|
The CRPA Forum News, Questions, and Discussion |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Unannounced DOJ Field Visits
I'm really hoping CRPA can shed some light on this. I believe this is one of the scariest things CA gun owners have faced in a long time.
There have been, at this point, MANY reports from people who have said DOJ agents paid them a visit at their work or house, with regards to Assault Weapon registration applications. Several were perhaps justified - people trying to register things that weren't legal to possess even before 2017, or things they bought after 2016. But it appears many of these visits are completely out of line:
In EVERY case, the agents have intimidated their way into seeing the contents of each person's safe, presumably without a warrant. I have not heard of anyone asking for or being shown a warrant. From what I've heard, the results of these visits have each gone one of 3 different ways:
At this point, nobody knows what to do if this happens to them. It would be great is someone like CRPA could provide some insight and, hopefully, let us know that they are looking into these events and possibly pursuing legal action against DOJ to put a stop to it.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We absolutely know what to do if this happens. Do NOT consent to searches. Remain silent. Call lawyer. In fact, it's so simple, I'd say people who don't know this are idiots. People who won't practice it are sheeple.
__________________
Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
I agree, but clearly most (all?) of the people who have been paid visits either aren't aware of this, or are somehow bullied/intimidated/persuaded into giving in and complying with their requests. Not sure what it is, but something needs to change or a LOT more unsuspecting people are going to be losing their guns and/or freedom.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
but then not realizing that they may have other things that may not be legal or not configured correctly. i mean in your original post, it shows that people only have a 1 in 3 chance of the agents leaving with zero loss to the citizen besides time. 2 of the outcomes results in loss of property or jail time. that is really slanted unfavorably to the citizen. and is another reason why I don't believe in registering. they don't need to know the exact details of what i got besides the fact i have a few ar lowers i bought after 2014. for all they know they are still in their stripped form. i don't need to give them anymore info than that until they spend their time to verify differently. as one of my life mottos, "everything is legal until you are caught." totally applies here.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Scratch705; 05-18-2018 at 4:01 PM.. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
I'd imagine the big fat CA gun database is going to get much more use as more laws come down the pipeline i.e. Gov Newsom decides you can't keep your registered pre-ban guns.
__________________
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Admit to nothing at the front door when they come unannounced. Ask them to go away politely and if they won't and can provide serial numbers of the weapons then ask them to wait outside. Call a lawyer to cover yourself and only allow them to examine any weapons outside the house. find a legal group that is available 24 hours a day. They have no right to come in or go through a gun safe you may have without a search warrant as long as you eventually produce the weapons outside for inspection. if they come back then get a lawyer out there and say nothing. They are going to be trying to take your weapons anyway they can because that is their objective. Good luck.
Last edited by warbird; 05-18-2018 at 6:06 PM.. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Yep, these visits are just a warm up for what will happen later when the grabbing starts.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
The Law does NOT state where you have to keep your guns. They have to be "under your control."
Sorry officer, my guns are NOT here.
__________________
It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the bottom. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I read another thread which had input from what sounded like LEO and lawyers. It suggested if they wanted to get a warrant they will not leave and can have one in around 30 minutes. It also stated an example of DOJ taking multiple AR type rifles in entirety, not allowing the removal of upper or even optics. This makes me wonder if the rifle they were presented was no longer a complete rifle. For example if it is now only a completed lower or even a stripped lower. Good luck making me reassemble it for confiscation! I can see semi disassembled storage for some types of rifles but most of what needs to be registered has no option for such. Examples: IWI Tavors, AK pistols etc.
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
There is also no legal requirement that we keep the rifles "fully assembled and fully functional" AFTER sending in the registration form. They only needed to be in that state when we sent in the application. And there's nothing to prevent you from selling off your uppers post-registration, nor any requirement that you maintain records of doing so. I read the comments about them getting a warrant in 30 minutes, too, but even if it was lawyers making those comments it is still only based in speculation as far as I can tell. To my knowledge the theory hasn't been tested yet, as I have not heard of anybody being presented with a warrant (or even asking if they had one). I'm guessing the agents can be very persuasive, and as someone else mentioned above, the element of surprise plus the "I don't think I have anything to hide" factor has been causing people to just comply with the hopes that they'll go away. Similar to when people consent to a search of their car during a regular traffic stop (which, if you ask any LEO, is most of the time)
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. Last edited by CandG; 05-19-2018 at 5:15 AM.. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, we have already been monitoring this. I have a thread on it. Most all of the visits have been in and around the bay area leading to the conclusion that it is indeed a zealot in a single field office behind the "visits".
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Your post, Morgan Hill, CA http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1444645 2 reports in your thread from a FFL in the Silicon Valley area http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=158 San Diego County, CA http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1434424 Possibly San Diego, CA (based on OP's location) http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1415817 Bakersfield, CA http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1449041
__________________
Last edited by ajb78; 05-19-2018 at 1:50 PM.. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
There is considerable case law, that when taken as a whole, supports the ability of LEOs to secure a location pending the receipt of a search warrant. They have the ability to enter and remove any persons within the location, and have the ability to detain persons at the scene. The whole idea is that nothing is allowed to be changed, and no one allowed to disappear while the warrant is being obtained. Thirty minutes is a little optimistic for the obtaining of warrant. If the LEO is skilled in warrants and a judge readily available, plan on about an hour. However, the above case law primarily dealt with instances where LEOs made an immediate discovery during the course of a field investigation and proceeded with a warrant. There is also existing case law that prevents LEOs from "creating their own exigency" for their own benefit. I can't cite to a case closely on point, but if LEOs went to house to seek a consent search for a firearm and were denied, my best estimate is that search warrant would not be upheld if they elected to secure the location and obtain one.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Anchors Aweigh |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sounds like the best idea is still to make sure that if (when?) They obtain a search warrant, they don't find anything. Do we have any recourse if they turn our house upside down and don't find anything?
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=158
__________________
Last edited by ajb78; 05-19-2018 at 2:06 PM.. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A search warrant is technically a command from a judge to conduct a search. So long as there was no bad faith involved, and the terms of the warrant complied with, I'm not able to think of any avenue that would provide a source of civil liability. But you may also want to do a google search on the infamous "Dalton Street Raid" conducted by LAPD. In that case the best evidence suggests that the search warrant was served in an overly aggressive manner and the court did find some substantial civil liability. I've only been involved in one lawsuit stemming from a warrant that I was involved in. In that case we searched a commercial building owned by the subject for his dope. There was a large safe on the second floor that had a combination dial. We offered the subject the opportunity to open the safe so that it could be searched pursuant to the warrant and he declined. That's cool, nothing in the warrant required him to open the safe. We had a locksmith drill it open (yes the dope was inside), and a consequence of the drilling was that the flood coolant seeped into the building's structure and caused damages exceeding 100K. His civil claim to the county was denied, his lawsuit quickly dismissed at summary judgment and his insurance company denied his claim since he failed to mitigate damages in the manner required by his policy.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. Last edited by RickD427; 05-19-2018 at 2:05 PM.. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
My mindset....
__________________
May the Bridges I burn light the way. Life Is Not About Waiting For The Storm To Pass - Its About Learning To Dance In The Rain. Fewer people are killed with all rifles each year (323 in 2011) than with shotguns (356), hammers and clubs (496), and hands and feet (728). |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
All I can say is make the law obey the law and my job is not to be there to allow them to take shortcuts or be pawns in illegal behavior through intimidation like many LEO's have done in the past. Simple isn't it?
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
It's only a matter of time before they pass some law that they can do this for any assault type rifle/lower based on purchase records. Move your weapons. Keep only one at home if you have many.
__________________
RKBA Clock: Free Vespuchia! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Well the TOP first THREE you just mentioned are near the Bay area. I haven't received the reports personally on the other two. My point was, to try and keep things to one thread. BTW, the Bakersfield case and at least one of the SD stories are NOT what I am talking about. I am looking for cases where people registered LEGAL guns and THEN got raided. Not those trying to register ILLEGAL guns. Last edited by CAL.BAR; 05-20-2018 at 10:27 AM.. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
So you're saying that you don't care about those incidents, because the people involved, should have been able to keep up with all the BS law changes? Because there isn't anything convoluted about CA firearm laws, they are all cut and dry, sweet and to the point, right?
__________________
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|