PDA

View Full Version : This has been tried before......


jemaddux
06-27-2006, 2:20 PM
From 2000

Comments expressed concern about the use of the term "magazine," which is often erroneously used to describe clips that are used to load ammunition into a fixed magazine. Recognizing that to be true, the Department changed the word "magazine" to the statutory term "ammunition feeding device" (PC section 12276.1(c)(1)). The Department also added the phrase "without disassembly of the firearm action" as a result of public comment stating that there are firearms with fixed magazines that can be field stripped (disassembled in the field) without using any tools (such as the M1 Garand). Including those firearms in the definition of a "detachable magazine" would have been inconsistent with the legislative intent of the statute. Several comments were made that claimed that an assault weapon pursuant to PC section 12276 has a detachable magazine requiring the use of a bullet tip or cartridge to remove it from the firearm.


This has been all tried before. Letter writing changed it then and it can change it now. If you do nothing we get nothing and we lose big time. At least you know you tried if you sit and write letters regarding all this. Be to the point that you don't want your firearm damaged be doing this fix. Explain your point clearly but most important, SEND LETTERS AND TELL YOUR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME......



Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
Attn: Jeff Amador or Troy Perry
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 2:25 PM
If you care to do a little more reading on final hearings back in 2000 here is the link showing you your words do count here.

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/fsor.htm

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 2:26 PM
Preparing my letter right now, will post it here when complete for comments/additions/revisions.

ETA: I may have found a possible angle to "attack" this from!

Stanze
06-27-2006, 2:59 PM
This is going to be challenging since political special interest groups have high-jacked the state's highest law enforcement agency.:mad:

PanzerAce
06-27-2006, 3:00 PM
This is going to be challenging since political special interest groups have high-jacked the state's highest law enforcement agency.:mad:

Actually, it seems to me that the vast majority of special interest groups seem to want nothing to do with this situation. I think they have realized that this situation has run away from any change they might have affected.

Stanze
06-27-2006, 3:04 PM
Actually, it seems to me that the vast majority of special interest groups seem to want nothing to do with this situation. I think they have realized that this situation has run away from any change they might have affected.

No reason to, they've done plenty of damage already. My point was that the DOJ has made up it's mind and is just going through "due process" before screwing us even more, this time officially. Not to lay down and take it, but it's clear they are interested in enforcing more than the law allows at the current time because they are politically motivated(i.e. Going out of their way to screw us.)

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 3:41 PM
No reason to, they've done plenty of damage already. My point was that the DOJ has made up it's mind and is just going through "due process" before screwing us even more, this time officially. Not to lay down and take it, but it's clear they are interested in enforcing more than the law allows at the current time because they are politically motivated(i.e. Going out of their way to screw us.)


The problem is, if you do lay down and take it your going to lose your Mini 14, your SKS, your M1 and the list keeps going. You may still lose in the end but at least you can say you have done everything you can to fight them. People sit here every day typing posts but can't sit down and type a letter and send it off saying they object to this. Prove this guy wrong, he stated he doesn't feel he will get any letters objecting. Get out and do something for your own rights that are being taken.

leelaw
06-27-2006, 3:52 PM
The problem is, if you do lay down and take it your going to lose your Mini 14, your SKS, your M1 and the list keeps going. You may still lose in the end but at least you can say you have done everything you can to fight them. People sit here every day typing posts but can't sit down and type a letter and send it off saying they object to this. Prove this guy wrong, he stated he doesn't feel he will get any letters objecting. Get out and do something for your own rights that are being taken.

To clarify - this addition to the CCR will NOT ban Mini-14s or M1As unless you put pistol grips oor other evil features on them.

SKSs will certainly be screwed, however, since the CCR "update" would deem them to be detachable-mag SKSs, which are specifically banned.

That aside, I think we should flood the office with letters, but make them more well informed, and factual than saying "you're going to ban my M1A you rat bastard!!"

Fix-mag FAL, G3, etc.. owners should be concerned, here, too.

mow
06-27-2006, 4:12 PM
To clarify - this addition to the CCR will NOT ban Mini-14s or M1As unless you put pistol grips oor other evil features on them.

SKSs will certainly be screwed, however, since the CCR "update" would deem them to be detachable-mag SKSs, which are specifically banned.

That aside, I think we should flood the office with letters, but make them more well informed, and factual than saying "you're going to ban my M1A you rat bastard!!"

Fix-mag FAL, G3, etc.. owners should be concerned, here, too.

Actually it is very much possible that the AG can list the mini 14 as an AW if there is no judicial process that would be responsible for declaring firearms assault weapons. It is not a given, but still very much possible.

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 4:35 PM
To clarify - this addition to the CCR will NOT ban Mini-14s or M1As unless you put pistol grips oor other evil features on them.

SKSs will certainly be screwed, however, since the CCR "update" would deem them to be detachable-mag SKSs, which are specifically banned.

That aside, I think we should flood the office with letters, but make them more well informed, and factual than saying "you're going to ban my M1A you rat bastard!!"

Fix-mag FAL, G3, etc.. owners should be concerned, here, too.

It could and would be a start for a Mini, M1 and so on ban.

The new wording reads;
(f)
“capacity to accept a detachable magazine” means capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.


You seem to forget that all it takes is, Center fire, detachable Mag AND pistol grip, flash suppressor, and so on. So you add a flash suppressor on your now legal SKS you now have an assult weapon with the new wording. All is takes is a few mintues and a kit from Cabalas or any number of places and you can make it to except a 30 Mag.

Same with the SOCOM 16, Mini 14, they will all be able to EXCEPT a detachable magazine.

As it is in the title, they already tried to do this once and for the same reason it was shot down. Read what I put.


This is a QUOTE:
The Department also added the phrase "without disassembly of the firearm action" as a result of public comment stating that there are firearms with fixed magazines that can be field stripped (disassembled in the field) without using any tools (such as the M1 Garand). Including those firearms in the definition of a "detachable magazine" would have been inconsistent with the legislative intent of the statute.

They have looked at this before and came to the same thing. If they get this done it will give them what they need to ban other stuff as they feel free to do. Write letters and emails, FLOOD THEM IN!!!!!!

Mail: Jeff Amador, Field Representative
Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200
or
Email: jeff.amador@doj.ca.gov

grammaton76
06-27-2006, 4:45 PM
That aside, I think we should flood the office with letters, but make them more well informed, and factual than saying "you're going to ban my M1A you rat bastard!!"

Fix-mag FAL, G3, etc.. owners should be concerned, here, too.

Don't forget the California-edition Barrett M82 with the hinge-open magazine.

leelaw
06-27-2006, 4:51 PM
Actually it is very much possible that the AG can list the mini 14 as an AW if there is no judicial process that would be responsible for declaring firearms assault weapons. It is not a given, but still very much possible.

You're talking abour something completely different than the issue at hand. There is no possible way that this addition to the regulations can ban Mini-14s or M1As. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

leelaw
06-27-2006, 4:56 PM
It could and would be a start for a Mini, M1 and so on ban.

The new wording reads;
(f)
“capacity to accept a detachable magazine” means capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.


You seem to forget that all it takes is, Center fire, detachable Mag AND pistol grip, flash suppressor, and so on. So you add a flash suppressor on your now legal SKS you now have an assult weapon with the new wording. All is takes is a few mintues and a kit from Cabalas or any number of places and you can make it to except a 30 Mag.

Same with the SOCOM 16, Mini 14, they will all be able to EXCEPT a detachable magazine.

As it is in the title, they already tried to do this once and for the same reason it was shot down. Read what I put.


This is a QUOTE:
The Department also added the phrase "without disassembly of the firearm action" as a result of public comment stating that there are firearms with fixed magazines that can be field stripped (disassembled in the field) without using any tools (such as the M1 Garand). Including those firearms in the definition of a "detachable magazine" would have been inconsistent with the legislative intent of the statute.

They have looked at this before and came to the same thing. If they get this done it will give them what they need to ban other stuff as they feel free to do. Write letters and emails, FLOOD THEM IN!!!!!!

Mail: Jeff Amador, Field Representative
Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200
or
Email: jeff.amador@doj.ca.gov

I'm not arguing that this addition is a good thing, if that is what you think.

I am fully aware of how the Mini-14s and M1As are one small flash hider (or other evil part) away from being an AW, however they have no relevence to this issue.

You are incorrect in your assumption that a legal-today SKS with a flash hider on it would turn into an AW because of this definition change because of the flash hider - a detachable magazine SKS is banned. Period. End of story.

Assault Weapons:
.....
12276(a)(11)SKS with detachable magazine...


I agree that this office should be flooded with letters, and I'm trying to spread the word elsewhere, however don't put inaccurate information down in order to gain support, and don't add it to your letters.

Charliegone
06-27-2006, 5:01 PM
Well, I have an idea. Why don't we get one of the pro-gun legislatures to write up a bill that would ALLOW for 1 aw feature instead of the none we have now. This will most certainly clear up A LOT of things and would not be such a waste of time. Also..it would be a good idea to get rid of the Roberti-Roos act. It is outdated and most of those guns are collectibles if not extremely expensive.

In other words...change this...

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

TO

this

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics:

With the way this state is going this might be the only chance we get.

grammaton76
06-27-2006, 5:07 PM
Well, I have an idea. Why don't we get one of the pro-gun legislatures to write up a bill that would ALLOW for 1 aw feature instead of the none we have now. This will most certainly clear up A LOT of things and would not be such a waste of time. Also..it would be a good idea to get rid of the Roberti-Roos act. It is outdated and most of those guns are collectibles if not extremely expensive.

Naw, this would be doing something nice for us. Bear in mind that if our "rulers" were giving out free lemonade, and saw us coming to get ours, they'd pour it all out on the sidewalk rather than let any of us have it. They'd rather go through six levels of hell to try and maintain the status quo, than to simply give an inch.

Charliegone
06-27-2006, 5:09 PM
Naw, this would be doing something nice for us. Bear in mind that if our "rulers" were giving out free lemonade, and saw us coming to get ours, they'd pour it all out on the sidewalk rather than let any of us have it. They'd rather go through six levels of hell to try and maintain the status quo, than to simply give an inch.


Yes, BUT it would look REALLy bad for them if they make 30,000 plus people into felons.:D

Charliegone
06-27-2006, 5:11 PM
This change would not make the SKS have a detachable magazine, but only give it the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, which would still require one more evil feature to be an AW. So that Tapco stock with the fixed magazine is now evil! The DOJ thinks the law is not confusing enough as is and they are going to help it along with this nonsense.

Exactly, why are they doing this to themselves? If they did it MY way everyone will be happy.:D

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 5:18 PM
I have an idea. We know we want to get active for this comment period and get as many people to comment as possible. The only thing is I am not a lawyer and I don't know the best way to go about this. Why don't we wait a week or two and lets see if we can't talk to some lawyers and get a good draft going.

I think we have been doing better on here lately with thinking of the bigger picture and not telecasting our comments to the DOJ and the legislature, lets keep it up. So I propose we wait a week, see what happens and who we can talk to, then lets move together.

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 5:20 PM
I'm not arguing that this addition is a good thing, if that is what you think.

I am fully aware of how the Mini-14s and M1As are one small flash hider (or other evil part) away from being an AW, however they have no relevence to this issue.

You are incorrect in your assumption that a legal-today SKS with a flash hider on it would turn into an AW because of this definition change because of the flash hider - a detachable magazine SKS is banned. Period. End of story.

Assault Weapons:
.....
12276(a)(11)SKS with detachable magazine...


I agree that this office should be flooded with letters, and I'm trying to spread the word elsewhere, however don't put inaccurate information down in order to gain support, and don't add it to your letters.



Its not inaccurate, yes what you are saying is correct that an SKS with DETACHABLE MAGAZINE is aready banded. But if they change the wording the way that they want:

(f)“capacity to accept a detachable magazine” means capable of accommodating a detachable magazine, but shall not be construed to include a firearm that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate a detachable magazine.

This is how it is currently writen. The SKS "WITH" the use of a tool could accept a magazine. So if it has "CAPACITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE", it would be an assult weapon. Not if it HAS a detachable, only if it CAN EXCEPT a detachable even with the use of a tool. The SKS is not permanently altered, it could with a small amount of work ACCEPT A MAG.

You have to remember this is how they are going to think and they already tried this with the ARs so now they are going to make it work for them the same as they will with other firearms. They have already made themselves clear that they want firearms band from this state. No better way of doing it then to keep limiting what you can buy.

Now, lets just say we agree we disagree with this but for better good we start writing letters to DOJ and EMAILS. If their email is still excepting email we are not sending enough complaints!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mail: Jeff Amador, Field Representative
Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200
or
Email: jeff.amador@doj.ca.gov

NRAhighpowershooter
06-27-2006, 5:21 PM
es, BUT it would look REALLy bad for them if they make 30,000 plus people into felons

Politicians and the DOJ could care less if they make us felons.......

grammaton76
06-27-2006, 5:29 PM
Yes, BUT it would look REALLy bad for them if they make 30,000 plus people into felons.:D

How many people do you think decided not to register their AW's back in 1989 or 2000? How many felons do you think they created then?

I've been finding it interesting lately, how many guys I've been finding out have rifles they keep in the closet and don't let anyone see...

xenophobe
06-27-2006, 5:41 PM
In other words...change this...

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

TO

this

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following characteristics:

With the way this state is going this might be the only chance we get.

They cannot change the PC without having a bill pass both the Senate and Assembly and have the Governator sign it. So there is a bit of tin-foil-hattery going on here.

The only thing they can do is change definitions in the CCR.

bwiese
06-27-2006, 5:43 PM
Guys, let's please take this offline.

AB2728 is still brewing, we dunno if it's dead.

And we wanna not give reshaping ideas to DOJ until the actual comment meeting.

h

leelaw
06-27-2006, 6:03 PM
<snip>

I confess my error, I missed a bit of the definition.

Regardless, it's a bad thing.

I'm not sure I agree with the whole "keep quiet until the meeting" bullcrap - the DOJ needs to be slammed hard so they know that people are unhappy about this, and be given good reason to not reword like they are planning.


Personally, I do not trust someone else to show up and win them over, and will be sending letters about this.

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 6:24 PM
I confess my error, I missed a bit of the definition.

Regardless, it's a bad thing.

I'm not sure I agree with the whole "keep quiet until the meeting" bullcrap - the DOJ needs to be slammed hard so they know that people are unhappy about this, and be given good reason to not reword like they are planning.


Personally, I do not trust someone else to show up and win them over, and will be sending letters about this.


I agree 200%, let DOJ read all of this. MAYBE they will learn something about firearms. I will continue to write letters and I will be there Aug 16. I am tired of people saying they are going to do something then never do. EVERYONE NEEDS TO WRITE LETTERS AND EMAILS!!!!!!!!!!!

Just in case you missed it the last twenty times I but it:

Mail: Jeff Amador, Field Representative
Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200
or
Email: jeff.amador@doj.ca.gov

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 6:25 PM
I confess my error, I missed a bit of the definition.

Regardless, it's a bad thing.

I'm not sure I agree with the whole "keep quiet until the meeting" bullcrap - the DOJ needs to be slammed hard so they know that people are unhappy about this, and be given good reason to not reword like they are planning.


Personally, I do not trust someone else to show up and win them over, and will be sending letters about this.


I agree 200%, let DOJ read all of this. MAYBE they will learn something about firearms. I will continue to write letters and I will be there Aug 16. I am tired of people saying they are going to do something then never do. EVERYONE NEEDS TO WRITE LETTERS AND EMAILS!!!!!!!!!!!

Just in case you missed it the last twenty times I posted it:

Mail: Jeff Amador, Field Representative
Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200
or
Email: jeff.amador@doj.ca.gov

Jicko
06-27-2006, 6:30 PM
Guys, let's please take this offline.

AB2728 is still brewing, we dunno if it's dead.

And we wanna not give reshaping ideas to DOJ until the actual comment meeting.

h

So, BWIESE...... what can we do!? We certainly can't just SIT, right?

Please advice.... please put up a STICKY, please update the FAQ.... I think a lot of us NEED something.....

bwiese
06-27-2006, 6:36 PM
Discussing contents & ridiculing an unenforceable memo is one thing.

Apparently some members here want to help the DOJ in their rulemaking by giving them information early, so they have time to rebut it, plan against it, come up with alternate strategies, etc.

Don't send your letters now, send them near the close of the period.

I and others will be in Sacramento on Aug 16(?)th, the hall will be full, for sure. It's 2000 all over again.

grammaton76
06-27-2006, 6:43 PM
Don't send your letters now, send them near the close of the period.

Ok, so - for the "I'll play nice and wait, but if I'm going to do that, I want a firm date" brigade, what do you recommend as the FIRST day we start sending letters?

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 7:00 PM
Like I said, we are going to send letters and we are going to be effective. We don't have to do it this week. Just wait one week is all I am asking so we can get a game plan going. We are most certainly going to write letters, no doubt about it. Just wait so we can make sure we write good letters. No one is suggesting we wait for the meeting and then do it. Just wait a week so we can make a game plan. Be patient.

grammaton76
06-27-2006, 7:08 PM
Like I said, we are going to send letters and we are going to be effective. We don't have to do it this week. Just wait one week is all I am asking so we can get a game plan going. We are most certainly going to write letters, no doubt about it. Just wait so we can make sure we write good letters. No one is suggesting we wait for the meeting and then do it. Just wait a week so we can make a game plan. Be patient.

I've got no problem with that - all I really want to see is "Let 'er rip; drop the letters in the post office boxes on the fourth of July" (which would be one week from today). Or some other well chosen date.

I'm noticing on the threads that the lack of a firm date is making some folks lean towards just writing letters *now* because the wait-and-see thing is irking them. I think folks will comply with a request that has a firm deadline, but not with "two weeks!" (flashback to DOJ...) thing. Make sense? :)

Then, when folks start grumbling about how they're gonna write letters - just tell 'em to wait for the Fourth. You probably won't have people minding that; it's a perfectly reasonable time window, as opposed to coming off as "sit down and shut up, we're steering the boat".

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 7:25 PM
Apparently some members here want to help the DOJ in their rulemaking by giving them information early, so they have time to rebut it, plan against it, come up with alternate strategies, etc.

Don't send your letters now, send them near the close of the period.

I and others will be in Sacramento on Aug 16(?)th, the hall will be full, for sure. It's 2000 all over again.

You don't think they already have Strategies? Like I showed you, they already have been here and think they know what to say to make this happen. We need to keep them reminded we have been here also and are willing to fight.

I've already said I would be there Aug 16th, I have in no way mind to help DOJ. But what about you Bill? Are you going to be there? Who else is going to make a stand and make a commitment to be there? And I really mean a COMMITMENT to be there, not just words. I already told my wife to have the motorhome ready that I won't be around.

I disagree with waiting to send letters. If they start getting to many letters they might back off and reconsider. When they put things in they might have to say because of a major public response we had to reconsider this. Look at what phone calls and our response has done already. They have had to change game plans over and over. No matter what they have thought of doing we still have gotten our lowers. When they put out the memo regarding this everyone kept saying this was just a memo and nothing to worry about, well now its taken to the next step because we didn't do anything when it first came out, I'm sorry but I can't see any reason to wait for them to get closer to the third step. We wait and they suddenly change the date, then what do we do? All run for the post office in hopes? Send your letters and emails now. get them there and let them know how much of a fight they are in for. You want to start figuring out things in private, start figuring out how we can get some of this lost ground back.

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 7:33 PM
And by the way, why dosen't someone at least sticky the address and email information of who to write and email to:


jeff.amador@doj.ca.gov


Mail: Jeff Amador, Field Representative
Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section
P.O. Box 820200
Sacramento, CA 94203-0200


Hearing is currnetly set for 9:00am

Department of Water Resources auditorium located at 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California.

anotherone
06-27-2006, 8:08 PM
This is just one opinion on this subject, but wouldn't it be best to wait until August to start mailing letters? If we start sending well written and carefully thought out letters in July that gives them over a month to reflect on what they've recieved and adjust their position accordingly. If there's one think I've noticed from watching all this it's that the DOJ is taking advantage of our input whether we intend for it to be used in such a fashion or not.

Speaking of which we should probably close these threads and put a sticky in the forum with something to the effect of what Bill has said. It's 2000 all over again and it's time to put on our best poker face. It's going to be interesting to see if the NRA gets involved this time and how the DOJ decides to inform the press.

blkA4alb
06-27-2006, 8:12 PM
Anotherone, this is what Bill is saying, have you taken the time to read the posts in this thread before posting?

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 8:34 PM
James, we will write letters and we will write them soon. What should people say in their letters? What do they write? Do they just write a bunch of emotional garbage that really won't help? If not, then what do they write? That is why we should wait one week. Lets get some people to start posting up some letters they think will work, lets have some of us look at them and comment on them, then decide which themes will work best.

I am ready to head to Sacramento with you. That will probably my first week of school and I will probably have to take some sick time, but I am ready to go. You know I am a man of action, I was the first guy to publicly sell lowers at a gun show. My actions speak louder than my words.

So I am asking you nicely, give this a week. One week. Lets get a good game plan going, then lets act. They probably won't be reading them when they get there early next week anyway because of the July 4th holiday. By mid-July they will see we mean business, plenty of time before August 16th.

anotherone
06-27-2006, 8:36 PM
Anotherone, this is what Bill is saying, have you taken the time to read the posts in this thread before posting?

Which thread and which forum? There are about 4 threads going in two seperate forums now.

blkA4alb
06-27-2006, 8:44 PM
Which thread and which forum? There are about 4 threads going in two seperate forums now.
True, but I was referring to this one. The one you posted in. Just a couple posts up and you'll see the debate. :rolleyes:

Stanze
06-27-2006, 9:33 PM
Politicians and the DOJ could care less if they make us felons.......

That's what I've been trying to say, the DOJ ARE politicians! They are going out of their way to write law rather than enforce existing one!:mad:

xenophobe
06-27-2006, 9:43 PM
That's what I've been trying to say, the DOJ ARE politicians! They are going out of their way to write law rather than enforce existing one!:mad:

Actually, they're trying to circumvent the Harrott ruling, and trying to enforce the legislative intent of SB-23.

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 9:53 PM
James, we will write letters and we will write them soon. What should people say in their letters? What do they write? Do they just write a bunch of emotional garbage that really won't help? If not, then what do they write? That is why we should wait one week. Lets get some people to start posting up some letters they think will work, lets have some of us look at them and comment on them, then decide which themes will work best.

I am ready to head to Sacramento with you. That will probably my first week of school and I will probably have to take some sick time, but I am ready to go. You know I am a man of action, I was the first guy to publicly sell lowers at a gun show. My actions speak louder than my words.

So I am asking you nicely, give this a week. One week. Lets get a good game plan going, then lets act. They probably won't be reading them when they get there early next week anyway because of the July 4th holiday. By mid-July they will see we mean business, plenty of time before August 16th.

I agree on waiting a short while for some research to be done and best ways to hit this head on. Some stuff that needs to be found out is what was said regarding this in 2000 that made them rewrite what they had already done. I can only find out that they did rewrite it because it would bring the M1 and others into the AW arena. Things in the letter that need to be pointed out is the fact that welding these as they are wanting would damage them to the point of not being able to be used. Other things would be again the fact that other firearms would be brought in. AND STOP CALLING THEM WEAPONS ANYONE that is, they are firearms or rifles. Dealers need to discuss in a different letter the financial damage this could do losing the sales from parts, ammo, targets even sales of the lowers and ten round mags themselves.

If we can, we really need to find out what was said back in 2000 and see what help that can be to us. We really need to make a stand and that stand needs to be together, find yourself a battle buddy and see what we all can come up with.

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 9:57 PM
Actually, they're trying to circumvent the Harrott ruling, and trying to enforce the legislative intent of SB-23.


That is what nononononono has said all along. She intended to state an "INTENT" of SB23. They are also trying to prove that with modifcation the rifle can "EXCEPT" more then ten rounds. Its just a game, we can win this one but we really need to ALL work on this and we really need to work together.

TKo_Productions
06-27-2006, 10:43 PM
Look at what phone calls and our response has done already. They have had to change game plans over and over.

Do you know why they had to change game plans over and over? It's because of all the help we gave them. All of the discussion and debate we had regarding the impact of their memos assisted them. If we had kept our mouths shut, most likely they would have gone with the first memo, and all this would have been over by now.

When they put out the memo regarding this everyone kept saying this was just a memo and nothing to worry about, well now its taken to the next step because we didn't do anything when it first came out.

We didn't do anything because we had no legal course of action, we had no standing. But inevitably we did do plenty. I'm of the opinion that it was our feedback that helped influence the DOJ to pull the first memo and go with the second. At first, they were more than willing to execute their "statutory authority to identify "series" assault weapons." But once it was revealed that this would open up a registration window for newly "created" assault weapons, they immediately rescinded that idea.

I'm sorry but I can't see any reason to wait for them to get closer to the third step. We wait and they suddenly change the date, then what do we do? All run for the post office in hopes? Send your letters and emails now. get them there and let them know how much of a fight they are in for. You want to start figuring out things in private, start figuring out how we can get some of this lost ground back.

You don't have to look very far back to understand how our feedback only helps assists the DOJ formulate stronger counterarguments. Just look at how they replaced the first memo with the second. I'm not saying that the DOJ doesn't have their own opinions, thoughts, and ideas regarding all of this, but when we start discussing and debating the content of their proposed rule-making, it shows them precisely how we intend to attack. Why give the enemy a glimpse of our hand? Why do you want to preemptively let them know what points we're going to be bringing up at the public hearing? Do you want to give them over a month and half to come up with counterarguments? Lets not help them sort through the mess. Let them do the legal legwork themselves. When we're given the chance to speak on August 16th, let our arguments surprise them; rather than be a reiteration of stuff they've read in 10,000 letters before, all of which they've already constructed opposition to.

You seem to want to hand them an advanced copy of strategy, and for that reason I expect Bill, Ben, and others to remain eerily silent in the upcoming month and a half.

You definintely won't be hearing any contributions from myself (that is until August 16th).

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 10:47 PM
Actually we lost this battle back on December 11, 2005 when Shopkeep told Ignatus "Thanks a lot! I appreciate you listing them, that is exactly what I want!" He totally showed him our hand. Thanks a lot Shopkeep. :D

And thanks to the calguns filter that puts nononono on everything for making me spell everyone's names wrong now.

dawson8r
06-27-2006, 11:23 PM
Posted this in another thread:

Kind of like in college when you "borrow" a term paper to get some "ideas" to write your own paper. Since it worked in college, I'm willing to give it a try.

Someone suggested waiting until the 2nd week of August. I'd suggest a sticky thread get created around August 4 so the weekend of the 5th-6th can be a "draft" collection period (don't know about you but I seem to have more time on the weekends). Maybe some Admin help to narrow down and/or consolidate the suggestions/templates to about 5-6 then freeze the thread?

This should provide everybody the opportunity to read a few well thought out letter templates, mix and match to reflect their own views/opinions and a sufficient amount of time to put together their own personalized letter and get it mailed off.

Corrections:

1. "Someone" = 10%
2. Maybe a week earlier, say July 29-30?

jemaddux
06-28-2006, 11:09 AM
Actually we lost this battle back on December 11, 2005 when Shopkeep told Ignatus "Thanks a lot! I appreciate you listing them, that is exactly what I want!" He totally showed him our hand. Thanks a lot Shopkeep. :D

And thanks to the calguns filter that puts nononono on everything for making me spell everyone's names wrong now.


Do you really think they sit there wasting time reading this stuff? And do you accually think someone in DOJ hung up the phone and started running around saying this guy just called and said they want us to list so we will show him? Your tin hat is on a bit tight there:D .

They made a mistake posting the first memo. They figured out something we already knew and are now going how can we stop this. Like I already pointed out, they already tried this once six years ago and are going to try it again because they can't come up with a better idea. They also need to be showing they are doing something because when the 2728 hits and questions are asked the question MIGHT come up "Why wasn't something done before now?". I am agreeing with 10% to a point, give it a couple weeks max time but then start writing letters, making calls, emails, say you object to this and why. We stand to lose a lot of ground on this if we don't.

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2006, 11:22 AM
Do you really think they sit there wasting time reading this stuff? And do you accually think someone in DOJ hung up the phone and started running around saying this guy just called and said they want us to list so we will show him? Your tin hat is on a bit tight there .This wasn't a phone call, this was Shopkeep and Ignatus in person in front of my table at the San Jose Gun Show. And yes most certainly the DOJ reads all of this. This is their best source of information.

We don't have to wait long to start writing letters. If nothing is solidly on here by next Friday the 7th, get started. Together we have until next Friday to get up some solid information. It it doesn't happen, I will no longer ask people to wait.

Pokey
06-28-2006, 11:43 AM
Yes, BUT it would look REALLy bad for them if they make 30,000 plus people into felons.:D
I'm sure their view would be that those 30,000 made themselves felons

Charliegone
06-28-2006, 7:11 PM
I'm sure their view would be that those 30,000 made themselves felons

Than their view is rather "devious."

The law is suppose to help people not make people into criminals. We did it legally and to demand we give them up is criminal.