SSE Guns

[Sousuke]

You're correct that Mr. Broughman was involved in commercial activity, but that point was irrelevant to the case holding. The language of the decision makes it equally applicable to a home-builder.

I'm also curious about your CHP encounter. Had the same thing occurred involving deputy sheriff's under my supervision, your weapons would have taken into custody for safekeeping and returned to you when you were again capable of securing them (and with a LEGR after that process went into effect - Don't get me going on the LEGR. I could duplicate all functions of the LEGR process at my desk in just a few minutes).

I have to think there was more involved, or that your attorney didn't do a very good job.

We need a source of authority to retain firearms.

How so? If that were indeed the interpretation then home building an AR with a serialized receiver would be illegal as well.

[RickD427]

How so? If that were indeed the interpretation then home building an AR with a serialized receiver would be illegal as well.

Best for you to read the case directly. It describes Mr. Broughman's activities and then gives an analysis of those activities. The central theme to the analysis is that the extent of work that he did, on receivers that he purchased as firearms still amounted to "Manufacturing", even though the receivers had already been manufactured prior to Broughman purchasing them. It true that Broughman then sold them, but the analysis was to the manufacturing aspects, not the sales.

Applying Broughman's reasoning to the manufacture of an AR rifle would not make it illegal in California. PC 32000 does not apply to rifles. But it would apply to the manufacture of an AR pistol.

[Sousuke]

Best for you to read the case directly. It describes Mr. Broughman's activities and then gives an analysis of those activities. The central theme to the analysis is that the extent of work that he did, on receivers that he purchased as firearms still amounted to "Manufacturing", even though the receivers had already been manufactured prior to Broughman purchasing them. It true that Broughman then sold them, but the analysis was to the manufacturing aspects, not the sales.

Applying Broughman's reasoning to the manufacture of an AR rifle would not make it illegal in California. PC 32000 does not apply to rifles. But it would apply to the manufacture of an AR pistol.

I get that you are using the case as a definition for manufacturing (which doesn't match SSE1 - firearms were delivered "ready for use") , but the case relates to manufacturing for resale. Thats what I am saying.

[Citizen_B]

The best test case from the LE perspective is stay entirely on the civil side. LE officers do have the authority to seize firearms that were manufactured in violation of the law. There is no corresponding requirement to arrest, or to prosecute the violator. It may be intuitive to link the two, but there is no requirement.

In a criminal case, the prosecutor has the burden of proof.

But in a civil case, the moving party has the burden of proof. When the possessor of the firearms sues for its return, they bear the burden of showing that it was lawfully manufactured.

The burden shifting tactic involved in the civil court process is well-known to law enforcement. It's a mainstay in the "asset forfeiture" toolbox (and the root of most alleged improprieties of the asset forfeiture tactic).

When you go to civil court, there is no District Attorney anywhere in the process.

Remember that PC 32000 was in place long before Broughman. And when you do apply the reasoning of Broughman, it's only the person who manufactured the "unsafe handgun" that has criminal liability.

I guess I still don't understand how an SSE1 seizure would hold water.

Suppose Mr. Escobar, big time drug lord and own lots of fancy stuff. It's reasonable to presume they were ill-gotten from his sole profession.

Take SSE1 now. LEO confiscates firearm and says it's a product of illegal manufacturing of an unsafe firearm. Citizen goes to civil court to request firearm be returned. It's not illegal to possess. Is what you're saying that citizen has to prove themselves that the LE accusation of the firearm being manufactured illegally is not true? First of all, how does one actually prove it was not illegally manufactured? Proving that it was legally manufactured?

Second, I can see this being an extremely slippery slope if this tactic is actually used by LE in wide practice. This means a LEO can confiscate your car at a traffic stop accusing you of robbing a bank in Wisconsin and using the ill-gotten funds to buy said car. Then leaving the parting gift of "go prove it's not in civil court if you want it back".

Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

[RickD427]

I get that you are using the case as a definition for manufacturing, but the case relates to manufacturing for resale. Thats what I am saying.

You need to back and give the case a closer reading. Yes, Broughman was involved in resale activities, but if you see any content in the holding that restricts the holding of the case to resale, then please "cut and paste" it in a response. The holding also applies to personal builders.

[Sousuke]

You need to back and give the case a closer reading. Yes, Broughman was involved in resale activities, but if you see any content in the holding that restricts the holding of the case to resale, then please "cut and paste" it in a response. The holding also applies to personal builders.

The summary of the case was that he was manufacturing because the firearms being delivered were not sent to him "ready for use".

With regards to SSE1, the firearms are "ready for use" when they arrive at the FFL, so I'm still not seeing a connection.

[RickD427]

I guess I still don't understand how an SSE1 seizure would hold water.

Suppose Mr. Escobar, big time drug lord and own lots of fancy stuff. It's reasonable to presume they were ill-gotten from his sole profession.

Take SSE1 now. LEO confiscates firearm and says it's a product of illegal manufacturing of an unsafe firearm. Citizen goes to civil court to request firearm be returned. It's not illegal to possess. Is what you're saying that citizen has to prove themselves that the LE accusation of the firearm being manufactured illegally is not true? First of all, how does one actually prove it was not illegally manufactured? Proving that it was legally manufactured?

Second, I can see this being an extremely slippery slope if this tactic is actually used by LE in wide practice. This means a LEO can confiscate your car at a traffic stop accusing you of robbing a bank in Wisconsin and using the ill-gotten funds to buy said car. Then leaving the parting gift of "go prove it's not in civil court if you want it back".

Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

No, you're understanding. Your examples are a little extreme, but that's basically how it works.

The end result is that the possessor of the weapon does have to convince the court that the manufacture was lawfully done. That's the burden shifting part of the tactic.

LE officers normally work in conjunction with Customs officers at Ports of Entry looking for large amounts of cash related to the drug trade. If they find an unemployed bum with $40,000 of undeclared cash, and it tests positive for drug residue, they seize the cash but they don't arrest the courier. The courier then has to sue for the recovery of the money, and has the burden of showing that it did not come from a drug transaction. The legal path is pretty well worn, all that happens here is you substitute an unlawfully manufactured firearm for the drug money.

[Citizen_B]

Is "unsafe" a legal status for nonrostered handguns? I'm not sure it is. There are many ways a nonrostered handgun can be made available to sale without previously being SSE. Therefore I don't see how SSE "manufactures" an "unsafe" handgun legally speaking. There is no frame created etc. Its just a few part changes.

Also consider that in 40-50 years under current law, all previously SSE guns will be exempt anyway.

A major point of debate is what is actually defined as "manufacturing", both in PC and case law.

[Sousuke]

A major point of debate is what is actually defined as "manufacturing", both in PC and case law.

Yes, and even if the above case were to define manufacturing, they summarize that the firearm was not delivered ready for use, therefore it is manufacturing.

With regards to SSE, the firearm is delivered ready for use to the FFL. The modifications made don't change that status.

[MrOrange]

In my case, I was told by a CHP officer on the phone that they didn't return guns, period. It didn't matter if there were any charges, or if they took them for safe keeping, or whatever. I talked to a lawyer about it, and that's when he said it wasn't worth it. IIRC just getting that advice was like $150. (This was in the late '80's.)

This is one of those things that a lot of cops don't like to hear, or will tell you that it just doesn't happen, or think that "ask to talk to their supervisor" will get them to follow the law. Cops do whatever they want to do, legal or not, and the only way to set things right is with a legal battle that may go your way but will mos def cost you a great deal of time and money.

In another example, I tried to explain a law to the folks manning the front desk at a PD, and as usual I had print outs of the applicable laws with me, which they refused to acknowledge. Finally they went and got a lieutenant who took the printouts and disappeared for 10 minutes or so. He then comes out and tells me: "You're right, that's what the law says, but that's not our policy."

Me: So you're telling me that city policy over-rides state law?
LT: I know what the law says, but that's not our policy.

well alrighty then

[umd]

LT: I know what the law says, but that's not our policy.

And some people wonder why a lot of people don't like cops...

[RickD427]

In my case, I was told by a CHP officer on the phone that they didn't return guns, period. It didn't matter if there were any charges, or if they took them for safe keeping, or whatever. I talked to a lawyer about it, and that's when he said it wasn't worth it. IIRC just getting that advice was like $150. (This was in the late '80's.)

This is one of those things that a lot of cops don't like to hear, or will tell you that it just doesn't happen, or think that "ask to talk to their supervisor" will get them to follow the law. Cops do whatever they want to do, legal or not, and the only way to set things right is with a legal battle that may go your way but will mos def cost you a great deal of time and money.

In another example, I tried to explain a law to the folks manning the front desk at a PD, and as usual I had print outs of the applicable laws with me, which they refused to acknowledge. Finally they went and got a lieutenant who took the printouts and disappeared for 10 minutes or so. He then comes out and tells me: "You're right, that's what the law says, but that's not our policy."

Me: So you're telling me that city policy over-rides state law?
LT: I know what the law says, but that's not our policy.

well alrighty then

OK, Thanks for the additional information. It really sounds like you needed a better lawyer and some follow-up on this one.

Just so the record is clear, we gotta follow the law too.

The only caveat is that we gotta follow the law is it stands, not as the person we're dealing with would like it to be.

[JDay]

In my case, I was told by a CHP officer on the phone that they didn't return guns, period. It didn't matter if there were any charges, or if they took them for safe keeping, or whatever. I talked to a lawyer about it, and that's when he said it wasn't worth it. IIRC just getting that advice was like $150. (This was in the late '80's.)

This is one of those things that a lot of cops don't like to hear, or will tell you that it just doesn't happen, or think that "ask to talk to their supervisor" will get them to follow the law. Cops do whatever they want to do, legal or not, and the only way to set things right is with a legal battle that may go your way but will mos def cost you a great deal of time and money.

In another example, I tried to explain a law to the folks manning the front desk at a PD, and as usual I had print outs of the applicable laws with me, which they refused to acknowledge. Finally they went and got a lieutenant who took the printouts and disappeared for 10 minutes or so. He then comes out and tells me: "You're right, that's what the law says, but that's not our policy."

Me: So you're telling me that city policy over-rides state law?
LT: I know what the law says, but that's not our policy.

well alrighty then

Instant USC 1983 lawsuit in that case. No qualified immunity. Take everything they own and set an example.

[IVC]

And some people wonder why a lot of people don't like cops...

You cannot have a cop decide what is/isn't legal or to interpret a law. That would be like using CalGuns to decide what is legal or illegal or to interpret a law.

Cops have to follow the policy that someone else created and vetted. If there is a problem, policy must be changed first, then cops comply with the new policy. If there is anything you *cannot* pin on the cops is the concept of following the policy.

The real problem is when there is an abuse of power or political activism, but that's another issue.

[JDay]

You cannot have a cop decide what is/isn't legal or to interpret a law. That would be like using CalGuns to decide what is legal or illegal or to interpret a law.

Cops have to follow the policy that someone else created and vetted. If there is a problem, policy must be changed first, then cops comply with the new policy. If there is anything you *cannot* pin on the cops is the concept of following the policy.

The real problem is when there is an abuse of power or political activism, but that's another issue.

Police take an oath to uphold the Constitution/law. You sure can pin wilfully violating either on them. "I was just following orders" is no valid defense. This is why qualified immunity needs to be abolished.