PDA

View Full Version : Received ANOTHER Letter From The LA City Attorney


Aldemar
10-24-2013, 5:23 PM
For those of you that live within the City of Los Angeles, these letters are old news. For you other folks, it's basically a veiled threat that reminds one of the responsibilities of firearm ownership and that "We Know You Bought A Gun". I started the DROS on Sunday, October 20th, the letter was dated Tuesday, October 22nd. If the rest of the City of LA ran as efficiently....one can dream I suppose. A copy of the latest letter is attached for those who are not aware of what it contains. Note that while I live in the City of LA, the gun was purchased from a store NOT in the City of LA, so the communication is something the Obamacare webmeisters could only dream about.

I would like to finally respond. I've got many other identical letters which I also have kept. I have a few ideas I would like to toss around. If anyone has already composed such a letter, I would appreciate a PM of your response.

I want to basically say that:

1) Yes, I'm aware that you know that I have purchased a firearm.

2) You undoubtedly know I have purchased more than one.

3) Why don't I receive a letter thanking me when I sell a firearm, thereby reducing the firearms in LA City?

4) I am aware of the firearm laws in the USA, California, County and City of Los Angeles and would appreciate it if you would not waste taxpayers money by mailing the same threatening letter time and time again.

I'm sure there are many more points to cover. I've just finally had it with letters such as these and really don't are what additional scrutiny will result from such a response. For what it's worth, I'm 61 years old and have not had as much as a parking ticket since I was 25. I'll post the proposed response prior to mailing.

Please PM if you wish rather than posting if you feel comfortable that way.

baggss
10-24-2013, 5:41 PM
Read that letter and replace the word "Gun" with "Car" and the word "Firearm" with "automobile" and the absurdity stands out pretty well. Next try "bong" and "hookah" for a good laugh....

KIMBER8400
10-24-2013, 5:45 PM
I have heard on radio that while an officer left an unattended loaded AR15 on his motorcycle, a kid got possession and pulled the trigger. Implement this in your response.

caferacer
10-24-2013, 5:50 PM
Downtown LA resident here. I've DROS'd two firearms in the last three months and I've yet to receive one of these letters. What gives?

Aldemar
10-24-2013, 6:06 PM
Downtown LA resident here. I've DROS'd two firearms in the last three months and I've yet to receive one of these letters. What gives?

You are providing a bogus address?:D

I did a lot of volunteer work at Devonshire Division in the past, including the Volunteer Surveillance Team. The VST would, post in apartments and/or unmarked vehicles to provide real-time info for drug deals and other activities where a black & white would be too obvious. We were issued the same Astros that the LAPD uses to call in criminal acts we witnessed. I quit when a van another person and I would not start when we were approached by a group of gangsters who figured out what we were doing in the area. Several of us had complained about the condition of the U/C vehicles and this time we could have had a real problem. The b&w barely arrived in time.

Perhaps I am on some "Double Secret Probation" list.

EM2
10-24-2013, 6:45 PM
I would send it back to them with the following scrawled across the letter.

"**** off"

SanPedroShooter
10-24-2013, 6:45 PM
I am doing a couple private transfers this week end, neither one in the LA city limits (obviously).

I wonder if they send them out for PPTs?

I would call city hall and continue calling until I got a human to explain exactly WTF.

I would call my council rep too. They would get an earful.

SanPedroShooter
10-24-2013, 6:48 PM
Boom. There is a number on the bottom.

Call and ask if the city attorney is threating you.

Ask them if they send out letters to people that buy new cars or build swimming pools or get medical pot cards.

Its sounds like state DOJ is catching all LA addresses and kicking them back to city hall.

I put 'San Pedro' down, maybe that's why I never got one.

Id call Chuck Michels office too. Keep them updated on LA's dirty tricks.

7 Sprig
10-24-2013, 6:54 PM
should have marked on the envelope " return to sender , not at this address " and dropped it back in the mail

SactoDoug
10-24-2013, 7:27 PM
I would not reply to that letter at all. Any reply could flag you for more attention.

Let them get their warm fuzzy thinking they are doing something with their letter writing.

QQQ
10-24-2013, 7:32 PM
cease and desist letter from an attorney

VendetAR
10-24-2013, 7:40 PM
I dont know if it would be illegal, but I would seriously consider mailing back some toilet paper.

dyson
10-24-2013, 7:57 PM
Wonder if they might be prepping to prosecute.....you received a letter about ownership requirements......so and so got a hold of your firearm and you knew the law.....

Germz
10-24-2013, 8:48 PM
I would not reply to that letter at all. Any reply could flag you for more attention.

Let them get their warm fuzzy thinking they are doing something with their letter writing.

SactoDoug, I noticed your signature. This is exactly why I browse the internet with TOR:

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8162/d304.png
FYI thats a Swedish ISP and IP :D

FalseProfit
10-24-2013, 9:07 PM
that doesnt seem right.

Vlad 11
10-24-2013, 9:27 PM
The letters are part of a Rand study called 'Strategies for Disrupting Illegal Firearm Markets A Case Study of Los Angeles'

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241135.pdf

Something along the lines of - if we send out these letters, people will get scared and not go pick up that firearm they just straw purchased.

Accomplishments
This project consisted of three activities. The first was the creation of a software tool to increase
ATF’s ability to analyze patterns in crime-gun data to identify gun-trafficking cases. The second
activity focused on developing an intervention to reduce the supply of illegal guns in two Los
Angeles neighborhoods. The intervention involved a public information campaign designed
by our working group to target straw purchasers to discourage them from transferring legally
purchased guns to illegal possessors. The third activity evaluated the utility of records of retail
purchases of ammunition for identifying prohibited firearm possessors. We describe each of
these briefly here. Each of the remaining chapters of this report describes these activities and
their results in more detail.

As a result of these analyses, the working group associated with the project organized a “letter-
campaign” intervention that attempted to dissuade legal firearm purchasers from selling or
transferring their firearms to others without filing the necessary paperwork with the state.
This program was possible because California law requires the California Department of Jus-
tice (CalDOJ) to maintain a database of all firearm sales. In selected areas, new gun buyers
received notification letters during their 10-day waiting period, before they picked up their
newly purchased firearms, that informed them of their responsibilities as gun owners and that
the firearms could be traced back to them if used in a crime. The key idea of this new gun-
market–disruption strategy was to deter small-scale straw purchasers from picking up their
firearms and from making other illegal purchases in the future. Our findings suggest that the
campaign may have had a large impact on straw purchasing.

9M62
10-24-2013, 10:50 PM
Just to play devils advocate, what's wrong with them notifying a gun purchaser of the laws regarding gun ownership and usage? I mean, seriously?

I get the issue of them using DROS information other than it was intended; that's a real issue, and something in and of itself that should be stopped.

But the actual net-affect of notifying gun owners of their lawful responsibilities and requirements? I don't see the problem.

Sure, we all know the rules -- but I'm not so sure everyone else does.

So honestly, why is it a big deal?

TacticalPlinker
10-24-2013, 11:30 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but why does the City of Los Angeles know you purchased a firearm? Is that something specific to LA?

Either way, it's a clear abuse of DROS/4473 records.

Scare tactics, bullying and scary language... The Democrats in this country, and this state, are just unbelievable... What's next? Publicly publish your name? Maybe a visit to your place of employment? A knock on your door? Where do these cowards stop?

roger1022
10-24-2013, 11:34 PM
Must be a LA city thing. Sure a good way to prevent crime...

dyson
10-24-2013, 11:46 PM
Just to play devils advocate, what's wrong with them notifying a gun purchaser of the laws regarding gun ownership and usage? I mean, seriously?

I get the issue of them using DROS information other than it was intended; that's a real issue, and something in and of itself that should be stopped.

But the actual net-affect of notifying gun owners of their lawful responsibilities and requirements? I don't see the problem.

Sure, we all know the rules -- but I'm not so sure everyone else does.

So honestly, why is it a big deal?
Its a political intimidation tactic to let you know they know....why not just have LGS's include a flyer with each sale? Clearly would save money on postage.

SanPedroShooter
10-25-2013, 6:11 AM
Its a political intimidation tactic to let you know they know....why not just have LGS's include a flyer with each sale? Clearly would save money on postage.

That would make sense, or some kind of sense in a twisted sort of way, but there are only a handful of FFL's in LA.



I would bet that most people getting these letters aren't actually buying their gun in LA city.

Aldemar
10-25-2013, 7:12 AM
I haven't heard of any other City or County sending these type of letters out, but this brings up a more important point: just because a municipality is not sending any letters does not mean that it is not provided the same information as is LA. I cannot imagine that San Francisco, for example, would not avail themselves of this information since it appears as though it is instantaneously available. Perhaps they just choose to build their database quietly, as many other cities may also do. Now you are in 3 databases; Federal, State, and City - each one controlled separately.

Perhaps one of our better-versed legal guys can address the issue of how the information is provided by the DOJ: is the information available to all cities or just the ones which specifically request it; and wouldn't some type of legal agreement be necessary to share such information? My firearm was not purchased in the City of LA, so they had to get their information from either the Fed or State databases. If it's the DOJ, I'm sure they also know which firearm was purchased.

Intimidation factor: as some of the responses indicate, it is highly doubtful that any regular user of this forum is intimidated by this letter. My concern would be with the fence sitter who, after years of thought, has finally purchased their first firearm. Receiving such a letter, before the 10 day waiting has expired, could easily cause these people to either cancel the transaction or pick up the firearm and turn it in at a guy-buyback.

I'm going to chew on this over this over the weekend. I'm sure things will pop up that haven't been brought to light yet.

R1145
10-25-2013, 7:22 AM
Your tax dollars at work.

Let it go. It's simply feel-good bureaucratic ineffective BS that's a bulletpoint on some tool's resume showing they got tough on gun violence.

stevedusa
10-25-2013, 9:55 AM
Well on second thought, maybe the city of LA is encouraging you to exercise your 2A rights and, remind you to practice safe gun laws.

I am not sure but the way I look at that letter is "we are aware of your purchase of firearm legally, now please keep them safe and don't let them fall into the wrong hands, so we can at least reduce certain amount of gun-related crime by grey-market guns."

Or not.

Mitch
10-25-2013, 9:59 AM
I am doing a couple private transfers this week end, neither one in the LA city limits (obviously).

I wonder if they send them out for PPTs?

A DROS is a DROS, isn't it?

SanPedroShooter
10-25-2013, 10:01 AM
A DROS is a DROS, isn't it?

Yeah, I guess so.

Ive been buying C&R long guns, so I haven't run one in awhile. Not since they started cracking the whip.

The last DROS I ran was right after Sandy Hook, and I didn't get a letter.

A-J
10-25-2013, 10:19 AM
What bugs me most is that the letter is not accurate in portraying what the law says. Example:

"It is a crime to knowingly sell, give or allow possession of a firearm to a person with a known mental disorder."

That is a serious stretch of what the actual law says.

For the record, I live within the city limits, and all of my handguns have been purchased within the city limits, and I have received exactly zero letters.

dave_cg
10-25-2013, 11:50 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but why does the City of Los Angeles know you purchased a firearm? Is that something specific to LA?

Either way, it's a clear abuse of DROS/4473 records.


Exactly. If it's 4473 records, then there is no way they should have access. I'm assuming the information is coming from CAL DOJ. How? Is it authorized? Are other cities getting the same information? What's the Cal or LA city equivalent of a FOIA?

a1c
10-25-2013, 12:04 PM
See previous thread on this very topic:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=757792

vincewarde
10-25-2013, 12:18 PM
Call and ask if the city attorney is threatening you.

Ask them if they send out letters to people that buy new cars or build swimming pools or get medical pot cards.

A much better question - since these activities are not Constitutionally protected - is: Do they send warning letters to people who.....

...... attend religious services?

...... organize political groups?

...... speak out on public policy issues or current events?

...... criticize elected officials?

When government seeks to actively discourage citizens from exercising their Constitutional rights, it is, IMHO, always a civil rights violation.

I dream, and I know it is unlikely to ever happen, of a federal administration that will enforce violations of the people's 2nd Amendment rights in exactly the same way civil rights violations involving race are handled - both civilly and criminally.

pure762
10-25-2013, 12:20 PM
My DL has my old address so i've been using my LaDWP bill as proof to DROS any firearms. I have received these letters many times, I wonder if I could use this letter from the City Attorney for proof of address and residency when I do a PPT? That would be some great irony.

Dutch3
10-25-2013, 2:32 PM
I haven't heard of any other City or County sending these type of letters out, but this brings up a more important point: just because a municipality is not sending any letters does not mean that it is not provided the same information as is LA. I cannot imagine that San Francisco, for example, would not avail themselves of this information since it appears as though it is instantaneously available. Perhaps they just choose to build their database quietly, as many other cities may also do. Now you are in 3 databases; Federal, State, and City - each one controlled separately.

There was a bill in the last session, AB 1020 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1020&sess=CUR&house=B&author=bonta_%3Cbonta%3E), that would have expanded this program statewide. It died in committee.

I still have to wonder about the existing LA City program, which started out as some RAND study targeted at a couple of specific neighborhoods. Is there a statute that permits CA DOJ to provide confidential purchaser information to a third party without consent?

John Galt
10-25-2013, 3:47 PM
Not to my knowledge. We need a very simple law that goes like this...

Any person, corporation, or government organization can not share information with another party about a US citizen without express written consent except under the auspices of a warrant.

peregrine1220
10-25-2013, 9:43 PM
The city prosecutors can have you evicted if "unlawful conduct" takes place? Evicted from LA County or what? What if YOU ARE the sole owner of the property? Do these prosecutors evict people that get busted for drugs and other "unlawful conduct" not involving firearms?

?WTF?

Window_Seat
10-26-2013, 6:38 AM
Wonder if they might be prepping to prosecute.....you received a letter about ownership requirements......so and so got a hold of your firearm and you knew the law.....

Note especially at the bottom of the letter, it acknowledges compliance by the gun purchaser. Can that go anywhere in court if they tried to file bogus charges against the purchaser?

"Thank you for your compliance with these very important responsibilities and obligations." (Los Angeles Police Department)

The city prosecutors can have you evicted if "unlawful conduct" takes place? Evicted from LA County or what? What if YOU ARE the sole owner of the property? Do these prosecutors evict people that get busted for drugs and other "unlawful conduct" not involving firearms?

?WTF?

Here is an excerpt from the following Supreme Court case:

"The rebellion against the enfranchisement of blacks in the wake of ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment illustrated the need for increased federal intervention to protect the right to vote. Almost immediately following Reconstruction, blacks attempting to vote were met with coordinated intimidation and violence. See, e.g., L. McDonald, A Voting Rights Odyssey: Black Enfranchisement in Georgia 34 (2003) (“By 1872, the legislative and executive branches of state government . . . were once again firmly in the control of white Democrats, who resorted to a variety of tactics, including fraud, intimidation, and violence, to take away the vote from blacks, despite ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 . . .”)[n. 2]. A soon-to-be victorious mayoral candidate in Wilmington, North Carolina, for example, urged white voters in an 1898 election-eve speech: “Go to the polls tomorrow and if you find the negro out voting, tell him to leave the polls, and if he refuses kill him; shoot him down in his tracks.” S. Tolnay & E. Beck, A Festival of Violence: An Analysis of Southern Lynchings, 1882–1930, p. 67 (1995).
—Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504, 2521; 557 U.S. 193 (2009) (Thomas, J., Concurring).

Also citing Footnote 2: "S. Rep. No. 41, 42d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 7, p. 610 (1872) (quoting a Ku Klux Klan letter warning a black man from Georgia to “ ‘stay at home if you value your life, and not vote at all, and advise all of your race to do the same thing. You are marked and closely watched by K. K. K. . . .’ ”); see also Jackson Daily Mississippian, Dec. 29, 1887, reprinted in S. Misc. Doc. No. 106, 50th Cong., 1st Sess., 14 (1888) (“[W]e hereby warn the negroes that if any one of their race attempts to run for office in the approaching municipal election he does so at his supremest peril, and we further warn any and all negroes of this city against attempting, at their utmost hazard, by vote or influence, to foist on us again this black and damnable machine miscalled a government of our city” (publishing resolutions passed by the Young White Men’s League of Jackson)."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-322.pdf

Erik.

pitbull30
10-26-2013, 9:42 AM
Its a political intimidation tactic to let you know they know....why not just have LGS's include a flyer with each sale? Clearly would save money on postage.

Turners located within LA county does this. They staple it to your paperwork when you pick up.

bohoki
10-26-2013, 9:59 AM
neat i'll make sure i fill out a dros when my gun is stolen

Capybara
10-26-2013, 12:07 PM
Your tax dollars at work.

Let it go. It's simply feel-good bureaucratic ineffective BS that's a bulletpoint on some tool's resume showing they got tough on gun violence.

I would love to see a cost breakdown of how much in tax dollar resources this waste of time and money actually costs.

haole_50
10-27-2013, 8:39 AM
Just to play devils advocate, what's wrong with them notifying a gun purchaser of the laws regarding gun ownership and usage? I mean, seriously?

I get the issue of them using DROS information other than it was intended; that's a real issue, and something in and of itself that should be stopped.

But the actual net-affect of notifying gun owners of their lawful responsibilities and requirements? I don't see the problem.

Sure, we all know the rules -- but I'm not so sure everyone else does.

So honestly, why is it a big deal?

I'd think these politicians need to send a letter to EVERY (Criminals) person; sounds biased to me. I would not respond and return to sender (Costing them the $$ for the return of their stupidity).

bigguns85
10-27-2013, 12:58 PM
On a simular though how do LEO get their list of residants with guns. When the operators call the officers to a residant they inform them if they got one at home or not for certain calls. Clearly there is a list being made somewhere. That is probaly why they made longgun transfers manditory registry.

funnybookz
10-27-2013, 1:11 PM
I've never received one.

Vlad 11
10-27-2013, 4:30 PM
That is probaly why they made longgun transfers manditory registry.

I think it definitely is a big factor. The Antis cream themselves when they have this much data. They do their little studies and then formulate more antigun policy based on the results. Which, more often then not, is skewed, cherry picked or outright lied about - such as in the case of the LA Mayor lying about the 60% rate of straw purchases.

CALMark
11-07-2013, 3:38 PM
I just got one of these letter today. I thought its something i need to respond to. but I think its just a procedure reminder letter. I hope hehe