PDA

View Full Version : Interesting DOJ phone call. Not ground-breaking, but very interesting.


shopkeep
05-15-2006, 4:22 PM
Yeah I know there's a lot of posts here about various phone calls from the DOJ. I've even started a few myself. So I got a call back from the DOJ after I left a message there on a previous day. I was able to get two peices of information that were fairly interesting:

1) The rep admitted that the DOJ was aware that our fixed mag kits were lawful. She also told me there was no need to modify fixed magazine rifles until the DOJ takes action to update the regulations.
2) The rep advised me that the DOJ has no new definition beyond "permenant" and would not specify what exactly "permenant" meant.
3) The rep confirmed that this memo applies to _ALL_ semi-automatic centerfire fixed mag rifles, not just the AR-15/AK-47 series. They are aware of the tapco folder and collapsable kits being installed on SKS rifles and they are NOT pleased with its legality. The same applies to FALs which the rep said, "have long been a thorn in our side".
4) The rep said that they are also looking at ways of preventing gripless builds. I have _NO_IDEA_ how they plan to accomplish this, but she said this is something they're going to go after next.

Yeah, not particularly cheerful information, but on the otherhand after the ill-conceived Category IV memo and it's subsequent destruction by Calguns.net I don't see the new memo sticking around any longer.

James R.
05-15-2006, 4:27 PM
"have long been a thorn in our side"

Comments to that effect just go to show, these aren't the nice people folks like Glen Avon claim they are. They're a bunch of zealots who would love nothing less than to severely limit if not outright eliminate your right to keep and bear arms.

Regards,

James R.

Diabolus
05-15-2006, 4:40 PM
It keeps the food on the table; you would do the same.

RRangel
05-15-2006, 4:42 PM
I'm going to have to take these statements with a grain of salt.

As has been stated previously they can tell you anything they want over the phone, and they have been.

kantstudien
05-15-2006, 4:42 PM
Who gives a **** what they tell you on the phone? :rolleyes:

6172crew
05-15-2006, 4:46 PM
I like it when they play the "I just work here" routine. As if they care about our rights as free Americans.

If it was a big fat marleyI wanted to smoke they would be telling us how to get away with growing my own and how to sell it without loosing sleep.

........Liberals:(

6172crew
05-15-2006, 4:47 PM
Who gives a **** what they tell you on the phone? :rolleyes:

I say we get some good .WAV files from the DOJ and keep them posted here.

I wish I had a recording of the cat I spoke to, what a goon.:cool:

shopkeep
05-15-2006, 4:57 PM
I say we get some good .WAV files from the DOJ and keep them posted here.

I wish I had a recording of the cat I spoke to, what a goon.:cool:

Recording people over the phone without their permission or a warrant is unlawful in California.

Michael303
05-15-2006, 4:58 PM
Welcome to the PRK and its policy of anti-gun creeping incrementalism. I guess it just goes to show that you canít be reasonable with unreasonable people.

Evil Gun
05-15-2006, 5:02 PM
Welcome to the PRK and its policy of anti-gun creeping incrementalism. I guess it just goes to show that you canít be reasonable with unreasonable people.
Preach on brother.

Evil Gun
05-15-2006, 5:03 PM
"have long been a thorn in our side"

Comments to that effect just go to show, these aren't the nice people folks like Glen Avon claim they are. They're a bunch of zealots who would love nothing less than to severely limit if not outright eliminate your right to keep and bear arms.

Regards,

James R.Amen. Couldn't have said it better. They are not gun owners' friends.

Satex
05-15-2006, 5:06 PM
If this is true, then it means that we need a group that will advocate for our cause - and it's much more global than the off list lowers. Is there any group in CA that actively works for these causes that its worth donating my money to? NRA? CPRA?

MadMex
05-15-2006, 5:07 PM
4) The rep said that they are also looking at ways of preventing gripless builds. I have _NO_IDEA_ how they plan to accomplish this, but she said this is something they're going to go after next.
Mind boggling. Whatís next, triggered builds?

50 Freak
05-15-2006, 5:17 PM
I called the DOJ recently, they told me that my Big 5 Wrist Rocket Sling shot is illegal in California......:D :D

These phone conversations with them are useless. They can and will tell you anything they want. And their answers change dependant upon which representative you get on the phone. Does that mean they are bad...NO, just means they are ill informed about current policies and such.

Wait for the "official" written word (no a memo does not count, those things get changed quicker than Bill Clintons chasity vows)

zombieflanders
05-15-2006, 5:21 PM
I spoke with a DOJ rep when the previous memo went missing from their site. He told me that he'd "bet his house" that they would list & we could build them w/detachable mags. He also informed me that he was considering purchasing an off lister himself. Them a few days later, we get this crap!:mad:

Dont Tread on Me
05-15-2006, 5:35 PM
Recording people over the phone without their permission or a warrant is unlawful in California.

$50 says they record you! I'm wondering if one party says that "calls are recorded for quality...." if the otherside can now record.

6172crew
05-15-2006, 5:43 PM
I spoke with a DOJ rep when the previous memo went missing from their site. He told me that he'd "bet his house" that they would list & we could build them w/detachable mags. He also informed me that he was considering purchasing an off lister himself. Them a few days later, we get this crap!:mad:

Do you remember the guys name?

50 Freak
05-15-2006, 5:45 PM
Was it Iggy????:D

1911_sfca
05-15-2006, 5:45 PM
Recording people over the phone without their permission or a warrant is unlawful in California.
$50 says they record you! I'm wondering if one party says that "calls are recorded for quality...." if the otherside can now record.

You don't need their explicit permission; you just need to inform them. "This call may be recorded for quality purposes..." etc.

bwiese
05-15-2006, 5:47 PM
These are gov't employees on public time, on a phone call on your dime (if you don't use the 800#). I don't think they have a right to privacy for their work stuff.

I'll look into it, but we may be able to record them without preannouncment.

m1aowner
05-15-2006, 6:31 PM
Yeah that's right, there gun toting liberals. Well some of them anyway.

Buy more lowers.

I like it when they play the "I just work here" routine. As if they care about our rights as free Americans.

If it was a big fat marleyI wanted to smoke they would be telling us how to get away with growing my own and how to sell it without loosing sleep.

........Liberals:(

Ford8N
05-15-2006, 7:20 PM
I like it when shopkeep calls. It's interesting to read what they say. But shopkeep should always get a name and follow up with a letter. Sort of along the lines of:

"Thank you Mr. DOJ for the info about X. As per our phone conversation you said .....xyz."

It's always good form to do a follow up letter after a phone call. Remember: names, dates, time of day.

shopkeep
05-15-2006, 7:26 PM
I like it when shopkeep calls. It's interesting to read what they say. But shopkeep should always get a name and follow up with a letter. Sort of along the lines of:

"Thank you Mr. DOJ for the info about X. As per our phone conversation you said .....xyz."

It's always good form to do a follow up letter after a phone call. Remember: names, dates, time of day.

Will do. Keep in mind you usually have to talk with 2 or 3 different reps before you get someone useful. Keep in mind the mission of most reps is to get you off the phone as quickly as possible so they can get back to talking about what happened on American Idol last night.

Yes, I do have the names and conversations I have had with various reps, analysts and other people at the DOJ I've spoken with. However, this information isn't being posted in public forums. It could potentially lead in unintended consequences and that's all I'm going to say here.

Clodbuster
05-16-2006, 11:19 AM
Unless of course, you suspect the guy on the other line belongs to a group bent on acts of Terror. Based on recent events, you may have Federal support from the Bush adminstration to record and tape phone conversations all you want. Comes down to if you believe DOJ is a Terror organization :D


Clod

Dont Tread on Me
05-16-2006, 11:59 AM
Comes down to if you believe DOJ is a Terror organization

I'd see it this way. The Government does not need to use terrioist tactics as it is the Government:) The question is is it legal to record conversations with an oppressive Government trying to restrict the rights of its subjects (I don't feel like citizen to the DOJ).

CALI-gula
05-16-2006, 12:17 PM
Recording people over the phone without their permission or a warrant is unlawful in California.

This is not true: as one of the involved parties, taking part in the conversation and known to be present by the other party, you do NOT need permission of the other party to record. You only need persmission when a 3rd party is recording the information, even if the company for which you work is recording "for quality control purposes" which in that case, the conversation is no longer confidential - note MRex21's info: specifically "...eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication". The whole of that section refers to eavesdropping and wiretapping.

You are allowed to record ANY conversation you may have with anyone, no matter to whom it is that you speak, but you are NOT allowed to record 2nd or 3rd parties without their consent, by eavesdropping upon them, recording or "wiretapping". If someone is listening in, THAT person may not record unless they are identified as a person present or invovled in the conversation as well - as your friend, ally, comrade, whatever, they can not record for you.

.

gh429
05-16-2006, 12:22 PM
4) The rep said that they are also looking at ways of preventing gripless builds. I have _NO_IDEA_ how they plan to accomplish this, but she said this is something they're going to go after next.

This is very interesting. Did they mean that even without a pistol grip the rifle would be illegal?

This would demonstrate to me that there is a movement within the DOJ who are simply not satisfied with the status quo (and screwing us on the sporting conversion) but are going for a full-out ban on the AR series rifle. Assuming they do something as silly as this, would registration possibly be triggered when our legally obtained rifles cannot be made legally operable at all?

CALI-gula
05-16-2006, 12:37 PM
This is very interesting. Did they mean that even without a pistol grip the rifle would be illegal? This would demonstrate to me that there is a movement within the DOJ who are simply not satisfied with the status quo (and screwing us on the sporting conversion) but are going for a full-out ban on the AR series rifle. Assuming they do something as silly as this, would registration possibly be triggered when our legally obtained rifles cannot be made legally operable at all?

I think this person at the DOJ is simply talking out of turn and having little firearm technical knowledge or a sense of reality.

If they try to ban for "gripless" with detachable magazines, then they will be back to square one of Harrott, where they will be forced to try to say that "gripless" is banned for all AR/AK "series" which they can't do. Soooooo... they will be back to the option of LISTING by name if they try to ban for gripless by series, therefoe a Category 4, but how do you apply it? If they list them as Assault Weapons, they must have Assault Weapon features.

So they will then ban all of the following semi-automatic rifles because they are gripless with detachable magazines? And make everyone register? Yeah right, they would then have a real conundrum on their hands from millions of gun owners, even the old "I only need guns for hunting antelope" types:

Springfield M1A,
Mini-14,
Mini-30,
Kel-tec SU16 (A,B, or CA),
Browning BAR Safari II,
Remington 7400,
M1-Carbine,
Marlin Camp Carbine 9mm/.45ACP,
Ruger PC4 or PC9 Carbines,
Ruger M99/44 and M44 Carbines
Robinson Armament M96,
Czech Vz-52,
French MAS 49,
German Gewehr M41 & M43 based guns,
Tokarev SVT-40,
Swedish Ljungman/Egyptian Hakims,
Johnson 1941rifle,

and more, etc.

Omega13device
05-16-2006, 1:06 PM
This is not true: as one of the involved parties, taking part in the conversation and known to be present by the other party, you do NOT need permission of the other party to record. You only need persmission when a 3rd party is recording the information, even if the company for which you work is recording "for quality control purposes" which in that case, the conversation is no longer confidential - note MRex21's info: specifically "...eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication". The whole of that section refers to eavesdropping and wiretapping.

You are allowed to record ANY conversation you may have with anyone, no matter to whom it is that you speak, but you are NOT allowed to record 2nd or 3rd parties without their consent, by eavesdropping upon them, recording or "wiretapping". If someone is listening in, THAT person may not record unless they are identified as a person present or invovled in the conversation as well - as your friend, ally, comrade, whatever, they can not record for you.

.
Go back and read post #21.

xenophobe
05-16-2006, 1:38 PM
Go back and read post #21.

Actually, it varies from state to state, but anyone remember Lynda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky?

Legal.

CALI-gula
05-16-2006, 1:40 PM
Go back and read post #21.

Thank you - I was waiting for someone to answer; so as a pedophile, one may call little kids and those kids can not record it? And if they do, they can't use it in court? But one might say, "that excludes if a crime is being committed". Are sex-offender crimes excluded? What about other felonies? What if one perceives a crime is being comitted - if a non-registered, unknown sex-offender is calling kids, he's not known to be a pedophile, how do you ever start to record the guy in the first place? :confused: Do they have to wait until some creep rapes or assaults a kid?

As an individual involved in the communication, I should be able to record any damn thing I choose - I don't believe in the government's right or legality to wire tap, but if someone is seriously trying to wrong me, I should be able to record them if I am involved directly; or even if I just "feel Like" recording them. Should it be admissable in court? No, but I should not be punished for recording someone with whom I am involved in communications directly, especially if I think a crime is in process.

Shgeeez! ...hand-outs, drivers licenses and assistance to illegal aliens ...free needles to intravenous drug users ...disarming its citizens in entire cities ...CCWs for politicans abnd celebrities but nobody else? What's next? Free condoms for rapists?

I say the DOJ is comitting crimes against the 2nd Amendment! RKBA lesiglation please!! No more petitions only!

.