PDA

View Full Version : Help with DOJ, AG letter


gatesbox
04-11-2011, 10:59 AM
I'd like to write a letter to DOJ, AG and state reps in my district...looking for help making sure I am using correct terms etc, or suggestions...help not trolls, ignore the funky asterisks:

Dear xxxxx,

I am writing to you today as a relatively new resident of the state of California. *As a resident I implore you to consider the implementation of clear policy statements as they pertain to California Law and the legal configuration of center fire semi-auto rifles used in tactical and sporting configurations.

When I moved to California I turned to the state, and their various offices for advise and council in become a legal resident. *Without needing to head to the local law library I found clear instructions on the process of becoming a licensed driver. *There were clear instructions and even great assistance in registering to vote. *As a sportsman, there were even clear instructions for the registration of pistols that I either own or have inherited. *Yet there is no clear statement in regards to the legal configuration of tactical centerfire semi-auto rifles built on legally purchased AR-15, or other similar AR style lower receivers. *

Tactical and action shooting competitions are perhaps some of the most rapidly growing shooting sports in the country. *California has reason to be proud as a pioneer of action shooting competitions. *These opportunities provide for education and instruction in the safe use of firearms and their responsible use. *Currently on ranges across the state for both target and competitive sport, rifles using AR and similar platforms are owned and used widely with the support of case law as "featureless configurations" or "fixed magazine" configuration rifles. *However there is still vast ambiguity in the education of law enforcement officers and civilians alike. *It is time to accept legal configurations of rifles sometimes incorrectly classified as "assault weapons" and adopt a reasonable set of published guidelines on legal configurations which honor state law and applicable court findings. *I find it negligent on behalf of the state to remain silent in informing the citizens of California how they may legally and responsibly own and enjoy these commonly used tactical rifles.

I would recommend that lawmakers at all levels encourage the department of justice to publish a flow chart for the legal configuration of rifles such as has been widely use by the Calguns Foundation and titled, "California Centerfire, Semi-Auto, Rifle Identification." Without such guidance I fear that good citizens and outstanding residents of this state risk violating state laws at ranges across the state each and everyday. *Additionally I believe law enforcement officers deserve a clear directive in the enforcement of firearms regulations without incriminating good citizens.

I am a father, an ordained minister in a mainline Christian denomination, a registered Democrat, and a sportsman who makes every attempt to assure that I am a safe and legal firearms owner. *****Please help me and many other residents keep our sport and personal protection safe and legal.

Sincerely,

Xxx

wildhawker
04-11-2011, 11:09 AM
Please don't write DOJ or the AG, but please do feel free to write your reps.

1911su16b870
04-11-2011, 11:25 AM
This is the reply I can see you getting from your letter.

Dear gatesbox,

12276PC

and it should read...

Welcome to CA. The answers to your question can be found at a website called Calguns.net in a CA AW ID flowchart (http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf).

Sincerely, CA DOJ :D ...not... :D

Welcome to calguns!

gatesbox
04-11-2011, 12:01 PM
Please don't write DOJ or the AG, but please do feel free to write your reps.

Happy to take your advice, just curious why not?

curtisfong
04-11-2011, 12:10 PM
Happy to take your advice, just curious why not?

Neither the AG nor the DOJ can pass legislation.

gatesbox
04-11-2011, 12:18 PM
It is not legislation, I'm talking about clearly stating the current law.....too many people do not understand proper and legal configuration of AR type rifles, including LEOs....that is the problem....I think the DOJ should do a better job of informing citezens of the current law, and the application of case law....in fact they are passively accepting that AR variants that are not specifically listed on the banned AW list are legit...the moving to CA section links to assault weapons defined as all AK...but not even a mention of AR.....meanwhile try asking a LEO if they are legal...we need DOJ to come clean with a current and up to date clear statement.

bwiese
04-11-2011, 12:19 PM
Happy to take your advice, just curious why not?

For DOJ BoF, various avenues are being explored as to resolving existing problems. Throwing gasoline on certain fires is not helpful, esp when you may be sending the letter to the wrong party at DOJ :) who can then stir up a hornet's nest.

As for writing to your reps, feel free.

gatesbox
04-11-2011, 12:49 PM
Perfect, glad to know this is being worked on, that is exactly the kind of info I was hoping for by posting a draft. It has really been crazy, I was just about settled on building a featureless AR, when I started to realize both the problem with no clear mandate for LEO and also the many posts on stupidity of some folks at ranges who don't understand or have not been introduced to the flow chart. Very helpful bwiese.

Andy Taylor
04-11-2011, 3:22 PM
Welcome to Calguns and welcome to CA. Good to have another fellow Christian and shooter in the State.

oaklander
04-11-2011, 3:30 PM
Bill - agreed!

There's a way to do things that works, and a way that does not work.

Gatesbox - a letter like what you suggest is "correct" - but not "effective."

We always need to be both "correct" and "effective."

My semi-humor thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=419634) about the "leader" of the CA Brady campaign has ZERO political risk. The more it gets talked about - the better it is for us. There's no way that Brady can "game" it without looking like idiots. . . They are boxed in. They aren't even a threat in CA - more like an irritant for us (like athletes' foot). Some of us "play" with them and similar ineffectual groups, when we have time. If you ever saw the video of WLP debate/decimate PETA, you will know exactly what I mean. . . Not to be vulgar, but the internet slang is ant burning.

Other stuff does not work that way. . . DOJ = serious threat (due to their ability to pass "regulations") and Bill is right on point. . . Things have to be done a certain way. . .

For DOJ BoF, various avenues are being explored as to resolving existing problems. Throwing gasoline on certain fires is not helpful, esp when you may be sending the letter to the wrong party at DOJ :) who can then stir up a hornet's nest.

As for writing to your reps, feel free.

bruss01
04-11-2011, 4:20 PM
Your letter is thoughtful, direct, complete and well-reasoned.

I envision a reply somewhat along the following lines...

Dear Mr. Xxxx,

We received your letter and appreciate you taking the time to write to us. However, we are not in the business of dispensing legal advice. For legal advice, please consult an attorney. Good luck with your continuing inquiries.

Thank you and have a nice day!

Sincerely,
Clueless CA-DOJ-BOF

wildhawker
04-11-2011, 4:27 PM
It's a mistake to assume DOJ is clueless or incompetent at the levels which matter to us.

bwiese
04-11-2011, 4:31 PM
It's a mistake to assume DOJ is clueless or incompetent at the levels which matter to us.

Yes. The folks doing basic gunshop inspection/enforcement and answering phone calls are in a separate category from the "professional legal channel".

oaklander
04-11-2011, 5:11 PM
That actual "disconnect" is an institutional problem, as you know. So funny once you start seeing how they work. I imagine that there are people there who have the same complaints we do!!!

In fact, I *know* there are!!!!

;)

Yes. The folks doing basic gunshop inspection/enforcement and answering phone calls are in a separate category from the "professional legal channel".

wash
04-11-2011, 5:25 PM
All I can say is that Kamala Harris will have zero interest in helping you and will probably add your name to the list of ballots to be thrown in the bay.

CaliforniaLiberal
04-11-2011, 6:56 PM
Happy to take your advice, just curious why not?


The way I see it, CA gun law is full of cracks, loopholes, really ambiguous undefined terms, and especially stupidity. This can make it frustrating to buy, own and use firearms in this state.

The Wizards of CalGuns have also been able to use the cracks, loopholes and ambiguity to manipulate the law and it's interpretation to the advantage of gun owners. To subvert and defeat the intent of anti-gun legislators. This is where Off List Lowers come from.

For now, while we're still fighting a guerilla war in the shadows, it is best to be very careful about asking the DOJ for clarification - the outcome may not be in our favor.

Listen to Wildhawker, Bwiese and Oaklander for they have been to hell and back for all of us and know what they're talking about.

oaklander
04-11-2011, 9:16 PM
Thanks!

:D

In the interest of full-disclosure - there's a bunch of people who actually do far more work than we do - they are just less visible, for strategic reasons!!!

My role in this is just kind of knowing who is who, and staying out of their way! And planning EPIC BBQ's!!! OK - and maybe messing with anti-gunners who post crap online, and maybe some other stuff!!!!

I seem a lot smarter than I really am. . .

;)

Listen to Wildhawker, Bwiese and Oaklander for they have been to hell and back for all of us and know what they're talking about.