to them like I want to be talked to and I get much better results than some of the other crew chiefs as a result. Let's try that here. We all have a common goal of defending our gun rights. Please don't forget that.

Okay, big hugs for all of you!!! :) :)

Surveyor
03-30-2006, 8:44 AM
If it gets to the point where our fictional weapons have to be registered, I'm definately leaving the state! :D

John

That's the last time I use spell check without checking it! :o

CALI-gula
03-30-2006, 10:23 AM
Cali, The whole reason behind playing devils advocate is to prepare a defense against our opponents, not to instill doubt in each others minds. It serves to help us with our rebuttals and our strategy. There is no one on this board who will be dissuaded from buying or building up a lower simply because of Glens' posts. If his ideas make you too paranoid, then you certainly won't have the stomach to take your new gun to the range.

I was not arguing against argument with an argument. So many here just want to argue for the sake of arguing with empty arrangement, true, but then some want to argue a non-argument? That would be like arguing against faith!

Faith in God by most religions means your faith also tells you there is a devil - but that faith still makes you choose one over the other. Some people DO choose the devil as the way to go. So with faith, in many ways I am validating Glen's OPINION and relevance by expressing faith in the discourse of yin and yang, but choosing Bill's OPINION. One will eventually be right and the other will be wrong, but faith decides where I stand until the verified facts and the final outcome of the DOJ are revealed - neither of which has happened.

So in the hierarchy presented, neither Bill or Glen are the God or the devil, because neither has 100% all of the answers. But as I have appointed, Bill is a prophet, and as you have noted, Glen is the devil's advocate. I never was bold enough to label Glen as the devil's advocate, so that does tell me the principles of my message reached you, and you have relayed much of the same. Between their two messages, call me the agnostic, caught between them but erroring on the side that gives a benefit either way.

I was highlighting there are two possible choices, both requiring a certain percentage of faith.

It was also meant as a fun read - laugh a little.

You are absolutely correct, the opposing side is necessary just as is yin and yang. You have merely reiterated what I have said. However, there presented is none the less an argument, and you must choose one side over the other; faith in one side of the argument garners tangible outcome (lowers) and the other side does not. So even if you had doubts about either, just as you might have doubts God exists, what does it hurt to buy lowers anyway, or in the latter, BELIEVE in God?

Yet, if it must be stated, I see more often that Glen's arguments seem originated on pieces of law taken out of context of the bigger picture, where as Bill or Artherd's arguments are more complete in addressing related tangents. And with both, even if either is ever more compelling than the other, I still buy the lowers.

And if you go back over the past 4 months of various posts on this topic, there you will ABSOLUTELY find plenty of people posting here, as well as numerous FFLs to this very day, that could be readily "dissuaded from buying or building up a lower simply because of Glens' posts".

And as you noted... "However, the combination of Bills' good news and facts, coupled with the potential outcomes presented by Glen (not his real first name, I know) has allowed me to buy my lowers with confidence." ... which is confidence based on faith; the answers are still not absolute and complete. So you have again reiterated exactly what I had earlier put forth; this is a choice still based on FAITH.

I have no paranoia over any of this; most anyone knows I already have full capability to take several of my UN-neutered pre-1994/pre-SB23 AR15s, FN FALs, and a couple of AK47s to the range, on days when I don't have the burden of my Barret M82, M95, EDM Windrunner, or McBros Tactical in tow (and bummer that my Serbu Semi is still in deposit mode, and my Viper XL not yet finished, or I would note those too). The acquistion of these latest lowers are just for the fun - and to laugh a little. :D


.

Surveyor
03-30-2006, 11:52 AM
I have no paranoia over any of this; most anyone knows I already have full capability to take several of my UN-neutered pre-1994/pre-SB23 AR15s, FN FALs, and a couple of AK47s to the range, on days when I don't have the burden of my Barret M82, M95, EDM Windrunner, or McBros Tactical in tow (and bummer that my Serbu Semi is still in deposit mode, and my Viper XL not yet finished, or I would note those too). The acquisition of these latest lowers are just for the fun - and to laugh a little. :D


.
Sorry, I meant you as in third person. Mea culpa. I actually laugh a lot. :D

You are absolutely correct, the opposing side is necessary just as is yin and yang.

True, but I didn't just mean it in the Luke Skywalker needs a Darth Vader sense. I mean that we need to think like they do. For the sake of strategy.

You are absolutely correct, the opposing side is necessary just as is yin and yang. You have merely reiterated what I have said. However, there presented is none the less an argument, and you must choose one side over the other; faith in one side of the argument garners tangible outcome (lowers) and the other side does not. So even if you had doubts about either, just as you might have doubts God exists, what does it hurt to buy lowers anyway, or in the latter, BELIEVE in God?

As a Christian, I do believe in God. I have seen enough evidence in my own life to come to that conclusion. There are many people around me that have seen enough evidence in their own lives to believe the opposite. Trying to understand where they're coming from helps reassure my faith, it doesn't weaken it. As far as the lowers are concerned, I have little doubt that we are going to get our way in the end.

Yet, if it must be stated, I see more often that Glen's arguments seem originated on pieces of law taken out of context of the bigger picture, where as Bill or Artherd's arguments are more complete in addressing related tangents.

These are the same quality arguments that we will be hearing from Bill and Allison. The whole argument that 'SB 23 features have been banned on non-AW's since 2000 so you can't put them on a newly reg'ed AW' , is also taken out of context from the big picture. The only crime you can commit by adding features is construction of an AW. And we all know that they were the ones who "constructed" it in the first place. Yet that is the opinion put forth by the DOJ.

I think of these little exchanges as brainstorming. Lets try and see if we can think up all of the realistic ways that they will try to stop us. And then we can see what we have to do to Overcome them. Seriously, no sarcasm here. Lets do this.

And if you go back over the past 4 months of various posts on this topic, there you will ABSOLUTELY find plenty of people posting here, as well as numerous FFLs to this very day, that could be readily "dissuaded from buying or building up a lower simply because of Glens' posts".

Some people are afraid to take even the smallest of risks. They just don't get as much from it as we do. That's fine, to each his own. Anybody who gets into this needs to do so with the full understanding that we are dealing with a biased Attorney General. He will twist theses laws to his advantage and manipulate ignorant juries. There is a substantial risk of being "stuck" with a rifle than can only be fully exploited out of state. I can live with that, some people can't. Caveat emptor is only fair when the buyer has all of the information that he/she needs to make an informed decision. Any reasonable person should be able to cross referance the opinions made here with the facts. It's not that hard to research the law with all of the links provided.

Bottom line;

I have faith that I will get a whole lot more joy out of my lowers than disapointment.

Based on the evidence that I have seen I believe that we will prevail, since the written law is on our side.

NRAhighpowershooter
03-30-2006, 2:33 PM
just for poops and grins.. one of my HP shooters is a retired Oakland cop and a friend of Iggy.. he said he talked to Iggy this past week and Iggy told him that the 'fixed mag' kits are illegal as well as ANY pistol grip on these 'off list' lowers and that the DOJ will charge anyone with a felony if found as such... sounds like someone is out of touch in what the law actually says....

grammaton76
03-30-2006, 2:38 PM
just for poops and grins.. one of my HP shooters is a retired Oakland cop and a friend of Iggy.. he said he talked to Iggy this past week and Iggy told him that the 'fixed mag' kits are illegal as well as ANY pistol grip on these 'off list' lowers and that the DOJ will charge anyone with a felony if found as such... sounds like someone is out of touch in what the law actually says....

Ya know, I might have more concern over what Iggy says on this matter if there'd been reports of ANYONE having been caught and warned, let alone arrested, over a fixed-mag kit.

He's been saying the same thing for quite some time now and there's been zero arrests, that I'm aware of.

bwiese
03-30-2006, 2:53 PM
Ya know, I might have more concern over what Iggy says on this matter if there'd been reports of ANYONE having been caught and warned, let alone arrested, over a fixed-mag kit.

He's been saying the same thing for quite some time now and there's been zero arrests, that I'm aware of.

Yes, there are always 'rumors' of people saying various things. Either (1) it's a mistranslation, or (2) it's FUD being spread to try to quash market.

This has been going on long enough and publicly enough that there'd be busts already if this were the case.

Hell, the Gun Exchange in SJ is selling fixed-mag rifles on off-list lowers as we speak. They're right on the shelf. (Of course, it helps that Don Kilmer's office is less than a mile away ;) )

[BTW: I recall that when 10% Firearms was visited by Iggy at the SJ Gunshow, he acknowledged to Wes that once declared/registered, all the evil features could be added.]

Surveyor
03-30-2006, 3:54 PM
just for poops and grins.. one of my HP shooters is a retired Oakland cop and a friend of Iggy.. he said he talked to Iggy this past week and Iggy told him that the 'fixed mag' kits are illegal as well as ANY pistol grip on these 'off list' lowers and that the DOJ will charge anyone with a felony if found as such... sounds like someone is out of touch in what the law actually says....

Hmmm, somebody is being a little defensive about the offlist issue. One would think that if Iggy's saying stuff like that to his buddies it must mean he's been catching flak. You know what they say, "S*** flows downhill".

NRAhighpowershooter
03-30-2006, 4:03 PM
but also.. don't forget.. a loose cannon is VERRY dangerous!!

blacklisted
03-30-2006, 4:14 PM
I see that Iggy still thinks that un-approved fixed mags are illegal.

If this was the case, then yes, pistol grips on the lower would be illegal (because the magazine would still be detachable by their definition, and PG + detachable mag = bad).

Too bad the law does not support Iggy's assertion. It's really a shame. :D

There are plenty of people happily posting their fixed mag ARs here, why hasn't Iggy gone after them? Why hasn't he done anything? Because his opinion does not equal law, nor it is relevant to anyone but himself. The higherups in the DoJ know this, and have undoubtably prevented him from pursuing a case against people that he THINKS are breaking the law, because the law is clearly on our side.

6172crew
03-30-2006, 6:33 PM
but also.. don't forget.. a loose cannon is VERRY dangerous!!

I have hinted to the fact that we have no letter saying whats good to go and whats not, Ive even mentioned that the NRA is willing to write a letter for us and argue our point but havent acually heard of one person stepping up and getting a letter for the whole group.

As for me....well mine will stay stripped in the safe.

And you guys are wrong, there was a bust and these dudes are looking for a lawyer Im sure. I dont know enough to tell anyone on this board what happened and its not public info at this point but it @ the Davis range.

Dont fill up my PM box with questions because I dont have the inside scoop.

We need a letter from the DOJ stating what we can or cant do with these lowers and we need it yesterday.:(

C.G.
03-30-2006, 6:41 PM
No PM, but it would be great if you would keep us updated as the info becomes available.

blacklisted
03-30-2006, 8:16 PM
We need a letter from the DOJ stating what we can or cant do with these lowers and we need it yesterday.:(

No, we need them to hurry up and update the list. :D Then we need a court decision to tell us what we can do with these lowers.

I could care less if the DoJ claims we can't use these fix mag kits. The law is clear on this matter. If they want to change it, they need to go to the courts.

I'd also like info on this bust if you get information on it. It may be that Iggy is actually pursuing cases against people for using these kits (sort of a "rogue agent").

If attention is given to any such cases, he may back down.

artherd
03-30-2006, 8:39 PM
Iggy has been rumored to have expressed incorrect opinions (is that a polite term for making false statements ie lieing?) before. When he puts something in writing, or acts, I will take more notice.

Since he has done neither, and furthermore no court has handed down a decision creating case law, I continue to operate within the bounds of statue law on the matter.

The statute law says that bolted mags are LEGAL.

just for poops and grins.. one of my HP shooters is a retired Oakland cop and a friend of Iggy.. he said he talked to Iggy this past week and Iggy told him that the 'fixed mag' kits are illegal as well as ANY pistol grip on these 'off list' lowers and that the DOJ will charge anyone with a felony if found as such... sounds like someone is out of touch in what the law actually says....

artherd
03-30-2006, 8:39 PM
it was "doofus" and was not meant to be offensive at all. it was not meant as an attack, I assure you.
No worries, you and I go round and know it's just for giggles. Others may not be as thick-skinned, so just keep it clean!

Group hug!

artherd
03-30-2006, 8:40 PM
but also.. don't forget.. a loose cannon is VERRY dangerous!!
...that's what they called me in high school? :D

artherd
03-30-2006, 8:49 PM
I don't understand how you can assert that conclusion without any citation to law, especially when I have cited law to the contrary. please post the statutory law requiring the state to treat receivers as AWs for the purposes of state law. if you can't find any - and you won't - then you are left with unfounded opinions.

again - please post the statutory law requiring the state to treat receivers as AWs for the purposes of state law.
I don't have the time to research case law, but I have to suspect there may be some. Anybody?

PIRATE14
03-30-2006, 9:01 PM
I have hinted to the fact that we have no letter saying whats good to go and whats not, Ive even mentioned that the NRA is willing to write a letter for us and argue our point but havent acually heard of one person stepping up and getting a letter for the whole group.

As for me....well mine will stay stripped in the safe.

And you guys are wrong, there was a bust and these dudes are looking for a lawyer Im sure. I dont know enough to tell anyone on this board what happened and its not public info at this point but it @ the Davis range.

Dont fill up my PM box with questions because I dont have the inside scoop.

We need a letter from the DOJ stating what we can or cant do with these lowers and we need it yesterday.:(

Well get the inside dope so we can build these guys a legal fund and get the test case going.............:o

thmpr
03-30-2006, 9:15 PM
Well get the inside dope so we can build these guys a legal fund and get the test case going.............:o


I am up for it....! 6172crew, as soon as you hear something, let us know.

xenophobe
03-31-2006, 1:05 AM
Well get the inside dope so we can build these guys a legal fund and get the test case going.............:o

I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I would donante a hundred or two for a Legal Fund...

adamsreeftank
03-31-2006, 1:19 AM
And you guys are wrong, there was a bust and these dudes are looking for a lawyer Im sure. I dont know enough to tell anyone on this board what happened and its not public info at this point but it @ the Davis range.



Do you at least know if they had fixed 10 rounders or were they configured as AWs? That would make a huge difference.

I'd pitch in to help someone busted for a "legal" configuration, but if they built their ARs with detachable mags and pistol grips, I'd have a lot less sympathy.

glen avon
03-31-2006, 7:26 AM
...a loose cannon is very dangerous...[quote]

[QUOTE=artherd]...that's what they called me in high school?

you had a reputation for being loose?

:D :D :D :D

shopkeep
03-31-2006, 11:44 AM
Well get the inside dope so we can build these guys a legal fund and get the test case going.............:o

Wow... people are actually getting arrested now? I thought the law was _VERY_ clear on what a fixed magazine rifle was. This is complete bull*****.

Yolo County is pretty conservative. It would be a half-decent place to take a test case to court. I happen to know someone on the Davis PD, did local cops make the arrest or was it the DOJ?

Surveyor
03-31-2006, 11:56 AM
Yolo County is pretty conservative. It would be a half-decent place to take a test case to court. I happen to know someone on the Davis PD, did local cops make the arrest or was it the DOJ?

That's the last county I would ever try this in. I realize that Dunigan, Zamora, Esparto and Woodland are conservative but never underestimate the Davis factor. Davis has the highest population and more than likely it would be an educated, anti-gun UCD elitist on your jury, not some unemployed chump who couldn't get out of jury duty. That's why I'm not surprised this happened at the YSA range.The Yolo county DA is not our friend either. I would want Placer to be the test county, if I had to choose one.

On a side note, DPD has some of the coolest mofo's on the planet working there. However the department is pretty jacked up a lot of the time.

shopkeep
03-31-2006, 12:09 PM
That's the last county I would ever try this in. I realize that Dunigan, Zamora, Esparto and Woodland are conservative but never underestimate the Davis factor. Davis has the highest population and more than likely it would be an educated, anti-gun UCD elitist on your jury, not some unemployed chump who couldn't get out of jury duty. That's why I'm not surprised this happened at the YSA range.The Yolo county DA is not our friend either. I would want Placer to be the test county, if I had to choose one.

On a side note, DPD has some of the coolest mofo's on the planet working there. However the department is pretty jacked up a lot of the time.

Well I guess this means it's no longer safe to go to the YSA to shoot my off-list rifles until further notice.

Surveyor
03-31-2006, 12:13 PM
Well I guess this means it's no longer safe to go to the YSA to shoot my off-list rifles until further notice.

Yeah I'll probably be going to Spencerville when I build mine.

swift
03-31-2006, 12:37 PM
If people are being arrested, why keep it secret? If people were arrested for shooting a rifle with a fixed, 10-round magazine, I would think the PD would go public with it to scare everyone into getting rid of their rifles. If they were shooting unregistered AW, well, they likely knew they were breaking the law and the possible consequences for doing so.

6172crew
03-31-2006, 12:41 PM
Rumor is the guys in SL had detachable magazines but Iggy has said he will bust folks with these kits installed and that makes it worth getting one of these kits to the NRA who will get the DOJ to look it over. At least the NRA will keep the DOJ honest.

Im working on getting a good contact for us to have the grip alt and fix mag kits sent off for approval. Even if its legal it would cost twice as much to prove your not guilty then to just get it in writting.

bwiese
03-31-2006, 1:18 PM
6172crew...

Don't bother sending in mag kits for 'approval'. They won't approve. The standard for an approval letter is much higher than for mere legality - look what they made Vulcan do.

And there is no requirement for having an 'approved' device. Furthermore, even if something were actually approved and it were 'too close to the line' one of the 58 DAs could challenge/prosecute that. Your best defense is reading and understanding and complying with the law directly - and CCR sec 978.20 is eminently clear.

I do not believe the Davis incident really involved fixed mag or off-list issues. WE HAVE HEARD NO REAL DETAILS SO LET'S NOT GET OUR SHORTS IN A TWIST - WE HAVE THE LAW ON OUR SIDE. Someone screwed up and detached a mag while a pistol grip, etc. was on it and thus had a 12276.1 AW. Or, perhaps some bright boy thought he could take a listed gun/receiver like, say, a Bushmaster and "legalize" it with a fixed mag.

When I spoke to a gun attorney a few weeks back about fixed (screwed down), and discussed 12276.1 w/regards to 978.20 mags there clearly was no legal issue. And Don Kilmer visits Almaden Gun Exchange quite frequently - where employee's personal fixed-mag weapons are on the rack for demo purposes.

Iggy "says" a lot of things - so did/does his buddy Dana McKinnon when they threatened out-of-state vendors with felony prosecution for shipping in off-list lowers.

These guys have a hard-on for us. But if they really had something they'd look at some of the prominent posters here and just follow 'em to the range and bust 'em there. Or they could just hang out at a rifle range any weekend and bust somebody.

artherd
03-31-2006, 6:52 PM
Who said anything about 'had' :)
you had a reputation for being loose?
:D :D :D

blacklisted
03-31-2006, 8:54 PM
Wow, this brings back memories:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/ebolamonkey/hal640.jpg

If only it were that easy!

Mr.RoDiN
04-01-2006, 9:32 AM
You forgot LAUER!

blacklisted
04-01-2006, 1:38 PM
You forgot LAUER!

I didn't even know about Lauer back then!