PDA

View Full Version : Possible Solution to Prevent OLL Arrests


FreedomIsNotFree
04-20-2007, 6:34 PM
Here is what I plan to do.

I am going to send certified, return receipt, notice to all County Sheriff's and City Chiefs of Police, the law regarding OLL's. Included will be the CADOJ opinion letter's that I find relevant to my rifle as well as any applicable court decisions on the matter.

I will use a Notary to verify the contents on the letter so the recipients cant claim items were not included.

I will file all of my documents, along with the return receipts, with my county clerk for preservation for any future lawsuit should it be needed.

If done properly, this will prevent LEO's from claiming they did not "understand" the law regarding OLL's. If any department or officer arrests me after notice has been given they are going to have one LARGE lawsuit on their hands. Not only will I sue the City/Department, but I will name the officer personally.

For anyone else that wants to go this route, you don't need to send notice to ALL. But I would highly recommend it given you never know where you will be in the State with your legal OLL or how any given department/officer will react to an OLL.

On a side note, if the Police and Sheriff start receiving hundreds of these notices it will surely advance the cause.

SLYoteBoy
04-20-2007, 7:03 PM
+1. Im thinking of passing Bills memo to a friend of mine at the local CHP , and have him pass it to the rest of the LE agencys in town. Talking about arrests , I was thinking of a bulletproof build. MMG , and Prince 50 with a normal target barrel , 10 round mag , no pinned mags , no brake , flash hider , or anything. I dont think they could do anything?

Satex
04-20-2007, 7:03 PM
I like the idea but they will laugh at you. We are currently going through this in a non-OLL related issue in which a local govt official is refusing to follow the law because he has a different interpertation from the CA DOJ.
It will boil down to them telling you that you do not explain law to them.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-20-2007, 7:07 PM
+1. Im thinking of passing Bills memo to a friend of mine at the local CHP , and have him pass it to the rest of the LE agencys in town. Talking about arrests , I was thinking of a bulletproof build. MMG , and Prince 50 with a normal target barrel , 10 round mag , no pinned mags , no brake , flash hider , or anything. I dont think they could do anything?

This is not one of those, "lets educate LEO's" ideas. This will lay the foundation for a winning lawsuit should the need arise. My job is not to educate LEO's.

SemiAutoSam
04-20-2007, 7:09 PM
Is that some what like how a UCC1 Notary protest works ? or at least it uses the Notary as a witness in the same way.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-20-2007, 7:09 PM
I like the idea but they will laugh at you. We are currently going through this in a non-OLL related issue in which a local govt official is refusing to follow the law because he has a different interpertation from the CA DOJ.
It will boil down to them telling you that you do not explain law to them.

You are probably right...they may laugh...but I dont really care one way or the other. What matters to me is they have been put on notice, legally. If they disregard the notice they will do so at their own detriment.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-20-2007, 7:13 PM
Is that some what like how a UCC1 Notary protest works ? or at least it uses the Notary as a witness in the same way.

You got it Sam....its related. I just thought to myself....why dont I apply that process to OLL's?

SemiAutoSam
04-20-2007, 7:20 PM
That's a Hell of a way to use a Notary but very smart as a Notary has a lot of power they just don't realise it most the time.

You got it Sam....its related. I just thought to myself....why don't I apply that process to OLL's?

69Mach1
04-20-2007, 7:22 PM
What about pooling our money and having a law firm write the letter(s).

SemiAutoSam
04-20-2007, 7:26 PM
He wont have any choice as the Notary's Stamp will be on it and serve as Evidence in a court of law that the DA or who ever the law is served on that they had prior knowledge of the law before the arrest.

Its a way to lock them up its much better than just faxing them and or sending something to them certified with a return receipt.

I would call it Brilliant and a new level has just been discovered.

Before this they could always say they were unaware of the law and or the regulations that aren't directly in the penal code but now when they are sent everything like this all of the laws pertinent to the OLL well then its not a matter of interpretation.

FINF you DA man.



I like the idea but they will laugh at you. We are currently going through this in a non-OLL related issue in which a local govt official is refusing to follow the law because he has a different interpretation from the CA DOJ.
It will boil down to them telling you that you do not explain law to them.


Good Idea.

What about pooling our money and having a law firm write the letter(s).

FreedomIsNotFree
04-20-2007, 7:26 PM
What about pooling our money and having a law firm write the letter(s).

Not a bad idea. I would be willing to consider pitching in for a more "legal" form to the letter. I honestly think we have the skill here on Calguns.net to accomplish this.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-20-2007, 7:29 PM
I almost forgot to add the CHP Commissioner to the list...

Bad Voodoo
04-20-2007, 8:10 PM
Not a bad idea. I would be willing to consider pitching in for a more "legal" form to the letter. I honestly think we have the skill here on Calguns.net to accomplish this.

I'll gladly contribute, if necessary.

-voodoo

Rem1492
04-20-2007, 8:33 PM
Instead of buying you a few drinks at a bar, I will use that cash to help out.

Remdog

slick_711
04-20-2007, 8:53 PM
Instead of buying you a few drinks at a bar, I will use that cash to help out.

Remdog

I'll buy some drinks at a bar, contribute to this, and just not eat lunch for a week. Priorities. Make that no lunch for two weeks, I need some .45ACP.

This does sound like a great idea from what I'm understanding. I'm not too familiar with the process/powers of a notary, and I think the OLL situation would still be considered "gray" from the LEO perspective.

That said, this would certainly force them to all become aware of our perspective and familiar with our rifles and configurations should futures encounters occur. Hopefully then they'd think twice before hauling an OLL owner in.

LAK Supply
04-20-2007, 9:22 PM
There will probably be some information that is made public by the middle of next week that is relevant to what you are talking about. More than relevant in fact; I think similar would be more approprate, although through different means.

JesseXXX
04-20-2007, 9:29 PM
Great Idea....I was gonna do the same to my local sheriff's office in Lomita... but I'm waiting on BWise new cop memo update... lets make sure to get all the LEO's, CHP's and Sheriffs offices NEAR ALL RANGES!!!!

I'm down to pitch in....

SemiAutoSam
04-20-2007, 9:34 PM
I plan to Proceed in this fashion no matter what anyone else or other law firms plan to do as it will cover my Posterior if some Flat Foot gets a wild hair and thinks he is doing a public service by arresting someone for a non existent charge. It would set up the defence like bringing a royal flush to a poker game IMHO. I have a local Notary that would do this No matter how many recipients for a flat 50 bucks. Providing that I handle the addressing and pay for the certified mail and or registered mail fees. I spoke to the Notary this evening right after FINF mentioned that its done in a similar fashion as the notary in my local group has done the Notary protests in the past with the Notary making copies and keeping a copy in her files of what's sent to the LE agency.

slick_711
04-20-2007, 9:41 PM
Perhaps include bolded copies of SB-23, the Harrot decision, the Kasler list, any relevant DOJ memos, and a letter along the lines of :

Dear *CLEO NAME*,

Good day sir, I am writing to you to make sure you are aware of one of our great state's current firearms issues. In the past few years ... (blah blah, explain Harrot, the OLL situation, maybe mention possible configurations).
Thousands of law-abiding California citizens have built up these Offlist rifles in what a literal interpretation of California penal code would deem a legal configuration. The majority of these gun enthusiasts have done so simply to have a fun recreational rifle, a target rifle, or just to add their take on our current military rifle to their collection. Although it's possible some of these Offlist rifles may have been built up in illegal configurations, the majority were built up by good citizens in legal configurations, in fact, some of your own officers may possess these rifles.
My only request of you sir, is that you make your staff aware of this situation, so that we may better prevent future misguided arrests on the presumption of weapon legality. I feel it is important for California's law enforcement officers to be aware of such a situation so that our state's law abiding gun enthusiasts are not hassled unnecessarily. Thank you for your consideration and action in this matter.

Respectfully,
The Shooting Public


I'm sure Bweise or someone could do a better job with the letter, actually I could do a better job, I was just trying to convey the general idea :o A thought.

bwiese
04-20-2007, 9:53 PM
Guys, please hold off for a bit. Let's not fragment and/or distribute bad or confrontational info...

I'm pretty close to a new memo that does double-duty for the old FAQ and old memo contents with additional material.

These will be getting to some 'appropriate places', distributed thru some good channels...

FreedomIsNotFree
04-20-2007, 9:56 PM
At $4.64 for each return receipt the cost can get into the hundreds if not thousands if each individual Chief and Sheriff were put on notice. This is no small undertaking.

At this point, I think if this is going to be done as a group, it would be best and most effective to come up with a clean document that touches on all relevant legal facts and includes all relevant DOJ letters.

I would never try to slow down any individual from completing ANY process they thought was in their best interest, but we need to organize this properly if we are going to be effective as a group.

SemiAutoSam
04-20-2007, 10:04 PM
I will be including the DA's in my county as well as the ones in surrounding counties. so I can be assured that they know the LAW. I have asked my local LE Agencies for their opinion and all they will do is say contact an attorney.

This is our way to set the stage to protect all of the OLL and other otherwise off list rifle owners. Like my FN 50.63 rifles I already have pictures of the receivers of those rifles and my HK41's.

I will invite the Notary over for TEA one day and get her to start signing the Affidavit forms. compiling the SEND TO list is another matter and will take some research to get all of the names and addresses to send things to. But in the long run this plan will be worth its weight in gold I am thinking.

I'M taking the Ball and Running with it.

Oh BTW Return receipts will not be required The paperwork (We) my Notary and I will be delivering will be delivered with a Proof of service Affidavit. As well expensive certified mail and or Reristered mail will also not be required most of the packets will be delevered in person.


At $4.64 for each return receipt the cost can get into the hundreds if not thousands if each individual Chief and Sheriff were put on notice. This is no small undertaking.

At this point, I think if this is going to be done as a group, it would be best and most effective to come up with a clean document that touches on all relevant legal facts and includes all relevant DOJ letters.

I would never try to slow down any individual from completing ANY process they thought was in their best interest, but we need to organize this properly if we are going to be effective as a group.

AJAX22
04-20-2007, 11:06 PM
This is a pretty cool idea.

my wife is a notary, I never thought it was good for much of anything, I guess I'll have to read up on it a bit.

slick_711
04-20-2007, 11:15 PM
This is a pretty cool idea.

my wife is a notary, I never thought it was good for much of anything, I guess I'll have to read up on it a bit.

Dick. lol :D

I'm gonna tell her you said that.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-20-2007, 11:17 PM
For a more sound process you should NOT use your wife as a notary. I'm sure she has friends though....:)

SemiAutoSam
04-20-2007, 11:19 PM
Right using a blood relative to perform the service would be conflict of interest.

You need a neutral party to do the service and or mailings. Depending on how you would want to do it.

For a more sound process you should NOT use your wife as a notary. I'm sure she has friends though....:)

thedrickel
04-20-2007, 11:51 PM
My boss is a notary. Kind of an anti- but he would do it if I asked. He's just another peon that doesn't understand the 2nd amendment.

1norcalvarmintHunter
04-21-2007, 12:09 AM
I would really like to get in on this, sounds like a good idea. what do i need to do?

I am also curious if anyone is experiencing any harrasment or heckling in there towns or cities?

artherd
04-21-2007, 1:14 AM
I know Bill is working on a current memorandum which would be appropriate and sufficently detailed to constitute Knowing on the part of any agency who acts in it's defiance.

In order to not dilute the net effect to zero, I would recommend the following:

1) We do not fragment and duplicate efforts. This needs to come from one source and one source only.
2) The source should be a CA Bar certified attorney.
3) The NRA ought to be involved.

Keep the ideas coming, and feel free to pm or e-mail me or Bill.

BLKTALN
04-21-2007, 2:07 AM
would this prevent them from arresting/harassing? I think that's exactly what the tactic is... to harass, arrest, make you go through the process of justifying legality, and then drop the case. a deterrent tactic to make law abiding citizens like us to think twice about our hobbies...

FreedomIsNotFree
04-21-2007, 2:12 AM
would this prevent them from arresting/harassing? I think that's exactly what the tactic is... to harass, arrest, make you go through the process of justifying legality, and then drop the case. a deterrent tactic to make law abiding citizens like us to think twice about our hobbies...

Initially, it may or may not prevent LEO's from arresting/harassing, but I assure you, once they get hit with a civil lawsuit things will change real fast.

BLKTALN
04-21-2007, 2:17 AM
let me know how i can help.

Sam Hainn
04-21-2007, 2:36 AM
I like the idea but they will laugh at you... / ...It will boil down to them telling you that you do not explain law to them.

It's a GREAT idea, but I don't think they'll be laughing - on the contrary, they'll probably get quite pissed off you ruined a viable source of free AR15s and AKs for the taking. ;)

brownie168
04-21-2007, 8:12 AM
Please let me know more, I am most happy to help.

MrLogan
04-21-2007, 10:57 AM
Great idea. I'm willing to contribute. Let's get this done!

FreedomIsNotFree
04-21-2007, 3:34 PM
We'll see how this progresses over the next few days. We should see something come together shortly.

We may not have to give notice to all....I'm looking into this now.....this packet of info, served properly on the AG might do the trick from a legal perspective. He is, in fact, the States highest law enforcement officer.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-29-2007, 12:28 AM
Just wanted to give a quick update. I've received a few PM's asking where we stand on this process in light of BWO's recent arrest.

It turns out there have been a couple different groups that had been working seperately towards similar goals of legal notice. Efforts will be combined to make it most effective for all OLL owners.

I know time is of the essence, but we should be seeing something within a couple weeks.

1norcalvarmintHunter
04-30-2007, 10:00 PM
BWO's arrest? what is that about? fill me in please

FreedomIsNotFree
04-30-2007, 10:05 PM
BWO's arrest? what is that about? fill me in please

Ah man....there are countless threads on the subject. Within those threads there are some links to news video's on the subject....

On another note....we are working on putting the LEO's/DA's in a box with legal notice to prevent just this sort of thing in the future.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-30-2007, 10:24 PM
Ahhhh...you're making me blush....

mcubed4130
04-30-2007, 10:32 PM
+1 if you guys need any help - financially or otherwise.

-M3

spgk380
04-30-2007, 10:35 PM
To be honest, the best thing would be for them to bust some kind of conservatively configured MonsterMan build or screwed in magazine build rifle owned by some upper-middle class gentleman with some $$$ and a clean record, without annoying details like myspace pages and scary DoD property like chemical suits. But of course, we all know this is never going to happen because the DOJ doesn't want to loose its first real OLL case.

And besides, as somebody said in the LEO thread, nobody like that is going to be busted because 99.99% of firearms arrests are related to auxiliary issues, like myspace pages.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-30-2007, 10:45 PM
To be honest, the best thing would be for them to bust some kind of conservatively configured MonsterMan build or screwed in magazine build rifle owned by some upper-middle class gentleman with some $$$ and a clean record, without annoying details like myspace pages and scary DoD property like chemical suits. But of course, we all know this is never going to happen because the DOJ doesn't want to loose its first real OLL case.

And besides, as somebody said in the LEO thread, nobody like that is going to be busted because 99.99% of firearms arrests are related to auxiliary issues, like myspace pages.

Unfortunately, I dont think we are likely to see a true test case that will be ruled on by the appellate courts anytime soon. I believe OLL cases will either not be prosecuted once the DA understands the law, or the DA may fall back on AB2728 and seek a civil remedy.

pnkssbtz
05-01-2007, 1:43 AM
Again, I offer the services of my work. I am a printer. If we need commercially printed documents, let me know I can swing that part.

As soon as Bweise finishes his new OLL memo I plan on printing 1,000 copies of them and distributing with some calguns members so they can help spread them.

pnkssbtz
05-01-2007, 1:48 AM
Another question I have for FINF,

Do each individual person have to send out their own notarized letter? Or can we do this as a group and publish a list of recipients so anyone can check the list and see if that person has been notified, thus if that person was ever in a case of OLL abuse civil litigation could be brought against them?


If every DA and Cop did what he thought was the law in regards to to the any other laws, it would be complete anarchy, so why does it perpetuate in regards to firearms? The Law is the law. Just as I have no excuse if I am breaking a traffic law I am not aware of, these DA's and Cops should have no excuse.


We allready have the law on our side, but the DA's and LEO's refuse to recognize it. I see this as a way to force them to recognize it, or if they fail to be responsible civilly for any damages they incurr.

paradox
05-01-2007, 6:28 AM
I can work Tuolumne County. I know and am known by both the DA and Sheriff.

xenophobe
05-01-2007, 8:38 AM
Another question I have for FINF,

Do each individual person have to send out their own notarized letter?

From what he is describing, no, it shouldn't be necessary. One copy per DA's office, Police Dept, Sheriff's Office should be sufficient.

As for this being necessary... only where Off List cases haven't been pressed. After a DA has to assign a prosecutor to spend valuable time and effort researching California law and regulation, having it verified by another because of sheer disbelief, and then 'debated' in conference to brainstorm if there is a way to press charges or not regardless of the information gathered, enough man hours have passed towards a case that can't be prosecuted will guarantee it will be noted and not happen again. Any DA's office has not enough personnel or money, or too much of a workload to waste time trying to play trivial games with the penal code that won't result in solid felony convictions. It will be like driving 100 miles to save 10c a gallon on gas.

shark92651
05-01-2007, 9:00 AM
It will be like driving 100 miles to save 10c a gallon on gas.

This IS the government we are talking about though :D Seriously though I think this is a great idea and it is important for us to be proactive whenever we can.

mblat
05-01-2007, 9:28 AM
I would like to get on it and contribute $$ to be included in "circle of trust", so to speak.
I think it is a good idea and we should do it in organized fashion and everybody should get basic knowleage like
who was the notary, where the documents held, how to obtain them if need arises, etc...

let's keep this thread going and proceed.... if anything is organizsed "off-line" I want to be a part of it...

EDIT:

1) We do not fragment and duplicate efforts. This needs to come from one source and one source only.

Absolutly

2) The source should be a CA Bar certified attorney.

probably, but not required

3) The NRA ought to be involved.

why?

SemiAutoSam
05-01-2007, 9:35 AM
NO one person cannot cover the entire state nor has the man power to send out to every DA, Sheriff and or police department.

This is going to take a group effort and we don't need the NRA to tell us how to do this maybe some guidance from a good firearms attorney but that is about it.

We wont fragment and duplicate efforts once we get organised. This effort will require more than one person to perform and will also require more than one notary be used.

1) We do not fragment and duplicate efforts. This needs to come from one source and one source only.

PistolPete75
05-01-2007, 9:53 AM
i like the idea!

MotoGuy
05-01-2007, 10:53 AM
Here is what I plan to do.

I am going to send certified, return receipt, notice to all County Sheriff's and City Chiefs of Police, the law regarding OLL's.

The DOJ beat you to it one year ago:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

I not saying your idea is bad, I am just saying if a police department has a memo from the DOJ saying:

semiautomatic centerfire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in 12276.1(a)(1).

and a letter from a private individual say the rifle is not an assult weapon, who are they going to listen too? They will make the arrest and let the courts decide.

xenophobe
05-01-2007, 11:01 AM
The DOJ beat you to it one year ago:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

I not saying your idea is bad, I am just saying if a police department has a memo from the DOJ saying:

and a letter from a private individual say the rifle is not an assult weapon, who are they going to listen too? They will make the arrest and let the courts decide.

:rolleyes:

Umm... the Memo IS NOT LAW. It has no force. It also hasn't been distributed to DAs or LE because it has no binding force. The packet sent to LE would contain actual law and regulations.

SemiAutoSam
05-01-2007, 11:01 AM
I think your misunderstanding the DOJ put out a MEMO that has no force in law.

WE are showing the LE Agencies and the DA
s the law provided to them By Notary as a witness that it was either hand delivered or placed in the US MAIL. The DOJ seemed to miss this step in their little MEMO.

So in reality DOJ didn't beat anyone to anything. all of their Memos piled up to the ceiling wont equal the law......

The DOJ beat you to it one year ago:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

I not saying your idea is bad, I am just saying if a police department has a memo from the DOJ saying:



and a letter from a private individual say the rifle is not an assult weapon, who are they going to listen too? They will make the arrest and let the courts decide.

StukaJr
05-01-2007, 11:24 AM
I volunteer for Los Angeles County - I am somewhat legally challenged though, so I need more specific instructions of what to send - when the time comes... Maybe with enough people volunteering - someone could create detailed instructions? :confused:

For Los Angeles County - would it be LAPD and Los Angeles Sheriff Dept? For serving CHP - is it regional or is there a central source?

Thanks in advance for any explanations, and rather mad at California for steep legal insight which is apparently necessary for residing in this state.

xenophobe
05-01-2007, 12:01 PM
I volunteer for Los Angeles County - I am somewhat legally challenged though, so I need more specific instructions of what to send - when the time comes... Maybe with enough people volunteering - someone could create detailed instructions? :confused:

Did you even read the thread? Ugh... You won't need to do anything, and at the point, even if there is help needed, everything will already be prepared...

StukaJr
05-01-2007, 1:29 PM
Did you even read the thread? Ugh... You won't need to do anything, and at the point, even if there is help needed, everything will already be prepared...

I see - I'll just wait for the call to action then...

FreedomIsNotFree
05-01-2007, 4:17 PM
Initially the goal was to put law enforcement on notice, legally, as a means of setting up a lawsuit should the authorities, after being notified, decided to arrest me for an OLL build that is in compliance with the law.

We're now looking at a process that will lay the foundation for anyone that has a legal OLL build without having to individually sent out notices. At $4.64 a shot the certified letters can add up quick so the goal is to make sure all departments and da's get their very own copy, but it doesn't cost, collectively, tens of thousands of dollars.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-01-2007, 4:33 PM
Look at this little nugget I found...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
MACKINNEY v NIELSEN


To succeed, a S 1983 plaintiff must show that there is a direct link between the city policy and the constitutional violation. Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). The plaintiff can show this link by proving that the policy itself is unconstitutional or that the city made a "deliberate" or "conscious" choice to fail to train its employees adequately. Id. at 389.


Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.




Say what you will about the 9th circuit, but I will gladly use their decisions if they benefit me.

mcubed4130
05-17-2007, 10:54 PM
So I noted we have a very well done update at:

http://www.calguns.net/copmemo2.pdf

Is this perhaps the pre-requisite for starting this plan of action?

-M3

hoffmang
05-17-2007, 11:54 PM
I don't think that's the updated one yet.

-Gene

bwiese
05-18-2007, 10:36 AM
Sorry, guys, getting there - Real Soon Now.

I've been buried at work with weekly firmware releases with a lotta new features, subsuequent ones should be more tractable and allow me a spare bit of time to consolidate some stuff, esp some new info.

Jicko
05-18-2007, 12:09 PM
Sorry, guys, getting there - Real Soon Now.

I've been buried at work with weekly firmware releases with a lotta new features, subsuequent ones should be more tractable and allow me a spare bit of time to consolidate some stuff, esp some new info.

Can you list it in less than "2 weeks"?

PS. K: we need a :cadoj: smilies that say "2 weeks"!!

Bishop
05-18-2007, 7:22 PM
I'm down for monetary help.

Sounds like a great idea! It'll be nice to have some piece of mind when the police are near your oll...

1norcalvarmintHunter
05-30-2007, 11:28 AM
No more updates?

sierratangofoxtrotunion
05-30-2007, 4:22 PM
I'd think sending this packet to the 58 DAs would also help.

freshmex28
05-31-2007, 12:04 PM
Down here in San Diego, I have heard of people with OLL being harassed by border partol, although they have never bothered me. Is there any way to notify them also?

saki302
05-31-2007, 12:57 PM
I'm in for a donation if this goes through.

-Dave

tiki
05-31-2007, 12:59 PM
The DOJ beat you to it one year ago:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf


This doesn't mean crap. This is an opinion letter put out by the DOJ. The law as it is in the books is what matters. The DOJ can release a letter that says anything they want to. They could come out tomorrow with a letter that said that an assault weapon is any firearm that takes more than one round. It doesn't mean anything except to those that read it and believe it. They released this letter to try to scare as many people as they could into not buying OLLs before they released thier proposed rule clarification letter which was really an attempt to change the law. This went nowhere. The DOJ can not change laws.

The law already defines what a detatchable magazine is.
And, a magazine that requires the use of a tool to remove it is not considered a detatchable magazine.

The DOJ can write any letter that says anything they want to.
The police can arrest you for anything that they want to.
Ultimately, you will have your day in court, and thats when the law is applied.

If the quoted letter meant anything, then this would be a dead subject and nobody would be tooling around with OLLs.

tiki
05-31-2007, 1:04 PM
Look at this little nugget I found...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
MACKINNEY v NIELSEN


To succeed, a S 1983 plaintiff must show that there is a direct link between the city policy and the constitutional violation. Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). The plaintiff can show this link by proving that the policy itself is unconstitutional or that the city made a "deliberate" or "conscious" choice to fail to train its employees adequately. Id. at 389.


Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.




Hmm, very interesting. Gene or any of you other legal eagles, does something like this only apply to Constitutional violations or does something like this apply for a state statute also? This would be very nice to add to my "travel binder". :)

Biff...
05-31-2007, 1:06 PM
Put me down for a donation to cover postage, or supplies. Pm me with info.

FreedomIsNotFree
05-31-2007, 10:37 PM
Hmm, very interesting. Gene or any of you other legal eagles, does something like this only apply to Constitutional violations or does something like this apply for a state statute also? This would be very nice to add to my "travel binder". :)

This deals with US Constitutional violations in Federal court, but states and agencies within a state can definitely be sued for 1983 violations. In my opinion, this OLL issue of ours can fall into this category if after given legal notice an agency disregards or continues the arrest/confiscattion of a legally configured OLL's.

hoffmang
05-31-2007, 11:05 PM
CA DOJ BOF is certainly exposed to liability based on Section 1983.

-Gene