PDA

View Full Version : Is "Not Listing" A Viable LONG TERM Strategy for DOJ?


Wulf
05-13-2006, 10:16 AM
Its been shown repeatidly that gun laws in this state often turn on highly publicized crimes.

Well, I think its just a matter of time before some nut job buys a reciever, orders a parts kit off the net and shoots up a school, mall, bank, or what have you. In the ensuing media circus, the story line that the AW used in the crime "was legally purchased because the DOJ failed to ban it" would seem to be a much more sexy and understandable story line to feed to the public than some archane discussion of reciever vs. gun vs. fixed vs. detachable vs. conspicously protruding vs. SB23 vs. Kassler vs. Herrot, etc. Bottom line, the underlying logic of what the DOJ is trying to accomplish with the latest memo is too complex to be appreciated by the public at large; I dont think they'll ever understand it as something that the DOJ is doing to protect them from AW's. Publishing a list and banning guns with the stroke of a pen is stupid simple by comparison (even if the issues is actually a little more complex than that).

So, with all that in mind is it possible that Lockyear is just hoping to run out the clock on his tenure at DOJ, hoping the loonies stay on the path for another 6 months so he can leave the mess he made for whomever takes over next? You'd have to look pretty far and wide for a Democrat elected official that wasnt willing to leave behind a bag of poop and skeletons in the closets.

Crazed_SS
05-13-2006, 10:30 AM
If someone bought an off-list lower and built it into a AW, then that person would already be in violation of SB23. The DOJ would just say the nutjob acquired the parts and built himself a an AW and went crazy. The law is on the books, they cant do anything if someone decides to break it.

In that eventuality, the gov't might decide might get whatever case law support OLLs repealed and just ban everything that looks like or has the dimensions of an AR or AK receiever.

It could only turn out bad for us in the end.

crzpete
05-13-2006, 10:37 AM
Well, what if a CLSR get stolen? would we get in trouble if we report the s/n to leo? what would we say what gun is this, an offlist or a CLSR? and what would they say about this?

Wulf
05-13-2006, 12:22 PM
If someone bought an off-list lower and built it into a AW, then that person would already be in violation of SB23. The DOJ would just say the nutjob acquired the parts and built himself a an AW and went crazy. The law is on the books, they cant do anything if someone decides to break it.

You're right, but you're missing the point. Its not always about the reality, its often times about the spin. Quoted above is the spin that DOJ would try to deal, but dont you think the line of spin that says..... "Bill Lockyear could have, with the stroke of his pen, banned the gun that Mr. Nutjob purchased to go on his killing spree." has a lot more legs in an attention span crippled society. Any kind of babble that DOJ would try to sell about SB23, features, and all the good reasons they had for not listing, would be confusing, boring, and less fun for reporters to write articles about than stories about Nuns and Orphans that were mowed down with an assault weapon because of burecratic incompetence and the violation of the public trust by an elected official.

docsmileyface
05-13-2006, 12:55 PM
Sounds like lockyersguns.com needs an update describing how our honorable Mr. AG allowed Mr. Joe Nutjob to build his own AR15 and snipe at people from a clocktower....

ETD1010
05-13-2006, 1:38 PM
Sounds like lockyersguns.com needs an update describing how our honorable Mr. AG allowed Mr. Joe Nutjob to build his own AR15 and snipe at people from a clocktower....

Didn't that Washington sniper guy use an AR? I don't remember there being much debate on the lift of the federal ban years following that scenario. If some guy goes nuts with an SKS or a Mini-14, the same could be argued for that as well. I just dont' see why the "AR" means anything in the long run.

phish
05-13-2006, 2:04 PM
Didn't that Washington sniper guy use an AR? I don't remember there being much debate on the lift of the federal ban years following that scenario. If some guy goes nuts with an SKS or a Mini-14, the same could be argued for that as well. I just dont' see why the "AR" means anything in the long run.

A Bushmaster was used. At face value, it was irrelevant, but it put Bushmaster in the hotseat and they wound up settling out of court. I read a thread on one of the boards after the settlement, and Bushmaster was able to just pay the plaintiffs without the Brady bunch getting a dime.

It sucked in principle, but it was the lesser of two evils at the time.

James R.
05-13-2006, 2:06 PM
Yeah most people don't appreciate the nuances.

If they're anti-gun to begin with and they're, "in the know"
as regards the petty differences which distinguish, "assault" from "non-assault" weapons they're usually furious because they realize that the law is doing nothing to actually protect them from lethal weapons. These sorts of people will never be satisfied until there are no guns north of 22 rimfire. Maybe worse depending on how quickly the foam forms at the corners of their mouths when they wax philosophical on guns and the state of society as relates them ;-)

Then you've got the other side of the coin. I have a few co-workers who have never shot a gun in their lives, something I aim to resolve. One of them however I've been working especially hard on because I think there's a glimmer of hope that he can be brought to the muzzle flash ;-) He's a centrist, doesn't really lean too far one way or another, smart guy who I think would really enjoy the shooting sports if he gave it a chance.

I've been discussing the whole off-list lower thing with him. I've shown him some pictures of stuff like an M1A in a JAE-100 stock, Ruger Mini 14 and Mini 30's, explained how the calibers work out and which ones are more powerful than the others, shown him my bolt action 50 BMG etc. I think I've won him over, showing him the CADOJ site where they depict the rifles with the horiz line delineating evil Vs non evil configuration you can watch his nose scrunch up a bit.

IMHO this is the response any rational person has and the average John Q Citizen IMHO is equally as likely to agree that making the distinction between assault and non-assault on the basis of a grip is just lunatic. I think it's our job to inform people so they can realize that when their legislators claim they're protecting them from assault weapons they realize it's really nothing more than lip service to that cause. If the only difference is a plastic pistol grip and the lethality of the gun is retained with respect to rate of fire and force of impact what are their representatives really delivering them? Nothing at all...

Imagine if Barbra Boxeater held up an AK-47 and then rabbled on about how she's instrumental in taking these guns off the street...then in the next breath holds up the same gun w/o the grip and says that's legal...do you think she'll get the support of her constituents? I sincerely doubt it.

I suppose it's a slippery slope though, that sort of thing could lead to a cry for MORE to be done to ban instead of simply repealing these feckless laws that honestly do nothing but limit access to certain aesthetic configurations of firearms.

Regards,

James R.

tenpercentfirearms
05-13-2006, 5:06 PM
Well, I think its just a matter of time before some nut job buys a reciever, orders a parts kit off the net and shoots up a school, mall, bank, or what have you.I don't think so. I think most people who have bought these things are good, honest citizens who respect the law and try and do the right thing. Gun owners are not evil.

Scope
05-13-2006, 5:30 PM
Is "Not Listing" A Viable LONG TERM Strategy for DOJ?

Maybe not, but its been a while since our Fed, State, and (maybe) local governments gave a rats *** about anything long term. Between skyrocketing deficits, lame attempts at universal health care, depreciation of the dollar, illegal aliens swarming over the borders and marching in the streets, poorly thought out invasions of other countries, higher energy prices, and various nutcases in the U.N. and over the globe I think our governments have given up on making realistic and useful long term strategies, and instead do whatever gives the greatest short term benefits. I am convinced most representatives simply cannot see past their own time in office.

Wulf
05-13-2006, 5:34 PM
"have bought"..... past tense..... is the operative concept there. I think you're right, the people that have bought them up to this point have mostly been good folks that are connected to the legitimate shooting community. If DOJ declines to list, unlisted lowers are going to become increasingly mainstream, more widely available, and the potential for missuse will rise corespondingly. You're fooling yourself if you think one of these recievers will never be used in the comission of a crime. Its just a question of when and how high a profile it will be. If you manufacture, sell, store, keep, trade, or deal guns there's always the risk that someday, despite your best efforts you'll be a link in the chain that ends up with gun in a BG's hand.

By declining to list these lowers, DOJ is making themselves a link in the chain.

mblat
05-13-2006, 5:40 PM
To answer your question - ABSOLUITELY not.

It is either list or new law with restictions on ALL centerfire rifles.

Otherwise in several month complete gripless rifles will be sold on each and every gun show in CA and soon after that in smaller gun shops.

Anti's will go nuts...... That will force something - wither listing or new law or both....

I think Bill just buying time trying to avoid this issue before election ....

mblat
05-13-2006, 5:41 PM
Well, I think its just a matter of time before some nut job buys a reciever, orders a parts kit off the net and shoots up a school, mall, bank, or what have you.
I don't think so. I think most people who have bought these things are good, honest citizens who respect the law and try and do the right thing. Gun owners are not evil.


It only takes one.... :mad:

Pthfndr
05-13-2006, 6:05 PM
Well, I think its just a matter of time before some nut job buys a reciever, orders a parts kit off the net and shoots up a school, mall, bank, or what have you.

I don't think so. I think most people who have bought these things are good, honest citizens who respect the law and try and do the right thing. Gun owners are not evil.

I agree with TPF. Besides, if the background checks are doing the job then no one with a criminal or mental past would be allowed to purchase one. Correct? So saying "some nut job" might get one because there are more is nothing more than conspiracy theory thinking. The same person could just as easily by a 7600, BAR, SKS, Ruger mini 14/30, etc, and get hi cap mags for it. Or just go to NV or AZ and buy an AR / AK and mags.

The manufacturers of AR pattern rifles sold way more 30,000 in CA just before SB23 went into effect. How many "nut jobs" got a hold of one of them? There were no more cries for banning them after SB23 because of what anyone did.

Ford8N
05-13-2006, 6:13 PM
You can have all the gun laws in the world, criminals could care less.


Gun laws are only for the honest people....

mblat
05-13-2006, 6:30 PM
Or just go to NV or AZ and buy an AR / AK and mags.



Tell me how one would do that without fake NV/AZ ID and ability to pass background check on that fake ID?

Reality is that to buy weapon in NV one has to do it illigaly, but then why bother? you probably can do it here also....

Pthfndr
05-13-2006, 6:47 PM
Tell me how one would do that without fake NV/AZ ID and ability to pass background check on that fake ID?

Reality is that to buy weapon in NV one has to do it illigaly, but then why bother? you probably can do it here also....


Because in NV FTF transactions of firearms is legal. Even though it must still conform to federal law in that one is not supposed to sell to a felon, there are otherwise law abiding people who would take the cash and not ask questions. Or for I.D.

Less chance of that happening in CA outside of the criminal community.

Wulf
05-13-2006, 9:29 PM
I agree with TPF. Besides, if the background checks are doing the job then no one with a criminal or mental past would be allowed to purchase one. Correct? So saying "some nut job" might get one because there are more is nothing more than conspiracy theory thinking. The same person could just as easily by a 7600, BAR, SKS, Ruger mini 14/30, etc, and get hi cap mags for it. Or just go to NV or AZ and buy an AR / AK and mags.


Again...you're totally right, but you're missing the political spin angle.

Bill cant control what goes on in Nevada or Arizona, the standards for background checks and the completeness of the records used for the check are beyond his control, and current law doesnt give him the unilateral power to ban Mini's SKSs, BARs etc. The law DOES give him the power to update the AR/AK list. If the nut job goes wild with a Mini or a M1A, its not Bill's fault, he doesnt have the power under the law to control those weapons; that's the legislature's problem. But if its a rifle Bill could have banned, unilaterally, with the stroke of a pen, all on his own, and in fact AS HE's OBLIGED TO UNDER THE LAW, but failed to, that would seem to land squarely and firmly at his door.

I believe that in the wake of a some shooting, the idea that the gun used in this particular tradegy could have been banned but was not will ruin whoever is AG. All the what ifs about other guns, and other states, and other laws that were broken wont mean a thing; that's just not how the irrational anti gun public thinks about these things.

Personally, I think Bill is just stalling till after the election. If his replacement is a fellow democrat, on his way out the door for the last time he'll jot a note suggesting they update the list.

mblat
05-13-2006, 9:59 PM
Because in NV FTF transactions of firearms is legal. Even though it must still conform to federal law in that one is not supposed to sell to a felon, there are otherwise law abiding people who would take the cash and not ask questions. Or for I.D.

Less chance of that happening in CA outside of the criminal community.


Taking cash and not going through FFL would be illigal, wouldn't it? Unless it is C&R of cause, but we not talking about it now.....

alex00
05-14-2006, 9:47 AM
I don't think it matters what the memo said in respect to long term goals of the DOJ. Lockyer is on his way out, and in all probability Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown is on his way in. There is no hurry in Government, especially with an issue that would bring about bad press for the AG's office. Bill can quietly leave, safe in the understanding that Moonbeam will list the lowers, or fight for new legislation.

The end result is Bill will have a new job, and Moonbeam will look like a hero to the Antis. It's a win win for the current and future AG. Combined with the lack of any current news attention, the only people concerned with the issue are the people that own them. Even the Antis in-the-know don't really care because they know the "truth". Many of us own multiple weapons, some own full registered AWs, and we are not hurting anyone, except a few paper targets and the occasional washing machine (damn F&G ranges).

The OLL issue is not mainstream enough for the crazed baby killer to buy the lower, put it together, sight it in, and kill innocents. Most of those people already own the gun, or get it illegally. They are infrequent enough events that Bill can, most likely, get out of office before the next one happens. If it does happen, Bill can rest assured that the fair and unbiased media will certainly not attack one of their own so close to an election. The media has plenty of anti-gun spin to use that they won't need or want to attack Bill and ruin his chance of winning the Treasurer race.

In all likelihood, Moonbeam will be the one to ban the lowers, and force registration. It will most likely go quietly, with little attention paid from the media. They may attempt to alter the definition of detachable magazine, but it will result in a vaguely worded attempt to cover all guns. We will find a way to get around the "permanent" definition for the SHTF scenario/trip to Nevada.

DOJ can post all the memos they want telling us that things are evil, illegal, not in the spirit of poorly written law, whatever. Until things are codified in law it is not a crime. Sure you can be arrested under misapplication of the law. Sure you can go to trial under misapplication of the law. But ultimately a jury needs to be convinced you violated a section of the law. A DOJ memo is not a law, no matter what 58 DAs may think. It does not take a legal expert to read and interpret the laws pertaining to our OLLs, the CCR definition of detachable magazine is very plain English. DOJ is kicking themselves for not listing, and trying to make us scared.

Happy Mother's Day.

Pthfndr
05-14-2006, 12:11 PM
Again...you're totally right, but you're missing the political spin angle.

No, I'm not. You are hoping the political spin would be bigger than it probably would.

f the nut job goes wild with a Mini or a M1A, its not Bill's fault, he doesnt have the power under the law to control those weapons; that's the legislature's problem.

Untrue. The DOJ can go through the court process to have ANY firearm declared an AW. Have they done that even once? No.

AS HE's OBLIGED TO UNDER THE LAW

Became irrelevant once SB23 was enacted.

I believe that in the wake of a some shooting, the idea that the gun used in this particular tradegy could have been banned but was not will ruin whoever is AG.

No it won't. The DOJ will just say they were enforcing the laws on the books. Not their fault someone performed a criminal act.

Seems like some of you are almost hoping someone will convert a fixed mag rifle and go on a rampage. If that happened, they still won't list them. The next step would be to ban them completely. Would you be happy then?

kantstudien
05-14-2006, 1:30 PM
Seems like some of you are almost hoping someone will convert a fixed mag rifle and go on a rampage. If that happened, they still won't list them. The next step would be to ban them completely. Would you be happy then?

By "banning them," they would have to list them. Simple as that. One in the same.

shopkeep
05-14-2006, 8:49 PM
Does anyone else remember back in 1989 when this law was passed called "The Roberti-Roos Dangerous Weapons Control Act of 1989"? Shortly after the passage of the law people began to bring off-list rifles into the state. AK, AR, FAL, G3, and other clones began to enter the state. The DOJ was given a court add-on process and guess what? They didn't list.

Fast forward to 1999, they passed SB-23 and the offending firearms were banned.

2005 rolls around (although in actuality probably closer to 2003 when someone first pinned a mag into a FAL) and once again off-list rifles are comming into the state. Thanks to the Harrott case, AR-15s and AK-47s were flowing freely again for the first time since 1999! The DOJ once again has the power to list and decides not to do so.

So probably in 2010 the legislature will pick out more features (example: CAPACITY to BECOME an Assault Weapons to eliminate fixed mags, and CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION to eliminate detachable clones).

Pthfndr
05-14-2006, 9:30 PM
By "banning them," they would have to list them. Simple as that. One in the same.

No, not one in the same. Listing them makes them legal to own as an AW. Banning them means you can't have it at all.

As in the listed "not unsafe" handguns. You can have ones on the list. Ones not listed are BANNED. You cannot legally get one.