PDA

View Full Version : Firearms arrest in Monterey Park, Part Two. (Crim. Complaint in Post #1)


Pages : [1] 2

Kestryll
04-30-2007, 9:23 AM
By request I have locked and removed the original version of this thread. This thread is now locked and continues here:
Thread continues on
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=57623

There were concerns about statements and links in these threads that, out of context, could be harmful.

Let's try to keep things mainly to support and updates and try not to let our postings become an issue in his case.
We know the DA's,media and more are looking at other websies, it would be folly not to suspect thay were looking here too.

He has arranged for counsel it looks like.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=56684



The latest I've seen has been this.
He wasn't on the morning bus, so his case won't be heard until 1330 today.

"ev. 900-1/99 DA Case 27397183 Page 7 Case No. GA069547

FELONY COMPLAINT

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

| | |

| THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, | CASE NO. GA069547 |

| Plaintiff, | |

| v. | |

| | |

| 01 MATTHEW ARTHUR CORWIN (12/11/1983) | FELONY COMPLAINT |

| Defendant(s). | |

| | |


The undersigned is informed and believes that:


COUNT 1


On or about February 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the

crime of UNLAWFUL ASSAULT WEAPON/.50 BMG RIFLE ACTIVITY, in violation of

PENAL CODE SECTION 12280(a)(1), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR

CORWIN, who did unlawfully manufacture, caused to the manufactured,

distribute, transport, import into this State, keep for sale, offer and

expose for sale, give and lend an assault weapon and a .50 BMG rifle, to

wit: 1919 A4, .30 CALIBER MACHINE GUN.

* * * * *

COUNT 2

On or about February 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the

crime of UNLAWFUL ASSAULT WEAPON/.50 BMG RIFLE ACTIVITY, in violation of

PENAL CODE SECTION 12280(a)(1), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR

CORWIN, who did unlawfully manufacture, caused to the manufactured,

distribute, transport, import into this State, keep for sale, offer and

expose for sale, give and lend an assault weapon and a .50 BMG rifle, to

wit: 1919 A4, .30 CALIBER MACHINE GUN.

* * * * *

COUNT 3

On or about February 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the

crime of UNLAWFUL ASSAULT WEAPON/.50 BMG RIFLE ACTIVITY, in violation of

PENAL CODE SECTION 12280(a)(1), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR

CORWIN, who did unlawfully manufacture, caused to the manufactured,

distribute, transport, import into this State, keep for sale, offer and

expose for sale, give and lend an assault weapon and a .50 BMG rifle, to

wit: 1919 A4, .30 CALIBER MACHINE GUN.

* * * * *


COUNT 4

On or about February 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the

crime of UNLAWFUL ASSAULT WEAPON/.50 BMG RIFLE ACTIVITY, in violation of

PENAL CODE SECTION 12280(a)(1), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR

CORWIN, who did unlawfully manufacture, caused to the manufactured,

distribute, transport, import into this State, keep for sale, offer and

expose for sale, give and lend an assault weapon and a .50 BMG rifle, to

wit: 1919 A4, CALIBER MACHINE GUN.

* * * * *


COUNT 5

On or about February 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the

crime of UNLAWFUL ASSAULT WEAPON/.50 BMG RIFLE ACTIVITY, in violation of

PENAL CODE SECTION 12280(a)(1), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR

CORWIN, who did unlawfully manufacture, caused to the manufactured,

distribute, transport, import into this State, keep for sale, offer and

expose for sale, give and lend an assault weapon and a .50 BMG rifle, to

wit: 1919 A4, CALIBER MACHINE GUN.

* * * * *

COUNT 6

On or about April 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the crime

of POSSESSION OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION

12280(b), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR CORWIN, who did

unlawfully possess an assault weapon, to wit: CALIBER 7.62 MODEL MK 991.

* * * * *
COUNT 7

On or about April 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the crime

of POSSESSION OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION

12280(b), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR CORWIN, who did

unlawfully possess an assault weapon, to wit: MODEL FAR-15, CALIBER 5.56

MM.

* * * * *

COUNT 8

On or about April 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the crime

of POSSESSION OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION

12280(b), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR CORWIN, who did

unlawfully possess an assault weapon, to wit: 1919 A4, CALIBER MACHINE GUN.

* * * * *

COUNT 9

On or about April 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the crime

of POSSESSION OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION

12280(b), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR CORWIN, who did

unlawfully possess an assault weapon, to wit: MODEL GATOR, (AR-15),

MULTI-CALIBER.

* * * * *

COUNT 10

On or about April 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the crime

of POSSESSION OF A DEADLY WEAPON, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION

12020(a)(1), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR CORWIN, who did

unlawfully manufacture, cause to be manufactured, import into the State of

California, keep for sale, offer and expose for sale, and give, lend, and

possess an instrument and weapon of the kind commonly known as a SHURIKEN,

4 BLADED THROWING STAR.

* * * * *

COUNT 11


On or about April 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the crime

of POSSESSION OF A DEADLY WEAPON, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION

12020(a)(1), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR CORWIN, who did

unlawfully manufacture, cause to be manufactured, import into the State of

California, keep for sale, offer and expose for sale, and give, lend, and

possess an instrument and weapon of the kind commonly known as a SAP

GLOVES.

* * * * *

COUNT 12
On or about April 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the crime

of RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 496(a), a

Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR CORWIN, who did unlawfully buy,

receive, conceal, sell, withhold, and aid in concealing, selling, and

withholding property, to wit, MILITARY IDENTIFICATION, MILITARY BADGE,

MILITARY CHEMICAL SUIT, TACTICAL ENTRY, which had been stolen and obtained

by extortion, knowing that said property had been stolen and obtained by

extortion.

* * * * *

NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require the defendant to provide

DNA samples and print impressions pursuant to Penal Code sections 296 and

296.1. Willful refusal to provide the samples and impressions is a crime.



NOTICE: The People of the State of California intend to present evidence

and seek jury findings regarding all applicable circumstances in

aggravation, pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(b) and Cunningham v.

California 2007 U.S. LEXIS 1324.


I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT

AND THAT THIS COMPLAINT, CASE NUMBER GA069547, CONSISTS OF 12 COUNT(S).

Executed at ALHAMBRA, County of Los Angeles, on April 30, 2007.
_____________________________________

JEFF SPELATZ

DECLARANT AND COMPLAINANT


Steve Cooley, DISTRICT ATTORNEY

BY:

RICHARD F. SULLIVAN, DEPUTY"

Copy of complaint - leelaw

JGarrison
04-30-2007, 9:38 AM
We need to find out if he needs $$ support as well as what charges he has against him.

Thrillbilly
04-30-2007, 9:39 AM
We need to find out if he needs $$ support as well as what charges he has against him.

I agree. I would be willing to help out with $$$ if needed.

proraptor
04-30-2007, 9:44 AM
I also would give $$...It might not be that much but Ill give what I can

Kestryll
04-30-2007, 9:59 AM
Since he now has representation and his hearing is today I suspect if there is need it will be known soon.

I have hesitated in saying anything for several reasons, not the least of which is lack of information. However I will say this much.

BWO now has good, solid, representation and that fills me with comfort. No matter what happens he will be represented well and fairly.

If when we find out more info BWO is clean and fighting against BS charges or even just an uninformed DA then we will do whatever we can to support him. Calguns will stand by it's own.
A support fund would likely be better set up as a seperate entity though well advertised and welcomed here. This is something for those who's legal knowledge is far greater than my own.

If it turns out BWO is not clean and did knowingly break the law then we will still support him but in a somewhat different manner. We can not condone or support illegal activity and will not.
However he is one of us and a friend to many.
That does not stop being true and neither should the support and care from his friends stop regardless.


Let's wait to see what we are facing and what really needs to be done before running our legs numb before the gate even opens.

JGarrison
04-30-2007, 10:11 AM
Great points Kestryll, I just don't understand the whole "ok he has legal rep now everyone shut up and don't say another word"

He was one of us and if we could at least find out the charges and if they are BS or not then we could set up a fund like you suggest.

If we don't know anything and no one will talk about it, then he might greatly suffer from not having the calguns community support.

gn3hz3ku1*
04-30-2007, 10:21 AM
i totally understand the thread was locked and deleted but can you please give us some heads up of what happened?

rod
04-30-2007, 10:25 AM
I don't think Krestryll or anyone else was saying to shut up. Just watch what is said here so that nothing can be taken out of context and used against BWO. There is plenty of support here and when the time is right, the right people will let everyone else know what needs to be done.

Kestryll
04-30-2007, 10:25 AM
Great points Kestryll, I just don't understand the whole "ok he has legal rep now everyone shut up and don't say another word"

He was one of us and if we could at least find out the charges and if they are BS or not then we could set up a fund like you suggest.

If we don't know anything and no one will talk about it, then he might greatly suffer from not having the calguns community support.


What we're trying to do is let people show their support but limit the speculation, questionable comments and chatter hat may not be helpful or even be harmful.
As commented earlier we KNOW that DOJ reads this site, we have proof of that. I suspect that both the media and the DA's office is or has looked in as well. Some of the wild speculation that goes on with these topics can look very bad for a defendant when taken out of context.

Believe me, we are ALL chomping at the bit to find out what the charges are, if they are BS and what we can do. Sometimes patience is harder that action, but if we practice the first we'll be ready for the second.

SunriseF150
04-30-2007, 10:34 AM
Wow I just get back from a weekend in havasu and come home to this. Some good points made by Kestryll. I hope he was abiding by the law and everything works out. I saw the fox 11 video. WOW. They totall made him out to be some major criminal without any proof to back it up. If funds are needed i'll be willing to donate.

WolfMansDad
04-30-2007, 10:45 AM
Everybody calm down. BWO was booked on Thursday or Friday, but formal charges have not been filed yet. That should happen this afternoon. This is normal, and it's just the way the legal system works.

Updates will be posted as soon as information becomes available.

bodyarmorguy27
04-30-2007, 10:47 AM
From KNBC.com

Student Charged In Alleged Possession, Sales Of Assault Weapons

POSTED: 11:18 am PDT April 30, 2007
UPDATED: 11:26 am PDT April 30, 2007
Email This Story | Print This Story
Sign Up for Breaking News Alerts
LOS ANGELES -- A 23-year-old student leader at East Los Angeles College was charged Monday
with multiple felony counts accused of possessing and selling assault weapons from his Monterey Park home.

Matthew Arthur Corwin, associate president of the student union, is scheduled to be arraigned Monday
afternoon in Alhambra Superior Court, said Deputy District Attorney Richard Sullivan, head deputy of the
Alhambra office.

Corwin is charged with five counts of unlawful assault weapon sales, four counts of unlawful possession
of assault weapons, two counts of possession of a deadly weapon and one count of receiving stolen property.
All of the counts are felonies.

Corwin was arrested at his home last Thursday night after Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies and federal
agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Defense Department served
search warrants.

Authorities said they confiscated numerous assault weapons, a military identification, a bulletproof vest
and a military chemical suit.

Corwin allegedly posted photos of several unregistered assault weapons on his MySpace Web site,
according to officials.

Corwin remained jailed, and prosecutors were asking that his bail be set at $365,000.

CalNRA
04-30-2007, 10:50 AM
so at what point will anyone one from the authorities mention that he is an MP on the weekends? or is that just gonna be swept under the rug to create the impression that the the "military ID" and suit are somehow not 100% kosher?

Kestryll
04-30-2007, 10:59 AM
Let's not rehash the previous thread, answers will be forthcoming as they are available. Until then we need to be patient and prudent.

aileron
04-30-2007, 11:03 AM
He was one of us...

You mean IS. :)

JOEKILLA
04-30-2007, 11:06 AM
so at what point will anyone one from the authorities mention that he is an MP on the weekends? or is that just gonna be swept under the rug to create the impression that the the "military ID" and suit are somehow not 100% kosher?


Why can't the reporters do their own checking? They can easily find out that the military ID is legit and the MOPP suit is most likely an issue item, instead of just reporting what they hear. This is more like a gossip than the news.

JOE

tenpercentfirearms
04-30-2007, 11:11 AM
This will be my last post to ask that no one ask anymore questions or make anymore comments unless you are updating us with relevant news articles or reliable updates on the case. No more speculation please!

eje
04-30-2007, 11:46 AM
Story in San Luis Obispo newspaper (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/348/story/29727.html)

Kestryll
04-30-2007, 11:47 AM
Story in San Luis Obispo newspaper (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/348/story/29727.html)

Response to article withheld.. barely... :mad:

MrLogan
04-30-2007, 11:49 AM
Story in San Luis Obispo newspaper (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/348/story/29727.html)

:mad: :mad: What is this crap? Does anyone check facts anymore? He IS in the military.

Prc329
04-30-2007, 11:51 AM
If needed where can I send a donation for legal fees?

Pryde
04-30-2007, 12:01 PM
Story in San Luis Obispo newspaper (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/348/story/29727.html)

"She said he was not in the military."

Hmmm......?

rorschach
04-30-2007, 12:03 PM
****ing Media. Damn I'm pissed.

NoTime2Shoot
04-30-2007, 12:04 PM
If needed where can I send a donation for legal fees?

When the time comes, I'm sure Bill will let us know.

DedEye
04-30-2007, 12:07 PM
Good luck BWO! Thanks for the posts Kest.

Mark_in_Pasadena
04-30-2007, 12:21 PM
The suspense is killing me on this. I wonder what the judge is going to say when they explain to him that a legally configured OLL RIFLE is not an assault weapon, therefore it doesn't need to be registered...?

$5 bucks says the media doesn't even offer a retraction.....:mad:

KEEPING FINGERS CROSSED, and SAYING A PRAYER... Good luck BWO....

SemiAutoSam
04-30-2007, 12:31 PM
Story at this site about BWO posting here.



http://thepackingrat.net/

I copied and pasted it here in case it vanished from the URL of where it was found.

Monday, April 30th in News | No comments

“Sheriff, Feds Confiscate Assault Weapons, Ammo In Monterey Park
Associate President, East Los Angeles College Student Union Is Arrested

MONTEREY PARK, Calif. — Sheriff’s detectives assisted by federal agents raided a Monterey Park home and arrested a man for suspected credit card theft and possession of assault weapons, ammunition and stolen U.S. military hardware, authorities said today.

A sheriff’s department statement identified the suspect as 23-year-old Matthew Corwin and said he is the associate president of the student union at East Los Angeles College.

Corwin was arrested by detectives at his residence in the 400 block of Brightwood Street in Monterey Park at 7 p.m. Thursday, said sheriff’s Deputy Ed Hernandez. He was being held in lieu of $500,000 bail.

The sequence of events culminating in the raid began with detectives assigned to the Sheriff’s College Bureau receiving “information that Corwin possessed numerous illegal weapons at his home in Monterey Park,” he said.

The raiding party consisted of sheriff’s detectives “assisted” by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Defense Department, Hernandez said.

Inside the Brightwood Street home, the detectives “located assault weapons, ammunition, and military equipment belonging to the Department of Defense,” Hernandez said.

Hernandez said Corwin was booked at the sheriff’s East Los Angeles Station, “without any incident,” on suspicion of illegal possession of assault weapons and credit card theft.

No details on the confiscated weapons or the credit card case were immediately released.”

The internet is a wondrous thing. Some; however, may claim it has diminished human contact, studies have shown a correlation to neighborhoods cohesiveness and electronic email (Pew Internet). Despite our celebrated use of the internet, it’ll be used against you regardless of any validity.

Take FOX 11 in LA County for example. A college student of high moral character and a President of the Associated Student Union at East Los Angeles College was arrested on alleged weapons infractions and credit card fraud. The arrest of twenty-three year old Matt Corwin, a frequent contributor to www.calguns.net under BlackWaterOps, is a recent example of what a myspace page can do. Even FOX 11 “reported” his myspace page was used as the main source for the warrant for his arrest.

He’s being hung for having “Cho Seung-Hui” like photo poses (sure, ignore the other several thousand that have those), and as a result of a knee-jerk reaction to the Virginia Tech Shooting. I find it hilarious that administration are “stepping” up security as a result of school shootings - shouldn’t they already be doing their best to protect students from harm? HA! One can imagine the disappointment from the school administration.

“There’s been another shooting - we’ll need to start giving a damn again.”

There is such a negative doctrine on firearms by the media, it’s quite ridiculous. At this rate, I’m surprised that young boys are STILL attending church - let alone ALL good looking K-12 female teachers aren’t screened for potential child molestation.

Anyhoo, his pretrial is tomorrow morning and I can only hope he’ll get out of this with very few financial scratches. He’s a great asset to the gun community and a stand up gentleman looking at his posts at www.calguns.net.

I guess my point is to be mindful of what you put on your myspace/facebook/friendsters page…

FEAR ME AND MY FLOATING .22LR RIFLE OF DOOM AND GLOOM. Consider me a danger to society because I use Cordura equipment to organize things, have a fascination about firearms, “stockpile” ammunition, take pictures of my arsenal, posses multiple magazines and ammunition to last me several months…

Prince50
04-30-2007, 12:31 PM
I'm in for a legal donation too.

Darin

psssniper
04-30-2007, 12:38 PM
I dont know what a "dontation" is but I'm down with P-50, tell us where to send $$

Mark_in_Pasadena
04-30-2007, 12:41 PM
I dont know what a "dontation" is but I'm down with P-50, tell us where to send $$

A "dontation" is a cause that you don't dare not give to.....:D

FreedomIsNotFree
04-30-2007, 12:45 PM
According to the SLO article.....

Matthew Arthur Corwin, who was president of East Los Angeles College's student union, was charged with five counts of unlawful assault weapon sales, four counts of unlawful possession of assault weapons, two counts of possession of a deadly weapon and one count of receiving stolen property, said Jane Robison, district attorney spokeswoman.




Lets see if the math computes according to the bail schedule....

12280(a)(1) MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTE, etc. ASSAULT WEAPON.........................................50, 000 x 5 = 250,000

12280(b) POSSESSION OF ANY ASSAULT WEAPON .................................................. ...........35,000 x 4 = 140,000

12020 DANGEROUS WEAPONS, MANUFACTURE, SALE, POSSESSION;
CARRYING EXPLOSIVE OR CONCEALED DIRK OR DAGGER...............................20,000 x 2 = 40,000

496 RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY IF VALUE MORE THAN $400 .............................20,000


250,000
140,000
40,000
20,000

TOTAL = $450,000


It seems the report of bail at $450,000 is accurate. Not withstanding this, I would expect bail to be significantly reduced at arraignment.

Fjold
04-30-2007, 12:48 PM
A "dontation" is a cause that you don't dare not give to.....:D


You owe me a new keyboard, Mark.

4ME&MYHOUSE
04-30-2007, 1:05 PM
others calgunners were there..

bail reduced to 360k

2 weeks postponed arraignment

FreedomIsNotFree
04-30-2007, 1:08 PM
others calgunners were there..

bail reduced to 360k

2 weeks postponed arraignment

Well, that sucks. Thanks for the update.

pnkssbtz
04-30-2007, 1:09 PM
Is he able to post bail? With a bondsman or anything?

DRM6000
04-30-2007, 1:13 PM
is this a case we should be involved in to further the fight in ca gun rights?

G-dude
04-30-2007, 1:17 PM
Hi guys. Part-time lurker. First time poster.


others calgunners were there..

bail reduced to 360k

2 weeks postponed arraignment


Wow. That's good but $360,000 is still alot.

If he can't make that bail, does it mean he has to stay in jail the whole time?

If they get a Bail Bondsman, doesn't that mean they have to come up with $36,000 out of pocket?

Let's say one doesn't have the means to pay, is there a way for the judge waive the bail?

Thanks for the info and for going.

I live in Los Angeles and I'm in real suspense to see what will happen. He really seems like a good kid so it's a shame this happened to him. He had some nice guns, so hopefully he has the funds to get through this.

proraptor
04-30-2007, 1:18 PM
Im so happy calgunner showed up.....Im sure he appreciated it...Good job guys

jaymz
04-30-2007, 1:21 PM
I hope that's not the same "two weeks" that A.M. was talking about. :eek:

Seriously though, let's hope that this is all due to a bunch of mis-information/mis-understanding of CA's laws by the LE community and that it turns out well for BWO (and the rest of us).

FreedomIsNotFree
04-30-2007, 1:40 PM
others calgunners were there..

bail reduced to 360k

2 weeks postponed arraignment

Why was the arraignment postponed for 2 weeks? What was said in court? Thanks.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-30-2007, 1:48 PM
Hi guys. Part-time lurker. First time poster.





Wow. That's good but $360,000 is still alot.

If he can't make that bail, does it mean he has to stay in jail the whole time?
Yes, if bail is not posted the defendant remains in jail throughout the process. If he is ever convicted the Judge may give him credit for time served.

If they get a Bail Bondsman, doesn't that mean they have to come up with $36,000 out of pocket?
Yes, 10% is $36,000. And that money does not get returned. If someone close to him owns a home or something else of significant value they can post that instead of paying the $36,000 to the bondsman to cover the $360,000.

Let's say one doesn't have the means to pay, is there a way for the judge waive the bail?
No, the judge just set the bail at $360,000. If he wanted to let him out it would have been done today. They call it OR, Own Recognizance.

Thanks for the info and for going.

I live in Los Angeles and I'm in real suspense to see what will happen. He really seems like a good kid so it's a shame this happened to him. He had some nice guns, so hopefully he has the funds to get through this.

Hope that helps.

JesseXXX
04-30-2007, 1:49 PM
All this sucks....:(

Pryde
04-30-2007, 2:03 PM
I just saw a piece about this on KCAL 9 news.

Somewhat positive portrayal.

It mentioned that he was a military veteran, and they also interviewed another ELAC student government representative who said lots of good things about his character and how he doubted Corwin was a threat to any other students.

Wulf
04-30-2007, 2:04 PM
$360,000!!!!!!
According to the bail schedule posted in the other thread that seems crazy unreasonable.

Here's some example bails to help with your sense of scale.

Assault with a firearm.... 50k
Assault with a firearm upon a Peace Officer....100k
Rape.....100k
Lewd act with a child under 14.....100k
Arson during a state of emergency.....150k
Attempted Murder......500k

It must be this one that they're saying they got him on:
Possession of a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!!!.....500K AW's are that evil!

G-dude
04-30-2007, 2:05 PM
If he can't make that bail, does it mean he has to stay in jail the whole time?
Yes, if bail is not posted the defendant remains in jail throughout the process. If he is ever convicted the Judge may give him credit for time served.

If they get a Bail Bondsman, doesn't that mean they have to come up with $36,000 out of pocket?
Yes, 10% is $36,000. And that money does not get returned. If someone close to him owns a home or something else of significant value they can post that instead of paying the $36,000 to the bondsman to cover the $360,000.

Let's say one doesn't have the means to pay, is there a way for the judge waive the bail?
No, the judge just set the bail at $360,000. If he wanted to let him out it would have been done today. They call it OR, Own Recognizance.

Hope that helps.

Thanks FNF, I was hoping you would answer that. :)

So that means if you're some working-class stiff with a firearms hobby who scrimped and saved to buy that OLL-based rifle, and you have no close family that owns a home in this state, be prepared to rot in jail for months, even a year until the charges are dropped or you plead out, if an official happens to find your rifle displeasing. That's nice.

Pryde
04-30-2007, 2:07 PM
$360,000!!!!!!
According to the bail schedule posted in the other thread that seems crazy unreasonable.

Here's some example bails to help with your sense of scale.

Assault with a firearm.... 50k
Assault with a firearm upon a Peace Officer....100k
Rape.....100k
Lewd act with a child under 14.....100k
Arson during a state of emergency.....150k
Attempted Murder......500k

It must be this one that they're saying they got him on:
Possession of a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!!!.....500K AW's are that evil!



I think the nature of the high bail is based on the fact that they believe he was illegally dealing or trying to sell assault weapons.

Just like how if you are in possession of drugs, you go to jail for a few months or you get a ticket but if you are in possession with intent to sell you go to jail for a few years.

G-dude
04-30-2007, 2:11 PM
I think the nature of the high bail is based on the fact that they believe he was illegally dealing or trying to sell assault weapons.

Just like how if you are in possession of drugs, you go to jail for a few months or you get a ticket but if you are in possession with intent to sell you go to jail for a few years.


I think the issue here is, he is charged with MULTIPLE counts. Each of those counts carry a bail amount and so they add up to the current astromical figure. He has like 4 counts of posession of an assault weapon and 5 counts of selling assault weapons.

4ME&MYHOUSE
04-30-2007, 2:12 PM
he waived his right to a speedy trial...

also a fellow calgunner that was already there, mentioned the assistant DA and counsel were in chambers for a while... the whole thing took like 3 min.

one more... Restraining order issued too.

sorry about typing.... on PDA phone

grammaton76
04-30-2007, 2:13 PM
one more... Restraining order issued too.

Gah. Well, there goes his collection, whether he's actually guilty of anything or not. :mad:

G-dude
04-30-2007, 2:15 PM
he waived his right to a speedy trial...

also a fellow calgunner that was already there, mentioned the assistant DA and counsel were in chambers for a while... the whole thing took like 3 min.

one more... Restraining order issued too.

sorry about typing.... on PDA phone

Thanks for that!

"he waived his right to a speedy trial..."
Can someone explain what that means?


"Restraining order issued too."
What the heck? By who, I wonder? The school maybe? Unless some individual he knows personally is involved. The plot thickens.

Rhys898
04-30-2007, 2:16 PM
Where in the hell did the restraining order come from????

Kestryll
04-30-2007, 2:16 PM
he waived his right to a speedy trial...
I would hope this means he has expectations of being bailed out.

also a fellow calgunner that was already there, mentioned the assistant DA and counsel were in chambers for a while... the whole thing took like 3 min.

one more... Restraining order issued too.
Oh man, I SOOOOoo want to ask or guess about this but I won't. If I can keep my big yap shut anyone can so let's wait for the facts.

sorry about typing.... on PDA phone

Thanks for going and for sending an update!

WolfMansDad
04-30-2007, 2:17 PM
I just came from the courthouse, and I spoke with BWO's legal representation. They have agreed to postpone the arraignment for two weeks, so he still hasn't been formally charged. Bail is set at $365,000.

The press was there trying to talk to calgunners. If any approach you, refer all questions or comments to the Chuck Michel at (562) 216-4444.

slickjoesd
04-30-2007, 2:18 PM
whats a bond require 10% ?

G-dude
04-30-2007, 2:22 PM
Gah. Well, there goes his collection, whether he's actually guilty of anything or not. :mad:

Man, what a shame.

Of course, I imagine that's exactly what was intended and is probably the easiest way to achieve it.

Perhaps the DA coerced, or "suggested," if you prefer, either his school or some individual to do this?

I know the admins have suggested we not speculate too much, so please delete my questions if they are innapropriate. I certainly don't want to hurt his case any further.

I just think there is a great lesson here for gunowners, esp. OLLers, as it can happen to anyone, really.

Archenemy550
04-30-2007, 2:25 PM
yea, bail bonds are 10% of the set bail

50 Freak
04-30-2007, 2:28 PM
That sucks, he has to come up with 36K just to get himself out of jail.

Mark_in_Pasadena
04-30-2007, 2:30 PM
I hope to GOD that he makes bail..... At least we can make communications and see how we can help.....

SemiAutoSam
04-30-2007, 2:31 PM
I too hope that he gets out on bail But what happens to the cash? the bail company eats it even if its only required for a day ?

who has an extra 36K to spend? The bond's of the court system are really complicated and corrupt if you ask me.

gunsnrovers
04-30-2007, 2:31 PM
Thanks for the update.

Anyone know if he has family locally? Any family in court today? Hoping he has a good support network.

WolfMansDad
04-30-2007, 2:39 PM
His mom is local, and he postponed arraignment on the advice of his council.

Trutanich-Michel are very good, and they have an excellent reputation in RKBA matters. Let's let them do their job. What BWO, his friends, and his family need right now is support, mostly emotional. He is our friend, and we need to let him and his loved ones know that we are standing with him.

Edited to add: I was there before and after the actual hearing, so I didn't see him in the courtroom. He did, however, see other calgunners and friends. He will go back to jail, but he will go knowing there are people on the outside who care.

Jicko
04-30-2007, 2:44 PM
His mom is local, and he postponed arraignment on the advice of his council.

Trutanich-Michel are very good, and they have an excellent reputation in RKBA matters. Let's let them do their job. What BWO, his friends, and his family need right now is support, mostly emotional. He is our friend, and we need to let him and his loved ones know that we are standing with him.

So, he don't need help with his bail $$ then? Has he been given the option to give the court 10% cash for his bail? Or does he have to go thru the bail bondsman OR he have to come up with $365k!!??

I think, if the court let him do 10% cash, that money will be returned when he show up in court.

But if he has to go thru the bondsman, then 10% automatically become the "fee" to the bondsman. Unless he can come up with $365k and get that directly to the court... which will be returned when he shows up.

WolfMansDad
04-30-2007, 2:47 PM
Where in the hell did the restraining order come from????

He is barred from coming within so many feet of ELAC campus. I'm not sure of the exact number, or even if it is the kind of restraining order that takes away your RKBA rights.

Guys and gals, please no speculating.

SemiAutoSam
04-30-2007, 2:48 PM
I'm on the jail inmate info site and it says his housing location is CSD what ever that means and there is a # to call for those that wish to attempt to call and get more info about his housing and if Visitation is allowed, calls ect.


The Phone # is 213 473 6080.

I tried but it said it was busy try later.

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 3:05 PM
Thanks for going and thanks for the update... I was detained in traffic and never made it to the second hearing... :(

BLKTALN
04-30-2007, 3:06 PM
kcal9.com has updated video

FreedomIsNotFree
04-30-2007, 3:07 PM
In criminal matters defendants have a right to a "speedy trial". The last I read the time from arraignment to trial should not be more than 60 days. This is done to ensure the defendant does not rot in jail while the case is being dealt with.

By "waiving time" the defense is saying we are not going to hold the Prosecutor to the 60 day time line. Defense attorney's often recommend that their clients waive time so they can get up to speed. In reality the attorney's have many clients and its hard for them to juggle it all.

Waiving time has nothing to do with being released on bail or otherwise.

pnkssbtz
04-30-2007, 3:08 PM
Ironic how the Student Union President can go from being a well liked upstanding individual to one you file a restraining order against at the drop of a dime.

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 3:13 PM
In criminal matters defendants have a right to a "speedy trial". The last I read the time from arraignment to trial should not be more than 60 days. This is done to ensure the defendant does not rot in jail while the case is being dealt with.

By "waiving time" the defense is saying we are not going to hold the Prosecutor to the 60 day time line. Defense attorney's often recommend that their clients waive time so they can get up to speed. In reality the attorney's have many clients and its hard for them to juggle it all.

Waiving time has nothing to do with being released on bail or otherwise.

Time from arraignment to trial cannot be more than 30 days if in custody; 45 days if not in custody... anything more than that and charges MUST be dismissed.

He has not yet been arraigned... council no doubt waived time for arraignment... once they do that the clock resets.... once he is arraigned they will have 30 days to commence trial.

G-dude
04-30-2007, 3:15 PM
In regards to restraining orders and firearms, here's what I found:

Here is the legal document to file a California Restraining Order in .pdf:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/dv130.pdf


And a quote from page 5:


Warnings and notices to the restrained person:

28. You cannot have guns or firearms.
You cannot own, have, possess, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or otherwise
get a gun or firearm while the order is in effect. If you do, you can go to jail and pay a
$1,000 fine. You must sell to a licensed gun dealer or turn in to police any guns or
firearms that you have or control. The judge will ask you for proof that you did so. If
you do not obey this order, you can be charged with a crime. Federal law says you
cannot have guns or ammunition while the order is in effect."

However, what if charges are dropped and you are cleared and the RO ceases to be in effect? Can you then get your guns back?

If you are cleared of the charges, can you petition for the RO to be removed/stopped if it is still in effect? And then can you get your guns back and/or buy guns in the future?

And I just saw the story in KCAL 9 News as I was typing this.

GTKrockeTT
04-30-2007, 3:31 PM
the kcal9 video seemed to portray BWO in a positive, or at the very least, neutral manner.

1) mentioned "military veteran"
2) postive interview with a fellow student body member
3) friends indicate that his firearms were legal under CA law

proraptor
04-30-2007, 3:32 PM
wow a restraining order? now that pisses me off.....

Im glad though that channel 9 got their facts striaght...

KenpoProfessor
04-30-2007, 3:32 PM
Well, I just wrote Glenn Beck, maybe he can do an expose on this whole mess.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

Wulf
04-30-2007, 3:38 PM
I wonder if there is a licensed gun dealer that will buy your guns and promise to safely store them for a fee and agree to sell them back you later date (if possible) to cover situations like this. Seems like it could be a money maker and a good service to boot.

proraptor
04-30-2007, 3:38 PM
Since he has the restraining order, TEN PERCENT, would you be willing to have his firearms transferred to you for "safe keeping" until he is exonerated?

Now that is a good idea.....

G-dude
04-30-2007, 3:45 PM
Since he has the restraining order, TEN PERCENT, would you be willing to have his firearms transferred to you for "safe keeping" until he is exonerated?

There might be a strong possibility that ALL his guns are 'safely' in police custody.

If that's not the case, then that's a good idea.

spgk380
04-30-2007, 3:45 PM
I wonder if there is a licensed gun dealer that will buy your guns and promise to safely store them for a fee and agree to sell them back you later date (if possible) to cover situations like this. Seems like it could be a money maker and a good service to boot.

How is that any different that a pawn broker??

50 Shooter
04-30-2007, 3:47 PM
I'm sure the police took all his firearms.

Ya know, he's an evil California gun owner.:rolleyes:

GTKrockeTT
04-30-2007, 3:48 PM
How is that any different that a pawn broker??

how can you associate our red-headed, scooter riding, pink rifle owning FFL with that of a shady pawn broker? shame on you!:D

spgk380
04-30-2007, 3:52 PM
how can you associate our red-headed, scooter riding, pink rifle owning FFL with that of a shady pawn broker? shame on you!:D

:confused: :confused: :confused:

And plus, pawn brokers aren't shady. The business is very well regulated.

G-dude
04-30-2007, 3:54 PM
Here's something else I found:

California Restraining Order, Page 2: (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/dv130.pdf)

12. No Guns or Other Firearms
The person [...] cannot own, possess, have, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or in any other way
get a gun or firearm.
13. Turn in or sell guns and firearms.
The person[...]:
* Must sell to a licensed gun dealer or turn in to police any guns or firearms that he or she has or controls. This must be done within 24 hours of receiving this order.
* Must bring a receipt to the court within 72 hours of receiving this order, to prove that guns and firearms have been turned in or sold.

If it was issued today, he has ONE day.


LESSON FOR GUNOWNERS:

If you have the misfortune of being hit with a Restraining Order(e.g bitter ex), ACT FAST TO GET RID OF YOUR GUNS. Or you could be charged with a FELONY. Perhaps even MULTIPLE felonies if you have more than one gun.

aileron
04-30-2007, 3:56 PM
"Restraining order issued too."
What the heck? By who, I wonder? The school maybe? Unless some individual he knows personally is involved. The plot thickens.

Removed my post... Just going to keep my mouth shut.

slick_711
04-30-2007, 4:01 PM
I wonder if there is a licensed gun dealer that will buy your guns and promise to safely store them for a fee and agree to sell them back you later date (if possible) to cover situations like this. Seems like it could be a money maker and a good service to boot.

Don't gun shops already do that regularly? I know mine does. Take possession and hold, then you retrieve; or if the restraining order isn't removed or you so choose we simply buy them outright or transfer them to whoever you arrange to sell them to.

WolfMansDad
04-30-2007, 4:02 PM
kcal9.com has updated video

Actually, that was a pretty fair treatment.

G-dude
04-30-2007, 4:11 PM
Removed my post... Just going to keep my mouth shut.

Well, as regards the Restraining Order, it's been already reported in the KCAL TV News report, so it's seems it's common knowledge now. The reporter mentioned it was the school that took out the restraining order and explained that Mr. Corwin cannot come within X amount of feet of school grounds while it's in effect.

So we now know it was the school.

It's a pretty easy assumption for me how they got it:

DA or Police Official: "Mr. School Dean, we have found a cache of weapons and we believe this student may pose a threat to your school and fellow students. We strongly advise you to seek out a restraining order for your safety and the school's."

School Dean: "OK."

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 4:14 PM
Well, as regards the Restraining Order, it's been already reported in the KCAL TV News report, so it's seems it's common knowledge now. The reporter mentioned it was the school that took out the restraining order and explained that Mr. Corwin cannot come within X amount of feet of school grounds while it's in effect.

So we now know it was the school.

It's a pretty easy assumption for me how they got it:

DA or Police Official: "Mr. School Dean, we have found a chache of weapons and we believe this student may pose a threat to your school and fellow students. We strongly advise you to seek out a restraining order for your safety and the school's."

School Dean: "OK."


That is completley stupid......

If he poses a threat to the school... i.e. he is going to shoot up fellow students... do you actually think a restraining order will stop him??

rkt88edmo
04-30-2007, 4:17 PM
I'm just curious how you would comply and what the compliance period would be if you remain in custody.

4ME&MYHOUSE
04-30-2007, 4:25 PM
The lawyer for ELAC was handed a copy of the order and walked right out.

I am sure this is all public info by now.

Good to see fellow calgunners there!

Prayers out to M.A.C.

WolfMansDad
04-30-2007, 4:27 PM
I didn't think you could take out a restraining order just because you didn't like someone's looks -- or what weapons he owns. I thought there was more of a burden of proof than that.

How many times have you heard the police say they can't take out a restraining order until something happens?

This whole thing stinks to high heaven!

Neil McCauley
04-30-2007, 4:27 PM
I'm not suggesting anyone break the law so don't get bent out of shape, this is just a theoretical question. So lets say you find out you got a RO on you, and then you immediately call up your good buddy who lives way out in the boonies who takes them all for you. Couldn't you potentially get away with this because that means they have to research what you had and ask you where they all are. I mean you could say they were all stolen awhile back. Than if your lucky and the judge or DA thinks its not important, they'll forget about it and when the RO is finally done and gone (hopefully) you can go to said buddy and collect. I'm sure this has happened in the past.

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 4:31 PM
I'm not suggesting anyone break the law so don't get bent out of shape, this is just a theoretical question. So lets say you find out you got a RO on you, and then you immediately call up your good buddy who lives way out in the boonies who takes them all for you. Couldn't you potentially get away with this because that means they have to research what you had and ask you where they all are. I mean you could say they were all stolen awhile back. Than if your lucky and the judge or DA thinks its not important, they'll forget about it and when the RO is finally done and gone (hopefully) you can go to said buddy and collect. I'm sure this has happened in the past.

In order for a RO to be in force it must be legally served.... If a RO is granted but no one has given legal service then it is not in effect. With regards to ROs it just means that one cannot be in POSESSION of the guns. If one leaves them locked up at a friend's house he does not have to transfer ownership. On conviction there is a time limit for transferring the firearms to someone else.

G-dude
04-30-2007, 4:32 PM
That is completley stupid......

If he poses a threat to the school... i.e. he is going to shoot up fellow students... do you actually think a restraining order will stop him??

Of course I don't personally believe that, I was just stating a possible scenario in my mind of why the school would get a restraining order against a student who was very socially active in school and had otherwise good moral character and standing. He wasn't some wacky loner.

It's even doubly stupid, considering he is ALREADY in custody :confused:

I can only assume that Prosecutors or LE Officials pushed for the restraining order knowing full well that would strip him of his firearms. And that's probably their ultimate goal in this case, wether they will continue to seek felony charges or not.

GTKrockeTT
04-30-2007, 4:33 PM
i don't know about you guys, but all my guns were lost last weekend in an unfortunate boating accident.

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 4:33 PM
I didn't think you could take out a restraining order just because you didn't like someone's looks -- or what weapons he owns. I thought there was more of a burden of proof than that.

How many times have you heard the police say they can't take out a restraining order until something happens?

This whole thing stinks to high heaven!

Domestic violence complaints are guaranteed a RO. In order for an RO to be granted, just cause must be shown to a judge. Obviously someone successfully argued that if this guy makes bail he could seek revenge on his classmates.

megavolt121
04-30-2007, 4:33 PM
I'm not suggesting anyone break the law so don't get bent out of shape, this is just a theoretical question. So lets say you find out you got a RO on you, and then you immediately call up your good buddy who lives way out in the boonies who takes them all for you. Couldn't you potentially get away with this because that means they have to research what you had and ask you where they all are. I mean you could say they were all stolen awhile back. Than if your lucky and the judge or DA thinks its not important, they'll forget about it and when the RO is finally done and gone (hopefully) you can go to said buddy and collect. I'm sure this has happened in the past.


You are better off going to a friend and selling him everything. Just pay a buttload of ppt fees.

tenpercentfirearms
04-30-2007, 4:40 PM
Since he has the restraining order, TEN PERCENT, would you be willing to have his firearms transferred to you for "safe keeping" until he is exonerated?

ABSOLUTELY!!!

colossians323
04-30-2007, 4:42 PM
Men, hold the line.

This may not seem like a blessing but we have all heard the cliche' blessings in disguise.

Tweak338
04-30-2007, 4:48 PM
ABSOLUTELY!!!

I knew you would have room in that huge safe you just bought :D
you couldn't have that many pink rifles.. :p

WolfMansDad
04-30-2007, 4:48 PM
Liberty1,

Welcome to calguns! PM sent. It was good to meet you at the hearing today.

WMD

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 4:50 PM
ABSOLUTELY!!!

Thanks Wes.... I doubt any firearms remained at the house.... the cops are good at things like that.

NoTime2Shoot
04-30-2007, 5:05 PM
I talked to my wife. I've got a little kitty started, I'm going to sacrifice buying a motor for my new track-bike build for a while. I'll keep accumulating what little I can for the cause.

G-dude
04-30-2007, 5:10 PM
If they are serious,

Someone here should contact his lawyers FAST and let them know there is an FFL available that will accept any guns that weren't already confiscated.

HE HAS 24 HOURS FROM TODAY TO GET RID OF THEM AND & 72 HOURS TO PROVIDE PROOF TO A JUDGE THAT HE HAS.

I agree, though, that they're all probably already in police custody.

tmuller
04-30-2007, 5:11 PM
If there is anything I can do $$$ or otherwise count me in. Until then my thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.

rorschach
04-30-2007, 5:14 PM
Just caught the tail end of a KFI newsbit, reporter Eric Leonard said that all of the rifles found in BWO's possession can be legally bought in California.

NoTime2Shoot
04-30-2007, 5:21 PM
Just caught the tail end of a KFI newsbit, reporter Eric Leonard said that all of the rifles found in BWO's possession can be legally bought in California.

:thumbup Nice!

LAK Supply
04-30-2007, 5:35 PM
Wow..... Been reading through this thread. I was up in Tahoe this weekend for my wedding anniversary and wasn't around my computer for most of the time. Looks like a lot has been happening......

I was just getting ready to send him a pair of NV goggles I have when I returned..... Glad I didn't do it before I left as the *****s in the media probably would have been plastering "evil night vision" and "military equipment" on the news..... I hate the media. :mad:

Richie Rich
04-30-2007, 5:40 PM
I had something lengthy written up, but do not want to add fuel.

Good luck to BWO.

Let me know when it is time to "pass the hat".

RR

FreedomIsNotFree
04-30-2007, 5:51 PM
Time from arraignment to trial cannot be more than 30 days if in custody; 45 days if not in custody... anything more than that and charges MUST be dismissed.

He has not yet been arraigned... council no doubt waived time for arraignment... once they do that the clock resets.... once he is arraigned they will have 30 days to commence trial.

Take a look at Penal Code 1382 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=98282721896+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve).

In any Felony case its 60 days from arraignment, even if the defendant is in custody.

In any infraction or misdemeanor case its 45 days unless the defendant is in custody, in which case its 30 days.

Considering this is a felony case, the 60 day rule applies.

Also, there is a 10 day leeway to the speedy trial doctrine. For a defendant to have a case dismissed on these grounds he must also show how the delay prejudiced the case. Not nearly as cut and dry as you explained. This has all been hashed out through the Appellate Courts.

Another point to take note of is the DA can simply drop the charges if he is coming close to the deadline and refile later. There is nothing that prohibits the DA from refiling the case at a future date as long as the statute of limitations has not run out.

gunsnrovers
04-30-2007, 6:05 PM
Just caught the tail end of a KFI newsbit, reporter Eric Leonard said that all of the rifles found in BWO's possession can be legally bought in California.

Heard the same comments on AM790 this morning.

I guess we'll all know more soon enough. Now that he has legal representation and things are moving forward, I don't expect we'll know any "facts" until they go back to court.

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 6:06 PM
Take a look at Penal Code 1382 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=98282721896+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve).

In any Felony case its 60 days from arraignment, even if the defendant is in custody.

In any infraction or misdemeanor case its 45 days unless the defendant is in custody, in which case its 30 days.

Considering this is a felony case, the 60 day rule applies.

Also, there is a 10 day leeway to the speedy trial doctrine. For a defendant to have a case dismissed on these grounds he must also show how the delay prejudiced the case. Not nearly as cut and dry as you explained. This has all been hashed out through the Appellate Courts.

Another point to take note of is the DA can simply drop the charges if he is coming close to the deadline and refile later. There is nothing that prohibits the DA from refiling the case at a future date as long as the statute of limitations has not run out.

Thanks for the clarification.... obviously I have never been charged with a felony... :) I was drawing on personal experience.

G-dude
04-30-2007, 6:15 PM
In order for a RO to be in force it must be legally served.... If a RO is granted but no one has given legal service then it is not in effect. With regards to ROs it just means that one cannot be in POSESSION of the guns. If one leaves them locked up at a friend's house he does not have to transfer ownership. On conviction there is a time limit for transferring the firearms to someone else.


It seems you are partially correct. You can have a friend collect them. However, "the approved method of storage is with an attorney, with the police or sheriff, or with an approved firearms dealer." You CANNOT, it seems, CANNOT HAVE A FRIEND HOLD THEM.

From Restraining Order Facts: (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:QxZeOgcQn4EJ:www.ejfi.org/PDF/Facts-Restraining%2520orders.pdf+restraining+orders+fire arms&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a)



• Get rid of any guns or ammunition you may have.

From the time the restraining order is imposed until it is cleared from all databases it is a violation of Federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a.k.a. the Lautenberg Amendment, to purchase, acquire, or be in possession of
firearms, ammunition, or other dangerous weapons, e.g., swords, grenades, explosives, etc.

[B]This is a federal felony with a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison if convicted.[Sweet Jesus!:eek:]

Collectors items are held to be in this category as well.

“In possession” generally means in the same room as, or in close proximity to. If you are visiting a friend and they have a gun collection, you can be held to be in violation and could be sentenced to five years (minimum) in prison.[!!!!!]

If you have a gun collection, swords, etc., the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (BATF) approved method of storage is with an attorney, with the police or sheriff, or with an approved firearms dealer.

Have a friend or relative collect them for you and remove them to an approved storage location until after you are sure the restraining order has been lifted and your name removed from the state and federal databases. That will usually require a separate motion to the court or personally carrying a certified copy of the court order of dismissal to a Colorado Bureau of Investigation office. [My bad, it's Colorado, but still probably good guidelines for here, too]

• Always carry a copy of the restraining order with you to show police if you are stopped.
The order will have specific terms you must meet and sometimes you can avoid arrest by presenting the
officers the specific terms of the order and showing them you have not violated any of the restrictions.

[Emphasees mine]

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 6:20 PM
It seems you are partially correct. You can have a friend collect them. However, "the approved method of storage is [B]with an attorney, with the police or sheriff, or with an approved firearms dealer." You CANNOT, it seems, CANNOT HAVE A FRIEND HOLD THEM.

From Restraining Order Facts: (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:QxZeOgcQn4EJ:www.ejfi.org/PDF/Facts-Restraining%2520orders.pdf+restraining+orders+fire arms&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

Just because it is BATFE "approved" does not mean it is the law.

You quoted the law and it says "to purchase, acquire, or be in possession of
firearms, ammunition, or other dangerous weapons".

If one places them in a locked safe at a friend's house that meets the criterian of the law. Not to say that the "approved" way would not be better legally.... it does not change the fact.


P.S.
Cal DOJ does not approve of Off-list firearms.... but the law says otherwise.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-30-2007, 6:25 PM
I think the CADOJ has said, through many letters, that OLL's are legal. They just disagree with us as to how, if at all, they can be built up. You know...the old paper weight theory...

highspeed11
04-30-2007, 6:28 PM
365K bail? I think we need to call this guy...

http://www.giantmag.com/photos/0906_tv_01_dog.jpg

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 6:28 PM
I think the CADOJ has said, through many letters, that OLL's are legal. They just disagree with us as to how, if at all, they can be built up. You know...the old paper weight theory...

You show me a DOJ letter that says one thing, and I will show you one that says the opposite.. :)

FreedomIsNotFree
04-30-2007, 6:31 PM
You show me a DOJ letter that says one thing, and I will show you one that says the opposite.. :)

Well, the fact that we are able to purchase OLL's in this state is clear evidence that the CADOJ does approve.

NoTime2Shoot
04-30-2007, 6:32 PM
You show me a DOJ letter that says one thing, and I will show you one that says the opposite.. :)

In two weeks, I'll show you one that says neither existed. :D

G-dude
04-30-2007, 6:36 PM
Just because it is BATFE "approved" does not mean it is the law.

You quoted the law and it says "to purchase, acquire, or be in possession of
firearms, ammunition, or other dangerous weapons".

If one places them in a locked safe at a friend's house that meets the criterian of the law. Not to say that the "approved" way would not be better legally.... it does not change the fact.

Rgr that.

Just wanted clarification for myself and others. God forbid anyone here find themselves in a similar situation and has to face a 5 year mandatory sentence(!) for getting a technicality wrong.

BTW, I'm a new member, but as a lurker I've enjoyed very much yours and FreedomIsNotFree's posts. You've both been very educational, along with this entire site, for me. :D

Crazed_SS
04-30-2007, 6:38 PM
You show me a DOJ letter that says one thing, and I will show you one that says the opposite.. :)

Do you have any letters from the DOJ "approving" any of the mag-lock kits, creative grips, bullet-button, etc?

The only thing I've seen the DOJ concede is that OLLs are legal. Everytime someone asks about a specific build or creative grip or something, they just cut and paste the law and say something about "58 DAs"

NoTime2Shoot
04-30-2007, 6:44 PM
Do you have any letters from the DOJ "approving" any of the mag-lock kits, creative grips, bullet-button, etc?

The only thing I've see the DOJ concede is that OLLs are legal. Everytime someone asks about a specific build or creative grip or something, they just cut and paste the law and say something about "58 DAs"

I think there is only written law, not opinion for that.

<edit>

Ima gonna keep the rest of what I thought at bay. Make them work for it.

G-dude
04-30-2007, 6:45 PM
365K bail? I think we need to call this guy...

http://www.giantmag.com/photos/0906_tv_01_dog.jpg

And you know for your $36Gs you're at least gonna get a cigarette and a nice pep talk. "Hey bra, why you need an AK? All you need is a big, black Super-Soaker full of Bull Mace, lol. Have another smoke , bra"

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 6:48 PM
BTW, I'm a new member, but as a lurker I've enjoyed very much yours and FreedomIsNotFree's posts. You've both been very educational, along with this entire site, for me. :D

Thank you sir for your kind words. I am afraid I cannot take credit for the knowledge. What I know I have picked up over several years of lurking here and other boards.

Every time someone asks about a specific build or creative grip or something, they just cut and paste the law and say something about "58 DAs"

That is their new policy. In the past certain agents (cough) iggy (cough) have been very liberal in some cases and not so in others in what is "doj approved". He went as far as to approve listed receivers that were welded with 10 round mags... something that in theory should still be an assault weapon is approved by DOJ. You can imagine the mess that puts DOJ into.... to stop it from happening they simply quote the law and say its up to the DA to file charges and the jury to determine guilt.

Its major CYA mode right now.... as a result I am not aware of any DOJ approval letter for any configuration since.

bwiese
04-30-2007, 6:50 PM
Do you have any letters from the DOJ "approving" any of the mag-lock kits creative grips, bullet-button, etc?

Lack of DOJ approval does not mean illegality. Whether the DOJ likes something is immaterial. Reading is fundamental: what does the law and regulatory code say?

The approval of the fixed-mag DSA Cali-FAL, whose approval is in fact signed by yet another Deputy AG (Palmieri) is sufficient to show that all essentially similar methods of mag affixing comply with the law. The additional approval of the swing-down fixed configuration of the Barret M82CA is icing on the cake.

None of these approved guns w/fixed mags differ in appreciable ways in the realm of magazine attachment. They can't "like" a gun they approved and "not like" a gun that's similar.

DOJ's Iggy Chinn even said, in sworn statement in Hunt case (underlining mine), that:


Nothing in the DOJ letter referenced by plaintiffs is inconsistent with DOJ’s intention
to enforce Penal Code section 12276.1 or section 978.20(a) of the Regulations as
they are written, or that the District Attorneys within the state would be at liberty
to take action inconsistent with Penal Code section 12276.1 or the Regulations.
DOJ does not considere a magazine attached to a receiver by a screw, requiring
a screwdriver for removal, to be a detachable magazine.


The DOJ cannot hold above the letter of the law, especially as they wrote the regulatory definitions!

The MonsterMan grip is clearly legal as it is in no way described by the regulatory definition of pistol grip. DOJ phone staff are even recommending it (by description, not actual trade name).

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 6:56 PM
Lack of DOJ approval does not mean illegality. Whether the DOJ likes something is immaterial. Reading is fundamental: what does the law and regulatory code say?

The approval of the fixed-mag DSA Cali-FAL, whose approval is in fact signed by yet another Deputy AG (Palmieri) is sufficient to show that all essentially similar methods of mag affixing comply with the law. The additional approval of the swing-down fixed configuration of the Barret M82CA is icing on the cake.

None of these approved guns w/fixed mags differ in appreciable ways in the realm of magazine attachment. They can't "like" a gun they approved and "not like" a gun that's similar.

DOJ's Iggy Chinn even said, in sworn statement in Hunt case (underlining mine), that:


Nothing in the DOJ letter referenced by plaintiffs is inconsistent with DOJ’s intention
to enforce Penal Code section 12276.1 or section 978.20(a) of the Regulations as
they are written, or that the District Attorneys within the state would be at liberty
to take action inconsistent with Penal Code section 12276.1 or the Regulations.
DOJ does not considere a magazine attached to a receiver by a screw, requiring
a screwdriver for removal, to be a detachable magazine.


The DOJ cannot hold above the letter of the law, especially as they wrote the regulatory definitions!

The MonsterMan grip is clearly legal as it is in no way described by the regulatory definition of pistol grip. DOJ phone staff are even recommending it (by description, not actual trade name).


And I might add.....

In the case where Iggy approved the welding of 10 round mags into a listed receiver... that approval may help the person that sought the approval... but as far as you and I are concerned, if we chose to do something similar, the local DA could file charges and prosecute despite what the DOJ says because even if the DOJ approved something that was illegal, that does not change the law.

NoTime2Shoot
04-30-2007, 6:56 PM
They can't "like" a gun they approved and "not like" a gun that's similar.


"Just because your cat births a litter in the oven; doesn't give you right to call 'em biscuits."

:p

Awwww..... I wanted the other lurkers to dig harder, Bill.

Charliegone
04-30-2007, 7:20 PM
$360,000!!!!!!
According to the bail schedule posted in the other thread that seems crazy unreasonable.

Here's some example bails to help with your sense of scale.

Assault with a firearm.... 50k
Assault with a firearm upon a Peace Officer....100k
Rape.....100k
Lewd act with a child under 14.....100k
Arson during a state of emergency.....150k
Attempted Murder......500k

It must be this one that they're saying they got him on:
Possession of a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!!!.....500K AW's are that evil!



Thank that arsehole Paul Koretz for making the penalties worse.:mad:

Crazed_SS
04-30-2007, 7:22 PM
Lack of DOJ approval does not mean illegality. Whether the DOJ likes something is immaterial. Reading is fundamental: what does the law and regulatory code say?

The approval of the fixed-mag DSA Cali-FAL, whose approval is in fact signed by yet another Deputy AG (Palmieri) is sufficient to show that all essentially similar methods of mag affixing comply with the law. The additional approval of the swing-down fixed configuration of the Barret M82CA is icing on the cake.

None of these approved guns w/fixed mags differ in appreciable ways in the realm of magazine attachment. They can't "like" a gun they approved and "not like" a gun that's similar.

DOJ's Iggy Chinn even said, in sworn statement in Hunt case (underlining mine), that:


Nothing in the DOJ letter referenced by plaintiffs is inconsistent with DOJ’s intention
to enforce Penal Code section 12276.1 or section 978.20(a) of the Regulations as
they are written, or that the District Attorneys within the state would be at liberty
to take action inconsistent with Penal Code section 12276.1 or the Regulations.
DOJ does not considere a magazine attached to a receiver by a screw, requiring
a screwdriver for removal, to be a detachable magazine.


The DOJ cannot hold above the letter of the law, especially as they wrote the regulatory definitions!

The MonsterMan grip is clearly legal as it is in no way described by the regulatory definition of pistol grip. DOJ phone staff are even recommending it (by description, not actual trade name).

Right.

I 100% understand all of that stuff.

All I'm saying is if we had a letter from the DOJ "approving" certain build methods or grip options, we'd have a pretty solid defense against things like this BWO situation. Right now it seems the burden of proof is on us to prove OLL builds are legal..

I mean, I havent heard anyone on here asking what documents they should carry to prove their Remington 870, Mini-14, or Glock 19 is legal.. only with OLLs. Ideally we shouldnt be worried about carrying documents to prove our guns are legal.

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 7:24 PM
Right.

I 100% understand all of that stuff.

All I'm saying is if we had a letter from the DOJ "approving" certain build methods or grip options, we'd have a pretty solid defense against things like this BWO situation. Right now it seems the burden of proof is on us to prove OLL builds are legal..

I mean, I havent heard anyone on here asking what documents they should carry to prove their Remington 870, Mini-14, or Glock 19 is legal.. only with OLLs. Ideally we shouldnt be worried about carrying documents to prove our guns are legal.


Wheels of change are slow.... civil lawsuits against agencies is the only way to force them to be competant. As soon as a civil lawsuit it lost... agencies all around will be in a mad dash to learn the rules.

As far as civil lawsuits are concerned... they can keep their money... I would rather stay out of jail.

bwiese
04-30-2007, 7:24 PM
All I'm saying is if we had a letter from the DOJ "approving" certain build methods or grip options, we'd have a pretty solid defense against things like this BWO situation. Right now it seems the burden of proof is on us to prove OLL builds are legal..

The FAL letter published on Calgunlaws should go a long ways.

citizenal
04-30-2007, 7:32 PM
Matt and I have met up before discussing possible future business. I can say for the record that he is an ethical, law abiding guy. Not for one minute did he give me the impression that he was not an honest guy. I think this is total BS, and once the charges are dropped he should take sue the hell out of the city.

this is posted by pistolpete75..i was using my bro-in-laws sn.

moulton
04-30-2007, 7:40 PM
And you know for your $36Gs you're at least gonna get a cigarette and a nice pep talk. "Hey bra, why you need an AK? All you need is a big, black Super-Soaker full of Bull Mace, lol. Have another smoke , bra"
"yo bra, you gotta stay off the ICE, ICE is bad for ya. It has brought nothing but trouble bra"

hardkore909
04-30-2007, 7:43 PM
I work in an evidence facility for a PD. The only way for him to get his firearms back is for him to pick them up. CA law states that anyone (law enforcement included) must go through the doj and have a background check completed on them prior to having firearms released. Once approved the doj will send out letterhead with a fancy gold sticker to the owner and then the owner can pick them up.

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf

(page 35) As far as the RO goes. If the firearms are in LEO custody then they will stay there. They were probably taken as evidence and until the case is adjudicated they will stay in LEO custody. I believe if he gets convicted of a lesser crime and gets any felony charges dropped and has a court order to give the firearms back he still needs to go back through the doj and have a background check on him. I will ask tomorrow when i go back to work.

SteveInKA
04-30-2007, 7:44 PM
And you know for your $36Gs you're at least gonna get a cigarette and a nice pep talk. "Hey bra, why you need an AK? All you need is a big, black Super-Soaker full of Bull Mace, lol. Have another smoke , bra"

lol...hilarious.:D

E Pluribus Unum
04-30-2007, 7:48 PM
I work in an evidence facility for a PD. The only way for him to get his firearms back is for him to pick them up. CA law states that anyone (law enforcement included) must go through the doj and have a background check completed on them prior to having firearms released. Once approved the doj will send out letterhead with a fancy gold sticker to the owner and then the owner can pick them up.

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf

(page 35) As far as the RO goes. If the firearms are in LEO custody then they will stay there. They were probably taken as evidence and until the case is adjudicated they will stay in LEO custody. I believe if he gets convicted of a lesser crime and gets any felony charges dropped and has a court order to give the firearms back he still needs to go back through the doj and have a background check on him. I will ask tomorrow when i go back to work.



Firearms that are not used as evidence that are taken in domestic violence calls are only supposed to be held for 72 hours whether the case is adjudicated or not.

hardkore909
04-30-2007, 7:53 PM
All Firearms taken in regardless of status are held until the DOJ does a background check on said firearms owner and approves the owner to possess it. I see it on a daily basis. Ex: some lady lost her purse and had a taurus 9mm in it. For her to get it back she needed to go through the DOJ and get approval through them. I know my job and how and the laws regarding firearms brought in regardless of what they are brought in for. No one gets one back without DOJ approval. LEO's included unless it is a duty weapon and the agency picks it up.

spgk380
04-30-2007, 7:59 PM
Forgive me if this is too cynical a question, but if your waltz into a typical California DA's office and present arguments consisting of Supreme Court rulings, prior DOJ statements and testimony, memos and careful analysis of the law, are they ever receptive to that, or is their position always "I'm the DA, I know everything and I don't care what you say"?

Seems like the requirements to be elected DA are to be obdurate, closed minded, a poor listener, and misanthropic. I guess their job is to constantly prove how tough they are on crime by mercilessly prosecuting everything that smells fishy, in order to get reelected. Harriot v. County of Kings really couldn't be any more clear, but I guess its sort of like how the SCOTUS ordered an end to segregation, but it took decades to actually happen because some in the South refused to listen.

Meeh, if they were real Harvard Law or Yale Law school lawyers, they wouldn't be DAs--they would be the trial lawyer defending the DAs case, raking in the dough.

CSACANNONEER
04-30-2007, 8:19 PM
I know of one case where the confinscated handgun was sold (while in PD's custody) and under court order the LASD was ordered to turn the gun over to the new owner. When they refused to relinqish said gun, the new owner pulled out his cell phone and called the judge that signed the order. He then handed the phone to the watch commander and within a minute. The funny thing is, the watch commander had just said the brand new Kimber was not at the facility and had in fact been lost. This happened within the last three years.

Pthfndr
04-30-2007, 8:23 PM
ca penal code 12077.5

Actually it's 12021.3

Here's the important paragraphs:

(b) No law enforcement agency or court that has taken custody of
any firearm may return the firearm to any individual unless the
following requirements are satisfied:
(1) That individual presents to the agency or court notification
of a determination by the department pursuant to subdivision (e) that
the person is eligible to possess firearms.

But otherwise you are correct.

From the DOJ website:

On January 1, 2005, the Law Enforcement Gun Release (LEGR) process became effective with the addition of Penal Code (PC) section 12021.3. This process requires any person who claims title to any firearm that is in the custody or control of a court or law enforcement agency and who wishes to have the firearm returned to submit a LEGR Application form for a determination by the Department of Justice (DOJ) as to whether he or she is eligible to possess a firearm.
LEGR Application Submission Process

Individuals seeking the return of a firearm(s) that is in the custody or control of a court or law enforcement agency must submit a LEGR Application along with the appropriate fees to the Department of Justice (DOJ). A firearms eligibility check will be conducted to determine if the applicant is lawfully eligible to possess firearms. A notice of the results will be sent to the applicant. The notice must be presented to the court or agency within thirty (30) days of the date of the notice. Failure to do so will result in the need to submit a new application and fees and undergo another firearms eligibility check.

Submission requirements and processing fees are available on the Law Enforcement Gun Release (LEGR) Application.PDF logo [PDF 23 kb / 2 pg] DO NOT use any other firearms transaction form or PFEC application to apply for a LEGR.

G-dude
04-30-2007, 8:33 PM
Here is the aforementioned California Penal Code 12077.5 for comparison:

From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/12070-12086.html



12077.5. (a) An individual may request that the Department of
Justice perform a firearms eligibility check for that individual.
The applicant requesting the eligibility check shall provide the
information required by subdivision (c) of Section 12077 to the
department, in an application specified by the department.
(b) The department shall charge a fee of twenty dollars ($20) for
performing the eligibility check authorized by this section, but not
to exceed the actual processing costs of the department. After the
department establishes fees sufficient to reimburse the department
for processing costs, fees charged may increase at a rate not to
exceed the legislatively approved cost-of-living adjustment for the
department's budget or as otherwise increased through the Budget Act.

(c) An applicant for the eligibility check pursuant to subdivision
(a) shall complete the application, have it notarized by any
licensed California Notary Public, and submit it by mail to the
department. Upon receipt of a notarized application and fee, the
department shall do all of the following:
(1) Examine its records, and the records it is authorized to
request from the State Department of Mental Health pursuant to
Section 8104 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to determine if
the purchaser is a person described in Section 12021 or 12021.1 of
this code, or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
(2) Notify the applicant by mail of its determination of whether
the applicant is a person described in Section 12021 or 12021.1 of
this code, or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code. The department's notification shall state either "eligible to
possess firearms as of the date the check was completed" or
"ineligible to possess firearms as of the date the check was
completed."
(d) If the department determines that the information submitted to
it in the application contains any blank spaces, or inaccurate,
illegible, or incomplete information, preventing identification of
the applicant, or if the required fee is not submitted, the
department shall not be required to perform the firearms eligibility
check.
(e) The department shall make applications to conduct a firearms
eligibility check as described in this section available to licensed
firearms dealers and on the department's Web site.
(f) The department shall be immune from any liability arising out
of the performance of the firearms eligibility check, or any reliance
upon the firearms eligibility check.
(g) No person or agency may require or request another person to
obtain a firearms eligibility check or notification of a firearms
eligibility check pursuant to this section. A violation of this
subdivision is a misdemeanor.
(h) The department shall include on the application specified in
subdivision (a) and the notification of eligibility specified in
subdivision (c) the following statements:
"No person or agency may require or request another person to
obtain a firearms eligibility check or notification of firearms
eligibility check pursuant to Section 12077.5 of the Penal Code. A
violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor."
"If the applicant for a firearms eligibility check purchases,
transfers, or receives a firearm through a licensed dealer as
required by law, a waiting period and background check are both
required."

grumpy562
04-30-2007, 8:33 PM
what i want to know is can an FFL bail out the guns if a person has been who had been convicted of a felony trys to sell them to someone else?

hardkore909
04-30-2007, 8:43 PM
I personally know how rediculous the law is. I had to turn in my legal mini-14 because my soon to be SBSO ex wife told the judge it was an assault weapon when the photo he had of it was actually a photo of my cali configured OLL. When i notified my attorney of the matter he told me to turn it in anyway since it was a court order and her attorney claims it is full-auto. Now when I want my rifle back I get to go through this same process we were talking about.

SemiAutoSam
04-30-2007, 8:48 PM
Yikes EX Wives I have a few stories about those myself. I hid about 20 NFA weapons from my EX :D all the way from a M10/45 cal to a NIB FN MFG M2HB a rather large handful of Registered HK sear's ect. If she would have known what any one of those title 2 items were worth I would have not been a happy camper.

I got away clean. we both left the marriage with what we came into it with.

Me PLUS some toys.

I personally know how rediculous the law is. I had to turn in my legal mini-14 because my soon to be SBSO ex wife told the judge it was an assault weapon when the photo he had of it was actually a photo of my cali configured OLL. When i notified my attorney of the matter he told me to turn it in anyway since it was a court order and her attorney claims it is full-auto.

G-dude
04-30-2007, 8:53 PM
It seems, wether or not there is some law on the books somewhere that states that they have to release a gun in 72 hours -as E Plurubus Unum stated- the requirement that the Police Agency first have to determine elegibility BEFORE releasing any guns essencially nullifies that.

As another member stated, you have to get a Law Enforcement Gun Release (LEGR) and I believe that can take a month at the minimum, maybe more. Also, once you get your LEGR paperwork back, you have 30 days to submit it to the LE Agency or you have to start the process over again.

If you have a restraining order, it can actually be YEARS before you can get your guns back.



Here's some more good Cali specific info I found:
Domestic Violence Restraining Orders in California (http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/famlawservices/dviolence/domesticviolence.html)

Duration Of Orders

Domestic violence restraining orders are deemed to be of three years' duration if the expiration date is not stated on the face of the order form. [Ca Fam § 6345(c)]

So if you have an RO against you, and there's no specific exp. date, you may not see your guns for 3 years.




Here's another interesting tidbit:

To ensure effective statewide enforcement, domestic violence protective orders (including modifications, extensions and terminations thereof) must be registered with the State Department of Justice (DOJ) through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS). The DOJ is required to maintain a "Domestic Violence Restraining Order System" and to make all information concerning such restraining orders (whether or not served upon the respondent) available to court clerks and law enforcement personnel through computer access. Electronic transmission of the pertinent information is the county's responsibility. [See Ca Fam §§ 6380(a),(e) & (f), 6382]

jaymz
04-30-2007, 9:07 PM
That is completley stupid......

If he poses a threat to the school... i.e. he is going to shoot up fellow students... do you actually think a restraining order will stop him??

I agree 100%. If the restraining order doesn't keep him away from school, the fact THAT HE"S LOCKED UP IN JAIL WILL!! WTF is with these people?!?! One day he's a model student, the next he's being slapped with a R/O. I'm gonna stop now before my head explodes.:eek:

hardkore909
04-30-2007, 9:10 PM
It's my belief the RO was made up as some sort of request by the DA which will prevent him from getting his firearms back should the charges be dropped in the future.

jaymz
04-30-2007, 9:16 PM
i don't know about you guys, but all my guns were lost last weekend in an unfortunate boating accident.

Holy fuzznuts! Mine too! What an amazing coincidence! :eek:

LAK Supply
04-30-2007, 9:38 PM
Geez.... I forgot you guys were on that boat with me. Unfortunate accident.......

Holy fuzznuts! Mine too! What an amazing coincidence! :eek:

Tweak338
04-30-2007, 9:57 PM
Fishing with your rifles = freak accidents.
a swamp thing climed into the boat and took them..

LAK Supply
04-30-2007, 10:05 PM
Seriously.... I thought it was just a damn fish until it hit me with it's tail and got all 14 of my rifles......!! :mad:


Fishing with your rifles = freak accidents.
a swamp thing climed into the boat and took them..

leelaw
04-30-2007, 10:31 PM
Holy fuzznuts! Mine too! What an amazing coincidence! :eek:

If I ever get a boat I'm naming it the "Unfortunate Accident" :D

MonsterMan
04-30-2007, 11:06 PM
Right.

I 100% understand all of that stuff.

All I'm saying is if we had a letter from the DOJ "approving" certain build methods or grip options, we'd have a pretty solid defense against things like this BWO situation. Right now it seems the burden of proof is on us to prove OLL builds are legal..

I mean, I havent heard anyone on here asking what documents they should carry to prove their Remington 870, Mini-14, or Glock 19 is legal.. only with OLLs. Ideally we shouldnt be worried about carrying documents to prove our guns are legal.

It's not for the lack of trying that I don't have a approval letter for my grip. I have tried and tried. I am in the middle of a new method of getting a letter. If I get it, I will let you all know.

I just don't get a response when I have tried so far. They just ignore me. :mad:

pullnshoot25
04-30-2007, 11:40 PM
This is such bullcrap.

I will throw down some green for his defense if he needs it. If a fund is created for him, please let me know.

Crap... May 14th is a school day... FARK! I want to go to the trial to show my support... FARK!

pullnshoot25
04-30-2007, 11:42 PM
Oh yeah, for shats and gaggles... here is a picture of my scary "sniper rifle" (Pasty white guy on the right)

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a276/pullnshoot25/Jacumba%20Jam%2012-31-06/101_0450.jpg

Racefiend
04-30-2007, 11:52 PM
This is such bullcrap. When it's shown that his weapons were all legally configured (which I'm assuming they were), I'll be first in line to donate some funds to help him out. We have to stick together through these kinds of things.

Spiggy
05-01-2007, 12:25 AM
doesnt this rescheduling conflict with his right to a speedy trial?

Technical Ted
05-01-2007, 12:26 AM
doesnt this rescheduling conflict with his right to a speedy trial?
Did you read? The right was waived by counsel..

Spiggy
05-01-2007, 12:39 AM
:( sorry, it's late and I spent my day studying the subject in question; Criminal Law *hangs head in shame*

crunchy2k
05-01-2007, 1:05 AM
Maybe its time for someone to write a book about gun laws in California since the 1857 and tragic accidents. It would take many years and the resources only found in Walquest library at SJSU to do. I remember my mother saying while I was 4yrs old in SOCAL that one has to now drag the body into one's home in order to not get arrested. That was 1956. I don't remember what caused that remark, as I was interested in 'Sky King' on Saturday mornings and Railroad Bill at 12pm everyday.

I'm just posting this to show it is never ending.

xenophobe
05-01-2007, 7:25 AM
All I'm saying is if we had a letter from the DOJ "approving" certain build methods or grip options, we'd have a pretty solid defense against things like this BWO situation. Right now it seems the burden of proof is on us to prove OLL builds are legal..

You don't get it. There is no approval necessary to define what is legal or not. Legality is defined in PC 12276.1. DOJ opinion means nothing when something is already specified in law and regulation.

Unfortunately, California firearms law is so confusing, it is no longer taught to cadets at any police academies, and any DA that hasn't specifically dealt with the specifics of AW issues won't know either. Unfortunately, it takes cases like this for any DA to actually have to study the specifics of the law and realize there is no case. A DOJ opinion letter would merely say 'it's up to the 58 DAs anyways', so the researching will need to be done on a case by case basis per county. And it would seem that after each one of these cases is researched, like in SJ with SPG for example, other off-list arrests either don't happen, or charges are never filed.

Until an actual DA knows the law, they will assume that something that is similar to something illegal actually will be. No DOJ opinion letter or statement of clarification will do much use when it's up to the arresting officer, any detective, and then the DA to ultimately decide if there is a case. These things need to be learned by the prosecution. This won't change until the law is simplified or nullified.


I work in an evidence facility for a PD. The only way for him to get his firearms back is for him to pick them up. CA law states that anyone (law enforcement included) must go through the doj and have a background check completed on them prior to having firearms released. Once approved the doj will send out letterhead with a fancy gold sticker to the owner and then the owner can pick them up.

A lawyer or FFL may also have firearms released to them, in case the individual is not able or is not eligible to pick them up himself.


what i want to know is can an FFL bail out the guns if a person has been who had been convicted of a felony trys to sell them to someone else?

Yes. A FFL, with the court order to release the firearms, pick up firearms.

50ae
05-01-2007, 8:22 AM
Actually it is taught but our instructor who was a former cop, prosecutor, defense counsel and assemblyman told us in class that the law is so confusing that you can't get a consensus on any portion of it from anyone in the state. I scored 100% on the test but even so, I hardly consider myself even approaching knowing the ins and outs of the law.



Unfortunately, California firearms law is so confusing, it is no longer taught to cadets at any police academies, and any DA that hasn't specifically dealt with the specifics of AW issues won't know either.

hardkore909
05-01-2007, 8:30 AM
An attorney or an FFL with a court order both may pick-up firearms from a PD facilility if the owner is unable to get them himself.

leelaw
05-01-2007, 11:47 AM
I've added the criminal complaint that was released to the media on the first post in this thread.

bwiese
05-01-2007, 11:58 AM
I've added the criminal complaint that was released to the media on the first post in this thread.

Thank you. Seeing these actual charges gives me confidence.

I'm pretty damned sure the 1919s involved are not full auto. Tons of Calgunners have entirely legal 1919s, and there are even DOJ letters approving the pistol grip since it's not below the action (and is not a shoulder fired weapon thus not a rifle).

The rest looked like garden variety OLL stuff. From what I've heard from friends of his, he knows the laws, and the rifles were legally configured.

tenpercentfirearms
05-01-2007, 11:59 AM
LOL. What bull crap. I bet none of those are in assault weapon configuration. I do believe BWO is getting tooled. I really hope they end up dropping this whole thing for BWO's sake, but if they don't, it very well could be test case time.

spgk380
05-01-2007, 12:05 PM
I like how the case is called "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA" vs. BWO, as if you and I were the ones trying to prosecute them. Its kind of like how the USSR and China always claim that their government is acting on behalf of the people.

leelaw
05-01-2007, 12:05 PM
LOL. What bull crap. I bet none of those are in assault weapon configuration. I do believe BWO is getting tooled. I really hope they end up dropping this whole thing for BWO's sake, but if they don't, it very well could be test case time.

Even if they drop it, it will likely kill his chances of being a peace officer for at least the next 7 - 10 years :(

If it's dropped, and I were him, I'd sue for damages.

USMC_2651_E5
05-01-2007, 12:06 PM
I'll bet that the only charge that sticks is the shuriken...oh wait, it was probably jut a frisbee mistaken for a throwing star.

leelaw
05-01-2007, 12:07 PM
I like how the case is called "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA" vs. BWO, as if you and I were the ones trying to prosecute them. Its kind of like how the USSR and China always claim that their government is acting on behalf of the people.

Well.. they are..

The laws are passed by people who (supposedly) represent the will of the people. Thus the laws are by the people of the state of California, and are prosecuted by the state on behalf of the people.

G-dude
05-01-2007, 12:08 PM
Criminal complaint available here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=56722

OMG FREAKING GREAT!

That shows the EXACT WEAPONS HE IS BEING CHARGED FOR!

The "M1919A4 Machine Gun" Appears in 6 of the charges!

The 5 'Sale/distribution of assault weapons' involve the M1919. That means he was charged in connection with the M1919 group buy. :(

The 4 'possession of assault weapons' involve:
1. 'M1919A4 Machine Gun'
2. 'CALIBER 7.62 MODEL MK 991'
3. 'MODEL FAR-15 CALIBER 5.56 MM'
4. 'MODEL GATOR, (AR-15) MULTI-CALIBER'

The 2 'possesion of deadly weapons' are:
1. 'Shuriken 4 point throwing star'
2. 'SAP gloves'

The 1 count of 'recieving stolen property' is for:
1."MILITARY IDENTIFICATION, MILITARY BADGE, MILITARY CHEMICAL SUIT, TACTICAL ENTRY, which had been stolen and obtained by extortion, knowing that said property had been stolen and obtained by extortion."

Clodbuster
05-01-2007, 12:13 PM
Probably an origami throwing star. They tell you how to make them in the origami books...or as the 58 DAs like to call them...terrorist training manuals.

How the heck does one gain by a chemcial suit by extortion?

Clod

I'll bet that the only charge that sticks is the shuriken...oh wait, it was probably jut a frisbee mistaken for a throwing star.

Jicko
05-01-2007, 12:14 PM
Thanks for posting the actual charges.

He probably will comes out alright cuz those 1919s are no way MGs, I thought ATF agents were there, couldn't THEY tell, even if CA-DOJ are incompetent?

The other OLL stuff should also be OK, since BWO is a straight up guy and knows the law; so, those OLL definitely would be in legal config...

Anyone know when will he be able to come out on bail? He had been jailed since last Thursday.....

Good luck to BWO, and tell us where to send support $$.

spgk380
05-01-2007, 12:15 PM
Well.. they are..

The laws are passed by people who (supposedly) represent the will of the people. Thus the laws are by the people of the state of California, and are prosecuted by the state on behalf of the people.

I never voted for the state representatives that passed these laws. They should title it "SOME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA" instead. :p

E Pluribus Unum
05-01-2007, 12:16 PM
Anyone know when will he be able to come out on bail? He had been jailed since last Thursday.....

Good luck to BWO, and tell us where to send support $$.

If he goes to a bail bondsman it will cost $38,000. I think for that kind of money he will spend the two weeks in jail.

Clodbuster
05-01-2007, 12:20 PM
How can he come out all right?? The press labeled him as a psycho in public.

I would sue for millions if I were him. Even if media appologized, even if the DA appologized, which I doubt. The stigma will stick with him for a long time, cus' the mainstream public will not remember that he was cleared. All they will remember is that the media called him a gun nut with an arsenal.

Clod

Thanks for posting the actual charges.

He probably will comes out alright cuz those 1919s are no way MGs, I thought ATF agents were there, couldn't THEY tell, even if CA-DOJ are incompetent?

The other OLL stuff should also be OK, since BWO is a straight up guy and knows the law; so, those OLL definitely would be in legal config...

Anyone know when will he be able to come out on bail? He had been jailed since last Thursday.....

Good luck to BWO, and tell us where to send support $$.

bwiese
05-01-2007, 12:21 PM
If he goes to a bail bondsman it will cost $38,000. I think for that kind of money he will spend the two weeks in jail.

Sometimes home equity can be put up for surety, but maybe his folks are renters.

G-dude
05-01-2007, 12:21 PM
Can someone explain to me what in Hades are deadly "SAP GLOVES"?

Did he try to strangle a young tree?

Did he almost kill someone by putting on the spanish-language Simpsons?

Jicko
05-01-2007, 12:22 PM
If he goes to a bail bondsman it will cost $38,000. I think for that kind of money he will spend the two weeks in jail.

The charges are bogus. He is not likely to run. Maybe his folks or relatives have a house or property that they can use as collaterals for his $365k bail.

Shane916
05-01-2007, 12:23 PM
http://www.defensedevices.com/sap-steel-shot-gloves.html

peepshowal
05-01-2007, 12:24 PM
Can someone explain to me what in Hades are deadly "SAP GLOVES"?

Did he try to strangle a young tree?

Did he almost kill someone by putting on the spanish-language Simpsons?
They are gloves with lead shot or powder sewn into the knuckle and/or palm areas though I like your explanations better

Super_tactical
05-01-2007, 12:26 PM
They are gloves with lead shot or powder sewn into the knuckle and/or palm areas.

Oooo, I may just purchase some!

grammaton76
05-01-2007, 12:26 PM
Oooo, I may just purchase some!

...not if you're in California.

Prc329
05-01-2007, 12:27 PM
This is straight bull. All the firearms listed seem to be legit if configured correctly. I highly dought they were not.

Shane916
05-01-2007, 12:27 PM
You could always get these instead

http://www.trgear.com/osc/eshop/product_info.php/products_id/36

Super_tactical
05-01-2007, 12:28 PM
...not if you're in California.

I'm outa here in three months unless a major uprising occurs.

G-dude
05-01-2007, 12:32 PM
http://www.defensedevices.com/sap-steel-shot-gloves.html

Danke Schön

Again, these could be legitimately in his possesion in relation to his law-enforcement, military-police background.


The 'shuriken' charge is probably that wacky folding knife he had in the picture. If it folds, it's not a shuriken. It actually looks that that knife [USED BY THAT DUDE THAT WASN'T] Kevin Sorbo in the movie 'Krull.' (I know, cheesy movie).

The REAL little, sheet-metal throwing-stars known as 'shuriken' are, of course, illegal. (For reasons only they understand).



Attention all: Kevin Sorbo was NOT in the 1983 movie "Krull." That is all.

hardkore909
05-01-2007, 12:33 PM
I'm just waiting for the 1,000,000+ illegal aliens to all revolt on the sameday and create anarchist riots across all of CA. I'd love to see the CA govt try and diffuse that situation without the legal ca gunowners help.

grammaton76
05-01-2007, 12:34 PM
The 'shuriken' charge is probably that wacky folding knife he had in the picture. If it folds, it's not a shuriken. It actually looks that that knife Kevin Sorbo used in the movie 'Krull.'

You're confusing Kull the Conqueror with Krull. Krull was some other dude.

Jicko
05-01-2007, 12:36 PM
Where is the PC stating that "Sap Gloves" are not legal? How about my mtn-bike or dirt-bike's gloves? :-(

AJAX22
05-01-2007, 12:36 PM
Are SAP gloves actually illigal? I'm pretty sure carying them is a no-no, but isn't posession as part of a collection ok? kind of like brass knuckles.

E Pluribus Unum
05-01-2007, 12:38 PM
Are SAP gloves actually illigal? I'm pretty sure carying them is a no-no, but isn't posession as part of a collection ok? kind of like brass knuckles.

Brass knuckles, shuriken, nun chucks... are all illegal to own.... in any capacity.


Switch blades can be bought and sold.... and posessed at home, but not in public.

G-dude
05-01-2007, 12:38 PM
You're confusing Kull the Conqueror with Krull. Krull was some other dude.

Oh crap! You're right! Edited. I thought Sorbo was a little young for that role...oh well. I'm strangely relieved.

Shane916
05-01-2007, 12:39 PM
Right before the Hi-cap 2000 thingy
CA PC 12020

(a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the
state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives,
lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable
firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a
firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which
contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or
carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst
trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any
short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any
leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol,
any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge
knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice
handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon
of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy,
sandclub, sap, or sandbag.

jumbopanda
05-01-2007, 12:39 PM
The REAL little, sheet-metal throwing-stars known as 'shuriken' are, of course, illegal. (For reasons only they understand).

To protect the children from the serious threat of ninja attacks, duh.

383green
05-01-2007, 12:40 PM
I have a question about the wording of the charges for the legal types in the crowd. I'll quote the first one here as an example:

COUNT 1


On or about February 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the crime of UNLAWFUL ASSAULT WEAPON/.50 BMG RIFLE ACTIVITY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 12280(a)(1), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR CORWIN, who did unlawfully manufacture, caused to the manufactured, distribute, transport, import into this State, keep for sale, offer and expose for sale, give and lend an assault weapon and a .50 BMG rifle, to wit: 1919 A4, .30 CALIBER MACHINE GUN.

Does the word "and" mean something different in this context than it does in regular English? All of the charges use the word "and" in places where I would expect the use of the word "or". It looks like he's being charged with acts related to "an assault weapon and a .50 BMG rifle" (other counts use similar language), and an M1919A4 is certainly not a .50 BMG rifle (it could be argued that it's not even a rifle). So, unless the word "and" really means "or" in legal context, couldn't the charge be shown to be false simply by demonstrating that the M1919A4 in question is not a .50 BMG rifle?

Similarly, each of the charges uses the word "and" in the list of things he is supposed to have done, i.e. (paraphrasing) "manufacture and possess and lend and offer for sale". Again, couldn't the charge be shown to be inapplicable if it is shown that he did not do any one of the things "and'ed" into the charge?

This seems really odd to me. I'm an electrical engineer, and the word "and" has a very specific meaning to me. Does it mean something different in legal context, and if not, then does this give him a way to blow most or all of the charges out of the water?

Mods: Please edit if this comment could prove harmful to his defense!

grammaton76
05-01-2007, 12:45 PM
Taking a stab here.

Probably relates to the fact that you can stick a 50BMG upper onto any registered AW, and it's legal. In some twisted wrangling, an AW is always 50BMG (capable), although a registered 50BMG may never be configured as an AW.

Pappy91W
05-01-2007, 12:46 PM
This is scary stuff and serves to show us all that the police and the alphabet boys can use/twist the law to suit their purpose if they WANT to get YOU. Adjust your tinfoil hats, because we're NOT paranoid, they watch THIS forum as well as ARFCOM, and if they find even a slight means of snatching you up, grabbing your guns, jailing you and ruining your life, THEY WILL.

It may very well be he'll get out of jail, even if they drop the charges, they will more than likely destroy his guns, that he paid for, he's been ruined at his college, his name has been dragged through the mud by the media in his own neighborhood. Essentially, they've destroyed him. Factor in legal fees, lost wages, missed classes and the likelihood that he won't even be allowed to return to school. The power of the whole system has been brought to bear upon him, no matter how much support WE give him, he still faces all of this alone.

While it may surprise some to see me speak like this in support of BWO, knowing that he and I butt heads constantly on CalGuns, he's one of our own. How sad that even while abiding the law, we have to be afraid of our government. He won't be the last one of us that this kind of stuff happens to.

Jicko
05-01-2007, 12:46 PM
Right before the Hi-cap 2000 thingy
CA PC 12020

any instrument or weapon
of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy,
sandclub, sap, or sandbag.

Damn... what are these??

blackjack - Ace + 10/J/Q/K is the ONLY Blackjack I know of....

slungshot - is this a kind of slingshot??

billy - oops... I better call my friend, he probably didn't know that he carries an illegal item with him.... ie. his NAME!

sandclub - hmmm... a beach club/bar?

sap - I thought this is the "subtitles" for the deaf?

sandbag - YUCK.... what can we use when it heavily rain? we use these a lot to avoid flooding.....

Glasshat
05-01-2007, 12:47 PM
I don't know anything about BWO other than the favorable impression I remember from his posts here. People who know him personally are confident his rifles are perfectly legal. Nothing on his web site proves he owns or does anything illegal.
Like his rifles, the so-called SAP gloves he was charged with will probably turn out to be something other than the illegal type, and NOT the kind on that website.

383green
05-01-2007, 12:48 PM
Taking a stab here.

Probably relates to the fact that you can stick a 50BMG upper onto any registered AW, and it's legal. In some twisted wrangling, an AW is always 50BMG (capable), although a registered 50BMG may never be configured as an AW.

Exactly how do you stick a .50 BMG upper on an M1919A4?

E Pluribus Unum
05-01-2007, 12:48 PM
Exactly how do you stick a .50 BMG upper on an M1919A4?

LOTS of JB Weld

AJAX22
05-01-2007, 12:50 PM
A blackjack is a leather pouch filled with either a thin strip of lead or lead shot for knocking people out with (remember LA confidential?)

a slug shot or slungshot is a big heavy knut or ball with a cord through it (its nasty)

a billy is a wood club (like a nightstick)

a sandclub is basicly a hollow tube filled with sand. It transfers kinnetic energy without crushing the bone. basicly for knocking people silly. I think its a rubber tube usually (like a garden hose)

a sandbag is like a blackjack only bigger (personally I'd just say it was for doing aluminum metalwork)

grammaton76
05-01-2007, 12:53 PM
Exactly how do you stick a .50 BMG upper on an M1919A4?

Eh, what I'm getting at is that because they decided to call it an AW, the 50BMG designation was coming along for the ride since it's the same thing in the eyes of the law.

For instance, you could, if you wanted to be incredibly stupid, rebuild a registered AK into 50BMG... of course, the easiest way to do it would be to chop it up and weld the serial number to another 50BMG rifle...

(Sarcasm)As for that 1919, you know they'll chamber 50BMG with just a little filing, right? It's a concealable M2!(/Sarcasm)

pnkssbtz
05-01-2007, 12:57 PM
Sap Gloves fall under "Belaying Weapons" which are on the books from press gangs of the late 1800's.

The same provisions also include billy clubs, nunchuku, belaying pins etc.

It was to stop press gangs from using weapons to press people into naval crews.

AJAX22
05-01-2007, 1:02 PM
wow.... going down for having a 'modern assult rifle' is bad enough

but dang, it would be way worse going down because of an outdated law from the 1800s...

see people this is what happens when you make inanimate objects illigal instead of just arresting people for actions they have committed (like kidnapping)

Ryan HBC
05-01-2007, 1:05 PM
I'm no lawyer, but I feel like I could bash most of those counts to pieces....but it is still scary when there are 12 felony counts against you and an ENORMOUS bail.

Best of luck to the brother and his legal counsel.

paradox
05-01-2007, 1:07 PM
Charge
COUNT 10
On or about April 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the crime
of POSSESSION OF A DEADLY WEAPON, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION
12020(a)(1), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR CORWIN, who did
unlawfully manufacture, cause to be manufactured, import into the State of
California, keep for sale, offer and expose for sale, and give, lend, and
possess an instrument and weapon of the kind commonly known as a SHURIKEN,
4 BLADED THROWING STAR.

Law
(11) As used in this section, a "shuriken" means any instrument,
without handles, consisting of a metal plate having three or more
radiating points with one or more sharp edges and designed in the
shape of a polygon, trefoil, cross, star, diamond, or other geometric
shape for use as a weapon for throwing.

Bull**** charge. That silly four bladed folding knife he had has four handles.

G-dude
05-01-2007, 1:10 PM
To protect the children from the serious threat of ninja attacks, duh.

Of course! Why didnt' I think of that!


The thing thats both a tradgedy and a blessing of sorts, are the 6 charges involving the M1919. I can just imagine the conversation here:

Sherriff 1: "Hey Charlie, look what we got here.."

Sherriff 2: "What is it Bob...oh wow. Is that thing real?"

Sherriff 1: (Bending over his mustachioed self to look at gun) "Look what it says there. 'Property of U.S government.' " *SNIFF* (Snorts and shakes head in disgust).

Sherriff 2: "Do they they still use those? Isn't that from WW2? How could he get it?"

Sherriff 1: "They probably do on HUMVEES in rear areas. He probably has friends higher up in the chain of command. This could be a huge conspiracy."

Sherriff 2: "That bastard!"

383green
05-01-2007, 1:19 PM
I've never met BWO, and I don't even remember any of his specific postings. However, the more I hear about this case, the more inclined I am to believe that he probably did nothing wrong, harmful or dangerous, all of the gun charges are most likely total BS related to perfectly legal semi-auto M1919A4 gun(s), perfectly legal OLL builds and so forth, and at worst maybe he had some silly sharpened square of metal and/or some heavy gloves. I hope that all of the charges get dropped in order to minimize his time and expense, and if they aren't then I am really looking forward to helping him in some way to get through this. Assuming that this is a case of trumped-up BS charges where nothing wrong or illegal was done, I really hope that this can be made to backfire on the officers, lawyers and others involved in his prosecution, RO, etc. :mad:

Charliegone
05-01-2007, 1:38 PM
BWO will surely beat all these bull**** charges. The guns are legal, the so called "deadly weapons" are most likely legal (due to his side job as an MP), so no sweat...but if I were him, after all the smoke has cleared I would sue their a****** back to the stone age. I'm still wondering why someone would do this to him...hmm.:mad:

G-dude
05-01-2007, 1:40 PM
If you know any, please take your local law enforcement officers to the range and expose them to things like CALIFORNIA LEGAL SEMI-AUTO REPLICAS of things like M1919-A4 MGs.

Not that it probably would of made a difference in this case, but at least it could expose them to the idea that just because something LOOKS like a 'machine gun' doesn't mean it is. And they should investigate further.

Of course, that would probably mean confiscating the weapon and having firearm 'experts' determine if it is a full-auto weapon. It would probably be a good idea to have some kind of documentation on hand explaining said gun is California Legal RIFLE, not full-auto machine gun.

It looks to me like the most serious charge BWO could be facing is, ironically, the posession of gloves. Hopefully, him being Law-Enforcement/Military Policeman can get that charged at least reduced to a misdemeanor if not dropped altogether. I mean, how else are you suppose to subdue a bunch of rowdy, drunk, tough army guys trained to kill you with a mere tap of the finger, if you're an MP?

rohanreed
05-01-2007, 1:46 PM
(11) As used in this section, a "shuriken" means any instrument,
without handles, consisting of a metal plate having three or more
radiating points with one or more sharp edges and designed in the
shape of a polygon, trefoil, cross, star, diamond, or other geometric
shape for use as a weapon for throwing.

so... where does that leave those 'purely decorative' throwing stars?

xenophobe
05-01-2007, 1:47 PM
The firearms violations will probably end up being dropped. The throwing star and sap gloves will probably be pleaded to misdemeanor, and the military property will probably be dropped unless they have solid proof that he stole it. Otherwise it will probably be thrown out too. The sap gloves ans throwing stars are what they'll try to nail him on.


Actually it is taught but our instructor who was a former cop, prosecutor, defense counsel and assemblyman told us in class that the law is so confusing that you can't get a consensus on any portion of it from anyone in the state. I scored 100% on the test but even so, I hardly consider myself even approaching knowing the ins and outs of the law.

It WAS taught. Assault Weapons are no longer required curriculum for police academy in California as of some time late last year, from what I understand.

Neil McCauley
05-01-2007, 1:50 PM
Hmm, I know tracer rounds and tannerite targets are illegal but what about smoke grenades, like the emergency signal type cannisters used for boat rescue? And how about a snap batton "asp" or a PR-24 (LE night stick) in the hands of civies?

StukaJr
05-01-2007, 1:53 PM
Today's article in Los Angeles Times (California Section, front page, Los Angeles Edition) suggests that MySpace profile was reported by students (left unnamed) to the authorities and the school officials, making it more and more of a knee jerk reaction in the wake of Virginia Tech shooting. He also turned down the plea bargain, according to the same article.

Students and school officials interviewed for the article appear genuinely of a good opinion of the defendant though and speak positively, most being surprised of the charges and the purported "arsenal" - no actions are taken by the school itself, other than campus police is placed on higher alert.

simonov
05-01-2007, 1:54 PM
Brass knuckles, shuriken, nun chucks... are all illegal to own.... in any capacity.

And batons, don't forget batons.

G-dude
05-01-2007, 2:02 PM
Today's article in Los Angeles Times (California Section, front page, Los Angeles Edition) suggests ... He also turned down the plea bargain.

Not entirely accurate. The Times article said "Corwin deferred making a plea." His arraignment was postponed, or "deferred," for 2 weeks on advice of counsel.

He has not yet been officially charged in court and so has not pleaded anything yet.

G-dude
05-01-2007, 2:07 PM
Here's the entire L.A. Times article posted on another thread that was locked. (Thanks, it was getting confusing).



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/po...ics-california

East L.A. College student held in gun probe
Authorities find a cache at the Monterey Park home of the campus government leader.
By Richard Winton and Tony Barboza, Times Staff Writers
May 1, 2007


As president of the Associated Students at East Los Angeles College, Matthew Corwin spoke out on issues pressing the students he represented, including the high price of textbooks and funding for campus clubs.

But authorities Monday charged the 23-year-old with selling and possessing illegal weapons, including machine guns, after finding a cache of firearms at his Monterey Park home. Corwin deferred making a plea.

Los Angeles County sheriff's detectives began investigating Corwin two weeks ago — soon after the massacre at Virginia Tech — when students and facility members sent them Corwin's MySpace.com page address, which showed him with various weapons and contained the quotation: "Be polite, be professional. Have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

Detectives didn't know whether Corwin brought weapons to the campus, but college friends said they were unaware of his arsenal.

"He would say, 'I am a collector.' But we didn't know what he collected. My first impression was comic books or toy cars," said Khristoper Lee, 28, a criminal-justice major who worked with Corwin on student government issues. "I never expected guns."

Corwin had been president of the Associated Students Union since September and spent hours in his office calculating how much student clubs should receive in funding, Lee said.

Corwin was being held at Men's Central Jail and could not be reached for comment.

College officials said they were monitoring the investigation but had not expelled Corwin or increased security measures.

"Our campus police are on alert, but we are not under any threat," said Oscar Valeriano Jr., dean of student services.

Corwin's MySpace page features statements about killing, images of Corwin wielding guns and videos of him firing weapons. In still images, he poses with various guns, including pointing a handgun at the camera. Below one image of Corwin in military fatigues with an assault-style weapon, it says, "I love the smell of gunfire in the morning."

Inside Corwin's home in the 400 block of Brightwood Street, detectives last week found, along with the assault weapons, a military ID, a bulletproof vest and a military-issue chemical weapons suit, prosecutors said.

"We were given information about his page by students and faculty, and we checked it and found what appeared to be automatic and military weapons," said sheriff's Capt. Ralph Webb. "When we searched his place, we found weapons stolen from the military."

Corwin was charged with five counts of unlawful assault-weapon sales, four counts of unlawful possession of assault weapons, two counts of possession of a deadly weapon and one count of receiving stolen property.

Webb said he does not believe Corwin planned any attacks on campus but is puzzled how the student leader amassed such an arsenal.

Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, said Corwin was "inactive Army Reserve" and had allegedly sold some of the weapons.

He was arrested Thursday afternoon after a sheriff's major crimes surveillance team got information supporting the tips about the weapons.

Though prosecutors obtained an order preventing Corwin from appearing on campus, investigators said the weapons posed more of a threat than he did.

His arrest caught by surprise friends and students who knew him as a strong but caring leader.

At East L.A. College, students said they knew Corwin was in the Army Reserve and was head of the campus' 2nd Amendment Club, which focuses on gun-rights issues.

"We didn't get into any details of his personal life. It was a 'don't ask, don't-tell' kind of thing," Lee said.

In October, Corwin was quoted in the student newspaper as urging the Associated Students board to spend $750 on parts to make a gun that could be used by students who could not afford their own. The board did not support the proposal.

On Monday, students wondered who will run the student union.

"Now we don't have an ASU president. Who is going to write the agendas?" said Brenda Lee, 21, who is studying to be a nurse.

MrTuffPaws
05-01-2007, 2:09 PM
Man, the possibility of getting taken down for sap gloves and throwing stars? Insane.

Librarian
05-01-2007, 2:14 PM
Not that it probably would of made a difference in this case, but at least it could expose them to the idea that just because something LOOKS like a 'machine gun' doesn't mean it is. And they should investigate further.

Of course, that would probably mean confiscating the weapon and having firearm 'experts' determine if it is a full-auto weapon. It would probably be a good idea to have some kind of documentation on hand explaining said gun is California Legal RIFLE, not full-auto machine gun.Just as a theoretical exercise, shouldn't investigation come before arrest?

I can understand "we don't know, so we're gonna take these until we find out"; proper response would be something like "OK, give me receipts and bring 'em back when you're done; I'll be here."

Or do I just not think like LE?

grammaton76
05-01-2007, 2:29 PM
"1 gr of powder that has fallen into the HP of my 77gr HPBT (explosive in bullet)"

That would be propellant. Black powder is an explosive, but smokeless is classified as only a propellant.

G-dude
05-01-2007, 2:30 PM
Just as a theoretical exercise, shouldn't investigation come before arrest?

I can understand "we don't know, so we're gonna take these until we find out"; proper response would be something like "OK, give me receipts and bring 'em back when you're done; I'll be here."

Or do I just not think like LE?

A LE officer here can answer that better.

That would be an "ideal" way it should work. However:

1. For an officer to consfiscate your weapon he may be legally required to charge you with something first.

2. He has no way of knowing wether you are in fact a legal gun owner or someone breaking the law. For example, he takes the gun, finds out it's actually an illegal machine gun, but the guy has split and was a Columbian Guerrilla leader.

Again, someone who actually knows how this works could answer that better.

The big problem here is, if you are innocent, you could rot in jail for months because of a prohibitively high bail until you are cleared.

More ethically, it seems, they should have charged him with less, or lower counts, allow him to make bail and then charge him with more serious counts if the circumstances can prove it. Of course they apparently thought the weapons he had were enough of a danger to throw the kitchen sink at him.

I also speculate the anti-authoritarian bent he displayed helped irk some people and want to teach him a lesson. If you saw that 'ATF' picture he had, I can bet someone saw that and thought, "Oh yeah, we'll see who the spider is after a weekend in County." Of course these are just the musings of a madman (me).

Tweak338
05-01-2007, 2:49 PM
wow that isn't a f'ing "SHURIKEN"
its a 4 bladed knife.. i see them at Armorgeddon in Oakridge mall all the time.

THROWING STAR

http://budk.com/images/250/BK878.jpg

Similar To BWO knife..
http://budk.com/images/250/VL03S_VL03B.jpg

Anyone can spot the difference..

Glasshat
05-01-2007, 2:51 PM
How can you tell from a picture if a rifle is full auto or if it belongs to the government?

FreedomIsNotFree
05-01-2007, 2:58 PM
How can you tell from a picture if a rifle is full auto or if it belongs to the government?

You cant. What are they going to do....arrest everyone that posts a picture of their rifle? Are they going to use the picture as a reason to secure a search warrant so they can determine if the rifle is full auto?

Its going to be very interesting to see what is done with the initial search warrant during the proceedings. I'm sure there will be a flurry of motions.

G-dude
05-01-2007, 3:04 PM
You mean sticks are illegal?

Seriously, what's the difference between a billy club and a short stick? How much woodwork do you have to do to a stick of stove wood to make it illegal?

Wooden Police batons and extendable, telescopic metal batons are ILLEGAL unles you are LE or an authorized security guard. IT IS A FELONY. Don't get caught with one if you're not authorized.

Wooden batons are a pretty dense, hard wood. They seem to hurt more than a baseball bat in a more compact, dense package. I had a chance to handle one once from a friend that was a security guard. Those things hurt!

I agree it's totally stupid. But imagine citizen protestors defending themselves against baton-wielding police using the same equipment. Why that would be (in that guy from Princess Bride's voice) INCONCIEVABLE!

pnkssbtz
05-01-2007, 3:14 PM
wow that isn't a f'ing "SHURIKEN"
its a 4 bladed knife.. i see them at Armorgeddon in Oakridge mall all the time.

THROWING STAR

http://budk.com/images/250/BK878.jpg

Similar To BWO knife..
http://budk.com/images/250/VL03S_VL03B.jpg

Anyone can spot the difference..

One is made from a SINGLE PIECE of metal, where the other is made from multiple pieces of metal and plastic, and has HANDLES.

G-dude
05-01-2007, 3:21 PM
I would much rather have an aluminum bat than a police baton.... a baton is short enough that I can disarm someone that has one.

I have absolutely no martial art or self-defense training, so I may not know what I'm talking about.

But in my limited experience:

Because a baton is short, I believe it makes it much harder to disarm someone, than with the wide swings and length of of a bat. Also, the T-handle at the end gives a good grasp for the wielder. If you grab the slippery black-finished shaft-end , he could just pull away and beat the **** out of you.

The baton can be used in forearm/elbow strikes, with the baton replacing your forearm. You can also use the small tip to make thrusting blows. I had an ex LE boss demostrate his technique to me.

Also, the baton's compact size and denseness requires much less wider swings than a bat to produce sufficient power. It is a very efficient, fearful weapon, IMO.

Then again, girls have kicked my *****. :p

erblo
05-01-2007, 3:21 PM
Hey what do you guys think of getting one of his friends on Myspace to post a comment on his page regarding the legality of OLL's and 1919's etc. Maybe some of these reporters that are exploiting his page will read something new.

whomper
05-01-2007, 3:22 PM
Anybody catch this from the LA Times article?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/po...ics-california

"We were given information about his page by students and faculty, and we checked it and found what appeared to be automatic and military weapons," said sheriff's Capt. Ralph Webb. "When we searched his place, we found weapons stolen from the military."
...
He was arrested Thursday afternoon after a sheriff's major crimes surveillance team got information supporting the tips about the weapons.

Kestryll
05-01-2007, 3:37 PM
Hey what do you guys think of getting one of his friends on Myspace to post a comment on his page regarding the legality of OLL's and 1919's etc. Maybe some of these reporters that are exploiting his page will read something new.

Guys, let's try to keep a fair bit of distance from the MySpace stuff.
The last thing we need to do is keep attention focused on non-essential and overly dramatic images, vids or comments.

I know we all want to do something but the best thing we can do is let the pros handle things and fill in or assist when asked to do so. Right now what weneed to do is keep a good signal to noise ratio and not let outrage and emotion take over.

simonov
05-01-2007, 3:51 PM
Are you sure about that?

What about this post made by you:

I can explain that!

Actually, you all did look a little foolish falling over yourselves proclaiming his certain innocence when you didn't even know what was going on.

I came to my revised conclusion as soon as I saw the charge sheet. I now agree with all of you the assault weapon charges are almost certainly bogus.

And I am pissed off if not frightened by how the warrant was issued, though I admit we don't have the whole story on that.

blacklisted
05-01-2007, 3:54 PM
I can explain that!

Actually, you all did look a little foolish falling over yourselves proclaiming his certain innocence when you didn't even know what was going on.

I came to my revised conclusion as soon as I saw the charge sheet. I now agree with all of you the assault weapon charges are almost certainly bogus.

And I am pissed off if not frightened by how the warrant was issued, though I admit we don't have the whole story on that.

I can't speak for everyone, but BlackwaterOPS' post history revealed a lot about his collection. Additionally, a lot of people here have dealt with him in person. If you combine all this with the myspace pictures and his military service, it seems to outweigh the "facts" in the media reports (IMO). Not everyone was just assuming that what he had was legal.

Kestryll
05-01-2007, 4:04 PM
I can explain that!

Actually, you all did look a little foolish falling over yourselves proclaiming his certain innocence when you didn't even know what was going on.


Actually I think most of what was posted was more along the lines of "I hope he's innocent and that's what I'm pulling for but we don't have enough info yet".

As I recall only a few people who know him directly actually said that what he had was legal and they are in a far better position to know than we are.

Regardless most of what was posted was speculation at best and served no one at the time.

G-dude
05-01-2007, 4:16 PM
Glen Avon:
NOW THE STUPID FEDS AND COPS HAVE FALLEN INTO THE CALGUNNERS' TRAP! NOW THEY HAVE A TEST CASE AND THEY WILL GET CASE LAW OVERTURNING ALL GUN CONTROL! Mua ha ha ha haaa!

Lol. That thread was actually pretty funny.

Regardless of where you stand politically aside from the 2A, or wether you liked or knew BWO personally, we should all be interested in this case because it can happen to any otherwise law-abiding gun owner.

It can also help all of us to know what to expect and be prepared beforehand.

Liberty1
05-01-2007, 5:27 PM
Meet the man leading the charge! Attorney Chuck Michel: http://trutanichmichel.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=10

colddeadhands
05-01-2007, 6:17 PM
his lawyer seems to know his stuff judging by his accomplishments and the articles he has written thats definitely going to help

M. Sage
05-01-2007, 6:29 PM
Wow... Reading that charges list shows how BS this is. A semi-auto 1919A4 can't be considered an AW. It's not listed, and it's not a rifle, pistol or shotgun, so SB23 doesn't apply. Wow, this is just a huge fishing expedition.

383green
05-01-2007, 6:51 PM
Ya know, it p*sses me off when an innocent person is charged with a crime.

It p*sses me off even more when a person is charged with a crime that shouldn't be on the books.

It p*sses me off the most when somebody is charged with a crime that never happened in the first place.

From what I've read so far, I'd bet a dollar (in Nevada, of course, in a state-licensed gambling facility) that BWO falls under all three categories. Twelve times.

:mad:

69Mach1
05-01-2007, 7:41 PM
Just saw the update. Holy sh**! Those charges of selling AW and machine guns are related to the 1919 group buy. This will come back to bite those MF's in the azz, because they're legal.

G-dude
05-01-2007, 8:07 PM
Those charges of selling AW and machine guns are related to the 1919 group buy. This will come back to bite those MF's in the azz, because they're legal.

Yup.

And also, if they were so sure those guns were "Machine Guns" wouldn't they have rushed to confiscate the ones he had sold and arrest the people who bought them?



Edit: Though in fairness to them, I imagine they would probably wait and see until the charges stick in this case before starting other 'spinoff' cases.

Kestryll
05-01-2007, 10:42 PM
Well that would explain the animosity h&r has shown in these threads towars BWO. And go a long way towards explaining the 'The charges have been filed so he must be guilty' posts as well.
I find it odd that while there is evidence on BWO's site of his Military MOS of MP the only thing that seems to be visible to some is his civvy side job. Somewhat less of an eye for detail then I would have hoped for given the crowd.

Then again, it is even for such as they that we work to retain our rights, both First and Second Amendment ones.

Kestryll
05-01-2007, 11:54 PM
Okay, it can be frustrating but let's not turn this thread in to something it's not.
This thread is about Matt and his situation not hitnrun. If we disagree with his postings, and I for one do, just don't give it the time, the effort or the justification of a response.

PistolPete75
05-01-2007, 11:55 PM
i'm ready to start picketing. tell me where and when.

rkt88edmo
05-02-2007, 7:43 AM
STOP, if you want to discuss other users besides BWO, other boards, and other threads do it somewhere else, not in this thread

stator
05-02-2007, 11:54 AM
Count 12 is worrisome.


COUNT 12
On or about April 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the crime of RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 496(a), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR CORWIN, who did unlawfully buy, receive, conceal, sell, withhold, and aid in concealing, selling, and withholding property, to wit, MILITARY IDENTIFICATION, MILITARY BADGE, MILITARY CHEMICAL SUIT, TACTICAL ENTRY, which had been stolen and obtained by extortion, knowing that said property had been stolen and obtained by extortion.


Usually, prosecutors do not like to add bad charges since it does not look good to a jury. It seems to me that the DA and his/her investigators at least confirmed his military ID as being valid. Are the DAs that incompetent down there - hold that question as I just remembered the OJ case.

Liberty1
05-02-2007, 1:20 PM
Count 12 is worrisome.



Usually, prosecutors do not like to add bad charges since it does not look good to a jury. It seems to me that the DA and his/her investigators at least confirmed his military ID as being valid. Are the DAs that incompetent down there - hold that question as I just remembered the OJ case.

The assistant DA only got the case on Monday morning. They generally give it a "look see" then file with the court. Based on the officer's report the assistant DA will file at an arraignment. Only very rarely does an assistant DA reject an officer's arrest report.

The two week arraignment delay, agreed to by Matt's private council and the DA, gives everyone time to get "educated" as to the law on these particularly confusing laws (even for DA's). I'm certain TMLLP are already on top of the law but they need time to form strategy. I'm not trying to defend the DA, but he, in filing charges has to rely on the officers report and photo evidence to be accurate descriptions as to why certain evidence makes it likely that Matt may have committed a felony. Keep in mind, that a felony arrest only requires enough evidence to form an opinion that one may have committed a felony, even if he did not.

Matt has "waived time" meaning that his right to a speedy trial is on hold until May 14th. If TMLLP can convince the DA in the next several weeks that those 12 felony charges will come back to haunt them politically and with legal liability, the DA may adjust the arraignment charges and thus bail could then be more reasonable.

In the mean time Matt is in one of the worst County Jails in the country. Its a stinking rotten over crowed disease festering hole not fit for a dog let along a man.

Here's the County Jail web site. Use "Matthew Corwin" to look him up.

http://www.lasd.org/inmate-information.html

Follow the links and you can get Matt's address for letters and even a link to send a care package. He won't get much info from the outside so I suggest for every time you post here you send him a letter. For those who have ever been in the service of our country you know how much a letter means when cut off from the world! He has now been in custody 6 Days with some the worst elements of society, its not a very safe place to be!

383green
05-02-2007, 1:34 PM
I'm not trying to defend the DA, but he, in filing charges has to rely on the officers report and photo evidence to be accurate descriptions as to why certain evidence makes it likely that Matt may have committed a felony. Keep in mind, that a felony arrest only requires enough evidence to form an opinion that one may have committed a felony, even if he did not.


I can only speculate here, but I think that if I was a DA and I was presented with a bunch of charges as obviously bogus (to somebody who understands firearms, that is) as the 12280(a)(1) charges for M1919A4s, I might get caught off guard the first time since it's not my area of expertise, but then I'd give those officers and their superiors the worst butt-chewing in the world to help ensure they wouldn't make that mistake again. If those officers/organizations displayed a habit of bringing me those kinds of BS charges, then I'd become predisposed to not take their word for future charges without some expert analysis of the evidence first. Charging a person with felonies for a crime that never happened, and in fact could not possibly have happened as claimed in the charges, is some seriously bad stuff. If I was a DA (and I presume here that I'd be a conscientious DA who took his job very seriously), I would be furious if I was misled into pursuing charges for a crime that never happened in the first place.

pullnshoot25
05-02-2007, 1:43 PM
My friend is becoming an LEO in Los Angeles very soon and I told him that if he ever has a gun question that he needs to call me first so I can tell him what the deal is, as most cops don't give a rat's dick about that kind of stuff (you know, people's rights and such...) I told him that if he suspects an illegal kitty killer that it is probably someone from kalguns.net and that their rifle is in legal configuration. I also gave him a rundown of the rules of Kalifornia. He has no clue as to all of them yet but I will educate him, as sure as I am an American.

Liberty1
05-02-2007, 1:45 PM
I can only speculate here, but I think that if I was a DA and I was presented with a bunch of charges as obviously bogus (to somebody who understands firearms, that is) as the 12280(a)(1) charges for M1919A4s, I might get caught off guard the first time since it's not my area of expertise, but then I'd give those officers and their superiors the worst butt-chewing in the world to help ensure they wouldn't make that mistake again. If those officers/organizations displayed a habit of bringing me those kinds of BS charges, then I'd become predisposed to not take their word for future charges without some expert analysis of the evidence first. Charging a person with felonies for a crime that never happened, and in fact could not possibly have happened as claimed in the charges, is some seriously bad stuff. If I was a DA (and I presume here that I'd be a conscientious DA who took his job very seriously), I would be furious if I was misled into pursuing charges for a crime that never happened in the first place.


The DA is not in the officer's/deputies chain of command. In the wake of VT much will be excused as "reasonable". I don't actually expect the DA will reduce charges at the new arraignment. A judge may do that at the preliminary hearing - the first time that evidence is reviewed by the court, and even then not likely but possible.

G-dude
05-02-2007, 1:49 PM
Count 12 is worrisome.

COUNT 12
On or about April 26, 2007, in the County of Los Angeles, the crime of RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY, in violation of PENAL CODE SECTION 496(a), a Felony, was committed by MATTHEW ARTHUR CORWIN, who did unlawfully buy, receive, conceal, sell, withhold, and aid in concealing, selling, and withholding property, to wit, MILITARY IDENTIFICATION, MILITARY BADGE, MILITARY CHEMICAL SUIT, TACTICAL ENTRY, which had been stolen and obtained by extortion, knowing that said property had been stolen and obtained by extortion.


Ignoring the firearms counts, this one and the sap gloves seemed at first to me to be the most troublesome. The 4-bladed, folding knife they call a 'shuriken' will be pretty easily dismissed IMO.




But let's think about those charges for a second. Let's 'break it down like James Brown':


Number One: I.D.'s
They are charging him, CHARGING him, for having HIS military ID. His ID FFS. Then his military badge? Is it a metal badge, or maybe his unit or cloth MP patch?

Assuming he was former Reserve Military MP, and it looks pretty credibly that he indeed was, those things would be ISSUED to him and he wouldn't need to 'STEAL or 'EXTORT them.

I mean, heck, I still have my "Lazer Tag" ID badge from when I was a kid, and I'm not a member anymore. Please, oh please, don't arrest me!


Number Two: "I'm Batman!"
Then we come to the "MILITARY CHEMICAL SUIT, TACTICAL ENTRY" which I'm assuming is ONE item.

I bet you most servicemen keep at least a couple of things from their issued uniforms/gear as mementos when they get out. Hell, I know I would try to keep as much as I could because I think military gear is just cool! And it would make a neat Show & Tell item for my children if I ever have any.

Since innocous crap like 'chemical suits' probably disappears often from time to time, probably not very many are charged WITH FELONIES(!) unless there is some other reason they don't like them and are just looking for ANYTHING to charge them with. Which is what I think is going on here.


Number Three: Extortion
Then we have the very sinister sounding "property had been stolen and obtained by extortion." Stolen? OK, maybe, sure. Extortion?? What did he do? Send a letter to the warehouse guy:

Dear Mr. PX/Depot guy,

I have kidnapped your Lasa Apsu dog. If you want to see him again alive, please forward a chemical suit to XXXX location tomorrow, or I will riddle your puppy with bullets with my M1919A4 Machine Gun.

P.S. Can you also send me my military ID? I forgot it in my bunk. K thx.

Signed,
Matt Corwin

No, to me "EXTORTED" here means: "Hey dude, you think I can keep that?" "Sure man, go ahead."



Conclusion
What I REALLY think happened, is that these charges were filed on the possibility that Matt was not really ever a Military MP and that he obtained these items, possibly from friends in the military, to impersonate or otherwise go around saying that he was military and, among other things, use that to legitimize his allegedly "illegal" weapons collection.

If Matt was a Reserve MP, any good defense lawyer could shred these charges, esp. in front of a jury, IMO. Especially if it turned out all said items were ISSUED.

G-dude out.