PDA

View Full Version : Test Case??


jp.cherokee
04-24-2006, 9:41 AM
Hi Folks,
I DID do a search and found NAda. Any news on the Socal test case with the young CCW gent who had his Cal-legal AR confiscated? If there is a thread, show me then delete this.
Thanks,

PIRATE14
04-24-2006, 11:18 AM
Sorry bad info.......so where is this guy???

We gotta glob onto this if so.........

Edit...my original post where I thought he got the rifle back.....HHHMMM

bwiese
04-24-2006, 11:35 AM
Did he now?

I recall hearing something like this
- rifle seized;
- cop calls guy and says he will drop it off;
- cop calls again and it's 'further investigation'.

Can we conclusively find out what happened? I believe the thread got killed.

blacklisted
04-24-2006, 11:41 AM
Did he now?

I recall hearing something like this
- rifle seized;
- cop calls guy and says he will drop it off;
- cop calls again and it's 'further investigation'.

Can we conclusively find out what happened? I believe the thread got killed.

That's what happened. Just when it looked like he was getting it back, the same officer called and said it was under "investigation".

The friend requested the thread be removed, and it was. If anyone knows what's going on, it would be his friend, but I forgot his member name here.

Perhaps if he is reading this, he can give an update, but not mention anything that could get his friend in trouble (maybe just a brief update of whether or not the police are still investigating it, don't mention how the mag was fixed or anything).

xenophobe
04-24-2006, 12:04 PM
Like I said from the beginning...

I smell test case

shopkeep
04-25-2006, 2:22 PM
Well if this does become a test case for fixed mags then we need to heap money onto it. He should have taken Tony's advice and had all the papers and stuff. I still think that this can have a positive outcome though, there's still a strong possibility that all they're doing is sitting on the rifle just like the DOJ sat on those recievers from Milpitas forever.

bwiese
04-25-2006, 2:24 PM
I emailed his buddy (orig poster about situation).

Situation is still "cop has rifle". Cop asked for receipt (why???).

It has not been referred to DAs office.

That's all I/he knows.

shopkeep
04-25-2006, 2:35 PM
Hey Bill, do you think this is something we should be worried about? If it hasn't been reffered to the DA do you think that it'll probably be resolved without anyone being charged? Man I would hate to see someone get into trouble. So far no one here has been arressted or charged and I hope things stay that way.

phish
04-25-2006, 2:53 PM
Cop asked for receipt (why???).


receipt in terms of where purchased and/or DROSd?

The only piece of paper that should be left is the 4473 which is the Fed form.

odysseus
04-25-2006, 2:54 PM
DA might be waiting for an opinion by the DOJ, and it would be real funny for them to charge him for something that he would be able to legally register

GW
04-25-2006, 3:14 PM
My aging memory is failing me here.
Was there any corroboration of this guy's story?
Has this guy ever posted before or since that thread?

bwiese
04-25-2006, 3:47 PM
My aging memory is failing me here.
Was there any corroboration of this guy's story?
Has this guy ever posted before or since that thread?

Yes, the orig poster is the guy's buddy. He's been here for awhile and is OK.

xenophobe
04-25-2006, 5:59 PM
DA might be waiting for an opinion by the DOJ,

+1 This is what I'm assuming. If this is the case, we'll be waiting a while to figure this outcome...

Glasshat
04-25-2006, 10:24 PM
I've been wondering about something that may pertain to this poor guys situation. If you have a rifle that fully complies with all the laws as have discussed here, and when you are asked about your rifle by a DOJ agent and you say something about it being an "AR-15" rather than it being a "California legal self-loading rifle" or some such thing, are you defeating the protection of the Harrott decision in that you acknowledged that you know the off-list lower receiver you own is actually an AR-15 series lower? Or am I just being paranoid again?

1911_sfca
04-25-2006, 10:34 PM
I've been wondering about something that may pertain to this poor guys situation. If you have a rifle that fully complies with all the laws as have discussed here, and when you are asked about your rifle by a DOJ agent and you say something about it being an "AR-15" rather than it being a "California legal self-loading rifle" or some such thing, are you defeating the protection of the Harrott decision in that you acknowledged that you know the off-list lower receiver you own is actually an AR-15 series lower? Or am I just being paranoid again?

IANAL, but I would see that as overly paranoid. The Cal Supremes took the stance that the average citizen shouldn't have to know the difference -- in the abstract sense. Then they said that assault weapon categorization (for AR/AK series) is to be performed by the DOJ -- in a very concrete sense. So calling something an AR or an AK or a bluebird, shouldn't make a white of difference with respect to the case law.

Just my opinion though..

blacklisted
04-25-2006, 10:40 PM
It doesn't matter what you call it, the markings on the side are what matter.

Pablo
04-25-2006, 11:38 PM
I definitely want to know the final outcome of this case!:confused:

Well if this does become a test case for fixed mags then we need to heap money onto it.

+1 Lets show some support to this guy!!!;) (My wallet is ready!)

Anonymous Coward
04-26-2006, 6:07 AM
I've been wondering about something that may pertain to this poor guys situation. If you have a rifle that fully complies with all the laws as have discussed here, and when you are asked about your rifle by a DOJ agent and you say something about it being an "AR-15" rather than it being a "California legal self-loading rifle" or some such thing, are you defeating the protection of the Harrott decision in that you acknowledged that you know the off-list lower receiver you own is actually an AR-15 series lower? Or am I just being paranoid again?


Well, if you only bought a lower (as opposed to a complete rifle) you'd have a hard time convincing anybody that you weren't aware that 1) there is such a thing as an AR spec (or an "AR series") with it's parts exchangeability and 2) that the lower you bought is a spec AR lower.

You won't convince anybody that you bought a part without researching what you can do with it and make sure you can assemble it into something. :D

FreedomIsNotFree
04-26-2006, 7:42 PM
Well, if you only bought a lower (as opposed to a complete rifle) you'd have a hard time convincing anybody that you weren't aware that 1) there is such a thing as an AR spec (or an "AR series") with it's parts exchangeability and 2) that the lower you bought is a spec AR lower.

You won't convince anybody that you bought a part without researching what you can do with it and make sure you can assemble it into something. :D

The State has the burden to prove a crime has occurred. The accused does NOT need to prove anything.

filefish
04-26-2006, 7:58 PM
Well, if you only bought a lower (as opposed to a complete rifle) you'd have a hard time convincing anybody that you weren't aware that 1) there is such a thing as an AR spec (or an "AR series") with it's parts exchangeability and 2) that the lower you bought is a spec AR lower.

You won't convince anybody that you bought a part without researching what you can do with it and make sure you can assemble it into something. :D


if I buy a honda accord and put bmw 3 series seats, wheels, paint, stearing wheel, logos, stereo, spark plugs, fan belt, tire iron, cd changer and mufler all of which bolt on, hell if i put a bmw 3 series engine and transmission in it, it would still be reccognised my the state of california as a honda it will never be a bmw 3 series. it may look identical to a bmw 3 series but it will never be one. you can tell by checking the vin

if I buy a vulcan v-15 and put all kinds of ar-15 parts on it it will never be an ar 15 or any other series listed rifle period. it may look like an armalite rifle model 15 but it will never be one. you can tell by the manufactures markings


you see the law dos not bann stonner gas systems, it outlaws specific models of rifle which employ the stoner gas system. fortunatly for us the gun grabbers are idiots

hoffmang
04-26-2006, 11:51 PM
When an officer asks you if you know how fast you were driving you answer, "yes."

If asked what you purchased, the answer is "a rifle."

Anonymous Coward
04-27-2006, 7:35 AM
you see the law dos not bann stonner gas systems, it outlaws specific models of rifle which employ the stoner gas system. fortunatly for us the gun grabbers are idiots

Actually, the statuary law does ban AR and AK series rifles and this wasn't touched by Kasler. That decision just clarified it's implementation. That the public cannot reasonably know if a rifle is an AR/AK and that therefore DOJ must keep a list of those.

What is not clear is what would happen if you go to court and the prosecution tries to convince the jury that you knew that you build an AR/stoner type rifle, because you just bought a lower.

Facing such you would have to counter that explaining that you want to build an non-AR rifle.

The burden of proof is with the prosecution, but if you don't explain what you intended to do, I think the jury will believe the prosecution that you intended to build an AR series rifle and knew what you're doing.

Dont Tread on Me
04-27-2006, 9:27 AM
I guess another way of looking at that you cannot turn a unlisted gun into a listed is gun is that the reverse is not possible.

I cannot buy a listed lower and add some mini-14 parts then claim it is a mini-14.

Glasshat
04-27-2006, 10:07 AM
Thinking back to December when all this started, the party line was, "I'm building a California legal fixed magazine .223 caliber self loading rifle. My lower receiver is not listed and therefore it is not an AR-15 clone. I do not intend in the future to convert my rifle to accept detachable magazines. I don't even like AR-15's or the color black."

To that I will add this mantra: "I never wanted or intended to build an AR-15 because they have to be cleaned 5 times each day, they're complicated, they malfunction, they don't accept Wolf ammo, they are underpowered mouse guns, they are high-powered sniper guns, they are assault weapons, they are bullet hoses and they are evil. On the other hand, the color is starting to grow on me".

filefish
04-27-2006, 10:23 AM
Thinking back to December when all this started, the party line was, "I'm building a California legal fixed magazine .223 caliber self loading rifle. My lower receiver is not listed and therefore it is not an AR-15 clone. I do not intend in the future to convert my rifle to accept detachable magazines. I don't even like AR-15's or the color black."

To that I will add this mantra: "I never wanted or intended to build an AR-15 because they have to be cleaned 5 times each day, they're complicated, they malfunction, they don't accept Wolf ammo, they are underpowered mouse guns, they are high-powered sniper guns, they are assault weapons, they are bullet hoses and they are evil. On the other hand, the color is starting to grow on me".

lol but a stag 15 will never be an armalite rifle modle 15

Glasshat
04-27-2006, 10:32 AM
Besides important and complicated differences only discernable by an all-wise and powerful body of elected lawmakers, the main difference is that a Stag-15 is kind and gentle, and an Armalite-15 (and their ilk) is evil and mean.

That's why I went with the Stag.

bwiese
04-27-2006, 11:21 AM
Actually, the statuary law does ban AR and AK series rifles and this wasn't touched by Kasler.

Correct, Kasler said that series included 'copies & duplicates', etc. and AG had power to control them

That decision just clarified it's implementation. That the public cannot reasonably know if a rifle is an AR/AK and that therefore DOJ must keep a list of those

That's the Harrott decision which reshapes elements of Kasler. What that says (separate from features issues) is, "if it ain't listed by make/model, it ain't an AW". More importantly, in some ways, it also says a trial court, cop, DA, etc. cannot determine AR/K series membership. Only the AG/DOJ can do that - and it's only a series member if it's listed. There's no other way - or other gov't body that can - determine series membership.

What is not clear is what would happen if you go to court and the prosecution tries to convince the jury that you knew that you build an AR/stoner type rifle, because you just bought a lower.

Unlisted receivers (AR/AK flavors) are same legal standing as receivers for other rifles. If no features added, they are not AWs. DOJ letter also says that constructive possession doesn't apply even if reque. So that's a BIG boundary to cross right there aside from the fact that courts cannot determine series membership.

Facing such you would have to counter that explaining that you want to build an non-AR rifle.

The burden of proof is with the prosecution, but if you don't explain what you intended to do, I think the jury will believe the prosecution that you intended to build an AR series rifle and knew what you're doing.

This is why I always encouraged off-list receivers for rifles that are related to AWs to have a "path to legality". That is, there should be at least one way for that receiver to be assembled into a rifle that operates in a reasonable fashion. If the receiver can't be built into a legal, operational rifle at all - or it is so impractical to operate that it defies rationality and would never be so constructed - then you should shy away from acquiring such a receiver.

jp.cherokee
05-12-2006, 9:48 AM
BTT,
Reminder. Any news on test case? I'm dying to know what happened...:confused: :confused: :confused:

artherd
05-12-2006, 8:19 PM
I doubt anything has happened, not enough time has passed.

I do sure hope this guy knows about that certin DOJ letter exempting features based AWs from constructive posession. If not, e-mail me. (and/or get a good/better attorney.)