View Full Version : "CA's 58 DAs Decide?"
dfletcher
06-09-2007, 06:57 PM
This is perhaps a naive question, but how is it DOJ/BOF gets away with the "we can't tell you it's OK, check with your local DA" answer? This comes up whenever there is a question involving the various state wide AW laws.
I just caught the tail end of the Saiga legality question and along with the "series" misinformation, there was the old standard "ask your local DA" response.
Now I bet if someone calls the BOF and asks about bringing in 15 round mags or a late 70s model Python or a Ruger factory folder - or a Mac 10 with threaded barrel - they'd have no problem saying no.
Further, if a DA who live up north, say County of Jefferson area, decides a Ruger factory folder doesn't have a pistol grip or a Mech Tech carbine isn't an AW, will BOF let it stand? I doubt it.
This is perhaps a naive question, but how is it DOJ/BOF gets away with the "we can't tell you it's OK, check with your local DA" answer? This comes up whenever there is a question involving the various state wide AW laws.
I spoke with my local DA about that very issue some time ago. He said and I quote, "If it's OK with the DOJ it's OK with me"
M. Sage
06-09-2007, 07:12 PM
Because, especially in firearms (mainly AW) law, the DOJ is SUPPOSED to tell the DA's what's what.
Doesn't make sense that they can get away with it....
XDshooter
06-09-2007, 07:23 PM
Because, especially in firearms (mainly AW) law, the DOJ is SUPPOSED to tell the DA's what's what.
Doesn't make sense that they can get away with it....
That's total crap. The DA's are attorneys right? They should be able to interpret(a shame to have to word it that way) the law precisely, but unfortunately laws aren't so we(law abiding citizens) get the stick in the end.
Citizen: Is this legal?
DOJ: Ask your DA.
Citizen: Is this legal?
DA: Ask the DOJ.
WTF!
dfletcher
06-09-2007, 07:30 PM
If I recall, the SF gun ban was struck down on the basis of state pre-emption in the area of firearms regulation. I read Judge Warren's opinion and IIRC he referenced pre-emption as essential to avoid a patchwork of laws that could leave CA residents uncertain as to whether they were complying with or in violation of a law. Too bad we can't require that opinion be applied to AWs & eliminate BOF's standard response.
You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's almost as if the whole thing is being shoved under a table in hopes it will go away quietly or will resolve itself.
M. Sage
06-09-2007, 07:43 PM
That's total crap. The DA's are attorneys right? They should be able to interpret(a shame to have to word it that way) the law precisely, but unfortunately laws aren't so we(law abiding citizens) get the stick in the end.
Citizen: Is this legal?
DOJ: Ask your DA.
Citizen: Is this legal?
DA: Ask the DOJ.
WTF!
You're right, they are. But the DOJ is a state agency, the gun laws are state laws, and the DA's (supposedly) have enough to do wading through local statutes.
If it's not the DOJ's job to guide the 58 on gun laws, why do they employ Iggy, or the BOF for that matter?
Fjold
06-09-2007, 07:53 PM
Isn't that the essence of Hunt V CA, that the DAs cannot determine from the patchwork of idiotic laws and DOJ interpretations what is and isn't legal?
hoffmang
06-09-2007, 08:08 PM
This is much of Hunt but the litigation has strayed from that topic for now. It might go back. Either way, sooner or later BOF will likely have to answer to a judge on that line. They've had to answer it in Hunt and they danced a bit.
-Gene
1911su16b870
06-09-2007, 09:34 PM
http://ag.ca.gov/ag/
"The Attorney General also assists district attorneys, local law enforcement, and federal and international criminal justice agencies in the administration of justice. "
IMO AG should be assisting DAs with the current status of AWs in CA by officially providing the memo (or similar one) that is on calgun's site.
dfletcher
06-09-2007, 09:37 PM
I think the AG should tell Sacramento the current AW law is unenforceable and costly; and that he doesn't particularly care what gun you have so long as you can't fire more than 15 times without reloading - that would be a good compromise. Any gun you want, but no mags over 15 to include pre-ban. Simple and no more "we can't tell you if it's legal" from BOF. I'm assuming they can count to 16 and are willing to stand by their count of course.
M. Sage
06-09-2007, 09:59 PM
I think the AG should tell Sacramento the current AW law is unenforceable and costly; and that he doesn't particularly care what gun you have so long as you can't fire more than 15 times without reloading - that would be a good compromise. Any gun you want, but no mags over 15 to include pre-ban. Simple and no more "we can't tell you if it's legal" from BOF. I'm assuming they can count to 16 and are willing to stand by their count of course.
Forget the mag ban.. it's not reasonable, either.... A 15-round mag designed for one caliber could hold 16+ of another and function (if not reliably.)
Why even bother with "reasonable?" The AG should be a man and say "the truth? It doesn't help. It only makes life a PITA for law-abiding citizens and causes confusion among the LE community."
The only reasonable gun control is none.
adamsreeftank
06-09-2007, 11:49 PM
I think the AG should tell Sacramento the current AW law is unenforceable and costly; and that he doesn't particularly care what gun you have so long as you can't fire more than 15 times without reloading - that would be a good compromise. Any gun you want, but no mags over 15 to include pre-ban. Simple and no more "we can't tell you if it's legal" from BOF. I'm assuming they can count to 16 and are willing to stand by their count of course.
So your "compromise" is for me to lose my pre-ban mags? No thanks.
dfletcher
06-10-2007, 12:58 AM
So your "compromise" is for me to lose my pre-ban mags? No thanks.
I agree the AG should say this is foolish and a waste of time and resources. I don't see that happening in a state that just banned trans fats in restaurants and fines parents for smoking in the car with their kids.
I've got plenty of pre - ban mags myself. I'd prefer to keep them and have no lousy AW law. But if I had to turn them in & in return could buy FALS & folding stock Minis or ARs and new 15round mags - I'd be tempted.
Steyr_223
06-10-2007, 01:11 AM
I wonder if anyone email or sent a certified snail mail to Jerry Brown? He should rule if it's up to the 58 DA's or not. If it is great. If it's the CA DOJ great..
Just let it be known..
mastadonn
06-10-2007, 09:00 AM
As an alternative, if a friendly DA would submit the question to the AG's "Legal Opinion" section, the AG would have to respond to it through that formal process at some point.
mastadonn
06-10-2007, 09:02 AM
Another alternative would be to file a complaint through the Office of Adminstrative Law's "underground regulation" section. Use the States' own. beauracracy against them.
WokMaster1
06-10-2007, 09:15 AM
Or if you guys have all the letters from AM, Iggy & the gang from BOF that say to ask the 58 DAs & letters from the 58 DAs that say ask the DOJ & send them to Jerry Brown. Wonder what he'll say.
hoffmang
06-10-2007, 09:37 AM
Another alternative would be to file a complaint through the Office of Adminstrative Law's "underground regulation" section. Use the States' own. beauracracy against them.
I think that this strategy is going to be an interesting one.
-Gene
10TH AMENDMENT
06-10-2007, 02:55 PM
This is perhaps a naive question, but how is it DOJ/BOF gets away with the "we can't tell you it's OK, check with your local DA" answer? This comes up whenever there is a question involving the various state wide AW laws.
I just caught the tail end of the Saiga legality question and along with the "series" misinformation, there was the old standard "ask your local DA" response.
Now I bet if someone calls the BOF and asks about bringing in 15 round mags or a late 70s model Python or a Ruger factory folder - or a Mac 10 with threaded barrel - they'd have no problem saying no.
Further, if a DA who live up north, say County of Jefferson area, decides a Ruger factory folder doesn't have a pistol grip or a Mech Tech carbine isn't an AW, will BOF let it stand? I doubt it.
dfletcher:
Check out the following for a clarification on "The 58 DA's" canard:
The Deputy AG at the DOJ is giving incorrect and misleading information when responding to public inquiries as to the DOJ's ultimate authority to determine what is and is not legal under CA's AW statutes and case law.
AM, The Deputy AG, has stated unequivocally several times that the ultimate authority to determine AW legality lies within the patchwork of opinions of CA's 58 separate duly elected DA's. This is patently incorrect.
Here is an excerpt of an often repeated position issued by California's chief law enforcement officer in the Firearms Division of the CA DOJ:
Quote:
You should be aware, however, that the receiver may be illegal if it has any of the characteristics listed in Penal Code 12276.1. Also, a local prosecutor in one of California's 58 counties could decide to prosecute you for possession of an assault weapon, regardless of our opinion about the legality of the firearm.
This is blatently misleading. ARTICLE 5, SEC. 13 of the California Constitution directly contradicts this official position issued numerous times by the Deputy Attorney General of the DOJ's Firearms Division:
Quote:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 5 EXECUTIVE
SEC. 13. Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney General shall have direct supervision over every district attorney and sheriff and over such other law enforcement officers as may be designated by law, in all matters pertaining to the duties of their respective offices, and may require any of said officers to make reports concerning the investigation, detection, prosecution, and punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions as to the Attorney General may seem advisable.
Whenever in the opinion of the Attorney General any law of the State is not being adequately enforced in any county, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute any violations of law of which the superior court shall have jurisdiction, and in such cases the Attorney General shall have all the powers of a district attorney. When required by the public interest or directed by the Governor, the Attorney General shall assist any district attorney in the discharge of the duties of that office.
The absolute fact of the matter is that the Deputy AG of the CA DOJ's Firearms Division has the ultimate authority AND DUTY to determine the official position of California's 58 DA's on any and all of CA's AW statutes and case law.
Builder
06-10-2007, 11:22 PM
So is the "58 DA's" routine from AM legal malpractice?
Thanks,
Builder
dfletcher
06-10-2007, 11:32 PM
I think the game goes something like this:
US: Are pistol grips on a semi auto rifle with a detacheable mag legal?
BOF: No, they are not.
US: Is this a pistol grip? Is this a detacheable magazine?
BOF: I can't tell you that - consult your local DA.
It's like the guys wrote the "Who's on First" routine for Abbot & Costello.
I think the game goes something like this:
US: Are pistol grips on a semi auto rifle with a detacheable mag legal?
BOF: No, they are not.
US: Is this a pistol grip? Is this a detacheable magazine?
BOF: I can't tell you that - consult your local DA.
It's like the guys wrote the "Who's on First" routine for Abbot & Costello.
Local DA: If it's OK with BOF it's OK with me.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.