PDA

View Full Version : Rumors about OLL's confilscated in the Redding area


HUTCH 7.62
02-25-2007, 1:05 PM
I was in Redding a couple weeks ago shooting My new DSArms cal legal FAL when a couple of guys who were benchrest shooting at 600 yards next to me at a BLM designated shooting area came over to talk to me. They said that I better watch out for the BLM law enforcement because they were confilscating OLL's. Now I don't know if it was Illegal builds or anything I assume they were. Does anyone know if this is true.

metalhead357
02-25-2007, 2:54 PM
I was in Redding a couple weeks ago shooting My new DSArms cal legal FAL when a couple of guys who were benchrest shooting at 600 yards next to me at a BLM designated shooting area came over to talk to me. They said that I better watch out for the BLM law enforcement because they were confilscating OLL's. Now I don't know if it was Illegal builds or anything I assume they were. Does anyone know if this is true.


If its BLM and the Redding area then it would be Patrick (IIRC) that we're talking about. Anything is possible with him. ((as the stories go)) He'll watch shooters, confront them, ask how many rounds they've fired and if they cant produce the same amount of SPENT rounds then he's been know to give a ticket for littering. He seems to have a very personal grudge against shooters in general, so OLL's would certainly be of interest to him & his one man crusade to cleanup NoCal BLM land.

My best Guess-- Go talk to Nice shot and/or Jones' Fort....I'm sure they'll give you an earful....cant gurantee that its all not just rumor mongoring.


Post back if you find out more.

I have several friends up there but they aint said a peep about a bust/confiscation.

bwiese
02-25-2007, 2:58 PM
Let's get clarity on this.

Shooting legal guns (reg'd AWs, or regular rifles) on BLM land is fine. There is even a BLM memo that says "if your AW is legal, go for it".

Perhaps there are other issues (safety, "littering" as Metalhead says, etc.)

metalhead357
02-25-2007, 3:46 PM
Let's get clarity on this.

Shooting legal guns (reg'd AWs, or regular rifles) on BLM land is fine. There is even a BLM memo that says "if your AW is legal, go for it".

Perhaps there are other issues (safety, "littering" as Metalhead says, etc.)

Bill- THERE ARE other issues--- AW's are NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT ok on BLM in the redding sector; The local sectors have the right to say no to AW's and Redding does; Hollister and others DO allow it- but Redding does not--- you'll have to dig on thier website but they currently do not allow AW's........

Now as for OLL's..................?
Good guess~ The field op (if his name is actually patrick) is the stuff of legends up there in terms of harrasmment (Arguably so IFFFFFFF someone is truly breaking the law) but I woulnt put it past anyone out there to confiscate now and have the owner prove it otherwise later:cool:

metalhead357
02-25-2007, 3:56 PM
Here it is-----


For Redding area

BLM adheres to the guidelines issued by the California Department of Justice regarding the types of weapons allowed for use on the public lands. Use of assault-type weapons is not permitted.


http://www.blm.gov/ca/redding/Reddingrecreationhunting.html

Pissessss me off to no avail:cool:

hoffmang
02-25-2007, 5:23 PM
Ok, what the heck does that mean and what law is it based on? That would be the epitome of an illegal statement. A Federal Officer can't enforce a state law that doesn't exist...

-Gene

bwiese
02-25-2007, 5:59 PM
I am wondering if this is an outdated BLM webpage:

As I recall, in 2003? there was a general BLM memo that said that AWs were OK on Fed BLM land as long as they were legal (i.e, reg'd AWs, owned by a non-felon, etc.) I believe it was for statewide use.

From http://www.blm.gov/ca/caso/hunting.html


Persons have the permission of the Bureau of Land Management to possess and use firearms, including lawfully registered assault weapons, on BLM-administered public lands, except when prohibited by other applicable laws and regulations.


From
https://doi1.ios.doi.gov/blm/cdirectives.nsf/0/180c6147510e288588256d640057f876/$FILE/CAIM2003-049.pdf:



July 15, 2003
In Reply Refer To:
9260 (CA-913) P
EMS TRANSMISSION: 07/15/03
Instruction Memorandum No. CA-2003-049
To: All Field Offices
From: State Director
Subject: State Policy on Use and Possession of Assault Weapons

The State of California has in recent years issued amendments to the 1989 California Assault Weapons law, and in 2000 changed the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include specificitems instead of make and model. As a result of these changes, this office has received requeststo address the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) current policy regarding the use and possession of these weapons on BLM-administered public lands.

In 1989, the State of California enacted legislation restricting the possession and use of firearms defined as assault weapons. The Governor approved this legislation, titled the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, on May 24, 1989. It was coded into the California Penal Code and became effective January 1, 1990. This law places restrictions on the use and possession of assault weapons in the State of California. Among other things, the law requires that persons owning a firearm defined as an assault weapon, must register it with the California Department of Justice before January 1, 1991. The law also places conditions on uses of legally registered assault weapons, including the following:

Chapter 2.3, 12285, (c)(6) “While on publicly owned land if the possession and use of a firearm
described in Section 12276 or 12276.1 is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land.”

In accordance with this provision, BLM-California’s policy for the use of assault weapons is:

Persons have the permission of the BLM to possess and use firearms, including lawfully registered
assault weapons, on BLM-administered public lands except when prohibited by other applicable laws and
regulations.

This policy is consistent with the U.S. Forest Service’s policy for Region 5. Our responsibility for public safety, property, and resource protection can be met using Federal laws and regulations. BLM Law Enforcement Officers should continue to enforce appropriate Federal laws and regulations related to the use and possession of firearms as needed.

Questions related to this subject should be directed to the Acting Special Agent-in-Charge, Ross Butler, at (916) 978-4450.

(Signed)
Mike Pool
State Director

(Authenticated)
Louise Tichy
Records Management

Matt C
02-25-2007, 6:02 PM
BLM adheres to the guidelines issued by the California Department of Justice regarding the types of weapons allowed for use on the public lands. Use of assault-type weapons is not permitted.

What would the charge be? Possesion of an "assault-type weapon"? Who decides what that is exactly? Where the authority to make that determination come from, where is it codified? Total BS.

HUTCH 7.62
02-25-2007, 6:16 PM
At Iron Mountain in the Redding area it is posted on the Kiosk when you enter public lands that their is no Assult eweapons permitted but at the spring branch shooting area I don't ever recall seeing anything posted about AW's. I have heard of Patrik if that is his real name, never met him though. My experiance up there is that most LEO's in that area don't care what you do as long as you pick up your trash and don't shoot bottles or glass.

bwiese
02-25-2007, 6:21 PM
CA AW laws do indeed regulate AW possession & usage on lands & other facilities (say, visiting another's home or biz) by requiring express permission.

The July 2003 memo is in fact express written permission to use AWs in a lwaful fashion (hunting or target shooting - or even lawful defense against druggie cretins in the woods), and it applies state-wide. I can find nowhere where it has been rescinded, but calling the main office for verification that it is continued policy statewide would be wise.

The local subregion etc manager would not be able to override this.

Basically, BLM wants to wash its hands of CA AW laws. It cannot of course enourage illegal conduct (i.e., unreg'd AW possession), it's just saying it wants to treat AWs no different than other weapons. It just wants to treat CA AWs like any other firearms: if firearms are permitted, AWs would be

I suggest folks in the offending region carry a copy of this BLM memo too.

This certainly counts as express written permission for 12280/12285PC compliance on using/possessing AWs in authorized places only...

bwiese
02-25-2007, 6:36 PM
What would the charge be? Possesion of an "assault-type weapon"? Who decides what that is exactly? Where the authority to make that determination come from, where is it codified? Total BS.

For an AW - that is, if it met CA's definition - CA law determines if you can use it by whether or not the landowner, site owner, biz or residence owner gives you express permission.

An OLL build, properly configured, is just a regular rifle.

If you do not have that permission, then you're violating 12280 PC.

Matt C
02-25-2007, 6:40 PM
For an AW - that is, if it met CA's definition - CA law determines if you can use it by whether or not the landowner, site owner, biz or residence owner gives you express permission.

An OLL build, properly configured, is just a regular rifle.

If you do not have that permission, then you're violating 12280 PC.

From what was said, it sounded like someone was prohibiting OLLs.

bwiese
02-25-2007, 6:42 PM
At Iron Mountain in the Redding area it is posted on the Kiosk when you enter public lands that their is no Assult eweapons permitted but at the spring branch shooting area I don't ever recall seeing anything posted about AW's. I have heard of Patrik if that is his real name, never met him though. My experiance up there is that most LEO's in that area don't care what you do as long as you pick up your trash and don't shoot bottles or glass.


You may well have a case where the info has not rained down on the local office/mgmt.

That posting cannot have legal force, local mgrs cannot have little fiefdoms where they can, on a while, override the RD's policy.

If the policy changes, it's gonna have to come from the head office.

Look at the memo above which I posted link to (and quoted in entirety) and call the 916 number. Ask them if that memo is still in force, ask them if there is any countervening subequent memo, etc. Once they say 'yes' to this, ask them how/why Redding has that restriction, and under what authority the local mgr has to refute/override the Region 5 manager's systemwide policies.

bwiese
02-25-2007, 6:44 PM
From what was said, it sounded like someone was prohibiting OLLs.

Well, he was prohibiting OLLs because he thought they were AWs.

Since AWs are allowed without exception due to statewide memo, it's a completely moot issue.

(Again check on current validity of memo, but I am sure it's not be rescinded.)

HUTCH 7.62
02-25-2007, 6:56 PM
Thanks for the advice Bill, Redding area LEO's have always been a bunch of Cowboys. And It's true OLL's are still a very new thing up their everytime I bring one up there people are always gathering around and asking a million question. Next time I go up their I am going to take some of GRAMMATON's fliers.

bwiese
02-25-2007, 7:03 PM
Thanks for the advice Bill, Redding area LEO's have always been a bunch of Cowboys. And It's true OLL's are still a very new thing up their everytime I bring one up there people are always gathering around and asking a million question. Next time I go up their I am going to take some of GRAMMATON's fliers.

Hutch, take a copy of that BLM memo too and wave it in their face if they start talking about AWs.

Maybe I need to take my real, reg'd AWs up there and shoot.

metalhead357
02-25-2007, 7:17 PM
Bill-

You're right as far as I'm concerned....but not as it pertains to Redding & its practice. Calling them nets a "NO" AW's are not allowed. A 2004 E-mail from me (That I was/am trying to find) Also netted a big "NO".

The statewide memo is what got my hopes up (here and on other boards) but it was quickly pointed out to me the link is for Caso......... Not Redding, albeit it says statewide; even the bit below you posted only appears on what? 3 of 7 (or something like that) Regional Office web pages.

Could Redding be out of Step? You betcha....but who is gonna care? Who do we complain to? I LOVE to know as I'll be one of the first to make the calls, write a letter..... I Litterally have one friend that has sold off anything/everything that looks "Black rifle"-ish cause he says "Why bother? I cant shoot 'em here" and has gone as far as selling off every piece (EXCEPT THE RECIEVER) of his registered AW; was sooooo fearful he sold the parts outta state:cool:




I am wondering if this is an outdated BLM webpage:

As I recall, in 2003? there was a general BLM memo that said that AWs were OK on Fed BLM land as long as they were legal (i.e, reg'd AWs, owned by a non-felon, etc.) I believe it was for statewide use.

From http://www.blm.gov/ca/caso/hunting.html


Persons have the permission of the Bureau of Land Management to possess and use firearms, including lawfully registered assault weapons, on BLM-administered public lands, except when prohibited by other applicable laws and regulations.


From
https://doi1.ios.doi.gov/blm/cdirectives.nsf/0/180c6147510e288588256d640057f876/$FILE/CAIM2003-049.pdf:



July 15, 2003

In Reply Refer To:

9260 (CA-913) P

EMS TRANSMISSION: 07/15/03

Instruction Memorandum No. CA-2003-049

To: All Field Offices

From: State Director

Subject: State Policy on Use and Possession of Assault Weapons


The State of California has in recent years issued amendments to the 1989 California Assault Weapons law, and in 2000 changed the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include specificitems instead of make and model. As a result of these changes, this office has received requeststo address the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) current policy regarding the use and possession of these weapons on BLM-administered public lands.


In 1989, the State of California enacted legislation restricting the possession and use of firearms defined as assault weapons. The Governor approved this legislation, titled the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, on May 24, 1989. It was coded into the California Penal Code and became effective January 1, 1990. This law places restrictions on the use and possession of assault weapons in the State of California. Among other things, the law requires that persons owning a firearm defined as an assault weapon, must register it with the California Department of Justice before January 1, 1991. The law also places conditions on uses of legally registered assault weapons, including the following:

Chapter 2.3, 12285, (c)(6) “While on publicly owned land if the possession and use of a firearm

described in Section 12276 or 12276.1 is specifically permitted by the managing agency of the land.”
In accordance with this provision, BLM-California’s policy for the use of assault weapons is:

Persons have the permission of the BLM to possess and use firearms, including lawfully registered

assault weapons, on BLM-administered public lands except when prohibited by other applicable laws and

regulations.
This policy is consistent with the U.S. Forest Service’s policy for Region 5. Our responsibility for public safety, property, and resource protection can be met using Federal laws and regulations. BLM Law Enforcement Officers should continue to enforce appropriate Federal laws and regulations related to the use and possession of firearms as needed.

Questions related to this subject should be directed to the Acting Special Agent-in-Charge, Ross Butler, at (916) 978-4450.

(Signed)
Mike Pool
State Director

(Authenticated)
Louise Tichy
Records Management

bwiese
02-25-2007, 7:24 PM
Lower-level web pages for state agencies may well not be updated appropriately.

Do NOT call the Redding office until you call the main state office and the contact info on the bulletin I posted.

Ensure that it is indeed in force, then call the relevant Redding office and ask why and under what reasons they can assert authority differeng from the regional director's statewide policy. Refer to the document by its memo numbers, etc at the head of the document. FAX it to them if necessary to give them time to absorb.

Mr. Ed
02-25-2007, 8:18 PM
I understand what Bill is talking about,but he keeps on refering to a "memo" put out by BLM. I thought "memos" have no legal effect on us because that's all it is...a "memo" If this memo has so much weight...why do we dismiss the DOJ "memo."

Just curious.

fal_762x51
02-25-2007, 8:28 PM
I have not heard anything from my FFL or any friends (shooting buddies) in Redding. No one at the range mentioned to make that noted to me. Then again my name is Patrick so all your receiver belong to me! Seriously, I have not heard of any confiscation at hand behind the Redwood Curtain.

fairfaxjim
02-25-2007, 8:50 PM
I understand what Bill is talking about,but he keeps on refering to a "memo" put out by BLM. I thought "memos" have no legal effect on us because that's all it is...a "memo" If this memo has so much weight...why do we dismiss the DOJ "memo."

Just curious.
This is an official, dated, serialized, internal memo from the Director of the CA office of the BLM. It advises "All Field Offices" of the CA law requiring permission of a public agency for use of a registered CA AW on their land, and further advises them that the CA State BLM office grants that permission.

The DOJ memos have been undated proclamations that are not supported by existing CA law. They have not been systematically disseminated.

bwiese
02-25-2007, 8:53 PM
I understand what Bill is talking about,but he keeps on refering to a "memo" put out by BLM. I thought "memos" have no legal effect on us because that's all it is...a "memo" If this memo has so much weight...why do we dismiss the DOJ "memo."

Because they're two different arenas. One's doing something allowed - basic administrative policies and procedures (BLM) for who/what/how can folks access gov't lands, vs the DOJ FD, who was trying to go beyond Penal Code.

Within certain limits, BLM is allowed to set policies for the usage of their lands - much the same way that regulatory law allows state hospitals to set up basic rules for the operations of their facilities, etc. - or for the DOJ FD to create regulations to define basic terms in statutory law (Penal Code), to determine administrative handling of AW registration cards, etc.

The DOJ memos we've seen strayed from straight regulation and veered into realms left untouched by legislature. For example, the Category 4 memo of Feb 3 2006 attempted to create a whole new Category ("Cat 4") of assault weapons with registration voided by a cop's examination of them, and which essentially created tiers/levels of AW status, which is nowhere in the penal code - nor were they given authority to do that.

So these are two different things: the BLM can have an administrative policy on land access and behavior on land it controls; the DOJ cannot go beyond existing on-the-books AW laws and create new types of AWs and new restrictions on them, or new definitions that have side effects that are unaddressed.

Mr. Ed
03-06-2007, 7:08 AM
Thanks for explaining it to me.