PDA

View Full Version : My really stupid question for the day..


jemaddux
09-13-2006, 11:24 AM
After looking at a lot of things curious here. Why can't we as individuals take DOJ to small claims court for the reg of our firearms?

Federal Law says:
"The Federal Trade Commission Act allows the FTC to act in the interest of all consumers to prevent deceptive and unfair acts or practices. In interpreting Section 5 of the Act, the Commission has determined that a representation, omission or practice is deceptive if it is likely to:

*mislead consumers and
*affect consumers' behavior or decisions about the product or service."

California State DOJ even states:

Consumer Law Section protects consumers against unsafe products, deceptive and unfair business practices and misleading advertising.


"Once the list of newly identified "series" weapons is filed with the Secretary of State, citizens who possess those weapons will have 90 days to register them with the Department of Justice."

This is about as misleading as you can get. You "WILL HAVE 90 DAYS" and then turning around and saying never mind a few months later could have effected a few customers if they would have bought them or not.

Advertising also can have the meaning:
The same advertising techniques used to promote commercial goods and services can be used to inform, educate and motivate the public about non-commercial issues, such as AIDS, political ideology, energy conservation, religious recruitment, and deforestation.

If any of us as a company did something like this the DOJ consumer section would be all over us, why not the other way around?:confused:

Joe
09-13-2006, 11:31 AM
wow, very interesting

mailman
09-13-2006, 11:44 AM
I hope they never list, im buying guns up the a** and they still haven't done nothin about it.


.

blacklisted
09-13-2006, 12:43 PM
Isn't this sort of like attempting to apply RICO to the federal government? :D :D :eek:

Perhaps that is a bit harsh...:D

I never thought that commerce law could be used against a government agency for making false claims.

m1371
09-13-2006, 12:59 PM
After looking at a lot of things curious here. Why can't we as individuals take DOJ to small claims court for the reg of our firearms?

Federal Law says:
"The Federal Trade Commission Act allows the FTC to act in the interest of all consumers to prevent deceptive and unfair acts or practices. In interpreting Section 5 of the Act, the Commission has determined that a representation, omission or practice is deceptive if it is likely to:

*mislead consumers and
*affect consumers' behavior or decisions about the product or service."

California State DOJ even states:

Consumer Law Section protects consumers against unsafe products, deceptive and unfair business practices and misleading advertising.


"Once the list of newly identified "series" weapons is filed with the Secretary of State, citizens who possess those weapons will have 90 days to register them with the Department of Justice."

This is about as misleading as you can get. You "WILL HAVE 90 DAYS" and then turning around and saying never mind a few months later could have effected a few customers if they would have bought them or not.

Advertising also can have the meaning:
The same advertising techniques used to promote commercial goods and services can be used to inform, educate and motivate the public about non-commercial issues, such as AIDS, political ideology, energy conservation, religious recruitment, and deforestation.

If any of us as a company did something like this the DOJ consumer section would be all over us, why not the other way around?:confused:


Would be an interesting angle to take.

Get some of the larger manufacturers involved somehow, maybe stress the fact that Kalifornia's AW laws are unfair influences which forces consumers to purchase one brand of lower receiver over another one.

Could it be argued that there is no significant difference between one lower receiver and another, they're all essentially the same thing?

I would think that itself qualifies as "affect(ing) consumers' behavior or decisions about the product or service".

PanzerAce
09-13-2006, 1:15 PM
actually, I think that the false advertising might be better used against the DOJ by mentioning the early letters from AM that said explicitly that the OLLs were about to become LL (Listed Lowers)

jemaddux
09-13-2006, 1:19 PM
Would be an interesting angle to take.

Get some of the larger manufacturers involved somehow, maybe stress the fact that Kalifornia's AW laws are unfair influences which forces consumers to purchase one brand of lower receiver over another one.

Could it be argued that there is no significant difference between one lower receiver and another, they're all essentially the same thing?

I would think that itself qualifies as "affect(ing) consumers' behavior or decisions about the product or service".

I guess my point I am trying to get to here is that DOJ put out a memo titled "Important Notice" making it offical by putting it under "Latest Additions". Not only did they do that, they also sent out hundreds of letters to people stating "citizens who possess those weapons will have 90 days to register them with the Department of Justice.".

First offense:
Said we would be able to register them and three months later state that you can't. Misleading to the consumer. How many people when out and bought a lower just because DOJ said they would be able to register them as a AW? It wasn't the gun store that said it, it was DOJ. Keeping this from the website of the DOJ in mind, "It is the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced (California Constitution, Article V, Section 13.) The Attorney General carries out responsibilities of the office through the California Department of Justice". Everyone figured the DOJ would list and spent money that they might NOT have it they had know that the DOJ had no intention of allowing them to be registered.

Second offense:
The state used a Federal agency (USPO) to mail out false information to consumers stating they would be able to register when they had no intention of allowing this to happen.

The list goes on and on. All I am saying is we should be able to file with small claims for breach of contract and even start messing with them by filing with consumer affairs and so on. Is just a thought.:D

jemaddux
09-13-2006, 1:22 PM
actually, I think that the false advertising might be better used against the DOJ by mentioning the early letters from AM that said explicitly that the OLLs were about to become LL (Listed Lowers)


This is what I am trying to get to. People that have these letters have a contract signed and dated. You were told this is what they are going to do, you went out and spent money because they said this is what they are going to do, now they want to back out of the deal. You and I would end up in court if we did that, why not them?

PanzerAce
09-13-2006, 1:24 PM
actually, isnt this exactly what bwiese has been thinking about doing?

adamsreeftank
09-13-2006, 1:31 PM
Didnt' the DOJ benefit financially from all of the DROSes that occurred because of their false statements? That might show motive.

bwiese
09-13-2006, 1:33 PM
Good man, James!

You've got it. This is exactly what 'detrimental reliance' matters are about.

The DOJ made promises that a registration period would happen soon. In fact, a veritable flood of purchases happened in the month or so after the infamous Feb 3 memo. These people purchased because they relied on the statment of high-level DOJ senior staff - an attorney, a Deputy AG at that.

By that time quite a few of these folks purchased OLLs without seeing or hearing of Calguns.NET or the original traffic discussing all the lead-in to the OLL buys.

No dealer ever told the a customer they would list, and in fact most all of the Calguns and ARFcom cautionary threads were "buy it for a gamble if you have spare change".

A huge fraction of these latter purchases - probably in the order of 15,000 lowers - were made after Deputy AG A.M.'s panicky Feb 3 memo and entirely on the DOJ's clear assertion that they would indeed list/ban any number of makes/models.

I suppose this raises a 'specific performance' issue as well: aggrieved OLL owners could sue the DOJ to list.

jemaddux
09-13-2006, 1:35 PM
actually, isnt this exactly what bwiese has been thinking about doing?


It seems to me and I could be wrong, but after talking with him he came across as wanting to sit and wait to see what happens and see what the NRA does for us. 2728 takes everything away from the DOJ as of Jan 1, 2007. That means no matter what happens with Billy boy, who ever comes into the office will be able to do NOTHING to change anything because DOJ will no longer be in charge of it. We have three and a half months to try and get some stuff changed and that also means writting letters and emails asking for a VETO of 2728. You could have had all along a ten round fixed cal legal rifle and you didn't, why?, because you wanted to build it the way you wanted. If all this goes, no matter what anyone thinks, Billy Boy wins and we lose. We end up having a rifle we could have always had without all this hasle and he walks away getting to say look what I did to stop them:mad: .

bwiese
09-13-2006, 1:40 PM
James,
I believe even w/2728 passing and in force after 2007, a detrimental reliance suit could result in a court order to force the DOJ to register OLLs as AWs as a remedy for their failure to perform in 2006 - after all, it's a 'cure' to the DOJ-instigated situation in early 2006 that would have been irrelevant to anything occurring in 2007.

jemaddux
09-13-2006, 1:44 PM
I suppose this raises a 'specific performance' issue as well: aggrieved OLL owners could sue the DOJ to list.


This is what I tried to bring up to you yesterday Bill. Then why aren't we as a group putting together something and moving foward as a group? Why are we not flooding consumer affairs with this? Why are we not flooding the postal service with this? Why are we not bugging the departments that really have the power to really bug DOJ BEFORE Jan 1?

bwiese
09-13-2006, 1:49 PM
This is what I tried to bring up to you yesterday Bill. Then why aren't we as a group putting together something and moving foward as a group? Why are we not flooding consumer affairs with this? Why are we not flooding the postal service with this? Why are we not bugging the departments that really have the power to really bug DOJ BEFORE Jan 1?

The problem is, talking to the Gov's office does ZERO. AG is separately elected, separation of powers, etc. The only recourse would be in courts.

You'd have to get some lawyers on this that would be both familiar with gun law issues as well as transactional issues. The cost (per affected and participating individuals) of the lawyers may exceed the CA-inflated price of the lowers. The possible settlement also might not be listing, but the DOJ doing a buy-back (which, I would hope, comes out of their operating budget ;) ).

I don't think lawyers retained by NRA want to deal with this because the NRA doesn't officially (and understandably) nor philosophically believe in listing any gun to be banned: their big battle is next year with Hunt, where they wanna attack big parts of the law and render it useless (I have to read the details yet). Their other battle is challenging the Aug 16 'capacity to accept' matters, which probably has a comment cycle or two left in it to go before it dies, since it's clearly unsustainable.

The other issue is that many folks are happy to get quality AR lowers in some form that otherwise - at least before mid-November 05 - were generally perceived as 'unobtanium'. Many folks were glad to just not have FAB10s. At least these folks have real AR lowers for out-of-CA retirement ahead of any possible Federal reinstatement of an AWB - I think that was the goal of quite a few of the buyers.

This is probably achievable if OLL folks are willing to pony up $500 - $1K apiece (figure that the cost of a good new-in-box higher-end AW). Their could, in theory, end up being a restriction such that the only folks that would get any 'remedy' from the DOJ would be those that got lowers *after* Ally Baby's letters and the Feb 3 memo - ruling out some of the early purchases. After all, it was her letters that convinced a surge of people to buy OLLs. The earlier folks were just getting 'em to get 'em 'just in case'.

grammaton76
09-13-2006, 2:00 PM
Their could, in theory, end up being a restriction such that the only folks that would get any 'remedy' from the DOJ would be those that got lowers *after* **************'s letters and the Feb 3 memo - ruling out some of the early purchases. After all, it was her letters that convinced a surge of people to buy OLLs. The earlier folks were just getting 'em to get 'em 'just in case'.

Another thing that would be interesting, would be if they only permitted registrations from the folks who actually got AM's letter personally, and NOT people who read scans of the letter.

I'm not sure how it would work, but they could try the angle that only the addressees were promised anything, not the people reading copies of it.

jemaddux
09-13-2006, 2:07 PM
The problem is, talking to the Gov's office does ZERO. AG is separately elected, separation of powers, etc. The only recourse would be in courts..

You always seem to say this but you haven't tried it during a election year to see what could happen. If enough people write it might get some attention for votes.

Many folks were glad to just not have FAB10s. At least these folks have real AR lowers for out-of-CA retirement ahead of any possible Federal reinstatement of an AWB.

But this is all we really have isn't it? Just a different name on it but its still just a FAB10.


This is probably achievable if OLL folks are willing to pony up $500 - $1K apiece (figure that the cost of a good new-in-box higher-end AW). Their could, in theory, end up being a restriction such that the only folks that would get any 'remedy' from the DOJ would be those that got lowers *after* Ally Baby's letters and the Feb 3 memo - ruling out some of the early purchases. After all, it was her letters that convinced a surge of people to buy OLLs. The earlier folks were just getting 'em to get 'em 'just in case'.

I really don't think it would cost what you are saying at all. How much does it cost to email consumer affairs? Govs Office? so on. How many people ACTUALLY sat and wrote a letter for Aug 16th? If everyone was to write letters it would get noticed and MAYBE something done.

jemaddux
09-13-2006, 2:09 PM
Another thing that would be interesting, would be if they only permitted registrations from the folks who actually got AM's letter personally, and NOT people who read scans of the letter.

I'm not sure how it would work, but they could try the angle that only the addressees were promised anything, not the people reading copies of it.


It was posted for public on the website so it wouldn't fly.

bwiese
09-13-2006, 2:24 PM
.... would be if they only permitted registrations from the folks who actually got AM's letter personally, and NOT people who read scans of the letter

It was posted for public on the website so it wouldn't fly.

Correct! The Feb 3 'Cat 4' memo was a public memorandum. I believe it may even have been faxed to some gun dealers. Also, this Feb3 memo was the most strident and insistent that they would list.

The private letters that promise listing and sent to various prospective lower buyers who inquired (and then publicly posted it), and which were signed by Deputy AG Ally Baby, are still most useful as a paper trail. It showed overall DOJ FD intention/sentiment, and that the Feb 3 memo promise to list was not a typo or mere misstatement. This is even more significant when combined with the 'Ferranto commission' memo of late December working out the various additional models to add to the list of banned 'series' guns.

Also, the DOJ was aware early on - prob December - that folks were asking for letters concerning this particular subject, and then posting scans of them on Calguns, etc. It would have been the exception for them NOT to think these letters would remain private.

bwiese
09-13-2006, 2:31 PM
You always seem to say this but you haven't tried it during a election year to see what could happen. If enough people write it might get some attention for votes.

It'd be nice to think so. Unfortunately, not...

... The Gov can't force the AG to do anything. Moreover, he's a different party.

... We're dealing with an issue that affects, max, 55K folks spread out over CA. Drop in the bucket.




But this is all we really have isn't it? Just a different name on it but its still just a FAB10.

In some ways yes, in other ways no - just drive to NV or retire outside CA and drop the fixed mag and use a quality rifle.


I really don't think it would cost what you are saying at all. How much does it cost to email consumer affairs?


How many people ACTUALLY sat and wrote a letter for Aug 16th?


Around 200. Around 30ish showed up for the hearing. It actually helped that we didn't have a bunch of cammy-clad ninnies arguing 2nd amendment stuff, when this was a regulatory meeting. Everyone , except one, attending brought up thoughtful, detailed attacks on the DOJ proposal. A variety of folks seem to make the DOJ aware of side issues they hadn't thought of.


If everyone was to write letters it would get noticed and MAYBE something done.


If every OLL buyer were to put $1K in an attack-the-DOJ fund, we could have
big $$$ ready to go play.

jemaddux
09-13-2006, 2:42 PM
If every OLL buyer were to put $1K in an attack-the-DOJ fund, we could have
big $$$ ready to go play.


I don't know about a thousand right now but I sure would throw in $200.00 right now and would most likely do more later if I saw results happening.

If everyone that wrote letters was to do the same then we would have $40,000.00 as a start some letters going. I would lay odds that once some letters started coming in and they knew we would seriously take this to court they would back down. If they lost they would have to pay all the costs also so it would be worth it for them to keep it going. 99% of the cases out there never make it to court.

bwiese
09-13-2006, 2:45 PM
I think anyone w/an OLL should be willing to throw $1K at this problem.

I'm in, who else? PM me and we'll take a survey ;)

PanzerAce
09-13-2006, 5:17 PM
I think anyone w/an OLL should be willing to throw $1K at this problem.

I'm in, who else? PM me and we'll take a survey ;)

I would be in, except that as a college student then just bought another rifle as well as a scope, I have NO spare money.

PIRATE14
09-13-2006, 5:23 PM
I've already spent a lot of money on lawyers so another k is not an issue.....get it done....

Richie Rich
09-13-2006, 7:08 PM
Really good angle, something I had never thought of...

But I don't want my lowers/rifles listed, I want the whole stupid Cali "AWB" overturned. Would much rather spend my money and write letters to work at that, rather then have to comply with yet another ill concieved, unconstitutional law that should have gone away with the fed AWB..

Besides, if this idea came close to pushing the DOJ to list, I would bankrupt myself buying toys before the cut off date "if there was one"...

At least wait until the new Sig comes out.... :D

jemaddux
09-14-2006, 8:24 AM
I think anyone w/an OLL should be willing to throw $1K at this problem.

I'm in, who else? PM me and we'll take a survey ;)


This is what really cracks me up. You put this out and ionly a couple people come out and say I will throw in some money and see what we can do. Everyone is complaining "I want I want I want!!!" but it doesn't seem that to many are truely willing to step up to the plate and fight for what they want.:mad:

PanzerAce
09-14-2006, 9:12 AM
This is what really cracks me up. You put this out and ionly a couple people come out and say I will throw in some money and see what we can do. Everyone is complaining "I want I want I want!!!" but it doesn't seem that to many are truely willing to step up to the plate and fight for what they want.:mad:

Or maybe we dont have that kind of money to throw around :mad:

you seem to be forgetting that alot of the people that got in on the OLL deal are YOUNGER gun owners, ie college students and people just out of college. I can't even afford a car to get me to school, and you want me to drop 1k on a lawsuit of unknown results?:mad:

jemaddux
09-14-2006, 11:17 AM
Or maybe we dont have that kind of money to throw around :mad:

you seem to be forgetting that alot of the people that got in on the OLL deal are YOUNGER gun owners, ie college students and people just out of college. I can't even afford a car to get me to school, and you want me to drop 1k on a lawsuit of unknown results?:mad:


Take a chill pill:D . No one was talking about you. I was talking about the fact that this thread has had 531 views and how many have said they would be willing to step up? We have had one say he didn't want his listed, three say they would put up money, one say he would put up money but because of school (which SHOULD be the most important thing) can't. Now, thats less then 1% of the views here saying anything. With that kind of responce, no wonder the DOJ keeps taking away:mad: .

Spawn_X
09-14-2006, 11:46 AM
I'd drop a grand into it if there was a solid plan that made sense.

Its all about money. You have enough money, you can bend laws. Just so happens that few of the gun nuts in California have money. Not too many rich folks are crazy about semi-automatic rifles :D You find a millionare who decides to take it all the way, hire a team of aggressive lawyers, and the CA DOJ will be up against the wall getting reamed. They have no proffesionalism and their stories vary week to week. Typical citizens discussing how lame they are - what do you think a team of lawyers will do to them?

But again, no one rich enough has been involved in this yet, or maybe has but the DOJ made a special exception for them so it wouldn't end up in courts and a big mess

It would be cool if only those who came up with the money got theirs listed, it would probably motivate a lot more people to come up with the money.

grammaton76
09-14-2006, 9:56 PM
I was talking about the fact that this thread has had 531 views and how many have said they would be willing to step up?

You clearly don't understand "views" vs "users". Every time someone reads the thread, it counts as a view - including when you re-read it. 531 views doesn't indicate a lot of people.

On a side note, if it were happening, I'd throw in $1k provided it can be charged. CASH money is a lot harder to just cough up whenever people want it.