PDA

View Full Version : *UPDATE* OLL Case getting interesting


LAK Supply
03-31-2007, 6:21 PM
Hey everybody,

There is a gentleman I know here in Kali that has run into some legal issues; the DOJ has submitted a request that the local DA file charges for illegal manufacture of assault weapons...... The charges have now been filed.

He's a very stand-up guy, and he also happens to be an FFL holder that has sold quite a few OLL's......all have been prefectly legal by the letter of the law.

This guy is willing to fight the good fight all the way to a trial to have a ruling on the OLL thing. All cases that I know of up to this point have either been dropped by the prosecuting DA or have been plead out by individuals that didn't have the will or the resources to fight back. This man is willing to press on for a contest EVEN if the DA drops the charges prior to a trial.

A definite court decision could be very good for everyone here in Kalifornia, especially considering the fact that this guy has done everything legally; he has committed no crime. The DOJ is up to their usual thuggery, using intimidation and a financial pinch to bully people.

I need some feedback on whether or not the members here are willing to band together and support this guy. It's going to take $10-15k for legal defense depending on what happens during the process. If we get some good feedback we're going to create an account for donations to help with the legal fees. A small donation now could potentially save a lot of people, especially OLL owners on this board, thousands of dollars for personal legal battles later on down the line.

Who would be willing to help????

If you have any QUESTIONS or COMMENTS, please contact me at lance@laksupply.com


Lance

---------
04/09/07
UPDATE #1:

Things appear to be heating up here. . . . . There have been some meetings going on with the attorneys that are representing this defendant. One of the attorneys involved has worked on some BIG 2A cases.

This case could have bigger implications than anybody has imagined up to this point. If the attorneys are correct about this case, it has the probability of having nationwide effects on the Second Amendment.

Within the coming week there will be additional information posted here. At this point in time a national firearms association is involved (not the NRA), and they're saying they've been waiting for this case for a decade. We are working on getting several more groups involved as well. They will be setting up a donation/information site this week.

We think this thing is about to go BIG guys.....thanks for all the feedback, and we'll keep you posted.

Lance

Added update to first post - leelaw

GTKrockeTT
03-31-2007, 6:23 PM
willing to assist financially, but need more information.

LAK Supply
03-31-2007, 6:26 PM
willing to assist financially, but need more information.

Please contact me for more information. lance@laksupply.com

I will be happy to provide you with more informaiton, phone #, etc. via email.

Jicko
03-31-2007, 6:34 PM
PM biwese.... he got all the contacts of the right lawyers, NRA etc.... and once he find out more about the case.... and rally for it, a lot of us are willing to put in some $$ to support the cause...

Directshot
03-31-2007, 6:35 PM
Not a problem. Will be in contact with you.

tango-52
03-31-2007, 6:37 PM
PM biwese.... he got all the contacts of the right lawyers, NRA etc.... and once he find out more about the case.... and rally for it, a lot of us are willing to put in some $$ to support the cause...
+100

Fjold
03-31-2007, 6:45 PM
I'm always good for $ for anyone willing to fight the good fight.

C.G.
03-31-2007, 7:10 PM
I'd pitch in some, pending more info.

thedrickel
03-31-2007, 7:13 PM
I think most of us would chip in for the right case. What were the circumstances - fixed mag (method?), featureless, shorter than 30" with stock folded, etc.? In what county is this?

Matt C
03-31-2007, 7:15 PM
Yeah, give BWeise the info, if he says it's legit I'll put $ in.

Bad Voodoo
03-31-2007, 7:23 PM
Yeah, give BWeise the info, if he says it's legit I'll put $ in.

Me too.

-voodoo

medic707
03-31-2007, 7:31 PM
Yeah, give BWeise the info, if he says it's legit I'll put $ in.

what he said

LAK Supply
03-31-2007, 7:35 PM
Bill has already been contacted by the gentleman referred to in my initial post.

I'm just testing the water here.....wanted to see if we got much of a response before I post any real information. Anyone that would like can email me and I will provide more info.

All of the rifles sold were LEGAL. They were all OLL's, and he even took the extra precaution of welding a nut in place of the mag release button when building the rifles.

I will probably be posting more details here shortly.... Need to speak with the individual who is involved in this case.

anotherted
03-31-2007, 7:38 PM
ill throw some in when i get the details.

1stLineGear
03-31-2007, 7:43 PM
Lets move with this while there is momentum. A raging waterfall starts with just one drop. Post what info you can.

hoffmang
03-31-2007, 7:44 PM
Pending Bill or myself vetting the case, I'm certainly in if there aren't extenuating circumstances.

-Gene

rssslvr
03-31-2007, 7:45 PM
I would donate some if it is the right case.

762cavalier
03-31-2007, 7:51 PM
I'm in also it Bill or Gene says this is the one;)

swhatb
03-31-2007, 7:55 PM
Yeah, if BWeise et. others says it's legit, if there aren't extenuating circumstance and someone did pay the fees and have permits to build/sell such, i'll put $ in. like to know what type of build features when along with the mag button welding:confused:

oaklander
03-31-2007, 7:59 PM
I'm in if everything checks out, etc..

Solidmch
03-31-2007, 8:00 PM
Yeah, give BWeise the info, if he says it's legit I'll put $ in.

Ditto

damon1272
03-31-2007, 8:02 PM
I'll contribute, if we get some more info on the case and how it looks to the leagl guys.

triggerhappy
03-31-2007, 8:08 PM
Ditto

Double ditto.

M. Sage
03-31-2007, 8:09 PM
Pending Bill or myself vetting the case, I'm certainly in if there aren't extenuating circumstances.

-Gene

Agreed 100%. I'll toss money in, dunno how much I could afford, depending on what one of these two say.

capitol
03-31-2007, 8:14 PM
I'll donate once we find out it's not a hoax.

savageevo
03-31-2007, 8:16 PM
same here. more info and and if bill say its a go. Im in.:)

bwiese
03-31-2007, 8:33 PM
Lance - you have a PM.

Everyone else: OK, let's everybody hold our horses for a tad. It's gonna be OK.

This is legit, but we wanna get our ducks in a row - I do wanna ensure the right moves are being made at first.

I'm a bit confused because I've been contacted by one party but this is another party and I'm trying to disambiguate who's who (more my fault than anything else, brain fade/losing track...)

LAK Supply
03-31-2007, 9:01 PM
The gentleman involved in the case would like for the details to stay at a minimum for the time being. There will be further legal proceedings later in April; that is going to be the point where more details may be made public.

I can say that it has to do with a thread that was posted here last year about some legally-configured OLL's that were taken from a CA store by DOJ field agents.

Matt C
03-31-2007, 9:07 PM
The gentleman involved in the case would like for the details to stay at a minimum for the time being. There will be further legal proceedings later in April; that is going to be the point where more details may be made public.

I can say that it has to do with a thread that was posted here last year about some legally-configured OLL's that were taken from a CA store by DOJ field agents.

At this point I'm not sure how he is doing himself or anyone else (such as other FFLs selling OLLs) a favor by keeping quiet. It's his choice of course, but you can't ask for money/help if you are unwilling to tell your story.

MotoGuy
03-31-2007, 9:08 PM
I'll contribute.

But the real question is.... female DA?

bwiese
03-31-2007, 9:14 PM
OK, guys, got off the phone with the dude, and also Lance/LAK.

It's legit, we really won't be able to 'unleash the hounds' for a couple of weeks (more toward end of April) when more info, as well as the right path to take, exists. This appears as a nice 'clean' case in that it only involves straight technical gun issues.

DOJ Firearms Bureau agent Keisu Yo ain't gonna know what hit him ;)

Dude has a good local attorney and they've been talking with gun attorneys in the last week and have identified path/strategy.

Let's hold our horses, keep our powder dry, and y'all will hear more as things progress - including the right time to act.

383green
03-31-2007, 9:17 PM
I would help out if this looks like a valid case that can advance our cause. Like many others have said, I'll hang tight until the folks with a legal clue look this over.

Edited to add:
Ok, I hadn't seen the immediately previous posting before I wrote this. Looks like I'll be in. I'm looking forward to learning more details.

Rem1492
03-31-2007, 9:34 PM
Once the official donation thread is up, count me in too.d

troyPhD
03-31-2007, 9:36 PM
Keeping a curious eye on this thread. Many of us who own black rifles obviously make a good living. :D

LAK Supply
03-31-2007, 9:43 PM
At this point I'm not sure how he is doing himself or anyone else (such as other FFLs selling OLLs) a favor by keeping quiet. It's his choice of course, but you can't ask for money/help if you are unwilling to tell your story.

We are not asking for money right now.....we are just getting it out there at this point to see what kind of response there was.

In the best interest of the party involved, more information will be made public as the events unfold.

Matt C
03-31-2007, 9:46 PM
Count me in then.

Liberty Rules
03-31-2007, 9:53 PM
I'm willing to help.

LAK Supply
03-31-2007, 10:05 PM
I'll contribute.

But the real question is.... female DA?

DA is female. Not sure on her persuasion with regards to firearms though....

bwiese
03-31-2007, 10:15 PM
DA is female. Not sure on her persuasion with regards to firearms though....

It appears all technical AW prosecutions of non-AW firearms in the last 1.5 years have been with female DAs.

taloft
03-31-2007, 10:28 PM
You can count me in.

artherd
03-31-2007, 10:39 PM
I'm in to help, naturally we will need more detailed info, etc. I know from personal expierence how difficult it can be to have a big exciting secret and not be able to tell anyone, for a variety of reasons.

One small point, a full trial is going to cost more than $15k.

tgriffin
03-31-2007, 10:44 PM
Im in.

Sawdust
03-31-2007, 10:52 PM
I'm in.

Sawdust

cartman
03-31-2007, 10:58 PM
count me in for a bill

LAK Supply
03-31-2007, 11:11 PM
Thanks for all of the great feedback and support here guys!!

The guy that's having to deal with this BS right now is a stand-up guy.....I don't know many people that would end up in a situation like this and be inclined to pursue a court decision even if the DA ends up wanting to drop the charges (which has happened in other cases where people have fought back).

This could end up being a landmark case here in CA, and he's willing to put his *** on the line to help make it happen, despite personal plans that will have to wait.

KDOFisch
03-31-2007, 11:15 PM
Absolutely in - a Franklin from 150 OLL owners should do this thing right.

That's only about as much as a CAR-length YHM freefloat tube, so it can't put too many people out of cash.

Richard
03-31-2007, 11:20 PM
I'm in.....let me know when & where.:)

cush
03-31-2007, 11:21 PM
I'm in as well.
-cush

bwiese
03-31-2007, 11:21 PM
Just so all the guys saying they'll pony up now will do it if/when necessary later in April :)

Rumpled
03-31-2007, 11:23 PM
I have a question related to this.
Is/are there some type of standing funds for such matters? Doesn't one of the NRA arms do similar things? NRA-ILA maybe?
Do the known "gun rights" attorneys regularly work with any funding mechanisms?
Does CRPA? (Not so high on their actions recently myself0

If there is anything, shouldn't we all be regularly committing to it?

If there isn't, should/could we set something up?
The calguns legal defense fund?

I'd like to contribute relativley small funds to something that would stay in CA. Just not out of state much or to every joker who goes about the wrong thing.

Addax
03-31-2007, 11:24 PM
Just so all the guys saying they'll pony up now will do it if/when necessary later in April :)

Count me in to help out!

mattmcg
03-31-2007, 11:32 PM
If this is indeed a clean test case (without extenuating circumstance), consider me in.

Also, it might be worthwhile to post this at ar15.com in the CA thread as well.

AfisBoy
03-31-2007, 11:32 PM
I'm in too.

Addax
03-31-2007, 11:36 PM
That is not a bad idea.

We should look at creating a Cal Guns Defense Fund to help out fellow members or our fellow Californias who run into these kinds of issues.

Of course there would have to be guidelines set up for this sort of legal defense fund.



I have a question related to this.
Is/are there some type of standing funds for such matters? Doesn't one of the NRA arms do similar things? NRA-ILA maybe?
Do the known "gun rights" attorneys regularly work with any funding mechanisms?
Does CRPA? (Not so high on their actions recently myself0

If there is anything, shouldn't we all be regularly committing to it?

If there isn't, should/could we set something up?
The calguns legal defense fund?

I'd like to contribute relativley small funds to something that would stay in CA. Just not out of state much or to every joker who goes about the wrong thing.

FinweElensar
04-01-2007, 12:00 AM
I'm in.

iridesportbikes
04-01-2007, 12:08 AM
Im in

bwiese
04-01-2007, 12:29 AM
I have a question related to this.
Is/are there some type of standing funds for such matters? Doesn't one of the NRA arms do similar things? NRA-ILA maybe?
Do the known "gun rights" attorneys regularly work with any funding mechanisms?

NRA does assist with 'interesting', trendsetting, clean cases but cannot in any way be relied upon (nor should it be) as any kind of 'legal insurance fund'.

Nevertheless in the very recent Orange County OLL case dismissal - in which they entered late in the game - the NRA, thru its lawyers Trutanich-Michel - provided significant support.

Pablo
04-01-2007, 12:41 AM
I'll donate as much as I can!

draconianruler
04-01-2007, 3:49 AM
I'll donate as well!

JGarrison
04-01-2007, 5:58 AM
I'm down

TKM
04-01-2007, 6:41 AM
I'll kick in a bill or two.

Sticky?

6172crew
04-01-2007, 7:08 AM
I will kick in when its all set up.

Richie Rich
04-01-2007, 7:26 AM
I will kick in as well.

He sounds like he is willing to take it "all the way", the least I can do is throw in a couple of bucks for a guy who is willing to stand up for all of us. We might get this issue settled once and for all.

JOEKILLA
04-01-2007, 8:11 AM
This could happen to anyone of us including myself.

I'm in :)

Mirage
04-01-2007, 8:38 AM
Since the DOJ won't do it's Job.
I'll donate to the 58 DA's education fund.

M. Sage
04-01-2007, 8:57 AM
Just so all the guys saying they'll pony up now will do it if/when necessary later in April :)

Perfect. That gives me a chance to save up a bit.

Just tell us when and where.

smguser
04-01-2007, 9:14 AM
I'm in too.

TacFan
04-01-2007, 9:25 AM
You can count me in.

hoffmang
04-01-2007, 9:49 AM
I'll donate to the 58 DA's education fund.

I like that name.

-Gene

troyPhD
04-01-2007, 10:11 AM
The guy that's having to deal with this BS right now is a stand-up guy.....I don't know many people that would end up in a situation like this and be inclined to pursue a court decision even if the DA ends up wanting to drop the charges (which has happened in other cases where people have fought back).



Can someone explain how one can pursue a court decision when there are no longer any charges? Countersuit for malicious prosecution, or what?

fairfaxjim
04-01-2007, 10:29 AM
Since the DOJ won't do it's Job.
I'll donate to the 58 DA's education fund.

I'm in. The first lesson shoud be that the DOJ is "full of S**T!. Pay them no mind!"

LAK Supply
04-01-2007, 10:46 AM
Can someone explain how one can pursue a court decision when there are no longer any charges? Countersuit for malicious prosecution, or what?

I can't remember the legal term for this action.....maybe one of the attorneys or some other legalese-speaking individuals that post here could fill us in on the term?

jnojr
04-01-2007, 11:19 AM
Please contact me for more information. lance@laksupply.com

I will be happy to provide you with more informaiton, phone #, etc. via email.

Why the secrecy? "They" already know... why shouldn't we?

blackberg
04-01-2007, 11:28 AM
count me in as well

Yankee Clipper
04-01-2007, 11:43 AM
Just so all the guys saying they'll pony up now will do it if/when necessary later in April :)
There's going to be some fund pledges that aren't funded but my gut says there aren't that many flakes that frequent this forum. The amounts that come in will range all over the place because of the wherewithal of the forum members. When the time comes that the 15K is needed, I'm confident the required funds will pour in.
Like the Orange County legal skirmish this just one of the battles we'll be fighting to win this war. But the battles/skirmishes will add up and we will win this thing.
Iím also in!

LAK Supply
04-01-2007, 12:00 PM
Why the secrecy? "They" already know... why shouldn't we?

Sometimes it's a good thing to wait for more information than to go off and jump the gun when things aren't ready. It's been requested that I not volunteer certain information at this point.....the purpose of this thread was only to see what the reaction/discussion on the board looked like.

If you read the first post, you will find that the point here was just to get some feedback on legal funds to help fight a battle that will benefit everyone here. No one is trying to keep anyone in the dark; there will be more proceedings later this month that will shed more light on this whole thing.

SemiAutoSam
04-01-2007, 12:10 PM
I would think just so the membership that has been asked to provide funds can make judgement on their own at least the information that is already in the public domain should be posted. You have been here for what 4 months ? or there abouts. do you understand what I'm saying ?

If I were asked for funds or even if I were asked if I would provide funds before I would answer this question I would want to know the specifics in the case. If the person in question has been charged at least give the information that would be on the court website.

As in what is the specific charge. By what agency. and the court involved.

Thanks for your understanding.



Sometimes it's a good thing to wait for more information than to go off and jump the gun when things aren't ready. It's been requested that I not volunteer certain information at this point.....the purpose of this thread was only to see what the reaction/discussion on the board looked like.

If you read the first post, you will find that the point here was just to get some feedback on legal funds to help fight a battle that will benefit everyone here. No one is trying to keep anyone in the dark; there will be more proceedings later this month that will shed more light on this whole thing.

LAK Supply
04-01-2007, 12:27 PM
SAS - the complaint so far is manufacture of assault weapons, and it is in the central valley. The local DA has filed charges at the request of the DOJ. The individual involved does not want his name, FFL, or any court dates made public at this point.

Nobody has been asked for funds.....this was just a feeler to see what kind of support was out there since this case may affect us all.

The moderators of the forum have been informed of the details that are not being made public right now. If you look back a couple of pages you will find that BWiese has also spoken with the individual that I am referring to, and he agrees that this is a valid case.

If and when the time comes for ANY kind of donations, it will be done under supervision of legal council, likely with a trust fund, and anything here that will lead to a fund will only be done with the consent and approval of the moderators/owner(s).

Once again, I'm not trying to keep anyone in the dark, and I do understand what you are saying.....I was just lurking here until last November. However, I have a friend that is facing an uphill battle, he's a good, honest citizen, and I'm trying to help gain some support for him while still respecting his wishes.

I hope you understand, and I will post more information as soon as I can do so without infringing on the individual that is going through this.


I would think just so the membership that has been asked to provide funds can make judgement on their own at least the information that is already in the public domain should be posted. You have been here for what 4 months ? or there abouts. do you understand what I'm saying ?

If I were asked for funds or even if I were asked if I would provide funds before I would answer this question I would want to know the specifics in the case. If the person in question has been charged at least give the information that would be on the court website.

As in what is the specific charge. By what agency. and the court involved.

Thanks for your understanding.

M. Sage
04-01-2007, 12:28 PM
Which is why most of us lined up behind Bill. We know him and I think most of us feel we can trust his judgment on things like this.

I'd like more info, too, but can understand if it's not out there right now. I'm sure we'll get plenty of info when the time comes.

hawk1
04-01-2007, 12:33 PM
Tagged for the "education fund". :D

bwiese
04-01-2007, 12:46 PM
For now I will just reiterate that this involves manufacturing charges relating fixed-mag OLL rifles - I am sure these are clearly legally compliant - no corners cut, this guy knows his stuff.

There was some other DOJ drama involving this dealership several months back - if any of y'all know what it is, let's not re-dredge it up now. That behavior alone completely adds another color to this case (or rather, to DOJ).

I have a gut feeling that this region was picked because it was perhaps perceived by DOJ as "out in the sticks", with less chance of defendant having ability to acquire good legal representation - combined with some local DOJ guys needing to show some activity.

The DA's charges were *driven* by the DOJ, and I believe that if that area's DA had tripped over the rifle himself at the shop he'd have helped put it back on the shelf.

We have a nice 'clean' case/defendant here, and he's willing to pour gas on the fire.

LAK Supply
04-01-2007, 2:25 PM
Thanks for chiming in here Bill.

hoffmang
04-01-2007, 3:32 PM
I'm aware of some of the details here and completely agree with Bill. There are two reasons to hold our horses. Being quiet about details means it may just fall apart for the DA. That leads into the fact that money may not end up needing to be raised.

-Gene

jjperl
04-01-2007, 4:41 PM
well, if/when the time arises I'm in.

troyPhD
04-01-2007, 5:45 PM
I'm aware of some of the details here and completely agree with Bill. There are two reasons to hold our horses. Being quiet about details means it may just fall apart for the DA. That leads into the fact that money may not end up needing to be raised.

-Gene

So what's the process for pursuing a decision if/when it falls apart for the DA? Money is not needed for that?

LAK Supply
04-01-2007, 6:17 PM
So what's the process for pursuing a decision if/when it falls apart for the DA? Money is not needed for that?

Excellent point. This guy is willing to contest the case all the way, even if the DA drops charges. Can someone chime in here and fill me in on the name of the motion that makes this work?

hoffmang
04-01-2007, 7:06 PM
In a civil context one would either have the case dismissed with prejudice or counter claim for a declaratory judgment action.

I'm much less clear on the ifs and hows in the criminal context for essentially trying to get a declaratory judgment.

-Gene

trfcrugby
04-01-2007, 7:37 PM
Can we know where in the Central Valley? I live there, so this is of a lot of interest to me.

I am in for what I can afford if/when the time comes.

AfricanHunter
04-01-2007, 7:38 PM
I'm in

bwiese
04-01-2007, 7:49 PM
In a civil context one would either have the case dismissed with prejudice or counter claim for a declaratory judgment action.

I'm much less clear on the ifs and hows in the criminal context for essentially trying to get a declaratory judgment.

Maybe they can get a restraining order on DOJ, or a special master (judge + advisors) is required to approve any technical DOJ AW-related prosecution...


:)

edwardm
04-01-2007, 7:55 PM
Interesting parallels are starting to coalesce.

A prosecution out in the sticks, sort of like ElDo Cty.

CalDOJ pushing the DA for a prosecution, sort of like ElDo Cty.

A "secret document" that cannot be wrested from CalDOJ or counsel pertaining to the decision or impetus to file charges in ElDo Cty.

And in ElDo, a 2728 civil settlement.

Five bucks says CalDOJ is ultimately pushing for a civil disposition. It's an idiotic strategy, but it's still a strategy.

For now I will just reiterate that this involves manufacturing charges relating fixed-mag OLL rifles - I am sure these are clearly legally compliant - no corners cut, this guy knows his stuff.

There was some other DOJ drama involving this dealership several months back - if any of y'all know what it is, let's not re-dredge it up now. That behavior alone completely adds another color to this case (or rather, to DOJ).

I have a gut feeling that this region was picked because it was perhaps perceived by DOJ as "out in the sticks", with less chance of defendant having ability to acquire good legal representation - combined with some local DOJ guys needing to show some activity.

The DA's charges were *driven* by the DOJ, and I believe that if that area's DA had tripped over the rifle himself at the shop he'd have helped put it back on the shelf.

We have a nice 'clean' case/defendant here, and he's willing to pour gas on the fire.

trojanwar2
04-01-2007, 8:00 PM
Yeah once the OK is given, I will kick in.

Me too.

sorensen440
04-01-2007, 8:08 PM
Count me in if needed as well

69Mach1
04-01-2007, 8:13 PM
I've got my contribution to his legal fund ready and waiting. Finally a case where it goes all the way back to the DOJ.

WokMaster1
04-01-2007, 8:17 PM
Why am I feeling like a rabid dog right now? I am foaming in my mouth as I'm typing this & clicking my heels. :D

yallknowho
04-01-2007, 8:52 PM
Ill throw a few bucks at it.

JALLEN
04-01-2007, 9:35 PM
I'm not aware of any procedure to permit fighting the case after the DA has given up and dismissed. I suppose one could object to the dismissal motion. Unlike civil actions, there are no cross-complaints... i.e. you can't file counter charges against the prosecutors. It is far-fetched to imagine getting a judge to tell the DA or DOJ they can't file charges any more based on certain facts.

rodgster
04-02-2007, 12:00 AM
I'll throw in $100 if this goes.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-02-2007, 1:02 AM
In a civil context one would either have the case dismissed with prejudice or counter claim for a declaratory judgment action.

I'm much less clear on the ifs and hows in the criminal context for essentially trying to get a declaratory judgment.

-Gene

There is a "factual finding of innocence" in criminal matters, but that has to do with keeping a defendants record clean. If the DA drops the case or only seeks a civil compromise AB2728 style, then there is nothing further for criminal courts to consider.

The Police have quite a bit of leeway when making arrests. I believe, as far as the courts are concerned, as long as the Officer was acting in good faith he is protected.

Here's a thought, send a certified letter to each law enforcement department in the state with OLL information...then they cant act like they don't know.

ldivinag
04-02-2007, 1:16 AM
Since the DOJ won't do it's Job.
I'll donate to the 58 DA's education fund.


call it the "EDUCATE THE 58" ??????

Surveyor
04-02-2007, 8:20 AM
I'm in for at least $150.00.

luvtolean
04-02-2007, 8:39 AM
Excellent point. This guy is willing to contest the case all the way, even if the DA drops charges. Can someone chime in here and fill me in on the name of the motion that makes this work?

It is my understanding that judges don't like people bringing cases unless all avenues for out of court resolution have been exhausted. If the DA offers to drop, and this guy continues...

Do you like it when people create unnecessary work for you?

This guy has good attorneys, and apparently is upstanding. If the attorneys believe it's right to continue great...if it becomes ego, anger or "being a hero" driven, that's bad and could well end up losing the case.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-02-2007, 9:02 AM
It is my understanding that judges don't like people bringing cases unless all avenues for out of court resolution have been exhausted. If the DA offers to drop, and this guy continues...

Do you like it when people create unnecessary work for you?

This guy has good attorneys, and apparently is upstanding. If the attorneys believe it's right to continue great...if it becomes ego, anger or "being a hero" driven, that's bad and could well end up losing the case.

DA's dont need permission from Defendants to drop or lower charges. That is a choice they make on their own.

luvtolean
04-02-2007, 9:06 AM
Yes. What does that have to do with what I said?

I was referring to the quote, "This guy is willing to contest the case all the way, if the DA drops charges".

This sounds like a guy that is fired up, and we all can make bad choices when angry.

It could lead to a potentially destructive path, especially if he insists on persuing the case against counsel's advice.


It's all speculation...I'm just pointing out that it sounds like people need to calm down. If the DA drops charges, it'll probably stay that way.

LAK Supply
04-02-2007, 10:10 AM
This guy is a little fired up.....if you were harassed by certain agencies for doing nothing illegal, I think you may be a little pissed off too.

However, he's not wanting to get a court decision because he's angry; he would like a decision so the DOJ/DA's CAN'T KEEP DOING THIS TO OTHER PEOPLE ALL OVER THE STATE.

This is not the first time people have been harassed for having/selling perfectly legal OLL's; up to this point charged have been dropped with anyone who's fought back. That's great for the individual in question, but it's not so great for the next guy since there's no precedent of any kind set. In other words, until there's a decision, certain agencies are completely free to keep harassing people about OLL's.

This is not to say they won't continue to do so after a decision has been made in court, but it will make their life much more difficult if they choose to try.

If legal council advises against certain things, I am sure the individual involved will not proceed. He's not an enraged idiot with a chip on his shoulder......he's just another guy that's been harassed by the DOJ, and would like the matter to be settled for both himself and future harassees.

Surveyor
04-02-2007, 10:33 AM
...However, he's not wanting to get a court decision because he's angry; he would like a decision so the DOJ/DA's CAN'T KEEP DOING THIS TO OTHER PEOPLE ALL OVER THE STATE...


Exactly. Every couple of months or so, we see a thread like this.

A guy gets arrested, cop hits gun with mallet (Which only proves that it does take a tool to remove the mag :rolleyes: ), charges dropped, but doesn't get his guns back for a long time.

Another guy got his charges dropped after agreeing to forfeit his gun(:confused: !!!). Oh, and after spending lots of $$$ on it, also.

This sh*t has to stop.

gose
04-02-2007, 10:51 AM
I'm in as well.

Can we start a non-profit org "For the education of California DAs" to make contributions deductible? :)

Johnny Diablo
04-02-2007, 10:58 AM
I'm in as well.

Can we start a non-profit org "For the education of California DAs" to make contributions deductible? :)

Now this is a good idea. I have a bill waiting for a worthy case. This sounds worthy so far.

luvtolean
04-02-2007, 11:10 AM
If legal council advises against certain things, I am sure the individual involved will not proceed. He's not an enraged idiot with a chip on his shoulder......he's just another guy that's been harassed by the DOJ, and would like the matter to be settled for both himself and future harassees.

That's all that I want to hear.

Biff...
04-02-2007, 11:54 AM
I'm in for. I just need a pm from whoever is setting up the trust fund.

bwiese
04-02-2007, 12:01 PM
It appears that a libertarian-oriented "society", of whom the prospective defendant's attorney is associated with, has a tax-exempt donation structure already in place, and this case is of interest to the society's members.

I will be talking to the president of this group in a day or two to see about the groundwork.

In the meantime, this is all prep work and nothing is "Go" for a couple of weeks.

SunshineGlocker
04-02-2007, 12:10 PM
I would support him with money. I can't contribute much, maybe $50. The problem with all these legal defense funds is that legal bills add up a lot faster than $50 contributions add up. But I could do my small part on it.

JesseXXX
04-02-2007, 12:21 PM
I'm in...

Super_tactical
04-02-2007, 12:24 PM
As long as this is a legit operation, count me in for throwing some money that way.

PM me when ready.

SunriseF150
04-02-2007, 12:29 PM
I'll be willing to donate what I can when the time comes.

GlockComa
04-02-2007, 12:52 PM
If this will help all of us. I'm in!

bwiese
04-02-2007, 1:00 PM
Not that anyone should trust me at all, but all parties involved have better things to do than to try to scam some bucks from Calgunners.

For the record, I've been chatting with the Primary Dude, his friend LAKSupply, and the NRA's Gun Lawyers are aware of this case (they can't say more, which I understand). The Dude already has sharper local legal representation.

heycorey
04-02-2007, 1:20 PM
I'm in ... just advise us if/when contributions are necessary. Is there an individual who is organizing the fund and/or who can send out a heads-up?

Super_tactical
04-02-2007, 1:41 PM
Not that anyone should trust me at all, but all parties involved have better things to do than to try to scam some bucks from Calgunners.

For the record, I've been chatting with the Primary Dude, his friend LAKSupply, and the NRA's Gun Lawyers are aware of this case (they can't say more, which I understand). The Dude already has sharper local legal representation.

I've met you and trust your judgement on these things. I didn't read through the entire thread to see that you were backing this.

Just let me know when the money will be needed.

Thanks.

Nile
04-02-2007, 1:56 PM
I'm in. $100.00 or more when ready.

Cpl_Peters
04-02-2007, 2:33 PM
I cant give much, but count me in.

SuperSet
04-02-2007, 3:34 PM
I'm looking forward to more details but you can count me in when the time comes.

NoTime2Shoot
04-02-2007, 5:42 PM
k'
..

wilit
04-02-2007, 6:02 PM
Diverting funds from the DSA FAL receiver fund to the Educate the 58 fund

Hope this all works out for your buddy LAK!

LAK Supply
04-02-2007, 6:17 PM
Diverting funds from the DSA FAL receiver fund to the Educate the 58 fund

Hope this all works out for your buddy LAK!


Thanks for all the support! I hope it works out for him as well......he has the letter of the law on his side, so it's looking good.

I know he's stoked about all the support......we'll get some more info out as soon as it's prudent to do so.

toolman9000
04-02-2007, 8:52 PM
I help as much as I can (with $) when the time comes.

mcubed4130
04-02-2007, 9:42 PM
Count me for a couple of c-notes when/if the time comes.

-M3

m1aowner
04-03-2007, 1:21 AM
I'll do what I can.

Ten Rounder
04-03-2007, 6:49 AM
Add me for One Ben Franklin

KDOFisch
04-03-2007, 8:03 AM
If most these pledges are legit, we're already looking at thousands. Mazeltov guys.

ivanimal
04-03-2007, 8:22 AM
I am proud to be a member of this board. We are truly a brotherhood. We may not always get along but we always stick together when it counts.

I am in let me know what is needed.

JPN6336
04-03-2007, 12:45 PM
Count me in for at least $100.

tetris
04-03-2007, 2:09 PM
Bweiss / LAK,

Can you clarify any further the nature of the DA's complaint? For example, what action do they consider to be "manufacturing an assault weapon"? Do they object to the lack of a continuous ribbon of welding along the magazine well, or to the very legality of the OLL receiver itself?

Why does the DOJ seem to always dispute the legality of fixed mag rifles? I never heard of them filing charges for a gripless rifle with a MonsterMan, "1 minute fix" or Spring Retaining Bracket.

bwiese
04-03-2007, 2:17 PM
Bweiss / LAK,
Can you clarify any further the nature of the DA's complaint? For example, what action do they consider to be "manufacturing an assault weapon"?

Speaking in generalities here - not all case info is out, even to defendant apparently.

Appears to be a PC 12280(a) charge(s). The rifles in question are fixed-mag rifles with a secure mag attachment, and the mags hold 10 rounds or less.


Do they object to the lack of a continuous ribbon of welding along the magazine well, or to the very legality of the OLL receiver itself?

Likely they are *****ing about mag attachment, as they can't complain about off-list receivers, with Alison's massive paper trail certifying half the known brands of off-list receivers.


Why does the DOJ seem to always dispute the legality of fixed mag rifles? I never heard of them filing charges for a gripless rifle with a MonsterMan, "1 minute fix" or Spring Retaining Bracket.

They never have and never will, because there's a clear Supreme Ct. case allowing unlisted rifles, and OLL rifles with detachable mags/Monsterman grips are clearly legal.

DOJ is playing a game with interpretation of a single regulatory definition it has already defined, and which it was trying to change. Its act of attempting to change regs means the current regs are valid (and insufficient).

Internal DOJ strife seems to indicate lower-level nonpolitical line staff thinks overattention to fixed-mag minutiae has actually caused mag smuggling ("law of unintended consequences").

edwardm
04-03-2007, 2:36 PM
Internal DOJ strife seems to indicate lower-level nonpolitical line staff thinks overattention to fixed-mag minutiae has actually caused mag smuggling ("law of unintended consequences").

What reasons does CalDOJ staff (of any level) have for thinking that this violation of 12020 is going on? I'm assuming this is more than a "hunch" and related to something more tangible.

383green
04-03-2007, 2:53 PM
Internal DOJ strife seems to indicate lower-level nonpolitical line staff thinks overattention to fixed-mag minutiae has actually caused mag smuggling ("law of unintended consequences").


I don't follow what you mean there. How would the DOJ's fixed-mag methodology fetish encourage smuggling of restricted mags? Maybe I've had too little sleep and too much caffeine to make the logical connection this afternoon. http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/a24.gif http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/44.gif

MonsterMan
04-03-2007, 3:32 PM
Because with all their anti maglock memo's, it is steering people to build featureless rifles that can have detachable magazines. And once they have detachable magazines, the doj thinks that everyone is smuggling in hi-caps. :rolleyes:

At least that is what I think he talking about.

383green
04-03-2007, 4:21 PM
Because with all their anti maglock memo's, it is steering people to build featureless rifles that can have detachable magazines. And once they have detachable magazines, the doj thinks that everyone is smuggling in hi-caps. :rolleyes:

At least that is what I think he talking about.

Ok, I think I get it now. That might even sorta make sense if I readjust my thinking to their level by huffing a bunch of spray paint to get stupid, then taking a bunch of meth to get paranoid. :eek:

I shouldn't be so rough on the DOJ drones. I'm sure they're just Thinking of the Children. :p

fun2none
04-03-2007, 4:54 PM
After sitting on this case for almost a year and with a DA in San Jose deciding not to prosecute a fixed-mag OLL case, and another recent fixed mag case dismissed, this DA has got to have IQ somewhere near room temperature to file charges.

It is only a matter of time when the DA realizes that the DOJ BOF'd her real good when they recommended filing charges.

LAK Supply
04-03-2007, 4:54 PM
The charges here do involve a fixed-mag configuration. Magazines were not welded to the receiver (the law does not support this attempt at stroke-of-the-pen regulation by the DOJ); however, they were attached in a manner that complies with the legal definition of a fixed magazine.

There has been some friction here already......the DOJ found someone that doesn't like being pushed around........they don't like it very much.

ketec_owner
04-03-2007, 5:01 PM
I'm up for defending our 2nd ammendment rights. I'm in for a $150 when the legal defense fund gets setup.

383green
04-03-2007, 5:07 PM
There has been some friction here already......the DOJ found someone that doesn't like being pushed around........they don't like it very much.

If one of my beloved dogs craps on the living room carpet, they get their nose shoved in it, a whole lot of yelling, then they get physically tossed out the door and locked out, and possibly even need to sleep outside that night (they're usually in the house with me, so that's a very severe punishment to be locked outside away from the rest of the pack). Consequently, they all know to perform their various excretory functions outside, and they're even smart enough to wake me up so I can open the bedroom door and let them out if they gotta go and can't wait until morning. Even my littlest dog, who was not blessed with much brain volume inside her cute little skull.

The DOJ crapped the bed on this guy. Unlike my dogs, they're not beloved and I have less faith that they're smart enough to learn to go poo outside next time, but we'll still shove their nose in the steaming pile and give 'em a good yelling-at anyway. Nobody cares whether they like that or not.

LAK Supply
04-03-2007, 5:29 PM
After sitting on this case for almost a year and with a DA in San Jose deciding not to prosecute a fixed-mag OLL case, and another recent fixed mag case dismissed, this DA has got to have IQ somewhere near room temperature to file charges.

It is only a matter of time when the DA realizes that the DOJ BOF'd her real good when they recommended filing charges.


I'm not sure the DA was all that eager to file to begin with; I believe there was more than one request by the DOJ for prosecution.

tetris
04-03-2007, 6:47 PM
If I had complete information about the case and a legitimate foundation to donate to, I would pitch in $100.00.

LAK Supply
04-03-2007, 7:45 PM
If I had complete information about the case and a legitimate foundation to donate to, I would pitch in $100.00.

If this case evolves as it appears it's going to, you will have both. More information will be made available later in the month pending further proceedings and consent from the party involved. At this point it's prudent to keep some of the details private as we don't want to:

a) taint/negatively affect this case
b) release incomplete/inaccurate information
c) jump the gun and make a mess out of a good opportunity

Thanks for the support.

SemiAutoSam
04-03-2007, 7:54 PM
If one really wanted to find out about this case they would just check the websites of the courts that are in the central valley as you stated for the charges you also stated for the public information that is already out there.

But for at much work that doing that would take I'm too lazy to look it up.

I believe what you have stated I have no reason to doubt it. I just wanted to see it from the DA's point of view and or see what the media has said about this in any papers the story has been published in.

Thanks for helping organise this endeavour.

Maybe what we need or what the accused needs for all of us is a ruling from the California State supreme court on this issue once and for all something that would knock the DOJ's wiener in the dirt so to speak.

If this case evolves as it appears it's going to, you will have both. More information will be made available later in the month pending further proceedings and consent from the party involved. At this point it's prudent to keep some of the details private as we don't want to:

a) taint/negatively affect this case
b) release incomplete/inaccurate information
c) jump the gun and make a mess out of a good opportunity

Thanks for the support.

LAK Supply
04-03-2007, 8:29 PM
If one really wanted to find out about this case they would just check the websites of the courts that are in the central valley as you stated for the charges you also stated for the public information that is already out there.



SAS - The defendant does not even know the full scope of the case; that is part of the reason for the lack on information. They will be another court proceeding later in April that will provide more information on the scope of the charges.

I believe what you have stated I have no reason to doubt it. I just wanted to see it from the DA's point of view and or see what the media has said about this in any papers the story has been published in.

There has been nothing published thus far...... Only a preliminary hearing dealing with the warrant has taken place up to this point. I'm not sure what the DA would have to say as I don't think even the defendant has a copy of the complaint.

Thanks for helping organise this endeavour.

The defendant is a stand-up guy and I hate to see him getting crapped on..... I'm also tired of watching the thugs that run this state pull the same intimidation techniques on people who don't jive with their view. No thanks is necessary; I'm simply helping out where I can.


Maybe what we need or what the accused needs for all of us is a ruling from the California State supreme court on this issue once and for all something that would knock the DOJ's wiener in the dirt so to speak.

That's what we're hoping for here. If it works out things could much better for the defendant, and for all gun owners in this state. If it doesn't, then nothing's changed and we still have the current situation.

fun2none
04-03-2007, 8:29 PM
TIN FOIL HAT ENABLED:

I believe there was more than one request by the DOJ for prosecution.


Maybe what we need or what the accused needs for all of us is a ruling from the California State supreme court on this issue once and for all something that would knock the DOJ's wiener in the dirt so to speak.

Why did the DOJ ask the DA to prosecute a weak case ?

IF the court rules against defendant the DOJ advances its underground regulations via the courts. However, if the court rules for the defendant then Moon Beam asks Governator and the legislature for tough new laws to close this assault weapon loophole.

It may be a win-win for them.

TIN FOIL HAT DISABLED:

thedrickel
04-03-2007, 8:39 PM
TIN FOIL HAT ENABLED:




Why did the DOJ ask the DA to prosecute a weak case ?

IF the court rules against defendant the DOJ advances its underground regulations via the courts. However, if the court rules for the defendant then Moon Beam asks Governator and the legislature for tough new laws to close this assault weapon loophole.

It may be a win-win for them.

TIN FOIL HAT DISABLED:

I don't think the DOJ would consider 50,000 new reg'd AW's as a win-win situation. More like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

PS The LAST thing I want to do is register my rifles.

LAK Supply
04-03-2007, 8:41 PM
TIN FOIL HAT ENABLED:




Why did the DOJ ask the DA to prosecute a weak case ?

IF the court rules against defendant the DOJ advances its underground regulations via the courts. However, if the court rules for the defendant then Moon Beam asks Governator and the legislature for tough new laws to close this assault weapon loophole.

It may be a win-win for them.

TIN FOIL HAT DISABLED:


You may very well be right. However, the letter of the law is on the side of the defendant, and no matter what happens he's still in the hot seat. This case is real whether it has the potential for bad results or not.

If the "loophole" is closed as a result of this, I think everyone here would probably agree that it was coming anyway.

A win in court and a new reg (as we've seen from previous unConstitutional gun-grabs; very likely if new legislation was passed) period would be better than a good guy getting his life/livelihood demolished and the DOJ getting away with unchecked harrassment yet again.

SemiAutoSam
04-03-2007, 8:51 PM
Ditto As they are just that Rifles nothing more nothing less.

The Government and Media just uses the Terms Assault weapons to drum up hysteria from the gun dumb public and other law makers to make them all think we own machine guns. If we could only educate the Legislators and the Public as to how these are just semi automatic rifles and nothing else a lot of the propaganda that the Media and Government like the DOJ uses would be moot as the public would know better and not be fooled into thinking that these rifles are so evil.




I don't think the DOJ would consider 50,000 new reg'd AW's as a win-win situation. More like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

PS The LAST thing I want to do is register my rifles.

1SGMAT
04-03-2007, 9:45 PM
When the time comes Im in for what I can give.

Is there a way to set up something in the for sale forums that we could list items for sale with the proceeds going to a legal fund for this case.

If there was a Auction Fourm Im sure people would donate items they no longer use but someone might want. Im sure everyone has something in there garage that they could get rid of for a good cause and would still put in cash. With that said Im sure there are some here that may not be able to donate 100 or even 50 bucks but they might have a old holster or magazine laying around they would be willing to sale.
I know I would pay a little extra on an item if I new it was going to a good cause.

LAK Supply
04-03-2007, 9:48 PM
When the time comes Im in for what I can give.

Is there a way to set up something in the for sale forums that we could list items for sale with the proceeds going to a legal fund for this case.

If there was a Auction Fourm Im sure people would donate items they no longer use but someone might want. Im sure everyone has something in there garage that they could get rid of for a good cause and would still put in cash. With that said Im sure there are some here that may not be able to donate 100 or even 50 bucks but they might have a old holster or magazine laying around they would be willing to salel.
I know I would pay a little extra on an item if I new it was going to a good cause.


That's not a bad idea! I think that would be up to the mods here if and when the time comes. . . . . would definitely be a good thing IMO!

hoffmang
04-03-2007, 9:49 PM
fun2none,

We will not see new AW legislation for two reasons.

1. New AW legislation would open a registration period.

2. The Governator and everyone else will be explain that we already have an AW ban.

-Gene

stator
04-04-2007, 1:20 AM
DA's dont need permission from Defendants to drop or lower charges. That is a choice they make on their own.

Small clarification here, once the original is filed with the court, it is up to the Judge whether to accept dropped charges or lower charges.

hoffmang
04-04-2007, 9:04 AM
stator,

I don't think a Judge can force a DA to continue to prosecute. I'll agree that lowered charges can be denied, but if a DA wishes to drop, he either gets to drop or a jeopardy attached dismissal - which for our situation is about the same.

-Gene

FreedomIsNotFree
04-04-2007, 11:30 AM
Small clarification here, once the original is filed with the court, it is up to the Judge whether to accept dropped charges or lower charges.

Incorrect. The decision to charge or not charge is the sole discretion of the DA. The DA also has the authority to amend/reduce the charges. The DA only needs the approval of the Judge if there is a sentencing deal/arrangement as part of a plea bargain because punishment is the Judges arena.

For the Judge to tell the prosecutor how to prosecute would violate the separation of powers that our country adheres to. A person can only represent one form at a time...being....Executive(DA), Legislative(elected officials), and Judicial(the Judge).

Section 3 of the California Constitution states:
"The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the other powers except as permitted by this Constitution."

rocknut
04-04-2007, 9:54 PM
This grin just won't go away. I'm in for what little I can do when the time comes. I like the auction idea...

bwiese
04-04-2007, 10:53 PM
This just got a lot better with the DSA SA58 CaliFAL letter emergence - and it's an opinion letter, not a staff letter or "Iggy letter".

Whee!

LAK Supply
04-04-2007, 11:10 PM
This just got a lot better with the DSA SA58 CaliFAL letter emergence - and it's an opinion letter, not a staff letter or "Iggy letter".

Whee!


Yeah....if I read that correctly I think their "expert" stated that even if a weapon can become an "assault weapon" (open magwell that can accept and retain a magazine) simply by removing the part that is blocking this action, it is still not an assault weapon unless said action takes place.

This blows their whole "capacity to accept" right out of the water. In fact, that would make a fully-functional AR a "non-assault weapon" with a simple set screw in the button......and all other original parts completely intact.....until that set screw is removed.

This setup is only "not recommended".........

Did I read that right?

hoffmang
04-04-2007, 11:11 PM
Yes. Yes you did...

-Gene

LAK Supply
04-04-2007, 11:14 PM
Yes. Yes you did...

-Gene


:D

I love it when the DOJ steps on their pecker!

FreedomIsNotFree
04-04-2007, 11:21 PM
Dont forget the 10 round magazine piece....that doesn't go away.

hoffmang
04-04-2007, 11:29 PM
Free,

Your just simply stating that the pinned magazine must be a 10 rounder or smaller, right?

-Gene

FreedomIsNotFree
04-04-2007, 11:43 PM
Free,

Your just simply stating that the pinned magazine must be a 10 rounder or smaller, right?

-Gene

Absolutely. My comment was in response to LAK saying....

This blows their whole "capacity to accept" right out of the water. In fact, that would make a fully-functional AR a "non-assault weapon" with a simple set screw in the button......and all other original parts completely intact.....until that set screw is removed.

LAK Supply
04-05-2007, 6:09 AM
Absolutely. My comment was in response to LAK saying....

I didn't mention that....... just considered it a given here in KA.

We all know how dangerous that 11th round can be........:rolleyes:

Surveyor
04-05-2007, 11:14 AM
I didn't mention that....... just considered it a given here in KA.

We all know how dangerous that 11th round can be........:rolleyes:

Yeah, even the DOJ knows that 5.56 is underpowered. They figure 10 rounds of it is "Less than lethal" ;) .

LAK Supply
04-09-2007, 10:41 PM
Things appear to be heating up here. . . . . There have been some meetings going on with the attorneys that are representing this defendant. One of the attorneys involved has worked on some BIG 2A cases.

This case could have bigger implications than anybody has imagined up to this point. If the attorneys are correct about this case, it has the probability of having nationwide effects on the Second Amendment.

Within the coming week there will be additional information posted here. At this point in time a national firearms association is involved (not the NRA), and they're saying they've been waiting for this case for a decade. We are working on getting several more groups involved as well. They will be setting up a donation/information site this week.

We think this thing is about to go BIG guys.....thanks for all the feedback, and we'll keep you posted.

Lance

Matt C
04-09-2007, 11:52 PM
Very nice, keep us informed and let me know if there is anything I can do.

Super_tactical
04-10-2007, 12:19 AM
I'm interested to hear what implications this may have on the rest of the union. I don't see it right now, probably because I'm overly tired. :p

Would it be wise to form a rally of some sort outside the court during trial? I don't know if that would bring negative attention or possitive. Any thoughts?

turinreza
04-10-2007, 1:00 AM
this is the only kind of case where i am willing to feed a lawyer...
count me in when the time comes..

Hoop
04-10-2007, 5:34 AM
It's going to take $10-15k for legal defense depending on what happens during the process.

I'd figure more than that, especially if it gets drawn out over a period of a year or two - which is generally how long it takes for anyone to make it to court these days (right to a speedy trial anyone:rolleyes:). His legal fees will probably be double that amount. I'll donate, and I'm sure a lot of other people will too.

.223
04-10-2007, 5:55 AM
Can we know where in the Central Valley? I live there, so this is of a lot of interest to me.

I am in for what I can afford if/when the time comes.

Same here. Can I ask, at the least, what county this took place in?

AJAX22
04-10-2007, 6:06 AM
I'm in.

My bonus comes first week of may, I'll throw in then if it's ok to wait an extra week. things are a little tighter than I'd like (just got married) but if he needs the funds sooner I can probably raise some immidiatly.

Fight the good fight.

Biff...
04-10-2007, 6:44 AM
Lance,

If this case might have big 2A implications, why not extend this thread to all the other forums, AR15, glocktalk, just to name a few. I bet we can get a few extra $$$ from our brothers from other states.

You probably mentioned this already, but I'll ask again are you going to setup a trust account to accept all contributions?

E Pluribus Unum
04-10-2007, 6:45 AM
If charges are dropped there has to be a way to sue them or to file paperwork seeking an injunction.

Otherwise what is to stop DA's from taking advantage of it?

DA files charges against local FFL's.... if they put up a fight, they drop charges and move on. In this way they can harrass the shops that take the plea bargain and lie down without a fight but its never stopped because they drop charges as soon as someone puts up a fight.

Another thing to point out. After this FFL is vindicated we may have a new shop to visit for buying guns! He is willing to fight for us.... thats a good way to earn my business. I shop with 10% and drive 80 miles round trip to buy guns because they fought for us.

savageevo
04-10-2007, 7:00 AM
When the time comes to donate please send me a pm to where we could send the funds.:)

chiefcrash
04-10-2007, 7:06 AM
for some reason, i have a feeling that this has the potential to become the "Parker vs DC" of california law...

E Pluribus Unum
04-10-2007, 7:15 AM
for some reason, i have a feeling that this has the potential to become the "Parker vs DC" of california law...

That has already happened..... we lost.... they ruled second amendment does not apply to private citizens individually but as a whole in the militia.


Parker is about whether gun bans are constitutional... in DC they are not... in CA they are. That is a completely different debate.


Right now in DC if they passed an all out ban on firearms it would be useless; the courts have already ruled such a ban unconstitutional.

Right now in CA if they passed an all out ban on firearms it would be enforceable because the courts have already ruled that such a ban WOULD be constitutional.

The OLL debate is over the wording of the current AWB in California. It sounds the same but in all actuality its completely different.

PIRATE14
04-10-2007, 8:14 AM
Just stick to the facts......my .02 cents:)

6172crew
04-10-2007, 8:19 AM
If charges are dropped there has to be a way to sue them or to file paperwork seeking an injunction.

Otherwise what is to stop DA's from taking advantage of it?

DA files charges against local FFL's.... if they put up a fight, they drop charges and move on. In this way they can harrass the shops that take the plea bargain and lie down without a fight but its never stopped because they drop charges as soon as someone puts up a fight.

Another thing to point out. After this FFL is vindicated we may have a new shop to visit for buying guns! He is willing to fight for us.... thats a good way to earn my business. I shop with 10% and drive 80 miles round trip to buy guns because they fought for us.

80? Hell try 400!:D 10% was there when needed.

luvtolean
04-10-2007, 8:22 AM
Just stick to the facts......my .02 cents:)

Precisely.

No hand waving or hyperbole needed. If this is the real deal, the money will come.

jdberger
04-10-2007, 8:39 AM
Yes. What does that have to do with what I said?

I was referring to the quote, "This guy is willing to contest the case all the way, if the DA drops charges".

This sounds like a guy that is fired up, and we all can make bad choices when angry.

It could lead to a potentially destructive path, especially if he insists on persuing the case against counsel's advice.


It's all speculation...I'm just pointing out that it sounds like people need to calm down. If the DA drops charges, it'll probably stay that way.Some of the more impressive rulings out of the Supreme Court came because folks wouldn't just lie down and take it.

Bowers v. Hardwick for instance.





















excuse the pun, it was mostly unintentional.....:o

hoffmang
04-10-2007, 9:15 AM
EPU,

A Parker ruling in our favor will overrule parts of the 9th Circuit's jurisprudence.

Either way, talk of "other" gun rights organizations worry me. I'll want to know more about that when the time comes. I'm also not sure I agree with this case having the potential to broaden anything but California rights as the issues here are quite California centric. I'm suspicious of someone making that claim.

-Gene

troyPhD
04-10-2007, 9:18 AM
If charges are dropped there has to be a way to sue them or to file paperwork seeking an injunction.

Otherwise what is to stop DA's from taking advantage of it?

DA files charges against local FFL's.... if they put up a fight, they drop charges and move on. In this way they can harrass the shops that take the plea bargain and lie down without a fight but its never stopped because they drop charges as soon as someone puts up a fight.



I worry about this too.... still trying to find out what procedures there are to force a ruling even with no active case.

JALLEN
04-10-2007, 9:19 AM
This just got a lot better with the DSA SA58 CaliFAL letter emergence - and it's an opinion letter, not a staff letter or "Iggy letter".

Whee!

Is that letter public? If so, where does one find it?

C.G.
04-10-2007, 9:21 AM
EPU,


Either way, talk of "other" gun rights organizations worry me.
-Gene

Same here.

tetris
04-10-2007, 2:11 PM
"Landmark 2A case"???

Ok, this is beginning to sound a little overly optimistic. Landmark 2A cases are very rare, require special circumstances, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, like.....Parker vs. DC.

hoffmang
04-10-2007, 2:14 PM
There is some chance that this could be a good California regulatory case. This is not a 2A case.

It might be a commerce clause case or a federal FFL pre-emption case...

-Gene

bwiese
04-10-2007, 2:22 PM
Yeah I think some folks may be straying a bit off the range. External influences of nongun/nonNRA organizations may be distorting perceptions, or maybe something just got lost in translation.

First and foremost, this is a plain regulatory case: is the item described by, or excluded by, a regulatory description? (It's outside the narrowly-constrained definition.) Do prior instances, recommendations and policies of the regulatory agency show a pattern or interpretation upon which the meaning is generally agreed upon? (Yup, including prior approvals, formal AG opinion letters, as well formal testimony of a DOJ agent in a court of competent jurisdiction.) A regulation can never be intentionally designed to be unclear or interpreted whimsically - this way on Thurdsay, that way on Friday. There's mounds of case law on stuff like this.

These issues apply to this case like any other regulatory case. In fact, this behavior is not even gun-specific - any regulated field where statutory law depends on regulations or regulatory definitions has the same issues with "underground law" or enforcement of nonexistent law.

Waving RKBA claims around is not bright.

Fortunately the asst DA on this is apparently a real tool, some junior 28-29 yr old guy. I don't even know if the real DA knows of this case yet.

koiloco
04-10-2007, 2:28 PM
sry for the late reply. I've been away.

Count me in for $100.

Keep us posted.

edwardm
04-10-2007, 2:49 PM
As an aside, and little more, do you think the "...but the 58 DA's may not agree" language we're all too familiar with clearly eviscerates the defense of entrapment by estoppel and yanks away any Due Process-based arguments?

As I think I see it, there are affirmative defenses involved here, in addition to the initial regulatory interpretation issue.

There is some chance that this could be a good California regulatory case. This is not a 2A case.

It might be a commerce clause case or a federal FFL pre-emption case...

-Gene

redneckshootist
04-10-2007, 3:10 PM
I'm in for a couple hundred but I wont be able to do it till May cause work is so slow right now

hoffmang
04-10-2007, 3:38 PM
edward,

I think there is some room for both estoppel and due process arguments based on the defined role of the AG in the California Constitution. I really don't think the AG wants to argue that its not a competent source of regulatory interpretation in front of a California Court.

Note that the "58 DA" language talks only about arrest and not about conviction.

-Gene

bwiese
04-10-2007, 4:01 PM
edward,
Note that the "58 DA" language talks only about arrest and not about conviction.

Bingo!

One who speaks as/for the chief law enforcement officer of the state, in these "58 DA warnings", wants to propagate FUD by scaring folks.

It's interesting that they can be so certain in some areas and yet profess variance and lack of knowledge in other handwaving.

There is a statutory duty to have clear, rational definitions of what an AW is, and what comprises one. To have a definition or definitions that have been used with a history of agreed meaning, and then suddenly held to a different one is a position that an AG cannot - rationally or legally - hold.

reddot45
04-10-2007, 4:17 PM
after talking to the defendant recently i can only remark on whats already been said..that is..he's a real good guy and i'm proud to call him friend..i'm also kinda torn as i sure spent a lot of time talking him into selling oll's after doing much reading here. maybe if i never brought it up he would have never sold them. But then again if not him probably someone else..at least i know they've(The DOJ) got a tiger by the tail now:)

SvenFrost
04-10-2007, 4:46 PM
Count me in for $100.

-Sven

Glasshat
04-10-2007, 5:00 PM
I don't feel like reading 20 pages but if the Calguns hive says this is a good cause, I'm in for $100.
I probably didn't buy OLL's from this guy but I bought some from guys like him so I'm glad to help out any way I can.

hoffmang
04-10-2007, 5:13 PM
This is still in the category of not yet.

-Gene

five.five-six
04-10-2007, 5:26 PM
well I am good for a C-note if it comes to that

LAK Supply
04-10-2007, 5:34 PM
Ok, to clarify a few things here:

This issue is taking place in Stanislaus county.

The organization that is getting involved is not a "non-gun" organization. They are a very pro-2A group that has the membership and assets to fight a case such as the one they are suggesting could evolve here.

The reason they are saying that this could be a landmark 2A case is because of some of the actions that have taken place on the part of certain government agencies. There are firearms-seizures involved in this case, along with the AW laws that I think everyone here knows about. There is also some other behavior that has been acted out on the part of these agencies that cannot be discussed at this point.

The defendant's attorneys are well-versed in this area; they have been involved in other cases relating to this subject. I don't speak legalese, but from what I can gather there are certain areas relating to the CA AW situation that can only be remedied at a higher level than the local court. From what they say this is where more significant implications could arise in terms of geographics.

I can't answer any questions that may arise about legal proceedings; I am not an attorney nor do I claim to be. I am just going on what has been passed to me by the individual that is involved in this case. That information comes from his attorneys.

LAK Supply
04-10-2007, 5:39 PM
I forgot to mention in the last post.......there should be more information in regards to the organization involved, the attorneys, and the fundraising effort available by early next week. I believe they are working on an information/donation page as we speak.

bwiese
04-10-2007, 5:41 PM
I really hope these cowboys don't screw up something and turn this into another Silviera.

This, again, is NOT an RKBA case. It is a regulatory case, with some other handwaving about lack of warrants.

LAK Supply
04-10-2007, 5:49 PM
Edited that title......my apologies if that was a hasty statement.

edwardm
04-10-2007, 5:57 PM
That seems like an odd way to read the "58 DA's" clause. DA's don't arrest you, peace officers do. DA's file charges and haul your behind into court. I read it as "They might prosecute" not "they might arrest". Different steps, meaningfully so.

Which means if there is a prosecution, it's possible that DA will withstand an estoppel defense and gain a conviction. The estoppel defense is very narrow and language like that about the 58 DA's could be just sufficient to negate the defense. It smells like a tactic to me, and a rather nefarious one at that.

edward,

I think there is some room for both estoppel and due process arguments based on the defined role of the AG in the California Constitution. I really don't think the AG wants to argue that its not a competent source of regulatory interpretation in front of a California Court.

Note that the "58 DA" language talks only about arrest and not about conviction.

-Gene

BaronW
04-10-2007, 6:05 PM
I really hope these cowboys don't screw up something and turn this into another Silviera.

This, again, is NOT an RKBA case. It is a regulatory case, with some other handwaving about lack of warrants.


Sorry for being a noob, but what does RKBA stand for?

Fjold
04-10-2007, 6:05 PM
I really hope these cowboys don't screw up something and turn this into another Silviera.

This, again, is NOT an RKBA case. It is a regulatory case, with some other handwaving about lack of warrants.


Bill, please don't predjudice people against this case by using inflamatory names like "cowboys".

"We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
- Benjamin Franklin

Hunter
04-10-2007, 6:07 PM
Sorry for being a noob, but what does RKBA stand for?

Right to Keep and Bear Arms!

brownie168
04-10-2007, 6:14 PM
Please drop me an email when it is time for contribution... If it was not for the yellow sign, I would have missed this altogether...

hoffmang
04-10-2007, 6:28 PM
That seems like an odd way to read the "58 DA's" clause. DA's don't arrest you, peace officers do. DA's file charges and haul your behind into court. I read it as "They might prosecute" not "they might arrest". Different steps, meaningfully so.

Which means if there is a prosecution, it's possible that DA will withstand an estoppel defense and gain a conviction. The estoppel defense is very narrow and language like that about the 58 DA's could be just sufficient to negate the defense. It smells like a tactic to me, and a rather nefarious one at that.

I was imprecise. I read the "58 DA's" language is that the could certainly prosecute you, not necessarily convict you.

It falls into the category of a DA can prosecute a ham sandwich.

Edward - I'm not at home this week to scan them, but there are a couple of very interesting transcripts from cases in Southern California. Those transcripts show how a CA judge in superior court looks upon the CA DOJ's letters and testimony. The transcripts are exhibits in Hunt. I'll suffice it to say that Judges look reluctant to convict someone with a letter ruling on point in hand.

-Gene

fiveflat
04-10-2007, 6:42 PM
Bill, please don't predjudice people against this case by using inflamatory names like "cowboys".


Thank you for saying that. I myself am a professional cowboy in the literal sense, and I really hate that the Democrats made that a "put down"/derogatory name.

dwtt
04-10-2007, 6:46 PM
I forgot to mention in the last post.......there should be more information in regards to the organization involved, the attorneys, and the fundraising effort available by early next week. I believe they are working on an information/donation page as we speak.

When the info is available, please start another thread, because this one is a bit too long for me to wade through. When it comes time to donate, I can't donate any cash, but I might raffle off my Taurus 627 revolver. I figure it's got to bring in a few hundred bucks.

bwiese
04-10-2007, 6:54 PM
Bill, please don't predjudice people against this case by using inflamatory names like "cowboys".


Well, we'll see. Of course I don't want to prejudice folks against, but there may be some questions not about the defendant but about one of the organizations apparently offering help, at least maybe the local branch.

Maybe I'm mistranslating, but I do get worried in cases like this when someone sees it as a 2nd Amendment battle, which it ain't (in CA, pre-Parker resolution). The DOJ needs to have its arse handed to it due to regulatory malfeasance, period. After that, some of the other behavior relating to the case can be challenged.

Let's get the dude thru the next month. There's a very real chance all charges will not be sustained early on...

trfcrugby
04-14-2007, 12:33 AM
Without giving out any information that would hurt the case, can you tell us anything about how this came about? At what range, how did it go down, etc?

The reason I ask is because I am in Modesto, and I have not had a chance to shoot my OLL yet, and all of this has me worried about taking it out until this all settles down.

And yes, I have a BB on the OLL and a ten round magazine, so legally I am safe, but that doesn't always seem to work.

AfricanHunter
04-14-2007, 2:00 AM
Does the NRA know about this case and if so have they commented? Can't wait to hear the details.

edwardm
04-14-2007, 5:50 AM
Then it sounds like the estoppel defense is viable. Of course I think we'd all rather see a dismissal or finding of factual innocence based on the plain language of 12276.1 and the CCR sections defining "detachable magazine".

I'd be interested in seeing the transcripts if/when you have time to scan them.

I was imprecise. I read the "58 DA's" language is that the could certainly prosecute you, not necessarily convict you.

It falls into the category of a DA can prosecute a ham sandwich.

Edward - I'm not at home this week to scan them, but there are a couple of very interesting transcripts from cases in Southern California. Those transcripts show how a CA judge in superior court looks upon the CA DOJ's letters and testimony. The transcripts are exhibits in Hunt. I'll suffice it to say that Judges look reluctant to convict someone with a letter ruling on point in hand.

-Gene

James R.
04-14-2007, 9:45 AM
Thank you for saying that. I myself am a professional cowboy in the literal sense, and I really hate that the Democrats made that a "put down"/derogatory name.

Tsk Tsk, get with the times, "cowboy" Bovine Relocation Engineer, that last bit should be good for a 25% raise! ;-)

Regards,

James R.

dd03
04-14-2007, 10:08 AM
I'm in to help.

LAK Supply
04-14-2007, 5:45 PM
Without giving out any information that would hurt the case, can you tell us anything about how this came about? At what range, how did it go down, etc?

The reason I ask is because I am in Modesto, and I have not had a chance to shoot my OLL yet, and all of this has me worried about taking it out until this all settles down.

And yes, I have a BB on the OLL and a ten round magazine, so legally I am safe, but that doesn't always seem to work.


This did not happen at a range....it has to do with a dealer in Stanislaus County. The DOJ has been giving this individual a hard time for a while, mainly because they haven't been successful in their intimidation campaign.

I have shot OLL rifles at several ranges in Stanislaus county and have not been harrassed. While I cannot guarantee that you will never have any issues, it is unlikely as long as you are doing nothing that would attract negative attention.

E Pluribus Unum
04-14-2007, 9:16 PM
This did not happen at a range....it has to do with a dealer in Stanislaus County. The DOJ has been giving this individual a hard time for a while, mainly because they haven't been successful in their intimidation campaign.

I have shot OLL rifles at several ranges in Stanislaus county and have not been harrassed. While I cannot guarantee that you will never have any issues, it is unlikely as long as you are doing nothing that would attract negative attention.

yeah.... try bump firing an OLL AK at a range with a couple 100 rounders and see if you get harassed..

Pthfndr
06-05-2007, 8:31 PM
Any new news?

LAK Supply
06-05-2007, 8:43 PM
This is Dave's case Pathfndr.....

You've been reading about it in the other thread that's stickied at the top of the page.