PDA

View Full Version : where's the DoJ letter for the 1919


savageevo
04-20-2008, 4:24 PM
Does anybody have a copy or link of the DOJ letter in regards of the 1919a4 being legal because its not a rifle. I am making a binder with all the information in regards to the OLL.

Also if you have the link to the letter that the doj writing that homemade pistols are legal, (as long as it is configured per Ca laws.)

Feel free to add in any links so I can add those to my binder. By the way, I did all the search I can, my eyeballs are hurtin.

Liberty1, thanks I got your pm.

bwiese
04-20-2008, 4:32 PM
Does anybody have a copy or link of the DOJ letter in regards of the 1919a4 being legal because its not a rifle. I am making a binder with all the information in regards to the OLL.

As I recall - I have to dig up the paperwork - the DOJ "1919 letter" signed by Rossi did NOT specify the 1919 wasn't an AW due to nonrifle status - it instead said the 1919A4 was not an AW because of the pistol grip issues, "not protruding conspicuously", etc.

I believe this letter's content may have been, in fact, diversionary, to not call attention to interesting matters of 'nonrifle' status.


Also if you have the link to the letter that the doj writing that homemade pistols are legal, (as long as it is configured per CA laws.)

Alison's letter is certainly key to a defense. But to stay clear of any ambiguities, just build your homebuilt pistol first as 12133PC-exempt single shot handgun first - and then file pistol reg with DOJ. Afterwards, you are free to modify it to any other legal configuration.

savageevo
04-20-2008, 4:34 PM
thanks bill, your the best:D

Matt C
04-20-2008, 4:36 PM
There is a pretty clear letter, I'll try to post it from TMLLP tomorrow.

wilit
04-20-2008, 4:39 PM
Here's the letter. It specifically mentions homebuilt 1911's.

http://www.wilit.com/web/doj_homebuilt.jpg

Matt C
04-20-2008, 4:41 PM
Here's the letter. It specifically mentions homebuilt 1911's.



That's 1911s not 1919s...

wilit
04-20-2008, 4:44 PM
That's 1911s not 1919s...

Yeah, it's in reference to his 2nd question regarding homebuilt pistols.

hoffmang
04-20-2008, 5:05 PM
I believe that Alison's letter is incorrect on homebuilt pistols and have reason to believe that she is now taking that position as well. One just needs to build single shot home builts and then later modify them later.

-Gene

savageevo
04-20-2008, 5:36 PM
Can you make that letter into a file that i can print out. I can use that one too. The more info I have in my binder the better. thanks.

hoffmang
04-20-2008, 6:56 PM
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Merilees-Opines-80-percent-1911-AR-2005-11-1.pdf

-Gene

Sig357
04-20-2008, 7:31 PM
Here is the 1919 Letter I have on file:

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z271/rickdvs1/scn0004.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z271/rickdvs1/scn0005.jpg

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z271/rickdvs1/scn0006.jpg

savageevo
04-20-2008, 9:42 PM
Thank you to all who have helped put this binder together. I know anybody could put one together. If anybody wants a copy of what I have just pm me. I can spare a few copies and stamps no problem. thanks.

Matt C
04-21-2008, 10:41 AM
Ok here is the letter from Randi Rossi RE: 1919s. Sorry the qaulity is so bad, I am going to try to find a better copy. It is readable though, you can see in the first paragraph that he sates the 1919 is legal since the pistol grip is behind the action. Somewhere there is supposedly another letter that says these crew served type weapons are not AWs because they are not rifles, but I have yet to see it. If anyone has such a thing TMLLP and myself would very much appreciate a copy.

1919 letter.pdf (http://boxstr.com/files/1835738_zsfmh/1919%20letter.pdf)

SensFan
04-21-2008, 9:16 PM
As I recall - I have to dig up the paperwork - the DOJ "1919 letter" signed by Rossi did NOT specify the 1919 wasn't an AW due to nonrifle status - it instead said the 1919A4 was not an AW because of the pistol grip issues, "not protruding conspicuously", etc.

I believe this letter's content may have been, in fact, diversionary, to not call attention to interesting matters of 'nonrifle' status.




Alison's letter is certainly key to a defense. But to stay clear of any ambiguities, just build your homebuilt pistol first as 12133PC-exempt single shot handgun first - and then file pistol reg with DOJ. Afterwards, you are free to modify it to any other legal configuration.

This didn't stop the DOJ from sending out letters to companies that machine the Side Plates warning them that they were illegal, causing them to stop shipment to CA.

Damn dirty dogs!

Hunter
04-22-2008, 8:11 PM
This didn't stop the DOJ from sending out letters to companies that machine the Side Plates warning them that they were illegal, causing them to stop shipment to CA.

Damn dirty dogs!

Do you have any hard evidence of this? I know about the Halo case and while DOJ might be behind it, they never sent any letter to the mfg themselves. Also there has not been any legal action on that case by the ATF and the time has expired for them to file any charges. Basic outcome is that it has become a ATF scare tactic to force mfgs into making complete receivers for selling and not selling anymore unfinished sideplates.

In all of this, there has been nothing about banning them from CA or any other state. So I have to ask is your statement above factual or just internet hearsay?