PDA

View Full Version : DOJ's Game Plan?


Dont Tread on Me
05-09-2006, 8:56 PM
We know the DOJ's goal and lets assume that they are not idiots. My question is how does the memo help them achieve their goal? What does it tell us about their game plan?

Why warn us that they will seek a law change on the definition of a detachable mag? What does the DOJ gain from that? Why not just leave us guessing when they are going to "list"? All I can think is that this is another attempt to "scare" people away form buying lowers with another weightless memo that will disappear in a month or two.

What are your thoughts one what the DOJ just gained from the memo?

6172crew
05-09-2006, 8:59 PM
Im guessing they have already shopped for a judge that will rule in the AG's favor.

Then after the butpirates in Sac get done we will then have a lawsuit to pay for.:cool:

bwiese
05-09-2006, 9:03 PM
Im guessing they have already shopped for a judge that will rule in the AG's favor.

Then after the butpirates in Sac get done we will then have a lawsuit to pay for.:cool:

There's no need for a judge. They have some regulatory power. They will try to assert that power, and more.

It is up to us to find a judge :)

bwiese
05-09-2006, 9:04 PM
We know the DOJ's goal and lets assume that they are not idiots. My question is how does the memo help them achieve their goal? What does it tell us about their game plan?

That they don't wanna list.

Why warn us that they will seek a law change on the definition of a detachable mag? What does the DOJ gain from that? Why not just leave us guessing when they are going to "list"? All I can think is that this is another attempt to "scare" people away form buying lowers with another weightless memo that will disappear in a month or two.

They do want to give the appearance of work, esp in an election year.

What are your thoughts one what the DOJ just gained from the memo?

Self-perceived control - or rather, the appearance thereof.

But really this memo doesn't change much. It's for now just a memo anyway.
It has no legal force.

shopkeep
05-09-2006, 9:06 PM
There's no need for a judge. They have some regulatory power. They will try to assert that power, and more.

It is up to us to find a judge :)

I can just see a sequel to www.lockyersguns.com called "Surprise the DOJ just banned your SKS and M-1 D Garand Sniper!"

jemaddux
05-09-2006, 9:10 PM
Just being curious here but has anyone thought of this being a election year to go to the media with this as a story? DOJ says its legal to purchase "Assult weapons" and then turns on thier own memo saying no its illegal..... Might make an interesting story on TV or reading in the paper if someone was to try and summit a story.

Just a thought:D

gh429
05-09-2006, 9:12 PM
We know the DOJ's goal and lets assume that they are not idiots. My question is how does the memo help them achieve their goal? What does it tell us about their game plan?

Why warn us that they will seek a law change on the definition of a detachable mag? What does the DOJ gain from that? Why not just leave us guessing when they are going to "list"? All I can think is that this is another attempt to "scare" people away form buying lowers with another weightless memo that will disappear in a month or two.

What are your thoughts one what the DOJ just gained from the memo?

There is no game plan. The ball is in our court. As far as the DOJ is concerned, they smartly manuevered themselves out of a difficult position. They:

1. Transformed 30k+ AR-15 lowers to Mini 14's but more difficult to shoot
2. Declared "sporting conversions" illegal
3. Pretty much eliminated our chances of ever registrering our lowers as full-on AW
All this while:
1. Maintaing consistency with their "approvals" of certain rifles
2. Maintaining consistency with SB23
3. Doing this least amount of work possible

The DOJ can care less how many lowers you buy, just like they can care less how many M1A's or Mini 14's you buy... You're not buying assault weapons, so it doesn't matter.

Santa Cruz Armory
05-09-2006, 9:13 PM
Just being curious here but has anyone thought of this being a election year to go to the media with this as a story? DOJ says its legal to purchase "Assult weapons" and then turns on thier own memo saying no its illegal..... Might make an interesting story on TV or reading in the paper if someone was to try and summit a story.

Just a thought:D


Good luck trying to find a newspaper or news channel that will even come close to supporting this one...The media is SO left wing it makes me sick !!:eek:

I'm VERY disapointed with the choices for the upcoming CA elections, this state and country for the most part is in the toilet!! I hate the fact that everyone has to be SO politically correct and make sure that they don't "offend" anyone...I wanna PUKE!

Dont Tread on Me
05-09-2006, 9:14 PM
Self-perceived control - or rather, the appearance thereof.

But really this memo doesn't change much. It's for now just a memo anyway.
It has no legal force.

I like this analysis. They are acting like a spoilt child that cannot get is way by blowing hot air with weightless memos that are rapidly loosing creditability.

They post that they will list but we cannot add features. Now they post that they won't list but we cannot have "temporary" fixed mags. What next?

xenophobe
05-09-2006, 9:18 PM
3. Doing this least amount of work possible


I bet they are still updating their internal list, and I'm sure they're continuing to update the AW Identification Guide as they have been doing for the past month or two.

This isn't over by a long shot. Especially when they realize that re-definition of features that changes the legal status of many different firearms may trigger a SB-23/Cat3 registration period, they're going to change their tune again.

jemaddux
05-09-2006, 9:24 PM
Good luck trying to find a newspaper or news channel that will even come close to supporting this one...The media is SO left wing it makes me sick !!:eek:

I'm VERY disapointed with the choices for the upcoming CA elections, this state and country for the most part is in the toilet!! I hate the fact that everyone has to be SO politically correct and make sure that they don't "offend" anyone...I wanna PUKE!


Well its at least worth a try. Maybe if enough of the good writers here were to start writing editorials on this maybe it could start getting out and something would have to be done. Heres a start for anyone else. Everyone keep writing in and see if it gets anyones attention.

If you would like to make a comment about a specific news article, editorial or commentary and have it considered for publication in the newspaper as a Letter to the Editor, please send it to letters@latimes.com -- send well-written individual letters only; no group e-mails. Do not send attachments. (Letters regarding Orange County issues specifically should be sent to ocletters@latimes.com.)

Letters should be brief, and may be edited. They become the property of The Times and may be republished in any format. Please include your full name, mailing address and daytime phone number (your number will not be published). For complete guidelines, call (800) LATIMES, Ext. 74511.

383green
05-09-2006, 10:44 PM
We know the DOJ's goal and lets assume that they are not idiots. My question is how does the memo help them achieve their goal? What does it tell us about their game plan?

The memo shoots down the assumption that they are not idiots. Not only does it contradict everything else they've said about the off-list lowers (in particular, that they will not update the list while they previously stated that a new list would be coming out soon many times), it even contradicts itself (i.e., that pinned magazines are illegal, and that new legislation will be needed to make them illegal, all within one short paragraph).

If this flawed memo is all that they could come up with in the months since the previous flawed memo, then it provides no actionable information because it simply demonstrates that they are in fact incompetent idiots who can't even write a self-consistent paragraph with months to work on it.

I have not seen any evidence throughout the off-list lower situation that supports the theory that the DOJ is not a bunch of idiots, and I've seen plenty of evidence that points the other way. Those retards are participating in the trampling of my rights on my dime, and they're not even doing a good job of it.

I'm sick of sitting around and waiting for them to figure out how to pull their heads out of their butts. Isn't there anything that we can do? :mad:

the_quark
05-10-2006, 1:26 AM
I think the DOJ is mostly, honestly and earnestly motivated by trying to do their best to prevent the importation and manufacture of "assault weapons" under the variety of California laws that attempt to prohibit them. They are clearly having a pornography problem with the definitions - "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." It's clear to them that the legislature wants ARs and AKs to be illegal, but M-14s and SKSs to be legal. So, they've always been trying to figure out how to draw the regulations such that ARs and AKs are illegal, but M-14s and SKS are OK. And, I really do believe that most of the people at the DOJ are honestly trying to accomplish that goal: Minimize the number of detachable magazined, pistol-gripped rifles legally owned in California.

The original memo floated the idea that ARs registered after 2000 couldn't subsequently have pistol grips and detachable magazines. I believe further legal analysis at the DOJ convinced them they had no regulatory leg to stand on, and they saw that the memo did not lessen the trade in stripped receivers.

I believe the primary purpose of the memos is to attempt to sound really ominous without actually being directly legally threatening. They're trying to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) and keep the number of new stripped lowers imported to a minimum.

I also believe that their backtracking from the "Category IV" stance means that they recognize that, if there is a new registration period, anything that gets registered will be an Assault Weapon in California with all the rights and privledges, thereof - detachable magazines and pistol grips on the same rifle!

So, given that their goal is to minimize the number of new detachable magazine, pistol-gripped rifles, I think they will do one of two things:

1) Absolutely nothing substantive. No list, no rule change to detachable magazines. Nothing that could ever conceivably trigger a reg period. Continue to publish new FUD on a quarterly basis. From their perspective, a bunch of stripped lowers no one ever does anything at all with isn't that big a tragedy, anyway. Personally speaking I think this is the most likely outcome, and look forward to shooting my new, fixed-mag self-loading rifles for years to come until the Supreme Court of the US finally fixes all this by agreeing that the 2nd Amendment means what it says and that the 14th Amendment binds the states on this matter, as well. And, I for one am perfectly happy with that outcome. Well, not as happy as if the political winds of this state changed to blow at freedom's back, but, I'm realistic.

2) Change the definition of detachable magazine but try to claim it does NOT require a new reg period. I believe they could carefully craft a definition of detachable magazine that would exempt the SKS and only catch things like ARs. I'm not going to suggest language that does that, because I'm not going to do the DOJ's work for them. :rolleyes: This would go through the normal comment period, there'd be much fighting and spitting during it, and they'd eventually enact it, and then say, "The law doesn't say anything about grandfathering in from rule changes, everyone who owns one of these guns now owns an unregistered assault weapon, please destroy it, sell it out of state, remove the pistol grip or turn it into your local law enforcement immediately," but make precisely ZERO effort to enforce this as they'd know it probably wouldn't stick in court. Now, how all that works out in the end is unclear to me. Presumably, the DOJ would face a legal challenge for not opening registration, and I expect we'd eventually win that one. But, it'd take years to get straightened out. And, if you think the latest memo has caused a freakout here, wait until they say "You all own assault weapons, turn them in, now!" :eek:

To recap: Most likely, nothing. Less likely, redifinition of detachable mag to avoid classifying SKSs as AWs, while claiming that this doesn't open a new registration period.

But, I do think, bottom line, the DOJ has realized the LAST thing they want is a new registration period, and they'll do anything they can to avoid that. I know that's not the result a lot of people here want. But, I do think it's arguable that this is a victory for us: DOJ has realized there's basically nothing they can do to stop the import of stripped lowers under existing law, and that anything they can do now would just make things worse. We need to continue to watch the legislature to make sure they don't try to clean things up for the DOJ, now...

xenophobe
05-10-2006, 1:42 AM
They did a much better job crafting this memo than they did with the last, which was so convoluted that their two page memo had over a dozen pages of rebuttal.

I do see that a LOT of thought went into the current memo. They tried their best to provide fear of prosecution, that people who bought these cannot build up rifles, and that they're not going to do what we want. They tried to word it to be absolute in strict terms. They went to great lengths to try and post a memo that could not be easily shot down, but failed to see their own condemnation in one sentence and how it does not have corresponding statute to enforce it, and that they will have to change it to work.

They've failed to consider how it will affect California approved FALs, SKSes, and perhaps a few other firearms.

They also did not consider the fact that if they change statute, they may be forced by the courts to open a Category 3 registration period, that in effect, would be open-ended to any post-SB23 firearm that could fall under Assault Weapon Definition under new regulations.

I think that they focused on posting a memo that was short and tried their best to make it bulletproof, and I'm sure at the time they posted it, thought it was. Sorry to tell them that it's not.

Dont Tread on Me
05-10-2006, 8:00 AM
From reading the posts above, this memo is not "the solution" for the DOJ. It just looks like another scare tactic to me to slow the flow of lowers while they figure out what to do.

30Cal
05-10-2006, 8:38 AM
30,000 registrations to process
Say 10 minutes each
= around 5,000 hours
I don't know what the DOJ pays admin help, but I'd guess $20/hr.

I don't think they want to pay for that. I think that's their prime motive right now (and if they can scare people out of buying off-the-list lowers for little or no cost, then even better).

PanzerAce
05-10-2006, 8:50 AM
nah, the DROS fees just from the off list should be able to cover the salary of whoever handles the regs :D

xenophobe
05-10-2006, 11:25 AM
Well the time frame for the DOJ AW Job Listing isn't till tomorrow. So I will bet once they have the staff in place, as well as all the other materials, they will list.

lol.