California DOJ to return confiscated rifles.


PDA






jsalcedo
February 6, 2004, 06:05 PM
CHAGRINED CALIFORNIA DOJ GUN POLICE
RETURN IMPROPERLY CONFISCATED RIFLES
DOJ Firearms Division's Own Agents
Confused About What Constitutes An "Assault Weapon"

On November 25, 2003 the California DOJ announced the seizure of a number of
illegal "assault weapons" from a Laguna Niguel gun dealer. One of the guns
on display in the store was a Robinson Armament model M96 rifle. Believing
this rifle to be an illegal "assault weapon," DOJ Firearms Division agents
used the store's transaction records to locate each purchaser of the M96
rifle, then went door to door, often in the dead of night, confiscating the
firearms under threat of criminal prosecution. One such raid was
videotaped. No compensation was offered for the seized firearms.

Only problem: the M96 rifle is perfectly legal and is not an "assault
weapon." Thankfully, higher ups at the DOJ Firearms Division got involved
at the urging of CRPA and others, and reversed the Agents' interpretation.

The confiscations illustrate the difficulty in determining whether a firearm
is an "assault weapon." Even the specialized DOJ Firearms Division's own
agents, with their advanced training on the subject, couldn't tell. So,
then how is the average gun owner supposed to know? The confusion inherent
in the statute lead the District Attorneys in Fresno and Mendocino counties
to file an unprecedented prosecutor vs. prosecutor lawsuit against the
Attorney General over the vagueness of the law when it first passed. Hunt
v. Lockyer (Fresno Superior Court #01 CE CG 03182) is still being litigated,
and challenges the 1999 amendment to the state's "assault weapon" law that
bans firearms based on their cosmetic features. The lawsuit points out that
the law does not provide gun owners, dealers, police, or prosecutors with
sufficient guidance to determine what features on a firearm are prohibited
so they cannot enforce the law fairly and unilaterally or determine how to
comply with it. A letter from District Attorney Hunt explaining the lawsuit
is available at the CRPA's website.

In seizing the M96 rifles, the DOJ Firearms Division agents mistakenly
believed that the model M96 was illegal because of one statutory definition
of an "assault weapon" includes any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with the
capacity to accept a detachable magazine and a conspicuously protruding
pistol grip. Although the M96 does not have a pistol grip, the agents
wrongfully believed that the "capacity to accept" provision applies to both
the detachable magazine and the pistol grip. The agents believed the M96
was an "assault weapon" because it has the "capacity to accept" a pistol
grip - as many guns do.

"We have been aware of the confusion since this law was passed in 1999,"
said CRPA spokesman Chuck Michel. "The practical effect of that confusion
is that the law has created a whole class of accidental felons in
California."

CRPA attempted to clear up the pistol grip issue last year when its
attorneys wrote DOJ for clarification. Luckily, DOJ's written responses
were available to prove the DOJ's Agents were wrong. Using those previous
DOJ responses, attorneys from both the CRPA and Robinson Armament were on
the phone with DOJ immediately after the raids started.

"We had to e-mail the DOJ copies of their own documents that detail
specifically why the M96 is not an 'assault weapon'" said Robinson Armament
attorney Jason Davis. "These kind of 'mistakes' by DOJ terrorize law
abiding customers and damage my client financially."

Approximately one week after seizing the model M96 rifles, DOJ's Agents
began returning the model M96 rifles to their owners.

If you enjoyed reading about "California DOJ to return confiscated rifles." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tropical Z
February 6, 2004, 06:10 PM
Seizing in the dead of night!
BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope they ROT in HELL!:cuss:
They are representatives of the :evil:

redhead
February 6, 2004, 06:23 PM
"Believing this rifle to be an illegal "assault weapon", DOJ Firearms Division agents used the store's transaction records to locate each purchaser of the M96 rifle, then went door to door, often in the dead of night, confiscating the firearms under threat of criminal prosecution."

Nice. Door to door. In the dead of night. Threat of prosecution. Intimidation? Sounds like it to me...

Gary H
February 6, 2004, 06:23 PM
A Republican sits in the excutive's chair. What is a Republican? Has George Bush and Arnold Whatshisname redefined Republican? If so, we now have a donkey and a reprogrammed elephant that thinks he is a donkey.

Drjones
February 6, 2004, 06:43 PM
Break into my house in the dead of the night and you'll likely leave in a body bag.

Balog
February 6, 2004, 06:57 PM
DOJ Firearms Division agents
used the store's transaction records to locate each purchaser of the M96
rifle, then went door to door, often in the dead of night, confiscating the
firearms under threat of criminal prosecution. One such raid was
videotaped. No compensation was offered for the seized firearms.


Why would anyone object to NICS? It's not like we live in a police state or anything :barf:

TCD
February 6, 2004, 06:57 PM
Drjones, and so would you.... armed resistance agaisnt the police usually ends badly for everybody

Balog
February 6, 2004, 07:02 PM
TCD: armed oppression of the citizens doesn't turn out too well either. Unless you disarm them first, anyway.

7.62FullMetalJacket
February 6, 2004, 07:10 PM
Lordy. DOJ in midnight raids looking for "illegal" "assault" rifles. No one bother to check definitions before rendering asunder the 4A?

What is this crap about "capacity to accept"....??????

SO if a pistol grip is made for a rifle, or a detachable high cap mag has ever been made, then the non-assault rifle becomes an assault rifle, even though the parts are not in the same space in time? Where is the Twighlight Zone when you need it?


Brothers, we are in deep doo-doo. :mad:

As far as B&E goes, the DOJ JBTs had better understand that they will be repelled as "illegal entrants." They can make up terms and justifications, then so can anyone, including Drjones.

Thumper
February 6, 2004, 07:14 PM
Drjones, and so would you.... armed resistance agaisnt the police usually ends badly for everybody

TCD makes a good point. Hey, could someone get Patrick Henry on the horn and tell him that that "Liberty or Death" crap is just so, like, dated...?

Drjones
February 6, 2004, 07:14 PM
Please do not take my comments as being anti-LEO.

Its just that with home invasions on the rise and the perps impersonating officers on an almost regular basis, it is a tough decision to make.

Submit and hope they are who they say, or start shooting and hope for the best.

Its a decision I definitely hope I am NEVER faced with. :uhoh:

answerguy
February 6, 2004, 07:15 PM
...to this thread and assume it was going to be a joke.

I was wrong.

Balog
February 6, 2004, 07:16 PM
Just make sure you don't take more than 20 seconds to get to the door. :rolleyes: Unless it's a no-knock :uhoh:

Standing Wolf
February 6, 2004, 07:23 PM
Firearms registration is firearms confiscation.

Bruce H
February 6, 2004, 07:25 PM
California has a budget crisis. I think I have found a place to cut expences. The need to reduce expenditures by state government is paramount. Removal of this division of the California DOJ would definitely save money and protect the rights of citizens.

goalie
February 7, 2004, 01:31 AM
I will humbly await my apology from the posters in the "was this a good shoot" thread who questioned my character and intelligence for having the gall to state that WHY the police are there in the first place is relevant to whether or not a "shoot" is good or not. I especially like the "dead of night" part of the whole situation. Instead of just calling people up and informing them that a weapon they bought LEGALLY from a dealer may not be legal to possess, they go with warrants in the dead of night. Yeah, that's gonna instill trust and respect in LE officials. :rolleyes:

yayarx7
February 7, 2004, 02:08 AM
Even the specialized DOJ Firearms Division's own
agents, with their advanced training on the subject, couldn't tell.

HA!

double HA!

Triple freaking HA!

natedog
February 7, 2004, 02:26 AM
I am just saddened by how much time and tax payer money our government spends in regulating a weapon (or features of a weapon) that don't increase it's lethality, and all of these resources don't help society one bit. Anyone notice anything different in the amount of crime and the number of "assault weapons" that are "flooding our streets" between 1993 and say, 1996? Of course, I am preaching to the choir here.

7.62FullMetalJacket
February 7, 2004, 08:29 AM
It was necessary to "raid" these locations in the dead of night because the occupants had unknowingly allowed and evil black SA rifle into their home. The rifle could have hurt somebody if left to its own devices. This was for the citizen's safety and for the children. :rolleyes: :uhoh: :barf:

jsalcedo
February 7, 2004, 08:39 AM
I especially like the "dead of night" part of the whole situation. Instead of just calling people up and informing them that a weapon they bought LEGALLY from a dealer may not be legal to possess, they go with warrants in the dead of night.


Absoulute power corrupts absolutely.

What is the point of being a JBT, listening to WWII German marching
songs in the car all day if you can't put your boot on someones throat at night?

Jeff Thomas
February 7, 2004, 01:51 PM
And using purchase records to track owners down and confiscate their firearms?!?! I am shocked. Absolutely shocked.

These unfortunate incidents only encourage the obvious paranoia of gun owners in America regarding reasonable registration of firearms.



:rolleyes:

Regards from TX

TheOtherOne
February 7, 2004, 02:08 PM
How many babies had been slaughtered with these rifles before they were confiscated?

lapidator
February 7, 2004, 02:11 PM
armed resistance agaisnt the police usually ends badly for everybody

All the more reason not to provoke me... :scrutiny:

Lapidator

Spark
February 7, 2004, 04:28 PM
LINK TO ARTICLE PLEASE - one of the things that the anti's always state is that Registration does not lead to Confiscation. Showing them that it's happening right now helps dispell that notion.

HankB
February 7, 2004, 04:48 PM
Instead of just calling people up and informing them that a weapon they bought LEGALLY from a dealer may not be legal to possess, they go with warrants in the dead of night. Actually, the story didn't say they actually had warrants.

MacViolinist
February 7, 2004, 05:01 PM
Wow. This sounds alot like something that happened outside my town almost eleven years ago. Let's see. No crime committed, no warrants issued. Hmm. It also sounds like the Cowboy-Cops-Looking-For-A-Bust are learning as well. Go after the non-criminals one at a time. I think it's really sad that the response to abuses of police power is to say, well, if we don't defend ourselves, maybe they won't hurt us too bad. Is that what you would say to any other criminal? "Here mr. bad guy. take my gun, just please don't hurt me with it. Or rape my wife, or steal my property."
No offense to the upstanding, trustworthy LEO's out there, but does a uniform and a badge make theivery, breaking and entering, and assault legal?

-drew

TheOtherOne
February 7, 2004, 05:47 PM
I had to look up what an M96 was.

http://www.robarm.com/m96_california_recon_carbine.htm

:D :D I shouldn't laugh, but all I can say is I feel bad for those subjecting themselves to the gun laws of California. I guess I will eat my words though when it finally spreads to the rest of us.

WilderBill
February 7, 2004, 07:35 PM
I am now more convinced than ever that Kali needs to move even further left...














I think maybe about 2 or 300 miles should be deep enough.
Any word on when that "big one" is supposed to take care of this problem?

Balog
February 7, 2004, 09:52 PM
Who said "There's nothing wrong with California that couldn't be fixed by a good rise in ocean level."? A good quote but I forget the attribution.

gander
February 7, 2004, 10:24 PM
Greetings from S. Ohio. Gee I thought gun dealer records were actually tax records. Did they have warrants to demand those records? Sounds like both doj troops and gun dealers would be in violation. Might be an interesting way to liven up the situation. BTW.. you can sue a police officer as an individual for violating your civil rights...good part is, he cant use taxpayer funds to defend himself.

Dain Bramage
February 7, 2004, 10:50 PM
Nice slam at Bush, considering this is a state issue. :rolleyes:

Hkmp5sd
February 7, 2004, 11:09 PM
On March 21,2001, Robinson Armament requested a determination on whether or not the M96 is considered a banned weapon in California.

On March 25, 2001, the highest ranking member in their justice system, the Attorney General, is unable or unwilling to make a decision. So he doesn't rule yes or no, informing Robinson Armament that it is up to the local district attorney's interpretation for their jurisdiction.

On February 10, 2003, An individual asks for clarification on the legality of firearms based on their "evil features."

In their reply of May 1, 2003, the Attorney General states the if the evil features are removed from the firearm, the firearm would no longer be considered an assault weapon and therefore, would be legal in California. This means the M96 is legal in California.

On November 25, 2003, this very same justice department, using the best Gestapo tactics, scours the state, confiscating all of the M96 rifles they can find, only to change their mind and conclude the M96 is legal.

The only correct decision the Justice Department made was to return the rifles to their owners instead of destroying them anyway.

Harry Tuttle
February 8, 2004, 12:23 AM
searching the CPRA website does not reveal this item or any mention of the M96

i need a source on this doc

i can use this article if its real

i googled phrases from the article and found nothing either

Cal4D4
February 8, 2004, 12:30 AM
"...the urging of CRPA ..."

Yea, the DOJ thinks it's embarrassed now, wait until the NRA comes to our defense about the nature and methodology of the seizures and stuff. Hey Mike Haas, when is the doody really gonna hit the fan??

jsalcedo
February 8, 2004, 01:26 AM
You have to pay to get the link to the CPRA article.

I got it because I am on email alerts from the CPRA.

Harry Tuttle
February 8, 2004, 08:11 AM
Thar she blows:
http://www.crpa.org/pressrls020604.html

Mute
February 9, 2004, 01:59 PM
Do I smell a lawsuit in here? Anywhere? These jerk-offs needs to be punished.:cuss:

Nightfall
February 9, 2004, 02:48 PM
To quote Standing Wolf, "Yeah, but we're not a police state."

I'm beginning to have second thoughts on buying my firearms in any way that involves a 4473...

HunterGatherer
February 9, 2004, 02:56 PM
TCD makes a good point. Hey, could someone get Patrick Henry on the horn and tell him that that "Liberty or Death" crap is just so, like, dated...?LMAO Thumper! Good one. :D

If you enjoyed reading about "California DOJ to return confiscated rifles." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!