PDA

View Full Version : Did anyone else read this article?


ivanimal
07-28-2007, 10:56 PM
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060410/NEWS01/604100333

Pay close attention to what the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office and the Stockton Police Department say!
By Karina Ioffee
Record Staff Writer
April 10, 2006 6:00 AM

STOCKTON - Gun components that can be used to build assault weapons have flooded into California under a loophole in state law. The glitch has delighted some gun owners, who hope to register the weapons before any state legislation is passed barring their possession.

Frames of more than 30,000 AR- and AK-series guns have entered California, according to estimates from some gun advocates, and can be purchased from many weapons dealers in the state and online.

Assault weapons were banned across the country in 1994 and continue to be illegal in California, even though the federal ban expired in 2004. State legislation passed in 2000 expanded the definition of banned assault weapons to include any semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine if it has a pistol grip, flash suppressor or grenade launcher; and any semiautomatic pistol that can accept a detachable magazine if it also can accept a flash suppressor, forward hand grip or silencer. But nothing banned assault-weapon receivers - essentially the frame of a gun.

That created a gray area that many gun owners say is confusing. Gun owners who purchase off-list receivers - so called because they are not on the list of guns banned by the state - are not in violation of the law as long as they don't add the illegal components to the guns, said Randy Rossi, director of the Firearms Division of the attorney general's office. But they could be prosecuted by local courts that consider the weapons to be in violation of the ban, Rossi said.

The San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office and the Stockton Police Department both have said owners of off-list receivers are not breaking the law as long as they don't add illegal features as specified in the assault-weapon ban.

Receivers that technically could be built into assault weapons are legal in the state. Anti-gun groups fear that such receivers easily could be used to build weapons like the ones legislators banned. True assault weapons, such as fully automatic Uzis and AK47s, can fire up to 30 bullets in five seconds.

Four years ago, Stockton resident Darlene Berendt lost her 21-year-old daughter, Frances Corral, in a shooting on La Jolla Drive in central Stockton. Corral was dropping off a friend when a car drove by and one of its occupants peppered the home with more than 50 bullets from what Berendt believes was a semiautomatic gun. Corral, seated in her 1981 Buick, was struck and died immediately. The case remains unsolved.

"We don't need assault weapons. (It's) a trophy to put on your wall," Berendt said. "They are not for hunting but for killing people. They are for war."

The federal campaign to ban assault weapons was spurred by the 1989 Cleveland Elementary School shooting, in which Patrick Purdy walked onto the Stockton campus with an AK47 that held 75 rounds of ammunition. Purdy killed five children and injured 29 others and a teacher. Five years later, assault weapons were banned across the country, which gun-safety advocates lauded as a victory.

"It's really their killing potential," Alison Merrilees, legal counsel for the Firearms Division of the attorney general's office, said in explaining why assault weapons were banned. "The pistol grip allows them to be sprayed randomly. You can kill lots of people without having to reload."

A pistol grip gives a weapon more support and better positioning.

The receivers were first discovered by firearms agents at a Northern California gun show in November. Since then, lawyers for Attorney General Bill Lockyer have been studying legal options and expect to decide this week what to recommend to the Legislature.

"It's an uncertain legal situation," Merrilees said, adding that victims' rights groups have not pressured the state to update the law. "The only legitimate problem right now is confusion among gun owners about what is legal and what isn't legal."

The Brady Campaign, a national organization that advocates more-stringent gun laws, has not taken a position on the issue but is waiting to see what the attorney general's office decides, spokesman Peter Hamm said.

"Lockyer is extremely good on the gun issue, and we generally trust his office," Hamm said.

Gun owners are eager for the state to make a decision about the weapons, saying those who own the receivers are in a legal limbo. But the attorney general's office says gun laws are clear in spelling out what is and isn't legal and don't need to be updated.

Despite the quandary, gun owners are using the quirk in the law to their advantage, stocking up on the guns in anticipation of an eventual ban. Mike, a 21-year-old Stockton man who declined to give his last name for fear of being robbed, said he has two guns on AR15 receivers at home and recently ordered two more AK47 receivers from an out-of-state manufacturer.

"This is the cream of the crop," Mike said, adding that he uses the rifles to hunt squirrels and the occasional boar with his friends.

"If they were to do away with all guns, it would be better," he said. "But since they are not going to, I would prefer to be the one with the gun. I think I am responsible enough to own this gun and just feel safer knowing that I have it."

Berendt disagrees and thinks the way to deal with the recent dilemma is to update the legislation.

"You can't have one rule forever," she said. "You need to change laws with new technology."

Contact reporter Karina Ioffee at (209) 546-8279 or kioffee@recordnet.com

I feel this is agood article for us.

Ivan

Tweak338
07-28-2007, 11:04 PM
Good read.

And no "Spray from the hip without reloading" crap. I'm shocked..

ivanimal
07-28-2007, 11:10 PM
Good read.

And no "Spray from the hip without reloading" crap. I'm shocked..

"It's really their killing potential," Alison Merrilees, legal counsel for the Firearms Division of the attorney general's office, said in explaining why assault weapons were banned. "The pistol grip allows them to be sprayed randomly. You can kill lots of people without having to reload.


Did you not see this.:D

Socal858
07-28-2007, 11:14 PM
"If they were to do away with all guns, it would be better," he said. "But since they are not going to, I would prefer to be the one with the gun. I think I am responsible enough to own this gun and just feel safer knowing that I have it."

i give this one the dissapproving squinty face

Tweak338
07-28-2007, 11:18 PM
"It's really their killing potential," Alison Merrilees, legal counsel for the Firearms Division of the attorney general's office, said in explaining why assault weapons were banned. "The pistol grip allows them to be sprayed randomly. You can kill lots of people without having to reload.


Did you not see this.:D

thought it was too good to be true..
I skipped that on purpose i guess.

bwiese
07-28-2007, 11:21 PM
This was about all the media interest we could generate at the time - back when we had a small number of OLLs out there we thought we could get listed.

It's a difficult thing to write accurately about, too. A reporter is not a gun guy or a gun law guy - he writes about the price of baked good, welfare reform and car mileage. This is just another gig for him/her.

I was told the reporter that wrote the Capitol Weekly article (2-3 months ago, well-commented upon here) that he'll never do another gun article again. He was getting all sorts of calls all over the map, and the DOJ BoF was acting very weird - they wouldn't talk at all unless Calguns were specifically NOT mentioned. The reporter is still amazed that only a dozen or so folks really know a variety of details of the whole OLL saga (besides the basic gun tech stuff) and that this hasn't caught traction in major media.

ivanimal
07-28-2007, 11:21 PM
I know it was a good read till her name was mentioned.:mad:

bwiese
07-28-2007, 11:30 PM
It's really their killing potential," Alison Merrilees, legal counsel for the Firearms Division of the attorney general's office, said in explaining why assault weapons were banned. "The pistol grip allows them to be sprayed randomly. You can kill lots of people without having to reload.



I'm sorry, I do have to stand up for my girl Alison and cut her a break. (Hi, Alison!)

I do indeed think she's smarter than what that statement purportedly reveals.

I believe this statement's likely a misquote due to a transcription problem or a mixup from merging of two separate statements without any separation - the latter likely a function of an editor or copy editor.

jdberger
07-28-2007, 11:52 PM
I'm sorry, I do have to stand up for my girl Alison and cut her a break. (Hi, Alison!)

I do indeed think she's smarter than what that statement purportedly reveals.

I believe this statement's likely a misquote due to a transcription problem or a mixup from merging of two separate statements without any separation - the latter likely a function of an editor or copy editor.

It's still a beautiful quote. Almost worthy of a t-shirt.

And it doesn't matter much what the actual quote was. Like AlGore's "I invented the internet." this one will go down in history.

tiki
07-29-2007, 7:39 AM
"It's an uncertain legal situation [...]The only legitimate problem right now is confusion among gun owners about what is legal and what isn't legal."

Ha ha. I laugh everytime I read that. :)
The only legitimate problem is that the DOJ, which has the responsibility to, and I quote, "The Bureau of Firearms serves the people of California through education, regulation, and enforcement actions regarding the manufacture, sales, ownership, safety training, and transfer of firearms. Bureau of Firearms staff will be leaders in providing firearms expertise and information to law enforcement, legislators, and the general public in a comprehensive program to promote legitimate and responsible firearms possession and use by California residents." And they are not living up to that responsibility. There is no confusion among gun owners, there is fear. Fear of arrest for something that is not a crime and fear of having to spend money to prove your innocence and get your firearms back before they get destroyed.

The uncertainty lies with misinformed or uninformed law enforcement officers in this state, not with the informed gun owner. And, this uncertainty amongst law enforcement is caused by the DOJ not being leaders in providing firearms expertise in a comprehensive program, but instead by thier continual efforts to change what the law says and means.

There is no confusion about what is legal and what isn't legal, unless you don't read the law, don't think for yourself and belive the "opinion" letters issued by the DOJ. The statute is pretty clear. Even if the DOJ doesn't issue a letter echoing what their "expert" said in court, the fact still remains that a magaizine that requires the use of a tool to remove it is not a detatchable magazine. And, if you don't have a detatcable magazine, it is legal to have a pistol grip, flash suppressor and/or a folding stock. I didn't come up with this while sipping wine in Napa, I read it in the Booklet of California Firearms Laws.

If it was illegal, there would be massive, statewide arrests. Not the handful here and there that you see because some law enforcement officer wasn't familiar with the law.

I know what the law says, you know what the law says and the DOJ knows what the law says. Any arrest that is done by someone that knows the law is not being done to enforce the law. It is being done to continue to cause fear.

Any information given to the media contrary to what the law says is done to cause confusion among the uninformed.

fairfaxjim
07-29-2007, 7:49 AM
It's still a beautiful quote. Almost worthy of a t-shirt.

And it doesn't matter much what the actual quote was. Like AlGore's "I invented the internet." this one will go down in history.

What, Al Gore didn't invent the internet?? He did really invent global warming, right???? And a pistol grip doesn't allow OLL's to be sprayed randomly?? You can't kill lots of people without having to reload??? Wow, now I'm worried about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Seriously now, I think that as a few more OLL cases get dropped and, hopefully, one or two get won, you will see a lot more of the famous 58 and the LEO counterparts with the OLL friendly attitudes.

Dr. Peter Venkman
07-29-2007, 1:38 PM
A pistol grip sets sv_cheats 1 in the California Console.

tango-52
07-29-2007, 1:47 PM
You did notice that this article is dated April 10, 2006 didn't you? Regardless, don't be surprised if the BOF is furiously working away at rewriting their definitions and starting another legislative drive to outlaw what we have now. They just want to clear up those gray areas, don't you know. Not a real rewrite, so all those OLLs are still illegal, like they said all along. Don't assume that they have given up. Not until Parker is applied to California will we be safe. :mad:

Bad Voodoo
07-29-2007, 1:53 PM
I'm sorry, I do have to stand up for my girl Alison and cut her a break. (Hi, Alison!)

I do indeed think she's smarter than what that statement purportedly reveals.

I believe this statement's likely a misquote due to a transcription problem or a mixup from merging of two separate statements without any separation - the latter likely a function of an editor or copy editor.

Retraction/correction in order? That's a fairly damning statement that the grabbers would love to have printed on t-shirts for gawsh sake.

-voodoo

Bad Voodoo
07-29-2007, 1:55 PM
It's still a beautiful quote. Almost worthy of a t-shirt.

And it doesn't matter much what the actual quote was. Like AlGore's "I invented the internet." this one will go down in history.

Sorry, JD. Looks like I jacked your t-shirt quote. Should have read a bit further! :D

-voodoo

RANGER295
07-29-2007, 3:38 PM
I still have a clipping of this somewhere. I commented on it in the sticky. When that article first came out I read it to mean that they were ok with stripped receivers and asked a friend of mine who is a deputy about it. He told me that his supervisor told him that this was referring to stripped receivers. What do you guys think? Do you read that the same way? Has anyone else talked to any officials from San Joaquin? My dad knows the sheriff… maybe I should see if I could talk to him and get his take.

SemiAutoSam
07-29-2007, 4:25 PM
Who ever wrote this little picture blurb is a total moron IMHO.

How many errors can any of you point out.

Also someone please hotlink this so it displays correctly.


http://images.recordnet.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=SR&Date=20060410&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=604100333&Ref=AR&border=0&Q=80&maxW=600

.223
07-29-2007, 7:27 PM
A pistol grip sets sv_cheats 1 in the California Console.

I wonder how many here will get that ;)