PDA

View Full Version : DOJ CLARIFICATION


cathog
11-14-2007, 10:56 AM
All,

I am looking for persons to speak with about an ongoing lawsuit against the Department of Justice -- Firearms Bureau for issues relating to the "assault weapon" laws and lack of guidance from the regulating authority. Specifically, persons who:

1. Have requested clarification from the California Department of Justice on any issues relating to the definition of an "assault weapon" and did not receive the clarification necessary to determine whether a certain firearm is an "assault weapon;"
2. Have been arrested for possession of any device alleged to be an "assault weapons."
3. Have had their firearms seized because law enforcement alleged the firearms to be "assault weapons," but who have not been prosecuted for "assault weapons" or have had their case subsequently dismissed.

If you are, or know, someone in the above referenced circumstances, please contact me ASAP at the following:

Jason Davis
Trutanich Michel, LLP
180 East Ocean Blvd
Suite 200
Long Beach, CA 90802
562-216-4458
jdavis@tmllp.com

We have received a number of inquiries about donations to this litigation. All persons wishing to donate to our efforts may do so by sending payments to the address above. Make checks payable to the "NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund" and forward the payment to the address above, attn: NRA DEFENSE FUND. For credit card payments, please contact me at the above number for instructions. These funds will be used to provide and ensure legal and financial assistance to selected individuals and organizations defending their right to keep and bear arms. They will also be used to sponsor legal research and education on a wide variety of gun-related issues, including the meaning of the Second Amendment and nature of the right to keep and bear arms provision in state constitutions. The Fund is a charitable/educational entity which has been granted tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Donations are tax-deductible for Federal income tax purposes. We will forward them to the NRA in bulk and request that these funds be used to support the California litigation.

And, as always, thank you for your support and encouragement.

Jason

jmlivingston
11-14-2007, 11:04 AM
I'm making this post "sticky", to keep it at the top of the forum.

John

RideIcon
11-14-2007, 11:08 AM
This is going to be a GREAT thread!!!
:gunsmilie::44:

EricCartmann
11-14-2007, 11:09 AM
AWESOME!!!

MrLogan
11-14-2007, 11:13 AM
Yes! Go get 'em!

Paratus et Vigilans
11-14-2007, 11:17 AM
Accountability, at last! :D

Will you let us know when AM's depo is set? :eek:

AfricanHunter
11-14-2007, 12:15 PM
Good for you guys, Hope you really give it to them in the bad place. Are you taking donations?

PanzerAce
11-14-2007, 12:39 PM
am I the only one that doesn't know what this is about?

Biff...
11-14-2007, 1:26 PM
This is great, please tell me if you are taking donations. I want to contribute.

762cavalier
11-14-2007, 2:33 PM
am I the only one that doesn't know what this is about?

Panzer look at the bottom for who asked for the info. Sounds like someone wants to go after DOJ BoF for not doing their job and passing it off on the "58 DA's blahblahblah" nonsense;)

Applehaus21st
11-14-2007, 2:38 PM
Go get em Tiger!

bwiese
11-14-2007, 3:25 PM
Incoming. Voicemail left, email with list incoming.

AKman
11-14-2007, 3:33 PM
It looks like war has been declared.:D

Kestryll
11-14-2007, 3:34 PM
Announcement posted for greater coverage.

CRTguns
11-14-2007, 3:47 PM
Mr Davis... I have contacted you twice in the last 2 months or so... without result. maybe your vaicemail is not working. I can be reached at 209-544-1911 after 4:00 pm, weekdays.
I have a very close association to the issue you describe, as I think you already know.

PIRATE14
11-14-2007, 4:36 PM
Mr Davis... I have contacted you twice in the last 2 months or so... without result. maybe your vaicemail is not working. I can be reached at 209-544-1911 after 4:00 pm, weekdays.
I have a very close association to the issue you describe, as I think you already know.

For best results FAX in.....or cert mail in specifics...dates/times/names/case numbers...of instances......

They don't like to talk specs over the phone or email..........

SPG......SAIGA guys....get your info to them....

Anyone that has phoned in w/ names and times and what was said could be used......

Just the facts.....no emotions....

PIRATE14
11-14-2007, 4:39 PM
Good for you guys, Hope you really give it to them in the bad place. Are you taking donations?

Have you ever known a lawyer that won't take any donations...........;)

chunger
11-14-2007, 6:25 PM
NICE!

I have not requested any clarifications because all such recent attempts have returned "ambiguous".

Does this mean it is to our advantage at this time to renew efforts to obtain information? Ping the DOJ incessantly for clarifications surrounding the "assault weapons" issue via certified mail?

metalhead357
11-14-2007, 6:27 PM
I'm in for at least 1 case of beer when <we> win:D

CWM4A1
11-14-2007, 6:42 PM
Not that I really have anything to help at this moment, but is there a dead line that these information needs to be received? Just thought others may want to know as well.

bwiese
11-14-2007, 6:50 PM
Not that I really have anything to help at this moment, but is there a dead line that these information needs to be received? Just thought others may want to know as well.

It's always ASAP, of course. I think they need to know the number and details of the various situations to get a handle on things...

I've given them a bunch of info given I have my 'ear to the ground', but I don't want my submissions to inhibit anyone else from giving info.

dwtt
11-14-2007, 8:39 PM
PM sent, I think I'm in group 1 of the list.

tankerman
11-14-2007, 9:07 PM
PM sent.

If you have the email address I can forward the correspondence directly to the Lawyers.

Addax
11-14-2007, 10:47 PM
Finally! This is Awsome!

I will call you tomorrow.

Regards,
Addax

Santa Cruz Armory
11-14-2007, 11:31 PM
CATHOG~

Please provide updates when possible. I understand the sensitivity of some legal cases, but to keep people interested and donating we need to be "thrown a bone" occasionally.

For many people, times are tight but still feel this is a very important fight. People want to know where and to what their donations are going towards.

artherd
11-15-2007, 12:33 AM
I belive you guys have everything I have at the moment, will check for any new additions. Go get 'em :)

69Mach1
11-15-2007, 7:29 AM
This is the best news I've heard this year. Let the beat down commence.

Nefarious
11-15-2007, 7:33 AM
Will we FINALLY get some answers. Some concrete answers
Ohh please send in the info if you guys have it ... this will benefit EVERYONE

hoozaru
11-15-2007, 8:18 AM
beginning of the end of PRK

LECTRIKHED
11-15-2007, 8:58 AM
TMMPL, you have email from me. I sent two letters and made one phone call.

1st letter:
Asked about clarification on the YHM Phantom Muzzle Break. Asked if an off list lower with a Prince 50 lock was ok. Asked if a 22lr semi-automatic rifle was ok being built on a off list lower with pistol grip, detachable magazine, and flash suppressor. I received no response.

2nd letter:
I asked for a clarification on the loaded rifle definition. I received a response implying it was illegal to have a loaded magazine in the vicinity of a rifle when transporting it. I also got the typical 59 DAs language.

Phone call:
Told I was allowed to build my own rifle but it could not be an AW. I needed to download the AW guide on their website for guidance.

Red_5
11-15-2007, 10:06 AM
Email en route.

Thank you.

MonsterMan
11-15-2007, 10:52 AM
Do you guys want to know my attempts to get an "opinion" for my grip from CA DOJ BOF? It has been an ongoing process since May of 2006. A year and a half of trying and still no cooperation or answer!

1st attempt:
Sent a picture of grip on rifle to Ignatius Chin and spoke with him for about 1/2 hour talking about it and various other things. He told me it was a "protruding grip". I replied that it did not allow for a "pistol style grasp" and it was not a "pistol grip". He then just told me "it was up to the 58 DA's to decide".

2nd attempt:
I contacted TMLLP and they helped me put a letter together requesting that the DOJ give clarification on this matter. The DOJ's response was "we no longer give "individuals" opinion letters and we now only deal with Manufacturers and Law Enforcement".

3rd attempt:
After a lot of working the phones (and the help of TMLLP) I got a major Manufacturer to build a CA compliant rifle with the MMG on it and send it in to the CA DOJ. But before they could send it, the DOJ told them that they no longer give opinions to Manufacturers. The DOJ told them that they were now going to put together a "brochure" and outline what is and is not legal in the state and that the Manufacturers would simply have to refer to that "brochure" and they would not have to submit the rifle to the DOJ for clarification as to whether the gun in question was CA legal or not. Needless to say, I lost the cooperation of that Manufacturer.

4th attempt:
I called the Los Angeles District attorneys office and spoke with an investigator there for quite a while and he told me that I would have to ask the DOJ about the legalities of the grip. I told him the story about my attempts to get them to give an opinion on my product and he said he couldn't help me.


5th attempt:
This is an ongoing attempt. I have called on my own many times throughout this time and asked DOJ about my grip and they act like they have never had the opportunity to review the grip and give a clarification on it. I ask if they know about it and they reply that they do, but they can't comment on its legality. They just say that their department has not approved any off-list devices. I ask if they plan on reviewing it and they say "NO"! It's funny, early on their was some phone staffers there that were recommending my grip because of there push of the "fixed mag" Memo that was out. But now it has switched to a firm "we have not approved anything" and thats it.


So yeah, I have had some experiences trying to get the DOJ to give clarification on these issues. They will not cooperate. It's not like they have not had the opportunity to give their opinion.

I know I don't need their permission to sell my product. I know it is legal. The only reasons I want to give their opinion is to rest the minds of the gun owner who has purchased my product and the gun owner who is on the fence about the issue. Also, it would save a lot of grief if for some reason a uninformed LEO makes a wrongful arrest because he saw a "Black Rifle" in someones possession.

Here is the letter (http://www.monstermangrip.com/uploads/MMG_letter_to_DOJ.pdf) that was sent to the DOJ asking for clarification on the MMG. It was never answered.


Again, I want to thank TMLLP for all of their help and guidance. They are really great guys.

Clinton
MonsterMan Grips

shark92651
11-15-2007, 3:33 PM
Does anybody have a copy of Evan's "approval letter" for his welded magwell on-list rifles? I'd like to see that. I have also decided to start a DOJ letter writing campaign myself, although from what Clinton has shown above it seems that it will be less than satisfying. I'll do it anyway.

MonsterMan
11-15-2007, 3:41 PM
Here is the Letter (http://www.monstermangrip.com/uploads/Evans_DOJ_Approval_Letter.pdf) that Evans Gunsmithing received from Iggy at the DOJ.

Hope it helps you.

shark92651
11-15-2007, 4:46 PM
Thanks. Man, what a bunch of gobbledegook in that approval letter. I just looked all through the Assault Weapons Identification guide and I can't find mention of a "Stoner X-15 series" rifle anywhere :rolleyes:

Ford8N
11-15-2007, 4:49 PM
I think the DOJ does not want to give opinions now. AM gave her opinion about OLL's and it opened the flood gates. So this is a good thing to ask them. Everyone should be writing the DOJ for their opinions. Send it certified mail followed up with a fax and phone call. If you can afford it, on a Law firms letter head.

After all, they are government employees and work for the tax payer, right?

Crazed_SS
11-15-2007, 4:52 PM
Thanks. Man, what a bunch of gobbledegook in that approval letter. I just looked all through the Assault Weapons Identification guide and I can't find mention of a "Stoner X-15 series" rifle anywhere :rolleyes:

I mentioned this earlier, but it seems the DOJ is still hung up on the whole "series" thing.

Here's a letter a guy wrote a year ago asking about a Saiga..
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=235842&highlight=saiga+doj


Dear Mr. Chow,

Your request for information has been received and reviewed. All "AK
series" weapons are banned in California regardless on make and model.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Firearms Division at (916)
263-4887 if you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Nate Barrell, Analyst
Firearms Division

>>> Sally Carney 09/13/06 2:14 PM >>>


>>> <manwah@gmail.com> 6/29/2006 8:06 PM >>>
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
(manwah@gmail.com) on Friday, June 30, 2006 at 03:06:16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: Kevin Chow
Telephone:
feedback: Department of the Attorney General:

I am considering the purchase of a European American Armory Saiga
7.62x39mm rifle but would first like to ensure that it is legal for me
to do so as a resident of the state of California.

The rifle in question:

EAA European American Armory Corp.
402 Richard Road
Rockledge, FL. 32955

Make: Saiga 16.5" Barrel, Sporting Rifle
Caliber: 7.62x39mm
Pistol Grip: NO. Hunting stock only.
Bayonet Lug: NO.
Detachable Magazine: YES, 10RND.
Flash Suppressor: NO.
Threaded Barrel: NO.
Action: Semi-automatic, gas-piston

The Saiga rifle in question was manufactured by Izmash and imported
through EAA Corp. It is NOT imported by Kalashnikov USA, and therefore
is not listed under the Roberti-Roos list.

Nor does this rifle have the characteristics necessary to be deemed
"assault weapon" under CA law.

Then, is this rifle legal for me to purchase and own in california?

And, if it is, will I be allowed to register it should it one day be
added to the Roberti-Roos list?

Sincerely,
Kevin Chow

ps: I am of course a law-abiding citizen and there is nothing that
prevents me from being able to legally own any otherwise
California-legal firearm.




Someone should send them a letter saying, "Let it go.. live in the NOW man!"
:)

buff_01
11-15-2007, 5:16 PM
Emailed them regarding my SAIGA rifle.

JCG
11-15-2007, 5:21 PM
I e-mailed them as well

vf111
11-15-2007, 5:29 PM
Donation coming via US Mail.....

chico.cm
11-16-2007, 10:18 PM
Cool.

ShootsStraight
11-19-2007, 9:08 AM
I can give you some information regarding your request #1.
I have a few letters from the Ca Dept. of Justice when I asked for specific information regarding the legality of stripped AR-15 type lower receivers. I can give you my requests to them, and the DOJ's replies. I saved all this information. I am somewhat reluctant to join a lawsuit against the DOJ, as I don't need the problems they could bring. (losing my rifles). I really dont want to use my name, or give the forwarded emails they sent me to you. I dont want the DOJ tracing it back to me. I can tho, give you everything that was in the letters. e-mail me at zfishlover@aol.com. Good luck with your efforts. -ShootsStraight

bwiese
11-19-2007, 10:55 AM
ShootStraight,

Your concerns are not warranted - as these will likely be exposed in the future anyway. This is just 'getting set up', "ducks in a row", etc.
If you examine the NRA's submissions to the Aug 16 and Nov 1 2007 DOJ comment submission hearings/acceptance periods about redefinition of term 'detachable magazine', you will see that NRA indirectly got access to a variety of DOJ letters anyway.

No one will come to your door - especially due to an inquiry letter like this.

You also likely would not be joining any prospective lawsuit. That'd be NRA and a few key affected people, maybe a 'class'. But "Mr. Straight Shooter, Jr." won't be on it.

kakpataka
11-20-2007, 5:31 PM
Hi..............What the status on this suit? Any updates pls?

socalguns
11-20-2007, 6:46 PM
Lets see thread started 11-14, today is 11-20,
the status is 2 WEEEKS :D

SemiAutoSam
11-20-2007, 6:53 PM
I called about the legality of my MAG-LOCK as well and was told that its illegal. so dont bother to make it and or attempt to market it.

I described the lock as it would require a tool (Allen Wrench) to remove the magazine and a individual would not be able to remove the magazine without the use of the Allen wrench.

that was almost 2 years ago.

Their misrepresentation of the law might have cost me $$$$ as I would have put more $$$ at the time into this project and hence might have made more out of it.

Charliegone
11-20-2007, 7:04 PM
Everyone,
As you know I wrote to the DOJ about the legality of PTR-91's as well as some other rifles like the Ewbanks Ak type receivers and the Romanian PSL known as the Romak 3 (I believe). What was strange was that Alison M. told me in the letter that Romak 3 rifles were illegal because they were similar to the Romak 991's. I believe Gene has the copy of the ptr-91 letter that I scanned. I also have the other letters if there is any need for them. Please let me know if you need them.

kakpataka
11-20-2007, 9:03 PM
Guys,
I called FAD today , it was around 0420pm and someone answered right after 2 rings. I think it was Bret or Brent? Well, he said that having prince50 or OLL with a fixed mag that detaches via a tool is really a question of interpretation of law. He said he couldnt give a legal advise as they dont make the law and consult with a lawyer as the issues is more with the cops in the sense that they are the ones who would arrest someone if what they found was an AW per their interpretion. he said that these devices or CA legal Ak's that feed from the side etc are based on the interpretation of their designers etc .
How ai I supposed to buy a rifle when I dont even know what the interpretation of law according to the cops 2 towns away from me would be? is it worth ending up getting bailed out and spend on legal fees? Is it even worth owning a rifle anymore? Some of us just dont have the $$$ if it ever comes out to hiring an attorney. I am majorly depressed......I am just foreigner , what do I know!
Is nt there a way to go to court and get a declaration whether a certain weapon /s and certain configuration is or is not legal? The gun makers can make major $$$$ if the CA courts can clearly define it with something favorable.
Any takers for the suit? or is there really a case pending before the court that would define AW in detail? Thanks for reading the post , I am your resident foreigner here!

bwiese
11-20-2007, 9:07 PM
Hi..............What the status on this suit? Any updates pls?

This relates to the ongoing Hunt case, and matters evolving from that.

Things appear to have reached a critical mass.

kakpataka
11-20-2007, 9:33 PM
I am very new to Calguns so basically my knowledge regarding ongoing cases is nill! is the Hunt case set some sort of precedent that can clearly bring out/define the law? Pls include a link to this case on the forum if there is one pls!

hoffmang
11-20-2007, 9:40 PM
I'd suggest you try using search on Hunt. It's an older case about the by features AW ban.

-Gene

artherd
11-21-2007, 12:22 AM
I can give you some information regarding your request #1.
I have a few letters from the Ca Dept. of Justice when I asked for specific information regarding the legality of stripped AR-15 type lower receivers. I can give you my requests to them, and the DOJ's replies. I saved all this information. I am somewhat reluctant to join a lawsuit against the DOJ, as I don't need the problems they could bring. (losing my rifles). I really dont want to use my name, or give the forwarded emails they sent me to you. I dont want the DOJ tracing it back to me. I can tho, give you everything that was in the letters. e-mail me at zfishlover@aol.com. Good luck with your efforts. -ShootsStraight

1) All of what you describe is public record anyway, we're just helping cathog collect it quicker.
2) You're not joining a lawsuit, and even if you did, it would not result in losing your rifles.

Yeikes, are people this scared of DOJ?

hoffmang
11-21-2007, 12:27 AM
Not everyone has learned first hand that it takes some competence for an organization to be frightening in the first place.

-Gene

artherd
11-21-2007, 12:53 AM
OH NO HE DIDN'T! :)

bwiese
11-21-2007, 1:49 AM
Not everyone has learned first hand that it takes some competence for an organization to be frightening in the first place.

-Gene

Yeah, I worry more about accidental DOJ actions than planned, thoughtful ones.

Pomona gunshow HK pistol grips, anyone?
Robinson Arms seizures, cuz they can't read?
And then approval of Evan's/GBsales welded-up named guns?
Trying to list an unlistable Saiga?

I think they just plan spin-the-bottle up there...

metalhead357
11-21-2007, 1:52 AM
I think they just plan spin-the-bottle up there...


LOL! you may be right...but for you to be up this late and thinking about spinning the bottle.......you need a date!!!!!

((and I need some blessed sleep:cool:))

FEDUPWBS
11-22-2007, 9:10 AM
1) All of what you describe is public record anyway, we're just helping cathog collect it quicker.

Yeikes, are people this scared of DOJ?

The short answer is YES!
Thank you guys for all you are doing for this sport/hobby(GOD GIVEN RIGHT!).
Without people like you those people would be working on banning bolt action rifles cause thats all that would be left.

artherd
11-22-2007, 12:33 PM
I think they just plan spin-the-bottle up there...

Bill, you crack me up!

Charliegone
11-22-2007, 1:48 PM
God, I remember the Pomona gun shows...I remember walking around and seeing a huge bullet and was like, man that's cool. I asked my dad to buy it for me and he did (turns out it was a .50BMG). I walked out with the bullet to parking lot, showed it to my friends, and guess what? Nothing happened...nowadays if a kid did that...I miss the good ole' days.:(

five.five-six
11-23-2007, 10:18 PM
Does anybody have a copy of Evan's "approval letter" for his welded magwell on-list rifles? I'd like to see that. I have also decided to start a DOJ letter writing campaign myself, although from what Clinton has shown above it seems that it will be less than satisfying. I'll do it anyway.

ohhh that would be a beaute!! I would love to see iggy defend that one... I sent cash for the BWO d-fence, I will see if I can scrape up another hundred.. the wife got pretty pissed when she found out about the last one

hoffmang
11-23-2007, 10:30 PM
This is the letter that's in the public domain about Evan's welded lowers:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Evans-Gun-Smithing-2004-11-19.pdf

-Gene

artherd
11-24-2007, 1:46 PM
"Stoner X-15 design"

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/research/x15/x15_02.jpg
PHEW!

hoffmang
11-24-2007, 4:31 PM
"Stoner X-15 design"

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/research/x15/x15_02.jpg
PHEW!

And here I thought that was a destructive device. Where do I have to weld on that to make it CA legal exactly?

-Gene

Librarian
11-24-2007, 6:52 PM
And here I thought that was a destructive device. Where do I have to weld on that to make it CA legal exactly?

-Gene

The B52 'carrying case'. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/X15_on_B52_wing_pylon.jpg/747px-X15_on_B52_wing_pylon.jpg

KDOFisch
11-25-2007, 8:49 PM
And here I thought that was a destructive device. Where do I have to weld on that to make it CA legal exactly?

-Gene

It can have heatseeker missles provided that the cockpit is not detachable, I think. But it can't be a Northrop Grumman, that's on the list. Check Vector Arms.:p

PS- make sure the Vulcan cannon doesn't have more than ten rounds of linked ammo...or tracers. Then you're good. IANAL.

artherd
11-25-2007, 9:06 PM
And here I thought that was a destructive device. Where do I have to weld on that to make it CA legal exactly?

-Gene
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/images/content/121798main_061705_EC05-0091-78.jpg

Scarecrow Repair
11-25-2007, 10:52 PM
PS- make sure the Vulcan cannon doesn't have more than ten rounds of linked ammo...or tracers. Then you're good. IANAL.

No no, not necessary. The X-15 was in California before the ban.

IAmASensFan
12-05-2007, 10:23 AM
I'm in for at least 1 case of beer when <we> win:D

Canadian Economics 101:

"I'll pay you $100 to shovel my driveway"

"No Thanks"

"Ok, I'll give you a TwoFer (24 pack) of Molson to do it"

"Where's the shovel?"

GenLee
12-05-2007, 12:35 PM
Incoming. Voicemail left, email with list incoming.


Go get em BILL

Addax
12-06-2007, 5:24 PM
I think they play pin the tail on the donkey...

Yeah, I worry more about accidental DOJ actions than planned, thoughtful ones.

Pomona gunshow HK pistol grips, anyone?
Robinson Arms seizures, cuz they can't read?
And then approval of Evan's/GBsales welded-up named guns?
Trying to list an unlistable Saiga?

I think they just plan spin-the-bottle up there...

GenLee
12-14-2007, 10:58 AM
My donation sent to TM LLP............My wife is gonna freak out....but this is something she just doesnt understand....YET

Addax
12-14-2007, 4:57 PM
My donation sent to TM LLP............My wife is gonna freak out....but this is something she just doesnt understand....YET

Your Avatar sure looks familiar..:cool:

daves100
01-19-2008, 6:50 PM
deleted, read the first post on how to send money

luckystrike
09-15-2009, 4:48 PM
HA ask the ATF what an assult weapon is. they dont know either.

SteveK
05-11-2010, 12:17 AM
Any new news?

Duglas3
01-20-2011, 8:06 AM
no..

Big Jake
01-23-2011, 8:58 AM
It sure would be nice to get an official clarification of what the legal definition (In layman's terms!) of an "Assault Weapon" is! :popcorn:

mtsul
01-25-2011, 1:18 PM
Wow!!! all the powers are speaking in this thread, keep up the fight for our constitutional freedoms

Soldier415
01-25-2011, 2:32 PM
Holy two letter necro resurrection!