PDA

View Full Version : Documents submitted to DOJ at Public 8/16 Hearing


mikehaas
08-17-2006, 6:06 PM
The following documents were submitted to CA DOJ at the 8/16/2006 public comment hearing regarding the proposed changes to "Assault Weapon" regulations (see http://calgunlaws.com/article-465.html):

National Rifle Association (NRA, nraila.org (http://nraila.org/):
NRA Comment Letter Part 1 (6.2M, 19 min @ 56K)
NRA Comment Letter Part 2 (4.5M, 14 min @ 56K)

Fifty Caliber Institute (FCI, fiftycal.org (http://fiftycal.org/)):
FCI Caliber Institute Comment letter (167K, 30 sec @ 56K)

California Association of Firearms Retailers (CAFR, cafr.biz (http://cafr.biz/)):
CAFR Comment letter (312K, 1 min @ 56K)

Mike

blacklisted
08-17-2006, 6:28 PM
Thank you, that is absolutely incredible! Everyone should read these!

DRH
08-17-2006, 6:54 PM
Downloaded and saved them all. Excellent work!!

Charliegone
08-17-2006, 6:58 PM
Guys and gals, I think right now is the best time to ask one our gun friendly legislators to come up with a bill that will at least a few AW features so that at least we can more than just ar's and ak's. What do you think? Just thinking...

donger
08-17-2006, 7:12 PM
Thanks, Mike. BTW, I renewed my NRA membership today.

anotherone
08-17-2006, 7:13 PM
My goodness Chuck is awesome! If I was the DOJ I would decided not to move forward with this regulation just so I didn't have to see Chuck in court because I'm sure he can do a lot more damage there.

C.G.
08-17-2006, 7:18 PM
Thank you, that is absolutely incredible! Everyone should read these!

Just finished, and yes, everyone should read these.

hoffmang
08-17-2006, 8:13 PM
For those who want to read Dingman, here is a link: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/people_v_dingman.txt

-Gene

Mudvayne540ld
08-17-2006, 8:13 PM
wow...... read the one from FCI and CAFR. Gunna read the NRA's letter on Saturday (my day off). I was thinking of joining the NRA for a while...... I think there position on this OLL thing made up my mind. :)

C.G.
08-17-2006, 8:31 PM
I was thinking of joining the NRA for a while...... I think there position on this OLL thing made up my mind. :)

Same here.:)

dwtt
08-17-2006, 9:04 PM
wow...... read the one from FCI and CAFR. Gunna read the NRA's letter on Saturday (my day off). I was thinking of joining the NRA for a while...... I think there position on this OLL thing made up my mind. :)
I'm going to rejoin the NRA. They haven't abandoned CA. I'm going to quit GOC and CRPA. I'm very happy I joined FCSA and took part in FCI's raffles.

thmpr
08-17-2006, 9:16 PM
NRA-CA: Very well written rebuttal letter! Great to see my donations at work...



NRA Life Member since 2005

ivorykid
08-17-2006, 9:57 PM
All I have to say is... WOW.

:D Proud member of the NRA right here!

All this time, we thought that the NRA was indifferent to our "situation." They've been fighting for us Kalifornians all along. Time to extend my NRA membership... and time to drop the CRPA membership.

Respectfully,
Erik

Dont Tread on Me
08-17-2006, 10:06 PM
Great work Mike. I think the message is getting out that the NRA is active in CA! This benefits all of us.

wilit
08-17-2006, 10:07 PM
I just read ALL of part 1. I'm sending my NRA membership in after I hit the post button!

bluebaron
08-17-2006, 10:27 PM
Same for me. I'll be joining the NRA in the morning :)

artherd
08-17-2006, 10:43 PM
Well now that the cat's out of the bag, and it's fashionable, I will say that Chuck and crew (Paul, Ed, Mike, Jason etc.) all did a fantastic job on their comments. Thanks guys.

NRA Life since 2006.

Cato
08-17-2006, 11:33 PM
Ok, the NRA, FCI, and CAFR have submitted fine letters expressing OUR general opinions and hopes concerning OLLs and SB23. What effect will these letters have on OUR situation?

Will the NRA et al put up a serious legal battle and "liberate" our rifles?
Will the DOJ shake in their boots and back down?
Will the DOJ see the errors of their ways and throw out SB23 since it deals with predominantly cosmetic features.

or,

Will those letters be just that, letters, putting forth a opinion that will have no effect one way or the other?

Most of us are giddy that there is slightly more hope then there was this morning. So many of us are promising God and our wives we will join the NRA ASAP.

If anything, this debate between OLLs owners and the DOJ is proving how silly SB23 is: we aren't asking for M16s or fully auto AKs. We just want what every other American has in the rest of the country.

It's easy to see that SB23 doesnt make the state safer even by the "gun grabbers" logic. There is more firepower in a M1A and a canvas bag of ten round magazines then in a AR or AK and a 30 round magazine. Anyway, criminals get whatever weapons they want, despite SB23.

Again I ask, what effect will these letters REALLY have? I hope the NRA doesn't just say, "well, we did our duty in California, we tried; now what's for lunch?"

TKo_Productions
08-18-2006, 12:05 AM
Shouldn't a senior agent representing the state of California at least be impartial in her analysis, interpretation, and application of the law?

Sounds like she's willing to go to any extent in order to distort and slant the legislative process.

I wonder how many other rogue agents share her views?

50BMGBOB
08-18-2006, 12:06 AM
The NRA and others are only as strong as there members. The more active we are the more effective they will be! They have come to help us but to win we must help them.

I couldn't make the meeting but I did get my letter in. I have and will continue to contact those elected to voice my opion even if I know they won't lisen! And I will work to have them replaced next election and the ones after that if I have to!!!!!

hoffmang
08-18-2006, 12:27 AM
Prop H in San Francisco happened and NRA was there.

NRA looks like its been here all along. I'll put a $100 bill against anyone who wants the bet that they'll file a suit if we get there.

Al Mer seems to expect it. Surprising to me that those "on our side" don't seem to.

Cato - public wager?

-Gene

Cato
08-18-2006, 12:38 AM
Prop H in San Francisco happened and NRA was there.

NRA looks like its been here all along. I'll put a $100 bill against anyone who wants the bet that they'll file a suit if we get there.

Al Mer seems to expect it. Surprising to me that those "on our side" don't seem to.

Cato - public wager?

-Gene

I was sincere in asking, what do these letters mean? I'm no political
scientist and didn't mean to say that the NRA was just "writing a complaint letter." I hope you are right. In fact I hope this leads to a repeal of SB23, if possible. There are too many holes in SB23.

So, this proposed legislation becomes law, the NRA sues, the legislation is struck down. Then what, back to pinned magazines of ambiguous legality?

hoffmang
08-18-2006, 12:44 AM
If the Regs pass in a way that a suit will be needed, I'd expect NRA to be there.

There are two potential outcomes.

1. Regs thrown out and we're back to the status quo. Build 'em up gripless or pin a mag and add features.

2. Regs stay, due process means we all get to register...

3. No comment Senator.

-Gene

Apeman88
08-18-2006, 12:45 AM
Spent an hour reading it.... All I can say is WOW. Everything spelled out and all i's dotted and t's crossed. Where the hell did this all come from (NRA)? I was so sure NRA let us Kalis out to dry. :eek: The reading impressed me greatly. This one action from the NRA and its attorney has but faith back in me with the NRA. I bashed on the NRA a few times on this forum... so.... Okay... here it goes... I'M WRONG!!!! NRA LOVES US KALIs.:D I'll be man enough to admit I was wrong.... and will apoligize or make up for my previous ill believes with a 5 year membership which I just paid for on the NRA website. Been almost 10 years since I let my NRA membership expire... good to belong again... feel even better knowing NRA is actually working for us.

Ken

anotherone
08-18-2006, 1:33 AM
This whole thing is going to court at this point. After a read of the comments I gotta admit it's going to be interesting to see how the DOJ explains their reversal of opinions on what a "fixed magazine" is. Talk about ambiguous!

Not to mention there have been various generations of Vulcan glued/pinned mag recievers all imported with the blessing of the DOJ. Which ones are "permenant" and which aren't? How does one determine if their glued mag vulcan is a configuration that is "permenant"?

EvolutionGSR
08-18-2006, 1:46 AM
I just joined the NRA for the first time a week or two ago. They sent me a letter and I decided why not. It seems as it is already well worth it.

jerryg1776
08-18-2006, 12:09 PM
Never mind.. deleting this comment I made..Hoping nobody read it.

dwtt
08-18-2006, 1:28 PM
Where the hell did this all come from (NRA)? I was so sure NRA let us Kalis out to dry. :eek: The reading impressed me greatly. This one action from the NRA and its attorney has but faith back in me with the NRA. I bashed on the NRA a few times on this forum... so.... Okay... here it goes... I'M WRONG!!!! NRA LOVES US KALIs.:D I'll be man enough to admit I was wrong.... and will apoligize or make up for my previous ill believes with a 5 year membership which I just paid for on the NRA website. Been almost 10 years since I let my NRA membership expire... good to belong again... feel even better knowing NRA is actually working for us.

Ken
I'm in the same boat as you and you're not the only one who needs to admit he was wrong about the NRA. I thought the NRA had abandoned us and went to support GOC and CRPA. Now with Prop H in San Francisco and this hearing, I know I will need to renew my membership.

Shouldn't a senior agent representing the state of California at least be impartial in her analysis, interpretation, and application of the law?

Sounds like she's willing to go to any extent in order to distort and slant the legislative process.

I wonder how many other rogue agents share her views?
It goes all the way up to the current Attorney General. Ms. Merillees was hired by him because she shares his views. I think every gun owner can see why we really need to get Poochigian into the AG office, but that's another thread.

cathog
08-18-2006, 2:57 PM
Artherd,

Thank you,

Jason

Jicko
08-18-2006, 3:42 PM
Let's all join the NRA! (I was so reluctant to do it until now!!!)

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

Hunter
08-18-2006, 3:47 PM
Man this thread is sounding like a revival meeting .....:D


Welcome aboard!:)

Dont Tread on Me
08-18-2006, 3:49 PM
If folks really do sign up it will send a powerful message to the NRA that CA gun owners have not given up either.

Hope to see some new faces at the local NRA member council meetings. You will get invites to secret OLL meeting where free pizza is handed out:)

gose
08-18-2006, 4:11 PM
Let's all join the NRA! (I was so reluctant to do it until now!!!)

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

I didn't really give the NRA much credit earlier either, but clicked submit for the membership form just a few seconds ago ;)

Ryoushi
08-18-2006, 4:11 PM
I'm in the same boat as you and you're not the only one who needs to admit he was wrong about the NRA. I thought the NRA had abandoned us and went to support GOC and CRPA. Now with Prop H in San Francisco and this hearing, I know I will need to renew my membership.


It goes all the way up to the current Attorney General. Ms. Merillees was hired by him because she shares his views. I think every gun owner can see why we really need to get Poochigian into the AG office, but that's another thread.

+1 Sorry for bad mouthing the NRA. Reading through those PDFs made me appreciate what they're up against here in California. I've also decided to quit referring to California as PRK anymore. This state is my home and I'll leave it up to others to denigrate it with that commie name.

Skawrpion
08-18-2006, 4:28 PM
What happened to the documents? Link removed?
Also noticed part 1 of PDF has been pulled from NRA's site for revision.

blacklisted
08-18-2006, 4:56 PM
Interesting, it appears that glen avon wasn't right about everything. :eek:

Hunter
08-18-2006, 5:15 PM
What happened to the documents? Link removed?
Also noticed part 1 of PDF has been pulled from NRA's site for revision.


Not sure, the only thing I noticed wrong was the date on page 1 said 8-15-06 when all of the other pages said 8-16-06...

Not sure if they can make changes and resubmit to the DOJ, or they just link the incorrrect revision for the website.

We will just have to hold on and see what gets posted. Lots of us had downloaded part 1 and 2 if it is needed.

Ford8N
08-19-2006, 6:40 AM
Dang, I never got to read the documents. :(

Paul1960
08-19-2006, 7:38 AM
Part 2 is back up - part one is "under going revisions".

This is a war, not a battle.

Being an election year the politicians have another thing to worry about and aren't likely to pass any new anti-freedom legislation nor take a stance one way or another. Much of the war is fought against the elected politicians but it is also fought against the rank and file government workers.

I'm hoping for the best ... and already support the NRA.

chris
08-19-2006, 9:15 AM
yep we need to drop the hammer on these guys this year and send them packing.

mikehaas
08-19-2006, 10:41 AM
Part 2 is back up - part one is "under going revisions".

You guys are on the ball! yes, they asked me to pull part 1 last night pending some revision (none of the other links were pulled). You know lawyers!

I'll post any revisions asap, you can count on it.

Mike

artherd
08-19-2006, 6:12 PM
Spent an hour reading it.... All I can say is WOW. Everything spelled out and all i's dotted and t's crossed. Where the hell did this all come from (NRA)?

This came from one of the law firms the NRA retains in CA, Trutanich-Michel, LLP. I would assume in this case that NRA footed the bill to pay to feed the fine minds behind this particuliar effort. They are very good, one of the top weapons law firms in the state, I can personally recommend them highly.

Artherd,
Thank you,
Jason
You are quite welcome!
-Ben.

Ryan HBC
08-19-2006, 8:19 PM
As of 5 minutes ago, count me in as an NRA life member. (epl)

I hope they see an influx of California memberships. I appreciate them going to bat for us.

6172crew
08-19-2006, 8:36 PM
What did I miss? I leave for a week and everyone is joining the NRA?

I followed the link but looks like the Rev1. is being moved, any footnotes for guys just off vacation?:)

Hunter
08-19-2006, 8:50 PM
What did I miss? I leave for a week and everyone is joining the NRA?

I followed the link but looks like the Rev1. is being moved, any footnotes for guys just off vacation?:)

In a nut shell:
Bill W., Mike H., Chuck Michel (NRA Attorney) and many others delivered at the meeting.

Read Part 1 and 2 of the documents C. Michel and team prepared and you will see why the new respect for NRA here in CA.

JOEKILLA
08-19-2006, 9:40 PM
While we still have the topic of joining the NRA, any of you know how disable I need to be to qualify for the Life with the Disabled Veteran membership fee?

SemiAutoSam
08-19-2006, 9:45 PM
Crew
Maybe if someone thats reading this who captured part 1 will supply a link or E-Mail it I can post it on another board and link to it so everyone can see it.

I would like to have the original also to compare to the 2nd version of the first part of that post.

Would also like to know why they are changing it.

Anyone else curious?

6172crew
08-20-2006, 9:17 AM
The first part is still down, did anyone grab a copy before it was moved?

cathog
08-20-2006, 9:17 AM
The first NRA comment letter (PDF document w/ exhibits) has been removed because it contained an exhibit that was an unsigned draft version - not a finalized version - of a letter sent to the DOJ. A PDF with the correct exhibit will be available on Monday.

SemiAutoSam
08-20-2006, 9:27 AM
RTF and or HTML Formats, would he handy also as PDF'S are somewhat hard on this old computer.

Thanks for your consideration.

bwiese
08-20-2006, 10:11 AM
RTF and or HTML Formats, would he handy also as PDF'S are somewhat hard on this old computer.


PDFs are the most portable document format around.

Other formats have issues. Also many of the items in the PDF are scanned text copies, meaning bitmapped graphics, which means that it's still gonna be displayed that way even if rendered w/an HTML wrapper - meaning likely as slow.

Time to put another motherboard in, Sam., and make sure you have plenty of memory. Besides, PDFs work fine on even 750MHz PIII PCs.

mikehaas
08-20-2006, 10:49 AM
Crew
Maybe if someone thats reading this who captured part 1 will supply a link or E-Mail it I can post it on another board and link to it so everyone can see it.

I can only ask that we gun-owners not do this. NRA's attorneys have a reason for pulling that document; please don't work against them.

I've let Chuck and Jason know how much the board appreciated that document - Jason even posted here asking for more info from us. We are all part of the team. I'm here to post the revised version when available and will let calgunners know - FOR SURE.

But as a member of a team, if you downloaded a copy of the problem part 1, please do NOT distribute it. There is something in there that Chuck and crew decided was best FOR ALL OF US that it not be distributed. So doing as SemiAutoSam may satisfy your curiosity, but hurt OLL situation progress.

Thanks all,

Mike

mikehaas
08-20-2006, 10:55 AM
The first NRA comment letter (PDF document w/ exhibits) has been removed because it contained an exhibit that was an unsigned draft version - not a finalized version - of a letter sent to the DOJ. A PDF with the correct exhibit will be available on Monday.
Since he's signed his name before and is obviously posting publicly, I have no qualms pointing out that 'cathog' is Jason, one of Chuck's excellent attorney's and probably the author of most, if not all, of that excellent NRA document. Jason is Chuck's "AW" guy.

Please, let's let them do the jobs we pay them to do (as NRA members) and not subvert their efforts here. Remember, they're working for US, even when they pulled that document. Distributing the old one is not in our interest.

(And please don't flood Jason with PMs!)

Mike

6172crew
08-20-2006, 10:57 AM
No sweat, cant wait until the new version hits the stands.;)

Sounds like all went well in Sac, Im bummed I couldnt make it and am looking forward to the next meeting.

mikehaas
08-20-2006, 10:59 AM
The first part is still down, did anyone grab a copy before it was moved?
Should return tomorrow. Patience please (and please do not distribute the old one.)

Mike

anotherone
08-20-2006, 11:18 AM
No sweat, cant wait until the new version hits the stands.;)

Sounds like all went well in Sac, Im bummed I couldnt make it and am looking forward to the next meeting.

Knowing the DOJ, everyone will get a chance to go back to Sacramento again :rolleyes: ... especially now that people are starting to talk about detachable mags on Zastava M-59s.

artherd
08-20-2006, 12:24 PM
The first NRA comment letter (PDF document w/ exhibits) has been removed because it contained an exhibit that was an unsigned draft version - not a finalized version - of a letter sent to the DOJ. A PDF with the correct exhibit will be available on Monday.

Everyone please respect the wishes here, and just link to the links that mike posted at the begining of this thread.

Jason knows what he's doing, and we don't want to have 2 (much less over 4) revisions of OUR memos floating about now, do we? ;)

artherd
08-20-2006, 12:26 PM
Knowing the DOJ, everyone will get a chance to go back to Sacramento again :rolleyes: ... especially now that people are starting to talk about detachable mags on Zastava M-59s.

I share your hope, that this is only the begining of a good informative dialouge between the extra-law abiding firearms owners, and the DOJ.