PDA

View Full Version : DELETE


rjeusmc
09-01-2011, 3:21 PM
DELETE

gun toting monkeyboy
09-01-2011, 3:23 PM
:lurk5:

blazeaglory
09-01-2011, 3:29 PM
Interesting...

BannedinBritain
09-01-2011, 3:30 PM
I'm actually surprised you got anyone to ink their name to anything...you deserve some kudos for that alone (small consolation...I know).

They (base commanders) don't want the liability...and whatever you do, you can't get around that. DOJ is going to kick it back if a single "i" isn't dotted...they don't want you, or anyone for that matter, to own evil guns.

As far as "legal grounds"? I would say no...they kicked back your letter and told you why it wasn't good...you should be able to just zip down and get a revised one signed by your base commander right? :rolleyes:

Yes, it used to be a formality for a military member to get a permit...CA is moving towards being it's own anti-gun Nation...nothing short of an act of Congress is going to change this.

stix213
09-01-2011, 3:34 PM
Yes, it used to be a formality for a military member to get a permit...CA is moving towards being it's own anti-gun Nation...nothing short of an act of Congress is going to change this.

A victory in Richards v. Harris will do

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=436300

Oceanbob
09-01-2011, 3:37 PM
Enlighten me then.

FYI gun-toting monkey boy was just eating popcorn (which indicates he will wait for an answer)..his QUOTE (saved from long ago) was not refering to you.

I would get more top brass involved and send another letter in. I've talked to TERI before. She practically runs the RAW unit. Nice gal to me when I asked for directions on getting a new letter that listed my 11 Registered Assault Weapons. :D

Follow thru.

Good luck
Bob

BannedinBritain
09-01-2011, 3:43 PM
A victory in Richards v. Harris will do

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=436300

Among others yes. :D

It's really sad when guys/gals serving are basically told "talk to the hand" on this crap. CA will gladly take the billions upon billions the military brings to the State...but we can't trust you with your own firearms.

BannedinBritain
09-01-2011, 3:47 PM
I started the process in Febuary this year, and have persisted thus far. I don't plan on giving up, BUT they know I am deploying very soon, so I think they are waiting me out. It does not say in the application instructions that the bona fide necessity must be listed. From what they say at the BOF, the commander must justify that to them. Thats not how the application instructions are written, or what I read from the law. It is very frustrating because I have nobody in my home of record able to store these for me anymore.

Do you have anyone, anywhere who can store them for you? If not, there must be a resource through the Corps to help you find something.

epilepticninja
09-01-2011, 3:53 PM
Uncle Sam doesn't want you to have any assualt weapon that he did not give to you. And you most likely will not find anyone wearing brass that will put their name to a letter where a "necessity to personnaly own an assault weapon" has to be listed. That legally binds them to your actions with the weapon. I applaud you for getting this far though. Keep at it, maybe someone will put down the ink on paper for you.

Can you get some verbiage into the letter along the lines of "The marine in question requires an assault type weapon, 1 EA, to be personnaly owned and kept by said marine to maintain his skills as a lean, mean, fighting machine." That should get the DOJ to sign off on it. Can't argue with that justification.

Flopper
09-01-2011, 3:57 PM
This sounds like another underground regulation.

I think you should contact one of the Right People and see if they can do anything with it.

Uxi
09-01-2011, 3:58 PM
Power of attorney to pursue this if/when/during your deployment.

SanPedroShooter
09-01-2011, 4:01 PM
Seriously, could you try and call your local assemblyman, congressman or senator? I know that most are anti gun bedwetters, but it seems like you've done a good job raising hell so far. I would be going for everything and the kitchen sink...

Word needs to get out about the DOJ ****ing around with servicemen. Not that they dont **** with everyone else too, but it just sounds bad. I dont know, can CALDOJ be shamed?

BannedinBritain
09-01-2011, 4:21 PM
Perhapse you could get Congressman Issa to give you some help...it's very much worth a shot.

Ford8N
09-01-2011, 5:13 PM
...CA is moving towards being it's own anti-gun Nation...nothing short of an act of Congress is going to change this.

It already has......I'm serious. We are totally S.O.L.

BajaJames83
09-01-2011, 5:19 PM
I didn't want to go through all the hassle, I just got a BB and blocked some 30rd mags to 10

Zimz
09-01-2011, 6:01 PM
Well this isn't good news. I've been looking at bringing in a rifle from Oklahoma (state of residence) while I'm stationed here. A guy I work with already has a rifle registered. He told me he just sent in the application himself, no commander's signature or anything and it was approved. I'm not sure what these ungrateful bass-tard$ at the DOJ have against those of us who serve, but it's insulting.

In the AF, due to financial strain from everywhere, we only get range time about once a year on our issued rifles. We've been getting sent out with Army and marine units more and more, and I would prefer to have more practical skills than whats allotted - i.e. my own fully functional rifle to practice with. Rules like this are an endangerment to us in my opinion. How can I practice malfunctions and clearing properly with a BB rifle?

On that thought... how can any civilians practice the techniques and skills necessary to protect a free people from tyranny without fully functional arms?

eh... /rant off.

G17GUY
09-01-2011, 6:02 PM
I didn't want to go through all the hassle, I just got a BB and blocked some 30rd mags to 10


That is great and all; however, some folks own guns listed in appendex B* and a BB does not make them legal to own in california.



*
http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

OleCuss
09-01-2011, 6:27 PM
The answer is that this should be addressed by the JAG. You receive orders to PCS to California and the combination of your lawful orders and California state law results in a "taking" of your firearm - and you are not compensated.

But a base commander who would write the letter which BOF would accept is a fool. BOF wants a letter which states that the personal ownership of the banned semi-automatic rifle is essential to the performance of your military duties. Signing such a letter is effectively certifying that the military is not providing the required equipment and training for their personnel and assigned tasks. In some regards this is actually going above even a base commander's pay grade in that it would be an indictment of the military and its policies in general.

Since the current MAWP policy appears to be in line with current state law, until state law is changed (hopefully by case law) it seems unlikely that there will be a fix. The organization which should be fighting this battle is the JAG of whichever branch is involved.

Good luck finding a JAG who will actually pursue this as they ought. Not very likely that you're going to get the JAG office to decide to tick off their National Command Authority by suing Kalifornia over restrictive BSAR policies.

Net effect is you need to find a JAG who is more concerned with doing right than in protecting their career. It would probably need to be one nearing retirement and their higher-ups would likely kill the case anyway.

Sorry, it sucks.

yellowfin
09-01-2011, 6:46 PM
^ Couldn't said JAG have another lawyer backing them up w/ a suit against any "superiors" (in quotes because anyone who opposes someone standing up for freedom and individual rights, even while in military, isn't superior to roach poop) for wrongful retaliation?

choprzrul
09-01-2011, 7:01 PM
Thank you for your service and a humble apology for your treatment by the state of CA.

Hang a bullet button on that bang stick & I'm betting that there is an upstanding CGN'r that will store it for you. I fully realize that this doesn't solve your problem as stated, but it gives you a work around.

.

OleCuss
09-01-2011, 7:38 PM
^ Couldn't said JAG have another lawyer backing them up w/ a suit against any "superiors" . . . for wrongful retaliation?

Not sure most JAG's have the money to retain a lawyer for such purposes. And there are so many ways that your superiors can trash your career with legal recourse being rather iffy.

Do remember, that if I were a JAG officer (maybe a captain or a major) and I tried to file suit against Kalifornia over this - not only would my next Officer Evaluation Report likely have subtle (by non-military standards) little changes that would mean I was a troublemaker and my career should slowly die, but my superiors would deep-six the suit anyway. Net effect is that your career is pretty much over and you didn't do any good for anyone - not sure that the ethical equation works out all that well when everyone loses.

Sometimes reality sucks. You have no idea just how badly I want a high-quality POTUS who will happily fire much of the highest brass and start fixing the mess that is our military.

If you want a readily accessible example of the level of incompetence - just consider that a number of years ago they decided that essentially all the Army would wear berets. Some of the worst headgear they could possibly choose and cost the system a whole lot of money - but the idiot general in charge at the time made it happen anyway.

And ACU camouflage? Great idea to get a camouflage pattern which works well in all environments - except that I never saw it work well in any environment. But some incompetent generals shoved it into place anyway. Oh, and the Marines did better on this one (much as it pains me to admit it) and the Army was just too stupid/stubborn to adopt or nearly adopt what the Marines had done.

Fyathyrio
09-01-2011, 8:50 PM
You'd be hard pressed to get a JAG anywhere near this. It's a pain just to get them to review a contract or notarize a document. They don't exist to protect our troops rights in matters like this, they exist to both prosecute and defend serious infractions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and to give legal advice to command staff. Military normally doesn't get legal representation for issues outside the military, we gotta hire our own lawyer.

1911su16b870
09-03-2011, 11:25 AM
Wow...just wow...the below letter fulfills the requirements of the Act IMO...good luck and thank you for your service. :patriot:

Here is the new revised letter they wont sign...

Department of Justice
Firearms Licensing and Permits Section MAWP
P.O. Box 160367
Sacramento, CA 95816-0367

The purpose of this letter is to certify that Sergeant (BLANK), U.S. Marine Corps, is authorized to take control of, and maintain possession of, firearms considered assault weapons under California state law. As an active duty service member, a bona fide necessity exists for Sergeant (BLANK)s Possession of personally-owned assault weapons. It is necessary for Sergeant (BLANK) to retain ownership of these firearms in California, for command authorized lawful ownership and off-duty marksmanship training. Due to his active duty military status and current assignment to Camp Pendleton, the weapons will be imported from storage in (BLANK) to his current residence (BLANK), California. In the event Sergeant (BLANK) receives permanent change of station orders directing him elsewhere, this authorization will be terminated immediately upon the execution of those orders.

wheels
09-03-2011, 2:51 PM
I hate to say it but their plan seems to be working, exempt the LEO and military at the beginning, just go after the civilian assault rifles.

Then slowly take away the LEO and military off duty exemptions.

It would be great if some senior enlisted (>20 years) would refuse orders to CA duty stations en masse - make a political statement about military service in CA.

bohoki
09-03-2011, 2:59 PM
the cheapest option seems to be the exile machine hammerhead i use it slightly modified that way i can use my mags of which i have zer0 that hold less than 20

if your muzzle has a flashhider unscrew it if possible to make it featureless

BannedinBritain
09-03-2011, 3:04 PM
I don't want to cause confusion, that letter is the second submission that my command is hesitant to sign. The first one the language was identicle to the application instructions. It read "a bona fide necessity exist for (me) to use personally owned assault weapons in sanctioned military activities." They actually signed the letter, which I have. The DOJ asked me "what is the bona fide necessity?" I told them that the application instructions didnt specify the actual necessity be listed, as a Colonel of Marines should be able to use his own discretion.

When I talked to the DOJ last week and read them the second letter I asked "will that be sufficient?", and they started grilling me about "Your telling me, your command is going to authorize you to use assault weapons for off duty marksmanship?" I proceeded to explain to them how odd it was that a federal entity, a base commander would have to justify his endorsement of an AW permit to the state. And that no where does it say the BOF will discriminate, based on what the Base commander feels is adequate justification should be adequate.

If this MAWP program was in any way designed or intended to provide non resident service members the right to keep their weapons for the duration of their service in CA, it definately doesnt exist that way today.

This part only confirms what the original intent was in requiring the letter...they KNOW it's effectively a ban on military members bringing the guns they own into the State. :mad:

pgg
09-03-2011, 8:08 PM
I am so thoroughly disgusted with the DOJ words fail.

They renewed my MAWP in February without any hassle. I hope they won't decline to renew it next year. All of my AWs are on listed lowers so I can't just put a maglock device on them.

6172crew
09-04-2011, 8:37 AM
Im wondering if you could ask the JAG for help on this one, it would be nice to see a letter from them to some clerk at the bof. Wonder if Jerry B. knows the crap they are pulling down there.

CavTrooper
09-04-2011, 9:04 AM
This sort of thing does not fall within JAG authority or expertise but it is a nice way for CGF and some calgunners to tell military folks to piss off. Frankly, I dont blame them, its really not fair to allow some folks to retain banned weapons when others are denied that right merely because they are legally obligated to comply with orders assigning them to CA.

dantodd
09-04-2011, 11:16 AM
This seems ripe for fairly simple federal legislation. It seems that the Feds denying any state the abilityvto limit the weapons militry personnel may posess while on active duty is a slam dunk.

dantodd
09-04-2011, 11:30 AM
I just dont understand, what the hell else do these guys expect me to do? Lucky for me I have a buddy who is an FFL who is storing them for me, otherwise I would have to have brought them here, or sold them for pennies on the dollar.

They expect you and the evil, violent military people like you to leave the state or at least sell all of your evil guns.

Heiko
09-04-2011, 11:52 AM
I hate to say it but their plan seems to be working, exempt the LEO and military at the beginning, just go after the civilian assault rifles.

Then slowly take away the LEO and military off duty exemptions.

I hate to say it but you are right. DOJ has declared that retired LEOs who have AR-15 style rifles (I purposely don't want to call them AW) personally purchased for duty but authorized by their department, cannot keep them when they retire.

I've had many discussions about this. I'd like to see DOJ go door to door asking for retired LEOs to hand over their rifles.

Uxi
09-04-2011, 12:03 PM
If this MAWP program was in any way designed or intended to provide non resident service members the right to keep their weapons for the duration of their service in CA, it definately doesnt exist that way today.

That seems to have been the original intent, but intent now is outright ban with no exceptions, regardless of whether you choose to come here or not. They don't care what you do with your banned semi-autos as long as you don't bring them with you.


I hate to say it but you are right. DOJ has declared that retired LEOs who have AR-15 style rifles (I purposely don't want to call them AW) personally purchased for duty but authorized by their department, cannot keep them when they retire.

I've had many discussions about this. I'd like to see DOJ go door to door asking for retired LEOs to hand over their rifles.

That would generate resistance. The bureaucracy will decide on the ban and not do any active enforcement but slowly tack it on to other crimes as they deem fit. Eventually it will apply to all. Classic divide and conquer really.

NorCal Mtn Flyer
09-04-2011, 12:06 PM
I bet someone at BATFE would sign it off for you... (or at least, they would have up until a couple of months ago...) ;) :D

BannedinBritain
09-04-2011, 4:19 PM
Its so funny that they had the base commander sign the first one, and now he doesnt want to sign the second... The end result would have been the same.

It wouldn't surprise me if your base commander was not-so-gently informed he shouldn't have signed the first one by someone with more hardware on the collar...know what I mean?

dieselpower
09-04-2011, 5:50 PM
since when was a MAWP based on using the firearm on duty? The MAWP was to allow Military personnel to bring firearms legal in their Home State of record here. The same as bringing in a car from another State or using another states drivers license.

Get the JAG involved. You are here on orders and that means you have rights under your home State.

Uxi
09-04-2011, 6:06 PM
And if they won't do anything, consider a private attorney. Probably be able to set up a fund that a bunch of people would be willing to donate to. This has to be challenged and DoJ slapped down. Couldn't hurt to shoot an email to SAF if CGF isn't interested (which is what it sounded like from the last thread).

Lone_Gunman
09-04-2011, 6:52 PM
I just dont understand, what the hell else do these guys expect me to do? Lucky for me I have a buddy who is an FFL who is storing them for me, otherwise I would have to have brought them here, or sold them for pennies on the dollar.

They expect you to shut up and do what they say.

SanPedroShooter
11-02-2011, 4:53 PM
All I can say is, **** THOSE GUYS!

Come back alive and Semper Fi.

CavTrooper
11-02-2011, 4:53 PM
Its a damn shame that the MAWP process turned into this, Im just glad I GTFO of CA when I did. Sadly, it appears the enemies of the Constitution are more adept at picking the "low hanging fruit" since for every one "we" get, "they" get 3 more.

BajaJames83
11-02-2011, 5:03 PM
i tried years ago and was discouraged by all the papers and have not wanted to even waste my time and try again

Ford8N
11-02-2011, 5:21 PM
Your in California.....get used to it. Gun owner=POTENTIAL CRIMINAL

goodlookin1
11-02-2011, 6:49 PM
Your in California.....get used to it. Gun owner= POTENTIAL BONA FIDE CRIMINAL

Fixed it for you

Massan
11-02-2011, 7:06 PM
:facepalm:

So much for your superiors having your back. Whatever happened to officers of old that go "No, your f**king stupid. Give my guy what he wants"? Only thing I can say, PCS out ASAP. With any luck I'll be gone sometime next year.

wheels
11-02-2011, 7:14 PM
Let this be a lesson to those accept an exception for their "class" - your exception is temporary.

OP - good luck, come home safe and continue the fight.

Damn shame they didn't issue a spine to your chain of command, they are sorely in need.

tabrisnet
11-02-2011, 8:01 PM
Your in California.....get used to it. Gun owner=POTENTIAL CRIMINAL

This is about as logical as CAR OWNER == POTENTIAL CRIMINAL.

I have many more opportunities daily to kill ppl with my Chevy Impaler^H^Ha than I do with a gun.

OleCuss
11-02-2011, 8:25 PM
rjeusmc:

Thank you for your service - both here and abroad.

6172crew
11-02-2011, 8:45 PM
So contacting your Rep ment the MPs crawled up your 6?

PM inbound.

flyingcaveman
11-02-2011, 9:39 PM
How about to support and defend the constitution of the United States for a bona fide reason? How can they argue with that? Are they going to tell you your oath only applies while you are on duty or only when you are on the base?

30rdMag
11-02-2011, 10:14 PM
I have not read the whole thread. But one has to wonder if this is because of the dumb *** in Texas last year I think it was. Guy goes in a shoots up the base and now everyone looses. But also todays higher ups are for the most part pupets to the locals around the base they have to keep happy. What happens when a local freaks out because you are going to and from and they see the firearm. Oh the whole base is bad.... Lets get rid of the base now. Or someone lets the media get a bite and they run with it with their twist. Before to long the Base Comander is getting his *** chewed for the base looking bad in public. Its all political. Watch your step when going thru it. Step on the wrong toes and you could be in the **** for the rest of your contract.

I do think its ****. If you want to date your rifle? Hey give it a whig and call her Jane. Your rifle because of your job is just as important as say my wrenches at work. They are tools for a job and we only want to make or do our jobs better. So we want to practice.

But like I said. Watch out for toes pick your battles and its all political. California sucks Its sometimes better to just smile, do your time and transfer out. California is a parking lot speed bump in a ruin down 7/11 of life.

Be safe and thanks for your service.

bwiese
11-03-2011, 2:30 AM
I am glad you are in touch with Jason Davis on this.

Sadly, the DOJ can get away with 'discretion' on this matter unless they start doing really wild things. Otherwise, we could have gone after them on the policy change that occurred over the last year or so.

The real fix for this is to not fix MAWPs.

The real fix is to not have an enforcable AW category at all, at least for SB23 "features" guns.

ldsnet
11-03-2011, 5:23 AM
I am glad you have knowledgeable legal counsel on your side.

After 24 years of dealing with military thinking I understand your frustration. Thank you for fighting the good fight.

The common theme of military commanders disarming the service members needs to go away. You may be the turning point in that fight.

Stay safe at home and abroad.

cmaynes
11-03-2011, 7:18 AM
Uncle Sam doesn't want you to have any assualt weapon that he did not give to you. And you most likely will not find anyone wearing brass that will put their name to a letter where a "necessity to personnaly own an assault weapon" has to be listed. That legally binds them to your actions with the weapon. I applaud you for getting this far though. Keep at it, maybe someone will put down the ink on paper for you.

Can you get some verbiage into the letter along the lines of "The marine in question requires an assault type weapon, 1 EA, to be personnaly owned and kept by said marine to maintain his skills as a lean, mean, fighting machine." That should get the DOJ to sign off on it. Can't argue with that justification.

Uncle Sam is actually not the culprit here- tax stamps are issued for NFA items ALL THE TIME in free states. It is a CA DOJ issue, and if they allow you to have a dangerous weapons permit, they have to allow anyone serving in military the same in CA. It complicates their lives considerably. I say cry me an ocean, but the latest word of criminal gangs infiltrating the Armed Forces is probably where CA DOJ will end up as the final backstop- however unreasonable that might be....

cmaynes
11-03-2011, 7:22 AM
I hate to say it but their plan seems to be working, exempt the LEO and military at the beginning, just go after the civilian assault rifles.

Then slowly take away the LEO and military off duty exemptions.

It would be great if some senior enlisted (>20 years) would refuse orders to CA duty stations en masse - make a political statement about military service in CA.

talk about career suicide....

longhairchris
11-03-2011, 8:12 AM
Sorry about our great state pulling this garbage on you. They would take away your duty weapon if they thought they could get away with it!

6172crew
11-03-2011, 8:14 AM
talk about career suicide....

Just thinking about the brig makes a guy throw that idea out the window.:eek:

HskrVern
11-03-2011, 10:54 AM
I am glad you have knowledgeable legal counsel on your side.

After 24 years of dealing with military thinking I understand your frustration. Thank you for fighting the good fight.

The common theme of military commanders disarming the service members needs to go away. You may be the turning point in that fight.

Stay safe at home and abroad.

Here in Virginia my Command Master Chief actively discourages gun ownership and just outright vilifies carry permits. It doesn't look good to have that kind of "incident" on your fitrep, keeps one from getting stars on the ole shoulder boards.

markw
11-03-2011, 11:38 AM
You should also tell the base to extract their head on handgun registration. They're informing guys who transfer into CA that they have to register their handguns even if they're not residents. They don't understand that the DOJ makes crap up as they go, and that they should refer to PC.

Check the part under "Per the California Department of Justice:"

http://www.marines.mil/unit/basecamppendleton/Pages/Information/weaponsRegistration.aspx

Here's the faq at the wiki. It fell on deaf ears when I brought this up to them.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Moving_to_California_with_firearms

Anchors
11-03-2011, 12:20 PM
Thank you for trying and for your service.

There really isn't much else you can do at this point, man.

Uxi
11-03-2011, 1:31 PM
Have you requested Mast?

HskrVern
11-03-2011, 1:42 PM
Your master chief sounds like a moron who abuses his rank to bully his subordinates, and he should be removed from his CMC billet

Sad thing is, he's an upgrade from the last one.

wheels
11-03-2011, 3:07 PM
talk about career suicide....

Anything after 20 is working for half pay - or so they used to say. It might get some attention at the Pentagon if they had to CASREP some CA commands for lack of senior enlisted personnel.