more DOJ intimidation of gunshops...

[bwiese]

As y'all know, I get emails from time to time about OLL matters, etc.

This is what one guy wrote me, after a currently unsuccessful OLL quest:

Unfortunately for me. Two DOJ reps visited the only gunstore in an 80 mile radius
(Honey Lake Firearms, Janesville) for an inspection and intimidated the proprieter into staying
away from this "Loophole".

The two ladies (evil witches) (sic) told him they are doing everything in their power to
shut this loophole and it would only cause him problems in the future if he decided to inport
non-listed stripped lowers in to this great state.


I gather this was fairly recent (i.e, in last couple of months).

F.U.D. continues.

[proraptor]

Hilarious.....DOJ= liars

[grammaton76]

Bah, the farther you have to drive for your OLL's, the more you'll treasure them!

[Michael303]

Unfortunately, these threats and lies are all too common. The DOJ went to a shop I frequent in Goleta. The owner had been selling OLLs since December of 2005. I dropped by last month to buy a few more lowers and he said the DOJ had visited and said they would be actions against his business (and by extension make his life miserable) if he continued to carry them. He sold what he had and no long does transfers or sales of OLLs.

I guess it’s easy to be intimidated and extorted when your livelihood is threatened.

[bwiese]

I would encourage every gunshop to record all conversations with any DOJ employee.

[Tweak338]

I would encourage every gunshop to record all conversations with any DOJ employee.

but isnt recording a conversation without the other partys knowledge illegal in CA?

[grammaton76]

For those of us in the "they might list" camp, this is interesting.

If the DOJ's ramping up their intimidation efforts NOW... even though it's obvious that they can't hope to close down OLL's coming into the state in the long term (w/o legislation)...

Perhaps they're trying to intimidate out as many of the small guys as possible, so that it'll be easier to send reg cards to everyone towards year-end?

They've had plenty of time to collect info on those of us who bought a while back, but as we come down to the last two weeks of '06, maybe they're trying to reduce the amount of paper-chasing they'll have to do in January as they mail out notices?

[grammaton76]

but isnt recording a conversation without the other partys knowledge illegal in CA?

That's why you put up a friendly sign, visible upon entry, that states, "Premises under audio/video surveilance".

[pacificcoast]

For those of us in the "they might list" camp, this is interesting.

If the DOJ's ramping up their intimidation efforts NOW... even though it's obvious that they can't hope to close down OLL's coming into the state in the long term (w/o legislation)...

Perhaps they're trying to intimidate out as many of the small guys as possible, so that it'll be easier to send reg cards to everyone towards year-end?

They've had plenty of time to collect info on those of us who bought a while back, but as we come down to the last two weeks of '06, maybe they're trying to reduce the amount of paper-chasing they'll have to do in January as they mail out notices?

unlikely. the DOJ believes that the proposed regulation regarding "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" is the ticket to shutting down the OLL loophole.

[11Z50]

but isnt recording a conversation without the other partys knowledge illegal in CA?

Yes it is illegal, but there are exceptions.

It might be a good tactic, when confronted by DOJ to use some of their own LE trickery on them. When they contact you, produce a microcasstette recorder and say "You don't mind if I record this do you?"

This puts them in a difficult situation. They either consent, and be careful what they say, or refuse, and then anything they say after that will be in question. A good defense attorney could shoot them full of holes (figuratively) in court.

[grammaton76]

unlikely. the DOJ believes that the proposed regulation regarding "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" is the ticket to shutting down the OLL loophole.

I'm of the opinion that they're pursuing a two pronged approach, and that this is another delaying tactic.

Now, listing - as I've said, I don't view it as anything close to a 100%. But, it's still a realistic 50/50 in my opinion...

[thedrickel]

unlikely. the DOJ believes that the proposed regulation regarding "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" is the ticket to shutting down the OLL loophole.

Highly doubtful. IMHO proposing to amend the regs is intimidation on the demand side, and threatening gun shops is intimidating the supply side. I still think they will list before the end of the year, they have just been trying to stem the tide for the last 4-5 months. Not that listing would be in our best interests, however.

[anotherone]

If they're doing everything they can to "close the loophole" I'm not very impressed with their efforts thus far. They've only changed their mind 3 or 4 times now and let almost 50,000 recievers into the state.

[DougH9]

This is pure JACK BOOTED THUGGERY!

Are OLL's legal to posses and sell or not??????????

The answear is YES, they are legal to posses and sell.

So how can these public servants walk into a buisness and threaten and coerce the proprieter into doing what they want (not what the law says)?

They lost the Rule Game fair and square, and are now not playing fair. This action by puplic servants sounds illegal to me, and they need to be held accountable for it. If they are never held accountable, they will just go on doing whatever they want.

Now I have first hand experiance of early American history (the reason for the tea party part).

[Blackwater OPS]

At least one FFL near me received paperwork for DOJ (I saw it) stating that the FFL must get a receipt from within 30 days for a "safety lock box" from anyone making a handgun purchase/transfer.:rolleyes:

[SemiAutoSam]

We could all go in on a APA action against them I would be good to put in $50.00 toward legal fees anyone want to match me ?

I'm sick of this BS from our public servants also and Would give my left or right N*T to see them swing in the legal gallows.


This is pure JACK BOOTED THUGGERY!

Are OLL's legal to posses and sell or not??????????

The answer is YES, they are legal to posses and sell.

So how can these public servants walk into a business and threaten and coerce the proprietor into doing what they want (not what the law says)?

They lost the Rule Game fair and square, and are now not playing fair. This action by public servants sounds illegal to me, and they need to be held accountable for it. If they are never held accountable, they will just go on doing whatever they want.

Now I have first hand experience of early American history (the reason for the tea party part).

[ybz]

unlikely. the DOJ believes that the proposed regulation regarding "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" is the ticket to shutting down the OLL loophole.

They could just list and propose a regulation banning anything that has the capacity to accept an UPPER. That, it would appear to me, would stop all future lower importation, and they get to keep tabs on all existing lowers through registration...
I could be totally off (probably am)...

[NSR500]

How hard is it to get an FFL and Open a shop or Process Transactions like PPT, etc... ?
This kinda JBT'huggery makes me want to open my own shop so that more OLL's can come in.

[bwiese]

They could just list and propose a regulation banning anything that has the capacity to accept an UPPER. That, it would appear to me, would stop all future lower importation, and they get to keep tabs on all existing lowers through registration...
I could be totally off (probably am)...

You are.

They cannot do that from a regulatory standpoint (regarding uppers).

That'd have to be a whole law, which ain't gonna happen.

[kantstudien]

[QUOTE=ybz]They could just list and propose a regulation banning anything that has the capacity to accept an UPPER.QUOTE]

Then we get more PTR-91s into the state until they make another law banning the capacity to accept a lower. :rolleyes: :D

[tiki]

the DOJ believes that the proposed regulation regarding "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" is the ticket to shutting down the OLL loophole.

Not a chance. Hear me out on this and think about it as you read this.

I see a lot of people talking about the OLLs and the legality of them and now the intimidation of FFLs. I ran into a local dealer that told me the DOJ told him that if someone bought an OLL from him and built it up into an illegal assault weapon, he could be charged as an accomplice. What a joke.

Let me say this: if the DOJ really believed that the proposed regulations were going to pass the OAL review and successfully be entered into the California Regulations, it would not be going around intimidating dealers.

Think about it. Let's just say for a minute that it does pass. Let's say for argument's sake that the proposed regulations passed as they were written with no changes and no legal challenges. An OLL would still be legal. The only thing the proposed regulations address is the use of the Prince 50 or other temporary magazine locking devices. If the proposed regs passed in thier current form, it would still be legal to:

1) purchase an OLL, add a Monster Man grip or just use the SRB device, remove the flash suppressor, put on a thread protector and use a fixed stock. Then, you could use a detachable magazine because you don't have any of the "evil features".

2) purchase an OLL, pin the magazine with a rivet and epoxy, add a pistol grip and any other "evil features". Since the magazine is fixed and permanent by the DOJ's own example, you can add the other features.

I find it not only humorous, but also curious, that they have written proposed regulations that still don't make an OLL illegal. So, I have been trying to think of what the motivation may be for this.

I think the DOJ is trying to slow the additional flow of OLLs until something significant happens in the near future. It isn't going to be listing. We all know the DOJ has given up its power to list. I don't believe that they woke up one day and said "gee, the NRA tricked us! We can't list after 2006!!" Come on. The DOJ gave up the power to list because the courts made it a useless tool. Manufacturers can change the makes and models faster than the DOJ can list. So, listing is useless.

Personally, I think we are headed for a regulation change that will kill OLLs. I think they are using the proposed regulations to get as much feedback from the public to assist them in crafting the new wording. We told them what firearms are now legal that would become illegal, we openly discussed ways to circumvent the regs on this message board and we discussed new fixes. From our letters and our posts, I think they are going to sit down and put together wording that will kill any loophole. Then, the regs will go to the legislators so that new laws can be created. That would trigger a registration. This kills the flow of new OLLs and it makes sure the ones that are out there go away when we die or move out of state. That's the only way to stop it.

I honestly don't think they believe that the propsed regs will pass and I don't think they care. Anyone that reads the APA pamphlet can plainly see that there are numerous glaring violations in the proposed regulations. I don't have a law degree but spending a few hours over the weekend with the APA pamphlet made it pretty clear that these changes don't have a chance. I know the DOJ employs individuals that have law degrees. I can't believe for a second that they don't know about or don't understand the Administrative Procedures Act.

My personal feeling is the DOJ is threatening dealers to stall for time until they can get new laws written to close the loophole. And maybe this is being pushed to the new AG so Bill doesn't have to deal with the registration. Furthermore, intimidating dealers will only make the OLL sales more profitable for those that continue the sales.

[newtothis]

but isnt recording a conversation without the other partys knowledge illegal in CA?

I think that's only on the phone. Everywhere else is OK unless prohibited. Employers often prohit it at the workplace.

[bwiese]

but isnt recording a conversation without the other partys knowledge illegal in CA?

The recording of DOJ Firerams Div. employees' activities & speech isn't restricted. These are supposedly public employees doing supposedly public duties, paid for by the taxpayer.

They do not have privacy rights in their public conduct.

[69Mach1]

I would pay $$ for a recorded conversation between a CA FFL and a DOJ agent. That goes for an out of state FFL and the CA DOJ also. Maybe we should start soliciting.

[heyjak]

++1 to the Treelogger's comments!

[anotherone]

intimidating dealers will only make the OLL sales more profitable for those that continue the sales.

Not to mention intimidating dealers makes the OLL seem even more evil and taboo... hence even more desirable. They're just fanning the flames with all this activity just like they did in 1999. If they weren't going to list they should have been real quiet and just let a couple garage gunsmiths build a few Cali legal custom fixed mag rifles. But then again when are public employees ever that clever?

[FreedomIsNotFree]

The recording of DOJ Firerams Div. employees' activities & speech isn't restricted. These are supposedly public employees doing supposedly public duties, paid for by the taxpayer.

They do not have privacy rights in their public conduct.

Exactly. The only issue, potentially with recordings, is those done over the phone. There is no expectation of privacy while in a public place or in public view....on the phone is another story...illegal under most circumstances unless disclosed.

[hoffmang]

Tiki,

What you propose can't be done without new legislation. The DOJ has limited administrative law jurisdiction. That is even further limited by the basic common sense in Harrot v. County of Kings.

Extortion by a state agent under color of law to impede Interstate Commerce borders on a Federal crime.

It is about time that an FFL complained to his local ATF agent and his Assistant US Attorney that he's being intimidated with known false information at threat of his livelihood. What is the difference between mob tactics and mob tactics for political gain?

Again we're back to Bull Conner but at least this time only the rifles are black.

-Gene

[DedEye]

Unfortunately, these threats and lies are all too common. The DOJ went to a shop I frequent in Goleta. The owner had been selling OLLs since December of 2005. I dropped by last month to buy a few more lowers and he said the DOJ had visited and said they would be actions against his business (and by extension make his life miserable) if he continued to carry them. He sold what he had and no long does transfers or sales of OLLs.

I guess it’s easy to be intimidated and extorted when your livelihood is threatened.

If I'm thinking of the same shop, I didn't even know they ever sold OLLs. I called to find out if they'd do a DROS on an imported OLL and he wouldn't go near them.

[Dont Tread on Me]

Bah, the farther you have to drive for your OLL's, the more you'll treasure them!

LOL! The same applies for how much you paid for them. I _love_ mine.

[tiki]

Tiki,
What you propose can't be done without new legislation.


Correct. I said in my post that the legislators would have to do it. I just think the DOJ may be hammering out the wording before it gets put out there to the legistators.
It's pretty simple; currently, the way the regs are written in the books, an OLL with a Prince 50 kit is legal. To make it illegal, they would have to open up a registration. No matter how the wording is weazled in there, if it is legal today and it becomes illegal tomorrow the rule/law/reg is being changed, expanded, enlarged, whatever.
I don't believe that anyone with average intelligence and even a quick reading of the APA summary can't see this. That's why I am starting to believe that there is something else going on. I have a very hard time looking at this and believing that professionals with law degrees and years of experience could be this clumsy and ineffective this far into the game. I can understand being dealt a blow by the courts on the series thing. Ok, I can also understand letting SB23 go by and not catching the loophole. But, I can't believe that the proposed regs are a genuine attempt at closing the loophole. We'll see. But, i'll tell you this: If the proposed regs in their current form show up at the OAL, I'll be very very surprised.

[Michael303]

If I'm thinking of the same shop, I didn't even know they ever sold OLLs. I called to find out if they'd do a DROS on an imported OLL and he wouldn't go near them.

I ordered my first OLL through GVG during my Thanksgiving break in 2005. Picked up a a NDS-3 from him in February. He couldn't keep them on the shelves at the time. I think he must have stopped selling in March or April. Not sure, as I was in Canoga after that and Metroshot was closer. I dropped when I was back in town in a year later and he told me the DOJ story. Too bad, as far as I know, of the three shops in Santa Barbara / Goleta he was the only person to do the transfers and business was good.

[pacificcoast]

Not a chance. Hear me out on this and think about it as you read this.

I see a lot of people talking about the OLLs and the legality of them and now the intimidation of FFLs. I ran into a local dealer that told me the DOJ told him that if someone bought an OLL from him and built it up into an illegal assault weapon, he could be charged as an accomplice. What a joke.

Let me say this: if the DOJ really believed that the proposed regulations were going to pass the OAL review and successfully be entered into the California Regulations, it would not be going around intimidating dealers.

Think about it. Let's just say for a minute that it does pass. Let's say for argument's sake that the proposed regulations passed as they were written with no changes and no legal challenges. An OLL would still be legal. The only thing the proposed regulations address is the use of the Prince 50 or other temporary magazine locking devices. If the proposed regs passed in thier current form, it would still be legal to:

1) purchase an OLL, add a Monster Man grip or just use the SRB device, remove the flash suppressor, put on a thread protector and use a fixed stock. Then, you could use a detachable magazine because you don't have any of the "evil features".

2) purchase an OLL, pin the magazine with a rivet and epoxy, add a pistol grip and any other "evil features". Since the magazine is fixed and permanent by the DOJ's own example, you can add the other features.

I find it not only humorous, but also curious, that they have written proposed regulations that still don't make an OLL illegal. So, I have been trying to think of what the motivation may be for this.

I think the DOJ is trying to slow the additional flow of OLLs until something significant happens in the near future. It isn't going to be listing. We all know the DOJ has given up its power to list. I don't believe that they woke up one day and said "gee, the NRA tricked us! We can't list after 2006!!" Come on. The DOJ gave up the power to list because the courts made it a useless tool. Manufacturers can change the makes and models faster than the DOJ can list. So, listing is useless.

Personally, I think we are headed for a regulation change that will kill OLLs. I think they are using the proposed regulations to get as much feedback from the public to assist them in crafting the new wording. We told them what firearms are now legal that would become illegal, we openly discussed ways to circumvent the regs on this message board and we discussed new fixes. From our letters and our posts, I think they are going to sit down and put together wording that will kill any loophole. Then, the regs will go to the legislators so that new laws can be created. That would trigger a registration. This kills the flow of new OLLs and it makes sure the ones that are out there go away when we die or move out of state. That's the only way to stop it.

I honestly don't think they believe that the propsed regs will pass and I don't think they care. Anyone that reads the APA pamphlet can plainly see that there are numerous glaring violations in the proposed regulations. I don't have a law degree but spending a few hours over the weekend with the APA pamphlet made it pretty clear that these changes don't have a chance. I know the DOJ employs individuals that have law degrees. I can't believe for a second that they don't know about or don't understand the Administrative Procedures Act.

My personal feeling is the DOJ is threatening dealers to stall for time until they can get new laws written to close the loophole. And maybe this is being pushed to the new AG so Bill doesn't have to deal with the registration. Furthermore, intimidating dealers will only make the OLL sales more profitable for those that continue the sales.

i agree, its all a stalling tactic. whether or not you believe theyre stalling for future legislation or for the proposed regulation regarding "capacity to accept a detachable magazine" is another issue. BL and others lobbied for AB2728 (theyre the ones to initiated the gut and amend of AB2728) so they may very well be interested in a multipronged approach. i dont deny that theyre certainly up to more than theyve revealed.

[hoffmang]

tiki,

The beauty of new law is that it can only open a new reg period and deny those tactics in the future.

-Gene

[11Z50]

I think that's only on the phone. Everywhere else is OK unless prohibited. Employers often prohit it at the workplace.

There are exceptions.......In a public place, with audio/visual is OK. Telephone without notice or court order is never OK. Personal contact depends on the situation.

BTW, a Federal wiretap order is very easy to get.

[tiki]

tiki,

The beauty of new law is that it can only open a new reg period and deny those tactics in the future.

-Gene

Yep. I think they know that.
I feel like they are slowing the flow of OLLs to minimize the number that will be registered. And, if that isn't it, they are slowing the flow until they figure out what to do. Bottom line is I don't think they even believe these proposed regs will have the desired effect.
OLLs will continue to sell until they become illegal.
If OLLs become illegal, those of us that own then get to register.

[Bill_in_SD]

But then again when are public employees ever that clever?

When they are working closely with the anti-gun crowd.......

Bill in SD

[Whitesmoke]

When they are working closely with the anti-gun crowd.......

Bill in SD

Yep...we're all stupid.:rolleyes:

[jnojr]

Does anyone really believe that they wouldn't pass a law saying that OLLs were always "against legislative intent", and therefore are banned ex post facto, come turn them in, like SKS Sporters?

At this point, I do not expect to see a listing. I'll be thrilled if there is, I have to admit, but I ain't holding my breath.

[bwiese]

Does anyone really believe that they wouldn't pass a law saying that OLLs were always "against legislative intent", and therefore are banned ex post facto, come turn them in, like SKS Sporters?

At this point, I do not expect to see a listing. I'll be thrilled if there is, I have to admit, but I ain't holding my breath.

They can try to pass a law to ban anything.

Last year not one antigun law made it.

They are clearly legal, if they mandated a turn-in, there'd be compensation issues and budgetary issues.

[hoffmang]

jnojr,

Bill hits the issue on the head. They either have to grandfather them or buy them all back - even assuming they can get legislation passed.

BTW: Imaging the buying spree proposed new legislation would cause.

-Gene

[Bill_in_SD]

Yep...we're all stupid.:rolleyes:

I did not say they are all stupid. My point is that if I was to back my personal agenda up with the resources of a rich and determined special interest group, I would not need to think too hard to further my agenda.

Bill in SD

[Jarhead4]

but isnt recording a conversation without the other partys knowledge illegal in CA?

I know that when you are with LE, you have no right to privacy, so they can voice record you with without telling you. I don’t know if the opposite is true, but I think it is. Video taping is legal without telling anyone. If it is in plain sight, video tapping is legal without notification. However, just a voice recording you have to notify the other party that you are going to record them.

And if you are going to use a voice recorder and the tape might be used in court. Make sure you have a good recorder. I was a juror on a case, and the Oakland PD had a tape recording of the interrogation of the suspect. Several parts were hard to make out because of the poor quality of the tape.

[DedEye]

I ordered my first OLL through GVG during my Thanksgiving break in 2005. Picked up a a NDS-3 from him in February. He couldn't keep them on the shelves at the time. I think he must have stopped selling in March or April. Not sure, as I was in Canoga after that and Metroshot was closer. I dropped when I was back in town in a year later and he told me the DOJ story. Too bad, as far as I know, of the three shops in Santa Barbara / Goleta he was the only person to do the transfers and business was good.

I called both the local shops to SB and Goleta, neither would do it. GVG wouldn't for the reason you mention, and the other shop wouldn't either because the third FFL in SB had just been shut down by the DOJ. I read in the paper it was because he didn't keep his records right, which I assume is code for getting audited for selling OLLs.