PDA

View Full Version : Interesting conversation w/ DA Investigator


Spaceghost
10-07-2006, 1:27 PM
Hi all, I don't post very often, but frequent these boards several times a day.
I had a very interesting conversation with a person that works as an investigator for a DA's office that I will not mention. Let's just say Norcal area.
I see him a couple times a week, we train together, so he knows I am into firearms. I got into a discussion with him about the assualt weapon ban and how there a lot of residents that legally purchased weapons before the ban and had no idea that they needed to register them and now they are felons. He told me about an incident that occured in 2003ish, in which a gentleman had several unregistered AW's and they were confiscated. The judge ruled that he only needed to register the weapons and they were to be returned to the individual. The DOJ threw a fit with him on the phone and he replied that they don't seem to understand. He has a court order for the weapons to be returned on the condition that they were registered to the gentleman. I tried to get some more facts from him about the case. Did he legally buy them before the ban? Was he a resident from another state and moved here with them? Unfortunately, it was time to train so our conversation was cut short.
I was able to specifically mention that the registration persiod was closed in 2000. He reminded me that he had a court order from the judge for them to be registered to the individual.
I found the conversation to be very interesting and plan to get more facts about the incident next week and will give you guys updates as I get them.
It does show that some things are not quite written in stone as some would have us believe.

Blue
10-07-2006, 1:30 PM
I'm guessing if the story is true, that he got a really good lawyer and had receipts for the weapons that proved they were purchased in CA before 2000. I still agree that 99% of gun owners in CA think that DROS is registration.

Spaceghost
10-07-2006, 1:34 PM
I know I have no credibility on this forum, but I have known this person for several years and have never had a reason to doubt anything he tells me. The big point of this, is not only did the person NOT become a felon, he was given back his weapons. I think that we have a little hope of common sense being applied to our crazy gun laws.

rkt88edmo
10-07-2006, 1:50 PM
I think that we have a little hope of common sense being applied to our crazy gun laws.

Well, you could also be playing the DA/Judge lottery. Weak prosecutor + strong judge = good outcome? or some other similar combination? Would you want to roll those dice?

It is very good to hear though, I hope you do come up with more details.

mblat
10-07-2006, 2:16 PM
I know I have no credibility on this forum, but I have known this person for several years and have never had a reason to doubt anything he tells me. The big point of this, is not only did the person NOT become a felon, he was given back his weapons. I think that we have a little hope of common sense being applied to our crazy gun laws.

Nobody questions your credibility. All is said that registration period is closed and there is no legal base for DOJ to register AW.
I am not sure how DOJ would handle court order to register some weapons, but I find it unlikely that they wouldn't appeal it. Unless of cause story runs deeper than this. For example that person was close relative of high level official. Or some kind of well recognized war hero, whose prosecution could backfire....

I donno.

hoffmang
10-07-2006, 3:45 PM
I do wonder if people could successfully challenge AW registration as applied to them if they did own it before 2000 and simply didn't register under a 5th amendment takings claim. It is certainly not an open and shut case for either side.

-Gene

xenophobe
10-07-2006, 5:24 PM
In that time period the same thing was happening in Santa Clara County. If someone had unregistered assault weapons confiscated, and that they could prove that they purchased them prior to Jan 1, 2000, they were allowed to register them and have them returned.

DrjonesUSA
10-07-2006, 5:50 PM
In that time period the same thing was happening in Santa Clara County. If someone had unregistered assault weapons confiscated, and that they could prove that they purchased them prior to Jan 1, 2000, they were allowed to register them and have them returned.


Both this anecdote and the original post are VERY interesting to me.

I thought it was pretty much written in stone that "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Good to know this stuff though.....if its true.

artherd
10-07-2006, 8:20 PM
This would hardly surprise me. DOJ would have to bow to a court order (I think, possibly depending on the court it came from. They could also initiate an appeal if it were not a supreme level decision.)

I know of no legal basis in which a court could give such an order, UNLESS the person tried to register his AWs, (likely showing certified proof of delivery) and DOJ failed to do so... That'd sure do it, and DOJ has 'forgotten' registrations before.

Hi all, I don't post very often, but frequent these boards several times a day.
I had a very interesting conversation with a person that works as an investigator for a DA's office that I will not mention. Let's just say Norcal area.
I see him a couple times a week, we train together, so he knows I am into firearms. I got into a discussion with him about the assualt weapon ban and how there a lot of residents that legally purchased weapons before the ban and had no idea that they needed to register them and now they are felons. He told me about an incident that occured in 2003ish, in which a gentleman had several unregistered AW's and they were confiscated. The judge ruled that he only needed to register the weapons and they were to be returned to the individual. The DOJ threw a fit with him on the phone and he replied that they don't seem to understand. He has a court order for the weapons to be returned on the condition that they were registered to the gentleman. I tried to get some more facts from him about the case. Did he legally buy them before the ban? Was he a resident from another state and moved here with them? Unfortunately, it was time to train so our conversation was cut short.
I was able to specifically mention that the registration persiod was closed in 2000. He reminded me that he had a court order from the judge for them to be registered to the individual.
I found the conversation to be very interesting and plan to get more facts about the incident next week and will give you guys updates as I get them.
It does show that some things are not quite written in stone as some would have us believe.

hoffmang
10-07-2006, 11:29 PM
Ben,

There would be a constitutional construction basis on either due process or takings. When presented with a statute that would otherwise be infirm, that sort of remedy isn't too far out of the scope of Judicial power (sadly.) The previous is speculation without the case. Anybody know the court and or time frame?

-Gene