Idiot DFG!

[Ron-Solo]

Everyone seems to forget that bullet buttons are not supported by codified laws or even case law directly. They are supported by case law and some sound legal opinions.

Even the Attorney General won't commit to supporting them. Until then, there will always be some legal opinions that differ from the way we interpret the legality of bullet buttons.

I always have an uphill battle when trying to convince some of my LE collegues of their legality, and I've been in the business for 32 years. Fortunately my tenure and rank lend creedence to my side of the argument with them (rank has some privileges. )

Until this happens, be prepared to make your case by using the flow chart and copies of the Sac. memo and the Orange County Sheriff's memo. The OCSD training memo actually refers to the CalGuns flow chart.

Any time I have my off list rifles out for a little fun, I always have the memo and flow chart with me, and I carry a badge.

Aloha,

Ron

[glockman19]

Everyone seems to forget that bullet buttons are not supported by codified laws or even case law directly. They are supported by case law and some sound legal opinions.Even the Attorney General won't commit to supporting them. Until then, there will always be some legal opinions that differ from the way we interpret the legality of bullet buttons.

I always have an uphill battle when trying to convince some of my LE collegues of their legality, and I've been in the business for 32 years. Fortunately my tenure and rank lend creedence to my side of the argument with them (rank has some privileges. )

Until this happens, be prepared to make your case by using the flow chart and copies of the Sac. memo and the Orange County Sheriff's memo. The OCSD training memo actually refers to the CalGuns flow chart.

Any time I have my off list rifles out for a little fun, I always have the memo and flow chart with me, and I carry a badge.

Aloha,

Ron

If it's NOT ILLEGAL it's LEGAL. Supposition by LE is where the trouble lies.

Perhaps, you...because of your rank and tenure can help everyone out by providing your department with coppies of the OCSD memo and the CalGuns flow-chart. It would certianly help many of us out ther from unnecessary conjecture.

I also hope that someone has forwarded a copy of both to the DFG.

Mahalo

[Breadfan]

TAG

[SVT-40]

If it's NOT ILLEGAL it's LEGAL. Supposition by LE is where the trouble lies.

Perhaps, you...because of your rank and tenure can help everyone out by providing your department with coppies of the OCSD memo and the CalGuns flow-chart. It would certianly help many of us out ther from unnecessary conjecture.

I also hope that someone has forwarded a copy of both to the DFG.

Mahalo

I'm sure if someone provided the 7,000 or so copies of the flow chart and memos to Ron Solo he would do his best to get them handed out to all the deputy's in Los Angeles county.

Maybe that could be a good project for the CGF to provide copies of that information to each and every LEO in the state.

[Cyc Wid It]

I'm sure if someone provided the 7,000 or so copies of the flow chart and memos to Ron Solo he would do his best to get them handed out to all the deputy's in Los Angeles county.

Maybe that could be a good project for the CGF to provide copies of that information to each and every LEO in the state.

E-mail the link and/or attachment won't suffice?

[Ford8N]

Everyone seems to forget that bullet buttons are not supported by codified laws or even case law directly. They are supported by case law and some sound legal opinions.

Even the Attorney General won't commit to supporting them. Until then, there will always be some legal opinions that differ from the way we interpret the legality of bullet buttons.

Aloha,

Ron

Excellent point. CGF should be all over this. If we could get something from the AG office admitting that the BB is legal it would go a long way to ending FUD by some FFL's. Also I'm quite sure LEO's wouldn't have to waste their very busy schedual investigating if a "scary looking rifle" is legal or not..... or maybe the AG's office doesn't want to admit the BB is legal so they can continue to cost the law abiding gun owner legal fees to discourage gun ownership. Part of the "plan"?

[cmichini]

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.

Somewhat ironic, yes. But VERY different situations and effects.

Having a commercial enterprise refuse to participate in a legal transaction they are unsure of is frustrating. Their ignorance of the law results in you having to find another avenue to legally ACQUIRE your firearm. Again, an inconvenience, even a tacit infringement but they are a PRIVATE enterprise and may confuse their right to refuse service with their obligation to do a PPT, which is somewhat understandable.

However, I think it is VERY different than a sworn LEO who illegally CONFISCATES your legally owned, personal property (and with no arrest isn't that really theft?).

Both impinge on your legal rights. However, the LEO has actively violated your rights under the guise of his authority and, unless corrected, has created some sort of implied authority (in his mind at least) to confiscate any gun he feels is illegal and therefore has carte blanche to infringe on people's rights under the 2nd, and 4th amendments to the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

An education of the FFL would be in order to ensure he understands the constitutional impact of his actions.

A prosecution of the LEO is a moral imperative to preserve the rules under which our country was founded (freedom from tyrannical government). This will ensure the LEO, and the entire department, are aware that their actions are blatant violations of citizens' rights, are not to be tolerated and the law of the land is upheld and respected.

But that's just me.

[RJonesUSC]

I believe a few other states have a 5 round limit. I think people just assume since CA is so bad on everything else they must have a limit too.

Sadly, that's why I believed it until now.

[J-cat]

However, I think it is VERY different than a sworn LEO who illegally CONFISCATES your legally owned, personal property (and with no arrest isn't that really theft?).

No it isn't. Theft is the unlawful taking of personal property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof.

[Wherryj]

It always pisses me off hearing something like this. I hope you will at least follow through with a complaint even after you get your rifle back. I don't expect DFG to know all of the messed up AW laws in CA, but they should know the laws they are enforcing.

It has been asserted that officers enforcing a law have no legal responsibility to understand it, but citizens have the legal responsibility to know and understand ALL laws.

Ignorance is no excuse, unless you are arresting someone for violating a law about which you are yourself ignorant.

[Peter.Steele]

Contrary to the belief that the OP should have been arrested, that is not necessarily true. An LEO is not required to make an arrest for any crime up to and including murder. Arrests are made mainly due to concerns for public safety and by department protocols.

I know of a guy about 10 years ago, right after the ban, that had an AK out in the middle of nowhere. It was a straight-up unregistered AW, not any sort of grey area. DFG took it and sent him on his way with no other actions taken. No arrest, no citation. Through some creative digging he determined that the rifle had in fact been destroyed. It appeared that it had been lumped in with some other weapons seized in a bust, though, rather than having any connection to (a) him or (b) DFG.

Found it.
PC 286.5

Not surprising you knew all about that one, based on your avatar?

No it isn't. Theft is the unlawful taking of personal property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof.

Dude, do you really think that the DFG guy in question here had any intention of giving it back at some point?

Did he take it? Yep, check.
Was it unlawful? Yep, check.
At the time of the taking, was the intent to make the confiscation permanent? Yep, check.

Sounds to me like all the essential elements of theft are right there.

[GuyW]

Everyone seems to forget that bullet buttons are not supported by codified laws or even case law directly. They are supported by case law and some sound legal opinions.

No, YOU forgot that there is a CA Regulation that is LAW that is the absolute basis for the bullet button et al.

.

[jaymz]

Everyone seems to forget that bullet buttons are not supported by codified laws or even case law directly. They are supported by case law and some sound legal opinions.

Even the Attorney General won't commit to supporting them. Until then, there will always be some legal opinions that differ from the way we interpret the legality of bullet buttons.

I'd say that's codified support right there.

[PaperPuncher]

Hold on folks... You're all up in arms because the OP had his rifle returned the day after, with no other ill effects? Yea, it should not have been seized in the first place, if it was a legally configured legally owned and possessed AR-pattern rifle. We all agree on that. But for craps sake, a mistake was fixed, in VERY short order, and you still want to hang the guy out to dry? Take into consideration the fact that each and EVERY one of you has made mistakes too. I know I sure as heck have. You think this officer doesn't now know a whole heckuva lot more about OLL and ARs and such? I bet he does. The OP didn't get tossed in jail, didn't have to pay for a lawyer to regain his personal legally owned property, and the officer now knows what is allowed.

Yea, if the rifle was legally configured, it shouldn't have happened in the first place. BUT, it was quickly remedied and an officer was educated. Sucks that it had to happen that way, and that the OP was temporarily deprived of his firearm, but it sure appears to be an honest mistake that was quickly fixed. No point in calling for the officer to be fired or otherwise destroy his life. I do think that the OP should be reimbursed for his time and costs incurred to recover the rifle. Who knows if that will happen. I don't think that mistakes are inforgiveable. There's a huge difference between maliciously seizing someones property because the officer wants to, and seizing an item that an officer mistakenly believes is part of or connected to a crime. It can't be easy, or even possible, to know every nuance of every bound book of laws and codes and regulations out there. No freaking way. I bet we all break laws every day that we don't know exist. And I bet if you got cited for something that you had been doing every day for twenty years you would freak out about it and say the cop was out to get you because you didn't even know it was a law. He made a mistake. Demand that everyone in his squad or county or whatever goes through a 2 hour firearms laws training course so that it doesn't happen again. That would be a whole heckuva lot more effective than stringing him up as some "example" and furthering the "us vs. them" mentality that is so prevalent out there.

One thing I really do wish is that more LEO around the state realized that long guns don't have to be registered. I've had that turn into an issue two or three times.

So if the OP were just a bit confused about the law and actually had an illegally configured assault weapon do you think the judge would have handed him a bullet button on the stand and said "it is just a simple mistake that can fixed with a bullet button. Just put this on, the charges will be dropped and you are free to go"?

Pretty sure he would be facing jail time, loss of rifle, loss of 2A rights for life, loss of money, loss of job etc.

Sue them.

[pepsi2451]

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if the officer learned anything about AW laws. That wouldn't be the issue for me. The thing that upsets me is that he thinks he can just take someones property and figure it out later.

Hopefully he learned something about OLLs and why they are legal. What he needs to learn is that taking peoples property is serious and if he isn't sure something is illegal he needs either find out for sure or let that person go.

If I went to pick up the rifle I would expect him to be apologizing all over himself and offering to reimburse me for travel expenses right then. If not, I would do everything I could to see that he faced at least some kind of consequences.