Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-15-2006, 5:22 PM
shopkeep
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default Interesting DOJ phone call. Not ground-breaking, but very interesting.

Yeah I know there's a lot of posts here about various phone calls from the DOJ. I've even started a few myself. So I got a call back from the DOJ after I left a message there on a previous day. I was able to get two peices of information that were fairly interesting:

1) The rep admitted that the DOJ was aware that our fixed mag kits were lawful. She also told me there was no need to modify fixed magazine rifles until the DOJ takes action to update the regulations.
2) The rep advised me that the DOJ has no new definition beyond "permenant" and would not specify what exactly "permenant" meant.
3) The rep confirmed that this memo applies to _ALL_ semi-automatic centerfire fixed mag rifles, not just the AR-15/AK-47 series. They are aware of the tapco folder and collapsable kits being installed on SKS rifles and they are NOT pleased with its legality. The same applies to FALs which the rep said, "have long been a thorn in our side".
4) The rep said that they are also looking at ways of preventing gripless builds. I have _NO_IDEA_ how they plan to accomplish this, but she said this is something they're going to go after next.

Yeah, not particularly cheerful information, but on the otherhand after the ill-conceived Category IV memo and it's subsequent destruction by Calguns.net I don't see the new memo sticking around any longer.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-15-2006, 5:27 PM
James R. James R. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 774
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"have long been a thorn in our side"

Comments to that effect just go to show, these aren't the nice people folks like Glen Avon claim they are. They're a bunch of zealots who would love nothing less than to severely limit if not outright eliminate your right to keep and bear arms.

Regards,

James R.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-15-2006, 5:40 PM
Diabolus's Avatar
Diabolus Diabolus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern California / Los Angeles
Posts: 4,374
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

It keeps the food on the table; you would do the same.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-15-2006, 5:42 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,164
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I'm going to have to take these statements with a grain of salt.

As has been stated previously they can tell you anything they want over the phone, and they have been.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-15-2006, 5:42 PM
kantstudien's Avatar
kantstudien kantstudien is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: so cal
Posts: 1,732
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Who gives a **** what they tell you on the phone?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-15-2006, 5:46 PM
6172crew's Avatar
6172crew 6172crew is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord CA
Posts: 6,271
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I like it when they play the "I just work here" routine. As if they care about our rights as free Americans.

If it was a big fat marleyI wanted to smoke they would be telling us how to get away with growing my own and how to sell it without loosing sleep.

........Liberals
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-15-2006, 5:47 PM
6172crew's Avatar
6172crew 6172crew is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord CA
Posts: 6,271
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kantstudien
Who gives a **** what they tell you on the phone?
I say we get some good .WAV files from the DOJ and keep them posted here.

I wish I had a recording of the cat I spoke to, what a goon.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-15-2006, 5:57 PM
shopkeep
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6172crew
I say we get some good .WAV files from the DOJ and keep them posted here.

I wish I had a recording of the cat I spoke to, what a goon.
Recording people over the phone without their permission or a warrant is unlawful in California.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-15-2006, 5:58 PM
Michael303's Avatar
Michael303 Michael303 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ventura, CA
Posts: 251
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Welcome to the PRK and its policy of anti-gun creeping incrementalism. I guess it just goes to show that you canít be reasonable with unreasonable people.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-15-2006, 6:02 PM
Evil Gun's Avatar
Evil Gun Evil Gun is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 151
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael303
Welcome to the PRK and its policy of anti-gun creeping incrementalism. I guess it just goes to show that you canít be reasonable with unreasonable people.
Preach on brother.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-15-2006, 6:03 PM
Evil Gun's Avatar
Evil Gun Evil Gun is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 151
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James R.
"have long been a thorn in our side"

Comments to that effect just go to show, these aren't the nice people folks like Glen Avon claim they are. They're a bunch of zealots who would love nothing less than to severely limit if not outright eliminate your right to keep and bear arms.

Regards,

James R.
Amen. Couldn't have said it better. They are not gun owners' friends.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-15-2006, 6:06 PM
Satex's Avatar
Satex Satex is offline
Calguner Extraordinaire
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,424
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

If this is true, then it means that we need a group that will advocate for our cause - and it's much more global than the off list lowers. Is there any group in CA that actively works for these causes that its worth donating my money to? NRA? CPRA?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-15-2006, 6:07 PM
MadMex MadMex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: At Large
Posts: 1,095
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shopkeep
4) The rep said that they are also looking at ways of preventing gripless builds. I have _NO_IDEA_ how they plan to accomplish this, but she said this is something they're going to go after next.
Mind boggling. Whatís next, triggered builds?
__________________
45 Saves Lives / 1911 Heathen
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-15-2006, 6:17 PM
50 Freak's Avatar
50 Freak 50 Freak is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,435
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

I called the DOJ recently, they told me that my Big 5 Wrist Rocket Sling shot is illegal in California......

These phone conversations with them are useless. They can and will tell you anything they want. And their answers change dependant upon which representative you get on the phone. Does that mean they are bad...NO, just means they are ill informed about current policies and such.

Wait for the "official" written word (no a memo does not count, those things get changed quicker than Bill Clintons chasity vows)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-15-2006, 6:21 PM
zombieflanders's Avatar
zombieflanders zombieflanders is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orange County
Posts: 60
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I spoke with a DOJ rep when the previous memo went missing from their site. He told me that he'd "bet his house" that they would list & we could build them w/detachable mags. He also informed me that he was considering purchasing an off lister himself. Them a few days later, we get this crap!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-15-2006, 6:35 PM
Dont Tread on Me
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shopkeep
Recording people over the phone without their permission or a warrant is unlawful in California.
$50 says they record you! I'm wondering if one party says that "calls are recorded for quality...." if the otherside can now record.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-15-2006, 6:43 PM
6172crew's Avatar
6172crew 6172crew is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord CA
Posts: 6,271
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieflanders
I spoke with a DOJ rep when the previous memo went missing from their site. He told me that he'd "bet his house" that they would list & we could build them w/detachable mags. He also informed me that he was considering purchasing an off lister himself. Them a few days later, we get this crap!
Do you remember the guys name?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-15-2006, 6:45 PM
50 Freak's Avatar
50 Freak 50 Freak is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,435
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Was it Iggy????
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-15-2006, 6:45 PM
1911_sfca's Avatar
1911_sfca 1911_sfca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,259
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_brit_05
Quote:
Recording people over the phone without their permission or a warrant is unlawful in California.
$50 says they record you! I'm wondering if one party says that "calls are recorded for quality...." if the otherside can now record.
You don't need their explicit permission; you just need to inform them. "This call may be recorded for quality purposes..." etc.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-15-2006, 6:47 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,976
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

These are gov't employees on public time, on a phone call on your dime (if you don't use the 800#). I don't think they have a right to privacy for their work stuff.

I'll look into it, but we may be able to record them without preannouncment.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-15-2006, 7:31 PM
m1aowner's Avatar
m1aowner m1aowner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 2,302
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Yeah that's right, there gun toting liberals. Well some of them anyway.

Buy more lowers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6172crew
I like it when they play the "I just work here" routine. As if they care about our rights as free Americans.

If it was a big fat marleyI wanted to smoke they would be telling us how to get away with growing my own and how to sell it without loosing sleep.

........Liberals

Last edited by m1aowner; 05-15-2006 at 7:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-15-2006, 8:20 PM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 5,535
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

I like it when shopkeep calls. It's interesting to read what they say. But shopkeep should always get a name and follow up with a letter. Sort of along the lines of:

"Thank you Mr. DOJ for the info about X. As per our phone conversation you said .....xyz."

It's always good form to do a follow up letter after a phone call. Remember: names, dates, time of day.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-15-2006, 8:26 PM
shopkeep
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N
I like it when shopkeep calls. It's interesting to read what they say. But shopkeep should always get a name and follow up with a letter. Sort of along the lines of:

"Thank you Mr. DOJ for the info about X. As per our phone conversation you said .....xyz."

It's always good form to do a follow up letter after a phone call. Remember: names, dates, time of day.
Will do. Keep in mind you usually have to talk with 2 or 3 different reps before you get someone useful. Keep in mind the mission of most reps is to get you off the phone as quickly as possible so they can get back to talking about what happened on American Idol last night.

Yes, I do have the names and conversations I have had with various reps, analysts and other people at the DOJ I've spoken with. However, this information isn't being posted in public forums. It could potentially lead in unintended consequences and that's all I'm going to say here.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-16-2006, 12:19 PM
Clodbuster's Avatar
Clodbuster Clodbuster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,092
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Unless of course, you suspect the guy on the other line belongs to a group bent on acts of Terror. Based on recent events, you may have Federal support from the Bush adminstration to record and tape phone conversations all you want. Comes down to if you believe DOJ is a Terror organization


Clod
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-16-2006, 12:59 PM
Dont Tread on Me
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodbuster
Comes down to if you believe DOJ is a Terror organization
I'd see it this way. The Government does not need to use terrioist tactics as it is the Government The question is is it legal to record conversations with an oppressive Government trying to restrict the rights of its subjects (I don't feel like citizen to the DOJ).
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-16-2006, 1:17 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,251
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shopkeep
Recording people over the phone without their permission or a warrant is unlawful in California.
This is not true: as one of the involved parties, taking part in the conversation and known to be present by the other party, you do NOT need permission of the other party to record. You only need persmission when a 3rd party is recording the information, even if the company for which you work is recording "for quality control purposes" which in that case, the conversation is no longer confidential - note MRex21's info: specifically "...eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication". The whole of that section refers to eavesdropping and wiretapping.

You are allowed to record ANY conversation you may have with anyone, no matter to whom it is that you speak, but you are NOT allowed to record 2nd or 3rd parties without their consent, by eavesdropping upon them, recording or "wiretapping". If someone is listening in, THAT person may not record unless they are identified as a person present or invovled in the conversation as well - as your friend, ally, comrade, whatever, they can not record for you.

.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-16-2006, 1:22 PM
gh429 gh429 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 327
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shopkeep
4) The rep said that they are also looking at ways of preventing gripless builds. I have _NO_IDEA_ how they plan to accomplish this, but she said this is something they're going to go after next.
This is very interesting. Did they mean that even without a pistol grip the rifle would be illegal?

This would demonstrate to me that there is a movement within the DOJ who are simply not satisfied with the status quo (and screwing us on the sporting conversion) but are going for a full-out ban on the AR series rifle. Assuming they do something as silly as this, would registration possibly be triggered when our legally obtained rifles cannot be made legally operable at all?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-16-2006, 1:37 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,251
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gh429
This is very interesting. Did they mean that even without a pistol grip the rifle would be illegal? This would demonstrate to me that there is a movement within the DOJ who are simply not satisfied with the status quo (and screwing us on the sporting conversion) but are going for a full-out ban on the AR series rifle. Assuming they do something as silly as this, would registration possibly be triggered when our legally obtained rifles cannot be made legally operable at all?
I think this person at the DOJ is simply talking out of turn and having little firearm technical knowledge or a sense of reality.

If they try to ban for "gripless" with detachable magazines, then they will be back to square one of Harrott, where they will be forced to try to say that "gripless" is banned for all AR/AK "series" which they can't do. Soooooo... they will be back to the option of LISTING by name if they try to ban for gripless by series, therefoe a Category 4, but how do you apply it? If they list them as Assault Weapons, they must have Assault Weapon features.

So they will then ban all of the following semi-automatic rifles because they are gripless with detachable magazines? And make everyone register? Yeah right, they would then have a real conundrum on their hands from millions of gun owners, even the old "I only need guns for hunting antelope" types:

Springfield M1A,
Mini-14,
Mini-30,
Kel-tec SU16 (A,B, or CA),
Browning BAR Safari II,
Remington 7400,
M1-Carbine,
Marlin Camp Carbine 9mm/.45ACP,
Ruger PC4 or PC9 Carbines,
Ruger M99/44 and M44 Carbines
Robinson Armament M96,
Czech Vz-52,
French MAS 49,
German Gewehr M41 & M43 based guns,
Tokarev SVT-40,
Swedish Ljungman/Egyptian Hakims,
Johnson 1941rifle,

and more, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-16-2006, 2:06 PM
Omega13device's Avatar
Omega13device Omega13device is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,955
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CALI-gula
This is not true: as one of the involved parties, taking part in the conversation and known to be present by the other party, you do NOT need permission of the other party to record. You only need persmission when a 3rd party is recording the information, even if the company for which you work is recording "for quality control purposes" which in that case, the conversation is no longer confidential - note MRex21's info: specifically "...eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication". The whole of that section refers to eavesdropping and wiretapping.

You are allowed to record ANY conversation you may have with anyone, no matter to whom it is that you speak, but you are NOT allowed to record 2nd or 3rd parties without their consent, by eavesdropping upon them, recording or "wiretapping". If someone is listening in, THAT person may not record unless they are identified as a person present or invovled in the conversation as well - as your friend, ally, comrade, whatever, they can not record for you.

.
Go back and read post #21.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-16-2006, 2:38 PM
xenophobe's Avatar
xenophobe xenophobe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SF Peninsula/South Bay Area
Posts: 7,076
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega13device
Go back and read post #21.
Actually, it varies from state to state, but anyone remember Lynda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky?

Legal.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-16-2006, 2:40 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,251
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega13device
Go back and read post #21.
Thank you - I was waiting for someone to answer; so as a pedophile, one may call little kids and those kids can not record it? And if they do, they can't use it in court? But one might say, "that excludes if a crime is being committed". Are sex-offender crimes excluded? What about other felonies? What if one perceives a crime is being comitted - if a non-registered, unknown sex-offender is calling kids, he's not known to be a pedophile, how do you ever start to record the guy in the first place? Do they have to wait until some creep rapes or assaults a kid?

As an individual involved in the communication, I should be able to record any damn thing I choose - I don't believe in the government's right or legality to wire tap, but if someone is seriously trying to wrong me, I should be able to record them if I am involved directly; or even if I just "feel Like" recording them. Should it be admissable in court? No, but I should not be punished for recording someone with whom I am involved in communications directly, especially if I think a crime is in process.

Shgeeez! ...hand-outs, drivers licenses and assistance to illegal aliens ...free needles to intravenous drug users ...disarming its citizens in entire cities ...CCWs for politicans abnd celebrities but nobody else? What's next? Free condoms for rapists?

I say the DOJ is comitting crimes against the 2nd Amendment! RKBA lesiglation please!! No more petitions only!

.

Last edited by CALI-gula; 05-16-2006 at 9:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:23 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.