Why is it???

[ecounter]

Why is it that many online and catologue merchants have in the recent months(the same months that coincide with many OLLs being sold in California) changed their policies and stopped selling any merchandise that could be related to AK or AR rifles. As an example Cheaper Than Dirt.

Could it be that these retailers were contacted by certain members of certain agencies in Kalifornia and intimidated wth civil action or worse. Just a thought, but it is a strange coincidence. I wonder if contacting these retailers and obtaining reasons for their refusing to sell perfectly legal items in Kalifornia might result in some interesting results?????

Just a pondering.

[anotherone]

Basically, there is a huge state flush with untold billions of dollars from its residents. The state governement here is extremely large, wealthy, and resourceful compared to other states. The government here is also highly anti-gun and will prosecute anyone on a dime. Hence when the cost of doing business with Californian residents is potentially millions of dollars in court and maybe even your business most businesses will not risk it. Businesses are minimaxers; they want to minimize risks and maximize gains.

[Tzvia]

Buy from a different retailer. For example, Cheaper Than Dirt has those Colt A1 uppers I think for about $400 bucks. They will not sell to CA. CDNN has the same upper for about $380 and they ship to CA no problem. My brother got one and it's very nice (He lives in Woodland Hills). So now, no more purchases from CTD, my money is happier with other retailers.

I have put together 5 AR's this year, and have a Larue 12 rail on it's way here for #6 as we speak.:D Choose your retailer wisely. I've used Larue, Brownells, Bravo, 10%, Adco, Reinier, CS Gunworks, Delton, GTS and JP Rifles. Top notch service, no problems from any. I'm sure there are other cyber stores who sell to CA and provide 110% service, but I will only speak from personal experience. I bought my lowers locally, from Metroshot and Gunrunners; both good folks too.

[hoffmang]

I think it would be wise to call and ask these retailers if CA DOJ has been in contact. If they have its even more evidence of the troubling conspiracy to deny us all property rights based on fraudulent and threatening behavior.

Also, a public records act request to the DOJ Firearms division on this topic could be interesting.

-Gene

[fguerra]

I tried ordering a collapsible stock and pistol grip for my OLL from Cheaper Than Dirt a while back and was told the item's were restricted in CA. So, I called and asked WHY they were restricted in CA on CTD's site. I was told that CTD knew the item's were not illegal in CA, but that they were threatened with a lawsuit by CA DOJ for selling illegal item's to CA. This was about 6-7 months ago.

[ecounter]

Now we are getting somewhere. How do we get proof from Cheaper Than Dirt that they were threatened by the CA DOJ. Even if this OLL thing had never happened the only parts for an AR/AK that would be banned would be the Lower. What about the thousands of California consumers that had registered AWs or parts for the AR that will work on configurations for the Ruger 10/22 or Remington 870 shotguns(Telescopic stock).

[aileron]

I think they need to be in written form to be viable. Its a CTD said DOJ said argument without a letter.

Its possible the DOJ knows they can verbally threaten these companies and the companies will have a hard time proving it.

I guess if a lot of companies contribute stories that DOJ threatened them... then it could be submitted as evidence that they are intefering with legal commerce. In fact intefering with interstate commerce might be occuring here.

But because they did not actually take possession of the articles out of state. I dont think 18 U.S.C. § 1951 applies.

Maybe there is another law that handles that, but I dont see it. Me still learning how to research the law.

Possibly it could apply to the someone who had their property taken after it arrived in Kali.

[VeryCoolCat]

I would bet the DOJ is on its scare tactics... attemping to threaten and illegally influence buisnesses not to do their "LEGAL" buisness.

hoffmang found this
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

I believe that applies here in the DOJs tactics... but No one will prosecute... our voices will go unheard. Our rights and liberties taken away.... for what? Over their ignorant hatred of a "tool" a device that WHEN NOT HELD IN THE HANDS of a person are incapable of doing any damage.

[aileron]

Yea I know about that post, didnt someone have a whole lot of AR Lowers taken ealier this year. Maybe 18 U.S.C. § 1951 does apply after all.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 95 > § 1951

§ 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or violence


(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) As used in this section—
(1) The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
(2) The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
(3) The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
(c) This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15, sections 52, 101–115, 151–166 of Title 29 or sections 151–188 of Title 45.

Once again... me not a lawyer so I dont know.

[rorschach]

I asked CTD to take me off their list, but they still send their ads anyway.

[hoffmang]

aileron,

You are quoting the Hobbs act there. It usually means that someones property was misappropriated by the criminal and actually taken for their benefit instead of simply for their political desires. The correct analogy is a bribe.

As to out of state vendors being threatened, that is illegal. If they were only threatened on the phone, then pointing out the farce often will make folks understand they've been had. However, if they actually received a letter, that's either a public record, or something they should be willing to forward.

CA DOJ has definitely broken Federal Law on occasion in writing to out of state vendors though.

-Gene