PDA

View Full Version : DOJ memo is being send to Law Enforcement Agencies


shopkeep
05-18-2006, 6:16 PM
So this morning I saw the first post from AR15fan at ar15.com that the DOJ memo had reached his agency. Well my friend called me and let me know that the DOJ memo was sent to his agency as well. I won't specifically mention the agency, and it's a VERY SMALL agency... but the fact that his agency also got the memo shows ALL agencies are getting it.

It would appear that the DOJ is not going to back down on memo 2 like it did with the first memo. They appear to be set on taking action on this one. I personally think this is Bull**** because it's just a memo but I have no idea how law enforcement will respond. Looks like we're going to find out.

gh429
05-18-2006, 6:21 PM
I've stopped using the sporting conversion and would recommend everyone else do so also. I'm also too lazy to take off any pistol grips, and I don't want to be hassled by taking my reg AW's to the range so I guess I'll just not shoot any rifles for awhile... Sigh...

Just remember, it doesn't matter what the courts decide - the moment the cop takes your gun for "safe keeping" you've already lost...

NeoWeird
05-18-2006, 6:25 PM
you know, I wonder if this will come back to bite the DOJ in the ***. Harassment or being a menacing nuisance when they know they are legally outside of the cover of law. You know, if someone were to get their property taken, when this thing gets cleared up (and it will eventually, whether it lands where we want or not, it WILL get cleared up) they could probably argue that it was all wrongfully done at this time, and the DOJ/arresting agency needs to reimburse for any fees, damages, etc that occured because of it.

Then again, what do I know.

Now did your friend tell you if they are taking only the fixed mag variant, or are they jumping the gun and taking everything just to be safe?

A last thought I just had. Isn't it odd that the DOJ has sent this memo to the arresting agencies, yet NOTHING has even been HINTED to the FFLs selling them. If they were so bad, you would think they would want to stop the importation and worry about clean up after. This makes me think the DOJs stance is even weaker than I thought.

shopkeep
05-18-2006, 6:26 PM
I am still HIGHLY optimistic that we will ultimately prevail, but in the meantime exercising caution would be wise.

glen avon
05-18-2006, 6:27 PM
all I can say is this is BS. don't they know we OWN them? they sure aren't acting like it. how dare they?!

maybe we need one of the many retained attorneys to sue somebody. that'll show 'em!

shopkeep
05-18-2006, 6:30 PM
you know, I wonder if this will come back to bite the DOJ in the ***. Harassment or being a menacing nuisance when they know they are legally outside of the cover of law. You know, if someone were to get their property taken, when this thing gets cleared up (and it will eventually, whether it lands where we want or not, it WILL get cleared up) they could probably argue that it was all wrongfully done at this time, and the DOJ/arresting agency needs to reimburse for any fees, damages, etc that occured because of it.

Then again, what do I know.

Now did your friend tell you if they are taking only the fixed mag variant, or are they jumping the gun and taking everything just to be safe?

A last thought I just had. Isn't it odd that the DOJ has sent this memo to the arresting agencies, yet NOTHING has even been HINTED to the FFLs selling them. If they were so bad, you would think they would want to stop the importation and worry about clean up after. This makes me think the DOJs stance is even weaker than I thought.

All my friend said is that they saw the memo today during briefing. He didn't mention anything more than that. It is likely because their department and the town it is located in is so small, they don't expect to encounter any of these rifles. Either that or they don't care.

Unknownassailant
05-18-2006, 6:31 PM
:confused: I can't believe it. Thousands of illegal aliens march for an illegal cause and get offered amnesty. We try to fight unconstitutional gunbans with offlisted lowers and pinned magazines and they still try to go after us. I'm not about to throw in the towel but it sure is frustrating. Thanks for those who support us. It's all we have for now.

shopkeep
05-18-2006, 6:33 PM
Like I said before, until such a time as the regulations are updated fixed mags are still lawful. There is no need to alter your rifles just yet.

NeoWeird
05-18-2006, 6:34 PM
Maybe we can setup a class action suit based on Tyranny. That would be so ****ing sweet. Could you imagine the **** storm that would brew if an elected agency of the US was sued en masse for tyrannical oppression of legal citizens? That would be media worthy I bet, not to mention get EVERY single gun owner, patriot (even non gun owners), and anyone else hassled by stupid laws on the right side.

ETA: I had no idea why I was in this scheming mood, then I realized why. Tool. I have Tool playing in the background, and you know how they can be. Long drawn out guitar/base lines that build up to a very nice climax. It was like a theater in my head!

shopkeep
05-18-2006, 6:39 PM
Maybe we can setup a class action suit based on Tyranny. That would be so ****ing sweet. Could you imagine the **** storm that would brew if an elected agency of the US was sued en masse for tyrannical oppression of legal citizens? That would be media worthy I bet, not to mention get EVERY single gun owner, patriot (even non gun owners), and anyone else hassled by stupid laws on the right side.

ETA: I had no idea why I was in this scheming mood, then I realized why. Tool. I have Tool playing in the background, and you know how they can be. Long drawn out guitar/base lines that build up to a very nice climax. It was like a theater in my head!

Unfortunately for us my friend the public sees us as militia nuts bending the law and taking advantages of the loopholes. They see the DOJ as their trusted protector.

Fortunatley for us, at least from what we've seen in the Harrott decision some courts believe these laws are as poorly written as we do.

Firehawk3
05-18-2006, 7:06 PM
I smell test case...

markymark
05-18-2006, 7:32 PM
all I can say is this is BS. don't they know we OWN them? they sure aren't acting like it. how dare they?!

maybe we need one of the many retained attorneys to sue somebody. that'll show 'em!
Whoa! Where's the REAL glen avon? :confused:

Stanze
05-18-2006, 7:35 PM
I've stopped using the sporting conversion and would recommend everyone else do so also. I'm also too lazy to take off any pistol grips, and I don't want to be hassled by taking my reg AW's to the range so I guess I'll just not shoot any rifles for awhile... Sigh...

Just remember, it doesn't matter what the courts decide - the moment the cop takes your gun for "safe keeping" you've already lost...

You're absolutely right! I went "gripless" and removed my flash hider.;)

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5928/calegalar7bp.jpg

Since there are no SB-23 violations,...in goes the pre-bans, 2 30 rounders taped together to be exact!:D

I got a little happy with the tape to protect the barrel threads and improve my "grip".

caduckgunner
05-18-2006, 7:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glen avon
all I can say is this is BS. don't they know we OWN them? they sure aren't acting like it. how dare they?!

maybe we need one of the many retained attorneys to sue somebody. that'll show 'em!



Whoa! Where's the REAL glen avon? :confused:

If you can't see the sarcasim, you need your eye's checked:rolleyes:

kenc9
05-18-2006, 8:08 PM
Someone needs to contact the NRA and see what they are doing about our gun rights and their position on this. Who is CalGuns.net Rep.?

Shopkeep, Bill, 10%????

-ken

shopkeep
05-18-2006, 8:17 PM
Well I won't be taking my grips off just yet, but I will only be firing gripless rifles at ranges for a while now. Although they're not unlawful until the regulations are updated why chance it?

Snuffalofogus
05-18-2006, 8:27 PM
taking my CA AR to the range this weekend to get it sighted in. I'll have a copy of the current law surrounding fixed magazines.

Not worried here.

shopkeep
05-18-2006, 8:28 PM
we should update the stickys and get the regs up there.

Fortunately for us Snuff, it appears the law enforcement discussion over the memo is thus far limited to So Cal.

HEUER
05-18-2006, 8:33 PM
we should update the stickys and get the regs up there.

Fortunately for us Snuff, it appears the law enforcement discussion over the memo is thus far limited to So Cal.

That will not last for long.


I also suspect they will send a similar version of the memos to FFL's next.

shopkeep
05-18-2006, 8:37 PM
That will not last for long.


I also suspect they will send a similar version of the memos to FFL's next.

I wouldn't be surprised. It appears they want to play a bit more with this memo. This one appears to be the memo we will be fighting in court. For the meantime it's going to see how this all plays out.

crzpete
05-18-2006, 8:40 PM
It looks like in the near future CADOJ is looking for ways to completely eliminate all centerfire self loading rifles that have the capability of accepting a high capacity magazine (in any form like the SKS) Next on the list would be also the rimfire rifles as well: Marlin .22, Ruger 10/22 and now legal centerfire like the Ruger Mini-14 and others.

It wouldn’t surprise me if next time we are shopping for a rifle at Turners or at your favorite gun store that the only options we will have would be bolt action rifles specifically more for hunting than for sport. I personally hope that I never encounter this issue and to ensure I never find myself in this situation I an starting to look for a Ruger Mini-14, M1 and so on for near future purchases. :(

Walking Fire
05-18-2006, 8:50 PM
Why dont We All send a MEMO to our local Agencies to inform them of the letter of the law.
That should open their eyes..

shopkeep
05-18-2006, 8:54 PM
What looks like that? I see absolutely no evidence for the DoJ working on any ban like that. It is possible that they are doing so, and it is even likely that some people within the DoJ would wish this to happen, but I don't see any evidence of this happening.

All I see is the DoJ fighting a pretty desperate rear-guard action to make the off-list lower problem go away without having to do anything drastic (like doing real work, or actually doing something concrete that could be challenged in court), and without increasing the number of registered assault weapons.

Have you checked that the tinfoil is on nice and right, and none of those waves are getting in?

I agree 100% with you on this treelogger. However, I just wanted to put the word out there that the memo is being disseminated. I am still optimistic that ultimately we will prevail, and we all knew things were going to get ALOT WORSE before they get better. It appears the time of the inevitable calguns vs. DOJ court room showdown is near.

Personally I find this whole episode FASCINATING. I have never once in my life seen a loosely organized group of individuals take on the most powerful state law enforcement office in the country next to the federal DOJ. I'm surprised we've even gotten this far.

HEUER
05-18-2006, 8:54 PM
Why dont We All send a MEMO to our local Agencies to inform them of the letter of the law.
That should open their eyes..

O.K.. That is an interesting thought. :rolleyes:

patman
05-18-2006, 9:02 PM
Curious, if the CADOJ gets taken to court and looses, then would that not be a way for them to save face in the public's eye?

"They did everything that they could" but the courts did not agree.

Easy way out no?

shopkeep
05-18-2006, 9:48 PM
Curious, if the CADOJ gets taken to court and looses, then would that not be a way for them to save face in the public's eye?

"They did everything that they could" but the courts did not agree.

Easy way out no?

Of course they're taking the easy way out. It's also known as the "sore loser" way out. Basically they just act in on an extremely vague and ambiguous regulatory change. This will go to court and the fact they totally ignored previous court rulings that specifically instructed them to list these if they wanted to ban them will NOT bide well for them.

Best Case Scenario: The courts decide once and for all these definitions and regulations are simply too vague and throw out feature bans. This sets the stage for similar feature bans to be challanged by our friends in PRNY and PRNJ.

Most Likely Outcome: The courts will rule that because the DOJ has triggered AW status, a registration period must open. Some folks may end up with SKS "assault weapons" and may even be allowed to use detachable mags eventually if there are decided to be no "tiers" of assault weapons.

Worst Case Scenario: The courts throw out our challange, we get out our pipe wrenches, spanner wrenches, and hack saw to convert our rifles into gripless AR-15s.

Biggest thing working against the DOJ: they cannot limit the memo to AR-15 and AK-47 pattern rifles. If they attempt to even call these "unnamed" weapons AR-15 or AK-47 rifles then they have identified them as series weapons and therefore must update the list because AR-15 and AK-47 series weapons are banned.

Summary: regardless of how bad things sound for us right now, they are MUCH WORSE for the DOJ. We are winning.

Dump1567
05-18-2006, 10:02 PM
I think this is great news, since it will be local LEO's who enforces these laws. LEO's now know that there are legal versions of AR/AK's. Prior to this memo being sent out, most LEO's thought these where all AW's. We now have the ability to build a reliable detachable mag rifle that have a ton of accessories available for it. And with no AW restricitons. That means you can now hunt & take you AR practically anywhere. If you want a FH & PG, buy a bushy or Fab-10. If you shoot out of state, leave off the PG and Col. stock on one of your lowers. It would take less than 2 min. to add these along with a FH upper. I think the DOJ just did us a big favor. Thanks DOJ.;)

markymark
05-18-2006, 10:04 PM
If you can't see the sarcasim, you need your eye's checked:rolleyes:
C'mon, do you think I'm stupid? Of course he's being sarcastic. I was just pulling his leg because if anything, I like reading his posts the most.

BTW, it's sarcasm and eyes.

11Z50
05-18-2006, 10:26 PM
My .02 is that DOJ will not list anything. Why should they? They already know that's what hundreds, if not thousands of you want. What do they stand to lose by not listing? Nothing. They simply wait for a test case, prosecute some poor bastard, and whine to the legislature for emergency legislation to ban all semi-auto centerfire rifles. It will happen sooner or later. For those of you that don't know there are many cross-jurisdictional task forces out there, and some have DOJ Agents, like Iggy, on board. All they have to do is come across just one AW built from an OLL, even if it was stolen, and they are in business. It could happen in a meth search warrant, Parole search, Gang sweep. The possibilities are endless.

If they list, and there is a reg period, there will be thousands of new AW's out there, that got into the PRK via a loophole in their own policy. There is absolutely no reason for them to list. They can just sit back and admonish you that if you build it, they will come! The same logic that was applied to acquire the OLL's can be used against you. When you acquired it, it was a stripped lower. Only illegal if you build it with 'evil features'. Okay, Lockyer et al say. It's legal until you add evil features. Somebody out of the 30k in the PRK has already done it or will do it.

I know that this isn't what you want to hear, and maybe it won't happen like that, but what are the chances of DOJ cooperating with you in gaining possession of an AW? ZERO. They may not ever do anything. But they won't do anything that will help our cause. They don't want us to have guns at all.

I do applaud you all in this act of civil disobedience. Hell, I even donated to Artherd's legal fund. It is interesting to watch this story unfold. As long as everybody can keep it straight, you have a good chance of success, eventually. My fear is that "success", ie reg period for your OLL to become an AW might lead to AW reg for ALL semi-auto centerfires. That'd be a shame.

kenc9
05-18-2006, 10:33 PM
Lets not get to ahead of ourselves and start thinking this is going to be law.

This is still only a memo thats purpose is to stall and slow down new lowers and a last ditch try and all they can do for this year.

The news to LEO's that now these AR/AK rifles can be legal should be good news to us all. That hasn't happened before as far as I have ever heard.

I doubt anyone will see a big change in enforcement. Anyone around guns (LEOs) knows weird governmental BS memo's when they see them.

They have now posted two memos saying these AR/AK's are legal, I am surprised they actually admit that.

-ken

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
05-18-2006, 10:59 PM
What I find so funny is that if this scheme backfires, which it seems fairly obvious is happening already, you can't blame the instigators because, after all, our legislators were planning to ban all semi-auto centerfire rifles anyway!! At least that's the word from insiders on the Sacramento cocktail circuit and the crack gun attorneys we've got on retainer.:rolleyes: :p

WokMaster1
05-18-2006, 11:00 PM
I doubt anyone will see a big change in enforcement. Anyone around guns (LEOs) knows weird governmental BS memo's when they see them.

They have now posted two memos saying these AR/AK's are legal, I am surprised they actually admit that.

-ken

What do you think about sending copies of these letters to our local PD? Just to show them that DOJ is not even sure if they know their left nut from their right nut. :)

kenc9
05-18-2006, 11:18 PM
I think we have won and we need to be LOW KEY and quit calling DOJ and stirring the pot untill the DOJ goes quiet on the issue. Lets not think the sky is falling. We need to not over react to every memo they type out.

This will go on for years to come and so getting too high one week then go the other way the next is wrong.

We need to write the NRA to see what they can officially tell us, those that are members email your contact Rep.

-ken

xenophobe
05-18-2006, 11:41 PM
If they are sending this out to agencies, this could be viewed as actual policy change. Time to take them to court I say!

thmpr
05-18-2006, 11:51 PM
I must agree with Ken9 on this. The DOJ has just approved/recognized the legality of the OLL publically to all LE agency. It would be wise to have the definition of a fixed magazine with you at all times when shooting at the range for the just in case situation.

kantstudien
05-19-2006, 12:09 AM
Did Iggy buy stock in SRBs? :confused:

PLINK
05-19-2006, 1:06 AM
I think that if they are sending this out to agencies you could see more LEO's buying lowers. I talked to an FFL today that said he has DROS'ed many lowers to LEO's already. He said there is something about agency AR restrictions while on the force and after retirement.

If anything I think the new memo may have stopped a few people from buying an OLL that want an AW registration. I also believe some people who were on the fence about buying now have purchased an OLL because they don't care if the mag is pinned. I personally think they are going to keep OLL's with pinned mags if you want all of the evilness. An OLL is just better than our previous CA AR options (sometimes cheaper, better makers, better quality, able to match brand parts, etc). I will use the current definitions and forget the memo for now. What memo? I don't even remember having internet access.

Reading some of these threads is some of the best entertainment I have seen in a while. The only crappy thing is I can't get CG at work. They have some Surf control block on this URL and other gun forum URL's.

Rumpled
05-19-2006, 2:03 AM
Since there are no SB-23 violations,...in goes the pre-bans, 2 30 rounders taped together to be exact!:D



Edited note - don't do this with a fixed mag it would be a SB 23 violation

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:


(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.


Keep it safe.
Edited to correct my error.

kantstudien
05-19-2006, 2:09 AM
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

Does that look like a "fixed" magazine to you?

shopkeep
05-19-2006, 2:22 AM
If you ask me this is going to go on for years. This whole thing is basically the gun owners version of the 1950s and 1960s civil rights movement.

NeoWeird
05-19-2006, 2:45 AM
If you ask me this is going to go on for years. This whole thing is basically the gun owners version of the 1950s and 1960s civil rights movement.

So should we start riding the bus then?

FreedomIsNotFree
05-19-2006, 3:11 AM
We need someone to take one for the team....:o......j/k

CALI-gula
05-19-2006, 3:46 AM
All my friend said is that they saw the memo today during briefing. He didn't mention anything more than that. It is likely because their department and the town it is located in is so small, they don't expect to encounter any of these rifles. Either that or they don't care.

Being so small of an agency, what is the likelihood the MEMO actually did not arrive at their agency direct from the DOJ, as the bulletins often do, but instead it was simply somebody within that agency or some local Million Mom member that took it upon themselves to provide that agency with the memo as a "I thought you should know" delivery? Some guy withon the agency is looking stuff up late a night, comes acorss the MEMO, and then brings it to work the next day as a big revelation so he can impress his boss.

Just look at how many people here on Calguns.net posted the first MEMO noting "Has anyone seen this??? several weeks AFTER it had been posted on the DOJ website! There were numerous posts like that even with some 2 dozen threads existing on the topic. Anyone could print up the memo and mail it off or email a PDF copy to any agency, and through an uninformed grapevine of just one recipient, it could be misinterpreted as having come from the DOJ direct. The letter head is usually convincing that it would have come direct, but I really don't believe the DOJ is actually the direct source for mailing or delivering this MEMO to any law enforcement agencies. The posted a MEMO on their website - and there it remains, a notation, an indication, a "things we would like to see", a Bill Lockyer wish list, but NOT a law.

It's not law - it's opinion, and the DOJ knows that - however others around us bent on enforcing opinion as law, might be so desperate for a Checkmate with their "I told you so" attitude, they might try to impotently sabotage us (again, futile). It could possibly even be a few who post here on Calguns.net of whom I am suspicious, especially when they offer a continued mantra in several threads of "Hey, we should get rid of our Off-List Lowers now because I am, and it's the right thing to do" or "We should weld in our magazines now becasue I am, and it's the right thing to do" or "We should get rid of our Sporting Conversion fixed magazine kits becasue I am, and it's the right thing to do" campaign.

To them I say, go read the MEMO again. And if bored with its laughable futility, go back and read the previous MEMO too, for even bigger laughs!

.

6172crew
05-19-2006, 6:03 AM
I know of 3 cops who post here that havent spoken up on this matter.

I will talk with my buddy later today to see if he heard anything about enforcing the "permantly fixed mag" crap.:cool:

glen avon
05-19-2006, 7:54 AM
What do you think about sending copies of these letters to our local PD? Just to show them that DOJ is not even sure if they know their left nut from their right nut. :)

if we find out that in fact The Memo was distributed to LE, then it would be hilarious if we sent the prior memo and the letters stating the legality of certain OLLs. that would be enough uncertainty to give cops pause. they don't like bad laws at all.

a PRA request to DOJ and the LE agencies might show something.

11Z50
05-19-2006, 8:01 AM
Just to clear the air on my position.....

I am on your side. I have been on calguns for quite awhile and some of the senior members can validate that. I am as pro-gun as a person can be. As I said, I applaud you OLL guys in your movement to cause reform in the abyssmal PRK situation. I just hope it is the right fight at the right time.

I am not presently a LEO, but I am involved in the justice system, and I see on a day-today basis how it works. I know a number of LEOs at the local, State, and Federal level and socialize with a few frequently. I see what happens in court, and I know how people get ground up in the system. If you have money, you have a chance. If you are the average Joe blow, you will most likely lose.

I know how dirty these boys can play, especially if they have an axe to grind. Just a word of caution. If you have an OLL, and they know about it, keep squeaky clean. My advice is to not assemble your lower until this issue is decided. If you do assemble it, which in my opinion is completely legal, do not show it off, draw attention to it, or leave it laying around. Keep a low profile. Although there is a gray area, the law, as it reads is pretty clear.

In my view, it appears DOJ should simply open an unlimited registration of AW's. In other words, if you want an AW, you get a COE first. Then once they are happy with your non-criminal background, you buy the AW you want and Reg with DOJ. This would allow DOJ a way out, (and also make them some $$$) and allow you guys to have your AW's without doing the backdoor lower thing. DOJ can say they won, and so can we.

Where I live, the cops don't give a hoot about this, but in the metro areas you can bet the cops will confiscate any weapon they can, since this is part of how they justify their budget. In the multi-juridictional task forces they operate in they will be looking for a chance to bust someone with an OLL that has become an unreg'd AW. You can bet Iggy has put the word out in LA and San Jose, the two most anti-gun jurisdictions in the State. We will soon have a test case. BTW, if it's in Fresno I know a good attorney.

Unsub
05-19-2006, 8:01 AM
No word from SFPD about the memo... yet.

jemaddux
05-19-2006, 8:10 AM
All I can say is it may have gone to a couple agencys but as a whole I have sold and have in background right now a couple LEOs from LAPD, LACSD and no one is really carring what any memo says. Right now according to them they are legal and will continue to buy them until a law with a penal code number says otherwise. Just my opinion here.:D

Rumpled
05-19-2006, 8:23 AM
Does that look like a "fixed" magazine to you?

Actually, at first it did, and I thought it was. That's what I get for posting too late at nite.

My bad.
Thanks for correcting me.

6172crew
05-19-2006, 8:36 AM
LASD reports no memo at breifing.:) Im keeping my ears open for any word and will post if in fact the DOJ starts sending memos.

Chaingun
05-19-2006, 8:50 AM
I know of 3 cops who post here that havent spoken up on this matter.


Yet another of life's quagmires.:D

vrylak
05-19-2006, 11:13 AM
Ultimately our main weapon is the ballot.

Spread the word.

Let everyone know and convince them that the socialists have taken over the State of California all the way to the state congress and are taking away one of our fundamental rights as US Citizens.

Eventually we'll kick them back to the communist socialist rathole where they came from.

I do this all the time when ever I meet someone, office workers, family, friends, relatives, they in turn will spread the word. You'll be surprise, oftentimes, of how much and how far they have been brainwashed by the socialist maggots in this state and realized for themselves that they felt they've been violated.

The tables will turn.

Unknownassailant
05-19-2006, 11:18 AM
I demand amnesty for Off Listed Lowers!!! :D

olegk
05-19-2006, 11:24 AM
Why dont We All send a MEMO to our local Agencies to inform them of the letter of the law.
That should open their eyes..
Guys, I have 20-25 $ ready. Any volunteers?

shopkeep
05-19-2006, 11:24 AM
The part of all this that cracks me up the most is how the DOJ approved the Vulcan V-15 for sale in the state. Now some Law Enforcment Agencies with the new memo will confiscate the rifle because under the new memo the V-15 is no longer a "permenant magazine". Afterall if the DOJ is telling us that locktite and epoxy in the Prince50 design doesn't cut it, it doesn't cut in it in the V-15 either.

SKS/Walther P-22 debacle here we come all over again!

Unknownassailant
05-19-2006, 11:31 AM
Now some Law Enforcment Agencies with the new memo will confiscate the rifle because under the new memo the V-15 is no longer a "permenant magazine". Afterall if the DOJ is telling us that locktite and epoxy in the Prince50 design doesn't cut it, it doesn't cut in it in the V-15 either.


Cali legal V-15 has a roll pin holding it in also.

shopkeep
05-19-2006, 11:35 AM
Cali legal V-15 has a roll pin holding it in also.

Call them and ask them if how much longer the Cali Legal V-15 is going to stay Cali Legal. Answer: NOT LONG.

NoTime2Shoot
05-19-2006, 11:55 AM
According to my LEO friend, they have not recieved a memo. His department does not hold much love for the DOJ. They are also quite aware of the OLL situation and the legalities.

Apparently, popular opinion is to tell the DOJ to pound salt. The local PD's are not interested in trying to bust law abiding citizens.

<edit>

This is in the Bay Area, BTW.

Da_shotcaller
05-19-2006, 2:28 PM
I haven't seen any memo from the DOJ being circulated in my department. Also called my cousin and few friends who work for another agency and they told me they haven't seen any memo either. This is around the bay area so i can't speak on behalf of other department in LA area or Sacramento area.

Rascal
05-19-2006, 2:53 PM
You want to push this? Just get everyone together to show up some place and see if they arrest 30,000 people. We would be safe in numbers, and if they only arrested a few, what do you think our lawyers would do about that. iIf nobody got arrested, then we would be setting a presidence, that our legal lowers are OK. food for thought.

ALTSEC972
05-19-2006, 3:03 PM
You want to push this? Just get everyone together to show up some place and see if they arrest 30,000 people. We would be safe in numbers, and if they only arrested a few, what do you think our lawyers would do about that. iIf nobody got arrested, then we would be setting a presidence, that our legal lowers are OK. food for thought.

Oh just friggen great...... give 'em a good reason to dust off the paddy wagons!

While we're at it, let's tell all of the media we'll be there, doin that, and if we survive, and don't get hauled away, we can go lie down on the nearest set of train tracks.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-19-2006, 3:05 PM
I actually think thousands of us showing up in Sac would be a very good thing.....

kenc9
05-19-2006, 3:30 PM
I haven't seen any memo from the DOJ being circulated in my department. Also called my cousin and few friends who work for another agency and they told me they haven't seen any memo either. This is around the bay area so i can't speak on behalf of other department in LA area or Sacramento area.

I was told the natural progression would be from DOJ to all state police agencies and the 58 DA's then offices within the DA's area, County, city departments.

They would also get out the warning to all FFL's IF IF IF they felt they were on some kind of legal standing.

Posting a memo with their """opnion""" is quiet different than posting new regulation. As it has been said over and over.

They (DOJ) have a court case to be heard from a DA in the central valley right after the new year and that is where the rubber will meet the road.

Court Trial set for 1/24/07 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept 73. Time estimate: 5/10 days Trial Readiness set for 1/19/07 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept 73. Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 12/7/06 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 73. kl

http://banweb.co.fresno.ca.us/plsql/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=01CECG03182&begin_date=&end_date=

http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Articles/76855_Fresno_DA_Hunt_Letter.PDF


-ken

FreedomIsNotFree
05-19-2006, 4:00 PM
I was told the natural progression would be from DOJ to all state police agencies and the 58 DA's then offices within the DA's area, County, city departments.

They would also get out the warning to all FFL's IF IF IF they felt they were on some kind of legal standing.

Posting a memo with their """opnion""" is quiet different than posting new regulation. As it has been said over and over.

They (DOJ) have a court case to be heard from a DA in the central valley right after the new year and that is where the rubber will meet the road.

Court Trial set for 1/24/07 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept 73. Time estimate: 5/10 days Trial Readiness set for 1/19/07 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept 73. Mandatory Settlement Conference set for 12/7/06 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 73. kl

http://banweb.co.fresno.ca.us/plsql/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=01CECG03182&begin_date=&end_date=

http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Articles/76855_Fresno_DA_Hunt_Letter.PDF


-ken

Is that where the DA is trying to have the AW ban done away with?

kenc9
05-19-2006, 4:28 PM
I'm not sure what he is going for but argueing it is too complicated to understand. I can't think of a better way to go after the DOJ than to have a DA argue in court with them.
The PDF is a pretty good letter, everyone should read this and follow it.
This appears to be the only known case and has been going on since 2001.
This should make case law one way or the other!

-ken

NoTime2Shoot
05-19-2006, 4:34 PM
Yeah, I read that awhile back.

The wheels of justice turn slow, huh.

Was it put off long enough for Judge Lightbeer to be gone?

Hmmm.......

kenc9
05-19-2006, 4:39 PM
The good part is that there will be a brand new AG with no experience with any of this.

This should be what we are watching to see where things will go with the list and just about everything concerning AW's.

-ken

NoTime2Shoot
05-19-2006, 4:40 PM
Okay, so we better hurry and buy more lowers before January....


TWO WEEKS!

:D

Ryoushi
05-19-2006, 5:00 PM
I'm not sure what he is going for but argueing it is too complicated to understand. I can't think of a better way to go after the DOJ than to have a DA argue in court with them.
The PDF is a pretty good letter, everyone should read this and follow it.
This appears to be the only known case and has been going on since 2001.
This should make case law one way or the other!


I've worked with Ed Hunt and I really like the guy but he is no longer DA in Fresno County and he left office under a bit of a cloud. But I love his complaint, it's laid out real well and makes alot of sense to me as a gun enthusiast.

One thing to keep in mind, Chuck Poochigian (R Fresno) is old pals with Ed Hunt and just might be our new AG come January 07.

kenc9
05-19-2006, 5:05 PM
That doesn't surprise me he is gone.
First rule of government
1) Don’t make waves
2) Don’t question authority


I sure hope the DA's office go ahead with it.

-ken

shopkeep
05-19-2006, 5:28 PM
Okay, so we better hurry and buy more lowers before January....


TWO WEEKS!

:D

That is quite possibly one of the best off-list jokes I've heard since all this **** got started.

newtothis
05-19-2006, 7:47 PM
According to my LEO friend, they have not recieved a memo. His department does not hold much love for the DOJ. They are also quite aware of the OLL situation and the legalities.

Apparently, popular opinion is to tell the DOJ to pound salt. The local PD's are not interested in trying to bust law abiding citizens.

<edit>

This is in the Bay Area, BTW.


Any feedback on Alameda County?

NoTime2Shoot
05-19-2006, 8:16 PM
Well, part of the county....

;)

Ford8N
05-19-2006, 8:23 PM
Just to clear the air on my position.....

I am on your side. I have been on calguns for quite awhile and some of the senior members can validate that. I am as pro-gun as a person can be. As I said, I applaud you OLL guys in your movement to cause reform in the abyssmal PRK situation. I just hope it is the right fight at the right time.

I am not presently a LEO, but I am involved in the justice system, and I see on a day-today basis how it works. I know a number of LEOs at the local, State, and Federal level and socialize with a few frequently. I see what happens in court, and I know how people get ground up in the system. If you have money, you have a chance. If you are the average Joe blow, you will most likely lose.

I know how dirty these boys can play, especially if they have an axe to grind. Just a word of caution. If you have an OLL, and they know about it, keep squeaky clean. My advice is to not assemble your lower until this issue is decided. If you do assemble it, which in my opinion is completely legal, do not show it off, draw attention to it, or leave it laying around. Keep a low profile. Although there is a gray area, the law, as it reads is pretty clear.

In my view, it appears DOJ should simply open an unlimited registration of AW's. In other words, if you want an AW, you get a COE first. Then once they are happy with your non-criminal background, you buy the AW you want and Reg with DOJ. This would allow DOJ a way out, (and also make them some $$$) and allow you guys to have your AW's without doing the backdoor lower thing. DOJ can say they won, and so can we.

Where I live, the cops don't give a hoot about this, but in the metro areas you can bet the cops will confiscate any weapon they can, since this is part of how they justify their budget. In the multi-juridictional task forces they operate in they will be looking for a chance to bust someone with an OLL that has become an unreg'd AW. You can bet Iggy has put the word out in LA and San Jose, the two most anti-gun jurisdictions in the State. We will soon have a test case. BTW, if it's in Fresno I know a good attorney.



Good advice.

CALI-gula
05-19-2006, 8:39 PM
Just heard word from a LAPD officer that actually works in the downtown LA area, who bought 3 CMMG Off-List lowers this past weekend. I had not talked to him in a few weeks and was not even sure if he knew. Today he says to me "Hey, remember when you were telling me about...." etc. He is well aware of the 2nd Memo and laughed it off as nothing more than, and his words exactly, "Nothing more Sacramento sacrilege... there is nothing there I can enforce... it's just one guy's opinion (he was referring to one Bill Lockyer)". He did not mention anything about it being distributed or delivered to them. He knew of it from Calguns.net !! And he said it was bunk!! Nothing new, no new laws!


:D :p :D :p

.

6172crew
05-19-2006, 8:46 PM
That pretty much says it all, 9 cops say no memo and 1 says they talked about it.

Talked with 2 FFLs and they didnt hear dick.:cool:

................Post whores!



:D :D

NoTime2Shoot
05-19-2006, 8:47 PM
You know, all these shennanigans [By AG Lightbeer] are only making me buy more weapons. I've always wanted an M1A/M14, so I'm looking at one of those. I never really wanted an FAL, but I might as well buy an upper. A PSS would be cool.....

The list goes on.

I guess we're doing our part to keep the economy moving.

:D

newtothis
05-19-2006, 8:53 PM
You know, all these shennanigans [By AG Lightbeer] are only making me buy more weapons. I've always wanted an M1A/M14, so I'm looking at one of those. I never really wanted an FAL, but I might as well buy an upper. A PSS would be cool.....

The list goes on.

I guess we're doing our part to keep the economy moving.

:D

You're exactly right. I'm going to end up with four or five rifles when I was only going to get one. It reminds of the ban on the Barrett 50 that was banned. I almost bought one just because...

kick Z tail out
05-19-2006, 9:12 PM
Lets all march through the streets to the capitol, OLLs in hand, breaking windows and flying the Mexican flag.


I mean, that is how you get amnesty, right? It always works for all the people that don't even belong here.



:rolleyes:

Da_shotcaller
05-19-2006, 10:30 PM
Even if the memo start showing up it will be one of those things that's not going to be enforce by a lot of LEO. I talked today to couple of co workers regarding this and majority of us believe that if it's an OLL and it's compliant with SB23 then you are good to go. But if someone decided that they don't want to be compliant with SB23 then we got a big problem. I know some of you guys will start telling me that I should use my discretion or I should use the spirit of the law. So here's my answer to all of you who will question my decision if this happen. If i have to built my OLL in compliance with SB23 then you should too right. If you decided not to be in compliance then you better come up with a good reason why you think you are so special that you don't have to comply with the current law.

kenc9
05-19-2006, 10:57 PM
Even if the memo start showing up it will be one of those things that's not going to be enforce by a lot of LEO. I talked today to couple of co workers regarding this and majority of us believe that if it's an OLL and it's compliant with SB23 then you are good to go. But if someone decided that they don't want to be compliant with SB23 then we got a big problem. I know some of you guys will start telling me that I should use my discretion or I should use the spirit of the law. So here's my answer to all of you who will question my decision if this happen. If i have to built my OLL in compliance with SB23 then you should too right. If you decided not to be in compliance then you better come up with a good reason why you think you are so special that you don't have to comply with the current law.

As far as I have seen here on this board, we would just like the written law be the law! But so far we don't even get that from the DOJ!

-ken

CALI-gula
05-19-2006, 11:42 PM
Even if the memo start showing up it will be one of those things that's not going to be enforce by a lot of LEO. I talked today to couple of co workers regarding this and majority of us believe that if it's an OLL and it's compliant with SB23 then you are good to go. But if someone decided that they don't want to be compliant with SB23 then we got a big problem. I know some of you guys will start telling me that I should use my discretion or I should use the spirit of the law. So here's my answer to all of you who will question my decision if this happen. If i have to built my OLL in compliance with SB23 then you should too right. If you decided not to be in compliance then you better come up with a good reason why you think you are so special that you don't have to comply with the current law.

That's fair enough. We just hope other LEO would have that same outlook on the issue too. I think few (if any) people buying the Off-List lowers want to break the current law in any way, but the fear mongers and their scare tactics are finally getting to them, especially when vague DOJ MEMOs massage the bullcrap index. From LEO I have met, and of those LEO that are my friends, all being from the Los Angeles area which is known as one of the more strict environs of enforcing the questionable (and LA City being sued for it later) I am still inclined to believe they have the same logical approach to law-abiding citizens under the Off-List Lower issue as yourself.

Common sense prevails, again! ( And thanks! ) :)


.

Da_shotcaller
05-19-2006, 11:57 PM
As far as I have seen here on this board, we would just like the written law be the law! But so far we don't even get that from the DOJ!

-ken
As far as i know we do have a written law regarding AW one is the Roberti-roos aw control act and the other one is SB23. This is currently being enforce by LEO. This is the same law that protect us from being in jail right now. That's because my OLL is not listed in the roberti-roos list and it's SB23compliant therefore it is legal to own :D

detcord
05-20-2006, 4:38 AM
you better come up with a good reason why you think you are so special that you don't have to comply with the current law.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

theres one...

Ford8N
05-20-2006, 6:40 AM
....and another....





AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



;) We have "Jim Crow" gun laws

Unknownassailant
05-20-2006, 8:58 AM
Lets all march through the streets to the capitol, OLLs in hand, breaking windows and flying the Mexican flag.


I mean, that is how you get amnesty, right? It always works for all the people that don't even belong here.



:rolleyes:

Do we have to be Mexican to participate? :D

Glasshat
05-20-2006, 10:01 AM
...we do have a written law regarding AW ...... my OLL is not listed in the roberti-roos list and it's SB23compliant therefore it is legal to own :D

It really is as simple as that, and at the same time the DOJ is pulling out all stops to make gun owners, the general public and LEO think the facts are otherwise.

Has the DOJ outlived its usefulness and is just trying to make itself look relevant???

Da_shotcaller
05-20-2006, 10:31 AM
theres one...

it's nice for you to quote our rights to bear arms. But this is not what we are talking about in here as part of OLL situation we got. The main issue we got is getting everyone in the same page that yes we do have 30,000 OLL and that and all this is in compliance with current law. This will show DOJ and the people of CA that gun owners in CA are responsible enough and in turn we might see the end of AW ban in the near future.

And as far as the right to bear arms please don't tell me about this. I do understand what that meant to me and no matter how many times i read that i still can't find anything in there that specifically say that i have the right to bear a particular type of firearms.

colossians323
05-20-2006, 10:43 AM
I just hope that someone has had the forsight to document the different memos that the doj is putting out, and any other bs that they are puting out on official doj letterhead.
Anyone?

Da_shotcaller
05-20-2006, 10:59 AM
....and another....





AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



;) We have "Jim Crow" gun laws
We are talking about OLL situation and complying with the current AW law. Do i think that AW ban is rediculous? Well my answer to you is yes it is but it's the current law that we have here in Ca and it is enforceable.

As far as 14th amendment is concern. Don't worry if you ever decided to brake the law then we will make sure that you enjoy your due process in court. All this talk about our constitutional right is great since this is the foundation of our law. But there's nothing in our constitutional right that specifically say that we should brake the law whenever we feel like it.

kick Z tail out
05-20-2006, 11:07 AM
Do we have to be Mexican to participate? :D
Nope. :D But the problem is it's perfectly okay to arrest a bunch of white boys :(


;)

kick Z tail out
05-20-2006, 11:11 AM
And as far as the right to bear arms please don't tell me about this. I do understand what that meant to me and no matter how many times i read that i still can't find anything in there that specifically say that i have the right to bear a particular type of firearms.
I wonder what it would have been like back in the 1770s if our forefathers were not allowed to have what they had, and had to defend our rights against the red coats with sticks and stones. :rolleyes:

Our right to bear arms shouldn't be handicapped. Right now our rights are neutered to make them practically ineffective.

KLABruin
05-20-2006, 11:51 AM
And as far as the right to bear arms please don't tell me about this. I do understand what that meant to me and no matter how many times i read that i still can't find anything in there that specifically say that i have the right to bear a particular type of firearms.

How about “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”? By restricting the types of arms I am allowed to own, the state is infringing. No?

Also, let’s apply your logic to the first amendment…
I would assume then that you would accept a ban on political speech. If the government did that, it would not be outlawing all free speech and there is nothing in the first amendment that specifically says you have the right to a particular type of free speech.

Evil Gun
05-20-2006, 12:25 PM
I guess we will need someone to make a test case and use the 2nd Ammendment as a defense. From the very beginning of this second memo hysteria, I said it will take some kind of legal proceeding to determine whether it (memo2) is valid. My own personal opinion is, read the law as it is written today and our OLL's are legal with pinned mags or no pistol grips.

kantstudien
05-20-2006, 1:07 PM
So what LE "agencies" has this memo been sent to?

blacklisted
05-20-2006, 1:08 PM
I guess we will need someone to make a test case and use the 2nd Ammendment as a defense. From the very beginning of this second memo hysteria, I said it will take some kind of legal proceeding to determine whether it (memo2) is valid. My own personal opinion is, read the law as it is written today and our OLL's are legal with pinned mags or no pistol grips.

It was tried.

Kasler v. Lockyer:



“…. If Plaintiffs ( gun owners ) are implying that a right to keep and bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitution’s declaration of rights THEY ARE SIMPLY WRONG. No mention is made in it of a right to keep and bear arms. “

6172crew
05-20-2006, 1:15 PM
So what LE "agencies" has this memo been sent to?

None, the one cop who said they talked about the memo said he didnt know if another guy brought the memo in or if the DOJ sent it.

Memo sent to LEO= -0 :eek:

Da_shotcaller
05-20-2006, 4:51 PM
I wonder what it would have been like back in the 1770s if our forefathers were not allowed to have what they had, and had to defend our rights against the red coats with sticks and stones. :rolleyes:

Our right to bear arms shouldn't be handicapped. Right now our rights are neutered to make them practically ineffective.

My point is we are allowed to bear arms. It is not completely restricted. Are you telling me that you are not confident enough to defend your life and property with your pistol, shotgun, and other legal rifle that you own right now. If our forefathers were able to defend their life using a musket then i don't see any reason why you would think that our semi automatic pistol and rifle is an effective tool. :D

James R.
05-20-2006, 5:12 PM
My point is we are allowed to bear arms. It is not completely restricted. Are you telling me that you are not confident enough to defend your life and property with your pistol, shotgun, and other legal rifle that you own right now. If our forefathers were able to defend their life using a musket then i don't see any reason why you would think that our semi automatic pistol and rifle is an effective tool. :D

I think it's fairly evident that if you step outside of the BOR and do some reading on what the framers wrote you'll find that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow for both a militia to defend the interests of the free state as well as defense of person and property.

Given a model that assumes that every capable man stands to potentially be conscripted into the militia bringing the arms that he bears, every citizen should therefore have access to a firearm which is suitable for the role of the conscripted. That being the case we should all have access to whatever small arms soldiers currently have access to...

So gimmie my M4 and my M107 thank you very much ;-) You know the Swiss hand out automatic rifles and allow their male citizens to keep them in their homes...we could stand to take a lesson from them :-P

Regards,

James R.

Da_shotcaller
05-20-2006, 5:15 PM
How about “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”? By restricting the types of arms I am allowed to own, the state is infringing. No?

Also, let’s apply your logic to the first amendment…
I would assume then that you would accept a ban on political speech. If the government did that, it would not be outlawing all free speech and there is nothing in the first amendment that specifically says you have the right to a particular type of free speech.

I guess you never read some of my post regarding this OLL situation because in one of my post i mentioned that im not in favor with the AW ban. So by you assuming that that i would accept the ban on our first amendment right then you are wrong.

As far as our rights to own a firearms here in CA i do believe that we are still enjoying this. Last time i check we still got a gunstore here in CA. Gunstore still are able to sell firearms.

So if you believe that by having a right to bear firearms gives you the right to built your OLL into something illegal then i will make sure that i'll give you one more right that you are entitled to. That would be your Miranda Rights. So if your intentions is to build an illegal rifle with your OLL please reconsider. Don't *$&# it all up for the rest of law abiding citizen in Ca that want to enjoy their OLL.

Da_shotcaller
05-20-2006, 5:27 PM
I think it's fairly evident that if you step outside of the BOR and do some reading on what the framers wrote you'll find that the intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow for both a militia to defend the interests of the free state as well as defense of person and property.

Given a model that assumes that every capable man stands to potentially be conscripted into the militia bringing the arms that he bears, every citizen should therefore have access to a firearm which is suitable for the role of the conscripted. That being the case we should all have access to whatever small arms soldiers currently have access to...

So gimmie my M4 and my M107 thank you very much ;-) You know the Swiss hand out automatic rifles and allow their male citizens to keep them in their homes...we could stand to take a lesson from them :-P

Regards,

James R.
I agree with you that's why for the third time i would say im not in favor with the AW ban. But that's what we got right now in CA and just like other law abiding citizen then im must follow this rule.

I believe your SOCOM 16 or your M1A scout rifle is capable of doing the job of defending the interest of the free state and our personal life and property. If im not mistaken it's still being used by some units in the military. :D

I didn't know that Swiss hand out automatic weapon to their citizen i thought they only issue them a swiss army knife :p . Given this logic then i guess LEO can count on you if we ever decided to ask our legislator to issue us AW also instead of just issuing us a handgun :D

markymark
05-20-2006, 5:56 PM
I agree with you that's why for the third time i would say im not in favor with the AW ban. But that's what we got right now in CA and just like other law abiding citizen then im must follow this rule.

I believe your SOCOM 16 or your M1A scout rifle is capable of doing the job of defending the interest of the free state and our personal life and property. If im not mistaken it's still being used by some units in the military. :D

I didn't know that Swiss hand out automatic weapon to their citizen i thought they only issue them a swiss army knife :p . Given this logic then i guess LEO can count on you if we ever decided to ask our legislator to issue us AW also instead of just issuing us a handgun :D

Each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.56 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified quantity of government-issued ammunition, sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unlawful use takes place.

When relieved of duty, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

KLABruin
05-20-2006, 7:13 PM
I guess you never read some of my post regarding this OLL situation because in one of my post i mentioned that im not in favor with the AW ban. So by you assuming that that i would accept the ban on our first amendment right then you are wrong.

As far as our rights to own a firearms here in CA i do believe that we are still enjoying this. Last time i check we still got a gunstore here in CA. Gunstore still are able to sell firearms.
I am not questioning your support or opposition to the AWB. I am questioning your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Your posts indicate that you think the 2nd amendment allows for the outlawing of certain guns as long as you can have some sort of firearms; that your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed because the 2nd amendment does not, “specifically say that i have the right to bear a particular type of firearms” (if this is not your position, please correct me).

I was drawing a parallel between the 1st and 2nd amendments to illustrate the faults in your logic. Nobody would ever argue that limiting certain types of free speech is acceptable because they are not specifically enumerated in the BOR, yet you argue that the 2nd amendment does not protect all types of firearms because they are not specifically enumerated in it.

I was not trying to say that I think you would accept a total ban on the 1st amendment (if it came out that way I am sorry). I was trying to say the logic you applied to the 2nd amendment, if also applied to the 1st amendment would allow for limitations of certain types of free speech that are not specifically enumerated in the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment does not specifically state it protects any particular types of free speech, just as the 2nd amendment does not specifically state it protects and specific types of firearms. They are both general protections (IMHO).

So if you believe that by having a right to bear firearms gives you the right to built your OLL into something illegal then i will make sure that i'll give you one more right that you are entitled to. That would be your Miranda Rights. So if your intentions is to build an illegal rifle with your OLL please reconsider. Don't *$&# it all up for the rest of law abiding citizen in Ca that want to enjoy their OLL.

Where is this coming from? I never said anything about building an illegal OLL (or any other type of OLL for that matter) and frankly, I am offended at your insinuations that I would commit (or contemplate committing) a felony.

JALLEN
05-20-2006, 8:07 PM
I am not questioning your support or opposition to the AWB. I am questioning your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Your posts indicate that you think the 2nd amendment allows for the outlawing of certain guns as long as you can have some sort of firearms; that your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed because the 2nd amendment does not, “specifically say that i have the right to bear a particular type of firearms” (if this is not your position, please correct me).

I was drawing a parallel between the 1st and 2nd amendments to illustrate the faults in your logic. Nobody would ever argue that limiting certain types of free speech is acceptable because they are not specifically enumerated in the BOR, yet you argue that the 2nd amendment does not protect all types of firearms because they are not specifically enumerated in it.

I was not trying to say that I think you would accept a total ban on the 1st amendment (if it came out that way I am sorry). I was trying to say the logic you applied to the 2nd amendment, if also applied to the 1st amendment would allow for limitations of certain types of free speech that are not specifically enumerated in the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment does not specifically state it protects any particular types of free speech, just as the 2nd amendment does not specifically state it protects and specific types of firearms. They are both general protections (IMHO).



Actually, the 1st Amendment has never been held to allow any kind of speech that comes out of one's mouth. Courts have always been able to find limitations on certain kinds of speech. Justice William O. Douglas was one who interpreted the 1st Amendment literally, i.e. "Congress shall pass no law...", but that view was always expressed in dissent, never as a majority view.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the Supreme Court would find constitutional limitations on certain kinds of weapons, up to and including bans on some, which we have now, actually. Since the Court is the final interpreter of what is Constitutional, that, as they say, is that.

hoffmang
05-20-2006, 8:56 PM
Let me interject some jurisprudence.

US v. Miller makes it pretty clear that the weapons protected are the ones that have a militia/military purpose. The law as it really stands (9th Circuit stupidity ignored) in regard to the 2A states that AR-15s and arguably M-16s are likely more protected than shotguns.

adamsreeftank
05-20-2006, 11:42 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Interesting link. I like this picture:


1251

A militiaman on his way home from mandatory shooting practice, taking care of an errand with his service weapon slung over his shoulder. The weapon is unloaded and has been checked as so upon leaving the shooting range. Carrying ammunition is strictly forbidden.

kick Z tail out
05-21-2006, 6:28 AM
My point is we are allowed to bear arms. It is not completely restricted. Are you telling me that you are not confident enough to defend your life and property with your pistol, shotgun, and other legal rifle that you own right now. If our forefathers were able to defend their life using a musket then i don't see any reason why you would think that our semi automatic pistol and rifle is an effective tool. :D
Note that our forefathers used muskets while fighting an enemy that was also using... muskets.

That's my point.

This whole ban thing strips us of our ability to play on an even field. Which is not what was intended when we were given our right to bear arms.

It sounds like you would feel our rights would still be rightly served if all we were allowed to keep was single shot .22s. I disagree, that's like telling someone they can practice religion freely and then handing them a Koran and saying "here you go".

Da_shotcaller
05-21-2006, 9:15 AM
I am not questioning your support or opposition to the AWB. I am questioning your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Your posts indicate that you think the 2nd amendment allows for the outlawing of certain guns as long as you can have some sort of firearms; that your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed because the 2nd amendment does not, “specifically say that i have the right to bear a particular type of firearms” (if this is not your position, please correct me).

I was drawing a parallel between the 1st and 2nd amendments to illustrate the faults in your logic. Nobody would ever argue that limiting certain types of free speech is acceptable because they are not specifically enumerated in the BOR, yet you argue that the 2nd amendment does not protect all types of firearms because they are not specifically enumerated in it.

I was not trying to say that I think you would accept a total ban on the 1st amendment (if it came out that way I am sorry). I was trying to say the logic you applied to the 2nd amendment, if also applied to the 1st amendment would allow for limitations of certain types of free speech that are not specifically enumerated in the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment does not specifically state it protects any particular types of free speech, just as the 2nd amendment does not specifically state it protects and specific types of firearms. They are both general protections (IMHO).



Where is this coming from? I never said anything about building an illegal OLL (or any other type of OLL for that matter) and frankly, I am offended at your insinuations that I would commit (or contemplate committing) a felony.

I do respect your point of view and if i ever offended you by with the remark that you will build an illegal weapon then im man enough to apoligized. But if i remember it right what i said is if you are thinking about it then please reconsider. let me explain my side on this matter. If you ever had the chance to read my second post on this issue i mentioned that me and other LEO i know from this area somewhat agreed that if we ever run in to someone with OLL that is ban compliant then their good to go. But if we run in to someone who decided that he don't want to comply then that would be a problem. I mentioned that if someone ever decided not to comply with the current law that we have then they better give me a good reason why they would do that while here i am trying to comply with the law. Only one guy in this board said something positive when i said that. Majority would tell me the 2nd amendment right or the 14th amendment. I am the first one to say that i am glad we have all this right to protect but i also believe that i still have to abide by the current law that we have even if i think it's a stupid law.

As far as second amendment goes im not in favor in outlawing any types of firearms but that's what we're stuck with here in CA. Im just looking at it in a broader picture that atleast we're still able to own a gun in here. All this ban would pass and soon we will enjoy the same firearms that the rest of the country enjoys. If you havent noticed yet the federal gov't conducted a study on AW ban prior to the ban being sunset. Well if im not mistaken Ca is also conducting a study regarding AW ban. who knows maybe few years from now the Ca AW ban will also sunset.;)

Da_shotcaller
05-21-2006, 9:28 AM
Note that our forefathers used muskets while fighting an enemy that was also using... muskets.

That's my point.

This whole ban thing strips us of our ability to play on an even field. Which is not what was intended when we were given our right to bear arms.

It sounds like you would feel our rights would still be rightly served if all we were allowed to keep was single shot .22s. I disagree, that's like telling someone they can practice religion freely and then handing them a Koran and saying "here you go".

Ok so you want to even the playing field. By the way who do you think would be our enemy? Are you talking about our own gov't in the near future so therefor we should be able to have the same equipment that they have right. That makes sense i never thought about that way before.

Hmmmm anybody know where i can buy a used F 15 fighter, an apache helicopter, maybe a tank or a destroyer so i can even the playing field just in case :D Im sorry im just trying to lighten up a little in here :p . I had a long night at work last night.

You know what im most worried about is i believe that "the Martians are coming, the martians are coming". Do you think we have the right technology to even the playing field with them? :p

Da_shotcaller
05-21-2006, 9:48 AM
Note that our forefathers used muskets while fighting an enemy that was also using... muskets.

It sounds like you would feel our rights would still be rightly served if all we were allowed to keep was single shot .22s. I disagree, that's like telling someone they can practice religion freely and then handing them a Koran and saying "here you go".

No actually in the near future all we'll have here in CA is an airsoft to play with :D . But look at it this way i heard some of those airsoft can hold up to 1000 pellets and i think that's good enough.

Ok on a serious note i believe that we'll still enjoy the same firearms that we are enjoying now and that the CA AW ban will sunset in few years. Especially after what they tried to pull in SF trying to ban all guns. They just angered a lot of voters in there that's a major supporter of AW ban. So the next time someone push to repeal the AW ban in Ca there's a good chance that SF will support it to be repeal. Besides DOJ will soon be changing guards now so that's also a plus for us.

KLABruin
05-21-2006, 10:20 AM
I do respect your point of view and if i ever offended you by with the remark that you will build an illegal weapon then im man enough to apoligized.
I appreciate that. Thanks :)

Clodbuster
05-22-2006, 1:50 PM
Don't take it the wrong way, but insurgents in IRAQ are doing a hell of a job with small arms...

The minute men who helped keep the British at bay weren't a standing army. The small arms they had, were used to raid the government's armoury, so yeah, when the time comes, you don't have to "buy" an F-16, Abrams, or Aircraft carrier. They can be procured by other means. Whether 30,000 owners of OLL can operate a Nimitz class carrier, is another topic. :D

Clod

Ok so you want to even the playing field. By the way who do you think would be our enemy? Are you talking about our own gov't in the near future so therefor we should be able to have the same equipment that they have right. That makes sense i never thought about that way before.

Hmmmm anybody know where i can buy a used F 15 fighter, an apache helicopter, maybe a tank or a destroyer so i can even the playing field just in case :D Im sorry im just trying to lighten up a little in here :p . I had a long night at work last night.

You know what im most worried about is i believe that "the Martians are coming, the martians are coming". Do you think we have the right technology to even the playing field with them? :p

kick Z tail out
05-22-2006, 2:25 PM
Don't take it the wrong way, but insurgents in IRAQ are doing a hell of a job with small arms...

The minute men who helped keep the British at bay weren't a standing army. The small arms they had, were used to raid the government's armoury, so yeah, when the time comes, you don't have to "buy" an F-16, Abrams, or Aircraft carrier. They can be procured by other means. Whether 30,000 owners of OLL can operate a Nimitz class carrier, is another topic. :D

Clod
I can fly. :D Working on my flight training now.

50 Freak
05-22-2006, 2:29 PM
Don't take it the wrong way, but insurgents in IRAQ are doing a hell of a job with small arms...

Agreed (although I hate to admit it too).

It does however confirm the belief the founding fathers had of the "common people" (militias) through the use of "somewhat comparable firearms" can topple the well armed federal army. Remember back in 1770's, we had just fought off the world's best army using mostly non-professional soldiers carrying a hodge-podge of various "hunting rifles".

I don't care if the army has tank for every soldier, it comes down to odds, US military 1,400,000 something strong......Common "civilians".....280 Million strong....

I'll lay odds on us anytime over the military.

blacklisted
05-22-2006, 2:34 PM
Don't take it the wrong way, but insurgents in IRAQ are doing a hell of a job with small arms...

The minute men who helped keep the British at bay weren't a standing army. The small arms they had, were used to raid the government's armoury, so yeah, when the time comes, you don't have to "buy" an F-16, Abrams, or Aircraft carrier. They can be procured by other means. Whether 30,000 owners of OLL can operate a Nimitz class carrier, is another topic. :D

Clod

And BOMBS.

Da_shotcaller
05-22-2006, 3:43 PM
Don't take it the wrong way, but insurgents in IRAQ are doing a hell of a job with small arms...

The minute men who helped keep the British at bay weren't a standing army. The small arms they had, were used to raid the government's armoury, so yeah, when the time comes, you don't have to "buy" an F-16, Abrams, or Aircraft carrier. They can be procured by other means. Whether 30,000 owners of OLL can operate a Nimitz class carrier, is another topic. :D

Clod

I am glad you see it that way. That was the same point im trying to get across with my post that I don't need to have the same weapons that the military use in order to protect my life and property.

kick Z tail out
05-22-2006, 5:51 PM
I am glad you see it that way. That was the same point im trying to get across with my post that I don't need to have the same weapons that the military use in order to protect my life and property.
He said "somewhat comparable firearms". The government has full auto, which I'm not even asserting that we should be granted to have, --although I think our rights allow it...

Having similar weapons, ARs, AKs, in semi auto, is the way it should be.

But look at what you read him say. He said "somewhat comparable firearms". Limiting us to 10 rounds is trying to neuter our ability to use these for defense, and you know damn well that's the purpose.

xLusi0n
05-22-2006, 6:22 PM
Don't take it the wrong way, but insurgents in IRAQ are doing a hell of a job with small arms...

Clod

Umm...unless you consider IEDs, VBIEDs, and Rockets/Mortars small arms then that statement is wrong.

BTW, I don't think any of the insurgents use a SEMI-automatic rifle...

Clodbuster
05-22-2006, 6:27 PM
True -- to protect life, you don't need the same weapons as the military. To protect property, you need even less if you don't want to end up in jail.

To protect liberty and freedom, it would be helpful to have something comparable to the military, otherwise it sure will be bloody for the underdogs.

I'd rather tag along with the guys who have neutered/gripless ARs and Keltec SU-16s when rushing up the ramp of the carrier, than with bolt action rifles and muskets...


Clod

I am glad you see it that way. That was the same point im trying to get across with my post that I don't need to have the same weapons that the military use in order to protect my life and property.

Clodbuster
05-22-2006, 6:44 PM
Definition: small arms, firearms designed primarily to be carried and fired by one person and, generally, held in the hands, as distinguished from heavy arms, or artillery.

I consider hand grenades, RPGs, IEDs to be small arms... Mortars are probably light weapons, since usually 2 people are required to operate one.

I believe the insurgents use anything that is available to them -- be it fully automatic AK-47s or semi-automatic SKSs. Just that full auto weapons seem to be buried all over the place there...

Clod


Umm...unless you consider IEDs, VBIEDs, and Rockets/Mortars small arms then that statement is wrong.

BTW, I don't think any of the insurgents use a SEMI-automatic rifle...

grammaton76
05-22-2006, 7:36 PM
I don't care if the army has tank for every soldier, it comes down to odds, US military 1,400,000 something strong......Common "civilians".....280 Million strong....

I'll lay odds on us anytime over the military.

When it comes down to odds, those of us at Calguns and other 2A websites are probably worth one or maybe even several soldiers apiece, if it came down to an American Armageddon.

However, probably 95% of the sheeple aren't even worth one if they were just out to eradicate everyone. The only thing we really have going for us, is that our military is comprised of Americans, and I would hazard a guess that maybe 10% would actually be willing to fight a protracted war against the general American public as a whole. Isolated groups - "oh, buncha nutjobs in that compound over there" - don't count.

xLusi0n
05-22-2006, 10:32 PM
Definition: small arms, firearms designed primarily to be carried and fired by one person and, generally, held in the hands, as distinguished from heavy arms, or artillery.

I consider hand grenades, RPGs, IEDs to be small arms... Mortars are probably light weapons, since usually 2 people are required to operate one.

I believe the insurgents use anything that is available to them -- be it fully automatic AK-47s or semi-automatic SKSs. Just that full auto weapons seem to be buried all over the place there...

Clod

In that definition, the premise is that it's a "firearm." I don't consider an exploding vehicle with 9 artillery shells in it or a 10 array EFP IED with passive infrared sensors to be a firearm or small arms.

And what about rockets? Or Strellas?

I highly doubt there's any semi-auto AK style rifles they're using...as nearly all the rifles they use are military (soviet / saddam era) rifles.

Pthfndr
05-22-2006, 10:59 PM
When it comes down to odds, those of us at Calguns and other 2A websites are probably worth one or maybe even several soldiers apiece, if it came down to an American Armageddon.

What do you base the opinion on?

Just asking.

kenc9
05-22-2006, 11:59 PM
It would really all depend on the issues at hand. I saw during the 60's marchs and demonstrations when people were standing unarmed infront of the National guard with loaded weapons!

Now with that kind of strong oposition and both sides were armed and prepared to use their guns it would have been a huge battle.

Their was not a college in any state that didn't have a war protest going on. Things can be alot different than what we have seen in the last 35 years or so.

-ken

Paradiddle
05-23-2006, 8:06 AM
When it comes down to odds, those of us at Calguns and other 2A websites are probably worth one or maybe even several soldiers apiece, if it came down to an American Armageddon.


After the conversation I had with an 18 year old "forum type guy" at Ade's yesterday I would refute your statement 100%.

95% of us are internet dweebs who shoot for fun, know a lot about firearm development or history, but have never faced a live fire or life threatening situation of any kind. The US Military ranks in the top 3 of the best trained militaries in the world right now.

There is one gigantic leveler as well - the civilians lack of air power is troublesome....

glen avon
05-23-2006, 8:17 AM
It would really all depend on the issues at hand. I saw during the 60's marchs and demonstrations when people were standing unarmed infront of the National guard with loaded weapons!...

I am guessing you weren't in Ohio....

hippies + bullets = pandemonium, not revolt.

kenc9
05-23-2006, 8:44 AM
I am guessing you weren't in Ohio....

hippies + bullets = pandemonium, not revolt.

True BUT doesn't change the facts. They (The Hippies) were the only ones with enough guts to openly say anything against the government.

In those days if you made a crack about the president on tv your license was pulled (No I was'nt on tv) :D and the poor students that didn't get shot were said to be taking sides with the Commies from the intersting tricky Dick.

If it ever does come down to bullets flying you'll be happy to have anyones help.

Jerry Farwell + Guns = Suicide, not help.

Da_shotcaller
05-23-2006, 9:27 AM
He said "somewhat comparable firearms". The government has full auto, which I'm not even asserting that we should be granted to have, --although I think our rights allow it...

Having similar weapons, ARs, AKs, in semi auto, is the way it should be.

But look at what you read him say. He said "somewhat comparable firearms". Limiting us to 10 rounds is trying to neuter our ability to use these for defense, and you know damn well that's the purpose.

Actually when i said similar weapon it's in response to your post. You're the one who brought it up that our forefather used musket against the redcoat who also used muskets (hmmm similar weapon):D . My point here is that when SHTF any weapon is better than no weapons at all. You just have to learn to adapt, improvise and overcome. If all I have is my semi aotumatic M1A with 10 rnds magazine and i have to go after one of the best train military in the world with let's just say 3 rnd burst AR 15. Then what i'll do is engage them from a far and shoot and run. Of course during all this i'll be praying on top of my lungs that their own sniper don't tag me :D

As far as having even playing field, the reality is we will never have an even playing field. Hypothetically speaking if we have to go against our own military even with the same weapon that they have it's still not going to be an even playing field because majority of us don't have the same training they have.

Da_shotcaller
05-23-2006, 9:37 AM
True -- to protect life, you don't need the same weapons as the military. To protect property, you need even less if you don't want to end up in jail.

To protect liberty and freedom, it would be helpful to have something comparable to the military, otherwise it sure will be bloody for the underdogs.

I'd rather tag along with the guys who have neutered/gripless ARs and Keltec SU-16s when rushing up the ramp of the carrier, than with bolt action rifles and muskets...


Clod

I'll say mini 14, M1a (any variant), even the camp rifle will be good enough if that's all we have. As far as bolt action rifle don't under estimate the bolt action if im not mistaken some bolt action rifle is still widely used by some military snipers.

Oh when you guys start rushing up that carrier ramp don't worry i'll provide a cover fire for you guys somewhere far with my bolt action sniper rifle :D

kick Z tail out
05-23-2006, 4:37 PM
And a bolt action .22 would be "be good enough if that's all we have." But in reality, no. It's not good enough.
Actually when i said similar weapon it's in response to your post. You're the one who brought it up that our forefather used musket against the redcoat who also used muskets (hmmm similar weapon):D . My point here is that when SHTF any weapon is better than no weapons at all. You just have to learn to adapt, improvise and overcome. If all I have is my semi aotumatic M1A with 10 rnds magazine and i have to go after one of the best train military in the world with let's just say 3 rnd burst AR 15. Then what i'll do is engage them from a far and shoot and run. Of course during all this i'll be praying on top of my lungs that their own sniper don't tag me :D

As far as having even playing field, the reality is we will never have an even playing field. Hypothetically speaking if we have to go against our own military even with the same weapon that they have it's still not going to be an even playing field because majority of us don't have the same training they have.
Training is something we can control. A government oppressing us and making sure we don't have the means to have a say, by making sure we can only own sub-par firearms is not something we can control (even though the government is SUPPOSED TO do what we want-- haha yeah right).

The taking of our firearms, the restrictions on types of semi autos and magazines are simply a way for the government to keep us under their command. Criminals will continue to illegally obtain and USE whatever firearms they want. To suggest that criminals have ever legally purchased, registered and owned any weapons used in a crime is pure stupidity.

The only people being controlled here are the law abiding people that allow themselves to be controlled. The people that have never been, (or will ever be) the problem.

shooterx10
05-23-2006, 4:57 PM
If we ever have to go up against our own armed forces, aren't you worried about the weapons like the ones on the Future Weapons show on Discovery Channel be used on us? :eek: I can't imagine being chased by one of those little armed robots from last week's show. :rolleyes:

But then again, the colonists during the American Revolution were a motley, undisciplined bunch of militiamen. The French helped in discipline and training of the colonists into a fighting force.

If push comes to shove, I think by that time, it wouldn't matter if your offlist lowers are pinned or not. If it ever gets that far, it'll be time to stand up for your rights or kowtow down to the powers that want to oppress you.

artherd
05-23-2006, 5:40 PM
You guys keep your full auto AKs/ARs. I'll have an AC-130 or six please.

artherd
05-23-2006, 5:55 PM
True -- to protect life, you don't need the same weapons as the military. To protect property, you need even less if you don't want to end up in jail.

To protect liberty and freedom, it would be helpful to have something comparable to the military, otherwise it sure will be bloody for the underdogs.

True, I don't need exact parity with what the military has. I need something better :D

hoffmang
05-23-2006, 8:23 PM
I'll take 4 hackers, a rack of linux boxes, a large generator, and a large array of antennas. Add in a couple guys with good sniper scopes and a couple guys who can sneak around and I'll hack/social engineer/trojan/brute force the crypto into the AWACs Freq and we'll have your AC-130's on order.

I just want small arms keeping people away from the portable data center...

IED... bah... Locally moving GPS is far more interesting.

Da_shotcaller
05-24-2006, 8:45 AM
And a bolt action .22 would be "be good enough if that's all we have." But in reality, no. It's not good enough.

Training is something we can control. A government oppressing us and making sure we don't have the means to have a say, by making sure we can only own sub-par firearms is not something we can control (even though the government is SUPPOSED TO do what we want-- haha yeah right).

The taking of our firearms, the restrictions on types of semi autos and magazines are simply a way for the government to keep us under their command. Criminals will continue to illegally obtain and USE whatever firearms they want. To suggest that criminals have ever legally purchased, registered and owned any weapons used in a crime is pure stupidity.

The only people being controlled here are the law abiding people that allow themselves to be controlled. The people that have never been, (or will ever be) the problem.

Don't worry they will atleast let us have a semi auto .22 lr. They won't restrict you to a bolt action .22 :D .

As far as our gov't oppressing us don't worry it's not going to happen. You just need to relax and stop thinking about all this things.

MsJamie
05-24-2006, 9:38 AM
Hypothetically speaking if we have to go against our own military even with the same weapon that they have it's still not going to be an even playing field because majority of us don't have the same training they have.

Well, it's certainly not going to be one-sided.

It's true that few of us will have a chance if we go up against a Special Forces unit, but that's an extremely small percentage of our military.

I've been through Army training, and while it enabled me to shoot at man-sized targets, I wouldn't have been able to pass the Boy Scouts Rifle Shooting merit badge requirements. I spent far more time learning how to polish my boots and pick up cigarette butts than practicing at the shooting range. I estimate I put about a thousand rounds downrange during the three years I was in, and I've done several times that number as a civilian this past year. Anyone who puts more than a box of ammo downrange in a year, or any avid hunter, will certainly be able to hold his/her own against the average "grunt".

Also, history has shown that if a standing army is directed to take up arms against its own countrymen, a large percentage of the troops refuse to do so. I wouldn't expect the US to be any different.

wangankin
05-24-2006, 10:14 AM
I'll take 4 hackers, a rack of linux boxes, a large generator, and a large array of antennas. Add in a couple guys with good sniper scopes and a couple guys who can sneak around and I'll hack/social engineer/trojan/brute force the crypto into the AWACs Freq and we'll have your AC-130's on order.

I just want small arms keeping people away from the portable data center...

IED... bah... Locally moving GPS is far more interesting.

5cr1p7 k1dd13

bwiese
05-24-2006, 10:21 AM
IED... bah... Locally moving GPS is far more interesting.

Disrupting unencrypted (non-PPS) GPS is a bit more likely now. GPS signal simulator test gear is sometimes available on the used market and could be used to distort the environment (as opposed to simple jamming) around personal/commercial non-hardened GPS units (hacking GPS ankle bracelets? ;) )

hoffmang
05-24-2006, 1:52 PM
And betting on bad procurement for the military means that the local troops are using Garmins too...

bwiese
05-24-2006, 1:55 PM
And betting on bad procurement for the military means that the local troops are using Garmins too...

That's a bet you'd lose. Milspec GPS units have completely different software.

Troops have been warned to not rely on self-purchased GPS units as the software isn't designed to be resistant to spoofing/antijam measures.

Glasshat
05-24-2006, 3:00 PM
If for some strange reason (like hillary became POTUS) and the US Army was directed to crack down on US citizens, you wouldn't have to worry about where you are going to get FA weapons, mortars, mines, stinger missles, etc. to defend yourself. The Chicoms, Fidel Castro, Russian mafia, Mexican mafia, Hugo Chavez, France, and every low-life dictator in the world will be at the border ready, willing and able to sell you anything and everything you want. Remember: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

phish
06-01-2006, 7:49 PM
I talked with a SJPD buddy of mine. They haven't gotten "the memo" and a couple officers that he knows that would deal with this kind of stuff haven't gotten or heard of it yet either.

I have a feeling they're too busy dealing with the VNs, Nortenos, Surenos, etc. to give a crap. :D

hoffmang
06-01-2006, 8:30 PM
Bill:

My bet isn't that the milspec ones aren't jam proof. They are. I'm saying the army created the acronym SNAFU to describe their supply chain. Its telling that command had to tell them to not rely on Civy GPS units. That was my joke.

Santa Cruz Armory
06-18-2006, 5:47 PM
FWIW, I talked to a good friend at the CHP today and he said that thier agency hasn't received any memos regarding OLLs.

We talked at length about the OLL situation, he's aware that they're out there and doesn't see any problem with them. He also said that if he saw/ found one during a stop that he would inspect it and return it if it was determined to be a legally configured OLL.

This isn't a breakthrough, but it's nice to know that there are some LEOs aware of whats going on, and that thier on our side.:)

jemaddux
06-18-2006, 6:46 PM
FWIW, I talked to a good friend at the CHP today and he said that thier agency hasn't received any memos regarding OLLs.

We talked at length about the OLL situation, he's aware that they're out there and doesn't see any problem with them. He also said that if he saw/ found one during a stop that he would inspect it and return it if it was determined to be a legally configured OLL.

This isn't a breakthrough, but it's nice to know that there are some LEOs aware of whats going on, and that thier on our side.:)


Well on a good note also, I worked with the guys over at Santa Monica PD and Harbor Patrol which is also part of Santa Monica PD around the pier. Both said as long as the mag is fixed, can't come out by push of button, they are legal as far as they were concerned. The most importent thing they wanted to know is where to get them:D .

tenpercentfirearms
06-18-2006, 7:34 PM
The most importent thing they wanted to know is where to get them .I think that is the reaction of most law enforcement and I like it! :D

SemiAutoSam
06-18-2006, 7:39 PM
I guess Ill have to call them and let them know where to get them. Im assuming their talking about the locks.

A cop can afford a quality MAG-LOCK©® right?

Santa Cruz Armory
06-18-2006, 8:20 PM
FWIW, I talked to a good friend at the CHP today and he said that thier agency hasn't received any memos regarding OLLs.

We talked at length about the OLL situation, he's aware that they're out there and doesn't see any problem with them. He also said that if he saw/ found one during a stop that he would inspect it and return it if it was determined to be a legally configured OLL.

This isn't a breakthrough, but it's nice to know that there are some LEOs aware of whats going on, and that thier on our side.:)


Also, I was thinking that it must not be too much of a priority for the DOJ if the CHP hadn't heard about it yet being a state agency and all...

PLINK
06-18-2006, 9:29 PM
FWIW, I talked to a good friend at the CHP today and he said that thier agency hasn't received any memos regarding OLLs.

We talked at length about the OLL situation, he's aware that they're out there and doesn't see any problem with them. He also said that if he saw/ found one during a stop that he would inspect it and return it if it was determined to be a legally configured OLL.

This isn't a breakthrough, but it's nice to know that there are some LEOs aware of whats going on, and that thier on our side.:)

Did you both talk about an OLL with no evil features with detachable mag? If you did, just wondering what his thoughts were on the matter.

lh2soda
06-18-2006, 9:57 PM
If for some strange reason (like hillary became POTUS) and the US Army was directed to crack down on US citizens, you wouldn't have to worry about where you are going to get FA weapons, mortars, mines, stinger missles, etc. to defend yourself. The Chicoms, Fidel Castro, Russian mafia, Mexican mafia, Hugo Chavez, France, and every low-life dictator in the world will be at the border ready, willing and able to sell you anything and everything you want. Remember: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


so you would bow down to your real daddies when we are having a DOMESTIC dispute?!

Santa Cruz Armory
06-18-2006, 11:01 PM
Did you both talk about an OLL with no evil features with detachable mag? If you did, just wondering what his thoughts were on the matter.


No, we didn't get into that. We did discuss the fixed mag/ flop top loading issue and he understood that. I explained it to him as he was looking at his AR-15 in the patrol car (he was on duty). It made it a little easier for him to visualize what I was talking about.

As for no evil features/ detatchable mag, my thoughts are that there is nothing illegal about it. If your OLL doesn't have the generic AW features (pistol grip,flash hider, tele stock, etc.) than its not an AW. If someone is really worried about that issue, evil featureless is the way to go.

JMHO~

midnitereaper
06-19-2006, 9:41 AM
If we ever have to go up against our own armed forces, aren't you worried about the weapons like the ones on the Future Weapons show on Discovery Channel be used on us? :eek: I can't imagine being chased by one of those little armed robots from last week's show. :rolleyes:

But then again, the colonists during the American Revolution were a motley, undisciplined bunch of militiamen. The French helped in discipline and training of the colonists into a fighting force.

If push comes to shove, I think by that time, it wouldn't matter if your offlist lowers are pinned or not. If it ever gets that far, it'll be time to stand up for your rights or kowtow down to the powers that want to oppress you.

I thought our colonial militia was very effective against the British because they used gorilla tactics. Didn't the French just give us supplies and help us on the seas? Does anyone know if we still have patriotic militias now?

kick Z tail out
06-19-2006, 12:07 PM
No big surprise though... Since when does the CHP know ANYTHING? Idiots are barely even peace officers... You have to use the term loosely.

glen avon
06-19-2006, 12:18 PM
I thought our colonial militia was very effective against the British because they used gorilla tactics.

you mean like throwing bananas at the brits?

bwiese
06-19-2006, 12:20 PM
No big surprise though... Since when does the CHP know ANYTHING? Idiots are barely even peace officers... You have to use the term loosely.

Um they do hire a higher standard of person I hear - a bit higher testing profile, etc.

I'm not really pro-cop (or, rather, not pro-gov't-employee with lifetime guaranteed pensions) but the CHiPpies I've seen - on average! - do seem a bit sharper that local yokel cops. Lotsa ex-mil types go to CHP, which helps raise the bar too.

Clodbuster
06-19-2006, 12:35 PM
I can outshoot my friends who had military training( Army and Marines). Even had to help one of them adjust the sights on his AR at the range, since they apparently used some special targets and aiming methodolgy in the service that isn't available to civillians. They only went through basic training, though one of them has a riflemans badge.

Clod



Well, it's certainly not going to be one-sided.

It's true that few of us will have a chance if we go up against a Special Forces unit, but that's an extremely small percentage of our military.

I've been through Army training, and while it enabled me to shoot at man-sized targets, I wouldn't have been able to pass the Boy Scouts Rifle Shooting merit badge requirements. I spent far more time learning how to polish my boots and pick up cigarette butts than practicing at the shooting range. I estimate I put about a thousand rounds downrange during the three years I was in, and I've done several times that number as a civilian this past year. Anyone who puts more than a box of ammo downrange in a year, or any avid hunter, will certainly be able to hold his/her own against the average "grunt".

Also, history has shown that if a standing army is directed to take up arms against its own countrymen, a large percentage of the troops refuse to do so. I wouldn't expect the US to be any different.

paradox
06-19-2006, 12:37 PM
you mean like throwing bananas at the brits?

This is war not slap stick comedy we're talking about, so the tactics of a gorilla militia member would likely include chest beating, lots of hooting and a false charge or two followed by grabbing the Brit’s wench and climbing the tallest building around. Don’t worry, she’ll be safe: gorillas actually have quite small penises.

:D

Clodbuster
06-19-2006, 12:38 PM
If they start throwing poo, that would break their spirits. Brits always like their uniforms clean and spiffy.

Clod

you mean like throwing bananas at the brits?

kick Z tail out
06-19-2006, 1:09 PM
Um they do hire a higher standard of person I hear - a bit higher testing profile, etc.

I'm not really pro-cop (or, rather, not pro-gov't-employee with lifetime guaranteed pensions) but the CHiPpies I've seen - on average! - do seem a bit sharper that local yokel cops. Lotsa ex-mil types go to CHP, which helps raise the bar too.
Things must be quite different up there... Deputies and PD officers are a lot better at doing real law enforcement. I think years of being overpaid meter maids dulls the tactical sense of CHP officers (assuming they knew what they were doing to begin with).

It's always CHP officers that I see making mistakes, they have bad officer safety instincts, and in general seem to have forgotten everything about being a real cop after years of just driving around picking on Joe Citizen.