California gov't seizes 500 legal ARs


PDA






Creeping Incrementalism
February 11, 2006, 02:33 AM
Because of a possible loophole opening up in California allowing new AR's and AK's to be registered as assault weapons, there's been a buying spree going on in California these past two months. However, the state Department of Justice (DOJ) just seized 500+ stripped lowers from a Bay Area FFL.

A group buy advertised on CalGuns.net had forum members doing the paperwork & pickup at an FFL in the city of Milpitas (SF Bay Area). CA law mandates a ten day wait before pickup. The FFL doesn't normally do this volume of business, and so ran out of safe space. The Department of Justice visited, noticed this, and seized 500+ stripped lowers. The FFL immediately went out and bought an enormous safe and the DOJ was notified of such, but it's been two weeks and they haven't returned them, even though it should have been within a day or two. Someone called the DOJ and got the answer from the clerks that the stripped lowers are now contraband and won't be returned, because of how the group buy was conducted--I'm not sure exactly what their technical legal ground their reasoning rests on, but it sounds like crap to me, based on my previous experiences buying and selling guns in this state. It seems as if the "small safe" reasoning was just an excuse to grab them. These lowers are very specifically legal in California, and pickups of the same model that were shipped to the FFL after the DOJ seizure have continued, as have sales throughout the state. The person who organized the group buy has retained a lawyer, but hasn't gotten far with getting them returned yet (it's been two weeks). Meanwhile, the owners of the lowers will have to keep doing the paperwork and paying a 25 dollar fee every 30 days, or they risk losing their lowers.

So what we have here is the DOJ seizing five hundred legal receivers on a technicality, and refusing to return them once the technicality has been fixed. For those of you who say the gov't hasn't taken your guns, well, they have just taken 500+ in one fell swoop in California. Of course, they may just be looking for another technicality, or making up the law as they go along, which the Firearms Division of the DOJ is known to do. One of these lowers is mine, and I believe the person who organized the group buy has two that were seized. He’s determined to get them all back, but I don’t know if it will happen.

Please don't dismiss this as just a California thing--we are your fellow Americans, and the “as goes California, so goes the nation” saying hasn’t been repeated for no reason.

More info is located at:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=28447
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=81

Here’s some basic background information on CA gun laws: The assault weapons law bans guns by feature, and a detachable mag is a required feature. There are also guns banned by model. The DOJ can add AR/AK receiver names at will, and then owners have a few months to register them as assault weapons. So fixed-mag AR’s are legal unless the DOJ bans that model, at which point residents have some time to register them as assault weapons, and assault weapons can have politically incorrect features. The DOJ announced such an addition to the ban list (for the first time), and so CA gun owners went on a buying spree. However, the DOJ just published a memo stating that they would not allow politically incorrect features to be added, which is not what the law states, but that’s another battle…

If you enjoyed reading about "California gov't seizes 500 legal ARs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ElTacoGrande
February 11, 2006, 02:39 AM
We need to educate our fellow non-shooting Californians and change the views here. That's the only long-term thing I can think of. This is horrible. We need to get as many ARs into the state as possible before our representatives change the laws.

Nightfall
February 11, 2006, 02:45 AM
So will the DOJ destroy them?

Creeping Incrementalism
February 11, 2006, 02:52 AM
Nightfall: This is just getting going and I think the DOJ is rational enough to hold on to them until the issue is decided.

ElTacoGrande: It would take a bit of a sea change to get Californians to alter their views, but long term, yeah, that's the only way.

MudPuppy
February 11, 2006, 02:55 AM
Molon Labed?

Cold Dead Fingers?

It's California--those folks will travel half way across the country to steal firearms from the peasants.

The-Fly
February 11, 2006, 03:10 AM
outrageous, but not surprising. I think a huge lawsuit against the state of CA for violations of the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment is in order here.

I wonder how much longer its going to be until something along the lines of Molon Labe or Unintended Consequences really comes to life.

ElTacoGrande
February 11, 2006, 03:23 AM
Molon Labed?

Cold Dead Fingers?


Well these were taken from the stock of an FFL. It's not like breaking into someone's home and taking away his personal firearms. Also these are not "firearms" except in the legal sense. They're just stripped lowers, a part that few people would even recognize as being a gun part.

I hope I will be pleasantly surprised that the NRA goes in with (legal) guns blazing and hammers the CA DoJ. It would be great to get a multi-million dollar settlement from this (if it's possible). I would love to see CA's precious state budget being blown on a) this stupid enforcement action and b) defending the stupidity in court and c) losing.

CA has so many real problems to spend money on, and there are so many real crimes that don't get solved. Something like half the murders in SF don't get solved. And yet, the DoJ has time and money for this nonsense.

Doctor Suarez
February 11, 2006, 03:44 AM
At the one NRA meeting I ever attended, we had Joel Rosenberg as a guest speaker. He's a southland businessman who was elected to the NRA's board of directors.

He kept reminding us that California is just one state out of 50.

Like a fool, I totally failed to offer the following rebuttal.

Yes, California is one state out of 50, but in terms of the American population, it's one out of 8, maybe one out of 10. Also, these 10% of Americans are in a crisis zone. We can't possibly need just as much attention as Vermont and Montana. They're totally gun friendly. California is a gun owner's nightmare, and the NRA should know that, as was the case with AWBs, our bad gun control ideas flow outward. Bullet serialization hasn't passed here, but that won't stop it. Already Boston's mayor is talking about it too.

As for the AR thing... well, I'll just step over it and get an M1A.

ElTacoGrande
February 11, 2006, 03:58 AM
Yes, California is one state out of 50, but in terms of the American population, it's one out of 8, maybe one out of 10. Also, these 10% of Americans are in a crisis zone. We can't possibly need just as much attention as Vermont and Montana. They're totally gun friendly. California is a gun owner's nightmare, and the NRA should know that, as was the case with AWBs, our bad gun control ideas flow outward. Bullet serialization hasn't passed here, but that won't stop it. Already Boston's mayor is talking about it too.
Yeah, exactly, we're "just one state" but a) we have the most reps in Congress of any state and b) we lead the nation, and the world, in terms of our laws, styles, viewpoints, etc. That's a fact. The most obvious example was our clean air laws, which started out of necessity in LA, and have spread (literally) all around the world. The US media industry is headquartered here and sets opinions around the world.

For the NRA to say "CA is just one out of 50" is just a sad excuse for not doing anything. It's easy for them to say "look what a great job we're doing in Vermont". Why don't they come out here where we really need them?

I'm sick of the NRA doing nothing in this state. I'm sick of hearing people tell me "just move".

The NRA needs to be here, winning hearts and minds by changing perceptions of gun owners and guns.

Look at the recent idiocy in SF. Yes the NRA is going to win that court case, but how did it happen that 70% of voters in SF wanted to ban handguns? What is the NRA doing about that problem? Ultimately whoever has the perception is going to win, no matter what happens in court.

As for the AR thing... well, I'll just step over it and get an M1A.

Yeah me too. Fulton Armory M1A. The final word in home defense. Any cartridge more effective than 308 has too much recoil to be used quickly. Anything less than 308... is less than it could be.

Also I'm thinking of the Rem 7600 308 pump rifle. I know that I can pump my 870 about 3 times per second, and I guess the 308 would have about the same recoil as a 12 ga, but would have a lot more shredding power and range.

Doctor Suarez
February 11, 2006, 04:11 AM
Pump? Silly person!

They don't want me to own a semi-automatic battle rifle, so that's what I'm getting! However, my practice rifle, in .22LR, is a boltie.

the .308's recoil, out of a semi-auto, does not at all live up to the hype. I fired a full-length M1A, off a bench (which worsens recoil) and found it totally comfortable. You sense it more than you feel it. Not at all in the same league as a shotgun (which I also just bought :D )

As for the NRA in Cali... I joined them anyway just because they're the 800 lb. gorilla of the gun rights community. They get a lot done, particularly nationally.

As for Cali, I also joined CRPA and the Gun Owners of CA. CRPA is more of a club than a rights organization, but GO-CA is an attack dog. Give them money.

After that, we just have to pray for a demographic shift, redistricting, and the lessons of Katrina to keep sinking in. A few weeks after Katrina, I went into Turner's for some ammo, and kept seeing middle-aged gun-ignorant married guys asking about shotguns to "just keep in the closet". My favorite was the guy who asked "can I fire it from the hip?" and (paraphrasing) "I've never heard of this 'Remington 870'. Why are you pushing it on me?"

modifiedbrowning
February 11, 2006, 05:56 AM
ELTacoGrande, come again, over.
[QUOTE]Yeah, exactly, we're "just one state" but a) we have the most reps in Congress of any state and b) we lead the nation, and the world, in terms of our laws, styles, viewpoints, etc. That's a fact. The most obvious example was our clean air laws, which started out of necessity in LA, and have spread (literally) all around the world. The US media industry is headquartered here and sets opinions around the world[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
We need to educate our fellow non-shooting Californians and change the views here. [QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Well these were taken from the stock of an FFL. It's not like breaking into someone's home and taking away his personal firearms. Also these are not "firearms" except in the legal sense. They're just stripped lowers, a part that few people would even recognize as being a gun part.
[QUOTE]

RealGun
February 11, 2006, 08:01 AM
Would this be AG Lockyer again?

fourays2
February 11, 2006, 09:10 AM
Please don't dismiss this as just a California thing--we are your fellow Americans, and the “as goes California, so goes the nation” saying hasn’t been repeated for no reason.


actually that tired old meme needs to be retired. if it were the case then surely AZ would be CA-lite. I live in AZ and we see what happens next door and we vehemently reject all the stupidity we see. We adopt the good ideas but don't think that just because your left leaning authoritarian statists pass some stupidity that the rest of us will eventually fall into lock step.

pcf
February 11, 2006, 09:53 AM
Why is the California DOJ being blamed for the FFL's violation of Federal and presumably state law?

The CADOJ could be holding the receivers as evidence and pending criminal charges. 500+ counts of violating the federal law is pretty serious (really more like 4 or 5 charges per receiver).

The FFL had the financial means to purchase or rent a safe to handle the volume of sales, he failed to aquire a safe. Right now, you should stop people from doing business with this guy, he's shown litte respect for his customers property and the potential for the CADOJ or BATF to sieze the rest of his inventory exist.

Is it possible for the owners of the receivers to have them transfered to another FFL and restart the paperwork?

ScottS
February 11, 2006, 10:50 AM
actually that tired old meme needs to be retired. if it were the case then surely AZ would be CA-lite. I live in AZ and we see what happens next door and we vehemently reject all the stupidity we see. We adopt the good ideas but don't think that just because your left leaning authoritarian statists pass some stupidity that the rest of us will eventually fall into lock step.Agree. The only people who believe this are people in KA trying to rationalize what's happening to their state.

Clearly, it's a tough call, but I'm not sure how much of my NRA dues I want spent on saving what is clearly a lost cause (KA). I'd rather use the war chest to fight on the National level, and on the state level in battles we can win. Pumping NRA money into KA to somehow make the citizens "see the light" and repeal AWB legislation already on the books is pouring money into a black hole, IMO. With limited resources, you have to decide at some point where you get the most BANG for your buck (pun intended).

sm
February 11, 2006, 11:15 AM
I am again angered to hear of yet another drop of Tyranny adding to the erosion of the granite foundations of Freedoms.

This erosion affects us all.

One drop at a time, does not appear to be much, not "really" going to affect anything at "this" time, one has time to "fix" it...

Then one day too late. Complacency is an easier softer way than being ever vigilent.

"It won't affect me".

Folks living downstream from a dam are more cognizant and seek support and assistance from those upstream, and surrounding areas. They know persons besides themselves will be affected if that dam gives way, if that dam cannot contain flood waters...

Even maintanence of levees and sandbags are important all over...

How quickly we forget the lessons of History. Remember New Orleans?

How everyone all across the country and our friends in Freedom around the world were outraged, expressed concern by that erosion of Freedom to Keep and Bear Arms?

WE are all in this Preservation of Freedoms, we are supposed to be anyway...

Steve

RealGun
February 11, 2006, 11:20 AM
Clearly, it's a tough call, but I'm not sure how much of my NRA dues I want spent on saving what is clearly a lost cause (KA).

I think Silveira v Lockyer was a worthy cause, futile though it may have been. It seems that you have to have offenses to be able to advance a good case with broad implications. CA appears to be a cornucopia of good gun cases.

PinnedAndRecessed
February 11, 2006, 11:31 AM
I hate to rain on anybody's parade, but I just moved from Kommiefornia to civilization for just this kind of nonsense. I was there when they outlawed "assault" rifles. I was there when they passed the ridiculous "drop safety" law. I was even there when that Rino gov outlawed the 50 BMG.

I've known dealers who complied with the letter of the law and got in trouble. Fact is, you can't mess around with the Kal DOJ. They are autonomous.

You can't mess around with Kal. It is socialist. They don't care about the constitution. They don't care about rights. They only care about Marx.

That doesn't mean that there aren't patriots there. There are more true patriots there, per capita, than you could imagine.

It's just that the politics and laws are controlled by traitors and thieves. And it's only getting worse.

The dealer in Milpetas (and, I might know him) can kiss his guns goodbye. The enemy ain't playing by rules.

ScottS
February 11, 2006, 11:45 AM
I think Silveira v Lockyer was a worthy cause, futile though it may have been. It seems that you have to have offenses to be able to advance a good case with broad implications. CA appears to be a cornucopia of good gun cases.You may be right about that. Court cases, like the one filed in SF, are one thing, and maybe a good and worthy cause. But here's what I have trouble with.The NRA needs to be here, winning hearts and minds by changing perceptions of gun owners and guns.

Look at the recent idiocy in SF. Yes the NRA is going to win that court case, but how did it happen that 70% of voters in SF wanted to ban handguns? What is the NRA doing about that problem? Ultimately whoever has the perception is going to win, no matter what happens in court.Pumping limited funds in a futile effort to "win back the hearts and minds" is pouring money down the drain, IMO. I hate to use the analogy, but people who chose to stay in NOLA during and immediately after Katrina, after clear warnings to get out, should not expect tons of sympathy/$$ for staying in a situation they knew was clearly untenable.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 11, 2006, 11:46 AM
While it is convenient to blame the NRA here, California has several large state organizations and plenty of gun owners to fund state groups. At the end of the day the problem is that most Californians either want that legislation or don't care enough to fight it. Until that problem is addressed, gun owners will continue to be the red-headed stepchild in California.

AF_INT1N0
February 11, 2006, 12:06 PM
Great!!!!!! Just :cuss: great!!

This communist S%^& Hole is where Uncle Sam is sending me?!!??

At least if they had sent me to Iraq for a year I could have gone somewhere free afterwords....:( :(

This is gonna be the end of my career....:banghead: :banghead: I just know it.

BTW Wasn't it LAPD that was on caught on TV assaulting that old lady for her old revolver??

Something needs to done about this..

How does one join the fray in The Peoples Republic of Kalifexico??

I'm already NRA.

I'm guessing CALGUNS? or something?

ScottS
February 11, 2006, 12:08 PM
At the end of the day the problem is that most Californians either want that legislation or don't care enough to fight it. Until that probllem is addressed, gun owners will continue to be the red-headed stepchild in California.Very well said.

Malone LaVeigh
February 11, 2006, 12:49 PM
You may be right about that. Court cases, like the one filed in SF, are one thing, and maybe a good and worthy cause. But here's what I have trouble with.Pumping limited funds in a futile effort to "win back the hearts and minds" is pouring money down the drain, IMO. I hate to use the analogy, but people who chose to stay in NOLA during and immediately after Katrina, after clear warnings to get out, should not expect tons of sympathy/$$ for staying in a situation they knew was clearly untenable.
Your facts are so far off in the NOLA case that it affects the rest of your argument.

Nitram68
February 11, 2006, 12:59 PM
outrageous, but not surprising. I think a huge lawsuit against the state of CA for violations of the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendment is in order here.

I wonder how much longer its going to be until something along the lines of Molon Labe or Unintended Consequences really comes to life.

Exactly. When you think it's time to bury your rifles, it is in fact time to dig them up.

ScottS
February 11, 2006, 01:26 PM
Your facts are so far off in the NOLA case that it affects the rest of your argument.

My facts? What I said was, just like the people who stayed behind by choice in NOLA, and then complained about the lack of rescue efforts, and just like someone who refuses to evacuate after an evacuation order is given, people who stay behind when it is clearly time to leave should not expect "rescuers" to expend great amounts of resources to "save" someone who shouldn't be there in the first place. Sad, but that's life.

zealot
February 11, 2006, 01:51 PM
People of California, you know what to do...:evil:

Telperion
February 11, 2006, 01:54 PM
No wonder the antis have been refocusing their message as an issue of state and local control. Once they move the legislation from Congress to the statehouse, and enforcement from BATF to state agencies, they can take advantage of the gun owners' self-righteous assignments of blame: "if only you people really cared about your rights, you wouldn't be in this situation. Ta-ta, off to shoot my new AR-15".

Can'thavenuthingood
February 11, 2006, 02:05 PM
How does one join the fray in The Peoples Republic of Kalifexico??

Go to:

Gun Owners of California
and
California Rifle and Pistol Association

http://www.gunownersca.com/

http://crpa.org/

Vick

deanf
February 11, 2006, 02:07 PM
Well these were taken from the stock of an FFL. It's not like breaking into someone's home and taking away his personal firearms.

It's not? These lowers were private property owned by a private person. I see no difference.

Don't Tread On Me
February 11, 2006, 02:12 PM
Ah yes, more proof (as if we really needed any more after New Orleans) that government doesn't even flinch at the idea of confiscation. There existed this question of whether or not the government would be hesitant or would they be bold. I think they are leaning toward the bold.


To those folks who keep on thinking there is some good left in government, keep on living the lie.

bg
February 11, 2006, 02:14 PM
I hate to say it but those 500 lowers are going to end up
as some form of rebar or be the most expensive lowers in
history. Can't really blame the DOJ as much as I hate to
say it. If a safe to hold all these lowers had been
present and the lowers locked away in it, this thread
more than likely wouldn't be going on. SB-23 or Cal's
infamous AWB is just what it is and the DOJ interprets
it as it sees fit until brought to court. Look how long it
took for the Kasler decision to come forth.

progunner1957
February 11, 2006, 02:14 PM
So what we have here is the DOJ seizing five hundred legal receivers on a technicality, and refusing to return them once the technicality has been fixed. For those of you who say the gov't hasn't taken your guns, well, they have just taken 500+ in one fell swoop in California.
Field Marshall Schwarzenegger must have gooped in his drawers:barf: :barf:

gunsmith
February 11, 2006, 02:17 PM
Man am I ever so glad! if you are still there be sure to become an active member of your local NRA members council, I was when I lived there.

What a difference a border makes!

Now back to the thread, I hope they win a huge lawsuit...
Go team beat State!

gunsmith
February 11, 2006, 02:19 PM
can call to harass..oop's I mean ask why the CADOJ thinks stealing is ok?

NineseveN
February 11, 2006, 02:31 PM
I bet this is gonna get uglier very soon, keep your eyes peeled. :scrutiny:

gc70
February 11, 2006, 02:33 PM
Please don't dismiss this as just a California thing--we are your fellow Americans, and the “as goes California, so goes the nation” saying hasn’t been repeated for no reason.This may be a good reason for the NRA to not focus on California first.

Californians have been convinced that they are trendsetters for the nation and possibly the world. Hollywood and San Francisco are equally convinced that they are the trendsetters for California. People (particularly politicians) act differently when they think they are trendsetters for a broader group.

The NRA could focus all of its efforts on California and it might or might not have any significant effect. Instead, the NRA works in all 50 states. Successes in other states can leave California isolated. If Californians become convinced that they are not trendsetters, maybe they will forget about trying to save the world and will focus on what really makes sense at home in their own state.

DarthBubba
February 11, 2006, 02:47 PM
Does this action of the ************ department of injustice really surprise any one?, It seems that every time another Act of Marxists' run amok in ************ makes the hit parade we all rant and rave about it but until the menace of permissive liberalism and the Marxist controlling force behind it are purged from our society we will continue to see Actions like this.
This is why I am starting the campaign to elect anybody but the Scumbag that is there or a Scumbag that has already been there. This is my personal battle against the repeated election of the same political scumbags over and over for both State And Federal elections, it is such a simple plan just spread the word to one and all.
The concept is simple tell all of the people you meet that you do not care how they vote Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent just make sure that you do not vote for an incumbent or some one that has held the office on a previous occasion. Simple and to the point is it not?
Only with this influx of new thinking and people will “WE THE PEOPLE” Wrest back control of our rights and our destiny by not letting the professional politicians get in control of everything and spend an entire lifetime in office Fat, Well Fed off the Government Teat, and with Their Hands Habitually in Our Pockets and Their
Noses Firmly Planted in Our Business.
We can stop this but we need to start now. Go forth and spread the word!!!

DarthBubba:cuss:

Creeping Incrementalism
February 11, 2006, 02:49 PM
Why is the California DOJ being blamed for the FFL's violation of Federal and presumably state law?

The CADOJ could be holding the receivers as evidence and pending criminal charges. 500+ counts of violating the federal law is pretty serious (really more like 4 or 5 charges per receiver).

The FFL had the financial means to purchase or rent a safe to handle the volume of sales, he failed to aquire a safe. Right now, you should stop people from doing business with this guy, he's shown litte respect for his customers property and the potential for the CADOJ or BATF to sieze the rest of his inventory exist.

Is it possible for the owners of the receivers to have them transfered to another FFL and restart the paperwork?

The (part-time) FFL, had a safe, but demand exceeded his expectations and he couldn't get them all in there. Yes he should have done more beforehand, but this is a minor issue, and the problem was rectified quickly, but then the DOJ broke the law by not returning the lowers. The DOJ just sort of sat around and ignored us for a few weeks, then decided to come up with a new, completely BS excuse about improper "wholesaling" or whatever to keep sitting on the lowers. The whole safe thing is an excuse to confiscate our guns. Having the DOJ transfer the lowers to another FFL... that's an academically interesting question, but I doubt they'd ever do it.

Clearly, it's a tough call, but I'm not sure how much of my NRA dues I want spent on saving what is clearly a lost cause (KA).

Do you know what Californian NRA members ask? Why do they take our money and spend it in places like Wisconsin where it's not really needed when the rights of the citizens of the 800# gorilla of U.S. states are being exstinguished.



Please don't dismiss this as just a California thing--we are your fellow Americans, and the “as goes California, so goes the nation” saying hasn’t been repeated for no reason.

actually that tired old meme needs to be retired. if it were the case then surely AZ would be CA-lite. I live in AZ and we see what happens next door and we vehemently reject all the stupidity we see.

There are some great holdout states like yours, but overall, the nation is becoming more California-like, not less. And I thought you people were complaining that Californians were moving to Arizona and gradually turning it into CA-lite.

Creeping Incrementalism
February 11, 2006, 03:02 PM
can call to harass..oop's I mean ask why the CADOJ thinks stealing is ok?

DOJ number: 1-800-952-5225

To recap: It is regarding the Milpitas FFL where the 500 AR lowers were seized because the safe wasn't big enough. A bigger safe was installed and the DOJ notified, but they did not return the lowers. Now they are claiming that the sale of the lowers was not legal because it was wholesaling or something--I really don't understand that. Let me know if anyone hears anything. Also, check http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=28447 for updates.

Warning: Cal DOJ clerks (1) dislike guns and gunowners, (2) are frequently ignorant of the law, and (3) will make things up as they go along if the law, as passed by the legislature, doesn't suit them.

The dealer in Milpetas (and, I might know him) can kiss his guns goodbye. The enemy ain't playing by rules

Considering Milpitas ran all FFL's out of town except for two, you might. The FFL is Rob, and he works out of a real estate office

MCgunner
February 11, 2006, 03:09 PM
Molon Labed?

Cold Dead Fingers?

It's California--those folks will travel half way across the country to steal firearms from the peasants.

Hey, let 'em come to Texas. We'll end the crisis....locked an loaded.

pcf
February 11, 2006, 03:15 PM
The (part-time) FFL, had a safe, but demand exceeded his expectations and he couldn't get them all in there. Yes he should have done more beforehand, but this is a minor issue, and the problem was rectified quickly, but then the DOJ broke the law by not returning the lowers. The DOJ just sort of sat around and ignored us for a few weeks, then decided to come up with a new, completely BS excuse about improper "wholesaling" or whatever to keep sitting on the lowers. The whole safe thing is an excuse to confiscate our guns. Having the DOJ transfer the lowers to another FFL... that's an academically interesting question, but I doubt they'd ever do it.

No, it's no minor issue. The FFL was improperly storing firearms. There are some tricky things and vageries in holding a type 01 FFL, but proper firearm/inventory storage isn't one of them, a half way competent FFL knows to never take in more inventory than he can store. 500+ violations of federal and state storage laws is no minor issue.

I wouldn't believe the CA DOJ excuses either. But, in all honesty it could take the better part of a year for the CA DOJ to conduct an investigation, regardless of what they tell you. And two or three years for them to dispose of the matter through the courts. If the feds want a bite at the case, there's no chance of the receivers being returned until the matter has been completed disposed of.

If you take the CA DOJ to court they're going to win. They can hold the receivers until the an investigation has been completed and gone to court, or they'll turn the receivers over to the ATF.

CA DOJ and the laws may suck, but blame clearly and solely lies on the FFL, he knowingly and intentionaly broke the law, and he screwed his customers.

Can you name a single state that would turn a blind eye to an FFL committing 500+ violations of federal and possibly state law?

ScottS
February 11, 2006, 03:18 PM
Do you know what Californian NRA members ask? Why do they take our money and spend it in places like Wisconsin where it's not really needed when the rights of the citizens of the 800# gorilla of U.S. states are being exstinguished.You make a good point. I don't know what the right answer is here for a national organization with a finite warchest. It's certainly not an easy problem.
There are some great holdout states like yours, but overall, the nation is becoming more California-like, not less. And I thought you people were complaining that Californians were moving to Arizona and gradually turning it into CA-lite. Well, I have to throw the <> flag there. What other state has adopted CA's "1 evil feature" ruling? Or SB-23? Or a 10 day waiting period on all guns? Or the CA Smog option on cars? Sorry, but on the state legislative front, we (gunowners) have been getting better, not worse, in the same period. The "As KA goes, so goes the nation" mantra is just rationalization, IMO.

Creeping Incrementalism
February 11, 2006, 03:30 PM
pcf: Whatever crime was committed with storage, the DOJ is required to return the property within 24 hours once the storage requirements are satisfied. That is what ticks me off about the DOJ. This also got me wondering, what exactly are the federal requirements for firearms storage? I've seen FFL's take all their pistols out from under the counter at closing time, but it seems like they leave the long guns up on the racks.

ScottS: I believe someone already mentioned that clean air requirements started in CA, and that in Boston they are talking about bullet serialization. After the 50 BMG got banned in California, 60 Minutes did two articles on how evil it is--not before, but after!. Didn't California have the first U.S. assault weapon legislation? It definitely had it before the feds did. I'm not saying it's a rule, but a generalization (Fed AW went away while CA's got worse, breaking the rule). I mentioned it because I get tired of other gunowners dismissing California--we are Americand too. I also say that as warning to the rest of the country that if they don't help put out the fire here, it may spread.

ScottS
February 11, 2006, 03:52 PM
ScottS: I believe someone already mentioned that clean air requirements started in CA, and that in Boston they are talking about bullet serialization. After the 50 BMG got banned in California, 60 Minutes did two articles on how evil it is--not before, but after!. Didn't California have the first U.S. assault weapon legislation? It definitely had it before the feds did. I'm not saying it's a rule, but a generalization (Fed AW went away while CA's got worse, breaking the rule). I mentioned it because I get tired of other gunowners dismissing California--we are Americand too. I also say that as warning to the rest of the country that if they don't help put out the fire here, it may spread.I don't want to turn this into a whizzing contest. My only point is no other state has instituted the unbelievable legislation KA has been able to get away with, apparently, as one other person put it, because the average **********n wants it that way. OK. As a group, when do you realize a cause is lost and cut and run? Should we (gunowners) spend all our capital and resources trying to change a system/mindset in KA that doesn't want to be changed? Supporting court cases for blantant violation of the law--sure. That's easy. But how much do we invest beyond that? I don't claim to have the answer. I think it's worthy of discussion.

In this case, sympathetic as I am to the latest efforts to work within the confines of the law, it does seem to me that the FFL in Milpitas (sp?) committed 500 counts of "unsafe storage of a firearm." If that's the case, then I would expect the DOJ would/could keep the lowers as evidence in support of prosecution on that charge. Is "unsafe storage of a firearm" like a broken tail-light? Do I get the ticket removed when I get the tial-light fixed, or is it like a crime (i.e. I can't just give the money back to convenience store I held up and expect that we're good.)? I don't know the answer here.

Malone LaVeigh
February 11, 2006, 04:25 PM
My facts? What I said was, just like the people who stayed behind by choice in NOLA, and then complained about the lack of rescue efforts, and just like someone who refuses to evacuate after an evacuation order is given, people who stay behind when it is clearly time to leave should not expect "rescuers" to expend great amounts of resources to "save" someone who shouldn't be there in the first place. Sad, but that's life.
I read it the first time, and you're still wrong. I know a lot of people that stayed. Some were foolish and shouldn't have, and others did so for very rational reasons. I'm not going to argue it, though, because it's OT and it's a good day to go to the range.

robmkivseries70
February 11, 2006, 04:27 PM
Hi All,
In the book "Megatrends" , published some time in the 80's, the author refered to California as a 'fad' state. States whose actions predicted trends were known as "bell weather" states. Hope it is still true.
Best,
Rob

ElTacoGrande
February 11, 2006, 04:40 PM
I don't want to turn this into a whizzing contest. My only point is no other state has instituted the unbelievable legislation KA has been able to get away with, apparently, as one other person put it, because the average **********n wants it that way. OK. As a group, when do you realize a cause is lost and cut and run?

You don't need to cut and run. Look at the recent vote in Brazil. They do not have a culture of gun ownership. They are bomarded by negative media messages all the time. Few of them are gun owners. They have a very real and serious crime problem. And yet they responded wonderfully to the right message and resoundingly defeated a gun ban. A year ago anyone would have predicted an easy victory for the ban. IANSA was shocked by the outcome.

That was the result of the right message. We could do the same. CA is the biggest gun market in the US. Manufacturers make millions of dollars every year here. We have more gun owners than any other state (I assume). If Brazil can have a change like that, we can to.

It is the job of the NRA to design and implement strategies like that. What are they doing? I'm here, on the ground, and I never hear of them doing a thing in CA, except the occasional legal defense in a brain-dead case like the SF ban case.

http://mooreslore.corante.com/archives/images/brazil%20flag.gif

engineer151515
February 11, 2006, 04:48 PM
Ah yes, more proof (as if we really needed any more after New Orleans) that government doesn't even flinch at the idea of confiscation. ................

Indeed.

The Katrina Legacy

I am already totally revamping my bug out firearms to be quick access, concealable. Small weapons. Common cartridges. Creative stowage. Hidden. Hidden. Hidden.



There is NO hesitation for Law Enforcement to grab first and let the legal process work out later leaving you high and dry.

Has a single law abiding citizen in NOLA had their weapon returned?


Right.



Neither will these.

:mad:

gunsmith
February 11, 2006, 10:25 PM
CA has tons and tons of gun owners, they might have more NRA members then any other state.
I know a left liberal gun owner, this guy allways votes green and has no problem jumping through all the hoops of even NY laws (he loves bureaucacy)...even he donated to the NRA when his pistols got banned (SF resident)

LAR-15
February 11, 2006, 10:39 PM
So how hard is it to enforce an assault weapons ban?

R.H. Lee
February 11, 2006, 10:51 PM
As a group, when do you realize a cause is lost and cut and run? Should we (gunowners) spend all our capital and resources trying to change a system/mindset in KA that doesn't want to be changed? Supporting court cases for blantant violation of the law--sure. That's easy. But how much do we invest beyond that? That's like saying the victim is responsible for the crime. eh, don't look now, but there is such thing as federal anti-firearms legislation, remember? It's coming to your state along with the next Democrat congress and President. :neener:

crazed_ss
February 11, 2006, 10:56 PM
So how hard is it to enforce an assault weapons ban?

Well, all that has to happen is a LEO sees you shooting a detachable mag AR-15 at the range. Things could quickly go downhill from there if it's not a legal "assault weapon"

The thing is most legal gun owners are law-abiding citizens. I'm not gonna risk 10 years in prison to own an detachable mag AR-15 rifle. Not worth it IMO. I'd rather cheap out and get a SU-16 or put myself in the poorhouse and get a M1A SOCOM. Both options are better than prison.

The FFL in this case really messed up. When it comes to gun laws, it's our responsibility to make sure we're on top of them. Even if we dont agree, we need to follow them until they can be changed through proper legal channels. If we break the law, it just gives the Antis massive firepower against us because then we cant say .. "It's the criminals who are breaking gun laws, not us!"

ScottS
February 11, 2006, 11:32 PM
That's like saying the victim is responsible for the crime. eh, don't look now, but there is such thing as federal anti-firearms legislation, remember? It's coming to your state along with the next Democrat congress and President. :neener:I'm not sure how this is liking blaming the victim (??), but you and I seem to be in agreement here: don't deplete the warchest on battles you can't win, and instead spend it wisely on Federal elections where your influence can make a real difference. I agree.

ElTacoGrande
February 12, 2006, 12:46 AM
So how hard is it to enforce an assault weapons ban?

If someone's goal is to be in violation of the ban and not get caught, it's absolutely easy. Buy a semi-auto that's not banned. Buy a pistol grip for it. Put the pistol grip on and leave it on the closet. If law enforcement attention is anticipated, remove the pistol grip and everything is fine. If law enforcement somehow catches the rifle in the act of being an AW (AW in flagranto) then they could prosecute. But I somehow doubt that they would really want to prosecute a plain and simple AWB possession case.

The ban really achieves nothing. Does nothing to criminals who aren't allowed to touch guns anyway. Does nothing to otherwise law-abiding people who want to own something in an illegal configuration and keep it in their closet. It does prevent law-abiding people from toting one of them around in a public place, like a shooting range or a competition. That's about it.

Adventurer_96
February 12, 2006, 01:11 AM
I was reassigned to CA last summer and I can definitely see a difference in the perception of firearms between here and Utah and Arizona, which were the other states in which I'd been stationed recently. It was tolerated, if not encouraged, on a certain level in both states, but here in CA even in relatively rural Kern county the perception of gun ownership isn't really all that positive. I wonder at times if this is because even shooters have been forced to live under these crazy laws for so long that they're just willing to deal with them and never hope for more, or if it's just a general belief that what CA legislates must be right. I don't think it's the latter as most CA residents are fed up with the crazy legislation on many different fronts.

I don't necessarily believe that the "As goes CA goes the rest of the country" is the real answer. Instead, I believe it to be a factor of urbanization and population density. If you look at areas with very restrictive gun ownership, they tend to be urban plain and simple. While CA may have given us (nationwide) some gems like an AW ban, magazine limit, and waiting period, you can also see these in most other heavily urbanized states.

Take away a recreational shooting base by building up on all the land and this is what you get.

I think it may come down to the fact that the DOJ is going to hold on to the receivers as "evidence" in their pending case. If not, then you gave them a hell of an idea if they read this, Scott. :neener:

This whole "CA AR" business over the last few months has shown that there are a lot of people in CA who were interested in getting a receiver for a build of some sort - one source estimated over 5,000 receivers entering the state since the end of December over on arfcom. Is there a shooting base here still? Yes, in some areas, but go to almost any organized shoot and the vast majority of shooters are overweight middle aged white males. Is this helping to broaden the base and potentially let us work against this perception that gun ownership = Dale Gribble?

Let's hope that the DOJ's interpretation of CA law is proven to be wrong in the courts.

fight4yourrights
February 12, 2006, 01:37 AM
.gov doesn't really care that much about it's "laws"


It's "keeping these kid killers off the street" :banghead:

gunsmith
February 12, 2006, 05:39 AM
I don't know about SoCal but in NorCal the ban is ignored, at just about every range you see sport utility rifles afaik you don't need to carry proof of registration. mass civil disobedience in NorCal.
besides you can but a ruger ranch rifle and a nifty pistol grip stock and your breaking any law until you attach it....

ScottS
February 12, 2006, 09:33 AM
I think it may come down to the fact that the DOJ is going to hold on to the receivers as "evidence" in their pending case. If not, then you gave them a hell of an idea if they read this, Scott. :neener: Oh, yeah, Pete, the DOJ has to read my THR response to get their ideas for confiscation. :rolleyes:

BTW, I still don't think the AWB or mag limit "came East" from KA. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but in those states that kept AWB's after the national one sunsetted, withthe exception of some "named bad weapons," aren't they in essence mirrors of the '94 AWB, and not KA's? (i.e. no registration of AW's, pre-bans allowed, 2 evil features vice 1, etc?) And, help me out here: where else do they have a 10-day waiting period for all weapons?

Interesting observation on the "mindset" behind enemy lines. I lived in KA back before the 89 AWB, back before "Purdy," back when B&B Guns was the storefront for BumbleBee guns wholesaler, and you could buy anything you wanted and leave the same day. Sigh...

ElTacoGrande
February 12, 2006, 02:30 PM
Oh, yeah, Pete, the DOJ has to read my THR response to get their ideas for confiscation. :rolleyes:


I'm pretty sure the DoJ does read these boards. I'm guessing that may be how they found out about the AR-15 group buy that is the subject of this thread.

Anyone from the DoJ reading this, why aren't you out solving unsolved murders, or doing something to make California safer, instead of wasting time listening to us complain about firearms technical laws that we all know have nothing to do with crime or safety or even real justice?

Merkin.Muffley
February 12, 2006, 03:01 PM
While it is convenient to blame the NRA here, California has several large state organizations and plenty of gun owners to fund state groups. At the end of the day the problem is that most Californians either want that legislation or don't care enough to fight it. Until that problem is addressed, gun owners will continue to be the red-headed stepchild in California.

Yes, but the NRA is the 800 lb gorilla in this fight. I firmly believe they view California as nothing more than a cash cow for their fund raising efforts.

ScottS
February 12, 2006, 03:09 PM
I'm pretty sure the DoJ does read these boards. I'm guessing that may be how they found out about the AR-15 group buy that is the subject of this thread.Calguns.net, I'll bet. I was amazed at the amount and detail of the information on the "group buy" there.

SIGarmed
February 12, 2006, 03:57 PM
When you're not doing anything illegal there is no reason to hide. The site is also helpfull in keeping people up on current events.

Calguns.net, I'll bet. I was amazed at the amount and detail of the information on the "group buy" there.

ScottS
February 12, 2006, 04:05 PM
When you're not doing anything illegal there is no reason to hide. The site is also helpfull in keeping people up on current events.Dude, I didn't say they were doing anything illegal. We were just speculating on where the DOJ would get the most info.

ElTacoGrande
February 12, 2006, 04:20 PM
When you're not doing anything illegal there is no reason to hide. The site is also helpfull in keeping people up on current events.

Yeah, I'm just saying they read these forums. I don't see anything illegal or gray-area ever being discussed here or on calguns. I see mostly news, complaining (which I participate in myself), strategizing, motivating each other, etc.

But I'm sure the DoJ reads this stuff and decides who they are going to harass, etc. In fact Jim March talked about incidents where a sheriff's office denied a CCW permit in CA based on something posted in one of these forums, etc. Definitely this stuff is being read by various "authorities". Fine, we're not talking about anything illegal (including gray areas or code words), but in areas where they can harass or discriminate, such as CCW issuance, handling of FFLs, and any other discretionary areas, we do need to be careful to not give details and not bring their attention. Whenever someone starts a thread like "How do I get my CA CCW" Jim immediately posts in all-caps "do not say which county you are applying to, or this posting could jeopordize that." So obviously this forum is being read by a lot of different "lurkers" and it does have real-world effects. Hence I'm not using my real name or giving my real exact location.

WvaBill
February 12, 2006, 05:00 PM
We have more gun owners than any other state (I assume).




In that case, how can I affect the laws in CA when I have no vote?

I remember when the special muzzle-loading season for deer was starting in the section of the US. Hunters in some states endured some, to me, onerous laws: specific firing mechanisms, ball ammo only, and so on. Instead of debating this, we accepted what our individual states offered instead of fighting about whether in-line muzzle loaders or Minie balls were "pure enough."

In that vein, to change the attitudes of CA non-gunowners, it will take effort on the grassroots in the state. No one wants an 800 lb gorilla coming in to tell them what to think, vote, or do. We seem to get the government we collectively deserve.

crazed_ss
February 12, 2006, 05:19 PM
I think education of the masses might help us here.

I dont know how many people I've talked to who think the CA "Assault Weapons" ban keeps people from owning full auto AK's. They think the AW ban has to do with full auto rifle that they see in movies.

After explaining the restrictions placed on automatic weapons and the difference between semi-auto and full auto fire, they begin to see things clearly..

When I point out to them that semi-auto rifles like M1A's and SU-16's are perfectly legal, they instantly change their tone and say .. "Wow, that is a stupid law.. so that one, the AR-15, is illegal because of the grip? .. that doesnt make much sense."

R.H. Lee
February 12, 2006, 07:48 PM
I firmly believe they view California as nothing more than a cash cow for their fund raising efforts. I wonder how much of the NRA's total revenue comes out of California? Whatever it is, it doesn't seem like we're getting much bang for the buck. :scrutiny:

ElTacoGrande
February 12, 2006, 08:56 PM
I wonder how much of the NRA's total revenue comes out of California? Whatever it is, it doesn't seem like we're getting much bang for the buck. :scrutiny:

Exactly. I know a lot of CA gun owners want to support the NRA but feel let down by them. They have no presence here. I would join and support them if I saw them doing something useful in my state.

We do have alternatives: CalGuns or whatever, which does some stuff, and Gun Onwers of CA, which also does some stuff but seems to be more ideological and less pragmatic than the NRA.

If the NRA can go over to Brazil and help them, they should be doing more for us here in CA.

Jim Diver
February 12, 2006, 09:26 PM
If the NRA won't help PRK members in fixing the state's const, they sure as hell will not help 500 people get lowers....

:banghead:

No_Brakes23
February 12, 2006, 10:58 PM
Agree. The only people who believe this are people in KA trying to rationalize what's happening to their state.

Clearly, it's a tough call, but I'm not sure how much of my NRA dues I want spent on saving what is clearly a lost cause (KA). I'd rather use the war chest to fight on the National level, and on the state level in battles we can win. Pumping NRA money into KA to somehow make the citizens "see the light" and repeal AWB legislation already on the books is pouring money into a black hole, IMO. With limited resources, you have to decide at some point where you get the most BANG for your buck (pun intended). As long as this attitude prevails, the NRA ain't gettin a dime from me, even after I leave Cali.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 13, 2006, 11:15 AM
Yes, but the NRA is the 800 lb gorilla in this fight. I firmly believe they view California as nothing more than a cash cow for their fund raising efforts.

It isn't like the NRA has just abandoned California. They have been fighting in California for years, and getting their teeth kicked in for years as well.

I think gun owners in California have every right not to support the NRA if it isn't performing for them; but I really don't look at the NRA as a state-level organization. Here in Texas, I support TSRA to protect my rights at the state capitol and send money to the NRA to protect my rights at the national level.

I think that regardless of whether the NRA is or is not helping, California first has to strengthen its grassroots state-level groups. In California, you aren't just fighting a legislative battle, you are fighting a cultural battle against people who want to remove firearms from the culture entirely. Educating your neighbors and friends on guns is the only way Californians are going to change this trend.

crazed_ss
February 13, 2006, 11:22 AM
In California, you aren't just fighting a legislative battle, you are fighting a cultural battle against people who want to remove firearms from the culture entirely. Educating your neighbors and friends on guns is the only way Californians are going to change this trend

Exactly!

Regardless of how powerful the NRA lawyers are, they will not be able to help us here if the majority of the populace supports ridiculous gun laws like the Assault Weapons ban or the San Francisco Handgun ban. More effort needs to be invested in educating Californians

WvaBill
February 13, 2006, 02:16 PM
Exactly!

Regardless of how powerful the NRA lawyers are, they will not be able to help us here if the majority of the populace supports ridiculous gun laws like the Assault Weapons ban or the San Francisco Handgun ban. More effort needs to be invested in educating Californians


Speaking of the SF Ban, who is the petitioner in the hearing to be held on the 15th?

CentralTexas
February 13, 2006, 02:43 PM
[QUOTE=SIGarmed]When you're not doing anything illegal there is no reason to hide.QUOTE]

1- Opens you up to Governmental abuse, see "first post" thread starter
2- Then you wouldn't mind all your calls, mail and home being searched by me or local police "just for fun"?

CT

crazed_ss
February 13, 2006, 09:14 PM
Speaking of the SF Ban, who is the petitioner in the hearing to be held on the 15th?

I havent really been following the case. I know the city and NRA worked out a "deal" to delay enforcement.

Adventurer_96
February 13, 2006, 11:26 PM
It isn't like the NRA has just abandoned California. They have been fighting in California for years, and getting their teeth kicked in for years as well.

I think gun owners in California have every right not to support the NRA if it isn't performing for them; but I really don't look at the NRA as a state-level organization. Here in Texas, I support TSRA to protect my rights at the state capitol and send money to the NRA to protect my rights at the national level.

I think that regardless of whether the NRA is or is not helping, California first has to strengthen its grassroots state-level groups. In California, you aren't just fighting a legislative battle, you are fighting a cultural battle against people who want to remove firearms from the culture entirely. Educating your neighbors and friends on guns is the only way Californians are going to change this trend.

This is quite possibly one of the best posts I've read in the last year regarding CA for two reasons. One, I think you really made an important distinction regarding state-level organizations. True, the NRA can have an impact, but I think that state organizations have a lot more influence w/state lawmakers.

Two, you hit the nail on the head regarding the overall issue in CA - it's a grassroots, cultural battle. When the perception is that owning a firearm makes you a criminal or a survivalist nutjob, that perception needs to change before you can get meaningful change. Having said that, can you blame people who are inundated w/images of gun violence for projecting their anger onto the easiest target, namely guns?

No_Brakes23
February 14, 2006, 01:26 PM
I think that regardless of whether the NRA is or is not helping, California first has to strengthen its grassroots state-level groups. In California, you aren't just fighting a legislative battle, you are fighting a cultural battle against people who want to remove firearms from the culture entirely. Educating your neighbors and friends on guns is the only way Californians are going to change this trend.

Absolutely.

When you're not doing anything illegal there is no reason to hide. The site is also helpfull in keeping people up on current events. Oh I can think of a pretty good reason to be discrete about it. How about the fact that Fulton ARmory was very willing to work with Californians until DoJ got wind of what we were planning and then started threatening F-A with close to 60 lawsuits? F-A backed out and went so far as to inply that any lowers that made it to Cali were "stolen" or "illegal."

Simply put, when the .gov doesn't care about justice or even following its own laws, then honest men have reason to hide even their legal actions.

antarti
February 14, 2006, 01:57 PM
When you're not doing anything illegal there is no reason to hide.

500 gun-owners in Cali lose something, we all lose something.

Just because you're not laying on the table today, doesn't mean you're not on the menu.

Creeping Incrementalism
February 14, 2006, 03:44 PM
Thank you, Antari. If something works in California, it makes antis in other states more bold. What we have here is the government taking 500 guns on one justification, and then once the justification is no longer valid, simply holding onto the guns as they attempt to find another reason to take them. In this case, it is more than just cultural attitudes, it is the governent going out of its way, and bending or breaking its own law to harass gun owners.

Ben Cannon, the person who organized the group buy, has retained a San Francisco law firm with experience in firearms matters to deal with this. I'll post here when anything happens.

Sven
February 22, 2006, 01:37 AM
CAL DOJ currently has 6 (six) of my AR receivers.







/vertigo

lawdogso
February 22, 2006, 01:42 AM
CAL DOJ currently has 6 (six) of my AR receivers.







/vertigo


Count them gone!!! Having worked LE in this state you won't see them again sorry to say. That sucks!
Lawdogso

Sven
February 22, 2006, 02:30 AM
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

pcf
February 22, 2006, 07:54 AM
CAL DOJ currently has 6 (six) of my AR receivers.

Why don't you try to put a lien on the FFL's business? And then file against him in small claims court. The FFL willingly, knowledgably, and intentionally broke the law and jeopardized your property.

Maybe a moment of decency will smack him in the face- he'll take responsibility for his actions, and refund your money- when he realizes that his actions could cost him his home.

Thank you, Antari. If something works in California, it makes antis in other states more bold. What we have here is the government taking 500 guns on one justification, and then once the justification is no longer valid, simply holding onto the guns as they attempt to find another reason to take them. In this case, it is more than just cultural attitudes, it is the governent going out of its way, and bending or breaking its own law to harass gun owners.


I looked, not well, but couldn't find anything in CA code/law that states that firearms must be returned after 24 hours for storage infractions. Can you point me in the right direction?

Phoenix_III
February 22, 2006, 01:05 PM
Count them gone!!! Having worked LE in this state you won't see them again sorry to say. That sucks!
Lawdogso


So where did they go? :mad: If you know he won't see them again, then you know why/where they went.

billwiese
February 22, 2006, 03:51 PM
Why don't you try to put a lien on the FFL's business? And then file against him in small claims court. The FFL willingly, knowledgably, and intentionally broke the law and jeopardized your property.


Personal attack edited. Check your PMs - BR

You're also from outside California so why're your commenting here about this situation, I dunno - esp as you apparently have ZERO idea about the background of getting off-list lower receivers into CA, and that this is the 1st chance we've had (or ever will have, likely) to possibly have new assault weapons in CA.

This guy is a stand-up FFL - and I don't know him except by reputation and from others that know him and are involved in this. At a time when few CA FFL dealers stepped up to the plate to deal in off-list AR lowers because of California DOJ intimidation, misunderstanding of the AW laws due to lack of knowledge or basic reading skills, etc. this guy was one of the two dozen or so in CA that stepped up to the plate and refused to buckle under to the DOJ - and for a relatively low-margin item, too.

And you wanna penalize this behavior?

Everyone buying these lowers knew there would be elevated scrutiny. Frankly, it wouldn't've surprised me if DOJ had just started seizing lowers "just because". It's an election year, and DOJ's boss (the AG) is running for a new post.

The issues were a ticky-tacky DOJ pretense to try to stop 100 (?) lowers from getting into circulation. I'd bet there's 20% of gun dealers that are not in exact compliance with the minutiae of detailed storage issues - cubic feet rations, etc. The FFL alleviated the situation immediately - he got a new huge safe THE SAME DAY.

One of the reasons this situation presented itself may have been due to delayed shipment receipt and some people waiting to pick up - so all of a sudden an extra box of lowers is there that may well not have if schedules didn't bunch up. This was a crisis time and everyone was/is ordering things shipped overnight since we don't know when the DOJ hammer will fall and most new brands of lowers "get listed".

Without going into further detail, I think this situation will be resolved. The FFL issues appear to be OK now, and the concerns over the group-buy organzier should fall by the wayside soon (he's not making a profit, he was just financing the bulk purchase for favorable discount).



Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

bg
February 22, 2006, 04:50 PM
So where did they go? :mad: If you know he won't see them again, then you know why/where they went.
If they don't release the lowers. they'll end up at the Tamco plant in
Fontana to make new rebar..> This article is dated, but Tamco still
does this. I used to work right off of Etiwanda & San Berdoo Ave.
When the cops come with these loads, they'll shut off part of the street
until the trailers are at Tamco and then they have a small army there
so no one can get to the weapons. They watch closely as they are melted
down..
http://www.theacorn.com/News/2001/0802/Community/009.html

California law mandates the destruction of seized weapons during July each year.

TAMCO Steel, Inc., runs the only remaining steel mill in California.

This is the eighth year the firm donated the services of its personnel and equipment to melt, cast and convert the weapons into construction material.

Over the years, TAMCO has processed more than 630,000 pounds of confiscated firearms from law enforcement agencies.

pcf
February 22, 2006, 05:14 PM
Bill,

Good guy or not, the FFL willingly broke the law. CA DOJ is a draconian organization, but California storage requirements are clearly stated. There's no confusion on the subject. If there was increased scrutiny placed on FFLs transferring off brand lowers, more than ever the FFL should have been in compliance with the law.

Fact, the FFL did not have the means to adequately store firearms. Fact, the FFL had the financial means to provide adequate storage. Fact, the FFL did not to aquire adequate storage. Fact, his actions led to 500+ lower receivers being confiscated.

Being good guy and standing up against the man are not excuses for bad business practices or breaking the law. The FFL created the circumstances that led to the receivers being confiscated by CA DOJ, not the other away around.

The FFL's business was retained to transfer lower receivers, due to an illegal act, he failed to meet his business obligiation. He should be held accountable, he should have the decency and integrity to recover the property or refund money. And do this before the CA AG closes the window on off brand receivers.

Just my opinion, shoot me an PM if you want to continue

Paul Ford

Creeping Incrementalism
February 23, 2006, 02:01 AM
Maybe a moment of decency will smack him in the face- he'll take responsibility for his actions, and refund your money- when he realizes that his actions could cost him his home.

I looked, not well, but couldn't find anything in CA code/law that states that firearms must be returned after 24 hours for storage infractions. Can you point me in the right direction?

CA regs are pretty thick and I don't know where it is either. I'm going on the word of Ben Cannon (ben@cdglobal.net), who set up the group buy. Note: he is not the Milpitas FFL.

However, let me ephasize, that the safe problem is a non-issue now. The Cal DOJ is now holding the lowers because, as I understand it, in their opinion, Ben was acting as the FFL, since he was "wholesaling" (or something along those lines, even though he was going through the Milpitas FFL), and there's hearsay that they intend to prosecute on this.

I know the FFL could have done a better job, but this lower business is absolutely crazy. It would take a super-FFL to withstand California DOJ scrutiny, and even then, I'll bet the DOJ could find something. This is the second DOJ FFL AR seizure lately. For the first one, they sezied stripped lowers because they had the letters "AUTO" stamped on them--that was it! Don't think this guy is half-assed. I doubt many gun dealers in the U.S could withstand DOJ-like scrutiny from the ATF.

Anyway, I'm really not all that angry, since I was expecting something like this to happen (1: my lower gets sezied, 2: DOJ announces it won't allow detachables mags on the ARs even after they are declared assault weapons, in complete violation of the law as written).

Huntzman
February 23, 2006, 05:50 PM
I know there has been a lot of griping about **********, and some really believe that it is a lost cause. I'm not prepared to take that stand. The 2nd Amendment applies to everyone of us, individually and collectively. If we allow one to fall, I'm afraid it begins the domino effect. I think the problem is that the "gun grabbers' see the issue singularly, meaning they want to take YOUR guns. Whether it's your .50BMG, Grandpa's M-1 Garand, or Jr's 10/22. Don't kid yourselves, in their eyes they are all evil. So they are purpose driven. Each law, is like their personal footstep towards liberal utopia.

Gun owners unfortunately are a house divided. Hunters, Sporting Clays, Collectors, Handgunners, etc.... We each have our own interests and not much affinity for the others. I remember having a conversation recently with a fellow handgun shooter. The topic went to rifles and I started talking about my wife's AK. You would have thought I told him I had slept with his mom and sister.... at the same time. He actually had the audacity to say how he didn't believe they were legitimate weapons. As incredulous as this sounds, I believe it happens with unacceptable frequency. If we can not find common ground amongst each other, I fear we will be picked off one group at a time.

In addition, how many of our brethren are actually members of the NRA or state level groups?? I'm sure we have heard the poor stories "I haven't the time to join, I'm short on cash right now, I don't shoot rifles..... etc" or maybe we have even said them at one time or another. How many of us write or call our reps to keep them honest.

Now here we are questioning whether or not "dumping" more money into ********** is a good thing. One of the previous posts said "As California goes, so goes the United States...." You know what, if we don't stand unified, that adage may once again become a grave truth for gun owners. I would hate to see any other states end up like ********** because their local gun grabbing politicians feel that they can get away with it.

IMHO

Just saw an interesting thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=185005

Sven
March 19, 2006, 02:39 PM
pcf: Suing the FFL, who is a friend of the gun community and risked his neck on this is about the lamest thing I've heard in a while. Yeah, maybe he should have gotten a bigger safe. Same goes for Ben - why punish him?

Remind me not to go hunting with you (unless I have a trauma plate duct taped to my back for incoming fire).

beerslurpy
March 19, 2006, 03:12 PM
The civil rights movement (in regards to segration et al) was fought in the easy states and exported to the southern states against their will. Similarly, the gun rights battle is mostly being fought in the easy and middle of the road states. CA will eventually be dragged along screaming.

Consider the hurdles to winning in CA:
-mostly gun ignorant or anti-gun voting pool
-strongly anti-gun 9th circuit precedent from stupid Silveira v Lockyer case that can only be overturned by an en-banc hearing or a supreme court decision
-lots of anti-gun state and district level judges
-tons of anti-gun politicos in the state legislature and no way to dislodge them thanks to the gerrymandered CA voting districts

I would bet you real money that change in CA will come from outside, just like change in AL and MS in segregation came from the federal level.

Flyboy
March 20, 2006, 12:39 AM
When you're not doing anything illegal there is no reason to hide. The site is also helpfull in keeping people up on current events.
SIGarmed, I think you win the prize for the most eloquent argument against constant government surveillance. Californians were doing nothing wrong buying these ARs, and yet the government--by careful monitoring--is using its power to harass and bully the citizens.

Anybody else want to weigh in on how we can trust the government with surveillance power, or shall we just consider this subject closed?

Sylvan-Forge
March 20, 2006, 10:51 AM
California does not have a provision in the state constitution regarding the RKBA.

Until it does, I'm afraid incongruity at best and outright banning of all arms at worst.

There a several states that did/do not have a RKBA provision,
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm (note-not sure how old this paper is, 1994 at least)
and the most common feature seems to be those
that will allow carry, use the "may issue" arbitrary guidelines.

Here's my opinion. California has few options :
1. Amend constitution "giving" RKBA to its citizens.
2. Charge the state with defying the highest law of the nation; The COTUS/BoR, which would lead to 1.
3. Ignore it reap what is sown.

Mr.V.
March 31, 2006, 12:08 AM
In the end, even in a republic, a majority rules. If you cannot get a majority of californian's to care about guns, and that same majority votes for people who infringe gun bills and nominate judges who don't believe the 2nd amendment applies today...you won't have gun rights pure and simple.

As the united states becomes more and more overpopulated and as the mean standard of living goes down, a majority will vote for socialist candidates. Gun rights will be lost. Most won't be able to afford any of the guns in question and so won't really care if other people don't get to have them either.

You can argue until your tongue sloughs off that it isn't American and is unconstitutional, but since every amendment is open to an unbelievable amount of interpretation, you can interpret it to suit whatever you're interested in saying. Then you nominate jurors who believe the same.

Basically the only way to save california is to 1) make sure we don't get any more overpopulated 2) make sure a majority of people feel that they need to be armed.

Otherwise more guns like "assault weapons" (generally >$1000 per rifle + ammo + cleaning + parts + range fees + safe + ..." or .50 BMG (more expensive on all counts) will simply get voted away either actively or passively.

madmike
March 31, 2006, 03:01 AM
As long as this attitude prevails, the NRA ain't gettin a dime from me, even after I leave Cali.


Well, seeing as that "Attitude" was a supposition and opinion from someone not on the NRA BoD, I think you're jumping the gun.

I mean, I have criticisms of the NRA, but really.

I also notice that Nebraska followed Kansas today in following CA's lead on CCW:rolleyes:

There CAN'T be more gun owners per capita there, or this wouldn't happen. It's just that CA gunnies hang closer together and notice each other more.

The change will have to come from without, or culturally from within. But with a contempt of law on both sides, within won't happen. And as long as CA gunnies are (justifiably) scared to show themselves, the perception will remain that only "nuts" own guns.

We make a point of talking about them here--my daughter was invited to write about shooting, or about posing for a firearms magazine for her upcoming writing assignment. You create normalcy by BEING normal.

Creeping Incrementalism
April 7, 2006, 01:54 AM
Someone actually got back an AR that was taken by the Cal DOJ in the seizure, using a special form called a LEGR. It allows people to have their firearm returned to them if held by a California gov't agency, if they pass the normal background check, and the agency isn't holding the gun as evidence or are sending it to be melted down (required by law if it was used in a crime).

There were 219 (not 500, as what I was originally hearing) lowers seized, all from the group buy (we thought), organized by Ben Cannon. However, the person who got his lower back was not part of the group buy--he just happened to buy a lower through the FFL at the same time as the rest of us.

Someone who was from the group buy tried to get his lower back using the LEGR form, and was denied.

The thread about this on CalGuns.net: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=31554

So the legal issue now, for sure, is does someone who organizes a group buy, and has them shipped to an FFL, qualify as a wholesaler himself and need to be registered as such?

Also, in an effort to stop the flood of lowers entering the state, the Cal DOJ is continuing to threaten out-of-state gun sellers. The DOJ has done this for years with Nevada gun shops (so they won't sell mags to Californians--they usually card you for buying >10 round mags) and following Californians to Nevada gun shows. Just recently they stretched their long arm clear to Florida! http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=31453

madmike
April 7, 2006, 08:26 AM
CA tried that with knives, too, threatening most major catalog sellers.

They have no authority outside CA, and can scream all they want. I'd literally tell them to go @#* themselves in the crudest fashion possible, and hang up on them. As long as the sale (and magazines in NV fit this) violate no LOCAL or NV law, CA has nothing to say on the matter. If they even ATTEMPT to file charges, a letter to the court citing jurisdiction will get it dismissed with prejudice.

Dick Daley tries the same thing with WI and IN sellers from time to time.

Creeping Incrementalism
April 7, 2006, 12:06 PM
madmike, I know, but somehow they have the power to scare the snot out of all the Nevada gunshops anyway. I think maybe they might contact the BATFE to crawl up the gunshops with a microscope. I was also wondering if maybe the Cal DOJ could file some sort of civil lawsuit against the Nevada gunshops. Either way, unless a seller has some sort of very large group buy lined up, they usually decide it isn't worth the hassle.

LAR-15
April 7, 2006, 12:18 PM
Who is running against Lockyer?

Rumpled
April 7, 2006, 03:10 PM
Lockyer is running for Treasurer. Don't know who against.

SIGarmed
April 7, 2006, 03:19 PM
I beleive Ray Haynes is running for Treasurer of California since he's termed out of his current office. I will help fund that campaign if I can.

SIGarmed
April 7, 2006, 03:24 PM
Oh and for those scared people that want to do things that are perfectly legal and hide. If certain dealers like tenpercent firearms had felt the same way this opportunity may not be presenting itself now. You know the saying "Who dares wins"? Well it's true.

It appears that some, but not all of the confiscated lowers have now been returned. That's new news via Calguns.net.

Mistakes were made and people have learned their lessons. Let us not be afraid to do what is legal.

madmike
April 7, 2006, 07:52 PM
. I was also wondering if maybe the Cal DOJ could file some sort of civil lawsuit against the Nevada gunshops.

It would be illegal restraint of trade and violation of jurisdiction.

Basically, they're asking Nevada gun parts sellers, whether or not they are FFLs, to perform a check to abide by CA law. They have no authority to do so.

Actually, unless you plan to go to CA, you don't even need to file--just ignore it, or call and tell them to get bent. They can't file a warrant for arrest outside of their own state, and without proper ID, they can't even prove who you are well enough to arrest you IN CA, unless you have a very unusual name.

"Arrest every John Davis, just in case it's him!":neener:

jerkyman45
April 8, 2006, 03:52 PM
California has essentially declared war on the second ammendment and gun owners. How long is it going to be before that sentiment spreads to the rest of the country? In San Francisco they want to ban all handguns, the state legislature has already banned .50 BMG rifles, and now these outrageous seizures? We need to step up and defend the rights of the American gun owner, whether he lives in California, Texas, Arkansas, or anywhere in this great nation which is now under threat from anti-gun zealots that will not rest until they have confiscated every firearm from ever law abiding citizen. We need to stop this outrage on our rights, and we need to do in together.

ScottS
April 10, 2006, 09:34 AM
Looks like the spotlight is on. Get them while you still can!

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060410/NEWS01/604100333

madmike
April 10, 2006, 10:00 AM
"Lockyer is extremely good on the gun issue, and we generally trust his office," Hamm said.

http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/anim_rofl2.gif:banghead:

AJAX22
May 10, 2006, 06:02 AM
where can we get a LEGR?

Does it work for firearms that are unregistered? i.e. confiscated because former roommate had hobbies that involved smoking green plants, and when they searched the entierty of the house they found them sitting in a case on my desk.

no weapons charges were filed, smith and wesson model 10 and a pre war colt woodsman were taken.

I didn't have anything to do with the herb in question, just made a poor choice of roommate.

its been a long time and I would like to get them back.

madmike
May 10, 2006, 10:24 AM
How long is a "long time" and was not registering them a criminal act?

If it's been more than a few days, and you don't have proper receipts to show purchase, or in some cases, to show you were the original purchaser, it's more than likely a case of you can't get them back and they were chopped up after a month or so. They would not have retained the weapons after prosecuting the case unless (And in CA, probably "Even if") there was a claim for them at the time.

Creeping Incrementalism
May 10, 2006, 02:03 PM
where can we get a LEGR?

Here's the PDF (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/legr.pdf).

Firearms seized by California law enforcement are sent to a steel mill in SoCal to be melted down once a year, if they are no longer being held for evidence or any other reason. So if it has been longer than that, they might not still be around. Good luck.

madmike
May 10, 2006, 02:12 PM
I wonder what headlines we could make with Brady by buying some of that steel for receivers and barrels?

:evil: :neener:

AJAX22
May 10, 2006, 04:15 PM
Thanks for the form, I'll get it in asap.

I'll cross my fingers and hope that they didn't get torched.

just a thought but wouldn't failure to return property that is legally posessed be embezlement and therefore be subject to illegal seizure legislation?

Creeping Incrementalism
May 23, 2006, 09:52 PM
It would be illegal restraint of trade and violation of jurisdiction.

Basically, they're asking Nevada gun parts sellers, whether or not they are FFLs, to perform a check to abide by CA law. They have no authority to do so.

I noticed that Mayor Bloomberg is suing gunshops in other states for not checking the IDs of "straw purchasers", so I imagine the California DOJ could potentially do the same thing with mags.

I think the point is not whether the state has a valid case, but whether a gunstore wants to deal with the hassle.

just a thought but wouldn't failure to return property that is legally posessed be embezlement and therefore be subject to illegal seizure legislation?

Most law enforcement doesn't understand the gun laws in California, and typically they just send everything that isn't being held for a trial to be melted down. I know of one incident where a guy found a legal rifle just sitting on the side of the road, and turned it into the local L.E. agency. When no one claimed it, the department didn't want to give it to him (as is normally done with the finders of unclaimed property), even though the law only says that guns used in crimes have to be melted down. The guy eventually had to get a lawyer to get it back.

madmike
May 23, 2006, 10:24 PM
Few guns would be worth spending that kind of money on. That's the State's bet behind seizures.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 24, 2006, 12:47 AM
I noticed that Mayor Bloomberg is suing gunshops in other states for not checking the IDs of "straw purchasers", so I imagine the California DOJ could potentially do the same thing with mags.

Different facts. Bloomberg is alleging that the gunshops in other states did not follow federal law. Because the lawsuit protection bill passed this past year to kill frivolous negligence suits allows lawsuits where a crime has been committed by an FFL, Bloomberg had to claim laws were broken to keep his suit from getting thrown out (and he had to handpick Judge Weinstein as well; but that's another issue).

California would be seeking to have an FFL in another state follow California state law, not federal law. That just isn't going to happen and without a crime, California cannot sue FFLs for negligence just because they sell legal products to people who take them to California.

Creeping Incrementalism
May 24, 2006, 01:11 AM
From the orinal press relase about this:

“The lawsuit also seeks compensation for the cost of abating the nuisance created by these defendants, compensatory damages to
New York City, and punitive damages in order to deter other rogue dealers from engaging in the illegal practices described in the complaint.”

What I'm getting at is not that the dealers are alleged to have broken federal law, but simply that their behavior is a nuisance--isn't that a civil suit?

Bartholomew Roberts
May 25, 2006, 12:21 AM
What I'm getting at is not that the dealers are alleged to have broken federal law, but simply that their behavior is a nuisance--isn't that a civil suit?

Yes, it would be a civil suit if such suits were allowed under the lawsuit protection act. Because of past abuses, claiming a nuisance is no longer sufficient to justify a civil suit on its own. There are several exceptions; but for the most part there would need to be a violation of state or federal law before a civil suit could be filed (unless you file it in Judge Weinstein's court).

A Nevada FFL can't be held responsible for violating California state law regarding sales... although I wouldn't be surprised to see them try.

CombatArmsUSAF
May 25, 2006, 09:36 AM
The ********** blissninnie logic is illogical. We can sit here and throw fact after fact based argument at them and they will never see the light. They are influenced by the Holy hollywood stars and all the other idiots. (People that are so detached from reality that they actually think the police are going to be able to protect them.

I know that the average response time in my hometown is around 1 hour, how 'bout you?

It is really getting to the point that I am sick of fighting with these idiots and I hope that somewhere down the line the police won't get there in time and maybe the genepool will get cleaned out a little.

Sven
May 10, 2007, 03:09 AM
Well, it's been about a year. Anyone surprised to hear that the DOJ is still holding on to my 6 AR receivers?

I'm taking bets... paying out currently at 10:1 against getting them back in my lifetime... any takers?

:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

madmike
May 10, 2007, 10:29 AM
FOI request on the process? Demand for relief under 5th amendment, private property taken for public use without compensation? Report as stolen? Call ATF (long shot, but some of them ARE decent)?

Sven
May 13, 2007, 03:18 AM
Well, its all tangled up in a group buy gone sideways - until that matter is cleared up, my stuff is "evidence". At least, last I heard. CA DOJ must just love the fact that there are... what.... 50,000 new lowers in the state over the past year? I hope it keeps them up at night.

js
May 13, 2007, 03:34 AM
ELTacoGrande said =
"We need to educate our fellow non-shooting Californians and change the views here."

Yeah right, and a herd of cattle with wings just flew over my house. I guess you'll need to start with Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi first. :rolleyes:

madmike
May 13, 2007, 11:25 AM
50K off list receivers?

Sweeeeeeeeeeeet! Tell the hippies to put that in their pipes and smoke it:evil:

Molon Labe
May 13, 2007, 11:51 AM
the DOJ is still holding on to my 6 AR receivers
Go to your local PD and file a theft charge. I am serious.

madmike
May 13, 2007, 12:53 PM
Agreed. If you have a good sheriff, or even just one who doesn't like people playing in his jurisdiction, he'll give them a case of PITA.

AJAX22
May 13, 2007, 10:30 PM
On a side note, I did get my S&W model 10 and pre war woodsman back, they made me 'buy' them from my roommate, (they wouldn't believe they were mine)

but I've got them back.

I also ran out and bought a half dozen lower receivers for AK's and AR's as a result of this thread. just wanted to say thanks guys. ;)

Creeping Incrementalism
December 20, 2007, 09:35 AM
Update: The 219 lowers just got returned to the FFL. :) And it has only been two years--they had a whole year left before the statute of limitations ran out and they would have been legally forced to return them, how nice of them.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=79348

TexasRifleman
December 20, 2007, 10:50 AM
Well that is good news for some folks in CA royally screwed over.

Glad to see one finally end, if not happy at least right.

madmike
December 20, 2007, 11:54 AM
Awesome news. Let's hope they've learned from it.

Scorpiusdeus
December 20, 2007, 12:15 PM
WOW! I saw this thread and started reading from the beginning. I've learned a lot.

I'm glad to hear it "seems" to be working out.

For those of you who live outside the state and feel we are a lost cause, I disagree. In fact, I was one of those complacent Californians up until about a year or two ago. Now I'm a letter writing, pro gun organization maniac. I used to vote democrat I now vote for for the candidate who will protect my rights.

I've met more NEW members to the NRA here in CA than existing members.

We are NOT a lost cause. We do need help. CA, NY, and MA are the front lines of the battle to protect the second amendment. We are losing the war on the front lines. We need YOUR help.

Those of you who have the opinion that it's not your problem or that it won't happen to you... That's what I thought back in the 80's and I went to sleep and this is what I woke up to.

JKimball
December 21, 2007, 03:45 AM
I made it about a fourth of the way through this thread before I realized how old it was. I'm glad I didn't have to be frustrated for nearly 2 years before I got to see the resolution.

Scorpiusdeus,

That is awesome that you are getting involved. My brother lives down there and we went to ... I believe it was Turner's Outdoorsman's shooting sports fair last summer. I couldn't believe how many people were there. I really got the impression that day that there are enough gun owners/enthusiasts in California to make a difference in the laws if they get organized and do something about it.

And it takes more than joining the NRA. I think that any California gun owner that wants to make a difference should make sure that all his friends and good acquaintances know where he stands on the gun rights issue, and they should all have an open invitation to go to the range to try out his guns.

I sometimes wonder if there are a lot of people who just haven't come out of the gun closet...so to speak... because it is such a hostile environment towards gun owners there.

madmike
December 21, 2007, 04:35 AM
Let's see what SCOTUS says. That'll guide the direction we take.

Sven
January 14, 2008, 05:06 AM
I'm picking up 6 AR receivers after a 2 year wait...

:) :) :)

iiibdsiil
January 14, 2008, 06:09 AM
I'm glad it uh... worked out? in the end! ;)

DENALI
January 14, 2008, 03:22 PM
Hey, it's sweet he got his stuff back, but at what cost? Really, how you folks soldier on amazes!

ZeSpectre
January 14, 2008, 04:25 PM
Really, how you folks soldier on amazes!
Well, a lot of us don't look at a month or two or a year or two. A lot of us take the LONG (10+ years or the rest of our lives) view of all this stuff.

Expecting long fights we pace ourselves, we don't get tired, and we absolutely do not ever give up. I suppose it's an aspect of the "warrior mentality" that a lot of us have in the first place.

atek3
January 14, 2008, 05:22 PM
in the intervening two years I moved to NH... my local FFL just received my lower. Sweet

atek3

AJAX22
January 14, 2008, 06:40 PM
This is the thread that got me started on OLL guns here in CA,

Now I have over a dozen AR and AK rifles and a few pistols ;) all CA legal.

this is a huge victory for us gunnies

4v50 Gary
January 14, 2008, 06:49 PM
I am so embarassed by this action by the State DoJ. A real selective fire AK47 was used in the murder of SFPD Officer Espinoza. It wasn't a civilian semi-automatic lookalike that was banned in this state but the real military deal. Yet what has been done to remove those weapons from the hands of gangsters? Nothing. Instead they prey upon law abiding citizens and declare society safer because of it. :o

DENALI
January 14, 2008, 08:31 PM
Jeez I thought the only documented instance of a crime committed with a legally owned fully automatic weapon was actually carried out by an active LEO who murdered someone.......It's really not gun control is it!

GW
January 14, 2008, 09:17 PM
It's really not gun control is it!


Never ever was.:(

But hey! I got my 2 receivers!
A couple of fellows Ben & Gene really took the fight to the CA DOJ and won!
God bless 'em,
I am in their debt

If you enjoyed reading about "California gov't seizes 500 legal ARs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!