Watching the royalty buy firearms


July 24, 2003, 01:54 PM
Yesterday I wasin one of my favorite gun stores, browsing the surplus miltary stuff, when one of the guys behind the counter places on said counter, a NIB Thompson, (Whatever the new manufacturer is) complete with 30 round circular magazine.

Now for you folks in normal states, that may not be an abnormal occurence. However, for us folks in California, you may pillage, rape and loot with minor consequences, but heaven help the individual caught with a weapon as evil as this. (yes, I know there are worse)

So I wandered up to the counter, and listened in on the transaction while pretending to drool over the weapon. The gentleman purchasing it was more then willing to ensure that all nearby knew that he was purchasing it, and that it would go over his mantle.

So why should this gentleman be allowed to purchase this weapon, and I not. You see, he is an Attorney General, and I am but a lowly peon. Yes, all those anti's who imagine that when we exempt law enforcement from the gun laws, that it will only mean that cops who need it get the weapons, occasionaly forget that this meaning will be stretched to include others.

Now, let me hasten to add, before this turns into a cop bashing session, which I do not want. Remember that this is not a cop, but an AG. I hold him to higher account, since he is able to exercise more power then the common officer. And I suppose I don't really blame the gun shop since they are merely selling it. And I suppose that I don't really blame the AG, although I would have done the transaction behind closed dorrs and slunk away from the place in shame that somehow I am treated better then my fellow citizen, merely because I went to law school and got a job in the AG's office. I guess, what really gets my goat is that I am treated as a peon in this state.

If you enjoyed reading about "Watching the royalty buy firearms" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
July 24, 2003, 02:08 PM

After that it did not seem strange when next day the pigs who were supervising the work of the farm all carried whips in their trotters. "

-George Orwell, London, 1946

July 24, 2003, 02:08 PM
Really? AG Lockyear buying an AW? I wonder how much trouble he had getting a permit to purchase?

This information needs to be passed on to VPC and the Brady Bunch.

You're right. Lockyear is no cop. Makes me want to :barf: when he shows up at a cop's funeral.


July 24, 2003, 02:14 PM
I sometimes wonder what in the world makes these people believe that they are better than regular Joe six packs. It's frustrating to have things like this happen and not be able to do anything about it.

July 24, 2003, 02:19 PM
I would like to know who this AG is.

Is he a pro-gun AG then?

Is it even legal to import a 50-rd drum into CA?

Mike Irwin
July 24, 2003, 02:22 PM

Why could an attorney general be able to purchase a firearm that is banned in California? Is there an exemption due to his position?

What happens to it when he's no longer an attorney general?

July 24, 2003, 02:26 PM
They do it because they know they can.

The apathetic average citizen has empowered them to do so.

Lazy and content with letting someone else run their life.

The rest of us pay for it for we are the minority.

Two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner.

Two wolves and a well armed sheep discussing what's for dinner.

Its time to remind them we are a republic.

July 24, 2003, 02:30 PM
It was an AG lawyer, not Bill Lockyear. That would have been interesting.

I am not sure if it was a 30 round drum, or a 50 round drum, but it was a drum.

I looked at the paperwork (yeah, sometimes I am nosy) and it said "Peace Officer Exemption"

The gentleman had a badge that said Attorney General on it.

Now I know why I want out of this state.

If anyone knows anybody that needs an brand new aviation attorney (graduating next year), with aviation experience, in a gun friendly state, plase drop me a pm ;)

July 24, 2003, 02:34 PM
Elitism at its finest! "I don't trust you ordinary "citizens" with a gun (they might be a Liberterian or Republican), but since I am one of the anointed, privilaged elite socialists, I can have anything I want." .:rolleyes:

George Orwell tried to warn everyone

July 24, 2003, 02:39 PM
its the common ideal that they know there not criminals but they dont know about you.

that goes in the same boat as feinstein having a CCW. she knows shes not a criminal but its the other people............

hypocrites in there prime

July 24, 2003, 02:48 PM

I think you should go public (more public than this board) about this. Yell from the rooftops.

Seriously, call every newspaper and TV station within 200 miles of where the transaction occured. Tell them that the AG bought a gun that no other regular Joe is allowed to buy. Not just a gun but a banned evil, assualt weapon.

I know, most media outlets won't act on the info, but one or two might.

Some questions to get the media ball rolling:

Is the AG required to have this gun for his job?

Will the gun be used in his line of work?

Did he have approval from his superiors to buy that gun using his position as a way around the law?

Has the AG received approved, proper training on said firearm?

Will he receive training in the future to maintain his proficiency?

I'll bet that the answer to all of my questions is "No." If that's the case, he shouldn't have the gun.

Let him suffer like the rest of the common folk.

(edited to vent more)

July 24, 2003, 02:48 PM
Eliteism at it's worst plain and simple.

Just for the record though, you can get a 10 round drum for the Thompson. I looks like the real thing but only holds ten rounds. It is all show and know go. I am not saying this is what he was buying or not I am just making an observation.


July 24, 2003, 02:54 PM

I think you should go public (more public than this board) about this. Yell from the rooftops.

Seriously, call every newspaper and TV station within 200 miles of where the transaction occured. Tell them that the AG bought a gun that no other regular Joe is allowed to buy.

I know, most media outlets won't listen, but one or two might.

I have an internship that is valuable in the Government, although I will be leaving.

I am a newly graduating law student who will soon be taking a bar exam, and will need a job to feed his two children.

I cannot take on this type of individual without taking on significant risk. Possibly that makes me a coward, but I am not going to lead a charge wherein I turn around and find that I am alone on the battlefield against a much more powerful opponent.

I will pick up the battle when there is a chance of winning. Going against this system is foolish.

July 24, 2003, 02:57 PM
"Peace Officer Exemption", eh? I thought that was for weapons only used in the line of duty; am I wrong? (evidently yes)

Welcome to the American Noble Class, Your Honor!:banghead:

Mike Irwin
July 24, 2003, 03:10 PM
Give the information to Jim March, and let him run with it. :evil:

Bruce H
July 24, 2003, 03:21 PM
You should have waited until he left the store, them mugged him. See if he described what was taken off him. If he convienently left the part about the Thompson out set the record straight.

July 24, 2003, 03:30 PM
2 wrongs dont make a right.

but it seems that to an AG that there Might is there Right

July 24, 2003, 03:31 PM
IIRC, the 'drum' on the 'new' Thompson is a 10 rounder. The alterrnative is a 30 rnd stick magazine (guess which I'd buy:rolleyes: ). From the ads in the gun rags, I gather that mag choice is determined by state, so the 10 rnd 'drum' may be the only choice in CA. Apparently, they aren't interchangeable.

The gun itself is a semi-auto, so whould be copacetic except for the pistol grip forearm and the flash reducer (or is it a muzzle break?) At any rate, I'm not sure the guy is getting away with anything (tho I'm thoroughly ignorant of CA AW definitions/laws).

I'd still be a little jealous in any event - (in best Bubba Clinto voice) "I feel your pain."

July 24, 2003, 04:17 PM
I am certain that it was not a 10 rounder, since the guy stated that it had pre-ban capacity.

I am also certain that Thompsons are illegal in California for regular people.

The law

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

It had the pistol grip, and the forward pistol grip, as well as the flash suppressor (I think)

No matter, I am precluded from ownership, but this individual is not based solely on his employment.

The manner in which the weapon is too be used makes not difference.

Here is where he gopt the "right"

"(j) Subdivision (b) shall not apply to the possession of an assault weapon, as defined in Section 12276, by any person during the 1990 calendar year, during the 90-day period immediately after the date it was specified as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.5, or during the one-year period after the date it was defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.1, if all of the following are applicable:
(1) The person is eligible under this chapter to register the particular assault weapon.
(2) The person lawfully possessed the particular assault weapon described in paragraph (1) prior to June 1, 1989, if the weapon is specified as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276, or prior to the date it was specified as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.5, or prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.1.
(3) The person is otherwise in compliance with this chapter.
(k) Subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply to the manufacture by persons who are issued permits pursuant to Section 12287 of assault weapons for sale to the following:
(1) Exempt entities listed in subdivision (f).
(2) Entities and persons who have been issued permits pursuant to Section 12286.
(3) Entities outside the state who have, in effect, a federal firearms dealer's license solely for the purpose of distribution to an entity listed in paragraphs (4) to (6), inclusive.
(4) Federal military and law enforcement agencies.
(5) Law enforcement and military agencies of other states.
(6) Foreign governments and agencies approved by the United States State Department.
(l) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to a person who is the executor or administrator of an estate that includes an assault weapon registered under Section 12285 or that was possessed pursuant to subdivision (g) or (i) which is disposed of as authorized by the probate court, if the disposition is otherwise permitted by this chapter.

July 24, 2003, 04:30 PM
Call the media and remind them that the only time a machinegun has EVER been used in a murder was by a cop.
Point out if there were fair standards in America that NY Councilman Davis would be alive today because he and his killer wouldn't have been exempted from metal detectors because they were "Special" also.

July 24, 2003, 04:36 PM
well check your California Statutes then.
i hear that alot of CAs different counties also have different rules. some allow this some allow that. the next person to question would be the store. if what they did was illegal then they should be punished right along with the AG. providing a crime was commited. maybe you can go to that AG an ask for a permit to purchase your own thompson. when he sais what for explain what you saw

July 24, 2003, 04:49 PM

rather than lamenting the privileges of the 'royalty' as you say it, please state the name of the individual you saw, the date, store and county you witnessed this transfer.

It is pointless to fan the flames on this board if you will not name a name. As a law student, you know the value of unsubstantiated rumor.

If you want to maintain your rights as well as ours in legal ownership of firearms-and catch those violating them because of position, you should step up and let some of us research the legality of this transfer.

If it is what you identified it to be, it is most likely an Auto Ordnance tommygun, which under CA definitions, is an assault weapon.

You can remain anonymous if you fear personal repurcussions.

July 24, 2003, 04:52 PM
maybe you can go to that AG an ask for a permit to purchase your own thompson. when he sais what for explain what you saw

Yeah, try that. Or go to the same store and try to buy the same rifle.

Then, write a letter to the local paper detailing everything that has happened. Hopefully, one of the more aggressive-type reporters will grab on to the story and chase it form there.

You don't need to include your name if you are worried about the consequences.

July 24, 2003, 04:55 PM
the only bad thing i see about that approach is that gives a lot of fuel to gun grabbers. this AG might be pro-gun. an act like that could ruin his name or his desire to .......lighten the laws a bit. i would use discretion until motives or beliefs were found.

Standing Wolf
July 24, 2003, 05:49 PM
I guess, what really gets my goat is that I am treated as a peon in this state.

A year ago today, I was finishing packing to leave the People's Republic of California. As soon as I acquired my Colorado driver's license—$16 for ten years—I headed for a gun shop.

I'd found a Colt Python with an eight-inch barrel at while living in the P.R.C. I'd sent the seller a check, only to discover it was illegal for this commoner to "import" it. A friend suggested that for $50, an acquaintance of his who happened to be a law enforcement officer might be willing to "import" the gun for me, then sell it to me legally as one Californian to another. I was unwilling to cut legal corners, so the Python remained in Nebraska for many months until I left the P.R.C. and returned to the United States.

It took my Colorado gun shop all of about ten minutes to process the transaction and turn my Python over to me. I'm not a peon here. I'm a citizen.

July 24, 2003, 08:02 PM
That is it. As pittspilot showed: we are already serfs of a government that threatens it's "citizens" with destruction if not doing what THEY want. This nation was intended in a form that government serves the people. What we have now is to serve the government or suffer. Old topic throughout history. Nothing different from a Nazi or Salinist country.

Still thinking we are live in a free nation?

Sleep well.

P.S.: For now 37 years I tried to fight this insanity from within the "System". No chance, Elitists everywhere, disgusting experiences. I gave up. I just want to have the rest of my life more enjoyable.

July 24, 2003, 08:09 PM
Frankly, im sick
i hope to the Good Lord I never have to live in CA
in a week ill be in a state where they trust their citizens to carry weapons...GA!

July 24, 2003, 08:32 PM
".But in all societies the common people must live to some extent against the existing order."

" It is not that anyone imagines the law to be just. Everyone knows that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.But no one accepts the applications of this, everyone takes it for granted that, the law, such as it is, will be respected, and feels a sense of outrage when it is not."

England Your England- George Orwell [1941]

July 24, 2003, 09:11 PM

When you get here, we should get the GA High Roaders together and shoot. Lord knows there are enough ranges around here.

July 24, 2003, 10:03 PM

The single most interesting comment so far, to me, was the one concerning the future status of the individual's employment versus the legality of owning that firearm. If he leaves his current job for private practice, while continuing to own the Thompson, he's an instant felon, not so?

Did you know that Bob Hannah is also a Pitts pilot?


July 24, 2003, 10:08 PM
I believe I have met him, but I can't be sure. The name sounds awful familiar.

carp killer
July 24, 2003, 10:31 PM
California is in the process of becoming a separate country. So the fact that the elite can buy AW's, and the lowly peons of the state cannot, doesn't suprize me. In Kali, the state government has told its subjects that the U.S. Bill Of Rights does not apply here. Only the chosen few can have AW's and CCW's. And they don't give a flying f**k about what the rest of the United States does. So leave that state as soon as possible. And enjoy the land of the free.

July 25, 2003, 03:19 AM
I will stay in Kali and fight the socialist. We are making progress! The Gov., Gray out Joe Davis is going down for the count. Go Gray, go!!!

There is a possibility the Kali Attorney General will be fitted for an orange jumpsuit soon, documentation shows he conspired with others to break the laws of Kali, so when the News Media adds his name to the circus events now going on, perhaps he will go down for the count, too.

One by one we, the honest common citizens of kali will take it back from the socialist. one by one...


Partisan Ranger
July 25, 2003, 12:21 PM
Too bad you didn't have a camera with you. You should've gotten a picture of this anti-gun maggot buying an AW.

July 25, 2003, 12:34 PM
Too bad the Founding Fathers didn't leave a similar situation of 'better-than-thou' rulers vs peons, to found a nation based on freedom, individual rights, and equality...

Oh... wait a second... I thought they did? I wonder whatever happened to that country... 'The United States of America', was it? :fire:

July 25, 2003, 01:17 PM
wouldn't a thompson not fall under california's ban? it specifically says "centerfire rifle" which the thompson is not.

July 25, 2003, 01:37 PM
Which leads me to wonder what sold happen if you incorporated your rural area and made all the adults in the new town LEOs? Could they all get LEO only mags?

July 25, 2003, 01:48 PM
.45 ACP is centerfire, and a "rifle" is defined as any firearm that is intended to be fired from the shoulder.

July 25, 2003, 02:33 PM

I don't think there is a member on this forum who wouldn't help you draft a factual and polite letter that you could send to the media documenting this incident.

I know the TV stations in Sac do all sorts of "government watch" type of segments, and they would probably help out on this. (Or perhaps not, since it involves *gasp* GUNS!!! :rolleyes: )

Regardless, I think you are doing us all a great disservice if you do not do anything at all about this.

I'm not saying you have to stick your neck out on the line, but at least an anonymous letter to media, give info to Jim March, or just SOMETHING.

The rest of your comrades need your help!!!

July 25, 2003, 07:56 PM
Pitts Pilot;

Bob 'Hurricane' Hannah, absolutely ripped up the U.S. AMA Motocross circuit
in the late '70's. On basically a box stock Yamaha he was unbeatable. Later broke his leb water skiing I think & was unable to come back to his original form. Moved to Idaho because of Pitts & the 'climate', which I believe included the firearms climate of Idaho vs Kali.


50 Freak
July 25, 2003, 08:28 PM
Slow down guys, before you start all this Kali Bashing. Don't group the whole state in the same boat as those morons running LA and San Fran. Kali is a great state, lots and lots of gun loving freaks here. Unfortunately, most of them just don't vote as often as the anti-guners.

You'd be suprise how much gun lovers are here (Kali ranks as the top buyer of handguns in the nation). We just need to get rid of all these anti-gun demicraps like Swinestein, Boxer and Waxman. One the flip side, I've been noticing a slight change in the winds over here. More and more politicians aren't coming out and speaking up about the evils of the assault weapons. Think the last election kinda put a fear of the gun owners might into them.

By the way, I'm a multiple "evil assault weapons" owner and I have a CCW and I live in Kali. More importantly I'm not alone.

July 26, 2003, 02:52 AM
IIRC, recent case law indicates that 'assault weapons' as defined in California law, which were not registered prior to 2000, may be purchased by LEO's and a host of other exempted members of the elite. HOWEVER, they must be relinquished before retirement. I'm sure someone here has a link to the majority opinion. Since mags are covered by the same statute, it seems they would have to be returned as well.

Having said all that I really don't think that a former member of the AG's office is going to be prosecuted for it. Even if the law applied equally to all in letter, it's not going to be applied equally to all. That's what officer discretion is for...:rolleyes:

July 26, 2003, 11:05 AM
"...and that it would go over his mantle."

If we overlook this weapon not being stored in a safe, am I to assume it will be displayed with the proper trigger locks, sans magazine?

Did he buy ammo? No need to if he was just going to put it over the mantle.

LIARS CHEATS AND THIEFS. He who makes rules should also abide by them. Better yet, after an afternoon at the range, he should have a period of reflection, wherein he sees the err of his ways, and begins working toward the abolition of senseless, pointless rules and regulations.

Gray Peterson
July 27, 2003, 04:46 AM
I'm sure someone here has a link to the majority opinion.

It was the Silveria v. Lockyer case. It said that that retired peace officers exemption to the California Assault Weapon laws were a violation of equal protection. To many gun rights people, it was the ONLY correct decision made in the entire decision written by Judge Reinhart.

You can find out more about the case at

carp killer
July 27, 2003, 11:36 AM
By the way, I'm a multiple "evil assault weapons" owner and I have a CCW and I live in Kali. More importantly I'm not alone.

Not to flame you but you own AW's. A privilege many cannot have. And that privilege will not be granted by the elite despots in the capitol anytime in the forseeable future. So if a peon who is a resident of Kali and wanted to buy a AR or AK, the answer will be NO! Unless of course they did a pp sale in a free state. But then that person couldn't bring the AW back to the state. That sucks! It is easy to say stay and fight when you already have fun guns, but it sucks when you don't have them. And it really pisses people off that the elite can still buy AW's for their private use and a law abiding "joe" is denigned that benefit.:fire: Now the answer some would say is to vote the bums out of office. But then they win the election again, and a person still doesn't get to own an AR. So a person has to wait another 2 to 4 years just to "maybe" get a chance to vote them out of office. Life is to short to wait, when all you have to do is move to a free state and start to enjoy the freedom that is denigned in Kali. :evil:

July 27, 2003, 09:03 PM
Thanks for setting them stright on Bob Hannah.

BTW I love this site dearly. Wonder who's watching? how long will we enjoy this degree of freedom of speech?

If you enjoyed reading about "Watching the royalty buy firearms" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!