Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/11/2006 5:29:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:35:37 PM EDT
Ya think?
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:37:36 PM EDT
Wow, what made you think that?
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:39:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:40:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:41:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2006 5:41:39 PM EDT by Wobblin-Goblin]
"The gov't will never go around seizing guns."
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:41:52 PM EDT
I'm shocked, shocked to hear that the California DOJ is anti-gun!
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:41:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:42:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2006 5:43:23 PM EDT by TodaysTomSawyer]
sorry, double tap.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:43:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TodaysTomSawyer:
I'm shocked, shocked to hear that the California DOJ is anti-gun!



Tell me about it! I was about to move out there and enjoy the unabridged right to bear arms! Now I find this out!
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:43:18 PM EDT
I don't live in CA under Bill Lockyer.

Sorry.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:43:51 PM EDT
Thanks for noticing.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:45:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
I don't live in CA under Bill Lockyer.

Sorry.



Umm.....if you follow the RKBA struggle at all you'd have known this awhile back.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:45:35 PM EDT
that's fucked up.........
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:54:17 PM EDT
This might be just what they need to get their rights back!
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:55:35 PM EDT
You learn something new everyday.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 6:02:40 PM EDT
the policymakers certainly are, but the enforcement guys are with us.


Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, they'll round us up
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 6:04:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mall-Ninja:
the policymakers certainly are, but the enforcement guys are with us.


Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, they'll round us up



How do you figure? The enforcement guys (not a legislator) just rounded up 500 lowers on a technicality, and won't give them back now that the technicality has been resolved.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 7:00:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2006 7:00:23 PM EDT by roboman]

Originally Posted By Mall-Ninja:
the policymakers certainly are, but the enforcement guys are with us.


Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, they'll round us up



How are they with us if they'll round up what they're told to "when push comes to shove"? That's called lip-service with no action, not being with someone.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 8:01:04 PM EDT
Californias version of the ATF
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 8:03:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 8:05:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mall-Ninja:
the policymakers certainly are, but the enforcement guys are with us.


Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, they'll round us up




Right up to the point where you start thumping them in the mellon....
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 11:16:03 PM EDT
I don't know if the humble functionaries who populate the DOJ are particularly anti-gun, I've had rather good dealings with them so far. It's the policy-makers at higher levels, politically appointed, which set the tone.

NTM
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 11:38:50 PM EDT
O rly?
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 11:43:37 PM EDT
we should be relisted as a peoples republic.. since we are not a part of the united states anyway
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 12:13:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By blacklisted:
O rly?




Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:11:35 AM EDT
"your"? I thought you used to show CA as your location.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:56:26 PM EDT
Just off the top of my head without reading more of the site, I'm not sure I'ld believe it any more than a lot of what I believe here. Probably fits between here and DU on believability.

Were they siezed as evidence? were they confiscated, were they receipted? Once the case is adjudicated in a real court and not the tinfoil court of the underinformed on the internet we can decide to get excited. If you recall a few months ago when all the crybabies went running around bitching about confiscation, etc, etc theft, stealing, blah blah blah, they trial went in the owenrs favor and he got everything back.. And yah no what I don't recall that he bitched about fingerprints.\, etc

this reminds me of all the guys that say the pilot got away with not paying income taxes. They kind of forget to mention that although she was found not criminally guilty on a filing irregularity, they conveniently forget to mention that the government won the following civil suit and she does in fact owe themoney and is having it garnished.

Yah wanna get excited about something, wait until it is over and you know the full story. Going off half cocked at the beginning just wastes your energy.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 10:03:21 PM EDT
yup.

I was part of the group buy that got screwed. The DOJ has our shit, and they aren't giving it back. The BATFE is NOT anti-gun compared to the CA Department of Jerkoffs

If you wish to keep up with the progress of this whole ordeal, check out the Legal forum on Calguns.net

ARGH!!!
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 10:09:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Just off the top of my head without reading more of the site, I'm not sure I'ld believe it any more than a lot of what I believe here. Probably fits between here and DU on believability.

Were they siezed as evidence? were they confiscated, were they receipted? Once the case is adjudicated in a real court and not the tinfoil court of the underinformed on the internet we can decide to get excited. If you recall a few months ago when all the crybabies went running around bitching about confiscation, etc, etc theft, stealing, blah blah blah, they trial went in the owenrs favor and he got everything back.. And yah no what I don't recall that he bitched about fingerprints.\, etc

this reminds me of all the guys that say the pilot got away with not paying income taxes. They kind of forget to mention that although she was found not criminally guilty on a filing irregularity, they conveniently forget to mention that the government won the following civil suit and she does in fact owe themoney and is having it garnished.

Yah wanna get excited about something, wait until it is over and you know the full story. Going off half cocked at the beginning just wastes your energy.

Only took about 10 posts before a call on Bullshit. I'm impressed, ARFCOM.

It is absoloutly true. About 500 receivers were seized for "safe keeping" because the dealer didn't have a "big enough" safe. He bought a new safe that very same or the next day and the DOJ says they're not giving them back.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 11:13:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 11:15:39 PM EDT by blacklisted]

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Just off the top of my head without reading more of the site, I'm not sure I'ld believe it any more than a lot of what I believe here. Probably fits between here and DU on believability.

Were they siezed as evidence? were they confiscated, were they receipted? Once the case is adjudicated in a real court and not the tinfoil court of the underinformed on the internet we can decide to get excited. If you recall a few months ago when all the crybabies went running around bitching about confiscation, etc, etc theft, stealing, blah blah blah, they trial went in the owenrs favor and he got everything back.. And yah no what I don't recall that he bitched about fingerprints.\, etc

this reminds me of all the guys that say the pilot got away with not paying income taxes. They kind of forget to mention that although she was found not criminally guilty on a filing irregularity, they conveniently forget to mention that the government won the following civil suit and she does in fact owe themoney and is having it garnished.

Yah wanna get excited about something, wait until it is over and you know the full story. Going off half cocked at the beginning just wastes your energy.



Nice.


They really did take the receivers and it is unclear at this time if people will ever get their property back.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 7:29:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:48:02 AM EDT
Two of those are mine! Damn it!
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:37:21 AM EDT
In other breaking news, water is wet.

Link Posted: 2/13/2006 8:29:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By blacklisted:

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Just off the top of my head without reading more of the site, I'm not sure I'ld believe it any more than a lot of what I believe here. Probably fits between here and DU on believability.

Were they siezed as evidence? were they confiscated, were they receipted? Once the case is adjudicated in a real court and not the tinfoil court of the underinformed on the internet we can decide to get excited. If you recall a few months ago when all the crybabies went running around bitching about confiscation, etc, etc theft, stealing, blah blah blah, they trial went in the owenrs favor and he got everything back.. And yah no what I don't recall that he bitched about fingerprints.\, etc

this reminds me of all the guys that say the pilot got away with not paying income taxes. They kind of forget to mention that although she was found not criminally guilty on a filing irregularity, they conveniently forget to mention that the government won the following civil suit and she does in fact owe themoney and is having it garnished.

Yah wanna get excited about something, wait until it is over and you know the full story. Going off half cocked at the beginning just wastes your energy.



Nice.


They really did take the receivers and it is unclear at this time if people will ever get their property back.



Define "take" what legal process did they use? That can tell you what the future may hold. If it was handled as "contraband" you probably can kiss it good-bye if it stays "contraband". If it wasn't "contraband" and "seized" as evidence and the legal process grinds out and it is adjudged as legal, then you are going to get it back. (Contraband - Say you get caught with marijuana but it was a bad search and the case gets thrown out, you don't get the marijuana back. Evidence - You run over a jaywalker, and it is determined that he was drunk and ran out in front of you. After the trial if it goes that far, you get your car back.

unclear at this time get property back. So in other words, the full story is still not known and going off hald cocked is not useful to anybody.

Find out what the legal status is, have you contacted a lawyer? is it your property legally? Did you give consideration contractually? Did the other party fail to honor his side of the contract? did you pay by credit card? contest the credit card? cash? you went into the deal with your eyes open knowing that any time the DoJ could shit on it? and they did?

of the apparently several thousand other lowers that came in how many of them were seized? why was this one of the few if only seizures? What caused them to focus on this dealer as opposed to any or all of the others? (I sure hope the answer is these were from mfrs already on the list in some way)

So has anybody brought suit against the DoJ for return of their property? The wheels turn slowly, get your ducks in a row and get the ball rolling, you are at the beginning of the fight. Pearl Harbor and the Fall of the Philippines it isn't but nobody surrendered the whole war at that point either.

If it turns out to be a gamble and you lost and lose the receivers, I will cry over a beer or two with you. If it turns out to be a gamble and you won but don't get the receivers back, then I'll be throwing some big bucks in to help get them back. If it's a gamble, and you win and get them back, then I'll hoist a few with you.
Top Top