PDA

View Full Version : What will come of this?


Cato
05-06-2007, 6:43 PM
The BWO arrest has got me wondering what affect will his case's outcome have for California gunowners. Worse case senario his guns ARE deemed AWs and his Prince 50s or whatever he was using are judged out of compliance. Nothing short of bare recievers or welded magwells will do. Best case, SB23 is overturned, certainly through appeals. I'm not a lawyer and have but a tenious grasp on California's gunlaws. What do you guys see as possible outcomes of his case?

SemiAutoSam
05-06-2007, 6:52 PM
A better education for the LEO's and DA's hopefully.

No this will not change a thing if they have a Bullet Button or My new MAG-LOCK® a Original design MAG-LOCK® , or a Prince50 Mag loc, A Monster Man grip ect they are in compliance with SB23 its the lack of LEO knowledge and lack of DOJ to send a bulletin to the DA's and LEO's that makes having a SB23 Compliant AR or AK, Etc somewhat risky.

Jicko
05-06-2007, 7:10 PM
its the lack of LEO knowledge and lack of DOJ to send a bulletin to the DA's and LEO's that makes having a SB23 Compliant AR or AK, Etc somewhat risky.

DOJ *did* put up a "notice", something that look official, but actually don't have ANY legal backings...... http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

According to this "notice", bullet-button, YOUR MAG-LOCK or any other mag-lock are illegal..... altho... there are MORE legal backings for any of those mag-lock THAN the above notice!!! (the law actually called "a bullet/round" a tool!!)

bwiese
05-06-2007, 7:16 PM
There is zero chance his guns will be found to be AWs.

It just takes time.

Gringo Bandito
05-06-2007, 7:28 PM
Is there any basis for a civil rights violation lawsuit by any of these folks that are getting arrested?

Bill - Do you know if any of these folks have been able to keep their rifle and them move forward on a factual finding of innocence to clean their record?

bwiese
05-06-2007, 7:57 PM
Is there any basis for a civil rights violation lawsuit by any of these folks that are getting arrested?

Bill - Do you know if any of these folks have been able to keep their rifle and them move forward on a factual finding of innocence to clean their record?

I do not know if folks submitted any factual finding of innocence.

I do know swimmingPoolGuy did get his rifle back from SJPD after filing LEGR papers.

Other folks agreed to a simple surrender of their rifles as part of the dismissal as a no-brainer financial decision: a $575 rifle vs. a few grand more of legal fees to get to the next stopping point in the case. In the OC dismissal about 5+ wks ago the DA even knew that the prospective defendant had another identical rifle.

SemiAutoSam
05-06-2007, 8:03 PM
That's a real purty memo. although completely devoid of authority and basis in law.

Ok so the DOJ says my lock is illegal and Evans welded up Roberti roos and Kasler listed AR15 rifles are legal.

If I had the $$$ I would push that issue through the court systems and see what is more legal an item that complies to the letter of the law or one that is banned by 2 CPC Statutes.

Since when did the DOJ have the right to negate the law as its written ?

I didn't notice any clause in Roberti Roos or Kasler that states its OK to possess a listed weapon if the mag well is welded up, did you ?




The Department of Justice (hereafter the Department) has received numerous inquiries from the public and firearms industry personnel about the legality of various AR-15/AK 47 “series” style firearms that have not been named by the Department as Aseries assault weapons. The Department believes that the public and law enforcement are best served by reference to the generic definition of assault weapons set forth in SB 23, rather than reliance upon a scheme of identifying assault weapons by name. Therefore, the Department will not update the list of “series” assault weapons. SB 23 has banned the possession, sale and manufacture of firearms with the characteristics of assault weapons as defined in California Penal Code §12276.1 since January 1, 2000. A semiautomatic center fire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any of the generic features listed in Penal Code §12276.1(a)(1) is contraband unless it was registered prior to January 1, 2001. It is illegal to manufacture, cause to be manufactured, distribute, transport, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give or lend such a weapon, except as permitted by law. Law enforcement officials, firearm dealers and the public should be aware that semiautomatic center fire rifles that are modified to be temporarily incapable of accepting detachable magazines, but can be restored to accommodate detachable magazines, are assault weapons if they have any of the features listed in §12276.1(a)(1). The Department intends to exercise its power pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.5(i) to adopt regulations as “necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent” of California law to ban assault weapons in the state. Individuals who own firearms that meet the generic definition of assault weapons banned by SB 23 must do one of the following in order to comply with existing law: remove the features, sell the firearm (without the features), or permanently alter the firearm so that it cannot accept a detachable magazine. It remains illegal to possess assault weapons banned by name (either in statute or regulation), unless those assault weapons are registered and possessed in accordance with state law. The time limits for registration, which depend on the make and model of the assault weapon, are set forth in Penal Code §12285.


DOJ *did* put up a "notice", something that look official, but actually don't have ANY legal backings...... http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

According to this "notice", bullet-button, YOUR MAG-LOCK or any other mag-lock are illegal..... altho... there are MORE legal backings for any of those mag-lock THAN the above notice!!! (the law actually called "a bullet/round" a tool!!)

Cato
05-06-2007, 9:57 PM
There is zero chance his guns will be found to be AWs.

It just takes time.


I just hope BWO doesn't take the "surrender rifle" option; I wouldn't blame him if he did. However, it would be ground breaking he put up a good legal fight for 2A rights.

five.five-six
05-06-2007, 10:41 PM
I just hope BWO doesn't take the "surrender rifle" option; I wouldn't blame him if he did. However, it would be ground breaking he put up a good legal fight for 2A rights.

if he does I understand, I would not wish this on anybody...well there are a few ;)

BWO is a stand up guy. he is the A II perfect scenario for a test case. He is a leader, smart, from what I understand from his postings, all his stuff is legal. what he has in his favor is that he does not have a family or mortgage riding on him. if he can stick it out, by sacrificing a semester or two, he will help free millions of Californian gun owners.. whatever his choice, I wish him well

tenpercentfirearms
05-06-2007, 11:22 PM
Losing one rifle is a lot different than the 8-9 they have and the fact that 5 or 6 of them are at least $1K each. Plus, with some funds coming in from us, I think he might find the time, energy, and money to do fight it. If he doesn't, I respect his decision either way as long as he gets off free.

G-dude
05-06-2007, 11:39 PM
Well, he's looking at 12 felonies. It's alot. If it goes to trial and they convict him of just one; say the sap gloves, you know, just to teach him a lesson and give him just probation, he loses his right to have guns for life.

If they offer to drop all the charges in exchange for his guns, a couple of grand in guns that he can replace later may be better than taking the chance of losing your right to have guns forever.

If they won't settle for anything less than pleading to a felony, then I would fight it. Felony conviction = no guns ever again. You can't even be around guns at all. That would suck.

Jicko
05-07-2007, 1:47 AM
I just hope BWO doesn't take the "surrender rifle" option; I wouldn't blame him if he did. However, it would be ground breaking he put up a good legal fight for 2A rights.

CATO: you go sit in jail for 2 weeks first..... then we can talk about this "hope he doesn't take this option"..... if I am in his shoe, and if I am given ANY options, I will opt out of jail right the way....

anotherone
05-07-2007, 2:24 AM
What I don't get is why are there are almost a zillion machinegun charges for the M1919. There are hundreds of M1919 kits out there and none of them are full auto. Have they just never seen one?

hoffmang
05-07-2007, 6:42 AM
BWO's current jail sit may end up being useful for him. Once the firearms charges fall away, he'll have a bargaining chip beyond rifle surrender (time served) to plea down anything left and avoid any consequences beyond the ones he's currently dealing with.

I hope he'll have the stamina to fight all the way. He seems the type. I'll understand if he doesn't, but I'm doing what I can to back his fight.

-Gene

simonov
05-07-2007, 9:18 AM
What I don't get is why are there are almost a zillion machinegun charges for the M1919. There are hundreds of M1919 kits out there and none of them are full auto. Have they just never seen one?

No, read the charges, they are assault weapon charges. Unless he had more than ten rounds on a belt, and the DA decides that makes every M1919 in his possession an assault weapon, the charges are almost certainly groundless.

As Bill says, conviction on the assault weapon charges is extremely unlikely.

This will likely all be pleaded down to misdemeanor weapons charges connected to the knife and the gloves. Whether or not he gets his guns back depends on how much of a ***** the DA (or police) wants to be.

fairfaxjim
05-07-2007, 10:23 AM
No, read the charges, they are assault weapon charges. Unless he had more than ten rounds on a belt, and the DA decides that makes every M1919 in his possession an assault weapon, the charges are almost certainly groundless.

As Bill says, conviction on the assault weapon charges is extremely unlikely.

This will likely all be pleaded down to misdemeanor weapons charges connected to the knife and the gloves. Whether or not he gets his guns back depends on how much of a ***** the DA (or police) wants to be.

I would guess, based on their actions so far, VERY VERY BIG ONES. Don't forget, there has been a lot of publicity around this arrest, and the DA probably won't be able to back completely off this one without having something to hold up. That is where I agree with hoffmang, the jail time served may be the best alternative bargaining chip. Just hope it gets applied to a reduced non-felony charge.

As to how BWO proceeds in this, that is his choice, completely. I will stand behind his right to make that choice, and will add absolutely no comment either way. If it was my decision, I would make the best one for ME!

Cato
05-07-2007, 5:10 PM
What I don't get is why are there are almost a zillion machinegun charges for the M1919. There are hundreds of M1919 kits out there and none of them are full auto. Have they just never seen one?

I'm guessing they never have. All these charges are a reality check for us here at CALGUNS. We (CALGUNS members) all know the laws; but the average Joe, let alone the average Joe DA, still think ARs and AKs were banned outright back in 2000. They probably saw the 1919 and just assumed that only the military can have such a weapon - semi auto or otherwise. "Weren't they banned back in the '30s?" Hey, look at all these stories about LEOs who ask people if they have a permit for this or that gun: including .38 revolvers.

Dump1567
05-07-2007, 9:00 PM
The problem I see, is that if he pleads down to a misd. for the PC 12020 items, he'll probably have a 10 year firearm prohibition as terms of probation.

SemiAutoSam
05-07-2007, 9:10 PM
I agree with your point and will add this would not serve justice.

Justice would however be served if those that accused him and the LEO's that arrested him spend time learning the law behind bars.


The problem I see, is that if he pleads down to a misd. for the PC 12020 items, he'll probably have a 10 year firearm prohibition as terms of probation.

spgk380
05-09-2007, 2:33 PM
The BWO arrest has got me wondering what affect will his case's outcome have for California gunowners. Worse case senario his guns ARE deemed AWs and his Prince 50s or whatever he was using are judged out of compliance. Nothing short of bare recievers or welded magwells will do. Best case, SB23 is overturned, certainly through appeals. I'm not a lawyer and have but a tenious grasp on California's gunlaws. What do you guys see as possible outcomes of his case?

I don't understand the relationship between a mag-lock being declared illegal and suddenly only bare receivers being allowed? So if a mag lock is illegal, then we all go to Plan B....the MonsterMan grip, or as a last resort, the SRB, right? We have backups for our backups. There is no legal requirement for "capacity to accept" a pistol grip, only a detachable magazine.

bwiese
05-09-2007, 2:42 PM
I don't understand the relationship between a mag-lock being declared illegal and suddenly only bare receivers being allowed? So if a mag lock is illegal, then we all go to Plan B....the MonsterMan grip, or as a last resort, the SRB, right?

The problem is, all tool-using mag attachments ARE legal.

If the DOJ wants to ban them or semiauto rifle configuration suites using them, these existing guns transition into AW status. They do not have authority to force folks to remove features from a non-AW prior to this, and they don't want to register new AWs. Russian & Chinese SKSes get affected too since their status transitions into an assault weapon too.

Thus this is a fatal unaddressed flaw in any proposed regulation (note I said regulation, not law) as this will have to be dealt with somehow at the Office of Admin Law level: those ultrapertinent issues can't be left mum or unaddressed.

In fact, the overfocus on fixed mags has led some ordinary DOJ line staff internally to be very skeptical about their leadership, since they feel it's driving people over to a more capable rifle, a MonsterMan/U15 rifle w/detachable mags - and which is in turn, they fear, driving illegal hicap mag mfg and/or acquisition. This is why I think the proposed regulatory redefinition is DOA - in addition to its flawed redefinition in the middle of the process, something banned by Gov Admin Code 11340...

spgk380
05-09-2007, 2:46 PM
The problem is, all tool-using mag attachments ARE legal.

If the DOJ wants to ban them or semiauto rifle configuration suites using them, these existing guns transition into AW status. They do not have authority to force folks to remove features from a non-AW prior to this, and they don't want to register new AWs. Russian & Chinese SKSes get affected too since their status transitions into an assault weapon too.

Thus this is a fatal unaddressed flaw in any proposed regulation (note I said regulation, not law) as this will have to be dealt with somehow at the Office of Admin Law level: those ultrapertinent issues can't be left mum or unaddressed.

In fact, the overfocus on fixed mags has led some ordinary DOJ line staff internally to be very skeptical about their leadership, since they feel it's driving people over to a more capable rifle, a MonsterMan/U15 rifle w/detachable mags - and which is in turn, they fear, driving illegal hicap mag mfg and/or acquisition. This is why I think the proposed regulatory redefinition is DOA - in addition to its flawed redefinition in the middle of the process, something banned by Gov Admin Code 11340...

Oh right, your talking about how the DOJ has been trying to add a new regulation saying that you have to weld all of your mags, but you can't register your existing fixed-mag builds as AWs....

Arg, why does the DOJ have such a blatant political agenda? I thought after the Alberto Gonzales thing, DOJs were supposed to strive to enforce the letter of the law and not play these games. Seems like Bill Lockyer thinks he's the judge/jury/executioner of CA, the enlightened despot, the dear leader, and he can freely substitute his judgment for the letter of the law. We can only hope Jerry Brown takes a somewhat more limited view of the role of AG.

Cato
05-10-2007, 5:58 PM
"Arg, why does the DOJ have such a blatant political agenda?"

What it boils down to is the DOJ (a defacto arm of liberal America) wants all firearms to disappear from the state. It will keep chipping away fully autos, Semi autos, all calibers bigger than .22. Soon those will be gone too. Want to see the liberal paradise of the future? Look to many European countries where Airsoft is banned or heavily regulated. We all know people who forbid their sons from playing with cap guns...even nerf guns. John Wayne bad; Elton John good.

Isn't the DOJ supposed to SERVE California gunowners? I would interpret that as giving us directions to the nearest gun store and offering safe handling courses to new gun owners.

hufffff....my rant is now complete

SemiAutoSam
05-10-2007, 6:35 PM
This statement makes me want to.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/images/emoticons/023.gifhttp://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/images/emoticons/023.gifhttp://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/images/emoticons/023.gifhttp://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/images/emoticons/023.gif




John Wayne bad; Elton John good.

Wulf
05-10-2007, 6:44 PM
John Wayne bad; Elton John good.

That's hilarious because I was on the range day before yesterday listening to listening to a pod cast of the Dennis Miller show under my ear muffs, and he was interviewing the actor Bruce Dern who is, apparently, the only actor who's character ever killed John Wayne's character on film. Dennis made some comment about how people must hate because of that. He says "Yeah, but to this day they love me in Berkeley!" I about AD'ed I was laughing so hard.

SemiAutoSam
05-10-2007, 7:08 PM
That is correct and the film was the Cowboys. I met Mr Wayne in person at the Cinerama dome in Hollywood when his film the cowboys premiered in 1972.
I might also add that he recognized me from 2 years earlier when the sail boat I was piloting crashed into his ocean side estate when I was all of 10 years old.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068421/


John Wayne played character Wil Andersen
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000078/

Bruce Derm played the character with the name Long Hair (Asa Watts)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001136/

That's hilarious because I was on the range day before yesterday listening to listening to a pod cast of the Dennis Miller show under my ear muffs, and he was interviewing the actor Bruce Dern who is, apparently, the only actor who's character ever killed John Wayne's character on film. Dennis made some comment about how people must hate because of that. He says "Yeah, but to this day they love me in Berkeley!" I about AD'ed I was laughing so hard.

hoffmang
05-10-2007, 10:42 PM
SAS has been a pirate from an early age...

-Gene

C.G.
05-11-2007, 2:03 AM
That is correct and the film was the Cowboys. I met Mr Wayne in person at the Cinerama dome in Hollywood when his film the cowboys premiered in 1972.
I might also add that he recognized me from 2 years earlier when the sail boat I was piloting crashed into his ocean side estate when I was all of 10 years old.
Good thing you didn't hit his boat. Allegedly, he liked it a lot.

NoTime2Shoot
05-11-2007, 8:23 AM
What do you guys see as possible outcomes of his case?


We're all going to jail. In TWO WEEKS! :p

SemiAutoSam
05-11-2007, 9:49 AM
Mr Wayne's Yacht was called the Blue Goose. I dont know if it was moored at his property at that time. But later it was moored here.
The Los Angeles maritime museum,
http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/d10e2041-c2e9-4685-92ae-1f2f53b32a39.jpg
http://www.lamaritimemuseum.org/. Which was previously the San Pedro ferry building as shown in the pic.

http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=33.738742&lon=-118.278408&z=20&r=0&src=aska

The property that I crash landed on is at the URL below or one on either side of it this is all from memory it looked a lot different 37 years ago and it also looked a lot larger.
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=33.61245&lon=-117.908255&z=20&r=0&src=aska
http://www.zillow.com/search/Search.htm?zpid=25136738


The property that I took off from was on Balboa Island at the spot shown below.
http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=33.607106&lon=-117.899788&z=20&r=0&src=aska
http://www.zillow.com/search/Search.htm?zpid=25137104



Good thing you didn't hit his boat. Allegedly, he liked it a lot.

spgk380
05-11-2007, 10:05 AM
"Arg, why does the DOJ have such a blatant political agenda?"

What it boils down to is the DOJ (a defacto arm of liberal America) wants all firearms to disappear from the state. It will keep chipping away fully autos, Semi autos, all calibers bigger than .22. Soon those will be gone too. Want to see the liberal paradise of the future? Look to many European countries where Airsoft is banned or heavily regulated. We all know people who forbid their sons from playing with cap guns...even nerf guns. John Wayne bad; Elton John good.

Isn't the DOJ supposed to SERVE California gunowners? I would interpret that as giving us directions to the nearest gun store and offering safe handling courses to new gun owners.

hufffff....my rant is now complete

Alright, well, I guess I better hurry up and make my millions so I can retire in Montana.

C.G.
05-11-2007, 10:44 AM
[quote=SemiAutoSam;607920]Mr Wayne's Yacht was called the Blue Goose. I dont know if it was moored at his property at that time. But later it was moored here.
The Los Angeles maritime museum,
quote (http://[/quote)]

Yes, I've seen it at moored at Balboa Island many moons ago, don't know if he kept it moored there permanently.

ljg17
05-17-2007, 11:09 AM
Now that several of the counts have been dropped, I think that the focus needs to be on the civil rights and selective enforcement of the laws. Specifically if BWO is convicted of a felony for the possession of the throwing star or weighted gloves, I would be very interested to see how many other cases involving a throwing star are prosecuted to that extent.

supersonic
05-21-2007, 11:49 AM
DOJ *did* put up a "notice", something that look official, but actually don't have ANY legal backings...... http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/AWpolicyrev4.pdf

According to this "notice", bullet-button, YOUR MAG-LOCK or any other mag-lock are illegal..... altho... there are MORE legal backings for any of those mag-lock THAN the above notice!!! (the law actually called "a bullet/round" a tool!!)

After reading the "memo", I realized something: NOTHING is PERMANENT! Meaning that any "permanately" welded or riveted fixed mag CAN be restored to "accept a detachable mag." All it takes is some creativity, mechanical know-how, and some tools (including ones of the "high-speed cutting"-type). Technically, you could "cut" out the closed magwell on a carbon15. Am I right or wrong?:confused:
S.S.

Jicko
05-21-2007, 12:02 PM
After reading the "memo", I realized something: NOTHING is PERMANENT! Meaning that any "permanately" welded or riveted fixed mag CAN be restored to "accept a detachable mag." All it takes is some creativity, mechanical know-how, and some tools (including ones of the "high-speed cutting"-type). Technically, you could "cut" out the closed magwell on a carbon15. Am I right or wrong?:confused:
S.S.

Exactly!! That's why "THE *notice*, something that look official, but actually don't have ANY legal backings......"

So, if u go by the law, need a tool = need a tool, either a dremel to cut open the magwell or a "bullet" to poke the button...

bwiese
05-21-2007, 12:04 PM
After reading the "memo", I realized something: NOTHING is PERMANENT! Meaning that any "permanately" welded or riveted fixed mag CAN be restored to "accept a detachable mag." All it takes is some creativity, mechanical know-how, and some tools (including ones of the "high-speed cutting"-type). Technically, you could "cut" out the closed magwell on a carbon15. Am I right or wrong?:confused:

You are right.

Furthermore, no definition of permanence was specified in the orig proposed regulation (May 31, with comment hearing Aug 16 2006).

The second roundabout - where the proposed regulatory definition was massively changed - produced examples but not a concrete definition of what was or wasn't permanent (i.e, time standard or level of tool/skill required).

I can't remember, but my comments for either or both of the Aug 16 2006 regulatory hearing and/or the Nov 2006 changing-horses-in-the-middle- of-the-stream 're-re-definition' did mention how easily the the approved Carbon15 closed magwell receiver could be rendered open with a simple cutting tool in a matter of a under a minute.

Even more importantly, the DOJ has approved the Vulcan fixed-mag receiver as a 'permanent' fixed mag. Which is rather humorous, since there are numerous reports that these mags can be manhandled out without any tools - the glue cracks and the little pin shears off with minor force. (The FFL vendor that panicked when this happened told me a passerby at his gunshow table had "gorilla'd" the mag out.)

Prior approvals by DOJ of rifles without permanent affixation of mags (the DSA California FAL and the Barrett M82CA rifles) also put the lie to permanence, as these fixed mags can be unscrewed. We also have the famous Iggy statement in Hunt saying that a mag attached with a screw is not considered to be a detachable magazine.

If the DOJ were to further assert this nonsense, they will have to declare these items (totally aside from the whole "SKS problem"!!) as assault weapons, which they can't do now (unless a court orders it) - or give AW 'permits' (not registrations) for these items. They cannot mandate folks to change, surrender or modify existing legally-acquired, legally-approved rifles.

It is very humorous that all the DOJ .PDF memos relating to OLLs and fixed vs detachable mags are unsigned.

hoffmang
05-21-2007, 12:56 PM
Bill,

FYI that the "official" introduction date of the proposed regulation was June 30, 2006 after it was posted on the AG's site on June 27, 2006.

-Gene

bwiese
05-21-2007, 1:04 PM
Bill,

FYI that the "official" introduction date of the proposed regulation was June 30, 2006 after it was posted on the AG's site on June 27, 2006.

-Gene

Ah yes, lost track. There was some init thing on May 31 IIRC, but that may not have been 'start of clock'.

Fjold
05-21-2007, 1:26 PM
That's hilarious because I was on the range day before yesterday listening to listening to a pod cast of the Dennis Miller show under my ear muffs, and he was interviewing the actor Bruce Dern who is, apparently, the only actor who's character ever killed John Wayne's character on film. Dennis made some comment about how people must hate because of that. He says "Yeah, but to this day they love me in Berkeley!" I about AD'ed I was laughing so hard.

:offtopic:
Although Bruce Dern is the only named actor to kill John Wayne in a motion picture, he was killed on film twice by unnamed Japanese snipers in "Sands of Iwo Jima" and "The Fighting Seabees" and once by an unnamed Mexican Lancer in "Alamo".

He was also killed by a giant squid in "Reap the Wind" but I don't know who the actor in the squid suit was. :D