Idiot DFG!

[negolien]

Once it was confiscated shouldn't he have had to file proper paperwork and such? Doesn't matter who was wrong once it's in the system i find it hared to believe you could just "go pick it up" so to speak..

[TimRB]

Once it was confiscated shouldn't he have had to file proper paperwork and such? Doesn't matter who was wrong once it's in the system i find it hared to believe you could just "go pick it up" so to speak..

Do I have this right? Even though the OP did nothing wrong and broke no laws, he should have to file paperwork (and probably wait weeks for it to be processed--oh, and pay a fee, too) before the ignorant cop returns his gun? Why can't the system just note that the gun was confiscated by mistake and returned to the owner?

Tim

[BigDogatPlay]

So from reading through the thread...

** The OP was 100% legal and there was no violation, of even a DFG statute or reg.

** The warden (and there are a bunch of new, young ones out there the past few years) erred in identifying the OP's OLL as an AW subject to registration.

** The OP's rifle was returned to him without going through the LEGR process, for which CADoJ should be spanking DFG, and likely will if they find out about it. I'm sure that the OLL had not been entered in to AFS yet (CA State Parks dispatches DFG and does a lot of their CLETS work) so thank goodness that the wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly sometimes.

** This becomes a "teachable moment" for the warden and for DFG as I am equally sure that CGF will be following up to ensure that the wardens have a complete understanding of the pertinent statutes and regs.

** IIRC, the controlling federal civil rights statute may well be a specific intent deal. If so, then if the warden erred in a matter of judgement without a specific intent to deprive the OP of his rights, then civil rights penalty would be very hard to attach.

In the long run, while we all would like to get a pound of flesh or two out of any bureaucracy, my feeling is that if the warden learns something personally and DFG learns something institutionally, and the OP gets his rifle back (which he did) without any further sanction.... then it's a win.

[Lead Waster]

It's possible that DFG officers have been told wot look out for "suspicious" people with AW looking guns due to all the pot-growing and Mexican drug cartel BS that's been going on in National Forests lately.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I can see how the DFG guy might be suspicious.

[Sniper3142]

... and a LEO got an education, and is unlikely to make the same mistake again.

Those are HUGE assumptions. We have no proof that this DFG officer has "learned his lesson" or been educated about what he did wrong.

The BEST way to ensure he, and other officers within his command, learn to fully understand the laws regarding firearms before they go around trying to enforce them, is with Legal Action and / or a Formal Complaint.

Pressing charges, or otherwise escalating this could turn a LEO's education into a life long adversarial situation where he ends up hating shooters for how they went after him for a mistake.

If he or other LEOs can't take being corrected and / or punished for mistakes made by them that can HUGELY affect citizens lives, then perhaps a change of occupation might be in order.

[1lostinspace]

The problem is he's covered by qualified immunity and the state will drag out the suit for years. Suing the state is a pain in the arsch. I doubt you'll find anyone who'll wanna touch it.

he is not covered by immunity when it's a second amendment issue

[Cokebottle]

** IIRC, the controlling federal civil rights statute may well be a specific intent deal. If so, then if the warden erred in a matter of judgement without a specific intent to deprive the OP of his rights, then civil rights penalty would be very hard to attach.

This is where we have the double standard.

If a LEO makes a mistake in judgment, the result can be anything from an inconvenience to someone, as it was in this case, to a wrongful death.
It has been pounded into our heads since we were children, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", yet we see cases like this not infrequently (I'm not going to say "all the time") where an officer/ranger makes a mistake, and regardless of the cost and inconvenience to the contact (which may very well be thousands of dollars if an arrest is made and a bail bondsman is paid)... Yet the contact is supposed to accept "Oops, we were wrong, we're sorry"?

In this case, it seems that the officer was unsure.
Rather than issuing the citation and confiscating the gun, he should have made sure.
If it meant a trip back to the station, so be it. I would not have a problem following an officer back to his station (with him in possession of my rifle) for the purpose of verifying it's legitimacy. A couple of hours of hunting/shooting lost the day of the contact is a lot better than having to take a day off work to head back out to pick up the gun (and certainly beats going through the LEGR process).

In other cases, the officer/ranger honestly believes that it is an assault weapon.
Yet we can't fall back on "I honestly believed that it was not an assault weapon" when a featureless build turns out to have a flash hider rather than a comp.

Ya, there are thousands of laws and regulations. I honestly don't expect every officer to be fully informed on all of them, but that's why every officer has a radio and (probably) a cell phone. If they are unsure, there are people that they can contact that may be sure, or at the very least would be able to look up the statute.
But in this case, it was DFG. Of the thousands of LEOs out there, one would think that a DFG officer would be up on firearms laws.

[J-cat]

he is not covered by immunity when it's a second amendment issue

Yes he is. He loses his immunity only if the law is clearly established and has been so for a long time giving him adequate notice. We are still in the frontier of the 2nd A./ BB issue and will get immunity in this liberal anti-gun state.

[nitrofc]

Wow.....glad to hear you got it back so fast! That is amazing!

The biggest problem with the way DFG is operated, is the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing more than half the time.

Between the extreme leftest greenies and that Indian tribe up on the Klamath River...the DFG screwed a lot of us miners with that stupid SB 670 that was drafted by that chick Pat Wiggins (D) which does nothing but kill small towns all across Kalifornia.....It's a long story anyway.

What a cluster *&^%!

[BigDogatPlay]

This is where we have the double standard.

If a LEO makes a mistake in judgment, the result can be anything from an inconvenience to someone, as it was in this case, to a wrongful death.
It has been pounded into our heads since we were children, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", yet we see cases like this not infrequently (I'm not going to say "all the time") where an officer/ranger makes a mistake, and regardless of the cost and inconvenience to the contact (which may very well be thousands of dollars if an arrest is made and a bail bondsman is paid)... Yet the contact is supposed to accept "Oops, we were wrong, we're sorry"?

I agree with you on point. There is still the concept, however, in the controlling federal civil rights laws of specific intent. The criminal sanctions absolutely require specific intent to deprive. A mistake does not equal intent, at least as I understand the law. From your perspective that is a glaring double standard for corrupt cops to roll through, under the apparent assumption that most cops are out there solely to screw honest people over and actively conspire amongst themselves to deprive people of their rights.

Unless or until you can get that rectified so that any simple mistake in judgment or interpretation on the officers part nets him loss of office and jail time, we have the system that we have. We have to use these teachable moments to their best effect with the understanding that once that warden and his agency have been schooled, in this case perhaps by CGF, then they in the future have absolutely no excuse for said mistake.

At which point the civil rights action becomes much more possible.

[J-cat]

You first have to be beaten by several forest rangers before a civil rights violation attaches

[Cokebottle]

I agree with you on point. There is still the concept, however, in the controlling federal civil rights laws of specific intent. The criminal sanctions absolutely require specific intent to deprive. A mistake does not equal intent, at least as I understand the law. From your perspective that is a glaring double standard for corrupt cops to roll through, under the apparent assumption that most cops are out there solely to screw honest people over and actively conspire amongst themselves to deprive people of their rights.

Unless or until you can get that rectified so that any simple mistake in judgment or interpretation on the officers part nets him loss of office and jail time, we have the system that we have. We have to use these teachable moments to their best effect with the understanding that once that warden and his agency have been schooled, in this case perhaps by CGF, then they in the future have absolutely no excuse for said mistake.

At which point the civil rights action becomes much more possible.

I'm not saying that statute and case law don't support the need for intent... they certainly do, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a double standard. Statute and case law assumes that cops don't make mistakes. Cops are human, and human being make mistakes.
The problem is, with the protection of "intent", some officers may not avail themselves of available training and information to clarify the minutiae of some of the more obscure laws that they are charged with enforcing. I wouldn't refer to these guys as "bad cops".... perhaps "lazy" or even "overworked" might be better terms... but the fact remains that the civilian is bound by "ignorance of the law is no excuse", while officers are not.
And yes... that's a loophole that the few "bad cops" can fly a 747 through.

In most cases, civilians do not have the benefit of "intent" being used to establish a crime. In many cases, it is quite the opposite.
If I'm giving acquaintance Joe a ride, and Joe asks me to stop at the bank so he can deposit a check, I wait in the parking lot, and he robs the bank, I can and will be charged as an accessory, even though my intent was merely to let him deposit a check.

A little closer to home for many of us.....
If I am planning to build an AR but have not acquired any of the parts, but someone offers a Grip-Pod at a gnarly price and I pick it up, I am in violation of NFA and Ca statutes for constructive possession of an AOW simply because my XD9 has a rail that COULD accept that VFG... even though I have no intention of mounting the grip to the pistol.

But Constructive Possession is a whole 'nother ballgame that, with a few exceptions, should go away, since it assumes intent that may not be present. It's merely a way to stack on charges when the contact has been picked up on something related.... or an easy way to "find something" to charge someone with if the basis for the arrest falls through, IE: Joe Calgunner is arrested for an AW, which happens to be a BB-fitted OLL and is legal. Normally charges would be dropped, but because he has a 7.5" barrel for his planned pistol build, he's now charged with CP.

[CavTrooper]

I would like to hear the official CGF word on this situation.

[oddjob]

What I find ironic is that folks will chastise DFG for their lack of knowledge on this matter & I fully understand. But if a FFL doesn't have the same degree of knowledge (and we assume they are on our side) the FFL is not chastised as much. I had a FFL refuse a private party transfer on a legal AR lower. I explained the law to him (as if I had to) and he refused. He said he "heard" LEO was going to confiscate all lowers. I told him even if they did they would go to the buyer's house. All I got was a blank stare from him (no joke).

Two months later he was selling the lowers. I have not bought anything from him since then.

I guess what I'm getting at is we gun owners can't even get our own folks on the same page let alone others.

[J-cat]

That's the problem with the world today. One needs a team of attorneys and a psychologist on retainer to navigate through life.