PDA

View Full Version : DOJ: Put it in writting


shopkeep
05-10-2006, 2:34 PM
I just got off the phone with the DOJ after FINALLY being able to reach a representative. He said the department was unaware that this would ban SKS rifles and that we should address this in writting.

I suggest someone put together a form letter that people can print and mail to the DOJ. It would be best if some of the more legal minds on here like Bill or Ben did it.

the_quark
05-10-2006, 3:01 PM
I'd suggest that we not do that, not yet.

Here's where we stand, now: They have threatened prosecution on something that is clearly within the law, as it stands. Either they go nowhere with that, in which case we're where we were, before, or they actually *do* try to prosecute someone, in which case we'll win, because, again, the law is clearly on our side.

Now, I think, before they'd try prosecuting someone, they'll try changing the definition in law. In which case, they'll have to go through a comment period, etc., and that will be the time for us to bring up "But this would make SKSs AWs, too!"

Leadthrower
05-10-2006, 3:01 PM
I just got off the phone with the DOJ after FINALLY being able to reach a representative. He said the department was unaware that this would ban SKS rifles and that we should address this in writting.

I suggest someone put together a form letter that people can print and mail to the DOJ. It would be best if some of the more legal minds on here like Bill or Ben did it.

So be it....Game on!

glen avon
05-10-2006, 3:08 PM
that's what notice and comment is for.

blacklisted
05-10-2006, 3:16 PM
that's what notice and comment is for.

But do they not know right now that defining (of "capacity to accept a detachable magazine") would affect other guns?

That just doesn't make sense.

I don't know why, but this has pissed me off more than anything in recent months, or years for that matter.

We can't just let them do this without exposing this bull**** to the media. We need the help of gun rights organizations in this.

glen avon
05-10-2006, 3:55 PM
But do they not know right now that defining (of "capacity to accept a detachable magazine") would affect other guns?

I am sure that has crossed their mind.

That just doesn't make sense.

It does to me.

I don't know why, but this has pissed me off more than anything in recent months, or years for that matter.

happens to all of us at some time or another.

We can't just let them do this without exposing this bull**** to the media. We need the help of gun rights organizations in this.

I just don't see the BS. I think you will be met with a lot of yawns. It might turn out to be BS, anything can, but I don't expect it will.

ohsmily
05-10-2006, 6:44 PM
I just got off the phone with the DOJ after FINALLY being able to reach a representative. He said the department was unaware that this would ban SKS rifles and that we should address this in writting.

I suggest someone put together a form letter that people can print and mail to the DOJ. It would be best if some of the more legal minds on here like Bill or Ben did it.

Dude, it is WRITING, not WRITTING.

blacklisted
05-10-2006, 6:47 PM
I am sure that has crossed their mind.



It does to me.



happens to all of us at some time or another.



I just don't see the BS. I think you will be met with a lot of yawns. It might turn out to be BS, anything can, but I don't expect it will.

It makes sense as a solution to this "problem", but the fact that it will probably affect other guns is what doesn't make sense to me. I suspect that they simply aren't telling us everything (why would they?), and they are going to find a way to specifically affect ar/ak only. Only time will tell! Until then, things will continue as usual.

shopkeep
05-10-2006, 6:48 PM
But do they not know right now that defining (of "capacity to accept a detachable magazine") would affect other guns?

That just doesn't make sense.

I don't know why, but this has pissed me off more than anything in recent months, or years for that matter.

We can't just let them do this without exposing this bull**** to the media. We need the help of gun rights organizations in this.

Well for right now it's a memo. Yeah, we were pretty pissed at the last memo and this one has equally evil implications. However, it's going to take a lot of work on their part to implement this and they'll be in for one hell of a fight.

The part that puzzles me is why they're only really going to bother with fixed mag rifles. Plenty of folks built detachable mag rifles, and this memo will only serve to boost the popularity of AK-47 rifles because they're so easy to use without the grip.

glen avon
05-11-2006, 9:25 AM
...The part that puzzles me is why they're only really going to bother with fixed mag rifles. Plenty of folks built detachable mag rifles, and this memo will only serve to boost the popularity of AK-47 rifles because they're so easy to use without the grip.

I know that you and others believe that the DOJ does indeed care and is taking this whole thing personally. but it's not so puzzling if you look at it this way: DOJ has an awful lot of stuff to do, and they really don't care all that much about AWs. I think they want to get the detachable mag definition behind them as soon and as easily as possible. I have always maintained that the law they have to implement is a headache, and I highly doubt DOJ is fond of it. if a quick and painless resolution to the detachable mag issue means saigas, then they won't care.

the_quark
05-11-2006, 9:59 AM
I absolutely agree with you, Glen - the DOJ is just trying to figure out how to enforce the legislature's intent with the least amount of work.

Lokyer himself probably supports the bill, but at the end of the day, I think most of the people working on this at the DOJ are just putting one foot in front of the other, trying to figure out how to discharge their sworn duty to implement the law.

artherd
05-11-2006, 11:30 AM
Bill, myself, and a few good attorneys are on it. It's early in the game to do much though.