Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/21/2002 9:17:33 AM EDT
Along while back, former kalifornia attorney general Dan "Dickless Wunder" Lungren revoked several hundred "assault weapon" registrations and ordered their confiscation. But I can't seem to find the old news articles that mentioned this. I am currently awaiting a response for my request for sources from NRA-ILA. Does anyone here have any links or references that they could give me regarding this? Oh, and since this site has a nasty tendency to shut down at inopportune times, I would appreciate e-mail responses to ih8gore@yahoo.com. Thanks
Link Posted: 2/26/2002 8:24:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 8:10:16 AM EDT
Every year a proposal is floated in the occupational legislature to create a Caliban version of the BATF, so there would be LEOs dedicated to enforcing gun laws, but so far it has died when the budget requirement gets scrutinized. Local PDs and sheriffs could do it, but each seizure would require a search warrant (we do have 4th Amendment protections and the home-as-castle doctrine here). I think it's a matter of priorities. Police and the courts have a lot more important work to do.
Link Posted: 2/27/2002 6:17:18 PM EDT
IIRC, the big reason the local LEOs refused to participate was their local DAs told them that since the "late" registrations were declared invalid by the courts if the State used that info in any way to obtain a search warrant or prosecute the owners of the now illegal AWs it would be considered entrapment. So after all the expense of trying to prosecute, the defendants would be found not quilty on the technicality, or the case would never go to trial in the first place and the egg would be on the face of the local LEO who did the DOJ's dirty work for them. As I heard from someone within the DOJ, it was figured a nasty letter would cause a lot of those AW owners to never bring them out in public again or sell them out of state. Either way it would accomplish what RR had in mind to begin with.
Link Posted: 2/28/2002 12:28:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/28/2002 9:44:00 AM EDT
But wasn't there a guy who had his SKS confiscated? What ever happened there?
Link Posted: 2/28/2002 9:49:56 AM EDT
I don't see why the state needs people to register there guns, don't they already know what makes and models everyone owns, a few days back we were discussing this and it sounds like for long guns it just says long guns no perticular make. Why the hell would you register your ar?
Link Posted: 2/28/2002 11:08:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1911greg: I don't see why the state needs people to register there guns, don't they already know what makes and models everyone owns, a few days back we were discussing this and it sounds like for long guns it just says long guns no perticular make. Why the hell would you register your ar?
View Quote
You're correct; the state only knows details of all handguns that you bought (legally, since 1968). The only reason I can see to register an AR, as I did with two of mine, is to be able to use them in public without a heightened risk of getting arrested and having them confiscated. The rest of my "private stock" shall remain forever a mystery to the Caliban.
Link Posted: 2/28/2002 12:01:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/28/2002 7:07:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy:
Originally Posted By BKinzey: But wasn't there a guy who had his SKS confiscated? What ever happened there?
View Quote
No, but there were several well-publicized cases of folks who, per the law, turned in their detachable-mag SKSs. One of the guys was a retired Colonel who had gotten a letter from the AG's office in 1993 assuring him that his SKS-D was NOT an "assault weapon" in the PRK, and was legal to bring it in. He did so, then years later got another letter from the AG's office telling him that the SKS-D was now an AW, and he must either turn it in or remove it from the state. -Troy
View Quote
Don't know if it was the same guy, but a few years ago there was guy up in this area, either Sac or Placer county, who got the letter then made a big media deal of it when he turned in his SKS. It was on the news up here and I remember him saying the State was confiscating his rifle. When in actuality he voluntarily turned it in. He could just as easily have removed it from the state. The story mill also has one about a So. SF bay area LEO who had an AW confiscated that he didn't register during the original Roberti-Roos time frame. But the story never got told the same way twice and I think it was another case of voluntary turn in because if his department found out (or any other LEO agency for that matter) he could have lost his job for having a personally owned, unregistered AW.
Link Posted: 3/1/2002 1:47:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/1/2002 7:05:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy: I should be clear here that I would still consider this "confiscation", even though it wasn't of the "door-to-door raid" variety. If your legally purchased property is suddenly no longer legal for you to possess, that is de facto confiscation. Whether you turn it in or remove it from the state, your right to possess your property has been removed. -Troy
View Quote
No arguement here Pthfndr
Link Posted: 3/2/2002 6:03:43 AM EDT
Ditto to what Troy said. If you have to pay a fee for the privilege of keeping your property, which you can no longer sell or give to anyone or will to your kids, that is no longer your property!
Link Posted: 3/2/2002 10:29:33 AM EDT
I've been following a recent subject that came up here in Pennsylvania Apparently the State Police has been maintaning an illegal registry of handguns bought. Newspaper says that they've been doing it since the 30's or some such. Local gun groups have taken the staties and the Gov. to court, but each time the case gets thrown out or whatnot. The State Police basically said "Yeah, we keep an illegal registry, so what?" -Sam
Link Posted: 3/3/2002 2:49:03 AM EDT
From WND: > |[Contact WND]|[WND Page One]|[Search WND]| > > [Click here for more information!] > > > > THURSDAY > JULY 01 > 1999 > > ------------------------------------------ > [WND Exclusive ] > ------------------------------------------ > Gun confiscation > in California > State declares SKS illegal, > buys rifles from owners > ------------------------------------------ > > By Stephan Archer > © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com > > California's Department of Justice has > determined the SKS "Sporter" rifle is > illegal and is offering owners $230 for > the rifles through Jan. 1. > > Gun owners are crying foul and charge the > new interpretation of an old law violates > the Second Amendment and is > unconstitutional. > > Sam Paredes, the deputy director of Gun > Owners of California, said many gun owners > are concerned about the apparent power of > the state to arbitrarily designate some > guns as illegal and other guns as legal. > > "You've got laws that are being passed > that are unconstitutional," said Aaron > Zelman, executive director of Jews for the > Preservation of Firearms Ownership, "but > because they're a law, they have the color > of law. They're lawful from the standpoint > of those who want to accept this as > justice. Those who want to accept this as > the law." > > Steve Helsley, a spokesperson for the > National Rifle Association of America > agrees. He said: "It is, I believe, an > infringement of Second Amendment rights, > but it is so poorly conceived and drafted, > that even those who want to comply (with > the law) can't figure out how to do it." > > The confusion Helsley is referring to > started in 1989, when the state > legislature passed the Roberti-Roos > Assault Weapons Control Act. At the time > the law was enacted, there were two > distinct models of the SKS rifle -- one > with a fixed magazine, and one designed to > accept a detachable magazine. >
Link Posted: 3/3/2002 2:51:25 AM EDT
> The Roberti-Roos law effectively banned > the SKS rifle with the detachable > magazine, however, it didn't ban it > completely. Although gun shops couldn't > sell the SKS with a detachable magazine > anymore, owners of the gun could still > keep them as long as they complied with a > background check and had the gun > registered. > > "It was known at the time that the > definition (of the ban) wasn't very good," > said Helsley, "but given the speed at > which the bill moved through and given the > whole political process of the time, that > was probably the best that could be done." > > Complicating things further, a series of > after-market kits that converted the SKS > rifle with a fixed magazine to one with a > detachable magazine began to be sold. > These kits, however, were not anticipated > by the writers of the Roberti-Roos law. > > The situation became more complicated for > the writers of the Roberti-Roos law in > 1992 when then California Attorney > General, Dan Lungren, approved the sale of > the Chinese-designed SKS "Sporter" rifle, > which also uses detachable magazines. > > Even though Lungren said the SKS "Sporter" > was legal to sell, some district attorneys > throughout the state threatened to arrest > anyone who sold the gun claiming it > violated the Roberti-Roos law. > > One of the more famous arrestees was James > Dingman of Santa Clara for possession of > an unregistered SKS rifle with a fixed > magazine. He also bought an after-market > detachable magazine kit for the gun. > > Although the state's Department of Justice > said Dingman didn't have to register his > "fixed magazine" SKS -- even if he placed > a detachable magazine on it -- he was > arrested because local law enforcement > mistakenly identified it as a gun that > needed to be registered. > > After a number of appearances in court as > well as appeals, the California Supreme > Court agreed to review Dingman's case. It > is still awaiting a decision today. > > Because of all the confusion surrounding > the legality of owning any of the SKS > rifles, California passed AB 48 to grant > immunity to them. However, AB 48 also set > up the state's current buyback program of > SKS "Sporters" because Lungren in 1997, > under political pressure in a run for the > governor's office, reversed his earlier > decision about SKS rifles with detachable > magazines making them illegal. > > Now, all SKS "Sporters" are illegal and > are being bought back by the state. > > Regarding the law which makes SKS > "Sporters" illegal, Zelman said, "I think > organized crime is going to be thrilled > with it. We are approaching another form > of prohibition that will organize and > enrich the criminal element." >
Link Posted: 3/3/2002 2:55:45 AM EDT
> "When organized crime moves in and fills > the void in firearms, they're not going to > waste their time with puny SKS rifles. > You'll start to see fully automatic > machine guns," Zelman added reflecting on > what he thinks will happen if the > government ever completely bans firearms. > > Speaking of the buyback plan that was > built into AB 48, Paredes said, "It's > stupid. People purchased their SKS rifles > anywhere from $88 to $128 dollars. I don't > know how they came up with that $230 > number, but in their own, inevitable way, > the government can do stuff. They came up > with a ridiculous number." > > Paredes also expressed concern that when > people turn in their guns, their name will > become part of a government database. > > "When people turn in these guns and they > get their vouchers, you know their name is > going to go into a hat," said Paredes. > It's going to go into a database as a > previous owner of an illegal assault gun > and that concerns us." > > WorldNetDaily contacted Stephen P. > Halbrook, an attorney who is an expert on > Second Amendment issues, in an effort to > find out the legal nature of the > California law. In addition to practicing > law, Halbrook is a former philosophy > professor and wrote several books on the > Second Amendment as well as other > constitutional issues. > > Halbrook said the law is unconstitutional, > but he added that the Ninth Circuit Court > of Appeals in California often doesn't > recognize bearing arms as a legitimate > right. The Ninth Circuit has "been all > over the board" regarding Second Amendment > issues, according to Halbrook. > > "I think it's a travesty the way certain > elements in the judiciary have treated the > Second Amendment," said Halbrook. > > "This is no different than if they banned > WorldNetDaily or the San Francisco > Chronicle and say (to the newspapers' > readership), 'Here's five dollars for your > subscription,'" Halbrook added. > > "In my opinion, the law is > unconstitutional, but probably no > California court is going to say it's > unconstitutional. That's the bottom line," > said Halbrook. "I welcome somebody to use > some constitutional doctrine and find a > court they can convince to strike this law > down. I think that would be wonderful." > > WorldNetDaily attempted numerous times to > contact current state Attorney General > Bill Lockyer for comment, but his office > never returned the calls. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > [Click here for more information!] > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > CONTACT WND | GO TO PAGE ONE | SEARCH WND > > [WorldNetDaily.com] > --------------------------------------------------------- > © 1999 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
Link Posted: 3/3/2002 3:22:14 AM EDT
[img]http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/doss.jpg[/img]Military-veteran NRA Member obeying Dan Lungren's confiscation order (1/28/98) Dan Lundgren did it! Pussy assed two faced bastard, just think if he would of had the support of all Kalifornicastan gun owners. In response to these attempts to expand the law, NRA also filed suit against the Santa Clara and Los Angeles District Attorney's offices. The plaintiff in this case was William Doss, a military veteran and United Airlines pilot who moved to California from Florida in the early 1990's. Prior to moving, Doss contacted the California DOJ to inquire whether or not his SKS Sporter was classified as an "assault weapon" and received a letter back from DOJ stating that it was not. But in light of the Dingman prosecution and the lower court decision, he and thousands of other SKS Sporter owners became accidental felons overnight. NRA's lawsuit prevented hundreds of law-abiding gun owners from being charged for possessing an SKS. In other cases where felony charges were unfortunately filed, NRA attorneys were able to get them dismissed in dozens of cases. [url]http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/Lindex.html[/url] Weasel Dick Lundgren says OK:[img]http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/sksgood.jpg[/img] Weasel Dick Lundgren says YOU ARE FUCKED:[img]http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/sksbad.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 9:48:46 AM EDT
Ok, my mistake... Dan Lungren did the SKS screwup, but my question was about registration cancellation... which was under Lockyer (may he die screaming for a priest). Here's the only article I've been able to find: Copyright 1999 Times Mirror Company Los Angeles Times August 18, 1999, Wednesday, Home Edition SECTION: Part A; Page 3; Metro Desk LENGTH: 765 words HEADLINE: CALIFORNIA AND THE WEST; LOCKYER ENDS DEFENSE OF ASSAULT GUN REGISTRATION; WEAPONS: OWNERS WHO REGISTERED AFTER 1992 DEADLINE, AS PERMITTED BY FORMER ATTY. GEN. LUNGREN, FACE PENALTIES IF THEY DO NOT SURRENDER FIREARMS OR TAKE THEM OUT OF STATE. BYLINE: STEVE BERRY, TIMES STAFF WRITER BODY: Putting close to 1,500 gun owners in legal jeopardy, state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer has decided to drop a court fight defending his predecessor's controversial practice of registering semiautomatic assault weapons declared illegal by a 1989 state law. continued...
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 9:50:01 AM EDT
The decision means that the owners of almost 2,000 UZIs, AK-47s, AR-15s and 72 other types of assault weapons will face a fine and imprisonment if they do not turn in their guns, destroy them or take them out of California. "If they don't, they will be felons in illegal possession of an assault weapon," said Nathan Brankin, Lockyer's spokesman. Brankin said details on how gun owners will be required to turn in their weapons are being worked out. Enforcement will be left to local agencies, he said. Spokesmen for the Los Angeles County sheriff and local police departments had not heard about Lockyer's decision Tuesday and did not know how their agencies would enforce the law. Brankin said the attorney general's office will ask the Legislature to appropriate money to compensate the owners for their weapons. He estimated the cost at $ 1 million to $ 3 million. But that offer probably will not placate the owners. "We will try to block this settlement in court ," said Steve Helsley, Sacramento lobbyist for the National Rifle Assn. "It sure proves registration translates into confiscation." He said the decision is unfair to gun owners who registered their weapons. "Everyone thought they were complying with the law and doing the right thing," he said. The controversy stems from former Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren's practice of letting assault weapon owners breach the registration provision of the landmark Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, which will be superseded in January by a stricter law recently signed by Gov. Gray Davis. The 1989 law declared 55 specific models illegal (the list later was increased to 75 models) and required owners to register them with the state Department of Justice by March 30, 1992, if they wanted to keep them. continued...
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 9:51:09 AM EDT
Lungren quietly let gun owners continue to register weapons after the deadline. He allowed that practice until The Times revealed it, prompting a lawsuit by the activist group Handgun Control Inc. Last year the San Francisco Superior Court ordered Lungren to stop the policy. Lungren appealed that ruling. The primary purpose of the registration requirement was to cap the number of assault weapons in the state, the law's authors have said. But because Lungren continued registering the weapons, California residents often bought weapons out of state and brought them back to register them with the attorney general's office by saying they had purchased them before the Roberti-Roos law went into effect. Lungren's office did not require proof. "California will no longer put out the welcome mat for illegal assault weapons or assault weapon smugglers," said Luis Tolley, western director of Handgun Control, which is co-chaired by Sarah Brady. Brady is the wife of James Brady, the former presidential press secretary who was wounded in an assassination attempt on former President Ronald Reagan. "Gun smugglers and others who broke the law are now on notice that the assault weapon law will be enforced and those caught with illegal, unregistered assault weapons will be held accountable," Tolley said. Brankin said his office will file papers with the Court of Appeal in San Francisco later this week, abandoning the state's appeal and accepting the Superior Court decision. "We are accepting the court's judgment that the statute clearly prohibits the registration of banned assault weapons after the March 1992 deadline," Brankin said. He said he sympathizes with the legitimate assault weapon owners who were led astray by Lungren's policy. "But Mr. Helsley's criticism is based on the fact that he can't get the attorney general to ignore the law," Brankin said. "We want to bring some resolution to this debacle, which we inherited, and provide clarity and unambiguous enforcement of the law." Officials in Lungren's administration said they registered more than 16,000 assault weapons after the March 30, 1992, deadline. They said many of them were weapons that owners submitted just a few days before the deadline but were not processed until afterward. Some of those guns turned out not to be assault weapons and registration was not needed.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 11:18:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 11:30:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 11:45:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Big_Bear: ... Some 1500 late registrants were told to relinquish possession to local law enforcement, destroy them, take them out of state, or they would send the cops to come pick them up.
View Quote
Yes, letters went out to the late registrants but there have been no cops deployed to pick up the firearms. Letters offered to refund registration fees. Anyone in that group who gets prosecuted could claim entrapment, since the DoJ did at one time accept their registration fees and tell them their arms were lawfully registered. The state would look bad in court and it would be a guaranteed PR disaster for Lockyer. That's why there will never be any systematic confiscation of those firearms.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 4:45:56 AM EDT
Timber_Wolf, I included a link that takes you right to the actual letter from the Ka AG's office on the Lundgren vs HCI issue. Follow this link: [url]http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/dropappeal.html[/url] It shows the KA AG's office letter, you have to follow the links.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 11:18:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2002 11:20:08 AM EDT by Timber_Wolf]
Originally Posted By USNJoe: Timber_Wolf, I included a link that takes you right to the actual letter from the Ka AG's office on the Lundgren vs HCI issue. Follow this link: [url]http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/dropappeal.html[/url] It shows the KA AG's office letter, you have to follow the links.
View Quote
This is way better than what I was looking for... thanks.[:O] edited fur spellun...
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:36:19 PM EDT
You can add my BIL the 10 year San Jose city policeman to the list. He owned an SKs, did not register it the first time, did so per the AG instructions later, then received the letter printed above saying to turn it over. Being a LEO, he felt that someone would try an make a big deal out of it if he did not, so he took it to the range and let everyone strip off everything but the receiver and turned that in. Ray
Top Top