PDA

View Full Version : DOJ is using 'capable of accepting...' concept


bwiese
05-10-2006, 8:23 AM
Talked with a DOJ rep. Older woman, a bit testy. Didn't get a name.

DOJ is apparently using "capability to accept..." concept.

They insist that if you can remove a magazine (even unscrew) this is a violation. The counter argument can be readily made that rifle can't accept a detachable magazine when a fixed mag is already present.

No standards on time & removal complexity are mentioned. Given that the DOJ approved Carbon15 receivers can have their magwells cut out with a scribe and pocketknife, the Vulcan fixed mag can be removed in a minute or two, and a Dremel wheel can take the floorplate out of a FAB10 in under a minute, I think we are in a slightly murky but defendable area.

When a law or regulation can be read in two equally convincing but opposing meanings (by a rational person with knowledge in the field) the statute must be construed so that a violation didn't occur ("Rule of Lenity"). This stops truly poorly phrased/written laws from triggering culpability. This is even mentioned in Harrott:


"In determining the meaning of [a] statute, we look not only to the particular statutory language, but to the design of the statute as a whole and to its object and policy. Moreover, the governing standard is set forth in a criminal statute, it is appropriate to apply the rule of lenity in resolving any ambiguity in the ambit of the statute' s coverage. To the extent that the language or history of [a statute] is uncertain, this 'time-honored interpretive guideline' serves to ensure both that there is fair warning of the boundaries of criminal conduct and that legislatures, not courts, define criminal liability. [Citations.]" (Crandon v. United States (1990) 494 U.S. 152, 158; see also United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co. (1992) 504 U.S. 505, 517-518 [applying the rule of lenity in a federal firearms case involving a tax, not a criminal penalty].)

383green
05-10-2006, 8:29 AM
Interesting and informative as always, bwiese! I didn't know about the "Rule of Lenity" before.

Now, is there anything that we can do yet?

PIRATE14
05-10-2006, 8:30 AM
They are really out there on this memo........

Floating a lot of rules, definitions, regs and implications that don't exist.

Once again you get a different answer from the DOJ rep that answers the phone.....nothing new since the beginning.

Major Miner II
05-10-2006, 8:34 AM
As I said yesterday. . .I would imagine that they are going to leave the existing CCR regs as they are, and add a clarification of what "Time" and "Tools" means.

Benellishooter
05-10-2006, 8:35 AM
I'll bet you all the DOJ wives "have the capacity" to be prostitutes. But, that does not mean they actually are prostitutes.

Big difference.

Major Miner II
05-10-2006, 8:36 AM
I'll bet you all the DOJ wives "have the capacity" to be prostitutes. But, that does not mean they actually are prostitutes.

Big difference.
Yeah.

That helps.

:rolleyes:

PanzerAce
05-10-2006, 8:38 AM
I'll bet you all the DOJ wives "have the capacity" to be prostitutes. But, that does not mean they actually are prostitutes.

Big difference.

That post gets my seal of approval :D

And it really is a good point, maybe they should go arrest people for the capacity to commit illegal acts?

PIRATE14
05-10-2006, 8:38 AM
I'll bet you all the DOJ wives "have the capacity" to be prostitutes. But, that does not mean they actually are prostitutes.

Big difference.

Not much help but funny as hell.............

vonsmith
05-10-2006, 8:43 AM
bwiese's testy older woman at the DOJ is talking doubletalk. Reading the DOJ memo I think the intent for non-detachable mag's is that they shouldn't be quickly reversable to removable. The intent, IMHO, is to have a configuration that makes it inconvenient and time consuming for someone to reverse the "fixed" magazine installation, not bypass it with a "tool" like a bullet or a dime. I don't think there can be ever be a black/white definition of what "permanent" means. However the DOJ's intent could be made clear with the proper language. They need to come up with some better language for the DOJ reps to quote. They're digging themselves a hole.

My conclusion is that someone needs to design a stock or pistol grip replacement that keeps the web between the shooter's thumb and index finger above the highest point of the AR trigger. This meets the DOJ own ruling in regard to what a pistol grip is in SB23. For example the JAE-100 stock which is CA compliant according to the DOJ's definition. I believe J. Allen Enterprises is even manufacturing the stocks in CA.

“California Penal Code section 12276.1 provides, in pertinent part: “(a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, ‘assault weapon’ shall also mean any of the following: (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon…” In addition, Section 978.20, subdivision (d) of the California Code of Regulations provides, ‘’’pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon’ means a grip that allows for a pistol style grasp in which the web of the trigger hand (beneath the thumb and index finger) can be placed below the top of the exposed portion of the trigger while firing.”

=vonsmith=

PanzerAce
05-10-2006, 8:44 AM
the problem with that is the buffer tube that ARs use prevent that style of stock. In fact, that was the whole point of Mud's CA rifle project, make something that can accept AR uppers and AR mags, but has a regular rifle stock.

Benellishooter
05-10-2006, 9:07 AM
The DOJ's intent is to harrass gunowners. Everyone knows pistol grips, flash suppressors, collapsable stocks do not turn good people into baby killers.

The DOJ is taking the next step in harrassment by focusing on "pre-crime" activities.

sintax
05-10-2006, 9:20 AM
time and tools eh....

I'm thinking about tossing a drop of red locktite on the threads of the mag release and give them the allen wrench and see how they do.

bwiese
05-10-2006, 9:21 AM
time and tools eh....

I'm thinking about tossing a drop of red locktite on the threads of the mag release and give them the allen wrench and see how they do.

Locktite would be a useful thing here to stay safe.

Jicko
05-10-2006, 9:27 AM
But then Loctite is still not perm, right?

Any recommendation on which Loctite to use? My blue loctite I use on my mag-button set-screw is only medium strength....

thedrickel
05-10-2006, 9:56 AM
But then Loctite is still not perm, right?

Any recommendation on which Loctite to use? My blue loctite I use on my mag-button set-screw is only medium strength....

Same here. . .blue should be fine, the package says it takes 115 ft-lbs of torque to remove. . .try getting 115 ft-lbs of torque with a little allen wrench.

This "capacity to accept" stuff is BS, I and my rifles have the capacity to do anything, but until I actually DO bad things with or w/o my rifle I haven't committed a crime. They have to give citizens the benefit of the doubt. The bottom line is, if they follow through with the actions described in this memo they will be in for a long court battle, which they will ultimately lose (and most likely they will have to list). For now, I'll be taking my FAL to the range with its blue-locktite'd mag release and no flash suppressor!

CALI-gula
05-10-2006, 9:56 AM
Since I love history, and the fact that it repeats itself, I think I am going to repeat this post in every thread that addresses the "capacity to accept" topic.

By definition and the genealogy of the words the DOJ has used alone, a magazine bolted in place is by definition permanently fixed. And the word "fix" comes from "affix" which means 1) to attach physically 2) to attach in any way.

The AR's magazine release button or the AK's release latch only TEMPORARILY fix the magazine and the HAND can operate them to remove the magazine, where a HAND is not a tool. The magazine latch or release is an engineered part of the gun, and travels with the gun wherever it goes. The Sporting Conversions or Darin Prince magazine bolt-in kits PERMANENTLY fix the magazine and prevent it from moving out of place, and the magazine can not be removed without dismantling a locking latch by use of a tool.

Without the tool, IT CAN'T BE REMOVED, and is therefore PERMANENTLY fixed. A HAND IS NOT A TOOL!! A locking latch or bolt that needs a tool separate from the gun, to remove the device, is similar in manner to trigger locks which have been approved by the DOJ to permanently lock up a firearm to prevent tampering or removal but need a key or tool to remove them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The new memo does NOT clarify the "capacity to accept" by any means, as no device of permanence or lack-of-permanance is designated, or what they mean in terms of locking in a magazine with a bolt or glue, or use of a tool to remove them. NOTHING has changed.

The only thing that has changed is that tens-of-thousands of CA citizens now own legal standard-spec AR and AK receivers that are not on the Assault Weapon List AND have open Magazine wells. We didn't have that option for the past 5 years as most people were still to busy licking boots to notice the law was wrong; NOT AN OPINION... the actual LAW was wrong on banning AR/AK "series".

Does the DOJ's opinion on confiscating Robinson Arms M96 guns in 2003 still stand that the M96 is an Assault Weapon under this recent MEMO of opinion? Even though the DOJ later acknowledged their "capacity to accept" opinion at that time, which appears no different than this current MEMO, was NOT the law, and furthermore WRONG when they confiscated the guns?

The previous example below proves that interpreting the "capacity to accept" fundamentals are no different than use of a tool to remove or not, and the Sporting Conversion/Prince bolt kits are considered PERMAMENT.

CHAGRINED CALIFORNIA DOJ GUN POLICE RETURN IMPROPERLY CONFISCATED RIFLES DOJ Firearms Division's Own Agents Confused About What Constitutes An "Assault Weapon"

On November 25, 2003 the California DOJ announced the seizure of a number of illegal "assault weapons" from a Laguna Niguel gun dealer. One of the guns on display in the store was a Robinson Armament model M96 rifle. Believing this rifle to be an illegal "assault weapon," DOJ Firearms Division agents used the store's transaction records to locate each purchaser of the M96 rifle, then went door to door, often in the dead of night, confiscating the firearms under threat of criminal prosecution. One such raid was videotaped. No compensation was offered for the seized firearms.

Only problem: the M96 rifle is perfectly legal and is not an "assault weapon." Thankfully, higher ups at the DOJ Firearms Division got involved at the urging of CRPA and others, and reversed the Agents' interpretation.

The confiscations illustrate the difficulty in determining whether a firearm is an "assault weapon." Even the specialized DOJ Firearms Division's own agents, with their advanced training on the subject, couldn't tell. So, then how is the average gun owner supposed to know? The confusion inherent in the statute lead the District Attorneys in Fresno and Mendocino counties to file an unprecedented prosecutor vs. prosecutor lawsuit against the Attorney General over the vagueness of the law when it first passed. Hunt v. Lockyer (Fresno Superior Court #01 CE CG 03182) is still being litigated, and challenges the 1999 amendment to the state's "assault weapon" law that bans firearms based on their cosmetic features. The lawsuit points out that the law does not provide gun owners, dealers, police, or prosecutors with sufficient guidance to determine what features on a firearm are prohibited so they cannot enforce the law fairly and unilaterally or determine how to comply with it. A letter from District Attorney Hunt explaining the lawsuit is available at the CRPA's website.

In seizing the M96 rifles, the DOJ Firearms Division agents mistakenly believed that the model M96 was illegal because of one statutory definition of an "assault weapon" includes any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and a conspicuously protruding pistol grip. Although the M96 does not have a pistol grip, the agents wrongfully believed that the "capacity to accept" provision applies to both the detachable magazine and the pistol grip. The agents believed the M96 was an "assault weapon" because it has the "capacity to accept" a pistol grip - as many guns do.

"We have been aware of the confusion since this law was passed in 1999," said CRPA spokesman Chuck Michel. "The practical effect of that confusion is that the law has created a whole class of accidental felons in California."

CRPA attempted to clear up the pistol grip issue last year when its attorneys wrote DOJ for clarification. Luckily, DOJ's written responses were available to prove the DOJ's Agents were wrong. Using those previous DOJ responses, attorneys from both the CRPA and Robinson Armament were on the phone with DOJ immediately after the raids started.

"We had to e-mail the DOJ copies of their own documents that detail specifically why the M96 is not an 'assault weapon'" said Robinson Armament attorney Jason Davis. "These kind of 'mistakes' by DOJ terrorize law abiding customers and damage my client financially."

Approximately one week after seizing the model M96 rifles, DOJ's Agents began returning the model M96 rifles to their owners.
http://www.lawyertalk.org/_CRPA_Chagrined_California_DOJ_Gun_Police_Return_I mproperly_Conf-26639881-269-a.html (http://www.lawyertalk.org/_CRPA_Chagrined_California_DOJ_Gun_Police_Return_I mproperly_Conf-26639881-269-a.html)

My OPINION is the DOJ has an "INCAPACITY to accept" their ineptitude !!!!!

.

MotoGuy
05-10-2006, 10:00 AM
But then Loctite is still not perm, right?

Well Red Locktite is what S&W uses to fix the nut on the Walther P22 barrel so it is nolonger considered an assult weapon.

Nothing is truly permanent, even welds can be grinded away.

sintax
05-10-2006, 10:05 AM
blue locktite is not perm, it takes some muscle to break it loose but you can do it with common hand tools.

red locktite is "perm" and requires heat (torch) and tools to remove. I'd imagine you'd end up refinishing a lower after using a torch on it =P

koiloco
05-10-2006, 10:11 AM
even red loctite doesn't hold very well because our 10-32 bolt is not very big in diameter to provide the perm. hold.

I tried 2 times already with red loctite. 100% cured (1 week). Still popped right out with an allen wrench with not much effort.

Unless I am using the wrong loctite here. (mine says high strength on the bottle)

what's you guys' experience on this?

phish
05-10-2006, 10:25 AM
koiloco, were the threads properly cleaned? If there was any dirt or grease on the threads, adhesion could be weak.

vonsmith
05-10-2006, 10:25 AM
In regards to Loctite. The red Loctite is pretty tough. Remember that any Loctite will not properly cure on some materials, stainless steel and nylon fasteners for example.

To insure thorough curing the bolt and nut should be degreased, clean, and dry. If using a stainless steel or plastic bolt first treat the bolt and nut with Loctite primer, Type T or N if I recall correctly. Also, Loctite that is older than 6 months or stored in a warm place may not cure properly.

Even in the best of worlds Loctite isn't permanent. Nothing is, although welding comes close.

If I decide to make my mag non-detachable I'm planning on using red Loctite on the bolt and maybe RTV'ing the mag around the well. For now I'll just wait.


=vonsmith=

paradox
05-10-2006, 10:26 AM
even red loctite doesn't hold very well because our 10-32 bolt is not very big in diameter to provide the perm. hold.

I tried 2 times already with red loctite. 100% cured (1 week). Still popped right out with an allen wrench with not much effort.

Unless I am using the wrong loctite here. (mine says high strength on the bottle)

what's you guys' experience on this?


Try the green stuff, it requires heat.

zenthemighty
05-10-2006, 10:37 AM
Try the green stuff, it requires heat.


I'm missing the debate here. As long as the loctite makes it so you can't turn the nut by hand, no matter how stong you are, what does it matter? if you can break it with a tool *****en.

That's all current law requires.

shopkeep
05-10-2006, 10:38 AM
We outsmarted them and beat them at their own game of vague legal definitions. They're being sore losers about it and trying to "punish" us.

xenophobe
05-10-2006, 11:31 AM
It's just a stall tactic. They're trapped in the corner, and this is their "guns blazing" memo.

After they read the pros/cons of this memo and a serious rebuttal, they will change their position again.

shopkeep
05-10-2006, 1:08 PM
It's just a stall tactic. They're trapped in the corner, and this is their "guns blazing" memo.

After they read the pros/cons of this memo and a serious rebuttal, they will change their position again.

If you ask me Xen this memo is even less attenable than the previous memo. It's scarier, but it also opens the door wide open for thousands of other firearms to become registered as Assault Weapons.

You can rest assured that if they do attempt to change the regulation, a registration period will open. I will be sure to register a couple SKS rifles if they decide to go by this definition.

Major Miner II
05-10-2006, 1:10 PM
If you ask me Xen this memo is even less attenable than the previous memo. It's scarier, but it also opens the door wide open for thousands of other firearms to become registered as Assault Weapons.

You can rest assured that if they do attempt to change the regulation, a registration period will open. I will be sure to register a couple SKS rifles if they decide to go by this definition.
Why is everyone ignoring the simple idea that they don't need to change the CCR, simply add to it to clarify what "time" and "tools" means when removing the mag.

That shouldn't create anything other than a clarification of existing law.

gh429
05-10-2006, 1:11 PM
We outsmarted them and beat them at their own game of vague legal definitions. They're being sore losers about it and trying to "punish" us.

I respectfully disagree. It's my opinion that we got our asses handed to us by the DOJ. A sporting conversion issue that they probably would have let slide if it were not for the hundreds of phone calls and e-mails to the DOJ (with the intention of furthering our cause for AW registratin of course) resulted in an unintended consequence. We doubled down and we lost. How we respond to that and whether or not we have legal recourse is unknown at this point.

The DOJ as an entitey is not a "sore loser" or attempting to "punish" anyone. They only look for the path of least resistance, found the path, and took it. It's fairly unreasonable to assume one of their criteria for the memo was "lets screw over those guys at calguns".

As for the the vague legal definitions, the DOJ has in fact clarified existing law rather than make the existing law more vague.

My view of the legal challenge at this point is to challenge the definition of "temporarily incapable". I can see how by applying the definition of CCR "detachable magazine" weakens the DOJ's position, but I am doubtful that a court will rule in favor of a sporting conversion owner. Why? Because we are not purchasing off-the-shelf rifles, we are purchasing lowers to assemble into complete rifles. This demonstrates expertise in the area of firearms ownership. Therefore along with expertise comes the responsibility to be intimately familiar with firearm laws so as to be sure one is in compliance with the law. Therefore owners of lowers are held to a higher standard. I think you'll find support for this opinion in several court decisions, including Harrot. I personally think we're in pretty bad shape on this one. Although I am still hopeful some legal magician can turn this situation into one of allowing us to register as full-on AW. :)

Before you guys jump on me that my opinion "stinks" or that I am an idiot or DOJ plant, I remind you guys that 8 weeks ago I gave the opinion that the DOJ will somehow force us to weld or epoxy our magazines, 6 weeks ago that they may nail us on "capacity to accept" and not list, and just yesterday moments after the "memo" was released, while most were still arguing about how the DOJ has no right to change the definition of detachable mag, I was of the opinion that we were nailed on "capacity to accept" - which was today confirmed by Bill. So at the very least, you must admit I have a good track record at wild guesses. ;)

Major Miner II
05-10-2006, 1:13 PM
So at the very least, you must admit I have a good track record at wild guesses. ;)
Or you're a DOJ plant! ;)

Benellishooter
05-10-2006, 1:30 PM
It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

PIRATE14
05-10-2006, 1:36 PM
I respectfully disagree. It's my opinion that we got our asses handed to us by the DOJ. A sporting conversion issue that they probably would have let slide if it were not for the hundreds of phone calls and e-mails to the DOJ (with the intention of furthering our cause for AW registratin of course) resulted in an unintended consequence. We doubled down and we lost. How we respond to that and whether or not we have legal recourse is unknown at this point.

Disagree, memo still doesn't say much.....stalemate.

The DOJ as an entitey is not a "sore loser" or attempting to "punish" anyone. They only look for the path of least resistance, found the path, and took it. It's fairly unreasonable to assume one of their criteria for the memo was "lets screw over those guys at calguns".

There is a faction in DOJ that thinks exactly along these lines....might not say it publicly.

As for the the vague legal definitions, the DOJ has in fact clarified existing law rather than make the existing law more vague.;)

Clarrified what law exactly???


My view of the legal challenge at this point is to challenge the definition of "temporarily incapable". I can see how by applying the definition of CCR "detachable magazine" weakens the DOJ's position, but I am doubtful that a court will rule in favor of a sporting conversion owner. Why? Because we are not purchasing off-the-shelf rifles, we are purchasing lowers to assemble into complete rifles. This demonstrates expertise in the area of firearms ownership. Therefore along with expertise comes the responsibility to be intimately familiar with firearm laws so as to be sure one is in compliance with the law. Therefore owners of lowers are held to a higher standard. I think you'll find support for this opinion in several court decisions, including Harrot. I personally think we're in pretty bad shape on this one. Although I am still hopeful some legal magician can turn this situation into one of allowing us to register as full-on AW. :);)

People are "experts" that's why they have fixed mags or nothin that runs afoul of SB23.

Before you guys jump on me that my opinion "stinks" or that I am an idiot or DOJ plant, I remind you guys that 8 weeks ago I gave the opinion that the DOJ will somehow force us to weld or epoxy our magazines, 6 weeks ago that they may nail us on "capacity to accept" and not list, and just yesterday moments after the "memo" was released, while most were still arguing about how the DOJ has no right to change the definition of detachable mag, I was of the opinion that we were nailed on "capacity to accept" - which was today confirmed by Bill. So at the very least, you must admit I have a good track record at wild guesses. ;)[QUOTE=gh429]

This is the opinion of a few people.....that study the AW laws. Capacity to accept will effect a lot of different semi-auto center fire rifles........

KLABruin
05-10-2006, 3:34 PM
Is it just me or does anyone else think there is a difference between,

(1)“being capable of accepting a detachable magazine”

and,

(2) “being capable of being made capable of accepting a detachable magazine”

SB23 says (1), but the DOJ is claiming they are going to interpret it as saying (2).

I really don’t think this part of the memo is going to fly. As long as there is a fixed magazine that requires a tool to remove, the rifle may be capable of being made capable, but it is not capable of accepting a detachable magazine (say that ten times fast).

Jicko
05-10-2006, 3:56 PM
Why is everyone ignoring the simple idea that they don't need to change the CCR, simply add to it to clarify what "time" and "tools" means when removing the mag.

That shouldn't create anything other than a clarification of existing law.


There wasn't any "requirement" on "time", ever!!

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/sb23.htm

978.20(a) only define "detachable" = remove without "use of a tool being required" (it further on define bullet/ammo as an example of a tool)


So, to do whatever they wanna attempt in their 5/9/06 memo... they would have to change the CA Code of Regulations (CCR) 978.20a... to redefine the term "detachable magazine"....

DigglerD
05-10-2006, 5:06 PM
The DOJ as an entitey is not a "sore loser" or attempting to "punish" anyone. They only look for the path of least resistance, found the path, and took it. It's fairly unreasonable to assume one of their criteria for the memo was "lets screw over those guys at calguns".

That's the issue here. they are supposed to simply do thier job as handed down by the legislature. In this case they do seem to be vengfull and are working to stretch what the legislature given them in order to stop the flow of AR / AK's.

Solutions and means to banning AR /AK's is NOT the DOJ's job. Thier job is simply to identify them and ban them (by the tools given from the legislature) as they find them.

In this case the path to least resistance ("I was just following orders") response would have been to list. It is not thier job to invent new tools to ban weapons nor is it thier job to play games... that is for the legislature.

KLABruin
05-10-2006, 5:20 PM
That's the issue here. they are supposed to simply do thier job as handed down by the legislature. In this case they do seem to be vengfull and are working to stretch what the legislature given them in order to stop the flow of AR / AK's.

Solutions and means to banning AR /AK's is NOT the DOJ's job. Thier job is simply to identify them and ban them (by the tools given from the legislature) as they find them.

In this case the path to least resistance ("I was just following orders") response would have been to list. It is not thier job to invent new tools to ban weapons nor is it thier job to play games... that is for the legislature.

+1

You hit the nail right on the head.

shopkeep
05-10-2006, 5:45 PM
We outsmarted them last time, and we'll do it again this time.

xenophobe
05-10-2006, 5:59 PM
It's been a little over 24 hours now, and many different holes have been clearly shot through the memo. In a week or two, after everyone is calm and collected? Let the games begin...

PanzerAce
05-10-2006, 6:11 PM
It's been a little over 24 hours now, and many different holes have been clearly shot through the memo. In a week or two, after everyone is calm and collected? Let the games begin...

10 bucks says they release a new memo, and everybody gets all worked up again :D

xenophobe
05-10-2006, 6:13 PM
10 bucks says the next "memo" is declaratory intent to list. ;)

PanzerAce
05-10-2006, 6:18 PM
10 bucks says the next "memo" is declaratory intent to list. ;)

seriously? if so, your on, I know where you work, and Im on your books for a NDS reciever. Im going to book mark this, since I intend on collecting. (though, truthfully, I would really rather LOSE this bet)

Dump1567
05-10-2006, 6:33 PM
My 2 cents.
Here's how I think it plays out in the "real world". LEO contact. Deputy/Officer "no nothing" confiscates your gun. Maybe go to jail for AW or not. If no DA files, you have to try and get your gun back ( that probably means $$$). If DA files (which I doubt), some form of probation and/or jail time deal is offered to make it "go away". Here's what I think is important:

1. Carry documentation to prove legitamicy of your off-list lower to LEO contact.
2. The longer these come into the state, the wiser LEO will become to their legitamicy (I know several cops who have bought these:) ).
3. No pistol grip or "evil features" may be the safer way to go.
4. Never take a court deal to make it "go away". Demand to go to trial (and be the "test case";)) . If you take the deal, your probation may stipulate no firearms for 10 years or life:eek: .
5. If no charges filed, you still may never see your rifle again.


Again, just my thoughts of what may be a "real world" scenario. If this ever happens to anyone here, I'd be more than happy to donate to your defense fund. Now excuse me as I head on over to ARF.COM to look at pics to get ideas for my next build. Perhaps an SPR with no pistol grip.;)

PanzerAce
05-10-2006, 6:39 PM
My 2 cents.
Here's how I think it plays out in the "real world". LEO contact. Deputy/Officer "no nothing" confiscates your gun. Maybe go to jail for AW or not. If no DA files, you have to try and get your gun back ( that probably means $$$). If DA files (which I doubt), some form of probation and/or jail time deal is offered to make it "go away". Here's what I think is important:

1. Carry documentation to prove legitamicy of your off-list lower to LEO contact.
2. The longer these come into the state, the wiser LEO will become to their legitamicy (I know several cops who have bought these:) ).
3. No pistol grip or "evil features" may be the safer way to go.
4. Never take a court deal to make it "go away". Demand to go to trial (and be the "test case";)) . If you take the deal, your probation may stipulate no firearms for 10 years or life:eek: .
5. If no charges filed, you still may never see your rifle again.


Again, just my thoughts of what may be a "real world" scenario. If this ever happens to anyone here, I'd be more than happy to donate to your defense fund.

That is one of the reasons that I am keeping mine as inert chunks of metal untill this is resolved (hopefully, a list). As a college student, I dont have enough money to effectivley defend my self (sure, I bet there are people on this board that would be willing to help, but still) also, I dont want the best years of my life to be sans guns.

shopkeep
05-10-2006, 6:51 PM
10 bucks says the next "memo" is declaratory intent to list. ;)

Something gives me an idea that just like we're playing around with new ways to build these, the DOJ is playing around with new ways to ban them.

markymark
05-10-2006, 7:10 PM
That's the issue here. they are supposed to simply do thier job as handed down by the legislature. In this case they do seem to be vengfull and are working to stretch what the legislature given them in order to stop the flow of AR / AK's.

Solutions and means to banning AR /AK's is NOT the DOJ's job. Thier job is simply to identify them and ban them (by the tools given from the legislature) as they find them.

In this case the path to least resistance ("I was just following orders") response would have been to list. It is not thier job to invent new tools to ban weapons nor is it thier job to play games... that is for the legislature.


I wonder if they got the memo?


http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~rliebsch/memo.jpg

PanzerAce
05-10-2006, 7:11 PM
dear god. I actually have something at my job called a TPS report O_o

xenophobe
05-10-2006, 7:21 PM
seriously? if so, your on, I know where you work, and Im on your books for a NDS reciever. Im going to book mark this, since I intend on collecting. (though, truthfully, I would really rather LOSE this bet)

Seriously. $10 says the next memo is that they're going to list.


Something gives me an idea that just like we're playing around with new ways to build these, the DOJ is playing around with new ways to ban them.

Of course they are.... and in the end they'll find a way. I'm pretty sure I know how this will be done. Regardless, I still think they'll turn back to listing, and it'll come as a suprise. I've been saying all along that this is going to be a long, drawn out process, and I think they're just publicly airing their various options, and the conclusions of the latest memo will end up being more than they would care to imagine with possible banning of FALs they've previously approved, and possibly opening up (perhaps even forced by the courts) an open-ended SB-23/Category 3 registration period for newly reclassified assault weapons...

PIRATE14
05-10-2006, 7:35 PM
You forgot to mention the overpriced GB Sales/Evans Gunsmithing "California Legal" Bushmaster and Colt lowers.
http://www.californialegalbushmaster.com/

Now GB Sales and Evans Gunsmithing are proud to have received approval from the CA DOJ that their rifle's and practically only theirs, are legal for sale and ownership in California. They even refer to the infamous February 1st memo (but the link is now dead LOL). This, they feel, entitles them to charge $1,700 for modified Bushmaster rifles and $2,650 for modified Colt rifles.

As many of you know, the lowers are modified to be SB-23 compliant by sealing the mag well with a metal plate welded in place. However, they are also proud that they can provide the service of removing the plate and restoring full functionality should the owner move out of state.

The new memo basically screws them over since by their own marketing the modification isn't "permanent", especially given the DOJ claim that "time and tools" is not an issue.

LOL Eat that GB Sales and put your $1,700 neutered Bushmasters where the sun don't shine.

This is my favorite one.....especially after the DEL MAR show.......:eek: