PDA

View Full Version : Just had a RAA Saiga 7.62 confiscated by CA DOJ - What to do first?


buff_01
09-17-2007, 7:55 AM
Here is the basic chain of events:

1. I called a local FFL dealer to find out if this rifle was legal for me to buy: http://www.rrarms.com/catalog.php?prod=GIZ132

2. The FFL looked at it, and told me that it would be a legal purchase. I searched the state law and didn't find that it had any of the banned "assault rifle" characteristics, and that it was not on their specific banned gun list.

3. I ordered the rifle by mail, and had it sent to the above FFL here in San Diego county, CA. When it arrived, I filled out that paperwork at the FFL.

4. A few days into my 10 day waiting period, I was notified by the FFL that the CA DOJ had inspected him and that they had confiscated my rifle as a "type II assault rifle". He no longer is in possession of it.

---

I know after reading up on this the "Russian American Armory - Saiga 7.62" rifle is NOT legally the same as the banned "Kalashnikov USA - SAIGA". I am guessing that this is the pretext under which they grabbed it.

What should my first step be? I've never dealt with this stuff, and I JUST WANT MY GUN!

Thanks in advance for any advice offered.

SemiAutoSam
09-17-2007, 7:58 AM
Call A competent firearms attorney. and dont talk about the events on or offline to anyone until you have spoken to that attorney.

http://www.tmllp.com/

Los Angeles Office
180 East Ocean Boulevard
Suite 200
Long Beach, California 90802-4079
Telephone: (562) 216-4444
Facsimile: (562) 216-4445


Map Directions
San Diego Office
1081 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 208
San Diego California 92108-3601
Telephone: (619) 297-0770
Facsimile: (619) 297-0223


E-mail:
Haydee Villegas
Office Manager
hvillegas@tmllp.com


It looks to be the moral of this story is do not be in your 10 day waiting period when the DOJ does its inspection on your FFL.

Maybe its a good idea to inquire with the potential FFL when their last DOJ inspection was and how often they are inspected as to know when a TRANSFER is safe to do ?

Nefarious
09-17-2007, 8:16 AM
What FFL is this, there is anothr case on here just like what your saying. His was a private FFL though. 2 problems so far with a Saiga xfer... wonder if we will see more
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=69303

bwiese
09-17-2007, 9:00 AM
Please PM me with the gun shop's name/contact info ASAP.

The gunshop should get in touch with Trutanich-Michel ASAP too.

For them to assert a Saiga rifle is illegal must lead us to the conclusion the DOJ dude is asserting it's an "AK47 series" member - as it's certainly not SB23-prohibited by any configured features suite.

Harrott says "make and model". RAAC is a helluva different make than Kalashnikov USA. Different FFL for importation, markings, etc.

This is likely a problem with a contract DOJ person, seems some of their SoCal inspection guys aren't regular DOJ employees - perhaps they scrape them up from Labor Ready or Accountemps.

6172crew
09-17-2007, 9:00 AM
Paging Dr Wiese, paging Dr Wiese.:D

rkt88edmo
09-17-2007, 9:04 AM
Buff_01, hold tight.

Another Saiga of Significance has apparently been born.

rkt88edmo
09-17-2007, 9:05 AM
This is likely a problem with a contract DOJ person, seems some of their SoCal inspection guys aren't regular DOJ employees - perhaps they scrape them up from Labor Ready or Accountemps.

OMG WTF Seriously? are you joking about them using accountemps?

hoffmang
09-17-2007, 10:00 AM
Buff,

These DOJ memos are important as they show that the DOJ knew that RAA's are not on the list and they also never listed them.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/CADOJ-Listing_Memo-2005-12-20.pdf
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/CADOJ-Listing_Memo-2006-02-01.pdf

Bill and I own versions of these (including the one up for win for contacting the governor) so rest easy.

-Gene

buff_01
09-17-2007, 10:10 AM
Buff,

These DOJ memos are important as they show that the DOJ knew that RAA's are not on the list and they also never listed them.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/CADOJ-Listing_Memo-2005-12-20.pdf
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/CADOJ-Listing_Memo-2006-02-01.pdf

Bill and I own versions of these (including the one up for win for contacting the governor) so rest easy.

-Gene

Gene,

Thanks, I can clearly see that the DOJ was in the wrong, but what worries me is what I need to do to get it back from them without $$$$ in attorney fees!

hoffmang
09-17-2007, 11:06 AM
You should talk to an attorney at TMLLP as the first hour is usually on the house.

That said, worst case you'll need to submit a LEGR (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/legrinfo.php) and once you have the LEGR certification in hand, a letter to BoF that shows that the firearms are legal and they need to be released to you.

You also should lean on your FFL to hold BoF accountable with a lawyer as well.

-Gene

fast318
09-17-2007, 11:15 AM
buff_01, I just sent you a PM

JawBone
09-17-2007, 11:27 AM
If it were me (just telling you what I would do), I would immediately write a demand letter to Allison Merrilees and Jerry Brown (fax, mail, email, certified mail) reciting what happened, enclosing a copy of the Harrott decision and reminding them that:

1. Harrott was decided over six years ago by the California Supreme Court and as a regulatory agency the Bureau of Firearms is bound to uphold the laws of this State as interpreted by the highest State Court.

2. The Harrott decision clearly and in no uncertain terms states that for a firearm to be a listed assault weapon, it must be listed by make and model on the public list.

3. Since the beginning of the list and through he present date the RAA Saiga rifle is not on, nor has it ever been on on, any of the various public lists.

Demand return of your firearm to your FFL within 10 days or tell them you will be filing an action against the DOJ/BOF for declaratory relief [the court will declare the Saiga legal], injunctive relief [to will prevent further seizures] and mandamus relief [the Court will order the BOF to return your firearm].

In the alternative, and given the above, demand an explanation as to why and under what authority the firearm was seized.

My bet is that they will return your firearm to the FFL, rather than risk a State Court decision telling them that a Saiga is legal. Public knowledge/confirmation of off-list legality appears to be their worst nightmare, and thus their Achilles Heel.

That's what I would do, but that's just me - I a comfortable doing the above and following through. I'd be livid at this point if I were you (heck I am livid and I'm not even involved).

IMHO, the time for the "please may I have my perfectly legal rifle back, good sirs, that you illegally seized from me, pretty please.." is over.

I don't think you need a LEGR because you still have time on your wait and want it returned to the FFL, not you (but I could be wrong about that - don't know). Obviously the letter would be better coming from an attorney, but you know the cost/benefits of that.

-my two cents. rant over.

hoffmang
09-17-2007, 11:34 AM
I don't think you need a LEGR because you still have time on your wait and want it returned to the FFL, not you (but I could be wrong about that - don't know). Obviously the letter would be better coming from an attorney, but you know the cost/benefits of that.


You are correct that a LEGR isn't required for the firearm to be returned to the FFL. However, the LEGR process has a section (k) that allows one to recover legal fees.

-Gene

bwiese
09-17-2007, 11:36 AM
The Right People Know now.

Talking to FFL as soon as line's not busy.

fast318
09-17-2007, 11:38 AM
Thanks to all for your help!

JawBone
09-17-2007, 11:39 AM
You are correct that a LEGR isn't required for the firearm to be returned to the FFL. However, the LEGR process has a section (k) that allows one to recover legal fees.

-Gene

Good to know! That definitely makes a difference. :D

buff_01
09-17-2007, 11:45 AM
Thanks for your help, everyone. I really mean that.

slick_711
09-17-2007, 11:45 AM
The Right People Know now.

I love it when Bill says that.

This one should be in the bag as far as who is right and who is wrong, the involved DOJ stooge is apparently a bonehead. I'm curious to find out (when this is over) which FFL was involved here in San Diego.

I know we all just recently had an ATF/DOJ meeting and they gave us some know-it-all briefings and clarifications. One of the prominent local FFLs asked a whole bunch of questions and pissed them off, earning his shop a DOJ audit the next day. Fascist scare tactics... It'd be an unfortunate coincidence if your rifle seizure was a result of that audit.

fast318
09-17-2007, 11:52 AM
The ATF meeting was the day after the Audit.

slick_711
09-17-2007, 11:56 AM
The ATF meeting was the day after the Audit.

Oh? My info was a day late then I guess. I rarely go to the FFL in question being that I work @ a different SD FFL. Still that makes no sense.

tgriffin
09-17-2007, 2:40 PM
:lurk5: Looking forward to seeing how this one turns out. I hope this goes well for you and provides us ammo against the anti's.

Best of luck!

metalhead357
09-17-2007, 3:43 PM
tagging to watch.............

God I hate temps:rolleyes: I hope thats what it was............ trickle down knowlege can be a bad thing..........

Crazed_SS
09-17-2007, 3:59 PM
San Diego eh.. ruh roh :(

Im wondering if Said FFL was holding any OLLs and what the DOJ rep would have said about those.

Steyr_223
09-17-2007, 4:06 PM
Tagged. I may have a dog in this fight..

fast318
09-17-2007, 4:44 PM
San Diego eh.. ruh roh

Im wondering if Said FFL was holding any OLLs and what the DOJ rep would have said about those.

There was a complete Stag carbine with a Prince50 and 10rd mag that is still sitting there, no problems with that rifle.

Nefarious
09-17-2007, 5:07 PM
There was a complete Stag carbine with a Prince50 and 10rd mag that is still sitting there, no problems with that rifle.

So which FFL is this.. or do you not want to disclose that information

tenpercentfirearms
09-17-2007, 5:42 PM
There was a complete Stag carbine with a Prince50 and 10rd mag that is still sitting there, no problems with that rifle.

I avoid having these in the shop as I don't want one to suddenly be loose. I don't trust the DOJ at all. I wonder why that is.

fast318
09-17-2007, 5:56 PM
I don't want to tell who the FFL is yet, lets see how this situtaion turns out first.

niceguy
09-17-2007, 8:53 PM
It sure would be nice to see the DOJ screw the pooch so bad that they can never try this again... in some such way that a Saiga owner's response and victory would simply be a scripted affair. It's sounding that way now.

DOJ stepped in it, but they seem to be hoping that no one will notice. This is a case of "let's keep doing it to them until they wear out."

Some big dog needs to bite them in the @$$..... but HARD!!

69Mach1
09-17-2007, 9:10 PM
Unfortunately this is a pattern for them. First there was the Robinson M96 consfications. They got their a**es handed to them for that. Then there's the recent story of how they almost determined that Turner's Cali legal DSA FAL's were AW's, even though the DOJ approved them. Lets not forget that they were unable to even help the DA who was prosecuting the previous Saiga saga. What a bunch of clowns.

MonsterMan
09-17-2007, 9:26 PM
The DOJ didn't back off of the DSA rifles. I think now DSA has modified their rifles to make DOJ happy.

I wonder what that means for all the rifles that have been sold in the past. :rolleyes:

buff_01
09-18-2007, 1:39 PM
What changes was DSA forced to make to their FALs?

bwiese
09-18-2007, 1:47 PM
What changes was DSA forced to make to their FALs?

DSA really wasn't *forced* to change. They just decided to do so, with a small weld.

They already had an opinion letter from AG office (via Dept. AG Nancy Palmieri) saying it was legal (seeing http://www.Calgunlaws.com ).

DSA issues likely coulda been mitigated but they seemed not to rely go to our noted NRA lawyers at Trutanich-Michel, but kept using their out of state lawyers, who are less likely to know the 'lay of the land' and detailed matters of California regulatory law.

DSA frankly could decide, at any time, to not weld and use the screw-in method.

If DOJ BoF asserts otherwise, they are continuing to enforce an illegal underground regulation.

buff_01
09-18-2007, 2:02 PM
It's become quite clear just how important it is for gun owners and manufacturers to test the limits of legality. If we don't, then they will eat up our 2A rights inch by inch.

JawBone
09-18-2007, 2:13 PM
I see a big differnce in responding to a configuration seizure (I assume that is what the DSA case was) and a non-listed seizure. I can understand caution and dancing with the configuration issue because there are no court decisions, but I do not understand that tactic with the listed/un-listed issue.

The listed/non-listed issue is settled. Harrott was not some trial case in Modoc County (no offense Modoc). It was a California Supreme Court decision. And while I understand not spending $10K to get back your $350 rifle because you can replace it, what happens when the new rookie/contract agent comes for the replacement?

Someone needs to force feed Harrott to them and tell them the listed/non-listed fight is over and that they lost...six years ago.

I hope The Right People (I hope you are talking about State Legislators) get the message to them. Although I would rather the BOF face some public embarrassment over the matter than have a rookie agent get a slap on the wrist.

artherd
09-19-2007, 11:12 AM
DOJ seems to be begging for an 'education' of the financial sort as to just what Harrott means. Aparently their attorneys on staff full time are unable to figure it out.

JawBone
09-19-2007, 11:23 AM
I haven't been around long enough to know, but has anyone ever tried to get an "Attorney General's Opinion" on this issue?

If anyone does know a State Legislator who could demand one, I think it could be another way to settle this issue.

http://www.caag.state.ca.us/opinions/

ETA: Of course only after consulting with NRA and "The Right People..." I understand the United Front issue and the potential for making bad law. But if it were presented properly, an AG Opinion would be of MUCH better use than the "DOJ Letters" people have been asking for.

Grouch
09-19-2007, 11:33 AM
why the **** isn't there a class action law suit in regards to **** like this?

AKman
09-19-2007, 12:02 PM
I'm not sure if a ***** suit would ****** about the ****** where the ****** could actually ******* unintended consequences. Any **** suit would need to be ****** carefully to achieve the ******** desired results.

hoffmang
09-19-2007, 1:13 PM
JawBone,

Your thoughts are part of the arsenal. The Right People are planning on dealing with this.

I expect that this specific seizure will end pretty quickly and quietly.

-Gene

buff_01
09-19-2007, 1:50 PM
JawBone,

Your thoughts are part of the arsenal. The Right People are planning on dealing with this.

I expect that this specific seizure will end pretty quickly and quietly.

-Gene

I think (and hope) so. I have my own legal counsel beating the bushes as well.

TacFan
09-19-2007, 7:27 PM
Tag. Interested to see what happens.

kermit315
09-19-2007, 8:43 PM
same here. i have been reading the other saiga thread as well. let me know if i can help in any way.

jamie

swhatb
09-19-2007, 9:07 PM
For DOJ BOF to assert a Saiga rifle is illegal must lead to the conclusion there asserting it's an "AK47 series" type weapon....

here we go again!

metalhead357
09-20-2007, 4:31 AM
I think (and hope) so. I have my own legal counsel beating the bushes as well.



Might wanna drop a note to Bill....I dont know which is the better strategy~ several law firms all working towards this or just one "big" show from all of them working in unison........

WokMaster1
09-20-2007, 6:58 AM
Can someone offer the DOJ a refresher course on AWs identification? I wonder how many agents will show up.

What about a video on youTube? Start with the Harriot court decision & the "banned by make & model". Then the fixed magazine (maglocks), MMG, U-15 stock & BBs. ID all legal lowers, AK types & RAA Saigas. Finished off with Chuck Michel of TM saying if any LEO says otherwise, then confiscate &/or arrest you, call him.

buff_01
09-20-2007, 9:21 AM
Might wanna drop a note to Bill....I dont know which is the better strategy~ several law firms all working towards this or just one "big" show from all of them working in unison........

Yeah, we're in contact. I haven't heard from "The Right People" yet, so I started my own push as well.

daskraut
09-20-2007, 8:53 PM
I like the youtube idea, there is nothing like education for the masses!!, well done.

JCG
09-21-2007, 7:36 AM
Santa Clara County wasted allot of tax payers money on the same BS. Stick with it, you will prevail in the end

simonov
09-21-2007, 9:59 AM
Can someone offer the DOJ a refresher course on AWs identification? I wonder how many agents will show up.

What about a video on youTube? Start with the Harriot court decision & the "banned by make & model". Then the fixed magazine (maglocks), MMG, U-15 stock & BBs. ID all legal lowers, AK types & RAA Saigas. Finished off with Chuck Michel of TM saying if any LEO says otherwise, then confiscate &/or arrest you, call him.

Already in the works: How to Build an AR-15 In California Without Breaking any Laws. Coming soon to http://www.youtube.com/user/guntardnet

acousticmood
09-21-2007, 12:02 PM
Tag.

niceguy
09-26-2007, 5:05 PM
Further news?

SchooBaka
09-26-2007, 7:47 PM
Can someone offer the DOJ a refresher course on AWs identification? I wonder how many agents will show up.

What about a video on youTube? Start with the Harriot court decision & the "banned by make & model". Then the fixed magazine (maglocks), MMG, U-15 stock & BBs. ID all legal lowers, AK types & RAA Saigas. Finished off with Chuck Michel of TM saying if any LEO says otherwise, then confiscate &/or arrest you, call him.

I was reading through the guide to banned AW's the bof sends out to LEO's the other night, and came to the realization that the way it's worded, if the LEO did'nt read through the whole thing, he/she might not realize that the "series" firearms are actually defined by make and model towards the end of the 80 some page info guide.

hoffmang
09-26-2007, 8:07 PM
The AW Guide is hopelessly out of date and wrong as it says things that are not the correct case law after Harrot. The Guide hasn't been updated since Harrot was decided.

-Gene

MonsterMan
09-26-2007, 8:26 PM
The AW Guide is hopelessly out of date and wrong as it says things that are not the correct case law after Harrot. The Guide hasn't been updated since Harrot was decided.

-Gene

Isn't that an "underground" regulation right there? They are misleading everyone as to what the law really is by not updating the information?

That is almost as bad as putting out those "memos". :eek:

SchooBaka
09-26-2007, 8:28 PM
The AW Guide is hopelessly out of date and wrong as it says things that are not the correct case law after Harrot. The Guide hasn't been updated since Harrot was decided.

-Gene

Well, there ought to be a law then. One of the few good laws pertaining to firearms; the bof should be required by law to update there, er, laws. :stuart:

SchooBaka
09-26-2007, 8:33 PM
If they we're able to add the series definition, why couldnt they just take the word series out all together?
This is making my head hurt. :wacko:
Their intentions to confuse seem more than obvious. :mad:

Crazed_SS
09-26-2007, 9:25 PM
Isn't that an "underground" regulation right there? They are misleading everyone as to what the law really is by not updating the information?

That is almost as bad as putting out those "memos". :eek:

it's worse than the memos because Joe LEO might just flip to page 61 on the AW guide and see the picture of the Saiga and then look at your Saiga, and then you got a problem :(

wilit
09-26-2007, 9:43 PM
I think all these issues that are being brought up are why Hunt vs. Brown is going to be such an important case for CA. If it ever gets heard that is.

hoffmang
09-26-2007, 9:54 PM
Isn't that an "underground" regulation right there? They are misleading everyone as to what the law really is by not updating the information?

That is almost as bad as putting out those "memos". :eek:

It is an underground regulation, but we need to use the OAL sparingly and where it matters. It may matter here, but let me but the final bullet in the zombie of magazine permanence.

-Gene

buff_01
09-27-2007, 7:17 AM
No news. I don't think the NRA gives much of a crap about me, even though I am a paid member...

I have other counsel looking into this as well.

buff_01
09-27-2007, 7:30 AM
Also, the advertised law firm on this site has not replied to my emails.

scootergmc
09-27-2007, 7:33 AM
Pick up a phone and call them.

buff_01
09-27-2007, 7:50 AM
Pick up a phone and call them.

I'm ahead of you there.

KDOFisch
09-27-2007, 7:59 AM
I'm still a little confused-

Wasn't I just seeing five or six Saiga knock-offs on display and marked for transfer and sale at a gun store in OC this week?? I know it was a 'temp field agent' who confiscated the weapon but don't these guys talk to each other? :confused: How can one store get targeted and another just 40 miles away doesn't?

I know that it's the BoF, and they've got a bunch of red tape clogging everything, but I guess I'm just frustrated to hear dumb stories about botched FFL sales like this.

metalhead357
09-27-2007, 3:26 PM
Also, the advertised law firm on this site has not replied to my emails.


My guess is that since you already called them....you must remeber that ALL "justice" seeeeeeems to move exceptionally slow; the fact that you're NOT behind bars would undoubtedly translate to a lawyer as a lower priority as BWO's case.

I might be off base but that's my assumption.

Hang in there and keep calling.

fast318
09-27-2007, 8:09 PM
I too have e-mailed twice and called them with no response

buff_01
09-30-2007, 7:00 PM
If anyone here has detailed pics of a RAA Saiga, please post them. I need to know what language is stamped on the side of the rifle.

TIA.

bwiese
09-30-2007, 8:31 PM
The "make" of the rifle of concern is "Russian American Armory".
Its model is "Saiga".

The Kasler list (codified in 11 CCR 5499) only bans Saigas from Kalashinkov USA, and no other make/model combination - no more, no less.

The DOJ Firearms Division "Ferranto Commission" wanted to 'list' (i.e., ban by name) EAA (European American Armory) Saigas in its Dec 20 2005 internal memo, as item #8. This memo can be seen at http://calgunlaws.com/Docs/ASSAULT%20WEAPONS/Articles/commision%20changes.pdf

The 2001 Harrott decision disallows inference of series membership until the specific make/model combination is formally listed as banned (and a mandatory AW registration period opened).

The DOJ surrendered its ability to further 'list' new make/model combinations, beginning in 2007, due to AB2728 enactment in 2006. The 'list' of banned guns is frozen, and your prospective Saiga purchase is not on it.

If your dealer cannot deliver your lawful Saiga to you, he should refund your money (if you made a *purchase* thru him, as opposed to you merely using him as a transfer dealer).

There are many many other FFLs that sell Saiga rifles that have not been harrassed by DOJ in regards to this firearm make/model.

The costs of legal action against any party far exceed the cost of running down the street and DROSing another legal Saiga rifle from another dealer, especially as this appears to be a fairly isolated case.

You appear to have an unknowledgeable DOJ agent combined with a (possibly) weak dealer. The dealer is actually the one that should be talking to his attorney and/or CAFR (Calif Assn of Firearms Retailers), esp as two people are involved with two identical firearms that are now widely sold by other dealers.

PIRATE14
10-01-2007, 7:59 AM
Well.....it's mostly a waiting game to see if they (DOJ) actually want to do anything about it....or the local DA....

1) Could try and press charges.....not likely...

2) Nothing happens and you lose your rifle for up to 3 years....or forever...

I've heard rumors of a DOJ LETTER about the SAIGAs but haven't seen it yet myself.....

MrTuffPaws
10-01-2007, 8:40 AM
If anyone here has detailed pics of a RAA Saiga, please post them. I need to know what language is stamped on the side of the rifle.

TIA.

Here you go. SN# edited.

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h45/MrTuffPaws/CIMG1515.jpg
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h45/MrTuffPaws/CIMG1514_ed.jpg
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h45/MrTuffPaws/CIMG1513.jpg
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h45/MrTuffPaws/CIMG1512.jpg

bwiese
10-01-2007, 9:49 AM
Thanks MrTuffPaws.

Additionally, the caliber forms part of the model designation on RAAC's webpage. For example, we can see "Saiga 308" is indeed a model, not a separate model + separate caliber indication. Also, RAAC's own webpage lists "Saiga (7.62)" and "Saiga (.223)" as models.

The position of the numbers on the receiver really indicates that the caliber designation forms part of the model designator as well.

PIRATE14
10-01-2007, 10:32 AM
Thanks MrTuffPaws.

Additionally, the caliber forms part of the model designation on RAAC's webpage.
For example, we can see "Saiga 308" is indeed a model, not a model/caliber.
Also, their webpage lists "Saiga (7.62)" and "Saiga (.223)" as models.

The position of the numbers on the receiver really indicates that the caliber designation forms part of the model designator as well.

Correct the "SAIGA 308-1" is marked just like the one above as such and they have other models w/ further designations in thier catalogue......dash 2, dash-3.....

They are SAIGA 7.62x39 some further model designation dashes for skeleton stocks, longer barrels, pistol grips, etc....

They are SAIGA 223 some further dashes for skeleton socks...

They are marked Russian American Armory.....

The 308 have the nice stamped markings as compared to the needle type for the others.....

I don't see how they can take a legal stance on these rifles but.......

buff_01
10-01-2007, 3:45 PM
THANKS, MrTuffPaws!

Addax
10-01-2007, 4:53 PM
I have also heard about a memo today from DOJ-BOF regarding the Saiga Rifles as being considered an AW or illegal (or something to this effect, I have not read the memo, so I am going off of hear say right now), but it looks like the memo is making some folks just a tinge nervous....

Bill, Gene, or anyone in the know, have any idea of this memo?

I just heard about it today, about 1 hour ago.

Crazed_SS
10-01-2007, 5:51 PM
Is this what you're referring to?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=58021&highlight=california+saiga


This is in addendum to the information I recently sent you, concerning your question about the legality of the Saiga rifles. An official interpretation concerning the Saiga rifles has just recently been released by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms. The official interpretation by the California Department of Justice is that any Saiga rifle is a banned assault weapon in the state of California. The explanation of this is fully covered in the released interpretation, which reads as follows: .....

bwiese
10-01-2007, 6:02 PM
Addax,
Whatever you've heard is irrelevant.

I do think what you have heard is likely the same as what Crazed_SS posted a link to above.

The email opinion of DOJ BoF Staff Services Analysts Brett George has equal legal force to what my garbageman might write.

A glorified desk clerk does not have the ability to overturn Harrott "series" matters.

However, it sounds like another underground regulation :)

Addax
10-01-2007, 7:27 PM
Wow, I reached Post 666 on this one!

When I heard about this letter today, the first thing that came to my mind was that DOJ-BOF is trying to build something out of nothing, and I told the person who brought this matter to my attention exactly that.

I understand that they have no real legs to stand on, but it seems like (as you mentioned) that they are trying out some underground regulation, almost like they want to see how far they can take things, like testing the waters.

I understand that many people (including myself) do not hold the BOF in any high regards, and that they are not very bright, but that does not mean that they are not dangerous, even to themselves, and they will spend Tax Payers $$$ to try and prove that what they say is right and everyone else is wrong, even if the law(s) state otherwise.

What troubles me, is how in the heck can't anyone in the State Government let DOJ-BOF get away with this?

You, Gene and many others here on Calguns and outside of Calguns do so much for us, but I want to help and get involved where I can, when I can, and I am sure there are a ton of people on Calguns who feel the same.

This situation with the Saiga's I am sure is going to blow over, I am pretty confident about this based on all the info. I have read and collected thus far, but what about the next time.

Regards,
Addax



Addax,
Whatever you've heard is irrelevant.

I do think what you have heard is likely the same as what Crazed_SS posted a link to above.

The email opinion of DOJ BoF Staff Services Analysts Brett George has equal legal force to what my garbageman might write.

A glorified desk clerk does not have the ability to overturn Harrott "series" matters.

However, it sounds like another underground regulation :)

Addax
10-01-2007, 7:35 PM
When I heard about this letter today, the first thing that came to my mind was that DOJ-BOF is trying to build something out of nothing, and I told the person who brought this matter to my attention exactly that.

I understand that they have no real legs to stand on, but it seems like (as you mentioned) that they are trying out some underground regulation, almost like they want to see how far they can take things, like testing the waters.

I understand that many people (including myself) do not hold the BOF in any high regards, and that they are not very bright, but that does not mean that they are not dangerous, even to themselves, and they will spend Tax Payers $$$ to try and prove that what they say is right and everyone else is wrong, even if the law(s) state otherwise.

What troubles me, is how in the heck can anyone in the State Government let DOJ-BOF get away with this?

You, Gene and many others here on Calguns and outside of Calguns do so much for us, but I want to help and get involved where I can, when I can, and I am sure there are a ton of people on Calguns who feel the same.

This situation with the Saiga's I am sure is going to blow over, I am pretty confident about this based on all the info. I have read and collected thus far, but what about the next time.

Regards,
Addax



Addax,
Whatever you've heard is irrelevant.

I do think what you have heard is likely the same as what Crazed_SS posted a link to above.

The email opinion of DOJ BoF Staff Services Analysts Brett George has equal legal force to what my garbageman might write.

A glorified desk clerk does not have the ability to overturn Harrott "series" matters.

However, it sounds like another underground regulation :)

MonsterMan
10-01-2007, 7:48 PM
I kinda see how they are thinking. The list has Saiga listed on the same line as Kalashnikov separated by a "/" only.

If that is there rational, than that would mean that the "Bushmaster Carbon-15" would also be a listed rifle because it specifically says "Carbon-15" on the list. They have given the thumbs up for the Carbon-15 to be sold in CA.

There is no difference that I can tell between the two on the list. It says "Professional Ordnance, inc. Carbon-15" and the other says "Kalashnikov USA Hunter Rifle / Saiga".

If they damn one, they damn both. :eek:

I think that the letter of what they want to list is proof that it wasn't listed. If it was "listed" already, there would be no need to add it to the list.

bwiese
10-01-2007, 9:02 PM
They didn't say "Saiga (all)", either.

Also, Russian-American Arms Co. is the legal make of the unbanned gun(s).

But Kalashnikov USA is the make of the banned gun(s).

Addax
10-01-2007, 9:22 PM
If BOF is only concentrating on Saiga, then they are trying to insert that a Series with the Saiga name is illegal and considered an AW, which is an incorrect assumption on their part.

They can't use the Saiga name and now say that all Saiga's are not legal, they are siloing all Saiga rifles into a series, which from my understanding is something they lost the ability to do on December 31st, 2006 (if I am correct).

PIRATE14
10-02-2007, 6:47 AM
Well if they want to put the "LIST" to the court test.......it could backfire badly on them.........

45DAVID1
10-02-2007, 7:03 AM
Here is what I get from the photo's. It says made in Russia by Izmash with all the pretty proof marks around it. In my opinion RAA would be the importer of the rifles, not the maker. Maybe i'm wrong but thats what I get from it.

69Mach1
10-02-2007, 7:09 AM
All three companies are importers of the Saiga, which is made by the same Russian company. Unfortunately for BOF, the original Kalashnikov USA was listed as the manufacturer. If they had originally listed the correct make as Izmash than we would not have the opportunitly to own them. But as it stands, they (BOF) doesn't have a case according to their own laws.

69Mach1
10-02-2007, 7:21 AM
Also, if everyone at BOJ was on the same page, trying to consficate the Saigas, they would have just had to show up at any of the recent gun shows and taken them away from our favorite vendors. As a matter of fact, while at one of those shows I was given a flyer putting me on notice that local, federal (ATF), and DOJ agents would be amongst the crowd. Yet no consfications were heard of.

bwiese
10-02-2007, 9:02 AM
Note that Harrott says "Make and model", not manufacturer and model.

These new rifles are sold and labelled as Russian-American Arms Corp. Saiga 308s, Saiga 7.62x39s, etc. That's what the box on the shelf says.

Addax
10-02-2007, 12:37 PM
Note that Harrott says "Make and model", not manufacturer and model.

These new rifles are sold and labelled as Russian-American Arms Corp. Saiga 308s, Saiga 7.62x39s, etc. That's what the box on the shelf says.

What is identified as Make on a rifle?

45DAVID1
10-02-2007, 12:54 PM
Aren't make and manufacturer the samething just different words? ex... make: chevy, model: silverado. Now wouldn't chevy also be the manufacturer as well as the make?

arguy15
10-02-2007, 1:06 PM
Aren't make and manufacturer the samething just different words? ex... make: chevy, model: silverado. Now wouldn't chevy also be the manufacturer as well as the make?

No, General Motors would be the manufacturer.

45DAVID1
10-02-2007, 1:18 PM
Well hot diggity damn... I stand corrected. Good thing I don't own either because I can't even tell who the make and manufacturer are for them!

bwiese
10-02-2007, 1:28 PM
Aren't make and manufacturer the samething just different words? ex: make: chevy, model: silverado. Now wouldn't chevy also be the manufacturer as well as the make?

No, General Motors would be the manufacturer.

VERY good example.

What the user/buyer/dealer perceives as the make is the make too - that is, the "marketed make". Harrott is all about clarity and ease of identification.

Otherwise, since only 6-8 companies actually manufacture AR-type receivers those manufacturers would just be the ones listed.

Addax
10-02-2007, 5:20 PM
VERY good example.

What the user/buyer/dealer perceives as the make is the make too - that is, the "marketed make". Harrott is all about clarity and ease of identification.

Otherwise, since only 6-8 companies actually manufacture AR-type receivers those manufacturers would just be the ones listed.

Ah, that makes sense now. The Make is the company that produces/assembles/sells the finished product, where the Manufacturer is the company that produced a component (like a receiver), and not the final finished product like the complete rifle, unless the Manufacturer and Make are on in the same company legally by name.

So in the current situation with the Saiga rifles (as we all know), the Make and Model(s) are not listed by their legal designations/names on Kasler/Harrott.

PIRATE14
10-02-2007, 7:01 PM
Ah, that makes sense now. The Make is the company that produces/assembles/sells the finished product, where the Manufacturer is the company that produced a component (like a receiver), and not the final finished product like the complete rifle, unless the Manufacturer and Make are on in the same company legally by name.

So in the current situation with the Saiga rifles (as we all know), the Make and Model(s) are not listed by their legal designations/names on Kasler/Harrott.

RAA is the maker/importer....they pay the TAX.....

AZEX uses DCI...NDS-3 rcvrs....well after they complete the rifle and pay the TAX it's a AZEX-NDS-3...make/model......

thedrickel
10-02-2007, 7:27 PM
RAA is the maker/importer....they pay the TAX.....

AZEX uses DCI...NDS-3 rcvrs....well after they complete the rifle and pay the TAX it's a AZEX-NDS-3...make/model......

It's not still a DC Industries Inc. model NDS-3?

bwiese
10-02-2007, 7:34 PM
It's not still a DC Industries Inc. model NDS-3?

Given that it's sold by a mfgr as a AzEx rifle it may not be a DCI rifle.

AzEx is paying the Pitman-Robertson tax on assembled rifles, not DCI as they are the manufacturer of the rifle.

buff_01
10-05-2007, 2:56 PM
this is starting to get frustrating...

*haven't heard from "the right people" yet
*FFL won't lift a finger to help
*looks like the DOJ is going to just say the rifle is on-list and keep it. Waiting for confirmation on this.

bwiese
10-05-2007, 2:58 PM
this is starting to get frustrating...

*haven't heard from "the right people" yet
*FFL won't lift a finger to help
*looks like the DOJ is going to just say the rifle is on-list and keep it. Waiting for confirmation on this.

You need to put the hammer on the FFL. At worst he owes you a refund and he sorts the matter out with DOJ.

buff_01
10-05-2007, 3:00 PM
You need to put the hammer on the FFL. At worst he owes you a refund and he sorts the matter out with DOJ.

He told me he doesn't agree. So I will have to sue him if I want compensation from him. He claims that there is nothing he could have done to defy them taking the gun.

hoffmang
10-05-2007, 3:03 PM
Tell me (probably via PM) when you have something in writing from the DOJ BoF.

-Gene

bwiese
10-05-2007, 3:04 PM
He told me he doesn't agree. So I will have to sue him if I want compensation.

Bottom line, it's gonna take $500 of time/effort to try to get $250 back.

Go to another FFL and rinse, lather, repeat.

I think the reason the attorneys have not yet gotten really interested is that it's a solo violation by one idiot inspector for a cheap gun (i.e, cost of fighting way exceeds getting a new gun elsewhere).

I'm giving away a Saiga (thru FFL, w/10 day wait; see stickied post) for the person who can show he's called, written and faxed the governor's office the most - in relation to vetoing AB1471 and AB821. There's your chance!

buff_01
10-05-2007, 3:09 PM
Bottom line, it's gonna take $500 of time/effort to try to get $250 back.

Go to another FFL and rinse, lather, repeat.

I think the reason the attorneys have not yet gotten really interested is that it's a solo violation by one idiot inspector for a cheap gun (i.e, cost of fighting way exceeds getting a new gun elsewhere).

I'm giving away a Saiga (thru FFL, w/10 day wait; see stickied post) for the person who can show he's called, written and faxed the governor's office the most - in relation to vetoing AB1471 and AB821. There's your chance!


The problem is, that if they can do this to me, they will tell all their buddies and soon they will just tell their agents to make on-list decisions at will.

Not to mention I would think the NRA lawyers would have an interest in helping paid members out of binds like this. The value of the gun is not the issue here...

JawBone
10-05-2007, 3:10 PM
Small Claims (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/smallclaims/) filing fee is $30 (for a claim up to $1500).

Fill out the form, file it, hire a process server to serve him (better yet, have your friend go drop it off at the FFL). Ask for court costs (filing fee and service fee) as part of the judgment.

Addax
10-05-2007, 8:46 PM
The problem is, that if they can do this to me, they will tell all their buddies and soon they will just tell their agents to make on-list decisions at will.

Not to mention I would think the NRA lawyers would have an interest in helping paid members out of binds like this. The value of the gun is not the issue here...

If Buff has a valid case against DOJ-BOF (since no law has been broken), and his FFL is powerless or has wimped out to do anything about it, then maybe there is a way we can help?

I think Buff does have a point here, and even though it is just a $250 Saiga, what is to say that they (BOF) won't use this and possibly more single examples like this situaiton against another person, and that a DOJ - BOF agent can just get away with this... We are now empowering them and they will do this again and again if we let them. I also hate to think that the FFL is just going to do nothing to help.

Buff, Jawbone's recommendation is a good one, and you should look into this.

Guys any recommendations on how we can legally help Buff out?

artherd
10-06-2007, 1:33 AM
It will cost far more than the value of the gun to fight for it.

I just droped over $5k EACH on a few lowers worth a few hundred at most; and I'm not even done yet. (however my issue should prove to be more complex than yours.)

FIGHT it, no matter the cost. That is the only way the law-abiding can triumph over those who would abuse their authority under color of law.

TKM
10-06-2007, 8:21 AM
Should we know who this dealer is now?

Crazed_SS
10-06-2007, 9:02 AM
Bottom line, it's gonna take $500 of time/effort to try to get $250 back.

Go to another FFL and rinse, lather, repeat.

I think the reason the attorneys have not yet gotten really interested is that it's a solo violation by one idiot inspector for a cheap gun (i.e, cost of fighting way exceeds getting a new gun elsewhere).

I'm giving away a Saiga (thru FFL, w/10 day wait; see stickied post) for the person who can show he's called, written and faxed the governor's office the most - in relation to vetoing AB1471 and AB821. There's your chance!

Is that really a solution though?

Personally, when I buy a gun, I dont buy it thinking that one day it could just abitrarily be taken away.. probably the reason I dont have any Off list guns. Not everyone here is well off and $250 + fees is a lot of money to just write off.

Addax
10-06-2007, 1:15 PM
It is not a $250 Saiga or a $99 Off list Lower, or a $2000 HK Off List Rifle, it is the fact that the DOJ-BOF is going to get away with this, and I don't think it is wise to let them, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, but so far I have not heard or seen anything compelling to say lets just let this one go...

Buff's situation could happen to anyone of us at anytime, so why should we let it happen now to Buff (who is one of us)?

If this exact situation happend to me, (and I did not do anything wrong), I would spend $$ to fight it.

The principle of the matter what counts the most, not the fact that it will take possibly a couple of thousand dollars to do what is right, and fight and win this battle.

I will put my money where my mouth is, and if there is a legal case built on this situation, I will donate some money to help out, because it is the right thing do.

Unless someone can show me where Buff is wrong or has broken the law, he is the victim here, and I suggest we try to help him, especially since this is going to happen again and again to others if we do not help to put a stop to the DOJ-BOF in these types of situaitons.

Where is the NRA in this situation with Buff? Can't they also lend a helping hand or legal consultation?

buff_01
11-08-2007, 11:40 PM
should be an update on this in the next few days... I have been in contact with a DOJ agent down here. I have no idea what he's going to tell me, other than that the message I got from him said "this has come up elsewhere recently".

I'll be back with the news.

In the meantime I got a SKS for all that 7.62x39 ammo I had for the SAIGA :)

buff_01
11-08-2007, 11:41 PM
Where is the NRA in this situation with Buff? Can't they also lend a helping hand or legal consultation?

Addax, thanks for the support, and NO, I have not had so much as a phone call from the NRA.

LECTRIKHED
11-09-2007, 6:46 AM
I'm not too happy with the NRA either right now. They don't seem to be taking care of their California members. I know this is going to get tons of hate mail, but this is how I see it. No need to explain to me how I'm actually wrong, I've already heard the "behind the scenes" action.

duenor
11-09-2007, 7:08 AM
Buff, Addax:

I have more guns than I can appreciate. I'm sure many of you are in the same happy predicament. I also have enough ammunition to keep me happy for quite some time. My means are modest, but my needs and wants are humble. At this juncture buying a new gun or more ammo would be akin to heaping more icing on the cake.

If you choose to fight this, I'll personally kick in $100 of my ammo money and I'll do what I can to help you raise funds as well. Challenging the BOF is court, however minor a court, beats any armchair posturing I might otherwise engage in online.

Kev

WolfMansDad
11-09-2007, 8:11 AM
AB2728 is a great stop-gap measure. Before that law was passed, the penalty for having an unregistered assault weapon could be greater than the penalty for murder, and that was ridiculous. However, when the DAs begin to confiscate perfectly legal rifles under it, they are violating their own laws and need to be reined in.

"Lather, rinse, repeat" is certainly better than "go to jail for a long time and lose your rights forever," but it ought not to be our default response. We need a scorched-earth policy on confiscation of legally-configured rifles. I'm happy to help fight one of these cases.

Edited to add: The NRA will probably only step in once we demonstrate we can win this fight without them. They only like to take on cases where they know they can win. That's not as bad as it sounds at first. It's actually a good strategy for them, if you think it through. They are a lobbying organization, and their political muscle depends on their reputation. If they pick a losing battle and get egg on their faces, that undermines all their future efforts. No, I wouldn't ask them to step in at this point, and I will welcome them later on when the time is right.

buff_01
11-09-2007, 4:43 PM
SAIGA owners beware.

I spoke with the agent in charge of the confiscation and they are claiming that the RAA SAIGA 7.62 is the same rifle as the one on the list, and are claiming that Kasler and Harrott support their position. (They are claiming it is a "Type 2" on-list rifle) I asked for legal clarification and he said that he can have someone from their legal team call me on Monday.

They are saying that they have run into this before and claimed that it is on-list, which I have not heard of up till now.

If anyone on the board has NRA contact numbers to movers and shakers, I would appreciate it.

bwiese
11-09-2007, 4:44 PM
AB2728 is a great stop-gap measure. Before that law was passed, the penalty for having an unregistered assault weapon could be greater than the penalty for murder, and that was ridiculous. However, when the DAs begin to confiscate perfectly legal rifles under it, they are violating their own laws and need to be reined in.

You are unclear. No DA has ever used AB2728 as a pretext for taking a rifle.

They've done that before 2728 existed. They'll try it again.

Few if any DAs even know it exists unless a defense atty refers them to it mid-case.

It is an alternate resolution path to AW possession charges, and does not apply to non-AWs.

bwiese
11-09-2007, 4:45 PM
SAIGA owners beware.
I spoke with the agent in charge of the confiscation and they are claiming that the RAA SAIGA 7.62 is the same rifle as the one on the list, and are claiming that Kasler and Harrott support their position. (They are claiming it is a "Type 2" on-list rifle) I asked for legal clarification and he said that he can have someone from their legal team call me on Monday.

Buff_01, please PM me and Gene Hoffman ('hoffmang') with full details when you receive them.

JawBone
11-09-2007, 4:50 PM
Tell them you would like the explanation in writing.

bwiese
11-09-2007, 4:53 PM
Tell them you would like the explanation in writing.

Very good point. Do NOT accept phone answers from a phone clerk.

Get it in writing (US mail best, Fax OK, email not as good).

buff_01
11-09-2007, 5:11 PM
Tell them you would like the explanation in writing.

Great point, I will do this.

Addax
11-09-2007, 5:23 PM
Buff,

Thank you for the heads up!

I am sure that Bill and Gene will give you a big assist/guidance in this situation.

I hate to think that the DOJ is going to try and circumvent the established written law here, or at least try and develop their own interpretation of it...
If the rifle is off list by make and model, it is off list, end of story.

I think we have all established that piece here already.

What is DOJ saying that this is a type 2 on-list rifle is troubling to me...and I am sure others.. I am going to spend some time tonight reading through my documentation again and going on-line, I am sure we have not missed anything here... Maybe DOJ is trying to build a case around this, and is hoping that Buff will just give up the rifle along with others and go away...
Maybe they are going after low hanging fruit in their minds that they can easily take, again in their minds....

I think we know better.

Gents (Buff, Bill and Gene), please keep us posted when it is safe to do so on this situation.

duenor, you are a gentleman sir!

I made the commitment before, and I will make it again, if this is something that requires some legitimate legal action to take care of this situation, and funds need to be raised, I will pitch in what I can to help.

Addax

JawBone
11-09-2007, 6:52 PM
Buff,

If you don't get some timely assurances from "TRP," I spoke to a couple attorneys I know about this case. They would be willing to help out with representation in the way of phone calls and letters to the DOJ pro bono (donate their time) in efforts to get your property back.

They are in the Bay Area (not SD), but it shouldn't make much difference for initial efforts. They are familiar with the issues. If your (or others') efforts do not pan out, PM me if you want their contact info, or to speak with them to get their thoughts.

There is no question DOJ is in the wrong here. No one should have to bend over for the DOJ, even if it is a $300 rifle.

Fourteenth Amendment:

No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....

-JawBone

CavTrooper
11-10-2007, 6:32 AM
How this is allowed to go on is amazing to me. It needs to get seriously painful for the folks who commit these violations of citizens rights. When they start losing thier carrers and thier assests over these false confiscations and arrests then they might think twice about iunderstanding the laws!

Addax
11-14-2007, 10:54 PM
Any word on this situation regarding DOJ trying to classify the EAA Saiga as Category 2 rifle?

buff_01
11-15-2007, 4:09 PM
I'm still getting the runaround... Don't know if he will be of any more help than the guy down here was (none at all).

Addax
11-15-2007, 4:27 PM
Ok, thanks Buff, please keep us posted.

I think that the agent is dazed and confused....

bwiese
11-15-2007, 4:28 PM
I'm still getting the runaround... Just got the contact info for yet another Agent, apparently a Senior Agent up in Sac. Don't know if he will be of any more help than the guy down here was (none at all).

Buff, you have mail.
The Right People wanna talk to you. Keep dialling til you get thru, things have gotten real busy :)

Wyatt
11-15-2007, 4:37 PM
Any word on this situation regarding DOJ trying to classify the EAA Saiga as Category 2 rifle?


For argument sake, speaking purely hypothetically, say you legally purchased a RAA Saiga and the DOJ later classifies it as a cat 2? What are the ramifications?

Smokeybehr
11-15-2007, 4:47 PM
For argument sake, speaking purely hypothetically, say you legally purchased a RAA Saiga and the DOJ later classifies it as a cat 2? What are the ramifications?

Off the top of my head, wouldn't AB2728 kick in, where they can't add anything else to the list?

bwiese
11-15-2007, 4:51 PM
For argument sake, speaking purely hypothetically, say you legally purchased a RAA Saiga and the DOJ later classifies it as a cat 2? What are the ramifications?

DOJ *cannot* newly classify it as a Category 2. That stopped the beginning of this year - they surrendered ability to do that starting Jan 1 2007 with the advent of 2006's AB2728 becoming active. They can no longer add to the 'series' list, nor can they pet

They may only try to assert it's covered by prior Cat 2 definition of another make/model firearm, which can't be done (despite their idiotic bluster). They'd be trying to create a new Harrott-prohibited 'series' with a nonidentified member that they can't create due to 2728.

Also current RAAC Saiga rifles' actual model identification includes the caliber: you thus describe these rifles as "Saiga 308", "Saiga 762x39", "Saiga 223", along with the new "Saiga 100".

Wyatt
11-15-2007, 4:56 PM
Thank you Sir. :)

Addax
11-15-2007, 8:12 PM
They (DOJ-BOF) are so far off base trying to live in the past using old/outdated/ laws to try and do this with the Saiga rifles...

Looks like they are trying to make the laws work by association they see Saiga and automatically think series Cat 2 under Kasler vs. Lockyer.

Funny that they have not been successful with OLL AR's.... Looks like they are not learning anything...

I think they are trying to go after what they might think is low hanging fruit, but they have not case here...

Our Tax $$ are paying for these guys....





DOJ *cannot* newly classify it as a Category 2. That stopped the beginning of this year - they surrendered ability to do that starting Jan 1 2007 with the advent of 2006's AB2728 becoming active. They can no longer add to the 'series' list, nor can they pet

They may only try to assert it's covered by prior Cat 2 definition of another make/model firearm, which can't be done (despite their idiotic bluster). They'd be trying to create a new Harrott-prohibited 'series' with a nonidentified member that they can't create due to 2728.

Also current RAAC Saiga rifles' actual model identification includes the caliber: you thus describe these rifles as "Saiga 308", "Saiga 762x39", "Saiga 223", along with the new "Saiga 100".

DHiggmo
01-10-2008, 11:28 AM
Any new info on this?:TFH:

hoffmang
01-10-2008, 12:07 PM
I'm waiting for a window of time to expire later this month and then there may be more news.

-Gene

caduckgunner
01-10-2008, 12:15 PM
I'm waiting for a window of time to expire later this month and then there may be more news.

-Gene

What he means is "2 MORE WEEKS" :D

Soldier415
01-10-2008, 12:16 PM
What he means is "2 MORE WEEKS" :D

:eek::eek::eek:

:TFH:

bruss01
01-10-2008, 2:34 PM
So did this guy get a 2a lawyer involved or NOT?

IMHO without involving a lawyer this is going to go nowhere.

hoffmang
01-10-2008, 3:11 PM
bruss,

This is being dealt with by The Right People. The specific case may not yet be being handled by an attorney but the general case of the one DOJ individual causing issues most certainly is.

-Gene

monkey
01-10-2008, 3:35 PM
Not to sound apocalyptic, but if DOJ insists that this is a Type 2 AW, then where are the resultant charges? I would think Importation would be forthcoming, the dealer would be in violation for receiving a Type 2 AW, etc.

Hopi
01-10-2008, 3:37 PM
Not to sound apocalyptic, but if DOJ insists that this is a Type 2 AW, then where are the resultant charges? I would think Importation would be forthcoming, the dealer would be in violation for receiving a Type 2 AW, etc.

Doesn't matter what they "insist", the letter of the law, and judicial interpretation is on our side.

monkey
01-10-2008, 3:54 PM
Doesn't matter what they "insist", the letter of the law, and judicial interpretation is on our side.

Right, but if they truly believe that this is an AW, then why would they not file charges on the buyer or seek to close down the FFL on an administrative violation?


I'd also think that if the FFL thought his license was at stake, he'd be more willing to help.

bwiese
01-10-2008, 4:18 PM
Right, but if they truly believe that this is an AW, then why would they not file charges on the buyer or seek to close down the FFL on an administrative violation?


I'd also think that if the FFL thought his license was at stake, he'd be more willing to help.

This is FUD by one DOJ staffer, Bob Bertholtz (spelling?) I don't even think he's an agent.

It'll get cleared up. Otherwise Gene & I can have some fun with OAL and underground regulations ;)

Smokeybehr
01-10-2008, 4:31 PM
This is FUD by one DOJ staffer - I don't even think he's an agent.

It'll get cleared up. Otherwise Gene & I can have some fun with OAL and underground regulations ;)

Again? :D

hoffmang
01-10-2008, 6:05 PM
There are so many underground regulations exposures at DOJ. The sad part is its not worth pursuing them all because we want to keep OAL willing to listen to us.

-Gene

FlyingPen
01-15-2008, 1:22 AM
Damn... looks like I'll be delaying my Saiga order then...

PIRATE14
01-15-2008, 6:31 AM
Damn... looks like I'll be delaying my Saiga order then...

I wouldn't.....

There weren't any rifles actually taken......they were instructed not to xfer the rifle.......that DOJ would get back to them......guess what.....nothin happened......;)

Soldier415
01-15-2008, 6:55 AM
DOJ would get back to them......guess what.....nothin happened......;)

It will happen in two weeks...

FlyingPen
01-15-2008, 11:12 AM
So I was about to order one today from DDsranch and have it delivered to Unique Pawnbrokers in San Diego... should I wait of? It sounds like I might be out $260 for nothing if I can't actually take possession of the gun.

cj cake
01-15-2008, 12:15 PM
Order the guns! I just got two more from DD's.

Scarecrow Repair
01-15-2008, 12:19 PM
So I was about to order one today from DDsranch and have it delivered to Unique Pawnbrokers in San Diego... should I wait of? It sounds like I might be out $260 for nothing if I can't actually take possession of the gun.

I got mine a week ago. Order yours or you'll never get it.

FlyingPen
01-15-2008, 12:39 PM
Yeah, I just ordered one in 223. I may order one more in 308 if everything goes smoothly and I like the gun. DDSranch told me they're all going up a $100 soon.

Soldier415
01-15-2008, 12:57 PM
Yeah, I just ordered one in 223. I may order one more in 308 if everything goes smoothly and I like the gun. DDSranch told me they're all going up a $100 soon.

How soon? Like a definate soon...or a "two weeks" soon?

FlyingPen
01-15-2008, 1:01 PM
No idea.

WokMaster1
01-15-2008, 1:35 PM
This is FUD by one DOJ staffer, Bob Bertholtz (spelling?) I don't even think he's an agent.

It'll get cleared up. Otherwise Gene & I can have some fun with OAL and underground regulations ;)

Crap! now their janitors are getting into the game.....?

Scarecrow Repair
01-15-2008, 5:23 PM
How soon? Like a definate soon...or a "two weeks" soon?

My FFL told me they went up Jan 1st. Since he only orders them when someone wants one, he would see the price increase right away. Those who keep some in stock could hold the price down until they start selling ones bought after the increase. That may be what DDSranch and CWS are doing.

Kali_M14
01-22-2008, 6:48 AM
has there been any resolution to this?

vinny_land
01-22-2008, 8:32 AM
thats kinda scary to know because i just ordered one from DD's Ranch last Thursday. :(:confused:

hoffmang
01-22-2008, 12:46 PM
Though I'm not sure of the resolution for the OP yet, I can tell you that quite a few have been purchased and delivered in the intervening time period.

-Gene

cj cake
02-01-2008, 8:11 AM
any more news on this?

deleted by PC police
02-25-2008, 8:34 PM
Holy crap, that's a long 16 pages to read. I hope all is going well, my buddy is about to order his saiga.

hoffmang
02-25-2008, 8:46 PM
He'll be fine. Much has been done behind the scenes to make this particular lunacy end.

-Gene

1911A-1Fan
02-26-2008, 11:53 AM
Props to Gene.

buff_01
03-14-2008, 5:30 PM
Just checking in here, no progress has been made yet, and the rifle I purchased is still not in my hands. I'll update again when there is any news.

dustyboots
03-14-2008, 9:23 PM
I just stumbled on this thread and read the whole thing. Thanks for the update b01 even though it's not good news :(.

Peashooter
03-14-2008, 9:39 PM
WoW!:icon_bs:

hoffmang
03-15-2008, 11:12 AM
buff_01 - you have a PM. I didn't know you didn't have your Saiga back and can help you out.

-Gene

Matt C
03-15-2008, 12:13 PM
Yeah, the government does NOT like giving guns back that it took away for no reason. :mad:

CavTrooper
03-15-2008, 1:03 PM
When its so easy to take the guns away without anyone putting up a fight (wash, rinse, repeat) why wouldnt they keep on taking them, even when they know they are legal.

newtothis
03-15-2008, 1:10 PM
When its so easy to take the guns away without anyone putting up a fight (wash, rinse, repeat) why wouldnt they keep on taking them, even when they know they are legal.

Yeah, this the main problem I see in our delimma. We know what to do to comply with the (fubar) laws but we can't stop leo from deliberately (or through ignorance - unintentionaly), costing us a substantial amount of money to fight the charges and retrieve our completely legal firearm.

hoffmang
03-15-2008, 1:22 PM
We're going to be bringing the fight (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=91565) to them now.

-Gene

newtothis
03-15-2008, 2:03 PM
I gathered something like that was the case based on some earlier posts by yourself and others. Really looking forward to it. :D

Peashooter
03-27-2008, 1:48 AM
:cool2::jump:

buff_01
03-28-2008, 3:44 PM
GREAT NEWS everyone, I brought my gun home today.

After months of waiting in the FFL dealer's safe, I guess I pestered the DOJ so much that they called him and told him to release it to me. Of course they did so with no apology or admittance of wrongdoing.

Thanks so much to all who offered advice and assistance with this matter!

thedrickel
03-28-2008, 3:58 PM
GREAT NEWS everyone, I brought my gun home today.

After months of waiting in the FFL dealer's safe, I guess I pestered the DOJ so much that they called him and told him to release it to me. Of course they did so with no apology or admittance of wrongdoing.

Thanks so much to all who offered advice and assistance with this matter!

That's great news, congratulations. You fought the BOF, and the law won. :hurray:

Teletiger7
03-28-2008, 4:09 PM
:jump::party:

This looks to be more evidence that Saigas are totally LEGAL according to the law.


GREAT NEWS everyone, I brought my gun home today.

After months of waiting in the FFL dealer's safe, I guess I pestered the DOJ so much that they called him and told him to release it to me. Of course they did so with no apology or admittance of wrongdoing.

Thanks so much to all who offered advice and assistance with this matter!

Cobrarlc
03-28-2008, 4:25 PM
Congrats!:cool2:

Fjold
03-28-2008, 4:36 PM
Congratulations Buff, that's great to hear!

aplinker
03-28-2008, 4:39 PM
GREAT NEWS everyone, I brought my gun home today.

After months of waiting in the FFL dealer's safe, I guess I pestered the DOJ so much that they called him and told him to release it to me. Of course they did so with no apology or admittance of wrongdoing.

Thanks so much to all who offered advice and assistance with this matter!

Just wanted to say I'm really glad you hung in there and didn't give up hope. You should know this result is a big deal to a lot of us as it gives a tangible statement about the legality of the RAAC Saiga.

The DOJ told his FFL to give him his rifle. It's not the DOJ said, "Do what you want, but you might have 56 DAs," but, "Yeah, you're gonna need to give him the rifle."

Thanks for being an inspiration and model of patience and perseverance.

QuarterBoreGunner
03-28-2008, 4:46 PM
Outstanding; another Calguns success story.

Harrison_Bergeron
03-28-2008, 6:48 PM
The rifle was at the FFL this whole time? I thought it was confiscated.

buff_01
03-28-2008, 8:32 PM
The rifle was at the FFL this whole time? I thought it was confiscated.

It was held at the dealer awaiting DOJ pickup. So, in effect, I was not allowed to take my property that I paid for and legally obtained = confiscated.

Xerxes
03-28-2008, 8:35 PM
It is really good you have your lawfully owned property back.

The arrogance of government employees just really ticks me off be it at the post office that closes his window after you walk up to it and set your package down or the obese fellow who has beatan a well worn track across your lawn and bushes for his shortcut to your mailbox from your neighbors mailbox, or the very fat and diabetic DMV ladies that yack and yack while eating cup cakes and dropping crumbs everywhere while they ignore you and the line grows 6 miles long , or the police that make more money each year than the Chief in San Francisco, or DOJ that are nothing more than gun grabbers bradyites carrying a badge, or the $200,000 a year fireman in Vallejo saying they can not afford a paycut while the city goes bankrupt, or the $130,000 a year BART station attendant that never even finished the sixth grade and only gives you a dirty look when you ask for assistance, or the state assemblyman supporting the eminent domain purchase of your house at below market value for the new mall against your will, or on and on and on.....

They are all pig headed stubborn and will waste the taxpayers money by the dump truck load to defend a statement or position they took even after it becomes overwhelmingly clear they are in the wrong.

No problem, they have an unlimited budget as when they need more money to fight you with they have but to raise our taxes and pass bond measures.

I am convinced that government employees were those nerdy snotty kids in school that got beat up all the time and had their milk money stolen every instance. When they grew up they could not get a job anywheres because they wanted to hang outside and smoke all day or watch TV or play internet all day or do Nintendo all day so were repeatedly fired from every job they had till they got a government job.

Unfortunately the government is the only industry that does not serve the customer, but instead the customer serves to please the government. In private industry if an employee makes a mistake and hurts the customer they are required to apologize and make good else the boss/owner fires them. If the boss/owner don't recognize the need to make right/good then the customer fires them and stops giving them money and the business goes out of business.

We pay the government for a service, unfortunately those nerdy snot noses become employees and take revenge on society by being *****s. When you complain about service they simply raise taxes to fund campaigns against you for being a criminal. Sounds allot like Tibet now doesn't it?



......now on a separate note...

If they confiscated that SAIGA on the grounds that it is the ugliest semi-auto in America and that it took American jobs away because it was made with Chechen children orphaned slave labor overseas then maybe they might have some legal standing!:eek:

http://www.rrarms.com/cat_images/GIZ132.JPG

Sorry me bad, I could not resist!:43:

I will go wash my mouth out with soap now and repeat one hundred times on the black board that I should be a good forum member.

Anyways I am glad the good guys won one and hope we can repeat this in Washington!:D

RRangel
03-28-2008, 8:47 PM
I'm glad you got your property back. It looks like hanging in there was worth it.

C.G.
03-28-2008, 10:11 PM
Good news, the end of the saiga, no, saga.

ARBITER
03-28-2008, 10:12 PM
Good to hear. Did they give it back because they didn't want a court case, or management change at BOF.

tombinghamthegreat
03-29-2008, 3:02 PM
I am glad you got the saiga. I was a little worried because i just got one and i was wondering if the CA cops would try to take it. Send an email to Fienstien to let her know that the ban in CA still allowed you to get a semi auto rifle;)

savageevo
03-29-2008, 4:53 PM
Thanks to Gene Hoffman and BWiese, they help put a stop to this. Now going back to Genes Link to the Foundation. Everyone should really look into this. I am waiting till they can start doing a automatic direct deposit every month.

robitrocks
03-29-2008, 8:25 PM
Congrats on getting the Saiga back! Yet another Calguns victory!

69Mach1
03-29-2008, 8:46 PM
Congratulations on getting back your property.

bugaw69r
03-30-2008, 12:01 AM
So let me get this right, after rigerously reading all those heartfelt pages, and absorbing all the pertinent details im still confused.

It is LEGAL to order and be able to own the elusive saiga 7.62x39 and its other caliber variants as pictured a page back, in California right?..........(WOOHOO!!!!):) can anyone refer me to an ffl dealer that has attempted this in the sacramento area.

tonelar
03-30-2008, 12:32 AM
the RAA Saigas are available for sale in the PRK. A dealer in grass valley has them in 7.62x39, 5.56 Nato (223) and 7.62 Nato (308).

DV8
03-30-2008, 8:53 AM
Buff, who was the dealer? Do you know if they are still going to accept Saigas?

bugaw69r
03-30-2008, 5:09 PM
Buff, who was the dealer? Do you know if they are still going to accept Saigas?

the RAA Saigas are available for sale in the PRK. A dealer in grass valley has them in 7.62x39, 5.56 Nato (223) and 7.62 Nato (308).

bump!
Can you pm me the info on the dealer aswell.

Spyder
03-30-2008, 6:15 PM
Oh! Me too! I want one...and I'm only thirty minutes away!

Crazed_SS
03-30-2008, 6:51 PM
Im pretty sure it's the same dealer mentioned in the thread here..
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=76750&highlight=gussler%27s

vf111
03-30-2008, 9:34 PM
....or the police that make more money each year than the Chief in San Francisco, or DOJ that are nothing more than gun grabbers bradyites carrying a badge, or the $200,000 a year fireman in Vallejo saying they can not afford a paycut while the city goes bankrupt, or the $130,000 a year BART station attendant that never even finished the sixth grade.....


I'm in the wrong line of work....

bugaw69r
03-31-2008, 10:39 PM
bump!
Can you pm me the info on the dealer aswell.

Originally Posted by tonelar
the RAA Saigas are available for sale in the PRK. A dealer in grass valley has them in 7.62x39, 5.56 Nato (223) and 7.62 Nato (308).

Any info on this one? It mentions Grass Valley,Ca^^^^^^ or any in the nor-cali area.

Z ME FLY
03-31-2008, 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by tonelar
the RAA Saigas are available for sale in the PRK. A dealer in grass valley has them in 7.62x39, 5.56 Nato (223) and 7.62 Nato (308).

Any info on this one? It mentions Grass Valley,Ca^^^^^^ or any in the nor-cali area.

I know people say Saigas are available at Irvington Arms in Fremont... You might wanna try there or maybe they can order you one? Or you can try Bullseye in San Rafael... theres a member that works there on this board and he is always online...

1lostinspace
03-31-2008, 10:47 PM
kiss your saiga good bye

hoffmang
03-31-2008, 11:09 PM
kiss your saiga good bye

Are you illiterate? He already got his Saiga back.

-Gene

sierratangofoxtrotunion
04-01-2008, 5:23 PM
Are you illiterate? He already got his Saiga back.

-Gene

That's funny as hell!

artherd
04-01-2008, 8:54 PM
kiss your saiga good bye

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

fairfaxjim
04-01-2008, 10:03 PM
......now on a separate note...

If they confiscated that SAIGA on the grounds that it is the ugliest semi-auto in America and that it took American jobs away because it was made with Chechen children orphaned slave labor overseas then maybe they might have some legal standing!:eek:

http://www.rrarms.com/cat_images/GIZ132.JPG

Sorry me bad, I could not resist!:43:

I will go wash my mouth out with soap now and repeat one hundred times on the black board that I should be a good forum member.

Anyways I am glad the good guys won one and hope we can repeat this in Washington!:D

Actually they may have a moral standing, but still not a legal one - RAA Saiga's are legal.

Skip the soap and blackboard, just go DROS a Saiga.

tombinghamthegreat
04-01-2008, 10:11 PM
RAA Saiga's are legal.


But brady camp said CA banned dangerous semi auto military weapons...:D

(sacrasm)

pfl101
01-11-2009, 9:22 PM
How did this work out?

Saigon1965
01-11-2009, 9:31 PM
Check post number 172 in this thread -