PDA

View Full Version : Breaking news - SoCal OLL fixed mag case dropped...


bwiese
03-27-2007, 2:31 PM
Some good news!

Last Spring (2006), a dude was popped in a traffic stop in SoCal (Orange County, by OCSD deputy). An OLL build with fixed mag was seized, and a 12280(a) 'transport' charge was filed. (Appears no accompanying 12280(b) possession charge was filed.)

After a lot of dancing around, a plea bargain was offered by the DA's office to defendant's lawyer. It was for a misdemeanor 12020 violation, which was absolutely irrelevant to the case (apparently there was a confusing report entry about a hicap magazine, which was not the case - no hicap mag - or even 'hicap-appearing' mag was found in the rifle or the car). Despite the irrationality of this charge, the plea would have been accompanied by a 3 year firearms prohibition. The DA would not go for an AB2728-style resolution, either. The DA had apparently threatened to get 'expert' testimony.

Now, this defendant was perfect for a test-case dude - biz owner, clean-cut, followed & knows the gun laws, etc. Importantly, no associated firearms misuse or other criminal misconduct was present (unless you count whatever minor CVC traffic violation caused defendant to be pulled over in traffic). He neither wanted to be a hero, nor wanted to risk being a felon, nor have a 3yr prohibition on firearms and a misdemeanor record.

And while the defendant went over tech material with the lawyer, showing how his rifle was legal, further discussions with DA reached an impasse as she apparently "got tired of talking" and either wanted the plea deal accepted, or for case to go to trial.

Through the good auspices of your California NRA, the NRA's lawyers at Trutanich-Michel (Chuck Michel and Jason Davis) assisted the defendant's lawyer with a wealth of legal background on why these rifles are legal, the confusing DOJ stances du jour, various internal DOJ emails and other documents, the proposed regulatory changes of last year showing that current regulations did indeed not describe possession of such rifles as criminal, and that the DOJ had in fact already approved other fixed-magazine rifles. While most of us understand these matters/ideas at a skilled layman's level, the art is winning a case with this material, and that's where the NRA's legal assistance plowed on through.

The declaration, under oath, of of DOJ's Iggy Chinn in the Hunt v. Lockyer case also appeared to be very helpful to the defendant's attorney, who, I am told, was quite gleeful when he read this: ;)

http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Cal%20Regulations/NRA-HuntPDecOfIgnatiusChinn061205.PDF

On page 9 (10th page, if title page counted), right above Ignatius Chinn's signature, we have the key statement:
"DOJ has never indicated nor implied that it would not enforce Penal Code
section 12276.1 or section 978.20(a) of the Regulations, or that district
attorneys within the state would be at liberty to take action inconsistent
with Penal Code section 12276.1 or the Regulations. DOJ does not consider
a magazine attached by a screw, requiring a screwdriver for removal, to
be a detachable magazine."

It turned out to be a waiting game, perhaps with some bluffing on DA's side. When defendant & lawyer went to court last Friday, with reams of material and analysis, the DA folded.

As I understand it, the conversation between the lawyers went something like this: "Are you thinking what I'm thinking about the 'D' word?" ('D' meaning dismissal). The charges were then dismissed, with the defendant accepting surrender of the rifle as a 'smoothing of negotiations'.

Yep, it's indeed wrong, but the loss of $650 rifle vs. spending perhaps 2X or more on lawyer's fees for the case continuing was a no-brainer. The DA does indeed know the defendant possessed another similar OLL-based rifle due to information from receipts and discussion, so if the defendant wants yet another rifle to replace the lost one he can of course rinse, lather and repeat ;)

This is another case where your California NRA came through with legal assistance, through its lawyers Trutanich-Michel, to get fixed-mag OLL charges dismissed.

blkA4alb
03-27-2007, 2:34 PM
Glad to hear the good news. :cool:

rix
03-27-2007, 2:47 PM
WOO-HAA!!!:D Good news indeed.

grammaton76
03-27-2007, 2:47 PM
Good to hear. The only way it could be ANY stronger for our side, would be if they returned the rifle as well. I'm sure it'll resurface in a police armory somewhere...

BTW, which county was this? Or was there a reason you can't say?

thmpr
03-27-2007, 2:49 PM
Another great document to print out!!! Thanks Bill!!

ldivinag
03-27-2007, 2:50 PM
the only downside to this is, the dude had to go through all this BS... :(

what happened to the "LETS EDUCATE THE 58" campaign...

bwiese
03-27-2007, 2:50 PM
Good to hear. The only way it could be ANY stronger for our side, would be if they returned the rifle as well. I'm sure it'll resurface in a police armory somewhere...

BTW, which county was this? Or was there a reason you can't say?

Sorry I was unclear - "OC" = Orange Cty. Will edit post...

bwiese
03-27-2007, 2:52 PM
the only downside to this is, the dude had to go through all this BS... :(

what happened to the "LETS EDUCATE THE 58" campaign...

Well, this (unfortunately) is part of it.

Staff time and expense were burned with no end result. In some ways, causing such pain is the best education we can give.

troyPhD
03-27-2007, 2:57 PM
Female DA. I won't say any more.

bwiese
03-27-2007, 3:02 PM
Female DA. I won't say any more.

Sexist or not, it appears that in the last year all 'noncrime'-related AW charges I've heard of (i.e, simple possession) seem to be filed by female DAs.

Directshot
03-27-2007, 3:02 PM
I'm printing and framing this one.... thanks for posting!!

Bishop
03-27-2007, 3:03 PM
Awesome! Any victory is still a victory!

Is he accepting donations toward his new rifle? I'll only chip in if he makes it look excessively evil! :D

xenophobe
03-27-2007, 3:04 PM
Great news and good job! Thanks to Jason and TMLLP as well as the NRA!


the only downside to this is, the dude had to go through all this BS... :(

what happened to the "LETS EDUCATE THE 58" campaign...

Unfortunately, any ignorant or anti-gun DA's office who have never had to deal with this issue will probably deal with it once. And for OC, that was their enlightenment.


Staff time and expense were burned with no end result. In some ways, causing such pain is the best education we can give.

In MANY cases, this is exactly what will keep it from happening again, because until they actually start digging through the laws trying to put a case together, they'll see the defense build a pretty high stack of supporting evidence and the DA will just give up in frustration.

WilsonCQB
03-27-2007, 3:05 PM
Fantastic News!!!!

Tweak338
03-27-2007, 3:07 PM
Woot! Another small win for OLL legality.

pnkssbtz
03-27-2007, 3:08 PM
Wait, so the guy had to give up is rifle too?

At least he had no criminal charges...

royta
03-27-2007, 3:10 PM
Is this thread going to reach an overly large number of pages with nothing but comments like, "Wow, sweet news"? LOL It really makes those with limited time not want to read through them, but they feel like they have to in case they're something really important mysterioiusly hidden in there.

rips31
03-27-2007, 3:17 PM
awesome.

but would it have been better if it actually had gone to trial and he was found innocent?

bwiese
03-27-2007, 3:20 PM
awesome.
but would it have been better if it actually had gone to trial and he was found innocent?

Maybe, maybe not. Trial court decisions are not published, so they (in some ways) are of rough equivalence to when a DA drops a case, though the latter doesn't always get as much attention unless we note it publicly :)

The fact that DA drops it right off the bat (i.e, before trial ramps up) says worlds: "they have backing, paperwork, expert opinion and it's not worth our office's time and staff to counter this".

TKo_Productions
03-27-2007, 3:26 PM
The DA would not go for an AB2728-style resolution, either.

Surprise, surprise. :rolleyes:

I wonder who predicted that one...

A victory none the less. Congrats to the guy (and TMLLP) for willing to stand up to the DA and not settle.

Scarecrow Repair
03-27-2007, 3:34 PM
If he had wanted to keep the rifle too, and the DA had insisted on a trial, what would have been the odds on a complete win, including keeping the rifle? What would have been the less likely alternatives? What would have been the likely cost? Indeed, what was the rought cost just to get dismissal?

phish
03-27-2007, 3:42 PM
Isn't there a 2nd pending case? IIRC, the same OC sheriff was involved.

jnojr
03-27-2007, 3:49 PM
Hmmm.

Guy gets arrested for something that isn't a crime. Months go by. Guy loses his property, and the DA finally, grudgingly, agrees not to prosecute.

This is what passes for a "victory" in California.

Please excuse me when I do not begin jumping up and down in celebration.

This just guarantees more bad arrests. Why not? They'll get "evil pseudo-assault rifles" "off of the streets", and face no sanctions whatsoever for arresting and charging someone who hasn't even committed a crime.

bwiese
03-27-2007, 3:49 PM
Isn't there a 2nd pending case? IIRC, the same OC sheriff was involved.

I dunno, trying to find out...

I am trying to contact the person who clued me in, last year, to this case.

KenpoProfessor
03-27-2007, 3:51 PM
Though a win for us, it's a loss for the gun owner. I can't believe we've got State/County sanctity for stealing private property in the name of justice.

Hopefully, this won't happen again and the State/County/City won't be stealing our firearms.

Thanks for the update Bill.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

bwiese
03-27-2007, 3:52 PM
If he had wanted to keep the rifle too, and the DA had insisted on a trial, what would have been the odds on a complete win, including keeping the rifle?

All trials are betting games.

Likelihood of win with good representation is pretty high, win on appeal essentially 100%. But there are wacked-out judges & juries too that can 'enhance the pain' along the path.

Dude was already at least $5+K in the hole, and I'd bet the legal assistance sponsored by the NRA was worth that on top.

What would have been the less likely alternatives?

On your own, getting a trial up thru appeals process can easily run $40k.

ElCUBANO
03-27-2007, 3:52 PM
" GREAT " I will feel less stress while transporting my rifle to the range

FinweElensar
03-27-2007, 3:53 PM
IF: you have optics and all the tacticool goodies on your rifle, do they give those back?

The MM grip looks so much better now...

soopafly
03-27-2007, 3:55 PM
Hmmm.

Guy gets arrested for something that isn't a crime. Months go by. Guy loses his property, and the DA finally, grudgingly, agrees not to prosecute.

This is what passes for a "victory" in California.

Please excuse me when I do not begin jumping up and down in celebration.

This just guarantees more bad arrests. Why not? They'll get "evil pseudo-assault rifles" "off of the streets", and face no sanctions whatsoever for arresting and charging someone who hasn't even committed a crime.

I kind of feel this way. It's a step in the right direction, but I hesitate to call it "victory."

bwiese
03-27-2007, 3:55 PM
This is what passes for a "victory" in California.

One step. In spite of DOJ yammering a case is dropped, at great staff/time expense to the DA's office.

Just starting up a felony prosecution (all the time before trial) is at least $10K or more. Budgets are tight, that doesn't play well on subsequent case reviews.

This just guarantees more bad arrests. Why not? They'll get "evil pseudo-assault rifles" "off of the streets", and face no sanctions whatsoever for arresting and charging someone who hasn't even committed a crime.

Lack of arrests generally follows lack of filing (somewhat).

I don't think there will be another of these. Arrests for a bit? Perhaps, but the no-filing will be expedited, and the firearms will come back too.

pnkssbtz
03-27-2007, 3:56 PM
When you say, "Orange City" you mean "City of Orange, in Orange County?" as in next to Santa Ana, Anaheim, Garden Grove, etc?


Basically what this case says to me is that if I have an OLL it will get confiscated if a cop ever becomes aware of it. Regardless of whether or not I am violating the law, the mere act of accusation voids my property rights of ownership and will result in my loss of property.

The government and its enforcers can take my property away at any time under the pretense of a criminal accusation regardless of how innocent I am.

!@#$
03-27-2007, 3:56 PM
Hmmm.

Guy gets arrested for something that isn't a crime. Months go by. Guy loses his property, and the DA finally, grudgingly, agrees not to prosecute.

This is what passes for a "victory" in California.

Please excuse me when I do not begin jumping up and down in celebration.

This just guarantees more bad arrests. Why not? They'll get "evil pseudo-assault rifles" "off of the streets", and face no sanctions whatsoever for arresting and charging someone who hasn't even committed a crime.


+1
who will lose their rifle next?

bwiese
03-27-2007, 3:58 PM
Though a win for us, it's a loss for the gun owner. I can't believe we've got State/County sanctity for stealing private property in the name of justice.

It's a tradeoff.

He coulda spent another $3+K to get to the next stopping point to get a $650 rifle back. At that point it's a numbers game.

Jason & Chuck weren't happy, but understood the defendant's decision - it's his life, and he was thru the wringer.

Hopefully, this won't happen again and the State/County/City won't be stealing our firearms.

I think with a couple of counties already, knowledge spreads :)

This will drill down thru the LEO side too.

pnkssbtz
03-27-2007, 4:00 PM
Can we get the name of the DA, the arresting officer and the precinct?

FreedomIsNotFree
03-27-2007, 4:01 PM
If the person charged in this case is happy with this then so be it.

Of course, its easy to say when its not your neck, finances and stress on the line, but this is no victory for OLL owners in general. I'm not taking away from the individual victory of the defendant. If he is satisfied with the outcome who am I to criticize?

I can tell you I would not have done the same.

bwiese
03-27-2007, 4:04 PM
I honestly think subsequent cases in this region won't be 'cases'. Even if arrest occurs, 'not filing' results, and then you claim your gun.

383green
03-27-2007, 4:11 PM
I'm also a bit outraged that the guy lost his rifle and another $5k or so in order to get his so-called victory, but this may be a good thing in the long run. A DA and the DOJ both got a bit of an education in the process, I would hope, and may be less likely to try this kind of BS next time.

This guy really deserves all of our thanks. Although he didn't hold out to get his rifle back (which is entirely understandable based on the numbers that bweise has thrown out), he did stick it out and refuse to take that BS plea bargain to put it all behind him. He put himself at some risk by doing that. He may have lost time, money and a rifle, but he defeated that over-zealous DA.

If the guesses about his out-of-pocket expenses being around $5k + a $650 rifle are accurate, then I think we ought to be able to take up a collection to put him back where he started. Any one of us could have been called on to take one for the team, and he drew the short straw. I would be happy to see him reimbursed for his legal expenses and end up with a nice, shiny new replacement rifle with his choice of mag-fixing technology. Not only would this show him our thanks for standing his ground, but it would also demonstrate how we're all behind any one of us who ends up being unjustly accused of breaking an unconstitutional and immoral law.

What do y'all think?

biff
03-27-2007, 4:12 PM
I think it's great news and makes me glad that I just paid for another year with the NRA.

I can understand not wanting to spend more time and money to get his rifle back after what he went through.

Wulf
03-27-2007, 4:14 PM
It's a tradeoff.

He coulda spent another $3+K to get to the next stopping point to get a $650 rifle back. At that point it's a numbers game.

I think if I were going into a situation like that, I'd go talk to my prefered FFL ahead of the meeting and spec out a replacement. Then, after you ink the deal that gets you off the hook but looses your weapon, I'd make a big show of calling the FFL on my cell phone and telling him to place the order for the replacement gun and that I'd be in that afternoon to do the paper work.

Them keeping the gun is purely a symbolic victory. You getting a like one back for a fraction of the cost of the trial puts you back in the win column.

xenophobe
03-27-2007, 4:15 PM
I honestly think subsequent cases in this region won't be 'cases'. Even if arrest occurs, 'not filing' results, and then you claim your gun.

Basically, that's what will end up happening. A few more arrests may happen, maybe even by the Sheriff or LE responsible for these initial cases, but once word gets to them that the cases are being dropped and resources were wasted, they'll know that trying to arrest or confiscate will be time and effort wasted on paperwork... so they'll likely let you on your way so they can have donuts or starbucks. lol

JesseXXX
03-27-2007, 4:26 PM
Great news.... but why can't he get his property back....? (just curius)....

Diablo
03-27-2007, 4:30 PM
Great news...NRA is great!!!

Bad Voodoo
03-27-2007, 4:43 PM
The charges were then dismissed, with the defendant accepting surrender of the rifle as a 'smoothing of negotiations'.

Yep, it's indeed wrong, but the loss of $650 rifle vs. spending perhaps 2X or more on lawyer's fees for the case continuing was a no-brainer. The DA does indeed know the defendant possessed another similar OLL-based rifle due to information from receipts and discussion, so if the defendant wants yet another rifle to replace the lost one he can of course rinse, lather and repeat ;)

This is another case where your California NRA came through with legal assistance, through its lawyers Trutanich-Michel, to get fixed-mag OLL charges dismissed.

You call this a victory? Victory for me would have been dismissal and the return of my lawfully acquired firearm. The actual outcome of this case is a bit disconcerting to me.

-voodoo

fairfaxjim
03-27-2007, 4:48 PM
Since the DA's and LEO's still want that precious end of episode soundbite:"Well we got another gun off the street!" (these guys gotta stop watching so much COPS and Law & Order - even though they are on at least two channels each at any time of day or night), would it make any sense to transport OLL's with uppers (basically most of the $$$ value with accessories and optics) separate from lowers. Maybe even in separate cases. Since the lower is the serialized "weapon", what legal pretense would they have to also confiscate the upper(s)? I mean with $650 for the bare upper, and another $850 worth of glass on it, I could afford and extra $30 for another hard case to split the pair. If only the lower goes, even with a Magpul PRS stock, $500 - $600 is way better than the whole rifle at close to $2K. Would they really have the balls to go whole hog and round up everything in your vehicle and try to keep it?

WokMaster1
03-27-2007, 4:50 PM
Just my 2 cents. I am happy the guy manage to get off free. I was thinking that maybe we can all chip in & buy a page in the OC Newspaper & basically say that this person was charged for having an OLL. And the case was dismissed because the rifle is legal under California law.

This is not meant to stir up a hornet's nest but it will & a lot more people would buy OLLs. The press will be interviewing DOJ & they would have to answer. All their yes, no, maybe answers they have given us all these years will come out & the press would have a field day & would want to find out who is responsible for all these.

Like I said, it's just my 2 cents. I will keep quiet now.:o

Steyr_223
03-27-2007, 4:55 PM
"An OLL build with fixed mag was seized, and a 12280(a) 'transport' charge was filed"

Bill,

Do you know how the mag was fixed? Bullet Button, Prince50, Sporting Convestions or a home job? Also, did he have a 10 round fixed mag or a 10/30 mag?

Did any of this matter in the officers reasoning to charge? Was there anything else going on at the stop? Speeding, DUI, expired tags or existing warrants?


Thanks,

S

phish
03-27-2007, 5:02 PM
^ The thread I remembered before it was deleted was the owner had a Sporting Conversion kit with a 10 round magazine. The 10/30 mags didn't exist at the time of the confiscation.

I think the cop was about to give the rifle back before changing his mind.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-27-2007, 5:03 PM
A couple thoughts in retrospect.

So did the guy eventually reach a civil compromise with the DA? Initially, it was said the DA would not go for it, but that in the end the defendant was willing to give up the rifle to smooth things over.

So, the DA was willing to throw the book at the guy and did not want to have anything to do with AB2728 from the beginning. I sure would like to find out why. This looks like just the sort of case AB2728 was designed for.

psssniper
03-27-2007, 5:10 PM
I can tell you this, the party that friday night was fun ;) (excepting that the bar ran out of Smithwicks)

This man stood up and fought a battle we all would dread, He didn't take the deals that were offered but instead choose to risk EVERYTHING to stand up for what he thought was (and is) right. We all owe him a huge thank you for what he personally went through emotionally and financially.

bwiese
03-27-2007, 5:21 PM
So did the guy eventually reach a civil compromise with the DA?

No, the DA initially rejected AB2728. That is the civil compromise/nuisance charge.

This was charges *dropped* after when blasted with NRA-supplied materials did she back down. The request for surrender of gun was a face-saving thing, to which defendant/atty likely said, "I'll take a good thing while I got it." Yes, there's a chance he coulda said "I want my gun" and he coulda gotten it; there was also a chance that it coulda then gone further into trial for several grand more.


So, the DA was willing to throw the book at the guy and did not want to have anything to do with AB2728 from the beginning. I sure would like to find out why. This looks like just the sort of case AB2728 was designed for.

The DA thought she had a strong case because she wasn't reading regulatory code, may not have even known about Harrott, etc. Dunno - she prob thought she had a real AW; there's gonna be a heavy caseload in that office and I doubt deep research took place other than reading the police report, etc.

After being thumped with the lawyer's presentation of all the NRA lawyers' supplied materials, the whole mentality changed to "save time, save money, save face".

bwiese
03-27-2007, 5:25 PM
"An OLL build with fixed mag was seized, and a 12280(a) 'transport' charge was filed"

Do you know how the mag was fixed? Bullet Button, Prince50, Sporting Convestions or a home job? Also, did he have a 10 round fixed mag or a 10/30 mag?

This was spring 2006. I'm pretty sure it was a Sporting Conversions, maybe it was Prince 50 though. It was a true 10rd fixed magazine.


Did any of this matter in the officers reasoning to charge? Was there anything else going on at the stop? Speeding, DUI, expired tags or existing warrants?

As I have said, the guy was clean other than whatever minor CVC traffic violation occured (taillight broken, California stop, minor speeding, what have you) to cause a pull-over. Clean record, etc. I do not know (actually, I prob did but forgot) how vehicle got searched, consent matters, etc.

Dunno, but the deputy may have thought "an AR is an AR is an AR..." and not known about OLLs etc

Mute
03-27-2007, 5:26 PM
No, the DA initially rejected AB2728. That is the civil compromise/nuisance charge.

This was charges *dropped* after when blasted with NRA-supplied materials did she back down. The request for surrender of gun was a face-saving thing, to which defendant/atty likely said, "I'll take a good thing while I got it." Yes, there's a chance he coulda said "I want my gun" and he coulda gotten it; there was also a chance that it coulda then gone further into trial for several grand more.



The DA thought she had a strong case because she wasn't reading regulatory code, may not have even known about Harrott, etc. Dunno - she prob thought she had a real AW; there's gonna be a heavy caseload in that office and I doubt deep research took place other than reading the police report, etc.

After being thumped with the lawyer's presentation of all the NRA lawyers' supplied materials, the whole mentality changed to "save time, save money, save face".

This just reeks of incompetence. Why the hell is this woman employed by our tax dollars?

Paratus et Vigilans
03-27-2007, 5:36 PM
As much as we all know the fellow should have gotten his legal rifle back, this was a horse trade, a settlement, and if he got a dismissal and his rifle back too, it's not a settlement, it's a capitulation by the DA, and no DA, no lawyer worth a ****, EVER wants to capitulate.

Anybody out there who practices crim law, which I don't, can you tell us, is there a criminal side equivalent of a summary judgment motion? Could the defense have filed a motion seeking a determination as a matter of law on the legality of the rifle's configuration as confiscated? If there is, and they chose to settle instead, maybe there was a reason - like the judge to whom the case was assigned having a particular kind of reputation or leaning, if you know what I mean.

Still and all, it's mostly a win for OLL's, and yes, the word will spread. . . no DA wants to drill dry holes in the ground - that's not the way to move up the food chain as a deputy DA. :eek:

bwiese
03-27-2007, 5:49 PM
If there is, and they chose to settle instead, maybe there was a reason - like the judge to whom the case was assigned having a particular kind of reputation or leaning, if you know what I mean.

I believe the overall weight of NRA lawyer's stuff - stuff we all know/comment on here, but in excruciating legal detail and with complete time-line histories, the DOJ opinions du jour, approved rifles with fixed mags, and proposed change in regulations last year all played a part. And I think Iggy statement in Hunt apparently caused the defense attorney to jump for joy and may have been the crux.

[The judge on the calendar presided over an AW case in 2006 where (approximate recounting) a dude illegally acquired a FAL clone in AZ, brought it back into CA. Somehow before arrest (?? fuzzy??) defendant tried to render it not a working rifle by removing the bolt carrier. One of the DOJ FUD memos of early last year (pre-May 31 proposed regulatory change) did enter into judge's consideration and I think dude was found guilty. This was a bad case anyway because of apparent importation/illegal out-of-state acquisition, etc. and AW charges were just the icing.

Dumb dude woulda saved himself AW grief if he'd just shutdown the gas valve and removed the gas piston. "A broken rifle" is not equal to "not a semiauto rifle". This is why I always hound folks about having a path to legality and some reasonableness in their builds.

Fjold
03-27-2007, 5:54 PM
We call this a win? What a load!

We had the "perfect defendant" and a strong case. Why was this guy footing the bill by himself?

If the NRA and others knew all about this while it was going on why weren't we helping in his defense? $5,000 is chickenfeed and we could have raised that in one day here on the site!

We let this case set a precedent that it's not against the law but the DA gets to keep your rifle.

6172crew
03-27-2007, 5:57 PM
Seems to me he might have only had his lower/lpk,buttstock taken if he had them broken down in 2 cases.

Only takes a second and Id think you might even get the upper back if they charged you under 2728 but who knows.

I dont want my SPR (when I build one) taken along with 1K scope and ring setup, I have plenty of lowers though.:p

bwiese
03-27-2007, 6:02 PM
[B]We call this a win? What a load!
We had the "perfect defendant" and a strong case. Why was this guy footing the bill by himself?

Initially. It was not until his he/his attorney reached out after DA stonewalled that things rolled. I think there was supposition that 2728 would be the 'landing zone'.

If the NRA and others knew all about this while it was going on why weren't we helping in his defense? $5,000 is chickenfeed and we could have raised that in one day here on the site!



We let this case set a precedent that it's not against the law but the DA gets to keep your rifle.

It's not up to the NRA, it's up to the dude. The dude's arse was in the ringer for almost a year, and he's had enough (stress, grief, time, etc.)

I'm pretty confident there will be no more OLL harassment in OC - and in Santa Clara.

A few more counties and it'll be SOP to just worry if it's listed by name.

Fjold
03-27-2007, 6:14 PM
I'm pretty confident there will be no more OLL harassment in OC - and in Santa Clara.

A few more counties and it'll be SOP to just worry if it's listed by name.


Why? The DA will just tell the next poor SOB's lawyer that the precedent is they will drop the charges if he surrenders the rifle. Then the DA gets to use the "We are taking these dangerous Assault Weapons off the street" in the next election cycle.


It seems like the cases so far have all wound up with the defendants losing their rifles.

We are not winning if they are taking our firearms!

jaymz
03-27-2007, 6:18 PM
Victory. Bittersweet, but a victory nonetheless. I wonder if there is any way to sue the P.D. in small claims to recoup funds for a new rifle seeing how being arrested for NOT breaking the law resulted in loss of property? :confused:

bwiese
03-27-2007, 6:21 PM
Why? The DA will just tell the next poor SOB's lawyer that the precedent is they will drop the charges if he surrenders the rifle. Then the DA gets to use the "We are taking these dangerous Assault Weapons off the street" in the next election cycle.


It seems like the cases so far have all wound up with the defendants losing their rifles.

We are not winning if they are taking our firearms!

You are unclear. They didn't 'take'. The dude may well have gotten it back if he/his attorney pushed a bit more.

The guy made a trade-off decision - possible case extension with $5K+ down the drain already, perceived risk, 1 year of uncertainty already, etc. A $650 rifle loss was a bargain - he can rinse, lather, repeat - and the DA *knows* he has another identical rifle anyways (from receipts in evidence).

Don't ***** if you haven't walked in the dude's shoes.

[And this could well have been an M1A or Mini14 w/misinterpreted flash hider, so for all the "I'm glad I just have a XXXX rifle instead", your *** coulda been in the sling too.]

Bottom line: next cycle, if it does occur again in this county, the case won't get filed. Guy will get his rifle back on filing of LEGR.

xenophobe
03-27-2007, 7:42 PM
We let this case set a precedent that it's not against the law but the DA gets to keep your rifle.


This is not setting any precedent. The case was dropped, no precedent at all.

The DA in a final attempt before giving up completely made the offer to drop the charges if they could keep the rifle. Perhaps you would have said "screw off" to the DA, perhaps you wouldn't. Until you're the one sitting at the defendant's table, you can't make that call.

It's a win. The guy didn't want to go to trial... even if he did and won, he would have spent a LOT more money, and it wouldn't have set any legal precedence. He would need to lose the trial and then go to the Court of Appeals and win there to set any precedent.

It's a win for everyone, because the OC DA's office now knows about the Off-List situation and will most likely not even file charges the next time.

Fjold
03-27-2007, 8:01 PM
I don't ***** and I'm not saying that this guy should have done anything differently to protect himself and his family but everyone touting this as a victory is wrong.

People are talking about him not going to jail as a win? He wasn't guilty of anything, so how is it a win for an innocent man not to go to jail and have his legal private property taken from him?

Because it did not go to trial there is no legal precedent to keep this from happening to anyone else, in any other jurisdiction so we didn't even win that.

The precedent I was talking about is that the Orange County DA's office may now think that they can get sieze these guns with impunity because they got away with it this time.

Charliegone
03-27-2007, 8:07 PM
I don't ***** and I'm not saying that this guy should have done anything differently to protect himself and his family but everyone touting this as a victory is wrong.

People are talking about him not going to jail as a win? He wasn't guilty of anything, so how is it a win for an innocent man not to go to jail and have his legal private property taken from him?

Because it did not go to trial there is no legal precedent to keep this from happening to anyone else, in any other jurisdiction so we didn't even win that.

The precedent I was talking about is that the Orange County DA's office may now think that they can get sieze these guns with impunity because they got away with it this time.

But they DIDN'T take his property..he gave it up. Like Bill said if he wanted they would have continued on with it. IMHO I would have and made the DA front the bill in the end (it's possible right?)

royta
03-27-2007, 8:18 PM
But they DIDN'T take his property..he gave it up. Like Bill said if he wanted they would have continued on with it. IMHO I would have and made the DA front the bill in the end (it's possible right?)

I think plaintiff only foots the bill of the winning defendent in civil court.

Fjold
03-27-2007, 8:21 PM
But they DIDN'T take his property..he gave it up. Like Bill said if he wanted they would have continued on with it. IMHO I would have and made the DA front the bill in the end (it's possible right?)


Again, his actions are not the issue.

It's the people on here claiming that we won something that's the issue. We (the gun owners of California) won nothing here. No legal precedent, nothing we can use in any jurisdiction in the State.

An innocent man did not go to jail but the rest of it means nothing!

6172crew
03-27-2007, 8:29 PM
Now that this is over Id like to see him show up again and tell us the insde scoop although Im glad Bill was able to give us the update.

bwiese
03-27-2007, 8:39 PM
Now that this is over Id like to see him show up again and tell us the insde scoop although Im glad Bill was able to give us the update.

This is pretty much the inside scoop plus or minus my recounting of it. I just got a call the other day and he/I cleared discussion with his lawyer.

Again, the rifle was surrendered (kept) at negotiated request with DA.
Who's to know what she'd've said if they wanted to claim the gun? They got out while the going was good.

Yes, it's a not a great result for this case - and the NRA lawyers acknowledge that. They didn't make the decision on the rifle, the defendant and his primary lawyer did.

It's a much better marker for the next case, as it won't even get nearly this far, it'll be a 'no file'. That DA's office will not spend any time on this type of case now, esp if there's any semblance of opposition.

xenophobe
03-27-2007, 8:40 PM
It's the people on here claiming that we won something that's the issue. We (the gun owners of California) won nothing here. No legal precedent, nothing we can use in any jurisdiction in the State.

An innocent man did not go to jail but the rest of it means nothing!

It means the OC DA won't waste their time trying to prosecute another case.

As for nothing we can use in any jurisdiction, yes, people in OC can use that.

Even if he won in a lower court, there would still be no precedent, and if he was going to win, the DA would have to appeal, which would only waste more money.

Off list fixed mag builds are already legal in this state. The DOJ is the only one that wants precedent, and that would be to have a higher court rule that the fixed mag kits are illegal.

The liberal 9th Circuit may not favorably rule, and then you would have to pray that SCOTUS would take the case... And by that time you've wasted $50,000-$100,000.

Why don't you just take your fixed mag build to every police department, Sheriff's Office and DA's office in your region and hope that you get busted, since you're SO sure that you would tell the DA to shove it. Go on. Just do it and stop complaining.

bwiese
03-27-2007, 8:41 PM
Again, his actions are not the issue.
It's the people on here claiming that we won something that's the issue.


We really did - for future. We advanced the notion that OLL+fixed mag is legal, causes grief, and is not worth fighting.

We (the gun owners of California) won nothing here. No legal precedent, nothing we can use in any jurisdiction in the State.

Even if this went all the way thru to trial it really wouldn't have much more weight in another jurisdiction. It's an ordinary trial court whose decisions are not formally published/distributed. Only if it went thru appeals channel would it really carry some weight.

Frankly, such an even may well even have *less* benefit, because it meant it was at least close enough that it was worth going to trial over. But a history of dismissals in various counties does get around and says "it ain't worth it."


An innocent man did not go to jail but the rest of it means nothing!

Sorry, you're wrong - well, 90% wrong Yes, it's bad to lose the rifle, but I believe we've primed the path in that region for acceptance now. I do not think this will repeat.

stealthmode
03-27-2007, 8:43 PM
the guy should of taken the upper off the lower when he let them keep the firearm that way he would still have the upper to put on another OLL.

bwiese
03-27-2007, 8:45 PM
Why don't you just take your fixed mag build to every police department, Sheriff's Office and DA's office in your region and hope that you get busted, since you're SO sure that you would tell the DA to shove it. Go on. Just do it and stop complaining.

Now, now, Mikey, the NRA's lawyers specifically said they aren't looking for martyrs :) The best cases are the ones where things happen in an ordinary course of events, and which are not 'pushed'.

PIRATE14
03-27-2007, 8:51 PM
While, it's true that the AW path......FELONY...for the DAs will not be as easily chosen.....this was never an easy path in the past for DAs anyways, now it's even tougher.

They will go w/ 2728, and it'll cost you your rifle........:mad:

While the DA in the beginning (maybe) had the option, they wanted the whole enchilada, but still got a quasi-2728......win.

There is some good outcome here but there's still a long ways to go....but look how far we've gone in almost a year and half...........;)

Rem1492
03-27-2007, 9:08 PM
I really wonder how many thousands or millions of $$$ of CA tax money these DA's and cops are spending by acting like stuck up gun-nazi's who want CONTROL over the average joe.
It makes me sick that my own tax dollars are used AGAINST me and almost to the point of criminal negligence near fraud, waste and abuse.

In TX there are a lot of gun laws also, however, the laws and law enforcement are used sparingly towards gang members and people of ill repute. The laws are there so a deputy can stop a car for a gun or take a gun from a criminal when needed. The cops here have a lot of common sense in realizing you are the average joe-shmoe and not a hardcore criminal when using their gun enforcement powers.
It seems in CA that cops simply cant wait to jump on a black rifle like Columbo finding a clue and his boss getting all giddy.

Charliegone
03-27-2007, 9:20 PM
I really wonder how many thousands or millions of $$$ of CA tax money these DA's and cops are spending by acting like stuck up gun-nazi's who want CONTROL over the average joe.
It makes me sick that my own tax dollars are used AGAINST me and almost to the point of criminal negligence near fraud, waste and abuse.

In TX there are a lot of gun laws also, however, the laws and law enforcement are used sparingly towards gang members and people of ill repute. The laws are there so a deputy can stop a car for a gun or take a gun from a criminal when needed. The cops here have a lot of common sense in realizing you are the average joe-shmoe and not a hardcore criminal when using their gun enforcement powers.
It seems in CA that cops simply cant wait to jump on a black rifle like Columbo finding a clue and his boss getting all giddy.

Unfortunately, California is hiring very "nifty" people for police work, which means they would rather arrest you for your legal neutered rifle than go after the gang banger with the full auto mac-11. It's not about justice anymore (well at least for some cops, I'm not throwing all of them on the same boat) it is about producing "results." I've had my share of run ins with good cops and dirty ones.... I guess it varies where you live.

PIRATE14
03-27-2007, 9:33 PM
Well there are cases that these DAs win.........11 RD fixed mag rifle...:mad:

DO NOT be happy if your mag holds 11 rounds on your fixed mag rifle!!!!

Plus there are a few others out there.......

So don't be a FOOL.......

1911_sfca
03-27-2007, 9:33 PM
I honestly think subsequent cases in this region won't be 'cases'. Even if arrest occurs, 'not filing' results, and then you claim your gun.

Exactly, that's the point. The knowledge of this case will be spread in the DA's office, and hopefully the SO's office, at least in that county and possibly surrounding counties.

Next time, people with legal OLL configurations will be less likely to be falsely cited for 12276.1, and much, much less likely to be charged by the DA. If the DA sees a substantially similar case, they simply won't file.

That is a good thing.

Pay your NRA dues, folks...

24_minutes_to_1000
03-27-2007, 9:37 PM
Hmmm.

Guy gets arrested for something that isn't a crime. Months go by. Guy loses his property, and the DA finally, grudgingly, agrees not to prosecute.

This is what passes for a "victory" in California.

Please excuse me when I do not begin jumping up and down in celebration.

This just guarantees more bad arrests. Why not? They'll get "evil pseudo-assault rifles" "off of the streets", and face no sanctions whatsoever for arresting and charging someone who hasn't even committed a crime.


Exactly. This doesn't look like a victory to me. More like a capitulation to tyrants, again.

Good guy loses property to evil and tyrannical government, and it's a victory? No tyrants or JBTs dead in the street or hanging from trees or in jail. No monetary compensation to the good guy for violation of his rights under color of law.

I think that rumbling noise I hear isn't an earthquake, but some founding fathers rolling in their graves at high RPM.

PIRATE14
03-27-2007, 9:37 PM
Exactly, that's the point. The knowledge of this case will be spread in the DA's office, and hopefully the SO's office, at least in that county and possibly surrounding counties.

Next time, people with legal OLL configurations will be less likely to be falsely cited for 12276.1, and much, much less likely to be charged by the DA. If the DA sees a substantially similar case, they simply won't file.

That is a good thing.

Pay your NRA dues, folks...

Maybe so with 12276.1....but 2728 is still there, they won't just fold.....but this depends on the 58 DAs in the state.

My .02 is your best line of defense will be there on the street w/ your local LE......be smart. Once they have your rifle down town it'll be a crap shoot if you get it back.........

1911_sfca
03-27-2007, 9:39 PM
Again, the rifle was surrendered (kept) at negotiated request with DA.

Oh come on, you *know* the DA was just drooling over the evil looking black rifle and just threw the offer out so she could take it out for practice in the woods...alone...and let loose.

ghostwong
03-27-2007, 9:41 PM
This just reeks of incompetence. Why the hell is this woman employed by our tax dollars?

Because California goverment is filled with people on the "political payroll" If they were good at what they they would be in the private sector making more money.

Now I know I just opened a big can of worms for everybody to shove down my throat. Just hear me out. Most of us are not 9-5 clock punchers, we work hard and are moviated to do so for God, Country, Family. Others just for the fame . . .

How's that?

JALLEN
03-27-2007, 10:03 PM
We call this a win? What a load!

We had the "perfect defendant" and a strong case. Why was this guy footing the bill by himself?

If the NRA and others knew all about this while it was going on why weren't we helping in his defense? $5,000 is chickenfeed and we could have raised that in one day here on the site!

We let this case set a precedent that it's not against the law but the DA gets to keep your rifle.


I'm not so sure that is accurate. What happened is the DA filed what seemed like a straighforward possession case, ran into a wall of unanticipated details, nuances, regulations, contradictions... technicalities....... IOW, it got a heck of a lot more complicated than it seemd to be. Remember, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the DA hates to lose. Next time some cop brings in a simple possession case, that DA and her buddies are going to still feel the bruises, and are more likely to say, "Nahhh, these are too tough!" This is especially true when the defendant is going to have paid representation, and help from outside, isn't likely to plead, is otherwise a good boy, etc.

These DA's tend to go with what they know. They are a lot better at 7-11 stick-ups, for example, than complicated real estate frauds, because they do more of them, and juries can understand them. They aren't stupid by any means, but like the rest of us, tend to avoid risks they don't understand, if possible.

I think they will be a lot more careful next time.

radioactivelego
03-27-2007, 10:03 PM
Female DA. I won't say any more.YEAH BETTER NOT LET THEM ON THE ROAD HURF DURF! :rolleyes:

Clodbuster
03-27-2007, 10:27 PM
So exactly how much trouble is it for a DA to file some paperwork?

Seems that the defendant sat around for a year sweating, while the DA sat around the water cooler, and right before court, "proposes" a dismissal of the case for the rifle.

Not much work for the DA in my opinion...just file, wait a year, give dismissal in exchange for legal personal property. Does the job of getting rifles off the street and is easily repeated in any of the 58 counties...

So did the other guy (forgot his name) who had his AR rifle sledgehammered by the expert police amorer get his rifle back by LEGR yet?

Clod


Bottom line: next cycle, if it does occur again in this county, the case won't get filed. Guy will get his rifle back on filing of LEGR.

pnkssbtz
03-27-2007, 10:41 PM
We really did - for future. We advanced the notion that OLL+fixed mag is legal, causes grief, and is not worth fighting.

Bill, it pangs me to point out a contrary opinion to yours because of how much you personally work towards protecting my rights, but I have to at least play devil's advocate and point out the flaw in this logic.


The only thing that this case has proven to that specific DA is that if her victim isn't aware of the extremely fine and technical points of the law, they are fresh meat.

You see, the only reason this went to a dismissal is because the NRA lawyers stepped in and assisted the defendants lawyer with material.

In other words, it was luck on the defendants part that they got in contact with the NRA.

Sure the DA is going to think twice before pursuing AW charges with someone from now on, but that doesn't mean they are going to stop. The net result ist still confiscated rifle. It doesn't matter that the defendant gave it up. The net results are:

• Cop Arrests and confiscates Rifle
• DA prosecutes for AW charges
• Rifle is confiscated.

The mere fact that the DA requested reluinquishment of the rifle, despite the overwhelming and undeniable fact that the weapon is in fact legal and the defendant broke no laws (other than traffic laws) proves that we didn't "Win".

Sure the defendant won becaue he doesn't have any felony charges but "we" didn't "win" because the JBT Cop is still able to arrest anyone on a whim and charge them with a felony, and the DA can stull abuse the law and attempt to prosecute a case that has so much evidence to the contrary.


All that will be learned from this is that the DA will choose their targets better next time before prosecution.



P.S. I still want to know the name of the Sherrif and DA...

jmlivingston
03-27-2007, 10:51 PM
P.S. I still want to know the name of the Sherrif and DA...

I could care less about the deputy's name, but I too am curious about the DA's name. I'm in OC and have a she-deputy-DA that lives about a half-dozen doors down from me.... :eek:

John

bwiese
03-27-2007, 10:52 PM
The only thing that this case has proven to that specific DA is that if her victim isn't aware of the extremely fine and technical points of the law, they are fresh meat.

True, but a good chunk of OLL folks know at least the broad strokes.

You see, the only reason this went to a dismissal is because the NRA lawyers stepped in and assisted the defendants lawyer with material.

In other words, it was luck on the defendants part that they got in contact with the NRA.

No, I was contacted by defendant and put the right folks together.


Sure the DA is going to think twice before pursuing AW charges with someone from now on, but that doesn't mean they are going to stop.

Not true, unless the charge is a 'gimme' with a bunch of other charges and likely even then it'll go away (gun charges often disappear if primary crimes are plead to, etc.)

The mere fact that the DA requested reluinquishment of the rifle, despite the overwhelming and undeniable fact that the weapon is in fact legal and the defendant broke no laws (other than traffic laws) proves that we didn't "Win".

That's a face-saving thing for DA. Maybe if he held out he coulda gotten it back, maybe it'd cost more money to get to the next stopping point in the case.


All that will be learned from this is that the DA will choose their targets better next time before prosecution.

Yup, they'll stay away from smart, detail-oriented gun owners.

Oh... hey, that's us!


So exactly how much trouble is it for a DA to file some paperwork?

Budgetarily, it costs big $$ (low 5 figures) to even bring a felony charge.

Take a DA office budget per year and divide it by number of felony cases filed. It's a reasonably large number (5 figures), and I gather that case reviews/management oversight looks for 'best bang for the buck'.

hoffmang
03-27-2007, 10:57 PM
This arrest and prosecution occurred before 2728 was passed. That means the DA had a different mindset than future DAs will.

Bill is being nice but I'm not going to be - and no offense to the man who won this - he didn't have the right representation on this. If you get in the same shoes you need an attorney who is a California Firearms expert. Had Chuck and Jason been involved from the outset, there would have been a different outcome sooner.

This is a win. What tarnishes it is that it wasn't well handled by counsel initially and started back when the world looked very different than it does today.

It does not have jurisprudential value, but DAs talk. DA's keep dropping charges. Do you like doing busy work that is moot?

-Gene

pnkssbtz
03-27-2007, 11:12 PM
No, I was contacted by defendant and put the right folks together.

Well that is good to know. Guess who the first person I will contact when I have legal problems =P


I could care less about the deputy's name, but I too am curious about the DA's name. I'm in OC and have a she-deputy-DA that lives about a half-dozen doors down from me.... I care about the Sherrif because I live about 1 mile from the OC Sherrifs Range, and about 3 blocks from the Orange PD department. (Near Chapman U).

I pass at least 3 cops every day just driving to the freeway...

Rem1492
03-27-2007, 11:27 PM
I agree with you Garand, I hope you are right as well.

However, some have said it will set a precedent and others say there IS NO precedent. I am still just reading more and more to get a good feel.

I am curious though, will this get out enough so that cops dont see a Black Rifle and freak out by taking it from you till things are ...........sorted out.
The guilty first syndrome.

Mssr. Eleganté
03-27-2007, 11:28 PM
Where do we send the money?

http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/051/images/money.jpg

The DA doesn't really lose until we buy this guy a new rifle and pay off all of his legal fees and then mail her a photo of the guy holding his new rifle in one hand the our check in the other.

American_pride
03-27-2007, 11:42 PM
Sure the DA is going to think twice before pursuing AW charges with someone from now on, but that doesn't mean they are going to stop. The net result ist still confiscated rifle. It doesn't matter that the defendant gave it up. The net results are:

• Cop Arrests and confiscates Rifle
• DA prosecutes for AW charges
• Rifle is confiscated.

The mere fact that the DA requested reluinquishment of the rifle, despite the overwhelming and undeniable fact that the weapon is in fact legal and the defendant broke no laws (other than traffic laws) proves that we didn't "Win".

Sure the defendant won becaue he doesn't have any felony charges but "we" didn't "win" because the JBT Cop is still able to arrest anyone on a whim and charge them with a felony, and the DA can stull abuse the law and attempt to prosecute a case that has so much evidence to the contrary.


All that will be learned from this is that the DA will choose their targets better next time before prosecution.



P.S. I still want to know the name of the Sherrif and DA...

+1 I agree that the DA went to far BUT if charges are dropped then the DA agrees that there is no case and said person should get there rifle back. Dropped charges = Innocent. AKA we cant win. AKA we "F"ed up. Nothing but damage control. Had the issue been pressed the DA would have had no choice but to return the rifle to it's LEGAL OWNER.

Rumpled
03-27-2007, 11:54 PM
IF the Deputy DA who presented the felony grand theft case I was a juror on last year is any indication - they just don't do their homework.
On the case I was on, the only evidence/testimony presented was straight from the "victim" only. He (DA) brought no further research to the case. To me, it looked liked he was handed a folder and told "Try this case".
In this case, an alleged theft of $30-65k over two years; no money was proven to be missing, and the minimum wage worker who stole it wasn't shown to have any. To my jury, these things were kinda necessary to prove the crime. The deputy DA seemed to be a competent lawyer, just didn't seem he had the depth to prove his case, and after a few days - I'm not so sure his heart was in this one.

This case could be kinda similar. The cops gave this possession charge to the DA's office and that's all they used. Doesn't seem the DA actually checked the law themself. The risk of the jury trial is enough to make most anyone cave to any kind of dismissal. I think the overall outcome for this defendant was quite good. Yes, he lost a rifle; but risk vs reward when you're already shelling out ~$5k becomes pretty big.
For the movement, it would be better to return the rifle, but our group wasn't in jeopardy - an individual was.

If there is any fund set up for easing the cruch of legal fees; I'll add a couple of pitchers of beer worth - or buy a couple of the same said pitchers of beer if I ever encounter said individual and his cronies.

Since I live in OC, I hope that this will lesson the chances of OLL possession being troublesome in the SO and DA's jurisdiction.

bwiese
03-28-2007, 12:05 AM
Since I live in OC, I hope that this will lesson the chances of OLL possession being troublesome in the SO and DA's jurisdiction.

It will - significantly.

xenophobe
03-28-2007, 12:11 AM
So did the other guy (forgot his name) who had his AR rifle sledgehammered by the expert police amorer get his rifle back by LEGR yet?

Actually, it was a rubber mallet. :rolleyes:

Yes, he received his firearm back.

bwiese
03-28-2007, 12:21 AM
Actually, it was a rubber mallet. :rolleyes:


Ahh, well that's a tool described/encompassed by 11 CCR 5469(a).


Yes, he received his firearm back.

I'd heard, but wasn't sure. Good to know that LEGR didn't get hung up outside San Jose :)

Rumpled
03-28-2007, 12:36 AM
It will - significantly.

I think it will take some time Bill. The main thing is that this has to get to every street officer and every shift supervisor. That's a lot of deputies (~1800). I'd imagine it would spread faster in the DA's office; but in this county of over three million people with seven superior courts and a Sheriff's Dept that patrols 12 cities out of a handful of offices; things will take time to spread. Not to mention the other 22 or so cities with their own PD's.

But it'll get there eventually.
Still how many cops in CA still think a 4" folding blade is illegal?

bwiese
03-28-2007, 12:52 AM
I think it will take some time Bill. The main thing is that this has to get to every street officer and every shift supervisor.

It's a two-pronged approach.

I think enough cops having these guns will spread the info faster than from the DA, and this may be having an effect - I really only know of one other OLL bust (as opposed to likely quite a few idiots building up full 12276.1 AWs and getting popped). The rumor mill works pretty good and I think I'd've heard of *something*.

But if a cop doesn't know and arrests, and the DA has been slapped already, a 'no file' decision is the next best thing.

BTW A fair chunk of the CHiPpies that were 'guarding' the Aug 16 DOJ regulatory comment hearing actually owned OLL receivers :)

WokMaster1
03-28-2007, 8:38 AM
I think it will take some time Bill. The main thing is that this has to get to every street officer and every shift supervisor. That's a lot of deputies (~1800). I'd imagine it would spread faster in the DA's office; but in this county of over three million people with seven superior courts and a Sheriff's Dept that patrols 12 cities out of a handful of offices; things will take time to spread. Not to mention the other 22 or so cities with their own PD's.

But it'll get there eventually.
Still how many cops in CA still think a 4" folding blade is illegal?

Hold a free donuts & coffee (or yogurt & fresh juices) for LEOs outside a supportive gunshop or business. Start with one unit & they'll radio it in & before you know it, there will be a line of black & whites trying to get some. Hand out a copy of the case file with case number so they can look it up if they want to & a copy of the the infamous OLL fact sheet. Bumper stickers with "I love OLLs" can be handed out, too.

If you serve it, they will come. 1 down, 29 more to go (stations that is) I think this is community service, don't you think so? If the OC members are game, I'll fly down & join you guys.:D

DirtySanchez
03-28-2007, 8:44 AM
I really think we should buy this guy a new rifle. Just to make a point.
So if anyone is putting this together i'm willing to donate.

eje
03-28-2007, 9:33 AM
All that will be learned from this is that the DA will choose their targets better next time before prosecution.

I agree with this. Also, we may be talking about one deputy DA assigned to one courthouse in OC. Without knowing more I think it would be a mistake to assume that just because one deputy DA decided to unload this case, under pressure from NRA-backed attorneys, and for whatever other reasons that we are not privy too, that every other deputy DA in OC is now up to speed on AW laws and is unwilling to prosecute future OLL cases (or OCSD is going to stop making arrests). This defendant could afford private counsel, with NRA backup no less. It won't be like this every time and there will always be factual permutations in individual cases.

What I'm saying is that while this is a good result for this defendant I think it's premature to make any assumptions about how future OLL cases will be handled in OC.

383green
03-28-2007, 9:35 AM
I really think we should buy this guy a new rifle. Just to make a point.
So if anyone is putting this together i'm willing to donate.

I would be in for a hundred or two, too. I'd like to see us go further, and collect to cover his legal expenses. He took one for the team, and we ought to show our support. I don't have any experience setting this kind of thing up, though. Does anybody want to volunteer to coordinate this? Would anybody else chip in?

eje
03-28-2007, 9:37 AM
By the way was this deputy DA named J Hoffman?

Cpl_Peters
03-28-2007, 10:12 AM
This is definatly some FUD tactics on the side of the DAs office.

I won't lie, I have been considering selling my OLL build for a while now just because I don't want to have to deal with the hassle this may cause me in my life. But then I realize this is what the DOJ wants. While many LEOs have absolutley no idea about the law in any category not just firearms, some do and might have looked at the guys rifle and said "have a nice day"

I'm not sure if this is a victory or not. I have to be honest that I worry about such a situation happening to me, and the possibilty of wasting time, money and rifle to just prove that I am what everyone here knows I am, a law abiding citizen. It angers me that this guy had to loose his rifle to prevent himself from loosing even more money in legal fees. I think the arresting officer should be held accountable for his ignorance of a law he has sworn to uphold. I have no mercy for the "he wasn't sure, better safe than sorry" attitude type of cops. If you don't know the law, then turn in your badge donut boy. Makes me angry to think my tax dollars are going to get some of these yahoos POST certified so thay can trample all over my rights.

Yankee Clipper
03-28-2007, 10:13 AM
Me too! Let's see if we can't get this thing rolling. It will also send a powerful message to the 58 DA's, the DOJ, and the anti's when they see how we back our own.
DirtySanchez
iTrader: (0)
I really think we should buy this guy a new rifle. Just to make a point.
So if anyone is putting this together i'm willing to donate.
I would be in for a hundred or two, too. I'd like to see us go further, and collect to cover his legal expenses. He took one for the team, and we ought to show our support. I don't have any experience setting this kind of thing up, though. Does anybody want to volunteer to coordinate this? Would anybody else chip in?

383green
03-28-2007, 10:19 AM
Me too! Let's see if we can't get this thing rolling. It will also send a powerful message to the 58 DA's, the DOJ, and the anti's when they see how we back our own.

I think that the donations could be a combination of money to be applied towards legal fees, and parts for his shiny new rifle. Maybe one of the FFLs on the board could donate the stripped lower and handle the transfer, somebody else could chip in with an LPK, somebody could throw in a mag lock kit and magazine, two or three folks could go in together on a nice upper, and other folks could toss in some money towards his legal expenses.

Do any of y'all know how his lost rifle was configured, and/or what kind of configuration he'd like the best?

Kruzr
03-28-2007, 10:28 AM
Good legal negotiation for the owner but I don't know if I'd call this a win.
A legal rifle that the DOJ doesn't like was surrendered by a legal owner who was forced to spend "hassle time" and money. Sounds like DOJ will be pleased.

Glasshat
03-28-2007, 10:57 AM
Good legal negotiation for the owner but I don't know if I'd call this a win.
A legal rifle that the DOJ doesn't like was surrendered by a legal owner who was forced to spend "hassle time" and money. Sounds like DOJ will be pleased.
I've got to agree with this one. It cost the anti-gun DA exactly zero dollars to drain the gun owner and the NRA of many thousands of dollars. This is the same ploy used by the anti-gun mayors when they illegally sue gun makers and retailers. Death by a thousand cuts. What do gun owners in general gain from cases like this? Nothing. At least until the NRA goes after dishonest DA's and ties them up in claims for harassing gun owners. Maybe this case should be OUR test case against the DOJ.

Johnny Diablo
03-28-2007, 11:19 AM
So the incident occured pre January 07 when the OLL thing took off? If so then it makes me feel a bit less threatened that my oll rifle will get confiscated, with or without legal hassle.

turinreza
03-28-2007, 11:26 AM
This is cleary not a victory.

We can turn it into a victory by calling the DA everyday as to why
she didn't return this american citizen's legal firearm back to him.
Believe me, if she and her staff gets called every day from 30+ persons the
expense of keeping that rifle will be greater than what the person
spent on lawyers fees. Just call and ask if she can explain why
in detail. Question her motives and if she felt it was illegal why didn't
she prosecute the case. I think this will be more of a victory instead
of just buying this person another OLL which he may not even want
because of all the money he had lost. But if the DA returns his rifle
at least we would know and have something tangible that OLLs
are not evil if a DA hands a rifle with an OLL back to a citizen.

Steyr_223
03-28-2007, 11:28 AM
"We can turn it into a victory by calling the DA everyday as to why
she didn't return this american citizen's legal firearm back to him."

Great point. Who was the DA? What's her Email address and Phone number?


:)

1SGMAT
03-28-2007, 11:51 AM
I have not been able to read all 12 pages but would like to offer this thought. More than a few have said lets buy him a new rifle, thats do able. I think we need to get organized and find one voice (bewise) that would be willing to speak for the people (majority) of CALGUNS.
As far as this guy losing his rifle because he would of had trouble getting the money (3 to 5K) thats nothing. I know its been talked about here before but if another case comes up we could have our guy deal directly with the lawyers (T&M LLC) and offer to cover the costs. Im sure we will need to select our case and ensure the guy was on the right side of the law. I think we let this on slip through the cracks. Even if it went to trail, and then appeal we still could have funded it and got the right decesion. We need to be ready for the next case that comes our way. We need to contact T&M LLC and let them know to contact us when another case like this comes up.

artherd
03-28-2007, 11:54 AM
You see that's the thing, the few OLLs I've actually built are more like $3500-$10k guns, and I will spend much more than their worth defending my right to own them if I have to.

Be very careful whom you try to railroad into a financial decision, AM and others.

The fact that every wrongful arrest, wrongful taking, and or mailcious prosecution of LEGAL OLL owners ends in either a granted dismissal or charges being droped pre-trial, is definately a win. Albit a small win.

A better scenario would be a granted dismissal with financial judgement against the siezing department. Perhaps we should serve upon all 58 DAs offices Iggy Chinn's decleration in Hung v Brown then they could not deny KNOWING?

tenpercentfirearms
03-28-2007, 12:03 PM
I would be willing to help with getting him a replacement AR. Does anyone have his contact information?

FinweElensar
03-28-2007, 12:08 PM
I agree, let's give this guy some $. Let us know how we can help.

royta
03-28-2007, 12:31 PM
Maybe somebody should verify that he is still interested in having an OLL. He very well might think they are more trouble than they are worth. Yeah, I read he has the second AR-15, but he might be selling it to avoid future headaches.

pnkssbtz
03-28-2007, 12:47 PM
Maybe somebody should verify that he is still interested in having an OLL. He very well might think they are more trouble than they are worth. Yeah, I read he has the second AR-15, but he might be selling it to avoid future headaches.

+1.

And that is exactly why I do not feel this was a "win". This guy lost money, the NRA lost money, this guy lost his rifle, now has an arrest record and the most important: is most likely going to stay away from AR's and OLL's because of the risk of encountering an uninformed cop with a bone to pick and a DA trying to pretend she is on Law & Order.


I am all for contacting the DA and asking them if they understand the law and to clarify their position in the case. I doubt they would ever answer me though. I have *never* gotten a response from a politician that I've written too or called, so I doubt a DA will either.


Now if the DA department released a memo to the cops specifying what is and is not an AW and telling them to leave law abiding citizens alone, THEN I would call this a win.

Clodbuster
03-28-2007, 1:32 PM
The way it sounds, one final deal was offered before the trial, and wasn't really any real capitulation on the DA's part that they were wrong and had no case.

I mean was it like:

DA: "We know you are guilty, but you have no criminal history, so we're gonna give you a break just this one time. Give us the rifle and we'll dismiss the case. This is the last and best deal you're gonna get. I'd take it if I was in your position. You have 3 minutes to accept this offer before it goes away and we go to court." [Insert the Law and Order "Da Dum" sound]

or

DA: "Looking at the regs and these gawd awful confusing California gun laws, you might not be guilty. We don't know till the trial. But if you agree to give us the rifle, we'll just dismiss the case, and be done with it."

If the budget for the office is exceeded, I'm sure it doesn't take much for the DA to justify it's increase since they're doing their job in keeping the streets from running with OLL blood.

Clod


That's a face-saving thing for DA. Maybe if he held out he coulda gotten it back, maybe it'd cost more money to get to the next stopping point in the case.

Budgetarily, it costs big $$ (low 5 figures) to even bring a felony charge.

Take a DA office budget per year and divide it by number of felony cases filed. It's a reasonably large number (5 figures), and I gather that case reviews/management oversight looks for 'best bang for the buck'.

Fjold
03-28-2007, 1:47 PM
I really think we should buy this guy a new rifle. Just to make a point.
So if anyone is putting this together i'm willing to donate.


I say let's get his rifle back from the DA. I would be willing to donate to a fund to fight to get his original rifle back.

JALLEN
03-28-2007, 1:47 PM
Can someone provide the defendants name, or his counsel?

I'd be willing to make inquiries, find out what these two think about the suggestion of donating to defray costs, and acquire a new gun, on condition that he pose for pictures with it, of course(!), and set up a trust fund for donations if it proves appropriate.

hoffmang
03-28-2007, 2:14 PM
I'm in for a Benjamin to help buy our defendant a new OLL.

-Gene

CalNRA
03-28-2007, 2:27 PM
this is no better than ab2728, which the end result was that if a rifle were to be deemed an AW then the rifle is surrendered as a public nuisance. No?

hi_desert
03-28-2007, 2:49 PM
...
I won't lie, I have been considering selling my OLL build for a while now just because I don't want to have to deal with the hassle this may cause me in my life.
....


As I believe the outcome of this case does chalk up a win for the cause as it may prevent future charges for similar incidents, the exact same thought has crossed my mind. Saving up enough money just to build an OLL can be quite the endeavor for some. However, this thread makes it very clear that you put alot on the line when you opt to go down the OLL path including a 5k-10k nest egg as an insurance policy in the event that you encounter a misguided LEO/DA. Personally, I cannot afford this insurance policy and I suspect others fall within the same economic boundaries but do not realize what's really at stake. Your firearms collection, money, time, and stress seem like quite the wager for what utimately winds up being a word play on gun laws. Lets face it, we all buy the Prince50 or BB with the disclaimer that they're not DOJ approved.

Flame away for those that believe this is exactly what the the DOJ wants to hear but we all live in this state well aware of the anti sentiments of the powers that be. I enjoy the "bang" from my OLL just as much as my CA approved firearms so in the end, is it really worth the risk.

bwiese
03-28-2007, 2:51 PM
All the second-guessers here are showing that "perfect is the enemy of the good".

No one has stood in the dude's shoes. He had enough. He also had an attorney who knew the court in question.

Our goal is to not look at the past but for the future: whadda we do when the *next* one comes up? I think we'll know more quickly now, and can react.

One other poster raise a valid point regarding the timeframe, too: this arrest happened last spring (along with another almost at the same time, status unknown) and the two San Jose cases have been favorably resolved. We're almost 1/3rd of the way into the new year and I've heard of no other OLL pops.

For those that think the DAs office got off scot-free, they're wrong. I'm imagining it cost them, budgetarily speaking, an allocated $10k-$15k in costs.
They don't like throwing that in the 'loss puddle'.

hdcd
03-28-2007, 2:54 PM
Since I live in OC, I hope that this will lesson the chances of OLL possession being troublesome in the SO and DA's jurisdiction.

The problem is when you have to go out of OC to actually shoot your OLL.

E Pluribus Unum
03-28-2007, 2:55 PM
Wait... so a man was wrongfully charged with a crime.... his weapon was destroyed.... and this is a good thing?

What about malicious prosecution? There was nothing illegal.... this is bunk.

I realize it could have been much worse... but still.... does this mean a cop can arrest you for having that M1A assault weapon and if the DA files charges, eventhough no crime was committed, they can take it and destroy it?

If I were the business man I would have demanded to have my property back and spent $10,000 to get that $1000 rifle back on principal alone!

I would then sue the DA's office for malicious prosecution for charging a man for something that was not illegal. This stuff makes me livid. If it would have happened to an 18-year-old kid he would have been convicted.

bwiese
03-28-2007, 3:01 PM
If it would have happened to an 18-year-old kid he would have been convicted.

No, the 18 (maybe it's 22?) year old 'kid' in San Jose had charges dropped and got his rifle back.

383green
03-28-2007, 3:04 PM
I'm in for a Benjamin to help buy our defendant a new OLL.

-Gene

Count on a C note from me, too.

superhondaz50
03-28-2007, 3:08 PM
CA is ridiclous, I cant keep from thinking that if this were 4 hours away in another state nothing would have happened to this guy. He would have got his traffic ticket and went on his merry way. I'm counting the days till I move to AZ.

proraptor
03-28-2007, 3:46 PM
Wait... so a man was wrongfully charged with a crime.... his weapon was destroyed.... and this is a good thing?

What about malicious prosecution? There was nothing illegal.... this is bunk.

I realize it could have been much worse... but still.... does this mean a cop can arrest you for having that M1A assault weapon and if the DA files charges, eventhough no crime was committed, they can take it and destroy it?

If I were the business man I would have demanded to have my property back and spent $10,000 to get that $1000 rifle back on principal alone!

I would then sue the DA's office for malicious prosecution for charging a man for something that was not illegal. This stuff makes me livid. If it would have happened to an 18-year-old kid he would have been convicted.

I concur in full.....I would have taken it all the way....No one is taking my guns

pnkssbtz
03-28-2007, 5:10 PM
For those that think the DAs office got off scot-free, they're wrong. I'm imagining it cost them, budgetarily speaking, an allocated $10k-$15k in costs.
They don't like throwing that in the 'loss puddle'.

Except that it is not 'their' money it is the taxpayer's money. And is effectively endless. Sure their "budget" for this time period is reduced temporarily by that amount until the budget is reworked the next cycle (yearly, quarterly, whatever) and the money is magically back there again for them to prosecute anything their hearts desire.

turinreza
03-28-2007, 5:28 PM
Anyone have the DA's name? phone number? email address?
Case number?

NRA sucks.. this is the time to fight.. but they stop half way...
Now that the guy is off the hook, NRA should try to get the media
like OReily, Savage, Newspapers to point out how there is facism
in our state of california... even when there is no legality
in taking away this person's firearms, the DA has the gall to
take it away from this person. That's thievery and extortion.

grammaton76
03-28-2007, 5:34 PM
NRA sucks.. this is the time to fight.. but they stop half way...

Who are you, and what more have you done for this fight than the NRA did? I'm pretty sure you've done approximately nothing other than sit on the sidelines and, now that it's all over, start shooting off your mouth about how you'd have done it better.

...read the earlier posts in the thread; NRA would've been happier going to trial and fighting it the rest of the way.

The defendant chose to relinquish the rifle, not the NRA. And attorney-client privilege probably prevents them from simply running a PR campaign on this without the defendant's blessing... it sounds like the guy just wants it over, which means the NRA doesn't get a whole lot of choice in the matter.

turinreza
03-28-2007, 5:37 PM
Who are you, and what more have you done for this fight than the NRA did? I'm pretty sure you've done approximately nothing other than sit on the sidelines and, now that it's all over, start shooting off your mouth about how you'd have done it better.


whatever.. i just saw this today and already am asking for this DAs phone
number and email address and asking everyone to call her and ask why.
That's just day one ...

psssniper
03-28-2007, 6:04 PM
The defendant, at the moment, does not want another rifle. As far as donations, he would say send them to the NRA. This info comes straight from our conversations at the "freedom" party we had last friday night. I have a lot of admiration and respect for this young man and none of you can second guess the decisions he had to make and the pressure he was under unless you've walked a mile in his shoes:) I think right now he needs to take a deep breath and relax a bit, it's been a tough year.

383green
03-28-2007, 7:10 PM
The defendant, at the moment, does not want another rifle. As far as donations, he would say send them to the NRA. This info comes straight from our conversations at the "freedom" party we had last friday night. I have a lot of admiration and respect for this young man and none of you can second guess the decisions he had to make and the pressure he was under unless you've walked a mile in his shoes:) I think right now he needs to take a deep breath and relax a bit, it's been a tough year.

If that's the way he feels, then we should honor his wishes. I agree that we shouldn't second-guess his decisions without being there. I recognize that the outcome was less than perfect, but I can also easily accept that the outcome was satisfactory for him, given his own view of the management of risk and expense as the guy in the hot seat. Whether I or anybody else might have made a different decision is pretty irrelevant in my opinion.

So if he doesn't want us to buy him a new rifle then so be it, but I hope that he's aware that there are a lot folks who are happy for him and willing to lend support.

JALLEN
03-28-2007, 7:18 PM
The defendant, at the moment, does not want another rifle. As far as donations, he would say send them to the NRA. This info comes straight from our conversations at the "freedom" party we had last friday night. I have a lot of admiration and respect for this young man and none of you can second guess the decisions he had to make and the pressure he was under unless you've walked a mile in his shoes:) I think right now he needs to take a deep breath and relax a bit, it's been a tough year.

That probably is a idea. My donation goes in the mail tomorrow morning, with a note why it is being given. Is there a State organization? Local Chapter?

Maybe to the NRA retained law firm, to go into the retainer account or something.

hoffmang
03-28-2007, 8:03 PM
pssniper,

Can you confirm with him that he really doesn't want some support from the community?

-Gene

brighamr
03-28-2007, 8:13 PM
What's stopping this guy from going to small claims against state for the price of his rifle? (I'm no lawyer, just wondering if this is even possible...)

hoffmang
03-28-2007, 8:30 PM
Estoppel. He entered into a contract to give up his rifle which is a binding deal.

-Gene

6172crew
03-28-2007, 8:38 PM
The defendant, at the moment, does not want another rifle. As far as donations, he would say send them to the NRA. This info comes straight from our conversations at the "freedom" party we had last friday night. I have a lot of admiration and respect for this young man and none of you can second guess the decisions he had to make and the pressure he was under unless you've walked a mile in his shoes:) I think right now he needs to take a deep breath and relax a bit, it's been a tough year.


Have him stop by and say hi when he feels more like it, he might be able to help others out in the future.

bwiese
03-28-2007, 11:23 PM
I'll be having a beer with the fine gentleman in a month or so when he comes up to San Jose.

In the grand scheme of things he's happy. I believe that, plus or minus, a $650 rifle isn't a big concern to him in the grand scheme of things.

xenophobe
03-29-2007, 12:03 AM
For those that think the DAs office got off scot-free, they're wrong. I'm imagining it cost them, budgetarily speaking, an allocated $10k-$15k in costs.
They don't like throwing that in the 'loss puddle'.

Nobody here is willing to even understand that at the point the DA has decided to press charges, the labor involved with the arresting officer, any arrest or processing of firearm or defendant, gathering the facts and assembling them into a case that can be presented to the courts for arraignment... at that point, the County has spent at least $3000 in combined time and resources on you. If you plead not guilty, then they must build up a case against you, and that's going to cost a lot more money... at this point, if you end up walking without charges, you bet that any deputy DA will get reamed for wasting time on a case they can't win.

The next time this happens, it won't happen. That's the point.

bwiese
03-29-2007, 12:05 AM
The next time this happens, it won't happen. That's the point.

Xeno, my man, for a longhaired tattoed gunfreak, you do have a way with words.

CalNRA
03-29-2007, 12:09 AM
Who are you, and what more have you done for this fight than the NRA did? I'm pretty sure you've done approximately nothing other than sit on the sidelines and, now that it's all over, start shooting off your mouth about how you'd have done it better.

...read the earlier posts in the thread; NRA would've been happier going to trial and fighting it the rest of the way.

The defendant chose to relinquish the rifle, not the NRA. And attorney-client privilege probably prevents them from simply running a PR campaign on this without the defendant's blessing... it sounds like the guy just wants it over, which means the NRA doesn't get a whole lot of choice in the matter.

yep that.

Wulf
03-29-2007, 7:48 AM
I have a question about this "deal".

What's to stop this DA or any DA for that matter from threatening to bring you up on charges for something they (probably) cant prove and telling you they'll drop the charges if you turn over your "whatever" (car, boat, house, rolex, etc) to them?

If you strip away the specifics of this case and just look merely at the essentials of the relationship it looks like pure extortion and thuggery. The DA may as well have just kidnapped the guys wife and said they'd kill her and charge him with murder if he didn't let them send her to Saudi Arabia as a sex slave. The essence of the case is really no different.

Kruzr
03-29-2007, 8:14 AM
The next time this happens, it won't happen. That's the point.

Or the next time it happens, the next DA will see a way to save all that money by just making a "deal that worked" before and get another gun off the street.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-29-2007, 8:24 AM
Any success we are having/going to have will done incrementally. The constant barrage of negative stories and perspectives, aimed at gun ownership in general, have created a negative stereotype in society.

The media likes to portray the gun owner as a throwback to older days that just isn't sophisticated enough to realize the woe of their ways....and thats saying it nicely.

Society's view of the gun owner was not changed overnight and its not going to be fixed overnight. It will take a couple generations to correct if all goes well.

hoffmang
03-29-2007, 10:50 AM
The civil rights movement in the South fought the internal struggle of the perfect being the enemy of the good. What blacks finally realized was that little wins that weren't perfect or weren't everything set the groundwork for other little wins that were just a bit larger. Often those wins then snowballed as the rights activists kept pushing for another bite at the apple.

In that way blacks in the South got the right to have an almost normal life. We should take heed of that. The DA lost here. She barely got to save face. Orange County either will not have another set of OLL charges brought, or if it does, they will die a very quick death.

-Gene

Wulf
03-29-2007, 11:01 AM
Think about it. He gave up one cheap weapon because it was replaceable and ended this nightmare for him. You really think most people will roll over if the DA is demanding your car, boat, house, or entire gun collection for a bogous charge?

I dont have issue with the economics of the deal HE made with the DA. Clearly his decision to take the offer was the right one. Its the tactics of the DA that I'm concerned with. You and I might gladly give up a rifle in a similar circumstance, folks more well off might gladly give up a car or a boat or a house. Its not about the value of the lawful item you're being screwed out of, its that the DA could extort anything of value from you for exercising the power of their office in your favor; even if that thing of value is her win/loss/tie record.

What if the DA had a solid case against the guy....would you be all right with her demanding the rifle and a $100K? Its really no difference. She put a price tag her "Get Out Of Trial Free" card. Her chance at trial was small so her price tag was small. Its pure and simple un-ethical behavior.

Jicko
03-29-2007, 11:02 AM
Couple of things came to me:

1) When transporting my CA legal rifles, maybe I should break them up.... having them take one of my lower + LPK + a $55 stock is MUCH better than having them take my $2k+ worth SPR upper w/ a Leupy.... (can they just confiscate my "non-firearm" item too???).... may even want to put them in different containers/bags/cases....

2) Is there a reference to this case(a case number or whatsoever), or some documentation about this case that we can print and show whoever is harrassing us about the legality of the OLL legally configured rilfe, CHP or local PD or anyone? This is to avoid the confiscation in the first place

3) We should champaign to distribute this info to different departments... and educate LEOs....

hoffmang
03-29-2007, 12:13 PM
Wulf,

The way you respond to a DA wanting to take your House over a charge of AW possession is to start laughing... continue to laugh... and as you quite down, start laughing again.

After about 2 minutes of that you or your attorney says, "Now, seriously, what is your real offer."

It doesn't happen and if it does a Judge laughs at a DA and DAs really don't like that.

-Gene

Clodbuster
03-29-2007, 12:45 PM
There's already another incident similar to this that happened in Nor Cal, though the configuration of the rifle was more dubious. So a DAs template is already set.

As for the "until you walk in their shoes" comments, don't need to. Everyone knows what happens when you have a government laying down the hammer on you, and you're there standing alone. And the DA knows it too. Intimidation to force capitulation.

Clod



Or the next time it happens, the next DA will see a way to save all that money by just making a "deal that worked" before and get another gun off the street.

E Pluribus Unum
03-29-2007, 12:46 PM
No, the 18 (maybe it's 22?) year old 'kid' in San Jose had charges dropped and got his rifle back.

That was a different prosecutor. Had that kid had limited funds and this same ignorant DA it would have been different.

Wulf
03-29-2007, 1:45 PM
Wulf,

The way you respond to a DA wanting to take your House over a charge of AW possession is to start laughing... continue to laugh... and as you quite down, start laughing again.

I understand the reality of the situation, but that still doesn't explain the essential ethical difference.

If the the DA thought the rifle was illegal under the law she should have prosecuted. If she didn't think she could prove it was illegal she should have dropped the case and returned the gun since, by her own estimation it was legal, or probably legal, or certainly not prove'ably illegal.

Taking legal property in trade for dismissal of a case is not ethical behavior for a DA. Its perfectly fair for a DA to require the surrender of an illegal item as part of a plea deal or agreement not to prosecute, but a legal item? If you allow them to require the surrender of legal property you're permitting bribe taking. The dollar value of the item is irrelevant.

For instance people are talking about the legal precedent of this case.....well the most direct precedent is that what happened this time will happen again, only more directly, cause that's what precedent is all about. So lets say you get pulled over for a busted tail light next week and you've got a OLL in the car. The cop says, "The DA says when we find one of these we're supposed to give you the choice between surrendering it right here and right now and you go on your way, or we impound the gun, arrest you and refer it to the DA's office for prosecution. " That's essentially what happened in this case only with a little detour with some attorneys and cash out of pocket. Should it be ok for the DA to just relieve you of whatever she thinks you should not have based on her personal preference instead of the law? Of course the week after that it might be your pistol and high caps....after all you cant prove they're legal, she cant prove they're illegal...so its ok to take them?

And the house example isn't all that far fetched. Lets say you do an improvement and you and the building inspector get into a dispute over whether its to code or not. He says your home is condemned, you say its not. The Law is unclear. Experts disagree. The DA says we're going to prosecute and the law suit will cost more than the house is worth, but deed it over to us and we'll forget all about it.

hoffmang
03-29-2007, 1:51 PM
Wulf,

My simple point to you is that your ethical views, though arguably correct, don't reflect how the world tends to work.

Had this guy chosen not to go this direction, he probably could have but he'd had enough. I respect that. There are times in disputes or litigation where I'm entitled to $100K with no equivocation. I'll take $90K to get it over with.

-Gene

bwiese
03-29-2007, 1:55 PM
That was a different prosecutor. Had that kid had limited funds and this same ignorant DA it would have been different.

No, SJ young guy triumphed even in spite of his having limited funds and an ignorant DA.

The SJ DAs have been 'educated' now.

Wulf
03-29-2007, 2:01 PM
I hear you. Hopefully the citizens of OC will deal with their corrupt DA at election time. Seems to me they've given their opponent another stone to throw with this little face saving effort.

Wulf,

My simple point to you is that your ethical views, though arguably correct, don't reflect how the world tends to work.

Had this guy chosen not to go this direction, he probably could have but he'd had enough. I respect that. There are times in disputes or litigation where I'm entitled to $100K with no equivocation. I'll take $90K to get it over with.

-Gene

Ronco
03-29-2007, 8:41 PM
No, SJ young guy triumphed even in spite of his having limited funds and an ignorant DA.

The SJ DAs have been 'educated' now.

Bill,

Are you talking about swimmingpoolguy (I found a thread about him and his case)? If not, then can you elaborate on the case of the SJ young guy who triumphed...

Thanks.

bwiese
03-29-2007, 9:08 PM
Are you talking about swimmingpoolguy (I found a thread about him and his case)? If not, then can you elaborate on the case of the SJ young guy who triumphed...

Yep, I am.

Also, the Saiga case (which has other color in it which I won't go into, but RAAC Saigas are not a problem ;) ).

Jax
01-27-2008, 3:47 PM
ok thats a go

G17GUY
01-27-2008, 4:07 PM
ok thats a go

Back form the dead Heh?:rolleyes:

ohsmily
01-27-2008, 4:26 PM
ok thats a go

You just said "Ok thats a go" when the last post that you were replying to was almost a year ago....

USN CHIEF
01-27-2008, 4:30 PM
You just said "Ok thats a go" when the last post that you were replying to was almost a year ago....

It is reviving the sleeping monster for those new people that want to get an OLL and have questions. I think...

Hopi
01-27-2008, 5:22 PM
You just said "Ok thats a go" when the last post that you were replying to was almost a year ago....

Seriously.......

Crazed_SS
01-27-2008, 7:34 PM
[And this could well have been an M1A or Mini14 w/misinterpreted flash hider, so for all the "I'm glad I just have a XXXX rifle instead", your *** coulda been in the sling too.]



Sure this COULD have been a M1A or Mini14.. it could have happened with a bubba'd SKS or tacticool looking 10/22. Anything COULD happen.. but let's be honest here. We've seen several of these OLL arrests, seizures, confiscations, etc here. I cant recall one thread in the past 2 years where someone was brought on charges for a LEGALLY configured M1A or Mini-14?

IIRC, even BWO had a SOCOM-16. Wasnt one of the guns listed on the criminal complaint as being an AW.

aplinker
01-27-2008, 7:44 PM
OH MY GOD BREAKING NEWS!!

What's a OLL?


Necropost!!

We're all going to JAIL!

762cavalier
01-27-2008, 9:36 PM
In TWO WEEKS:eek::eek::eek::eek:

DSA_FAL
01-28-2008, 5:43 PM
Damn zombie thread. Good overall results though.

RJ Dunn
01-28-2008, 10:56 PM
Hmmm.

Guy gets arrested for something that isn't a crime. Months go by. Guy loses his property, and the DA finally, grudgingly, agrees not to prosecute.

This is what passes for a "victory" in California.

Please excuse me when I do not begin jumping up and down in celebration.

This just guarantees more bad arrests. Why not? They'll get "evil pseudo-assault rifles" "off of the streets", and face no sanctions whatsoever for arresting and charging someone who hasn't even committed a crime.

I totally agree with you. I don't see a victory.