PDA

View Full Version : If DOJ and the DAs Don't Know....


Forever-A-Soldier
06-23-2006, 9:40 PM
what is or is not an obvious Assault Weapon, then what do we have to worry about when it comes to Off List Rifles? After reading many of the threads of letters, emails and correspondence with DOJ, various District Attorneys, etc... they all seem to have one thing in common. "We can't say, contact a lawyer." Which means to me, the DOJ and DA don't know themselves! The DOJ passes the buck to the DAs, the DAs pass the buck to the gun owner and say, "Contact a lawyer." Lawyers only go on what the Courts and the LAW says. I honestly suspect that most of us who have researched this, with great help and clarification from people like Bill W. and others, know more than the DOJ, DAs and Lawyers.

I'm not going to spend one more minute worrying about the "what ifs" of the DOJ and the DA. I feel covered as long as I follow SB23/Roberti-Roos/Kasler, etc. by the "letter of the law."

F.A.S. Out

PanzerAce
06-23-2006, 9:53 PM
you know, its kinda wierd, but the more I read and hear about people at ranges with OLLs that are not SB-23 compliant, the more it seems to me that this might be turning into a similar situation that I have heard 922(r) is in (That IS the import vs. US parts, right?) on the federal level. Where it is technically a law, but no one has ever been busted for it.

leelaw
06-23-2006, 10:05 PM
you know, its kinda wierd, but the more I read and hear about people at ranges with OLLs that are not SB-23 compliant, the more it seems to me that this might be turning into a similar situation that I have heard 922(r) is in (That IS the import vs. US parts, right?) on the federal level. Where it is technically a law, but no one has ever been busted for it.

I'm pretty sure I read about a couple dealers who were assembling non-compliant rifles and the ATF busted them for it.. Was a year or more ago.

tenpercentfirearms
06-23-2006, 10:28 PM
I'm pretty sure I read about a couple dealers who were assembling non-compliant rifles and the ATF busted them for it.. Was a year or more ago.Yeah, but how many end users got busted? How many guys slip parts on their guns and never get in trouble for it?

This is the best thread I have read in a while. Not because I want people to go build OLLs that violate SB23, but because the original poster said exactly what is going on. We know we are following the law. We know the DOJ is full of crap.

We didn't get our quick AW list and that is fine. We got fully functional AR15s into the state, cheaper than FAB-10s, and they are 100% legal. Everyone go out and get one. Then buy another. Enjoy your guns, keep them legal, and don't sweat anything. We are better off than we were in November of 2005. That is a fact.

Ryan HBC
06-23-2006, 10:39 PM
I agree. I have read the law, and I understand and respect it. I am a good citizen and have no desire to be a criminal. The DOJ, their lies and their "memo" scare tactics can blow me.

When I hear of some people getting in trouble for rifles sporting conversions, maybe I will reconsider. As of now, nobody in the community has had anything confiscated, let alone been prosecuted. Just doesn't seem possible from my amateur legal standpoint.

God dammit I love my new AR's.

PanzerAce
06-23-2006, 10:51 PM
I'm pretty sure I read about a couple dealers who were assembling non-compliant rifles and the ATF busted them for it.. Was a year or more ago.

true, but no individuals got busted that I have heard about. Im sure its the same way with this, if a dealer does it, the DOJ is going to show, but people's personal accounts seem to make it clear that its almost a non-issue

sac7000
06-23-2006, 11:03 PM
I encourage everybody to go out and visit their local DA. Bring your document copies, DOJ memos, letters of approval and everything else that passes the buck down to the " 58 DA's "

Ask for their opinions. Watch their heads spin as they show you the door and tell you please don't come back anymore because they just don't know. That maybe you should "hire" a lawyer to find the answer for you.

It will be the best 15 minutes you'll spend all week, I promise. And after it's over, grab your OLL, head out to the range and have a good time. You earned it.

24thMED
06-23-2006, 11:46 PM
It's funny, I was thinking about this the other day as I was sending some rounds down range with my OLL AR-15 with the fixed mag. I have had it to the range numerous times and no one has given me a second look. I haven't even had any questions about it. I will leave it in this configuration, but guess what, NOBODY GIVES A nononono and I don't think they would if it was non-compliant either.

I guess the sky isn't going to fall afterall. I'll check back in two weeks.....

Mudvayne540ld
06-24-2006, 12:31 AM
my LPK is on its way.... along with the Prince 50.

Cant wait to take this sucker out to the range.... it will feel so damn good to shoot off an AR again :)


this is funny... look what I saw on this site:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ca

ATTORNEY GENERAL REGULATIONS
May Attorney General regulate guns? No

California: State law does not clearly authorize the Attorney General to independently regulate firearms or establish gun safety standards as part of the Attorney General?s responsibility to protect consumers.

It sure seems with this memo he is trying to regulate guns. hmmmm

50 Freak
06-24-2006, 1:22 AM
The problem with this train of thought is.

You use your OLL at the range and no one bats an eye. You assemble tons of OLL's and the DOJ aren't kicking down your door. You then get cockier with each passing day.

When you least expect it, you're pulled over one day for a broken tail light and the LE does a check of your car and pulls out your OLL, then off it goes to the DA who doesn't know crap about OLL.

To him it's "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....it is a duck". So you spend some time and money fighting to get your OLL back. In the end you probably will win, but at what cost?

Tens of thousands in legal defense, lost job, jail time?

I'm not saying to hide your OLL's and put on your tin foil hat. What I'm saying is not get cocky and be careful. We may have the law on our side, but now a days, laws don't seem to matter. If they did, the DOJ would have listed the OLL's months ago.

lpspinner
06-24-2006, 1:49 AM
this is funny... look what I saw on this site:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ca



From the website...

ASSAULT WEAPONS
Are there limitations on assault weapons and magazines? Yes

California - State law restricts the sale of all semiautomatic assault weapons that have specific military features such as pistol grips and folding stocks as well as a list of assault weapons and their copies such as the AK47 and Uzi. People who owned such assault weapons prior to the law are required to register the weapons and may not sell or give them to anyone else in the state. State law also restricts the sale of rapid-fire ammunition magazines in excess of 10 rounds.

Does this mean if I follow the range's 1 shot every 3 seconds rule or the "No Rapid fire" rule, I can have a larger Mag because I not using a rapid-fire mag?

tygerpaw
06-24-2006, 7:19 AM
Since the DOJ and the DA's dont know what is legal or isnt, sounds like good shot at another favorable supreme court ruling (like Harrott), once there is a test case. (I just dont want to be that test case! :eek: )

sac7000
06-24-2006, 8:00 AM
my LPK is on its way.... along with the Prince 50.

Cant wait to take this sucker out to the range.... it will feel so damn good to shoot off an AR again :)


this is funny... look what I saw on this site:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=ca



It sure seems with this memo he is trying to regulate guns. hmmmm

Very interesting... is that regulate or " pretend regulate? "

Cato
06-24-2006, 10:34 AM
We are better off than we were in November of 2005. That is a fact.

That is for sure. I remember when I set off to get a lower, my goal was JUST to get it. Not to get it on a list so I could built it up or to get the AW ban repealed. Now I really do want the latter two to occur, but I guess we can count our blessings.

Forever-A-Soldier
06-24-2006, 10:59 AM
I think our situation is a lot like 922R, except (as 50 Freak mentioned) we can't get too cocky or start to break the law by not fixing mags or removing pistol grips (depending on how we want to configure our weapons.)

Remember that generally every arrest starts with you and a LEO. So first is we need to educate the LEOs in our area (range, town, etc.) that Off List Rifles are LEGAL and we are COMPLYING WITH THE LAW AS WRITTEN. The pro-gun LEOs aren't going to care or will ask how they can get in on the fun and the anti-gun LEOs will think twice before arresting anyone for LEGAL weapons. In the meantime, remember that a DA has to decide to prosecute you. That means time, money, effort, etc. The best defense against him wanting to pursue the case is for us, in the event we are falsely arrested for a compliant rifle, is to say, "O.k... let's take this to trial. I know the law, my gun is compliant. I want a public defender and we'll drag this out to a jury trial wasting your time and mine. Here, read this (pass them the great write up by Bill Wiese). Now are you sure you want to move forward with trying to prosecute a case you are certain to loose? Don't you have REAL CRIMINALS to try and convict like drug dealers, rapists, robbers and repeat offenders?"

Again, as long as we follow THE LETTER OF THE LAW and not what the ANTI-GUNNERS WANTED FOR A LAW, we are good to go.

Imagine a year from now when your Range is filled with Off List Rifles and no one even grumbles or mumbles about "illegal assault weapons." I for one am not going to feed into the ANTI-GUNNERS fantasies of "Evil Looking = Evil Weapon." I suggest none of the rest of us do that either.

F.A.S. Out

Ryan HBC
06-24-2006, 1:38 PM
The problem with this train of thought is.

You use your OLL at the range and no one bats an eye. You assemble tons of OLL's and the DOJ aren't kicking down your door. You then get cockier with each passing day.

When you least expect it, you're pulled over one day for a broken tail light and the LE does a check of your car and pulls out your OLL, then off it goes to the DA who doesn't know crap about OLL.

To him it's "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....it is a duck". So you spend some time and money fighting to get your OLL back. In the end you probably will win, but at what cost?

Tens of thousands in legal defense, lost job, jail time?

I'm not saying to hide your OLL's and put on your tin foil hat. What I'm saying is not get cocky and be careful. We may have the law on our side, but now a days, laws don't seem to matter. If they did, the DOJ would have listed the OLL's months ago.


You're right, this could happen. But to my knowledge, it hasn't happened. It seems to be a worst case scenario that is hypothetical at best. I don't see a need to be worried or cautious, but I may be a little cockier than the rest.

Then again, i'm not saying that I want to be the test case lol.

Omega13device
06-24-2006, 8:25 PM
they all seem to have one thing in common. "We can't say, contact a lawyer." Which means to me, the DOJ and DA don't know themselves!

I suspect the DOJ knows the law pretty well so I doubt that's the issue. More likely, they just don't want to tie the hands of the DAs with respect to law enforcement in their own counties. That doesn't prevent them from giving us basic guidance, but they don't want to go on record as categorically saying something is legal under all circumstances. Hence the letters we've all seen saying that xyz is "currently legal but any of the DAs may find it illegal." It just leaves things open for the DAs to do their jobs.

As for contacting a lawyer, that is just good advice.

xenophobe
06-24-2006, 9:27 PM
I think our situation is a lot like 922R, except (as 50 Freak mentioned) we can't get too cocky or start to break the law by not fixing mags or removing pistol grips (depending on how we want to configure our weapons.)

Not true. 922r compliance is in regards to manufacturing a firearm, and there are no penalties for owning a non-922r compliant firearm. It may be considered contraband, and it may be confiscated as such, but there are no penalites for owning or selling one as a private party. No private individual has ever been arrested for 922r violations.

People have been prosecuted for DWCL'89 and SB-23 violations and have been punished for it...

That is a world of difference, IMO.

chris
06-25-2006, 9:35 AM
we can go on and on about this. we all know this law was pushed out of the legislature and signed by davis. we knew this was a horribly written law to begin with. DA's are confused like the rest of us. i too have a registered so called "assault weapon". i take to the range and no one bats an eye at it. i followed the law. i have my "papers" on me for it. but police at the range don't think twice either.

this whole assault weapons law is crap from the get go. roberti roos is a joke also. hopefully one day this law is struck down. but like what has been said here don't get cocky about i would not want to see anyone here become the test case. also if it does happen the media and the morons who write this crap will write and pass another stupid law. there are enough dumb laws here allready.

good luck to you all. have fun at the range.

swift
06-25-2006, 8:22 PM
The problem with this train of thought is.

You use your OLL at the range and no one bats an eye. You assemble tons of OLL's and the DOJ aren't kicking down your door. You then get cockier with each passing day.

When you least expect it, you're pulled over one day for a broken tail light and the LE does a check of your car and pulls out your OLL, then off it goes to the DA who doesn't know crap about OLL.

To him it's "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....it is a duck". So you spend some time and money fighting to get your OLL back. In the end you probably will win, but at what cost?

Tens of thousands in legal defense, lost job, jail time?

I'm not saying to hide your OLL's and put on your tin foil hat. What I'm saying is not get cocky and be careful. We may have the law on our side, but now a days, laws don't seem to matter. If they did, the DOJ would have listed the OLL's months ago.



While I agree that this could happen, I have asked about a dozen local LEOs about OLL and their opinion. The ones that know about them tell me they're fine to have as long as they're kept legal. The one who didn't know so much just said to watch the number of features. I have the impression that most of the local police don't really care about this. Federal law enforcement officers have told me that they do not care at all (and even extend their sympathy) b/c the federal AW ban expired.

As it has been said before, it really comes down to attitude. I've been stopped twice for infractions in the past 15 years. I'm polite with the cop, and, when carrying (in a free state), I inform them as soon as they approach the car. Warnings both times, and one of them was in an area known for ridiculous speed traps (58 in a 55 = ticket).

If a cop thinks I have an AW, I expect then I'll be taking a trip to the station. I'm also capable of funding my legal defense, if need be, although it would piss me off to spend $10-$30K (or more) in legal fees. I would not expect jail time or a loss of my job - I figure the worst case is that I then lose my CA-compliant rifle.

kick Z tail out
06-26-2006, 12:26 PM
what is or is not an obvious Assault Weapon, then what do we have to worry about when it comes to Off List Rifles? After reading many of the threads of letters, emails and correspondence with DOJ, various District Attorneys, etc... they all seem to have one thing in common. "We can't say, contact a lawyer." Which means to me, the DOJ and DA don't know themselves! The DOJ passes the buck to the DAs, the DAs pass the buck to the gun owner and say, "Contact a lawyer." Lawyers only go on what the Courts and the LAW says. I honestly suspect that most of us who have researched this, with great help and clarification from people like Bill W. and others, know more than the DOJ, DAs and Lawyers.

I'm not going to spend one more minute worrying about the "what ifs" of the DOJ and the DA. I feel covered as long as I follow SB23/Roberti-Roos/Kasler, etc. by the "letter of the law."

F.A.S. Out
Amen :cool: