Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/4/2006 3:46:47 PM EDT
i have a friend who lives in Kali, he had a search warrant served on him, the warrant did not have anything to do with guns. as for the search warrant he did nothing wrong he was just a friend of someone involved in something that he was never charged with nor could he have been. well before they searched he told them he had a stripped ar-15 receiver which happened to be legally registered to someone else.

they have charged him with illegal possesion of the AR-15 reciever with intent to manufacture. he stated i believe, that he was studing the receiver to attemp to make a pump or bolt action type ar.

i know they might be able to charge him with possesion of the receiver, but the intent to manufacture is BS. the owner of the receiver has been charged with basicly allowing the receiver out of his control.

does anybody know of any things to point his lawyers to that may help, ie any laws that deal with the possesion of the receiver and lending them or for study of them.

just to state he did not know he could not be in possesion of the receiver that was registered to some one else
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:52:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:06:15 PM EDT


Why, oh why do people ask these questions on the internet? If your friend's first words were not "I have nothing to say until I see my lawyer" he's probaby screwed.

HE NEEDS TO CALL A LAWYER ASAP TO SALVAGE THE SITUATION.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:16:59 PM EDT
Ugh.. he's screwed for possession, the owner is screwed for lending out an assault weapon...

Intent to manufacture.. he must have had some plans or machinining equipment available, otherwise I don't see how they could take on that charge. Maybe he had an 80% receiver around somewhere.. I think there is more to this than we're being told. He needs a LAWYER now, not our limited advice based on limited information.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:17:11 PM EDT
Disclaimer... I am not a legal representative nor do I pretend to be one.

According to Federal law, a stripped AR-15 receiver (any receiver), qualifies as a firearm, but it does not qualify as an AW because it lacks any of the "prohibited features" (pistol grip, folding/collapsible stock, bayonet lug, threaded barrel/flash suppressor, grenade launcher).

However, there is a point of law called "constructive intent", meaning that if a pistol grip or collapsible stock or FS, etc was in the in the dwelling (even though the parts aren't assembled to the receiver), then it's assumed the person had the intent or capability to assemble an AW.

If no other "prohibited" AR parts were present, then I'd call BS on the intent purpose.

Then again, you're asking about CA law, so the rules can be completely different.

Your bud needs to lawyer-up with someone who is familiar with Federal and CA gun laws.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:24:30 PM EDT
he has a lawyer, and no other parts were around, but yes he does have access to machining equipment.

i repeat he has a lawyer, and i am trying to be vague on his request.

i do think that they can get him on the possesion charge, yes i know it IS a "firearm"

boy i am i glad i dont live in Kali
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:29:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LoginName:
Disclaimer... I am not a legal representative nor do I pretend to be one.

According to Federal law, a stripped AR-15 receiver (any receiver), qualifies as a firearm, but it does not qualify as an AW because it lacks any of the "prohibited features" (pistol grip, folding/collapsible stock, bayonet lug, threaded barrel/flash suppressor, grenade launcher).

However, there is a point of law called "constructive intent", meaning that if a pistol grip or collapsible stock or FS, etc was in the in the dwelling (even though the parts aren't assembled to the receiver), then it's assumed the person had the intent or capability to assemble an AW.

If no other "prohibited" AR parts were present, then I'd call BS on the intent purpose.

Then again, you're asking about CA law, so the rules can be completely different.

Your bud needs to lawyer-up with someone who is familiar with Federal and CA gun laws.




Under CA assault weapon law, the receiver is what is registered as the actual "Assault Weapon." Having just the receiver is a no-no, unless you're the registered owner.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:39:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leelaw:

Originally Posted By LoginName:
Disclaimer... I am not a legal representative nor do I pretend to be one.

According to Federal law, a stripped AR-15 receiver (any receiver), qualifies as a firearm, but it does not qualify as an AW because it lacks any of the "prohibited features" (pistol grip, folding/collapsible stock, bayonet lug, threaded barrel/flash suppressor, grenade launcher).

However, there is a point of law called "constructive intent", meaning that if a pistol grip or collapsible stock or FS, etc was in the in the dwelling (even though the parts aren't assembled to the receiver), then it's assumed the person had the intent or capability to assemble an AW.

If no other "prohibited" AR parts were present, then I'd call BS on the intent purpose.

Then again, you're asking about CA law, so the rules can be completely different.

Your bud needs to lawyer-up with someone who is familiar with Federal and CA gun laws.




Under CA assault weapon law, the receiver is what is registered as the actual "Assault Weapon." Having just the receiver is a no-no, unless you're the registered owner.



Thanks for the clarification. That being the case, I'd guess that the OPs bud is in a real bad situation.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:50:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 4:51:53 PM EDT by LoginName]

Originally Posted By scotty1911:
he has a lawyer, and no other parts were around, but yes he does have access to machining equipment.

i repeat he has a lawyer, and i am trying to be vague on his request.

i do think that they can get him on the possesion charge, yes i know it IS a "firearm"

boy i am i glad i dont live in Kali



You're being too vague.

But, it sounds as if your bud hangs around some bad company.

Just the fact that there was a search warrant issued says something. There had to be some reason for the warrant to be issued?

Why was he in posession of a "legally registered" AR receiver that didn't belong to him begin with?

Did the legal owner have some clue that the shit was about to hit the fan for some reason and asked your bud to "hold this for me" until things cleared up?

Maybe that's what led the police to get a search warrant on your buds place?

Something ain't right here.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:59:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 5:00:58 PM EDT by GlockSlap]
"Something ain't right here."

Agreed-feel like something bigger is missing. What was that warrant for again?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:03:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scotty1911:
boy i am i glad i dont live in Kali



I can't say Maryland is much better.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:10:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 5:13:43 PM EDT by scotty1911]
no maryland is not much better, but it is a little better

and i sent login a im with better details, but he has to keep it silent. its not a bad thing it is all bull shit

basicly my friend was in the wrong place at the wrong time to break a law he did not know exsisted ( at the time ) the whole reason for the search warrant was thrown out of court in the first place, and the stuff that was searched for was not his either ( and it was not found at my friends place ) and it was NOT gun related
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:25:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 5:29:47 PM EDT by staraero]
Sounds like somebody was drilling holes or it wasn't legally registered . Why are you trying to be vague? Bubba ain't going to be he'll stick it in his pooper and post pics.


Edit crap lol bad post #
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:31:49 PM EDT
i am being vague by request, my friend is one of those guys who has led a veryclean life, and he is very well known in a small group ( about 3000 people ) and he does not want this spread out more than he needs it to be. he has a clean record and does not want that to change so i told him about this place a few months ago and he asked me to see if anyone had any ideas, he does not want to join here for just this reason, and he only owns one other gun so he is not interested in joining
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:34:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scotty1911:
no maryland is not much better, but it is a little better

and i sent login a im with better details, but he has to keep it silent. its not a bad thing it is all bull shit

basicly my friend was in the wrong place at the wrong time to break a law he did not know exsisted ( at the time ) the whole reason for the search warrant was thrown out of court in the first place, and the stuff that was searched for was not his either ( and it was not found at my friends place ) and it was NOT gun related



Well, it seems that if the search warrent was thrown out, a decent lawyer has a pretty good chance of supressing anything that was not listed on the tossed warrent. I'd personally keep my mouth shut, say nothing and find a mean nasty lawyer that will go after the illegal search and seizure and everyone involved. That'll cost $$$$ tho.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:16:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 11:01:56 PM EDT
I would confirm that the receiver is actually a registered assualt weapon, or one that needs to be registered.

The reason I say this is that currently there are legal "ar-type" lowers. IF the lower is stripped, and not one of the listed brand/models, they are technically legal due to the Harlott ruling. There is a buying frenzy of sorts right now trying to stock up. The CADOJ has stated that they will be updating the list to include all the currently unlisted brand/models. ONce they do that, owners will have 90? days to register as an assault weapon. Once registered, all the fun parts can be put on the stipped lower legally.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 11:07:32 PM EDT
if it is previously registered to someone else, he's fucked
[AWs cannot be loaned. Legal owner must be in presence of the gun at all times if being handled by someone else]

it it's a named receiver, he's fucked.
[named receivers had to be bought before Jan 1 2000 and registered before June 2000]


CA has no point of law called "constructive intent." If you have a gun that is not a named receiver, yet violates the SB23 "Features Ban" (such as an FAL that is NOT made by FN), simple removal of offending parts (flash hider, telescoping/folding stock, or pistol grip/thumhole stock) so that the gun does not have any evil features installed, is OK.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:18:56 AM EDT
From the initial post, it seems like he was in posession of registered lower, and it is a no-no. Ignorance of law is not an excuse.

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say with confidence, but even if the search warant got thrown out, LEOs can get new warant based on what they found during the search.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:42:20 AM EDT
Top Top