Anyone have Stag lowers and are willing to ship to California? - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Anyone have Stag lowers and are willing to ship to California? (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:37:40 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is the CA DOJ stating that an unspecified AR type receiver is legal for the moment: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260461

Yeah - the receiver appears to be legal, but you cannot build an AR-15 on it, can you?

As far as I read it, the second you put a pistol grip on your new receiver, you've broken the law. So, sure, you can buy a new AR-15 receiver from one of the new manufacturers, but you cannot build an AR-15 in a pre-CA-ban configuration, so what difference does it make.

Or did I misunderstand the letter?

I'm tired - maybe I'm completely wrong on this - which would be AWESOME for everyone in CA.

The DOJ is planning on banning these very, very soon by adding them by name to the banned list. At that point, they would have to open up a 90 day period where owners could register them. After registering them, you could put any features you want on it since it is forever an "assault weapon".

Nope you would be manufacturing an assualt weapon in violation of CPC 12280(a)(1). At best you will be able to register and keep the stripped lower, but you will be violating 12280(a)(1) if you assemble it into an AW later.

But an assault weapon is an assault weapon right? I mean if the CA DOJ classifies the lower as an assault weapon, then what does putting a pistol grip on it make it? An assault weapon plus? How do you assemble an assault weapon into an assault weapon if it is already an assault weapon?

CPC 12280(a)(1) states:

12280. (a) (1) Any person who, within this state, manufactures or
causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into
the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who
gives or lends any assault weapon, except as provided by this
chapter, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished
by imprisonment in the state prison for four, six, or eight years.

The assault weapon has already been manufactured if they deem the lower an assault weapon. Am I missing something here?

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:40:53 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is the CA DOJ stating that an unspecified AR type receiver is legal for the moment: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260461

Yeah - the receiver appears to be legal, but you cannot build an AR-15 on it, can you?

As far as I read it, the second you put a pistol grip on your new receiver, you've broken the law. So, sure, you can buy a new AR-15 receiver from one of the new manufacturers, but you cannot build an AR-15 in a pre-CA-ban configuration, so what difference does it make.

Or did I misunderstand the letter?

I'm tired - maybe I'm completely wrong on this - which would be AWESOME for everyone in CA.

The DOJ is planning on banning these very, very soon by adding them by name to the banned list. At that point, they would have to open up a 90 day period where owners could register them. After registering them, you could put any features you want on it since it is forever an "assault weapon".

Nope you would be manufacturing an assualt weapon in violation of CPC 12280(a)(1). At best you will be able to register and keep the stripped lower, but you will be violating 12280(a)(1) if you assemble it into an AW later.

Have you at least gone to the Calguns link?

People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:46:05 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

Yeah, but simply possessing an AK or AR does not constitute a violation unless there is some reason for the police to believe that it is an unregistered assault weapon. Are "papers" required to be kept with the gun to prove legality?

Unless of course it is standard procedure to arrest people in the hopes that they have done something illegal.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:46:28 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like BS

Having thought this over, I cmpeltely agree.

The AR's are banned in california by feature and design (the AR "series"), and the ban includes all similar variations. Any new things added to the roster might well have this 90-day window, but all variations of AR's fall under the existing bans, regardless of whether they have a new name.

I mean come on, if this loophole existed, Colt, Bushmaster, RRA would have found it years ago, and just spun off new shell corporations and changed the rollstamp on their receivers every 90 days.

I agree with dpmmn - complete pie-in-the-sky BS.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is the CA DOJ stating that an unspecified AR type receiver is legal for the moment: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260461

Yeah - the receiver appears to be legal, but you cannot build an AR-15 on it, can you?

As far as I read it, the second you put a pistol grip on your new receiver, you've broken the law. So, sure, you can buy a new AR-15 receiver from one of the new manufacturers, but you cannot build an AR-15 in a pre-CA-ban configuration, so what difference does it make.

Or did I misunderstand the letter?

I'm tired - maybe I'm completely wrong on this - which would be AWESOME for everyone in CA.

The DOJ is planning on banning these very, very soon by adding them by name to the banned list. At that point, they would have to open up a 90 day period where owners could register them. After registering them, you could put any features you want on it since it is forever an "assault weapon".

Nope you would be manufacturing an assualt weapon in violation of CPC 12280(a)(1). At best you will be able to register and keep the stripped lower, but you will be violating 12280(a)(1) if you assemble it into an AW later.

Have you at least gone to the Calguns link?

People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

So I am still just curious how a registered assault weapon (the lower) is assembled into an assault weapon and therefore illegal?

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:49:46 PM EDT

[#5]

Hell, I'll transfer a few of them (for a premium

). Good luck finding an FFL willing to receive them, however.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:51:47 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Have you at least gone to the Calguns link?

People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

So I am still just curious how a registered assault weapon (the lower) is assembled into an assault weapon and therefore illegal?

It isn't so you probably aren't going to receive a correct answer. Once it is an "assault weapon" you can put whatever feature you want on it as long as it still obeys barrel length, overall length, etc laws.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:52:36 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Hell, I'll transfer a few of them (for a premium ). Good luck finding an FFL willing to receive them, however.

We already have at least one who's been busy selling them but he's a couple hours away. Definitely going to make the drive though.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:52:39 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Hell, I'll transfer a few of them (for a premium ). Good luck finding an FFL willing to receive them, however.

There already are. A previous thread today had a guy buying DSA stripped lowers at the San Jose gun show.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:53:38 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Have you at least gone to the Calguns link?

People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

So I am still just curious how a registered assault weapon (the lower) is assembled into an assault weapon and therefore illegal?

It isn't so you probably aren't going to receive a correct answer. Once it is an "assault weapon" you can put whatever feature you want on it as long as it still obeys barrel length, overall length, etc laws.

That's what my thinking was.

ETA fix quotes

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:53:38 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

Yeah, but simply possessing an AK or AR does not constitute a violation unless there is some reason for the police to believe that it is an unregistered assault weapon. Are "papers" required to be kept with the gun to prove legality?

Nope. You run the owner and any AW's registered to him come back in the response.

Posted: 12/11/2005 9:56:59 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Have you at least gone to the Calguns link?

People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

So I am still just curious how a registered assault weapon (the lower) is assembled into an assault weapon and therefore illegal?
It isn't so you probably aren't going to receive a correct answer. Once it is an "assault weapon" you can put whatever feature you want on it as long as it still obeys barrel length, overall length, etc laws.

It's been illegal to manufacture an AW since Jan 2000. If the STAG/DSA lower was not even in existance prior to 2000 how hard will it be to convicne a jury that you manufactured the complete weapon after that date?

A peice of paper calling a hunk of aluminum an AW doesnt entitle you to violate the provicions of the law that prohibit the manufacturing of AWs.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:02:27 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Have you at least gone to the Calguns link?

People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

So I am still just curious how a registered assault weapon (the lower) is assembled into an assault weapon and therefore illegal?
It isn't so you probably aren't going to receive a correct answer. Once it is an "assault weapon" you can put whatever feature you want on it as long as it still obeys barrel length, overall length, etc laws.

It's been illegal to manufacture an AW since Jan 2000. If the STAG/DSA lower was not even in existance prior to 2000 how hard will it be to convicne a jury that you manufactured the complete weapon after that date?

A peice of paper calling a hunk of aluminum an AW doesnt entitle you to violate the provicions of the law that prohibit the manufacturing of AWs.

But what part of the CPC differentiates a assault weapon (just the lower deemed an assault weapon by the CA DOJ) and an assault weapon "plus" (the completely built AR)? I am not trying to argue but I am just curious. Sure you can obviously figure out it was built after a certain date but there is little ground to stand on legally if they just make the law up out of thin air.

Specifically this part:

A peice of paper calling a hunk of aluminum an AW doesnt entitle you to violate the provicions of the law that prohibit the manufacturing of AWs.

Isn't the AW already manufactured if the lower is deemed an assault weapon? You could put whatever you wanted on a pre ban lower during the federal ban because it was already an assault weapon. If the DOJ deems it an assault weapon, and you can theoretically register it legally.......what the hell am I missing?

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:02:55 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Have you at least gone to the Calguns link?

People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

So I am still just curious how a registered assault weapon (the lower) is assembled into an assault weapon and therefore illegal?
It isn't so you probably aren't going to receive a correct answer. Once it is an "assault weapon" you can put whatever feature you want on it as long as it still obeys barrel length, overall length, etc laws.

It's been illegal to manufacture an AW since Jan 2000. If the STAG/DSA lower was not even in existance prior to 2000 how hard will it be to convicne a jury that you manufactured the complete weapon after that date?

A peice of paper calling a hunk of aluminum an AW doesnt entitle you to violate the provicions of the law that prohibit the manufacturing of AWs.

This is all pursuant to the "list" being opened up for the registration of new assault weapons in which case it won't matter when they are manufactured since they are all "assault weapons" not pre ban assault weapons or postban assault weapons or any other variety.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:04:20 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Have you at least gone to the Calguns link?

People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

So I am still just curious how a registered assault weapon (the lower) is assembled into an assault weapon and therefore illegal?
It isn't so you probably aren't going to receive a correct answer. Once it is an "assault weapon" you can put whatever feature you want on it as long as it still obeys barrel length, overall length, etc laws.

It's been illegal to manufacture an AW since Jan 2000. If the STAG/DSA lower was not even in existance prior to 2000 how hard will it be to convicne a jury that you manufactured the complete weapon after that date?

A peice of paper calling a hunk of aluminum an AW doesnt entitle you to violate the provicions of the law that prohibit the manufacturing of AWs.

The court ruling implied that a STAG/DSA lower is not an assault weapon since it is not listed on the assault weapon list. The AR-15 series term is too vague. When these get sold in the PRK, the DOJ will have them listed. At that point it is as if they have listed a new weapon, much like they did to Walther P22's a couple years ago. A new listing requires a 90-day amnesty. Owners of newly listed receivers dutifully register their lowers as assault weapons IAW state law, then build them into full, legal rifles. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Glad I don't have to put up with this shit.

The only way for DOJ to really fuck paople taking advantage of this is to do nothing, since they have to list them for the whole scheme to work.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:05:14 PM EDT

[#15]

I see a couple of other options (food for thought)

1. For those of you who own FAB-10s: Finish milling the receiver, and remove the banned features (including the pistol grip). If it ever makes it's way onto the list, register it and add the grip.

2. For those of you who own the CA legal Vulcan lowers: Re-configuring these should be trivial at best. If they become banned, register it and add the evil features later.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:08:46 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Have you at least gone to the Calguns link?

People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

So I am still just curious how a registered assault weapon (the lower) is assembled into an assault weapon and therefore illegal?
It isn't so you probably aren't going to receive a correct answer. Once it is an "assault weapon" you can put whatever feature you want on it as long as it still obeys barrel length, overall length, etc laws.

It's been illegal to manufacture an AW since Jan 2000. If the STAG/DSA lower was not even in existance prior to 2000 how hard will it be to convicne a jury that you manufactured the complete weapon after that date?

A peice of paper calling a hunk of aluminum an AW doesnt entitle you to violate the provicions of the law that prohibit the manufacturing of AWs.

The court ruling implied that a STAG/DSA lower is not an assault weapon since it is not listed on the assault weapon list. The AR-15 series term is too vague. When these get sold in the PRK, the DOJ will have them listed. At that point it is as if they have listed a new weapon, much like they did to Walther P22's a couple years ago. A new listing requires a 90-day amnesty. Owners of newly listed receivers dutifully register their lowers as assault weapons IAW state law, then build them into full, legal rifles. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Glad I don't have to put up with this shit.

The only way for DOJ to really fuck paople taking advantage of this is to do nothing, since they have to list them for the whole scheme to work.

That's how I see it.

And +1 for not having to put up with this shit. I just want my CA brothers who can't escape to have some hope.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:10:07 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Have you at least gone to the Calguns link?

People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

So I am still just curious how a registered assault weapon (the lower) is assembled into an assault weapon and therefore illegal?
It isn't so you probably aren't going to receive a correct answer. Once it is an "assault weapon" you can put whatever feature you want on it as long as it still obeys barrel length, overall length, etc laws.

It's been illegal to manufacture an AW since Jan 2000. If the STAG/DSA lower was not even in existance prior to 2000 how hard will it be to convicne a jury that you manufactured the complete weapon after that date?

A peice of paper calling a hunk of aluminum an AW doesnt entitle you to violate the provicions of the law that prohibit the manufacturing of AWs.

But what part of the CPC differentiates a assault weapon (just the lower deemed an assault weapon by the CA DOJ) and an assault weapon "plus" (the completely built AR)? I am not trying to argue but I am just curious. Sure you can obviously figure out it was built after a certain date but there is little ground to stand on legally if they just make the law up out of thin air.

Specifically this part:

A peice of paper calling a hunk of aluminum an AW doesnt entitle you to violate the provicions of the law that prohibit the manufacturing of AWs.

Isn't the AW already manufactured if the lower is deemed an assault weapon?

It's pretty easy to explain the difference to a judge or a jury of your peers.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:10:52 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Have you at least gone to the Calguns link?

People have been emailing me the links since before I saw this thread. I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

So I am still just curious how a registered assault weapon (the lower) is assembled into an assault weapon and therefore illegal?
It isn't so you probably aren't going to receive a correct answer. Once it is an "assault weapon" you can put whatever feature you want on it as long as it still obeys barrel length, overall length, etc laws.

It's been illegal to manufacture an AW since Jan 2000. If the STAG/DSA lower was not even in existance prior to 2000 how hard will it be to convicne a jury that you manufactured the complete weapon after that date?

A peice of paper calling a hunk of aluminum an AW doesnt entitle you to violate the provicions of the law that prohibit the manufacturing of AWs.

The court ruling implied that a STAG/DSA lower is not an assault weapon since it is not listed on the assault weapon list. The AR-15 series term is too vague. When these get sold in the PRK, the DOJ will have them listed. At that point it is as if they have listed a new weapon, much like they did to Walther P22's a couple years ago. A new listing requires a 90-day amnesty. Owners of newly listed receivers dutifully register their lowers as assault weapons IAW state law, then build them into full, legal rifles. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Glad I don't have to put up with this shit.

The only way for DOJ to really fuck paople taking advantage of this is to do nothing, since they have to list them for the whole scheme to work.

That's the really bizarre part of it. We need them to ban these eventually (although sooner than later is looking likely) for the plan to work. There is definitely something strange about hoping the receiver you own gets banned.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:15:19 PM EDT

[#19]

So you guys still aren't telling me where in the CPC it states that you can't put an upper with flash hider and bayonet lug on a lower that has been legally registered as an assault weapon. This comes down to the assault weapon vs. theoretical assault weapon "plus" thing I can't figure out. This is only place I still keep getting hung up on in this issue.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:16:13 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Unless of course it is standard procedure to arrest people in the hopes that they have done something illegal.

Welcome to Dept of Pre Crime.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:16:36 PM EDT

[#21]

I think that you're all going to prison. Keep us posted so that we can do a GP on cakes with files inside them for you guys.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:17:22 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I think that you're all going to prison. Keep us posted so that we can do a GP on cakes with files inside them for you guys.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:17:59 PM EDT

[#23]

Go, Kali dogs, Go!

Fight, Kali dogs, Fight!

Regards,

Rick

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:19:20 PM EDT

[#24]

I don't understand how can you live in such a messed up state...?

Well best of luck anyway!

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:25:07 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
So you guys still aren't telling me where in the CPC it states that you can't put an upper with flash hider and bayonet lug on a lower that has been legally registered as an assault weapon. This comes down to the assault weapon vs. theoretical assault weapon "plus" thing I can't figure out. This is only place I still keep getting hung up on in this issue.

I'm telling you, you'll never get an answer from them because it doesn't exist. For example, I have a Cobray M/11-9 (I know it's a pretty shitty gun) that didn't have a threaded barrel. It would have been illegal for me to thread it because it would make it an assault weapon in CA. I, however, registered it as an assault weapon so putting a threaded barrel on it was not illegal since it didn't matter anymore becasue it was then and forever, an assault weapon. As long as I don't put a stock on it (making it an SBR) I'm ok.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:30:08 PM EDT

[#26]

Oh what to do? Here's a fun idea. start a company, called "aardvark" manufacture a limited number of receivers called "aardvark .223". Start second company, called "absolute". "Aardvark sells all tooling to "absolute" and shuts down. Absolute manufactures a limited number of receivers called "absolute .223". Continue the process until the DOJ list resembles a dictionary.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:30:53 PM EDT

[#27]

Saw this over on Calguns...

DOJ Special Agent showed up at the San Jose gunshow

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I was at the show today a DOJ Special Agent showed up at Wes's booth. While I missed part of the conversation I’ll tell you what I got from it.

First off his name was Ignatius Chinn and he was introduced to me as a Supervisor for the Enforcement Division of the DOJ. In conversation he brought up that he sits two offices down from Alison Merrilees. After I met him I called my friend to does expert testimony from time to time. He said Special Agent Chinn is Bill’s “Head Enforcement Officer.”

I will also state that Ignatius was EXTREMLEY knowledgeable as well as VERY professional. There was no “jack booted thug” vibe at all. He was also very willing to answer questions. When he left all of us at the table thanked him for being as helpful as he was.

Now on to what he said.

First off: how did he find out about the sales at the gunshow? All the damn letters people have been writing in!!! This is when he brought up where he sits and that Alison showed him the letters.

Second: He said “when I get back to the office” They are going to be beginning to ban these lowers by name. He explicitly stated STAG-15 and Fulton but also said they would add “all of them” to the list.

Third: Once added to the list there will be a 90 day window to register them as Assault Weapons and he stated he was concerned that not everyone would and would become an instant felon.

Fourth: He said they had wanted to add these to the list earlier but something (I didn’t understand) about the law where there had to be actual commerce to add them to the list. He came to the show to verify said commerce and would begin to ban these ASAP. I will add that the second he left the table he called someone and 20 min later when I left he was still on the phone.

Fifth: When pressed about how long it would take to add to the list he said maybe two weeks.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:30:53 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted.

And just how many, otherwise, law abiding Californians have you cuffed and stuffed? I would have difficulty sleeping at night, knowing that I was disarming citizens who have committed no other crime other than practicing their federal right to bear arms. Don't be surprised when you wake up in hell one day.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:31:52 PM EDT

[#29]

I have another idea. Using the court ruling as an affirmative defense opens up a whole new world of possibilities, now that the "series" problem is out of the way:

Get an 80% lower. Mill everything as normal. Modify the magazine release such that a tool ( a bullet for example) is required to drop the magazine. Why? Because the magazine won't be considered detachable under the law. It's ALMOST as nice as having a real detachable magazine. It will slow down mag changes a bit, but it's not half bad. Just stick a bullet in the hole and drop the mag. Easy. There's another benefit:

Since the magazine is not detachable, all other "evil" features are fine. Pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash supressor, whatever.

Wait...

...as I was about to post the relavent sections of the penal code, I've noticed that the definition of "detachable magazine" has been removed. WTF? Having lived in California up until last year and trying every way I knew how to find a loophole, I CLEARLY remember this being there. It SPECIFICALLY excluded those magazines which required a tool (even said a bullet is a tool) to remove them. What the hell?

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:32:35 PM EDT

[#30]

Wow....despite having several STAG lowers waiting for the day I have some extra funds to build them up, I'd still hesitate part with them to a PRK folk....from reading all the posts, the DOJ is not trustworthy of LEA's out there.

But also check out Eagle Arms, I bought several STAGS from them with the NV group buy last year.....hope he's doing better, but they had some great deals.

Hope you guys find a good supply, HG112 has a good supply, and careful with this whole thing........one good friend got nailed really good with the DOJ, and his "its not on the list" defense still cost him several thousand in legal fees, trying to get his stuff back.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:32:40 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Oh what to do? Here's a fun idea. start a company, called "aardvark" manufacture a limited number of receivers called "aardvark .223". Start second company, called "absolute". "Aardvark sells all tooling to "absolute" and shuts down. Absolute manufactures a limited number of receivers called "absolute .223". Continue the process until the DOJ list resembles a dictionary.

Or until they fix their problem and make it like the federal ban was, meaning "AR-15 series" is not too vague....

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:36:56 PM EDT

[#32]

Go Cali-Dogs!
Roo-roo-roo!

Its all Bush's fault!

IBTA In before the arrest's

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:37:00 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Saw this over on Calguns...

DOJ Special Agent showed up at the San Jose gunshow

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I was at the show today a DOJ Special Agent showed up at Wes's booth. While I missed part of the conversation I’ll tell you what I got from it.

First off his name was Ignatius Chinn and he was introduced to me as a Supervisor for the Enforcement Division of the DOJ. In conversation he brought up that he sits two offices down from Alison Merrilees. After I met him I called my friend to does expert testimony from time to time. He said Special Agent Chinn is Bill’s “Head Enforcement Officer.”

I will also state that Ignatius was EXTREMLEY knowledgeable as well as VERY professional. There was no “jack booted thug” vibe at all. He was also very willing to answer questions. When he left all of us at the table thanked him for being as helpful as he was.

Now on to what he said.

First off: how did he find out about the sales at the gunshow? All the damn letters people have been writing in!!! This is when he brought up where he sits and that Alison showed him the letters.

Second: He said “when I get back to the office” They are going to be beginning to ban these lowers by name. He explicitly stated STAG-15 and Fulton but also said they would add “all of them” to the list.

Third: Once added to the list there will be a 90 day window to register them as Assault Weapons and he stated he was concerned that not everyone would and would become an instant felon.

Fourth: He said they had wanted to add these to the list earlier but something (I didn’t understand) about the law where there had to be actual commerce to add them to the list. He came to the show to verify said commerce and would begin to ban these ASAP. I will add that the second he left the table he called someone and 20 min later when I left he was still on the phone.

Fifth: When pressed about how long it would take to add to the list he said maybe two weeks.

Get em quick people.

Fuck the CA DOJ and the fucking libs.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:38:28 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted.

And just how many, otherwise, law abiding Californians have you cuffed and stuffed? I would have difficulty sleeping at night, knowing that I was disarming citizens who have committed no other crime other than practicing their federal right to bear arms. Don't be surprised when you wake up in hell one day.

He worded that poorly. "I arrest people for a living" was simply his way of telling those that didn't already know that he's an LEO. It doesn't mean he arrests people like you and me for California AWB violations. He's probably right: the prosecutor in his county will prosecute the series violations.

In my opinion (I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, but missed law school), the court decision detailed earlier makes a pretty good defense. If I lived there, I'd secure a lawyer on retainer and go for it.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:40:22 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Wow....despite having several STAG lowers waiting for the day I have some extra funds to build them up, I'd still hesitate part with them to a PRK folk....from reading all the posts, the DOJ is not trustworthy of LEA's out there.

But also check out Eagle Arms, I bought several STAGS from them with the NV group buy last year.....hope he's doing better, but they had some great deals.

Hope you guys find a good supply, HG112 has a good supply, and careful with this whole thing........one good friend got nailed really good with the DOJ, and his "its not on the list" defense still cost him several thousand in legal fees, trying to get his stuff back.

This bears repeating, and requires careful consideration on the part of those willing to try this.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:44:16 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I arrest people for a living and can assure you that in my county AR & AK series violations will still be prosecuted.

And just how many, otherwise, law abiding Californians have you cuffed and stuffed?

None, but I've used weapons laws to lock up people who belonged there anyway. Al Capone finally went down for violating the tax code.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:46:50 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
........one good friend got nailed really good with the DOJ, and his "its not on the list" defense still cost him several thousand in legal fees, trying to get his stuff back.

Can you go into details? Did he flip and turn snitch and try to "work" his case off? (I hope not)

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:49:43 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
I think that you're all going to prison.

Nope. The first few to get busted will turn snitch and set up their "friends" at the gunshows and shoots to save their own assess. It's the second bunch that goes to jail, the first ones always walk for their cooperation.

Actually for simple possession of an AW they are only looking at 3-years probation with a no weapons provision. A manufacturing charge will mean jail time though.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:52:23 PM EDT

[#39]

Another quick thought, this time regarding the possibility of prosecution:

I was "caught" shooting my FAB-10 in the Stanislaus National Forest, while I lived in Cali. The LEO thought I had an assault weapon and asked if it was registered. I told her no, since it wasn't an assault weapon. She disagreed. I explained that it didn't have a detachable magazine, therefore it wasn't an assault weapon under the law. She still didn't believe me. I pulled the DOJ letter that comes with every FAB-10 out of my buttstock and showed it to her. She dropped the matter right there.

To be prosecuted, an officer is going to have to arrest you. Well maybe not, but probably. Anyway, keeping a copy of DOJ letters sent in an official capacity on your person is a wise move. It will lessen (but not eliminate) the possibility of being arrested. Not shooting your new AR in areas with known anti-gun DA's is also a good idea (most metro areas or populous counties).

If any of you decide to do this, just be smart. Look at it this way: A LOT of people still own unregistered ARs, and very few are ever prosecuted - and they don't have a defense if they DO get prosecuted. You will. Just keep it low key, and use your head. And secure an attorney beforehand.

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:53:03 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
this is true. it will be done in 2 weeks as per doj agent.
go to calguns.net check their legal forum
non named ar and ak type recievers are legal to ship into california for unrestricted sale.

with that said PLEASE SOMEONE SHIP 2 EWBANKS AK RECIEVERS TO MY FFL IN CALIFORNIA. I WILL PAY $100 EACH SHIPPED.

[from a SA post] HOOK A N@#A UP

Why not some 80% flats?
Don't tell me it is illegal to make your own receivers in Cali!

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:53:58 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Another quick thought, this time regarding the possibility of prosecution:

I was "caught" shooting my FAB-10 in the Stanislaus National Forest, while I lived in Cali. The LEO thought I had an assault weapon and asked if it was registered. I told her no, since it wasn't an assault weapon. She disagreed. I explained that it didn't have a detachable magazine, therefore it wasn't an assault weapon under the law. She still didn't believe me. I pulled the DOJ letter that comes with every FAB-10 out of my buttstock and showed it to her. She dropped the matter right there.

To be prosecuted, an officer is going to have to arrest you. Keeping a copy of DOJ letters sent in an official capacity on your person is a wise move. It will lessen (but not eliminate) the possibility of being arrested. Not shooting your new AR in areas with known anti-gun DA's is also a good idea (most metro areas or populous counties).

If any of you decide to do this, just be smart. Look at it this way: A LOT of people still own unregistered ARs, and very few are ever prosecuted - and they don't have a defense if they DO get prosecuted. You will. Just keep it low key, and use your head. And secure an attorney beforehand.

Good advice

Posted: 12/11/2005 10:58:32 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Look at it this way: A LOT of people still own unregistered ARs, and very few are ever prosecuted - and they don't have a defense if they DO get prosecuted.

Yep. Some precuser needs to be there to get caught. You wife gets pissed at you and rats you out. You start dealing drugs. Your house catches fire and the FD calls the cops when they find your gun collection. ect.

In one recent case, that resulted in the owner on On Target's son getting arrested, a rifle found following a traffic collision started the whole thing. In another high profile case a BATF complience inspection resulterd in a phone call to CAL-DOJ which steamrolled.

I arrest a lot of drug users who want to rat out their friends and family members who own illegal guns to work off their cases. Got any frinds who sometimes use illegal drugs? Are you sure they wouldnt give you up to save their own ass? (One of the reasons I hate snitches so much).

Posted: 12/11/2005 11:04:44 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Look at it this way: A LOT of people still own unregistered ARs, and very few are ever prosecuted - and they don't have a defense if they DO get prosecuted.

Yep. Some precuser needs to be there to get caught. You wife gets pissed at you and rats you out. You start dealing drugs. Your house catches fire and the FD calls the cops when they find your gun collection. ect.

In one recent case, that resulted in the owner on On Target's son getting arrested, a rifle found following a traffic collision started the whole thing. In another high profile case a BATF complience inspection resulterd in a phone call to CAL-DOJ which steamrolled.

I arrest a lot of drug users who want to rat out their friends and family members who own illegal guns to work off their cases. Got any frinds who sometimes use illegal drugs? Are you sure they wouldnt give you up to save their own ass? (One of the reasons I hate snitches so much).

Very good point. When I lived there, I did. I'd LIKE to think they wouldn't rat me out (even though what we're discussing is presumably legal), but sometimes you just never know. If it's between jail and probation...

So, add "don't tell your friends what you're doing" to the list of precautions. The idea starts to suck more and more, unless you feel you have the money to fight it in court.

Posted: 12/11/2005 11:13:00 PM EDT

[#44]

wow, every brand I can conceive, including "Smurf" - how about a smurf blue lower (like cavarms)

Posted: 12/11/2005 11:13:38 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Look at it this way: A LOT of people still own unregistered ARs, and very few are ever prosecuted - and they don't have a defense if they DO get prosecuted.

Yep. Some precuser needs to be there to get caught. You wife gets pissed at you and rats you out. You start dealing drugs. Your house catches fire and the FD calls the cops when they find your gun collection. ect.

In one recent case, that resulted in the owner on On Target's son getting arrested, a rifle found following a traffic collision started the whole thing. In another high profile case a BATF complience inspection resulterd in a phone call to CAL-DOJ which steamrolled.

I arrest a lot of drug users who want to rat out their friends and family members who own illegal guns to work off their cases. Got any frinds who sometimes use illegal drugs? Are you sure they wouldnt give you up to save their own ass? (One of the reasons I hate snitches so much).

Very good point. When I lived there, I did. I'd LIKE to think they wouldn't rat me out (even though what we're discussing is presumably legal), but sometimes you just never know. If it's between jail and probation...

So, add "don't tell your friends what you're doing" to the list of precautions. The idea starts to suck more and more, unless you feel you have the money to fight it in court.

The thing is though, it's completely legal! So much for innocent until proven guilty. I know what you mean though, it'd probably be better to keep it quiet anyway so as not to upset cops and DAs that are bent on not following court rulings.

Posted: 12/11/2005 11:15:13 PM EDT

[#46]

Ill sell some stags to the Ca's $500 each

Posted: 12/11/2005 11:19:01 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

The only way for DOJ to really fuck paople taking advantage of this is to do nothing, since they have to list them for the whole scheme to work.

Bingo! We have a winner!

Posted: 12/11/2005 11:24:37 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The only way for DOJ to really fuck paople taking advantage of this is to do nothing, since they have to list them for the whole scheme to work.

Bingo! We have a winner!

Well, you could use that unfomfortable looking pistol grip replacement Shoeless Ventures sells

, and not worry about it. Sucks, but it would still work if your receiver never got banned.

After reading up at calguns though, it looks like the DSA recivers WILL get banned, so the scheme should still work for now.

I love that my California brothers are so damn resourceful. I figured it was easier to just move, but God bless them for continuing to find ways to enjoy the same stuff we do legally.

Posted: 12/11/2005 11:36:28 PM EDT

[#49]

tag

Posted: 12/11/2005 11:43:49 PM EDT

[#50]

Create some interesting brand names!

to name a few:

FAGS
Illegal Aliens
Liberals
Hippies

I can see it now: All FAGS are banned/must be registered within 90 days!

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Anyone have Stag lowers and are willing to ship to California? (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us