Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 1/8/2006 7:02:03 AM EDT
There has been some speculation here about a possible bad outcome to the lower reciever legality issue; i.e. what action the DOJ might take that will result in seizure or surrender of our new aquisitions. This scenario sees all power in the hands of the DOJ. Well, they are public servants, are they not? And we are the public. So I propose that we exercise our rights. We should organize oueselves and seek legal counsel, and we should begin to do it now.

My feeling is that the DOJ, in the manner of most government bureaucracies, is trying to keep this whole matter as low-key as possible; they do not want to rouse the Legislature, the Public, Political Action Groups, or perhaps more importantly the Media. Therefore we should make sure the DOJ knows we will not meekly accept whatever decision they hand down; we should make it known that as a group we will take legal action if the outcome is one we will not tolerate, like seizure or surrender...we will sue.

What the legal resolution of the suit would be I cannot say. But it would potentially result in an outcome the DOJ would definitly not like: the introduction of this matter into the public awareness. That would bring the Legislature into the matter, with the consequent exposure to the policies of the DOJ management all the way up to Bill Lockyear himself. So in some way the DOJ should be made aware that we firearms owners are watching them, and are not locked into passivity; that if they take certain actions, we will remain silent, and keep our own reaction to events low-key as well (no public crowning of our "victory" or display of our new assault weapons), but if they take other actions we will escalate the issue with a lawsuit.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 7:31:18 AM EDT
Or they are just trying to quietly register the guns and keep this quiet.
Maybe we shouldn't piss them off yet, since they haven't done anything yet, other that tell us that they are planning to add lower names to the list in the near future. If we start making lawyer noise, and get them all concerned, then they have to react poorly.

People are getting bored and nervous.

Be patient, deal with problems when they arise.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 8:03:51 AM EDT
It's better to keep it quiet, let them add the lowers to the list and you can have your AW. Piss them off and they might do the smart thing and NOT add them, that way you'll be stuck with a neutered AR forever.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 8:34:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 0311-m249:
Or they are just trying to quietly register the guns and keep this quiet.
Maybe we shouldn't piss them off yet, since they haven't done anything yet, other that tell us that they are planning to add lower names to the list in the near future. If we start making lawyer noise, and get them all concerned, then they have to react poorly.

People are getting bored and nervous.

Be patient, deal with problems when they arise.



Since they didn't update the list this Friday they might be quietly extending the receiver opportunity to others? Again wishful speculation.

The more receiver owners the better for now.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 9:27:36 AM EDT
I'd stay quiet until they try to screw us.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 9:42:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 9:46:21 AM EDT by madjack956]
I'd stay quiet until they try to screw us.

+1 Stagman

Link Posted: 1/8/2006 10:25:10 AM EDT
Please stop the idiotic tinfoil-hat thinking.

The DOJ will do nothing. Their concern will be limited to updating the list and getting guns (receivers) registered. (Which is frankly the goal desired.)

There is really nothing the DOJ can do: they've already sent out nearly 100% letters with Deputy AG signature saying these are not in violation. With this, rules of lenity, estoppel etc. would really stop charges from going anywhere.

Furthermore, if they coulda done something they'd've already done it. For the past month they coulda camped out in front of the 6-8 highly active FFLs known to sell lowers (they DO know who's doing this to some extent) and snagged purchasers and the 'big fish' (the FFL).



Bill W.
San Jose CA


Link Posted: 1/8/2006 3:04:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 3:06:08 PM EDT by AyeGuy]

Originally Posted By StagMan:
I'd stay quiet until they try to screw us.



That is the point I'm trying to make, to a degree:

Keep this quiet. But be prepared to sue if they start seizing uppers or demanding their surrender.

And let them know that we know what they know.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 3:14:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By StagMan:
I'd stay quiet until they try to screw us.



That is the point I'm trying to make, to a degree:

Keep this quiet. But be prepared to sue if they start seizing uppers or demanding their surrender.

And let them know that we know what they know.



I'd agree with that, but I'll bitch when they start seizing lowers
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 3:27:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By StagMan:

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By StagMan:
I'd stay quiet until they try to screw us.



That is the point I'm trying to make, to a degree:

Keep this quiet. But be prepared to sue if they start seizing uppers or demanding their surrender.

And let them know that we know what they know.



I'd agree with that, but I'll bitch when they start seizing lowers



Especially if those are NEW Stags! You'd have to change your screen-name I bet!
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 3:34:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
Especially if those are NEW Stags! You'd have to change your screen-name I bet! hr


No kidding! I only made this name because I was having log in issues with my other name (Blue84s10)
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 9:43:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By StagMan:
I'd stay quiet until they try to screw us.



That is the point I'm trying to make, to a degree:

Keep this quiet. But be prepared to sue if they start seizing uppers or demanding their surrender.

And let them know that we know what they know.



What we especially don't want to do is let the anti's in the Legislature and other groups know there is a loophole big enough to drive a UPS truck through, they would then do all they could to close that loophole, and some of those guys are probably going to run against the AG at some point. It's in his and our best interest to keep things quiet and only in the Anti's interest to make noise at this point.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 10:52:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By StagMan:
I'd stay quiet until they try to screw us.



That is the point I'm trying to make, to a degree:

Keep this quiet. But be prepared to sue if they start seizing uppers or demanding their surrender.

And let them know that we know what they know.



What we especially don't want to do is let the anti's in the Legislature and other groups know there is a loophole big enough to drive a UPS truck through, they would then do all they could to close that loophole, and some of those guys are probably going to run against the AG at some point. It's in his and our best interest to keep things quiet and only in the Anti's interest to make noise at this point.



This is the key word that people are using and it is a wrong word to use. It's NOT a loophole. It is a CA SC decision.

Link Posted: 1/9/2006 9:28:00 AM EDT
Exactly, which is why both we and the cadoj will do what we are legally entitled/required to do.
We buy the recievers that we are now told are legal, and since the doj is tasked with having to keep up with the new manufacturers on the market now, they will. There is no skirting the law or anyone in the doj who is going to "have to pay for their incompetence." They were simply doing their job, and now their job description has changed.

We need to quit freaking out and just speculating to hear our own voices.

If it were your job to figure out what to do with all this what would you do?

We research the doj website, what do you think they are doing? Didn't get to be gov't agents by being stupid...

We are upset by the original law, passed by the citizens of this state, but we need to work within the law, just as the cadoj does, to move past this latest development and just get these things registered and we can all be on our way...

Rant over, continue with the insanity....

Link Posted: 1/9/2006 9:47:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 0311-m249:
We are upset by the original law, passed by the citizens of this state, but we need to work within the law, just as the cadoj does, to move past this latest development and just get these things registered and we can all be on our way...



Not exactly, the laws were created and passed by the elected representatives of the citizens. Debatable, but I doubt the citizens would have enacted and passed such laws.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 10:08:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 10:31:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By brassburn:
The evil features rules will prevent the lowers from ever becoming a legal rifle.




It will be a legal rifle with a pinned mag.

I wish people will stop running around like decapitated chickens. We were fast to jump onto this opportunity created by the SC's decision and now there are some second thoughts about it.

As long as we obey the law and not do anything stupid, there will be no problem.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 9:10:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 0311-m249:
Exactly, which is why both we and the cadoj will do what we are legally entitled/required to do.
We buy the recievers that we are now told are legal, and since the doj is tasked with having to keep up with the new manufacturers on the market now, they will.



Since a stripped lower is in no way an AW what makes it any more likely for DOJ to add the new stripped lowers than adding the M1A, M1 Carbine or Mini-14. It would be different if it were new complete ARs being sold.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 10:20:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Since a stripped lower is in no way an AW what makes it any more likely for DOJ to add the new stripped lowers than adding the M1A, M1 Carbine or Mini-14. It would be different if it were new complete ARs being sold.



Because they have for years said that a stripped lower is still an AR series weapon, but now they have to abide by the courts decision, and actually LIST all of the models that they consider an AR series. Even the DOJ won't try to add an M1A, M1 Carbine, or Mini 14 to the list of AR or AK series weapons. This has been explained a dozen times or more in here, in small words even. How can you not comprehend that yet?

Link Posted: 1/9/2006 10:25:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By phish:

Originally Posted By brassburn:
The evil features rules will prevent the lowers from ever becoming a legal rifle.




It will be a legal rifle with a pinned mag.

I wish people will stop running around like decapitated chickens. We were fast to jump onto this opportunity created by the SC's decision and now there are some second thoughts about it.

As long as we obey the law and not do anything stupid, there will be no problem.



Majority will, there will be one or two stragglers that have the "Im not gonna have them tell me what I cant do" mentality.

do everything legal and all will be fine... Theoretically.

Lets face it .. NO ONE really knows what is up the DOJ's sleeve... except for the DOJ.

so I look at it a few ways. do nothing and miss out on an opportunity you may never get again or buy one and risk it. I dont know what the 100% answer is.

Can the DOJ find a way to prosecute those that purchased them?
Can the DOJ make those that got them register them? (most likely)
Will the DOJ confiscate them? (possible but unlikely)
Will; the DOJ do nothing? (doubt it)

Bottom line is, this is like a chess game... a HUGE move was made by the pro gun crowd. Now the DOJ has to make its move... I will tell you that this is interesting...VERY interesting.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 10:01:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zapp:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Since a stripped lower is in no way an AW what makes it any more likely for DOJ to add the new stripped lowers than adding the M1A, M1 Carbine or Mini-14. It would be different if it were new complete ARs being sold.



Because they have for years said that a stripped lower is still an AR series weapon, but now they have to abide by the courts decision, and actually LIST all of the models that they consider an AR series.



I thought the ruling did away with the "series" concept all togather and each had to be banned by name? Isnt the whole idea behind the ruling is that a stripped lower is *not* an AR15.

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 10:39:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 10:40:20 AM EDT by Zapp]

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

I thought the ruling did away with the "series" concept all togather and each had to be banned by name? Isnt the whole idea behind the ruling is that a stripped lower is *not* an AR15.



www.calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm

That explains it thoroughly. The ruling does NOT do away with the series concept. What it does is require the DOJ to list each model in a series. A stripped lower that is NOT on that list, is not an AR15 series receiver, until it is put on that list. And when the DOJ decides to put it on that list, people are given a grace period to register them.

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 5:35:20 PM EDT
My bet is that DOJ will keep this "fiasco" (that's from THEIR point of view! ) quiet but set machinery in place so that future updates to the SB23 list happen so quickly that reciever runs like the ones now going on never happen again.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:24:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zapp:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

I thought the ruling did away with the "series" concept all togather and each had to be banned by name? Isnt the whole idea behind the ruling is that a stripped lower is *not* an AR15.



www.calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm

That explains it thoroughly. The ruling does NOT do away with the series concept. What it does is require the DOJ to list each model in a series. A stripped lower that is NOT on that list, is not an AR15 series receiver, until it is put on that list. And when the DOJ decides to put it on that list, people are given a grace period to register them.




The list includes "Panther (all)", is this now moot and they must update list with each specific model?
Top Top